Maine Same-Sex Marriage Referendum

[Plyco678]

I am from Maine, and this year's ballot will include a referendum to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. I will word it exactly as will be on the ballot. Obviously not all are from Maine, so just vote as you would in your own state, province, whatever. The forum could also discuss recent issues pertaining to same-sex marriage in their respective locations here, as well as the politics and philosophy of the issue itself.

[s.rwitt]

It shouldn't even have to go to referendum. If the government is going to be involved in marriage, there's no sense whatsoever in basing government approval on gender.

[motiv-8]

It shouldn't even have to go to referendum. If the government is going to be involved in marriage, there's no sense whatsoever in basing government approval on gender.

in a that is a rational position, and as such has no place in this discussion.

BTW this referendum happened once before, in 2009, after the Maine legislature passed, and the governor signed, a law legalizing same-sex marriage. The referendum repealed the law by a vote of 53-47 percent. Early polling this year has it succeeding by roughly the same percentage.

My dad is going to vote so hard against this, and then rage on Facebook when it passes.

[Phier]

It shouldn't even have to go to referendum. If the government is going to be involved in marriage, there's no sense whatsoever in basing government approval on gender.

Unisex bathrooms for everyone!

It would be awful of course, women are pigs in bathrooms from the horror stories I have heard.

While I don't think the government should play a large role in marriage, I don't see why it has to ignore gender if it does.

[s.rwitt]

Unisex bathrooms for everyone!

It would be awful of course, women are pigs in bathrooms from the horror stories I have heard.

While I don't think the government should play a large role in marriage, I don't see why it has to ignore gender if it does.

Because there is literally no justification outside of religion for preventing marriage between two consenting adults due to something as meaningless to the subject as gender.

[Phier]

Because there is literally no justification outside of religion for preventing marriage between two consenting adults due to something as meaningless to the subject as gender.

Marriage laws were established for having and raising children and to protect the mothers who would be staying at home from being helpless in divorce.

This ever so important issue could be fairly solved by taking said "benefits" from any couples without children.

It would be a hilarious political crapstorm but it would be fair and consistent.

But fun aside, there is nothing "wrong" with defining marriage based on gender. Race and gender play a big part in a lot of government rules after all.

Its been done to death but why limit it at 2 consenting adults? I happen to know a "Poly" triad, should they not be married? Why 2? Sooner or later you draw a line where someone says "hey thats not fair!" If you can't define it based on gender, you can't define it based on number either.

Imagine where we could be if the government only focused on things like infrastructure, public health, defense and foreign policy.

Surely you jest. Abortion, homosexuals, and taking as much money from people as possible are the only things that matter.

[lemondude]

why does anyone care what other people does?

Even assuming the bible is true, big if here (not here to discuss this), it would be the gay person going to hell not you, so why do these Christians care.

People in America cares about the weirdest things. Economy going down the drain, but don't you dare approve marriages for gays.

[Fluttershy]

Maine better vote yes, they are already the backwards New England state

GET WITH THE TIMES!

[Admiral Piett]

Why even bother starting a poll? XD

[truth1337]

Same sex marriage is absurd since marriage is a fertility ritual.

I have no problem with homosexuals pretending they can have offspring, but no church can be forced to take part in such insanity which ridicules the solemn and holy - even in scientific and atheistic terms - union in the flesh with the intent of having children together. There is no "right" of homosexuals to pretend they can have offspring together, and ridicule this holy union, by calling themselves "married" - and if homosexuals at large are allowed to marry, then the value of marriage will be undermined and turned into a sexual union, rather than a union of love (i.e. desire to have children together).

The idea of "gay marriage" is an attack on our culture done by certain interest groups who hate our culture and our freedom, and will only result in those who truly wish to marry - in the real sense of the word - will be forced to get a new word, and a new set of rituals, to fulfill their desire for a celebration with their friends over their desire to unite in the flesh with the intent of having offspring together.

And before anyone brings up heterosexual couples who can't have children, yes it is weird for them too to go through the fertility ritual of marriage if they already know they're infertile, which is why the marriage ritual should be done BEFORE starting to attempt to have children and if failing to do so investigate why. But with two of the same sex, even without any investigation, it is clear from the start that it will never be a union of love (i.e. desire to have children together) and fertility.

[mishkin]

Same sex marriage is absurd since marriage is a fertility ritual.

a childless marriage is stupid?

I have no problem with homosexuals pretending they can have offspring, but no church can be forced to take part in such insanity which ridicules the solemn and holy - even in scientific and atheistic terms - union in the flesh with the intent of having children together. There is no "right" of homosexuals to pretend they can have offspring together, and ridicule this holy union, by calling themselves "married" - and if homosexuals at large are allowed to marry, then the value of marriage will be undermined and turned into a sexual union, rather than a union of love (i.e. desire to have children together).

do you know that marriage can be civil/nonreligious?
why the value of marriage will be undermined? another marriage can affect your own marriage? if there is violence or sexual abuse in a marriage, that affect your own marriage?

The idea of "gay marriage" is an attack on our culture done by certain interest groups who hate our culture and our freedom, and will only result in those who truly wish to marry - in the real sense of the word - will be forced to get a new word, and a new set of rituals, to fulfill their desire for a celebration with their friends over their desire to unite in the flesh with the intent of having offspring together.

You are talking here about the jewish marxists, right?

And before anyone brings up heterosexual couples who can't have children, yes it is weird for them too to go through the fertility ritual of marriage if they already know they're infertile, which is why the marriage ritual should be done BEFORE starting to attempt to have children and if failing to do so investigate why. But with two of the same sex, even without any investigation, it is clear from the start that it will never be a union of love (i.e. desire to have children together) and fertility.

people who can not have children should not formalize their relationship through marriage?

truth: a post so long to say so little? They can not get married because they can not have "natural" sons?
What about confidence, respect, the will of a future together and love between two persons?

[Admiral Piett]

How does one go from state recognition of marriages to forcing churches to marry gays? It's absurd the amount of leap-frogging that kind of logic is. Church recognition of marriage is not, and never has been, the issue. It's state recognition and the church has no say so.

[truth1337]

How does one go from state recognition of marriages to forcing churches to marry gays? It's absurd the amount of leap-frogging that kind of logic is. Church recognition of marriage is not, and never has been, the issue. It's state recognition and the church has no say so.

There are, unfortunately, countries where the church is being forced to perform marriage of homosexuals. Other countries are in the process of being exposed to media propaganda to gradually "be taught" into accepting it.

Even so, it would be far more diplomatic if homosexuals would choose to call their act something else, as the use of "marriage" is an insult and a ridicule of the fertility ritual of marriage. It could come with the same juridical rules, but the term marriage is and should always be reserved to the holy fertile union between man and woman.

a childless marriage is stupid?

Why marry if you don't love the person, i.e. want to have children with him/her?

why the value of marriage will be undermined? another marriage can affect your own marriage?

If you buy a ferrari, you want to be the cool guy in the sports car right? Then what if the bums in your neighborhood somehow manage to get ferraris too? If society suddenly changes the meaning of marriage in general to be meaningless, it will be necessary for you to make some new stronger wow which DOES have the meaning you intended. Marriage is already harmed by the disgusting people who marry without being certain that they can manage to be together forever - you should not marry until you love someone that much. Every single divorce helps ridicule and undermine the solemnity of the institution of marriage.

What about confidence, respect, the will of a future together and love between two persons?

That's an oxymoron - you can't love someone if you don't want to have children with them. They are attracted sexually, I suppose, or want to be friends forever - seems weird to go through a fertility ritual to promise they want to be friends forever and have buttsex. If they also get divorced after a while they've ridiculed and spat upon the marriage fertility ritual twofold. Why be so obsessed with making fun of the fertility ritual of heterosexuals that you have to demand the "right" to call it marriage when all you do is promise someone buttsex?

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

A blood pact where you cut your arms and trade blood would be more romantic than a wedding in a church of lies....
How come America does not have the same rule in every state why do you do things differently in each state or county?

[Imperial]

How come America does not have the same rule in every state why do you do things differently in each state or county?

It's called federalism. And IMO, the only way social issues like gay marriage and abortion should be handled.

[Dr. Croccer]

It's called federalism. And IMO, the only way social issues like gay marriage and abortion should be handled.

They're not 'social issues', they're actions done by individuals that don't have any impact on anyone else's lives. It's absurd that this is even subjected to referendum when it's about basic rights that at best concern only private institutions that perform them (like the churches themselves) outside of the people that do it.

[Aymer de Valence]

Disgusting proposal, NO.

[♖The Balkan Sobranie♖]

Disgusting proposal, NO.

Hear, hear!

[Randompigeon]

I take the view if they want the rights which marriage they can have them in a 'civil partnership' or some other fancy word, if they want to call it marriage, fine I don't really mind. But I hope they don't think that the Church will allow them to do it in their churches, because they won't it goes against their beliefs. so yeah go ahead, want to do it in a church you can try and i wish you all the luck but I'm not holding my breath for it.

[Adamat]

I don't see why gays should not be able to marry.