Maine's Question 1

[Alexander Hamilton]

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?

So why not focus instead on removing those unnecessary benefits from married people? Why not equality for single people? Seriously? Who cares if it's two people or three people or one person? How should a relationship status play a role in government benefits?

[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.

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.

But they don't have the right to marry the person they love.

[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.

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

My social score is actually lower, I just forgot to update and lost the results.

[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.

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

No, it does not. And that it chooses to do so today - just as it opts to regulate business - is a massive overstepping of its boundaries. If we had genuinely impartial Supreme Court justices, they've have struck down Question 1 yesterday.

[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.

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.

He raises a valid point - one that I essentially made, in different words - gays have the right to get married, they just have to abide by the parameters of the civil contract that the government establishes.

[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.

But they don't have the right to marry the person they love.

Neither do I, depending on who I love.

[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?

No, it does not. And that it chooses to do so today - just as it opts to regulate business - is a massive overstepping of its boundaries. If we had genuinely impartial Supreme Court justices, they've have struck down Question 1 yesterday.

And should we be giving benefits to married people, like tax cuts?

[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.

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

He raises a valid point - one that I essentially made, in different words - gays have the right to get married, they just have to abide by the parameters of the civil contract that the government establishes.

Which, in turn, begs the question: why does the government have any right to set the parameters of any contract between individuals? It doesn't.

[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.

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.

But they don't have the right to marry the person they love.

Neither do I, depending on who I love.

Strawman.

[Alcon]

So why not focus instead on removing those unnecessary benefits from married people?

I would be happy to, but that political position is dead in the water.

Why not equality for single people? Seriously? Who cares if it's two people or three people or one person? How should a relationship status play a role in government benefits?

There are some rational arguments for the financial situation of partnered persons being different from that of non-partnered persons.  But none of the rational arguments apply to separating any such recognition by sexual orientation.  I would love if government got out of the "marriage" business.  But if they won't, and they certainly won't if we keep voting for "marriage = man + woman" resolutions.  Gay marriage not be the ideal situation, but it is more equitable and is less likely to complete eliminate the consideration of alternative arrangements than "marriage = man + woman + state."

[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.

He raises a valid point - one that I essentially made, in different words - gays have the right to get married, they just have to abide by the parameters of the civil contract that the government establishes.

Oh, that's not authoritarian at all. You're essentially using what Michel Foucault called negative power - coercion, rather than brute force, to get your way. And it's intellectually dishonest.

Didn't you know Jesus hates liars?

[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.

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.

He raises a valid point - one that I essentially made, in different words - gays have the right to get married, they just have to abide by the parameters of the civil contract that the government establishes.

Which, in turn, begs the question: why does the government have any right to set the parameters of any contract between individuals? It doesn't.

Because the government created the contract.

[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.

But they don't have the right to marry the person they love.

Neither do I, depending on who I love.

Strawman.

Cute, coming from you.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Einzige, you haven't answered my question: And should we be giving benefits to married people, like tax cuts?

[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.

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

He raises a valid point - one that I essentially made, in different words - gays have the right to get married, they just have to abide by the parameters of the civil contract that the government establishes.

Which, in turn, begs the question: why does the government have any right to set the parameters of any contract between individuals? It doesn't.

Because the government created the contract.

Individuals create contracts.

[Alexander Hamilton]

So why not focus instead on removing those unnecessary benefits from married people?

I would be happy to, but that political position is dead in the water.

Why not equality for single people? Seriously? Who cares if it's two people or three people or one person? How should a relationship status play a role in government benefits?

There are some rational arguments for the financial situation of partnered persons being different from that of non-partnered persons.  But none of the rational arguments apply to separating any such recognition by sexual orientation.  I would love if government got out of the "marriage" business.  But if they won't, and they certainly won't if we keep voting for "marriage = man + woman" resolutions.  Gay marriage not be the ideal situation, but it is more equitable and is less likely to complete eliminate the consideration of alternative arrangements than "marriage = man + woman + state."

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

[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.

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.

He raises a valid point - one that I essentially made, in different words - gays have the right to get married, they just have to abide by the parameters of the civil contract that the government establishes.

Which, in turn, begs the question: why does the government have any right to set the parameters of any contract between individuals? It doesn't.

Because the government created the contract.

Individuals create contracts.

Individuals enter into the contract.  The state governments established the civil contract of 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.

He raises a valid point - one that I essentially made, in different words - gays have the right to get married, they just have to abide by the parameters of the civil contract that the government establishes.

Which, in turn, begs the question: why does the government have any right to set the parameters of any contract between individuals? It doesn't.

Because the government created the contract.

The government most certainly did not create the contract - unless you want to say that, under a hypothetical American Soviet regime, it would be a-okay to ban Christians from marrying. The Church or other institution of worship created it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Certainly, and you knew I'd agree with it. My position on gay marriage is actually only moderately libertarian: as long as the State is involved, then it must treat its citizens equally by permitting gay marriage. And when it becomes politically viable, then we'd get the State out of the marriage business.

[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.

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.

But they don't have the right to marry the person they love.

Neither do I, depending on who I love.

Strawman.

Cute, coming from you.

Thanks.

You can argue that all individuals have equal rights, but all groups certainly don't.

[Alcon]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

[Mechaman]

Extremely outraged rant mode on now:

WHAT THE FUCKING HELL!? For the second time in a year's span the people of a state have taken away the rights of their fellow man to be legal equals based on their sexual orientation. Once again the people of a state have put government in the position of god to dictate what the hell constitutes a loving relationship between people. Once again I am pissed off beyond measure at the puritanical backasswards medieval mindset of people in this nation. Granted I would prefer no government recognition or authority in cohabitative relationships, but I would rather have all people be legal equals before the law instead of this ridiculous marriage segregation.
Anyone who doesn't see what the big deal about this is or just as bad as wastes of spermcells like Tom Coburn or Sally Kern.

[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.

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.

He raises a valid point - one that I essentially made, in different words - gays have the right to get married, they just have to abide by the parameters of the civil contract that the government establishes.

Which, in turn, begs the question: why does the government have any right to set the parameters of any contract between individuals? It doesn't.

Because the government created the contract.

The government most certainly did not create the contract - unless you want to say that, under a hypothetical American Soviet regime, it would be a-okay to ban Christians from marrying. The Church or other institution of worship created it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Certainly, and you knew I'd agree with it. My position on gay marriage is actually only moderately libertarian: as long as the State is involved, then it must treat its citizens equally by permitting gay marriage. And when it becomes politically viable, then we'd get the State out of the marriage business.

Create was the wrong word - but the governmet has established the civilcontract of marriae.

And if we're giving tax cuts to those who marry, and according to you, the government has no right to regulate who can marry who, then you would also have to allow polygamy, which, if we then gave tax credits to each person who was arried, would make it very economically advantageous to be a polygamist.  It's just not logically sound to say that the government hs no right to regulate marriage, unless you argue that the government completely step way (which is what I think should happen, but until then - the government does have a right to regulate it).

[Alexander Hamilton]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Why does polling matter? We should focus on doing what is right and just, not what is "politically viable." Politically viable gave us unions, the Federal Reserve, and the Iraq War.

[Scam of God]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

[Mechaman]

America: Land of the free, home of the brave, unless they are part of the evil "homosexual agenda".