Fuck you 52% of Maine (Gay Elections Ahoy) - The Something Awful Forums

Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining us 94,000+ Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > Fuck you 52% of Maine (Gay Elections Ahoy)

Pages (21): 12 3 4 5 Next › Last »

Three Olives: Apr 10, 2005; I'D KISS HITLER

USA Today posted:

Maine same-sex law appears headed for repeal

Buzz up!
Like this story? Share it with Yahoo! Buzz
With 86% of the vote counted, Maine voters are on their way to repealing a state law that would have allowed same-sex couples to marry. A 'yes' vote on Question No. 1 was for the repeal and it was leading 52% to 47%.

The Bangor Daily News was tweeting campaign results all night and just moved this: "We've heard that Yes on One has declared victory." The gay rights' group Protect Maine Equality, which also had been providing live feeds, stopped about an hour ago. The group in favor of the repeal -- Yes On One -- can be found here.

The vote was considered important by gay rights' groups because they hoped it would have been the first time that voters approved a same-sex marriage measure at the polls. The Maine law was approved by the Legislature, but could not take effect until voters approved it.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitic...for-repeal.html

It makes me sick, more people voted to legalize pot than gay marriages. Not that I am against put, I am all for legalizing pot, but at least there are some quantifiable negatives to legalizing drugs, even if I believe the positives far outweigh the negatives. There are absolutely no negatives for legalizing gay marriage. Plus the idea of the smug sense of satisfaction this bitch has right now makes me want to vomit:

In slightly better news:

Seattle PI posted:

New gay rights law being approved by voters
Measure expands rights of same-sex domestic partners

By CHRIS GRYGIEL and MONICA GUZMAN
SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF

Thom Weinstein / seattlepi.com

Buoyed by big support from King County, voters Tuesday were approving Washington's new "everything but marriage" law that greatly expands the rights of gay couples.

In early election returns Referendum 71 was passing 51 percent to 49 percent.

The new gay rights law was being rejected in all the counties in Eastern Washington - as well as Pierce County. It was passing in 10 Western Washington counties, including King and Snohomish. King County voters were approving the law 66 percent to 34 percent

Meanwhile voters in Maine Tuesday night rejected that state's new gay marriage law.

In Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire signed a bill in May granting same sex domestic partners all the rights of married couples. That same month conservative interests announced they would attempt to overturn the new law and enough signatures were collected enough to place R-71 on the November ballot.

Gay rights supporters were not ready to declare victory Tuesday night.

"We are hopeful, but we are not stupid. We know better than to think we've got this in the can," said said Jody Lane of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "They may be recounting 'til January, for God's sake."

Before the first batch of results came in at 8:15 p.m., supporters laughed as a clip of Stephen Colbert jokingly endorsing Washington's domestic partnership law played on a projector at the Pravda Studios party.

With a bigger crowd by 9:05 p.m., they were still having fun -- but no one was celebrating. "We are really very guardedly optimistic, remembering that a very very large percentage of King County ballots have not been counted," campaign manager Josh Friedes told the crowd.

The Faith and Freedom Network, which opposed the new gay rights law, said in a statement earlier Tuesday that the effort had been worth it.

"People of faith and social conservatives have been revived as a political force in Washington," the statement said. "R-71 has identified upwards of 200,000 people who are willing to take action to protect marriage, the family and children. It has also identified a legal team that has won victory after victory, a team that will now defend R-71 petition signers and their right to anonymous political speech before the United States Supreme Court."

Legal disputes linger

As the statement indicates, the fight over R-71 won't be finished when all the ballots are counted. Legal disputes over the measure have reached the nation's highest court and scholars and government officials across the country are watching to see how they will be resolved and what impact they'll have on open government laws.

Last month the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the release of names of people who signed R-71 petitions. Justices will consider whether to hear the merits of the case and the issue may not be resolved until next year.

The state of Washington supports the release of initiative and referendum petitions under terms of the Public Records Act that state voters approved overwhelmingly in 1972. The Supreme Court action stopped a lower federal court ruling that the names should be made public.

The petitions contain the names and addresses of people who signed. Gay rights groups have said they want to put the names of people who signed the petitions online. The group Protect Marriage Washington, which collected nearly 138,000 signatures to qualify R-71 for the November ballot, says those people could be harassed, amounting to an infringement on their free speech rights. State officials fear that if the names of referendum and petition signers are kept secret laws like those that require campaign donors be made public could be threatened.

The original domestic partnership law, backed by Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, two years ago, provided inheritance rights in cases where there was no will, hospital visitation rights, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations. About 6,000 domestic partnership registrations have been filed since July 2007.

Some rights and responsibilities that would be extended to gay and lesbian families under the latest legislation are:

Workers' compensation coverage.

The right to use sick leave to care for a spouse.

Victims' rights, including the right to receive notifications and benefits allowances. Business succession rights.

Legal process rights, such as the ability to sign certain documents, the requirement to join in certain petitions, rights to cause of action, and ability to transfer licenses without charge.

The right to wages and benefits when a spouse is injured, and to unpaid wages upon death of spouse.

The right to unemployment and disability insurance benefits disability insurance issues
Insurance rights, including rights under group policies, policy rights after death of spouse, conversion rights, and continuing coverage rights.

California, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington and the District of Columbia have laws that either recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships that afford same-sex couples similar rights to marriage. Thirty states have gay marriage bans in their constitutions.

'Everybody's...nervous'

Little was heard about R-71 on the streets of Capitol Hill Tuesday night, but at the Wild Rose, a lesbian bar that celebrates 25 years in Seattle this December, 30-year-old Daria Kallal could barely contain her energy.

"I'm the type of person -- I know it's going to be approved," she said. Her sweatshirt, which she decorated for a 5-kilometer run on Halloween, had a red check in the front and a big number "71" in the back.

She and her friends sat in front of a TV screen tuned to KING/5 and compared news they found on their iPhones about both R-71 and Question 1 in Maine as questions buzzed through the bustling bar: "Have they called it yet?" "What's the latest?"

"Everybody's just sort of -- I think they're just nervous," said co-owner Shelley Brothers.

Ryan Blackhawke and Breanna Anderson were sure the measure would pass.

"I've always had a good feeling on it," Blackhawke said. "I think it will offset a possible defeat in Maine."

Blackhawke and Anderson "have a dog in the fight," as Anderson put it. Together for 15 years, they were among the first 20 or 30 couples to be granted domestic partnerships in Washington in 2007. Blachawke's family supports their union. Anderson's does not.

"They're fundamentalist Christians," Blackhawke said. "If she got sick, they could effectively cast me out of any decisions."

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/411801_gayrights03.html

Now it is just time to get those signature lists. Even though they lost, the fact that they are being kept secret is a staggeringly bad precedent for elections in the future.

Other good news, but a special kind of sickening:

Kalamazoo Gazette posted:

Kalamazoo voters approve anti-discrimination ordinance by a wide margin
By Kalamazoo Gazette staff
November 04, 2009, 1:55AM

KALAMAZOO � Kalamazoo city voters decisively adopted an ordinance Tuesday that extends anti-discrimination protections to gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender individuals.

The ordinance passed 7,671 to 4,731, making Kalamazoo the 16th city in Michigan to adopt such a gay-rights ordinance that grants the protections in the areas of employment, housing and public accommodations.

Allison Downey, center, and John Austin, right, both of Portage, erupt in cheers at the Metro Night Club, 411 N. Westnedge Ave., after the announcement that the anti-discrimination ordinance passed Tuesday evening. "This is for our friends because we love them," said Downey. Both Downey and Austin volunteered for the One Kalamazoo campaign, which supported the ordinance.

The ordinance was approved in all but three of the city�s voting places. It also passed among heavy absentee ballot voting.

�There�s a lot of people who will wake up and breathe easier tomorrow knowing they won�t be fired or kicked out of their homes for being gay, lesbian or transgender,� said Jon Hoadley, campaign manager One Kalamazoo, the pro-ordinance campaign committee. �It was astounding the overwhelming support that we had. Kalamazoo said this is what it wants.�

Kalamazoo resident Larissa Dugas said she cast her ballot for the ordinance, which she called largely symbolic.

�It is symbolic to have people stand up and say that we won�t stand for intolerance,� Dugas said. �It�s important for this to be an inclusive community.�

Kalamazoo County Treasurer Mary Balkema, an official with ordinance-opposing Citizens Voting NO to Special Rights Discrimination, said the group was �disappointed� at the results. But, she said, opponents of the ordinance have been �faithful to our calling.�

Hoadley estimated nearly 200 One Kalamazoo volunteers worked the phones, at polling places and did final campaign contacts Tuesday.

The Rev. Timothy Ezell, of Kalamazoo�s Mount Calvary Bible Church, who worked with the opposition group, said about 75 people were involved in the effort by Citizens Voting NO.

Hoadley sidestepped questions about what could be next for the gay-rights effort that has focused on Michigan municipalities. The introduction of a similar measure in Lansing for statewide application has failed to get traction in the Michigan Legislature.

The road to Tuesday�s ballot proposition began nearly two years ago when the local gay-rights group Kalamazoo Alliance for Equality presented city officials with draft changes designed to expand an existing, local anti-discrimination statute.

Previously, the city ordinance banned discrimination against all the groups already protected by state and federal legislation.

The new measure added sexual orientation and gender identity to Kalamazoo�s list of protected groups, meaning that gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender individuals not currently covered by state or federal law would be included in the city statute.

In addition, the proposal expanded the entire city ordinance to ban discrimination in housing, plus employment and access to public accommodations.

KAFE�s proposal was massaged by City Attorney Clyde Robinson before going to the City Commission in late 2008 where it was unanimously adopted amid little fanfare.

A local citizens group, backed by the American Family Association of Michigan, immediately launched a successful, opposition petition drive to force commissioners to either rescind their action or put the ordinance on a citywide ballot.

The commission withdrew the ordinance in January and a three-member subcommittee launched a six-month public input period, returning with another version that commissioners touted as a �compromise,� exempting religious organizations and parochial schools from the provisions.

Opponents said the exemption did not go far enough to recognize individual, religious convictions and provided no specific rules on gender-based bathroom use.

The commission adopted the second version on June 29, again unanimously. After a second, successful petition initiative city commissioners decided to let Kalamazoo voters decide the fate of the anti-discrimination ordinance.

The campaign leading up to Tuesday�s vote generated money, rhetoric and even divided Kalamazoo�s religious community. One Kalamazoo, a pro-ordinance group, reported raising more than $350,000 in its pre-election campaign finance report, more than 10 times the funds reported by Citizens Voting NO to Special Rights Discrimination.

4,731 people actually voted to make employment and housing discrimination legal against gay people. How does the idea of that not make anyone sick to their stomach?

# ? Nov 04, 2009 14:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Nov 21, 2009 11:32

Gay Rumsfeld: Nov 12, 2006; I believe what I said yesterday. I don't know what I said, but I know what I think, and, well, I assume it's what I said.

I never thought I'd have to be ashamed of my home state

.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 14:50

pogue23: Aug 15, 2002; sorry the information is so Scanty

Ah Maine.. the DEEP south of the FAR north.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 14:51

NoSleepTillBedtime: Nov 18, 2005; Love?

Unsurprisingly, Maine sided with Obama again.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 14:54

Goomba: Jul 03, 2008; "Tracy, your emotion is upside down."
"That's the way my world is right now."

The picture of the smug stinkyhole really seals the deal.
I'm actually surprised to hear about this. I lived in Bowdoin for a year or so and it seemed like such a chill state.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 14:55

Clanpot Shake: Aug 10, 2006; shake shake!

Can someone explain to me why we're putting civil rights issues to a public vote again?

# ? Nov 04, 2009 14:59

Dorroile: Apr 11, 2008; No man will stop me dancing.

That's democracy for ya.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:00

Begby: Apr 07, 2005; Honk if you are horny

Have no fear, look at how far this has come in the past 20 years, or even the past decade. 20 years ago there is now way in hell that any of this stuff would have made it on the ballot without some sort of gunfight or anti-gay neo nazi kkk skinheads burning down buildings or some other crazy rear end poo poo.

Give it another 10 years, everyone will have equal rights.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:03

Twanki: Oct 07, 2005; Meedlee meedlee meedlee

I'm simply nauseous with hatred for these people.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:07

Garrickan: May 16, 2006; welp

Welcome to America, where we recognize all people are created equal*

*unless you're gay because ewww, icky

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:08

eightbitgirl: Mar 31, 2008

Clanpot Shake posted:

Can someone explain to me why we're putting civil rights issues to a public vote again?

This can't be said enough. And doing it in 2009 rather than 2008 guarantees that it will be all angry older people voting.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:08

Ars Arcanum: Jan 20, 2005

Begby posted:

Have no fear, look at how far this has come in the past 20 years, or even the past decade. 20 years ago there is now way in hell that any of this stuff would have made it on the ballot without some sort of gunfight or anti-gay neo nazi kkk skinheads burning down buildings or some other crazy rear end poo poo.

Give it another 10 years, everyone will have equal rights.

It's just a ridiculous shame that people are being forced to wait that long, especially in a country that's supposed to be all about equal rights and opportunity.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:08

Mister Fister: May 17, 2008

Twanki posted:

I'm simply nauseous with hatred for these people.

Republicans are quite literally the worst people in America

edit: screenshot is from freerepublic.com if anyone is confused

Mister Fister fucked around with this message at Nov 04, 2009 around 15:21

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:11

errol _flynn: Oct 06, 2009

Sucked to read the Press Herald this morning. I was pretty hopeful for gay marriage. I cannot, for the life of me, understand what the big deal would be if two guys or two girls got married here. So loving what? How would that have hurt anyone? I really had hopes for my state to not be so full of gay hating twits.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:12

Wubby: Feb 11, 2007; vwoots on the first date

http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/1:y_n...rriage-drive-AP

Reading the comments section is extremely nauseating.

quote:

Just remember straight people. We outnumber them everywhere. They couldn't be satisfied with just going on about their business. They chose to try and make us all accept it unconditionally and went too far. Well no more! What you do in private is one thing but we will not forced to play a part in your bizarre lifestyle and we really don't like you making us explain it to children. It's now time to return to some sense of normal. And normal isn't a grown man in Daisy Duke's and cowboy boots parading down the street yelling that he and his boyfriend deserve the right to marry!

quote:

You gays should not take this too hard; look around at all Obama is throwing at us (or taking away as this case may be); it is just too much change. The vast majority of Americans have been pushed to the limit, we can't give any more.

quote:

Mark does have a valid point; marriage between a man and a woman is not just for the purpose of procreation. My wife and I cannot naturally have children and no one with common sense is going to tell us we can�t get married.

Gay marriage is wrong because homosexuality is immoral. We cannot allow our government to make laws that condone immorality. That would be like allowing thieves to shop lift because they were born kleptomaniacs.

"If you can't pro-create then you can't get married." "That's not fair, I'm sterile. You can't tell me and my wife we can't be married. Now the queers on the other hand..."

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:13

Tony Danza Claus: Aug 08, 2009

Clanpot Shake posted:

Can someone explain to me why we're putting civil rights issues to a public vote again?

And the voting for guaranteeing people civil rights are split down the middle with women, and hugely unpopular with blacks.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:13

Ars Arcanum: Jan 20, 2005

Twanki posted:

I'm simply nauseous with hatred for these people.

"I smile at the idea of denying my fellow citizens basic human and civil rights because I'm an enormous, ignorant biggot! I bet Jesus is proud of me!"

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:13

Shitty_Wok: Apr 28, 2009; Can't post for 14 hours!

Clanpot Shake posted:

Can someone explain to me why we're putting civil rights issues to a public vote again?

Maine has what's called a people's veto, whereby if the state legislature passes something and people don't like it, they can collect x amount of signatures and get it on the ballot. The vote was actually based on repealing the current gay marriage law, which had already been approved.

And yes, I am also pretty pissed.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:13

errol _flynn: Oct 06, 2009

Begby posted:

Have no fear, look at how far this has come in the past 20 years, or even the past decade. 20 years ago there is now way in hell that any of this stuff would have made it on the ballot without some sort of gunfight or anti-gay neo nazi kkk skinheads burning down buildings or some other crazy rear end poo poo.

Give it another 10 years, everyone will have equal rights.

Hope so, I really do. This is really shameful, not allowing gay marriage.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:13

Dogless Liberal: Jun 04, 2006; Can't post for 3 hours!

Is this a constitutional change (Like California) or just a statute passed by voters?

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:14

GWBBQ: Jan 02, 2005

There is no ethical difference between institutionalizing homophobia today and institutionalizing racism decades ago. The only acceptable end of this fight is for sexual orientation and gender identity to be protected under civil rights law and same sex marriage recognized under Federal law.

With the news in the past few weeks of non-profits concealing donor lists and rumors of misconduct by large donors like the LDS church, law enforcement needs to investigate and groups that are found to be violating any laws should be stripped of their tax exempt status and their heads prosecuted for racketeering.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:16

CornHolio: May 20, 2001; Attractive! Nice software!

drat, I really didn't expect this from Maine. Alabama maybe, but not Maine.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:17

Crows Turn Off: Jan 07, 2008

Twanki posted:

I'm simply nauseous with hatred for these people.

Jesus loving Christ, what the gently caress?

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:19

GWBBQ: Jan 02, 2005

Dogless Liberal posted:

Is this a constitutional change (Like California) or just a statute passed by voters?

No, the state of Maine somehow finds it appropriate to allow laws to be repealed by a simple majority vote.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:20

Noni: Jul 08, 2003; Can't post for 472 hours!

I wonder if the odd language of Washington's 71 is affecting much. I personally had to google quite a bit to figure out if it was one of those bills that says "Here's a couple of token rights, but in exchange gays can never marry".

So there's surely a percentage of hardcore republicans voting for 71, without researching much, because it says "marriage is prohibited except between one man and one woman." On the other side, there's probably many hardcore liberals voting against 71 because it has the above line, even though these people would likely have voted for 71 if they understood the effects.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:21

Grifter: Jul 24, 2003; Goddammit, Randy.

These people don't seem to get that they are fighting the tide of history.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:22

Three Olives: Apr 10, 2005; I'D KISS HITLER

GWBBQ posted:

With the news in the past few weeks of non-profits concealing donor lists and rumors of misconduct by large donors like the LDS church, law enforcement needs to investigate and groups that are found to be violating any laws should be stripped of their tax exempt status and their heads prosecuted for racketeering.

Absolutely, the people on the right side of this issue run their campaigns with dignity and truth, because that's what they really believe in. The bigots claim to be be moral and then lie and break the law with impunity, it's time to cut the head of the snake and then stomp on the head in every legal way possible.

This would have not passed without a huge amount of funding for lies and by the next time gay marriage comes up to vote they need to be picking up pennies of the street to fund the campaign against it.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:23

inconsequential: Feb 06, 2004

This isn't a troll but a genuine question. Anytime I listen to NPR or hear this issue being discussed, I hear that the majority of Americans actually believe gays should be allowed to be married. Yet every time there's a vote, it's swiftly voted down. So those numbers are wrong or what? I'm confused about the disconnect there.

I'm for gay rights, and voted for them last time I could in my state of Ohio. I just wonder why, if it's an issue that's gaining support, the proponents are unable to ever get the legislation passed.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:25

Schweinhund: Oct 23, 2004; "Tomorrow, you and I will go into the outfield and we will talk. I have a few things to teach you."

Three Olives posted:

There are absolutely no negatives for legalizing gay marriage.

You wouldn't have anything to post about if they did?

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:25

Clanpot Shake: Aug 10, 2006; shake shake!

Three Olives posted:

Absolutely, the people on the right side of this issue run their campaigns with dignity and truth, because that's what they really believe in. The bigots claim to be be moral and then lie and break the law with impunity, it's time to cut the head of the snake and then stomp on the head in every legal way possible.

Maybe it's just me, but I had to read this a few times to decide whether you meant 'republican' or 'correct.'

edit:

inconsequential posted:

This isn't a troll but a genuine question. Anytime I listen to NPR or hear this issue being discussed, I hear that the majority of Americans actually believe gays should be allowed to be married. Yet every time there's a vote, it's swiftly voted down. So those numbers are wrong or what? I'm confused about the disconnect there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:25

jot: Jul 05, 2003; Some parts of history were never meant to be uncovered.

Twanki posted:

I'm simply nauseous with hatred for these people.

I just don't get how these people get such joy out of denying others their rights. Disgusting.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:26

Shitty_Wok: Apr 28, 2009; Can't post for 14 hours!

inconsequential posted:

This isn't a troll but a genuine question. Anytime I listen to NPR or hear this issue being discussed, I hear that the majority of Americans actually believe gays should be allowed to be married. Yet every time there's a vote, it's swiftly voted down. So those numbers are wrong or what? I'm confused about the disconnect there.

