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In an election that had been billed for weeks as too close to call, Maine’s often unpredictable voters repealed a state law Tuesday that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed.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: « Previous 1 … 5 6 7 8 Next »
Wow…say again?
CWforFreedom on November 4, 2009 at 9:33 PM
You have the talking points down. Stay proud.
STFU
CWforFreedom on November 4, 2009 at 9:35 PM
Interesting for those that speak of being non-judgmental you sure are judgmental.
CWforFreedom on November 4, 2009 at 9:38 PM
I see you’re keeping your classy standard going. I’m blown away by your gravitas.
MadisonConservative on November 4, 2009 at 9:38 PM
Yes you add so much. Much like little Ms. Prissy you cannot address the issues at hand. You instead choose to pick out one comment and go with it. Quite typical of the simple minded.
CWforFreedom on November 4, 2009 at 9:41 PM
It’s hard to believe people would be for this government control of marriage. But, most people have odd positions on most important issues and that’s just the way it is.
The Dean on November 4, 2009 at 9:44 PM
You’re in good company. I was just called a bitter, self-hating, man-hating feminazi (I need to break the news to my husband) in another topic because I don’t have or want children and dared to defend my position.
Two of the best friends I ever had are gay and my father-in-law is gay. Not all of us feel the way the more vocal in this thread do. :)
Monica on November 4, 2009 at 9:45 PM
Kudos, Maine.
I had no idea 31 states had rejected gay marriage. The mood of the nation is undeniable. Marriage is one man, one woman.
madmonkphotog on November 4, 2009 at 9:46 PM
.
Where does the control end? Just wondering. I assume multiple spouses would be fine with you. Cousins?
I am not being snide.
CWforFreedom on November 4, 2009 at 9:46 PM
I guess I’ve missed this part of the discussion, but it seems to me that if everyone has the right to marry, then marriage must be available to multiple partners, very close relatives, and so on. I keep asking, “Why shouldn’t polygamy or polyandry be legal, if same-sex marriage is?” but I don’t get much of an answer. I’m still asking.
KyMouse on November 4, 2009 at 9:49 PM
What topic did that come up in? On this site?
Was you father-in-law married?
CWforFreedom on November 4, 2009 at 9:49 PM
Yep I just asked pretty much the same. I wonder if anyone has an answer.
Madison ?
CWforFreedom on November 4, 2009 at 9:50 PM
My point is that marriage should be defined by the church (not the government) and become a more personal decision within the community.
The Dean on November 4, 2009 at 9:52 PM
Been arguing the issue on this site and others for years, bub. Recognized the futility long ago.
MadisonConservative on November 4, 2009 at 9:56 PM
1. So you would do away with any legal benefits of marriage in regards to taxes and in regards to legal protection when it comes to property?
2. Also, I would assume then if Church’s sanctioned polygamy or cousins to marry that would be fine with you.
CWforFreedom on November 4, 2009 at 9:57 PM
So you don’t bother? In your case you cherry pick while in Ms. Prissy’s case she is being obtuse to meet her ends and you wonder why I come down on her .
CWforFreedom on November 4, 2009 at 9:59 PM
Thank God…another defeat for the forces of fascism and religious intolerance.
right4life on November 4, 2009 at 10:05 PM
Correct. Now you have federal Government telling the church what to do with marriage, federal government telling the states whether they can host the 10 commandments or even the crucifix, and the federal government telling local schools whether they can even pray in them. Get the Feds out and let the community decide, is the Constitutional answer.
The Dean on November 4, 2009 at 10:06 PM
If she’s so obtuse, argue the case, and stop attacking her family, you filth.
MadisonConservative on November 4, 2009 at 10:07 PM
right4life on November 4, 2009 at 10:08 PM
I don’t even know her family. You must be one of those judgmental right wingers she talked about. So sensitive. Grow some balls. Actually, your fake outrage is just silly if not outrageously funny.
CWforFreedom on November 4, 2009 at 10:12 PM
Madison so good of you to address the topics at hand .
/sarc
You think you have so much “gravitas” as you put it. But funny I don’t see it.In fact no one does.
CWforFreedom on November 4, 2009 at 10:14 PM
It doesn’t take balls to tell a woman you disagree with that her husband is gay or cheating on her. It takes a distinct lack of them.
MadisonConservative on November 4, 2009 at 10:15 PM
You’re in good company. Although the insults are worded differently (since I’m a male), I know exactly what kind of s–t gets thrown at you.
Dark-Star on November 4, 2009 at 10:16 PM
Your outrage is charming to Ms. Prissy I am sure. BTW -She -not I- brought up her personal life.
Oh and good job addressing the topic at hand. Your Gravitas is just blowing us away. /
You sure have proven your ballsiness…congrats.
CWforFreedom on November 4, 2009 at 10:20 PM
It’s a strawman question. Gays aren’t asking for any of those things. When someone does, let the people vote on it, like they are for the gay marriage issue. If the majority of people vote in those things, so be it. If they vote against it, equally good. Federalism is pretty awesome, but I know a number of anti-gay marriage people here and other places would be just as in favor of the courts overruling the people as some gay activists are.
MadisonConservative on November 4, 2009 at 10:20 PM
You got called on your disgusting behavior. Man up and either own it and admit what you are, or apologize. I don’t care which. Also, I never talked about my gravitas. I don’t need to.
MadisonConservative on November 4, 2009 at 10:22 PM
I think there will be a cure within my life time. Then this issue will just go away.
Ted Torgerson on November 4, 2009 at 10:22 PM
Who said they did?
