« House to Unveil Health Care Plan | Main | Republican Bob McDonnell Wins Virginia Governor's Race »

November 2, 2009

Maine Voters to Decide on Same-Sex Marriage

The Maine Legislature legalized same-sex marriage in May, but voters will get a chance to repeal the new law on Tuesday.


This is the first time voters have had a chance to repeal a legislature-initiated law that extends marriage to same-sex couples. If voters repeal it, the law will not be implemented.

The campaign to approve the law, Protect Maine Equality, and the campaign for repealing the law, Stand For Marriage Maine are still fighting hard as Election Day approaches to get the voters out. Protect Maine Equality raised $4 million for advertising and other campaign material, compared to $2.6 million raised by Stand for Marriage Maine, according to The New York Times. In addition, Gov. John Baldacci (D) publicly supports the law.

The final public opinion polls taken before the election suggest that the vote is a dead heat, the Washington Post reports.

Maine’s Press Herald said that 51.8 percent plan to vote “no” (the law should stand) while 42.9 percent plan to vote “yes” (the law should be repealed).

The last time the issue was decided by voters rather than through the legislature or courts was California’s Proposition 8. In November 2008, a majority voted that only marriage “between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” as defined now by the California Constitution.

A spokesperson for Stand For Marriage Maine told the Post that after the backlash in California against the Mormon Church, its leadership decided not to become directly involved in Maine. Gov. Baldacci did identify Catholics as a group to watch closely.

"Lewiston, in western Maine, that's a pretty large segment of Franco-American Roman Catholic, working-class kind of a community," he told The Washington Post. "Reactions and support has been pretty good, but that'll be an area we'll want to watch."


Our family is praying and hoping that marriage equality remains in Maine at the end of the day. I was really against this until my son came out to me as a gay man several years ago. I firmly believe that it will take personal experience of this type for many of our evangelical Christian neighbors to truly understand, empathize with and have a heart-change about this issue.

I feel empathy for the situation Elizabeth describes in her post, but at the same time, I do not believe we need to experience everything or to have our loved ones experience everything to know whether or not it is right or wrong. We can and must continue to love those who make mistakes, but we do not need to embrace the mistake. When I evaluate issues such as this, I ask myself, "Where would we be if everyone did it?" The answer seems clear to me that marriage between a man and a woman is not just a religious issue as Elizabeth refers, but a societal one as well. People of Maine, please vote to protect traditional marriage.

Vote No on 1!


Here we go again. What I still cannot understand is: how will allowing two consenting men or women who want to marry each other affect my marriage.

I wish someone would explain it to me.

Personally, I think a law should be passed outlawing the ability to have divorces. But then I suppose we would then see an increase in the murder rate, huh..


Once again it bears repeating that NOTHING is happening to “traditional marriage,” regardless of the outcome of the vote on Question 1 in Maine. For people who are Straight (i.e. heterosexual), nothing will change whether or not Gay couples are granted the same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities of marriage. Straight couples have always comprised the majority and always will. Straight people will continue to date, get engaged, marry and build lives and families together as they always have. Churches will not be forced to marry Gay couples any more than they are forced to marry Muslim couples. Public schools will not have to “teach” about Gay marriage anymore than they have ever had to “teach” about Straight marriage.

If voters in Maine reject Question 1, the only thing that will change is the legal status of Gay couples. At last they will be able to take part in the legal incentives for marriage that they have always been forced to fund through their tax dollars. There will be that added encouragement toward monogamy and commitment. Gay and Straight couples will at last be treated equally, as the 14 Amendment specifies. Gay residents of Maine will at last have a place at the table, and they will no longer be treated as 2nd class citizens.

I think its terrible that people these days think its ok to have the same sex marriage because its not. It clearly states in the Bible that a marriage should be between a man and a woman not man and man or woman and woman. Society tells us its ok but its not.

In the biblical sense men cannot marry men and women cannot marry women. Our society may condone it, validate it, affirm it, ensure it, and legalize it. But it cannot give it Biblical sanction. I have no doubt but that gay marriage will eventually be legalized in every state - whether we want it or not. In the Biblical sense not permitting it is not being unfair or unjust toward the homosexual as God's word does not condone same sex marriage no matter how badly some would like it to. The Bible tells us what is fair, just, moral, immoral - and nowhere in the pages of scripture can you find permission for gay marriage. To condone gay marriage is to condone homosexual behavior. Christians that do such are sadly confused.

Maine, please don't do the same mistake we in Sweden did a couple of years ago. To legislate homosexuals to marry is going against the Word of God. When we do this we are "cursing" our land.

We have to love every people but by loving doesn't mean to give in to every sin they do.

To the person who asked how it will affect their marriage. It won't affect your marriage or mine. It will affect your children's marriage within 30 or so years. If homosexual marriage is the law, it will be taught in school as the law, and therefore okay, equal to man and woman marriage. Parents will not be able to say no because the law has changed the meaning of marriage to include other than woman and man and teachers will have to teach this and now with the hate crime bill signed by O'Bama, if a parent, teacher, child objects to this being forced down their throats, they will be labeled as bigoted, hateful of others and can be charged with this crime. A whole new culture will evove with those who disagree unable to oppose what they don't believe in and don't want taught to their children as okay and as equal. They and Christians will be the criminals and the homosexuals the normal as the government is legislating. Now, do you get it. It will be the law and forced down our throats as the law just as abortion is the law and sholved down our throats as the carrier of the unborn is the right lawful one, not the unborn who in the future will go to a born human being but right now is inside and who is on the wrong side of the law as the legislative and supreme courts says so, not you or parents or the kids who don't want to hear about or accept any perverse sex or the "new" lawful meaning of marriage. It will be the government making ethics and morals through legislation and religion and the citizens of this country the illegal ones.The gov is supposed to answer to the citizens not be political, by legislating their social, political beliefs. Thinking and beliefs is supposed to be free in this country not have the government legislate a new marriage definition which will be the law and taught in the schools whether you, your kids, or anyone else wants or doesn't want it to be taught. Not all laws are right just because your gov says so, wars have been fought over laws implemented by dictators, people who believed they had the right to enforce their beliefs through laws, you know like communists, kings, etc. It won't affect your marriage but your children will probably end up not bothering with marriage and go into open sex, etc. as the new law is expanded to include other relationships and that is taught in school as natural too. What do you think the homosexuals are after, they are after your kids, to catch them and teach them that homosexuality is okay, than any sex is okay. This is just the beginning and they're using the government to enforce their sex upon your children. And if you object, off with your head. Well, it is now a crime you know to object, your name shall be bigot, racist, etc. There are law suits going on in the homosexual marriage states right now as parents are objecting to the new sexual marriage teaching going on and they are having to go to court because the teachers are saying, "Give me a break, its the law" well, the school districts are saying that too to the parents.

At the end of the day, a majority of the voters in the state of Maine decided they did not want their state to recognize, legitimate, sanction, affirm,etc. etc. same sex marriage. Of course, same sex marriage supporters will claim that those who oppose same sex marriage are narrow minded homophobes who are unfair, unjust, unloving, un-this and un-that. But maybe those in the opposition just believe what the bible says - marriage is between a man and a woman. Since many heterosexuals live together in common law relationships without whining, I suggest same sex couples do the same. Live with your partner, quit your complaining, and stop trying to shove your political agenda down our throats.

It's Wednesday morning, and I'm sure there are plenty of high-fives going around at the offices of the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, and all the other groups that promoted Question 1 in Maine. So congratulations, you issued Gay couples in that state a setback ... for now. I still take comfort in knowing that sooner or later Gay and Straight couples in the U.S. will be treated equally.

Exactly how is allowing Gay couples the exact same legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted going to affect 'traditional marriage?" Marriage equality for Gay couples will have precisely ZERO impact on your life, your marriage, your church, and your children. Your church will never be forced to marry Gay couples, any more than it is forced to marry non-Christian couples. Public schools will not be forced to “teach” about Gay marriage, any more than they are forced to teach about Straight marriage.

Instead you should ask yourself why law-abiding, taxpaying Gay Americans should be forced to subsidize all the legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples enjoy, when we are unable to take advantage of those same incentives to marry? And since when do voters get to decide that the rights that apply to them DO NOT apply to minorities?

So the civil rights of a minority should now be left up to a vote by the majority?

I pray we Christians never find ourself in this position.

No matter what it decided by the courts, legislature or even voters homosexuality is a perversion of huiman sexuality just like any other perversion. Just becasue someone wnats to live that kind of life should not mean that the rest of us should be forced to sanction it.

And to those who do not think it will make a difference there are already school sdistricts that are forced to teach homsexuality as a normal behavior. So, don't give me this foolishness of saying it will not be taught in a positive light in the schools.

And, the same will be true for pastors and judges and justices of the peace who will be forced to perform these weddings against their wishes.Look what happened to the JP in LA who refused to marry a mixed race couple. I can see gays claiming discrimination against thos ewho do not do their bidding.

(By the way I did not agree with that JP in LA)

I say bravo for the good people of Maine who have stood up for what is true and right.It is time to stand up against this perversion.

I would like to know what civil rights has to do with how you do sex or the definition of marriage. Civil rights has to do with equal rights before the law, you have a right to remain silent, have a lawyer whether or not you can afford one, that your arrest will not be kept silent, it will be public notice of where you are serving your sentence, you have a trial before your peers with the public knowing about your trial and the right to know and address your accuser. The color of your skin can't be changed or controlled and is not a civil right (it's how you're born left up to God). Not to be held in slavery or arrested because of the color of your skin is a civil right (being equal to whites, otherwise). In other countries all colors, men, women, children could all be slaves. How you do sex is not a civil right, as a man or a woman, you can vote, speak what you want, attend the church of your choice not imposed by the gover. Civil rights is not the right to change the definition of marriage. You can vote as any man or any woman can. Anthing else like who visits in a hospital is up to you to tell the hospital who can or can't visit. Now thanks to homosexuals I have to tell the hospital if someone can visit me, whereas before anybody could walk into my room, now my Minister has to ask for permission to vist. Homosexuals aren't supporting marriage anymore than I am as a single person is. I get breaks on my income tax in a different way than a family does. Change the tax rules if they upset you that much. As a single person, I have more freedom than families and I spend my money as I want, just like two men or two women do. It's the way of life, not civil rights. Benefits are what your union negotiates and as a single person I get them from where I work. Two men and two women can get their benefits from where they work or do as I do, go to the job where you get the benefits instead of demanding a company where you aren't even working supply you with them. Families can only get their benefits from one work place because health plans won't accept two plans covering the same people, two men and two women get their plans from two places of work as two single people do. I haven't got a problem with not demanding that others cater to me. It's my job to take care of myself, solve my own problems unless I'm disabled and that's entirely another story. Homosexuals want to expand (change the meaning of a word) civil rights to cover them so they can use the law to push their agenda. If this works, every weirdoo will start using civil rights to push their agenda and we'll have no law except everybody's law because the words will mean nothing except what a person's agenda wants the words in the law to mean.

Just b/c a practice (whatever it maybe) is legal does not mean it is moral. For example, at one time slavery was considered legal, yet no reasonable person today would seriously promote the traffiking in human beings. A conservative Christian tries to vote his conscience b/c it was formed by the word of God. To expect someone so formed to vote to legalize and legitimize a sexual practice so obviously condemned by the Bible is a fantasy. We think God knows what is good for a society. For a conservative christian the Bible is the authority for morality. All other authorities - including the constitution - come in a distant second. Having said that, the average conservative christian, in my opinion and from my experience, holds the constitution - and the rule of law - in high regard. And even the most flaming, progressive, secular, atheistic/agnostic (yada, yada, yada) liberal will admit that the constitution was heavily influenced by people with a Judeo-Christian orientation, i.e. they weren't Buddists or Hindus, or Muslims. And though some or many were also deists doesn't detract from the fact they were a product of their times. Our culture is still, marginally, of that worldview. Homosexual behavior is still considered by the average person, in my opinion and experience, to be a perversion of what is considered normal sexual behavior. And the homosexual's arguement that his/her behavior doesn't impinge upon the hetero's sexual choices is correct only up to the point at which they want it legalized so they can claim it a legitimate practice. Well, when that happens we will have polygamists, pedophiles, polyamourous folks, and all those folks who have a disturbing attraction for their pets all challenging the courts for legalization and legitimization of their sexual preferences. Who are we, then, to tell them no?