1/2 - NO ON ONE - The Campaign to Protect Marriage Equality in Maine

PLEASE HELP US SHARE THIS VIDEO.

View Part Two Here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xe8i_Nf-mYa

In May, 2009, the Maine Legislature extended marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples. As expected, opponents of equality, led by the National Organization for Marriage and the Catholic Church, petitioned to have those rights put to a vote by referendum. This film chronicles the final days of the on-the-ground campaign to protect marriage equality in Maine.

Produced and edited by Chase Whiteside (interviews) and Erick Stoll (camera).

DONATE:
Our films are free to watch, but costly to produce. Every contribution helps to keep us online.
http://newleftmedia.com/supportnlm

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• issue one
• no on one
• protect maine equality
• gay marriage
• joe solmonese
• rea carey
• issue
• one
• no
• on
• protect
• maine
• equality
• gay
• marriage
• joe
• solmonese
• rea
• carey

[Flash02021990]

i'm straight and i believe in God and i support equality..I support gay marriage we are all God's children and are free to make choices lets kick the republicans out of office....go gay people...im so proud of you guys...you guys are the true american...i'm crying im so proud of you guys ...wow i feel it in my heart that you are great people...

[CARSONART]

Well edited. You are very talented

[nnjhansen]

@jcisbell The state interests are the only one's that matter with regard to the state's involvement.

The state is obligated to provide equal access, not equal results. Everyone has the same access to marriage. If, for reasons of your own, you choose not to satisfy the state's requirements for marriage then the state has no obligation to change the requirements.

What are the state's interests in the issuance of any license? Surely they exist independent of individual rights.

[nnjhansen]

@jcisbell What have I said that isn't true?

What evidence do you require that I have failed to provide?

The piece you seem to miss is that the state plays a part in marriage because it serves a state interest to do so.

You do not believe the state should play a role, fine but to then move to it should play a role regardless of any state interest is contradictory.

None of those things you mention requires a marriage license.

[jcisbell]

@nnjhansen I never said I don't want the state included. I said the state's interests are not the only interests that matter. The state has an obligation to provide equal access to it's citizens. I don't even know what "state's interests' would be WITHOUT consideration for individual rights. You can't make a thing so by merely repeating it.

[jcisbell]

@nnjhansen We obviously disagree and I'd be happy to leave it at that. But you keep saying things that either aren't true or that you've already said - with no evidence. I actually agree that the state should have no part in marriage. SHOULD NOT, but they do. As such, the ONLY way for gay people to have FULL equality is to be allowed to marry. Not only insurance benefits, hospital visits and decision making, property rights, but societal participation without having to face prejudice. (more)

[nnjhansen]

@jcisbell Your concept of civil marriage requires no state input at all. Nothing stops people from pursuing their happiness in the absence of a license from the state. The marriage license adds nothing but include the state in the relationship. If you do not want the state included, do not ask it to become involved.

The state issues licenses to further society's interests, not those of the individual licensee.

[jcisbell]

@nnjhansen (Pt 2) .. is in its own interest. Not so. The state exists to serve its citizens - all citizens. A basic element of any society is compromise. Not everyone can do what they want IF it hurts or impedes another to a measurably, agreed upon harmful degree. Societal interest in marriage also includes simple service to the individual. People 'want' to marry, to pursue happiness. That's their right. As to state's interest; it can be argued that it is best to allow gay marriage.

[jcisbell]

@nnjhansen (Pt 1) The thing about an 'argument', even a logical one like yours, is that it always depends upon definitions. A 'trick' to appearing to have made a good argument is to 'control' the definitions. I don't accept your definitions as 'all inclusive'. That is, they don't cover all relevant cases. I've already answered your question, but you want to force me to answer regarding the 'states' interest and you imply that the ONLY reason for the state to issue a marriage license.. (see Pt 2)

[nnjhansen]

@jcisbell Civil marriage is a legal institution intended to serve a societal/state interest, that is why the state is involved and issues a license. I am asking what you believe that interest is.

If marriage is meant to serve the interest which it has been acknowledged to serve throughout our history, it is reasonable to condition marriage on a general capacity to satisfy that interest. That means one man and one woman is the only relationship that can satisfy the interest.