Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2009

RSS |

Twitter

Palin Pulls in Big Bucks
—for Democrats

'Going Rogue' boosts Dem fundraising to new high

Nov 21, 09 6:50 AM CST
demagogue alert

Lawmaker Paints Target on Barack Obama's Back

Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert panders to dangerous paranoids

Nov 21, 09 9:08 AM CST
Billboard Links Obama to Jihad

Colo. car dealership wants this opinion heard

Nov 20, 09 8:42 PM CST
HE'S GOT A BOOK OUT, TOO

Beck to Unveil
'Big Plan' at
Saturday Rally

Righty pundit OK with destroying Dems and GOP

Nov 20, 09 8:07 PM CST
the big plan

Beck Will Host Conventions
to Educate America

He's shifting toward political organizer, plans big DC rally

Nov 21, 09 5:06 PM CST
Senate Democrats Clear
Health Care Hurdle, 60-39

Reid gets 60 votes to open full debate after Thanksgiving recess

Nov 21, 09 7:13 PM CST
Neglected Ind. Fans Boo Palin

Hecklers accuse her of 'quitting on the job'

Nov 20, 09 3:50 PM CST
Limbaugh's Wrong: Gallup's Obama Approval Below 50%

New survey is latest disappointment for President

Nov 20, 09 2:03 PM CST
Reid Gets 60th Vote:
Holdout Lincoln Agrees

She'll allow health care bill to move forward; vote at 8pm

Nov 21, 09 1:51 PM CST
Obama's Stimulus Finally
Gets Some Respect

Warring economists agree that it has helped—if not enough

Nov 21, 09 6:21 AM CST
showtime: 8pm

All Eyes on Blanche Lincoln in Cliffhanger Senate Vote

Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson expected to back health reform in first vote

Nov 21, 09 7:24 AM CST
SURPRISE, SURPRISE

Sullivan Back; Still Hates Palin

Calls her book 'manifesto for the imagined life'

Nov 19, 09 8:49 PM CST
India Miffed By Obama's Bond With Beijing

Perceived slights complicate PM Singh's DC visit next week

Nov 20, 09 6:30 PM CST

|NEXT STORY »

Gay Marriage Backers Say Fight Not Over in Maine

Defeated advocates say they'll find new strategy

By Kevin Spak| Posted Nov 4, 09 2:16 PM CST|

(Newser) – Gay rights activists in Maine vowed to continue fighting today, after voters repealed a law making same-sex marriage legal in the state. “Here we are in a civil rights struggle,” said the executive director of Equality Maine. “What do we do in a civil rights struggle? We pick ourselves up and we stay the course.” For now, however that course is murky. Activists said they would come up with a new strategy, reports the Boston Globe.

“Are we disappointed? Yes, we’re disappointed,” the top "No on 1" organizer told a crowd of about 100 supporters outside Portland's city hall. “This is personal.” One woman showed up with a sign to protest the gathering, saying the gay community should drop its efforts. “I feel very strongly about redefining the institution of marriage,” she said. “We can be equal without being the same.”

Two people argue their differences regarding same-sex marriage in front of City Hall, in Portland, Maine, on Wednesday, Nov. 4, 2009, a day after voters rejected the gay marriage law. (AP Photo/Pat Wellenbach)

Friends console one another after learning about the unofficial defeat on Question 1 at election night headquarters in Portland, Maine, early Wednesday morning, Nov. 4, 2009. (AP Photo/Pat Wellenbach)

Jesse Connolly gives a grim yet unofficial announcement regarding the defeat on Question 1 at election night headquarters in Portland, Maine, early Wednesday morning, Nov. 4, 2009. (AP Photo/Pat Wellenbach)

Supporters of same-sex marriage Suzanne Blackburn, left, and Ann DiMella, of Portland, prepare to set up a NO on 1 sign in Deering Oaks Park, Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2009, in Portland, Maine. (AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty)

Kt Crossman joins same-sex marriage supporters for a rally on the steps of City Hall, in Portland, Maine, on Wednesday, Nov. 4, 2009, a day after voters rejected the gay marriage law. (AP Photo/Pat Wellenbach)

View larger images >>

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

11.20.09

The Health-Care Wars Have Just Begun

11.19.09

Sarah Palin Deserves Some More Attention

91 comments

VIEWING:

Corona_Kinq
Nov 4, 09 2:24 PM CST

“I feel very strongly about redefining the institution of marriage.” -- There used to be laws in 30 of the 48 states up until 1948 that prohibited marriage of blacks to whites. (Loving v. Virginia). That woman's sign that reads "People of Maine have spoken" is bullshit. It doesn't matter what they say. We've already re-defined marriage. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

Corona_Kinq
Nov 4, 09 2:25 PM CST

Before anyone asks, Loving v Virginia is the decision to reverse those laws in the states...sorry for not clarifying.

IN RESPONSE:

jamerican
Nov 4, 09 2:52 PM CST

You pervs havn't redefined anything except in your minds. Normal Americans don't approve of gays or their lifestyles and do not want to see this country go any further into the toilet by accepting your perversion. This country was founded on morals and the more we uphold them the more we will be respected by our chilldren, the rest of the world and God.

-18

IN RESPONSE:

Corona_Kinq
Nov 4, 09 2:56 PM CST

LOL, keep trying jamerican, you'll get this trolling thing down sooner or later.

IN RESPONSE:

rajanKazhmin
Nov 4, 09 2:57 PM CST

This comment has been removed by Newser’s community. You must be logged in to view this comment.

IN RESPONSE:

RockyPneumonia
Nov 4, 09 3:16 PM CST

jamerican, no one who is as irrational and hate-filled as you could possibly have any valid idea about what goes on in the minds of normal Americans. There. I've responded to your troll and made you feel like a big, powerful man who can get people to react to him. Now go away.

