Social Question

Boredat42's avatar

Maine's decision on same-sex marriage...a good thing or a bad thing? Why?

Asked by Boredat42 (61points) November 4th, 2009

Do you agree with Maine’s decision to repeal legal marriages for same-sex couples? Why?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

69 Answers

trumi's avatar

I’m imagining two gay lobsters holding hands and then one of them getting thrown into a big silver pot and the other one screaming….

poisonedantidote's avatar

are both males adult and consenting? case closed. let them have their piece of paper. if in favour of any people or groups of people capable of thinking for them self to do as they please regarding this topic.

as for its legality, i think its time all governments and law got out of peoples personal lives. their job is to tend to the roads, police and fire stations. its no business of theirs.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

Are we really going to do this for every state? Because there are many…
Long answer: gay marriages should be legal. that’s it.

Bluefreedom's avatar

I disagree with it for several reasons. First off all, it is discriminatory against people who practice a homosexual lifestyle. Secondly, we live in a world that needs alot more tolerance and acceptance of individuals that want to live an alternative lifestyle. Among other things. Thirdly, same sex couples can have just as healthy and productive relationships as people in heterosexual relationships. I know this because two of my first cousins are gay and both are in very stable and meaningful relationships.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@Bluefreedom I don’t think there is such a thing as ‘practicing a homosexual lifestyle’...that just sounds off, to me…people just are…it’s not like straight people walk around saying ‘my god I’m so tired of practicing my heterosexual lifestyle…I’ve got rug burns’

ItalianPrincess1217's avatar

Oh brother. Same sex marriage should be allowed in every state. Period.

Dog's avatar

Maine voted against gay marriage?
I don’t get it.

Bluefreedom's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir. Poor choice of words on my part and I’m sorry for that. They’re living a homosexual lifestyle and there is nothing wrong with that.

Likeradar's avatar

Another gay marriage question?

Hopefully, in 10, 20 years we’ll look back at out policies and feel ashamed, the way we do for not allowing mixed-race marriages. (Well, hopefully we’ll look at it that way later today…)

@Dog My understanding is that legislation allowing marriage equality was overturned by a group of voting small minded asshats.

veronasgirl's avatar

The whole gay marriage debate is really stupid, it really shouldn’t be the government’s decision whether or not two consenting people get married. It is THEIR lives, let them live it, I don’t really see how gay couples being allowed to legally marry is going to ruin our country.

funkdaddy's avatar

The argument against same sex marriage seems to be summarized as “protecting the holy bond between a man and a woman” or something like that…

That just doesn’t ring true to me… if I wanted to marry my dog or pet goldfish, I don’t think anyone would mind, even if Fido had balls on him at some point. You might think I was crazy, but honestly I doubt people would rally to protect the sanctity of marriage.

People are uncomfortable seeing/thinking/acknowledging what same sex couples do in the comfort and privacy of their own home. If they weren’t, it wouldn’t be necessary to regulate and invalidate their relationships.

Qingu's avatar

Bad thing, and yet another sterling example of why direct democracy (as opposed to representative democracy) is a really stupid idea.

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” —Thomas Jefferson.

dalepetrie's avatar

I personally think it’s a bad idea to encode any sort of discrimination into law. I don’t care if the public opinion is 99 to 1, discrimination is discrimination. Legal marriage is a contract, yet it’s the only contract that two people can’t legally enter into if they are of the same sex. What kind of logic does that follow?

RedPowerLady's avatar

Now I thought that Obama just signed LGBT people as a protected class? Does this not apply to same-sex marriage because I figured it would have implications in that direction. I’m not sure exactly what he signed though as I just caught a brief snippet on it.

Boredat42's avatar

Congress and Obama passed a law expanding the classes protected by hate crimes statutes. Although it does not affect the marriage issue, it sets an important precedent: It is the first piece of Federal legislation that recognizes and protects gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

CMaz's avatar

As much as any two individuals that wish to get married should.
So should Polygamy be allowed.

RedPowerLady's avatar

@Boredat42 Thanks for clarifying.

DominicX's avatar

It’s a bad thing. Homosexual couples should be able to obtain the same rights as a heterosexual couple. If that’s through marriage, then they should be allowed to get married. Like I always say, no church has to support gay marriage or perform them (freedom of religion), but homosexual couples should be allowed to obtain the same rights and status as heterosexual couples. People always think that being married is just a piece of paper, but there are benefits to it that you get when you get married and not allowing gay couples to receive these is pure discrimination.

Supacase's avatar

It is disappointing.

Someone shared a very good thought with me today (I do not know where it came from originally): Oppression of minorities should not be put to a majority vote. Those voters are the oppressors.

@funkdaddy Actually, I would have a problem with someone attempting to marry an animal. Marriage is for people. Animals have no concept of marriage and could never be considered a consenting party.

funkdaddy's avatar

@Supacase – would you make a law against it? Would you let me leave my earthly belongings to an animal? Would you let me insure my animal on my company plan?

Kraigmo's avatar

It’s not “good” or “bad” but it sure is stupid.
Insecure little pions with the traditionalist/religious Ethic who think their own marriages are threatened by gays. What a bunch of toddler-souls we have in America.

Qingu's avatar

@funkdaddy, contracts generally assume ability to consent among both parties.

This is why gay marriage is completely different from underage marriage. Children cannot consent. Neither can animals.

sevenfourteen's avatar

I don’t see why people care (heterosexuals I mean). If they want to get married leave them alone and let them. As a resident of Maine I wish I would have voted yesterday (I’m away at school and didn’t go home to get an absentee).

And for those who think that because the Bible says no it shouldn’t be allowed why can’t they get married in a courthouse? That’s not God’s house.. If there is seperation of church and state they should legally be allowed to marry in a courthouse with a judge. Do people who don’t believe in God still get married in churches because it’s not written in the Bible that they can’t? (I’m assuming they probably wouldn’t but if their significant other wanted to they would most likely get married in a church)

oratio's avatar

@sevenfourteen How is it that this came to be the result in Maine in your opinion?

Supacase's avatar

@funkdaddy Yes, I would support a law against legally recognizing marriage to animals. You can leave your belongings to it or insure it privately if you want, but I do not think insurance for everyone on a group plan should assume veterinary expenses.

We are talking apples and oranges anyway. Equating human-animal relationships to homosexual human relationships is offensive.

RareDenver's avatar

Do married couples in the US have any financial benefits over non married couples?

In the UK people in civil partnerships (our half assed way of allowing gay marriage) enjoy all the same tax benefits as married couples as detailed in my response to this question

If so then surely anyone having there marriage revoked by the State of Maine can take the State of Maine to court and sue their asses for financial loss?

maybe this is the way it should be attacked, in the courts, after all it’s sad but true that money, not love makes the world go round

Dr_C's avatar

What kind of fucktard started this process to repeal gay marriages? Who gives us the right to legislate who anyone loves or wants to spend their life with? All love is cool. If you don’t like gay marriage… don’t marry a gay person, but don’t step on other people’s rights to cover your own ignorance/insecurities or to impose your beliefs over those of others.

that’s right.. i said fucktard (and smiled a little at how it sounds in my head)

gemiwing's avatar

Frankly, the whole damn thing disgusts me. Why can’t two grown people get married? Why aren’t we working on MUCH more important issues? If two gay people get married it’s not going to suddenly absolve my hetero marriage.

Hell, why don’t we just outlaw anyone with a bad credit score from getting married? What about people who have tacky weddings- let’s outlaw that too because that’s an affront to the sanctity of marriage. Oh and don’t forget people who don’t even WANT to get married- let’s just ship them off somewhere because they are a threat to ‘God’s plan’.

The whole thing makes me sick to my stomach.

sevenfourteen's avatar

@oratio probably because people like my bf who as he said “voted no homo”... he doesn’t care whether it’s in or out of church they will have the same rights in a civil union as they would in a marriage. Why do you think it was that way in Maine?

gemiwing's avatar

‘no homo’ really?

oratio's avatar

@sevenfourteen I have no idea. I am European, but it seemed to me that Maine was rather open and gay friendly, and I wondered how it came to this. When you posted that you were a Mainer I just thought I’d ask.

Qingu's avatar

@sevenfourteen, may I politely suggest that you break up with your idiot boyfriend?

RedPowerLady's avatar

@RareDenver Every state has different laws regarding what we call “domestic partnerships”. Some do not allow them at all.

RareDenver's avatar

@RedPowerLady So are Maine going to say to same sex couples that are married that they are no longer married? Sorry I’m a bit in the dark to what has happened, it appears from the question that Maine made same sex legal and now are going back on that?

sevenfourteen's avatar

@oratio yes and no… Maine is a very interesting state because for every accepting and gay community you find very racist and spiteful people. The younger generation tends to be more accepting but we have the old frenchies are stuck in their ways.

@gemiwing yes… I know. He knows my brother is gay and he meant no harm, but pretty much that’s what he’s calling it. @Qingu I give him freedom in his opinions as long as he respects mine

RedPowerLady's avatar

@RareDenver Now that I can’t answer but it is a good question. Perhaps someone else can answer it. I see where you are going now.

Barcybarce's avatar

This country is behind the times and caught up in the past, it’s still old thinking vs new, family values vs individual rights, north vs south, same old bs, a divided country, let them marry and then take it away, it never ends!

kevbo's avatar

When closeted, gay, social conservatives trade political power for integrity, this will cease to be an issue.

dalepetrie's avatar

@RareDenver – Yes, married couples have a whole slew of legal rights that non married couples do not have, including tax advantages. Just for example, the ability to file one’s taxes jointly…can’t be done in the US if you’re not married. Yes, for some couples, our tax structure is set up so that there is a “marriage penalty” and for that reason couples can file separately instead of jointly if it saves them money, but for most couples, it’s a tax advantage to be able to file jointly.

Second issue is health benefits…with our current messed up for profit health insurance system, it’s really, really dangerous to be uninsured, and for a LOT of couples, it make a lot of sense for the whole family to go on one worker’s plan (for some couples only one works). Most employers who offer health care coverage subsidize it to some level for their employees as a benefit (though the high profit margins have made this less of a sure thing). For example, maybe you can get insurance for yourself for $200 a month and for your spouse for $400 a month on your employer’s plan, still pretty steep, but if your spouse, whose job doesn’t offer health insurance were to seek out a plan, they might pay $800 a month for themselves. Now the difference between the $400 and the $800 per month is pretty big to begin with. But there’s a double whammy here. Let’s say the company pays $800 per person per month for health insurance, so they’re effectively subsidizing $600 a month of your premium and $400 a month of your spouse’s premium. Let’s say you work for a progressive company which offers “domestic partners” this subsidy…in fact, before my wife and I got married, but after we had been living together, we would have qualified as “domestic partners” and I DID work for a company which offered her benefits. But we didn’t take them, evne though it would have been subsidized. Why? Because the portion that the company paid on her behalf would, for tax purposes, be considered “taxable income”, and having an additional $400 a month in compensation added to my W-2 would have made my taxes go way up, so yeah, there were tax consequences that way.

But tax benefits are just the start of it. What if you want kids? Well, let’s say 2 people of the same sex have a kid, the kid is biologically one partner’s, but the other partner is going to have a hard time legally adopting the kid. And let’s say they do everything right, but the partner whose biological kid it is dies, that person may have been a parent to this kid for say 15 years, but if some sixth cousin, twice removed comes out of the woodwork and wants the kid, THAT person has more legal rights in the US than the adoptive same sex parent! This will often happen if say the dead party is the one who made all the money, let’s say they were a one income family, one party stayed at home, built the family, basically was the backbone of that family, but blood supercedes that person’s rights, so they could end up losing their kids, their home, EVERYTHING because some greedy person had the thinnest of blood relations to the other person and maybe just plain didn’t approve and wanted to shut this other person out.

There are something like I believe I heard 2,000+ legal rights that are conveyed with the contract of marriage, and some can be obtained easily through a separate contract, some are much harder to contract for and some can’t be contracted for outside a legal marriage. Another example would be, one partner gets sick, ends up in the hospital, their life partner can’t even VISIT their sick partner because they are not related.

It’s WAY fucked up, it’s writing discrimination and hatred into law.

RedPowerLady's avatar

@dalepetrie the one that gets me is if your partner is in a horrible accident you are not considered next of kin unless married, that could be potentially very scary

RareDenver's avatar

@dalepetrie I’ve heard US tax can be a minefield, luckily I haven’t had to get involved in it yet but I’m sure the day will come.

It is interesting though that if Maine are going to change someones legal status and that results in financial loss now or future losses what kind of cases might possibly be brought against Maine.

