rolanni | Jesus Wept

What is even more depressing is the attitude in the replies -- "Don't like it? Leave Maine!" I wonder what their feelings would have been if the other side had 51% and told the 'yes' folk to "like it or get out", I bet they would have been moaning about "only 50% turnout" and "all the non-voters support us" and "we'll keep trying until we win" (seen it often enough as "the lurkers support me in email").

"Don't like it? Leave Maine!"

Oh, that's just the usual Bully-Without-Two-Brain-Cells response to anybody who has an opinion they don't agree with. I was several time invited to "leave America" for daring to have the Clearly Wrongheaded opinion that George W. Bush was a dangerous lunatic.

...and some of those folks might have left the state, had things gone elsewise. There was a powerful lot of fear working in this campaign.

What makes my head spin around is how all the folks who voted NO (clearly more than six of us) are now "bigots." Let's see... I voted to extend equality to minority (which, BTW, I shouldn't even have to vote on; it's a concept already covered in Maine law); the other side voted to violate the civil rights of that minority. Granting that nobody likes to be called a "bigot," I'm having a hard time seeing the NO folks wearing that particular hat.

Indeed, I'm pretty sure I can see who are the 'bigots' in this and it isn't those in the 'no' camp.

But this reinforces my belief that 'democracy', when it means "the majority get their way" (or even more "the vocal majority get their way") is nothing more than "mob rule". Or as someone else said, "democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch"...

You're British, yes? So you may not have met the "Love it or leave it!" slogan thrown at Vietnam war protesters. We've been there, done that, got blood on the tee-shirt.

Not about Vietnam, no, we weren't involved in that one, but I've seen it plenty of times since. When it is being applied to a country it's just silly, because it is obvious to anyone that most people can't leave since they have no right-of-abode anywhere else in the world, but when it is used for a subdivision of a country it seems to be that it has more force because it is theoretically possible for the people to move elsewhere in the country. "Get out of Maine" could be backed up with action in a way that "get out of America" couldn't (except by a "final solution").

(And yes, I am British and live in Britain.)

Yes, the Roman Catholic Church is an oppressed minority, and they've won a great victory… for making sure those second-class citizens remain so. Bastion of morality my ass.

-- Brian out --

I am so sorry to hear that. What a blow to civil rights.

The icon with the kilt made me smile.

Not much else is, today. Civil rights should never be a public vote.

Ah the power of the Kilt

Cherub

The Catholics and the Mormons finally found a reason to work together - they both can't stand gay marriage.

It tells me who is right when I see who is willing to get into bed together to prevent a minority from sharing in the rights of a majority.

They're scared. Notice just how close it came to being popularly supported. This has got to scare them witless. What a commentary on the change in society and their lack of current relevance.

In the "my state is worse than yours" competition I offer up Virginia. We not only lost the battle to bigotry in our infamous constitutional question 1 earlier , we now have Ken "Kook" Cuccinelli as Attorney General. He has specifically stated that he plans to use the office of Attorney General to enforce laws thst promulgate his social agenda (guess what THAT is!) and wants to make that his life mission. The incoming Republican administration is going to run us into the financial ditch again, just like the previous Republican administration did and to make it worse, they'll be handing out burkkas to all the women. I am beyond depressed!

Anne

Have you seen the Dan Savage talk about gay marriage on youtube? It's depressing and hilarious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWAfnsSOMV8&feature=player_embedded is the link.

I fear the rebound has started. We got Obama, and the hate-mongers are furious and up in arms.

Hum -- given that they have linked the marriage laws and religious freedom, what are the chances of getting the ACLU to file suit to repeal ALL marriage laws as violations of the separation of church and state? After all, if you claim that the government is meddling in religion, then... I wonder how they would feel if the government was forced by the Supreme Court to quit meddling in any kind of marriage?

You're right; the error was made when the government accepted "marriage" as a basis for taxes and other secular benefits. The YES folks argue, vociferously, that marriage is a religious institution that has nothing to do with the government, despite ample real-world evidence to the contrary.

The government therefore needs stop taking the easy road, establish its own guidelines for who gets a break on taxes, and let the religious people have their lollipop.

Clearly, having only been married 29 years, I don't understand marriage as these religious people understand it, because I'm not the least bit afraid of the idea that other people might marry. I will note, in the spirit of Full Disclosure, that we were married in a civil ceremony.

...addendum to the above.

Steve and I were living together, and perfectly happy to continue that way. The reason we got married? I fell ill - and the hospital called my mom, possibly the very last person I would ever want to make a medical decision for me.

After that rather scary demonstration of the Force of Law, we got married, so that we could legally care for each other.

Edited 2009-11-04 15:07 (UTC)

And that's basically the reason why the religious institution of marriage got so wrapped up in civil law: marriage has always been seen as an act/event which changes the legal status under the civil law of one or both principals.

28 years together in January and no marriage likely at this rate.

The scary thing is that even those people who go to the trouble of having Medical Powers of Attorney and Living Wills often end up with the partner sitting outside the room, while the hospital staff talks to family. It doesn't always happen, but enough that I don't want to depend on all those legal documents. After all, what's the use of suing the hospital after the fact. You want your loved one with you when you are sick or injured.

It's interesting to me that those same voters voted to increase access to "the evil weed." I would have thought they'd shoot that down, too, as an afterthought.

"After Thought" would imply that they had a first thought.
If they thought about it at all, they would not be voting on basic human rights.

"Did you really think about it before you made the rules?"
Bruce Hornsby

I like the part that talks about the "little guy going up against the big guy, but we prevailed". My research shows that approximately 76% of U>S. citizens consider themselves Christian and 36% of New Englanders are Catholic. The best guess about the percentage of people in the general population who are gay is 10% (many argue it is less than that). So, who is the little guy in this equation?

The "little guy" voted the way his bishop or preacher-man told him to . . .

Apathy – that is the problem. The majority of people in Maine are against same sex marriage. But they were so sure it would never be made into law – so they did not vote.

Which brought on the second vote to veto it – now the minority that lost thinks some big injustice has been done? Nope, the people spoke.

And the people are stupid. Now me, I am big time against the patriot act – huge blow against civil rights. But I am in the minority on that one. Like I said, people are stupid.

The thing about minorities is that, well, they're minorities. Which means majority rule can trample on them any time it wants . . .

Like if you'd put school desegregation to vote in Alabama in the 1950s.

You are right; the minorities always get trampled on. I personally believe everyone does it to a degree – the cynic that I am.

By the way, in the case you cited a local majority got themselves stomped by a notional majority. I am sure the good people of Alabama were not too happy about that. After all, a belief is only wrong if the majority feel that it is wrong.

By the way, we just happen to be living in a time of flux for this particular issue. Jump ahead fifty years and only the grey beards will even care. I wonder who will be Rosa Parks? Or, if this issue will be significant enough to merit one?

Actually, the school integration thing came from the US Supreme Court. Brown v. Board of Education.

the Supreme Court, is ruled by politics and public opinion.

I suspect you weren't around then. The decision was not popular, even in areas where segregated schools weren't mandated by law. I refer you to South Boston, for one example.

"Impeach Earl Warren" became a common bumper sticker.

No, SCOTUS is either applying or interpreting the US Constitution, not bowing to the whims of the people. When interpreting the Constitution, especially in cases the Founders never even considered, they can sometimes stretch it pretty far, but given their lifetime appointments they are free from outside pressure. In the decisions that affect the direction of social law and policy, they seem to be looking at trends in case law and perhaps social mores, but I don't think you could call that "public opinion".

And the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and its add-on in 1968) were DEEPLY unpopular with a lot of US citizens, and were passed with much horse-wrangling by LBJ.

Before my time and I am not well read in the subject.
As always take my opinions/statements with a grain of salt.

But I have to say.
Social mores is just another way of saying public opinion.

I better shut up on the subject before Sharon bans me.

I remember almost the exact same language, word for word, as we're hearing now on same-sex marriage. "Activist judges forcing social change down the people's throats." "Judges *making* law."

A victory for "the little guy?" And he's being serious, isn't he, wow.

And he's being serious, isn't he

Apparently so. Just like the guy at the end of the article -- Reverend Emrich? Who, after letting us know that God gave his side the victory, that now there's work to do; fences to mend; bridges to build.

I'm just really curious how Reverend Emrich and his flock are going to be reaching out and building bridges to people they've just publicly denied are human.

I'm just really curious how Reverend Emrich and his flock are going to be reaching out and building bridges to people they've just publicly denied are human.

Well, a lot of these folks have this idea that gays and lesbians are just, you know, misguided, seeing how homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice" and all that. So, they're probably hoping they can bring these poor lost sheep back into the fold and convince them to go straight so they can experience real marriage.

And yeah, I just seriously squicked myself by typing that. :P

"...with God on our side."

I doubt if Rev. Emrich cares much for Dylan.

And I'm hoping that we don't have to deal with the same stuff in Iowa. Y'know, I'm not sure I'm allowed to have a dog in this fight - we've been married less than 25 years. If it helps, my folks, married well over 50 years, have made it plain in many venues that they think everyone should get to experience the priveleges and pains of marriage.

As my mom said, "So two people of the same sex promising to love and care for one another debases my marriage, but the multiple infidelities before a messy divorce of the neighbors down the street doesn't?"

I lived in Germany for about 10 years. As I understood their system, a couple could choose to have a religious wedding service, but was required to have a civil service to be legally wed. That approach makes sense to me - and would, in my opinion, eliminate the church/state separation issue that currently exists.

The State's legimate interest in marriage (as I understand it) is because of taxes, transfer of property, custody of minor children, the right to make medical decisions for partners, and similar issues. All of those issues could be handled by a civil union - that would apply to EVERYONE, not just same-sex couples. Then couples who want one could have a religious service.

And as a side benefit, think of all the additional fees local governments could collect for performing all those civil ceremonies!

Mary

Ah, but they do. You have to have a marriage license, even for a church wedding, so you have to pay the state for the right to marry. Of course, the license is relatively inexpensive. When my partner and I were looking into flying to CA to get married (before Prop 8), we calculated that the combined cost of license and Justice of the Peace would cost about $170. Plus, of course, the flight to CA, hotel, dress clothes (if we wanted to) and other accoutrements, like buying dinner for our witnesses. Still, I wish we'd done it, even though it has no validity in CO. It was easier in CA, because we have family there.

I wish people would realize that gay rights are about sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews, cousins, grandkids, friends. Not some scary "other."

Not a victory for humanity though. I had such high hopes for the 21st century too.

Jesus Wept

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

continuing the off topic....

no subject

Maine and Virginia, bastions of "right" thinking

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

the people spoke

Re: the people spoke

Where did I put my boots?

Re: Where did I put my boots?

Re: Where did I put my boots?

Re: Where did I put my boots?

Re: Where did I put my boots?

Re: Where did I put my boots?

Brown vs. Board of Education

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Civil vs. Religious Marriage

Re: Civil vs. Religious Marriage

no subject

no subject