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In an election that had been billed for weeks as too close to call, Maine’s often unpredictable voters repealed a state law Tuesday that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed.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 4 5 6 7 8

Can you tell me who has chosen to be gay?

txag92 on November 4, 2009 at 4:42 PM

I hope he doesn’t mind…Robert Swinkle chose to be gay…

right2bright on November 4, 2009 at 4:59 PM

@Hening let me be clear the reason the ten commandments is not mentioned is because they aren’t a cornerstone of our law. Period, dunnzo it isn’t true. it’s based on english common law

Zekecorlain on November 4, 2009 at 5:00 PM

oh great right2bright is here it must be a party

I’m off to twitter

Zekecorlain on November 4, 2009 at 5:01 PM

Hening on November 4, 2009 at 4:48 PM

You will never be able to convince me that being gay is a choice.

txag92 on November 4, 2009 at 4:54 PM

Then you have your opinion and are comfortable with it.

What I had offered is that same sex attraction and acting upon that desire are two different things. There are people who are attracted to the same sex who are happily married in a heterosexual relationship. There are adults that are sexually attracted to children and deal with fighting that attraction, and the list goes on with people who are sexually attracted to people and things outside of the normal heterosexual relationship. Claiming that they are not capable of coping with that attraction which they do not wish to pursue would be incorrect.

Hening on November 4, 2009 at 5:03 PM

Tolerance. Get some. Maybe your God can help you with that if you pray or something.

Dave Rywall on November 4, 2009 at 3:13 PM

We are SICK of people telling us to be tolerant, and diverse, and PC but THEY get to stomp on our beliefs, and traditions, and holidays, and values all they want to.

It is time for Alinski to go both ways. Make them abide with every rule, with every law. These are the rules and have been for 200 years. They are what this country was built on and run on. We are not going to change ourselves and our country any more to fit others. Be they athiests, gays, muslims, or progressives.

We have said ENOUGH! And THAT is why over 40% of the country now identifies themselves at conservative. We are tired of having the depravity shoved down our throats and in front of our childrens eyes. Just like radical democrats, the radical gays riding their bikes through San Fransicko beating peoples cars with chains, and going into churches with their sickness, and their parades, and stomping on a little old lady’s cross at a protest make us sick, and we are done with it.

patriotparty1 on November 4, 2009 at 5:09 PM

It is time for Alinski to go both ways.

patriotparty1 on November 4, 2009 at 5:09 PM

…aaaaaand that’s the game! Liberals 1, Conservative 0! Thanks for watching!

MadisonConservative on November 4, 2009 at 5:10 PM

That’s true, but often people are dishonest and lazy about their own faith. They don’t want to think it through or live their faith. At my synagogue, one woman actually made a snide remark about me for working in the synagogue’s garden and getting dirty. It’s hard to imagine a sentiment more opposed by the Torah than this–yet there it was. (I’m deliberately not going to clarify whether I was working or volunteering, because it shouldn’t matter.)

thuja on November 4, 2009 at 4:07 PM

Purely out of curiosity, why would it matter?

TheUnrepentantGeek on November 4, 2009 at 4:53 PM

Someone who is volunteering in my Synagogue’s Biblical Garden could have a prestigious job and could thus be seen as a valuable person by a snob. On the other hand, some one is getting paid to work in it is blue collar and thus of little merit to the snob. Obviously, Jews shouldn’t be looking at other Jews in that way. For that matter, we shouldn’t be looking at non-Jews in that way. It’s so against the Torah.

thuja on November 4, 2009 at 5:13 PM

Anyone who really believes gay is a choice, must by default admit that straight is a choice as well. It’s your sexuality, not a shoe style. If one chooses gay as a sexual identity, then one chooses straight as a sexual identity.

But I don’t think the gay-deranged will ever admit that.

JetBoy on November 4, 2009 at 5:13 PM

Oh are you keeping score? The only score I need is the one in the book that I will be judged from in front of my maker. We’ll leave it to people who think the term teabagger actually describes a political movement to see the duel purpose of that sentence.

patriotparty1 on November 4, 2009 at 5:18 PM

@Madison Conservative

Not really. Why should we listen to someone from Hollywood talking about gay marriage, the environment and leadership when they cant stay married, their way of life leaves gigantic carbon footprints and their ideas of leaders are Castro and Chavez.

Make them own both sides of the coin, not just the shiny one they show to press releases.

Opportunity Costs on November 4, 2009 at 5:20 PM

Well since gays are a naturally occurring product in human society rather than a breeding problem, the short answer is no you can’t get rid of gays though many many have tried.
So how can we change the behavior that we don’t like…hmm maybe we should encourage gays to pair bond and have a cultural apathy to multiple sex partners. hmm how could we do that… any ideas? maybe gay marriage?

Zekecorlain on November 4, 2009 at 2:13 PM

Actually I disagree, I think homosexcuals choose to be homosexuals and there is nothing natural about it. Just the sight and smell of fecal matter spread all over your penis should have been enough for most people to stop.

The fact that they don’t should tell you all you need to know, They are abbynormal.

ScottyDog on November 4, 2009 at 5:22 PM

Still waiting for those contradictions in the Bible…

kingsjester on November 4, 2009 at 3:40 PM

It seems difficult that the accounts given of the events following the Resurrection and before the Ascension are sparse and provide different factual assertions.

dedalus on November 4, 2009 at 5:25 PM

Jimbo3 on November 4, 2009 at 1:50 PM

When there are kids involved, you do end up losing your Constitutional rights in Family Court arenas.
Friend of mine was paying child support on & off bcs she was only a waitress with no education & she was mostly behind trying to pay $450/month, living in the Seattle area, mind you.
So she formed a plan to go to college & work part time waitressing so she could get a higher paying job.
The state told her NO.
The state actually told a private citizen she could not quit working full time & go to school to better herself.
I am sure a lot of people here could talk about the loss of their Constitutional rights by the courts when it comes to family disputes.
It happens ALL THE TIME.
And child welfare depts are no different.
You are guilty until proven innocent with them-which is why they steal a child from it’s home when someone anonmyously says you are abusing a child.
They don’t have any proof, they just take the kid & ask ?s later.
Not very Constitutional if you ask me.

Badger40 on November 4, 2009 at 5:26 PM

@Hening let me be clear the reason the ten commandments is not mentioned is because they aren’t a cornerstone of our law. Period, dunnzo it isn’t true. it’s based on english common law

Zekecorlain on November 4, 2009 at 5:00 PM

Thomas Jefferson tried to argue that, but English Law going back to the time of Alfred and his Liber Judicialis was in use by the entire kingdom and was based on the Ten Commandments and Mosaic law. Edward the Confessor combined this system with those of the Danish and Saxon conquests with the core of the law remaining the Liber Judicialis. English Common Law is a reflection of refinements during the ten centuries after Alfred, and was administered predominantly by clergy. It survived the applications of the Civil Law of Rome brought by William in 1066, which were adapted to the already existing English jurisprudence. Louisiana was the only new colony to use the Civil Law of Rome, with the rest using English common law….which remained firmly routed in the principles of Liber Judicialis.

Hening on November 4, 2009 at 5:33 PM

“One is often surprised to find how many apparent contradictions [in the Gospel Resurrection accounts] turn out not to be contradictory at all, but merely supplementary… Divergences appear very great on first sight… But the fact remains that all of [the Resurrection accounts], without exception, can be made to fall into a place in a single orderly and coherent narrative, without the smallest contradiction or difficulty and without any suppression, invention, or manipulation, beyond a trifling effort to imagine the natural behavior of a bunch of startled people running about in the dawn-light between Jerusalem and the garden.

courtesy Dr. Dorothy Sayers The Man Born to be King
http://net/q-eden/edn-t010.html” rel=”nofollow”>http://net/q-eden/edn-t010.html” rel=”nofollow”>

kingsjester on November 4, 2009 at 5:34 PM

It’s interesting how this thread got down to the gay vs nature thing.
Regardless of whether being homosexual is natural or unnatural loses the point here.
Governments have a good reason to promote a man & a woman raising their children together as the foremost family unit.
That is bcs naturally, it is the best #1 option when creating new responsible, law-biding TAX PAYERS of the future.
So those willing to enter into a marriage between a man & a woman should get the perks that comes with marriage.
If you’re a homosexual, no one is stopping you from making commitments to your ‘partner’.
No one is stopping you from raising children, for the most part.
But if you want that special tax bracket (not so great anyway) that marriage brings, then tough patutes.
No one is stopping you from leaving your property to your loved ones etc.
If you live in a state that doesn’t allow your “partner” to visit you in the hospital, then DON’T LIVE THERE.
That is pretty silly, IMHO.
Marriage is between a man & a woman. Period.
The gay community is trying to make us morally ACCEPT their position.
This is never going to happen. I don’t care if you do end up pushing it through, there are those of us who will ALWAYS believe it’s wrong & that’s that.
I will never tolerate what I consider to be bad or immoral behavior.
That said, it’s not like I’m going to treat those people badly.
But I sure as heck am not going to hang around them.
Birds of a feather, you know.

Badger40 on November 4, 2009 at 5:34 PM

You will never be able to convince me that being gay is a choice.

txag92 on November 4, 2009 at 4:54 PM

Allright then, will we be able to budge you on your belief of a flat earth?

Dark-Star on November 4, 2009 at 5:34 PM

Allright then, will we be able to budge you on your belief of a flat earth?

Dark-Star on November 4, 2009 at 5:34 PM

The book of Isaiah(in the Bible) states the world is round…about 690 years BC.

b1jetmech on November 4, 2009 at 5:37 PM

Washington State won legalization of civil unions last night.

How come you didn’t cover that story?

Spathi on November 4, 2009 at 5:38 PM

Man and dog, cricket and woman, Man and horse and woman, woman and heating pad…..

Leave room for the creative who wish to redefine marriage to anything they are sexually attracted to.

Hening on November 4, 2009 at 11:59 AM

Yeah because a dog, cricket, horse, and heating pad can all consent to marrage. Oh wait..

XianProject on November 4, 2009 at 5:41 PM

The seventh commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery” is about all you need from the Bible to understand that ghey sex is not allowed. Much like Islamic law which is as simetic as the ancient Hebrew law, it was punishable by stoning. That meant sex outside of marriage that was heterosexual or homosexual is forbidden. Orthodox Christian doctrine agrees that it is breaking the commandment, and that if it’s heterosexual or homosexual, it’s the same sin. Trying to convince ancient Hebrews and any age Muslim that ghey sex is OK is a non starter.

Hening on November 4, 2009 at 5:43 PM

Allright then, will we be able to budge you on your belief of a flat earth?

Dark-Star on November 4, 2009 at 5:34 PM

It seems fairly simple to measure the physiological aspects of arousal and to observe whether someone is affected by gay or straight stimulation. Unless one thinks all arousal is a conscious decision.

dedalus on November 4, 2009 at 5:44 PM

Man and dog, cricket and woman, Man and horse and woman, woman and heating pad…..

Leave room for the creative who wish to redefine marriage to anything they are sexually attracted to.

Hening on November 4, 2009 at 11:59 AM

Yeah because a dog, cricket, horse, and heating pad can all consent to marrage. Oh wait..

XianProject on November 4, 2009 at 5:41 PM

“If you Trigger take this man as your lawfully wedded husband. stomp your right hoof three times.”

Hening on November 4, 2009 at 5:46 PM

Whence beginith teh blame game

Kini on November 4, 2009 at 5:46 PM

Actually I disagree, I think homosexcuals choose to be homosexuals and there is nothing natural about it. Just the sight and smell of fecal matter spread all over your penis should have been enough for most people to stop.

The fact that they don’t should tell you all you need to know, They are abbynormal.

ScottyDog

obviously your a very clever doggy with an anal fetish but I really don’t need you pretending to understand anything about being gay. given that humanity is an amazing species with huge amounts of variation one can be expected not to understand what it means to actually be gay. You seem to focus on the sex side. But that’s really not it, any guy or girl having sex with either gender would find that it’s perfectly pleasurable and all the parts work out just fine. But porn actors prove that straights can have gay sex and still be straight. but that’s not the root of what it means to be gay, being gay means that I don’t emotionally bond with women, i have never felt any desire to partner with a female except as an attempt to make other people not realize I was gay. when I’m with a guy I can, i feel romantic, I feel comfortable, and I feel balanced. that’s what being ‘gay’ is. Being openly gay means that you have come to the conclusion that you are doing yourself and your family more harm by denying your true attractions and lying or manipulating them than telling the truth and that you have decided to make that jump. For some really good stories that might help explain that read this
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

@Hening you do know that often times in the old testament male prostitutes were run out of the temple compound…

Zekecorlain on November 4, 2009 at 5:49 PM

Badger40 on November 4, 2009 at 5:34 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

“One is often surprised to find how many apparent contradictions [in the Gospel Resurrection accounts] turn out not to be contradictory at all, but merely supplementary… Divergences appear very great on first sight… But the fact remains that all of [the Resurrection accounts], without exception, can be made to fall into a place in a single orderly and coherent narrative, without the smallest contradiction or difficulty and without any suppression, invention, or manipulation, beyond a trifling effort to imagine the natural behavior of a bunch of startled people running about in the dawn-light between Jerusalem and the garden.

courtesy Dr. Dorothy Sayers The Man Born to be King

kingsjester on November 4, 2009 at 5:34 PM

The same logic is true of the alibi of any criminal, if you happen to love the criminal.

If someone wanted to attack the Torah by pointing out some contradiction, I just say let’s embrace the contradiction. Not all versions of Judaism and Christianity feel the need to defend every “jot and tittle” of their respective Bibles.

thuja on November 4, 2009 at 5:55 PM

My problem with the wording on the piece last night if the person voting was all right with forcing churches and other religions to do ceremonies for gay couples.

If gay couple want to be joined in the eyes of government, fine… but you should not be forcing another person, or religion, to accept you when it goes against their beliefs. And there are cases in other countries, where same-sex marriages are legal, where churches and religious people are being thrown in jail because they refuse to do ceremonies.

That’s simply wrong.

And I say this as someone who hasn’t gone to church since I was a young kid.

Enoxo on November 4, 2009 at 5:56 PM

Yeah because a dog, cricket, horse, and heating pad can all consent to marrage. Oh wait..

XianProject on November 4, 2009 at 5:41 PM

Ah, maybe you’ve heard of Cass Sunstein, who believes animals can bring law suits. If they can give consent to bring law suits, why wouldn’t they be able to consent to marriage?

mossberg500 on November 4, 2009 at 5:59 PM

The idea that what and who you decide to screw is not a free choice is absolutely ridiculous. There is no such thing as sexual orientation except ones gender, man or woman. HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A GENDER!!!!! Men and women were built to copulate with each other. Any other form is a deviant from the normal.

docdave on November 4, 2009 at 6:05 PM

If homosexuals wish to marry they should move to a state that has sanctioned homosexual marriage rather force a state to have gay marriage.

b1jetmech on November 4, 2009 at 6:14 PM

There is no mention in the bible that being homosexual is wrong. right2bright on November 4, 2009 at 4:58 PM

Really!? It appears that many of the Christian posters on HA disagree with you.

Christians and LDS may disagree on other points of doctrines but we would agree that the Bible clearly teaches homosexuality is wrong.

Besides, I’d like to see you prove the Bible approves of homosexuality.

The NT does not allow polygamy…The Greeks and the Roman’s did not practice polygamy (there was one minor sect of Palestinians who did, and in the second temple time some of Judaism was)…there are several verses undermining that practice. And especially aimed at church leaders, (1 Tim, Titus), and believers are to follow the good example of the leaders (Phil, Thes, Tim, etc).right2bright on November 4, 2009 at 4:58 PM

There are some Christians out there that would disagree with you. In fact, there are a few Christian websites that claim the NT does endorse polygamy. Take a look here, here, here and here.

I’ve cited a few Christian websites for you. They may not be mainstream Christians but there are people out there who are making the case for Christian-polygamy.

There’s even a debate about polygamy within the Jewish faith regarding whether or not Judaism forbids polygamy. Take a look here,here, here, here and here.

In fact, there’s a fierce debate going on whether or not the Bible approves or disapproves of polygamy.

Man, you are way off on your bible knowledge, seldom have I seen such mis-information in one post.

right2bright on November 4, 2009 at 4:58 PM

I think you ought to look in the mirror. Clearly, HA people don’t think you understand your Bible. I don’t think you know your Bible either.

This is why Smith the “prophet” is such a farce, he was a polygamist, even marrying already married women, and taking child brides…not to different from Mohamed.

right2bright on November 4, 2009 at 4:58 PM

I guess some of the greatest prophets of God in the Bible (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and others)are a “farce” for practicing polygamy.

As for Joseph Smith and polygamy, and the accusation of him practicing polyandry and marrying young women, I’ll simply refer you to here and here

The RLDS/Community of Christ, an offshoot of the Salt Lake LDS Church (but not affiliated with the LDS Church), believe that Joseph Smith actually opposed polygamy.

Conservative Samizdat on November 4, 2009 at 6:21 PM

Any other form is a deviant from the normal.

docdave on November 4, 2009 at 6:05 PM

What about those who prefer kissing or hand-holding to sex? Since two men can kiss just as easily as two women, should that considered “normal?”

The Race Card on November 4, 2009 at 6:24 PM

“If you Trigger take this man as your lawfully wedded husband. stomp your right hoof three times.”

Hening on November 4, 2009 at 5:46 PM

I think you need to look up what legal informed consent means. Genius.

Ah, maybe you’ve heard of Cass Sunstein, who believes animals can bring law suits. If they can give consent to bring law suits, why wouldn’t they be able to consent to marriage?

mossberg500 on November 4, 2009 at 5:59 PM

I actually have heard of him and think it’s a moot point. When an animal successfully files and wins a lawsuit, then we can discuss it. But lets not let hypothetical situations cloud the matter at hand. We are talking about human adults who are of consenting age not animals or inanimate objects.

XianProject on November 4, 2009 at 6:25 PM

Walked into this thread and read, now ….I’m slowly backing away toward the door

Jeff from WI on November 4, 2009 at 6:28 PM

@Hening you do know that often times in the old testament male prostitutes were run out of the temple compound…

Zekecorlain on November 4, 2009 at 5:49 PM

….and Israel suffered for turning against God each time according to Scripture. The presence of sex in the temple was a reflection of the pagan religions and their effect on Jewish temple life. These were the people that God asked the Hebrews not to associate with, and they did not obey. These were also the type of events that were blamed for the destruction of the first temple and the Jews being led into captivity. I am not saying that homosexuality or prostitution was not present in ancient Israel or in modern day Islam. I am saying that in both cases it was against the Commandments and was punishable by death when the temple law was enforced.

Hening on November 4, 2009 at 6:32 PM

“If you Trigger take this man as your lawfully wedded husband. stomp your right hoof three times.”

Hening on November 4, 2009 at 5:46 PM

I think you need to look up what legal informed consent means. Genius.

Lighten up, it was a joke.

Hening on November 4, 2009 at 6:33 PM

Washington State won legalization of civil unions last night.

How come you didn’t cover that story?

Spathi on November 4, 2009 at 5:38 PM

I don’t mean to speak for the powers in charge, but I would venture to guess that this thread is about same sex marriage and not same sex unions. There is a big difference between the two. Same sex marriage includes redefining what marriage is. Same sex union is open to definition. There also seems to be less resistance to same sex unions. Too bad that the drive has been to try and redefine marriage and not work towards establishing a standard for same sex unions, which already exist in one form or another in many places.

Hening on November 4, 2009 at 6:39 PM

All the Bible arguments on this topic.. I don’t get it. I think its gay marriage advocates chumming the waters and changing the topic, because they have no rational arguments to make for forcing gay “marriage” on the society.

We are not a theocracy. There is a process to follow in changing the framework of society. The people have used that process and made their wishes clear 31 times.

Deal with it.

Itchee Dryback on November 4, 2009 at 6:40 PM

Washington State won legalization of civil unions last night.

How come you didn’t cover that story?

Spathi on November 4, 2009 at 5:38 PM

How much you want to bet that it won’t be good enough? If the pattern used for all the victims groups plays out yet again, this is just the foothold.

Itchee Dryback on November 4, 2009 at 6:43 PM

Folks, all I can say is that I did not choose to be gay. And, also, 500 plus responses to this thread is ridiculous.

Good night.

SC.Charlie on November 4, 2009 at 6:46 PM

There is a process to follow in changing the framework of society. The people have used that process and made their wishes clear 31 times.

Itchee Dryback on November 4, 2009 at 6:40 PM

Along with the Prop 1 vote in Maine where about 47% voted in favor of gay marriage, there were other interesting results.

About 59% in Maine voted in favor of medical marijuana, and about 51% of Washington State voters expanded domestic partnership rights to be nearly equal those of marriage.

Every November there will be votes. We’ll see how they go, but 40 years ago none of the numbers above would have been anywhere near where they are now. Maybe they stop trending they way they have, but, with generational change, I doubt it.

dedalus on November 4, 2009 at 6:55 PM

Tolerance. Get some. Maybe your God can help you with that if you pray or something.

Dave Rywall on November 4, 2009 at 3:13 PM

I sense some hypocrisy.

BTW why do you need the Govt. to be your Daddy?

Anyone who really believes gay is a choice, must by default admit that straight is a choice as well. It’s your sexuality, not a shoe style. If one chooses gay as a sexual identity, then one chooses straight as a sexual identity.

But I don’t think the gay-deranged will ever admit that.

JetBoy on November 4, 2009 at 5:13 PM

While I don’t necessarily think that it is a choice for gays, your argument is specious. The reality is the heterosexuality is the norm and required for mankind to continue…well at least for now.

CWforFreedom on November 4, 2009 at 7:02 PM

How much you want to bet that it won’t be good enough? If the pattern used for all the victims groups plays out yet again, this is just the foothold.

Well it’s a step in the right direction. Win the Civil Unions battle giving them all the same legal rights as married adults, but then next election we can fight to call it officially call it Marriage.

It’s still good progress.

Spathi on November 4, 2009 at 7:02 PM

But porn actors prove that straights can have gay sex and still be straight.

That only proves some people will do anything for money

aceinstall on November 4, 2009 at 7:04 PM

Note that election in Washington Stat gave gay couples a different title…civil unions, but they still got all the same rights.

At this point, now we’re just fighting over whether it has to be named something different.

Spathi on November 4, 2009 at 7:04 PM

The danger to society is not gay marriage it is the legitimization of the homosexual lifestyle which goes far beyond the bedroom.

I don’t know what HA did with the old Ed Morrisey but this new version that is all for legalizing dope, supports homosexuality in all its forms as a legitimate lifestyle choice, stands up for Scozzafava over a committed conservative, etc. I miss the old less bitter and more analytical Ed than this one.

highhopes on November 4, 2009 at 7:06 PM

Actually I disagree, I think homosexcuals choose to be homosexuals and there is nothing natural about it. Just the sight and smell of fecal matter spread all over your penis should have been enough for most people to stop.

The fact that they don’t should tell you all you need to know, They are abbynormal.

ScottyDog on November 4, 2009 at 5:22 PM

I nominate this for greatest post ever in the history of HotAir.

I mean, dear god, great work ScottyDog.

e-pirate on November 4, 2009 at 7:08 PM

At this point, now we’re just fighting over whether it has to be named something different.

Spathi on November 4, 2009 at 7:04 PM

Not even close when you throw in all the assumed protections that apply to real marriages. How, for example, can a church-run institution (whose faith rejects sodomy) deny same-sex benefits if the state legitimizes the lifestyle choice.

Homosexuality may or may not be a choice but, like alcoholism, drug abuse, or excessive overeating- it doesn’t have to be supported by society as some sort of inherent human right. I’m very disappointed that Ed has come out in favor of supporting the gay lifestyle despite the documented proof that this is not helpful to society.

highhopes on November 4, 2009 at 7:10 PM

Gay couple booted from NYC taxi by Muslim

aengus on November 4, 2009 at 7:15 PM

Homosexuals have been around since..like FOREVER and the Earth still turns.Oooh.. they’re so dangerous. @@ So much bigotry on this thread. It’s very sad.
The teachings of Jesus are lost on many of you.
“let he who is without sin, cast the first stone”

lostinjrz on November 4, 2009 at 7:18 PM

Abomination in the eyes of God.

huckelberry on November 4, 2009 at 7:20 PM

The teachings of Jesus are lost on many of you.
“let he who is without sin, cast the first stone”

lostinjrz on November 4, 2009 at 7:18 PM

Please stop cutting and pasting from Scripture to support your position. The Bible is very clear that homosexuality is an unforgivable sin. It is mentioned specifically as evil.

Christians should love the sinner but that doesn’t mean they have to support the sin or sinful behavior.

Again stop misrepresenting the Christian faith.

highhopes on November 4, 2009 at 7:22 PM

Not even close when you throw in all the assumed protections that apply to real marriages. How, for example, can a church-run institution (whose faith rejects sodomy) deny same-sex benefits if the state legitimizes the lifestyle choice.

Homosexuality may or may not be a choice but, like alcoholism, drug abuse, or excessive overeating- it doesn’t have to be supported by society as some sort of inherent human right. I’m very disappointed that Ed has come out in favor of supporting the gay lifestyle despite the documented proof that this is not helpful to society.

I don’t have a problem with churches selectively rejecting things that it doesn’t want to participate in or if it doesn’t want certain members in its church.

Whatever…go to a different church then.

Spathi on November 4, 2009 at 7:30 PM

Walked into this thread and read, now ….I’m slowly backing away toward the door

Jeff from WI on November 4, 2009 at 6:28 PM

Me too. This threat has degenerated into a scene from out of a LOTR battle – a few stouthearted warriors desperately trying to hold the high ground from a flood of filthy, unnatural creatures of darkness.

Best thing to do at this point is just cut one’s losses and leave; there’s no real reward to be had from this field of battle any longer…even if there were a reasonable chance of victory.

Dark-Star on November 4, 2009 at 7:37 PM

Maybe they stop trending they way they have, but, with generational change, I doubt it.

dedalus on November 4, 2009 at 6:55 PM

That could be, but the past is no indication of the future, in a straight line progress sort of way. If it was, we would either be Road Warrior savages or a bunch of weepy hippies.

After the destruction of common sense, civility, and the economic system cause by progressive liberal ideas, a reality we are living now for the most part, I think there is evidence of the younger generation trending more conservative. I could be wrong. Time will tell.

Itchee Dryback on November 4, 2009 at 7:46 PM

aengus on November 4, 2009 at 7:15 PM

I’m sure the gay militants are planning to picket and invade a Mosque during services, and start making out and mocking the Muslim beliefs.

Any minute now……

Itchee Dryback on November 4, 2009 at 7:49 PM

The teachings of Jesus are lost on many of you.
“let he who is without sin, cast the first stone”

lostinjrz on November 4, 2009 at 7:18 PM

Not specific to gay rights I do have to say that there is no way Jesus would want us to stand back and not work to stop people from doing wrong. Sorry just not true.

CWforFreedom on November 4, 2009 at 7:50 PM

Arrugh, It is listed as a sin, not as an unforgivable sin. Adultery is worse. All beside the point. What two or more consenting adults do is not my business. We are know for our friends as much as our enemies however . . . if someone supports a group such as Nambla they are declaring themselves as a foe to an awful lot of us.

creative dude on November 4, 2009 at 7:52 PM

Divorce is a much bigger danger to marriage than gay marriage ever will be,

Hmm. Don’t think so. Divorce is not trying to give a new or different definition of marriage — gay marriage is. Think on that for a moment. Furthermore, once you normalize gay marriage in our society they’ll make it a hate crime to object to it. Try preaching homosexuality is an unnatural act God never intended you to engage in and you’ll get thrown in jail. First Amendment rights will no longer apply. Have you ever heard of somebody who’s had a divorce trying to make it a hate crime for anybody to object to divorce? Divorce isn’t a bigger danger to marriage than gay marriage. I think you’re looking at it the wrong way.

and the dissolution of the nuclear family a much bigger threat to the fabric of society than gays and lesbians living together.

Again, divorce is destructive, but divorce is not trying to change the definition of family — gay marriage is. Homosexuals are trying to change the definition of family in American culture. You talk about the “dissolution of the nuclear family.” Why not object to both “divorce,” and “gay marriage,” Ed? Both are threats to the fabric of society. That’s seems logical. Right? Ed, the Bible does not make the case for gay marriage, neither should we.

Everyone would be better off with government out of the bedroom and the chapel — and so would marriage.

I totally agree. In colonial America marriage licence laws were absolutely unheard of. George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were both married without a marriage licence.

apacalyps on November 4, 2009 at 7:52 PM

555 posts, and not one reply to which people and lifestyles should not be allowed to marry and why.

Why do you suppose that is??

Itchee Dryback on November 4, 2009 at 7:52 PM

I’m just glad they got a chance to vote on it. We moved from vermont to THE GREAT STATE OF TEXAS because the clown Gov. dean forced it on us…………..

1luckydogg on November 4, 2009 at 7:58 PM

Homosexuals have been around since..like FOREVER and the Earth still turns.

lostinjrz on November 4, 2009 at 7:18 PM

In the entire history of Western civilization, going back to ancient Mesopotamia, never once was homosexual marriage legal. Marriage was ALWAYS men married to women. Some places were more tolerant, many were downright hostle to homosexuals, but never marriage.

Now homosexual marriage is supposed to be some kind of “civil right”? Not in the history of civilization has it ever been a right, and we’re talking roughly 12,000 years here.

Rebar on November 4, 2009 at 7:59 PM

but 40 years ago none of the numbers above would have been anywhere near where they are now. Maybe they stop trending they way they have, but, with generational change, I doubt it.

dedalus on November 4, 2009 at 6:55 PM

40 years ago Mohammed wasn’t a popular name in America. If you are counting on ‘generational change’, you might be missing the triangulation with the growing, outspoken, and intolerant Muslim community. Christians aren’t the problem, and they won’t stand up against Muslims on behalf of gays. Gays better figure out an alliance with the Christians because they have never had it so good in society and likely they never will have it so good.

This is America:

Gay couple booted from NYC taxi by Muslim

aengus on November 4, 2009 at 7:15 PM

The gay people can sue for ‘discrimination’, but that won’t make the discriminators like them more. The saddest part is that with all the issues in the world, our nation is debating ‘gay marriage’. The end is certainly near.

ThackerAgency on November 4, 2009 at 8:00 PM

I don’t have a problem with churches selectively rejecting things that it doesn’t want to participate in or if it doesn’t want certain members in its church.

Whatever…go to a different church then.

Spathi on November 4, 2009 at 7:30 PM

True that. My goal is not acceptance, I’m long past the point of caring if you choose to love or hate me for who I am. Though as I get into a heated debate it might not see like that, but my objective here is to have the same right of marriage as heterosexuals. I’m not out to force churches to condone, much less preform such marriages; nor am I here to force you to like gays. Because quite frankly I don’t really care, maybe some do, but myself and most of my friends don’t.

XianProject on November 4, 2009 at 8:03 PM

The teachings of Jesus are lost on many of you.
“let he who is without sin, cast the first stone”

lostinjrz on November 4, 2009 at 7:18 PM
Not specific to gay rights I do have to say that there is no way Jesus would want us to stand back and not work to stop people from doing wrong. Sorry just not true

It’s none of yours, mine or anyone elses business what two consenting adults chose to do behind closed doors. If it doesn’t directly affect you,break any laws or hurt anyone.. butt out. Would you like to see homosexuality outlawed? That’s the vibe I get. You can hardly call yourselves conservatives. What a shame.
Count me among the conservatives who are disgusted at the complete take over by the religious right of the Rep. party. Time for a third pary. I’ll pray to my God for one for 2012.

lostinjrz on November 4, 2009 at 8:08 PM

I’ve been saving some ‘scary’ links concerning homosexuality in society worldwide. I love to bring these up when Americans talk about how terrible the gay community is treated here. Here’s another American (non-Christian) discussing the gay community.

Homosexuals must be killed says a Muslim at a march in DC. A pretty average every day man on the street interview here.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/10/muslim-at-islam-on-capitol-hill-prayer-event-homosexuals-must-be-killed.html

And for good measure, here’s another scary one. I’ve got tons, but I like to space them out for the gay pity party we have on here regularly.

Moroccan faith healer burns 18 year old girl to death to rid her of her homosexuality.

All of these are recent. . .like this past month. enjoy and continue to complain how discriminated you are that you can’t ‘marry’ in America.

ThackerAgency on November 4, 2009 at 8:12 PM

Count me among the conservatives who are disgusted at the complete take over by the religious right of the Rep. party. Time for a third pary. I’ll pray to my God for one for 2012.

lostinjrz on November 4, 2009 at 8:08 PM

I said not specific to gay rights. You are not very smart are you? Pray on you judgmental freak.

CWforFreedom on November 4, 2009 at 8:13 PM

but my objective here is to have the same right of marriage as heterosexuals.

XianProject on November 4, 2009 at 8:03 PM

You do.
Two straight men cannot marry…two straight women cannot marry. Even if they want to have a purely platonic relationship because they love and respect each other.

The only “X” factor, or difference for gays, is having sex. Other than that, you are on equal terms with hetrosexuals.

Itchee Dryback on November 4, 2009 at 8:14 PM

lostinstupidity on November 4, 2009 at 8:08 PM

I do find it interesting that casting the first stone by those like you against supposed right wing Christians seems acceptable. Hypocrite.

CWforFreedom on November 4, 2009 at 8:14 PM

Time for a third party. I’ll pray to my God for one for 2012.

lostinjrz on November 4, 2009 at 8:08 PM

A dicey proposition after the way we’ve thrown Him out of our legal system, our schools, our courts, and our government.

Dark-Star on November 4, 2009 at 8:17 PM

Count me among the conservatives who are disgusted at the complete take over by the religious right of the Rep. party. Time for a third pary. I’ll pray to my God for one for 2012.

lostinjrz on November 4, 2009 at 8:08 PM
I said not specific to gay rights. You are not very smart are you? Pray on you judgmental freak

I am HARDLY he judgmental one on these threads… High pot, this is kettle.
Not specific to gay rights.. so then what should you all speakout against that Jesus would be so proud of?
Leave the gays alone!

lostinjrz on November 4, 2009 at 8:17 PM

Leave the gays alone!

lostinjrz on November 4, 2009 at 8:17 PM

Yes pot meet kettle…you just judged again. Laughable.

CWforFreedom on November 4, 2009 at 8:20 PM

lostinstupidity

You’re insane

CWforFreedom on November 4, 2009 at 8:20 PM

lostinstupidity on November 4, 2009 at 8:08 PM

I do find it interesting that casting the first stone by those like you against supposed right wing Christians seems acceptable. Hypocrite.

Preach and believe what you will, but YOUR religious beliefs should not infringe on my rights. You’ll sing a different tune when Christians are no longer the majority.Would you like Islamic law forced upon you? It’s best to leave all religion and bigotry out of government.

lostinjrz on November 4, 2009 at 8:21 PM

lostinstupidity on November 4, 2009 at 8:21 PM

You are preaching to the wrong guy and I notice you cannot stay on topic can you? Your lack of comprehension skills are scary.

CWforFreedom on November 4, 2009 at 8:23 PM

Leave the gays alone!

lostinjrz on November 4, 2009 at 8:17 PM

As soon as they quit parading their perversion in our schools and in the streets.

Tell ya what: actually keep your sick practices in your bedrooms and we’ll call it even.

Dark-Star on November 4, 2009 at 8:25 PM

I can stay on topic just fine. Thank you. The topic is bigotry. It’s all over this thread.

lostinjrz on November 4, 2009 at 8:27 PM

Leave the gays alone!

lostinjrz on November 4, 2009 at 8:17 PM
As soon as they quit parading their perversion in our schools and in the streets.

Tell ya what: actually keep your sick practices in your bedrooms and we’ll call it even

Im a 30 year old married heterosexual woman.. and I do keep my sick practices in the bedroom.. to the delight of my fortunate husband.
Thanks.

lostinjrz on November 4, 2009 at 8:29 PM

lostinjrz on November 4, 2009 at 8:29 PM

That was a generic ‘your’, bimbo.

Dark-Star on November 4, 2009 at 8:32 PM

Im a 30 year old married heterosexual woman.. and I do keep my sick practices in the bedroom.. to the delight of my fortunate husband.
Thanks.

lostinjrz on November 4, 2009 at 8:29 PM

I bet you are a bitch whiny bore

CWforFreedom on November 4, 2009 at 8:33 PM

I can stay on topic just fine. Thank you. The topic is bigotry. It’s all over this thread.

lostinjrz on November 4, 2009 at 8:27 PM

Not really. I made the point that yes Jesus does want us to stand up against things that are wrong. Your comprehension skills again are terrifying.

CWforFreedom on November 4, 2009 at 8:35 PM

Hit a nerve, I suppose.

lostinjrz on November 4, 2009 at 8:35 PM

to the delight of my fortunate husband.
Thanks.

lostinjrz on November 4, 2009 at 8:29 PM

My guess is your husband is ghey

Not that there is anything wrong with that

CWforFreedom on November 4, 2009 at 8:36 PM

It’s still good progress.

Spathi on November 4, 2009 at 7:02 PM

The point was that the equal legal rights argument is a scam. Most people know this.

Itchee Dryback on November 4, 2009 at 8:39 PM

to the delight of my fortunate husband.
Thanks.

lostinjrz on November 4, 2009 at 8:29 PM
My guess is your husband is ghey

Not that there is anything wrong with that

Yes, that must be it. Terrifying.

lostinjrz on November 4, 2009 at 8:40 PM

Do your job . I don’t care . On and Lostinstupidity …gay or straight I be your husband is looking around. Stupidity is not attractive.

CWforFreedom on November 4, 2009 at 8:41 PM

Yes, that must be it. Terrifying.

lostinjrz on November 4, 2009 at 8:40 PM

Did you just quote yourself? Too friggin funny

CWforFreedom on November 4, 2009 at 8:41 PM

555 posts, and not one reply to which people and lifestyles should not be allowed to marry and why.

Why do you suppose that is??

Itchee Dryback on November 4, 2009 at 7:52 PM

A court is likely to rely on the concept of “similarly situated people” in determining whether there is a question of equal protection. From there the government’s legislation would have to pass some level of scrutiny.

“Similarly situated” is the key issue inside and outside of court. If one believes that a gay couple has the similar fundamental responsibilities and commitments as a straight couple then one is likely to see it as a marriage. However, if one believes otherwise then obviously it isn’t marriage and an equal protection argument doesn’t apply.

dedalus on November 4, 2009 at 8:42 PM

California had gone against it several times and they cannot do that without liberal types . So you cannot blame this all on “right wing Christians”. Interesting those that use that tact use the same methods to attack that they decry. Hypocrites.

CWforFreedom on November 4, 2009 at 8:44 PM

Do your job . I don’t care . On and Lostinstupidity …gay or straight I be your husband is looking around. Stupidity is not attractive

and neither is ignorance and hatred.. you reek of both.

lostinjrz on November 4, 2009 at 8:46 PM

That must have been one heck of a blow for Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews and the rest of the NAMBLA.

Jerricho68 on November 4, 2009 at 8:53 PM

Stupidity is not attractive

Oh, you’d be surprised. Some guys intentionally seek out women who have the cognitive capabilities of a sack of hammers to make themselves look smarter by comparison.

Now usually, that’s because they themselves have the IQ of a dandelion, but I’ve seen a couple smart guys do it just for ego. It makes you feel like Einstein when you can answer every single question from someone and have them in awe of your brainpower…

…or it can make you want to put your head in your hands because you wonder how the hell can anyone be THAT ignorant.

Dark-Star on November 4, 2009 at 8:58 PM

CWforFreedom on November 4, 2009 at 8:41 PM

Dude, that’s over the line. Incredibly over the line.

MadisonConservative on November 4, 2009 at 9:01 PM

I wish the politicians would stop trying to backdoor social change on us…..is it asking to much of them to be straight with us?

David in ATL on November 4, 2009 at 9:09 PM

Being gay, it is so nice to be loved by so, so many ……

SC.Charlie on November 4, 2009 at 9:15 PM

Vanceone on November 4, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Thanks for looking up the Maine law. Here’s how the proposition was phrased: “Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?”

Had it just said “Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry?” I believe it would have passed. But if you read the entire statement quickly, you may very well confused by the second half, as, indeed, I was.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on November 4, 2009 at 9:18 PM

The choice is yours. Get back in the closet or get up against the wall.

Jerricho68 on November 4, 2009 at 9:20 PM

Anyone who really believes gay is a choice, must by default admit that straight is a choice as well. It’s your sexuality, not a shoe style. If one chooses gay as a sexual identity, then one chooses straight as a sexual identity.

But I don’t think the gay-deranged will ever admit that.

JetBoy on November 4, 2009 at 5:13 PM

Yup. Homosexuality is a choice, just as consciously committed heterosexuality is a choice, and arranged committed heterosexuality is a choice, and serial long-term heterosexuality is a choice, and serial casual heterosexuality is a choice. What eHarmony sells is not the Victorian “walking out” and that is not the Roman betrothal which is not the ancient Hebrew betrothal which is not a Hindu betrothal. The modern American “LGBT” community would have no role at all in ancient Sparta, where men frolicked in dormitories before a stint of conjugal duty with a wife they did not romance. Our modern idea of “love” would disgust and outrage most of the humans who lived over the past 10,000 years. Sexuality is culture. Culture is choice.

Chris_Balsz on November 4, 2009 at 9:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7 8