I'm for gay rights, and voted for them last time I could in my state of Ohio. I just wonder why, if it's an issue that's gaining support, the proponents are unable to ever get the legislation passed.

Because the opponents have deep pockets and know how to scare people just right. "Gay marriage WILL be taught in schools to YOUR second grader!"

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:26

FidgetyRat: Feb 01, 2005; Contemplating the suckiness of people since 1982

I just don't understand how states or counties have the ability to over-rule basic civil rights. All men are created equal. Period. Black, white, Gay, Religious, etc. Why is this even being questioned and why isn't the Fed stepping in.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:27

Crows Turn Off: Jan 07, 2008

inconsequential posted:

This isn't a troll but a genuine question. Anytime I listen to NPR or hear this issue being discussed, I hear that the majority of Americans actually believe gays should be allowed to be married. Yet every time there's a vote, it's swiftly voted down. So those numbers are wrong or what?

If asked if gay people should be able to marry, most of the general population says, "Sure, why not?" But they don't care enough to actually vote one way or the other, while you have those that are staunchly against it voting in droves.

FidgetyRat posted:

I just don't understand how states or counties have the ability to over-rule basic civil rights. All men are created equal. Period. Black, white, Gay, Religious, etc. Why is this even being questioned and why isn't the Fed stepping in.

I don't know. The Federal Constitution trumps everything - Federal laws, State laws, and yes, even State Constitutions. If any of those limit rights and freedoms that the Federal Constitution guarantees, then they are null and void.

Crows Turn Off fucked around with this message at Nov 04, 2009 around 15:33

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:27

Vilerat: May 11, 2002

jot posted:

I just don't get how these people get such joy out of denying others their rights. Disgusting.

Their sports team won, drat the issue being discussed I guess.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:28

Neckbeard v. 2.0: May 04, 2004; Yeah, they make cars too.

Let's vote back slavery.

This is when Obama needs to step the gently caress up. He could scratch DADT now with an EO.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:28

inconsequential: Feb 06, 2004

Crows Turn Off posted:

If asked if gay people should be able to marry, most of the general population says, "Sure, why not?" But they don't care enough to actually vote one way or the other, while you have those that are staunchly against it voting in droves.

I understand that, I guess my thought is if the majority of people truly see it as a benefit, then the proponents need to do more to get those people to vote, just like any issue that's going on. It sucks, but that's the result of the system we have in place. If you can't get people motivated enough to spend 15 minutes checking Yes or No, then they really don't care about that issue.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:30

Noni: Jul 08, 2003; Can't post for 472 hours!

inconsequential posted:

This isn't a troll but a genuine question. Anytime I listen to NPR or hear this issue being discussed, I hear that the majority of Americans actually believe gays should be allowed to be married. Yet every time there's a vote, it's swiftly voted down. So those numbers are wrong or what? I'm confused about the disconnect there.

I'm for gay rights, and voted for them last time I could in my state of Ohio. I just wonder why, if it's an issue that's gaining support, the proponents are unable to ever get the legislation passed.

It usually depends on how you phrase the question. If you ask people if they support gay rights, vaguely, most will say yes. If you ask them, on a ballot, to give gays rights, most in the US will say no.

So, that's why polls have to phrase the question like this:

If you rephrase the question to the "everything but..." definition, where all marriage rights are given, but the token definition of marriage stays or is solidified between a man and a woman, then the gap closes a lot more.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:32

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; This election has never been about me - it's about you.

inconsequential posted:

I understand that, I guess my thought is if the majority of people truly see it as a benefit, then the proponents need to do more to get those people to vote, just like any issue that's going on. It sucks, but that's the result of the system we have in place. If you can't get people motivated enough to spend 15 minutes checking Yes or No, then they really don't care about that issue.

From what I've heard, the pro-gay marriage forces actually ran a good campaign in Maine, and turnout was pretty high for an off-year election. It's not their fault fear and bigotry won out over love and equality.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:32

Happy Hippo: Aug 08, 2004

But marriage is sacred. And God. And the Bible.

Fuckin' quod erat demonstrandum.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:33

Rate Thread:

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > Fuck you 52% of Maine (Gay Elections Ahoy)

Pages (21): 12 3 4 5 Next › Last »

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.9 (SAVB-2.0.12d)
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright ©2008, Something Awful LLC