Print
E-mail
Tell us what you think!Send a letter to the editor about this or any other article in The Maine Campus.
I’m not angry, Maine. I’m just disappointed. You were given the chance to protect minority rights against the forces of bigotry and hate, and you failed. You failed to change history. You failed to protect me, and I am taking this personally.
I’ve spoken to many people who voted yes on Question 1. Most of them had nothing to do with the campaign. They didn’t dislike gay people or gay rights. They had excuses like, “I don’t think marriage should be up to the government, anyway.” Is that what we were voting on?
Others would say, “Well, if we could have civil unions, it would piss off less people.” Is that what we were voting on?
Were we voting on anything other than the expansion of legal rights of a minority who has been deprived of this right for too long?
“We all know we were the little guy going up against the big guy, but we prevailed,” said Marc Mutty, chairman of Stand For Marriage Maine. I cannot believe how angry a single quote can make me.
Are you serious, Marc? Do you really believe picking on a sexual minority is a fight against “the big guy?” The only big guy you were battling was the American Constitution, which guarantees the right of liberty to all Americans. It seems that “big guy” doesn’t have many defenders these days.
You failed, Maine. Tell that to yourself again and again. You failed. I’m disappointed and I’m appalled. You let a religious law — let’s be honest here, it is a religious law — take precedence over individual freedom.
I am ashamed to admit I am a religious person today. I love God, and my relationship with him is something I wouldn’t give up for the world. Even if my religion included faith in the word of the Bible, which does state that homosexuality is an abomination, I would have voted no on Question 1. Any Christian who used the Bible as an excuse to vote yes is fooling himself.
Christians, please. Stop using your Bible to shape our non-Christian government. Sure, the Bible has some great rules, but most of them are impractical for governing. What if we had “turned the other cheek” after 9/11? It would have been disastrous. If you want to stop homosexuals from having homosexual sex, then do it on your own time, not my government’s time. I write “my government” because regardless of last night’s results, it is still mine as well as yours. I may be a second-class citizen, but I’m still a citizen.
And don’t even try to tell me “homosexual sex” would have been taught in schools to seven-year-olds. I don’t know if you’ve checked your own state’s laws recently, but local districts decide the sex and family curriculum for each school. No teacher worth his or her salt would explain homosexual sex in graphic terms to a 7-year-old. If they do, it’s the teacher, not the marriage rights of every homosexual in Maine, who should take the blame.
I’m not angry, Maine — just disappointed. You let hatred, confusion, misinformation and ignorance emerge victorious over liberty. More importantly, you let Maine families down. I cannot believe the opponents of marriage equality think they are preserving marriage. They are letting it crumble away into oblivion, an outdated model that serves fewer and fewer people. Our society needs marriages and families. When the divorce rate in Maine continues to rise from 46 percent to 50, 60 or 70 percent, you will have the “Yes on 1” campaign to blame. They didn’t preserve marriage. They mummified it alive.
Samantha Hansen is a junior political science student.
Related Posts:- Voters veto gay marriage (November 4, 2009)
- Column: Christian support for marriage equality in Maine (September 17, 2009)
- Maine to vote on gay marriage in Nov. (September 10, 2009)
- Op-Ed: Majority rule unfair in process for marriage equality (September 17, 2009)
- Opportunity Maine going to the voters (March 1, 2007)
While I do agree with the need to protect and even expand minority rights, I disagree with your reasoning behind why No. 1 should have been rejected. Yes, the United States Constitution does in face guarantee the right of liberty to all people. The question of marriage was not even considered at the time of it writing, however. It was a given that marriage was controlled by the church back then. Since the dawn of civilization, marriage has nearly always performed some religious function. Yes, the government may grant some benefits to married couples, but the purpose of marriage is still to this day largely associated with religion. This is why we still allow couples to marry in churches and give clergy the power to officially marry them. As such, people should use their religious views when determining whether someone else should have that right. The vast majority of the nation is Christian, in name at least, and so Christian morals necessarily should be at least partially reflected in our government, our else the majority has been ignored and then our democracy has truly failed.
You are disappointed, but at the wrong target. You should be disappointed at the system which allows this rather than the people who voted for it. If we really wish to reform the system, it is not enough to merely add homosexuals to the list of those who can marry. We need to change the foundations of that which denied them previously. In this case, we need to make a distinction between marriage at the state level and marriage as a religious function. Germany is a fine example of how this can be accomplished. Every marriage is performed by the state there. Religious ceremonies are purely symbolic; clergy have no power to marry couples, because God’s marriage and man’s marriage have become two separate and distinct entities. I know this would not be a popular solution here, but it would allow for equal rights without anyone feeling that their religion is being threatened. They can shun these marriages without attacking them because the religious purpose has been removed.
I do agree with you in concept. Times have changed, and our government needs to evolve. But we must find a way to protect minority rights without disregarding the majority, or it is only a hollow victory.
[Reply]
Kellye Greenwald Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
To clarify, in the United States, religious officials can perform marriage ceremonies, however without a signed government-issued and recorded marriage license, neither spouse can take advantage of the legal benefits of marriage such as being included on one spouse’s health insurance policy, tax breaks, the ability to speak on behalf of the spouse should the other become incapacitated in some way, etc, etc.
THAT is what the vote was about. Not whether two homosexuals are going to “besmirch” your religious institutions with their taboo union. /sarcasm
Samantha is right; this has driven another nail into Marriage’s coffin.
[Reply]
Sean Fluegge Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
I think it’s about time for me to clarify several things. First of all, I do not live in Maine. I live in Texas. Question 1 little to do with me. I came across this article because it was the first link on google. That being said, I SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE! I have never said in any of my comments that I was against it. I support homosexuals in their endeavors, I just don’t agree with their choice. I apologize if those who read this and reply were unable to realize this. Perhaps I should have been a little more blunt.
I applaud the state of Maine for trying something new. For the first time, gay marrage came about as a grass roots movement. This must be so if homosexuals ever want their rights to be an actuality. Using lawsuits and other legislation to force your opinion on the people will make you worse off than you already are.
I believe it should be allowed because of my religious beliefs. Jesus Christ may have preached about the evils of sin, but he never once forced another person to turn away from their choice. He allowed free will. I am not above God, so I must do the same. Homosexuals are no threat to me. They are no threat to God. From a religious point of view, the only people they threaten is themselves.
The reason I started debating this topic is simple. The author argued that “You let hatred, confusion, misinformation and ignorance emerge victorious over liberty”. I believe this is partially true, but that all of these factors are found on both sides of the arguement, not just with those who opposed gay marriage. The law needs to be changed, but those who wish to change it must understand why it is the way it is if they are going to be successful. It’s not enough to say “I deserve marriage because everyone else has it.” You need to understand why everyone else has it and how it has evolved, and most importantly, why you have been left out. I’m not even trying to argue with you. I’m just explaining how the current situation came to be. But other comments on here have shown me that ignorance and misinformation exists on your side as well. You can’t change the thoughts or actions of others, but you can control your own.
There will always be bigots in this world. You will never be able to change the minds of those who can only express themselves through their fear and hate. But being religious does not in itself make a person a bigot. Neither does it make them confused, misinformed, or ignorant. It just means they believe in something which takes precedence over the personal needs and wants of themselves or others. If you want to win your rights, these the people you must convince.
You cannot brush aside religion and its importance and expect to win. And you can try to argue that it is separate from religion now, but if the voters believe differently, your argument will just fall on deaf ears. You need to show them that their religion doesn’t exclude your right. You need to prove this using their own religion and beliefs, rather using secular arguments. Logic is null and void to those who believe that a higher power is telling them to do something. After all, the big man gets what He wants. Just show them that they are wrong about what He does want. Show them the correct way God wants us to treat each other. Rebuking those who believe differently will only generate animosity towards you and detract from your cause. But win over their hearts and their faith, rather than their minds, and you will have your victory.
[Reply]
ben Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
first of all
“I just don’t agree with their choice.”
its not a choice, no gay person will tell you that.
“And you can try to argue that it is separate from religion now, but if the voters believe differently, your argument will just fall on deaf ears”
but it IS separate that’s a constitutional fact, anyone who disagrees is lying/wrong, Separation of church and state..
we will have gay marriage eventually, we just have to wait for the bigots to die off, and wait until the new generation can vote.
Sean Fluegge Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
I never said homosexual attraction wasn’t a choice. That is obvious. It is a combination of social upbringing and genetics. I said homosexuality, the act, is a choice. Don’t debate that, because you can’t. If you really believe that its not their choice to practice this, that means they don’t really have control over their actions, so they don’t have logical faculties, and they aren’t deserving rights because they can’t handle them. But this certainly isn’t the case. They can choose for themselves who they have sex with, which is why we are having this discussion to begin with.
Also, check the constituion. Separation of church and state is never mentioned anywhere in the constitution. It is a phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter. And the purpose of it is not what you have in mind. The idea behind this separation is that the state was not to have control over the church. The church was welcome to work politically. The church still had more power than the government at this point in time because of social control. Next time you want to make an argument, do your research and get your facts straight.
I’m sure there are still plenty of high-fives going around at the offices of the Catholic Diocese in Portland, the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, and all the other groups that promoted Question 1 in Maine. So to them, congratulations, you helped issue Gay couples in that state a setback … for now. I still take comfort in knowing that sooner or later Gay and Straight couples in the U.S. will be treated equally. And when that happens, I promise that it will have precisely ZERO impact on your life, your marriage, your church, and your children. Your church will never be forced to marry Gay couples, any more than it is forced to marry non-Christian couples. Public schools will not be forced to “teach” about Gay marriage, any more than they are forced to teach about Straight marriage. And at last, Gay couples will finally be able take part in the legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that our tax dollars have been helping to subsidize throughout the history of this country.
[Reply]
I would like to speak for the many voters who fall in the middle of the gay marriage debate. Both sides (yes, both) are so blinded by ideology and anger that they completely fail to understand the middle ground. Lack of understanding renders it impossible to come to any lasting resolution on this issue.
The hatred and intolerance of the religious right on this and many other topics is well known. I would like instead to focus on the intolerance emanating from the left, since it is this side that I actually sympathize with. As it turns out, however, the gay marriage community does not want my sympathy. In this article alone, I have been accused of hatred, confusion, misinformation and ignorance, as well as bigotry. Why? Because I voted against gay marriage. Yet I consider myself none of these things. If you were to give me a chance to explain my position, I dare say you would find it reasonable. Unfortunately, gay marriage supporters, to a man (and woman), refuse to intellectually engage anyone who is not a supporter.
If the gay marriage camp truly wants to advance marriage equality, they need to start putting aside their anger and listening to swing voters like me. Although you may view the issue in terms of civil rights, not everyone else shares this view, and more importantly, until you understand WHY this is the case, no lasting victory can be achieved. The problem is that the gay community has absolutely ZERO interest in engaging in any form of meaningful dialogue on this subject. I am not blaming solely the left here — as I said earlier, it is well known that the religious right suffers from the same problem. However, the religious right is already beyond saving, whereas I expect better from the left.
Here are my own personal views on this subject. I hope they can be addressed rather than ignored. My own reasons for opposing gay marriage have nothing to do with marriage equality. In fact, I very strongly support marriage equality, but I also very strongly support the idea of separation of church and state. In particular, I believe that government should not be involved in any religious functions whatsoever, including the institution of marriage (which has always been, and should be, a religious ceremony). Now, I recognize that this war has already been lost, in no small part thanks to the religious right, who constantly push to blur the line between church and state. Nevertheless, gay marriage, and in particular the way in which the marriage aspect is emphasized over the equality aspect, is diametrically opposed to the increased separation of religious and state functions. The opposition of two powerful civil rights (marriage equality vs. religious freedom) is very difficult to reconcile, and that is why I and many other voters have such a difficult time with this subject.
