Jump to content

Talk:Same-sex marriage in Maine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Perhaps this article could be merged into the the domestic partnerships in maine article. It seems essentially the same thing.

People's Veto

[edit]

It should be noted in this Article the Law may not necessarily come into effect: Maine has something called a "People's Veto", in which Petitions can be filed to put any Bill up to a Public Vote, if enough signatures are collected. So don't celebrate too much. --Occono (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. However, that has not yet been done. So, its not very relevant at the moment. When it happens and multiple sources confirm it, then we can put it in the article. Firestorm Talk 18:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody from the "Maine Family Policy Council" already announcened plans for a Ballot Initiative a while back as the Bill was going through Legislature. Maine has a history of Gay Rights Bills being vetoed like this apparently.--Occono (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added some info on the potential (probable) people's veto, with references. —BMRR (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Counting

[edit]

This sentence is not true: Maine became the fifth state in the United States to authorize same-sex marriage.

I realize that it makes the subject easier to understand if it were true but it simply isn't. Maine is the sixth U.S. state to authorize same-sex marriage. California must be counted because same-sex marriage was fully authorized in that state for five months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.244.48 (talk • contribs) 11:25, May 11, 2009 (UTC)

True, but 5th is what the ABC source says. Aggluti nation (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ABC must pander to people who wouldn't understand complicated sentences. 72.95.221.208 (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Maine freedom to marry is not necessarily against the people's veto process itself, but would like the voters to go to the polls & exercise that right by voting against the petition, they are only against changing the current statute. The statute has become effective, in the fact the statute has been written in the state's books, if they were not, then the referendum would not be called people's veto. What has delayed its implementation was the petition to overturn it. Again do not confuse: being against what the petition proposes is not being against the process itself. If the next elected legislature were to repeal the legislation in question after the people's veto failed, then perhaps LGBT supporters would come to exercise the right of people's veto. Under those circumstances, it would also be ridiculous to say that traditional marriage supporters were against people's veto, at least not by necessity. I understand semantics is a little more flexible than politically correctness provides, but let's keep the debate civilized and not characterize any side as undemocratic.gorillasapiens (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the law

[edit]

Will the law go into effect on Sept 14th or after the November vote? Could this end up like a California situation where people are married in the state, then same sex marriage is invalidated? Czolgolz (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to an article in yesterday's Portland Press Herald:
The law was supposed to take effect on Sept. 12 but was put on hold while the Secretary of State's Office verified the number of petition signatures.
Dunlap said that anyone who is considering a same-sex marriage should hold off until at least 30 days after Election Day. The state will have 30 days to verify the results of the vote. Any same-sex marriage before Dec. 3 could be nullified if the people's veto prevails, Dunlap said.
—BMRR (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Documentary

[edit]

Apparently there's going to be a documentary film about the campaign. It hasn't been released yet, and I'm not sure exactly how to work it into the article, but here is a reference if anyone is interested: http://www.pressherald.com/news/documentary-clips-show-sad-face-of-yes-on-1_2011-04-17.html –BMRR (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An important correction

[edit]

The first paragraph states "Maine, Maryland and Washington were the first U.S. states to legalize same-sex marriage by popular vote in 2012; earlier attempts were driven by the courts or the legislature.[2]"

An important clarification/correction needs to be added here, please.

Maine's citizen initiative was a true popular vote to *create and enact* a new law approving SSM. Maryland's and Washington State's popular votes simply approved laws already passed by their legislatures and signed by their governors.

By pointing this out, I don't mean to minimize in the least the significance (and awesomeness! :) ) of what the voters of Maryland and Washington State did.

But what they did on 11/6/12 was NOT the same as what the voters of Maine did.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.53.160 (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Same-sex marriage in Maine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Same-sex marriage in Maine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_Maine&oldid=1198605629"