Some comfort for gay rights supporters...

[JSojourner]

I know it's not marriage, and I know it's not the whole state of Maine.  But...

http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2009/11/anti-discrimination_ordinance_1.html


Nice MOV too.  Encouraging news from a fairly conservative part of the state.  Christian radio station WFRN in Elkhart, Indiana (which broadcasts into K'mazoo) was feverishly trying to gin up opposition to this. 

[Joe Biden 2020]

My advice to gay marriage advocates.  Let the courts decide, because everytime you put it on the ballot its gone down in flames, see Maine, California, and all the states that voted on it in 2004.

I'm not advocating one way or the other, just stating the facts.

[Alexander Hamilton]

My advice to gay marriage advocates.  Let the courts decide, because everytime you put it on the ballot its gone down in flames, see Maine, California, and all the states that voted on it in 2004.

I'm not advocating one way or the other, just stating the facts.

LOL they don't choose to put it on the ballots. LMAO. You actually think they want it on the ballot?

[Padfoot]

My advice to gay marriage advocates.  Let the courts decide, because everytime you put it on the ballot its gone down in flames, see Maine, California, and all the states that voted on it in 2004.

I'm not advocating one way or the other, just stating the facts.

LOL they don't choose to put it on the ballots. LMAO. You actually think they want it on the ballot?

This is true.  It was only on the ballot because the same bigots who whine about judges legislating from the bench whined again when the legislature actually wrote and passed the law.  If the legislature had planned ahead a little bit they could have timed it so any challenge would have ended up on last year's ballot.  Then we'd be applauding the voters of Maine for upholding human rights instead of shaking our heads in disbelief because people couldn't be bothered to show up in an off-year election.

[Vepres]

My advice to gay marriage advocates.  Let the courts decide, because everytime you put it on the ballot its gone down in flames, see Maine, California, and all the states that voted on it in 2004.

I'm not advocating one way or the other, just stating the facts.

LOL they don't choose to put it on the ballots. LMAO. You actually think they want it on the ballot?

This is true.  It was only on the ballot because the same bigots who whine about judges legislating from the bench whined again when the legislature actually wrote and passed the law.  If the legislature had planned ahead a little bit they could have timed it so any challenge would have ended up on last year's ballot.  Then we'd be applauding the voters of Maine for upholding human rights instead of shaking our heads in disbelief because people couldn't be bothered to show up in an off-year election.

Well, it's not like we're not talking about abolishing slavery or anything. I support the pro-gay marriage people and all, but it's really not a big deal compared to other problems.

[Deldem]

My advice to gay marriage advocates.  Let the courts decide, because everytime you put it on the ballot its gone down in flames, see Maine, California, and all the states that voted on it in 2004.

I'm not advocating one way or the other, just stating the facts.

LOL they don't choose to put it on the ballots. LMAO. You actually think they want it on the ballot?

This is true.  It was only on the ballot because the same bigots who whine about judges legislating from the bench whined again when the legislature actually wrote and passed the law.  If the legislature had planned ahead a little bit they could have timed it so any challenge would have ended up on last year's ballot.  Then we'd be applauding the voters of Maine for upholding human rights instead of shaking our heads in disbelief because people couldn't be bothered to show up in an off-year election.

Well, it's not like we're not talking about abolishing slavery or anything. I support the pro-gay marriage people and all, but it's really not a big deal compared to other problems.

Perhaps, but it's still a tragedy that people aren't willing to vote for equality.

[Vepres]

My advice to gay marriage advocates.  Let the courts decide, because everytime you put it on the ballot its gone down in flames, see Maine, California, and all the states that voted on it in 2004.

I'm not advocating one way or the other, just stating the facts.

LOL they don't choose to put it on the ballots. LMAO. You actually think they want it on the ballot?

This is true.  It was only on the ballot because the same bigots who whine about judges legislating from the bench whined again when the legislature actually wrote and passed the law.  If the legislature had planned ahead a little bit they could have timed it so any challenge would have ended up on last year's ballot.  Then we'd be applauding the voters of Maine for upholding human rights instead of shaking our heads in disbelief because people couldn't be bothered to show up in an off-year election.

Well, it's not like we're not talking about abolishing slavery or anything. I support the pro-gay marriage people and all, but it's really not a big deal compared to other problems.

Perhaps, but it's still a tragedy that people aren't willing to vote for equality.

Well, if you grew up with everybody telling you being gay was a sin, what would you believe?

Look, it's not convenient to vote in an off year election with no statewide offices for election and in the winter in Maine. So, no, it's not really a "tragedy". I'm sure there was low gay turnout as well.

[Deldem]

My advice to gay marriage advocates.  Let the courts decide, because everytime you put it on the ballot its gone down in flames, see Maine, California, and all the states that voted on it in 2004.

I'm not advocating one way or the other, just stating the facts.

LOL they don't choose to put it on the ballots. LMAO. You actually think they want it on the ballot?

This is true.  It was only on the ballot because the same bigots who whine about judges legislating from the bench whined again when the legislature actually wrote and passed the law.  If the legislature had planned ahead a little bit they could have timed it so any challenge would have ended up on last year's ballot.  Then we'd be applauding the voters of Maine for upholding human rights instead of shaking our heads in disbelief because people couldn't be bothered to show up in an off-year election.

Well, it's not like we're not talking about abolishing slavery or anything. I support the pro-gay marriage people and all, but it's really not a big deal compared to other problems.

Perhaps, but it's still a tragedy that people aren't willing to vote for equality.

Well, if you grew up with everybody telling you being gay was a sin, what would you believe?

Look, it's not convenient to vote in an off year election with no statewide offices for election and in the winter in Maine. So, no, it's not really a "tragedy". I'm sure there was low gay turnout as well.

I'm talking about in general that it's a tragedy. Maybe I don't understand since I wasn't raised to look down on gays. But I believe it's an injustice that desperately needs to be corrected.
It should have been upheld this year in Maine.
It should have been upheld last year in California.
Bottom line, how do people vote against human rights? It's just incomprehensible to me.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

People aren't voting "against human rights", they are voting not to change the definition of marriage.   Human rights aren't on the ballot, a word in the dictionary is.

[YankeeFan007]

People aren't voting "against human rights", they are voting not to change the definition of marriage.   Human rights aren't on the ballot, a word in the dictionary is.

That's how you see it.  I see it as a attack against the human rights of gays and lesbians by old homophobes and religious zealots.  If marriage truly is a religious institution, then the government should not be dictating who gets married and who doesn't.  That is completely unconstitutional.  On the other hands, civil unions for all people is perfectly constitutional.       

[Lunar]

People aren't voting "against human rights", they are voting not to change the definition of marriage.   Human rights aren't on the ballot, a word in the dictionary is.

Actually they are voting to change it since the status quo was gay marriage.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

My advice to gay marriage advocates.  Let the courts decide, because everytime you put it on the ballot its gone down in flames, see Maine, California, and all the states that voted on it in 2004.

I'm not advocating one way or the other, just stating the facts.

Both the states you mentioned had the legislature pass it. Vermont and New Hampshire got gay marriage entirely via the legislative process. Anyways, they didn't choose to put it on the ballot.

[Alexander Hamilton]

People aren't voting "against human rights", they are voting not to change the definition of marriage.   Human rights aren't on the ballot, a word in the dictionary is.

Actually they are voting to change it since the status quo was gay marriage.

No, they are simply restoring the status quo.

[Lunar]

People aren't voting "against human rights", they are voting not to change the definition of marriage.   Human rights aren't on the ballot, a word in the dictionary is.

Actually they are voting to change it since the status quo was gay marriage.

No, they are simply restoring the status quo.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

[Alexander Hamilton]

People aren't voting "against human rights", they are voting not to change the definition of marriage.   Human rights aren't on the ballot, a word in the dictionary is.

Actually they are voting to change it since the status quo was gay marriage.

No, they are simply restoring the status quo.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Yes it does, considering the brevity of the period in which said marriages were legal.

[Lunar]

People aren't voting "against human rights", they are voting not to change the definition of marriage.   Human rights aren't on the ballot, a word in the dictionary is.

Actually they are voting to change it since the status quo was gay marriage.

No, they are simply restoring the status quo.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Yes it does, considering the brevity of the period in which said marriages were legal.

Do you know what status quo means?

[Alexander Hamilton]

People aren't voting "against human rights", they are voting not to change the definition of marriage.   Human rights aren't on the ballot, a word in the dictionary is.

Actually they are voting to change it since the status quo was gay marriage.

No, they are simply restoring the status quo.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Yes it does, considering the brevity of the period in which said marriages were legal.

Do you know what status quo means?

Yes. And I don't view it as immediate, similar to the difference between "velocity" and "relative velocity."

[Mechaman]

My advice to gay marriage advocates.  Let the courts decide, because everytime you put it on the ballot its gone down in flames, see Maine, California, and all the states that voted on it in 2004.

I'm not advocating one way or the other, just stating the facts.

LOL they don't choose to put it on the ballots. LMAO. You actually think they want it on the ballot?

This is true.  It was only on the ballot because the same bigots who whine about judges legislating from the bench whined again when the legislature actually wrote and passed the law.  If the legislature had planned ahead a little bit they could have timed it so any challenge would have ended up on last year's ballot.  Then we'd be applauding the voters of Maine for upholding human rights instead of shaking our heads in disbelief because people couldn't be bothered to show up in an off-year election.

Well, it's not like we're not talking about abolishing slavery or anything. I support the pro-gay marriage people and all, but it's really not a big deal compared to other problems.

Perhaps, but it's still a tragedy that people aren't willing to vote for equality.

Well, if you grew up with everybody telling you being gay was a sin, what would you believe?

Look, it's not convenient to vote in an off year election with no statewide offices for election and in the winter in Maine. So, no, it's not really a "tragedy". I'm sure there was low gay turnout as well.

I'm talking about in general that it's a tragedy. Maybe I don't understand since I wasn't raised to look down on gays. But I believe it's an injustice that desperately needs to be corrected.
It should have been upheld this year in Maine.
It should have been upheld last year in California.
Bottom line, how do people vote against human rights? It's just incomprehensible to me.

I hate to steal Vepres' thunder but Prop 8 was passed IN AN ELECTION YEAR WITH MORE THAN AVERAGE TURNOUT.
Also, I completely agree with Deldem, and I was raised most of my life in Oklaf**kinghoma.

[Scam of God]

The fact of the matter is that the majority shouldn't be permitted to decide the rights of the individual at any rate. We are not a democracy; we are a republic, and republicanism (not Republicanism) means that such matters shouldn't be put to a vote.

[Lunar]

true dat, democracy is a means to an end, not the end in and of itself

[Landslide Lyndon]

Ballot initiatives that repeal laws enacted by the legislature and elected judges are IMHO two instances where Democracy goes too far.

[Badger]

Where there same sex marriages in Maine after the bill was passed, or was implementation of the law stayed pending the referendum? If the former, any analysis out there what happens to the marriages of those gays and lesbians?

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Where there same sex marriages in Maine after the bill was passed, or was implementation of the law stayed pending the referendum? If the former, any analysis out there what happens to the marriages of those gays and lesbians?

No, the law wouldn't be enacted unless the people voted No.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Bottom line, how do people vote against human rights? It's just incomprehensible to me.

Because they do not see it as a right.

[Sbane]

Bottom line, how do people vote against human rights? It's just incomprehensible to me.

Because they do not see it as a right.

Getting allowed to marry the one you love isn't a right? Of course the real answer is that those people feel homosexuals made a "choice" and shouldn't be allowed to dirty the "institution of marriage" on their whims and fancies.