"Stand"

[freakylocz14]

At least they showed actual homosexuals. California didn't.

[MikuruBeamu]

Notice something? They never allow comments on anti-gay videos. That just goes to show how many people disagree with them.

[victimofcheese]

The voters, the people of Maine, spoke OVERWHELMINGLY. Mass is a short drive away. Go home and quit infecting our state.

[York22]

It seems only in the United States we allow the people to vote on other's civil rights. In no other country were same sex marriage or civil unions have been legalized has there been on vote to approve or ban it. Civil rights should never be up for a vote. Should poll taxes and the rights of african-americans to vote in the south or any other state have been subject to a referendum or interracial marriage or school integration?

[mmhoover1]

AscottW,

New Jersey insurers and employers and hospital openly ignore and disrespect the same New Jersey civil unions law that the New Jersey state government expects them to pay attention to , respect and adhere to. The same employers that would not yield before the same employee's civil unions suddenly change their tune and get the employee what he or she needs when confronted with the employee's previous lawful Massachusetts marriage. Words matter. Marriage opens door civil unons etc won't.

[AscottW]

I seriously think we, as a community, need to forget the word marriage and just focus on the legal skeleton behind it. It will be more difficult for the right wing to go after us if we aren't talking about marriage at all. Look how stupid reject ref 71 people in Washington looked when they tried to say anything about marriage when it wasn't even on the ballot anywhere. LGBT community, heed that lesson.

[mmhoover1]

Excuse me AscottW,

Take a lesson from the civil union failures of New Jersey. A 5 year old kid knows what marriage is, many adults in New Jersey don't have a clue what civil unions are and those gay couples in civil unions and their kids have to explain civil union again and again and again and again on and on to every last person they meet.

Kids whose parents are in NJ civil unions are told by other kids your parents aren't married, when will they marry?

[AscottW]

Well, I'm sorry. What the hell are we going to do? Honestly, keep fighting? Yeah, print it on a shirt, throw it on a sticker, yell it into a megaphone. That isn't going to change the fact that no one on capitol hill (or any states capitol hill) is pushing for legislation that restricts these types of ballot iniatives. I honestly don't believe we have much of a choice. "Stay the course" no on 1? We learned a lesson from that phrase before. Didn't work then and it's not going to work now.

[AscottW]

We are out of options. Throw around lawsuits, and recounts all you want. The voters spoke and they said "You can't get married" nothing you can do to change their hearts and minds. They're already poisoned by religion. I say we cut our losses and go for the throat. Civil unions (as long as they are exactly equal to marriage but only differ in name) are an alternative until people in this country grow out of old, archaic, superstitious dogma.

[mmhoover1]

Thousands of people did their best to keep equality in Maine and it was a close contest. The Yes on 1 victors should not gloat too much because they should know that won by a razor-thin margin. Next time marriage equality in Maine will be for keeps and all Mainers will then be equal under Maine law and more families will be safe and secure.

[stilllfresh]

faggot ass shit

[muellerican]

Now that all has been said and done I'd like to meet the guy who's holding that lobster. I believe in destiny. lol

[Nilguiri]

How dare they speak of respect!

And what "interference" are these bigoted assholes talking about? Nobody is saying it will be compulsory to marry somebody of the same sex.

Yet again, the US is the laughing stock of the whole of the world.

Land of the free MY ASS!

[Nilguiri]

Guarantee equailty??? By making sure that there is no equality?

aaargh - my brain hurts!

[Permaglo]

"I, David, take you Mark, to be my husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; till death do us part."

The only thing that needs to be added to those vows are the words "lawfully wedded." Help make that happen Nov. 3 by voting NO on Question 1!

[CommonSenseJoe]

How do you decide who is the husband? Coin Flip?

[mmhoover1]

Joe,

In 21st century gay culture, they are each other's husband.

In Canada they are spouse and both husband. America will catch up one day.

[CommonSenseJoe]

You mean decay that far.

[mmhoover1]

No Joe, I mean improvement in the lives of gay Americans and gay Canadians, I mean full participation in those societies by all, I mean equal citizenship for all.

[CommonSenseJoe]

No one is saying you cannot have full participation in society. What I am saying you cannot redefine marriage simply because you chosen relationship does not qualify you for it.

[penguinpopsicle]

I'm sorry you feel that way.

But the thing is, it's impossible for gay couples who have had lasting relationships to have full participation in society, as there are like 1000-something federal benefits that are available to married couples. Why exactly are they not qualified anyway?

[CommonSenseJoe]

Because they are NOT married. My brother lived with a woman for 15 years. They were never married because they did not want that kind of relationship. The benefits did not out weigh the commitment they needed to make. Marriage has been defined as a man and a woman for a reason. There are benefits that the relationship bring to society that makes it worth promoting with benefits. None of these benefits exist in a same-sex relationship.

[penguinpopsicle]

But I still don't understand. There are obviously a lot of people who feel otherwise from your brother and everyone else who wants to be married.

What kind of benefits aside from, say, reproduction, do opposite-sex marriage have that same-sex marriage doesn't? I mean, there are a lot of heterosexual couples who are childless by choice as well. What is the exact reason that the definition exists in the first place anyhow?

[CommonSenseJoe]

There are benefits related to how the relationship affects men and women who are committed to each other. There is the potential for children, and providing the best environment for them to be raised in. These are all benefits exclusively provided by real marriage. The definition has proved itself correct of centuries of evolution.

[penguinpopsicle]

But homosexual relationships are found in nature. O.o Wouldn't that prove that homosexuality is there hand-in-hand with evolution? Not that everyone will be gay in the future, just that the animal kingdom isn't exactly devoid of it. And there are a lot of committed gay couples who have been together for a long time. How their relationship affects both of them is purely a case-by-case basis, don't you think? Same as in heterosexual relationships. :)

[CommonSenseJoe]

First, some scientists "observe" what they call homosexuality in nature. My dog humps a stuff animal. He is not homosexual. He is driven by instincts, not morality or intellect.

The issue is not what gays do or don't do. It is about redefining marriage on the basis of sexual preference.  Marriage is defined by pure biology and sociology, not sexual preference.

[penguinpopsicle]

But surely sexuality is an aspect in both biology in sociology. Gay men's brains work like women's brains and the like. The thing is, this isn't about a dog humping a stuffed animal. This is about a dog humping another dog of the same sex. In that case, yeah, your dog would be gay, I think. Besides, isn't heterosexual preference driven mainly by natural instincts as well? Sex in of itself is such a primal thing.

[CommonSenseJoe]

You missed the point. A dog will hump ANYTHING. He has no sexual preference. To say he is gay because he humps another male is attribute to him a sexual preference, when in the new moment he would hump your leg.

We are all heterosexuals in terms of biology.

BTW, that brain thing is bogus. There is no biological difference between gay men and straight men except their choices.

[penguinpopsicle]

And this is the same as giraffes, penguins and other types of animals that mate homosexually? According to you, no animal has a sexual preference and are merely guided by instincts? So if humans and other animals are guided by their instincts, why is being gay or straight a choice?

Except there are scientific studies that have been published about that.

[CommonSenseJoe]

The reason is we are NOT animals. We have intellect and morality that they do not have. They eat their young if they are hungry too. Not a behavior I want humans to emulate.

It is a choice because YOU choose how you are going to act and what behavior you will engage in. There are no scientific studies of your subjective feelings.

[penguinpopsicle]

However, you can't exactly ignore the scientific evidence that there is that correlation. Also, you can't exactly compare homosexual behavior to infanticide either. :)

I guess what I'm trying to understand is why one would think that homosexuality is something one would think threatening.

[slincolnwx]

Marriage has only been "defined" as between a man and a woman for religious purposes. Legally, most states had it defined as a separate, legal contract between two adults until the DOMA scare about 10 years ago. Just because you have an opinion on something doesn't make it the "definition."

[CommonSenseJoe]

Not true! The Supreme Court ruled against Mormons who wanted their religion to define marriage for them. States always understood marriage to be between a man and a woman. It was not until foolish judges with agenda decided to redefine the meaning. That is what forced the DOMA.

[Permaglo]

What benefits does marriage bring to society and how are those benefits not in a same-sex relationship?

[slincolnwx]

The law defines civil marriage. And the first "redefining" of marriage happened during the DOMA scare, because of people like you.

[CommonSenseJoe]

No, it happened because some judges started redefining the word.

[slincolnwx]

Nope. Please read history. Civil marriage rarely had anything to do with gender until the DOMA scare in the 1990s. And it is the judicial branch's job to rule on these matters. You seem to be bad at civics.

[CommonSenseJoe]

Marriage has ALWAYS been between men and women. I don't know whose history you have been reading but not AMERICAN history. No one would think the marriage was not between a man and a woman.

[AscottW]

Marriage is between a man and the women he raped. Read your damn bible, son.

[mmhoover1]

Yes, I notice the disabling of commenting for Yes on 1. They fear comments contrary to their beliefs. The fact that No on 1 doesn't disable their commenting section shows that No on 1 is a more open organization and does not fear to hear from CommonSenseJoe or anyone else who opposes the views of No on 1.

[commongroundpolitics]

Vote "NO" on November 3rd! This is the USA - liberty and justice for all - no exceptions.

[Permaglo]

I saw this ad on "Huffington Post" along with an ad for the yes side. It's very telling that the yes video had the comments disabled. But then I guess marriage opponents have never been much for rational debate.

[DillonX]

A bad omen for you people --

In the New York Congressional District race some Republicans actually put up a candidate who was sympathetic to gay marriages.

But then the radicals in the Republican Party said that was TOTALLY unacceptable.

So they put up Doug Hoffman who is strongly against gay marriage & called for contributions from radical Republicans all over the country.

So much money was raised, the other candidate has now quit.

[CommonSenseJoe]

Cool!

[ryukage99]

If you keep that up GOP would be finished. The Party that freed the slaves has becomes the party that's afraid of anyone who isn't white straight male christian.

[mmhoover1]

The Republican moderates don't stand a chance. That is partly why I fled that party 10 years ago. That and Trent Lott who compared gays to alcoholics and kleptomaniacs. That was the last straw. I didn't need to belong that kind of strange party full of Jesse Helms, Pat Robertsons, Lou Sheldons, Pat Buchanans who pledged cultural wars on gays at the 1992 GOP presidential convention. My goodness, if that sort of man had been our president, I would have well on my way to becoming a Canadian!

[CommonSenseJoe]

They are not moderates. They are liberals.

[mmhoover1]

Joe,

I have read enough to know to a lot of conservatives "liberal" is a bad word.

Liberals can be modern,sensible, and up to date people. People truly living in the 21st century who see value in all people regardless of race, color, creed and sexual orientation gaining equal participation in every sphere of life and opportunity in the USA. And that includes the right to the vital protections only marriage can give to all couples and families whether gay or straight.

[CommonSenseJoe]

Again, they are wrong on this issue.

[mmhoover1]

Joe, again you are wrong on this issue.

[CommonSenseJoe]

Opinions vary!

[CommonSenseJoe]

I love big words that mean nothing.

[totakikay]

I'm from California and I support Maine's civil human rights, NO on 1!

[TheBeepBeepBeep]

Maine will soon be a GAY haven! SUCK ON THAT REPUGS!!!!

[eire1984]

3 words the pink dollar

[new01]

that was 4 and a number. ;P

[CommonSenseJoe]

At least we will know where you all are!

[mmhoover1]

Can we please keep this dialogue civil and respectful?

[DanOLGB]

So, with No you get affirming, positive messages. With Yes you get gloom and doom irrational fear. Pretty easy choice here. Hopefully Maine will see through the lies and fear tactics employed by the Yes campaign and affirm what rational people know, allowing gay and lesbians the right to affirm their love through marriage is good for Maine.

[CommonSenseJoe]

With YES, you are saying that we are not going to redefine marriage to that a few people can pretend to be married.

[ryukage99]

You mean you don't want change what you know,

[Devin1488]

You're on the losing side of history. I'd say leave the country, but every other industrialized nation on the planet supports equal rights for gays.

[CommonSenseJoe]

Not worried.

[ryukage99]

You should be cause then you look for someone else to blame for your problems,shortcomings. Learn to take responsibility.

[CommonSenseJoe]

None of this has to do with me.

[ryukage99]

Oh Really, You and your ilk do it all the time. First with the women, then with the blacks, now the gays.Bur fortunately for you,you could still blame everything on illegal immigrants

[CommonSenseJoe]

Avoiding the real debate by distraction. I don't blame gays for anything other than being annoying and trying to rewrite the law on marriage according to their own sexual preference. They have no interest in real marriage benefits. They want only for society to accept and approve their lifestyle. It will not happen regardless.

[ryukage99]

What are you smoking? It's All ready happend in Canada and things are fine. You're just jealous becuase gays have more sex and could get easier Or just worried that gays can do good as you or even better then you in everything

[CommonSenseJoe]

Now you are just dreaming. You confusing perversion with sex. Gays are their own worse enemy.

[ryukage99]

Oh Really then why you don't go to Bourbon Street during Mardi Gras.

[CommonSenseJoe]

Because I am normal and don't need to get drunk and act stupid.

[ryukage99]

You're missing the point. The people during Mardi Gras can be just as lewd as you and your ilk claim during Gay pride. But Of Course you wouldn't take it into consideration becuase all you want is attention on here that you don't have offline.

[CommonSenseJoe]

I don't approve of lewd in any sexual behavior.

[ryukage99]

By Both gays and straights?

[mmhoover1]

ryukage,

I am gay, but I just don't feel the need to be drunk and lewd in public. I want to marry and have something of lasting value. Someone to share a quiet home life with. Speaking for myself, I don't see being publicly drunk and lewd as things of lasting value.

[ryukage99]

Like our neighbors to the north Canada, and nothing happen when gay marriage was legalized. Most of those people who are against is simply because they don't want to change what they know what they were told to believe and refuse to adapt to change. But unfortunately for them. Change happens whether they like it or not.

[AdamSunnyFlanders]

It's time to vote NO on 1 everyone! Thank-you ProtectMaineEquality for running a respectful and dignified campaign that gets to the heart and truth of Maine equality. <3

[jeffmagic32]

I am very much in favor of the rights of gay people to marry whoever they want, but this ad is pretty deceptive. Stop the BS and level with the people - gay marriage: yes or no

[CommonSenseJoe]

It is not about marriage equality. It is about redefining marriage so that 3% of the population can pretend that they are married and normal.

[fiveb85]

... at the expense of absolutely nobody. Honestly, what kind of pussy gets scared at the idea of two gay strangers being able to marry each other? And here I thought conservatives were supposed to be all rugged and manly. Lately, they just look a bunch of whimpering pussies to me.

[SeanChapin1]

CommonSenseJoe, it is not about redefining marriage so that 3% of the population can pretend that they are married and normal, it is about marriage equality so that 100% of the population can treat everyone with dignity and respect entitled to all as American citizens.

[CommonSenseJoe]

No, it is not about equality at all. No one has the right to redefine marriage according to their sexual preference.

[ryukage99]

so why make not make all marriages a civil union. Why do you need to cling to "special" thing.

[CommonSenseJoe]

Because marriage is a special thing. Why don't gays just settle for civil unions?

[ryukage99]

Then why not you?

[superc]

If marriage is so special why don't we ban divorce then? Who's divorce rates have gone up high in the last century? Oh right, straight people. :D The irony.

[CommonSenseJoe]

What does one have with to do with the other? You want to ban divorce. I am with you on that one. Been married to the same woman for 32 years, and counting.

[Devin1488]

First of all, I am not a "gay." I am a human being.

Second of all, look up the definition of "special," then recognize that straight people make up 90% of the population, and often get "married" at drive thrus.

Third of all, this is AMERICA, and if you think segregation perpetuates "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" then I think you need a reality check.

Maine citizens have got to vote NO on 1, and grand equality throughout their great state!

[CommonSenseJoe]

If you are not "gay", then leave marriage alone.

If marriage is in trouble, why mess it up?

No one is advocating segregation. We simply oppose redefining marriage to suit your need to pursue happiness.

[ryukage99]

Then why not give the word "marriage" it's just a word. Your side act like the spoiled kid who wouldn't share his toy with other kids.

[CommonSenseJoe]

Why is calling their pervert relationship a "marriage" so important to them? If it were about the benefits of marriage, they would accept civil unions.

[ryukage99]

Well, Haven't you heard Referendum 71, Your side wants gays not having similar to marriage as well.

[GaiaReyalslayer]

Why do we think calling it a "marriage" is so important? Because we are not second class citizens, an we will not settle for something less because of sexual preferances.

[CommonSenseJoe]

You are not entitled to redefine marriage according to YOUR sexual preference.

[mmhoover1]

Joe,

Marriage is for the comfort and joy of a couple and for children maybe. The idea here is IF.

Not all opposite sex couples wanting to be married are fertile, or might be elderly. We don't bar them from marriage. Procreation is not the sole reason to marry.

If we allow infertile couples to marry, what's the difference between allowing their marriage and allowing the marriage of a same-sex couples since neither they nor these types of opposite sex couples are not able to reproduce?

[CommonSenseJoe]

Because they are a man and a woman, which is the definition of marriage.

[mmhoover1]

Joe,

Depends on which Engiish dialect you are refering to.

In American English it was defined as a man and a woman.

In Canadian English as stated in my Canadian Oxford dictionary marriage is defined as "the religious or legal union of two people". Nowhere gender specified for marriage in my Canadian Oxford dictionary of the Canadian branch of the English language.

Canadian English follows many of the British spellings, words and meanings for words in general.

[CommonSenseJoe]

If marriage was solely between a man and a woman, you would not have add "gay" or "same-sex" before it. You have corrupted the word and it's meaning.

[mmhoover1]

Joe,

only in your mind is the meaning corrupted.

[CommonSenseJoe]

Obviously, not! Why do you think these ballot initiatives happen? Why do you think gay marriage keeps getting voted down? You have less than 3% of the people who are gay and want marriage. You have another 5-10% who are not gay but foolishly believe it is a good idea. Even the President of the United States, Barrack Hussein OBama opposes gay marriage. You simply do not understand that what you are doing is counterproductive to what you really want.

[mmhoover1]

Joe,

That doesn't make the ballot intiative right.

You don't mess with someone else's marriage.

[CommonSenseJoe]

You don't have a marriage to mess with. You have an illusion.

[mmhoover1]

Joe,

A marriage to me, but not to you. I will leave you to your delusions on that.

[sandform]

A, it isn't perverted.

B, because we want equality. Have you ever heard of a little thing called the landmark case of Brown V. board of education?

Separate institutions for the same service have been deemed inherently unequal, a civil union doesn't give you even half of the things marriage gives you not to mention the fact that no one has to honor your documents.

[CommonSenseJoe]

A) It is.

B) Sexual preference is not the same as race.

C) This is not about the benefits of marriage. It is about cramming their behavior down society's throat. This is about social acceptance, not love or marriage.

[sandform]

B, you asked why we won't accept just civil unions, and I told you why. If you're a backwards bigot who doesn't realize that separate but equal institutions have already been decided as unacceptable then that is your problem. Based on Brown V board of education you can either give gay people the right to marry, or not give them anything. It has already been established that separate institutions for the same service is not acceptable under the law.

[CommonSenseJoe]

Your argument fails on two grounds:

1) You are equating sexual preference with race.

2) You are equating education with marriage.

We did not have to redefine education in order to allow blacks and whites in the same schools. Redefining marriage simply to allow gay to marrying is wrong. Sexual preference does not define marriage.

[sandform]

1) No, I'm not, I'm equating government institutions with government institutions.

2) Again, no I'm not, I'm equating government institutions with government institutions.

Actually, look up this little thing called "the cable act," or various other acts, we had to redefine marriage to let people marry other races.

We also had to redefine marriage when we decided polygamy wasn't acceptable and that treating your wife as property wasn't acceptable.

Go educate yourself, you git.

[CommonSenseJoe]

No, we changed the restriction on marriage, but not the definition.

[sandform]

Wow, I can't believe the lengths bigots will go through to rationalize their insanity.

Do you even comprehend what a definition is?

[CommonSenseJoe]

Yes, I do. Marriage, at it's core, is between a man and a woman. It always has been. We have altered the restrictions over the years, but never changed the basic definition.

[sandform]

A man and his many women, you mean.

And you're wrong anyway, same sex marriage had been a common practice for many civilizations in history until you're childish religion gained a strangle hold over people.

God, go educate yourself you giant tool.

