| |||
|
vent your anger after waking up to see a yes vote on #1 in Maine1,154 views |
| steve g - 11/4/09, 1:09 am |
| from bangordailynews tweet... "We've heard that Yes on One has declared victory. Votes still coming in. With 84% of precincts reporting, it's 52.57% for yes." ...i really hope to open lemmingtrail tomorrow morning to find this thread has sunk to the bottom because of new threads like "surprise no vote in maine!" or "last minute turnaround saves gay marriage rights in maine" |
| asemisldkfj - 11/4/09, 1:13 am |
| I fucking hate this shit I'd say something more substantive but this thread is for ANGER |
| steve g - 11/4/09, 1:14 am |
| pictures of bombs and bombs falling on fundamentalist christian homes welcome |
| asemisldkfj - 11/4/09, 1:21 am |
| IMAGE REMOVED - CLICK TO VIEW |
| ssg - 11/4/09, 2:25 am |
| Fuck Maine. |
| ssg - 11/4/09, 2:30 am |
| Seriously. Fuck Maine. Fuck Hawaii. Fuck whole, vast swathes of California. Fuck the midwest. (Not
you, Iowa! I love you! I mean, you're boring as dried shit, but I love you like a distant but fondly
remembered aunt. But fuck your neighbors.) And fuck the South. Who the fuck thought it was a good idea to keep those cracker sister-fuckers when they wanted to leave? Fuck the South. And today, fuck Maine. |
| steve g - 11/4/09, 2:51 am |
| im tempted to not say "fuck maine" just like i wouldnt want to be blamed for bush being my
president, but its also really hard not to just say "fuck maine" right now. fuck maine and
california. it just feels so much worse than just not legalizing it somewhere, to take it away like that. argh. |
| lint - 11/4/09, 2:54 am |
| hey, the legislature tried and did legalize it until the catholic church got involved. if this referendum had existed last year when obama brought young people to the polls, it probably wouldn't have passed. |
| steve g - 11/4/09, 2:55 am |
| attn: burgess post lyrics to "living fossil" |
| LeeAwesome - 11/4/09, 2:59 am |
| wait, aren't like at least 52.57% of the people in Maine big ol' Rednecks? |
| lint - 11/4/09, 3:03 am |
| absolutely. looking at the results town by town, this is clearly a class and educational issue |
| steve g - 11/4/09, 3:28 am |
| post that, lint? |
| FloodOfMolasses - 11/4/09, 8:15 am |
| Apparently Maine and California are a bit more than half-populated by people who will do anything if the whiny and nonsensical specter of, "OMG! Won't somebody think of the children????" Is raised. We should go to those places and sell some sort of emperor's clothing " for the children" and bilk those idiots of their life savings and then use the proceeds to buy an island we can all move to. Someplace with cocnuts and ample opportunities for cabana boys. |
| jared - 11/4/09, 8:20 am |
| “This is an amazing moment. It’s beyond words,’’ said Mary Conroy, spokeswoman for Yes on 1/Stand
for Marriage Maine, the organization leading the fight against same-sex marriage in Maine. “I feel
energized, overcome, overjoyed for the family and the people of Maine. Vomit. |
| bsullivan - 11/4/09, 8:20 am |
| this fucking sucks. |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 8:21 am |
| ssg - 11/4/09, 2:30 am Seriously. Fuck Maine. Fuck Hawaii. Fuck whole, vast swathes of California. Fuck the midwest. (Not you, Iowa! I love you! I mean, you're boring as dried shit, but I love you like a distant but fondly remembered aunt. But fuck your neighbors.) don't fuck with Wisconsin and Iowa City isnt' boring at all every time a legistlature past law on this goes in front of the people (so far) it gets voted down, it's going to take a decade or two, these things take time |
| xenos - 11/4/09, 8:23 am |
| I dont think the issue is the people being ignorant and voting away rights from others, the issue is that this is precisely the thing the constitution is supposed to prevent, but the judiciary is awful and has upheld this practice as legitimate for the past decade or so. Obviously if it was "about the children" then we'd be banning surrogacy, adoption, and artificial insemination instead of gay marriage, since gay marriage is the only one of these things that DOESN'T LEAD TO GAYS HAVING KIDS, as 2 people of the same gender CAN'T REPRODUCE. It's all moot as it's just an end fake to rile people up over something irrelevant (is anything more irrelevant than marriage and one's "right" to it?) while those in power strip our rights and consolidate their control. |
| chrisq. - 11/4/09, 8:24 am |
| while i can't say i agree with any law on marriage (the law should have nothing to do with somebody marrying anyone regardless), this is how america works, if you don't like it move to another state that allows gay marriage. |
| RyanMcGinty - 11/4/09, 8:25 am |
| people are dumb. at the bottom of the article i read on question 1 was a little blurb on how ohio voted to allow new casinos to open because they were swayed by the argument that they would create new jobs. even though it was front page news that casino profits are way down in this economy and casino states' budgets are suffering extra hard. people are stupid and do things that are the opposite of sensical. this is exactly why we have a representative democracy and not a pure democracy, or we're supposed to. |
| chrisq. - 11/4/09, 8:25 am |
| well i should add that it should just be morally known you shouldn't marry like a 6 year old girl, before someone brings that argument up. |
| chrisq. - 11/4/09, 8:26 am |
| fuck i was too stoned to make this post. |
| tintern - 11/4/09, 8:30 am |
| I'm not upset at Maine, almost half of them wanted it to happen, that's pretty good. Also, they have
really nice camping and whitewater rafting places. This *is* another note I file in the back of my head about why I dislike the church and the right wing though. |
| ssg - 11/4/09, 9:20 am |
| Plus also DEFINITELY fuck the catholic church. |
| jared - 11/4/09, 9:24 am |
| I thought that was a given. |
| crackonacracker - 11/4/09, 9:25 am |
| definitely fuck the people who sent out the "oh noes teaching homosexual marriage in school
will rot our kids" hate mail to my house. but don't hate on maine...my town voted no on one
and the issue motivated 2/3 of eligible voters to get out and vote! i'm really really sorry :?( bill and i voted, our three 18-year-olds voted for the first time, and i am really really really angry at the hatemongers. |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 9:26 am |
| i hope the wendigo wreaks havoc this winter |
| R.Schwarzkogler - 11/4/09, 9:34 am |
