Another victory for the forces of evil

[Good Old Neon]

Maine voters overturn state’s new same-sex marriage law

 

http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2009/11/04/maine_voters_overturn_states_new_same_sex_marriage_law/

 

 

Depressing news, but as Andrew Sullivan has pointed out, the culture is shifting - from his blog:

 

But I do want to point out that, from the perspective of just a decade ago, to have an even split on this question in a voter referendum is a huge shift in the culture. In Maine, where the Catholic church did all it could to prevent gays from having civil rights in a very Catholic and rural state, gays do have equality but may now merely be denied the name. The process itself has helped educate and enlighten and deepen the debate about gay people in ways that never happened before the marriage issue came up.

 

I am heart-broken tonight by Maine, and I'd be lying if I said otherwise.

 

Somehow losing by this tiny margin is brutalizing. And because this is a vote on my dignity as a human being, it is hard not to take it personally or emotionally. But I also know that the history of civil rights movements has many steps backward as forward, and some of those reversals actually catalyze the convictions that lead to victories. A decade ago, the marriage issue was toxic. Now it divides evenly. Soon, it will win everywhere.

 

I know for many younger gays and lesbians, this process can seem bewildering and hurtful. But I'm old enough now to be able to look back and see the hill we have climbed in such a short amount of time, and the minds and hearts we have changed. Including our own.

 

Know hope.

[Oil Can Boyd]

Yes, this is disappointing. Maine is a funny and complicated place. I had read that they were having trouble with polling, partly because they felt that many people were reluctant to say how they really felt.

[PopTodd]

Good post, Neon. And, my heart is with you.

I can respect the beliefs of others, up to the point where they infringe upon the basic rights of others.

Sadly, dogmatic hate mongering will most-likely never completely go away. But I do believe, like you, that we will eventually extend basic freedoms to everybody in this country.

Also, I believe that, if challenged in the highest courts, eventually the laws banning gay marriage/unions will be struck down under the Civil Rights acts.

[Good Old Neon]

Good post, Neon. And, my heart is with you.

I can respect the beliefs of others, up to the point where they infringe upon the basic rights of others.

Sadly, dogmatic hate mongering will most-likely never completely go away. But I do believe, like you, that we will eventually extend basic freedoms to everybody in this country.

Also, I believe that, if challenged in the highest courts, eventually the laws banning gay marriage/unions will be struck down under the Civil Rights acts.

 

For the record I’m straight (not that there’s anything wrong with that), but it is an issue that I feel very strongly about. I have several gay and lesbian friends and family members that I love dearly, which, really, is beside the point. Like you, I consider this a civil rights issue, not unlike what other minorities have gone through and fought for in the past. Fortunately, the tide is turning, and fear and ignorance is giving way to compassion and acceptance.

 

Ironically, religion, the institution that pays lip services to the importance of the aforementioned is acting as a barrier, but that wall is cracking, and it’s only a matter of time before the facade crumbles.

[Guest Runaway Jim]

I still can't understand why anyone would give a shit if two people of the same sex get married. Unreal.

[Guest Speed Racer]

I consider this a civil rights issue, not unlike what other minorities have gone through and fought for in the past. Fortunately, the tide is turning, and fear and ignorance is giving way to compassion and acceptance.

 

While times sure are changing, one thing that hasn't is that civil rights issues almost never (and I think you could even strike my 'almost') do well on referrendum votes. Madison's description of the "tyranny of the majority" is spot-on, which is exactly why action in the courts and legislature are likely the only way we will ever see a shift. We're starting to see Supreme Courts at the state level overturning rulings against same-sex marriage as unconstitutional, and I don't doubt that in the next 10-15 years same-sex marriage will likely be nationally legal. I AM being optimistic when I say that - I think that leaving this up to popular vote would give us a vastly different timeline. That, and anyone who sees fit to bring up their personal fear of 'activist judges' can kiss my ass.

[Good Old Neon]

I still can't understand why anyone would give a shit if two people of the same sex get married. Unreal.

 

Exactly, but the answer can be summed up thusly:

 

[bleedorange]

That's a creepy picture. Where do you find these things?

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

The issues has lot in all 31 states where it has been a ballot issue.

 

The day will come. But not yet.

[M. (hristine]

Marriage is a two fold process; civil and spiritual. Any two adults should be legally able to enter into a civil contract with one another.

 

The spiritual aspect of marriage should be sorted out by the various organizations that propose to do such things.

 

I think the constitution was pretty clear on the separation between the two

[Guest Speed Racer]

Marriage is a two fold process; civil and spiritual. Any two adults should be legally able to enter into a civil contract with one another.

 

The spiritual aspect of marriage should be sorted out by the various organizations that propose to do such things.

 

This is what kills me the most. Protesters say that civil unions are the separate and equal solution for same-sex couples, because marriage is an act "before god." But if marriage is "before god," then the state really has no authority to do it for heterosexual couples OR homosexual couples. The best case scenario for me would be for the courts to eradicate state marriage as it exists and institute civil unions across the board, whereby people can get married in whatever holy house they see fit, who sees fit to accept them.

[Good Old Neon]

Personally, I would like to preserve marriage’s sanctity by outlawing divorce – with one exception, a notarized note from god, granting his permission. I’m sure I can get lots and lots of thrice divorced politicians and other members of the religious right to back my proposal, enthusiastically.

 

Edit: I would also like to add, that I would also like to see us stop pussyfooting around, and get back stoning adulterers to death.

[M. (hristine]

I know you're using sarcasm to make you're point Neon, but there is no way to make inroads with people by denigrating their beliefs.

 

Law should be pragmatic. Until folks can see this issue as pragmatic rather than emotional, attitudes will never change.

[M. (hristine]

My desire in this issue is only to see equal protection under the law for my friends, loved ones and all others for whom this lack of parity has impact.

 

There are too many vagaries contained within spiritual belief and cultural attitudes. Some of those antiquated mind states only die as people themselves die. To attempt to argue this issue on the same emotionally charged level as those people is pissing in the wind.

[Good Old Neon]

I know you're using sarcasm to make you're point Neon, but there is no way to make inroads with people by denigrating their beliefs.

 

Law should be pragmatic. Until folks can see this issue as pragmatic rather than emotional, attitudes will never change.

 

I am, of course, being sarcastic, but if the issue truly is the sanctity of marriage and preserving its purity – it would appear to me, to be consistent, we should take steps to make it much more difficult to attain a divorce – at least in cases where the marriage was codified in a church, and/or administered by a priest, pastor, rabbi, etc.

 

Edit: There are certain attitudes and beliefs that do not demand and/or deserve my respect and understanding, racism comes to mind, as does homophobia.

[M. (hristine]

I am, of course, being sarcastic, but if the issue truly is the sanctity of marriage and preserving its purity – it would appear to me, to be consistent, we should take steps to make it much more difficult to attain a divorce – at least in cases where the marriage was codified in a church, and/or administered by a priest, pastor, rabbi, etc.

I guess I am unclear why you have an opinion about this.

[Guest Speed Racer]

I guess I am unclear why you have an opinion about this.

 

To me, it's the same thing as wondering why they have an opinion about my relationships. The only thing more frustrating than hateful jerks are hateful, hypocritical jerks. If you're whining about the sanctity of marriage and you're either on your second marriage or sleeping with Susie Sunshine on the side, then your marriage ain't very sanct.

 

If, on the other hand, you value your marriage for life but are a-okay with Bobbie Blue Jeans divorcing Susie Sunshine, and you just happen to think marriage should be between a man and a woman - well, I'll think you're wrong, but at least I'll know you're consistent.

[Good Old Neon]

To me, it's the same thing as wondering why they have an opinion about my relationships. The only thing more frustrating than hateful jerks are hateful, hypocritical jerks. If you're whining about the sanctity of marriage and you're either on your second marriage or sleeping with Susie Sunshine on the side, then your marriage ain't very sanct.

 

If, on the other hand, you value your marriage for life but are a-okay with Bobbie Blue Jeans divorcing Susie Sunshine, and you just happen to think marriage should be between a man and a woman - well, I'll think you're wrong, but at least I'll know you're consistent.

 

This.

 

(p.s. – it sounds like Susie Sunshine knows how to party, would you happen to have her phone number?)

[M. (hristine]

Perhaps I'm just more goal oriented. If the goal is to have the laws changed then have the laws changed. But you have to change law by arguing it constitutionally.

 

If you want to change the inconsistencies of human behavior and attitudes, well, .

[Guest Speed Racer]

Perhaps I'm just more goal oriented. If the goal is to have the laws changed then have the law changed. But you have to change law by arguing it constitutionally.

 

I think we would all agree that's the goal outside of this, but here we're on a message board, where I think it's okay to blow off some steam every other defeat or so.

 

Honestly, I'm not that worried or upset. I always thought it was because I was single, or wishing I was single (oh snap!), but now I am very, very happily neither. I thought this defeat would actually mean something to me because my ideal five year plan may have changed a bit recently. But still, I'm not too upset.

 

Inertia is a very powerful force, and the gay marriage ball is rolling down the hill. Some parts are steeper than others, but that won't change the gravity of inevitability. We have made leaps and bounds for civil rights of all stripes in the past century; these changes happen, but never quickly. I guess I'm terribly optimistic by nature, but I'm okay with that.

 

(p.s. – it sounds like Susie Sunshine knows how to party, would you happen to have her phone number?)

 

You wish.

[M. (hristine]

I think we would all agree that's the goal outside of this, but here we're on a message board, where I think it's okay to blow off some steam every other defeat or so.

 

 

I view civil contracts and spiritual weaving very separately.

[Guest Speed Racer]

I view civil contracts and spiritual weaving very separately.

 

As do I, most certainly. I believe that any two consenting adults should be able to enter into a contract of union, and dissolve that contract when either party violates the terms or when both parties agree to void the contract.

 

I view civil contracts as entirely separate from religious sacraments, which is exactly why people who oppose civil same-sex marriage for the sake of protecting a sacrament they themselves dishonor busts my nuts.

[M. (hristine]

Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage:

"We’re already hearing in both New York and New Jersey that they are noticing what’s happening here," Ms. Gallagher said. "Do other politicians really want to enter this particular culture war given all the stuff they are going to have to defend in the next election?"

 

I'd love to see this 'culture war' taken off the state ballots and argued as a civil rights issue in the Supreme Court.

[Good Old Neon]

Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage:

"We’re already hearing in both New York and New Jersey that they are noticing what’s happening here," Ms. Gallagher said. "Do other politicians really want to enter this particular culture war given all the stuff they are going to have to defend in the next election?"

 

I'd love to see this 'culture war' taken off the state ballots and argued as a civil rights issue in the Supreme Court.

 

Ugh – their website is the sort of website that almost makes me wish that the internet was never invented.

 

The single most important piece of evidence these organizations have consistently failed to provide (which, is understandable considering none exists), is how, in unequivocal terms, does same sex marriage irrevocably damage “traditional” marriage.

 

At the barest of bare minimums, if something is to remain illegal, shouldn’t at least one single piece of unambiguous evidence be required to support the supposition? The opposition’s reasoning can pretty much be reduced to, and this is from the NOFM website (and, they must be really taken with this statement, as it’s featured prominently on their homepage):

 

“I was brought up to believe that marriage is between a man and a women. That’s how I feel. I don’t want to persecute anyone (oh, but you are) but that’s what I believe. Marriage ought to stay marriage. That’s what I believe.”

 

My response to that would be, I don’t’ give a flying fuck what you believe, marriage is a manmade institution, and it can mean whatever we want it to mean. Based on passages taken directly from the bible, lots of folks were brought up to believe that blacks are inferior to whites, but that does not make it true, and it certainly is not (was not) a credible defense of institutionalized racism. The great thing about (most apparently) humans, is that when presented with new evidence or persuasive arguments, we can change our minds, and we don’t have to continue to believe something simply because we were brought up to believe it.

 

Using evidence, show or explain to me how same sex marriage weakens heterosexual marriage, and we can have an intelligent conversation, but if the best you can do is, it’s wrong because it’s wrong, well, you deserve to be discredited and/or ignored.

[bjorn_skurj]

 

The single most important piece of evidence these organizations have consistently failed to provide (which, is understandable considering none exists), is how, in unequivocal terms, does same sex marriage irrevocably damage “traditional” marriage.

 

It can only be one thing - that gay sex is so totally awesome that if somebody tries it even once, they're gay for life. Right?