Maine voters reject gay marriage -- and the vote wasn't all that close, either. From the NYT:
In a stinging setback for the national gay-rights movement, Maine voters narrowly decided to repeal the state's new law allowing same-sex marriage.With 87 percent of precincts reporting early this morning, 53 percent of voters had approved the repeal, ending an expensive and emotional fight that was closely watched around the country as a referendum on the national gay-marriage movement. Polls had suggested a much closer race.
With the repeal, Maine became the 31st state to reject same-sex marriage at the ballot box. Five other states - Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire and Vermont - have legalized same-sex marriage, but only through court rulings and legislative action.
Unless I'm missing something, in the 31 states in which voters had a say on whether or not gay marriage was going to be the law of the land, they all rejected it. Every single state. Even California, the national bellwether state on liberalizing social trends. Even Maine, in the most liberal region of the country.
You can come up with all kinds of theories about why this is, blaming the voters for being bigots, accuse the churches of playing dirty, whatever. The plain fact is, every single time it's been put to a popular vote (as opposed to allowing a tiny number of elites to vote on it), gay marriage has been a loser.
Do I think it always will be? No, I do not, in part because homosexuality is far more accepted by young Americans, and in part because heterosexual America has already conceded the philosophical grounds on which traditional marriage was based (which is why younger Americans are more comfortable with gay marriage). Nor do I believe that the voters are always right. But unless you're prepared to call more than half the country bigots -- and I have no doubt that many, perhaps most, gay marriage supporters are, and let that self-serving explanation suffice -- maybe, just maybe, you ought to ask yourself if there's something else going on here. And that maybe, just maybe, serious attention should be paid, instead of paying attention long enough to insult people who disagree with you as evil people who deserved to be excoriated and harrassed.
UPDATE: Linda Hirshman, no doubt speaking for millions of liberals today, is so sick and tired of what the people think about gay marriage that she doesn't think the people should have a say over the definition of marriage. See? If the pro-SSM left can't convince people of the rightness of their cause, they're perfectly prepared to see their views imposed from on high. Honestly, folks, I understand the case for same-sex marriage, though I don't agree with it, but look, if you're reduced to having to tell the public that they have no right to be consulted about the radical redefinition of a bedrock social and cultural institution, then you have a big, big problem.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Moving the goal posts? They had no gay marriage, many people in their societies did not approve of homosexual activity of any sort, and no scholar of religion would call ancient Greek and Roman religions major world religions. When they existed, they were notable for sharing an aspect of certain other pagan religions, which is that you could be "religious", that is, have a relationship with the gods, but lack an ethical system that told you the gods expected any particular sort of moral behavior. That's why good, religious Romans could also practice such things as infanticide and consider pity a weakness. Nonetheless, my point stands-they had no gay marriage, the whole society did not even support homosexual activity-not even considering marriage...and, once again, every major world religion has taken a negative view of homosexuality until the 20th century, and most of them continue to do so. If a person does not consider any of those religions authoritative, then certainly these facts do not matter. I was simply addressing the fact because the topic has come up in the discussion. I'm not trying to move anything-but I will address topics when they come up. My central point, which people tend to completely ignore, is that considering the fact that homosexual activity has been viewed with aversion by the large, large majority of human societies (until the changes of the 20th century), and that it continues to be viewed with aversion by most current societies, the gay community is going to have to acknowledge and deal with that fact, no matter how obnoxious it is for them to do so. Did you miss the post where I said we might separate the state's licensing of partnerships from the idea of marriage-for all people, including heterosexuals. I think this might help the gay community reach some social parity.
Hector:
I would have to know the source of the quote. Further, although I will not deny the possibility of some cult in the pagan Roman world trying this, I have seen no evidence that Roman society ever accepted an institution called gay marriage. Thank you though for your respectful tone (but my name is not Tessa). :)
Psst, Teena, the enter key was invented for a reason.
another opinion, I don't know about most, but you're right, many gays who marry won't have kids. But I think that when we make laws, we should consider the weak and the needy first of all.
And I support civil unions because this would give gay couples the benefits other couples have, while not establishing a right to adopt. And I disagree that we know for sure that same-sex parenting is as good as the old-fashioned type. I also think that to presume it does flies against common sense. "Common sense" can of course be refuted. But I don't think it has been.
Well, this thread has just about played out. We reached the ne plus ultra just now in a post I took down, in which a commenter said that if you aren't a bigot, you'd support gay marriage, and not supporting gay marriage is unquestionable proof that you are a blind, ignorant hater.
I hope people on the fence about this issue recognize how quick so very many pro-SSM folks are to say that everyone who disagrees with them on this issue is nothing but a hater. Ask yourself how likely they are to tolerate respectful dissent on the question of SSM should they manage to constitutionalize SSM. The activist core will tighten every possible screw allowed them under the law.
This thread is closed. There will be another one soon.