IN RESPONSE:

rajanKazhmin
Nov 4, 09 3:25 PM CST

There is no god. If there was, it wouldn't like you anyway.

IN RESPONSE:

DarkFrancis
Nov 4, 09 4:37 PM CST

Oh Jammy...all you think about is pee-pees and wee-wees and you get all flustered and ashamed and then you become a little aroused and it disgusts you...you are an anachronism. A small-minded, petty little person who cannot scrape the fetid scum of dogma and ignorance off their brain. The fact is, there are people naturally inclined towards the same sex and these people are as productive and worthy in our society as anyone else. And in your case, moreso. In your cloud of stupid you forget basic human rights as a core decency because you're hung up on your own perverted idea of what decency is.

IN RESPONSE:

thejoint00
Nov 4, 09 5:28 PM CST

I'm glad you mention loving v. virginia. how should it be so that black men are allowed to marry black men but white men aren't? or white men are allowed to marry white women but black men aren't? do these rights specifically for gays trancend to straights also? no they don't. if a man and woman marry they can copulate to create a baby. can two married men do the same? no.

-1

IN RESPONSE:

Snarfeh
Nov 5, 09 5:28 PM CST

Joint, nobody gives a fuck whether offspring result from marriage. If they did, many heterosexual marriages would not be allowed. Therefore, the fact that 2 men cannot reproduce is not even on the table for this issue. Not everyone wants a child. Join the 21st century, dickweed.

| 0 minutes ago

Wonka
Nov 4, 09 2:25 PM CST

"Here we are in a civil rights struggle" Damn right! Resist the bigots! Fight for equal rights for EVERYONE! Reply

+11

IN RESPONSE:

hybrid
Nov 4, 09 2:29 PM CST

not just the right! look at any 20 to 65 year old white and black male and you will see

IN RESPONSE:

RockyPneumonia
Nov 4, 09 3:17 PM CST

"Fight for equal rights for EVERYONE!" That's the only way there can BE equal rights.

| 0 minutes ago

hybrid
Nov 4, 09 2:25 PM CST

wtf read the last line of that agian......seprate yet equal, sounds familar, wonder if the person who said realize what they said and later kick their own ass Reply

IN RESPONSE:

Corona_Kinq
Nov 4, 09 2:27 PM CST

Yes, the people of Maine have spoken... and they aren't history majors. Thumbs up.

| 0 minutes ago

carbonated_turtle
Nov 4, 09 3:10 PM CST

This comment has been removed by Newser’s community. You must be logged in to view this comment. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

cedarkey
Nov 4, 09 3:49 PM CST

turtle----you define a classic progressive, move-on.org lib ---Hates God,hates Jesus,hates the Holy Spirit, hates personal responsibility, ignorant,uninformed, deceived,distorted, highly emotional, senseless, envious, insolent, full of malice, greedy, perverted and cowardly. By the way, I am not a redneck from the south. I am a successful african-american who was raised in the north and now enjoys life living off the coast in Florida. P.S. I enjoy watching the sea turtles in my backyard. hehe

-3

IN RESPONSE:

rajanKazhmin
Nov 4, 09 4:09 PM CST

cedarkey is totally a redneck from the south.

IN RESPONSE:

Thinker
Nov 4, 09 4:25 PM CST

Cedarkey is an UNEDUCATED redneck from the south.

IN RESPONSE:

paul123
Nov 4, 09 5:02 PM CST

While Jacksonville, FL is geographically in the south, it is not considered "the south" culturally. Now if he were living in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, etc, you may have a stronger case.

-1

IN RESPONSE:

Robert_Dada
Nov 4, 09 8:43 PM CST

cedarky - we don't hate God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit. We just know it doesn't exist and realized long ago the it was never needed to shape proper moral thinking. After a few centuries of pondering this, we may consider letting you join us. But, we're watching you and the things you say. Now go out and play - get some fresh air and sunshine. It will do ya a world of good.

| 0 minutes ago

paul123
Nov 4, 09 3:16 PM CST

Get it on the ballot again if that is what you believe in, but calling the opposition names is just as ignorant as the opposition calling the supporters of this bill names. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

Corona_Kinq
Nov 4, 09 3:30 PM CST

Equality shouldn't even be on a ballot. In Iowa, it violated the Equal Protection law in the state constitution. It doesn't matter what the voters think. It's not up to them.

IN RESPONSE:

paul123
Nov 4, 09 4:07 PM CST

It does, and it is, which is why it was on the ballot.

-3

IN RESPONSE:

Galileo
Nov 4, 09 5:00 PM CST

Sorry paul, but it absolutely should not be on the ballot. It's a disgrace to have citizens voting on the rights of other citizens. It's so clearly wrong. If you think it should be up to the citizens to decide, then I guess to prove my point I'll start gathering my signatures for a petition to stop women from entering the work place. Then we can all vote, and if my side wins, women won't be allowed to get jobs. Replace women with 'blacks', 'mexicans', 'old people', whatever you prefer. We can only hope the supreme court rules it unconstitutional to hold votes determining the rights of other people. Which seems like a no brainer. But we're dealing with a lot of mouth-breathres here, so who knows.

-1

IN RESPONSE:

paul123
Nov 4, 09 5:03 PM CST

Galileo, apparently the Supreme Court disagrees with you, and until they say otherwise, I'm right.

-1

IN RESPONSE:

godawgs
Nov 4, 09 5:05 PM CST

@galilieo as much as people don't like to admit it, this country was founded on christian values. I am for gay marriage and i would vote to allow it. We should let the people of that state decide whether or not they want the definition of marriage changed or not. We vote on everything else in this country that affects people's right's so what makes this issue different?

