Maine's Question 1

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

It's a major political issue - how is it not meaningful?

Because there is absolutely no reason for it to be a political issue. But feel free to strawman one out.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

Personal liberty is eminently meaningful. That's the meaning of our nation.

What does this vote have to do at all with personal liberty?

[Alcon]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

Explain how gay marriage affects anyone?  Seriously?

[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 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.

But you didn't say that you were talking about what matters before - you said that I was wrong in saying that there are 2 types of marriage.  Currently there are - and that is what matters, because we are debating the current situation in American politics.

This division doesn't actually exist, save in your head. The only pertinent outside party within the ritualistic contract that is marriage is the Church or other institution that performs it. Society as a greater whole has no concern in it, and ought therefore be kept out of it, on any level, Federal or otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because the individual States can also act as nanny-states. Simply bellowing "states' rights! states' rights!" repeatedly does nothing to further the cause of personal liberty, any more than it did when segregation was still an active practice in the South. Personal freedom is more important than states' rights to the genuine libertarian.

The division does exist - you have the ceremony of marriage and the legal contract of marriage.  It's not like you go to a church to get a divorce - that's a governmental aspect of marriage.

For a very long time, the free market was regarded as a liberating force in society, in which men of any background, any social status, could make good on their inherent potential by allowing the objective forces of the market to equalize any subjective discrepancy in their social relations.

That same principle ought to apply - but does not, in our allegedly 'free' society - to these hot-button controversial issues as well. Marriage is especially important: for marriage is, above all, a contract; and if we applied contract law equally to marriage as we do to every other exchange of material or moral worth, we would find that the State has no business in hindering the formulation of contracts whatsoever.

The exact same principle that leads me to oppose business regulation (whether by the Federal or State governments) leads me to oppose this horrendous measure.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We are increasingly reaching a point in time when this is the basic division in American politics.

I would agree - the government ought not be involved in marriage at all - nobody should be getting tax credits for being married,etc.  Butwhile they are involved in it, they have a right to define it.

No, they don't. The government is also 'involved' in the business of business; that does not give it a right to regulate business as it sees fit.

This isn't regulating marriage - it's legally defining a legal term and legal contract established by the government.  If there was a 3rd party marriage regulation board, it'd be different, but government is creating the legal contract here.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

Explain how gay marriage affects anyone?  Seriously?

Go.

[Scam of God]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

Personal liberty is eminently meaningful. That's the meaning of our nation.

What does this vote have to do at all with personal liberty?

The liberty to define one's own lifestyle goes hand-in-hand with the liberty to live as one chooses: one cannot exist without the other. A self-declared "redneck" has the right to call himself such, and, to make true on his word, to hunt; this means he has the right to own a gun. A self-professed "homosexual" has the right to call himself such, and, to make true on his word, to fall in love; this means he has the right to marry.

[Phony Moderate]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

[Sam Spade]

P
Here is the county map:

Wow, why'd it do so well in Aroostock county? Obama won that county by 10 points, while Question 1 did worse in Piscataquis, McCain's sole county in all of New England.

Those counties are pretty erratic when it comes to voting trends.  Susan Collins got 72% in Aroostook and 66% in Piscataquis.

.....hmmmmm.....

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

It's a major political issue - how is it not meaningful?

Because there is absolutely no reason for it to be a political issue. But feel free to strawman one out.

Ther may be no reason for it to be a political issue, but the majority of Americans and the media are interested in it, making it a political issue that people follow.  Why is any issue a major political issue?

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

Personal liberty is eminently meaningful. That's the meaning of our nation.

What does this vote have to do at all with personal liberty?

The liberty to define one's own lifestyle goes hand-in-hand with the liberty to live as one chooses: one cannot exist without the other. A self-declared "redneck" has the right to call himself such, and, to make true on his word, to hunt; this means he has the right to own a gun. A self-professed "homosexual" has the right to call himself such, and, to make true on his word, to fall in love; this means he has the right to marry.

This measure has nothing to do with defining a lifestyle. Nor does marriage have anything do do with falling in love.

[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.

But you didn't say that you were talking about what matters before - you said that I was wrong in saying that there are 2 types of marriage.  Currently there are - and that is what matters, because we are debating the current situation in American politics.

This division doesn't actually exist, save in your head. The only pertinent outside party within the ritualistic contract that is marriage is the Church or other institution that performs it. Society as a greater whole has no concern in it, and ought therefore be kept out of it, on any level, Federal or otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because the individual States can also act as nanny-states. Simply bellowing "states' rights! states' rights!" repeatedly does nothing to further the cause of personal liberty, any more than it did when segregation was still an active practice in the South. Personal freedom is more important than states' rights to the genuine libertarian.

The division does exist - you have the ceremony of marriage and the legal contract of marriage.  It's not like you go to a church to get a divorce - that's a governmental aspect of marriage.

For a very long time, the free market was regarded as a liberating force in society, in which men of any background, any social status, could make good on their inherent potential by allowing the objective forces of the market to equalize any subjective discrepancy in their social relations.

That same principle ought to apply - but does not, in our allegedly 'free' society - to these hot-button controversial issues as well. Marriage is especially important: for marriage is, above all, a contract; and if we applied contract law equally to marriage as we do to every other exchange of material or moral worth, we would find that the State has no business in hindering the formulation of contracts whatsoever.

The exact same principle that leads me to oppose business regulation (whether by the Federal or State governments) leads me to oppose this horrendous measure.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We are increasingly reaching a point in time when this is the basic division in American politics.

I would agree - the government ought not be involved in marriage at all - nobody should be getting tax credits for being married,etc.  Butwhile they are involved in it, they have a right to define it.

No, they don't. The government is also 'involved' in the business of business; that does not give it a right to regulate business as it sees fit.

This isn't regulating marriage - it's legally defining a legal term and legal contract established by the government.  If there was a 3rd party marriage regulation board, it'd be different, but government is creating the legal contract here.

Ludicrous. No other contract between two private individuals requires the involvement of the State to construct it. Not one. And a person is not a business. As long as this holds true of every other aspect of American contract law, then it is de facto true for marriage as well.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

Because if you can't marry someone of the same sex, you're worthless - that makes perfect sense.

[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.

Liberals need to be less timid about calling the Right "liars" when they are.  Not Joe Wilson style.  But calmly and methodically point out reality:  the Right's real case is too weak so they lie.

I do not believe that's the right strategy.  That was part of the No On 8 campaign's mistake.

Remember, only some of the electorate was "persuaded" by the campaign messaging, No On 8 clearly had better ads that were unafraid to aggressively tackle the Yes side's strengths head-on.  Mostly it was about getting your saints to turn out better than the other side's saints.

Although i personally liked it, it was the Mormon ad that probably lost "No on 8" the election.

lol, no way if we're thinking about the one where the mormons steal those lesbian wedding rings.  It barely made a news buzz, wasn't run by the No On 8 campaign, and probably had something like less than $100k behind it, even if it was $1 million that still means no voters saw the ad.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

What makes gay people in Maine worthless, or any different in worth to any humans anywhere else?

[Phony Moderate]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

Explain how gay marriage affects anyone?  Seriously?

I am going to get you and your wife divorced, whether you like it or not. And you are not allowed to visit her in hospital when she's sick, etc

[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 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.

But you didn't say that you were talking about what matters before - you said that I was wrong in saying that there are 2 types of marriage.  Currently there are - and that is what matters, because we are debating the current situation in American politics.

This division doesn't actually exist, save in your head. The only pertinent outside party within the ritualistic contract that is marriage is the Church or other institution that performs it. Society as a greater whole has no concern in it, and ought therefore be kept out of it, on any level, Federal or otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because the individual States can also act as nanny-states. Simply bellowing "states' rights! states' rights!" repeatedly does nothing to further the cause of personal liberty, any more than it did when segregation was still an active practice in the South. Personal freedom is more important than states' rights to the genuine libertarian.

The division does exist - you have the ceremony of marriage and the legal contract of marriage.  It's not like you go to a church to get a divorce - that's a governmental aspect of marriage.

For a very long time, the free market was regarded as a liberating force in society, in which men of any background, any social status, could make good on their inherent potential by allowing the objective forces of the market to equalize any subjective discrepancy in their social relations.

That same principle ought to apply - but does not, in our allegedly 'free' society - to these hot-button controversial issues as well. Marriage is especially important: for marriage is, above all, a contract; and if we applied contract law equally to marriage as we do to every other exchange of material or moral worth, we would find that the State has no business in hindering the formulation of contracts whatsoever.

The exact same principle that leads me to oppose business regulation (whether by the Federal or State governments) leads me to oppose this horrendous measure.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We are increasingly reaching a point in time when this is the basic division in American politics.

I would agree - the government ought not be involved in marriage at all - nobody should be getting tax credits for being married,etc.  Butwhile they are involved in it, they have a right to define it.

No, they don't. The government is also 'involved' in the business of business; that does not give it a right to regulate business as it sees fit.

This isn't regulating marriage - it's legally defining a legal term and legal contract established by the government.  If there was a 3rd party marriage regulation board, it'd be different, but government is creating the legal contract here.

Ludicrous. No other contract between two private individuals requires the involvement of the State to construct it. Not one. And a person is not a business. As long as this holds true of every other aspect of American contract law, then it is de facto true for marriage as well.

But it is not the government issuing any of those other contracts.  I don't think the government should be issuing the contract of marriage, but while it issuing it, it has the right to set parameters.

[Scam of God]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

Personal liberty is eminently meaningful. That's the meaning of our nation.

What does this vote have to do at all with personal liberty?

The liberty to define one's own lifestyle goes hand-in-hand with the liberty to live as one chooses: one cannot exist without the other. A self-declared "redneck" has the right to call himself such, and, to make true on his word, to hunt; this means he has the right to own a gun. A self-professed "homosexual" has the right to call himself such, and, to make true on his word, to fall in love; this means he has the right to marry.

This measure has nothing to do with defining a lifestyle. Nor does marriage have anything do do with falling in love.

Don't be facile. Everything today is identity politics - the Right practices identity politics more often today than the Left. "Joe the Plumber, ho ho ho!"

[Phony Moderate]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

What makes gay people in Maine worthless, or any different in worth to any humans anywhere else?

The fact that they don't have equal rights and liberty to straight people.

[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.

But you didn't say that you were talking about what matters before - you said that I was wrong in saying that there are 2 types of marriage.  Currently there are - and that is what matters, because we are debating the current situation in American politics.

This division doesn't actually exist, save in your head. The only pertinent outside party within the ritualistic contract that is marriage is the Church or other institution that performs it. Society as a greater whole has no concern in it, and ought therefore be kept out of it, on any level, Federal or otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because the individual States can also act as nanny-states. Simply bellowing "states' rights! states' rights!" repeatedly does nothing to further the cause of personal liberty, any more than it did when segregation was still an active practice in the South. Personal freedom is more important than states' rights to the genuine libertarian.

The division does exist - you have the ceremony of marriage and the legal contract of marriage.  It's not like you go to a church to get a divorce - that's a governmental aspect of marriage.

For a very long time, the free market was regarded as a liberating force in society, in which men of any background, any social status, could make good on their inherent potential by allowing the objective forces of the market to equalize any subjective discrepancy in their social relations.

That same principle ought to apply - but does not, in our allegedly 'free' society - to these hot-button controversial issues as well. Marriage is especially important: for marriage is, above all, a contract; and if we applied contract law equally to marriage as we do to every other exchange of material or moral worth, we would find that the State has no business in hindering the formulation of contracts whatsoever.

The exact same principle that leads me to oppose business regulation (whether by the Federal or State governments) leads me to oppose this horrendous measure.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We are increasingly reaching a point in time when this is the basic division in American politics.

I would agree - the government ought not be involved in marriage at all - nobody should be getting tax credits for being married,etc.  Butwhile they are involved in it, they have a right to define it.

No, they don't. The government is also 'involved' in the business of business; that does not give it a right to regulate business as it sees fit.

This isn't regulating marriage - it's legally defining a legal term and legal contract established by the government.  If there was a 3rd party marriage regulation board, it'd be different, but government is creating the legal contract here.

Ludicrous. No other contract between two private individuals requires the involvement of the State to construct it. Not one. And a person is not a business. As long as this holds true of every other aspect of American contract law, then it is de facto true for marriage as well.

But it is not the government issuing any of those other contracts.  I don't think the government should be issuing the contract of marriage, but while it issuing it, it has the right to set parameters.

No, it doesn't. It might do it anyway, but that doesn't give it the metaphysical right to do it. Merely because something exists does not make it ethically right.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

Explain how gay marriage affects anyone?  Seriously?

I am going to get you and your wife divorced, whether you like it or not. And you are not allowed to visit her in hospital when she's sick, etc

Visiting in a hospital has nothing to do with marriage - there are easy ways to remedy that situation.  It's an overplayed issue by the gay marriage side.

[Alcon]

This measure has nothing to do with defining a lifestyle. Nor does marriage have anything do do with falling in love.

This affects federal tax benefits, which obviously affect people.  Recognition of gay marriage would remove an implied cultural inferiority that has emotional value.

Essentially everything affects something.  You may personally consider those things unimportant, but why is your opinion -- especially on an issue that does not affect you -- paramount?

Visiting in a hospital has nothing to do with marriage - there are easy ways to remedy that situation.  It's an overplayed issue by the gay marriage side.

Have you seen what's involved?  It's not especially easy, and hospitals can freely choose to ignore it (and sometimes do to avoid liability.)

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

What makes gay people in Maine worthless, or any different in worth to any humans anywhere else?

The fact that they don't have equal rights and liberty to straight people.

How do they not have equal rights and liberties? A gay man has the option to marry women. A straight man has the option to marry women. Same for women. No rights are given to one group over the other.

[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 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.

But you didn't say that you were talking about what matters before - you said that I was wrong in saying that there are 2 types of marriage.  Currently there are - and that is what matters, because we are debating the current situation in American politics.

This division doesn't actually exist, save in your head. The only pertinent outside party within the ritualistic contract that is marriage is the Church or other institution that performs it. Society as a greater whole has no concern in it, and ought therefore be kept out of it, on any level, Federal or otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because the individual States can also act as nanny-states. Simply bellowing "states' rights! states' rights!" repeatedly does nothing to further the cause of personal liberty, any more than it did when segregation was still an active practice in the South. Personal freedom is more important than states' rights to the genuine libertarian.

The division does exist - you have the ceremony of marriage and the legal contract of marriage.  It's not like you go to a church to get a divorce - that's a governmental aspect of marriage.

For a very long time, the free market was regarded as a liberating force in society, in which men of any background, any social status, could make good on their inherent potential by allowing the objective forces of the market to equalize any subjective discrepancy in their social relations.

That same principle ought to apply - but does not, in our allegedly 'free' society - to these hot-button controversial issues as well. Marriage is especially important: for marriage is, above all, a contract; and if we applied contract law equally to marriage as we do to every other exchange of material or moral worth, we would find that the State has no business in hindering the formulation of contracts whatsoever.

The exact same principle that leads me to oppose business regulation (whether by the Federal or State governments) leads me to oppose this horrendous measure.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We are increasingly reaching a point in time when this is the basic division in American politics.

I would agree - the government ought not be involved in marriage at all - nobody should be getting tax credits for being married,etc.  Butwhile they are involved in it, they have a right to define it.

No, they don't. The government is also 'involved' in the business of business; that does not give it a right to regulate business as it sees fit.

This isn't regulating marriage - it's legally defining a legal term and legal contract established by the government.  If there was a 3rd party marriage regulation board, it'd be different, but government is creating the legal contract here.

Ludicrous. No other contract between two private individuals requires the involvement of the State to construct it. Not one. And a person is not a business. As long as this holds true of every other aspect of American contract law, then it is de facto true for marriage as well.

But it is not the government issuing any of those other contracts.  I don't think the government should be issuing the contract of marriage, but while it issuing it, it has the right to set parameters.

No, it doesn't. It might do it anyway, but that doesn't give it the metaphysical right to do it. Merely because something exists does not make it ethically right.

So does the government have any right to set parameters on marriage?

[Scam of God]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

What makes gay people in Maine worthless, or any different in worth to any humans anywhere else?

The fact that they don't have equal rights and liberty to straight people.

How do they not have equal rights and liberties? A gay man has the option to marry women. A straight man has the option to marry women. Same for women. No rights are given to one group over the other.

This argument is almost as stupid as reverse racism. Please, change your social score.