The Portland Press Herald / The Maine Sunday Telegram

103 COMMENTS

Tortfeasor said...

Why don't they call it what it really is, the "Summer for Hate" tour.

July 14, 2010 at 1:36 PM Report abuse

Godless said...

"I believe that marriage, standing up for marriage, is the future," said Brian Brown, executive director of NOM. --------------- I assume this means they'll be petitioning the government to ban divorce then?

July 14, 2010 at 1:40 PM Report abuse

mallen299 said...

Why is it, that anyone who happens to disagree with a liberal on any part of their agenda is automatically a "hater"? I thought they encourage love and tolerance.

July 14, 2010 at 1:41 PM Report abuse

Tortfeasor said...

Calling a loving, same-sex couple "destructive" to a child sounds like hate to me.

July 14, 2010 at 1:48 PM Report abuse

Ayuh23 said...

Looking forward to that press release, godless.

July 14, 2010 at 1:49 PM Report abuse

AR5 said...

"Summer for Marriage" tour. What a hoot. They could care less about marriage.

July 14, 2010 at 1:55 PM Report abuse

anticon said...

so they won the people's veto (with massive amounts of unnamed out-of-state astroturf support), yet they still need to campaign? hm...I guess they feel threatened by more than just the scary gay people.

July 14, 2010 at 1:57 PM Report abuse

Roxieow said...

yep and anyone who disagrees with a republican/conservative is a moonbat or a m0r0n, or an idi0t, etc. Good cooment godless. Why not ban "marriage" altogether. Lose the word and just have peple make promises.

July 14, 2010 at 1:57 PM Report abuse

mallen299 said...

Roxie, I can't find anyone reflecting a conservative view on this thread calling anyone names. You sure got your panties in a wad quickly.

July 14, 2010 at 2:00 PM Report abuse

mallen299 said...

The article does not say "destructive to children". It says "destructive lifestyle". Must be a reading comprehension problem suffered by some on here.

July 14, 2010 at 2:02 PM Report abuse

tenacity said...

Yep the liberal loser bigoted hate parade is already waving their 'rainbow flag' on the 'Rainbow Reporter' and as posted......... Biddy said... __________________________________ ............. to stir the pot and make a public spectacle of themselves. Proponents of SSM seem to be working quietly on their cause and are respectful of the November vote........... Perhaps they have a more insidious agenda? July 14, 2010 at 12:51 PM ___________________________________ quietly and respectful......hahahahahahhahah................. roflmao

July 14, 2010 at 2:02 PM Report abuse

laloo said...

No marriage for anyone. It is named for a religious rite and has no place on state or federal books. Marriage belongs in church. Civil unions are the only fair way to recognize a committed couple.

July 14, 2010 at 2:03 PM Report abuse

Roxieow said...

maybe I don't wear panties............ just wait the moonbat comments will be here at some point. Are you new here! Must be.

July 14, 2010 at 2:13 PM Report abuse

EdwardTMoore said...

How weak they must feel in their own marriages to see same sex marriage as such a threat. So much money thrown away on this issue. Referendums are inappropriate for human rights issues. Imagine if voting rights for women and African-Americans, civil rights for African-Americans and other human rights had been put to a "People's Veto"? When the issue comes around again, and it will, I hope the RC church and Bishop Malone look into their hearts and souls and do not throw their lot, and their money, in with NOM. Then again, I guess one can only sell their soul once.

July 14, 2010 at 2:16 PM Report abuse

tenacity said...

eddie, this is not a civil rights issue and when you understand it and stop trying to sell it as such maybe you may be listened to. Deceiving lying liberals twisting and spinning words so they can hide behind them. Pathetic

July 14, 2010 at 2:26 PM Report abuse

Page5Girl said...

must have been a quick rally, tentcity has arrived. 100 folks, eh? my graduating class was larger then that.

July 14, 2010 at 2:27 PM Report abuse

Jazz11 said...

The NAZI's said much of the same in the Germany of the 1930's.

July 14, 2010 at 2:30 PM Report abuse

Jazz11 said...

The NAZI's said much of the same in the Germany of the 1930's.

July 14, 2010 at 2:31 PM Report abuse

Roxieow said...

see mallen just read tenTcity.

July 14, 2010 at 2:32 PM Report abuse

AR5 said...

mallen, semantics. The quote reflects that ssm is destructive to the rest of the family. Bunch of lies. But, that is NOM for you. As I stated earlier, NOM could care less about marriage and children.

July 14, 2010 at 2:33 PM Report abuse

JB said...

Ha! Mallen299, didn't have to wait long to find a conservative calling liberals names, did ya?

July 14, 2010 at 2:33 PM Report abuse

Biddy said...

Good post Godless!! Should take the whiners like tentcity couple of days to figure it out.

July 14, 2010 at 2:35 PM Report abuse

JB said...

They're probably lecturing the driver on the evils of coffee right now - no caffiene on the Mormon Express!

July 14, 2010 at 2:37 PM Report abuse

jake007 said...

Page5Girl said... "must have been a quick rally, tentcity has arrived. 100 folks, eh? my graduating class was larger then that." Well is the report from the other side.. "The group of more than 100 cheered and clapped when Baldacci rounded the corner" so much for your" graduating class" anaolgy to slam the other side eh?

July 14, 2010 at 2:44 PM Report abuse

JB said...

I think it's interesting that conservatives seem to be generally against gov't regulation and restrictions, but not in this case. Wall Street runs roughshod over the middle class? OK, free enterprise! Gun control of any kind? NO, you can't stop me from shooting stuff! But SSM? Well, no, you just can't have that...

July 14, 2010 at 2:49 PM Report abuse

tenacity said...

"liberal loser bigoted hate parade"___________________________________________ JB, Roxie was this calling you a name or describing your political views. Thought so....as usual twisting the facts to align with your messed up view of reality. BUT your side using NAZI's, whiners, hater (note the label with a "R") is ok by your 'standards' lol....but kind of sad the abuse of the English Language liberals use.

July 14, 2010 at 2:52 PM Report abuse

JB said...

tenacity, read my comments before you react to them. I was responding to mallen299's comment that he couldn't find anyone reflecting a conservative view on this thread calling anyone names. And then there you were! I never denied that liberals also call people names...

July 14, 2010 at 2:57 PM Report abuse

Biddy said...

tentcity's use of the English language is the only perversity noted here. Who was your English teacher anyways?

July 14, 2010 at 2:58 PM Report abuse

Student04330 said...

it doesn't matter the voters decided back in Nov. let us drop it

July 14, 2010 at 2:59 PM Report abuse

Page5Girl said...

wow jake, not very jokey today.

July 14, 2010 at 3:02 PM Report abuse

Sam said...

U Maine voted over 90% in favor of marriage equality and their support was fairly typical of what polls show for the younger generation. That is our future folks. As nature results in fewer and fewer of today's elderly being alive to vote and more and more of the today's younger generations coming into voting age, this change will become the law of the land, with or without the supreme court. If that bothers you then Iran would be your ideal place to live. The Iranian leaders agree with you wholeheartedly.

July 14, 2010 at 3:02 PM Report abuse

JB said...

"but kind of sad the abuse of the English Language liberals use." The irony is smothering me.

July 14, 2010 at 3:03 PM Report abuse

Victoria said...

P-Town is tops this time of year. Wonder if it's on the tour schedule? Need about 5% more "no" voters to die off. 5-10 years time is all.

July 14, 2010 at 3:06 PM Report abuse

jake007 said...

Page5Girl....well yes,just throwing it back....Anyway this subject is tedious. It gets way to quarrelsome and I ,if not careful can get caught up in that which I do not like.

July 14, 2010 at 3:11 PM Report abuse

tenacity said...

Sam, if your bellwether is the University of Maine you know nothing of history or politics.........."Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." - -- Winston Churchill --------------------- And the older generation is lasting longer ....lol

July 14, 2010 at 3:15 PM Report abuse

MR said...

Republicans are much like a slinky. Really useless to most people, but they do bring a smile to your face when going end over end down a flight of stairs.

July 14, 2010 at 3:56 PM Report abuse

Nietzsche said...

I've finally figured out Teeny's mind. He's based his entire philosophy of hate and bigotry on a single quote by Winston Churchill. While there is some truth to the quote, it certainly does not justify the kind of nasty and vitriolic abuse the religious right is waging on the American people. People are getting sick and tired of this holier than thou attitude and it will certainly backfire if they keep it up. Most Americans are reasonable people and we don't need to be told what to do or how to think. If you want to preach go preach to your flock of sheep in whatever kind of religious hut you go to, but we're not interested in the hurtful, loathing, seepage of decrepit insanity you're trying sell.

July 14, 2010 at 4:09 PM Report abuse

lisap said...

hey NOM, MYOB!!!!

July 14, 2010 at 4:26 PM Report abuse

mainemewi9 said...

"Democrats are like mail boxes...theres's always another one next door....with rarely anything good inside" Going with what i said in the other article...if we are gonna ban same sex marriage because of religious beliefs, therefore no longer separating Church from State, then Church should no longer be exempt from things such as taxes!

July 14, 2010 at 4:34 PM Report abuse

DeathCultt said...

II thought it was a great rally. The count of a hundred people is off. I would venture 2 say the were alot more.

July 14, 2010 at 4:47 PM Report abuse

oldgrump said...

DeathCultt said...The count of a hundred people is off. I would venture 2 say the were alot more.******** then they must have showed up late. I'd say the count of approx 100 would be a good estimate of the size when I was there till around 12:15. The interesting part was the majority came off of NOM's bus.

July 14, 2010 at 5:01 PM Report abuse

MSH said...

""I believe that marriage, standing up for marriage, is the future," said Brian Brown, executive director of NOM." Yah right...Translation: "I hope this gig provides me with a good salary and lasts until the credit cards are paid off"...(job security attacking homosexuals)...."

July 14, 2010 at 5:10 PM Report abuse

DeathCultt said...

MSH, is that the opinion of a janitor?

July 14, 2010 at 5:14 PM Report abuse

MSH said...

"summer for marriage"....sounds so much nicer than "Let's kill all the homosexuals..."

July 14, 2010 at 5:15 PM Report abuse

mainemade said...

Sam, you really hit the nail on the head with your observation about the younger generations' support for marriage equality. The religious right wants to wrap themselves in the flag and the Bible, but they have warped the meanings of both. What is more American than liberty, justice and equality? What is more Christian than extending love, respect, dignity and yes, equality under the law to your fellow human being? As for the Churchill quote, I don't see how being conservative is antithetical to supporting equality. Indeed, I do believe that supporting the formation of more long-term committed marriages is a pretty conservative thing to do! Not to mention that it's pretty patriotic to stand up for the values upon which this nation was founded: religious liberty, separation of church and state, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and JUSTICE FOR ALL!!!!

July 14, 2010 at 6:08 PM Report abuse

mainemade said...

DeathCultt, I do wish you would crawl back under your uneducated and spiteful little rock. In any event, the issue is moving ever closer to the United States Supreme Court, which kind of has a record of standing up for constitutional rights even in the face of tyrannical majority opposition. Imagine that--judges protecting the civil rights of Americans. Huh. Sounds like what the Founders of this great nation intended. If you don't want to live in America, where freedom is the fundamental value of the land, there are several nice theocracies in which you might be interested. I hear that Iran is pretty nice this time of year, and that its religious leaders hate gay people too. You'll fit right in.

July 14, 2010 at 6:30 PM Report abuse

DeathCultt said...

Hey Mainmade you spouted the same garbage during the vote, Just like UR nauseating diatribes about how happy U will B 2 get Married when no on 1 passes,"How's that working out 4 ya?" This measure has seen other courts in other States and failed. Though U have a 50\50 chance. I must fall upon the old axium. Don't count UR chickens untill they hatch.

July 14, 2010 at 6:54 PM Report abuse

boofaloo said...

Godwin @ 2:30pm.

July 14, 2010 at 7:22 PM Report abuse

mainemade said...

DeathCultt, I will indeed be overjoyed when equality is the law of the land and I am able to legally marry the love of my life in my home state. However, I am already happy, because I have love, children, a good job, a home, a wonderful extended family, fantastic friends, and pretty much everything that truly matters in life. Even if I could never marry the woman I love, nothing could ever change the blessing that our relationship has bestowed upon both of us. In spite of our inability to have a legal marriage, we have made a life and a home together. We have what so many people desperately want. I forgive your animosity and small-mindedness because I know that you do not know any better. But I will continue to pray that God's Love will open your heart.

July 14, 2010 at 7:29 PM Report abuse

JB said...

It's an axiom, not axium. Looks like you've switched to using "UR" to mask your inability to correctly choose between "your" and "you're". Do you "venture 2 [sic] say the [sic] were alot [sic] more" because you couldn't count them all on your fingers and toes?

July 14, 2010 at 7:31 PM Report abuse

AR5 said...

It is ironic that this organization feels like they have business to do in Maine. They must realize that their "win" last November is short-lived. And, how silly for them to lie about caring about marriage and families..........smart people see right through that.

July 14, 2010 at 7:44 PM Report abuse

DeathCultt said...

Hey JB U don't like the way I post...don't read it

July 14, 2010 at 7:58 PM Report abuse

HesterPrynne said...

A few, Supreme court decisions on marriage: 1) Griswold v Connecticut: Question: Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions…? Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is therefore null and void

July 14, 2010 at 8:29 PM Report abuse

HesterPrynne said...

Supreme court decisions on marriage; 2) Loving v Virginia: Question ~ Did Virginia's antimiscegenation law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Conclusion: Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment.

July 14, 2010 at 8:31 PM Report abuse

HesterPrynne said...

SCOTUS 4) Lawrence & Garner v Texas: Responding to a disturbance in a private residence, Houston police saw Lawrence and another man, Tyron Garner, engaging in a private, consensual sexual act. Lawrence and Garner were arrested and convicted of deviate sexual intercourse. Question: Do their convictions violate the state's vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Answer: the Court held that the Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause. "Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government," wrote Justice Kennedy. "The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual," continued Justice Kennedy

July 14, 2010 at 8:34 PM Report abuse

HesterPrynne said...

SCOTUS 3: Zablocki v Redhail: Question: Did the Wisconsin statute violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Conclusion: Yes. In an 8-1 decision, the Court held that Wisconsin's statute violated the Equal Protection Clause and REAFFIRMED THAT MARRIAGE WAS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.(emphasis mine) In the majority opinion authored by Justice Thurgood Marshall, the Court EMPHASIZED MARRIAGE AS PART OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY found in the Fourteenth Amendment as identified in Griswold v. Connecticut.

July 14, 2010 at 8:37 PM Report abuse

HesterPrynne said...

Last one for now. Turner v. Safley, (1987), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving the constitutionality of prison regulations. ...struck down a regulation that prohibited inmates from marrying without the permission of the warden. The Court held that prisoners have the right to marry. This decision is in line with the Supreme Court's decision that the right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the liberty element of the due process clause Loving v. Virginia.

July 14, 2010 at 8:39 PM Report abuse

HesterPrynne said...

tenacity said... eddie, this is not a civil rights issue " In an effort to help ignormramous supremus understand the SCOTUS decisions, I tried to take out all the big words. But if I took out ALL the big words, those of us with normal intelligence, would not have understood it. I hope someone takes compassion on the poor developmentally delayed Tenacity and explains how each of the Supreme Court decisions shoots down his theory that this is NOT a civil rights issue. Of course the Supreme Court could be wrong and I'm sure they would be more than happy to listen to the oral arguments of Tenacity. When hell freezes over.

July 14, 2010 at 8:45 PM Report abuse

brightOne said...

"...once HOMOSEUAL behaviour was once considered a mental illness..." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - You mean behavior? So was thinking thoughts that were not condoned by the Pope.

July 14, 2010 at 8:47 PM Report abuse

HesterPrynne said...

DeathCultt said... Hester U spouted the same during the vote. All of what U stated did not seem to work in other states which decided 2keep Marriage where it belongs. 1 man 1 women including Maine _____ Is there any chance you could type using normal English??? I said it before because it's true. This will need to be decided in the courts the same as was necessary for civil rights with blacks and women. The law is way ahead of the general population, who are rightened into believing myths and lies. Judges can see through that and make better decisions.

July 14, 2010 at 9:01 PM Report abuse

tenacity said...

jester, having a bad day there sweetheart? lol needless to say jester is wound up too tight again. Everyone needs to be quiet so she can recite her mantra. .......................and by the way the choices of like-minded individuals is not a 'civil right' and is not a federal protected class of minorities.............. So simply she can't handle the truth so she goes into her ranting and angry bigoted hatred against anyone who speaks the truth. Sad yes but definitely expected from jester.

July 14, 2010 at 9:23 PM Report abuse

Divinity said...

