Maine, Same-sex “Marriage” and the People’s Veto


The People May Veto Same-Sex Marriage in Maine

By Drew Conrad

MSNBC reports: Maine’s Gov. John Baldacci signed a bill into law allowing same-sex marriage in his state. Maine becomes the fifth state to do so. The other four: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont.

It is well documented that the legalization of same-sex marriage puts religious and parental freedoms in danger.  It is for this reason, and several others that the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and other Pro-Family organizations work so hard to ensure that marriage remains defined as an instutution between a man and a woman.

Brian Brown, of NOM has shed light on the recent legislation signed in Maine.  His remarks bring comfort to those who desire to preserve traditional marriage:

“Maine has a People’s Veto.  The people will now have the chance to have a referendum. There will be NO same-sex marriage in Maine if the people have their say.If the signatures are gathered, we’ll be on in the November election. The key thing to understand is that once a filing is made to move a People’s Veto, the law does not go into effect. Therefore, unlike California, you will not have any same-sex marriages in the interim before the vote.

You can’t file until the adjournment of the legislative session, which is mid-June. No, regular law passed by the Maine legislature goes into effect until 90 days after adjournment. You must file within 10 days and then have the rest of that time to gather signatures.”

So those who value traditional marriage can relax for the moment.  The majority has, on several occasions, make their voice clear: We believe in Traditional Marriage.  In every situation that the people have been able to vote on same-sex marriage, they have rejected the activist judges and the radical agenda of liberal lawmakers…we have no reason to doubt that the people of  Maine will do the same.

See this from NOM:
I’m reading report after report describing Maine (where, as expected, the House of Representatives passed the same-sex marriage bill today) as coming “a step closer to being the fifth [state] in the nation to allow same-sex marriage.”  And while that storyline plays nicely into the “same-sex marriage is inevitable” message that gay marriage advocates are pushing, the reality couldn’t be further from the truth! I’ve yet to read one news report that even mentions the “people’s veto,” the referendum provision of the Maine Constitution that gives the people of Maine — not legislators or the governor — the final word on marriage.

And that’s why today the National Organization for Marriage announced that it will join the Maine Marriage Coalition, pushing for a people’s veto of the same-sex marriage bill if Governor Baldacci signs it into law.

The Coalition is headed by Robert Emrich of the Maine Marriage Alliance and Marc Mutty of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland.  NOM will stand with our colleagues in Maine to give voters the ability to overturn the marriage bill passed by the House today, and will devote staff, volunteers and resources to the battle in Maine.

Qualifying a referendum for the ballot requires roughly 55,000 signatures of Maine voters, and NOM will work hard to ensure that the people of Maine have the opportunity to stand up for marriage just as the voters in 30 out of 30 other states have done when given the chance.

NOM was a pivotal player in the 2008 Proposition 8 campaign in California, where we were instrumental in helping secure the signature needed to place the measure on the ballot.  While campaign details are yet to be worked out, we looking forward to working with our colleagues on the ground in Maine to stopping this misguided legislation.

Early financial support will be critical to the effort as the window for collecting signatures will short. Your support today will allow us to start the referendum process immediately when the law is signed, ensuring that the measure does not take effect before the people of Maine have had their say.

Can you afford a gift of $35, $50 or $100 today to help stop same-sex marriage not just in Maine, but in New Hampshire, Iowa, and other states as well? Please use this hyperlink to make a secure online donation today!

Make plans to watch or record “Maggie vs. Perez” on Larry King Live on CNN at 9pm ET tonight! NOM President Maggie Gallagher will be on with Perez Hilton, calling Hilton to task for the character assassination and personal attacks he has leveled against Carrie Prejean. It will no doubt be a lively discussion as Maggie sets the record straight!