-3

IN RESPONSE:

paul123
Nov 4, 09 5:22 PM CST

Gallileo: Let me apologize. I didn't wish to sound so smarmy or mean. To rephrase, until the supreme court rules otherwise, it appears that no illegal proceedings have occured, and as such the ballot is necessary and not unorthodox.

-1

IN RESPONSE:

cedarkey
Nov 4, 09 5:47 PM CST

Actually, I'm south of Jacksonville----north of Aruba. And yes,last time I checked my skin color is dark brown. Darker than Obama's.

-4

IN RESPONSE:

Galileo
Nov 4, 09 6:01 PM CST

This country wasn't founded on christian values in the sense that you and many others think. If you read documents written by the founding fathers, most were at most deists and agnostics, ie" I think there is probably some kind of god or greater power," but nothing like the specifics of christianity. Furthermore, the founding fathers made sure to include a separation of church and state, which all of you seem to totally ignore, and I just don't know why. What makes this issue any different? Here's another example of us voting on people's rights which you seem to have no issue with: Tomorrow we will vote on whether or not blacks are allowed to have credit cards. Do you think it would reasonable for us all to vote on that?? Your post indicates you think that would be totally okay.

IN RESPONSE:

Galileo
Nov 4, 09 6:19 PM CST

Paul, please explain to me why it would be bad to hold a vote next November on whether or not to ban women from the workplace. I assume you agree that this would be wrong? Then, take that answer, and ask yourself, how is this different than banning people from getting married?

IN RESPONSE:

godawgs
Nov 4, 09 9:03 PM CST

@galileio I think that we could vote on anything that enough people seem to think we need to vote on. The one issue is that gay marriage has been defeated 31 times now on the ballot, look I voted to make sure they couldn't change the constitution here in AZ like they did in CA but I still lost. Now you can talk all you want about those ridiculous made up scenarios, but if something is defeated 31 times then maybe just maybe we are in the minority here and there really isn't anything that can be done. That is unless you want to go against you other statement and just let the government decided this for us, but if we do that then I guess you wouldn't have any problem with any other decision they make would you? The President isn't going to hang his re-election on this so gay marriage might be out until his second term and probably not even then because the politicians want to be re-elected. They should just do away with marriage anyway and have civil unions for homo and hetrosexual couples anyway.

IN RESPONSE:

paul123
Nov 4, 09 9:40 PM CST

Gallileo, it's not up to me to decide if it would be bad or not to ban women from the workplace. If someone wanted to make this a law, they would make it into a bill that would be put before a vote, and it would be voted upon. Your premise is flawed, and I will not take the bait.

IN RESPONSE:

Galileo
Nov 4, 09 9:45 PM CST

When I give you a scenario to help flesh out the full implications of your opinion, and you call it a "ridiculous scenario," it means you don't understand the purpose of thought experiments. A lot of times people hold opinions in a very naive way. They say "I'm against this or for that," but they've never really thought about the implications of their position. You use a so-called ridiculous made up scenario to help that person understand those implications. So if you were to say, "Killing is ALWAYS wrong," I might provide you with a ridiculous scenario where you've got to choose to kill a criminal to save your child, or stick to your initial position and let your child die." Then you'd either commit to your opinion and say you'd let your son die--a difficult commitment to make--or say "Oh, now I've got to alter my original position. Killing is wrong in cases EXCEPT self defense." And now you've got a more well thought out position than you started with. Do you see the academic purpose of these ridiculous made up scenarios? If not, I totally give up. This is so frustrating. You should have learned all of this stuff in college. To me it's like you're telling me 2-1 does not equal 1.

-1

IN RESPONSE:

Galileo
Nov 4, 09 10:23 PM CST

There's no premise. What is my premise? It's a thought experiment, there is no premise in it. I don't know why, but after saying you weren't going to take my bait (?), you answered the question anyways. By saying you agree women's rights could be voted on, I suppose your position is that anyone's rights can be voted on. So I guess thanks for at least answering the question, but your position is pretty ridiculous. Do you think everyone would be cool if, next year, Women's Rights was on the ballot? Or how about a vote to reverse Emancipation? Obviously a lot of other people wouldn't be cool. I think we'd hear a lot of "how dare you try to vote my rights away," and "this is unconstitutional." And I think it is. That was the point of scenario anyway. But if you are ready to commit to the position that all of those votes would be A-OK, have at it. At least you're consistent.

IN RESPONSE:

paul123
Nov 5, 09 12:44 AM CST

Galileo, seriously, i'm sorry, I don't see where I actually answered your question. You are comparing apples to oranges and the bait, if you will, is the temptation to try to get me to compare the two. Don't misunderstand me, I don't believe you hold some nefarious plot to out me as a dolt, I just don't agree with your premises, or thought experiments, in that they don't adequately make a connection to the topic at hand.

-1

IN RESPONSE:

plstyle
Nov 5, 09 12:53 AM CST

bravo paul!

| 0 minutes ago

rajanKazhmin
Nov 4, 09 3:42 PM CST

I don't see how this is even an issue. Denying rights to a group of people is wrong. End of discussion. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

Doctor_Zaius
Nov 4, 09 3:46 PM CST

The majority should never rule on the rights of the minority. Ever. If we are not all free than none of us are. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

godawgs
Nov 4, 09 3:55 PM CST

so by your statement who would make the rules? Who would decide what is a right and what isn't?

-5

IN RESPONSE:

rajanKazhmin
Nov 4, 09 3:59 PM CST

He's not talking about right and wrong as in morals. He's talking about peoples rights. One group of people, even if there are more of them, should not be allowed to deny rights to another group of people just because there are less of them.

IN RESPONSE:

godawgs
Nov 4, 09 4:25 PM CST

i know that is what is he is talking about. That is the question that I asked, because all of our rights were decided by a group of people, usually the majority. So by the Dr's statement who should decide what is a right or not a right?

-1

IN RESPONSE:

Galileo
Nov 4, 09 5:14 PM CST

@ godawgs - Whoa we get it. The officials are elected by a majority and therefore when officials decide policy you could chalk it up to the "majority." Thanks for making us waste time clearing up your uncharitable reading of doctor's post. The reality is that that is not how it truly works. The way amendments/policies/etc gets passed is obviously a different process than "turn out and vote." When people vote, they are swayed by mind-numbing dribble like "gay sex will be taught in SCHOOL OOH SCARY VOTE IT DOWN." I like to think the state legislature is above such nonsense and capable of debating and deliberating and making an informed decision. It's absolutely appalling that one group of citizens should be permitted to vote on the rights of another group. If you disagree with this key difference in voting vs. elected officials, let's just do away with the entire government, and just hold a national vote, majority wins, on every subject. More troops into Afghan? Vote! Who cares if a lot of people have no idea what is going on over there. I'm sure Joe Smith down at Wal-mart will make a perfectly informed decision. So the question you've posed is pretty easy to answer. We all make the rules through the constitutionally set up process, and we don't just throw it to a vote.

IN RESPONSE:

thejoint00
Nov 4, 09 5:18 PM CST

dr. z- I normally dismiss your statements as the liberal useless banter that they are however this one takes the cake in that there are a minority of people who think it's ok to steal, kill and molest children. hopefully there is a majority and remains a majority that views these behaviors as indecent and punishable.

-5

IN RESPONSE:

godawgs
Nov 4, 09 5:24 PM CST

@gal So you think that the people voted into the state senate are above making bad decisions or being swayed by other groups. Need I remind you a certain group of democrats that are basically being owned by the health care industry at this time. Legislators are no more qualified to make the decisions then you or I, that is why we are government of the people, for the people, and by the people.

-3

IN RESPONSE:

Galileo
Nov 4, 09 5:35 PM CST

Yes godawgs, because I certainly said they are above making bad decisions. Go look up the term 'charitable' in regards to reading/debate. You desperately need to adopt it. So of course I did not say that, but instead made the point that our government is set up to work for the people, and that this process should absolutely be used. You neglected to address anything I actually said. Doctor said one group shouldn't decide the rights of another, you posted your typical "but what about this?" comment that is totally off the mark because you read uncharitably, and I answered your question. If I'm wrong, then why do we have elected officials. Like I said before, why don't we just majority vote on everything? But alas, you always fail to actually respond to what I've said and instead respond to something I didn't "officials are above making bad decisions." I don't know if you deliberately construct straw men arguments of what people say, of if you truly just don't have the reading comprehension skills to understand.

IN RESPONSE:

Galileo
Nov 4, 09 5:45 PM CST

@thejoint - YIKES. Embarrassing. Thieves and child molesters get sent to jail because what they do is against the law. Guess how that came about? THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. AS IN, THE THING THAT LEGALIZED GAY MARRIAGE before this vote. Stealing isn't illegal because your state holds a vote and the citizens decided it was bad, so your analogy is a total fail. Stop typing, you're making us all dumber.

IN RESPONSE:

thejoint00
Nov 4, 09 6:35 PM CST

@galileo- yet you are contradicting yourself. the legislative process is the process of citizens deciding if certain behavior is good or @Galileo- yet you are contradicting yourself. The legislative process is the process of citizens deciding if certain behavior is good or bad and it has now illegalized gay marriage. How about this idea- tax corporate and personal wealth to the point that they cannot undermine the will of the people. The people of Maine (and California) have spoken.

-3

IN RESPONSE:

Doctor_Zaius
Nov 4, 09 8:03 PM CST

Someone must be smoking "The Joint" Civil rights should not be taken away from the minority by a majority. It is not a right to break the law. Mr. Joint smoker's examples are irrelevant to this argument.

IN RESPONSE:

godawgs
Nov 4, 09 8:06 PM CST

@gal you said "I like to think the state legislature is above such nonsense and capable of debating and deliberating and making an informed decision" which means that you think they can't be swayed by a group or position or that they are some deity who is infallible. We have seen and most of know that special interest groups run Washington and our state governments. The gay rights group is very powerful, which is why they don't want this decision to go to the people for a vote. The special instrest's have the votes in a congress or senate.

-2

IN RESPONSE:

Galileo
Nov 4, 09 9:20 PM CST

@godawgs - Here I'll go ahead and help you out by breaking down that sentence I said. --- "I like to think the state legislature is above such nonsense..." --- It is common in writing for a sentence to refer to the one previous to it in subject. So this one refers to the sentence before it, which was about bigoted t.v. commercials. What I mean by "I like to think they are above such nonsense" is that I don't think many of members of our legislature base their opinions off stupid commercials they see while watching NFL football. Here's where you'd say I claim they are infallible. But if you notice, I've only made a comment in regard to one thing: television commercials. So about as far from claiming "infallibility" as I can get. I am fully aware representatives can be pretty worthless. And to further clarify, what I am really counting on here are the courts, not politicians. While also not infallible, they are our best hope to reach legislative answers via intelligent debate and logic. Next --- "...capable of debating, deliberating, and making an informed decision" --- The key word here is 'CAPABLE.' So if everyone was to believe your interpretation of my comment, instead of saying 'capable', according to you I said 'ALWAYS.' Notice there is a significant difference in the meaning of these words, and I probably chose 'capable' on purpose. I said they are CAPABLE. Do they always make good decisions, of course not. I'm claiming no such thing. I've given repeated examples demonstrating why a popular vote is all wrong for these cases, but you have yet to address any of those. So please, stop reading my post as "Politicians are infallible and will save us all," and please read it the correct way which is, "The public should not vote on the rights of others, this is something that should be discussed and decided in the courts." History is on my side, unless I'm mistaken I don't think the civil rights movement culminated in the national ballot vote: Are black equal? check yes or no. Now, how about telling me how voting to ban gay marriage is different from voting to ban women from the workplace.

IN RESPONSE:

godawgs
Nov 4, 09 9:41 PM CST

@gal voting to ban gay marriage is no different then voting to ban women from the workplace. tell you what since you made the offer I will be looking forward to seeing your petition to get that on a ballot, and then the country can vote on it. You see we are country that votes on things, I said before if you believe that strongly in something then get it passed by the people, if you read my other posts you will see that I don't think that gay marriage should be banned, I agree with you on this point but you either one don't comprehend what you are reading or you just skip over those lines. I am going to go with you don't comprehend as in the other post I already addressed your "concern" about banning women from the workplace. So let's pay attention try to follow along I know it's hard because you got some talking points you want to get out but let's read the whole post from start to finish okay?

-1

IN RESPONSE:

Galileo
Nov 4, 09 10:38 PM CST

I am aware you don't seek to ban gay marriage, thanks. If you go back and read the posts, I never attacked you as a supporter of the ban. I just attacked some of the things you said in the discussion. You know, stuff about the majority should decide, etc. But because you are never able to understand the posts, we spent the rest of the time with you putting words in my mouth or drawing false conclusions from my statements and me correcting you. It took forever to clear up that "politicans are infallible thing," which is terribly annoying. And thanks for finally admitting the women and gay votes are no different. That was my main point. So as long as you're willing to commit to such a ridiculous position as a ballot containing a vote to ban women from working is totally okay, then I'm happy. Also, what talking points? How do I have talking points if all my posts are in response to things you've said. You must have heard the buzz words 'talking points' and knew if you applied that to my comments you'd sound super cool. GG.

-1

IN RESPONSE:

godawgs
Nov 5, 09 5:43 AM CST

@gal I understood your questions, and it you who was trying to put words into my mouth. I asked a simple question, and that was if the majority didn't decide the rights of people who did? Out of that you start to talk about women being banned from the workplace and killing people's kids. Your tactic is fairly similar to what other people do when they don't want to answer a question as you have never answered mine, and that is become very long winded and change the subject to something that is stupid and off topic. So if you please just answer a simple question, in America who decides what is a right and what isn't?

IN RESPONSE:

thejoint00
Nov 5, 09 12:50 PM CST

@dr. Z the gay rights movement is about a certain minority group (as you claim) of people that are requesting special rights that the majority doesn't have. there are many advances (or desecrations) to human interaction that all couples can participate in such as sex and child rearing without marriage. Straight couples have an ability to naturally produce children that homosexual couples do not. That in itself dismisses any sort of equality that gays may have to straights. prove that "gay" rights are universal rights or that somehow the whole nation benefits from giving a special intrest group more benefits than similar groups(un- married strait couples) and maybe we(everyone that has and continues to vote down gay marriage) can talk.

| 0 minutes ago

newsrmandan
Nov 4, 09 3:57 PM CST

The problem with any gay rights movement is that they are equating their plight with that of blacks in civil rights era. That is a fallacious argument and will never work because it makes a case that two ladies not being able to be married is the same as a black person not able to vote or not equal to those other human beings namely whites. Its an affront to all black people and white people alike. It also make a mockery of the institution of marriage. Reply

-2

IN RESPONSE:

Corona_Kinq
Nov 4, 09 4:00 PM CST

How does it mock marriage? From the government standpoint it makes no difference legally. It's 2 people in a legal contract that share assets blah blah blah. I'll refer again to the Equal Protection clause in the Iowa constitution.

IN RESPONSE:

cedarkey
Nov 4, 09 4:03 PM CST

You're right newsrmandan.

-6

IN RESPONSE:

rajanKazhmin
Nov 4, 09 4:06 PM CST

You are wrong. It is the same. Peoples rights are being taken away. Marriage has been a joke for decades anyway. Gay marriage effects gay people. If you are not gay, leave them alone. Let people live their lives with equal rights no matter who they are.

IN RESPONSE:

newsrmandan
Nov 4, 09 4:25 PM CST

Corona... long long long before there was anything closely approximating government there was this institution called marriage it has and always will be the only form that can naturally produce another life. Thats why its mocking and frankly thats why it will never be marriage---legal or not. @ rajanK.... you can go to any state in this country and apply for a marriage certificate. So your statement makes no sense because if people want to get married they certainly can. What the states are saying is " we support the natural institution of marriage and not the gay movements reinterpretation of it" Nobodies stopping gay lovers from doing what they do just don't try to call it something its not and infringe on something I have with my wife.

-4

IN RESPONSE:

Thinker
Nov 4, 09 4:30 PM CST

The civil rights fight for blacks included voting, marriage and equal access to public transportation, education, bathrooms, drinking fountains and restaurants. Gaining those rights meant being treated as a human being, treated with respect, and having equal protection under the law. Gay rights = civil rights and any suggestion otherwise is ignorant.

IN RESPONSE:

newsrmandan
Nov 4, 09 4:51 PM CST

last time I checked gays could vote had equal access to public transportation, education, bathrooms, drinking fountains and restaurants. all things that were won for all human beings thanks to the civil rights movement I don't see your connection. And neither do the majority of the states. Suggestion to the gay rights movement, take up another line of argumentation. Allow people to have sympathy for you not animosity towards you.

-2

IN RESPONSE:

Galileo
Nov 4, 09 5:27 PM CST

@ News - You don't seem to have the ability to understand that civil rights are separate from your private religious belief. Here's a new line of argument that you'll probably reject based on said inability to understand. You say it "infringes on something you have with your wife." So of course you're talking about religion. You churchies for some reason feel that your religion is threatened by gays being allowed to marry. So what about separation of church and state? It's in the constitution. The state side of this would be the legal status of "married" and the tax benefits such a status gives, and the religion side of it would be you, the citizen striving to PROTECT marriage based on religious conviction. The only reason you oppose gay marriage is because of your religion. Because of what you believe, you don't want gays to have the same legal status and tax benefits you get. So you're violating the separation of church and state because you're taking away a legal right due to your private belief. It's pretty straightforward.

IN RESPONSE:

rajanKazhmin
Nov 4, 09 5:32 PM CST

FAIL

IN RESPONSE:

newsrmandan
Nov 4, 09 6:49 PM CST

@ Gallileo... I said not one thing about my faith as upholding my position on gay marriage you did. Also am arguing from a strictly natural-historical position. I stated that way before governments existed people had marriages and for this I suppose I interject my religeous beliefs? Maybe so, but until you or anyone else can prove to me how children came to be outside the relationships had by a man with a woman, then I will stand with my argument like some of my favorite heroes did " contra Mundo" As far as a "legal rights" go, states present laws for the people to vote on, and I vote my conscience so I break no laws . You bring up a good point though regarding legal status and tax benifits and probably inheritance laws. My position on all that is, great!! present me a legistlative law that gives gays all these rights and I might be persuaded that would be a good thing.That gay people can pass down an inheritance, I have zero problem with that. But why do we need to get into this silliness over whether or not two guys are "married" its silliness and I think you know it.

-4

IN RESPONSE:

Galileo
Nov 4, 09 9:33 PM CST

@News - Who are you kidding, I didn't interject religion, it's obviously there. No one claims that gays are infringing on their marriage other than religious people. The whole debate is rooted in christians defending their sacred marriage from the immoral homosexuals. You're doing that thing, like when creationists call it Intelligent Design and pretend they aren't coming from a place of religion but from a place of "equal learning." What a joke. If you still reject my including religious conviction in your opinion, I would be very interested in you outlining how the fact that "people married long before governments" gives good reason to deny the title off 'married' to gay couples. I would love to see that position laid out, as I am totally oblivious to what you could possibly argue that wouldn't sound laughably absurd. As for the second thing you said, about how you'd be willing to allow them some legal rights, but to drop this whole silly "marriage" nonsense. What you're promoting here is the dreaded Separate But Equal. How do you not see it? "I'd be okay with blacks being able to use the local pool, so long as they have a different locker room" VS "I'd be okay with gays getting the same tax breaks as long as they have to have a different name for it." So I guess I don't know that it's silliness. I possess the ability to remember what I learned about history in grade school and apply it to what you're saying today.

IN RESPONSE:

newsrmandan
Nov 5, 09 11:33 AM CST

@ galli... you want me to defend my positions while you sit back and relax, in the easy chair evolutionary-naturalism, which to you is not a faith based religion. I have stated clearly from a non-religious point of view that the Homosexual life is naturally inconsistent with nature. Nature! remember that thing that one goes against at his own peril. Your the evolutiony-naturalist and so your position is predicated on believing that you should not go against it. What does evolution (not the bible) tell you about how children are produced? Through a man with a woman. Man+woman= child. Man+man= 0, women+woman=0. So without using any bible thumbage I have destroyed your naturalist argument that life can be given outside proper means. Is it fair, for me to use your arguments to destroy your arguments? Notice that I refrained from name calling. Please do so as well.

| 0 minutes ago

Fondue
Nov 4, 09 3:57 PM CST

Keep up the fight! Reply

| 0 minutes ago

Chudluv
Nov 4, 09 4:26 PM CST

I don't care if a man or a woman want to marry the same sex. What makes me think that every Born-Again Christian who jumps up and down on the bible about how it is against God's word; they are the biggest buyer of sex toys and porn. I outed a lady at church for this kind of thing as she had sex party's selling this crap and then was the biggest bigot about not having it around in Church. It was a sad day (I mean it) when I called her on it during our service as she spoke how "Gay marriage" would ruin everything and how they are the biggest pervs. Let say that our whole town knows her true colors of hipocorism. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

Thinker
Nov 4, 09 4:32 PM CST

Utah is Number One in the percentage of purchasers of online porn in the U.S.

IN RESPONSE:

Galileo
Nov 4, 09 5:38 PM CST

Chudluv FTW.

-1

| 0 minutes ago

AnnieOkie58
Nov 4, 09 5:48 PM CST

I think people should mind their own business, and sweep their own door step before starting in-on others life style. Gay people have just as much right to live as they please as the people who judge them. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

TheInterested
Nov 4, 09 6:32 PM CST

Could someone with a religious background explain to me how gay marriage is detrimental to the moral sanctity of society? I just don't understand. Hypothetically, let's say it was. I wasn't under the impression god judges nations or societies as a whole, he judges people. I could see religious people making a big stink if they thought that calling gay marriage, "marriage" would somehow invalidate their ticket to heaven, but I haven't heard anyone argue that. What gives? Someone please explain. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

cedarkey
Nov 4, 09 7:52 PM CST

If gays are allowed to marry, our society must then allow first cousins to marry, son-mother, father-daughter, brother-sister, why not a 16 year old with an adult, one man-five women,two women-six men. If you do not allow these groups their "constitutional" rights you are being illogical and inconsistant in your thinking.

