December 18, 2017
News Latest News | Poll Questions | Long Creek | Tax Reform | Opioid Epidemic

Comments for: Supporters of same-sex marriage outraise opponents 36-to-1

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

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

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

  • Anonymous

    Are the gay editors Maine citizens?

    Gay advocates certainly have deep pockets.  If this money had come from the other side, they would be screaming that out-of-staters were meddling in Maine politics.  Double standard much. 

    • OldWench

      Um…2800 donors gave just over $200 each, on average in support of same sex marriage. The PAC opposed raised $10,000 from less than two dozen people…who gave over twice as much.  More people support same sex marriage than you think.  It’s going to pass by a majority of votes this time.

      • Anonymous

        > It’s going to pass by a majority of votes this time.

        Well, it would be pretty difficult to pass by a minority of votes… Actually, now that you mention it, I think that’s what happened last time.

      • Anonymous

        Let’s hope not …

      • Joseph Willingham

         It was like that in 2009.  You look at the lists and see thousands of individuals giving sums from $5 to over $1000.  You look at the report from the PAC that opposed us and see a much shorter list, comprising of some individuals but most of the money came from Knights of Columbus, The Catholic Church, and NOM.

        It’s no guarantee that either side will win based on the number of donors or the amount raised or especially the numbers on the polls.  A lot of work to do to get this passed!

      • Anonymous

        I disagree I think it will be the No side prevailing again possibly with a few more percent voting No again.  What has changed nothing, if anything Maine is turning more RED more conservative if anything as we have seen with the last few elections on different referendums on Taxes, Gay Marriage, 2010 election.  Mainers are more worried about their pocket books than passing a feel good measure for a Liberal Voting Block that the Democrat Party counts on for votes.   The first polls are alot closer than they were in 2009 and these folks had the advantage in fund raising last time.  But this won’t pass this year either with Obama in trouble with the horrible economic news, I think you will find more Conservatives and Independents at the ballot box this year.  That is not good news for Democrats in Maine and Gay Marriage folks.

        • Joseph Willingham

          True conservatives support SSM.

          • ChuckGG

            Do you mean the “true conservative” of the Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Goldwater, William F. Buckley, Jr., George Will era, or the “true conservative” of the Jerry Falwell, Palin, Perry, O’Donnell, Bachmann, Santorum era?  The former are called RINOs by the neo-cons.

            A true conservative is fiscally conservative and socially liberal.  That is, smaller government, less government interference, and promoting business and capitalism.  On the social side, it is little or no government interference in private affairs, no restrictions on people, the right to self-determination, and freedom of, and from, religion.  Sounds sort of what we would call Libertarian these days.

            I used to be in the GOP when it was the RINO version of “true conservative.”  I went to Independent when all this religious claptrap started infiltrating the GOP.  The Republican party has been destroyed.  I doubt it ever will recover.  The RINOs have run for the hills and I cannot blame them.

            Barry Goldwater was known as a radical right-winger in his day.  He was a Major General in the Air Force.  When asked about the whole gay issue, he is quoted:

            “The big thing is to make this country, along with every other
            country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against
            people just because they’re gay. You don’t have to agree with it, but
            they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that’s what brings me
            into it.

            Having spent 37 years of my life in the military as a reservist, and
            never having met a gay in all of that time, and never having even
            talked about it in all those years, I just thought, why the hell
            shouldn’t they serve? They’re American citizens. As long as they’re not
            doing things that are harmful to anyone else… So I came out for it.”

            “The rights that we have under the Constitution covers
            anything we want to do, as long as its not harmful. I can’t see any way
            in the world that being a gay can cause damage to somebody else.”

            And, my favorite:

            “You don’t need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight.”

            Barry Goldwater was a true conservative.

          • Joseph Willingham

            I agree with you. The Goldwater conservative.

            The latter group you mention is, to me, the most un-American bunch around.

          • ChuckGG

            Reminds me of the John Birch Society – basically, KKK members in 3-piece suits.

        • ChuckGG

          Hard to confirm but there are more young voters this time around and some of the old people have died off.  Presidential elections bring out more and younger people.  In 2009, it was a referendum-only ballot and despite that, 47% voted in favor of SSM where we know that 47% were not gay themselves.  That shows support for an issue that did not directly affect them.  I give them credit for that and thank them.

          The 53% vote on a volatile issue is not surprising as this is a personal issue for them.  They are the zealots.  Granted, assuming every gay person in Maine voted in favor of retaining SSM in 2009, it would not account for 47%.

          With young people, there is a 7o+% approval of SSM.  With all things remaining the same (which is not the case now), just the increase in numbers of young voters in favor of SSM should exceed the increase in negative voters of the former 53% group.

          I am optimistic SSM will be approved this November but we cannot drop our guard.  NOM is nothing if not experienced and politically savvy.  I expect them to hold their cards close until the last week or so and then flood the airwaves with their vitriol.  We must be prepared for that.  Frankly, I am surprised Maine’s AG allows them to practice in Maine given their lawsuits and flagrant violation of the campaign finance laws.

          No matter what happens this time around, eventually SSM will be the law of the land.  We see DADT dead, parts of DOMA ruled unconstitutional by the 1st Circuit, Prop-8 found unconstitutional and numerous other States passing SSM laws.  New York probably is the big daddy in this deal.  When NY State passed SSM, that doubled the population of States that have legalized SSM.

          It is unrealistic to think these other States will roll-back SSM.  And, with that imbalance, the Federal-level lawsuits are bound to arise (DOMA being the most recent) and since there really is no constitutional justification for SSM discrimination (see Prop-8), I cannot see how SCOTUS can do anything but concur with the 9th Circuits findings against Prop-8.  And, while Prop-8 is 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction only, it is difficult to imagine CA, NY, the Feds, and others States having SSM and the other States not.

          Putting aside all the religious arguments that have nothing to do with the secular side, I cannot see any legal justification against SSM.  If there is a legal case to be made against SSM, I’d like to hear it.  I have asked on these comment boards numerous times for a valid justification against SSM that did not involve religion and I have yet to hear one answer.

          • Joseph Willingham

            Frank Schubert will, no doubt, be involved again. 

        • Anonymous

          Would you please be so kind as to post a link to the polls you refer to in your post? Please and thank you.

          • Joseph Willingham

            I’m wondering how Mainers can ever consider two important issues at the same time??? The people here can, but I guess everyone else can’t…
            Maybe if they’re so much more concerned about the economy they’ll just vote yes to the gay-marry and then address the REAL issues of import!
            Oy vey…..

          • Guest

            ////

        • OldWench

          Oh, it will pass.  Maine is desperate for jobs.  Same sex marriage ALWAYS creates jobs.  Since not all states allow it, most couples end up having destination weddings in one of the states where it is legal.  Maine’s biggest industry is tourism.  That is what brings dollars into the state, increases business and causes those businesses to have to hire new people to meet increased demand.  Maine has an opportunity to make history as the first state where the citizens VOTE in favor of same sex marriage.  That is a HUGE opportunity.  The state would become the number one place for these destination weddings.  Most people honestly don’t care what same sex couples do as long as it doesn’t adversely affect them.  The MOST important thing in Maine right now is JOBS.  The state used to be vehemently opposed to casinos as well…and now there are two in the state…because people care MORE about jobs.  On top of that…the majority of Mainers despise LePage and his boneheaded cronies in Augusta.  They know how mad he will get if voters pass this and I believe more than one person will vote for SSM just to tick off LePage.

          • ChuckGG

            Yes, in 2009, SSM was estimated to bring in an additional $22M annually.  Not bad for something that costs the state nothing.

      • Anonymous

        And if not maybe next time or the next or the nezt …

    • Anonymous

      Mainers that support this measure are NOT afraid to admit that they do and not afraid to allow thier names to be out there and attached to it.  Those against know that they will not have the luxury of not having their names out there this time, so many of them are slinking back into the shadows and corners they came from.

      • Your a legend in your own mind.

        • Anonymous

          at least he has a mind….

      • Anonymous

        Why do you feel the need to characterize others who have a differing opinion as somehow being vile or evil?  You may be the slinker.

        • Anonymous

          know you know how gay people have felt for years….

        • Anonymous

          Bigotry and the denial of equal rights is vile and evil.   Sometimes you need to call a spade a dirty shovel.

        • Steve Anderson

          “Why do you feel the need to characterize others who have a differing opinion as somehow being vile or evil?”

          Uhhh, gee, I dunno, maybe because the opinions they hold are hateful and ignorant? 

      • Melora

         Actually many good people who defended traditional marriage last time this was up for vote (doing the traditional marriage commercial for example) WERE personally harmed–one gentleman lost his job and has been fighting for it back.  In NY, town employees have also lost their jobs because according to their religious beliefs, they can not in good conscience help gay couples get married (doing the paperwork).  So yes, gay activists ARE intentionally harming people and denying them their freedom of religion.  You need to read unbiased news, because I surmise, most gay marriage supporters only read liberal news reports.  They only get half the picture when they do that.  I doubt it would matter even if they read conservative news. They are set in their ways to follow their own immoral lifestyle and ignore their OWN conscience and God entirely.  The path they are following IS wrong and deep down they know it.  Still, that won’t stop them sadly enough.

        • Anonymous

          And what are the reasons for your immoral lifestyle ?

          • Anonymous

            “immoral” based on what?  YOUR religion?

          • Anonymous

            Nope, in my book defining a gay lifestyle as immoral  is in itself immoral.   Spreading bigotry is immoral and harmful.   Disagree all you want, but give it some thought.
            I speak as a 68 year old heterosexual who has fought bigotry and injustice my entire life.

          • Anonymous

             Based on most of the world’s religions and cultural norms  for thousands of years.
            Here, a free ticket to Saudi Arabia.

          • Anonymous

            Keep your money and take your ugliness elsewhere.

          • Anonymous

            Shove your ticket and the world’s religions.

        • Joseph Willingham

          People should do their job. They are being “harmed” because they are not doing their job.
          As for getting only half the picture, you seem to have done that yourself. In North Carolina, Bob Page’s company “Replacements Limited” is facing a huge backlash because he publicly opposed the amendment to the state constitution that made the only legal union in NC to be a marriage between a man and a woman. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/26/replacements-limited-gay-marriage_n_1547813.html) Did you know that? And he’s not the only one who has been penalized across the country for supporting SSM.
          I will say, though, that I don’t think that the reporter who used his own email address to voice his opinion against SSM should have been penalized. But the high school guidance counselor that you refer to is a different case. From the BDN (http://bangordailynews.com/2009/10/29/politics/yes-on-1-advocate-targeted-after-tv-ad/), “The letter to state regulators also cites several passages from the National Association of Social Worker’s Code of Ethics the complainant argues are applicable in Mendell’s case. Those passages state that social workers “should not practice, condone, facilitate, or collaborate in any form of discrimination” based on sexual orientation and that social workers should “act to prevent and eliminate domination of, exploitation of and discrimination against” any group.”
          You have only to read this very paper to get beyond the soundbite.

          • Anonymous

             The Replacements story is an interesting case.The problem is is that his customers are primarily older wealthy women-the sweet spot for the antis.I signed a petition in support of him and I suspect his business will rebound by next year.And your point about people not doing their jobs is well stated.The “conscience clause” has to be dumped.There are plenty of good people who will serve ALL of their customers who are looking for work.

          • Joseph Willingham

            I agree.  Are we to let America devolve into a society where we judge everybody on a day-to-day, case-by-case basis?  That is not the America that we’ve worked to attain.  Does the doctor ask his patient if she’s unmarried before they discuss birth control?  Does the waitress ask the diner if he’s a homosexual?   We will bring back racial discrimination because it’s someone’s religion?

            As for “do your job,” I remember hearing this story in 1996: “GARDEN GROVE — The Orange County Transportation Authority fired a vegetarian bus driver Friday who refused to distribute coupons for free Carl’s Jr. hamburgers.”

            http://articles.latimes.com/1996-06-08/news/mn-12798_1_bus-driver

            ________________________________
            From: Disqus
            To: davidcox207@yahoo.com
            Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2012 12:59 AM
            Subject: [bdn] Re: Supporters of same-sex marriage outraise opponents 36-to-1

            Disqus generic email template

            GPBand wrote, in response to Regular Joe:
            The Replacements story is an interesting case.The problem is is that his customers are primarily older wealthy women-the sweet spot for the antis.I signed a petition in support of him and I suspect his business will rebound by next year.And your point about people not doing their jobs is well stated.The “conscience clause” has to be dumped.There are plenty of good people who will serve ALL of their customers who are looking for work. Link to comment

          • Anonymous

             In an ideal society those questions would never come up.But the busybodies have to get involved in everything.Remember the woman who stole the sex ed book from the PPL  at least twice?Not only did she not go to jail for repeated theft,she was called a heroine.

    • Anonymous

      ArcherX the problem is no one can say or scream about where the money came from the last time yet because NOM continues to refuse to comply with Maine law! Why do you think that is?

    • Anonymous

      Right. And conservatives never practice that double standard.

      They never scream bloody murder about rich out of state gays. And then gladly take hundreds of thousands of dollars from the New Jersey based National Organization for Marriage that fundraises nationally.

      Or the Roman Catholic Church’s international money.

      • Anonymous

        yeah, libs NEVER do that.

        • Anonymous

          name calling = avoiding the issues.  boring.  weak minded.  not good for God or Country.

        • Joseph Willingham

          DO they?  How about an example, brah?

    • Anonymous

       At least the pro side is honest.That’s more than can be said for NOM.

      • Joseph Willingham

        Those who oppose SSM don’t seem to have a beef with New Jersey-based NOM deliberately breaking Maine state laws.  I’ve asked about that before (during the discussion on the Facebook donation) and no one seemed to care.  It’s awful that this guy from Facebook is donating and encouraging donations to us, but it’s okay that NOM break the law??

        • Anonymous

           RJ- I’m on your side.Plenty of people care about illegal activity but the big $$ will do what they want.

      • Anonymous

        Well that stinks i hit like, which i did not mean too.  Both sides have been honest most of the time.  I still think the no side is hiding information but its not coming out that way and no facts have come foward

        • Anonymous

          If you hit the button incorrectly,click it again and the vote will retract.

          • Anonymous

            its ok either way i liked it, but still its gonna be a close vote

    • Anonymous

       Your question is irrelevant.  This is an issue of ignorance versus justice.  Equality over entrenched ancient values, handed down to us from the days of nomadic sheepherders, who tended to stone people to death for things like eating fish on the wrong day.

      • Anonymous

        “Entrenched ancient values”?  To go against the way of nature is not ancient it is visceral.  SSM is nothing more than an attempt to “legitamize, normalize” otherwise deviant behaviour. 

        • Anonymous

          homosexuality is part of nature.  gay people are God’s children.

          Peace be with you.

          • Anonymous

            Homosexuality in fact is not a part of “nature” and is not “normal” among humans. Sexuality is in fact one of the strongest senses that humans have. It’s called survival. SSM proponents want to legalize SSM so they can then claim that their lifestyle is “normal”.  If the law says two members of the same sex can marry then it must be ok, right? It must be “normal”, right? I have a problem when people try to pass a law simply to justify their lifestyle so they can feel better about themselves.

          • Anonymous

             Homosexuality is well documented in many animals, including lots and lots of mammals, from lion to brown bear to orca:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

            Just substitute “interracial” for your SSM jargon, and you sound just like a race supremacist.  Exact same survival argument, exact same “normal”  argument.

            Exact.

          • Anonymous

            You fail to disclose that the author of the material that you site is GAY. You also fail to grasp the fact that we are talking about the human race, not the animal kingdom.

            “Just substitute “interracial” for your SSM jargon, and you sound just like a race supremacist.”

            This is “EXACTLY” why you, SingleTrackGirl and a great many others who support SSM have no credibility. Rather than attack the argument, you choose to personally attack the arguer. The fact that someone’s opinion on SSM differs from yours does not make them a bigot, racist or in your words, “race supremacist. You ask for equal rights and tolerance but repeatedly deny it to others. This is one of the main reasons why SSM will fail again this November and will continue to fail until you learn to practice what you preach.

          • Anonymous

            WHERE DOES IT SAY WHO THE AUTHOR IS?  TELL ME!

            YOU CAN’T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Anonymous

            If you follow the link provided by SpruceDweller to the Wikipedia site that he chose to use to support his statement you will find that the material is taken from research authored by Bruce Bagemihl, who by the way, just happens to be gay. Bagemihl’s work has been deemed biased by a great many other researchers.

          • Anonymous

            I did.  There is also an extensive bibliography attached to that article.  It called research, not much of that over at Fox News.

          • Steve Anderson

            Um, he DIDN’T attack you, he attacked your argument. Your arguments against SSM are indeed almost identical to the arguments white supremacists make against interracial marriage.

          • “You fail to disclose that the author of the material that you site is GAY.”

            Oh, wow, you don’t even know what Wikipedia is, do you? And that’s why you and a great many others who attack SSM have no credibility ;)  And yes, that is indeed an ad hominem attack, and a well deserved one, too.

          • Anonymous

            “Oh, wow, you don’t even know what Wikipedia is, do you?”

            I do, but I’m not quite sure that you do.

            “And that’s why you and a great many others who attack SSM have no credibility ;) ” Actually, we are extremely credible which is why SSM was defeated in North Carolina and will be defeated again in Maine. It is also why unlike you and your friends, we don’t feel the need to levy personal attacks against you for your  opinions.

          • Joseph Willingham

            Sigh…

            I already feel GREAT about myself (well, except after I eat too many potato chips).  I am not asking for you or the state to make me feel good.

            What I AM asking for is the right that most Mainers already have-that is to marry the person he or she loves.
            Now, if you are saying that that isn’t a right and that the right of marriage is ONLY about marrying any person who is of the opposite gender for purposes of procreation, then that’s really sad.  That is cold and sterile and gloomy.  THAT sounds more like Oceania where Big Brother watched and people married and procreated for the state.  There is no love in that society and the more I hear people who oppose us blatantly leave out the word love, the more I think about that cold and gray world of George Orwell’s book.

          •  Keep eating the chips, the Aroostook potato farmers will appreciate it.

          • Joseph Willingham

            Ack!!

          • Anonymous

            that’s your opinion, you have ever right to express it, but absolutely no right to infringe it upon others.

    • Joseph Willingham

      The only screaming that’s done is when the out of state donors violate Maine state law by not reporting names.   We have no beef with out of state funds because we know, BOTH sides know, that this goes well beyond the state of Maine.

      NOM, Knights of Columbus, Family Research Council, and Focus on the Family have deep pockets too. 

      Stop twisting the facts.  This goes both ways.

  • kcjonez

    We’ve seen this movie before–remember?  Right before the final scene the bad guys shovel a ton of money into the fray packed with lies, fear and innuendo.  Then they go back where they came from with their masks on.  Two years later and we STILL haven’t seen them comply with our laws.  

    • Anonymous

       If they did comply,it would be the first time.

  • Anonymous

    Churches that raise money or advocate for political causes should lose their tax-exempt status. They really shouldn’t be tax-exempt in the first place.

    • Should the teachers union lose their exempt status as well or just the churches?  At least the church has a religious belief, the teachers union has no skin in the game whatsoever.

      • Anonymous

        The teachers’ union should not be advocating for or against an issue without a union-wide vote, and members who disagree with the union’s position should not have to support it financially. Union officials whose salary is paid for by union dues still pay income tax on that salary, so it’s not really the same thing as church officials who pay no tax on their income. Nevertheless, I agree that donations to “tax exempt” organizations, that are used to advocate for or against legislation, should not be tax exempt. 

        • Anonymous

          Earthling3 Pastors and Reverends DO pay income taxes. Church employees (i.e. secretaries, janitors, etc…) also pay income tax on earning. Churches pay property taxes on property that is not a “house of worship” (i.e. the “church” is tax exempt but the “parsonage” is not).

        • Joseph Willingham

           Is there ever an issue that has 100% support from all members?  I doubt it.  If that were the requirement, then what would ever get done?

          I wonder how many union members are actively working to get contraception coverage removed from the health insurance contract that their union negotiated?  I have not heard of any, yet there is a big fuss about same-sex marriage being forced on them because it’s against their religion. 

          This particular issue smacks of bias.

      • Anonymous

         The union actually provides a vital service.Churches have brought nothing but war,misery,destruction of rights,pedophilia and death.

        •  And what vital service would that be? Supporting Democrat causes and politicians?

          • Anonymous

             Better to support a D than to support a worldwide network of child rapists.

          •  If that’s the way you see all organized religions, I pity you. You are truly sad indeed!

          • Anonymous

            you are speaking of the catholic faith; please leave the other millions of us out of that.

          • Anonymous

            Fair enough.Now if I can find a church that doesn’t have the shakedown-oops I meant free will offering-I’m in.I can see why you’d want to stay away from them.
            George Carlin said it best “How to get rid of counterfeit money?Put it in the collection plate”

          • Joseph Willingham

            “Shakedown”?  How do you think that churches pay for their upkeep, maintenance, salaries, programs, etc.?  I don’t understand this….

        • Anonymous

          you are soooooo wrong and disillusioned.

          • Anonymous

             I don’t need you to tell me how to think or feel.Life is good here on a cozy bed of facts and reality.

          • Anonymous

            Your views are warped and absurd to compare folks who don’t support the Democrat Agenda  to call them child rapists is just absolutely wrong and offensive.  As an Independent I vote against Democrats because of my pocketbook and have seen what the Liberals have done here in Maine to our economy, our schools which are failing,  to drive over massive potholes, crumbling bridges, no EAST-WEST Highway, wanting to impose a radical sick agenda that has no place in our society.  The fact you would call hard working people go to work everyday child rapists just shows how out of touch Liberals are here in Maine and why they poll worse than LePage in all polls taken on LePage.

          • Guest

            —————————————————

        • Joseph Willingham

          I don’t agree with that at all.  My church is a great and wonderful part of my life.  And my church has nothing to do with and actually fights against war, misery, and destruction.  Pedophilia is not an issue, but, unfortunately, there’s nothing it can do about death.  That just happens.

          • Anonymous

            That’s great that you found an accepting group.Sadly,too many of those who oppose SSM are prodded to do so by the churches.I can think of one town with a fundamentalist church (the only church in town)that was BLANKETED with anti propaganda.I would guess there were at least five signs for every person in town.

      • Anonymous

        The teachers’ union does have “skin in the game,” because public school teachers are charged with teaching ALL students, and that includes LGQBT.

        • Anonymous

          Individual teachers have an interest in the education and, to a lesser extent, the welfare of their LGBT students.  But their labor organization, to which every teacher must give money, has no such interest and shouldn’t spend resources on it.

          • Anonymous

            Teachers are not compelled to belong to the union; they are not forced to “give money” if they don’t want to belong.  If a teacher wants to advocate for a LGQBT in his or her class, and for some reason, the administration doesn’t like it, then the teacher’s union can offer help and protection so that the teacher is not unfairly targeted just for trying to advocate for the student.  

          • Anonymous

            So teachers that do not belong to the union give ZERO dollars to it…?

            The union should protect appropriate levels of advocacy for *any* student.  If a teacher takes an interest in kids who want to pray in school, the union should make sure they aren’t harrased by the administration, but it should NOT expend resources pushing the issue politically.

          • Joseph Willingham

            Wait, we aren’t talking about the PTA.  We’re talking about a union for the employees.

            Does the bus driver union advocate for the passengers?  Does farm workers’ union advocate for the consumers? 

            Why do people think that the MEA is the union that supports the students??   The union supports the employees.  THEY support the students.

      • Anonymous

        and they’re corrupt on top of that.

      • Anonymous

        Speaking up for equal rights for all its members was an appropriate and brave act by the teachers’ union.

      • Joseph Willingham

        Again-the union’s “skin” is their members, some of whom are gay. 

        Why do you think that the union doesn’t have any business in the issue?  The union is there to fight for their members and allowing their members to marry is a very important issue.

        Imagine the number of people who would be able to marry and NOT have to be a burden on Mainecare.  As it is right now, Betty and Veronica could be a couple for decades but Betty has a low-paying job and has to rely on Mainecare while Veronica has health insurance.  That’s just one small piece of the greater picture of why we want marriage.

        No “skin.”  Huh.

      • ChuckGG

        Just the churches as their tax exemption is based upon their non-involvement in secular affairs.  And, the MEA does have skin in the game – they have both gay teachers and students, and making a policy of inclusion goes a long way toward helping all teachers and students.  It tells their teachers and students that we support them, we do not condone bullying, and we stand behind you.

        I think they have plenty of skin in the game.  The churches?  They have none.  They may continue to exclude whomever they wish.  That is their right to do so.  Religious beliefs have no weight in the secular world because those religious beliefs varying from religion to religion, many of which already support SSM.

    • Preston Nethercutt

      You are so right Earthling! After a long lifetime observing the always delusional and often sociopathic behavior of those who claim to have a direct line to some god, I realize that I have been in the wrong line of work. To make the big money I should have found a group of  Christian evangelical, fundamentalist rubes, fleeced them like the sheep they are, built some gaudy megachurch, or better yet start a televangelist  network. I could watch the money roll in from my “flock”. live like a biblical king and PAY NO TAXES!  
      But wait! Why go to all that trouble? If  religion is so indulged by American society, I, as an individual, should say that I hear voices in my head and talk to invisible (non-existent) beings, just like all ” true believers”. Therefore, I am my own religion and owe nothing to old Uncle. What a gravy train!

      • Anonymous

         It certainly worked well for L. Ron Hubbard,among many others.

        • Preston Nethercutt

          Right you are GPBand. I could have included Islamic and Jewish fanatics as well as the myriad of cults that keep appearing. It is just that Christians are so much better at playing this fraudulent game. I also should have made specific mention of the most successful of all the sheep shearers, the Catholic Church. They have been working this racket for millenia.

          • Anonymous

            Well said.In EVERY case,the smarter the population gets,the quicker the CC disappears.
            Look up two criminally under reported stories-Chuck Grassley’s request for the IRS to look into these multimillion $ hucksters and the death of Micheal Connell(Bush toady)Also look up and support FFRF.org.Great people doing great work.

  • Anonymous

    im so sick of hearing about this i dont give a rats a… what people’s sexual orientation is but marriage is between a man and a woman.  If it were between the same sex we would never exist.  If I decide that I dont believe in marriage and just choose to live with my girlfriend she doesnt get my medical insurance, talk about discrimination right there.

    • Anonymous

      No Jakey, the discrimination comes from the fact that you cannot see that same sex couples want the very same rights.  What about their medical insurance?  Shouldnt they be allowed the same rights that you and your wife injoy?  YES they most certainly should.

      • Joseph Willingham

        Except that Jakey isn’t married to his girlfriend and doesn’t want to be married to her.  He wants the benefits that marriage provides, but doesn’t want marriage.

        That’s a whole different issue that should be addressed to the insurance company.  

        • Anonymous

           He probably still has more rights as a co-habitator than a gay person does.If they sign each other’s medical paperwork the insurance should pay.

    • Anonymous

      Why, if they allowed same sex marriage would everyone turn gay and not have children? I for one do not believe that would happen. You also have the option of getting married whether you believe in it or not. So your girlfriend can receive health insurance and many other rights and benefits only given to married couples. This is about having that option no matter who you are. It is not going to change the percentage of same sex couples, it will not end the human race, it is only fair. I hope you have an open mind during voting and think about the real issue, letting people live their lives how they want, not how organized religion wishes it should be. We are supposed to have freedoms in this country for all people not just the heterosexual ones.

    • Anonymous

      Lots of people are sick of hearing this: “Marriage is between a man and a woman.”

      And this is a false statement in 7 states and our country’s Capitol City.

    • Anonymous

      I’m sure gay couples are more sick of not having equal rights. Sorry that’s an inconvenience for you.

    • Joseph Willingham

      Good point.  Everyone knows that the only thing holding back mass same-sex coupling is the marriage laws.

      That’s why the birth rate has dropped to zero in Massachusetts, Vermont, Canada, South Africa, Spain, and Argentina.

      I can see your beef about the insurance issue.  That’s the situation that ALL gay couples are in right now.  However, YOU are deciding to not marry.  WE don’t have that choice.  Your beef is a separate issue that shouldn’t affect my right to marry the man I love and plan to live the rest of my life with.

    • Anonymous

      You claim that if civil marriage were allowed between same sex couples we would never exist? This is absurd hyperbole. Gay couples are already spending their lives together, and raising children together, without the protections of civil marriage— extending civil marriage to them would not cause heterosexuals to stop marrying and having children.

      If you decide you do not want marriage and choose to live with your girlfriend without marrying, that is your choice. It’s not discrimination when it’s your choice to remain unmarried. It IS discrimination when we want to marry but cannot.

  • Guest

    They need the money to so call educate the uneducated people in Maine.

  • Anonymous

    Marriage is a religious Unity.
    It has been performed in a church by a religious leader for centuries.
    Marriage has existed as a Church rite and ceremony long before any government existed in the USA.
    Marriage was instituted by the Church long before America was even discovered.
    Marriage was instituted by the Church long before America was even discovered.
    Marriage was instituted by the Church long before America was even discovered.
    Now the government is trying to tell religions what marriage is.
    It is trying to redefine what marriage is.
    How does the Government get off poking its nose into Church Religion and redefining what marriage is ?
    How does government belong in a church ceremony ? 
    Government needs to get out of the church.
    Government does not belong in a church.
    Separation of Church and State…Remember.
    The state is poking it’s nose in where it has no right to do so.
       

    • Anonymous

      where does one go to get a marriage license…….not a church.

      • Anonymous

        Because the state….
        The state is poking it’s nose in where it has no right to do so.

    • Anonymous

      Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t get one.

    • Anonymous

      Which is why atheists are Constitutionally barred from marrying in America.

    • Anonymous

      “Marriage is a religious Unity.”

      Yes, when a marriage is performed by a religious leader it is a religious ceremony.
      ~~~~~
      It has been performed in a church by a religious leader for centuries.”

      But what about those that perform marriages that are not performed in a
      church or by a church leader, people like judges, Justices of the Peace, etc…? Aren’t those people just as married?
      ~~~~~~
      “Marriage has existed as a Church rite and ceremony long before any government existed in the USA.”

      And so has drinking cows milk but the state regulates that doesn’t it?
      ~~~~~
      “Marriage was instituted by the Church long before America was even discovered.”

      And people building houses existed long before America was discovered but we have building codes don’t we?
      ~~~~~
      “Now the government is trying to tell religions what marriage is.”

      No, if a church wishes not to perform a SSM they can refuse to perform a SSM. If a “religion” wants to perform a SSM they will be allowed to. Don’t churches already refuse to perform marriages for non-church members in some cases?
      ~~~~~
      “It is trying to redefine what marriage is.”

      Marriage has already been “redefined” twice in my life time. The first in 1967 when Loving v. Virginia was decided and the second in 2004 when Goodridge v. Department of Public Health was decided.
      ~~~~~
      “How does the Government get off poking its nose into Church Religion and redefining what marriage is ?”

      Asked and answered
      ~~~~~
      “How does government belong in a church ceremony ?
      Government needs to get out of the church.
      Government does not belong in a church.
      Separation of Church and State…Remember.”

      Correct…so to paraphrase your post:

      How does RELIGION belong in a CIVIL ceremony ?

      RELIGION needs to get out of CIVIL LAW.

      RELIGION does not belong in CIVIL LAW.

      Separation of Church and State…Remember.
      ~~~~~
      “The state is poking it’s nose in where it has no right to do so.”

      And to paraphrase again:

      RELIGION is poking it’s nose in where it has no right to do so.

      • kcjonez

        Bingo!

      • Guest

        Well said!  Your last line – “RELIGION is poking it’s nose in where it has no right to do so.” hits the nail right on the head.  

      • Joseph Willingham

        I hope hobogreed responds to that.

         

      • Guest

        your use of logic will baffle him

        • ChuckGG

          I am convinced religion and logic cannot coexist.

      • Anonymous

        Religion instituted marriage not the state….
        The state is poking it’s nose in where it has no right to do so.

        • Anonymous

          Be careful what you ask for. The state barred polygamy many years ago and examples can easily be found in the Bible, native America societies and in some religions.

    • Anonymous

      You are wrong on several accounts.

      Marriage started out as a way to join blood lines. It was strategic. There was no religious involvement and instead was simply an agreement between parties. The Church, in the 1500’s took it on to start recording marriages. Over the the next 100 years or so, they inserted themselves gradually into the process to the point where it became a requirement for the church to recognize the union. By the 1700’s, this was largely dismantled as the Church lost power and “Enlightenment” swept Europe and the power of granting ‘marriage’ was passed back to the state.

      To sum up. Marriage belongs to the state, not the faithful. It is religion that is interfering, not the Sate.

      -J

      • Anonymous

         Many marriages were also to consolidate property,royal alliances,etc.Great post.More please.

      • Anonymous

        Marriage was instituted long before the State existed.
        The state pokes it’s nose in simply because it can use it to raise power and revenue.

        • Anonymous

          We are not voting on religious marriage, we are voting on the need for civil marriage, which is entirely a government matter.

    • Anonymous

      So why can I get married by a judge?

      •  If you goto Vegas you can get married by an Elvis impersonator. Does that make Elvis a god?

        • Anonymous

           Some people think he is.

        • ChuckGG

           Hey, watch that stuff!  Everyone KNOWS Elvis was a god!

    • Anonymous

       Native Americans were performing marriage ceremonies long before the Christian Church was created. And yes, many tribes allowed same sex couples to marry. ” In North America, among the Native Americans societies, same-sex unions have taken the form of Two-Spirit-type
      relationships, in which some male members of the tribe, from an early
      age, heed a calling to take on female gender with all its
      responsibilities. “In many tribes, individuals who entered into same-sex
      relationships were considered holy and treated with utmost respect and
      acceptance,” according to anthropologist Brian Gilley”

    • Joseph Willingham

      The state does not regulate religious marriage.

      The law before us concerns CIVIL marriage. 

      The law before us does NOT concern what churches believe or do.

      Why do people keep perpetuating the myth that this law will change a church’s right to perform or not perform a marriage???

      Why do people keep perpetuating that lie?

      Why do people keep perpetuating that lie?

      Why do people keep perpetuating that lie?

       

      • Anonymous

        The law is trying to call a civil union marriage.
        A civil union is just that..a civil union.
        Civil Marriage is not marriage it is a legal contract.
        Marriage is a religious rite that the state has taken and made it into something they control..
        The state is poking it’s nose in where it has no right to do so.
        Marriage has nothing to do with the state even if they insist it does.
        It is a legal contract.
        A marriage is a religious

        • Anonymous

          So are you coming around then, to acknowledge that same-sex civil marriage doesn’t affect your religious view of the religious rite of marriage in your church?

          Please, don’t stand in the way of Maine couples who wish to protect the lives they build together, and the children they raise together.

        • Joseph Willingham

          Then it sounds like your beef is not with us wanting to marry, but with the current state of things where the state issues the legal document called a marriage certificate?

    • Anonymous

      What if a Church is willing to Marriage Gay couples? Should you then have a right to tell that church they can’t?

      • Anonymous

         The UU among others marries all couples.Nobody has stopped them.

        • Joseph Willingham

          Correct.  But those aren’t legally binding.

          • Anonymous

            That’s true until the law changes and I should’ve noted that.Still it’s all there is for now.

      • Anonymous

        If a church wants to sponsor a gay marriage they have every right to do so.
        But now we get into the question of what is a church.
        But aside from that.
        My argument is that the State has no business being involved in Religion.
        If a church wants to marry people..gay or not..how does the government have the right to control what goes on in the church and exact fees and laws for what goes on in the church.
        The Government needs to stay out of the church.

        • Anonymous

          The government is out of the church already. Civil marriage is not a religious issue, it’s a legal issue.

          Churches today can have marriage ceremonies for same sex couples, but without the civil marriage license from the state those are simply symbolic ceremonies of commitment.

    • Anonymous

      Civil marriage, on the other hand, is a legal contract licensed by our government, and it has no ties to any particular religion— even atheists can marry.

      There are over 1,100 benefits and privileges contingent upon marital status at the federal level alone. Denyng same sex couples access to these benefits is unAmerican and immoral.

  • Anonymous

    The Newport Church of God should be required to pay taxes.

  • Old Bear

    I hope they vote it down. No need for this to happen in Maine. Sending the wrong message to our kids.

    • Anonymous

      What message would that be? That it’s ok to be gay? That two consenting adults who love and are committed to each other can enter into a marriage contract? Do you mean the very same message that I deliver to my son (product of a heterosexual marriage, by the way) whenever the question comes up? Perish the thought *GASP*

      • Old Bear

        Same sex marriage is wrong and is that clear enough.

        • kcjonez

          Racism, bigotry and discrimination are wrong and is that clear enough?

        • Anonymous

          Is it clear that it’s “wrong?”  To whom?

        • Preston Nethercutt

          It is obvious, Big Bear, that you like to keep it simple. In every way.

        • Joseph Willingham

          But why?

        • Anonymous

          It’s clear that you either don’t understand why we need access to civil marriage, or you don’t care about the harm you cause families in Maine by opposing this.

          • Old Bear

            Move to a different state I would say there bubba

          • Anonymous

            Once we have civil marriage for same sex couples in Maine, I wouldn’t expect you to move away. Why should I need to leave this state in order to be treated fairly?

          • Old Bear

            The State of Maine has said NO and NO MEANS NO. How many times do the gay’s need to be told. We have  rights too. That why we voted it doooown doooown dooown.

          • Anonymous

            Equality isn’t fully won in a day, or a single vote. I am willing to continue the fight for my rights until I am treated equally by our government.. That’s my right, buddy.

    • Anonymous

      Yes you will be “sending the wrong message to our kids” by voting this down. You will be sending the message that it is OK to discriminate against other people because they are different from you.

      • Old Bear

        They can be different just do not do it in front of  kids. I think its totally wrong to keep putting this on the ballet every year. They should have to wait 5 years before its allowed again or maybe 25yrs or so.

        • Anonymous

          Last time I checked NO one, gay or straight was doing anything in front of kids.

          “I think its totally wrong to keep putting this on the ballet every year.” Well big bear, I hope that you don’t lie to your kids like you lie in your posts. This question has not been on the ballot “every year”…not even close to every year.

          And, if you want a prohibition based on time, find out how to change the Maine Constitution and attempt to do it. I doubt it will pass.

        • Joseph Willingham

          This particular question has never been on the ballot in Maine.

          The last time SSM was on the ballot was three years ago and that was to reject the law that was passed.

          Preventing people from exercising their right to bright forth a question to the people is un-democratic.

          The process is set up to ensure that there is an interest in the issue before it goes to the voters.

          Mike Heath tried to get a question on the ballot recently that would have rescinded the equal rights for gays that the people passed in 2005.  Not enough people signed his petitions so it did not get on the ballot.

          Making a group wait a certain number of years when there is clearly an interest in the law is just wrong.

           

    • Anonymous

      Generally speaking I taught my kids right from wrong and that they would see people do things that were wrong that they should not emulate, for instance, moderation in drinking, give 100% on the job, be honest in all your dealings, treat people as you’d wish to be treated.  Both are fine young adults today although if they learned only from societal messages they might not be.  It’s called being a parent.

      That said I fully support SSM, as does my husband and our daughters.  My marriage will still be strong if this passes, my daughters will still be heterosexual, I won’t suddenly change my views on any of the above and will encourage my children to teach their children the same values.  In other words, life as we know it will continue except that more people will have the opportunity to have their own personal relationship/family legally recognized.

      • Old Bear

        Same sex marriage is wrong.

        • Anonymous

          No, you are wrong.  Discrimination is wrong.  Hate is wrong.  You only opine from a position of fear.  Fear not….we are all around you and we aren’t hurting you at all.  Take heart – if this passes, there will be more expression of love.  Love is what makes the world go round.  You will be okay, Big Bear.

          • “Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.” – Master Yoda

            Does it strike anyone else as a bit ironic that someone who chose the name “big bear” is against SSM?

          • Joseph Willingham

            Ha!  Yes, that is kind of funny.    At first I was thinking Big Bear, California, but yeah, you’re right!

          • Old Bear

            You damn right I will be alright and I do not hate gay’s just think its wrong. I like Adam and Eve story not Adam and Gev the end..

          • Joseph Willingham

            Who’s “Gev”?

            Do you know any gay people?

          • Anonymous

             Short for Gevalia coffee.

        • kcjonez

          Wrong for you perhaps, but it is wrong to give unequal treatment under the law to equal citizens.  

        • Anonymous

          What is wrong about a couple wanting to protect the life they build together? What is wrong about wanting children of these families to have better protections from civil marriage?

          • Old Bear

            You will never make me understand the purpose of gay rights and why people want to be gay. Man and woman is the way of  life. Not the other way around.

          • Anonymous

            I don’t understand why someone wants to watch golf on television, but I don’t try to stop people who do from enjoying that.

            Seriously, what harm does our happiness do to you?

          • Anonymous

             “Watching golf is like watching flies f—“-George Carlin.

          • Old Bear

            Why push it down our throats. I am sick of seeing it in the paper all the time. The state of maine has voted it down and no means no. Why don’t gay’s get the hint!!!!

          • Anonymous

            Those of us who are discriminated against, unable to have civil marriage to protect our lives together and receive social security surviror benefits, will continue to make our case about this issue.
            If you are tired of hearing about it, you should vote in favor of same sex marriage and get it over with, buddy.

    • Joseph Willingham

      “The wrong message.”

      Big bear-what would that wrong message be?

  • Anonymous

    The notion that the sexual congress of two sodomites and/or lesbians is a natural extension of evolving human rights is an absurd and duplicitous argument whose sole purpose is the destruction of the sanctity of the institution of marriage and the family. Homosexuals and liberal enablers will take every opportunity to render emotional credence to a personal and destructive lifestyle choice that will impact generations to come. Moreover, these  Machiavellian schemers will not relent until they have bludgeoned every fiber of dignity out of the human spirit and subjugated our free will to their unrelenting perversion. They are to be pitied and treated with kindness, but we should be wise as serpents when dealing with their insidious agenda.

    • Anonymous

       Do you look for monsters under the bed too?Let’s look at Mass.-the first state to allow marriage equality.Funny how their economy is BETTER than ours!

    • Anonymous

      Yep, because right after this passes I’m going to leave my wife of eight years and our wonderful son to go shack up with another dude–just like our gay Muslim socialist masters want us to do.

      • Joseph Willingham

        You busy Wednesday night, November 7th???  Hmmmm……?  ;o)

    • Anonymous

      “Moreover, these  Machiavellian schemers will not relent until they have bludgeoned every fiber of dignity out of the human spirit and subjugated our free will to their unrelenting perversion. They are to be pitied and treated with kindness, but we should be wise as serpents when dealing with their insidious agenda.”

      Holding up the mirror.

    • Joseph Willingham

      *yawn*

    • Anonymous

      Do you feel better now that you have denigrated others with your hateful post.   Pathetic.

    • Anonymous

      Your world must be a dark place.

      Since our country’s inception there have been groups that have seen the promise of our Constitution, and petitioned our society for equal rights, access to government, and legal protections. And all along the way there have been people predicting doom and gloom and national destruction if we extend these things to one more group, race, sex, or other minority.

      And every time they have failed, and every time our nation has failed to self-destruct. This is just the next way in which our constitution is fulfilling its promise to ALL Americans.

  • Anonymous

    Wonderful news!We will still need a lot more $$ to fight the lies. I’m confident that ME will be a shining beacon of equality and reason in November.

    • Anonymous

      Might be difficult given that we the governor is still LePage.

      • Anonymous

         If we can slap him and his cronies in the face with the people’s will,that will rein him in until we can get a real governor.

        • ChuckGG

          When does his term run out, BTW?

          • Anonymous

             2014

  • Anonymous

    Yeah but is National Organization for Marriage just going to come in at the last minute and break our laws again like last time?

  • Anonymous

    Three men + four drugs + a shotgun = Gay Marriage. 

    See the BDN report on Bruce LaVallee Davidson.

    Bruce LaVallee Davidson said that he and his partner were “married in the eyes of God” four days after he shot and killed a man during a night of drug-fueled debauchery.

    • Anonymous

      This may be your definition – but it is not mine.  Crimes like this happen with heterosexual couples who actually get to benefit from all the legal protections that “legal” marriage offers.

      • Anonymous

        Wrong.

        Find me one public spokesman for traditional marriage who shot and killed someone in a drug-fueled orgy.

        Diversity = Perversity.

        • Anonymous

          So what is “perverse” about interracial marriage then?

        • Anonymous

          Diversity is what makes our country the greatest in the world. Don’t like that? Try a theocracy like maybe Iran?

          • Anonymous

             That’s exactly what Santorum and Palin want-and why they lost badly.

        • Anonymous

          Diversity = Perversity?  Really?  So I should consider your differing opinion “perverse,” rather than something to be tolerated?

          • Joseph Willingham

            Of, for crying out loud. Is this guy stuck on that incident from a couple of years ago? Is he using that one incident to color ALL gay people?
            I suppose it would be just as fair to assume all straight men with wives and children are like Steven Lake.

          • ReasonWillTriumph

            Desperate little wingnut… They have nothing rational, so they play on the easily manipulated fear of fellow wingnuts.

            It’s what they do.

      • Anonymous

        Once again, you cannot find a similar example – an advocate of traditional marriage who testified in favor of traditional just after he shot someone in an orgy. 

        And you know quite well that this sort of bizarre behavior is much more common in the homosexual subculture. Or perhaps you know of a Traditional Marriage Parade where people parade indecently with whips and chains?

        The call for homosexual anti-marriages is moral degeneracy, plain and simple.

        We are not deceived.

    • Anonymous

      This happened “because” they were gay?

      • Anonymous

        It happened because they were carrying out a lifestyle which is part of the homosexual subculture.

        • Anonymous

          Wrong.

          They were carrying out a fetish that is part of many sexual lifestyles.

        • Anonymous

          Drugs and guns are part of a gay subculture?

    • Anonymous

      One Man + a shotgun + Domestic Violence = the murder of innocent children and mom

      Maybe we should outlaw all marriage!

      • Anonymous

        Wrong.

        Find one public advocate of traditional marriage who shot and killed someone in a drug-fuled orgy.

        • Anonymous

          Ah SonofBangor it happened. To deny it happened is silly on your part.

          Do you really want me to list ALL of the religious leaders and outspoken critics of SSM that have themselves engaged in the homosexual “lifestyle”?

        • Anonymous

          You cannot be serious.

        • Joseph Willingham

          Was LaVallee an advocate of same-sex marriage?  If you claim that the simple fact that he and his partner were married in the eyes of God makes him an advocate, then any man who’s married to a woman is also an advocate for man-woman marriage and therefore JD’s point stands.

    • Yea, it’s too bad Bruce LaVallee was not a true man of Christ, you know, like David Koresh and his Branch Davidians. Then everything would have been just fine…

    • ReasonWillTriumph

      And how is that different from all the drug fueled violence found in heterosexuals?

    • Anonymous

      Your hateful heart will not stand in the way of our fight for equal treatment under the law.

      Or are you saying that no one in this world should have any rights, because someone, somewhere, commits a crime?Two people in love, committed to supporting one another and protecting the life they have built together = civil marriage. It’s absolutely the right thing to do to allow same sex couples in Maine access to the important protections of civil marriage.

  • Anonymous

    Southern Maine will once again dictate to the rest of the state that what they want they will get.  This time by all of the gays “from away”.

    • Anonymous

      There are no gays in northern Maine?

  • After reading the story three things are clear;
    At the present, more out-of-state money is flowing into the  MUM coffers than PMM’s.
    MUM needs that out-of-state money desperately.
    MUM thinks money will buy votes. (Or at least enough votes to win this time, and they may be right!)

    It’s too bad that issues and candidates win based on the amount of money they can raise, and not on their merits!

    • Anonymous

       At least we know WHERE the money is coming from…the State of Maine is STILL waiting to learn where NOM money came from in 2008!

    • Anonymous

       And you would try explaining that to the Koch brothers who have pledged $100M to have their way?I have no doubt that this story is being forwarded by the Focus On The Family gang as a fundraiser.

  • Anonymous

    The unions in this country have a long history of providing protection against unscrupulous employers.  Many people have forgotten, or perhaps never knew that our forefathers fought (and many of them died for the cause) to obtain worker’s rights, including safe working conditions, a shorter work week, and bargaining rights.  Those who would destroy what unions have so long fought for will soon find out that corporations are not the benevolent entities so many people believe them to be.

    • Anonymous

      And your post has what to do with the article?

      • Anonymous

         I think it was supposed to link with the MEA post way back.

    • Anonymous

      You list all the very important things that unions have done and continue to do.  Supporting (or opposing) SSM isn’t one of them…and shouldn’t be.

  • Anonymous

    of all the times that I’ve posted this, nobody has given me a real answer.  If you comment on this post, please have the decency to answer the questions that are being asked.
     
    Without throwing god under the bus, without using the bible as a crutch (because nobody can prove that either are real or true) why are two people who love each other, have been in a committed relationship for years, not deserve the right to marry like everyone else?  

    Before anyone throws out the “it’s not natural” argument, let me remind you, thousands of species do homosexual acts INSTINCTIVELY, yet we are the only species that worships a magical sky wizard.  Should we really be trying to discriminate based on a hunch that a deity whom we have no idea if they even exist, would want that?

    • The “sky wizard” you talk about is a moral guide for well over a billion people. You don’t believe because it conflicts with your desires, so you throw it under the bus. Thats o.k. It only reflects on you. Humans need moral guide lines to insure the survival of the next generation. I believe in heaven and hell, but thats o.k. because it only reflects on me.

      • Anonymous

        But you didn’t answer the question James. The poster is asking for someone to explain why SSM should not be legal without using God or the Bible as the basis of their opposition.

      • Anonymous

        I believe he is deliberately not throwing God under the bus.  He’s asking if there is a non-religious-based reason why gays can’t marry.  I have seen posters show a study that shows some possible “physical effects” of SSM (ignoring that heterosexual couples could also “suffer” from them) but not a compelling secular argument for prohibiting it.

        There are plenty of us who believe in God yet but don’t want Him–or anyone’s god–running our government.

      • OldWench

        James, the freedom of religion this country was founded upon also includes freedom FROM religion.  There are two major aspects of marriage…it’s role as a religious rite and foundation for family and it’s civil role to provide legal protections and responsibilities to families.  Marriage is NOT only a religious ritual.  There are hundreds of thousands of people who are married who are not religious at all.  They marry for the civil aspects, not the religious.  The government can’t deny families the right to be legally recognized as a family based on who the members of that family are.  That is discrimination and a violation of civil rights.  

        No church will be forced to marry any same sex couple they don’t wish to marry.  Lots of churches refuse to marry plenty of heterosexual couples too.  The Catholic church does not recognize civil marriages performed by a justice of the peace.  I know this because my ex husband’s family was Catholic.  We were going to get our first born child christened but the church refused, called our child illegitimate and said we weren’t really married unless a priest performed the ceremony.  I told them to suck an egg, essentially.  

        Lots of people get married without the church approving or recognizing that marriage, as I have just illustrated.  Religion has survived, the sky didn’t fall and the world still spins as it always have with hundreds of thousands of people being married that the church view as legitimately married.  So why the big fight over same sex couples having civil marriage?  It’s not about the supposed sanctity of marriage being damaged.  There is no huge fight to force heterosexual couples to only be able to marry according to the church’s wishes…so the only explanation is hate and fear and ignorance.

        • Anonymous

           Look up FFRF.org(Freedom From Religion Foundation)They need help.Great people doing great things.

      • Anonymous

        Sorry James, the dogma of your church does not conflict with my desires, it conflicts with my morals.

      • Anonymous

        So no, you cannot answer the question. So I should base my morality on a book written by man that is full of violence and hypocrisy?

    •  It’s Invisible Sky Wizard….

      • Anonymous

        touche!

    • Here is my question for which I have never seen a good answer.  How exactly does same sex marriage pose a threat to heterosexual marriage?  I am married in the traditional heterosexual way.  I know some gay people who would probably be married if society allowed them to be.  If they did get married, I am confident that I would still be married exactly like I am now.

    • Anonymous

       I will give a long-winded reply, because you base your question on a false premise, that it can’t be proven that God is real.  God is very real, and he is alive and well, especially in the Catholic Church, which was founded by Jesus Christ, who is God who took the form of man.

      As has been recorded in the Bible, Jesus performed many miraculous healings.  He also said that future believers would lay their hands on people, and the sick would be healed.  This has happened millions of times in the 2000-year history of the Catholic Church.

      Currently, there are two Catholic women in Maine who have the gift of miraculous healing.  They are Lorraine Louvat, of LifeSong Healing Ministries in Sherman, and Bernadette Cyr, of The Little House of Prayer in Biddeford (they both have websites.  There are also anti-websites on the net, but I’ll give you evidence and let you decide who’s right).  Bernadette also carries the Stigmata, which are the nail wounds of Jesus Christ in her hands and feet.  She is very modest about the Stigmata, and will not talk about it.  She wears fingerless gloves in public to hide her hands, and in her photo on the website, she has her hands behind her back.  Her husband is not afraid to let people know about her special gift, though.

      Neither of these women will claim to have any special powers.  Both of them will say, “I say the prayer, and Jesus does the healing.”  They are not theatrical about their gifts.  They are very humble and they realize that Jesus truly is the healer.

      I personally know both of these women, as I have 2 serious medical problems, and I have been prayed over by these women a total of 9 times since 1998.  At most of the healing services I have been to, God has chosen to heal either nobody, or just one or two people.  On October 27, 2007, however, I was privileged to be at a very blessed healing service given by Lorraine Louvat.  At that service, there were 30 people there to be prayed over.  I counted at least 22 people who were healed.  I’ll give a few examples of what I experienced that day.

      One man there had been in a serious auto accident 3 years before, and he had broken almost every bone in his body.  He could barely move, and was moaning in pain constantly.  He was prayed over, and was instantly healed.

      Another woman there had a likely terminal case of pancreatitis.  Her belly was distended as if she were about 7 months pregnant.  Lorraine prayed over this woman, and her belly flattened instantly before our eyes.

      The woman sitting beside my brother had a trigger finger.  She couldn’t open or close her hand.  After she was prayed over, she could flex her hand as if nothing had ever happened to it.

      When it was my turn to be prayed over, I asked God, as usual, to heal my 2 serious medical conditions.  Lorraine prayed, “In the name of Jesus, be healed.”  But I was not healed, like what had happened in the past.  Lorraine asked me if I wanted to ask for anything else, and I told her that most of my joints were painful.  She prayed over them one at a time, and nothing happened until the last one.  When she placed her hands on my right ankle, and said, “In the name of Jesus, be healed,” her hands became super-hot, and I could feel my ankle get well instantly.  I had injured it 27 years before, and it had always nagged me with a pain and stiffness that was getting worse over the years.  It has never bothered me for a second since.

      Thousands of people have been healed when Bernadette and Lorraine have prayed over them.  Some healings can be proven by medical science.  One time, a 14 year old girl from Quebec came to Bernadette.  From birth, she was missing a bone in her foot, and had never walked.  After being prayed over, she could walk, and an x-ray showed that the bone was there.  Lorraine once prayed over a man who had lost a lung to cancer.  He felt a lot better instantly.  A post-op x-ray showed that he had 2 lungs again.

      When Jesus was on earth, he used miracles to prove that he was from God.  He condemned entire towns of Israel, saying that Judgment Day would be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah, because they had not believed after they had seen his miracles.  He also said he would not condemn the Pharisees because they failed to believe merely his words, but that that they would be condemned because they refused to believe his words after having seen his miracles.

      If you want more evidence of Catholic miracles, try Googling the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano (verified twice by scientists since 1970, and the miracle occurred in 700, AD), and look up Incorrupt Saints.  Just a few examples of millions of Catholic miracles.

      And if miracles aren’t enough for you, I have three friends and a relative to whom Jesus has appeared.  One friend had been raised Catholic, but in her 20’s had left the Catholic Church for a Baptist church, a church which believed that Catholics are the most “unsaved” people on earth.  When she was 37, she was working at school when she went to go up some stairs.  Jesus was standing on the stairs.  He didn’t say anything to her, and the appearance troubled her.  A few days later, the same thing happened.  This time, the Sacred Heart of Jesus was exposed, and it was bleeding.  She instantly knew then that she had to return to the Catholic Church, and she has been a strong and faithful Catholic ever since.

      My brother has spent many years helping people to get out of a life of substance addictions, by leading them to a belief in God.  Right now, through no fault of his own, my brother is going through a very hard time.  Four weeks ago today, he was begging God to help him, and Jesus came and stood before him.  My brother told him, “Please forgive me, because I sometimes still doubt you.”  Jesus said, “It’s OK.”  After a few minutes of silence, Jesus called my brother’s name.  My brother said, “What?”  Jesus took his two hands and clasped my brother’s hand in his.  He said to my brother, “Trust my Father.”  With that he left him.  My brother said that Jesus was just as much flesh and blood as we are.  He was a Middle Eastern man with dark skin, and his hands were heavily calloused, like the hands of  a carpenter.

      To me, this is all evidence that God is real.  And if God is real, then the teachings of the Catholic Church are true.  I  place the ball in the court of all of you who do not believe.  The next dribble or shot is yours.  God bless.

      • Anonymous

         Your long rant proves absolutely nothing.  This is not actual proof.  These things may be real to YOU, but look like delusions to any sane person.  What does this actually have to do with gay marriage? 

        Once again, you have NOT proven, and nobody else can prove that god actually exists, he exists to you, in your mind.

        Where was your god when catholic priests molested countless numbers of children?  If the random public can be “healed”, then why couldn’t innocent children be protected from sexual predators, in “god’s house”?  Why does the catholic church continue to protect these “men of god”?  Were these children not worthy of your god’s love?

        There are so many things wrong with your rant, it goes on and on and accomplishes nothing to prove that god exists.

        • Anonymous

           I don’t believe that I’m the one who is ranting here.  You cannot accept the proof, because you WILL not accept the proof.  Your heart is hardened, because you don’t want it to be true that the Catholic Church, established by Jesus Christ, teaches that homosexual acts are sins.  The Catholic Church does not deny that sexual abuse is a sin.  But you also have to remember that in order to become a bishop, one has to become a priest first.  Gay bishops protected gay priests.  No rocket science there.

          As far as where God is when evil happens, he is right beside us waiting for us to ask him for grace to help us through our sufferings.  Jesus Christ suffered horrible torture and death in order to set an example for us, that we must suffer to make up for sin.  We can be saved only by the grace of God, and the way God produces the most grace for us is through our suffering, just as the suffering of Christ produced enough grace to redeem the souls of all human beings, including yours.  And if innocent people suffer, a high place in heaven awaits them.  Heaven is where my God is, and I hope to join him in eternity someday.  I know I am a sinner, and I deserve more suffering than I have had, for sure.  But I know that because God loves us even though we sin, he will allow us to cash in our suffering for a ticket to heaven, as long as we repent of our sins.

          God created hell because of the one sin of Lucifer.  God condemned humanity to a life of suffering, ending in death, because of the one sin of Adam and Eve.  God detests sin.  But because of his love for us, he allows us to suffer in exchange for our sins, so that we can avoid hell.  Not a bad deal.

          Your issue is that you are dealing with this life only.  We are beings that are going to live for eternity.  The next life is what counts.  This one may last only about up to 90 years or so.  The next life for us has no end.  How we live in this life dictates which of the two places we will spend eternity.  I prefer to spend eternity with God, and I know that following the teachings that he gave us through his Catholic Church is the surest path to heaven.  I hope you can focus on eternity someday, and realize just how critical the teachings of the Catholic Church are for your and the world’s well-being.

          • Anonymous

            You do not offer any ‘proof’ to accept.   You offer the dogma of your belief.   It is your right to hold your beliefs.  It is not your right to impose these beliefs on anyone.   Peace.

          • Anonymous

             Physical evidence, confirmed by general science and medical science, is not proof?  How easily people can jump off the science bandwagon when science proves the existence of God!

            And since when have I “imposed” my beliefs on anyone?  People can read the evidence, and they can accept it or reject it.  You have chosen to reject it.  I obviously was unable to impose anything on you, and neither am I trying to.  You just find my evidence to be an imposition on you, because it challenges your belief with a solid argument against what you believe. 

            I have found that there are few things more difficult in the world than for a person to admit that he or she was wrong about their perception of the Catholic faith.  When the truth gets close to them, many of them lash out and attack, because they don’t know how else to react.  However, some people are willing to be introspective enough to admit that there might be something real about Catholicism that they had never really considered before, and they might turn to a life centered on Jesus Christ because of it.   I just put the facts out there.  People are free to accept them or reject them as they wish.

            There are some people who will not admit to the existence of God, just because they really don’t want to.  In Lourdes, France, in 1858, the Virgin Mary appeared a number of times to a peasant girl named Bernadette Soubirous.  There is a whole lot to the story, but to prove that Mary was on a mission from her son Jesus, she instructed Bernadette to dig in the ground with her hands at a certain spot.  A spring of water came up from the hole, and in the 154 years since, many people have been cured of illness or injury after being immersed in those waters (Lorraine Louvat is one of them).

            In the late 19th century, a man in France had a teenage daughter who had a horribly disfigured face.  Many people considered her to be hideous, and didn’t even want to look at her.  Her father decided he was going to take her to Lourdes, to see if God would heal her.  The father told his neighbor that he was going.  His neighbor, an atheist, mocked the father for believing in God and in miracles.

            After the girl dunked her head in the waters at  Lourdes, she was immediately healed, and became a very beautiful young woman.  Her father quickly took her to the atheist’s home so that he could see the results of the miracle.  The atheist instead buried his face in his hands and was shrieking, “Take her away, take her away!”  When the father asked the atheist why he was so distressed, the atheist replied, “If I see her, then I would HAVE to believe!”

            So we make our own choices as to whether we will believe in God, or not.  The evidence for the existence of God is tremendous within the Catholic Church, because that’s the church that Jesus founded, and intended all humanity to be part of.  Belief is not something we accomplish on our own, though.  Faith comes only through the grace of God.  Jesus Christ is knocking at our doors all the time, always ready to supply us with the grace of faith, if only we are willing to accept his graces.  If you do accept his graces, your life will be changed by far for the better.  You’ll have peace, and be able to understand why the world is as it is, like you have never been able to before.  The choice is yours – you can let Jesus in, or you can keep him locked out.  I won’t impose the choice on you.  Peace to you, too.

          • Anonymous

            Did not ask and do need you to tell me of my  choices.   Your proselytizing  ‘at’ me is the imposition.   Does it ever even occur to you that you are being quite presumptuous ?   

          • Anonymous

             Seems to me that supporters of SSM, and those who are against the existence of God, are always proselytizing their position ‘at’ Christians.  Free speech is a two-way street, my friend.  If only one way is allowed, then it isn’t free any more.

          • Anonymous

            I was simply telling you that your response to me was uncalled for and unwanted.  You chose it as another opportunity to spread your word.  I had already said no thanx.  
            I have not engaged with you on SSM. I would not waste my time. This has nothing to do with free speech.   Show some manners.

          • Anonymous

             I didn’t ask for your response to me, either.  And you are probably not the only one who read what I wrote.  What is anathema to you may be the gateway to salvation for another reader who doesn’t leave a comment.  This is a public forum.  You challenge my belief in God, then expect to get an answer in return if I have the energy and time to respond.  If you don’t want to accept it, that’s fine, but let’s leave the possibility open for someone else to read and respond positively to the calling of Christ in his or her heart.

          • Anonymous

            I did not challenge your belief in your God.   You are wrong to twist, but that is what you do.  
            It offers you more opportunity to proselytize,  which is your bent.

          • Anonymous

             Your first statement to me: “You do not offer any ‘proof’ to accept.”  Then you say you did not challenge my belief in God.  I take your statement as a serious challenge.  And I have no qualms about taking the opportunity to proselytize, just as you have no qualms taking the opportunity to proselytize about your support for SSM and your opposition to the existence of God.  What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.  If you don’t want to hear opposition to what you post, then don’t post in the first place.  Again, this is a public forum.  You are trying to influence the forum readers by what you post.  So am I, by what I post.  Again, it’s a two-way street.  I’m sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, but in America, people are still free to argue an opinion.  Please don’t impose on my right to free speech, just as I have not tried to impose on your right to the same.

          • Anonymous

              Please note that I said  ‘It is your right to hold your beliefs.’   That is not a challenge to your belief in your god.   I do not buy what you are selling.  That does not mean that I do or do not believe in god.   But please, blather on if you must.

          • Anonymous

            I wouldn’t mind burying the hatchet for the night.  I hope you have a good, peace-filled evening.

          • Anonymous

            I wish the same for you.

          • Joseph Willingham

            And remember, eat more Utz for good health!  Doctor recommend Utz!!

        • Anonymous

           And the molested children are loved tremendously by God.  You are loved by him, also.  God loves most those who suffer the most, and those whom God loves most, he treats them the same way he treated his totally innocent son, Jesus Christ.

          • Anonymous

             That’s a pretty messed up thought process. 

          • Anonymous

             Only if you don’t understand that God’s plan for mankind is that we are to be purified of sin by suffering to be made worthy to spend an eternity with God.  Why do you think Jesus suffered like he did?  Wouldn’t make any sense, otherwise.

  • I think that voting on this issue in November is a great thing. It gives people a chance to define themselves, then they can sink or swim by their own definition. I am voting no to gay marriage. I can live with that.

    • Anonymous

      And with that vote you define yourself as one who is against civil rights for all.  

    • Anonymous

      Civil marriage for same sex couples will allow more Maine families protect the children they are raising together. Why do you oppose this?

  • Anonymous

    I will continue to support marriage equality because it is the right thing to do.  I was born and raised in Maine and I don’t have deep pockets.  I want my grandchildren to grow up in a state that values people for who they are, not by the person they choose to love.

    • Anonymous

      Amen! These are true Christian values: love and acceptance

      • Anonymous

        True Christians do not love and accept serious sin.  They may love a homosexual person, but they are commanded by God to oppose acceptance of a homosexual act.   For a Christian to say that a homosexual act would be acceptable to God would be to commit a very serious sin.  I’m not going to risk my salvation by being in favor of SSM.  This is why Christians have “skin in the game.”

  • Anonymous

    Of course, these same SSM proponents will quickly snap the other side of their forked tongues to vilify corporate greed & the very same system that allows them to collect their millions. This country hasn’t a prayer for survival, thanks to these radical activists undermining every corner of her foundation.

    • Anonymous

      If what you say is true, then Massachusetts should have fallen apart long ago.

    • Joseph Willingham

      What are you talking about?

      We complain that the opponents are not following Maine state law.  The large donors to fund the anti-SSM side can donate all they want as far as we’re concerned-just COMPLY WITH MAINE STATE LAW like we do.

       

    • Anonymous

       Sorry there’s far more millions on the hate side.The sooner we get rid of the churches and the busybodies,then we will be a greater country than ever.

      • Joseph Willingham

        I’m not sure I agree.  The Soviet Union barely had churches and look at them.  The simple absence of churches doesn’t guarantee a free and healthy society.  There are many many Democrats who are as scary as the Perry-Bachman-Santorum trinity.

        • Anonymous

           I don’t know who those might be.I can’t imagine  anything worse than the unholy triad you mentioned.Oh wait I can.Rick Scott-Scott Walker-Paul LePage.

  • Anonymous

    WHCF is not advocating for Maine churches to take offerings on Father’s day to “protect” families. They went on a spiel yesterday about a family being a mother and a father. They advertised that churches all over Maine need to pass the (hate) plate in order to raise money to fight against other Mainers who want marriage equality. I will never listen to that radio station again unless for comic relief.

  • Anonymous

    Doesn’t matter how much they raise, I think people already have their minds made up one way or another.

    • Anonymous

      While many people have dug in their heals on this issue, others are still coming to terms with it.  The money raised will be used to show Maine that we (gay people) really aren’t that different from everyone else, other than who we’re attracted to.

      The walls of prejudice need to come down and that can only happen with informed voters.  Money helps get that information out there.

      • Anonymous

        The reality is, most of those so opposed probably actually work with, know and really like and respect someone who is gay and they don’t even know it.  My mother is guilty of being a bit of a homophobe (from her religious beliefs).  She has gone to several dinner parties and met some gay folks from around town.   She really loved and adored them and had no idea they were gay.  She was quite shocked to find out and I think she became very uncomfortable about ever hanging out with them again.  Why??  They are the same people you met and had so much in common with to chat about 2 nights ago!?!?!  It just doesn’t make sense to me.  

        • Anonymous

          Fear is the simple answer. The people you mom was talking to, etc…are no different but because she fears homosexuality she fears them.

          I remember when ambulance services had to ask for “volunteers” to transport someone with HIV/AIDS because of fear. Reality about the HIV/AIDS virus is that it is very fragile and simple, common sense precaution prevent the spread of the virus. You are much more likely to catch TB, Staph, etc…then the HIV/AIDS virus.

        • Anonymous

          Yeah, it suddenly becomes a huge conflict because it brings their bigotry into question.  The group they so comfortably hated went from being “them” to being “you” in their eyes.

          I recall a couple of times when I told friends that I was gay.  The initial reaction was “No, you’re not…c’mon…”  Once they accepted that fact, things were the same between us.  But I’m sure it was a bit enlightening for them.

          It’s especially funny when I tell a self-deprecating gay joke to them…the hesitation before they laugh LOL

          • Anonymous

            Exactly.  And I’m chuckling now because I have to admit that, being raised in a religious, gay-hating environment myself, it took me a long time to get over it and see humans and humans…some that I have things in common with and whose company I enjoy, others not so much. 

             My first real experience was at work many years ago.  I developed a great friendship with the head chef at the Inn.  We would laugh and joke about job-related stuff, stay for a few cocktails after work some nights and just have a great time.  I had no idea she was gay!  After several months, I found out from another co-worker that she was gay.  I honestly (and somewhat shamefully) can say that I struggled with that news at first.  Thankfully I was able to put away my bigotry and realize that she was still the same person that day as she had been for all those months I had known her – a fun, caring, compassionate, zest-for-life type of person! 

             I wish everyone could see past skin color, sexual orientation, religion, etc. and just realize that there are good people in the world and there are bad.  A person’s character goes far deeper than their societal labels.

        • Anonymous

           Exactly.   That same situation has happened to me so many times.   As if you all of a sudden become a different person, when they realize or find out you are gay.  It is sad, and you’re right, it just doesn’t make any sense.

          • Joseph Willingham

            I never know what to say when someone learns I’m gay and says, “OH! You don’t LOOK gay!”
            As if that’s a compliment.

            Of course I “look” gay-I’m gay and this is how I look!

            Stereotypes and prejudice-fortunately it’s less and less everyday.

        • Anonymous

           At least you weren’t brainwashed by her.Good thing.

  • Anonymous

    The goal of the homosexual rights movement is to destabilize society.

    Here are the founders of the homosexual rights movement.

    Look it up on Wikipedia.

    Wilhelm Reich, inventor of the term “Sexual Revolution,” member of the Austrian Communist Party.

    Magnus Hirschfeld, introduced first same sex marriage law, performed world’s first sex change operation, member of the German Communist Party.

    Harry Hay, “Father of the Gay Rights Movement,” member of the CPUSA, the Communist Party of the United States.

    • Anonymous

      The Republican agenda is to destabilize society.

    • Anonymous

      Yes I always use Wiki as primary source material

    • Joseph Willingham

      *I* am not a communist, so now what?

      The ironic thing is the that homosexuals were and are treated in Communist countries….

    • Guest

      Ugh…then you should also take the time to find out when the first same-sex marriages occurred(Rome & Greece) or maybe research Stonewall.   We are a diverse community.  Our fight for civil rights has spanned all forms of politics, and governments, including communism.

    • Anonymous

      My goal is to be treated equally by our government as a citizen, same as you. If you fear that treating others equally will harm society, I welcome you to see how theocracies are faring in the middle east.

  • Anonymous

    The flack and name calling is exactly who others won’t speak out; for fear of being villified for thier belief/stance on this issue.  It’s tiresome to be ‘shouted’ down and not be able to finish a sentence because the people WILL attack you.  God forbid your opinion differs.

    • Joseph Willingham

      We’ve dealt with that for decades, man.  And we’ll keep doing it. 

      I guess if people find it tiresome to be shouted down then they don’t believe in their cause very much….

  • Anonymous

    All of the reasons against gay marriage are lame.

  • Anonymous

    Homosexual “marriage” is not marriage. It is the opposite of marriage, the product of a wicked, morally-bankrupt society.

    It you think that America is  being “progressive” and a model for the world, look at the incident in Miami, the attack on the homeless man.

    The rest of the world is laughing at us, or looking away in horror.

    • Anonymous

      Much of the world is laughing at us because of backward-thinking people like you.

    • Anonymous

      And as SSM is illegal in Florida what does the attack on the homeless man have to do with SSM?

    •  “the product of a wicked, morally-bankrupt society”
      Wow, funny how your definition of gay marriage is exactly the same as my definition of religion.

      • Anonymous

         Except that you’re right.Look up FFRF.org.Great people who need all the help they can get.

    • Anonymous

      No we will be catching up to the rest of the world you mean

    • Anonymous

      You really have no idea what you’re talking about do you?

      We absolutely want civil marriage rights so same sex couples can protect the commitments to one another, the lives they have built together, and the children they raise together. 

      To compare this to the violence occurring in the world shows how dark and uncaring your heart truly is. I hope you can live to learn that our love is not harmful to you. Perhaps you can let yourself see the love in the world some day, and not obsess over the hate.

  • Anonymous

    Some of the comments posted here are simply ignorant! 
    Gay marriage is all about equality, which our country is supposedly based on. Period. 
    I swear, if they could, some of these people would have it illegal for Black and White to marry!

  • Anonymous

    hon, that’s because what you are saying is very offensive.  you call it opinion, others call it bigotry.

    it’s not fair to say bigoted, hateful things and then say ‘i was just expressing myself’ when others react in kind.

    • Joseph Willingham

      I find it so ironic that those who oppose us keep claiming that they’re the victim here.

      Yeah, this is a pretty hot topic and people on both sides suffer name-calling.  But that’s the nature of politics.

      WE are out there with our names and our faces, engaging voters one on one.  We comply with Maine state election laws by listing our names and ANYONE with a computer can see those names on the Maine state report.

      We are not afraid to stand up for what we believe in and we are not afraid of being called names or threatened or worse.  We’ve been through this for the past 60+ years and we’ll keep doing it.

      Yeah, they’re the victims here. 

      • Anonymous

        Voter approval of SSM will not fix the problem you addressed. People will remain divided on this issue no matter what the outcome of the November vote turns out to be. All that is being asked of voters right now is to keep the institution of marriage from being watered down so as not to discourage cohabiting heterosexual couples from making a life-long commitment of mutual love and  to continue promoting the current public policy of child raising in the best possible environment for children that nature provides. In  the meantime people regardless of sexual orientation are free to form the relationships of their own choosing for whatever amount of time they want them to last. No one is being victimized here on account of the current status quo of marriage.

        • Anonymous

          whawell I do believe that the heterosexual couples have done a marvelous job of watering down the institution of marriage all by themselves. Divorce rates are above 50% nationwide. Domestic violence rates are off the charts. Domestic murder rates are off the charts too. And you believe that allowing SSM will make things worse then the shambles that couples have made marriage already?

          • Anonymous

            What you are saying is true. We live in a society that has become very narcissistic. That’s all the more reason we need to continue shoring up the institution of marriage. Likewise, I don’t think doing away with or watering down the laws intended to prevent murder would be very helpful. In fact it would predictively lead to chaos. 

          • Anonymous

            Yeah and yet you don’t see the narcissism in conferring special rights to a group you belong to, but denying them to others. How ironic. 

          • Anonymous

             You suppose divorce rates for gay couples will be any different?

          • Anonymous

            Don’t know. Do you?

          • Anonymous

            that conversation ended hours ago.

            _____

          • Anonymous

            Check Massachusettes divorce rates now.  Not saying maine wont win this, but look and see how many were same sex couples

        • Anonymous

          Dinosaur.

          • Anonymous

            Sticks and stones… Name-calling is not an argument in my book.

          • Anonymous

            Nor mine either.  It was an observation with genuine meaning that more then a few readers agree with.

          • Anonymous

            sfgnyn

          • Anonymous

            Makes as much sense as everything else that you have written.   In any case I see no reason to continue any dialogue with you.   Hope you have a happier life ahead of you.

          • Anonymous

            You screech about name-calling and yet you deny rights to your neighbors. I think what you’re doing is much worse.

          • Anonymous

             the first instance of name calling   .. right here.
            some good sense.

          • Anonymous

            You are sad.

        • Joseph Willingham

          I did not say that this law will fix what I have mentioned. People will always remain divided on many issues, from abortion to interracial relationships. I never said otherwise.
          What IS being asked this year is to allow us to marry the person we love.
          Watering down? Do you really think that allowing Rob or Jill to marry a person of the same sex will discourage heterosexual couples from marrying? Don’t you see that heterosexual couples are already discourage anyway? Why do you want to prevent more marriages?

          • Anonymous

            Yes the likely effect would be to discourage cohabiting couple from getting married. By allowing SSM the state would effectively be saying only adult relationships really matter to the state from now on. For that reason it could eventually decide to do away with all the benefits that were originally intended in the children’s long-term best interests. My mom raised seven children. She stayed home to care for us rather than working outside the home to earn extra income for the family. It turned out to be a wise choice. When my dad died she derived spousal benefits to offset those retirement benefits she did not earn as a result of staying home to take care of us. The state was well served as a result of her decision. All of us became responsible law-abiding responsible citizens. I doubt that would have happened had my mother gone out to work during our growing years of life. Do we want the state to abandon it’s interest in children’s ultimate well-being? That would be a terrible failure by society.

          • Joseph Willingham

            Wait-where do you come up with this?

            You say that the state will be saying that kids won’t matter anymore because the state will not be giving benefits that were originally intended in the children’s long-term best interest. Well, exactly WHAT benefits are you referring to? And why wouldn’t this apply to same-sex couples who also have children (like they are already doing)?
            Your example really does nothing to support your point. That is wonderful that your father was able to work and support seven kids and your mom, but allowing me to marry my boyfriend doesn’t prevent other people from supporting their spouses, whether or not they have kids.
            I really want to understand what you’re saying, but I just don’t get it. Allowing more people to marry will do just that-allow more people to marry. Some of the married couples, straight and gay, will not have kids, but most will and I don’t see how this law will dissuade anyone from having children.

          • Anonymous

            I’ve gone through this argument with you many times. What I stated and will state again is that by making marriage only about relationships the state will open the door to the taking away of such benefits, as spousal retirement benefits. It will also open the door to bigamy but that’s not the main reasons why I oppose SSM.

            Look Joe, I can go on and on giving you explanations, but there is no longer any point in continuing to argue at this juncture. Tell me, how many people will be reading these comments? Very few if any right now besides you. And because of your personal situation I don’t expect to persuade you one way or another, and I don’t think you will be able to persuade me either, at least not now. Thank you for your interest.

          • Joseph Willingham

            Yes, you’re probably right, but you have not convinced us that this will lead to the removal of spousal retirement rights or Utz purchasing rights.

          • Anonymous

             It does not matter if you have children or not, gosh your silly. Should infertile couples not get married because only adult relationships matter? Your logic is very skewed. Do you think that only people who have stay at home mom should be married? If two people love each other then it should be their choice not someone else who decides their fate. Many things happen in this country I do not approve of but to deny someone the right to be happy and treated justly because I do not like what they represent is unfair.

        • Anonymous

          A 36-year-old North Dakota woman (Nadien Schweigert) who married herself in a commitment ceremony last March has now spoken about her self-marriage choice in an interview with Anderson Cooper. 
          The marriage took place among friends and family who were encouraged to “blow kisses to the world” after she exchanged rings with her “inner groom.”

          A Seattle woman recently exchanged one-sided wedding vows with an abandoned warehouse apartment building.
          In December, Babylonia Aivaz and 16 friends occupied the warehouse, located on 10th and Union streets, to protest the planned development of an apartment complex on the site.
          Calling it a “gay marriage,” Aivaz was asked by the attending minister if she would “love and cherish and protect this warehouse.” Aivaz reportedly responded in verse, quoting the Cat Power song ‘Sea of Love.””Come with me my love, to the sea, the sea of love. I want to tell you how much I love you.”
          She then added her own verses: “Do you remember when we met? I cleaned your rooms and washed your floors, built community, opened some doors. You changed my life. I’ll never forget the day we met. I’ll cherish your community spirit until the day I die.”

          • Anonymous

            Alas, “marriage” can be whatever people want to make of it, with or without state endorsement. That’s the mentality today where we as a society are heading, except for the insistence of state endorsement in some cases.

          • Anonymous

            Opponents argue that altering the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman will further weaken a threatened institution and that legalizing gay marriage is a slippery slope that may lead to polygamous and interspecies marriages.

          • Anonymous

             You will gobble up any idiotic thing Tony Perkins says,won’t you?I’d rather have someone who married a building living in my town than someone like him.At least she has 40 friends.

          • Anonymous

            The only Tony Perkins I know of is/was an actor.  I’m not purposely pretending I don’t know which Tony Perkins you are referring to…..but I don’t know who he is.

            My cable service is the “basic package” which doesn’t include all those cable news channels that liberals and conservatives always seem to get in food fights over. 

            The sanctity of male/female marriage has undergone corruption for quite a number of decades now (by heterosexuals)  The SSM is just another conniving component of the corruption.

          • Anonymous

            Blatant dishonesty. 

            And how disgusting that you hold gay people to a higher standard than you hold straight people.

            Add hypocrisy to dishonesty.

          • Anonymous

             Remake of a Phil Phillips song from the 1950s.And what does this have to do with anything anyway.Off topic.

          • Anonymous

            SEATTLE – A woman decided to marry a 107-year-old building. She already has a “civil union” with the building.Babylonia Aivaz’s has been in love with the 107-year-old building for years but she had to have a “quickie” wedding because demolition of the warehouse has already begun.­Babylonia says she hopes to save the abandoned building for a community center. Aivaz says she fell head over heels with the building after joining a 200-strong Occupy Seattle protest inside the building last month.“Yes, I’m in love with a 107-year-old building! Yes, it’s a gay marriage! SSM is legal in Washington State. In December(2011), Aivaz and 16 other activists “Occupied” the warehouse, believing this piece of heritage should be reclaimed as community space.

            Nadine Schweigert from Fargo, North Dakota, read her vows in front of 40 of her closest friends. Nadine married herself in March of 2012 and appeared on the Anderson Cooper show on May 24, 2012 to talk about her wedding and marriage to herself. If legal unions, called marriage, is all about “love”, then these women have made a salient point out of demanding that they, too, exercise their “right” to marry who and what they love. One married herself and the other one married a building.

          • Joseph Willingham

            Off topic and irrelevant. My cat married her chair, but since it’s not legal for that to actually happen, it holds no relevance either.
            (Unfortunately for the chair, we just got a set of antique chairs in so there is a bitter rivalry here in our house for my cats affections. It’s all so tawdry!)

          • Anonymous

            “34-year-old Rockland man attacked his female partner as she was taking a
            shower. The man beat her in the head and stomach and then choked her.
            The woman ran from the home naked in the middle of the night during one
            of the coldest nights of the year. A neighbor was outside walking a dog
            and spotted the woman being chased. The offender fled when he spotted
            the neighbor. The woman suffered bruises over her body and broken blood
            vessels in her eyes from being choked.”

            From the front page. So what you’re point? We can all pluck out obscure examples. It’s not excuse to be a bigot.

          • Anonymous

            The two events I selected (marrying yourself and marrying a building) are proof that some people want the freedom to marry whatever “they love”, without any restrictions or government interference. Men marrying men…women marrying women….people marrying trees, land, buildings…..whatever.

            However, I hardly ever get riled up about  the names the wolfndeers of the world feel the need to throw at me, but……selecting a report on a case of violent domestic abuse is beyond the pale…as you foolishly and thoughtlessly compare domestic abuse to my  examples of women marrying themselves and marrying buildings.

            The criminal violence perpetrated on this woman happens everyday in Maine and in our country. OBSCURE, you say ??? There is nothing obscure about a woman being choked, broken blood vessels, hit in the stomach and beat in the head by her cowardly partner.

            I will restrain myself from expressing anything more about what I think of you, having such a cavalier attitude towards domestic abuse and the horror it entails for its victims….all too often leading to the end of their life. 

          • Anonymous

            My point was obviously to showcase the stupidity in taking an example that isn’t the norm and acting like it is. If marrying a building is an excuse to deny marriage rights to a gay couple, how can domestic violence not be an excuse to deny marriage rights to heterosexuals?

            There is nothing cavalier about my attitude towards domestic abuse. Nothing in my comment indicated that either, so your comments are, as usual, ridiculous and baseless.

            BTW, do you even know what the word obscure means?

        • Anonymous

          Even though we are on different sides,it seems like you’ve reached your position after careful reflection.If a pro SSM person came to your door,would you invite them in and talk with them?I’d like to think you would without changing your position.
          I do think the legal rights are an issue.I don’t know the ins and outs of the denial of rights,but my understanding is that there are 1,300 legal rights that are automatically conferred on opposite sex couples that do not confer in states where SSM is not permitted.I’m trying to learn more facts.

      • Anonymous

        Your mama named you Regular?

        • Joseph Willingham

          When I am in control of the situation, such as making a call to or knocking on the door of a person who’s name is on my list, I’ll say my name. But in this forum with the nasty, threatening, and dangerous comments made by some people here who have no interest in hearing me but might have in interest in harming me, it’d be foolish to list my name.
          My name is also on the donor list.

          Thanks for asking.

          • Anonymous

            That makes sense, but I probably wouldn’t allow myself to feel in control at all when knocking on doors, no matter what the cause.
             

          • Joseph Willingham

            Yeah, that’s true too.  There’s still an element of risk, but at least I’d be face-to-face and not worrying about some anonymous person from here looking me up by name.

      • Anonymous

        no one said being right was going to popular or easy.  hang in there and know that change is slow and painful, but inevitable. 

        • Anonymous

          The crackers who railed against anything interracial have died off or at least slunk away.Same thing is happening with SSM opponents.Now we have to work on protecting Roe V. Wade and wait for those opponents to die off too.It will take a while but it will be worth it.

          • Anonymous

            Another reason for you to get gleefully wound up concerning the “greatest generation” finally dying off is the formation of the Obamacare “death panel’…..better known as the IPAB (Independent Payment Advisory Board) which was created in 2010 as part of the ACA (Obamacare) This is the Sebelius/Berwick Board/s that decides who gets medical services and procedures, strictly based on an impaired or elderly person’s $$value to society. Rationing is the name of the Obamacare game. 

            The IPAB boards will be authorized to refuse to pay the cost of medical procedures that could save the lives of infants born with defects and or retarded infants. The same criteria will apply to the elderly…..where their medical costs are higher than non-seniors. Seniors 70 years and older will be classified as “units”…not human beings with names.

          • Anonymous

            The usual Palin blather.There ARE death panels-they’re called the Ryan plan.You just don’t want to admit it’s your side that hates everyone that isn’t rich.
            And as far as Tony Perkins goes,look up Focus On The Family-an SPLC recognized hate group that he runs.It is not the actor.

          • Anonymous

            Supply and demand economics has made this country the economic powerhouse it is whereby everyone benefited. Everyone was made richer, not just the rich. Providing the government stops its penchant for over-regulating, the economy will return to prosperity. The same thing can be said for the healthcare system. Compared to the rest of the world under the control of the state, the rich and the poor including everyone else have been doing very well under the free enterprise healthcare system. Obama however wants to change all of that by putting the government in control. Do you really trust the government – that never ceases to be self-serving – with your healthcare, or would you rather make your own decisions based on your doctor’s advice? Personally, like Governor Palin I don’t trust the government with much of anything, let alone decisions concerning my own health and its very doubtful promise of being able to provide for it in the future.

          • Anonymous

            Over regulating? And yet you think you have a right to dictate and encourage which kinds of commitments people enter into. Typical right-wing hypocrisy. 

          • Anonymous

            The government doesn’t have a profit motive like the ins cos. do.I fought almost all of last year to get a series of small claims paid on behalf of another person who can’t do it on her own.It took 8 months,countless calls and mounds of paper and endless stress.Medicare and VA consistently score higher in patient satisfaction than private plans and have low overhead.
            We spend more and have poorer outcomes and the cost curve is ever expanding.Is government perfect?Not at all.But in a society where one ins. co. executive can be paid $19.1M while doing ZERO patient care,something has to change.
            Also with 47M uninsured,I hardly say everyone is doing well.And you worry about government interfering between me and my doctor?Ask any woman trying to get reproductive care about the roadblocks the R’s are putting up in 2011-2012 alone.That scary Reagan LP from 1961 about Medicare doesn’t play anymore-and he got plenty of great taxpayer paid healthcare.
            Healthcare is not a supply and demand issue in the same way consumer goods are.Nobody plans to get sick or injured.
            But life happens. From the minute we are delivered,a file and charges start accumulating.

    • Anonymous

      My opinion does not put down anyone. If you find it offensive, that’s because you choose to take offense. I could have listed all sorts of gruesome statistics about gays, but I chose not to do so lest I offend someone.

      PS: There are plenty of gruesome facts about heterosexuals as well. Likewise, citing those would not be particularly helpful to the current discussion about SSM.

      • Joseph Willingham

        I think that the fair thing to do is to take responsibility for your actions. While you may not be posting “all sorts of gruesome statistics about gays” (that I’m sure are false, manipulated, misleading, or could be said about straights), many of the comments you make are, indeed, offensive. The statement about IVF offended a straight woman who is trying to have a baby.
        It’s disingenuous so say all these inflammatory things about a group of people and then blame US if we take offense. That’s not a mature way to act.
        We all offend people-I’m sure I have. The difference is whether you accept it or you blame others.

        • Anonymous

          When we speak about the harm abortion causes, including certain death to tiny human beings being aborted, undoubtedly some people will be offended. The purpose here is not to offend but to open people’s eyes to the harm and injustice legal abortion on demand has wrought. Should I stop persuading people about the harm abortion causes simply because they might be offended? Absolutely not!

          • Joseph Willingham

            Again, you miss the point.

            It’s HOW you go about voicing your opinion. Nobody says you should stop speaking.

          • Anonymous

            As you probably realize by now, the benefits (or lack thereof) of SSM is a complex subject. Therefore it’s not always easy to explain one’s views on this topic w/o offending anyone. With my limited ability I only wish I could do a better job of getting my point across w/o offending. That said, clearly some will be offended no matter what.

          • Joseph Willingham

            Okay, I hear you. But that kitten comment was out of line! My cat was INCENSED that you’d compare a human to her!

          • Anonymous

            Joe, I definitely gotta give you a “like” for this one. Thank you for being jovial.

          • Joseph Willingham

            I’m GAY, remember!??!?!

            Har har

            Thanks!

          • Anonymous

            You really are adorable.

          • Joseph Willingham

            That’s what my mom AND my boyfriend say. Well, they HAVe to say it, but still.
            Thanks!

            (It’s getting dahk and ugly oot there…..I ‘spect the rain will be here any minute….)

          • Anonymous

            Absolutely yes,  you should stay out of other peoples private lives.   I have noted before that your persistent  obsession with how others live their lives is quite creepy.

        • Anonymous

           There’s just nothing “regular” about it. We find that offensive.

          • Joseph Willingham

            Who are “we”?

          • Anonymous

             read the headlines. we rejected gay marriage.

          • Joseph Willingham

            So sorry I couldn’t read your mind.

            You reckon that everyone who voted to reject that law finds homosexuality offensive? That’s a stretch.

      • Anonymous

        Let’s hear them!  And then we’ll talk about the rate of domestic abuse in Maine as well as the statistics of kids abused by mommy”s or Daddy’s significant other.  Maybe throw in some about the statistics of rape in Maine. I am not gay, but it really comes as a blemish on our society when we even discuss giving any group equal rights.  it is treating them like second class citizens and degrading them.

        • Anonymous

          Civil marriage is not a right. If it were so, then the state would not be able, through a legislative act or referendum, to abolish it all-together. People often think of civil marriage as something couples do to each other without the involvement of the state. That’s an incorrect notion. Civil marriage is a state endorsement. Therefore it is not an action taken by a couple without the state’s involvement. Gays are not legally being treated as second-class citizens any more than an eight-year old son is being treated when the parent gives his seventeen-year old brother fifty dollars to attend a prom without given him any money.

        • Anonymous

          I should have mentioned as well there are gruesome statistics concerning heterosexuals. Forgive me for that omission. My point is that pointing out those types of stats concerning one group or another is not particularly helpful in this discussion of SSM. I’ll amend my comment so as to avoid further misunderstanding.

      • Steve Anderson

        Your dedication to ignorance is impressive, whawell. 

  • Anonymous

    Hypocriticus 1.1-2

    And Jesus said unto the real he-men ; “I command you to visit hatred upon those you  know not, whilst pretending your gay nephew’s sexual tendencies doth not exist !”

    • Anonymous

      You can cherry pice at the bible all you want people are smart enough to see right thru you

      •  Lol I doubt it, they been buying the bible for 2000 years now. P.T. Barnum was right, there is a sucker born every minute, and religion is where they all seem to congregate.

  • Anonymous

    LET GO OF IT ALREADY. WE ARE NOT ALL OBAMA YOU THINK IF YOU KEEP TRYING WE WILL CHANGE OUR MINDS AND VOTE FOR IT….. THINK AGAIN

    • Anonymous

      No but what will you do when the SCOTUS decides the question?

    • Anonymous

      all caps shouting doesn’t make you right

  • Anonymous

     So a conventional couple who wants to use science to have their own child shouldn’t be allowed to?Bring back Vatican II.And before you bring up the adoption card,let’s realize that the huge percentage of those kids in the system came from opposite sex couples.Simply having a mom and a dad is NO guarantee of happiness or success.The fifties are gone.

    • ChuckGG

      Reality is the 50’s never were.  That was a Hollywood version of ideal America.  It rarely was as pristine as it appeared.

      • Anonymous

        Unless Senator Joseph McCarthy was your hero.

        • ChuckGG

          You will note in my other posting about “true conservatives,” McCarthy’s name was conspicuously absent.  Today’s Tea Party Express crowd remind me so much of Joe McCarthy.

          I also find it ironic that Margaret Chase Smith, the great Republican Lady from Maine, is one that helped take him down with her “Declaration of Conscience” speech on June 1, 1950.  It could be applied today, unedited.

          http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/margaretchasesmithconscience.html

          I wish the socially conservative Tea Party members could take a few minutes and read what she had to say.  They won’t, because “they are right.”  Exactly what Joe McCarthy thought, too.  I hear the vitriol and the Fox News bigotry and wonder what happened to the civil rights we worked so hard for all those years ago.  An older friend of mine told me the battle for civil rights is ever ongoing.  Each generation needs to learn the same lessons.  I am afraid that is all too true.

          • Anonymous

             The thing about McCarthy is that his fall and death was stunningly fast.A lot of it had to do with drinking but still,once the cracks appeared the mirror shattered in a big hurry.

          • ChuckGG

            Very true.  Once he had been disgraced, like many guys, his reason to go on ceased to exist.  Politicians tend to be narcissists and with that shattered mirror, they really lose face.  Look at Edwards – despite the haphazard results of the trial, the man keeps thinking he will make a comeback.  It’s sad to watch.  It’s embarrassing.  The man’s political career is over.  He needs to accept that.

            I wonder why McCarthy drank so much.  What were his demons?  Most alcoholics I have run into didn’t become so because they liked to be buzzed all the time.  Most I know drank to escape something.

            As a kid, I saw many, many men who came home from work and drank themselves into a coma.  They hate their work, their lives, and they knew they had no choice.  This was their fate, their destiny.  Divorce was not socially acceptable.  Many gay men of that era married women and I knew a number who were alcoholics.   They forced themselves to be something they weren’t, with predictable results.

            Here’s a blurb from Wiki.  Perhaps, Joe was playing for the other team and the “Reds” were an easy scapegoat and shield?

            “In 1950 McCarthy assaulted journalist Drew Pearson
            in the cloakroom of a Washington club, reportedly kneeing him in the
            groin. McCarthy, who admitted the assault, claimed he merely “slapped”
            Pearson.[42] In 1952, using rumors collected by Pearson, Nevada publisher Hank Greenspun
            wrote that McCarthy was a homosexual. The major journalistic media
            refused to print the story, and no notable McCarthy biographer has
            accepted the rumor as probable.[43]
            In 1953, McCarthy married Jean Kerr, a researcher in his office. He and
            his wife adopted a baby girl, whom they named Tierney Elizabeth
            McCarthy, in January 1957.”

            McCarthy was 45 when he married Jean Kerr.  And, then, they adopted a baby girl.  Window dressing and beard are two words that cross my mind.

            Who knows?  Wouldn’t be the first time.  It seems those who protest the most and the ones with the most to hide.

          • Anonymous

            Interesting stuff.I think there was a Jean Kerr that was a writer in the 60s.Not sure if they are the same.Just looked-they are different.
            From what I know of Drew Pearson,he had a file second only to Hoover’s that would destroy people. so it’s interesting about that assault.Maybe Pearson had something on him even then?
            The Edwards thing is sad.His wife,probably his kids are gone.His license to practice is in jeopardy.Still,there are consequences to actions and he;s certainly paying them.I can’t see a comeback in any form.
            I’m confused by the beard reference though

          • ChuckGG

            Window dressing and beard are terms used for women who act as “fronts” for gay men who are in the closet.  An older term, not much used today, what with most people coming out. 

            You still get this term used by us older guys who remember those days.  You see alot of that stuff in the religious south – they marry a woman for cover.  Sometimes she knows and sometimes she has no idea.

            Sort of like Michele and Marcus Bachmann.  As they said, that man is one polo shirt short of being Cam on “Modern Family.”

            He runs a reparative therapy clinic to convert gays to straights.  EVERYONE on my side of the fence figured he must have been their first client.

          • Anonymous

            OK thanks.I know there is such a thing as “beardo rock” but looks like that’s different.Read the RS article about gay kids committing suicide in Bachmann’s district.She and the school district did NOTHING except support the bullies until sued and forced to sort of apologize.

          • Anonymous

             If I had to deal with her on a daily basis,divorce or any other option would be a blessing.
            She is the definition of the word shrew.

          • ChuckGG

            Clueless is the word that comes to my mind.  Sort of an idiot savant.  She knows tax law but virtually nothing else.  Socially, she’s lost.  I recall the expression on her face when some little girl came up to her and asked her, “why do you hate my mommies?”  Michele just stood there with that famous deer in the headlights look.  She just does not get it and she is not going to get it.  Fortunately, the political vetting process worked once again and the true nutbars we filtered out. 

            I am no fan of Romney but he is at least sane.  He hasn’t yet answered the real question as to why he wants to be President.  He kind of reminds me of Ted Kennedy when he ran for the office.  When asked by a reporter why he wanted to be President, he paused and really could not answer.  I think Romney is running because his dad ran and failed.  After the business success he had, what’s next?  I don’t see him really caring about the office as much as he cares about the title.

          • Anonymous

            True enough.I worked with a guy who was a terrible alcoholic.They eventually had to let him go after sending him to rehab several times.Nicest guy you’d ever want to know. He had his dad pass away in front of him when he was 7,then developed a stuttering problem.I wonder if he could’ve been helped many years ago but I think so much time had passed and he was so set in who he was that there wasn’t any repairing to be done after 40 years.I would doubt he’s still alive now unless he got help.

          • Anonymous

            I think he was drinker.

      • Anonymous

        It was great if you were Don Draper.Everyone else,not so much.

    • Anonymous

      You are correct about the fact simply having a mom and a dad is no guarantee of happiness or success. Nonetheless it helps. The fact the fifties are gone does not matter in this case. Marriage is not just about adult relationships. More importantly it’s about children as well, regardless of a couple’s intent.

      • Joseph Willingham

        And what about those marriages where the couple wish to remain childfree?

        • Anonymous

          The fact of the matter is that many of these couple who had chosen to remain childless end up having a child or more. Oftentimes they even have a change of heart before conceiving.

          • Joseph Willingham

            IS this a fact?

            I plan to remain childfree and I know people who have been, who still are, and who plan to remain so as well.

          • Anonymous

            I don’t deny what you are saying, yet the fact remains most couple who marry w/o the intent of having children end up by procreating or adopting down the time road. If this situation ever changes, then I would be in favor of restricting some marital benefits to those who have not had any children by age 50, more or less.

          • Joseph Willingham

            LIke what marital benefits? It seems the benefits for children that people keep talking about apply only if a couple has children. If there are no children, then there is no issue….

      • Anonymous

         I wish that every kid everywhere has a great life.A good friend of mine was adopted out of a horrible home situation.He was very lucky to have hit a home run in his first at bat.Sadly, that’s rare.I think there’s more focus on the kids now.
        My mother had a friend who now that I look back displayed all the classic signs of an abused spouse.Yet,I’d be willing to bet they stayed together”for the children”and society would’ve looked away.

  • Anonymous

    Come November 6, people will  be voting based on their personal beliefs, and $10,000 or $10,000,000 spent on ads won’t change many opinions on SSM.  People are either accepting of SSM or they are not.

    • Joseph Willingham

      They actually do listen to the ads.  I have spoken to many people who have asked me about the ads, especially the one that last weekend that told voters to reject the new law because their gay friends already have civil unions.  (A lie, by the way-no such thing exists in Maine).

      And I cannot tell you the number of people who claim “it will be taught in schools.”  I am sure that that concept, whatever the heck it really means, spread like wildfire because of those hysterical Stand for Marriage Maine ads. You do your fellow Mainers a disservice by painting them as stubborn rocks that can’t change their mind.

  • Anonymous

    It’s ironic that you say you want to “respect all human beings” and yet you obviously disrespect gays and lesbians simply because they are gay and lesbian.   Just say it:   you think gays and lesbians are sick and sinful.  You know that’s what you feel.  It’s clear in your demeaning ugly words–the same kinds of words that have been used to discriminate against interracial marriage. 

    Guess what?  Driving a car is unnatural.  Homosexuality has been documented among many species of animals, and so is natural.  Are you going to stop driving a car? 

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

    • Anonymous

      Homosexual orientation, regardless of species, is a disorder. Animals too like humans have disorders. Some time ago I adopted a cat that had been abused as a kitten. As a result the cat could never warm up to most people, unlike most other cats. In fact it took several weeks before the cat allowed itself to be cuddled by either me or my children. And it did so only warily its entire lifetime of several years. In this case the cat’s behavior was a disorder resulting from abuse.

      • Anonymous

        Not true, but bigotry IS a disorder.

      • Joseph Willingham

        Are you calling me a kitten? Is that what’s this has come to!?!??!?! I’m nothing more than a baby cat with a disorder!??!?!?!?!

        • Anonymous

          No that’s not what I am saying at all. What you implied in your earlier comment is that homosexual orientation is not a disorder because animals have it too and they have no disorders.  What I am telling you is that animals like people do indeed have disorders. Therefore your argument does not have any merit.

          • Joseph Willingham

            Ahh…I was just joshing anyway. I love kittens and cats!!!

            I didn’t make that point, though. But yes, you are right, animals (including humans) have disorders. But the current science is clear that homosexuality is not a disorder. You disagree, but that is only opinion. The fact is that homosexuality is not regarded as a disorder anymore.
            I’ll tell you what IS a disorder, eating bag after bag of those Utz BBQ potato chips…!

          • Anonymous

             Absolutely true.I’m glad the nearest store from camp is about 25 miles away.My sister in law brought back a bag.My brother took the car out,dropped his keys and there was an empty bag under the seat.Whoops!

          • You have that UTZ disorder as well? Walgreens has been feeding my habit selling them for 99 cents lately. Now I want a bag of UTZ!!!

          • Anonymous

            I happen to like those chips too!

          • Anonymous

             That is correct and all the gay propaganda won’t change it.  Had enough of a minute part of the population controlling the media and rewriting our cultural norms. It’s not marriage and we voted that way. That’s the end of it.

      • Anonymous

        I saw my female dog lift her foot to tinkle the other day, it was the wrong foot,she peed on herself and had to have a bath. she learned the foot lifting  from my male dog, she just sees it from a different point of view hence the wrong foot. My male dog tries to jump from the floor to the back of the couch in one hop, like my female cat. He misses alot and ends up on the floor behind the couch, I keep telling him he’s not a cat. Worried he’d eventually break a leg I moved the couch up against a wall, as of last night I have a hole in the wall..
        Whats all this have to do with the topic, anything anyone wants it to mean.

      • Anonymous

        When you say that being a homosexual person is a disorder you are putting them down.   You say that you do not put people down, but in actual fact you do.

    • Anonymous

       Glad to see you’re still here after you thought you were going to get banned the other day.

  • Anonymous

    People should be with & marry whomever they choose.  People of the same sex should be entitled to benefits of a traditional marriage if they chose to commit themselves to one another.  The problem is that they insist on calling it a marriage.  If they had their own definition of their commitment I think this would be a non-issue (eventually)  It’s the insistence of calling it a marriage that opponents do not want.  It is not that heterosexuals dislike gays, I could care less what a person does with their personal relationships, but a marriage is one man & one woman & should not be changed.   Their tactic of turning this into an equality & hate issue is wrong.         

    • Anonymous

      So what should they call it? Will you pay the cost of changing 1,300+ laws on the federal and state level to reflect the new “word”?

    • Anonymous

      The problem is that the word marriage is so pervasive (in terms of the law) that you could never have an alternative that would confer the exact same rights.

      • Joseph Willingham

        Nor the same meaning.

        On American Idol recently, a man who had been on the show in the past proposed to his fiancee.  He asked her to marry him.  He asked this in front of thousands of people in the theater and millions of people watching on tv.

        We ALL know the powerful impact of that question.  We ALL know what “marry me” means.

        Asking my boyfriend to get a civil union with me is not at all the same.
        “Archie-will you civil union with me?”  Really………

  • Anonymous

     Male animals have relations with each other, and so do female animals.  That includes lots and lots of mammals, from lion to brown bear to orca:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

    Just substitute “interracial” for your “SSM” jargon and we have arguments of the racists.

  • Anonymous

    So will those 150-200 churches now be TAXED since they are raising money for a political/referendum issue? I hope that as soon as the equality for gay couples law passes, we start a movement to remove tax exempt status from all these churches who break the rules on a daily basis. Tax exemption for them and their leaders is BS to begin with!

    • Anonymous

      DogFreak please get your facts straight before you post and add more misinformation to the discussion. Church leaders DO pay income taxes. Church employees DO pay income tax. The only tax exemption a church receives is on the house of worship itself. If they own a parsonage they pay property tax, etc…By the way a church under IRS code may raise funds but may not endorse from the pulpit a candidate, etc…

      • Anonymous

        I’m not so sure how closely that law is followed.If a pastor preaches a virulent anti gay sermon for 90 minutes and gets everyone all wired up,then says “Go and vote as your Bible tells you to”that’s probably within the letter of the law-but barely.

  •  You want to worry about the kids on the issue of SSM? Look what the other side is doing to the kids…

    http://vimeo.com/34406376

  • Anonymous

    Why would anyone give the Government more control over themselves?  Government should not   be in the marriage business.  The proper way to address this is to eliminate all Government interference in personal relationships, not expand it.

    • Anonymous

      Until then though? You really think it’s fair for one set of couples to have rights and not another? As it is, for example, a gay couple is paying hundreds and thousands more in taxes. 

    • Joseph Willingham

      I can see what you’re saying, but many of us don’t see it like that.

      We think that it’s proper to allow the state to open up marriage to all consenting adults who love each other.
      What you propose is something I hear all the time, but if that’s the route people want to take, it will be a very very very long time, then, before marriage is brought to all.
      In the meantime, “to marry the one you love” is what we want.

  • Guest

    /////

    • Guest

      never heard anyone every say that

      • Guest

        ….

      • Anonymous

        Really….so you support SSM then.

  • Anonymous

    Wow. Not only did you manage to be sweepingly offensive to gays and lesbians who simply want the right to marry the people they love, you managed to lump heterosexuals with infertility issues into your hateful spew. As someone who has struggled with her heterosexual spouse to get pregnant and may need to utilize IVF in order to bring a child into this world, I find your comments unbelievably dense. Fortunately, any child I do bring into this world will be taught to respect and love people of all walks of life. I will even teach him or her to be tolerant of people with different viewpoints. Sadly, that is a perspective you will never be able to achieve.

    • Joseph Willingham

       Yes, that’s par for the course. 

  • Anonymous

    Does not matter how much money they raise, its up the voters.  Like i said before i will vote for them to get rights, but i do not think it will pass, but we will find out soon

    • Anonymous

      Thanks for your support! I too will vote for what’s right, even if we don’t win.

      • Anonymous

        No problem at all.  I decided its time to get this on the move.  You could win still, i doubt it very highly though.  Alot of people are still on the same page as last election.  But with all the work you all are doing it could pull out. Good luck

        • Anonymous

           IF the votes are fairly counted,SSM will win.

          • Anonymous

            So what your saying is the votes are not counted right.  Have you called and contacted them about this and have a investigation done. I mean maybe i am reading the comment wrong.  If i am please explain what you mean

          • Anonymous

            I don’t believe the antis will do things fairly left to their own devices in the upcoming election.
             There needs to be eternal vigilance to prevent R voter fraud.

  • ChuckGG

    Your point on a “liberal” court decision:  I challenged people to just use the full constructionist view of the Constitution to make a decision on SSM.  No “liberal” judges, no “activist” judges.  The findings are cut-and-dry. 

    The secular issue of marriage recognized by the State is afforded to straight couples.  In the Prop-8 case (read the transcripts) the court could find no valid reason why gay citizens should be deprived this legal right.  There was no proven harm to society, children, or themselves.  No examples could be cited.  The court followed the constructionist view and found the only purpose for Prop-8 was to deny gay people the right to secular marriage.  No compelling reason to justify this discrimination could be provided.

    So, all your other points do not really matter.  They have no bearing in court.  If they did, the results of Prop-8 would have been different.

    BTW, the recent DOMA decision by the 1st Circuit was a 3-0 decision.  One judge was appointed by a Democrat but two were appointed by Republicans.  Would you consider the Republican judges to be “liberal, activist judges?”  I doubt it.  What they did is what every judge should do – look at the Constitutionality of the law, cite precedent, review intent, and make a decision.  They did.  The decision (for most of us) was obvious and correct.

    What drives me bonkers is that many of the conservatives think the government and judicial precedents are on their side – “God and Jesus and Country” and all that.  It just is not that way and it would benefit the naysayers in this matter to actually study how the law works rather than jump to the conclusion that God, Jesus, and the Courts are on their side.  The Courts apply the Constitution.  That is their mission, and while I sometimes question their decisions, upon review I usually see how they logically arrived at those decisions.  I have yet to be very disappointed with their findings.

    • Anonymous

      I applaud you for this, and I have learned from it.  Thank you!

      • ChuckGG

        The biggest misconception seems to be that the rights granted under the Constitution must be specifically defined.  In reality, the Constitution explicitly gives us the rights to do whatever we wish to do, except as prohibited by law.  That is, we do not have  laws telling us we can do something.  We have laws limiting what we can do.  Otherwise, it is presumed we can do this. 

        The obvious caveat is that we cannot harm others in this process.  But, if you wanted to live in the hills in a log cabin you built yourself and be left alone forever, you are entitled to do so.  Burning down a public forest would not be allowed.

        In the case of SSM, legal marriage (meaning secular marriage) has been determined to be a fundamental right of all citizens.  Marriage is open to all, in following with the Constitution.  The people of various states (where all marriage questions arise) have decided to put some limitations and most of these everyone knows – you can’t marry a close relative, you can only have one spouse, both parties must be “competent” (meaning aware, of age, and able, to enter into marriage), and some states have a residency requirements.

        Secular marriage is recognized and legal in all of our states with some variations of restrictions as mentioned above.  One common restriction is that each party must be of a different gender.  That restriction is the one we feel should be removed.

        This is the part many of the neo-cons just cannot grasp – the presumption by the law is that all people can marry except where prohibited by law.  The courts, so far, that have looked at the same-sex restriction have found no valid basis to justify this restriction.  If there is no valid or compelling reason to protect the people, the State, or anyone else, then the restriction is in violation of the Constitution.  It really is that simple.

        This is why no one has yet to provide me with a valid reason to prohibit SSM without using some religious tenet which, of course, does not apply in the secular world.

        • Anonymous

           You keep making the same no harm argument. Wrong. Still.

          • ChuckGG

            Until you can come up with some valid statements outlining the “harm” of which you speak, I do not believe you have any credibility.

          • Anonymous

            Simple. the instution as it exists, is marriage defined as one man, one woman. You harm it if you redefine it as anything else.It is no longer that marriage as previously defined. That’s simple logic.

            _____

          • Joseph Willingham

            That’s convoluted logic!!!

            You are equating change with harm.

          • ChuckGG

            It sounds like an opinion of what might happen it one changed the definition of religious marriage.  It’s a good thing we are not doing that as secular SSM has nothing with religious marriage unless the couple wishes to go to a church that will perform a SSM (and there are many).

            But, we are talking about secular marriage and that is a law.  That law has been redefined many times over the years in many different States.  Until 1967, it was defined to exclude people of different races.  From a secular viewpoint, legal marriage was not at all harmed.

            From a religious viewpoint, depending upon how racist is your church, you might find the redefinition of religious marriage to include people of different races to be offensive and harmful.

            I’m still waiting for an explanation as to how secular marriage is adversely affect by removing the restriction against same-gendered participants.

            And, by the way, you logic is illogical. If you change something, it is changed. That many be for the better, for the worse, or neutral, but it is not implied to be harmful. Was including mixed race couples harmful?

          • Anonymous

            You do not say exactly how it is harmed. It is in no way harmed.
            I say that it is you who is wrong.  Simple yes, but not at all logical. I also say that you have nothing to offer save your blind prejudice.
            Other than your opinion to which you are of course entitled just what do you have to offer ?

    • Joseph Willingham

      Many of the judges that have reversed these discriminatory laws have been conservative and had been appointed by Republican presidents.
      I will cite references if asked-right now the coffee is finished and it’s time to finish the laundry…

      • ChuckGG

        Exactly, as they are following the logic and the letter of the law.  The problem is that few naysayers have actually read and understood what the Constitution says.

    • Anonymous

      I would wonder how many of those Conservatives actually go to church on a regular basis.

    • Anonymous

       That is just incorrect. The fact is that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.  Thus the institution itself is damaged  by allowing same sex “marriage.”

      • ChuckGG

        BTW, the shock quotes are getting tiring.

        Okay, please explain how the institution of marriage (not conceding it is some sort of institution) is damaged by same-sex marriage.  Some details, please.

        And, up until 1997 or so, marriage was not “defined” in Maine in any particular way.  It simple stated the requirements to be legally married in Maine.  Some legislature then came along and poofed-up the Maine marriage law to sound like a proclamation instead of a law.  I performed one marriage as an NP in Maine in 1980.  I read the law then.  Later, I read the revised law from 1997.  Appalling.  It sounds like something out of a church.  Far from normal legalese.

        But, my primary question remains – please tell me how the “institution of marriage” is adversely affected by same-sex marriage.  I need specifics and not conjecture.

        • Anonymous

           The fact is that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.  Thus
          the institution itself is damaged  by allowing same sex “marriage.” 
           You are big on logic except when it doesn’t answer your question.

      • Anonymous

        Solomon had 700 wives.  Does that define marriage?

  • Anonymous

    For all of you who oppose this so greatly and claim that it will ruin the sanctity of marriage:  please inform me of exactly WHAT affect gay marriage will have on YOUR marriage?  I have been married for 22 years and I can guarantee you that if gays marry tomorrow, it isn’t going to change a single thing for my marriage.  I really am trying to understand where you opposers are coming from and I’m just obviously not getting it.  HOW will it affect you?  

  • Anonymous

    The children need protection from you !!

    • Anonymous

      Children need protection from Catholic priests also know as pedophiles.

      • Anonymous

        Of course I agree.  

      • Anonymous

         You bet. And the gay culture in the seminary. Pedophilia is on the spectrum of sexual disorders with homosexuality. Some years from now the hormonal imbalances that cause it in the developing fetus will be understood and treated.

        • Joseph Willingham

          sigh…..

          Is all the current research that shows homosexuality is not a disorder part of the gay propaganda? Is anything that supports teh gay propaganda?
          You’re telling us that being gay is a hormonal imbalance, which would mean that we’re born this way. Why are we denied the rights non-hormonal imbalance people have simply because we were born this way?

          • Anonymous

            “You’re telling us that being gay is a hormonal imbalance, which would
            mean that we’re born this way. Why are we denied the rights
            non-hormonal imbalance people have simply because we were born this way?”
            ” Born this way”?  doesn’t justify anything.  There are natural born killers. Oh, are they just “born this way.”

          • Anonymous

            How do you justify the ignorance you display in your posts?

          • Joseph Willingham

            I’d like remind people that in 1973, almost 40 years ago, the American Psychiatric Association dropped homosexuality from its manual and replaced it with “sexual orientation disturbance” which identifies people whose sexual orientation, gay or straight, causes them distress. {http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/health/dr-robert-l-spitzer-noted-psychiatrist-apologizes-for-study-on-gay-cure.html?_r=1&hp)
            In fact, you can read the actual paper here: http://www.torahdec.org/Downloads/DSM-II_Homosexuality_Revision.pdf .
            Let me transcribe a very important paragraph. Remember, this written and approved in 1973. “The proponents of the view that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality argue for the elimination of any reference to homosexuality in a manual of psychiatric disorders because it is scientifically incorrect, encourages an adversary relationship between psychiatry and the homosexual community, and is misused by some people outside of our profession who wish to deny civil rights to homosexuals. Those who argue that homosexuality is a pathological disturbance in sexual development assert that to remove homosexuality from the nomenclature would be to give official sanction to this form of deviant sexual development, would be a cowardly act of succumbing to the pressure of a small but vocal band of activist homosexuals who defensively attempt to prove that they are not sick, and would tend to discourage homosexuals from seeking much-needed treatment.
            I wonder what psychiatric training grimaldi has that leads him to conclude otherwise…

          • Joseph Willingham

            I’m not a killer.

            There’s a difference.

            I wonder how perfect you are…do you have any imbalances that might be used against you….?

          • Anonymous

             I’ll look at Lady Gaga’s bank account and popularity and decide if being “born that way”makes sense.Sure seems to.

          • Anonymous

            Have you seen this ?
            One of the most influential figures in modern psychiatry has apologised to America’s gays for a scientific study which supported attempts to “cure” people of their homosexuality.The survey, published in 2001, looked at “reparative therapy” and was hailed by religious and social conservatives in America as proof that gay people could successfully become straight if they were motivated to do so.But Dr Robert Spitzer has now apologised in the same academic journal that published his original study, calling it “fatally flawed”. “I believe I owe the gay community an apology,” his letter said. “I also apologise to any gay person who wasted time and energy undergoing some form of reparative therapy because they believed that I had proven that reparative therapy works.”Spitzer’s letter, which was leaked online before its publication in theArchives of Sexual Behaviour, is sure to cause delight among gay civil rights groups and stir up anger among social conservatives, who have used the study to combat the acceptance of homosexuality as a normal part of human society.

          • Joseph Willingham

            Yes! Doing some research to back up a post earlier this afternoon I came across that APA paper.
            Very interesting stuff out there for people to read. Of course, to some, it’s all just homosexual propaganda crammed down the throats of unsuspecting good Americans by the Pink Mafia, but to others, it might make them think…

          • Anonymous

             That story was of course terribly under reported.Thanks for mentioning it.Of course his old lies will continue to be perpetuated by the wrong side just like Andrew Wakefield’s.

        • Anonymous

          Don’t try and link gay culture with pedophilia, it just show how ignorant you are.

          http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html 

          • Anonymous

             didn’t link gay culture. gay behavior. biologically not normal.

          • Anonymous

            So what’s you point?

          • Joseph Willingham

            I think he’s getting mixed up…

        • Anonymous

          And how will your disorder be treated ?

        • ChuckGG

          You really are reaching dingbat status now.  Find the facts and present them.

        • Anonymous

          Homosexuality is most certainly not on any spectrum of sexual disorders.   There is no excuse for you to equate pedophilia with homosexuality.   Your personal experiences do not give you leave to spread this vileness.   Get a grip !

      • Anonymous

         Are you speaking about the gay men who infiltrated the Catholic Church to become priests, so that they could work on “changing” Catholic teaching about homosexual acts?  Too bad that so many of them could not resist molesting young boys.  They have given the truly spiritual priests a bad name, and it’s obvious that the Church is going to have a hard time living it down.

        • Anonymous

          Priests have given the Church a bad name by over and over again through many decades not protecting the victims.   You ,  like the Church itself distort.

  • Anonymous

     “We citizens of Maine can do far better to respect all humans than we are now permitting.”  Yeah…right!  Maybe you should listen to yourself and think about it.

  • Anonymous

    An don’t bring kids in either there have been studies done an they do just as well an stright couples

  • Melora

    This isn’t a surprise.  Last time same-sex marriage was up for vote, gay activists were helping from outside the state.  There are too many out-staters pushing this issue in Maine when they don’t belong here.  Also the title “Mainers United for Marriage” is an insult.  It sounds like they are protecting marriage (traditional) but they are not.  They are trying to DISTORT marriage and the natural law.  I will not vote for anyone who supports gay marriage.  It is a shame for Maine to even consider it. The destruction it will do to children is huge.  All studies show the importance of both a mom and dad for children and we can’t ignore the child issue when considering marriage.  

    • Anonymous

      Were do you get your info that there will be a destruction of kids    show me  the studies that have been dome to prove what you say  ?The impact of stigma. Laws that exclude lesbian, gay and bisexual people from marriage cause stress, and that stress negatively impacts physical and mental health, said Ilan Meyer, PhD, of Columbia University. The experience of living with stigma, always being vigilant and constantly needing to conceal your “authentic self” from disapproval and even violence exacerbates the pressures that everyone feels in daily life, he said.

      “The impact of not being able to express who you are has very dangerous health effects,” he said.The strengths of same-sex relationships. Surveys conducted in California showed that 75 percent of lesbians and more than half of gay men were in a relationship with one person, said Letitia Anne Peplau, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles. Data also show that similar to heterosexuals, many lesbians and gay men date in their 20s, settle down into a relationship in their 30s and maintain it long-term.How children fare. Research shows that children raised by lesbian and gay parents develop in the same positive ways that children raised by heterosexual parents do, and that same-sex couples are just as capable of providing a supportive environment for children, said Charlotte J. Patterson, PhD, of the University of Virginia.

      Research also shows that same-sex couples can effectively parent adopted children, Patterson said (see “Adopted children thrive in same-sex households, study shows”).

    • Anonymous

      Seriously?  Have you been watching the news?  We hear daily that children with a mom and a dad are abused, beaten, killed, molested.  Seriously?  I know some gay folks who would make FAR better parents, even if not “traditional” that some of the lousy hetero parents I know.  By the way, not everyone will turn gay if this law passes.  There will still be gays whether it passes or not.  Some children will still be raised by great hetero parents, some will still be raised by pathetic hetero parents, some will be raised by great gay parents, and some will be raised by pathetic gay parents.  Nothing is really going to change.  We are talking about some financial benefits and a PIECE OF PAPER here.  They aren’t going to stop loving who they love because they can’t have a piece of paper!  They aren’t going to stop having IVF if they want to raise a child just because they can’t have a piece of paper.  

    • Joseph Willingham

      It’s unfortunate that people choose to ignore reality and distort the facts. Do you also have a problem with people from away sticking their nose in our affairs to STOP SSM? Is it okay for NOM to pour over a million dollars into the Yes on 1 campaign?
      (More untruths-all studies do NOT show the importance of mom and dad for children. There are many recent studies that show the importance of two loving parents for a child.)
      Can you please tell us what destruction you’re talking about and give us examples of this destruction happening in Massachusetts, Canada, and South Africa?
      So-the money-

      The Stand for Marriage Maine PAC in 2009 received the following (http://www.mainecampaignfinance.com/Public/report_list.asp?TYPE=PAC&ID=4477):
      Focus on the Family (Colorado Springs, Colorado):
      08-25-2009 $10,000
      09-11-2009 $50,000
      10-06-2009 $15,000

      National Organization for Marriage (Princeton, New Jersey):
      07-07-2009 $40,000
      07-17-2009 $50,000
      08-13-2009 $50,000
      09-04-2009 $140,000
      09-11-2009 $50,000
      10-01-2009 $300,000
      10-09-2009 $300,000
      10-14-2009 $500,000

      The reports also show individual donors from Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Maryland, California, Virginia, Alaska, Washington, D.C., Utah, Ohio, Kansas, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Colorado, Connecticut, Puerto Rico, New Jersey, Montana, Georgia, New York, New Mexico, Indiana, and Illinois.

      As for churches, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland made many donations, five of which really stand out. Is all that money only from Maine Catholics?

      07-17-2009 $149,3000
      08-29-2009 $52,000
      10-01-2009 $48,000
      10-15-2009 $47,000
      10-20-2009 $50,000

      • Joseph Willingham

        No response from Archer or Melora…..?  That’s odd.  They seemed so passionate about out-of-state money here in Maine where it doesn’t belong…  Maybe they haven’t checked their email or read this page yet.  Surely, they would have acknowledged the horror of NOM’s + 1.3 million dollars in contributions to the side that opposed SSM.

    • Guest

      ////

    • Anonymous

       And the conservatives don’t mislead,misname and lie?I give you the Family Research Council.Plenty more after that.

    • Anonymous

      It’s pretty hypocritical to complain about out of state donations for one group and not acknowledge that out of state money is being used by the other group as well.

      Our fight for equal treatment under the law will be won, one day. I hope it is this year in Maine.

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous

    You are aware that even if gay marriage is not allowed, there will still be gays and they will still be adopting children, right?  A girl that I went to school with adopted a child.  She and her ‘significant other” are raising that child.  Not allowing gay marriage is not going to stop that.  Personally I’d much prefer a child be brought up in a loving home by two same-sex parents than to stick them in a “mom-dad” foster home where they are sexually abused, physically abused and nobody gives a crap about them.  

    That’s my opinion and you are certainly entitled to yours.  I won’t resort to name calling for your opinions.

    • Anonymous

      Thank you. Your opinion is welcomed. :)

      I agree with you that children need to be taken out of abusive family situations when they occur, even though I do not support SSM or agree that gay adoption is part of the solution for children in those situations.

      • Anonymous

        What do you think the solutions are for those children?  We visit “A Family For Me” often and there are so many older children needing homes.  It saddens me that these children have nobody to love them.  I wish there were a solution.  Personally, a home with 2 moms or 2 dads but LOTS of love and having all their needs met would be so much better than the situations they are in.  They have no family.  It may not be my idea or your idea of a perfect “family”, but it sure is better than no family at all.  You really don’t agree?

        • Anonymous

           After all the times I was “hit on” by homosexuals as a young boy, No I don’t agree!

          • Anonymous

            —–

          • Anonymous

             Yes,  you know that is probably the attitude they had.  appalling.

          • Anonymous

            I’m trying to believe your story but have a tough time doing so. 

          • Anonymous

            I’m having a hard time believing you are having a hard time. etc. what’s the point? you want lurid details.
            bull

            _____

          • Anonymous

            No, I’d prefer not to hear the details actually.  

          • Anonymous

            I tend to agree with you.  The more I read his comments the less credible he is.

  • ChuckGG

    One of the arguments I hear against SSM is that of the 32/33 states that have voted on SSM, all have rejected it.  I would like some clarity on that.

    First, I would argue how appropriate is it to have the rights of a minority left to the whims of the majority?  Women’s Right to Vote, the right to inter-racial marriage, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act, all were either court decisions or legislative actions because, when left to the majority public, they consistently vote down these rights.  It is the duty of the courts and the legislatures to drag the public into the next century, often while the public is kicking and screaming.

    Second, when did these 32/33 votes occur?  Clearly, NC was the most recent and given the question was on the ballot the same day of the GOP primary and that it was NC, the results were a foregone conclusion.

    But, the other states were some years ago.

    Attitudes have changed in a very short time.  There is a false comparison going around about how the polls do not match up with the votes.  But, the votes were years ago.  The polls are today.

    Since that time, we have had more celebrities and their families come out, NY State has legalized SSM along with a number of other States, DADT is dead, DOMA is almost dead, boycotts against Macy’s, Starbucks, and JCPenny have fallen flat on their faces, Prop-8 has been shot down in Federal Court, and polling indicates 70+% of those 30 and under are in favor of SSM.  More of the older, more conservative types have died off and more younger people now are eligible to vote.

    The trend here is obvious.

    I do not see the States that have SSM rolling-back their laws.  The Feds are on-board with the death of DADT and DOMA in its death throes.  I cannot imagine the instability of some states having SSM and some not will ever stand the test of time.  It will not be long before a Federal case finds its way to SCOTUS and this discrimination is determined to be unacceptable.

    If someone disagrees with me on where they see this going legally, I’d like to hear it.

  • Anonymous

    How much money came from out of state sources?  This is an issue that needs to be decided by Maine voters not special interest groups from out of state.

  • Anonymous

    How many children born in the 21st century will be raised by a mom and a dad when more than 50% of marriages end in divorce? Your argument for keeping marriage a contract between a man and a woman for the sake of future generations of children being able to be raised by a mom and a dad is inherently flawed by the overwhelming odds that the union will end before the kids are grown. Isn’t it as important to have loving adults in a child’s life regardless of their gender?

    • Anonymous

      No doubt it’s always important to have loving adults in a child’s life but not necessarily regardless of gender. The mixed gender of one man and one woman is and remains important to offspring on account of nature’s design. They enjoy natural advantages (physically, mentally, and emotionally) same-sex genders don’t have when raising children. State policy should be such as to promote those relationships between a man and a woman over other types of relationships. That’s where the traditional definition of civil marriage comes into play.

      • Joseph Willingham

        “State policy”…sounds like Big Government…

  • Anonymous

    So many legal rights are attached to the status of marriage. The right to collect Social Security benefits under a late spouse’s account. The right to medical benefits via a spouse’s employer plan. The right to file joint income taxes. The right to make medical decisions in the absence of a medical power of attorney. The right to inherit in the absence of a will. There are other rights that I can’t think of now. I can understand why people will continue to fight for the right to be married despite the gender of their spouses.

  • I’m thinking of a great Ted Rall editorial cartoon about “real” American heroes.  A guy is saying, “It’s nothing to me if gays get married.  I just don’t care.”  Off to the side, another man says, “Yes!  That’s all we’re asking!”

    • Anonymous

       Ted Rall is awesome!I get his comics in my email and just wish they were every day.He is a GENIUS!

  • midmainer

    It’s easy to say that the right to marry side has raised more, when actually they’ve just reported more. As we’ve seen in many campaigns it is very easy for a less than honest PAC to delay reporting cash or just plain not report, so they won’t in anyway expose the names of the donors or firms. based on how those against the right to marry performed in the last campaign, i have no doubt that they’ve hidden a substantial amount of money

  • Anonymous

    Google First Scandal.

    • Anonymous

      read it…pile of trash writing, makes no sense. the writer starts off with scripture and a poem and in the end interpets the poem as though it were scripture.

  • Anonymous

    It doesn’t matter the amount of money raised. Those that believe marriage is one man one women are going to vote that way. Those that want gay marriage because it should be will vote that way. I dont understand why money is being waisted on this unless it’s a for profit vote.

  • Anonymous

    quantity of donations does not equal quantity of votes. nothing to see here.

    • Joseph Willingham

      Perhaps, but when the NOM people brag about how much support they get and one of their groups appears to be getting little support, it’s news.

    • Anonymous

      I think it’s important to see that supporters of same sex marriage are willing to put their names out there as supporting this important need. 2,200+ individuals have donated. In contrast, a handful of organizations have donated funds to oppose our effort, and one of those, the National Organization for Marriage, violates Maine law by keeping their names secret.

  • I still don’t get the need for two people of the same sex to get married.  It seems like an attack on the institution of marriage.  There are many other legal means to have and share, so why hurt the people who cherish their religious beliefs?  This isn’t a question of rights nor is one of needs, it is about people wanting their own selfish ways and desires at any  cost and expense of others who will be hurt by their actions.

    • ReasonWillTriumph

      No other contract can bestow what marriage doe.

      And the selfish ones are those trying to keep gay citizens away from the civil contract of marriage.

      It changes other folks’ marriage not one bit.

    • Anonymous

      No there aren’t “many others legal means” to confer marriage rights. That’s not true.

      You’re the one who seems selfish and willing to attack those you disagree with. They’re your neighbors and you consider them less than, but they’re the ones who are selfish? Get real.

      • Joseph Willingham

        Sure, you can pay a lawyer thousands of dollars to cover everything you can think of, but not only is that an unfair financial burden, but there’s no way to ensure that EVERYTHING is covered.
        In any case, marriage is about love, honor, and commitment as well.

    • Anonymous

      Maybe this can help you understand, then.

      I have been building a life together with my partner for two decades. We are fully committed to spending our lives together, and we wish to protect the life we have built. There are also many same-sex couples in Maine raising children together, and civil marriage helps protect those children.

      There are over 1,100 benefits and privileges offered by our federal government contingent on marital status— without civil marriage, we do not have access to those benefits.

      Our Constitution demands that our government extend protections equally to Americans, and there is no valid reason our government should discriminate against same-sex couples in offering those protections— this is what is found consistently when the issue comes before courts across this country.

      I hope you can understand that my access to civil marriage does not diminish the institution of marriage. We are not seeking to tear anything down, we want to honor this institution by affirming our commitment to one another, till death do us part.

    • Joseph Willingham

      Dr. Cowboy-how does this hurt others?

    • Anonymous

      Maybe you need to read more.

  • BDN knows how to make money.  Keep posting SSM articles and the $/click will continue

  • Anonymous

    I am sick to death of these attacks on anyone who has the audacity to believe that marriage is and always should be between a man and a woman.  I’m also sick of same sex couples being unwilling to accept civil unions in lieu of marriage which is by its very definition a religious ceremony.  I neither fear nor hate gay folks.  It is breathtaking to see how quickly the Left abandons the separation of church and state when it suits their needs. 

    • Anonymous

      You’re off-base here; civil marriage is a license by our government, and has no religious ties whatsoever— there is no religious requirement for obtaining a civil marriage license.

      I for one am fine if we want to eliminate civil marriage altogether, and institute civil unions as the state-issued license for all. But if you are proposing we have civil unions for some, and civil marriage for others… well, that would be struck down by our Supreme Court, because separate systems are inherently unequal.

      I hope you will learn that the civil marriage I will eventually have with my partner does you no harm whatsoever.

    • Anonymous

       Church and state are still separate.Does the town clerk come to the church ceremony?Not unless s/he’s an invited guest.And don’t worry- both church and state get PAID for it.

You may also like