For you, and most gay marriage supporters, the issue is black and white, a “simple” matter of civil rights, but I hope you are now starting to see a glimmer of why this issue is much, much more complex than you think it is.
To end with, here is a version of a gay marriage bill or amendment that I would support. “Marriage between two people of any gender shall be valid and recognized to the same extent that marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized.” The reason why I support this language is that the conditional phrase “to the same extent” limits the scope of the law rather than creating a new, affirmative category of marriage recognition (which is what all existing gay marriage bills have done). At the same time, the proposal (literally) achieves true marriage equality. It is not perfect, but it is a small, meaningless concession that is enough to tip the scales of my vote. Both the Maine and California votes were decided by very close margins. A small change in tone, to emphasize equality rather than marriage, is all that is needed for victory.
I hope that my views will be respected and heard. But I’m not holding my breath.
[Reply]
ben Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
“In particular, I believe that government should not be involved in any religious functions whatsoever, including the institution of marriage (which has always been, and should be, a religious ceremony).”
Nope it hasnt marriage existed LONG before religion existed, so did gay relationships. the government is already involved with marriage on legal terms, by voting no, alls you did is deny gay people their equal rights of protection under the law.
[Reply]
Sean Fluegge Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Really? Do your research. Gay relationships, as they exist now, are actually fairly new. Yes, some sort of gay relationships have always existed, but not as they do now. All relationships have have changed over time. But no, they did not exist before religion, especially if you believe in creationism, which says that nothing existed before religion. I’d like you to show me evidence that marriage existed before religion. In case you haven’t realized, we have yet to find ANY records of an early athiestic society. To our knowledge, every early society has had some form of religion.
Religion was one of the first established institutions in our world. The first religion ws probably established before the first government was, because science was not yet able to explain very much about the world, and so religion was the primary tool by which people understood their world. Before people first formed together to tribes and villages, it was already likely that they had some version of religion or mysticism.
[Reply]
I appreciate both of you who have told me why you voted against my right to get married. I would like to point this out:
Since America was founded, the government has not had the right to tell a church who or who not to marry. Civil marriage has always been the legal basis for marriage status. Priests can perform civil marriages for tradition’s sake, but they are merely exercising a borrowed state power. Marriage has always been, before it was a religious institution, a business matter, and a legal one. It is the exchange and consolidation of property. We were not voting on religious marriage. It’s impossible to vote on religious marriage unless your particular church operates democratically. We were voting as citizens of the state of Maine on the issue of state marriage.
If you want to take away the rights of priests to borrow the state’s marrying power and make those ceremonies purely religious, be my guest. But don’t tell me I can’t get married because of that. That’s an excuse. Go ahead and separate religious and civil marriage more than it already is separated, I don’t give a damn. All I give a damn about is my legal right to get married, which you decided wasn’t mine. i’m considering your reasoning, but it just ISN’T GOOD ENOUGH.
[Reply]
David J. Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
I dispute the assertion that marriage was originally a “business” or “legal” matter. We have archeological evidence of marriage from prehistoric times, before the invention of business and law. The available records support to some extent the view that marriage was treated religiously. Property exchange may have originally been part of marriage as well, but we don’t have property records going back that far.
In my ideal world, I would prefer total separation of legal and religious marriage. For example, if the government were to recognize only civil unions, whether gay or straight, then all couples would be equal, while maintaining the separation of church and state. However, realistically, that is not going to happen, because (ironically) the Christian right insists on making marriage into a state function. The next best thing, then, is to mandate equal treatment, but (importantly) to do so via a minimalist approach, one that brings about the least possible expansion of government interference in religious functions, while still achieving equality. The minimal approach is necessary, because (to me, at least) the requirement to separate religion from government is at least as important as marriage equality, and if the two must be in conflict, I want to sacrifice as little as possible from one to achieve the other.
You may find it distasteful to be in a position where you have to plot political strategy, but pure idealism without considering reality is useless. For example, I would never fool myself into thinking that the government will ever entirely end its involvement in marriage, even though ideally that’s what I would like. When you can’t get everything you want, it’s a lot better to get 99% of what you want (and I challenge any gay marriage supporter to argue that my proposal fails to achieve equality).
Basically, I’m saying that if gay marriage supporters would alter their approach, adopt a different strategy, one that shows some faint indication of acknowledging and responding to constructive feedback, but without compromising in any way on the central goal of marriage equality, then it would be enough to overcome the narrow margins that we have seen in recent elections.
[Reply]
Ginevra Reply:
November 15th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
It sounds to me like you are citing the “symantics” argument. That to achieve full equality, all we ought to argue for is making “civil unions” have all the rights allowed in marriage, just without the title. Also, I am guessing you’d rather we refrain from talking of our “civil rights”?
The government already has established a marriage that is not religious, and has no religious affiliation. The history of marriage is ineffectual as part of the debate, as no one can exactly tell us whether or not marriage has always been a religious ceremony; focus instead on the modern concept of marriage, which DOES exist in a religious setting and in a legal one. The goal, ultimately, of same-sex marriage supporters was everything you suggested we do, except from shying away from calling it ‘Marriage’.
In short, as long as a heterosexual couple can marry legally in any state, WITHOUT religious significance — and this happens all the time right now — and Gay couples cannot, the “separate but uneqal” argument will always apply.
Also, the language of LD 1020 very specifically PROTECTED religious institutions that do not support gay marriage.
Your proposal DOES FAIL to achieve full equality because you fail to acknowledge the current duality that marriage has. Whether or not “marriage” may have once been a purely religious institution is immaterial. Focus on marriage now, in 2009, where there is a specifically religious institution and a specifically legal institution of marriage, and no valid reason, in this day and age, to deny loving, commited gay couples protections under the latter.
