Pharyngula

Posted by: Stewart | November 3, 2009 9:07 AM

I agree with Ray, it's shameful, insane... and a bunch of other things... that people have to argue for the right to live as they choose in a way which is of no harm to anybody else.

Posted by: Michelle R | November 3, 2009 9:13 AM

Geeze, why do they keep trying to bash on gays so much? I really don't understand it.

Leave them alone. If you guys think we'll go to hell for being tolerant and acceptant, FINE. Stop trying to force us into your creepy religiosities.

Posted by: Alessa Mendes | November 3, 2009 9:18 AM

I know it's not an issue in Canada, but I ran a casual poll on my blog to see where everyone stood on the subject. The results were 4:1 in favour of legalizing same-sex marriage.

If only the U.S would catch up. Sadly, they, in fact, use us Canadians as what NOT to do.

Posted by: charley | November 3, 2009 9:20 AM

Calvin College now forbids professors from even advocating gay rights in or out of the classroom.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/november/9.17.html

Posted by: Darren | November 3, 2009 9:29 AM

I voted yes on 71 in Washington State!

Interestingly my neighbors have a NO on 71 sign in their yard across the street and still have their McCain/Palin stickers on their cars. Is it any coincidence that they also throw out their recycling in the regular trash (they gave back their recycling bin) along with their yard waste? It all goes to the landfill. Oh, and I shouldn't forget they toss their old xmas trees (with the tinsel still on them) in the vacant lot across the street.

Sorry for the rant, the bitterness is strong here.

Posted by: Bryan | November 3, 2009 9:32 AM

Amusing and shameful indeed. Pathetic also. Is denigrating and destroying other people’s lives how some people validate their own? Can they not value their own lives unless they can somehow devalue the lives of others?

The whole denial of civil rights to any group has the feel of a bunch of 3rd graders* standing around going "Nuh Uh. I rock, YOU suck!"

*Apologies to all third graders for the comparison.

Posted by: alan | November 3, 2009 9:42 AM

We shouldn't even have to vote on something like this.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 3, 2009 9:52 AM

We shouldn't even have to vote on something like this.

Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | November 3, 2009 10:25 AM

Jesus Fucking Christ, CD. Please tell me you're not trotting out the tired old "gays and lesbians have the same right to marry the opposite sex as everyone else" argument.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 3, 2009 10:35 AM

Tabby,

It becomes easier to understand where CD is coming from if you accept that LGBT people deserve to be treated like shit.

Posted by: ButchKitties | November 3, 2009 10:40 AM

In a way, the tired "gays and lesbians have the same right to marry the opposite sex as everyone else" argument confirms that our marriage laws as they are today are unequal. They're claiming that gay marriage is a special right. They seem to have missed (or are intentionally ignoring) that if gay marriage is made legal, then straight people will have the same right to marry the same sex as everyone else.

If straight marriage isn't a special right for straight people on the grounds that gay people can enter heterosexual marriage, then how is it that gay marriage is a special right when straight people will be legally allowed to enter a homosexual marriage?

Posted by: Kausik Datta | November 3, 2009 10:46 AM

The gay agenda will have more success if they at least frame the argument correctly.

This is truly shameful.

Posted by: Nathan | November 3, 2009 10:48 AM

> The gay agenda will have more success if they at least frame the
> argument correctly.

I was wondering when the looneys would appear...

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | November 3, 2009 10:49 AM

Your support of anti-miscegenation laws is noted, CD.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 3, 2009 10:52 AM

You know that know your argument works just as well to support miscegenation laws, right?

and was used by the Commonwealth of Virginia in front of SCOTUS.

Posted by: jolly wahlstrom | November 3, 2009 11:00 AM

I live in WA state, so I voted yes on 71. It seems insane to have something on the ballot trying to take away human rights. Good news, WA state will not be displaying a nativity scene this year at the capitol.

Posted by: Michelle R | November 3, 2009 11:03 AM

Damn it, CD!!! I want DETAILS! They never explain what is the famous gay agenda.... To get everyone gay? To dress the world in fabulous colors? Gay sex on every street corner? I wanna know what the gay agenda is!

Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | November 3, 2009 11:03 AM

Lordshipmayhem, I'm still not sold. Harper knows that one of his biggest obstacles to his very much desired majority is the social conservatives in his party not keeping their mouths shut. However, if he ever gets that majority he so clearly covets, then and only then can we really judge his actions.
Personally, I'm hoping that day never comes. Not that my vote matters, living in Alberta as I do (next election I'm throwing my vote away on the NDP instead of the Liberals for the first time ever thanks to the ascension of Michael "We should have joined in invading Iraq" Ignatieff to Grit leadership).

Posted by: Sgt. Obvious | November 3, 2009 11:06 AM

CD, you say that your statement didn't support one view over another, but the statement you made was a simple regurgitation of an oft-heard "argument" against same-sex marriage. It's entirely possible you were unaware of that, but it's common enough that the ensuing assumption was completely valid, given the evidence available.

Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | November 3, 2009 11:10 AM

Rights are already equal, marriage restrictions are the same for everyone regardless of their orientation. Argue for expansion of those restrictions to included same sex marriage if you want, but the "equal rights" or "civil rights" argument is a misnomer and rings hollow.

-->Hi, please rewrite the above in a way that isn't stupid and a bald-faced lie in service of an idiotic and unevidenced political position and/or an ethically empty mythology.

Brownian, OM Author Profile Page | November 3, 2009 10:38 AM

I'll do it for CD:

My contempt for people different than myself has become so marginalized that I need to disguise it in paranoid terms like "The Gay Agenda". The own life is so miserable that its value is dependent on the fact that others are continue to be considered morally inferior. I'm afraid that if I lose my superiority over these people my own existence will be diminished:

You liberals have taken away my right to racism; you've taken my right to be misogynist - now you're trying to take away my right to hate gays. Don't you realize that if you take away all the people I can feel arbitrarily superior to I'll be judged by my own personality and works? I don't want to deal with that.

Posted by: ButchKitties | November 3, 2009 11:11 AM

CD, it may relieve you to know that the entire worldwide multi-billion-dollar Gay Conspiracy was shut down after Ronnie Dobbs let it slip to Agent Ramrod that he was onto them. The gaydar machine, the three dollar bill, the skinflute... all scrapped.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 3, 2009 11:16 AM

CD, you say that your statement didn't support one view over another, but the statement you made was a simple regurgitation of an oft-heard "argument" against same-sex marriage.

Whatever. This site gets a fuckload of dipshits like this. $50 says half this halfwit's comments are complaints about people being mean or foul-mouthed and the other half are claims that s/he and s/he alone is standing up for free thought against the tide of liberal group-think.

It's what conservative, bigoted idiots do when they can't string together a cogent argument.

Maybe this one'll be the exception, but after 34 years I'm not holding my breath waiting for argument with even a modicum of intelligence from these types.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 3, 2009 11:16 AM

The other problem with CD's "position" is that it displays a deep ignorance about the actual political scene and the depth of anti-LGBT animosity in the US. The movement over the past decade to pre-emptively attack families headed by same-sex couples has been spearheaded by the right. The right wingers pushing referenda today in WA and ME have nothing to do with calling it civil rights or equal rights, they have to do with making sure same-sex couples are not recognized at all. (remember, WA would have had legislative approval of domestic partnerships, but the right insisted on taking it to a ballot to try and make sure such things as hospital visitation and funerary decision making exist at the whim of bigots.)

This isn't about the language of equal rights or civil rights. It's about harming gay folks. That's a central pillar of contemporary American conservativism.

Posted by: Steven Long | November 3, 2009 11:27 AM

There is another nondiscrimination like these that is being voted on in Kalamazoo, MI today. The opposition has tried every trick in the book to get it stopped: yard signs saying "NO Discrimination, vote no on 1856" even though a no vote is a vote to keep discriminating against the gay community. There have been fliers circulating that say vote no or your kids will catch "the gay" and men will be able to go in the ladies room and you'll be discriminating against the non-gay people (?!) and businesses will go bankrupt, and the world will end and Thor will strike you down and you yes voters will all go to hell...
Honestly, I am ashamed of America sometimes...

If there are any Kalamazoo voters reading this: get out there and vote Yes!

Posted by: Vicki | November 3, 2009 11:30 AM

Even if we take romantic love out of the picture, there's no good reason to restrict my right to marry for financial security or to make sure that I have someone I trust as my next of kin by saying I can only marry a man. "Two can live cheaper than one," and that's not true only if the two are of different genders. If I had children and wanted to make sure they had two parents, in case something happened to me, expanding the pool of available co-parents would be Good For The Children.

In fact, if you take romance out of the discussion, same-sex marriage is useful to more people, not fewer. It's no longer just lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals: two widows who trust each other and aren't interested in looking for romance again might reasonably marry for all those other reasons.

Posted by: CD | November 3, 2009 11:47 AM

WOW, people...

Wasn't trying to make anyone mad, still just pointing out that the law IS currently applied equally. If you want to change things, call it what it is, and admit that you want to expand the legal definition of marriage to be inclusive of your desires. It's simple. It is not a civil rights issue, its just a legal definition issue. That's all.

Posted by: Bryan | November 3, 2009 11:57 AM

The issue isn't that the law is applied in a discriminitory manner, it is that the law is discriminitory. It isn't how the laws are applied, it is how they are written.

The fact that poll taxes also kept a small amount of whites from voting doesn't change the fact that they were created to keep the majority of blacks from voting. The marriage laws are written to treat certain people as inferior. The fact that they are applied equally means nothing, and you know it.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 3, 2009 12:01 PM

It is not a civil rights issue,

Posted by: J Myers | November 3, 2009 12:06 PM

It is not a civil rights issue, its just a legal definition issue.

Because, of course, it can only be one or the other.

Posted by: CD | November 3, 2009 12:07 PM

Michelle,

In that case you would have different laws for men and women, and so no, such a law would not stand because it would be unconstitutional.

Marriage laws on the other hand are the same for everyone, and are applied equally. (I understand that gay people don't like the restrictions, and that's why they should frame their arguments around changing them, and get off the civil rights thing)

Posted by: aratina cage | November 3, 2009 12:13 PM

CD, you surprised me. Here I thought SchiChi/Fuckosaurus would be the first bigot to respond. Or maybe you are he, are you?

Posted by: Desert Son | November 3, 2009 12:16 PM

*Clenched tentacle salute for Mainers voting No on 1 and for Washingtonians voting Yes on 71.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: ChrisZ | November 3, 2009 12:21 PM

@CD #60

I'm sorry, but the law is not currently applied equally. Currently, a woman can marry a man, but a man can't. That is not equal application of the law. Currently, A straight man can marry the person he loves, but not a gay man. That is not equal application of the law. Saying men can only marry women and women can only marry men treats both men and women differently, and gay and straight couples differently. How is that equal?

Posted by: arrakis | November 3, 2009 12:27 PM

I can't wait until the Supreme Court finally hears a case about marriage equality and establishes it for the entire country. One day it will happen, and I hope that everyone who has funneled money in opposition to marriage equality is alive to see their bigotry defeated and justice served.

Posted by: Sgt. Obvious | November 3, 2009 12:32 PM

Wrong again, CD! Marriage has been a civil matter dating all the way back to the code of Hammurabi. Several parts dealt with it. There, it wasn't concerned with sex or religion, but with the orderly transfer of property through lineages and the like.

Posted by: truthspeaker | November 3, 2009 12:37 PM

The Washington vote isn't even about gay marriage, it's about allowing some of the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, without calling it marriage. Some conservatives claim they're OK with civil unions but not same-sex marriage, but this referendum says otherwise.

Posted by: CD | November 3, 2009 12:42 PM

Sgt Obvious #67,That is Govt established religion. What does that have to do with this?

ChrisZ #66 Every state has different restrictions, but show me one that says "You have the right to marry someone you love"? I think most states probably say you can marry one person, of legal age, and opposite gender, etc etc. If you don't like the 'opposite gender' part, that is what you have to change and my point is that its not a Civil Rights issue, its just a matter of changing the legal definition of who you can marry.

Posted by: aratina cage | November 3, 2009 12:45 PM

CD, do us a favor and fuck off.

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | November 3, 2009 12:51 PM

its not a Civil Rights issue, its just a matter of changing the legal definition of who you can marry gets to vote .

See how it can work?
You're being thicker than a great sequoia on this issue.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 3, 2009 12:55 PM

ChrisZ #66 Every state has different restrictions, but show me one that says "You have the right to marry someone you love"? I think most states probably say you can marry one person, of legal age, and opposite gender, etc etc. If you don't like the 'opposite gender' part, that is what you have to change and my point is that its not a Civil Rights issue, its just a matter of changing the legal definition of who you can marry.

I think I will have to come out with it, and call you a racist fuckwit.

Such laws in the US also used to say the person you marry must be the same race.

You are thus arguing no only against the particular example of the two people being the same sex, but also in favour of restrictions based on other criteria regardless of whether there are rational grounds for doing so. There are rational grounds for demanding both parties be above a certain age. There are no such grounds for demanding that both parties be of the same race, nor that that be different sexes.

Note, sex is not the same as gender. Gender is part of how a person identifies themselves, whereas sex is genetically determined. Or to put in rather baser terms, gender is between the ears, sex is between the legs.

Still, nice if you to drop and and tell us that equality under the law has nothing to do with civil rights. We get you think that, so you can go now.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 3, 2009 1:00 PM

One could argue that technically mixed race marriage was not a discrimination issue either, obviously it was rooted in racist sentiments, but the restriction was applied to blacks and whites equally.

It was more than a technicality. It happened. Such arguments were made in US courts to defend racist laws on mixed race marriages.

You are still making that argument, even though the US Supreme Court dismissed it.

That makes you stupid, on top of racist and homophobic.

Posted by: CD | November 3, 2009 1:13 PM

#78 Snowflake - Voting is a constitutional right, who you can marry is a legal definition that varies by state. Its not apples and apples.

Anyway, I will leave you all in peace now. Have a good one...

Posted by: aratina cage | November 3, 2009 1:25 PM

Anyway, I will leave you all in peace now. Have a good one... -CD

Posted by: raven | November 3, 2009 1:35 PM

It is a bit strange that one of our major hate groups in the USA today are some xian churches.

I suppose if you don't have the desire or ability to hate whatever groups they target, you just drop out of the church.

But there is a silver lining. The LDS church has managed to turn a lot of non-Mormons into anti-Mormons. Despite all the missionaries they keep sending around the neighborhood, I don't have any intention of ever joining their cult now.

Posted by: Michelle R | November 3, 2009 1:36 PM

...Did I take a wrong turn in the space time continuum and end up in 1909?
Oh wait no. Internet. Guess it truly is 2009.

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 3, 2009 1:41 PM

Despite all the missionaries they keep sending around the neighborhood, I don't have any intention of ever joining their cult now.

Be honest, Raven. You never wanted to join them in the first place.

Posted by: FlameDuck | November 3, 2009 1:49 PM

#17 Marriage restrictions? Interesting choice of words. And by interesting I mean stupid. Here is a question tho'. Why do these restrictions only work for marriage? Maybe we should restrict gay people from owning firearms? Voting? Using public restrooms? Using public transportation? Calling on emergency services? Owning property?

What makes marriage so different from other rights as citizens that we feel we need to impose restrictions on who can, and who can't exercise it, and why base it on sexuality? I mean there are tons of other arbitrary things like ethnicity or religiosity.

Would you feel the same if people were trying to repeal marriage rights for "mixed race" marriages? I mean after all, niggers have the same right to marry one of their own race as we WASPs do, right?

#29 They're talking about the organisations religious freedom to prosecute anyone they disagree with, not the individuals freedom to believe in whatever fairytales they want. If only being gay was a religion...

#33 Your tactics? So now everyone here is part of the gay agenda?

#34 That sounds AWESOME! I support the gay agenda if both chicks are hot! :)

#45 So in Idaho, guys who work out, shave every day, and wear expensive clothes can't get a job? Because they might be gay? Idaho: If you want a job, be a slob.

#50 Additionally, if financial security is an acceptable reason for marriage, that would certainly come out in favor of gay male marriage, as men typically earn more than women for the same job, thus financially you'd be better off marrying a guy, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

#52 Now that just absurd. It's not a civil rights issue, it's a legal definition issue? What does that even mean? Are you implying that civil rights are defined somewhere other than the law?

Posted by: raven | November 3, 2009 2:04 PM

Be honest, Raven. You never wanted to join them in the first place.

Would you believe I was taking classes for membership in the LDS church when these ballot measures came up?

LOL, didn't think so. Still, at least some people who have barely heard of the church have now. The anti-haters and anti-wingnuts aren't impressed.

When you make hating science, believing the earth is 6,000 years old, hating gays, hating nonwhites or Democrats, right wing extremism and so on litmus tests for a religion it works both ways. You may attract some people while driving others away.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 3, 2009 2:17 PM

Cautious optimism in order?

http://www.towleroad.com/2009/11/voter-turnout-higher-than-expected-in-maine.html

Higher turnout than anticipated. Hoping like hell that it's not catholic churches busing bigots to the polls.

Posted by: James F | November 3, 2009 2:23 PM

MAJeff, I'm nervous too. When I donated to No on 1, my thought was, "OK, how much money do I want to throw away on a doomed cause?" Then the second time I made a donation they raised over $25,000 in an hour, ending up with $75,000 for the final ad blitz today. And I felt a glimmer of hope. We'll see...fear and ignorance are very, very strong motivators.

Watch this video - at the very least you'll feel inspired.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 3, 2009 2:40 PM

MAJeff, I'm not sure what larger than normal turnout means in Maine, but here in the Midwest it typically means people other than rural/suburban arch conservative, and big city machine groups, who predominate non-general elections, turn out to vote. Usually, it means a more moderate election. I have my fingers crossed for equality.

Posted by: Desert Son | November 3, 2009 2:45 PM

Doo Shabag at #93,

I'm thinking liberal values are more mainstream than the media would lead us to believe.

Stogoe pointed this very thing out to me in a thread a few weeks back. Stogoe sent me on a hunt for some polling information (more details in the thread) and changed my mind.

Good stuff.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 3, 2009 3:01 PM

Would you believe I was taking classes for membership in the LDS church when these ballot measures came up?

I can only imagine the curriculum:

Mormonism 100: Introduction. Open discussion of how the 1830s were better than any time before or since. Guest lecture: "Babies or Knowledge--Can You Have Both? Scripture Says 'No'!"

Mormonism 200: Shoving potatoes in tailpipes and idling until suitably lobotomised. Guest Lecture: "Why God's Word Tends To Follow SCOTUS Decisions of 2-3 Decades Past. Case Studies: Polygamy and Racial (Ugh!) Equality"

Mormonism 201: Placing dry cleaning bags over the face and head until suitably lobotomised (for those without access to a vehicle). Guest Lecture: "Modern Radicals--Liberal Progressives and How to Recognise Them. Case Studies: Hutterites, Mennonites, and the Amish"

Comprehensive Exam: Complete the maze on this McDonald's placemat. Students capable of completing the maze are automatically failed and must retake Mormonism 200 or 201 prior to reapplying for examination.

Mormonism 300: A Whole Bunch of Looney Bullshit. Extra credit term paper: Write a two to three sentence essay on how to feel persecuted while discriminating against blacks and gays.

Final Exam: Knock on three doors and annoy the occupants without displaying a single shred of shame or capacity for self-reflection and independent thought. Those that complete the exam in the allotted time are immediately married.

Graduation and Commencement Ceremony: In lieu of a diploma, all graduates will receive a visual aid demonstrating how to recognise the characters P-R-O-P-O-S-I-T-I-O-N-8 and mark an 'X' next to them.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 3, 2009 3:09 PM

If I remember my days as an altarboy correctly, Catholic priests bring the poll to you.

ok

that's it, I'm done for the day

Posted by: Cerberus | November 3, 2009 3:26 PM

Yeah, the additional turnout is a very good thing for the good guys. More turnout equals more liberal outcome, low turnout equals more conservative turnout. This is because those who do not vote tend to be those with more liberal viewpoints (poor people working multiple jobs on election day, students and youth voters in general, POC who tend to be disenfranchised or discouraged from voting) while the most reliably conservative block (old people) tend to vote because they literally have nothing better to do. Also, it's a little known secret but conservative districts tend to have more open machines per expected user than democratic districts requiring more of a time commitment to vote for liberal-minded voters.

And good job on Brownian for figuring out the exact style of troll CD was aiming for. Of all the right-wing types, the faux-intellectual philosopher often bothers me the most because they are no less bigoted and ignorant of the subject, but they affect that "I'm so smug and reasonable against the mindless fury of the undesirables". I think it's because I hate anyone who treats politics like a game. When this shit impacts me and my family, I'm going to take it personally as I would expect anyone to. If you're in it for "interesting thought exercises" and because "lefties are mean", what you are saying is you are so privileged in your life that there is nothing that can motivate you on a personal level.

It is like an illustration of the malaise of the privileged. Sort of like an Marie Antoinette tea party, except we don't get to behead them, we just get to reject their ballot measures for the incremental trend towards full equality. Yay!

Posted by: kopd | November 3, 2009 3:49 PM

MAJeff,

Thank you for that video. It made me misty-eyed. It's nice to hear somebody with different political and religious views than myself at least agree on the notion of equal rights. And it was nice to hear that he doesn't view the one son any differently than the other three. I can only attempt to imagine what it's like to not have the approval of your own parents on something like your own identity. I hope I never do anything to make a child of mine ashamed of who they are.

Posted by: marilove | November 3, 2009 4:00 PM

You know, Madam Pomfrey, I know it's a sad thought, but it's possible his death only helped the movement. It lit a fire under people. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

Posted by: Cerberus | November 3, 2009 4:21 PM

@115

I thought it did cover everyone, hence the old people, since if it blocked people who can get a marriage normally, old people should have been barred as well or am I missing something?

Posted by: MrFire | November 3, 2009 4:24 PM

Sending well-wishes to all LGBT folk trying get their basic goddamn human rights already.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | November 3, 2009 4:54 PM

It is the 21st Century and full rights are still denied to some groups in society based on their sexual orientation. It is a travesty that homosexuals still have to fight for rights that should have been granted to them long since, and should now be firmly entrenched in law.

Why is progress always so slow? Why is it that bigots cannot see the glaringly obvious fact that homosexuals are every bit as valid as human beings as any heterosexual? What is wrong with them? Are they suffering from undiagnosed personality disorders or something?

This kind of thing always depresses me. :(

Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 3, 2009 5:02 PM

And good job on Brownian for figuring out the exact style of troll CD was aiming for.

Meh, I see 'em here all the time. I know I don't always follow the three-post rule, but it's often because I've got 'em pegged by the first post.

Of all the right-wing types, the faux-intellectual philosopher often bothers me the most because they are no less bigoted and ignorant of the subject, but they affect that "I'm so smug and reasonable against the mindless fury of the undesirables". I think it's because I hate anyone who treats politics like a game. When this shit impacts me and my family, I'm going to take it personally as I would expect anyone to. If you're in it for "interesting thought exercises" and because "lefties are mean", what you are saying is you are so privileged in your life that there is nothing that can motivate you on a personal level.

I'm with you 100% on this, Cerberus. They make me want to either toss them a Rubik's Cube to play their little games with while they get the fuck out of the way of those of us who are actually interested in positively affecting the world we live in, or take them out back and give them a personal reason to be invested in human rights.

And then I take these pills the doctor gave me....

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 3, 2009 5:24 PM

Why? Fuckers didn't invent it. If they want their own union that they can use to discriminate against homosexuals, polygamists, miscegenists, or plain-bellied Sneetches, then they can, but they gotta make up their own word for it. They can even use Latin, if it makes them feel all scholarly and shit.well, it would be nice to decouple the christian concept of marriage from the secular state contract called marriage, if only on 1st Amendment grounds. after all, why does a ceremony performed in a christian church count as a valid state contract, but a pagan handfasting doesn't (or for that matter, a FLDS polygamous marriage doesn't)?

right now those two things are hopelessly tangled and I have no realistic solution for detangling, but it seems eventually that will become necessary, for many reasons.

Posted by: Ewan R | November 3, 2009 5:36 PM

"Let the churches have "marriage" and separate it from the privileges and rights granted by the state."

Having attended a couple of religiously themed marriages recently I'd have to disagree and have marriage taken away from them entirely. Hearing a woman have to pledge to be utterly subservient for the rest of her life (and if I remember correctly the guy didnt even have to pledge love, which was messed up) infront of her entire family pretty much took the shine off the whole event for me (although the open bar was a plus!).

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 3, 2009 5:53 PM

Hearing a woman have to pledge to be utterly subservient for the rest of her life

Posted by: Michael Hawkins | November 3, 2009 6:46 PM

I really hope the desire for legal equality outweighs the desire to impose morality upon others, but even if it doesn't, it isn't the end of the world. We may just need to wait another decade to preserve the rights of all individuals.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 3, 2009 8:15 PM

Bangor Daily News election results page:

http://www.bangordailynews.com/electionresults.html

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 3, 2009 8:46 PM

85223 of 942825 ( 9%) registered voters have participated in this election.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 3, 2009 8:50 PM

3% reporting: REJECT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LAW Yes 53.39% No 46.61%

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 3, 2009 8:53 PM

*nailbiting*

gonna be that way all evening.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 3, 2009 8:56 PM

5%reporting
REJECT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LAW
No 54.60%
Yes 45.40%

:-/

as for the voter participation, i thought that was the total, too. apparently that gets updated as more votes are counted.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 3, 2009 8:58 PM

I'm gonna have a nervous breakdown before the night is over. and i'm not even gay

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 3, 2009 9:01 PM

In other news, the cracker who refused to marry interracial couples (and CD's hero) has resigned

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/03/louisiana.interracial.marriage/index.html

Posted by: CriticalAtheist | November 3, 2009 9:07 PM

I guess CD would be all for segregation too. I mean, the only problem with it was that it wasn't truly equal. So as long as whites stay in their place and blacks stay in theirs it's all equal.

CD is dense and cluelessly bigoted. When faced with the same argument he/she is making in a different context he/she looks for any red herring to latch on to.

CD when you restrict group A from doing what group B can do, that's discrimination. When you restrict everyone from doing something that doesn't harm that's a civil rights issue.

But of course CD won't see any of this because they saw it fit to post their ideas and run. CD treats his/her ideas like grenades.

Posted by: Desert Son | November 3, 2009 9:11 PM

The Redhead did not vow to obey. Whoopy shit. I don't obey either...

I feel compelled - compelled, I say! - to quote:

*ahem*

Wash: "I mean, I'm the one she swore to love, honor, and obey."
Mal: "You - Obey? She swore to obey?"
Wash: "Well . . . no . . ."
-Firefly "War Stories" episode.

*nailbiting*

gonna be that way all evening.

*Reaffirms clenched tentacle salute.*

Hang in there. We're with you.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 3, 2009 9:13 PM

More results from another source:

http://www.openleft.com/diary/15823/maine-election-results-thread

Posted by: truthspeaker | November 3, 2009 9:21 PM

Jadehawk, pagan handfastings are recognized as legal marriages in most if not all states. I know they are in Minnesota - I was a groomsman in such a weeding. Any clergyperson with a congregation (and, in some states, without one) can get authorized to perform marriages. It's an establishment clause issue - if you allow some clergy to issue marriage licenses, you have to allow all of them.

Civil marriage is already decoupled from the Christian concept of marriage. Haven't any of you been to a wedding officiated by a justice of the peace or a "minister" of the Universal Life Church?

Jared Furlong

I agree, Timothy. I think the state shouldn't deal in marriage at all, and just give the civil benefits to any couple. Let the churches have "marriage" and separate it from the privileges and rights granted by the state.

Why? It was a civil institution before it was a religious one (someone else referenced the Code of Hammurabai), and long before Christianity even existed. As the character Michael Bolton said in "Office Space", "Why should I change my name? He's the one who sucks."

Posted by: Michelle R | November 3, 2009 9:26 PM

I just checked the maine results at 9:25

No 32670 52.49%
Yes 29575 47.51%

I just lost some more faith in the human race. 47%?

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 3, 2009 9:37 PM

Bilerico reporting VICTORY in Kalamazoo, Michigan. (Can't find official results.) voters there apparently refuse to give in to fearmongering and keep non-discrimination policy in place!

One so far........

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 3, 2009 9:42 PM

Bilerico reporting VICTORY in Kalamazoo, Michigan. (Can't find official results.) voters there apparently refuse to give in to fearmongering and keep non-discrimination policy in place!

Posted by: aratina cage | November 3, 2009 9:49 PM

i think we broke the site

Posted by: MrFire | November 3, 2009 9:54 PM

There's also this if the Bangor website is slow:

http://www.protectmaineequality.org/

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 3, 2009 10:06 PM

767252 of 942825 ( 81%) registered voters have participated (so far). Now that's democracy!

Honestly, I'd ignore these numbers until final results are in.

132 of 605 (22 %) of precincts have been reported.

These are the numbers that are important right now. The bloody No On 1 twitter feed is giving local town/county results by percentage, but that's not helpful with totals.

The Kalamazoo numbers are good. Optimistic about WA state. The Maine numbers are gonna take all night. Damn, I hope we can turn back the Catholic/LDS hate cults.

Posted by: MrFire | November 3, 2009 10:18 PM

Quite why I put up the link that PZ provided at the beginning of his post, I don't know. Nerves or stupidity, probably both.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 3, 2009 10:26 PM

We are winning at the local levels at least. From Towleroad and GayPolitics.com:

Yup. Overall, the trend (historical and this cycle) is on our side. It'd be so nice to start winning the marriage battles.

I'm old enough to remember the United States saying to me, and many like me, through policy, practice, and rhetoric, "Go die already." Policy still, on a federal level, is among the most anti-gay in the cosmopolitan core. In areas like the one I currently live, it isn't much better than during devil Ronnie's days. But, movement is afoot. I doubt we'll see federal marriage rights in my lifetime, but I also doubted we'd see marriage anywhere when I came out.

Prove me wrong, motherfuckers...prove me wrong.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 3, 2009 10:31 PM

22% reporting

REJECT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LAW
Yes 50.51%
No 49.49%

Posted by: Desert Son | November 3, 2009 10:34 PM

Once again, from Portland Press Herald's website at http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/

REJECT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LAW
Yes 83514 50.06%
No 83299 49.94%

Clocked at 2134 hours Central/2234 hours Eastern.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: Desert Son | November 3, 2009 11:11 PM

Wow.

I finally got around to watching the video James F linked to in post # 100, the video of testimony by Philip Spooner. James F, thanks for posting that.

Please excuse any typos in this post, because now I'm having a hard time seeing the computer screen. Something in my eyes.

Portland Press Harold website showing:

REJECT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LAW
No 125399 50.12%
Yes 124774 49.88%

clocked at 2207 hours Central/2307 hours Eastern.

Philip Spooner, I hope that when the nation wakes up in the morning, Maine has done you and your sons proud. Thanks for serving, and thanks for the example.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 3, 2009 11:15 PM

51% reporting:

REJECT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LAW
Yes 50.31%
No 49.69%

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 3, 2009 11:22 PM

shit.... this is going in the wrong direction:

58% reporting

REJECT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LAW
Yes 51.29%
No 48.71%

Posted by: aratina cage | November 3, 2009 11:25 PM

Good night MAJeff. Adam Bink at openleft.com projects a recount on Maine's Referendum 1. Does that mean we are looking at weeks or months of not knowing the outcome?

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 3, 2009 11:34 PM

recount?

*groan*

on the other hand, that would be the closest ever, and it would be huge publicity for the cause if it ended up going like the Minnesota recount.

but my nerves would be shot by the end of it, that's for sure.

Posted by: James F | November 4, 2009 12:04 AM

Robert #174

My pleasure. It's a shame that he's in the minority in this country, albeit something like a 48/52 split.

Here's hoping the long arc of the moral universe starts bending more sharply toward justice.

Posted by: aratina cage | November 4, 2009 12:21 AM

No, we are winning in Washington!

We lost Maine :( A recount will probably happen, but it will take about a month it appears.

Posted by: J Myers | November 4, 2009 12:25 AM

Unless there is a huge pro-equality slant in the 20% of the districts that have yet to report in Maine, it doesn't look like any recount will be necessary; the bigots appear to have again prevailed.

Though it wouldn't be what we'd hoped, do same-sex marriage advocates have any viable recourse in the courts in that state?

Posted by: aratina cage | November 4, 2009 12:36 AM

We infiltrated the Mormon home base!

SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 3
Precincts Reporting 29 100.0 %

Total Votes 4490
STAN PENFOLD 2351 52.36% (winner and gay)
PHIL CARROLL 2125 47.33%
Write-in Votes 14 0.31%

Posted by: aratina cage | November 4, 2009 1:02 AM

Link to Washington Secretary of State Certification on Ref-71

Posted by: Chris Slaby | November 4, 2009 1:44 AM

It's not looking good in Maine...I'm a big fan of the place (especially Portland), but in light of such massive discrimination, the legalization of hate, really, I think we should all boycott the state of Maine and throw our support to Washington state, as it moves (hopefully!) a step closer (though not 100% all the way) toward equality under the law. The thing that bothers me the most is that this is simply an imposition of religion. If you want a theocracy, then say so, but otherwise, shut up and support not only broad-faced democracy, but across the board equal rights.

Posted by: raven | November 4, 2009 2:55 AM

OT The xians are at it again. More human child sacrifice.

State: Ore. church member baby died from pneumonia Saturday, October 31, 2009

Oregon authorities are investigating the death of the newborn son of a member of a faith healing church after a state medical examiner determined the cause was pneumonia and complications from premature birth.

Dr. Clifford Nelson said the infant was born at about 32 to 34 weeks, and that underdeveloped lungs were also a factor in the Sept. 27 death. A full-term pregnancy typically lasts about 40 weeks.

Investigators said the baby born to a 24-year-old member of the Followers of Christ Church in Oregon City lived about nine hours.
KATU-TV cited sources within the church as saying the mother experienced complications before giving birth at home without a doctor. Church members avoid doctors and rely on faith healing and prayer to treat illness.

Posted by: Vincent Poffley | November 4, 2009 5:54 AM

Isn't it just a bit silly that a 3% lead in a popular plebiscite can strip a massive number of people of basic civil rights given to them by proper legislative process?

The bigots are a huge problem, yes, but just as bad is the stupid governmental system that allows important civil rights issues to be decided on their prejudice in the first place.

This is not democracy, it's Ochlocracy - mob rule - pure and simple.

Posted by: Michelle R | November 4, 2009 8:32 AM

So... More than half of maine are biggots. Noted. Never going there.

Posted by: Chris - Minnesotan in Maine | November 4, 2009 8:43 AM

Well, fucking Maine. Confirms my suspicions that at little over half the voting public here are idiots. Methought we had this one beat... Sigh, it really is time now to move back to the real world. I'm surrounded, apparently, by god fucking religious fuckwits. Apologies for the inarticulate bluster, but I'm just depressed...

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 4, 2009 8:59 AM

GODDAMMIT MAINE

Posted by: JBlilie | November 4, 2009 10:19 AM

"@JBlilie: I'm sorry. How is 3% a solid victory? That still means close to half of them are crazy asses."

Point taken. I was referring to the vote count being not "challengable". This is good.

The flip side (nearly half the people of WA state want to deny basic rights to GLBT folk) is of course very bad. Fortunately, in this case the majority rule helps us.

I am strongly encouraged by the fact the electorate did, in fact, vote to retain rights for GLBT folk. I feel really good about this. One step at a time.

And of course the flip side of that is that with an initiative and referendum state like WA, this could be undone at any future election (I think), like in ME yesterday. I only hope that the WA result "ratchets" in the right direction (towards full rights for all.)

(I'm hetero privileged middle-class white boy.)

Posted by: JBlilie | November 4, 2009 10:24 AM

"there is hope for the future"

I agree. The WA result is an good indicator.

Prop 8 in CA and Prop 1 in ME show that it is going to be a longer, harder road than we would hope for. Battle on, morality, the right, and the US Constitution are on our side.

Posted by: Desert Son | November 4, 2009 10:57 AM

Good news for Washington, and congratulations, Washingtonians.

Maine: fuck but that's disappointing. Still the work goes on.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: Sili | November 4, 2009 11:02 AM

Bugger fucking cockbollocks wank shite!

Just saw the result from Maine on 538.

Washington may have "come through", but that's still the 'separate but equal' option.

ARSCH!

Posted by: CD | November 5, 2009 10:14 AM

Matt #85

Its not 'racist' to say 'one could argue...'
Its not 'homophobic' to say 'its a definitions issue, not a Civil Rights issue'

How sad for you, that when you hear an opinion you don't agree with that have to demonize people with epithets and put words in their mouth to try to marginalize them. Is that your usual MO? You're really winning people over to your point of view that way aren't you?

Posted by: Yes on Ref. 71 | November 9, 2009 2:52 AM

“It takes no compromising to give people their rights. It takes no money to respect the individual. It takes no survey to remove repressions.”

“More people have been slaughtered in the name of religion than for any other single reason. That, my friends, that is true perversion.”

- Harvey Milk