October 22, 2017
News Latest News | Poll Questions | Haunted Maine | Bald Eagles | Medicaid Expansion

Comments for: Same-sex marriage supporters claim opponents not filing donors’ names again

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News and the Bangor Publishing Co. encourage comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

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

  • Anonymous

    And I suppose that Mainers United for Marriage(which certainly does not speak for Mainers) and Equality Maine are complying with listing the donors of their $5 million?

    • pbmann

      The opponents to SSM didn’t report their donors the last time they worked against equality; why would they, all of a sudden obey, the law now?

      Oh , and the forces for good and equality did obey the law last time and they are this time.

      • Anonymous

        The state should than make all new papers ,radio stations pull the adds because they are not going by the law an fine them 4 million dollars

      • Anonymous

        They are doubling up on the conservative agenda, and this repeated scoff law attitude is about corporatism, and the false premise that corporations should have human rights.

    • Anonymous

      Yes, you suppose right. I am unable to look for it now (ducking iPhone) but I believe the list can be found online.

      • Anonymous

        I have not been able to find it to this point of moment, but still looking

    • Anonymous

       YES!

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Yes. Are you too lazy to look it up?

      In 2009 ALL donors names were released… and my name is on that list.

      Why would you think that we’d seek as low as NOM and their ilk?

    • Anonymous
  • Old Bear

    NO NO NO NO NO and NO MEANS NO!!!!!!

    • Anonymous

      Sorry, I couldn’t understand you, did you mean ‘no’?

    • Tedlick Badkey

      It’ll be fun to watch your outrage when gay marriage comes to Maine.

      It really will be.

      • Anonymous

        I was thinking much the same thing … but about when Baby Bear brings his same sex partner home to meet Mama.

    • Anonymous

      Do you believe that it is right for any group pro or con to not report donors as required by Maine law?

    • Anonymous

      Exactly!

      NO homophobia. NO discrimination. NO bigotry. NO inequality. NO forcing religious beliefs on our citizens. NO exclusion.

      NO  means NO.

      • Anonymous

        Only if it fit your definition I see. Forcing your bigotry on those who  have a different opnion

    • Anonymous

      Ahhh, Mom, you’ve said that before, and no one listened then, either.

      So Mama, if gay people don’t propagate, where do they all come from ?

  • Anonymous

    What do normal people expect from this group, honesty and the courage of their convictions?  Ha, that isn’t going to happen.  These people from NOM are cowards, thieves, and liars who seek to oppress those who do not agree with their moral opinion.  They are just like the Taliban.  Shame on them.  Marriage should be addressed nationally by our Congress and considered to be a civil right for any and all American citizens.  Failing that the Supreme Court should address this in a way that puts the whole issue to rest (as compared to arguing each and every attack on freedom to marry).  The trouble is, even our Congress doesn’t have the political fortitude to stand up for what is Right in America.  

  • Anonymous

    Once again, it’s those that scream the loudest and point their fingers the most that turn out to be the guilty ones. You refuse the follow the law, absolutely refuse, and yet gays are the immoral ones? Just so disgusting. 

    • Anonymous

      How is it  disgusting   do you have scientific evidence to back it up  ?

      • Tedlick Badkey

        Scientific evidence for what?

        • Anonymous

          about gays being disgusting

  • Anonymous

    I’m not as crazed about this topic as some, but I tend to be a person who minds my own business and don’t feel it is my job to tell others how to live their life.  I will be voting in favor of same-sex marriage, simply because it’s not my business to tell someone who to marry and because, after 22 years of being married to my husband, I find that love is a pretty amazing thing and that nobody should be denied the rights that I have myself.  

    Now to the topic of this article.  The one thing I don’t understand…those opposed to same-sex marriage likely are opposed because they feel it is immoral, yet they are breaking the law?  I’m sorry, but is that not the most hypocritical thing you’ve ever heard????

    • Anonymous

      Likewise I feel it’s none of my business how people want to live out their lives within the bounds of the law. Right now in Maine couples are free to choose their partners. The fact same-sex partners are not issued marriage licenses does not change that. If they wish to “marry” they can even do that, as there are groups and even churches willing to “bless” or endorse these unions. The state and society however have no legitimate interest – except in those cases involving one man and one woman – endorsing any type of human bond. The union between a man and a woman is very different than all others: it is natural, procreative, and naturally conducive to the rearing of children, whether ones own by nature or through adoption. A recently published study by a University of Texas at Austin professor – the largest of its kind so far – has confirmed children do best when reared by a mom and a dad. Thus there is no real argument for state endorsement of relationships other than those involving a man and a woman determined to make a life-long relationship together in mutual love.

      As to the question of NOM being in violation of law, its spokesperson Brian Brown explained the organization is using undesignated fund money to campaign for marriage in Maine. How is this a violation of Maine law?

      • Tedlick Badkey

        Liar.

        They have the exact same interest that they have in endorsing the unions of infertile or elderly citizens. 

        I know that bothers you… but it’s a fact.

        Procreation has nothing to do with the civil contract of marriage. You’ve never been able to disprove that.

        As for your study, it’s already been called into question due to the use of parties who stood to profit off of its publication.

        http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2012/09/17/31127/

        You’re going to have to do better than that… it’s the same as quoting Paul Cameron or NARTH.

        As long as you’re going to lie about the whole procreation bit (hypocrisy at it’s finest), I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that you don’t even know your “study” is falling apart.

        • Anonymous

          Is this all you can come up with, I mean, calling me a liar? Or does the truth hurt? Read what your referenced article says in part:
           
          “However, in August, the University of Texas performed an inquiry into
          Regnerus’ study and decided that he had sufficiently employed
          scientific methods and that no further investigation was necessary.
          Social Science Research also conducted an audit that claimed the journal
          had not violated procedural guidelines.

          According to Samuel, the scholars in opposition of Regnerus had overreacted.
          “What happened to Dr. Regnerus was so unusual,” Samuel said. “Instead of just
          sitting down and writing a paper refuting his work, they went and pressured his home university to conduct an academic investigation …and it became so politicized and so out of the ordinary. I think it was a very unfair way to treat Dr. Regnerus.”

          Incidentally, Dr. Regnerus is a well-respected sociologist in his field. But is he a liar? If you claim he is, then tell me why. I’ll say this much, you are no researcher yourself. The University has conducted its own investigation and concluded, after being pressured unfairly by gays to suspend Dr. Regnerus, his research efforts sufficiently employed scientific methods and no further investigation was necessary. Justifiably Dr. Regnerus has been reinstated to his former professorial position.

          For me, it’s not hard to tell why nature made men and women differently physically, mentally, and emotionally. If women are simply made to bear children in the womb, then tell me why the mental and emotional differences between them are universal?

          • Anonymous

            The study was refuted actually. It wasn’t well received like you are purporting it to have been. 

          • Anonymous

            Yes, it was refuted by a gay and gay activist on the basis the researcher was a Catholic convert, among other irrelevant reasons. So much for tolerance from “tolerant” gay activists and leftists of this world.

          • This Charming Man

            It took me all of 3 minutes to find a list of organizations that filed an amicus brief challenging the use of the Regenerus study in order to support DOMA.

            Those organizations are :

            THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, THE CALIFORNIA PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, THE AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS AND ITS CALIFORNIA CHAPTER,THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS, AND THE AMERICAN PSYCHOANALYTIC ASSOCIATION

            And no, you are overtly and outright lying about the basis which the study was challenged; the researcher’s religion had, and has had, absolutely NOTHING to do with why it’s been, and continues to be not just challenged, but entirely dismissed.

            Have a little integrity. Is there nothing that you do not have the nerve to lie about here ?

            And your response – you don’t know when the amicus brief was filed ? Seriously ? Look it up !

            You’re lying, whawell, you’re lying when you claim a blogger had anything to do with with the scrutiny the study brought upon itself.

            You’re lying when you claim his Catholicism had anything to do with the scrutiny the study brought upon itself.

            Have a little integrity, an internal audit of the journal that published the study has found that the study is not just flawed, but that those involved in publishing it had ties to NOM and had an agenda.

            It’s blatantly dishonest of you to make so many false claims when making a moderate effort and spending 5 minutes of your time researching the issue would easily prove the BS you’re repeating from the NOM based sites you rely on for all these lies.

            Again, I ask you, have a little integrity, what you’re doing here is shameful, deceptive, and dishonest.

          • Anonymous

            I don’t know when these organizations filed their amicus brief. I do know however that the professor’s dismissal was based on complaints made by Scott Rose, a homosexual freelance writer with no academic credentials. The professor is a recent convert to Catholicism, and Rose has a history of Catholic bashing. 

