61 Comments

1. Bill
   Posted November 3, 2009 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

   If the early results are correctly looks like the Maine voters have stood for traditional marriage and values. Great job folks!

2. Brain
   Posted November 3, 2009 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

   God is watching you.

   And what will you tell him on judgment day?

   That this was to honor HIM?

   That you degraded HIS creations to honor HIM?

   One day, you will weep for what you have done.

   Your in Christ,
   Brian

3. Adam
   Posted November 3, 2009 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

   Where are you seeing that? Are you talking results of today? or earlier polls?

4. peggy
   Posted November 3, 2009 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

   Brain,

   We all have different views on the world. There is room for all.

   Peggy.

5. peggy
   Posted November 3, 2009 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

   Bill, that is great news!

6. awsum quote
   Posted November 3, 2009 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

   While the issue of same-sex marriage stirs lots of passions on both sides of the debate, one thing that should be clear is that citizens should feel free to support groups that share and advance their views without fear of recrimination enabled by government.

   Anonymous speech has a long and noble history in our country, including the Federalist Papers.

   The right to contribute to groups anonymously has also been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 1958 case, NAACP v. Alabama, at the height of the movement against segregation. Knowing the parties to the case tells you all you need to know about why disclosure can lead to intimidation and even violence.

   Disclosure adds little to the debate, other than a race to see which side can most demonize and demagogue the other side's supporters, instead of engaging in a real debate on the issue at hand.

   Sean Parnell, president

   Center for Competitive Politics

   Alexandria, Va.

7. Sandy
   Posted November 3, 2009 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

   What's degrading his creatures got to do with anything? Sin degrades them. All God's creatures are worth saving, no matter what their orientation.

8. Dan
   Posted November 3, 2009 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

   Go Maine! Yes on 1!

9. Adam
   Posted November 3, 2009 at 7:08 pm | Permalink

   I appreciate the excitement here, But where is the good news coming from. Sources please. I guess we have about a few more hours to go.

10. Raynd
    Posted November 3, 2009 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

    If you want to monitor results in Maine here's the link to Bangor Daily: http://www.bangordailynews.com/electionresults.html

11. Lynn
    Posted November 3, 2009 at 8:56 pm | Permalink

    No 45 88.24%
    Yes 6 11.76%

12. beetlebabee
    Posted November 3, 2009 at 9:32 pm | Permalink

    it's too early to tell just yet.

13. beetlebabee
    Posted November 3, 2009 at 9:38 pm | Permalink

    REJECT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LAW
    Yes 3837 50.67%
    No 3736 49.33%

14. Michael
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 12:34 am | Permalink

    Of course when 5% of the population is struggling for their rights, it's going to be hard to garner 51% of the vote. But here's to hoping....

15. Chairm
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 1:32 am | Permalink

    Michael, whatever do you mean by "5% of the population"? Please be specific about how the criteria you use to figure that there is some portion of the population "struggling for their rights".

    Meanwhile, the vote is about marriage. Your remark appears to be about something else.

16. JB
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 1:39 am | Permalink

    Yes on 1 up 25,000 votes (52.5% to 47.5%) with 84% of precincts reporting! Looking good!

17. JB
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 1:41 am | Permalink

    NOMTweets reporting Yes on 1 campaign about to claim victory!

18. frank
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 1:56 am | Permalink

    all of you know very well that this is not about marriage. it never has been and it never will be. this is about the right of a minority to exist. maybe gay people shouldn't exist in your perfect world, but the fact of the matter is we do exist in the real world, despite your attempts to hide and marginalize us. history will be your judge. god will be your judge. in the end, you will not win.

19. Michael
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 2:08 am | Permalink

    Chairm: You know this isn't about marriage at all. If this were about marriage, groups like NOM et al. (and I'm guessing, you) wouldn't oppose domestic partnerships and civil unions (along with countless other gay rights measures).

    Protecting "marriage" is a clever campaign strategy devised to make what amounts to invidious discrimination appear more palatable. The Auggie Ruse article on this site essentially admits as much in the first paragraph or two!

