Maine and New Hampshire took steps toward the approval of gay marriage today, bringing to five the number of New England states that have moved to legalize marriage between same-sex couples in the past five years.
Governor John E. Baldacci of Maine became the first governor in the country to sign a gay marriage bill into law without being spurred to action by a court decision. In New Hampshire, legislators took the last of several votes approving a gay marriage law. Governor John Lynch, a Democrat like Baldacci, will have five days to veto the bill, sign it, or let it become law without his signature.
The Maine law has not yet taken effect, and will face a steep hurdle before any weddings are held. Conservative groups have pledged to bring the measure to a statewide vote, and are expected to collect 55,000 signatures in the next three months to put the new law on the ballot in November.
Around the country, polls show a majority of Americans still oppose gay marriage, five years after Massachusetts became the first state to legalize it. But the signing ceremony at the State House in Augusta capped weeks of rapid progress for proponents in New England. Vermont approved gay marriage last month; Connecticut established the practice last fall after a court battle. Other recent decisions around the country have added to a sense of renewed momentum, in the wake of a ban on same sex marriage enacted last November by voters in California. Last month, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage, and the city council in the District of Columbia voted this week to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.
It would seem that all of New England is in this race to plot their own demise and schedule their increasing irrelevance; those of us in flyover country should just start referring to the East Coast as "Sodomyland" and be done with it.
There is no social benefit gained from granting state recognition of relationships based on sodomy or other dubious and non-procreative sex acts--and by this, I mean acts which by their nature can never produce another human being, not instances of the procreative act which are only unlikely to produce a child because of the couple's age or health condition. Age and infertility interfere with the tendency of sexual intercourse to bring new life into being; same-sex sex acts are not in the same category as the procreative act, and can no more produce babies than a dog can produce puppies by getting familiar with a fire hydrant. And granting state recognition to relationships centered around acts which by definition are non-productive makes no sense--why should the state care who you are exchanging non-productive sexual favors with? Why should you get tax breaks or inheritance rights as a "partnership of individuals" who will never find themselves, as the natural and expected result of the relationship, caring for children who are equally the biological children of you both?
State-sodomy marriage supporters, or SSM supporters, like to say that they "have children" too. They do not "have children." They may sometimes adopt them (in which case the adoption documents spell out the legal rights--no marriage necessary!) and they may sometimes manufacture a child using one partner's genetic material and the willing cooperation (or genetic material) of a person of the opposite sex. But "surprise pregnancy" isn't in their vocabulary (not unless their partner is secretly "bi" and has been cheating--in which case the child still has nothing whatsoever to do with the relationship).
But state-sodomy marriage supporters insist that their relationships, which are completely and utterly removed from childbearing and into which children only enter by manufacture or adoption are exactly the same as heterosexual relationships which the state recognizes as marriage precisely because the relationship has EVERTHING to do with the children. I'm sorry for shouting, but you'd think this absolutely transparent concept would be understandable even by East Coast liberals; alas, you would be wrong; in their rush to insist that we just have to have state-sodomy marriages they never really care a bit about what happens to the children.
And so you can put a big red "X" through Maine (unless that referendum happens) and probably through New Hampshire as well, to go along with the ones crossing off Vermont, Connecticut, and Iowa. States that love state-sanctioned sodomy and want to call it "marriage" are only going to drive away the handful of actually fecund families still putting up with all that ugly liberal tommyrot, and in a handful of decades their populations are going to decline so much they'll have a hard time stealing enough "revenue" from those who remain to pay for the mandatory government health care for all the state-sodomy marriage couples in the nursing homes. Of course, that's why the real end-game is to force state-sodomy marriage on the whole country; only then will they be able to force the rest of us to "accept" it; it would be intolerable to them that any of us would willingly choose to live in states where the word "marriage" hasn't been twisted into a thoroughly idiotic and fluid concept meaning absolutely nothing at all.