| LeeAwesome - 11/4/09, 2:59 am wait, aren't like at least 52.57% of the people in Maine big ol' Rednecks? I think blaming it on "rednecks" is really counter-productive. Doesn't more than half of the population live near Portland? |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 9:37 am |
| Indeed. It is hardly just the rednecks, or hicks, or uneducated that are against gay marriage. |
| 252ism - 11/4/09, 9:44 am |
| had to defriend someone from the fb pg b/c of their support for this. btw, why do people get to vote anyway? it's a civil rights issue, not a popularity contest. |
| asemisldkfj - 11/4/09, 9:49 am |
| 252ism - 11/4/09, 9:44 am had to defriend someone from the fb pg b/c of their support for this. shoulda argued with them instead! |
| tinobeat - 11/4/09, 9:50 am |
| R.Schwarzkogler - 11/4/09, 9:34 am LeeAwesome - 11/4/09, 2:59 am wait, aren't like at least 52.57% of the people in Maine big ol' Rednecks? I think blaming it on "rednecks" is really counter-productive. Doesn't more than half of the population live near Portland? timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 9:37 am Indeed. It is hardly just the rednecks, or hicks, or uneducated that are against gay marriage. to be fair, this is a thread for venting anger, not for discussing the cross-section of anti-marriage voters. |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 9:51 am |
| Question: does this dissolve/annul existing marriages? Or are those grandfathered in. Has that been
worked out? 252ism - 11/4/09, 9:44 am btw, why do people get to vote anyway? it's a civil rights issue, not a popularity contest. Not technically, as marriage isn't a civil right (not per the constitution anyway) and sexual orientation isn't protected as such either. |
| Al - 11/4/09, 9:54 am |
| what people should do is find out what parts of Maine went heavily for repealing gay marriage and boycott it... don't vacation there. Go to the more enlightened parts of the state. |
| weth - 11/4/09, 9:56 am |
| I decided not to invest a lot of emotional capital on this vote, so that I wouldn't get all
disappointed at the outcome. Thanks for the effort you made, crackonacracker! Al - I'm probably going to paint with a broader brush for just a bit, and just avoid the state altogether for a while. |
| outrageous - 11/4/09, 9:57 am |
| my friend's FB status update S**** L**** Hooray for Maine! : ( |
| tinobeat - 11/4/09, 9:58 am |
| I wouldn't hesitate to comment disapprovingly on such status updates. Probably not something totally mean, but maybe something snarky like "congrats for weakening families!" or something like that. |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 9:58 am |
| Twin Ponds Lodge is up there, I'm not skipping out on that!!!! http://www.twinpondslodge.com/ |
| R.Schwarzkogler - 11/4/09, 9:59 am |
| tinobeat - 11/4/09, 9:50 am to be fair, this is a thread for venting anger, not for discussing the cross-section of anti-marriage voters. This is true but I just think that the name calling and generalization leads to a lesser understanding of what happened. If you chalk it up to "rednecks" I think that much of the understanding as to why it happened is lost and I think the real anger should be left to the cases where perfectly functioning people try to explain why this shouldn't be. |
| outrageous - 11/4/09, 10:00 am |
| tinobeat - 11/4/09, 9:58 am I wouldn't hesitate to comment disapprovingly on such status updates. Probably not something totally mean, but maybe something snarky like "congrats for weakening families!" or something like that. Sorta weird cause we went to the same church growing up and my dad was the pastor... but yet, I seem to be the only person from that group of youths that hasn't maintained that "godly" mindset. |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 10:01 am |
| Absolutely correct, Shwarz |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 10:01 am |
| this sucks and all but 48% didn't vote for 1, but its pretty dumb to boycott an entire state or even part of it especially when 48% (which is thousands of people) voted against 1. lets not forget that maine was still more progressive than most other states in permitting it for that year. i think its too much to ask people to wait on this issue, but writing off an entire state is ignorant. |
| R.Schwarzkogler - 11/4/09, 10:04 am |
| I think it's a good showing that a place like maine, which has a big "rural" population, can be won over somehow. I'm not sure the vote would ever be this close in other largely rural states. |
| JCW - 11/4/09, 10:05 am |
| maine still rules, this was a bummer but oh well. its not like we are alone in this. every other state where gay marriage has been brought to a popular vote has shot it down. |
| tinobeat - 11/4/09, 10:09 am |
| R.Schwarzkogler - 11/4/09, 9:59 am This is true but I just think that the name calling and generalization leads to a lesser understanding of what happened. If you chalk it up to "rednecks" I think that much of the understanding as to why it happened is lost and I think the real anger should be left to the cases where perfectly functioning people try to explain why this shouldn't be. I agree with that 100%, and I'm not really in favor of venting anger because it tends to cloud conversation. But since this thread was explicitly laid out as a venting thread, I think those understandably upset about this vote get to have it. But yeah, if we're not talking emotionally and trying to think about why this happened and how to let it not happen again, I think just calling the people who voted against it dumb hicks and rednecks is missing the point. I do think the No on 1 campaign did better than the No on 8 in CA, but there's still a distinct communication breakdown, a need to figure out how to talk to people about what the real issue at hand is. |
| R.Schwarzkogler - 11/4/09, 10:22 am |
| lint - 11/4/09, 3:03 am absolutely. looking at the results town by town, this is clearly a class and educational issue steve g - 11/4/09, 3:28 am post that, lint? yeah, if anyone has the numbers by town and county it would be great. i can't find them anywhere. |
| tinobeat - 11/4/09, 10:27 am |
| I do know that Portland was something like: Yes 27 - 73 No |
| ecannon - 11/4/09, 10:28 am |
| ssg - 11/4/09, 2:30 am Seriously. Fuck Maine. Fuck Hawaii. Fuck whole, vast swathes of California. Fuck the midwest. (Not you, Iowa! I love you! I mean, you're boring as dried shit, but I love you like a distant but fondly remembered aunt. But fuck your neighbors |
| DailyCompulsion - 11/4/09, 10:37 am |
| I don't get how you can say "Fuck Maine" when almost half of the voters voted No. This
vote wasn't surprising. People are hateful and evil and they like to control and restrict others.
