Steve Abbott joins Republicans supporting gay marriage

Must be all that players slapping each other on butt!
But he is a "leader"!!!!

Have any high profile democrats come out against re-defining marriage? If not, I wonder why it is that usually only one line seems to blur.

From the Troll:

For goodness sake look at where he is employed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Compare size of salary to size of sword to fall on to be against !!!!

This is a surprize ?????????????? Not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Abbott supporting question one. Jacobson working for Angus. Oy.

You are right, J McKane. "....- vey".

I think the lines are being drawn. It is completely irresponsible to experiment with a social institution of this grandeur without taking seriously the warnings of nationally and internationally respected and renown legal and social science experts. Radically redefining marriage is way , way beyond politics.

Part of being a Republican for me is being free of government regulation and interference within reason. How quick my fellow patriots want to focus on semantics rather than liberty. So sad. Get your priorities straight. No pun intended. Government does not belong in the marriage business.Thumbs up to Steve Abbot.

Maybe someone remembers what Abbot said about this issue when running for the GOP nomination in 2010??
I'm sure it's true that he wants to retain his U of M job (there will be no dissension!)

Good for Steve Abbott! I agree.

How does govt redefining the definition of marriage keep govt out of marriage? Marriage in th end will be another word that means nothing, like gay, queer etc.

Government does not belong in the marriage business.Thumbs up to Steve Abbot.

Same sex marriage is NOT illegal in Maine.

Part of being a Republican for me is being free of government regulation and interference within reason.

By supporting this, Abbott is doing exactly what you do not want. He is putting same sex marriage under government regulation and interference.

The Family; a Husband, wife, and children are the foundation a civilized society is built on.

Here's one Republican asking you to please vote No on Question 1. Our job is to build society up, not tear it down.

It would be good to see others stand up for what they believe in.

"Conservatives must never forget that traditional (gendered) marriage existed before the state. This is what gives gendered marriage its power over the state - it existed prior to the state. A society based on the idea of limited government depends more on gendered marriage than gendered marriage does on it. The nuclear family is a bulwark against the state. Other family forms are not - other family forms require more and more state intervention in order to support their existence either by law or financially, which is why liberals need other family forms in order to stay in power and why they want to redefine marriage. "

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/the_conservative_rationale_for_ga...

I really do not understand some people who say they want to get the government out of the marriage business, then support SSM. By supporting SSM, they are putting the government smack dab in the middle of it. I am voting no on 1 to stop the government from expanding its control of the people!

Abbot is making the typical self serving calculation of the political class. He thinks supporting SSM will benefits him in future runs for political office. That's what happens when someone has no convictions of their own and is driven to "believe" whatever will get them into the public pocketbook.

Bob Emrich's link to the American Thinker article is one of the best I've read.

When you allow government the power to redefine a non-government social institution you are at the same time giving government the power to say (by law) that children do not need and/or have claim to both a mother and a father( their own natural mother and father so far as it is possible and in the best interest of the child). THAT is a lot of power, especially if you look through the eyes of the child/citizen! Traditional stable man-woman marriage is our best (and I say perhaps only) defense against government overstepping it's role. In 17 days we vote on whether or not we want to give government the power to radically redefine the natural family BY LAW. Redefine marriage is far and away the most radical reassignment of power one could ever conceive.

Moderates always make the mistake of cozying up to Democrats in the false hope they will gain Democrat approval. It doesn't work. It never has. Democrats support their platform and they support each other when it counts.

Half a century ago, when a person went astray or committed a crime, people would say, "Well, he comes from a broken home." We don't hear that much any more, but the fact remains that people from single parent homes have higher rates of incarceration and lower potential for success in life than those from a home with a mom and a dad present. Before we waste great gigs of band width citing famous exceptions to this trend, I acknowledge that there are some very successful people who came from single parent situations. It isn't easy.

fitts / abbott both moderates ......... just one of many issues why I do not vote for moderates anymore

There will be lawsuits, and people will be subjected to the full force of government. Our Constitution enshrines freedom of religion - not freedom of religious institutions. Individuals whose religious beliefs make them not want to cater a gay wedding, photograph a gay wedding, etc. will be denied their right to religious freedom under the reasoning that their dealing with the public. They will be sued. This law, as written, does not protect religious freedom. Freedom of religion is specifically in the constitution.

http://protectmarriagemaine.com/video_posts/tv-ad-they-sued-us/

The "hypocrisy" of the LGBT agenda, at work!

We have two acquaintances who are in a committed lesbian relationship. They claim to be "married" and were married in a Maine ceremony last year. They refer to each other as "wife" and "wife".

It goes without saying that they are head over heels for all the activism they can muster re the LGBT agenda, and of course their desire to be "really married" as opposed to (I guess) "faux marriage" is driving them in a crusade working for the gay marriage proposal to pass, so, I guess, they can get married again and it will "count" this time.

They went to buy some things at Treworgy's family Orchard, in Levant, ME, earlier today. Lo and behold, on the lawn, in front of the business, was a sign to vote NO on the question and to "not redefine familys. Well they went ballastic over it, I would say, from reading various posts on facebook. One, or both, of them have written to the business asking if they posted the sign, and supposedly they were told that the business did post the sign. Now they are on a rant that Treworgy's "dicriminates against LGBT families", with all the venom that you would find in a case like this!

This is exactly the kind of "hypocrisy" that has turned me against the activism that we have witnessed this year on this proposal. The business did NOT say that it "hated gays", would not serve gays" would not treat gays in the same way it would treat any other customers, or make any reference to it's thoughts on homosexuality, only to say it was their political position that they did not favor gay marriage. This stand is perfectly legal, as proper as any other citizen having an opinion like this or posting the same sign on their property.

The LGBT community is NOT satisfied with general acceptance and willingness to accept them as valid members of the populace. Gays are more accepted in society now than at any other time in my 65 years.

But that is not good enough. They DEMAND respect and intend to try and LEGISLATE respect, using the power of the state to do so, and I disagree with their activist agenda and their williness to unleash all the venom they can muster when they find some poor schmuck who dares to disagree with them.

The "party of tolerance" is as "intolerant of dissent" as is radical Islam, and the proof is all around us.

Check out Treworgy's website and see for yourself if you think there is any discrimatory language on that site anywhere

This proves that if you want to go looking for something to make an issue with, you can certainly find it!

They can pass all the laws they want, but in our home, "marriage" will be only one woman/one man for as long as we live!

WC

Abbott seems terribly confused: when running for the nomination in 2010, he described his social views as "somewhat libertarian" (as in, anything goes). He would have been fine had he stopped there, but in order to win over conservatives in Piscataquis County, he said that he was against gay marriage (on their questionnaire.) Now, in 2012, he is for it.
Blown around like a paper cup in the wind....

I agree with Steve. At the caucus and convention, I found out, as a Romney supporter, that I had somehow become an "establishment" Republican. Now I'm apparently a "moderate", or maybe even a RINO. I do know that I'm not a "Daddy State" Republican.

To bad to see so many Republicans in favor of this, oh well at least I know who not to vote for. Looks like the Republicans will be the minority in Maine for many years to come, a progressives dream. Kind of reminds me of how Obama got elected. This is it for me I will be leaving the Republican Party .

I agree with Steve. wedding plans?

This is it for me I will be leaving the Republican Party .

Did the platform change?

All this surprize !

Some of which could have been avoided if people had just really looked at things during primary! Afterwards don't forget it would be hard to find a better , gesture , to display to the party , for the indignity
of loosing the nomination and survival ! I doubt this is rooted in deep seated belief in SSM !

How quick many of you are to criticize others.

Doug Thomas says: "It would be good to see others stand up for what they believe in."
Mainelion says: "That's what happens when someone has no convictions of their own..."

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they aren't standing up for what they believe in. I'm a Republican voter that just frankly doesn't care about gay marriage. It's as simple as that. I'm not gay, so I won't benefit from voting for it. But it also won't harm me any. I haven't decided how I will vote yet, but I'll probably vote Yes on 1, No on the bonds, and straight Republican for the simple fact that I just don't care if homosexual couples are allowed to marry or not. And yet, I'd probably be accused of not being a real Republican for the way I will vote on one single issue.

You can go on all you want about the government getting involved in marriage, Bob S., but the fact is that it already is involved in it for heterosexual couples. The government is either in the marriage business or it isn't. If they want to turn everything into a civil union and let churches marry, I'd be find with that. Until then, if gay couples want to be as legally miserable as straight couples, why not let them? At least then they can benefit from the some of the tax benefits straight couples can. Lets not forget that heterosexual couples aren't exactly doing a whole lot to promote the institution of marriage.