[ Poll ] Maine voted against Gay Marriage. Was the voting even fair?

Is it constitutionally right to decide this by a vote?

Yes, it is.		32.8%	[ 20 ]
No, it is not.		67.2%	[ 41 ]

Total Votes: 61

[Akiroti]

ennaelatan

Comparing marriage rights with fashion statements is just as wrong as the government telling gay people they can't marry.

As for Phantomboy - people involved with the Gay Rights Movement do protest.
I don't know if you recall Stonewall? Or if that's too old for you, maybe the march on Washington nearly one month ago? The government hasn't listened yet. That doesn't mean the movement's done or even slowing. It means it's going to try harder.

Running naked in the streets? Are you a bigot? Are you really so ignorant?

Back on topic now, though.

It's absolutely a political issue. Marriage awards rights to heterosexual couples that homosexual couples are never awarded. It shouldn't be an issue, and that's the problem. It should be a given that you should be able to marry the person you're going to spend the rest of your life with. Let's ignore the the argument that wishes to "protect the sanctity of marriage," because the divorce rate speaks louder than a bunch of ignorant and frightened people grasping at straws.

Marriage has its political and social aspects. It conveys the idea to everyone around you that you're in love with your partner. It shows that you're committed.
Many states in the US do not allow you to adopt unless you're married. That automatically cuts out the gay community.

If it's to be put to a vote, then I say that heterosexual marriages should be put to a vote. Let's be fair, this is the US after all.

Well, no ennaelatan. I don't agree with it being a political issue. The people of the United States have made it clear in multiple (unnoficial) polls that they would be fine with Civil Unions for gays, which have the same effects as marriage. The unionization of gays is not being put to vote.
The MARRIAGE of gays is. And if a gay wants to be wed in the church of god, because it is their belief that they can in their faith...who is the government or a common vote to infringe on their first right in the Bill of Rights?

[ennaelatan]

@Akiroti: Did you see my edit? You should look at the differences in rights between Civil Unions and Civil Marriages.

[tererun3]

Phantomboy411

when gay people stop dancing naked through the streets of new orleans, then we'll talk about marriage.

When straight chicks stop flashing their tits for cheap beads we will talk about reigning in the gay community.

[Xeno Incognito]

Akiroti

Well, no ennaelatan. I don't agree with it being a political issue. The people of the United States have made it clear in multiple (unnoficial) polls that they would be fine with Civil Unions for gays, which have the same effects as marriage. The unionization of gays is not being put to vote.

The problem is that civil unions don't have NEARLY the same rights as marriage and has undertones of "seperate, but equal".

Quote:

The MARRIAGE of gays is. And if a gay wants to be wed in the church of god, because it is their belief that they can in their faith...who is the government or a common vote to infringe on their first right in the Bill of Rights?

So.. you do or don't agree with gay marriage?

[Kuchen Fairy]

Akiroti

ennaelatan

Comparing marriage rights with fashion statements is just as wrong as the government telling gay people they can't marry.

As for Phantomboy - people involved with the Gay Rights Movement do protest.
I don't know if you recall Stonewall? Or if that's too old for you, maybe the march on Washington nearly one month ago? The government hasn't listened yet. That doesn't mean the movement's done or even slowing. It means it's going to try harder.

Running naked in the streets? Are you a bigot? Are you really so ignorant?

Back on topic now, though.

It's absolutely a political issue. Marriage awards rights to heterosexual couples that homosexual couples are never awarded. It shouldn't be an issue, and that's the problem. It should be a given that you should be able to marry the person you're going to spend the rest of your life with. Let's ignore the the argument that wishes to "protect the sanctity of marriage," because the divorce rate speaks louder than a bunch of ignorant and frightened people grasping at straws.

Marriage has its political and social aspects. It conveys the idea to everyone around you that you're in love with your partner. It shows that you're committed.
Many states in the US do not allow you to adopt unless you're married. That automatically cuts out the gay community.

If it's to be put to a vote, then I say that heterosexual marriages should be put to a vote. Let's be fair, this is the US after all.

Well, no ennaelatan. I don't agree with it being a political issue. The people of the United States have made it clear in multiple (unnoficial) polls that they would be fine with Civil Unions for gays, which have the same effects as marriage. The unionization of gays is not being put to vote.
The MARRIAGE of gays is. And if a gay wants to be wed in the church of god, because it is their belief that they can in their faith...who is the government or a common vote to infringe on their first right in the Bill of Rights?

Are you implying that churches should have to recognise and/or perform homosexual marriages? What happened to the separation of Church and State?

[Akiroti]

Xeno Incognito

Akiroti

Well, no ennaelatan. I don't agree with it being a political issue. The people of the United States have made it clear in multiple (unnoficial) polls that they would be fine with Civil Unions for gays, which have the same effects as marriage. The unionization of gays is not being put to vote.

The problem is that civil unions don't have NEARLY the same rights as marriage and has undertones of "seperate, but equal".

Quote:

The MARRIAGE of gays is. And if a gay wants to be wed in the church of god, because it is their belief that they can in their faith...who is the government or a common vote to infringe on their first right in the Bill of Rights?

So.. you do or don't agree with gay marriage?

I think you and Ennaelatan misunderstood what I said. I am aware of the current Civil Unions being uneqeual. I'm sayign that Americans themselves in unnoficial polls have said they would favor full marriage rights in the form of a Civil Union, which has NOT been granted yet.

And I am for Gay Marriage.

[Akiroti]

Kuchen Fairy

Akiroti

ennaelatan

Comparing marriage rights with fashion statements is just as wrong as the government telling gay people they can't marry.

