Did you vote today?

[Jizzlobber]

Just curious who took the time to perform their "civic duty" today. Mostly referendum(b)s here in Maine. The big one the whole country is watching is Question 1 :

"Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?"

The law for same sex marriages was passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, however in the state of Maine the people are free to challenge any law passed by the legislature if they can gather enough signatures. Depending on the voting results, Maine can become the first state in the country to support marriage equality in a statewide vote.

​

 

[LogicFlux]

nope

 

[papajohn56]

nope. nothing for my district I don't think

 

[tainted]

Fucking faggots and shit shouldn't be allowed to marry and shit cus then they might fuck and shit and thats like more reproductions shit so then we got more like faggots and shit yaknow and jesus wasnt cool with that faggot shit and i aint cool with that fucking faggot shit so yaknow them fucking faggots shouldnt be allowed to like marry and shit cus its like fucking faggots.

 

[tainted]

Fuck I forgot to include a link with the anchor text.

 

[medicalhumor]

def don't want them reproducing with themselves. that would be like us heteros n shit

Fucking faggots and shit shouldn't be allowed to marry and shit cus then they might fuck and shit and thats like more reproductions shit so then we got more like faggots

 

[Jizzlobber]

Mainers vote down gay marriage law | Portland Press Herald

 

[papajohn56]

"HELL YEAH, FUCK THEM QUEERS"

 

[moratraffic]

I voted but the races really weren't too meaningful and only a few races even had two candidates running. Even the mayor was running uncontested. Gotta love a small town!!

 

[Jizzlobber]

LOL at the poll results given all the sharp tongue political exchanges on WF.

 

[popeye]

Whats wrong with civil unions? Legally the same as marriage just different in name. Just something for homos to "drama" about.

Why the hell would they want to be "married" anyways. Why would an athiest homo want to be tied to another person by an ancient spagetti monster ritual?

You athiest can't have it both ways. Go get your legal civil unions and leave the marriage rituals to us ignorant religeous hicks.

P.S. If gays can "marry" why can't I have 3 wives???

 

[phillian]

From a legalistic point of view, I think it's surprising that a population is allowed to vote on a civil rights issue at all. For example, how many people would have 'voted' for:
-Allowing women to vote in 1920
-Ending public segregation in the South in 1956
-Allowing interracial marriage in 1967

I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. I think it is not only a bad precedent- but a slippery slope when you allow a population to 'vote' on whether or not another population can have rights (in the case of gay marriage vs. civil unions there is a difference in tax rates, second parent adoption and inheritance ramifications).

Maybe I am just cynical, but I don't my rights dictated for me by whomever sways a populace of sheeple into voting on one thing or another.

 

[Moxie]

P.S. If gays can "marry" why can't I have 3 wives???

Cause the courts thought it was "contrary to the spirit of Christianity.."

In some areas, living with multiple partners is enough for you to get punished. Which of course has to be paid for by your fellow citizens.

USATODAY.com - Polygamy laws expose our own hypocrisy

 

[guerilla]

I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. I think it is not only a bad precedent- but a slippery slope when you allow a population to 'vote' on whether or not another population can have rights (in the case of gay marriage vs. civil unions there is a difference in tax rates, second parent adoption and inheritance ramifications).

The thing is, every vote is a vote on rights. Your right to property, is part of the principle of self-ownership.

Maybe I am just cynical, but I don't my rights dictated for me by whomever sways a populace of sheeple into voting on one thing or another.

I don't think you are cynical. Democracy didn't work out too good for the Jews in the 30s.

 

[phillian]

The thing is, every vote is a vote on rights. Your right to property, is part of the principle of self-ownership.

In a literal interpretation every law or policy measure affects rights. There is, however, a fundamental difference between voting on a luxury tax increase (for example) vs. the right of people to reap the benefits of being partnered if that is how they choose to identify.

Both impact the net ability of a municipality to collect funds from a population, but I would never equate the tax imposed on purchasing gasoline, tobacco or a luxury item as being commensurate, in either spirit or social/ economic/ political impact, with that of denying the right to marry someone.

Just saying.

On this issue I side very libertarian. Let religious institutions determine what they name gay marriage, but its an unequal distribution of the law for people who identified as 'married' or 'partnered' to be taxed as single individuals. The government should not be allowed to define or regulate social institutions.

 

[guerilla]

In a literal interpretation every law or policy measure affects rights. There is, however, a fundamental difference between voting on a luxury tax increase (for example) vs. the right of people to reap the benefits of being partnered if that is how they choose to identify.

I disagree. The difference is superficial. As you said, the fundamental issue is about rights. Which rights, and under what circumstances are just trimmings on it.

Luxury taxes punish people for their personal choices with their own property and body. Anti-gay legislation does the exact same thing. It's simply a more emotive issue to deny people the right to a relationship. Substantively, they are the same. People have a right to live how they want as long as they don't harm others. That includes smoking cigarettes or having anal sex.

A radical libertarian position is that all rights are property rights. That is, the right to partner with who you want is related to the right of self-ownership, which is no different than the right to be vegetarian or a pot smoker.

 

[phillian]

A radical libertarian position is that all rights are property rights.

I disagree that all rights are property rights.

I believe all rights are human rights and hence are derived from Nature. The appropriate role of government is not to determine, but to protect, the rights and freedoms of an individual. When a government ceases to do that it no longer serves its citizenry but becomes a tool of injustice to be manipulated by whomsoever has the power to do so and for their vested interest.

 

[guerilla]

I disagree that all rights are property rights.

I believe all rights are human rights and hence are derived from Nature

Natural rights theory is based on property rights.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEZBIhaZW9w]YouTube - The Philosophy of Liberty (HQ)[/ame]

 

[phillian]

Natural rights theory is based on property rights.

YouTube - The Philosophy of Liberty (HQ)

I think at this part we are just arguing chicken-before-the-egg semantics. I call it human rights, you call it property rights, but we are both talking about the same fundamental set.

 

[guerilla]

I'm fine with letting it go, but I'm quite sure we're not talking about the same thing.