Maine Just Says "No" to Gay Marriage.

Beautiful state. But saying no to the civil rights of someone else is disgraceful...

Why isnt that kind of referendum anti Constitutional?

They did NOT say no to civil rights..they said no to disease spreading feces fuckers fucking up the lives of their children with their perveted sick shit fetishes and gay pride marches which teaches the kids its OK to fuck the shit inside other mens bumholes and spread aids and suck the shit coverd cocks of other men and swallow their hiv infected spurtings.

THAT is what they do...its the TRUTH..so fucking LIVE with it ya sicko shit loving aids spreading degenerated child molesting sicko FUCKS!!!

YOU sick CUNTS are NOT gonna fuck OUR childrens lives up with your FOUL SHIT LOVING SICKNESS!!!




thoe protests too much !


I aint even getting started ya fag loving sicko.

Wait till I tell how I REALLY feel!!!

The fact that these shit eating child molesting sperm drinking aids spreading FUCKS are gaining so much levergage is because NO ONE PROTESTED ENOUGH!!!

SOMEone has to tell the truth about these degenerated life destroyers.


TRUTH RIGHT HERE!!!!

Lol! Its not over , never is.
they WILL get what they want soon, they always do ,,, persitent fuckers they are .. (gay marrige)

obsereve:Its minority rule! anything to divide ,conquer and keep the majority programmed in guilt, and helplessness for not for not towing the compassionat human line ...


...the majority are too buisy in survival
mode and apathy, and do nothing!..

and the dirty filthy layers love it too..$$$$$$$$$$$ more combined income to take whoooaahhhh !


You take it too personal. I never understood why people who have nothing to gain or lose in the outcome get so upset about it...



You vastly underestimate what the sanctity of marriage means to many, many people.

The government has no business being involved in marriage. The government should issue a contract that gives everyone equality under the law. Other than that they have NO BUSINESS being involved.

There is an agenda here. They want to teach it in schools and normalize it. The government should not be involved at all.

Do away with government sanctioned marriage all together.

If two people regardless of gender choose to spend their lives together and wish to do so under the sanction of whatever religion/deity they believe in, then let them, and let it be between them, their partner and whatever church or deity they believe in.

All tax, legal, custody, trust etc. decisons based upon common law marriage.

Problem solved.

Next!

The govt has no business in religious marriage. However, many civil (legal/financial) arrangements between people depend on a contract paper, sorry to say. That's a reality that you will have to accept. But dont worry you can still go to a Church and get married, and they will deny homosexual unions, as you like. But dont expect civil marriages to act in the same way. And that is what at issue here, never forget that! Do you understand yet?

The govt has no business in religious marriage. However, many civil (legal/financial) arrangements between people depend on a contract paper, sorry to say. That's a reality that you will have to accept. But dont worry you can still go to a Church and get married, and they will deny homosexual unions, as you like. But dont expect civil marriages to act in the same way. And that is what at issue here, never forget that! Do you understand yet?



Did you even read my post? I said let the Government issue a contract... NOT a marriage… a legal contract between consenting adults…

I don't personally object to gay marriage. My best friend is a gay man.

You don't understand. Don't call it marriage where the government is concerned. Call it a legal union. Let churches, synagogues, temples and mosques do as they believe. Don't shove your agenda down other people's throats.

Do you understand yet???

The govt has no business in religious marriage. However, many civil (legal/financial) arrangements between people depend on a contract paper, sorry to say. That's a reality that you will have to accept. But dont worry you can still go to a Church and get married, and they will deny homosexual unions, as you like. But dont expect civil marriages to act in the same way. And that is what at issue here, never forget that! Do you understand yet?



Did you even read my post? I said let the Government issue a contract... NOT a marriage… a legal contract between consenting adults…

I don't personally object to gay marriage. My best friend is a gay man.

You don't understand. Don't call it marriage where the government is concerned. Call it a legal union. Let churches, synagogues, temples and mosques do as they believe. Don't shove your agenda down other people's throats.

Do you understand yet???


Yes I understand your terminology. However, I call it a "marriage" whatever the case may be,whether you like it or not. No one has a monopoly on terms on if I call my common law partner a "wife", whether I call our union a "marriage", whether I call my kids a "blessing" from God. I dont call your kids "bastards", or your union a "blasphemy", or your sex "immoral". Neither should anyone caste that self righteous judgement on someone else, denying Constitutional rights....

What I want to know is when I am going to be allowed to legally marry a calf? Its my right and its love! What's wrong with love, damn it?

The govt has no business in religious marriage. However, many civil (legal/financial) arrangements between people depend on a contract paper, sorry to say. That's a reality that you will have to accept. But dont worry you can still go to a Church and get married, and they will deny homosexual unions, as you like. But dont expect civil marriages to act in the same way. And that is what at issue here, never forget that! Do you understand yet?



Did you even read my post? I said let the Government issue a contract... NOT a marriage… a legal contract between consenting adults…

I don't personally object to gay marriage. My best friend is a gay man.

You don't understand. Don't call it marriage where the government is concerned. Call it a legal union. Let churches, synagogues, temples and mosques do as they believe. Don't shove your agenda down other people's throats.

Do you understand yet???


Yes I understand your terminology. However, I call it a "marriage" whatever the case may be,whether you like it or not. No one has a monopoly on terms on if I call my common law partner a "wife", whether I call our union a "marriage", whether I call my kids a "blessing" from God. I dont call your kids "bastards", or your union a "blasphemy", or your sex "immoral". Neither should anyone caste that self righteous judgement on someone else, denying Constitutional rights....



I'm sorry but you don't have the right to not have your feelings hurt... toughen up buttercup. What I propose gives everyone their rights, and no one gets to shove an agenda down anyone else's throats.

The agenda, buttercup, is to deny civil rights to a segment of society that is demanding them despite you. You want them to shut up, and stay in the place you designate. It doesnt work that way, buttercupnut. Just swallow it and accept that some adults arent what you want them to be...

The agenda, buttercup, is to deny civil rights to a segment of society that is demanding them despite you. You want them to shut up, and stay in the place you designate. It doesnt work that way, buttercupnut. Just swallow it and accept that some adults arent what you want them to be...



You are not being denied civil rights if you have the exact same contract that I or anyone else has... got it?

I want you and the fundies to both shut up because I want you to both have what you are asking for... got it?

You don't have to agree with each other. You never will.

I don't want to tell any adult who or what to be, and I don't think anyone should get to do that. NOT you and NOT a fundie... got it?

Pro gay churches... hell yes

No gay churches... hell yes

Civil rights for all... hell yes

Marriage, if the church says yes it is ok with us... hell yes

If the church says no way... hell yes

Got it?

What I want to know is when I am going to be allowed to legally marry a calf? Its my right and its love! What's wrong with love, damn it?


Why don't you legally marry a good physiatric doctor? Maybe he/she can help you pull your head out of your ass.

Marriage is a legal contract that guarantees protections to partners, and guarantees obligations such as pensions to the significant other. And you want to deny those protections to people who give their life to a relationship simply because you dont like what they do in bed?

That is why it is a civil rights issue, and that's why it should be anti Constitutional for unaffected third parties like yourself to decide their fate(s),,,,


no comments on this? interesting....

Beautiful state. But saying no to the civil rights of someone else is disgraceful...

Why isnt that kind of referendum anti Constitutional?

They did NOT say no to civil rights..they said no to disease spreading feces fuckers fucking up the lives of their children with their perveted sick shit fetishes and gay pride marches which teaches the kids its OK to fuck the shit inside other mens bumholes and spread aids and suck the shit coverd cocks of other men and swallow their hiv infected spurtings.

THAT is what they do...its the TRUTH..so fucking LIVE with it ya sicko shit loving aids spreading degenerated child molesting sicko FUCKS!!!

YOU sick CUNTS are NOT gonna fuck OUR childrens lives up with your FOUL SHIT LOVING SICKNESS!!!

What I want to know is when I am going to be allowed to legally marry a calf? Its my right and its love! What's wrong with love, damn it?


Why don't you legally marry a good physiatric doctor? Maybe he/she can help you pull your head out of your ass.

Its not a mental illness, its LOVE! What's wrong with one person and one animal who love each other expressing that love? Are you heartless? Have you know emotion? Everyone gotta have somebody or thing!
EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ANIMAL FUCKERS! EQUAL RIGHTS FOR TOASTER FUCKERS! EQUAL RIGHTS FOR LAMP HUMPERS! Healthcare is a Civil Right (oops that one slipped out, sorry)! EQUAL RIGHTS FOR PEDOPHILES AND METAL FILES!

Let's march on Maine! I'll bring the leash and you wear the spiked collar and tutu with your pink stilletos! It'll be one big rainbow of a time! I believe in rainbows! I am a rainbow!

The agenda, buttercup, is to deny civil rights to a segment of society that is demanding them despite you. You want them to shut up, and stay in the place you designate. It doesnt work that way, buttercupnut. Just swallow it and accept that some adults arent what you want them to be...



You are not being denied civil rights if you have the exact same contract that I or anyone else has... got it?

I want you and the fundies to both shut up because I want you to both have what you are asking for... got it?

You don't have to agree with each other. You never will.

I don't want to tell any adult who or what to be, and I don't think anyone should get to do that. NOT you and NOT a fundie... got it?

Pro gay churches... hell yes

No gay churches... hell yes

Civil rights for all... hell yes

Marriage, if the church says yes it is ok with us... hell yes

If the church says no way... hell yes

Got it?

We are talking about two consenting adults here. You may love animals but do you want to also have a sexual relationship with one? Do you really think that if the animal could speak for himself he would consent to you doing that to them? I don't think so. Same goes with pedophiles, the child does not give consent. It's forced upon him or her. Your animal and pedophile arguments are old and stale. Try something new.

ALL LOVE IS EQUAL! I like to love me some calves. What's wrong with that? Whose business is it if I wanna marry a calf? We (me and my calf) demand rights to adopt children too! EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL! ALL LOVE IS EQUAL!

Beautiful state. But saying no to the civil rights of someone else is disgraceful...

Why isnt that kind of referendum anti Constitutional?

Not sure how it is "anti Constitutional".

Also, "disgraceful" is a very powerful word to use in regards to a State who does not support a legal ceremony which the VAST majority of the US has moral, personal, idealogical or scientific issues with.

Even the the VAST majority of the GLBT community only supports the idea to stand with their "brethern" and have no personal desire or interest in the concept.

We are talking about a super minority attempting to use the courts and the 14th amendment to subvert the desire, will and VOTE of the VAST majority, is that Constitutional?


The tyranny of the majority. I think that is a significant, Constitutionally speaking....

The "tyranny of the majority"? Give me a break. We are not talking about a simple majority attempting to "bully" a minority. We are talking about a super minority using the courts to "bully" the super majority and using guilt to try and win their way over the masses.


In other words the tyranny of the majority. You seem to describe it well yet have a mental block as to what it means in practice...

No, apparently you have not grasped the concept of is it means to be tyrannical. If the majority were as a tyrant then homosexuals would not be able to attempt or successfully subvert their vote via the courts. The masses would say "no" to same-sex marriage and the super minority, in this cases, the GLBT community would have no recourse.

They have a recourse and they use it, despite the VOTES of the masses which you are calling tyrannical.

The irony being the very document you have mentioned, the Constitution, affords the majority the civil right to do exactly what you call "disgraceful" and tyrannical.

So what is it, the Constitution affords us civil rights or it doesn't?


You dont know your Constitution. It protects the minority view, not the majority (who dont need "as much" protection). Back to the books boy,,, Civics 101,,, Oh sorry they dont teach that anymore, do they?

You want to protect a ceremony, a spiritual union, sanctified by religion. It is your civil right to get married and believe what you want about it (freedom of religion,speech),,, However, it is a legal contract and has civil financial consequences (equality under the law). And more importantly YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS arent at issue, they arent being taken away,threatened, or denied. It is you that cannot discuss these other civil issues, but imposes your beliefs on others, and denies others equal protections under the law that you yourself enjoy without prejudice.

This is a Constitutional issue, and no majority has a right to decide the fate of this minority.

What part of "your calf is not consenting to your "love" is that you don't understand? You are speaking on behalf of an animal who can not speak for itself.

Do you understand this concept?

Beautiful state. But saying no to the civil rights of someone else is disgraceful...

Why isnt that kind of referendum anti Constitutional?

Not sure how it is "anti Constitutional".

Also, "disgraceful" is a very powerful word to use in regards to a State who does not support a legal ceremony which the VAST majority of the US has moral, personal, idealogical or scientific issues with.

Even the the VAST majority of the GLBT community only supports the idea to stand with their "brethern" and have no personal desire or interest in the concept.

We are talking about a super minority attempting to use the courts and the 14th amendment to subvert the desire, will and VOTE of the VAST majority, is that Constitutional?


The tyranny of the majority. I think that is a significant, Constitutionally speaking....

The "tyranny of the majority"? Give me a break. We are not talking about a simple majority attempting to "bully" a minority. We are talking about a super minority using the courts to "bully" the super majority and using guilt to try and win their way over the masses.


In other words the tyranny of the majority. You seem to describe it well yet have a mental block as to what it means in practice...

No, apparently you have not grasped the concept of is it means to be tyrannical. If the majority were as a tyrant then homosexuals would not be able to attempt or successfully subvert their vote via the courts. The masses would say "no" to same-sex marriage and the super minority, in this cases, the GLBT community would have no recourse.

They have a recourse and they use it, despite the VOTES of the masses which you are calling tyrannical.

The irony being the very document you have mentioned, the Constitution, affords the majority the civil right to do exactly what you call "disgraceful" and tyrannical.

So what is it, the Constitution affords us civil rights or it doesn't?


You dont know your Constitution. It protects the minority view, not the majority (who dont need "as much" protection). Back to the books boy,,, Civics 101,,, Oh sorry they dont teach that anymore, do they?

You want to protect a ceremony, a spiritual union, sanctified by religion. It is your civil right to get married and believe what you want about it (freedom of religion,speech),,, However, it is a legal contract and has civil financial consequences (equality under the law). And more importantly YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS arent at issue, they arent being taken away,threatened, or denied. It is you that cannot discuss these other civil issues, but imposes your beliefs on others, and denies others equal protections under the law that you yourself enjoy without prejudice.

This is a Constitutional issue, and no majority has a right to decide the fate of this minority.

The Constitutional protects the masses, as much, if not more than the minority. The whole point was to remove the chance for an elite minority ruling the masses through courts or monarchs.

I never said it had anything to do with religion, you are putting those words in my mouth or hand, lol.

I want to protect the power of the vote. If the masses, especially when it is at least 70 percent, vote against or for something, it should be law until the same masses decide to change it. I understand I am talking about a democracy and not a "republic". To me that is the tragedy. We elect senators and representatives who go through a long process of passing a bill that dictates what the masses desire and in a room with 9 people they can take away the result of the bill and thus the vote of the masses.

You can not have law without imposition. Someone is always going to impose their beliefs on to someone else. That is immaterial.

If you feel that homosexuals are having their civil rights trampled upon by the imposition of the masses beliefs what do you call the homosexuals push of their desires on the masses? A wonderful gift? They are imposing.

What part of "your calf is not consenting to your "love" is that you don't understand? You are speaking on behalf of an animal who can not speak for itself.

Do you understand this concept?

The calf consents by ACTION. By doing things to me FIRST. Need you speak to consent? What of the mute or deaf who can not sign or write?

What part of that can't you understand? Why do you have so much HATRED for my chosen lifestyle? For my calf's chosen lifestyle? WE BOTH WANT THIS! Who are you to stick your nose in OUR BEDROOM and tell us we are not allowed to express our love the way WE CHOOSE? WE HAVE RIGHTS TOO! WE HAVE FEELINGS TOO!












EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL! ALL LOVE (man-animal love too) IS EQUAL!

Beautiful state. But saying no to the civil rights of someone else is disgraceful...

Why isnt that kind of referendum anti Constitutional?

They did NOT say no to civil rights..they said no to disease spreading feces fuckers fucking up the lives of their children with their perveted sick shit fetishes and gay pride marches which teaches the kids its OK to fuck the shit inside other mens bumholes and spread aids and suck the shit coverd cocks of other men and swallow their hiv infected spurtings.

THAT is what they do...its the TRUTH..so fucking LIVE with it ya sicko shit loving aids spreading degenerated child molesting sicko FUCKS!!!

YOU sick CUNTS are NOT gonna fuck OUR childrens lives up with your FOUL SHIT LOVING SICKNESS!!!




how hateful can one single human being become?

Beautiful state. But saying no to the civil rights of someone else is disgraceful...

Why isnt that kind of referendum anti Constitutional?

Not sure how it is "anti Constitutional".

Also, "disgraceful" is a very powerful word to use in regards to a State who does not support a legal ceremony which the VAST majority of the US has moral, personal, idealogical or scientific issues with.

Even the the VAST majority of the GLBT community only supports the idea to stand with their "brethern" and have no personal desire or interest in the concept.

We are talking about a super minority attempting to use the courts and the 14th amendment to subvert the desire, will and VOTE of the VAST majority, is that Constitutional?


The tyranny of the majority. I think that is a significant, Constitutionally speaking....

The "tyranny of the majority"? Give me a break. We are not talking about a simple majority attempting to "bully" a minority. We are talking about a super minority using the courts to "bully" the super majority and using guilt to try and win their way over the masses.


In other words the tyranny of the majority. You seem to describe it well yet have a mental block as to what it means in practice...

No, apparently you have not grasped the concept of is it means to be tyrannical. If the majority were as a tyrant then homosexuals would not be able to attempt or successfully subvert their vote via the courts. The masses would say "no" to same-sex marriage and the super minority, in this cases, the GLBT community would have no recourse.

They have a recourse and they use it, despite the VOTES of the masses which you are calling tyrannical.

The irony being the very document you have mentioned, the Constitution, affords the majority the civil right to do exactly what you call "disgraceful" and tyrannical.

So what is it, the Constitution affords us civil rights or it doesn't?


You dont know your Constitution. It protects the minority view, not the majority (who dont need "as much" protection). Back to the books boy,,, Civics 101,,, Oh sorry they dont teach that anymore, do they?

You want to protect a ceremony, a spiritual union, sanctified by religion. It is your civil right to get married and believe what you want about it (freedom of religion,speech),,, However, it is a legal contract and has civil financial consequences (equality under the law). And more importantly YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS arent at issue, they arent being taken away,threatened, or denied. It is you that cannot discuss these other civil issues, but imposes your beliefs on others, and denies others equal protections under the law that you yourself enjoy without prejudice.

This is a Constitutional issue, and no majority has a right to decide the fate of this minority.

The Constitutional protects the masses, as much, if not more than the minority. The whole point was to remove the chance for an elite minority ruling the masses through courts or monarchs.

I never said it had anything to do with religion, you are putting those words in my mouth or hand, lol.

I want to protect the power of the vote. If the masses, especially when it is at least 70 percent, vote against or for something, it should be law until the same masses decide to change it. I understand I am talking about a democracy and not a "republic". To me that is the tragedy. We elect senators and representatives who go through a long process of passing a bill that dictates what the masses desire and in a room with 9 people they can take away the result of the bill and thus the vote of the masses.

You can not have law without imposition. Someone is always going to impose their beliefs on to someone else. That is immaterial.

If you feel that homosexuals are having their civil rights trampled upon by the imposition of the masses beliefs what do you call the homosexuals push of their desires on the masses? A wonderful gift? They are imposing.


So what is this "belief" that the majority is imposing on the minority? Is it a Constitutional belief? Is it a logic and reason belief? Or is it a moral belief based on one's personal religious views?

You are advocating equality, civil rights, it seems, and we dont disagree on that, yet you demand from consenting adults to accept a RELIGIOUS monopoly on terminology. Sorry, "marriage" however it is termed is a contractual legal union between adults under civil law. It is NOT solely a religious term. If religious people, or the govt, or common law or gay partners, agree to change their language to a non religious equivalent, so be it. I dont care. But in the meantime it is called MARRIAGE. I cant invent another word that doesnt exist...

You are advocating equality, civil rights, it seems, and we dont disagree on that, yet you demand from consenting adults to accept a RELIGIOUS monopoly on terminology. Sorry, "marriage" however it is termed is a contractual legal union between adults under civil law. It is NOT solely a religious term. If religious people, or the govt, or common law or gay partners, agree to change their language to a non religious equivalent, so be it. I dont care. But in the meantime it is called MARRIAGE. I cant invent another word that doesnt exist...



It is called compromise... it is sometimes necessary to help people find an acceptable agreement.

Again there is no religious monopoly because churches that want to can marry gays.

Why would you find any legal remedy that forces an agenda on to unwilling people acceptable?

I want to keep both the religious agenda and the gay agenda out of our schools where they don't belong. Anything else is unacceptable to me and I will vote it down.