CWforFreedom on November 4, 2009 at 10:23 PM
Our government has become very anti-Christian. People forced to recognize marriage in a specific way. Ten Commandments aren’t allowed. Nativity scenes – not allowed. Bibles in the military denied. Most of all, an abandonment of any concept of Just War in favor of raw imperialism.
The Dean on November 4, 2009 at 10:23 PM
So you are one of those judgmental right wingers. Got it.
CWforFreedom on November 4, 2009 at 10:25 PM
Implication by association. This is why I didn’t bother engaging you, because intellectually dishonest debaters aren’t worth it. Cut the “who, me?” crap.
MadisonConservative on November 4, 2009 at 10:26 PM
You got it!
MadisonConservative on November 4, 2009 at 10:26 PM
+1000
Part of the reason we aren’t winning against jihad is because we’re trying to engage it strictly on a secular level. Short of outright butchery of Muslims worldwide, we’ll never neutralize the threat.
Dark-Star on November 4, 2009 at 10:27 PM
Actually the argument is about the right of the people to set limitations. Many that are for gay marriage do not think the government should have the right to set such a limit. So to ask such a question is very legitimate.
CWforFreedom on November 4, 2009 at 10:30 PM
How soon will this anti-Christian from our government will change and they will persecute Christians throwing them in prisons or ordering what can be preached from the pulpit.
garydt on November 4, 2009 at 10:31 PM
Well hello Nancy Pelosi. Have I got a few thoughts I’d like to share with you.
Seriously, there is a huge difference between humanity and compassion to homosexuals as human beings and the social issue of legitimization of the homosexual lifestyle. These are two utterly different things but dare point that out and your side is full of pretty awful comments of their own.
The whole debate goes nowhere so long as the context remains an all-or-nothing proposition. In case you haven’t noticed all homosexuals are not in committed relationships. Go to any Gay Pride parade, the Southern Decadence Festival, or any gay-specific event and see what other things that you all are demanding full acceptance of the part of the social issue you deliberately lie about and hide. There is a large amount of self-policing by homosexuals themselves before the social issue will ever be adequately addressed and it is up to your side to do it instead of demanding that all dissent is gay-bashing homophobia.
highhopes on November 4, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Actually Nativity scenes are allowed but on public grounds in many places as long as they are displayed with non-religious and other items such as menorahs. As far as the ten commandments go I cannot imagine that you think that they should be forced on unbelievers? By forced I mean that they should pay taxes to build buildings in which the commandments would be displayed.
CWforFreedom on November 4, 2009 at 10:36 PM
Well if we follow Europe and Canada much further it will not be much longer.
CWforFreedom on November 4, 2009 at 10:37 PM
As I posted above. There are two elements, not one, to the debate. First there is the treatment of homosexuals as human beings. The other is a social issue no different than a debate over the legalization of pot or the ability to marry one’s 13-year-old-cousin. Homosexuals may not be “asking” for the abilty to practice man-goat love but that is part of the same debate when you seek to redefine something so fundamental as how society defines marriage. If homosexuals are allowed to express their love with the full blessings of society, who are you to stop those who favor bigamy, beastiality, or incest.
Again, this is a social issue and I don’t expect you to actually defend such types of love but if we are erase marriage as man-woman then you do need to defend why gays are so special that they get an exemption we are not giving that farmer with a really hot sheep in his barn.
highhopes on November 4, 2009 at 10:42 PM
An American voter, that’s who. That particular right has been working for people concerned with this issue. Federalism works, and will continue to work…and this is coming from a gay marriage advocate.
As it stands, so far the votes on the matter have been fairly close. If you believe that the votes would be anywhere near as close for such far-out ideas as beastiality, incest, and polygamy, you sure seem to have a lack of faith in the average American.
MadisonConservative on November 4, 2009 at 10:52 PM
Why shouldn’t they be allowed to be displayed?
b1jetmech on November 4, 2009 at 10:55 PM
I agree with the citizens of Maine and want to protect marriage as being solely between a man and a woman. However, I support civil unions for homosexual couples.
I don’t think being a homosexual is a choice, but believe homosexual practices and lifestyles are choices.
I don’t want homosexuals mistreated or abused for simply being homosexuals or having consensual sex with other adult homosexuals.
I believe lostinjrz was very poorly treated in this thread, and offer you my condolences and support. Please keep posting at Hot Air.
CWforFreedom, you were extremely rude.
I know Madison Conservative and can assure you he has gravytrain in his bowl every night.
Loxodonta on November 4, 2009 at 10:57 PM
I wish all the other gays on this thread would be honest and admit that they are the most happy in life when they play “catcher”. Last time I checked, nobody on earth has been able to stop you from doing that. All this marriage madness is just a way to force more liberal crap on a public that c-l-e-a-r-l-y doesn’t want or will ever accept it. I have accepted this and as a result don’t waste my time arguing about it. And being 6foot2 and 260lbs and masculine, ialso don’t worry about anyone giving me grief about what I do in the bedroom. But then, I keep that seperate from my daily life. What a f-cling concept!!!!!
Ghoul aid on November 4, 2009 at 11:00 PM
If by “can” you meant “cannot,” your statement was 100% accurate. Otherwise, not so much. It’s a basic canon of contract law that penalties are void and unenforceable. Only in the case of marriage do we even talk about penalizing a party who wants out, rather than simply protecting the reasonable expectations of the party that doesn’t (unless that party has breached the deal somehow). And to the extent it makes sense to talk about marriage as a “contract” at all, it may well be the only contract that both parties can’t set aside by mutual consent.
Xrlq on November 4, 2009 at 11:07 PM
Homosexual marriage is a political vehicle to suppress free speech through political correctness.
Ever dare to speak out against homosexuality the you would be labeled a “hatemonger”, homophobe, …
Homosexuals(not all) want to force everyone to accept them as normal.
b1jetmech on November 4, 2009 at 11:07 PM
That happens already. How would gay marriage change that?
MadisonConservative on November 4, 2009 at 11:14 PM
Why reinforce it through gay marriage?
b1jetmech on November 4, 2009 at 11:16 PM
How did anyting I typed lead to that bizarre rant of yours? What exactly is ‘my side’?
I’m a straight female conservative. I don’t hate gay people- I actually love a few of them. You talk about ‘my side’ making awful comments while you come on the attack and call me Nancy Pelosi when I was only trying to make someone feel better because people like you work really hard to make others feel bad over something they have no choice about.
There are most likely gay people around you every day. More than you’d suspect are conservative and other than who they spend intimate moments with, they are no different than you, except maybe more kind and polite. Your lumping all gay people with the anonymous sex having, pride parade marching, thong-clad party boys makes you as much of a stereotype as you portray them.
All straight people aren’t in committed relationships either. Some even engage in (gasp) sodomy, go to porn expos and have anonymous sex. Why are you so obsessed with the sex lives of gay men and controlling the behavior of gay men but have no concern about straights doing the same thing? If one is degrading to society, aren’t all?
Your anger and hosile attitude aren’t helpful or warranted and if you don’t dial it down, I have no interest in engaging further.
Monica on November 4, 2009 at 11:17 PM
Some people are still opposed to interracial marriage, and interracial marriage still occurs. If gay marriage occurred, the same crap would still be slung, regardless.
MadisonConservative on November 4, 2009 at 11:24 PM
There is no comparison.
Can’t compare skin color to behavior…they are worlds apart and can’t be used to justify homosexual marriage.
b1jetmech on November 4, 2009 at 11:29 PM
Um, read Galatians and Hebrews, and compare with Romans. There’s a difference between the moral law and the ceremonial law. The Church has always recognized this. I hate to burst your little gay bubble, really I do.
Akzed on November 4, 2009 at 2:55 PM
***
Why do some people insist on throwing their Bible around on any gay subject? What does gay marriage have to do with cherry-picked scripture?
Hey, I’m Catholic, and don’t expect the Church to perform or sanction gay marriage. It’s all about equal protection and benefits under law…that “Civil Unions” don’t address.
And again, for the record, Jesus never once condemned a gay person, or homosexuality. Not once. I figure if it’s such a mortal sin, He would have had something to say about it.
JetBoy on
**
Don’t Catholics or their PRIESTS READ the BIBLE? No offense, but is that why so many priests in the Catholic religion ‘like’ little boys (because they DON’T read the BIBLE)?
This is from the BIBLE and YES, God DOES condemn homosexuality:
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.”
—1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Leviticus 18:22-23
• “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
• Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.”
Leviticus 20:13
• “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
brendy on November 4, 2009 at 11:34 PM
Finding a cure for bigotry would be wonderful, but I doubt it will ever happen. Bigotry is a choice, not an inherent disease. And each of us has the power to cure it in ourselves.
I hope the issue of having differences over political issues never goes away. The only way for it to do so would be for us to live in a totalitarian system where everyone is forced to think alike, or at least comply with the party line. That’s never been the American way.
Loxodonta on November 4, 2009 at 11:36 PM
We all witnessed bigotry on display at the California anti-prop 8 rallies.
b1jetmech on November 4, 2009 at 11:46 PM
If homosexuals are allowed to express their love with the full blessings of society, who are you to stop those who favor bigamy, beastiality, or incest.
highhopes on November 4, 2009 at 10:42 PM
***
An American voter, that’s who. That particular right has been working for people concerned with this issue. Federalism works, and will continue to work…and this is coming from a gay marriage advocate.
As it stands, so far the votes on the matter have been fairly close. If you believe that the votes would be anywhere near as close for such far-out ideas as beastiality, incest, and polygamy, you sure seem to have a lack of faith in the average American.
MadisonConservative on November 4, 2009 at 10:52 PM
****
“If you believe that the votes would be anywhere near as close for such far-out ideas as beastiality, incest, and polygamy”…
Hate to tell you, but the Bible puts beastiality right up there with homosexuality! Homosexuality is considered a “far-out” idea just like beastiality. And this country and her people are becoming SO p.c., liberal and wicked – they WOULD vote for beastiality so they wouldn’t “hurt” or “offend” anyone! Doesn’t Obama have a czar in his administration who thinks animals should have ‘rights’ to a lawyer?
Nobody is stopping homos from expressing their love for each other or living together – many straight couples do and DON’T get married; I think it’s all about monetary benefits they think they should get like a man/woman marriage.
Just be honest and quit saying “it’s ALL about love” or “why can’t we express our love?” – it’s about MONEY and benefits, too! I bet if homos got THOSE benefits WITHOUT being married, they’d quit demonstrating for marriage ‘rights’ immediately.
brendy on November 4, 2009 at 11:52 PM
What do you call someone who takes the comment of one person and generalizes it to the whole group, or takes the misdeeds of a few to characterize a whole group?
Do you really not know any Catholics? Or, do you not know any actual practicing Catholics who read the Bible? Have you never attended or watched or read a Catholic Mass? I suggest you do some research.
I’m a Catholic. I read the Bible. Bible selections are read at every Catholic Mass.
I disagree with JetBoy on many issues, including this one. But I’ve defended him from being abused here simply for being a homosexual. I’ve also smacked him hard for his abuse of Miss California.
I’ve never met or personally known any Catholic Priest who has had sex with little boys. Does that mean none have? Of course not. One is too many and those who do should be stripped of their collars.
Loxodonta on November 4, 2009 at 11:54 PM
.
Brendy,
.
You are right on target.
.
There is just one other point that should be mentioned. They want to force their lifestyle on us that don’t want any part of it. They want schools to teach Johnny has 2 mommies and have our children be forced to listen to this indoctrination.
.
No one is stopping them from fornicating to their hearts content. They want money and to force the straights to associate with them and listen to their preaching.
FactsofLife on November 5, 2009 at 12:11 AM
Loxodonta on November 4, 2009 at 11:54 PM
***
I am MARRIED to a Catholic TURNED Baptist. He was an Alter Boy and went to Catholic schools his WHOLE school career, worked the Bingo games; his family are still Catholics, So, YES, I do know something about their ‘rituals’ and YES, I have been to masses with my husband for his family events. What’s with all this bowing to the priest business – he is just a MORTAL MAN! NO MAN should bow before another MAN!
And, I am NOT ‘abusing’ JetBoy (don’t recall him saying he was a homo); I am just telling him that Jesus DOES condemn homosexuality (I didn’t make the rules – GOD did) because he said he didn’t read that anywhere (or was taught by his ‘church’). I know gays/lesbians and I like them – I’m not bashing them; just their way of life is unnatural but that doesn’t mean I don’t like them. Now, those way-out, far-out in-your-face types, I DO NOT like! I don’t THAT type of ANYBODY of ANY situation!
I try to be a good Christian, and it IS hard – but we are supposed to ‘witness’ for God and tell the world about him and His laws; if we cover up and not offend anyone and say “Oh, homosexuality is o.k., or murder is o.k., ” – what kind of ‘witness to God’ is THAT? We’re just helping that person get farther away from God and His salvation – why would I want THAT? I want EVERYONE to go to Heaven – and it sure ain’t EASY!
God’s Laws are the same TODAY as they were YESTERDAY; His laws NEVER change – although society does. So, go ahead follow society’s laws/rules (everything’s O.K. as far as ‘society’ is concerned) – I’ll follow God’s.
brendy on November 5, 2009 at 12:14 AM
Jetboy is NOT being abused for ‘being a homosexual’. The ‘woe is me, I’m a victim’ mentality is the entire problem with the gay movement.
There is no jurisdiction in America that is policing the ACT of homosexuality. It doesn’t happen. That means that they aren’t discriminated against.
Jetboy is being abused for being wrong on ‘gay rights’. Gay people say it is only ‘right wing Christians’ they have a problem with when clearly the Christians are the least of their worries globally. Count me as a Christian that LOVES I mean REALLY REALLY REALLY LOVES a couple of hot, young, open-minded lesbians.
Gay marriage is a SPECIAL right that they want. It isn’t an EQUAL right. It isn’t a right, but that’s the word they use.
Gay marriage has never in history been sanctioned by a government (because it is a STUPID concept with NO POINT). Polygamy, however, has been documented and accepted in many cultures throughout human history. Eventually the Muslims are going to demand ‘religious freedom’ to have multiple wives (so they can have more babies and populate America with more Sharia loving Muslims).
Here’s the freight train coming that the gays don’t see because they are too busy feeling ‘victimized’. Change marriage laws, and you’ll have to change all of them. Gay people don’t typically have babies so their numbers won’t grow ‘naturally’. Muslims will have many wives for the purpose of having many children.
Eventually religious rights will conflict with ‘gay rights’ and we’ll see what ‘freedom’ really means.
ThackerAgency on November 5, 2009 at 12:17 AM
Media black out has to be factored in regards to crimes committed by homosexuals.
Anyone remember not to long ago at Duke university. A homosexual professor had an adopted 5 year old son who he sold as a sex slave?
Professors are held at such esteem especially liberal ones. This one was sophisticated intellectual but had a dark side. Too bad the poor boy was subjected to such brutality.
What do some people say…”don’t force your morals onto us” If anything we need more of them.
b1jetmech on November 5, 2009 at 12:18 AM
Brendy,
.
You are right on target.
.
There is just one other point that should be mentioned. They want to force their lifestyle on us that don’t want any part of it. They want schools to teach Johnny has 2 mommies and have our children be forced to listen to this indoctrination.
.
No one is stopping them from fornicating to their hearts content. They want money and to force the straights to associate with them and listen to their preaching.
FactsofLife on November 5, 2009 at 12:11 AM
**
THANK YOU! I’m glad to see another person who sees it like I do. They want to make us straight people look like the ones who are WRONG – boy, THAT burns me up. If it weren’t for man/woman relationships, NOBODY WOULD BE BORN – including the gays/lesbians who are screaming for their ‘rights’!
Can you imagine fixing anything with a ‘screw and a screw’ or a ‘washer with a washer’? You use a screw and a washer TOGETHER because they “FIT” together – they work, which is what is INTENDED. A man and man and a woman and woman together don’t ‘fit’ (if you know what I mean). This is unnatural and is an abomination to God (for those who believe) and goes AGAINST nature.
Yeah, it’s all about the money! What about the straight people who go thru life and never find the ‘right’ one and remain single? THEY have nobody for ‘monetary’ benefits, be it taxes or benefits of social security or pension should one or the other die. And, they are lonely to boot! What about THEM?
brendy on November 5, 2009 at 12:25 AM
YEAH what about US?! We’re victims too! We demand marriage rights for singles!
cue Monty Python’s ‘I want to be a woman so I can have a baby’ clip. From now on, I want you all to call me Loretta! It’s my right as a man. and it’s every man’s right to have a baby if he wants one!
