Why Maine marriage vote matters
As Emily Belz reported Wednesday, Maine voters this week repealed that state’s law legalizing same-sex marriage.
For supporters—and opponents—of traditional marriage, the vote is important for a number of reasons.
First, money didn’t make the difference. According to Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, groups such as Stand for Marriage Maine (supporting traditional marriage) were outspent by a margin of 2-to-1.
The passing of Proposition 8 in California (which overturned court-ordered gay marriage) galvanized proponents of same-sex marriage, and Maine was seen by many as an opportunity to stop any momentum gained on the West Coast. According to Brown, “Same-sex marriage activists saw Maine as their best chance to win a direct marriage vote.” But despite resources, energy, and plenty of media attention, the momentum to maintain traditional marriage was not slowed.
Maine’s vote was the first time in history that voters overturned action taken by a legislature on this issue. This in a state not considered conservative by a long shot.
Brown calls the vote “a decisive and historic victory for marriage.” No doubt supporters of same-sex marriage will downplay its significance.
But consider this from an October Associated Press article leading up to the vote:
“Supporters of same-sex marriage, in Maine and elsewhere, are cautiously hopeful of a landmark victory, which they believe would have an impact in other states including California. But they acknowledge that defeat—by an electorate known for its independence and moderation—would be crushing.”
As Brown put it, “The voters in a deep New England state have now joined 30 other states in directly affirming marriage as the union of one man and one woman. If we can win in Maine, we can win anywhere.”













Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top82 Comments to “Why Maine marriage vote matters”
NOM and the “funding” shouldn’t be in the same article, let alone the same sentence.
NOM, which is headed by Brian Brown and the loathesome Maggie Gallgher, is currently facing ethics charges for failure to disclose the source of their funding.
http://www.mpbn.net/Home/tabid/36/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3478/ItemId/9528/Default.aspx
From the article: And Assistant Attorney General Phyllis Gardiner says, at the very least, NOM should be required to pro-rate the amount of money received from each state to help determine whether NOM has met Maine’s threshold to report as a Ballot Question Committee.
“I think that certainly if a multi-state organization is engaged in solicitations for a variety of campaigns there’s a rationale for pro-rating those contributions.”
Gardiner says there’s a compelling interest for the public to know who is spending a significant amount of money to influence the outcome of an election, whether it’s an individual or an interest group, in-state or out-of-state. She says this is the first time that this particular election statute has been challenged.
She says plenty of other organizations are complying with the law. And she disputes the idea that limits are being put on NOM’s, or the group American Principles in Action’s, speech.
“The statute doesn’t restrict in any way what they can raise or what they can spend. It doesn’t restrict political speech in any way. It’s simply about reporting after the fact how much you spent or raised for the purpose of influencing the vote in Maine,” Gardiner says.
A decision on NOM’s request for a temporary restraining order is expected from U.S. District Judge D. Brock Hornby on Wednesday.
Report comment to moderator
Elaborate please. Why is Maggie loathesome? Enquiring minds wanna know
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 – if they did somethinfg wrong, then they need to be punished. The issue is the GLBT Community were handed another defeat.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner – go to YouTube and type in her name. She’s smug, condescending and nasty. Dishonest, too, and a raging hypocrite.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlC4KoMEgbU&feature=player_embedded
Report comment to moderator
Another liberal loss, another ad hominem response. So little complex thinking these days.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.06.09 AT 11:35 AM
Sawgunner – go to YouTube and type in her name. She’s smug, condescending and nasty. Dishonest, too, and a raging hypocrite
–
that sounds like most of those who are pushing the GLBT moral values.
Report comment to moderator
It’s not ad hominem, in a discussion of financing political action, to discuss deception employed by one of the participants. This is especially so when the dishonesty leads to court action.
Report comment to moderator
It’s not ad hominem, in a discussion of financing political action, to discuss deception employed by one of the participants. This is especially so when the dishonesty leads to court action.
Report comment to moderator
A victory can really be a victory, even in this day and age, but I suspect this victory was a defeat.
The vote that matters is the votes cast by those who are not yet married (or re-married). By all accounts, these people voted to define marriage as a union of elective affinity between two persons.
Those who want to retain control of the traditional rules of marriage had to give up far too much. What they lost by their pedantry is the modern story of marriage as the triumph of romantic love. Marriage is the event in which everyone can be a prince or a princess for a day. The institution has not always enjoyed this prestige. It depends on seeing marriage as the joining of two minds, hearts, and bodies in love, regardless of the opposition of convention, law, economics, or other circumstances.
If old people keep voting against gay marriage, the fashionable weddings are going to be civil unions.
Report comment to moderator
I posted this link yesterday in one of the other threads on Maine and the vote on same-sex marriage:
For those who might be interested, a staff writer for the Portland Press Herald offers this analysis of Maine’s vote on the gay marriage issue: http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=294189&ac=PHnws
It doesn’t break down in the expected rural-vs.-urban, Republican-vs.-Democrat, southern Maine-vs.-the rest of the state ways. Religion plays a part, and there’s no way to analyze the vote by age of the voter. However, the medical marijuana dispensary referendum did pass, which indicates to me that the college kids probably did get out to vote this time around.
My own take on it is that the people of Maine – who have in the past supported some gay rights referenda and where a domestic partner registry has been in place for 5 years – are not willing to change the definition of ‘marriage’ to mean a legal relationship between any two consenting adults who are not related by blood.
Report comment to moderator
What I have found disturbing is this desire to have the names of the people who signed the petition to get the issue on the ballot.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer 11.06.09 AT 1:47 PM
What I have found disturbing is this desire to have the names of the people who signed the petition to get the issue on the ballot.
–
The GLBT Community will take those names and then find out where they work, so to put pressure on the companies to fire them. If you own your company they will target your company to put you out of business.
Report comment to moderator
NJL @ 11 – that’s because you don’t understand laws related to political action committee fundraising, and didn’t read the Maine Assistant Attorney General’s comments posted in comment 1.
Report comment to moderator
From a sample statute: 18. PACs must disclose the name and address of all contributors who give in excess of $25 in a calendar year. PACs that receive dues payments from payroll deductions must be very careful in making sure that proper disclosures are made and should contact the Ethics Board for assistance.
Report comment to moderator
My statement had nothing to do with fundraising, Thomas1, so don’t come after me.
Report comment to moderator
Many traditionally minded people seem willing to acknowledge homosexual people entering legally recognized relationships. And that acknowledgement seems to me to be courteous. At the same time they are unwilling to change the traditional definition of marriage so significantly as to alter it entirely.
Many homosexual people are unalterably intent on forcing that change in definition. That attitude seems to me to be highly discourteous.
There are obviously rabid people on both sides of the argument. And there are kind people on both sides. It seems to me that the traditional beliefs have ownership of the definition and those who attacking that definition have the primary accountability for the hostility in the debate. If they were content with similar legal rights with a different term there would be far less oppostion.
Bible believing people should not be surprised that sin enjoys company. Our opposition to sinful behavior should be humble and gracious while standing firm on the definitions. We would be much more credible if we were much more truthful about our own sin. But our sin enjoys company too.
I am thankful that God is the Jury and Judge. He alone has the Character qualified to be such. His payment for my sin establishes His credentials. We should spend more time demonstrating the remedy for sin than condemning sinners who already have a significant sense of their sin.(Even though they may deny it or be unconscious of it.)
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, your concerns expressed at #12 are the same as mine.
Report comment to moderator
Right – here come the gays with their pink pistols shooting glitter at good righteous Christians, driving them from town tarred and feathered (with boas?).
Paranoia, victimhood and senseless bleating do not sound particularly Christlike.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer 11.06.09 AT 2:39 PM
Pastor Roy, your concerns expressed at #12 are the same as mine.
—
Fall out of Prop 8 came to my mine.
Report comment to moderator
.
Thomas1 11.06.09 AT 2:47 PM
Right – here come the gays with their pink pistols shooting glitter at good righteous Christians, driving them from town tarred and feathered (with boas?).
Paranoia, victimhood and senseless bleating do not sound particularly Christlike.
—-
Thomas, what happen to the Mormon Church, Catholic Church, and those who support prop 8?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, last I checked those churches and people were still kickin’ it.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.06.09 AT 3:11 PM
Pastor Roy, last I checked those churches and people were still kickin’ it.
—
What?
Report comment to moderator
They still exist, no?
Report comment to moderator
I haven’t been listen much to the Maine spin from HRC but clearly Brown is trying to run with this ball as far as he can. To me, it sounds more like he is over selling the significance than anything.
Try a rhetoric test: The metaphor’s used by NOM reveal the gears in the PR machine that makes up the anti-gay “positive” narrative. When Brown says things that inherently don’t make sense, like “momentum to maintain”, we should expect some eyebrows to go up.
Maine is disappointing, but the characterization of a defeat there as “crushing” isn’t accurate. That’s not how the gay rights movement feels post election.
Report comment to moderator
Oh sorry,
That was Marcia’s inept metaphor, not Brian’s.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.06.09 AT 3:17 PM
They still exist, no?
–
do you support voter Intimidation?
Report comment to moderator
I think we need to add something to the “hate” crimes legislation — anyone who is assaulted in any way, including financially or for attending church because they have a political viewpoint that differs with the homosexual agenda. The intent — the hatred — is certainly there.
Report comment to moderator
Maine, indeed all of New England, is known for being independent. If they voted down same-sex marriage, it does say something significant. That should warn our legislature here in NJ, but I doubt it.
Report comment to moderator
NJL – religion is already a protected class under the Hate Crimes Act, and has been for years.
Maine didn’t vote it down by much. It’s only a matter of time.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.06.09 AT 3:55 PM
NJL – religion is already a protected class under the Hate Crimes Act, and has been for years.
Maine didn’t vote it down by much. It’s only a matter of time.
–
The Christian Faith is not protected.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy: The Christian Faith is not protected.
Summary of the Hate Crimes Act: Adopts the definition of “hate crime” as set forth in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (i.e., a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person).
Christians are protected just fine.
Report comment to moderator
#11 NJLawyer,
In the early 60s the state of Alabama went to court to make the NAACP release their membership list. The court held that disclosure in this case would “unduly burden” the constitutional right of free association.
Evidently that caselaw was given the heave-ho in Cali and a few other states, where those who sign to support ballot measures must be identified. In California folks where hounded out of their jobs for supporting traditional marriage. (Admittedly, if you work in an industry with an over-abundance of homosexuals perhaps you SHOULDNT do any donations or sign any petition if your identity might be disclosed to the bullying tactics of the Gay Gestapo).
I guess the fear in requiring disclosure would be that un-named millionaires might fund a ballot initiative in the same way an un-named millionaire funded the Gene McCarthy insurgent candidacy in 1968.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.06.09 AT 4:10 PM
Pastor Roy: The Christian Faith is not protected.
Summary of the Hate Crimes Act: Adopts the definition of “hate crime” as set forth in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (i.e., a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person).
Christians are protected just fine.
–
tell those who are being dragged in court over cross’s, Christian beliefs.
Report comment to moderator
Pator Roy, this is what I mean about whining. Can you provide some facts?
Report comment to moderator
Membership in an organization is one thing, signing a petition is another. You might sign a petition just because you believe the voters should decide an issue. That has nothing to do with financially supporting a political position. You are exercising your right to see something on the ballot, and that should be as secret as your ultimate vote. The state has the duty to check out the validity of the names and addresses on a petition, and it should end there. My beef is not with disclosing donations; it is with the state setting people up for exercising their rights.
Report comment to moderator
I laugh every time I hear it’s a matter of time. Conservatives are having children at a higher rate than liberals, and the young people now — who didn’t take the time to vote in Maine as it turns out — will soon be having children. Having children makes a difference. At least it should.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.06.09 AT 4:43 PM
Pator Roy, this is what I mean about whining. Can you provide some facts?
–
boy scouts, Chaplians in the Military, Nativity scenes, Christmas parades being force to change their names due to lawsuits.
Report comment to moderator
I have been out of town for a couple of days, so my quick reaction that this thread is completely incoherent may be because I have not been keeping up properly.
Also, why are the results in Maine being discussed but not the results in Washington state? Is this some sort of East Coast bias, as in sports coverage on television?
Report comment to moderator
“the young people now — who didn’t take the time to vote in Maine as it turns out”
Yeah, you have until 2012, till the young people turn out on another Obama wave. That sounds an awful lot like just a matter of time to me.
Report comment to moderator
I mean really, if you count major state and federal actions on gay politics so far this year we have had two major state votes and the passage of the Matthew Shepard Act, plus the votes in Vermont, and New Hampshire. If we are gracious enough not to count the court rulings in Iowa and Connecticut, you all have still lost 2009 by 4 to 1! You can’t keep just a 20% success rate and say it’s NOT just a matter of time! Unless you can point to more than just Maine, you haven’t proven there has been a GIANT shift in the war. 2009 has still been our year.
Report comment to moderator
#40 Mynock
“For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
Matthew 7:12-14 “
This is a blog with a Christian world view…
Report comment to moderator
mynock 11.06.09 AT 11:40 PM
I mean really, if you count major state and federal actions on gay politics so far this year we have had two major state votes and the passage of the Matthew Shepard Act, plus the votes in Vermont, and New Hampshire. If we are gracious enough not to count the court rulings in Iowa and Connecticut, you all have still lost 2009 by 4 to 1! You can’t keep just a 20% success rate and say it’s NOT just a matter of time! Unless you can point to more than just Maine, you haven’t proven there has been a GIANT shift in the war. 2009 has still been our year.
–
0-31
Report comment to moderator
Homosexual people have been around for as long as there have been human beings. Praying and preaching have not caused homosexuality to “go away.” Sexuality is one of the most difficult areas of human behavior and emotions, and homosexuality is is only one of the areas which torment and confuse us.
If ranting about it does not “cure it,” perhaps we should consider letting homosexuals merge into our society and struggle with love and fidelity and raising children as the rest of us do.
Again, I think the “rights” of homosexuals should be linked to the “rights” of Christians. Why is prosetlyzing a “basic right” any more than right to marry?
Report comment to moderator
Random Name 11.07.09 AT 8:50 AM
Homosexual people have been around for as long as there have been human beings. Praying and preaching have not caused homosexuality to “go away.” Sexuality is one of the most difficult areas of human behavior and emotions, and homosexuality is is only one of the areas which torment and confuse us.
If ranting about it does not “cure it,” perhaps we should consider letting homosexuals merge into our society and struggle with love and fidelity and raising children as the rest of us do.
Again, I think the “rights” of homosexuals should be linked to the “rights” of Christians. Why is prosetlyzing a “basic right” any more than right to marry
–
Praying and preaching has not cause any sinful behavior to go away. An God’s Word is clear until the return of Christ to set up His kingdom, sin will be with us.
Report comment to moderator
Random, in denying the freedom to evangelize, you would be denying both free speech and free exercise of religion. For evangelization is the intersection of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name: You’re batting .000 in providing a good rationale for all those “shoulds” you’re always putting forth. Old Hickory and others have repeatedly asked you to do so, but, alas, we only get more of your preaching about how bad it is to preach.
What gives?
Report comment to moderator
An God’s Word is clear until the return of Christ to set up His kingdom, sin will be with us.
Again, sin is something a person does not like and is convinced sounds better if he or she attributes it to God. For that matter, until Jesus actually returns, there might be something to be said for people who have appointed themselves to speak for Him taking a stab at being quiet.
in denying the freedom to evangelize, you would be denying both free speech and free exercise of religion.
If people’s religious beliefs guide them to prohibit free speech and to prohibit free exercise of religion, who am I to prohibit their free exercise of their religion?
we only get more of your preaching about how bad it is to preach.
I don’t recall saying that it is bad to preach. However, I am not sure why I should why you should have the right to preach in a culture where the people who live there do not want you to preach there. Why should I support your right to preach to people who think you are corrupting their children?
Report comment to moderator
Random Name: When you describe it as “ranting”, you’re not saying it’s bad? You’re not passing negative judgment on it?
Why not just answer the question? On your nihilistic view, where is the basis for all these “shoulds” you’re always tossing around?
Report comment to moderator
Random Name 11.07.09 AT 1:36 PM
An God’s Word is clear until the return of Christ to set up His kingdom, sin will be with us.
Again, sin is something a person does not like and is convinced sounds better if he or she attributes it to God. For that matter, until Jesus actually returns, there might be something to be said for people who have appointed themselves to speak for Him taking a stab at being quiet.
—
I have not appointed my self to speak for Him. I have obey God and He is the one who called me to speak His Word. Confirmed by Church, The Demonation Board, not once but twice.
Report comment to moderator
This Commentary piece is not well written. It reads more like a puff PF piece for groups like NOM. For example, why is a “Commentary” piece littered with a bunch of self-serving quotes from people associates with NOM?
First, abundant research has shown that the gay marriage issue does not break down along the traditional liberal-conservative divide. Age is probably the single best predictor of whether someone is opposed to gay marriage. Yet nowhere does the Commentary piece analyze age-based data from Maine voters.
Second, Maine is not just another true-blue New England state. Maine is probably a lot more like the Upper Midwest (e.g., Wisconsin) than it is like Vermont, New Hampshire, or Rhode Island. Besides, Maine is historically a GOP/libertarian bastion. But in recent years, Maine has trended away from the GOP because the GOP is not as libertarian as it used to be.
Third, don’t ignore the effect pragmatism. For the religious right and for gay-rights activists, this is a battle over moral legitimacy. Frankly, most libertarians couldn’t give a whit about either sides’ claims to moral legitimacy. If gay marriage is good, then someone should be able to make the argument that the public benefit of same-sex marriage outweighs any potential public costs. Frankly, the state does not confer marriage licenses because the state believes that you should “be with the one you love.” Marriage confers certain rights and benefits on the possessors of a marriage license. Extending such rights and benefits always costs society. Therefore, gay marriage advocates need to demonstrate that I accrue a material benefit from their ability to obtain a marriage license. I don’t hear them making this argument. So, it’s understandable that many libertarian Maine voters would see no reason to change the laws.
I realize that this is an evangelical blog. I also realize that evangelicals–especially older ones–tend to believe that most public issues can be boiled down to questions of personal morality. But frankly, most of us don’t think that way. In fact, many who may have voted against gay marriage don’t think that way. So, I expect a Commentary piece to analyze such things.
Report comment to moderator
rsd – especially older ones
–
What age do you consider when you state older ones?
Report comment to moderator
If we can win in Maine, we can win anywhere.
Not for long. Why? Because the majority of anti-gay bigots are OLD and being replaced by a younger generation that knows just how unjust right-wing homophobia is.
You will LOSE California, certainly by 2014 if not sooner.
You just lost in Washington and will have a chance to lose again.
You will soon lose in NY.
You may lose in NJ VERY soon.
And it remains to be seen how many states you will lose before you lose at the federal level.
But you have already lost your reputation for being a moral influence on culture and society.
Report comment to moderator
I wonder how many of the above people are actually from Maine.
Spinoza: Are you from the great state of Maine. I am, and I love it here. Unfortunately the political atmosphere is not appealing, but the weather beats all.
I voted yes on 1, I am not old… less than 30, and many of the volunteers and persons that I talked to during the campaign were, in fact, younger than I, and involved. There exists a remnant in Maine that will remain for many years to come to protect and defend families.
Report comment to moderator
Newton @ 53 – I’m from Maine (southern part, near Portland), and commented up in #10.
Report comment to moderator
newton says: There exists a remnant in Maine that will remain for many years to come to protect and defend families.
Protect them from what?
Report comment to moderator
“Protect them from what?”
Giving up bigotry apparently …
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy:
I have not appointed my self to speak for Him. I have obey God and He is the one who called me to speak His Word. Confirmed by Church, The Demonation Board, not once but twice.
Well, that’s OK, then. They were appointed by God, I presume, and speak with Its authority?
Report comment to moderator
Macrutabaga:
Why not just answer the question? On your nihilistic view, where is the basis for all these “shoulds” you’re always tossing around?
It is quite possible that I do not act out of free will. The neurons and chemicals in my body are telling me “You should talk to conservative Christians and tell them what they should do.”
There’s an old joke about a person who talks to himself. “Don’t worry until I start answering myself,” he reassures everyone else.
It’s a little different here. Don’t worry about my stating a bunch of “shoulds” or about where I get them from. Start worrying if any of your fellow people with closed minds start actually following them and start treating people with respect they want to treat you with respect, and start practicing loving people you disagree with instead of talking about “loving them,” and so on.
In other words, not to worry.
Report comment to moderator
Now my bold is out of control. Only a nihilist or a sexual p*v*rt would use bold and italic in such a fashion.
Report comment to moderator
#53 @Newton.
In Maine, ~70% of those between the ages of 18 to 29 support gay marriage, so you are in the minority.
Here is a nice plot of state-by-state support for gay marriage w/age breakdown: Same Sex Marriage by State and Age
It shows that Segelstein’s boast that “We can win anywhere” (i.e., in the promotion of a status quo of bigotry) is a completely empty brag that will definitively falsified in the coming decade.
Report comment to moderator
MMACMURRAY #10 . . there’s no way to analyze the vote by age of the voter.
People between 18 and 29 are twice as likely to express explicit support for same-sex marriage than people over 65 years of age.
People in Massachusetts and other liberal states are twice as likely to support it than people in Alabama and other conservative states.
The graph suggests that in 15 years all age cohorts will be significantly more supportive of gay marriage and Alabama will be like Ohio.
Whatever the “definition” of marriage, it doesn’t appear to be innate.
http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/11/05/support-for-same-sex-marriage-by-age-and-state/
Report comment to moderator
PS. That’s the same graph Spinoza linked to.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name:
It is quite possible that I do not act out of free will. The neurons and chemicals in my body are telling me “You should talk to conservative Christians and tell them what they should do.“
Ah, so it is quite possible that conservative Christians neither should nor shouldn’t do anything. That clarifies nothing. Thank you.
Here are some interesting selections from a paragraph of yours in 58:
Don’t worry…
Start worrying…
…closed minds…
…treating people with respect…
…start practicing loving people…
In other words, not to worry.
That’s a lotta moral-implyin’ for a nihilist. How preachy!
And we’re supposed take all that advice merely on the authority of the neurons and chemicals in Random Name’s body? I must confess, the neurons and chemicals in my body are laughing at the notion!
Report comment to moderator
Newton said: newton says: There exists a remnant in Maine that will remain for many years to come to protect and defend families.
Thomas asked: Protect them from what?
From other kinds of families, I guess.
I get the argument that homosexuality is inherently sinful. It makes sense as a reason to oppose gay marriage, for people who believe it.
But the suggestion that gay marriage poses some kind of “threat” that hetersoexual marriages need to be defended and protected against is just dumb. It doesn’t make sense on any level.
Yeah, Newton: Protect them from what?
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza and Scroop Moth, thanks for the link to that graph.
When I said that there was no way to analyze the vote by age of the voter, I was referring specifically to Maine’s referendum vote last Tuesday. Because the ballots are anonymous, there’s no way to analyze the election results using the age of the voter the way you can break down the results by political party or geography, or make inferences about the influence of religion by knowing which parts of the state are heavily Catholic, for example.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG 11.09.09 AT 12:32 PM
Newton said: newton says: There exists a remnant in Maine that will remain for many years to come to protect and defend families.
Thomas asked: Protect them from what?
From other kinds of families, I guess.
I get the argument that homosexuality is inherently sinful. It makes sense as a reason to oppose gay marriage, for people who believe it.
But the suggestion that gay marriage poses some kind of “threat” that hetersoexual marriages need to be defended and protected against is just dumb. It doesn’t make sense on any level.
Yeah, Newton: Protect them from what?
——
You get it approved, then you move to the courts to get it out law for anyone who is speaking out against Gay Rights.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor: You get it approved, then you move to the courts to get it out law for anyone who is speaking out against Gay Rights.
Nope. Very few people want to limit your free speech like that, and even if they did, it couldn’t happen Constitutionally. So that’s not a valid concern.
And any way, that doesn’t answer the question. How does gay marriage threaten heterosexual families? What do they need protecting from?
Report comment to moderator
You’re right MMAC– this isn’t a physical chem lab. The graph displays extrapolations from the past, and election results only explain themselves through exit polling.
I think the fact that Evangelicals are resisting received opinion about the sociology of age and region is very interesting. I realize they don’t like moral judgments to be based on the accidental characteristics of people. All minds can contemplate the same triangle, and right and wrong is absolute . . . right?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG 11.09.09 AT 2:06 PM
Pastor: You get it approved, then you move to the courts to get it out law for anyone who is speaking out against Gay Rights.
Nope. Very few people want to limit your free speech like that, and even if they did, it couldn’t happen Constitutionally. So that’s not a valid concern.
And any way, that doesn’t answer the question. How does gay marriage threaten heterosexual families? What do they need protecting from?
—-
Wrong it can and it will happen. God’s Word is clear in the end days man will turn his back on God embrace sin and take out their anger on God’s People,
Steve, The GLBT Community want the gay ban moved from the Military and also want restriction put on what the Christian Chaplains can preach on.
Report comment to moderator
#65 – This can be done with exit polling, but not much was done for the Maine referendum
Report comment to moderator
“God’s Word is clear in the end days man will turn his back on God embrace sin and take out their anger on God’s People,”
It was also clear that this was supposed to happen within the first generation after the death of Jesus – so the early church fervently believed.
Mark 13:30 has been creatively re-interpreted by apocalypse forecasters such as yourself to cover up the embarrassing and obvious fact that the early church thought the end was nigh 2,000 years ago. Such a hermeneutical game of Twister is dishonest and laughably absurd. The biblical time interval for your “end times” doomsday prophecy ended long ago, and the words did NOT come to pass. Neither will they happen in the immediate future!
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza 11.10.09 AT 6:57 PM
“God’s Word is clear in the end days man will turn his back on God embrace sin and take out their anger on God’s People,”
It was also clear that this was supposed to happen within the first generation after the death of Jesus – so the early church fervently believed.
Mark 13:30 has been creatively re-interpreted by apocalypse forecasters such as yourself to cover up the embarrassing and obvious fact that the early church thought the end was nigh 2,000 years ago. Such a hermeneutical game of Twister is dishonest and laughably absurd. The biblical time interval for your “end times” doomsday prophecy ended long ago, and the words did NOT come to pass. Neither will they happen in the immediate future!
–
good try but wrong again
Report comment to moderator
The issue isn’t whether homosexual behavior harms heterosexual marriage, the issue is whether homosexual behavior is harmful to the people who engage in it. Granting of marriage status through the state is an effort to encourage, promote and foster certain behaviors. Granting that status to homosexual behavior would only be justified, if such behavior is something worth encouraging. That is a moral judgment, which begs the question as to what is the foundation, or basis for such moral judgment. Ultimately the only objective foundation for moral judgments would be some concept of God. Otherwise every personal or group judgment would be equally justifiable, and there should be no argument.
The argument that homosexual behavior is equal to heterosexual behavior leads to the same place. This requires a moral judgment that the two have equal status by some objective moral standard that could only logically derive from the concept of God. Again, if there is no God, then there could be no argument that the two behaviors are equal or not, there would just be different personal or group preferences.
The argument regarding rights is similar. What is the basis for a claimed right. Some objective value, and hence an objective value holder, that is binding on all.
The real issue is what is God’s will regarding these matters. If you conclude that there is no God, or that he is not relevant to our determinations, then there can be no argument about anything. All you would have is personal or group preferences, all of which must necessarily be of equivalent value. To disagree with someone is to assert some objective value standard which is binding on them, which can only derive from the concept of God.
Report comment to moderator
“good try but wrong again”
Is this what you always say when you don’t have reply of substance?
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza 11.12.09 AT 2:17 PM
“good try but wrong again”
Is this what you always say when you don’t have reply of substance?
—-
Not at all when you are wrong, you are wrong.
Report comment to moderator
And why, pray tell, am I wrong?
Report comment to moderator
i.e., wrong about the following propositions:
1. The early church thought the second coming was imminent
2. The failed occurrence of the second coming precipitated after-the-fact re-interpretations of biblical texts )
That’s not controversial among trained biblical scholars and historians – it’s accepted historical fact.
Report comment to moderator
Even Wikipedia knows better:
Beliefs about the timing of the Second Coming
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza 11.12.09 AT 5:34 PM
i.e., wrong about the following propositions:
1. The early church thought the second coming was imminent
– no problem with that
2. The failed occurrence of the second coming precipitated after-the-fact re-interpretations of biblical texts )
—-
no re-interpreatation this is where you are wrong
That’s not controversial among trained biblical scholars and historians – it’s accepted historical fact.
—
sorry not accepted by biblical scholars and historians.
Report comment to moderator
Mark 13:30 has been creatively re-interpreted by apocalypse forecasters such as yourself to cover up the embarrassing and obvious fact that the early church thought the end was nigh 2,000 years ago. Such a hermeneutical game of Twister is dishonest and laughably absurd. The biblical time interval for your “end times” doomsday prophecy ended long ago, and the words did NOT come to pass. Neither will they happen in the immediate future! ”
—-
this is not true so you are wrong
Report comment to moderator
PR – Simply repeating your own prejudices in the face of evidence to the contrary doesn’t establish them as true, it just proves that you’re out of touch with reality.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza 11.12.09 AT 5:56 PM
PR – Simply repeating your own prejudices in the face of evidence to the contrary doesn’t establish them as true, it just proves that you’re out of touch with reality.
—
What evidence ? ever time you post you are clear of your hate for the Christian and our beliefs. So your own prejudices shows when it comes to the Christian Belief and God’s Word you are the out of touch. An can not be trusted with telling the truth.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!