Comments for: Same-sex marriage advocates introduce Republican supporters

Posted July 23, 2012, at 4:06 p.m.

AUGUSTA | Sounding a theme of small government and individual liberties, the campaign working to legalize same-sex marriage in Maine on Monday introduced a group of 20 Republicans who plan to vote in favor of same-sex marriage in November and campaign on the ballot measure’s behalf in the coming …

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):

  • Old Bear

    Just what we need more draaaama.

  • Guest

    Can’t go to hell if it doesn’t exist.

    It’s inevitable.

    • Anonymous

      “If their are those who are determined to go to Hell, Help them along.”  

      Well, that is what freedom really means. 
      Relative to logical soundness, the usual test is to see if the oppose rings truth,
      too, right ? 

      So if their goal were to not go to Hell, should the State prevent their freedom 
      to do what they believe would avoid making them going to Hell ?   

      Hell no ! 
      So according to Hobo, a Yes vote, is the same as a vote for religious freedom. 
      Good thinking, Hobo.  
      Support YOUR freedom of religion,  and vote Yes on gay marriage !!!!!

    • Anonymous

      I doubt that thi s will be “as often” as there aren’t that many but you are right otherwise.

    • Anonymous

      Many gay marriage supporters comment about what Jesus Christ said, and apparently did not say, in the Bible.  So obviously, the people who quote Jesus must believe he exists.   In the Gospels, Jesus spoke about hell 13 times.  He said that we should not fear those who can kill the body, but have no power over the soul.  He said that instead, we should fear Jesus himself, since he has the power to cast body and soul into hell.  Since Jesus does indeed exist, then hell must exist, also.

      • Guest

        The bible was written by superstitous men who were drinking bad wine.

        • Anonymous

           Yeah, they still crushed grapes with feet back then!

          • Guest

            //@\

      • A lot of atheist study the gospels, I am one of them. Just because we study the bible doesn’t mean we believe in it.

    • Joseph Willingham

      I get called out by one person on here for littering his inbox with messages of hate (which I don’t think I do).  But I don’t ever see complaints about actual messages of hate that are directed toward gays.  

      Like those articles recently about that guy from out of state who’s working on the campaign here. The guy from out of state who supports the gays- non-stop complaining about people from away that don’t belong in our business.
      The guy from away that opposes SSM?  Not a peep about him at all.

      Crazy.

    • Anonymous

      Well that’s not very often theses days.  

    • Anonymous

      Sorry that’s not true..Though loud , gays are less than 1% of the population so gays getting married have a ways to go to equal regular marriages…Though it does have a chance to catch up here in Maine where most now live together and have 3 kids to get the maximum out of the welfare system…Something gays can’t do…They have no reason not to get married…

      • Guest

        ugh

  • Anonymous

    Wow!  Who appointed you judge and jury?

  • Anonymous

    Memo to Rev. Emrich: you should try to find a good reason for a press conference on your own, difficult to do for someone in your position.
    And most of us support “real marriage” (by your definition) regardless of political stripe.
    Keep digging.  The hole gets deeper and deeper.

  • Anonymous

    Interesting, they wait until they’re not seeking reelection to grow a pair.

  • Anonymous

    Good for them! Anyone who calls themselves “limited government” should recognize that the government has no business telling individuals or churches who they can marry. 

  • Anonymous

    Good, maybe when the Dems take control in November, it’ll be the last we hear from them
     

  • Anonymous

    Hell, will be my grandchildren watching this social decline.

    • Hell will be my grandchildren wondering what in the world took us so long to ‘allow’ two people who love each other to make it official. 

    • Anonymous

      Adam and Eve said that, too. 

    • Anonymous

      Ever stop to think that hell might be learning a grandchild commited suicide because of cruel attitudes about homosexuality?

    • Anonymous

      The road to hell is paved with good intentions!!!   Get it?

  • Mr. Emrich’s responses are sounding full of bitter grapes these last few articles.  I wonder what kind of lying ads he has planned for the weeks leading up to the vote  for him to sound so confident.

  • Anonymous

    Call it what it is:  homosexual/lesbian unions that have been opposed for a long time in Maine. 
    As for the 100,000 conversations that proponents have had–I hope they did not try to intimidate–

    • Anonymous

      Well since Rev. Emrich seems to be looking for an “excuse to have a press conference” one would think that IF proponents of of SSM participated in “intimidation” that we would have heard about it.

      As the opponents of SSM have shown a propensity of bending the truth and violating Maine law in the run up to the repeal vote in 2009 I doubt the absence of real incidents of intimidation would stop them from say intimidation has occurred.

    • Anonymous

      Yes, let us call it what it is: allowing ALL Maine families to protect the lives they build together, and the children they raise together.

      Fairness, equality, “live and let live”– all have been Maine values for a long, long time.

  • Anonymous

     Republican supporters are they anything like an athletic supporter?

  • Anonymous

    “Mainers United for Marriage,” Republicans United for Marriage” are both misrepresenting Mainers and Republicans in that the titles are not for traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

    • Guest

      …..

      • Joseph Willingham

        Yes.  Talk about misleading titles…

    • Anonymous

      Why do you oppose two people whom you don’t even know getting married? How does it affect your life that they are able to protect theirs with civil marriage?

      Do you only define yourself by what you oppose in life?

    • Anonymous

      I believe the “titles” are just fine. What do you think these groups should have called themselves?

    • Anonymous

      So my brother’s five “traditional” marriages are better than marriages between homos and les’?   Don’t thinK SO!!!

    •  the you are not 4 life OR freedom

  • Anonymous

    I need to join that group! I am a registered Republican, and I fully support same-sex marriage. It’s the right thing to do, so that all Maine families have the ability to protect the lives they build together, and the children they raise together.

    More importantly, our Constitution demands we extend civil marriage to same sex couples. Mainers shouldn’t have to wait for that argument to make its way to the US Supreme Court, though.

    • Anonymous

       why don’t you quote us the constitution where same sex marriage is ‘demanded’. I somehow doubt your statement about being a republican too. You are too liberal.

      • Anonymous

        Guess you better reread the constitution. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to begin with.  

        • Anonymous

          Easy, southbound22.  Most of these thumpers are taught to read one thing and one thing alone.  That’s all they have to do.  Their pastors will even help them interpret it.

      • Anonymous

        The 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause demands that laws our government enacts be enforced equally toward all Americans.
        I am absolutely conservative— I believe that we should abide by our constitution, and get government out of our personal lives. Allowing same-sex civil marriage is aligned with that mindset.
        There are plenty of Republicans like me who wish our party would abandon this ridiculous opposition toward treating gay and lesbian Americans equally under the law, including gay marriage. It’s a wedge issue the Democrats exploit to their benefit, and it truly makes Republicans look like they are on the wrong side of history on this issue.

        • Anonymous

          Would you be willing to support all human life from the moment of conception to natural death? That too is supported by the 14 Amendment, and science has determined human life begins at conception.

          • Joseph Willingham

            That’s a rather misleading statement you make.  Please cite reputable scientific studies that prove that.

          • Anonymous

            I’m glad you asked the question. The scientific evidence for human life beginning at conception has been available for well over 100 years. Here’s an objective reference. It’s fairly quite technical, so I’d suggest to skipped down to Part III of the discussion where you will find facts and myths, which is written more in layman’s language.

            American Bioethics Advisory Commission
            http://www.all.org/abac/dni003.htm

          • Lord Whiteman

             Is that the same Catholic church that thinks it’s ok to send known pedophiles to new parishes? 
             

          • Anonymous

            What does this have to do with my comment?? I think you are venting your anger at the Catholic Church. How long you remain angry for whatever reason depends on you. Personally I think grudges are particularly harmful. For that reason I don’t allow any momentary anger to persist until it becomes a grudge.

          • Lord Whiteman

             The church has been facilitating mass murder and child rape for over 1500 years.    I will never stop hating them.

          • Anonymous

            I feel sorry for you, so filled with hate. The Church does so many good things.

          • ChuckGG

            Mussolini got the trains to run on time. 

          • Lord Whiteman

             Their is no penance that makes up  for the institutionalized  child rape of the church.

          • Anonymous

            so you scorn the entire church because of the sins of a few?  Look at other religions, they, too, have sinned in the same way. I in no way asked for any forgiveness, that is up to God. And exactly what does Mussolini have to do with this?  You just like to bunch all your hatred up in one neat little package?

          • Lord Whiteman

            Sins of a few??? Child rape is a excepted part of the priesthood and has been since the days of 
            Pontifex Maximus

          • Anonymous

            Absolutely not. Child rape is not and has never been an accepted view of the official church. If you believe that, you are undoubtedly fantasizing.

          • Anonymous

            I don’t think many of the posters here are in the mood to get the entire picture of the Church, obviously some of it bad and some of it good. Their primary focus in on the bad aspects because they see the Church as an obstacle to their pro-abortion and “gay rights” political agendas, which I suspect are motivated by anger and envy for some.  

          • Anonymous

            I’m sorry you have such a negative view of the Church. What you just stated about the Church can be said about any other church or institution with relatively little history. As to your hatred, that’s up to you.

          • Lord Whiteman

            Your view is the same one that allows thousands of children to be raped by their priests.

          • Anonymous

            Exactly what is my view “that allows thousands of children to be raped by their priests”?

          • Lord Whiteman

            Since the Pope refuses to stop the pedophile priests it was up to the lay people of the church. But like you many continue to  pretended the problem doesn’t exist.

          • ChuckGG

            You know, I had never heard of the American Bioethics Advisory Commission.  So, I did a bit of research, and surprise, look what I found:

            “Mission

            American Life League established the American
            Bioethics Advisory Commission to defend the human being, his innate dignity and his unique nature. The American Bioethics Advisory Commission will not allow the rush toward bioethical tyranny to proceed unchecked.”

            It seems the American Bioethics Advisory Commission was established by the American Life League.  Naturally, I had to look up who they are, and surprise, look what I found:

            “If you’re wondering just what American Life League is and why we have this web site, you’ve come to the right place.

            In a nutshell, American Life League is a 501(c)(3) organization
            co-founded in 1979 by Judie Brown and nine other dedicated pro-life Americans. It is the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life education organization in the United States. ALL is committed to the protection of all innocent human beings from the moment of creation to natural death. It is rooted in pro-life integrity that stands up for every innocent human being whose life is threatened by what Pope John Paul II called “the culture of death.” That ranges from the single cell human embryo to
            the elderly, the infirm and others at risk of having their life
            terminated by acts of euthanasia. The pro-life position notes that neither abortion nor euthanasia can ever be medically necessary or morally permitted.”

            Call me a fool, but it looks like this has a heavy dose of Catholic influence – just a guess, of course.

            I think I would rather read something a tad more neutral and unbiased.

          • Anonymous

            The Church is absolutely correct when it maintains human life begins at conception. It’s not something it made up. It’s something it learned from science. Whether you think human life from its beginning to its natural ending should be legally protected is another discussion.

            Here’s a link that will help clarify what I mean. Also, pay attention to the scientific sources listed therein. (This link will not likely appear on your personal website, so check this website to access it)

            When does science say Human Life begins? – Fallible Blogma
            http://fallibleblogma.com/index.php/when-does-science-say-human-life-begins/

          • ChuckGG

            I found it more interesting reading some of the Comments on that blog for which you provided a link.

