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In an election that had been billed for weeks as too close to call, Maine’s often unpredictable voters repealed a state law Tuesday that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed.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.










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 2 3 … 8 Next »
“made the entire idea look more radical than it was”
I kinda disagree Ed.. the idea is actually quite radical…
max1 on November 4, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Was this the only thing being voted on? I’m not sure I would have even bothered showing up if it was.
It is funny, though, that the social issues that the GOP is always being told to abandon (which I mostly agree with) end up being winners more often than not.
“You have to reject the anti-gay marriage stuff, or you’ll never win anywhere but the Alabama. And California. And Maine, apparently.”
BadgerHawk on November 4, 2009 at 9:34 AM
At least no one can blame the Mormons for this defeat.
Eichendorff on November 4, 2009 at 9:35 AM
So a bunch of eeevil Mormons moved to Maine just to scuttle this!!111!11!
SouthernGent on November 4, 2009 at 9:35 AM
This was a huge win for Obama
jp on November 4, 2009 at 9:35 AM
The first link has all the issues on the ballot.
sammypants on November 4, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Meghan McCain will not be happy with all the ‘H8′ in Maine.
Monica on November 4, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Yet atheist AllahPundit believes Republicans should give up their “socially conservative positions,” such as being pro-life and against gay marriage, and run as ONLY as fiscal conservatives. Big mistake. Most Americans are still socially conservative.
Gabe on November 4, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Exactly right. The wishes of part of 5 % of America’s polution does not make a inalienable right.
kingsjester on November 4, 2009 at 9:37 AM
Monica on November 4, 2009 at 9:36 AM
wonderful, maybe she’ll go on a twinkie binge in protest.
gsherin on November 4, 2009 at 9:37 AM
Yawn. Any commentary about Gambling being passed in Ohio?
nazo311 on November 4, 2009 at 9:38 AM
Richard Ramirez could get married in prison, Britney Spears could give “til death do us part” vows before God and get annulled a day later, but same-sex couples can’t get married? Give me a break people…
Siobhan on November 4, 2009 at 9:38 AM
Thank ya!
blatantblue on November 4, 2009 at 9:38 AM
complete and total reversal of Christendom is what you are advocating.
By what Standard?
jp on November 4, 2009 at 9:38 AM
population, not polution
sorry.
kingsjester on November 4, 2009 at 9:39 AM
Exactly.. now to break it to all the _married_ couples with children. “No tax breaks for you” there is nothing special about your union and you’re raising future citizens is not an activity that government should encourage.
Some accomplishment for the forces of gay marriage.
Partisan on November 4, 2009 at 9:39 AM
Fixed it for poor Rea.
unclesmrgol on November 4, 2009 at 9:39 AM
That is a point that isn’t made often enough. This is just the latest assault on marriage by the Left. They’ve been attacking an institution that the Feminazis have compared to slavery for almost 40 years now.
Problem is once marriage is defined by the state as a civil right, it cannot be denied to anyone under any circumstance, just like any other civil right.
pdigaudio on November 4, 2009 at 9:40 AM
Where is Allahpundit with his spiel about the road ahead for the GOP is Fiscal Conservatism, not social….??? He was all over the boards with it yesterday.
pannw on November 4, 2009 at 9:40 AM
nazo311 on November 4, 2009 at 9:38 AM
yeah it passed and I’m not happy about it cuz they swayed people with having the police union do ads in favor of it cuz they get money from it.
gsherin on November 4, 2009 at 9:40 AM
I think the problem with the gay lobby is that they got impatient.
They were winning when they were taking their time and actually trying to persuade people.
Then several years ago they suddenly got impatient and got radical and strident and instead of persuading it became a ‘war.’ IMO the turning point was when Gavin Newsom (the mayor of San Francisco) decided that HE had the authority to grant same-sex marriage certificates – in direct, public opposition to the law of the land.
And the more they attack and the more angry they become, the less support they get.
Telling people that they are racist, sexist homophobic haters is NOT the way to change their vote.
In fact, all that does is cause others to rethink their stance and start to vote against gay marriage.
Religious_Zealot on November 4, 2009 at 9:41 AM
Wish things had gone the other way, but the forms were observed. Democracy means respecting the process.
Trent1289 on November 4, 2009 at 9:42 AM
The issue has lost each time it has been on the ballot in each state – the institution of marriage has been preserved – it is far more important than a group of activists seeking to get recognition!
IntheNet on November 4, 2009 at 9:42 AM
Wow. And I thought Maine was tolerant…
OmahaConservative on November 4, 2009 at 9:42 AM
I mean seriously these people need to get a clue. 31 times they have been handed defeat and they still get pi$$ed and call people names and junk? They really need to get on with life and lose the hate.
Johnnyreb on November 4, 2009 at 9:42 AM
That makes more sense than any other take on the issue.
So when do conservatives make that case? Where will the evangelicals go? The pro-baby murdering democrats? It is time to follow the principles we espouse. In most cases, more freedom and less government is what is best for all concerned. Truly a conservative position and the antithesis of the Marxist agenda embraced by the left.
csdeven on November 4, 2009 at 9:42 AM
I suspect that they might have had more success with a lower key approach.
People do not like it when other people start telling them what they must do in order to be considered moral.
They know in their own hearts what is moral and what isn’t. Pushing them always causes a backlash.
MarkTheGreat on November 4, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Don’t worry too much, the activist Liberal courts will make it legal someday despite the people,s objections…just look at pelosicare.
royzer on November 4, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Not so. Marriage is the covenant between a man and a woman. Redefining the term is the problem, not the civil right.
You can call murder charity, but that does not make it so.
tcn on November 4, 2009 at 9:45 AM
The gay community in California is trying to fix that for us here. I’m going to sign their petition and I’m going to vote “yes” should their proposition reach the ballot.
unclesmrgol on November 4, 2009 at 9:45 AM
Ok. I would have shown up for the other stuff.
BadgerHawk on November 4, 2009 at 9:45 AM
Equal rights shouldn’t be up or a public vote anyway.
Thing is, that premise only boils down to semantics. Use of the word “marriage”. If this were to happen, then the state would simply change the name. Not to mention, marriage could only happen in a church…so it places prominence on a religion over the state.
JetBoy on November 4, 2009 at 9:46 AM
Since when did Christiandom require the force of the state?
MarkTheGreat on November 4, 2009 at 9:47 AM
I actually support gay marriage, but with one caveat. I want it legalized by voters, not activist judges. And you know what? The voters decided, and they chose against legalizing it.
To all the disappointed gay activists out there, I’ll say this. Don’t react like the idiots in California with smears and intimidation tactics against those who opposed the initiative. You lost by 4 points. Go out there and convince people why you’re right and eventually you’ll win them over(in some states anyway).
Doughboy on November 4, 2009 at 9:47 AM
I also believe the pro-gay lobbyists made a mistake in comparing themselves to the civil rights movement.
First off, because marriage is not a right.
And more importantly, it angered the African-American community which continues to be one of the largest segments that vote against gay marriage (and it was the AA community NOT the mormons that got Prop 8 passed in CA)
Religious_Zealot on November 4, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Say what? He’s saying get the state out of marriage and leave it to the church.
Anders on November 4, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Why not?
MarkTheGreat on November 4, 2009 at 9:49 AM
Definately a state decision, but Ed’s point is interesting, I wonder what would happen if divorce was made harder? I’ll worry about that when our fiscal situation is in order.
Cindy Munford on November 4, 2009 at 9:49 AM
Redefining the term is the problem, not the civil right.
That is what the Left is trying to do, redefine the term and make it a civil right in the process. There is no civil right to get married. Using gender-based feminism, the Left has been assaulting marriage for 40 years. This is just the latest salvo. It started with pushing no-fault divorce, reducing marriage to the equivalent of taking an item back to the store for a refund if it isn’t working right or you don’t like it.
Another product of the most selfish generation in U.S. history, the baby boomers. Me first always and forever.
pdigaudio on November 4, 2009 at 9:50 AM
No, just like a car can’t be a fudge brownie and a tree can’t be a crescent wrench. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
greggriffith on November 4, 2009 at 9:50 AM
an 11 trillion dollar deficit is more pressing for conservatism right now.
blatantblue on November 4, 2009 at 9:50 AM
If the government doesn’t encourage the creation of more citizens then we will be required to import as Europe has had to do. No thanks, I would prefer the majority of our population to remain native born if possible.
Cindy Munford on November 4, 2009 at 9:52 AM
This is another issue that shows how deep denial is in this country. This has nothing to do with bigotry. It is about the fact that a gay couple is not a man and a woman. Whatever legalizing of a same sex union is acceptable to gays, who are the really babies in this controversy, is fine with me (and probably most people) but marriage is one man and one woman.
ORconservative on November 4, 2009 at 9:53 AM
You can call murder charity, but that does not make it so.
tcn on November 4, 2009 at 9:45 AM
terrific line tc!
max1 on November 4, 2009 at 9:53 AM
Who is going to win Ms. Maine?
tommylotto on November 4, 2009 at 9:54 AM
One more thing: the nations in Europe that went down this road saw the next thing becoming sanctioning polygamy. This is one area where the slippery-slope argument holds. Once it becomes a civil right, it cannot be denied to anyone for any reason.
pdigaudio on November 4, 2009 at 9:54 AM
A decade ago, a legislature passing and a governor signing into law a same sex marriage act would have been unthinkable. Same goes for a ballot measure getting more than 20-30% support.
Now, you have to pump millions into a state to barely kill such a ballot measure.
I’m pretty sure that’s not winning.
Trent1289 on November 4, 2009 at 9:54 AM
Since when did Christiandom require the force of the state?
MarkTheGreat on November 4, 2009 at 9:47 AM
Since Constantine? ;)
max1 on November 4, 2009 at 9:55 AM
Gays to blame George Bush
Jeff from WI on November 4, 2009 at 9:55 AM
0 for 31. The Detroit Lions are laughing at this.
JammieWearingFool on November 4, 2009 at 9:57 AM
De facto polygamy already exists in Europe amongst muslims.
Anders on November 4, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Andrew Sullivan: “Those fierce Maine Mormons defeated gay marriage again. Damn them, damn them all to Hell!”
Mr. Joe on November 4, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Destroying the structures of marriage and family is deeply Talmudic to the Left. It’s a microcosm of their attacks on the church, private enterprise — all things which stand in the way spiritually or materially of an all-powerful state.
rrpjr on November 4, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Correct, but you are not going to fix the problem by adding more corruption/pollution to the mix.
OldEnglish on November 4, 2009 at 9:58 AM
Uh, Trent, those who won weren’t the ones pumping millions into Maine. It was the losers.
JammieWearingFool on November 4, 2009 at 9:58 AM
My buddy just got back from a trip to Maine. He was talking to a contractor over a beer and the subject came up. The contractor said he should vote for same-sex marriage because it would be good for business. Lesbians apparently have a lot of money to buy and build homes. OTOH he was morally inclined to support traditional marriage.
I guess the moral side won out.
roux on November 4, 2009 at 9:59 AM
Ed for the first time I disagree with most of what you wrote. Gay marriage is a threat because it direcy contravines what God said marriage is.
I’m glad Maine rejected gay marriage and I hope that homosexuals don’t attack in Maine like they did here in CA… that behavior really turned off people a lot more and left a bitter taste in many of our mouths.
CCRWM on November 4, 2009 at 10:00 AM
I’m going to book mark this and link it every time I hear other conservatives yell that this is a losing issue and that social cons should just shut up and do what they’re told.
gwelf on November 4, 2009 at 10:00 AM
The lesson in all of this is a same sex almost marriage (everything but the name marriage) passed in Washington State last night. Gays can have civil unions in most states if they want it now, but voters are typically unwilling to grant them same sex marriage in name. If gays are going to win on this issue, they need to persuade voters to their side and stop whining about bias and prejudice.