[CommonSenseJoe]

Still, again, between men and women. No, it has not been "common practice". That is why you are fighting to make so now. Insulting my religion does not make your argument either since I have not made my religion an issue.

However, even religion has not been granted the right to define marriage (i.e. Mormons).

[mmhoover1]

sandform,

I am a gay man who goes to church each Sunday. I don't recall insulting anyone's atheism.

[sandform]

I'm sorry that you have to deal with the cognitive dissonance of following a religion that persecutes your people, but I'm not going to keep myself from telling the truth, which is that religion has, all throughout history, been a consistent source of bigotry and hatred.

I would suggest you examine your religion more closely and ask yourself why you follow it. If it is for any other reason than "valid physical evidence," then why bother following it? Especially when it breeds intolerance.

[CommonSenseJoe]

First, my religion is not why I oppose gay marriage. Second, you are wrong about my religion, and I will leave it at that.

[mmhoover1]

Sandform,

We agree to disagree on if and why people follow a faith. I have tried atheism and found it empty and lacking in my own experience. However, I respect the right of others to whatever fits their lives best and I do not insult their needs or their choices. Thanks for understanding.

[mmhoover1]

Civil unions are not universally accepted or understood and require extensive explaning each and every time to people of importance in a position to impact lives be it in a medical or in a legal context.

A 5 year-old kid can understand marriage. And kids want very much to see their opposite sex or same sex parents married.

[CommonSenseJoe]

Not when the kid with have two mothers or two fathers, or whatever the new terms will be.

[mmhoover1]

I would loved to have had 2 dads or 2 moms just as much as I loved having a mother and father.

I have seen very kind and very devoted same sex parenting in any number of places. So, I am not convinced at all of it being deficient in any way.

[rainbowheartgirl]

Joe, I have two fathers, and I was *thrilled* that they were able to get married before Prop 8 passed here in CA. It was a big joyous event for our whole family, you know, because none of us are prejudiced and we love our parents and we wanted them to be happy and have a legal union, finally, after more than 25 years.

[Permaglo]

I hear a lot about how a child should have a father and a mother. Do you feel your life was lacking because your parents are two men? And do you feel different as a daughter now that your parents have been able to be legally married?

[rainbowheartgirl]

Permaglo, I think my parents being able to get legally married brought my whole family together and it was a really great feeling to have that legal recognition ... until Prop 8 happened and everything felt like it got taken away. And, no, I don't feel like my life was lacking with two dads. I think men are just as capable of nurturing kids. I mean, I got tons of hugs and kisses. I don't understand when people say that they think I was lacking any kind of love. I think I had more than enough.

[mmhoover1]

Joe,

Even in today's USA, marriage is the only way to prevent a doctor's office etc from challenging same-sex parents about what their relationship is to the kid (s) being brought in for things as simple as vaccinations as happened to a same-sex female couple raising kids here in Maryland just a few years ago.

A biological mother's partner brought in the kids for a vaccination and the doctor's office refused to give the vaccinations because although she mate, she was not the biological mother.

[CommonSenseJoe]

Unless she has legal custody of the child, she is not entitled to authorize medical care.

[mmhoover1]

CommonSenseJoe',

Most gays have the decency to not reduce your marriage to a set of"behaviors".

it'[s a no-brainer to consider that "behaviors" are just a miniscule part of the life of an average person, and that there is a whole lot more to a man or a woman than what he or she does behind closed doors.

Or under the bedsheets.

Like having something called an intellect, a personality, a kind heart, an inner spirit, success in life.

But I am sure that will just go over Joe's head.

[CommonSenseJoe]

But that is exactly what they are doing to marriage.

[GaiaReyalslayer]

Look, clearly no one is going to get through to CommonSenseJoe. See most homophobes need education because they lack the knowlege to know better. What Joe lacks is the brains. Unfortuntely stupiity is a lifelong disease.

Everytime he comments I'm just going to think "if it was up to guys like this, we would have never move past feualism. What an idiot".

[CommonSenseJoe]

That's because you want what you want regardless of the consequences to you and the rest of us. Nothing in what I said suggested I want "past feualism". What I want is for gay people to stop messing with the institution of marriage in order to gain societal acceptance of something that society will NOT accept. If you choose to live your life as a gay person, that is your right. Just leave the heterosexual institution of marriage alone.

[mmhoover1]

Joe,

Let me see,

If we were 3% percent, I thought we were more like 4% or 5% but whatever, we would still number at about 4 million. Enough to populate a European country and enough to be some of us in every town, city, county, state and region of the USA.

We gays might live on your block or be one of your neighbors. One of us might serve your favor restaurant meal, might be one your mail carriers, might be a distant relative, might be a fireman in your area.

[CommonSenseJoe]

First, I said 3% who are gay and want marriage to cover their relationship. There are gay folks who are not about trying to rub society's face in their choice.

Second, I have gay friends. I don't hate gay people. They have a right to do what they want with their own bodies. They do not have the right to force society to accept it as equal with heterosexuality by redefining marriage.

[slincolnwx]

Oh, the wonderful "I have gay friends" defense. No, you dont. If you dont believe that they should have the same rights as you do, then they are not your friends. You have just convinced yourself of that so you can feel less like a bigot.

[TimCubUAkbar]

I live in Texas, and I am gay. I only wish that my state would allow what Maine has so far allowed. Please, Maine, don't let America down, and VOTE NO ON ONE!

[mmhoover1]

Tim,

I don't think I could live in a state with a constitutional amendment barring marriage equality. Thus Killing my future and that of my mate and denying us valuable protections and recognition necessary for emergencies of a medical/legal nature.

[slincolnwx]

Compare this to the latest "Yes on 1" ad. It's clear who really cares about Maine and who doesn't. And for those of you still unconvinved, just ask yourself: Who Would Jesus Demonize?

[mmhoover1]

Unfortunately Yes on 1 won. But Jesse Connolly said this morning that No on1/Protect Maine Equality is in it for the long haul and won't quit until marriage equality returns to Maine.

This is just an unfortunate detour, a breakage in the road to Equality. Equality will come back through winning hearts and minds and through never giving up. It can and will be done esp,. for those states that won and then lost equality. Once a taste of equality was had, people will not be still until it'ss back

[Permaglo]

Beautiful ad! I truly hope that Mainers have more sense than Californians and can look past the fear-mongering of those opposed to marriage equality. Go Maine go! Go Vote NO!

[wbush89]

Great ad! This is really inspiring! NO on 1 !!!!

[AscottW]

Your state is so beautiful. So, don't put a big stain on your pretty landscape with a culture of bigotry.

[AscottW]

Think about this Mainers: I live here in PA and I am considering moving north to Maine. I will NOT move to Maine if you vote Yes on 1. Living in a progressive state with progressive, wholesome values is important to me. Do you want productive people living in your state? Or do you want the same divisive rhetoric that has the south divided from the north, defining your state? Think about it Mainers, think about it and vote NO on 1.

[mmhoover1]

AscottW,

Better stay in PA, or else move to Massachusetts where marriage equality has survived for at least 5 years since 2004.

[AscottW]

Yeah. I'm sticking to Massachusetts. I just wanted to go further north because of the weather. Mass. still gets some hot summers that are too hot for my tastes. But, yeah, Maine is deff. off my list.

[mmhoover1]

AscottW,

If marriage survives in Vermont, you can still live way up north near the Canadian/US border in Vermont. But my sense is that since marriage is less than a year old in Vermont, Vermont is likely next on National Organization for Marriage list for assault same as Iowa.

One Iowa defending marriage equality in Iowa is very concerned since Maine was lost. It has a number of candidates for governor of Iowa in 2010 anxious to assault Iowa marriage equality.

[AscottW]

You are proving my point exactly, mmhoover1. NOM isn't going to stop until everything that deals with 'marriage' is overturned. Then, they will try to attack Civil Unions. I mean, are Civil Unions perfect? No. But ENDA will help the issues in NJ and the Hate Crimes act is another step. Civil Unions are a step. NOT the end result. We deserve the right of marriage. But, we can't waste our resources trying to do something that's years away.

[AscottW]

Trust me, I didn't agree with this shit before the Maine loss. I'm not the HRC crowd either, so don't think that. I'm only saying that dammit we need to face reality here. There's no other way to go about this productively without sitting down and realizing "America will do anything to stop my name from being on the same piece of paper as my partners." Are we really willing to put time, energy, and money into this? I think we need to strengthen Civil Unions laws nationwide.

[AscottW]

I mean...Honestly, mmhoover1...wait until NOM has taken back VT and IA? Wait until they take Civil Unions from NJ and WA? We need to try and cut these bastards off at the pass. I think this is the way to do it. Take away their fuel. They looked so stupid to even the mainstream media for trying to push for a Rejection of Ref. 71. They were saying protect marriage. Everyone was asking "From what?" Maybe, in time, they'll be saying the same thing about same-sex marriages.

[muellerican]

Strengthening Civil Unions Nationwide is not the answer to what went on in ME and CA. Half of America already have Constitutional Bans on SSM AND CU. There's gotta be another way. ME Equal Rights activists shoudn't have participated in a referendum in the first place, they should have taken the issue to the Supreme Court because Civil Rights should not be put to a vote. Christians need to step off public policy. Who's next? Jews?

[AscottW]

Okay, so we say "Screw all of us right now. We're not going to go for anything close to marriage and then get marriage. We're going to let all of you hang and if we do not get marriage, then we're not getting anything?" Seriously. I'll take CU/DP any day before no marriage at all. But, I will not take it as an end all. I don't like this all or nothing approach you seem to defend.

[muellerican]

Marriage isn't a Civil Union. I am indeed all or nothing. To me it's not about upgrading to marriage (like what you seem to suggest) but I'm mainly concerned on privacy. If I'm in a Civil Union everyone will know I'm gay or bi. That's nobody's business! It's about privacy and individualism. It's also about religious freedom plenty of synagogues, churches and pagodas accross the USA are currently celebrating same-sex marriages and calling it that way...marriages.

[AscottW]

Well, muellerican, I am really sorry you feel the way you do. I cannot argue with any of that as that is your preference. I however, must say that I do not believe it is helpful to the LGBT community to be solely focused on a word. Nor, do I believe it is helpful for you to feel angst towards people knowing that you are gay or bisexual. I can only hope, for the sake of those who want at least some rights for the time being, that a majority of people do not think the way you do about this.

[AscottW]

Having seen the defeats in Maine and California, and the planned fights in VT and IA. Would you approve of a measure that would expand domestic partnership rights to include those of marriage except that it would not be labeled as marriage by the [state in which you live] I approve: would mean granting equal rights to same-sex couples in your state save the word marriage I reject: Would reject granting equal rights to same-sex couples in your state save the word marriage. How would you vote?

[mmhoover1]

AscottW

At least VT does not have a referendum process, unlike Maine. According to someone who should know...who is a woman with Vermont Freedom to Marry who wrote me back on my concerns for VT. She said that the dynamics in VT are different from that in Maine, not having a referendum process that enemies of equality iike NOM can more readily exploit. But she did agree that the other New England states should be vigilant all the same.

[AscottW]

Well. That's a good thing. Maybe, at least, it'll make it more difficult for NOM to attack VT. My main point here is, we need to change strategies if we are to even gain a footing. We're being knocked off every time we try to stand. Something has to change.

[RavenBlaze]

@muellerican what I find to be really funny is these "marriage protection" people are only protecting it from SSM and not from divorce. If they really care, why aren't they trying to pass laws that require pre-marriage counciling or pre-divorce counciling? Or pushing to ban divorce?

[Alex0821]

As a resident of Connecticut, I hope you Mainers can join us in accepting marriages of all kinds! It's about love and fairness. Vote No on 1!

[NOtoPROP8]

Voting stations in Augusta, Bangor, Cumberland, Falmouth, Gorham, Hallowell, Saco, Scarborough and Standish are open NOW. Go vote NO and bring all the NO voters you know with you.

VOTE NO on Question 1

[ziv5000]

I am in DC. Wish I could help

[NOtoPROP8]

You can phonebank from your home. The No on Question 1 website has a phonebank section so does the Courage Campaign.

[mmhoover1]

Same here ziv5000, But I did help to fund this NO on 1 effort whenever I could.

[rextrek]

Great -- its just a shame this is even on the ballot in the 1st place...would any other minoritys rights be UP for public vote? NO!!!!

[99Vancity]

Know hope.

[MrDalespy]

Outstanding.