          • Anonymous

            That’s not true, you just made that up. I think it’s unfair how you spread misinformation and then when you’re called on it, you claim you’re being victimized and you flag comments, etc. 

            It’s not right and it’s not honest. 

          • Tedlick Badkey

            You are a liar, as well as a hypocrite.

            When the law forbids childless marriages, you will have a point.

            As long as people can wed and not have children, you are only being a hypocrite.

          • Anonymous

            Speaking about liars, you called Brown ” a known liar and cheat.” When you name-call – for example, you called me a liar – are you not cheating as well? You are violating rule number 2 for posting. How about, Pal?

          • Tedlick Badkey

            It’s neither a lie nor cheating.

            It’s only the truth.

          • Anonymous

            Your response was predictable. Rather than address your own failure, you deny cheating (rule breaking) while calling out Brian Brown for rule breaking. As you said, “It’s only the truth”.  Hypocrisy at its best!

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Wow…

          • This Charming Man

            His own “failure” ?

            Just what is THAT supposed to mean ?

          • Anonymous

            You’re not being honest. Brown has a judgment against him and NOM did cheat and lie and break the law.

            Also, when you spread misinformation whawell, how do you expect people to react towards you? With a hug? No, people are going to prove you wrong and state that you are lying (sometimes that comes with the label “liar”). 

          • This Charming Man

            It’s interesting that you would would bring up the Regnerus study.

            Since the part of the controversy you omit entirely is that Dr. Regnerus failed to disclose who funded the study.  It was partially funded by the NOM-linked Witherspoon Institute, and in the process the peer-review process was corrupted.

            A Regnerus funding agency representative — Witherspoon’s Brad Wilcox — was paid $2,000 to assist Regnerus with data analysis on his study. Yet another conflict of interest, and yet even more grounds for charges of scientific misconduct.

            Seems to be a consistent tendency for the anti-marriage mob to break the law, break the rules, hide who their funding is from, cower from scrutiny, and lie.  Constantly.  And when confronted, to pretend that they’re victims of some grand agenda.

            So if the lying shoe fits, wear it.

            And your response below – how is it that you are unaware of the internal audit of Social Science Research, the publisher of the study, which found that the study never should have even been published because of the obvious serious flaws in the design of the study, and the conflict of interests of the people on the panel that allowed it to be published int he first place.

            THIS news came out back at the end of July, it’s a done deal, no credible organization considers the study to be valid in any way, and it’s been retracted.

            So stop your lying and referencing this study, it’s been soundly dismissed already.

          • Anonymous

            Gay activists have a tendency to attack the messenger instead of discussing the message. This is exactly what is happening in the case of Dr. Regnerus who is known among his peers for his honest scholarship. It makes no difference who funded the project. All relevant information regarding the study has been submitted for review. Of course if Dr. Regnerus failed to dot an “i” or cross a “t” these activists will make a big to-do with all sorts of wild accusations as they have attempted to do so far. It appears they don’t want anyone to come up with research they deem contrary to their interests. I feel badly for this researcher who no doubt is being intimidated and excoriated publicly.

            The University of Texas has a policy that requires an inquiry into all complaints against a professor accused of shoddy scholarship. After completing such an inquiry the school either launches an investigation or dismisses the case. For your information the case against Regnerus has been dropped, and Regnerus has been reinstated to his professional position as professor.

            Incidentally, the study is in the process of peer review. Any analysis of the data done by Brad Wilcox or any other entity will be thoroughly looked at, I’m sure, for any lapses.

    • Anonymous

      Married 40 years and I agree.Very well put.

  • Anonymous

    NOM = Narrowminded Old Misanthropes….

  • Anonymous

    I am doing some volunteer work for this organization this time and yes i will vote for gay marriage, but lets stop the childish games about not disclosing names.  If they are not they will get caught.  IF it wins it wins if it does not it does not, just do it again

  • Anonymous

    Well, which is it … are the those who fund opposition to Same-Sex Marriage … and fulfillment of the Golden Rule (allowing others what you want for yourself, as in, Marriage to someone you love. which they used to deny mixed race couples), or is the organization ashamed of those who provide its funding, because it doesn’t want to admit to endorsing their bigotry?

     The anti-marriage group (and that is really what those who oppose Same-Sex marriage are) is a victim of “Saint Paul’s Joke” … as pointed out in the new KINDLE book of the same name.

  • Tedlick Badkey

    Marriage was once marrying one person to many persons.

    Marriage was once marring a person of one race to someone of the same race.

    What you’re missing is that the definition of marriage has already changed many times.

    This latest addition won’t hurt you a bit.

  • Tedlick Badkey

    RAmen.

  • Anonymous

    At one time it was a Union of a man and as many “women” as he could afford.  Of course, these women were 10 or 12, which was perfectly acceptable for the Christians.

  • Tedlick Badkey

    His problem is that he actually believes Brian Brown, a known liar and cheat.

    • Anonymous

      There we go again! In your world anyone who disagrees with you is a “liar”. To me, that says a lot about your personally.

      • Anonymous

        Actually I wouldn’t call him a liar but I would classify him as a criminal for knowingly breaking Maine law.

        • Anonymous

          Knowingly breaking Maine law? I don’t understand how you can make that judgement if Mr. Brown was sincere in his belief. One can be sincere in a belief but be found to be wrong in the court of law. There’s a big difference here. This is analogous to erroneously calling someone a liar for giving out misinformation he believes to be true. In order to lie one must consciously disseminate a falsehood. People disseminate false information on a daily basis without intent to deceive. Does that make them liars? Of course not.

          • Anonymous

            Willful ignorance is just as bad . Not bothering to fact check? That’s not honesty.

          • Anonymous

            NOM came into Maine prior to the 2009 vote on the repeal of the SSM law. They knew that Maine law required the release of donor lists to Maine’s Commission on Government Ethics and Election Practices. They knew it. The information is readily available on line at Maine.gov. They knew it and refused to release the lists.

            They continued to refuse to release the list even when Maine’s Commission on Government Ethics and Election Practices ruled they had to.

            They continued to refuse to release the list even with the state and federal court system rules against NOMs law suit.

            They CONTINUE to refuse to release the 2009 list even when the SCOTUS refused to hear their case this past week on appeal.

            And NOW they refuse to release the 2012 list and you call that Mr. Brown being “sincere in his belief”!

            whawell when you are on I95 in Portland and you are stopped doing 65 mph in a 55 mph zone are you going to try the line with the Maine Trooper that you where “sincere in” your “belief” that the speed limit was 65 mph after passing one sign that said “Reduced Speed Ahead 55 mph” and then a 55 mph sign with two neon orange flags hanging on either side of the sign?

            NOM ignored the law. They ignored the warning signs. They ignored the Maine Trooper that issued the summons for speeding. They lost in court. They appealed the decision and lost again and again and again. They lost there law suit and the SCOTUS refused to hear their appeal and now they refuse to release the 2012 list of donor.

            Yup that is willful and I repeat, “I wouldn’t call him a liar but I would classify him as a criminal for knowingly breaking Maine law.” Yup Mr. Brown and NOM has knowingly broken Maine law not once but twice now.

      • Anonymous

        They do have a judgment against them though that says they are in fact cheats. 

        • Anonymous

          If you are referring to a court decision against their interest, I don’t think that the accusation of cheating was involved in the judgement.

          • Anonymous

            NOM broke Maine law in 2009 and lost every appeal including the SCOTUS. They continue to refuse to release the 2009 list of donors.

            Now they refuse to release the 2012 list.

            What would you call a group or group of people that break Maine law during an election cycle whawell?

            I call it criminal.

      • Tedlick Badkey

        Brian Brown lies about state laws and cheats his way around them.

        Simple fact.

  • Tedlick Badkey

    The finish line will happen where it should… in the legislature or the courts.

    People should not be voting on who gets treated equitably under government.

    So yeah… see you there.

  • Anonymous

    Carpetbaggers not playing by the rules–again.

  • If Maines “finest” has the audacity to change the very definition of marriage, then you would think that they woulde care less about who pays for what. With an agenda like they have, they should be worried about much more than a donor for the other side.

  • Anonymous

    I would like to know if I can marry the 5 women I love and they love me.. any objections? it gives me 2 days off a week to date.

    • Anonymous

       If you want to marry 5 women go for it.  1st you must get it on the ballot, so you’d better started.

  • Anonymous

    The voters have spoken over and over and over time and time again.  It will not pass.  The silent majority have and will speak again!

    • This Charming Man

      The voters have “spoken” on this issue ONCE before.

      Silent ?  On what planet ?

      Majority ?  Not for long. 

You may also like