This is nothing new. But FYI: Portland's ratios were: Yes - 7246 Votes - 26.50% No - 20094 Votes - 73.50%... |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 10:38 am |
| they're probably not evil, dont be a moron |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 10:39 am |
| Criminy, just because someone voted yes doesn't mean they are hateful and evil. Demonizing opposition political is hardly constructive and misses the opportunity to find commonality. |
| extinctionlevel - 11/4/09, 10:40 am |
| what people should do is find out what parts of Maine went heavily for repealing gay marriage and
boycott it... don't vacation there. Go to the more enlightened parts of the state. Those are the parts no one goes to anyway. |
| patrix - 11/4/09, 10:42 am |
| the result of the vote makes me sad. people saying awful things about my state also makes me sad. |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 10:43 am |
| extinctionlevel - 11/4/09, 10:40 am Those are the parts no one goes to anyway. I highly doubt that. |
| DailyCompulsion - 11/4/09, 10:43 am |
| I didn't say everyone who voted yes is hateful and evil, I said people are hateful and evil. I don't think commonality is in plentiful supply between the type of people that would vote one way or another on this issue. Gay marriage should be common fucking sense. |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 10:49 am |
| It should? I support it, but it is hardly "common sense", my opinion on it is highly formed based on my views of marriage and my views of sexual orientation, much of that affected by my personal experience. Certainly not a common sense issue. |
| tinobeat - 11/4/09, 10:52 am |
| I'm not hateful and evil, and I'm people, stop saying dumb stuff. Its not common sense, its an evolution of the social norm, and people don't always take immediately to those. I'm disappointed by this result, but come on. |
| DailyCompulsion - 11/4/09, 10:52 am |
| People should be free to do whatever they wish as long as they do not infringe on that same right for others. Do you disagree with that? |
| Morgan - 11/4/09, 10:54 am |
| The ironic thing is that for all the church-generated hype behind it, this is actually a vote against religious freedom. The churches that wouldn't perform same sex marriages aren't affected either way, but the ones that would have are now constrained by law. |
| tinobeat - 11/4/09, 10:55 am |
| Listen, I don't disagree with you, I'm just saying that for many people, they're not thinking about it in those terms. Its a change from the status quo and if you don't do a good job of explaining that change to people they won't embrace it. Explain better. |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 10:56 am |
| DailyCompulsion - 11/4/09, 10:52 am People should be free to do whatever they wish as long as they do not infringe on that same right for others. Do you disagree with that? For the most part, yes. But that isn't the issue. Should the state be sanctioning whatever people want to do as long as it doesn't infringe on the same right of another is more the issue. Not neccesarily. And what constitutes being infringed upon is certainly a personal perspective. And whether this is a purely secular issue is also a matter of opinion. There are many things wrapped up in this. Unfortunately, the civil act of marriage and the religious sacrament or marriage have the same term and separating them out is difficult, if not impossible for many people; and undesirable to many more. |
| tinobeat - 11/4/09, 10:58 am |
| In my opinion the government should get out of the business of sanctioning marriage as such 100%, leave it to the religions. State-approved civil unions for any couple, no marriage. |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 10:58 am |
| Morgan - 11/4/09, 10:54 am The ironic thing is that for all the church-generated hype behind it, this is actually a vote against religious freedom. The churches that wouldn't perform same sex marriages aren't affected either way, but the ones that would have are now constrained by law. How so? A church can still perform the religious sacrament of marriage. It would just not have any civil backing to it. Personally, I wish the two damn things were done separately anyway. |
| appletree - 11/4/09, 11:01 am |
| I guess I can expect a rant on Dan Savage's next podcast. |
| DailyCompulsion - 11/4/09, 11:01 am |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 10:56 am DailyCompulsion - 11/4/09, 10:52 am People should be free to do whatever they wish as long as they do not infringe on that same right for others. Do you disagree with that? For the most part, yes. Did you mean to say YES you DO agree or YES you DISagree? |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 11:02 am |
| Yes, I agree. For the most part. As a general notion, it is one I agree with. A general notion. |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 11:04 am |
| tinobeat - 11/4/09, 10:58 am In my opinion the government should get out of the business of sanctioning marriage as such 100%, leave it to the religions. State-approved civil unions for any couple, no marriage. Agree completely. Won't happen in our lifetimes I don't think though. |
| dynne - 11/4/09, 11:05 am |
| this bums me out so hard. I don't know that I'd call it anger, but hearing this definitely left me disappointed and feeling pretty naive. |
| tinobeat - 11/4/09, 11:06 am |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 11:04 am tinobeat - 11/4/09, 10:58 am In my opinion the government should get out of the business of sanctioning marriage as such 100%, leave it to the religions. State-approved civil unions for any couple, no marriage. Agree completely. Won't happen in our lifetimes I don't think though. No, there's almost no way you can put the toothpaste back in the tube. |
| ManxomeFoe - 11/4/09, 11:10 am |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 9:51 am Not technically, as marriage isn't a civil right (not per the constitution anyway) and sexual orientation isn't protected as such either. Whether or not marriage is a civil right conferred by the constitution is part of the debate. The case against prop 8 in california is taking precisely this stance, saying that marriage/unions are a right conferred by the 14th amendment and therefore prop 8 is unconstitutional. |
| ManxomeFoe - 11/4/09, 11:13 am |
| also: can we, for just a second, talk about the LANGUAGE of the ballot measures in Maine? An Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom "Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?" It's....oh forget it. |
| TheLustyGhost - 11/4/09, 11:15 am |
| FloodOfMolasses - 11/4/09, 8:15 am Apparently Maine and California are a bit more than half-populated by people who will do anything if the whiny and nonsensical specter of, "OMG! Won't somebody think of the children????" Is raised. To be fair, the whole country is like this and it's a lot more than half. |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 11:15 am |
| A very tenuous part of the debate. I personally believe discriminating based on sexual preference is completely immoral. In part because I know my sexual preference, and I know it is not something I distinctly chose, and nor do I think I'm mentally odd/twisted/whatever because of them Other people have different opinions/views on sexual orientation. In any case, unlike religion, national origin, etc. Sexual orientation is not a class specified specifically in the constitution. I'm not against the equal protection clause trying to be used in the debate, but it will always be a difficult approach. |
| weth - 11/4/09, 11:19 am |
| The primary encouraging thing was that the vote was close. These initiatives used to pass with 2-to-1 or even 3-to-1 margins, and they're now close votes. Perhaps, though, this makes it all the more frustrating, in that we're getting closer to the tipping point without yet reaching it. |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 11:19 am |
| all that the equal protection clause says is that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. it doesnt specify any class that's especially deserving of protection. |
| steve g - 11/4/09, 11:20 am |
| amen, weth. i mean, yes, im with you. |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 11:20 am |
| It takes time, as the currently younger generations get older the scales will tip. It frustrates people currently affected, but it's always good to think of any fight for rights to be undertaken more for the benefit of future generations than your own. |
| ManxomeFoe - 11/4/09, 11:22 am |
| tenuous part of the debate or not, it's still part of the debate and you made your original
statement as if it was absolute fact, timber. Anyway, you know what would be awesome? If we focused on fighting to fix the system versus fighting to make sure the broken system isn't applied unequally. Like, it'd be great if we had universal health care so that people wouldn't have to worry about getting legal status as a married couple in order to share health insurance, you know? chicken egg egg chicken |
| ManxomeFoe - 11/4/09, 11:24 am |
| and I know the fight for gay marriage doesn't boil down simply to health care or tax benefits or being able to visit each other in the hospital and I'm not trying to simplify it that way, I'm just frustrated. |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 11:24 am |
| the supreme court has come sort of close in suggesting that gay people are protected under the equal protection clause in lawrence v. texas, but they were frustratingly obtuse in defining exactly what standard would be used in reviewing laws that worked against them. |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 11:26 am |
| ManxomeFoe - 11/4/09, 11:22 am tenuous part of the debate or not, it's still part of the debate and you made your original statement as if it was absolute fact, timber. It's a losing / silly part of the debate, as sexual orientation and marriage both aren't even mentioned in the constitution. |
| ManxomeFoe - 11/4/09, 11:27 am |
| ok justice jimoo |
| pxwhittle - 11/4/09, 11:29 am |
| Here's a story that sums it up. Not to paint with a broad brush, but Maine is also the fattest,
unhealthiest and poorest state in New England. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/maine-gay-marriage-law-repealed/story?id=8992720 |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 11:30 am |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 11:26 am It's a losing / silly part of the debate, as sexual orientation and marriage both aren't even mentioned in the constitution. this isnt silly because lots of things aren't mentioned in the constitution that have been read into it. |
| lolbrb - 11/4/09, 11:30 am |
| this is a bummer but i can't say i'm particularly surprised given that the populace of no state has ever actually voted for gay marriage. so this is what, 31 states now that have voted against it? |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 11:31 am |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 11:30 am this isnt silly because lots of things aren't mentioned in the constitution that have been read into it. Which I think it problematic as well. |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 11:39 am |
| the constitution is ambiguous by necessity. the equal protection clause doesn't specify any
particular class that is more deserving of its protection. thats the function of the courts in a
very elementary sense. im not even talking about activist judges. language can only be so specific
and its up to the courts to fill in the holes. you're saying that manx's argument is silly because sexual orientation and marriage aren't mentioned in the constitution, but the guarantee of equal protection under the law is. nowhere does the constitution say that this clause is only for race, religion, or national origin....the application of the EP clause to these things was a judicial decision. |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 11:39 am |
| there's clearly a constitutional argument in favor of guaranteeing the right of gay marriage. |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 11:42 am |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 11:39 am you're saying that manx's argument is silly because sexual orientation and marriage aren't mentioned in the constitution, but the guarantee of equal protection under the law is. nowhere does the constitution say that this clause is only for race, religion, or national origin....the application of the EP clause to these things was a judicial decision. Ok, good luck with that approach. It may be the one that turns the tide. I don't think this will be changed based on a legal debate, but on a change of societal views over time. Just my opinion. Oh, and even if you do include sexual orientation under the EP clause, it won't neccesarily affect the religion issue. Since a gay man or lesbian women can still get married, just to the opposite sex. The arguement can be made at this time that there is no discrimination currently. Lord knows I've hooked up with enough gay men with wives in my life. |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 11:42 am |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 11:39 am there's clearly a constitutional argument in favor of guaranteeing the right of gay marriage. There is???!!! |
| ManxomeFoe - 11/4/09, 11:44 am |
| yes, there is clearly an argument that CAN and in fact, HAS been made. read carefully. |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 11:45 am |
| the 14th amendment has already been used to strike down a law against consensual same-sex sexual intercourse...in a 6-3 decision too. |
| steve_ca - 11/4/09, 12:01 pm |
| Maine had such amazing baked potatoes at The Big E. How the fuck could this happen? |
| ssg - 11/4/09, 12:05 pm |
| And above all else, fuck me for misplacing the native cynicism that ought to have guided me past this trainwreck, eyes delicately averted, and for forgetting that people are stupid and bad and unequipped by evolution to live in the world it made them make and will always choose their moronic superstitions. And fuck you all for being nice to me and getting my hopes up. |
| lint - 11/4/09, 12:13 pm |
| if you click on the counties at the right of the page, you can see the breakdowns per town. http://www.bangordailynews.com/electionresults.html |
| R.Schwarzkogler - 11/4/09, 12:15 pm |
| DailyCompulsion - 11/4/09, 10:37 am But FYI: Portland's ratios were: Yes - 7246 Votes - 26.50% No - 20094 Votes - 73.50%... do you or anyone else have all the percentages for the voting districts in maine? |
| anonuser - 11/4/09, 12:16 pm |
| LOL @ FAGS WANTING TO GET MARRIED Why is this trivial and stupid issue that applies to less than 1% of the population even on the table. So tired of hearing about this shit |
| RyanMcGinty - 11/4/09, 12:16 pm |
| arguing with jimoo over semantics |
| anonuser - 11/4/09, 12:18 pm |
| I sure will be excited when Obama finally manages to do one thing while he is in office and that is letting homos in the military |
| R.Schwarzkogler - 11/4/09, 12:36 pm |
| hahaha, lint thanks. i didn't see that post before i posted |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 12:46 pm |
| ManxomeFoe - 11/4/09, 11:44 am yes, there is clearly an argument that CAN and in fact, HAS been made. read carefully. I re read. I don't see it. I see arguments that say there is a constitutional basis for equal rights of people with a different sexual orientation. That is markedly different than having a constitutional right to gay marriage. |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 12:49 pm |
| you dont see how there's a constitutional argument against a statute banning a right to a particular class of people |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 12:52 pm |
| Assuming it is a given that this is a legitimate class (which many people debat), but lets take it
for fact. And lets assume that by class, you mean it is something different than other
"classes" that we clearly do not endorse/advocate in society. They still are not banning a right to said class. No one is saying homosexuals can't get married. |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 12:53 pm |
| what about a statute that said black and white people can't marry each other. by your logic, since theyre still able to marry people of their same race, there isn't a constitutional issue. |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 12:56 pm |
| Except 'race' / national origin is specifically protected under the constitution. |
| lolbrb - 11/4/09, 12:56 pm |
| anonuser - 11/4/09, 12:16 pm Why is this trivial and stupid issue that applies to less than 1% of the population even on the table. So tired of hearing about this shit PRETTY SURE IT'S THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT GAY MARRIAGE TO HAPPEN IN THEIR STATE THAT KEEP GETTING THESE THINGS PUT ON THE BALLOTS TIME TO ADD SOME MORE DARK GRAY TO THE MAP |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 12:57 pm |
| where is race and national origin specifically protected under the constitution? |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 12:59 pm |
| the only part that i know of that specifically mentions race is the fifteenth amendment, and only so far as it relates to the right to vote |
| bone6661138 - 11/4/09, 1:04 pm |
| I'm pretty disappointed in the state as a whole, but I am also quite proud of our town voting with
such a huge margin against 1. it is still really weird to me that this is still an issue... |
| R.Schwarzkogler - 11/4/09, 1:05 pm |
| are you in Franklin County? |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 1:08 pm |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 12:57 pm where is race and national origin specifically protected under the constitution? I'd have to look up the ME constitution, I actually just kind of assumed as it is pretty common to most state constitutions, so perhaps I mispoke.. |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 1:09 pm |
| what about the US constitution. |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 1:13 pm |
| Not too relevant as marriage is a state issue. There are Federal laws against it (against discrimination on national origin), of course, but it isn't in the constitution specifically. Neither is discrimination on gender. |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 1:14 pm |
| im just trying to figure out why its ridiculous to say that there's a constitutional argument against laws prohibiting gay marriage |
| ManxomeFoe - 11/4/09, 1:16 pm |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 1:13 pm Not too relevant as marriage is a state issue. Marriages are recognized on the federal level though, and again, part of the debate is about whether or not the right to marry is protected under the 14th amendment of the United States constitution, thereby rendering any and all state laws prohibiting said unions and marriages unconstitutional. |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 1:17 pm |
| Because there isn't, not a decent one. Sexual orientation isn't a protected class under the U.S. Constitution, nor under Federal discrimination laws. Even if it was, it would not prevent gays from getting married. I'm all for queer marriage, but I don't think this path will yield much fruit. Not in the next 20 years or so. |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 1:18 pm |
| ManxomeFoe - 11/4/09, 1:16 pm Marriages are recognized on the federal level though, and again, part of the debate is about whether or not the right to marry is protected under the 14th amendment of the United States constitution, thereby rendering any and all state laws prohibiting said unions and marriages unconstitutional. Massachusetts gay marriages are recognized Federally? I thought they weren't. I stand to be corrected. |
| Edzuky - 11/4/09, 1:18 pm |
| maine still sucks. whats new |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 1:19 pm |
| And where is there a "right" to be married??? |
| ManxomeFoe - 11/4/09, 1:19 pm |
| MARRIAGES IN GENERAL are recognized on the federal level for tax purposes, for immigration purposes, etc... Same sex marriages, as yet, are not. |
| tinobeat - 11/4/09, 1:19 pm |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 1:17 pm Even if it was, it would not prevent gays from getting married. Marriage is currently not defined in the constitution of the United States as necessarily heterosexual, so it would prevent them from getting married to the person they want to get married to. Same as saying that black people can get married to other black people, so what's the problem? |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 1:21 pm |
| marriage isn't a state issue necessarily. the supreme court has held that there's a constitutional right the prohibits laws that prevent black and white from marrying each other, bytheway. they didn't decide this on equal protection, either. the court has said many times that the rights protected by the constitution aren't limited to the specific language of the text. |
| tinobeat - 11/4/09, 1:22 pm |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 1:18 pm Massachusetts gay marriages are recognized Federally? I thought they weren't. I stand to be corrected. Massachusetts gay marriages are currently NOT recognized Federally, but that's because of DOMA, not the constitution. If the constitutional path is not the way to go, jim, how do you think it'll pass (even if over the course of the next couple of decades?) |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 1:22 pm |
| even scalia has said as much. |
| anonuser - 11/4/09, 1:23 pm |
| Queerin doesn't make the world work |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 1:24 pm |
| tinobeat - 11/4/09, 1:19 pm Marriage is currently not defined in the constitution of the United States as necessarily heterosexual, so it would prevent them from getting married to the person they want to get married to. Same as saying that black people can get married to other black people, so what's the problem? It isn't the same (I think it should be, personally) because discrimination on race is federally outlawed. Sexual orientation has no such protection. tinobeat - 11/4/09, 1:22 pm If the constitutional path is not the way to go, jim, how do you think it'll pass (even if over the course of the next couple of decades?) Changes in public atttitudes over generations. |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 1:26 pm |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 1:21 pm marriage isn't a state issue necessarily. Are there Federal marriage licenses now? |
| danepants - 11/4/09, 1:26 pm |
| the first thing i thought was "fuck religion right in the ass". apparently sodomy is perfectly acceptable in the catholic church, as long as its with little boys. |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 1:27 pm |
| so, you think that there is absolutely no argument for constitutional protection for sexual orientation. i just dont get how you can categorically dismiss something where there are already volumes of books making such an argument. |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 1:28 pm |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 1:27 pm so, you think that there is absolutely no argument for constitutional protection for sexual orientation. No, I think there is, actually. But even if sexual orientation does become a protected class (I wish it would, though I understand the arguments against it), it doesn't neccesarily result in gay marriage becoming legal. Two separate issues. |
| ManxomeFoe - 11/4/09, 1:29 pm |
| hey Jimoo - Loving V. Virginia defines marriage as one of the basic civil rights of man. |
| bsullivan - 11/4/09, 1:29 pm |
| I'm not going to read this entire thread, but it is my position that this is not an issue that our constitution principles make susceptible to democracy. It is pretty fucking clear that barring gay marriage is fucking UNCONSTITUTIONAL under the federal or any state's equal protection clause. |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 1:32 pm |
| Then why hasn't the supreme court decided as much? Or has there not been a good enough test case? |
| bsullivan - 11/4/09, 1:40 pm |
| 1. Loving v. Virginia says that marriage is a fundamental right, but the critical holding is that
qualifying access to that fundamental right on so specious a classification as race violates the
equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Traditional equal protection analysis essentially
grades certain kinds of classifications as suspect--race is one of them. If something is a
"suspect" classification, you can limit access to a fundamental right only for
"compelling" reasons and by means which are "narrowly tailored" to further those
"compelling" reasons. Almost impossible to satisfy. Suspect classifications are classifications based, basically, on things that are arbitrary and bear no actual relationship to the thing to which access is being denied. Immutable characteristics, etc.--the color of your skin, your gender, etc. The Supreme Court has as of yet failed to state that classifications based on homosexuality are "suspect" in a case. They've had cases where they could but got around it cleverly. In Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court overturned a constitutional amendment to Colorado's state constitution that would prohibit using sexual orientation as a basis for discrimination protection. The court could have said that it was because classifying things based on sexual orientation is a "suspect" basis for a classification under the criteria typically employed to find things suspect. However, they said basically, that they didn't even need to use that level of analysis because there wasn't a legitimate reason (ie, let alone a compelling reason) for prohibiting discrimination protections based on sexual orientation because invidious hatred is not legitimate. Anyways, the Supreme Court is a bunch of pussies. They don't operate mechanistically. They didn't do it in Romer, probably, because they didn't feel like society was ready to handle that kind of opinion from the Court. Or some other bullshit. |
| bsullivan - 11/4/09, 1:42 pm |
| I meant to also state that based on the analysis used by the Supreme Court to determine when something is a "suspect" classification and then employing plain old equal protection analysis, there is no legitimate argument that could pass the smell test against permitting gay marriage. I have never seen any such argument. |
| ManxomeFoe - 11/4/09, 1:43 pm |
| Thank you Brian. I was trying to write more since what I wrote is obviously way simplifying but I gave up and went to go do something else. and now I am going to continue doing that other thing indefinitely. |
| bsullivan - 11/4/09, 1:44 pm |
| Read this re suspect classifications and the various levels of scrutiny applied to different kinds
of classifications: accurate enough for our purposes |
| bsullivan - 11/4/09, 1:49 pm |
| also, in stating that "race is different because it has federal protection"--it got federal protection constitutionally in the same way people are trying to get it now in many places--some ignorant motherfuckers in some state passed a law discriminating based on race, some other people challenged it under the state and federal constitution and the supreme court eventually said "yo, state, what you did is unconstitutional." people like scalia think that these issues are ones more appropriately resolved by democratic means--ie, the vote. many others believe that that's fucking insane, given the existence of the equal protection clause. scalia would argue that the EP clause was totally abused in the 50s and 60s and that those judges, basically, were wrong. it's pretty fascinating and it's one of those things where there isn't actually a right answer, just a dominant philosophy at a given time. |
| nate - 11/4/09, 1:50 pm |
| i am or don'ting the shit out of all of this legal argument |
| bsullivan - 11/4/09, 1:52 pm |
| i should admit that i might be kind of fudging lots of that because it's from memory. i haven't looked at these cases in like, 3 years. |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 1:52 pm |
| Fair enough and thanks for the detailed explanation. Personally, I think while sexual orientation should be as protected as race or gender discrimination, I most certainly do understand the arguments by those people that think it is completely different. |
| bsullivan - 11/4/09, 1:53 pm |
| What are those arguments? I'm not asking you to make them because I understand that you UNDERSTAND them and are not advocating them. I'd just like to know which ones you have in mind. I will not hold you accountable for them. |
| R.Schwarzkogler - 11/4/09, 1:54 pm |
| my feeling is that when it comes to equal rights for minorities it should be left up to a law enacted by the court. a public vote will almost always be in the favor of the majority. the public WILL eventually catch on and accept it but there shouldn't be a grace period for the public when it comes to the rights of a person. |
| anonuser - 11/4/09, 1:54 pm |
| Fags aren't even a minority they are just fruitcakes who got touched funny by their daddy or uncle |
| bsullivan - 11/4/09, 1:55 pm |
| court's can't enact laws, but i know what you mean. |
| bsullivan - 11/4/09, 1:55 pm |
| Anonuser, everybody! Thanks for stopping by. |
| anonuser - 11/4/09, 1:55 pm |
| If fags have the right to marry under the constitution why not brothers and sisters? Why not animals? Fags = unnatural abominations and should embrace that instead of trying to be just like everyone else |
| R.Schwarzkogler - 11/4/09, 1:56 pm |
| yeah, i have no clue about the legal process, hahaha |
| bsullivan - 11/4/09, 1:56 pm |
| I could answer your questions, but you're so fucking stupid I'm not going to waste my time giving you a constitutional explanation that you won't even understand. |
| anonuser - 11/4/09, 1:58 pm |
| bsuckiman seems like the type of faggot who would marry some chick, have 2 or 3 kids, a dog, and a house out in suburbia and be sucking dudes off in the fens or at the squash club |
| kyle - 11/4/09, 2:01 pm |
| another worthless post! |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 2:02 pm |
| bsullivan - 11/4/09, 1:53 pm What are those arguments? I'm not asking you to make them because I understand that you UNDERSTAND them and are not advocating them. I'd just like to know which ones you have in mind. I will not hold you accountable for them. That sexual orientation is either a choice or a form of mental (or moral) illness. |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 2:03 pm |
| moral failure, that is |
| anonuser - 11/4/09, 2:03 pm |
| Of course it is a choice A aberrant choice made by sick deviants |
| ecannon - 11/4/09, 2:04 pm |
| anonuser - 11/4/09, 1:58 pm bsuckiman seems like the type of faggot who would marry some chick, have 2 or 3 kids, a dog, and a house out in suburbia and be sucking dudes off in the fens or at the squash club WAIT ANONUSER DO YOU NOT LIKE GAY PEOPLE??????? OMG I'M SO SHOCKED PLEASE POST MORE ABOUT BECAUSE ITS SO FUCKING INTERESTING AND THE WORLD REALLY CARES |
| bsullivan - 11/4/09, 2:06 pm |
| Anonuser, I'm ignoring you in this thread from here on out. Go pound sand, etc. Jimoo---oh yeah. Forgot about those. I can understand that people believe those things, I just think they are wildly ignorant and actually, for equal protection purposes, the choice part doesn't really matter. mental illness would, maybe, but that's so ridiculous it's not worth talking about. |
| danepants - 11/4/09, 2:06 pm |
| username - 05/18/07 - 8:45 am (70.247.124.80) I bet his butthole is a furry little flower, and I want to be it's bumblebee |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 2:07 pm |
| To you and me it is ridiculous, to many many people it is very real. Does not whether you are born a certain way (pigment of skin, gender, etc) vs choosing a way of living really not affect equal protection? |
| detuned - 11/4/09, 2:09 pm |
| IMAGE REMOVED - CLICK TO VIEW County % Yes % No Androscoggin 60.13% 39.87% Very Strong Yes Aroostook 73.22% 26.78% Very Strong Yes Cumberland 39.67% 60.33% Very Strong No Franklin 59.53% 40.47% Very Strong Yes Hancock 46.81% 53.19% Solid No Kennebec 56.56% 43.44% Solid Yes Knox 49.16% 50.84% Weak No Lincoln 50.62% 49.38% Weak Yes Oxford 59.13% 40.87% Very Strong Yes Penobscot 58.79% 41.21% Very Strong Yes Piscataquis 66.81% 33.19% Very Strong Yes Sagadahoc 49.32% 50.68% Weak No Somerset 65.41% 34.59% Very Strong Yes Waldo 53.38% 46.62% Solid Yes Washington 64.79% 35.21% Very Strong Yes York 50.22% 49.78% Weak Yes http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/abouttown/archive/2009/11/04/county-breakdown-question-1-marryme.aspx |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 2:11 pm |
| i dont agree with this, but you could argue that sexual orientation isn't a protected class because they haven't historically had laws directed against them as a group to the same extent as gender and race, the fourteenth amendment wasn't written with sexual orientation in mind, and because sexual orientation isn't defined by extrinsic physical characteristics that make summary discrimination possible. |
| bsullivan - 11/4/09, 2:11 pm |
| Oh--good point re suspect classifications. yeah, if it's a choice it's not immutable, I guess. good catch. but there are three other factors, and probably more that i'm not aware of and not listed in that wikip article. it's not a hard and fast test. it'd kind of like how a black choosing to marry a white and vice versa is a "choice" or could be considered a moral/mental failure/illness at that time. |
| bsullivan - 11/4/09, 2:15 pm |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 2:11 pm i dont agree with this, but you could argue that sexual orientation isn't a protected class because they haven't historically had laws directed against them as a group to the same extent as gender and race, the fourteenth amendment wasn't written with sexual orientation in mind, and because sexual orientation isn't defined by extrinsic physical characteristics that make summary discrimination possible. 1. i believe it's been recognized that the reason gender and race have more storied histories of discrimination is because the concept of "homosexuality" hasn't existed historically for nearly as long. also, i'd say 40 or 50 years is long enough, even without necessarily having "legal" discrimination on the books. 2. the 14th amendment was written without most of the things it applies to in mind. 3. explain why this is important. i've heard this before, but when it comes down to it, the practical impact of this distinction is nil under the analysis, in my view. but yes, you could argue those things. They just aren't very good arguments. |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 2:19 pm |
| that last point is important because its something that the supreme court has looked at in determining what classes deserve special protection. you could argue that if you extend special protection to cover a group that isn't defined by its physical characteristics, you would make EP arguments easier for other classes that have already been denied EP protection, such as the poor. |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 2:20 pm |
| nm, thats a dumb argument. but lets not pretend that there isn't something fundamentally different about sexual orientation as a class when compared with gender, age, race, national orientation, etc... |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 2:21 pm |
| there has to be some criteria by which to define which classes deserve EP protection, because extended to its logical extreme the EP clause would unduly burdensome to the government's ability to regulate. |
| sugarbee - 11/4/09, 2:22 pm |
| the US is filled with fucking absolute morons. how the HELL can you vote on human rights? what is wrong with us? |
| sugarbee - 11/4/09, 2:22 pm |
| the US is filled with fucking absolute morons. how the HELL can you vote on human rights? what is wrong with us? |
| walker - 11/4/09, 2:22 pm |
| I am full of anger, hostility towards the opposition. |
| timberlinerecs - 11/4/09, 2:24 pm |
| sugarbee - 11/4/09, 2:22 pm the US is filled with fucking absolute morons. how the HELL can you vote on human rights? what is wrong with us? Not everyone agrees that getting married is a human right, and even if it is, that you should be able to marry whoever you want to without any restrictions (who and what can consent is by no means a constant in the world). |
| bsullivan - 11/4/09, 2:26 pm |
| Neo--I'd need to see the specific examples where the court has used that extrinsic analysis in
determining whether something deserves special protection. Again, I remember it being said, but I
don't remember the specific examples. My point is that in homosexuality's case, I don't think it
actually matter. Also, the poor have been given equal protection in some contexts, like in criminal
cases where the indigent cannot afford expensive experts to rebut the prosecution. but that's just
an aside. also, I know there is something different about sexual orientation as compared with gender, age, race, national origin, etc. Without seeing it laid out more clearly though, I would disagree that the difference is fundamental. And so many things taken to their logical extreme would be bad, but that's kind of a strawman argument without a specific example or two to demonstrate the direction in which the slope starts to slide. i don't know any. |
| steve g - 11/4/09, 2:27 pm |
| man, im disappointed in york. |
| steve g - 11/4/09, 2:28 pm |
| was nicely close though. that is a good thing. |
| Morgan - 11/4/09, 2:28 pm |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 2:20 pm but lets not pretend that there isn't something fundamentally different about sexual orientation as a class when compared with gender, age, race, national orientation, etc... Gender and especially race are not really that cut and dried either. |
| bsullivan - 11/4/09, 2:29 pm |
| MORGAN YOU'RE GUMMING UP THE WORKS GET OUT OF HERE |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 2:33 pm |
| i agree with everything you're saying, im just trying to argue |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 2:33 pm |
| and i agree with you too, morgan |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 2:33 pm |
| and im out of arguments |
| patrix - 11/4/09, 2:34 pm |
| now i have the "16 counties has our state" song stuck in my head from elementary school. |
| lint - 11/4/09, 2:39 pm |
| steve g - 11/4/09, 2:27 pm man, im disappointed in york. be disappointed in sanford and biddeford, all of the coastal towns voted no |
| bsullivan - 11/4/09, 2:41 pm |
| neopolitan - 11/4/09, 2:33 pm i agree with everything you're saying, im just trying to argue I know. It's difficult to do, I think. |
| reply without loggin in ... or don't |
