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

Is it constitutionally right to decide this by a vote?

Yes, it is.	33.3%	[ 21 ]
No, it is not.	66.7%	[ 42 ]
Total Votes:			[ 63 ]

[M. Angel]

Phantomboy411

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

I laugh at the over generalization, but I agree with the concept. You can't promote the "Gay Pride" culture one minute and then say that gays need marriage because they're the same as heterosexuals the next... which is kinda what's going on.

[Xeno Incognito]

M. Angel

Phantomboy411

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

I laugh at the over generalization, but I agree with the concept. You can't promote the "Gay Pride" culture one minute and then say that gays need marriage because they're the same as heterosexuals the next... which is kinda what's going on.

"Gay Pride" in concept, is a setback to the community as a whole, but it's only a knee-jerk reaction to years of oppression and wagging tongues... straight people don't have "Straight Pride" because they're not forced to hide their heterosexuality for years or be under threat of violence from their peers for who they like...


Imagine, for a second, you are an actor.

You are assigned, not of your own volition, a very difficult role, one that goes against your very nature; however, you are forced to accept this role- it is a safe role, and it allows you to blend in the background. You don't have to be in the spotlight.

Now imagine being told you have to play this role for 10, 15, 20 years of your life. Everyday. To everyone you know or will ever meet.

Then imagine you have just finished playing your role.

What the ******** do you want to do?

Never play that role again and rebel and act out.

That's what being closeted feels like to some people.

Again, "Gay Pride" parades are embarassing but I can definitely understand why they do what they do.

Also- please stop generalizing us. Gay Pride doesn't represent the entire community much like Fred Phelps doesn't represent the entire heterosexual community.

[Kaosgirl]

Kuchen Fairy

Akiroti

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?

Good question. Why are you restricting the rites<sic> of the churches that voluntarily recognize and/or perform homosexual marriages via the State?

[Silvia Crow]

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.

Well, one plus about slavery: It gets s**t done.

Seriously, look at the pyramids.

[ennaelatan]

Skittish Nature-Boy

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

Any political movement against any minority based on religious principles is unfair.

[Princess Z-M]

eikocarol212

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.

This. Why are we allowed to vote on rights that legal, consenting adults should already have? It is ridiculous.

Because our society is loosely based on a slightly homo-exotic places known as Rome, Greece, and England?

*Triple Punch*

In all seriously rich white protestant males still hold the majority of power and they don't like it when all their dirty little deeds get to air out.

As I feel many of the louder anti-Gay protesters and groups are in fact probably Gay or have sexuality issues.

[Princess Z-M]

Silvia Crow

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.

Well, one plus about slavery: It gets s**t done.

Seriously, look at the pyramids.

So a few Pro's outweighs all the horrible cons eh?

Never the mind the fact that you are pissing on people's free will as long as s**t like that and the White house is built huh...

[Kaosgirl]

M. Angel

Phantomboy411

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

I laugh at the over generalization, but I agree with the concept. You can't promote the "Gay Pride" culture one minute and then say that gays need marriage because they're the same as heterosexuals the next... which is kinda what's going on.

I agree with the concept, but I laugh at the silly heterosexual people who think they're really that different.

Seriously. I can't even link pictures from the big-name parties for fear of violating the PG-13 limits here. When I say "homosexuals are the same as heterosexuals," I don't mean some cleaned-up lie about the "heterosexual lifestyle." I mean the whole thing, warts and all. "Gay Pride Culture" just happens to be one of the 'warts.'

[icanhaznomorepicklez]

Akiroti

So, I haven't studied law or government...and I have little knowledge on the subject. These are honest thoughts and I will take no offense if you prove me wrong. In fact, I would LIKE that.
If I am correct, the Legislative system decides things based on nothing but the Constitution(s) (American and or State). So, with the Legislative branch, various social issues deemed innappropriate were declared appropriate because the constitution either did not frown, or frowned upon the barring of it. Women's suffrage, and the Civil Rights movement under Blacks was never solved by a vote. A vote CLEARLY would have been unfair. How is this any different from the Homosexual Movement? Well. that would depend on whether one believes Homosexual Marriage is a SOCIAL or POLITICAL issue.
If it is a social issue, in a perfectly constitutional world, it is to be solved by each individual person, not the government, and certainly not a vote by the common people. This is in fact why our founding fathers avoided a complete democracy. They feared the blindness of the common man.
If it is a political issue, it is to be solved politically...as with a vote or any other sort of democratic function installed into our constitution.
So yes, the Anti Gay Marriage group won 53% to 47%. But, is this fair to be put up to a vote anyway?
Think about it. Votes are subject to bias. The Constitution is as well, though a lot less and a lot more open to interpretation...hence why the Legislative Branch interprets and decides what the government can and can't allow...or better what what it can and cannot enforce.
Constitutionally, and I believe the founding fathers did this on purpose, you CANNOT enforce a rule saying a church CAN or CANNOT wed whosoever they wish.
Every state allowing gay marriage decided it through Legislation AS IT SHOULD. Now, with votes, it's going to hell. It's like we're reversing what we've done in spite of our constitution.

It's like New York holding a vote on whether or not to illegalize being goth. The Prep Side wins with 54%, and the Goth side loses with 46%. It directly goes against the first ammendment. As does outlawing gay marriage. If one wishes to express their love through marriage, the government has no say in it. But this also depends on whether you believe marriage is a RELIGIOUS issue or not.
Someone enlighten me in law, please.
TL;DR?
Homosexual Marriage- Social or Political Issue? Religious or Non-religious ruling? Does the government have the right to ban it through a common vote?

1- You talk about the founding fathers - the founding fathers NEVER would have accepted the civil rights movement or women's suffrage or viewed blacks as equals.

You should never rely on the intent of the founding fathers as an argument for liberty in general.

2- Women's suffrage and black rights WERE put to the vote in SOME places and failed e.g. 1867: Kansas holds the first referendum on women's suffrage in the U.S. The measure fails. Also in Sweden.

The women's suffrage and black rights were different from gay marriage because they took to the streets and got militant and had enough numbers that the rest of society just had to go along with it. The repercussions from putting it to a vote everywhere was too much. Or else you can be damn sure the measures would have gotten voted right back out.

So my first main point is that those movements could and were put to vote in some instances, and that the gay marriage issue is no different.

My second main point is that it is constitutional because the constitution makes provision for it. The constitution allows ANY topic to be voted on, and that includes amending the constitution itself.

The word you are looking for is "unethical" i.e. is it ethical to vote on these things.

[Decapitated Victim]

Phantomboy411

Akiroti

Phantomboy411

another thing, we talk about the civil rights movement, women's suffrage movement, etc., but the thing is, those were MOVEMENTS. they had organized protests and leaders, and worked hard to make change for their rights. now, unless i'm mistaken, the only thing gay people can't legally is marry most of the time, and the only thing that's going to change that is if they actually make a move. protest or something. otherwise, we're stuck with voting.

In each campaign the gays have done way more than the anti-gays. They've marched, they've been to Washington, They've met the President, they've protested. This IS a movement. It may not be of the same magnitude, but you can't deny its existence.

hmm... i suppose not. however, it doesn't seem like one can deny the distinct lack of media coverage, either. probably b/c this doesn't affect a large portion of the population.

This right here just made me ripshit.

Of COURSE this issue lacks the proper amount of media coverage !
A large percent of our media corporations who deliver us the 'news' are conservative.
For example, Fox News is just about as conservative as it gets.
Do you think they are going to run a news story on all the Gay Rights Marches/Parades/Walks that have been going on (and I KNOW they've been going on, because I've been attending them !) ?
And even if they did, they most certainly would not present it in a liberal way. They would twist the story somehow (as news stations do) to make it look how THEY want it to look.

So, just because this issue receives improper news coverage does NOT mean it isn't an important issue to many Americans.

And as for effecting a large portion of the population, obviously it does effect many, or every Christian and Homophobe in the state wouldn't be rushing to restrain the rights of their fellow man !

[Decapitated Victim]

M. Angel

Phantomboy411

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

I laugh at the over generalization, but I agree with the concept. You can't promote the "Gay Pride" culture one minute and then say that gays need marriage because they're the same as heterosexuals the next... which is kinda what's going on.

That's like saying that Latino people can't have Latino Pride because they're the same as all the other races.
Yes, we are all human beings, which is why we all deserve equal rights;
But it's not wrong to have pride in our diversity at the same time.

[BaeKim]

Kuchen Fairy

What's the point in letting people vote on an issue if you're only willing to accept or recognise one view?

I agree with you. I'm all for Gay rights but, this type of thing doesn't happen overnight look at the black civil rights movement.

[X_Torric_X]

Decapitated Victim

M. Angel

Phantomboy411

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

I laugh at the over generalization, but I agree with the concept. You can't promote the "Gay Pride" culture one minute and then say that gays need marriage because they're the same as heterosexuals the next... which is kinda what's going on.

That's like saying that Latino people can't have Latino Pride because they're the same as all the other races.
Yes, we are all human beings, which is why we all deserve equal rights;
But it's not wrong to have pride in our diversity at the same time.

I disagree with the first sentence.If you're gonna have Latino Pride, that's cool. But if you're gonna have Latino Pride in another country, but not have pride in said country,then why bother being there?

[Decapitated Victim]

Asevenex

Decapitated Victim

M. Angel

Phantomboy411

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

I laugh at the over generalization, but I agree with the concept. You can't promote the "Gay Pride" culture one minute and then say that gays need marriage because they're the same as heterosexuals the next... which is kinda what's going on.

That's like saying that Latino people can't have Latino Pride because they're the same as all the other races.
Yes, we are all human beings, which is why we all deserve equal rights;
But it's not wrong to have pride in our diversity at the same time.

I disagree with the first sentence.If you're gonna have Latino Pride, that's cool. But if you're gonna have Latino Pride in another country, but not have pride in said country,then why bother being there?

See, my comparison relates to the subject of gay pride.
Which is what I was trying to defend.
With yours...
I just got lost.

Care to explain ?

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

Votes are unfair because someone has to lose out. Well done, you've discovered the problem with democracy that's been troubling populations for decades.