Comments for: Same-sex marriage is a cover to allow politicians to grow government

Posted Sept. 10, 2012, at 12:32 p.m.
Last modified Sept. 11, 2012, at 5:55 p.m.

“Do you want to allow the state of Maine to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?” This is the referendum question Mainers will answer when they vote on Nov. 6. But same-sex couples have registered their wedding ceremonies with the state and received certified copies licensing that union since 2004. …

CORRECTION:

An earlier version of this article made an inaccurate statement about same-sex marriage. It should have said that same-sex couples have not been able to join together in legal matrimony in Maine.

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Nicholas Reed

    “Same-sex marriage is a cover to allow politicians to grow government.”  Yes, just like “Race Mixing is Communism.” http://www.picturehistory.com/product/id/3552. 

    You’d think in the half-century or so since the civil rights movement, bigots might have come up with at least one original argument.  But then again, I would guess that ignorance, arrogance, and a raging sense of entitlement do little to foster growth or creativity of any kind.  Have fun joining the above idiots on the ash heap of history, Mr. Bennet; you have more than earned your place there with this piece.

    • Anonymous

      Look up the word bigot, then go look in the mirror. You’ve repeated the lie so much you don’t even know what it means anymore.

      • Nicholas Reed

        I’m passing a moral judgment on your beliefs based on the bad fruit that they bear: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses .   You are passing a moral judgment on a class of human beings for being different than you, based solely on erroneous assumptions you hold about them.  One is a reasoned judgment based on evidence, the other is bigotry.  I’ll let the readership, and history, decide which is which.

        • Anonymous

          Bad fruit? How biblical. In fact, your referencing our Lord, as do more of the homosexual marriage folks than those “religious” people your zealous group denigrates. More references are available from the gospels, as we are reminded that “a man and women unite and become one flesh.” This will not change as the definition of marriage for many. Ever.

          • In Alcoholics Anonymous the Big Book repeats the issue of men and alcoholism. Does this mean that men are the only ones with a problem? No it just means that there wasnt enough research on the subject when it was written. There are books written about men in the work force and women at home. Does this mean that men dont stay home and women dont work? Just because a 200 year old book that identifies Earth as the only planet and humans as the only living intelligent species says man and woman it does not mean there is nothing else. Two generations of biblical scholars have examined the Bible and have come to the conclusion that loving homosexual monogamous relationships are not against the word of God. 
            God Bless us all on this day of remembrance and let us come to gether as a nation and not hate in the name of the god who gave us free will. It is not your job to take that away.  

          • Anonymous

            jersey …. I would just like him to be the man he wants people to think he is and take ownership and responsibility for his habit of lying. 

          • Anonymous

            j

          • Anonymous

            schmidlap ….. Jesus did not call those with a homosexual orientation, those who were in committed and loving same-sex relationships .. perverts, sick, disgusting, mentally defective, less than human, degenerate ….. truthfully He didn’t address same-sex couples at all in any way.  However many of those who claim to be His followers have addressed us in speciafically that way and they use Him as the reason for doing so.

          • Anonymous

            schmidlap,

            Gay couples marrying doesn’t PREVENT a man and a woman from also uniting. You have lost NO rights, freedoms, benefits or obligations now that gay people can get legally married.

      • Anonymous

        Anti-gays always stoop to making such vicious personal attacks at anyone who won’t accept their anti-gay lies and propaganda.

        • Anonymous

           And pro-gays don’t? Haven’t spent much time on here, have you!

          • Anonymous

            Yes, I have, and I’ve seen the filth anti-gays post.  Face the fact, what YOU don’t like is that there is NO PLACE LEFT where anti-gays can post anti-gay lies and filth without being challenged by MOST other posters–and frequently deleted by the moderators.

            Documenting anti-gays lie is not an insult or personal attack, no matter how much anti-gays whine that.

          • Anonymous

            Here’s a taste of the language that anti-SSM crowd uses: sick, depraved, defective, perverts, sinful, evil, disgusting, deviant, abominations, mentallly defective, mentally ill, emotionally retarded, genetically disordered, perverted, animals …..
            And we, who are called these things, are supposed to smile, respect them and not respond.  When we respond we are called hateful and narrow-minded.  If we address them when they blatantly lie, distort or misrepresent facts we are liars or we are trying to suppress their right to freedom of speech or attacking their freedom of religion.  If we tell them they are behaving in a hypocritical or bigoted manner, they are victims of our hate and we are assaulting them.
            Who has not spent much time here …….? Or are you living in a “happy little bubble”?

          • Anonymous

            In addition to what lyndme posted, there are also these claims …

            Homosexuality is comparable to: “Marryin’ a dog/horse/bicycle/rock”, “rape”, “incest”, “murder”, “beastiality”, “necrophilia”, “child-molestation”, “worse than terrorists”.

            All of these are found on so-called “Christian” sites. Seems lying and disparagement are their/your modus operandi.

      • Anonymous

        I believe that you are deranged.

        • Anonymous

          I second that emotion.

      • Anonymous

        Funny you giving advice on lying …… you habitually lie ….. have you repeated them so often that you no long recognize that you do?

  • Anonymous

    “Marriage is not a right” – Well, until you get Loving v. Virginia overturned, that is factually incorrect.

    • Anonymous

      Wrong…still between a man and a woman.

      • Anonymous

        Loving v. Virginia is the law of the land, so until that is overturned, marriage is a right.  To say otherwise is factually incorrect.  You don’t get to debate facts.

        • Anonymous

          It’s is a right between a man and a woman, those are the facts, otherwise you would be married now wouldn’t you. A federal court also ruled in favor of traditional marriage just last month. So much for your facts.

          • Anonymous

            You admit marriage is a right?  Yay progress, now you just need to admit that a right is available to ALL American citizens, even the gay ones.  As for the federal court, yes one did, you also forgot to mention the FIVE other federal courts that have ruled in favor of same sex marriage.  You also seem to forget that the court you are talking about is in Hawaii.  Hawaii is in the 9th circuit, which has found same sex marriage is covered by the 14th Amendment.  So, the decision you are talking about will most likely be overturned on appeal.  So much for your facts…

          • Anonymous

            Beautiful p0wn of cp444. Lol

          • Anonymous

            Yep, you dug your own hole with “It’s a right….”  The 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause prohibits discrimination based on race (Loving v Virginia) and sex.  Only a matter of time before the SCOTUS affirms that right regardless of sex.

          • Anonymous

            I AM already married. Legally. Have been for more than 8 years already.

            DO catch up. The 21st Century awaits you.

          • cp444 what have you done for your God, your country and your fellow man today. Other than say hurtful things on the internet which by the way is unnatural and not in the Bible as a source of communication. Does this mean it is wrong and against the word of god. After all God communicated on other ways. Does this mean it was the only way to communicate? To everyone else, please stop. By arguing with this man you are taking away your own serenity and adding to the negative definitions he is spreading about loving homosexuals. I am sure you all have better things to do. I do. God Bless. 

      • Anonymous

        Only because the court said you could not discriminate based on race ….. until then it was accepted and enforced.  Will you deny that?
        What about inter-faith marriage?  Immoral or accepted?  Civil law says accepted even though churches set their own ‘rules’.

      • Anonymous

        Not in 6 States (soon to be 10) + D.C. it isn’t.

        “We’re in the majority now. That makes us RIGHT!” – Sally, “3rd Rock from the Sun”

        Whatt a silly notion.

      • Anonymous

        Each and every US State High Court that has established marriage equality cites “Loving” as precedent.  THEIR word is LAW.  Your claim here is totally meaningless and worthless.

      • Anonymous

        Not in almost NINE years it hasn’t been ONLY that.

  • Steve Silberman

    > Same-sex marriage will change the legal definition from “one man and one woman” to Person A and Person B, making it meaningless.

    What’s meaningless is this sentence, which can’t withstand a feather’s weight of scrutiny, and is an embarrassment to the editors of the Bangor Daily News.

    In my own legal marriage, I am Person A, and the love of my life is Person B, and the fact that we are both men doesn’t make our marriage any more “meaningless” than marriages between opposite-sex couples.  If anything, the fact that we had to fight against vacuous, silly blowhards like Erick Bennett and the NOM crew, and their predictions that the sky would fall if we took vows to love, honor, and cherish one another, so long as we both shall live, has made our marriage even more meaningful to us.

    How people like Bennett can look at themselves in the mirror in the morning and feel proud for trying to deprive loving couples of the same happiness and security they take for granted is a mystery to me. There are more worthy things to do with one’s brief time on Earth.

    • Anonymous

      Not sure I agree with “meaningless” either. However, Steve, how is the meaning of marriage unchanged or improved in the new definition you support? Let’s take some responsibility here rather than simply put down someone’s honest thoughts. Can you do this without the cliches and slogans? And, please include the benefits with regard to procreation, care and development of children. Because, to separate family functioning from marriage is faulty, regardless of how many times you speak of people loving each other.

      • Anonymous

        Since procreation is  not a requirement of marriage (for ANYONE, not even you ‘bettero’-sexuals), raising ‘arguments’ about its “benefits” is irrelevant. Not to mention the fact that some people can (and DO) procreate OUTSIDE of marriage. Even str8 people.

        Try again. Do better.

    • Ben

      This is one of the weakest, flimsiest, most tortured argument against same-sex marriage I’ve heard. I kept wondering if it was a joke, because writing this absurd is rarely seen outside of satire. 

      I guess now that folks have realized how ridiculous the whole “gay marriage is immoral/un-Christian/ungodly” argument is, the anti-equality people are scrambling to find a new justification for opposing SSM. If this is the best they can do, though, I’m very optimistic about the odds of gay marriage being approved at the polls this November.

  • To the Bangor Daily News: Why do you opt to publish op-eds that don’t even meet the bare minimum of your posted guidelines for online comments?

    • Anonymous

      Keep reading their editorials.

       They allow anyone to say anything. Truth, half truth or bold faced lie.

      They allowed a woman who they seem to revere simply because her husband is in the military to post an editorial full of hate, ignorance and intolerance towards mental illness. 

    • This Charming Man

      Because that’s what ALL newspapers have ALWAYS done best; pander to the lowest common denominator.

      • Anonymous

        Anti-gays definitely are the lowest common denominator.  But the BDN wildly overestimates their number in pandering to them with this nonsense op-ed piece.

        • Anonymous

          Really?  How did the last vote on “marriage equality” turn out in Maine?

          • Alec Cunningham

            About 53 percent of the voters voted against it.  If you take out the number of people who don’t hate gays but were lied to by the anti-SSM campaign, I think that there were fewer people who are anti-gay.

          • The people were lied to. Look up Marc Mutty hyperbole on youtube. When you lie the devil wins. He won in Maine 3 years ago. 

          • Anonymous

            Voting on OTHER PEOPLE’s (formerly) inalienable rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness is an obscenity unworthy of America and its promises to ALL people.

            I’ve got an idea: Let’s subject YOUR rights to a popularity contest and see how YOU like it.

            Deal?

        • Anonymous

          They have a right to let the other side publish their dirty laundry for all to see.  Have you noticed who the rabid right consistently condemns the BDN as an ultra left wing rag?  This demonstrates their willingness to present all sides.  If the rabid right can’t come with any better defense of their positions, that’s their problem (and albatross).

    • Anonymous

       Probably for the same reasons they allow far left posters to insult, attack and demean other with total immunity, but ban most conservative posters for calling them on it.

      • Anonymous

        How many times are anti-gays going to WHINE that their intended victims are ‘the real haters’?????  Spare us that nonsense.

      • Anonymous

        That was very funny. You could be on Leno.

    • Anonymous

      Yeah, Nicholas, what is a newspaper, which has come out in favor of you side of this referendum in countless “news” stories and editorials, doing printing thoughts to the contrary?

  • Anonymous

    What about churches that want to marry gay couples? Why do other have the right to tell the church, that no in fact you can’t not marry those couples. Denying the right of those churches to marry gay couples is the growth of government. Allowing the church to choose whether they do or don’t is the middle ground. People say that the Democrats are just representing the other side are wrong. The people in support of gay marriage are in fact in the middle ground. The opposite of only allow one man and one women is only allow gay marriage  The middle ground is allowing both. 

    • Matt Sparrow

      Actually–yes.  Under this law Churches do have that right.  Clever Charlie Summers left that out of the ballot measure to create exactly this confusion

    • Anonymous

      There is no middle ground when it comes to immorality.

      • Tedlick Badkey

        What is immoral about love and commitment?

        • Anonymous

          Well for one, homosexuality is one of the four sins that cries to heaven for God’s vengeance.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Who cares?

            It's not my god, nor is it our civil law.

            Your condemnation and hostility towards law-abiding citizens is immoral.

          • Anonymous

            Please, Ted, enlighten us as from where you see morals coming.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            From within oneself… framed from within our culture and society. No mythology is necessary.
            If you need a book of fairy tales to tell you it’s wrong to harm others, you’re a very dangerous person indeed.

          • Anonymous

            Morals do seem to be an innate human trait.  They are codified by religions and cultures. Hoever, no religion has a monopoly.

          • Anonymous

            Spare us your empty threats and stop waving your plaster deity.

          • This Charming Man

            Yup, right up there with not killing and lying and cheating on your spouse and… Oh, wait a minute…

          • Anonymous

            Vengeance ?

          • Anonymous

            ltta wants to be able to kill gays, thus wreaking “vengeance” upon us for our “sins”.

            Thus sayeth the lard.

          • Anonymous

            I thought the Catholics had 7 deadly sins but I don’t recall homosexuality among them.  Whta list are you reading off of?

          • Anonymous

            Once again your ignorance surfaces.  The 4 sins that cry out to heaven for God’s vengeance  are in the Bible.  Do you know what that is and have you ever read it? http://www.deadlysins.com/images/deadlysins2002_r3_c1.gif

          • Anonymous

            I took the bait and clicked on his ‘link’ … and found only THIS:

            “The Seven Deadly Sins are those transgressions which are fatal to spiritual progress. You probably commit some of them every day without thinking about the rich tradtition of eternal damnation in which you are participating. Welcome to your source for history and current information on the Seven Deadly Sins and the Seven Heavenly Virtues.”

            That’s it, in its entirety. Sounds like something letstrythisagain typed himself.

            Meanwhile, back in the real world … America is STILL not a theocracy.

            And thank  Zeus for that.

          • Anonymous

            The word “sin” isn’t in the Constitution – which is what governs America, not the BuyBull. You want to live in a theocracy? Move to Iran. “There are no homosexuals there”. They murder them. Is that the kind of “vengeance” you seek in America???

            “try” again. DO better.

        • Anonymous

          There is nothing immoral about love. Commitment isn’t on that plane, for reasons that would not likely be understood by any group who believes that “equality” extends to strong urges with resulting behavior that they desperately need to justify.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Don’t know any gay people do you? It shows.

            See, hotshot, it’s not the behavior (which I know is what you’re so bloody obsessed with). If one is never attracted to the opposite gender, yet never has sex with the same gender, they’re still gay.
            You’ve a very shallow view of the world and mankind. It’s very sad to see.
            I’ve been with one partner, my only partner, for 20+ years. I don’t need to justify anything to a hate-monger like you.

          • Anonymous

            I know Ted it is so far beyond their comprehension and it is frustrating …..
            My wife and I were together for 12+ years and we chose to be celibate …. and we were still called depraved perverts among other things…. we were committed, we loved each other, we built a life together …. to some here that meant nothing we were still nothing more than two abominations.  According to many it is who we identify ourselves as and has nothing to do with “behavior”. 
            They won’t be “happy” till we all deny who we are and/or pretend we don’t exist.

          • Anonymous

            According to Paul, marraige to one wife or one husband was the answer to satisfying one’s uncontollable sexual desires (Lust) and behaviors (Lust).  He made no mention of love as a reason for marrying….. he only spoke of lust. 
            You believe that loving and commited same-sex couples are not either loving or committed.  You consisitently refer to us as only having lustful desires ….. just as Paul talked about with opposite sex couples having and engaging in uncontrollable lustful behaviors.  Marriage justifies the “strong urges” of opposite sex couples …. yet same-sex couples are not allowed marriage because we are unable to commit or be monogamous or love or …… What?  Oh ….. engage in coitus.

      • Anonymous

        Well actually there is, what one finds immoral another might not. You are assuming your immorality is the one and only, when truly that is not the case. I do not find it immoral, so yes there is middle ground. You know that the bible considers slavery moral? Forcing the victim or rape to marry her rapist? Death to people who disrespected a priest? Even Human Sacarfice. Do you consider these things moral today? No because morality has evolved, things that were once consider moral are not longer moral. If immorality had not middle ground then our morals would not have changed, but they did. So…BOOM ROASTED!

      • Anonymous

        Is lying immoral cp444?  Do you engage in the immoral lifestyle of lying?  Do you ask Jesus for forgiveness each and every time you lie?  Or is the commandment that says you shalll not bear false witness against your neighbor only a sin when you do so in a court of law?  Could you confidently place your hand on the Bible and tesify that the statements you make in regards to posters here are the truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?  Lies in the name of God are still lies you know.

      • Anonymous

        How is marrying the person you love “immoral”?

        Your post makes no sense.

        • Anonymous

          I love my children, can I marry them?

          • Anonymous

            Please don’t tell us of your desire to commit incest.

          • Anonymous

            Actually carrotcakeman I’m sure you’ll be heading up this http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2012/09/10/top-hollywood-director-believes-incest-is-acceptable/

          • Anonymous

            Once again, please take your sexual obsessions elsewhere.  No one wants to know what turns you on.

          • Anonymous

            Once again with the phony ‘connection’ between incest and the topic the REST of us are discussing. You incestuous folk are already legal kin. You cannot re-establish some new line of kinship by marrying someone you are already kin to.

          • Anonymous

            The truth is out the phony SSM crowd just doesn’t like the connection.  You support anything aberrant against nature.    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/10/nick-cassavetes-incest-who-gives-a-damn_n_1871005.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

          • Anonymous

            The truth is there IS no “connection”.

            Homosexuality ABOUNDS in nature, btw. Read “Biological Exuberance”.

          • Anonymous

            P.S. Linking to the same piece twice doesn’t make it any less false.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            You’re insane… Besides, incest is fine according to the buybull… after all, Adam and Eve’s kids had to have lots of whoopie to make all of us now didn’t they?

          • This Charming Man

            You want to marry ALL of them ?

          • Anonymous

            Dear ‘try’,

            The only purpose of marriage in the eyes of the law is to establish legal kinship (specifically, next-of-kin-ship) where none previously existed. Your children are already your kin, and thus you do not need to establish that kiship all over again.

            this is not new information and has been posted frequently, here and elsewhere. The only purpose behind your obnoxious ‘inquiry’ is to try to create some link between incest and same-gender couples marrying. There isn’t any connection between the two.

            But thanks for playing.  If that’s the best you’ve got, prepare to lose.

          • Anonymous

            No you lose, you lose against nature.

          • Anonymous

            What exactly do we “lose”? Homosexuality iis evident throughout nature. How is something that is perfectly natural “against nature”?

            You keep ‘try’ing and you still don’t have a valid point.

          • Anonymous

            You can never “lose”, when you open with non-truth as a given.

          • Anonymous

            Where is this “non-truth” that I opened with? Paragraph 1 is a legal fact.

          • Anonymous

            Are you a Catholic priest?

          • Anonymous

            Don’t be even more ridiculous.  Deficiency of English.  Many languages have several words for love.

      • Anonymous

        Trying to hurt other Americans who you don’t know and who have never done YOU any harm is IMMORAL.

      • Anonymous

        And just where does that put you.

      • Anonymous

        So it’s a morality issue?

        • Anonymous

          cp444 WANTS it to be.

      • Anonymous

        Legal or theological definition?

  • Anonymous


    Same-sex couples have been able to join together in legal matrimony in Maine for eight years with the same rights and benefits as everyone else ”

    That’s a bold faced lie. Lies and blatant falsehoods should not be published in the BDN. I’m all for difference of opinion, but not a difference of facts. This article is ridiculous.

    • Anonymous

      Lying is how the frightwing make their ‘points’. Truth is NOT on their side.

      • Anonymous

        Truth would be nice. What would you say is true about men and women and their natural purpose toward each other? Anything unique? At all?

        • Clearly you think that “natural purpose” is to have kids, which is probably not something you’ll ever change your mind on, no matter how outdated and limiting it is. 

          • Anonymous

            And again a poster that defines marriage as coitus ….. but that is what constituted a male and female being “married” in the Old Testment ….. the act made them husband and wife.  “Go forth and multiply” was declaring Adam and Eve “married”.

          • Anonymous

            And, they conveniently ignore “Adam”‘s first “wife” Lillith.

          • Anonymous

            Sounds incestuous.  

          • Anonymous

            Looks like “natural purpose” is the base animal nature of existence.  Surely love and marriage mean more than that.  Bennett continues to debase marriage.

        • Anonymous

          If you are trying to imply that the “natural purpose” of marriage is procreation, you’d have to explain why we let non-procreative heterosexuals marry.

          Procreation is not a requirement of marriage. ANYONE’S.

          But what you are really talking about is heterosexual men and women. We ain’t all str8. And that’s the truth.

          Deal with it.

          • Anonymous

            I see how you “never lose.” 
            Yes, procreation and the care and raising of children, and an openness to new life are important functions of marriage. Are they not?

          • Anonymous

            However they are not the only ‘functions’ of marriage …. are they?  Many marriages will not, can not and do not include procreation, raising children or “openness” to new life.  You can turn that phrase into whatever you wish … but post-menopausal women by definition are not “open” to new life ….. unless you are saying that she is becasuse of her internal organs.  Women who have had hysterectomies or theri ovaries removed are not “open”, men who have had vasectomies are not “open” …. so as to clear up any confusion on my part or others …. what exactly does “openness to new life” mean?

          • Anonymous

            It means nothing more, less or other than the person who raised it is a Roman Catholic who wants everyone to abide by his faith’s “rules”.

          • Anonymous

            It means (roughly translated) ‘Make babies or you can’t get married.’

            But they ONLY apply it to same-gender couples.

            Thanks for asking.

          • Anonymous

            They might be to you. But they are not a requirement of marriage. ANYONE’S. (We do, afterall, let non-procrative heterosexuals marry. Women who have had hysterectomies are NOT “open to new life”, but they can still marry. QED.)

            You never ‘win’ because the ‘arguments’ you bring are either invalid or irrelevant. Like this one.

            But thanks for playing.

          • Anonymous

            Try re-reading my last statement without making up or twisting it . I never said it was a requirement, only an important function of marriage. Just because you think something is invalid or irrelevant doesn’t necessarily make it so. It is just one person’s opinion, right?

          • Anonymous

            But it ISN’T an “important function of marriage” for ALL married people. Makin’ babies isn’t a “function of marriage” – AT ALL – for SOME people, str8 OR gay.

            I’ve never once said or even implied that it is “invalid” (whatever that’s supposed to mean). But it IS “irrelevant” if it isn’t required of ALL people in order to be married.