[Reply]
I dispute that marriage was not originally a religious function, it is irrelevant. Over more than 2000 years, it has lost so much of its secular function that it is considered a religious service. And there is not one major religion which recognizes homosexual marriage. And since a vast majority of Americans claim to recognize God in some form, it is only natural that they should repel that which goes against their religion. You are upset because your morals are in conflict with those which are prevailing at the moment. I’m sorry, and I feel for you. Christians should not use their faith to prohibit the actions of others, but we are not obligated to encourage such actions either. If you wish to practice homosexuality, that is your choice. We should not stop you. But our first loyalty is to God, not to you. I will not stop you from being homosexual. I will not condemn you or call you names. I will not look at you funny or mistreat you in any way. I will be your friend, your ally, your defender, in any way I can help. I will try to stop others from mistreating you. But I will not encourage sin. I will not tell you that your way of life is okay. I will not tell you that there is nothing wrong with what you do. Don’t expect me to abandon my faith or God for you. So before you go and get angry at the state and the people who live there, consider who they are and why they vote that way. Believing in God and rejecting that which He rejects is not bigotry, it is faith in practice. And it seems to me from where I’m standing that my position is thought out and articulated. Where have you explained why you deserve this same benefit extended to others? All you are saying is “I deserve this because I do”. I’m sorry, but THAT JUST ISN’T GOOD ENOUGH.
[Reply]
Val Cosh Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Sean,
I appreciate and respect your religious beliefs. However, I have some issues with those who are using this as a weapon against same sex marriages. I am no theologian, but I was raised in a very Christian household whereas church attendance was bi-weekly and mandatory and bible study occurred every night after dinner.
With that said, I offer you the topic of incest. Not the “legality” of it, but the practice of it. We, as a society, shun incest and are typically appalled by those who practice and commit this. But, without incest, how would we be here (under biblical law)? Adam and Eve had at least three children mentioned in the Bible (yes, more than Cain and Abel) with some theologians thinking they had in excess of 40 children. At some point, in order to continue creating the human race, incest had to occur. And it occurred, obviously, with God’s blessings or else “his people” would not be able to go forth and multiply. It is interesting that this heinous act as viewed by our society (and illegal) was the base of Israel, Judaism and Christianity. It then had to occur again later when the world was destroyed and only Noah’s family was saved.
The incest within Noah’s family may not have been too terribly bad, since he has three sons and their wives aboard the Ark, but it is probably the best example here. Obviously, there were relations between cousins (if not brother/sister) which fed the family tree. Did you know that there are currently 20 states that allow first cousin marriages? And that, statistically speaking, thus couples stand to have a 50% higher chance/rate of genetic defects in their children? Let’s ban them too! Oh wait, that was the basis on which our global population was built/rebuilt.
Now, Jewish Law did prohibit incest later in the Old Testament/Torah, but it was fine in order to populate/repopulate the world. Isn’t that a bit hypocritical? Speaking of, one of the ten commandments is “Thou Shall Not Kill” and I won’t go “there” with killing in God’s name. How about the Angels of Death God himself sent? All the first born sons of Egypt? I get it, he was sending a message but its OK for HIM to kill, but not man?
For the states that do allow first cousins to marry/have a civil union, why do you think that is? Do we want them to have higher-risked genetically defective children? Rather, I think those states realize people may be in love and want to spend their lives together, no matter what we, as a society or religion , think. By the way, Maine allows first cousin marriage only if they are over a certain age or cannot bear children, or if they get genetic counseling. Interesting…
[Reply]
Sean Fluegge Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 9:03 am
I have no desire to use my religion against homosexuals. I believe Christianity actually supports gay marriage. I am merely explaining the rationale which allows Christians to vote against gay marriage within the pretext of religion.
You raise a great point about incest. No it is not hyprocritical to later ban incest. The rules tend to change in times of dire need. Similar to the way in which our government can limit freedom of speech in times of war. Laws exist because of a need. God wished for humanity to continue on, and thus incest was necessary. He allowed it to happen because it had to. It was later made illegal because it was no longer necessary, and the practice of willful incest without need was considered a sin against God.
Yes, it is ok for Him to kill, but not man. God is above everything, including the law. We are not qualified to make the decision about who needs to die. He is all knowing, however, and so if He wills for someone to die, then it must be for a reason. No one is equal to God. This is one more reason why I do not believe in using religion to prohibit gay marriage. We are all below God, and nobody can pose Him a threat. If He is not threatened, why I should feel that way?
About the states which allow first cousins to marry/ have a civil union: I do believe you are correct in this matter. As I have said in other posts, times are changing and even though Christiainty is still the dominant view in our nation and must have some impact on government, it can not be the only determinant any longer. All people should be allowed to marry, but we must find a way to change the system to allow for this without making such a large portion of the state and the nation feel alienated.
[Reply]
A true and proper “marriage” admendment should read more as “Domestic union between two consenting adults of legal age shall be valid and recognized”. The key here is not marriage v. union. It’s not even “valid and recognized”. The most important part of that statement is “two consenting adults of legal age”. Done.
If marriage is a religious institution, then why did I (in the state of Maryland, mind you) have to go down to the county courthouse, write them a check, and wait while they printed me a license? Hmmm? I can go get married in a church every week, but until I visit the local seat of government, pay them a fee, and receive a piece of paper from them authorizing it, the marriage is not legal. It is the involvement of the state in my marriage that makes it legal – not the church’s involvement.
The efforts of some to deny two consenting adults of legal age the ability to marry is not new. It wasn’t until 1967 (a mere 42 years ago) that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that anti-miscegenation laws (aka laws prohibiting interracial marriages) were unconstitutional. If you’ll take the time to read the Court’s ruling, I think it’s quite obvious how this applies:
“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”
For the record and your convenience, Section 1 is the relevant portion of the Fourteenth Amendment that applies to the Court’s ruling:
“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Gosh, that seems pretty clear to me.
[Reply]
Samantha "Edie" Hansen Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Tara, thank you so much for articulating what I could not.
