FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Maine

   
Author Topic: Maine
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
We're up to 5.

Maine has legalized gay marriage with the proviso that no religious institution can be legally compelled to sanctify one.

http://www.hrc.org/12658.htm

What the article doesn't mention is that anti-gay zealots are already trying to muster the 55k signatures needed to put a Prop-8-like measure on the ballot.

Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
There's a lot of info on Maine, and New Hampshire, in the "DC Recognizes.." thread.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
Chuggachuggachuggachuggachugga chooooo chooooooooo

WRECKIN' BALL COMIN THROUGH, WHO'S NEXT

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post 
huh. I thought Maine got sunk by the Spanish a long time ago.

"...the proviso that no religious institution can be legally compelled to sanctify one."

That had to be put in specificly to prevent the state and US supreme courts from nullifying the whole law based upon a FirstAmendment challenge by a religious organization.

Not saying that such a challenge couldn't still be made; just that that either of the supreme courts would make themselves look both absurd and legally capricious trying to justify any ruling in favor of the challengers. And when all is said and done, the only weapons that any supreme court possesses to enforce its decisions are dignity and gravitas.

[ May 06, 2009, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]

Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
aspectre: Actually, the proviso is unnecessary because the first amendment implies it.

However, it's still important to spell it out to subvert the lies about priests being forced to marry gay couples if the thing passes.

I've long thought that proposed pro-SSM laws should carry that same clause so that the anti-SSM people have no ability to claim victimhood and have to show their true colours if and when they continue to oppose equal rights.

Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
The newest counterchallenge is being made through an attempt at a people's veto. There's a bit of irony inherent in that.

The same people that were complaining about judicial rulings and "legislating from the bench" were claiming that they were only upset about the laws not going through the right process. Now that the laws are going through the "right process" they want to create a new process.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

The same people that were complaining about judicial rulings and "legislating from the bench" were claiming that they were only upset about the laws not going through the right process.

To be fair, I haven't heard many people say the only reason they were upset was because the laws didn't go through the right process.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post 
"...the proviso is unnecessary because the first amendment implies it."

The problem is that various laws have been tossed out in their entirety based solely upon a failure to have such exceptions made to comply with state and US constitutions explicitly included within their texts.

[ May 06, 2009, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]

Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2