PEOPLE'S VETO NEARS FINISH LINE

Don't be deceived by Charlotte's dissembling. EQME has collected no signatures. She is referring to a telephone push poll that had a predictably dishonest script.

Dearest Naran,
I am not so self-centered as to imagine that the outcome of this has any bearing on my marriage; nor am I surprised at the inability of many to fathom the bigger picture.

EQME - Equality Maine??? How is anyone supposed to take an organization seriously when their name does not even represent their goals?

The "bigger picture" isn't what the new law is about; nor is it what the People's Veto is about.
Just to be clear, and all.

Mainestreet, in your post you mentioned: "As law the new definition of marriage will then be used to subjugate the rest of us in our places of work and liesure."

I guess I dont understand this. I've always considered this issue one that pertains to religious beliefs - period. If you belong to/attend a religious institution that does not believe in gay marriage you will likely never sit next to a gay couple in the pews and will certainly never see a gay marriage ceremony take place at your institution. If you belong to/attend a religious instituion where gay marriage and gay members are accepted, then you will likely be subjIgated to it - but that is your choice (ie go to a different place of worship if you disagree). If the law stands and couples are allowed to marry - how will you be subjugated at places of work - any more than you are today? So if you work beside a gay coworker today - the fact that he/she will have a ring on and a certificate at home after september changes what?

I am more concerned about first cousins getting married.

Naran - you wrote: "Dist - be clear, here - the folks advocating for EQME aren't trying to change YOUR marriage.

They're only trying to preserve their own."

With all your comments about "being clear", you keep misleading people.
The proponents of ssm are not trying to "preserve" their own marriages. There is no such thing in Maine.
They are trying to change Maine. Call it what it is, please.

Naran is correct. The state said that same sex marriages are legal. Gays (and many others) want to preserve that. You're trying to change it. That's why you're running a VETO campaign.

no. The state said ssm "will be" legal in mid-September unless the citizens of Maine sign enough petitions to require a statewide vote. That is why the law is not enacted yet.
The Secretary of State was on WVOM this morning explaining this as the reason the ballot questions says "reject" instead of "repeal". Because there is no law to repeal until it is enacted.

This whole thing is a change being attempted by advocates of ssm, noy a change being attempted by citizens. We are seeking to leave the law as it currently is.

speaking of wvom this morning - I was shocked to hear Rep. Emily Cain (co-sponsor of the bill) say that she was not sure what the current law was.
So, for Rep. Cain - here is the part you were unsure of, sent with the hopes that in the future you will read current law BEFORE you sign on to changing it.
Title 19-A:
Part 2:
Chapter 23:
Subchapter 1:
§650. Findings and purposes
All municipal clerks and courts of this State shall have a duty and shall be legally required to construe the provisions of Maine's marriage laws in accordance with the following findings and purposes: [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]

1. Findings. The people of the State of Maine find that:
A. The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society; the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in traditional monogamous marriage. [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
[ 1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW) .]
2. Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are:
A. To encourage the traditional monogamous family unit as the basic building block of our society, the foundation of harmonious and enriching family life; [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
B. To nurture, sustain and protect the traditional monogamous family unit in Maine society, its moral imperatives, its economic function and its unique contribution to the rearing of healthy children; and [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
C. To support and strengthen traditional monogamous Maine families against improper interference from out-of-state influences or edicts. [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]

You're arguing semantics and you know it. The question that I have yet to see answered is this selfish one: How will ssm affect MY marriage? My marriage being what you call a traditional one man, one woman marriage. Answer that, please!

Joe - I am not arguing semantics. Words have meanings. I am simply trying to keep the record straight. One cannot "take away" something that is not there.

These little twists of wording by ssm proponents are intentional and they are misleading.

And so is the question you ask again and again, even though it has been answered a hundred times.

No one said YOUR marriage would be affected. That is a very selfish perspective.

What will be affected is the social institution of marriage as a basic component of our society. Read the current law and see if there is anything about a compelling state interest in YOUR marriage. Marriage as a social good is what the law deals with.

People behave in various ways. They form various relationships. That is not the issue either. The issue is that marriage has always been defined as the union of a man and a woman. You have no right to change the meaning and definition of words or institutions. If same-sex couples do not want to be in a mariage, they do not have to do so. They are free to form almost any kind of relationship they desire. Just don't change what marriage is for everyone else to suit those desires.

You have no right to change the meaning and definition of words or institutions.

Maybe I don't, but society, along with one of its major products, government, certainly can.

Remember when "gay" meant happy?

ag-man, I believe in personal freedom, freedom of association and the pursuit of happiness for everyone. Acts of hate or violence against anyone should be prosecuted under our existing laws. I am concerned about the "bigger picture" as it pertains to events happening in Mass. where same sex marriage is being used as a legal instrument in the courts to force citizens, businesses, schools & churches into accepting the homosexual agenda. It is none of my business what people do with their individual lives unless it impacts mine. I have worked with and have friends that identify themselves as gay. We agree & disagree but all within the context of a voluntary exchange of ideas. I am borrowing a quote from Dan Billings: Liberals pass laws forcing people to hire and rent to gay people. Those laws are forcing your personal beliefs on others.
Somehow that is wrong if your belief is based on the bible; but just fine if your belief is based on the Nation or some sociology textbook

The bottom line is that we live in a society with diverse viewpoints. We will vote in Nov. and we wil all live with the outcome.

Bob,
I do see your point, but as long as "traditional" marriage is still allowed - cant marriage STILL be consdidered a "social good" If the social good is created because a man and woman can marry and they will still be able to marry after September, it seems to me there is still social good in it. It seems like the argument is "marriage is an institution and if we allow ssm, it will "water down" what that meaning is and that will negatively impact society."

I love my wife, I and a marriage with her is a wonderful institution for ourselves and our family. If ssm's are allowed my institution with her will not deminish in the least.

AJ is like a thick piece of knotty pine. We have answered your question ad infinitum. Continuing to ask it does not make it an issue anywhere but in your own infertile imagination. I am not concerned about my marriage. I am concerned about marriage, the institution. Sometimes I wonder if, instead of the popular theory that we evolved from chimps, we are devolving into chimps...

And as for semantics, this is the language the State used - the State defined their compelling interest...:

The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society; the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in traditional monogamous marriage.

Thanks Mainestreet. I support ssm in general, but the issues of teachings in schools that we have heard about is a more difficult issue for sure and one i probably wouldn't agree with.

Dans quote is interesting. My first thought on reading "Liberals pass laws forcing people to hire and rent to gay people" is that the dissenting viewpoint would be that it is OK to NOT hire and NOT rent to gay people b/c they are gay. Then it comes down to discrimination and whether we as a society thinks its ok for someone to be discriminated against because they are gay. I dont think thats right no matter if your belief is based on the Bible, the Nation, or a bazooka joe gum comic.

To Clarify again...EQME collected over 55,000 supportive (of gay marriage) voter identifications...in 1 day (during the last voting day).

Again, gays are not trying to push anything on anyone. The want to marry the person they love...just like any other straight American. If you don't support gay marriage...don't join a church who supports it (my church does)..or don't get married to someone of the same sex.

It really is that simple.

It would be interesting to know how many signatures the gay "marriage" proponents would have gathered if they had been on specific petitions instead of meaningless postcards. And if they would have had the same result without the benefit of statewide polling places.

This is not a competition about signatures. It is a constitutional process to place a matter on the ballot. NOW everyone says, "we knew they would get the signatures", but such was not the case before. I don't care either way. I am pleased and I am proud the many Maine citizens who sought out petitions to sign and/or circulate. I don't care what the others say. There was a job to do and it was done. Now we move on.

Charlotte - how can you keep saying that gays are not trying to push anything on anyone? It is exactly what is being done. The entire purpose of the law is to require recognition of something that was not previously accepted.
If it is only about love, there is no need to alter law, society, education and the very definition of marriage. If it is only about love, why does the new law require terms to become gender nuetral?

And why does Dennis Damon say it is to benefit gays, lesbians, transexuals and bisexual people?

It is not as simple as you want us to believe, is it?

It has nothing to do with which church you attend or which church supports same sex couples living together or what they do.

That's a slight distortion.

I belong to a church which believes that lying is also a sin, yet I am sure there are many people who lie sitting in those pews. I don't imagine, though, that they are not trying to change the definition of the word "lie" in order to continue lying with a clean conscience. No one asks people at the door of the church whether they have ever lied or even if they are avid liars. No one denies them the right to worship Christ.

The same is true of homosexuals. With very few exceptions -- only one comes to mind -- I doubt that it is a question at the door of any Christian church.

I am, however, guessing that those who believe that the Word of God can be changed because people don't like what He actually said would not want to go to my church, which preaches that God is the authority over all, including what is and is not sin.

I doubt that a practicing homosexual couple would want to go to a church which believes that homosexual acts are sin. Of course, I doubt that professional shoplifters would go to a church which believes stealing is a sin.

My point, however, is that despite the constant declarations of liberals and atheists, Christ communed with sinners, as should Christians. Unrepentant sinners, on the other hand, have no need of Christ, as they have their own gods.

But that knotty pine is hitting a brick wall. The institution of marriage is in danger how again? If your heterosexual marriage is intact, what are you worried about? A traditional marriage as you see it will still exist, it won't be any weaker or have less value. One's own marriage IS the institution of marriage, and if that marriage is strong, then so is the institution. This change has no effect on the validity or strength or honor of your marriage or mine or the "institution". A marriage is what you make it, and if this somehow threatens "marriage" in your mind, you're being a little paranoid.

If the existence of same sex marriage somehow makes traditional marriages weaker, perhaps they weren't that strong to begin with.

If you are basing your arguments on the religious aspect of marriage, then you must also admit that marriage performed outside of the "church" are not valid, either. If I don't believe in God, how can I possibly be married, in your view of the world?

The institution of marriage is in danger how again? If your heterosexual marriage is intact, what are you worried about?

There's no thread of logic whatsoever in your argument. When is a single marriage also the institution of marriage? Your whole construct is a fallacy.

One's own marriage IS the institution of marriage

And paying taxes makes me the IRS. Your other question - If I don't believe in God, how can I possibly be married, in your view of the world?

Beats me... I can't fathom why one would even bother. Not believing in God just seems so narrow-minded... why go to all the trouble getting married if there is no God? Unless, of course, you believe in fairy tales.

I don't think it is a fallacy at all. I think he is right on. If anything these posts show that people have differing opinions of what "marriage" is. Even outside of the gay or straight argument. So what makes one more correct than the other. I think there is stock in the fact that the "institution" of marriage is what you make it. Its what you perceive everyday with your spouse. What does the 50% divorce rate do for the "institution" of marriage among hetro couples now?

The whole argument doesn't even get off the ground.

You're saying the same as: If my kids get into college, why should I care if the public schools are falling apart? And if they are falling apart - we should just let them get worse.

The reason I keep asking is because I have yet to receive an answer that makes any sense. I'm told that gay marriage will destroy the institution of marriage as we know it and yet will not affect individual marriages. How can that be? The Distributor Cap claims that my knotty pine head holds an infertile imagination, but the best he can come up with is that The rain that fell last night, or more appropriately - the rain that hurtled down from the Heavens as if to flood the entire valley - did not damage the individual tomato plants in my garden. But it sure did wash the entirety of the soil out from underneath them.He didn't have an answer when I asked how the plants fared a week later, assuming they hadn't been harvested.

So, as I've said many times before, I don't expect to change any minds here and I doubt I'll be changing mine until someone can describe the irreparable harm that will befall our society and how that harm will somehow not really affect individuals and/or their marriages.

Bob MacGregor is asking the same questions as I am with similar non-results. If you really plan to win in November, you better start giving believable answers.

The institution of marriage is in danger how again? If your heterosexual marriage is intact, what are you worried about?

Great thought.

Bob E how can you keep saying gays are trying to push anything on anyone. When a heterosexual couple gets married...does that couple push their union on society? Just doesn't make any sense. As for love...it is my opinion that most heterosexual couples get married for just that.

Denis Damon knows that marriage is essential for any committed family (gay or straight)...there is nothing hidden here...

"Bob E how can you keep saying gays are trying to push anything on anyone. When a heterosexual couple gets married...does that couple push their union on society?"

Because gays are trying to force a change in law and in society that has been the norm for centuries. It is silly to keep trying to argue that they are not trying to force change, acceptance, approval, dignity and/or approval of a lifestyle choice that is not marriage.
Is it good or bad? Decide for yourself, but do not require society to agree.

It is a committed relationship of two people. Have same sex relationship been part of society for centuries. Yep. Will allowing these folks the same rights as straights damage heterosexual marriages. No.

marriage isnt a right. its a license and therefore can be restricted to those who meet the criteria.

I guess that's what this is all about -- who gets to set the criteria? Shouldn't it be the issuing body, i.e. the state? And shouldn't separation of church and state suggest that it's the state's decision? And that's the process at work right now with the Legislature's action and the initiation of the Peoples Veto. The people can decide whether to listen to the church (some churches, that is) or their own beliefs, even if they're not in alignment.