[Reply]
You must go to the county courthouse and wait for a marriage license because it has been decided that this is the best way to enforce morals and keep records. It has nothing to do with the removal of religion. In actuality, it supports religious beliefs. By requiring a person to go to the courthouse first, those in power can regulate who can get married. This can be used to help prevent bigamy or other types of marriage which go against morals commonly established by religion. The state has better means of keeping track of marriages than churches do, and this is why the state must follow these rules. The church does not borrow power from the state, but rather the state has been granted a power, by religious voters, held by the church to further the cause of religion.
Furthermore, the ruling which allowed interracial marriages hardly applies to homosexuality. The ruling was set forth to correct discrimination against those who were born differently. They were different from birth and it was out of their control. They were not asking for any different rules, only for equal treatment. Homosexuals already have equal access to marriage as it exists. What they want it for the government to change how it exists and what it means and make a special rule so they can do something which, according the results of the referendum, is still meant to exist a certain way.
Important to note is that in this ruling, marriage was still referring to heterosexual marriage. He did not address the issue of gender, because as late as 1967 (a mere 42 years ago) it was still a given that marriage had a specific meaning and referred to a man and a woman.
[Reply]
Samantha "Edie" Hansen Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
If marriage is a religious power, why does the state have to keep record of it? Churches keep community records all of the time, including baptisms, deaths, and marriages.
Why can non-religious people get married, or people of different faiths? The bible also demands for adulterers to be put to death, including divorced people who remarry. Why don’t you have the state execute adulterers or require men to marry their brothers’ widows? If you’re correct, and the state has merely been granted a church power, doesn’t that violate the Establishment clause in the bill of rights?
“The ruling was set forth to correct discrimination against those who were born differently,” just like homosexuals. I was born gay. Ask my mom: She was there. It’s a proven biological phenomenon, just like race, which used to be viewed as punishment for sin instead of a pigmentation variance.
Do you seriously have no problem with the idea that our non-Christian government is apparently being used “to further the cause of religion?” Because it makes me feel sick to my stomach.
Do you really think that the courthouses enforce morals? They’ll marry any two consenting different-sex adults. Have you been to Las Vegas?
[Reply]
Sean Fluegge Reply:
November 8th, 2009 at 1:10 am
The state keeps track of such records because it is more efficient for the state to do so. The state has more resources available as well and can better maintain these records than multiple private churches.
And I never said marriage was solely religious anymore. I said it began in this nation and still has a very important religious function. It does also have important civil and social functions, but it appears that these appear to be secondary still, at least based on the election results.
That being said, non-religious people and those of different faiths can get married because the church understands it can’t have complete control or always get what it wants. It makes sacrifices to deal what it considers most important. Bigamy and incest may be considered more vile than the thought of other faiths marrying, so they allow one so they may better combat the other. If they try to fight both, they may fail and get neither. And believe it or not, adultery is still punished in this nation, just not by the penal institutions. It can carry a social stigmata just as powerful. And in some states, you can lose a large portion of assets in a divorce if you commmitted adultery.
Don’t try to argue the Bible unless you understand it in its entirety. You seem very intelligent in many respects, and I applaud you for being so, but it appears to me that you are ignorant of the actual message of the bible and the purpose of Christianity. Christ came to fulfill the law because no individual can do it on their own. He died on the cross for all mankind. This is why people no longer must be killed for their actions, because he took the punishment for their sins. The new testament actually presents a far more liberal view of the world than the old did, and permits many things that the old did not. You could even make the claim that the new testament supports gay marriage. It in fact does so, and I have said this several times already. The point is that not all people understand this, because the Bible is full of many difficult concepts which test a persons mind and soul. The problem is, people vote whether they understand something or not, and their lack of knowledge may influence their vote. I’m not saying that people are right for voting this way, only that this is why they may vote like this.
By the way, no one has EVER proven homosexuality as a biological phenomenon. Whoever told you that was severly mistaken. Homosexuality is a sociological development in society. Genes may make a person more likely to be homosexual, but they alone cannot make a person gay. For most of all known history, the church was the center of power, not the government. The church preached certain ideals and preached against homosexuality. Coincidentily, there were few homosexuals that we know about. You could say that they were closet cases and were hiding from the church, but you would little evidence to support such a claim. It was a more close-minded era. Homosexuality has developed now because the times are more open and now allow for it.
The number of homosexuals in comparison to the total population has dramatically increased since the late 20th century. So if it is purely biological, explain this growth. A genetic factor may make a person more likely to be gay, but it alone cannot make a person gay. Sociological stimuli seems to be a much better explanation. Tastes and preferences change over time based on experiences. It’s kinda like when I try a new food. I may not like it at first, but I may try it again later and learn to appreciate it and enjoy it. I can choose to be unwilling to change my tastes, but if I am purely unable to change them, it is a sign that there may be something wrong with me developmentally or biologically, or I may just lack the logical faculties which give me the ability to choose. Proof of this is that people have and in fact do switch between being gay and straight. One of my best friends used to be bisexual. Now she has abandoned that, and is happily married and purely straight. It was a matter of choice. It isn’t entirely biological, or even mostly so.
And no I don’t have a problem with our government like you do. Because our government is not non-Christian. It is a government of the people, and 90% of the people claim to be Christian at least in name, and so it is important that government reflects Christian values in its laws and actions. Because far worse than denying gay marriage is undermining democracy. Convince a majority to give you marriage and then it will be rightfully yours, but it shouldn’t be until then.
Now it’s my turn to ask you something: do you have a religion? Do you believe in God?
[Reply]
Samantha "Edie" Hansen Reply:
November 8th, 2009 at 10:11 am
If you read my article, you’ll find that I already explain how important God is to me.
Homosexuality is a biological phenomenon. Virtually every animal on the planet engages in it, insects forming a large exception. Lizards, bonobos, giraffes, elephants, penguins, vultures, and this weird little thing called a human being, all have homosexual and heterosexual relations naturally. Every trustworthy scientific and medical institution clearly states that all evidence points towards sexual orientation as depending on a genetic disposition, and that encouraging any individual to try to change their orientation through “therapy” is foolish at best, and dangerous to their health at worst. People can decide to deny that part of their sexual nature and shun homosexual acts in their lives, and I’m not going to get into that: It’s their lives. It doesn’t meant they’ve turned heterosexual, though. Congratulations to your friend for finding a man she can happily marry, that’s a wonderful thing. However, it doesn’t change this argument at all.
