Gay Marriage Fails In Maine

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

nothing can suffice where false premises and bogus facst reside.

 

[Fatality]

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?

because the law says so.

 

[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?

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

exactly. a marriage contract is usually between two people unless it otherwise says so. two peiople...not between two genders.

you are a very poor student of law and a crappy citizen...why a crappy citizen? because a lack in critical thinking skills is a bigger danger to our republic than any arab muslim extremist with a bomb.

 

[Annie]

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.

Two straight guys aren't heterosexual, though they might be in other configurations. Speaks to the problem. In any case, let any who wishes go for the 'public option' or 'legal contracts.' More reason for no changing of marriage.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

Why not?

because the law says so.

no the law does not say a man cannot marry a man. that is why some states have fixed their laws to read that way.

what a dufus

 

[Fatality]

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

exactly. a marriage contract is usually between two people unless it otherwise says so. two peiople...not between two genders.

you are a very poor student of law and a crappy citizen...why a crappy citizen? because a lack in critical thinking skills is a bigger danger to our republic than any arab muslim extremist with a bomb.

it (the law) otherwise says so, go fuck yourself.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Maine voters reject gay-marriage law - Yahoo! News

Link, please, Martin ....

 

[Valerie]

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

Why not?

because the law says so.

Yes and citizens are free to petition their state to change marriage laws based on their 14th amendment protection of equal treatment under the law and the separation of Church and State. They should just petition for equal legal recognition of Civil Unions.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

exactly. a marriage contract is usually between two people unless it otherwise says so. two peiople...not between two genders.

you are a very poor student of law and a crappy citizen...why a crappy citizen? because a lack in critical thinking skills is a bigger danger to our republic than any arab muslim extremist with a bomb.

it (the law) otherwise says so, go fuck yourself.

you cannot read, speak or think? I guess you really are a conservative nitwit.

have a crappy day feller.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

i posted what the article said. I know what it passed by, I do however find it odd, that youre just gonna keep voting on this issue until you win

where in the world is this behavior ok?

we lost, keep voting on it, till we get the result WE want.

sounds selfish to me

Martin leaves out that the repeal won with 53% of the vote. Not a large margin by any means. I say give it ten years, Gay Marriage would be able to win in Maine.

 

[Valerie]

i posted what the article said. I know what it passed by, I do however find it odd, that youre just gonna keep voting on this issue until you win

where in the world is this behavior ok?

we lost, keep voting on it, till we get the result WE want.

sounds selfish to me

Martin leaves out that the repeal won with 53% of the vote. Not a large margin by any means. I say give it ten years, Gay Marriage would be able to win in Maine.

I think he's just hopeful the next generation might be more enlightened.

 

[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?

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

exactly. a marriage contract is usually between two people unless it otherwise says so. two peiople...not between two genders.

you are a very poor student of law and a crappy citizen...why a crappy citizen? because a lack in critical thinking skills is a bigger danger to our republic than any arab muslim extremist with a bomb.

incorrect. in most states, marital "contracts" are between a man and a woman. You are a fool

 

[ThePickledPunk]

Why not?

because the law says so.

no the law does not say a man cannot marry a man. that is why some states have fixed their laws to read that way.

what a dufus

depends on the state. In most states, it is very clear that marriage involves a man and a woman. Your head is full of shit.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

stupidity knows no bounds

hate knows no bounds

 

[Fatality]

Why not?

because the law says so.

no the law does not say a man cannot marry a man. that is why some states have fixed their laws to read that way.

what a dufus

yes it does, it does not single out gays.

 

[Fatality]

Why not?

because the law says so.

Yes and citizens are free to petition their state to change marriage laws based on their 14th amendment protection of equal treatment under the law and the separation of Church and State. They should just petition for equal legal recognition of Civil Unions.

the people spoke, they dont want same gender marriage

 

[Annie]

I just want to know if maineman is in a funk that he cannot legally perform a marriage ceremony for gays.

 

[Valerie]

Can you guys stop using these tired canards alluding to some very generalized notion of equality and fairness?

Do you have a problem with the 'generalized notions' of equality and fairness? If so, what are those problems - as they relate to gay marriage.

For me, marriage is the unique union of a man and a woman because it is RIGHT. The idea of changing my view just because it's not all-inclusive doesn't factor in. I don't have a problem with equality and fairness as generalized notions, but I also don't view the world through that kind of lens all the time. I would love to qualify for Social Security while still being an able-bodied, employed 20something. It would help me out a lot. But I understand it's there (ideally) for people who are not capable like me to work and provide for themselves, so it wouldn't be right for people like to receive it.



What I mean is, in my opinion, there's too much reliance on the idea that if we treat all couples the same, things will inherently be better. I don't think that it will,


and furthermore, "marriage equality" is a misnomer...since those who want gay marriage have no shame in disqualifying other people from enjoying state-sanctioned, subsidized marriage. What?

Legal marriage is an acknowledgment of the social institution. As many benefits are tied to employment and income, taxation, economic factors that come with having a family, that's the main reason we have these benefits. It's not just to assert that people with spouses are better than those who are single.

AND..........



Is it obvious? Some people seem to think "the right to marry the person you love" is an accurate statement, and it's not. It never has been.

If you acknowledge that the state (and yes, I'm including the People) has the right to set parameters on marriage, then you acknowledge that 1) it's a matter of social policy and not constitutionally protected civil rights, and 2) that notions of "equality" are largely unrealistic and irrelevant when talking about marriage.

Some could very well argue - and many do - that it indeed is a matter of constitutionally protected civil rights. Do you have your own argument against it?

You can't just contradict me and then ask me to argue against your unexplained contradiction. What is the basis for that argument?

The state has the right to set the parameters on civil marriage within the bounds of the constitution, and insomuch as the right to "Marriage" exists for one man one womanthe benefits also exist separate from that institution, and so the people have a right to petition the state to alter the parameters of civil marriage to include Civil Unions in order to accommodate equal benefits for all partners without discrimination.

 

[Valerie]

because the law says so.

Yes and citizens are free to petition their state to change marriage laws based on their 14th amendment protection of equal treatment under the law and the separation of Church and State. They should just petition for equal legal recognition of Civil Unions.

the people spoke, they dont want same gender marriage

Each state just needs to petition for Civil Unions and stop focusing on redefining "Marriage" and I think the majority of people will vote for that.

 

[Dr Grump]

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

Why not?

because the law says so.

Dumb law is dumb law I guess..