December 17, 2017
Letters Latest News | Poll Questions | Long Creek | Tax Reform | Opioid Epidemic

Comments for: Thursday, March 8, 2012: Marriage, contraception and the 1 percent

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News and the Bangor Publishing Co. encourage comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

    Lucie Bauer:  I am  disappointed  that the man from Rockland listened to the outright lies you were telling him.  He should have researched the entire matter for himself, then he would not have signed your petition for which you were heftily paid by S. Donald Sussman(Congresswoman Chellie Pingree Sussman’s husband) via his $200,000. donation to the petition drive.

    Mr. Bertolaccini: you are so right. And, parents whose daughters are at Georgetown Law School should be outraged that 30 year old Ms. Fluke has placed them in her same category of frequent activity that requires contraception. Ms. Fluke misrepresented her age until being on “Today” with Matt Lauer, and did not reveal her previous women’s reproductive rights activism and promotion that transgender operations should be paid by insurance companies via the school she was attending then. Too many of her ilk are practicing “law” with injustice.

    • luvGSD

      Your comment proves you know nothing about contraception plus you are the one who is misrepresenting facts, i.e. bearing false witness.  That makes you of  “low ilk.”  You are what the political class label as a low-informed voter, thus easily manipulated.  Willful ignorance and lying are both sinful as far as I’m concerned.

    • Anonymous

      4lifeandfreedom don’t you think it is hypocritical to call out S. Donald Sussman for his $200,000.00 donation to the petition drive when we are still waiting for NOM to release the names of THEIR DONORS FROM 2009!!!!!!!!!!

      • Anonymous

        4lifeandfreedom may or may not be a member of NOM, he/she cannot speak for the organizations activites. Nothing wrong with pointing out what should be common knowledge. If you come across a NOM donor list, feel free to publish it!

        • Anonymous

           NOM lost their case in Maine (and several other states) to keep their donor list(s) private.  They filed an appeal and it was denied.  They violated state disclosure law and continue to refuse to comply …. by hey  they’ll probably be back soon.

        • Anonymous

          VeazieDavid to echo jacknlyn one cannot publish NOMs donor list as NOM has refused to release it.

          NOM (IMHO) should not be allowed to spend one penny in this election cycle in Maine until they comply with the state disclosure law from 2009 and release the donor list.

    • Anonymous

      Please share with us what outright lies Ms. Bauer told the man from Rockland.
      Neither the Domestic Partnership Registry (as we have in Maine) nor Civil Unions in other states include the equivalent rights or protections offered by a civil marriage license in any of the 50 states.  Couples who have either one are not recognized by most other states, the federal government or in other countries like a civil marriage license.

    • Anonymous

      4life:  you keep dragging up these “facts” about issues and actions by Democrats, like Mr. Sussman’s financial support,  as if this proved something irregular or illegal about Democratic activities.   You don’t seem to realize that Republicans participate in all of these same  activities and they do not signify evil ..  Political parties ask for contributions, interested parties contribute. Political parties gather signatures and they usually pay the those that work long hours gathering signatures. Republicans do it.  Democrats do it.  

      We went over this yesterday about Ms. Fluke stating her position to a political committee.  Remember.  I said it wasn’t sinister.  I said that’s what  both Republicans and Democrats do:  they try to get legislators to listen to their position.  

      I asked you before, but seeing as I got no answer from you, I’ll ask again: Are you trying to say that Democrats have no right to contribute money, gather signatures, state their concerns to Congress?   What are you trying to say?

    • OMG PEOPLE WORKING FOR PAY, WHAT A CONCEPT. 

      • Anonymous

        I’m shocked, shocked I say that Democrats would pay signature gatherers.   LOL

  • Anonymous

    Joe Bertolaccini — what the hell are you talking about? You’re not paying for this woman’s education and health insurance anymore than you’re paying for a stranger’s decision to buy plastic bags at the grocery store or for bullet in a gun in Iraq. So why don’t cut it with your self-righteous judgments that are clearly based upon misinformation that’s been spoon-fed to you. Gain a critical mind, please.

    • Anonymous

      Out tax dollars don’t pay for the “bullet in a gun in Iraq”?

      • Anonymous

         In the most indirect and fractional way — it’s the same tenuous argument that because Fluke was on a public interest scholarship that she’s asking us to “pay for her contraceptives.” The point is that you’re not really paying for it and if you want to claim you are, then there are countless things that you and others have “paid” for (in a similar fashion) that some can claim they find morally questionable. This is nothing new. I don’t get my opt out for the Iraq war or for subsidizing big oil (“pays” for that plastic bag) and those are far more direct “payments.”

        I find this to be feigned morally outrage and seizing a political opportunity.  Period.

        • Anonymous

          And it’s really starting to backfire on them and that is a good thing.

      • Anonymous

        And I’m morally offended by that but I don’t see any Catholics supporting my moral position that I don’t want to pay my tax dollars for that bullet.

    • Anonymous

      It is abundantly clear the Joe needs an education, or maybe he listens to the “fat man”.  There are more reasons to use birth control than not getting pregnant, he just doesn’t get it.

      • Harry H Snyder III

        Careful with that “fat man” stuff… after all this is Maine, home to some of the greatest cooks in the Nation.

      • Anonymous

        And you also don’t take a pill every time you have sex like I do believe Rush and et al (who believe him) think.  You take a pill every single day whether you have sex or not.  I really don’t think he understands that.

  • Anonymous

    Life is very  simple for some people. Isn’t it?  “My church says it’s bad, I hate it”  “My party says it’s good, I love it.  No questionings, no doubts, no controversy, no facts, no  discussion, just a programmed gut reaction to everything.   

    Since we were given brains by a creator, I’m assuming He meant for us to use them to research questions, gather facts, read opinions and make decisions independently.  It  must be very disappointing for Him to watch His gift atrophy in the skulls of conservatives. 

    • Anonymous

      You paint with a broad brush, conservatives are not all brainwashed cavemen. I weighed the facts, looked at my convictions, and came to the conclusion that marriage is a holy union between one man and one woman.

      Just because I agree with my pastor does not mean I have a “programmed gut reaction”

      • Anonymous

        You should only agree with your pastor if your pastor is in agreement with what the Bible says. Marriage is between a man and a woman. 

        • luvGSD

           What does Jesus say?

          • Anonymous

            …… that a Man can only divorce his Wife if She committed adultery ……

          • And a man who marries her is committing adultery. 

          • Anonymous

            Are you trying to imply that Because Jesus never mentioned the word homosexual it must mean that He somehow approves of it? That is ludicrous. Jesus never spoke of rape, pedophilia, beastiality etc.. The entire Bible is God inspired (2 TIM 3/16). The Gospel of John starts by saying 
            Jhn 1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. The God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament. Jesus has always existed. He is God incarnate. While we no longer live under the laws (shellfish etc) of the Old, it certainly doesn’t negate Gods moral laws which are unchanging. What was immoral then is still immoral now. Jesus not only taught scripture, he mentions practically every book. Why? Because He believed it. Why wouldn’t He….He is the Author. 

          • luvGSD

             How come shellfish was immoral then but not immoral now?

          • Anonymous

            Shellfish was one of the hundreds of Jewish civil laws which they lived by. They lived by the Law. If you broke one  (eating shellfish)you were guilty of breaking them all. Jesus being the ultimate sacrifice for our sins ushered in the New Covenant. Jesus, God incarnate, God himself came down in the form of a man to pay the penalty of our sins. Its the free gift available to all. Gods amazing grace! It is still the same God, A new covenant available to all. 

          • Anonymous

            Matthew 5:17   Jesus said “Do not misunderstand why I have come.  I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I have come to accomplish their purpose”  New Living Translation (2007)      

            Lobster and porK chops are still off the menu for fundamental Christians.

              
            Now, listen carefully, CP, here’s the important part.  This is  the passage Christians cite to justify their antagonism against homosexuality.  If, they say,  Jesus didn’t come to abolish the law, then,  God still considers gays an abomination.

            So, if you use  Matthew 5:17 against homosexuals then all the dietary laws still apply.  No more pepperoni pizza for you. 

            Or, you could do like my sister’s niece does so her kitchen stays Kosher, eat the pizza on the piazza.  Apparently God doesn’t concern himself with what happens on a balcony. LOL

          • Harry H Snyder III

            …and don’t forget your sabbath-day sacrifice on the alter.

          • Anonymous

            You know when one stands back and looks logically at religious beliefs and the rituals that go with them a lot of it is just plain strange. 

          • Anonymous

            Religious rituals are strange. We agree!

          • Anonymous

            Okay… tell me what was the purpose of the “law”? 

          • luvGSD

             That was lovely, but it doesn’t answer the question.

          • Anonymous

            Ears to hear and eyes to see yet they remain deaf and blind! The answer didn’t quite fit your lies.

          • luvGSD

             What lies?

          • Anonymous

            He died on the cross so you could sin and eat lobster??????   Now, that’s a really interesting interpretation.  Convenient, too.

          • Anonymous

            Dylan has the answer, as always: “Everybody must get stoned.”  
            Until we have stoned every shell-fish eater, Sabbath violator, etc. we won’t have our Christian Republic. 

          • Harry H Snyder III

            Dylan also said: “Jeez I can’t find my knees.” (Visions of Joanna.)

          • Anonymous

            Actually He died to pay the penalty in our place. He died so that sinners like me could someday stand before a perfectly Holy God blemish free. He paid the price so we wouldn’t have to. What an amazing gift..available to all that choose to receive it.

          • Harry H Snyder III

            Actually Joe Hill died for me… Jesus not so much.

          • Harry H Snyder III

            So, then by extension, Christianity is not a real religion, but simply reformed Judaism?

          • Anonymous

            CORRECT! Christianity is not a religion. 

          • Anonymous

            You know what?  Babies are not born in sin.  There is nothing sinful about babies.

          • Anonymous

            Do you have to teach a baby to lie or to tell the truth? To share or to be selfish? Give it some thought.

          • Anonymous

            Ah, but you are quite wrong about the New Testament God being the same as the Old Testament God.  That was the message Jesus tried to bring to people.   That was the good news: that God wasn’t an Old Testament  God of violence and vengeance and jealousy  but an all encompassing God of love; that all were loved and had value.  Sheesh how bad is it when an atheist has to give bible instructions.  LOL

          • Anonymous

            No, God has not changed. He looked down on mankind and saw that things were not good. Too many so-called religious leaders had messed up the system He put in place. So, He sent His only Son to bring a New Covenant (“not to condemn the world, but to save the world” John 3:17), so that all mankind would better understand how simple it was to receive eternal life. Christ died on the cross for all of us. On the cross, He forgave us for what we did to Him. And now, He’s waiting for us to join Him for eternity in Heaven.

            Of course, there is one thing we have to do in order to gain entrance through the Pearly Gates: We have to believe on Him and accept Him as our Lord and Savior. It’s as simple as ABC.

            Of course, we, as mere humans, do have one very important God-given power, and that’s the power to choose. We should use that power wisely.

          • Harry H Snyder III

            I choose to ignore your post. 

            Shame about this religious divide humans erected.

          • Anonymous

            You’re exactly right when you say that “humans erected” this religious divide.

          • Anonymous

             “You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it
            turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”

             Anne Lamott quotes (American best-selling author)

          • Anonymous

            Well, since I don’t hate anyone, I guess my God doesn’t hate anyone.

          • Anonymous

            How can there be any choice for the ‘mere humans’, if ‘God’ has already written our stories?

          • Anonymous

            I don’t believe in predestination.

          • Anonymous

            What I think is interesting about christianity is that you can live one evil life but if on your deathbed you say the words “I accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior” you get to go to heaven!  What a loophole!

          • Thank you for your input. Readers please do not acknowledge or argue with this man. He is full of venom. He does not speak for a loving God. Leave him to hisself. 

          • Anonymous

            Your issue is with the Bible not me. Your lifestyle cannot stand the Light of the Gospel.

          • Thank you fro your input. 

          • Anonymous

            Jesus says “Love”.

        • Anonymous

          Civil marriage is whatever the law says it is, which will be changing this fall :-)

        • Anonymous

          Didn’t the Bible say that marriage could be between one man and many women?  I think King David had a LOT of wives.

          • Anonymous

            No. The Bible just tells it the way it happened. You don’t see God endorsing it.

          • Anonymous

            God didn’t ‘endorse’ David’s many wives? That is so funny.

          • Harry H Snyder III

            Actually you do.  God commanded Abraham to take another wife when Sarah proved to be barren, then he rewarded Abraham for his obedience by allowing Sarah to get pregnant.  Sarah’s son was a Jew, and Hagar’s son was an Arab. 

            So (by extension) “God” started all that trouble in the Middle East. 

      • Anonymous

        You are quite right.  I’m painting with a broad brush.  What I’m finding is that many conservatives have found an even broader brush.  It was those conservatives I referred to .  See that you do not pick up the brush to paint those you will deny marriage to and those who support SSM and I will believe you have reached a reasoned conclusion and not just a simple minded acceptance of your pastor’s prejudice .

        • luvGSD

           Turnabout is fair play.

      • Anonymous

        So are you on the same crusade to stigmatize people who are divorced or who live together? Do you speak out, writing on message boards, etc., about the sin of divorce? 

        Many of the Christian, Bible types uphold one thing in the scripture and use it as justification to attack a certain group of people, while they completely disregard another. The same people who are so outspoken about homosexuality because it is a sin, do nothing about other things that Jesus and the Bible says is a sin.

        Pick and choose, pick and choose.

        • Harry H Snyder III

          Wouldn’t it be a better world if religious folks spent as much time railing against  war, greed, and sloth as they do discussing sexual preference?

          • Anonymous

            Yes, really.  What is it about sex that they hate so much?  

          • Anonymous

            Sex is a wonderful gift from God. Meant to be enjoyed by a married man and  woman. Anything else is just a perversion of what God calls good.

          • Anonymous

            I believe you are the perversion.

          • Harry H Snyder III

            Is the missionary position mandatory, or can the wife be on top? What about oral, anal or a hand job (between married folk of course?)

      • But churches have been marrying gays for centuries. i find it unnatural to be with a man. Believe me I tried. I was married for years. It was painful for me both physically and emotionally. And yes I saw a doctor over and over again. I love a woman. i have a happy healthy family and if anything happens to me I want them to be protected. One man One woman has not been the case in history. 

    • Anonymous

      Judah wanted to burn his daughter in law to death for getting pregnant while engaging in prostitution until she showed him that that he was the one who knocked her up. Genesis 38.

      Msally, Chapter 29, Statute 152 Section 3 of the US Code is where it says farm workers couldn’t organize

      ›Oops, it’s: Title 29 › Chapter 7 › Subchapter II › § 152

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/152

      • Anonymous

        Thank you very much for the link.

        • Anonymous

          Thank you for letting me know about farm laborers not being able to strike until 1975 (where tey could in California anyway). And I think Caesar Chavez and the UFW got Americans to boycott table grapes by informing them of the injustices, instead of striking.

  • Anonymous

    Mr. Bertolaccini, read Ms. Fluke’s actual testimony, which talks of the medical need for contraception for most of the women she described, and a married woman who struggled to afford contraception.  
    40% of female law students reported  financial hardship with this non-coverage of contraception in an insurance policy WHICH THE STUDENT PAYS FOR WITHOUT SUBSIDY BY THE UNIVERSITY, but for which the University sets the terms. I suspect that most of those law students were married. We are talking of women who are likely between the age of 22 and 40.
    Statistically, the odds are mighty slim that you went to your honeymoon a virgin.

    • luvGSD

      True, but in their minds it doesn’t count if you “lost it” to a prostitute.

      • Anonymous

        Or to Rush.

    • Harry H Snyder III

      This whole conversation is disgusting. and the side that HAD the high moral ground is getting awfully muddy.

      • Anonymous

        Which side had the high moral ground, the one that is interested in decreasing abortions and making health insurance gender neutral or the one that wants employers and Bishops controlling what is in our medicine cabinets?

        • Harry H Snyder III

          You answered your own question.  Don’t be so paranoid.

  • Anonymous

    msallyjones:  Interesting that you state “we were given brains by a creator,” and you actually use the capital letter each time in referring to God, the Creator as He and Him.  I am impressed with your knowledge of Who He is.

    • Anonymous

      Everyone has knowledge of God, whether they choose to believe in Him is another. Even atheist reporters capitalize God and pronouns referring to Him.

      • Harry H Snyder III

        There is a difference between true non-believers and those who choose to showboat their beliefs just as the same is true with Christians. I choose to show respect to those who believe by standing for prayers when in a crowd and capitalizing “God”  (after all it isn’t my personal right to change the English language)

        As to “knowledge of God” you are on a winding twisted stairway when you say “everyone has…” First off you don’t know “everyone” (I’m assuming here) second what is “God” and third what is “knowledge?” I’ve read the bible, and I went to Friends Meeting as a boy.  I have heard what religious people call “the word” but throughout my life from a very young age remained unconvinced.  Never saw it.

        I’m open minded.  I would be happy to accept proof of God, heaven, even the certainty that evil finds its end in Hell. Unfortunately it’s all so Medieval

        and I sort of a 20th century guy.

        • Anonymous

          Harry, you short change yourself.  You are very much a 21st century guy. 

          • Harry H Snyder III

            Unless I live to be 110, most of my life will have been lived in the 20th century.

        • Anonymous

          HHS – Since you’ve taken care of so many unwanted children, you’ve seen God over and over. And, whether or not you realize it, I’ll bet the children you cared for and loved have seen God in you. He’s everywhere. You just got to change your focus.

    • Anonymous

      4life:  It’s a matter of custom, syntax and punctuation.  

  • Anonymous

    LUCIE,
    WRONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!

    JOE,
    No sex until marriage and no marriage until graduation. Problem solved.

    GARY,
    AMCON to Scottie, Beam me up now.

    • Anonymous

      amconservative on “LUCIE, WRONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!”

      No she is RIGHTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!
      ~~~~~
      amconservative on “JOE, No sex until marriage and no marriage until graduation. Problem solved.”

      When did you lose “it” amconservative and did you wait for marriage?
      ~~~~~
      amconservative on “GARY,  “AMCON to Scottie, Beam me up now.”

      Scottie to AMCON the dilithium crystals are going to blow, what should I do?

      • Anonymous

        PUNT?

      • Anonymous

        At 19 and I was married, and darn proud of it.

        • Uh Ha!!!!! Took that long  to find someone who would have such a subjective conservative. Especially one who is so anal it is impossible to wipe and does not mind spouting constant terminological inexactitudes

          • Harry H Snyder III

            You sir are a credit to clam diggers everywhere.

        • luvGSD

           Proud of staying a virgin until you were (only) 19?  I wouldn’t call that an accomplishment.

          • Anonymous

            You actually came up with something funny… Good job.

        • I am assuming you have no post secondary education . 

          • Anonymous

            You equate two people of the same sex getting it on as a sign of intelligence????? That’s funny!

          • Thank you for your input. I was saying he got married at 19 so probably did not goto college. But you can continue to be as ignorant as you would like. You have an issue with educated people. You are sad. 

          • Anonymous

            amcon’s comment was no marriage before graduation (i.e. those pursuing post-secondary education or those enrolled in graduate/doctorate programs should not marry before graduation)  …. he stated he married at 19 so one would assume that he married after graduating from high school not college/university.  It has nothing to do with intelligence.
            PS you are getting a bit crude, IMO.

    • pbmann

      How about signing an affidavit stating that you will only have sex after you marry and then only to try to have children and then only if you can afford them?

    • Anonymous

      amafraidofchange, indeed.

  • kcjonez

    Gary Friedmann–Excellent letter.  If Mainers take the time to understand exactly how this hijacking of our institutions has happened and is happening, they will be glad to trade Ms. Snowe’s “centrist” vote for a truly progressive voice in the senate.  Our greatest gains in this country have never been made through centrism and moderation, always through “radical” ideas such as ending human bondage, separating church and state, and allowing women equal voting status.  We need our elected officials to represent us with such “radical ideas as ‘corporations are NOT people’ and equal rights means equal rights for all.  

  • Harry H Snyder III

    Lucie Bauer
    I’ve changed my mind too, but you won’t like it.  I now believe the State has no role in a marriage contract.  Let churches marry whom they wish.  Marriage is a religious rite, not a political one.

    Joe Bertolaccini
    The question is moot.  Contraceptives save the taxpayer money.  It’s like the old Purelator oil filter commercial.  Pay now, or pay more later.  As a conservative, I choose to pay less now.

    Gary Friedmann
    Your error is that we do not live in a democracy. The USA is not now, nor has it ever been a democracy. The founders deliberately avoided the idea of democracy which is the process that results when three foxes and two chickens vote on what to have for dinner.

    For most of our history we were a constitutional republic. now, in light of recent Supreme Court Rulings, we are a corporacy.

    I believe the only way to return to the rule of equal law is revolution. Bloody horrible French-style revolution. Hope I’m either gone or Canadian by then.

    • luvGSD

       What about non-religious couples who don’t want to get married in a church?

      • Anonymous

        Pick one of these answers, both are equally correct

        1. the unitarian church has a surprising number of atheist/agnostic attendees.

        2. secular humanism is as much a religion as any of the traditional ones, basically, if marriage is a religious rite and not a state sanctioned rite, then sec-hu’s can be married in their own minds. If you worship humanity than your church is the earth.

        • luvGSD

           Thanks for responding, but I would like to hear what Harry H. has to say about this.

          • Harry H Snyder III

            Read it again, I already said it.. “Marriage is a religious rite, not a political one.”  For me that translates to secular (non religious using your words) folks being forced (by their own conscience) to establish their own traditions.  I’m all for non-conformity, but not just at the convenience of the non-conformist.  If secular folks are committed to their irreligious principles (and not just showboating) they should give up ALL religion has to offer.  That happens to be my choice, so I’m not asking the impossible.

          • Anonymous

            Historically, marriage has been a state matter because it conferred rights of property, ownership inheritance and status. These rights were sanctified by the church in countries with a state religion.  When the US was being settled many of the duties of the state were carried out  by ministers since they would have been one of the few educated people in a new settlement who knew how to read, keep records, certify documents and interpret laws.  As little settlements grew into big cities the local churches kept the power to confer rights in marriage so that now we have churches claiming they have the right to determine who gets married.  Marriage is a civil matter.  Now that we are a large and industrialized nation we no longer need churches to provide civil duties.  Let them bless the marriages they feel are bless-able  but take away their power to confer civil rights.

          • Harry H Snyder III

            I disagree, and read history in a different light, and through a different

            lens. Marriage is an anachronistic relic of the middle ages, and it is long past time we disposed of the classification as a discriminatory factor.  Why should the State confer special benefits on married people?  The majority of married people conceive children who become a tax burden for those of us who choose not to go this route.

            You and others on this board have made a big deal about the discriminatory nature of “marriage”, but only as it applies to same sex couples.  I suggest the whole idea of marriage is discriminatory regarding those of us who were born anti-social.

            One more fact;
            At the time of this nations founding 99% of all Massachusetts residents were literate. today the percentage is around 92%.

          • Anonymous

            Then the converse should be true. All those yapping about marriage soely being a “holy union between a man and a woman” ought to give up all the legal rights and protections associated with civil marriage — unless of course they’re just showboating.

          • Harry H Snyder III

            No disagreement here.  As I said above this “discrimination against single folk must end.

          • luvGSD

             Thank you for your response.   I agree that for some people it is a religious rite, but for others it isn’t.  Religion had nothing to do with my marriage.  Neither I nor my spouse are religious.  When we got married 29 years ago we did it to uphold the wedding vows and to pledge a lifetime commitment to each other in the presence of family and friends.  

    • Anonymous

      The trouble with letting each church decide on marriage is that the benefits that accrue to married couples are given by the state.  Now, if  when a church married a couple all the state benefits of marriage  were also given to every couple regardless of whether it was a homo or heterosexual marriage your plan could work.  I still think there would be flack from someone.

      • Harry H Snyder III

        It is my position that the State no longer has an interest in marriage.  When this country was underpopulated, and businesses needed more and more folks to make their widgets then the State had a place “favoring” marriage.  When the States mandated blood tests to check for Syphilis and other communicable diseases they also had an interest, but those reasons for State marriage have passed.  In Maine all you have to do to marry is get a license from the town hall where you live.  pay a notary, and get a marriage certificate signed. Eliminating the State from this process would be easy.

        Given the high rate of divorce today (over 50% of all marriages end in divorce) it is also a meaningless rite. If State marriage is seen as a necessity, maybe we should combine marriage and State inspections for cars.  The mechanic would ask one more question “Are you still married” and then report his tally to Augusta.  Unfortunately that would probably result in a rise in the inspection fee.

        • I agree but still dont understand why you would vote against us. I work with kids and i see that healthy people raise healthy kids regardless of the what gender the parenting role is. 

          • Harry H Snyder III

            I spent my adult life working with children also, and have seen MANY children raised very successfully without a marriage contract between the involved adults.

          • I also agree. I can think of an instance though. A friend of my daughter in middle school. Mother divorced dad and later began a relationship and lived with a man who raised her children with her in a committed relationship without the benefit of marriage. The woman was kiled on black ice and the real father came and picked the children up, after not seeing them in years and took them to where he lived (500 miles away). They lost their “dad” and their mom and their home because there was no legal standing. I just think it should be available to all. Kids can be raised in almost any situation and as along as they are loved, cared for, and given boundaries, stability, and dicipline can turn out ok. We are on the same page but not. 

          • Harry H Snyder III

            Actually in the case you describe the blood father would have gotten the children even if the couple was married.  The only leg to stand on he would have is if he adopted girlfriends children and he doesn’t need a marriage license to do that!

          • I agree there should have been more legal procedures done to protect the children. You make valid and intelligent points. I still wish you would see the importance of my marriage. 

          • Harry H Snyder III

            You personalize this issue.  It is not “your” marriage that offends me.  It is the discriminatory nature of marriage in general.  Why should two people living together (without the paper work) get fewer, or more benefits from a “free country’s” government than a couple who has their framed marriage certificate on the wall of their den?

            People here (on both sides) seem oblivious to the obvious.  Treat people the same (for tax purposes) regardless of their marital status.

    • So why would you vote for the state to stop people from marrying? Marriage is not religious. It was never religious until the 6th century. My family needs protection. My children need to know protection if something happens to me so my life partner can care for them. Your comment doesnt make sense. What will happen is churches will start to discriminate against Jews, or Catholics, or whomever. People dont have to goto church to marry now. We are only asking for civl marriage. Churches have been marrying SS couples for years.
      I do agree with you about contraception.

      • Anonymous

        If all you want is a civil marriage, why don’t you campaign for civil unions with the benefits of marriage? That should make both sides happy. I’ve often said that I would support civil unions for homosexuals, but have often been told that wouldn’t satisfy them. Why is that?

        • Anonymous

          .Married couples have 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities
          A civil union provides legal protection to couples at the state law level, but omits federal protectionsCivil unions are different from civil marriage and that difference has wide-ranging implications that make the two institutions unequal, such as: Portability of legal status from state to state.Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes but questions remain as to how civil unions will be treated in other states. The two appellate courts that have addressed the issue in Connecticut and Georgia have disregarded them based on the fact that their own states do not grant civil unions.

        • I agree to an extent. I think all marriages should be civil. Then, if the people want religious sanction it should be up to them and the church. However, this is not the reality now. Now we have churches that will marry us and states that will not. Civil Union or marriage we are still here and we are not second class citizens. i pay my taxes and obey the law I would like equal rights. I would be happy with civil union however it would still make us second class citizens. I just want to not be afraid of what could happen if my partner is sick or something happens to me what would happen to the children. What would happen with the house. We do have a will and a domestic partnership but are still treated poorly in some places. By making us equal we become equal in the eyes of others. It is important. Maine does not offer civil unions nor the right of marriage in any way.
          Please watch this video.
          front.moveon.org

        • Anonymous

          You can’t detach the legal rights and protections from the word marriage. Numerous courts have already determined that seperate is inherently unequal. Gays aren’t asking to be married in your Church or to have your God accept them — they want to be treated equally under the law.

        • Would you go see a movie called, “how to register a domestic partnership with a millionaire?”  Would you be happy having the most important, intimate, and defining relationship in your life tagged by the state as inferior and given a squeemish and euphemistic title that makes it sound like a “Merry Maids” franchise?  Do you think it’s fair to LGBT people that they should be marked with a separate designation that is designed to target them for unequal treatment?  No one knows what a civil union is, no one grew up dreaming of being civilly united with the one they love. Saying that the love and commitment between two men and two women is not a marriage, even when it accomplishes the same things and has exactly the same needs, is to deny LGBT people a portion of their human dignity.  If you think Civil Unions are good enough for LGBT folks, why aren’t they good enough for everyone?

        • Anonymous

          I’ve always told you that civil unions would satisfy me, as long as it’s civil unions for all– eliminate civil marriage as a term used for the contract altogether.

          But if you are proposing separate systems, civil unions for some and civil marriage for others… that won’t work with our Supreme Court.

      • Harry H Snyder III

        I really don’t get your letter;
        Jews could marry in a temple or synagogue as they always have.  I doubt they would be “discriminated against within their own religion.  Catholics could be married in their own church, where do you see the discrimination? 

        There is absolutely no reason for civil marriage except to get benefit from the State (sort of like welfare)  EVERYONE should get those benefits, married or not, OR no one should get them. This “discrimination” against single people has to end.

        • I understand your point. If married and you buy a house together and have children together there is much more involved if you goto court. If you are just living together (or playing house and my mother calls it) there is not legal bind. If one is Jewish and one is Catholic (my aunt and uncle) the church may refuse (they did) so civil marriage is necessary. You sound very logical. Right now this is what we need to protect us. Your theory is well versed and functional but it is not a reality now. Please watch the movie. 
          front.moveon.org

  • luvGSD

    Whoa!  They deleted my comment about how Italians shouldn’t stereotype.  Would someone please tell me what is wrong with that, exactly, when the BDN elected to print Mr. Bertolaccini’s letter stereotyping Ms. Fluke?

    • Anonymous

      That is pretty interesting!!!

      • luvGSD

         They are pretty selective about what they consider name calling.

        • Anonymous

          Yeah, I can’t really wrap my head around why accurately calling a person a liar is inappropriate, while let’s say, comparing homosexuality to pedophilia is a legitimate point of view that doesn’t get pulled down. I don’t really think any comments should be pulled, but this some and not the other stuff is inconsistent. 

          • luvGSD

             You got it!

    • Anonymous

      Men are special to the BDN.

      • luvGSD

         Heterosexual men.

  • luvGSD

    Mr. Bertolaccini, I am the CEO of your insurance company.  We are cancelling your life insurance policy because the company has decided to no longer offer this coverage to Italian males, for obvious reasons.

  • Anonymous

    Great letter, Joe: You must follow the Rick Santorum creed that sex is only for marriage and that sex during marriage is only for procreation. I’d rather have Ms. Fluke as a model for young women than Susan Collins, who last week voted for the Blunt Amendment to try to stop all women from obtaining birth control if their employer, whether a religious organization or a secular one, decides it’s not part of their beliefs.  Of course Collins gets praised as a moderate by everyone save those who have actually examined her record.

  • Anonymous

    Mr. Bertolaccini:  Here is information that might help you understand why Ms Fluke and others at Georgetown Graduate School of Law  are asking  Georgetown to cover contraceptives in their insurance package for students when the Affordable Care Act takes effect. 

    Most graduate students are between the ages of 25 and 35.
    The average age of all graduate students is 31.
    51% of all  women graduate students are married
    43% of all male graduate students are married
    14% of all women graduate students have children
    12% of all male graduate students have children

    The people  asking that Georgetown cover contraceptives in their insurance package are not, as you imply, immoral, sex crazed kids bouncing about like rabbits;   they are adults.  Most graduate students are not supported by parents.  Students  don’t last long in graduate school living  dissolute lives.  Most of the time they are studying.   And yes uninsured contraceptives can cost up to $1000 a year.   The co-pay on contraceptives when covered by insurance can cost up to $30.00 per month. 

    Before you start implying sin, sex, immorality and entitlement do some research.

    • luvGSD

      I sincerely hope that you are not trying to suggest that males are as sexually promiscuous as females.

      • Anonymous

        LOL

    • Anonymous

      Moreover, almost half of Georgetown U. students are *not* Catholic.

      • Anonymous

        Forgot that one , thanks.

    • Anonymous

       Anyone that can afford to go to Georgetown can afford to pay for their own contraceptives.  It’s called budgeting and living within ones means.  Somehow I don’t believe that the concept is taught at Georgetown though there some people who do understand it.

      • Anonymous

        Many who go to Georgetown can “afford” to so because of loans, grants and scholarships not because they write a check for tuition from a checking account.  Same goes for those who attend U of M, other Maine universities and community colleges.  These students also pay for the insurance coverage that is offered through these institutions (there is no choice in plans , just what the institution offers.).

  • Anonymous

    Hooray Gary. You told it exactly like it is. Move To Amend.

  • Anonymous

    Geez Joe, do you really believe a parent should be ashamed of their ADULT daughter for doing a responsible thing to avoid pregnancy or are you such a prude to think adult unmarried women should never have sex?

  • Anonymous

    Joe Bertolaccini, please try to keep your facts straight. It isn’t $3,000.00 per year, it’s for 3 years. I bet them parents would be some happy if their daughter was raped and wasn’t protected with birth control pills, then being the good religious family be saddled with the progeny of a rapist. The daughter would probably have to drop out of college to raise the baby and all that money invested in her education would go down the drain.
    Is this why the Chinese would rather have son’s?

  • Anonymous

    I sure wish BDN would post each letter separately, so that the comments can be targeted at that particular letter rather than lumping them all together.

    • Anonymous

      I agree, you have the same people posting on the same old subject….
      I love to read the comments though….

  • Anonymous

    Mr. Friedman – you are widely regarded as a successful fundraiser, but appear to fail to realize what philanthropy is all about. When people of means support a cause with their donated dollars, the donor wins (s/he supported her/his values); the non-profit wins (donations advance their mission); and those in need win (they benefit from additional resources).

    When the government points a gun at taxpayers every March 15 (corporate) and April 15 (individual) and says “Pay Up”, the taxpayer loses (much of their dollars support causes such as abortion that run against their values, not to mention the extraordinary levels of waste when the public sector is empowered to spend other people’s money); the government loses (have you seen Congress’ approval ratings lately, primarily due to their wanton spend ing addictions?); and the recipients lose (they become part of the culture of dependency and blame their problems on the “rich” who aren’t shaken down enough to satisfy the recipients’ selfish needs).

    So which is better, Gary? Win-Win-Win or Lose-Lose-Lose?

  • Anonymous

    I have a suggestion for the SSM question.

    Get rid of all government benefits for marrage.

    All of the non monetary benefits could easily be obtained through a contract.

    The monetary benefits are unfair to begin with.

    Simple

    • Anonymous

      “All of the non monetary benefits could easily be obtained through a contract.”

      That’s not even near being true. There are countless legal rights and protections associated with marriage. There is simply no civil or legal basis for discriminating between heterosexual and homosexual couples. So until you want to end civil marriage completely, it’s not fair to allow for one and not the other.

      • Anonymous

        I am simply suggesting that the civil benefits of marriage be dispensed with and make only the religious reason for marriage the reason for marrriage.

        That way anyone that wants to get married and can find a religious organization willing to bless their relationship can have at it. Children could be limited to the needs of the STATE and everyone given a reversable birth control that  could be reversed when children are needed by the State.

        Any children that come of the unions can be put into a government system to be raised by professionals that can raise the children to be made into proper citizens.

        This would take care of many of the problems of the country; birth control, providing for the welfare of all children, education, civil and legal discrimination …

    • Anonymous

      That would be constitutional, yes.

      But not simple— getting this done would take far more effort than simply extending the existing civil benefits of marriage to couples who are of the same sex.

  • front.moveon.org
    I want to know what it’s like. 

You may also like