Maine's Question 1

[Meeker]

If history holds true, which is likely considering 2009 is shaping up to be a good GOP year and this will fire up conservatives in Maine, then this ends gay "marriage" in Maine. Vote yes on 1.

Level of GOP support ≠ Level of support for marriage inequality. Repeat that as many times as necessary until you understand it.

And, as Al said, you obviously don't understand what history is.

[Meeker]

You're absolutely right, GOP support and support FOR marriage are inequal, support FOR marriage is almost always greater than GOP support because minority voters vote how they feel on the issue rather than falling for left wing race baiting. McCain lost in Florida and California but marriage won and marriage won BIGGER than McCain did in Arizona.

No you dolt, your argument was that as GOP support increases support for marriage inequality increases as well. That's completely ridiculous and shows you have an incredibly limited understanding of the issue (not that that wasn't apparent anyways, but whatevsky).

I don't understand history? When the PEOPLE get a say in marriage they have ALWAYS supported marriage, that's history and its on marriage's side. The one exception being the poorrly worded Arizona Amendment from 2006 which only failed by 4 points even with the poor wording and passed in 2008 re-worded. But hey, you keep holding out hope that middle America will one day embrace your leftist agenda.

And, as we all know, cultural values and opinions never change. Which is why interracial marriage and school segregation are still legal and why women aren't allowed to vote.

[Meeker]

And of course, interracial marriage (still between a man and a woman, no relevance to gay marriage), women's suffrage, and segregation are all of course on the same level of fundamental importance as satisfying the indulgences of a minority.

I didn't realize love was an indulgence in your twisted, bigoted world.

I don't think I could have said anything so nonsenical as whatever I placed in bold that you just posted. My original argument, was that higher GOP turnout would benefit Propsition One (that's a given fact, GOP voters support marriage.) and then you tried to say that higher GOP turnout wouldn't help One, at which point I said support for marrige is often even higher than GOP support. Now you're trying to tell me I was right the first time, not the second. Which is it?

You clearly have no idea what you said. You stated that as GOP support increased support for marriage inequality would increase. Such a notion is ridiculous.

[Meeker]

And of course, interracial marriage (still between a man and a woman, no relevance to gay marriage), women's suffrage, and segregation are all of course on the same level of fundamental importance as satisfying the indulgences of a minority.

I didn't realize love was an indulgence in your twisted, bigoted world.

I don't think I could have said anything so nonsenical as whatever I placed in bold that you just posted. My original argument, was that higher GOP turnout would benefit Propsition One (that's a given fact, GOP voters support marriage.) and then you tried to say that higher GOP turnout wouldn't help One, at which point I said support for marrige is often even higher than GOP support. Now you're trying to tell me I was right the first time, not the second. Which is it?

You clearly have no idea what you said. You stated that as GOP support increased support for marriage inequality would increase. Such a notion is ridiculous.

How do you figure? GOP voters oppose gay "marriage" so if more people believe in the philosophy of the GOP then more people are going to vote in favor of marriage. GIVEN NOT ALL people who support the GOP are going to vote for marriage as well, but the fact that so many people who normally don't vote for the GOP will vote for marriage makes this fact irrelevant.

The reason people switch between parties is not because of a change in social values year to year. They switch because of either economic reasons, corruption issues, personal flavor, resentment at a President, etc. People don't go "Obama isn't doing so well... oh and now I don't favor gay marriage". Again, you appear to lack a basic understanding of many of these issues. You appear to be quite young from your writing style so I hope you change some as you mature.

[Meeker]

whatevsky

you thought I wouldn't notice you using my word??

Whatevia.

[Meeker]

I find it amusing that it's gotten to the point where you can't tell the difference between a pro-gay marriage and an anti-gay marriage group by the name. "Stand for Marriage Maine"? That could be either (though obviously by context is an anti-gay group).

I was just thinking about that the other day. Here in Washington the pro-domestic partnerships ballot measure group is called Washington Families Standing Together, a name which could be used by the anti-folks as well (their name is Protect Marriage Washington which I suppose could be used by gay rights groups in a Maine situation).

Personally I think it's a rather ingenious move on gay rights groups to neutralize any sort of naming advantage the anti-gay rights movement might have. Clearly the people running these campaigns read the chapter on framing the debate in their political science textbooks.

[Meeker]

Awesome. As someone stated earlier, this (and R-71) are the only things that really matter in the long-term so it's good to see it going well.

[Meeker]

Fuck.

[Meeker]

Maine does win the award for "Slowest Counting of the Night"

[Meeker]

Ughhhh...

[Meeker]

Fuck

And fuck Maine

[Meeker]

The most discouraging part of this whole thing is the impact it's going to have on the national movement. This'll probably stop marriage equality in New York and Rhode Island dead in it's tracks, and would've also in New Jersey (it's dead there now for another big, fat reason).

God I'm pissed.

[Meeker]

Unfortunate, though not terribly surprising. Gay marriage is definitely significantly to the left of most (if not all) state Democratic parties. The only states that could potentially legalize gay marriage with a referendum at this point, are: VT and MA with an outside shot at CT, RI, NY, and NJ.

Thankfully, NJ is a state without I&R, and a constitutional amendment can't make the ballot without the consent of the legislature.

So Corzine and the Dems in the Legislature could just shove it through during the next two months and there's nothing anyone could do until perhaps the Republicans somehow retook the Legislature?