@lijobe - LD 1020, the law passed in Maine that allows gay marriage - does just about what you’ve said:

““Sec. 5. 19-A MRSA §655, sub-§3 is enacted to read:

““3.  Affirmation of religious freedom.  This Part does not authorize any court or other state or local governmental body, entity, agency or commission to compel, prevent or interfere in any way with any religious institution’s religious doctrine, policy, teaching or solemnization of marriage within that particular religious faith’s tradition as guaranteed by the Maine Constitution, Article 1, Section 3 or the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. A person authorized to join persons in marriage and who fails or refuses to join persons in marriage is not subject to any fine or other penalty for such failure or refusal.”“

source: http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_124th/billtexts/SP038401.asp

It allows religious institutions to refrain from marrying a gay couple if it conflicts with their canon.

I love having my civil rights placed on the ballot by well-meaning… whatever they are. If I’m lucky they’ll be semi-literate and slightly rational! Hope you experience the same exact situation sometime in the future, Alejandro. You’ll probably view “democracy” in a slightly different light, from a minority perspective, rather than as a nonstop 24/7 casino with bells and whistles, gambling, speculation, and alcohol. There’s nothing like having your rights put up for vote to make you really, really hate the hypocrisy of this country.

Alejandro said: ““Talking about live and let live is an idiots cop-out when it comes to honest debate””

@Alejandro - so is targeting the rhetorical slogan used to sign my message instead of actually debating the claims I made in the two paragraphs above it.

Regarding your “basic norms” - norms emerge, change and fade over time and space. Marriage is not today for us what it was several hundred years ago for other people. In medieval Europe - marriage was a contract of property between the groom and the bride’s family and - while romance/love were not discouraged - they were not the requisite (and norm) that we see today.

That’s just one example… no doubt, at some point, made evident on the ‘History Channel.’

Alejandro wrote: “Wedding ceremonies have been the norm for men and women from almost the begining of recorded history.”

I guess you can be partly forgiven for your ignorance if the “History Channel” is your guiding source for information. If you’re going to present an argument you have a RESPONSIBILITY to do a little homework to ensure you have your facts correct.

“Recorded history” goes back a LONG way. So how do you explain the FACT that the Catholic Church, for only one example, didn’t get around to even defining marriage as a sacrament until 1215?

You are aware, aren’t you that in the United States waaayyy back in 1876 (ring a bell) almost ALL “marriages” were COMMON LAW… like man, NO CEREMONIES!

Finally, I agree that I can’t find a mention of any “union” of any kind that wasn’t between a MALE and a FEMALE. Is that so hard to understand? Those in “authority” have been EXPURGATING the published literature since Gutenberg finished his first Bible. Check the history and other books used to “teach” today’s crop of youngsters. Almost ALL references to non-heterosexual people have been “omitted”... just as if 10% of the population DOES NOT EXIST. It seems they think that if non-heterosexuals aren’t mentioned they won’t exist! Talk about heads in the sand!

Many of the 90% hetero population cannot understand or don’t want to recognize or share the planet with the other 10%. TOO DAMN BAD. But leaving gays and lesbians out of the texts has never and will never change the FACT that 30,000,000 people in the United States alone are NON-HETEROSEXUAL. You can’t deny that many people their fundamental rights while claiming to be a “free” society.

As I said before… marriage in the USA should be a strictly religious sacrament - and have no legal force outside the religion involved. The USA is NOT a THEOCRACY - (it’s not even a DEMOCRACY - but that’s another argument) - it’s a REPUBLIC where ALL THE CITIZENS enjoy the same rights and responsibilities. (Which part of ALL do you not understand?)

The legal part - the part where “rights” enter into it - should be entirely CIVIL - licensed, fees paid, rules and regulations, etc. etc. Gays and lesbians who want “marriage” will just have to find a church willing to accommodate their wishes. Otherwise, there’s Common Law, which already applies to both gay and straight in most jurisdictions.

BUT IN NO WAY SHOULD THE STATE, ON REQUEST, REFUSE TO LICENSE THE UNION OF TWO PEOPLE - ANY two people who aren’t disqualified from doing so on grounds such as underage, mental retardation, communicable diseases, etc.

I agree with RAE - my support for civil gay marriage exists merely because we have civil straight marriages. Ultimately - marriage is a spiritual/social matter that should not be facilitated by the state (separation of church and state, anyone?)

However - I think you’ll find that removing ‘marriage’ from laws and replacing it with something like ‘civil union’ would likely face more opposition than even gay marriage. Many would see it as an actual attack on ‘traditional’ marriage. In which case - we must allow gays to have civil marriages.

I think MARRIAGE should be 100% a “church” thing - I don’t care what church or religion. Marriage should have NOTHING to do with civil rights or law. Being “married” should carry no more legal weight that being “single.” It’s a non-issue.

ALL those who wish to be recognized as a LEGAL COUPLE must do so through some civil procedure. The license certifying a LEGAL COUPLE status must be issued ONLY by the State. If two people (any mixture of sexes) wish to get “married” - it’s between them and the church of their choosing. It has NOTHING to do with being recognized as a LEGAL couple.

To restate: ALL those wishing to become a LEGAL COUPLE must apply to the state for a license. If they also want to be “married” then they head for a church but there are no further rights granted because of religious marriage than have already been awarded by the civil union.

Choosing to whom you wish to be legally coupled should not be open for a public vote. We don’t give “rights” in our society - we HAVE RIGHTS. IT IS A BASIC RIGHT OF EVERY CITIZEN TO CHOOSE HIS/HER LIFESTYLE, not the legislature.

Since when do people get to vote on giving people equal rights?

People simply don’t understand what it means to live in a republic where the rights of the minority are supposed to be protected…

@Alejandro - No one is trying to “shove gay marriage down the majority of Americans throats.” In other words: No one is forcing anyone to marry someone of their same sex. No one is being forced to be gay. In fact - no one (at least in Maine) is forcing people to even marry gays if their beliefs prevent it. No non-gay people hurt at all from allowing gays to marry!

If anyone is forcing anything down anyone’s throat - it is the social conservatives who are forcing gay people to submit to their religious or socially conservative or homophobic values - prohibiting gays from equality. And this time in Maine - they are going out of their way to ensure it’s the case.

I applaud you for supporting equal rights under the law and “civil unions” but that’s not enough. “Marriage” is more than a word - as you probably know - but it’s also much more than that which those who oppose gay marriage admit it is. No religion or group of people have sovereignty over the spiritual institution of marriage and have no right to deny it - from a political or legal standpoint - to anyone. Marriage is not the exclusive right of certain people - anyone and everyone should be able to marry anyone they want to.

If you disapprove of gay marriage - then don’t marry someone your gender or facilitate the marriage between a gay couple. No one is forcing you too - no more than anyone is forcing you to marry straight.

Just live and let live.

Why is it that a sizeable minority of American’s rights depends on the ballot box?  What good is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights if it only supports the rights of straight white people? I would like to propose a referendum on the right of straight white people to marry and see how they like it.

55k signatures isn’t actually much, especially with paid sig-gatherers. Supporters of gay marriage in Maine and many more were expecting this to reach referendum. Hopefully my neighbors will vote to support marriage equality.