Mainers we have an upcoming ballot (Portland, Union: college, cost of, education)

[mollysmiles]

ditto....


Now about the other questions....

[mollysmiles]

Originally Posted by forest beekeeper

Question 1: Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?



Question 2: Do you want to cut the rate of the municipal excise tax by an average of 55% on motor vehicles less than six years old and exempt hybrid and other alternative-energy and highly fuel-efficient motor vehicles from sales tax and three years of excise tax?



Question 3: Do you want to repeal the 2007 law on school district consolidation and restore the laws previously in effect?



Question 4: Do you want to change the existing formulas that limit state and local government spending and require voter approval by referendum for spending over those limits and for increases in state taxes?



Question 5: Do you want to change the medical marijuana laws to allow treatment of more medical conditions and to create a regulated system of distribution?



Question 6: Do you favor a $71,250,000 bond issue for improvements to highways and bridges, airports, public transit facilities, ferry and port facilities, including port and harbor structures, as well as funds for the LifeFlight Foundation that will make the State eligible for over $148,000,000 in federal and other matching funds?



Question 7: Do you favor amending the Constitution of Maine to increase the amount of time that local officials have to certify the signatures on direct initiative petitions?

Question 1: I support equal rights under the law for everyone. YES, it IS that simple. I'm voting a huge, huge NO.

Question 2: NO! why should *I* pay for the other guy with the hybrid to use the roads?? hello! seriously, they're asking me this?

3: great in theory bad in practice.... we need to repeal it and come up with something that works. The commercials are wrong, they're not saving any money once everyone consolidates--they'll spend more, especially in the 85% of Maine that's rural.

4: TABOR again?? seriously, no deep thought required there.

5: fine, I really don't care, I think there are more concerns in this state than medical marijuana. I'm fighting chemo side effects... I understand that this helps a lot of people.

6: *this* one I want to know more about..... WHERE is that initial $ coming from to match the federal and "other" funds? anyone know?

7: do they really need more time?? ahhh, no?


So, tell me about 6?

[dmyankee]

Originally Posted by broadbill

Ah, a "slippery slope" argument...and here is why it doesn't apply. First, the obvious...Question #1 doesn't mention anything about people marrying their dog, their sisters/brothers etc. etc. Second, there are different considerations with your "slippery slope" marriages that simply aren't an issue with gay-marriage.

For example, a man marrying his sister has the practical consideration that in-breeding may occur and that makes it a public health issue. Same goes with a man marrying a dog....animal welfare becomes a concern. Same goes with polygamy where you might have spousal abuse and child welfare issues. These are real, practical reason as to why they are illegal and have nothing to do with morality.

Dude,

This is the same crowd that promised that their demand for equal rights would not advance to the demand for gay marriage.

So, you want to discriminate against polygamists? Pedophiles? Someone from Parkman, who wants to marry his dog? (True story.) Where does it end? Any one of these groups can come up with a bogus argument for marriage rights.

This is just an attack on an ancient institution and sacrament, nothing more.

[forest beekeeper]

So far this is what I see from among those of us here on CD:

Q1 - 6 for and 8 against.
Q2 - 4 for and 9 against.
Q3 - 9 for and 3 against.
Q4 - 7 for and 4 against.
Q5 - 9 for and 4 against.
Q6 - 2 for and 9 against.
Q7 - 4 for and 6 against.

[reloop]

Originally Posted by forest beekeeper

So does anyone know about Q4, does it change the limits to higher? or to lower than they are now?

No, I haven't found anything that will spell exactly what would happen - just lots of opinion.

Nonetheless, having sat through many-a-town meeting/school board meeting/RSU meetings et. al., and listening to people's opinions (for or against something - it makes no matter regarding what - and when, that is, there were more than one or two people in the audience) being ignored or often put down, I have to wonder if this wouldn't make the process of managing money even more acrimonious than it already is.

I'll use the consolidation as an example. When our town had its "informational meeting" it had, per usual, a disappointing turnout. When pro and anti people stood up and asked pertinent and reasonable questions, those on that board sat there and literally squirmed in their seats. I mean no disrespect to those on the board, I applaud them because basically, they had done the best they could with the negligent information given to them. Finally, one resident (himself a town council member) stood up and asked the board flat-out, for a show of hands of who on the board would be voting FOR the partnership. The resulting response was fascinating. 2 of them shot their hands up immediately. The rest of them looked like deer in headlights and spent the next few seconds looking at each other and raising and lowering their hands, until finally, they all raised them. One member literally then got up and left. To me, this would have been the perfect time to draw people into a real discussion about the pros and cons of consolidation. Alas, instead, "political correctness" raised it's ugly head once again.

Fast-forward to now, and most of them are actually on the repeal side of the camp (at least clandestinely anyway).

As much as I don't like to pay too much by way of taxes, this is exactly what I'm concerned about if 4 passes.

[forest beekeeper]

Originally Posted by mollysmiles

...
6: *this* one I want to know more about..... WHERE is that initial $ coming from to match the federal and "other" funds? anyone know?

... So, tell me about 6?

I assume that like all bond issues it will come from taxes.

Right now the Fed is in trouble, they are handing out money left / right and sideways, but that is just insanity. They have not balanced their books to even see how much taxes must be raised to cover their spending insanity. Eventually every penny of Federal spending will come from taxes.

As for the initial cash from within Maine to match the Federal money; I do not know of any other source for that money then Maine taxes.

So, as far as I am aware [no doubt someone will point out any mistakes that I have made], all of this money will come from a combination of increased Federal taxes and increasing State taxes.

[flycessna]

Flycessna....... I agree with you that it is a moral issue but I dont concede civil rights; I believe it is an equal protection issue as well. I totally disagree with your subsequent reasoning.

It is not a civil rights issue because right now Same sex marraige is not protected by civil rights. If passed it will then be a civil right

To address the morality issue, I would state my belief and understanding that morality is not determined by majority vote....it runs deeper than that. If morals could be decided by the vote or agreement of the majority.....Hitler was a moral leader and the genocide of the concentration camps was "moral"; if morality were decided by the prevailing societal attitude and belief....the cruxifiction of Jesus was "moral"; if morality were decided by societal attitudes and popular votes...slavery and segregation and laws against inter-racial marriages were "moral" and it was moral to work children in the mills of NH RI and Massachussets...6 days a week for 12 hour days in dangerous jobs.

Morals are arbitrarily and subjectively created by society, philosophy, religion, and individual conscience.

I agree with this.. These were all examples of behavior sanctioned by the morals of the people of that time and that culture. There are some question's as to how much the german public knew about the concentration camps though.

The morality issue is exactly why I believe to my core that it is wrong to decide this issue by majority vote......very often the moral thing to do.....is not the immediately popular position that a society already agrees to and accepts. You cant legislate hearts and attitudes but you can legislate policy, behavior and laws and these tend to bring attitudes along .... like de- segregation laws in this country.

Is this what hapened in Germany?? Did the goverment legistlate laws and behavior with the Nuremberg Laws and did this then bring attiudes along! How much suffering was done because of this legistlation?

I do not believe that as a society we need goverment to give us an "attitude adjustment" so we can just fall in line.

The culture or morals of the people may be slow to change but it is obvious that with this particular issue.."same sex marraige", we are already heading in the direction to acceptance.

The process of legistlating behavior can negatively affect that natural progress of this. I for one want the choice to listen and debate and talk with out having goverment cram it down my throat like it knows whats best for me.

[roadrat]

Question 1: Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?Yes , Our government should not have anything to do with any marriages, all citizens should be viewed as individuals by the government, if 2 or more citizens choose to form a partnership to help pay bills or raise children then so be it have legal documents draw up if needed and go about your life the gov. should have nothing to do with it.



Question 2: Do you want to cut the rate of the municipal excise tax by an average of 55% on motor vehicles less than six years old and exempt hybrid and other alternative-energy and highly fuel-efficient motor vehicles from sales tax and three years of excise tax? No everyone should pay there fair share for using the roads.



Question 3: Do you want to repeal the 2007 law on school district consolidation and restore the laws previously in effect? No , reverting to the old way and then looking for a new way is foolish, lets work on fixing the flawed new way first.



Question 4: Do you want to change the existing formulas that limit state and local government spending and require voter approval by referendum for spending over those limits and for increases in state taxes? Yes , we should live within our means.



Question 5: Do you want to change the medical marijuana laws to allow treatment of more medical conditions and to create a regulated system of distribution? yes



Question 6: Do you favor a $71,250,000 bond issue for improvements to highways and bridges, airports, public transit facilities, ferry and port facilities, including port and harbor structures, as well as funds for the LifeFlight Foundation that will make the State eligible for over $148,000,000 in federal and other matching funds? No , see question 4



Question 7: Do you favor amending the Constitution of Maine to increase the amount of time that local officials have to certify the signatures on direct initiative petitions? No , amending the state constitution should not be taken so lightly


bill

[broadbill]

Originally Posted by dmyankee

Dude,

This is the same crowd that promised that their demand for equal rights would not advance to the demand for gay marriage.

So, you want to discriminate against polygamists? Pedophiles? Someone from Parkman, who wants to marry his dog? (True story.) Where does it end? Any one of these groups can come up with a bogus argument for marriage rights.

Dude,
We discussed this already...and as elston pointed out-those are red herrings and nothing more. I'm not going to spend more time on it.

Originally Posted by dmyankee

This is just an attack on an ancient institution and sacrament, nothing more.

Is this the same ancient institution and sacrament that 50% of married people end up breaking?

News Flash, dude, it ain't all that sacred of a sacrament for alot of folks.

Can you tell me why marriage equality is an attack but a 50% divorce rate isn't?

[diablogun]

Originally Posted by broadbill

Dude,
We discussed this already...and as elston pointed out-those are red herrings and nothing more. I'm not going to spend more time on it.



Is this the same ancient institution and sacrament that 50% of married people end up breaking?

News Flash, dude, it ain't all that sacred of a sacrament for alot of folks.

Can you tell me why marriage equality is an attack but a 50% divorce rate isn't?

News flash, dude, gay people are never going to be an equal couple to heterosexual married couples, irrespective of how much you may want that to happen. I could care less whatever disgusting and vile sexuality you would have defined in a new definition of marriage, so whether you call it marriage matters not at all to me.

As to marriages breaking up at a high proportion, it is the work of a generation's liberal assault on the institution that has helped this happen, and the folks that enjoy pushing pornography, drugs, and other vices as a "freedom" have made this happen. It is pretty obvious that there is no such thing a a victimless crime with the vile left's never-ending assault on families.
For all the pathetic liberals who claim to care about children, it is of no little irony that many poverty-stricken areas enjoy the 70% illegitimacy that their concept of freedom has allowed to happen, while at the same time putting their leftist masters in office.