As you said It’s WAY fucked up, it’s writing discrimination and hatred into law. Fucking GA my man.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@chazmaz
regardless of what I think of polygamy
since it’s not allowed for straight couples
then it doesn’t factor in this discussion
because we’re talking about something that straight couples HAVE access to and gay couples don’t

Likeradar's avatar

@ChazMaz I’m sure you realize how silly your argument is (reminds me of the people who are against gay marriage because it could lead to someone marrying their dog), but I’ll acknowledge it anyway. The history of polygamy includes quite a bit of misogyny, which is one of the reasons it’s not allowed.

The question of why polygamy is illegal in the US is interesting (and I think it would make a good q for the collective), but it’s not a valid anti-gay marriage argument.

JONESGH's avatar

Gay marriage should be legal. Everywhere.

DominicX's avatar

In case you all were wondering, this map shows gay marriage laws around the world.

Dark blue = gay marriage is legal (though it hasn’t been updated for Maine).
Light blue = some other kind of union for gays is allowed (bravo South America…seriously).
Very light blue = recognition of foreign gay unions, but no performance of them within
Yellow = light penalty for homosexual acts
Orange = heavier penalty for homosexual acts
Red = life imprisonment for homosexual acts
Brown = death penalty for homosexual acts
Gray = no laws against homosexuality, but no laws supporting homosexual unions.

The world has a ways to go…good job for South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, and some states in the U.S., though. South America, Australia, and western Europe aren’t doing too bad either.

RareDenver's avatar

@DominicX great little link there, GA

benjaminlevi's avatar

I believe that this will not be permanent.
Younger voters seem to be less bigoted against homosexuals.

oratio's avatar

@benjaminlevi Probably. We have come a long way already. There wasn’t long ago homosexuality was considered a mental illness.

dalepetrie's avatar

@RareDenver – of course, you bring up a good point, are they taking away a tax benefit, I don’t know, depends on the couple’s situation, the tax laws of the state and probably most importantly the Federal tax laws. I’m not sure if the US government recognizes same sex marriages if they are performed in a state where they are legal, nor am I sure if this change will be retroactive or not, so it could be that the ones who were already married keep their status, or not, and that status could be recognized by the Federal government…or not. Things can never be simple, but the people who write these laws oversimplify it so it becomes a matter of “straight good/gay bad” in the public debate. Or they say it’s a matter of diluting an institution that predates government…problem with that is, why don’t we just give the word marriage over to religion and call all legal marriages “legal marriage” (or “civil union” or “braunschweiger” for all I care)? Because then another oversimplified debate would arise, they’d rely on the “next you’ll want to marry your pets” or some other apples to rutabegas comparison argument. Basically, I think the majority of people who don’t want gays to be married are uncomfortable with the idea of a) gay sex, and b) what am I going to call them…Mr. and Mr.? Husband and Husband? If they have to treat Bob and Steve the same way they treat John and Judy, they’re going to have to come to terms with the fact that Bob and Steve DO the same things in the Bedrom that John and Judy do (only grosser), and THAT is what drives the majority of this discrimination.

benjaminlevi's avatar

@oratio I can only imagine homophobia will be increasingly marginalized over the years, much in the way racism is.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@oratio totally agree with you but bare with me
I get that social change is slow because…
and that’s where I draw a blank
certain things shouldn’t take decades and decades and they don’t need to be in tiny steps
to me understanding that this is unfair shouldn’t be hard to figure out…it just takes a second or two and then that’s it..I mean really how long does it take anyone to understand any concept? it doesn’t take decades does it?

laureth's avatar

To understand – probably not that long.

To get used to, to feel like it’s normal in their world? Much longer.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@laureth so what? so freaking what? so it doesn’t feel normal…but to fight ardently against a new but totally deserved normal is a ridiculous waste of one’s life

laureth's avatar

As time goes by, and people who were raised to believe that “gay isn’t right or normal” leave this world, times will change. But you can’t make my old grandpa see gay marriage as an acceptable fair thing any more than you can make a religious Jew eat pork. It’s just the way people are raised. I’m not even sure they see it as deserved, even if, like my grandpa, they have a gay son or daughter.

That’s what I mean by that. He might understand that gay folks are people much like him, but he just can’t support them. But it’s okay. His generation will not control the voting booths forever, and then those who can accept, who have grown up all their lives with the gay rights issue on the table, will determine how things go.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@laureth look I can understand that there are unthinkable things for people but I don’t have to say it’s okay just because that’s how they’re raised..I challenge people daily to think things over again and again against the way they were raised…and call me bitchy but when anyone in the older generation is homophobic I call them out on it just as I would any other person…there is no reason to respect them just because they’re old…and there is every reason to disrespect them for uttering harmful shit their entire 80 year old life or what have you…I was raised in a sexist racist homophobic household…I do not excuse my parents…they were and are wrong

laureth's avatar

Oh heck, Simone, I’m in agreement with you. I’ve been calling my grandpa out on it for as long as I knew what “gay” was. It’s just part of him, though, like “gay people deserve rights” is part of you and me. Maybe someday when the pendulum swings the other way and the backlash hits, our grandkids will tell us that gay people are sick and wrong, though, calling us out on our immoral, liberal agenda, and, like my grandpa, we won’t be able to change our gut-feeling just because a new belief system is popular and we’re old fogeys.

Challenge? Yes. Make them think? Absolutely. Let them know how we stand? Every day. Expect a leopard to change his spots? Unlikely.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@laureth why, did my grandchildren get lobotomized without my knowledge? lol…
a smart leopard can change his spots when evolution is called for

laureth's avatar

I’m willing to bet that my grandpa feels that same “how did my grandkid get lobotomized?” feeling about me, what with how I support the “gay agenda.” (Surely I have been brainwashed!) That’s pretty much my point. As wrong as we know they are, is as wrong as they know we are.

That evolution is happening. The world is changing. And even some of our elders are with us in this fight.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@laureth i know i know all of that..i know, with my ideas, i simply must sound like a raving radical to so many people…and that guy, i Love that guy…i posted that video everywhere..

DominicX's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir

For the record, I agree with you and this has always been my line of thinking: “I challenge people daily to think things over again and again against the way they were raised.” I’ve never liked “that’s just the way I was raised” as an excuse for bigotry. So I guess I must be a radical too. :)

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@DominicX woot! queers! we recruit!

Likeradar's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir More “raving radicals” like you would be a good thing. Rave away.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@Likeradar I do rave away and I get tired and burnt out. then I get some sleep. and then I get energy again. weird, :)

oratio's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Yes, to understand a concept doesn’t mean agreeing with it. I believe that people often keep the values they create for themselves when they are younger, and it takes generation shifts to really make a difference. That takes time. I am sure my son will ask why we accepted things like this, as well as we ask how previous generations could just let injustice be.

Kraigmo's avatar

@sevenfourteen you give your Boyfriend freedom in his opinions, and he gives you yours?

Well what about gay people who he not only has an opinion against, but that he took an ACTION against?

The boy is a predator. Differences of opinion are one thing… but to then commit that opinion into an action of force, whether its with a vote, or with a knife, is a sign of a dominant, predatory person.

sevenfourteen's avatar

@Kraigmo He’s for civil unions but in his mind the Bible sets it as only a man and a woman can get married . He could care less about people who are gay he just thinks that the civil union is perfect because they get the same benefits as married couples do. Now I don’t agree because if they have the same rights idky they can’t just get married in a courthouse b/c that isn’t God’s house but in his idea a civil union is the same thing. I don’t agree with him but in no way does he hate or dislike the gays. You saying anything about “whether its with a vote, or with a knife” comes no where close to his decision.. he’s one of the people who is litterally just not allowing the word marriage to homosexual couples.

laureth's avatar

If the argument against gay marriage is based on a Biblical definition of marriage, that’s one very good reason that the government should get out of the marriage business anyway and just allow folks to have civil unions, no matter what their gender or orientation is.

However, if the definition of “marriage” as a contract between mated people is more deeply set in our culture (as it has been in pretty much every culture that has ever existed, Biblical or no), well then, the People of the Book need to stop meddling in the way the culture at large defines marriage. If they want to have something like a “Christian marriage” or a “Bible marriage” that is blessed only by their church and consists of one-man-one-woman (or one-man-four-women, or whatever), go for it, but it shouldn’t have any connection to marriages sanctioned by government.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@laureth yes, exactly – let’s all have civil unions and have the same benefits…if you also then want to have a religious ceremony and get married by all means, have fun in church but NO added benefit should be added

sevenfourteen's avatar

@laureth I deffinately see that. It’s also in our culture to “grow up and get married”... how do you explain it to the homosexual community that they can’t fulfill one aspect of the typical American Dream? Isn’t that what we came here for?

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther