Driving records
Re: “Secretary of State exploring tougher restrictions for older drivers,” July 24. Politically, I disagree with almost everything Charlie Summers stands for…and I am most definitely not a Democrat, either. I almost qualify as a senior.
Here is the thing, you can be a poor driver at any age. If, as a society we are truly interested in road safety, we need to retest after the initial license. Why not do it on a periodic schedule that is easy to remember: 10 year anniversaries from your very first license? Thus, start at age 16 for example. Then, at age 26 you get another written, road test, and vision test (a REAL eye test, by a licensed optometrist!).
Same at ages 36, 46, 56, 66, 76, 86, 96, 106, etc. , on whatever 10-year anniversary. If you fail, you have 30 days to study up, get retrained, get new eyeglasses, etc. so you might pass the tests again.
People can be a menace on the road at any age: drinking/drug problems, arrogance, inexperience, simple lack of knowledge.
Expensive, you say? Factor the cost of hospital bills, rehab, police, ambulance, fire, road workers, etc. Not to mention deaths. What is that cost?
Within a generation or two, the culture behind the wheel would change, and people would stop thinking they could drive just fine after a few drinks and other poor presumptions. If we are truly serious about road safety….and not just grandstanding?
Paul Sheridan
Northport
Bible rules
This is in response to the recent letter by Jackie Freitas stating that individuals have “made up” Bible injunctions against homosexuality (“to cause controversy”).
The following passage, regardless of all the different translations the Bible has gone through, is perfectly clear to anyone who can read: “Therefore God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own person the due penalty for their perversity.” (Romans 1:26-27). The Bible containing that passage has morally guided Western society for the better part of two thousand years and that phrase has always been there.
As the letter writer stated, I also agree with Jesus’ Golden Rule, which says that we should do unto others as we would have done unto us. I believe that is the basis for St. Paul’s admonition not to engage in sodomy, as this is not in keeping with the dignity of the individual person.
You have the right to be ignorant of the Bible, or to ignore certain passages that you don’t care for, and to not believe what it says. Those are your rights in a free society. But you don’t have the right to state that believers are “making up” these verses or to state that people are hateful or vitriolic when we cite Bible passages in a discussion about codifying social issues into law.
Patricia Claus
Orrington
NRA member
As a Lifetime member of the NRA and formal Federally Licensed Gun Dealer, I no longer agree with the “slippery slope” approach of the NRA. (If you allow them to pass any gun related restrictions, ever, they will be at your front door next time to take all your guns away).
I can see only two ways to stop or prevent the continuing mass shootings by mentally impaired psychos. One, provide mental health care and/or mental health evaluations resulting in gun ownership restriction. Or two, restrict the ownership and type of guns or magazine capacity. Since the country cannot even agree on providing regular health care, obviously the mental health care provision is out.
Outlawing “Assault Weapons” is, in reality, a joke since any semi-auto weapon functions identically with what is being sold as an AK-47 or an AR. That is, a Remington semi-auto deer rifle or duck shotgun fires at the same rate. One trigger pull, one shot. Not fully automatic, as the politicians and media would have you believe.
What can be restricted is the number of rounds (bullets) the gun magazine holds. A deer hunting rifle is restricted by law to five rounds. The duck shotgun is restricted to three rounds. The expired Brady Law restricted all magazines to 10 rounds. I fully believe that the 20 or 30 round clips should be restricted to military or police use.
I would gladly give up my right to own high capacity magazines if it saved a single life.
Larry Ferrell
Newport
Tori support
I am writing to support Victoria ‘Tori’ Kornfield’s run for Maine House District 17. I have chosen to vote for Tori because during my time as her student at Bangor High School I saw the passion she brought toward her students’ education. I know that Tori would bring this same energy to Augusta, where she would help solve the pressing challenges faced by Mainers — the lack of jobs, the failing economy, and the rising costs of health care.
I ask that all voters in District 17 join me in voting for Victoria ‘Tori’ Kornfield on Election Day this November and help bring her passion, energy, and dedication to Augusta. This election is pivotal one for Maine’s future, its time to bring more legislators like Tori to work for Maine.
Ben Claeson
Bangor
Space marriage
Astronauts are considered some of the bravest and noblest Americans.
The first woman in space, Sally Ride, was one the bravest and noblest of the lot. According to Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney, Ms. Ride was “A profile in courage … Ride inspired millions of Americans with her determination to break the mold of her time,” says Mr. Romney.
Now, it turns out that Ms. Ride was gay and her loving and committed partner of 27 years, Tam O’Shaughnessy, is not eligible to receive the federal benefits all other astronauts and millions of other Americans are entitled to because of the Defense of Marriage Act. This is a travesty and an injustice. We can show our belief in equal rights for all by voting to allow same-sex marriage in Maine in November.
We can also reject Mr. Romney at the polls. He has said that he supports the Defense Of Marriage Act which means he believes Ms. Ride’s life partner is not worthy of equal treatment under the law.
Kenn Chandler
Mount Desert
Paul Sheridan, your idea might be implenetable in a state like Maine with a small population. The logistics in States like NY, Pa., NJ, Fl., Cal, Ill. Tex. would be mind bogling. If you are talking only of Maine drivers, how are you going to protect Mainers from out of state drivers who come here for vacaton or business?
States like NY have a questionable record in complying with national mandates. When the Fed mandated that all commercial drivers be tested to comply with the CDL requirements Maine drivers all took the test on their free time. In NY the state mailed, upon request, the book and the test to anyone who wanted a CDL license.
Personally, I would trust a driver with lots of miles under their belt who has a lot more experience but might be up in years than I would trust a perfectly fit young driver.
Well, maybe Maine should be leading the nation, eh?
I agree, most older drivers are safe drivers, but a small minority do not know that they have past their time to drive.
But, as the letter writer said: some 26, 36, 46-year-olds should not be driving!
Agree.
Ms. Claus, I am glad to read the words of a true believer. As Leviticus tells me that eating shellfish is an abomination and that I can enslave the children of a neighboring tribe, I hope you are earnestly campaigning against eating lobster and lobbying Congress to repeal the 13th Amendment so that we can enslave the citizens of New Hampshire.
chenard, those laws are part of the Old Testament and many Jews still follow them. Christians look to the New Testament, and the letter to the Romans is part of it.
Anyone who mentions the shellfish thing really doesn’t know the Bible. The New Testament clearly teaches that there are no food restrictions anymore while the rules regarding homosexuality remained in tact per passages like Romans.
Christians don’t look past the New Testament? I wasn’t aware of that.
So Romans had nothing to do with the Old Testament? Do you think Paul, who was a Hellenistic Jew with a Pharisaic background leaves behind his heritage completely? I mean he quotes Abraham! Please. His conversion is a wonderful testimony to the power of Love but his cautions and warnings are grounded in his Jewish heritage. I think I do know what Jesus himself would have said to the homo-phobics of our era, at least if I understand his message correctly to be-a new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
Yet Jesus never spoke against homosexuality, nor does it appear in the 10 Commandments.
The bible says far more in support of slavery than it says against gays and lesbians; even Pat Robertson agrees that there are passages in the Bible we need to understand were written at a time when social attitudes toward our fellow man were different.
If our attitudes toward slavery can improve as we learn more about each other’s humanity, our attitudes toward homosexuality surely can too.
So, from what you’re saying, incest and pedophilia is all right. After all, Jesus never spoke about them either. Of course, there’s a whole lot of subjects that Christ didn’t directly address. Does that make them right?
The argument that Jesus didn’t mention homosexuality is old and empty. Unless, of course, one neglects the other 62 books of the Bible.
What part of the Bible mentions that lying is right? You seem pretty comfortable doing it with frequency, so it must be a tenant of your religion.
Both incest, and pedophilia, are against the law, homosexuality is not. They are not even close to being the same, TWO CONSENTING, people be they homo or, heterosexual should have the right to marry, and remember, marriage is not your word.
The comment was about what Jesus did or didn’t say, not the laws put in place by man.
And your response was against a straw man argument. Please show me where I had claimed that unlawful things were okay as long as Jesus didn’t speak about them.
In both case, EJ at the time of Christ, both things where, lawful, and so was homosexuality.
That you equate loving, committed adult relationships with pedophilia and incest tell us more about your morality than mine.
Well then, if only the New Testament counts, then I am sure that you will be the first to criticize Ms. Claus for attempting to teach. After all 1 Timothy 2:12 states ‘I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[a] she must be quiet”. Ms. Claus is clearly not being quiet.
So my new neighbor growing wheat and rice doesn’t have to die now? (whew)
But if you know any female teachers, businessowners, etc., you need to put them in their place. 1 Timothy 2:12 : I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
Another example where it shows the Bible is a product of the men of their time.
I can see them at the Council now: Timothy said what? Oh yeah…that’s staying in there!
And they can’t even use the “That’s the OLD Testament” argument with that one.
Dear Kenn Chandler: excellent letter re the late/great Sally Ride. Let us recall that most Maine Republicans would also happily deprive her partner of 27 years of benefits that would go to a heterosexual couple, Gov. LePage first above all, followed by the sanctimonious Bishop Malone, Michael Heath, and the others who demonize gays in the name of their perverse morality.
I, for one, think that Ms Ride’s partner does deserve benefits and insurance money that any heterosexual couple would get in the event of a death.
This does not, however, mean that I want the definition of marriage to change.
You are entitled to your opinion. I disagree with your opinion and do want Gay and Lesbian people to have full equal rights under the law and that includes SSM.
Of course her partner should have the benefits. If they were able to have been married this would not be an issue and she would have equal protections under the law, like you and I have.
Should singles without partners have benefits to make up for those benefits married couples get? Certainly if you give those benefit to some people then benefits ought to be extended to everyone including multiple partnerships to make everyone equal. But “equal rights” under the 14th Amendment is not about making everyone equal. The state gives married couples special treatment for the following reasons:
Marriage between a man and a woman dedicated to each other in a life long relationship serves to create happiness no other unions can achieve on account of nature, for one thing. Unlike other relationships it is also open to new life. Because of these two factors it deserves special treatment. Cohabiting couples may enjoy those benefits too if they decide to commit to each other. Because they often have children in their union, they are encouraged for the sake of their children to make similar commitments. Let’s keep marriage special for that reason. Let’s not change its definition to merely accommodate the fantasies of others.
The 14th Amendment is about making “similarly situated” individuals equal. You can’t articulate why a heterosexual couple deserves a set of rights while a homosexual couple doesn’t. The SJC has found that men and women are similarly situated and must be given equal protection under the law. Lower courts have followed that logic and found that homosexuals and heterosexuals are similarly situated.
Don’t try and make a 14th amendment argument against this because it’s not going to fly. There is no requiste for children or procreation under the law to obtain a marriage license. There is no evidence that gay parents make bad parents — though you may have an anti-gay bias, that is mere opinion and not fact so don’t present it as such.
And look, if you want to call someone else’s relationship a fantasy, fine, but don’t start screeching that you’re the victim when someone calls you on your garbage and refers to your religion with similar disrespect.
Yes, maybe men and woman are similarly situated, but not couples. The relationships are very different by nature. I’d be interested however in knowing which Supreme Court decision you are referring to.
Also, I rightfully call the quest by gays for marriage a fantasy. Why?: It has been shown gay couples living in areas where state endorsement of their relationships exist are no happier than those living elsewhere. In contrast married couples tend to be happier and content than cohabiting couples regardless of the area where they live. Therefore, unlike what gays envision, the attainment of state endorsement of their relationships will not enhance their life. For that reason their pursuit is a mere fantasy.
Finally; no, there is no requirement that marrying couples have children. But let’s be realistic, marrying heterosexual couples are more than likely to have children, and besides, most of them do. That’s why the state maintains an interest in their relationships, just as it has an ongoing interest in seeing their children – or children not yet to be born – learn how to read, write, and do math.
No, that’s according to you. According to the people whose opinions matter on this (judges) — they’re similarly situated. “Similarly situated” is a test done in courts. The “nature” argument has been made in several court rooms already and has always failed.
Reed v. Reed extends the 14th Amendment to cover women.
Romer v. Evans struck down a state constituional amendment because its sole purpose was to put a “special disability” onto gay people.
Again, you can’t make a legal argument against this, the case law isn’t on your side. You don’t get to use laws to hinder people simply because you don’t like them or because of mere moral disapproval. What a sick notion that would be. There is no requirement for procreation in marriage and gays aren’t worse parents. Period. So when you keep repeating those things, all it does is reveal and highlight your anti-gay bias.
You are confusing similarly situated individuals despite their sex with same-sex couples that are obviously not similarly situated to heterosexual couples. The Supreme Court addressed the former case but not the latter. Same-sex couples are not similarly situated to heterosexual couples, a point I made in my first comment.
You are confused as you did not read my comment. Lower courts have followed the logic (that sexes are similarly situated and gay/straight are similarly situated) and then went on to affirm that couples are similarly situated. Exactly what I said in an earlier comment.
Don’t put words in my mouth and then try to correct me.
Here’s an example of what Reed v Reed was referring to: Child custody cannot be awarded to a mother in lieu of the father just because of her sex. But she may be awarded custody on account of being found to be a better parent, which puts her is a different situation.
Another example: This one involves a lesbian couple in a custody battle. Both are found to be equally nurturing. But the court determines the individuals are not similarly situated because one is the biological mother while the other is not. So it awards custody to the biological mother.
Another example: A couple is going through a breakup and custody of children is disputed in court. The partners are found to have equal parenting skills, attachments, and devotions to their children. Both will reside in the same general area that will not require the children to be transferred to another school. In all aspects of interest to the children the parents are found to be equal. The judge rules that parent are to have shared custody arrangements because the parents are similarly situated to provide for the children’s needs.
And each and every one creates precedent in divorce law… not marriage.
Funny that you don’t ever point out the destructive nature of divorce on children, and here use case law around divorce in your misguided attempt to create law around marriage where it does not exist.
Seems you really, at heart, don’t care if children are harmed at all. That’s a ruse… and you’re a bad liar.
It’s an anti-gay bias plain and simple. These weird and twisted bits of non-logic are just an attempt to justify it. None of their “facts”, studies, or experts ever stand up in the court room. The Prop 8 trial was a perfect example of this.
Agreed… I honestly wish more gay marriage opponents would read the Prop 8 transcript… especially Whawell and the rest of the procreation crowd…
The subject came up in court and was LITERALLY laughed at and summarily dismissed… to enforce the marriage ban on those grounds would legally require the annulment of all childless couples in CA.
Yes, divorce is usually destructive. But so are unhealthy marriages. The best situation is to urge couples to get marital counseling in order to avoid a breakup in the interest of all including children. What route would you suggest when relationships become destructive other than what I just proposed? That said, I do care for children at heart. I don’t understand why you would suggest otherwise. I’ve had my own and I have grandchildren besides. We are all very close to each other.
I did not “attempt to create law around marriage where it does not exist.” I was merely attempting to clarify what the high court’s decision in Reed v Reed stated. Unlike what a prior poster implied, this decision does not relate to homosexual relationships versus straight ones. As I pointed out in my first post, partners in homosexual relationships are not “similarly situated” – a phrase the poster borrowed from the decision Reed v Reed – to partners in heterosexual relationships.
That’s not what I said. I said the 14th amendment has been extended by the SJC to cover gays and women, you asked which cases those were, and I listed to them. I did not try and do what you claim I did. I said lower courts followed the logic and concluded gay/straight couples are similarly situated. I corrected you earlier and you here are lying again about it.
Trying having some integrity. Your argument about procreation and what’s best for the children isn’t a legal one or even a factual one for that matter. It hasn’t been accepted by courts, so quit trying to couple it with your legal non-argument. It doesn’t fly. It’s purely your opinion and it’s not a fact based one. Stop presenting it as such.
The lower court “logic” does not follow, as a pointed out. Partners in same-sex relationships are not similarly situated to partners in heterosexual relationships. Both relationships are different in quality – due to nature – and in the ability to produce offspring, even though both usually involve emotional attachments.
It doesn’t matter what you think! You’re not a judge.
Procreation isn’t a requisite for marriage. You can’t hold that against gays if you aren’t going to hold straight people to that standard.
Scientific evidence doesn’t support your quality claim. You are stating your opinion when you say gay people are less than. It’s not a fact, so quit lying and presenting it as such.
“By using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdrawal a right that it possessed, without legitimate reason for doing so, the People of California violated the Equal Protection Clause. We hold Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional on this ground.” Perry v. Brown
Now that I’ve cited another case, I’m sure you’ll run along to cherry pick from it and misconstrue the facts all to serve your purposes. I wonder to myself why I bother engaging with someone so comfortable with dishonesty.
Agreed. The proponents of the Prop 8 case had a laughable argument. The people against it can use their fear tactics to win at the voting booth, but when the court actually examines the law, they don’t have an argument.
Bear in mind most states are free to endorse whatever type of relationships they desire. The state of Mass. however was not free to do so, as it was forced by their own court system to adopt “gay marriage”. Most all other states are free to set the standards they want.
One more thing, gays are no more a minority than alcoholics, obese people, or members of a political party. I certainly don’t compare gays to gender groups, ethic and racial groups, or religious groups, all of which I are rooted in human nature, unlike homosexuals, alcoholics, obese people, and party members.
Well, psychologists disagree with your opinion, which is really all it is, an opinion. Researchers have found that sexual orientation cannot be consciously changed. It can be suppressed, which had been found to be harmful for most people, but it cannot be changed, hence making it akin to gender and ethnic groups. Religion, on the other hand, is a choice.
A strong addition to tobacco and alcohol can be harmful if suppressed. So can an addiction to child sexual abuse. Yet I meet happily recovered and struggling recovering tobacco and alcohol addicts all the time. I even meet recovered homosexuals now and then, not to mention – although to a lesser frequency – butch lesbians, homosexual transgendered persons, and cross dressers. Although I don’t deny some of them may have been harmed by failure to change, I never met anyone who was permanently harmed. But notice, I said, “failure to change”. Any failure in itself can be demoralizing and devastating if not properly understood. That said, recovery from an addiction is always painful. The point here is that it is far better to prevent addictions before they take place. But then adolescents and adults make bad decisions all the time.
You’re comparing homosexuality to alcoholism and pedophilia that makes you a disgusting and hateful bigot. There is NO scientific evidence that you can turn straight and choose not to be gay. You can choose to be celibate but that is not the same thing as altering your sexual orientation.
There is no need for scientific evidence that one can choose to be gay or straight. It happens all the time. I know some people who have switched at least three or four times. So why do I need scientific evidence when the evidence is right before my own eyes.
—-
Your ignorance doesn’t somehow magically create facts. There is a difference between status an action. Drinking alcohol doesn’t make me an alcoholic. Engaging in pedophilia doesn’t make me a Christian priest. Taking a picture doesn’t make me a photographer.
Attraction is immutable. Period.
Wrong… if you believe it is a choice, tell us when you chose not to act on your same-sex attractions… and if you believe it is a choice, they are a minority in the same way as groups who have chosen a particular religion… which all get “special rights” under the civil rights acts of ’64 and ’68.
There no need for it to be innate, as religion is not innate.
Your choice of mythology, or any mythology at all, is nothing but a choice… it is a learned behavior, and has nothing to do with human nature.
You said religion is not innate. But it is indeed part of human nature to believe in God or a transcendent being and to be sociable. I don’t understand however why you are bringing up the subject of religion except for the fact that I mentioned religion (the quest for the transcendent) was part of the design of human nature, just like one’s sex and ethnic origin are. Judging from your last comment, I suspect you might have had a bad encounter at some time or other with a person or people of religious faith.
It is not innate to believe in god, it is innate to look for answers to the unknown.
It’s not.
It’s human nature to wonder what’s out there… not believe in religion.
It is a mere choice… yet gets “special rights”. It is learned…
Bad encounter? No… I even graduated from a baptist university. I woke up and realized that religion is only a mechanism for control… that christiainty and islam are only separated by the degee they’re willing to go, as the religions are equally vile.
So… to say that “a choice” is not a valid trait to receive civil rights benefits is not true… thanks to those of religious faith.
Sexual acts do not always involve a choice, ostensibly so as in cases of child or adult rape. Most other sexual acts however involve conscious acts at some point.
In contrast, sexual orientation or preference may or may not involve a conscious choice(s). Certainly at the onset of puberty it is often the result of reactions to past experience and associations for which the person bears less responsibility. But homosexual preferences acquired after that stage of development are almost always due to conscious and unconscious choices people make. So, in response to your assertion regarding orientation and sexual acts, there are a lot of different situations that call for a different answer. In any case it not a simple matter.
If a choice is unconscious, it’s not much of a choice is it?
The reality is… because the choice to follow a religion is protected under the Civil Rights Act, it’s a moot point. It does not matter.
Again, it doesn’t matter what your criteria is for minority status is, it’s irrelevant. Homosexuals are a suspect class who have been historically oppressed and put upon. That’s fact and that’s what the courts agree with. Also, your rubric is clearly half-baked. Even if homosexuality is a choice, we still protect choices, like religion — no matter how hateful and bigoted.
It’s my opinion you want to say they’re not a minority group simply so you can feel more comfortable with your anti-gay bias and your use of the law for blatant discrimination. It makes you feel better to lie and say they’re not as good of parents so you can justify what you do.
Homosexuals are very well protected under the law, tend to be very politically connected, and have greater incomes than the average citizen. Still, they also feel discriminated and very isolated. There’s nothing more that can be done reasonably about that situation other than what has been done so far. Because of that I doubt their personal situation will ever change much either. Some people will continue to shun them (obviously through their own personal choice) while they (the gays) themselves as a group will continue to bear a chip on their shoulders. I regret to say that I don’t think that trend will change much so long as people continue to think the only way to be happy is to change the world outside themselves. That’s a difficult path to steer, and not one likely to lead to personal happiness that comes mostly from within ourselves and has little real bearing with what is going on around us most of the time. Knowing what I know, if I were in a gay relationship, I think I would try to change my perception of the world around me – if not my own orientation – and, yes, my homosexual acquaintances as well in order to distance myself from their self-absorption.
I think you’re self-absorbed. You’re willing to judge others morally without ever asking yourself moral questions. Whether it is right to lie, whether it is right to treat others how you wouldn’t want to be treated? These questions never seem to cross your mind. That’s fine, it’s your freedom to do so. But realize it’s disgusting behavior and in no way admirable. The generations to come will be ashamed of those who engage in the behavior you do. It’s already the case.
Your quote from earlier:
“It has been shown gay couples living in areas where state endorsement of their relationships exist are no happier than those living elsewhere.”
Still wating on that source.
Your procreation argument died with the Prop 8 trial, and every other federal glance at DOMA.
Reed comes from 1971… meaning that understanding of equal protection has been changed legally since that year (more than once). You better find a new case hon… in fact, it says nothing of gay versus straight people in any way.
Find a case relating to marriage not divorce.
You are ignoring the harm caused by divorce (which affects far more children) for your pet concern (xenophobic bigotry is always easier than bringing real change) and in the process, you actively harm the children of gay couples.
I urge you to go read every transcript around Prop 8… not just Walker’s findings. It’s a joy to read!
“What is the harm to the procreation purpose you outlined of allowing same-sex couples to get married?” Walker asked.
“My answer is, I don’t know. I don’t know,” Cooper answered.
You are correct, Whawell is in fact a liar. There are ample posts to prove it. I am trying to find pity in my heart for him but I find his posts so reprehensible that I cannot.
You are wasting your time speaking truth to him, but I salute your effort.
I’m trying to see if somewhere in all their emotion and vitriol they have a rational argument…
They don’t, but I still hunt for it.
So you keep making inaccurate statements and then when you’re called on them, you come up with new inaccuracies. I’m not going to play whack-a-mole with you. It’s ridiculous.
One more point, Reed v Reed did not say gay/straight relationships are similarly situated. Rather it stated that one partner in a relationship may not be discriminated against the other on account of sex when both are similarly situated. In my first reply I gave two examples of cases where two people were not similarly situated, and one example where two people were similarly situated. These examples were presented in order to illustrate when discrimination is and when it is not permissible.
I didn’t say otherwise.
“The 14th Amendment is about making “similarly situated” individuals equal. You can’t articulate why a heterosexual couple deserves a set of rights while a homosexual couple doesn’t. The SJC has found that men and women are similarly situated and must be given equal protection under the law. Lower courts have followed that logic and found that homosexuals and heterosexuals are similarly situated.”
I corrected you several times now and at this point, you’re lying about what I said to serve your own purposes. It’s enough. Stop it.
I understand what you are saying. Now what I am telling you is that the lower court misapplied Reed v Reed by stating homosexual and heterosexual relationships are similarly situated. Reed v Reed concerned individuals of the opposite sex, not relationships of different situations. For that reason, I don’t believe those lower court decisions will survive in the high court when challenged.
It mentions neither homosexual nor heterosexual relationships. I can’t see how it applies at all. On that we can agree.
However… lots of other cases touch on the procreation argument. And none of them have won.
Not one.
That’s alright. Apparently if you lie enough you can make something true.
I’m not sure he is… I’m unclear on why that case was brought up in the first place.
You said multiple times that I said otherwise. You were lying.
I think right now you are either worn out, feel frustrated, trying to persuade me through ridicule, or a combination of these. At this point I can only remind of some of the rules for posting: keep it civil, stay on topic, no name-calling or personal attacks. Thank you.
No. I’ve been very clear in my stance and in presenting facts. I’ve also been very clear in pointing out how you are lying.
You can paint that however you want, but you’re lying. Period. You say I’m saying one thing when I’m not. It’s wrong. Have some principles. I’d love to have a discussion with you that’s based in reality and honesty, but you seem incapable of it.
To make a point you have to say I said something I didn’t. To make a point you have to deny all the experts in science. To make a point you have to completely misconstrue and ignore the case law on this matter. It’s ridiculous. Just admit you think gay people are less than straight people and leave it at that. Quit acting like you have science or the law on your side because you don’t. You have your religion and that’s it. That’s fine. Have your religious opinion, but quit lying in order to pretend you have other fields on your side — to me, it seems that goes against the entire point of your religion which is to be good. You’re not being good when you lie.
Is he lying? I think he believes what he’s saying.
“Same-sex couples are not similarly situated to heterosexual couples, a point I made in my first comment.”