-4

IN RESPONSE:

Doctor_Zaius
Nov 4, 09 8:05 PM CST

Thanks for the grasping at straws. Clearly if we allow Negroes and Mexicans to eat at our lunch counter we must allow trained circus animals.

IN RESPONSE:

Snarfeh
Nov 5, 09 5:38 PM CST

Yo, dumbass, cousins can marry in texas. I could marry my male third cousin, but not a woman unrelated to me. And Zaius already covered your idiotic grasping at straws. You are just stupid. I don't care if you are against gay marriage. That's fine! But I hate seeing stupid trying to make an argument because it will only get bitchslapped like the Doc did to you. Waste of a bitchslap, if you ask me....

| 0 minutes ago

kansas1946
Nov 4, 09 7:36 PM CST

Hmmm....guess there is no shortage of bigost in Maine either. They like to promote themselves as open minded, but I guess not. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

RevStanton
Nov 4, 09 8:26 PM CST

"Normal Americans don't approve of gays or their lifestyles???" Really? As an ordained UCC minister, I can tell you that there are a LOT of normal, church-going, Christ-following people that accept all people as our brothers and sisters in faith regardless of their sexual orientation (which EDUCATED people realize ISN'T a lifestyle choice). And PLEASE don't tell me that you know whom God respects or prefers. Read your Bible, it was always those folks that others excluded and oppressed. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

paul123
Nov 5, 09 12:50 AM CST

Rev, we as church folk must love ALL people, and there is no escaping that truth. However, the Bible is clear that we are to love the sinner, but hate the sin, and the Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin. You have the choice disagree with the Bible, but you cannot deny the content. Thus, we are to love these folks with the love of Christ, and not shun them, but to condone the lifestyle is another matter.

IN RESPONSE:

newsrmandan
Nov 5, 09 11:06 AM CST

with all due respect Rev. The bible is very clear I Cor 6. Who will and will not be in the kingdom of God. Be sure not to read things into the texts but let the texts dictate what you say behind the pulpit. And please don't use your ordainedship into the UCC church as some position of authority against those less EDUCATED folks. It smacks of Pride.

IN RESPONSE:

Snarfeh
Nov 5, 09 5:43 PM CST

@DanTaliban and PaulTaliban - No one gives a fuck about your god or your bible verses. Please go start a war with some real religious freaks like yourselves. The rest of the world is progressing and it is only a matter of time before gay marriage is legal in your neighborhood. Then, your wives will be pleasured by a lesbian and leave you because they don't know there are actually men out there who can please them.

| 0 minutes ago

So_Cal_Larry
Nov 4, 09 8:29 PM CST

One of the reasons why courts exist is to protect minorities from the tyrany of the majority. I believe that there is a good possibility that this fundamental civil rights case in federal court in California will be successful up through the Supreme Court. If so, all this religious garbage in all the various states becomes moot and dead - as it should be. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

kansas1946
Nov 4, 09 8:48 PM CST

Exactly. This will eventually end up a civil rights issue and go before the Supreme Court and the court will rule that the states can not deny a person's right to be treated equally and that will be the end of that.

IN RESPONSE:

LovinLife
Nov 5, 09 1:01 AM CST

I hate that I can only give you one thumbs up, Larry. This needs to be settled once and for all by the supreme court. No-one should have the right to vote on another adult's marriage.

| 0 minutes ago

ksu92
Nov 4, 09 8:49 PM CST

Not one story on Newser about the secret ACTA treaty that will take away our rights. That's not an accident, folks. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

ErinORiordan
Nov 4, 09 8:52 PM CST

You've got a lot of nerve, Maine, denying your fellow citizens the same rights you have! Reply

| 0 minutes ago

Badumpbump
Nov 4, 09 8:52 PM CST

Yes, it's important to narrow minded bigots that people they have never met act in a manner that their archaic religion dictates. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

Galileo
Nov 4, 09 10:51 PM CST

Zing.

-1

| 0 minutes ago

LovinLife
Nov 5, 09 12:44 AM CST

I'm so sorry and so ashamed for this even though I had nothing to do with the vote tonight. If anyone - a complete stranger - could vote on my right to marry the person I love, I would feel violated, diminished and completely powerless. I am so sorry that people feel they have the right to vote on your right to love and marry the person you love. I wish with all my heart that the supreme court would put a stop to this. You are my brother, my sister, you matter to me. Love will prevail. I promise. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

ROBR
Nov 5, 09 9:44 AM CST

Maybe the gay community should stop referring to their cause as a fight. Take a cue from the "ASS CLOWN" in the Whitehouse, who changed "War on Terror" to " Overseas Contingency Plan". Isn't that much more appealing and civilized? How about asking the American people, most of whom now say they don't have a problem with the gay lifestyle, just the fact they want to call a civil union, a marriage. You could petition for all the perks of a traditional marriage, such as access to health insurance, medical decisions, etc, through referendums on state ballots. It does not help your cause when dipshits like Jon Leibowitz, Stephan Colbert and Bill Maher bolster your position by calling the opossers retards for believing in God. Their objections, however unfair you feel they are, will never change with this behavour taking place almost nightly. Remember their values and rights are being viciously attacked by aitheists and the ACLU everyday. Christmas shows in school are now holiday shows. No Crhistmas songs allowed either. Not to mention no mangers or manorahs on public property, a tradition in place forever. The problem, as I see it, we refuse to allow ourselves to empethize with those, with whom we disagree, that gets us nowhere. Remember when you were a child, afraid of the boogy man? Your mom & dad kept reassuring you, he's not real, it's just in your head. It's kind of like that. In time we all grow up and forget we were ever afraid in the first place. Give it more time. PS: The way the "ASS CLOWN" treats gay issues, now that he's in office, should be proof enough, of how much morework is needed. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

Snarfeh
Nov 5, 09 5:47 PM CST

As long as we get all the same benefits as marriage, you can call yours marriage and we will call ours civil unions. Then, you can say you are married and we will say we are civilized. I don't get all the fuss over this. Marriage is not sacred. It's done on TV for money. The divorce rate is at...what...over 50% these days? If not, it's damned close. So, if it is only your religion you can use to debate this, you might as well shut up because it ain't about religion. Once you take religion out of the equation, it's pretty simple...it's civil rights. You can marry an adult of the opposite sex, but I cannot marry an adult of the same sex. That is discrimination. Period. See how easy and clear it is once you take the Taliban out of it? Reply

| 0 minutes ago

View all 91 comments »

gay rights • gay marriage • Maine • Election 09 • Question 1

from our news partners

Celebs' Most Anticipated TV Season Finales
(Nov 21, 09 12:15 PM CST)
What If Twitter Existed When...
(Nov 21, 09 12:00 PM CST)
Miley Cyrus 'Deeply Saddened' by Bus Driver's Death
(Nov 21, 09 9:39 AM CST)
Investigation Into Michael Jackson's Doctor to Continue Through 2010
(Nov 21, 09 9:30 AM CST)

If you are receiving monthly insurance checks because you have...
(35 minutes ago)
Radiation leak reported at Three Mile Island nuclear plant, no...
(1 hour, 8 minutes ago)
Fun-loving San Francisco cable car decides to give passengers an...
(2 hours, 16 minutes ago)
Photoshop this flagrant foul [Photoshop]
(2 hours, 38 minutes ago)

First Look At Xeno Lovegood From The Deathly Hallows
(Nov 21, 09 8:48 PM CST)
New Moon Has Best Opening Day Of All Time
(Nov 21, 09 11:41 AM CST)
Writer Hired For Underworld 4
(Nov 20, 09 4:44 PM CST)
Brad Pitt Producing Dark Void Video Game Adaptation
(Nov 20, 09 4:36 PM CST)

Associated Press

Analysis: Loss in Maine could be staggering blow to gay-marriage movement nationwide
(Nov 4, 09 10:25 AM CST)
Gay-marriage opponents claim victory in Maine; gay-rights side refuses to concede
(Nov 3, 09 11:54 PM CST)
Stakes are high in Maine's vote on gay marriage; out-of-state money pours in...
(Nov 2, 09 4:50 PM CST)
Maine voters to pass judgment on gay marriage
(Nov 1, 09 12:44 PM CST)

What is Newser?

Face it: there's too much news. At Newser, we choose the most important stories from hundreds of US and international sources and reduce them to a headline, picture, and two paragraphs. And we do it 24/7—you can come back morning, noon, night (and in between) for something new that matters. Read less, know more.

Learn more »

Gay Marriage Backers Say Fight Not Over in Maine

Defeated advocates say they'll find new strategy

TV's 'Loud and Proud' Gays Should Tone It Down

Outrageous characters may be hurting the cause

MORE ABOUT:
entertainment • television • gay rights • gay marriage • lesbians • Don't Ask, Don't Tell • celebrity • homosexuality • Rachel Maddow • Adam Lambert • Glee • same-sex couples • gay

DC, Catholic Church
in Gay Rights Standoff

Church to pull plug on social programs if marriage bill passes

MORE ABOUT:
gay rights • gay marriage • Catholic Church • Washington DC • social services • District of Columbia • archdiocese

Mormons Back Salt Lake
Gay Rights Law

Church says it won't drop opposition to gay marriage

MORE ABOUT:
gay rights • gay marriage • Salt Lake City • Utah • Mormon • Mormonism • Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

gay rights • gay marriage • Maine • Election 09 • Question 1

MOST POPULAR STORIES

[ By Views ]

[ By Comments ]

from our news partners

Associated Press

About

Help

Tools

Site Maps

What is Newser?

Gay Marriage Backers Say Fight Not Over in Maine

Defeated advocates say they'll find new strategy

Related Newser Stories

OPINION

TV's 'Loud and Proud' Gays Should Tone It Down

Outrageous characters may be hurting the cause

MORE ABOUT: entertainment • television • gay rights • gay marriage • lesbians • Don't Ask, Don't Tell • celebrity • homosexuality • Rachel Maddow • Adam Lambert • Glee • same-sex couples • gay

DC, Catholic Church in Gay Rights Standoff

Church to pull plug on social programs if marriage bill passes

MORE ABOUT: gay rights • gay marriage • Catholic Church • Washington DC • social services • District of Columbia • archdiocese

Mormons Back Salt Lake Gay Rights Law

Church says it won't drop opposition to gay marriage

MORE ABOUT: gay rights • gay marriage • Salt Lake City • Utah • Mormon • Mormonism • Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

gay rights • gay marriage • Maine • Election 09 • Question 1

MOST POPULAR STORIES

[ By Views ]

[ By Comments ]

from our news partners

Associated Press

About

Help

Tools

Site Maps

What is Newser?

MORE ABOUT:
entertainment • television • gay rights • gay marriage • lesbians • Don't Ask, Don't Tell • celebrity • homosexuality • Rachel Maddow • Adam Lambert • Glee • same-sex couples • gay

DC, Catholic Church
in Gay Rights Standoff

MORE ABOUT:
gay rights • gay marriage • Catholic Church • Washington DC • social services • District of Columbia • archdiocese

Mormons Back Salt Lake
Gay Rights Law

MORE ABOUT:
gay rights • gay marriage • Salt Lake City • Utah • Mormon • Mormonism • Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints