“Gay marriage has lost in every single state in which it has been put to a popular vote. Come Election Day, gay-rights supporters are hoping to make Maine the exception,” the Associated Press reports.
This is set to be a close vote, one that activists on both sides say could go either way. We’ll be watching this one.
I hope Maine votes Yes on Question One.
As someone living in the UK, I could not even imagine being given a chance to vote on an issue like this, and even if I were a referendum like this one, I doubt that the vote would go against gay marriage, as it has in other states in the USA.
Actually, in Arazona they did not vote to ban gay marriage the first time it was on the ballot because that time the issue also would have banned civil unions and other rights. The next time it was presented as a direct ban on gay marriage, and that was it. Then it passed. The direction on this socially is impossible to deny. I suspect that gay marriage will be temporarily overturned in Maine as it was in California, but in a few years, demographics will bring it back and it will be reinstated. The age breakdown on these votes backs that belief up pretty solidly.
What is interesting is that less than a decade ago, all you know what broke loose over civil unions in Vermont, but the vote to overturn the Washington State law, which gives every right but the name marriage to gay couples, and which is expected to withstand an attempt to overturn it, was not deemed important enought to mention by the Dr. Burk, and a clear majority of Americans now support Civil Unions. Once a generation is used to Civil Unions, even if just in the state next door if not their own, gay marriage will follow.
You are certainly right about one thing Mr. Stevenson. Some basic rights should not be up for a vote, whether you meant it that way or not. Marriage is one of them, and most younger Americans, secular and Christian, see it as a civil rights issue. Much to the displeasure of most conservative and evangelical Christians.
“Much to the displeasure of most conservative and evangelical Christians.”
Well, prejudice in the African American community can be addressed with education. The late and great Coretta Scott King made this point well concerning this very issue. As my best friend, who is black wisely pointed out, being part of one minority does not mean you are never bigoted towards another. Happily, polls show that younger African Americans are far more supportive of the rights of gay people than are older members of this community. And the Hispanic community has had quite a shift on this topic, and has grown far more supportive of their gay friends family and neighbors. So, there is a great precedent and reason for hope.
What you think is an appropriate re-definition of marriage is really un-defining it altogether. Because once you truly believe that the union of a man and woman is no longer the definition, then polygamy and polyamory all have to be let in. The homosexual community knows this full well and they couldn’t care less about marriage, they simply want anarchy in relationships, especially the repudiation of marriage as it has been since the dawn of time.
Nathan, I will be polite and not point out the stupidity of speaking for a group of millions and millions of people as if they are of one voice.
MY close relatives who are now legally married in Boston are thrilled that now, if they go to a hospital, they will not have to worry if they have a ton of paperwork like the lesbian couple in Dade Co FL who were not allowed to be with each other as one died. They are thrilled they can build their lives together and that their children know how permenant their family is. They are thrilled that their church, a Presbyterian one, was able to join them in the celebration of their love and their marriage.
I promise you that, while I do not know you, “they couldn’t care less about marrigae, they simply want anarchy in relationships” is at least one of the dumbest things you have ever written. And I know a LOT of couples like them, I know their parents, their friends, and their neighbors.
It is not redefining marriage. It is opening it to gay couples.
The polygamy arguement, does not hold up. Its like saying that lowering the voting age to 18 from 21 would lead in time to 7 year olds voting. As per polyamory, hey, its already here. No doubt you have friends and loved ones who are divorced and remarried. Please don’t bother trying to lay that one on the doorstep of a married same sex couple. As we say in the south, those dogs don’t hunt. Thanks.
With all due respect if you believe that the homosexual movement is about marriage, you are the one with a “stupidity” issue, as you so kindly put it. The leaders of the homosexual movement desire the breakdown of the nuclear family and the destruction of familial society as it has been known for millienia.
Furthermore, if you want to equate polyamory to divorce and remmariage you are obliterating the concept. So no divorce is actually legitimate? Please!
And, you failed to respond to the question. Why can’t polygamy ride the same mantra that the homosexual community is using to attempt to gain acceptance? Moreover, why would you want to deny them? Are you bigoted against the polygamist?
