Gay Marriage on Maine Ballot in 2012

I could be wrong, but I don't think a "ban on re-voting for five years" would be legal. (Heck, I sure wish it was, when it comes to re-voting on previously failed gold-plated bonding proposals....).

-------------

Question on the new referendum question language -- would its approval protect clergy from being sued if they refused to perform a gay wedding, or allow their church to be used for a gay wedding? What about retailers, or event center owners?

I'm thinking about some of the lawsuits over the last couple years, including one woman in another state who was sued for refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

What happens if the proposed Maine law passes, and someone demands a particular church or clergy member for their wedding service? Can the church/clergy person refuse, and be protected from a lawsuit?

Myself, I think anyone should have the right to say "no, thanks," as long as they do so politely and respectfully.

There was a story recently, I forget which state, where a pastor of a church was sued for refusing to do a ceremony for a gay couple. So much for religious freedom.

Naran,
I happened to have the George Hale and Rick Tyler show on around 5:30 this morning so it should have been a rebroadcast highlight of last Friday's show.
That question came up as the Bellows woman was speaking about the proposed issue with Rick and George.

She cited that there was already a recent anti-discrimination law in place from just a couple of years ago so the caterer who would refuse to make a cake for a Jew or a Black or someone to refuse to rent to same will automatically cover gays. If you provide a service, you will provide it or be sued.

Bellows also commented about a Methodist minister who changed his mind on the matter and is now a supporter. I think he should quit being a pastor if he refuses to honor the documents he is supposed to be representing.

I heard about a business that allows religious meetings at their inn and that the owners are very religious as well. Then one day a lesbian couple showed up and said they wanted to hold their ceremony there and have their honeymoon there. It was a well known fact what these owners stood for and who they were. These two women were denied the ceremony and were denied staying there. They sued the inn and the owners. The owners almost lost everything. They have since closed down the inn and only hold religious retreats there.

The only reason I heard about this is because this is where my wife and I went on our honeymoon and were going to go back for our 20th this year...I guess that is not going to happen. I have a few words for these two women which I will not use on this site, but I will say this much. It is people like this that take advantage of the system and ruin it for the rest of us, especially for people who have been going to some of these places in the past whether it be for years or a couple of times. I had been there for a couple of retreats myself. I think this was done on purpose to put them out of business.

I am referring to our neighbors to the west in Vermont.

I knew about the one in Iowa, but the Vermont B&B closed down my militant homosexuals just got added to the list. Freedom of Religion, suuuuure.

http://www.wcax.com/story/15107369/same-sex-couple-sues-vt-inn-for-discr...

The lesbian couple… chose to get married in Vermont because of the state's support of gay rights. ..now working with the American Civil Liberties Union to sue the Wildflower Inn resort in Lyndonville for refusing to host the couple's wedding reception because of the… owners' religious beliefs.

Under Vermont's gay marriage law there are protections for religious groups that do not want to perform same-sex weddings, but it appears those do not apply in this case. (75)

Does that sound like the MAINE EXEMPTION LANGUAGE?

What a great television ad this story would make....

Oh the injustice. I thought I was being polite leaving their name out of it.
:-)

Yet another case of "listen to what I am telling you and ignore what I am doing" from the gay crowd. Liberals use the same tactics.

The good thing is normal people see through this farce and there are plenty of examples of it upon which to call.

Here's a collection of similar litigation disputes from NPR.

Why should one set of rights be more important than another?

I believe retailers, bakers and photographers should have the right to say "no" and not be sued and boycotted for the decision.

It seems to me that the gay activist agitators are deliberately seeking out these types of businesses so that they can harass them. Tolerance is only a one way street as far as they are concerned.

If one looks at the situation it is apparent the problem stems from the fact that they have a marriage law vs. civil unions etc..

Is there cases like thisin states where there is not a gay marriage law ?

This isn't about tolerance. Most Mainers from every social and political point of view are already tolerant.

This isn't about equality. If gay rights activists wanted equality, they have virtually all of it now, and could easily get any real grievances addressed without the antagonism they have consistently displayed to anyone who doesn't agree with any aspect of their ever-increasing agenda.

This is about dominance. This is about asserting their imagined right of forced 'acceptance' on people who don't agree, and about silencing any dissent (no matter how restrained, or logical, or tradition based). This is about revenge--revenge on any religious tradition and group (and people) who have opposed them or not 'accepted' them in the past.

It is important to say that I don't think that the majority of gay people, of themselves, want to do this. I think the vast majority of gay people simply want to be left alone, and most Mainers are perfectly willing to leave them alone. I think that this is activist-driven, from an almost exclusively leftist bent. It is an example of the fascism that is at the core of the modern hard Left.

......."This is about asserting their imagined right of forced 'acceptance' on people who don't agree".......

Agreed! That, and perhaps trying to convince themselves that it is OK.

I don't hate anyone in the movement, in fact we have had a very strong "live and let live" attitude for a long time. I don't want to go into someone else's bedroom. Their lifestyle is their choice as far as I am concerned. I agree with the idea of legal "unions" or whatever you want to call them, conferring legal rights to partners etc.

But that is not enough. They desire to rub my nose in it and breakdown totally, any religious beliefs to the contrary of theirs.

Again, it strikes me as a "vendetta" more than a quest for equal rights as it clearly is not that, but instead certain rights for a certain group, as they are quick to say that "everyone knows that brother marrying sister would be 'wrong".

In their "equal rights" campaign, how could that be "wrong"?

Their "equal rights" campaign is all about using the law to force me to accept their ideas, and to hell with myright to my religious beliefs which were "granted to us by our creator". You can look it up as Casey Stengel used to say.

WC

Vikingstar as usual a superb post and as well said as it can be.

WC "Again, it strikes me as a "vendetta" more than a quest for equal rights as it clearly is not that, but instead certain rights for a certain group, as they are quick to say that "everyone knows that brother marrying sister would be 'wrong".
You have nailed it. These folks are about as bigoted as they come.

Perhaps it is time to re-examine the issue. Tom McLaughlin very recently posted an article pertaining to the resistance from the Roman Catholic Church, citing that in the UK and Canada there is also a campaign underway
to promote homosexuality.

It certainly isn't natural for such a noticeable segment of the global population to be born homosexual, and they claim that is how one becomes so, thus there must be environmental factors or issues from genetically modified foods, fluoride in the water, something is causing heterosexual couples to produce homosexuals, and lots of them..
I think a scientific think thank should be assembled to address this plague.

What is ironic is that they have taken people who would normally support them and changed their mind with their "you'd better love us or else" attitude.

I think the vast majority of gay people simply want to be left alone, and most Mainers are perfectly willing to leave them alone. I think that this is activist-driven, from an almost exclusively leftist bent. It is an example of the fascism that is at the core of the modern hard Left. ~Vikingstar

I agree on all counts, but especially this one. I have quite a few gay friends, I didn't realize how many until I started counting, and none of them are pushing this agenda. The ones who do push it are their liberal friends who are not gay. I have no problem with anyone being gay any more than anyone who is religious. That's your decision and I don't want you to force it upon me in any way.

Gay marriage is no more legitimate than animal marriage, plural marriage, sham marriage, or any other descriptor adjective you want to try and throw in front of the term. There is marriage...period. Anything else is something else. You can call a table a chair all you want, but that does not mean it is so. Marriage has always been defined and accepted as the contractual union of two people of the opposite sex and since there are only 2 sexes, this is pretty simple. I don't care what it's called, but 'marriage' shouldn't be used in the moniker or definition.

Gay marriage is no more legitimate than animal marriage, plural marriage, sham marriage, or any other descriptor adjective you want to try and throw in front of the term. There is marriage...period. Anything else is something else. You can call a table a chair all you want, but that does not mean it is so. Marriage has always been defined and accepted as the contractual union of two people of the opposite sex and since there are only 2 sexes, this is pretty simple. I don't care what it's called, but 'marriage' shouldn't be used in the moniker or definition.

Jeepin,
I appreciate your live and let live attitude, but the above paragraph actually is not a reason to deny gay marriage to people. Your definition suggests that marriage is nothing more than a traditional social construct. Public opinion is what establishes the mores of a culture. That changes with generations.

That's all well and good, but many of us know that man did not invent marriage. It is a sacrament administered by the church because the big Boss who established the church is the one who invented marriage. He set the guidelines of one man, one woman, one lifetime. People seem to have a hard time with that so he allowed Moses to issue divorce decrees. I'm pretty sure it isn't going to happen, but when He changes His guidelines of what a marriage consists of is when another look can be made of expanding same.

While I don't want to shove my religious views down your throat, be advised, I will fight to the end to keep anyone from crossing the line under any name for any reason. It is a two way street.

"What is ironic is that they have taken people who would normally support them and changed their mind with their "you'd better love us or else" attitude."

I suppose you could say I was in that camp. Many of you may remember that I was an advocate for "principled compromise", and people from both sides sitting down and being reasonable with each other. What changed my mind was while I met many conservative and religious people willing to do just that, there was no room for any compromise (or any genuine reasonable talking, for that matter) among the people driving things from the other side. They don't want "principled compromise". They want to defeat their foes and have only their values dominate.

That's all well and good, but many of us know that man did not invent marriage. It is a sacrament administered by the church because the big Boss who established the church is the one who invented marriage. He set the guidelines of one man, one woman, one lifetime. People seem to have a hard time with that so he allowed Moses to issue divorce decrees. I'm pretty sure it isn't going to happen, but when He changes His guidelines of what a marriage consists of is when another look can be made of expanding same. ~Kenny Roberts

Thanks for the thoughtful and poinient reponse Kenny, but I have a few thoughts on the matter as a whole. They are not directed personally, so I hope you do not take them as such.

Here is where the fallacy lies, in thinking marriage is solely a religious institution. Marriage predates Christianity, just look up the history of it, and as such could only be invested by man. Now doctrine subscribes that God works through all men, so with that thinking, I suppose the argument has some merit, based on whatever your particular religion. The argument can also be made that since God invented the earth, marriage is to be attributed to Him, and thus all Christianity, not just the establishment of Christianity as a religion. I am not trying to trash on any religion here, please don't misunderstand me, just point out that there were many religions, many non-religions, and varying cultures existing, so it's impossible to discern which one was 'right' and which ones weren't. Who are we to judge.

In historically researching marriage, focus also on the "best man" and what the ring now symbolizes and you'll have a better idea as to the establishment of early customs into modern Christian marriage. Marriage is yet another one of the ideas that Christianity wants to claim, and thus own exclusively.

I am religious, in my own way and do not subscibe to traditional manufactured and packaged doctrine, but am open minded enough to not try and skew the historical facts. Not accusing you personally here, just making an observation on religions as a whole. Religion is understood, it is not a learned or wrote response. This I have learned in my many decades on the subject, and it has ticked off many a priest during personal discussions seeking answers to unanswered vexing questions, but the written descriptors in the Bible ('proof') are irrefutable.

Marriage is not owned by any group, time, or theocracy. It has constantly evolved through the ages and cultures, and even the Church has adjusted its position constantly, so it is in a consistent state of flux. What I have an issue with is the definition, which has not changed, and should not change (IMHO).

Religion is an interesting topic, to be sure, and when you delve into the histories of differing ones, you'll see they have a commonality. They all defer to another entity, require homage to said entity, and lay down doctrine to follow. I believe the general intent is the same for all, with shifts in focus. But that is a discussion for another time and thread.

......"It certainly isn't natural for such a noticeable segment of the global population to be born homosexual, and they claim that is how one becomes so".......

As far as I am concerned it is now, and always has been, a lifetyle "choice" that one has made.

They "need" to insist that it is "genetic" primarily so they can live, comfortably, with themselves. Adopting a lifestyle choice that much of humanity has condemened for centuries cannot be easy on the human psyche. This is demonstrated, in part, in my eyes anyway, by seeing how many of its practioners live with alcohol as a large part of their environment. Attempts at self-medication are common amongst people who feel insecure.

They need to remove religion from the debate as much as possible as that has been the place that opposition has been traditionally rooted in. I do not care what religion anyone practices, or chooses to not practice, but it is evident from reading comments to the newspapers, under their daily stories, that many today go out of their way to not only condemn those who believe, but to go on and mock them even.

It sure is a different world than I grew up in.

WC

Christianity is a slang term derived from the Roman soldiers labeling believers as "Christians" or "little christs". It was not a term of honor or anything good, just a label.

This actually requires an essay, but I will condense it to a brief outline.

If I can call your attention to Genesis 2;

Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

I can't tell you how old this command is, but absolute bare minimum, it is at least 4,000 years prior to the first time anyone was nicknamed "Christian". It may well be older.

Moses was out and about in the neighborhood of 1470 BC. That was ballpark, 3,500 years ago, or 1500 years before years anyone had ever been called a "Christian". That is when divorce was first sanctioned, with specifications, it was not so from the beginning.

All that is well and good, but I oppose homosexuality because this same creator that invented marriage and subsequently modified it once, has made definite statements condemning homosexuality as a stand alone act without even talking about legitimizing it by perverting the rule established in Genesis 2. It could be like spitting in His face after you stick your finger in His eye. There is a point where you will have earned a violent response. Sodom and Gomorrah found out. The other great world empires found out they were not above the laws established. People mistake patience and unmerited favor for a paper tiger. History does not bare that stance out.

My dog in the fight has to do with my not wanting to go out of my way to pick a fight with a living God. Only a fool would want to curse their land, their children, and their future.

If gay marriage continues to spread across this nation you will see a gentle tugging for us to stop and repent of this and we can get bandaged up and do what is pleasing to our Creator. If we persist in rebellion, this nation will be destroyed, famine, disease, slavery,
and bloodshed will be brought here from outside. We are the collateral for the trillions of dollars of national debt, you know, the only reason we are free is because our ancestors in this nation considered the merits of Deuteronomy 28.

I kind of take it personally in the way that I am going to get injured by this foolishness along with everyone else and it is not necessary for the curses to come here.
GOOGLE the below and pull up the actual sermon, it is just an example of preaching of the day.

Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God
Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758)
Enfield, Connecticut
July 8, 1741

The preachers that started arriving in America since 1620 were claiming that this was the new Israel for the ten lost tribes to gather in. Over in the tiny nation of Israel you will only find two of the twelve tribes, Judah, Benjamin, and Levite priests (not considered a tribe). That alone places this country under the laws that were given to Moses (1470BC).

Now, if you GOOGLE Gov John Winthrop you will learn about the founding of Boston,

A Model of Christian Charity

Governor John Winthrop
(1630 on board the Arbella)

It is history, not myth or primitive superstitions. There are laws of nature that run the universe. Someone wrote that operating system that contains those laws.

Posted: 11:19 AM
Updated: 11:21 AM
Maine Diocese starts support group for 'same-sex attraction'

PORTLAND — The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland is starting a new support group for "persons with same sex attraction."

The support group will offer "hope and encouragement to men and women who desire to live in accordance with the church's teaching on homosexuality," said the press release. "Specifically, that the dignity and identity of every person is not determined by their sexual attractions, but by their relationship with the Lord and their striving to live the virtues of faith, hope and charity."

http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/Diocese-starts-support-group-for-same...

Thank you for the origin of the term "Christianity", but this too has transgressed over the years to mean something different. If you look at any definition, you will find it's "of and pertaining to someone who follows the scripture of Jesus Christ". When the term was coined has no relevance on the act, just that it had no standard definition.

Moses was out and about in the neighborhood of 1470 BC. That was ballpark, 3,500 years ago, or 1500 years before years anyone had ever been called a "Christian". That is when divorce was first sanctioned, with specifications, it was not so from the beginning.

I see your date and will raise you by 1,500 years.

The Institution of Marriage goes way back. Over 5,000 years ago, the Sumerians had made laws which regulated marriage. But it was still "Rough House" rules. The "Best Man" got that name because he would help kidnap the bride, and then fight off the relatives if they tried to rescue her. source

And here is a little on wedding rings, which indicate marriage was around long before Moses as well.

Pre-History: The caveman tied cords made of braided grass around his chosen mate’s wrists, ankles, and waist, to bring her spirit under his control.

Circa 2800 BC: Egyptians are buried wearing rings made of a single silver or gold wire on the third finger of their left hands, believed to be connected directly to the heart by the vena amoris.

2nd Century BC: According to Pliny the Elder, the groom gives the bride first a gold ring to wear during the ceremony and at special events, then an iron ring to wear at home, signifying her binding legal agreement to his ownership of her.
source

The issue I have with any religion is the history, and I have become fascinated with its origins. Many of the books in the Bible were not written at the time, they were 'historical records' written many years later, some hundreds of years later. Some are corroborated by recent findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls (recent meaning within the last 100 years), and are strikingly similar to the accounts written thousands of years ago. The Bible was written by men and when the two are combined lends some incredulity to the conversation. Now whether you choose to believe in them is a personal matter and not up for discussion or debate since it is personal. However, the Bible is not the only source of historical record, just the one most people put their faith in as reliable, hence the following of Christian doctrine.

I have always believed there are two marriages that often take place at the same time. The first is the recognition by the current administration, which is more of a contract. The second is from your religion, which has much deeper implications and consequences, and is thus the more important of the two. Obviously some people ignore this second marriage since they do not Believe or find it inconsequential, and that is their right. For others, however, it is the binding force and building structure which solidifies the marriage for eternity, so it has credence and meaning.

For me, religion is a personal matter and one best left to individual decisions. I do not like those who feel the need to "peddle" or "sell" religion, like it's a trading commodity or animate object. To me that's insulting. I respect anyone's right to choose their religion for their reason, whether it's worshipping God, Christ, Yahweh, Muhammad, Buddha, or snakes. I have an issue when your religion interferes with mine, or when you try to make me subservient to your religion (not pointing fingers, just stating rhetorically). As such, I feel religion should be left out of certain decisions in society since they can have a detrimental effect in the decision-making paradigm. Marriage should solely be a religious institution, but that does not mean one religion trumps another. One thing I have found in my travels is those people of one religion try to nullify another religion (live and conquer, not live and let live). Translating to marriage, this means one marriage is considered a sham to one religion yet held in regard to another.

Marriage predates religion, that fact has been established. Still, that does not in any way nullify marriage on religious grounds. The state (or government) has placed stipulations on marriage in an attempt to regulate and gain some authority over religion by 'giving its blessing'. This is merely jockying for power in my estimation. Marriage should garner no favor with the government, so no benefits should be derived from getting married. If this were the case, I'd bet you'd see a lot fewer people getting married, just like people wouldn't have so many children if they didn't get welfare money for having them. If less marriages were performed, there would be less divorces (I know, right now you're thinking "duh"), but only because more people would be truly married than conveniently married.

Based on what I know about homosexual behavior (not the sex, the lifestyle as a whole), I have no doubt most of these 'marriages' would be of the convenience or sham type, which pollutes and dilutes the entire institution of marriage, just like the government's involvement. Some would be legitimate, and those I take no issue with. The difference is distinguishing between the two, which is impossible since it involves intent. If one truly wanted to preserve marriage, the solution is easy: outlaw divorce.

Some good pieces to ponder in the last few posts.

I agree that marriage is both a religous act, and also a legal actions with many consequences not availble to single folk.

I believe that the religous aspect of marriage is no business of the state, Unfortunately those activists who are working to "legalize" marriage are attempting to use the "legal" meaning of marriage to force certain views upon the rest of us who do not find gay marriage "acceptable" to our regious beliefs.

In simple terms they are attempting to use "law" to force a moral acceptance upon those of us opposed to same, due to religous beliefs.

Nothing good will come of this for the "state" or the people of Maine, in the long run. As my dad liked to say, "if anything is acceptable, sooner or later, nothing will matter anymore".

I resent deeply the assault on my religious beliefs by this immoral band of crusaders.
WC

Thank you Jeepin for the history lesson. There is a lot there that I want to take my time to read. Modern society is quite demanding on our time.
You mention the Sumerian record. That would have to do with;

This article is about the Sumerian gods. For the fictional Anunnaki from Demon: The Fallen, see Annunaki (White Wolf). For The Annunaki as depicted in The 12th Planet, see Zecharia Sitchin.

See Genesis 6 if you want to know who the annunaki are, also fetch up a copy of "The Book of Enoch". Very enlightening.

Anyway, Genesis 2 is about 6,000 years old. The annunnaki are the rebellious angelic beings that left their first estate.
I really believe that Greek Mythology as well as the ancient India records the Vedas have images of flying machines, etc.
anyway;

Gen 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

I believe that genetic experiments were being conducted and to me this also hints that there may have been GMOs being developed as well. Part of the rebellion in an attempt to derail original DNA programs so the Messiah could not be born.

and Noah comes along;

Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
Gen 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

If you read Genesis carefully you will the generations listed from Adam on out. Moses actually penned the first 5 Books from information that was given to him. The Book of Enoch is pre-flood and we really don't have a proven authorship, but he is cited by Jude in the New Testament.

You believe as you wish, I am confident that the Bible is a pretty good record even though Paleo-Hebrew/Aramaic to either Greek or English loses some horsepower. Never-the-less, there was no state when marriage was invented, and homosexuality was verboten.

Just had a robocall a few minutes ago re: same-sex marriage. Call urged me to go to http://www.govotemaine.com and download this GOP Primary Voter Guide:

Family Research Council Voter Guide
http://govotemaine.com/images/FRCActionVoterGuide.pdf

On the theme of "leftist fascism", Mark Steyn has a article at National Review entitled "Liberal Enforcers", which, while addressing the Komen Foundation's backtracking of not supporting Planned Parenthood, is equally appropriate for our discussion of the top-down imposition of same-sex "marriiage".

"As Senator Obama said during the 2008 campaign, words matter. Modern “liberalism” is strikingly illiberal; the high priests of “tolerance” are increasingly intolerant of even the mildest dissent; and those who profess to “celebrate diversity” coerce ever more ruthlessly a narrow homogeneity."

Maine officials certify pro-marriage equality ballot measure
February 24, 2012
By Chris Johnson on February 24, 2012

The legislature can pass the measure into law, but that’s unlikely given the conservative makeup of the body. Lawmakers can also propose alternative language at the ballot — such as civil unions instead of same-sex marriage — but LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) advocates say this outcome is also unlikely.

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/02/24/maine-officials-certify-pro-ma...

The gay marriage ban is discrimination, plain and simple, and eventually, the Supreme Court will rule as such. It is also discrimination for the government to treat me differently, tax wise, because I choose to remain single. I don't want a second wife. So I am penalized with higher taxes.

I believe homosexuality is wrong, but homosexuals do not have to answer to me.

My solution is for the government to get out of the marriage business asap.