Gay Marriage | Maine | News

Maine Christian Group Threatens to Repeal Marriage Equality

Oh, just give up already.

MEWe are in conversations with the Alliance Defending Freedom, Family Research Council and Citizen Link to provide resources for churches, pastors and Christians who will need legal protections for our religious liberties. We want to discern the possible impact of redefining marriage as well as the remedies. Our priority is to help ensure your opportunity to live out your faith and ministry without interference.

We are exploring the possibility of returning to the ballot again to overturn this egregious new definition of marriage. That may mean another campaign, including a signature drive to get it back on another ballot.

(via good as you)

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Oh, bring it on !

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | Nov 9, 2012 3:12:01 PM


  2. This is pathetic. No legitimate legal action exists for these idiots. The outcome is constitutional, and gay couples who get married will have no adverse effect on other marries couples or religious rights. The only religious "right" infringed on is the right to discriminate in the public sphere, which should have long ago been ruled unconstitutional. I hope they do try to bring lawsuits so that they continue to waste their limited resources and marginalize themselves.

    Posted by: Stefan | Nov 9, 2012 3:13:51 PM


  3. Can they do that?

    I do not understand how it is legal to give a group of people their civil rights. Then take them back.
    This shows that it is particularly importantthe outcome of prop 8.
    It should not have been allowed. When people get such rightsit should be here to stay.

    Posted by: nn | Nov 9, 2012 3:17:36 PM


  4. so they want it to be put to a vote. the vote happens. they lose.

    and they're still complaining.

    Christ could be reborn on earth, say He loves and supports gay people and their marriages, and these people would say "I think you're wrong, Jesus, we're going to have to get a second opinion"

    how about y'all raise some money for the victims of Sandy, eh? or the homeless? the hungry? the kids suffering from starvation and malnutrition while your own family of gluttons binges on Chick-Fil-A?

    ugh.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Nov 9, 2012 3:18:57 PM


  5. First of all, they do have the legal right to do this. After all, we just did that to them; the ballot initiative we put up in Maine was a response to the 2012 ballot initiative that took marriage away. If we agree that civil rights should be put up to vote (I don't), then we can't say we approve of its legality only when we win.

    Second, though, I think this is nothing but bluster. They know that the demographics are against them NOW, and will only continue to move further against them in the two years before they can mount another ballot challenge. And in those two years, hundreds of same-sex couples will marry in Maine and some of those currently opposed will see that the sky has not fallen, their churches have not been sued and their pastors have not been put in jail, and their marriages go on just as before. This group is saying what their members want to hear, and they're saying what they need to say in order to keep the money flowing in. But they know that spending money in 2014 for a ballot initiative that is certain to fail will be flushing their money down the drain.

    Posted by: Thom Watson | Nov 9, 2012 3:23:48 PM


  6. NN,
    What do you mean, "can they do that?”
    But then you site Prop 8? That's exactly what they did with Prop 8 which took away rights they had already been established.
    Their hate has no limit, unfortunately.

    Posted by: Paul | Nov 9, 2012 3:27:07 PM


  7. "Our priority is to help ensure your opportunity to live out your faith and ministry without interference."

    That's rich.

    My priority is to live out my life without interference from superstitious bigots.

    Posted by: ByTheBay | Nov 9, 2012 3:31:13 PM


  8. And this is exactly why civil rights should never be put up for a vote.

    Posted by: Howard | Nov 9, 2012 3:35:12 PM


  9. The first ballot initiative to change a state constitution to define a marriage as between one man and one woman to be put to the voters and fail was in Arizona, of all places, in 2006. Unfortunately, the wing-nuts reworded the issue and brought it back to the polls in 2008, where it passed. So, yes, it is perfectly legal to keep trotting the same tripe to the polls until you get the results you want, and no, they won't let one defeat stop them. They'll just find a way to word it differently and throw more money better spent elsewhere at it. All they need is enough signatures and enough cash.

    Posted by: Kenneth | Nov 9, 2012 3:41:23 PM


  10. Do these losers have better things to do?

    Posted by: simon | Nov 9, 2012 3:44:05 PM


  11. Signature drive? More like a $ drive.

    Posted by: BETTY | Nov 9, 2012 3:48:15 PM


  12. They can try, and they will fail. The public will not want to revisit marriage at the ballot to take away civil rights they just approved. Not to mention the constitutional issues that would be raised if pigs fly and they succeeded. Like the Republican Party as a whole, they're in denial, or simply want to keep cash flowing in from the dying zealots.

    Posted by: Ernie | Nov 9, 2012 3:51:11 PM


  13. @Paul, the appeals court overturned prop 8 on the theory that you can't take away rights once they're won. If the Supreme Court declines to hear the case then the rule the appeals court established will apply only to states in the 9th district, not to Maine. If the SCOTUS takes the case, then their ruling, whatever it is, will apply in Maine as well. That's why the outcome of the prop 8 case is relevant here.

    Posted by: JJ | Nov 9, 2012 3:51:25 PM


  14. How powerful could their god be if he couldn't fix a simple election for them? Or maybe they should consider that their god wanted this to pass.

    Posted by: Eddie | Nov 9, 2012 3:54:12 PM


  15. I want to revisit the non-profit tax code these morons are hiding behind. If this is their idea of charity work, then that license needs to be revokes.

    Posted by: 99% | Nov 9, 2012 3:54:28 PM


  16. So one strategy I am sure they are thinking of is to put it on the ballot in an off-cycle election year (like they did in 2009). That would at least boost the likelihood that their effort would win, but I still think the odds are against them. Mainers really don't like antics like that.

    Posted by: Scott | Nov 9, 2012 3:58:18 PM


  17. This is of course the ultimate kick in the teeth for us when we are "given" our civil rights by the majority.

    These rights are unenumerated in the constitution but are inalienable nonetheless.
    We don't need a majority suddenly feeling in a "giving" humour.
    The People need to be told that our rights to equality are just that; rights to equality......get used to it.

    OK, the Maine vote is a symbolic declaration of what we always had, but we don't hold our right to civil marriage by virtue of some condescending noblesse oblige of the majority.
    We hold our rights to equality as stakeholders in our democracy.......no vote of a majority can strip us of our rights. And we will fight.

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | Nov 9, 2012 4:01:07 PM


  18. I agree with Thom: Emrich is just saying what he thinks his followers want him to say. As for getting this issue back on the ballot again--I don't think this crowd (Emrich, Conley, et al.) have the smarts, resources (both financial and human), or organization to pull it off.

    It's very apparent to me that Frank Schubert was the mastermind behind Prop 8, Maine in 2009, and North Carolina in May 2012. NC may very well be his swan song. Schubert was effective when he was behind the scenes and pulling the strings--and nobody really knew who he was or what he was doing. Now that he's been exposed, he's lost the major strength that he's brought to these past campaigns. Who's going to hire him now? And bankroll him? He doesn't come cheap.

    Without someone like Schubert to direct the effort, the local folks really don't have a chance to run something this big. Personally, I think same-sex marriage is very safe in Maine. Legislators are certainly not going to repeal a law the people passed which would be the other option.

    Posted by: LHN | Nov 9, 2012 4:16:11 PM


  19. Anything for money. Anything.

    Posted by: Anthony | Nov 9, 2012 4:29:37 PM


  20. Someone needs to remind these "Christians" what Christ was all about:
    A man that flouted the religious laws of his time, saying that loving others is MORE IMPORTANT than adhering blindly to old laws.

    He was a courageous rebel, that fought against social inequities and injustices.

    And yet still, why do these blind twits fight against the relationship between CONSENTING ADULTS, but bluntly lend sanctuary for child rapists?

    Posted by: Maguita | Nov 9, 2012 4:32:55 PM


  21. Because only THEY can be right, and if you disagree, you are wrong.

    Posted by: Randy | Nov 9, 2012 4:42:58 PM


  22. It's actually kind of scary to think that they could come back in, say, 2014 or some other non-presidential election year and reverse this due to a different electoral demographic. And then we could come back in 2016 and vote it in again. This is why it should never be left to a vote...married couples could ping-pong in and out of a state of legality.

    That said, I don't think they'd even win in 2013 or 2014 anyway.

    Posted by: Bruno | Nov 9, 2012 5:12:58 PM


  23. @LHN: I'd argue that Frank Schubert had one strong, defining moment in his Wizard of Oz routine: the Gavin Newsom ad in California. It was a fairly genious stroke that he effected at the perfect time in the perfect way. If any advertisement changed the game in any of those states, that did. Otherwise, I think he just rode the coattails of hate until its inevitable demise on Tuesday. Sure, he could win again in a remaining red state like Indiana, but he and his hateful cohorts will never reverse progress, and they were always powerless to do so anyway.

    Posted by: Bruno | Nov 9, 2012 5:16:55 PM


  24. @Bruno, thanks for your comment and I agree about the Gavin Newsom ad. But, we were fooled in Maine in 2009 and led to believe that Marc Mutty was running the show. Schubert's strength is/was being invisible but his own super-sized ego got the best of him on election night 2009 when he grabbed the microphone and announced victory for Question 1. That's when it all started going downhill for him here in Maine. We weren't fooled twice.

    As for 2014: I predict a huge turnout in that election because we have a *very* unpopular governor who has said he plans to run again. People will be turning out in droves to drive him from the Blaine House. 2016 is the next presidential election. That leaves 2015 for Emrich & Co. (if they were really to do something, which I don't believe). By then, same-sex couples will have been happily marrying for almost 3 years and I think this issue will be a non-issue by that time.

    Posted by: LHN | Nov 9, 2012 5:27:55 PM


  25. For the above group. It is very simple. Don't believe in marriage equality, then just keep it to yourself. No one is going to force you to marry someone of the same sex, any more than someone is going to force Orthodox Jews to eat pork! You can preach/ believe whatever you want, you just don't get to tell others how to live and vote. Just don't expect to be able to work for or, get taxpayer's money and be able to spew hate and ignorance! Don't be in a business where you are supposed to service the public (unless you can hold your tounge).
    Or to keep it real simple, treat other people the way you want to be treated and you probably won't get in trouble. Some guy said that once, you know the guy you claim to quote.

    Posted by: Tom in long beach | Nov 9, 2012 6:14:24 PM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Why Nate Silver Got Drunk: VIDEO« «