PEOPLE'S VETO NEARS FINISH LINE

Tom C., one's own marriage is the most important and represents what marriage means to you. You cannot define what each of us should bring to our marriages nor how we should decide who and when to marry, or if we should stay married as we grow older and change. The "institution" of marriage is meaningless; it is what marriage means to me and my wife that is important.

And since you admitted your opinion of marriage outside the church (although which church should rule this, no one says), I challenge you to start an initiative to annull all marriages that were not performed by a church. You obviously base your opposition to same sex marriage on religious values, so why are you and the supporters of this effort so silent on this other, more widespread, abuse of the marriage system?

If you object to same sex marriage on religious grounds, I get that. And I have no problem with a referendum on it, it will provide a clearer picture of how Maine really feels about it. But I think you should definitely broaden the scope of your efforts to stop all us heterosexual scofflaws from marrying in civil ceremonies, too. See what kind of support your attempt to control the masses with your religious beliefs get you then!

You're leaving a large number of people out of the process. There are many who are not religious in the least and believe that the definition should stand as it is and has been.

I know it suits the purposes of many to pretend keeping the definition as is is a fundamental Christian position, but that's not true. Shame on you for pretending it is, despite repeated statements by non-religious people about the truth.

we "allowed" the state to set the criteria...personally I dont think the state should be involved at all. that is the only change to marriage "laws" that I would ever support. that said...its not just same sex marriage that is prohibited....once established as a right how can any of the other people who do not meet the criteria be denied it?

2. Prohibitions based on degrees of consanguinity; exceptions. This subsection governs marriage between relatives.
A. A man may not marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister, mother's sister, the daughter of his father's brother or sister or the daughter of his mother's brother or sister. A woman may not marry her father, grandfather, son, grandson, brother, brother's son, sister's son, father's brother, mother's brother, the son of her father's brother or sister or the son of her mother's brother or sister. [1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2 (NEW); 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2 (AFF).]
B. Notwithstanding paragraph A, a man may marry the daughter of his father's brother or sister or the daughter of his mother's brother or sister, and a woman may marry the son of her father's brother or sister or the son of her mother's brother or sister as long as, pursuant to sections 651 and 652, the man or woman provides the physician's certificate of genetic counseling. [1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2 (NEW); 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2 (AFF).]
[ 1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2 (NEW); 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2 (AFF) .]
3. Persons under disability. A person who is impaired by reason of mental illness or mental retardation to the extent that that person lacks sufficient understanding or capacity to make, communicate or implement responsible decisions concerning that person's property or person is not capable of contracting marriage. For the purposes of this section:
A. "Mental illness" means a psychiatric or other disease that substantially impairs a person's mental health; and [1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2 (NEW); 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2 (AFF).]
B. "Mental retardation" means a condition of significantly subaverage intellectual functioning resulting in or associated with concurrent impairments in adaptive behavior and manifested during the developmental period. [1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2 (NEW); 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2 (AFF).]
[ 1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2 (NEW); 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2 (AFF) .]
4. Polygamy. A marriage contracted while either party has a living wife or husband from whom the party is not divorced is void.
[ 2007, c. 695, Pt. C, §4 (RPR) .]
5. Same sex marriage prohibited. Persons of the same sex may not contract marriage.
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/19-A/title19-Asec701.html

You obviously base your opposition to same sex marriage on religious values, so why are you and the supporters of this effort so silent on this other, more widespread, abuse of the marriage system?

Not entirely. I find that my religion dovetails perfectly with nature. Same-sex relationships are not natural, not by any stretch of any imagination.

First of all, we are not "taking away people's rights"; we are opposing the imposition of a "right" that has never existed before, and the wholesale redefinition of the concept of marriage.

Secondly, while churches have a limited immunity from this bill ( they won't be forced to perform marriages), individual religious conscience is not respected--people can and will be forced to provide services to gay "marriages" even if this violates their conscience. This is not 'seperation of church and state' (and I'd like to have someone show me exactly where in the Constitution that phrase exists),
it is the imposition of the State upon religious freedom. Gay rights supporters have decided, with some courts' approval, that the 'rights' of gay people trump the rights of religious people, but be very clear about something--it is the collision of two moral cultures, and the State has taken sides.

Lastly, it has been asked repeatedly "how will affect YOUR marriage?", with the implication that if it doesn't have an immediate direct affect on one individual marriage, then we have no right to be concerned. This is a false argument, for this reason: my own marriage probably will not be immediately affected by this wholesale redefinition of marriage, but the affect on our society will be both profound and unpredictable.
Let me try to illustrate this by example. In the 1960's and '70's , we had the start of the "Sexual Revolution", where our culture rejected the alleged repression of sexual freedom and exchanged it for what was called liberation. People back then warned about the unexpected consequences of removing limitations and having what amounted to no standards, and they were ridiculed for it, partly because no one could predict with certainty the consequences.
What were the consequences, on our society, of the 'Sexual Revolution"? Truly astounding rates of sexually transmitted disease that are presently incurable; the dramatic rise of single women having and raising children, and the massive expasion of the welfare state to try to cope with this; the ongoing national wound of abortion on demand, and the continuing trauma that it has caused our culture; and the taxes and the growth of the Federal Government (and state government, and local govenment) that has occured in part to try to manage the damage this all causes. These examples are just off the top of my head--I'm sure that many of you can supply your own.
In other words, the "Sexual Revolution" has had a profound and negative affect on all of us, even if we didn't individually participate in it. We are now having another "revolution" of sorts being foisted upon us, and it will have consequences that no one can now predict, including its supporters--but I am willing to bet that it will have a net negative affect on our culture, especially since it has an inherient hostility to religious expression.
So, this is why many of us oppose the creation of the new 'right' of same-sex marriage; not because we fear for our individual marriage, but because of how it will damage the culture in which we live, and how that will affect all of us (gay people included). None of us will be immune from what happens to our society if this passes, and what will follow from its passing.

Well said, Viking, I agree with much of your post.

The "institution of marriage" is based on the strength of the individual marriages, and no one here has told us how this weakens their own marriage, and thus it will not weaken the "institution". A couple marries for their own personal reasons, and it is not our place to say whether they are right are wrong reasons. Some are bound to fail, and we can all show instances where we could have predicted it.

The existence of a same-sex married couple does not impact the strength or foundation of a heterosexual relationship, nor does it threaten the future of heterosexual marriage because there is nothing in this proposed law that in any way impacts "traditional" marriage, and heterosexual people will still fall in love and marry and create strong, loving families.

This is an attempt by one group to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us, and it's their right to try, I suppose. To claim it is otherwise is a lie. And their acceptance of the marriages of those of us who married outside the church reveals their picking and choosing of who THEY think should marry, and who should not.

This is an attempt by one group to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us, and it's their right to try, I suppose.

As someone pointed out earlier - the People's Veto is actually a response to the action of the pro gay lobby (as certainly evidenced by the majority party in Augusta) to impose their anti-traditional believes on to the entire populace of Maine, without said populace having a say in the matter.

I'm a traditional type of guy and I want a vote and so do many others ( I am not a fundamentalist or evangelical either, by the way.)

Hey, bring on the vote. Fine with me. But in truth, the new law wasn't created in a vacuum without the input of Mainers. There was a lot of effort behind it by a large group of people, who I believe represent the majority of Mainers. This referendum, if it comes to pass, will show if I am correct or not.

I think those who are leading the "people's veto" should next work on passing a law outlawing same sex marriage in Maine. Maybe they think that will pass, too.

Tom C.

Yes, Bob!

And since you admitted your opinion of marriage outside the church

I did what? Where?

You obviously base your opposition to same sex marriage on religious values,

Uh... no. I have made dozens of posts here objecting to same-sex marriage on OTHER THAN religious grounds.

so why are you and the supporters of this effort so silent on this other, more widespread, abuse of the marriage system?

Ummm. I have. I've made posts related to that, too.

You ascribe to me opinions and motives I have never made, you just ASSume I made them.

It's a lot easier to argue against a straw man than a real person! Especially when all you are doing is reciting the party line, comrade!

"This is an attempt by one group to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us, and it's their right to try, I suppose. To claim it is otherwise is a lie. And their acceptance of the marriages of those of us who married outside the church reveals their picking and choosing of who THEY think should marry, and who should not."

No, we're standing by thousands of years of human history, and reacting to those who would disregard that history. And no, we're not imposing a belief on anyone; we're resisting the imposition of a belief upon us.

And to say otherwise is a lie...

Dist - "gay" is unknown to nature, huh? Tell that to all the gay penguins. You know - the ones who stay with their same-sex partner, no matter how many supposedly enticing females are paraded, and penned up with them in zoos. We've done that thread before, and you know it. There's numerous stories about them all over the internet. The latest involve male gay penguin couples raising foster chicks, and doing a wonderful job, into the bargain.

Meanwhile, Bob E. wrote - 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......

Could folks make up their minds? Either this IS, or ISN'T, a competition about petition signatures and how many each side can gather.

Oh, but I AM a real person with my name right there for you to see.

Party line? I don't participate in any political party activities so I would suggest the opinions I state are entirely my own. You fail to show how the right for same sex couples to marry in any way reduces the value, or validity, or strength of traditional marriage, be it yours, mine, or the collective "institution". A marriage between two people is only as strong as they make it themselves; how other people define their own marriage has no bearing on it.

Viking says: And no, we're not imposing a belief on anyone; we're resisting the imposition of a belief upon us.

Sure you are, Viking. You're imposing the belief that what your religion tells you is right should apply to everyone. Why don't you propose a ban on marriage outside the church, as it has been said here on AMG that marriage is a religious institution.

And since when have I proposed banning marriages outside of church? Marriages outside of a religious institution still exist within the framework of human history, unlike the imposition of gay marriage. And that is what it is--an imposition. It is the conjuring up of a 'right' where no right actually exists. And it is the forced recognition of that "right" regardless of conscience and whatever consequences will result from it.

Edit : (If anybody saw that last line, somehow a response to something else turned up here; I'm confused how).

Again, I am a supporter (yep, no surprise). Anyone who would like to be added to our data base of supporters...just send me a PM. It is going to be hard work...I am looking forward to it.

For those of you who insist on repeating the lie that "religious people are imposing their views" or some variation of the same faulty reasoning, I ask, "Who is trying to change the law?"
How can I be imposing my beliefs when I was home minding my own business when GLADD decided to come to Maine and change our laws to fit their beliefs?

And can we finally get over the made up "separation of church/state"? The first amendment is a restriction on government, not on my right to speak about my views, religious or otherwise.

Make fun of my religion all you want, but don't expect your mockery to keep me quiet.

Bob - it might suit your arguments to think that ssm is somehow "making fun of your religion," but to me, it's not.

It's called "live and let live.." your least favorite saying of late.

Naran - I did not say that SSM was making fun of my religion.
And please don' You start telling me what my favorite or least favorite things are. There is already a long enough line doing that.
How can "live and let live" be the motto for forced acceptance?

Roger S
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.

You are correct , Roger...They called me the other night..Sun Surveys L L...They try to get you to say you support gay marriage by twisting words around and asking you over and over with things like "if you knew "X" would you support it then or did you know this and ask you in a different way....Needless to say the very feminine sounding guy wasn't happy that he couldn't trip me up and get me to say I supported gay marriage and hung up on me after a few go arounds...LOL...So if Sun Surveys L L pops up on your caller ID you'll know what it is.......LOL...

