Becoming the fifth state to permit gay marriage:

The governor’s signature came barely an hour after the measure won final approval in the state Legislature, with a final 31-8 vote in favor in the Maine Senate.

Baldacci said in a statement that while he has opposed gay marriage in the past, “I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and ofequal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.

“This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs,” the governor said. “It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of church and state.

“It guarantees that Maine citizens will be treated equally under Maine’s civil marriage laws, and that is the responsibility of government,” Baldacci said.

The governor’s signature means the law would take effect in 90 days after the end of the legislative session. It may not, however, be the last word: Opponents of same-sex marriage are gearing up to mount a so-called “people’s veto” campaign that would put the issue to a statewide vote in November.

New Hampshire’s House is also expected to vote on a gay marriage bill today and send it to Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat who has not indicated whether he’ll sign the legislation.

Meanwhile, Marion Barry warns of a “Civil War” over gay marriage in DC:

D.C. Council member Marion Barry (D-Ward 8), the only council member to vote against the bill today to legalize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, predicted today there could be a “civil war” in the District if the Council decides to take up a broader gay marriage bill later this year.

“All hell is going to break lose,” Barry said while speaking to reporters. “We may have a civil war. The black community is just adamant against this.”

JOE WINDISH, Technology Editor
Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2009 The Moderate Voice
  • $313822

    Not so fast with the headline – the governor hasn’t signed the bill yet: http://queery-wort.blogspot.com/2009/05/marriage-in-maine.html

    (Comment no longer applicable; article has been updated since posting.)

  • JWindish

    Yes, he did. At 12:30.

  • $313822

    Oops. It’s only 12:06 here. Apparently my other news feeds aren’t as prompt as MV.

  • jwest

    Even the coke-addled Marion Barry realizes the insensitivity of supporting gay marriage in the District. He and Barack Obama stand alone in Washington D.C. against it.

    Personally, I couldn’t care less. If someone wants to marry their Buick and lick it’s tailpipe all day, it makes no difference to me. However, politically, it seems like a slap in the face to the values of the black community.

    Naturally, there will be no price to pay nationally. Even though as a group African Americans oppose gay marriage more than anyone, they will still vote exactly the way they are told to. Democrats should be proud to have such an obedient voter block.

    Democrats continue to take care of the residents of D.C. in other ways:

    http://reason.com/blog/show/133298.html

    • Ryan

      Maybe the blacks hate Republicans even more than they hate gays.

  • troosvelt_1858

    So if New Hampshire approves the bill it would make 5 out of 6 states in New England

    Good for them.

  • Silhouette

    If you think the civil war aspect is real now, just wait until the polygamists are knocking at the door under the new precident.

    And they will knock friends. What then? We cannot deny them once we allow other-than-one-man-and-one-women. Does the new legislation in these states clearly specify two, only two and never any more than two? And if it does, why?

    No, really….why? [I ask in the “courtroom” sense]

    • Dr J

      Silhouette, thanks for the timely warnings. Gay marriage will certainly lead to epidemics of homosexuality sweeping the land, the birth rate will drop to zero, and the entire human race will be wiped out. This is just a proven, scientific fact.

      Or we will wake the slumbering polygamist giant. People will notice that the bible was fine with polygamy all along. Monogamy will be outlawed, and due to the network effect which has been demonstrated in cattle, all women will end up married to one man. He will eventually die of exhaustion, and the human race will be wiped out again.

      This is the fun of these slippery slope arguments: anything can in principle lead to anything else. If we don’t halt gay marriage now, our children may all be doomed! Continents may crumble and fall into the sea!

      But seriously, do you have anything to offer on the topic besides fear, accusations that gays are recruiting, and your dreams that the right messages to kids will produce an all-heterosexual master race?

  • elrod

    Not all blacks oppose gay marriage. The goons that back Marion Barry – various “ministers” – see plenty of hay to raise opposing it. And Barry has lots of gay friends, so he says…

  • tidbits

    OK with me. Still, I’d prefer government just got out of the marriage business altogether and limited itself to recognizing “households” for tax and benefit purposes. Marriage is a “sacrament” and a “rite” of most churches. The governement doesn’t license or perform baptism or communion. Why should it license and perform marriage? Just asking.

  • jwest

    “Not all blacks oppose gay marriage.”

    Correct. Just the vast majority.

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/70-of-african-a.html

  • jwest

    “The 1952 first edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-I) classified homosexuality as a mental disorder.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy

    What is the matter with liberals? Don’t they know this is settled science? Are they anti-intellectual? Anti-science?

    Once there is a consensus of opinion among professionals, there is no reason to continue discussing the matter. Of course, this doesn’t relate to herbal tea enemas and Sedona Stone therapy.

    Why, without scientists nailing down the facts, we wouldn’t have known about the global ice age of 2000.

    • jchem

      jwest, 1952?? Looking at the APA site now, they seem to have a different view:

      “…Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology….”

      http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#ishomo

      Call me crazy, but science is never settled. New evidence comes to light that can drastically change our view of the world. Otherwise, we might still believe in the geocentric model of the universe, the plum pudding model, etc, etc.

    • Ryan

      The professionals can continue to discuss the matter all they like. It’s when the fussy plebs start thinking they have a clue that we get problems.

  • jwest

    Jchem,

    My comment was meant to be ironic in the sense that liberals want to shut down all discussion of Global Warming because it supposedly is “settled science”.

    Crazed left-wingers like Chris Matthews and Olberman whine nightly about conservatives who are “anti-intellectual” and “anti-science” because they don’t immediately accept every study coming out of grant-starved “scientists” who know which side of the issue their results must fall on.

    I’ll try to be more transparent next time.

  • Silhouette

    Dr. J, I am afraid that a traditional sexual/childrearing/family relationship will be threatened at its core over time as more and more people opt for the “new normal”.

    More than “afraid”, I think I’d like to use the phrase “utterly cautious”. We are committing to a social experiment that we do not know the outcome of. I personally would like to see more work done on bringing traditional families back together. The 1960s nearly wiped it out. True, women did need more respect and opportunities for fulfillment but it’s weird. I do carpentry, am into science, ranching, designing and writing and yet…nothing seems to make me happier than puttering around the house and having fun with the kids.

    Strange how we always think the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.

    I think the deviant marriage inclusion will factually be the last straw of the dismantling of the traditional family unit. I think something will be lost of value. You don’t. Therein is where we are at loggerheads.

    And I take issue with you when I bring up factual and weighty points like the polygamy-precident issue and you wipe all of them away with one derogatory sweep of the hand.

    Once again, the “free left” is adamantly whittling away at free speech without abuse or tyranny. These are MY OPINIONS, and I’m entitled to weigh in on them in this debate thank you very much..

    • Dr J

      Silhouette, I’m not challenging your right to your opinions, I’m challenging their content and your portrayal of them as facts.

      Your polygamy precedent argument is neither factual nor weighty, it’s more slippery-slope fearmongering, and it’s silly from stem to stern. It requires us to believe (a) polygamy is unprecedented, which it isn’t, either in the bible or in US law; (b) gay marriage would inspire polygamy advocates to make a more serious campaign for it, which it might but so might anything else; (c) we would not have a chance to debate polygamy on its merits, though gay marriage is getting a huge debate; (d) it would inevitably become law; and (e) it would be a disaster. Call me an optimist, but it seems to me if polygamy advocates get their act together, we’d debate the issue, and if it looks like a disaster we won’t legalize it.

      I understand your nostalgia for the traditional family unit, but I would suggest what changed it wasn’t ill-considered social activism in the 60s, it was the culmination of technological and economic changes over the previous half century that made it both possible and desirable or necessary to squeeze managing a home into the space between two careers. Had Betty Friedan not written The Feminine Mystique in 1963, someone else would have written something, because it was a change whose time had come.

      I also think that cozy traditional home was something of a myth, because not everyone found it as cozy as one might like to think. Nothing wrong with managing the home and raising the kids, but it wasn’t for everyone. My algebra teacher back in 8th grade was a bit of a sourpuss who, I later learned, never really wanted to teach. She had gone into it because it was one of the only career options open to her. The gay ghettos in New York and San Francisco were the direct by-product of the traditional home, which placed heavier demands for conformity than some people could endure.

      You’re not being utterly cautious, you’re being extremely cavalier. In wanting us to return to that traditional family arrangement, you’re turning a blind eye to its human cost and the reasons it fell apart the first time. You give the impression of not caring about the “deviants” who would be badly affected.

  • Silhouette

    The thing is that definintions themselves are getting screwed up. The language itself is getting mangled. Spirituality comes into play only if you believe we are here to rise above our animal fixations and are here instead to master our souls and understand true happiness.

    I believe the scientists and my own observations of animals and therefore comparative psychology that tells us people can become reflexively conditioned to hump an object that elicits trained stimulation to acheive that flood of heroin-like endorphins that comes with sexual release. That to me is a purely animal function, like any other mindless addiction. Why is it impossible to love someone without the need to hump them? I admit, this is a european viewpoint I have where men kiss each other openly in public and women hold hands without a single thought of having sex together. They understand what LOVE really is.

    I think deviants are great to have around actually, because they show us just how crosswired we all [heteros included] can get when we mistake sexual fixation for love. I think they are living examples of just how lost a person can become. Sex becomes so paramount, so important that the individual feels compelled to think of sex first and the person they’re having sex with some sort of afterthought. So maybe a gay woman really liked hanging around women [or gay man around men] as a child and adolescent. Maybe she had some great role models she felt close to. Then something happened in her brain where she began to relate sexual feelings to those of love. This is the mistake we all should avoid. Deviants are the living examples of how weird things can get when sexual urges are mistaken for love.

    So then we are trying to take these crosswired urges and normalize them in marriage, teaching new generation after generation that humping is paramount to love? If I had my way, I would abolish all relationships that are based on sex and not love…no matter what the “pursuasion” of the people involved.

    I had close girlfriends and a grandmother as a kid who I dearly loved, just crazily loved. Never once did I ever imagine having sex with them. I became fixated on sex with men as a teenager like so many do and spent a couple of decades of my life in the extreme prison and emotional pain of being with someone who I had great sex with but did not love at all one iota. After decades I’ve come to know that love is not what is between the legs and that you can be very deeply in love with someone and not feel compelled to sleep with them.

    Isn’t that just the damndest thing?

    • Gegenschattenbild

      Silhouette, no: it’s not the damndest thing. Of course you didn’t imagine having sex with them. Reason 1: You’re heterosexual. Reason 2: (at least) one of them was your grandmother.

      One of the beautiful things about being human, in my limited experience, is that unlike animals, we can actually reflect on our experiences in life. This makes us somewhat different from frogs, slime molds, and horses. When we reflect on our experiences in life, we often come to the realization that what we see as objective truth is, in fact, only our subjective (or maybe intersubjective) view. It would be great if people realized this more often.

      It’s very unfortunate that Silhouette experienced what I would characterize as an abusive type of relationship. Clearly, this experience contributed to some of her views. However, these views are just that: viewpoints. They belong to her and to her alone. They don’t need to be forced on anyone else.

  • SteveK

    Sil said: “Dr. J, I am afraid that a traditional sexual/childrearing/family relationship will be threatened at its core over time as more and more people opt for the “new normal”.” AND “I’m entitled to weigh in on them in this debate thank you very much.

    You certainly are entitled to voice your opinion on this issue Silhouette. It’s always helpful to hear ignorant fear and loathing (regarding your homophobic point of view in this case) drone on… and on… and on.

  • mlhradio

    >This is the fun of these slippery slope arguments: anything can in principle lead to anything else. If we don’t halt gay marriage now, our children may all be doomed! Continents may crumble and fall into the sea!<

    Funny thing about the often misused "slippery slope argument". It's only valid if the slope is actually slippery. Anti-human-rights extremists like Sil often conveniently forget that part.

  • 20877777

    Washington Citizens vote the council members out that stood for this immoral act. Block, Ban whatever you have to do to stand against this UNGODLY law. GOD will never and nor will the American people accept homosexual marriage not because of hate or fear but because its a culture of DEATH. Based On The Bible, THEY CAN’T PRODUCE anything but DEATH. So, is GOD homophobic? GOD calls this life style sinful and a disease to society. This lifestyle is from the gates of HELL. We have some people let in this nation that still know the difference between RIGHT and WRONG remember that? This is one of the reason why I didn’t vote for Obama and the democracts. Look what side there on! NEED I SAY ANYTHING MORE. This opens the door to all other deviant behavior. This is not normal. Maine Citizens should Veto as well. Contact the American Center for Law and Justice. Jay Sekulow 4 more details. WaKe up Maine you have Fight left!!!