PORTLAND, Maine — The Maine Education Association voted Sunday to endorse the referendum on the November ballot that would allow same-sex couples in Maine to marry.
“We are grateful for the support of the Maine Education Association and for the organization’s vote to endorse the campaign to allow same-sex couples to receive a marriage license,” Matt McTighe, campaign manager for Mainers United for Marriage, said Thursday in a press release. “The MEA is one of the largest and most well-respected organizations in the state, with members in every community. We are proud to welcome them to our coalition.”
Carroll Conley, head of the Christian Civic League of Maine and the Protect Marriage Maine political action committee, said Thursday that he was disappointed but not surprised by the announcement. Conley and the Rev. Bob Emrich of Plymouth head up the PAC opposing the referendum.
“We certainly aren’t surprised by the actions of the leadership of the Maine Education Association when we consider their stands on other issues,” Conley said. “My question is: How this is germane to their educational mission? I’d like to see if they polled their membership because you’ll never convince me this represents the rank and file teachers in the MEA.”
The voice vote to endorse the referendum happened Sunday during the organization’s annual convention of elected leaders from around the state, Rob Walker, executive director of the MEA, said Thursday in a telephone interview.
“Our representative assembly is made up of leaders from local associations,” he said. “It is a yearly event where a budget is passed and officers are elected among other things.”
Walker estimated there were about 120 delegates in attendance when the vote was taken. The motion passed without objection, he said.
MEA opposed the repeal of the same-sex marriage law in 2009, Walker said. Over the last 25 years, the organization has supported efforts to include sexual orientation in the Maine Human Rights Act, extending benefits to domestic partners and same-sex marriage.
Mainers on Nov. 3, 2009, voted 53 percent to 47 percent to repeal a law that allowed same-sex couples to marry. It had been passed by the Democrat-controlled Legislature and signed into law by Gov. John Baldacci in the spring of 2009. After the loss at the ballot box, EqualityMaine, a member organization that works on issues of importance to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals, began an outreach campaign to talk about the issue and began gathering signatures in August 2011 to put a question before voters again.
An Associated Press analysis of the 2009 election attributed opponents’ victory to the use of ads that said if the same-sex marriage law was allowed to stay on the books, children would be taught homosexuality in schools. A nearly identical ad campaign was successful in repealing a gay marriage law in California, according to The Associated Press.
“Article 2 of our constitution supports civil rights for all,” Walker said of MEA’s support for same-sex marriage and other gay rights issues. “That is the guide for us.”
The 150-year-old organization represents more than 24,000 active and retired teachers.
I’m Pro-gay marriage but who cares what the tenured few think?
After the last campaigns focused so much on whether or not same-sex marriage will be taught/condoned in schools, the MEA is backing it? Bad politics.
Is there any other organization that can refute the lies about the gay marry being taught in school?
How about exercising some personal responsibility, and speaking for yourself, via the newspapers, Facebook, or other social media? Put up some signs. Distribute some literature.
The public employee’s union should stay out of such arenas. Their endorsement only serves to strengthen suspicions that they would similarly push for a curriculum addition regarding the SSM issues.
Actually, I would like to know what are the specific lies being taught in school? I really do not know. I’m from Maine but live out of state and I am not that close to the curriculum being taught. Is there a state-wide approved gay-marriage curriculum? Again, I’m serious. I haven’t heard of it and would like to know. Actually, I’d like a copy. Thanks.
“My question is: How this is germane to their educational mission? I’d like to see if they polled their membership because you’ll never convince me this represents the rank and file teachers in the MEA.”
As an MEA member I can tell you they did NOT poll their membership. It troubles me greatly that they have done this. And I agree with you Mr. Conley. How is this germane to my or any other teacher’s educational mission. This has no place in the classrooms. We need to be about reading, writing and arithmetic, and leave moral issues at home where they belong, with parents.
it’s not a moral issue, it’s a civil rights issue.
It’s not a civil rights issue. It is a feel good policy put together by Liberals to keep a voting block happy. Just as with the special rights law that was rammed through by Baldacci and Democrats after Maine voters rejected it time after time. The only reason its law is because people got tired and felt sorry for these folks. A law that is costing taxpayers more money for a law that was not needed and showed no benefit. Just as this law will be just another Liberal Social Program that Maine Taxpayers will be on the hook for. The Democrats, and Special Rights for less than 5% (Equality Maine) are selling this as economic stimulus as our savior LOL RIGHT!!. Every Maine Economist has gone on record as saying this law will do nothing that it provides a temporary boost at best. While in the long run Maine Taxpayers will end up paying for a law that will provide no financial, jobs or any economic benefit to the Maine Citizen instead its just another Social Program that is basically a Welfare Program for gays and lesbians.
so…using your reasoning, same sex marriage will be a social program that the tax payers have to foot the bill for? Marriage is a welfare program? How the H-E-double hockey sticks did you come up with that?
It honestly just further proves how uneducated Darkcat is. If he had done his homework, the gay population nationwide is actually doing pretty well for itself financially speaking. I also have yet to ever hear of gay people asking for special funds to allow them to marry or for anything else for that matter.
Don’t forget the projected $22M per year in increased tourism, sales, and commercial benefits for the legalization of SSM. That was the projected number in 2009. And, you have to admit that looking progressive is going to bring in the tourism money. Being “Mississippi North” redneck – probably not so much.
So how will the Maine Taxpayers ‘be on the hook for”? For what? So if marriage is a “Welfare Program for gays and lesbians” what is it for “straight” folks?
Jd, he has been quick to make this comment in the past and every time you ask him how it will effect Maine’s economy, he refuses to respond, much the same was as the NOM people refused to give their names when questioned in the past. Seems to me that for a group of people that are so against equal rights for a certain group of people, they could at least come up with valid reasons as to WHY?..dont ya think?
*sigh*
The only people wanting “special rights” are the conservative Republican Christians who want to force their agenda on everyone and take away American freedom.
Not true. On the other hand, neither do some people agree with actions such as those taken by the MEA.
It is true that the crowd behind this discriminatory behavior want everyone in this country to live by and follow their belief system. They think that they are “special” because of their beliefs and that they have the right to dictate how other people choose the live their lives.
If you are against homosexuality then don’t be gay. If you don’t believe in same-sex marriage then don’t get one but be a true American and let others have the freedom to live by their own belief system instead of thinking that you have a special right to make everyone conform to your belief system.
Religious doctrine has no place in American politics.
you got that e-mail too? If you don’t want to smoke cigarettes….. be original if you can’t be right.
Correct. I don’t. They should not be viewed as a political group. They do not serve education by this stance, or any other. They should not have one. Stick to educating our kids. Oh right, they don’t do that with any conviction; only support political agendas they have no business being involved in.
I’m not so sure. They exist to teach our kids and setting the tone and curriculum for what is taught is probably in their purview. Just as discrimination against minorities in the 1960’s was condemned in school, thus teaching kids, setting an example, etc., should be done today. The MEA is not only about handling issue related to teachers, it relates to what is taught, to a degree.
The endorsement by MEA helps steer the education system toward a progressive and inclusive path and reaffirms fairness to all. That hardly seems like a bad thing.
The endorsement by the MEA is not fairness to all. It is not fair to families to have a moral code they do not believe in or endorsed taught to their children. Doing so is a bad thing. It is only fair to people who agree with the MEA.
You are stuck on the idea that SSM is immoral. But, that is not reality. Reality is that we live in a diverse culture. The argument 50 years ago of mixing the races within a school was considered immoral, but it, too, was not reality.
The reality is that gay people have always existed and always will. SSM is merely an acknowledgement, long overdue, of secular, legal, fairness to all which is the cornerstone of our country.
You must be able to take a step back and see where this is all going. It isn’t going back to a time period where gay people are in the closet. As more and more celebrities and ordinary people come out and have families, the question will arise as to why this group of people is discriminated against in what is a secular civil rights issue.
A defeat against SSM in Maine this November will simply be delaying of the inevitable. Gay marriage will happen in the USA, as it has happened in other countries. So, you may cling to the past, or more forward. It is your choice. But, you will be the odd man out on this issue.
It doesn’t matter whether the union members who believe SSM is wrong, are correct.
They are still union members, and the union has a duty to serve all its members equally.
That would be impossible. All groups set an agenda and have a public policy. Presumably, MEA wishes to advance issues and concepts it feels will support its members and its mission, whether some members agree or not.
This is not so dissimilar to the Starbucks issue where Starbucks set a company policy to support SSM and provide benefits to the spouses/partners of their gay employees. Very few members objected, but some did. The very eloquent response by CEO Schultz to two stockholders who are members of NOM summed it up perfectly and anyone watching the video would see the overwhelming support is for Starbucks’ position. BTW, NOM launched a boycott of Starbucks that has failed miserably. NOM does not understand our culture, much less that of other countries. During the boycott by NOM, Starbucks’ sales and stock rose. To give you an idea how out-of-touch with reality is NOM, they posted this video on their website believing it would promote their side of the argument on SSM. It is 180 degrees from that.
http://youtu.be/UnNphL-fHoM
I mention this as you have to look at the education and awareness level of MEA and realize they are on the right side of history on this issue. You could argue that they should have remained silent or neutral, but they are, after all, involved in education. They are not the National Bolt & Screw Manufacturers Association. They are there to lead the way, to educate, to bring society forward. Setting a platform that promotes equality and fairness to all seems to me to be well within their scope. Perhaps, adopting this platform will bring along their members who are hesitant or unaware of its significance. Do recall that a great number of teen suicides relate to bullying and part of that is the bullying of LGBT students. I think this issue is right in-line with MEA’s mission. I commend them for it.
You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to come to the conclusion that Christian/religious crowd behind this hate movement of discrimination want to force their “special” beliefs on all citizens. They believe that their are God’s special people who should control our laws based on their special religious teachings and interpretation.
The want special rights to control other’s lives.
I know many conservatves who are not Christian/religious who are not for marriage between two people of the same sex. Quit trying to heap everyone into a pile and label them. Geeesh
Like what? I have never heard a valid argument against SSM that did not involve some religious edict. Here are the objections I’ve heard:
– Religion – Not applicable. It’s a secular, civil rights issue. Churches may continue to discriminate, dance around a fire, do whatever it is they do.
– Harm to the children – Countless cases of children raised by singles, straight and gay, and gay couples find no problems for these kids. Skip the pedophilia argument. Even those proponents are embarrassed to haul out that dog.
– Being taught sodomy in school – Ridiculous. Gay is part of the human condition. It should be mentioned in sex education classes (or have those been banned by the bible thumpers since the 1970’s when I attended school in Maine?).
– Won’t achieve the desired results (the latest attempt by the sectarians to appear secular) – Legalizing SSM at the state level won’t achieve the desire equal rights. Those need to be obtained at the Federal level. – Wrong. Until DOMA, there was no Federal definition of marriage. States always have handled marriage issues. What will happen at some point is that as more states legalize SSM, then there will be a court case appear that cites the 14th Amendment. SCOTUS will review the case, determine the 14th applies, and that all States must recognize SSM. Then, finally, it is done.
I have watched the anti-SSM people with their knickers in a twist trying desperately to find something that will stick. But, each argument comes and goes. Eventually, nothing but angst, hatred, bigotry, and twisted knickers remain. The only truthful argument against SSM is that some people just don’t like it and that’s that.
Read”American Taliban” or watch”Bible Camp”Truly frightening what those people will do.
If you can,help the SPLC and FFRF in their brave fight against this big money destruction of America and the world.
I get a kick out of you. Using the old “buzz ” word, ” hate movement” to try and pigeon hole a majority of people who believe as I do that same sex marriage is wrong. The truth, not hate, will quell your confusion in november.
Actually, the majority of people in the United States now support the freedom to marry, because treating gays and lesbians fairly and equally under the law is the morally right thing to do. And young people support marriage equality in ever increasing super-majorities. So as the generations shift, marriage equality will become an inevitability. In 20 years we will wonder “What was all the fuss? Why were the right-wingers afraid of letting people get married?”
You have buzz words as well! By the way, gays and leasbians are all ready treated fairly under the law. No need to over do the generous gift from the public, and as for your ” young super majority” time will tell that one. Remember, don’t count your chickens before they hatch.
God doesn’t care about majorities. Also, Judge not that ye be not judged.
Your right! But, read deeper into that and you will find that I and not judging, I am speaking biblical facts. There is a difference.
You say, “gays and lesbians are already treated fairly under the law.” Then why is it that as a straight guy, I have the freedom to marry the adult person I love, but my gay and lesbian friends, relatives, and church members, don’t have that same freedom? The law treats me one way, and treats them a different way — the freedom to marry carries with it tax breaks, inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, Social Security benefits, etc., etc.
You say “no need to over do the generous gift from the public.” Gays and lesbians are part of the public! And being treated equally under the law is not a “gift,” it is a right.
Yes, I agree that we can’t foresee the future, but we can graph the trends. And according to the trends, the current national majority in favor of the freedom to marry will only get larger in the future.
Yet I’m a Christian who supports marriage equality BECAUSE I’m a Christian.
It’s morally wrong to be prejudiced. Jesus never discriminated against anyone, and he never preached against sexual practices. He said, “Judge not, so you will not be judged,” and he welcomed everyone to his banquet table.
Best reply eve, north. lol
The right-wingers want the “special right” to get married while denying the same rights and benefits to gays and lesbians.
I’ve been married to the same woman for 33 years. How does it hurt me if my gay neighbors get the same freedoms that I’ve taken for granted all these years?
But the right-wingers say, “No. People should not be treated equally. We want the special right to discriminate unfairly against people we are prejudiced against.”
End “Special Rights” for bigots! Support the freedom to marry.
It’s the other way around. It’s Equality Maine that is forcing their agenda on everyone. Marriage is not an equality issue, and everyone ought to know that. SS relationships are not the same as heterosexual relationships on account of nature, and never will be. Marriage is not even a civil rights issue, which my dictionary defines as ” the rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality.” For what political and social freedom is being denied? SS couples are not denied voting rights. They even qualify to run for public office. Socially they are free to form and dissolve relationships just like everyone else. Furthermore they cannot be denied public access anywhere.
The only thing that is missing is full public acceptance of their relationships that they hope to achieve by having the court system mandate the state school systems to promote gay sex and sexual promiscuity against traditional parental values. The court system will not be moved to do this until SS unions are endorsed by the state through “marriage” or “civil unions”.
So who is forcing an agenda on whom? It’s quite clear to me Equality Maine is attempt to undermine our children through the public school system against parents’ wishes. Ultimately it’s a form of though control that is being pursued, no less at taxpayer expense if this organization succeeds in attaining it’s goal of so-called same-sex marriage.
So far Mainers have been very tolerant and sympathetic towards gays. We need however to draw a line in the sand for the sake of future generations of children who deserve the best possible environment for growing and being nurtured. Nature has provided the model for this environment through the conjugal bond of a man and a woman. Let’s not meddle with nature.
There has never been a “special rights law” — the Maine Human Rights Act protects straight people from getting fired because of their sexual orientation, just as it protects gay people from getting fired because of their sexual orientation. It protects whites equally with blacks, it protects Baptists equally with Catholics, Jews, and atheists, etc. Treating everyone the same is not “special.”
On the other hand, you want the “special right” to get married, while denying an equal right to gays and lesbians.
My wife and I have been married for 33 years — how does it hurt me if my neighbors get the same freedom to marry that I’ve long taken for granted?
You are absolutely correct. What did that special rights get us? Let me tell you, there was the coach (who was also a teacher) who forced a girl to run through sheep feces. When the parents complained, the coach claimed she was discriminated against because she was a lesbian. This made absolutely no sense. The woman lost her job because she made a student run through fecal matter. NOt because she was a lesbian. Also, there was a case in Maine where a camp counselor (at a residential camp) was a transvestite and tried to force himself onto a boy. There was no need for this “special rights.” We all have rights, GLTB, heterosexual, whatever. However we all have to obey the law. We need to protect the children.
It is neither! It is not a moral issue and it is not a civil issue. It is a legal ploy to use the word marriage and the legalities that come with it.
Well, to me it seems immoral to not treat gays and lesbians fairly and equally. So yes, extending the freedom to marry to gays and lesbians is the morally right thing to do. I support the freedom to marry because of my religious faith.
At the same time, I agree that this is a civil rights issue — and (ideally) rights shouldn’t have to be voted on. They’re rights, after all. Nonetheless, I’m pleased that those of us who favor the freedom to marry have put this initiative forward. I think there’s a good chance that justice — the freedom to marry — may finally prevail in Maine.
I do not believe that this endorsement by the MEA has anything to do with “moral issues”. I believe it is a way to show support and acceptance to all students in the classroom no matter if they be gay or straight or come from homes with opposite sex or same sex parents. The classroom should always be a safe haven for all, and that IS “germane” to your “educational mission”.
The endorsement is wrong, and they should stay out of such discussions.
The endorsement supports their members who not only believe in equality, but also those who are gay. Why should they stay out of these discussions?
Because there are also teachers and staff who do not believe SSM is proper or should be legal. Both sides of this issue have equal rights as union members.
The word you’re missing is “neutrality.” Just as we do not allow schools to teach religion, neither should they be endorsing issues such as gay marriage, either way.
There are Jews, Muslims and Christians who give the nod to SSM. Why do you think the Christian Civic League should speaks for ALL chrisitians? They should stay out of the discussion because they do not speak for all chrisitians. Notice I’m using your logic? Now you’ll split hairs over it.
Your comment is 99.99% false assumptions.
I don’t support the Christian Civic League.
I do support gay marriage.
Unions should stay neutral on religious, political, social and moral issues, because they have dues-paying members who don’t necessarily agree with the endorsement just issued.
Let me know if you’re still confused.
Let me correct you , a follower of Christ ( Christian ) can not support SSM and remain a Christian. It is against biblical instruction.
I’m sorry, but you are wrong. I was raised a christian, and fount the bronze age belief system to be silly at times. I found serenity in the logic and reasoning that atheism offers. Religious texts still have moral lessons to teach. In fact, while reading the bible I noticed Christ makes no mention of homosexuality. At least none that I can recall. I do, however, recall Mark 7:15
“There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.”
So be careful what you say. Your words, and actions are what defines you.
Let me correct you: A follower of Christ cannot reject the outsider, fail to welcome the stranger, judge first, support prejudice, and remain Christian. It is against biblical instruction.
Jesus welcomed everyone to his banquet table. He didn’t go about preaching against sexual practices, but he said “Judge not so that you will not be judged” (Matt. 7:1).
The Bible in general, and Jesus in particular, shows concern for, and gives a welcome to, outsiders and those who are scorned by “proper” society. He said, “If you have failed to do it for the lease of these, you have failed to do it for me” (Matthew 25:45-46). On the last day, those who did not feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the sick, visit those in prison, and welcome the stranger, are those who will be sent to eternal punishment.
God’s love calls us into greater solidarity with those society excludes as the “other,” the outsider. To be a Christian is to be open to change, to move in the direction of deeper caring, compassion and courage.
I support fairness and equal treatment under the law for gays and lesbians BECAUSE I am a Christian, not in spite of it.
Well said! If only more of the believers saw things the way you do…
Schools are certainly allowed to teach religion, they simply cannot PROMOTE a particular religion. Any school would be allowed to teach a course on the history of religion or comparative religious philosophy.
The union is PROMOTING gay marriage, by endorsing the ballot measure.
Thanks for proving my point.
Isn’t that kind of like saying educators should steer clear of supporting Civil Rights for African-Americans?
No. You wish, but it’s not.
