I had been watching for the outcome of the referendum to repeal the Maine state legislature’s enactment of a law which would allow gays and lesbians to marry, with all the rights that go along with heterosexual marriage (aside from federal tax breaks), and with a provision that made it clear that no clergyperson could be compelled to perform a same-sex marriage.
I was pleased when the legislature made that law, because it ensured equal rights for consenting adults on the marriage field, but also protected the religion beliefs of churches, most of which, I am guessing, would not want to perform such ceremonies. Not that they need to, of course. There’s always the Unitarian-Universalist church, a justice of the peace, or a priest or reverend who’s probably in line with your beliefs who doesn’t mind going to a different beat than the other folks in his or her denomination.
I was not pleased when voters overturned that law.
But what really got me was the comment from someone my wife is acquainted with, who tried to make like she didn’t really feel one way or the other about it (though she’s a pretty fundamental Christian, and she’s pretty clearly against it), but voted against it because the legislature acted against the will of the people.
This floors me on two levels.
First, legislatures often make laws without much consulting the people. This is nothing new, and does make for laws people hate sometimes. But it would be rather inefficient to consult the masses on everything beforehand. Besides, the legislature snuck in some nasty snack and beverage taxes recently too, and no one got up on their high horses with religious diatribes and “slippery slope” theories to get that overturned.
Second, how could this woman have voted for the will of the people, when the will of the people cannot be known until after the vote? She claims she was upholding the will of her fellow Mainers, but when she went into the voting booth, she had no clue which way the tide was running. She is simply too cowardly to admit that she voted for her will, which was to marginalize a sizable group of productive, consenting adults.
I call total bullshit on this. Have some cajones and just admit that you can’t stand the idea, and be done with it. Don’t make up stupid lies.
I’m with you, dude. (hope that doesn’t hurt your legitimacy :D)
I have some legitimacy?
Damn, that’s news to me.
😉
see previous comments: everyone deserves the right to be miserable
I saw this in Maine…very disappointed in all honesty. At some point in this world gay people will be considered our equals and those who hated them will have to look back at this time and remember their treatment of this group of citizens. Sad day.
once upon a time [and last week in south carolina] blacks and whites weren’t allowed to marry either.
Robyn
That was Louisiana, not South Carolina.
The lady was worried about the backlash from expressing her views. Yes it was cowardly, but not surprising given the propensity of folks on both sides of the marriage debate use name-calling and diatribes to drive home their points. If people could have conversations that didn’t turn into arguments, people would be more willing to speak their minds. But, every man cowardice is his own cross to bear no matter what.
I already wrote about this at my spot, so you know what I felt was the big issue here. I understand why so many propenents of gay marriage are crushed by this defeat, but I’m more upset about the difference in the way this defeat was handled compared to the defeat in Cali.
Deacon,
You act as if radical homosexuals and their allies aren’t some of the most vicious political animals in the game. When your ideological creed is simply give me what I want because now we’re equal then what do you think happens when such a person is denied what they want? They seek to destroy those who deny them.
Thor
Are there non-radical homosexuals?
Lil’ man,
There are homosexuals who aren’t interested in normalizing their behavior or using the force of government to do it. In relation to those homosexuals that do, these homosexuals would seem non-radical and should be treated as such. Although, fundamentally, a practicing homosexual is radical in his nature if radical means opposing the natural order of things.
Thordaddy’s favorite word for anyone he disapproves of is “radical.” He’s told me multiple times that I’m a radical liberal (despite the fact my religious views largely disqualify me from such a label, since I believe in things like Hell and judgment…and despite the fact I think capital punishment theoretically has a place in the justice system…and a couple other moderate-to-converative views that make me only “mostly” liberal.
Apparently, though, there are no conservative or right-wing views too extreme for him, since he has yet to paint any psychos on the right wing as radical conseratives.
Thor…I don’t know if you have a new IP address or what, but your ability to remain here in the future depends on you not turning into a repetitious and annoying asswipe again. At the first sign of circular arguments and obnoxiousness, I will ban you again. Take a cue from Tit for Tat…he annoys me some days, but stays on the side of still being mostly pleasant and mostly able to carry a discussion on with.
Now, as for general responses to folks:
Thordaddy:
There are gays and lesbians who are annoying, radical and problematic, and who want to go too far. However, in a secular nation, two consenting adults who want to marry should be able to. That’s called equal rights. It’s fair, and it hurts nobody. Notions that same sex marraige will “destroy” marriage or be a slippery slope are idiotic because we heteros have done more to damage marriage with rampant divorce, infidelity and child/spouse abandonment or abuse than any small group of gays and lesbians could do.
robyn:
You’re right, and this is one of the few areas were gays and lesbians are truly 100% entitled to (and correct in saying) that their plight parallels that of African Americans in this nation. (since many other things don’t apply…being treated badly in general is a bigger problem for Blacks since they cannot hide what they are at all. In marriage though, you cannot hide the fact you’re two men or two women who want to unite.
SocietyVs:
I concur.