As for Phantomboy - people involved with the Gay Rights Movement do protest.
I don't know if you recall Stonewall? Or if that's too old for you, maybe the march on Washington nearly one month ago? The government hasn't listened yet. That doesn't mean the movement's done or even slowing. It means it's going to try harder.

Running naked in the streets? Are you a bigot? Are you really so ignorant?

Back on topic now, though.

It's absolutely a political issue. Marriage awards rights to heterosexual couples that homosexual couples are never awarded. It shouldn't be an issue, and that's the problem. It should be a given that you should be able to marry the person you're going to spend the rest of your life with. Let's ignore the the argument that wishes to "protect the sanctity of marriage," because the divorce rate speaks louder than a bunch of ignorant and frightened people grasping at straws.

Marriage has its political and social aspects. It conveys the idea to everyone around you that you're in love with your partner. It shows that you're committed.
Many states in the US do not allow you to adopt unless you're married. That automatically cuts out the gay community.

If it's to be put to a vote, then I say that heterosexual marriages should be put to a vote. Let's be fair, this is the US after all.

Well, no ennaelatan. I don't agree with it being a political issue. The people of the United States have made it clear in multiple (unnoficial) polls that they would be fine with Civil Unions for gays, which have the same effects as marriage. The unionization of gays is not being put to vote.
The MARRIAGE of gays is. And if a gay wants to be wed in the church of god, because it is their belief that they can in their faith...who is the government or a common vote to infringe on their first right in the Bill of Rights?

Are you implying that churches should have to recognise and/or perform homosexual marriages? What happened to the separation of Church and State?

I believe the decision should be up to the individual Church itself. My Church would wed gays if it had the opportunity to. The Church down the street wouldn't. It should be left to each individual church so that they may worship and follow the "word of God" as they may. The government should simply slap on the benefits when all is done, not say who and what and where.

[ennaelatan]

A christian who does not believe in gay marriage should not be forced to be involved with a gay marriage. However, there are other people willing to help gay couples be married.

Marriage lost its title as strictly religious as soon as it was written in the constitution. Sorry for repeating myself, but there are around one thousand federal rights not granted to people that are unionized but not married.

EDIT: Sorry for the late response, Aki. I see what you're trying to say. The issue is the title. Marriage can no longer be only a religious title. As soon as it was written into the constitution, it became a legal right. Didn't the Supreme Court rule that separate is not equal?

[Xeno Incognito]

Kuchen Fairy

Akiroti

ennaelatan

Comparing marriage rights with fashion statements is just as wrong as the government telling gay people they can't marry.

As for Phantomboy - people involved with the Gay Rights Movement do protest.
I don't know if you recall Stonewall? Or if that's too old for you, maybe the march on Washington nearly one month ago? The government hasn't listened yet. That doesn't mean the movement's done or even slowing. It means it's going to try harder.

Running naked in the streets? Are you a bigot? Are you really so ignorant?

Back on topic now, though.

It's absolutely a political issue. Marriage awards rights to heterosexual couples that homosexual couples are never awarded. It shouldn't be an issue, and that's the problem. It should be a given that you should be able to marry the person you're going to spend the rest of your life with. Let's ignore the the argument that wishes to "protect the sanctity of marriage," because the divorce rate speaks louder than a bunch of ignorant and frightened people grasping at straws.

Marriage has its political and social aspects. It conveys the idea to everyone around you that you're in love with your partner. It shows that you're committed.
Many states in the US do not allow you to adopt unless you're married. That automatically cuts out the gay community.

If it's to be put to a vote, then I say that heterosexual marriages should be put to a vote. Let's be fair, this is the US after all.

Well, no ennaelatan. I don't agree with it being a political issue. The people of the United States have made it clear in multiple (unnoficial) polls that they would be fine with Civil Unions for gays, which have the same effects as marriage. The unionization of gays is not being put to vote.
The MARRIAGE of gays is. And if a gay wants to be wed in the church of god, because it is their belief that they can in their faith...who is the government or a common vote to infringe on their first right in the Bill of Rights?

Are you implying that churches should have to recognise and/or perform homosexual marriages? What happened to the separation of Church and State?

I don't think that's what he said.. he was just speaking emotionally.

There are churches that will perform gay marriage anyway.

[ennaelatan]

So... no. It was not a fair vote. Until heterosexual marriage is voted on in the same manner, it won't be a fair vote.

[Bob Motley]

Of course it was unfair, ANY move against gay rights is unfair!

[Syndactyly]

Kaosgirl

GunsmithKitten

Phantomboy411

when gay people stop dancing naked through the streets of new orleans, then we'll talk about marriage.

I've tried to tell my fellow LGBT's this, but it falls on deaf ears.

I dislike the double standard. "Mardi Gras was just good clean fun, till them faggots decided to play too."

THIS.

[Kimihiro_Watanuki]

Phantomboy411

when gay straight people stop dancing naked through the streets of new orleans, then we'll talk about marriage why this makes no sense.

Fix'd.

If a bunch of straight people can dance through the streets of Nawlins naked, so can the gay people.

[Jean Gerome]

GunsmithKitten

Kaosgirl

GunsmithKitten

Phantomboy411

when gay people stop dancing naked through the streets of new orleans, then we'll talk about marriage.

I've tried to tell my fellow LGBT's this, but it falls on deaf ears.

I dislike the double standard. "Mardi Gras was just good clean fun, till them faggots decided to play too."

I've never claimed Mardis Gras was good clean fun, not since it got taped for Girls Gone Wild crap.

Nobody gives the Girls Gone Wild girls s**t when they try to get married though.

[M. Angel]

Le Cynique

The majority should not be allowed to vote on minority rights.

If minority rights were always decided based on a vote, we'd probably still have slaves.

No we wouldn't have slaves. The majority already stopped that with the Civil war.