Chamber’s negative ads
Having been a small business owner and entrepreneur in Aroostook County during the governorship of Angus King, it is my opinion that more was done for the state of Maine’s small businesses than at any other time.
Our agricultural and economical developmental programs grew at a rapid rate. Our education systems had significant reform and there is no greater commitment we can make for a prosperous future of Maine than a first-quality educational system; it is not an option, it is a
necessity.
During the eight years of King’s administration, unemployment rates dropped and new jobs were created at an average of 175 per week, for every week during his two terms. Seems remarkable looking at today’s employment problems.
I believe that a positive attitude goes a long way, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s negative ads on television are a dramatic misrepresentation of the majority of business owners in Maine.
As an independent, King will be a sought-after vote in the midst of party-politics in Washington and will keep Maine his focus.
I have the privilege of knowing Angus and his family. I believe he can, and will do more for Maine. He knows The County and its people, as well as being a caring, intelligent man of utmost integrity. He gets my vote.
Patty LeBlanc
Presque Isle
Eminent Domain
I am puzzled by the editorial, “ Eminent Domain Key Issue” in the BDN, republished from the Lewiston Sun Journal.
This editorial discusses Gov. Paul LePage’s recent announcement that he will put a $300,000 feasibility study for the infamous 220-mile east-west highway on hold due to questions about the possible use of eminent domain to support this project.
What puzzles me is that there is no mention whatsoever in this piece of any other potential problems with the east-west highway. What about environmental concerns as expressed by the Sierra Club in their opposition to this highway? In addition to eminent domain, they cite possible harm to waterways, water quality, critical habitat and threatened endangered species, local communities’ environment and economies, and public recreational lands ( BDN May 7).
Why is it so easy to shove environmental concerns under the rug? Now that the study for the highway is on hold, let’s not forget that eminent domain is only one of the many possible pitfalls of the east-west highway.
Carol Rosinski
Ellsworth
Do not liter
I work with a group of women who meet once a week in the evenings and this is what they have to say.
“We just watched the documentary “Tapped” and it was interesting and educational. We learned a lot about how bottles are made — from oil to plastic, i.e. toxins. We saw how plastic is ending up in the ocean, rivers and ponds. Plastic is killing animals which makes us sad. We want to encourage people to recycle, to help more and to not litter.”
Robin Mendenhall
Orono
Different set of rules
Obama’s decision to stop deportations and award work permits to illegal immigrant youth defies the will of Congress and undermines constitutional government. Congress has defeated legislation by providing work permits to illegal immigrant youth three times in the past. But pandering to the Hispanic vote is more important to Obama now, than respecting the Constitution.
With unprecedented unemployment among American youth and minorities, it is shameful that our president is providing work permits to over a million illegal immigrant workers. Once again, (this is amnesty No. 8) we are telling the world: here’s how you do it. Come on in and ignore the laws. Someone will always have a compelling personal story for breaking the law, and the press will tell it. How many more times do we go down this road?
Border Patrol agents are put in an impossible position by Obama’s directive, trying to enforce immigration laws, and they’re fighting back. You can sign their petition at http://petitions.iceunion.org/petitions.
Where are the liberals who believe we should enforce laws impartially, without respect to gender, race, class or national origin? Once again, we slide down the road to ethnic identity politics, with a different set of rules for different ethnic groups.
Julie Tosswill
Hope
Elect Ed Mazurek
In a letter published in the Bangor Daily News dated Aug. 14, 2012, Helen Shaw asserts that people should vote for Chris Rector despite his strong support of Gov. LePage’s agenda. She bases the assertion on the fact he has not supported the governor’s agenda a few times in the past.
It is difficult to understand how Sen. Rector could conclude Gov. LePage’s legislative agenda reflects the will of the Maine people since Gov.LePage was elected by a less than 39 percent of the voters. Despite this fact, Sen. Rector has voted to support the governor’s proposals 89 percent of the time. That action is not the hallmark of the freethinking, hardworking legislator the letter asserts to be the case.
Given the fact that the governor was opposed by 61 percent of voters statewide and 63 percent of Knox County voters in the 2010 election, the question has to be asked, just who is Sen. Rector listening to, Knox County voters or Gov. LePage?
I want someone in Augusta who listens to the people. That is why I will be voting for Ed Mazurek for state senator.
Camy Vitullo
Camden
Voting for equality
I am looking forward to vote in favor of marriage equality this November. As an independent small business owner, former mayor of the city of Belfast, and current city council member, I urge my fellow Maine citizens to support the right of all to marry.