Godless said...""I believe that marriage, standing up for marriage, is the future," said Brian Brown, executive director of NOM. --------------- I assume this means they'll be petitioning the government to ban divorce then?" _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Nah, they're fighting against the growing threat of hot-tub weddings and the really flighty parachute jump ceremonies. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ lisap said..."hey NOM, MYOB!!!!" - - - These people are the poster children of what happens when, generation after generation, they marry their own brothers. ___________________________________________________________________________ Do we anticipate a "Fall for Honeymoons"? A "Spring for Flings" and in between a "Winter for their Discontent"?

July 14, 2010 at 9:31 PM Report abuse

grumblestilt said...

"What is more American than liberty, justice and equality? What is more Christian than extending love, respect, dignity and yes, equality under the law to your fellow human being?" Beautifully said! I have a question though: A bunch of people here at the station were saying that that the financial backers of NOM once had an unusual vision of marriage. Is that true? Does anyone know what it is?

July 15, 2010 at 12:40 AM Report abuse

frontjon said...

DADT is dying on two fronts... one with the US legislature, one in the US courts... DOMA is under challenge in MA (where the "judicial tyranny" of applying the constitution found against it), will be challenged again when Prop 8 dies... All evidence that marriage equality will come. The primary reason? There are no rational arguments against it. It's all just a matter of time.

July 15, 2010 at 7:39 AM Report abuse

HesterPrynne said...

It was foolish of me to assume Tenacity could extrapolate rationale from the few SCOTUS cases I mentioned. But one hopes, right? The overarching themes of these particular cases are: 1) the individual's right of intimate association (Loving and Lawrence); 2) a State law cannot be based on a religious belief-individual rights supercede (Griswold) and 3) state laws cannot violate Due Process Clause. (Zablocki v Redhail) And all uphold marriage as a civil right. And civil rights are granted to anyone born in the US. They need not be based on any individual characteristic or belief. But I repeat, Tenacity knows better than the Supreme Court. As soon as he explains the situation to them, I'm sure they'll see the error of their ways and reverse themselves on those decisions.

July 15, 2010 at 7:49 AM Report abuse

frontjon said...

HesterPrynne, it'll be fun to hear their wailing and gnashing of teeth when this discrimination is finally done away with. One can't help but wonder what they'll do? Riot like Alabama after civil right legislation passed and school segregation was ended? One wonders...

July 15, 2010 at 7:52 AM Report abuse

brightOne said...

"the choices of like-minded individuals is not a 'civil right' and is not a federal protected class of minorities" - - - - - - - - - - - - Prove to us, scientifically, that it's a choice and not genetic or involuntary. The fact is scientific studies to date suggest a number of biological factors. But you ignore this to further your small minded agenda. Emphasis on *small*.

July 15, 2010 at 8:50 AM Report abuse

brightOne said...

"One can't help but wonder what they'll do? " - - - - - - There's a long list of incendiary issue that the religious right can ignite at any time to get the ignorant and uninformed riled up and vote for their candidates. Take immigration reform for example or prayer in school, creationism in school, abortion, etc etc. It's all about the votes.

July 15, 2010 at 8:57 AM Report abuse

brightOne said...

Considering the prejudice, hatred, blackmail, physical abuse, derision, and public humiliation that gay people have endured in the past, do you really believe anyone would choose to be gay? Being gay is is a biological trait. Prejudice against gays is learned behavior and is a choice that can be reversed.

July 15, 2010 at 9:19 AM Report abuse

trisailer said...

They should call it "Let's continue to deprive a group of Americans who's behavior we don't like tour" Gays want what those of you who are trying to deprive them already have, exactly the same rights and privledges. It is crystal clear that the rightys are not content to focus on controlling their own behavior, and performing poorly at that, but they want everyone else to be like them.

July 15, 2010 at 10:03 AM Report abuse

trisailer said...

teenyboy, for someone who hates this "rainbow rag" you sure do spend a lot of time here.

July 15, 2010 at 10:05 AM Report abuse

Mahogany said...

Anyone that thinks being gay is a choice is a closet bisexual. If you had to make a choice to be straight, that implies you had attraction to both and chose one over the other. As for NOM, I think it's time we stand up for traditional marriage as they see it. Ban divorce, and nullify any marriage where procreation is not or no longer possible. Anybody want to join me on that crusade?

July 15, 2010 at 10:08 AM Report abuse

HesterPrynne said...

brightOne said... "the choices of like-minded individuals is not a 'civil right' and is not a federal protected class of minorities" - - - - - - - - - - - - Prove to us, scientifically, that it's a choice and not genetic or involuntary _______ Actually no proof is necessary, (although I agree with your point) BrightOne. The Supreme Court does not require an 'immutable characteristic' when considering civil rights. Religion is a group of like minded people...as that is certainly a choice, not an immutable characteristic. Religion enjoys protected status. To be considered a 'class', the group has to have more in common with each other, than they do dissimilarities. And one group of 'similarily situated' people need to prove they are treated differently based on their similar characteristics. So Tenacity's big point of 'like minded people' not being deserving of protected status is wrong, as are most of his made up theories.

July 15, 2010 at 10:37 AM Report abuse

grumblestilt said...

"Furthermore, since "marriage" crossed the line to be federally recognized, it no longer belongs to the church." Marriage in America NEVER belonged to the church. Even the Plymouth Covenant that the pilgrims signed before stepping onto this soil specifically stated marriage was a civil rather than a religious contract. That's the way it was in Leyden where they had been living and it was one of the reasons they did not want to be in England. In fact, the official Church of England was one of the reasons why Washington (who loathed having to take an oath to the Church in order to be an army officer) and the other Founders wanted a complete break with England. This whole thing is simple: If you want to abide by your own church's rules, you can - but you shouldn't inflict those rules upon others. Catholics don't get divorces and that works out just fine for everyone. So, if you're a Mormon (or whatever), don't marry a person of your gender. Seriously - it's that simple.

July 15, 2010 at 11:26 AM Report abuse

grumblestilt said...

"One sign said "Is it loving to bring children into a destructive lifestyle?"" I am assuming that was someone protesting against the Mormon group who thinks it's wrong to raise children to be hateful and bigoted. If so, then I agree. The anti-gay people have never shown how gay marriage harms them - yet it's clear how they are harming gays: they even took away their right to marry. Where do we draw the line when it comes to religious laws and marriage? Catholics can't marry non-Catholics and marriage is different for Muslims than Jews. Many churches support gay marriage. We should do the right thing and let people decide for themselves. What's next, using the Bible to dictate how we deal with adulterers? People of other religions? Should we stone married couples to death if they have sex during menses? Wy not accept the American value of personal freedom and stop institutionalizing bigotry.

July 15, 2010 at 11:43 AM Report abuse

frontjon said...

Great news everyone! http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gftV6RnfBC8iPPWGM0SGQeNLiC6QD9GVIC3G0 "Court strikes challenge to DC gay marriage law" It just keeps getting better and better folks!!

July 15, 2010 at 12:03 PM Report abuse

grumblestilt said...

The ruling by the DC Court of Appeals is critical because of the reason for the ruling: "But city officials balked, saying a district human rights law barred initiatives that would authorize discrimination." In other words, a high Federal court has now stated that anti-gay marriage initiatives "authorize discrimination." The anti-gay people might want to appeal this to the Supreme Court, but they should be terrified of that since the SCOTUS could strike all anti-gay marriage laws in America with that argument. This is indeed a great victory for those who believe in freedom and equality.

July 15, 2010 at 12:27 PM Report abuse

revelation said...

The homosexual supporters are so desperate and disillusioned, they keep spouting the exact same stuff they did over a year ago. It got them nowhere then and it will get them nowhere now.

July 15, 2010 at 12:30 PM Report abuse

frontjon said...

revelation much has happened in the past year... primarily at the federal level. You must not have been paying attention. We have made immense strides... and the pro-discrimination crowd is losing battle after battle. Soon, they will have lost the war.

July 15, 2010 at 12:32 PM Report abuse

hoffenpot said...

Only 100 people?! I was expecting maybe 500-1,000. I'm sure that privately they're seething about the paltry turnout. Where were the candidates running for office? Paul Lepage and Dean Scontras kept this crowd at arm's length. Maybe they see the looming controversy of NOM breaking Maine's election laws and decided to steer clear. Wise decision on their part.

July 15, 2010 at 12:35 PM Report abuse

frontjon said...

More great news from the world! http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100715/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_argentina_gay_marriage "Argentina legalizes gay marriage in historic vote"

July 15, 2010 at 12:38 PM Report abuse

tenacity said...

gumbie, haven't you and jester got it yet? of course this is going to the SCOTUS it's a matter of who get there first. In the mean time your and jester's mean spirited bigoted hateful attacks against those standing up for what they believe is pathetic. Look at the lawsuit report, this is exactly what was predicted that the homosexuals would use their 'special' laws to the disadvantage of society. Three women (who actually have 'gender' status federally) being discriminated against by homosexuals who are not held accountable. Then a new 'special' law is implemented and who's the first to go running to the courts screaming discrimination! Sounds like the Black Panther Voter intimidation case. Special rules for 'special' groups. Is this what you want people in your "Fairness" mentality? Take a stand for something which is really fair. The same laws for everyone, not special rules for like-minded individuals.

July 15, 2010 at 12:56 PM Report abuse

frontjon said...

"Hard 2 understand why a person would take happiness in somethng happening someplace else." Because we're happy for the successes and wins of others, instead of being self absorbed monsters. As for it's end coming, you aren't paying attention. Here's my challenge to you: give me a list of decisions/legislation/benefit extensions under the federal government since DOMA in 1996 that defend your view. That's all you have to do.

July 15, 2010 at 12:59 PM Report abuse

frontjon said...

"The same laws for everyone, not special rules for like-minded individuals." You aren't paying attention tenacity... when marriage equality comes, it will apply to ALL citizens: you'll just choose not to take advantage of it. It's not givin to a specific class, but to all citizens. You're "special rights" argument is, as most of your arguments, totally without merit.

July 15, 2010 at 1:01 PM Report abuse

tenacity said...

so frontboy, you're ok that the women are ignored but the homosexual get special treatment by the courts......thought so hypocrite

July 15, 2010 at 1:21 PM Report abuse

frontjon said...

tenacity, I've no idea what you're talking about with your comment "women are ignored"... I cannot tell you if I'm OK with it or not. If you have source material you'd like to share, that would help.

July 15, 2010 at 1:25 PM Report abuse

frontjon said...

DeathCultt I'm not arguing anything. I'm stating facts... trends under our federal government since 1996 are not in your favor. If you know of trends of extended benefits, recent rulings, changes to federal policy, etc... that are indeed in your favor, feel free to post them.

July 15, 2010 at 1:34 PM Report abuse

frontjon said...

ROFLOL!!! I love how you guys make it sound like all 1.2 million citizens of this state voted with you to continue to discriminate! ROFLMAO! You won by 30,000 little votes there guy... and I'm not being armchair anything... I just pay attention and see what is happening around me. So does NOM or they wouldn't be wasting the day for 100 people by coming here to trumpet in favor of discrimination. You're just not paying attention my friend.

July 15, 2010 at 1:51 PM Report abuse

tenacity said...

frontboy reread the article "Man wins gay discrimination suit" again and again. Then try to explain why it's ok for the homosexual managers to discriminate against the women but not allowed with the homosexual. again hypocrite

July 15, 2010 at 1:57 PM Report abuse

frontjon said...

Bigoted discrimination is always wrong... If those women were passed up because they were not gay men then of course it was wrong, and they should sue as well if they feel they have a strong enough case. Only a sexist pig would think otherwise. Why are you calling me a hypocrite? What exactly have I said that would make me a hypocrite?

July 15, 2010 at 2:07 PM Report abuse

frontjon said...

"I have more important things 2 do with my time." -- Then go do your important things, Cultty, and don't bother with us lowly homosexuals. I'm not even debating aspects of the legal situation, doofus, I'm pointing out the fact that there have been more changes under federal law and within the federal government on my side than yours... that's easily provable and has nothing whatsoever to do with law. Run along now little Cultty... do your important things. The rest of us will watch as Maine, like all other states, eventually ends discrimination. It's an inevitable reality. TTFN.

July 15, 2010 at 2:17 PM Report abuse

Nietzsche said...

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." --- Winston Churchill

July 15, 2010 at 2:18 PM Report abuse

revelation said...

Homosexual supporters continue to count their chickens before they hatch. They thought sure that they had it in the bag last time. They have a serious disconnect. Yes, I read and it seems that we see it one way and you see it a different way. Your way didn't work out in your favor last time and you guys were so sure that it would. There are forces at work that you don't understand or deny and so you will again be disappointed next time. Same-sex marriage was defeated rather easily while traditional marriage supporters were seemingly on the defensive on election day. Now traditional marriage supporters have gone on the offense and the results will be even more in our favor in the future. What about this is so hard to understand? I understand that you just don't want to see what lies ahead so you make lies that you will believe.

