Maine's Question 1

[Scam of God]

Good job Maine!

And it's funny to see the left wanting to do to the right what they think the right is doing to them. Idiotic hypocrites like JFraud and Kucinishisdabest.

So you approve of the government denying the will of private institutions in this area?

The same logic applies to business regulations.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Oh wow.

Gays will be PISSED.

And rightfully so, as we've just democratized the right of personal freedom in this nation. And if you were remotely committed to the concept of small government as you pretend to be, you would be, too.

It's a state's right to define marriage.

No, it isn't. That's the point you dumbass New Rightists have never understood. It is the right of the institution which performs marriage to define it. If some sect wanted to perform a gay wedding, the State has no authority whatsoever to countermand that, because it is a private institution.

There are 2 types of marriage:

Marriage the social/religious construct, which is a right - you have the right to participate in the act of a symbolic ceremony.
2. Marriag the civil contract, which the state has a right to define the parameters of that contract.

[Scam of God]

Good job Maine!

And it's funny to see the left wanting to do to the right what they think the right is doing to them. Idiotic hypocrites like JFraud and Kucinishisdabest.

Eye for an eye, idiot.

You're fighting the wrong battle. Call them out directly, using their principles. Shove it under their nose like you would a dog that took a big s**t right where he sleeps.

[Marokai Backbeat]

So, just out of pure curiosity, you would defend the right of the state to define marriage as an institution excluding mixed race couples, yes?

[MasterJedi]

Good job Maine!

And it's funny to see the left wanting to do to the right what they think the right is doing to them. Idiotic hypocrites like JFraud and Kucinishisdabest.

Eye for an eye, idiot.

Someone's up past their bedtime and mad they didn't get their way tonight!

[Scam of God]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

[Sam Spade]

btw I fully expect to be ragged for my optimistic prediction of a large No win.  I think the Yes campaign was better run than I saw on the surface and really got the Catholic and rural voters to turn out better than the No's thought they were doing with younger voters.

At least Washington barely didn't take away more rights from the gays.

Eh, I wouldn't worry.  We all f-up here and again.  I had one major f-up tonight too.

[MasterJedi]

So, just out of pure curiosity, you would defend the right of the state to define marriage as an institution excluding mixed race couples, yes?

Me or Inks?

[Marokai Backbeat]

So, just out of pure curiosity, you would defend the right of the state to define marriage as an institution excluding mixed race couples, yes?

Me or Inks?

Inks.

[Scam of God]

In other words: I like big government - when it does what I want.

The entire conservative movement in this country ought to be bulldozed over and salted.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

And the moral of this story is:

Civil Unions with full benefits = Win!

"Gay Marriage" led by radical activists who probably want to sue God because two men can't naturally bear a child = Fail.

[Phony Moderate]

Good job Maine!

And it's funny to see the left wanting to do to the right what they think the right is doing to them. Idiotic hypocrites like JFraud and Kucinishisdabest.

Eye for an eye, idiot.

You're fighting the wrong battle. Call them out directly, using their principles. Shove it under their nose like you would a dog that took a big s**t right where he sleeps.

He's the one who believes in a book which says that anyone working on the sabbath should be killed, and yet he picks and chooses which part of the book he wants to follow, like all Christians really.

Peace is the absence of a threat.... this is why religion has to be completely eradicated....

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So, just out of pure curiosity, you would defend the right of the state to define marriage as an institution excluding mixed race couples, yes?

No - Loving v. Virginia has shown why that's unconstitutional.  Now you're going to bring up that Loving v. VA should be used in gay marriage, and I would respond with Hernandez v. Robles, as well as the fact that the law being looked at in Loving was much different than laws prohibiting gay marriage.  In Loving, the ceremony of marriage as well was being outlawed, and the law assumed that if you were living together and were an inter-racial couple, you were married (if you had gone out of state for the ceremony).  You also have to look at Loving's statement that marriage is a civil right, sourced from Skinner v. Oklahoma, which links marriage with procreation.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'm actually surprised by this result. If California and Maine both voted down gay marriage, then is there a state that actually would pass it without a judge taking matters into his own hands? While this result does not affect me, I still don't understand why people are so against the idea of allowing gays to marry.

[Scam of God]

And the moral of this story is:

Civil Unions with full benefits = Win!

"Gay Marriage" led by radical activists who probably want to sue God because two men can't naturally bear a child = Fail.

I like waffles, but I'm absolutely terrified you'll drown if you keep pouring syrup over yourself.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

Disagreeing with my statement is just pure ignorance.  Currently, there are 2 forms of marriage.

I would have no problem eliminating government marriage - I see no reason why we should be giving tax benefits to married couples - it's insulting to people who never find love.

But, for now, we do have government marriage, and the state has a right to define t.

[Marokai Backbeat]

So, just out of pure curiosity, you would defend the right of the state to define marriage as an institution excluding mixed race couples, yes?

No - Loving v. Virginia has shown why that's unconstitutional.  Now you're going to bring up that Loving v. VA should be used in gay marriage, and I would respond with Hernandez v. Robles, as well as the fact that the law being looked at in Loving was much different than laws prohibiting gay marriage.  In Loving, the ceremony of marriage as well was being outlawed, and the law assumed that if you were living together and were an inter-racial couple, you were married (if you had gone out of state for the ceremony).  You also have to look at Loving's statement that marriage is a civil right, sourced from Skinner v. Oklahoma, which links marriage with procreation.

Skinner v. Oklahoma is a case from the early 40's and deals with compulsory sterilization. Marriage has nothing to do with procreation anyway. You can point to Loving v. Virginia as to why you think such a thing would be unconstitutional but I could just as easily point to numerous court cases in the United States (not to mention the ones all over the world that come to similar conclusions) that say preventing same-sex marriage is unconstitutional on similar if not identical grounds.

You can't just pick what you think is unconstitutional and what you don't think is unconstitutional when both are viewed unconstitutional in the eyes of many courts for the same reason. Your entire objection to the hypothetical action of preventing interracial marriage is incoherent since you would support the exact same type of action for another group.

If you believe the state has the right to alter the contract of marriage how it sees fit, then you believe the state has the right to alter it to prevent interracial marriages. Your inconsistent reasoning is just a thin veil for the fact that you don't support it for gay people. Simple as that.

[Meeker]

The most discouraging part of this whole thing is the impact it's going to have on the national movement. This'll probably stop marriage equality in New York and Rhode Island dead in it's tracks, and would've also in New Jersey (it's dead there now for another big, fat reason).

God I'm pissed.

[Scam of God]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

Disagreeing with my statement is just pure ignorance.  Currently, there are 2 forms of marriage.

I don't care what there is currently. I care about what matters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that's why you're a big-government theocrat, and not a small-government conservative. As I said elsewhere: you mistake authoritarianism for conservatism. The State has no right whatsoever to interfere in the private personal life of the free individual.

[Lunar]

And the moral of this story is:

Civil Unions with full benefits = Win!

That wasn't what the Yes campaign was based on, it was based on incoherent fear tactics arguing that gay marriage is somehow going to be a class taught in school or that parents are going to have to explain to their kids the details of anal sex.

The No campaign seemed to do everything right from what I saw on the surface, I wonder where things broke down.  It could just be that despite not being that religious, Maine is still rural and Catholic and it was a special election and all that jazz was just literally impossible to overcome.

[Phony Moderate]

And the moral of this story is:

Civil Unions with full benefits = Win!

"Gay Marriage" led by radical activists who probably want to sue God because two men can't naturally bear a child = Fail.

So i guess you are in favor of banning infertile staight people from getting married?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I'm surprised the anti-gay marriage side actually did better here than in California, given that I had thought Maine was far more socially liberal.

[Scam of God]

And the moral of this story is:

Civil Unions with full benefits = Win!

"Gay Marriage" led by radical activists who probably want to sue God because two men can't naturally bear a child = Fail.

So i guess you are in favor of banning infertile staight people from getting married?

He's in favor of anything that doesn't upset the delicate status-quo within the Republican Party, even if it means selling out again and again and again on the vital issues.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So, just out of pure curiosity, you would defend the right of the state to define marriage as an institution excluding mixed race couples, yes?

No - Loving v. Virginia has shown why that's unconstitutional.  Now you're going to bring up that Loving v. VA should be used in gay marriage, and I would respond with Hernandez v. Robles, as well as the fact that the law being looked at in Loving was much different than laws prohibiting gay marriage.  In Loving, the ceremony of marriage as well was being outlawed, and the law assumed that if you were living together and were an inter-racial couple, you were married (if you had gone out of state for the ceremony).  You also have to look at Loving's statement that marriage is a civil right, sourced from Skinner v. Oklahoma, which links marriage with procreation.

Skinner v. Oklahoma is a case from the early 40's and deals with compulsory sterilization. Marriage has nothing to do with procreation anyway. You can point to Loving v. Virginia as to why you think such a thing would be unconstitutional but I could just as easily point to numerous court cases in the United States (not to mention the ones all over the world that come to similar conclusions) that say preventing same-sex marriage is unconstitutional on similar if not identical grounds.

You can't just pick what you think is unconstitutional and what you don't think is unconstitutional when both are viewed unconstitutional in the eyes of many courts for the same reason. Your entire objection to the hypothetical action of preventing interracial marriage is incoherent since you would support the exact same type of action for another group.

If you believe the state has the right to alter the contract of marriage how it sees fit, then you believe the state has the right to alter it to prevent interracial marriages. Your inconsistent reasoning is just a thin veil for the fact that you don't support it for gay people. Simple as that.

Skinner v. OK was the precedent behind Loving v. VA when the Court said that marriage is a civil right.

I'm merely saying that Loving doesn't apply to gay marriage becaue it doesn't - Hernandez v. Robles backs me up on that.  So if you don't use the Loving case (a.k.a. the 14th amendment equal protection clause), what do you use to say that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

In other words: I like big government - when it does what I want.

The entire conservative movement in this country ought to be bulldozed over and salted.

Way to show the tollerance that you argue I should be showing.

And the moral of this story is:

Civil Unions with full benefits = Win!

"Gay Marriage" led by radical activists who probably want to sue God because two men can't naturally bear a child = Fail.

Civil unions or marriage - it doesn't matter what you call it.  The only reason people are more ok with civil unions is because they connect the religious/social construct of marriage with the the civil contract of marriage.

Like I was saying before - there are 2 definitions of marriage, and that's why there's a problem.