My businesses have benefited greatly by employing people regardless of their sexual orientation. It was never any of my business at all and yet it was good for my business. The city of Belfast has a justifiably proud statewide, and even beyond Maine’s borders, reputation as an open,
welcoming, diverse, vital and successful community. In part we have built that reputation because we are a community that respects, values and embraces equality.
I understand where the feelings regarding the protection of marriage come from; I too am a true believer in everything good and strong that marriage brings to society and family. That is exactly why I support the right of free same sex people to marry each other and why I will vote yes to allow the state of Maine to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.
Michael Hurley
Belfast
“Do not liter”?
Yup. No copy editors…
Not for headlines, apparently. At least the letter had it right. BDN correct, please.
The Bangor Daily, for some reason, has a severe aversion to correcting its mistakes. “Liter” is still there. It’s a simple error to correct, which makes it all the more odd. And correcting factual mistakes? The online editor would rather argue than pass those corrections along. Even writing to the reporter gets you nowhere.
I thought maybe they were making a cutesy play on words, since they were talking about plastic bottles, which often come in “liter” sizes. Then again……
One of the papers in my town ran a headline stating that a man had been “ran over” by his own lawn mower. Another headline reported a home invasion as “intruder busted window to gain entry”.
Michael Hurley–I don’t understand what your credentials have to do with the right of same gender couples to marry. Don’t get me wrong, I am voting yes also, but not because I am a small business owner or anything like that. I am voting yes because it is the right thing to do in the Christian and American spirit of love, equality and justice.
I think it just points out that in business (and I’m sure in many other areas), these quantifiers we put on ourself and others, like religion, sexuality, ethnicity, don’t make a huge bit of difference. To the extent they do, it’s a good thing when there is diversity. You rule out gay people and you rule out a lot of talented and good people, for example.
Or perhaps Mr. Hurley was written in response to the Chik-Fil-A debacle. It was reminiscent of “freedom fries.” It never ceases to amaze me how small- minded people can be.
There is absolutely nothing remotely Christian about homosexual marriage. Zero!
Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
Great Bible verse. Has nothing to do with homosexuality though.
Here try this one, Romans 1:26-27 – For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
LOL, who uses the “New American Standard Bible (©1995)” version????
Millions…
Millions of people have purchased Lady Gaga albums/cds/songs…
What, exactly, is your point?
Mythology holds no sway over US civil law.
This is a good thing.
Maine is a secular state.
From KJV (without addition of words that are not there): “for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature” ….. as I said before, I fulfilled my “natural use” and bore 3 children and now because “nature” has made it so, I am post-menopausal amd also celibate so what exactly is “the natural use” now?
PS you continue to leave out the reason Romans 1 22-25.
I love my neighbor so much that I wish for all people the very greatest thing I could wish for myself – the salvation of their souls. That’s why I will vote against gay marriage. If I were to encourage the commission of homosexual acts by voting in favor of SSM, I would be showing gays my utmost hatred. It’s hard to hate somebody more than by showing them that you couldn’t care less where their souls will spend eternity. I absolutely do not want to be judged by Jesus Christ for encouraging serious sin by other people.
So let me get this straight…….
You show your love by denying people freedom!?!
You place your personal belief system above others rights!?!
Wow–I pity your family.
The eternal destination of your soul is INFINITELY more important than the “freedom” to sin as you please. You don’t have to pity my family, unless God has revealed to you that we will go to hell after we die. We may end up there, but we certainly don’t want to end up there. To obey the commandments of God that he gives us through the teachings of his Catholic Church is the surest way to avoid hell.
Speaking for God to support a political argument is blasphemy and you are going to Hell.
Worship out of fear again… how sad.
Good.
So if your church doesn’t want to perform SSMs, don’t. But also don’t be in judgement of Christians who are for it.
1Jo 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;
Could you please us where in US Code or Maine law I will find a reference to ”
If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth”
Really you do not sin? You are the only one? Last time I checked we all sin, We sin everyday.
you’re right, there’s nothing Christian about homosexual, marriage, because marriage is civil. So there’s nothing Christian about heterosexual marriage either.
Wrong!
Mat 19:4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
Mat 19:5 and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?
Mat 19:6 “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
Jesus
Completely irrelivent.
Do you have a rational legal argument against gay marriage, or just more mythology?
But it is a good religious argument against divorce for any other reason than adultery ….. which is what it addresses. :)
So I ask again: when a man remains single, is he defeating God’s will?
