Gay marriage rejected in Maine

posted at 9:30 am on November 4, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

In a mild surprise, a measure that would have legalized gay marriage in Maine has lost by about five and a half points.  The measure had the backing of most of Maine’s political class, a clear fundraising lead, and a network of national activists hoping to provide a counterpoint to California’s Proposition 8 defeat.  Instead, voters in Maine essentially ratified California’s result:

The stars seemed aligned for supporters of gay marriage. They had Maine’s governor, legislative leaders and major newspapers on their side, plus a huge edge in campaign funding. So losing a landmark referendum was a devastating blow, for activists in Maine and nationwide.

In an election that had been billed for weeks as too close to call, Maine’s often unpredictable voters repealed a state law Tuesday that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed. Gay marriage has now lost in all 31 states in which it has been put to a popular vote — a trend that the gay-rights movement had believed it could end in Maine.

“Today’s heartbreaking defeat unfortunately shows that lies and fear can still win at the ballot box,” said Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

With 87 percent of the precincts reporting, gay-marriage foes had 53 percent of the vote. They prevailed in many of Maine’s far-flung small towns and lost by a less-than-expected margin in the state’s biggest city, Portland.

“The institution of marriage has been preserved in Maine and across the nation,” declared Frank Schubert, chief organizer for the winning side.

The recognition of marriage is a legitimate public policy question, one that should be decided through either the legislature or by direct vote in referendums.  No one has proposed any law to ban gay relationships, and the law should not interfere with consenting, non-sanguinary adults in creating legal partnerships for property, access, and so on — the incidentals of long-term relationships.  But the people of the states have the right to determine what relationships qualify for state recognition as marriage.

Californians did so with Proposition 8, and have been attacked ever since for their decision.  One wonders if the advocates for this measure will alienate Maine voters post-election in the same manner they have done with Californians.  Having lost that election by a wide margin, they proceeded to insult Californians and sue the state for all sorts of intrusive searches of records on the referendum.  It hardly builds sympathy for a later try on the measure, and made the entire idea look more radical than it was — which certainly couldn’t have helped in Maine.

As far as protecting the “institution of marriage,” though, the states gave up on that decades ago with no-fault divorce.  Marriage is the only contract that one partner can abrogate without penalty.  People would be better protected by partnership contracts, where property and child access would be decided and agreed long before problems appeared in the relationship, and leave marriage to the churches, which are much better suited to protect the institution.  Divorce is a much bigger danger to marriage than gay marriage ever will be, and the dissolution of the nuclear family a much bigger threat to the fabric of society than gays and lesbians living together.  Everyone would be better off with government out of the bedroom and the chapel — and so would marriage.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8

But there’s nothing in the Bible that says polygamy is a far out idea or a deviancy.

Conservative Samizdat on November 5, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Ah. That which is not expressly prohibited, is therefore acceptable. Just the kind of thinking my children used when younger.

In other words, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wives

unclesmrgol on November 5, 2009 at 11:21 AM

or, rather (to correct punctuation),

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wives.

unclesmrgol on November 5, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Thus, I’m curious how or when the scriptural practice of polygamy become a deviancy? Is there biblical support for that?

Conservative Samizdat on November 5, 2009 at 10:55 AM

I don’t think I suggested that polygamy is regarded as a deviancy by Scripture. If I implied that I apologize as it was not my intent.

Although I think the case can and has been made against it. I think Deuteronomy 17:17; Leviticus 18:18; Malachi 2:14; Malachi 2:15; Matthew 19:4; Matthew 19:5 and Mark 10, among others have been used to argue against polygamy. I’m sure someone better versed than I in that subject could come up with a more effective argument based on scripture, but I’m not really qualified to make that argument.

Regardless of biblical issues, polygamy IS regarded as a deviancy by our society, hence it’s illegality in all 50 states and thus it’s inclusion in my argument.

I hope that clarifies my position a bit.

wearyman on November 5, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Conservative Samizdat on November 5, 2009 at 11:13 AM

I’m not talking about the Bible, I’m talking about society.

MadisonConservative on November 5, 2009 at 11:39 AM

For those tuning in late, this thread can be summarized thusly: Lots of argument over bible passages, lots of cries of bigotry by gays (not a surprise), and lots of unanswered questions the gay rights supporters just “miss” in the comments.

Questions like: What makes gay love so special that they must be granted marriage but polygamy in no way cannot?

Why do gay marriage advocates refuse to guarantee freedom for religions?

Which religion are the gays going to assault for this “crime” of losing in Maine? Oh, that one has been answered–it ain’t Muslims!

Just why should we change the definition of marriage from a family support system to a “whomever I love” system?

Why isn’t civil unions enough?

Those kind of questions are ignored, or answered along the lines of “Yeah, gay marriage WILL lead to polygamy.” At least those posters are honest.

Vanceone on November 5, 2009 at 11:44 AM

I hope that clarifies my position a bit.

wearyman on November 5, 2009 at 11:29 AM

I appreciate the clarification because I wasn’t sure if you were implying that it was regarded as a deviancy by Scripture.

I would agree with you that polygamy is regarded as a deviancy by our society and has been declared illegal by state and Constitutional law.

However, as for the idea of the Bible making a case against polygamy…I can see how both sides can argue that it does or doesn’t. As I pointed out before, there are some Christians who feel its biblically justified and there are others who don’t.

I understand that mainstream Christianity feels that the Bible forbids polygamy but there is a segment of Christianity (as well as other faiths) who don’t think God ever forbade that practice.

It appears that one could have a good debate on whether or not the Bible endorses or forbids polygamy.

Conservative Samizdat on November 5, 2009 at 11:45 AM

Vanceone on November 5, 2009 at 11:44 AM

I’ll answer for myself…
What makes gay love so special that they must be granted marriage but polygamy in no way cannot?
The same reasons why two consenting hetero couples are granted marriage. Protection under the law to protect shared assets/benefits. No one who supports the rights of same sex couples to benefits from the contract of marriage is suggesting “anything goes”…
Why do gay marriage advocates refuse to guarantee freedom for religions?
Religions can recognize whatever “marriage” they so chose. No one is saying they are for forcing churches to marry same sex couples.
Which religion are the gays going to assault for this “crime” of losing in Maine? Oh, that one has been answered–it ain’t Muslims!
I do not support such actions, never have..

Just why should we change the definition of marriage from a family support system to a “whomever I love” system?
No one is asking the government to redefine anything, just give same sex couples the same legal rights as hetero couples. Marriage is a contract and should only be viewed as such by government.

Why isn’t civil unions enough?

Civil unions should be enough for EVERYONE, kinda the point Ed was making.

Just my opinions.

lostinjrz on November 5, 2009 at 11:56 AM

Trent1289 on November 5, 2009 at 10:28 AM

Regarding the “Born That Way” argument, I suggest you spend some time reading up on it here. Specifically the articles found here.

Homosexuality is in NO WAY a genetically oriented disorder, but a sociological and psychological disorder that IS TREATABLE. Many people have been treated effectively for homosexuality deviancy and gone on to live normal healthy lives. The problem is that doesn’t fit “The message” for gay rights supporting far leftists and thus doesn’t ever get reported. But the scientific proof is there.

1) First of all you are mis-stating what I said. I never stated the Homosexuality “Felled” a society all by itself. (Unless you count Sodom and Gomorrah as an example. I’m willing to lay that one aside though.) However is IS one factor in the overall decline of a society.

Behold the Romans; Homosexuality was regarded as perverse and homosexuals were hounded out of society in Rome’s early years. As time went on, homosexuality (and other social ills) were slowly allowed into Roman society, Democracy was lost to Empiric Tyranny, and finally some silk-robed bastard let the barbarians in and Rome was sacked.

Obviously that’s a simplification for internet forum posting’s sake, but the larger point is still whole: Acceptance of Homosexuality as normal is a part of an overall social decline. One could argue whether it’s a cause or a symptom, but nevertheless it is still there. Denying it just makes one look foolish or agenda compromised.

2) I agree. Government doesn’t get to decide what is in any one individual’s best interests. However, Society as a whole DOES get to decide what is in it’s best interests, and this is often (and currently) done via the mechanism of law. Hence laws against Murder, Theft, Extortion, etc. (Note: That is NOT an equivalence argument! Merely an example of other things society regards as not in it’s best interests to allow.) Society is best served when homosexuality is marginalized, and not accepted as “normal” or given sanction through law.