Despite Pres. Lincoln “freeing the slaves” 100 years later they were still fighting to own homes, and the ability to support their families by working. Not forced into different bathrooms, different drinking fountains and riding in the back of the bus.
Which of the above mentioned apply to gays today?
Nope, no prejudice against gay people, no, none at all… (removes blinders)…
Wait! How about not being permitted to marry, being subject to violent attacks (a certain Presidential candidate has yet to apologize for a teenage escapade in which he chased down and physically assaulted a gay peer), having some pastors and politicians advocate for concentration camps for gays, not getting tax breaks that are automatic for heterosexual couples, not being deemed a relative for purposes of hospital visitation…
Being the object of severe prejudice does not necessarily have to involve seats on a bus or access to drinking fountains.
I have never insulted, chased down, assulted, not hired, not fired, not been rude to, have not accused, not lied to or about gays. Neither have I ever rejected a person, stood against, mobbed against anyone for their lifestyle.
I do not get tax breaks, nor use my children as a tax shelter and neither will I get any benefits from my partner if they should die, neither will I ask S.S.I. to support our children should my partner die. Neither do we set ourseleves up to be discriminated against should there be any question of hospital visits, medical information, that is between you and your partner to see to, by simply including your lovers name on medical records, hospital records and wills. If their family or yours is the problem, you both need to take it up with them, not the rest of the world. We did not make a big public scene when our family had a fit when we had a relationship without marriage and demand everyone HAS to make a law and force the rest of the world to agree with us.
I have not met nor do not know one single gay couple who have not had the same rights to the above mentioned other than the final death benefit of about $300.00. My co-worker who is gay lost her partner to death, she was in on all the medical care and hospital visits She got the life insurance, the house, the furniture, the car and the pets she did not get the $300.00 death benefit.
If all you say is true, then someone needs to tell the gay people I know who lost their partner and got everything needs to give it to their deceased lovers family and including all the medical bills and funeral expenses.
Oh, please. Here we go — the race and slavery card. Soon the Hitler references will appear.
Don’t you ever get tired of being so boring?
Ad hominem insults? Predictable…
So are you endorsing kids in school getting married?? They already won’t discriminate against parents. This has nothing to do with education. The state and religion are supposed to be separate. They wouldn’t let Christians endorse school prayer or creation. They wouldn’t dare support something like school prayer – atheists would have a fit. This subject has religious implications and everyone knows it.
Kids in school would absolutely be allowed to get married if they were consenting adults. That’s pretty much a universal qualification. Strangely enough, very few students in public schools are adults under the law.
It only has religious implications because people like you choose to force it in there.
I completely agree with you. The MEA doesnt only represent teachers, it also represents students…which have largely supported gay marriage and will be voting in that manner when the polls open. I would be thrilled if they had done an exact poll of teachers, which schools they teach at and why they were either for or against it. It would help me in suggesting schools for friends having children.
Do you really think any law is going to change anyone’s feelings or beliefs?
So what if it’s taught in the schools. Maybe if it’s included in the curriculum, our children of the future will be better informed of this subject, instead of listening to a bunch of narrow-minded people. I realize that ‘marriage’ isn’t taught in school, but just the fact that everyone is created equal and everyone should be accepted as who they are, should be what’s taught. Maybe if it was, gay children wouldn’t be committing suicide because they’re being bullied…..which is a BIG problem in schools…….and the two subjects could be tied in together.
Easy answer –> because schools are supposed to teach academics, not act as surrogate parents, or models for social behavior and norms. Just as schools aren’t supposed to teach religion, neither should they be espousing one side of a moral issue vs. another.
All well and good. To bad many parents don’t feel that way.
They will return to being actual parents when schools stop acting as surrogate parents. One feeds the other.
You really do have your head stuck in the sand if you believe that.
Let me know when you have something to contribute to the discussion other than insults.
Naran, when someone ignore facts about bullying over sexual orientation, etc…the comment that you have your head stuck in the sand is a fact and not an insult.
You need to review my comments, and tell me where I have “ignored facts about bullying over sexual orientation.”
You are making stuff up, because you’re losing the argument.
Are yes…now we move into the smoke screen and distraction phase of the argument. When one no longer has any thing to say to sway a position just say anything to take a poster off point.
Nope it isn’t going to work.
Perhaps you have not worked in some of our poverty ridden schools. WE ARE surrogate parents. I personally feed and give clothing to my students and deal with their addicted parents.
That is not the issue under discussion, although it seems to me the unions have continually pushed for an expansion of school mission and scope over the decades. Parents are more likely to BE parents when they are required to act in the role themselves.
The unions and school districts have purposely turned into babysitting services in the name of job and program creation. That serves nobody well.
You think that’s true? That parents abdicate the role of parenting because of the parental roles that the schools take?
Yes. The more schools have expanded their scope to become surrogate parents, the more easily some parents abdicate their responsibilities, because they know the schools will step in.
Think about it — Even 50 years ago, schools did not provide therapy, sex education, parenting classes, and physical therapy. Some school districts even provide medical and dental services these days, along with meals, before and after school care, you name it.
Now, the push is on to expand all-day kindergarten and provide preschool programs as well. All in the name of job creation.
A more impartial analysis might show that responsible parents have to choose between working and staying home in a traditional parenting role due to the higher cost of living today compared with 50 years ago. One income was plenty back then, but today it doesn’t come close.
The unions have been very happy to widen that divide, by pushing for increased salaries, benefits, larger buildings, and more programs including all-day kindergarten and now preschool. Our local mil rate is 73.13% education. Our local education budget has increased about 280% since 1994. A full 80% of the school budget is salaries and benefits.
OK Naran…why don’t you step forward and provide for the children what the parents seem to be incapable of and what you don’t want the school system to do. Then your school budget will not increase on more penny and likely will go done because they will no longer need the “increased salaries, benefits, larger buildings, and more programs including all-day kindergarten and now preschool” because you will be doing it instead.
You are rapidly losing any dialogue credibility, by descending into the “let’s throw Grannie into the snowbank” side of the dial.
I’m not the one complaining about the cost of education, my mill rate lincreasing and how much the school budget has increasbudgeted the years. That was you.
So if you don’t wish to hold the parents responsible and you don’t want to step up to the plate who or what should should help the children?
Or are you one of those people that likes to complain all the time and offer no solutions?
Republican logic:
1) a problem exists.
2) people address the problem.
3) the problem would not have existed if people didn’t address it.
Yeah, sure, Liz. Meanwhile, the mountain lion won’t eat you if you pretend it’s not there.
The Christians will say it worked for Daniel. Of course they have no proof, but why let that get in the way.
Exactly, Liz. As a teacher, I know that these many programs have not been created in order to create jobs, but to serve the students. As we see many parents failing in their job as parents, and barely surviving themselves, emotionally, are we suppose to just abandon their children? Ignore their problems in the hopes that their parents, who can barely manage themselves, will “see the light” and suddenly become better parents?
The unions’ history disagrees with you. They will do anything to keep jobs, and create more jobs, even if it means keeping four year olds in classrooms all day long.
Some of those four-year-olds are better off in a classroom all day…and besides, who’s forcing those kids to be there? Generally those programs are started because the kids are already in daycare all day.
Guess what Naran….if parents accepted the responsibility of raising their children society wouldn’t have to step in and take over. Or maybe you would prefer a system similar to that found in the movie “Oliver”.
Here we go — when liberals can’t argue the issues at hand, they slide right over to the alarmist rhetoric side of the discussion dial.
Fail.
LOL yup…caught me. Tell yeah what, instead of blaming the school system for stepping into the void created by absentee parents why don’t you blame those that create the problem in the first place? Namely the absentee parents!!
Is that the mission of schools? This learning is supposed to happen in a vacuum? We are not supposed to learn about sharing, being fair, and being honest in school?
An equally worthy lesson is knowing when to stay out of a certain issue, because one’s involvement isn’t appropriate.
It’s not a moral issue. It is a social issue.
What about teachers who do not support SSM? What about their beliefs, and the use of their union dues?
Frankly, it doesn’t matter whether it’s a moral issue or a social issue. The union should stay out.
And so should the church.
You can keep repeating that all you want, but the issue under discussion here is the MEA, not churches.
Marriage is taught in school every time a child mentions his or her family, when we discuss the president and first lady…. Teaching tolerance of others is a positive thing.
Good to know that the MEA know best how to spend your dues…and you know they will be spending money and time “supporting” this issue.
No different than the Cathoic Church?
If I am a teacher can I avoid giving them any of my money? And if I want my union’s effective representation with management, must I also support their non-labor political goals which might be antithetical to my own?
No you do not. You do not have to be a part of the union adn you can still be represented by the union without paying dues. You have a right to your views and I respect you for them. i only ask that we all ecpress our views kindly and with respect.
Not a dollar of my income goes to them?
For the record, I support SSM. I am saying that I would not want my union to take any position regarding it nor expend resources that it should use representing me on it.
Agreed. The union should stay out of such issues, if they truly wish to be “representative” of all teachers and members.
You need to review Maine rules with regard to unions and non-members. They are still assessed dues.
But are they forced to pay the dues when they are not actual members?
Yes. If you do some research, you will see this has become a major issue in many states. Look up “Right to Work” laws, and states participating vs. those which do not.
Naran they pay part of the dues not the full dues. I worked for a “union shop” and I was allowed to opt in or out of the union. I only paid partial dues and I only received the benefit of the contract they bargained on my behalf.
Exactly my point with jersey. No matter what, I am still required to pay money toward an organization who uses that money to endorse positions not related to that contract…positions I may oppose. That is why the union shouldn’t involve itself in such things.
Correct.
No, I opt out and NO dues are taken from me period.
Precisely why the unions should be staying out of such issues. Thank you for pointing it out.
Thank you! If only more administrative and teaching staff thought the same way, what a welcome change that would be, for all concerned.
I’m sure there are MEA members who are gay and this matters very much to them.
What about the MEA members who are just as strongly opposed to gay marriage?
Yes it does and so does it for those members that support their gay colleagues and gay parents of their students.
Do you feel the same way about ALL positions the MEA makes or just when it concerns SSM?
If the MEA were a more conservative group, Naran would be championing their first amendment rights.
It is a social issue not a moral issue.
Doesn’t matter. The union should stay out of the discussion pro or con.
So should the church.
The school system could be reduced to one class room again.
What about all the RWs who are forcing morals down our kids’ throats?I guess that’s okay?
And just because you don’t agree with fairness,don’t assume that other members feel the same.
You write, “this has no place in the classrooms.” Both sides agree with that statement.
The MEA isn’t saying that this should be discussed in math classes. They’re merely saying that treating everyone equally and fairly, regardless of race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation, etc., is the right thing to do.
Last time around the right-wingers used deceptive ads that claimed falsely that if everyone was treated equally and fairly, same-sex relationships would be taught in public schools. It is important to answer such blatant falsehoods. Because of the likelihood that the far right will use similar scare tactics again, it is important for the MEA to take a positive stand in favor of fairness and equal treatment under the law.
Teachers, as you must know, deal with moral issues all the time. We learn to share with each other in kindergarten. We learn that it’s disrespectful to deface school property. These aren’t just issues of politeness, this is about right and wrong. These ARE moral issues, and I’ve only scratched the surface.
By supporting Same-Sex Marriage, the MEA is helping to create an environment in which all students, including those who come from homes with same-gender parents, are educated in a safe environment. When the MEA refuses to support same-sex couples in the same way that they support opposite -sex couples, they send a message to their students (and their community) that those couples (and their children) don’t deserve the same respect. This creates an unsafe environment for those students and their families.
So I say that this is most definitely an issue that it is appropriate for the MEA to take a stand on.
Just one of the reasons I dropped my membership years ago . . .
me too!!!!
I worked there at the time and although MEA may have nominally opposed repeal in 2009, it certainly did not make the issue a priority. Prior to the repeal effort, I testified at the Legislative hearing in favor of the bill; there was no MEA organizational presence at all.
“An Associated Press analysis of the 2009 election attributed opponents’ victory to the use of ads that said if the same-sex marriage law was allowed to stay on the books, children would be taught homosexuality in schools. A nearly identical ad campaign was successful in repealing a gay marriage law in California, according to The Associated Press.”
Looks like the MEA removed any confusion on whether or not it’s going to be taught in schools. Guess the opponents were on the right track after all.
Wrong…what is taught in the local schools is completely up to YOUR local school board.
The Yes on 1 campaign back on 2009 came out and admitted that SSM would NOT be taught in the schools if the repeal of SSM had failed. Of course they admitted this AFTER the election had been held. So, the “good” Christians of Yes on 1 lied to the Maine people. Yup….”good Christians” indeed.
IT’s right there out of Mr. Mutty’s mouth in the Question One movie if you don’t believe the pro-gay agenda disseminators…
Why do I need to move?
Two wrongs don’t make one right. Remember that old saying?
The union is dead wrong on this one.
And if we don’t learn from history we are bound to repeat it. It is more important to remember the wrongs committed in 2009 so they are not allowed to be repeated in 2012.
Your comments are geared to supporting your personal agenda. You’re not looking at the issue logically. The union has a duty to remain neutral because it serves numerous people with different beliefs on these kinds of issues. They should stick to salary, benefits, and contract negotiations, not religion, politics and social mores.
This would become instantly obvious to you, had the union come out publicly opposing SSM in Maine. The only reason you’re supporting their improper endorsement is because it suits your own wishes.
I have no “agenda”…I have been married for more than 25 years and SSM does not impact my marriage one bit.
And I will agree that unions should stay out of this question if the churches and religious institutions also stay out of it.
The union has an obligation to support all members, who pay dues.
It’s clear you support gay marriage, and if the union had come out in opposition to the ballot measure, I don’t believe you would be as supportive.
Yes I do support SSM.
And in my opinion the Union has a right to take a position and can donate money to the cause if if they choose. The Citizens United SCOTUS decision gave unions the same “rights” as it gave to corporations.
No, they don’t have that “right,” as the dissenting union members will shortly be telling them.
Your viewpoint is not logical.
My view point is “not logical”. Why? Because it differs from yours?
Really? Not taught in schools? You really need to watch the film “Indoctrination.” You really need to open your eyes. What about the teacher in Brunswick who posted a T-shirt which stated ” Gay? OK with me – what was that all about? What if she posted a T-shirt up that said “Jesus Saves”? What would have happened then? Also what about Mr. Savage the “Anti-Bully” who goes around and talks to teachers about bullying. Then, when he speaks to a bunch of high school students who want to be journalism majors, he offends them with his talk about how great his “boyfriend” looks in his speedo. Then he continues to belittle Christians. Also, what about Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar.” This man wrote a book called the Queering of America and is into the Man – boy love. Obama actually appointed this man! Thank goodness he is no longer in this position. This is about recruiting at a very young age, in the schools!
“Really? Not taught in schools? You really need to watch the film
“Indoctrination.” You really need to open your eyes.”
Really no it’s not. Yes on 1 came out in 2009 after the vote and said SSM would not have been taught in Maine schools. They said just the opposite before the election and put out an add using a public school teacher to say it. So they lied leading up to the election in 2009 and admitted it after the election.
~~~~~
“What about the
teacher in Brunswick who posted a T-shirt which stated ” Gay? OK with me
– what was that all about? What if she posted a T-shirt up that said
“Jesus Saves”? What would have happened then?”
As I recall, the tee-shirt was part of a larger program on tolerance. Something many Christians say but don’t seem to do. http://bangor-launch.newspackstaging.com/2012/03/28/news/midcoast/gay-tolerance-t-shirt-on-brunswick-classroom-wall-triggers-wider-conversation/ Personally, I know a public school teacher that keeps a Bible on display on her desk. I have no problem with her doing this.
~~~~~
“Also what about Mr.
Savage the “Anti-Bully” who goes around and talks to teachers about
bullying. Then, when he speaks to a bunch of high school students who
want to be journalism majors, he offends them with his talk about how
great his “boyfriend” looks in his speedo. Then he continues to
belittle Christians. Also, what about Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar.”
This man wrote a book called the Queering of America and is into the
Man – boy love. Obama actually appointed this man! Thank goodness he
is no longer in this position. This is about recruiting at a very young
age, in the schools!”
Yes, you are correct…it’s all about recruiting new members into the club. We all know that the “gay community” wants new members so they can suffer the hate, the bigotry, etc…We all know that the “gay community” wants more people beaten, burned, kicked, spat on, thrown into a stream, murdered, killed, etc…Yes, how could i be so blind to the truth.
I have been in the schools, you have not. You know nothing about Dan Savage and his anti-Christian rant to the high school students. My children have been in public school. I witnessed first hand a promotion of homosexuality. Yes, I have complained to the school board. I received a letter of apology. The teacher still has her job. YOU think anti-bullying is okay as long as it is about homosexuals. What about Christians? The t-shirt is okay with you, what about a “Jesus Saves” t-shirt? I believe you most likely would personally benefit from SSM. Perhaps you are in the divorce business?
How about this t-shirt
http://img0.etsystatic.com/il_fullxfull.110007456.jpg
Excuse me not4us but I have had children in public schools as recently as 2005. So please save your “poor me” act for some one else.
Your right. I have never heard of Mr. Savage. Tell me where has he appeared in the state of Maine?
You complained to the school board and received a letter of apologe. What else did you want?
And where have I stated that bullying is “OK” if it is anyone else but gay students? So please show me & everyone else where I have posted that.
The only problem I have with t-shirts in school is I don’t believe they are appropriate for wear at all. Want to wear a “Jesus Saves” t-shirt knock your self out I will defend your right to wear one just like I would the “Gay is OK with Me” one.
Do you always assume so much about people that you have never met? I have NOTHING to gain or lose if SSM passes.
And Massachusetts has one of the lowest if not the lowest divorce rates in the country and they were the first state to legalize SSM!
Would you like to make any more assumptions about me or do you want to engage in an adult conversation about SSM?
It was quite some time ago that your children were in public school. I seriously doubt you ever volunteered in the classroom.
I assume nothing. I know quite a bit from your posts. Including your defense of Bob Carlson which shows how poor the judgement of character can be. Also, If you want to bring up MA. THat comparison is very weak. HOw long has SSM existed there? Also, are you aware that the first Lesbian couple to get married there, the ones who fought so hard for this privilege, were divorced within the first few years. Yes, you can argue that heterosexual couples get divorced, however if this was so extremely important to this couple, why could they not hang in there? NOT one state has voted for SSM when it has been taken to the public, not one. Also, 32 states have amendments to their constitutions forbiding SSM. That is more than half, just so you know. Good luck in your divorce business.
You “assume nothing” but you “seriously doubt you ever volunteered in the classroom.” Well not, you couldn’t be further from the truth. I volunteered in the classroom, was involved in sports an assistant coach, was a leader in Scouts, was in and around the school on close to a weekly basis.
~~~~~
Now on to the rest of your post…
“Including your defense of Bob Carlson which shows how poor the judgement of character
can be.”
Yup I defended the person I knew from professional associations. But how does that translate to “poor judgement of character”? If you knew something that the rest of us didn’t and did nothing your just as guilty as he was.
~~~~~
“Also, If you want to bring up MA. THat comparison is very weak. HOw long has SSM existed there?”
2004
~~~~~
“Also, are you aware that the first Lesbian couple to get married there, the ones who fought so hard for this privilege, were divorced within the first few years.”
And that translates to what?
~~~~~
“Yes, you can argue that heterosexual couples get divorced, however if this was so extremely important to this couple, why could they not hang in there?”
Don’t know. Why does anyone get divorced? And I notice you either cannot or will not dispute that Massachusetts has one of the lowest if not the lowest divorce rate in the nation today.
~~~~~
“NOT one state has voted for SSM when it has been taken to the public, not one.”
Yup and suspect that not one state voted to end interracial marriage by popular vote.
~~~~~
“Also, 32 states have amendments to their constitutions forbiding SSM. That is more than half, just so you know.
And you point would be what? Interracial marriage was also illegal until Loving v. Virginia.
~~~~~
“Good luck in your divorce business.”
I thought you “assume nothing” but keep repeating your lie.
Why do you think that this means that because they support marriage for people of the same sex who love each other that this will now be in the curriculum?
It will only be that way if the parents and others a school board want it to be.
It is not taught in schools. It is not part of our curriculum. We are only trying to support ALL students. i wish this happened when I was being bullied in school all my life because I was different. I didnt even know what gay was but I was called dyke and beaten up daily.
You say it’s about “supporting all students.” What about the ones who don’t support gay marriage? What about the teachers who don’t support gay marriage? How are their rights represented by this endorsement?
What about the exchange students who dont accept the Flag. They dont have to but they should keep their opinions to themselves.
Your attempts to deflect the argument fail.
The fact is, the union shouldn’t be endorsing OR condemning the SSM ballot measure.
This announcement has nothing to do with whether the curriculum would be changed. Curriculum is left to local school boards and administration.
The union should also be staying out of this issue.
So should the church.
It is none of the MEA business. It is a moral issue and not civil rights.
It isn’t a moral issue…it is a civil rights issue. It is not, however, a labor issue, and that’s why it’s none of their business.
You don’t think that this won’t benefit their gay members who want to marry??
As much as their support of the NRA would benefit gun owning members…oddly, I don’t see them doing this. Nor do I want them to…I want them to represent my interests to management as my labor organization.
How does it benefit members who oppose gay marriage? Are their own rights with regard to the union and dues expenditures equally important?
Based on “who’s” morals?
Are there not MEA members who are gay? Are there not others at the schools who are gay? Is this not a way to show support for those people?
Are there not MEA members who are Catholic? Are there not others at the schools who are Catholic? Should the MEA endorse one religion over another?
It is NOT a moral issue. It is a civil rights and social issue.
The union represents people with all kinds of beliefs on this issue. They should stay neutral.
So should the church.
It is not a moral issue. Gay people are part of our culture and you people use God to TOLERATE them. It is sad to think that religion is used to marginalize others.
This whole thing has been turned into a religious war by the Christian community. The CIVIL RIGHT for any one to get married is not dictated by the Bible, but by our constitutional RIGHTS. The fact that this is an issue is as medieval and outdated as the witch hunts. Next people will be saying that you have to be Christian to get married because non-Christians are ruining the sanctity of marriage. The Bible is not a book of rules. Its a book of guidelines to be loosely followed 300 years ago. Not in 2012 when people should be more open minded and fair. The world has grown in knowledge and diversity. Stop living in the 16th century, Folks, Pass this bill and lets move on to something a little more impacting, like the economy.
If you supposedly have a “Constitutional Right” to marry then perhaps you can explain why you need a marriage license? Or why polygamists cant marry multiples times? Thats because you dont have that right. You may think you do, but the sad part is you really have no idea what rights you do or dont have and you make it up as you go along. Typical leftist. Next you’ll start claiming you also have a right to free healthcare, which you also DO NOT have.
Loving v Virginia, 1967, unanimous US Supreme Court decision: “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. ”
The sad part is when people believe in their intolerance so much it becomes fact to them.
I see you still haven’t read Loving v. Virginia Hypo. If you did you would have the answers to your questions and I know I have answered them before but I will again.
“If you supposedly have a “Constitutional Right” to marry then perhaps you can explain why you need a marriage license?”
Because under current law the state has a right to regulate who may marry whom. For instance, in Maine first cousins may marry but only after they have received genetic counseling.
~~~~~
“Or why polygamists cant marry multiples times?”
Well actually people can marry as many times as they want to as long as they only marry one person at a time. But to answer why a polygamist cannot marry more than one person at a time you have to turn to the SCOTUS, you will find the answer to your question in Reynolds v. United States (1878)
~~~~~
“Thats because you dont have that right. You may think you do, but the sad part is you really have no idea what rights you do or dont have and you make it up as you go along.”
The SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia held the following:
“Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”
and
“There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White
Supremacy.”
and
Justice Potter Stewart filed a brief concurring opinion where he reiterated his opinion from McLaughlin v. Florida that “it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race
of the actor.”
~~~~~
“Typical leftist. Next you’ll start claiming you also have a right to free healthcare,
which you also DO NOT have.”
Not at all but some would say that opponents are ignoring several SCOTUS decisions to the contrary. And please, spare me the “legislating for the bench” argument. The only time that argument is used is when a decision goes against one side or the other. i.e. Citizens United is being vilified by the left for “making” corporations citizens while ignoring that Citizens United also made unions citizens.
Just exactly what is a typical leftist?
Sorry but my stance on this issue is still…….evolving. Sound familiar?
As an intelligent person Obama stated that his upbrining believed that it was between one man and one woman but that he was learning more and evolving. Just like our idea that the world isnt round. We have to evolve or die. He researched and learned and made an intelligent decision. President Buchanan was gay. So what is your point?
Their opinion and a dollar six gets me something off the dollar menu at McDonalds. Since this has nothing to do with, you know, education, I fail to see why they even present an opinion.
Who cares if the MEA supports this? What does this have to do with the education of our students? Another reason NOT to belong to a union. This is the way union dues are used. Is that okay with the members of the union? I’m going to guess that there might be quite a few members who will disagree with this. Do the members agree with the MEA head honchos using their dues to fund political issues? I’m quite certain this is not the only one…and I would hazard a guess that whatever political issues they do help finance are not conservative in nature, so if that’s okay with the membership, then fine. If not, then speak out!
Agreed. I hope that all MEA members who disagree with this action let the union know their opinion.
We are not talking about sacramental marriage in a church. When you get married in a church you still have to apply for a marriage license. Your religious marriage means nothing to the state or federal government, that is where the marriage license comes into play.
Your comments are illogical given the discussion. The discussion is not about the merits of gay marriage, or the opposing opinion.
Unions for public employees should stay out of religious/social/moral issues, period. That’s the issue under discussion.
And churches and religious institutions should stay out of matters of civil law.
For the record I have no issue with any group or organization taking a public stand on a ballot question. But if you are going to limit a group or organization speech, you should limit ALL groups or organizations and not just those that have an opinion that is different from yours.
Where did I write anything differing from that finding?
My opinion is that public unions should stay out of political issues and discussions, period.
For private employees as well.
“The MEA is one of the largest and most well-respected organizations in the state……”Ha! Good one!
How does this improve education?
Exactly. This is like the Pope getting involved in whether our kids should be taught economics, or worse yet, religion in schools. Improper Deluxe.
Is it supposed to?
Should the union condemn SSM? Why not?
Stand up for traditional marriage! Because children deserve a mother AND a father. Marriage is between a husband and wife. The people of Maine do not want marriage to be anything but that. We do not want government or judges changing that definition for us today or our children tomorrow. https://www.facebook.com/ProtectMarriageMaine
Children do deserve a mother and a father. However, their are thousands abused by their mothers and fathers. There are thousands abandoned by their mothers and fathers and there are thousands who are raised by SS parents who are doing wonderfully My three are some of them. Read the studies. read the words of Jesus. God Bless you I said a prayer. ALL CHILDREN deserve a loving home.
How does SSM impact your marriage Pastor?
Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose
their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public
facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage. That will affect me. :)
That is a falsehood. No church that does not recognize or endorse SSM faces penalties if this law passes. None, Zero, Nada. No church or church supported group (i.e. KofC, etc…) will lose tax exempt status.
I appreciate your innocence, but I think you know that there is no way that promise can be made.
OK if you want to ignore the law and play a game explain what law in Maine will be used to:
a) Remove “Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions”, and
b) Deny “the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage”
And you never answered the original question which was “How does SSM impact your marriage Pastor?”
On one hand, the government has a responsibility to uphold religious freedom (1st amendment), and on the other hand, it cannot deny equal protection of the laws (14th amendment).
If proponents of same-sex marriage have their way, they will get the courts to declare
it a constitutionally protected right. This will create a
constitutional conflict. When faced with conflicts like these, the
courts have relied on a stringent standard of judicial review known as
the strict scrutiny test. In this test, the court has to weigh out if the state has a compelling interest
to enforce a certain law that places a burden on an already existing
constitutionally protected activity. When it comes to same-sex
marriages, this test will be relied upon to measure whether the state’s
compelling interest to protect the new “constitutional” rights of
homosexuals and same-sex marriage partners warrants placing a burden on
religiously motivated practice. Most attorneys and legal analysts on
both sides of the issue believe that most Federal courts will almost
always rule against religious institutions and practices. I will give you that under today’s laws in Maine it won’t happen, but if we keep giving up ground, it could. I can’t take that chance.
The least you could do is give proper credit to the author (Raul Rivera) of the post that you just plagiarized from (© Copyright 2012, StartCHURCH.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.).
http://www.startchurch.com/blog/view/name/the-legal-ramifications-of-same-sex-marriage-on-the-church
If we started footnoting and citing sources in forums, the internet would die. ;) I think the poor layout of the above post would be indication enough that it was copy and pasted. I never passed it off as my own original thought or idea. Doesn’t make the facts presented any less true.
Seems you never read the BDNs guidelines for posting
“Comments should be your own work, not copied and pasted from elsewhere,
though brief quoted passages to make your point are fine.”
You did not attribute…you did not use quotes…So your seriously going to make the argument that you didn’t try to pass of the post as your own work? You realize that the post was stolen pastor don’t you?
“You’re right I didn’t attribute. Nor did I use quotes.” – ChildrensPastor04401
Nice sleuthing.
Actually there is no conflict, your religion is protected by the Constitution right up until it breaks the law. Which is why you see families who believe god will heal their children in court having their kids taken away and getting the medical attention they need. Another example is human sacrifice, it is a religious rite that is far older than the United States Constitution, but if you do it, you will go to jail.
If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people
like me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated
like bigots and racists. It’s already happening – just look at this thread. That’s how it will impact me.
Sorry pastor…when you plagiarize posts, as you did below you lose all credibility.
Wow..couldn’t hide your fear with that statement. Some are probably treating you like a bigot now, because you are trying to preach support for intolerance and discrimination. It has nothing to do with the fact that you believe a child needs both a mother and father. Unfortunately, you do not see the fact that those roles can be fulfilled in many nontraditional relationships. Being a good mother or father does not depend on your sexual orientation. Your fears are completely irrational. If the courts rule that SSM is a civil right, it will not affect your life or how you are treated in the slightest.
Um… not so sure about racist, but whether or not SSM passes, you have already proven yourself a bigot.
I have a friend who talked to Bob Emrich and has in writing that he has stated that the first amendment protects this. You sir are a liar and I am not a name caller or one who hates but you sir are a liar. Bob Emrich will back this or he is a liar and I can produce his words.
Catholic Charities in NY just said they would not longer help the poor if they had to offer birth control. Your argument has already been used in the past and it didnt come true.
Churches should lose their tax exempt status, if you own property, you should pay tax on it, if you get paid by the church you should pay tax on it. Catholic Charities, yes, giving to the poor, needy, disabled, and elderly should be tax exempt, but the Cathedrals and property of the church itself, not so much. According to census data, there are more “Jedi” in New Zeland than there are Buddhists and Hindu’s. World wide there are over a million people who claim “Jedi” as their religion. So should George Lucas’ sprawling Skywalker Ranch be tax exempt as it is the birthplace of this religion?
Did you know, childrenspastor04401, that allowing a gay person to marry the person he or she loves will NOT prevent straight people from marrying or from having babies (sometimes the happen independently).
Also, right now when gays aren’t free to marry the one they love, they are still forming relationships and those relationships sometimes include children. And the children of those parents are as much loved and do as well as children in opposite sex families.Allowing a gay person to marry the person he or she loves strengthens the institution of marriage. It’s ironic that with the climbing divorce rater among straight people a group of people who WANT marriage are being denied.
It’s EXTREMELY presumptuous to say “the people of Maine do not want marriage to be anything but” between a man and a woman. Perhaps you missed the 105,0000 petition signers who think otherwise?
High rates of divorce are one more reason we should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it. Not presumptuous at all considering we voted on it not three years ago. :) Perhaps you missed the over 100,000 signatures that were gathered in 2009? We stopped at 100,000 – it seemed excessive. :)
Your use of smileys is excessive. And smug. It’s unsettling how much more comfortable you are preaching hate than loving your neighbor.
What’s unsettling is how judgmental you are of smileys. Lol. :) You need to look up the word hate. You will find many instances to draw from. Not wanting to redefine marriage won’t be there. I love my homosexual friends as much as I love my friends who are divorced, etc. Love does not demand I agree with you.
Gay marriage does strengthen marriage and encourage a more stable loving culture. Your personal bias weakens our society and is bad for all children.
Oh brother. Bigot.
:) Not at all. When the idea that children need moms and dads get legally stigmatized
as bigotry, the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a
marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder. You can’t really expect us to give up without a dialogue, do you?
Can you site any cases from any state that has legalized SSM that demonstrates “moms and dads get legally stigmatized as bigotry” or that the “job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder”?
I have been called a bigot so many times today I can’t count. And all I have stated is, “the idea that children need moms AND dads.” And it’s not even legal yet! As for the second phrase, try teaching your children that sex outside of marriage isn’t moral and see how easy it is.
Well I haven’t called you a “bigot” others may have but I haven’t. I have tired to engage you in an adult conversation. You make claims and I have asked you to support your claims with proof.
For example: you made the claim “…When the idea that children need moms and dads get legally stigmatized as bigotry, the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a
marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder. You can’t really expect us to give up without a dialogue, do you?”
I responded by asking you to provide examples from states that recognize SSM. I believe that is a reasonable request..to back up claims with proof. So, can you support your claims with proof?
Well, with Pastor preceding your name, you can’t really blame people for calling you a bigot. The philosophy you rule your life by is bigoted so you are either a bigot or a false Christian. Calling sex outside marriage immoral pretty much sums up where you fall. If you want to believe in the Invisible Sky Wizard and a Jewish Zombie, be my guest, but when you support a bigoted religion, don’t be surprised when you get called a bigot.
Perhaps that is because by every definition of the word, you are a bigot.
Nothing but a HATE page. Hate, hate, hate. You are a children’s pastor? Egad!
Disagreeing with my position = hate? Faulty logic. :) God bless.
No pastor the poster was referring to the facebook link. I checked out the link and the Polygamy argument is another falsehood.
How are quotes a falsehood? Remind me?
Polygamy is illegal and has a SCOTUS decision (Reynolds v. United States) supporting the laws making it illegal.
As will gay marriage, as Prop 8 moves its way up to SCOTUS. This will all be a moot point, once the supreme court has it’s say. :)
We will see pastor we will see. I believe the SCOTUS will rule in favor of SSM using the 14th Amendment. See SSM is already legal in several states and when a legally married couple moves from a state that recognized SSM to a state that doesn’t it creates an unequal situation where a contract in one state is no longer a valid contract in another state.
This is the exact same situation that the Loving’s found themselves in when they got married in one state and returned to another state that didn’t recognize their marriage (read Loving v. Virginia (1967)).
I don’t see how the SCOTUS could rule any differently when Prop 8 and the various related cases land at the court.
Clearly, you are not an attorney.
Loving v. Virginia was about inter-racial marriages, not gay marriages.
And clearly you have never read the case. Nor understand how a precedent is used by a court.
Repeat — clearly, you are not an attorney.
And clearly you have no idea what it is like to be a member of a minority group that faces discrimination day and day out. Side note – I have never claimed to be an attorney.
I’ll remind you… The bible is full of quotes, most of which are falsehoods or misrepresentations. Some of them are nice tales, but they are not truth. Much like Aesop and his fables, I can quote the lion and the mouse, that doesn’t mean the lion really said it.
You are trying to completely discredit the lives of other people and make them appear less than.
The only faulty logic here is a person who claims to be a Pastor is promoting everything BUT love. I honestly am alarmed that you work with children. I pity them.
No smiles for you !!!! Your position is a discriminatory one, cloaked in religiosity.
Wo you have anger issues.
Yes, I am angry that radical Christians are trying to force their radical beliefs on all Americans. They are really no different from the radical Muslims that they are often so outspoken against. The page is nothing but propaganda.
If you think this is a HATE page then you need to go to another page.
I want you and your church to pay taxes since you use your money for political influence and gain.
Same goes for the unions getting involved in a political issue of this nature.
Then where are the laws of ‘separation of union and state’?
Read the union’s own bylaws, and ask the members who don’t approve of the endorsement.
I just visited the Maine Education Associations website http://www.maine.nea.org/home/index.html and try as I might I could not find a link to there bylaws.
I was just pointing out the difference. I’m not sure about their own bylaws, but there aren’t ‘separation of union and state’ laws, as there are separation of church and state. Yet there are 150-200 churches, in the state, that will be funding the opponents of marriage equality. It certainly helps to have educators, on our side, that can accurately dispel any irrational fear mongering and misinformation spread by our opponents.
I am a citizen of Maine, and I support same sex marriage rights. Who do you think you are, pretending you speak for me and thousands of others like me?
These families exist already without the protection of civil marriage. These children are already growing up in households without a mother/father dynamic.
They won’t disappear or cease to exist, no matter how much you oppose our equal treatment.
Offering civil marriage to these couples is simply the right thing to do.
Personally, I find it ironic, and pretty hilarious, that you are using a tool(Facebook) invented by a gay man, to push intolerance and discrimination.
You give religion a bad name.
Regardless of one’s personal opinion of gay marriage, why is the MEA getting involved in this issue, and endorsing one side vs. another? How about they just teach our kids academics, and leave the moral/social issues on the side? What’s next, endorsing political candidates using school equipment and resources, too? Oh, wait….
Because last time the biggest commercial the opposition had was against the school system. They were told that under no circumstances would SSM be a part of the curriculum. The opposition called the MEA a liar. This is why we speak up.
The endorsement from the MEA will only strengthen suspicions about the curriculum.
And the MEA does not set curriculum. To imply they do is misleading. Local school boards set curriculum.
And local school boards are heavily influenced by unions, teachers, and the MEA. It’s a closed circle, in large part.
“And local school boards are heavily influenced by unions, teachers, and the MEA. It’s a closed circle, in large part.”
Care to offer an example or two to back up your claim?
Care to post comments using your actual identity?
And that would make a difference how?
You keep demanding “proof” for various issues, when you’re posting anonymously. You have no credibility.
Well, first the BDN goes not require posters to use their “real” names.
Second, just because I use a screen name doesn’t diminish my arguments. When I make claims (i.e. what the SCOTUS has to say about a matter) I provide the case and any other supporting info necessary. I also provide the links to anything that is not common knowlesge.
Third, when posters such as yourself make claims like federal and state law require schools to be neutral and unbiased I will call that poster out to document the claim.
Fourth, if you don’t like being called out to provide the documentation on such a wild statement you have two options; a) provide the proof, b) stop responding to posts asking for the proof.
If you keep responding I will keep asking.
What a hypocrite you are, Naran. You’ve never call out the hundreds on AMG for posting anonymously. Why here?
Unions have always endorsed political candidates and taken public positions on topics. They didn’t in 2009 and Yes of 1 lied repeatedly about SSM being taught in the public schools. They admitted they lied about it but only after the vote was held.
The MEA should stay out of this issue. The endorsement is nothing but pandering to the liberal side of the political spectrum. They should remain neutral on political/moral/social issues.
Based on all the false and misleading statements in 2009 they should take a stand.
No, they shouldn’t. It’s up to individual voters to make their wishes known, via the ballot box.
Should the unions also endorse one religion over another?
OK…if unions cannot take a position then neither can a religious institution of any kind.
You’re welcome to go argue with the churches.
Not arguing Naran…I am pointing out that if unions cannot speak up on political issues churches and religious institutions shouldn’t be able to either. But all know that not the case and for proof here is a link to another BDN article entitled, “Maine churches raising money to fight gay marriage” http://bangor-launch.newspackstaging.com/2012/05/25/politics/churches-to-take-up-collection-to-help-fight-gay-marriage-in-maine/ so if a church is allowed to speak out and influence political questions why shouldn’t a union?
The MEA is a union for the employees. Are they setting education standards? Do they set the curricula in the schools? Do they actually do the teaching?
As the representatives for numerous public employees, the union should remain neutral on this issue.
Fine and so should churches and religious institutions then.
As I mentioned elsewhere, I agree with you.
And as I said above I will expect to see your screen name calling out churches and
religious institutions when they start to make public statements
opposing SSM.
As I wrote above, you have no standing to make demands of me for anything.
The day you use your own name on these pages, you might have some credibility.
And we know who you are because of a face book page?
You don’t even supply that much. Your demands of others for “proof” of anything are laughable.
A Facebook page. I can make a facebook page to say I am JFK and I am speaking from the grave. A Facebook page is not “proof” of anything.
By the way, why do you keep responding if my post lack credibility simple because I post under a screen name?
Because Naran is a hypocrite.
the teacher for the SSM vote in 2009 used a classroom in the public school to make her ad, with the blessings of the administration to do so.
Both sides are wrong when they use public dollars to engage in political issues.
I know for a fact the the yes on one side back in 09 did not use public dollars for their ad.
Actually we don’t know where the Yes on 1 money came from because NOM continues to refuse to release the names of donors.
It was not funded by NOM. (the ad, I mean)
As a teacher I can te;ll you that Bob and Carroll would be surprised how many of us support this. We see students who at 16 , 17 , and 18 come out and are told to kill themselves, told they should die. The MEA is protecting the rights of their students. I, and my co workers, support SSM.
Who tells them that?? Teachers??
So you are saying if gay marriage is approved that 16. 17 and 18 year olds who come out won’t be told to kill themselves or die.. It’s that simple??? Who woul;d have known.. Using kids lives to swing a vote is sick.
It happened in our school. A young man came out, at 17 and a note was put in his locker to kill himself. he is president of our NHS and a wonerful intelligent person who is raised in a two parent heterosexual home. I can tell you that the more gay people are loved and accepted as Christ loved and accepted us they will feel better about themselves and who they are. In states where it is legal there is much less of bully behavior against gays because it isnt considered cool anymore and isnt supported by society.
Please read my comment, nowhere did I doubt it happens.. I found the idea of gay marriage would stop the threats was a stretch…
It wont stop it but it will be a step in the right direction. Just like it is unacceptable to discriminate against others. Right now it is acceptable to hurt gays.
If you think it doesn’t happen David you have your head stuck in the sand.
My comment was about Jersey’s comment. using the threats of death as a way to promote gay marriage… I believe this happens often.. Gay marriage won’t prevent threats as jersey suggest.
I signed the ballot pettition and will read the whole bill before I vote on it.. If it treats gays as minorities the odds I will vote against it.
It’s kind of ridiculous to pretend that discriminatory laws wouldn’t and don’t have an impact on the perception of a particular group. If gay kids see others considering them less than equal and even the law considers people like them less than equal you think that won’t impact the way they feel about themselves?
Rather weird comment. The point of the bill is to treat all equally.
Why would this be a surprise from the MEA.
Glad to see your post. I know what it is like to be one of those students!
Me too! Friends & Family
You’re welcome to do so, as individuals, via letters or the ballot box. The union getting involved is a different story.
Think about our government. Should the state government take a stand on this issue, either way? Why not?
OK fine…I will agree if religious institutions cannot take a position either.
You won’t get any argument from me. Far as I’m concerned, any entity claiming non-profit status should remain neutral on political issues.
Then I will expect to see your screen name calling out churches and religious institutions when they start to make public statements opposing SSM.
You have no standing to make demands on me for anything. You don’t even post comments using your name.
Yes just cannot do it can you? Unions have no right to take a position on a social topic but a church or religious organization can? The topic at hand has no impact on church law, doctrine or who they allow to be married…zero impact. So why should they be allowed to take a position on a CIVIL law?
You’re making false assumptions, as per usual.
I never said whether churches should be taking a stand on such issues.
You just like to make stuff up to support your position.
No false assumptions on part Naran. Ample opportunity has been provided for you to simple say “churches and religious organizations should not take a stand on political matters”.
You have chosen not to and in so doing your silence speaks for you.
Anonymous posting on AMG is okay with you, but not here? Hypocrite.
Of course they should. All governments should be in support of full civil rights for all.
Those opposed to same sex marriage used educators and scare tactics in the last campaign. They made false claims about something that is not part of the curriculum. Period.
This is a civil rights issue. Spend any time in the halls (not the classrooms) of a public school and then tell me it isn’t.
Just another Liberal Group,no surprise here.
No surprise here, but it certainly does not represent all members of the MEA coercion.
I am a teacher, an MEA member, and I support same sex marriage, but I don’t agree with the MEA taking a position on either side of this issue. All of the MEA’s time money and resources should be focused on improving education for all students. Perhaps if they focused on their primary objective, there might not be such distrust of the teachers union in the first place.
Perhaps teachers should investigate MEA’s role in the depletion of their pension fund.
It is germane to your teaching responsibilities in that you have homosexual students, homosexual parents of students, and homosexual coworkers all of whom deserve the liberty to marry (of course when the students are of age they should have this liberty). Should they have separate water fountains too?
How can they get involved in this? Especially considering much of the controversy is religious in nature. This is not keeping education neutral or unbiased.
Where does is say education has to be neutral or unbiased.
Try reading state and Federal law.
You post the chapter and section and I will.
I don’t want to make presumptions, but a lot of liberals want spoon-feeding.
Do it yourself. I know you can.
Sorry Naran…you made the claim that “state and Federal law” says “education has to be neutral or unbiased” so time to prove it. My experience with posters like yourself is they made all sorts of claims but offer very little proof when asked for it. So, can you offer the proof for what you claim or not?
I don’t need to offer proof. You’re the one who’s making the inaccurate statements, so look it up yourself.
Thank you for responding to my request for proof that federal and state law require schools to be neutral and unbiased. By not providing any documentation to substantiate your claim it is obvious to the casual reader that you a) have none, and b) it doesn’t exist.
Really Naran, you cannot provide the evidence? But rather then admitting that you are making stuff up you continue to post and keep digging your hole deeper and deeper.
Nice. That is a new conservative line I haven’t heard yet. “I don’t have to have prove because your lazy.”
It is in support of eliminating a bias, in this case a destructive bias.
So I guess all Christians will have to take their kids out of public education – student rates drop – less funding.
Good considering the number of families with gay parents who don’t have the legal rights and protections as the straight ones do.
“So, who are you going to marry when you grow up, a man or a woman?”
This is what our children will eventually hear in school, if the government legally recognizes gay marriage and makes other efforts to normalize homosexuality and same-sex behavior. Currently, a law just passed in California will require all school children, even those in Kindergarten, to learn about homosexuals, who’ve made “significant contributions to the state” and forbids anything negative to be taught about homosexuality, despite its serious problems, which are described later in this post.
This why their demand for gay marriage is harmful and why prominent politicians, like Obama, voicing support for gay marriage is so blatantly political because they care more about winning elections than what’s best for the country and are too intellectually dishonest and lazy to bother checking into the serious harms of same-sex behavior and how gay marriage would seriously exacerbate these problems. Instead, they’re perfectly content to believe misinformation from supporters of gay marriage, which totally ignores these problems in pursuit of their agenda.
One such problem is how homosexuality and what results from that behavioral urge – same sex behavior – is partially due to cultural influences, according to peer-reviewed research. So having gay marriage and politicians voicing support for it is a powerful influence on those whose genetics and biology (the other factors, besides cultural, which impart a tendency for but not a guarantee of homosexuality) make them more vulnerable than others to becoming homosexual or engaging in the behavior.
Children, of course, are especially vulnerable to such an influence because they’re still growing, maturing, forming who and what they are, and thus vulnerable to whatever adults tell them. This is especially true for females, whose sexuality is more fluid than males, and is therefore even more vulnerable to the insidious and egregious propaganda of gay activism.
The reason is what will happen if children or adults are so unfortunate as to fall victim to this type of influence. It will be,
An elevated risk for bodily damage and/or serious disease
Serial promiscuity, even in committed relationships, including “married” ones
An elevated rate of divorce, ranging from 1.5 to 2.7 times of heterosexuals
High incidences of emotional and mental illnesses, even in countries like the Netherlands,
which accepts homosexuality as being the equal of heterosexuality
Greater rates of domestic abuse among committed male homosexuals.
None of these facts originate from sources that oppose gay marriage or gay rights. Rather, they originate from peer-reviewed research performed by respected, mainstream, and apolitical research organizations, such as UCLA, USC, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and others. A summary of this research and a list of these peer-reviewed references is in the essay linked below.
Please read this information and email it to as many as you can and ask that they do the same. Further, most importantly, vote against gay marriage and demand that your legislators do the same. In this way, we can keep marriage between one man and one woman and prevent your children from ever having to hear, “So, when you grow up, who are you going to marry, a man or woman?”
http:\marriage-onemanandonewoman.blogspot.com
Yes we all should use information that comes from anonymous bloggers as the basis for decisions. Who is semyon_suslov?
Who are you?
“Who are you? Who, who, who, who”
Nice tune from “The Who”.
Ugh…propaganda 101.
Misinformation and stereotyping. Lies and bigotry.
None of the information in my initial post is “…stereotyping. Lies and bigotry,” as True Native falsely asserts because he/she hasn’t offered any facts, whatsoever, to back up his claim. Instead, like all proponents of gay marriage, True Native defaults to the only response he knows, which is to respond with slander instead of substance.
As to jd2008jd, falsely claiming that the information I summarized is from an “anonymous blogger” I refer him/her to the references listed at the end of the linked essay. Since I suspect that some, like jd2008jd, will take the intellectually dishonest and lazy way out and claim on this comment string that no such references exist, I repeat them here for his/her benefit and that of any other reader:
Three separate studies report that at least 75% of married men and 85% of married women have never had sexual relations outside their marriages. These studies include:
A. Robert T. Michael et al., Sex in America: A Definitive Survey (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1994).
B. Michael W. Wiederman, “Extramarital Sex: Prevalence and Correlates in a National Survey,” Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 170.
C. E.O. Laumann et al., The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), p. 217.
[2]Testimony Of Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, PhD., Co-Director, National Marriage Project, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Before The Committee On Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Subcommittee On Children And Families, U.S. Senate, April 28, 2004 (http://www.virginia.edu/marriageproject/pdfs/print_whitehead_testimonial.pdf )
[3]A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 309; See alsoA. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).
[3A]Are Gay Male Couples Monogamous Ever After? Psychology Today, September 16, 2008.
[4]Paul Van de Ven et al., “A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men,” Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354.
[5]”Sex Survey Results,” Genre (October 1996), quoted in “Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners,” Lambda Report, January 1998, p. 20.
[6]M. Pollak, “Male Homosexuality,” in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster (New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985), pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991), pp. 124, 125.
[7]Xiridou M, Geskus R, de Wit J, Coutinho R, Kretzschmar M, “The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 2003, 17:1029-1038 (p. 1031)
[8]http://paa2004.princeton.edu/download.asp?submissionId=40208
[9]Lettie L. Lockhart et al., “Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (1994): 469-492
[10]Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, “Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications,” Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41-59.
[11]D. Island and P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence (New York: Haworth Press, 1991), p. 14.
[12]http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/violence/partner-violence.pdf pgs. 14 and 15
[13]http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/lgbtqviolence/lgbtqviolence.html#id2628008
[14]Långström, N., Rahman, Q., Carlström, E., Lichtenstein, P. (2008). Genetic and Environmental Effects on Same-sex Behavior: A Population Study of Twins in Sweden . Archives of Sexual Behavior, Online Version (90), No. 27
[16] Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, “Does the ‘Sexual Orientation’ of Parents Matte?” American Sociological Review, Vol. 66, April, pp. 159-183.
[17] http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm
[18] According to at least one study, the incidence of HIV/AIDS actually increases in so-called “committed” homosexual relationships in comparison to transient ones: Xiridou M, Geskus R, de Wit J, Coutinho R, Kretzschmar M, “The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 2003, 17:1029-1038 (p. 1031)
[19] “Sexual Practices, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and the Incidences of Anal Cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine, 1987.
[20] “Healthy People 2010 Companion Document For Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Health,” Gay and Lesbian Medical Association and National Coalition for LGBT Health, April 2001.
[21]“Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health: Findings and Concerns, January 2000, Conference Edition (work in progress),” Gay and Lesbian Medical Association and Columbia University Joseph L. Mailman School of Public Health, Center for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health.
[22] National Guideline Clearing House – Proctitis, proctocolitis, and enteritis (http://depts.washington.edu/nnptc/online_training/std_handbook/pdfs/ch4_proctitis.pdf)
[22A]Mays, Vicki and Susan Cochran, 2011. Sexual Orientation and Mortality Among US Men Aged 17 to 59 Years: Results From the National Health and Nutrition Examination
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/short/AJPH.2010.300013v1
[22B] Sexual Behavior Does Not Explain Varying HIV Rates Among Gay And Straight Men, Medline News Today, Dec. 13, 2007. (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/82330.php)[22C] Goodreau, Steven M. and Matthew R Golden, 2007. “Biological and demographic causes of high HIV and sexually transmitted disease prevalence in men who have sex with men,” Sex Transm Infect 2007; Vol. 83, Section 6:458-462 doi:10.1136/sti.2007.025627 (http://sti.bmj.com/content/83/6/458.abstract)[23]http://www.cdc.gov/stdconference/2002/Slides/A4Marrazzo.pdf[24]http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol10no11/pdfs/04-0467.pdf[25]http://www.mautnerproject.org/health_info/breast_cancer.cfm http://www.mautnerproject.org/health_info/cervical_cancer.cfm http://www.mautnerproject.org/health_info/ovarian_cancer.cfm%5B26%5DAccording to gayhealth.com, other methods of gay relations also expose the practitioner to disease.[27]A.P.M. Coxon et al., “Sex Role Separation in Diaries of Homosexual Men,” AIDS, July 1993, pp. 877-882.[28]S. Cochran, “Emerging Issues in Research on Lesbians’ and Gay Men’s Mental Health: Does Sexual Orientation Really Matter?” American Psychologist, November 2001.
I challenge any skeptics or critics of what I wrote to read or even just scan these references and verify for themselves the truthfulness of what I wrote. Most of the references aren’t long and won’t take much time. I only ask that when you do that you’re honest on what you report, whether on this comment string or others.
The MEA has absolutely NO right in getting involved in this topic. Backing political issues is an absolutely no no. Their job is to support maine education, and not get involved in sharing their political opinion. As a parent of a child that attends public school, I want to see a retraction of their support for any political issues. This is just not right…..
Does a church or religious institution have a “right” to back “political issues”?
Oh, but let me guess, you have absolutely no problem with religious groups funding and promoting political hate, intolerance, and discrimination? As a parent of a child that attends public school, I commend their decision to promote equality and tolerance. This is exactly the right thing to do, considering they see firsthand what hate and discrimination does to their LGBT students, their parents, and same-sex parents.
Of course the MEA is for it! These Machiavellian socialists have been at the forefront of a multitude of similar assaults, including infanticide and the the dumbing-down of America’s next generation of fast-food vassals and effeminates. All one has to do is look at America’s educational standing in the world today and compare it to former times when discipline and the core precepts of education reigned supreme in the corridors and classrooms of the public school system.
Is it OK to drop out of the MEA if I don’t support this decision ?
This is one of the reasons there is an anti-union backlash currently going on. Unions, especially educational associations, should be in the business of helping their members, and stay out of politics. Unless those politics cause undue hardship to a large number of their members. I know some people will say if any law causes undue hardship to one union member they are all affected. This, however, is not the case in the real world.
I am so tired of hearing of gay marriage, when our country is in such a mess. We have unending wars, people who have lost their homes (which includes most of their wealth), large numbers of unemployed people, and major challenges to our American values, yet we spend so much time on this issue.
I am not pro or against gay marriage, if that is what you call it. We should be addressing the issues that are important to ALL Americans, not just kowtowing to a small but very large group.
Frankly, I see this as a diversion from the important problems in America, which neither political party seems willing to come to grips with. If I didn’t know better, I would think that both parties are supporting both sides of this issue to keep the heat off their own behinds.
Divide and Conquer. That method has worked for thousands of years, and I see that it is still quite appropriate today. Divide the American people on as many issues as you can, and while they are fighting “ghost” wars, the real war is taking its toll.
On the issue of gay marriage, most people would agree, we have to agree that we disagree, and go on. Think of all the money spent on this issue that could have fed the hungry, helped the aged, and done so much for all of America. It’s all about “but what about me” today.
I agree we have more important issues to address as Americans. So let’s pass this referendum and move on.
Helping all their members or just the one’s that you aprove.
Your right. The school boards determine the curriculum but the teachers in the classroom determine the content!
Based on the curriculum.
Your right. The school boards determine the curriculum but the teachers in the classroom determine the content!
And ?
Based on the curriculum.
No, she cannot. In the echo chamber of AMG, where she lives, no proof is required.
Just what Maine needs, gays teaching children! But what will they be teaching them?
What will they be teaching them? I would imagine it would be the school curriculum for the class being taught.
We are your neighbors, your coworkers, your family and your children. We come from all walks of life, and have all sorts of careers.Judge a teacher on their performance, not on their sexual orientation.
What do you think that they will be teaching them ?
Ah there are gay teachers today in the classroom. There were gay teachers in my high school in the 1970s including the head of the English Department. Nothing changes in the classroom if this law passes. Nothing.
For people who clamor for tolerance, the folks supporting gay marriage certainly are intolerant of those who oppose it!
No one is standing in your way, claiming you have no right to voice your opinion.
On the other hand, those who oppose gay marriage are standing in the way of our equal treatment under our laws.
You make a false comparison, claiming that our intolerance of your intolerance is equal. It is not— no one is saying heterosexuals should be prohibited from marriage.
Base your argument on that, not ridicule and name calling. Its a stronger case!
Problem is feet that when you base arguments for SSM on facts many posters ridicule you, make assumptions that are not true about your sexual orientation, call your religion a false religion, use disgusting names and images concerning sexual practices, etc…. Both the pro & con side are guilty of name calling. You will see it if you look for it.
When have I called people names here?
Anyone opposed to SSM should go to Google and do an image search for protesters of interracial marriage. You WILL look that foolish in 40 years too. If the issue doesn’t affect you, you should have no say in it. How would you like it if the GLBT community got to decide if YOUR marriage was allowable or not?
If you are opposed to SSM, there is good news! You don’t have to get one! That’s right! No one will force you into a marriage with a member of the same sex. The MEA is in the right here, backing a civil right that most of us take for granted. Don’t be a bigot.
What”s happen in other countries were there have been gay marriages for years how has it effected them ??
Exactly. It is safe to say that his words and Facebook page will turn more people away from Christianity and organized religion than it will attract new followers. And the religious communities wonders why people are running (not walking) away from churches and organized religion.
When the Maine Education Association finds the subject of same sex marriage important enough to vote on….. its time for new leadership!