            Clearly it is both valid AND relevant – to some people and to some marriages. But, once again, since it isn’t a requirement, you’d have to make a case for requiring it for gay people and not for heterosexuals. (This is called equal treatment.)

            Elderly and infertile heterosexuals are NOT “open to new life”. A woman who’s had a hysterectomy is NOT “open to new life”.  So, tell me again how makin’ babies is “an important function of marriage” for THEM.

          • Anonymous

            Yes, but not the only ones.

        • Anonymous

          Go and research the Domestic Partnership Registry for the state of Maine…. Mr. Bennett gave the 7 rights attached to it ….. is it true that are the same rights and not less than those tied to a civil marriage license?  Is there a requirement that couples applying for a civil marraige license to prove they have lived together for at least one year prior to applying?  Are couples in a registered domestic partnership able to file a joint state tax return? 
           The following is a quote from the state of Maine page regarding DPR:
          “It is important to remember that a registered domestic partnership is NOT the same as a marriage and does not entitle partners to rights other than those for which the registry was intended.”
          Yes or No …..   Is Mr. Bennet being truthful when calling the Domestic Partnership Registry “matirmony”?

          • Anonymous

            No he isn’t.  It does not offer the same legal benefits.

  • kcjonez

    The entire concept of naming an organization that is designed to limit Mainer’s rights ‘The Maine Equal Rights Center” is ludicrous.  

    Orwell would be interested for the sake of character and plot development but the rest of us should give this nut-job a wide berth.  

    • Anonymous

      Almost as humorous as marriage equality and pro choice.

      • Anonymous

        Only to the very few remaining anti-gays, who are increasingly dismayed as those more honest terms gain common usage.  Face the fact, EVERY American knows “defense of marriage” is nothing but another big, fat anti-gay LIE.

      • Anonymous

         Pro choice is just what it says it is. Being For a women right to choose, I’m pro choice, but I’d would never of had an abortion. Marriage equality is just what it says it is, marriage for TWO consenting adults no matter of gender.

      • Anonymous

        And your stance is definitely Orwelian.

  • kcjonez

    Mr. Bennett–We have a saying on the island–“If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with b.s.  

    Well played, sir.  

  • Matt Sparrow

    Erick Bennett is the same guy who posted his own shirtless bathroom picture on the web.  I’m just sayin’….

    • Alec Cunningham

      Awesome picture!  But kind of weird….

      • Anonymous

         Well, several studies have been done that indicate many anti-gay individuals are in fact homosexuals who are conflicted over their sexuality.  Exactly who is Mr. Bennett trolling for with his inflated-chest picture? Google “Erick Bennett” and see what you get.

  • Anonymous

    Home » Top Story » Friday 5 »
    September 7, 2012 Print

    Friday 5: Walt Heyer
    by Bethany Monk
    After 19 years of marriage, Walt Heyer decided to do what he had been thinking about since childhood: He tried to become a woman.

    After a divorce, Heyer, a father of two, underwent gender-reassignment surgery, complete with breast and buttocks implants, a nose job, facial surgery, hormone shots and finally the surgery on genitalia. He changed his name to Laura, and felt momentarily at peace.

    But within a few years, he was battling depression and thoughts of suicide. He realized the surgery was a “means to living out a masquerade through the destruction of perfectly good sexual organs.” Heyer lived for eight years as Laura before realizing he needed to make a change. After seeking help and drawing closer to Jesus, in a process that took about five years, Heyer began living as a male again. The author of three books —Trading My Sorrows and Paper Genders — now dedicates his time to helping men and women who regret their “gender-reassignment surgeries.” He spoke with CitizenLink recently about how children can become confused about their gender.

    CitizenLink: What is your definition of “transgender,” and how does it differ from “transsexual”?

    Walt Heyer: I don’t feel like there’s any distinction between the two. A transsexual or a transgender is a person who has, in my view, undergone surgery. Otherwise, they are pre-op transgender — they’re on the track to being surgically altered. The words really mean the same thing, although today people have completely distorted what that whole thing is. For example, some people who are cross-dressers are considered transgender or transsexual. So the water is pretty muddy in that area.

    CL: Based on your research and personal experience, what are some reasons children may start to experiment with transgender behavior?

    WH: This is not something that starts in the womb. In a family environment, someone introduces a young child to the issue of transgender. In other words, an older sister may cross-dress her younger brother. By celebrating the changing of the gender, the sister begins to hardwire the child into thinking, “Oh, maybe I’m better as a female because I’m getting accepted better.” It begins a whole track in the psyche for the child to try to deal with who he is when somebody’s celebrating this change of gender. In my case it was my grandmother. And it can even be a neighbor child. It could be someone in the neighborhood. The child himself is not going to bring this up. When a parent says, “My child always wanted to be a girl,” it’s because somebody began to say things to that child that makes him think that’s who he is or that he should explore a second gender. If parents don’t set down boundaries on what that means, then the child can begin to think perhaps they would be better off in a different gender.

    CL: Is there a difference between playing dress-up and displaying transgender behavior?

    WH: One event won’t make a transgender, but I do think when it’s reinforced and repeated over and over again, and the dialogue begins to be raised about a child and his gender, then you begin to plant a seed of doubt about what his birth gender is and how important that is. A child begins to question his own gender identity, wondering, “Who am I?” There recently was a show where the mother was really moving a boy into becoming a girl. When she was combing his hair, he said, “Mom, would you love me if I was still a boy?” And it was so powerful. It really showed how at that particular moment that child was really questioning what Mom was doing. But the mom lost the opportunity at that moment to enforce that child’s male gender role. We need to take note on how we talk to young children about their gender. If we begin to plant seeds in the family about gender confusion, it’s going to get reinforced publicly.

    CL: What do you notice in our culture today about gender identity?

    WH: Schools are to teach our children about who they are, who they’re going to be and how they’re going to work in our society. And when you have schools teaching them that they can change genders, that is totally different than when I grew up. So there is tremendous erosion in how we view gender. Society is trying to eliminate gender altogether so they can have same-sex marriage and so forth. Once you obliterate gender roles of a male and a female, you have completely blown away all the biblical standards for what marriage is.

    CL: How does one heal from transgender behavior?

    WH: When you understand that 60 percent or more of transgenders have psychiatric or psychological issues, you begin to realize healing is, from a transgender standpoint, complex. You have to ask, “What was the onset of becoming so disturbed by your birth gender that you wanted to change it?” It has more to do with the psychiatric issues. When you have such a large percentage of these individuals committing suicide, we understand that clearly people have real, genuine, deep issues that are not getting treated  they’re only getting surgery, which is not a treatment for their psychiatric issues.

    • Nicholas Reed

      What does this fantasy piece have to do with legally recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples?  Absolutely nothing.  Just like how those very same-sex couples have absolutely nothing to do with an imaginary socialist plot to take over America.  You know the opponents of LGBT rights are losing when they are posting these kind of unhinged diatribes that bear no relationship whatsoever to reality.  At this point, they are so desperate that they are just throwing whatever they can find against the wall and hoping something will stick.

    • Anonymous

      Utterly irrelevant to the topic.

    • One mans story . One mans opinion. i could find at least 20 about men who opposed homosexuality and were found tapping their feet under a bathroom stall. People are people. They dont define you..this does not define me. The fact that you use it is sad. 

  • Anonymous

    Also let’s not forget about A and B wanting to marry C and D.
    The polygamists are waiting in the wings http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/08/21/polygamy-waiting-in-the-wings-while-supreme-court-addresses-the-definition-of-marriage/

    • Nicholas Reed

      So now gay people are the equivalent of several straight people (which would be the only logical way to conflate same-sex marriage and polygamy)?  Funny, I thought we were  just perverts, which would make us less than fully human (I also thought name-calling was prohibited on this board, but given that this op-ed does little else, I don’t expect the editors to call you out. It would seem that the Bangor Daily News only considers straight people to be entitled to a bare modicum of civility.  I’ve flagged you anyway; there’s a first time for everything).  Which is it?

      If you want people to believe that you’re the victim in this debate, despite the facts that you were not targeted by any ballot initiatives or constitutional amendments, and that you are less than a hundredth as likely to be attacked for being a gay-hating Christian as I am for being gay (I base this on the FBI’s hate crime stats; look them up: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses), then it would probably help not to call millions of people you have never met perverts.  I think if I said “all Christians are perverts with a socialist plot to destroy America” you wouldn’t hesitate to call me a bigot, and you’d be right.  The problem is, that’s not what I or anyone else is saying.  The thing that you find so offensive is the idea that people who are different than you might have equal dignity and value nonetheless.  Positing yourself as an ideal by which all others must be judged is the definition of making God over in your own image.  Invoking him to protect your privilege and vanity is the definition of taking his name in vain.

      • Anonymous

        God is quite clear on homosexuality. I can quote you plenty of verses if you’d like.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          But your god don’t matter.

        • Nicholas Reed

          I think the God you believe in is just an imaginary friend who happens to look and think exactly like you.  And yet, the law respects that you have a right to worship yourself and call it God all you like.  Is that a violation of my rights?  Are you redefining God for me because you worship yourself and call it God?

          • Anonymous

             I think it’s accurate to say that man created (and continually creates) God in his image, rather than the other way around.  Personally, I can’t conceive of a God capable of creating the universe of having such petty and undesirable traits as jealously and uncontrolled wrath.  Neither can I imagine any way in which I could possibly injure God.  I might as well try to injure a mountain by throwing pebbles at it.

            I also can’t imagine that an all-powerful God has any interest, at all, in whom anybody marries.

        • Anonymous

          If this “god” thingy (Zeus, perhaps?) were “quite clear”, there would not be a religious debate raging across the nation.

          Don’t bother with pull-quotes; we can provide plenty of them to counter  any you care to come up with.

          Like philosopher Lynn Lavner says, “There are purportedly 6 admonitions in the Bible against some homosexual acts. But there’s some 1,244 such admonitioins about some heterosexual acts. Now by this I don’t mean to imply that God doesn’t love str8 people; only that they seem to need a great deal more ‘supervision’.”

        • Anonymous

          Besides, America isn’t a theocracy. Why should your religious tenets trump others’?

        • Anonymous

          You’re LYING again.  Modern Biblical scholars have proven the Bible was intentionally mistranslated relatively recently in order to provide “Biblical cover” for then-rising levels of homophobia.  For example, the word “homosexual” didn’t even exist until 1850.  Many major Christian and Jewish denominations condemn misusing the hate-based mistranslations to attack their fellow Americans and are marrying same gender American couples now.  About 400-years ago, a group of religious authorities (sanctioned by King James I of England), secretly manipulated the English version of the Bible to reflect their own heterosexual attitude; they opposed the king kissing other men in public. But in revised versions, religious authorities re-defined the Greek word “arsenokoites” of 1Corinthians 6:9!  The most accurate translation, abusers of themselves with mankind [KJV], was pretty vague.  Nevertheless, they replaced this vague 5-worded text with the not so vague and purposely targeted 1-word text, “homosexual(s).” Either way you cut it, this text does not describe homosexuals. This campaign gave those who were looking for a reason to justify their own homophobia a license to openly express their bigotry.
           

        • Anonymous

          PLEASE quote ALL the verses.  Thank you so much!

          • Alec Cunningham

            Is this even an issue when talking about civil laws that don’t have to apply to churches?
            What does God say about divorce?

          • Anonymous

            When people tell me “god said” I’m always curious to hear what god said, he never speaks  to me anymore.  The only thing that god ever said was written by man in a mythological book called the bible.  I know that and you probably know that too, I just need a laugh.

        • Then look at and quote those that say a woman should be silent, marry her rapist, be stoned for adultry and that an adulterer is one who marrys and divorces and remarrys. 

    • Anonymous

      There you go again …. bald-faced lying …. the Brown’s are not asking to have their marriages recognized by the state of Utah or the Federal Government.  The only legal marriage is between Mr. Brown and his 1st wife …. the subsequent marriages are not legally recognized and they are not asking that they be legally recognized.  The subsequent marriages are in accordance with their religious beliefs.  You have been told this many times but you continue to lie about the case before the court.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Good luck to them.

    • Anonymous

      What has polygamy to do with the topic at hand? What’s next, the old beastiality scare-mongering tactic?

      • Nicholas Reed

        When cp444 gets really desperate, he’ll start throwing out baseless accusations of child molestation.

        • Anonymous

          I see that. ALL those accusations are baseless. It’s fear-mongering at its best/worst.
          Rational people dont’ take folk like cp444 seriously.

          • Anonymous

            True, but it is still important to answer anti-gays’ lies with facts, documented if possible. 

      • Anonymous

        So, truthman, you want rules to protect what you would call marriage. You further want rules to limit discussion to what suits you. Gee, no wonder you never “lose.”

        • Anonymous

          I call it marriage because that’s what it is. It says so on my Marriage Certificate.

          And neither polygamy, nor beastiality, child-molestation, nor rape, nor incest (et cetera) have anything to do with it.

          Have a nice day.

    • Anonymous

      Get real, we ALL know polygamists are NOT interested in LEGAL marriage.  We all read about the trial of Warren Jeffs.  He pretended to “marry” barely post-pubescent girls, and in the morning, after he had his “fun,” he took them to the welfare office.  LEGAL marriage would have destroyed his welfare scam.

    • This Charming Man

      Guffaw

    • Anonymous

      Please stay on topic. Question 1 deals with the right of a same-sex couple to marry.  It has zero connection to polygamy, polyandry, wife swapping, open marriage, incest, sex change operations, or marrying your dog. Or anything else except the right of two men or two women to get married.

      The concept is simple. Why do you have so much trouble understanding it?

    • Anonymous

      So?

      • Alec Cunningham

        I have this image of creepy looking polygamists rubbing their hands and drooling as they peek at us from around the corner.  They’re waiting…they’re WAITING!!!!

        • Anonymous

          I can see them now…lol.  They might be, tho…and they’d have good reason to be optimistic.

  • Anonymous

    Mr. Bennet, can you 100% defend that the rights given couples (opposite sex and same-sex)  through a Domestic Partnership will be recognized by hospitals, nursing homes, probate courts etc, no questions asked? 
    Are registered partners guaranteed these rights over blood relatives (parents, children siblings, etc) or  and can they be disputed and overruled in a court of law?
    Are the rights given to those in registered Domestic Partnerships equal to, greater than or less than those of civil marriage?
    Is the Domestic Partner Registry misnamed … when was it renamed “legal matrimony”?

    • Anonymous

      It wasn’t. Bennett is not telling the truth.

      It is their modus operandum.

  • Alec Cunningham

    Wow!  This is amazing!   Finally, a non-religious argument!  Very creative-I had no idea that this is part of a Soviet/Swedish agenda to take down the USA!

    • Anonymous

      “creative” as in, he made it all up.

  • Nicholas Reed

    Your letter was made-up bullshit (that’s why I said it was unhinged and bore no relationship to reality).  I know this because, unlike you, I have actually met transgendered people.  The first thing you learn about them is that they don’t talk like a Family Research Council pamphlet (because they are actual human beings, not imaginary characters in a Jack Chick cartoon gospel tract).  Your imaginary MTFTM does.  I have never met a real transgendered person who thinks they were just confused by knowledge of the existence of other trans people into taking on a battery of psychological counseling and testing (that lasts for years), going through the agony of losing a substantial portion of their friends and family (the ones, like you, who are too lazy, vain, and selfish to put any effort into understanding someone who is different than themselves), being subjected to taunts, threats, and sometimes physical abuse, fearing for their lives every time they go to the bathroom in public, and going through extremely expensive, painful, and irreversible surgery on the most sensitive parts of their anatomy.  Trans folk would have to be completely insane for that to be believable, but as a matter of fact, they are not.  One of the trans folk I know was a professor of mine who revolutionized our understanding of the magnetic fields of stars, not only predicting their behaviour better than was possible before, but fundamentally contributing to mankind’s understanding of the electromagnetic force.  Her name is Olivia Jensen; unlike your fictional character, you can look her up and verify her existence http://eps.mcgill.ca/~olivia/.  Such an impressive intellect is nothing like the unstable, weak-minded, impressionable caricature of a trans person you have dishonestly tried to foist on the readership of the Bangor Daily News.