    Go on. Vote against gay rights. That's fine. But let's be clear: Voting this way is not a free ticket to Heaven. God is concerned with your individual soul, not your voting record or your stand for what is "righteous." If only it were that easy! I'd advise you to work on that. And, for the record, hatred toward your neighbor (no matter how you candycoat it) is not likely going to be pleasing to Him.

20. Adam
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 2:13 am | Permalink

    Troll alert.

21. Michael
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 2:18 am | Permalink

    Adam:

    "Troll" is just a not-so-original way of saying "person with whom I disagree." It saves the person using the term from having to respond to the substance of the points, but still allows that person to get a jab in. Nice work perpetuating the term!

22. Nicholas
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 3:28 am | Permalink

    Michael,

    So, are you suggesting that God is for SSM? On what basis? Please, point out the Scriptures that support this notion.

23. Bill
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 4:09 am | Permalink

    My wife and I are celebrating the NOM victory this evening, knowing the the sanctity of our marriage is protected by the will of the people. Our prayers were answered, NOM is a Godsend.. Off to our next victory for the family!

24. Bill
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 5:51 am | Permalink

    Homosexuals must learn from this defeat to seek forgiveness and repentance, not the redefinition of marriage to support their sinful lifestyle.

25. Steve
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 9:02 am | Permalink

    ...with liberty and justice for some.

26. Kevin
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 9:19 am | Permalink

    Thank God the US Constitution's 14th Amendment will undo this travesty at some point!

27. Morgan
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 9:29 am | Permalink

    13. Like I said by a razor-thin margin Yes on 1 won.
    Lots of Mainers and their supporters for NO on 1fought hard to improve and make secure their lives and those of their families, friends, co-workers and neighbors.

28. Diane
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 10:34 am | Permalink

    Steve, all are equal under the law. You and I have the same rights. What has been protected here are also children's rights. Every child deserves a mom and a dad. It's very simple. Thank your parents for it.

29. beetlebabee
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    REJECT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LAW
    Yes 283523 52.85%
    No 252912 47.15%

    93% reporting. That's even higher than prop 8's margin in California. Hardly "razor thin". I saw a great tweet go by on twitter last night. "You can't buy Maine!" I think Maine has spoken, and pretty clearly. Marriage is between a man and a woman, for the benefit of children and society as well as their own union. Well done Maine. Congratulations.

30. Laura
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    Congratulations Maine! This isa monumental victory! Despite a very significant financial advantage and overwhelming liberal media bias for radical homosexual agenda, faith in marriage and traditional family prevailed.

    Thanks to everybody who made this victory possible.

31. Adam
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 11:48 am | Permalink

    Thanks for NOM's Support.

    Homosexauls + 4.5 million in donations + all around paid expenses for SF to move to Maine + Distorting Marriage = A win for Traditional Marriage. Maine Voters sent a strong message about what marriage should be. (Between a man and a woman)

32. W.
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

    I HATE YOU MAGGIE GALLAGHER. I HATE YOU F***ING KKKRISTIANS. YOU ARE ALL HATERS AND ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY. I HOPE YOU SOMEDAY EXPERIENCE THE SADNESS AND PAIN YOU BRING TO YOUR FELLOW HUMANS. YOU ARE DESPICABLE YOU WASTE YOUR TIME RUINING OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES. I HATE YOU I HATE YOU I HATE YOU. NOW SHOVE IT.

33. Steve
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

    Diane, The referendum didn't address single parenthood. But of course you'd frame it this way. Afterall your side won on a campaign of misinformation and lies. Why let facts, common sense, logic or truth get in your way now?

34. Becky
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    "If they can’t win there, it really does tell you the majority of Americans are not on board with this gay marriage thing." - Maggie Gallagher

    Hmmmmm.....and the majority of Americans weren't on board for interracial marriage 50 years ago.....and they weren't on board for equal rights for minorities either. That's when the government had to step in. The government's job is to protect the rights of ALL citizens. Minorities included. It's only a matter of time folks. It won't happen today or tomorrow, but it will happen in my lifetime.

    Maybe we should consider having separate drinking fountains for the 'gays' and 'straights'? That's how I'm viewing "marriage" to "civil union". It's practically the same thing, THEY just can't use the word "marriage". They HAVE to use "civil union".

    Whatever happened to "live and let live"? Isn't that what Jesus would say? Because he sure didn't have a whole lot to say about homosexuality.

    We're wasting precious dollars to keep people from being happy....for what? A definition? The "sanctity of marriage" is between the couple. It's no one's business how sacred I view my marriage. And if someone gets divorced because they don't hold their marriage to the same level that I hold mine, then that's none of my business either. Or maybe it's to "protect families"?? Homosexuality is not a learned behavior. I think that's where the breakdown is. Homosexuals come from heterosexual households. If sexuality was a learned behavior, how is that?

    And look at it this way, when we do see the law changed, we'll see a boom in the economy, because there are going to be A LOT of weddings!

35. Raynd
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    RT Social science, history, God and the people are all against the normalization of homosexuality. Even evolution gets it's kick in. #maine

36. Raynd
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    Gay activists can’t blame #Maine on Mormons or blacks. Their issue loses when the people decide---every time

37. Amy
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    Steve, you sold your story to the people, the people rejected it. It's as simple as that.

38. Raynd
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

    W.

    Anger issues?

39. Raynd
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    W.

    marriage is more than just a piece of paper, it is the link between generations, the healthiest situation for kids & our future.

40. Raynd
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    Amy, not only did they sell it to Maine, they tried to BUY Maine. Trucking in all those San Francisco dollars and bigshots was the biggest mistake they made, besides being on the wrong side of the issue..... Mainers can't be bought. I'm so exceedingly proud of my state today. Marriage, Family, Children.....there's nothing more important than that. You can take the marijuana issue, raise my taxes, all that is less. This is the issue I worked for. Thank You Maine!

41. Bill
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    I am so pleased that from California to Maine, American still stands for family values.

42. Mike Brooks
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    Thinking Americans recognize the disasterous consequences of redefining marriage. Non-thinking Americans allow themselves to be manipulated by calls for equailty, accusations of bigotry; they allow their compassion and short-sightedness to get in the way of logical thought and long-term consequences. Fortunately, the thinkers outvoted the nonthinkers in Maine. 31 for 31, baby.

43. Steve
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

    Amy- it's not quite so simple. A small majority of the people (not 'the people' which implies some sort of unanimous decision) voted 'yes'. Many based their decision on misinformation fed to them by others. People that aren't sophistcated enough to understand that when they're told that legalizing same sex marriage means that kindergateners will receive instruction on gay sex acts, they're being lied to, are going to vote 'yes'. The anti-ssm folks (like NOM) rely on misinforming such people to achieve their goals. It just means that we have more work to do. Eventually sane-sex marriage will be the law of the land.

44. Amy
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

    Nice try Steve, but your unhappiness with the result doesn't translate into your side making any more sense for families than it did before the election. Thank You Maine!

45. Becky
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    Also, let's not forget that the longer we single-out a group of people, the more dangerous it becomes for them. From being put-down to being brutally attacked and/or murdered because of who they are, maybe even committing suicide because they believe they can't be Christian AND Gay.

    From the "talking points" section of this website it states:

    • Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose; they don’t have a right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.

    I'd much rather redefine the definition of a word if I knew it would bring more tolerance.

    And if someone is to say "allowing gay marriage will only bring more hate crimes", then we can blame organizations such as NOM for inflaming the issue and creating more hatred. And it will be up to these organizations to calm their base.

    Two consenting adults who want to be married, should be able to do so. And married or not, gay couples will have families, it will just be a little more difficult without a marriage. Let's stop the fear campaign.

46. Dan McCarry
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

    "Heterosexuals have the right to live as they choose, they don't have the right to redefine marriage for all of us."

47. Raynd
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

    wait, who was it that was redefining marriage? Perhaps you should take that up with mother nature and Darwin.

48. Daniel
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

    Becky,

    That's exactly the problem, you're willing to brute force society into your philosophy without any scientific backup. It's ludicrous.

49. Becky
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

    Daniel,
    I'm glad you commented because it made me do further research.

    Check with the American Psychological Association.

    http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html

    Is homosexuality a mental disorder?
    (I included this question and answer for a good reason, keep reading.)

    No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

    What about therapy intended to change sexual orientation from gay to straight?

    All major national mental health organizations have officially expressed concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation. To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. This appears to be especially likely for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals who grow up in more conservative religious settings.

    And lastly.....................here's where you have a point.

    What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

    There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    I would encourage you to read this entire page if gay marriage is such an important issue for you, so you can understand how your efforts may affect others. It backs my claims that I made in my second post.

50. Daniel
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

    Becky, unfortunately you didn't do your homework thoroughly enough. The APA's stance is not based on hard science. They took a vote back thirty years ago and switched their stance due to political pressure. That's hardly reason to support the normalization of Homosexuality is it? in fact, they just recently had to concede that there was no gay gene, after years of propagating misinformation and disinformation. Nothing they do is based on hard science.

51. Laura
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

    "Let's stop the fear campaign."

    Becky, you must have been addressing radical homosexuals, well known for using intimidation, harassment, boycots, death threats, etc., to further their sociologically irresponsible and hedonistic agenda.

    Homosexuality is a choice, which, like any choice, has consequences. Your lifestyle choice does not make you a "victim" in the society's eyes and does not entitle you to special treatment.

    To the contrary, because homosexuality is an inherently unhealthy, unproductive, and ultimately annihilistic lifestyle, the society has no compelling interest in further legitimizing and promoting it through endorsing homosexual "marriage."

    You can buy a handful of politicians or judges, but, as seen in Maine, there are still many responsible and rational people who refuse to be manipulated and bought by radicals.

52. Adam
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    From CNN
    New Hampshire's law officially will take effect next year.

    In a statement, Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese said the vote in Maine made him angry.

    "But more importantly, I am determined that with the anger I feel today from this outcome in Maine, we'll rise ever stronger to demand equal treatment under the law and equal respect for our relationships in Maine, California, New Jersey and every state of the union."

    Hate from the HRC??? What no way!!!

53. Dwayne
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

    You may have won the battle, but we all know what the outcome of the war will be. Bigotry and hate will not prevail. The winds of change are blowing. I know you are scared of change, but it is comming. I believe that one day most of you will be imbarrased to admit that you actually fought against granting a segment of society their civil rights. I look forward to being able to tell my grandchildren that their grandmother and I fought against the hate.

54. Sally Johnson
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

    Dwayne, it's far from inevitable, the tide has turned. "No more mr. nice gay" assured that.

55. Raynd
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

    Exactly. There hasn't been any popular increase in the support for homosexuality in the last ten years. That movement has stagnated, the mask is off. The facts are out. The best they can do now is try to force it on the populace by fiat, whether they like it or not.

    Good luck with that. This is a free nation of free people. We won't stand for fascist demands from on high. If you think homosexuality is great, take it to the people and make your case honestly. You still won't win, and the simple reason is because homosexuality isn't a healthy way to go. It's not good for individuals and it's not good for kids.

56. Chairm
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

    I had asked Michael to explain a comment he made. Instead of replying to that, Michael chose to namecall.

    He thus confirmed that, as I had said, "Meanwhile, the vote is about marriage. Your [Michael's] remark appears to be about something else."

    He has offered no substantive reply to what was asked of him.

    For the record, @ November 4, 2009 at 12:34 AM, I asked Michael the following:

    Michael, whatever do you mean by “5% of the population”? Please be specific about how the criteria you use to figure that there is some portion of the population “struggling for their rights”.

    * * *

    As for domestic partnership and civil union, if Michael could justify these measures he would do so without resort to namecalling.

    Whenever an SSMer is invited to provide the independent claim, the justificiation, for domestic partnership or civil union status, the response is always about merging nonmarriage with marriage.

    The reply never states the core of the relationship type that the SSMer has in mind such that it would be differentiated from nonmarriage.

    But the demand for a merger is made anyway -- in the name of gay identity politics. It is not made for the sake of equality nor for the sake of the social institution of marriage.

    What is domestic partnership, Michael, such that it merits a special status on par with marital status? Explain the definitive feature(s) of domestic partnership, in your viewpoint, and cite the legal requirements that make the feature(s) mandatory for all who show-up for a license for that.

    Failing this, your namecaling is where you stand and not on principle and not on the law and not even on morality -- much less on what you (supposedly) would devine God to mean by the conjugal union of man and woman. You have struck a pose without making a case for your demands.

    That's typical of SSMers who argue against marriage rather than for SSM (aka domestic partnership, civil union, etc).

57. Michael
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

    Adam, "hate" and "anger" are two different things. In the Bible, God is often "angry," but he is never "hateful."

    Nicholas, you consistently want me to respond to your points while you refuse to address the substance of what I'm saying.

    Let me do it, too: Show me where in the Bible it says that marriage should be an agreement between a man and a woman based on love and recognized by the government? Eve did not choose to "marry" Adam. And no marriage in the Bible (or until the 1800s) had anything to do with love. The definition of marriage has always been changing and evolving, and it hasn't been the gays who have changed it.

    You might say: Well, it's always been one man and one woman; that hasn't changed. Well, besides the fact that that factually incorrect (you can see even in the Bible that polygyny is rampant, as is childbearing by the maidservants of a man's wife, in addition to just his wife -- after all, they were all his property), there is another key point:

    Before marriage became about "love," it was about familial duty, economic arrangement, etc. Under that system, gay people and straight people alike were forced into permanent commitments with people of the opposite sex. Everyone was doing it. But then, straight people started marrying for love. The rules of the game had changed. Now, if love is the basis of marriage, and not familial duty or economic arrangement, it no longer made sense for gays to marry people of the opposite sex: they don't love them. Hence, when heterosexuals changed the definition of marriage, it opened the door for this. I highly doubt that heterosexuals on this site want to go back to the feudal system, despite their claims for "traditional" marriage. I certainly don't!

    (Raynd, that goes for you, too. I hardly think that "mother nature" or "Darwin" created the government-designed contract of marriage. Marriage as a formalized government-sponsored contractual agreement is something relatively new in human history.)

58. Raynd
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

    Michael, Mother nature creates life. Marriage creates the most stable environment to bring that life into being and raise it to mature adulthood. That is how stable societies are formed, it is how they evolved and it works. Argue as you will, there has never been (and cannot be by definition) an equivalent situation with homosexual unions.

59. Adam
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

    I second raynd. There is something interesting about the phrase Mother nature isn't there. Lets hope the gay community doesn't pick up on it.

60. Chairm
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

    Michael, you skipped past the question that was asked of you re the "5%".

    * * *

    There is no love requirement in the marriage law.

    Many traditions of marriage have varied, sure, but the core has remained the same. That core in tradition, custom, and law has entailed the combination of sex integration and responsible procreation. Marriage is a social institution and not a contract created and owned by the Government.

    We have a government, not the other way around, and no Government owns the foundational social institution of civil society. Marriage arises from the two-sexed nature of humankind, from the opposite-sexed nature of human procreation, and from the both-sexed nature of human community.

    SSM, according to the emphasis on gayness by SSMers far and wide, arises from the assertion of the supremacy of gay identity politics over the social institution, over the marriage law, over constitutional jurisprudence, and over all principles of good governance -- private and public alike.

    The chasm between the two things -- marriage on one hand and SSM on the other hand -- is huge. A merger would abolish the core meaning of marriage from our laws and culture. That's the outcome of the SSM merger, whether SSM supporters (i.e. SSM[support]ers) are prepared to own it or not.

    Such an outcome would be regressive.

61. Nicholas
    Posted November 7, 2009 at 1:52 am | Permalink

    Michael,

    Was there another man in the Garden of Eden that Eve could have chosen differently? Or, is the Creation account, symbolic and not literal, as some suggest?

    As to the requirement of love in marriage, I always presumed it to be a given. Unfortunately, as is evident in so many marriages, love is an afterthought and not the basis. Does this mean that marriage has "evolved?" No, because even in a "loveless" marriage, it is still the union of male and female, husband and wife. At that, if is not a requirement, then why the push to recognize the "love relationship" of a SS couple? If love has nothing to do with marriage, then why do I hear over and over in defense of SSM, that "love is love?"

    Now, althoug polygamy was practiced by some of the patriarchs, it never became normative. In special circumstances, it was allowd, but it never was endorsed. If so, then at what point did it become less favorable and why? How did we go from the "two shall become one" to polygamy and then back again? If the more the merrier, as the saying goes, why wouldn't polygamy have garnered more support?