Comments for: Same-sex marriage supporters say coalition now has 77 members

Posted July 18, 2012, at 3:52 p.m.
Last modified July 27, 2012, at 3:42 p.m.

BANGOR | Supporters of same-sex marriage gathered Wednesday outside the Bangor Public Library to announce that its coalition had grown to 77 members. “We can feel the energy around our campaign has grown every day,” said Matt McTighe, campaign manager for Mainers United for Marriage. “In January, our coalition …

CORRECTION:

An early version of this story requires clarification. About 350 clergy and lay members of faith communities around Maine have signed a pledge of support for same-sex marriage put forward by the Religious Coalition against Discrimination.

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages 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

    Change is coming and it is being led by the people of Maine! Once again people will see that “As Maine Goes So Goes the Nation”!!

    • Anonymous

      O.K. Once again, November will tell the story. Maybe in 2014 you’ll get enough LePage haters to the polls to pull it off.

      • Anonymous

        I suspect the SCOTUS will settle the question before 2014.

        • Anonymous

          I think SCOTUS will settle the question on DOMA’s constitutionality (they will strike it down), and California’s PROP 8 (they will strike it down), but I’ll be surprised if they take initiative to make same sex marriage legal nationwide.

          The California decision will pave the way for anti-equality amendments to be challenged nationwide, though. And I think it’s clear that public opinion will be overwhelmingly on our side in a few short years. I’m optimistic that I’ll be able to marry here in Maine before I’m 50 :)

        • Anonymous

          The Supreme Court cannot reverse God’s laws.

          • LMAO!!! There is no god, silly.

          • Anonymous

            And the laws of the United States are not based on ANY religious text.

          • Anonymous

            We cannot know everything about every subject, so I do not fault you for this.

            English common law is based on the Bible, the law of Moses. 

            http://books.google.com/books?id=Fn2_A8ZEHmAC&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=King+Alfred+Common+law+old+testament&source=bl&ots=hvlPG3msBe&sig=UOLaS2h8SMdLtbpC-ZFjmWPQb_E&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kbMIUNb7Jenl0QHK-MDPAw&ved=0CE0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=King%20Alfred%20Common%20law%20old%20testament&f=false 

            You can correct your deficiency in this regard by consulting a basic work about the sources of our law. 

            You will not like this, but you are living in a Christian civilization.

            When you turn to God, I am confident you will drop your opposition to His  law.

            I do not see how either of us can profit from these discussions until then. 

            I wish you well.

          • Anonymous

            Nor will I fault you for your misunderstanding of the foundation of our legal system and our laws.

            Our justice system is based on English Common law and English Common law traces its foundation back well beyond the “Law of Moses” to a legal code called the Code of Hammurabi (~1772 BC). Moses didn’t walk the earth until 1391 BC.

            By the way Son I am very comfortable with how our legal system came to be and how far back it can be traced. That’s what happens when you end up taking the History of Western Civilization I&II and Constitutional Law I&II (as well as multiple law and criminology classes) in my course work in college. I also have a minor in U.S. History so you can now stop with your condescending attitude and tone.

            We live in a Constitutional Republic not a Theocracy and you just hate that don’t you?

            What you do not understand is no one religion is anymore important then any other religion in this country. Our Founding Fathers did not want a “national religion” and that is reflected in the 1st Amendment.

            Sorry that you cannot accept that the U.S. is a country that welcomes ALL people. But that is what we are….

          • Anonymous

            No, that is not correct, sir.

            Did you or did you not post the following comment?

            “The laws of the United States are not based on ANY religious text .”

            I responded that the principles of the common law are in part based on the law of Moses.

            I would be happy to discuss this with someone who debates in a fair and candid manner, but unfortunately, because of the hardness of your heart and your opposition to God,  you are unwilling to discuss this in an honorable manner.

            I note that it is a failing of many modern-day Americans to think themselves an expert on a subject because they have taken a few college courses.

            Do you regard yourself as an expert in the history of the English common law, Sir?

            I have quoted you one expert on the English common law who proves how part of the English common law, including the law on indebtedness,  is taken directly from the law of Moses. 

            I will quote another author below.

            I have caught you in a direct contradiction, and still you persist in your error, and in your willingness to deceive your fellow man regarding this subject.

            Because of your lack of honesty in this regard, I am sorry I cannot debate this further with you.
            ————————————————————————————
            In the late 880s or early 890s, King Alfred issued a long domboc or law code, consisting of his “own” laws followed by a code issued by his late seventh-century predecessor King Ine of Wessex. Together these laws are arranged into 120 chapters. In his introduction, Alfred explains that he gathered together the laws he found in many ‘synod-books’ and “ordered to be written many of the ones that our forefathers observed—those that pleased me; and many of the ones that did not please me, I rejected with the advice of my councillors, and commanded them to be observed in a different way.”About a fifth of the law code is taken up by Alfred’s introduction, which includes translations into English of the Decalogue, a few chapters from the Book of Exodus, and the’Apostolic Letter’ from Acts of the Apostles (15:23–29). The Introduction may best be understood as Alfred’s meditation upon the meaning of Christian law.[53]It traces the continuity between God’s gift of Law to Moses to Alfred’s own issuance of law to the West Saxon people. By doing so, it links the holy past to the historical present and represents Alfred’s law-giving as a type of divine legislation.[54] This is the reason that Alfred divided his code into precisely 120 chapters: 120 was the age at which Moses died and, in the number-symbolism of early medieval biblical exegetes, 120 stood for law.[55] The link between the Mosaic Law and Alfred’s code is the ‘Apostolic Letter,’ which explained that Christ “had come not to shatter or annul the commandments but to fulfill them; and he taught mercy and meekness” (Intro, 49.1). The mercy that Christ infused into Mosaic Law underlies the injury tariffs that figure so prominently in barbarian law codes, since Christian synods “established, through that mercy which Christ taught, that for almost every misdeed at the first offence secular lords might with their permission receive without sin the monetary compensation, which they then fixed.”[56] The only crime that could not be compensated with a payment of money is treachery to a lord, “since Almighty God adjudged none for those who despised Him, nor did Christ, the Son of God, adjudge any for the one who betrayed Him to death; and He commanded everyone to love his lord as Himself.”[56] Alfred’s transformation of Christ’s commandment from “Love your neighbour as yourself” (Matt. 22:39–40) to love your secular lord as you would love the Lord Christ himself underscores the importance that Alfred placed upon lordship, which he understood as a sacred bond instituted by God for the governance of man.[57]

          • Anonymous

            “No, that is not correct, sir.”

            Sorry Son but I am not. The Code of Hammurabi is the oldest know text of a legal code in the world and predates the “Law of Moses” by almost 400 years.
            ~~~~
            “Did you or did you not post the following comment?

            “The laws of the United States are not based on ANY religious text .””

            Yup I did and I stand by the statement. The laws in the United States are secular laws. If they weren’t abortion would be illegal, working on the Sabbath would be illegal, etc…
            ~~~~~
            “I responded that the principles of the common law are in part based on the law of Moses.”

            And I responded that the principles of the common law are in part based in a code that pre-dates the Laws of Moses by almost 400 yrars.
            ~~~~
            “I would be happy to discuss this with someone who debates in a fair and candid manner, but unfortunately, because of the hardness of your heart and your opposition to God,  you are unwilling to discuss this in an honorable manner.”

            Your not interested in debate. Your interested in shoving your position down the throats of anyone or any group that disagrees with you.”
            ~~~~~
            “I note that it is a failing of many modern-day Americans to think themselves an expert on a subject because they have taken a few college courses.”

            What is your degree in “Son”? Do you even hold a degree? Please tell us so we can say you “think themselves an expert on a subject because they have taken a few college courses.”
            ~~~~~
            “Do you regard yourself as an expert in the history of the English common law, Sir?”

            And your “expert” status in English common law is based on what? One text written by a Reverend that wants to prove that English Common law is based only on the Laws of Moses does not make it so.
            ~~~~~
            “I have quoted you one expert on the English common law who proves how part of the English common law, including the law on indebtedness,  is taken directly from the law of Moses.”

            Oh so now you change your position. So English common law isn’t based on the Laws of Moses just some of English Common Law is. So now you are caught in a direct contradiction and you still persist in your error that English Common law is based on the Laws of Moses.
            ~~~~~
            “Because of your lack of honesty in this regard, I am sorry I cannot debate this further with you.”

            No Son, you will respond (unless the BDN closes the comments on this article) because you just love having the last word.

      • Anonymous

        Hate has nothing to do with it. Maintaining proper cultural standards is the goal.

        • Anonymous

          “Cultural standard” doesn’t pass even the lowest test for laws, that being “rational basis.”

        • Anonymous

          To paraphrase a certain leader….”There is a war against our people – my brothers
          and sisters – will stay committed to a non-violent resolution. That resolution must consist of solidarity in communities around the world. The hatred for our children and their future is growing and is being fueled every single day. Stay firm in your convictions. Keep loving your heritage and keep witnessing to others that there is a better way than a war torn, violent, wicked, socialist, new world order. That way is the Christian way – law and order – love of family – love of nation. These are the principles of western Christian civilization. There is a war to destroy these things. Pray that our people see the error of their ways and regain a sense of loyalty. Repent America! Be faithful my fellow believers. ”

          Do you know who said these words Danny? Sounds really reasonable and Christian like doesn’t it. Sounds like some of the posters that oppose SSM doesn’t it. But when you include the words I removed it becomes a hate filled call to arms. Maybe you have heard of Pastor Thomas Robb or maybe you haven’t but here are his words unedited taken from the homepage of the Ku Klux Klan. See Pastor Thomas Robb is the National Director of The Knights.

          “There is a race war against whites. But our people – my white brothers and sisters – will stay committed to a non-violent resolution. That resolution must consist of solidarity in white communities around the world. The hatred for our children and their future is growing and is being fueled every single day. Stay firm in your convictions. Keep loving your heritage and keep witnessing to others that there is a better way than a war torn, violent, wicked, socialist, new world order. That way is the Christian way – law and order – love of family – love of nation. These are the principles of western Christian civilization. There is a war to destroy these things. Pray that our people see the error of their ways and regain a sense of loyalty. Repent America! Be faithful my fellow believers. ”
          http://www.kkk.com/

          • ChuckGG

            The anti-gay crowd has such a limited scope of history and of world events.  They have their microcosm containing their church and their views to the exclusion of others.  Over the years I have mentioned many parallels in SSM to the overall civil rights movement.  They are just oblivious to it all.  As you noted, the KKK has the same speech.  That speech could have occurred in 1950 or 2012.  It would be the same.  It’s rather sad and pathetic if you think about it.

          • Anonymous

            It would be entirely inappropriate to bestow full legitimacy on such deviant behavior that degrades society. Civil unions – o.k. Marriage? Never.

          • Anonymous

            I know, those interracial couples are just deviants that degrade society.  Let them have civil unions, but marriage is between people of the same race.

    • Anonymous

      We’ll be the first state to do this by popular vote. What a proud moment it will be!

      • Mr_Spuddy

         Oh, yes; something to be very proud of . . .

        • Anonymous

          Yes, very.

      • Anonymous

        But the million dollar question is will it pass.  I again am voting for you, but i do not see it passing.  Its probably gonna be 65 no 35 yes.  But we will see.  good luck

        • Millicent

          I’m betting 53% yes – and 47% no. 

      • Anonymous

        Queer and proud!

        • Guest

          ////

          • Anonymous

            Must be afraid that it might rub off – kinda like cooties I guess.

        • Anonymous

          EVERYONE should be proud to be exactly who they are, regardless of sexual orientation.

      • ChuckGG

        It is unfortunate the 2009 decision could not have stood as is, but the vote has its advantages.  At least now we won’t the hearing that endless drone about “32 of 32” states.  As I mentioned, some of those votes were many years ago and if you polled the population in those states today you would find a much different response.  Even Prop-8 in CA, if voted upon today, would not pass (according to the polls).

  • Anonymous

    just because it passes with bangor daily news doesn’t mean it passes with the state of maine..

    • Maybe it will pass, maybe it will not. We will have that answer in a few months but a case is working its way to the SCOTUS and I cannot see the SCOTUS denying gay couples their right to marry.

      Marriage is a civil right, not a religious one.

      • Anonymous

        What is even funnier(sadder?) is that most of the Same Sex marriage laws going through the court/legislature currently have provisions which would allow religious institutions to opt out of offering the service to homosexuals. It’s a win win for everyone, but those against it can’t seem to wrap their head around the fact that not everyone is religious, marriage is not a religious institution, and that it doesn’t hurt them or invalidate any heterosexual marriages they may have or want.

        Fun fact: Did you know people didn’t marry in churches until the 1800s or so? It was deemed too inappropriate because everyone knew the marriage would be consummated, so it was seem as allowing the thought of sex into a holy place. They used to marry on the property or outside the front door threshold of the church.

        Marriage changes with each passing generation in each culture. People need to realize it isn’t some ancient and holy tradition. It’s a set of civil rules which are reinterpreted every so often. Much like the ability to have/perform interracial marriage has been adopted, but the age old practice of multiple wives and lovers has gone into the taboo. The ‘sacred marriage’ people are trying to protect today didn’t even exist pre 1900s. It’s a fairy tale they are trying to protect. Let people who love each other profess it and get the same tax/medical and social rights as anyone else. It’s ludicrous to deny someone else the right when you’re not affected by it.

        • Anonymous

          Marriage at it’s roots is a God given institution. God gave marriage. He made the institution. It doesn’t matter whether married in a church or before a justice of the peace it is a God given right and it is defined by God as only between a man and a woman. Our laws have recognized that  and the darkened humanistic mind can’t “wrap their head around that fact”.
          Jesus speaking said..
          “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matthew 19:4-6)

          • Anonymous

            Then give up the 1000+ rights and privileges associated with marriage if all it is is a religious institution to you. I see very few who use religion as an excuse to deny gay people equality actually put their money where their mouth is. If it’s just about religion, then why bother getting legally married at all?

          • Anonymous

            Marriage has always existed as a social contract between people. God has come and gone as times changed and as it benefited the people. Other cultures marry, but they aren’t christian. Are you saying that Hindu marriage isn’t as sacred? Are you saying that civil unions aren’t as valid?

            Read a little history on the subject:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History_of_marriage_by_culture

            But I don’t know why I’m trying to convince you with logic, reason, facts, and history. It seems you’re disregarding them anyway in favor of a two thousand year old book, written by dozens of authors, rewritten by the Romans, mistranslated by the Europeans, and hand-selected by people who were also in political control during the dark ages. I’m not going to fight with you over this because you’re already choosing to disregard evidence in your pursuit of pious ‘blind faith’. Enjoy your life and your religion, but leave others out of it. Your god is not the only god, and you have to learn to respect that you live in a world populated by people that think differently. These new laws are not trampling on your faith, so leave the one’s that have something at stake out of your religious idolatry.

          • Anonymous

            bhz388, hear hear!   The paragraph that starts with  “But I don’t know…” should be changed to “I don’t know why I am trying to convince people of faith with logic…” and then sent as a letter to the editor of the BDN  so it can be printed in the paper and  you can reach many more folks with your very pertinent letter.

          • So all of the below is 100% ok as well, because it is in the bible.

            Genesis 2:24

            Wives subordinate to their husbands
            Interfaith marriages forbidden
            Marriages generally arranged, not based on romantic
            Lovebride who cannot prove virginity stoned to death

            Deuteronomy 22:20-21

            22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
            22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. . .

            Genesis 38:6-10

            A widow who hasn’t had a son is required to marry her brother in law and must submit sexually to her new husband.

            Deuteronomy 22:28-29

            A virgin who is raped must marry her rapist. The rapist must pay the victim’s father 50 sheckels of silver for property loss.

            Numbers 31:1-18, Deuteronomy 21:11-14

            Under Moses’ command, Israelites kill every Midianite man, woman and child, save for the virgin girls who are taken as spoils of war. Wives must submit sexually to their new owners.

            Exodus 21:4

            Slave owner can assign female slaves to his male slaves. Female slaves must submit sexually to their new husbands.

          • Anonymous

            There is a big difference between the old testament Jewish economy and the new testament church. Interesting how you know so much bible. You have had some real exposure somewhere to it. Too bad you wouldn’t seek to study it to know God’s will for your life instead of picking and choosing out old testament verses to argue against the Words of Jesus.
            “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. ”
            (Matthew 19:4-6)

          • Anonymous

            “”And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. ”
            (Matthew 19:4-6)”

            As interpreted by MAN. And if I recall correctly wasn’t there a King of England that had a new interpretation of the Bible written to support his rein?

          • Anonymous

            James I if it isn’t obvious.  And yes, the existing English translation (Tyndall) had the audacity to include study notes.  James I made sure those heretical (challenging hiw divine rule) were eliminated including a number of “spins”.

          • Anonymous

            And isn’t it interesting that so many posters that are against SSM use or view the King James Version as THE one and only true Bible…a Bible that was written at the direction of Man to accomplish a certain purpose.

          •  And what is also interesting is the King James was gay.

          • So why is Deuteronomy used all the time against homosexuals in today’s modern church?

          • Anonymous

             It is a principle carried over into the new testament

          • They don’t quote the NT, they quote the OT. They are using scripture from the OT against homosexuals.

            Christians love to state that the OT is never taught, preached or followed any longer when it clearly is and no, it is not being taught or carried over in principle.

          • Anonymous

            Wow, you must be god since you get to decide which principles from the old testament are carried over to the new.  Good to know ya.  Now tell me why you invented  hemorrhoids and back pain.

          • Anonymous

            NOTE THIS CAREFULLY, CITIZENS OF MAINE!

            18 likes for this act of blasphemy.

            Hatred of God is at the heart of the homosexual rights movement.

            “Gay” marriage, being the opposite of holy matrimony, is a satanic ritual.

          • Anonymous

            More like dislike for people who use their imaginary friend to deny their fellow American’s civil rights.

          • Anonymous

            Blasphemy.

          • Your comment means I’m doing something right, thank you.

          • Anonymous

            The Bible is a big book, 30,102 verses in all, and only about six verses have anything to do with “homosexuality” (a term that did not even exist in biblical Hebrew or Greek, and which does not appear in any properly translated Bible).  Homosexuality is one of the very smallest issues in the Bible — it is not mentioned in the Ten Commandments (no, adultery is a different issue), not in the wisdom books such as Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, Eccelesiastes, Job, etc., not in the Jewish Prophets, not in the Four Gospels, not in the non-Pauline Epistles, not in Revelation, and not in the words of Jesus himself.
            In the Four Gospels, Jesus mentioned love 49 times and forgiveness 27 times, but never once said anything against gays or lesbians.
            You are picking and choosing what you like in the Bible, quoting a few verses but ignoring the larger context.  Those who oppose the freedom to marry take that small handful of verses out of context and lift them up to support their prejudice, while failing to see the Bible’s core values of love, compassion, justice, and welcome.  The Bible tells us to love our neighbor, to welcome the stranger, and to seek justice for the oppressed person — these core values are repeated over and over in different contexts. the Bible in general, and Jesus in particular, shows concern for outsiders and thosee whose rights are denied. 
            “Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not see the log in your own eye?” (Luke 6:41).  “he that is without sin, let him cast the first stone” (John 8:7).  “Judge not, so that you will not be jhudged” (Matt. 7:1).
            Jesus welcomed everyone to the banquet table.  Those who oppose fairness and equal treatment under the law have missed the core teachings of the Bible — or are deliberately ignoring them.

          • Anonymous

            Leviticus, not Deuteronomy.  Paul, in the New Testament, says that that Levitical “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).  Therefore, those who quote those few verses of Leviticus out of context, while rejecting the rest of the Levitical code (which forbids cutting your beard, eating shellfish, and wearing a shirt made of mixed fabric — like a cotton-polyester blend), are being inconsistent.
            The Bible is a big collection of sacred writnings, 30,102 verses in all, and only about six verses have anything to do with “homosexuality” (a term that did not even exist in biblical Hebrew or Greek, and which does not appear in any properly translated Bible).  Homosexuality is one of the very smallest issues in the Bible — it is not mentioned in the Ten Commandments, not in the Wisdom books such as Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, Eccelesiastes, Job, etc.,  not in the Hebrew Prophets, not in the Four Gospels, not in the non-Pauline Epistles, not in Revelation, and never in the words of Jesus himself.
            Those who oppose the freedom to marry take that small handful of verses out of context and lift them up to support their prejudice, while failing to see the larger context — the Bible’s core values of love, compassion, justice, and welcome. 
            The Bible tells us to love our neighbor, to welcome the stranger, and to seek justice for the oppressed person — these core values are repeated over and over in different contexts. the Bible in general, and Jesus in particular, shows concern for outsiders and thosee whose rights are denied.  “Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not see the log in your own eye?” (Luke 6:41).
            Those who oppose fairness and equal treatment under the law have missed the core teachings of the Bible — or are deliberately ignoring them.

          • Anonymous

            I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be
            silent. – 1 Timothy 2:12 and that is New Testament, but I do not see Christians getting themselves into a tizzy over female teachers or any female in a position of power.

          • Anonymous

            “Too bad you wouldn’t seek to study it to know God’s will for your life instead of picking and choosing out old testament verses to argue against the Words of Jesus.”  Are those your words? Or the words of your Pastor who commands you to pay him…Excuse me. Jesus, %20 of your paycheck each week?

          • Anonymous

            Are a couple married by a justice of the peace, judge, etc….married? Or do they use a “different” word because they weren’t married in a church?

          • Anonymous

            of course they are married. The state has recognized the institution of marriage as a God given institution. Even the vows repeated in a secular setting usually include such things as “before God” and “what God has joined together let no man put asunder”. It is you who wants to redefine that.

          • Anonymous

            When I got married not one mention of God was uttered. 
            The State of Maine still issued me a marriage licence.

            The point your not getting is 
            This is not a religious issue.
            This is a civil issue
            Your bible quotes don’t matter.

          • Anonymous

            LOL nice try there…”The state has recognized the institution of marriage as a God given institution”…really. So you shouldn’t have any trouble quoting Maine law that says marriage is a “God given institution” then.

            And “usually” does not mean “always” and if the sthtate recognizes “marriage as a God given institution” it would always include a reference to “God” but you and I know it doesn’t. And I have been to several civil marriage ceremonies and the words “before God” and “what God has joined together let no man put asunder” were never uttered.

            And it is not I that “wants to redefine” a religious marriage ceremony.

            By the way you haven’t answered the question about how allowing SSM would impact or devalue your marriage assuming you are married?

          • ChuckGG

            Yes, the people are “married” because the State has a definition of civil marriage and it happens to use the same word.  However, the State in no way recognizes “marriage as a God given institution.”  That is just horse hockey.

            I have performed a civil marriage ceremony in my days as a Notary in Maine and in no place is there any mention of God, or religion, or any such thing.  The couple may have their own vows if they wish but the part the Notary has to ask has nothing whatsoever to do with God.

            Why don’t people look this stuff up ahead of time?

          • Anonymous

            Legal marriage is a legal issue, and therefore a governmental issue.  The churches and synagogues certainly may bless any marriage they choose to bless — I recommend a church blessing on marriage, being a married man and a big supporter of marriage (which is why I want to extend the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples). 
            The whole issue of legal marriage is a legal issue — a governmental issue, not a church issue.  Let the state marry whatever couples the state wants to marry.  Let the churches and synagogues bless whatever marriages they wish to bless. 
            The proposed law specifically protects churches and synagogues and all religious institutions and clergy — no one will have to do anything they don’t want to do.

          • Anonymous

            Isn’t it great that the forefathers left the Bible and Christianity out of the constitution?

          • Anonymous

             one quick thing that comes to mind are the words in the declaration of independence.

            “We
            hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they
            are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these
            are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”  The constitution was written in the same spirit.
            They were not creating a theocracy but they had God and His word in mind often when they wrote our founding documents. It is obvious as you read history.

          • Guest

            ……

          • ChuckGG

            Additionally, the Declaration of Independence, while a great document, is not a legal one.  We do not test the Constitutionality of our laws in SCOTUS of the Declaration of Independence.

          • Anonymous

            Your general point is right, but you have a major fact wrong.
            God is indeed mentioned in the Declaration of Independence — “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” is a phrase used in the first sentence of the Declaration.  Jefferson was using a Deist term, not a biblical term, and the framers of the Declaration intended the language to be inclusive of both Christians and non-Christians alike.
            The word “God” does not appear anywhere at all in the Constitution, but it does appear in the Declaration. 
            I agree with your general point, that “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” applies to all people, and same-sex couples have the same right to pursue happiness that everyone else has.

          • Anonymous

            Good job GodisTrue….Now to put the quote “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” into proper context.

            I am sure that you are aware that the Declaration of Independence was a document written to a ruler that was considered divine and was the head of the Church of England. And the very next sentence says –

            “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”

            Notice the absence of any reference to God, Creator, Supreme Being, etc…And the Constitution make NO reference to God, Creator, Supreme Being, etc…and goes one step further with the 1st Amendment and the “establishment clause”.

          • Anonymous

            Yes, in the Declaration of Independence Jefferson used the phrase “Nature and Nature’s God,” a Deist term, not a biblical term.  Jefferson and the other framers of the Declaration of  Independence wanted to be inclusive, to have a nation of religious liberty and tolerance.

          • Anonymous

            Thomas Jefferson wrote “all men are created equal” to declare U.S. independence from Britain, yet he was also a lifelong slave owner who freed only nine of his more than 600 slaves during his lifetime. 

          • Anonymous

            Yes, it’s true that our Founding Fathers were great men, but not perfect men.  Yes, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Patrick Henry, and some others were slave owners.  Abigail Adams wrote to her husband John Adams, saying that she couldn’t understand how the Virginians could speak of liberty while they owned slaves.
            Abraham Lincoln said that Jefferson’s phrase, “all men are created equal,” was a promise, not a statement of how the law viewed things at the time, but a promise about what the law ought to be.

          • Anonymous

            “Creator” means different things to different people–I imagine this word choice was deliberate–that people may feel free to worship in whichever way they choose.  There is a reason we have separation of church and state. So that one religion does not dictate our policy (yes, I have see posts and info implying that religion is free to influence government but not the other way around…I think that is a convenient interpretation, but that’s simply my opinion).  We need to stop referencing our Founding Fathers as bastions of Christian piety…word on the street is they were a bunch of free-wheeling revolutionary hippies (the very fact that they were actually, literally “revolutionary” indicates they were 100% pro-positive social change).  They left those words out for a reason–they included an entire clause that allows people to safely worship as they choose.  They were, obviously, very wise and thoughtful individuals–but that wisdom is useless if we cover our eyes and pretend we don’t see it. 

          • Anonymous

            Much like the Bible, everyone interprets the DOI the way they want to interpret it.

          • Anonymous

            You are confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution.  TrueNative said that “God” is not in the Constitution anywhere, which is correct. 
            You quoted a different document, the Declaration of Independence, which does use the term “Creator” and also “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” a Deist, not biblical, phrase.  The framers of the Declaration of Indpendence were principally Thomas Jefferson (who cut all of the miracles out of his copies of the Gospels, and pasted back together “the Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth” without the Virgin Birth, Resurrection, or any other miracles — and was accused of atheism, but declared himself to be a Unitarian) and John Adams (a Unitarian, who belonged to a church that denied the Doctrine of the Trinity), and Benjamin Franklin (who said he believed in God but doubted the divinity of Jesus).  They wanted a document that was inclusive of all Americans, not just Christians, and so they used Deist terminology, i.e., “Creator” and “Nature and Nature’s God.”
            TrueNative was 100% correct — “God” is not mentioned in the Constitution.

          • Anonymous

            Isn’t it ironic that most liberals consider the constitution “in the way” and would just as soon make it a living document so it can be altered to reflect their views.

          • Anonymous

            “Isn’t it ironic that most” conservatives “consider the constitution” a static document and should never be changed in anyway or manner except:

            When it comes to banning SSM, or

            Banning abortion in all cases, or

            Banning the desecration (burning) of the flag.

            I guess both sides of the political spectrum only have problems with changing the Constitution when it goes against their views.

          • Anonymous

            Really? I’m not aware of the conservative movement on capitol hill to alter the constitution for any of these issues. Can you provide “data” backing your claims?

          • Anonymous

            http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.J.RES.43: – Marriage Amendment, sponsored by Republicans
            http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d098:S.J.RES.3:  – Abortion, sponsored by Republicans
            http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:SJ00031:@@@X  – Flag Burning, sponsored by Republicans

            How’s that for data?

          • Anonymous

            2005 – House Passes Constitutional Amendment to Ban Flag Burning
            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062202155.html

            2006 – Flag-burning amendment fails by a vote
            http://articles.cnn.com/2006-06-27/politics/flag.burning_1_flag-burning-amendment-gregory-lee-johnson-flag-desecration?_s=PM:POLITICS

            2004 – Republican Party on Abortion – Human Life Amendment to the Constitution
            http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Republican_Party_Abortion.htm

            2011 – How should a constitutional amendment banning abortion be worded?
            http://ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/01/31/constitutional-amendment-banning-abortion/

            2004 – Federal Marriage Amendment
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment

            I guess you are now “aware” of these “conservative movements on capital hill” cmy6 aren’t you.

          • Anonymous

            Thank God!  ;-)

          • Anonymous

            wrong

          • Anonymous

            Checked up on marriage practices in Christ’s time?  In times subsequent?

          • Jazz11

            All this nonsensical bible talk. The bible was written a long time ago by a group of old Jewish men who wanted to keep control of those under them. If that’s God then I am a god too.

          • Anonymous

            Thank you.  God is truth.

          •  No your god, like the 28,000 other gods humanity has raised up to be divine over its existence, is an explanation of those things that cannot be explained, and a salve to ease the fear of death. There is no truth to your god, there are some great ideas (i.e. be nice to people, don’t cast stones, etc.), but there is no truth. It is a philosophy put together with a mythology. It is a heck of a good story, but nothing more than a story. It ranks up there with the Iliad and Beowulf.

            “Kid, I’ve flown from one side of this galaxy to the other, I’ve seen a lot of strange stuff, but I’ve never seen anything to make me believe there’s one all powerful force controlling everything. There’s no mystical energy field that controls my destiny.” – Han Solo

          • Anonymous

            Blasphemy.

          • Pete Johnson

            If marraige is “God Given”, why ask government to define it’s parameters?

          • Anonymous

            Gravity is a natural law put in place by God too but we still need to put up fences on bridges to keep people from jumping off.
            You know, even animals know it’s unnatural to mate with the same sex. Too bad the darkened human mind will do almost anything if allowed to. Legalizing gay marriage is nothing but a license for immorality.

          • Anonymous

            Well, there seems to be an issue with your statement ”
            , even animals know it’s unnatural to mate with the same sex” because animals actually do engage in homosexual behavior, so, you are wrong again.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Marriage is a civil institution sweetcheeks.

            Your mythology is not necessary in any way, but a civil license is.

            Simple, easy to understand fact.

          • Anonymous

            Blasphemy.

            Ask the archaeologists if Sodom and Gomorrah are “mythology.”

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Neither one has offered up proof of anything but volcanic activity.

            No magic sky monsters involved in any way.

        • Anonymous

          Yes, our views of  marriage have changed, as have our understanding of the roles of church and state regarding wedding ceremonies.
          There was no formal liturgy formulated for marriage in early Judaism or in  the early Christian churches.  Typically, couples married by mutual agreement in the presence of witnesses.
          When Jesus went to the wedding in Cana (John 2:1-11) the custom at the time was for the parents of the bride and groom to reach a financial agreement, throw a big wedding party, and then the couple went off and consumated the relationship — there is no mention of a marriage ceremony, just a wedding party/feast.
          Although the Church devised ceremonies for Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist, there was no specific Church wedding ceremony until the time of the Protestant Reformation and the (Catholic) Countil of Trent in the mid-1500s.
          In most European countries, all marriage are civil.  The Church may “bless” the wedding if they so choose.  The couple gets legally married at the city hall, and then, if they wish, they may go to a church for a blessing.   The churches have no legal role in marriage, and priests and pastors do not sign legal documents.

      • Guest

        Kevin, I can be pretty conservative at times, but you are right. 4-6 weeks ago there was a Federal judge in NY that ruled the gov’t. had to return $350k inheritance tax to a woman who was the survivor of a 30+ year relationship. I know Obama instructed the Feds not to defend DOMA lawsuits, but this was just the right thing for the judge to do.  Fair is fair. 

        • ChuckGG

          Exactly right, and isn’t this a good example of how SSM would have prevented this issue in the first place?  A straight legally married couple would not have gone through this.  And, as this was a Federal law, there was nothing the two women could have done with lawyer-generated legal documents (Wills, agreements, etc.) to have prevented it.  The only option was to be legally married and that option was not available to them.

          BTW, does this issue have ANYTHING to do with religion?  Of course not.  Nor should it.

          • Guest

            Well said! Common sense legal fairness only.

          • ChuckGG

            Well, thanks, but common sense is something that is sorely lacking these days.  I’m beginning to think this came about when OSHA started its safety rules.  Before OSHA, most of the nutbars were eliminated just through attrition.

          • Anonymous

            What you said reminded me of this quote: “I’m not saying let’s kill all the stupid people, just remove the warning labels and let the problem sort itself out.”

          • ChuckGG

            Quite right!  Too funny. 

            Of course, we joke.  OSHA has done a great job.  I remember as a kid seeing lots of adults with missing fingers from having worked in factories.  I recall, as a 7 year old kid, actually being inside a woolen mill factory around all that equipment, with very few equipment guards, no breathing or hearing protection.  I survived but some didn’t, I suppose.  A kid would not even be allowed on the floor there today, even if we had a woolen mill running!

          • Anonymous

            That reminds me of when I worked for a butcher who had part of his finger missing.  We would sell dog bones, but we would not cut them down for anyone.  One time there as a person trying to get someone to cut an already small dog bone into a smaller piece.  We told them that for safety reasons, we couldn’t do that.  They weren’t happy with that answer so my boss came over and showed them his missing finger and said that is why we can’t cut them down any further.

      • Anonymous

        Marriage is a sacrament rather than a right.

        • Anonymous

          Not in terms of civil law. Unless you want to give up all the legal rights and privileges attached to marriage…

          • Anonymous

            Would you care to re-define Divine Law for us?

          • ChuckGG

            Newsflash for you:  As an atheist, I could not give a tinker’s damn about yet another version of thousands of versions of religions on the planet.  Here is the simple fact.  I don’t belong to your church.  Therefore, I am not subject to its rules.  I only hold allegiance to the government and its laws.

            Now, you can prattle on forever about how Judgement Day Will Come And I Will Meet My Maker And Have To Answer To Him, and on and on.  Let me handle that – believe me, I’ve got it from here.  You need not worry about me.  It’s okay.

            We are talking about civil marriage not religious marriage – two different items sharing the same name.   (Sounds like a homonym!) 

            So, in a nutshell, I am not redefining your version of religious marriage.  All I want to do is remove the “different gender” restriction from the secular civil marriage law.  Then, I will be happy and you may continue to do whatever it is you do.
             

          • Anonymous

            The definition of marriage is well understood as it always has been and Mainers will vote their conscience on this issue. It is clear that you cannot respect their belief system by insisting that relationships other than one man and one woman should also be known as “marriage”. Just as silence and noise cannot occupy the same space and time you ask them to violate their beliefs by demanding they respect yours.

            That said, I have posted my opinion in these threads before. You are free to pursue your happiness just as everyone is in this country. Your relationships can be provided all the legal protections that are provided to one man/one woman traditional relationships but “marriage” has a definition already.

            Why try to live your lives by others’ definitions? Create your own institution and call it what ever you choose, other than “marriage”.  

          • ChuckGG

            The religious definition is well understood by you.  But, that is not what runs the government.  There are two forms of marriage whether you like it or not.  One is the religious version and the other is a secular, civil version recognized by law.  These are the facts, plain and simple.

            I am not violating your beliefs in the slightest.  You tell me how my secular civil marriage affects you, your family, your marriage, the marriages of any of your friends and family, and I will listen.  But, mine does not.

            You, on the other hand, are hell bent on denying a civil right to me and my family and this directly affects my family, my daughter, my partner, and me.  Those also are the facts.

            I am not demanding you respect my beliefs.  All I want is your religion out of our secular government.  Your religion carries no weight in government.  Even those religions that agree with SSM and will perform SSM have no role in government.

            As far as living by other people’s definitions?  What are you doing?  You are living by a religious definition of marriage.   And, assuming you have a secular, civil marriage license issued by the State, you are living by that definition as well. 

            Create my own institution?  I don’t need to.  I have one right now, in law, that works just fine.  You are hung up on a homonym called “marriage.”  Why does this term applied to me so offend you?  My grandparents were married by a Justice of the Peace in 1926 involving no religion whatsoever.  Does their marriage offend you, too?  Or, are you again mistakenly applying your religion to the secular civil form of marriage? 

            I find your suggestion to start my own institution both condescending and offensive.  What’s next, separate restaurants and toilets?

            You are living in a dreamworld and it is time to wake up and smell the coffee.

          • Anonymous

            “Create my own institution? I don’t need to. I have one right now, in law, that works just fine.”
            ****************************************************************************************

            So what’s the problem?

          • Anonymous

            The problem is that the institution, CIVIL marriage is not extended equally to homosexual and heterosexual couples equally.

            No will you be the first to answer this question?

            How does allowing SSM impact or devalue your marriage assuming you are married?

          • Anonymous

            Traditional  “marriage” is well defined, understood by definition and coveted by its devotees as such. To the extent that temporal law compromises the institution’s religious definition there is familial, societal and cultural assault. 

            Disrespect of either side of this issue is hurtful and purposeless.  Respect awarded to the established definition of “marriage” earns respect of non-marriage civil relationships.

          • Anonymous

            Was it disrespectful to the definition of traditional  “marriage” when the SCOTUS tossed laws against interracial marriage in 1967?

            Is it disrespectful to the definition of traditional “marriage” when a Jew marries a gentile?

