Article Image
IPFS News Link • Marriage

Dejection fills ballroom after gay marriage vote fails

• AP
Cecelia Burnett and Ann Swanson had already set their wedding date. When they joined about 1,000 other gay marriage supporters for an election night party in a Holiday Inn ballroom, they hoped to celebrate the vote that would make it possible.

Instead, they went home at midnight, dejected and near tears after a failed bid to make Maine the first state to approve same-sex marriage at the ballot box.

4 Comments in Response to

Comment by Jean Carbonneau
Entered on:

 I'm a resident of Maine, and frankly, I was a bit surprised by this referendum.  Just a little info on this. 

Earlier this year, the Governor, along with the Legislature approved of this law.  However, we have what is called, "The People's Veto", in which the people are given a certain amount of time to gather signatures and overturn a law that was passed by the Legislature, and then signed by the Governor.  The Democrats have a big majority in the House, and a slight majority in the Senate, and the Governor is a Democrat.

Polls had showed that the No crowd, which kept the law on the books was leading up to the end.  The No crowd spent most of their energy in one county, (Cumberland), and forgot about the rest of the state.  Some of the counties where the Yes crowd won, had supermajorities of 70 plus percent to overturn the law.

Myself, I didn't vote.  I haven't voted since 2000, and frankly, never will participate in the process that takes away individual liberty.  I have zero percent interest in controling other people's lives.  But, this issue will not go away.  I'm predicting that there will be another vote, or the people who supported this measure, will come back with another referendum that will curtail, restrict, or abolish something the "conservatives" support. 
Civil society working at its best.

Comment by Found Zero
Entered on:

Previous poster makes an interesting intellectual point. Why should we concern ourselves with a state-sponsored contract? Especially one which ostensibly joins two people under God?

That's a pretty good point.

On the other hand I'm struck with memory of a very dear departed friend. He died a hard death of cancer, he was gay as the day is long and as he died his fag friends rallied around him, took care of him, gave him 24 hour care. I saw some profound and heroic acts of self-sacrifice and love.

Whatever lingering judgement or revulsion I had towards this proclivity died with my friend Alexius.

Thus, irrespective of the law, I feel a great sympathy for these people, the stigma they live under, the hard time they have reconciling the way they are and I'm sorry for the perceived judgement they get from society in this ruling. For I can tell you just from the observer's standpoint, it don't look easy being a fag. It looks downright hard.

To all you fags, don't give up. I affirm you, I believe in you, we don't always have a choice in whom we love, we just do. Our hearts tell us to cherish and protect those whom we love and this we should do. With all our hearts. You fags can teach us a lot about love and devotion.

Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

From a purely libertarian standpoint, why would libertarians be concerned with the rights or benefits that a state sanctioned and licensed marriage would confer?  Gays can get married right now everywhere in the US and the world.  They may not be able to get a state license and a STATE marriage, that's true.  But again, why would libertarians be concerend with whether or not gays (or anyone for that matter) have the ability to get a state license for marriage and a state marriage?  Why does anyone need permission from government to get married?  It's weird and totalitarian to begin with.

Comment by Powell Gammill
Entered on: