Maine votes down gay marriage
Socially liberal Maine rejects a gay marriage initiative — making it the 31st time (out of 31 tries) that voters have torpedoed such proposals.
How long until gay marriage proponents start decrying America’s “climate of hate?”
Maine voters have torpedoed a state law that would have allowed gay couples to marry.
With 84 percent of the precincts reporting, gay-marriage foes had 53 percent of the vote Tuesday.
The outcome amounts to a heartbreaking defeat for the gay rights movement — particularly since it occurred in New England, the corner of the country most supportive of gay marriage.
At issue was a law passed by the Maine Legislature last spring that would have legalized same-sex marriage. The law was put on hold after conservatives launched a petition drive to repeal it in a referendum.
Gay marriage has now lost in every single state — 31 in all — in which it has been put to a popular vote. Gay-rights activists had hoped to buck that trend in Maine.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Proposition 8
Doug Ross @ Journal
» Democrats shocked -- SHOCKED -- that Republicans won't eat the juicy, tender crap sandwich they crafted all on their own
Green Room
» Miss Me Yet? Bush Billboard Mystery SolvedMudville Gazette
» New Standards in JournalismMudville Gazette
» In this case I'm pro-abortionLegal Insurrection
» Huh? Staying On Course is Not Staying the Course?Redstate
» NY Times IPCC Alibi Falls Flat
“Are you serious?”
Yep. I see no one who is hurt by not being able to get married.
It is precisely at that point that folks who are pushing for gay marriage lose folks. Acting as if they are as “hurt” as blacks who fought for civil rights, etc.
My niece is gay. Been in long term relationship with a great person for some time. My niece just had their baby and did so with her partner’s egg. All very cool. Baby sit as often as I can. They are not hurt in any way because they can’t get married. They don’t walk around all day in pain because they can’t be legally married.
Not ever. And we’ve talked openly about it I can assure you as I care for both of them deeply as does my whole family.
At our last weekend together she actually started to understand why conservativism is their best shot at being able to have legal standing and get the State out of their personal affairs. She started to unwind the liberal propaganda about conservatives and listen. And she got it.
However they are not hurt in any way.
jsmiddleton:
Look, you support gay marriage right?
Can we please not play the semantics game? When I said hurt I don’t mean nessecarily in physical or emotional pain. I mean losing out on benefits and treated differently. That’s enough.
Junior is hungry… later all.
One more thing. jsmiddleton: the thing you call conservatism is really more like what is called libertarianism.
The word conservative is associated with the right-wing today and, as evidenced by this board and elsewhere, they are very much against gay marriage.
Anyhow, I don’t like labels, me with my pro-capitalist, pro-defense, socially liberal views.
…coming son… sorry, it’s just that Someone Is Wrong on the Internet.
“It’s about evidence. Why can’t you understand this?”
I understand perfectly. Faith is about evidence. Faith is not wishful thinking. Faith is based on evidence. Faith says I have SOME of the evidence but not ALL. I can not say I have proof positive. And in your own admission neither can you.
So you conduct your day with not having all the evidence to be 100% certain BUT you act as if your point of view, your atheism, is reality, is correct.
That sir is faith.
As an atheist you live by faith.
If you want to call it making judgments, ok. Call it what you want. But it is 100% exactly what “faith” looks like.
We know some but not all. Based on the some we know, we trust and believe that the rest is true.
As Paul would say:
1 Corinthians 13:12
Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
God can put an infinite number of peanuts and an infinite number of raisins into a bag of infinite volume. And God can call this infinite number of peanuts and raisins in a bag of infinite volume “trail mix”, but, good sirs, it ain’t trail mix.
“conservatism is really more like what is called libertarianism.”
Nope. Share ideas? Sure. Very different.
“The word conservative is associated with the right-wing today and, as evidenced by this board and elsewhere, they are very much against gay marriage.”
Again nope. Some conservatives are. Sure. And for some of those folks have they mixed their conservative theology and church affiliation with their conservative politics? You bet. Are the two one and the same? Nope.
All one needs do is look at our founders. Generally “Christian” in nature? Yes. Wide range of that including Jefferson’s theism? You bet.
Did laws and form of the government they established keep the two separate?
Yes.
As can I.
Being conservative politically does not equal anti-gay marriage. At least it doesn’t have to.
Will we ever get how the two, conservative theologically and conservative political, clean and distinct? Not a chance.
That does not also then mean the best opportunity folks who are gay and would like the joys of being legally married is a conservative political philosophy.
Smaller, cheaper, less invasive government is their best hope.
jsmiddleton:
By that defintion everything is faith based. I have faith that the moon is not made of cheese (for example).
To try and pretend that those kinds of beliefs are on equal footing with (for example) the belief that the creator of the universe made himself mortal and tortured and sacrificed himself to himself for the purposes of forgiving the transgressoins of our ancient ancestors (who were metaphorical) is absolute and total nonsense.
Thanks jed, now I’m hungry.
“By that defintion everything is faith based.”
Yep and so?
jsmiddleton:
Oh jesus, if you want to redefine words go right ahead. Anyone with any sense realizes where the right-wing stands on gay marriage.
As I said, unfalsifiable religious claims are not on equal footing with other claims that are falsifiable.
“kinds of beliefs are on equal footing”
You keep coming back to the idea that they have to be equal and if not equal then you don’t have them. You don’t have as many truths in your dogma so you don’t have any dogma, etc.
That is flawed and means nothing.
Not having as many nor having “equal” set of beliefs does not mean you don’t have them. In fact it is an admission that you do.
You have them, they just aren’t the same.
Well ok. They aren’t exactly the same. But you still have them. Yes?
“if you want to redefine words”
Who redefined any words?
“unfalsifiable religious claims”
Huh?
When I did I make an unfalsifiable religious claim?
That is not what I said. You are fudging the definition of “belief” so you can classify atheism as a religion. It’s nonsense and an old tactic.
Do you know what unfalsifiable means? The modern Christian idea of god itself qualifies.
If you want to pretend that “true” conservatism involves support for gay marriage, fine. Let’s see you convince the other posters here.
“Atheism the religion of having no religion”
“Non-stamp collecting the hobby of having no hobby.”
“Non-Yankees fan, the sports fan who isn’t a sports fan.”
It’s stupid.
“Do you know what unfalsifiable means?”
Yes. I didn’t ask you what it meant. I asked you where I made one.
I defined faith and demonstrated how in your atheism you are a man of faith.
I made no claim about God existing or not.
“If you want to pretend that “true” conservatism involves support for gay marriage, fine.”
Didn’t say that. Conservative gets to “its none of my business”.
Best example I can point you to is Barry Goldwater and how he got to his being ok with gays in the military.
I personal do not support gay marriage. I am quite certain the Bible speaks against homosexuality. Also am quite certain that I am one among when it comes to sin and sinners and am no better than anyone else.
However when it comes to how I want government to look as a conservative, “its none of my business” is very much an outgrowth of conservative ideals and not libertarian.
Unless you think Sen. Goldwater was not a conservative.
Also zero man of faith “its none of my business” gets one easily to all marriages can be as far as the State is concerned be considered civil. After that you add to whatever “marriage” means for you with ceremonies, jump roping, frisbee flinging at a mosque, synagogue, bowling alley or church, etc., as you see fit. Cause after the civil piece is taken care of, hey, “its none of my business”……..
Since jed made me hungry I do need to eat but you do know the other way to phrase “its none of my business” right oh zero man of faith?
It goes like this….
“life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness….”
jsmiddleton:
Atheism is the lack of believe in any deities. It is also unfalsifiable, but so is the lack of belief in dragons and fairies.
It’s still not a religion.
So you don’t believe in god now?
I quoted Goldwater to you pages ago, here he is again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater
He would not have called himself a “conservative” today.
I agree with the founding principles and can appriciate a reference to Spinoza’s Pantheism without getting my feather’s ruffled.
“A few years before his death”
Yes. However his position regarding gays in the military and the “none of my business” position was long before his last few years.
“So you don’t believe in god now?”
Given that has nothing to do with what your were asked or claimed I’ll take that response as a dodge or diversion on your part.
Atheism is a belief system and zero you are a man of faith.
Apparently that offends your sense of reason.
jsmiddleton4:
Not at all, it just offends my sense of the English language, that, and it’s stupid.
Zero, I’m not going to rehash past debates, (on this thread and many others) but I am curious. At some point in the past the Spureme Court either cited or defined Secular Humanism.
Would this wiki definition describe your basic position? Or would you describe your own worldview differently? Again, it’s not a jab, but a sincere question.
Showard:
The definition of Secular Humanism is pretty vague IMHO. Basically, it boils down to being a moral person in your particular society without a god.
I was a member of a local secular humanist group. I let my membership expire some time ago. That particular group that I was a member of was defined legally as an educational organization (not a religious organization) for the purposes of taxes.
I can’t believe this thread is still going..Oh wait, Zero is commenting…never mind.
Misscheryl:
I doubt you could manage to keep up anyway. Don’t you have some praying to do?
Pray without ceasing..
You are correct again. No way I could keep up.
Misscheryl:
It would benefit you to watch this. It might help you with your earlier questions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1m4mATYoig
Zero – I don’t believe I told you what my beliefs regarding evolution were.
Misscheryl:
I was refering to your misunderstanding of the way scientists use the word “theory.” Coyne covers that right up front.
These 700+ comment discussions are an easy to way to get in some aerobic exercise, MissCheryl. An elevated heart rate for 20 minutes without the need for heavy physical exertion.
=]
Zero – it’s all vanity.
Jeddite
Misscheryl:
I am pointing you straight toward a source that will clear up your ignorance and answer your earlier question. It’s one thing to be ignorant, it’s quite another to be willfully so.
I don’t know anything about that Zero…
Well, I thought the article itself was pretty specific, although if you don’t sgree with what it says, okay. The tenets listed some things that I believe sounded like ideas you’ve previously espoused, which is why I thought it might come close to your perspective.
I do agree the case law cited isn’t terribly specific as to what the courts think it is.
Just wondering. Thanks for looking.
And then, this group retardation starts.
And then, there’s this. =]
SHoward:
The wiki article might have been specific, but the ways people who call themselves Secular Humanists define themselves can be pretty different. The tenets there are pretty good though and I would say you don’t have to be an atheist to be a Secular Humanist, or at least agree with those tenets. I like those tenets listed on wiki, I should mention though, the particular local group I had belonged to tacked on one or two additional tenets than sounded a bit pacifist for me.
Thank you for your polite demeanor.
ZA -
I agree about the tenets. I saw nothing I would call ‘atheist’ about them.
As for gay marriage, Jeddite points out another MM post about what the lefties like to do when they lose. It was similar here in the People’s Republik of Kalifornia-satn when prop 8 passed. Only here they have only themselves to blame. This state (CA) is moving in that direction on gay marriage, and same-sex supporters sat back assuming the election would go their way. They didn’t campaign well, and the right campaigned rather well to pass it. It is more political strategy and tactics than actual sentiment in our case.
Earlier you made an interesting reply to my question for Chap: that the state should not be involved in marriage definition at all, for anyone. That should most certainly be true for the feds, but I think the state has some place in it due to the contractual nature of a marriage. As for defining what constitutes a “marriage,” I do believe it falls ot the people of a particular state to be able to decide. Some states evidently want to allow same-sex marriage, for example, and apparently quite a few don’t. What ever happened to going where you can do what you want? That might be a simplistic view on my part, but isn’t that literally what our founders did?
I forgot -
Go Thread, Go!
Showard:
It should go without saying that I don’t support the actions of violent radicals on this issue. I would support violence, if, for example, gays were being systemically and violently attacked by the government (or at least the government ignores the attacks by citizens). That isn’t the case, obviously.
I would say that I can understand why the state would want to get involved in defining unions. I just think that they shouldn’t call it marriage for anyone. That word seems to be such a big deal, just don’t use it. Everyone (homosexual, hetero) gets a “civil union.”
As far as letting some states having same-sex and some not (but having unions for heteros) no, I do not agree. It is simply unfair and wrong. The founders might agree with you, but then again, they might also agree that women should not be allowed to vote and slavery is not so bad that it should be illegal in all states.
ZA -
I agree with paragraph 1 easily. And I see your point in paragraph 2. I’m not certain if I agree or disagree at present, but I’ll probably keep it in mind.
As for paragraph 3, I think the founders were looking at each state as a separate nation, with the federal government working more like (and this hurts me to say) a labor union, doing our collective bargaining with the rest of the world. I think they viewed slavery, women’s rights, etc. as something each individual state had to contend with on it’s own.
One thing to keep in mind about who’s to decide about what’s fair or not in a given state, if the voters are split (evenly or not), we know at least some people are going to feel unfairly treated. How would we reconcile this? What if the opponents of gay marriage wanted to go to a state that didn’t allow it? (i.e. move the complainers.) Could they do that if there were no states to go to that dis-allowed gay marriage? I know there may be no apparent reason to feel wronged by gay marriage if you are straight, but at present we must say that we do not know the long-term effects of gay marriage on a society. Yeah, it it likely to be pretty small, but does that mean we simply shouldn’t worry about it?
I will say, from my own experiences with TV and radio, the anti-Referendum 71 ads here in Washington were, I would guestimate, aired 4-1 compared to the pro-Referendum 71 ads. This is mostly anecdotal testimony since I do not know (nor am I particularly interested in) how much either side really spent on their campaigns.
The pro-Refendeum 71 ads tend to be the same thing: “dont take away our rights/union/marriage”. It’s an emotional appeal, yes, but… that’s about it. There were, to the best of my recollection, zero ads ever trying to refute the anti-Referendum 71 ads.
Then again, I’m probably in the gay-minority that thinks elementary school kids should not be exposured to such obvious, such vapid propaganda as “Heather Has 2 Mommies” or “Prince & Prince” books. That such things even exist is nauseating.
grumblehorse
I guess gays will have to come up with some other way to enable themselves to feel less guilty about their lifestyle choices.
Showard:
Maybe, but whatever the founders thought it is not what the US is today. Personally, I think that’s a good thing. I think it would be insane to have some states allow women voters and some not.
Your last para is talking about accomadating what I view as discrimination. I see what you are saying, but I think it’s terrible. No, I would not have suggest that we accomodate these views anymore than I think one should accomodate the idea that women shouldn’t vote.
Showard:
Also, I am not concerned about small social upheaval over the short or long term when it comes to obvious and blatant discrimination.
ZA -
Thanks for the response. I can agree that things often must change, and generally I also agree it has been for the better. Just remember, some people will still want to choose to live where gay marriage is not allowed. Assuming there are no more empty continents to go to, where does that leave them?
Jeddite –
That’s sort of the extent of the anti-prop 8 ads in CA. As for the pro-prop 8 ads, all they had to do was replay Gavin Newsome saying (imagine a swaggering tone and condescending grin) “It’s gonna happen, whether ya like it or not!”
Apparently, just enough people decided they didn’t. If Newsome had kept his mouth shut, I think prop 8 would have lost. There were other factors, but yes, it was that close.
Don’t feel guilty at all as there is nothing to feel guilty for, but thanks!
But I’m just one sinner among hundreds of millions. Guilt shmuilt.
Showard:
Turkey?
ZA -
Oddly, that’s both funny and a real possibility for some people (maybe not Turkey in particular). Not that they would over gay marriage, but there are people fleeing our country for various economic reasons, having to do with leftist encroachment on capitalism.
Wow, 751 comments.
What did I miss while internet-deprived in Indiana?
Searching for my Kingfish.
He should have been here for me….
And regardless of the number of indivduals in this union, right? After all, I’m sure you can agree that hopefully we can get past this narrow-minded, religion-based, discriminatory notion of unions consisting of only two persons.
Wow Blackstone. You really need to read the whole thread.
OK, so you’re in favor of legalizing polygamy. So the issue here isn’t “unions”, it’s simply contracts. You’re saying (if I’m reading you correctly) that people should simply be able to contract in whatever way they please, and the state shouldn’t give any special recognition to it over and above any other kind of contract.
It’s a fairly respectably point for debate, but that’s taking things in quite a different direction from what Maine and other state legislatures and courts have tried to do. I think it would be perfectly logically consistent to vote in favor of that idea, but still reject the kind of gay marriage initiative that the Maine legislature proposed.
Blackstone:
I am glad I checked back here. You went back and read through all that? Mad props for doing that.
I am just so impressed I think I’ll just pass on commenting further. Well done. Really. …and thank you for actually reading all that.
Actually all I did was a word search on “polygamy”. Hope I didn’t shatter your image of me.
(hey, that rhymes, almost)
All enthusiasts for same-sex “marriage” should be called on the carpet to declare up front whether or not they support the agenda of Feldblum et al. If they don’t, they should be expected to explain, loudly and clearly, why they’re in favor of such “discrimination”, despite their supposedly deeply held liberal convictions.
And if they do, they should have to be loud and clear about that as well. No more stealth and coyness.