Maine People's Veto, will it pass or fail?

[Piquechampion]

Sadly I think that it's human nature for the strong (in this case the majority) to oppress the weak (the minority), and let's be honest here we gays are a very low % of the population.

I bet that if the same was put to vote by the public, gay marriage would have never happened in Belgium, Netherlands (I still recall a certain homophobe dutch poster of yore who was pretty much against gay rights, he even said he loathed gay prides, etc., etc.), in Spain or Canada.

Also, I think that if interracial marriage or desegregation would have been put to vote, I bet that still in the early 80's people would have voted against those two things.

 

[JB3]

It is a sad day in America. As I know all of you must feel, this loss hurts.

As I so often do in cases like this, I turn to the words of greater men than I to express how I feel. Thomas Jefferson, I think said it best:

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

Although we are oppressed we must not give up the fight. We must take from this loss what we can and move on to the next fight.

This loss is only temporary. We will prevail because we have what is right, and what is just, on our side.

 

[NineOfClubs]

And I am asking YOU how many high profile Republicans were there to support the gays? That's just a simple question.

The same number were there that the Democrats sent!

Don't you see it yet?

They're just stringing you along for your votes and donations, they'll never deliver.

 

[hotatlboi]

I think this beyond a shadow of a doubt, shows how incredibly difficult it is to actually bring about change.

No matter how much people protest, stomp their feet, picket, or anything else ... none of that appears to matter in the big scheme of things. It's out of our control.

Why? Because people are too engrained with their thought process when it comes to Homosexuality. And it comes down to two things:

1) Religion
2) Education

It does not appear that you can "educate" older voters on Homosexuality or Religion. They are lost causes. They don't want to be "educated" on either issue, because they have been taught through religion that any deviation to what The Bible says is blasphemy on this topic.

We are fighting a battle against Seniors that can not be won in the conventional sense.

We also have to accept the reality of the situation that it simply is not our time. You can work as hard as you want, but it isn't going to do a damn bit of good. Time is the only thing that will make a difference.

The solution is the investment in the future through future generations. And the way to do that is by education on this in our schools, as well as combating religion (also in our schools).

And along with that, is the natural process of Generational Turnover. Certainly a grim point of view, yes ... but the only way change is going to happen is through people dying and new, better educated people coming in.

We just were born in a bad time period here, gang. Maybe in another 20 years or so after some Seniors pass away and after we've had more time to educate the youth on both religion and homosexuality.

And no offense to our older members here on JUB. Because I'm sure you are equally as frustrated.

I pretty much have to agree with this. In Maine you had every opportunity for intelligent people to choose equality. You had a state we were told was "fiercely independent" and where the voters would make up their minds on the merits of the argument and not on propaganda. You had a well run campaign by the No on 1 folks who put in a lot of hard work, they had way more money raised, you had the principled governor who wised up and made the right choice and challenged people to rethink their prejudices, etc. But still it didn't matter. The older religious bigots are simply too many.

It's going to take another 5-10 years before there is any kind of majority consensus on this issue. Gay marriage is at about 40% nationally which is a big improvement over even 5 years ago when all those states passed their anti-gay referendums in 2004. Maybe in 2014 we'll finally get to 50%.

But whenever it happens, the overwhelming reason for the slow progress is simply a increasing acceptance of today's society and an inability for older generations to let go of their prejudices. It's the same reason an 88 year old man shot up Washington because he couldn't let go of the racist society he was raised in.

 

[Kensei]

Before today I was waiting for today's election, now I'll be waiting for the month of January where the Perry vs. Schwarz. case will continue.

I STRONGLY believe that you will have your rights (I want to say we so bad, lol) through a ruling that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.

 

[DiamondSkin]

The same number were there that the Democrats sent!

Don't you see it yet?

They're just stringing you along for your votes and donations, they'll never deliver.

Democrats have consistantly shown they can deliver and support gay rights.

Republicans are ALWAYS the ones who deny gay rights or come up with anti-gay legislations.

I find it bewildering that you think it's worse to have party that may or may not string you on for gay votes than a party that continually spits in your face....

 

[catbox_911]

Not that this is anything new, but the New York Times is now calling the race.

 

[Just_Believe18]

Very sad. Maine was the Union's brightest hope.

 

[catbox_911]

Not only is the measure going to pass, but it appears it's going to pass by an even larger margin than Prop 8 passed by.

 

[Piquechampion]

I see and smell something very sinister coming from the US, where the most basic rights of a human being are put out there for the decision of a majority.

It's a slippery slope that can easily end up like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_terror

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust

 

[MystikWizard]

And there in Maine, according to the graph hotatlboi posted, Maine was ranked 7th in the nation in terms of Most support from Seniors, and it still couldn't pass.

If it can't pass in Maine, then Seniors certainly aren't going to pass it in any of the states underneath Maine on that graph.

Seniors and their Bibles ...... what can you do?

 

[Piquechampion]

And there in Maine, according to the graph hotatlboi posted, Maine was ranked 7th in the nation in terms of Most support from Seniors, and it still couldn't pass.

If it can't pass in Maine, then Seniors certainly aren't going to pass it in any of the states underneath Maine on that graph.

Seniors and their Bibles ...... what can you do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4

Only applied to them of course

 

[Kulindahr]

God this whole thing is so depressing. Why are we the only minority who constantly has their life voted on by the public? It's really humiliating. I feel like a farm animal or something.

At least you don't live where the rednecks would like to literally treat you like a farm animal -- slaughtered and tossed into a gully, like the other diseased critters.

Until he proposed this, all we were wanting was civil unions and domestic partnerships.

Maybe that should be the goal. Americans aren't in favor of gay marriage, but they are in favor of equal rights for gay couples.
In other words, the battle's over, but we won't accept victory.

Before today I was waiting for today's election, now I'll be waiting for the month of January where the Perry vs. Schwarz. case will continue.

I STRONGLY believe that you will have your rights (I want to say we so bad, lol) through a ruling that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.

I'd prefer a ruling that government taking a position at all on marriage is unconstitutional, since most Americans consider marriage to be sacred.

 

[maxpowr9]

I'd prefer a ruling that government taking a position at all on marriage is unconstitutional, since most Americans consider marriage to be sacred.

But it is funny how most Americans forget "to death do us part" about marriage. I say we ban divorce because that is the direction were heading at this rate.

 

[Kulindahr]

Why? Because people are too engrained with their thought process when it comes to Homosexuality. And it comes down to two things:

1) Religion
2) Education

It does not appear that you can "educate" older voters on Homosexuality or Religion. They are lost causes. They don't want to be "educated" on either issue, because they have been taught through religion that any deviation to what The Bible says is blasphemy on this topic.

It also comes down to the thing that was the real deciding factor in California: apathy. What this is showing is that the motivated win.

And older voters can be educated; I watch it happen regularly. They just can't be educated en masse, by waving a magic wand; it has to be done one-on-one, patiently.

We also have to accept the reality of the situation that it simply is not our time. You can work as hard as you want, but it isn't going to do a damn bit of good. Time is the only thing that will make a difference.

Cop-out.
The numbers are probably going to show exactly what they did in California: if all age groups had voted in the same proportions, Prop 8 would have gone down in flames. That shows where the energy ought to be going. The lesson here isn't to throw up your hands and whine about the people against you, it's to figure out how to motivate the people who are supposedly for you.

In that sense, yes, time is the only thing that will make a difference -- but time spent persuading, convincing, motivating, not time sitting on your ass waiting for graves to fill up.

The solution is the investment in the future through future generations. And the way to do that is by education on this in our schools, as well as combating religion (also in our schools).

Maybe in another 20 years or so after some Seniors pass away and after we've had more time to educate the youth on both religion and homosexuality.

And no offense to our older members here on JUB. Because I'm sure you are equally as frustrated.

No, the solution is to motivate those our your side.

