Updated 04:40 pm.EST, Sat November 21, 2009

Society|Wed, May. 06 2009 04:28 PM EDT

Maine Becomes 5th State to OK Gay Marriage

By Lawrence Jones|Christian Post Reporter

Maine has become the fifth state to allow gay marriage after Gov. John Baldacci signed a bill legalizing the practice. His signature went on to the bill within an hour after the Senate passed it Wednesday.

  • gay marriage
    (Photo: AP / Pat Wellenbach)
    Maine Gov. John Baldacci gestures after signing a gay rights marriage bill in his office at the State House in Augusta, Maine, on Wednesday, May 6, 2009.

"In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions," said Baldacci. "I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage."

A similar gay marriage bill could reach the New Hampshire governor on Wednesday as the state House is set to vote on the legislation in the afternoon.

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont currently allow same-sex marriage. On Tuesday, the Washington, D.C. Council gave its final approval on legislation to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

In Maine, the Senate voted 21-13 to approve the bill one day after it passed the House.

The legislation repealed a provision under the state's 1997 Defense of Marriage Act that limited marriage between one man and one woman and replaced it with one that allows marriage between any two persons that meet the requirement of Maine law. The bill also affirmed the right of religious institutions and ministers to refuse solemnizing gay marriage without facing any penalties or fines.

During a brief legislative debate over the measure, legislators disagreed on whether the bill would hamper religious freedoms.

Republican Sen. Debra Plowman opposed the bill, saying it was being passed "at the expense of the people of faith," according to The Associated Press.

Baldacci reaffirmed the rights of religious institutions in the matter on Wednesday, saying the new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs.

"It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of Church and State," he said in a statement.

Opponents, led by Maine Family Policy Council, are in the process of organizing a campaign under Maine’s people’s veto law to force a repeal referendum. The group needs to collect around 60,000 signatures to put the issue to a statewide vote later this year.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4
  • Fri Jul 31, 2009 6:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wow if only this many so called "traditional marriage" folks would come out against ADULTERY and FORNICATION. Then maybe someone would believe they were even a little bit...pro traditional marriage...

    But since we all know that would mean a great majority of them would be protesting against themselves and others who claim to be "pro-marriage"...

    we'll continue to see the hypocrisy game at play here..

  • Fri May 08, 2009 9:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    So, believer, does that mean that for God, 2 + 2 can be 5 or 3 or 17 or -224? That 'up' can at the same time be down or left or right? That something can both exist and not exist, simultaneously?

  • Fri May 08, 2009 7:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

    forgiven, they were basically seen as property and as you said the result of political deals or peace offerings and it is very likely few if any of those relationships were consummated. It's very unfortunate that women at that time were very often seen and treated as property. But that incident was indeed the result of God's punishment for the sins of David with Bathsheba and his involvement in the death of her husband Urriah.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 7:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    mickey, reality is that you don't have a clue, you take a passage of scripture totally out of context to make it say something it doesn't and when asked to substantiate your claim you bail out and yet when anyone else uses scriptures that you don't agree with you hold their feet to the fire and make them prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the passage says what they say it is saying and then when they do you still totally discount what they have to say, so if this verse says God gave David's wives to another man then who did God give them to if it was not his son, Absalom and when did He give them to that man and where in the Word of God is that fulfilled?

  • Fri May 08, 2009 7:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    believer, if I am not mistaken these women were actually political in nature and not necessarily David's consumated wives. They were wives by politics or inheritance. Just as some of his wives were Saul's widows which He inherited for their protection and care.

    I once had a Dr whose father died and left him responsible for the wives and by cultural standards he inherited wives. Although, I am well aware that he loved his wife and family here; He only provided monetarily for the village. He would go to the village (Africa) twice a year to help with crops and building and repairs and the like.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 6:15 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "mickey, "God GAVE his wives to another man" and who would that man be?"

    What difference does it make? God GAVE one man's wives to another man. He did tell him that polygamy was bad and tell the wives to go their own way, He GAVE them all to another man. You would like us to believe that God breaks His own rules or that God was wrong.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 4:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    klm, you're absolutely right that sometimes when it comes to understanding God or the ways of God human logic and rationale just won't get it, but let me let God speak for Himself on this one, Isaiah 55:9, "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts."

  • Fri May 08, 2009 4:20 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    It's fascinating trying to have a discussion on this forum. I can't help expecting the pieces to fit together. I'm used to logic that's consistent, not full of special exceptions. In my world, people don't make mutually incompatible assertions in a single sentence.

    But here the rules of logic and rational discourse don't matter, because we can always pull out the "God says" card. The really funny thing is that the level of absolute certainty of each individual far surpasses the degree of agreement within the group.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 3:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    mickey, "God GAVE his wives to another man" and who would that man be?

  • Fri May 08, 2009 3:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    klm, as long as that path goes through the Cross of Christ!!

  • Fri May 08, 2009 3:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    klm, as for natural disasters while God does allow them He does not necessarily cause them, we must remember that when sin entered our world through the sin of Adam and Eve as well as our sins since all of creation was impacted as a consequence of sin to include all areas of nature and weather. And while the Bible does record that God does indeed use nature and weather such as Noah's Flood, we must be careful to not assume He directs all natural disasters.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 3:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    klm, no where does God say women can't wear pants, if He did the culture's view on the matter would not matter, a woman wearing pants would always be a sin and when it comes to God's original and only design for marriage, it does not change regardless of what the culture has to say and it is one man and one woman united as one for life in the sight of God.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 3:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mickey, II Samuel 16:21, "And Ahithophel said unto Absalom, Go in unto thy father's CONCUBINES, which he hath left to keep the house;..." (King James Version)!

  • Fri May 08, 2009 3:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    mickey, yes, God allowed David to rescue his concubine from being held captive and He also allowed Joab to kill Absalom as he hung from a tree after getting his hair caught in the branches, plus if you would read this account you would see that Absalom's motive for having sex with David's cocubines. Ahithophel counseled Absalom to publicly violate the harem David left behind in Jerusalem and thus establish his legitimacy to the throne and as a result he made himself repulsive to his father, David.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 3:00 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    believer wrote: "what determines that is the culture of that society. In our society it is totally acceptable"

    Ah, ok. What is sinful is to be determined by the cultural and historical context. Clearly in the cultural context in much of the world, at this point in history, same-sex relationships are as acceptable as women wearing trousers.


    believer wrote: "what ever God does is right even though I do not totally understand or it doen't make sense from a human point of view. "

    Indeed. For example, I can't understand how a just and loving God wipes out 250,000 people in a few hours with a tsunami, but watches diligently over all the bedrooms on Earth, policing whether someone inserts a forbidden appendage in a prohibited orifice.


    believer wrote: "as for people who have never had the opportunity to make that choice [...] the Bible says if a person truly seeks Him, He will reveal Himself to him."

    This can only mean that the Bible acknowledges that there is more than one path to God.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 2:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mickey, from the Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, under abomination. The Hebrew letters used to spell abomination in the passage we're discussing followed by, "...is by far the most commonly used word, esp. in Deuteronomy, Proverbs, and Ezekiel, and covers a wide variety of practices and objects which are regarded as loathsome, including anything which violates established custom (Gen 43:23, 46:34, Deut 22:5; etc.)..." Webster defines "loathsome" as disgusting, abhorrent, detestable.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 2:50 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    "mickey, perhaps raped is too strong a word, maybe better said that he committed adultery with them if he was married or fornicated with them if he was not."

    As God commanded, yet God still personally gave the man's wives to another (and I believe eventually returned THEM).

  • Fri May 08, 2009 2:49 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    "mickey, yes God allowed Absalom, David's son to capture David's concubine's but no where do we read he married them, raped them yes, but never married them."

    Nope, God GAVE his wives to another man. It's pretty clear. God allowed multiple wives and passed them on to another. (I'm not referring to the concubines) Sorry, lie as you will, the Bible says what it says.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 2:47 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    "mickey, Plus, Deuteronomy 22:5 has nothing to do with ritual worship considering vs. 4 talks about seeing a countryman's fallen donkey or oxen and not trying to help raise it up."

    Wrong, yet again. You really don't have a clue about the Bible, do you?

  • Fri May 08, 2009 2:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    mickey, perhaps raped is too strong a word, maybe better said that he committed adultery with them if he was married or fornicated with them if he was not.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 2:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    mickey, yes God allowed Absalom, David's son to capture David's concubine's but no where do we read he married them, raped them yes, but never married them.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 2:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    mickey, Plus, Deuteronomy 22:5 has nothing to do with ritual worship considering vs. 4 talks about seeing a countryman's fallen donkey or oxen and not trying to help raise it up.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 2:01 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    "mickey, apology accepted!!! "

    In other words you know you were wrong and are now trying to save face? You know as well as I do that you are misleading people with the word "disgusting" unless you are a rabbi.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 2:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    mickey, apology accepted!!!

  • Fri May 08, 2009 1:59 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    "mickey, if you have a Strong's Concordance and look up abomination as used in Deuteronomy 22:5 it will have 8441 as the definition in the Hebrew Dictionary and if you go to that number you will find that in the Hebrew, abomination means disgusting!"

    In the case of religious worship, it can be considered to be "disgusting" but basically it is unclean. Your knowledge of actual translation of Hebrew words and meaning leaves much to be desired.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 1:58 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    "mickey, it is spoken of in polygamy, but polgamy was never ordained by God as a form of marriage. "

    Yet you are unable to prove that and the Bible clearly shows where God Himself gives one man's wives to another man. Spin all you like but you have NO proof of your opinion.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 1:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    mickey, if you have a Strong's Concordance and look up abomination as used in Deuteronomy 22:5 it will have 8441 as the definition in the Hebrew Dictionary and if you go to that number you will find that in the Hebrew, abomination means disgusting!

  • Fri May 08, 2009 1:56 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    The actual translation and meaning of abomination is not at all what some would like it to be. We need to look at how the word was used in the ancient Hebrew writings.

    Lev 20:13 is giving the penalties for the Lev 18:22 "abomination" or in the Hebrew "toevah". Unlike what the English translation implies, toevah did not usually signify something intrinsically evil, but something which is ritually unclean for Jews. Eating pork, shellfish, lobster, trimming beards, mixing fibers in clothing, and having sex during a women's menstrual period is just as much an "abomination". It is used throughout the OT to designate those Jewish sins which involve ethnic contamination or idolatry. In many other OT verses it simply means idolatry.

    Things that are unclean or idolatrous have nothing to do with homosexuality today and to pretend other wise is simply disingenuous.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 1:51 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 2

    "mickey, the Hebrew translation for the word "abomination" used in Deuteronomy 22:5 means "disgusting". As for that verse it was far more than an issue of a woman wearing pants, it was about the person wanting to give the appearance, wanting to present themselves as someone of the opposite sex. And what determines that is the culture of that society. In our society it is totally acceptable for a woman to wear pants and not be considered that she is trying to give the appearance of a man."

    Nice spin but abomination means "unclean" as well and in this context for ritual worship. And since it is now totally acceptable to be homosexual and get married we can see how that no longer applies as well. Just keep spinning the Bible, no one buys it.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 1:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

    mickey, the Hebrew translation for the word "abomination" used in Deuteronomy 22:5 means "disgusting". As for that verse it was far more than an issue of a woman wearing pants, it was about the person wanting to give the appearance, wanting to present themselves as someone of the opposite sex. And what determines that is the culture of that society. In our society it is totally acceptable for a woman to wear pants and not be considered that she is trying to give the appearance of a man.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 1:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    mickey, it is spoken of in polygamy, but polgamy was never ordained by God as a form of marriage.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 12:39 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    "IF He says He "HATES" something, it is regarded as a sin, homosexuality is very well stressed, both old and new testaments alike "Homosexuality is an abomination and God hates it."(scripture not recalled)"


    Abomination has never meant "hate" is means unclean as in the case of ritual worship. The OT also calls women wearing anything that pertaineth to a man an abomination. He doesn't HATE women wearing pants but it is unclean for ritual purposes for a variety of reasons. There is NO WHERE in the Bible where God or Christ condemn homosexuals or same sex marriage so let's all quit pretending it's there.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 12:34 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    "Verse 4 incriminates ALL of the people and verse 5 designates their goal...that of KNOWING (having sexual relations) with the two angels whom they described as men. I am not a rocket scientist, but with simkple deductive reasoning I can understand why God considers homosexuality an abomination."

    What you show very clearly is that ALL of the people (not just the men) wanted to "know" the two angels without their consent. That is called RAPE and has NOTHING to do with homosexuality. It is sheer nonsense to pretend that this incident has ANYTHING to do with consenting same sex couples. Only someone with an agenda against homosexuals can see this story as having any bearing on homosexuality.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 12:29 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    "when marriage is spoken about in the Bible, it is always in the context of a man and a woman. That is more proof than you have, which is nothing. You are the one that cannot produce proof and you know it."

    It's also spoken of in terms of polygamy. So? You have yet to show ONE Bible verse that condemns same sex marriage and until you can, there is NO reason to believe anything you say with regard to it.

    "Regardless, of scripture, biology is more than proof, it is fact. And you can twist that all you want, it doesn't make that anymore true, either."

    Since homosexuality is observed throughout nature and has been in existence since the beginning of time, you might want to give up the nature angle. It rather disproves you theory.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 12:26 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "And do all the Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, etc. go to hell?"

    According to the words of Jesus Christ Himself, unless humans confess their sins and repent of their sins (including homosexuality and extra-marital heterosexuality), yes they will be separated from God for eternity."

    That is pure nonsense. Homosexuality is NOT a sin and the Bible never says that it is.

  • artm »
    Fri May 08, 2009 9:49 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

    viking, what do you think about luke 16:20-, the story of the rich man and Lazarus.?

    hell is a real place, the fire in hell is a real fire, the
    torments are real. Only Faith in Christ can deliver the soul from that terrible place.

    you are wrong to believe that the Bible, or the gospel of Christ does not teach a literal hell.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 9:41 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    viking, altough I believe in a literal hell, I believe the worst part of being in hell is the separation from not only God but all of God's attributes, no love, no joy, no peace, no contentment, and worse of all no hope that, that will ever change. But praise the Lord that God says if we have the faith of a child we can totally avoid that when we put our complete faith/trust in Christ alone!

  • Fri May 08, 2009 8:13 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    hi all,
    I note that while KLM asks about persons "going to hell" Believer responds in terms of "eternally separated from god"

    I agree with Believer's choice of words in that I do not believe in hell and (I know others will disagree) do not believe there is any basis for a belief in hell in the gospels (I know the word is in there in english but if checked the words these are translated from are 1. the grave 2. a ravine or valley near jereusalem. 3. Tartarus the greek myth).

    Christs parables and teachings are clear that the result of disbelief in God is separation from God. This is of course not punishment but rather the natural consequence of free choice. Those who refuse a relationship with God will not have a relationship with God now or later. What could be more just.
    In regards those to whom the gospel never reaches I frankly don't know. I can speculate but that is all it would be. Just as it would be for anyone else and to claim otherwise would be arrogance.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 4:46 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    klm, yes, there are some who believe regardless of if a person has had the opportunity to hear God's plan of salvation or not, if they die without accepting Christ they will be eternally separated from God. And to be honest I can't say their totally wrong nor can I say they are totally right, but I believe it would be better to error on the side of them being right in order to motivate us to not only pray for the lost around the world but do our part in joining God in reaching them with the Gospel of Christ, but this I do know, God is both just and merciful and His will is perfect, so what ever God does is right even though I do not totally understand or it doen't make sense from a human point of view.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 3:35 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Do I read that some of you are actually saying that God will condemn to hell even people who never in their lives heard the words "Christian" or "Jesus"?

    Are these just sacrificial souls, like extras to fill in at crowd scenes, while the rest of us who have the opportunity to accept Jesus or not are the people that the whole universe was created for?

  • Thu May 07, 2009 11:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 4

    "And do all the Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, etc. go to hell?"

    According to the words of Jesus Christ Himself, unless humans confess their sins and repent of their sins (including homosexuality and extra-marital heterosexuality), yes they will be separated from God for eternity.

  • Thu May 07, 2009 10:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    klm, can't and won't are two different things, God desires a personal relationship with each of us based on our love for God and His love for us. If He were to force us to be saved then even though He loves us, there is no guarantee that we love Him and that's why He won't force anyone to be saved. Jesus said this of Himself, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life and no one can come to the Father but through me, so the only way a person can be saved is by putting their complete faith/trust in the person and finished work of Christ alone. So that means if any person has had the opportunity to make that choice and refuses to, they can not be saved and if they die without coming to Christ they will be eternally separated from God. Now as for people who have never had the opportunity to make that choice I can't say with all certainty what will happen to them, but the Bible says if a person truly seeks Him, He will reveal Himself to him. Plus that is the main reason I support missionaries all over the world. So it's not a question of buddist, hindu, or jew, but rather have they accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior.

  • Thu May 07, 2009 10:30 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    I'm still confused by the idea that there are things that God can't do.

    And do all the Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, etc. go to hell?

  • Thu May 07, 2009 10:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    klm, when it comes to one's salvation God will not force anyone to become a Christian, but He has done all He can do so that whosoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. As for sin, we are all sinners and as to what is sin, the easiest way I know to put it is, it is doing, saying, or thinking things we shouldn't and not doing, saying, or thinking things that we should and we know the difference.

  • Thu May 07, 2009 9:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    believer - yes, sorry, i meant you.

    I understand that God hates sin. I'm just trying to understand what makes something a sin.

    Also, I'm confused by your statement that "the reality is that God has done all He can and will do". Does that mean that there are things that not even God can do?

  • Thu May 07, 2009 9:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    klm, hopefully you meant believer, but no that's not all of it, but it sure is something to look forward to!! :0)

  • Thu May 07, 2009 9:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    klm, please don't attempt to put God in a box because He does not live up to your expectations. God's Word is clear when it comes to sin, He hates it. And His Word is clear to the fact that there are consequences for sin, for the believer God will discipline them and for the unbeliever if they die in their sin they will be totally separated from God for eternity and will pay the penalty for their sins in hell. As for God not being a loving God if He does the latter, the reality is that God has done all He can and will do when it comes to saving us through the person and finished work of His Son, Jesus Christ on the Cross. Now it is up to each of us to decide if we will accept God's free gift of salvation or if we will reject it, if we accept it we'll become a child of God and live all eternity with God and if we choose to reject it we'll be separated from God for all eternity. The choice is ours to make and no one can blame God for the choice they make.

  • Thu May 07, 2009 9:30 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    artm - thanks for that clarification.

    So, when heterosexuals get married, is their relationship entirely and only about sex?

  • Thu May 07, 2009 9:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    klm, let me answer those questions from a biblical perspective, there is absolutely nothing wrong with men loving men and women loving women, there is absolutely nothing wrong with same sex individuals showing affection to each other. It becomes a sin when that affection is sexual in nature or done with sexual desires or intentions, in other words to produce sexual gratification either for self, the other person, or both. I lived in Taiwan where it was not unusual to see two men holding hands who were simply close friends and I lived in Italy for four years where it was not unusual for same sex friends to greet each other with a kiss, but none of these were sexual in nature or with sexual desires or intentions.

  • Thu May 07, 2009 8:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    artm - but you do recognize that there are people of other beliefs in this nation, don't you? Most Christians I know don't subscribe to the extremist views that are prevalent on this website. Nevertheless, it seems that you feel entitled to force the rest of us to live by your peculiar reading of the Bible. Why?

    I wonder, is it a sin for a man to love another man, or a woman to love another woman, without any sexual interaction? Does it only become a sin when they express their love with physical intimacy? If so, at precisely what point does it become a sin? I suppose that a handshake is ok. I see men hug at airport arrival or departure gates, and athletes hug when they win a big game -- is this sinful? If a woman kisses another woman on the cheek, is it a sin? What about if a man kisses another man on the cheek? How close to the lips can they get before it becomes a sin? Could we draw a line on someone's face to distinguish permitted zones from sinful zones?

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Also on CP
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • Music
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links