Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Gay Rights in Maine

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Gay Rights in Maine
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is question 1 on tomorrows referendum:

quote:
Question 1:  People’s Veto
Do you want to reject the new law that would protect people from discrimination in employment, housing, education, public accommodations and credit based on their sexual orientation?
*

Pretty straightforward, you can't fire someone for being gay, nor deny them housing. Think its gonna pass? I can't say for sure, but there has been a huge campaign for voting yes and vetoing this sensible law. Every single sign I have seen along the road, coupled with every radio ad, parrots the slogan "protect marriage in Maine". If you find that confusing, go back and read the referendum question. If you are a rational human being, you will now be even more confused, seeing as how the question has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Shameless, dishonest tactics aside, this is the anti-gay marriage movement as I see it, at least in maine. That is to say, as comitted to preserving discrimination as to "preserving" marriage. This is the functional reason why, when I hear "defense of marriage", I think bigotry. It isn't always true, but apparently it is often true. [Frown]

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Digger
Member
Member # 2341

 - posted      Profile for Digger   Email Digger   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just out of curiosity, why is this question asked in the negative? That makes it a little harder to divine the intent.
Posts: 1317 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hopefully it will pass, if not, then it can only be an indication of how ignorant the average voter is. No matter what the stupid propaganda is, I would have to hope that once people actually get to the ballot and read the question they will realize the stupidity of listening to propaganda without checking the facts.
Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pass? I believe you mean fail. See what digger means?

They would overturn the anti-discrimination law.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
Pass? I believe you mean fail. See what digger means?

They would overturn the anti-discrimination law.

Well, yes, they should vote "No"... I meant that the law in question should stay.
Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Its stated in the negative because the law was passed by the legislature,and this is an attempted people's veto. And by the way, please don't interpret my grumpy post as an attack on anyone here, as it was not so intended.

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In Texas gays are doing similar things. Ie like saying Prop 2 will cause inhertiance problems on an unlce/niece relationship...

Also using the few churches that are against prop 2 have recorded messsages that are being sent out saying churches are against prop 2.

Its a game of trickery and deciet, trying to pull a fast one by voters who are inherently opposed to the idea of gay marriage.

Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Prob 2 is really badly written. If the people writing it had been careful, democrats couldn't have made the attacks they are making... which happen to be potentially true. The way prop 2 is written, there are potential conflicts with other laws.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Prob 2 is really badly written. If the people writing it had been careful, democrats couldn't have made the attacks they are making... which happen to be potentially true. The way prop 2 is written, there are potential conflicts with other laws"

This has been brought up in a vauge way. Give me a specific example. And not "well lawyers or judges might interpt it this way..." I've yet to hear a good solid answer on this.

Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maineacs are fully aware of the meaning of Proposition 2. Portland, which is liberal, has 'gay rights'; most of Maine does not -- by the vote of Maineacs themselves. It is likely that Maineacs will vote to maintain the status quo, i.e., homophobia.

Actually, Lew, the majority of churches in Maine oppose gay rights. The Catholic church opposes gay rights (for reasons we've already discussed) and there are a lot of fundamentalist roadside sects in Maine.

Maine is a quirky state with welfare and rich and a fuzzy middle class. It's wildly left wing on some issues and nazistic on others -- but anything that shats on uptowners or upwinders (Bostonians and Newyorkers), they'll vote for. Dependent on outsiders, they bite the hands that feed them. Boston is crawling with fag and dyke refugees from Maine.

My own tribe is trying desperately to obtain home rule (and open a casino ;-)).

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maine's proposal is alot better than Texas' prop 2, but it's still confusing. It's also aspirational. Regardless of how the vote comes out, the lawyers will have a big fun.

Lew, in the hopes of not derailing this one, I started a new thread on Texas' prop 2. Check it out.

[ November 07, 2005, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Zyne ]

Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Before the Goodridge atrocity, the antidiscrimination law would have passed without problem. But Goodridge used antidiscrimination laws to justify its ruling, which sends a strong warning to any states considering such laws. Basically Goodridge tells the states that we can't protect gays from discrimination, without neutering marriage.

Unless we amend the constitution back to what it used to mean before the hippies became the establishment.

[ November 08, 2005, 02:16 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Before the Goodridge atrocity, the antidiscrimination law would have passed without problem. But Goodridge used antidiscrimination laws to justify its ruling, which sends a strong warning to any states considering such laws. Basically Goodridge tells the states that we can't protect gays from discrimination, without neutering marriage.
A highly unlikely connection. Goodridge got very little press in Maine, and the Vote Yes campaign isn't mentioning it. As nice as it would be if they had a defensible position, the opponents of this law are simply using gay marriage because their own position won't get the votes.

There seems to be a hard core minority oppossed to gay rights and gay marriage, and a larger middle which could accept gay rights but isn't comfortable with gay marriage yet. In twenty years they will be, and the afore mentioned minority can go back to building armaggedon shelters, but I would hate to see a twenty year legacy of discrimination in the meantime. Gay marriage can wait, IMO, but this law can't.

Who would have thought that the group that would become most adept at cynical manipulation and appeals to bigotry would be Christians? Not all Christians, of course; I am actually quite proud of the number of prominent clergy who have spoken out against this veto. The opponents of the law, however, are pretty much entirely Christian's, and its the least honest campaign I've seen on this local a level.

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, I would agree with Adam but ... One can reach Maine an hour north of Boston at posted speeds, and lots of Maine receives television from Boston too; in fact the Goodrich decision had plenty of play in Maine. Actually, in what remote corner of the country was the Goodrich decision not front-page headlines?
Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
quote:
Before the Goodridge atrocity, the antidiscrimination law would have passed without problem. But Goodridge used antidiscrimination laws to justify its ruling, which sends a strong warning to any states considering such laws. Basically Goodridge tells the states that we can't protect gays from discrimination, without neutering marriage.
A highly unlikely connection. Goodridge got very little press in Maine, and the Vote Yes campaign isn't mentioning it. As nice as it would be if they had a defensible position, the opponents of this law are simply using gay marriage because their own position won't get the votes.

There seems to be a hard core minority oppossed to gay rights and gay marriage, and a larger middle which could accept gay rights but isn't comfortable with gay marriage yet. In twenty years they will be, and the afore mentioned minority can go back to building armaggedon shelters, but I would hate to see a twenty year legacy of discrimination in the meantime. Gay marriage can wait, IMO, but this law can't.

Who would have thought that the group that would become most adept at cynical manipulation and appeals to bigotry would be Christians? Not all Christians, of course; I am actually quite proud of the number of prominent clergy who have spoken out against this veto. The opponents of the law, however, are pretty much entirely Christian's, and its the least honest campaign I've seen on this local a level.

Adam

Check your own eye, Adam.

You just manipulated stats for what appears to be hate-gemerating purposes. Most of the country, and most of Maine is Christian. Therefore it stands to reason that most of the opposition to ssm is Christian.

It's irrelevant that most of the population may not have read Goodridge. Christian clergy correctly note that any gay rights law now is likely to be used by the courts to require ssm, and that ssm will result in coercive government power being applied to punish churches who don't sanctify ssm.

Goodridge set the rules of this game by saying
1) that anti-discrimination laws led to a constitutional imperative to neuter marriage,
2) that opposition to ssm was the moral equivalent of white supremacy (implying that anyone who opposed this movement should be treated like a white supremacist,
3) [in the concurring opinion] that religions should take note of the ruling and fall in line.

It's poisonous bigotry and hatemongering for you to say that these churches are motivated by animus against gays. Goodridge set the rules of this game, and if they lose, these churches become pariahs and possibly lose the ability to sustain themselves and survive. They have to play this, out of self-defense.

On the other hand. those Christian churches that have rejected Biblical teachings about marriage, and sanctify "marriages" between any two people, would be delighted to see other churches forced by the government to adopt their position. There's nothing virtuous about using the state to convert other people to your religious position, Adam.

[ November 09, 2005, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm surprised, pleasantly! Maine has voted to retain gay protections.
Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now the people will be free to decide whether to Bangor, or bang him!
Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Big Grin] [Big Grin] [Big Grin]
Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Goodridge's decision was based on anti-gender discrimination laws. By your logic, the clergy in Maine, who all share your theory on the implications of that decision, should then be advocating the overturning of those anti-gender discrimination laws, right? I haven't seen the flyers on that movement yet. As for:

quote:
It's poisonous bigotry and hatemongering for you to say that these churches are motivated by animus against gays.
Well, I just erased a huge defense against being accused of "poisonous bigotry and hatemongering". Not becuase I don't feel defensive about the charge, but because I've been down this road before and it leads nowhere. I did not attack or malign you personally, Pete, in fact I even specifically excluded you from my criticism. If you are going to make accusations like this at me, then I can't discuss this with you. [Frown]

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1