I think in time there will be gay marriage in most states and frankly it will prove to not be that big a deal.
Mr. Joe on November 4, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Yes, the constellations Beelzebub and Azazel were alligned.
Akzed on November 4, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Never, ever, in all man’s history, in any land, at any time – have folks of the same sex been ‘married’. Never. Ever.
Even in ancient Rome- where homosexuality was glorified- MARRIAGE was between a man and a woman.
I believe it should remain that way.
Gays should have civil unions and call it whatever they want-EXCEPT MARRIAGE. That term is taken. Leave it alone.
Sometimes traditional folks don’t like to be offended either.
ExTex on November 4, 2009 at 10:02 AM
I just love this “argument”…
Especially since in no less than 7 states only 40 years ago, “marriage” meant the union of a white man to a white woman, and a black man to a black woman. Interracial unions didn’t fit the “definition of marriage”, and it was changed.
Sometimes, change is good.
JetBoy on November 4, 2009 at 10:03 AM
I saw this on Malkin’s site and just smiled:)at how the s/run media is definite not saying alot and how we can our vote matters.
ohiobabe on November 4, 2009 at 10:03 AM
Marriage as a man and a woman batting a thousand at the ballot box. Massachusetts politicos know without a doubt gay amrriage goes down if the voters have a voice.
Theworldisnotenough on November 4, 2009 at 10:03 AM
I agree.However, the push to legalize gay marriage is just one step in a process to transform being gay into as protected a class as possible (as liberals are wont to do) – and this is anything but getting the government out of the chapel or the bedroom. If gay marriage is widely recognized as legal it’s just that much easier for justices to decide that they deserve special protections and status as a ‘persecuted’ yet recognized ‘class’ of people.
gwelf on November 4, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Sorry,mean’t to say ,how our vote matters,fingers can’t go fast enough today:):)
ohiobabe on November 4, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Of what utility is “Christendom”?
And I assume you use “Christendom” in its Medieval/Baroque context.
Lehosh on November 4, 2009 at 10:07 AM
And enough of calling marriage a ‘right’.
Marriage is a privilege, that’s why you need a license for it.
Comparing the gay marriage debate to the civil rights struggle is insulting and disingenuous.
Partisan on November 4, 2009 at 10:07 AM
I completely agree with this. I don’t disagree with Ed much, but I do so here.
deidre on November 4, 2009 at 10:08 AM
I am a fiscal, national security and social conservative. I am an evangelical Christian. But the Moral Majority, Focus on the Family and other well-intentioned socially conservative organizations have not been effective by targeting the government as their method of change.
The divorce rate among evangelical Christians is now approximately the same as among non-Christians. In truth, the Bible supports the separation of church and state, especially regarding standards of morality. If we try to mandate our social issues by government fiat, how are we different than liberals who forcefeed their unpopular causes via unelected judges?
That leaves us social conservatives to fight immorality on the battlefield of culture, which is as it should be. The rejection of non-traditional marriage in California cut across party lines and I suspect we will find the same demographics in Maine. Our founding principles of federalism and traditional values continue to work and social conservatives need to remember that.
Terrie on November 4, 2009 at 10:08 AM
You’ve got to think that a good number of folks not particularly opposed to gay marriage nevertheless voted against the measure just to send a message to this political class.
TXUS on November 4, 2009 at 10:09 AM
I have maintained this
For the last twenty-five years.
Get the gummint out.
Gummint involvement,
Can only weaken marriage,
Through permissiveness.
Haiku Guy on November 4, 2009 at 10:09 AM
Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country, so It’s kind of hard to argue that gay marriage destroys the “institution of marriage.” The only argument that opponents of gay marriage have is that it is against the bible. Guess what? That isn’t a good argument.
HeroesforGhosts on November 4, 2009 at 10:09 AM
Ed, if you want to divorce your wife and marry allahpundit, you can move to Massachusetts. But, the people of California and Maine have spoken so keep your nose out of it.