Factually untrue. Since barren or willfully childless couples receive the civil contract of marriage all the time, they are indeed similarly situated. There simply is no rational basis for your comparisons…
Then the marriage ceremony I attend a few weeks ago where both were in their eighties should not be considered a “marriage”? They will not have children or raise children and certainly they know that are incapable as a couple to even dream of such things.
But hey I guess because the exemption for churches and clergy are not expressly in the question to be put on the ballot you are confused … civil marriage is recognized by the state regardless.
Where are you coming from? I never mentioned anything about the church since the ballot question is on civil marriage. Would you deny an elderly couples of the opposite sex a license to marry? This sort of endorsement is rather harmless. It certainly will not diminish the importance of marriage for those cohabiting couple with children we are encouraging to marry for the sake of children and even the couples themselves.
Look, same-sex relationships are not the same as heterosexual relationships designed by nature to be complementary and open to procreation in most instances. Tell me of one case of same-sex relationships having those qualities. With that, state endorsement of relationships has never been intended for any type of relationship, only those in which the state has a demonstrable interest. The pursuit of marriage licenses by homosexuals is a fantasy because it will not make their live any happier or more fulfilled. Therefore, for that reason alone the state has no interest in furthering these relationships. I explained that in my first posting.
My point is: the state issues civil marriage licenses to couples that are beyond child-bearing age. The state fully knows that these couples are incapable of procreating and not be raising children as a mother and father. You continually state that opposite-sex couples are “complementary by nature and open to life” without clarifying that what you really talking about is anatomy, not the ability to procreate. This phrase is found most commonly in literature from the Catholic Church … so you are inserting a religion-based reasoning in your opinion, even though you state you did not mention the church.
Of course I do not wish to deny elderly couples a civil marriage license however, clearly they are not marrying to procreate and legitimize children which is your key point in defining the purpose of marriage.
What demonstrable interest does the state have in issuing civil
marriage licenses to elderly couples who are unable to bear children? How does marriage between elderly couples ensure they are happier and more fulfilled?
Where does your contention that same-sex couples will not be happier or more fulfilled come from? Can you cite the studies that show this? And how is happiness and fulfillment scientifically measured ….. they are pretty subjective and usually done through a self-reporting questionnaire.
” It has been shown gay couples living in areas where state endorsement of their relationships exist are no happier than those living elsewhere.”
Care to share your source on that little one? Coming from you as hearsay is meaningless.
Annul all childless marriages or your argument is already lost sweetheart…
Your choice.
Blah, blah blah.
Coming back with your hypocritical view of procreation in marriage?
Wonderful… it helps insure your loss until you annul all childless marriages, and I don’t think you’ll get that…
You insure your own loss.
I agree. Nice post.
How come you can’t prove that marriage is a religious function as you’ve been asked, sweetcheeks?
your proof is in the Bible. Read it.
Bible is irrelevant to the discussion of civil marriage and law.
The buybull is not proof… it is a book written by men to control the minds of other men like you.
Nothing more.
Pathetic… you one very sad little peon… I advise you to focus more on civil law and less on mythology. You’ll lose if you just hang on mythology.
I actually feel sorry for you.
Why? Because our court system won’t honor your mythology?
That’s hysterical!
The bible surely never mentions civil marriage and the 1,100+ benefits and privileges it conveys at the federal government level alone.
If you’re referring to holy matrimony, that’s not up for vote in November. We can already get married in churches if we want to, it simply doesn’t have a civil marriage license attached until we update Maine law.
Wrong.
Then you need to start a petition to end civil marriage and make it law that only marriage ceremonies performed by a leader of a church, synagogue or temple, etc are legally recognized.
In reading your defense of so-called “traditional” marriage, you use the word “special” a couple of times. Hmmm…got any leftover “Stop Special Rights” signs that we on the pro-SSM side could have? :)
It’s a logical fallacy you present here— single people by definition can’t be granted the 1,100+ benefits and privileges contingent on marital status, because they are single people.
There is no tax benefit to be had because you have no one to file jointly with; there is no social security benefit lost because no spouses are left behind. An active duty soldier who is single does not have a spouse needing access to base housing and commissary privileges. And so on.
There are just as meaningful marriages between same sex couples dedicated to each other in a life long relationship serving to create happiness. And it is just as much about raising the next generation— or are you standing opposed to step-parents, adoptive parents, grandparents, or any extended family raising a child today?
If married couples get, say $500 in benefits on average, my question is this: Should singles get the same amount of benefits? Where is the fallacy in this question? If we decide to give benefits to gay couples why not give benefits to everyone else?
If we decide to give benefits to barren or sterile couples, why not give benefits to gay couples?
A line has to be drawn somewhere. Better to limit the definition of marriage at a point where it will not create the negative impact on society that “gay marriage” will most likely lead to. Besides, I have good reasons to believe granting gays marriage licenses will not make gays any happier or more fulfilled. I’ve discussed this matter before several times.
What negative impact? Also, if you are not gay, how can you know that getting married won’t make gay people happier? And don’t try posting any of the catholic church opinions. Those aren’t facts or evidence, those are just opinions.
Please list for us this “negative impact”… please use examples of “negative impact” from states and nations that have extended marriage rights to gay citizens. If you cannot do this, you’re only proving what everyone else knows to be true: you have no valid argument for your defense of this discrimination… nor do the courts, and they KNOW it…
http://jurist.org/forum/2012/07/julie-nice-minimalism-doma.php
I’m not asking you if you feel I, or for that matter any citizen, might be happier after marriage. It’s not even about making ourselves “happier” or “more fulfilled” you twit… I know you’re not that dumb… so stop acting like it. If you really do think that’s all it’s about, I’m done with you… you’re too stupid to continue debate with.
I guess we would disagree on where that line should be drawn. I would err on the side of equality here, because I don’t see the negative impacts.
You do realize that those “$500 in benefits” are due to filing jointly correct? In other words, if two people were making similar incomes, there is actually a marriage penalty when filing jointly. When the couple has a wide gap in incomes, the couple can benefit by filing jointly.
But again— how would you receive a joint filing benefit by filing alone? Or would you be working two full time jobs to achieve this?
Then I’m glad you support extending civil marriage to same-sex couples; you are free to keep your religious marriage definition unchanged.
I’ve supported civil unions all along, and the SSM supporters consistently badger me for my stance. It’s all or nothing with the radical SSM supporters. There is no compromise. And that’s sad.
When the compromise is “separate but equal”, which is unconstitutional, it’s not a valid compromise.
Every state that has offered the compromise of civil unions to legally recognize same-sex couples have and are meeting resistance from radical opponents of legal recognition in any form. The resistance comes from the same groups and organizations that oppose same-sex marriage. For these opponents it is about denying legal recognition in any form, not marriage.
There you go again, ignoring all the folks like myself who have said civil unions would be just fine— as long as it’s the same system for everyone, it matters not what we call it.
If you are proposing we set up civil marriage for some, and civil unions for others… well, that won’t pass Constitutional scrutiny. We didn’t have to change the name of the institution every other time we “redefined” marriage, did we?
Patricia Claus, Our nation is a republic not a theocracy therefor it does not matter how one interprets the bible. Marriage is not a religious right it is a civil right that is only made legal through government, you see religion is not necessary for marriage. Also religion is a man made institution and there are so many of them due to the fact that man has interpreted (translated)the bible in so many ways to fit their own needs and desires, this includes your bible and your religion.
Did you actually read the letter? Patricia didn’t comment on marriage or anything else. She merely corrected someone who didn’t know what the Bible actually teaches.
Oh please. The Bible says many things as has been pointed out many times by many others on these threads. I feel that Patricia’s message was clearly one not supporting SSM and using the Bible to do so. Selectively using the Bible.
In any case SSM is not a religious issue and those using religion to deny equal rights in my opinion should be ashamed of themselves.
SSM is most definitely a religious issue. Maybe you should use some good sense and actually read it.
How is same sex marriage a religious issue? Please tell us, your feelings may say it a religious issue, but you don’t make the laws. My feelings are, that religion will be, and is the ruination of the world. That being said, I’m not trying to stop religion.
=====
Read what ? It may be a religious issue to you, but that does not mean that you have any right to impose your religious beliefs on anyone else. Stay out of others bedrooms and lives.
No. Marriage is a civil contract that requires no mythological trappings whatsoever.
If your mythology doesn’t like it, don’t go to gay weddings.
Ya’ll keep thinking so…we will show you in November
LOL, it is factually true that what we’re voting on is civil marriage. Whether we want to extend those licenses to same sex couples. That’s all it is.
You can say the grass is blue all you want, but it doesn’t make it so. Voting “no” in November doesn’t make this not about civil law either.
How does your voting to harm US citizens make marriage religious?
Your vote is irrelevant in the long run toots…
No civil rights issue has ever been left to the mob. That won’t change here.
In the end, you will lose… there is no historical parallel on your side.
It is so amazingly sad to see folks like you actively trying to harm law-abiding US citizens… Allah is very proud of you. You make a better Muslim than American.
Charming.
What about to couples who marry in a civil ceremony because they chose not to have a religious component in their ceremony or they are atheists or even because the church they attended and wished to be married in refused to allow it (recent example: First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs Mississippi refused to allow a black couple to have their wedding in the church because the couple was black. )
Actually if you hit the link (Jackie Freitas in above letter) re-read Ms. Freitas’ letter, she does not say “that individuals have “made up” Bible injunctions against homosexuality (“to cause controversy”). She said nothing of the sort
She stated – “Gay marriage is only a religious issue if you make it one (totally made up to cause controversy)”. In the US marriage is a civil contract. To be recognized by civil law, couples must have a civil marriage license issued by the state they are married in. There is no requirement or mandate that couples must have their ceremony solemnized by the leader of any religion in a house of worship or have a member of clergy sign their license.
Paul Sheridan, Larry Farrell, Kenn Chandler: good letters.
Bravo Larry Ferrell. I do sincerely hope there are more gun owners who feel as you do.
Kenn Chandler couldn’t agree with you more. On every point.
Larry, deer rifles can legally have 6 rounds.
Patricia Claus, the “shameful things” the Bible is referring to is rape, not love.
There is nothing immoral or wrong about two people building a life together in monogamous, supportive love. We should absolutely allow ALL Maine families the benefits of civil marriage, that they may protect the life they build together, and the children they raise together.
Mr. Ferrell,
You make some great points, but I and many enthusiasts would disagree with your argument to restrict capacity. It IS understandable to want to do so and we all want to “do something” to prevent mass shootings like the Aurora massacre, but how do we get future assailants to obey a restriction? Us pro gunners are always saying this and it may sound cliche (gun laws only affect Law Abiding Citizens), but really, how do we stop criminals (or would be criminals) from disregarding the rule of law?
I also want to make it clear that being in a so called “Gun Free Zone” does not guarantee there will be no guns any more than that white center line will guarantee no vehicles will cross into your path while driving to Grandma’s house.
Lets also remember that the Aurora shooter used a shotgun to kill & wound most of his unarmed, helpless victims. His high capacity AR jammed after the first few rounds and he stopped using it.
Now then, I just completed my Concealed Carry Permit application last night it does have info release forms so Maine mental health institutions and the military can release any info they may have on me. (I’m a 30 year, but never had a mental issue).
We do not live in a Utopian world folks. Its a potentially dangerous place to live in. Its made even more dangerous when Law Abiding Citizens (LACs) are not allowed to defend themselves. Nearly every recent mass shooting incident has occurred in a so called Gun Free Zone, its more like a Disarmed Victim Zone where only the shooter has a gun. Consider this, The police shoot the wrong person 11% of the time versus 2% in incidents involving Armed LACs in self Defense situations. I know who I’d rather have around me in a shoot out.
Meant to say “30 year Vet” in my post.
Now then, I just completed my Concealed Carry Permit application last night it does have info release forms so Maine mental health institutions and the military can release any info they may have on me. (I’m a 30 year (VET), but never had a mental issue).
Great post.
It almost, and I say almost, sounds like everyone in the theater should have been packing, and then everyone should have a right to defend themselves by opening fire on the shooter (hopefully everyone is not mistaking another victim with a gun and opening fire on them)? I hope that is not what you’re going for. Our family legally owns guns, and some have concealed weapons permits. But I am not for everyone in the local movie theater having the need to be packing “just in case”. It’s a horrible situation – everyone carrying a gun doesn’t solve it.
No I’m going to go as far as that GC.
I know that everyone would not carry. I think its a tremendous responsibility to carry a firearm and not everyone should. One should take this decision seriously and get proper training before carrying a firearm of any kind.
I will say that we should have the right to defend ourselves and have the option to carry in public places like a theater. Gun Free Zones only create an easy shooting gallery for those who decide that “today is a good day to go kill some people.” and the people who do these heinous things know it. I personally will never patronize a GFZ and I won’t allow my family to do so either. Those No Guns Allowed signs may make you feel better, but ask the grieving families in Aurora how that worked out for them. Personally I hope they sue that theater into extinction.
It only takes one armed citizen to stop these things as was proven in Florida a few days after the Aurora shooting. One armed man, a 71 y/o retiree shot and wounded two armed thugs and ran them off when they attempted to strong arm the patrons in a busy internet cafe. No one except the thugs were wounded and the police gave the hero a well earned pat on the back.The really sad thing is that we don’t get to hear about incidents like those because the lame stream media won’t report it and when they do they water it down so that the armed part is never mentioned. It wouldn’t do, after all, to let the population know that being armed is actually a good thing, it messes up the anti gunner’s plans. Armed citizens account for many more foiled robbery attempts than you know. In fact 60 times more than the police account for every year.
When seconds count the police are MINUTES away. Defend yourselves.
Thanks Trickle…
Sorry folks.
The opening line above should be “No I’m (NOT) going to go as far as that GC.” SIGH! I always find them AFTER I click POST.
I have to be honest. I love religious arguments against gay marriage.
With that as the loudest voice in the anti-marriage equality din, it only serves to insure victory for gay marriage supporters.
Thanks folks!
Larry Ferrell
You may be willing to give up your right to what you consider high capacity magazines but many of us are not. Why should I be limited in the number of rounds I have available to repel a home invasion?
You may not believe in the “slippery slope” argument but many of us do.
Progressives have proven time and time again that to achieve their eventual goals they are willing to take one small step after another until they get what they want. The very defination of the “slippery slope”.
Restricting either the guns or capacity of magazines citizens are allowed to legally own will do nothing to prevent the next mass killing by either a terrorist or deranged individual. WHEN, not IF, the next incident occurs the anti-gun group will demand still another new restriction on legal ownership. What will it be next? Limitations on caliber? Limitations on number of guns owned? More guns declared too dangerous to allow citizens to own? Mandatory mental health screening before getting the mandatory license to own?
History shows that the “slippery slope” is exactly how gun ownership has been restricted or banned in country after country.
Right on!
We have to draw the line somewhere and allow responsible Law Abiding Citizens to choose for themselves whether or to to carry firearms for self defense. Less guns does not equal less crime folks. Just ask NYC, Chicago, DC and Commiefoenia how things are working out.
To whawell: A strong addiction to alchohol and tobacco is harmfull itself. You have not demonstrated that homosexuality is inherantly harmful. There is no “failure to change”, just a failure to accept yourself for who you are.
Thank you, Larry Ferrell. A voice of reason, crying in the wilderness.
“failure to change”?!
Two words little one… Exodus International.
‘Nuff said.
There is a difference between action and status. Being celibate doesn’t make me asexual. Painting a picture doesn’t make me an artist. Going to church doesn’t make me a Christian.
These people think that their ignorance somehow creates facts. That’d be fine if they left it at that, but they use it as a tool to justify using the law against their neighbors. That is so wrong and un-American to me.
And again…
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/federal-trial-court-in-connecticut-strikes-down-do
“In sum, having considered the purported rational bases proffered by both BLAG and Congress and concluded that such objectives bear no rational relationship to Section 3 of DOMA as a legislative scheme, the Court finds that no conceivable rational basis exists for the provision. The provision therefore violates the equal protection principles incorporated in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Whawell my friend… you do realize you’re going to lose.