Maine Just Says "No" to Gay Marriage.

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.

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.

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.

Not to mention, to be completely retarded, what about having multiple spouses.

Don't they deserve "equal protection"?

What exactly is "The Gay Agenda"?

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.


What exactly is "The Gay Agenda"?

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?

Hateful?

If you ask me this poster has the balls to tell it like it IS with gays.

Sure..he might be a tad "expressive" but lets be HONEST here..what the poster here has described is the EXACT TRUTH.

Nothing to do with hate I think. Just stating the TRUTH in no uncertain terms.

If you think its NOT truth..tell me where you think this poster is wrong?

What exactly is "The Gay Agenda"?


Are you daft?

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.


What exactly is "The Gay Agenda"?

You clearly have internet access. Use the search feature please.

What exactly is "The Gay Agenda"?


Are you daft?


Please humor me. Answer the question.

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.

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.


There is no imposition on the majority for homosexual civil rights, for what the majority already enjoys. None. You dont explain your POV. How are you losing your rights? On the contrary you are imposing and denying rights to a minority -- a very easy thing to do -- the very people the Constitution is supposed to protect, ie that was written with the explicit understanding to oppose the ill conceived righteous tyranny of a majority against a hapless minority. Thank God the Constitution was written by visionaries, who understood what that means, instead of depending on the benevolence of the majority to grant rights by fiat, when it suited them, when prejudice subsided for a moment, when popularity referendums decided the fate of a minority's civil rights. When will YOU realize the meaning of the Constitution, when YOUR rights are taken away by the popular will? I hope you dont wait for that day, because then it will be too late....

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!


Common law. We already have that recognition for heterosexuals, dont we?

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.


What exactly is "The Gay Agenda"?

You clearly have internet access. Use the search feature please.


I'm not asking Google. I'm asking YOU.

Schools? We are talking about Maine voters voting down Civil Marriage, ie the ability to obtain legal contractual papers to protect partners in relationships... Nothing else.

What exactly is "The Gay Agenda"?


Are you daft?


Please humor me. Answer the question.



As was already suggested use an internet search to find out for yourself. You might start with the state of Massachusetts.

What exactly is "The Gay Agenda"?


Are you daft?


Please humor me. Answer the question.

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.


What exactly is "The Gay Agenda"?

You clearly have internet access. Use the search feature please.


I'm not asking Google. I'm asking YOU.

Weren't you asking Chaledony?

What exactly is "The Gay Agenda"?


Are you daft?


Please humor me. Answer the question.



As was already suggested use an internet search to find out for yourself. You might start with the state of Massachusetts.


You talk about this "Gay Agenda" that is being shoved down your throat and you can't even define it? Strange.

What exactly is "The Gay Agenda"?


Are you daft?


Please humor me. Answer the question.

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.


What exactly is "The Gay Agenda"?

You clearly have internet access. Use the search feature please.


I'm not asking Google. I'm asking YOU.

Weren't you asking Chaledony?


Well you answered for them. So I'd like to know from YOU. What is "the gay agenda"?

What exactly is "The Gay Agenda"?


Are you daft?


Please humor me. Answer the question.




lol... that's a very nicely thought out answer.

What exactly is "The Gay Agenda"?


Are you daft?


Please humor me. Answer the question.



As was already suggested use an internet search to find out for yourself. You might start with the state of Massachusetts.


You talk about this "Gay Agenda" that is being shoved down your throat and you can't even define it? Strange.



I can certainly define it and so can you. Stop being coy with me. Look at what has happened in Massachusetts and get back to me.

"Civil Union Licenses from the State."

Yes buttercup, that's what the ignorant people of Maine voted down (and they had NO right to do so)....

What exactly is "The Gay Agenda"?


Are you daft?


Please humor me. Answer the question.




lol... that's a very nicely thought out answer.

You forgot accurate.

What exactly is "The Gay Agenda"?


Are you daft?


Please humor me. Answer the question.



As was already suggested use an internet search to find out for yourself. You might start with the state of Massachusetts.


You talk about this "Gay Agenda" that is being shoved down your throat and you can't even define it? Strange.



I can certainly define it and so can you. Stop being coy with me. Look at what has happened in Massachusetts and get back to me.


So why don't you just stop beating around the bush and define "the gay agenda" for me?

"Civil Union Licenses from the State."

Yes buttercup, that's what the ignorant people of Maine voted down (and they had NO right to do so)....


No comment on this reality. Interesting.

What exactly is "The Gay Agenda"?


Are you daft?


Please humor me. Answer the question.




lol... that's a very nicely thought out answer.

You forgot accurate.


Can't answer the question can you. Figures.

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.

What exactly is "The Gay Agenda"?


Are you daft?


Please humor me. Answer the question.




lol... that's a very nicely thought out answer.

You forgot accurate.


Can't answer the question can you. Figures.

I already did. Douche.

What exactly is "The Gay Agenda"?


Are you daft?


Please humor me. Answer the question.




lol... that's a very nicely thought out answer.

You forgot accurate.


Can't answer the question can you. Figures.

I already did. Douche.


Prove it. Show me. You can't. Personal attacks and name calling just makes you look weak. Remember that.