November 23, 2017
Editorials Latest News | Poll Questions | Charlie Rose | North Korea | Sexual Harassment

Comments for: How to legalize same-sex marriage

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

    BDN could do much for it’s credibility if it would run one, just one, honest story about the opposition to SSM and their ligitament points. As it is, it’s just a shill for the radical Left’s agenda and therefor has NO credibility whatsoever (except with the Kool Aid drinkers on the Left).

    But then, credibility has never interested the BDN! They have always been about advancing the agenda of the Left.

    • Anonymous

      What legitimate points?

    • Joseph Willingham

      This might be a good time for you to post some legitimate points against SSM, then.  

      Credibility sometimes seems to be directly associated with how much a commenter agrees with the paper….

      • Anonymous

         That is not my job, any more than it is yours to post why you agree. It’s the paper’s job to give both sides of an issue, not the reader’s.

        • Anonymous

          Not in an editorial.

          • Anonymous

             Yes, and I admitted that this particular piece was an editorial. I’m sure if I waited a day or two, there would have been a front page story touting all the great benefits of SSM and I could have posted my original posts there.

            Happy?

          • Anonymous

            Abby, We (you?) need to find someone to present the other side in an editorial or letter to the editor. Newspapers do not intentionally put opinion in a news piece, although I understand bias – not sure it can be an issue here. Keep reading and I believe you will eventually be accommodated by an opponent of SSM explaining their side to you. Try google for more information.

          • Anonymous

            Yes, as both sides make news, the BDN will report it.  And when Michael Heath of Carrol Connely or Lawrence Lockman or some other person sumbits an op-ed piece against the freedom to marry, the BDN will publish it, as they have done many times in the past.
            It’s just gotten so that the anti-freedom-to-marry people don’t have any real arguments that I can see.
            They say marriage is threatened by people who want to get married.  How is getting married a threat to marriage?
            They say my straight marriage will be threatened if my gay neighbors are allowed to get married.  How?
            They say the freedom of churches is threatened, even though the proposed law explicitly says that no religious institution or religious official will have to perform any ceremony they don’t want to perform (just as it is now).  So the proposed law specifically protects religious freedom.
            Their anti-freedom-to-marry arguments are tired and worn out.

    • Anonymous

       Since when is extending life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness the politics of the left?  The state provides licenses not moral evaluation.  Would you want your religious piety brought into the decision of issuing a drivers license?  When the issuance of a license discriminates against a group of people on the basis of their personal values and choices, a civil wrong has been committed.  This is not a political matter so much as it is one of justice.

      There has yet to be an argument advanced that demonstrates any merit whatsoever that there is a civil harm in allowing adults who love each other to marry.  Other states and countries have dealt with these issues and experienced none of the contrived nightmares the opposition suggests.  This does not pave the way for people to marry animals.  This is not opening the door to polygamy.  This is a measure that simply allows the state to issue a license to two adults to make a public commitment to one another and to share in and enjoy the fruits of their love without interference.  It is the most basic and noble plea, to be permitted to share your love, life and property with another, free from meddling.

      Our society is changing and acceptance of non-traditional relationships is growing.  It is natural and ethical and healthy.  We once shunned interracial marriage but banning that would be similarly unthinkable.  Our children and their children will judge our reluctance harshly.

      The GOP used to believe in the values of keeping government small and out of our private lives.  Only by pandering to a relic of a social set of doctrine has their position changed.   Once a republican myself, I no longer recognize the party or its espoused principles.

      • Joseph Willingham

        Small government except when it comes to women, minorities, and gays….

      • Anonymous

        Actually, it *could* open the door to polygamy…and perhaps it should.

        • Anonymous

          Ain’t gonna happen.

        • Anonymous

          American polygamy has already happened. In mormon-land, remember? Have you forgotten about Warren Jeffs already? 

          • Anonymous

            To be technical, Warren Jeffs has led a smallish breakaway “Fundamentalist Mormon” group — the main body of Mormons, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, gave up polygamy a long time ago when they wanted Utah to become a state. 
            Mitt Romney’s great-grandfather had four wives, I believe, but that was a long time ago.

        • ChuckGG

          Not directly, but just that a discussion of what secular marriage is might cause polygamy to be reviewed.  It is a different battle.  Right now, the laws are written for two people of different genders.  Soon, the laws will reflect two people, blind to the genders.

          As far as polygamy goes, there would need to be some rewrites of the laws for every issue under the sun, from child custody to filing multiple-jointly on taxes, to inheritance, and so forth.  It really is all very cut-and-dry, but it would have to be addressed as the laws really are setup for just two people right now.

          I personally have no issue with it as it doesn’t bother me one way or the other.  I suspect the hang-up from years ago was a conflict of religious views plus I’m sure the mainstream religions were worried about being overrun with Mormons, breeding like rabbits.  The Catholics probably were ticked off – “Damn!  Why didn’t WE think of that!?!?  It’s a natural for a production line of new victims, er, ah, laity.”

          • Anonymous

            Some good points.  It clearly is a different battle, and I think the ways polygamy has been practiced in this country will likely make it harder to legalize.  But you see my point…if marriage can be between any two adults, it is easy to wonder why it can’t be between any adults.

            This is not to muddy waters for SSM, by the way.  If you are for equal freedoms for all adults, you have a hard time being against SSM…without bringing one’s religion into it.  But I’m also against the 21 year old drinking age, too.

          • Anonymous

            When there are, say, two candidates on the ballot, a Republican and a Democrat, I don’t plan to vote for the Federalist Party. 
            In this election — and in this whole debate nation-wide — gays and lesbians are only asking for the same freedoms my wife and I already have, the right to marry the one adult I love.  That’s the issue.
            If you want to discuss a different issue, that’s your right.  But that’s your own personal soapbox, I’m guessing.  That’s not the issue before us.
            The issue we will be voting on in November is whether gays and lesbians should be treated the same under the law that I am currently treated.

          • Anonymous

            As I said in another response, I was not trying to muddy the water regarding SSM.  That is the important issue today.

          • Anonymous

            Okay, I hear you say, “I’m not trying to muddy the waters…”  You say that while you muddy the waters.  If you don’t want to muddy the waters, then don’t.  But don’t muddy the waters while saying you don’t want to.

          • Anonymous

            This was a side conversation with another poster.  If that can somehow “muddy the waters” of the merits of SSM, then SSM has bigger problems than me.

        • Anonymous

           Well, in this case gays and lesbians are only asking for the same treatment under the law that I already have. 
          I’m a straight married guy.   Under the law, I’m only allowed to marry one adult person.  That’s all gays and lesbians are asking for, the same freedom to marry the one adult person they love.  What they want isn’t anything odd or different, they only want the same freedom I already have.  That seems fair to me.

      • Anonymous

         “Would you want your religious piety…” Um, I’m not religious at all. You are making false assumptions.

      • Anonymous

        I agree — Let people live their lives!  It doesn’t hurt me, nor does it threaten my marriage, if my neighbors get the same legal freedoms that my wife and I have.
        Actually, I think we we should get the church out of the business of  signing legal marriage documents. 
        Why should a priest or pastor or rabbi act as an agent of the State of Maine in signing legal wedding paperwork?  Let all marriages be civil marriages, like they do in Europe.  Then the church may bless the marriage with a church ceremony if they so desire.  Let the church do the spiritual and religious part (if they wish), and let the state do the legal part.  Let the church be the church, and let the state be the state.  My pastor should not be asked to be an agent of the state by signing legal wedding documents.  Let him stick to spiritual things, and not do the legal paperwork.

    • Anonymous

       What legitimate points??  (Oh, sorry … somebody already pointed out the obvious…)

      • Anonymous

         That was snarky … but seriously, one thing I’ve noticed the past year or so is a marked decline in SSM-opponents even trying to put forth any kind of arguments that aren’t grounded in religious beliefs.  And while religious beliefs play an important role in the lives of individuals and the private worship practices of churches, they just are not relevant as justifications for discriminatory laws.  And yet, again, religious arguments are virtually all I see coming from the anti-SSM folks these days … NOM’s misrepresentations of the Regnerus study notwithstanding.

        • ChuckGG

          Well, that’s all they have.  I have asked on this forum many times for someone to present valid points against SSM that did not involve religion.  These points need to be backed-up by facts and if referencing studies, use a legitimate source.  That does not include unsubstantiated comments from an assistant professor of sociology from some college in Oklahoma.

          I keep asking for this and I get NO response.  

          “Morality” is out, as well.  Aside from that not being a legal point, morality is in the eye of the beholder.  I am sure there is more than one Islamic Imam complaining about how women in the USA are immoral harlots because they walk around with the arms bared and no burka.  To him, this behavior is immoral. 

          So, there is the challenge – provide some legitimate reason against SSM.  I’d like to hear it.

          • Anonymous

             ” I have asked on this forum many times for someone to present valid points against SSM that did not involve religion. ”

            Shouldn’t yo be asking that of the paper? Isn’t it their job to present both sides of an issue? Even one they disagree with?

          • Anonymous

            The Bangor Daily News occasionally runs editorials written by the opposition to same-sex marriage. Michael Heath penned such an editorial earlier this year. In it he claimed that unmarried women couldn’t have children (or maybe that by having children they were automatically married? It wasn’t very clear). He also claimed that access to same-sex marriage would cause men and women to abandon traditional opposite-sex marriage.

            It really takes chutzpah to claim it would be better for gay men and women to enter into unhappy marriages with opposite-sex partners, than allow our government to treat everyone equally. It also denies the reality that there are same-sex couples raising children all over this state, and civil marriage would better help them protect those children.

            Updated to add a link to the editorial, so you can see for yourself.

            http://bangordailynews.com/2012/03/21/opinion/contributors/referendum-would-institute-the-opposite-of-marriage/

          • ChuckGG

            A newspapers job is to report news events and not necessarily agree or disagree with a point or side.  Often that is violated these days.  However, I have seen a number of articles in BDN reporting on Heath and Madore, Bishop Malone, and others who are anti-SSM.

            What I am not seeing are valid arguments against SSM.  Religious doctrine is not a valid argument against SSM.

            The BDN has reported the arguments against SSM as presented by others.  But, none of them are valid.  All are based on religious doctrine or are sponsored by religious groups where other independent and reliable sources have debunked them.

            Therefore, I ask again for valid arguments against SSM.

            Have you none?

          • Anonymous

             And I say again, unlike you, it is not my job to argue one side or the other.

          • Anonymous

            It’s my “job” as a human being to love my neighbor as myself — to show compassion and to treat my neighbor fairly.  Because that’s my human/humane job, I believe we should all be treated fairly and equally under the law.  My gay neighbors should have the same freedom to marry that my wife and I have.  We shouldn’t have first-class citizenship for straight folks such as myself, and second-class citizenship for gays.
            I support the freedom to marry because I support marriage — marriage encourages fidelity, family stability, mutual support, loving relationship, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health — marriage is a beautiful thing, and if these benefits are good for straight couples, they are also good for gay or lesbian couples.
            It’s my job as a citizen, and as a human/humane person, to support fairness and equal treatment for all Mainers.

          • Anonymous

             We’re asking you. 
            Apparently the BDN can’t find any legitimate reason why I (a straight married guy) should have the freedom to marry the adult person I love, but my gay neighbor should be treated like a second-class citizen.

        • Anonymous

           Most of the responses I got where snarky, and worse. I haven’t made up my mind yet. I was leaning towards a yes vote, but I must say, all the mean-spirited responses do turn me off. I have nothing against SSM, but I still want to read why so many still do!

          Both sides of an issue should be covered on the front page, not delegated to only the comments section. That goes for ANY issue, not just this one.

          I am assuming that the supporters of SSM care about other issues too. But that might be a false assumption on my part. Some here seem to only care about this one issue.

          • Anonymous

            As far as I know, these are the common arguments against SSM.  The most common arguments against SSM is that homosexuality is a “sin”.  These do not hold any weight because they are opinions and have nothing to support their claim except biblical scripture, which because of the separation of church and state, is not enough to make it law.  Another argument is that traditionally, marriage rights provided by the government were to support couples having children.  As SSM cannot biologically procreate with each other, they do not qualify for these rights.  This view fails for two reasons.  The first is that having a child is not a requirement to receive theses rights, so to exclude SS couples, it would also be necessary to exclude heterosexual couples who do not, or cannot have children.  The second reason is that many SS couples do adopt children.  I posted an article earlier about both sides of the argument and there is one thing that all of the arguments against SSM do not address is that in Loving V. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a “fundamental right”.  The 14th amendment states ”
            No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” Denying the right of marriage to SS couples would violate the 14th amendment.

          • Anonymous

            As an opponent of SSM, I’d like to clarify just a few things.  I’d first like to commend you for presenting what you perceive as our opinions and giving rational responses, rather than sticking to the lies perpetuated by some SSM supporters. 

            First of all, you are right in saying that homosexuality is a sin in the Bible.  However, dismissing this as a legitimate argument because of the separation of church and state is misleading.  The separation of church and state is purely institutional, in that the establishments of church and state are not to exert any influence on each other’s activities.  The church cannot dictate laws, and the state cannot subjugate the church.  Because marriage is an institution of the church, it should not fall under control of the state.  However, marriage laws are made by the state, with regards to divorce and marriage licenses.  These technical and legal aspects of marriage are run by the state, but the legalization of gay marriage is another matter.  This strikes to the very definition of marriage, which has been between one man and one woman since it was created by God himself.  Regardless of whether you accept this view or not, government has no control over the philosophical issues regarding marriage which have always been defined by the church.  Therefore, if the church is forced to accept in its practice an ideology that it is morally opposed to, it is in fact the state who is violating the separation between church and state.
             
            On the issue of civil rights provided to all citizens via the 14th ammendment, denying same sex couple the right to marry is not a violation of those civil rights.  Marriage, as I said before, is an institution defined by both the church and the laws of the state as between a man and a woman.  The 14th ammendment requires “equal protection under the law”, meaning that any man can marry any woman he pleases, and vice versa, without any interference by the state.  Such equal protection is not afforded to same sex couples, because their relationship doesn’t fall under the definition of the law.  Also, same sex couples have no rights, as married couples also have no rights.  Individual men and women of any persuasion have individual rights, not corporately as gay or straight.  Marriage is only a “fundamental right” to those to whom the definition can be applied.

            As for the argument about children, I do no argue that marriage laws are intended to support children, and is therefore inconsistent with gay marriage.  I do, however, argue that it is healthier for a child to be raised in a home with a mother and a father, for many psychological and biological reasons.  This is a consequence of gay marriage which, while important, is an entirely separate argument than the question of the legalization of SSM.

            Because your post was in response to someone curious in the issue, I felt it was necessary to clarify the anti-SSM marriage from my own perspective, as one who opposes it.  I don’t know if you as an opponent will find this helpful, but I do hope that it will provide a rational response to the overwhelmingly pro-SSM sentiment on this comment page.

          • Anonymous

            I would like to address some of the points you raised in
            your response.  First – secular marriage
            and religious marriage are two different topics.  I agree that religious marriage should be
            left to churches, but anyone should be able to get a secular marriage license
            with their legally consenting partner of their choice.   In regards to your comment about a church being
            forced to accept same sex marriage, states that have legalized SSM have
            included specific language in the law so that a church could not be compelled
            to perform any ceremony that goes against their beliefs.   To say
            that the marriage only belongs to the church is not accurate.  If this were true, then why can atheist
            couples receive a marriage license? 
            Also, to say that marriage has always been between one man and one woman
            is not true.  Polygamy commonly occurs in
            the bible.  In addition, there is some
            history of same sex unions being performed in religious institutions.  See this link for details:  http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html  Also, your argument that “marriage has always
            been between a man and a woman” is an appeal to tradition.  In the past, marriage use to be only be
            between a white man and a white woman, 
            that did not make it right.

            I also find fault with you saying married couples have no
            rights.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States
            provided a list of rights given to married couples.  It also has a link to the original PDFs
            detailing those rights.  Married couples
            DO have specific rights as a married couple and these rights are denied to same
            sex couples.  Examples include specific
            tax breaks and spousal privilege.  As for
            your assertion that any man can marry any woman, that is discriminatory to same
            sex couples as they do not get to marry the legally consenting partner of their
            choice, as a heterosexual couple does.

            As far as children doing better with heterosexual parents than
            with LGBT parents, that is not true. 
            There have been numerous studies that show there is no difference
            between children raised by a stable heterosexual couple and children raised by
            a stable homosexual couple.  Recently,
            there was a study that seemed to contradict this, but there were numerous issues
            with the methodology of the study and some of the claims it made.

            I appreciate that you presented reasonable arguments that
            did not resort to comparing same sex couples to pedophiles and other offensive arguments.  However, I still feel that overall, your arguments
            relied too much on religious reasoning such as “This
            strikes to the very definition of marriage, which has been between one man and
            one woman since it was created by God himself”.  Not everyone in this country believes in God and
            not everyone can be forced to follow Christian teachings.  

          • Anonymous

            The enforcement of marriage laws belongs to the state for legal purposes, but the union of two consenting adults of the opposite sex before God is the definition the church has set forth.  Atheists can marry because it is not in the definition of marriage as afforded to the control of the state that only Christians can marry.  This doesn’t violate the fundamental isssue of marriage between a man and a woman.  The fact that marriage was only between a white man and white woman was a result of the societal conditions of the 18th and 19th centuries, and has no bearing on the Christian tradition of marriage.  The rights you mention that are given to married couples are privilages rather than rights.  Rights are the fundamental foundation of society that government cannot interfere with.  The “rights” in the Wikipedia page are not rights as I and the 14th amendment refer to them, but are rather privilages of married couples, which are given to individuals who exercise their right to marry under the laws of the United States.  Tax breaks and spousal privilages are rights which government grants, not which government is tasked with protecting.  On the issue of homosexuals adopting children, I don’t think any study can analyze the results of a generalized family with highly specific cases.  Each family and person is different, so I would regard the result of any such study, even if it supports my claim, as dubious.  There are, however, recognizable roles played by a mother and a father.  Biological differences between the genders give each parent a different personality and parenting style, which no two members of the same sex can duplicate.  Also, divorce rates of gay couples in states where it’s legal are much higher than heterosexual marriages.  The impact of a divorce on any child is devastating, whether in a heterosexual or homosexual marriage.  I understand that not everyone in the country believes in God, but whether you believe in God or not, the church still is the source of all marriage, and is quite justified in defining its standards according to its beliefs.  Thank you for giving me a rational response, which has given me hope that a civil and intellectual discussion is possible on both sides of this issue.

          • Anonymous

            “The enforcement of marriage
            laws belongs to the state for legal purposes, but the union of two consenting
            adults of the opposite sex before God is the definition the church has set
            forth.”

            I understand that according to
            your religious beliefs, that is what marriage is, but that is not what same sex
            couples are looking for.  Same sex
            couples are only seeking the state to legally recognize their relationship.

              “The fact that marriage
            was only between a white man and white woman was a result of the societal
            conditions of the 18th and 19th centuries”

            I could also say that the fact
            that people feel marriage is only between a man 
            and a woman is a result of societal conditions of the 20th
            century. 

            “There are, however,
            recognizable roles played by a mother and a father.  Biological
            differences between the genders give each parent a different personality and
            parenting style, which no two members of the same sex can duplicate. “

            Gender is not related to
            biology.  Sex is biological, gender is
            socially constructed.  A person’s sex has
            nothing to do with personality and their parenting style.  There are women who can act in a way that
            society would view as masculine and there are men who can act in a way that
            society would view as feminine.  Neither
            sex nor gender can strictly determine a person’s personality.

            “Also, divorce rates of gay
            couples in states where it’s legal are much higher than heterosexual marriages.”

            A study done in 2011 disagrees
            with you http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Marriage-Dissolution-FINAL.pdf

            The study found that approximately 1.1% of same sex couples
            end their legally recognized relationship annually vs. 2% of heterosexual
            couples.

            “I understand that
            not everyone in the country believes in God, but whether you believe in God or
            not, the church still is the source of all marriage, and is quite justified in
            defining its standards according to its beliefs. “

            The church is the source of
            religious marriage, not legal marriage.  People
            who believe in a certain religion can follow their religious definition, but
            they cannot impose their will on a group that does not agree with them.  Preventing same sex marriage imposes the will
            of one group on to another group.  While
            I may disagree with a church that views homosexuality as a sin, that is their
            right to have that belief and their church can define marriage
            accordingly.  The church has no right to
            define for the entire country what marriage should be.

          • Anonymous

            17yrold, here’s a reply from a 64yrold.  When I was your age I was very prejudiced against gays.  I was even frightened about them.  And with that prejudice as my guide, I found a small handful of passages in the Bible that seemed to support my anti-gay prejudice.  I thought the Bible said it was a sin.
            Now, I don’t have time to give you a full seminary education.  But no properly translated Bible contains the word “homosexual” or “homosexuality” because ancient biblical Hebrew and Greek had no equivalent word. 
            While the Bible condemns attempted same-sex rape at Sodom, that’s about the violence of the attempted rape, not about loving adult mutual same-sex relationships.
            The holiness code in Leviticus — which tells us to execute people who work on the Sabbath, and condemns abominations such as cutting your beard, getting a tattoo, wearing a shirt made of mixed fabrics, and eating pork or shellfish — also condemns same-sex behavior.  The Apostle Paul tells us that this whole holiness code has been replaced by the law of love (Romans 10:4 and 13:8-10; also Galatians 3:23-26 and 5:14).
            In Romans 1:26-27 Paul’s main focus is not sex.  When we read the whole passage, not just the few verses the fundamentalists take out of context, we see that Paul is saying that all people have fallen short of God’s glory, and that we are all on the same footing with God.  And yet he doesn’t actually use the word “sin” here to describe same-sex behavior — he doesn’t use the word “sin” until Romans 2:12, and then it is in a more general sense, referring to all people.
            In 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 paul used the Greek words “malakoi” (“soft”) and “arsenokoitai” (“male-bed”).  Some Bibles mistranslate these words as “homosexual,” but that’s a bad translation.  Paul uses “malakoi” in other places in the New Testament where he uses it to refer to people who lack moral character.  That’s all it means.  The term “arsenokoitai” is more difficult, and translators aren’t completely sure what it meant to Paul or to his first-century readers.  Most likely it refers to male prostitutes, or to adult men who exploited young boys.  But it is not a reference to adult, mutual, loving, same-sex relationships.
            Jesus himself — and this is important to me — Jesus said nothing condemning same-sex love.  But he did say, “judge not so that you will not be judged” (Matt. 7:1), and “He that is without sin should cast the first stone” (John 8:7).  In the four Gospels Jesus mentioned love 49 times and forgiveness 27 times, but never once criticized gays!
            The Bible is a very large book, 31,102 verses long.  Only 6 verses even seem to have anything to do with homosexuality — and as I’ve pointed out, they’ve been lifted out of context and have been mistranslated and misinterpreted.  This is one of the VERY SMALLEST issues in the Bible.
            Homosexuality is not mentioned in the Ten Commandments (no, adultery is a different issue); the many books of the Old Testament Prophets don’t mention it; it’s not in any of the “Wisdom” books such as Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon and Job; it’s not mentioned in the Four Gospels or the non-Pauline Epistles, the Acts of the Apostles or the Book of Revelation.  Jesus did not preach against gays or lesbians.
            The Bible in general, and Jesus in particular, shows compassion and concern for outsiders and all those who are perceived to be different.  We are told to welcome the stranger and seek justice for the outsider and the foreigner and the oppressed person.  Jesus did not spend his ministry criticizing gays and lesbians — but he did criticize those self-righteous people who went around judging and condemning others.  He asks us, “Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not see the log in your own eye?” (Luke 6:41).
            So, my job as a Christian is not to go around looking to find someone else’s “sin.”  My job is to be a follower of Jesus, as best as I can, and that involves not presuming to judge others.
            As for my prejudice against gays, I learned long ago that they are just imperfect people like me.  If I’m comfortable with who I am, I don’t need to worry about someone else’s sexual orientation.
            My wife and I have been married 33 years.  Our marriage is not threatened if someone else gets married.  If gays and lesbians want to get married — to encourage fidelity, family stability, and mutual love and support — that’s a good thing.  I support the freedom to marry because I support marriage.

          • Anonymous

            You’ve made many great points that I agree with, as a fellow Christian.  I agree wholeheartedly that it is not the job of a Christian to point out the sin of another.  As all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, it is not the business of one sinner to look for sin in another.  That being said, I am not casting aspersions on the character of any gay people, just on a specific action of theirs.  As the cliche goes, “Love the sinner, hate the sin.”  However, this brings me to your point about homosexuality not being classified as a sin in the Bible.  While the translation problems may be something that I need to research further, as I am always on the lookout for truth, the unequivocal statement in Leviticus that says a man must not lay with another man is quite clear.  Though it is true that Jesus came with a new covenant, he did not completely replace the morals set forth in the old testament.  He came offering salvation “Sola Fide”, or by faith alone, without requiring the adherence to any specific set of laws.  However, what is described as sinful in the old testament is not to be ignored, because it is still a sin.  Adultery is still a sin, murder is still a sin, but the only difference now is that even when these sins are commited, we can find salvation in Jesus Christ.  That is what Romans 10:4 and the other verses teach.  As Galatians 3:24 states, Christ came so that we may be “Justified by faith.”  The strict laws of living a Jewish life were replaced by the care of Jesus, though the sins of the old testament still remain.  I believe that the message of Jesus is a message of God’s eternal love, and, as you described it, compassion for outsiders.  While Jesus had compassion for sinners, such as Zacchaeus and the woman caught in adultery, he forgave their sins, but didn’t approve of what they were doing.  If I am to believe homosexuality is a sin, I agree that we must not seek out sin and condemn it, but neither should we facilitate it by allowing them to marry.  I see we have fundamental differences in opinion on the matter of whether it’s a sin, but I hope you understand that my belief doesn’t lead me to any negative opinions or prejudice.  I don’t think that anyone’s heterosexual marriage is threatened by gay marriage, just the time-honored Christian tradidtion of heterosexual marriage.  Though we differ on this matter, we agree on the message of Jesus and the crux of Christianity, which is forgiveness through faith in Jesus.  Thank you for your response, which has caused me not to change my opinion, but rather to refine it further with a new angle that I hadn’t been confronted with before.

          • Anonymous

            17yearold, I believe you are misunderstanding the issue about the 14th amendment and equal protection.
            Okay, so I’m a straight 64-year-old married guy.  I have the freedom to marry the adult person I love. 
            My lesbian neighbor (or relative, or fellow church member) doesn’t have the freedom to marry the adult person she loves.
            You say, “But she DOES have the freedom to marry someone she doesn’t love.  She has the freedom to marry someone she isn’t attracted to.  It’s like if I arrange a marriage for my child — he may not like the person I pick, but he still has the ‘freedom’ to marry the person I pick for him.”
            No, it’s not the same freedom.
            To say to straight people like myself, “you can marry the adult person you love” — and to say to lesbians and gays, “you can marry some adult person you don’t love and aren’t attracted to” is not equal protection.  It is unequal — and unfair (I refer you to the 1954 Supreme Court decision, Brown v. Board of Education).

          • Anonymous

            The 14th amendment ensured that no person could be discriminated against on the basis of race or sex.  However, unlike race or sex, sexual orientation is a choice.  I know that this is controversial to many people, but unlike sex or race, one can make a choice if they want to change from straight to gay, or vice versa (although one may go to great lengths today to change either sex or race, this isn’t relevant to the vast majority of citizens).  As there is no scientific evidence that sexual orientation is in any way owing to genetics, we must regard it as a choice based on societal conditions.  That being said, the right to marriage is not denied to anyone who falls under the definition of the law.  Marriage is not a condition necessary to validate love, but a commitment made before God to remain faithful for all their years.  Such promises can be made between a loving couple, gay or straight, without the formalization.

          • Anonymous

            “First of all, you are right in saying that homosexuality is a sin in the Bible.”

            Is it? Maybe not. Actually, the Bible refers to the sin being heterosexuals engaging in homosexual behaviors. See http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/12/homosexuality_in_leviticus.html and http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/12/what_does_the_bible_really_say_about_homosexuality_reading_texts_of_terror.html.

            “Because marriage is an institution of the church, it should not fall under control of the state.”

            False. Marriage does not depend upon any particular religion’s existence. It would exist anyway.

            “These technical and legal aspects of marriage are run by the state, but the legalization of gay marriage is another matter.”

            False. The state is free to regulate marriage, regardless of whether the marriage involves a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

            “This strikes to the very definition of marriage, which has been between one man and one woman since it was created by God himself.”

            False. Man created marriage, not God. Man wrote the Bible. This is a fact. Before we can even entertain the notion that God created marriage, you need to prove that God exists — the same God who says in the Old Testament that in some cases of rape the victim is required to marry her rapist! Why aren’t you pushing for that to be a law? It is what God wanted, is it not?

            Regardless, this debate is solely about marriage as established, regulated, and recognized by the state, not by any religion.

            “Therefore, if the church is forced to accept in its practice an ideology that it is morally opposed to, it is in fact the state who is violating the separation between church and state.”

            Let’s be clear about something: The legislation we will be voting on in November would not require any religion or church to perform or recognize a same sex marriage. Therefore, there would be no First Amendment violation.
            “On the issue of civil rights provided to all citizens via the 14th ammendment, denying same sex couple the right to marry is not a violation of those civil rights. Marriage, as I said before, is an institution defined by both the church and the laws of the state as between a man and a woman. The 14th ammendment requires “equal protection under the law”, meaning that any man can marry any woman he pleases, and vice versa, without any interference by the state.”

            False. I cannot marry any woman I want to marry. She can’t be my sister. She can’t be my mother. I can’t marry a 7-year-old. I can’t marry a woman who doesn’t want to marry me, and no woman can marry me if I don’t want to marry her.

            The Equal Protection Clause most definitely applies, because we have a class of citizens who, by virtue of biology, are prohibited from marrying a person whom they love and want to spend the rest of their life with.

            Using your argument, we could go back to prohibiting mixed-race marriages. Hey, White Woman, you aren’t being denied the right to marry — as long as you marry White Man!

            “Such equal protection is not afforded to same sex couples, because their relationship doesn’t fall under the definition of the law.”

            Explain “under the definition of the law.”

            “Also, same sex couples have no rights, as married couples also have no rights.”

            You might want to look at tax laws and probate laws.

            “Because your post was in response to someone curious in the issue, I felt it was necessary to clarify the anti-SSM marriage from my own perspective, as one who opposes it. I don’t know if you as an opponent will find this helpful, but I do hope that it will provide a rational response to the overwhelmingly pro-SSM sentiment on this comment page.”

            Actually, you sound like the sheep who follow Focus On The Family.

            Oh, and here’s what Jesus — you know, on whom Christianity is based — said about homosexuality: “.”

          • Anonymous

            I wish I could go through each of your points thoroughly as I did with the other responses, but sadly, I don’t have time.  I addressed your first point in my reply to penzance.  When you say that marriage would exist without religion, you take a lot for granted.  While men and woman would still procreate, we cannot say if they would choose to devote their lives to one another.  I could write a book on your claim that God doesn’t exist.  I’ll refrain for now, but I would appreciate it if you would cite verses if you want to quote your claim about something in the Bible.  I don’t think that any clergy would be forced to marry gay couples, but that wasn’t my argument.  I argued that marriage is an institution and practice of the church, and to allow the state to violate the beliefs of the church in their own practice is a clear violation of the separation of church and state.  Thank you for pointing out that you can’t marry family members or children.  When I said that you can marry whoever you want, I should have said that there are certain other restrictions on who you can marry.  This could be even used to argue that, if the 14th amendment applies to everyone, shouldn’t incestual and underage marriages be legal as well?  Aside from that, your point that using my logic we could go back to prohibiting mixed-race marriages doesn’t make sense.  I said that any man can marry any woman under the law, within the limits you mentioned yourself.  How does that justify outlawing mixed-race marriage?  About the “rights” of married couples, married couples as a unit only have privilages granted by the state.  Rights are individual, and the government doesn’t grant them, but secures them.  The right to free speech isn’t granted by the state, but rather protected.  Tax laws regarding marriage aren’t “rights”, but are rather privilages enjoyed by individuals who have made the choice to marry.  Also, I am not a “sheep” who follows Focus on the Family.  I have my own intellectual influences and make my own rational decisions based on evidence.  The real sheep are people who accept gay marriage on the basis of their “feelings.”  You can refer to my prior comments for further explanation, but I hope you will seriously consider my views, as I have considered and responded to yours.

          • Anonymous

             Abby — first, this is the editorial page, not the front page.  I had no problem finding articles in the news section of the Bangor Daily News that presented both sides of the issue.  The editorial page is quite a different matter; newspapers are quite free to take a particular stand on an issue … that’s why they are called editorial or opinion pages. 

            Regardless, the arguments against SSM are readily available in the media and on advocacy websites.  There is no problem at all in learning what they are.  They typically fall into two categories.  The first is religious … the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, God says marriage is between one man and one woman, marriage is all about procreation.  And while people have the right to adhere to those beliefs, both in their personal lives, and through the worship practices of the churches they attend, those beliefs are irrelevant to arguments regarding civil marriage laws.  (That’s not an opinion … it’s just a straightforward consequence of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.)  The second class of argument typically relies on negative and defamatory stereotypes of homosexuals and blatant misrepresentations of science.

            The bottom line is  this: if the media wants to present relevant information on the SSM issue, avoid slanderous and hateful stereotypes, and present accurate scientific information, there really is very little left to say regarding arguments against same-gender civil marriage.

          • Anonymous

            Abby, I appreciate your frustration.  These pages are full of snarky replies from both left and right.  The anonymity of the pages seems to give people permission on all sides to be rude to one another.  That’s too bad.
            I’m a straight guy, married 33 years.  When I was younger I was very prejudiced against gays, frightened of them even.  Over the years, as I actually got to know some gay people, I realized that there was nothing to be afraid of.  If I’m comfortable about who I am, there’s no reason to worry about someone else’s sexual orientation.
            So I’ve come to the conclusion that we should all be treated the same under the law.  I have the freedom to marry the adult person I love.  My gay neighbors should be treated the same way under the law.  It’s only fair.
            My marriage is not threatened if someone else gets married.  Marriage is not threatened by letting people get married, nor is marriage threatened by people who want to get married. 
            I’m for the freedom to marry because I’m for marriage — I think marriage is a good thing.  If more people want to get married, that’s a good thing! 
            Let people get married.  It doesn’t hurt me.
            I wish you the best in your attempt to decide how to vote — I recommend a vote for fairness and equal treatment under the law.

          • Anonymous

             I have also heard it said that ‘gays have the same rights to be miserable in marriage as everyone else’. Funny!

          • Anonymous

             :-)

    • Guest

    • Anonymous

      It’s because there aren’t any.

    • Anonymous

      Here’s your opportunity!

      What are the actual, legitimate points against offering civil marriage to same sex couples?

      Because every court that has examined this issue in recent years has found no legitimate reason for this discrimination by our government.

      • ChuckGG

        Four hours since your posting… what is that I hear?  Crickets?
        http://youtu.be/K8E_zMLCRNg

        ****Update: 17 hours… still waiting…

      • Anonymous

         It shouldn’t and isn’t MY job. It’s the paper’s job if they want to be considered a legitimate news publication, and not just a shill of one side or the other.

        You almost sound like you are afraid of reading the opposition’s side of this issue. Are you afraid? Do you htink it might sway some voters to read both sides?

        • Anonymous

          May I hear your side of this issue?

          • Anonymous

            You should have asked this first!

            My side, it’s up to consenting adults what they do, and what legal contracts they enter into.  Religion aside, a marriage is a legal agreement. the same rights should be granted to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.

            That said, I still want to know why so many are still opposed. 

            I did not reach that conclusion because of the hate-filled, snarky (good word) rantings of the supporters here, though. If anything, they kind of turned me off by dismissing my original post.

            That’s not to say I will vote NO just to spite them, but some, SOME are NOT doing their cause any justice with their hate-filled comments, no matter how emotional they are on the subject.

            With all due respect to the other posters (too many to answer individually), their regurgitating the opposition’s talking points does nothing for me. I’m old enough to know they put their particular bias in everything they post.

          • Anonymous

            Abby, I agree with you that marriage is a legal contract and that we should all be treated equally under the law.  I would add that marriage is a good thing — if promotes fidelity, family stability and commitment —  and if these things are good for straight couples they are also good for same-sex couples.  I’m FOR marriage, which is why I’m for the freedom to marry.  I just don’t think the other side has any real arguments for their side any more.  Marriage is not threatened by people who want to get married.  So I’ll vote to let people get married.

        • Anonymous

          Not really afraid, because I have spent far more time researching the validity of this than most. There have been several court cases in the past decade where the opposition to same-sex marriage has had the chance to present a valid argument, and in every instance they are found wanting… and same-sex marriage is legalized there as a result.

        • Anonymous

          What is the paper leaving out? Please give us the other side.

      • Anonymous

        Good grief!

        You quote the corrupt courts of the United States of America where lawyers and judges  make $250 an hour, while many good people go without food.

        America is morally bankrupt, and you quote this pack of thieves while ignoring ALL the great teachers of mankind, none of which even DARED think of the proposition of homosexual marriage.

        All religions in the past have objected to it, precisely because it is unethical. The reasons are too many to list here. 

        And as if it is DISCRIMINATION to deny homosexuals the right to marry people of their own sex!

        You are sick, America!

        Prosperous, wasteful, violent, swimming in luxury, infested with lawyers, and sick, sick, sick!

        The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that abortion is legal and that nude dancing is a form of free speech.

        And you are bold enough to quote these pathetic sheisters as experts on ethics!

        • Anonymous

          Your raving, irrational hatred toward people who wish you no harm is the truly sick and unethical behavior on display.

        • Anonymous

          Perhaps you would be more comfortable in the Middle East where Sharia Law is imposed on all residents, regardless of their religious beliefs.  That is, after all, what you’re suggested here, that US laws should be based on the dictates of religion.  I am personally glad of the separation of church and state in our country.

    • Anonymous

      Aye, there’s the rub: an honest storyabout the opposition ot SSM.  Actually, the opposition has been described in several articles, along with description of pro-SSM groups.

      Maybe you should right a one-sided commnetary on the oppostion to SSM and we’ll critique it, how honest, factual, etc.

    • Anonymous

      Well one will assume that those “ligitament points” will not be based on any religious arguments given your screen name.

    • Anonymous

      “I’m a supporter of gay rights. And not a closet supporter either. From the time I was a kid, I have never been able to understand attacks upon the gay community. There are so many qualities that make up a human being… by the time I get through with all the things that I really admire about people, what they do with their private parts is probably so low on the list that it is irrelevant.”  – Paul Newman

      • Anonymous

         One more reason why I liked the late great Paul Newman!

    • Anonymous

       the opponents have NO legitimate points. that’s the whole point.

      • Anonymous

         How do you know, they have never been covered?

        • Anonymous

          The Bangor Daily News does run editorials with the opposing viewpoint. Here are two I found with a minute of searching:
          http://bangordailynews.com/2012/03/21/opinion/contributors/referendum-would-institute-the-opposite-of-marriage/

          http://bangordailynews.com/2009/09/01/opinion/samesex-marriage-would-be-harmful-to-society/

          …but to be fair, you asked for honest opposition. In both of these editorials, disingenuous, flawed arguments are made. It’s hard to find honest opposition that would hold up under rational scrutiny.

          • Anonymous

             Okay, I read both of them again. I think they each had SOME valid points, and some NOT valid points, not unlike the editorial above.

            But my original position has not changed: I still want to see opposing sides on the front page, not only in editorials.

            I do not have the time to spend searching archives every day, there are WAY nor important things in my life, that is why I would prefer it on the front page, so I can read them and go.

          • Anonymous

            Okay, how about these news stories which talk about the opposition, then?

            http://bangordailynews.com/2012/04/09/news/bangor/anti-abortion-demonstrators-gay-marriage-opponents-bring-messages-to-university-of-maine/

            http://bangordailynews.com/2012/04/09/news/bangor/gay-marriage-opponents-speaking-out-at-umaine-during-pride-week/

            The Bangor Daily News does indeed show both sides of the issue, but it’s clear that the opposition to same-sex marriage is fighting a losing battle. Why? Because there is no defendable reason to deny civil marriage to same-sex couples. The opposition is born from a faulty belief— that homosexuals aren’t entitled to be treated as equally as heterosexual Americans, that treating us as second-class citizens is right.

            Edited to add: If you are truly interested in learning both sides of an issue, you shouldn’t rely on it being spoon-fed to you on the front page. That’s true for any issue, from any news source.

          • Anonymous

             So true, that last part! I’m glad to see the story about LePage’s view on Obamacare. I haven’t had time to read it though. I hope it’s not just another hit piece on LePage.

          • Anonymous

            Abby, you seem unhappy with TODAY’S newspaper.  But I’ve seen plenty of front-page stories this year and the last time same-sex marriage was on the ballot.  When one side or the other makes news, or raises a lot of money, or doesn’t, or a poll is taken, the BDN reports the news.
            And on the editorial pages, when someone opposed to the freedom to marry submits an op-ed piece or writes a letter to the editor, the BDN publishes it.
            As we get closer to the election the BDN is very responsible about reporting what each side is saying about their position.
            I just think that the old argument “Marriage is threatened by people who want to get married” doesn’t work anymore, and the anti-freedom-to-marry people can’t come up with any convincing new argument.

          • Anonymous

            One reason you don’t see the opposing side very often is because opponents of SSM are often attacked. It’s like saying that witches don’t exist in the middle of a witch trial.  Back in 2009, a reporter from the KJ was fired because he expressed opposition to SSM.  The company even fired his wife, even though she didn’t say anything about the issue publicly. 

            Also,  the pro SSM side promises that there would be no litigation regarding this issue, but that’s not true.  Two commercials came out in 2009 where two school guidance counselors expressed their opposing thoughts on this issue. The counselor in favor of maintaining traditional marriage was sued as SSM advocates tried to force him out of his position.

            Many people I know feel that traditional marriage should be the only form of marriage, but they are unwilling to say so publicly due to vicious insults they’ve received from gay advocates either in person or online.

            If you remember, back in 2009 every major newspaper in Maine endorsed SSM.  It was all over the forums that it was a shoe-win.  The DJs on Q97.9 talked about it incessantly.  Then, everyone was shocked it didn’t pass. After that, the newspaper comment sections were full of anger and hate.  Some even said the people in Maine didn’t vote correctly. Others said SSM should have gone through no matter what the vote said.

            Everyone has the same right to marry one person of the opposite sex who is not a direct blood relation. No one, gay or straight, is denied this right.  But there are groups who want to change these few restrictions.  The gays are just the most vocal and most accepted of these factions.

            Thousands of polygamists out west want to marry numerous partners and legally call it marriage. The star of Sister Wives is currently advocating polygamy in court.  Some people even want incestuous marriage legal as well.  They’re consenting adults, so why not, right?  If you look up info on objective sexuality, there are even people who want to marry inanimate objects like the girl who wants the right to marry the golden gate bridge. All of these groups use the exact same arguments that SSM advocates use. Gay advocates never explain how their views can’t or won’t be used by these other groups. 

            Currently, the proposed law allows a provision that churches who oppose SSM won’t have to conduct SSM ceremonies, but many feel that this will be the next line in the sand gay advocates will want to cross.  Years ago when Mainers voted on adding homosexuality to the list of things employers couldn’t discriminate on, gay advocates said they weren’t going to try to change marriage. Now they are. It’s one thing after another.

            Also, just because the current law allows churches the freedom to have SSM ceremonies or not, the members of those congregations who own bridal shops, florists or any company that caters to weddings is not protected.  There have been lawsuits against private businesses whose owners don’t agree with SSM. 

            The attitude of many SSM supporters is 1) don’t mention how polygamists (and others) can follow in our footsteps 2) If you’re against re-defining marriage, the only possible reason is you’re a hateful person. 3) Agree with us or you’ll be called every insult in the book. 4) They fail to mention that even if Maine approves of gay marriage, gay couples still can’t file married joint on their federal income tax

          • Anonymous

             “Many people I know feel that traditional marriage should be the only
            form of marriage, but they are unwilling to say so publicly due to
            vicious insults they’ve received from gay advocates either in person or
            online.”

            I can sure relate to that!

          • Anonymous

            “One reason you don’t see the opposing side very often is because opponents of SSM are often attacked”

            Is that really why opponents remain in the shadows? Because they are afraid of being attacked?

            Or can it be –

            They have no effective defense for their position. Sure, they have their faith but in the face of well reasoned arguments as to what equality means in a Democracy they realize that what faith tells them is in conflict with core values of the Country that they also love. The internal conflict between the two has effectively  silenced them as they are intelligent enough to see both sides of the argument. Undoubtedly a difficult place to be.

            Outspoken oponents on the other hand clearly show a disdain for the core values of the Country in which they live and blindly allow either their delusions, ignorance or fear to dictate to them the path to take. For these folks, it is not a faith based decision as many people of faith are willing to allow SSM stand on principle. No, for these people, no amount of reason can be supplied as they are entirely unreasonable in their stance and deserve to be shouted down just as any bigot deserves.

            -J

    • Anonymous

      Oh, Abby.

      Why must I be drinking magic Kool Aid if I believe in the legitimacy of same-sex marriage?  I’m so tired of the name-calling on all sides.  I happen to think that civility still exists in the world, but it’s difficult to prove it when reading some of these comments.   Why don’t you tell me, using reasoned arguments, why YOU oppose same-sex marriage?  As someone else has already said, your arguments can’t be centered around religious beliefs, given your chosen moniker.  I mean, that would be blasphemous, right?

      • Anonymous

        Sorry, I was a little put off when I posted that, and after re-reading it, it does sound exactly like what a lot of supporters sound like – bitter.

        Since you asked, I’ll tell you. I am not apposed to SSM. I am still on the fence as to how I will vote, though. I want to hear/read BOTH sides of the issue, not just one side. That goes for every issue, not just SSM. All too often, BDN only covers whatever side they are on, and it’s usually (but not always) the Liberal’s/Left’s side of an issue. That’s fine, and I expect it from BDN. But that means it isn’t a very legitimately unbiased news source.

        Wouldn’t it be refreshing if papers and other “news” sources could just give both sides, and let us decide where we fall on any given issue. Aren’t you tired of being told what to think? Don’t you find it insulting?

        As for my username, it has nothing to do with religion, believe it or not! All my other choices were already taken, this wasn’t. Besides, if you knew Abby, you would know she thinks of herself as a God ;-) I suspect I will be attacked for using it, but I have tough skin. (And I know the Almighty! Just ask her.)

        • Anonymous

          It’s an editorial…..which are not often written to be equivocal to both sides of an argument.  If this was a news story I still wouldn’t agree with you, but for heaven’s sake, you’re looking in the wrong place for a two-sided argument.  Try google.

          • Anonymous

             EVERYBODY, I get it! It’s an editorial! You can stop reminding me now!

            So Barbara, you are saying you don’t want both sides of an issue presented. That’s your choice, I guess.

        • Anonymous

          I understand your point, but this story is clearly marked as under the opinion section.  If this was being presented strictly as news, I would agree that it would be biased, even though I do support same sex marriage.  I found a good article that presents both sides of the debate at 
          http://www.balancedpolitics.org/same_sex_marriages.htm/  The article does not take sides, it just presents the common arguments for both sides. 

          • Anonymous

             I will check it out, thanks.

    • Anonymous

      They wanted to, they interviewed a bunch of the people in opposition to same sex marriage to see their views but unfortunately they kept coming away wondering how a group of people could hate other human beings so much that they didnt believe they deserved the same rights as any other human being.  They were left wondering how a story like that in a newspaper would make everyone feel that have worked so hard and fought so long to get the same rights as everyone else.  You mention legitimate points, but there arent any legitimate reasons to persecute anyone for wanting fair treatment.  I have no doubt that you will come back with some wonderful quote from the bible or something supporting your view, but you are in the minority now…guess your just gonna have to deal with it.

    • Anonymous

      They did have that interesting editorial a couple weeks back about “How to Beat Angus King.”  It didn’t read like it was suggestions for the Summers campaign.

    • Anonymous

      Oh hogwash !  They have editorials that agree with LePage and Republicans when they think they are right on various issues.  They have endorsed Republicans like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins time and again.  In 2010 they endorsed Elliot Cutler for governor, a moderate independent.  Sorry if every news outlet can’t be like that ultra right wing nonsense you probably listen to all day like FAKE-News and Rush Limpmind.  Just guess you’ll have to deal with something that actually is somewhat “fair and balanced.”  As to same sex marriage, why should you care what consenting adults do?  Isn’t the whole conservative philosophy about “individual freedom” and “keeping big government out of my private life”?  If so, then stop being a hypocrite.  Supporting same sex marriage rights is a CONSERVATIVE position.  What two consenting adults do has no effect on you at all.  Live and let live.  And relax.  You don’t have to live in delusional fear over it.  That is just silly.

    • Washington County

       BDN has pro Gay writers writing for them, I wouldn’t  have a problem with that if they were balanced in their editorial writings. They will have at least one story a week supporting Gay marriage between now and November. The comment section has the same people waiting to comment on all their articles, or attacking  people like you, by calling you a bigot . This will pass sooner or later because society is crumbling, but I do believe we are in the end times as the Bible predicts. Having said that we still must stand on our Biblical  principals against SSM.

      • @stcroixvid:disqus the end times are not coming per your bible, ever. One day the sun will engulf the earth and there will be nothing of us then but that isn’t going to take place for a very long time.

        I would also love to know why you don’t stand on all your biblical principles and if you
        state you do, you are lying. Why are you not out protesting overweight people? Gluttony is a sin in your bible but I highly doubt you condemn anyone you know for being overweight.

        Do you cut your hair? That is also a no no according to the bible. Just face the truth. You do not like gay people. You deep down have a hatred for them and you use your bible to hide behind that hate.

        Why is it that atheist are more tolerant than Christians? I thought the bible taught you to not judge but yet, you are doing it.

        And please don’t try and drop the line of “hate the sin, love the sinner” It is not in your bible.

        • Washington County

          Kevin
          You are accurate in some of what you said. I am not your Judge, nor will I ever be your judge. You will be the one who determines your faith not me. lets at least be honest we are all sinners and Christ will be our ultimate judge, and I am trusting him. If I am wrong I have nothing to lose, but if the Bible is right I have everything to gain. It really is all about Christ not me.

  • Joseph Willingham

    This is very important: “And they can educate themselves about the details of what a law approving of same-sex marriage means — such as that churches and synagogues would not be required to perform marriage ceremonies.”

    • ChuckGG

      It’s a shame we need to state the obvious but if that is what it takes, so be it.  You could toss in, too, that your first born son does not need to attend “homosexual reassignment camp,” either.  Perhaps, that actually is too obvious.

      • Was wondering if you survived the storms from last week. Glad to see you back online.

        • ChuckGG

          Thanks, I am still here.  We lost power, phone, and cable, for about 30 minutes at the height of the storm.  And, we had water-use restrictions for 24 hours (the filtration plants were offline and the reservoirs were getting low).  There still are lots of trees down and not much cleaned up.  It’s all about getting the power back on.  Right now, there still are tens of thousands without power after a week.   By Sunday, we will be on Day-11 of temps at 95 or higher with our famous humidity.  It is just oppressive.  Many have left town to go on vacation – anything to get out of here.  The power company brought in crews from as far away as Canada to try to fix this mess.  In my area, the lines are all underground so we usually luck-out with these storms.  In fact, I think the worst we ever had it was about 6 hours off, but we have friends with power off for a week.  It was really frustrating for one friend who had his power off for one week but the street lights on his street were working!

          Thanks for asking!  Hope you are staying cool in Maine!

          • Been a tad warm in Maine but nothing like it is in the DC/MD/VA area. My father lost power in PG county for 3 days and some of my other friends in MG didn’t have it for almost a week.

          • ChuckGG

            That’s where I am – Gaithersburg – just above Rockville in Montgomery County.  I’m near the airpark.

          •  So, can I say that this is the best exchange I’ve ever seen though BDN comments, ever!  Two ppl checking in to see if each survived the storm.  Kudos :)

      • Anonymous

        It’s your LAST-born son who’s supposed to turn out gay, isn’t it?

        • ChuckGG

          You are correct.  I checked my “International Gay Agenda” manual, latest revision, and, in fact, it is the last born son, assuming at least two other sons exists.  There is an automatic exemption if Dad jumps the fence of his own volition.  This was updated late in 2011 when studies showed the further down in the birth sequence order a son is, the more likely he is to be gay, anyway.  I guess the Council figured this would reduce “conversion” costs since the predisposition is already present.

          Good catch, by the way.  Thanks.

          • Anonymous

            Something mildly funny: I’m the first of three sons, and my brothers are very much straight. (Not bigoted, just straight.)

          • Anonymous

             :-)

    • Anonymous

      Right, no church or synagogue or religious institution is required now to perform any ceremonies they don’t want to perform — and that won’t change when same-sex couples get the same freedoms my wife and I have.  The proposed “freedom to marry” law protects everyone’s religious liberty.

  • Anonymous

    I think it will pass. It is the right and fair thing to do.

    •  As long as supporters get out and vote in November, and help spread the message

  • Anonymous

    I was never involved in these discussions prior to 2009. I’ve lived in Maine many years and never made it a secret that I was gay, and no one ever made me feel uncomfortable here. Not my neighbors, not my coworkers, and not even the people I interacted with in neighboring towns. I never saw any need to be vocal about my need for equal treatment, because I saw no one visibly wanting to treat me differently due to my sexual orientation or the gender of my soul mate.

    When the Catholic church of Maine and NOM organized to take away rights our state legislature had granted me in early 2009, I suddenly became aware of an entire subset of Mainers who saw me and my life as some threat to them. I decided I needed to become engaged in these discussions to put my point of view in front of them.

    Most of the time, I realize I’m not changing their minds. But along the way I have found so many others here who support my rights, even if they aren’t affected by my lack of them.

    So thank you— and thanks to everyone here who stands up for the gays and lesbians who are fighting for equal treatment under Maine law, who are willing to take time to counter these baseless accusations and hurtful attacks that these trolls put forth.

    • ChuckGG

      Well stated, thank you.  I found myself in a similar position.  Prior to 2009, I never ran into people actively trying to make laws against me.   The Jerry Falwells were just so much noise in the background.  But, then, in 2009, to have the Maine State Legislature enact, on its own accord, the Marriage Equality Act, and then to have it signed into law by the Governor – I was really proud of my home State of Maine.

      Then, NOM and the Catholic Church (no love lost there, I can tell you), started a campaign of lies and deceit to revoke my civil rights just because my civil rights did not agree with their religious doctrine!  I was appalled, and shocked, and now I am out for blood.  When the vote came in, remembering all the work that I did in the 1970’s through 1990’s for gay rights in the Nation’s Capitol, came pouring back.   (I had mostly retired from all that as gays in DC are very mainstream.)  This is one fight that I refuse to concede. 

      I will not be a second-class citizen just because of the views of some, based upon, of all things, the dogma of religion.  And, then, the lead group, the RCC, with all the skeletons in their closets, having the audacity to point fingers at us!  If any group deserved a banana creme pie in the face, they do.

      My thanks, too, to all who have sided with Marriage Equality.  Even though the vote was 47 to 53 in 2009, the gay population nowhere near approaches 47%.  That means an awful lot of straight people sided with us.  For their actions and caring, I am forever grateful.

      • Anonymous

        That’s what it boils down to isn’t it.  One person’s civil rights vs. another’s religious doctrine.  In a nation built on religious freedom (to practice, or not, as one wishes) we shouldn’t even have to have this discussion.  

        • Anonymous

          This should not be a religious issue in any way.  This nation and our constitution were built on the principle of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE as it absolutely should be in a democracy.  Religion has no business nor an role whatsoever in lawmaking nor governing.  Those who wish to practice a religion may do so all they want in their churches and homes.  Case closed.

        • ChuckGG

          Tinserblic sums it up quite nicely.  I might add this nation was built on the foundation of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”  The presumption in our laws is that you are entitled to do whatever you wish as long as it does no harm to anyone else, yourself, or the country.  The current marriage law restricts marriage to different-gendered people, and for no valid reason.  This is no harm.  In the Prop-8 case, the defense failed miserably in trying to present valid reasons against same-sex marriage.  There are none.

          I do not agree this is a battle between a one person’s civil rights and another person’s religious doctrine, because no harm to the other party can be perceived.  The religious person is in no way harmed by SSM.  The SSM person is in no way harmed by the religious opinion of that particular religious sect as that religious doctrine is not ensconced in our secular laws.

          And, you are quite right – we should not even have to have this discussion.  I have said that from Day One – the religious crowd does not have a dog in this fight.  If they do, would someone please point it out because I do not see it.

          I find no difference whatsoever between the religious groups trying to ban SSM and a Muslim cleric trying to impose the mandatory wearing of a burka on all women in the USA, regardless of their religion.  How is the imposition of Catholic, Fundamentalist, and Evangelical religious doctrine into our secular laws any different than the imposition of Sharia law into our secular laws?

          Again, I call people on the carpet – please explain the difference.  If the religious crowd intends to restrict my civil rights, they have to show where the harm is.

          I am waiting.

          • Anonymous

            I have always thought that this is the most potent argument to marriage equality.  If no one is harmed and more peoples’ rights are protected, where’s the downside?  Thanks, Chuck.

        • ReasonWillTriumph

          Your freedom to worship your way is untouched.

          • Anonymous

            Agreed.  However, much of the basis of argument against SSM is based on religious belief which, since it’s an attempt to impose that religious doctrine on another group, should be considered outrageous in the US.  Really, denying SSM is very similar to Middle Eastern nations forcing everyone to live under sharia law.

          • Anonymous

            Every American has the freedom to make decisions for their lives based on their religious belief. But since we have this thing called FREEDOM, Christians have no right to try to impose their belief system on other Americans. 

          • ReasonWillTriumph

            I wholeheartedly agree.

            Good news is that religious arguments for such discrimination doesn’t hold up in court.

        • Anonymous

          What it boils down to is that people from one religion want to strip rights and freedom away from a group of people all in the name of Jesus. People are free to live your life by your religion, but they have no right to control other people’s lives by trying to force your religion on them. People want to use religion to oppress others. Jesus would be so disappointed.

  • Anonymous

    We shouldn’t legalize gay marriage, and here is why. Marriage is a ritualistic, ceremonial event and belief. Everybody has different definitions of what marriage actually is, and with whom it should be celebrated and held. As such, marriage is defined by people. Therefore the government has no role in dictating who and who should not be married, they have no right to establish laws relating to marriage. It would be no different if the government mandated what type of tree one must have in order to celebrate Christmas.

    What the government should do however is establish the same legal protections and benefits for two or more individuals to share regardless of any other factors except their ability to otherwise be considered to have the legal ability to make consenting decisions.

    • Anonymous

      Dear Toy (and I agree with your movie review!) – 

      Your argument sounds reasonable, but a couple of things jumped out at me.  When you say that everyone has different definitions of marriage, you couldn’t be more right.  By not extending the benefit of marriage to same-sex couples, you’re treading on their beliefs.  Not everyone in a heterosexual marriage thinks of marriage as a religious institution; are you going to refuse a marriage license to two atheists who love each other just because a clerk marries them?

      The other comment that doesn’t meet the equivalency test is the idea about the Christmas tree.  Like Justice Antonin Scalia, you’re taking the least logical tack to attack the most important argument (in the opinions of the advocates of same-sex marriage).  Sometimes, the government must step in to right a wrong.  I don’t fear the government as much as you do, I guess.  I don’t trust our government to be right all the time, but I don’t necessarily trust the will of the people either, especially when it comes to civil rights.  If I thought that we were trending toward a society where couples with children never chose not to marry, I’d say no big deal.  Until every couple has the same rights, however, I do think it’s time to recognize that same-sex partners need the security of the marriage license to ensure their equal status in our society.

      • Anonymous

        I think you misinterpreted what I meant. Basically, I was saying that everyone has the right to be married to whomever they want, and to however many people they want regardless of sex/race/religion/etc. so long as the agreement is between consenting adults. My argument was that government needs to get out of the marriage business all together, instead of the government defining what marriage is and who it should be between they need to instead extend certain rights, such as power of attorney, to those who are, according to their definition, married.

        So that is what I meant, but it could also be that I am misunderstanding what you are saying.

        • Anonymous

          Thanks for clarifying.  I did misunderstand what you were saying about the government, and I apologize for that.  I still think that in issues of human/civil rights, it’s the responsibility of our three branches of government to ensure that people are treated equally, and I guess that means stepping in to ensure that same-sex couples have the right to the same marriage license as I had.  

        • Anonymous

          It’s not unreasonable to have misunderstood your earlier post since it’s nothing like what you say it means.

        • ChuckGG

          The problem is that ship has sailed.  If we had it to do all over again, and assuming the State wishes to become involved in this issue at all, secular marriages should have been called something else (unions?)  and the term “marriage” left to the churches.  That would have helped this issue a great deal because the religious crowd cannot grasp the concept of homonyms.

          But, the State is involved so we have to work with it.  And, from all the other legal issues you mentioned, the concept of one document implying a litany of legal rights makes a lot of sense.  Inheritance, child custody, divorce issues, tax issues, financial access, privacy matters, medical decisions, and on and on – all benefit from having one catch-all legal document.  Today, that document is called a “marriage license.”

          The churches have their definitions of what marriages are and that is up to them.  For the State, we have the marriage contract in the form of a marriage license.  I think it too late for the State to get out of the marriage business.  Too much is based upon that legal concept.

          Plus, “vital statistics” are collected by the State which is useful for a variety of purposes and maintains a record throughout the generations, as opposed to the older church method that was haphazard, at best.

      • Guest

         Well said!

    • Anonymous

      Wake up. The only legal marriages, in this and other 1st world countries, is that license granted by the state.  the church weeding is for the benefit of the families and tradition.

    • Anonymous

      Marriage is many things, none of which are necessarily present in any specific example of a marriage. If it is the religious ceremony that is meaningful to you, go have one. If it is the legal documentation and recognition of a relationship, go sign those papers. But it is flat out *dishonest* to claim either the government or religion has exclusive right to the name. Your church is free to refuse to marry anyone it wishes. You are free not to marry anyone you don’t want to. Neither of those will change when gay couples are allowed to get married; the notion that either even *might* change is, again, a deliberate lie whenever it is presented. Meanwhile, you have no right to impose through the government your belief that only opposite-sex couples should be *married* including the name. Every otherwise eligible couple, regardless of sex, should be able to get MARRIAGE licenses from the government, complete with the rights and obligations attached, regardless of their belief or lack thereof and no matter what any church (etc) says. Those churches which wish to do so may then perform the ceremonies.

  • Anonymous

     your so-called “God” is a big fairy tale. you and other goddists have NO right to try and shove that crap off on others especially as regards our laws.

    • Anonymous

      no, He is not a fairy tale. His power and glory is being seen in all creation. There is no explanation for the order, wonder and detail of creation without God. He hangs the planets and stars  on nothing . He sustains them and the order of our universe. You just don’t want a God who tells you what is right you want a god that fits what you want to be right.

      • http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/bestoftv/2012/07/04/nr-intv-michio-kaku-higgs-boson.cnn

        Science for the win!

        It was so elusive, that a physicist originally coined it the “Goddamn particle,” in a proposed title to his book on the subject. His publisher persuaded him to re-name it “The God Particle,” and the name has taken off in the public sphere (much to the chagrin of many physicists) Source: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/cultivare/2012/07/god-and-the-goddamn-particle/

        • Anonymous

          …which actually has nothing to do with whether God exists or not, much less the pros and cons (if any cons were to exist) of marriage equality. But it IS a great find nonetheless.

          • It might end up proving in the long run that there is no god.

          • Anonymous

            How is it possible to prove nonexistence?

          • I see what you did there.

          • Anonymous

            I haven’t done anything except express doubt at the claim that the Higgs Boson proves their is no God. I’m used to people saying you shouldn’t believe in God until it’s proven he exists, but if you really do have a way to prove he doesn’t (and someone very clearly made that claim, and it wasn’t me) then I’d very much like to hear it.

        • ChuckGG

          Kevin – I wish they had not done that.  Now, I will have to start explaining quantum mechanics again.   What’s next in naming conventions?  The “Atheist String Theory?”  I can hear the bemoaning and see the hand-wringing coming now.

      • So when was the last time you had a conversation with God? and did he tell you SSM was bad himself? or are you getting you info from a book that was written hundreds of years after Jesus died and it has been reinterpreted many times ?

      • Anonymous

        Isn’t it convienent that you and your god hate the same things!

      • Anonymous

        We really need better science education in this country. The stars and planets do not hang on nothing. They are perpetually falling.

        • Anonymous

          you tell me how the earth (which by the way amazingly is nearly perfectly round and the only habitable place in our solar system on which man just ‘happens’ to have been placed) how this massive …….lb earth stays in space rotating on its axis and in it’s orbit around the sun, never moves too close to the sun to burn up, never moves too far away that we freeze, is so consistent that we always have a day and night every 24 hours? It’s because God is Faithful and He will be faithful to the Truths of His Word.No matter how much people want to get away from bringing the Bible into homosexual marriage,It is the only final Authoritative Word on this subject and all will answer to it in the end. Better to answer to it now.

          • Anonymous

            This is really not the right place nor format for a physics textbook. However, they are readily available.

          • Anonymous

            The Bible is not the law of the land.

          • Please take less than 5 minutes of your time to watch this video. Then please explain to me why your god created such a horrible place to live.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEl9kVl6KPc&feature=related

    • Anonymous

      Just because it’s a “fairy tale” to you doesn’t make it one…nor does it make it one to those who believe.

      That said, your point is spot on…the articles of faith–of any religion–should not be the basis of our laws.

  • Anonymous

    I won’t bother responding to those that responded to my earlier post. You are all very content with one sided journalism, as long as it’s YOUR side being represented. Some of us would like to learn what BOTH sides of an issue have to say, but obviously the BDN is a publication of the Left. If you are that comfortable with your point of view, you shouldn’t fear the opposite side of an issue being presented. All I see is total resentment towards the opposing argument, so I question your confidence. There seems to be a lot of preaching to the choir here. Anyone that questions the paper’s or your point of view is immediately demonized. I thought you were better than that. Isn’t that what you always say?

    • Anonymous

      While you were busy judging others you left your closet open and your skeletons fell out.

    • Anonymous

      Aside from the obvious, that “the opposite side of this issue” is against granting same-sex couples civil marriage rights… what IS your point of view?

      You claim that there are other arguments not being presented, but you haven’t actually presented any point of view here to challenge our opinion on this issue.

      I have seen most people responding to you are asking “what points?” We are asking you to clarify yourself, to show us what you consider a valid opposing opinion on the issue. If you feel “demonized” for that, I think you came here to make one post, then cry persecution when you get any response, no matter how reasonable.

      • Anonymous

        Shhhh! We’re not supposed to notice that!

      • Anonymous

         I will reply to you because you asked MY point of view. Please read all the other responses to my posts, they are ‘call me out’ or want me to defend the opposition. Like if I don’t post that I agree completely with them, I must be the enemy or something equilly evil.

        I haven’t decided how I’m going to vote yet! All I was trying to point out was that the BDN is not giving both sides of this story. In my world, every issue has (at least) two sides. With this issue, there is the BDN, 99.9% of the posters, and countless organizations (inside and outside of Maine) trying to advance SSM. You would think a legitimate news source would try to find at least one spokesman for the opposition, so readers could learn about BOTH sides of the issue.

        It doesn’t matter what the issue is, some of us want the facts from BOTH sides. ANd yes, I understand that this particular piece IS AN EDITORIAL! But it seems EVERY piece about SSM becomes an editorial, because they don’t cover the opposing side.

        I get that 99.9% of the posters here want gay Marriage in Maine. What is missing in the BDN is the oppositions side. It shouldn’t be MY job to supply that side, it should be the paper’s job.

        Would you, any of you, like it if the paper only touted one side of an issue you disagreed with? Or worse yet, wanted to know both sides of?  Let’s say this issue. Would you like it if the BDN only railed against SSM? Wouldn’t you want to hear what the supporters thought?

        My post was NEVER for or against SSM. The issue was actually irrelevant. My comment was about the one-sided journalism (or coverage) too often seen in the BDN. That was all.

        It’s obvious that SSM is a hot button issue, and that it’s supporters get very emotional about it. But there must be reasons, no matter how stupid or irrational YOU ALL think they are, why so many are still opposed to it. I would like the ability to read what their positions are directly FROM THEM, not what all you THINK they are.

        Is that asking too much? After reading all the bitter responses here, it appears to be!

         

        • Anonymous

          I have sincerely wanted to hear legitimate opposing viewpoints to this issue. All I ever get, though, is irrational opposition.

          Some claim that same-sex marriage should be denied because marriage is for procreation. This argument has been brought up in court and been thoroughly debunked:
               – we don’t require a marriage produce children
               – we don’t forbid divorce of parents
               – we don’t restrict marriage from the elderly, sterile, or post-menopausal
          …and procreation isn’t mentioned anywhere in the civil marriage license, nor even the religious wedding vows couples recite. It’s about commitment, not procreation.

          And the procreation argument flies in the face of same-sex couples who are raising children together in Maine now. It denigrates all sorts of families that aren’t specifically the biological parents of children; step-parents, grandparents, adoptive parents… all are welcome additions to the makeup of families if they help give better, nurturing homes to children who would grow up in single parent households otherwise.

          Some claim that same-sex marriage should be denied because it is against their religious views. This argument is also thoroughly debunked.
               – we don’t require muslim mosques marry nonbelievers
               – we don’t require catholic churches to marry excommunicated catholics
               – we don’t require any churches to marry same sex couples in the states that already allow SSM.

          Some claim that same-sex marriage should be denied because it would lead to legalized pedophilia, bestiality, and polygamy. This argument is debunked, but more importantly it seeks to confuse the issue.
               – same sex couples are not victimizing each other, whereas pedophiles victimize children
               – children and pets cannot be expected to give consent to something like marriage
               – polygamy is not a sexual orientation, and isn’t protected by our Constitution
          …but most importantly, if someone cannot argue against gay marriage without bringing up pedophilia, bestiality, or polygamy, then they haven’t made an argument against same-sex marriage.

          Some claim that same-sex marriage should be denied because same-sex couples already have equal rights, and civil marriage just seeks to shove our existence in society’s face. This argument isn’t factual at all. There are over 1,100 benefits and privileges extended by our government on the basis of marital status, at the federal level alone. With the Defense of Marriage Act clearly unconstitutional, legal experts agree it will be struck down by our Supreme Court within a year. It is vitally important for same-sex Maine couples to be able to enter into civil marriage to better protect the life they build together. Civil marriage rights include social security survivor benefits, access to military housing for spouses of active soldiers, income calculations for eligibility on government grants, aid payments, disability pensions, etc. There are 12 categories of benefits, you can read them for yourself here: http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

          I hope this helps you see that while there are other opinions on this issue, the correct course of action is to extend civil marriage rights to same sex couples in Maine.

          Maine led the nation on other issues of equality in the past — we allowed interracial marriage in the late 1800, well before Loving v Virginia made it legal nationwide (1969). We allowed women the right to vote ahead of our nation’s constitutional amendment granting women’s suffrage. Even during times of slavery, Maine was the terminus for the underground railroad, a refuge for slaves seeking freedom in Canada.

          I hope that Mainers will join me in voting for equality this November, for ALL Maine families deserve the important protections civil marriage conveys, to protect the lives they build together, and the children they raise together.

          And I hope my words have helped you understand this issue better.

          • Anonymous

             Unfortunately, while I appreciate the time and effort you put into this post, after reading some of your other posts to other people I also know you can be very mean-spirited and nasty when you want to be.

            I understand this issue. Both sides have been beating this horse for some time now! What everyone else seems to misunderstand is that this issue was only the example I used to illustrate the bias I so often see in the BDN. I’m sure others see it too.

            I see as a Left-leaning bias. Others might see it as a Right-leaning bias. I guess it depends on what side of the particular issue you come down on.

            I do know I wish I had a dollar for every poster that was quick to point out the obvious, that this was an editorial piece, not a news piece! (Like I didn’t know that!)

          • Anonymous

            I am mean-spirited and nasty only when someone is outrageously hateful in their tone. If you are going to judge my point of view by how I respond to verbal assaults that “SonofBangor” and their ilk engage in, you must equally judge their point of view by their tone.

            Forgive me for thinking that your comment on an opinion piece regarding same sex marriage was intended to discuss the issue of same sex marriage. 

            If you want to argue about the bias of the Bangor Daily News, I have no dog in that fight.

          • Anonymous

             And to spite what a lot of responders think here, I don’t have a dog in this fight.

            I think I’ll try to gain perspective elsewhere, then vote in November. Thanks.

          • Anonymous

            Why would anyone read a book in the comment section

        • Anonymous

          Abby you have to understand that on the Opinion page of any newspaper people get to give their opinion on a topic. The BDN has published opinion pieces that are pro and con same sex marriage. Maybe you missed those opinion pieces but they were published and they are the personal opinion of the person writing them.

          This particular piece was published as an “editorial” which means it is the official position of the BDN. The editors that put this piece together are under no obligation to include anything in opposition to the official position of the BDN.

          If you are interested in opposing opinion there are any number of groups that are opposing this question in Maine. All one needs to do is Google the question and you will find pro and con groups, etc…

          But here is a simple question that I ask many people when it comes to SSM….ready? How would allowing same sex couples to marry impact, affect, etc…you personally or your marriage (assuming that you are married)?

          • Anonymous

             Simple answer: It wouldn’t!

      • Anonymous

        Please educate us all about what you believe, all the while Obamas distroying the country, and you will allow the distruction of america as long as you get to wed.. 

        You see,  you refuse to see or be educated on the point that Obama is distroying the country….
        Yet you want to educate me…
        all your arguements depend on people agreeing with your point of view.
        You are uneducated about Obama and his lies concerning your issues…
        You are UNEDUCATED..

        • Anonymous

          “all your arguements depend on people agreeing with your point of view”
          Huh? My arguments are based on what is accepted fact in regards to our Constitution and the 14th Amendment.
          Your incoherent ranting about Obama is out of place. I have never praised him as a politician, nor demonized him as responsible for any “distruction of america”.
          You can predict doom and gloom if we are treated equally under the law, but you will end up looking just as silly and embarrasing as folks in the 60’s who protested racial integration.

          • Anonymous

            The problem is you will never stop.. If you get you way to marry, you will push the schools to increase their indoctrination about gays… it will never end…
            You see you can’t and never will be a happy person.. your angry that gays exist. that is why you continue to justify it to people that have different opinions about it… Like I said before I most likely will vote for the passage of the marrage act. I hope you don’t make me regret it.   There is a time to sit back and enjoy your life and be happy with it.

          • Anonymous

            Well, thank you for your support then! I disagree with your attitude toward me, but we do not have to see eye to eye on anything in this life to both enjoy the same rights and opportunities from our government and civil marriage.

    • Washington County

      Their the same people posting all the time. They want you to think they have large numbers of people supporting Gay marriage. I posted something yesterday that really made the gay crowd mad and they removed my post. The Gay crowd can say anything they want against Jesus Christ and that’s fine. They get mad at you for calling it Sin. Legalizing sin isn’t going to make it right. We  see  it as SIN and they see it as Civil Rights. They say you are judging them, but really their judging you for not agreeing with them..

      • Anonymous

        The difference is, we are not seeking to restrict you from getting equal treatment by our government.

        You are mistaking disagreement with oppression.

        • Washington County

          Like I said before you call any disagreement to your view as oppression. About 50% of State of Maine disagree with you. November will tell.

          • Anonymous

            Actually no. I don’t call any disagreement with my view oppression.

            I call my lack of access to civil marriage discrimination, though.

            You can have whatever opinion you want of me, it doesn’t affect my life. But our shared government is supposed to treat us equally in protections and laws.

          • Anonymous

            If it doesn’t happen in November it will happen. It is just a matter of time.

      • Anonymous

        Strange (not funny).  Amazing how many heteros (especially real critical thinkers) are supporting SSM.  Even in the last election, falsely skewed by anti-SSMs, we totaled 47%.  Your days are numbered (Mene, Mene, Tekel, …)

      • Anonymous

        You see it as “SIN and they see it as Civil Rights.”

        If I am not mistaken the STATE issues Marriage Licenses which makes it a CIVIL license, not a religious. By the way, homosexuality is already legal in all 50 states…this law does not “legalize” homosexuality.

      • They gay crowd? That is amusing. A lot of straight people support equal rights for all. Us atheist are more tolerant than any of you so called Christians which I find amusing as well.

        Your so called Jesus never once spoke about homosexuality in your bible which I doubt you have ever read from start to finish.

        According to the bible gluttony is a sin as well and there are a lot of overweight Pastors and Christians in this world but you are not getting upset about them, are you? So why is that?

        Every sin is equal in the bible so why do you cheery pick which one is ok? Just admit the truth, you think gay people are icky and that is why you don’t like them. All you are doing is hiding behind your bible to promote hate and bigotry.

      • Anonymous

        Most of “the Gay crowd” says nothing against Jesus Christ. Many of us are believers ourselves. We just disagree with *you* on certain points. Why are you and those like you so fond of pretending otherwise?

        (And since when did “gay” get promoted to proper noun?)

      • Anonymous

        I agree with what you have said. BDN regularly removes posts that go against it’s political point of view!

        All I want are BOTH sides int eh paper, not just one side and the opposition has to try to defend itself in the comment section. It doesn’t matter what the issue is.

        • Anonymous

           Abby this is an EDITORIAL….the BDN has no obligation to present opposing sides in a EDITORIAL. However you can and you have been asked more than once.

          • Anonymous

             I want a dollar for every good intentioned poster that pointed out to me that this is an editorial!

            Since not one was good intentioned (and it’s stating the obvious), I don’t expect to get much.

      • pbmann

        Most sins are not illegal.

        • Washington County

           Your right. Sin is anything God wouldn’t  do.  Adultery is sin, and I wouldn’t vote to legalize it.

          • pbmann

            Would you vote to stop Greed or Gluttony.  Sins that the Right seems to enjoy.

      • Anonymous

         Yes, I have noticed it seems to be the same posters over and over again. My life is crazy busy and I don’t have the time to sit and post all day, every day. I wonder how they do it.

        • Washington County

           maybe they know the writers, or just scan the headlines for anything to do with SSM. I believe there is a couple people who post from the mid Atlantic region

    • Anonymous

      Actually what you said was about “ligitament points” opposing SSM. You have been asked what those “ligitament points” are more than once and you haven’t responded with them.

      So, what are those “ligitament points” in opposition to SSM?

    • Anonymous

      It’s an editorial.  As before, if you want to presnt the other side, write it, get it published, and we’ll critique it.  However, unless you do a better job than you and your fellow travelers have done here, expect the same response.

    • Anonymous

      “I won’t bother responding” translates to “I don’t HAVE any legitimate points the paper could publish if it wanted to, so I’ll just go on complaining that it won’t give a side that isn’t there.”

      • Anonymous

         That is not my job, it’s the paper’s job.

        • pbmann

          No,  you can post legitimate reasons to not allow SSM. 

          No one is stopping you from doing so, in fact, you have been asked several times to provide some legitimate reasons and you keep saying “no”.

          • Anonymous

             Because it is not my job! You saying it’s my job doesn’t make it so!

            You have taken it upon yourself to post reasons FOR SSM, but no one said it was your job. That’s something you put on yourself!

          • Anonymous

            People that normally believe in a cause will defend that cause no matter what. That is why you see people defending the rights of the homosexual community to marry.

        • Anonymous

          It is not the “paper’s job” job to publish opposing view points in an EDITORIAL on the OPINION page. An EDITORIAL is the papers official position on a topic as decided by the Editors.

          The comment section allows you and others to post opposing points of view. In an earlier post you suggested that there are “ligitament points” in opposition to SSM. You have been asked multiple times to list those “ligitament points” but you haven’t done so. Why?

        • Anonymous

          It’s what comment area are for. And as others have said, *editorial columns,* such as this one, are not supposed to be objective. They specifically are meant for giving opinion. When news articles start telling only one side, then you’ll have a legitimate complaint…. provided, of course, the existence of a credible other side :)

        • Anonymous

          It’s what comment area are for. And as others have said, *editorial columns,* such as this one, are not supposed to be objective. They specifically are meant for giving opinion. When news articles start telling only one side, then you’ll have a legitimate complaint…. provided, of course, the existence of a credible other side :)

        • Anonymous

          Am truly sorry that you have not read the opposing side of SSM in the BDN, whether it was in 2009, 1 year ago or in the past few months/weeks …… the points they bring forth are the same each and every time …. they can be found in articles, letters to the editor and from contributors.  I’ve been reading the BDN for many years and have not read any opposition pieces that have made legitimate, secular/ legal reasons to deny equal access to civil marriage.  The vast majority include condemnations based on religious beliefs/doctrine and the presumption that marriage is a wholly religious rite.

  • Anonymous

    Bob, Carroll, Ted, and Alice are not married and cannot be married even if the law in this mad, botched civilization says so.

    Sodomy and sterility is no basis for marriage.

    “Gay” marriage is the opposite of marriage. 

    Three men + four drugs + a shotgun = gay marriage. 

    • Anonymous

      First, “Bob, Carroll, Ted, and Alice” was a movie and Bob was married to Carol and Ted was married to Alice. So, they were married to each other and the movie was about “free” love of the 1960s

      “Sodomy” is a sexual act practiced by heterosexual couples too.

      “Sterility” has nothing to do with the conversation.

      “”Gay” marriage is the opposite of marriage”? Really? How so?

      “Three men + four drugs + a shotgun = gay marriage.” Not even close. But I hear shotgun weddings were really popular in certain parts of our country once.

      • Anonymous

        Ha,ha.. good one!

        “Sterility and propagation have nothing to do with a discussion about marriage.”

        And look, one does not have to be Einstein to realize that marriage and reproduction imply a difference between the sexes, and with “Gay-same sex somodistic-Neronian-UFO-Pogo the Clown Marrages” there is no difference between the sexes.

        By the way, the moon IS made out of green cheese, isn’t it?

        • Anonymous

          There is no requirement to be fertile in order to be married

          • Anonymous

            So after my husband got cancer and his cancer surgery made him infertile, our marriage should have been annulled because we could no longer procreate together?

          • Anonymous

            Based on SonofBangor’s post I think he/she would want you to immediately seek an annulment of your marriage since it seems to be no longer valid in his eyes.

          • Anonymous

            Unfortunately after a 10 1/2 nonstop fight, he died five years ago. Since I am past childbearing years I will not be able to marry again because marriage is just for procreation. (snicker, snicker)

          • Anonymous

            I am sorry for your lose and SonofBangor has no right, Biblical or otherwise to attempt to limit your happiness in life.

        • Anonymous

          By the way “Son” if you are going to use quotations you really should use them to quote information accurately….I never said “Sterility and propagation have nothing to do with a discussion about marriage.”

          What I said was “”Sterility” has nothing to do with the conversation”.

          • Anonymous

            Ha, ha.. as if sterility has nothing to do with propagation which in turn has nothing to do with marriage!

            The Bible is right. You are wise in your own eyes. 

          • Anonymous

            Son is everything a joke with you….making fun of peoples medical conditions and their inability to have children?

            Do you have a secret decoder ring? See when I got married back in the 1980s my state issued marriage license said nothing about procreation, children, fertility or sterility. Even when my wife and I exchanged vows in a church I don’t recall saying anything about conceiving children or being asked if we were fertile or not.

            So when did the state or the church begin asking the fertility status of marriage applicants?

          • Anonymous

            No, not everything is a joke with me. Far from it!

            But tortuous logic masquerading as sound advice and good council often provokes me to mirth….as it should.

            So finally you admit that sterility and propagation do have something to do with marriage.

            Good. We are a step closer to an honest discussion. 

            Do you deny that the primary function of marriage is for propagation, and the proper upbringing of children?

            To preserve the institution of marriage, it is not necessary for every marriage to produce children. 

            But to call an institution which can never produce children “marriage” negates the definition of marriage.

            “Gay marriage” produces no children, and miseducates the ones who are produced (Thane Ormsby for example, who knifed three people to death.)

            19 out of 20 marriages will produce children, but an infinite number of homosexual “marriages” will never produce a single child.

            Why then should we call an institution which produces no children, miseducates the children under their care, and moreover is based on intrinsically harmful and evil practices, marriage?

          • Anonymous

            Son not exactly sure where I admitted “that sterility and propagation do have something to do with marriage.” In fact, I said just the opposite. There are no questions asked of anyone in the marriage process…from the application for marriage all the way through the marriage ceremony (either religious or civil) about intent to procreate.

            “Do you deny that the primary function of marriage is for propagation, and the proper upbringing of children?”

            I happen to know several single parents that raise children just fine all by their lonesome. They have no partner and the children are just fine. No, the primary function of marriage is NOT procreation.
            ~~~~~
            “But to call an institution which can never produce children “marriage” negates the definition of marriage.”

            So all the marriages that do not produce children, either through choice or for medical reasons what of them? Are they no longer married in your eyes? Do you actually read what you write before you press the “post” key?
            ~~~~~
            And what does Thane Ormsby have to do with SSM?

            Would you like to bring in Charlie Manson into the discussion?
            ~~~~
            Can you provide a source/documentation that 19 out of 20 marriages produce children.
            ~~~~~
            Marriage is a civil license not a religious one. If you want to be married in a church fine. Others do not and they are just as married as you are. Your preoccupation with what people do behind closed bedroom doors is becoming scary, especially when heterosexual couples practice many of the same sexual acts that you call “perverse” and “evil”.

      • Anonymous

        Duplicate

    • Anonymous

      Your irrational hatred is confused, and really does more to help our cause than anything.

      The opposite of marriage is separation. In states that allow gay marriage, the civil marriage license conveys the same benefits and privileges for all couples, same-sex or not.

    • Guest

       Sorry, hate to inform you, but you cannot define the basis of my marriage.  I don’t do drugs, or own a shotgun, and last I checked, I am not ‘steril’ because of my sexual orientation.  As I told you before…A marriage between my partner and I, would be about love, commitment, and family, despite how hard you try to say otherwise.  Should I label every straight marriage from reports of spousal abuse?  I don’t think so, and neither should you, towards gay people.  Do you have a fantasy of 3 men and a shotgun? You sure are fixated on it. 

    • Anonymous

       You had better start investigating opposite-sex married couples who may engage in sodomy and/or are sterile/post-menopausal/choose not to have  children …… according to your terms they do not have a basis for marriage.

  • Anonymous

    Why didn’t you mention Bruce LaVallee-Davidson?

    He claimed to be married, too. 

    • Anonymous

      And I know some heterosexual couples that aren’t “married” but consider themselves to be married too.

      • Anonymous

        You are wicked, Bangor! (Jude 1:7)

        You are so “enlightened” and “kind” and “compassionate.”

        Why don’t you tell me what happened to your most trusted and respected citizen,  your spiritual adviser, Bob Carlson? 

        • Guest

          You’re starting to appear like you have a screw loose or something.  Why would you suggest that Bob Carlson was a “trusted and respected citizen, your spiritual adviser” to anyone other than his congregation?  The guy is dead, but you have to use him to irrationally insult others on a completely unrelated story?

          • Anonymous

            No, that is incorrect.

            He was a trusted and respected figure and a spiritual adviser to many in Bangor.

            He was also a powerful advocate for abortion and same sex marriage.

            Then he jumped off a bridge.

            He was telling the people of Bangor  the kind of religion they wanted to hear, and he was living a lie.  (“Abortion is ok and gay marriage is ok.”)

            He was a massive fraud, just as “gay same sex homosexual Neronian UFO Pogo the Clown marriages” are a massive fraud.

            Incidentally, Bob Carlson’s soul is in Hell unless he repented and turned to God before he hit the water. 

          • Anonymous

            That is right, I said “Hell” “The fiery pit” “a place of wailing and gnashing of teeth, where the worm never dies.”

          • Anonymous

            Do you often talk to yourself?

        • Anonymous

          Seems that you are misinformed about my relationship with Bob Carlson cp444 (by the way why did you change your screen name again?). My relationship with Bob Carlson was on a professional level. I never attended his church and he was never my “spiritual advisor”. And what he did has nothing to do with SSM

    • Anonymous

      Why don’t you mention all of those hypocrites who have opposed equality for gays and lesbians, only to be found engaging in gay and lesbian affairs? George Rikkers, Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, etc, etc…?

  • Anonymous

    You are wicked, America!

    Drugs, wife-beating, divorce, corruption, the world’s largest prison population…now gay marriage.

    • Anonymous

      Gee I am surprised you didn’t throw in murder, child abuse, rape, etc…too.

    • Anonymous

      The fact that you present violent actions and corruption and then compare it to loving couples seeking to protect the life they are blessed to share… you need serious help to get over your irrational hatreds.

  • Anonymous

    What a wicked, perverse nation!

    What wealth,  and what decadence!

    • Anonymous

      What you oppose is what makes America great— the opportunity we give to all Americans to have equal treatment under our laws, and when there are legitimate grievances on government discrimination, those are brought before our courts and rectified.

      • Anonymous

        Sorry pal but being gay is a choice.  Show us concrete biological scientific proof that it is not then people will agree with you.

        • Anonymous

          Experts who have studied the issue agree that sexual orientation is not a choice. This is not to say we have found a specific genetic or biological cause, but rather that the sexual attraction we have to the opposite sex or the same sex is not a conscious choice we make.

          But this has nothing to do with what I said. After all, your religion is absolutely a choice, and that is something we protect by the same Constitution that demands we extend civil marriage to same sex couples.

        • pbmann

          There is someserious proof that being gay is not a choice but is genetic.  You, and people like you, just choose not to accept it.

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/jun/16/highereducation.uk3

          http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay

          http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask155

          • Anonymous

            as there is the opposite.

          • pbmann

            I gave you 3, of many, different sites detailing the scientific evidence for a genetic componant of homosexuality. 

            Why don’t you show me one site that shows the scientific evidence that homosexuality is only a choice.  A scientific site not a religious or political site.

        • Anonymous

          Well if homosexuality is a “choice” then it follows that heterosexuality must also be a “choice”. So when did you “choose” to be a heterosexual rather than a homosexual?

        • Anonymous

          Sorry pal but being a bigot us a choice.

        • Anonymous

          You need to look up the word “choice”.  Then, when you understand its meaning, listen to those of us who are gay when we say that we did not choose to be attracted to persons of the same gender.  It’s just part of our nature, as is your sexual attraction…whatever that may be.

        • Anonymous

           Is being straight a choice?  Is there concrete biological scientific proof that it is not a choice?  Would you care to share the point in time and circumstances surrounding your decision/choosing?

        • Anonymous

          If it’s a choice, then why do Republican politicians choose to lie about having sex with men?

          http://badmouth.net/top-five-republican-gay-sex-scandals/

        • Anonymous

          Show everyone scientific evidence and prove that it IS a choice- and don’t forget to cite your references.  And you would know it was a choice because you’re gay right?  I’m equally sure that you could tell a woman what child birth is like.  You are the same bunch of people who have absolutely ZERO scientific evidence that god exists, but hey that’s all good and fine, but require ‘scientific’ evidence when it comes to someone being gay Pfffffffffffft.  

        • Anonymous

          Point of fact noteman1,

          No one is required to show any proof to you. It is incumbent on you, in a free nation, to show just cause for depriving someone else of their rights.

          -J

    • Anonymous

      What fun!

  • Guest

    Nice article.  I really hope the good people of Maine do take the time to educate/inform themselves about the details of this law.  People need to be prepared for the inevitable fear mongering and misinformation spread by groups like NOM.  The Southern Poverty Law Center has deemed and documented them as a hate group, for good reason.

    • Anonymous

      you except the word of a Southern Poverty Law center… hahaha. These people survive on the misinformed

      • Anonymous

        Just like Fox News.

  • Anonymous

    edited

  • Anonymous

    Food for thought.  In the recent Mississippi GOP primary 29% of voters reported they think interracial marriage should still be illegal- and this is 2012…..and I’m sure some of those enlightened people happily state that they think interracial marriage is wrong (via their constitutionally given right)  but does that intern make it ok to try and ban or prevent interracial marriage because one believes marriage should be between people of the same race?  SCOTUS said no (Loving V. Virginia-1967.)   

    Does anyone actually think that if SCOTUS hadn’t ruled on this issue there wouldn’t still be states who would be happy to have interracial marriage still be illegal because that’s what the majority thinks?- of course there would.  Does that make it right?  If someone in Mississippi doesn’t want to marry someone of a different race- don’t marry someone of a different race- problem solved.  That being said- that doesn’t give those same people who don’t support interracial marriage the right to prevent or ban anyone else who may want to marry someone of a differing race- does it?  When people try an force their beliefs on others that’s where this country has always run into problems.  No one who supports same sex marriage is telling people who don’t support same sex marriage they HAVE to marry someone of the same sex….it is the the people who do not support same sex marriage who are telling same sex couples that same sex couples CAN’T get married do to their exclusive beliefs against same sex marriage. If someone doesn’t support same sex marriage- don’t marry someone of the same sex and if people were truly worried about the ‘sanctity’ of marriage they would be voting on banning divorce in this state in November.

    • Anonymous

      Yes, but there hasn’t been a Supreme Court ruling outlawing same-sex marriage bans. When and if that happens, the votes will stop.

      • Anonymous

        I understand your point, that being said- ever hear of something called Roe V. Wade-1973?  In 2012 states are still trying to limit, outlaw and ban abortions in this country(trans-vaginal ultrasound anyone?) …..again if  someone doesn’t believe in abortion- don’t have an abortion, but you have no right to limit or ban someone else who may decide to have one….as long as people continue to shove their beliefs on others who hold different beliefs there will be social issues that divide us all.

        • Anonymous

          I am optimistic on the long-term acceptance of same-sex marriage, though. Just as inter-racial marriage before it, the younger generations don’t see the point of opposing this issue.

          We are fast reaching a tipping point on the demographics. Perhaps this November we will see the first popular vote to extend marriage to same-sex couples— that is something Maine would be proud to have in the history books.

  • Anonymous

    Seems that this editorial page writer is even more open about her liberal stand than the previous Tom Groening.

  • Anonymous

    Lady Justice stands in the Supreme Court and in many other court houses throughout the country.  Wearing a blindfold she demonstrates impartiality; holding a scale she shows objectivity.  Having both she’s a symbol contrasting democracies with their fact, fairness, and justice against totalitarian regimes with their whims, corruption, and cruelty.  Indeed, she symbolizes the rule of law that the founders fought so hard to establish, so that it would overcome the desires and prejudices of the elite.  Very few would disagree with this characterization or the need for fairness and objectivity in governing our fellow citizens.
     
    With this in mind, what would the majority reading these comment strings think if our government decided to discard our time-honored and effective means of making, interpreting, and enforcing law?  Instead, from this point forward, it would do so based on feeling, instead of fact.  
     
    This approach is precisely what gay activists and proponents of gay marriage are doing all across the country. They have no facts to support their demand for gay marriage, so they resort to propaganda, ranging from persuasion to intimidation, and a biased and dishonest media (which become so through political correctness and the same intimidation) to broadcast it.  Anyone who has the temerity to stand in the way is immediately labeled a “homophobe,” a “bigot,” “hater,” or whatever baseless adhominem and slur that proponents can think of. It’s a regressive and thuggish throwback to an earlier time, and its goal is the same:  coerce and threaten your opponents into silence because you have neither any fact nor any justification to support you cause.
     
    Silence, though, is simply not an option for at least two reasons.  First, anyone or group seeking legal recognition for its practices or beliefs can argue for them on the basis of feeling instead of fact, which undermines what the founders fought so hard to establish.  In some areas of the country, advocates for polygamous or polyamorous “marriages” have taken this tack. Second, it would send the message that bullying is effective.  If proponents are successful at bullying enough people into silence, there won’t be enough to oppose them.  At some point, even if the facts do emerge, it may not matter, since the fallacy of gay marriage might be so entrenched, much like abortion, it would be difficult to overturn.
     
    For these reasons, we owe it to ourselves, our kids, and future generations to continue speaking out.  We can do so, using our computers and passing on to others the facts showing why gay marriage would be detrimental to society.  A place to start is the

    “The Case for Government Recognition of Traditional Relationships
     
    Other sources include “What is Marriage?” and “The Argument Against Gay Marriage: And Why It Doesn’t Fail”  
     
    Please google these essays, read them, pass them on to others, and ask that they do the same.  Additionally, email them to your elected representatives and demand that they overturn gay marriage, if it exists in your state, vote against gay marriage, if it doesn’t, or promise to vote them out of office, if they do neither.  In this way, we can work together to defeat those who would intimidate and threaten others into accepting gay marriage and keep marriage as it should be: between one man and one woman.

    • Anonymous

      Here’s the links to the essays in the preceding post:

      http:\marriage-onemanandonewoman.blogspot.com

       http:\ssrn.com/abstract=1722155
       
      http:\www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/12/2217

    • Anonymous

      You would do well to read the Iowa Supreme Court ruling from 2009, where they legalized same-sex marriage based on sound constitutional principles. Or the California circuit court ruling from 2011, where they struck down discrimination against same-sex marriage based on sound constitutional principles.

      The fact of the matter is that there is no justifiable reason for this discrimination, which is why same-sex marriage has had victory in the courts every time it has come up in the last decade.

      • Anonymous

        I’ve read the California ruling. It is fundamentally flawed because they equate race (Loving vs. Virginia) with a behavioral urge, homosexuality.  Thus, there’s no legal precedent in cases involving interracial marriage to uphold gay marriage.  They’re two different concepts, which have no relation to one another.  Besides, in requiring legal recognition of gay marriage,  half the Iowa Supreme Court was rightfully voted out of office for abusing their power to make law instead of interpreting it.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Your essays represent fine opinion… but have no basis in civil law.

      • Anonymous

        …Quite possibly because they have been presented in court.  Further, the court rulings today are badly flawed for the reasons mentioned in my reply to ConvivialVisits.

  • Anonymous

    If people would only read the account of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis, that would be the end of the discussion.

    The Sodomites gathered in the street in front of Lot’s house and cried out “Who are you to judge us? Who made you our judge?”

    Nothing has changed after three thousand years. 

    • Anonymous

      The biblical story where God condemns rape, and the mistreatment of guests?

      If you took that story to heart, you would not be spouting such offensive nonsense here.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      What does your myth have to do with our civil law?

  • Anonymous

    A WARNING FROM GOD

    A mighty tree beloved by the people of Maine since the time of the Pilgrims has toppled over.

    This happened just at the height of the debate over homosexual “marriage.”

    THIS IS A WARNING THAT GOD HAS WITHDRAWN HIS GRACE AND PROTECTION FROM AMERICA.

    THERE WILL BE NO REPENTANCE AND NO TURNING BACK FOR THIS WICKED NATION.

    AMERICA WILL SUFFER THE FATE OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH. (Jude 1:7)

    http://www.sunjournal.com/news/lewiston-auburn/2012/07/08/history-falls-ancient-maple-succumbs-age-androscog/1219970

    • Anonymous

      God condemns rape, not love. Your fears about the happiness of others is misplaced, as is your anger towards people you don’t even know.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Wow… you really are insane.

You may also like