There are no rights being taken away. There are merely rights that have been givin just yet. Right now we are in the process of correcting that.

No, in Maine it's being taken away: Marriage was allowed, now it will not be.

It is nothing. This country was founded on the belief that everyone can believe as they wish, and that no one should be forced to obey or observe any other mans religion. If that is religious intolerance than I guess our country has more bigots than I thought.

Lynx is right here unfortunately, 6 months ago it was implemented I believe and this ruling overturns it.

Well since no one likes my idea of taking another approach ;) just give it time and I am willing to bet within 5 years the majority of states accept it

or maybe try more dirty tactics in advertising like the other side

"most of the Stand for Marriage supporters are ordinary families who are worried that children will read stories about same-sex couples in schools, that teenagers will be encouraged to experiment with their sexuality, and that same-sex marriage will become widespread"

I'll take you on on that bet, and if you're wrong (which I hope you're not) you'll take us out for a round of shots so we can bemoan the state of the US. (Do you live near NY?)
And if you're right, we can all just take shots and celebrate in the tipsy thread.

Well I sure hope I'm right, I'm just North of the border of Maine....Ill send over some same sex married couples if I have too lol

But interesting from the article...hopefully this is a sign of slight change anyway

"Maine has struggled with gay rights in the past. In 1998 and in 2000, lawmakers voted to ban discrimination against gays and lesbians but voters narrowly struck down those laws. The law was ultimately approved in 2005."

compromise? yeah. right. A "compromise" is for those bigots who are too ashamed to admit they are homophobes so suggest a compromise which allows them to lie to themselves that they are open minded.

Not granting certain arbitrary groups rights enjoyed by others for no legitimate reason is not a compromise.

When couple of mixed races wanted to marry they did not seek to be able to be "unionized", they did not seek a compromise which was still a violation of their human rights.

African Americans did not ask to compromise by being allowed to sit in the middle of the bus. African Americans didn't ask to compromise by allowing whites to go to diners and African Americans to go to eateries. Etc, etc.

When it comes to civil rights, human rights, a compromise isn't a compromise. It is sweeping under the rug the violation by putting a fancy word on it.

Still this is an argument that won't go anywhere with so many people. There will always be people who feel that God doesn't want same sex marriages just as there are many people who feel God doesn't want people of different races to marry. The two groups are no different in their prejudices and bigotry. Likewise as we as a nation finally grew past those prejudicial ideas, eventually same sex marriages will be allowed.

Let's just abolish marriage altogether. Seriously.

How is this even an issue? Nobody has the right to dictate how an individual, or couple lives their life.(as long as you're not hurting anything, or anyone around you)

You have one life, only one... that's it, to deny any beings personal rights is obnoxious, and just plain sickening.

What is wrong with marraige?

*claps*

...2Many, I wish I could shake your hand. That was fantastic.

What isn't?

Fearmongering seems to be the way every kind of political decision gets backing in the US today. Otherwise intelligent people (no matter how large a s**t-filled douchebag they are) still all feel the need to couch their arguments in appeals to the fear response in people.

This stupid argument I hear about churches being forced to recognize gay marriages is one such thing. There's nothing that says any church will be required to perform gay marriages, or accept gay couples into their fold. I'm sure gay people would be just as happy having a civil ceremony, or just mosey on over to whatever church there is down the street that doesn't openly discriminate against them.

Then there's the argument they used here in california - that teachers would need to start teaching it in schools. More bulls**t. There's nothing that would require any teachers to teach anything regarding gay marriage in school - teacers decide what and how they are going to teach in their classrooms, and as long as it doesn't bring in any complaints from parents or weak grades on standardized tests, they don't get any grief.

While I'm not planning to get married again any time in the near future, I sure won't be doing it in any kind of church if/when I do. For anything that goes on down here on Earth, it should be civil unions. Church stuff should apply only to the non-existant afterlife, and the sooner we take the church out of all legal considerations, the better. They can be free to add their non-weight-carrying blessing to it afterwards if they they want, but religion can't be trusted to do the right thing, as we've all seen over the last couple thousand years as well as the california and maine propositions.

I'm not entirely sure why anyone would be against marraige in itself. Maybe the pressure we as a society (and judicially) put on unhappy couples to stay together is wrong, but I see nothing wrong with the institution of marriage. Marriage isn't about tax rights, religion, or children; it is about two people promising to be together forever. To care for each other during times of sickness and poverty. To provide support and comfort when it seems like that is asking too much. To have each others backs when it seems like no one else does.

While it may be idealistic of me, I think that it is a beautiful thing.

Sorry to comment so late to this but I didn't get notification of your response here.

No. Commitment is about promising to be together forever to care and provide for each other. Marriage is about taxes and the law and some religious nonsense.

Marriage is a man-made institution to do something which for all intents and purposes, may not be the "natural" state for humans, i.e. monogamy.

Every species on earth courts and breeds according to a natural law that helps in the survival of the species as a whole. It is in the best interest of all nature that this occurs. Many species are naturally monogamous while others are naturally promiscuous. This can help spread the gene pool in the latter instance where as it can assure a stronger off-spring in the former. Man completely upsets the apple cart here with a promise that may go against instinct (we just don't know the human natural state anymore).

But I digress a little. If two people are genuinely committed to staying together and their love never fades then why get married?

Man is the only species that is going to have an argument over something stupid enough to cause a divorce. You aren't going to see penguins fighting about who put a big old dent in the car. Penguins are mostly monogamous and they don't need a ceremony to prove it. So marriage is about making that commitment stick even if one or both parties have no interest in it any more. Marriage is about making that commitment stick long after it goes against nature or feelings. Completely ridiculous.