Here we go again: Voters say Yes on Q1 in Maine

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by todd2000, Nov 3, 2009.

  1. todd2000 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Location:
    Danville, VA
    #1
    This is getting ridiculous. With 84% reporting the numbers are Yes (take away gay marriage) 52.4%, and No (keep gay marriage) at 47.46%. Why the heck is this even going up for a vote. The courts and legislature gave us the rights that we deserve, why the hell should the public be allowed to take them away. This whole state by state thing is a bunch of BS! Repealing DOMA (If Obama ever gets around to it) isn't going to make a damn bit of difference if you cant get married in any State. We need some sort of federal law, or were never going to get anywhere.

    Lets just hope that Maine has some guts unlike California, and passes the law again.

    http://www.bangordailynews.com/electionresults.html
     
  2. Beric macrumors 68020

    Beric

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #2
    Happy, but not surprised. Marriage has never been defined as anything other than between a single man and woman, and it never should be.

    This does not take away any rights, any more than it did California. It's simply defining the word "marriage". Also, when the state constitution can be amended by the people, then the people choose on marriage. Marriage is not a federal issue, but that of the states. If you want to give homosexuals the "right to marry", amend the U.S. Constitution. And good luck with that.
     
  3. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #3
    What. The. ****. :mad:

    Government needs to get out of "marriage" PERIOD. Equal rights for all and let those ignorant people keep their so called "sacred marriage" to themselves.
     
  4. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #4
    Is it fun living in your fantasy world? :rolleyes:
     
  5. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #5
    Not in the Mormon Church. ;)

    We could define the words "water fountain" as being a dispenser of water only allowed by certain races (like say, white people) to use. And that is obviously wrong. Just because the word is being "defined" doesn't mean you can take rights away from someone.
     
  6. sysiphus macrumors 6502a

    sysiphus

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    #6
    My impression is that his argument is that nothing is being "taken away," since the status quo "way back when" didn't include gay marriage. I see the semantics argument there, but it's not my position...
     
  7. todd2000 thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Location:
    Danville, VA
    #7
    Lets see, the legislature gave us the right to marry, the voters took away that right, so how does that not take away a right?
     
  8. Beric macrumors 68020

    Beric

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #8
    A right exists in the United States only due to the laws of our country making it so. There is no right, based on any law in our country, that states that homosexuals have the right to marry. As such, since the right does not exist in the first place, Maine voters have not taken away any rights whatsoever.

    It would be perfectly fine to argue that such a right should exist. But until it is made into law, exist it does not.

    If a right can be changed simply by law, then Maine voters did nothing wrong other than change the law. What I am saying is that there is no universal right of homosexuals to marry, other than in your own mind.
     
  9. EricNau Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #9
    You are wrong. You've been told this before. It's been explained to you. Why do you keep pontificating these intentional lies?

    You should be deeply ashamed, the Christian that you supposedly are.
     
  10. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #10
    EQUAL RIGHTS FOR EVERYONE

    That is the entire point of our country! WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND. I am so sick of this. If we didn't allow people to marry based on race, it would look ridiculous and dismissed out of hand. Funny thing is, this was once an issue, brought up by people just like you. Welcome to the wrong side of history yet again, unless you still don't think mixed races should be allowed to marry...
     
  11. bruinsrme macrumors 601

    bruinsrme

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    #11
    Is this a binding or non-binding vote?

    If I understand it correctly the PEOPLE are voting yes or no.

    The People of Maine are making it law or illegal

    Whatever the results are its the people deciding in a democratic process, how ever Discriminatory it appears to be/is.

    Just for the record, I couldn't care less who a marriage is between and voted same sex for in Massachusetts.
    But many others didn't. I don't think those that voted against it are ignorant they just have different beliefs in whom marriage should be between. Denying them their say is not right either.

    In the end the majority will have spoken, however rightor wrong it maybe.
     
  12. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #12
    Well the two votes were different.

    In California there was a constitutional amendment, which means that the legislature needn't "pass" anything to overturn it; the voters must simply vote to repeal Prop 8 at some point in the future.

    In Maine, the people exercised their right to a "People's Veto." Maine's legislature can at any time pass this law again, however, given the political capital it takes to pass a law, the legislature will probably avoid touching this for at least a full calendar year. At that point in time, the "Protect Marriage" (I'm still not sure how you "protect" marriage-do you hire counselors to go around the country, try to ban divorce, encourage intimacy? Or do you just go around pushing votes that don't affect you?) people will have to reassess whether or not Maine is worth the fight. They expended $2.5 million+ to get this law overturned. Are religious organizations going to keep footing the bill for these battles? Given the increasing costs and marginal returns (in fact, negative returns-gay marriage votes have been getting closer and closer as time goes on), they will have to decide at some point that a state isn't worth while, and then the sky will "fall" as it were.


    Now, there is some good news. It seems Washington has retained legislation that grants full marriage rights (but not the name) to couples in Washington. Now this could easily change still, but so far it looks more promising than Question 1.
     
  13. todd2000 thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Location:
    Danville, VA
    #13
    I know I just didn't explain it in my post. Compared to CA, this is easy to "undo." At least until the next vote. Hopefully that won't be till 2012, which might work more in our favor.
     
  14. Beric macrumors 68020

    Beric

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #14
    Sorry, but I couldn't care less what the color of someone's skin is. It doesn't matter, period. However, their sex (male or female) is important both for biological functions, social arrangements, and emotional decisions. In other words, we're different, and there's no denying it. Discrimination on the basis of sex is perfectly acceptable and legal in certain situations, such as privacy in restrooms from the other sex, or pregnant women getting certain rights in relation to not losing their job, while men clearly do not receive such rights.
     
  15. sysiphus macrumors 6502a

    sysiphus

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    #15
    Yup. Ref. 71. It got my vote, because I think they got it exactly right--full rights but not the same label. Frankly, it's not the same thing, so I think it's illogical to call it as such--but I fully support equal rights. :)
     
  16. EricNau Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #16
    Separate but equal rights?
     
  17. sysiphus macrumors 6502a

    sysiphus

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    #17
    Separate name. The union between a man and a woman necessarily allows for different results than a homosexual one. I think it's misleading to call it the same thing...again, the same rights verbatim.
     
  18. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #18
    Well, no, semantics connotes definitions which aren't relevant to the discussion.

    What defines and does not define a minority (especially a political one) is not semantics.

    As per this, I'm posting this in the appropriate thread.

    You mean how racial minorities typically have vastly inferior schools and a reduced chance at "success" just by virtue of their birth? We as a society permit and perpetuate this deliberately "skewed" selection process.

    And, as I mentioned before, you clearly are ignorant as to how the AA process actually works. "Skewed" vastly overstates the impact AA can have on any government-related job or school application.

    Here's some reading to get you started:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Regents_v_Bakke

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger

    That ignores the fact that being a different skin color, or gay, or female, or old often puts you at a disadvantage from the starting gate. We don't all get the same "consideration" from life that straight white males have enjoyed in the United States since its inception.

    Forgive my ignorance, but what precisely is different about it?

    I swear there's a case all about that! Oh, right:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v_ferguson
     
  19. EricNau Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #19
    Necessarily? I'm sorry, but I don't see the "necessary" difference. Could you please elaborate?

    And in the interests of ensuring a complete history lesson:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education
     
  20. sysiphus macrumors 6502a

    sysiphus

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    #20
    Yup, I'm clearly ignorant just because I disagree with you. Good call.
    And yes, we don't all start with the same advantages/disadvantages in life. Duh. Life's not fair. Guessing about how to make life "fair" isn't going to work. Trying to level the playing field comes at the expense of devaluing the efforts/attributes of people who are simply better at something. I scored in the top percentile on everything academically all through high school--not because I'm a WASP, not because of my sexual orientation (why do you assume I'm straight?), and not because I've got a serious physical impairment. As such, I've set myself up extremely well in life--and I've earned it, so I feel that I deserve it. Why should my achievement be devalued because life's not fair?

    Ultimately, it boils down to this: I'm in favor of a meritocracy. If you're the best at something, you win. If you're not, then too bad.

    What's different about gay marriage? Let me know next time you hear about a gay couple procreating.
     
  21. ipodtoucher macrumors 68000

    ipodtoucher

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Location:
    Cedar Park, TX
    #21
    Double negative much? How would mending the US constitution not make it federal and the state's decision...


    Men can take paternal leave, especially if the mother of the child also has a job. But to compare these rights to the rights of being joined with the one you love for the rest of your life is well dumb... What we are forgetting here is the separation of church and state... this is a democracy where you can practice any religion you want and not be persecuted, or have the right to bare arms (guns and sleeveless shirts :p), yet when it comes to so many things it has to be religious. This country may have been raised on the ideals of the christian faith but that doesn't mean the law has to include the faith, that just makes us have a national religion without really "having" one.

    I guess I am just biased being a gay american living in a "free" country where its "sperate, yet equal, some of the time"

    I can see that people are upset over men and women marrying the same sex, because of their religion. But if we are to live to the bible, please don't be hypocrites and only live by part of the Bible. If you have a daughter please go ahead and sell her into slavery, and put down that pulled pork sandwich, and stop masturbating, etc etc.

    [/rant]
     
  22. ipodtoucher macrumors 68000

    ipodtoucher

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Location:
    Cedar Park, TX
    #22
    What does procreation have to do with marriage? There are plenty of teens getting pregnant that aren't married... Marriage is about the love that two people share, and wanting to spend the rest of their lives together, not about how many fetuses they can pop out before they die... I know plenty of married couples that decided to not have kids, is that then a failed marriage in your eyes? Are they going to hell because of that? This is not a valid argument in any way, shape, or form...
     
  23. sysiphus macrumors 6502a

    sysiphus

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    #23
    I'm not saying that marriage necessitates procreation, or vice versa. However, as the law currently stands, there's a whole panoply of legal ways in which having a child is affected by one's marital status. Heck, you don't even need to look further than the tax code.

    Again, I think you're missing my point--I'm not looking to exclude or discriminate--but the simple reality is that a married couple having a kid presents all sorts of unique legal complications. I'm only looking to keep the verbiage clear about what's going on to make life more straightforward. However, if it makes you feel better to keep trying to pick a fight, go right ahead. After all, it sure was me who threw religion into the argument ;)
     
  24. EricNau Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #24
    Are same-sex couples that decide to have children not deserving of those equal protections, then?
     
  25. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #25
    I assessed your knowledge of AA to be ignorant; I didn't call you ignorant.

    It does not necessarily involve this at all.

    Usually when two candidates are at the very top of their fields, either one can be considered strong for just about whatever they decide to do. If only one position is available, it's a toss-up anyway. What's the harm in granting the position to the person who represents a group that has previously been denied access to that level of achievement?

    That is how AA works today in the government and any public program. One must still be well qualified for the position. What the private sector chooses to do is beyond the realm of this discussion, but I have a feeling it is that AA which troubles you more.

    Actually, your WASP status did help you, whether or not you want to believe it. You were born into a family that has had its roots firmly established in this nation for generations. Imagine being born into a household where neither parent spoke fluent English or could do math beyond Grade 5.

    You didn't magically achieve everything of your own volition. You are the product of the environment in which you were raised.

    I was fortunate to be born into a home where my father had the time to read to me as a child and take me to the library whenever I wanted. Not every child has that opportunity, and I can't expect to say that I've necessarily "earned" my place if a lot of it was outside my control.

    Your attitude towards this topic, primarily.

    That, and the assumptions you make about child-rearing and marriage (I'll get to that in a moment).
    Who's 'devaluing' your achievement? I really want to know. Did a racial minority come up to you and say, "You're worth less than me now, deal with it!"????:confused:

    And, how much can you say was achieved by you? Can you owe your high IQ to your own achievements? Most geneticists would say not so much. How much control and hard work did you put into selecting a supportive family?

    Now, if you don't have a supportive family and an IQ of 100 and have still achieved what you claim to, then bravo to you. Your unique story will alone be enticing enough to take you very far.

    What an interesting schema of the world. A meritocracy must produce "winners" and "losers." In any event, a meritocracy is fine for the most part, but we need to keep in mind that we should judge the merits of an individual accurately. AA doesn't distort that accuracy at all, and if you still believe it does, you really need to outline why given current Federal law on AA.
    Ahh, I see. So no post-menopausal women can get married then? I mean, they can't procreate so they can't have a true marriage right? Civil unions/domestic partnerships should work for them.

    A sterile couple shouldn't be able to get married either, right? We can give them a civil union too, right?

    So, should all couples begin as "civilly united" and then be "upgraded" to "married" if they bear children naturally? What if they use a surrogate but still have a child that is fully biologically their own?
     

Share This Page