Maine becomes 5th state to allow same-sex marriage

AUGUSTA, Maine – Maine's governor signed a freshly passed bill Wednesday approving gay marriage, making it the fifth state to approve the practice and moving New England closer to allowing it throughout the region.

New Hampshire legislators were also poised to send a gay marriage bill to their governor, who hasn't indicated whether he'll sign it. If he does, Rhode Island would be the region's sole holdout.

The Maine Senate voted 21-13, with one absent, for a bill that authorizes marriage between any two people rather than between one man and one woman, as state law currently allows. The House had passed the bill Tuesday.

Democratic Gov. John Baldacci, who hadn't previously indicated how he would handle the bill, signed it shortly afterward. In the past, he said he opposed gay marriage but supported civil unions, which provide many benefits of marriage.

Debate was brief. Senate President Elizabeth Mitchell, D-Vassalboro, turned the gavel over to an openly gay member, Sen. Lawrence Bliss, D-South Portland, to preside over the final vote.

Republican Sen. Debra Plowman of Hampden argued that the bill was being passed "at the expense of the people of faith."

"You are making a decision that is not well-founded," warned Plowman.

But Senate Majority Leader Philip Bartlett II said the bill does not compel religious institutions to recognize gay marriage.

"We respect religious liberties. ... This is long overdue," said Bartlett, D-Gorham.

Maine is now the fourth state in New England, to allow same-sex marriages. Connecticut enacted a bill after being ordered to allow gay marriages by the courts, and Vermont passed a bill over the governor's veto.

New Hampshire's House was also expected to vote on a bill Wednesday and send it to Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat.

Massachusetts' high court has ordered the state to recognize gay marriages. In Rhode Island, a bill to legalize same-sex marriage has been introduced but is not expected to pass this year.

Outside New England, Iowa is recognizing gay marriages on court orders. The practice was briefly legal in California before voters banned it.

In other news, Washington, D.C. agreed yesterday to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Congress has 30 days to block all D.C. laws, but it appears highly unlikely that they will do so.


-----------

For those opposed to this, it won't be easy to undo as an Amendment in Maine requires 2/3 support in each House before the voters are given a chance to vote.

catbox_9 wrote:

AUGUSTA, Maine – Maine's governor signed a freshly passed bill Wednesday approving gay marriage, making it the fifth state to approve the practice and moving New England closer to allowing it throughout the region.

New Hampshire legislators were also poised to send a gay marriage bill to their governor, who hasn't indicated whether he'll sign it. If he does, Rhode Island would be the region's sole holdout.

The Maine Senate voted 21-13, with one absent, for a bill that authorizes marriage between any two people rather than between one man and one woman, as state law currently allows. The House had passed the bill Tuesday.

Democratic Gov. John Baldacci, who hadn't previously indicated how he would handle the bill, signed it shortly afterward. In the past, he said he opposed gay marriage but supported civil unions, which provide many benefits of marriage.

Debate was brief. Senate President Elizabeth Mitchell, D-Vassalboro, turned the gavel over to an openly gay member, Sen. Lawrence Bliss, D-South Portland, to preside over the final vote.

Republican Sen. Debra Plowman of Hampden argued that the bill was being passed "at the expense of the people of faith."

"You are making a decision that is not well-founded," warned Plowman.

But Senate Majority Leader Philip Bartlett II said the bill does not compel religious institutions to recognize gay marriage.

"We respect religious liberties. ... This is long overdue," said Bartlett, D-Gorham.

Maine is now the fourth state in New England, to allow same-sex marriages. Connecticut enacted a bill after being ordered to allow gay marriages by the courts, and Vermont passed a bill over the governor's veto.

New Hampshire's House was also expected to vote on a bill Wednesday and send it to Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat.

Massachusetts' high court has ordered the state to recognize gay marriages. In Rhode Island, a bill to legalize same-sex marriage has been introduced but is not expected to pass this year.

Outside New England, Iowa is recognizing gay marriages on court orders. The practice was briefly legal in California before voters banned it.

I am boycotting those states

gs78 wrote:

I am boycotting those states

Won't be long and you'll have to boycott every state

Better not move to Canada though - they're more progressive than the U.S. Same can be said for many European countries.

Iran doesn't allow same-sex marriage.


--------

"no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
-United States Constitution

"It is imperative that the majority not use their plurality to dictate policy against the minority"
-Thomas Jefferson

catbox_9 wrote:

gs78 wrote:

I am boycotting those states

Won't be long and you'll have to boycott every state

Better not move to Canada though - they're more progressive than the U.S. Same can be said for many European countries.

Iran doesn't allow same-sex marriage.


--------

"no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
-United States Constitution

"It is imperative that the majority not use their plurality to dictate policy against the minority"
-Thomas Jefferson

People will eventually revolt against this fad of allowing the gays to marry



After all; The silent majority of the American population is against this; It goes against both the laws of nature and God; The only reason why this crap is happening is because people put the liberals in power out of fear of the economy and they are so desperate for change they are willing to overlook this; allowing their agenda to fly under the radar; But when the liberals; including Obama; all fail; AND THEY WILL! look for a return to morals, religion and values as people will demand a return to the way things were.


I hope the gays are enjoying their new rights by the liberals to commit sin in the eyes of GOD because it will not last long

Polls show Americans are growing more and more supportive of same-sex marriage.

Morals have nothing to do with law. Once the Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage (and it will), it will be nearly impossible to get rid of. Look at abortion - as immoral as a lot of people say it is, it isn't going anywhere. Even ridiculously conservative states like Montana were unable to pass anti-abortion laws last election.

catbox_9 wrote:

Polls show Americans are growing more and more supportive of same-sex marriage.

Morals have nothing to do with law. Once the Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage (and it will), it will be nearly impossible to get rid of. Look at abortion - as immoral as a lot of people say it is, it isn't going anywhere. Even ridiculously conservative states like Montana were unable to pass anti-abortion laws last election.

I don't believe those polls

Polls can be skewed! Easily

I have never been polled by any person or group in my life; Neither have most of my friends and family


Same reason applies for abortion as well; People are willing to overlook the murder of fetuses because people are so damn worried about job losses; foreclosure and inflation than social issues right now; And the Liberals are taking advantage of this; even in conservative states

gs78 wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

Polls show Americans are growing more and more supportive of same-sex marriage.

Morals have nothing to do with law. Once the Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage (and it will), it will be nearly impossible to get rid of. Look at abortion - as immoral as a lot of people say it is, it isn't going anywhere. Even ridiculously conservative states like Montana were unable to pass anti-abortion laws last election.

I don't believe those polls

Polls can be skewed! Easily

I have never been polled by any person or group in my life; Neither have most of my friends and family


Same reason applies for abortion as well; People are willing to overlook the murder of fetuses because people are so damn worried about job losses; foreclosure and inflation than social issues right now; And the Liberals are taking advantage of this; even in conservative states

People have been campaigning trying to eliminate abortion since Roe v. Wade. There weren't hard economic times the whole time. They've never come close to doing anything.

Speaking of polls, we got called once by a pollster. It was before I was old enough to vote and nobody else was here so we didn't do the poll.

Some failed abortion initiatives (from ballotpedia):

Alaska Initiative to Limit State Funding of Abortions. Failed with 40.8%. (1982)

Arizona Initiative to Ban Abortion. Failed with 31.5%. (1992)

Washington Initiative 694 (1998) Ban on late-term abortion. Failed.

---------

Actually there haven't really been that many that actually made the ballot. Only two have ever passed - and all they did was limit public funding.

catbox_9 wrote:

gs78 wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

Polls show Americans are growing more and more supportive of same-sex marriage.

Morals have nothing to do with law. Once the Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage (and it will), it will be nearly impossible to get rid of. Look at abortion - as immoral as a lot of people say it is, it isn't going anywhere. Even ridiculously conservative states like Montana were unable to pass anti-abortion laws last election.

I don't believe those polls

Polls can be skewed! Easily

I have never been polled by any person or group in my life; Neither have most of my friends and family


Same reason applies for abortion as well; People are willing to overlook the murder of fetuses because people are so damn worried about job losses; foreclosure and inflation than social issues right now; And the Liberals are taking advantage of this; even in conservative states

People have been campaigning trying to eliminate abortion since Roe v. Wade. There weren't hard economic times the whole time. They've never come close to doing anything.

Speaking of polls, we got called once by a pollster. It was before I was old enough to vote and nobody else was here so we didn't do the poll.

Maybe not Roe vs Wade; but that partial abortion shit will be overturned;


And thank you for proving my point about polls


I bet most people on this board and the other board have never been or hardly been polled either

When you look at most polls they only pole about 500-1000 people. When done well, they can be pretty accurate as that is a reasonably large sample size. The key words are done well. You must poll a representative sample and it must be random.

catbox_9 wrote:

When you look at most polls they only pole about 500-1000 people. When done well, they can be pretty accurate as that is a reasonably large sample size. The key words are done well. You must poll a representative sample and it must be random.

When done well!


That is the key


And how often is that even the case with most polls

Most Polls had Cockrel over Bing by a few points

Look who won the election

They're sometimes decent. Let's see how they did in 2008 in CA...

Prop 1A:
Last poll said pass with 56%, it got 52% and passed

Prop 2:
Poll says 63%, it got 63%

Prop 3:
Projected it would pass 47%-35% (lots of undecided)
It did pass

Prop 4:
Projected it would fail 46%-40% (many undecided)
It failed

Prop 5/6:
No polls available

Prop 7:
Polls said it would fail and it did

Prop 8:
Last poll said too close to call (although no was leading)
It passed

Prop 9:
No polls

Prop 10:
They said it would pass, it didn't

Prop 11:
They said it would pass with 35% support (33% undecided), it passed with 50.2%

Prop 12:
No polls.

So, they were right on 6 of the 8 that had polls including being exactly right on one. 75% isn't bad.

But not 100 percent


Why weren't there any polls on 5, 6, 9 and 12?

gs78 wrote:

But not 100 percent


Why weren't there any polls on 5, 6, 9 and 12?

Correct about not being 100%. Still, they're better than 50% which is what happens if you flip a coin so they're somewhat useful. They aren't the final say though, I'll agree.

Not sure why there weren't polls for 5,6, and 9. There was no pole for 12 because it was something about giving former veteran's veteran benefits. It is on the ballot every 2 years to try and extend their benefits an additional 2 years. It has never once been defeated. It is always endorsed by both Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. I don't know why they only extend it two years at a time.
UPDATE: I just checked, it has been on the ballot 26 times and passed all 26 times.

Ballotpedia lists a whole bunch of people who supported prop 12. The only opponent they list is Gary Wesley (whoever he is)

Back to the original topic....

Matthew 19:9 reads "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

Mark 10:11-12 says "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

Why do we allow people to remarry?

Since gay marriage is forbidden by the Bible and we go with what the Bible says...

I Corinthians 14:33-35
As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission.

I've heard of churches where they let the women speak. Where's the outrage?

I Peter 2:18
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

Slavery is abolished. Where is the outrage?

I Corinthians 11:6
If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.

Most women don't cover their heads. Where is the outrage?


Surely people are capable of being outraged at more than one thing at once, aren't they? Why focus on gay marriage (something that is only practiced by a very small minority) when you can focus on remarrying, women talking, people not being slaves, and women with uncovered heads? These things happen far more frequently than homosexuality.

catbox_9 wrote:

Back to the original topic....

Matthew 19:9 reads "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

Mark 10:11-12 says "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

Why do we allow people to remarry?

Since gay marriage is forbidden by the Bible and we go with what the Bible says...

I Corinthians 14:33-35
As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission.

I've heard of churches where they let the women speak. Where's the outrage?

I Peter 2:18
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

Slavery is abolished. Where is the outrage?

