Comment Policy

Disputes of fact and of opinion are why we are here. We may disagree with you, just as we hope you share your disagreements with us. Being friendly will usually invite friendly replies. We can and will delete otherwise great posts for unseemly profanity.

Comments anywhere on the site -- no matter how old the post -- will show up on the front page as a recent comment and in the comment RSS feeds.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Marriage Maine-tained

The marriage neutering advocates had a lot more money, the legislature, and confusing ballot language in their favor. But they still lost in Maine. Associated Press writers Glenn Adams and David Crary report that marriage neutering...
has now lost in every single state - 31 in all - in which it has been put to a popular vote. Gay-rights activists had hoped to buck that trend in Maine - known for its moderate, independent-minded electorate - and mounted an energetic, well-financed campaign.
I disagree with calling these people "gay-rights" advocates. They very well may be that too, but homosexual behavior is not illegal - people already have "gay rights". Marriage laws have an impact on all of us. These are marriage neutering proponents.
Gay-marriage supporters held out hope that the tide would shift before conceding defeat at 2:40 a.m. in a statement that insisted they weren't going away.
Of course they're not going away. They are on a fanatical mission to make everyone else celebrate their behavior and suppress any statement that reflects the reality that coitus and homosexual sodomy are qualitatively different behaviors.

[Much more after the jump.]

Five other states have [neutered marriage licensing] - starting with Massachusetts in 2004, and followed by Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Iowa - but all did so through legislation or court rulings, not by popular vote. In contrast, constitutional amendments [affirming] marriage have been approved in all 30 states where they have been on the ballot.

The defeat left some gay-marriage supporters bitter.

A lot of them were already bitter.
"Our relationship is between us," said Carla Hopkins, 38, of Mount Vernon, with partner Victoria Eleftherio, 38, sitting on her lap outside a hotel ballroom where gay marriage supporters had been hoping for a victory party.
Precisely. It is between you.
"How does that affect anybody else? It's a personal thing."
No, once you demand a state-issued marriage license, it is a public thing. It is between you when you keep it between you. As anyone who goes through a divorce finds out, it is most definitely not just between you.
Earlier Tuesday, before vote-counting began, gay-marriage foe Chuck Schott of Portland warned that Maine "will have its place in infamy" if the gay-rights side won.
See how this is worded - "gay-marriage foe"? How about defender of traditional marriage?
Another Portland resident, Sarah Holman said she was "very torn" but decided - despite her conservative upbringing - to vote in favor of letting gays marry.

"They love and they have the right to love. And we can't tell somebody how to love," said Holman, 26.

This confuses the issue, in the same way it confuses the issue when someone says they don't like drag queens, so they vote to maintain marriage. These couples can express their love. Nobody is stopping them. But they can't force the rest of us to call a brideless or groomless association marriage in our laws.
The other side based many of its campaign ads on claims - disputed by state officials - that the new law would mean "homosexual marriage" would be taught in public schools.
Well, sure, it is going to be taught in public schools no matter what. It is just that parents will still have some leverage to object, or to counter.
Maine voters defeated a measure that would have limited state and local government spending by holding it to the rate of inflation plus population growth...Another measure in Maine, which easily won approval, will allow dispensaries to supply marijuana to patients for medicinal purposes. It is a follow-up to a 1999 measure that legalized medical marijuana but did not set up a distribution system.
So again, we see that it isn't just conservative idealogues or "religious extremists" who are concerned with defending marriage. While marriage neutering advocates may have friends, family, coworkers, etc. that want to avoid the drama and so they nod and seem to affirm their political pleas, some of those people, in the privacy of their ballot box, are sticking up for what's left of marriage. They don't hate anyone; they know in their gut that marriage means something. Hopefully, we can stop the weakening of marriage and restore some strength to it, so that all of us - regardless of lifestyle or sexual orientation - are better off.

0 comments,:

Post a Comment