PEOPLE'S VETO NEARS FINISH LINE

Better than what ?
It will be vetoed with 58-60% of the vote , one person I know supports gay marriage ( and she is a liberal teacher )all the others oppose and they will be at the polls to defeat it .

The reasonable presumption is that gay marriages will have no diminishing affect on traditional marriages. I would ask then, how would ANY OTHER marriage arrangement have a diminishing affect on traditional marriages? Why then, are gay marriage advocates not supporting all marriage arrangements?

Well, because it's not part of the agenda as documented by Hunter Madsen and Marshall Kirk in their book "After the Ball." The book makes it clear that the campaign narrows itself not to some warped form of liberty, but from an entirely self-serving one: The entire campaign, according to its framers, is to dupe -- by way of using advertising and propaganda techniques -- the American public into accepting the abnormal as normal.

This 9-minute clip of "Speechless..." is astoundingly revealing about the book, the movement, and its progress to date. I imagine it will be ignored by the Humanists here, and will upset those who wish to believe that "gay is okay." But it shows exactly where we are and where we are headed.

And for those of you who cannot, or will not, view it, here is a small but revealing quote from the book itself:

Naran: Under the Federal Defense of Marriage law, signed into law by President Clinton, the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages. Period. No Social Security rights. No federal tax benefits. A same-sex couple is single according to the feds.

Dan, thank you for that information. I had no idea that was the case.

So when you consider the existing domestic partners registry, which gives most but not all state benefits to domestic couples, and existing federal law, what are we really talking about? Official recognition and endorsement and little else.

DB: Official recognition and endorsement and little else.

And sanction - they are looking to the State for sanction on a behavior/lifestyle that hasn't yet (for better or for worse) earned sanction from a majority of the population. (see California Supreme Court decision).

Many of you seem particularly thick on the difference between morality and legality - but morality can not be imposed by any body, certainly no State body. The separation of Church and State is a remarkable edifice that allows us to grant State jurisdiction over matters of property and nothing else; the Church (or churches in our religious plurality) have been given the domain over morality - that is, the intentions and inherent good or evil of actions. In America, no-one is forced to believe or participate in any singular ethical system up to the point of infraction or harm upon another citizen's property (bodily or otherwise). At that point, the State, correctly assumes punitive authority. Churches have no such authority in the realm of the state, but can excommunicate or express formal redress without any property (bodily or otherwise) infringement.

It works. It has worked for centuries. Leave it alone, and let the Church maintain its duties with regard to sacrality, and the State maintain its with regard to legality. Do not look to the state for sanction, or to condone or frown upon particular behaviors or lifestyles - that is granting the State far more authority than it should ever have.

Domino - What is there about the truth that bothers you so much you avoid it so often?
"They" did not get paid per signature. A small fraction of signature gatherers got paid. The vast majority were volunteers. The lying was done by the friends of the HRC, etc. who were circulating "pretend" petitions.
Every signature has to be certified by the town registrar to ensure that they "exist" and that they are registered voters in that town. Then petitions will be validated by the Secretary of State.
Whether it was done by "religious" people or not is irrelevant. The fact is, thousands and thousands of Mainers knowingly and eagerly signed the petitions. I am still getting constant telephone calls and emails from people seeking a petition to sign.

Be careful how you criticize - you may be insulting thousands of Mainers who will see what you are really trying to do.

"
Bob E., thank you for the totally non-convincing non-answer to my very serious question. I notice nobody else chose to respond. You people are going to have to do better than that if you hope to prevail in November. Would you care to try again?"

Not really.
You did not ask for an explanation or to be convincing. It was a silly question to start with and I answered you plainly. Why do I need to convince you that my "no" means "no"?

We don't need a better answer in order to prevail because your question has nothing to do with the ballot question.

Viking...run afout of my morality? Plenty of folks marry daily that differ from me...and my opinions/morality. Does it hurt my life? No. Second...what consequences will happen due to gay marriage...Lots of good ones I believe. Gay/Lesbian families lives will improve greatly!! As for changing folks thoughts and opinions regarding gay marriage...many have already changed to the positive. Many folks...when they really think about the issue...know it will not do any harm...actually will do those gay families much good!

Bob "The other side is trying to force me to accept their morality. What's the difference?

Exactly!!!

Dan the domestic partnership registry is nothing for protection compared to marriage...not even close.