Brian S. Brown
Executive Director
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ  08542



  1. meandmia said,

    May 6, 2009 at 4:42 pm

    if this debate were about interracial marriage instead of same sex marriage, anyone who voted against it would promptly, and pretty correctly, be considered a racist bigot. it’s a shame that being homophobic doesn’t create the same uproar.

  2. beetlebabee said,

    May 6, 2009 at 5:09 pm


    To have a difference of opinion is not the same as to hate. Hate is about the person, not about the person’s actions. We agree that all people are of worth, no matter what they do. That doesn’t mean that we have to agree with what they do. Why would you seek to force agreement? Calling names, intimidation, that’s not the way to win the people’s hearts.

  3. david said,

    May 6, 2009 at 5:57 pm

    meandmia, you are so right, but you are only picking at the surface of this issue. Same sex marriage can not be compared with interracial marriage, we are talking about men marrying men, and women marry women, how does interracial couples fall in this comparison? If mother nature wanted two guys to hook up, we would not be having the ss issue , and there would be no need for women… the big problem with same sex marriage, people are thinking with there emotions whether than the part of the brain for using judgment. Homosexuality is a sexual issue not an essential part of life, it is lust without love, it is imbalance unchecked or never taken care of, yes all those years… Its not OK, we need oposite sex to form a union, it is essentual for reproduction, it is a design by our creater. You don’t need to lust for a man to love him, same goes for females, and lust can be controled or cured.

  4. Emissary said,

    May 6, 2009 at 6:14 pm


    I think interracial marriage is a completely different ballpark. At the core of that, marriage was still the husband-wife relationship. It’s only with homosexual marriage that a complete redefinition is forced upon the entire state.

  5. david said,

    May 6, 2009 at 6:57 pm

    When you really think about it, homosexuality is irrelevent, our public officials are trying to make it relevent, and the move is a form of promotion, that is out right sickening. If our public officials are that gulable to be persuade to increase the gay population, we are in big trouble… WHAT IS EVEN MORE ALARMING IS OUR LEADERS AND GOVERNMENT WHO WE HAVE ELECTED, THE BALLS TO IMPLY, TO THE MAJORITY OF THE US,TO F***K OFF, ON THIS ISSUE… ESPECIAL WHEN ITS THE MAJORITY THAT WILL KEEP THEM IN OFFICE

  6. May 6, 2009 at 7:10 pm

    […] Beetle Blogger: Maine, Same-sex “Marriage” and the People’s Veto […]

  7. May 6, 2009 at 7:35 pm

    […] Beetle Blogger: Maine, Same-sex “Marriage” and the People’s Veto […]

  8. Chino Blanco said,

    May 6, 2009 at 9:11 pm

    Gathering the required number of signatures is not going to be easy.

    Before you convince yourselves that a People’s Veto is the way to go, you ought to read this report from last year:

    And unlike California, where the signature-gathering happens mostly under the radar, Maine is small enough that we will be able to counter any effort.

    Not trying to rain on your parade, just sayin’.

  9. meandmia said,

    May 7, 2009 at 8:19 am

    beetlebabee, i’m not seeking to “force agreement”. i just have a hard time being tolerant of people who are intolerant of myself, just because of something as unimportant as my sexuality.

  10. meandmia said,

    May 7, 2009 at 8:29 am

    david: the comparison lies in that, up until the mid-1900’s, interracial couples were not allowed to marry. there was a fundamental change in the definition of marriage when they were finally given the right, just as there would be a change in the definition if gays were given the right.

    as for your point about nature, there are thousands of homosexual animals who practice their sexuality IN NATURE. so much for that.

    i find your judgment of homosexual relationships as purely lust without love appalling. it is quite possible to fall in love (both emotionally and physically) with someone of the same sex if you are a homosexual. i would know, i am one. how would you explain partners that stay together for 10, 20, 30 years? there’s not a lot of lust going on after you hit your 60’s, for most people anyway.

    there is no proof of your “creator” or his intentions. maybe homosexuality is his/her version of population control.

    and who said anything about “increasing the gay population”? that’s pretty much impossible, considering that, as many new studies are showing, homosexuality is at least partly biological/genetic. a child raised by gay parents isn’t going to suddenly turn gay…after all, straight parents don’t only raise straight children.

