[ 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

[Sexual Liberationist]

Vixianna

ennaelatan

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.

You do realize that's stupid as hell, because it's going to be voted through right? Let's try something that will actually help the Gay community neh?

Put to a vote whether fundamentalist Christians can marry. A ban would be affirmed in some places, I'm sure....

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Homosexual Marriage- Social or Political Issue?
Both.

Religious or Non-religious ruling?
Both.

Does the government have the right to ban it through a common vote?
Yes, as that was what was effectively done to communism in America in the first World War.

[Population Tire]

No, it was not constitutional for them to even have the issue be up for a vote. There is nothing stating that a man cannot marry another man in the constitution or any amendment thereof. Seeing as America is based on freedoms and not restrictions, as a country which should ideally be morally upstanding, and seeing as this is a national issue, there should simply be no question. Gay marriage should just be outright legalized, there's no excuse for it not to be, at least not one that holds constitutionally. No religious argument can work since that's unconstitutional. No "choice" argument can work because straight marriage is a choice as well, and plus, that's a religiously charged argument and thus won't work either. Since homophobia itself is based on religious bigotry and fear of the different by the close-minded majority, the constitution basically stomps any argument that bigots can make.

I wish there wasn't more work to do than that. Still, those jackasses who voted this down in Maine and are working their hardest to ensure their place in history as the enemies of freedom aren't going to stop now, and neither can we. I mean otherwise what's the point of America? The point of America is freedom, and to not have that is one of the most un-American things I can imagine.

[Eloquently]

Politicians are more biased than the common people. They vote for what they think will keep them in office. Just because most of maine doesn't with you, does not make them wrong OR biased.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Population Tire

No, it was not constitutional for them to even have the issue be up for a vote. There is nothing stating that a man cannot marry another man in the constitution or any amendment thereof. Seeing as America is based on freedoms and not restrictions, as a country which should ideally be morally upstanding, and seeing as this is a national issue, there should simply be no question. Gay marriage should just be outright legalized, there's no excuse for it not to be, at least not one that holds constitutionally. No religious argument can work since that's unconstitutional. No "choice" argument can work because straight marriage is a choice as well, and plus, that's a religiously charged argument and thus won't work either. Since homophobia itself is based on religious bigotry and fear of the different by the close-minded majority, the constitution basically stomps any argument that bigots can make.

I wish there wasn't more work to do than that. Still, those jackasses who voted this down in Maine and are working their hardest to ensure their place in history as the enemies of freedom aren't going to stop now, and neither can we. I mean otherwise what's the point of America? The point of America is freedom, and to not have that is one of the most un-American things I can imagine.

There are many things in the Constitution that go unmentioned, yet still form essential elements of American political life, culture, and government, so its irrelevant to say that matters may not be considered or legislated upon simply because it is not mentioned.

Ours is a mixed system, and we have never valued personal freedom exclusively and always over order and the community.

[Mistress of Delights]

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.

There's not much proof that slaves built the pyramids.

[M. Angel]

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.

So is it time to have a Northern European (White) Pride parade then? Oh wait...

The thing you misunderstand is that the Gay Pride culture is exactly counter to the idea of marriage. "Lets go out and have as much casual sex and partying as we want." This is also what is promoted by LGBT and other organizations. The whole "pride" is that it usually implies that there is a culture, but the gay pride culture goes completely against the idea of marriage. This wouldn't be a problem in of itself, but when the same groups that are advocating gay marriage are also advocating gay pride, we have a problem with consistancy.

[Methcalarjalope]

When is voting unfair? Gay marriage is not quite the same as basic civil rights to drink water from a public fountain and to attend the school of your choice. Civil rights are about those basic life and death issues. The Gay community is not "at one" with regard to Gay marriage.

Why not give the people some time to get used to the idea before throat shoving it? Throat shoving was fail during reconstruction and lead to a backlash against freed slaves.

[Consecrated Oblivion]

Methcalarjalope

When is voting unfair? Gay marriage is not quite the same as basic civil rights to drink water from a public fountain and to attend the school of your choice. Civil rights are about those basic life and death issues. The Gay community is not "at one" with regard to Gay marriage.

Why not give the people some time to get used to the idea before throat shoving it? Throat shoving was fail during reconstruction and lead to a backlash against freed slaves.

When is the right to hospital visits and other things associated with marriage not "basic life and death issues"?

If we rely on giving people time to get used to it, then there will never be equality for gays. Given that humanity is a young race, I would normally agree with you, but the ramifications for gay individuals are too extreme for us to rely on the young age of the human race. They've had a few millennia to get used to it, and if we're only just now accepting homosexuality in a relatively wide-scale way, it'll take a few more millennia until the general populous is accepting enough to bring about equality.

I'm all for giving them time, and I don't want to make people uncomfortable, but if letting them be comfortable with themselves means putting gay individuals through injustice, and making them wait through the ramifications associated with that injustice, then I have realized that the comfort is not as sacred as the urgency of this situation.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Methcalarjalope

When is voting unfair? Gay marriage is not quite the same as basic civil rights to drink water from a public fountain and to attend the school of your choice. Civil rights are about those basic life and death issues. The Gay community is not "at one" with regard to Gay marriage.

Why not give the people some time to get used to the idea before throat shoving it? Throat shoving was fail during reconstruction and lead to a backlash against freed slaves.

Then why is speech or religion a civil right? Last I checked, no one died or lived, in any sort of sense akin to water or food, because he was bared from saying or not saying something or worshiping in this way or not at all.

And, as a matter of correction, radical reconstruction was not successful mainly because the same sort of politicians that were in charge of the Confederation were restored to power, and that the effort stopped short in terms of time.

[ennaelatan]

Vixianna

You do realize that's stupid as hell, because it's going to be voted through right? Let's try something that will actually help the Gay community neh?

The point I was trying to make is simple. If heterosexual marriage is treated the same as homosexual marriage, then the heterosexuals who are still on the fence will realize how wrong it is to have your marriage rights decided by someone who won't be affected by those rights. The heterosexuals who are deadset against homosexual marriage will lash out against the vote and feel the same way that the homosexual population feels now about marriage.

[BaeKim]

Sexual Liberationist

Vixianna

ennaelatan

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.

You do realize that's stupid as hell, because it's going to be voted through right? Let's try something that will actually help the Gay community neh?

Put to a vote whether fundamentalist Christians can marry. A ban would be affirmed in some places, I'm sure....

I want the three seconds on my life it took to read that back. That is a ridiculous idea and I can not tell if you are being serious or not.

[ennaelatan]

BaeKim

I want the three seconds on my life it took to read that back. That is a ridiculous idea and I can not tell if you are being serious or not.

It's highly unlikely that the vote would lead to a ban. The voting process itself is what would actually matter in that scenario.

[I got bored one day]

Le Cynique

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

Under U.S. law marriage iis a privilege.

[marshmallowcreampie]

Cutie-pie Sleepyhead

Le Cynique

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

Under U.S. law marriage iis a privilege.

If that's the case, why should heterosexual couples be allowed this priviledge, but not gay couples?