And the solution may also be to let go of the word "marriage". Washington's measure seems to be going our way, and if it does, everyone should sit up and take notice, because that's what the numbers have been saying for some time now: let go of the m-word, and discover that the battle is already over.

Indeed, if that had been the issue in Maine, Obama might have lent some support, because that's his position. He's not going to come out gung-ho in favor of something he doesn't believe in; it's moronic to expect him to.

If Washington goes our way, and from the best I can find it still seems to be, then Oregon may try it next. By then I should have my life arranged a bit better, and could be able to get out there and rouse some support!

Seniors and their Bibles ...... what can you do?

 

[Kensei]

Maybe that should be the goal. Americans aren't in favor of gay marriage, but they are in favor of equal rights for gay couples.
In other words, the battle's over, but we won't accept victory.

The goal is for gay couples to be treated equally as straight couples. Screw what Americans are in favour for, it's OUR RIGHT to be treated equally as them, whether they like it or not.

This means we get everything they get, including the institution of marriage.

I'd prefer a ruling that government taking a position at all on marriage is unconstitutional, since most Americans consider marriage to be sacred.

Most Americans do but what they don't realize is that there's two types of marriages. The public institution and the sacred one handed down to them.

I'd prefer the ruling not change anything around, just stick to what the issue at hand is, do we have the right to marry. (Which we do).

 

[Kulindahr]

But it is funny how most Americans forget "to death do us part" about marriage. I say we ban divorce because that is the direction were heading at this rate.

If we were a rational people, we'd face up to this and go the route Robert Heinlein described: let marriage or whatever be a matter of contract, and go with the kind you want....

Two years, renewable?

Five years, opt-out?

Until the kids are off on their own?

Life-time, with penalties for early withdrawal?*

Group?

Chain?

Line?














* sorry; couldn't resist

 

[hotatlboi]

The goal is for gay couples to be treated equally as straight couples. Screw what Americans are in favour for, it's OUR RIGHT to be treated equally as them, whether they like it or not.

This means we get everything they get, including the institution of marriage.

Under the law, yes. This is often confused with "marriage" as it relates to religion.

If churches feel that marrying gay people should not be part of the "institution" of marriage, that is their right under the first amendment.

However, under the law, everyone should be treated equally. There shouldn't be a separate class of unions created that supposedly have similar rights but is called something else. Separate is not equal.

 

[Kulindahr]

The goal is for gay couples to be treated equally as straight couples. Screw what Americans are in favour for, it's OUR RIGHT to be treated equally as them, whether they like it or not.

This means we get everything they get, including the institution of marriage.



Most Americans do but what they don't realize is that there's two types of marriages. The public institution and the sacred one handed down to them.

I'd prefer the ruling not change anything around, just stick to what the issue at hand is, do we have the right to marry. (Which we do).

A good ruling would deal with what's in the majority's mind, and that is marriage = sacred. Since sacred = religious, having laws about marriage is unconstitutional.

So we go with what will get us equal rights, and a decade down the line do some class-action suits to get rid of the word "marriage" so everyone can have the same thing.

I think it would be fun hitting the streets in favor of "registered unions" for all. When the religious Neanderthals accuse me of wanting to pollute marriage, I'll tell them flat out that I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that marriage is religious -- and therefore should be thrown out of the law entirely, under the God-ordained highest law of the land. Since our Founding Fathers said "all men are created equal", then the law has to let everyone be equal, and that means that when it comes to picking life partners, everyone gets to pick freely. And if they push the moronic idea I bumped into on-line, that "since God said it, we can't vote on it", I'll just ask, "What part of "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's" don't you understand?

My position is simple: follow the Constitution. That means two things: first, that everyone gets the same level of free choice in choosing life partners (that's called "freedom of association"); second, that if a thing is sacred/religious, it doesn't belong in the law.

On one level, what the fight here is about is fundamentalist-type Christians feeling we're trying to de-Christianize not just the nation but them. If we make it clear that we honor their sacred values (we may giggle about them elsehwere, but we honor them), and in fact want marriage to be left to the churches (and whoever, but don't point that out), and have everyone's committed relationships be described in neutral terms for the government (Caesar, remember), a lot of that will get defused.

How much? In my experience, about one in two dozen of them, or better. That's about 4%. Now, if just 4% of them switched sides, it would all be over.

And that's really the human way to go about it. They want respect, just like we do. They look at the world fearfully, as out to get them, persecute them, so they fight to try to be on top. So treat them with respect (regardless of whether it's 'deserved'), because that's what we want them to do -- you know, the old Golden Rule maneuver.

 

[MystikWizard]

And older voters can be educated; I watch it happen regularly. They just can't be educated en masse, by waving a magic wand; it has to be done one-on-one, patiently.

You watch it happen regularly? How many people do you see, Kuli? One or two, here or there?

I am not convinced that all Seniors can be convinced, in the great numbers that need to happen. Of any age bracket, this is the least likely age bracket to want to be educated, as they are completely set in their ways ... and feel that life is pretty much all figured out .... Heaven and Hell, and all that.

Cop-out.
The numbers are probably going to show exactly what they did in California: if all age groups had voted in the same proportions, Prop 8 would have gone down in flames. That shows where the energy ought to be going. The lesson here isn't to throw up your hands and whine about the people against you, it's to figure out how to motivate the people who are supposedly for you.

Call it what you will, Kuli, but it is what it is.

You are not going to convince the youth to go out in great numbers because of the reason you said .... apathy.

And you are not going to change that apathy, unless it is something that hits them close to him. Gay Marriage is not one of those things that the entire youth vote is going to get out there and vote on.

Youth do vote, and those that do side pretty much with Gay Rights. However, as history has shown, they do not vote regularly enough, especially on local elections.

Call it a "cop-out". I call it "accepting reality". Prove me wrong.

In that sense, yes, time is the only thing that will make a difference -- but time spent persuading, convincing, motivating, not time sitting on your ass waiting for graves to fill up.

Nope. Time spent waiting for graves to fill up is the only realistic thing that will allow for change. Time and patience, along with allowing the education system to do its part for the future generations.

No amount of motivating, convincing, or any of that other stuff will work. We have seen it time and time again. There are simply entirely too many Seniors with Religious views compared to people that can actually be "convinced" or "motivated".

Apathy on this issue will not be cured. The youth will only vote when they are hit close to home on the issues and realize what impact the issues have on their lives. It's part of maturing. You will never convince them to get out when they are 18 and to vote on every single election, especially on ones involving Gay Rights, unless they are directly affected.

Just like the Seniors will never relinquish their bigoted Religious views.

Time, Patience, Education, and Death are the only solutions to this.

No, the solution is to motivate those our your side.

The youth will not be motivated on issues that they are not directly affected by. That has been shown that time and time again. And nor is this their fault, because the youth that do vote, vote overwhelmingly pro gay rights.

The Seniors and religious influence on them are to blame. And they aren't changing either.

Like I said, Kuli. The reality of the situation is yes, Gays are helpless and bound by Father Time. No amount of boycotting, parade-marching, convincing, or anything else will have the drastic effects that are needed for this change, other than Death.

Indeed, if that had been the issue in Maine, Obama might have lent some support, because that's his position. He's not going to come out gung-ho in favor of something he doesn't believe in; it's moronic to expect him to.

Not even Obama will change Religious views. I have seen and understand the effects religion has on others. Just because the president may say one thing, that is not enough to change the mind of someone who is bound by faith to the Bible.

If Washington goes our way, and from the best I can find it still seems to be, then Oregon may try it next. By then I should have my life arranged a bit better, and could be able to get out there and rouse some support!

Go out there and do your best to make a difference, Kuli. All I can say is if that gives you purpose, then do it. In the big scheme of things, will it work? Absolutely not.

The reality of the matter is morbid, but is the truth. Religious Seniors need to die and result in Generational Turnover before Gay Marriage will be a realistic possibility.