  11. meandmia said,

    May 7, 2009 at 8:31 am

    emissary, there WAS a complete redefinition of marriage. yes, it was still between a husband and wife, but the definition of marriage was completely changed to allow interracial couples. i don’t understand why it’s so different.

  12. beetlebabee said,

    May 7, 2009 at 12:45 pm


    Race was never part of the core definition of marriage. Gender always has been, and biology profoundly concurs. This isn’t about race, it’s about the importance of gender in marriage and families. Two moms can never make up for the loss of a dad, and two dads never made a mom.

    Each gender is unique and has unique gifts to give the next generation. Same-sex marriage asks people to celebrate motherless and fatherless homes as equal with a loving mom and dad, committed for life. No study claims to show apples to apples that the best lesbian or gay family is equal to the best nuclear family.

  13. beetlebabee said,

    May 7, 2009 at 12:54 pm

    “i just have a hard time being tolerant of people who are intolerant of myself, just because of something as unimportant as my sexuality.”

    I’d say that sexuality is pretty important. You are who you are, you feel what you feel. That’s ok. I have no problem with that. Everyone struggles with something or other.

  14. Chairm said,

    May 7, 2009 at 2:04 pm

    Marriage is not neutral about sex differentiation.

    Not even those who argue in favor of tolerance for the homosexual relationship are neutral about sex differentiation.

    While marriage integrates the sexes, SSM is sex segregative.

    While the man-woman basis of marriage law is highly tolerant of “mixed orientation” marriages, SSM argumentation seeks to impose a social stigma on such marriages and would rather promote segregation based on sexual orientation.

    SSM argumentation is a demand for cultural reform through changes in the law that governs our most foundational social institution. The stigmatization begins with the first axiom of the SSM campaign: to disagree it is itself an act of bigotry — a sort of thought crime.

    Yet the SSMers are the true inheritors of the identity politics that had imposed the racist anti-miscegenation system.

    That system also imposed selective sex-segregation via its identity filter. It also undermined the provision for responsible procreation — and it segregated motherhood and fatherhood based on a racist identity filter.

    SSMers seek to bring selective sex-segregatiion under the auspcies of the social institution that unites the sexes. They seek to deeply undercut or abolish the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity. Where children are involved, they’d falsely equate the segregation of motherhood and fatherhood with the solidarity of married husband and wife.

    It is the SSM canoaugb which is closely analogous with the racist identity politics that has been repudiated.

    Marriage defenders stand for integration. We stand for the equality of the sexes within marriage whereas SSMers seek to assert the supremacy of gay identity politics over marriage itself.

  15. Chairm said,

    May 7, 2009 at 2:06 pm

    Heh, sorry for the typo.

    What is this canoaugb?


    Correction: It is the SSM campaign which is closely analogous with the racist identity politics that has been repudiated.

  16. Brian said,

    May 7, 2009 at 3:30 pm

    I’d say that sexuality is pretty important. You are who you are, you feel what you feel. That’s ok. I have no problem with that. Everyone struggles with something or other.

    That last sentence is beyond insulting. I despise when people tell me my sexuality is some form of temptation or struggle that I have to learn to deal with.

    I’ll never understand people reverting to the “same-sex marriage is unnatural because two people of the same gender can’t reproduce” argument. Where does that leave the countless opposite-sex couples who can’t bear children due to age, sterility, or simple choice? I guess they are also unnatural – much like eyeglasses and high fructose corn syrup.

  17. beetlebabee said,

    May 7, 2009 at 3:40 pm

    The intent was not to insult, but to bring out a point. We all have faults, conflicted feelings about one thing or another. That doesn’t define who we are.

    I suffer with infertility. My husband suffers with Multiple Sclerosis. My aunt is dying of cancer. My neighbor just lost three kids in a messy divorce. Everyone suffers, everyone’s got “stuff” in their lives to deal with. Being tolerant of others doesn’t have to do with physical aspects, it has to do with choices.

    Meandmia was making a common error in assuming that since she feels conflicted, since she has “stuff” in her life she has to deal with that she is somehow seen as less by people in this group. Not so. People are equal. Always.

  18. Brian said,

    May 7, 2009 at 4:08 pm

    @ bettlebabee: Thanks for clarifying. I still must disagree with your description of any of the examples you provided as “faults.” Fault implies that we are all somehow responsible for our situations, which couldn’t be further from the truth.

    I do like your final statement about people being equal. That is the whole point behind the push for same-sex marriage. We would never dream of doing anything detrimental to the institution of marriage. Our respect for marriage is what spurs our desire to partake of it, and we will never be truly equal until we are allowed to.

    I believe with all my heart that one day (hopefully during my lifetime) society will look back on this time period with great embarrassment over the way we continued practicing discrimination on such a scale right up into the 21st century.

  19. beetlebabee said,

    May 7, 2009 at 4:53 pm

    perhaps it should be read as faults *and/or* conflicted feelings about one thing or another. The point is, nobody’s perfect.

    Is an orientation a fault? No. Absolutely not.

    Logically from that are you less of a person because of your orientation? No way.

    Does that mean same-sex marriage makes sense for society? Not necessarily. That gets into actions and consequences. There are more things at work here than just wanting something and being able to have it. People are equal, not people’s choices.

  20. beetlebabee said,

    May 7, 2009 at 5:39 pm


    Let’s just take them one at a time shall we? The AAMFT link is selling therapy to same-sex parents. They quote sources they think will encourage people to feel comfortable with them using a well known tactic of comparing apples to oranges. Studies that compare families have to be looked at quite closely. You can’t just read a simple summary from someone who may have an agenda. Look at the data. Did they compare long term relationships to long term relationships? Or did they compare the best of one set with the average of another? Many studies that on the face appear to show one result actually show another when the details are examined. In the case of AAMFT, they don’t list their research study sources, so it’s impossible to tell how they arrived at their conclusions.

    CBS News: This one is more detailed, it does not list a link to it’s source material, but it does give a few more details of the study. From the article it is comparing Single mothers to same-sex couples. That would bring up the apples to oranges problem.

    Web MD: Same set of studies reported at CBS, same problems.

    APA: This source cites a host of studies, but none of them compare long term, stable homosexual couples to long term stable heterosexual couples. Also, the APA has a terrible track record when it comes to impartial reporting of studies.

    The American College of Pediatricians wrote up an excellent report summarizing the common flaws in this particular area of research and lists each source clearly. Another source that I’ve found to be quite useful is the set of studies out of Australia called 21 Reasons Why Gender Matters.

  21. beetlebabee said,

    May 8, 2009 at 12:52 am

    Brian, this report while claiming some pretty interesting things, isn’t actually research, but is a survey of other people’s research, basically an aggregate of studies’ conclusions. It doesn’t show methodology, only numbers:

    The report says the strongest conclusion that can be drawn from empirical literature is that the vast majority of studies show that children living with two mothers and children living with a mother and father have the same levels and qualities of social competence.

    While verbally declaring the coveted panacea of parental achievement for same sex couples, that they are actually superior to nuclear families, there is no way to know from this article of the studies counted in the report were apples to apples studies or apples to oranges studies, or a mix of both. Was the data self reported or empirical?

    One of my favorite studies that escapes the temptation of families to over report their successes through self reporting is by Sotirios Sarantakos, “Children in three contexts: family, education, and social development,” Children Australia, vol. 21 (1996): 23-31.


    He compared “a sample of 174 primary school children living in three different types of families . . . 58 children of heterosexual cohabiting couples, 58 children of heterosexual married couples and 58 children of homosexual (47 lesbian and 11 gay) couples,” all of which included “at least one of their biological parents.” The children were “matched according to age, gender, year of study, and parental characteristics (education, occupation, and employment status).” (p. 23)
    [Note: the matching of the children in “gay families” with control groups of different family structures, and the matching of both child and parental characteristics, make this study superior to many of the other existing “gay parent” studies].

    The ratings of children’s achievement in this study were “collected primarily from teachers and only secondarily from parents and children” (24). The author notes that this subjects the results to possible bias on the part of the teachers. However, it avoids the risk of bias that comes from self-reporting on the part of homosexual parents and their children, who may have a vested interest in trying to show how successful they are (many of the other studies on gay parenting rely on self-reporting).

    It should also be noted that all of the children in this study were being raised by couples, not by single parents. This does away with the argument that what is important for kids is having two parents (of any gender), rather than having a mother and a father specifically.

    The study found that the children of married couples did the best, and the children of homosexual couples did the worst, in each of the following categories:
    Language (24)
    Mathematics (24-25)
    Sport (25)
    Sociability (25)
    Attitude to School and to Learning (25-26)
    Parent-School Relationship (26)
    Sex Identity (i.e., gender roles) (26)
    School-Related Support (e.g., help with homework) (26-27)
    Parental Aspirations (for their children’s education and career) (27)

    The only areas in which the children of homosexuals scored highest were:
    Social Studies (25)
    Personal Autonomy (of the child) (27)
    Household Tasks (i.e., the contribution children make to them) (27-28)

    The report says “there were no statistically significant differences . . . regarding control and punishment of children.” (28)

  22. Chino Blanco said,

    May 8, 2009 at 3:39 am

    That marriage is better than cohabitation is kind of the whole point on both sides of this debate, isn’t it? Are there any studies available comparing outcomes for children of couples in same-sex vs ‘opposite’ marriages?

  23. Michael said,

    May 8, 2009 at 4:40 am

    “Homosexuality is a sexual issue not an essential part of life, it is lust without love”

    That’s very interesting. My partner and I have been together for almost 30 years. He took care of me as I battled cancer. Now, I am taking care of him as he slowly sinks into Alzheimer’s. We raised two children. This wouldn’t have happened without love.

    Those are interesting facts about children raised by gay couples. Let’s see. Our son will graduate from med school in one week. He will begin his residency at a great hospital. He has pretty much been president of every organization in which he was involved . My daughter is a social butterfly. In high school, she was a cheerleader and vice-president of the student body. She is completing her junior year in college.

  24. beetlebabee said,

    May 8, 2009 at 8:55 am

    I’m impressed! 30 monogamous years raising children takes quite a commitment, no matter who you are. I’m not sure which commenter you’re quoting, but I’d assume that part of love is doing everything you can to provide children with what they need. Even in the best possible scenario between parents of the same sex, such as you have given, to deny children a mother by design is heartbreakingly one sided by nature. Kids are able to adapt, some better than others….I hope this has truly been the case for your children. I don’t know your personal situation beyond what you describe, but it sounds like you and your partner have found a way to beat the odds in your relationship. I hope that is so.

  25. rubyeliot said,

    May 8, 2009 at 9:30 am

    I’m also happy you have had a good experience. However, kids still deserve a mom and a dad. To deprive any child on purpose (by design rather than necessity or tragedy) of a chance at having a mom (or a dad), is not awesome. There are more than statistics and measuring sticks involved. Mainly, memories and life experiences.

    But i’m happy for you. and the success of your children.

    Remember: no one is denying your right to be with the partner of your choice and love them (and care for them) for as long as you want. It’s the redefinition of an institution which is the question here.

    What do you think about redefining the institution of marriage?

  26. Brian said,

    May 8, 2009 at 10:18 am

    How exactly does allowing same-sex couples to marry “redefine the institution of marriage?” We simply want the same legal and social recognition of our relationships that you have. We certainly don’t want to alter or destroy the institution.

    Our whole lives, we are taught that we should grow up and find someone to marry and share our lives with. When that person turns out to be of the same gender, then our wish to marry is seen as a threat to the very people who nurtured that desire. It’s moronic.

  27. Goldarn said,

    May 8, 2009 at 2:09 pm

    Please, send money to help fight this. The more money you waste on hopeless and bigoted causes, the less you’ll have for future fights.

  28. Raytmimer said,

    May 8, 2009 at 6:22 pm

    Are you always so even tempered Goldarn? Or is today an especially nasty day for you? Most of us gave up name calling out of elementary school.

    But by all means, let the money flow!

  29. talkinmama said,

    May 10, 2009 at 3:25 pm

    So many SSM supporters say that marriage was redefined when the laws against interracial marriage were changed. This doesn’t make any sense to me. The laws about WHO could marry were changed, not the definition of marriage itself:
    the definition of marriage would describe who is involved (man and woman) and what they are involved in (the formation of a family) and how that formation occurs (through some sort of culturally accepted ceremony, ritual and/or legal process).
    When interracial marrige was legalized in the US, it was only the LAW that changed, not the DEFINITION of marriage.Previously, the LAW restricted the “who” part of the definition. The definition itself did not change. But if the WHO was interracial, the marriage was not just not recognized, it was not allowed to take place.
    Laws are only valid where they have jurisdiction: interracial marriages were not legal in the US, but could take place in other countries. In those other countries, marriages were still between a man and a woman, and had the intent of forming a family.
    The definiton of marriage remains the same as always: it describes the same WHO, the same WHAT and the same HOW. Same sex couples (different WHO)can enter into the same WHAT (permanent family relationships which are recognized by the law), but because the definition is different, the title (marriage vs. domestic union, etc.)should be, too.This makes sense, because, according to the definition, the WHO is different.
    So what we are debating is whether or not we want to change the WHO part of a definition that has NOT been changed before. I don’t see how this involves bigotry, as is often claimed by the SSM proponents.

  30. Michael said,

    May 11, 2009 at 5:34 am

    “What do you think about redefining the institution of marriage?”

    As far as I can tell, three issues are being mixed together in this blog. The issue of same gender couples raising children has nothing to do with same gender marriage. We are raising children without being married. I would also like to say that the reporting by Sotirios Sarantakos is very poor. 174 is a very poor sampling, It would need to be at least between 5,000 and 10,000. I hated statistics class in college, but I’m sure of that. Also, the study was purely subjective. It needs some objective research. I am more concerned about the interviewers questioning than about the teacher’s reporting. It is something like CornerStone Policy Research reporting that they polled every household in New Hampshire during a two day period.

    For the issue of marriage, I agree with my pastor. Currently, marriage has a civil component and a religious component. Marriage should be purely a religious matter. He believes that all couples should have a civil contract and a marriage within the church if they so desire. That’s for straight and gay couples. No church can be forced to marry anyone if the church doesn’t want to. I can actually prove that any government cannot force a church to do anything they don’t want to. We are members of the ELCA. Our congregation decided they wanted to have same gender marriages. Our synod ignores it with a wink and a nod. The state of Minnesota has a DOMA on the books, but it cannot prevent many churches in the Twin Cities from performing gay marriages. My husband and I were married four years ago. I would love to have all the protections that a civil contract would supply, but I am happy to have the Lord’s blessing.

  31. May 11, 2009 at 10:32 am

    […] May 11, 2009 at 10:31 am (democracy, marriage, politics) Tags: Maine, people’s veto, petition, threat The following threat was posted as a comment on our post about the People’s Veto in Maine. […]

  32. Chairm said,

    May 20, 2009 at 11:25 pm

    Michael, the civil marriage contract is for the union of husband and wife.

    Your pastor has his opinion, and you yours. But the union of husband and wife is not a purely religious concept. And, as such, is not divisible into civil and relgious when it comes to the law of marriage.

    There is a vast range of nonmarital types of relationships and kinds of living arrangements.

    What, in the law, distinguishes these (of which most are not sexualized) from what you have in mind when you refer to a man as the husband of another man?

    There is no sexual orientation requirement in the marriage law — neither for eligiblity nor for ineligibility. But there is the reqirement that the man and the woman both consent to the marital presumption of paternity; and that is based on the two-sexed sexual relationship of husband and wife.

    There is no sexual orientation requirement for SSM — not anyplace where people show-up for a license for an all-male or an all-female arrangement. So it can’t be definitively homosexual or gay or lesbian. No legal requirement means that is not essential.

    Also, for SSM there is no same-sex sexual requirement nor a same-sex sexual attraction requirement. So that’s not definitive.

    There is nothing comparable to the marital presumption of paternity — the sexual aspect of the union of husband and wife which makes of marriage a public sexual type of relationship, in the law.

    But maybe your pastor does have such requirements when performing ceremonies for the all-male or the all-female arrangements of whom he has this opinion you described.

    If so, please explain how such requirements are fulfilled and enforced, with 100% absolute certainty, no exceptions whatsoever.

    I doubt there are such requirements. I suspect that “gay marriage” is neither gay nor marriage in those ceremonies.

    Which then shows that what you described is no different that the vast range of nonsexualized types of relationships and kinds of living arrangements that remain outside of marriage. Why? Because these are not marriage qua marriage.

    Whatever the merits of this or that nonmarital relationship, it is foolishness to equate it with the conjugal type of relationship — the sexual and public union of husband and wife.

  33. Daymion said,

    May 28, 2009 at 7:04 am

    Sheesh, mind your own business, let the gays have their equal rights and grow up. You know if we were back in the 60’s you’d totally be whining about black people having equal rights too. “Waah marriage is defined as a man and women of the same color waaaahhhhh”. Stop wasting your time, your children are smarter than you are. They don’t give a damn. They realize that there’s nothing wrong with two men or two women in love. Go do something constructive with your time rather than trying to strip rights away from people.

  34. beetlebabee said,

    May 28, 2009 at 7:58 am


    That’s the most crackerbox response I’ve seen on here in over a month. Very entertaining, but not very thoughtful.

  35. Stephen STaedt said,

    May 29, 2009 at 11:38 am

    The first post is so wrong. Race is something you are born with. There is no proof of any “gay gene”, as the APA recently admitted. Even if you are born with gay tendencies, does that make it right to act on those tendenices? If I have a temper, does that give me the right to assault someone? What if we allowed everyone to act on their feelings? Does that make it excusable?

    Gay marriage not only destroys the definiton of traditional marriage, but it is an assualt on religious freedom of speech. Your public school tax dollars will go to indoctrinating kids with the homosexual lifestyle, and you will have no say in it. It’s already happened in Massachusetts where a parent was thrown in jail for trying to get his kid out of a same sex marriage assembly celebration.

  36. Rory said,

    June 19, 2009 at 1:21 pm

    Supporting this is supporting hatred. This is an issue that is more about rights then religion. I wish that these organizations would understand that and quit manipulating the cold hard FACTS! It’s time for us heterosexuals stand up for civil liberties for all regardless of their orientation.

  37. beetlebabee said,

    June 19, 2009 at 5:08 pm

    Rory, does everything you disagree with consist of hatred? That’s a very easy label to throw around. Just because you have a different view doesn’t mean you know the motivations behind those who hole the opposite view. Demonization is a cheap tactic aimed at shouting down the opposition. If you really think all this amounts to is hate, then you haven’t scratched even the surface of the real issues.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: