Maine's Question 1

[SenatorShadowLands]

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.

[SenatorShadowLands]

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.

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.

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.

[SenatorShadowLands]

We're not talking about a middle America state like Iowa or Kansas, we're talking about Maine in an election that'll be all about identifying supporters and GOTV.

ME-2 is largely rural, friendlier to Conservatives and is more like upstate New York rather than the coastal ME-1. If The ME-2 middle Americans come out in force and the big city people in ME-1 either don't care or vote in favor of marriage, then its sunk.

[SenatorShadowLands]

The only big city in the state has a huge gay population, and they're really friendly, so they won't stay home. No on 1 won't let them. And Maine's second biggest metro is in ME-02. In 2007, they cast about 240,000 votes, so there'll probably be more this year. No on 1 has identified 80k voters with 2 months to to, and one month before canvassing for early votes.

I really can't comment on yes on 1's campaign, to be honest. They're not sharing anything. All I know is they're casting an ad on Craigslist, looking for two "real Maine women" but not saying what the ad is about, and blaming Maine's bad weather on the gays. That's all I know about them. They're not even publicly saying where their main office is, but the No on 1 campaign has opened public offices all over the state in the past month.

And Yes on 1 hasn't demonstrated the fact it can rally support by getting tens of thousands of people to sign a petition to get a vote?

[SenatorShadowLands]

They've surely demonstrated that they can hire a signature gathering firm from Michigan and a campaign director from California, based in DC, who pay signature gatherers $2 for every signature they get. Not every signature is a committed voter.

Look at the public hearing back in April. The no side was able to get about 3000 supporters to dress in red and attend, and the yes wasn't able to get 1000. The no side was able to send tens of thousands of letters to governor Baldacci to help him sign it, the yes side, not so much.

lol ok so everyone who opposes gay "marriage" is obviously just a hired stooge. Yeah, you fit in well with Nancy Pelosi, just dismiss the people, it can't be true, they're just "astroturf."

[SenatorShadowLands]

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.

Yeah and there's absolutely no chance that tradition can hold fast either which is why 90% of the people on the planet are still getting married, believe in a God, etc after 6000 years of civilization.

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 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?

[SenatorShadowLands]

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.

[SenatorShadowLands]

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.

And being open to the values of the other party doesn't mean you can form a new opinion or a first opinion altogether? That's quite an assumption to make. Like I said, so many people who don't vote GOP will vote for marriage which makes the people who will vote for the GOP but not marriage a moot point.

[SenatorShadowLands]

ME-2 is largely rural, friendlier to Conservatives and is more like upstate New York rather than the coastal ME-1. If The ME-2 middle Americans come out in force and the big city people in ME-1 either don't care or vote in favor of marriage, then its sunk.

No, the big city people in ME-1 will be voting for marriage in its current form. It's the conservatives who will be voting to redefine marriage, choosing to roll it back, presumably, to some manner of olde tyme state where blacks can't marry whites because they're worried that someday dogs will be marrying people.



First they marry each other, next they'll be marrying people.  It's a slippery slope.

Redefining the new definition. WOW that is QUITE a spin.

See my earlier post on interracial marriage. Black/White Man + Black/White Woman= STILL ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. GAY (for those of us who don't seem to know the difference between race and gender) means TWO men or TWO women and therefore doesn't have Jack to do with interracial marriage. Get it?