    But even if this person were real, your comments would not be on point.  You are discussing the supposed risks and pitfalls of following the only legitimate medical treatment for Gender Identity Disorder (What do doctors know?  You’ve got a really good feeling that you know better, and we’re all supposed to just defer to that, I suppose.) 

    What treatment is appropriate for people who are in unrelenting physical distress because their mental body map does not match the body they have has nothing to do with whether or not the marriages of same-sex couples should be recognized by the government, and vice versa, because while all “us people” might “look alike” to you, we are not in fact the same. Gender reassignment surgery is legal everywhere in the US; same sex
    marriage is not.  The two have nothing to do with each other.

  • Anonymous

    This is a satirical piece, no?

    • This Charming Man

      That’s what’s so hilarious about it; when you really can’t if one sides arguments ARE satire anymore.

      The more they speak, the more embarrassed the rest of are for them…

  • Anonymous

    Re: “Same-sex couples have been able to join together in legal matrimony in Maine for eight years with the same rights and benefits as everyone else”

    This is not true (iow, it’s a lie). Mainers will be voting on Nov. 6th as to whether or not to ESTABLISH same-gender marriage as a legal entity.

    then there’s those pesky 1,176 Federal “effects of marriage” that do not flow – even to legally married same-gender couples.

    If you’re going to type disprovable nonsense, prepare not to be believed, Mr. Bennett.

    • Anonymous

      Interestingly Mr. Bennett omits that one of the qualifying terms of registering a Domstic Partnership is that the couples must live together for a minimum of 12 months prior to registering.  Another significant piece he omits is that the Registry is open to opposite-sex couples along with same-sex couples. 

  • Anonymous

    Mr. Bennett, I wonder what color the sky is on your planet, because clearly you live in another world. Everything in Maine is fair and equal? Really?

  • Anonymous

    Bennett’s conspiracy theory is preposterous.  He obviously hasn’t been to Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa and Sweden, or he would know that private enterprise is alive and well in those countries and that, if anything, most of these nation’s governments have been privatizing state functions including postal services. Gay marriage is a matter of personal freedom, a concept  most Americans cherish. If Bennett doesn’t want government to own anything or deny us our freedoms he should join the gay rights movement, not try to suppress it.

    • Alec Cunningham

      I know that there is the issue of licensing and registering and the government’s intrusion into our lives and I do have mixed feelings about that.  Some claim that getting a birth certificate from the state is basically registering your child with the state as you do your car.  But whether or not one believes that, one is not forced to marry someone else.  We are asking only for the option to participate in this legal contract.  Some of the younger people in this campaign have no interest in getting married NOW, but know that one day they might.  And some may not ever want to be married, but it’s all about choice.  This is the way this “game” is played.  Play or not, we want that option.

  • Anonymous

    It’s not “redefining” anything. It’s expanding  it if anything. 

     I will never understand why people like yourself are so fixated and somehow feel like your life is being infringed upon.

     A couple is a couple. male/female, male/male/ or female/ female. They would pay the same taxes. They would be expected to be good honest people that contribute to society. No different or special privileges are expected.

     If your child comes in contact with a gay man or woman they aren’t going to catch anything.  If they turn out to be gay it’s BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY.

      “Perversion” 

     What is really Ironic is that gay men that I know think hetero-sex is just as disgusting as you think Homosexuality is. because THAT’S HOW THEY ARE WIRED.

     Can’t you find something better to do with your time? There are real causes out there you should be advocating. This isn’t one of them.

  • Anonymous

    That anti-gay told so many LIES in this I hardly know where to start.

    But how about THIS, his anti-gay Hate Cult is falsely called the “Maine Equal Rights Center,” when we know for a fact his cult OPPOSES equality.

    Anti-gays always lie.

    • Anonymous

      Deception is their way of life. (Or should I say, “lifestyle”?)

  • Anonymous

    Erick Bennett, you are being willfully misleading on this issue in regards to the marriage benefits same-sex couples enjoy.
    There are over 1,100 benefits and privileges extended by our government contingent on marital status. The domestic partnership registry holds no water with these benefits— we have no access to our partner’s social security, we have no access to military base housing or commissary privileges if our partner is a deployed soldier… our partner’s income and our status as a couple is not considered in grant applications or aid requests… And so much more.

    The truth is that to treat gay and lesbian relationships equally under our laws, we must allow civil marriage for these couples— so that they may protect the lives they build together, and the children they raise together.

    I’m voting yes on question 1 in November!

  • Anonymous

    Heartily agree.

  • Anonymous

    BDN shows a unique ‘courage’ in even printing this, knowing as we all do the fervent  support SSM has with the posters here! I’m just surprised that Mr. Bennett writes like he doesn’t realize that that was the supporters intentions all along. I though it was common knowledge.

  • This is why I will vote for Obama and Democrats. These guys scare me.

  • Anonymous

    Finally common sense! But, the haters are out in force today!

    • Anonymous

      Anti-gay LIES like in the op-ed piece above are NOT “common sense,” especially THIS mishmash of anti-gay nonsense.

      And spare us that lie that those who stand up for equality are “haters.”

  • Anonymous

    The expression “What a load of malarkey” comes to mind reading this…….

  • Anonymous

    Based entirely on incest?  Exactly which religion are we talking about?

    Is it possible that you’ve gone as far (or farther) off the deep end than the person you are responding to?  Maybe you should take a good, hard look.

    “Based entirely on incest”. I can’t get over that statement. That could possibly be the single, stupidest comment I have ever seen an anonymous loudmouth nitwit make in one of these forums.

    That’s quite an accomplishment.

    And don’t respond, unless you sign your name to whatever you have to say. I’ve made my point, and I ain’t biting on any response by an anonymous poster. If you’re gonna make those statements, man up and sign off.

    • Anonymous

      Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel.  Cain killed Abel.  Cain went off with his wife.  Where did Cain’s wife come from if the only other people were Adam and Eve?

      • Anonymous

        I said I wouldn’t respond to Tedlick, but I’d like to respond to your comment.

        Nothing in the Bible says that Cain went off with Abel’s wife.  I’m not sure where that came from.

        Tedlick has made the claim that another poster has come on inciting hate in the name of a religion based entirely on incest.  Obviously, he is talking about the Judeo-Christian systems, and possibly Islam as well. 

        If we include Islam, he is saying that three religions, not one, are based entirely on incest.

        I would say that all three are based on many things.  The human race, in all three, is said to originate from two persons.

        The religions are the religions; the human race is the human race. “Religion” and “human race” aren’t synonyms, and I’m sure we are at least in agreement at this point.

        I think even a person who does not sign on to the Genesis account of human origin would agree that the human race has come from a rather small gene pool at its outset.

        The alternative would be to believe that random chance has produced many proto-humans that appeared close enough in proximity, and close enough in time, and were produced by these random, chance events in such a manner that they could reproduce.  It is the only way that I can see that the human race could originate with a very large number of ancestors, and quite frankly, that seems hard to imagine.

        So whether one accepts the Genesis account of the origin of humanity or a totally non-deistic origin, or some position somewhere in between, it still seems that we originate somewhat “incestually”.

        Having said that, though, I think it is a very large leap to say that at least two, probably three, and perhaps more, religions were based “solely on incest.”  If he wants to say that the human race originated somewhat incestually, fine – that is another subject.

        My objection to Tedlick is the flat-out nastiness in his reply to the other poster.  I hear a lot of crabbing about how mean, nasty, and hateful this group or that group is – and then I hear those who consider themselves wronged, or those who are defending the wronged, using language that is every bit as nasty and hateful, and quite often, bigoted, in response.

        If the people that are doing these kind of responses are so concerned about decency, it needs to begin showing in their posts.  Would Martin Luther King or Ghandi respond the way Tedlick Badkey did?

        And if they had something to say, didn’t they have the guts, even though eventually both were assassinated, to say it under their own names?  You know the answer.

        People are free to post what they wish, and to hold opinions as they wish, and to disagree with me, or with anyone they wish.  But they really should have the decency, if they are going to call people hypocrites and hate mongers, to sign their names to it.

        • Anonymous

          Fair enough.  First, the way I typed my comment was a little misleading.  I did not mean to say that Cain went off with Abel’s wife.  I meant to say that Cain went off with his own wife.  Rereading my comment, I agree it sounds like I said Cain went off with Abel’s wife. 

          Second, I think a major reason why people bring up incest in this discussion is that the majority of people opposed to same sex marriage try to claim it is against “what God intended”, but then go on to ignore all of the incest, rape, and polygamy that God seems to condone, or at the very least tolerate. 

          • Anonymous

             Fair enough on your post, too.  But I would respond that often times the Bible reports events that happened.  So does the BDN.  Because the BDN reports that incest, rape, and polygamy happen in the world, does not mean that the BDN has condoned them.  I know we will agree on that.

            If we read the whole Bible, we find that David was judged for his polygamy, and Amnon suffered the ultimate penalty for his incestual rape of his sister. 

            If we are going to use the Bible as the argument, we need to use it all.  I hear that argument constantly from one side of the spectrum, and I would say that it applies equally to both sides.  I am fairly sure you will agree on that one, too.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            The buybull says all of mankind is the product of incest.

            BDN does not say that.

          • Anonymous

            And other biblical characters, like Abraham, were not judged for their polygamy.  Also according to the Bible, Lot was considered the only person worth saving in Sodom and Gomorrah, and he offered his daughters to be raped.  But in all honesty, the Bible should have nothing to do with the debate of a civil law.

          • Anonymous

             Abraham actually reaped a lot of trouble, if you read about it.  Some of the consequences were suffered more by his extended family – just as Hitler didn’t reap every consequence of his own behavior, per se, but others surely suffered for it.

          • Anonymous

            One CANNOT “use it all” since much of it contradicts other parts of it.

            The (f)rightwing ignore that the BuyBull says we are to put disobedient children to death, to stone non-virgin brides, to deny communion to the disabled, and that eating shrimp is “an abomination” – in the exact same Book that they use to support their condemnation of (what they believe to be) homosexuality.

          • Alec Cunningham

            I have to say that disrespecting either side is messed up.  Yeah, the Bible is used for hate, but many supporters and good people are also of faith.   They also go to church.  They also believe in God.  They also read the Bible.  When you talk trash about God, the Bible, and religion, you’re disrespecting a sizable number of gays and their supporters, too.

          • Anonymous

            Where did this “wife” come from? Where is the reference to their marriage?

          • Anonymous

            Congratulations!  You found one of the many plot holes / inconsistencies / contradictions in the bible.

        • Anonymous

          Populations do not arise from only two individuals.  Granted the pre-modernpopluations that gave rise to Home sapiens was dangerously small at one time and close to extinction but they survived.  However, that small number was not just one family.

          • Anonymous

             I wasn’t making a point either for or against Genesis – I was only responding to Tedlick’s incest comment.  I think your post actually reinforces mine.  The gene pool was very small.  Incestuous, by necessity.

            That is a far cry from calling Judaism, Christianity, and probably Islam, and perhaps other religions “totally based on incest.”  I guess a total secularism would have to be based “totally on incest”, too.  We would still all agree that if we justify incest today, that isn’t good.

            At least, I’d hope that we can. 

        • Anonymous

          Actually, there was a pre-existing larger population of our ancestral mammals, and our evolutionary adaptations took hold when they were beneficial to our survival. Over hundreds of thousands of years, we get to the modern human race.

          But if you are referring to the very first life forms on this planet, a billion+ years ago, then yes there was a small population that expanded, and diversified.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Adam and Eve’s offspring spent quite a bit of time involved in incest to populate the planet…
      Not over the top at all.

      • Anonymous

         I didn’t flag you for review, for the record.

        It was a cheap shot that you took.  Period.

        And if you’re going to smack someone out here in cyberspace, please be man enough not to hide behind a moniker.

        Good day, Tedlick.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          What cheapshot? It is fact that the buybull says we’re all the product of incest.

          • Anonymous

            Citation please.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Did god create any other humans other than Adam and Eve from scratch?

      • Anonymous

        What about “Adam’s” FIRST “wife”? (How come all the Jesusy folk forget her?)

        I don’t believe there’s a single reference in the BuyBull to “Adam” and “Eve” having female children – EVER.

        Quick: Get me re-write!

  • Anonymous

    This has got to be about the weirdest thing I have ever read.  Mr. Bennett, your “logic” and conclusions are surreal, or possibly just silly.  Or possibly an excellent example of the sort of nonsense that can result from unchecked raging paranoia.  Set your mind at ease. Same-sex marriage will make absolutely  zero difference in your life, unless you happen to want to marry someone of your sex.

    Do you, personally, know any same-sex couples? It seems unlikely. If you did you would learn firsthand what the dreaded “gay agenda” is. Every one of the half-dozen same-sex couples my wife and I know have pretty much the same “agenda” we do. Get jobs, get married, buy a house, try to have enough money to pay the taxes with some left over to enjoy life with. 

    Gay people have the same hopes and dreams as you do. [Edit: on second thought, maybe not the same as you do. The same as most normal people do.] They just want to marry and share their lives with somebody of the same sex rather than somebody of the opposite sex. Frankly, who cares? Why not let gay people marry somebody of the same sex?  Unless you make a habit of sitting up nights unable to sleep because two men or two women you don’t even know prefer a same-sex life partner rather an opposite-sex one, you will never notice same-sex marriage.  It does not threaten you, your family, or society.

  • Anonymous

    Wow. That is some tin foil hat conspiracy you have there. I suppose it could be a global conspiracy to instill socialism into America.

    Or

    Gays simply want the same legal standing that heterosexuals have.

    Something about a razor and a dude named Occam seems very apropos here.

    -J

  • It’s probably important to note that 
    Erick Bennett is not a bigot. Nowhere in this piece does he mention anything about gays being unequal or inferior. He does dream up the argument that because of “Person A” and “Person B” gay marriage is somehow different then straight marriage, and will unravel society. This either poorly done sarcasm or a fantastical rant that has no reason to be printed.

  • Anonymous

    These anti-SSM arguments get more and more out of the park.  They’d be hilarious if they weren’t so serious (and their adoption seriously wrong).

  • Anonymous

    This is without question the stupidest opinion piece I’ve ever read.

  • Anonymous

    This editorial was well written. It is a breath of fresh air in all the smoke and mirrors put forward by the homosexual marriage zealots, who have continually sought to blur attempts at clarity and vilify those employing intellectual honesty. Government morality is the most self serving of a process that strips a society of it’s own development of a culture.
    How? Government “equality” means more laws that will divine between legitimate speech and “hate’ speech; between positive school teachings and those that promote “negativity” or worse yet, “inequality”; what is reasonably healthy for a child and what is the best family situation; where life begins and ends versus where laws have decided life’s very essence for you.
    Ironically, socialism in it’s “purist” inevitably leads to the most radical of inequalities, and eventual purging (read: slaughter) of the very cultural diversity sought by those who seek a State source of morals. 
    Thanks again, Eric Bennett, for courage the freedom of thought and speech you have expressed.

    • Anonymous

      Really? Well written? Eric Bennett claims that same-sex couples in Maine have all of the same benefits of civil marriage via… what, exactly? He never actually says.

    • Anonymous

      Only thing missing from it is the truth.  Do you and your spouse enjoy the privilege of only the 7 mentioned rights ….. or does a civil marriage license allow you more than just those 7 things?  Will you be recommending the Domestic Partnership Registry instead of a Civil Marriage License to your family and friends?

  • Anonymous

    Mr. Bennett …. if as you say, the Domestic Partnership Registry is legal matrimony and gives SS couples the all same rights as opposite sex couples receive through Civil Marriage ….. will you be encouraging heterosexual couples to forgo civil marriage in favor of a registered domestic partnership (because this is an option for them also) ?  After all you state that they both provide the same exact rights …. and if that is truthfully the case then why is the state wasting the time and expense of having both?  
    Cost of filing with the Domestic Partnership Registry = $50 Cost of Civil Marriage License = $40
    Also … to register the couple must prove that they lived together for a minimum of 1 year prior to registering … is that a requirement for getting a Civil Marraige license? Couples with a Civil Marraige License have the ability to file a joint state income tax return, can domestic partners?
    Why does it cost more to get limited rights that it does for full rights?
    You really should give Mainer’s more credit ….. we are more intelligent than you think we are.

  • oh honey no. Not only is this terribly written, it actually makes no sense. “Same-sex marriage will change the legal definition from “one man and one woman” to Person A and Person B, making it meaningless. This completes the transfer of power over this institution from the realm of “We the People” and grants full control to the state, which strikes at the heart of our First Amendment.” That makes absolutely no sense at all.

  • This is a disgusting bold faced lie and should never have been printed. And on today, 9-11, when we should be coming together this man has chosen to spread this lie about his fellow Americans. God bless you sir and I will pray for you and I hope you ask forgiveness. 

  • Alec Cunningham

    I am still not clear why Mr. Bennett says that same-sex couples have been free to marry each other since 2004, that “same-sex couples already get licenses…”  What evidence does he have to say this?  

    It would be good if Mr. Bennett could answer our questions and elaborate a little more on his points.

  • Mary

    What an awesome article! This is the truth in black and white. Now if we can just get f

  • Mary

    Erick this was a great article! It really cuts to the core of this issue. If people could just get over the “feel good” terms like equality and fairness and see the truth in this issue they would understand the long term impact of this. 

    • Anonymous

      Please tell me you’re joking.  To you, equality under the law is just a “feel good” term?

    • Anonymous

      Mary pehaps you should consider turning over your civil marriage license and everything that goes with it and registering for a Domestic Partnership.  You will still have the same rights as those with a marriage licensee ….. it is a bit more expensive but you won’t lose any of the rights, benefits or privileges that you now have (there really are only 7 anyway).   And even though it’s called a Domestic Partnership, it is really “matrimony”.  It is a win-win deal.  :-)
      And please feel free to report back to us on how it works for you.

  • Jonathan Albrecht

    “…legal matrimony in Maine for eight years with the same rights and benefits as everyone else…” False.
    “Marriage is not a right. You need a license to get married. You don’t need a license for your rights.” Wonderful sillgism, but the US Constitution and the US Supreme Court disagree.
    “This is about our rights, not special rights, but taking away rights we already have, such as our 1st, 10th and 14th Amendment rights.” Oh it is. Nice ascertion. What rights are taken away. None. My neigbors marriage has no bearing on yours or mine.
    “Redefining marriage will allow gay-rights groups to join a class-action lawsuit …” The opposite is true. The lack of marriage equality is discrimination and provides grounds for lawsuits.
    This is one grandios conspiracy theory without any substance at all. Ascertion after ascertion with no evidence no proof and an author who must be a mind reader for somehow he knows the motivations not of activists here but over the whole world.  

  • This author relays too many falsehoods for me to address every one, but suffice it to say that if equality is a value that this author espouses as an American, then he should endorse civil marriage access. He does not want himself subject to the erratic Civil Union laws in the various states that offer them. He does not recognize that Civil Union is not marriage (which he has), and that the Fed does not recognize civil unions. He ignores that traveling to other states without marriage equality laws puts same-sex families at legal risk, a risk for his family that he himself would find intolerable.

    The entire remaining purpose of denying same-sex couples access to civil
    marriage is to keep them in a minority role in society, to express disdain. There is no
    other reason: not for the children, because sexual orientation is
    innate, immutable and innocent and unrelated to orientation of the
    parents, and to parental ability to raise children.

  • Vibiana

    Mr. Bennett:  How exactly will the definition of marrige being changed render the institution meaningless?  That’s quite a drastic assertion.  Be specific.  Also note that religious objection to same-sex marriage is not a valid justification for prohibiting it in a civil venue.

    How exactly will the ability for same-sex couples to marry affect your own marriage, your family, etc.?

    Marriage has ALREADY been redefined.  At one point it was a strictly financial and practical arrangement, facilitated by parents or hired matchmakers rather than the couple themselves.  In some places it still is.

    If you’re married, Mr. Bennett, did you marry for love?  If so, you reformer, you!  LOL

  • Anonymous

    I went back and forth with Erick Bennett on Facebook back in May. I kept it civil. He talked in circles and couldn’t answer my questions. He would type things like “Game Over” at the end of a response, but then edit it out. Then he started deleting my comments, which showed that he couldn’t answer my simple questions. Luckily, a friend of mine grabbed a screenshot of the entire conversation before he started deleting things. You can see it here: http://i.imgur.com/W8A9n.jpg He's a clown of the highest degree.

  • Tedlick Badkey

    How does this guy get away with blatant lies in this “editorial”?

    His statement that domestic partnserships offer the same benefits and protections of marriage in Maine is a blatant lie!

    BDN: WTF are you doing?

    • Tedlick Badkey

      According to the State of Maine:

      “P.L. 2003, c. 672, enacted by the Legislature and signed into law on April 28, 2004, establishes the concept of domestic partners in Maine law. Under the law, registered domestic partners are accorded a legal status similar to that of a married person with respect to matters of probate, guardianships, conservatorships, inheritance, protection from abuse, and related matters.”

      Pleast note that it does not state “equal to that of a married person” because it is not. In fact, marriage is one of the methods of DP termination.

      This outright lying is almost as bad as shilling for incest-based mythology as reasons to harm law-abiding citizens.

      Good grief…

      • Alec Cunningham

        As was printed in a LTE a few months back:  “There is an unequal burden of proof of the domestic partners’ relationship and their rights are severely limited. Not only must the two parties have lived together in Maine for 12 months before they are granted this partnership, something not required for legal marriage, but the registry “allows individuals to have rights of inheritance as well as the right to make decisions regarding the disposal of their deceased partners remains.” (Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Instructions and Information for the Domestic Partner Registry in Maine, p.1). That’s all. It only addresses matters in relation to death. “

      • Alec Cunningham

        BDN: WTF are you doing?
        I wonder if it’s possible to write an opinion piece about the economy of Mars and the issues the Martians are having with the recent immigrants from Jupiter and have the BDN print that, too.

  • Anonymous

    It looks like this guy likes to take leaps of logic (probably because there is no REAL logical way to connect the outcomes he suggests to the premises he starts with.) Someone needs to check what he is using to get his hallucinogenic view of the stretches he wants the reader to believe.

  • Tedlick Badkey

    Although poorly formatted, this document does a decent job of outlining the differences between domestic partnerships and marriage.

    http://mainethewaylifeshouldbe.org/sites/default/files/Marriage%20v.%20Civil%20Unions.pdf

    If, as Bennett claims, they’re the same, how are there differences?

    Lying skumm…

Similar Articles