This equal protection under the law shouldn't be an issue in a country that sets itself up as a model of freedom to other nations in the world community. Sadly, because of religious interference in our secular nation's policies, the US is not now and will not be an exceptional model of freedom until all citizens are given the ultimate freedom of marrying the person they choose to and are given the exact same rights as heterosexuals. This same idea applies to "Don't Ask; Don't Tell." We cannot brag to the world community that we are the greatest nation on the planet until all of our citizens enjoy all of the freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution.
VOTE NO! ON 1
Listen to Philip Spooner, who fought for those freedoms in World War II, express this idea more eloquently than I:
New poll: Gay-marriage supporters in lead
A new poll released today by Pan Atlantic SMS Group of Portland shows a 53-42 percent advantage to supporters of same-sex marriage.
The poll of 400 Maine adults conducted between Oct. 20-22 indicates 53 percent of those surveyed said they were planning to vote “no” on Question 1, which asks voters if they want to reject the state law that allows same-sex couples to marry in Maine.
The margin of error is 5 percent.
A poll on the same question released last week by Public Policy Polling of North Carolina showed a 48-48 percent tie on Question 1. They surveyed 1,130 likely voters.
This and other ballot questions will be part of the Nov. 3 election.
19 comments:
Mr Spooner brought tears to my eyes. Very eloquent indeed. He brings up a good historical precedence; the Nazi concentration camps prisoners were all people who were chosen by certain criteria to be marginalized and therefore not afforded the same rights and privileges as other people.
Could such a thing happen here? In the words of that great orator, Sarah Palin, "You betcha!"
It is time to lift the mantel of ignorance and bigotry off the American shoulders and finally fill that American dream of Dr King's that our children live in a land where ALL men (and women)are equal.
That there are still people in this country that would support and encourage such intolerance and abuse of fellow human beings pains me deeply - I sincerely hope our country is turning a corner here.
What really irritates me is the wording of these “propositions”. In California, Prop 8 was to “eliminate the right of same-sex marriage”. So, if one voted YES to Prop 8, one was actually saying NO to same-sex marriage. I believe it was confusing and that is the reason same-sex marriage didn’t pass in California.
Now, here we are in Ma with the same wordage. Vote NO to mean YES. It’s ridiculous! If you SUPPORT something it should be YES, NOT NO!
I'm pretty sure they do that on purpose. They did the same here in Oregon in '04. "Yes" meant saying "no" to same-sex marriage.
As a white male conservative I don't give a hoot about gay marriage one way or the other. Heck, I bet gay divorces would be a great spectator sport. Heck yea let em marry! ;-)
I bet their divorce rate would actually be less than the straight divorce rate.
That may well be Mr. Muse. But the one's that divorce, woooo hoowdy! Can't ya just picture what Jerry Springer could do with such material? ;-)
That would be some funny testimony.
The only problem with this scenario is that I have to believe the trailer park trash gay community is quite small and that is the Springer demographic.
Sadly, the 'straight' voters of Maine did not show respect for fellow Mainers who aren't like them.
The voters have spoken. If you don't like it, move to a state that is more to your way of thinking. That's a right everyone has.
Jim,
That's how the anti-civil rights people talked when civil rights were denied to Americans in southern states.
I'm surprised at you.
Gay Americans deserve equal protection under our Constitution.
It appears by your comment that you don't believe our gay brothers and sisters deserve the same rights you have.
That's how the old south thought about African-Americans.
This is a temporary defeat. America always progresses toward equalit.
I wouldn't crow too loud if I were you.
Pam~ The language of Prop 8 in CA was NOT 'to eliminate the right of...' as you misquoted. It was specifically stated, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Those who voted "for" prop 8 in CA (& prop # in Maine) voted FOR the traditional, time honored valuing of marriage as one man, one woman. If people were confused, it seems that they weren't particularly invested in what they were voting FOR or against.
Shaw & I had quite a discussion of this if anyone's interested to go read: http://getbigideas.blogspot.com/2009/05/same-sex-marriage-supreme-courts-part.html
I'm not interested in re-hashing, Shaw, fyi. I'd just be copying & pasting anyway. Just thought I'd give 'ol Jim, there, a little support.
Like he said, if people don't like the outcome of the election in Maine, they have a right to move.
And any adult has a right to marry. (Marriage = one man + one woman.) Standing by that definition doesn't constitute 'intolerance.' It values marriage per the centuries-old definition of such. (And & doesn't even come CLOSE to 'abuse of fellow human beings.' Please.)
One of our most basic human rights is the right to marry the person one chooses.
Denial of this by any state is denial of civil liberty. It's as plain as that.
No religious organization is compelled to recognized or marry a gay couple (although there are religions that freely do).
And "centuries old" definitions of marriage included polygamy, arranged marriages of young girls for older men in order to enrich families or strengthen family alliances. Those were and still ARE marriage traditions.
Shame on the unenlightened people in Maine who would deny their neighbors a basic civil right.
And shame on anyone who believes that an American citizen should be forced to leave where they live in order to enjoy this basic civil right.
"One of our most basic human rights is the right to marry the person one chooses."
Oh yeah? Says who? ;) You? Those who want to turn the foundation of our society upside down for their preferences? Who made you/them the artbiter all things 'rights?'
I have no ill-will toward people who want-what-they-want-just-because-they-want-it. We all do that - it's our human nature. But we don't get what we want just b/c we claim it's a 'civil right.'
If they want to marry, go right ahead! Find someone of the opposite sex & get married. That's what marriage is. No one is denying ANYONE that privilege.
(Note: the correct word here is privilege, not 'right.' As you aptly point out, no adult man has the 'right' to marry a child in our society. He has the privilege to marry an adult woman - that's how our society is structured, etc., etc.)
Oh boy, here we go again...No. I've said my piece.
And Shaw, please knock it off w/ the overbearing mother schtick of "shame on you for not agreeing w/ me..." The shame you're trying to cast on me (& Jim, & anyone else lurking) will not adhere. I don't want to see you waste your energy like that.
Susannah,
I do not go to your blog and tell you what to say or do.
That would be overbearing behavior, wouldn't it. :)
"That would be overbearing behavior, wouldn't it. :)"
Perhaps, gentle Shaw. But one must be discerning when contemplating ettiquette.
For instance, it is much worse form for a hostess (who wishes to have return guests) to intentionally make her guests feel ill-at-ease, than it is for a guest to presume a level of comfort beyond her bounds. The latter makes the mistake (perhaps) of relaxing in her hostess' company more than is due, the former is merely being rude (& telegraphing disinvitation to boot).
Your blog - I'm the guest. My blog - you're the guest.
Be my guest if you like. :)
What people don't get is that a license to marry--a marriage contract--is granted by the state--which has no authority to impose any religious test on two people who wish to marry.
A priest, rabbi, minister, mullah all have to have the STATE grant them the right to make a marriage contract between two people legal. No religious organization has that authority of itself.
Religious prohibitions are the ONLY reasons people are against same sex marriages.
If two people of the same sex marry, it has absolutely no influence on a heterosexual marriage.
Shaw is right. This is a civil rights issue. It will be the law of the land eventually, just as racial civil rights is and just as the prohibition on interracial marriage was ended.
Those who continue to be anti-same sex marriage will be left in the dust bin of history.
I suspect being poor in 2080 will be like being poor in 2000, but you'll be lacking access to more of the goods and services that are required to be a functional part of the culture. buy [url=https://gigasoft.us/product/adobe-captivate-8/]adobe captivate 8[/url]
Join us in New Orleans to connect with thousands of your peers, get the skinny from industry leading cloud providers and thought leaders, and map out where and how your practice can lever the higher cloud to maximize revenue and meet customer needs. September 8 - 11 (Cleveland): Content Marketing World Cleveland 2014 [url=http://buycheapsoftware.us/product/autodesk-infrastructure-design-suite-ultimate-2016/]Autodesk Infrastructure Design Suite Ultimate 2016[/url]
Post a Comment