Gay Marriage in Maine
| Thu Oct. 29, 2009 1:34 PM PDT
Via Andrew Sullivan, here's a sample of the pro-marriage (left) and anti-marriage (right) ads running in Maine right now. Reminds me of California 11 months ago: generally bright and positive from the pro side, dark and fearmongering from the anti side. Note especially the almost comically menacing musing from the anti folks.
Of course, as we all know, fear sells: the anti side won in California. But not by much! Only by a couple of points, and I remain convinced that if Barack Obama had been willing to step in a little more forcefully he might have turned things around. I understand his reluctance to address hot button cultural issues until he gets most of his legislative agenda through Congress this year, but justice is justice. He ought to speak up on this.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
Four million 'poured' into Maine, huh?
How much is that logo worth, since it wasn't made in Maine (same logo they used in California)? How much is 'poured' into Maine to deprive people of life and personal rights, for bigotry?
Grr.
I'm getting pretty damn tired of the fearmongers
Submitted by dr2chase on Thu Oct. 29, 2009 4:25 PM PDT.
Scared of the gays, scared of the drugs, scared of the brown people. Scared of the recession, so they cut their own spending, AND demand that governments balance budgets, thus deepening the recession. Scared of the cars, so instead of walking or biking, they get in cars too, making the problem worse (and incurring a 10x risk because they don't get enough exercise). Scared of immigrants, so we abuse them.
Ugh. The stupid, it hurts. A lot.
Presidential Restraint
Submitted by Paludicola (not verified) on Thu Oct. 29, 2009 6:17 PM PDT.
The advertisement in favor of the proposition was dumb. I sensed a distinct unquestioned premise of bigotry. I suppose I must blame my parents for not inculcating in me a fear of learning what homosexual was. Oh, why can't we have a better opposition?
"He [President Obama] ought to speak up on this."
I rather think that he should not involve himself in the politics of a state, but instead restrict himself to his duties as chief magistrate, not play busybody moral cheerleader.
De Tocqueville made the
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Oct. 29, 2009 7:19 PM PDT.
De Tocqueville made the prescient observation that once you allow people to vote, universal suffrage become inevitable, as those left behind bridle at being left out.
Seems to me the same sort of thing is inevitable with marriage. Once you legalize gay marriage, other non-traditional forms of marriage that libs are intolerant of become inevitable, especially given the massive African and Moslem immigration into the US.
Oh, piffle
Submitted by gyrfalcon on Thu Oct. 29, 2009 9:14 PM PDT.
Get over it. How you people manage to live in a climate of perpetual terror at "the other" is beyond me.
And gyrfalcon - I pity you
Submitted by John Hansen (not verified) on Thu Oct. 29, 2009 10:55 PM PDT.
And gyrfalcon - I pity you for your fear that you may be wrong and there actually may be a God who does things like advise his free creatures on the moral decisions that would work best for them.
Liberals typically accuse conservatives about producing "fear-mongering advertisements" to fight against liberal ideas. But let's look at the other side of this coin shall we. I have never seen something so outrageous as the fear mongering *actions* of liberals afraid to allow religion to be given the slightest mention.
Typical stories - man gets fired from Home Depot for wearing a pin that says "In God We Trust' ( neglecting the fact that everyone who works there handles many pieces of metal that say the same thing ) - Los Angeles county spends a lot of money making sure a tiny little cross is removed from the county seal ( neglecting the fact of the presence of the early missions as a pivotal part of Southern California history )
The truth is that sometimes well-meaning conservatives do over exaggerate the fear of "the other" to try and sway others to their side. However, if overblown reactions to the "other" is to be our guide to the soundness of a position, then liberalism's actions in overblown reactions to harmless expressions of faith demonstrates the sheer stupidity of modern liberalism's anti-religious bigotry.
So instead let's discuss the upcoming Maine vote on its merits.
1. The idea that a same-sex marriage is the same as an opposite sex marriage is absurd. Simple basic research shows that men and women are in general vastly different in many areas. The dynamic of two men, two women relationships is much different than the dynamic of one man- one woman relationships.
2. The no on 1 campaign does not, I assume, want to protect "All Families". It wants to raise the "one man - one man" and "one woman - one woman" relationships - to the stature already given to the "one man - one woman" marriage. I just bet they are not for the "one man - three women" relationship or the "one man - one dog" relationships.
3. Then we must objectively consider the case to elevate same sex marriage to the same level and regard that opposite sex marriage enjoys.
Consider that religion has been throughout the years of recorded history been the repository of the wisdom that keeps the society going. This is independent of whether the religion is actually true. Yet no religion ( to my limited knowledge ) - except 21st century worship of man has proposed to make this break.
I mean, given all of the manifold societies there have been, why hasn't a successful society ( one of history's winners ) been documented beforehand that didn't just allow same sex marriage - but actually promoted it as equal. The evidence from history is monumentally arrayed against the "no on one" people.
If the stories are true - which they often aren't - that's a complete different problem.
Should we allow people to fire for the employee having blue hair? Why?
Should we tax gay people more? How does this benefit children?
Yeah, maybe you don't approve of gay people. But you know what? They exist. And they don't make your life worse. So why make their lives worse?
Lengthy baloney
Submitted by SRW1 (not verified) on Fri Oct. 30, 2009 1:17 AM PDT.
Consider that religion has been throughout the years of recorded history been [sic] the repository of the wisdom that keeps the society going.
Ah yes, and let's neglect the fact that the practices of religion, or better religion's need of claiming to be in the possession of the absolute truth throughout recorded history, plus the unpleasent by-products of such claims, have eventually taught us to demand that this 'repository of wisdom' be separated into a religious and a secular domain, and to insist on the principle that whatever the teachings of your religion may impresses on you to do or not do, does not automatically entitle you to demand that such teachings be followed by all of society.
The evidence from history is monumentally arrayed against the "no on one" people.
Actually, if memory serves right, the evidence from history was also monumentally arrayed against the abolition of slavery, a practice most religions didn't seem to have had too much of a problem with, and evidence from history is also monumentally arrayed against giving women equal rights. Seems like evidence from history is monumentally arrayed against a whole lot of things.
Seems like your argument is a lazy 'lets continue to be cruel because we were cruel when we were still cruel'. Very convincing.
The abolitionist movement in
Submitted by M. (not verified) on Fri Oct. 30, 2009 2:32 AM PDT.
The abolitionist movement in the 18th and 19th centuries was a Christian movement.
And I believe it was Hume who tried and spectacularly failed to demonstrate that one could arrive at a coherent morality in the absence of religion. The more honest of the secular moralists have referred to this sort of thing as "freeloading atheism" -- most wish to arrive at the same conclusions, they simply want to eliminate God from the calculations. As much as "separation of church and state" may have become part of the American lexicon, the country was founded by Christians and on Christian principles, however imperfect the people attempting to follow those principles might have been.
The historical antagonism toward homosexuality is a constant and essentially universal across societies. That doesn't make it right, of course, but it's worth a longer look than it's being given. I think in general, attitudes toward gay marriage and whatnot are softening, but I also think that if you phrase the debate in other terms -- shall homosexuality be taught to my children as just another acceptable lifestyle? -- you will observe a distinct hardening of opinion. And this is one case where the slippery slope most definitely applies. If "marriage" can now define same-sex unions, why not unions of more than 2? Unions of people with animals?
I realize that the first impulse is to just laugh this off, perhaps as "fearmongering", but the push for such things has already started.
Increased tolerance of homosexuality in societies correlates with a large number of other changes, most of which are presumed to represent advances over the ignorant attitudes of our ancestors. But one of these changes, as is being observed in Europe and in other societies, both current and past, is decline, fall and disappearance. Many conservatives harp on this to the point that it starts to sound like millenialism, but the fact is that at current rates of demographic decline, the most tolerant, liberal societies in the world today will no longer exist 50 years from now. So I suppose a society legalizing gay marriage is a bit like an individual diagnosed with terminal cancer: might as well do what feels good, since it's all over anyway.
Some might fine supposing you have there
Submitted by SRW1 (not verified) on Fri Oct. 30, 2009 5:30 AM PDT.
The abolitionist movement in the 18th and 19th centuries was a Christian movement.
As were the people who opposed the abolitionist movement, so what does that show? And the fact remains that the bible is OK with slavery.
If "marriage" can now define same-sex unions, why not unions of more than 2? Unions of people with animals?
I realize that the first impulse is to just laugh this off, perhaps as "fearmongering", but the push for such things has already started.
Would you care to give some examples where the 'push for such things' has already started?
but the fact is that at current rates of demographic decline, the most tolerant, liberal societies in the world today will no longer exist 50 years from now.
What's your point here? That homosexuality is responsible for the demographic decline of Europe, or that liberal tolerance is responsible for that demographic decline. The first suggestion would be pathetic without any further need to explain why, and the connection you'd be making in the second is in contradicted by the demographic development of the presumably most liberal countries among the lot, i.e. the Scandinavian ones which are doing fine, and that among the more conservative and Christian ones, such as Italy, where the decline is indeed dramatic.
So I suppose a society legalizing gay marriage is a bit like an individual diagnosed with terminal cancer: might as well do what feels good, since it's all over anyway.
Some mighty impressive supposing you have there. And thanks for the underhanded compliment of being degenerate.
The "anti" ad is more
Submitted by godoggo (not verified) on Fri Oct. 30, 2009 7:19 AM PDT.
The "anti" ad is more effective. If I felt uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage, that "pro" ad wouldn't have helped, and might have hurt. Also, I was thinking, what's with all the white people, but then I don't live in Maine.
Spare us the praise of religion
Submitted by CDWard (not verified) on Fri Oct. 30, 2009 9:24 AM PDT.
Religion has been used to justify slavery, segregation, women not having the vote, African-Americans not having the vote, people of different races not being able to marry, and is now being used to justify people of the same gender not being able to marry. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.
Your forgot to mention
Submitted by g. powell on Fri Oct. 30, 2009 11:19 AM PDT.
Your forgot to mention religion being used to justify murder.
Jesus was gay.
Submitted by Μαρία η Μαγδαληνή (not verified) on Fri Oct. 30, 2009 10:06 AM PDT.
Jesus was gay.
I think the Calif pro-marriage ads were worse
Submitted by Andrew Lazarus (not verified) on Sat Oct. 31, 2009 6:29 PM PDT.
At least on the radio. It wasn't family scenes. It was Diane Feinstein and someone from the Teachers Union on "equality". The ads didn't even have the words gay or homosexual in them.
A family scene? That's a big improvement. They don't look very scary to me.
