Gay-Marriage Activists Look Ahead After Big Defeat in Maine
Mainers' 53-47 vote to reject gay marriage does more than simply slap down a law that just six months ago had made Maine America's second state to permit same-sex couples to wed. With voters thronging to the polls, the closely watched - and ultimately not very close - vote extended the winning streak of gay marriage opponents nationwide, who have now prevailed in more than 30 straight state elections over whether to allow gays to marry. Just like Californians one year ago, Maine voters insisted on having their own say on an issue that simply will not go away.
Maine was supposed to be different. To begin with, it was the first state to legalize gay marriage by statute, and with the governor's support.
When the unprecedented new law was challenged, supporters hoped that political backing from the governor, coupled with Maine's traditionally independent mindset, would provide the breakthrough that gay marriage supporters have been waiting for.
The vote prompted an outpouring of cash and other resources from far beyond the borders of the Pine Tree State. From New Jersey, the National Organization for Marriage sent a $1.8 million check to help defeat gay marriage. Gay couples in California and others still heartbroken over Prop 8 vote last year also sent lots of smaller checks to help bring the 'Vote No on 1' coalition some $4 million. On Tuesday, Californians manned phone banks to help encourage the vote, which Maine's Secretary of State told reporters Tuesday was exceptionally large.
But while money may talk in politics, it rarely has the last word. Just ask outgoing New Jersey Jon Corzine, who hugely outspent his opponent, and still lost.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091104/u ... 9193443200
Re: Gay-Marriage Activists Look Ahead After Big Defeat in Maine
You know what really blows my mind is that marriage itself is NOT an issue for the Gov't...straight or gay. Marriage is a religious bond between to people who commit to each other’s love under the eyes of their lord. My stance is that if a church that is sanctioned by the state (which is another issue in and of itself) allows same sex couples to marry then it is a legal marriage. The very idea of gov't involving itself with marriage at any level is a violation of the separation of Church and State.
Re: Gay-Marriage Activists Look Ahead After Big Defeat in Maine
Quote:
You know what really blows my mind is that marriage itself is NOT an issue for the Gov't...straight or gay. Marriage is a religious bond between to people who commit to each other’s love under the eyes of their lord. My stance is that if a church that is sanctioned by the state (which is another issue in and of itself) allows same sex couples to marry then it is a legal marriage. The very idea of gov't involving itself with marriage at any level is a violation of the separation of Church and State.
I agree but if you take the state law governing marriage out of the equation then you basically have a civil union. Which I think every state in the should have.
Re: Gay-Marriage Activists Look Ahead After Big Defeat in Maine
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
You know what really blows my mind is that marriage itself is NOT an issue for the Gov't...straight or gay. Marriage is a religious bond between to people who commit to each other’s love under the eyes of their lord. My stance is that if a church that is sanctioned by the state (which is another issue in and of itself) allows same sex couples to marry then it is a legal marriage. The very idea of gov't involving itself with marriage at any level is a violation of the separation of Church and State.
Why should marriage be relegated to religious institutions? I see nothing wrong with local government officiating over a marriage. Suppose the parties involved aren't religious? Legally recognized gay marriage has to come by Supreme Court decision, IMO. Not be any religious institution. If the Supreme Court says that the Feds and/or States must recognize and perform gay marriage ceremonies, they must also say that religious institutions have no legal or moral obligation to recognizing or performing gay marriage. For that would truly be a violation of the seperation of Church and State.