You say that the 20th century has seen an increase in homosexuals. Honestly, there is a really easy explanation for this: Before the 20th century, in most record-keeping societies, it was dangerous to be a homosexual: The closet was surrounded by metal spikes and loaded guns. There are other societies, such as the Zuni, who have built social institutions around the idea that gay people happen, and should be allowed to love the same sex. They haven’t experienced any bumps in their homosexual or bisexual populations, and their society functions quite well this way.
Our government was based on the idea that individuals are free. I don’t have a problem with our government: I have a problem with the way it is used. Homo and bisexuals are a minority, and asking the majority to protect minority rights voluntarily is absurd. I was hoping that this election would vindicate that mistake, but I was wrong.
The government can impinge on my individual liberties if it absolutely has to, but the 14th Amendment protects me from losing my liberties to a frivolous cause. I’m 20, and I can’t drink, because people under the age of 21 tend to make communities and themselves less safe when they drink. That is an infringement on my individual freedom that is necessary for the safety and proper governing of this nation.
I’m gay, and I can’t get married. I could marry one of my male friends, but it would be a sham marriage that would only end in costly divorce and heartbreak. The state says that I can’t get married for various reasons, none of which have to do with the proper governing and safety of this land. If you want to take my rights away, either by letting outdated laws stand or through new legislation, the burden of proof is on you: Prove to me that letting me get married would affect the safety and proper governing of this land.
Every nation and state that has legalized marriage for same-sex couples has not experienced any negative side effects. Some of them even experienced economic growth as a bonus! The divorce rate did not spike uncontrollably, sexual crime did not increase, the education of children did not turn into a swinger’s club. All that happened was that a bunch of consenting, homo and bisexual adults were able to receive increased legal protections for their spouses and children, as well as a little more respect in their communities.
Our nation may be predominantly Christian, but that doesn’t change the principles put in place to protect minorities. I’m still angry and disappointed that 53% of the voters of Maine decided I can’t be a wife. There is a huge difference between voting based on your religious values and expecting the government to act based on religious values. Huge difference.
The legislature decided to legalize same-sex marriage. This action extended a basic right to a minority on the grounds that keeping it from them didn’t do anyone any good, and was doing the minority harm. A group of people who think that that minority are abominations and shouldn’t be encouraged to be who they are through the act of love got a petition from the majority to put the law to a vote. Through popular media, the minority and it’s friends had to explain to the entire population of Maine why they deserve this right, and why giving it to them wouldn’t hurt anyone. Meanwhile, that group from above used the same media to tell lies about the harm that would be caused by this extension of basic rights. They said that marriage equality would cost the state too much money, or that it would lead to homosexual acts being vindicated and explained in graphic detail to small children in public schools. As a result of this widespread, hateful and foolish misinformation, a slight majority of the state voted to keep the small minority from receiving their rights.
I don’t care what Christians think of homosexuality, as long as they don’t try to hurt me or anyone in my family. All I care about is my liberties, and whether or not the government I pay for and participate in is protecting them. That is why I’m disappointed in the voters of Maine. Christian or not, they should vote as Americans first.
Sean Fluegge Reply:
November 8th, 2009 at 10:38 am
First off, religion takes precedence over nation, especially when it comes to voting, because this is how people establish their morals. No sane person would turn their back on an all powerful God who has clearly established what is right and wrong to vote merely on their own beliefs and logic. Challenging God would be foolish and would only bring harm. Being American has to take second chair.
Homosexuality may be natural in animals, but it is not in humans. Animals lack the enhanced logical faculties that people have. Animals operate off instinct. People have a choice. If you have no choice, then there is something biologically wrong with you that you lack free will. In that case, you are less than human, deserve NO rights, and should be locked up for study. I don’t believe that though. You can choose. Genetics may merely make a person more effeminate and more likely to become gay, but biology alone cannot make a person gay.
If homosexuality was in fact biological in humans, homosexuals would have died off long ago. Based on the small number of homosexuals, it must be concluded the the gene that would control homosexuality must be extremely recessive. So recessive that its continued existance in the world today after thousands of years would almost be a statistical impossibility. Unless homosexuality is a product of some sort of genetic defect. I guess you could say that this is natural, but that really just means you were a screw up and never intended in nature. If this were the case, it also means that we could cure homosexuality, because it would in fact only be a genetic defect.
It may be foolish to try to force someone to change their orientation through therapy, but that has nothing to do with genetics. It is because a person has established themselves in such a way that it is dangerous to try to completely override their socialogical upbringing. It would be turning their world upside down. Science has little evidence to show that homosexuality is genetic or natural in people. Find me one study that could support this claim. It is only theory, which I have shown has many wholes and is most likely incredibly false.
I already said that it was dangerous before to be a homosexual in the past. But that doesn’t change the point; we don’t have records of very many. You can try to say that they were hiding all you want, but you just guessing. You have zero proof on this.
I don’t deny that misinformation and ignorance did affect the vote, but it was on both sides. I have seen just as much ignorance and bigotry from those who support your side as well. And I have already established many reasons why someone could vote against you without being ignorant, hateful, or misinformed.
I’m just curious: how do you reconcile your sexual preference with your religion? I’m not trying to criticize you here. I just want to know. I like to understand how people think.
Samantha "Edie" Hansen Reply:
November 8th, 2009 at 11:47 am
I’ll concede your point. I shouldn’t have said that any believer should place American values over what they perceive to be the commands of God. That was wishful thinking on my part.
Like I said before: I can choose to act heterosexually. I could be with a man, even love him as a person, but I could not have a true love relationship with him because his body does next to nothing for me sexually and pleasing him would be repulsive to me. You could choose to do the same thing, couldn’t you? You could love a man as best you could, but when it came time to make love with him, if you managed it at all you would still be disgusted with the both of you. (I am assuming that you are a heterosexual, I apologize if this assumption is wrong, but you see my point).
Your theory about the genetic background of sexuality has several holes in it, though. Homosexuality does serve a purpose to the human race, therefore it is not merely a “genetic defect.” If human beings were purely heterosexual, they would have a much harder time bonding with members of the same sex in any way. The same disposition which makes me attracted to only women allows my mother and other women to form bonds of sisterhood in their friendships.
Also, homosexuals have the urge to procreate, even if the basic act repels them sexually. I can’t wait to be a mother, personally. My genes will go on. Nature validates through survival, and we have survived.
And science has a lot of evidence to support the genetic base of homosexuality. They have isolated the very gene which causes it. For more information, I suggest this page for starters, it’s a nice overview of the evidence:
http://www.drtara.com/relationshipsNotChoice.shtml
And honestly, if you could change me into a straight person, I would beg you to. It would make my life a hell of a lot easier. I could marry one of my male friends who I love so much and get married and raise children like I always wanted without having to fight for the right to do so. If this is a choice, it’s a stupid one. The only choice I made was to be true to myself, and you can’t convince me that that is the wrong choice. My family raised me as a straight girl. They pressured me to go out with boys, tried to get me interested in them as much as possible. Society told me from all sides how women are supposed to act: Yet I knew I was different. Only someone raised in a lesbian-only commune could be so socially pressured towards homosexuality that to try to teach them otherwise would turn their world upside down.
Is left or right-handedness a choice? It’s the same type of genetic influence. It starts in the genes and the brain and then ends up with a preference for one hand or another. You can, through traumatic training, get a left-handed child to use their right hand, and some people can train themselves to be ambidextrous, but it makes way more sense for everyone to be allowed to use the hand they’re predisposed towards. That way, they can get their work done without unnecessary stress. You can’t tell a left-handed person they chose to be left-handed. They only chose to be true to their bodies’ predisposition because it was the best thing to do.
And if I have zero proof that there were just as many homosexuals as there are now before we kept records of them, then you have zero proof that they weren’t there.
And please, tell me what misinformation the “No on 1″ campaign spread in Maine. I’d like to remember mistakes like that so we can correct them in the future.
How do I reconcile my sexuality with my religion? I don’t have to. My religion demands of me that I serve God’s unique purpose for which I was uniquely created. That means I accept who I am, warts, orientation and all.
Tara Johnson Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
I concede on the keeping records part, but enforce morals? Really? So the state is checking up to ensure that I’m not cheating on my husband or he’s not abusing me or that we’re not “wasting seed” through the use of birth control, condoms, and/or oral sex? Oh wait, it’s not. Does the state make a spouse feel guilty for cheating? No – that’s the church. The state doesn’t care if spouses don’t even bat an eyelash at another person for the rest of their lives – or if they’re swingers/in an open marriage. That’s the church’s business for condemnation.
Please elaborate on what other types of marriage go against morals commonly established by religion. While you are at it, I would seriously appreciate the Biblical verse used to support your position as well as the type of Bible used since translations can differ.
While you are researching that, please also find the verse that declares homosexual marriage is an abomination to God. Many say it’s in the Bible, but for the life of me, I can’t remember where. Since I don’t claim it’s in the Bible, I’d like someone who does to show their research.
My Bible however does include the following (Matthew 22:34-40 NKJV):
But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
Last time I checked, loving your neighbor as yourself didn’t include denying your neighbor the same rights to which you are entitled. I personally have never felt that my neighbors are interferring with my ability to worship God either.
Do you really think homosexual relationships have equality? Again, REALLY?! They have no tax benefits (they can’t file jointly), no health benefits (they can’t hold family health insurance), no other insurance benefits (there’s no nifty price-break just for being married) – they don’t even qualify as “next of kin” even if they’ve been in an exclusive monogamous relationship for decades. How would you feel if a hospital denied you permission to see your spouse because the state did not recognize your union? That right there is inequality. That is NOT changing currently rules or making new ones – that is extending current privileges to all consenting adults of legal age who wish to have their relationship legally recognized.
You missed my point on the anti-miscegenation laws. Until a mere 42 years ago, it was a “given” that races should not be mixed in a marriage. Until a mere 98 years ago, it was a “given” that women should be denied the right to vote. Until a mere 144 years ago, it was a “given” that a person of African descent was property. Just because something is a “given” it doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.
I await your Biblical references. Thank you.
[Reply]
Keeping records is one method of enforcing morals. The government does not care about certain acts, but by merely keeping records it does serve a religious function. It prohibits incestual marriages and bigamy. You’d be surprised how many morals and values are actually enforced just by record keeping. I doubt you could find any law or government function that has not been touched by religion. This is one nation under GOD, after all.
As far as biblical quotes which list homosexuality as a sin, here are a few, and all of these are in NIV:
1 Corinthians 6: 9-10
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
This verse is not targeted only at homosexuals. Rather it lists sins which typically symbolize lifestyles. Those who commit these sins don’t usually view them as being such. Since they think they are doing nothing wrong, they don’t repent, and that is why they will be punished.
When have you ever met a homosexual who is actually sorry for what they practice?
Leviticus 18 verse 22
22 ” ‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Romans 1: 26-27
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
You are correct in what Jesus said. Once again, if you have read all my comments, I have stated before that I AM ON YOUR SIDE. I think gay marriage is important. I posted a reply up top to another person in which I agree with you. Jesus never once forced someone to do things his way. He never gave the okay to judge another people. I want gay marraige to be allowed, even if I disagree with it. I argue because I think it is important to do so. To properly find a solution to a dillemma, each side needs to set forth a logical argument which explains their side. You have plenty of defenders for your cause. I have yet to see someone step foreward to take the opposition, so in the interest of Justice I will make that argument. You are not the only side, and your opinion is not the only one which matters, no matter how much you wish this was the case. Those who disagree with you are not always bigots. They are not necessarily ignorant, yet this is what homosexual supporters preach. People are allowed to believe what they want, and this will influence their actions. If they are bigots though for disagreeing with you because of their religion, does the same not apply to you? Are you not rebuking them for following their own religious beliefs? You are also accountable to your own words, and you will be judged by the same standard by which you judge.
As for equality, I never said homosexual relationships were equal. I said homosexuals were equal in that they had equal access to the exact same rights that other people enjoy. Marriage has been set forth as a right, and because marriage has a specific definiton, homosexuals do have this right. A homosexual man can marry a woman just like any other man can, so they are equal. They just can’t marry other men because marriage is currently defined as man and woman. And whether you like it or not, they are asking a rule to be changed for them, which means they ARE trying to chang rules to suit them.
That being said, you don’t understand what it means for something to be a given. Slavery was outlawed in the North long before 144 years ago, which means obviously it was contested and it wasn’t a given. Dolly Madison was arguing for women’s rights and the vote as early as 1794. She was the first lady, and her works were studied then and now. A given is something that isn’t contested because it is widely accepted. When did the movement for gay marriage start to gain support? When did the idea of marriage being only between a man and a woman start being contested? I am only 20 years old, yet this movement has only become mainstream within my recollection, which means that it was still considered a given until only recently in our nation’s history. It does not make it right, but it does explain why it was never addressed before, and why the earlier ruling does not apply here.
I eagerly await any and all future responses.
[Reply]
The smarmy comments I’ve read on Maine newspapers from those bigots who voted to attack LGBT’s families isn’t good for me to read. I knew many of those who worked so hard on the No on question 1 campaign, who did everything CORRECT in this campaign, and HATE still won.
Not even intellectual HATE, insulting stupid Hate, hate spewed hiding behind children, Hate sold with stock photo happy smiling grandparents and hetero families.
I don’t hate Maine, I am furious at the people who hid their donations in NOM (Mormons.)I hope those who supported LGBT families pressure your courts and the attorney general to release the names of the NOM donors.
It’s one thing to be spit on, it’s another thing when it’s a coward who does it, then parades as holier than thou.
[Reply]
David J. Reply:
November 9th, 2009 at 5:37 am
Did you actually read anything I said? I put forth what I believe to be a very reasonable proposal. Let me vote on marriage equality in a way that minimizes side effects, and I will vote in favor of it.
If you don’t agree with my proposal, fine, but I would appreciate some sort of constructive response rather than being called names like “smarmy”, a “bigot”, “hiding”, “insulting”, “stupid”, or a “coward”. I suggest you take a good hard look in the mirror and ask yourself honestly which of the two of us is being intolerant and hateful.
You have a long way to go if you are really under the delusion that you did everything correctly in this campaign. The 3-4% of swing voters out there are incredibly put off by this kind of rhetoric, which paints them with the same brush as the Christian right.
[Reply]
Samantha "Edie" Hansen Reply:
November 9th, 2009 at 9:05 am
I don’t understand your proposal. State marriage and religious marriage are already distinct. The law Maine passed which was voted down even unnecessarily restated the rights of religious institutions to marry or not marry whoever they wanted. What side effects are you seeking to minimize? If you want to make the government stop calling state marriage “marriage” and start referring to it as a civil partnership or something like that, you need to take it up with the federal government and make it a separate issue from marriage equality. Is that what you’re going for?
[Reply]
Mark Swaney Reply:
November 9th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
GIVE UP your donor’s NAMES, ya coward.
Maine court demanded you release them, you don’t get “SPECIAL RIGHTS” in political question financing. No on 1 isn’t hiding their donors, why are YOU?
81% of University of Maine voted NO, you are a tiny minority of 19%, you are also in the age group who will quickly take over Maine’s electorate, those Knights of Columbus all appear over 70 yo. Five Catholic churches are closing.
You are so LAST CENTURY.
[Reply]
Gay marriage doesn’t bother me that much. The attitude of some gay marriage advocates is incredibly irritating, though. The other side can’t be wrong, they have to be “bigoted” and “filled with hate.” God Forbid anyone tries to see it from the other side’s point of view. I’m sure there are good arguements against gay marriage, just like there are good arguements for it.
Certain people show themselves to be as hateful and intolerant as those they decry.
[Reply]
@Astrid
If there were valid reasonable arguements against marriage equality, then why are 4 MASSIVE donors (who hid where there money came from) 90% of their funding. Why hide behind school kids stirring up irrational phobias, when local school boards decide what is taught. Why use PHONY stock photos instead of actual Maine hetero families.
It’s because they had NOTHING but bigotry, there is NO danger to straight marriage posed by same sex marriages. Look at VT, CT, MA, IA do they have straight marriages crashing and burning, or has their divorce rate FALLEN?
[Reply]
Sean Fluegge Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Stop being ignorant. You have no idea why they don’t want their names released. People shouldn’t have to fear retaliation for their choices or opinions, but people like you make others cautious about revealing themselves. That’s not being cowardly. You are just as bad as those who deny gays their rights. And if you had read other comments on this page, you would have seen that there are plenty of legitimate reasons why someone could vote against gay marriage without being in the slightest bit a bigot. Do your research about divorce rates before you try to make that argument as well. I’ve examined them before, and its not possible to make a clear distinction as to any single cause of divorce rates there are many factors. Gay marriage is only one factor, and the number of gay marriages is so small compared to other marriages that it really wouldn’t cause a significant impact. If the rates dropped very much at all, there has to be at least one other very large cause to it.
[Reply]
@Mark Sweeney
Thank you for proving my point. It’s just too bad that next time you appeal for the other side to “show empathy” to gay couples you won’t get the irony.
[Reply]
ANYONE can see the names of No on 1 donors.
I’d like to believe openly showing where our funds originated is the more HONEST approach. If Maine voters like secrecy of who’s buying massive amount of fear mongering ads…that’s up to them.
[Reply]