I Corinthians 11:6
If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.

Most women don't cover their heads. Where is the outrage?


Surely people are capable of being outraged at more than one thing at once, aren't they? Why focus on gay marriage (something that is only practiced by a very small minority) when you can focus on remarrying, women talking, people not being slaves, and women with uncovered heads? These things happen far more frequently than homosexuality.

I think there is outrage in the Middle East if a Muslim woman does not cover her head

In Fact; Them Islamofacists may chop off heads of women that don't cover them


But people need to focus on gay marriage; This country was fine for over 200 years without gay marriage; Why start it now

I dunno how I feel about this. I guess if you wanna do it, do it.

gs78 wrote:

But people need to focus on gay marriage; This country was fine for over 200 years without gay marriage; Why start it now

The country was fine with slaves 200 years ago. Why abolish it? The country was fine when women had no rights 200 years ago. Why give them rights now?



Give me ONE reason why gay marriage is wrong without mentioning:
1. Religion - this country has no official religion
2. What is natural - most things aren't natural. What doctors do to save lives isn't natural. Should we get rid of medicine?


Pretend for a moment gay marriage became legal in Michigan. How would that negatively impact your life? If you were married would your marriage become less valid?



Since everyone is so focused on the Bible, I'll take a moment to point out one of the stupider passages in there to demonstrate you can't take everything in there literally....

He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. 1 Kings 7:23

So according to god, the value of pi is exactly 3. I always learned it was about 3.141526535.... Who's right?

catbox_9 wrote:

gs78 wrote:

But people need to focus on gay marriage; This country was fine for over 200 years without gay marriage; Why start it now

The country was fine with slaves 200 years ago. Why abolish it? The country was fine when women had no rights 200 years ago. Why give them rights now?



Give me ONE reason why gay marriage is wrong without mentioning:
1. Religion - this country has no official religion
2. What is natural - most things aren't natural. What doctors do to save lives isn't natural. Should we get rid of medicine?


Pretend for a moment gay marriage became legal in Michigan. How would that negatively impact your life? If you were married would your marriage become less valid?



Since everyone is so focused on the Bible, I'll take a moment to point out one of the stupider passages in there to demonstrate you can't take everything in there literally....

He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. 1 Kings 7:23

So according to god, the value of pi is exactly 3. I always learned it was about 3.141526535.... Who's right?

At least people like me [ white men] ruled things 200 years ago; Everything now seems to be going to the gays, minorities and women;

Call me me racist, homophobic or sexist; but I long for the days[ be it 50, 100 or 200 years ago] when it meant something to be a white man in this country;

Nor do I like the way things are going politically and in the sports world either; especially MLB; Higher tickets prices that will eventually shut fans like me out

Political leaders like Obama will never help people like me; because I have to pay for sins of white people who aren't even related to me .

WHICH IS BULLSHIT!


You mentioned medicine; Well; Half the medications and so called wonder pills have so many side effects; people are better off with the disease.

gs78 wrote:

You mentioned medicine; Well; Half the medications and so called wonder pills have so many side effects; people are better off with the disease.

That's because those wonder pills they advertise on TV are crap. Name an FDA-approved drug that's worse than the disease.


100 years ago tuberculosis was a death sentence. Now...not so much. 100 years ago leprosy was some horrible, disfiguring disease. Now...nobody gets it and if they do it's no big deal. 100 years ago smallpox was a horrible disease. Now, it's been eradicated. Back in the middle ages the plague killed something like 1/3 of Europe. Now if you get the bubonic plague it's rather easy to cure. 100 years ago if your kidneys, liver, heart, etc. were bad you're dead. Now they can give you a new one and you can live for decades. I could go on and on but I think I've made my point. Then again, not a single one of these treatments are "natural" so maybe we're better off dead.

catbox_9 wrote:

gs78 wrote:

You mentioned medicine; Well; Half the medications and so called wonder pills have so many side effects; people are better off with the disease.

That's because those wonder pills they advertise on TV are crap. Name an FDA-approved drug that's worse than the disease.


100 years ago tuberculosis was a death sentence. Now...not so much. 100 years ago leprosy was some horrible, disfiguring disease. Now...nobody gets it and if they do it's no big deal. 100 years ago smallpox was a horrible disease. Now, it's been eradicated. Back in the middle ages the plague killed something like 1/3 of Europe. Now if you get the bubonic plague it's rather easy to cure. 100 years ago if your kidneys, liver, heart, etc. were bad you're dead. Now they can give you a new one and you can live for decades. I could go on and on but I think I've made my point. Then again, not a single one of these treatments are "natural" so maybe we're better off dead.

Who wants to live to be 100?


I sure as hell don't

Liver Spots; Cataracts; Dentures; Hearing Aids, Arthritis; just to name a few


I rather die young anyway

Speaking of Gays

If they strip Miss California of her title on Tuesday, I am gonna boycott California and anything to do with Donald Trump

She has a right to speak out against gay marriage

But of course the gay rights groups are against free speech when it goes against their perverted agenda; I bet it be OK if she were all for the gay people; nobody be demanding she lose her title

Speaking of Gays Part 2

American Dad Episode was funny last night


Actually the last few weeks of American Dad have been funny


I am glad it will be back next season on FOX

gs78 wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

gs78 wrote:

You mentioned medicine; Well; Half the medications and so called wonder pills have so many side effects; people are better off with the disease.

That's because those wonder pills they advertise on TV are crap. Name an FDA-approved drug that's worse than the disease.


100 years ago tuberculosis was a death sentence. Now...not so much. 100 years ago leprosy was some horrible, disfiguring disease. Now...nobody gets it and if they do it's no big deal. 100 years ago smallpox was a horrible disease. Now, it's been eradicated. Back in the middle ages the plague killed something like 1/3 of Europe. Now if you get the bubonic plague it's rather easy to cure. 100 years ago if your kidneys, liver, heart, etc. were bad you're dead. Now they can give you a new one and you can live for decades. I could go on and on but I think I've made my point. Then again, not a single one of these treatments are "natural" so maybe we're better off dead.

Who wants to live to be 100?


I sure as hell don't

Liver Spots; Cataracts; Dentures; Hearing Aids, Arthritis; just to name a few


I rather die young anyway

Speaking of Gays

If they strip Miss California of her title on Tuesday, I am gonna boycott California and anything to do with Donald Trump

She has a right to speak out against gay marriage

But of course the gay rights groups are against free speech when it goes against their perverted agenda; I bet it be OK if she were all for the gay people; nobody be demanding she lose her title

First....

Have you ever taken any pill of any sort? That is unnatural so maybe you shouldn't have. Have you ever gotten a vaccine? That is also unnatural.


Second....

She will not be stripped of her crown according to the people who organize the pageant. They're decision was while they find her views offensive, they cannot strip someone of the crown for having offensive views as that would be intolerant. She won fairly and will not be punished.



Back to defending same-sex couples,

Your morals say it is wrong but that doesn't matter. Many people would argue that eating meat is immoral. I would argue that forcing people to conform to their morals is wrong. Denying people the right to eat meat negatively effects a lot of people. Allowing people to eat meat denies nobody what they want - those that want meat can eat it can, those that don't want it don't have to. For same-sex marriage, making it illegal forces beliefs upon people and negatively effects them. Making same-sex marriages legal in no way effects people - you aren't forced to marry someone of the same sex.

catbox_9 wrote:

gs78 wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

gs78 wrote:

You mentioned medicine; Well; Half the medications and so called wonder pills have so many side effects; people are better off with the disease.

That's because those wonder pills they advertise on TV are crap. Name an FDA-approved drug that's worse than the disease.


100 years ago tuberculosis was a death sentence. Now...not so much. 100 years ago leprosy was some horrible, disfiguring disease. Now...nobody gets it and if they do it's no big deal. 100 years ago smallpox was a horrible disease. Now, it's been eradicated. Back in the middle ages the plague killed something like 1/3 of Europe. Now if you get the bubonic plague it's rather easy to cure. 100 years ago if your kidneys, liver, heart, etc. were bad you're dead. Now they can give you a new one and you can live for decades. I could go on and on but I think I've made my point. Then again, not a single one of these treatments are "natural" so maybe we're better off dead.

Who wants to live to be 100?


I sure as hell don't

Liver Spots; Cataracts; Dentures; Hearing Aids, Arthritis; just to name a few


I rather die young anyway

Speaking of Gays

If they strip Miss California of her title on Tuesday, I am gonna boycott California and anything to do with Donald Trump

She has a right to speak out against gay marriage

But of course the gay rights groups are against free speech when it goes against their perverted agenda; I bet it be OK if she were all for the gay people; nobody be demanding she lose her title

First....

Have you ever taken any pill of any sort? That is unnatural so maybe you shouldn't have. Have you ever gotten a vaccine? That is also unnatural.


Second....

She will not be stripped of her crown according to the people who organize the pageant. They're decision was while they find her views offensive, they cannot strip someone of the crown for having offensive views as that would be intolerant. She won fairly and will not be punished.



Back to defending same-sex couples,

Your morals say it is wrong but that doesn't matter. Many people would argue that eating meat is immoral. I would argue that forcing people to conform to their morals is wrong. Denying people the right to eat meat negatively effects a lot of people. Allowing people to eat meat denies nobody what they want - those that want meat can eat it can, those that don't want it don't have to. For same-sex marriage, making it illegal forces beliefs upon people and negatively effects them. Making same-sex marriages legal in no way effects people - you aren't forced to marry someone of the same sex.

So I guess there is nothing wrong with liberal judges and or politicians, who are in favor of gay marriage, forcing their views of what constitutes marriage on people that are against it


It is one thing if people in a given state vote to change laws and allow gays to marry; [ though I don't agree with their views and will such decisions; but at least people have a say in such an issue] but when some bonehead, liberal judge rules in favor of it or strikes down a law preventing it because they believe in their minds that it is unjust; going against what many [ of the silent majority[ are against this.


Including myself

Getting back to the issue of Miss California


I don't see why the liberal media tried to make such a big deal of this.



It be one thing if she went on stage and said that all Gay People should die or be killed by the government or put in ovens or something; but just because she stated she is against same sex marriage and helped some group raise money [ that is against it] should not have been news in the first palce

gs78 wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

gs78 wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

gs78 wrote:

You mentioned medicine; Well; Half the medications and so called wonder pills have so many side effects; people are better off with the disease.

That's because those wonder pills they advertise on TV are crap. Name an FDA-approved drug that's worse than the disease.


100 years ago tuberculosis was a death sentence. Now...not so much. 100 years ago leprosy was some horrible, disfiguring disease. Now...nobody gets it and if they do it's no big deal. 100 years ago smallpox was a horrible disease. Now, it's been eradicated. Back in the middle ages the plague killed something like 1/3 of Europe. Now if you get the bubonic plague it's rather easy to cure. 100 years ago if your kidneys, liver, heart, etc. were bad you're dead. Now they can give you a new one and you can live for decades. I could go on and on but I think I've made my point. Then again, not a single one of these treatments are "natural" so maybe we're better off dead.

Who wants to live to be 100?


I sure as hell don't

Liver Spots; Cataracts; Dentures; Hearing Aids, Arthritis; just to name a few


I rather die young anyway

Speaking of Gays

If they strip Miss California of her title on Tuesday, I am gonna boycott California and anything to do with Donald Trump

She has a right to speak out against gay marriage

But of course the gay rights groups are against free speech when it goes against their perverted agenda; I bet it be OK if she were all for the gay people; nobody be demanding she lose her title

First....

Have you ever taken any pill of any sort? That is unnatural so maybe you shouldn't have. Have you ever gotten a vaccine? That is also unnatural.


Second....

She will not be stripped of her crown according to the people who organize the pageant. They're decision was while they find her views offensive, they cannot strip someone of the crown for having offensive views as that would be intolerant. She won fairly and will not be punished.



Back to defending same-sex couples,

Your morals say it is wrong but that doesn't matter. Many people would argue that eating meat is immoral. I would argue that forcing people to conform to their morals is wrong. Denying people the right to eat meat negatively effects a lot of people. Allowing people to eat meat denies nobody what they want - those that want meat can eat it can, those that don't want it don't have to. For same-sex marriage, making it illegal forces beliefs upon people and negatively effects them. Making same-sex marriages legal in no way effects people - you aren't forced to marry someone of the same sex.

So I guess there is nothing wrong with liberal judges and or politicians, who are in favor of gay marriage, forcing their views of what constitutes marriage on people that are against it


It is one thing if people in a given state vote to change laws and allow gays to marry; [ though I don't agree with their views and will such decisions; but at least people have a say in such an issue] but when some bonehead, liberal judge rules in favor of it or strikes down a law preventing it because they believe in their minds that it is unjust; going against what many [ of the silent majority[ are against this.


Including myself

First...

Like I said, the judges didn't like her position, but they aren't going to strip her of her title for it. The contest wasn't about being a good liberal.

Second...

The last few states to legalize gay marriage have done it through the legislature. The legislature is made up of people that the voters voted in. The voters knew their stances prior to voting. If they hated gay marriage that much they should have voted for someone else.

gs78 wrote:

I am boycotting those states

If you're going to do that, keep in mind that the following companies promote sodomy and homosexualism with "nondiscrimination" policies towards homosexuals. Boycott the following companies (and every one of the companies and products which fall under their umbrella of sin) and picket them if they are in your town:


Abbott Laboratories
Aetna Life & Casualty Insurance
AFLAC Inc.
Air Products & Chemicals Inc.
Airtouch Communications
Albertson's Inc.
AlliedSignal
Allstate Insurance Group
Amerada Hess
American Electric Power Co. Inc.
American Express Co.
American Home Products Corp.
American Stores Co.
AmeriSource Health Corp.
Ameritech Corp.
AMR/American Airlines
Anheuser-Busch
Anthem Insurance
Aon Corp.
Apple Computer
Arrow Electronics
AT&T
Atlantic Richfield
Automatic Data Processing Inc.
Avery Dennison
Avnet Inc.
Avon Products
Baltimore Gas and Electric
Banc One Corp.
Bank of New York Co.
BankAmerica (now includes NationsBank)
Bankers Trust Corp.
Barnes & Noble
Baxter Healthcare International
Bear Stearns
Becton Dickinson
BellSouth Telecommunications
Bergen Brunswig
Bethlehem Steel
Boeing
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
Browning-Ferris Industries
Brunswick Corp.
Campbell Soup Co.
Capital One
Carolina Power & Light
Case
Central & South West
Champion International
Charles Schwab & Co.
Chase Manhattan Bank Corp.
Chevron Corp.
Chubb Life Insurance Co. of America
Cigna Corp. & Co. (Cigna Healthcare)
CINergy
Circuit City Group
Cisco Systems
Citigroup Inc. (Citibank, Travelers, Smith Barney)
CMS Energy Services
Coca-Cola
Colgate-Palmolive
Columbia Broadcast System (CBS)
Comdisco
Comerica
CompUSA
Computer Associates International
ConAgra Inc.
Consolidated Edison Co.
Consolidated Natural Gas
Continental Airlines
Corning Inc.
Costco Wholesale
Crown Cork & Seal
Darden Restaurants (Red Lobster, Olive Garden)
Dayton Hudson Corp. (Target, Mervyns, Marshall Fields)
Dell Computer Corp.
Delta Airlines Inc.
Dole Food Co. Inc.
Dow Chemical Co.
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.
Eastman Kodak Co.
Electronic Data Systems Corp.
Eli Lilly & Co.
Estee Lauder Companies
Fannie Mae
Federated Department Stores (Bloomingdales, Macys, Fingerhut)
First Union Corp.
Firstar Corp.
FleetBoston Financial
Fluor Corp.
FMC Corp.
Ford Motor Co.
Foundation Health
Fred Meyer
Freddie Mac
Gannett
Gap Inc.
Gateway Inc.
General Dynamics Corp.
General Mills
Giant Food Inc.
Gillette
Golden West Financial Corp.
GTE
Hannaford Brothers
Harcourt General Inc.
Hartford Financial Services Co. (The Hartford Insurance)
Hasbro Inc.
Hewlett-Packard
Hilton Hotels
Honeywell
Hormel Foods
IBM (Includes Lotus)
IKON Office Solutions
Illinois Tool Works
Ingersoll-Rand
Intel Inc.
International Paper
J. P. Morgan & Co.
John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance
Johnson & Johnson
Johnson Controls
Kellogg
Kimberly-Clark
Knight-Ridder Newspapers Inc.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Group
Lincoln National
Litton Industries Inc.
Lockheed Martin Corp.
Loews Corp.
Lucent Technologies
Marriott International
Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
Mattel Inc.
Maytag Corp.
McDonald's Corp.
McGraw-Hill
McKesson HBOC
Merck & Co. Inc.
Merisel
Merrill Lynch
Metropolitan Life Insurance
MicroAge
Microsoft Corp.
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing (3M)
Monsanto Co.
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.
Motorola Inc.
Nabisco Group Holdings Corp.
Nash Finch
Navistar International
NCR Corp.
New York Life Insurance
New York Times Co.
Newell Inc.
Niagara Mohawk Power
Nike Inc.
Nordstrom
Northeast Utilities
Northrop Grumman Corp.
Northwest Airlines
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance
Occidental Petroleum
Office Depot
Oracle Corp.
Paccar
Pacificare Health Systems
Pacificorp
Paine Webber Group Inc.
PECO Energy
Pfizer
Pharmacia & Upjohn Inc.
Philip Morris
Pitney Bowes
Principal Financial Group
Procter & Gamble
Prudential
Public Service Enterprise Group
Quaker Oats
QualComm
Quantum
R.R. Donnelley & Sons
Ralston Purina
Raytheon
Reebok International
Republic New York Corp.
Rite Aid Corp.
Rockwell International Corp.
Rohm & Haas
Ryder System
Ryerson Tull
Safeco
Safeway
Sara Lee
SBC Communications Inc. (Pacific Bell, Southwestern Bell, Nevada Bell)
SCI Systems Inc.
Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC)
Seagate Technology Inc.
Sears, Roebuck and Co.
ServiceMaster
SGI
Sprint Communications
St. Paul Companies
Staples Inc.
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide (Sheraton, Westin, Four Points)
State Farm Group
Sun Microsystems
Sunoco Inc.
Supermarkets General Holdings Corp.
Supervalu
Tandy (Radio Shack)
Tech Data Corp.
Tele-Communications Inc.
Temple-Inland
Tenet Healthcare
Tenneco Inc.
Texaco
Texas Instruments Inc.
TIAA-CREF
Time Warner Inc. (Includes America Online, CNN)
Times Mirror Co.
TJX
Toys R Us
Trans World Airlines
Transamerica
TRW
UAL/United Airlines Inc.
Unicom
Union Carbide Corp.
Union Pacific
Unisys
United HealthCare
United Services Automobile Association (USAA)
United Technologies Corp.
Unum Corp.
US Airways
US Bancorp
US Industries
US West Inc.
Venator
Verizon (formerly Bell Atlantic, merged with NYNEX)
VF Corp.
Viacom Inc.
W.W. Grainger
Wachovia Corp.
Walgreens
Walt Disney (ABC, Capp Cities, Buena Vista)
Warner-Lambert
Washington Mutual Savings Bank
Wells Fargo & Co.
Western Digital Corp.
Westvaco
Weyerhaeuser
Whirlpool
Xerox Corp.
York International