3) Again hiding behind “Oh yeah, well citation needed!” this isn’t a wikipedia article. No citation is needed for what can clearly be seen in news stories and internet forums when the topic of “gay rights” and “gay marriage’ comes up. One would have to be blind to not see the naked hate many homosexuals have for Christianity and traditional American values.

Of course, the fact that MANY gays are leftists also helps that along. I think we can all agree that the far left has been set on the destruction of traditional America for decades now.

4) Now you aren’t even addressing my point and just wandering off into random nonsense. there is an obvious legal precedent issue with allowing Homosexuals the pretend right to marry each other. If you aren’t seeing that then you aren’t paying attention or are simply ignoring it as inconvenient. Alternately, since you have apparently swallowed the “born that way” propaganda, you honestly think that it is a civil rights issue and not a sociological or medical one.

I think that is the core of our disagreement. If one swallows the lie of “Born That Way” the entire argument changes to one of “rights”, which is exactly what the “gay rights” radicals want. if it’s a rights issue, then one can draw parallels to Brown and Loving and the entire civil rights struggle.

If one recognizes the truth that homosexuality is a treatable disorder, then all the “civil rights” based arguments fall apart as the nonsense they are. How can it be a civil right to have and act upon a psychological disorder? Obviously it cannot be. Thus it becomes an issue of “what is best for society as a whole?” and then the answer is obvious: Homosexuality is deviant and unhealthy behavior that deserves our pity and willingness to treat, but NOT indulgence and certainly not special rights.

wearyman on November 5, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Lostinjrz, thanks for taking them on. Now, let’s look at your answers. You said no one is suggesting anything goes. My question is, how do you draw that line? Let’s say in our new, grand sexually tolerant, gays are married state, what argument are you telling the judge when Mohammed and his three wives are demanding polygamy, based on the fact they all love each other and it’s only bigotry keeping them away from marriage? What legal argument do you make? Why shouldn’t they get “protection under the law for shared assets/benefits?”

You say no one is arguing religions should be forced to marry same sex couples. What about religions being forced to employ them? Offer benefits to them? Allow samesex couples access to their tax-exempt property? Losing their tax exempt status because they are “discrimiting?” Throwing the preachers in jail for practicing “hate speech?” Forbidding churches access to public property a la the Boy Scouts because they are a “discriminating organization?” Destroying people’s business’ because they happen to support regular marriage? All of that has happened or is happening in the US or other “enlightened” countries such as Canada. Gays may not “force” a priest to marry gay couples, but they sure as heck want to restrict anything said priest can do, like adoptions.

Glad you don’t support burning down churches for not marrying gays. What are you doing about all the gay activists who do? What steps are you taking to make sure your cherished gay rights movement doesn’t harm others? Like beating up old ladies with crosses because they “deserve it” as JetBoy holds? I might not need to worry about you; what about all your fellow travelers? You saying I don’t need to worry about them? I’m Mormon; my faith has nothing to fear from Gay activists? Fellow Mormons have nothing to fear? riiiiiight.

You don’t get it on the whole redefining marriage: marriage is meant as a family support system. A method to raise children and support people. Gays don’t argue that they are doing that, they want marriage because “We love each other!” That’s not the point of marriage, just because you love someone. It’s to provide a stable, protective environment to raise a family. Secondarily it is to allow two to become one. Gays ignore the first part, or else claim they can raise kids too. Um, no.

Why isn’t civil unions enough? You think so, so why are you upset that Maine banned gay marriages? I believe they still have civil unions. Why do you care?

Vanceone on November 5, 2009 at 12:49 PM

You shouldn’t have to accept gay people or their marriages. I don’t know of anyone who accepts every straight marriages, many of which are disasters from the start and end quickly. Speech and religious freedom function well when we support the right but not the content of its exercise.

If people make dumb choices in speech, religion or marriage so be it. They are free do so and everyone is free to ignore them.

dedalus on November 4, 2009 at 5:49 PM

I’m not really talking about my acceptance of this behavior so much as I mean to point out the advantage that the govt has in supporting marriage between opposite sexes bcs that is the foundation of the family unit.
Like it or not, in nature, in regards to the human species, man & woman together have baby & together they raise baby.
No one is stopping homosexuals from getting together.
But they shouldn’t be given the status of marriage as that should be reserved for the upholding of the FAMILY (man-woman-children).

Badger40 on November 5, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Vanceone on November 5, 2009 at 12:49 PM

Bravo. Well said, from one fellow LDS to another.

Badger40 on November 5, 2009 at 1:14 PM

I have to correct my remark about JetBoy and his “people deserve it” that I accused him of. He doesn’t really believe that, as I recall. Rather, his attitude is that if you don’t want to be assaulted by gays, don’t oppose or be near them when they want something. In other words, shut up or it’s your own fault when the gay movement bullies, well, bully you. That’s a more accurate statement of JetBoy’s position. How that is supposed to reassure critics of gay marriage that there is nothing to fear from the gay movement is beyond me, though.

One more question: Why can’t gays keep it in their pants, like we expect people attracted to children to do? Or how we expect people, once married, to stay committed (except for hollywood and Democrat politicians, I acknowledge)?

In short, why do gays demand that we celebrate that they cannot control their urges and are no more than animals? Isn’t that the basic “I’m born that way” argument–that because their DNA “makes them that way” that it’s an excuse and they should do whatever their genes tell them to do?

Where’s the free will here? If gays are nothing more than animals and absolutely cannot control themselves… why shouldn’t we treat them as animals, is my question?

Vanceone on November 5, 2009 at 1:34 PM

Chris_Balsz on November 4, 2009 at 9:24 PM
Wow…say again?

CWforFreedom on November 4, 2009 at 9:33 PM

The modern theory that biology imposes the five genders on people, but frequency and intensity of commitment to sexual partners is just cultural choice, is the bunk. I’m saying it’s all choice.

Chris_Balsz on November 5, 2009 at 1:37 PM

Why isn’t civil unions enough?

Vanceone on November 5, 2009 at 12:49 PM

Why weren’t separate drinking fountains enough?

Nonfactor on November 5, 2009 at 2:14 PM

Badger40 on November 5, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Fair enough. I was just thinking through the “acceptance” consideration, and don’t believe that marriage means that gays will be accepted by everyone, nor should it. Just because someone has the legal right to buy a house near me doesn’t compel me to be neighborly.

dedalus on November 5, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Why weren’t separate drinking fountains enough?

Nonfactor on November 5, 2009 at 2:14 PM

I knew someone was going to equivocate that with racism.
Good job.
Very troll-worthy.

Badger40 on November 5, 2009 at 2:22 PM

dedalus on November 5, 2009 at 2:22 PM

I agree. So homosexuals are still allowed to be citizens with their rights intact.
But marriage of course is not really a right.
It’s more of a priviledge.
You can’t just marry everyone you meet.
We have to have reasonable expectations about things like this bcs they can adversely affect the social fabric & therefore the psychological fabric of our future citizens.
I would think most people agree that children brough up in an intact ‘normal’ family unit have the best chance at being responsible citizens.
That’s the kind of situation that deserves the privilege of the marriage contract.
No one is stopping same-sex couples from committing to each other.
They just want us to ‘accept’ them.

Badger40 on November 5, 2009 at 2:27 PM

The modern theory that biology imposes the five genders on people, but frequency and intensity of commitment to sexual partners is just cultural choice, is the bunk. I’m saying it’s all choice.

Chris_Balsz on November 5, 2009 at 1:37 PM

A straight guy sees Scarlett Johanson standing next to an 80-year-old woman, and is told he can spend the evening with one of the two. My guess is there is no need for a conscious choice because something physical and instinctive has already provided the answer.

dedalus on November 5, 2009 at 2:29 PM

No one is stopping same-sex couples from committing to each other.
They just want us to ‘accept’ them.

Badger40 on November 5, 2009 at 2:27 PM

Marriage is a legal right for straight people, according to the courts. The question is whether gay people form something that can be considered a marriage.

Personally, I think marriage is about raising kids and see couples who are married without kids as having something different. It’s a distinction the state doesn’t make.

My support for gay marriage or unions stems from knowing gay couples with kids. It might be better for the kids to have hetero parents, but they, like the rest of us, don’t get to choose their parents. For the kids benefit, I think the state should give the gay couple the ability to jointly own property, to provide survivor benefits and to take advantage of the unlimited marital deduction if one should die.

dedalus on November 5, 2009 at 2:39 PM

A straight guy sees Scarlett Johanson standing next to an 80-year-old woman, and is told he can spend the evening with one of the two. My guess is there is no need for a conscious choice because something physical and instinctive has already provided the answer.

dedalus on November 5, 2009 at 2:29 PM

Yep.

If he has any taste or sense at all, he spends a lovely evening of dinner, a movie, and a quiet sit by the fire and a talk with the 80 year old woman.

wearyman on November 5, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Badger40 on November 5, 2009 at 2:22 PM

So no answer then?

Nonfactor on November 5, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Vanceone on November 5, 2009 at 12:49 PM

Bravo. Well said, from one fellow LDS to another.

Badger40 on November 5, 2009 at 1:14 PM

You’ll be glad another LDS member agrees. Well said Vanceone.

Conservative Samizdat on November 5, 2009 at 2:45 PM

Yes, nonfactor, It’s racist to discriminate against behavior! Why, every pro-marriage person knows that if those uppity blacks had just stopped being black…

O wait. Skin color is not a behavior. Shoving your penis up someone else’s rear end is.

We regulate behavior all the time. Except as I recall, liberals and gays think that the only behavior worth regulating is things like praying in school, or hate speech (defined as disagreement with a liberal philosophy), or private charity.

Actually taking responsibility for doing dangerous things? Nope, not in a liberals vocabulary. Or being punished–as Mumia shows, you can kill a cop and be celebrated but offer a prayer to God and you are a bigoted, racist hatemonger who should be driven out of public society or burned at the stake.

Vanceone on November 5, 2009 at 2:45 PM

Yes, nonfactor, It’s racist to discriminate against behavior!

You’re not discriminating against behavior; you’re discriminating against people. It might help you to think that you’re doing the former and not the later, but the truth of the matter remains. If you were discriminating against behavior you’d be campaigning in favor of laws outlawing homosexual sex, not in favor of laws denying gays the ability to marry.

Why, every pro-marriage person knows that if those uppity blacks had just stopped being black…

Vanceone on November 5, 2009 at 2:45 PM

What did that sentence have anything to do with anything?

Nonfactor on November 5, 2009 at 2:58 PM

A straight guy sees Scarlett Johanson standing next to an 80-year-old woman, and is told he can spend the evening with one of the two. My guess is there is no need for a conscious choice because something physical and instinctive has already provided the answer.
dedalus on November 5, 2009 at 2:29 PM

And therefore is in a clearly different human subgroup than a guy who wants neither because he’s “gay”, right?

But what about someone who would have them both at the same time, or someone who doesn’t want a one-night-stand at all? Those behaviors are just “whims”. Why? Where’s the labwork to prove it? I have yet to hear of any study proving the difference between a gay man living a lie with a wife and kids, and a bisexual swinger, is anything but behavior and self-conscious attitude. If gender theory is true there should be some real difference…

Chris_Balsz on November 5, 2009 at 3:27 PM

Nonfactor: laws outlawing homosexual sex DID exist. In every state. In fact, it was outlawing sodomy. But gay rights people took it to the US Supreme Court and won, and short of getting a new Supreme Court, no law could be passed that would change that. Right now, no one is arguing for outlawing gay behavior; among the reasons why is how do you enforce it? It’s better to teach correct principles and let people govern themselves.

Gays marrying is clearly a threat to a whole bunch of other things than just making gays feel better (which it won’t, I guarantee it–they’ll come up with something else to push for). The current gay activists have shown absolutely no inclination that they wouldn’t punish anyone who stands in their way for the grand, gay utopia where NAMBLA is king. Sure, most gays don’t subscribe to that view, but the ones pushing the changes sure do. The ones wanting to destroy my faith or church or get me fired give me ample cause to fight them.

See, here it is: gay activists preach gay marriage as “no big deal, just a formality and it won’t hurt anyone. Why could anyone possibly be against it without being a bigot?” In reality, gay activists behavior, history and tactics are promising that as soon as they possibly can, any and all forms of dissent or attempts to disagree will be crushed under force of law. Don’t want your kid to be seduced by some creepy perverted teacher? Tough luck! Want to give up your kid for adoption? Gonna go to the gays first! Want to avoid spending millions of dollars for your employee’s STD? Can’t, because they are gay and that would be discriminatory. Bankrupt yourself first!

Gay activists threaten anyone who disagrees with them with losing taxes, access to the public square, loss of free speech, etc. It’s not just a “harmless little change.”

Vanceone on November 5, 2009 at 3:29 PM

What did that sentence have anything to do with anything?

Nonfactor on November 5, 2009 at 2:58 PM

Vance was pointing out the basic fallacy of your argument: The “Born Like This” lie.

It has been proven already that there is no “Gay Gene”. You aren’t “Born” as a homosexual, homosexuals are made, not born. It is a psychological disorder, not a genetic trait.

We do not, as a society, give out rights based on disorders. There are not special kleptomaniac rights, for example. Thus it makes not sense to give homosexuals special rights based on the delusions and psychoses they suffer from.

It makes sense to care for them, to pity them, and to give them aid and assistance in overcoming their affliction, but to encourage the illness via legal means is cruel in the extreme. Not only is it damaging society, but it permanently locks these people in a destructive lifestyle with no chance of escape.

wearyman on November 5, 2009 at 3:32 PM

Vanceone, I’m not going to debate you because you’re crazy.

Nonfactor on November 5, 2009 at 3:33 PM

You either, wearyman.

Nonfactor on November 5, 2009 at 3:34 PM

And therefore is in a clearly different human subgroup than a guy who wants neither because he’s “gay”, right?

But what about someone who would have them both at the same time, or someone who doesn’t want a one-night-stand at all? Those behaviors are just “whims”. Why? Where’s the labwork to prove it? I have yet to hear of any study proving the difference between a gay man living a lie with a wife and kids, and a bisexual swinger, is anything but behavior and self-conscious attitude. If gender theory is true there should be some real difference…

Chris_Balsz on November 5, 2009 at 3:27 PM

The decision to have a one night stand is a choice. However, the attraction isn’t. Advertising campaigns will use sexy women to convince men to spend money–just sample the banner ads across the web or study the click-throughs. Scientists have studied pheromones for a long time, as have perfume companies because, like ad companies, they know that small stimulations of the senses can trigger emotions in the brain.

dedalus on November 5, 2009 at 4:02 PM

Hmm. Nonfactor tucks his tail (her tail?) and runs. Nice, after this post just upthread.

Vanceone on November 5, 2009 at 4:10 PM

And now I’ll bug out, just to clarify in case anyone else comes back. The Fort Hood thing is more important right now anyway.

Vanceone on November 5, 2009 at 4:17 PM

Explaining his opposition to gay marriage in 2004, Obama said, “I’m a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”

Words matter

Roy Rogers on November 5, 2009 at 4:45 PM

To you being gay is about the sex, for an actual gay being gay is about relationships.

Zekecorlain on November 4, 2009 at 5:47 PM

Maybe you should seek psychiatric assistance instead of rationalizing your behavior as normal.

ScottyDog on November 5, 2009 at 4:53 PM

To you being gay is about the sex, for an actual gay being gay is about relationships.

Zekecorlain on November 4, 2009 at 5:47 PM

It’s not wanting to retain God in their knowledge and giving into their lust. Relationships is way down the list, pal.

apacalyps on November 5, 2009 at 7:39 PM

I’ve never believed that homosexuals are denied any rights regarding marriage. In fact, they already have exactly the same rights straight people do. They have the right to marry a willing partner of the opposite sex. I doubt any county clerk would deny a marriage license to a homosexual man and a woman. Or, to a lesbian and a man. What they actually seek is an entirely new right.

trigon on November 5, 2009 at 10:47 PM

The Gay marriage movement is dishonest. They are not for equal rights, and they are selfish opportunists.

Their GLBT “Alliance” fractures when Bi-Sexuals insist the inability to choose is natural, but Gays attempt to tell them they must choose only one of their partners/genders to marry.

scotash on November 5, 2009 at 11:53 PM

It’s better to teach correct principles and let people govern themselves.

Vanceone on November 5, 2009 at 3:29 PM

+10

As a Mormon, I love seeing this quote.

Conservative Samizdat on November 6, 2009 at 12:03 PM

Gay marriage has now lost in all 31 states in which it has been put to a popular vote

Get a clue, NGLTF. America believes marriage is a hetero institution. Find some other bandwagon to jump on.

infidel4life on November 6, 2009 at 12:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8