Gay Rights Groups Regroup After Maine Loss

Washington Post: Despite Setback, Gay Marriage Supporters Pledge to Continue State-by-State Efforts

(Washington Post)  This story was written by Ashley Surdin.

---

Gay rights advocates across the country are regrouping after a crushing defeat at the ballot box in Maine, pledging to continue their state-by-state effort to promote marriage equality and to turn their attention to a federal court case in California.

On Tuesday, Maine became the 31st state to block same-sex marriage through a public referendum. Just over half the voters there repealed a state law that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed, a statute passed by the legislature in May and signed by Gov. John E. Baldacci (D). The law had been on hold, pending the vote.

Gay rights advocates had been optimistic about the Maine referendum, having collected more money, political support and volunteers than in other campaigns nationwide. Polls leading up to the vote indicated a dead heat on Question 1, as the measure was known.

Courts and legislatures have made it possible for gay men and lesbians to marry in five states, but Tuesday's results mirror what has happened in every state where the question of same-sex marriage has gone before voters.

More 2009 Election Results
Should Signers of Anti-Gay Rights Petition Be Exposed?


"I think the reality is that we came very close but didn't succeed in dispelling the distractions and fears that are keeping a small slice of people from treating others fairly," said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, a national gay rights group. Wolfson, as well as spokespeople for other gay rights organizations, blamed an opposition ad campaign for stoking voters' fears.

The campaign against same-sex marriage in Maine drew heavily from a similar effort in California last year; there, a ballot measure known as Proposition 8 overturned the state Supreme Court ruling allowing such unions. Maine voters were exposed to TV commercials, such as one featuring parents lamenting that their children were being taught about same-sex marriage in school, that were nearly identical to ads used in California.

For the gay rights movement, the defeat is another setback to its long-held strategy of building the case for marriage equality state by state. Historically, the tactics have been to target places where conditions seem favorable, and Maine, characterized by its governor as a libertarian state, seemed to fit that criterion.

Still, advocates say the strategy remains effective. They point to Tuesday's balloting in Kalamazoo, Mich., where voters approved an anti-discrimination ordinance that provides gays protections in employment, housing and public accommodations. Another victory appeared to be likely in Washington state, where incomplete returns indicate that a majority of voters have approved the legislature's expansion of domestic partnership rights.

Advocates say there was a partial victory even in Maine, where the vote was closer than it had been in previous campaigns.

"We're hopeful that it's a signal that there is increasing support for gay couples to marry," said Dan Hawes, field director for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "Nationally, we're going to continue education efforts to move the needle of public opinion, especially in California."

California remains a key battleground. Some gay rights organizations are considering putting the same-sex marriage issue before voters there again as early as next year.

But most of the focus on the state stems from a federal lawsuit challenging Proposition 8 that is expected to go to trial in January. Lawyers David Boies and Theodore B. Olson, onetime opponents in the legal battle over the 2000 presidential election, are representing same-sex couples in the case, arguing, among other things, that Proposition 8 violates gays' right to due process and equal protection under the Constitution.

The federal case marks a shift in direction for the gay rights movement. Activists and legal strategists historically have avoided taking the issue to a narrowly divided Supreme Court, fearing a major setback. And though not all gay rights advocates agree on the timing, there is a growing consensus that there may never be a perfect time for a federal challenge.

"The whole idea that somehow you have to choose between federal and state work is a false 'either or.' The reality is, every movement needs to do both," Wolfson said. "You don't win on the federal level without engaging in those conversations and legal victories in states and communities. At the same time, you want to be part of a national conversation that helps create a climate for more states to move in the right direction."

The increasing push for change on the federal level has been heightened by arguments that President Obama has not adequately addressed gay rights. One group, Equality California, has urged him to file a brief in federal court challenging Proposition 8.

[justdatrooth]

It sounds as though these folks don't really care what the voters think. They just want it their way. As for the legislators who ignored the will of the people, vote them out.

[hakori]

justdatrooth, are you really so off the mark that this is how you see it? You're right; they don't care what the voters think. They want the same rights you and every other heterosexual American takes for granted! So, yes they want it their way. If the gains by black Americans during the civil rights movement had been voted on by the majority, they'd still be second class citizens! You or no other American should have the "right" to vote on wether those of a minority group should be equal to you!!! You are clueless about the nature of the question here, but you certainlty seem proud to spout off you ignorant opinion!

[armyoftwelve]

TO: cidaia

When the time comes to vote down same-sex "marriage" in your state, let me know what state it is so I can donate some $$$ to the cause.

Keep the people of Maine in your prayers...they need it!

[cidaia]

When the civil rights movement expands to include children,

Every child will have the right to what right now only "wanted" children have: the presumption that he is entitled to have a relationship with both his father and his mother. And that the only time this may be severed, is when doing so is in the CHILD'S best interest.

When the civil rights movement expands to include those without a voice, we will no longer practice the evil habit of deliberately creating babies who will be rejected by one or both parents. Children rejected by their parents will be rare and ACCIDENTAL, NOT DELIBERATE. No person will be viewed as having a "right" to deliberately create a child with a partner they know to not want a child. No person will be viewed as having the "right" to exclude the child's other parent from the family tree.

Gays are claiming rights that aren't theirs. They are claiming the right to make up for what biology will not let them do (sexual reproduction) by demanding the right to an "equality" that is based on child abuse.

When a child loses a parent through some accident, even a dumb mistake, that's tragedy. When a child loses a parent because the other parent is selfish, that's criminal.

[armyoftwelve]

A marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman. Maine voters just said so; California voters said so a year ago. In fact, voters in 31 out of 50 states have said so.

[slownewsday-05]

"by cidaia
A marriage is between a couple capable of reproducing sexually.

Couples that do not qualify as procreative couples (for example siblings) do not have the right to marry."



Wow - so infertile couples and the elderly don't have the right to marry?

Sorry, go fish.

[cidaia]

Sure infertile and the elderly can marry.

You are reading into what I said, something that wasn't there.

Anyone who is "eligible" to procreate, may do so.

And if the elderly miraculously have a baby, we aren't going to stop them.

And if the infertile manage to overcome their infertility, good for them.

The ones who are barred from marriage are the ones who are not ELIGIBLE for human sexuality.

We know that brothers and sisters will have inbred children, so we don't have to grant them a marriage license.

And we know that gays will be trying to pass off their baby's parentage in a manner that is obviously fraudulent, so we don't need to grant them a marriage license either.

You're welcome to think that marriage is about nothing but "being with the one I love", but it's not. It's tied to procreative functions, and it serves real pragmatic purposes that you just don't have any right to make illegal.

[hungry1968-17]

by cidaia November 6, 2009 8:33 AM EST

Likewise, marriage is for a specific purpose - and for the past 3000 years, it ain't been "love". Or "sexual fulfillment". Or "happiness". It has been about providing for the kids. The woman needs taking care of. The man needs the contract to define what he is entitled to in return for providing for the woman. Babies are protected from abandonment and poverty.

Of course, not all people qualify for marriage, which is why we came up with the idea of civil union. It's just not right that a lesbian gets pregnant & her girlfriend gets to be legally presumed the "father". It's not fair to the real father, not fair to the child.







Where do you get this nonsense from?!?!?

[hungry1968-17]

by cidaia November 6, 2009 8:33 AM EST
You can own a car or not, as you see fit, but if you want the driver's license, you have to prove you're eligible for what the license grants.

Driver's licenses have come up with secondary purposes - identification - and to prevent discrimination, those who do not qualify for the driving can get an ID.







Using THIS analogy, you should also say that gay people SHOULD NOT be allowed to drive a car.

The logic that YOU ARE proposing is that YOU ALONE can determine who can get married to who, so you might as well tell them that they can't get driver's licenses too.

What's the difference between DISCRIMINATING against them for a marriage license, a driver's license, a fishing license, or anything else?

ANSWER: there IS NO REASON, or legal justification, for you to discriminate against them under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.

[hungry1968-17]

by cidaia November 6, 2009 8:23 AM EST

For instance: children born to heteros are entitled to the right to a relationship with both parents. Children are protected against parents who wish to exclude the other parent from the family tree, and set up a stepparent as the "real" parent. There are explicit legal requirements governing when and how ties can be severed, and what constitutes abandonment.

Gays, of course, are entitled to skip by all that, because everyone should be happy and proud to sacrifice anything called for, if it is necessary in the fight to keep gays feeling equal, even when it is biology and not mankind that is the true cause of the inequality.

Or here's another: in hetero families - including adoptive families - all reproductive decisions are supposed to be guided by what is best for the CHILD. Boy, aren't gays just so lucky that gay trumps all? Their kids are required to do what's best for the GAY!

Equal protection under the law cuts both ways.






What a coincidence!!

Children born to gay couples, are entitled to a relationship with both of their parents too!! One child that plays hockey with a friend's child, has "two mommies", and she loves them both dearly.




AGAIN - how are children "required to do what's best for the GAY"?!?! Which LAW or constitutional requirement is that from? Please post the link.

And in the case of adoptive families, are you seriously saying that children would be better off bouncing from foster home to foster home feeling neglected and unwanted, than they would be if a loving and caring gay couple adopted them, and provided them with a beautiful home and a successful and prosperous life?

[cidaia]

Children born to gay couples, are required to pretend that their stepparent is their "real" mom or dad.

This is child abuse when heteros do it.

And they are expected to be happy about this, they are expected to support the gay parent's needs and not discuss any feelings they might have, that would interfere with the gay's neediness. If the child refused to play along, they are shamed and silenced just as badly as anything a religious parent did to any gay "in the closet" child.

And, no, I didn't say anything at all critical of adoption. Adoption and what you want to do, are two very different things. The gay rights movement tries to confuse their child abuse with normal adoption practices for the same reason they keep trying to insist the reason they are entitled to various rights is because they're "just like blacks" when they're not: gays rely on false analogies because they can't argue their own case, which is weak and based on guilt trips instead of sound logic.

[hakori]

cidaia, so we fall back to the tried and true method of demonizing those you don't like. I guess you could ask the question about the child "playing" along with a hetersexual parent's new spouse as well, but then again that's ok becuase they're "normal", right? You sound as if you're saying gays aren't even full people, much less tax paying Americans entitled to the same rights you wake up to every day. Gays who adopt children are child abusers? You actually help gays rigths more than you know. Please keep up the hate speech, and that is EXACTLY what it is. You wouldn't know sound logic if Mr Spock mind melded with you!

[hungry1968-17]

by cidaia November 6, 2009 8:23 AM EST
Children have the right to equal protection under the law.

Children of gays are treated like second-class citizens, compared to what the children of heteros get, in terms of rights.






If children of gays are treated like second hand citizens, it's only because of YOUR bigotry and intolerance.

I'm sure that your "Jesus" is happy with your discrimination, but it doesn't fly in America. We cherish our freedom and liberty too much.

Perhaps you should move some place where they share your values - like Pakistan's Swat Valley or Iran?

[hungry1968-17]

by cidaia November 6, 2009 6:53 AM EST
Here's equal protections. Children born to a hetero couple have the right to relationships with both their father and their mother, unless a court of law severs that relationship.






Can you post the section of the constitution that specifically gives children "the right to relationships with both their father and their mother".

That's a new claim, and I'd like to see the legal version.

[cidaia]

Children have the right to equal protection under the law.

Children of gays are treated like second-class citizens, compared to what the children of heteros get, in terms of rights.

For instance: children born to heteros are entitled to the right to a relationship with both parents. Children are protected against parents who wish to exclude the other parent from the family tree, and set up a stepparent as the "real" parent. There are explicit legal requirements governing when and how ties can be severed, and what constitutes abandonment.

Gays, of course, are entitled to skip by all that, because everyone should be happy and proud to sacrifice anything called for, if it is necessary in the fight to keep gays feeling equal, even when it is biology and not mankind that is the true cause of the inequality.

Or here's another: in hetero families - including adoptive families - all reproductive decisions are supposed to be guided by what is best for the CHILD. Boy, aren't gays just so lucky that gay trumps all? Their kids are required to do what's best for the GAY!

Equal protection under the law cuts both ways.

[hungry1968-17]

by cidaia November 6, 2009 6:58 AM EST
A marriage is between a couple capable of reproducing sexually.

Couples that do not qualify as procreative couples (for example siblings) do not have the right to marry.







What if a woman is infertile or the a man is sterile?

They CANNOT legally be married, because they can't have kids?


Can you post the section of the penal law that specifically prohibits marriage between people that can't have kids? I'd like to see it.

[cidaia]

So by your logic, someone who has a driver's license but does not drive, proves that driving is not related to the license at all?

[cidaia]

If men and women could split the costs and risks and sacrifices of pregnancy and childrearing 50/50, marriage wouldn't be necessary.

Unfortunately, at some point in our history we merged into a specialized economy, and one sex requires support while the other sex, as a direct result, has a much greater earning potential.

That is why marriage is necessary.

Incidentally there is growing evidence that the differences between mothers & fathers don't just stop there. Do you care how it feels to be motherless or fatherless? cuz having an extra person of the wrong sex hanging around, doesn't make a motherless kid any less motherless.

[hungry1968-17]

Not at all.

By MY logic, if someone has a driver's license, they can own a car if they want to, or not if they don't. They can buy a Mercedes or they can own a Chevy Aveo. They can drive to the store, school, the doctor's office or anywhere else they want to. That's what's known as FREEDOM and LIBERTY.

By YOUR logic, they can only drive to certain places WITH YOUR PERMISSION while avoiding places that YOU ALONE determine to be "morally wrong", and they can only own the type of car that YOU ALLOW THEM TO BUY and would be prohibited from buying cars that you don't approve of.

That's the difference between you and I. I believe in freedom, liberty, and everyone else staying the F out of other people's personal business, when it doesn't include me.

[hungry1968-17]

I know plenty of single mothers, and some of them have CHOSEN to have kids WITHOUT having a father in the lives.

I also know a woman that was brutalized and beaten by her husband for 23 years. He raped her 12 years ago and got her pregnant, which turned out to be her third child, which she loves dearly.

By YOUR logic, that child is being "deprived" of a father, because my good friend left her husband. Are you contending that for the good of the child, she should have stayed with her abusive husband, and kept taking regular beatings, "for the good of the child" because YOU believe a child NEEDS a mother and a father?

[hungry1968-17]

I'm still waiting to see that version of the penal law that you thinks exists.

[cidaia]

yes, some mothers choose to have babies out of wedlock - being selfish and incapable of empathy toward one's own child is by no means restricted to gays. Look at Octomom or Jon & Kate.

And if those single moms start demanding that they, too, are entitled to marriage benefits, I'll oppose that too.

[cidaia]

Marriage is an institution that is all about sexual reproduction.

You should design an institution for your own style of reproduction. You should not demand that marriage stop serving the needs of those who reproduce sexually, just so that you can participate as an "equal".

[cidaia]

You can own a car or not, as you see fit, but if you want the driver's license, you have to prove you're eligible for what the license grants.

Driver's licenses have come up with secondary purposes - identification - and to prevent discrimination, those who do not qualify for the driving can get an ID.

Likewise, marriage is for a specific purpose - and for the past 3000 years, it ain't been "love". Or "sexual fulfillment". Or "happiness". It has been about providing for the kids. The woman needs taking care of. The man needs the contract to define what he is entitled to in return for providing for the woman. Babies are protected from abandonment and poverty.

Of course, not all people qualify for marriage, which is why we came up with the idea of civil union. It's just not right that a lesbian gets pregnant & her girlfriend gets to be legally presumed the "father". It's not fair to the real father, not fair to the child.

[hungry1968-17]

by armyoftwelve November 5, 2009 10:43 PM EST

I don't have time to check my Bible but Jesus officiated at a wedding feast at Cana so there was obviously a wedding wasn't there??
With a little common sense, you can find the truth even if it wasn't written down for you.







Jesus didn't "officiate" at the wedding - he merely turned water into wine. (If you believe in such fallacy.)

And NOWHERE in that passage does it say that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.

[armyoftwelve]

Look, if you have the real version of what happened, bring it on.
But you don't have an alternate version YOU HAVE NOTHING!

Why did people even bother to tell Jesus that the wine ran out?? It wasn't HIS wedding feast it was because he was the officiate.

[hakori]

armyoftwelve, what the heck does any of this relgious hypothetical have to do with equal rights for all Americans? The religious right is on the wrong side of this issue and histroy. Equality is coming and when it does, it won't affect you at all! What I can't abide in this debate is that the vicitimizers scream that they are the victims! It's no different than the old mind set that the rape victim asked for it.

[armyoftwelve]

I just think that asssholes --by slownewsday-05

Yep, that's the language that comes from a really small mind. Don't have enough common sense to know what a mrraige is .

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.........

[slownewsday-05]

"by armyoftwelve
Nope, marriage is between a man and a woman."


Sorry, but look up the definition of marriage on Merriam-Webster online. You seem to like dictionary definitions...

Then look into the Equal Protections afforded by the Constitution.

[armyoftwelve]

Look up MRSA, a marriage is between a man and a woman. Maine voters just said so. California voters said so too. In fact, there are 31 out of 50 states that have taken steps along the same lines.

In America, we don't govern ourselves according to Merriam-Webster. If we did, maybe it would make us a dictionocracy?

[slownewsday-05]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

(3) : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock

(4) : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage



And army, in America we govern ourselves by the Constitution. Look up its concept of Equal Protection.

[ffoulkes-2009]

Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:

No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

[cidaia]

Here's equal protections. Children born to a hetero couple have the right to relationships with both their father and their mother, unless a court of law severs that relationship.

Custody decisions are to be decided based on what is best for the child. Parental attempts to shut out the other parent, or set up a stepparent in the other parent's place, are guilty of child abuse.

Gay marriage is based on the premise that their rights as gay people gives them the right to pre-empt the idea of custody being based on what is best for the child. Instead, the child has a legal obligation to do what is best for the gay. He must be raised without knowing or being allowed a relationship with his real other parent. If he refuses to pretend his stepfather is his "mother", his stepfather has the right to lock himself in a dressing room, shrieking hysterically and popping "pirin" tablets, until Armand comes and gives the misbehaving son a lecture on how hard it is to be homosexual, until the child remembers: gays are special.

[slownewsday-05]

"by armyoftwelve
It's isn't much different than you advertising your homsexuality. "


Are you in the third grade? I've said repeatedly that I am hetero. I just find people such as yourself who are against the wording of the Constitution unAmerican.

I still find it incredibly stupid to post personal information on a public website.

Enjoy the reception.

[armyoftwelve]

The reception is just gravy...it's the wedding that matters cause that's where the marriage takes place.

I'm about as unAmerican as President Obama and the majority of Americans
in 31 states.

Info that gets put in the paper is alreay public.....

[slownewsday-05]

Sure, but you were the one who provided the specifics.

And you're wrong - the church ceremony isn't where the marriage takes place - it's when the person officiating signs the paper and it gets registered with the government. The church doesn't have to be there at all.

Enjoy the wedding and all of the attendees, then.

[slownewsday-05]

"by armyoftwelve
Won't do 'em any good without an invitation.



They won't need to come in. They'll make plenty of noise outside.

Thanks again for the info.

[armyoftwelve]

Hee-hee, the church is just down the road from the center of town on the right. If you pass it you will see Fosters Clambake on the left.

My son plays softball with the whole police force there...we'll see how much noise you and your boyfriend make before getting thrown in the slammer for disturbing the peace. Hee-hee, I'm sure you'd LOVE that-lots of sodomy going on in prison!

[armyoftwelve]

Gee- once again you have no comeback. Maybe it's time to let your boyfriend post for a while. All my truth is tying your tongue.

[armyoftwelve]

Well, I've rattled your cage enough slownews. When you start using profanity-I know I've won. Give your boyfriend a kiss for me (not from me).

[slownewsday-05]

Rattled my cage? Nope. I'll call you an assshole free of charge any day, as the shoe fits.

And again, I'm straight - not sure you are, though. I really think you protest waaaay too much.

Thanks for sharing the wedding details.

[armyoftwelve]

Oh yeah. I definitely got you pottymouth. Maybe your boyfriend can give you a neck rub or something.

I'm sure you'll be denying the use of profanity two months fromm now just like you deny calling that girl a liar when she said she was raped.
But hey, what can one expect from a self-righteous little perv??

[armyoftwelve]

Gee-no comeback to that one eh slownews....

[slownewsday-05]

I've been responding, moron - try checking the up-to-date thread under "see all comments".

[armyoftwelve]

asssholes--by slownewsday-05
---Are not things people should be having sex with!





Well, I've got under your skin! Shame on you for being a pottymouth.

[slownewsday-05]

Under my skin? Only because you're against the Constitution's assurance of equal protection.

Other than that I think you're barely worthy of being called human.

I'll look forward to the wedding and reception on the 7th. I'll be sure to announce the location for anyone interested, in the meantime.

[armyoftwelve]

By the way, 31 states out of 50 have either constitutionally defined marriage as something between ONE man and ONE woman or they have repealed same-sex "marriage." You have a problem with most of the people in this country AND with democracy itself!

[slownewsday-05]

Sorry, army - you obviously don't understand the Constitution.

Can't help you there, bible thumper.

Expect a few hundred extra wedding guests.

[armyoftwelve]

Expect a few hundred extra wedding guests--.by slownewsday-05

Won't do 'em any good without an invitation.
We might have room for you and your boyfriend.

[armyoftwelve]

I'll look forward to the wedding and reception on the 7th. I'll be sure to announce the location for anyone interested, in the meantime
by slownewsday-05

I'm sure my son will be posting his engagement announcement in the Coast Star or the Herald. Maybe you can have your boyfriend clip it out and post it on your refridgerator.

And then you can imagine what it would be like to really get married -to someone of the opposite sex.

[ffoulkes-2009]

Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:

No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

[slownewsday-05]

"A marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman, period! "


Or one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.


No disagreement, army, except that you're exclusions aren't legal.

[cidaia]

A marriage is between a couple capable of reproducing sexually.

Couples that do not qualify as procreative couples (for example siblings) do not have the right to marry.

Marriage exists because women become vulnerable and need support & protection when they become mothers. The one who is supposed to support them, naturally, is the baby's other parent - the father. Marriage is an institution that supports sexual reproduction. It is by and for people who reproduce sexually.

What you want is not real. It is based on the fantasy that you can force everyone to pretend you're just like a real procreative couple (capable of sexual reproduction), but in order to pull off your fantasy, you need to not only indulge in denial, and the toxic forms of make-believe, but you also have to force other people to indulge in denials, and you need to exploit both your baby's other real parent (who must be used & discarded), and your child (who must be reduced to a commodity).

[armyoftwelve]

And I really do hope your kids are all gay
by slownewsday-05

Don't get your hopes up...my oldest son just called to say he's engaged. LOL! What awesome timing :)

Maybe you and your boyfriend can give each other diarrhea...it happens when you stick your no-no where you do #2.

[slownewsday-05]

Wow - I really hope your kids aren't as close minded and short sighted as you are.

I wish your son and his boyfriend the best marriage ever.

[armyoftwelve]

Yep, the wedding date is February 7 at St Christopher's Curch.
They're looking at having the reception at the Cliff House. Hey, I'd invite you and your boyfriend slownews but you'd just get jealous--we don't have same sex "marriage" in Maine.

See, a marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman, the voters in Maine just said so. : )

Tell ya what slownews....I'm willing to talk about accomodating you and your boyfriend's alternative lifestyle. But don't be your usual hateful self. And remember that a union of two members of the same gender isn't a marriage.

[slownewsday-05]

"Maybe you and your boyfriend can give each other diarrhea...it happens when you stick your no-no where you do #2. "


I think that statement says it all about your lack of maturity.

I'm not gay, army. I just think that asssholes like yourself who would rob others of equality are the scum of the earth.

[slownewsday-05]

"by armyoftwelve
Yep, the wedding date is February 7 at St Christopher's Curch.
They're looking at having the reception at the Cliff House."


Well, maybe I'll just swing by Cape Neddick then.

[slownewsday-05]

"And remember that a union of two members of the same gender isn't a marriage. "


Sure it is. just as valid as hetero marriage.