            Of course, it sort of doesn’t much matter as the church doesn’t have a say in the issue of legal abortion.  Certainly, it may object, and is entitled to do so.

            I would argue that the way to prevent most abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies.  But, the church objects to that, as well, despite 98% of the Catholics practicing or having practiced artificial birth control during their reproductive lives.

            So, the next thing I will hear from the peanut gallery is abstinence.  And, abstinence would work if people actually would follow it but, of course, they do not.  I am sure more than one of those 10 siblings in an old Catholic family was due to either abstinence or withdrawal birth control techniques.  Efficacy is about 0.00001%.  A cheap bottle of muscatel and a Frank Sinatra record and all bets were off.

            I will stick with what Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, a born-again Christian, said:  “If you want to stop abortions, you have to stop unwanted pregnancies.”  Pretty simple.  Too bad the church rails against the idea.

          • Anonymous

            Even with abstinence, the Christian church is based on the belief that it is only 99.99% effective.

          • Anonymous

            Your argument for artificial birth control as the most effective way to prevent abortions is not supported by the facts. As you stated, most couples, including Catholics, practice artificial birth control, yet there are roughly 1.2 million clinical abortions per year, not the mention the unaccounted abortions caused by contraceptives. Abstinence does work as you stated. It is more effective than artificial birth control when it is promoted continuously beginning at an early age just before sexual activity. That’s why I believe it should be promoted over artificial birth control. Even in marriage, natural family planning that involves a certain short period of periodical abstinence is more effective. I have three adult children with my spouse spaced two and four years apart, as we had intended.

            That said, I also agree with Surgeon General Koop. But how best to stop unwanted pregnancies is not by promoting artificial birth control that has been shown to increase sexual activity at a young age.

          • ChuckGG

            I have to run to work – but “hogwash.”

            You can promote abstinence all you want, but not everyone is Catholic by a long shot.  It won’t work, period.  It hasn’t worked.

          • Anonymous

            If abstinence education is working so well, then why do states that promote abstinence only education have the highest teen pregnancy rates?

          • Anonymous

            The Catholic Church says it does.  Any other citations?

          • Anonymous

            I’m glad you asked the question. The scientific evidence for human life beginning at conception has been available for well over 100 years. Here’s an objective reference. It’s fairly quite technical, so I’d suggest to skipped down to Part III of the discussion where you will find facts and myths, which is written more in layman’s language.

            American Bioethics Advisory Commission
            http://www.all.org/abac/dni003.htm

          • Anonymous

            Your one of those people holding those disgusting signs down by the Federal Building arent you?

          • Anonymous

            There are plenty of other sources. For starts you should refer to any book on embryology to find your answer. You will also find a discussion of the beginning of life in most Anatomy 101 textbooks. All these sources will tell you all species -including humans – of mammalian life start at conception.

          • Anonymous

            Life, but not HUMAN life.  A collection of cells is no more human than an egg is a chicken, and that is what a fertilized embryo is, a collection of cells.

          • Anonymous

            The product of human conception is nothing but human life. It is not an elephant, a monkey, or a pig, for instance. Had your mother aborted you just after conception you would not be alive to do what you are doing now. That’s because each human being from conception is very unique and will never be duplicated. This is clearly all established scientifically.

          • Anonymous

            Where is it established scientifically that a group of cells is the equivalent to a human?  Please provide your source, and try to use an unbiased source.

          • Anonymous

            The web site I previously presented is unbiased. But you remain skeptical, so here is another one for you with scientific sources listed that confirm my position.
             

            When does science say Human Life begins? – Fallible

            http://fallibleblogma.com/index.php/when-does-science-say-human-life-begins/

          • Anonymous

            No, it wasn’t.  It was a front group for a catholic anti abortion organization.  If that is what you call “unbiased” I would hate to see what you call biased.  And this second link is a catholic guy’s opinion.  These are not scientific studies.  And the only “scientific source” referenced is a book called Embryo.  This is what Amazon has to say: ”
             this book provides no compelling new evidence about the moral status of the embryo to persuade readers who do not already agree with them. ”   So I’m still waiting on a valid, scientific, peer reviewed study that clearly demonstrates that a collection of cells is the equivalent to a fully formed human being.

          • Anonymous

            It appears you missed the names of several authoritative sources, the main reason for the link. Also, have you taken the time to check out Anatomy 101 textbooks and textbook on embryology? Had you done so, it would be hard to deny that these sources are not recognized by he scientific community. Oh, incidentally, please find me a valid, scientific, peer reviewed study that clearly demonstrates that the earth and the planets, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn orbit the sun. You won’t do any better than I just did to demonstrate human life begins at conception.

            One more thing: How did the Catholic Church arrive at the belief that abortion at any time throughout prenancy is murder? It did so based on the premise of the 2nd Commandment, “Thou shall not kill” and the scientific evidence that human life begins at conception. In other words, it learned about the timing of human life from the scientific community.

          • Anonymous

            Actually, the only “source” cited was the Embryo book, and looking it up, it did not look like any promising study, but instead was written by two people out with a political agenda to prove.  Regardless, it was just a book and NOT a peer reviewed study.  This means that no one, besides the authors who have their own agenda, reviewed the conclusions in the book.  You keep mentioning “Anatomy 101” textbooks, yet that is not what I asked for.  You are making the claim, therefore you must provide the evidence.  Acceptable evidence is a peer reviewed, scientific study that supports your claim that a grouping of cells is equal to a human being.

            As for the Catholic’s being opposed, it is actually because of the Catholic teaching of sex being solely for procreation.  The Catholic church is opposed to ALL forms of birth control, so they therefore oppose abortion, as it is a form of birth control.  You have yet to show ANY legitimate scientific study that supports your claim.

          • Anonymous

            Here’s another urban legend: that Catholics teach that sex is solely for procreation. Actually the Church teaches that sex is a gift from God to a man and a woman wedded to each other.

            Concerning your request, tell me, is there a peer reviewed scientific study demonstrating our solar system is part of the Milky Way galaxy that is only one among tens of billions of galaxies in the Universe? You’ll find that information in school textbooks and scientific journals, not in peer reviews per se. The type of study you are looking for is one from which a general conclusion concerning the behavior of elements in a representative group or population has been drawn. Therefore I doubt there is a peer review concerning the well-established fact that all mammalian life, including human life, begins at conception. Likewise I doubt there is a peer review establishing the core of the earth is thousands of degrees Fahrenheit in temperature. This known truth is found in school textbooks and old scientific journals.

            Do your homework and check out those sources I gave you. And if you do, you might even find out the reason why human life begins at conception.

          • Anonymous

            From a catholic website: “The natural law purpose of sex is procreation.” and “But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation”
              
            “Do your homework and check out those sources I gave you. And if you do, you might even find out the reason why human life begins at conception.” – I did check those resources, and they were  rubbish.  You keep missing the point that I have no homework to do on this matter, you are the one making the claim, you must provide the evidence.  You can’t just say that “it’s obvious” for something that is clearly NOT obvious.  If it were as obvious as you seem to make it out to be, then there wouldn’t be arguments about it.  Until you provide EVIDENCE, not the opinions of some catholic organization, ACTUAL EVIDENCE, you have no point and I will continue to dismiss your argument as nothing more than your personal, unfounded opinion.

          • Anonymous

            Aha, now you are beginning to learn something about Catholic teaching concerning sex. Essentially it says that every marital act should be open to the possibility of life. That means no artificial contraception is allowed for believing Catholics! You see, sex is considered a good thing, a gift from God when used as it was intended, that is, in the case of marred couples, not to block off the possibility of procreation as artificial conception does for instance. The Church does not teach its adherents that it must have sex only for the purpose of having children. It that were the case, then Catholics would have to abstain from having sex throughout most of the monthly cycle when a woman is not fertile. That is not the case.

            Concerning the textbooks, I provided the names of each in another reply. What more can I do? Do I need to give you the page numbers as well?

          • Anonymous

            There are plenty of other sources. For starts you should refer to any
            book on embryology to find your answer. You will also find a discussion
            of the beginning of life in most Anatomy 101 textbooks. All these
            sources will tell you all species -including humans – of mammalian life
            start at conception.

          • Anonymous

             Here’s
            a link that will help clarify what I mean. Also, pay attention to the
            scientific sources listed therein. (This link will not likely appear on
            your personal website, so check this website to access it)

            When does science say Human Life begins? – Fallible Blogmahttp://fallibleblogma.com/inde…

          • Anonymous

            “science has determined human life begins at conception.”

            Really? I have missed that peer-reviewed paper. Please share a PubMed.gov reference!

          • Anonymous

            The web site I previously presented is unbiased. But you remain
            skeptical, so here is another one for you with scientific sources listed
            that confirm my position. 

            When does science say Human Life begins? – Fallible
            http://fallibleblogma.com/index.php/when-does-science-say-human-life-begins/

          • Anonymous

            Link doesn’t work…

          • Anonymous

            Not missing much, it’s just a catholic guy giving his opinion and talking about a book called Embryo.  This is one of the reviews: 
            this book provides no compelling new evidence about the moral status of the embryo to persuade readers who do not already agree with them.

          • Anonymous

            Have you read the book called “Embryo”?  I know I haven’t, so I won’t comment on it.

            Also, I was not talking about the moral status of the embryo. That’s another topic of discussion or case to be made. My assertion was that human life – regardless of the value you assign to it – begins at conception just as all mammalian life. Moreover, you never mentioned anything about the named authoritative sources contained in the referenced link. Finally, you obviously did not attempt to locate online (or elsewhere) an Anatomy 101 textbook or a book on embryology? Those too are all authoritative sources. If you did not bother to check out any of these sources, then I can understand why the opening statement of your comment – “Not missing much” – was rather dismissive.

            There’s an old saying: You an lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. I led you to the “water hole”, if you will, but you seem not wanting to drink from it. Certainly I can’t force you. Remaining ignorant is always a personal choice but don’t expect others to take you seriously.

          • Anonymous

            No, I haven’t read the book, but guess what, it’s not valid evidence as it is not a PEER REVIEWED study, meaning that the authors are held accountable for what they write and would actually need to defend their statements.  There were NO OTHER sources mentioned in the article you posted.  None at all.  As for checking out textbooks, it is not my job to look for evidence for YOUR argument.  You are the one who needs to supply the evidence. You haven’t supplied that evidence.  You talk about “leading a horse to water”.  I can think of another saying “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence”  You have NOT supplied peer reviewed studies.  You have NOT submitted evidence.  Therefore, I dismiss your argument.  You are making the claim.  The burden of proof lies with you.  You have yet to meet that burden.

          • Anonymous

            Here is what the link I provided says in part:

            “Readers need not take our word for this: They can consult any of the
            standard human-embryology texts, such as Moore and Persaud’s The
            Developing Human, Larsen’s Human Embryology, Carlson’s Human Embryology
            & Developmental Biology, and O’Rahilly and Mueller’s Human
            Embryology & Teratology.” – Dr. Robert George”

            Come on, can’t you just do an online search on these sources. Do you always need to be spoon fed? The info you need is only a few typed letters away followed by a click of your computer mouse.

          • Anonymous

            “That is, in human reproduction, when sperm joins ovum, these two individual cells cease to be, and their union generates a new and distinct organism. ” –  This is biology.

            ‘This organism is a whole, though in the beginning developmentally immature, member of the human species.” –   This is a conclusion the authors reached based on THEIR INTERPRETATION of biology.  They provide no evidence as to why a single cell zygote should be the legal equivalent to a human being.