Bob MacGregor - Post # 69, this thread:
...."I think those who are leading the "people's veto" should next work on passing a law outlawing same sex marriage in Maine. Maybe they think that will pass, too."

That law already exists and it is what the pro-gay lobby is trying to change....it is pointed out clearly above, with source. See Traci G's post # 63 point 5, this thread. Your attempt to mislead by misdirection is way to obvious.

Ken

Bob, I will not make fun of your religion. I will disagree with some of your opinions. The large conservative religious groups are funding much of the opposition in this state. They are far from minding their own business.

Just out of curiosity, charlotte, what do you see as the "business" of these groups?

"Bob, I will not make fun of your religion. I will disagree with some of your opinions. The large conservative religious groups are funding much of the opposition in this state. They are far from minding their own business."

The well-being of our society is our business. We live here, too. And the imposition of same sex marriage, through the changes it will bring to our society, will be using the power of the state to intrude upon our business.

Charlotte, I recall from an earlier post that you were disturbed by the way Paul Madore conducted himself at the Augusta hearing in regard to a reference he made to your children??

There's a law against gay marriage now? News to me. I thought there was a law defining what marriage is. There's a difference. And when I suggest "you" should consider banning marriages outside the church, I will admit I mean the greater "you" of people behind efforts to veto this law. And we have discussed that before without anyone admitting the hypocrisy of being against same sex marriage because of what their bible says, and claiming marriage is a "religious" institution but not caring to object to the validity of marriages that do not include the church. Argue that all you want, but it's been on AMG before and I don't understand why one bothers you and the other doesn't.

Marriage is a wonderful thing and those of us who have worked at it to make it work for us should be secure enough to realize that it is a strong institution that is not in danger due to this new law.

Current Maine law:

Same sex marriage prohibited. Persons of the same sex may not contract marriage.

Maine law

The law is a result of a petition drive in the mid-1990's. Instead of sending the question to the voters, the Legislature simply passed the bill into law.

So Bob, people have already done exactly what you suggest. They circulated petitions to outlaw gay marriage and made it law. If the current veto effort is successful, the law above will stay on the books.

The suggestion that the same sex marriage law will not impact anyone who is not in a same sex relationship is ridiculous. Currently, all of us have the freedom in our businesses or personal lives to treat same sex couples the same as married couples or not. If the same sex bill becomes law that freedom will be gone. All of us, by force of law and the government, will be forced to treat same sex marriages the same as traditional marriages. We will have lost the ability to distinguish for ourselves. If we offer married couples a benefit, we will have to offer it to all such couples.

You may think that is right. (It's not a big deal to me either way.) But it is dishinest to suggest that only the opponents of same sex marriage want to impose their beliefs on everyone. The purpose of any law is to force everyone, ultimately by force if necessary, to do what you want them to do.

"The well being of our society is our business..." Right, the well being that your religion dictates. You are pushing your view on others. Out of state conservative religious groups are funding the morality they deem fit.

Marriage is a wonderful thing and those of us who have worked at it to make it work for us should be secure enough to realize that it is a strong institution that is not in danger due to this new law

What a great post.

The pro-gay marriage side is also trying to impose their morality on everyone. They believe it is wrong for same-sex couples to be treated differently and want to use the government to impose their view on everyone.

'"The well being of our society is our business..." Right, the well being that your religion dictates. You are pushing your view on others.'

And you aren't "pushing your view on others"? If the veto fails, a large number of people will be forced to accept YOUR view of morality, and will be forced to recognize something that they believe is wrong, for whatever reason they hold that view.

Be honest, Charlotte. You are trying to use the government to force a large number of people to accept something they don't want to accept--the part of your moral view that says " Homosexuality is good and acceptable, and gay marriage is something that should be supported by society". Whether or not you are right or wrong in that view, you are still trying to use the power of the State to compel people to act like they accept your moral view against their will.