Maine's Question 1

[Kucinichisdabest]

And the moral of this story is:

Civil Unions with full benefits = Win!

"Gay Marriage" led by radical activists who probably want to sue God because two men can't naturally bear a child = Fail.

So i guess you are in favor of banning infertile staight people from getting married?

[PiT (The Physicist)]

     I'm surprised the anti-gay marriage side actually did better here than in California, given that I had thought Maine was far more socially liberal.

[Scam of God]

And the moral of this story is:

Civil Unions with full benefits = Win!

"Gay Marriage" led by radical activists who probably want to sue God because two men can't naturally bear a child = Fail.

So i guess you are in favor of banning infertile staight people from getting married?

He's in favor of anything that doesn't upset the delicate status-quo within the Republican Party, even if it means selling out again and again and again on the vital issues.

[Governor, Fmr. Chairman, Fmr. Judge, & Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So, just out of pure curiosity, you would defend the right of the state to define marriage as an institution excluding mixed race couples, yes?

No - Loving v. Virginia has shown why that's unconstitutional.  Now you're going to bring up that Loving v. VA should be used in gay marriage, and I would respond with Hernandez v. Robles, as well as the fact that the law being looked at in Loving was much different than laws prohibiting gay marriage.  In Loving, the ceremony of marriage as well was being outlawed, and the law assumed that if you were living together and were an inter-racial couple, you were married (if you had gone out of state for the ceremony).  You also have to look at Loving's statement that marriage is a civil right, sourced from Skinner v. Oklahoma, which links marriage with procreation.

Skinner v. Oklahoma is a case from the early 40's and deals with compulsory sterilization. Marriage has nothing to do with procreation anyway. You can point to Loving v. Virginia as to why you think such a thing would be unconstitutional but I could just as easily point to numerous court cases in the United States (not to mention the ones all over the world that come to similar conclusions) that say preventing same-sex marriage is unconstitutional on similar if not identical grounds.

You can't just pick what you think is unconstitutional and what you don't think is unconstitutional when both are viewed unconstitutional in the eyes of many courts for the same reason. Your entire objection to the hypothetical action of preventing interracial marriage is incoherent since you would support the exact same type of action for another group.

If you believe the state has the right to alter the contract of marriage how it sees fit, then you believe the state has the right to alter it to prevent interracial marriages. Your inconsistent reasoning is just a thin veil for the fact that you don't support it for gay people. Simple as that.

Skinner v. OK was the precedent behind Loving v. VA when the Court said that marriage is a civil right.

I'm merely saying that Loving doesn't apply to gay marriage becaue it doesn't - Hernandez v. Robles backs me up on that.  So if you don't use the Loving case (a.k.a. the 14th amendment equal protection clause), what do you use to say that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional?

[Governor, Fmr. Chairman, Fmr. Judge, & Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

In other words: I like big government - when it does what I want.

The entire conservative movement in this country ought to be bulldozed over and salted.

Way to show the tollerance that you argue I should be showing.

And the moral of this story is:

Civil Unions with full benefits = Win!

"Gay Marriage" led by radical activists who probably want to sue God because two men can't naturally bear a child = Fail.

Civil unions or marriage - it doesn't matter what you call it.  The only reason people are more ok with civil unions is because they connect the religious/social construct of marriage with the the civil contract of marriage.

Like I was saying before - there are 2 definitions of marriage, and that's why there's a problem.

[Scam of God]

Why has this debate descended into puerile legalism? What matters is the preservation of the national spirit of individualism! I care less what one document says; what matters are the principles behind it - the absolutely freewheeling individualism, the benign freedom-loving of our forefathers. The conservatives have completely abandoned it.

Way to show the tollerance that you argue I should be showing.

I'm not arguing that you should be showing "tollerance". F**k your "tollerance", and f**k your faith with it - I'm not a liberal. I'm arguing you should be honest about the values you pretend to hold - do you really believe in a smaller government?

[Sam Spade]

This thread went off a deep end.  Guess the substantive commentary will wait for tomorrow.

[Governor, Fmr. Chairman, Fmr. Judge, & Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

There are 2 types of marriage:

Marriage the social/religious construct, which is a right - you have the right to participate in the act of a symbolic ceremony.
2. Marriag the civil contract, which the state has a right to define the parameters of that contract.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

Disagreeing with my statement is just pure ignorance.  Currently, there are 2 forms of marriage.

I don't care what there is currently. I care about what matters.

I would have no problem eliminating government marriage - I see no reason why we should be giving tax benefits to married couples - it's insulting to people who never find love.

But, for now, we do have government marriage, and the state has a right to define t.

And that's why you're a big-government theocrat, and not a small-government conservative. As I said elsewhere: you mistake authoritarianism for conservatism. The State has no right whatsoever to interfere in the private personal life of the free individual.

But you didn't say that you were talking about what matters before - you said that I was wrong in saying that there are 2 types of marriage.  Currently there are - and that is what matters, because we are debating the current situation in American politics.

And how am I a theocrat?  I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana.  I have never said that I want gay marriage to be illegal - I have simply said that states have the rightto do so.  A theocrat would be pushing for the federal government to step in and illegalize it, which I do think is overstepping its bounds, because the gov't has never stepped into the realm of marriage (other than DoMA, which really has no legal impact whatsoever, since states still make their own marriage laws).

[Bull Moose Base]

And the moral of this story is:

Civil Unions with full benefits = Win!

That wasn't what the Yes campaign was based on, it was based on incoherent fear tactics arguing that gay marriage is somehow going to be a class taught in school or that parents are going to have to explain to their kids the details of anal sex.

The No campaign seemed to do everything right from what I saw on the surface, I wonder where things broke down.  It could just be that despite not being that religious, Maine is still rural and Catholic and it was a special election and all that jazz was just literally impossible to overcome.

Liberals need to be less timid about calling the Right "liars" when they are.  Not Joe Wilson style.  But calmly and methodically point out reality:  the Right's real case is too weak so they lie.

[Kucinichisdabest]

In my opinion, libertarians shouldn't support state's rights. What's the logic in taking away the right of the federal government to dictate your life, and giving that right to the states?

[realisticidealist]

Here is the county map:

[Governor, Fmr. Chairman, Fmr. Judge, & Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

This thread went off a deep end.  Guess the substantive commentary will wait for tomorrow.

I'm trying to have a discussion on the legality behind gay marriage, but as usually happens with the gay marriage debate, people let their emotions get in the way and they stop looking at the issue from the standpoint of what the law says.

[Scam of God]

There are 2 types of marriage:

Marriage the social/religious construct, which is a right - you have the right to participate in the act of a symbolic ceremony.
2. Marriag the civil contract, which the state has a right to define the parameters of that contract.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

Disagreeing with my statement is just pure ignorance.  Currently, there are 2 forms of marriage.

I don't care what there is currently. I care about what matters.

I would have no problem eliminating government marriage - I see no reason why we should be giving tax benefits to married couples - it's insulting to people who never find love.

But, for now, we do have government marriage, and the state has a right to define t.

And that's why you're a big-government theocrat, and not a small-government conservative. As I said elsewhere: you mistake authoritarianism for conservatism. The State has no right whatsoever to interfere in the private personal life of the free individual.

But you didn't say that you were talking about what matters before - you said that I was wrong in saying that there are 2 types of marriage.  Currently there are - and that is what matters, because we are debating the current situation in American politics.

This division doesn't actually exist, save in your head. The only pertinent outside party within the ritualistic contract that is marriage is the Church or other institution that performs it. Society as a greater whole has no concern in it, and ought therefore be kept out of it, on any level, Federal or otherwise.

And how am I a theocrat?  I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana.  I have never said that I want gay marriage to be illegal - I have simply said that states have the rightto do so.  A theocrat would be pushing for the federal government to step in and illegalize it, which I do think is overstepping its bounds, because the gov't has never stepped into the realm of marriage (other than DoMA, which really has no legal impact whatsoever, since states still make their own marriage laws).

Because the individual States can also act as nanny-states. Simply bellowing "states' rights! states' rights!" repeatedly does nothing to further the cause of personal liberty, any more than it did when segregation was still an active practice in the South. Personal freedom is more important than states' rights to the genuine libertarian.

[Scam of God]

In my opinion, libertarians shouldn't support state's rights. What's the logic in taking away the right of the federal government to dictate your life, and giving that right to the states?

Precisely. Personal freedom first, states' rights a distant second.

[Kucinichisdabest]

The Republican Party has been hijacked by morons like Rush Limbaugh, George W. Bush, and Sarah Palin, who are three of the least conservative people in America. Barry Goldwater was an honest man who believed in the seperation of church and state, and the Republican Party should base itself around his ideals again (although, ditch the war-mongering).