July 15, 2010 at 2:24 PM Report abuse

frontjon said...

well then cultty, I guess you don't have more important things for you to do. Good for you... I'm happy for ya. revelation can you demonstrate a list of trends at the federal level (changed policy, legislation, law) since DOMA in 1996 that actually defends your views? I can demonstrate such a list supportive of my views... Shall I? It's really not that difficult.

July 15, 2010 at 2:41 PM Report abuse

frontjon said...

revelation claims: "There are forces at work that you don't understand or deny and so you will again be disappointed next time." Okee Dokee... what are these mysterious "forces at work" sir? I can't deny them if I don't know what they are.

July 15, 2010 at 2:42 PM Report abuse

tenacity said...

jester, frontboy, how did you feel about polygamy?

July 15, 2010 at 2:46 PM Report abuse

frontjon said...

On a personal level, monogamy doesn't bother me in the least. None of my business as long... and as long as the relationships aren't abusive, I could care less. From a practical view, our tax system is not set up to define relationships as more than two persons, in either income tax law, survivor benefits, or anything else (this also applies to a large chunk of civil law such as child custody). If we are to make monogamy legal, we must first deal with our tax law. Personally, getting rid of the IRS and starting over would suit me just fine (we need it desperately) but we'd need to make the necessary accommodations for multiple person relationships if we were to keep deductions, survivor benefits, etc... as they are under our current tax structure, then start in on adjusting civil law to include the provisions necessary for multiple partners. Our current system would go broke (if it weren't already).

July 15, 2010 at 2:54 PM Report abuse

frontjon said...

ROFLOL... Please read "monogamy" as "polygamy" in my previous post... then it might make sense. Tis been a long day...

July 15, 2010 at 2:56 PM Report abuse

frontjon said...

Do what? You said you'd not so much as urinate on me to save my life were I on fire, now you ask me not to call you by such a cute name? Not gonna happen Cultty... not til you provide the very respect you ask from others.

July 15, 2010 at 3:21 PM Report abuse

HesterPrynne said...

frontjon said... revelation claims: "There are forces at work that you don't understand or deny and so you will again be disappointed next time." Okee Dokee... what are these mysterious "forces at work" sir? I can't deny them if I don't know what they are. _____________________ohdeargod, don't go there,frontjon! You'll set him off on a flight of fancy that is beyond anything you've ever imagined. It's not a new theme for revelation. He LITERALLY means dark forces. It's not a metaphor.

July 15, 2010 at 7:16 PM Report abuse

HesterPrynne said...

revelation and tenacity, you say the conservatives are making strides in the war against same sex marriage & equality of rights for the LGBT community. I know it's hard for you to pull back and see the larger picture, but let me explain. Maine SSM was a big frog in a small pond. We expected to lose battles along the way. That's the path civil rights have taken throughout history. But would you please document ONE, just ONE, court decision in the last 3 years that has been a set back for same sex marriage or equality of rights for the LGBT community? One. Just one. You can't. Because there haven't been any. EVERY court case has moved the campaign forward. It's successfully come out of one appeals court now. And is on it's way to two more appeals courts on both ends of the nation. It's tracking to the Supreme Court. That's where DOMA and other anti-gay legislation will be shot down. It's happening one court case at a time, heading for the big time where justice will prevail.

July 15, 2010 at 7:28 PM Report abuse

tenacity said...

jester, Michigan,Washington,Oklahoma,Georgia, Nebraska, and New York, Supreme Courts have all upheld their Marriage Laws, plenty more and you know it. So click your ruby red slippers and wish you were back in 'Kanada' lol ............how about the discrimination case for the homosexual man after the homosexual manager discriminated against 3 women. There is your 'special rights' law at work ..hypocrite

July 15, 2010 at 8:22 PM Report abuse

frontjon said...

HesterPrynne - you're absolutely correct... much like civil rights cases of the past, the true victory came after many small steps, representing a trend under government that civil rights legislation and change was indeed needed... those small steps are easily seen in history, leading up to victory. We are in the middle of such a progressive set of steps, one on top of the other, leading to an ultimate victory. There are no trends on the other side. That does not mean there won't be minor set backs along the way (even if we haven't seen one so far), but it's a clear indication of where this whole thing is headed, and explains why the opposition is so up in arms and terrified at the trends before them. This will come: there's no logical reason to assume otherwise.

July 16, 2010 at 9:15 AM Report abuse