34% reporting: MAINE voting to protect gay citizens from discrimination!

AUGUSTA, Maine --Supporters of a law to protect homosexuals from discrimination in Maine maintained a lead over those who sought to overturn the law as ballots were counted Tuesday night.

With tallies from 24 percent of the state's precincts, votes against repeal were ahead 57 percent to 43 percent over those seeking to overturn the gay rights law that was approved by the Legislature earlier this year.

If the no votes prevail, Maine will become the last New England state to legally protect homosexuals from discrimination.

The issue, which was put before voters for the third time since 1998, pitted a coalition of mainstream religious and business groups and politicians including Gov. John Baldacci against a network of Christian church groups that sees gay rights as an assault on traditional marriage.

UPDATE: We just got 61 more precincts and the ratio is holding steady.....

Question 1 Veto Gay Rights
216 of 634 precincts - 34 percent

Yes, 61,022 - 43 percent
No, 80,125 - 57 percent
http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2005/11/08/no_votes_ahead_in_early_tallies_in_gay_rights_repeal/
BOO HOO........

Supporters of Yes on 1, a group in favor a repealing laws that protect gays and lesbians from discrimination, pray at an election gathering Tuesday, Nov. 8, 2005, in Augusta, Maine.

Love that picture. Pious bigots. A visual oxymoron.

Nice, normal looking Americans...sadly bigoted and homophobic.

Delivered 3 NO's here.....

Thank you for those votes!

My husband and I both made sure to get out and vote early. It was our first time voting in Maine! We moved here from New York last winter.

trying to "preserve" marriage. i hear their ads on the radio here in Mass., and they seem like well-funded die-hards, that will never let go of their evil bigoted hearts...Charlton Hestonesque cold dead hearts indeed.

Then we'll see how they feel. :mad:

That are lining the roads here in Maine. I don't see how other another person's sexual preference is a threat to my marriage at all. My husband works with a few individuals who are gay and was very concerned about how they must be feeling about reading these signs every day on their drive in to work.

where they are adding a State constitutional ban on same-sex marriage

We voted on 9 of 'em today.

That's how our idiotic constitution was set up after Reconstruction... that's also why the governor in Texas is so weak... something us Dems were pointing out to non-Texas W-lovers back in 2000... :(

Seriously, though, the Texas Constitution is something like 1500 pages, all amendments.

Not involving lobsters or the Bush compound?

Like... as a librarian?

I always thought I'd like New England.......

this is the most BS "issue" to ever be devised to manipulte the gullible whores who currently worship bush like a savior and call you names if you don't agree class - they never ask questions, just change their chant accordingly.

"Gay Marriage will doom us all"

really, how, exactly?

Crooks and liars had an awsome parody video posted about gay marriage in MA talking to an activist about how it ruined live here ;-)

and not the crabby, mean ones.

Be proud of yourselves if this turns out right. :loveya: :thumbsup:

If not, then I hope the motherfucker fails!

Goddamn, all this shit with gay and lesbian folks selling us transgender people down the river to gain their own rights pisses me the FUCK off!!

No, gays and lesbians...you CAN'T convince me that the boat is going to "come back for us." This is one transgender person who no longer believes those claims.

Look, in 1975, it became illegal, in austin, Texas...to discriminate against people in employment based on sexual orientation. In austin...a fairly liberal town.

IT TOOK TWENTY-NINE FUCKING YEARS...AND ME LIGHTING A FIRE UNDER A FEW PEOPLE'S ASSES...to get protections extended to transgender people in Ausin, in 2004.

Boat's coming back, MY ASS!!

So, like I say, if this bill does not SPECIFICALLY INCLUDE protections for transgender people also...then I hope the motherfucker gets voted down!

Fucking gay and lesbian community has backstabbed us in the transgender community too many fucking times!

But fucking A, you want to throw gays and lesbians to the wolves if transgenders don't get protection?

It's a start, at least. SOMETHING is better than nothing.

Fuck...see if you would feel the same way you are saying you do right now if it was TRANSGENDER ONLY protection that left GAYS AND LESBIANS out in the cold.

I'm sorry, but I call BULLSHIT on you, number one...and number two...what the FUCK do I care about a "start?" I STILL GET NOTHING!!!

No, I'm fucking pissed off and have absolutely fucking HAD it with the GLB's. I have fucking HAD it with HRC and their lip-service with no ACTION for our issues.

We TG'S have been stabbed in the back for the last fucking time by you people.

Goddamn it, I'll stand up and join your enemies before I will let you guys stab us in the back again. Maybe you guys should know what it feels like to get stabbed in the back!

ADMIT IT...YOU GAY, LESBIAN, AND BISEXUAL PEOPLE DO NOT INTEND TO EVER COME BACK TO GET PROTECTIONS FOR US TRANSGENDER PEOPLE, AND YOU FUCKING A WELL KNOW IT!!!

I would love to see all the groops you mention protected right in the constitution.

