Gay Marriage Fails In Maine

[Procrustes Stretched]

If two gay men are allowed to marry, why not two heterosexual men? Why not give the benefits of marriage to everyone, whether they are in a committed relationship or not? Or would you gay rights proponents not allow two straight men to marry each other to take advantage of, say, healthcare benefits...

are you saying gays marry for health care and not love? and why would some straight men want to marry each other rather than a woman?

have you looked deep within your own closet lately?

 

[FactFinder]

that is your opinion. Others do not share it.

It seems to me like it is the opinion of the majority in Maine at least for now.

Immie

and again, Immie... if we had left civil rights to the voters of America, where would we be?

I know that the forces for equal rights in Maine will not give up, and I actually hope that the Maine courts take this issue away from the mob and decide it themselves.

I lived through those times and the majority of voters would have approved civil rights. It would have been successful with either approach. It is because of people support it passed in Congress, but that was in the days when Congress still listened to its constituency. There was no large scale dissent as you see in say the Health Care debate.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

marital laws discriminate when they treat two people differently than two others. Text book case.
and they discriminate how?

by doing so differently. what is it you fail to grasp? ever read the opinion of Justice Marshall of Massachussets? I eman really read it?

The controversy surrounding her appointment pales in comparison to the storm that broke in November 2003 when a narrow majority of the court ruled in favor of gay couples' right to marry. In her opinion, Marshall wrote that the Massachusetts Constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals" and "forbids the creation of second-class citizens."

-http://www.massmoments.org/moment.cfm?mid=297

 

[Fatality]

What you're not seeming to follow is that not ALL people are sexually attracted to the opposite sex.

sexual attratction is irrelevent, the same law applies to ALL men, to ALL women. there could be many reasons why people would marry, money, benefits etc..the law is universal it singles out no one!

we have seperate but equal--which I think is unconstitutional.

All people are under the same law, there is no elusive minority, there is no seperation.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

If two gay men are allowed to marry, why not two heterosexual men? Why not give the benefits of marriage to everyone, whether they are in a committed relationship or not? Or would you gay rights proponents not allow two straight men to marry each other to take advantage of, say, healthcare benefits...

are you saying gays marry for health care and not love? and why would some straight men want to marry each other rather than a woman?

have you looked deep within your own closet lately?

Did not say gay men marry for health care benefits. You have failed to answer the question. And as for my closet- I did take a look in there. I saw your mom. Ugly fuckin bitch that one...

 

[ThePickledPunk]

marital laws discriminate when they treat two people differently than two others. Text book case.
and they discriminate how?

by doing so differently. what is it you fail to grasp? ever read the opinion of Justice Marshall of Massachussets? I eman really read it?

The controversy surrounding her appointment pales in comparison to the storm that broke in November 2003 when a narrow majority of the court ruled in favor of gay couples' right to marry. In her opinion, Marshall wrote that the Massachusetts Constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals" and "forbids the creation of second-class citizens."

-http://www.massmoments.org/moment.cfm?mid=297

sooooooo what individual is not allowed to enter a marriage? Anyone with legal capacity can get married, although there are restrictions on who you marry. Restrictions that appply equally.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

sexual attratction is irrelevent, the same law applies to ALL men, to ALL women. there could be many reasons why people would marry, money, benefits etc..the law is universal it singles out no one!

we have seperate but equal--which I think is unconstitutional.

All people are under the same law, there is no elusive minority, there is no seperation.

you really are a nitwit aren't you? Marshall said the Mass Pols could change the constitution to read something about 'a man and a woman' but as it stands marriage in Mass is for two people. So treating a gay couple different than a hetero couple is treating them ---ahem---differently. Seperate but equal?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If two gay men are allowed to marry, why not two heterosexual men? Why not give the benefits of marriage to everyone, whether they are in a committed relationship or not? Or would you gay rights proponents not allow two straight men to marry each other to take advantage of, say, healthcare benefits...

are you saying gays marry for health care and not love? and why would some straight men want to marry each other rather than a woman?

have you looked deep within your own closet lately?

Did not say gay men marry for health care benefits. You have failed to answer the question. And as for my closet- I did take a look in there. I saw your mom. Ugly fuckin bitch that one...

waaaaaaaaaaaah, he mentioned my ma. call the maude squad.

I won't but others may.

btw, say hello to your mom and sis for me. tell them the check is in the mail.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

we have seperate but equal--which I think is unconstitutional.

All people are under the same law, there is no elusive minority, there is no seperation.

you really are a nitwit aren't you? Marshall said the Mass Pols could change the constitution to read something about 'a man and a woman' but as it stands marriage in Mass is for two people. So treating a gay couple different than a hetero couple is treating them ---ahem---differently. Seperate but equal?

you are not describing discriminatory laws, then. BTW- I had to stuff a dirty sock in your mom's mouth to keep her quiet. And she really likes the smell of dirty shoes.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

marital laws discriminate when they treat two people differently than two others. Text book case.
and they discriminate how?

by doing so differently. what is it you fail to grasp? ever read the opinion of Justice Marshall of Massachussets? I eman really read it?

The controversy surrounding her appointment pales in comparison to the storm that broke in November 2003 when a narrow majority of the court ruled in favor of gay couples' right to marry. In her opinion, Marshall wrote that the Massachusetts Constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals" and "forbids the creation of second-class citizens."

-http://www.massmoments.org/moment.cfm?mid=297

sooooooo what individual is not allowed to enter a marriage? Anyone with legal capacity can get married, although there are restrictions on who you marry. Restrictions that appply equally.

any two people can marry. if you want to marry another man I say go ahead, I'll support ya.

read what the mass court wrote. stop thinking your opinion is equal to legal ones.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

All people are under the same law, there is no elusive minority, there is no seperation.

you really are a nitwit aren't you? Marshall said the Mass Pols could change the constitution to read something about 'a man and a woman' but as it stands marriage in Mass is for two people. So treating a gay couple different than a hetero couple is treating them ---ahem---differently. Seperate but equal?

you are not describing discriminatory laws, then. BTW- I had to stuff a dirty sock in your mom's mouth to keep her quiet. And she really likes the smell of dirty shoes.

my mom says to say hello... to your dad. she said to say hello to your mom too. what is that all about?

 

[Dr Grump]

It's not an Enumerated Right... Hell, it wasn't even Hinted at by the Founders, and the Supreme Court's Quote is in my Previous Post.

You can Apply what you just Quoted to Justify just about anything.

How is Homosexual Coupling being Acknowledged in Marriage Fundemental to our very Existence?



peace...

1) I'm not a Yank so enumerated rights mean fuck all to me. Just basic human rights will do. Nothing to do with any laws in any lands..

2) How is it not fundamental to your existence? IOW, who the fuck cares? Start from the point and you might have a point. Outside of that, when you look up the term "bigot", your name is right next to it.....

Since the Facts of our Existence Confuse you, you Resort to calling me a Name in place of a Substantive Argument FOR Homosexuals to be Granted a Special Status in Marriage...



peace...

And you deflected by not answering the meat and bones of my post. There's nothing special about getting married vis a vis the sex of the couple. That's the point. Only you bigots think there is....

 

[ThePickledPunk]

by doing so differently. what is it you fail to grasp? ever read the opinion of Justice Marshall of Massachussets? I eman really read it? -http://www.massmoments.org/moment.cfm?mid=297

sooooooo what individual is not allowed to enter a marriage? Anyone with legal capacity can get married, although there are restrictions on who you marry. Restrictions that appply equally.

any two people can marry. if you want to marry another man I say go ahead, I'll support ya.

read what the mass court wrote. stop thinking your opinion is equal to legal ones.

You are the one dealing with Mass specifically. Gay marriage, as a whole (and Im not talkin about that gaping crater between your mom's legs, is a larger issue.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

you really are a nitwit aren't you? Marshall said the Mass Pols could change the constitution to read something about 'a man and a woman' but as it stands marriage in Mass is for two people. So treating a gay couple different than a hetero couple is treating them ---ahem---differently. Seperate but equal?

you are not describing discriminatory laws, then. BTW- I had to stuff a dirty sock in your mom's mouth to keep her quiet. And she really likes the smell of dirty shoes.

my mom says to say hello... to your dad. she said to say hello to your mom too. what is that all about?

It sounds like your mom is a bulldyke. Explains her haircut.

 

[Valerie]

sexual attratction is irrelevent, the same law applies to ALL men, to ALL women. there could be many reasons why people would marry, money, benefits etc..the law is universal it singles out no one!

Marriage is a lifetime partnership and sexuality SHOULD be irrelevant, but it's not for some reason......It SHOULD be universal and single out no one, but it's not!

so, you really would have no issue with allowing two straight guys that dont even live together to marry so they can share health benefits?

Despite my opinion, heterosexual couples already do that.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

Marriage is a lifetime partnership and sexuality SHOULD be irrelevant, but it's not for some reason......It SHOULD be universal and single out no one, but it's not!

so, you really would have no issue with allowing two straight guys that dont even live together to marry so they can share health benefits?

Despite my opinion, heterosexual couples already do that.

more unresponsive garbage. A simple yes or no would have sufficed.

 

[Fatality]

we have seperate but equal--which I think is unconstitutional.

All people are under the same law, there is no elusive minority, there is no seperation.

you really are a nitwit aren't you? Marshall said the Mass Pols could change the constitution to read something about 'a man and a woman' but as it stands marriage in Mass is for two people. So treating a gay couple different than a hetero couple is treating them ---ahem---differently. Seperate but equal?

their sexual attraction is irrelevant, men cannot marry men, women cannot marry women

 

[Valerie]

so, you really would have no issue with allowing two straight guys that dont even live together to marry so they can share health benefits?

Despite my opinion, heterosexual couples already do that.

more unresponsive garbage. A simple yes or no would have sufficed.

Pardon me for responding to the point instead of your misdirection.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

Despite my opinion, heterosexual couples already do that.

more unresponsive garbage. A simple yes or no would have sufficed.

Pardon me for responding to the point instead of your misdirection.

Im guessin you didnt even understand the point, sugartits.

 

[Valerie]

All people are under the same law, there is no elusive minority, there is no seperation.

you really are a nitwit aren't you? Marshall said the Mass Pols could change the constitution to read something about 'a man and a woman' but as it stands marriage in Mass is for two people. So treating a gay couple different than a hetero couple is treating them ---ahem---differently. Seperate but equal?

their sexual attraction is irrelevant, men cannot marry men, women cannot marry women

Why not?