It was voted on by the residents of Maine and they made their choice. Get over it. If you have a domestic partnership or civil union that gives gays and lesbians the same rights as a married couple, a man and woman, then who should care if the word marriage isn't part of the deal? We're talking rights here. If the word marriage was out of the equation there wouldn't be much of a problem with most people.

Here's what happened in ME, and CA
"Hey everyone! These QUEERS are trying to convert all of our children into queers by getting married! We can't let that happen! If our kids don't think that queerdom is evil, what'll stop them from being queer?"

It's nothing more than pure hate.

all the Gay people who used to live there?

not me now they need to add it to thier constitution like texas and other states. it shows you democarcy works and majority wins. we the people we another one 53-47
sorry it happens.

So according to you, we should be able to take away people's rights if the majority supports taking them away?

thats democracy if the we the people add it to their constitutionlikie texas did then that is states rights then. don't you love democracy thats means majority wins.

I do, until the people vote to abolish the rights of another. And in ME and CA gays and lesbians DID have the RIGHT to get married until the people voted to abolish it.

the more you push the people when they don't what something the harder they will push back. once you add it to a state constitution like texas did there nothing you can do. if the majority donot want somethind and vote against it thats demacracy live with it. theres somethings i don't like but i have to live with it. thats the beauty of our country and our constitution that it gives us the free to vote for ar against something and majority wins. the founders had a great principle. my agument is if you give right to gays you have to give rights to everyone. what about incest people, or poligomist, or mambla people. the right for one sexual gender would open up door for others i don't want that lets leav it like it is on man and one woman. it will be a better world. as you can see majority has won 53-47 i say live with it. if you don't like a state that doesnt move to a state that does.

Your spelling says a lot about your intelligence. And my argument is if you give rights to straight people, then you have to give rights to everyone.

het as hole i work late sometimes i have typos i have two degres and did 3.8 in college probably smarter than you and working on a third. cant you argure a point instead of worring about typos. but if you were that smart you would just debate on the merits.

Look at my second sentence. I DID debate on the merits. Read the 14th Ammendment to the US Constitution sometime while we're talking about the merits. The US Supreme Court said that it protected blacks from having their rights taken away by popular vote. Same law should apply to gays as well.

only if its not in a states constitution, if its just a law yes, if its an admendment in a constitution no. states have rights and it trumps that.

Look at the law I cited that the Court used to trump it. The 14th Amendendment to THE US CONSTITUTION. The US Constitution trumps EVERY law in this country, regardless of whether or not it's federal, state, local, a regular law, or part of a state's constitution.

you cant go against a constitution of a state that would be like going against the constitution itself you have to give states there rights, to deside how they want to run there states. the fourteenth amendment was against laws not constitutional admendments. 'll cjeck it out again but states have certain right in the constitution.

States DO have rights, but Article VI of the US Constitution says: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
In simple English, that means that anything in the US Constitution trumps any laws in any state EVEN if it's part of the state's Constitution. The paragraph is known as the Supremecy clause, as it makes the US Constitution the supreme law of the land.

Onto the 14th Amendment:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

In other words, you can't tell people who were given the ability to marry that they can't, simply becuase you held it to a vote.

Marriage doesn't mean much to me. I think it's a silly thing, but I do understand that means more to other people. America is working on it. Just gotta give it time.

Suffrage took time, right?

I agree with the poster. It is completely, utterly, fu*king stupid. Rant off. Justice, peace and love will prevail. And when the wedding industry realizes that gay weddings are much more fabulous and more expensive than straight weddings the bakers, florists, photographers and limo owners will vote with their pocket books. I stood in line for my cousin and soon to be cousin in law on a cold February morning in San Francisco with a gallon or three of hot coffee and flowers for the brides while they drove up from LA. Before I knew it the coffee had been dispensed and replaced and I made friends with about a dozen couples. And gained about that many new patients that day.

no the right is of we the peoples will, if theses states add it to there constitutions there is nothing anyone can do. it falls under states rights. so you loss once again.

The Constitution is there to protect the rights of the minority from being trampled by the majority. And retake those typing and grammar classes. Your lack of coherency destroys your argument. Unless you enjoy proclaiming your ignorance.

sorry i work to jobs and type to fast at 1 or 2 am in the morning. but where are the rights for the majority. i guess we wil have to do constitutional admendments to the states constitutions as texas did, so it becomes a state rights. The minority can not trample on the majority rights eaither if they voted and it was 53-47 a big majority then people should just except it. what this is going to do is cause states to put it in their constitutions then theres nothing anyone can do. states have there own constitutions and their own rights. if we are going to live in a democracy then we need to except the majorities votes.
states still have democracy's meaning majority wins, then we need to except the voters rights even if we don't like the out come. if you start taking the rights of the voters away whats left of our voting freedoms?

You posted this at 2pm eastern time. But I am not going to say anymore other than thanks for your comments.

Not I.

I do...The constitution is there to protect minorities and it's being ignored.

thank you. glad SOMEONE sees my point. sorry. if you can tell, im pretty pissed off right about now.

Astro!!! New Avatar!!! Cool!!!

I'm using myself for awhile...

no the constitution is the for we the people there is still democracy in the states or did you not read the constitution. if these people amend it to their constitution like texas it becomes a state right issue then. democracy, majority wins of didn't you study history and the founding fathers in school.

If majority wns was what the USA was all about, segregation wuld have stayed arund longer. Read history dude.