All this proves is that gay activists won't take "no" for an answer.

In our country, we believe that the single foundation for all authority is the "consent of the governed." The law is simply what the people have agreed to. The authority of government comes entirely from the consent of the people.

• The problem is that the power of the law and the power of the state are managed by representatives (in law, through judges; in government, through politicians). The political system is designed so that the representatives enforce the will of the people.
• The problem is that the representatives are human. They are susceptible. They can be persuaded to vote against the will of the people. They excuse it to themselves by claiming they're following the "better" interests of the people, despite what the people actually say. They take it upon themselves to decide what the people "should" think, rather than what they actually think.
• By definition, making decisions based on what you think, rather than according to the expressed will of the people, is tyranny. It's political fraud; you stole the authority of the people and are now using it to further your own (or your own party's) agenda rather than using it for the purpose for which it was first given ... to advance the agenda of the people.
• That's corruption, pure and simple.

When gay activists prove that they will not take "no" for an answer, they're openly admitting that they intend to exploit that human corruption of representatives. They depend on judges to construe laws other than intended. They depend on legislatures to pass laws that the people have expressly rejected ... "for their own good."

The gay agenda is open corruption.

hey guys.  I have a serious question that will let you know why, as a centreist, i fell no need to fight for gay rights.  Objectivly speaking, you guys realize that history has an inexorable left leaning tilt, right? That eventually, people fighting discrimination tend to win? And with every victory the offenses become less egregious...for example we once had slavery, then we had seperate but equal; once women weren't aloud to vote, and then there was a time when they were discouraged from the workplace.  Clearly, telling two gay people they cant get married is not in the same universe as slavery, but as I say, as time passes, we become more and more tolerant, human rights violations get smaller but we still fight them.  The point is, in 10 or 50 or 100 or 200 years, someday gay people will be able to get married, and your children will look back at you with shame the same way we currently look at the segregationalists. 

of those voters! Having their say!

"Maine voters insisted on having their say..."

It's interesting and alarming to me how the "left" reacts to voter reaction and outcome. If they win, all is good. The voters are highly intelligent, well informed and sensible. If they lose, the voters are ignorant, racist and have somehow kept the "real americans" away from the polls. 

With the advances in medical research, I expect one of these days a cure and/or some way to prevent homosexuality at birth will be found, although likely it will be accidental when researching something else. That will be an interesting discovery, because it will cause an explosion in the liberal and gay community who fear their generation might be the last. No parents in their right mind would choose to have a gay son or daughter, yet perversely they claim it is 'natural'. I believe that even a gay couple that adopts or lesbians that have 'their own' child would not choose it to be homosexual if they had a choice.

Will those that choose to make use of the cure or method to avoid homosexuality be attacked as some kind of bigot? Will the government allow use of the techniques?