Gay marriage backers vow to renew fight

Gay marriage backers vow to renew fight

There are 108 comments on the Brattleboro Reformer story from Nov 5, 2009, titled Gay marriage backers vow to renew fight. In it, Brattleboro Reformer reports that:

Supporters of a gay marriage law rejected by voters took heart Wednesday in the 47 percent they received in a referendum that drew a turnout close to what's seen in a presidential election year.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Brattleboro Reformer.

First Prev
of 6
Next Last
Genuine

Stowe, VT

#1 Nov 8, 2009
I'm glad that the true definition of marriage prevails in Maine.
New Clear Waste

Brattleboro, VT

#3 Nov 9, 2009
Genuine wrote:
I'm glad that the true definition of marriage prevails in Maine.
Pardon me, I don't mean to engage in name-calling, but you have just exposed yourself as a gay-bashing bigot.

You should ask yourself what issues you have that make you hate your fellow Americans and want to deprive them of the same rights that you enjoy. Is that christian?
estanson

Windsor, VT

#4 Nov 9, 2009
New Clear Waste wrote:
<quoted text>
Pardon me, I don't mean to engage in name-calling, but you have just exposed yourself as a gay-bashing bigot.
You should ask yourself what issues you have that make you hate your fellow Americans and want to deprive them of the same rights that you enjoy. Is that christian?
you are a heterosexual basher....
what issues do you have that you believe you can redefine a thousand year old institution to suit a modern trend?

not wanting this illusion of "equality of marriage" has no hate in of itself...the only hate is comming from you!

people who disagree with you are not ignorant...or angry, isnt it possible that folks believe strongly in marriage as the building block of families and therefore society and therefore object to the new idea that marriage has nothing to do with child rearing or family...
I do...

I do think civil unions should have all the same rights...but its not the same thing so it shouldnt have the same name...
its logic...not hate...
New Clear Waste

Brattleboro, VT

#5 Nov 9, 2009
estanson wrote:
<quoted text>
you are a heterosexual basher....
what issues do you have that you believe you can redefine a thousand year old institution to suit a modern trend?
not wanting this illusion of "equality of marriage" has no hate in of itself...the only hate is comming from you!
people who disagree with you are not ignorant...or angry, isnt it possible that folks believe strongly in marriage as the building block of families and therefore society and therefore object to the new idea that marriage has nothing to do with child rearing or family...
I do...
I do think civil unions should have all the same rights...but its not the same thing so it shouldnt have the same name...
its logic...not hate...
Let's see, you've got a bunch of errors here. Let's take them one by one:

Heterosexual-bashing? You make me chuckle - if you only knew what you're saying! I think straight people have the same rights as other people, and I'd pick up a weapon to defend them.

If discriminatory traditions are a thousand years old, or five thousand, I don't care - change them. Bigotry and abuse go way back in history, you can call them traditional values. That doesn't justify some people denying other people's equal rights.

Hate: Again, I don't hate anyone enough to deny their rights. Even people I find distasteful, like gay-bashers and Yankees fans, have rights that I would defend. On the other hand gay-bashers use the government to interfere in other people's private lives by outlawing their marriages. How would you react if someone hated you that much?

If you believe strongly that marriage is good for commitment, child rearing, and social stability, then you should be in favor or gay couples having these advantages for themselves and their children. Did you forget that many of them do have children?

Why object to calling it marriage? If you're a man and I deny your right to call yourself that, how do you react? I'll pass a law that you are just as good as a man but not a man, you're a non-female person. You can do all the things that men do, just be sure you identify yourself as a non-female person, not a man.

That's hate at work.
estanson

Windsor, VT

#6 Nov 9, 2009
New Clear Waste wrote:
<quoted text>

Did you forget that many of them do have children?
Why object to calling it marriage? If you're a man and I deny your right to call yourself that, how do you react? I'll pass a law that you are just as good as a man but not a man, you're a non-female person. You can do all the things that men do, just be sure you identify yourself as a non-female person, not a man.
That's hate at work.
heres a couple of your errors...

gay people cannot have children TOGETHER...its a natural fact!(say you dont dispute this please!)

That artificial insemination with some unknown gene is now called child rearing is the whole point! It ruins ancestral heritage in that no one knows where they come from anymore...and now a family is not about passing on your heritage to another...its about having a child like a puppy so you can care for it...its not right!

the propblem with your "if your a man" attempt is that gay couples are not the same and "cannot so the same things" heterocouples can do...see above!

its simple logic...1 man and 1 woman is not the same as 2 men...

removing heritage by artificial insemination is not preferable it is a last resort for hetero couples...it is a MUST for CU's...

it also makes me laugh that folks think we are so elite and "progressive" at this point that we can rethink thousand year old customs without a blink as if there was no reason for the rule to begin with!

Derogating the institution that I entered into so you can feel normal is also wrong...CU's are different and should have a different name... all the same rights, but a different name...CAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT!

None of the above has a hint of hate...hate is the gay's race card...I dont hate gays...I am friends with many...they should have all the rights I do...but thats not a reason to change what a marriage is to accomodate what it is NOT!

"Marriage equality" is a farce becasue it has nothing to do with equality...it has to do with normalization...CU's want to be the same...not equal...well they are not the same! They can have the same rights and therfore be equal, but this offer is rejected! They need the name to feel normal, it has NOTHING to do with rights or equality!Problem is...by changing the defintition of marriage to exclude ancerstral family relations and child rearing they KILL marriage and therefore the building block of families and therefore society! When your roots dont matter anymore...nothing matters!

Since: Oct 07

Where ever I happen to be....

#7 Nov 9, 2009
estanson wrote:
<quoted text>
heres a couple of your errors...
gay people cannot have children TOGETHER...its a natural fact!(say you dont dispute this please!)
That artificial insemination with some unknown gene is now called child rearing is the whole point! It ruins ancestral heritage in that no one knows where they come from anymore...and now a family is not about passing on your heritage to another...its about having a child like a puppy so you can care for it...its not right!
the propblem with your "if your a man" attempt is that gay couples are not the same and "cannot so the same things" heterocouples can do...see above!
its simple logic...1 man and 1 woman is not the same as 2 men...
removing heritage by artificial insemination is not preferable it is a last resort for hetero couples...it is a MUST for CU's...
it also makes me laugh that folks think we are so elite and "progressive" at this point that we can rethink thousand year old customs without a blink as if there was no reason for the rule to begin with!
Derogating the institution that I entered into so you can feel normal is also wrong...CU's are different and should have a different name... all the same rights, but a different name...CAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT!
None of the above has a hint of hate...hate is the gay's race card...I dont hate gays...I am friends with many...they should have all the rights I do...but thats not a reason to change what a marriage is to accomodate what it is NOT!
"Marriage equality" is a farce becasue it has nothing to do with equality...it has to do with normalization...CU's want to be the same...not equal...well they are not the same! They can have the same rights and therfore be equal, but this offer is rejected! They need the name to feel normal, it has NOTHING to do with rights or equality!Problem is...by changing the defintition of marriage to exclude ancerstral family relations and child rearing they KILL marriage and therefore the building block of families and therefore society! When your roots dont matter anymore...nothing matters!
How does it 'kill' marrige? Marriage is just the name given to a legal conteact. If you want to reserve the word for religious ceremonies then change the legal definition for everyone.
estanson

Windsor, VT

#8 Nov 10, 2009
blasterboy1984 wrote:
<quoted text>
How does it 'kill' marrige? Marriage is just the name given to a legal conteact.
marriage is now just a legal contract?
yup thats killing it!
a perfect example thank you!

how about civil unions just be a legal contract with all the rights of marriages?
New Clear Waste

Brattleboro, VT

#9 Nov 10, 2009
Gay couples raise their children. Get used to it. If you really did have gay friends, you would know that. There are different ways that gay couples get children, but they have them, and there is nothing you can do about it. And those children deserve a married household as much as anyone.

Your diatribe against non-biological parenting is absurd; it attacks adoption and step-parenting as well as IV fertilization. Who do you think you are?!

If you enjoy your hetero marriage, great - continue doing so. Other people's marriages are none of your business, and they in no way impact yours. Stop being such a busy-body and telling others how to conduct their private lives, jeez!

Gay couples have been getting married for several years now, and no hetero couples are any less married because of it. That argument is so much mouth-farting.

As long as you continue this behavior, I will continue to consider you a non-female person; you do not deserve the name of "man".
estanson

Windsor, VT

#10 Nov 10, 2009
New Clear Waste wrote:
Gay couples raise their children. Get used to it. If you really did have gay friends, you would know that. There are different ways that gay couples get children, but they have them, and there is nothing you can do about it. And those children deserve a married household as much as anyone.
Your diatribe against non-biological parenting is absurd; it attacks adoption and step-parenting as well as IV fertilization. Who do you think you are?!
If you enjoy your hetero marriage, great - continue doing so. Other people's marriages are none of your business, and they in no way impact yours. Stop being such a busy-body and telling others how to conduct their private lives, jeez!
Gay couples have been getting married for several years now, and no hetero couples are any less married because of it. That argument is so much mouth-farting.
As long as you continue this behavior, I will continue to consider you a non-female person; you do not deserve the name of "man".
actually, trying to change the deffinition of marriage does effect my marriage...the question is...why can't you leave it alone and do your own thing?

as an aside you must be a woman...only a woman thinks they can de-man a man...(you can't..you don't know what a man is!0 that is part of the point...how do 2 women raise a male to be a man...they can't they need outside help...THATS THE POINT!

having a child that does not carry the genes of both parents is not right especially when it was a deliberate choice...invitro with a father's sperm contains the genes of both parents...ya know ...the natural family unit?

having one woman get anonymous sperm...should be the plot of a bad science fiction film...it removes our heritage!

If marriage was just about a loving committed relationship, please distinguish it from going steady...

Take 2 gay men...neither will have carried the child...both cannot look into the babies eyes and see their grandmothers soul...
it can be a loving home...but there is something profound missing...

you can attack me (like you do) but you have yet to provide a meaningful response to my point...at least answer this question...if civil unions have ALL the same rights as marriage...why isnt that acceptable?

why isnt that equal...i can tell you...because this is a crusade for normalization...not equality! Well normalizing such a relationship means we as a society no longer care about your heritage and believe that biological bonding is nonsense...when in your heart you know thats not true.
Short Left Index Finger

Hamilton, Canada

#11 Nov 10, 2009
I think it's time for Hollywood gossips to start outing more people.I read the book;Behind The Screen How Gays And Lesbians Helped Shape Hollywood,and it named names,but most of thoses people are dead.It's time to bring back outing.
New Clear Waste

Brattleboro, VT

#12 Nov 10, 2009
estanson wrote:
<quoted text>
actually, trying to change the deffinition of marriage does effect my marriage...

having a child that does not carry the genes of both parents is not right
I thought we were having a discussion here. But we're not. You attack adoption and step-parenting as illegitimate - as if you have the right to say what's a real family and what isn't. I don't know where you think you get that right, but that's just cuckoo. You're irrelevant, people are going to live their lives and they don't give a rat's a s s what you think of them.
flat lander

Schuylkill Haven, PA

#13 Nov 11, 2009
N C W just get in line and get with the program. what's the problem don't like standing in line with there kind behind you. assume the position wow oh boy back to the wall. N C W just because they believe in it that means you have to also or you won't be politically correct. please do not offend anyone no matter how off the wall they are. Just shut up and go about your business no how vile they are. It's your job to suffer for their intolerance to you while in your yard and house. the dog with $hitte on his tail does not stink give him a hug please.
estanson

Belmont, VT

#14 Nov 11, 2009
New Clear Waste wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought we were having a discussion here. But we're not. You attack adoption and step-parenting as illegitimate - as if you have the right to say what's a real family and what isn't. I don't know where you think you get that right, but that's just cuckoo. You're irrelevant, people are going to live their lives and they don't give a rat's a s s what you think of them.
no you are not correct.
who would be against adoption? its a ludicrous attack at anyone, let alone me.
adoption and step parenting are less than ideal though, i think you can at least recognize that. They can be great for all parties, but you must aknowledge that the non biological parent is always just that.
It is not me deciding what a real family is. There is something that is natural and innate...in a family with shared DNA.Its actually rediculous of you to suggest that there is no benefit to a biological family and that I am merely drawing arbitrary lines in the sand.
Again, love is love, and tough enough to find in this world, and it is a blessing whereveer you can get it. However, you continue to refuse to answer my question. Why is a civil union with all the rights of marriage cast as somehow inferior to marriage. This is not about equality its about gays WANTING to be in the same club ("marriage") so that they feel like everybody else...that they are the same. They are not the same...

you can again try to discount my point by now suggesting some other crazy thing like I hate love, but the fact is that we are not having a discussion because you refuse to speak to this point...civil unions with ALL the same rights is unacceptable why?

“Fight bigotry.”

Since: Feb 07

Toms River, NJ

#15 Nov 11, 2009
Nor can a straight couple where one of the people is infertile, nor can a straight couple where the woman has gone through menopause, but they can marry. The ability to conceive a child is not a criteria for civil marriage laws.
estanson wrote:
<quoted text>
heres a couple of your errors...
gay people cannot have children TOGETHER...

“Fight bigotry.”

Since: Feb 07

Toms River, NJ

#16 Nov 11, 2009
How about you stop discriminating against gay people?

We've already proven in NJ that civil unions, even though they're supposed to provided the equivalent to marriage, don't. We've already proven in our nation's history that separate is never equal.
estanson wrote:
<quoted text>
marriage is now just a legal contract?
yup thats killing it!
a perfect example thank you!
how about civil unions just be a legal contract with all the rights of marriages?

“Fight bigotry.”

Since: Feb 07

Toms River, NJ

#17 Nov 11, 2009
How does it affect your marriage? Gay couples have been marrying in Massachusetts for years now, what effect has it had?
estanson wrote:
<quoted text>
actually, trying to change the deffinition of marriage does effect my marriage...the question is...why can't you leave it alone and do your own thing?
conan

Fairlee, VT

#18 Nov 11, 2009
nothing is never enough for gay people. after marriage it will be something else they will want. look at their history. gay marriage will be allowed in all states during this obabma administration. i would be a million dollars on it. then it will ge national gay day. then it will something else for gays. then something else.
BLocal

Williamstown, VT

#19 Nov 11, 2009
ACLU-Tom wrote:
How does it affect your marriage? Gay couples have been marrying in Massachusetts for years now, what effect has it had?
<quoted text>
I'd like to see an answer to that question that actually made any sense. I've been married for 29 years now and gay couples getting married doesn't do anything to change my marriage. Of course, we've never been into what goes on in any else's bedroom or home but ours.
And the nonsense about marriage as a tradition - there were lots of "traditions" that weren't right to begin with - slavery and bigotry come to mind.
Admit that you're a bigot if you're against gay marriage and out yourself. Don't try to hide behind manufactured arguments that make no sense. And stop being so interested in what is going on in other people's bedrooms - love is love - it might not be the kind that you're into - but to each his own. This country can certainly use more tolerance and love. All you have to do is read what some people write on this topic to realize that.
conan

Fairlee, VT

#20 Nov 11, 2009
how/why are you a bigot if you're against gay marriage ? if I still believe marriage should only be granted to a man/woman why would you call me a bigot? keep in mind, what is it, 31 states where this issue has gone to vote - voters all voted against it. so - i guess based on your theory over half of the voters of this country are biggots. correct?

btw - there is a huge difference between slavery and being gay. please stop using this analogy. slaves had zero rights, I REPEAT, zero rights - because of their skin color.
gay people have EVERY right except 1 - legal marriage. however, with a civil union - they still have 99% more rights than a slave ever had. soooo please stop with that comparison.
New Clear Waste

Brattleboro, VT

#21 Nov 11, 2009
conan wrote:
how/why are you a bigot if you're against gay marriage ? if I still believe marriage should only be granted to a man/woman why would you call me a bigot? keep in mind, what is it, 31 states where this issue has gone to vote - voters all voted against it. so - i guess based on your theory over half of the voters of this country are biggots. correct?
btw - there is a huge difference between slavery and being gay. please stop using this analogy. slaves had zero rights, I REPEAT, zero rights - because of their skin color.
gay people have EVERY right except 1 - legal marriage. however, with a civil union - they still have 99% more rights than a slave ever had. soooo please stop with that comparison.
This is 100% pure bigotry.

You want to deny innocent fellow Americans the same rights you enjoy because they're different from you. That's bigotry. Don't try to call it something else.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

South Portland Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Hottest Newscaster in Maine (Aug '13) 4 hr Jazzman 3
truth of israel and jews Jul 11 BUDD PRESCOTT 1
News Portland to introduce travel ban due to discrim... May '16 TerriB1 6
News Maine governor: Drug dealers impregnate 'young ... (Jan '16) May '16 Johnny South Knox... 3
New political blog May '16 The Bored Theater 1
News News Minute: Here is the latest Maine, New Hamp... Apr '16 Lucy Anna Jane 1
News Two new charter schools tentatively approved in... (Nov '15) Nov '15 Mac TheNight 7

South Portland Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

South Portland Mortgages