Finally, thanks for reading every post I have ever written so that you know my previous is the dumbest thing I ever wrote. I didn’t know that you cared so much.
Actually the polygamy argument does hunt.
Some of the arguments against homosexual marriage are that it is against natural structures of biological formation, that it has been avoided by both civil and religious tradition for millenia, that the state has an interest in monitoring and supporting male-female marriage because of it propensity for producing children which must be protected.
The arguments for homosexual marriage is that the will of an individual trumps all of those argumentations. No restriction should be made by the state for restricting an individual right to make contractual relationships. Will trumps biology and tradition.
A polygamist can argue that restricting marriage relationships to one on one is arbitrary. Why can an individual not make multiple contractual relationships? The force of tradition is irrelevant (since homosexual marriage has dismissed that). Polygamists can make claim to biological urges for multiple couplings.
It is virtually guaranteed that polygamists will make these claims in court and they will follow the argumentations made by homosexual marriage advocates.
I, of course, am opposed to homosexual marriage and believe that polygamy is rightly restricted in a nation, but to claim that there is no danger of the legitimization of polygamy following on the heels of homosexual marriage is foolish and naive. The hounds are already baying.
Nathan, I just gave you a personal, first person story of my own relatives….and you just disregard it. Nice. I wish I knew all the motivations of those who oppose me, but I don’t, and I am not stupid enough to think they oppose me out of spite or cruelty…even if, unintentionally, they are very cruel and hurt those I love. You might want to think about that before you judge so many others.
Do you like it when stupid liberals say “All conservatives Christians are close minded idiots like Fred Phelps or that guy who prayed for Obama to die”? I would hope not. Those who claim, from the other side, to speak of the motivations of conservative Christians are fools. Sadly, it seems it can be a two way street.
So are those who ignore the reasons millions of people (about 40% of the public at last polling) support gay marriage; It Will Improve The Lives Of People We Know And Love And Who Deserve The Legal Protections It Offers. Also, many denominations feel called by God to perform such marriages….what about their religious freedom Nathan? Humm?
I have never heard of anyone forcing a Catholic Priest or Baptist pastor to marry a hetero couple where both were divorced (although I know a lot of Baptists in that category). The polygamy example stands. Most people who get remarried in this society got divorced for reasons WAY short of the Biblical mandates, which I should add many denominations do not even accept…the Catholics come to mind, and they divorce in in ‘no fault’ divorce states. Polyamory is here already. Once again, don’t try to lay that one on anyone, gay or otherwise, elses doorstep.
Virtually no one asking, and no societal support of size exists for polygamy. I doubt it will get anywhere. The voting age comparison applies. Millions of people know and love their gay friends and relatives and will fight for them and their rights….darn few can say that about polygamy. Also, did I EVER say anything goes? No. So the arguement does not stand. The “But if you allow this then…” is a losing arguement.
As per the dumbest thing you ever wrote comment, you would really, really, really have to have produced a ‘hum dinger’ to outdo that one. And I did say “one of”. But I will gladly give you the credit of the doubt on it. To say that people fighting for their marriages and their families do not care about those things….do you really want to claim to have outdone that? Trust me. These couples look at a hopeful life together, look at their kids, and the thought of telling them “legally, we are not longer married”…or in the case of Maine (where I do not know anyone, but I am sure the motivations are the same as with my relatives in Mass.) “we can’t get married” and they are motivated by something very different than a desire to ‘destroy marriage’. Thanks.
Take comfort in knowing that in a few hours, I suspect gay marriage will be, for now, withdrawn as a legal option in Maine. But, I would suspect it will be temporary.
Mr. Rogers, I did not see you post as I was typing between work duties. But, I addressed the issue in my post.
“Virtually no one asking, and no societal support of size exists for polygamy. I doubt it will get anywhere.”
You’re wrong… you keep saying this but you can’t claim ignorance as I have corrected you repeatedly, so I just have to assume you have no problem lying to further your agenda against the Church. Polygamy has quickly become the bigger issue in Canada… gay marriage is barely even requested compared to polygamy. You might want to read up on the subject a bit.
And just because something doesn’t have societal support doesn’t mean squat… that was true of gay marriage (and still is), yet you want to force that on others. You can’t see the huge gaping holes in your logic… it’s bizarre. So what you’re saying is democracy (i.e. “societal support”) should decide if something is okay? That’s funny, I thought you were saying that it shouldn’t be left up to the voters. I guess you use that argument when it suits you and disregard it when it contradicts you. It’s quite apparent how emotion-based your view is at the core.
In giving me your “first person” story you also absconded terms that simply cannot exist other than in marriage as it has always been (man/woman). You referred to your family’s homosexual relationship and spoke of “their” children. They cannot have children and before you go into a tirade about hetero couples who cannot conceive and therefore adopt, they are adopting children born from a hetero conception. Even if they used in-vitro, the offspring is not theirs or only partly theirs and comes from a hetero conception. This has been a central understanding of marriage forever. Certainly they may have parental rights under current laws, but marriage and family has been totally redefined and as I said eariler, really undefined because anything now goes.
“Virtually… no societal support of size exists for polygamy.” The same was true of homosexual unions not even twenty-years ago. So, you want yours, but want to hold back against polygamists because there are only a few that support it right now. Pretty hypocrictal.
As for your 40% argument, it doesn’t hold any water, based on the votes that have gone on throughout the states. Just goes to show that your lobbyists have power and money.
Your continug concept of polyamory is absurd. The government does not allow multiple men and women in one legal marriage. Why do you keep saying that it here already. In practice, yes… legally no.
Not to mention bigoted.
It is a bit odd that the main argument being used here against gay marriage is the danger of polygamy since polygamy is deeply rooted in the Bible.
Many of the leading figures of the OT had multiple wives (and/or concubines), including Abraham, Jacob (Israel), Gideon and David. Polygamy is never explicitly condemned in either the Old or New Testaments. The Law even has provisions relating to the fair treatment of multiple wives and the children of polygamous marriages. The only warning against polygamy is a warning to kings to not collect too many wives – a provision clearly aimed at the “wisest man ever” – Solomon – who supposedly had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
Neither Jesus nor Paul condemns polygamy. The closest is the teaching in the Pastorals (almost certainly not written by Paul) that elders must have only one wife.
By the time of the first century, polygamy had fallen out of favor among Jews because it was frowned upon by Romans as barbaric. According to wikipedia: “The monogamy of the Roman Empire was the cause of two explanatory notes in the writings of Josephus describing how the polygamous marriages of Herod were permitted under Jewish custom.”
St. Augustine held back from condemning polygamy: “”Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife, so as to have more than one wife living.”
Martin Luther said he could not “forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture.”
We do have gay marriage in Canada, but I have never heard that it was forced on anyone. I don’t think marriage of any kind is usually forced on anyone.
However, in the polygamous community of Bountiful, many suspect that teenage girls are being coerced, socially at least, into polygamy.
It is possible that some marriages among other immigrants are also polygamous. Unfortunately, they always occur in a community where women are deprived of equal rights through religious teaching.
So, this is the problem. Is it legal to allow polygamous marriages in Canada, when we know that the second wives are young and in a position where they are taught that women lack authority.
Most of these women are about 16 when they are sent by their parents from the US to Canada to enter into a relationship with Blackmore.
It is a shame to us that we have not made this illegal. I don`t think that the law is in touch with the terrible deprivation that women experience when they are taught male based authority.
The women are rarely Canadian women, but our laws have been used in the case of Bountiful, against women. There is quite a bit of activism on the part of women against this situation. What a disaster.
The point is not whether there is societal support or not for polygamy. The point is what the courts will decide. All polygamists needs is a legal argumentation which homosexual marriage provides for them. The argumentation is that individual will trumps societal and traditional standards with regard to contractual relationships.
Whether one agrees with homosexual marriage or not, the impact will allow for the legal argumentation to be made.