Blake on November 4, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Its good enough for voters. Gay marriage has yet to be affirmed at the ballot box.
Theworldisnotenough on November 4, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Well JetBoy, if you can stop sneering long enough to think clearly, you’ll notice that there’s a racial component to that, and a sex component. The fact that in the other 43 states marriage was independent of race but still defined as one-man/one-woman, is exactly my point.
In states on both sides of that line, independent of the matter of race, what you had was marriage. I understand that you want sexual preference to be treated judicially like skin color, but they’re just not remotely the same thing.
greggriffith on November 4, 2009 at 10:11 AM
So? If it’s all semantic, why do gay leftists wet themselves over getting the label as opposed to everything it entails… just sans the “marriage” label? If it’s no big deal, why not let the cultural-cons keep their word?
And why shouldn’t a religious institution only happen in a religious place?
Lehosh on November 4, 2009 at 10:11 AM
The “problem”, Siobhan, lies in the fact that Marriage has a sacred meaning to people of faith. I happen to be one of those people. Marriage is sanctified before God.
Now, I also happen to have exactly ZERO problems with Civil Unions. Gays should not be denied any of the “perks” granted by the govt to married couples. Just don’t call it marriage.
ExSubNuke on November 4, 2009 at 10:12 AM
But as a teh ghey dude, I am barred from that “privilege”. I don’t have the same opportunity for that “pursuit of happiness” as mentioned in the DoI.
All I would ask is for that same opportunity.
No Gay Marriage!
JetBoy on November 4, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Translation: since you don’t think like we do, you obviously believe in lies and are full of fear.
This is the way the left views those who disagree with them.
Richard Romano on November 4, 2009 at 10:13 AM
See, you’re wrong. If you believe in the Bible and have convictions, you’re going to vote according to them. Apparently most people vote according to their convictions with regard to this issue.
I still believe most of the negitivity has to do with gay activists stomping their feet like 2 year olds and the media telling us our convictions are “politically incorrect.”
deidre on November 4, 2009 at 10:14 AM
I just hope that when the media gets a bug up their butt to elect the first gay president, they actually find someone who is remotely competent.
Because their heralded first black president is a half-baked, unqualilfied fraud.
NoDonkey on November 4, 2009 at 10:16 AM
It’s what they do. Rules for radicals. They’ll never stop. Just like me, I’m a radical that believes in the sanctity of life and marriage between a man and a woman. The way it has been ever since God put us on this earth.
kirkill on November 4, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Well, one of the real reasons people don’t vote for legal gay marriage is once that door is open, then what happens to anyone who disagrees?
Look at the Boy Scouts. Once an honored, respected institution they are now legally barred from lots of “liberal, tolerant” gay friendly places because, shocka! they don’t think being “morally straight” includes sodomy. So they are pretty much legal outcasts far more than any gays are.
Churches don’t want to be next. And if the Prop 8 fight proved anything, it is that if the gay marriage folks win, everyone else WILL lose unless they do whatever the gay fanatics want. Why would anyone vote for that?
Gays can do what they want, but why should I vote to let them become a “Protected class” and thereby be able to club my rights out of existence? Jetboy has never explained why, for instance, Mormons have nothing to fear from legalized gay marriage, when all we see from gays is that Mormons have lots of good reasons to fear gay supporters. As do lots of other groups.
Vanceone on November 4, 2009 at 10:17 AM
then how is anyone talking about ‘protecting marriage’ not a total hypocrite?
ernesto on November 4, 2009 at 10:18 AM
I am sure Keith Olberman would offer to officiate.
Anders on November 4, 2009 at 10:18 AM
JetBoy – you do have the same opportunity. You are free to marry one person of the opposite sex, just like everybody else.
That’s what marriage is. If you’d like to enter into it, you’re free to do so without regard to your sexual preference.
What you want to do is change the definition of marriage to suit your particular preference, and fortunately a majority of voters in 38 states have said no.
greggriffith on November 4, 2009 at 10:18 AM
I’d agree with this statement. But there are larger issues at play that do affect the nuclear family.