Bob E...No, I don't feel a smidge of shame...nope. As for Glad...look at their top defender. Mary Bonauto...a true Mainer. EQME started this ball rolling...

Before Average Joe gets on your case for offering a "totally non-convincing non-answer to [a] very serious question," could you please elucidate on this? Given Dan's explanation about the federal DOMA and the fact that, marriage or no marriage, Social Security and other federal entities will not recognize same-sex marriages, what protection would be offered to you if your relationship were recognized as a marriage which would not be afforded to you under the domestic partnership registry?

Bob E. says "Why do I need to convince you that my "no" means "no"?" Because your statement indicate otherwise. If you would be so kind as to explain to me how discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin should be federally enforced while discrimination based on sexual preference should not, it would go a long way to understanding what "legally forced adoption of social values" is all about.

This vote is going to be a lot closer that you think and there's a large block of people who really don't care one way or the other (Dan Billings, I think, claims to be one). Your answers will affect the way those people vote.

So which is it -- you don't choose to answer or you have no answer?

Joe: When the laws were passed to outlaw discrimination based on race and gender, there was compelling evidence that there was widespread discrimination that resulted in significant economic consequences for women and racial minorities. I have seen no such evidence for gays.

In addition, I think many of those laws do not work well; have outlived their usefulness; impose significant economic costs; and should be reevaluated to determine if they are still necessary.

But I did choose to answer. I answered the exact question I was asked.

A previous question from a liberal used the same tone you are adopting, only he/she required a "yes or no". Now you ask a "yes or no" question and I am berated for not writing a treatise for you.
The question does not require a long answer.
This is simply not a civil rights issue. It is a question about the definition of marriage.

Current law does not single out individuals or groups to discriminate against. It defines marriage. Everyone who is interested in marriage has the same rights.

Dan Billings: Dan, you said this so well I had to repeat it here.
Joe: When the laws were passed to outlaw discrimination based on race and gender, there was compelling evidence that there was widespread discrimination that resulted in significant economic consequences for women and racial minorities. I have seen no such evidence for gays.

In addition, I think many of those laws do not work well; have outlived their usefulness; impose significant economic costs; and should be reevaluated to determine if they are still necessary.

The question has been asked How will a same sex marriage law harm hetro. marriage. I am not sure, perhaps we should look to Mass. where it has been in affect for a while. I believe the law will allow unfettered access to our kids. http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/fistgate/index.html

Charlotte said:
"Viking...run afout of my morality? Plenty of folks marry daily that differ from me...and my opinions/morality. "

That is NOT the issue, and you know it. The pro=gay marriage supporters are seeking to impose their morality on society, and will use the power of the state government, including how subjects like "families" are taught in schools, to enforce it. We are resisting this imposition.

"As for changing folks thoughts and opinions regarding gay marriage...many have already changed to the positive. Many folks...when they really think about the issue...know it will not do any harm...actually will do those gay families much good!"

And now we're back to anyone opposing gay marriage are either "ignorant" or (left unsaid in this post but referenced earlier by Charlotte) bigoted.

And again, we get back to the Homosexual Agenda Play Manual, "After the Ball - How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s":

-=SNIP=-

There is much, much more...

In case anyone is wondering where Charlotte talked about opponents to same sex marriage being (using her exact words} being 'biased'. here it is:
"It won't be answered Joe...Again, they want to deny marriage based on their bias. If their choice was denied...they would be screaming..."
From the thread "How to interfere with People's Veto", post #266

So that's what it comes down to: too many supporters of same-sex marriage and everything else gay/bisexual/transsexual/(insert your own '-al' here) consider opponents as either "ignorant" or "bigoted" (or "ignorant bigots"). There is no room for any other option.

Doesn't leave much room for dialogue, does it?

VKS: Doesn't leave much room for dialogue, does it?

No, and they will not be persuaded - they see no further than the edge of their own noses. The resident atheist/agnostic and/or enlightened secularist has no external moral authority, and professes that he/she has no need of one, and yet, in reality what they do is cede that authority to the State.

The nya nya na na boo-boo mindset doesn't really allow much room for dialogue.

You want moral sanction? Earn it. Don't legislate it.

Intesting...the first person to use bigot is Viking on this thread. I think many people oppose this legislation for many reasons. Some are bigots...for sure. Like the testimony that I have elaborated on (comparing gays who marry to molesters..and other). I never said Bishop Malone was a bigot..now did I? No. I actually said he was very respectful.

The opposition is pushing their morality...Viking...and so are you. Fine, just be honest about it.

How is Vikingstar imposing his/her morality, Charlotte?

Please be specific. You have reached a conclusion for which there is no logical support, but I am willing to hear your argument - which should include a good estimation of what Viking's morality is (I am at a loss here, in making such determination, which would not be based on assumption), his intention, and his method of imposition. 20 pts. each. Have at it.

I Object!
The argument is flawed from the beginning. A reasonable discussion should start with truth.

here is the false rasoning:
"The opposition is pushing their morality"

The "opposition is not pushing. They are being pushed. They are defending the traitional morality.

The campaign strategy from smae sex marriage proponents is to play victims and talk as if others are taking something away from them. But they are not victims. They are clearly the aggressors, trying to push a new morality on everyone else. Whether one believes this new morality is good or bad, truth requires us all to admit what is really happening here in Maine.

It should be, and will be, noted that this "opposition pushing their morality" is a smooth way of avoiding the truth and the real issue.

I quoted you directly, Charlotte, as calling people biased as a blanket statement; You are the one who introduced "bias", not me.

As for me being the one imposing morality on anyone, that is simply intellectually dishonest. You are the ones who would use the power of the State to enforce your morality, not me. You are the ones pushing to change the laws, not me. You are the ones who would punish people who disagree with you with fines, not me. It is you who would conjure a brand-new "right" out of thin air, not me.

I have been someone who over the years, both on AMG and in many public forums, and to many people privately, called for patience and dialogue and treating others as people and not objects. I have been criticized by some of my own for doing so, too. I called for both sides in this issue to stop waging this war, and to sit down and talk like civilized people to each other. I will tell you bluntly what I have found--willing ears and openness on the part of many people on my side of "the fence"--and silence from the other side. One person I tried repeatedly to talk to in particular, having heard me speak in public, refused to have anything to do with me, because I called for a 'principled compromise'. What has become clear to me is that we will be given no room to compromise, at least not by the activists involved.

I have seen your side, with my own eyes, actively try to hurt innocent people if they percieved an advantage to doing so. In your rush for "equal rights", individuals are being trampled to the floor. Oh, my "side" has its zealots, too---and you should remember that in another forum, I actively defended YOU from one in particular.

I have opposed 'my' zealots--your side honors yours.

Do you realize that the reason why you (once again, the collective 'you') are meeting with such resistance is because we have come to the conclusion that we have no choice? The vast majority of "us" would gladly 'live and let live', and actually do. In many churches that you wouldn't like because we're so 'intolerant', gay people are greeted with compassion and aren't immediately told that they're evil sinners. Instead, the grace of God is offered to them, like the rest of us who need it just as much.

But you have given us no room to compromise (there's that word again) or propose something that maybe we both could live with. You are absolutists in your demands, and intolerant of any dissent. And we have been pigeonholed as either bigots or ignorant; there is no possibility given that we may have logical or reasonable or ethical reasons why we can't support this wholesale uprooting of our society. In short, we have no options but to oppose you.

I will continue to treat gay people as I have for decades, with compassion and respect. But I have come myself to the conclusion that I have no choice but to oppose what is being done to my culture by people who have consistantly demonstrated that they have no respect for my beliefs. I will oppose the activists who would
impose a moral system on me and mine by force of government. I don't want this war--I tried to stop it--but I find myself forced to fight whether I want to or not.

Congratulations...you have helped to create another warrior.

Charlotte, earlier this afternoon, I posed a question to you. I would really like to know your answer. Here is the question:

Before Average Joe gets on your case for offering a "totally non-convincing non-answer to [a] very serious question," could you please elucidate on this? Given Dan's explanation about the federal DOMA and the fact that, marriage or no marriage, Social Security and other federal entities will not recognize same-sex marriages, what protection would be offered to you if your relationship were recognized as a marriage which would not be afforded to you under the domestic partnership registry?

well said, vikingstar!

Bob, thanks for all your hard work I praise God we collected the signatures we needed so quick....I will still be collecting I have alot more people who still want to sign.
Jessica

Michelle, I have asked that same guestion in the past and never have gotten an answer. I do not believe the end game is about SS survivor benefits, taxes and the like. With DOMA in place same sex marriage will still not be recognized on a federal level, it is also not transferable state to state.....if a same sex couple gets married in Mass. and moves to a state that does not recognize same sex marriage, DOMA says that state does not have to recongnize that couple as married.

One only need look to Massachusets and see what the outcome of same sex marriage is. Indoctrination in schools about same sex marriage under diversity education for kids as young as FIVE with no opt out for parents or families that, because of religious mandate (creed), are against same sex unions. That is not the role of government. I have heard plenty from the other side about churches losing their tax exemptions if they speak out against homosexuality. I have read the articles about Catholic Charities being pushed out of the adoption business in Mass. because they wouldnt adopt to same sex couples. I read about the "zealot" parent that dared question what his child was receiving for an education at the public school and I am convinced this is not about marriage at all. Its about forced acceptance. Period.

I have signed the petition and have urged others to sign it as well.

As to out of state influence, the other side has put out a call to arms so to speak and is offering free training room and board for volunteers that want to come to maine for a vacation. The Human Rights Campaign is funding alot of these inititiaves in the Northeast and you can read about their push in Maine New Hampshire and Vermont right on their web site. If that isnt out of state money and out of state influence I dont know what is. Maine democrats have recieved campaign donations from this group. It was time to pay the piper.

My prediction~ The same sex marriage legislation will be defeated before it ever becomes law. Democrats have already spent the money, the paid staff at EQME and the HRC have been paid, same sex couples have been bilked out of their money, and they will still not be able to get married and will feel even more isolated and victimized . There is big money in vicitimization. HRC and EQME will have their flashing DONATE button included in their emails to supporters claiming that they were outspent, they will blame the Christians and the right etc. and the circle jerk will continue.

If it does pass, here is a preview of what GLSEN will be bringing to a public school near you...you may not have issue with it....but remember public schools are tax payer funded and therefore are government schools. This is not the role of government.

Lesson Plan: Respecting All Families Nurtures Everyone
This lesson plan, "Respecting All Families Nurtures Everyone!" was written primarily for teachers working with Pre-K thru 3rd-grade students.
http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/educator/index.html?state=tools&ty...

The Educator's Guide to LGBT Pride
The Educator's Guide to LGBT Pride will show you five easy ways you can celebrate LGBT Pride in your classroom.
http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/educator/index.html?state=tools&ty...

Human Rights Campaign Foundation
2008 2007
Beginning Net Assets $24,106,336 $24,071,922
REVENUE AND SUPPORT
Contributions:
Contributions 343,913 338,179
Federal Club / Major Donor contributions 6,284,251 5,834,083
Corporate / Foundation grants 1,002,639 1,456,858
Bequests 794,043 376,139
In-kind 139,394 111,747
Special Events 166,400 155,562
Merchandise sales - -
Investment and other income 1,978,088 1,420,689
Total Revenue and Support 10,708,728 9,693,257
EXPENSES
Program Services:
Federal, Field, Electoral and Legal Advocacy 656,186 440,591
Public Policy, Education and Training 6,091,043 5,964,715
Communications and Media Advocacy 54,051 24,668
Membership Education and Mobilization 1,041 -
Total Program Services 6,802,321 6,429,974
Supporting Services:
Management and General 1,546,288 1,401,442
Fundraising 1,436,511 1,395,280
Capital Campaign 596,674 432,147
Total Supporting Services 3,579,473 3,228,869
Total Expenses 10,381,794 9,658,843
CHANGES IN NET ASSETS 326,934 34,414
Ending Net Assets $24,433,270 $24,106,336

http://www.hrc.org/documents/HRC_AR_2008.pdf

lots of big money in victimization Domino....these efforts are not grassroots.

Bob E. says "The question does not require a long answer.
This is simply not a civil rights issue. It is a question about the definition of marriage.

Current law does not single out individuals or groups to discriminate against. It defines marriage. Everyone who is interested in marriage has the same rights."

Trying to separate the marriage definition issue from that of discrimination flies in the face of logic. I would re-write your last statement as "Everyone (as we define everyone) who is interested in marriage has the same rights." In other words, not everyone has the same rights. That's discrimination.

I wish you luck in November. Much like I wish the Yankees luck in October.

Dear Average,
My 13 year old grandson would like a driver's license but the State won't let him have one. Is that a civil rights issue?
State law says that only registered Maine voters can circulate petitions. Does that violate someone's civil rights?
The law restricts marriage to a union of only two people. Does that violate someone's civil rights?