All yes votes welcome, whatever the reasons.
So gay marraige is christian?
that’s not what he said. He said in his HO it was the Christian thing to do.
Patty LeBlanc, Carol Rosinski, Michael Hurley; good letters.
Ms Tosswill it should be noted that President Obama waited almost three and a half years before issuing this executive order. The cynic in me says he is trying to persuade certain groups of voters that he has their best interest at heart. The flip side of the issue is his administration has the highest deportation rate of any prior administration.
Deportation of illegals peaked under the Bush administration with nearly 350,000 in 2006. However, during the last two years of the Bush administration, the deportation rate dropped to less than 115,000. This drop can be attributed to a combination of the Congress being controlled by the Democrats, the lack of effort by Congress, and not wanting high deportations to become an election issue.
Obama did indeed increase deportations, but shifted the emphasis to the illegal criminals and softened the rules on non-criminal illegals. In 2012 there were nearly 200,000 deportations, up 71% from when he took office, but way down from the peak under the Bush administration.
As for Obama and his timing about the executive order, it has to be noted that Obama does nothing unless it has a political purpose.
Tosswill — your letter contains factual errors. Border Patrol agents don’t deport people. Deportation proceedings happen in court. Obama’s immigration stay doesn’t grant amnesty or citizenship, all it does is defer action on cases of young illegal immigrants and have no criminal backgrounds. It essentially prioritizes more important cases.
Michael Hurley, would you also support two brothers getting married or multiple spouses..just so long as they were excellent workers of course?
Why do you like seeing law abiding citizens hurt, my little snuggle nugget?
Those tired, invalid, irrelevant arguments again?
It’s all he has…
Sad, isn’t it?
Yes.
And what does two brothers have to do with anything cp444? Incest is illegal in Maine. Brothers cannot marry sisters. Sisters cannot marry fathers. Sons cannot marry mothers.
Homosexual marriage is also illegal in Maine. There is a court case in Utah now brought on by polygamists arguing their right to marry using the same Lawrence vs Texas the the homosexuals used. Exact same arguments. Two brothers marrying an impossibility? Hardly! Incestuous relationships were put in place due to the possibility of birth defects long before homosexual marriage was ever dreamed of becoming a reality. There are no chances of two brothers having children. You have no case for denying them marriage anymore than two sisters or a mother and daughter. Sound absurd? Yeah, but it wasn’t so long ago that two men on a wedding cake was also though of the same way.
Utah …. they are suing not for legal recognition of their marriages but for the state not to prosecute them. Mr. Brown is legally married to his first wife but not his subsequent wives. The subsequent wives were wedded through a religious rite without a civil license. They are not arguing for legal recognition.
Restructure the tax laws to financially work with polygamy and bring it on.
Not going to harm me.
Two brothers wishing to marry? Well, Santa Claus might one day want to marry the Easter Bunny, but I really don’t think it’s something we’re going to see happen.
So tell me… you voting for Romney, whose religion has historically (and in some branches today, still does) supports polygamy?
Even his grandfather had multiple wives.
“Homosexual marriage is also illegal in Maine.”
Yes it is…right now.
~~~~~
“There is a court case in Utah now brought on by polygamists arguing their right to marry using the same Lawrence vs Texas the the homosexuals used. Exact same arguments.”
Citation please.
~~~~~
“Two brothers marrying an impossibility?”
Title 17A, Section 556 defines incest in Maine. The intent of the law is clear. If you would like to make a change fine. I don’t think to many people will fight the change.
~~~~~
“Hardly! Incestuous relationships were put in place due to the possibility of birth defects long before homosexual marriage was ever dreamed of becoming a reality. There are no chances of two brothers having children. You have no case for denying them marriage anymore than two sisters or a mother and daughter. Sound absurd? Yeah, but it wasn’t so long ago that two men on a wedding cake was also though of the same way.”
Can you cite anywhere in the US where SSM is legal that the laws governing incest have been changed or modified to allow incest SSM? Or is this just another of the red herring arguments?
Technically, no… it is not “illegal”.
I can go to NY and bring my marriage certificate back here and suffer no legal consequence.
Not being recognized by the state is not the same thing as something being illegal.
cp444 is not talking about heterosexual incest. He is asking about SSM incest. If SSM passes in Maine, just what is there to stop brothers from marrying each other? Incestuous marriage is outlawed in order to prevent genetically impaired children from being produced by the marriage. In a SSM incestuous marriage, there would be no chance of children being produced.
And what is there to stop polygamy, or other types of “group marriage?” Logically, there would be nothing to stop those things. Right now, marriage is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. If marriage is redefined, where will redefinition stop? If SSM passes in Maine, there will be no legal precedent to stop any type of marriage desired between consenting adults. So cp444 deserves an honest answer from you SSM promoters.
Incest is Incest…… like pedophilia is pedopholia, child molestation is child moslestation and rape is rape …. all are criminal acts with legal consequences.
Actually, there are thousands of people in the US who practice polygamy and the states affected – Arizona, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico – turn a blind eye. FLDS (Fundamentalist Mormons) raise their girls to marry older men, many of whom are step-fathers, uncles, cousins when they are still young teenagers. It’s child abuse plain and simple but because the law ignores it these people just continue on.
A good argument for legal polygamy. Shine a bright light on it, make it legal and regulate it. Like pot.
If there were no children involved I would agree with you. Consenting adults can do what they want in my book. But bearing and raising little girls to become young concubines of these dirty old men with a made-up religion is severe child sexual abuse. Almost no better for the young boys who are pushed out (like rogue elephants so they don’t encroach on the old bull’s territory) at a young age. It’s all so wrong on so many levels yet American Justice never goes after them – well, they did in Texas and that man (Warren Jeffs) now operates his vast empire from prison. The Texas authorities caused them to become sympathetic (taking their young children away from these beautiful mothers!) and really hurt these kids. I find it unbelievably sad for children growing up in this abusive cult.
Hence my comment…make it legal and regulate it.
I really don’t think there is anyway to ‘regulate’ child sexual abuse. It’s systemic and necessary for their ‘religion’. You can’t have a cop live with each family to make sure no criminal acts are happening. And it is very difficult to get children to go against the authority figures in their lives when they are raised to acquiesce to them. I understand your point of view but don’t agree it can be done.
It is systematic but certainly not necessary. Child abuse laws are on the books of course, and if polygamists weren’t allowed to live under the radar, church leaders would have a much harder time getting away with it. Besides, having a history of such practices would certainly draw considerably more scrutiny.
I did give an honest answer….Maine law does not allow incest of the “within the 2nd degree of consanguinity” which means:
For a woman, the other person is her father, grandfather, son, grandson, brother, brother’s son, sister’s son, father’s brother or mother’s brother.
For a man, the other person is his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, brother’s daughter, sister’s daughter, father’s sister or mother’s sister.
And the intent of the law is clear and is not changed by allowing SSM.
Now, if this is a “slippery slope” as cp444s original unedited post stated why hasn’t incest become a topic in Massachusetts, Vermont, etc…where SSM is legal?
And for full disclosure here is the “Prohibited marriages; exceptions” as found in Maine Title 19-A Section 701:
Prohibitions based on degrees of consanguinity; exceptions. This subsection governs marriage between relatives.
A. A man may not marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, brother’s daughter, sister’s daughter, father’s sister, mother’s sister, the daughter of his father’s brother or sister or the daughter of his mother’s brother or sister. A woman may not marry her father, grandfather, son, grandson, brother, brother’s son, sister’s son, father’s brother, mother’s brother, the son of her father’s brother or sister or the son of her mother’s brother or sister.
B. Notwithstanding paragraph A, a man may marry the daughter of his father’s brother or sister or the daughter of his mother’s brother or sister, and a woman may marry the son of her father’s brother or sister or the son of her mother’s brother or sister as long as, pursuant to sections 651 and 652, the man or woman provides the physician’s certificate of genetic counseling.
Again the intent of the law is very clear.
Well considering most Polygamist are Heterosexual, the whole one man and one women, is actually a better argument for allowing Polygamist marriage. You can marry your 2nd cousin, why not your first? why not your sister? BOOM ROASTED!
In Maine, and many other states, you can indeed marry your first cousin.
Ironic, no?
Well you have One man and one women, why not two Women? Considering the vast majority of Polygmist are hetrosexual. You allow people to marry 2nd cousin, why not first, or sisters? Please that argument fails, BOOM ROASTED!
since I have four brothers…. I’m thinking… yes. At least in my family it would be great. I’d really like to see John married to Dan. Just for the sheer homicidal lust it would generate. Dave…. I’m not sure any of us would want to marry Dave. He would let us get away with everything and he is hell on a pile of dishes. Pat? Pat is taken but if I had to marry one of these guys maybe it would be Pat. He does have a nice BMW motor cycle. But I guess I’d have to ride on the back. He does make a good cup of coffee. On the other hand… John is relentlessly hard working. Would I have to move back into the house he and I used to share? Not sure his daughter would like that very much when she comes to visit. As it is she was convinced as a child that I was merely the free loading uncle who lived upstairs (in our 2 family house) off her dad so we’d just re-open that whole can.
As to marrying multiple spouses? Great. Two women reminding me what I was supposed to do. Where do i sign up for that?
Anyway…. putting all silliness aside…. can I marry my turtle? He has been truly faithful.
Angus King is a progressive. If that’s what you want, then vote for him. Just remember, the progressive platform goes against the ideals that the Founding Fathers has for America.
Obama has no respect for the Constitution. Go see 2016 and you’ll understand why.
SSM is not marriage equality; it is pandering to a minority that chose a lifestyle that is unnatural and immoral. Marriage should remain between one man and one woman .
Nope…
Besides, since the choice to follow a religion is given special rights in the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968, the choice argument is moot.
The rest, EJ, is just your opinion.
Mere moral disapproval isn’t a rational basis for laws in this country. We don’t punish people with the law simply because we don’t like them — that’s wrong.
No one needs to see a ridiculous propaganda film either. We should be free to make up our own minds and not have distortions told over an action film soundtrack telling us what to think. 2016 is junk.
You are kidding right? The Founding Fathers WERE the progressives of their time.
No. The Founding Fathers were NOT progressives matching the definition of today’s Progressives. The Founding Fathers were visionaries that envisioned a land of freedoms an liberties, opportunities and abundance. Today’s Progressives are against most everything the Founding Fathers stood for.
The founding fathers sound progressive! Progressives aren’t against liberty, oppurtunity or abundance. That part is wrong.
I guess you haven’t read the progressive party platform. It is anti-freedom and anti-liberty throughout.
I see you trying to push your religious beliefs on to gay people as anti-freedom and anti-liberty. I see you trying to deny gay people the rights you already enjoy as anti-freedom and anti-liberty.
He’s as anti-liberty as the next “social conservative”.
They don’t mind if they agree with the reasons for stripping liberty.
No more so than “social conservatives”.
No it is not.
Liberty means nothing to those who would impose their religious faith on everyone.
Our liberties are constricted (there is legitimate rape after all), opportunities lost (money is opportunity) and abundance (for the wealthy only). Today’s progressives are indeed against that.
Michael Hurley – A soul is priceless. Gay marriage and the dollar value of all business transactions in the history of Belfast are not even remotely worth the value of a single human soul. That’s why many people who love Jesus Christ and who also love ALL the people whom God has created will be voting against gay marriage.
But your god and Jesus are not civil law.
They are nothing more than something you chose to follow.
Civil law is nothing more than something you choose to follow. I choose to follow the laws of God, which are way above civil law. If civil law is in harmony with God’s law, then I will follow it with no problem. If civil law conflicts with God’s law, then it is something to be soundly rejected and not adhered to. There is nothing remotely worth rejecting God’s laws for, because nothing is remotely worth the eternal loss and punishment of your soul.
Are you legally married?
That’s the trouble, with the like of you. You think you’re better then anyone else. IMHO, thinking like that only shows you’re not.
OK… choose not to follow civil law. We’ll see how that goes.
Civil law has no obligation to follow “god’s law” in any way.
The overwhelming majority of your “sins” are legal. Do you petition them all to be made crimes? If not, you’re a hypocrite of the highest magnitude.
As for the “eternal loss and punishment of your soul”, that is merely the fear factor rampant in most religions: worship or suffer. Worship out of fear is pathetically sad.
It is interesting to know that your Faith excuses you from obeying civil law in our country. You do realize this is the argument of religious zealots and terrorists around the world, right?
You want us to love a God that would deny people going to Heaven because they have a gay marriage? You want us to listen to a God that would send people to hell because they don’t follow what he says? People can live great, wonderful lives, full of love and happeniess. They can do great things in this world, but because they don’t believe they are going to hell? How is that loving of your God? Gay couples do not sin anymore then you do. You live a life of sin as well as the rest of us. That is why Jesus died on the Cross, or all our sins.
You’re right; Jesus died on the cross for all of our sins. But, in order to be forgiven of our sins, we have to admit that we are sinners, ask forgiveness, and accept Christ as our Savior. The catch is that we have to admit we are sinners and be willing to turn away from those sins. And homosexuality, in the eyes of Christ, is a sin.
And God doesn’t deny admittance into Heaven or send people to Hell. We determine which way we go through our choices in life. Choose wisely. Eternity is a loooooooong time.
Wrong… your god does indeed, according to your mythology.
To sum up all of your harmful mythology: “Worship me or I’ll torment you for eternity”.
That’s it in a nutshell. If, as the myth proclaims, your god is all powerful, that doesn’t have to happen.
The sky-monster wants it to.
If, as a creation of God, a person would accept that He only wants our love and obedience, then one might see the Light. There is no need for anyone to spend eternity separated from God. It’s just a matter of faith.
Have you ever asked yourself why the name of Jesus and the mention of God gets people so riled up, but the mention of Mohammad, Buddha, or any other so-called god can be brushed aside? Could it be that Jesus Christ is the only Way, Truth and Life? Could it be that only the name of Jesus brings out the devil in all of us? Maybe.
Again… “Worship me or I’ll torment you for eternity”, is not a loving ideal… it is a selfish, maniacal, monstrous idea.
The name of Jesus and mention of God is only important to those who have fallen for the fear… and no one else should be threatened with them, for that’s what mentioning them is: a threat of eternal damnation to those who do not succumb to the fear.
Could it be that that’s it? Yes. Without doubt.
So is you being alive a sin. Please what makes Homosexuality more of a sin then the others?
Yet again EJ Parsons offers us his allegedly final truth about the Founding Fathers and about the simple choice made by gays and lesbians to behave as they do. Once again anyone with a different view is a sinner who deserves damnation in the next world, about which he has special knowledge not given to most other Americans. In fact, he knows little about the Founding Fathers–and Mothers–and, as stated before, has a notion of one’s choosing of gender preference to be as simple as choosing one’s clothes.
Once again, you choose the low road by not having the guts to comment directly to my comment. Once again you claim things that I didn’t mention, like sin and damnation. Once again you insult my knowledge of history while proving the ignorance of yous. Once again, there are those that “Like” your comment that apparently are as slanderous and gutless as you.
Those on the left are so tolerant and accepting of other peoples’ opinions and beliefs. But, they’re just following the Democrat handbook.
What difference does it make whether the reply is directly to you or not? You’re nitpicking so you can go on a wild tirade and avoid addressing the actual issue. You scream bloody murder when anyone points out your dishonesty and then here you have no problem using hyperbolic personal attacks.
This isn’t once again for you, it’s constant. Nearly ever single post you make is dripping with hypocrisy. You can dish out the attacks and lies, but you can’t take it. That’s what is gutless.
You don’t have the founding fathers whispering in your ear. Your version of history isn’t reality-based. And you most certainly don’t have a monopoly on defining what it means to be an American either.
BRAVO!!!
“sin and damnation”
There’s that “worship or suffer” nonsense again.
Worship out of fear is pathetic.
Robin Mendenhall…we didn’t have the green thing back in our day…the milkman would come and deliver bottled milk, soda bottles were returned and they were sent to a sterilization plant and recycled. Nothing was thrown out. Garbage was used to feed livestock there were no disposable diapers. The rag man would collect old rags and the junk man collected metal. During the 1960’s everything began to change. We became a disposable society. The quality of our food and products continued to degrade. The flavors we used to enjoy are no longer enjoyable because of so many synthetics and chemical additives. We need to reverse this and go back to life the way it was in the 50’s when there was a reuse for everything.
Michael Hurley…I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Not that others as partners shouldn’t have equal rights. Marriage is a religious rite and using the term marriage in context with same sex is an offense to people of faith. Therein lies the problem the term marriage. Maybe the state should use the term “civil partnership” so that all couples have equal rights. I won’t vote for marraige equality because it is an offense to my faith.
But words have different meanings in different contexts. The context in which we are voting deals with civil marriage. A no vote goes to deny others equal rights.
Marriage…”the state of being united to a person of the opposite
sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship
recognized by law”
Gays want to redefine it…the state should come up with another term that provides equal rights without all the hoopla and division surrounding the term marriage.
Now you’re changing which aspect of this offends you. You said you’re not against equal rights, but marriage equality is offensive to your faith. Fine, but what we’re voting on doesn’t do anything to alter the definition of marriage in a faith context. It alters it in a legal context.
As it stands, the government uses the word marriage. We’re voting to extend civil marriage to gay couples, as we should per the equal protections clause of the Constitution. Voting no is voting against civil equality. This isn’t a referendum in your church.
I am not against “civil equality”. It is the use of the word marriage that is offensive because it is being “redefined”. Congress had passed “DOMA” and it is specific in it’s definition of marriage. You can’t say the pledge of allegiance in certain forums. Don’t say Merry Christmas because it offends someone. What do you want me to redefine myself and my beliefs. You wonder why this country has gotten so goofed up because it’s all about special interests. Even immigrants get benefits when they haven’t paid a cent to the system. I suppose the next step will be the atheists will protest “in God we trust on our money”. I accept others beliefs but they better not tread on mine because I do not tread on theirs.
69% of African Americans will probably not vote for President Obama because they are Christian and Obama’s stance on same sex marriage has shut him out of the equation..
Your statistics on African Americans are erroneous.
And you do not own the term ‘marriage’. It is not necessary for you to be comfortable with ‘marriage’ equality being expanded to include SSM. Expanded does not mean ‘redefined’. Keep to your beliefs, but you have no right to deny others because of your personal beliefs or your personal discomfort.
I have every right to vote on principle as does everyone else. It is my choice not yours or not the gay community. If the majority of people want to vote for it, then so be it. I won’t.
And the legislature and/or courts of the US of A have the “right” to trump your vote if it is determined to be harmful to law-abiding, tax-paying citizens (which it has, repeatedly).
What I meant to express was that in my opinion it is immoral for any one person to deny any other person full equal rights.
Of course it is your right to vote your conscience.
So that makes having sex with the same gender moral.
Should we vote on every civil right?
Should we have voted on the American’s With Disability Act? That has cost millions of dollars to business to comply with.
Should we have voted on ending racially segregated marriage in 1967?
Should we have voted on desegregating schools?
The list of individual rights is endless…which one of your individual rights would you put up for a vote?
You’re wrong, you have no right to lord your opinion over others, just because you don’t like someone, or something they do. Nobody is trying to take your marriage away from you. It’s just a word silly, and many thing can be married, as in to boards being joined by a nail.
Well said.
America is about FREEDOM. I am entitled to my beliefs and opinions just as you are. If you are a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, a Catholic, or if you are gay you hold your beliefs. I respect the freedom of everyone to own their own opinion. I vote based on my principles not on pandering to some group. Your entitled to vote your way and I am entitled to vote my way which is not for SSM. If you like Obama vote Obama. If you like Romney vote Romney. Stop ridiculing people’s beliefs.
Okay, you’re going on tangents. DOMA has been struck down many times in lower and appeals courts – it’s on its way to the SJC and things don’t look good for it. That’s because it was passed with moral disapproval and disdain in mind. You can’t make laws that hinder a specific group simply because you disapprove of them morally.
As for the Merry Christmas thing, what a joke. That’s a controversy that Fox News drums up to get Christians riled up. It’s people like you who get offended when someone says “happy holidays.” It’s people like you who instead of wishing someone a merry Christmas in the spirit of Christmas, they use that greeting as a way to prove a point. But anyway.
Looking at all your tangents, it kind of just seems like you have something against people who are different from you. No immigrants pay into the system? Really? Black people only vote for Obama? Really? People who celebrate holidays other than Christmas are the reason why the country is goofed up? What’s obvious is that you don’t like gay people, so having them be able to get married means you have to admit they’re a lot like you and that’s worrisome for you.
No one is treading on your beliefs. What you’re doing is denying rights to others because you disapprove of them. That’s fine. I disagree with a lot of people in the country, but the difference is, I’m not trying to use the law to hurt them because of it.
No one is treading on my beliefs, I am standing on principle. I am not denying anyone any right, I will vote on morals and ethics. Everyone is entitled to their opinion as I am mine.
Don’t you know that in wolfie’s world you’re not allowed to have beliefs, opinions, or principles that disagree with his or hers? If you don’t think his/her way, then you are the scum of the earth.
There is a difference between disagreeing and actively trying to see law-abiding citizens harmed under government.
Your opinion is fine… the harm you wish on others is not.
Oh, get over yourself. You know full well that I’ve never wished harm on anyone else. What harm would it be for homosexuals to be allowed equal civil unions while leaving the institution of traditional marriage as between one man and one woman? There is no harm at all, and you know it.
But you do EJ… You read ANY transcript against DOMA or take on the Prop 8 transcript, and the harm to gay citizens due to not being allowed to wed is entered REPEATEDLY into the court records.
You are actively trying to see that harm continued. There’s no way you can deny it.
As for civil unions, we’ve been over this. No need… marriage is already a civil contract, and civil unions meet with the same resistance from religious zealots in this nation… there is no need to create something different: marriage works, and zealots will continue to lash out against civil unions.
I will admit your acceptance of civil unions… but I don’t think it necessary for either side.
I think you say that as a matter of convenience, but don’t believe for a minute that you’d actually vote for it.
More hypocrisy. You called someone else gutless for talking about you in something other than a direct reply — here you are now engaging in that exact same behavior.
I never called you scum of the earth or anything near that. I’ve simply pointed out when you’ve lied or engaged in hypocrisy. You on the other hand? Lots of name calling. Once again, more hypocrisy.
I’ve tried many times to comment directly to you about this subject, but you consistently turn it into a hypocrisy issue and give yourself a pass. And I never said you called anyone the scum of the earth. I did imply, however, that you think that way about those of us that disagree with you, because it comes through in your haughty and arrogant comments.
I really wish you knew how to respect other opinions and beliefs, and I really wish you would at least attempt to engage in a mature dialogue.
II can handle different opinions trust me. What I can’t handle is hypocrisy and I point it out when I see it. You can’t handle that without screaming victim.
You called someone gutless for talking about you in a separate comment and then you do the exact same thing yourself. What is that but hypocrisy? You say liberals/progressives are against liberty and freedom and yet you would vote to deny gay people equal rights in a heart beat. What is that but hypocrisy? You complain about bias in the media, but then you prop up a propaganda film and maintain that everyone ought to go see it with an open mind because it is the truth. What is that but hypocrisy?
I don’t care that you disagree with me and I am certainly not trying to deny you the right to express yourself, but that’s a two way street. You don’t get to express yourself and say unkind things about others and then be protected from others treating you the exact same way. Time to grow up, screaming that you’ve been victimized doesn’t absolve you from the fact that you engage in hypocrisy and double standards.
Hmmm… well, it’s highly unlikely that African Americans who know anything of the history and tenets of Mormonism will vote for Romney… that in itself is a vote for Barry O.
Been redefined before… with no harm.
Will be redefined again… with no harm.
Personally, call it bologna for all I care, but as long as religious zealots and groups like NOM continue to stand against civil unions just as they do marriage, there’s no reason for a compromise. The civil contract is called a “marriage license”. There is no practical reason to invent something new.
I am not against civil unions. I am not against equal rights. The state should change the term to civil partnership license. using the term marriage is what offends me. It is being redefined. I will stand on my beliefs and principles. You can’t say Merry Christmas without offending someone. Employers use the term Happy Holidays. Well that doesn’t cut it anymore. This is America and evryone has a right to say and practice what they believe. The majority of people voted against same sex marriage in the last referendum. …but it keeps coming back again and again.
But there are countless instances of protests, appeals, and other forms of interference by religious organizations that stand against civil unions. Look at Illinois for a recent example.
It has been redefined before… it will be redefined again.
I’m not concerned with “Happy Holidays” vs “Merry Christmas” as it is meaningless to me. I say “Merry Christmas” simply because of my family’s traditions.
As for the votes, the majority voted to add bans on interracial marriage into the constitutions of many states. Our law does not hinge on popular opinion. Never has, as we are not a democracy.
It will keep coming back again and again, as there is no rational basis for not granting the same protections and guarantees to same sex couples as are given to opposite sex couples.
As went DADT, so will go DOMA. There’s no rational argument to believe otherwise.
So went the Roman empire when morality broke down and pagans abounded…so will go America….there is no rational argument to believe otherwise.
The Roman empire fell for a great number of reasons… this continued idea that it fell because of some perceived moral lapse is simply not true.
It’s obvious that you have never studied the subject.
Oh, I have studied the subject and it was moral decay that led to it’s demise.
Oh good grief…
And gay people being granted legal rights in order to strengthen and protect their families will be a driving force in the demise of America?
In my opinion it is you who is exhibiting and promoting moral decay.
And as a classics major I have studied the classics in depth.
Do you consider SSM a type of “moral decay?”
I don’t believe you. You believe that a gay relationship is morally wrong and an aspect of the reason why Rome fell. A civil union would accomplish a similar goal as a gay marriage. It would affirm and strengthen a gay relationship.
I think people like you say they support civil unions as a matter of convenience since it’s not even the issue up to vote now. When civil unions are up to a vote, they get voted down and yet, all sorts of people like you claim they’d support them. I smell dishonesty.
I think that could have worked a few years ago, and this wouldn’t be an issue now. But when the hardline Conservatives fought so long against even civil unions, nothing except marriage will do now.