If a gay couple can get married then they pretty much have the privilege of adopting children (I know that pro-gay marriage people don’t see a problem with this, but anti-gay marriage people do – and my point is that allowing gay-marriage affects more than just ‘marriage’).
If gay couples can adopt are we going to see more of what’s happened in Massachusetts where a Catholic adoption agency had to shut it’s doors or be forced to follow the states mandate that it provide adoption services to gay couples? This sounds like more government intrusion into the lives of citizens and private institutions – not less.
gwelf on November 4, 2009 at 10:18 AM
Just because chopping off your arm is a really big problem doesn’t mean chopping off your finger isn’t a problem at all.
Lehosh on November 4, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Ultimately it does not matter what laws man passes. If one believe in God and that Jesus is His Son then you do what God says even if you are the only one. We all will answer for our actions to God who is fair and just and who wll do what he said He will do. I believe, I fear God and so my goal is to be obedient and when I fall short I repent and try again. To me if you believe they you obey if you don’t then you do what YOU think is right.
CCRWM on November 4, 2009 at 10:20 AM
If gay marriage passes, then churches and other religious institution will be considered outside the law for advocating marriage as an only one between one man and one woman.
runner on November 4, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Give us a chance to vote on the farce of prisoners marrying and having conjugal rights, and it will be stopped. Give us a chance to vote against no-fault divorce, and I’m pretty sure IT would end, also. We’ve seen where the judicial activism and legislative hyper-amorality crazy trains have taken us, and we’re ready to lay down on the tracks if necessary to keep them from going any further.
Mind you, I’ve said for years I’d be okay with government out of marriage altogether, and I say it still. I care little that my marriage is recognized by the state; I care much that it is consecrated before almighty God. I assert that we wouldn’t be having any of these problems if everyone had those same priorities.
RegularJoe on November 4, 2009 at 10:21 AM
er, as only one between
runner on November 4, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Right on Ed, right on.
The definition of marriage and race wasn’t changed by God. The bible only have one race: The Human Race.
We wouldn’t have this argument if we define right and wrong by how God defines it.
When men change, it should be change back to God’s rules not away from it. That is change that we can say is “good”.
maynila on November 4, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Bigotry from coast to coast. How sad. But the numbers are breaking our way over time. Ten years ago this would have been unthinkable. Now it’s inevitable.
Bleeds Blue on November 4, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Exactly.
Gay groups still want to strip our Church of it’s charity/tax exempt status. Apparently we should be taxed for having the wrong beliefs – and an organization should be punished monetarily by the state if it’s members largely opposes progressive ideals.
gwelf on November 4, 2009 at 10:22 AM
It’s not meant to be an argument. It’s a statement of conviction, and they don’t have to convince anybody else in order to vote their conviction.
Lehosh on November 4, 2009 at 10:22 AM
There is a very simple reason that the government encourages married couples to have children by giving them tax breaks now.
The children become future taxpayers.
rukiddingme on November 4, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Marriage and politics do not mix. The marriage ceremony is a religous rite; if Tim and Ted want to get married in The Church of The Divine Tater Dumplin’, I’m cool with it.
However, I believe that Tim and Ted, as well as Bob and Cathy, should have to trot their happy asses to the courthouse for a ‘civil union’ in order to establish a domestic partnership for tax, spousal inheirtance, adoption and other purposes . No government official should be uttering the word ‘marriage’ in the course of his duties.
These referenda and the ensuing hostilities are a horrible waste of time and taxpayer money.
Doorgunner on November 4, 2009 at 10:23 AM
That’s the whole point of the exercise. It is not enough to be tolerated– gays must be celebrated. In our softened culture, withholding acceptance and approval is a hostile act and they would elevate it to a tort, if not a crime. Nobody cares–or can enforce– what John Doe and Richard Roe call each other. This is about forcing their boss, their insurer, and all social groups and service providers to support their values.
Chris_Balsz on November 4, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 … 8 Next »