Categorized | Economy, Lifestyle, News, Politics, US

Maine Election Results 2009 and Maine Gay Marriage Vote Results

Maine election results 2009 are anticipated. The Maine gay marriage vote is important to Maine voters this election year.  Maine election results 2009 for the Maine gay marriage question 1 have many implications.

In May, Maine’s governor signed an order which legalized gay marriage in Maine.  Question 1 during the Maine election in 2009 centers on a “citizens veto” of legalized gay marriage.

So far, whenever a gay marriage repeal has been placed on a ballot, it’s been passed.  Citizens for the most part aren’t as excited about gay marriage as you may think.  Why not? Aren’t we free to love whoever we want? According to many people’s belief systems, they don’t want their children to be taught that marriage between a man/man or woman/woman is acceptable.

We need to respect the views of these people.  They either have religious beliefs or their own personal set of morals. However, a gay marriage repeal would prove devastating for gay couples across Maine.

The Maine gay marriage vote during the Maine election 2009 is important either way you look at it.  If legislation is passed, it will be that much harder for any new states to pass gay marriage legalization. If Question 1 is successfully defeated, it will show those that oppose gay marriage that their footing isn’t as strong as it used to be.

    105 Responses to “Maine Election Results 2009 and Maine Gay Marriage Vote Results”

    1. Dave says:

      You state that we need to respect the views of people who “don’t want their children to be taught that marriage between a man/man or woman/woman is acceptable.” But that’s not what’s at stake here. It’s a completely made up danger with no grounding whatsoever in reality, and therefore by definition illegitimate grounds for voting Yes. There’s nothing there to respect.

      We should respect those who make reasonable objections to our point of view. We most certainly should NOT respect those who get hysterical about imagined threats, because respecting their points of view suggests that it’s okay to be ignorant. It’s not. Somehow, I get the feeling you already feel that way but you were too afraid to be honest. Well, it’s good to keep the rhetoric down to reasonable levels but there are some people you just can’t reason with and you shouldn’t try. Being nice to those who spread lies about “teaching things in school” isn’t going to win any political battles.

      • Jason says:

        Dave, perhaps one of the most intelligent, eloquent statements on the topic I’ve read lately. I long ago gave up trying to respect the opinions of the mean-spirited and ignorant.

        • Donnie says:

          Gee Jason, that’s a pretty mean spirited and ignorant and otherwise intolerant statement.

          • Marc says:


            I am going to have to go with the other posters here–playing shadow is not going to work. The only people who stand to lose or gain from the repeal of the gay marriage bill are gays who are married or intend to marry. (And, I would argue, all Americans who actually prize liberty and equality).

            These gay marriage referrenda expose us to what the framers of the US Constitution feared–tyrrany of the majority. Almost a century and a half ago the Fourteenth Amendment was passed to ensure equality for all races, and now you wouldn’t call it a “mean spirited and itnotant and otherwise intolerant statement” to say that racial discrimination is unwarranted.

            In modern day Germany, they don’t allow such exercises in direct democracy because that’s what gave rise to Hitler and the Nazis in the 1930s. I would suggest we take a page from the modern German government’s book.

          • BT says:

            Because he has his own opinion that doesn’t line up with yours? What a laughable comment

          • leon says:

            I think we shoudl ahe a heteroexual pride month.

        • I Know who you are says:

          Hoy? lol

      • Julie says:

        Marriage has always been defined as being between a man and a woman…. quit taking words and re-defining them… Gay used to mean happy, tolerant used to mean to accept different peoples views and agreeing to disagree… now it means to accept, embrace and make equal all views.
        Give people the option to have civil unions with all the rights and responsibities of marriage, why do you insist on the word?

      • Christine says:

        No offense Dave but I think you are very mistaken about education curriculum being a made up fear. It is already happening in California. I also might add that there was a significant effort to ban homeschooling in California too. Parents fears that their children will be forced to study homosexuality is a very real fear.

        Note: I am ALL FOR anti-bullying classes but this goes far beyond don’t harass people for differences or respect everyone regardless of in you believe the same things. This is saying that one must accept these differences as morally acceptable.,2933,521209,00.html

      • John O'Connor says:

        Now is the time to move strongly in the opposite direction — toward a regeneration of enthusiastic social support for male-female marriages so that the maximum number of people in our society have the advantage of both masculine and feminine parental influences.

      • Max says:

        I totally agree. Children are not taught about marriage in school, they’re taught by their parents, or their religious group. I you don’t want your kids thinking gay marriage is ok, (which does make you a bigot) than teach them that it isn’t, but don’t drag other people down with you. This is a civil right. Some people believe that interracial marriage is immoral, but it is protected as a civil right, and so should gay marriage.

      • leon says:

        The heterosexual people have come out of the closet, they can admit without fear they are attracted to the opposite sex. I admit it I am heterosexual I am a Male and am Attracted to the opposite sex WOMEN. I think all heterosexual people should come out of the closet.
        We all need to have a Hetero Pride Month.

    2. Sillyworld says:

      Maybe next Maine can vote on Daddies marrying their young daughters. Where do you draw the line?

      It’s true that in the last days they will call good “evil” and evil “good.

      • eld says:

        yup, totally the same thing.

        you’re a fool.

      • Suzanne says:

        There is a big difference between child molestation and relationships between consenting adults.
        You are a moron.

      • Jason says:


        If this is an actual consideration or concern you have, and you have children, perhaps you should seek counsel or at a minimum, a neighbor or your child’s educator should be aware of your thoughts and presumed temptations…

        • Jared says:

          Sillyworld, thank you. You morons that responded here obviously can’t understand what he’s saying. He’s saying that allowing these sorts of ethical and moral degradations upon society are only going to open the door to such an extreme thing that Sillyworld has stated. If two men or women can now marry each other, well, now three men will want to with eachother. Then four, then five, then dozens. I guarantee you that if this gay marriage explosion continues, things such as polygamy will be on the ballot in our lifetime and it petrifies me. People will want to start marrying their pets and other things that they “love.” There is a point where you draw the line. You draw it on tradition, a tradition that has existed in this country since its foundation upon GOD. A tradition that upholds that a marriage is between a man and a woman, so that they may have children, and reproduce themselves and make a more productive society. Stop destroying my country.

        • BT says:

          The way this country is going his statement is not far fetched at all. Maybe you need your head checked

          • newbie says:

            Next year on the california ballot will be a constitutional amendment to repeal prop 8 (which said marriage is between a man and a woman). And guess what?????
            Also snuck into that bill those bleeding heart liberals allow incest! Therefore, a father could marry his own daughter, at any age! Provided the father signs a document allowing himself to marry his daughter and Superior Court Order.

            So don’t tell me that isn’t the next step. Evil begets evil. One wrong thing leads to another, worse wrong thing. Don’t tell me it won’t happen. It is happening, and has happened.

            • yetigrrl says:

              Can you provide anything to back up this claim? Because it sounds like you are just making things up. Maybe you need a hobby?

      • Andy says:

        That is offensive and ignorant to compare adult, consensual homosexual relationships with pedophilia. You should be ashamed of your bigotry. That is as offensive as using the N word in public. It is people like you that take away any honest debate about politics in this country.

        Shame on you.

      • Bus says:

        It is interesting that all rebuttals to Sillyworld have name calling in them. Sillyworld is correct in that to the Christian worldview, all sin is sin. Homosexual relations and molestation are both sins. Lying is a sin. Spousal abuse is a sin. In some circles these may be acceptable, “lesser” sins, or “greater” sins, but for the Christian all separation from God’s will is sin. So there is no difference, sin is sin. Some of it may be culturally acceptable, but that comes and goes with public opinion. Truth is a bedrock, not shifting sand.

        As such, I hope there are enough people who stand against sin in Maine to make homosexual relations something that is not acceptable to the voters. Legalizing sin puts a society on very dangerous ground with God.

        Love the sinner, hate the sin.

      • no_on1 says:

        you need serious help! if 2 males or 2 females get married, it has nothing to do with you. Homosexuals deserve to be just as miserable, i mean happy as the rest of us. There shouldn’t even be a poll about this! We claim to be the land of the free, yet deny people the simplest of rights!
        It is nothing like the insest situation you’re comparing it too! It’s people like you that are holding our country back from making any strides towards the future. Do us all a favor and open your mind up to the greater good of everyone and not just your own little petty fears!

      • Sillyworld says:

        Well, based on all the comments I am definately convinced. I used to think that there was no way the Bible could be true about what it says would happen, but this is incredible proof.

        Thank you for the boost of faith, and for reminding me that it won’t be long. How exciting!!!!

    3. Paul says:

      Imagined? Immorality flourishes in this country, we have economic hardship, rape, murder, the slavery of pornography, teachers having sex with students, mothers killing their children, fathers running over their children. The problems are real and one more act of immorality does make a difference.

      Same sex marriage may have the appearance of succeeding on earth. It will not be so in Heaven — that will be for eternity and not open to debate or vote.

    4. Mom says:

      At 10:20 on Bangor Daily News site was this–
      1016547 of 942825 ( 108%) registered voters have participated in this election
      taken down next time I went for an update…

    5. Amanda says:

      Sillyworld, don’t be absurd. That kind of “slippery slope” argument holds no water, and you know it. What two consenting adults choose to do with their lives is of absolutely no concern to you, or anyone else. Mind your own business.

      Good and evil are fairy tale ideas that don’t belong in a civil, rational, grown up world. Lose the holier than thou B.S. and read a book. Take a step outside your sheltered, judgemental little safety zone. Make friends with reality.

      • RKB says:

        Amanda, you have it all wrong. This is what comes of legalizing marriage in the first place. First the government starts giving concessions to all those monogamous heterosexualists, and the next thing you know is we’re all paying higher taxes.

        We should ban marriage altogether. If Ghod wants people to be together – or the people concerned want to be together – they’ll be together. And if not, they won’t. Get churches and governments and corporations out of Americans’ personal lives! Everyone should be equal, whether or not they’re married.

      • Oogsterday says:

        Good and evil are fairy tale ideas? So say a man with AIDS rapes an infant, then leaves it to die: is that not evil? Again, say a man sees that a young mother has come up short when paying for groceries and decides to foot the rest of the cost for them: is that not good? The problem is that a large number of people (yourself included, I presume) have no basis for discerning such things beyond what you FEEL is good or evil. Feelings change, and thus a person in your position is prone to conclude that if your basis for good and evil is itself so varied and misguiding, it must be that good and evil are actually relative ideas.

        The problem with such a hypothesis is that if good and evil do exist they can have no connection whatsoever to your fallable opinion. Good must be good and evil must be evil regardless of what anybody believes about them because anything less would not be good or evil, it would only be subjective opinion. If there is good or evil we cannot be involved in the process of determining what they are (or in other words, manufacturing the standards of what is good or evil) because we as fallable and non-absolute beings must question our own ability at any time to determine such absolute matters. If good and evil exist, they must exist outside of our determination, and we would merely be able to look upon matters from an outside perspective and do our best to discern which are good and which are evil based upon our consciences, or feelings. This is the best we can do on our own, if good and evil exist.
        I do believe that good and evil exist in a very real way in the world because I can discern with certainty that there are some things which are absolutely evil, and some things that are absolutely good. This would mean that there are likely also some things which are good or evil that I cannot discern on my own. You could end there, but I believe that if this is true I must also concede that such things must have been determined by one who is not non-absolute, but instead one who has perfect judgement. Now, I believe that this one that I speak of is the Christian God, Jesus. My reasons for that are many and outside of this topic. Also, just because there are varying degrees of good and evil, and somethings which are on their own completely outside of the realm of good or evil, does not mean that good and evil do not exist. Your inability to discern or percieve something does not prove or disprove its existence, it mearly proves that you lack the ability to discern and percieve such things.

        You can’t make the claim that civility exists without at least a basic concept of good and evil. Otherwise civility itself would lose its meaning. What is civil? It is that which is percieved as good within society. It is less concrete than good and evil alone, since it can be determined by those within the society, but is it based upon the idea that good and evil exist.

        One other thing: the person to whom you replied has not presented his argument in a way that constitutes a “slippery slope” type of fallacy. The only way that that is possible is if argument is extended to the point of absurdity, meaning that it is almost impossible for such a result to occure. The person who presented it also presented evidence that the farthest result of his argument (fathers marrying their daughters) has already been proven true (that certain people are trying to enact a law that would allow it), or at least is very capable of becoming true sometime in the near future.

        I would like to put in a little opinion here. I think that what two consenting adults choose to do with their lives is of great concern to all. To believe that their actions only provide results that effect themselves is to assume that they will not interact with the rest of society. Just because it is a private matter does not make it acceptable. Many people believe that homosexual relationships are an abomination. They are seen as similar to adultry between two unmarried people. Is adultry illegal? No, but adultry can be resolved by either the breaking off of the adulterous relationship or by the marriage of the adulterous couple to each other. Giving gays the right to marriage is seen as equivelent to giving the audulterous couple the same rights as a married couple without them having to actually be married. You might say, “but you’re giving them marriage, so it should be seen as okay”, but the opposition would say that you are then redefining marriage. That is a different matter. To redefine marriage is to redefine the family. Not just the idea of family (such as considering a close friend as a brother) but of the actual concrete, legally and socially recognized family. The basic family (father, mother, and children. Of course, a family can also be constituted by just a husband and wife, but that fact has little bearing on this discussion) is the group upon which many things are based. One of those things IS sex education. If you add to the basic family two more options (mother, mother, children; father, father, children) you add two new sexual relationships to be understood as part of what is excepted as normal, and thus taught as such. This, I believe, proves the validity of the argument that if you allow homosexual marriage your children will someday be subject to being taught that gay sex is natural and normal. There are many people who believe that that is false and don’t want their children learning such things, and so they have legitimate concerns.

        Lastly, if you want people to respect your argument, name calling and speaking as if you were somehow a genious on the matter just because you hold this opinion up with a seemingly reasonable argument probabably aren’t the best ways to achieve that goal.

        P.S. to Amanda: Perhapse you should invest in some practical logic books. If you did you’d realize that most of the great logicians of the past lived well within this “sheltered, judgemental little safety zone” that you describe. I believe that they would argue your definition of a “grown up world” closer to the definition of chaos and anarchy. They more commonly found that reality, though a difficult thing to grasp completely, was working very well and existed through absolutes, reason, and order. Either that or it was fooling us all, and doing an amazing job at it.

    6. Daniel says:

      What do we need to respect their beliefs for? Hate is hate.

      • Bus says:

        The hate I see on this thread is aimed at those who oppose homosexual relations, not the other way around. Love the sinner, hate the sin. That is the Christian way.

      • JJR says:

        Why is it that people suggest hate when someone opposes gay marriage..if you are opposed to Gay Marriage you are Labeled with being a Bigot, ignorant, hateful…etc. Opposing views are part of the whole idea of a Democratic System of Government. It was designed that way so that we are for the people, by the people…People vote their conscience. Gay citizens already have laws in place to protect them. And the people gave them those rights. Are the people who voted for Gay rights, still bigots, just because they may have voted to repeal this law? It is obvious after several elections, that the majority of people in this state believe that Marriage is between a Man and a Woman. This does not suggest hate to suggest’s that there are heartfelt emotions on both sides, and even if your side did not win…the people spoke. Now I know that some of you will attack me…and that is ok…because that is your right. Thank God for the freedoms that are in place so that you can hate me. :)

    7. Margot, Northern California says:

      When somebody can’t justify their ignorance and bigotry, they roll out those lame arguments about incest and/or bestiality.

    8. Jason says:


      If this is an actual consideration or temptation for you, and you have children, perhaps you should seek counsel or at a minimum let a friend or your child’s educator be aware of your thoughts and presumed propensity.

      I have a daughter and it has never occurred to me to approach her intimately; however, I know my upstairs neighbors – a gay couple in a long-term relationship – love and respect each other and deserve every right my wife and I do.

    9. Amy says:

      “What do we need to respect their beliefs for? Hate is hate”

      Because you would be guilty of the same thing of which you accuse others. Do you only respect those who agree with you? You criticize those whose morality is different than yours. Isn’t that what you dislike so much when accusing them of hate?

    10. proudamerican says:

      So what God says is now irrelevant, hateful, irrational, uncivil, ungrown-up and a fairy tale. People now decide what is right and wrong… What do you do when opinions differ?

      • Daniel says:

        This is absurd. Just because it’s written in a religious text it doesn’t mean it’s any more valid than any other bigotry. What you do when opinions differ is follow the moral choice–in this case, not discriminating against gays who do no harm by marrying, and deserve the same rights as everyone else. This is no different than racism, and there is no reason we should respect the views of either racists or homophobes, or any other sexist or prejudiced ideas. It’s truly painful how misguided some of these arguments are, and it makes me ashamed to live in the United States that homophobia remains so accepted. Gays aren’t out to get your children, and they raise children just as well as straight couples. Marriage is not a sacred institution, and saying that you don’t discriminate against gays; rather you just want to protect traditional marriage is the same argument that was made about interracial marriage before the Civil Rights Movement. Get over your bigotry. Your God was wrong about gays just like he was wrong about stoning your child for disrespecting his parents, and no one should feel compelled, or even feel legitimate in accepting bigotry because someone wrote it down a long time ago.

      • Alison says:

        Not everyone in this country believes in your God. And there is supposed to be a separation of church and state, so what “God says” should have nothing to do with whether or not two consenting adults of any sex can apply for and obtain a marriage license from the state.

      • ahoypolloi says:

        what God says should stay within the confines of a church. one person’s religion should have no bearing on what is a contract of the state between two consenting adults

        ( church | state ….let’s keep them separate)

        • Jay says:

          ahoypolloi says:
          ( church | state ….let’s keep them separate)

          Please show me where in the Constitution that it addresses separation of church and state. You will look and look but you will not find those words. The words that most people misconstrue as “separation” of church and state are taken from Article 1 – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof – This is the first part of the Article with the rest pertaining to Freedom of Speech. The Article was addressing Government mandated religion such as the Catholic church or the Church of England. The freedom of religion and the prevention of government established religion is a far stretch from how frightened people have become of anyone being exposed to any kind of religion anywhere. Its ironic that an Article guaranteeing so much freedom would be used to restrict so much freedom.

    11. qwkinuf says:

      The 1st attribute of nature is the ability to re-produce which makes gays un-natural thus abnormal. The gays are trying to normalize their abnormal behavior through legislation so that it, as a law, can be pushed onto kids.

    12. JunkFood says:

      Amy Said

      “Because you would be guilty of the same thing of which you accuse others. Do you only respect those who agree with you? You criticize those whose morality is different than yours. Isn’t that what you dislike so much when accusing them of hate?”

      We’re not accusing them of just disrespect. We’re accusing them of taking that disrespect and turning it into law. That’s a completely different thing. I would never put the rights of someone up to a vote unless it was even across the board and the result was something the entire country had to live with.

    13. Shannon says:

      Sillyworld that is simply the most absurd and irrational statement I have ever heard. Our constitution gaurentees equality for all and yet close-minded, judgemental people like you fight against that equality every day.

      Why shouldn’t a couple in a loving, commited relationship have the right to declare that love through marriage? Why shouldn’t two women or two men in a loving, commited relationship have the same rights as a man and a woman? People have used the argument that gay marriage destroys “traditional marriage”. And yet half of these so called “traditional” marriages fail, most within the first year!!

      Throughout this campaign I have become increasingly disgusted with the ignorance that surrounds me. It’s time to wake up folks. Open your eyes and try to see beyond your own noses. Open your minds and realize that just because someone believes differently than you do DOESN’T make them evil!! Like Amanda said, “Lose the holier than thou B.S”

    14. Joscelin says:

      “So what God says is now irrelevant, hateful, irrational, uncivil, ungrown-up and a fairy tale. People now decide what is right and wrong… What do you do when opinions differ?”

      What do you do when the word of your god differs from the word of their god? Even if you believe that good and evil are set in stone by the word of God, not everyone follows your god. This is why we elect representatives to make laws for all of us to follow. Living in a diverse world means you have to find ways to coexist with people who don’t believe the same as you.

      • proudamerican says:

        1. What has “their god” done to prove that he is really a god, which would give authority to what he declares to be right or wrong.

        2. Which of their “gods” says that gay marriage is OK?

      • Oogsterday says:

        Funny thing is, the Bible is where the idea of such freedom of thinking came from. Look it up. The Declaration of independance, the Constitution, and the bill of rights were all based primarily on Exodus and Matthew. I’m not saying that other religions shouldn’t be allowed, or that people of other religions shouldn’t be allowed to act upon their beliefs (there are obvious exceptions, such as mass killing of innocent people, etc.), especially when it comes to voting, but it should be noted that those men who formed this nation and its governing documents DID have a religious source upon which they based it, which was the Bible. Even those who weren’t Christians (which were very few) thought that the Biblical basis was very sound and worth backing.

        I’m not saying that coexistence with people of other religions isn’t necessary, but I do think it proves the point that interacting with politics in a faith based way is not inherently bad. In fact, it can produce some very positive outcomes. Tell me one other nation that has existed for the past 233 years without a single reconstruction of its government.

    15. Jon Miranda says:

      Gay marriage doesn’t satisfy life’s purpose

      People pusing gay marriage keep saying this is a religious issue. That is not true. Everyone needs to answer the question of “What is the purpose of life?” Leaving religion out of the answer, as well as the Bible and personal opinions, there is only one answer that can be given that will satisfy the laws of NATURE. That answer is: “Reproduce yourself and your species.”

      Can two female or two male marriage partners conform to this law? No! So, this is not a religious issue alone. It is an issue that defies the laws of nature. The animal, bird, fish, insect, and plant kingdoms all live this law. They reproduce themselves as per nature’s laws.

      If any of these kingdoms failed to live this law, their kingdom would become extinct in a short period of time. If the plant kingdom failed to live this law, there would be no food for man or animals to eat. We would soon become a dead planet.

      Only man wants to defy this law of nature. In so doing, they become destroyers of, rather than contributors to, the human race.
      Gays are advocating motherless or fatherless children.

    16. proudamerican says:

      1. What has “their god” done to prove that he is really a god, which would give authority to what he declares to be right or wrong.

      2. Which “god” says that gay marriage is OK?

    17. pa says:

      1. What has “their god” done to prove that he is really a god, which would give authority to what he declares to be right or wrong.

      2. Which of their “gods” says that gay marriage is OK?

    18. Joe Woodard says:

      “At 10:20 on Bangor Daily News site was this–
      1016547 of 942825 ( 108%) registered voters have participated in this election
      taken down next time I went for an update…”

      My gosh! That’s worse than Chicago! :)

    19. proudamerican says:

      OK mods, I get it. You publish those who agree with you, and remove the post of those who don’t. Convenient, and bias…

      Great way to have a debate

    20. Marc says:

      If we need to respect religious and moral beliefs, then do we have to permit human sacrifice? I’m sure there are some people crazy enough to still believe in that today.

      Just becausesome people have “moral values” that are intolerant doesn’t mean they need to be respected. We need to draw the line somewhere, and the most logical place to do so is where it harms other people. We don’t allow Mormons to practice polygamy anymore, but that used to be part of their religious beliefs.

      Your comment really deeply offends me, and it should offend any rational person. How can beliefs marred with ignorance and bias infom the law without disasterous results on our deomcracy? Remember that we have a long past in the US of mistreating minorities.

    21. Kelly says:

      The condition is very treatable, but it will never be treated as long as we are pretending it is normal. Denying that it is an illness is a symptom of the illness. Treatments that are availble and could work include medication, counseling and the ultimate treatment, sex change.

    22. Man says:

      Most of those voting yes on this measure do nothave the slightest concern for what two concenting adults do with thier lives. This “no concern” includes no sanction. Not wanting the government of the people to sanction a private relationship with the status equal to marriage does not mean we want to force you to end the relationship. Your personal relationships do not currently concern me. But forcing us as a community to sanction your relationship makes it a concern of everyone. I’m not even saying that your relationship does not have value to society. It’s just not the same as traditional marriage and we shouldn’t pretend like it is.

      By the way I don’y mean anything hateful in what I’ve said. Truely truely. So please don’t accuse me of it. I just disagree with you.

      • Joscelin says:

        It has already been sanctioned. If people aren’t concerned, don’t vote either way. Voting yes means you care enough to take away a right that has already been granted.

      • ahoypolloi says:

        “But forcing us as a community to sanction your relationship makes it a concern of everyone. I’m not even saying that your relationship does not have value to society. It’s just not the same as traditional marriage and we shouldn’t pretend like it is.”

        i wasn’t alive to hear it said, but you sure must sound a lot like folks back in the day who thought black/white or other mixed marriages weren’t “traditional.” get on the right side of history, Man.

        • Michael says:

          Not the same. Marriage, including mixed marriage, brings a man a woman together. You need sexual difference to have sexual union. Gay marriage does not do this.


          • MB says:

            No, actually the objections to mixed-race marriage was that it was “unnatural” and condemned by God. Same argument being made about same-sex marriage.

            And if you really feel that “you need sexual difference to have sexual union”, then I would suggest you try having sex with another man and I guarantee you will experience sexual union, just as I do. Or then again maybe you won’t, because God did not CREATE you that way naturally… just like God did not create gays and lesbians to experience sexual union with members of the opposite sex naturally, but with those of the same sex instead. (No, it’s NOT a “choice” is it?!)

        • Midwesterner in SF says:

          The “right” side of history, indeed. All anyone needs to do is look at how far we’ve come, and wait with patience and do our part to continue to take the steps that will bring equality to everyone.

          Thank you for your simple statement; clear and concise about tradition not nearly always being the correct choice for living in harmony.

      • Alison says:

        ” I’m not even saying that your relationship does not have value to society. It’s just not the same as traditional marriage and we shouldn’t pretend like it is.”

        Traditional marriage is a joke nowadays. Most of them end in divorce. If two consenting adults can find love in a world so full of hate, I think it’s ridiculous that anyone would want to prevent them from making that love official in the exact same way as a heterosexual couple. They are not hurting anyone, they just want to be treated the same way as any other couple, because they are two human beings or legal age who wish to make their relationship legal and be equal. They SHOULD be equal because they are. One day the world will accept that, the same way they accepted that women are equal to men, and the way they are still learning to accept that other races are equal to white. I just wish people would learn a lot faster so that the same-sex couples I care about can enjoy the same rights as myself and my husband.

      • Moomoo says:

        Man is experiencing fear. Man sure wants to express his unconcerned opinion.

      • Michael says:

        By “sanction”, what exactly do you mean? This debate is NOT about “approving of” or “condoning” relationships. It is about the government giving equal treatment to same-sex committed couples as it gives to opposite-sex committed couples with regards to legal benefits and responsibilities that automatically come with “legal marriage”. For example… tax benefits, automatic community property, legal status to act on the partner’s behalf in healthcare dealings when one partner is incapacitated, legal protection in the case that one partner abandons the relationship, and (on a Federal level) immigration sponsorship rights, social security inheritance rights, and thousands of other rights and obligations that come with marriage and are intertwined in countless other laws that reference “marriage” as the basis for some treatment.

        So, if you are willing to pass a law that would ABOLISH all those benefits, rights, and responsibilities designated for legally married couples (opposite-sex included), then you would truly be a supporter of equality and fair-minded. I believe you when you say you don’t hate. However, the position you have taken on this … that you are fine with the same-sex committed relationsthip but think that opposite-sex committed relationships should have special benefits in the eyes of the law … is inconsistent and NOT at all compassionate or fair-minded.

        Is this really what you think? That opposite-sex committed couples should have more legal/financial rights, benefits, and responsibilities than same-sex committed couples? I hope you will clarify this.

        And as for “traditional” legal marriage…. it is certainly in a glorious state these days, isn’t it? Definitely a poster child to be preserved, huh? Since it’s so “traditional”, it looks exactly like it did 2000 years ago, doesn’t it? Actually, logic would say that if we were to allow more couples (i.e. same-sex) who are committed to each other and REALLY REALLY want to be married to each other this much, it can only have the net effect of strengthening the overall institution.

        I hope you will think a little more about your point of view and motivations behind it.

      • Bert says:

        “But forcing us as a community to sanction your relationship makes it a concern of everyone. I’m not even saying that your relationship does not have value to society. It’s just not the same as traditional marriage and we shouldn’t pretend like it is.”

        I’m curious. How would this forced sanctioning of gay marriage ever manifest itself? Would you be forced to invite gay married couples over to your house for dinner parties? Would couples bowling leagues be forced to allow husband/husband and wife/wife teams? Not that!

        And please don’t roll out the bit about kids being taught in school that marriage can be male/male or female/female, as well as male/female. Maybe I had the chicken pox the day they taught it, but I don’t ever remember being taught in school that marriage was between a man and a woman. My teachers were busy teaching multiplication tables and photosynthesis.

        The truth is that this forced sanctioning won’t manifest itself, and there’s nothing to be afraid of. Someone else’s homosexual marriage does not affect you, just like someone else’s heterosexual marriage doesn’t.

    23. BenJames says:

      Marriage is not strictly about love. The reason marriage came about as sanctioned by the state was more about families and what was in the best interest of children. Children by far and away do best with a mother and a father. The majority of studies show that. That is not to say that single parents don’t raise great kids. They can and they do but they would be the first to admit it is a lot tougher. The state has an interest in what is best for society. Unfortunately we are in an era of the whim of the minority is more important than what is in the best interest for society. What two consenting adults do so be it… it does not mean it should be sanctioned by the state.

      • Michael says:

        Ben, you’ve got your history wrong. Studies on child welfare have only been done in the past 50 years or so since social science has been developed. Marriage was created as a legal institution by governments several thousand years ago as a way to allow men to establish property rights to essentially own women and real property. So yes, it’s not about love. But it’s not about protecting children either.

        On top of that, you’re deceiving yourself if you think that creation of children is somehow constrained or prevented by having a legal institution of marriage that is available only to an opposite-sex couple. If that were true, there’d be no problems with teen pregnancy, no need for birth control pills, and we wouldn’t see that the average age of onset of sexual behavior is now 12 years old.

        Further, the research study you reference has been misused in order to draw a conclusion that same-sex parenting is worse than opposite-sex parenting. The study actually looked at children raised by a male and female parent versus those raised by a single parent. It did NOT look at children raised by opposite-sex parents. So, the only conclusion you can draw from it is that two parents are better than one. Despite the best efforts of single parents, that makes sense. And, the American Psychological Association (APA) has published research that HAS compared children raised by same-sex versus opposite-sex parents which shows NO DIFFERENCE. So, two parents are better than one, even if they are gay or lesbian. Seems it’s in the best interest of children (if not society), if governments would marry and give equal protections and benefits to same-sex couples.

    24. Salyne, British Columbia, Canada says:

      I feel so sorry for those that were already married or planning out their weddings for having their lives adversely affected by antiquated ideals.

    25. Moomoo says:

      It’s interesting that people are given the right to take rights away from others, marrying someone you love doesn’t seem abominable at all. Consenting adults who mind their own business and who want the same benefits as their own parents should receive it. Marriage is a beautiful thing, and does not lead to other abominations. Being able to take rights away and discriminating against others sends a scary message to us all, women, African Americans, Native Americans, etc. Homosexuality is not a choice, as many believe, what person would choose a more difficult life? God designed us all the way are, perfect. We are meant learn to get along. To all the devout Christians, Mormons, etc who condemn others who are different, isn’t that hate? Isn’t hate the product of Evil? Aren’t you therefore following a false prophet?

    26. Bill says:

      I say put all gays and lesbian on one Island and then in 120 years everyone from that island come back to the states and get married in any state they want::))

    27. seattle, washington says:

      Dear Maine,

      If 3K votes don’t come in by morning to vote NO on Question 1, we will shake out heads at you.

      We thought we were your friend but it turns out we aren’t,
      Washington State.

    28. Fairfield, Maine says:

      Don’t blame all the people in Maine. It is true that almost 3/5 of Maine are Rednecks who are definetly against,”Question One.” But there are still some people who support this cause… People should be able to marry who’m ever they want, but odds are the votes on yes will win… Or they will try to “fix” the ballet so Yes wins.. ( I voted No on Question One)

      • Orono, Maine says:

        I chose not to vote on question 1. Consider it half a vote for each side. I am always in support of equal rights, but it is not the rednecks that you mentioned that I am listening to but the religious who want gays and lesbians to choose a different word but still receive all of the same rights. There are a lot of words out there, I don’t see the harm in letting the word marriage to remain a description of the union between a man and a woman. I think it is a very small compromise for the no on 1 side to make, and if compromise isn’t an option then I don’t care about your opinion. I’m not saying you can’t call it a marriage, I’m just respecting the right of people who do not want to. I think fifteen years from now this issue may have been resolved on a national level in favor of gay marriage but if question 1 does pass I believe that compromise would make the difference that gays and lesbians need to live their lives normally. Also, all the polls I heard say no on 1 is going to win. Results should be available soon if not already anyway.

      • yes on 1 says:

        Yes, they can marry their dog in Dover Foxcroft!!!

    29. Lisa Sig says:

      Gay marriage is wrong..period…it’s wrong and if it starts to happen the world will surely end soon…

      • IF gay marriage is wrong.. says:

        then traditional marriage but be a sin. for every argument you give about gay marriage and how it will affect the children, take a look into the heterosexual mirror.

    30. Judy says:

      I am not a redneck. I am a college educated woman, small business owner
      trying to live a moral life with the ten commandments as a guide.I am married. I believe in one man one woman. If you do not stand for something you will fall for anything. Educated people make educated decisions. Typically we are rednecks if we disagree. A firm moral stand does not mean we are intolerant. It means we have made a choice and stand by it. Just like someone who has made the choice of a gay lifestyle makes a choice and stands by it. two sides of the same coin.
      God Bless

      • MB says:

        You know, that is absolutely fine… you can take a stand for anything you want. You believe in one man one woman, I believe in one man one man. So, where does that leave us? Opinions should not be the basis for civil rights laws.

        The fact is, even if you don’t believe in it, gay couples exist in our society (and in every culture globally), and we are just like you in trying to lead a decent moral life, follow the Ten Commandments, etc. But, if the government extends rights and protections to you because you choose a partner of the opposite sex and it denies it to me because I choose one of the same sex, that is unfair. Period. Either we both get those rights or none of us do.

        By the way, this issue is NOT about the simple act of “getting married” and being able to be called “husbands” or “wives”, it is about real tangible financial and legal benefits that go with it… such as favorable tax treatment, automatic community property ownership and inheritance, emergency healthcare decision making, legal recognition and treatment of the couple as a single unit, and (on a Federal level) social security benefits, 401K ownership rights, immigration sponsorship, and many other things. Same sex couples who have committed their lives together and made valuable contributions to their communities are treated as if they were strangers to each other with regards to all these things under the law.

        I know this, becuase I have experienced it. My husband and I were legally married last year in our home state of California. He passed away a few months ago from a sudden heart attack. Because the Federal government does not recognize our marriage, the Social Security that he worked for all his life is completely lost and will remain with the government. Ordinarily, it would be payable to the spouse. Also, he had a student loan and I called Sallie Mae to inform them of his passing. They refused to speak to me about the account and said they would need to speak to his parents instead. How do you think this feels? Is this fair?

        I don’t raise this looking for sympathy. You say you are an educated woman, and I’m hoping this will help you to understand the reality of this issue in a way that goes beyond simply “what you believe in” and applying your beliefs to your fellow community memebers’ lives.

        God bless you too.

    31. Me Mois says:

      The voters have cast their ballots and the majority has spoken. Has anyone thought that the passage of Q1 in Maine, as well as the thirty or so other similar mandates that have passed throughout the country, is a statement by the people more about how they are being forced to accept gay marriage, rather than just the acceptance of it?

      We will not be forced to condone what we are not comfortable with, through legislation or judicial mandating. It seems to me that people are getting fed up with being told how they are supposed to think and what they are supposed to say. How not to behave and what they must accept.

      My estimation is we are only a decade or so away from genuine thought police patrolling our communication avenues. Freedom of speech? Pah! That’s going disappear with legislation like the Fairness Doctrine or the latest hate crimes bill which goes way beyond just protecting people from criminal acts. It actually criminalizes voicing your opinion about what you consider perverse acts.

      Don’t take it the wrong way. It’s just that while nobody has really proven that these special behaviors are worthy of acceptance and protection, we are suddenly being told that we must accept them as equal to established social and moral norms, even though we consider them unacceptable and nobody has provided any rational reason to consider them otherwise.

      Well now it’s come to this. People are waking up and they are speaking out and rejecting what is being forced on them, rather than just accepting what hasn’t been shown to be acceptable. It’s a tough world. You can’t have it your way just because you say you deserve it. Especially if you haven’t proven you deserve it.

      • its not people says:

        Where’s the line between church and state? Two people — regardless of sexual orientation — should be provided the same LEGAL BENEFITS from the state.

        Your comparison to how many states ban gay marriage can easily be rebuked — when you look at Eastern Europe, in which most of the countries legalize it, or expand rights to domestic partners at the very least. And then there’s all the other countries not in Europe that recognize it. COUNTRIES. Not states. COUNTRIES.

        Go figure. Europe is by far ahead of America in social responsibility, civil rights, energy infrastructure, health care, time off/vacation, and a whole slew of other things.

        American’s are back asswards.

    32. Sillyworld says:

      One day our government will pass away. But God’s word will never pass away.

    33. D Shearer says:

      “According to many people’s belief systems, they don’t want their children to be taught that marriage between a man/man or woman/woman is acceptable.”

      Does this mean that they would prefer to teach their children to be judgmental, prejudicial and hate filled? ‘Before you tell your neighbor to take the stick out of their eye, take the log out of your own.’

    34. asdfasdf says:

      You all need to get a life!

    35. Mass. says:

      Maybe you so-called Christians should try to truly live in Christ’s image. A majority of you are NOT Christ like. As I was taught Jesus was loving and ACCEPTING of everyone. Not true of you.
      I thank God I live in a state (MA) where this issue was resolved by the Judiciary, not the mob. As it should be! No one, but, no one should be allowed to vote on the RIGHTS of others!! Live your OWN lives and let others live theirs. Your religion is just a cover for your bigotry.

    36. Thom says:

      Two thoughts:

      Again, we have very close voting results. Here in Canada, in my household we just had another morning debate about the confusing wording of the actual proposition. There must be a significant margin of people who vote “yes” to the gay marriage proposal who don’t realize that “yes” is a vote for no gay marriage.

      We also wonder why a civil rights issue is up for a public vote at all. If the public vote had determined policy in the past, there would still be no African-Americans in “White” restaurants in the south. The National Voting Act signed y Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965 secured the right for Southern African-Americans to vote. Congress gave women the right to vote in 1920 (and obviously an all-male referendum on whether women should be allowed to vote would have left women still disenfranchised). Since when in America are human and civil rights granted to American citizens on a public opinion basis?

      • Orono, Maine says:

        I disagree that any significant number of people did what a yes or no vote meant. Question 1 has been such a hot topic. I have been called several times, my door was knocked on 3 times in 1.5 hours, I have been approached coming and going from school, work and the grocery store. Interestingly, a long long time ago, before I knew anything about it, I saw a “No on 1” bumper sticker on my friends mom’s car next to the rainbow bumper sticker that had been there for years, and that pretty much cleared it up for me. Also, statistically, any confused rock dwelling people would likely have canceled each other out, or would have voted yes anyway and proceeded to crawl back under their rock.

        I am personally disappointed in my state, but I am quite convinced that this has only postponed the inevitability of gay marriage which will likely be passed as more people of my generation come of voting age and people raised in the homophobic past continue to die off. A new political strategy may help as well. Clearly there needs to be some rethinking of what conservatives want and what compromises everyone is willing to make. Keep gay loving each other people, your time will come.

        P.S.: Whoever said that gayness is a sign of the end times needs to sign up for a Western Civ class. People have been at this type of thing since before you believe the world was invented. I am pretty sure you don’t need a GED to take online classes from most universities so you should be all set.

    37. common man says:

      I have read many of the comments posted, and I thought I would weigh in on few recurring ideas. Many Proponents of allowing Gay Marriage say that what happens between two consenting adults is their business and theirs alone. I agree, but when those two consenting adults seek to get license from the state…. that is no longer between those two consenting adults and all members of the state should have their say.

      Another recurring comment is that Legislatures and judiciary should be the ones deciding these issues. While it is true that most of the states business is so complex that we should give the decision making authority over to our duly elected and appointed representatives, on some issues that are this controversial, the public opionion should and does matter. Personally if I was a Politician, I wouldn’t want the voters to decide my fate in office based on what I voted on a single issue, and I’d gladly let the people choose on an issue like this.

    38. Guz Onca says:

      “Aren’t we free to love whoever we want?”

      You are free to love (agape) anyone you want. However, having sex is another issue. Anal sex is a very harmful practice and should not be promoted under the ridiculous word for it, “love.”

    39. portland says:

      I think it is very important for everyone to understand one thing. I am young, and yesterday I voted no on 1, and so did everyone I know, meaning for the most part my generation is against the ignorance of everyone who voted yes on 1.

      Also, not one person I know who voted no on 1 is gay. We are just a change in the World that one election cannot stop. We may not have victory yet, but I am sure that when I am old, and the baby boomers are long gone, their ignorance will have died with them.

      Another important point to make is that my parents voted yes on 1, an unfortunate tragedy I was unable to prevent. What’s important about this is I still voted no. So to everyone so afraid of change, you had better find a good hiding place. I can’t speak for my whole generation, but I can speak for the majority. As our numbers rise, which they will, we will be the change that is coming whether everyone likes it or not. We are no on 1, and our numbers grow every day. Your victory is short lived.

      • Michael says:

        Thank you, Portland!!!! It is encouraging to see that the younger generation already understands how ridiculous and unfair this inequality on 10% of the population is and is already taking a stand against it.

        And to all those of you who think you are safe now that same-sex marriage has been made illegal and so your children will not be taught that it is “ok” … hearing this comment from one of your children really makes you look like stupid ostriches with your heads in the sand. Enjoy your “victory” and go back to sleep now.

        God bless you, Portland!

    40. LuvIsLuv says:

      I love when people say that allowing gay marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage. Going to Vegas, getting wasted, married and divorced all in the same weekend is legal. Where’s the sanctity in that? 20 year old women marry 89 year old men for their money, where’s the sanctity in that? Men and women marry each other for money and/or health insurance ALL THE TIME. Where is the sanctity in ANY of that?

      Yet, two people who are truly in love would like to spend the rest of their lives together are told that they are not able to because it will “ruin the sanctity of marriage” just because they are of the same sex. Love is love.

      To those of you who say: Where do we draw the line? I’m sure those words were uttered over and over again during the civil rights movement and while interracial marriage was becoming legalized.

      I feel sorry for the grandchildren of those who vote against gay marriage — they’ll have to live with the same shame as the decendants of slave-owners and those who opposed the Civil Rights movement.

      • Orono, Maine says:


        You really can’t compare the delay of the legalization of gay marriage in one state to slavery. 200 years of despicable inhuman acts committed against generations that never new a day of freedom in their lives and died at the hand of their masters when they couldn’t work any longer is a little more to bear than waiting to get married. You also say:

        “two people who are truly in love would like to spend the rest of their lives together are told that they are not able to because it will “ruin the sanctity of marriage” just because they are of the same sex”

        Nobody has said that you can’t spend the rest of your life with who you want. This isn’t Nazi Germany. Its just a small state that has not accepted the future yet, and only by a narrow margin. Perhaps a lighter touch would sway more people to your way of thinking.

    41. LuvIsLuv says:

      Also, why are any of our laws based on Christianity in the first place? You say this country was FOUNDED on christianity? No. This country was discovered by accident and christians proceeded to take and take and take from the Natives already living on this land. Not only did they take their land and bring disease and violence with them but they also tried to “save” them by trying to take away their spiritual beliefs because, of course, christianity is the one and only TRUE religon, right?

      It’s ridiculous and close minded and this country was NOT founded on christianity. It was founded on violence, fear and bigotry. Today Native Americans live with very little land and most of the reservations left are poor. Their residents living in run down houses that are falling apart, their heritage, culture and spirituality has been stripped from them little by little, generation after generation. All of this because of great Christians out to “save” everyone who has different beliefs rather than opening their hearts and minds and accepting, loving and maybe even trying to understand that their truth just may NOT be the only truth. Peace & Love!!

    42. 4equalrights says:

      Why are any of our laws based on Christianity in the first place? You say this country was FOUNDED on christianity? No. This country was discovered by accident and christians proceeded to take and take and take from the Natives already living on this land. Not only did they take their land and bring disease and violence with them but they also tried to “save” them by trying to take away their spiritual beliefs because, of course, christianity is the one and only TRUE religon, right?

      It’s ridiculous and close minded and this country was NOT founded on christianity. It was founded on violence, fear and bigotry. Today Native Americans live with very little land and most of the reservations left are poor. Their residents living in run down houses that are falling apart, their heritage, culture and spirituality has been stripped from them little by little, generation after generation. All of this because of great Christians out to “save” everyone who has different beliefs rather than opening their hearts and minds and accepting, loving and maybe even trying to understand that their truth just may NOT be the only truth. Peace & Love!!

    43. 4equalrights says:

      Oops. I thought the website wasn’t letting me post twice under the same user name. Sorry for the double post. I’m not sure how to delet it. Peace & Love!!

    44. Concerned Teen says:

      All of you want to point the finger at “other’s bigotry” when the problem lies with you. If this country is to move into the “future” then we need to respect eachother’s opinions without all the name calling. That’s what I deal with as a teen you all are supposed to be adults and set a good example for the rest of us. All I have to say is YOU FAIL!!!
      And you keep dreagging religion as the “root of all problems” in this counrty when it’s the openness of each person’s mind that is the problem. I admit I am a Catholic and many of you will probably stop reading now because of that statement because you lack an open mind and don’t want to listen to other’s opinions unless they run parallel to your own. This is also where YOU FAIL!!! I am taught to keep an open mind because that is how we grow and I listen to all arguements as long as they are rational. So stop with the name calling and get to the point!!
      My opinion is that the purpose of the union between a man and a woman is so that there are more innocents in this world that can help to make this a better place. A man and a man or a woman and a woman can’t exaclty do that now can they? It is also to have a balance of parenting of the child. Some adopted children are all right when they are raised by a same sex couple but it seems to me that they’re lacking in having both a mother and a father for support and protection. I am about tradition but not to the extent of being stubborn and I feel that a traditional marraige isn’t a lack of progress. Some things were made to be changed and perfected and others were made perfect as they are.

    45. PUA Attraction Forums says:

      Good read..

    46. Hi there, i just needed to drop you a line to say that i thoroughly enjoyed this detailed post of yours, I have subscribed to your RSS feeds and have skimmed a few of your posts before but this one really stood out for me. I know that I am just a stranger to you but I figured you might appreciate the appreciation Take care and keep blogging.

    47. Thanks, I have recently been searching for information about this topic for a while and yours is the best I’ve came upon so far. Great Read!


    1. juegos says:


      Great article and straight to the point. I am not sure if this is in fact the best place to ask but do you people have any thoughts on where to employ some professional writers? Thanks :)…

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.