          • Anonymous

            Matters of free will, conscience and religious choice belong to individuals as Free Americans.

            Overwrought laws divide Americans and ultimately meet Constitutional challenge. Big Government needs to respect the rights of all Americans and control it’s detestable habit of trying to micromanage their lives with endless, whack-a-mole laws. 

            Rather, we must demand proper interpretation of the exquisite documents of our Founding in order to keep all carbon breathers from tarnishing them. 

          • Anonymous

            So you agree that the 1st Amendment establishes that people are free to practice (or not practice) their religious beliefs as they still fit, free from interference from the government and that the government is prohibited from establishing one religion as “the” religion.

            So if you believe that, then you should support SSM.

          • ChuckGG

            JD – speaking with anewvoice is like taking the artificial intelligence Turing test.  You get an answer but it varies from about a half-bubble to two full bubbles off-center.  Good luck.

          • Anonymous

            And your question stil goes unanswered…seems to be the one none of the opposition can answer.

          • ChuckGG

            As expected, none of my questions are answered.

          • ” And I Will Meet My Maker And Have To Answer To Him, and on and on.”

            I’ve met my maker. I call them Mom and Dad. My dear fellow Atheist, please keep some humor in this argument. After all we need weak minded fools like the Christians around. Without them who would we be able to practice our Jedi Mind Tricks on?

            If you find yourself getting frustrated in this argument just remember…

            http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/arguing+with+christians.+im+christian+but+this+is+fucking+hilarious_f20c15_3619134.jpg

          • ChuckGG

            Good advice.  Admittedly, I got sucked into a Turing test, trying to apply logic to an argument when no logic was possible.  Thanks for the link.

          • Anonymous

            “Divine Law” does not equal Civil Law nor does Civil Law define “Divine Law”.

          • Anonymous

            SO…..Would you care to re-define Divine Law for us?

          • Anonymous

            I think the point was, no, we don’t care about what your “divine law” is as long as you keep it out of civil law. 

          • Anonymous

            Maybe you missed the fact that this is a CIVIL law and does nothing to define or redefine marriage for religious institutions. If a church wishes to provide marriage ceremonies for same sex couples they may. If a church wishes not to provide marriage ceremonies for same sex couples the will not be forced to do otherwise.

          • ChuckGG

            It is time to haul out the rubber chicken.  She just does not get it, and she is never going to get it.

          •  Your original “Divine Law” was delivered man who talked to a burning bush. So I have some difficulty taking orders from a schizophrenic old man. Your “Divine Law” is a product of a mental illness.

            “Who is the bigger fool? The fool, or the fool that follows him?” – Obi-wan Kenobi

          • Anonymous

            Thank you for your ample tolerance of others.

          • Anonymous

            Tolerance does not mean we can’t criticize you.  And for the record, we do tolerate your beliefs.  We can make fun of them, but we are no trying to take away your rights.  The same cannot be said for the “Christians” attempting to take away the rights of their fellow Americans.

          • Anonymous

            “We can make fun of them, but we are no trying to take away your rights.”
            *******************************

            Mainers will decide the truth of that statement in November.

          • Anonymous

            Really?  I wasn’t aware that there is going to be something on the ballot that takes away the rights of Christians.

          •  I have no problem with freedom of religion, be a christian, buddhist, wiccan, or Jedi for all I care. When your “ample tolerance” attempts to deny equality to others based on a hokey religion whose history is one of hate and death, that is when there is a problem. If SSM passes you will continue to have your right to religious freedom, and the homosexual community will have the rights that come along with marriage. It is win/win.

          • Anonymous

            Blasphemy.

        • Anonymous

          Only in the Catholic Church (7 sacraments, right?).  Most Protestant churches have only 2 sacraments. 

        • Anonymous

          Marriage is a legal right and, for those who are religious, a religious sacrament.  I’m a Christian — but I don’t deny that there is a difference between legal rights and freedoms on the one hand, and the sacraments of the various churches on the other hand. 

        • Anonymous

          Incorrect– you do not ever go to an agent of government for officiating a sacrament. You are confusing civil marriage with the holy matrimony ceremony churches conduct– that has no legal status in and of itself.

          • Anonymous

            No confusion on my part. Confusion arises when the public debate discusses “marriage” and “gay marriage” as the same thing.  

          • Anonymous

            Legally, they should be the same thing.  Just because you believe that same sex marriage is not a valid form of marriage does not mean that everyone else has to follow that particular belief.

          • Anonymous

            My mistake. You are willfully ignorant on the differences between civil marriage and religious commitment ceremonies which go by the term marriage.

      • Anonymous

        To clarify: Gay civil marriage is not a right until and if he people of Maine decide it is. The state is not obligated to endorse any type of relationship, including traditionally accepted relationships like those between one man and one woman.

        That said, I don’t see how state endorsement of same-sex unions will make same-sex couples any happier. The idea that somehow they will by happier is a fantasy.

    • Anonymous

      At least the   crowd didn’t have far to go. Hallowell is just down the road.

    • Superuser23

      Just 77 people care right now…..

      • Anonymous

        Keep thinking that… there are hundreds of thousands of Mainers who will be voting in favor of same sex marriage come November!

        • Superuser23

          Already got the message….from last time

          • Anonymous

            Great, then than you for your support for same-sex marriage! Glad you have gotten the message of how important civil marriage is for Maine families to be able to protect the lives they build together, and the children they raise together.

  • Anonymous

    Great news. Can’t wait to see this pass in November. 

  • Anonymous

    This is an election year, Why hasn’t mister obama come to Bangor in support of his votes, oh! I mean in support of your coalition.. I’m waiting for mister obama to put together a bill for same sex marriage.. It’s sort of like a slot machine, the sounds the reels placed right outside the payline, just asking you to put more money in and there will be a payoff, yet the jackpot remains untouched.

    • Anonymous

      President Obama to you …

    • Anonymous

      Neither presidential candidate cares a whit about Maine, we are not a ‘battleground’ state.

      Which is probably a good thing, I sure don’t want to put up with the glut of political ads they see in Ohio every 4 years!

  • Guest

    Another argument, vaguer and even less persuasive, is that gay marriage somehow does harm to heterosexual marriage. I have yet to meet anyone who can explain to me what this means. In what way would allowing same-sex partners to marry diminish the marriages of heterosexual couples?
    ~Ted Olson
     

  • Anonymous

    The BDN daily pro homosexual marriage article.

    • Anonymous

      What was yesterdays article?

    • Anonymous

      Check the opinion section. There is a ridiculous anti-gay marriage piece for you to chew on.

  • Anonymous

    WOW, 77 people support gay marriage…..

    • Anonymous

      Time to go back to sleep hermit….238,595 Maine voters supported SSM in 2009

      • Anonymous

        And now it’s down to 77…….??????????????

        • Anonymous

          A coalition is a pact or treaty among individuals or GROUPS (emphasis mine), during which they cooperate in joint action, each in their own self-interest, joining forces together for a common cause.

          And how many members or groups does “Mainers United for Marriage” claim for their coalition?

      • Anonymous

        Remember jd, we never voted on SSM.  We voted on the special rights back in 2006.  Remember, they said that was not going to lead to a vote on SSM?  Surely you remember that.  SSM has been voted down whenever it goes to popular vote in every state.  31 states have constitutional amendments against gay marriage.  

        • Anonymous

          “Remember jd, we never voted on SSM.”

          Nor should we. Do we vote on every law that the legislature passes or do we allow the legislature to do what they are constitutionally charged with doing and what we elect them to do?
          ~~~~~
          “We voted on the special rights back in 2006.”

          After defeating the same question not once but twice.
          ~~~~~
          “Remember, they said that was not going to lead to a vote on SSM? Surely you remember that.”

          No I don’t but I am sure you can provide the documentation if asked. Oh, just so you fully understand I am asking for the documentation please and thank you.
          ~~~~~
          “SSM has been voted down whenever it goes to popular vote in every state.”

          Which one of your Civil Rights would you like to put up for a popular vote not?
          ~~~~~
          “31 states have constitutional amendments against gay marriage.”

          Maine doesn’t. Your point?
          ~~~~~
          So how does SSM impact or devalue your marriage assuming you are married not?

          • Anonymous

            My point, to make it simple so you can understand is the majority of Americans do not want SSM. We all have equal rights.  Gee, remember the ERA that did not get passed?  We all have equal protection under the constitution.  You do not get special rights because of your sexual orientation.  You cannot create a special class. If we go down that slope, next it will be beastiality and pedophilia, or multiple personality disorder people who marry themselves.  

          • Anonymous

            Recent polls say otherwise.  And even if you were right about “a majority of Americans do not want SSM” it wouldn’t matter because marriage is a RIGHT.  You do not get to vote on rights.  No we do not “all have equal rights”.  Same sex couples are denied the right to marry based on their sexual orientation.  These are not “special rights”, these are the rights afforded to heterosexuals that are denied to same sex couples.  “next it will be beastiality and pedophilia, or multiple personality disorder people who marry themselves” no, because in the first two examples, a child cannot consent and an animal cannot consent. As for the person with multiple personality disorder, that is still just a single person.

          • Anonymous

            Let me make this as simple as possible for you not. When a person is married in one state and moves to another state the 14th Amendment does not allow those rights from one state to be “abridged” (hope you don’t mind the big word) by another state without “due process of law”. That means a same sex could married in one state cannot lose their marriage rights without “due process”. Since they do and the 14th Amendment does not allow that, that creates an “unequal” situation and that means not everyone enjoys “equal rights”.

            Hope that was simple enough for you. If you don’t understand I will try again.

          • Anonymous

            It devalues the institution of marriage by putting harmful sexual practices which yield sterility on a par with an institution which is life-giving and vital to society.

          • Anonymous

            Does divorce devalue the institution of marriage?

            Does adultery devalue the institution of marriage?

            If they do, why do we not have laws in place that prevent a married couple from divorcing?

            Why aren’t we criminalizing adultery if if devalues the institution of marriage?

          • Anonymous

            Because that might actually negatively impact the people trying to ban same sex marriage.

        • Anonymous

          There was never a vote on “special rights”.  The result of that vote covered straight people as well as gay.  It was about discrimination based on sexual orientation. 

          Your bigotry is showing.

    • Anonymous

      Pretty sure it means ‘people that are willing to put up big money or their support in a big way.’ This is likely not a ‘everyman’ thing, these people are millionaires, senators, mayors, etc.

      • Anonymous

        How do you know “these people are millionaires, senators, mayors, etc”?

        Oh that’s right…because the SSM side has complied with Maine law and released the names of their donors.

        To bad the same cannot be said of those opposing SSM. They continue to fight and refuse to comply with Maine law but they want others to obey existing laws. How hypocritical of them.

      • Anonymous

        I severely doubt that many if any of  those at the rally are millionaires.  Besides, aren’t they all R’s and against SSM?

    • Anonymous

      Hooh hah!

    • Anonymous

      Read.  77 groups, over 300 local clergy, etc.

    • Anonymous

      Actually, hundreds of thousands of Mainers support this. This coalition is made up of faith organizations and businesses, not single individuals.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t know who these “Ministers and pastors in 20 different denominations” are who have signed on to affirm their support for gay marriage but they are fools and they are false. The Bible is very clear that homosexuality is wrong. It is a sin, it is an abomination and goes against nature. Any minister or pastor who’ teaches otherwise is a false teacher.
    The Bible says…
    ” no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. ” (2Corinthians 11:14-15)
    They may put their white collars and long robes on and stand behind a pulpit in a church but they are the false. They are NOT speaking for God or from the Bible when they say homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle. 
    This is what the Bible says about it…
    “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. ”
    (Rom 1:26-27)
    Note the Words the Bible uses on this subject ;  “vile affections”, “against nature”, “lust” (not love), “unseemly”, “error”.
    You make it sound so good to say you have garnered support from the ministerial community but you only have support from the false. You have to get your support from the false because the true ministers of Christ will not support you, neither will any reasonable thinking person unless you manage to ‘trick’ them into support with your sob stories about lack of rights and fairness. You have all the same rights as the rest of us. You just want special rights for a very, very small group of people who want to change the true definition of marriage to get the benefits  of marriage that only belongs to a man and woman.

    • Anonymous

      Do you have a quote from either the US and Maine Constitution that establishes us as a theocracy? 

      • Anonymous

        No one is trying to establish a theocracy by quoting the Bible on homosexuality. There are moral and natural consequences to homosexuality in society. America was established as “one nation under God” not as a theocracy but as a republic. And separation between church and states means protection from a state religion. It does not mean we are to throw God out of government. Our country’s history was formed with God and bible at its center. That did not make it a theocracy. Government is from God.  Romans 13:1-3. “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. (Rom 13:1) A government that doesn’t recognize God and His Will or replaces His will with man’s will end up with a godless society where there is no true Authority as to right and wrong and everyone will do what is right in their own eyes. We will end up with godless behavior legalized (like homosexuality). This county has fallen so far in just a few hundred years.
        By the way, one day there will be a Theocracy on earth. It is called the millennial reign of Christ. He will rule with a rod of iron and no one will practice anything evil in His Kingdom in that day (including homosexuality)

        • Anonymous

          No, the Bible was not the foundation of this country. Nice attempt at re-writing history though. Regardless, our laws aren’t based in religion. You can quote the Bible up and down but it’s irrelevant to civil law. 

          • I think it is just a troll to be honest. I’ll counter what it says for the fun of it but you might as well go outside and hit your head against a wall, you will accomplish a lot more.

          • Anonymous

            Actually Kevin I have to disagree with you. Responding to people like GodisTrue might seem like it accomplishes nothing but pointing out the holes in their arguments just might make a difference to people reading the comments.

          • We accomplish nothing is what I meant. Yes, we might be able to educate others but GIT will never change its mind. If it does, I would be shocked.

          • Anonymous

             Agreed

        • Anonymous

          Not so.  A very obvious “nose of the camel” in establishing a theocracy.

        • Anonymous

          There are absoluely moral consequences to homosexuality in society. For example, if we allow our government to discriminate against homosexuals, we are immorally, hypocritically denying the ideals our nation was founded on– that religious freedom should allow all of us to practice our faith without discrimination by our government.

          Extending civil marriage to same sex couples is the right thing to do. It is our moral obligation to allow ALL families in Maine the opportunity to protect the lives they build together, and the children they raise together.

    • http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

      When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite

      Contrary to myth, Christianity’s concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the “Office of Same-Sex Union” (10th and 11th century), and the “Order for Uniting Two Men” (11th and 12th century).

      These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

      • Anonymous

         “God is not the author of confusion” 1 Corinthians 14:33 Marriage is not “evolving” as far as He is concerned. It always has and always will be between a man and a woman. You resort to man’s authority which is constantly evolving and changing on this  issue. That is nothing but confusion.

        • Anonymous

          For once I have to agree with you and the “confusion” comes in when a civil law is being debated on a religious level. The laws of Maine and the United States of America are based on no religious texts, require no religious test and carry no religious weight.

          Now, how does SSM personally impact or “devalue” your marriage assuming you are married?

          • Anonymous

             The real problem here between me and you isn’t this circular argument over government. It is whether there is a God and whether the Bible is True. You are just side stepping the real issue. You want to leave God out of the argument and that’s impossible. It all boils down to is there a God or not and has he given us an authoritative book that is His Word (given through men but it’s writings inspired and superintended by Him so that it is infallible and inerrant in it’s original texts) and supernaturally preserved and given to us in reliable translations in our own languages  so as to be believed so by us.
            Here is the biblical answer to the problem here..
            “But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
            (1Co 2:14)

          • Anonymous

            The problem is that you’re trolling if you respond to people but ignore what they write to you. I and several others have asked you questions and you refuse to address them directly. 

            If marriage is purely religious to you, why have legal rights attached to it at all?

          • Anonymous

            I think I’m going to call Poe’s law on this one.

          • Anonymous

            “The real problem here between me and you isn’t this circular argument
            over government. It is whether there is a God and whether the Bible is
            True.”

            I am not and have not debated the validity of the Bible.
            ~~~~~
            ” You are just side stepping the real issue. You want to leave God
            out of the argument and that’s impossible.”

            The SCOTUS is the branch of government that decided it, not me.
            ~~~~~
            “It all boils down to is there a God or not and has he given us an authoritative book that is His Word (given through men but it’s writings inspired and superintended by Him so that it is infallible and inerrant in it’s original texts) and supernaturally preserved and given to us in reliable translations in our own languages  so as to be believed so by us.”

            It all boils down to do we as a nation select or chose one religion over another and what happens when Christianity is no longer the dominate religion if the U.S.? Do we allow or desire the new dominant religion to make laws based on their religious texts?

            Freedom Of Religion also means Freedom From Religion.

          • Anonymous

            Wrong.

            It all boils down to a matter of right or wrong, which can be expressed either in Divine law or civil law. 

          • Anonymous

            No.

            Maine does not pass “divine” laws. They pass civil laws.

          • After reading your comments/responses/rhetoric above, if you truly believe that marriage is a “God given institution, which He created” and that we should deny the right of marriage to same sex couples, should we also then deny that right to people of different religions and atheists (even if heterosexual) to marry as they have different views than you on God? Their views probably would not go over well either in the Theocracy that you mentioned before with God “ruling with rod of iron,” as He would probably view that as “evil” as well?

          • Anonymous

            Their not trying to redefine marriage as same sex couples are.

          • Anonymous

            But aren’t they?  I thought marriage was a “Christian” tradition.  By non-christians marrying, are they not mocking the ritual that you hold dear by creating worship to “false gods”?

          • Anonymous

            As for many of your translations, they have been weighed in the balances and found wanting …

          • Anonymous

            You are constantly side stepping the real question here; how does SSM personally impact or devalue your marriage?

        • How is your god a “he”? If your god has a sex then who created it? If nobody has ever seen the face of your god how does anyone know it is a he?

          • Anonymous

             He’s called the “Father” and Jesus is the “Son”

          • And Zeus is called the god of all god’s. Your point is pointless.

          • Anonymous

            Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God, came to earth walking and talking and performing miracles among human beings who experienced his presence.  He called God his Father, and “father” denotes masculinity.  Zeus is a made-up “god,” so what is your point?

          • Anonymous

            Please provide one argument that proves Zeus is a made up god that does not also disprove your god.

          • And the best Jesus does now is appear in toast.

          • Anonymous

            Egregious blasphemy.

          • Anonymous

            What you call blasphemy, I call free speech.

          • Amen, brother.

          • Anonymous

            And once again this is a civil law that changes nothing for any religious institution in the state.

          • Anonymous

            I believe that God has no gender.  Christ (as recounted decades later) probably had no other words to describe him.  Besides, consider the times.  Only a patriarchy would be accepted.

          •  Thanks for that, I needed a good laugh this morning. Jesus Christ is not the son of god, Yeshua was (at least in the Fable). Was Yeshua a little too… ethnic for your Anglo Christian sensibilities? That why your crowd changed it?

            http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/small/0801/yeshua-religion-demotivational-poster-1201664031.jpg

            You are wrong about so much it is difficult to even know where to begin. Most of the “rites” you call Christian come from other “non-christian” religions. The Catholic Church is especially full of pagan rites. Your biggest holiday, Christmas, is advertised as Yeshua’s birthday. Yeshua was not born in December, Christmas is based in the rites and celebrations of the Winter Solstice, a pagan celebration Christians took over in order to assimilate others to Christianity.

            If you want to pass of your views as “the truth” then clean up your contradictions, and then you might have an argument. Apologizing for the millions of people Christianity has killed in the name of your god would be a good start.

          •  So, he was born a walking baby?  Really?  Why is Zeus a made up god? Because you say so?  Or your Bible does?  Mythology goes back FURTHER than said Bible.  What makes the Bible true and what makes Greek/Roman mythology fiction? 

          • Anonymous

            Ha!  I love it when a follower of one invisible god refers to another god as being made-up.   I’m sure the devout followers of Zeus would have been as defensive about their deity being called false. 

            How do you not see the similarities?  They were also worshipping something simply because they were told to do so.  Blind faith and such.

          • Anonymous

            Blasphemy.

          • Anonymous

            Owing to our total inadequacy of any language in describing God.

      • Anonymous

        ‘Office of Same-Sex Union” and “Order for Uniting Two Men” are rites of the Orthodox Church, primarily Greek Orthodox, which split from Jesus Christ’s Catholic Church in 1054.  Orthodox are considered to be Christians, but Jesus intended that there should be only one Christian Church, the Catholic Church which he founded.  Any homosexual “marriage” rite is, and always has been, a heresy not in accordance with authentic Christian teaching, which in its fullness is found within only the Catholic faith.

        • Anonymous

          And the Catholic church will not be forced to marry a SSM couple since it is prohibited based on church doctrine.

          Now what is your argument against a CIVIL law allowing an adult couple of the same or opposite sex to marry?

        • Anonymous

          The “only” Catholic faith because the popes have said it is?  Actually, the Christian church was founded by the Apostles and Paul.  The orthodox Catholics have just as valid a claim, maybe more so.

    • Anonymous

      Civil rights are not special rights. Another thing, those “benefits of marriage that only belongs to a man and a woman” were not bestowed upon you by your God, they are civil rights that come from the government.

    • Anonymous

      Separation of Church and State.
      It really is pretty much that simple.

      • Anonymous


        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..”   What is a law based on any religious document but a respect for that religion’s establishment?  Seems pretty clear cut to me.. laws based on religious principles are un-American.

      • ChuckGG

        Good luck convincing them of that.   I had an uncle that thought microwave ovens were nuclear because he read of the “radiation” they gave off. 

        What’s that old saw?  “Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.”  From George Carlin, BTW.

      • Anonymous

        I agree, that’s why civil marriage should be allowed between same sex couples, regardless of what individual churches preach.

        After all, Catholic churches aren’t forced to marry muslims, but muslims are allowed to get civil marriage.

    • Anonymous

      You mean that “true definition of marriage” that prior to 1967 meant a “marriage that only belongs to a man and woman” of the same race?

    • Anonymous

      When are you going to get that Americans don’t have to live by the Bible and many don’t? Why should anyone be forced to live under your Christian perspective? Why do you want to take away American freedom by insisting that we must all live by the Bible?

    • Guest

      …..

    • Anonymous

       If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. – Deuteronomy 22:28-29 Keep marriage biblical, between a woman and her rapist!

    • Anonymous

      Get to know them.  Then you’ll possibly be ashamed and retract your baseless judgemental libel.

      True ministers of Christ? They’re more so than Rev. Emrich.

    • Anonymous

      You are picking and choosing, and quoting out of context, the very few verses that, at first, give the appearance of  confirming your prejudice.
      The Bible is a big book, 30,102 verses in all, and only about six verses have anything to do with “homosexuality” (a term that did not even exist in biblical Hebrew or Greek, and which does not appear in any properly translated Bible).  Homosexuality is one of the very smallest issues in the Bible — it is not mentioned in the Ten Commandments (no, adultery is a different issue), not in the wisdom books such as Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, Eccelesiastes, Job, etc., not in the Jewish Prophets, not in the Four Gospels, not in the non-Pauline Epistles, not in Revelation, and not in the words of Jesus himself.In the Four Gospels, Jesus mentioned love 49 times and forgiveness 27 times, but never once said anything against gays or lesbians.You are picking and choosing what you like in the Bible, quoting a few verses but ignoring the larger context.  Those who oppose the freedom to marry take that small handful of verses out of context and lift them up to support their prejudice, while failing to see the Bible’s core values of love, compassion, justice, and welcome.  The Bible tells us to love our neighbor, to welcome the stranger, and to seek justice for the oppressed person — these core values are repeated over and over in different contexts. the Bible in general, and Jesus in particular, shows concern for outsiders and thosee whose rights are denied.  “Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not see the log in your own eye?” (Luke 6:41).  “he that is without sin, let him cast the first stone” (John 8:7).  “Judge not, so that you will not be jhudged” (Matt. 7:1).Jesus welcomed everyone to the banquet table.  Those who oppose fairness and equal treatment under the law have missed the core teachings of the Bible — or are deliberately ignoring them.

      • Anonymous

        even if there were only one verse.. If God said it that’s all that matters. And He in more than one case condemns the practice of of homosexuality both in new and old testaments. Homosexuality is sodomy. And I will continue to describe it like God describes it. It is as filthy and perverse and unnatural as bestiality. Your trying to make this disgusting practice an acceptable lifestyle in the eyes of the public. You can dress up a pig but it’s still a PIG.

        • Anonymous

          And you can wrap up stupidity in religion, but it is still stupidity.

  • Anonymous

    The god fearing Cristian’s insisting this law should not pass because “god” says it is wrong should remember one thing.
    There is separation from church and state for a reason.
    This allows you to worship as you see fit.
    Do you want this removed?
    Look around at the empty pews on Sunday and think hard.
    Do you want the voters of the USA to decide how you worship?
    Do you want them to decide on if you can even worship at all?

  • Guest

    I was hoping the reporter wold give an explanation of what this “coalition” is. The number of people that are willing to go public aver it? I could get more to join a glee club! It has to be something more. Can someone tell me? It sure doesn’t seem to be just the supporters of this referendum……

    • Anonymous

      I believe it is a coalition of businesses and faith organizations who have formally announced their support for same sex marriage. The author could have been more explicit on that.

      The supporters of this referendum in Maine number in the hundreds of thousands, as evidenced by the number who supported our cause in 2009. At that time, only 25,000 votes separated the yes and no sides of the issue.

      Since then, Mainers have seen same sex marriage come to several more states. We have seen our military allow gays and lesbians to serve their country in honesty. We have clearly seen that the government’s “defense of marriage act” is an unconstitutional infringement on states rights.

      And most importantly, we have seen same sex couples in Maine hold conversations about the importance of this issue with communities across Maine, and we have absolutely seen minds changing on this issue.

      Allowing all Maine couples to have the legal benefits of civil marriage is the right thing to do. I hope most Mainers agree with that in November!

      • Guest

        Thanks

  • Anonymous

    Wake me when they hit four figures.

    More silly leftist vuvuzualing from the BDN.

    • Anonymous

      *poke…poke*

      238,595

      How does six figures strike you?

    • Anonymous

      Speaking of vuvuzualing … (sure that’s the spelling?)

  • Anonymous

    So those on the left, represented daily by this Daily, seem to think that because they live and
    breathe in 2012:

    No one should ever fight anyone for any cause whatsoever

    No one should apply any moral standards against anyone

    No one should consider that the government is far too involved in our daily lives

    And, of course, no one should support an institution that has greatly contributed to the success of Western and Eastern cultures, namely, marriage between a man and a woman.

    They seem to think the universe is blessed with their very presence, so like Michaelangelo’s Creator, they merely point their finger towards Man and behold, Creation!

    • Anonymous

      Do you want someone else to decide for you and your family what is moral and what is not?
      Isn’t that something for you to decide?

    • Anonymous

      Danny if we applied your logic to the history of this country the following things/events would still be legal or practiced in parts of this country:

      Slavery,
      No voting rights for women,
      Marriages between the races would still be prohibited on some areas,
      Rosa Parks would still be sitting in the back of the bus, plane, train, etc…,
      The military would still be in segregated units, sleeping in segregated barracks, eating in segregated mess halls and doing menial labor because blacks just will not fight and are a discipline problem,
      Children would still be working in sweatshops,
      Woman could not own property,
      etc…etc…etc…

      Oh, maybe we should make divorce illegal since better than 50% of all marriages end in divorce since marriage has so “greatly contributed to the success of Western and Eastern cultures”.

    • Anonymous

      I guess I’m just confused as to why you think you have to right to determine how other people live their lives? Homosexuality is harmless (per the SJC when they struct down all criminal laws across the country), so what’s the big deal? Like, I despise onions, but I don’t seek to make it illegal to serve them on pizzas. Why do you have to use the law to force or coerce people to live like you do? 

    • Anonymous

      Gee, I thought that those on the so-called right are saying the same thing about the alleged “left”.  Speaking of the hubris about blessed with ones presence …

    • Anonymous

      I don’t see anyone stopping you from voicing your opinion. Freedom of speech does not mean your view should be treated as unchallengable…

      But to your point, I am absolutely applying moral standards toward our government. It is truly immoral to deny couples in Maine the important protections of civil marriage for no justifiable reason. We are taxpayers, people, parents and couples who should have every bit the right and opportunity to have our unions protected by the same government that serves us all.

      There are over 1,100 benefits and privileges our government extends on the basis of marital status, at the federal level alone. Churches are free to deny marriage to whomever they want already, why stand in the way of our equal treatment under our laws?

  • Anonymous

    I’ve been married to the same great girl for 30 years, and I’m as straight as a 100 yard dash.

    I enthusiastically support marriage equality.

    It seems to me that we Americans like to sum up our ideals in short, easy to understand phrases.

    Such as:

    All men are created equal.
    Equal justice under the law.
    Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
    From many, one.
    And justice for all.

    Either we believe these are our true American ideals, or we are all hypocrites, who like to spout these lofty, high minded proclamations, while simultaneously denying them to millions of our fellow citizens.

    We will soon see which it is and who we are.

    At least in Maine

    • Anonymous

      Excellent!

  • Anonymous

    You dudes may love each other, but it is in no way marriage. Dream up another term will ya, and stay to hell out of my face.

    • Anonymous

      Who is in your “face” and where did they get in your “face”?

    • Anonymous

      You interracial couples may love each other, but it is in now way marriage.  Dream up another term will ya, and stay to hell out of my face.

      • ChuckGG

        Isn’t it disgusting when you see them going down the street together!  Holding hands and everything!  How icky.  And, think of the children and how hard it will be for them!  You know, they’d never be able to grow up and become President!

        {sarcasm, of course}

        • Anonymous

          Ugh, I know!  My child should not be subjected to that.  I don’t care what they do in their own bedroom, but I’m gonna make sure to judge them, just like Jeezuz told me to!

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Nobody’s in your face hotshot… you came here because you wanted to be exposed.

      Blame no one but yourself.

  • Anonymous

    It really makes you wonder about who would be so vehemently against a basic human right. Some of them doth protest too much, methinks.

  • Anonymous

    If it doesn’t pass, will the people who voted against it be bigots?
    Your coalition seems to hate my God, why do they hate my God ?

    • Anonymous

      No, the rub comes in when a religious organization attempts to use religion to define a civil law.

      Would you support a law based on the Qur’an that calls for women to be covered from head to toe in a burka?

      Or a law based on the Torah calling for no work from sunset to sunset on the Sabbath?

    • Anonymous

      If you oppose the equal rights of your fellow Americans, then, yeah, that kinda makes you a bigot.  And your coalition seems to hate my freedom, why do you hate freedom?

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Bigots? Yes… by definition.
      Your god is meaningless in discussions of civil law.

    • Guest

      ……

  • Anonymous

    The extermination of the human race is a credible threat within the next 500,000 years.
    As an (almost) eternal optimist, the marriage of two souls who love one another matters nil.

  • Anonymous

    The Bangor Gayly Daily news speaking up for less than 2% of the population again and again and again. Pathetic.

    • Anonymous

      Would you like to know what is truly “pathetic”?

      Someone that feels the way you do but continues to read the “Bangor Gayly Daily”.

    • Anonymous

      What’s way too cool about the Constitution though is that its elements and clauses aren’t contingent on being in the majority or part of a large group. 

    • Anonymous

      …because the American thing to do is stomp on those too small in number to make a difference at the ballot box?

      Civil rights shouldn’t be up to the whim of majority-rules popularity contests, that’s why we have a US Constitution.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Would you feel the same way if it were Jewish citizens they were standing up for, hon?

      After all, our numbers are very very close, and indications are, there are more gay citizens than Jewish.

  • Anonymous

    Guess some Churches do not believe in God. Hewes maybe should do some more reflecting as her group. Beware of falst Prophets, says the the Word.

    • Anonymous

      Zzzzzz…..civil law is the topic though.

      • Anonymous

        The topic is the article, read it all.

        • Anonymous

          And Hewes was talking about the upcoming vote regarding….civil law. :)

        • Anonymous

          We did.  You should re-read it too.

          • Anonymous

            I did, I was commenting on Hewes observations.

    • Anonymous

      “He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths” says the Word!

    • ChuckGG

      I often have heard that phrase, “Beware of false prophets.”  That is sound advice.  But, it is my observation that the ultra-dogmatic conservative religious such as the RCC, the Evangelicals, and the Fundamentalists are, in fact, those false prophets!  They seem to be against everything Jesus said.  They listen to a preacher who claims to talk to God.

      You have to take a step back to see just who are the false prophets.  There also is something I read – can’t recall now – about the false prophet or Satan or some evil critter appearing as a servant of the Lord.

      It doesn’t really matter to me one way or the other, but I see the behavior of these churches and they seem to be miles from anything even remotely Christian-like.

      • Anonymous

        I never said I or others are perfect. “false prophets”. Also the New Testament talks about, a man leaving his father and mother for a wife.

        • Anonymous

          But you did say that a church that has a different interpretation of scripture does not believe in God, doesn’t that seem a bit judgemental?

          • Anonymous

            When something is clear, it can not be interpretation. A lot of people have different opinions on certain aspects of Scripture. Even Jesus overturned tables in the Temple and kicked people out.

          • Anonymous

            True, except it isn’t clear, so it is up for interpretation.  And as Jesus said “love thy neighbor”.

        • Anonymous

          That’s fabulous….but not everyone believes in some antiquated book that no one honestly actually follows…..people cherry pick what they do follow in the bible and then don’t follow the inconvenient parts that apply to them all the while screaming and yelling when someone else doesn’t live up to THEIR expectations of the bible that they themselves don’t even follow.  Same sex marriage is about being treated equally under the laws of this country.  No one is required to have ANY religious involvement in order to marry in this country.

          The new testament is not law-and let me save you some time before you say ‘it’s god’s law’….if the new testament was factual law then anyone getting a divorce or remarried or who wasn’t a virgin at marriage would all be put to death as indicated in the bible….and that just doesn’t happen now does it?

          • Anonymous

            I approve of your use of “fabulous”. It needs to be used more in conversation.  Great post as well.

          • Anonymous

            The United States Constitution also gives people the right to voice their opinions and belief’s and to vote they way the feel what is right. Not to be forced or ridiculed into or pushed into voting differently then their Belief’s.

          • Anonymous

            Sure you get to vote, but not on someone else’s rights.

          • Guest

            ////////

          • Anonymous

            Is that ALL you have brucefl56??  Really??  When the bible crap fails now you’re going with the constitution?  Hilarious.  I believe that very same Constitution applies to gay Americans as well.  Gay Americans (the key word is AMERICAN) should all have equal civil rights under the law just like every other AMERICAN- speaking of being forced or ridiculed and pushed around.  When do gay people get to vote on everyone else’s  marriages and subsequent divorces?

          • Anonymous

            Contrary to some, they both the Bible and Constitution. go hand in hand.

          • Anonymous

            First of all, grammatically that made no sense.  I think you missed a couple of words in there.  Second, if I managed to understand you correctly, no, the Bible and Constitution do not go hand in hand.

          • Anonymous

            Just because liberals and democrats don’t believe it, but they do.

          • Anonymous


            As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion” – Treaty of Tripoli.  Seems like men far greater than yourself disagree.

          • Anonymous

            It would be interesting to actually know what the Founding Fathers would think.

          • Anonymous

            Signed by John Adams, a founding father, so I guess now you know what the Founding Fathers thought.

          • Anonymous

            Yes and John Adams signed this, that begins “Following is the Treaty of Paris which officially ended the American Revolution.
            In the name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity.”

          • Anonymous

            And he later amended that error with the Treaty of Tripoli which explicitly stated the US is not a Christian nation, get over it. I don’t need to follow the rules of your magic zombie wizard.

          • Anonymous

            maybe he was being prophetic about todays society. Wasn’t he a Unitarian? I guess we know why U.C.C. supports so many Libeal causes.

          • Anonymous

            You can say that.  He foresaw fundamentalist Christians trying to turn the US into a theocracy so he had to do something to show the crazies that, no, your religious superstitions have no place in law or government.

          • Anonymous

            Better than Liberal Dems turning the country Socialist or Communist. I do not happen to be superstitious.

          • Anonymous

            Well, from your comments I’m guessing you’ re religious, so you are superstitious.

          • Anonymous

            Contrary to YOUR belief the Constitution and the bible DO NOT go hand in hand hence we have separation of church and state for a reason….an example would be- an individual who is sworn into office swears on the bible to uphold the US Constitution they don’t swear on the Constitution to uphold the bible….get the difference ?

          • Anonymous

            Show me where in the Constitution those exact words “separation of Church and State?” When you take an oath on the Bible you are making an oath to God.

          • Anonymous

            Do the exact words “separation of Church and State” exist in the constitution, no.  Has the Supreme Court ruled that line ”
            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” means separation of church and state, yep. As for the bible, you have the right to refuse to swear on the bible and make an affirmation instead.

        • Anonymous

          The same New Testament that was “written” by King James the gay?

    • Anonymous

      How do Rev. Hewes statements and beliefs illustrate non-belief in God?  Speaking of false prophets …

      • Anonymous

        I am assuming they use read the same Word.

        • Anonymous

          Yep, I’m sure they just misinterpreted that “love your neighbor” bit.

          • Anonymous

            Love your neighbor as yourself is very clear, doesn’t mean you condone things your neighbor may be doing.

          • Anonymous

            It also doesn’t say to tell your neighbor how to live their life.

          • Anonymous

            I guess you have not read the New Testament then.

          • Anonymous

            How do you get “Tell other how to live their lives” from “Love your neighbor”?

          • Anonymous

            Read the rest of the New Testament. I do not ge to tell anone how to live their lives, but since you and others are so much into proclaiming “Love your neighbor”, you should read the rest.

          • Anonymous

            You know, seeing how Jesus’s “followers” act, I would prefer not to.  And if you do not to get to tell people how to live their lives, then stop doing it.

          • Anonymous

            sounds like you are trying to tell people how to live their lives.

          • Anonymous

            Not really, you admitted that you “do not get to tell anyone how to live their lives” and yet you continue to go against your own belief.  Curious, isn’t it?

          • Anonymous

            not at all, just stating what is in the Word.

    • Anonymous

      Guess some people do not understand religious freedom.

  • I wonder if anyone can give good reason to deny anyone their rights, WITHOUT saying “It say so in the Bible”?   Backed by legal, not religious, findings? 

    • Anonymous

      Nope.  They normally devolve into “but think of the children!”, but can’t actually cite any respectable studies or even give a straight answer as to what they actually mean.

    • ChuckGG

      Believe me, I’ve asked it a hundred times and all I hear is silence.

      • Can you at least explain the gay agenda all these anti-gay folks keep talking about.

        • ChuckGG

          Kevin – I did post it but it came up with a “must be moderated,” so it may or may not be released.  Here is an abbreviated version.  I added a few items to the posting now in moderation.

          http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/99/Sep/agenda.html

          • You better get to bed, gym comes early…. LOL!!!

          • Anonymous

            Hilarious!!!

        •  I have NO agenda, other than to marry the person I love.  I’m a B in LGBT and I have ppl tell me “why don’t you just marry a man, you like them to, don’t you?”  Happen to love a girl at this time – we have no agenda save for, oh, the pursuit of happiness, free will, things like that ;)

          • Anonymous

            Wait, did you not get the memo?  It explains our quest for world redecoration quite nicely.

          • Janet Marie my comment was me joking around with ChuckGG as I’m well aware there is no gay agenda but so many crazy people love to state there is.

      •  *crickets chirping*  

        Well, at least its better than silence…

    • Anonymous

      Good luck with that.  Thus far, I’ve asked the question a million times and the reason always comes back to a religious one, with one exception….A woman who is no longer religious but was raised in a religious home in which they were taught to hate homosexuals and find them “dirty and nasty”…apparently she was never able to undo ALL of the brainwashing

      • ChuckGG

        That matches with my findings.  Out of 100 anti-SSM people, 99 quote religious reasons, and 1 is just a regular bigot, who also dislikes all other minorities, except lesbians.  That guy usually has a collection of lesbian films in his home video library.  Again, just my observations.

    • Anonymous

      They can’t give any of us a good reason- all you have to do is refer back to the anti-miscegenation laws that were repealed by SCOTUS  in 1967 (Loving V. Virginia) and it’s the exact same thing.

  • Anonymous

    After reading all the comments,I have come to one conclusion. Yes I believe in God. I was also taught that only God passes judgement. So all you people against gay people getting married are also going against God’s word, so look at yourself before passing judgement. You people act like you are filling in for God or at least his spokesman!

  • Anonymous

    Uh, I know, how dare same sex couples want to have the legal recognition of their relationship that many heterosexual couples take for granted!  The nerve!

  • Anonymous

    You have the right to feel however you want.
    That is the great thing about America.
    I also have the right to feel the way I do.
    Another great thing about America.

    Explain why your feelings should dictate other peoples lives?
    As far as the rest of the wall of rant you have going there – yawn.

  • Anonymous

    I can’t believe in this economy that this is even an issue. Seriously?. I couldn’t care less who is marrying who. As long as I’m not being footed the bill they can marry their dogs.  Have a happy life.
     

    • ChuckGG

      Well, it would not have been an issue, and I didn’t think it would have been, had the bible thumpers left things well enough alone back in 2009.  Now, because of them we are once again trudging down this road.  And, they don’t even have any skin in the game.

      It makes as much sense as me going bear hunting and having a game warden harass me for my fishing license.  What is it with these people???  Go back to church and leave the rest of us in the secular world alone for a change.  Did we come banging on your door asking you to marry us in your church?  No.   So, get over it already and move along.

  • Anonymous

    Pastor Bob Emrich, the man who visits Africa to push legislation that criminalizes homosexuality with severe punishments such as the death penalty in cases of repeat “offenders.” Is that really the guy we should be listening to regarding morality and what’s good for our state?

    • Anonymous

      You’re free to believe or disbelieve anything or anyone you choose…just like everyone else.

      • Anonymous

        Yeah, that’s fine. I’m just more comfortable being on the opposite side of the guy who seeks criminal punishment for those who aren’t like him. 

        • ChuckGG

          Another great Turing test answer from anewvoice.  I wonder if anewvoice wrote those answers for the “Magic 8 Ball?”  You know, sort of answered the question but very vague and generalized?

  • Anonymous

    Emrich must not have listened or read past the headline.  Especially the speeches by the clergy.

  • Anonymous

    Chuck, there is one running right in Harmony, Me.: Bartlettyarns.  It’s right in the center of downtown Harmony, using original equipment from the early 129th century.   Google Bartlettyarns   :-)

    • ChuckGG

      Thanks!  Will check that out.  My mother’s caregiver is into spinning her own yarn for crochet work.  I bought her this electric spinning wheel and she gets the fur/hair/wool – whatever it is from the Alpaca farm in Unity.  Too much work for me! 

      The alpacas, on the other hand, are neat critters and the place in Unity is a fun visit.  They have a store where they sell goods made from alpaca.  I have a pair of socks and a scarf done in alpaca.  Incredibly soft.

      Northern Solstice in Unity has a breeding program and is quite well recognized nationally.  It is an amazing clean facility – not that you’d expect it to be otherwise, but they do have lots of animals around.  Great place to stop-in and visit and check out the store they have.

      http://www.northernsolsticealpaca.com/

  • Anonymous

    marriage=ONE man and ONE woman..

    • Anonymous

      civil marriage = legal license that should be extended to same sex couples because it’s the right thing to do..

      ALL Maine families should be able to protect the lives they build together, and the children they raise together.

    • Anonymous

      Until they get divorced and remarried all of which are strictly forbidden in the bible so what you REALLY mean is this-   Divorce = ONE man and ONE woman AND
      marriage =ONE man and ONE woman  AT A TIME.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      No… that is factually incorrect.

      Your out of touch with modern law in the US and abroad. Sad…

    • Anonymous

      Biblical marriage = One man and as many women as he could afford.

  • Anonymous

    When you make comments like “Sick and Perverted Lifestyle” you become the bigot we know you to be.  I would urge everyone that see this type of language used to flag it for review.  In my opinion it is nothing more than a personal attack on ever same sex couple out there.  I know many gay couples that lead a very vanilla lifestyle.  They are in no way perverted.  Yet in the same respect that i know many heterosexual couples that are so far into the kink that you might consider them perverted. 

  • Anonymous

    A double-minded minister with a twisted-sister outlook on the bible advocates for the destruction of marriage while offering her own views on how God view sodomy and rebellion. If this was not a true story, it would almost be worthy of fiction’s highest award. But then we live in an age of reason where right is wrong and wrong is right and no one is accountable for their actions.

    • Anonymous

      How does SSM impact or devalue your marriage assuming you are married?

      • Anonymous

        I have been  asking that question for a long time.  The answer is either a religious reason or there is no answer whatsoever.  My thought is that if my marriage is compromised because same-sex couples are given  the right to marry, my marriage probably isn’t worth much more than the paper that it’s written on

        • Anonymous

          Excellent reply.

      • Anonymous

        It doesn’t. Homosexuals make a choice when they pursue a lifestyle that is contrary to natural law. They have free wills and they are blessed to live in a country that allow them the freedom to pursue their respective perversions. But that’s  not enough! These activist will not relinquish until they can coerce every living soul on the planet into believing that a libertine lifestyle trumps every moral law and thread of dignity that orders the human race. Good luck with the ruse because most Mainers just don’t buy the kind of trash you’re peddling.

        • Anonymous

          First of all, every reputable psychology group states that sexual orientation is not a choice and that homosexuality is a natural variation of human sexuality, so excuse me if I put more weight on what the experts say.  But honestly, everything you said in your post doesn’t matter after the first sentence “It doesn’t”.  That’s right, it doesn’t affect you in any way.  I couldn’t care less whether or not you “agree” with my biological attraction to other males.  As long as I have the same rights afforded to heterosexual, I’m fine.  You really overestimate how much people actually care about your opinion of their life.

        • Guest

          /////

        • Anonymous

          And speaking of the trash you peddle….Well you must be an attorney as you quote ‘laws’ so often.  Do you understand what natural law is?  Apparently not or you would realize that in nature there are some 1500 animals who exhibit homosexuality.  Next up moral law- who are you to determine what is moral for anyone else but for you?  Same sex marriage ‘activists’ are not requiring you or anyone else to get married to anyone you don’t choose to marry….but you and your inane like minded mental midgets find it more than ok to coerce and deny fellow Americans (who happen to be gay) their equal right to marry the person they choose to marry.  Isn’t it funny how it seems to work one way for you and differently for everyone else who is not just like you….I think it’s fairly clear who are the perverse people in this process… and it’s not the same sex marriage ‘activists’….. it’s the narrow minded, judgmental hypocrites who seem to think it’s their job to tell everyone else how to live their lives- so long as everyone else’s life looks just like yours….you’re right Mainer’s don’t buy into your myopic crap you’re peddling.  Mainer’s are smarter than that.                       

          • Anonymous

            *slow clap* Wonderfully stated!

        •  Being gay isn’t a choice, it’s who someone IS.  You have green eyes (just in theory here) and I have blue eyes (That’s a fact).  You are a straight person.  I am a bisexual.  It’s simply the way things ARE!  Now, you can use contacts to change that, go hide in the closet, refuse to watch Ellen!  But, you still  have green eyes, and you are straight.  I have blue eyes and I’m bi – born that way.  Period.  Ask a psychologist, ask a doctor who specializes in sexuality and they will tell you the same. 

        • Anonymous

          Now would you like to answer the question asked?

          Just so you don’t need to go back and look it up here it is again; “How does SSM impact or devalue your marriage assuming you are married?”

          • Anonymous

            Now now, to be fair, he admitted that it did not.  He just has some delusion that he actually has a say in other people’s lives.

    • Anonymous

      You know what should get ‘fiction’s highest award?’  the bible…..talk about suspension of disbelief.

    • Anonymous

      This has nothing to do with how god views anything, how you interpret those views or how anyone else interprets those views.
      You are lucky you live in the united states and are given the right to have whatever views you want on religion.
      So is everyone else.
      Do you want your religion to go up to vote?
      Do you want your right to marry put up on the ballot?
      What makes your views supersede someone else’s?
      What makes you feel that your a special snowflake?

    • Anonymous

      God condemns rape, not love. Your judgemental attitude is out of step with the spirit of the Gospel.

      I am blessed in my life to have a wonderful, supportive partner whom I hope to marry one day. I hope you can come to realize the happiness of others is worth celebrating, not demonizing.

  • I’m not for or against gay marriage, but if it’s going to pass all should be treated equal.  Same income taxes and other problems heterosexual couples face, such as divorce. There shouldn’t be special rules just for being gay. Make it equal for all no matter if it’s same sex or not same sex.  

    • Guest

      No one is asking for special rights .
       

    • Anonymous

      Well as it is gay people pay much higher taxes as their unions aren’t recognize and given the “special” advantages that straight people’s marriages do.

    • ChuckGG

      I have no doubt that is what is anticipated.  I cannot think of any instances where a SS couple, legally married in Maine, would be treated any differently than a straight legally married couple, with regard to divorce, taxes, anything else.  No one ever asked for “special rights,” only the same rights as others.

      Now, the only issue I see is the Federal one.  Just because Maine might recognize SSM, I am not seeing that the Feds will by November.  That leaves the problem that a straight couple may file jointly on their Federal taxes but a SS couple could not.  The same would be true of Social Security survivor benefits, veteran spousal benefits, etc.

      Until the Feds resolve their issues, SSM would be equal as far as Maine law goes, but not so at the Federal level (yet!).

    • Anonymous

      To what ‘special rules’ are you referring .

      • Not so much special rules as equality,  SS marriage  should be the same as DS marriage, in every way, that’s all.  Believe me it’s not all it’d cracked up to be on taxes,  fair divorces,   ect… I wish you well if this is your goal.  Good luck with the federal they don’t move a bit unless it’s to their benefit. 

    • Anonymous

      This is exactly why it’s important to extend existing civil marriage to same sex couples, and not set up a separate system. Divorce laws are a part of what we are fighting for, so that children in these relationships are protected if parents split up.

  • Tedlick Badkey

    Few things in this discussion please me more than falling back on religious arguments against gay marriage. If that’s all you guys have, your loss is inevitable. Your mythologies aren’t even considered meaningful enough to be used in court. It’s a great thing to watch!

  • Anonymous

    I honestly am beyond caring at this point…whether the homosexual community is “married” or not will not change the fact that they are already married together in their hearts by the decisions they make together. As long as my pastor/denomination reserves the right to say “no” to performing a ceremony that their theology doesn’t agree with, everyone’s rights have been preserved…

    That being said, don’t teach my kids a homosexual lifestyle in school during their very confusing sexual development years. Parents should be the one doing sex ed, not a school system full of people with very different opinions and values from one another.

