Same-sex marriage advocates put together a massive campaign war chest, outspending opponents by a wide margin. They pounded the pavement and hit the airwaves and the blogosphere with a message of fairness and equality.

But the message did not connect with a majority of Maine voters. And that was a profound disappointment for a crowd of several hundred who showed up at a hoped-for victory party in a Portland hotel ballroom Tuesday night.

"This is about love and commitment and family," said Jesse Connolly, campaign manager of Protect Maine Equality. "So we'll stay the course, and I ask you to stay the course with us."

Though he said he was proud of the campaign he ran with the help of 8,000 volunteers, Connolly conceded defeat in a short written statement.

Just a few blocks away, a small group of same-sex marriage opponents was celebrating.

"We prevailed because the people of Maine, the silent majority, the folks back home spoke with their vote tonight," said Marc Mutty, campaign chairman of Stand for Marriage Maine.

In front of a cheering crowd, Mutty said: "Let's be clear. What the people of Maine had to say was that marriage matters, and it's between a man and a woman. This has never been about hating anyone, hating gays or anything. This has been about marriage, and only about marriage and preserving it."

Frank Schubert, campaign director of Stand for Marriage Maine, claims victory for the "Yes on 1" campaign Tuesday evening.

But Connolly has said that same-sex marriage opponents deceived voters into thinking gay marriage and gay sex would be advocated and taught to students at public schools, even though Maine's attorney general and education commissioner said there was nothing in the law that related to school curricula.

For 14-year-old Sam Putnam and his family, the campaign has been a personal and gratifying one no matter the outcome. Putnam was thrust into the spotlight last spring when he chose to testify on behalf of his two moms at a public hearing.

His testimony was put on YouTube, and before he knew it, he was being asked to appear in a television advertisement.

"I talked about how I'm an average teenager, which I am," Putnam said.

"I play sports for my school. I have a lot of friends. I'm an honor student. I participate in the community as much as I can, and no matter what happens tonight," Putnam said earlier in the evening, "it's not going to change me as a person at all. It's just going to change the way my family is being seen."

Putnam said he's willing to wait a while longer for his two moms to be recognized the way he'd like.

But Maine Gov. John Baldacci said that day is coming.

"We may not get there as soon as I'd like to get there," Baldacci said. "But we're going to get there because that's the future."

Of the five states that have legalized same-sex marriage, four are in New England; 31 states have now rejected same-sex marriage by referendum.

In every instance where the people have gotten the chance to vote for or against gay marriage it has been rejected. =P It has only passed through the courts.

Why does it seem like the central focus of all anti-gay marriage advertisements can pretty much be summed up as FTLOGTOTC?

wow, you just totally ignored how your last point was proven wrong there, didn't you?

Are you actually Sean Hannity?

but not as nice as a one word response.

We are a center - right country and the people simply reject it time and time again. It should still be decided by the voters in the states.

Why should the majority be allowed to play keep away with the minorities happiness? The whole argument boils down to, "WAAAAAAH, I don't want to share my toys!"

There's a concept in democratic theory called the tyranny of the majority. Some of you might want to look into it. It might help you understand why your government is established the way it is and the "OMG LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH" courts have the powers they do.

OH so the courts should decide everything! OK screw the voters

I vote that republicans should be sent to gulags, to hell with what the courts think, who's with me!

OH so the courts should decide everything! OK screw the voters

it's not true that it has only passed through the courts. In fact it didn't pass through the courts in Maine. It was signed into law by the legislature.

I vote that republicans should be sent to gulags, to hell with what the courts think, who's with me!

I vote that republicans should be sent to gulags, to hell with what the courts think, who's with me!

I am!

This is much like interracial marraige back in the day, unpopular with the public, but inevitable to be protected.

We are a center - right country and the people simply reject it time and time again. It should still be decided by the voters in the states.

OH so the courts should decide everything! OK screw the voters

So people can't marry someone of the same sex, and this is as bad as sending a quarter of the country to the Gulags....


Hmmm....

Falicy.

Gays are free to live with each other as it is. Do they need the same access to tax breaks, and such? Yes. And it has been offered before. But, it is was not enough.

And as I said in another thread, that is when they lost my support.

Oh, and as far as hauling anyone off to the gulag? Feel free to try; I'm an independent and would defend each of my neighbors from that being done to (even that crazy old bat down the street). So bring lots of friends.

((shrugs))

OH so the courts should decide everything! OK screw the voters

So people can't marry someone of the same sex, and this is as bad as sending a quarter of the country to the Gulags....


Hmmm....

So people can't marry someone of the same sex, and this is as bad as sending a quarter of the country to the Gulags....


Hmmm....

Would the Courts allow the people of Massachusetts to pass a law banning everyone in the state from owning guns because guns are dangerous?

Well, you tell me where the line sits for what rights/privileges are acceptable for the majority to vote away from the minority.

just as they are obligated to take down laws regarding same sex marriage as illegal.

This is what pisses me off about the Republicans.

They're supposed to be the party of personal liberties..except when they don't like it.

I don't see how I can't just switch the word gay and interracial couples right now and we could be back in the 1950's. Would it be okay to oppose giving interracial couples marriage rights because they aren't real marriages? Instead they should have civil unions?

This is what pisses me off about the Republicans.

They're supposed to be the party of personal liberties..except when they don't like it.

Would it matter if both had the same societal benefits?





Try not to confuse government meddling with living and let live. Two separate concepts.

Would it matter if both had the same societal benefits?

You can't be serious? Hooray for blatant discrimination! I'm just going to leave before this gets any more disgusting.

This is rather clearly against the Constitution.

Gay marriage much less so.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Any strict interpretation would show that this is clearly NOT an issue for the courts.

Of course, the Constitution is overrated. If the people decide by vast majority that they wish to live in a society without guns, they should not be forced to live in a society with guns.

You can't be serious? Hooray for blatant discrimination! I'm just going to leave before this gets any more disgusting.

I don't mind black people sitting at their own lunch counters, I just don't see why we should be forced to accept them at our lunch counter.

you mean like black schools and white schools? I mean they're both exactly the same right?

Exactly. Any law completely restricting the private ownership of firearms is unconstitutional, and that is when the courts get to choose whether or not that particular piece of legislation coincides with the current interpretation of the Constitution.


I'm afraid the last sentence of Amendment XIV, Section 1 disagrees with you.



It is a court issue when legislation is created affecting same sex marriage.


Naturally, but as far as I know, the Constitution still has Amendment XIV encapsulated within its perilous depths. As such, the States are still beholden to it and the courts are still required to interpret that which is within it, including the XIV. Once we vote out the Constitutional right for the private ownership of firearms, I have to say I will give up my weapons.

I'm afraid the last sentence of Amendment XIV, Section 1 disagrees with you.



It is a court issue when legislation is created affecting same sex marriage.

We are a center - right country and the people simply reject it time and time again. It should still be decided by the voters in the states.

((yawn))



Not quite what I meant.

People will involve themselves with whomever they wish. You can call them friends, friends with benefits, a couple, etc...

But, does it really matter what you call them?

This is rather clearly against the Constitution. Gay marriage much less so. Any strict interpretation would show that this is clearly NOT an issue for the courts.


Of course, the Constitution is overrated. If the people decide by vast majority that they wish to live in a society without guns, they should not be forced to live in a society with guns.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Try not to confuse government meddling with living and let live. Two separate concepts.

Not quite what I meant.

People will involve themselves with whomever they wish. You can call them friends, friends with benefits, a couple, etc...

But, does it really matter what you call them?

Indeed the right to bear arms is clearly stated. The states, however, do have the power to perform civil marriages between the citizens residing within them. To narrow the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman violates the liberty of gay couples to enter into their own, equal, union. Here's where I draw my argument from:

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:



To allow people to vote too ban or create a seperate class of marriage (civil unions) is a violation to the 14th Amendment. Does this mean the government should force churchs to wed gays? No. That would be a violation of the seperation of church and state, but the government shouldn't deprive gays of the liberty to marry.

it clearly matters to you. Why is that?

I don't know of you noticed I'm pretty far right or not, but lets forget about that.

Letting gays marry isn't the government meddling, the government meddling is giving benefits to a certain set of people to marry in the first place.

As far as I'm concerned, those being discriminated against are those who are legally single. Not just homosexuals.

Yes, it matters to me since some folks wish to actually change the definition of words. That has always annoyed me.