          • Anonymous

            Now you are asking for something else. You want me to tell you why a single cell human zygote should be the legal equivalent a person. That’s an entirely different topic. But let me be brief: the single cell zygote is a member of the human species. I assume by now you accept this after all the going back and forth between you and I. Its a human living entity in its earliest developmental form. Its human like you and me, or a child in the womb at 6 months gestation, or a newly born infant, or a child without arms, in all aspects. For the purpose of the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal legal protection it therefore should be considered a person as well.

          • Anonymous

            No, it is not “human” like you and me.  A zygote is not capable of thought.  A zygote is not an independant organism.  The same way that an acorn is not a tree.  It will eventually transform and grow into a tree.  The same is true for a zygote.  It will eventually grow and mature into a human being, but it is not itself a human being.

          • Anonymous

            I apologize for error. I think I may have fixed it. Try it again from my prior comment. Also, the response from Poster crs5012723 saying it is just about a book called Embryo is not true. In fact I wonder if he read the book…highly unlikely. I know I haven’t read it myself. The main reason for attempting to post the link was to point to those authoritative sources it cites, whose names you can check out individually. Also, as I pointed out in earlier comments, most Anatomy 101 textbooks and books on embryology (all authoritative sources) confirm the assertion that life begins at conception.

          • ChuckGG

            I find it so odd the TP is wound around the axle about conception and birth, and about “natural death,” and yet they care so little about the big time period in the middle.

          • Anonymous

            Why would do you say TP cares “so little about the big time period in the middle”? It’s primary focus in on protecting all human life from beginning to end. Gay rights activists are focused on same-sex marriage and other issues concerning gays. Does that mean they care little about the big time picture?

            But for the moment, let us assume your conjecture turns out to be correct for the sake of argument. Please tell me what this organization’s view has to do with the question of when human life begins?

          • ChuckGG

            I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the TP that is pro-life until a baby is born, and rather insistent it lives until it dies a natural death (despite how painful the suffering might be).  While the child is alive, however, there is little interest in Headstart programs, health care programs, advanced education, college education, or any other of the numerous programs available to help our fellow human being.  These are fought against tooth and nail.  “You’re on your own.  Don’t let the screen door hit you in the a*s on the way out.”

            As Barney Frank said, the GOP believes life begin at conception and ends at birth.

          • Anonymous

            There is no hypocrisy (I think you meant “inconsistency”) in believing life should be protected from the moment of conception until natural death. TP and all the pro-life organizations I know of do not insist as you wrongly implied that humans be kept alive against their wishes. In fact TP promotes the right of the individual to freely reject any and all forms of medical treatment to stay alive. It opposes however any treatment intended to terminate human life, such as, assistant suicide.

            Your accusation, often repeated by many pro-abortion organizations, that pro-life organizations don’t care about human beings after birth is not only very offensive but without any foundation. In other words, it’s a lie intended to discredit the opposition. As the old saying goes, “If you don’t like the message then kill the messenger”. To tell you how wrong Barney Frank was, just consider this: People who identify themselves as conservative give more to charity at every income level than liberals do. This is even true when the portion of church donations not returned to charities is taken out of the equation.

            You can repeat that accusation all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s false.

      • Anonymous

        I agree “GodIsTrue” … Convivial is way too smart to be a Republican …

        • Anonymous

          I’d be a Libertarian, but that choice wasn’t available on the voter registration. :)

      • Joseph Willingham

        If you really believe that he means that the words “same-sex marriage shall be the law of the land” are in the constitution, then that’s a whole other issue.  We all know that the laws of the land are based on what the constitution says, not just that actual text itself.

        Why do you not think he’s a republican?  It’s easy to believe that those who are for smaller government would be against creating new laws to prevent one small group from doing something that everyone else can do.

      • Anonymous

        and u are to judgemental to be a bible believer!

      • Anonymous

        Gawd I love  how a person can’t be a “true” Republican (or Mainer or conservative or flavor of the week) unless their beliefs are in lock-step agreement with you and those like you.  

        When I was growing up a Republican was someone who was fiscally conservative and otherwise kept their noses out of other people’s business.  Today it’s someone who is fiscally conservative and have their nose in everyone’s business!

      • Lord Whiteman

        Since homosexuality isn’t illegal the 14th amendments equal protection clause requires that gay marriage be made legal.
          Since it doesn’t effect you directly you have no legal standing to oppose it. 
         Of course you do have a right to your personal opinion.

        • Anonymous

          But it WILL EFFECT me directly…

          1. Income taxes will increase to cover marriage benefits to homosexual
          couples.

          2.Social Security taxes will have to increase to now pay for survivor
          support benefits for homosexuals.

          3. Medical insurance may have to increase to cover the high risk health costs
          associated among homosexuals. (Aids, colon cancer, hepatitis and other diseases
          are very high among those practicing sodomy) -I believe is a natural consequence to an unnatural lifestyle.

          4.Indoctrination of our children in public school to accept homosexual
          behavior and same sex marriage (with out the need of the parental consent or permission for such teaching)

          5.Our workplaces will become restricted when it comes to turning down a
          homosexual applicant because they will have to produce the burden of proof.
          Even if that homosexual is not qualified he will have an advantage in the
          hiring process. (this is not fair and equal treatment to the rest of us)

          6. Free speech for those of us opposed to homosexuality will be curtailed once
          same-sex marriage is approved, it will not be long before you will be fined or
          imprisoned for expressing any opposition to homosexuality. People with
          religious moral convictions will be considered worse than racists and their quoting the Biblical passages on homosexuality will be viewed as hate speech.

          Homosexual marriage is special rights for a minority that “Want” special treatment based on “their personal preference”. Otherwise they have just as many rights as we do. Again, it is “special” rights they are trying to get. They weren’t born that way, they didn’t have an accident or illness that made them handicapped or disabled. They want to make the choice and have the rest of us pay for that.

          • Anonymous

            All of this is debunked garbage. 

            If you are worried about income taxes, we should be making it more difficult for heterosexuals to marry. 

            The “high risk health costs” are due to promiscuous behavior, which is actually an argument for allowing same sex marriage (it encourages monogamy). 

            Your other points have nothing to do with same-sex marriage; we settled those arguments in 2005 when sexual orientation was added to anti-discrimination laws— laws which also protect your choice of religious views.

            There truly is no legitimate reason to discriminate against same sex couples in regards to civil marriage. That is what our courts and legislatures have been finding across this country whenever they examine this issue.

          • Lord Whiteman

             Your church is tax free and yet you use that free ride to pester people who don’t get free rides on the church bus or tax payer subsidized  movie tickets.

      • ChuckGG

        Au contraire!  I, too, was a 30+ year GOP Republican until just this summer when I switched to independent.  You see, the real GOP that ConvivialVisits and I belonged to is dead.  It is kind of like PanAm.  No more airplanes, but Guilford bought the name and painted in on the sides of railcars. 

        The GOP I remembered had bright, intelligent, articulate people who knew how to accomplish goals and could meet halfway with the opposition, understanding, too, that you win some and you lose some.

        Unfortunately, the Tea Party crowd took over the GOP and now the character is about the same as a 5th grade playground in a bad section of town.  Lots of bullies, no manners, and no interest in actually governing.  In fact, “governing” and the “Tea Party” is an oxymoron.

    • Anonymous

       Stick me in the Clare Payne group. Its been an education believe me. Brought about by watching a child grow up.

      • Anonymous

        I am with you and Clare.  Sometime it takes a while to “get it”.

    • Anonymous

      OH, I HOPE, come on everybody!   Bend over!

  • Anonymous

    Oh my, the BDN’s daily pro homosexual marriage article. 

    • Anonymous

      THE BDN prints the news as it is not as you want it.

      • Anonymous

        Actually the BDN goes trolling for pro homosexual marriage news everyday.  By the  way I didn’t see this one featured in the BDNhttp://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/07/23/564071/polls-washington-and-minnesota-face-contentious-marriage-votes/

        I have a question for the progressives out there who support homosexual marriage, why are you spending sooooo much money to get this issue passed?

        • Why are you so obsessed with gay people?

        • Joseph Willingham

          Because this is such an important issue.  Which is why your side is also spending soooooo much money to stop it.  

          What’s your point, luv?

        • Guest

          //@\

          • Anonymous

            I can think of two reasons.  Either they have nothing better to do, or they actually think we care about whether or not they “approve” of our relationships.

          • Guest

            //\

        • Anonymous

          true, with the new editor on board, someone who appears to not have much life experience but alot of education, the BDN appears to have become her personal sounding board. Nearly every day there is either a letter or op ed piece in support of homosexual
          “marriage” but nary a word for those who do not agree with it.  I find it hard to believe that there have not been any submissions other than Rev Emrich’s piece and a rare letter to the editor.  How about some “fair” balance here, there are two sides in this debate. I do not believe that any article/letter will change anyone’s stance on this question; however, it is only fair to give both sides equal space.
          And why is there only ONE editor now, if you look at her FB page, you see she has very little work/life experience but a pretty good education. She would appear to be under 30 if she graduated from high school in 2002……in the past, hasn’t the BDN had a few editors on its panel?  Now it is apparently the Erin Rhoda show!

    • Joseph Willingham

      Do you complain when we read about Syria or Greece everyday?

      If you’re tired of these articles, dear, may I lovingly suggest that you not read them?

  • Anonymous

     It’s not life – its death because its a life of separation from true Life which is God.
    it’s not liberty – it’s bondage to a sinful lifestyle.
    It’s not happiness – it’s immorality which will never turns out happy.

    • Anonymous

      Well then don’t do it!  It’s quite simple really!

    • Anonymous

      What part of the words CIVIL LAW don’t you understand?

      • Anonymous

        JD do you really think attempting to use logic with a nutcase will work?

    • Anonymous

      The US is not a theocracy that is based on scripture of any holy book, it is governed by a secular document called the US Constitution.  
      Accordingly Life is our time on earth whatever the length, Liberty is being free of undue persecution and the Pursuit of Happiness is living our earthly life to its fullest without causing undue harm or to others within the bounds of our civil laws.
      Jack

  • Anonymous

    For all the Gay haters, grow up and worry about your own lives.  What one person does in their bedroom is noone elses buisness!  I’m straight and believe in God and think gay marriage should be allowed!  Hating is the problem with this world and why we all are living in HELL now!

    • Anonymous

      This earth is hardly hell.  You need to study some orthodox Catholic theology.  We won’t be able to imagine how bad hell is until we die.

      • Anonymous

        IDK 6 year olds getting shot in colorado at the movies seems like a hell to me!

      • Anonymous

        Being a Protestant, I don’t have to read some orthodox (I assume you meanthe Roman Church, not the Eastern) Catholic theology.  However, it would be a good idea to note what Luther and other reformers have been protesting.

        Oh, and Christ was saying that we should try to promote heaven here on earth.  We already have too much hell on earth. 

      • Hell is a man made creation. There is no hell.

        • Anonymous

          I can guarantee you that hell exists, but my story is too long for a comment section.  Besides, very few people, probably even a lot of Christians, wouldn’t believe it anyway.  Suffice it to say that I have direct experience, and I know there is absolutely no way that I would want anyone to have to spend eternity in hell.  It’s worth everything that is important to you to obey and to love God in this life, I can assure you.

          • Edit: Feel free to send your story to me at wankerdrivers@gmail.com

            I will make sure it is shared in the atheist community so we can debunk it.

          • Anonymous

            Let me guess. You died and found yourself in a bad place then was miraculously brought back.

            Good news: It wasn’t hell, it was your brain starving for oxygen and desperately trying to stay alive.  The brain is responsible for all perception.

            Bad news: Such imagery is a result of what you process when awake. Perhaps you should lay of reading and believing in the violent imagery of religion and read a few books on humanism.

            -J

          • Anonymous

            Really? You can guarantee that hell exists?  Have you been there? Do you have pictures?

          • Guest

            You died went to hell and returned? Did you document the trip for proof?

        •  Reading some of this nonsense sure does feel like Hell!

      • Anonymous

        Orthodox catholic theology?  Where it is written that it is OK to molest children, transfer the abusers to another church, keep it a secret for jundreds of years.  This, and so  many other hypocritical items this church foists on its followers is why I am an atheist.   

  • Joseph Willingham

    I knew they were out there!  I’m glad that they’re getting their due now.  

    Hopefully people will see that it’s not just Democrats, but people from across the spectrum recognize the importance of extending this equality to all Mainers.

  • Joseph Willingham

    Since then, “I’ve thought about it a lot,” he said. “It’s OK to change your mind.”It’s happening.  People ARE seeing things differently and are supporting the right to marry for same sex couples.

  • Anonymous

    and maybe more businesses would come to maine if we didnt  let them marry.

    • Anonymous

      Oh yea that’s the reason businesses are not coming to Maine.  We don’t let them marry right now and the buisnesses still do not come.   

  • Anonymous

    Stacey Fitts is a coward.  He is nothing more than a democrat who lives in a GOP district and is scared to run under his true label. He is essentially Angus King… He didnt vote with the GOP on energy and now he does this. It is a good thing he is not running for reelection, he should go hide in a closet somewhere.

    • Anonymous

      He is not a coward when it comes to lobbying the legislature for the windmill generating industry! Just this past session he sucessfully help keep the Maine electricity rate payers from being able to buy more cheap hydro power from Quebec.

      Instead he kept the green subsidies up for the windmill generators, an action which means we all pay more of our electricity, but also an action that put money in the pockets of his employers, and himself, a truly selfish and greedy and immoral action!

  • Anonymous

    What is one word to describe the most important American value, the one which we hold above all others? Freedom. How can you say you support freedom (the freedom of choice, the freedom of religion, the freedom to pursue happiness) when you want the government to prevent people from marrying? It’s actually a very Republican ideal. Who cares if you believe it’s against your religion? You have to believe that they don’t have a right to live as they choose, as well.

  • Lord Whiteman

      Back before he got all that campaign money from the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Linda Bean and the Florida Heritage society, Paul Lepage said he supported gay civil unions on constitutional grounds.

    • Anonymous

      That’s good to hear. I honestly have not seen this administration acting to roll back any of the important advances gay and lesbian Mainers have made in regards to equal treatment under the law.

      I hope neither he nor Charlie Summers obstruct same-sex marriage if it’s voted in by Mainers this November.

      • Lord Whiteman

         Lepage has flip flopped on this issue at least three time in the past two years and since he is a grasping tyrant I would expect him do only do what his masters in Florida tell him to do.

  • Anonymous

    Perversion, as defined by Webster, is an aberrant sexual practice or interest especially when habitual.  Coersion is the intimidation of a person to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, force or threats. Both of these definitions are apropos to the  current circumstances in Maine where homosexual activists have amassed to destroy the institution of marriage, the family and all sense of moral order by offering apocalyptic potions of  vileness to promote a chosen behavior that is as reprehensible as adultery, murder and larceny. Make no mistake, the issue is not about equal rights or discrimination. These prurient marauders are hell-bent on having their own way no matter what the cost to society, the family and America’s moral compass.

    • Anonymous

      Homosexuality is more then a sexual practice. It is an attraction between two people who happen to be the same sex. It can occur independent of sex. In this respect, it is indistinguishable from heterosexuality.

      Bigotry on the other hand is exemplified by someone who is intolerant of others based on their own ignorance such as believing in the delusion that they somehow own the concept of marriage and can dictate what moral is with respect to it.

      -J

      • Anonymous

         Ahh… now I understand! Morality is a personal choice that permits an unfettered introspection into all things depraved. Indeed, if God does not exist, everything is permitted.

        • Anonymous

          No, I don’t think you do understand. You are assuming that morality can only be found in a 2,000 year old book written by ignorant desert dwellers. This is a laughable premise given the behaviors that the book does endorse.

          -J

    • Anonymous

      People like you said the same thing about interracial marriage.  Have fun being on the wrong side of history.

    • Anonymous

      We truly are not seeking to destroy anything, that is absurdity. We wish to honor the institution of marriage by affirming our commitment to one another under civil law.

      And your dismissal of our just cause is in denial of the truth— that there are same-sex families all across Maine, many raising children, who rightly deserve the protections civil marriage conveys.

      That you equate the lifelong commitment of a loving couple to adultery, larceny and even murder shows how unreachable your heart is, and how unreasoning your intellect must be.

  • ChuckGG

    [I posted this on the Kennebec Journal but no other comments have appeared.  The BDN gets more traffic, it seems!]

    If we look at history – and much to the chagrin of the Tea Party crowd – that is a period covering decades, not just few years, the real GOP always was fiscally conservative, yet pragmatic, not ideological, and socially liberal, or at least neutral.  The feeling was government should not be involved in the social issues of how people live their lives.  That was up to the individual.  Religion was not spoken of.  No politician ran around as they do today, yammering on about “God Bless this or that.”  It just didn’t happen.

    It has only been since the Dixie Democrats flipped and became the Reagan Republicans, that all this ultra-conservative religious mindset has infected the GOP.  The RINOs are the real Republicans.  What we have today is just an embarrassment.  They should go off and create their own party and allow the GOP to return to normal.

    Perhaps, we are seeing a glimmer of that lately.  The brightest indicator for me was the recent vote in NH.  The TP crowd proposed a bill in the NH Legislature to repeal NH’s same-sex marriage law and replace it with civil unions.  The TP considered this a real win-win and a good compromise.  How wrong they were.

    When the vote came up in the NH House which is 2/3rds GOP to repeal the two-year old SSM law, the vote was 211-116 against the bill!  Again, with a House that is 2/3rds GOP!  The TP couldn’t even get its own people to repeal the SSM law.  What a rout that was.  Admittedly, it
    made my day.

    A poll taken of NH citizens showed 59% were against repealing their SSM law.  Amazing.

    The bigger question I pose is this:  Just where does the anti-SSM crowd think this is going?

    Have we seen any decrease in the support for SSM?  The trend lines show support for SSM climbing while the trend line against SSM is trending downward.  These trend lines parted years ago, never have crossed, and continue to diverge.

    So, again, just where does anyone think this is going?  Does NOM actually believe it has a chance to reverse SSM in the States that already have it?  Do they think DADT will be reinstated?  Do they believe the Circuit Court findings against DOMA and Prop-8 will be reversed?  Do they believe the multitude of large companies will reverse their public statements supporting SSM and their providing of spousal benefits for their gay employees? 

    I see SSM like a new ship being launched.  Once you knock the pins out and that puppy starts sliding toward the water, you better get the heck out of the way.  Nothing is going to stop it.

    I do not see how NOM and the anti-SSM crowd feels it has the slightest chance to halt and reverse SSM.  If someone can show me a path as to how they realistically think this is going to happen, I’d like to hear it.

    • Anonymous

      I honestly think that they can’t think that far back, or that far ahead.  With NOM, it seemed that they were against JCPennys and Oreo showing any support for same sex couples, saying they felt that companies should stay “neutral” in the “culture wars”.  Then, a few weeks later, the owner of Chick fil a blatently states that the company is against same sex marriage and has donated to groups that activly oppose same sex marriage.  That doesn’t sound very “neutral” to me, yet NOM praised Chick fil a.  The point is, groups like NOM can’t seem to think back to a month ago, let alone 40 or 50 years ago. 

      As for the future, the scary part is they actually think that they will be successful in stopping same sex marriage.  Every time a state amends it’s constitution, like in North Carolina, they see that as a victory, but they can’t think in the long term.  When the Supreme Court eventually rules those laws as unconstitutional, their state constitution won’t matter anymore if it goes against the federal constitution.  If the Prop 8 trial is any indication of how anti-gay marriage people present arguments in a court of law, they don’t stand a chance when these laws are challenged.

      • ChuckGG

        I have to agree with you.  If the leaders of these groups, such as NOM, would take a step back and take a realistic look at where this is all headed, I cannot imagine they are so blind as to not see it.  I read after the NY vote occurred legalizing SSM, there was a photo of Brian Brown of NOM crying over the loss.  Did he realize then all was lost?  New England was expected to take the lead in SSM but the population is not that great.  When you take NY with its 20M and CA with its 38M, you have a pretty significant groundswell.  Plus, the influence of those two states is very significant.  You are quite right about the Prop-8 arguments.  The pro-Prop-8 arguments were very poor.

        No doubt the followers are just following.  But, do the leaders believe they have a chance?  If they do, they are naive.  If not, then what is their agenda?  To slow the progress?  To collect more donations?  To pad their 401(k)’s?  It seems very illogical to me.

        • Anonymous

          I honestly can’t say what the followers really think.  It could be that they genuinely cannot see the similarities between them and the people who were against interracial marriage and they genuinely believe in what they are doing.  It is also equally possible that they are in a great position of power and receive a number of monitary benefits from their opposition.  I would not be surprised either way.

        • Anonymous

          All this is why I truly believe that Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher are charlatans and con artists, lining their pockets by pandering to emotionally immature Americans. They must see that they are on the wrong side of history on this issue, they just don’t seem to care.

          • ChuckGG

            Well, there is a lot money that gets pumped through NOM.  I recall reading they are paid just below $200K each which is a fair salary for an organization requiring 24/7 of an administrator’s time.  I imagine there is a vested 401(k) involved, too.

            Back when Clinton lost the House to the GOP in his first-term, mid-term elections (it had been Democratic for 30+ years at that point), a friend of mine on the Hill who runs a printing service suddenly lost a lot of business from the GOP who had been swept into office.  But, it was short-lived.  The Democrats came in an filled in the gap.  He told me afterwards – “there’s always money in controversy.” 

            I think Brian and Maggie will milk this cow until it dies of dehydration.  And, once SSM is the law of the land, I think the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) with morph into the National Organization to Restore Marriage (NORM).  They ought to be able to beat that horse even deader.

            As you know, once SCOTUS makes a decision they are reticent to reverse the decision – certainly, on an issue like SSM which is a civil rights matter as far as SCOTUS is concerned.  Therefore, NORM can beat its chest, wring its hands, cry those alligator tears, but the only action we will see are fewer and fewer people donating to the organization.  It should have a good endowment by then.  Brian and Maggie can be board members, draw an annual stipend, and retire.  NORM will have as much influence then as the John Birch Society has today – not much.

      • Anonymous

        Well said, both you and ChuckGG.

        The future of same-sex marriage is clear, it’s sad that elderly couples are losing out on the important protections of civil marriage today.

  • Anonymous

    What a courageous guy!!  Not running for election, so he let himself “evolve” into a non-bigotted state.

Similar Articles