Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

Ikari · Nov 4, 2009

scourge99 said:
Please indicate where in the constitution or its interpretation that granting expediency of PRIVATE CIVIL contracts is a government obligation or a right of citizens..

People have the right to contract, especially over their estate. Many of these things, especially property and money issues, are intricately entangled with the government itself.

Arcana XV · Nov 4, 2009

Phoenix said:
It seems to me that the demographic that generally represents themselves as “liberal” claim that government controlled health care should happen because polls show a majority of the people want it, but when a majority of voters vote down gay marriage, it’s about individual rights?

I thought both issues were primarily seen as human rights. :shrug:

scourge99 · Nov 4, 2009

Ikari said:
People have the right to contract, especially over their estate. Many of these things, especially property and money issues, are intricately entangled with the government itself.

As I said before, gay, single, and non-married people have all the capabilties to contract the same things covered by state marriage contracts. You couldn't list one thing that wasn't.

Anyone can contract with anyone their will, property rights, guardianship, etc. ANYONE!

The only difference is that hetero couples are given an expediant process via the government which was enacted through LEGISLATION. Hetero couples do not have to use this.

If non-hetero people wish to have the same expediant process then they need to contact their local representative or start a propisition to have it LEGISLATED.

Its not a RIGHT to have the process expediant.

Elena · Nov 4, 2009

OK, geniuses

There were 6 people taking part in a vote.

candidate A got 3 votes;
candidate B got 1 vote;
candidate C got 1 vote;
candidate D got 1 vote.

Who won?
Did he win by majority or plurality?

Scorpion89 · Nov 4, 2009

Ikari said:
Marriage is simply a government issued contract. Nothing more, nothing less.

No it's not when I was married in the STATE OF MAINE my Ex and I never had any Contract from the City or State. We went to the Town Hall filled out some paperwork so we could file Taxs as a Couple they nevr ask us or gave us any Contract or Marige Lisc. once again folks no one has been able to produce a single part of the US Const./Bill of Rights or and YS Code that states who and how you can be married.

Hence this is the whole crux of the discussion if the US Govn. doesn't have any law on the Books nor does the US Const. or the Bill of Rights state anywhere on who and how we are to be married then why are we even having these items brought to vote.

Ikari · Nov 4, 2009

scourge99 said:
As I said before, gay, single, and non-married people have all the capabilties to contract the same things covered by state marriage contracts. You couldn't list one thing that wasn't.

Anyone can contract with anyone their will, property rights, guardianship, etc. ANYONE!

The only difference is that hetero couples are given an expediant process via the government which was enacted through LEGISLATION. Hetero couples do not have to use this.

If non-hetero people wish to have the same expediant process then they need to contact their local representative or start a propisition to have it LEGISLATED.

Its not a RIGHT to have the process expediant.

It is in the execution of your will towards your estate and the handling of it. Not to mention the varying insurance, tax, ect. conditions which come along with the marriage license. If there was no "right" to process contract; government could refuse a vast majority of contract by not processing them till situations occur which are favorable to the State. Since contract is a right, the government has to be able to accept and process those contracts on a reasonable time scale. Not to mention the monetary difference in processing one contract as opposed to several different ones, some necessitating the use of a lawyer.

Elena · Nov 4, 2009

Catz Part Deux said:
What overturned slavery in the U.S., Elena? Just a tip...it wasn't a majority vote.

Did majority accept it?

disneydude · Nov 4, 2009

Elena said:
And did the majority object?

What do you think the civil war was about? :doh

You really don't know your US History well...do you.

Ikari · Nov 4, 2009

Scorpion89 said:
Hence this is the whole crux of the discussion if the US Govn. doesn't have any law on the Books nor does the US Const. or the Bill of Rights state anywhere on who and how we are to be married then why are we even having these items brought to vote.

Because marriage used to not be ward of the state. It was originally a religious practice. It was usurped by the State and thus the complications began.

Scorpion89 · Nov 4, 2009

disneydude said:
What do you think the civil war was about? :doh

You really don't know your US History well...do you.

DD she/he is from the Ukrainian hence I'm guessing she/he really doesn't know the dynamics of the US Civil War

jackalope · Nov 4, 2009

Scorpion89 said:
No it's not when I was married in the STATE OF MAINE my Ex and I never had any Contract from the City or State. We went to the Town Hall filled out some paperwork so we could file Taxs as a Couple they nevr ask us or gave us any Contract or Marige Lisc. once again folks no one has been able to produce a single part of the US Const./Bill of Rights or and YS Code that states who and how you can be married.

Hence this is the whole crux of the discussion if the US Govn. doesn't have any law on the Books nor does the US Const. or the Bill of Rights state anywhere on who and how we are to be married then why are we even having these items brought to vote.

The paperwork that you filled out was for a marriage lisc Scorp, and likely there was a Notary on hand to finish the deal for you.

Maine.gov: Family & Home: Getting Married in Maine

There is no waiting period, so if the town hall had a notary on hand, you could have been all done, spit spot, with no hassles.

ps - I was a notary and performed a ceremony at that stone church in downtown portland, next to PHS

Ikari · Nov 4, 2009

Elena said:
OK, geniuses

There were 6 people taking part in a vote.

candidate A got 3 votes;
candidate B got 1 vote;
candidate C got 1 vote;
candidate D got 1 vote.

Who won?
Did he win by majority or plurality?

Candidate A wins with plurality but not majority.

jackalope · Nov 4, 2009

Elena said:
OK, geniuses

There were 6 people taking part in a vote.

candidate A got 3 votes;
candidate B got 1 vote;
candidate C got 1 vote;
candidate D got 1 vote.

Who won?
Did he win by majority or plurality?

Plurality win for candidate A. :2wave:

Scorpion89 · Nov 4, 2009

Ikari said:
Because marriage used to not be ward of the state. It was originally a religious practice. It was usurped by the State and thus the complications began.

Not everywhere was marriage a religious practice you might want to go and do some research on this.

Ikari · Nov 4, 2009

Scorpion89 said:
Not everywhere was marriage a religious practice you might want to go and do some research on this.

It was mostly a religious ceremony, however. Aggregated over the whole you'd see it more a ward of the Church instead of the State.

Scorpion89 · Nov 4, 2009

jackalope said:
The paperwork that you filled out was for a marriage lisc Scorp, and likely there was a Notary on hand to finish the deal for you.

Maine.gov: Family & Home: Getting Married in Maine

There is no waiting period, so if the town hall had a notary on hand, you could have been all done, spit spot, with no hassles.

ps - I was a notary and performed a ceremony at that stone church in downtown portland, next to PHS

Ahh but it was a contract what it was a civil lisc. that we both payed a fee for and yes we had a Notary sign off on it for tax reasons.

I know that Church I did a photo shot at it once

Elena · Nov 4, 2009

disneydude said:
What do you think the civil war was about? :doh

You really don't know your US History well...do you.

I think it's you who don't know your history.

You really buy into this "The North went to war with the South to free the slaves" crap? If that so, why slavery was legal in the North up until the END of the war?

No, your civil war was about the piss-poor Nothern states denying the rich and abundant in labour Southern states their rights to leave the union. You see, without the South the North was destined to struggle for decades to come, and the North didn't like the prospect.

Ikari · Nov 4, 2009

Elena said:
I think it's you who don't know your history.

You really buy into this "The North went to war with the South to free the slaves" crap? If that so, why slavery was legal in the North up until the END of the war?

No, your civil war was about the piss-poor Nothern states denying the rich and abundant in labour Southern states their rights to leave the union. You see, without the South the North was destined to struggle for decades to come, and the North didn't like the prospect.

HAHAH, no the opposite. Slavery, first off, was made illegal in many of the northern States. Which is why slaves would sometimes run to these northern states to escape slavery. Secondly, it was the South which would have encountered more economic ruin than the industrialized North. Slavery was initially allowed when the Constitution was first conceived to promote a compromise between the North and South to solidify the nation. Built in was time removal for the slave trade and eventually pressure built internationally for the ending of slavery as an institution in general.

Scorpion89 · Nov 4, 2009

Hatuey said:
Your post assumes that as Maine voters get older they'll change their social issue stances. As far as I can tell there seems to be a mostly even split and no signs of the population going one way or the other excepts for Federal elections. Where it goes Democrat. Why isn't Maine a Republican state? Why has Maine been a solid Democrat/Liberal state since the 80s? You seem to make it a point to always want to speak speak from an argument of authority. Like you have some sort of sociology degree on Maine citizens. Or like you know somebody is good at something because you saw them in a magazine. I suggest you change your tone. It's called an argumentum ad verecundiam.

Yes they are getting older do you live in Maine??? Over the past 10 Years the Population of Maine has been getting smaller. In 2000 we had around 1.6 Million Living in the State we are now down to around 1.2 Million and of these over 45% of them are over the age of 45. The highest # of folks leaving and not returning are the age groups between 18-25. Maine Ranks in the top 10% of folks entering the US Military per popultaion, also for per population Maine is one of the highest in folks under the age of 30 moving and never returning to the State.

Maine is a republican State if you take out Portland and Lewiston-Auburn Population between then they make up 1/3 of the States Population and are the two biggest Blue area in the State.

Hmm a Blue State since the 80s really let see 1980 went for Mr. Reagan 1984 went again for Mr. Reagan in 1988 went for Mr. Bush Sr. in 1992 went for Mr. Perot in 1996 went for Mr. Clinton in 2000 split down the middle for both Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore in 2004 it went for Mr. Bush Jr. barely and in 2008 for Mr. Obama.

disneydude · Nov 4, 2009

Elena said:
I think it's you who don't know your history.

You really buy into this "The North went to war with the South to free the slaves" crap? If that so, why slavery was legal in the North up until the END of the war?

No, your civil war was about the piss-poor Nothern states denying the rich and abundant in labour Southern states their rights to leave the union. You see, without the South the North was destined to struggle for decades to come, and the North didn't like the prospect.

How long have you lived in the United States?....just curious

scourge99 · Nov 4, 2009

Ikari said:
It is in the execution of your will towards your estate and the handling of it.

Are you saying the gov't treats the wills of married people differently then non-married ppl with identical but privately created will? I don't believe this is true.

Ikari said:
Not to mention the varying insurance, tax, ect. conditions which come along with the marriage license.

taxes are specifically legislated just like medicare and social security. The government is allowed to discriminate for particular reasons.

Ikari said:
If there was no "right" to process contract; government could refuse a vast majority of contract by not processing them till situations occur which are favorable to the State. Since contract is a right, the government has to be able to accept and process those contracts on a reasonable time scale.

I wasn't aware that the gov't exacted and processed private contracts. To my knowledge they only run the courts to clear up civil matters that deal with contracts.

Ikari said:
Not to mention the monetary difference in processing one contract as opposed to several different ones, some necessitating the use of a lawyer.

One again, where is the constitutional precedent for requiring the government to expedite private contracts? There is none.

As much as I think it would be "more fair" and would vote for it, its not required.

LiveUninhibited · Nov 4, 2009

Ikari said:
HAHAH, no the opposite. Slavery, first off, was made illegal in many of the northern States. Which is why slaves would sometimes run to these northern states to escape slavery. Secondly, it was the South which would have encountered more economic ruin than the industrialized North. Slavery was initially allowed when the Constitution was first conceived to promote a compromise between the North and South to solidify the nation. Built in was time removal for the slave trade and eventually pressure built internationally for the ending of slavery as an institution in general.

Strictly speaking, it was primarily to keep the south in the union. The south may have seceded primarily because of trying to keep slavery and secondarily state's rights in general, but the north didn't wage war to prevent the south from practicing slavery, but to keep the union whole.

I actually think the south had the right to secede, even if slavery is wrong. And maybe then they wouldn't have made social policy in the rest of the United States extremely backwards until the 1960s via senate power. It's not like they wouldn't have been trading partners.

Elena said:
OK, geniuses

There were 6 people taking part in a vote.

candidate A got 3 votes;
candidate B got 1 vote;
candidate C got 1 vote;
candidate D got 1 vote.

Who won?
Did he win by majority or plurality?

well 3/6 is exactly 50%... so that's infinitesimally shy of a majority, but it is a plurality win for A.

disneydude · Nov 4, 2009

Navy Pride said:
That is your opinion and there are nut cakes on both side of the issue.........If you don't believe me go to a gay pride parade sometime................

Oh really Navy....when was the last gay pride parade you attended?

BTW....I'm still waiting for your reply....since you say that people can change their sexual orientation, does that mean that you could just as easily be attracted to men and change your sexual orientation if you decided to do so?

disneydude · Nov 4, 2009

Navy Pride said:
You keep saying that DD and yet when the people vote on it by state have voted 31-0 against Gay Marriage........That has to be very disappointing for you...........Most people are for equal rrights but the answer is not gay marriage......

Look at the trend.....at first I thought it would take years. Now it is inevitable to happen, even in your lifetime. Be prepared.

EpicDude86 · Nov 4, 2009

Ikari said:
Slavery, first off, was made illegal in many of the northern States.

Yes, but not all at once as some people like to believe:
Vermont in 1777
Pennsylvania between 1780-1845
Massachusetts 1783
Connecticut between 1784-1848
Rhode Island between 1784-1842
New York between 1799-1827
New Jersey 1804-1865 (New Jersey still had slavery of one form or another during the Civil War)
In New Hampshire slavery was abolished in 1857, but was out of practice by 1845
and the District of Columbia allowed slavery til the early 1860s. Just prior to the Civil War.

You may notice some of these states didn't get rid of slavery until after the Constitution was being drawn up and the Articles of Confederation were being tossed out. However it is important to look at the fact that the Northern states didn't need slavery, the south's economy thrived on it.

Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

Well-known member