I would also love to see an equal rights for women amendment to the constitution. Their is no way in Hell I would vote against one just because it didn't include the other assuming it did not specificaly exclude them

There is no reason not to allow incremental progress as long as it does not stop further progress. Your statement is like saying you would vote FOR drilling in ANWAR unless the bill also incuded incresing the CAFE Standards. IMO thats not a very reasonable position. If everyone demanded 100% of what they wanted we would make no progress at all.

ARE YOU FUCKING READING JACK-SHIT OF WHAT I POST HERE??

Do you really expect me to believe that y'all GLB folk...once you have YOUR rights...are going to give a shit about us TG folk who still have none? BULLSHIT...I know you all better than that!

In Austin, Texas, where I used to live...it became illegal to discriminate, based on sexual orientation, in employment, in 1975.

IT TOOK ME LIGHTING A FIRE UNDER SEVERAL PEOPLE'S ASSES, INCLUDING SOME ON CITY COUNCIL...AND TWENTY-NINE FUCKING YEARS BEFORE GENDER IDENTITY ALSO BECAME A PROTECTED CLASS...and this is in liberal Austin!!

Do you think we TG people ought to be content to wait twenty nine MORE fucking years for our rights, so that you can have yours now? Kiss my ass! If you think that we TG's think that is a good idea, then you are the most insensitive, uncaring, unfeeling, and selfish person I have ever run across, with the possible exception of Elizabeth Birch!

And, yes, I have had the (dis)pleasure of meeting Birch, face to face, and telling her so, too!

"Do you want to reject the new law that would protect people from discrimination in employment, housing, education, public accommodations and credit based on their sexual orientation?"

==

I tease. And obviously sense your anger. I don't know what the law considers sexual orientation in this case.

P.S. out of sheer curiosity, does your driver's license say female and can you legally marry?

My driver's license says female, and, I suppose, I could legally marry a man if I so desired. Fact is, I don't want to marry anyone. I'm asexual. The only kind of relationship I could ever want would be a completely sex-free relationship.
Sex, in any form, repels me.

and again, solidarity.

And solidarity only to those who have shown themselves WORTHY of solidarity.

I do not stand in solidarity with people who stab me in the back.

Fuck off, GLB's. stand with us, or be counted as being against us. Fuck you. (not you, Bluebear!!)

That reminds me of someone ;-)

Lighten up....I doubt 15% of the population even knows what it means.

question for you...could a transgender be straight or gay? I get confused. Seems to me, either way, you're covered.

And no...WE ARE NOT COVERED!!!

Here's why...

Employer: You're fired, you queer, sick freak!

Transgender Employee: You can't do that, I'm covered under the new anti-discrimination law. Besides, I'm female, so I'm covered by anti-discrimination laws based on sex.

Employer: No, you aren't. You are not covered by ADA, and you are not covered by Title VII, according to the Supreme Court. And I'm not firing you because you are gay, or because of anything to do with your sexual orientation.

I AM FIRING YOU BECAUSE YOU DO NOT FIT MY IDEA OF WHAT A WOMAN IS SUPPOSED TO BE, YOU SICK FUCK. NOW GET OUT OF MY OFFICE, AND GO DIE ON THE STREET WITHOUT A PENNY. I GET TO FIRE YOU, AND YOU CAN'T DO A FUCKING THING ABOUT IT...HA HA HA HA!!

And THAT is the reality of any anti-discrimination law that does not cover GENDER IDENTITY.

Once again, the motherfucking GLB's have sold us down the goddamn motherfucking river!

nt

With no capital to start up a business?

And with no product/service to sell?

And the fact is, people can still then discriminate against your business and not do business with you because you are transgender.

And what happens wen and if I ever do succeed, and need employees? do you think I will be allowed to hire ONLY OTHER TRANSSEXUALS?? Think again. I would have to be non-discriminatory, menaing I might get forced into hiring a fucking fundamentalist asshole, because RELIGION (a choice, mind you) IS covered in anti-discrimination laws!!

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

WTF is trans gender??

Ok, lemme give you a few examples, see if you know...

Christine Jorgenson
Renee Richards

Now do you know?

to discriminate against gays?!?! What a bunch of sick, hateful assholes AND NOT VERY CHRISTIAN AT ALL.

Plus it had nothing to do with marriage, but whatever. (We're all still waiting to see the campaign to outlaw divorce.) The marketing campaign for "Yes" was very good in trying to confuse people but it seems like it failed overall. Hopefully the overall percentages won't change much as the "redder" portions of the state start reporting their totals.

For practical purposes, it's reasonable for the state to recognize unions, of course. Taxes, property rights, benefits, etc.- but if marriage is indeed "sacred", then it's the domain of the church, period.

Fundamentalists can join any church they like and honk on forever about not allowing gay marriage in their church. And that's fine. In THEIR church.

I've argued this point with several very Christian right-wingers and every one of them came around to agreeing with me. If you put in the context of "don't let the government rule your religion", they hop right on board.

Let churches practice what they want, associate with whoever they want, bless each other as they will....just tax 'em all the same. We all deserve the same and equal civil rights.

Gay Marriage is a good start but I would love to see an amendment to our state constitution explicitly stateing no discrimination of any kind.

:bounce: