Thursday, May 21, 2009

What is same sex anyway

I noticed in the press this week that the Secretary of State announced the ballot question for the People's Veto. Here it is;
"Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?"
Getting this question passed is going to be a tough sell. Yankees will just want to leave well enough alone. Proponents are going to have to give them a powerful reason to reject this law. Here's a few quick thoughts on the question:
  1. This "new law" must be rejected because it doesn't qualify as a law! Laws have to be fair and just. This one clearly is not just. It presupposes that something which is fundamentally wrong and immoral (homosexuality) can qualify someone for the high status of marriage. That is obviously crazy.
  2. The phrase "same sex" is meaningless. This should read "homosexual," not "same sex." This euphemism simply confuses people.
  3. The last clause is cleverly worded. The Secretary of State, Matt Dunlap, has always supported homosexual rights. The clause is subtle. It causes the reader to conclude that religious individuals and groups are intolerant. Nothing could be further from the truth. With the passage of this law the state decided not to tolerate common sense and truth. Everyone knows that marriage is between one man and one woman. You don't have to be religious to know that, but I for one think it is wonderful that Christianity upholds this important institution. It is beyond tragic that the state no longer does. It is horrific and insane.
Help us defeat this law. Send a contribution today to Marriage Matters in Maine, 70 Sewall Street, Augusta, Maine 04330. Obtain information about petitions at

Make a comment!


  1. You're not very bright, are you?

  2. 1 and 2) You venture into actually discussing the law, but then you ignore it. The law - which isn't made with specific regard to your particular religion (that would violate the First Amendment) - says it is illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of gender when gender is not germane to the issue. In this case, it is not germane - not legally. It may be germane to your particular interpretation of your particular god and particular religion, but it is not germane to the secular conditions of marriage. Are the people old enough to understand the terms? Do they consent? If the answer is "yes" both times, the government must allow it. The Maine (and U.S.) government cannot be in the business of discriminating on the basis of gender.

    Sexual orientation is not relevant to whether or not one can get married. It never has been. This law is not officially enacted. Do you think gay people cannot get married right now? I can marry a lesbian right now. Her sexual orientation isn't a condition of whether or not the state of Maine will allow us to marry. It never has been. Honestly, it's been a long-term argument of anti-gay marriage people to say that gay people can get married...just to people of the opposite sex. Now that this argument is being fully acknolwedged, the far right-wing is rejecting it (or just ignoring it because, well, that's convenient).

    3) The anti-gay propaganda machine is out there telling people that this law infringes on church rights. You know this. This helps to make sure people realize that same-sex marriages won't be performed in their churches by force if they attend an anti-gay church. If you want to declare that Dunlap is doing anything to help out the equal rights movement, you should be arguing that he's trying to appeal to people who embrace the idea "live and let live".

  3. Are you disallowing comments with which you disagree, comments that use foul language, all comments, or are you just not always active on this blog? I'm curious because I left a comment several days ago but it clearly hasn't appeared on this post. I'd like to engage in discussion, but if you have limits that will inhibit my posts, I'd like to know so I can save some time.

  4. As the California Supreme Court considers "gay"
    marriage, it is perhaps time to ask exactly from
    whom or what "the people" think that rights accrue?
    We have before us the remarkable irony that those
    who can (and do) find the most extreme rights in the
    penumbra of the Constitution are those least likely
    to praise wealthy, God-fearing, dead white men, and
    yet that Constitution's form is the product only of
    such self-same wealthy, God-fearing, dead white men.
    Hence the question: If you want your fundamentals
    handed down from someone, then who is that someone?
    It is evidently not the God of any widely held
    religion. It is evidently not wealthy, dead, white
    men on any issue except whether someone who is not
    more than one or two of wealthy, God-fearing, dead,
    white, or male, can derive public tax support and
    the like from everyone else. It is an irony of
    Brobdingnagian proportions when GLAD argues that
    only the stone tablets handed down from those
    wealthy, God-fearing, dead white males can be the
    basis for government of, by, and for the people,
    and, in any case, not the people themselves. The
    breadth of this irony, which includes anti-democracy
    almost as a side effect, is worth study.

  5. - Your #2 is laughable.

    - "The term 'same sex' is confusing". Maybe if you didn't make it past the first grade...

    -And you want to know what is "horrific and insane"? This push against marriage equality. It's time to get over it. You lost when our young people woke up and realized that it's nobody's business.

  6. I used to be a Baptist and quiet conservative in my views except for those on homosexuality. One day in church an man was crying on the platform about the great evil of Homosexuality and what giving them rights or protection would do to our nation. I wanted to gag, and got up and walked out. Unfortunately it has been difficult for me not to throw ou the baby with the bathwater. The fundamentalist Christians are doing great harm to young members of their congregation who are gay or lesbian. They are driving a wedge between them and Christ.

  7. you are a bad person.
    and you will go to hell.

    you have a nice day now
    watch where you step.