ThackerAgency on November 5, 2009 at 12:29 AM
Or maybe most people think it’s just plain wrong.
Big John on November 5, 2009 at 12:35 AM
When has our little darling ever been abused simply or solely for being a homosexual? Or more precisely, what is a homosexual? Is that someone who is born that way (like black people are)?
Is it someone who takes some sort of an irrevocable oath to have sex exclusively with his own gender?
Or is it, as I maintain, a complete fiction designed to trick the logical path of the conversation into an area it does not belong?
Males having sex with males as a lifestyle is more like a religion than it is like anything else. The problem with its adherents viewing it that way would be that they would then have to accept that religions are separate from government.
Thus, their disease problems would be theirs alone to solve and to fund treatments. They could do anything they wanted in the context of their religious practices but they would be out of the public schools and away from normal people’s children.
If they were as sweet as they claim they are, they should easily be able to achieve the acceptance level of Mormons who are generally very friendly people nowadays.
But that is not what they are about, is it? And Jetboy isn’t about that when he thrusts his offensive lifestyle in the face of Catholics when he despises the rules of the Pope who heads that church. No, he claims a right to demand that they put up with his desires AND then come on these threads to demonstrate how a sodomist like himself can fool some of us into thinking he is a victim of unreasonable abuse.
A poor victim, innocently seeking human warmth and compassion and being thwarted at every turn by the abusive bigoted straight ‘normies’ who live to deny him emotional and spiritual sustenance. All he wants is to have us tell him that it’s okay to misuse his body by defying its design.
If that doesn’t make you want to hurl, there’s something wrong with you. And nobody ever abused him here for being deluded. Any abuse was for stupid things he said, just like everybody else here gets abused when they say stupid things.
Compassion is not approval. Homosexual activity kills. Why do we want any human to die for no good reason or purpose?
platypus on November 5, 2009 at 12:40 AM
“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.”
***
Just like liberals and liberal advocates – if you can’t win an argument or situation, blame it on ‘fears’ and ‘lies’; make the people who are against THEIR agenda look like mean, cruel, lying, fearful, un-Christian monster bigots.
brendy on November 5, 2009 at 12:45 AM
But yet I’m forced to have some peice of shit that’s called “art” on those walls that my tax dollars paid for? I call bullshit on that argument. Next.
Big John on November 5, 2009 at 12:50 AM
Take it easy. They have to read out of the playbook – it’s in the liberal policy manual. :)
platypus on November 5, 2009 at 12:51 AM
brendy on November 5, 2009 at 12:45 AM
Take it easy. They have to read out of the playbook – it’s in the liberal policy manual. :)
platypus on November 5, 2009 at 12:51 AM
**
LOL! Ain’t it the truth! I wonder what ‘revision’ number (of their liberal policy manual) they’re up to?
brendy on November 5, 2009 at 12:58 AM
I wasn’t born a Catholic, I converted as an adult. I’ve never been to a bingo game in my life. I’ve met many Catholics who don’t seem very Christian, and I can say the same of many members of other denominations. I find the rituals of all Christian denominations interesting and sometimes quite odd. I look for the religious symbolism in them. When I bow to a priest, I am not bowing to the man, but to what he symbolizes. If you’ve attended Catholic masses, I don’t understand why you would ask if Catholics read the Bible. If it wasn’t read in the masses you attended, I don’t understand how they can be “Roman Catholic.”
Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I didn’t say or mean to imply you were abusing JetBoy. I was just summarizing my history with him here, pointing out that I disagree with him on this issue, etc.
I take it we have not met before here, but I am conservative and don’t support Gay Marriage. I just don’t support gay bashing, of which I’ve read a lot in this thread. I also don’t follow society’s rules, or at least those of contemporary liberal, amoral and immoral culture. I am old, odd, and very old fashioned. For example, I never swear, have only been drunk once in my life because somebody spiked my lemonade, lead a very minimalistic lifestyle not centered on possessions or status, and was never unfaithful to my wife or even considered being so.
I follow my own conscience, as guided by my religious faith and my personal experience of God. I also believe in the right of others to follow their own consciences, or lack of them, and their different beliefs, even when they disagree with mine. To me, that is the American system, and even if it does not always result in an outcome I prefer or think is best or moral, I want to sustain that system of Constitutional Rights.
So, I apologize for any misunderstanding I had, but as I have literally been called a Mary worshiper, idol worshiper, not a real Christian, etc., at Hot Air simply because I am a Catholic, I can sometimes be sensitive to statements that might be casting doubts on the acceptability of my faith.
May peace be with you and all whom you love.
Loxodonta on November 5, 2009 at 1:18 AM
Sorry. Too tired to go searching through threads to cite evidence to support my claim. All I can say is that I honestly believe I have seen verbal abuse here of homosexuals for simply being homosexuals.
And yes, gay political activists can be very offensive and are horribly wrong on many issues.
I don’t why some people are homosexual. But I don’t believe that being a homosexual is a choice or that having homosexual sex necessarily results in disease. I do believe that highly promiscuous homosexual sex is a choice, a very bad choice, and it can often lead to diseases.
I’m sorry to disagree with you, platypus, but I do. I would be very disappointed if that means we can’t be friendly with one another anymore, as I have enjoyed exchanging posts with you many times. But if that does occur, it will not be as a result of my choice.
Loxodonta on November 5, 2009 at 1:36 AM
As I said, ‘gay’ people are deluded. Reasonable people don’t abuse deluded people – they educate them.
This dynamic changes when ‘gay’ people defend their condition or lash out in justification of it. That is affirmative behavior and makes them into fair game. Truth is, most all (I would say ‘all’) of them already know what they’re doing is wrong and they also know that they are substantially disapproved by others. To disregard that is to be offensive and/or defiant.
That behavior needs to be bashed, repeatedly and substantially, lest implied approval is assumed.
Love means leaving nobody behind. Unless they choose to be left behind.
platypus on November 5, 2009 at 1:36 AM
Dark-Star, I share your doubts and fears, but I don’t believe that a thread on gay marriage is the place for this. It’s not just the fate of gay people that is put at risk by pretending that Islam is a nice, little religion like Buddhism or Hinduism. It’s a whole lot more. It’s every decent Western value: Christian, Jewish, Secular, or those looking to the East for Enlightenment.
thuja on November 5, 2009 at 1:39 AM
Why would I be unfriendly with you? That makes no sense. Thanks for acknowledging that I have benefited you with my chatter.
I don’t really dislike our resident deviants – I just dislike their refusal to treat us with the respect our numbers deserve while demanding that we grant them license (which is a function derived from our numbers).
In other words, I am not only repulsed by their behaviors but individually I am repulsed by their hypocrisy. They deliberately pursue an artificial lifestyle while demanding that we pretend it’s natural. As smart as you seem to be, I am surprised that you haven’t figured out why deviant sex acts defy explanation for you.
It’s because such acts are biologically insane. As a biologically sane human, it is impossible for you to understand a point of view that is insane. It’s that simple.
Jetboy confessed to being less than 30 years old (on another thread). I lived in Hollywood for two-thirds of that amount of time, right in the middle of Gomorrah West. I think that gives me a bit more insight into their alternative lifestyle than the average straight person who knows a few uncloseted devotees of the queer faith (usually family members).
In short, I am not speaking from speculation on this topic.
platypus on November 5, 2009 at 1:51 AM
And yes, gay political activists can be very offensive and are horribly wrong on many issues.
I don’t why some people are homosexual. But I don’t believe that being a homosexual is a choice or that having homosexual sex necessarily results in disease. I do believe that highly promiscuous homosexual sex is a choice, a very bad choice, and it can often lead to diseases.
I’m sorry to disagree with you, platypus, but I do. I would be very disappointed if that means we can’t be friendly with one another anymore, as I have enjoyed exchanging posts with you many times. But if that does occur, it will not be as a result of my choice.
Loxodonta on November 5, 2009
**
Loxodonta,
Again – you must not read the Bible! Indeed – it DOES state diseases associated with homosexuality. Homo is NOT a choice? Then about Ellen De’generres (can’t spell her name) – she had a long-time lesbian lover/girlfriend (another showbiz person – Anne Heche) and Anne ‘broke up’ with Ellen and married a MAN and had his baby and they are still married today. So, maybe Anne ‘preferred’ a man over a woman???? She CHOSE from being lesbian to being straight! I also think that a lot of people who have trouble finding someone of the opposite sex tries homosexuality JUST to have ‘someone’. Just my thoughts.
brendy on November 5, 2009 at 1:56 AM
It is all revealed in Genesis. The first tall tale told to humans worked perfectly. Eve bought it, hook line and sinker. So did Adam.
It should not surprise anyone that a similar tall tale can achieve similar results today.
It does. And it will, until He returns.
platypus on November 5, 2009 at 2:10 AM
I don’t think Islamic polygamy will be a problem in America since there are a few religious sects will be glad to have as many wives and children to needed to keep America free.
Conservative Samizdat on November 5, 2009 at 2:22 AM
I’ve read the Bible cover to cover many times: King James, Douay-Rheims, New American Standard, and Latin Vulgate, and have compared many passages from many other versions and languages. As I posted to you before:
So, I don’t understand why you repeatedly accuse me of not reading the Bible. This is an interesting approach to discussion, political advocacy, political team building, ecumenism and evangelism. I don’t see how it does anything but build walls, divisions, distrust and hostility. And I don’t see how that benefits conservatism or Christian fellowship. And as you don’t seem to be able to rely on my word as to whether I read the Bible, I am uncertain whether you can accept what I offered you previously, but in return for your accusations, I offer it again —
May peace be with you and all whom you love.
Loxodonta on November 5, 2009 at 3:58 AM
Differences of opinion about religion and certain political issues do seem to result in unfriendliness and open hostility, especially on internet blogs. I don’t understand why. I guess I have contributed to that myself at times.
It may seem odd, but I often like people with whom I disagree.
Although you are a bit odd yourself, and I disagree with you at times, you can be funny. And during difficult times, God helps. But humor also helps. So, thanks for your humor.
Until we meet again.
Loxodonta on November 5, 2009 at 4:13 AM
Wrong. Marriage is the only contract that women can abrogate without penalty. They can be the cause of the breakup (i.e. they can lie and cheat and steal it all, till their heart’s content) and the husband will get all the blame (and the lifetime of paying for nothing he did).
Aaaaaaarrrrrggghh!!!!!!!!!
But I’m not bitter. What were we talking about?
Squiggy on November 5, 2009 at 6:04 AM
I based my point on the opinion of the other poster. His purported beliefs led me to believe that he would not want government forcing the commandments on others just as he did not think government should be involved in telling us how marriage is defined.
CWforFreedom on November 5, 2009 at 6:58 AM
Thoughtful posts, as usual.
ladyingray on November 5, 2009 at 7:33 AM
I don’t recall ever saying I was non-judgmental. I read some very horrible things written on here regarding homosexuals. I might be stupid and prissy, but I am also compassionate and I have empathy. It’s not a lifestyle I chose or the way I was born, but I am not going to remain silent while homosexuals are bashed on here. It’s not right.
I would do the same for anyone who was wrongfully being attacked.
I’ll keep saying it, as a young conservative, I think the party in whole is on the wrong side of this issue. Ed has it right..Everyone would be better off with government out of the bedroom and the chapel
lostinjrz on November 5, 2009 at 8:32 AM
Honestly, are we still even having the debate on the ethics of gay marriage and rights? This is the HotAir; we should be better than this. Honestly, it’s not even hard.
1. We are in a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. We do not and should not have the right to undermine the constitution with a simple referendum.
2. The Constitution includes the Amendments, including the highly relevant 14th, which renders any discrimination based on arbitrary qualifers unconstitutional. We have precedent towards this on MANY rulings, notably Brown and Loving. The Constitution, along with outlining the LIMITED powers of the government, outlined the limited powers of the majority. Specifically, that the majority could not vote way/deny certain rights to a minority. Look at Heller , even if a liberal majority in a place hates guns, they can’t prevent the conservative minority in that district from bearing arms.
3. Loving had two important holdings. First, that marriage was considered a fundamental right in the United States, and second, that “but everyone is prevented equally from x types of marriage” is a bullshit argument. Seriously saying everyone can equally get married to someone of the opposite gender is IDENTICAL to saying Loving was needed because everyone can equally get married to someone of the same race.
4. Giving 1, 2, and 3, the issue of gay marriage should NOT be a matter of public voting and almost certainly won’t be when the Supreme Court gives the final word on the subject. There is also nothing wrong with the courts doing this at the state level as they have done in a half-dozen or so states already.
Trent1289 on November 5, 2009 at 8:37 AM
Sorry, I don’t have time to read 600 plus comments, so if someone has said this – excuse.
I just wonder who they will blame for this and whose churches they will be marching around tomorrow and threatening the people inside?
Bambi on November 5, 2009 at 8:47 AM
Again, if you believe that, why do you insist on having the government go into your bedroom to determine whether or not you qualify for special ‘rights’? If it wasn’t for what people did in their bedroom, the government wouldn’t be involved in this issue. Gay people aren’t treated poorly here. . . look at all their parades. Look at all their riots in the streets when they don’t get their way.
The most ridiculous argument for the government recognizing ‘gay marriage’ is that it ‘takes the government out of the bedroom’. Recognizing ‘gay marriage’ by definition brings the government in the bedroom to act as bodyguard and ‘hate speech’ enforcer BASED ON WHAT PEOPLE DO IN THEIR BEDROOM and nothing else.
I’m convinced that this country is filled with idiots who went to public school and didn’t learn how to think critically to formulate a coherent – and more importantly – LOGICAL argument.
ThackerAgency on November 5, 2009 at 9:04 AM
Homosexuality is not a choice, it is a birth defect. No big deal. The only reason everyone gets worked up about this particular birth defect is because is a sexual birth defect. My wife comes home with all kinds of stories concerning the ambiguous sexuality of babies straight out of the womb, and that is simply physical defects. One can infer about the likely hormonal defects as well.
All sides should quit putting it on a pedestal. Just simply find a cure for it, much like a child born deaf or with a cleft palate?
ClassicCon on November 5, 2009 at 9:30 AM
My what a close-minded, bigoted, incestaphobe you must be. Yeah those ideas are so far out, but your years of MTV indoctrination has open your mind to the natural beauty of homosexuality.
Guess since I don’t post articles that garner one or two comments on the world renown hotair.com blog that I should probably just keep my mouth shut.
“I don’t need it”. Geez dude, I respect your intelligence but that was quite a douchey reply.
ClassicCon on November 5, 2009 at 9:37 AM
I think there’s an argument to be made for gay marriage. Unfortunately, its proponents don’t bother. They just declare that they’re entitled to it, and throw a fit whenever they’re thwarted.
Jim Treacher on November 5, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Bowing is a symbol of sincere prayer. The only time I know folks bow to the priest is when they hand him something to use, at which point they are supposed to pray FOR him. Plenty of times people bow towards the altar or the Eucharist, which the priest is next to.
Chris_Balsz on November 5, 2009 at 9:51 AM
An interesting and well thought out point, except for one minor detail:
You can’t choose your race, but you sure can choose who you decide to sleep with.
Homosexuality is a choice, not something you are born with. People of color almost unanimously agree with this, which is why so-called “gay rights” measures flop almost everywhere, and flop particularly quickly in areas with non-white majority voters.
Indeed, I have spoken to many people of color (I’m white as the day is long myself) who are deeply insulted by the insinuation that the faux “gay rights” battle is in any way comparable to the civil rights struggle. Your references to the Brown and Loving cases are exactly the types of references that most people of color find so offensive.
I’m not trying to imply that your are being racist. God knows that’s a BS strawman and entirely wrong. But you need to be aware that the two issues are very different and that it’s inappropriate to conflate them.
The problem here is both social and legal:
1) It is socially dangerous to legitimize and mainstream deviant behaviors such as Homosexuality. Historically, that type of acceptance always leads to the downfall of a civilization. We would be unwise to embrace homosexuality as an accepted norm.
2) Allowing “Gay marriage” is a step towards official and legal recognition of a poisonous deviance as “normal”. see point number one.
3) Because of point number one, and because a nation’s birthrate generally portends it’s future viability (more babies = stronger nation) it is in the nation’s best interest to encourage the birth of more children. The best way to do this is to encourage the traditional “nuclear” family. (America runs on “nuclear” power, if you will.) This is done in modern America via the tax code.
Thus childbearing married couples have certain tax advantages that the unmarried among us do not get. That includes Homosexual couples because, by their lifestyle, they are incapable of bearing more children. As a social group they are a “dead end” biologically.
4) Because of point number 3, many Homosexuals want to be able to “get married” so that they may enjoy the same tax benefits that heterosexual couples have. Many of them also have a deep-seated hatred for America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and the traditional family, and have a vested interest in tearing that down. (Please note I said “many” not “all”. So keep your anecdotes to yourself.)
Recognizing Homosexual “marriage” would have far-reaching social and legal ramifications, including (but not limited to) forcing religious organizations to provide services and perhaps even jobs to individuals that they would otherwise not, thus infringing on religious rights.
It would also open the door to other fringe deviants such as polygamists and bestialists. While I’m sure that this is not on the agenda of many “gay right” activists, the point is that this sets a legal precedent for allowing ANY deviant lifestyle the same legal protections as normal heterosexual ones. Indeed, doubtless there are a small number of “gay rights” activists who are fully aware of this ramification and welcome it as a further destruction of the Judeo-Christian tradition in America.
In the end, it is in the America’s bests interests, both socially and legally, to enforce traditional marriage and marginalize deviant behaviors such as homosexuality.
wearyman on November 5, 2009 at 9:59 AM
I think you missed the point of his question.
The question..if it was a question..didn’t claim that those things were being asked for.
It goes more to the implied basis of demanding gay marriage, which is a claim of it being a “human right”. The question then is one of honesty. For those gay marriage proponents who feel it is a human right, on what basis would they deny marriage to those other groups.
At least I think that what was meant, because I’ve been trying to get a response to that question every time one of these gay marriage threads comes up.
Itchee Dryback on November 5, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Gays deserve to be treated, as all Americans with respect and to be protected from violence as are all Americans. They are free to speak their political thoughts freely. But they shouldn’t be allowed to infringe on the rights of others.
Gays are trying to invent a new human right that does not now exist.
The American Bill of Rights is the basis of all human rights as they have developed over the past 200 years. These rights always existed but they are spelled out and have gained influence in most places… through enumeration in The Bill of Rights.
The very first civil right in the Bill of Rights is the protection of religious conscience. Not freedom from religion. But the free exercise of religious conscience.
For everyone. Not just Gays. Gays are free to disregard religious teachings but they are not free to force others to disregard religious teachings.
Gay marriage forces the government to demonize religious teachings. Gay marriage infringes on the 1st amendment rights of religious Americans who oppose the gay lifestyle because of religion.
If Gay marriage is forced by government it undermines the foundation of all American rights by contradicting our first and foremost civil right.
Gay marriage undermines the foundation all human rights.
petunia on November 5, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Uhhh…okay, I’ll just let you say it.
So I guess I’m nuts to think that bestiality, incest, and polygamy are far-out ideas?
I guess I’m nuts, then.
MadisonConservative on November 5, 2009 at 10:26 AM
You’ve missed the point entirely, my guess you weren’t even trying to get it.
These really haven’t been a referendum on same-sex marriage, they are a debate on society’s ability to declare certain behaviors immoral or detestable.
highhopes on November 5, 2009 at 10:26 AM
First, let me say I’m glad someone here is willing to argue in good faith. Now on to your points.
The vast majority of people of color support Obama and want more entitlements. They’re often wrong. Sexual Preference isn’t a choice (see all the people calling it a birth defect) and will eventually be recognized as a protected class, like race.
1) I’m going to need a cite to the civilizations that have been felled by homosexuality.
2)
This sounds like an argument for Universal Health Care. “Because a nation’s health generally portends it’s future viability (slimmer, healthier population = stronger nation) it’s is in the nation’s best interest to encourage a healthy lifestyle and the best treatment to its citizens. The best way to do this is to heavily regulate and provide primary care to its citizens. ”
I’m sure you’d agree that this is HORRIBLE. The government doesn’t get to decide what’s in my or anybody else’s best interests. Especially, when constitutional law is involved.
3) I’m going to need you to cite some information about the motivations of homosexuals. Unless you’ve got proof that they’re trying to overthrow the Judeo-Christian system, I’m not going to entertain the idea.
4) As to the “it will lead to bestiality and incest” argument: arguments are weighed on their own merits, not based on how they might be used later to advocate for something absurd. Would you deny black’s equality because Brown and Loving could be used to advocate for gay marriage? Would you deny women property rights and standing in court because it would eventually result in no-fault divorce?
Of course not. Though tenuously connected, those arguments a part from later battles.
Trent1289 on November 5, 2009 at 10:28 AM
…and these votes are society exercising that very ability. That doesn’t seem to satisfy some of you, though.
MadisonConservative on November 5, 2009 at 10:31 AM
Uhhh…when did polygamy become a “fringe” and “deviant” form of sexuality!?
I guess some of the greatest prophets of God in the Bible (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and others)are a “deviants” for practicing polygamy.
The OT clearly allowed for polygamy and there’s nothing in the NT that unambiguously forbids the practice of polygamy although that is up for debate.
If you look at the scriptures used by some of the world’s largest religions, The Bible, The Book of Mormon and the Koran allow for polygamy but not for gay marriage or bestiality.
The scriptures have never called polygamy a sexual deviancy. In fact, the Bible predicts that polygamy will make a return in the last days when seven women will take a hold of one man and ask them to marry them. (Isa.13:12)
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 think its Biblically clear that homosexuality, incest and bestiality are definately far out ideas.
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
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 5 6 7 8 Next »