• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

Elena said:
Are you "for" or "against" democracy? Make up your mind. As they say in Russia "или трусы наденьте, или крестик снимите".


Democracy only when it suits your agenda is not democracy.
Click to expand...

Let me give you a basic Civics 101 lesson: Democracy does not mean that everything is put to a popular vote. The Constitution ensures that there are certain rights and privileges that should never be put to a vote.
When do we start voting on things like inter-racial marriage or better yet, restricting "marriage" to white christians?
 
disneydude said:
Let me give you a basic Civics 101 lesson: Democracy does not mean that everything is put to a popular vote. The Constitution ensures that there are certain rights and privileges that should never be put to a vote.
When do we start voting on things like inter-racial marriage or better yet, restricting "marriage" to white christians?
Click to expand...

I honestly don't see elena getting it. She's blinded by her hatred towards anal intercourse being done in her presence. :rofl
 
All I can say is "Shame on People" who want rights for themselves and want to deny them to others.
 
Wait a minute here, I thought that Maine voted down Homosexual marriage, not inter racial marriage, Am I missing something?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Wait a minute here, I thought that Maine voted down Homosexual marriage, not inter racial marriage, Am I missing something?


j-mac
Click to expand...

When you put one groups rights to a vote....why restrict it to that?
 
disneydude said:
When do we start voting on things like inter-racial marriage or better yet, restricting "marriage" to white christians?
Click to expand...

When the majority of your society decided it wants to do so.

And let me remind you of one basic: it's a state with all its institutions, laws and constitutions that exists for the people, not people for the state. And if the majority of people decide they want a change in laws then it is the duty of the state to do so.
 
Elena said:
When the majority of your society decided it wants to do so.

And let me remind you of one basic: it's a state with all its institutions, laws and constitutions that exists for the people, not people for the state. And if the majority of people decide they want a change in laws then it is the duty of the state to do so.
Click to expand...

You obviously do not understand civics or the Constitution.
So now if the citizens decided to restrict marriage to white christians.....you'd be ok with that?
 
winston53660 said:
Loving vs Virginia.
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges....

Plaintiffs' reliance on Loving v. Virginia (388 US 1 [1967]) for the proposition that the US Supreme Court has established a fundamental "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" outside the male/female construct is misplaced....

There is no question that the Court viewed this antimiscegenation statute as an affront to the very purpose for the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment—to combat invidious racial discrimination. In its brief due process analysis, the Supreme Court reiterated that marriage is a right "fundamental to our very existence and survival" (id., citing Skinner, 316 US at 541)—a clear reference to the link between marriage and procreation. It reasoned: "To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes . . . is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law" (id.). Although the Court characterized the right to marry as a "choice," it did not articulate the broad "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" suggested by plaintiffs here. Rather, the Court observed that "[t]he Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations" (id. [emphasis added]). Needless to say, a statutory scheme that burdens a fundamental right by making conduct criminal based on the race of the individual who engages in it is inimical to the values embodied in the state and federal Due Process clauses. Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation.
Click to expand...

New York Court of Appeals, Hernandez v. Robles, 2006
 
aps said:
I honestly don't see elena getting it. She's blinded by her hatred towards anal intercourse being done in her presence. :rofl
Click to expand...

English might not be my first language, but I am quite capable of expressing my thoughts without employing a personal mouthpiece, thank you.
 
Elena said:
English might not be my first language, but I am quite capable of expressing my thoughts without employing a personal mouthpiece, thank you.
Click to expand...

Hello? Where did I attack your language? The extreme anger you exude in your posts on this topic is unmistakable. Geez. It's rather sad.
 
StandUpChuck said:
I think this is part of it. I support gay marriage, but I wasn't terribly thrilled with how this was decided for us. It's such a big issue that it *had* to be something we voted on.

I had said all along this fall that the outcome of this vote would give an idea just how conservative/liberal Maine really is. On one hand I'm surprised that the vote turned out this way, but on the other, I'm not really.

There's really not a huge gay population here from what I've seen. Gay guys tend to move to Boston/NYC. Most of Maine's gays are lesbians. Lesbians seem to like the woods. :2razz:

So while this outcome is disappointing (and I realize it's easy for me to minimize the effect since I'm legally married), I think the fact that it was so close is a huge step in the right direction. Civil change doesn't happen overnight. But it happens. Give it some more time. I do believe people will come around.

I just want to add as a Mainer, I'm sorry.
Click to expand...

I voted NO which is to say I voted YES for allowing gay marriage.

And I wonder how many people did not vote as they wished to simply because the question was worded confusingly. Intentionally, I am sure.

Also, ads were all over the T.V. trying to persuade people that their kids were going to be taught deviant things from kindergarten, onward if the law remained intact. I say Hurray for Mainers that so many people saw their way through the morass of misinformation and came out 47% for tolerance.
 
Gill said:
Apples and oranges....



New York Court of Appeals, Hernandez v. Robles, 2006
Click to expand...

So the New York Court of Appeals's interpretation of Loving v. Virginia outweighs the Supreme Court's decision? That's news to me.
 
Cassandra said:
I voted NO which is to say I voted YES for allowing gay marriage.

And I wonder how many people did not vote as they wished to simply because the question was worded confusingly. Intentionally, I am sure.

Also, ads were all over the T.V. trying to persuade people that their kids were going to be taught deviant things from kindergarten, onward if the law remained intact. I say Hurray for Mainers that so many people saw their way through the morass of misinformation and came out 47% for tolerance.
Click to expand...

Sounds like they employed the same deceitful tactics that they used here in California.
Somehow people justify their lies if they believe that their cause is just.
Shame on you people.
 
disneydude said:
All I can say is "Shame on People" who want rights for themselves and want to deny them to others.
Click to expand...

True! If gay promoters want to have the rights to flaunt gayness in public, they should accept the right of the public to express their views on it.
 
Elena said:
True! If gay promoters want to have the rights to flaunt gayness in public, they should accept the right of the public to express their views on it.
Click to expand...

What about flaunting "blackness" in public....or "jewish" in public?
If the majority find that to be wrong....should their rights be put to a popular vote under your scenario?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Just so you know I believe that we are using the term "mob rule" in it's slang equivalent. Which among it's various definations is "the common people; the masses; populace or multitude." At least I am. Though admittedly it does seem like you were upset at what the legislators in your state did so....
Click to expand...

The term mob rule is incorrect in a representative democracy. This country isn't, in a strictly accurate sense, even a democracy. It's a constitutional republic. The voters in Maine have spoken, but there are mechanisms by which their voice can be overruled. These would include the Maine supreme court and the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
Elena said:
True! If gay promoters want to have the rights to flaunt gayness in public, they should accept the right of the public to express their views on it.
Click to expand...

How does "flaunting" apply in this context?
 
aps said:
So the New York Court of Appeals's interpretation of Loving v. Virginia outweighs the Supreme Court's decision? That's news to me.
Click to expand...

Has the Supreme Court ruled on Hernandez v. Robles or any other same sex marriage case??

If you read the Court of Appeals decision, they claim that the Supreme Court ruling in Loving does not apply to Hernandez (same sex marriage). If you have any updates or new rulings from the Supreme Court that I'm not aware of, I'd love to hear about them.
 
aps said:
Hello? Where did I attack your language? The extreme anger you exude in your posts on this topic is unmistakable. Geez. It's rather sad.
Click to expand...

Hello! Did you miss the second part of the sentence? Let me repeat it for you slowwwwlyyyy: English might not be my first language, but I am quite capable of expressing my thoughts without employing a personal mouthpiece, thank you.
 
Cassandra said:
How does "flaunting" apply in this context?
Click to expand...

Cassandra, please read through her posts in here. She's obsessed with her disgust towards anal intercourse, which she argues would have been occurring everywhere had gay marriage been given the "yes."
 
Elena said:
True! If gay promoters want to have the rights to flaunt gayness in public, they should accept the right of the public to express their views on it.
Click to expand...

If Islamic extremists want to flaunt their hate in public, they should accept the right of the public to throw them out, back to the third world they've done such a good job of creating in the Middle East. They've made their beds there, in filth, hatred, and squalor, and they should be left to them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom