Maine's Question 1

[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.

The division does exist - you have the ceremony of marriage and the legal contract of marriage.  It's not like you go to a church to get a divorce - that's a governmental aspect of marriage.

For a very long time, the free market was regarded as a liberating force in society, in which men of any background, any social status, could make good on their inherent potential by allowing the objective forces of the market to equalize any subjective discrepancy in their social relations.

That same principle ought to apply - but does not, in our allegedly 'free' society - to these hot-button controversial issues as well. Marriage is especially important: for marriage is, above all, a contract; and if we applied contract law equally to marriage as we do to every other exchange of material or moral worth, we would find that the State has no business in hindering the formulation of contracts whatsoever.

The exact same principle that leads me to oppose business regulation (whether by the Federal or State governments) leads me to oppose this horrendous measure.

And you're lookin at i from 2 extremes - either I'm a libertarian and I want smaller government...or I'm a theocrat - which is just a logical fallacy.

We are increasingly reaching a point in time when this is the basic division in American politics.

I would agree - the government ought not be involved in marriage at all - nobody should be getting tax credits for being married,etc.  Butwhile they are involved in it, they have a right to define it.

No, they don't. The government is also 'involved' in the business of business; that does not give it a right to regulate business as it sees fit.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

It's a major political issue - how is it not meaningful?

Because there is absolutely no reason for it to be a political issue. But feel free to strawman one out.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

Personal liberty is eminently meaningful. That's the meaning of our nation.

What does this vote have to do at all with personal liberty?

[Alcon]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

Explain how gay marriage affects anyone?  Seriously?

[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.

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.

The division does exist - you have the ceremony of marriage and the legal contract of marriage.  It's not like you go to a church to get a divorce - that's a governmental aspect of marriage.

For a very long time, the free market was regarded as a liberating force in society, in which men of any background, any social status, could make good on their inherent potential by allowing the objective forces of the market to equalize any subjective discrepancy in their social relations.

That same principle ought to apply - but does not, in our allegedly 'free' society - to these hot-button controversial issues as well. Marriage is especially important: for marriage is, above all, a contract; and if we applied contract law equally to marriage as we do to every other exchange of material or moral worth, we would find that the State has no business in hindering the formulation of contracts whatsoever.

The exact same principle that leads me to oppose business regulation (whether by the Federal or State governments) leads me to oppose this horrendous measure.

And you're lookin at i from 2 extremes - either I'm a libertarian and I want smaller government...or I'm a theocrat - which is just a logical fallacy.

We are increasingly reaching a point in time when this is the basic division in American politics.

I would agree - the government ought not be involved in marriage at all - nobody should be getting tax credits for being married,etc.  Butwhile they are involved in it, they have a right to define it.

No, they don't. The government is also 'involved' in the business of business; that does not give it a right to regulate business as it sees fit.

This isn't regulating marriage - it's legally defining a legal term and legal contract established by the government.  If there was a 3rd party marriage regulation board, it'd be different, but government is creating the legal contract here.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

Explain how gay marriage affects anyone?  Seriously?

Go.

[Scam of God]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

Personal liberty is eminently meaningful. That's the meaning of our nation.

What does this vote have to do at all with personal liberty?

The liberty to define one's own lifestyle goes hand-in-hand with the liberty to live as one chooses: one cannot exist without the other. A self-declared "redneck" has the right to call himself such, and, to make true on his word, to hunt; this means he has the right to own a gun. A self-professed "homosexual" has the right to call himself such, and, to make true on his word, to fall in love; this means he has the right to marry.

[Kucinichisdabest]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

[Sam Spade]

P
Here is the county map:

Wow, why'd it do so well in Aroostock county? Obama won that county by 10 points, while Question 1 did worse in Piscataquis, McCain's sole county in all of New England.

Those counties are pretty erratic when it comes to voting trends.  Susan Collins got 72% in Aroostook and 66% in Piscataquis.

.....hmmmmm.....

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

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

It's a major political issue - how is it not meaningful?

Because there is absolutely no reason for it to be a political issue. But feel free to strawman one out.

Ther may be no reason for it to be a political issue, but the majority of Americans and the media are interested in it, making it a political issue that people follow.  Why is any issue a major political issue?

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

Personal liberty is eminently meaningful. That's the meaning of our nation.

What does this vote have to do at all with personal liberty?

The liberty to define one's own lifestyle goes hand-in-hand with the liberty to live as one chooses: one cannot exist without the other. A self-declared "redneck" has the right to call himself such, and, to make true on his word, to hunt; this means he has the right to own a gun. A self-professed "homosexual" has the right to call himself such, and, to make true on his word, to fall in love; this means he has the right to marry.

This measure has nothing to do with defining a lifestyle. Nor does marriage have anything do do with falling in love.

[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.

The division does exist - you have the ceremony of marriage and the legal contract of marriage.  It's not like you go to a church to get a divorce - that's a governmental aspect of marriage.

For a very long time, the free market was regarded as a liberating force in society, in which men of any background, any social status, could make good on their inherent potential by allowing the objective forces of the market to equalize any subjective discrepancy in their social relations.

That same principle ought to apply - but does not, in our allegedly 'free' society - to these hot-button controversial issues as well. Marriage is especially important: for marriage is, above all, a contract; and if we applied contract law equally to marriage as we do to every other exchange of material or moral worth, we would find that the State has no business in hindering the formulation of contracts whatsoever.

The exact same principle that leads me to oppose business regulation (whether by the Federal or State governments) leads me to oppose this horrendous measure.

And you're lookin at i from 2 extremes - either I'm a libertarian and I want smaller government...or I'm a theocrat - which is just a logical fallacy.

We are increasingly reaching a point in time when this is the basic division in American politics.

I would agree - the government ought not be involved in marriage at all - nobody should be getting tax credits for being married,etc.  Butwhile they are involved in it, they have a right to define it.

No, they don't. The government is also 'involved' in the business of business; that does not give it a right to regulate business as it sees fit.

This isn't regulating marriage - it's legally defining a legal term and legal contract established by the government.  If there was a 3rd party marriage regulation board, it'd be different, but government is creating the legal contract here.

Ludicrous. No other contract between two private individuals requires the involvement of the State to construct it. Not one. And a person is not a business. As long as this holds true of every other aspect of American contract law, then it is de facto true for marriage as well.

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

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

Because if you can't marry someone of the same sex, you're worthless - that makes perfect sense.

[Lunar]

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.

I do not believe that's the right strategy.  That was part of the No On 8 campaign's mistake.

Remember, only some of the electorate was "persuaded" by the campaign messaging, No On 8 clearly had better ads that were unafraid to aggressively tackle the Yes side's strengths head-on.  Mostly it was about getting your saints to turn out better than the other side's saints.

Although i personally liked it, it was the Mormon ad that probably lost "No on 8" the election.

lol, no way if we're thinking about the one where the mormons steal those lesbian wedding rings.  It barely made a news buzz, wasn't run by the No On 8 campaign, and probably had something like less than $100k behind it, even if it was $1 million that still means no voters saw the ad.