Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

reply to post by Edrick


No one is asking the government to be anyones parent in the slightest these people are asking to be treated equally and fairly under the law that is all.
And the fact of it is the government is failing to do its duty to these citizens by denying them that legal status. No one should have the right to deprive them of those legal rights as extended to any other citizen based solely on their sexual orientation. There is no real reason to deprive them of a legal status like it or not it is discriminatory.

Your fail argument only holds water if and when the government does not grant a legal status/benefit to anyone at all. In this case it is an already established status and benefit that is not equally applied to all of the citizenry.

reply to post by Jovi1


And yet you would still deny these same rights to those who choose not to marry?

The fail, is yours.

when the government does not grant a legal status/benefit to anyone at all.

Yes, that is the entire point... the government can only treat us as individuals.

Giving benefits to those of us who choose to be in committed relationships is discriminatory, and unconstitutional.

-Edrick

[edit on 4-11-2009 by Edrick]

We all know what the results would have been if race equality had been put to a vote.

There is no difference. Again - FEAR based prejudice.

It is plain and simple. It is wrong to put any Equal Rights for a minority group to public vote.

It is time for the government to step in - - just as they did for race equality.

reply to post by jam321




And if the people don't have wills?

Long term partners have even been denied visitations to their dying partners sides.


And by the way, you can't "legally" bind your self to another person without getting married. People have tried the non marriage but legally binding route, with wills and contracts, they only go so far.

Living wills do not empower a person to make medical decisions for you. They just give the hosptial directions when you are on your way out.

Some areas do not recongize living wills. Most directives go immediately to spouse or next of kin.

Only a legal marriage gives someone the right to the spousal impoverishment law.

And last but not least, even when same sex couples have lined up all the legal documents, the hospitals have decided to ignore them.

or the couples were not able to get the numerous and complicated wills and documents to fully cover everything.

To get any of these documents completed, same sex couples have to pay for it, while heterosexual couples don't. And it is the heterosexual couples who need the counseling the most, as there are far more loopholes to cover.

Under marriage, a spouse is automatically granted power of medical attorney, no questions asked.

For same sex couples, they have to have a durable, strong, and hole free will. Even then, hospitals NOT aware of local laws, or out of prejedice, choose to ignore it.

there is a case at the Supreme Court now for a lesbian partner who was ignored and not allowed to visit her dying partner though she had power of attorney.



[edit on 4-11-2009 by nixie_nox]

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Then you have never seen a family contest a will. And yes, wills do get overturned. In fact, I have seen some very ugly family battles.

reply to post by Edrick


And you sound like a broken record. And about 15 years old.

A child being raised in a loving home with two loving parents IS a right. Then they are wards of the state. And since you seem to repeat over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. (we got the point about eight pages ago) then it is in your best interest to have kids adopted, or taken care of by parents, then to be taken care of by the government for the rest of their lives.

reply to post by nixie_nox

A child being raised in a loving home with two loving parents IS a right.

That is not a right. That is a want. You don't seem to understand the difference. Even if something is preferable, it does not make it a right.

Good for Maine. The little nasties need to go back into the closet any ways, they can shut the door behind them too. Every time I see a man kiss i want to vomit!

reply to post by nixie_nox


Go ahead and ignore me. It is not going to bother me one bit. It is not my fault that you don't understand the difrerence between a right and a want.

You can ignore everyone who disagrees with you but it still won't make you correct.

Just because someone disagrees with you does not a troll make. Some could see your posts as trolling.

Putting someone on ignore just because you don't like what they have to say is the equivalent of a two year old sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming lalalalalalallalalalala everytime someone tells them something they don't want to hear. To each his own though.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by HotSauce]

I've been following, and trying to engage in, this thread.

I think we can very easily fall into specificity issues when it comes to basic Constitutional and/or Human Rights (ostensibly the purpose of said Constitution).

The fact is, no free people should need government approval for the familial relationships that they make. We should be able to apply real human rights (small case) to everyone in this nation, legal or no, gay or no, religious or no, among many other things.

This shouldn't be about whether the government chooses to recognize them or any other relationship/religious event/family and personal matter. A wedding, legally, is simply a contract with no religious connotation whatsoever.

Free people contract as they will and use the civil court system to address grievances in these issues: divorce, child custody, marriage, etc.

The framing of this debate is wrong and there is no legal reason to say that any level of government should legislate to the benefit of any group in particular. This includes race, gender, or any other differentiating element of person to person.

Why are morals even involved here? Government prevention should be administered at the lowest level possible when there is enough damage to someone or their property that it requires them to be fined or incarcerated.

Gay "Marriage" simply does not apply.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by KrazyJethro]

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

The framing of this debate is wrong and there is no legal reason to say that any level of government should legislate to the benefit of any group in particular. This includes race, gender, or any other differentiating element of person to person.

Shoulda - Coulda - Woulda?

This is the real world.

Originally posted by Annee

Shoulda - Coulda - Woulda?

This is the real world.

So what?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

The framing of this debate is wrong and there is no legal reason to say that any level of government should legislate to the benefit of any group in particular. This includes race, gender, or any other differentiating element of person to person.

Shoulda - Coulda - Woulda?

This is the real world.

Yep, the real world where gay marriage has been voted down 31 times in 31 attempts. Time to accept that gay marriage is not acceptable to the majority in the USA.

Originally posted by HotSauce

Yep, the real world where gay marriage has been voted down 31 times in 31 attempts. Time to accept that gay marriage is not acceptable to the majority in the USA.

That has no relevance to the debate. Majority rule does not mean action or right.

reply to post by KrazyJethro


I beg to differ as the title of this debate is "Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law".

Originally posted by HotSauce

I beg to differ as the title of this debate is "Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law".

I suppose that's my point. Public Opinion changes both quickly and slowly, which is rarely a good recipe for public policy.

I'm not even sure why they bother trying to get this on a ballot. It's a lot of wasted time and money, I'd think anti-gay marriage folks should enjoy this.

Both sides have serious fundamental flaws.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by KrazyJethro]

Originally posted by Annee
We all know what the results would have been if race equality had been put to a vote.

There is no difference. Again - FEAR based prejudice.

It is plain and simple. It is wrong to put any Equal Rights for a minority group to public vote.

It is time for the government to step in - - just as they did for race equality.

I will use quotes, because I did not write this, but it was sent to me
a few years agon in an email.

AUTHOR UNKNOWN

"Society gives benefits to marriage because marriage gives benefits to society. Therefore, the burden of proof must rest upon the advocates of homosexual unions to demonstrate that such unions benefit society (not just the individuals involved) in the same way and to the same degree as marriage between a man and a woman.

Because homosexual unions never result in natural procreation and never provide children with both a mother and a father, this is a burden they simply cannot meet." --Peter Sprigg

The issue we are entertaining is about whether or not people should be allowed enter into matrimony with someone of the same sex. People with same sex attractions(SSA) and their sympathizers advocate this. They claim that people with SSA do not have equal rights with others. This is simply not true. In fact, it is a lie.

Let us compare Gregg and Bob. Gregg is your normal guy who wants to get married and have kids. Bob is just like Gregg, only he has same sex attractions. Let us compare their rights.

Gregg may not marry one person of the same sex. Neither may Bob.
Gregg may not marry someone who is a minor. Neither may Bob.
Gregg may not marry a blood relative. Neither may Bob.
Gregg may not marry someone who is already married. Neither may Bob.
Gregg may not marry someone who is legally unable to consent to the marriage. Neither may Bob.

As you can see, Gregg and Bob have the exact same rights. Some people will object and say "But Greg has the right to marry someone he loves". But in the past, marriage most often had little to do with love. In fact, today in Japan about 1/3 of all marriages are still pre-arranged. Furthermore, if Gregg was legally granted the right "To marry whomever he loves" then that right would implicitly forbid his marriage to anyone he does not love. And yet today we still see people such as gold-diggers who marry without love in their hearts. So a better way of describing what Gregg is doing is to say that "Gregg has decided to use love to determine who he will marry within the legally defined constraints", just as some use money, power, fame or other things as their method of choosing who to marry. So we come to the crux. l will use capitals here because I cannot use bold font: THE ULTIMATE ISSUE IS NOT OF EQUAL RIGHTS, BECAUSE WE ALL HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD REDEFINE OUR MARRIAGE RIGHTS TO INCLUDE MARRIAGE TO PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX FOR ALL OF US.

And so I return to the quote at the top of the paragraph. What is the purpose of marriage and its benefits? Is it so the government may recognize warm and fuzzy feelings, or is it for the continuity of society? Why should two guys have special benefits that singles do not have just because they want to hump eachother? They should not. However, "Society gives benefits to marriage because marriage gives benefits to society". Opposite sex couples are, unlike same sex couples, greater than the sum of their parts. Opposite sex couples are the lifeblood of humanity. Cure all the diseases in the world, stop all wars, stop all murders and violent crimes, feed every starving person, make the roads perfectly safe so no one ever dies in a car crash, and make it so every person has everything they want --it does not matter: without heterosexuality, it is all meaningless, for it will all end in an hundred years. Homosexuality can make no such claim, and that is why the two are inherently unequal, and why one coupling should have benefits that the other should not.

Game, Set, Match.

reply to post by nixie_nox

And you sound like a broken record. And about 15 years old.

Your argumentative tactic leaves much to be desired....

Ad Homenim attacks are the recourse of those who are out of ACTUAL points of discussion.

A child being raised in a loving home with two loving parents IS a right.

Single Mother Homes.

Should we outlaw that as well?

Because by your logic, that is where this train is headed.

then it is in your best interest to have kids adopted, or taken care of by parents, then to be taken care of by the government for the rest of their lives.

How does this make Adopting children a "Right"?

-Edrick

[edit on 4-11-2009 by Edrick]