  • Anonymous

    I guess this is considered as “news”.   

    • Anonymous

      Yep, for those of us who care about equal rights for all Americans.

  • Anonymous

    Wow the “religious” leaders of the most unchurched state come out in support of homosexual marriage. Umm who are these “religious” leaders preaching to?

  • Anonymous

    These are ALL families from Maine……

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85wBkOFbT_w&feature=share

  • Anonymous

    Let them have the  word marriage. We need the Maine legislature to pass a law that only civil unions will be accepted by the state.Marriages will no longer qualify.Religions can call it whatever they want but any legality must be civil unions from now on.

    • Anonymous

      and who would ‘them’ be?

    • Anonymous

      That would fit the explicit need for equal treatment under the laws, but would be highly problematic unless our federal government similarly adopted civil union language for the 1,100+ benefits existent in federal statutes.

      Glad to see you are seeing the clear difference between the holy matrimony ceremony of marriage and the legal license of civil marriage!

  • Anonymous

    This is a perfect example of what happens when the same-sex coalition sneezes: the mainstream media stops everything it does and comes to the rescue. Enough said about it’s blatant bias. Thanks for cyber space where less bias news is made available.

    • Anonymous

      Achoo.  Too bad you couldn’t live in cyber space where I’m sure you would be far more at home with all your own inane biased opinions….pathetic.

    • Anonymous

      Have conservatives lost track of what “mainstream” means?  It’s a reference to the center…a balanced view.  Those on the political right use “mainstream” like it’s a bad thing.

      What’s wrong with being an unbiased news source?

      If you mean to say “liberal” media, you might want to start using that word.  Otherwise, you sound like you need a dictionary.

      • Anonymous

        Obviously my reference to the “mainstream media” was intended to mean the media at large that happens to be dominated by liberals. Do I need to define what I mean by “liberal” as well?

        • Anonymous

          “Obviously”?  How is that?  All I see is a reference to “the mainstream media”. 

          If you use the word “liberal”, we’ll know what you mean.

          • Anonymous

            The media at large is liberal. “Mainstream” doesn’t necessarily mean the center. It’s where the media at large is located, on the liberal side, that is.

          • Anonymous

            Umm, ok.  Heck of a spin you’ve got there. 

            Curious…what news group would you consider to be unbiased?  And please don’t say Fox or your credibility will be totally shot. 

  • Anonymous

    In all the cases you mention marital laws have always involved a particular and unique relationship between a man and a woman.   The uniqueness of the marital relationship involves the physical union between the spouses that has the potential to bring a child into the world.  The sexual difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual relationship is irreducible.  The complimentary physical attriubutes of a man and a woman is what makes this possible  Throughout history this fact has never been ignored and cannot be ignored now.   Even in cultures that embrace homosexuality – the Spartans and Romans immediately come to mind – they never accepted homosexual marriages. 

    • Anonymous

      Really this is incorrect. Not only is civil marriage unrelated to procreation in its requirements and expectations, but traditional marriage vows make no message of children.

      Marriage is about the commitment two people show toward one another, intending to spend a lifetime in support and love. Same-sex couples absolutely form the same kind of deep, meaningful bonds that heterosexual couples do.

      For evidence of this, simply look toward photos from New York of the elderly couples who are so grateful that they may finally enter into civil marriages. These are couples who have been together for decades in monogamous, faithful commitment.

    • Anonymous

      Should infirtile couples be prevented from marrying then?  There is no “potential to bring a child into the world” in that relationship either.

    • Anonymous

      So what about all the people who have children who aren’t married?  What about the people who don’t want children?   What about all the people who can’t have children?  What about the 410,000 children who are in foster care in this country- their parent’s marriage or non-marriage has certainly helped them hasn’t it? and here’s a News Flash in this day and age in order for a gay OR straight women to have a child all she has to do is order frozen sperm from a sperm bank and VIOLA …..you can cut out the middleman altogether (so to speak.)  Try again.

  • Anonymous

    Where is the Reverend Bob Carlson?

    Couldn’t he make it to the celebration?

    The good reverend was a strong advocate of gay marriage.

    Where is Bob, by the way?

    Has anyone seen him around lately?

    • Anonymous

      You really should just change your username to Comment removed.

      • Anonymous

        Silence, eh?

        So everyone knows where the good reverend is?

        • Anonymous

          No your answer is above.

      • Anonymous

        Can’t handle the truth?

        The truth of God’s word?

        • Anonymous

          Obviously I can handle truth of God’s word. The message of the Gospel is one of love and help for those most vulnerable in society.

          That certainly is not what you share from your hateful heart. You really should try to let God in, and let go of this senseless vendetta you have against gay rights.

          • Anonymous

            That is absolutely and unconditionally wrong.

            The message of the Gospel is to repent of your sins, believe in Christ, and be baptized for the remission of sins.

            To say that the Gospel is about love, while ignoring the need to be saved from our sins, is to make the Gospel of no effect. 

            And the message of the homosexual rights movement is one of hate towards God and one of hate towards the truth. 

          • Anonymous

            Hate towards God? Nope. Hate towards truth? Nope.

            The truth of the matter is that the Bible says very little regarding homosexuality. In contrast, there is much support and guidance given in support of slavery.

            Even Pat Robertson acknowledges that there are parts of the Bible which we can interpret as attitudes from another time. We understand that slavery is wrong, and we do not fight to hold slaves even though the Bible allows for it. Why? Because our understanding of each other has grown.

            The same should be said for homosexuality. We have learned that there is sincere, truthful love to be found for homosexuals– there really is nothing sinful about a supportive and nurturing couple seeking marriage to protect the life they build together.

            God has blessed my life, and I am thankful every day for the fact that I have such a wonderful, supportive person to share it with. I don’t know what trauma occurred to you to cause such a hateful obsession with gays and lesbians, but I hope you can grow out of it, and open your heart.

    • Anonymous

      “Where is the Reverend Bob Carlson?”

      Looking up at the roots of grass.
      ~~~~~
      “Couldn’t he make it to the celebration?”

      Nope.
      ~~~~~
      “The good reverend was a strong advocate of gay marriage.”

      And your point would be what?
      ~~~~~
      “Where is Bob, by the way?”

      See answer to first question.
      ~~~~~
      “Has anyone seen him around lately?”

      Nope, he hasn’t be “around” since November 13, 2011.
      ~~~~~
      Now isn’t it interesting that you hide behind a screen name. Are you afraid to post your real name? Are you so ashamed of your stated positions that you cannot stand on your soapbox in public?

      • Anonymous

        Not at all.

        You see, the future belongs to us.

        Your decadent civilization will collapse of its own weight.

        • Anonymous

          You aren’t? So your “real” name would be???????

          No, the future belongs to ALL of us. You, me, them, white, black, red, gay, straight. You don’t get to decide who the future belongs to, you don’t have that power.

  • Anonymous

    I am voting AGAINST gay marriage for the same reason many others are voting FOR it = 
    We don’t want other people pushing their beliefs and lifestyles on to us. 

    Isn’t that what this whole argument is about any way?

    • Anonymous

      Not really, no.

      This issue is about the civil marriage license, and the fact that our government should extend protections and benefits equally among citizens.Whenever courts have examined this issue, they have found no legitimate reason for our government to discriminate against same-sex couples in regards to the civil marriage license.

  • Anonymous

    No, I believe. And according to the definition believing in superstitions: convinced that performing or not performing specific actions brings good or bad luck, that some events or phenomena are omens, and, generally, fearfully believing in a supernatural dimension to eventsbased on irrational belief: based on a false or irrational belief in, or fear of, the supernatural. Not fearfully believing, nor irrational.I am not perfect, but I do believe that the Bible is the Inspired Word of God. (The Whole Word). I say that because you have to take the Book, not a verse here and there. I can pray that someday you will realize that before it is too late. I neither comdemn you or anyone, stating my belief, as you have to right to yours.

    • Anonymous

      Hmm, you seem to believe that doing good actions will result in your deity rewarding you and doing bad things will result in your deity punishing you.  You only have one book, with no scientific support, to convince you of this idea.  Sounds like a superstition to me.  And you “neither condemn you or anyone”? Really? You condemned the people supporting same sex marriage as false prophets.  You have every right to your beliefs, but you do not get to force those beliefs into law by banning same sex marriage.

      • Anonymous

        I am not forcing anyone, that is the law at present. I did not condemn them, I said the “Word, says beware of false Prophets”. Well now, are not you forcing your belief’s on me, on the same sex marriage. What’s next. We surely can discuss this discourse forever. I am not forcing anyone to do anything.

        • Anonymous

          You are forcing your belief that marriage is between only a man and a woman into law based solely on your religious book.  I don’t care if you personally believe that, but by making that law, you are forcing that belief onto the rest of the country.  By legalizing same sex marriage, you will  not be forced to recognize them.  Your church will not be forced to recognize them.  Your live will continue on as if nothing has happened.  The ONLY people affected by same sex marriage is same sex couples.  So as I said, keep your beliefs out of the law if you have no scientific basis for those beliefs.

          • Anonymous

            Where have I heard that story before. How about forcing your belief’s on the Boy Scouts of America? If you say there is no scientific basis, then leave the B.S.A. alone. And do not say they do not believe in God.

          • Anonymous

            I’m not forcing the boy scouts to do anything.  As a private organization, they can be as bigoted and discriminatory as they want.

          • Anonymous

            Of course you are, maybe you not specifically. How many times have groups tried? Because they do not believe as you do the are bigoted and discriminatory. They do not let girls in, suppose that is discrimnatory. Seems to me your forcing liberal views on others.

          • Anonymous

            Once again, there is no force.  Petitioning someone to change a policy that is discriminatory is not the same as using the force of law.  Do I think that the BSA should be more inclusive, sure. But I will not attempt to use the force of law to make them become more inclusive.  You are attempting to use the force of law to limit the rights of same sex couples.  That is why you are forcing your viewpoint.

          • Anonymous

            Actually the BSA does allow women as Den Mothers (often alone and without male influence on the pack) and as Troop Leaders. The GSA does not allow males to be full Troop Leaders. A male can only be a co-leader in the GSA. Males are also restricted at GSA events but the BSA has no such limitations.

          • Anonymous

            Again you are making a claim without any facts to back you up.

        • Anonymous

          bruce the question at hand is a CIVIL law….not a religious law.

          • Anonymous

            Then why not leave the Boy Scouts alone, if all this has to do with civil law. Trying to force them, which believe in God, to do what you think they should do.

          • Anonymous

            Who said anything about the Boy Scouts of America? I know I didn’t bring them into the discussion. The BSA is a private organization and as such can decide who become members. If I am not mistaken, their position (banning homosexuals) has been upheld by the SCOUTS.

          • Anonymous

            Speaking on forcing ones belief’s or what is best on others we were discussion and the fact, that the B.S.A. are continously harassed. It has also been upheld by the Supreme Court.

          • Anonymous

            You are confusing harassed with criticized.  They have a legal right to ban gay members.  I have a right to criticize that decision.  You keep missing the point where no one is currently trying to use the law to force the scouts to change.  People just hope that the scouts will do the right thing eventualy.

          • Anonymous

            Is that why it went to the Surpreme Court. That is certainly using the law to force belief’s contrary to the Scouts beliefs. They are continually under attack.

          • Anonymous

            Did you miss where I said currently?  The Supreme Court ruled in 2000.  There is CURRENTLY no one using the force of law against them.  There are only people who want to see a discriminatory policy ended.  Criticism is NOT the same as attacking.

          • Anonymous

            Could you provide a couple of examples with links of the harassment the BSA has experienced over the past couple of years please and thank you.

            The Catholic church has been called on repeatedly to allow for the ordination women. They continue to refuse. Is that harassment or people calling for a policy change?

          • Anonymous

            The Supreme Court decision, California, Texas. All you have to do is google it, you’ll find several instances. Catholic Church though I am not a member base their decision on certain Apostle’s teaching.

          • Anonymous

            Sorry but I don’t do other peoples research for them when they make claims. You made the claim that the BSA has been harassed for there decision not to admit openly gay people. Since you made the claim it is incumbent on you to provide the facts/evidence to back up those claims.

          • Anonymous

            I suggested you do, it seems you would not believe it anyways. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale  Though you will say taking them to court is not harassment.

          • Anonymous

            A 12 year old case which held exactly what I said it did. That the BSA is free to exclude homosexuals from membership.

            By the way I asked for examples “from the last couple of years”. A twelve year old case is not a “couple of years” ago.

            So now that we have established that the BSA is not 1) the object of harrassment and, 2) that they are free to bar homosexuals from membership by SCOTUS decision in 2000 would you please explain why YOU brought up the BSA in the first place.

Similar Articles