Comments for: Why these sisters are voting ‘No’ on same-sex marriage

Posted Oct. 21, 2012, at 5:24 a.m.
Last modified Oct. 21, 2012, at 8:17 a.m.

Deeply devoted to their religions, the sisters sat together in the front pew Friday and spoke passionately about their beliefs and fears.

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):

  • Anonymous

    With all due respect!!!!

    We are not threatening to harm anybody. We are not saying you should be in jail for any of this, but what we are saying is this degrades the foundation of the family and society, promotes diseases and dysfunction and tears down the person’s dignity.”

    What you have stated is YOUR opinion of the matter, one which i do respect, however, your opinion that this is somehow tearing down marriage is a cop out honestly. It does no such thing.  What you fail to realize and what those that support “NO” on question 1 is that what your opinion does is discriminates the rights of ALL people.  How would any of you like to be told who you can love, who you can marry and how to marry them?  What if they said you couldnt go to church on Fridays?  It is the very same thing that LGBT is stating.  They are not asking for EXTRA rights, they are asking for the SAME rights…and honestly, as a heterosexual male of a marriage for 23 wonderful years, i believe they deserve to enjoy the same benefits that come with marriage as myself and that also means they deserve the right to say they are MARRIED….I realize for many of you elderly people and religious zagots that this is going to be hard for you to take, but its best for you to get used to it now, cause its gonna happen.

    • Anonymous

      JeffCol, can you expand on your definition of zagot?  I tried looking up the definition but could not find that word.  I found Zagat, but I don’t think you mean anything about food. Thanks for your clarification.

      • Anonymous

        lol

      • Anonymous

        I was taught that a religious Zagat, was one who pushes their beliefs down others throats and makes them feel less than as a person for not believing as they do, now i could have the spelling wrong, might even have the entire word wrong, but that is what i learned out there in Glenburn, but thanks so much for finding the only useful thing about this forum is to make fun of those that dont have your vocabulary…Very sweet of ya

        • Jennifer Ward

           Zealot?

        • Anonymous

          Jeff, I am sorry that you are taking it negatively.  I was not trying to make fun of you, but trying to get the meaning of what you were trying to say b/c it didn’t make sense or that I was not familiar with regional vernacular.  I try to maintain a modicum of decorum on these forums, and have been found to use the wrong word or have wrong outright wrong, in which case I have apologized. 
          As Jennifer Ward posted below, I think you may have meant to say Zealot.

          • Anonymous

            Thanks for the response, now that i actually see it, i do believe it is zealot that i was thinking of.  Sometimes my desire to prove how well versed I am fails me miserably:)

    • Anonymous

      And what you’ve stated is only YOUR opinion.

      • Anonymous

         …..as YOU have.

        • Anonymous

          …..as YOU have.  We can play this game all day!

      • Tom Harvell

        ” We are not saying you should be in jail for any of this, but what we are saying is this degrades the foundation of the family and society, promotes diseases and dysfunction and tears down the person’s dignity.” 
        You think that is a respectful statement? “People don’t speak out, out of fear of being called hateful” By saying those things these women are trying to tear down gay peoples dignity. My opinion and advice to them is “Don’t say ridiculously hateful things and maybe people won’t label you as hateful”

        • County Escapee

          We’ve all heard Ranger’s type of arguments ad nauseam, but I have never heard of the ‘promote disease’ one. If possible, that’s even more ludicrous than the others!

          • jimbobhol
          • Anonymous

            How much time a day do you “cruise” the Centers For Disease Control’s website looking for stories about people suffering and dying from a disease?

          • Tyke

             So you are showing evidence that  two people being married actually makes the likelihood of disease LOWER.
            .
            Hey, thanks for the support for YES ON ONE!

          • jimbobhol

            Whatever blows you hat in the creek Tyke.

          • County Escapee

            If you truly believe that stopping SSM will ‘stop the spread of disease’, then please explain how so many gays caught it without marriage. According to your link, a disproportionate number of gay blacks have HIV, so why not ban just them from SSM? Do all we straights think that SSM will spread HIV to us all like the plague?
            I really don’t think I’ve read a more lame and ridiculous argument anywhere; even here!

            Plus if you had spent any time volunteering at a hospice in the early years of HIV, you’d know that the cause of an unknown disease was worried about, and happened to, every walk of life. It was the majority of dying gays that led to the understanding of the spread of and treatment.
            I watched a lot of good people die not knowing what they’d done “wrong”

        • Anonymous

          Sometimes the truth isn’t pretty.

      • Anonymous

        And his opinion is bogus in that if:

         “We are not saying you should be in jail for any of this” they should,
         as that is when denying equal rights is legitimate in America. 

         

    • Anonymous

      You should have started “with no respect”

    • jimbobhol
    • Anonymous

      It will happen eventually Jeff, its gonna end up going through election after election.  The courts are not going to do anything.  I am voting this time for it to go through, but like i said before its gonna be a close call.  Might end up in being a recount, it could be that close.  I have devoted hours and hours of calling people to get them to vote for this to go through, 

    • Anonymous

       Ref: your last sentence — do you have any data at all to support your contention that it is elderly people who are leading the charge against SSM?  I am a seriously older person who supports it completely and hope with great fervor that the referendum passes!

      • Anonymous

        I truly apologize.  I shouldnt have lumped a bunch of people into one category, it just seemed to me that many of these people that were contesting this were middle age and above.  Even my mom doesnt truly understand, but is voting YES, thankfully.  I do hope that you will accept my apology in the reference because i realize that many older folks have children fighting hard for this cause as well:)

  • Anonymous

    Well written article, expresses my sentiments.

    • Anonymous

      Mine too.

    • Anonymous

      Is it your “sentiment” to try to SUBVERT the United States Constitution’s guarantee of “Equal Protection Under the Law”?

  • Anonymous

    I will be voting No with them.  I am not going to let 3% of the population tell me how to live.
    With all respect.

    • Anonymous

      “Tell me how to live…”?

      Oh, dear. You’ve misunderstood. If the marriage equality bill passes, you will NOT be forced into marriage with a homosexual. And if gay people send you a wedding invitation, you will be free to decline to attend. Really. There’s not even a requirement that you send them a congratulatory card.

      • Anonymous

        And we can all be sure NO anti-gay will be asked by someone of their own sex to get married!

    • dadoje

      Nobody is telling you how to live. what is  happeninig is you are telling them how to live.

      • Anonymous

        oh yea you do.  You have become societies new bullies.

        • Anonymous

          Once again, an anti-gay WHINES that his intended victims are “the real bullies.”  Yawn…

        • Anonymous

          Huh?

      • Anonymous

        I am not telling anyone that they can not live together, I do not believe in same sex marriage.   The word marriage is used for one man and one woman.  Let the gay people have a civil union, not marriage.  

        • dadoje

          The definition of marriage according to the dictionary. read beyond the first line.

          “mar·riage noun ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij

          Definition of MARRIAGE1
          a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
          b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage 2
          : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially: the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities 3
          : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. "

        • Anonymous

          “I don’t like letting black kids into white schools. Let the black kids have their own school, not our school.”

        • Anonymous

          Right, so we can be reminded of our 2nd class status more and more. How about we just make gay water fountains. OR, we could just use the gay entrance to movie theatres, which is the back door, cause that’s what we are used to anyways. I feel so bad for the people that have to deal with you in real life.

    • Anonymous

      I’m sorry, but exactly HOW does making it legal for gays to marry tell YOU how to live in any way, shape, or form? Do you believe that if gay marriage is passed you will be forced to get a divorce and marry someone of your own gender? Nope, won’t happen! Do you believe that you will be forced to socialize with gays? You’re free to socialize with whomever you wish gay, straigt, or slightly bent. Do you believe that you will be forced to not discriminate against gay customers or potential customers? Ooops, THAT’S ALREADY ILLEGAL. Do you believe that if gay marriage passes that you’ll have to sit next to someone who is gay on Amtrak, the bus, a plane, or in a movie theatre? Guess what, YOU ALREADY DO. You sign off with the phrase “with all respect” but it’s clear that you really have no respect for those who are different from you and, deep down, you have no respect for yourself. I’ll pray for you. 

      • I HAVE BEEN READING THING’S LIKE THIS AND I TELL YOU ONE THING, THOSE WOMEN HAVE NO RIGHT TO SAY OR DO ANYTHING. I KNOW WE ALL HAVE THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, BUT WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO SOMETHING LIKE THIS, THEY SHOULD KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT AND MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS.THEY SAY THEIR CHRISTIAN’S. THEN THEY NEED TO GO BACK AND REREAD THE BIBLE. THEY SHOUT NOT JUDGE OTHERS  FOR IT IS UP TO OUR FATHER IN HEAVEN TO JUDGE  HE IS THE ONLY JUDGE, JURY AND EXECUTIONER. THESE WOMEN WILL BE JUDGED WHEN IT’S TIME FOR THE LORD TO JUDGE THEM AND HE WILL ASK THEM,”WHY DID YOU JUDGE OTHER PEOPLE THAT I MYSELF, GOD  HAS CREATED? WHY DID YOU TRY TO DESTROY MY CHILDREN’S LIVES THAT I HAVE MADE? I MADE THEM SO THAT I COULD TEST PEOPLE LIKE YOU. AND YOU HAVE FAILED MY TEST .  ” I WOULDN’T JUDGE OTHER’S. I AM NOT A RACIST JUST B/C  I AM AFRAID OF WHAT TO SAY TO THE LORD, BUT I AM NOT A RACIST, B/C THAT’S WHO I AM. AND I THANK GOD FOR GIVING ME THE KIND OF HEART HE HAS. STOP JUDGING.

        • Anonymous

          “THOSE WOMEN HAVE NO RIGHT TO SAY OR DO ANYTHING.”

          Yes, they do, even if their naive beliefs are foolish.

        • Anonymous

          I HAVE BEEN READING THING’S LIKE THIS AND I TELL YOU ONE THING, THOSE WOMEN HAVE NO RIGHT TO SAY OR DO ANYTHING. I KNOW WE ALL HAVE THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, BUT WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO SOMETHING LIKE THIS, THEY SHOULD KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT

          I only agree with that relative how bad they make all Christians look. … 

          But then there is this this, too:  
          “But you, when you pray, enter into your closet, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father which is in secret; and your Father which sees in secret shall reward you openly.”
          Matthew 6:6 

          So Darlene, I can’t fault your outrage at that.
          Even Jesus lost it with money changers.
          In fact I used to be that way in other political forums.
          But what change me was confronting one of judgemental fundamentalist “christians” about what he really wanted.

          It came down to demanding that others must respect whatever he believes and thinks, religiously,politically and in all the ways that the Taliban do, too,
          because he thinks it’s all based on his God’s… his personal Savior’s… words,
          Their Book, again, just as the Taliban do, again.

          Now, ignoring the obvious fact that they do not treat others as they wish to be treated and what that says about how well they understand their Lord’s message, it struck me that if they demand respect, they do not really understand the concept of respect itself. 

          They are handicapped in that way.
          I try to forgive them for falling under the sway of authoritarians with worldly agendas, which I think causes that.
          But having done so they are indoctrinated, just as one of poor weak sister said,
          in that nothing but Bible will change her misguided ways.
           
          So now, I respect that she {they } believe that, now. 
          It is all that can work.

          I now try to respect that is all they can see, knowing they are handicapped and also swayed by authoritarians preaching the end times.
          They can only see the Word, but  they don’t dwell in the Spirit.
          Why else are so afraid and talking of arming themselves ?

          So anyway, I  judge them, yes JUDGE THEM, by the earthy fruits that their fundamentalist tree bears.   

          It is easy too, based on reading all of Matt 7, taken as a unified whole.

          http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7&version=NIVHis

          His Words speak to our time.
          It’s shorter than this comment, too.

          But Darlene, the most important  thing is standing up those who claim that only they speak for Christianity, and who are spoken of in Matt. 7 verses 3- 6, 15-20, and 21-22. 
          Good on ya, for that.

        • Anonymous

           Darlene-please not all caps.You’re right though.

          • Anonymous

             So you are against the first amendment to the constitution.

          • oldgrump

            Darlene may very well have problems with vision.  Typing in caps may allow her to be able to say what she wants and be able to read it.  My aunt does the same thing.  It’s similar to a person who has a hearing impediment talking in a louder voice.

          • Anonymous

             Fair enough.Thanks for your great posts.

      • Anonymous

        It does tell me how to live!!!  I will not have the freedom to disagree with same sex marriage if it passes. I could loose my job, or get fined for discrimination if I say I do not agree with same sex marriage.  Let the gay or whatever they want to be called have a civil union.

        • Anonymous

           who told you these things? whom ever it was they lied to you.

        • Joseph

          What you have learned is completely incorrect. You will still have the right to dislike whatever it is that you want to dislike. I dislike uneducated opinions, they are not illegal, so therefore they are legal, and I still dislike them. I do not get fined for disliking something that happens even if it is not against the law. 

          If you mean you want to discriminate, that is a more serious offense, because, you are actually seeking observable harm upon another. Like denying rights to others that you yourself possess. People being able to marry should not be a choice among any of us, as it is the choice of those who are involved, you do not speak for god and we should not control others that offend us. It is very unpatriotic, even though historically demonstrated as patriotism. 

          • Anonymous

            I never said that I disliked anyone. I have gay friends, I just do not agree with same sex marriage.  Unlike yourself; I do not think I am better than anyone. 

          • Anonymous

            Anti-gays are always claiming they “have gay friends.”  Tell them you want to hurt them by voting to take away their equality, and you will learn very quickly YOU DO NOT “have gay friends.”

          • Anonymous

            You are wrong, because they do know. Unlike yourself some people can disagree without hating each other.  You are not capable of understanding that. 

          • Anonymous

             And I know GLBT individuals who are against same sex marriage.  They recognize the negative social effects of changing the definition of marriage.  And they have a healthy concept of their own self worth and do not need same sex marriage to feel good about themselves.

          • Alec Cunningham

            Is THAT why people get married?  Well, I hope you have as much self-worth and never feel the need to get married so that you can feel good about yourself.  What a selfish and terrible thing to do to society!!!

        • Anonymous

          No. No you won’t.

          I’m sorry someone fooled you so much.

        • Anonymous

          Just like you can get fired now for saying you disagree with the local speed limit, right?

          • Anonymous

            Here’s the reality of the situation.  NO ONE would be fired for just saying, “I don’t agree with equality.”

            But NO anti-gay would stop at that, the jerk would go on and on about how much he hates them, and then he would describe in the most revolting details HIS OWN FANTASIES about same gender male American couples and what HE FANTASIZES we do.  That last part is sexual harrassment, that’s a reason to fire someone for exposing the business to all sorts of lawsuits.

            Even if an anti-gay’s boss is similarly anti-gay, he knows anti-gay hate speech at work is bad for business, and he will can that loudmouth on the spot.

        • Anonymous

           That is simply not true! Sadly, I have no doubt that there are still folks out there who are against interracial marriage,but I have not heard of one person losing their job for saying such. I fear you are the victim of fear mongering!

        • Anonymous

          “Lose,” not “loose.”

          So you think the government is going to hunt you down if you tell a friend you disagree with gay marriage?

          Can’t happen. First Amendment. Look it up.

        • Anonymous

          Huh? You will have the freedom to disagree with whatever you want.

          As for losing your job or being fined for discrimination— that won’t change one bit either! We added sexual orientation to the antidiscrimination laws in 2005— those same laws that protect your choice of religion, too.

    • Traci Dempsey

      This actually has nothing to do with how YOU live…….

      • Anonymous

        YES IT DOES!

        • Anonymous

          So you’re going to get dragged into a shotgun marriage to your gay partner against your will, is that it?

          • Anonymous

            You don’t have to worry about that, MEplydog, I’m quite sure NO ONE will want to get married to you.

          • Anonymous

             I think we’re getting punked, I’m not sure anyone is this stupid.

          • Anonymous

             You haven’t been to “The County” in a while,have you?They’re still reading their “Dewey defeats Truman”papers.I feel bad for the decent people up there who are struggling with a bad economy and ignorant neighbors.

        • Anonymous

          How? What changes for you that isn’t true today?

        • Anonymous

           childish tantrums much?

    • Tom Harvell

      EXACTLY! Why should we let 13% of American people tell us we can’t own slaves or that we have to serve them in our shops!!  I mean seriously why should we let those 13% tell us how to live our lives. Forcing us to use the same drinking fountains as them and what not…. 

      • Anonymous

        Or the 1%.

    • Anonymous

      How are they telling you how to live?

      • Anonymous

        If we have a bumper sticker on our car supporting No on 1 we are harassed.

        • Anonymous

          Someones car got spray painted in Portland when i down there, because she had a sticker on her car.  They caught the suspect , i will not say if he was a worker for a poll or not

          • Anonymous

            If they caught the suspect, then you should be able to give us the website address of the story.  Where is it?

          • Anonymous

            First of all did i say it was in the paper, not every crime gets reported.  I happened to be vacationing in portland when this happened.  Get a grip and move on 

          • Anonymous

            Thanks for admitting it didn’t happen.

          • Anonymous

            Well you got five people to like your comment woo hoo, not every crime gets reported to the paper, did all your crimes get reported, oh hold on i forgot, your a saint.

          • Anonymous

            So your idea of vacationing in Portland is watching for police to arrive at random scenes of crime and witnessing the reports taking place, recording everything that was said and making note of it in comments on social boards?  LOL  Nicely made up.  Unless you can back it up with factual data, how on earth do you expect anyone to believe your woeful tale of random acts of violence in the name of sporting an oppositional bumper sticker?

        • Anonymous

          Can you document this?  Anti-gays have been WHINING that their intended victims are “the real bullies” for several years now.

        • Anonymous

          They they are no better than the bigots they decry.  But your bumper stickers is a public statement which can start a conversation.

        • Anonymous

          Denying equal rights to fellow human beings irks a lot of people, including me.

        • Joseph

          You mean people judge you for wanting to maintain unequal rights? Because you publicly display your opinion by means of a bumper sticker, then expect that display to be within a vacuum, separate of environment and culture? That you can voice your opinion, but others have no right to respond? Does this mean when people show their disapproval of your opinion – that is when you are harassed? If this is not what you meant by your statement, please clarify, because otherwise it is rather silly as it stands. I hope you know I am responding to your statement and not harassing you.  Before I go, here is an example:

          A Teenager is wearing a very despicable shirt that says some horrible stuff about Jesus. I will not state what was on the shirt, but the young man wearing it, was being treated as if he was offensive and disrespectful.

          He responded by saying how he was being discriminated against due to his views. I am rather unflappable and replied to this young man and addressed his shirt as being the issue of contention, his reply was similar “I should have a right to speak my mind” 

          “you do have a right and people will respond based on how you use the  rights you have”

        • Anonymous

          And people who have had the “Yes on 1” signs on their lawns have had their windows broken out of their homes…what’s your point?

          • Anonymous

            Someone I know had “666” scrawled on their door because of their sign.

          • Anonymous

            That’s some of that famous christian love shining through.

        • Anonymous

          Did you get refused service, or entry into some establishment? Did you get beaten up? Was your house set on fire? 

        • Anonymous

          I’m sure if you had a bumper sticker opposing rights for black people you’d be harassed, too.

        • Anonymous

          I doubt it. What you don’t like is that when you exercise your right to free speech others exercise their right by telling you that you’re a bigot. That’s not harassment. That’s pure speech.

        • Anonymous

          Did you get dragged behind a truck, tied to a fench, and pistol-whipped and left for dead? Matthew Shepard did.  Did you have to walk through the halls of your high school and face constant ridicule and the word “fag” sneered at you everyday? No. Well, that is what many many American teenagers have to face every single day. So don’t whine and cry about how you are being “harassed”. Maybe if you took that hateful bumper sticker off your car and left your bigoted views inside your head, you wouldn’t have to deal with people’s dissaproval.

    • pbmann

      And just how will you be told how to live?

    • Anonymous

      You and the 68 other anonymous “Likers” should truly be ashamed of yourselves.  You are not being told how to live, unless you believe that being asked to be tolerant of all people and their rights is being forced..for which i truly feel very sorry for you.

      • Anonymous

        75  now sir

        • Anonymous

           But how many of them are sock puppets.  Many anti-gay posters have multiple accounts for that very purpose.  We know anti-gays CHEATED and THREW the 2009 anti-gay Hate Vote, why wouldn’t anti-gays be cheating here?

          • Anonymous

            First of all i am not anti gay hater.  I am all for this, married yes i am happy ever .  I work almost twenty hours a week working on this campaign to get it to get gays married, but like i said it will be a close call.  There i am done commenting to you for the day peace out sister

          • Anonymous

            My comment was directed towards those readers who liked the hateful, anti-gay post.

          • Anonymous

            I never saw that, post, i am so sorry.  Which one is it

      • Anonymous

        I do not think the radical gays should use the word marriage!   They do it to prove something, they are anti christian. Yes anti christian, it say in the bible that marriage is between one man and one woman, SORRY!!!  

        • Joseph

          There are many faiths that practice marriage, I myself like some aspects of marriage, but am not a Christian, but I will be married, when I so decide. Is marriage only for Christians? Who decides, beyond God, which everyone speaks for and is related to economic or oppression endeavor through the person speaking. Faith is usually altered historically to fit the current geographical pressures and temperament of the people. It is specifically geared to shut down outgroups with little evidence or reason beyond “They are against god” – faith becomes weaponized by people like you. I do not think Jesus would appreciate your sentiment. 

        • Anonymous

          Marriage is a relationship between human beings legally defined by government enforced laws.
          Where does it say in the bible that marriage is between one man and one woman? What about those who had several wives and concubines?

          • Marriage as defined in the bible and yes, they are all 100% factual. It is all in your bible for you to read.

            Man + woman
            Man + Wives + Concubines
            Man + Woman + Woman’s property
            Man + Woman + Woman + Woman
            Man + Brother’s Widow
            Rapist + His Victim
            Male Solider + Prisoner of War
            Male Slave + Female Slave

          • Anonymous

             But not one Man + Man or Woman + Woman.   Imagine that!

        • Anonymous

          It also says you can’t shave and eat shellfish.

          So I guess every man who’s trimmed his beard and had a lobster (AKA: Nearly every Mainer) is just as bad as those gays, right? And we should outlaw razors and lobster, right?

          Stop being ridiculous.

          • Anonymous

            The prohibitions on shellfish are quite enough to show any rational person the Bible should not be taken literally.  Thank goodness I could still sense my dinner in my stomach when you said the magic l-word.

            Cheeseburger–does that make anyone hungry?  That’s against Leviticus TOO!

          • Christians will tell you that what took place in the OT doesn’t count anymore but they want to cling to the 10 commandments which came from the OT.

            It is great irony in my opinion and another fun thing to do is ask a Christian how the days of the week came about. Most of them have no clue.

            The Naming of the DaysThe Greeks named the days week after the sun,
            the moon and the five known planets, which were in turn named after the gods
            Ares, Hermes, Zeus, Aphrodite, and Cronus. The Greeks called the days of the
            week the Theon hemerai “days of the Gods”. The Romans substituted their
            equivalent gods for the Greek gods, Mars, Mercury, Jove (Jupiter), Venus, and
            Saturn. (The two pantheons are very similar.) The Germanic peoples generally
            substituted roughly similar gods for the Roman gods, Tiu (Twia), Woden, Thor,
            Freya (Fria), but did not substitute Saturn. 

            Sunday — Sun’s day

            Monday — Moon’s day

            Tuesday — Tiu’s day

            Wednesday — Woden’s day

            Thursday — Thor’s day

            Friday — Freya’s day

            Saturday — Saturn’s day

          • Anonymous

            Not true at all- you’re referring to Jewish Kosher law. Christians do not live by those rules, as they believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which nullified those types of earthly laws. That is what separates a Protestant Christian from an Orthodox Jew. Little history lesson for you. 

          • Anonymous

            Not according to the bible:
            “For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.  Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” – Matthew 5:18-19

        • Anonymous

          What it says in the bible has no bearing on the laws of the land. Keep your religion in your church where it belongs, and keep it out of my government. If you want to believe in bronze age fairy tales, that’s your business. Don’t expect intelligent people to accept obvious nonsense.

        • Anonymous

          Ever notice when the talk is about Christianity and LGBT Americans, some people just start screaming some nonsense that “those LGBT Americans (and that isn’t what they call us!) are trying to destroy Christianity!”  That’s stupid to say that.  Sure, there are some really rotten people that say they are Christians and that tell shameful lies about LGBT Americans, but what about all the welcoming and affirming Christians?  These denominations have married same gender couples in 7 US States and the District of Columbia:

          The Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
          The Episcopal Church
          Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
          Metropolitan Community Church
          Conservative Judaism
          Reform Judaism
          Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
          Unitarian Universalist Church
          United Church of Christ

          Other individual churches are disregarding their denomination’s homophobia and are marrying same gender couples.

          These and many other denominations reject the hate speech inserted in the bible to hurt LGBT people.  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 1870.

        • Anonymous

          Your comment regarding marriage only reaffirms the ignorance those that are against this law show each and every time they quote the bible or talk about a word being thiers only, its absurdity honestly makes me laugh.  I am anxiously waiting for the responses from all of you when this passes in a couple of weeks.  They no doubt will be as ignorant as the ones before the voting took place.

        • Anonymous

          Uh, the issue at hand has nothing to do with rewriting the Bible, but with revising the law, which is a bit out of date.

    • Anonymous

      Nobody is telling YOU how to live.  And 48% of the population voted for SSM three years ago.  It will be hopefully higher this time.

      • Anonymous

        52% of the population voted for obama, and look what that got us!!!!    NOTHING

        • Anonymous

          It showed us how republicans are so hate-focused that they will destroy the country before they will admit that any non-republican might have a good idea about anything. Sort of like evangelists.

          • Anonymous

            It was the GOP in Congress who created ONLY ONE JOB, $1.5 MILLION for ONE right-wing attorney who was in the Bush Administration.

          • Anonymous

            You do not know what you are  talking about, many Democrats do not like gay marriage.

          • Anonymous

            They hate it so much that they endorsed it in their party platform?  Is that what you are trying to say?

          • Anonymous

             Those Democrats like Baldacci, Pingree, Obama, Pelosi, Warren, Franken…they all hate gay marriage so much they’ve publicly come out in support of it!

    • Anonymous

      Who’s telling you how to live?

      If two gay people down your street get married, how does that in any way affect you?

    • Anonymous

       It’s 10% and statistically you have a close family member that is part of LGBT community. Good luck not making them feel like a second class citizen.

    • Anonymous

      NO vote from me as well.

      • Anonymous

        When do we get to vote on YOUR rights?

        • Anonymous

           11/7/2012.

    • Anonymous

      So what is your threshold for when a minority is allowed to enjoy the protections of our US Constitution? Are Americans not American enough if they are in a small minority?

      By your logic Jews shouldn’t have equal rights in this country, for there are less of them than there are homosexuals.

  • Anonymous

    “We are now the ones being forced into the shadows.”

    Huh? How would the marriage of people they don’t even know magically cast these three women into the shadows?

    How would forbidding others to marry save them from being cast into the shadows?

    They and others who share their beliefs are seen and heard everywhere… often while complaining about not being seen or heard.

    • jimbobhol
      • Anonymous

        The anti-gay-marriage petition signers must be so proud to see their names posted for all to see! No sign of “shadows” there.

        Reading the comments, though, apparently some of the anti-gay marriage folks whose names were posted do wish for shadows to duck into. An interesting contradiction.

    • Anonymous

      “We are now the ones being forced into the shadows.”

      Interesting phrase-“WE are now the ones…” So they admit that gays have been forced to live in the shadows for however long there have been gays. And why do they think that is? Because gays have been beaten, murdered, denied housing, denied jobs, held up to ridicule, etc. simply for being who they are. In their case, however, I believe that the only ones forcing them “into the shadows” are themselves.

      • County Escapee

        “We are now the ones being forced into the shadows.”
        Unbelievably the irony of their statement somehow escapes them.  In an effort to keep gays in a closet, they’re putting themselves in one of their own making!   Heck, they can’t even decide amongst themselves which religion is valid!

        Going public with their opinions reminds me of the military’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’.  In an effort to keep from being put in ‘the shadows, maybe they should observe it themselves.

    • Anonymous

      Maybe it’s like having a Cal Hubbard baseball card.  It is very important and of high value to them, but later in life everyone has a Cal Hubbard baseball card, the value of their card is downgraded, it’s not as special anymore. 
      This is not an excuse, it is not to say that it’s right or wrong, just a theory to their feelings, so that people may understand why it may denigrate their marriage.

    • Anonymous

      Having a newspaper interview and your photo taken for the front page certainly doesn’t seem like shadows to me, call me crazy…

  • Anonymous

    “We are not threatening to harm anybody.”

    So, of course, you don’t believe that DENYING a group of people certain basic hunan rights is harmful? People like you claim that gay marriage “degrades the foundation of the family and society, promotes diseases and dysfunction and tears down the person’s dignity” yet you offer no proof, no statistical data, NOTHING, other than your “faith” and the talking points of the right-wing to support your position. You claim that “it takes courage” to take the stand that you do; think about those who are gay who have lost their lives SIMPLY FOR BEING WHO THEY ARE. You are more than welcome to believe what you want and just as there are people in this country who believe that Jews and blacks are inferior to whites, the laws say that regardless of what they believe, they cannot discriminate against those folks. You believe that being gay is a choice-at least the religious dogma you ascribe to does-and on that basis it is okay to deny others civil rights. Well, being Catholic, or Baptist, is a choice so, then does it follow that it should be okay to discriminate against people who are Baptist or Catholic, or whatever? Of course not, and there are laws making it illegal to do so; so then why should it be okay to deny gays the simple right to marry?

  • seththayer

    Dear Sisters:  Here is my response:  This is not, nor ever will be a religious issue.  This is a civil issue.  You keep your chosen religious lifestyle and don’t worry about the rest of us.  If you do not agree with me marrying my husband of 13 years, then don’t read our wedding announcement in the paper.  Why do you and your beliefs get to tell me how to live my life?  Why should I live by your interpretation of what your gods say?  I don’t believe in gods or religion and yet you get to practice the religion of your choosing because this is America.  Imagine if we as a state went to the polls to vote whether your religion should be banned in the state.  Imagine if we voted whether or not to add a Constitutional Amendment to ban your religion.  How would that make you feel?  Think about it….now realize that you are doing that same thing to the gay community.  
    I’ve been called f**got out in the open more times than I can remember.  Have you actually been called a bigot to your face or is that just something you think about in your mind??  

    • Anonymous

      I don’t think the sisters were telling you how to live your life.  They are just stating their opinion, as you did.  Your logic is as strange and weird as your lifestyle.  And, just because YOU say it’s not religious, it very well IS a religious issue for others.  How come you don’t allow them that?  Who’s the bigot here?  Uh, oh…I guess it’s YOU!

      • Anonymous

        Nice try — but a person doesn’t have to tolerate someone else blocking them from equal rights. Using religion as an excuse doesn’t suddenly make it okay either. People made the same exact moral arguments against interracial marriage.

        • Anonymous

          SO true, it’s legislating morality AGAIN, we all know how well that worked during prohibition with the same crew leading the way.

      • Anonymous

        “Your logic is as strange and weird as your lifestyle.”
        I think we know who the bigot is.

      • seththayer

        Dear Mr. Stevens:  Please read my response again.  They may believe anything they want, as I said in my first few sentences.  They may have their religious lifestyles and all the beliefs that come with those lifestyles.  What my point was:  Why should I have to live my life according to you and your gods, in whom I do not believe.  As a civil institution in the legal world, marriage is a civil issue for all.  One obtains a marriage license from one’s town office in Maine, not from one’s church.  The religious aspect of marriage is an added, optional bonus for those who choose it to be, as is permission from one’s church to marry.

        People may believe what they want to believe.  My spirituality is a private matter.  No person should have the right to vote on the civil (ie governmental) rights of other citizens.  But since it has come to that, I am voting for the right for marriage equality in the state.  Marriage is important to ALL Maine families.

        • Anonymous

          Exactly. They have the right to their religious beliefs. What I object to is their attempt to legilate their own version of morality and force it on everyone else. If SSM passes, no church will be required to perform or even recognize SSM. It’s a civil matter. The Bible Thumpers are always touting the Founding Fathers. What ever happened to Seperation of church and state? They remind me of a quote from Ghandi, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.”

          • Anonymous

            The “religious wrong” are LYING about the Founding Fathers.  They wanted to AVOID just this sort of attempt to force a minority religious “belief,” that LGBT Americans are “bad,” onto all Americans.

          • Anonymous

            Some of the founding fathers were atheists.
            Oh, what the right doesn’t want you to know.

          • Anonymous

            Right-wingers on Texas’s state school book committee want history books that do not mention Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd President of the US and the author of the Declaration of Independence because Jefferson wrote the phrase, “Separation of Church and State,” and was a strong supporter of non-Christian Americans.

          • I’m a strong atheist but I don’t think any of the founding fathers were true atheist. A lot of them where Deist but that does not make them atheist. 

      • Joseph

        “I don’t think the sisters were telling you how to live your life.”  – Fred is right, they are only saying you are a filthy person (Destroyer of marriage, disease spreading, immoral) and not deserving of equal treatment. I do not know you Seth, but regardless of your qualities, I am sure you are nice person, but I know plenty of men who are straight who are destroyers of marriages and they can still get married. I know tons of disease spreaders who can get married. What about non-Christians can they get married Fred? 

        “They are just stating their opinion, as you did.” 
        Yes Fred is once again correct.  Stating how people can state oppression as a religious value and another asking to be treated equally is completely the same thing. 

        “Your logic is as strange and weird as your lifestyle.”
        Fred might be right here. Minus the gay behavior, I myself engage in some wild bedroom activities and I am sure almost of them are against the bible – unprofessional smile face :D . I can still get married – another smiley face :)  Fred I am sure you are only into one boring style system – You do nothing fruity? Hey Fred, you brought up strange and weird lifestyles. Do not actually answer the fruity statement. 

        “…And, just because YOU say it’s not religious, it very well IS a religious issue for others.”
        Yes just because Seth is basically saying, “treat me equally,” and people who are religious want to control Seth and make sure he remains unequal. Oppression is the one of the best things about faith!

        “How come you don’t allow them that?  Who’s the bigot here?  Uh, oh…I guess it’s YOU!”
        Seth prevented the women from speaking about their support of oppression? Seth how did you manage this? I mean there was still an article, comments… wait, you didn’t stop them Seth! Fred you lied here. I can sorta see, how Seth is a bigot, for asking to be given respect and dignity. Seth what were you thinking asking to be treated as a person?! I mean just because you are one, is no reason to start treating you like one, if god says not to. 

        Fred – You are so cool, moral and not at all cruel, oppressive, gleeful in disparity, woeful in fascism, or at all hypocritical in anywayl. Oh wait I am lying. 

        All Joke aside. Seth I will be supporting Equal Marriage, Gay Ally Represent’in! 

      • Anonymous

        Religion belongs in church, not in government. The christian bible says it’s OK to own slaves and to have multiple wives. How come you’re not up in arms about the laws against those behaviors? Your best shot at finding a bigot in this conversation is to look in a mirror.

      • Anonymous

        I’m not seeking to prohibit churches from voicing their opinions. I’m not seeking to prohibit these women from having the same equal rights as any other American.

        That’s the primary difference, can you see that? They are seeking to prevent my equal treatment under the law— there are over 1,100 benefits and privileges granted by our government based on marital status, and there’s no justifiable reason to discriminate against gay and lesbian families for those laws.

        My opinion that you are wrong is not impacting how you are treated by our government. The same cannot be said for these sisters’ opposition, nor yours.

    • Anonymous

      For a  lot it is a religious issue. You are trying to tell others to vote diffrent than their belief’s.

      • Joseph

        Yes belief validates oppression. <— drenched in sarcasm. 

        • Anonymous

          I do think the Constitution says something about Freedom of Religion, they do not feel it is oppresion and are not against gays they don’t believe in gay marriage and it is their right to vote that way as yours to vote your way. Unless the Democrats have taken completely over and this is not a communist state.

          • Anonymous

            What religion is that, the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas, the “G*d Hates F*gs” ones who try to trash funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq?

            NO “religion” is an excuse to try to vote to SUBVERT the United States Constitution’s guarantee of “Equal Protection Under the Law.”

          • Anonymous

            That is not a religion, though you will have an excuse for that. Wesboro is off the board. The problem is Liberals, have changed the Constitution so much. Well equal protection would not that include having more than one wife?

  • Anonymous

    Ninety-six or ninety-seven percent of voters have the right to individual opinions as equally as the three or four percent of voters do, no matter their opinion. Will proponents *respect* the vote should it not be decided as wanted or will car glass be broken?

    In my opinion most Mainers have no desire to deny your your relationships. They do however have an understanding of “Marriage” as the union of one man and one woman. Can you respect their time honored definition?

    Create your own institution and name it anything you want except “Marriage” and the voters of Maine would respect you for your honesty. Why live your lives by other peoples’ definitions? Temporal laws can be changed but Divine Law cannot.

    • Anonymous

      Definitions differ by context though — obviously. We’re talking about civil marriage, not religious marriage. We aren’t able to vote on what religious marriage means. 

      • Anonymous

        Voters will make that distinction.

        • Anonymous

          It’s not something that is a matter of a opinion. The state grants civil marriage licenses, it doesn’t grant religious marriages. 

          • Anonymous

            Every Mainer has a vote. You are free to try to persuade with your opinion just as everyone else is as well.

          • Anonymous

            I didn’t say otherwise, I didn’t say we don’t all have a vote. But it is factually true that the government grants civil marriage licenses and not religious ones. That’s fact. You can deny reality all you want, but it is what it is.

          • Anonymous

            Laws can be changed. Marriage is defined as one man and one woman. Create your own institution, name it whatever you want and the law can be written to recognize everyone’s rights and benefits equally.

          • Anonymous

            “name it whatever you want” – Ok, I’ll call it “marriage”

          • Anonymous

            To quote myself from an earlier post in this very same thread “Create your own institution and name it anything you want except “Marriage” and the voters of Maine would respect you for your honesty.”  I guess I shouldn’t have assumed that people read before they post a reply.

          • Anonymous

            I quote from just ONE post ago:
            ” Create your own institution, name it whatever you want and the law can be written to recognize everyone’s rights and benefits equally.”

            You did not mention any exception.  I guess I shouldn’t have assumed that you would be able to remember what you said just a few posts ago.  But either way, soon same sex marriage will be legal and your “separate but equal” bigotry will be no longer relevant.

          • Anonymous

            If you want I can repeat it again and again, again,and again and again…….

          • Anonymous

            No use your repeating the same old anti-gay LIES again and again and again, you are only showing your inability to accept FACTS.

          • Anonymous

            Readers of this thread know where the lies are coming from.

             They have read all the posts in this thread and have perhaps been persuaded accordingly. Posters who want to preserve the traditional definition of marriage  have seen first hand the aggression that your side screams right through their computer screens. You have accused me of lying but Mainers who will be voting know that I have not.  There will be no further replies to you from me.

            Mainers, thank you for your “No” on 1 votes towards respect and civility in the state we call home.

          • Anonymous

            How many times will anti-gays claim their intended victims are “the real haters”?

          • Anonymous

            Feel free to be wrong again and again and again and again…

          • Anonymous

            Why should the minority of Americans (polls say 39%) who oppose the United States Constitution’s guarantee of “Equal Protection Under the Law” for loving, committed same gender American couples get to decide what to call legal marriage?

          • Anonymous

            That’s how marriage is defined here, but there are several states where it’s defined elsewhere. Maine’s Constitution allows for ballot initiatives, so, people don’t have to “create [their] own institution” — they can simply put it up to vote whether marriage licenses will be granted to same sex couples. That’s likely to pass. Sorry that bugs you.

          • Anonymous

             That’s factually incorrect.  Just 22 miles away from one part of Maine, namely, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, marriage is defined as any two people and INCLUDES same gender couples.  Several other US States and the District of Columbia share that definition.  There are STILL over 18,000 legally married California same gender couples from a 4 month window in 2008.  The 2010 US Census reported there were then over 131,000 legally married American same gender couples.

      • ChuckGG

        I did not realize the churches “owned” the word “marriage.”  This probably has been the biggest challenge in the whole SSM battle – the ignorance of people.  They understand they get a marriage license from the State and then go to a church.  Does it ever occur to them that these are two separate issues?  A atheist couple could get the same license and be married by a Notary Public, and in the eyes of the law, that couple is married.  No church involved at all.

        Why isn’t this distinction obvious?

    • Bryan

      Who is out there smashing car windows? They should be arrested, jailed and otherwise brought to justice just as those who commit hate crimes against homosexuals should be. The rest of us will work this out civilly. Vote yes on one.

      • Anonymous

        No one is out there smashing car windows.  Anti-gays are lying again.  They’ve been making that WILD claim for many years now, but they have NO evidence of that wild claim.

        It’s just another way in which anti-gays WHINE that their intended victims are “the real bullies.”

    • Anonymous

      STRONGLY agree.  Thank you.

    • Anonymous

      ” Can you respect their time honored definition?”
      Why does it have to be “time honored”? About 3,000 years ago, marriage was defined as a bunch of people getting wedded for political or strategic reasons. The Bible has lists of wives of the various kings of Israel. Solomon had more than 100, and many of the descendants of the kings are listed as the son of this wife or that wife. So for the folks who so dearly cling to the notion that marriage is and has always been one man and one women, read the whole Bible. Read Kings I and II and then come on here and tell me how it has always been one man one woman. Or why we should honor such and such a tradition.

      Traditions are not always worthy to be time honored. Besides the tradition of slavery, we had a tradition of not allowing females to vote for most of the time this country has been around. That was a time honored tradition. Women getting cheated out of an inheritance, that was a tradition. Wife beating was a tradition, so was child labor. From the time writinf was invented, children as young as 6 have been put to work. Any interest in reviving that tradition?

      The fact is, people who claim a religious reason for denying somebody’s rights are in the tradition of the Taliban. They too claim to be listening to God and claim that they will be the interpreter of His mind. Why do we think it is not ok for Muslim fundamentalists to run a country but think it would help us if Christian fundamentalists ran this one?

  • Anonymous

    It makes me sad that in 2012 we still live in a world where we try and treat human beings different from one another.  Really?  We no longer segregate, we not longer should be discriminating, we don’t enslave!!!!!  Why dear fellow humans can we not just treat each other EQUALLY!?  

  • Anonymous

     I accept fundamentalists as people.   It doesn’t mean that I approve of their lifestyles, but I accept them as people.

    • Anonymous

      Very well put!

      • Anonymous

        Just because you believe something does not make it true.
        Not all faith based beliefs are valid.

        Some weak sisters could have said, with more and better Biblical proof, 
        that slavery for black people is God’s will because they are the children of Ham,
        and the sins of the father are justly visited upon the child.

        > “When people say they don’t see how it’s wrong, I say to them if you can show me in the Bible where God says it’s right, then I will agree with you,” Terrill said.

        So, even if homosexuality might be a sin for you, there is a season for all things:

        http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+3&version=NIV

        … so given as an American your duty before your God is to render unto the US Constitution equal rights for all before the law, that means not the old Bible,
        but Jesus, Himself, says voting YES is the Christian thing to do.

        Mark, Ch. 12 Vs 13 – 17

        Which bring this up… where Jesus did talk about marriage;

        Mack Ch 12 ;18

        “Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 19 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. ”

        Jesus did not ever say that was not the Biblical law, did he ?
        Yet do any of you Christians follow it ?

        If you can justify that away, because it is inconvenient somehow,
        what in the Bible can’t be, then ?

        But anyway, there; ” if you can show me in the Bible where God says it’s right, then I will agree with you,”.

        So now in the name of political fairness and equal time, prove with Jesus’ words
        from Bible , with the the red letters, like I did, just how are homosexuals to be treated, please, besides being stoned to death by those claiming to fundamentally be the only real Christians *, those who would follow the Biblical laws just like the Sadducees ???

        * So let she who is without sin cast the no vote, sister.

        • Anonymous

          I wish more people had the capacity to read a comment longer than two or three sentences because this one’s right on!!

          • Anonymous

            I don’t let it bother me.
            Those who expect thoughts on politics to be tweets have little room to complain about the media, be it too liberal or corporate controlled.

            Thank you.  

          • Anonymous

            There is something to be said for getting to the point.

          • Anonymous

            Yes, I suppose there is … so what is your point  ?

          • Anonymous

            You just made it.

        • Joseph

          Well said bible quote guy – I posted under the wrong person.

        • Anonymous

          Well there you go, interpretation is everything. Right up there with belief and opinion.
          Your post is an eye opener. Spot on. But to be sure this is my opinion. 

        • Anonymous

          Jesus’ words could not be more clear.  “Go away and sin no more” is what he said to the woman caught in the very act of adultery, who was brought to him by the Pharisees as a test.  They called for her to be stoned, and in that famous exchange, Jesus called for he who was without sin to cast the first stone.  Of course, they all left.  But what is overlooked is Jesus’ words to the woman: Go away and sin no more.  He showed love and forgiveness.  He did not tell her to continue sinning and he did not suggest that we should vote to allow her sin to become law.  It is possible to show love and compassion without endorsing something we don’t believe in.

          You are right to point out that Jesus did not reply to the Sadducees when they inquired about the widow and the man’s brother.  Jesus came to fulfill the law, not to continue it.  Of course, the original purpose of the law was not that it be used as a set of instructions.  It was meant to show Israel that their faith, not their strict obedience, was what made them God’s children.  Do you really think God meant for Abraham to sacrifice Isaac on the alter?  His willingness to do so – his faith – is what set him apart.  Jesus walked through the grain field on the Sabbath, plucking the heads of grain in His hand.  He was accused of working on the day of rest.  And His response was appropriate: would you leave a donkey in the ditch to die on the Sabbath?  Then let God’s children eat when they’re hungry.  It was just another way of saying that faith in Jesus (God) is more important than sticking to rules that could never make anyone righteous in the first place.

          • Anonymous

            Define sin relative to what I referred to in the Bible.

            “There is a time for everything,   and a season for every activity under the heavens:
             a time to be born and a time to die,   
             a time to plant and a time to uproot,
            a time to kill …”

          • Anonymous

            And how does Proverbs indicate that there is an acceptable time to sin in God’s eyes? The passage does not support your position. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone. From : Disqus Subject : [bdn] Re: Why these sisters are voting ‘No’on same-sex marriage Mitt Nival wrote, in response to Ninelake: There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens: 2 a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot,3 a time to kill … User’s website Link to comment Ninelake wrote: Jesus’ words could not be more clear. “Go away and sin no more”is what he said to the woman caught in the very act of adultery, who was brought to him by the Pharisees as a test. They called for her to be stoned, and in that famous exchange, Jesus called for he who was without sin to cast the first stone. Of course, they all left. But what is overlooked is Jesus’ words to the woman: Go away and sin no more. He showed love and forgiveness. He did not tell her to continue sinning and he did not suggest that we should vote to allow her sin to become law. It is possible to show love and compassion without endorsing something we don’t believe in.You are right to point out that Jesus did not reply to the Sadducees when they inquired about the widow and the man’… —– Options: Reply with “Like”to like this comment, or respond in the body to post a reply comment. To turn off notifications

          • Anonymous

            “And how does Proverbs indicate that there is an acceptable time to sin in God’s eyes?”

             “There is a time for everything,   and a season for every activity under the heavens: … a time to kill …”

          • Anonymous

            That would be murder of innocents in most translations. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone. From : Disqus Subject : [bdn] Re: Why these sisters are voting ‘No’on same-sex marriage Mitt Nival wrote, in response to Ninelake: “And how does Proverbs indicate that there is an acceptable time to sin in God’s eyes?” “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens: … a time to kill …” User’s website Link to comment Ninelake wrote: And how does Proverbs indicate that there is an acceptable time to sin in God’s eyes? The passage does not support your position. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone. From : Disqus Subject : [bdn] Re: Why these sisters are voting ‘No’on same-sex marriage Mitt Nival wrote, in response to Ninelake: There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens: 2 a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot,3 a time to kill … User’s website Link to comment Ninelake wrote: Jesus’ words could not be more clear. “Go away and sin no more”is what he said to the woman caught in the very act of adultery, who was brought to him by the Pharisees as a test. They called for her to be stoned, and in that famous ex… —– Options: Reply with “Like”to like this comment, or respond in the body to post a reply comment. To turn off notifications

          • Anonymous

            That would be murder of innocents in most translations. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone. From : Disqus Subject : [bdn] Re: Why these sisters are voting ‘No’on same-sex marriage Mitt Nival wrote, in response to Ninelake: “And how does Proverbs indicate that there is an acceptable time to sin in God’s eyes?” “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens: … a time to kill …” User’s website Link to comment Ninelake wrote: And how does Proverbs indicate that there is an acceptable time to sin in God’s eyes? The passage does not support your position. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone. From : Disqus Subject : [bdn] Re: Why these sisters are voting ‘No’on same-sex marriage Mitt Nival wrote, in response to Ninelake: There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens: 2 a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot,3 a time to kill … User’s website Link to comment Ninelake wrote: Jesus’ words could not be more clear. “Go away and sin no more”is what he said to the woman caught in the very act of adultery, who was brought to him by the Pharisees as a test. They called for her to be stoned, and in that famous ex… —– Options: Reply with “Like”to like this comment, or respond in the body to post a reply comment. To turn off notifications

          • Anonymous

            Kindly ask your smarta**phone to keep out of this discussion.

          • Alec Cunningham

            That’s rude.

          • Anonymous

            Huh? Rude? Sheesh, tough crowd today. Or did you miss the Good Humor truck last time it was in your neighborhood?

          • Alec Cunningham

            I did miss it.  Will it come back?

          • Anonymous

            And how does Proverbs indicate that there is an acceptable time to sin in God’s eyes? The passage does not support your position. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone. From : Disqus Subject : [bdn] Re: Why these sisters are voting ‘No’on same-sex marriage Mitt Nival wrote, in response to Ninelake: There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens: 2 a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot,3 a time to kill … User’s website Link to comment Ninelake wrote: Jesus’ words could not be more clear. “Go away and sin no more”is what he said to the woman caught in the very act of adultery, who was brought to him by the Pharisees as a test. They called for her to be stoned, and in that famous exchange, Jesus called for he who was without sin to cast the first stone. Of course, they all left. But what is overlooked is Jesus’ words to the woman: Go away and sin no more. He showed love and forgiveness. He did not tell her to continue sinning and he did not suggest that we should vote to allow her sin to become law. It is possible to show love and compassion without endorsing something we don’t believe in.You are right to point out that Jesus did not reply to the Sadducees when they inquired about the widow and the man’… —– Options: Reply with “Like”to like this comment, or respond in the body to post a reply comment. To turn off notifications

          • Anonymous

            Does anyone, know what is the earthly solution to those that only some “christians ” says are an abomination to their god ?

            What exact is the conservative fundamentalist’s favored final solution to THEIR homosexual problem in America ?

            Hmmm, while that’s grammatically correct, and properly stated, given the mindset here, I do mean:

            “What exact is the fundamentalist’s favored final solution to THEIR god’s problems with homosexuals  in America ?”, too.

        • Kitchell

          The bible also says that homosexuality is an abomination to God.  If we are going to quote the bible on a topic, lets quote the bible on the topic. People create their own interpretations and pluck verses out of the bible so they can justify the sin in their lives.  

          • Anonymous

            How can what He created be an  abomination ?

            I suggest we need to see what else, besides eating pork, lobster and clams or wearing blended fabrics, are also abominations to God, too.

            BTW: While you are explaining sin and marriage, specifically, SUPPORTED by Biblical references, why isn’t it sin, an abomination to God, to not marry your older brother’s barren widow, anymore ?

            Ninelake, same thing, back to you about HOW you pick and choose WHICH parts of the Bible apply to you, SUPPORTED by Biblical references.

            Why shouldn’t I suppose it was always, and still is done for political reasons by someone who overtly, or just by implication, with arrogant pride claims that they are infallible, just as Distillrelaxin does below.

            Yet despite that they are supposed to the very paragons of Godliness,
            and Christlike, they would burn anyone who questions their overt
            or implied prideful infallible at the stake.

            So we are back to the key question of defining sin, again, aren’t we ?
            So, when is burning people at the stake, literally or figuratively,
            not one ?

          • Anonymous

             Yes…it does say that doesn’t it.  It also says a lot of things like if a man rapes your daughter he has to pay for her.  If you get a tattoo, that is also an abomination.  I love how people love to quote only the parts of leviticus that they want, while leaving out EVERYTHING ELSE.

          • Anonymous

            And when you point it out to them, one of two things happen.  1. They try to give you some bs rationalization as to why the bible reflects their opinion, but not someone else’s opinion. Or 2. (and this is the most common) They ignore you and start screaming about how you are persecuting them.

        • Anonymous

          Mitt – Your post is most likely compelling to those that do not know the Bible or Christian theology very well. That is why I must take the time to correct your misuse of Scripture – both for you and for any other reader that genuinely wants to know what the Bible says on this matter. The message these ladies gave was right in line with the heart of the gospel. I’m really sad to see opposition to it coming from someone that seems to have read God’s Word.

          1. Your use of Ecclesiastes 3 (the link you embedded) is out of context. Ecc. 3 speaks of the sovereignty of God and His divine orchestration of the changing “times” of life. These changes and different times are used to highlight the cycle of life and the lack of originality or newness in this life (Ecc. 1:9). The entire book is about the futility of seeking fulfillment in anything “under the sun” (anything apart from God) and tells the reader that true happiness is found in living a simple life in loving obedience to God’s commandments (Ecc. 12:13). King Solomon wrote this (Ecc. 1:1) and he was living under the Mosaic Law (all Old Testament commands given to Moses by God as binding on the Nation of Israel). This means that King Solomon’s admonition to keep God’s commands would include the commands against unnatural sexual relations (Lev. 18:22). This is reflected in his command for men to “enjoy life with the wife whom you love” (Ecc. 9:9).

          2. Your use of Jesus’ statements on marriage in Mk. 12 need some clarification. First, you seem to use these verses to argue that because Christians don’t abide by some Old Testament laws that they have no right to argue for the applicability of any of them. You’re arguing based on a perceived hypocrisy. That’s an ad hominem argument – a logical error. The character of the arguer has no impact on the validity of the argument. I will address the perceived hypocrisy soon.

          Next, contrary to what you’re implying, Jesus was not using this conversation to communicate New Testament regulations for marriage. He was telling us that there will be a resurrection and that marriage will not be relevant in heaven (Mk. 12:25). The Sadducees (the ones asking the question about marriage) did not believe in a resurrection and they were trying to use OT Scripture unrelated to the topic of the resurrection in order to prove their point – a point that was clearly contrary to the plain interpretation of Scripture.

          Does that sound familiar? It’s kinda ironic because it seems like what you’re doing. Jesus rebuked them for it, saying, “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God?” (Mk. 12:24). Mitt, I challenge you with those words from our Lord. Let those who are truly listening hear the words of God.

          Nonetheless, Jesus never denied that the command to marry your brother’s widow was lawful because it clearly was a command under the Mosaic Law (Dt. 25:5). However, Christians are not being hypocritical when they don’t follow it because it is not a command for Christians today. Many of the ceremonial and civil laws given to Israel were only for Israel and are not applicable to the New Testament Church (Rom. 6; Gal. 5). Many of the laws that Christians don’t follow today were tailored for the culture of the Middle East in the 15th Century B.C. (Imagine an Israelite trying to understand commands about Internet usage three thousand years ago!) However, these culturally conditioned laws contained timeless principles that are applicable today. For example, while Christian men today don’t marry their deceased brother’s widow (Dt. 25:5; Mk. 12:18-23), all Christians are commanded to take care of widows and orphans (Jas. 1:27) especially those within their own family (1 Tim. 5:3-4).

          Furthermore, Israel was a theocracy and had a unique covenant with God – one that Christians are not under (Gal. 3). We are under the New Covenant of the Spirit which is available to all those who willingly and lovingly submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ (Mt. 26:26-29; Rom. 8:1-4). In this new relationship with God, Christians are commanded to live holy lives, not in an attempt to earn righteousness, but out of worship to God for the righteousness that was freely given to them as a gift of grace through faith in Christ (Rom. 12:1-2; Eph. 2:8-9). The question that is relevant is this: What are God’s rules for holy living that are binding today? We need to look at OT laws through the lens of the New Testament.

          The New Testament clearly states that homosexuality is sinful for both unbelievers and believers today (Rom. 1:24-28; 1 Cor. 6:9). Read these verses because they leave no room for a reasonable doubt. The command to refrain from sexual immorality is stated emphatically throughout the New Testament (Too many cites to list – do a word search on “sexual immorality”). Homosexuality is seen as the failure to acknowledge God as God and a failure to honor Him and give Him thanks (Rom. 1:21). This attitude is pretty much the definition of sin and it’s a violation of the most important commandment according to Jesus. Jesus said that loving “the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” was the first and greatest commandment (Mt. 22:37-40). Loving God includes a desire to obey His commands (Jn. 14:15).

          However, God commands Christians to love those who are in sin and not to condemn them. Christians are to have grace with others just as God has dealt graciously with them. If our perfect and holy God desires not to condemn sinners but to save them (2 Pet. 3:9) Christians have no right to feel or act differently. This does not mean that Christians condone ungodly behavior by any means. Rather, it means that they confront it with compassion and love – seeking to see the person’s soul saved

          I see these ladies doing exactly as God has commanded them to do and I commend them for it.

          • Anonymous

            It does not matter what the Bible or any other religious text says. The Constitution of the United States requires separation of church and state.  Therefore, laws cannot be enacted solely on the basis of any groups religious beliefs.  And if anyone does not agree with SSM based on his or her religious beliefs, then the solution is simple, don’t enter into a SSM.  But your religious beliefs do not give you the right to impose your beliefs on others or infringe on the legal rights of others that are protected by the US Constitution.   And the next time you are enjoying a nice ham dinner to celebrate Easter, you should consider yourself fortunate that the Jewish citizens in this country haven’t tried to take away your right to eat pork!  even Ms Italien knows that to vote No is wrong because in her own words “we don’t have a right to tell them what they can and cannot do.”  Sounds to me that based on her own understanding of rights, she should be voting Yes. 

          • Eldonna Bryant

            separation of church and state is so often misconstrued in this way. There is no law that says that there has to be a separation it simply states that no one religion will be required or made the STATE religion as was the case in England. They were guarding against the very thing they had escaped from. There is no constitutional law that says that we cannot consider religious beliefs when we enact laws. Look to the writings of Jeffersoon and Washington and Madison to see that mirrored repeatedly!

          • Anonymous

            Good lord.  That was edited?

          • Anonymous

            “Mitt – Your post is most likely compelling to those that do not know the Bible or Christian theology very well. … out of context, { like not from the Bible, or from YOUR version of it, lol } …  contrary to what you’re implying” …

            All that judgemental personal opinion ?

            Who are you to both claim to know the Bible and Christian theology
            so well, then to rest upon: “God commands Christians to love those who are in sin and not to condemn them. ” acting as if a poor wretch like me should believe that you are doing so, here ?

            So, having forgiven you that, I’d ask if those that do not know the Bible or Christian theology very well, doesn’t include  all those who are more like the the good Samaritan, and the Philistine woman at the well, who understand YOUR LORD’S  message and His greatest commandment,
            than like the Pharisee’s, the Sadducees,  and those all still all wrapped up
            in the words to figure out when the world will end, and other earthly political advances to being a public outspoken, believers ?

            How is one’s god given nature and love ever a sin ?

            Your Bible reading for today is Matt.6:6

          • Anonymous

             I will most definitely apologize if my comment about not knowing the Bible or Christian Theology was offensive.  That was not my intent.  I apologize for that. 

            With that being said, my statements still stand, in my opinion, unchallenged.  I have provided biblical references for many of my assertions to ensure that I wasn’t just stating my opinion.

            I do believe that I am acting consistent with the commands to love those in sin.  Part of loving them is to tell them, with grace, that they are in sin.  If you truly believed that someone’s soul was in danger, would not the loving thing to do be to tell them?  Even if it meant that they would be offended? 

            Concerning the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk. 10) and the story of the Samaritan woman at the well (Jn. 4), I’m not sure how either one of these contradict anything I’ve said.  In fact, they substantiate my statements.  For example, Jesus lovingly confronted the Samaritan woman’s sin in the process of bringing her to salvation (Jn. 4:16-18).  Please help me see your argument.

            The Bible teaches that homosexuality is not a God given nature.  The original design was a man and a woman with the purpose of procreation (Gen. 1:27-28).  Homosexuality is a result of the fall of mankind into sin (Gen. 3) and is called a “suppression of truth”, a “sexual impurity, and a “shameful lust” (Rom. 1:18, 24, 26). 

            Finally, Mt. 6:6 is a great reminder to have a genuine private and intimate relationship with God that is not just for show.  Is that what you wanted me to know?  

          • Anonymous

             Luckily for us, your vote or opinion doesn’t count, Jesse.  Enjoy Texas.

    • Tyke

       Would you vote to allow them to marry though?

    • Anonymous

      And fundamentalists are not asking that you approve their lifestyle. They know that it is correct and they don’t need your approval and endorsement. They are comfortable without calling you a bigot if you don’t agree with them. See? 

      • Anonymous

        No, instead they will call you a terrible abomination who is going to hell for existing…

        • Anonymous

          Or they will describe in great detail what they think is “gay sex.”

        • Anonymous

          I am sorry if anyone has ever called you a terrible abomination who is going to hell for existing. That was wrong. I hope you have the strength of character to realize their rude comments are a reflection on them, not on you. I still will be voting NO on 1.

          • Anonymous

            Your hollow words are just that, hollow.  As long as you are trying to take away my rights, then you are no better than the people calling me an abomination.  You are treating me as a sub human second class citizen.  So, take your “sorry” and shove it.  You clearly don’t mean it if you are still going to take away my rights.

          • Anonymous

            I am sorry if you perceive that my not supporting the radical redefinition of marriage as taking away your rights, and no better than calling you an abomination, and your being a second class citizen and, sub human.  That is your right. With that winning argument and suave delivery of your message, your side is bound to win.  

          • Anonymous

            I am sorry you need to lie to yourself in order to sleep at night.  Keep ignoring all of the damage you cause by treating LGBT Americans as second class citizens.  But, go on, lie to make yourself feel better, that’s your right.  But you are a bigot, plain and simple and you are no better than the people who were against interracial marriage in the 1960’s.

          • Anonymous

            Well you’ve won my vote with your well – reasoned arguments.  Just kidding.  Is it possible you have “typing Tourettes  syndrome?”  This little-known ailment causes people to uncontrollably type nasty, churlish things that only serve to make them look unhinged.   

          • Anonymous

            Eh, judging by the “reasoning” behind your position, I didn’t have a chance to convince you in the first place.  After all, you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.  So, go ahead, keep fighting equal rights.  When your children or grandchildren are ashamed and consider you an embarrassment, maybe then you will realize just how wrong you are.

          • Anonymous

            Anti-gays always resort to making such personal attacks when someone refuses to help anti-gays HURT loving, committed same gender Mainer couples.

          • Anonymous

            Gays are hurting themselves with their whining, victim-hood, pity party and self  loathing.

          • Anonymous

            Why is saying you just KNOW  that someone is an abomination not rather personal ?

            Is TrickleUpPovertyForAll saying ;

            ‘Gays are hurting themselves with their whining, victim-hood, pity party and self loathing.’

            … not to be taken personally ?

            So, are you going scold him for it, too ?
            Why not ?

            How do those righteous people decide when to apply their pious double standards ?

          • I don’t blame @crs5012723:disqus  at all. People such as yourself say I’m sorry but I’m still going to deny you the basic right of marrying the person you love and why are you denying them this right? Is it because your bible written by man over 2000 years ago tells you to do so or do you just find the thought of same sex marriage yucky?

          • Anonymous

            Is your prideful arrogance and how you claim you just know God’s will changing any votes ?

          • Anonymous

            I did not mention God or God’s will in my post.  How odd of you think that I did. Are you some form of religious Zagat?  

          • Anonymous

            “radical redefinition of marriage”

            One of the most common anti-gay clichés, and complete and utter nonsense.  What is so “radical” with what has been going on in Massachusetts?  Mass. has the LOWEST divorce rate of ANY US State.

          • Massachusetts also has the lowest rate of highway deaths in the Nation, but we all know about “Mass drivers.”

          • Anonymous

            Yes, we know about Mass Drivers.  They drive like MassHoles and get killed in other states

          • Anonymous

            Yeah but I understand the first two gay people to be married in MA are already divorced. They obviously didn’t help that stat.  

          • Anonymous

             And how many hetero couples have divorced in MA since 2004?I’m betting more than one.

          • oldgrump

             And…?  Homosexuals are supposedly so different than heterosexuals that they cant  realize a “mistake” and try to correct it?  With the passage of SSM, all same sex marriages are “written in stone”  and should never be dissolved?  Isn’t one of the “perks” of a civilly recognized marriage is you also get the same protections of divorce courts?

          • Anonymous

            I don’t know if I would call any divorce an actual “perk” but I will bet the first two married gay people didn’t like it any more than any straight couple.  It’s more like they probably wished they were never married in the first place.

          • Anonymous

            That Mass. has the lowest divorce rate is what the antis call redefinition of marriage.  Well, I, for one, think that’s a great redefinition.

          • Anonymous

            How is it redefining marriage? Anybody will tell you that marriage means that two people want to commit their lives to one another out of love. 

            This just opens the club to more members. Nobody in Massachusetts feels that they are any less married because of same sex marriage there. And Massachusetts still has the lowest divorce rate in the country. So you can’t show any evidence that it hurts marriage for anybody.

          • oldgrump

            “…my not supporting the radical redefinition of marriage…”

            Merriam Webster
            Definition of MARRIAGE
            1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
            (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage {same-sex marriage}
            b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
            2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected;  especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
            3 : an intimate or close union {the marriage of painting and poetry}

            So.. what’s the “radical redefinition” that’s going to happen?   Are we changing it to mean “the lumping together of potatoes” or some such nonsense?  Or, are you referring to the EXPANDING of the definition to include more than “traditional”?

          • Anonymous

            So you found a recent dictionary. Big deal. Marriage has historically been defined as a union of a man and a woman. A contract not just between two individuals but endorsed by society. Your EXPANDING is my radical redefnition.

          • Anonymous

            Appeal to tradition.  If your argument is solely based on a logical fallacy, then you don’t have much of an argument.

          • oldgrump

            “Marriage has historically been defined as a union of a man and a woman.”
            First, you forgot to add “at a time” considering all those who have divorced to move on to new, prettier, richer, etc. Second, “a” indicates singular. You seem to have forgotten about all those multi-partner marriages in history.
            The English language is malleable.  It changes all the time, thus the reason for dictionaries to be updated. You may find expansions of the definition of a word  radical.  I find it common place. 
            BTW. That “recent dictionary”? It’s the Merriam-Webster. Considered to be one of the most authorative reference dictionaries. However, I doubt you would consider it so as it doesn’t jibe with what you believe is an accurate definition.

          • Anonymous

            Your feelings are created in your soul. You can never let others dictate your beliefs or make you doubt yourself. This is a sad situation and feel that if people could let us be who we are and accept us for what we are, then their religious beliefs could be believable. They have mixed religion with politics and politics with religion. And the stew they have come up with is not palatable to all. The 3 sisters have chosen their path and you have chosen yours. I’m not good with words but at least I have the freedom to speak them, and so do you. And on election day I will vote my will and be proud of it.

          • Anonymous

            But gay marriage is not a right.  Marriage is not a right.  There are many restrictions on marriage.  This is just one of them.  Please don’t lable me as a “hater” although if gays keep getting in my face about their sex life and lifestyle, I just might change my mind.

          • Anonymous

            The Supreme Court disagrees.  Marriage is a right and you don’t get to deny rights based on someone’s sexual orientation. 

            “don’t lable me as a “hater”” – If you vote to take away my rights, then I will most certainly call you for what you  are, a bigot.  Just because you want to try putting a smile on your bigotry doesn’t make them any less harmful.  If you don’t want people calling you a bigot, then don’t be a bigot.

          • Anonymous

            I can’t wait until this sees the SCotUS. Freeeeedoooommm!

          • Anonymous

            Don’t be so sure.As long as we have two neanderthals on the SC,no American is safe.

          • Anonymous

            I’m sorry to learn you intend to try to subvert the United States Constitution.  You will fail in that goal, whether by 6 passing or by act of the US Supreme Court., but you will fail.

        • Eldonna Bryant

          then they are not speaking as Christians Crs5, no Christian will condemn,
           only those who pretend to a faith they do not understand or practice. Many will use that name to enforce their own view but that is clear to those who actually are faithful and understand.

          • Anonymous

            Then there are a lot of pretend Christians in this country…

      • Semipermeable

        I’m laughing because you forgot about Westboro Baptist Church. Haaahah

        But let me guess “They are not TRUE fundamentalists.” Even though they too can cite everything with scripture and have their convictions. You just can’t deal with the ugly truth behind your kind-faced justifications. At least they are honest about it.
        There is no secular reason LGBTQ folks can’t enter in a civil marriage contract, you are pushing your religious beliefs on everyone else. So much for free will when the government makes you kneel to Jesus.

  • Anonymous

    Though the phrase “live and let live” has been around for a long time WE ALL would have fewer issues if WE where able to actually live and let live. 

    I’ll be voting yes.

  • Anonymous

    These “nice Christian ladies” need to become more tolerant of others. I truly don’t understand why it will bother them?   Perhaps they are worried that they will be forced to marry a female??  I plan on keeping my opposite sex partner come November 7th….but I will be voting YES on Number 1.  I do not feel I am pro-gay, but I am pro-people.

    • Anonymous

      You mean like saying, you should be more tolerant of them? They never said they hated gays.

      • Anonymous

        They did too, they said they would vote to HURT us.  That’s HATE.

        • Anonymous

          Guess you read a different article, I read “The sisters say they want people to know they don’t hate gay people.”

          • Anonymous

            “We don’t hate you, we just think that you are a disgusting abomination that is undeserving of equal treatment under the law” – How reassuring…

          • Anonymous

            Amazing, that you put words in their mouths. I guess, that should be considered hate also. They said they “don’t agree with the lifestyle”. 

          • Anonymous

            Really, because when they say that they will vote against my equal treatment under the law, that is exactly what I hear.  Just because they try to put a smile on their bigotry doesn’t make them any less bigoted.

            As for “not agreeing with the lifestyle” what “lifestyle” would that be exactly?  Is it the get up, go to work, come home, relax, repeat that they have a problem with?  You see, when people say the “gay lifestyle” I have no idea what they are talking about.  Because, and this may come as a suprise to people like you, not all gay people are the same.  But I guess that for bigots like yourself, the simple fact of my existence is what you “disagree” with.

          • Anonymous

            Sounds like you have a lot of hate to deal with, no I do not disagree with your existence.

          • Anonymous

            You just disagree with my rights as an American citizen…

          • Anonymous

            That is your priviledge being a U.S. Citizen.

          • Anonymous

            Glad you are admitting that as a U.S. citizen I have a right to marriage.

          • Anonymous

            How come some people when you try to speak normal to them, they try to subvert things that you say.  I did not say I agree you have the right to marriage. I said, as an American citizen you have the right to your opinion, as I do.

          • Anonymous

            You have the right to an opinion, but you do not have the right to take my rights away.

          • Anonymous

            I am,nor have I taken any right away from you.

          • Anonymous

            Except you have made it clear that you plan on voting to take away my rights.

          • Anonymous

            doesn’t make since. If someone wants to marry multipul spouses should that be already. I am assuming it would, under you scenerio. how can I take something away someone has never had.

          • Anonymous

            I figured that “equal rights” would be too hard a concept for you.  Why don’t you just go to bed now and let the grown ups talk, o.k. sweetie?

          • Anonymous

            As usual though resorting, to anger doesn’t help. 

          • Anonymous

            Not anger, just treating you like the ignorant child you are.

    • Anonymous

      November 7th??

  • Bryan

    Props to the BDN for willingness to publish the opposing viewpoint. Hopefully this sheds light on how bizarre the anti-equality argument really is. As others have stated, being called out for one’s bigoted views does not equal persecution, and denying equal rights under the law is contrary to the basic civil liberties this country stands for. Real Americans vote yes on one.

  • Anonymous

    God is watching us.  I don’t think he’s very happy with us either.  It is his job to judge what is within our hearts as he knows all, unlike many who like to think they do.  I too, grew up in a so called Christian home.  My personal experiences with so called Christians and their behaviors and actions have shown me first hand that there is nothing Christian about them.  There seems to be too big of a sense of themselves in that no matter what they do… i.e. lie, rape, beat, murder, thieve and deny others the right to their own beliefs is alright.. cause they honestly believe that no matter what.. in the end… all they have to do is say…Sorry.  and they are golden and good to go.  Be scared.  Be very scared.  Love is not gender restricted.  Embrace diversity.  Whatsoever you do unto me, you do unto him.  Find Peace. 

    • Anonymous

      Christians choose Christianity because they are aware of their imperfections and are looking for guidance. Anyone who considers themselves perfect is not a Christian.

    • Anonymous

      Well stated, I’ve lived through the same lies, cheats and denials, in the name of religion! May their God save these religious naive souls from their own sins!

      • ChuckGG

        Like the movie, “Follow the money.”  I think if people look at history and see the origins of the powerful churches (skipping the religious part for a moment) and see how these institutions evolved and why, it won’t take long to realize the similarity between these churches and any other multinational corporation.

        As Penn Jilette mentioned, he sees religion in its “death throes.”  I think that is wildly optimistic but if we look at the percentage of young people involved in churches these days, the numbers could be construed as indicative of his statement.  He said the shopping malls and Elvis chipped away at the believability/credibility of dogmatic church doctrine, but the internet will be the final death blow.  His point was that it will be very difficult for churches who base their control on the threats of eternal damnation when people can go to the internet and see “the world” and see how ridiculous such statements are.

        Case in point: Dying in an act for Allah will get you into heaven where 72 virgins await.

        Seriously? Does anyone actually believe that? Well, as absurd as that sounds to us, think of young people today listening to some of the stories in the Christian religions. They are equally odd and lack credibility.

        In the past, a Grand Poobah in a pulpit carried some fear and respect.  Now, they kind of look like an ordinary man in an ancient costume.  Reality has come home to roost.

      • Anonymous

         “I love God but fear some of His followers”Not sure who said it first but it makes sense.YES ON ONE!

  • Anonymous

    It seems silly that we have a political party more focused on social issues rather than fixing the nuts and bolts stuff. It is truly baffling at this point in US history why we waste so much time and money on stuff like same sex marriage when it has zero effect on those who oppose it. Voting on who we can love has no place in our political process.

    • Anonymous

      Take your social opinion to the President. He would love to have your political support.

      • Anonymous

        He’s got it, not because of this issue …… because I’m anti-wing nut.  

        • Anonymous

          “Voting on who we can love has no place in our political process.”
          **************************************

          Your words, not mine.

  • This article as much as any brings out the unfairness of present law.  Gay people have in no way prevented any of these three women from getting married, but people with the same point of view as these three women prevent gay people from getting married.  Remember the Golden Rule?  It’s very simple.

  • Traci Dempsey

    I hope for these ladies none of them have ever been divorced, they are in fact talking about protecting the sanctity of marriage after all- till death do you part.  

  • Anonymous

    After the GTBL community voted to take my rights away in 2005, I feel that I owe them a no vote.

    • Anonymous

      Your right to discriminate? Boo-hoo.

    • Anonymous

      Your vote will also be an attempt to subvert the United States Constitution.  Sooner or later, the Constitution will prevail against all the anti-gay Hate Votes.

  • JohnR

    Okay I get it they can’t survive without their faith in the Buybull. That I find weak minded but they are entitled to their opinion just don’t see why this is news. Or why their opinion should count anymore than anyone else.
    Now this I call total BS on:
    They know some in the Christian Civic League who have applied for and
    been granted concealed weapon permits because they faced death threats
    and other types of harassment.
    They don’t need a reason to apply for or have a CCW permit. Man this sounds like something Fox Snooze would run with. Poor persecuted Christians. I say tax these cults, since they want to stick their noses into politics.

  • Anonymous

    The gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transvestite population is 3.4%.  Why does such a huge minority have such a perceived influence on the other 96.6?

    They want to refine the word ‘marriage’.  OK, then why not redefine the word ‘gay’?   How about redefining the word back to ‘queer’?   In fact, the word ‘queer’ is defined in the dictionary as ‘a homosexual’.  Remember when gay meant ‘joyous, happy, merry’, etc.?

    And why are those opposed bigots?  Are those who want the law changed also bigots against those who don’t?  The argument can be made either way. 

    • Anonymous

      That’s a silly argument — there has never been a requisite that you’re in the majority to have equal rights. 

      • pbmann

        Yes, a very silly argument.  The majority hardly ever has to worry about equal rights.

    • Bryan

      You used a good phrase – perceived influence. The minority isn’t influencing the majority, you are just perceiving it that way. An increasing number within the majority is realizing that denying rights to the minority is morally wrong. Vote yes on one.

    • Anonymous

      Where your arguement fails is in the assumption that ALL of those 96.6% feel the same way as you.  I am in that 96.6% and wholeheartedly feel that equal rights for everyone is very good and discrimination is very bad.  Yes on 1!

    • Anonymous

      Oh, wow, another anti-gay WHINING that his intended victims are “the real bigots.”  When did LGBT Americans cook up a Hate Vote to deprive anti-gays of marriage equality?????

    • Anonymous

      Thank goodness you can still use the word queer huh Freddie. I mean after those book-readin commie-pinko liberals took the N word away from you, homophobia is after all the last form of hatred still sanctioned by SCOTUS. Better enjoy it until they take that one away too.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t think you have to tolerate someone trying to take away your chance at equality. That’s not intolerance. I really hate it when people use these doublespeak tactics.

  • Anonymous

    Thank you Republicans, for making a mess of a social issue that only effects those who chose this life style. Republicans accuse Dem’s all the time for being socialists … when in fact it is the Republicans who are the social-elitist.

    • Tyke

       Not all Republicans fall under your broad brush. Many support marriage equality.
      .
      In fact true libertarians do not believe in any government laws based on theology that favor one set of citizens over another. Someone who claims to be a libertarian but wants to impose their religious views on others via governmental exclusion is either unaware of what libertarian even means or  lying about  their political beliefs.

      • Anonymous

        Thank you for your insight, and I do agree. But whether they all do or do not support marriage equality it is a Large plank in the Republican platform that they continually use to spank those who disagree.

        • Tyke

           There is much to dislike and disagree with in the far right dominated party platforms. Some of us moderate Republicans are hanging onto our party memberships and working to bring it back to sanity. The 2012 election should help here in Maine. I believe that the anti LePage vote will flip one or both legislative houses to the Democrats and that will send a loud message.

          • Anonymous

            Here, here!

    • County Escapee

      Most D’s and R”s don’t follow the strict ideals that you accuse them of. I have been a registered R for over 30 years, but am pro choice and pro SSM (among many other Left ideas). Your remark generalizing R’s kinda makes you  look elitist. Haven’t you ever heard of the “Log Cabin Republicans”? You would probably label them an improbable oxymoron…

      • Anonymous

        The Republican Party of 30 years ago bears no resemblance what so ever to the Republican Party of today. Consider yourself a throw back to the days of a more centrist Republican party. This issue of marriage equally isn’t opposed by Democrats it’s opposed by the party you shill for. And yes I’ve have heard of the “Log Cabin Republicans,” whether it’s oxymoronic  or not is left to be seen, though I hardly believe it’s in your best interest to be involved with a party that has absolute disdain for your life style.

        • County Escapee

          While the party has definitely changed (and to a degree so has the D’s), I haven’t, and neither have my core beliefs. I’ll vote across the isle only after viewing the issues on their own merits and am certainly NOT a “one issue” voter, but being a fiscal conservative, I still label myself a Republican. Anybody that believes the other party as pure evil is not a thinking person.:)

      • Anonymous

        Cong. Frank refers to them as “Uncle Toms,” and I’d agree with that.

        There’s no use denying the anti-gay Hate Speech in this year’s GOP platform.  Please work to change that, County Escapee, and I thank YOU for YOUR support.

        • County Escapee

          I always thought of them that way, too (had no idea they were still around), but spending year after year as a constituent of Bawny’s, I’ve learned not to listen to nor vote for that —!

          You’ll find that I always defend the defendable, but there is little that can be done to change people’s ideas once they get it in their heads. Besides, the topic is passe’ here in Boston and we’ve found that the sky didn’t fall and I am still happily married. It’s a non-issue here.  :)

          • Anonymous

            Actually, support for marriage equality has been increasing 5% every year, County Excapee, so, yes, those who support marriage equality are indeed changing minds.

            Once again, thanks for your support.

  • Anonymous

    “Any accurate reading of the Bible should make it clear that gay rights goes against the plain truth of the word of God. As one preacher warns, man in overstepping the boundary lines God has drawn by making special rights for gays and lesbians has taken another step in the direction of inviting the judgment of God upon our land. ……Direct quotes from white preachers from the 1950s and the 1960s all in support of racial segregation. All I have done is simply take out the phrase ‘racial integration’ and substituted it with the phrase ‘gay rights.'”

  • Anonymous

    ““When people say they don’t see how it’s wrong, I say to them if you can show me in the Bible where God says it’s right, then I will agree with you,” Terrill said.”

    Fair enough. What does the Bible say about contraception? http://bible.org/question/what-does-bible-say-about-birth-control says in the second paragraph – “However, if couples decide to use birth control, they should carefully consider the method used and avoid any method that would lead to or cause abortion. One issue that needs to be considered is the fact that recent research suggests that “the Pill” may actually cause an early abortion. It is claimed that the Pill works to cause the woman’s uterine wall to reject the already fertilized egg, which causes an early abortion. Most people are unaware of this including many doctors according to the information provided. While we have not researched all the data on this, there are sites on the web that have such information.”
    ~~~~~
    ““Do you know how much courage it takes to go out in front of people and put up signs not to redefine marriage?” she asked. “How much courage it takes to put it on the back of your car? You could have your windows broken.””

    Well I haven’t seen one sign vandalized or one window broken on either side.
    ~~~~~
    “They know some in the Christian Civic League who have applied for and been granted concealed weapon permits because they faced death threats and other types of harassment.”

    Well Lewiston Sun Journal, Portland Press Herald BDN…there’s a story for you to follow up on. But maybe it’s a non story since requests for Concealed Weapons Permit have skyrocketed over the past several years. Making general statements without reasons without knowledge or examples are just guesses. I have a CWP and I applied for it because I can….nothing more and nothing less.
    ~~~~~
    ““I’m not going to say all of them, but there is a radical segment — justlike someone can say it’s radical Muslims, there’s only a section of them — there’s a radical segment of pro same-sex people that are extremely radical, and they will stop at nothing to get what they want,” Daigle said. “Those are the ones that are forcing us into the shadows.””

    Yes there are “radical” people and groups found in all societies and groups in society. The “radical” Christians that come to mind include Westboro Baptist Church that travels all over the U.S. spreading their special version of “Christian” hate. And there are individual “radical” Christians too that murder “abortion” doctors in churches in front of their families to save “the unborn”.
    ~~~~~
    The arguments against SSM normally revolve around:

    – “it’s unnatural”. Well so is contraception but we haven’t outlawed that based on the Bible.
    – it “degrades the foundation of the family”. Well so does divorce, alcoholism, drugs, greed, adultery, etc…but only one is illegal (drugs) and I don’t see to many Christians clamoring to make divorce laws tougher or to increase the drinking age or criminalize adultery.
    – it degrades the foundation of “society”. Well so does everything previously listed and no major moves have been started to change those.
    – it “promotes diseases” and so does pre-marital sex, adultery, unprotected sex, etc…and I don’t see anyone demanding we criminal pre-marital sex, adultery, unprotected sex, etc…
    – it “will lead to” it being taught in the schools, to pedophilia being legalized, to sex with animals, to one man and multiple woman, to multiple men and one woman, etc…which when pro-SSM people ask for concrete examples of any of that happening we hear *chirp*

    Don’t agree with SSM then vote against it. But mark my words the question will be decided by the SCOTUS and likely in-favor of SSM based on the 14th Amendment. Remember, the SCOTUS established that marriage was a “fundamental civil right” when they issued their Loving v. Virginia decision in 1967.

  • Tom Harvell

    “When people say they don’t see how it’s wrong, I say to them if you can show me in the Bible where God says it’s right, then I will agree with you,” Terrill said.
    So we should set up our American laws based upon their interpretation of one of the many religious books in the world.   These woman have much more in common with the Talaban than they will ever admit. 

    • Anonymous

      God made animals an quit a few are gay  so he made gay animals  so he made people gay

    • MARINE73

      Our American laws are based on the natural law of God.  

      • Anonymous

        AHAHAHAHA.

        aha.

      • Anonymous

        “Natural law” is nothing but a bunch of weird, cooked up excuses for homophobia, which psychologists established in 1953 is a mental disorder.

      • Anonymous

        No devil dog the U.S. legal code is based on English Common Law and English Common Law can trace its origins back to the Code of Hammurabi which is a well-preserved Babylonian law code dating back to 1772 BC and predates the life of Moses (1391–1271 BC) by close to 400 years.

        Facts are so very inconvenient don’t you think?

        • Anonymous

          Since when has the religious right ever let “facts” get in the way of anything?

        • Tyke

           Which I would like to point out is one of the few things still in use today that is actually older than I am.  :)

        • I HATE THIS, I DON’T KNOW HOW TO READ THE REST OF WHAT SOMEONE HAS TO SAY. I WOULD LOVE TO READ EVERYTHING YOU HAD TO SAY. LOOK ME UP ON FACEBOOK PLEASE, I’D LOVE TO TALK TO YOU TO SEE IF WE’RE ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT THIS .

      • Tom Harvell

        Who’s God? The Mormon God? The Protestant God? The Catholic God? The Baptist God? They all have different views and ideas about what “God’s Natural Laws” are supposed to be. So should we pick one? or maybe because our Founding Fathers were so petrified of one of these groups over powering everyone they founded a nation on principals of the rights of all people (mostly a hodge podge  of thousands of years of common law tradition) regardless of religion. It is expressly written that no religion should be favored over another. 
         Sooooo, what America are you talking about? 

      • Anonymous

        I’m sorry, but where in the Maine Revised Statutes can I find the part about a rape victim having to marry her attacker?

  • Anonymous

    Ladies,
    I completely respect your viewpoint as a religious belief. But Maine’s referundum is about civil marriage! Civil marriage has nothing to do with religious marriage. Like you and your siblings, I was raise in ferocious Catholic family and practice my Catholic faith rigorously. Yes, my beliefs were rooted in parochial viewpoints from small nothern Aroostook community. Over the years (now 50), I have exposed myself to a broader understanding of various faiths and have gained a better understaning of the limitations imposed by my faith and other faiths! Love and commitment exist outside of faith and religion! Every married person in Maine has obtained a marriage license from “city hall” and not from the “parish hall”! I respect religious and CIVIL liberties, and will vote YES on One!

  • Anonymous

    They seem to be forgetting everything about the teachings of their God and instead, focusing on one snippet from the Old Testament and forgetting that Jesus never spoke about homosexuality or condemned same-sex couples in any way. He would have basked in the light of their joy!

    • MARINE73

      Jesus never spoke about homosexuality?  Jesus never spoke against murder either, but is there anyone who believes that murder is acceptable because Jesus never spoke specifically about it?  Because Jesus didn’t speak specifically about something does not absolve us of attempting to determine, from God’s Word (the Bible), what God (and Jesus) would want us to do about it.    

      The New Testament is also very clear on what God thinks about homosexuality.  In Romans 1:26-27 the Apostle Paul is very specific: “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.  Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.  In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.  Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”  Paul went on the state in 1Corinthians 6:9-10; “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived; Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders…will inherit the kingdom of God.” 

      One snippet from the Old Testament?   In Genesis Chapters 18 and 19, the sin of homosexuality was so offensive to God that He annihilated both the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and everyone in them.  As well, the “snippet” you refer to was a commandment to the people of Israel.  God laid down His law in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”  “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act…”

      Jesus is God’s Son, He is God in human form, do you really believe he would be happy for someone who is practicing homosexuality?  

      • Anonymous

        That’s a lazy analogy. There is a clear victim in a murder scenario. There is no victim in a consensual gay relationship. 

        And what about the other aspects of that portion of the Bible you cite? I’m assuming you’ve eaten shellfish as you are a Mainer…

      • Anonymous

        You SURE have to go to great lengths to find some “Biblical excuse” for your attempts to SUBVERT the United States Constitution’s guarantee of “Equal Protection Under the Law,” Marine73.

        But there’s no use your LYING about Jesus.  Jesus affirmed a gay couple.  Read Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10.  From our days in Sunday school, many of us are familiar with the Gospel story where Jesus healed the servant of a Roman centurion.  In the original Greek, the word that the Roman centurion uses in this passage to describe the sick man – pais – is the same word used in ancient Greek to refer to a same-gender partner. 

  • Anonymous

    Live and let live.  People need to mind their own business.
    This is an issue of freedom to contract.
    Busybodies. Gossipites. Take care of your own relationship with your god.

    • Tyke

       If the No votes prevail I am working with some folks to circulate a citizen’s initiative petition for a new law  that forbids a man and a woman from marrying.
      .
      Fair is fair after all.

  • Go Gettem Girls!

  • pelli_girl

    I’m a Christian woman and I’ll be voting YES!

    These women are entitled to their opinion and vote.  It’s unfortunate that they cannot be accepting of all love and devotion, but we can’t all be perfect.

    Some parts of this article make me think of the Salem Witch trials, a few of their statements are so bizarre and ridiculous. “Promotes disease and dysfunction..” I realize science isn’t typically welcome in the church but they must realize that we live in a world where facts hold more water than feelings before spewing such asinine things.

    For the love of GOD, please be sure to vote so we can all be done with this nonsense.

    • Anonymous

      Yeah, I really didn’t like the tone of, “disease and dysfunction…but we don’t hate them.” 

    • MARINE73

      The three sisters are Christians.  You simply hide behind the term because you know not the word of God.

      • pelli_girl

        You’re entitled to your opinion, feel free to cast your judgement on me!  I’m so happy that your judgement is not the one I care about – have a fantastic weekend!

      • Anonymous

        The voice you hear in your head comes from the opposite direction, Marine73.

      • Anonymous

        They are Christian in name and bearing, but not in action.  To deny others what you yourself have a legal right to is not kind or loving.  My God loves all of his children equally regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation etc….  I know these ladies are acting out of their love and respect for God.  I do not believe that they have a full understanding of what God wants from us.

  • All I have to say on this issue is that when I was a toddler my parents gave me this little puzzle where you put round pegs in round holes and square peggs in square holes and pounded them to the bottom with a hammer.

    After several hours of repetitave hammering you fiquere out what works and what doesn’t!

    If every kid had one of these when he was little there wouldn’t be an issue about gay marriage!

    • Anonymous

      Sorry for the crude idea, but you might want to watch some gay porn. It could be highly educative.

      In all seriousness, this is probably the weakest argument there is, which is saying something. I sincerely hope that you’re kidding.

      • Anonymous

        an ladies do the same to if you bother to do a search you would of know that thats how i found out

    • Anonymous

      As a real life homosexual, I can tell you that things “fit” just fine.  If “god” didn’t want men to have gay sex, he wouldn’t have put the prostate in it’s current location.  

      • Anonymous

         If God wanted men to have homosexual sex, he would have created Adam and Steve, not Adam and Eve.  Let’s see you guys reproduce!  And that was God’s purpose–to multiply and fill the earth–you guys can’t do that, can you????

        • Anonymous

          Just WHO claims same gender couples “don’t procreate”?  The Child Welfare League of America says there are at least NINE MILLION children of same gender parents.

          “Question: How Many Children Have Gay Parents in the US?

          According to the Child Welfare Information Gateway, between 8 and 10 million children are being raised in gay and lesbian families.”

          http://adoption.about.com/od/gaylesbian/f/gayparents.htm

          ” A 1995 National Health and Social Life Survey by E.O. Lauman found that up to nine million children in America have gay or lesbian parents (Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, 2002). ”

          http://www.cwla.org/programs/culture/glbtqposition.htm

          Before some anti-gay tells that standard anti-gay LIE that same gender parents are somehow inferior to mixed-sex parents:

          “A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.”

          http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/341

          • Tyke

             You are attempting to fight a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
            .
            The use of facts, science and logic is so unfair of you.
            .
            /snark

          • Anonymous

            I know I won’t convince anti-gays.  Psychologists report that the most commonly observed symptom of the mental disorder homophobia is an inability of those so afflicted to accept documentation that contradicts their deep-seated phobia and hatred of LGBT Americans.  But I want others to see the documentation, complete with website addresses, for the FACTS I post.
             

          • Anonymous

            Tyke, there have been no facts, science or logic at all here.  Pro-homosexuals can only spew hatred and silly gibberish.  Do you also believe that two men (or two women) can reproduce??  So who’s facts, science and logic are wrong here?  By the way, I have NEVER lost a battle of wits and it certainly isn’t happening here.  You like that cliche, don’t you?  You hide behind cliches and twisted information to try to prove the unprovable, make sense out of nonsense and all you can do is reply with misstatements and ignorance.    I’m just sitting here laughing at you all and I’m sure your blood pressure is skyrocketing right through the roof.  Take two chill pills and call me in the morning.

          • Anonymous

            Anti-gays always resort to such vicious personal attacks when we refuse to help them HURT loving, committed same gender American couples. 

          • Anonymous

            Not talking adoption, carrotcakeman–I’m talking REPRODUCING!  Apparently your hatred has given you the inability to read.  When you can show me that two men can have a baby together, then I’ll listen.  When a baby is born, there has to be a male and a female involved somehow.  Did you skip biology too?????

          • dadoje

            What about straight couples who can not have children. They can adopt also.

          • Anonymous

            What business is it of YOURS where they came from?  TELL us all why YOU want to HURT them!

        • Anonymous

          You condemn same sex relationships while endorsing incest?  I knew that the people against same sex marriage were backwards, but I didn’t know it was THAT much.

          • Anonymous

            And the anti-gay poster “Marine73” tells us he wants to “marry” his dog.  Euw, I do wish anti-gays would STOP posting about THEIR OWN sexual obsessions.

          • Anonymous

            Well, Marine73 probably still hasn’t learned that “woof” means no.

          • Anonymous

            That’s actually very funny.  

        • Anonymous

          So why does God create sterile people?

  • Anonymous

    IF you believe in the Bible then question 1 is a no-brainer.

    • Anonymous

      IF you believe in the Constitution and the idea of freedom then question 1 is a no-brainer.

    • Anonymous

      How many time had the bible been rewriten an it was not done by god it was man to suit his views

      • Anonymous

         Answer?  —  ZERO

        • Anonymous

          You just like the anti-gay lies slipped into the Bible, freddie, you THINK it EXCUSES your attempts to SUBVERT the United States Constitution’s guarantee of “Equal Protection Under the Law.”

        • Anonymous

          Ditka’s biblical blunder is as common as preachers delivering long-winded public prayers. The Bible may be the most revered book in America, but it’s also one of the most misquoted. Politicians, motivational speakers, coaches – all types of people – quote passages that actually have no place in the Bible, religious scholars say.
          These phantom passages include:
          “God helps those who help themselves.”
          “Spare the rod, spoil the child.”
          And there is this often-cited paraphrase: Satan tempted Eve to eat the forbidden apple in the Garden of Eden.
          None of those passages appear in the Bible, and one is actually anti-biblical, scholars say.
          But people rarely challenge them because biblical ignorance is so pervasive that it even reaches groups of people who should know better, says Steve Bouma-Prediger, a religion professor at Hope College in Holland, Michigan…

      • Anonymous

        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

    WHO CARES IF YOU DON’T AGREE WITH SAME-SEX MARRIAGE OR THEIR LIFESTYLE? THIS IS ABOUT FREEDOM OF CHOICE AND EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW, SOMETHING WHICH YOU LADIES OBVIOUSLY DON’T AGREE WITH. Same-sex marriage does not change your faith; it does not change your marriage; it does not threaten anybody or anything aside from opponent’s hurt feelings. This is simply the exercise of freedom, something which most Americans tout, but apparently few believe in.

    “Freedom of religion” means people can practice religion in any way they choose, including in ways that go against your own beliefs. This is a fundamental aspect of the structure of our nation, and it is sad to see someone vote to deny secular benefits and recognition under the law because of their opinions on faith.

    And if you say that you love gay people but dislike the idea of same-sex marriages, you are being hypocritical. Marriage is such a big part of so many people’s lives, that it becomes a part of that person. My major goals, aspirations, dreams, wishes, whatever you may call them are as follows: find a steady job, find a partner, and get married to that partner, so I can call him my husband.

    Just the concept of voting on how people run their lives is ******* sad! It’s no wonder that nearly a dozen recent court cases have all been in favor of same-sex marriage or equality under federal law, because it’s obvious that most people (those who are both for and against legalizing same-sex marriages) have no shred of objectivity to consider this with. If you get past your initial reaction of “oh, that’s wrong!” or “God says it’s a sin!” there is no legal or societal-based reason to deny gay couples the right to marry.

    Lastly, I would like to leave you with this to consider: “marriage” does not equate to “holy matrimony” (and it never has, pick up a history book for once). “Civil unions” do not equate to “marriage” (even if it were only a difference in name (which it’s not, mind you), that is still unequal). “Freedom of religion” does not equate to “protection of your religion” (if your faith is swayed by secular law, it’s quite obvious that one of those things was already faulty (and it’s not the law)).

    Sorry for the long, rambling post; it’s obviously quite an emotional issue for people WHO ARE ACTUALLY AFFECTED BY IT. Before anyone starts arguing against same-sex marriage, I would suggest reading up on one or two of the many, many court opinions in favor of it.

    • ChuckGG

      Frustrating, isn’t it?  I have been working on this issue since long before the 2009 vote.  Some people just don’t get it, and they are not going to get it.  It’s like trying to teach a cow to dance – it wastes your time and annoys the cow.

      Let’s hope the majority holds until after November 6th.  Then, just allow attrition to work its magic.  That must have been what the inter-racial marriage, the Women’s Right to Vote, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, people must have done.  I’m sure there are a few stragglers from 1920 who still feel women should never have gained the right to vote.

    • Anonymous

      Who cares, its still wrong and all supporters know it…..adding laws is not going to make you feel better about your deviant lifestyle

      • Anonymous

        How is anything “wrong?” What is your basis for that assertion? Is it what you determine? Is it what history determines? Is it what nature determines? There are always arguments for both sides, so get off your high horse and bloody think for yourself for once.

      • Anonymous

        Anti-gays are trying to SUBVERT the United States Constitution’s guarantee of “Equal Protection Under the Law,” that’s WRONG, and anti-gays know they are not loyal Americans, but anti-gays think they will feel better about their trying to TRASH the Constitution if they can throw this vote like they did in 2009.

        • Actually Mr. Cakeman, This argument over marriage for yet another group has NOTHING to do with the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.  If we were really talking “equal” here we would be considering the removal of civil marriages (for straights and gays) altogether.  Currently married couples enjoy 1400 “special” benefits not afforded to singles.  Where’s the equality there?

  • ChuckGG

     I believe the sisters miss the point entirely.  People are entitled to believe what they wish.  But, unlike the sisters, I won’t be voting against their freedom to worship as they choose.  A better approach for these sisters would be to simply abstain from voting on that question.  That would be the equivalent of not approving of SSM but also not actively trying to prevent it.

    This is not so dissimilar than Chick-fil-A who likely never will approve of SSM but at least has stopped donating millions against SSM.  They have placed on their website a statement saying they will treat everyone equally and “going forward” they will take a neutral stand on the issue.  That seems fair to me.

    I see the sisters’ vote of No as actively voting to deny civil rights and religious freedom to a minority that causes them no harm.  That really is offensive.  I certainly would not take such an action.  I also include religious freedom along with civil rights as many churches would perform SSM ceremonies if allowed by law.  A vote against SSM is a vote against the religious freedom of those churches.

  • Anonymous

    Get over it already.  People move on and mind your OWN business for awhile.  If it was the government telling you that you couldn’t do something you would all be screaming.  Explain to me, how letting gay people getting married actually truly hurts YOU.  If gays getting married hurts, erodes or whatever crap people claim it will do to the “foundation” of marriage then it was very stout in the first place.  I am married with children and as about as conservative as you can be but this whole arguement from the “straight” side is completely foolish.

  • Anonymous

     “we don’t have to accept same-sex marriage as normal and natural” 

    Thats fine but I don’t accept Catholics as being normal either but I am not saying they shouldn’t have the same right to beliefs.

    • Tyke

       … but wouldn’t you enjoy it is we were voting on THEIR right to marry?

      • Anonymous

        No, I wouldn’t feel right about taking other Americans rights from them.  I know what it feels like.

  • Anonymous

    I think these people are confused. We’re not walking advertisements. Someone being in a gay relationship isn’t a ploy to entice you to also be in a gay relationship. People aren’t billboards. Just like being a Catholic isn’t an advertisement, or painting your house blue. People ought to be able to make their own choices, especially when it’s something as fundamental as creating a family. To say somehow you’re being victimized because you have gay neighbors is an insult to people who are truly being victimized. 

    • I’m “being victimize” because as a single person I pay higher taxes than married individuals.  I’m being “victimized” because I can not assign my health care benefits (reserved to spouses) to anyone I choose. I’m being “victimized” because I pay higher insurance rates than my married neighbors.

      O.K. gays want to get married.  I’m jake with that, BUT don’t say it is about “equality” because it isn’t. It is about securing benefits for yourself that you currently do not enjoy…movin-on-up, like the Jeffersons….   Human nature, but definately self serving. 

      • Anonymous

        It’s about equality. You get the benefit if you get married. Gays are being barred from that because they’re gay. They’re being treated unequally. 

  • Stephanie Crosby

    ““We love them as a person, but we don’t have to agree with their lifestyle; but we love them as a person,” Litalien said.”

    That’s exactly right, Mrs. Litalien! You DON’T have to agree. Just like I don’t have to agree if you want to have 15 kids and home school them all in literal Bible studies and Creationism! Though I may think you are setting back their personal growth, you are protected from my spiritual and ideological views.

    Unfortunately, homosexual Mainers do not enjoy the same protections from your spiritual and ideological views.

    The suggestion I make to you is: Your yard signs and bumper stickers are going to be safer from these alleged “radical pro-gay marriage” types if Question 1 passes. Nobody will care that you believe gay marriage is against your belief system, as long as they have the right to exercise their personal freedom as much as you do.

    Vote Yes on 1. Protect American values.
    And by all means, continue to openly disagree with what your neighbors do. We will too.

    • Anonymous

      Thank you.

  • MARINE73

    Amen, sisters!  It is the sin of homosexuality, not the sinner, that we are against.  But the sinners twist and spin our message into one of personal hate.  The truth behind this issue we have on the ballot is that it is really about the acceptance of homosexual behavior.  The proponents are clouding the real issue and refuse to speak the truth.  If you vote to redefine marriage on the premise that people should be able to marry whomever they want because of love and compassion and everyone should be happy, what will you say then to the man who wishes to marry his dog?  Will you deny him?  They say it is a civil issue?  A marriage is a marriage, whether you consider it civil or holy.   If you vote to redefine marriage, you are stating that homosexual sex is acceptable.  That’s what this vote is really about.

      

    • Anonymous

      “The truth behind this issue we have on the ballot is that it is really about the acceptance of homosexual behavior.”
      So you think it is the government’s job to enforce (your) moral standards? That’s extremely tyrannical. What you believe about homosexual behavior is not (and cannot be) “correct” through some universal law. It is all subjective.

      “If you vote to redefine marriage on the premise that people should be able to marry whomever they want because of love and compassion and everyone should be happy, what will you say then to the man who wishes to marry his dog?”
      I would say that the dog can not consent, nor is he of the same species, nor is he likely an adult by our standards. You cannot equate differences in gender with differences in the species; the two are completely unrelated. Using your argument, I could claim that opposite-sex couples shouldn’t be able to marry — look how different in physical composition they are!

      “If you vote to redefine marriage, you are stating that homosexual sex is acceptable.”
      I would refer you back to your first point, and sex is not a prerequisite nor a requirement in marriage in the eyes of the law.

    • Anonymous

      You seem to show way too much interest in marrying a dog.  I sure hope you don’t have any dogs, and your neighbors keep their dogs away from you.

    • Anonymous

      “If you vote to redefine marriage on the premise that people should be
      able to marry whomever they want because of love and compassion and
      everyone should be happy, what will you say then to the man who wishes
      to marry his dog?”

      Do you know of any animal that has conscious thought, can read, give informed consent and sign their legal name to a license application devil dog? If you do, please let me know because I would love to be their agent as they will be worth millions on millions of dollars. Just so you understand, Francis the Talking Mule and Mr. Ed the talking horse were movies and tv shows. They don’t exist in real life.
      ~~~~~
      “Will you deny him?”

      Yup I will. Why, because animals, trees, tissue boxes, etc…cannot enter a legal binding contract because they do not have conscious thought, they cannot read, they cannot give or grant informed consent and they cannot sign their name to a license application.
      ~~~~~
      “They say it is a civil issue?”

      Really? Show me one article, bill, piece of legislation from any state that allows SSM (or from ANY state ) that is attempting to allow anyone to marry their dog, car, trees, apple pies, etc…

      • Anonymous

        I agree with you except for one thing: Animals do have “conscious” thoughts. They are well aware of what they are doing when they hunt for prey or look for a way to jump onto the top shelf of the closet.

        • Anonymous

          Do you own a car? Can your animal change the oil? Change a fuse? Change a tire?

          Do you own a “smart” phone? Can your animal turn it on? Input a phone number using the touch screen? Open an email?

          If you see a strange dog and that dog starts to charge at you, it’s not because they wish to meet you. If you turn and run you just became a toy, prey something that needs to be caught. That’s instinct.

          • Off into the Wizard of Oz again jd.?/  I know many people who can’t change a fuse, tire, or oil.  I also know people who don’t know what a “smart” phone is, much less how to program one. Your contention is that these people are somehow “less human” than those who know this stuff?

            I have also read of human beings… right in this very paper… who consider the rest of us prey. 

             

          • Anonymous

            Tux try to stay up with the conversation now….we were talking about conscious thought and animals. I didn’t bring up humans, you did.

            Now show me a horse that can talk and I don’t mean Mr. Ed. Show me a dog that can read a contract,recite back the key points and sign their full legal name (not simply “make their mark” especially if it is a male dag). Show me a ferret that can verbalized informed consent to a medical procedure by saying “Yes I consent to the treatment offered”. Then you will have made a point.

            I would agree that there are some people that consider other human beings are prey….and two of those people that became prey for others were Matthew Shepard and Charlie Howard.

    • Anonymous

      Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults. A dog is not an adult and cannot consent.

  • Anonymous

    Some day soon,researchers will discover what some call the “gay gene” and the B.S. that being gay is a lifestyle choice will finally put to rest,I am sure some people experiment with homosexuality,but the vast majority of homosexuals were created that way,just like being left handed,short,tall, blue or green eyed. Then some smart apple theologian will discover a passage or verse is the bible that makes it O.K. to be gay. It always struck me as funny how many people want to be free to live their lives the way they want while denying others the very same opportunity. once,catholics would go to hell if they ate meat on friday,then the next week it was O.K. because a man,not God said so. I know it is only one religion out of many but you get the idea.

  • Anonymous

    The abuse that students suffer at school because they don’t believe in same sex marriage is unbelievable.  They are called homophobes, bigots, fundamentalists  (even if they are not),  teachers don’t do anything to stop it.  The new bullies in school are the gay students and their supporters.  i have personally witness this and the administration is afraid of them

    Thank you ladies for your courage.  

    • Anonymous

       What a bizarre fantasy!  We know for a fact LGBT students are victims of bullying.  Just how many ways and how many times will anti-gays WHINE that their intended victims are “the real bullies”?????

      • Guest

         Probably forever.  It is always easier to blame the victim than it is to acknowledge personal wrongdoing.  Probably the most common defense in any case involving a hate crime.  Sad.

    • Anonymous

      What a complete crock.  You keep telling yourself that this actually happens, maybe you will even believe it yourself.  Called a bigot, or a hyprocrit, well yeah i would buy that.  But they are only be told the truth about the way they are acting.  Bullying though??, not hardly.

    • Anonymous

      There is no excuse for students who oppose same sex marriage to be bullied, but what about openly gay students? Think their lives are a picnic?  Happily, in my view, ever more younger straight folks accept their gay and lesbian fellow citizens and don’t oppose their right to marry. For many younger Mainers, it’s not a big deal and straight folks increasingly celebrate gay marriages in those states that allow them. It’s also very good for business, as even the most hate-filled Republicans sometimes appreciate. 

      • Anonymous

        Don’t worry, anti-gay children aren’t being attacked, their anti-gay parents sent them to school wearing t-shirts with hate speech on them, and all that happened is the schools made them turn their nasty t-shirts wrong side out, same as any time when some stupid kid wears something inappropriate to school.

    • Anonymous

      Yes, it’s not the gay kids who are committing suicide, it’s the straight homophobes.

      OHWAITNO

    • Anonymous

      Really?  How many straight young people turn to suicide because they are straight?  Young gay people have been tormented for YEARS and so many beautiful young people have killed themselves.  Not because they feel it’s wrong but because people have told them over and over that their natural feelings that they were born with are wrong.  How many YEARS was that tolerated?  (and it STILL is!)  I’ve never heard of a straight person being tied to a fence and beaten to death either.  Why don’t you tell Matthew Sheppards’s mom how straight people are picked on???

      • Anonymous

        And of course, the religious right fights tooth and nail against any effort to protect LGBT students.  Apparently, stopping them from bullying  gay kids to death violates their religion…

        • Anonymous

          Just more of the anti-gay propaganda, they say they want to “protect” children UNLESS they are LGBT.

      • Anonymous

         Read the RS article about how gay kids were bullied to death in Michele Bachmann’s congressional district.The school district did NOTHING until they were sued.

    • I read your statement to my daughter who is in the 8th grade and it made her very upset. She is going to the school resource officer tomorrow because there are some kids on the bus that refuse to stop calling another child a fag*&t even though my daughter has stood up to them many times.

      She also has witnessed kids, both male and female bully and tease gay kids almost daily. She has never once witnessed a gay child bullying a straight one, ever and all this is taking place at the new Brewer school.

      You are doing nothing but spreading false information and if you said what you typed to my daughters face you would have gotten an earful of truth. How can you ever dare to state the gay kids are the new bullies is mind blowing.

      • Anonymous

        It depends on the area/district.  All schools and populations are different.  My gut is telling me letstrythisagain’s experience is the exception and not the rule but I’m not sure ‘d call it false.  I know that at the HS I went to, kids were ridiculed for being Christians (which I did see) and I can see the No on 1 crowd having a difficult time.  There is, understandably, a lot of emotion around the issue but bullying on either side of the fence is never productive.  

      • Anonymous

         Thanks to you for raising a great kid!She and those like her(male/female,gay/straight)are the real future of America.Much good fortune to your family!

    • Anonymous

       You nailed it.

    • Semipermeable

      Seriously? What universe did you beam up from? 

  • Anonymous

    Heck yes we think you’re a bigot… there’s no good reason NOT to allow two consenting adults of the same sex join in a legal union, except that you (and others like you) don’t approve of their choice. Well get over it! We’re not “pro-gay” – Question 1 isn’t a recruitment pitch – the rest of us have just moved on into a more tolerant century.

    • Anonymous

       Yes, tolerance of those with differing beliefs is the first thing popping into my head as I read your post (rolling eyes).  And before you jump all over me, I’m not against civil unions for gays.

      • Bryan

        Civil unions are the same thing as “separate but equal.” Where are tolerance and human rights in that conversation?

        • Anonymous

          Exactly! Creating a separate ‘civil union’ distinction is, in my mind, patently unconstitutional as it breaks the ‘equal protection’ clause. Not sure why the tea-partiers, who hold the Constitution so dear, aren’t up in arm about this.

          • Anonymous

            The Tea persons only pretend to support the Constitution.  The Tea/”Gay Obsessed Party” members of the US House of Representatives have been quoted as wanting to revoke “Equal Protection Under the Law.”

        • Anonymous

          But you are separate..forcing one to accept gay marriage cannot be done.

          • Bryan

             You are right, the law cannot force you to accept gay marriage, just like the civil rights act of the 1960s couldn’t force people to accept African Americans.  The law isn’t designed to change your opinion, only to ensure that other human beings do not suffer at the feet of your prejudices.

          • Anonymous

             I just wish the pro-gays would stop liking themselves to the suffering African Americans were  forced to endure.It has nothing to do with gays. You have the choice to be gay. African Americans had no freedom to chose freedom or slavery.

          • Anonymous

            You’re right.  There is no comparison.  One is a group of people being denied the right to marry solely based on the person they want to marry and the other is a group of people being denied the right to marry solely based on the person they want to marry.  Oh, wait….

          • Anonymous

            Being gay is not a choice.

          • Anonymous

             Being gay is NOT A CHOICE, get it through your thick skull! One of your family members is likely to come out of the closet in the next 5 years, will you disown them because of their “choice” or will you realize that is who they always have been, and it wasn’t a choice to be who they are. It is YOUR choice to accept who they REALLY are.

          • Anonymous

            what evidence proves the gay gene exists. I believe it is a social thing but i cannot prove that either.

          • Anonymous

            No one said anything about a gay gene.  Do you honestly think that the only biological factor is gentics?

          • Anonymous

            Just because they didn’t suffer slavery doesn’t mean they don’t have rights. When someone is denied equal rights on the basis of a perceived characteristic, it’s against the Constitution. Period.

            It’s perfectly legal for a pedophile ex-priest to marry a pedophile ex-nun, even if they have no desire to produce children of their own. Even if they don’t expect to stay faithful to one another. Yet somehow that is less harmful than a couple of the same sex getting married? That defies all rational thought.

          • Anonymous

             Thank you Bryan!

          • Anonymous

            Nobody can force you to accept it, just like nobody can force you to accept intermarriage between faiths, or races. Except, of course, if you have a public accommodation, in which case you have to accommodate, or face the legal consequences.

            But this law will not require any church to perform marriages they don’t want to, just as the law is now.

      • Anonymous

        Why should we tolerate people who seek to make me sub-human?

        • Anonymous

          We didn’t make you anything. 

          • Anonymous

             Denying my rights is making me sub-human. And if you’re actively partaking in that, yes, you are making me that.

        • Anonymous

           That is your belief and not supported by facts.   Maybe you have a self image problem.

          • Anonymous

             It is supported by facts. You don’t want to give me the equal rights granted to all humans by the constitution, therefore you do not view me as an equal human, therefore you view me as below you, therefore you view me as sub-human.

          • Anonymous

            Everyone has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex, including you.

          • Anonymous

            Everyone has the same right to marry someone of the same race.  That argument didn’t work in the 60’s and it won’t work now.

          • Anonymous

             You are the new winner in the race for the most ignorant comment of the day.

          • Anonymous

            When the anti-equality people stop using their arguments from the 60’s, I’ll stop pointing it out.

          • Anonymous

            So, by your definition, it’s better for a gay man and a lesbian to marry, even though they have no intention of staying faithful to the person they are married to, even though they have no intention of having children together.

            A sham marriage of opposite gender  supports the idea of marriage better? If a heterosexual couple who engages in all sorts of extra-marital affairs is married, and they have each other’s permission, is better for marriage? Really?

            Though your statement is currently accurate, I hope it will no longer be the case on November 7th.

      • Semipermeable

        But a state marriage is a civil union. It is a contract from a judge. No one is making churches preform ceremonies or consider them ‘married before God’. You are denying people’s families important legal benefits because of a word. Very kind of you.

        • Anonymous

           No one is making churches preform ceremonies or consider them ‘married before God’.
          YET! Lawyers everywhere are just waiting for this to pass to start the legal battles.

          • Semipermeable

            You sound like one of those paranoid survival guys with a bug out bag and tin foil hat. Probably just my perception of exaggerated paranoia, pardon me. 
            This bill expressly includes language that says churches are not forced to preform ceremonies. This language was likely written by lawyers to protect that expression of belief. You are denying the facts in front of your face.There already are many ministers, churches and judges that are willing to marry LGTBQ couples. There is no need to force a church to preform the ceremony. The only cavat is if they own facilities that they accept public funds for, they have to allow ALL of the public to use it. Of course, I’ve noticed that when church groups ask for cash to keep gay people away, they have no problems finding it. Just look at NOM. They’d foot the bill for private facilities I’m sure, being charitable good people and all. Of course, if you’d rather cause suffering and legal vulnerability to a ton of LGBTQ families and their loved ones because of what might happen in the distint future, well, that reflects more on the sort of person you are. Not much more can be said, really. 

          • Anonymous

            What legal battle? Name one that has occurred in Massachusetts, or NH, or New York, or DC, or Iowa.

            The law clearly states that churches may continue to decide who gets  married in their church. The law only allows town/city clerks to give marriage license to unrelated adults of the same gender.

    • Anonymous

      There is no good reason to fundamentally change the definition of marriage because a vocal minority wants to. Get over it. If you don’t agree with my position,you must be a bigot.

      • Anonymous

        I was going to copy your comment and change a few words to show how your argument isn’t much different from the arguments against interracial marriage, but then I realize that I didn’t need to change anything at all.  The 1960’s called, they want their arguments back.

        • Anonymous

          Well since you don’t agree with my position, obviously you must be a bigot.  While you try to paint my view as racist, I’ll paint you view as ignorant, and frankly insulting to the civil rights activists of the 1960s who labored to right old wrongs, not make up a new “right” out of thin air.

          • Anonymous

            Anti-gays always WHINE that their intended victims are “the real bigots.”  Yawn.  Can’t you at least cook up an ORIGINAL anti-gay lie, distillery?

          • Anonymous

            I am sorry, my response to the poster who with no evidence to back it up, inferred that I was a racist for not endorsing gay marriage.  You are correct, that was a display of tolerance and love. Bigot. 

            Oh, I almost forgot, you expanded my anti gay marriage remarks to be anti gay in general. Very tolerant of you, Bigot, bigot.

          • Anonymous

            Learn to read.  I never said that you were a racist, just that you are the bigoted equivalent of a racist because you are taking rights away from your fellow citizens.

          • Anonymous

            Just HOW MANY TIMES have you WHINED that your intended victims are “the real bullies”?  This nonsense (that’s the word I can post here, I have another in mind) is getting seriously OLD.

          • Anonymous

             Explaining how your feelings towards gays mirrors the feelings of the KKK towards blacks does not make someone  a bigot (sorry that you are offended by facts.) But they are simply pointing a factual comparison of your arguments to the very same arguments made in the 50’s by people oppressing blacks. Sorry you can’t accept your own hate filled speech but it what you are saying, the quicker you accept how hateful you are, the quicker you can progress passed a 1st grade understanding of sexuality.

          • Semipermeable

            It’s ok, metaphors and hypothetical comparisons are hard. They require imagination. 

          • Anonymous

            Not even that, they just require basic reasoning skills.

          • Anonymous

            Hmmm, people being denied marriage solely based on who they want to marry.  I’m not the one trying to take rights away from an entire subsection of American citizens, you are, therefore you are the bigot.  

            P.S. According to Loving v. Virginia, marriage is a right.  So, according to you, they were the ones who “made up a new right out of thin air”.  You don’t like it, then overturn interracial marriage.  Until then, marriage is a right.  Deal with it.

          • Anonymous

            I agree that marriage is a right. You appear to believe that this right extends to any and all with no restrictions whatsoever. Your false slippery slope argument is my slippery slope argument  Forgive me for being so ignorant that by redrawing the definition of traditional marriage, pro gay marriage folks will then say “whoa there, polygamy, man-corporation marriages, etc, those are waay totally different. A vote for gay marriage is a vote for gay marriage only.” Uh huh. Then bring on the lawsuits galore. Of course, churches won’t be forced to marry same sex couples, but we’ll sue the hell out of the Knight of Columbus  if we can’t have our reception there. (see the Obama view on forcing religious institution to provide contraception care to their employees for a glimpse of what is to come.)And I don’t want to deal with that.

          • Anonymous

            “I agree that marriage is a right.” – End of discussion right here.  You don’t get to deny rights just because you don’t like them.

            “You appear to believe that this right extends to any and all with no restrictions whatsoever. ” – You can put a restriction on a right, as long as there is a logical reason to put a restriction.  People against same sex marriage don’t have that logic.

            Your slippery slope fallacy is just that, a fallacy.  If your entire argument is based on a logical fallacy, then you don’t have much of an argument.

            Blah blah blah, suing bigots, blah blah blah – Marriage laws have nothing to do with that.  If you wanted to be a discriminatory bigot, you should have fought harder against the anti discrimination laws.

            “And I don’t want to deal with that.” – Too bad.

          • Anonymous

            Again, with you calm reason and rational demeanor, I’m sure you side will do quite well come election day. You can think arguments as fallacy, but that does not make them so. Slippery slope, slippery slope. By the way, if the measure does pass, I’ll be sure to post the examples of slippery slope issues as they appear. 

          • Anonymous

            “You can think arguments as fallacy, but that does not make them so” – Except the slippery slope fallacy is a commonly known fallacy.  It’s not just me saying that your argument is incorrect.

            Also, I’m sure that if it passes, your persecution complex will go into overdrive.

          • Anonymous

            And normal, non-homophobic readers will laugh even more at your ridiculous claims that “everything will be destroyed” if the gay couple down the street get married.

          • I wonder why Canada has not imploded yet. They have allowed gay marriage for many years but yet, they are still doing rather well.

          • Anonymous

            Where did I claim that  “everything will be destroyed?”

          • You think people will want to marry their dogs, their toasters and their cars right? You think the pedophiles will win their right to marry children, correct?

            Your slippery slope argument is 100% pointless and useless. It has no merit, at all.

          • Anonymous

            That is a statement of your opinion, not of a fact. 

          • Anonymous

            Earlier you claimed marriage is NOT a right.  You just flip-flop as much as your anti-gay Willard and your “Gay Obsessed Party.”

          • Anonymous

            There is absolutely no public interest served in denying homosexuals the right to marry each other of the same sex.

          • Anonymous

             Great arguments.  Saved me a lot of typing.  Remember when they added sexual preferance to the anti-discrimination laws.  They told us then that they had no intension of asking for anything more and assured us they would not be  asking for same sex marriage.  What will happen is that they will still not “feel” accepted by society and within a few years will push for GLBT indoctrination, (they will call it an “education” requirement.), in the schools.  Just like in California.

          • Anonymous

             What are you so afraid of? Like seriously, No one has ever turned someone gay!!! Are you just afraid of the real truth about yourself? Your lack for a true understanding of sexuality, and your own for that matter. Does it scare you that someone could possibly feel a strong connection with someone else, some much so that they would go against the grain to attain a real marriage with that person?

          • Anonymous

            It never will be a “real” marriage no matter what they wish to pretend or call it.

          • oldgrump

            As long as the government recognizes it as a ” ‘real’ (legal) marriage”,  it doesn’t matter what you wish to pretend or call it.  I could consider your marriage  (if you have one) invalid.  My “church” may consider it invalid.  However, as long as you have that civil marriage license, the State government recognizes it as a marriage and my opinion of it doesn’t matter.

          • Alec Cunningham

            Then there is no harm in letting us get that legal document, then, is there?

          • Anonymous

            Those laws protect you from discrimination because you’re straight, you know. Just like they protected that teacher in the ad. He kept his job, PRECISELY because of that law. He quit the job of his own volition, some months later.

          • Anonymous

            Anti discrimination laws are pure bullcr*p. Anyone who is going to discriminate knows full well not to state the real reason and simply finds another allowed reason to do so. Like the person is a smoker. Or they drive a Ford.

            However, anti-discrimination laws do work against the very people they are supposed to help because many employers find a reason to not hire the protected class so they can avoid even the chance of a frivolous lawsuit.

          • Anonymous

            Keep working on that law degree, Trickle.  You clearly don’t have the concept right. As I said, they worked in that teacher’s favor. You’ll find that, should the shoe be on the other foot, they will work for you too.

          • Anonymous

            You don’t have to. The K of C will still have the right to choose to let somebody else get the catering business.

            Show me where polygamy bills have been introduced. That argument was used in Illinois in 1980 when they overturned the sodomy laws there. After 32 years, any polygamy bills? No. Funny how you guys always jump to polygamy. Seriously, when have you ever heard a bunch of guys standing around talking and somebody says ” I sure wish I had a few more wives to deal with?” Get real.

          • Alec Cunningham

            The KOC be sued now for not hosting a reception for gay who have had a commitment ceremony.

            There are laws currently on the books that prevent discrimination.  If the KOC rents out its spaces to the general public but denies gay members of the general public the use of its facilities, that is currently illegal due to the law affirmed by the people in 2005.

            This scenario has nothing to do with marriage.

            (Also, the KOC is on record of being against same-sex marriage).

            http://www.glad.org/rights/maine/c/anti-discrimination-law-in-maine/

          • Semipermeable

            You obviously need to google definition of the word bigot. 

          • Anonymous

            Equal rights under the law for everybody, including straight people, and white people. It’s not a new right. It’s an old wrong, and this law will fix it.

        • Anonymous

           The 1960’s or the 1860’s?

          • Anonymous

            Sometimes it is very hard to tell…

        • In case you missed this video making the rounds. If you have not seen it, you have to wait for the surprise.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JsRx2lois&feature=youtu.be

          • Anonymous

            I saw that, it’s such a good video.  Unfortunately, the anti marriage equality people probably won’t get it.

      • Anonymous

        Current polls show only 39% of Americans still want to VIOLATE the Constitution by denying marriage equality to LGBT Americans.  YOU are in the minority.  Get ready for your coming final defeat on marriage equality.

      • Anonymous

        The “vocal minority” in regards to marriage equality are the anti-gays, now reduced nationally to just 39%.  I hope you are sincere about accepting anti-gays are of minority status.  This minority status is precisely why anti-gays will NOT be allowed to define legal marriage as a special right just for mixed-sex couples.

      • Would it make you feel better if I told you that accepting same-sex marriage would not be so much a redefinition of marriage as a return to “the old ways”? 

        Same-sex marriages were practiced and widely accepted in North America prior to the arrival of white settlers from Europe. Google “Two-Spirit people” or “berdaches” and you will find that traditionally, the natives of America not only accepted, but in many cases revered what we would call “gay” men and women amongst them, and allowed them to marry people of their same sex.So really, if you take Judeo-Christian religion out of it – which many anti-gay-marriage folks claim they do, although I don’t necessarily buy it – the TRUE conservative position, the one that preserves our American heritage best, is to RETURN to allowing same-sex marriages in America.  

      • Anonymous

        There is absolutely good reason to treat Americans equally under our laws, and allowing same-sex couples access to civil marriage abides by the demands of our Constitution.

        If you don’t agree with  the freedoms our Constitution protects, that’s your choice.

        I’m voting YES on question 1 in November, because all Maine families deserve the ability to protect their lives and families with civil marriage.

      • Anonymous

         The same percentage of this country that is african American, is also gay…
        about 13% of the US is African American, about 10-14% of this country is part of the LGBT community.

      • Anonymous

        Nobody is fundamentally changing the definition of marriage. Marriage, to most people, means committing yourself in love to one other person.

        What does this law change about that?

        Nothing. Do you know anybody in Massachusetts who feels their marriage is diminished because gays and lesbians may wed there? Do you feel your marriage is diminished because same sex couples can marry in NH, New York, Iowa, Spain, Portugal, Canada?

    • Anonymous

      I have a question.  Assuming you get the legal right to marriage, would that require churches to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples?  I know right now a church can refuse to marry any couple for any reason.  I’ve never heard a “right to marriage” argument before, but if marriage does become a protected right, what does that mean for churches?  I agree that consenting adults should be able to marry who and how they choose but I also think churches should be able to say “this goes against our teachings, sorry”.  I’m not trying to be hateful, I wouldn’t expect to walk into a catholic church for example and say “I demand you marry me”. Can someone help me understand how that would all work out?

      • Anonymous

        There is a special exception in the law that states that churches could not be forced to marry same sex couples.  Even if that section wasn’t in the law, the state cannot force the church to marry anyone.  The law would only require the state to provide marriage licenses to same sex couples.  If you are still worried about the church being required to provide marriages for things they oppose, remember that there are churches that still refuse to marry interracial couples. 

        • Anonymous

          Thank you crs.  I feel like a schmuck  for being relieved that people would still have the right to be jerks..  Even though I’m not qualified in the least to say how God feels about same-sex marriage and whether or not a legal marriage is the same as a religious marriage, I would like to see the two aspects broken out.  Legally, consenting adults should be able to marry whomever they choose.  Religiously, well, that’s between them, their church, and their beliefs and really not for the gov’t to get involved in.

          • Anonymous

            No problem, and I agree.  I have no right to force a church to perform my marriage, but the church doesn’t have the right to dictate legal marriage for me.

        • Anonymous

           The catholic church won’t marry someone who has been divorced before….THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS CHURCHES!! That is not going to change.

      • Anonymous

        No church is required to perform any ceremony they don’t want to.

        Period.

        The law only allows town/city clerks to give marriage licenses to same sex couples. But it does allow churches who want to be able to marry same sex couples that right.

  • Anonymous

    Once upon a time a very wise man said to me… Believe nothing of what you hear… and only half of what you see.. and, if you can do that… you should be rendered without judgement. 

    Each and every one of us can witness, experience, or see the same thing, yet, we can all see something different, based only,  and depending on, the personal knowledge or experiences that we bring with us that allow us our opinions and the right to them.  Doesn’t mean that our opinions are right.  Or wrong.  I say, live… and let live.  Love is never wrong.  If it truly is love. 

    Ladies… a very wise person also told me… be careful what you wish for… you might get it.  Then you might also find that it wasn’t what you wanted at all.  You sit there, in your church, in the house of God (perhaps not)… and you state your claims and beliefs as if, they were, God’s.  God is very well capable of speaking for himself.  

    You might just well have bitten off a little more than you are capable of chewing,  so to speak.  Perhaps the fallout will enlighten you to how some have been made to feel and how they have been forced to live because their beliefs are different than yours?

  • Anonymous

    Totally agree with these ladies.   And, we must realize that the going door to door campaign that the pro-homosexual marriage people have been doing is geared to find out those who oppose and cause distress to them–think about it!

    • Anonymous

      If that is the case why have the supporters been to NOT to engage in debate with people they find “door to door” that oppose SSM?

    • Anonymous

      How many times are anti-gays going to WHINE that their intended victims are trying to “cause distress to them”?????

      Can’t you anti-gays at least cook up a NEW anti-gay LIE?

  • “… what we are saying is this degrades the foundation of the family and society, promotes diseases and dysfunction and tears down the person’s dignity.”
     
    I wonder if these nice ladies could take a moment to consider that they are not being heard/listened to, because ignorance is not a viable political platform. (although lately it seems to be gaining ground.) Their religion does not give them by extension a weightier argument in this discussion. Religion is a personal matter, just as is whom we choose to love. 
     
    As long as “marriage” is a construct of the state (US government) with deferential rights and privileges then it is unconstitutional for anyone to be denied the right to legally marry under the law. Now, if the government chooses to refrain from providing a binding legal contract concerning a social/religious custom (marriage) it would be free to discriminate. Of course if there is no legal contract, then the debate is moot.
     
    Why can’t the naysayers just get over themselves? No one is trying to change their world view nor how they live their lives. It is they who are fighting so hard and long to perpetuate the status of second class citizenship and inequality based on religion.  
     
    BTW…to the ladies in the article; my religion declares sex and love to be the most holy of sacraments and encourages it’s adherents to share of their bodies and emotions with whomever they choose as often as possible as a gift to the Gods. (not really, but could be, I do have friends that believe so) Shall I take a contingent of my brethren to DC to demand that my religion’s tenets be written into law?

    • Anonymous

      “…..my religion declares sex and love to be the most holy of sacraments and
      encourages it’s adherents to share of their bodies and emotions with
      whomever they choose as often as possible as a gift to the Gods.”  YIKES–you absolutely have the wrong religion–you need one that uses the Bible as authority. 

      • Anonymous

        Freddie, YOU need to stop telling the same LIES about the Bible that the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas tells.  You know, Freddie, the “church” that tries to trash funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq?

        Are YOU a member of that “church,” Freddie?  You’ve been promoting their peculiar, minority “beliefs” here.

  • Anonymous

    It doesn’t take “courage” to try to SUBVERT the United States Constitution’s guarantee of “Equal Protection Under the Law” in a secret ballot, it’s evidence of COWARDICE.

    • Anonymous

      Equal protection already exists in this case, carrotcakeman.
      Every person -gay or straight- who applies for a marriage license is subject to the SAME marriage laws, which defeats the equal protection argument. What this ballot question proposes is a change to the existing law.

      Socially speaking- there can be an argument made concerning equal treatment. But if you’re talking about law- there’s no standing for an equal protection argument.

      • Anonymous

        No, LGBT Americans DO NOT have the SAME right to legal marriage as mixed-sex couples do.  The Iowa State Supreme Court unanimously established marriage equality in April 2009, and this is their answer to “You have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else”:

        “It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation, and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute. Instead, a gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class-their sexual orientation.”

        http://www.iowacourtsonline.org/Supreme_Court/Varnum_v_Brien/Supreme_Court_Ruling/

      • Anonymous

        Hm… So if someone wants to make interracial marriage illegal, you would be fine with this argument? After all, blacks weren’t being denied the right to marry — they could marry other blacks!

        • Anonymous

           NOT at all! In fact, interracial marriage fits the equal protection argument because marriage laws as they exist now don’t have any racial implications. Currently, a state would have to ADD a law to ban interracial marriage- thus, making a legal argument for equal protection. Marriage laws, as they stand today, clearly outline gender. It applies across the board- aka: equal protection.

          • Anonymous

            And marriage laws, as they stood in the 1960’s, clearly outlined race.  It applied across the board, and yet, it was still unconstitutional…

      • Anonymous

        That’s the same logic that was used in Jim Crow laws, which were struck down as unconstitutional. The spirit of civil marriage laws are to allow families to protect the lives they build together— telling gays and lesbians they should enter into loveless marriage contracts with people they have no affinity for is a cynical slap in the face.

        • Anonymous

          Your claim is simply not accurate. Jim Crow laws originated BEFORE the Equal Protection clause was enacted through the 14th amendment- and the two laws completely oppose each other. Jim Crow laws allow segregation, plain and simple. Unfortunately, the Equal Protection clause wasn’t able to be successfully applied for decades (until Brown v. Board) because the Jim Crow states argued that the 14th amendment did not apply to the concept of state citizenship, only federal citizenship.

  • Anonymous

    The sisters’ supposed fears of recrimination, bullying, being “forced into the shadows”, and being afraid to say where they live rings very hollow when you consider they were given, and accepted, the opportunity to express their opinions in the newspaper.

    • Anonymous

      Anti-gays have been claiming for years that they have been “bullied,” but they’ve never produced any PROOF of that.  It’s just another anti-gay LIE.

    • Anonymous

      It’s self-victimization. It makes them feel righteous and like the martyrs they worship. Fighting against equal rights is nothing like what Jesus was crucified for.

  • Anonymous

    Remember when Christians thought slavery was just dandy? And whites and black shouldn’t marry? Bigotry comes in all forms and shapes and colors…There are still places that forbid folks to marry Norwegians..

    • Anonymous

       I don’t remember when slavery was dandy. 

  • Anonymous

    Interesting that Jesus said not a word about this issues. And we all know the abomination unto the Lord thing in Leviticus was referring to pagan rituals worshiping Baal  and had nothing to do with gayness per se….But there are some things I wonder about….
    1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
    2. My neighbor would like to sell his daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus
    21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
    3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
    4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors down the lane. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
    5. I have a cousin who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
    6. A friend feels that even though eating clams and mussels is anabomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination thanhomosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there’degrees’ of abomination?
    7. Lev.21:20 states that I may ! not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I am going to the hospital for cataract surgery. Is that going to be a problem for me at Sunday services? Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
    8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
    9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 10. I know a man in Dixmontwho owns a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it reallynecessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws as it states in Lev. 20:14?
    11. And what about the gay lobsterman from Stonington who pulls traps on Sunday and wears clothes made of more than two kinds of thread and plants both potatoes and corn in the same field…Wow….Four abominations in one day.

    • Anonymous

      One of my favorites.

      • maineiac123

         mine too

  • Anonymous

    Last time I checked….biblical law was not a substitute for civil law and the civil law derives from the Constitution NOT the bible.   When people are sworn into political office they place their had on the bible and swear to uphold the Constitution….NOT to uphold the bible girls.  Try again with a basic civics 101 lesson.  Oy.

  • Anonymous

    When people who choose to take a religious stance on ANYTHING, decide to live 100% by the Bible – and not just cherry pick what suits them – then I will have more respect for religion and those that “abide” by it. 

    • Tyke

       It certainly does appear that all of these ladies are wearing sweaters that contain more than one type of material. Of course they have all gone to the town square to await their stoning to death punishment. It’s required in the Bible after all.

  • Anonymous

    “Thought the phrase “live and let live” has been around for a long time WE ALL would have fewer issues if WE where able to actually live and let live”

    Couldn’t agree more, hey, can I bum a cigarette?

  • Anonymous

    Vote for whatever you wish but there is no need to sermonize about it. Thank God everyone is allowed a vote,  and maybe this time the vote will pass.

  • Anonymous

    The book of Leviticus speaks to same sex relationships as well as to other aspects of life.  The sisters should read Leviticus.  All of it and see if they are practicing all the tenants set forth there.  If they are then I think they can stand their ground.  The problem with people who use the Bible to promote hatred and intolerance is they are picking and choosing segments of the Bible.  They are not looking at the Bible as a whole.  Jesus taught love and acceptance.  If he returned today he would be appalled at the things that are being done in his name.

  • Anonymous

     Pastor Phil Snider’s presentation re:  homosexuality and why it’s wrong.  Listen to the whole speech.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=A8JsRx2lois

  • Randall Flagg

    it won’t pass in Maine. it didn’t last time – sure there are a lot of people in southern maine – but how many are actually FROM maine and registered to vote here and/or who will go to the polls? i thought so.

    NO on 1

    • Anonymous

      Speak for yourself. You sound incredibly arrogant.

      Yes on 1.

      • From an expert on arrogence

        No on one, because the State needs to get out of the marriage business

        • Anonymous

          And then you’ll work to get rid of legal marriage all together? Somehow I doubt it. 

        • maineiac123

           And replace it with what?

    • Anonymous

      Ah maybe you should check the question you voted on last time because a Yes = Repeal and No = Keep the SSM as approved and signed into law.

      So if you voted No in 2009 I thank you for your vote to support SSM.

    • Anonymous

      I’m actually from Maine, and so are hundreds of my friends, and we’re definitely voting YES on 1.  Sorry, Randall.  It’s over!  So happy to be supporting people who want to live equally in Maine!

      • Randall Flagg

         LOL I doubt it will pass…I’m a betting man. If interested I’ll throw $5k on it won’t pass.

        • Anonymous

          He says from behind his veil of anonymity.

      • maineiac123

         I’m from Maine too, south of Bangor and north of Portland.  My family has been in Maine for over 400 years and yep, I’ll be voting YES. (Actually I’m visiting a friend in Australia right now and have already voted YES)

  • Anonymous

    “But we have no right to hate them and no right to tell them what they can and cannot do…”

    Isn’t that what you are trying to do by voting NO on Question 1?

  • I would not say that the sisters are being hateful or bigoted, just expressing their own opinion but to say that letting gays get married promotes diseases and dysfunction shows that they don’t know what they are saying.  If they marry they are promising to be true to one person and being true to one person is what marriage is about. Now, tell me how many straight people have diseases and are dysfunctional! How many straight people are living together “in sin”?   AND who says that just because you are gay that you can’t believe in and love GOD!!!! 
      Now for something that I have been saying for years” A person does not wake up one day and say, I want to be gay and have people shun me, hate me, and think me dirty!!”   I am not gay and I do not care if you are or not, you live life your way and I will live mine!!

  • Anonymous

    Are these sisters aware that the Bible says that if a woman’s husband dies, she must marry his brother?  Are these sisters aware that during biblical times, men had many wives? 

  • Anonymous

    I will be voting No.  And if this passes, you bet we will be put under pressure – churches, private businesses etc. will be forced and sued to accept gay marriage and promote it in their business.  Look at this one business in Vermont and how it is being destroyed because a Gay couple was not allowed to have a wedding reception at a private inn.  This will be happening in Maine and probably already is  http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2011/07/aclu-lesbian-couple-sue-vermont-inn-over-its-no-gay-reception-policy/

    • Anonymous

      That is not related to the marriage law at all, mate. In fact, the first sentence of the article clears that right up: “A Vermont inn violated the state’s anti-discrimination law… according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday.”

    • Anonymous

      Ah love….in Maine it is already illegal for a business to deny services based on “sexual orientation”. This law does not change that fact.

      MRSA §4591. Equal access to public accommodations

      “The opportunity for every individual to have equal access to places of public accommodation without discrimination because of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, religion, ancestry or national origin is recognized as and declared to be a civil right.”

      That means if you deny services based on any of the specified classes you are violating Maine law today.

      And no a church will still be able to deny a marriage ceremony based on sexual orientation when it violates their teachings.

      • Amazing how this country survived without the government telling everyone how to run their businesses. 

        • Anonymous

          Isn’t that what the anti-gays want, to force the government to tell LGBT Americans how to run our personal business?

        • maineiac123

           So you think it’s ok to discrimate against non-whites?  jews? catholics? baptists? women?  others?  Is that really what you want?

    • Anonymous

      It’s already illegal to do that in Maine. If an inn in Maine tried to do that, they could be sued. We voted on an anti-discrimination bill in 2005 and it passed. 

    • Anonymous

      When the owners of the Inn publicized itself as  “Four Seasons for Everyone!”, and decided to host receptions, they screwed themselves.  If they did not host any wedding receptions, they would have had a case.  And, as my other posts show, their religion does not prohibit gay marriage … and, in terms of St Paul, even mandates it as preferable to sex without marriage.

       

    • maineiac123

       1. The Constitution would determine whether a church would have to go against it’s beliefs and the Supreme Court has consistently said no law can force that upon a church.  So that argument is  dead and died some 230+ years ago.
      2. What that business in Vermont did was illegal in Vermont and in Maine whether SSM passes or not.  That business, open to the public, simply cannot discriminate.  Would YOU like to be told you cannot use a restaurant, inn, hotel, waterfountain, bus etc simply because of your religion? or because you are white? or non-white? We have laws protecting EVERYONE against that regardless of race, color, ethnicity, religion, sexual preference.  Those laws already exist and SSM will not change them.

      • Anonymous

        All marriage businesses in Maine will have to serve Gay couples.  Since Gay marriage is NOT legal in Maine, it would be foolish to sue someone if they refused to give gay marriage services since it is illegal.  Hence, a receptional hall/inn could not be sued for having a Gay marriage there because it is illegal.  If this law passes, it will fall on small business owners to chance their stance on marriage and we will all be required to give services to them, even though it is against our personal and religious beliefs.  A wedding cake company is being sued for services.  My company can be sued for services.  I do not want that to happen!

        • maineiac123

           “it would be foolish to sue someone if they refused to give gay marriage services since it is illegal.”  You’re wrong.  A same-sex couple could go through the ceremony of marriage without being legally married. If a reception/hall etc refused to rent the hall for that purpose they could and should be sued.  Just as they could and should be for not renting to non-whites, or jews, or catholics, etc. 
          As far as your own company is concerned don’t discriminate and you won’t have a problem will you?  If you cannot accept that than frankly you should go out of business.   Should you be permitted to refuse to provide services for jews, or blacks or catholics or athiests?  Do you really think you should have that right in this country?  I don’t.

    • Anonymous

      It’s already against the law to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. And please do explain how businesses would be forced to “promote” same-sex marriage? I’m not finding that language anywhere in the bill.

  • Jennifer Ward

    these women are in some serious denial 

  • kalgari shorey

    A friend of mine (who is openly homosexual) posted this on facebook. this is  only a clip of what she wrote and I completely agree with it. “I am deeply saddened, but not at all surprised, that religious entities are the biggest supporters of the campaign for discrimination.  “But the Bible clearly says…”  Hogwash.  I’m tired of hearing what the Bible says.  I don’t even want to capitalize the word “Bible” right now.  I’m only doing it out of respect.  Go pick out all the implicit instructions in the Bible, number them, and tell me what percentage are actually applicable in today’s world.  Who wrote the Bible?  Go pick out a book in the Bible and then tell me it hasn’t been interpreted 100 different ways.   Who’s the main character in the Bible?  I’ll answer this one for you – Jesus.  What did Jesus preach?  Love.  What did Jesus advocate?  Love.  Who did Jesus discriminate against?  No one.
     
    There is a place for religion – to commune and share love with each other.  Unfortunately, religious entities are choosing something other than love.  And they are doing it out of fear.  I think it’s a fear of God and what they believe God wants.  I think people are trying to do what they think is right.  But unfortunately, and all too often, people turn to religious entities and stop thinking for themselves.  They forget that they are in control of their own hearts and minds.  We are God.   God isn’t an entity outside of us.  We are part of that “higher power.”   Pull up your britches, people, and take some accountability.
     
    Also, and all too often, religious entities lie.  They are spouting lies all over the place right now.  I know this to be true.  I know what legal rights I do and don’t have.  Churches are telling people that I have equal rights and that I shouldn’t be asking for more equality in this world because I’m just as protected by the law as my married friends and family.  THESE ARE LIES.   And when the church says, “we love you, we just don’t love your behavior,” well I’m sorry, but all I heard is “I don’t love.”    What did Jesus preach, share, and embody…. Love.  Do I have faith in religious entities that don’t choose love?….  No.  I do not.”

    So before you go judging people. take a look around. we fought for equality for african-americans because they were being treated not as people, but as something completey different. What is the difference between what they went through and how the people of the gay community are being treated on a daily bases. If your argument is the fact that marriage is sacred, well explain to me this, if marriage is so sacred why do STRAIGHT people have a 50% divorce rate? I am not gay. But i WILL stand up for what i believe in and I WILL vote yes on 1 in November.

  • Anonymous

    VERY well said!The only murderers who are near an abortion clinic are the anti-choicers like Roeder and Salve.The idea of a fundamentalist with a weapon scares me more than anyone.A same sex couple certainly doesn’t scare me-that is to be celebrated.
    Two more things-there was the big kerfuffle recently when the BSA voted to discriminate.Now we are seeing pedophilia in its ranks hidden for decades-sound like any church you know?PLENTY of the conservatives on here cheered the BSA’s decision-not so much from them now,is there.
    Look up Scott Desjarlais- another conservative who decided pro-life was good for everyone but him.Another story that the so called Liberal Media skipped over.YES ON ONE from this heterosexual who wants all Mainers to enjoy life with whom they wish.

  • Anonymous

    It is not courageous to deny rights you have to others as it offends your religion, that is hypocrisy! 

  • Anonymous

     As well as the story of their gay friend helping them out.That is just stunning to have that kind of duplicity against another couple who has done something for you-yet they’re willing to believe the blather of a nonexistent person.

  • Anonymous

    “When people say they don’t see how it’s wrong, I say to them if you can
    show me in the Bible where God says it’s right, then I will agree with
    you,”… The problem with that idea lay in the fact that the Bible tells us what is WRONG, not what is right.   Once we get past the First commandment, the idea that “Thou shalt NOT” dominates the discussion.

    Nowhere in scripture is there a condemnation of Homosexual behavior [either really study the Old & New, or see book “Saint Paul’s Joke” (2012, Kindle & Amazon etc),  for specifics].  What is in the New text, is the idea that Gentiles who become Christians should NOT MARRY at all (1 Corinthians 7).  But it also says they are, like the Hebrews, and followers of Peter, required to keep all the laws.  So it follows that these sisters are either Kosher, or bigoted hypocrites — they cannot base their bigotry on a scriptural view and ignore what scripture requires…  Jesus only gave, and  required obedience to,  TWO commandments: The First of the Ten, and that we treat others as we would want to be treated.  If we wish to be denied the right to marry who we love — as blacks & whites who loved each other were once  forbidden marry — then, and only then, should we vote to deny loving couples the right to marry.

    they say “We are Christians and we are commanded to love”  — as you would be loved … Jesus’ second commandment.   They go on to say, “we don’t have to accept same-sex marriage as normal and natural.” Yet, if Jesus’ time, even Caesar married another man, and neither Jesus, nor any of the Apostles took issue with it … with the exception of Saul (St. Paul) who said do not marry at all … remain single as he remained single…. unless your flesh was weak and only then should you went — rather than burn.  Which infers a commandment to allow same-sex marriage by the man responsible for nearly half the New Testament teachings and interpretation … and the only person who was appointed by Peter & James to give those teachings to non-Jews. 

  • Anonymous

    Irrelevant spam.

  • Anonymous

    “And my heart breaks for them being encouraged to stay in a harmful lifestyle that degrades the body and corrupts the soul.”

    Promiscuity achieves the above. Promoting monogamous lifelong relationships through marriage does the opposite whether it is a same or opposite sex marriage.

    • Anonymous

      I had a good friend who espoused all the virtues of Christianity. Then she had an affair with a married man, resulting in the break up of his family. Then she went on to have the man’s child. So now two children are without a full-time father. And yet she continues to rail against same-sex marriage, claiming it will ruin society.

  • Anonymous

    Maybe you’re not hateful or bigoted — just ignorant.

    • Anonymous

       They’re all three see my post to aprilsunshine

  • Anonymous

    I am a Christian and believe marriage is between a man and a woman.  However, if put to a public vote, then I would accept the outcome of that vote.  I figure in the end, as with everything else we do or do not do in our lives, God will judge each of us individually.  That is when we will have to account for how we conducted ourselves in this life.

    • Anonymous

       As a Christian you need to pay attention to the teachings of St.Paul (see book, Saint Paul’s Joke) … he said no sex, mo marriage, but if you need sex, then marriage.  He did restrict it to gender, ans was writing at a time when even Caesar married a man.

      Jesus required that we not deny others what we would want for ourselves — so voting against same-sex marriage effectively means voting against one’s own right to marry…. or violates the teaching of Jesus.

      Nothing in Scripture opposes same-sex marriage.  New testament doesn’t even mandate reproduction.  Out Testament … Adam was required to multiple, but after Flood the requirement was to “REPLENISH”  That is, bring the population back to per-flood levels… NOT over populate the world.

      But that’s just what the books actually say — not what various Church Doctrines claim … as they promote inquisitions and witch-hunts.

    • maineiac123

       If there is a god, which I truly do not believe, then that judgement will be based on how you treat others and this how you treat the earth, not how much you follow the bible.  When and if you vote no then you will not be treating others as you would want yourself to be treated.  I think your god would have a problem with that.  I seriously doubt he would have a problem at all with you voting YES for equality. 

  • Anonymous

    So, where in the Maine state laws is it written that marriages can be conferred upon residents and non-residents by ONLY an ecclesiastical body and ONLY in an approved house of worship? If you can prove to me that having a belief in a form of religion is a legal requirement in order to participate in marriage, then I will vote no.  In the meantime, when I last checked, there are 5 different societal roles that can legally perform marriages, three of which are secular and not religious in nature (lawyer, judge and notary), and there are no stipulations requiring that you get married in a church or other house of worship.  Therefore, no belief in God is needed.  There is only ONE resource to get a marriage license, and that is through the state via your local town office or city hall.  Given that, these women are certainly entitled to their opinions, they certainly should not be “hiding in shadows” (though giving a newspaper interview and having your smiling photo taken is hardly lurking in the shadows) nor should anyone criticize their points of view, as we are all entitled to our own POVs.  On the flip side of that, they also should not be filtering the decision of voting on this civil issue through their belief in religion, as religion is not a legal requirement for getting married and can legally have absolutely nothing to do with civil marriage.  Perhaps the reason these women are called bigots is because they are acting and sounding like bigots.  If it walks like a duck…

    • Civil marriage is archaic and unnecessary.  The State should get out of the marriage business, and the 1400 benefits gained from marriage should be tendered to all.

      That is REAL equality.

      • Anonymous

         The 1400 benefits gained from marriage should be reserved for those that are parenting, attempting to parent or have parented. That’s the original intent and that’s where the benefit to society exists. OR we could decide that is just too difficult to administer and just make things less complex by not giving these benefits to anybody.

        • maineiac123

           Since I can no longer parent why should I receive any of those 1400 benefits?  What about the young capable married couples that choose NOT to have children.  They can’t have them either?

  • Anonymous

    Some observations.  I find it difficult to believe that CCLers have been getting death threats.  That is uncalled for no matter how obnoxious they may have been.  I also find it interesting that  a Catholic would even enter a Baptist church.

    • Anonymous

       Goph, don’t see why you are surprised that zealots on either side of an argument would give death threats. Not just right wing nut jobs that want to kill people that don’t agree, especially if they see them as standing in the way of something they want.

      • Anonymous

        Please document that those who favor equality have done that.  So far, only anti-gays have made that wild claim.

  • Red Durkin

    Does the Bible even say you can vote?

    • Anonymous

      LOL … Only the Pharisee & Roman Senate voted in the first century … so that’s a yes & no … not the average person. LOL

  • Anonymous

    Sorry, guys, but God does not provide safe haven for bigots. Nor does the Bible spell out each and everything that is right or wrong.

    Because the Bible doesn’t mention whether I can walk my cat on a leash, does that mean I’m a sinner?

    Because the Bible doesn’t mention it’s right to drive a car, does that make us all sinners?

    This is the same Bible that declares a woman must marry her rapist. This is the same Bible that declares adulterers must be stoned to death.

    When will these sisters demand that we follow these edicts from God himself?

    Finally for now, where does Jesus condemn homosexuality?

    • Anonymous

       I hope for your sake, Ryan, that She does provide safe haven for bigots.

      • Anonymous

        How many times have YOU whined today and tonight that your intended victims are “the real bigots,” conserve?

        • Anonymous

           I know you think you are right, but you and the rest of the PRO-GAY lobby are as bigoted as the right wing nut jobs on this thread.

  • Anonymous

    First of all, this is not a religious issue, It’s a human rights issue! Furthermore, if people that live by the contents of “the bible” would research the history of the bible, they might be less likely to live their lives by it. It is highly unlikely that it’s a accurate rendition of “word of god”, but rather a book of laws altered by many kings in effort to suit their own needs and beliefs!

  • Anonymous

    First of all, this is not a religious issue, It’s a human rights issue! Furthermore, if people that live by the contents of “the bible” would research the history of the bible, they might be less likely to live their lives by it. It is highly unlikely that it’s a accurate rendition of “word of god”, but rather a book of laws altered by many kings in effort to suit their own needs and beliefs!

    • Anonymous

       People who live by the bible, lack the ability to critically view the world, and ultimately the fact that there is not a given purpose to life, but it is their own responsibility to make a reason to their life. Many people are too lazy for that, so the bible is the easy way out. All the “answers” are there, and life is simple, and nothing “weird” is ok…Thus why educated people overwhelmingly support gay marriage, they have challenged their mind to think about things in a critical way and accept that life has no black and white answers.

    • Anonymous

       First of all, it’s NOT a human rights issue. It’s a group seeking an endorsement of a behaviorally-based lifestyle. And stop pushing your view of religion on others!

      • Anonymous

        “behaviorally-based lifestyle”

        Oh, yes, anti-gays claim we could CHOOSE to live the way THEY WANT US TO, if only we would.

        Can’t you at least cook up some new, ORIGINAL anti-gay LIES, conserve?  Yours are all so very old and tired.

        • Anonymous

           Your use of the word LIES is a very old and tired techniques of the pro-gay privilege lobby. Try a different word next time for your clients next time, lobby-guy.

      • Anonymous

        It is a human rights issue…it should have nothing to do with religion! Furthermore, I am not pushing my religious views on others..It’s history…really though, research the history of the bible. I totally respect a persons religious beliefs and if that’s what someone chooses to practice then more power to them…My issue is with those who contridict themselves and the bible, all these people are claiming that “the bible” says the homosexual lifestyle is a sin…doesn’t it also say it’s a sin to judge your fellow man. If there is a hell, those who pass judgement will most definately be going there.

      • maineiac123

        Behaviourally-based huh? Right homosexuals have chosen a lifestyle where there are guaranteed  to be bullied, and spat on and beaten and killed, potentially lose the love and respect of their family.  Yep, they chose all that.  

  • Anonymous

    Im voting NO just because its my belief and I can. And guess what I don’t have to explain why! Thank you veterans!

    • Anonymous

       Guess what when you die, the rest of the state will be better off, the younger generation WANTS this, you know why? Because they actually get the idea of accepting the differences in people, and that fundamentally we are all the same. Just because my bother is attracted to men, makes him no less human, makes him no less deserving of the rights I am afforded by the state. SO sleep well, knowing everyone under 25 is waiting for you old people to die, so we can finally have the rights we believe should have been there from the beginning.

      • Anonymous

        Im not your age but I’m not over 30 but I am more mature then you are. You sound silly and uneducated ….so if I don’t agree with a presidential candidate that you do does that get me a death wish too? Lmao I stand by my vote of no on quesion one. Good luck to your agenda and cause and belief ….my vote is no no no and u don’t even know why ..u just assume silly lil person

        • Anonymous

          I sound uneducated? You can’t even type the complete word “you”….good luck loosing in the election, I will likely be watching several of my friends get married late November when question 1 passes!
          Also why does 90% of the Umaine campus vote for gay marriage, because they are YOUNG AND EDUCATED. Why does the majority of the county vote against gay marriage they are OLD and UNEDUCATED.
          Not everyone falls into these categories, like yourself, you claim to be young…(educated is debatable). But most people do fall into these categories that is the point.

          • Anonymous

            County? Or country? …regardless silly one, I’m only one vote. I wish you luck on your predicted and anticipated win that you have. If your wishes are succesful then I congratulate you and your supporters and people that got what they want. This is always a heated debate for many reasons hence why we see it on the ballot over and over and over again…lol. hey this time could be the time it passes. My personal vote still stands at no. You can degrade, insult, slander, bully, and try and ashame someone to believe or to vote with you but it won’t work for educated individuals, and ya know just because a person votes one way does not mean they are anti gay or anti love there could be a whole other reason for the vote but that’s another story. Good luck on election day cast your vote as I will mine and a sincere good luck ;) the poles do look favorable for you

          • Anonymous

            over and over and over again??? This is the second time.

            And I meant THE COUNTY, aroostook county, the oldest place in the country and least educated place in the state.

          • Anonymous

            Good luck the second time then ;) and if it fails third time is a charm! …but don’t think you will need luck…your confident and sounds like with support of the UMO you already won…

          • Anonymous

            There will be vote after vote until the United States Constitution is upheld, either by a YES vote or by the Supreme Court.  Anti-gays will lose.

          • Anonymous

            Wow, is it your intent to alienate the entire electorate here in one night? I hope you bring these argument to the doors you are ringing.  It will surely help your side appear rational, kind, and well-reasoned. I am sure you will do well. Just keep calling those who don’t support you, old, ignorant, and better off dead.   

          • Anonymous

            “If” 90 % vote that way, then that’s because the ones who disagree don’t bother to vote. AND because they are young and immature and don’t see the implications for society of such a vote. And yes I am over thirty and thanks for your death wish for me. (and how about running your spellcheck occasionally Ms. Educated.

          • Anonymous

            Do you have any evidence to prove you claim, because there isn’t any evidence that shows people in college for or against gay marriage are less likely to vote than one another. To clear something up, it was not a death wish, death is inevitable for everyone. I simply stated that young people are tired of the older generation holding back our ideas from becoming reality. Just like in the 60’s when college students wanted equal rights for blacks, its the same battle but a different generation. People who are against gay rights, are fundamentally the same as those who were against equal rights for blacks.

          • Anonymous

             Not “just like the 60’s” sweetie! I was there in the middle of those protests and on the side of equal rights for people. But now I am not on the side of granting special status to a group  based on their BEHAVIOR and you just don’t get the difference, do you?
            Gays already have special protection under the law against discrimination, whereas I am subject to discrimination for a whole variety of reasons (I look like someone they don’t like, I vote for Obama – and my boss says we all need to vote for Romney so I’m getting fired).

          • Anonymous

            Get real, anti-gays are attacking loving, committed same gender American couples that don’t have sex any more also, conserve.  Spare us that LIE that LGBT Americans are just about “behavior.”  What THAT reveals is that you ONLY think about our SEX LIVES.

            And scientists have PROVEN why anti-gays are so fixated on our sex lives:

            “Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.”

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

          • maineiac123

             YOU are subject to discrimination for a whole variety of reason?  Really? Gee, I wonder why as a  straight white male I don’t feel that discrimination.  Yes, gays are protected as is everyone.  Oh by the way, if your boss could fire you for voting for Obama, then he could fire a gay, or black, or jew, or catholic or anyone for the same reason.  But tell me why you and I and other straight couples should have the special rights that we have.  I see no reason for it.

          • Anonymous

            There are no laws protecting gays that do not also protect you for your own choice of religious views.

            When we examine this issue, there is no justifiable reason for our government to discriminate against gays and lesbians who want to enjoy the legal benefits of civil marriage. You say “granting special status” but we’re really talking about granting the SAME status and ability to marry that heterosexuals currently enjoy.

          • Anonymous

            Anti-gays always have some excuse for when they lose.  “Activist judges” is the most common excuse.

        • maineiac123

           If you can’t explain why then it tends to lead the belief that you are simply intolerant and bigoted.  And by the way, unless you intend to commit voter fraud, you vote will only be no, not no, no, no.

      • maineiac123

         “SO sleep well, knowing everyone under 25 is waiting for you old people
        to die, so we can finally have the rights we believe should have been
        there from the beginning.”  Please do not say things like this.  There are many many older people (I’m 66) who will be voting YES.  Don’t try to turn them off. 

      • Anonymous

        “…when you die, the rest of the state will be better off…” Yet another example of tolerance and love from the pro gay marriage side. With your tolerance and love, your side is sure to win come election day.

        • Anonymous

          So you, too, are whining that your intended victims are “the real intolerant ones.”  Yawn…

          • Anonymous

            Seems like a specific case in black and white right here. Please review again. The poster said that the state will be better off when the other poster is dead.  Sound intolerant and hateful to me. Apparently you have heard the pro gay marriage folks utter so many threats, it is just a yawn to you.

        • Anonymous

          Truth hurts, doesn’t it?

          • Anonymous

            Your opinions are so disgusting, you must be a closeted heterosexual.

          • Anonymous

            Ha, no.  I enjoy my boyfriend very much.
            P.S. I would most certainly trade a bigot such as yourself for one of the many LGBT teens driven to suicide by people like you.

  • Anonymous

    This situation would be like KKK members feeling they were being hated on for spreading their racist views. These women are arguing that voicing their discrimination against the ‘gay lifestyle’ takes courage? Try being gay. Courage is coming out of the closet to your family, who may not be ready to embrace the idea that their child is not “normal”. Courage is fighting against the close-minded religious fanatics who can’t think for themselves or discern between morals and what they think the bible is telling them. The concept of a legally-recognized union between two people has no nothing to do with your religious conviction. This is an issue of equality. Yes, this is America and you’re allowed to have your own opinions- but you can’t expect people to be so supportive of your freedom of speech when you’re telling a group of people how they can and cannot live. 

    • Anonymous

       Well said!

    • Anonymous

      I think it is idiotic of gay rights advocates to compare racial inequality with sexual preference and your last statement “telling a group of people how they can and cannot live’ is particularly nonsensical. Telling people they cannot have a societal endorsement is not telling them how they can live. The very most that the religious “zealots” in this forum are doing is telling them they don’t approve of their behavior, much as they probably wouldn’t approve of my vote for Obama.

      • Anonymous

        Science has proven sexual orientation is inborn and unchangeable.  Several US federal and several US State High Courts have held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is similarly unconstitutional as discrimination based on race.  That’s where the similarity ends, but it means it’s just as UNCONSTITUTIONAL and WRONG to try to HURT LGBT Americans with these dirty anti-gay Hate Votes as Jim Crow laws were.

        These many justices’ opinions that face and sexual orientation are similarly unconstitutional as reasons for official discrimination COUNT.  YOUR opinion that they are dissimilar doesn’t count for diddly squat.  That’s just how it is, conserve.

        • Anonymous

           Science has proven squat about sexual orientation. and denial of the granting of special privileges for behavior is NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

      • Anonymous

        So President Obama ended DADT, ordered the Justice Department not to defend the DOMA, supports “gay” marriage rights (of course that was after VP Biden endorsed it) and is basically supporting all the “gay” rights you are against and you still believe that he’s your “man”. Now isn’t that (as you have called others) hypocritical?

  • Anonymous

    Thankfully, we do not officially live in a theocracy (yet).  Thankfully we live by “The Bill of Rights,’ incorporated into the US Constitution.  Those who wish to live by the Bible may do so as long as it doesn’t interfere with our Constitutional rights.  

    • Anonymous

       But those who do not agree with homosexual behavior have a right to vote against this proposal and not be called bigots by people who don’t agree with them.

      • Anonymous

        How many times are you going to whine about your intended victims being “the real bigots”?  Can’t you at least cook up an ORIGINAL anti-gay LIE?

  • Anonymous

    I, for the same reasons, support these brave women who are not afraid to step out and speak. Through 23 years of teaching I watched the homosexual agenda creep into the classrooms while teachers feared to speak up. We are God’s creation. His Word gives us direction in the matter of marriage. I dare not trust another.

    • Anonymous

      I decided not to have children because of teachers like you. You are doing a tremendous disservice by being a teacher and should quit now before you ruin more young minds from actually having their eyes open to the wonderful diversity the human race offers. GET YOUR CHRISTIAN AGENDA OUT OF OUR SCHOOLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Anonymous

        Alot of hate in your comment.. bigot I see against Christans..

        • Anonymous

           The law cares non about what people believe, they can think what they want, it doesn’t change the nature rights people are allotted, and that should be the right to marry the person you love. Sorry you lack the brain capacity to understand that.

          • Anonymous

             Gays have the right to marry the person they love. That seems to be one aspect (among many) of this debate that you don’t understand. They can find a church that will marry them. They can invite whomever they like to “celebrate” their love. This is not about that. This is about a societal endorsement of their behavior and a grab for benefits that, in the vast majority (gays that do not parent together), are not due.

          • maineiac123

             Gays do not have the right to marry the person they love.  That’s what this whole referendum is about.  Yes they can find a church that will perform a wedding ceremony but that “marriage” is not recognized by the state.  I fully endorse their love and commitment to each other as should you.  It will have no effect on your marriage and will have a great benefit to theirs and society.

          • Anonymous

             I will attend my gay relatives marriage ceremony and be genuinely happy that they have a loving, committed relationship, but I will not vote to have society endorse homosexual marriage as the “same” as heterosexual marriage.
            But you can go on believing that you are a better person than I am, as I am sure that you must be.

          • Anonymous

            Something tells me your relatives know of your attacks on them here, and you will not be invited.

          • maineiac123

             Can’t tolerate disagreement libconserve?  I’ve not attempted to insult you in anyway and yet you’re tried twice with me.  

          • Anonymous

            No, LGBT Mainers DO NOT have the SAME right to legal marriage as mixed-sex couples do.  The Iowa State Supreme Court unanimously established marriage equality in April 2009, and this is their answer to “You have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else”:

            “It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation, and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute. Instead, a gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class-their sexual orientation.”

            http://www.iowacourtsonline.org/Supreme_Court/Varnum_v_Brien/Supreme_Court_Ruling/

          • Anonymous

            “Gays have the right to marry the person they love” really? And what if they are not religious people? What if they would like a Justice of the Peace to perform the wedding service? Can a Justice of the Peace perform the ceremony? Will a marriage without a license stand a court challenge when it comes to inheritance, parental visitations, etc….?

          • Anonymous

            You are irresponsibly incorrect here. Gays do not have the right to have civil marriage with the person they love.

            This is one aspect among many that you willfully ignore.

            There are over 1,100 benefits and privileges extended by our government contingent on marital status. No marriage ceremony will bestow these benefits without the civil marriage license, and it is the civil marriage license that this debate is truly about.

            This is about abiding by the demands of the US Constitution, and treating all Americans equally under our laws.

            I am voting YES on question 1 in November, because it is the morally right thing to do here— to allow all Maine families the opportunity to protect the lives they build together with civil marriage.

        • Anonymous

          And how many times today and tonight have YOU WHINED that your intended victims are “the real bigots”?????

      • Anonymous

        Really, you did not have children solely because you feared they would have teachers who hold beliefs  different from you own? Its probably for the best that you didn’t reproduce. Who’s the paranoid bigot here? Open mind indeed. hypocrite.

        • Anonymous

           I think the fact that I don’t want children is not crazy as you make it sound. If you pay attention to political discourse, I can’t imagine this country to be a great place to raise children in the next 20 years, let alone what their life will be like. And yes having people indoctrinate my children for me, no thanks. The fact is people are blaming the failures of children on teachers and thus leaving more and more responsibility with them, until there is no more need for parents, just the government raising your children for you. Anyways most of these Christians get divorced anyways, and leaved the children messed up for the rest of their lives. I’d rather skip all that mess, and save myself a lot of trouble and not have children. And no I’m not a hypocrite, I’m open minded, thus against indoctrination.

          • Anonymous

            We wouldn’t mind if you moved to another country that is more child friendly

        • Anonymous

          Yet another vicious personal attack from an anti-gay toward anyone who won’t help anti-gays attack LGBT Americans…

          • Anonymous

            So you believe that this poster did not have children because he/she was worried about their child having teachers with different viewpoints than their own? I find just plain hard to believe, and I called her on it. Anyone who really had such distorted thinking ought to think twice about what kind of a parent they would be.  Speaking of vicious, personal attacks, have you chastised with the same indignation the pro gay marriage poster on this thread who stated in reference to a “no” voter “that the state will be better off when  she is dead?”  Your opinions are so disgusting, you must be a closet heterosexual. 

          • Anonymous

            And your statement about the “annual” vote on same sex marriage is not only “hard to believe” but an out and out LIE. Now please name call….it’s all you have left.

          • Anonymous

            I will not call you names, and annual is a bit of hyperbole, but really, doesn’t it seem like this keeps coming up over and over again? Something like 32 times nationwide in the past 14 years? And how many times has it passed by popular vote?

          • Anonymous

            Right, because civil rights for minorities should always be put to a vote….

    • Sounds like your belief is held just as strongly as the beliefs of those with whom you disagree.

      I laugh at your use of the “homosexual agenda”  I’ve asked people for a copy, but am always met with blank stares.

      NOW if you mean the politically correct agenda which says that no one can disagree with the touchy-feely new-speak brought to you by folks who want to sell stuff to new markets… I hear you.

      • Anonymous

        Sorry you haven’t received your copy of the homosexual agenda. It isn’t written down, but it is there.  Their agenda isn’t looking for tolerance. They have that. It isn’t acceptance, they largely have that. It’s endorsement of their lifestyle. They need others to tell them that what they are doing is not only OK, but that it is morally equivalent to natural marriage. The reason why do so many homosexuals need this reaffirmation is that those closest to them, parents, siblings, etc have not enthusiastically endorsed their lifestyles;even they have self doubts. What they can’t get from themselves and their loved ones, they look for from society. 

        • Anonymous

          What a load of malarkey, and just as unoriginal as the few other anti-gays posting nonsense here.  Anti-gay hate speech like this doesn’t fool anyone.

          • Anonymous

            You must be a closet heterosexual. Breeder!

        • Anonymous

          What is “natural” marriage?

          • Anonymous

            That between a man and a woman, with a possibility for reproduction. To quote wikipedia, the authoritative source for BDN posters “Crime against
            nature is a legal term used in published cases in the United States since
            1814[1] and normally defined
            as a form of sexual behavior that is not considered
            natural and is seen as a punishable offense in dozens of countries and several U.S. states. Sexual practices
            that have historically been considered to be crimes against nature include homosexual acts,
            anal sex, bestiality, incest, miscegenation and necrophilia. Other less common examples include fellatio, and cunnilingus. The term is sometimes also seen as a
            synonym for sodomy or buggery.[2]”

            Remember Scrooge’s cleaning lady in “A Christmas Carol” who said something like “if he didn’t want to die alone, he should have been more natural in his life.” Meaning he would have had children.

    • maineiac123

       I was a former teacher and your statement is quite frankly a complete and total lie and you know that.  I don’t use the word lie often but in your case it certainly does fit.

  • Anonymous

    Poor white bigoted-christian women, gosh I feel SOO bad for you…NOT!!!!

    • Anonymous

      I feel bad that you want to take away their right to believe what they believe.. Nobody has forced them to believe in God, yet you seem to want to force them to believe in what you believe in..  “Open your mind” only if people agree with you do they have an open mind Right?

      • Anonymous

        No one wants to take away their right to believe that the United States Constitution should be subverted, but that doesn’t mean we have to HELP THEM SUBVERT the Constitution.

        • Anonymous

           BOGUS. Where does the Constitution insist on extra privilege for certain behaviors?

          • maineiac123

             You tell me. Why do heterosexual couples have all those special rights being denied same-sex couple?  Where does the Constitution insist on YOUR extra privilege as an opposite-sex couple?

          • Anonymous

             In Loving v. Virginia (1967) the SCOTUS established that marriage is a “fundamental civil right”.

    • Anonymous

       Do a reality check in the mirror for bigotry.

      • Anonymous

        What is this, the 20th time you have whined that your intended victims are “the real bigots”?

        • Anonymous

          Carrotcakeman, the poster I just responded to is straight. Follow the thread.

          To all “INTENDED VICTIMS”, Sorry to deny you extra privileges.

          • Anonymous

            No one is looking for “extra privileges”. They are looking for the same privilege to marry that you and I enjoy.

  • Anonymous

    Yes. Just because someone doesn’t agree with with same-sex marriage, doesn’t mean they are being hateful. Ultimately, it will hurt society as a whole.

    • Anonymous

       What will hurt our society? Christains denying 10% of the population basic rights, yes that will hurt our society.

      • Anonymous

         Not “basic rights”. privileges granted to encourage procreation and the rearing of those formed by that activity.

        • Anonymous

          I’m straight, I don’t want children, my boyfriend and I can legally get married. …..What about the technology that allows gays to reproduce? The same technology that allows for heterosexual couples to reproduce if they are so unhealthy they can’t naturally. What about gay couples that adopt the unwanted heterosexual’s children and give them a loving stable home environment. Shouldn’t those children get parents who have the right to be in a loving committed relationship?  None of this has been addressed. What next, there isn’t a guarantee that woman is going to be standing in the kitchen all day?

          • Anonymous

             1 were you to get married, then you would be getting privileges that really don’t apply to you. However, your sexual activity may result in a “surprise”. When your gay friends have sex, there will be no surprises (at least of that kind).
            2. Gays are adopting now. They should be given parental privileges. If one stays home, that one should be allowed pension rights. All privileges given to married people should be granted to gays who adopt. That’s not the “same” as giving marriage privileges to all gays and making the statement that it is the same thing.
            3. “right to a loving committed relationship” – they don’t have this?????? Sorry, that’s just not intelligent reasoning.
            4. reproduction technology – only one gay can be a biological parent of a given child. NOT THE SAME.
            5. “standing in the kitchen all day” –   Huh?

        • maineiac123

           Except libconserve that is not the basis of marriage anymore.  I no longer can have children, does that mean my wife and I must now get divorced?  And how about all those married couples who never intend to have children, should they be required to get divorced too?

          • Anonymous

             We’ll put you in charge of insuring that non-reproducing heterosexuals have all privileges revoked. Then you’ll have your “equality”.

          • maineiac123

            You haven’t answered my question though have you?  Must my wife and I now get divorced and if not, why not? We no longer can have children. 

        • Anonymous

          That’s a LIE.  Marriage is a Constitutionally protected “fundamental right” to marry the person of our choice.

        • Anonymous

          I suggest that you review the SCOTUS decision Loving v. Virginia (1967) which established marriage was a “fundamental civil right”.

  • Anonymous

    Thanks for your stand on marriage, family and defining marriage as between one man and one woman.  Fortunantly I live in a rural area where a  lot of people believe as I do.  I try to not let religion, or lifestyle choices taint my relationships with friends, but one does have to taka a stance when people get violent and outspoken on thier own belief.  I believe that we should speak to all people with the love of God evident, but when it comes to laws governing our land, the laws should honor the God we serve and thus I would vote to retain the current definition of marriage and have done so in my state.  What upsets me is how violent the other side is on this matter.  They claim that their right allows them to deface property in protest to current law.  Defacing property and threatening the lives of others is the nature of a lawbreaking person.  Because they are victims they have the right to break laws and threaten law abiding citizens.  Somehow passing a law will transform them into law abiding citizens, or will they demand more?  There in lies the danger with the pro gay groups.

  • Anonymous

    Who cares who wants to marry who.  Get over it. You don’t have to go to the wedding.  You don’t have to live with them.  You don’t have to like how they were born (not how they chose to be – who chooses to be judged and not allowed to live their lives like a “normal” person.  Don’t like it?  Don’t pay attention to it.  Simple as that.  I believe the bible also says not to judge.  But I wouldn’t know bc I’ve never spend a day of my life reading the bible and I don’t even attempt to live by it.  Voting based on an outdated book… No thanks.  I’ll vote based on that it effects me in no way shape or form.  My best friends are gay and I could care less if they want to enter into the same type of union that I do someday.  Move on.

    • Anonymous

      voting for gay marriage is not a vote for “who cares”. Not only does the vote give extra privilege to a new group, it is a statement for the shaping of society and peoples’ behaviors.

      • maineiac123

        Extra privilege?  What extra privilege?  Right now in marriage in Maine special rights are given to opposite-sex couples.  Let’s eliminate those special rights and make us all equal under the law. 

        • Anonymous

           Homosexual marriage is not “equal”, “same” as heterosexual marriage.
          “Privileges” have been granted by the state for heterosexual marriage and its contribution to the society.
           Homosexual marriage does not contribute in the same way and therefore this is not a question of equality.

          • Anonymous

            Just more lies.  The US Supreme Court established in its 1967 “Loving vs. Virginia” ruling that we ALL have a Constitutionally protected “fundamental right” to marry the person of our choice.  Several US State High Courts have cited “Loving” in establishing marriage equality for same gender American couples.

            Once again, couldn’t you at least cook up some NEW anti-gay LIES?

          • Anonymous

             Carrotcakeman,    You represent the best of the PRO-GAY thinking. IF THAT decision had anything to do with anything then you’d be married now.

            Love the use of the word LIES, certainly avoids having to consider opposing thoughts.

            Hope you get your special privileges sweetness.  (Oops, there was a REAL lie – get it?).

          • Anonymous

            The Loving v. Virginia (1967) decision established that marriage is a “fundamental civil right”. That’s a fact.

          • maineiac123

             Tell me how SSM is any different to opposite-sex marriage. And don’t use the procreation example because that simply does not hold water. Far too many people today get married without the ability to have children or even the desire.  If procreation is a mandatory part are you telling me that I now have to get divorced? Or that people in their 60’s and 70’s cannot get married?  Or sterile couples?  Give me a good legitmate reason how opposite-sex marriage is “more equal” than SSM.

          • maineiac123

             I’m still waiting for an answer libconserve. 

      • Anonymous

        Same old anti-gay LIES.  Having THE SAME right to legal marriage is NOT “extra privilege.”

        What would you anti-gays do if you couldn’t LIE this much?

  • Anonymous

    I accept gays and lesbians as people and will defend their rights to the very end. However, I find it offensive that because I am a Christian, I have to seal my lips or be hated for who I am. This battle over marriage is problematic for me because the glbt community wants to pervert a sacrament I consider to be holy into something else entirely. They are making it no longer sacred; they are making it common. If what they wish is a common form of marriage, then by all means go and do it without destroying a sacrament of the Church.

    • maineiac123

       Marriage is not a sacrament, it is a civil contract set up by the state.  There will be nothing to prevent you from having your marriage sanctified in a church but should you be able to say to those who don’t that their marriage is not a marriage?  I’m not.  I got married some 45 years ago in a civil ceremony and no one has ever questioned my marriage.   If a church doesn’t want to perform wedding ceremonies for LGBT couples there is no requirement for them to do so.  Why not let them enjoy the same rights, the same love and companionship that we opposite-sex couples have.  It’s simply the right thing to do rather than to ensure that religion is forced upon us all.

  • Anonymous

     Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

  • Anonymous

    Well its that time of year again. Maine’s annual vote on gay marriage.  I’ve been watching the pro gay marriage ads on the TV, and you know what they almost never show? Gay couples. No two men holding hands walking along the beach in their Speedos or two lesbians kissing. Why even the name of the organization backing this annual fall rite doesn’t have the name gay in their title. I wonder why? Could it be that if they just were truly open and honest with the public, the measure would fail?

    • Anonymous

      I’m sorry the commercials didn’t give you the vicarious thrill you wanted.

      “Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.”

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

      • Anonymous

        I thought you would throw this canard out, as you have so many times before, Carrot top.  Talk about getting some new material?  Not getting into the laughably unscientific nature of the study itself and its tiny sample size, non reproducible results, and overall irrelevance; I ask for what purpose did you post  your last comment?. Oh, I know, it was to insult me. To insinuate that I am a latent homosexual.  Why do you presume that would be an insult to me? I would think that you would say that being a homosexual is some sort of an honorable thing. I do not try to insult you by saying that you are in in the closet hetero, do I? Now run along to bed, there is school in the morning and you have an algebra test. That, by the way, is an insult. It implies that you are childlike, with childish arguments.

        • Anonymous

          And your false claims in the your original post is adult like?

          • Anonymous

            What are the false claims in my original post? Most of these ads show heterosexual couples extolling the praises of gay marriage. These ads do not show but tiny glimpses of homosexual couples, if at all.  And Equality Maine does not call itself “The committee to legalize same-sex marriage” for a reason. Cue the crickets. Are you sure you are not a closet heterosexual?

          • Anonymous

            “Are you sure you are not a closet heterosexual?”

            Nothing closeted about my sexual preference. I have been married for 29 years to the same woman so stop making assumptions about a persons sexual preferences based on their support of SSM.

            “Well its that time of year again. Maine’s annual vote on gay marriage.” – FALSE

            One vote in 2009 does not constitute a “annual vote”. That vote was to repeal a law voted on by the legislature and signed into law by the Governor. That was the ONE and ONLY time Maine has voted on Marriage equality.
            ~~~~~
            “I’ve been watching the pro gay marriage ads on the TV, and you know
            what they almost never show? Gay couples. No two men holding hands
            walking along the beach in their Speedos or two lesbians kissing.”

            Strange neither do the opponents of SSM show those images. I wonder why?
            ~~~~~
            “Why
            even the name of the organization backing this annual fall rite doesn’t
            have the name gay in their title. I wonder why?

            Do you mean like Maine Equal Rights Center which when you go to their website you find they are not for equal rights at all but to deny what the SCOTUS called in Loving v. Virginia (1967) a “fundamental civil right”.
            ~~~~~
            “Could it be that if they
            just were truly open and honest with the public, the measure would
            fail?”

            Hmmmm….open and honest….what a concept. Seems that the No on 1 side could take a lesson in being open and honest. There are currently two commercials being aired which are totally false. One is an innkeeper from Vermont that says they were sued because they refused to host a gay wedding reception and if this law passes it will happen here. That can happen TODAY in Maine. It is already illegal to refuse to provide a service to a person based on orientation. The second commercial features a person from CANADA and talks about free speech and speaking out against gay marriage got someone in trouble. In case you haven’t noticed, this is the UNITED STATES and we have FREEDOM of SPEECH.

            Both of those commercials are FALSE.

            There no crickets necessary.

          • Anonymous

            I didn’t  think that you were a really closeted heterosexual. I said that to poke fun at those pro gay marriage types, you know who they are; who, when they are frustrated by losing an argument accuse those of us on the anti gay marriage side of being closeted homosexuals.  I take it that they mean this to be an insult, although mature people can take some name calling, especially when they are secure of their place in the world. Since your post did not dispute my claims, actually supporting them, I will take it that you agree that the pro gay marriage side is hiding who they actually are and what they want for fear of driving voters to the other side.  

          • Alec Cunningham

            What are you saying about Equality Maine?  What is your point?

          • Anonymous

            They chose the non-descriptive, fair-sounding “Equality Maine”  to title their organization, because “The Committee to Make Gay Marriage the Law of the Land in Maine”  would be offensive to many and drive a lot of folks to vote no. Kind of like NARAL Pro Choice (the nation’s leading pro abortion group) does not have the word “abortion” in their name for fear of revealing what they support. 

    • Anonymous

      Very good point. Also the open display of this deviant behavior would sicken most….

    • Anonymous

      Annual? You do understand that the word annual means ever year don’t you? Last time I checked we voted on the repeal of SSM exactly once, in 2009. And we have certainly NOT voted annually since. So maybe if you got your facts straight then people might pay more attention to the rest of your post.

      • Anonymous

        Annual is a bit of hyperbole. Nationwide, we have voted on SSM 32 times in the past 14 years. And how did those 32 elections go?

  • Anonymous

    I wonder if the people , who plan on voting no, would have felt & voted differently  if it had been called anything except “marriage.” People who feel strongly that marriage is defined (whoever thought that would be necessary), as  between a man and a woman, may vote no as there is no alternative. Personally, I don’t  care how others live their lives, but I will not redefine marriage for anyone.

    • maineiac123

       You are not redefining marriage, you are merely adding to it just like they did in the 1800’s when they eliminated the prohibition against whites marrying non-whites.   I suspect most of the people on here who are going to vote NO would also vote NO for civil unions.  This has been shown to be true in other states and I see no reason it would not be true here.  I’ve already voted and I voted YES for equality and tolerance.

      • dadoje

        Actually this is the meaning of marriage in the dictionary. 


        Definition of MARRIAGE
        1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
        b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
        2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially: the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
        3: an intimate or close union “

        • maineiac123

          You can’t really go by dictionary definitions simply because they change over time.  For example because some states now permit SSM, the dictionary will follow suit in later years to revise it’s definition.    Also note that it includes same-sex relationships as a marriage so I’m not really sure what you point is supposed to be.  Was marriage redefined when we eliminated the provision that says non-whites cannot marry whites or when we permitted cousins to marry in 1995?  or any of the other myriad of changes we’ve made to the marriage laws since 1820?  It’s not a redefnitiion, it is merely adding to the marriage laws to ensure equality.   

          • dadoje

            My point is when they say the definition of marriage is only between a man and woman the definition says otherwise even if it may have changed.

          • maineiac123

            Sorry, I think I missunderstood what you were saying.  I agree the definition now include same-sex couples.  

      • Anonymous

        I haven’t noted any tolerance from people who don’t plan on voting yes…actually, they are called everything except gay…and “eliminating the prohibition against whites marring non-whites” is hardly the same thing as same sex “marriage.” As I already stated, I don’t care how people live their lives, it’s their business. And if I had had the opportunity to vote for a partnership or a union I would of done so. Since I was not given that choice, then I will be voting NO.

        • maineiac123

           And just how is eliminating the provision against non-whites marrying whites any different to SSM?  Both prohibitions are based on discrimination and bigoty or some religious idea. They are in fact the so similiar that you can substitute one for the other in almost all arguments.  You say you don’t care how people live their lives but you obviously do otherwise you would be voting YES or not voting on this issue at all.  There have been other states where people have said  if “I had had the opportunity to vote for a partnership or a union…” that they would do so. Then when that goes to vote it fails so I tend not to trust those types of statements.

          • Anonymous

             We’ll just agree to disagree. My vote is just that. Mine. Here is one statement that you can trust, I will be voting NO.

          • Anonymous

            I’m glad you are so proud of the fact that you are voting to treat your fellow citizens like dirt…

          • Anonymous

            I am not voting to treat my fellow citizens like dirt. I am voting to say that I believe a marriage is between a man & a woman. If the gay population had chosen to use different terminology  for their union, then I would have voted for it. But they didn’t, and they have lost my vote.

          • Anonymous

            No, no, by voting against this, you are voting to treat same sex couples like dirt.  You can tell yourself that you are fulfilling some sort of moral calling, but all you are doing is harming loving couples who just want to receive the same rights as straight couples.  You would take away their happiness because of semantics?  How pathetic…

          • Anonymous

             I’m taking away their happiness? Really? Now that is pathetic…

          • Anonymous

            Well, maybe not happiness, but civil rights and human dignity.  I’m sure that not even someone as bigoted as you could ruin the happiness that a same sex couple can achieve.

          • Alec Cunningham

            Do you have issues with other uses of the word “marriage”?

          • Alec Cunningham

            Do you have issues with other uses of the word “marriage”?

          • maineiac123

            So far it’s the only statement you’ve made that I think I can trust and it certainly shows your statement of “I don’t care” is not trustworthy.

  • i guess two retarted people shouldnt marry eather.  just saying.  maby minoritys shouldent marry eather . maby lefthanders shouldnt marry. im not going to marry because i dont know if if i can yet . tell me.

  • Anonymous

    This is NOT a religious issue.

    • Anonymous

      Oh- I think god might not agree with you….

      • Anonymous

        Last time I checked the state issued marriage licenses not religious institutions.

        • Anonymous

          This is not a religious issue.

          How can anybody know what god wants. ?

  • Anonymous

    I had set out to vote yes on one. .

    Come on haters, tell me why you can have an opinion but these 3 woman can’t..

    The aggorant comments on here denying people the right to believe a certain way..

    I was going to vote yes, but I can’t approve of all your hate towards Christains..

    The heck with you haters, I hope you lose, you are true abusers of peoples kindness.
    The heck with political correctness, Vote No!!

    • maineiac123

      I doubt very much you ever intended to vote YES.  I see no hatred of christians on here. I do see statements that religion should not be the driving force behind our laws.  I certainly don’t hate christians, most of my friends are christians but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with your or anyone elses interpretation of the bible.

    • Anonymous

      I’ve been reading your writing here for awhile, and it’s clear you have never been supportive of civil marriage equality, you just like eliciting responses.

  • Anonymous

    It’s to bad people can’t be respected for their differing opinions, I plan on voting no on this issue but I respect others opinions if they happen to disagree with me, I get no reciprocity in that regard though.

    • Anonymous

      Why should any loyal American tolerate your attempt to SUBVERT our Constitution?????

      • Anonymous

        I wasn’t aware that gay marraige was referenced in the Constitution. The thing that bothers me most bout the whole gay thing is an article I read back in the 80’s

        “We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your
        shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your
        dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in
        your seminaries, in your youth groups, …wherever men are with men together.
        Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in
        our image. They will come to crave and adore us. All churches who condemn us
        will be closed. Our holy gods are handsome young men. …We shall be victorious
        because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed…”

        Michael Swift – Boston Gay Community News –
        February 15-21, 1987

        That statement alone I have never hear a gay person speak against, and I consider that a threat to my sons.

        • maineiac123

          Like so many others, particularily anti-gay people and the right-wing you have omitted the first line and that first line sets out the context of the piece.  Even the Congressional Record conveniently omits this: “This essay is an outre, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor”  It was never intended to be read as anything more than anger.  Anger at the discrimination, the hatred and bigotry that gays lived then.  Certainly not to be taken as a “gay agenda”.   You say you have never heard a gay person speak against this ‘statement”. It’s because they know it for what it is so there is no need to speak out against it. Are there some gays who might actually think this way? Probably, just as there as some christians who think all gays should be executed but both are in the extreme minority. Understand it for what it is and you will see that your sons and my sons and grandchildren are quite safe.

    • Anonymous

      Then you’re blindly looking for persecution, and ignoring that many here are simply stating their support for civil marriage equality, and debating the issue without name-calling or personal attacks.

  • Anonymous

    Whats nice about living in this great country of ours, we have the freedom of being able to agree to disagree if we want. Long live our american freedoms. Aint it wonderful to be us.

  • ptkitty

    “We don’t have to accept same-sex marriage as normal and natural.”   

    Well said, sisters, well said.

    • Anonymous

      No marriage can be legitimately called “natural”, since marriage is a social construct, not a natural state. If you want to define normality based on natural occurrences, then homosexual behavior is perfectly natural, since it occurs in hundreds of other species besides humans. So does transgenderism.

      • Anonymous

        Well, that’s not entirely correct, it is thousands, not hundreds.

    • Anonymous

      I don’t accept those snake-handling baptists as normal, but I wouldn’t want our government to discriminate against them.

    • oldgrump

      And, they don’t have to.  What we are looking for is the protections of the laws to be extended to SSM, not to change what is “normal and natural”.  Glasses aren’t “normal and natural”.  Polyester is not “normal and natural”.  Twinkies are not “normal and natural”.  I don’t wear glasses, but I wouldn’t try to stop other people from wearing them.  I do wear polyester (at times), yet it is still not “normal or natural”.  I don’t eat Twinkies, but you are more than welcome to stop by the local Big Apple and pick one up.

      Sadly, what IS “normal and natural” is people thinking that their own interpretations of morals should be the ONLY interpretation. 

    • Alec Cunningham

      Quite frankly, I don’t give a da*m what they accept or not accept.  What they do in their own personal lives doesn’t affect me in the least (except for their “no” vote).  How they practice their religion, wear their hair, or what baseball team they like-it doesn’t matter to me.
      And the same is true for my life affecting theirs.  If I get married to the man I love, they don’t have to accept it as “normal and natural,” just as they probably already don’t accept my life with him in the first place as “normal and natural.”
      Live and let live, sisters.

  • Anonymous

    Just for the record, despite my screen name, I am on the “lib” side of arguments far more often than the “conserve” side.

    Do you allow your gay son/daughter to have same sex sleepovers?
    I was told by my gay friends/relatives that I should try gay sex, that I might like it. I declined because I have been taught differently (not because I wasn’t “born homosexual” – I was born “sexual” and my sexual preferences “shaped” by experience).

    The new thing in schools is to ridicule kids for not being “open” to a same sex relationship. Several kids I know have experienced that.

    Not opening marriage to another group is not “denying rights”.
    Same sex marriage is not the “same” as opposite sex marriage. There are vastly different implications.
    The society has a stake in opposite sex relationships. This is not about “love” from a legal standpoint – that’s just ceremonial, but hopeful for a couple to stay together through the rearing of children.

    Gays are welcome to love – and to get married in the church of their choice – and for their “love” to be recognized by the only people that matter (their families and friends). They don’t need a societal recognition and endorsement.

    By endorsing same sex marriage as the “same” as heterosexual marriage, voters will send a message to the children of this society – that the two are “one and the same”. If you are willing to give that same message to your children (offer equal support and encouragement of same-sex sexual relationships) everyday while you raise them, then go ahead and vote for this. If you are not willing to give equal encouragement, then reconsider your vote.

    Oh, and sorry in advance for “spewing my hate”.

    • maineiac123

       I am most willing to give my children the message of tolerance and equality. You should be too but obviously we feel differently.   SSM will have zero effect on my marriage or yours but it will have a great effect and benefit to those loving couples who simply want to enjoy the same benefits of society that you and I enjoy.  Even if I despised homosexuals, I’d vote YES simply because it is the right and moral thing to do. 

      • Anonymous

         I do not “tolerate” the homosexual relationships of my relatives – I am Genuinely happy that they are happy together. That said, their relationship is not the “same” as mine. What is “obvious” that you feel morally superior to me and as long as you feel so, I will not think as highly of you as you do of yourself. 
        SSM has only the effect on my marriage of my wife and I disagreeing that societal endorsement might actually have some significant effects on the society, on my children’s and other children’s behavior.
        “Loving” has nothing to do with giving them a marriage license and “endorsing” their behavior as a society. 

        • Anonymous

          And how many times is some anti-gay going to claim he “has gay relatives”?

        • maineiac123

           I don’t feel morally superior to anyone and it’s a cop-out to accuse me of that.   And yes same-sex marriage will be the same as yours and most likely for the very same reasons; because they love each other and want to commit to each other for the rest of their lives.  I simply see no problem with that nor how it could possibly affect my marriage or yours. 

    • Anonymous

      “I was told by my gay friends/relatives that I should try gay sex, that I might like it.”

      What complete rubbish.  What you mean is you fantasize about what they do.  Try tuning into YOUR OWN sex life and butt out of theirs!

    • Anonymous

      “The new thing in schools is to ridicule kids for not being “open” to an interracial relationship. Several kids I know have experienced that.”

      – libconserve sentiment in 1960’s

  • Anonymous

    I keep hearing the same argument from holier than thou folks, about how SSM will affect their marriages somehow. I am totally confused by this. It is not as though they will have to get a divorce and then marry someone of the same sex. Unless one of the partners in a heterosexual marriage is a closeted gay person or bisexual, I fail to see how this could possibly impact a straight couple. Churches will not be forced to perform weddings that violate their religious beliefs. So this affects them exactly how?

  • Anonymous

    Nobody’s business but that of the two people getting married.

  • Anonymous

    Well,
    Since 2 out of the 3 sisters has been divorced and remarried, I think they have other issues of more importance to deal with.

  • moe

    Really? Comparing SSM supporters to radical muslims?  When an angry gay flight attendant highjacks a 767 and flies it into a megachurch with 1,000 people in it, then that statement might be fair.  Until then, it is utterly ridiculous and disrespectful to real victims of radical muslims.  

  • Anonymous

    I feel sorry for these sisters.

  • Anonymous

    God Bless You Ladies!!! I too believe what the Bible says and “We must obey God rather than man.” Acts 5:29

  • Anonymous

    If homosexual individuals can not marry because it is against “God” then divorce should be illegal.  Look at home many “straight” couples divorce or commit adultery.  It is not my choice nor anyone elses as to who can and cannot get married.  Marriage is designed to unite two people and I honestly do not care who those two people are whether they are man and man, woman and woman, or man and woman. I do not care if they are one year apart or 50. Love doesn’t have rules. If it does, I certainly didn’t get a copy of the rule book and I doubt anyone else did either. In addition, not everyone is religious, not everyone believes in God and not everyone interrupts the Bible in the same manner. If homosexuality is a sin, then let those who sin deal with the repercussions and continue on with your straight lives. As a straight woman who has been with her husband 11 years, I only hope everyone can find happiness and love in that special someone and if that special someone happens to be of the same sex, then so be it. 

  • maineiac123

    “When people say they don’t see how it’s wrong, I say to them if you can
    show me in the Bible where God says it’s right, then I will agree with
    you,”   And when you can show me where Jesus said anything at all about it then I might agree with you. In the meantime keep your religion out of my laws and I’ll help keep my laws out of your religion.

  • Anonymous

     “If this is the age of tolerance,” Daigle said, “why aren’t we being heard? We are not threatening to harm anybody”

    Well you harm me!  I cannot make medical decisions for my partner of 10 years without spending a lot of money.  I can lose half of what we have worked for in the event of his death because of his hateful, greedy family.  I can spend all of the money that is needed to legally protect us, but all they need is a conservative judge (not hard to find in NC) and all of that is undone. 

    “We are Christians and we are commanded to love. And my heart breaks
    for them being encouraged to stay in a harmful lifestyle that degrades
    the body and corrupts the soul.”

    You say that you are commanded to love in one breath and then tell me who I am degrades my body and corrupts my soul?  How can you be so terribly judgmental and call it “love”.  If you think that is what love is, then I feel sorry for you and see that it is actually YOU that has the corrupted soul.

    Ladies your argument only holds water if you can prove that god actually exists, and alas you cannot.

    • The government is who decided to give married couples rights over other couples at some point in our country’s history. Christians just don’t want to see marriage redefined just to give everyone the same legal rights. The government “harmed” you in that aspect, not those of faith. And honestly, where do you see someone on the other side of this political argument saying they don’t want you to be able to take care of your partner??? 

      • Anonymous

         These people are going to the polls to vote on rights of others.  They are using religious beliefs to make life harder for others.  This is pure selfishness.  This should have never been put up to a vote.  If they don’t want to hurt anyone, than don’t vote at all on this issue. 

        The government redefined marriage when they made it a legal requirement for certain rights. 

        Do you not see how these people making the effort to vote, to make life harder for others isn’t hateful? 

        Marriage means a lot of different things to different people. 

  • Anonymous

    I think this is very well said………………….words were well chosen……………spoken from the heart…….no insults to gays and lesbians…………….just wanting to voice their feelings which is acceptable in this land of free speech……….

    • Anonymous

      Yep, they have every right to let everyone know that they do not believe in freedom and equality for all…

    • Anonymous

      The stuff about “disease” was hateful and hurtful.  Shall I go on?

      • Anonymous

        Don’t hold back

  • Scott Harriman

    “When people say they don’t see how it’s wrong, I say to them if you can
    show me in the Bible where God says it’s right, then I will agree with
    you,” Terrill said.

    And if you can show me in the Constitution where it says we base our laws on the Bible, then I’ll vote “No” on Question 1.

    Otherwise, I’m voting “Yes” for equal rights under the law.

    • Actually it doesn’t say anything about marriage in the Constitution….that is why it’s a states issue. It says so in Amendment 10….if you’re looking for that…

      • Anonymous

        So you agree that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional infringement on states rights, and should be struck down?

        Progress— I’ll take it!

    • Anonymous

      The constitution is suppose to be the base for all laws, yet it has only been used for convenience from time to time and discarded and hidden when it doesn’t fit an agenda.. Both sides have done this, and as we have seen the supreme court can stray from it for political reasons.

      • Anonymous

        The courts have been fairly consistent in the 21st century that sexual orientation is not a justifiable reason to discriminate in our laws, and it is civil marriage law that is at issue here.

  • Anonymous

    Guy down the street made a big four-foot by six-foot plywood sign, saying “NO on 1”.  Homemade.  Gone within days.
    Tolerance and acceptance, yeah right.  The gay mafia strikes again.

    • Anonymous

      Please document that happened.  Anti-gays have been making wild claims like this for years, prove it.

    • Anonymous

      Bennett drive in Caribou? He now wrote on the to of the new sign, “don’t steal this sign again”

    • Anonymous

      Goodness I have never heard of campaign signs being stolen before. NEVER (sarcasm).

      Now what exactly is the “gay mafia”? Is there a secret password or handsake? Do they have capos? Do they issue contracts to murder people? Do they run drugs, have number rackets, bribe officials, etc…?

  • Anonymous

     And the “nones'(those not attending church or having a religious preference)has jumped 5% just in the last five years.Maine is leading the way by being the least religious state in the country.Time to tax the churches.They are already terrified since their gang is dying off and the CC is broke from the sex abuse lawsuits.

  • Anonymous

    Thanks.That story has been tragically under reported.They even want Phyllis Schlafly put in instead.Talk about someone who’s destroyed America.

  • Anonymous

     The breakdown by age is almost perfectly aligned.The younger someone is,the more likely they are to support the rights of all people.Thanks for your support!YES ON ONE!

  • Anonymous

    Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. The treatment of the subject in the New Testament is from Paul. Not a Devine being by any stretch.

    If you feel vindicated by interpreting the Old Testament, the holy books of a different religion, to bolster your dubious thoughts on homosexuals, how would you feel if Muslims started using the New Testament to justify their own ideas.

    Have you asked a Jewish person how they feel about your misappropriation of their holy texts?

  • Anonymous

    People so blinded by their faith that they don’t see the truth that is in front of them.  They pick and choose what parts of the bible they want to believe.

    I think the real reason Christians have a hard time allowing gay marriage is that it shakes the loose foundation that Christians put their beliefs in.  They know what the bible says about homosexuality but are in conflict with the fact that there is nothing wrong with it.  The same way they know that these bible passages are just plain wrong.

     “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

    “Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to
    those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.” (1
    Peter 2:18)

    “Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the
    ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants,
    oxen and sheep, camels and asses.” (1 Samuel 15:3)

    “You shall not let a sorceress live.” (Exodus 22:18)

    and many more verses like this….

    Do you really think these are the words of god?

    and if not, then why do Christians keep saying homosexuality is wrong?

     The bible clearly got slavery wrong, and women’s rights….Isn’t it possible that the bible got it wrong about the sin of being gay?

    These are the questions that arise when the topic of gay marriage comes up and I think it scares some people.  But you must have the courage to make your own decisions about what is right and wrong, and not let a 2000 year old book make it for you.

  • Anonymous

    Unfortunately,it won’t be over for a while.The antis have so much shadow money that I’m sure they have lawsuits ready to go Nov. 7th if equality wins in any or all of the four locations it is on the ballot.Washington state appears to be the most likely state for passage as of now.Hopefully we can celebrate with them.
    I was GREATLY cheered talking with an R woman in MA who voted NO in her state’s election in 2004.She apologized for her prior actions and wished us luck.

  • Anonymous

    My wife said it was alright if I marry the the 2 women I work with. She said it would be fine to have a larger love nest.. The State at this moment won’t allow me to have 3 wives right now.Anyone want to deny me the right to happyness.

    • Anonymous

      Tell yeah what push….go gather the necessary signatures, have them validated by the Secretary of State’s office, get the question wording approved and get the question on the ballot and I will consider you “happiness”. But until then you a) have a SCOTUS decision going against you and b) your post is a RED HERRING>

      • Anonymous

        We one of them is  your wife, we will let the lawyers figure out how we are related later on, OK?

        • Anonymous

           Well push it was your wife that told you it was OK for you to marry two other women and I was simple explaining the process for you to fulfill your wife’s statement. So go gather your signatures push and I will sign one of the petitions because I want your wife to be happy. Seems she is sending you a message.

    • Anonymous

      If you can’t argue against gay marriage without bringing up polygamy, you don’t have an argument against gay marriage.

  • Anonymous

    Daigle said she wanted to meet in her church and sit where she could see the cross behind the pulpit. Litalien had a rosary wrapped around one hand. She said she leans on her faith, prays on a regular basis and knows that God meant for men and women to be together in marriage, not same-sex couples.
    “When people say they don’t see how it’s wrong, I say to them if you can show me in the Bible where God says it’s right, then I will agree with you,” Terrill said.

    Really though…Do people even question what they are reading???? Just because “the bible” says it doesn’t make it so! The bible is a highly unreliable source of information people!!! Story telling is what it is!

  • Anonymous

    Ya know what….all you so-called Christian types should either be voting yes or abstaining because you are not God.  God said judge not lest ye be judged.  Let the gays get married and let God deal with it on judgement day, if that’s your objection to it.   I got a feeling the married gays will be just fine.

  • Anonymous

    In my opinion, people are capable of figuring out who they love and with whom they want to spend their life. I can understand why the church doesn’t want to call it marriage. However, in the USA, we have separation of church and state. It is simply not fair that certain people are allowed to marry and therefore are subject to a “set of rules” (tax advantages, notification rights and rights of decision making in case of emergency, estate law, etc) if another group of people does not have access to the same “rules.” Personally, I don’t care what it is called (though I understand and respect that some do), but it is the right thing to do. Homosexuals are human beings, and they have every right to make a life with someone they love. I am a veteran, and I can tell you that the ideals under which I enlisted did not include protecting the rights and freedoms of some and not for others.

    Also, in my opinion, those who are opposed to gay marriage, whether consciously or unconsciously, dehumanize gays. If we call it marriage, it is a loving committed relationship. If we don’t allow them a marriage, then it is nothing more than deviant sex. By putting homosexuals in this tidy little box, one can maintain the ideals that have been preached to them throughout their lifetimes. If we call it marriage, then some people won’t be able to wrap their heads around the idea that people can do something you don’t agree with and not be a terrible person…because a terrible person cannot possibly be capable of a loving and committed relationship. Well, I for one don’t care if someone wants to live a life judging other people, but I do stand up for what I think is right, and I am sick of watching people look down their noses at other people, think they are better than them, and then try to exert control over them to “keep them in their rightful place.” I will be voting YES on No.1.

  • Anonymous

    If the question was “Do you believe same sex couples should have a legal civil union that entitles them to the benefits of a traditional marriage.”  I would most certainly vote yes.  Unfortunately a    legal, binding Civil Union is not good enough for the GL population.  They seem never to be happy unless they have it their way.   Anyone with opposite views from theirs are hateful bigots who live to deny them rights.  As long as they insist on redefining marriage I will vote No, again.  

    • Anonymous

      If you are referring to 2009 (which is the ONLY time we voted on SSM prior to this year) when you voted ” No, again” I would like to thank you for your vote in support of SSM. Now do the right thing and vote Yes this time.

  • Anonymous

    Everyone needs to remember, it is a one woman, one man marriage that gives birth to the same people that they are condeming only because they want to have the right to love who they want without being harrassed about it.  The question is not redefining marriage at all, it is just to give them the right to a marriage license!!

  • Washington County

    Very true article. The majority of the SSM people who comb articles in the BDN about Gay marriage use the word Bigot very freely to intimidate others.

  • “We are not threatening to harm anybody. We are not saying you should be in jail for any of this, but what we are saying is this degrades the foundation of the family and society, promotes diseases and dysfunction and tears down the person’s dignity.”

    I support the sisters’ right to express their views as openly and as loudly as they like, but for them to claim that such statements do no harm is preposterous. 

    If these women do not understand that calling homosexual families degraded, diseased, dysfunctional, and without dignity is indeed harmful to gay families and the people who love and support them, then they have missed THE main message of the bible. 

    • Have you heard the things said about Christians, Catholics, and any one of faith, lately? It’s goes far beyond harmful. In fact, I’ve seen many declare that we should get rid of all religion…ALL….make it illegal. The same bigotry and hatred they claim of those of faith..but rather they are taking it step forward towards threats. Plus, please read what these women are saying….people breaking their windows, or worse, just for displaying their support for voting no on question one. Yet, I don’t see you worrying about that kind of “harm”.

      I am one who understands that someone’s love isn’t a “threat” to anyone, and neither are the faithful who are simply casting their ballots like anyone else in our country. It’s still a democracy. The leaders in Maine decided to use the political system to redefine marriage, and now it’s the same political system being used….but more directly in the people’s hands…with the ballot. Go out and fight the good fight, but degrading those with different view points is DEFEATING THE PURPOSE. 

      • Anonymous

        Alice I would ask that you reread the article because they never said people were “breaking their windows”, they said “You could have your windows broken.” They make the inference but provide no evidence that has occurred even once.

        Now I am going to ask you to provide evidence that will show what you said in your first three sentences is true. Now if you are referring to the comments section of this paper, I have read that but I have also read some pretty nasty stuff written about gays and lesbian. But if you are referring to an organized effort I for one would like to see your proof.

  • Jazz11

    Thany you ladies for returning to the dark agea.

  • Anonymous

    I have no problem with you gals feeling the way you are and you are misguided in your belief system that thinks that if you speak out you will be cast as bigoted. The point that I think that you miss is that you are all white Christian Women – this IS NOT a marginalized group. All of these ideas are symbolic anyhow. In this article one of you states that because the bible doesn’t endorse gay marriage therefore it must be wrong. The thing is… the bible is not the be-all-end-all. Its just a spiritual book with one set of beliefs that guide folks in thinking a certain way about how to live their lives in community. There are lots of ways of looking at spirituality and they do not necessarily preclude the involvement of the concept of God. Marriage is a legal state of affairs and gives certain rights to property and designated family members not afforded to those who are merely in another form of contractual agreement. I disagree wholehearted with your assertion that same sex marriage degrades the foundation of the family and society, promotes diseases and dysfunction and tears down the person’s dignity. It does no such thing. If you really want to look at the transference of disease consider that men and women have been passing sexually transmitted diseases back and forth since… forever. Your arguments are misguided and uninformed. One of you said you lost your job because of your views. That sounds odd, but perhaps there are grounds for your own legal case or perhaps there is more to the story. In any event, I think it is wrong to use the bible to argue a civil argument. Homosexual people have been loving one another forever and in this country (and state) they deserve the same rights and benefits (and headaches) that the legal contract of marriage gives heterosexual couples.

    • Anonymous

      One of you said you lost your job because of your views.  In  Maine it is legal to fire a person for there views there’s no law against  it . You can be fired because the boss does not lot the political party you belong to, or the sports you do ect

  • Anonymous

    It’s obvious they don’t go to a gay hairdresser to get their hair done…

    • Anonymous

      People interact with gay people every day an never know it  .

  • Anonymous

    Show me in the bible where it says you can judge how a person can live their life… And if you “love them as a person” why not then allow them to enjoy the shared love and benefit of joining in the bonds of marriage?

  • Anonymous

    Why would the three of you expect tolerance if you cannot GIVE tolerance……oh–I get it- Tolerance should only be given to those who agree with you!  Silly me.

  • Anonymous

    Thank you for standing up for your beliefs.  If the gays were offered civil union with the insurance benefits and ect they still would not be satisfied, its not equal rights that they tout its special rights, and once they get this it will be something else.  Many a civilization has toppled because this lifestyle and its lack of morality and history will repeat its self. 

    • Anonymous

      I’ve stated many times that it would abide by our Constitution to abolish civil marriage altogether, and offer civil unions to everyone. I’d be fine with that.

      If you are talking about separate systems for different Americans, civil unions and civil marriages… well, that would still be unconstitutional, as separate systems are inherently unequal.

    • Anonymous

      How is it a special  right ? do you really know what a special right is   ? ” It’s some thing that a person or a group of people have that no one else can have ” 

  • Anonymous

    Bigotry
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  : Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot, defined by Merriam-Webster as “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance”.[1] Bigotry may be based on real or perceived characteristics, including age, disability, dissension from popular opinions, economic status, ethnicity, gender identity, language, nationality, political alignment, race, region, religious or spiritual belief, sex, or sexual orientation. Bigotry is sometimes developed into an ideology or world view.This word is being thrown around too easily, a difference of opinion does not make one a bigot. The way it is presented in the responses to this article, the opponents are bigots and the supporters are bigots….

  • Semipermeable

    Typical people trying to force their religious beliefs down everyone’s throats. If Churches are now lobbying groups they should loose their tax exempt status.

    I’m not a Christian, does that mean I can’t get married because it won’t be a religious ceremony? Oh wait, I can because it is a document from the government, no religion need be involved. This is about a secular legal contract. Churches do not have to consider LGBT folks ‘married under God’ if they don’t want to. If you think that the government is an extension of your church and should/will act as such, you are fools. The government is not something you want laying out religious edicts and laws. There is a reason we have separation of church and state. You are tearing down a wall that was built for your own protection!

  • Anonymous

    People ought to mind their own business, which means don’t tell other people how to worship, but also don’t tell other people who to marry. Practice your faith but don’t try to impose it on others.

  • Anonymous

    If you want to get political and publicly express your political opinions in your church, and your church not only allows it, but encourages it, then it’s time for the tax-free status of those churches to cease.  Separation of church and State goes both ways.

    • Separation of church and state is a liberal myth!  The Constitution states…”Congress shall make no law with respect to religion”…

      • Anonymous

        Your quote is a bit off.  The Constitution actually states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”  meaning that they will not make a law favoring one religion.  And I suppose that you are going to tell me that Thomas Jefferson, the person who stated that the first amendment was meant to build a wall between church and state, was a “liberal”.

      • Anonymous

         We see what a mix can do–you like Iraq?  Iran?  They mix religion with results you may like–perhaps you should relocate? LOL

  • Anonymous

    Why, someone please tell me WHY are we voting on this AGAIN??  I was what I thought to be opened minded about this the first few times I voted. Now I am ticked that it is being drove down my throat and will be voting NO for just that very reason.  This is like date rape over and over. NO means NO. Move to Vermont…..

    • Anonymous

      I’ll vote on this as many times as it takes to be treated equally by our government.

      If you were being discriminated against for no justifiable reason, you wouldn’t let such unconstitutional situations stand either.

    • Anonymous

      You’re ignorant. We voted once on this. If you don’t like it, why don’t you move to some place that isn’t a democracy? 

    • Anonymous

       Shouldn’t be voting on it–you are right. It is a civil matter and civil matters are government issues.  Why, we would still have blacks on the back of the BAT if we had voted…:)

  • Thank You Ladies!

    • Anonymous

       Yes, we can all pray for them now…:)

  • homosexual acts are sin!

    • Anonymous

      It’s pretty hypocritical to stand against a sin you don’t have a problem avoiding, while ignoring the many, many other ‘sins’ the bible mentions (such as eating shellfish, wearing mixed fabrics, or eating food over 3 days old).

      In reality, there is nothing sinful about two people blessed enough to find a supportive, committed relationship together in this world. God condemns rape, not love.

    • Anonymous

      Ever one is a sinner an a very large  amount  of the people do immoral acts to .

    • Anonymous

       I love soundbites like your posting–Fox News does that kind of stuff too!  Can you spew us a little more so we can respond?

    • Alec Cunningham

      So are a lot of heterosexual acts.  What is your point?

  • Anonymous

    Welcome to America where we have freedom of choice and free speech. People will stick to their believes and have a right to vote accordingly. I will place my vote and no matter of the outcome I won’t lose sleep over it.

  • Anonymous

    Exactly! Good to see the BDN publishing an article like this. Thank you.

    • Anonymous

      I agree. It really helps the pro-marriage equality side to expose how ridiculous and discriminatory the other side’s arguments are. 

  • me in me

    Can someone show me where in the bible it says : Author -God.? Men wrote the bible and interpretated the word of God to their liking . Many things in the Bible have dual meanings , and no one will ever know the absolute mandates of God. 

    • Anonymous

        Ok,
      here it is–2 Timothy 3:16–“All scripture is given by inspiration of
      God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
      instruction in righteousness.” (KJV)  And, here’s another one–1
      Corinthians 6:9–“Surely you know that the wicked well not possess God’s
      Kingdom.  Do no fool yourselves; people who are immoral or who worship
      idols or are adulterers or homosexual perverts shall inherit the kingdom
      of God.”  So, when posters here say homosexual are perverts, it’s
      because God says they are. 

      Just because a state or government allows it, by ‘law’, it doesn’t
      change how God views it–people try to justify it with all kinds of
      arguments, but the truth is the truth.  Just because it is OK by ‘law’,
      it doesn’t make it right.  Case in point–the Holocaust was legal–did
      that make it right?

      • Anonymous

         God ways many things—all people should look inward before they focus on others…there is enough in their own bed to take up a good long while in atonement….:)

      • Anonymous

        God condemns rape, not love. There is nothing in the Gospel that shows me God opposes homosexuals committed in loving, supportive relationships. Quite the opposite, in fact— the God of the Gospel is one of love, forgiveness, and understanding— love thy neighbor as thyself, help the less fortunate around you, and judge not.

        • Anonymous

           Wow–you tell yourself something long enough, you begin to believe it.  The Bible is FULL of references to homosexual behavior and they all condemn it.  If someone chooses not to believe the Bible, that is their business, but if someone says they believe the Bible yet chooses to only accept those parts that fit their lifestyle, they are hypocrites. 

          • Anonymous

            Full of references? I challenge you to come up with more than 9.

            And all of them condemn rape and exploitation, not the committed monogamous love of two people wanting to enter into a lifelong marriage.

            Meanwhile, the bible IS full of references on how to treat your slaves, and many passages were used to justify that abhorrent practice. Even Pat Robertson agrees that those passages should be seen as from a time when we did not understand each other’s humanity as well.

            In other words, using the Bible to justify mistreatment of homosexuals will someday be seen the same as using the Bible to justify holding slaves.

          • Anonymous

            Nine is MORE enough. You want references, etc. but then don’t like what they say. It really doesn’t matter what either you or I or anyone else on this site think, we really don’t have the final say. You’ll see. But for now, no more posts on this subject for me. Clearly, I won! No point in sending a rebuttal, I won’t be opening this comments section again.

  • me in me

    Can someone show me where in the bible it says : Author -God.? Men wrote the bible and interpretated the word of God to their liking . Many things in the Bible have dual meanings , and no one will ever know the absolute mandates of God. 

    • Anonymous

      Their opinons and yes this story is just that, their opinions. OK. The only thing that valadates the story is the reader.. Every story in the news is of opinions unless it reported differently as fact. It is designed to stir up emotions and pitting one group against another on purpose.. No one even their so called pros on any story carry any weight unless the reader agrees to believe that persons opinion has value..  

    • Anonymous

      That’s what ive been saying all along an you are right

    • Anonymous

      Ok, here it is–2 Timothy 3:16–“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” (KJV)  And, here’s another one–1 Corinthians 6:9–“Surely you know that the wicked well not possess God’s Kingdom.  Do no fool yourselves; people who are immoral or who worship idols or are adulterers or homosexual perverts shall inherit the kingdom of God.”  So, when posters here say homosexual are perverts, it’s because God says they are. 

      Just because a state or government allows it, by ‘law’, it doesn’t change how God views it–people try to justify it with all kinds of arguments, but the truth is the truth.  Just because it is OK by ‘law’, it doesn’t make it right.  Case in point–the Holocaust was legal–did that make it right?

      • Anonymous

        Godwin’s law, you automatically lose the debate.

      • Anonymous

        If the holocaust was legal, why were those who participated in it convicted of war crimes and sent to prison?

        • Anonymous

          Check your history–GERMANY made it legal–but it wasn’t right or moral.  Other countries got involved and that’s why there were trials, but it was Germany that carried out the atrocities on laws they made up.  Wrong laws, of course, but none the less it was ‘legal’ in Germany.  So, Maine may pass a law that is ‘legal’, but it doesn’t make it either right or moral.  Not all states have made homosexual marriage ‘legal’.  So, Germany made a law but not universally accepted.   So, in reality, your question actually makes my point–just because something is ‘legal’, doesn’t make it ‘right’.

          • Anonymous

            Since our country’s inception there have been groups that have seen the promise of our Constitution, and petitioned our society for equal rights, access to government, and legal protections. And all along the way there have been people predicting doom and gloom and national destruction if we extend these things to one more group, race, sex, or other minority.

            And every time they have failed, and every time our nation has failed to self-destruct. This is just the next way in which our constitution is fulfilling its promise to ALL Americans.

  • Anonymous

    “We are not threatening to harm anybody.”

    They may truly believe this, but they are wrong. The continued discrimination against same-sex couples in access to civil marriage is doing harm to families across Maine and across this nation.

    Survivor benefits for social security is just one of the 1,100+ benefits and privileges extended by our government based on your marital status— access to these benefits requires civil marriage.

    I am voting YES on question 1 in November, because ALL Maine families deserve the ability to protect the lives they build together, and the children they raise together. 

  • Alice Clark Goldsmith

    It has nothing to do with religion…it is EQUAL RIGHTS.

  • Anonymous

    Wow! So again and again I hear the refrain that if I don’t agree with the homosexual program I am a bigot and vicious person for my refusal to accept a sexual lifestyle that is against my beliefs.  I realize that there is very little I can say here to try to help people have an understanding of why this is so.  There reason for this is , you don’t really want to understand what my beliefs are or why I have them. You prefer to just make sweeping accusations based on your own bigotry and intolerance, yet you chastise and berate people who do not share your beliefs ,as if your beliefs are the final and the only possible way to view this issue. You may legislate laws to force people to accept the legal aspects of this issue , but it does nothing to bridge the understanding needed to overcome the emotional end of this

    • Anonymous

      When was the last time you were fired for you are? When was the last time you felt unsafe walking on the street at night because of who you are? When was the last time you were told you were disgusting and going to hell for who you are?

      You’re not the victim here. You’re not the one being discriminated against and being bullied. 

    • Anonymous

      “You may legislate laws to force people to accept the legal aspects of
      this issue , but it does nothing to bridge the understanding needed to
      overcome the emotional end of this”

      True enough…and was said about interracial marriage in 1967.

    • Anonymous

       NOBODY cares if you accept anything.  I think what is troubling is that you believe they should…LOL

  • Anonymous

    Those ladies are gonna end up in hell. They need to cast the demons out of their souls and repent.

    • Anonymous

      WOW!  “Hell”?  Sounds like a serious penalty for stating an opinion.  And…repent from what….speaking the truth?

      • Anonymous

         ohhhhhhhh–I know MANY self-identifying Christians who will be feeling the heat of their mythical hell long before many GLBTQ people will.  Judgement comes from how you live, not how you pretend to.  Instead of praying, it would be more productive to “walk the walk”. 

  • Anonymous

     Her post is about the Bible-nothing to do with the First Amendment.If I wanted to see the Constitution in shreds,I’d vote for Romney.Ask the Paul supporters how that worked out!

  • Anonymous

    i believe that god wanted us to happy in this world and that on judgement day when we all stand in front of him, being gay or straight wont matter, we are gods children and i believe he loves us all equal. with that being said i have a small child and im his mother and its my job to love him unconditionally and if someday he says to me that he is gay, i will love him just as much as the day he was born, the first time i held him in my arms and looked into those beautiful little eyes. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but ultimately i honestly believe that god himself will make the judgement himself when the time comes.

  • Anonymous

    I believe
    that everyone has a right to speak his or her mind and have his or her own
    belief system. Being someone who has gay uncles, I, like these sisters have a
    very strong opinion on this topic. And when reading this article it angers me
    to see statements like “what we are saying is this degrades the
    foundation of the family and society, promotes diseases and dysfunction and
    tears down the person’s dignity.” My uncles have adopted two beautiful
    babies and are living a wonderful life as a FAMILY. How are providing food,
    clothing, shelter, education, guidance, and most importantly love degrading the
    foundation of the family? We are living in 2012, almost 2013, the definition of
    family isn’t the same as what it was 50 years ago. This isn’t the 50’s, not every
    family consists of a mother, a father, 2.5 children and a golden retriever.
    Family- A group consisting of parents and
    children living together in a household. This being the definition of family
    would say that they are already “degrading” the foundation of a family by
    living together. I believe what you meant to say was they would degrade the
    foundation of marriage. Well let me say that marriage isn’t such a sacred bond
    anymore. You have celebrities getting married for a month and then divorced.
    Should we not allow them to get married too? There is dysfunction in
    heterosexual relationships just as you speak of in same-sex ones. I have seen
    more lasting and happy relationships between homosexuals than many
    heterosexuals. And how dare you speak of someone else’s dignity? Who are
    you to judge (which you are) their worthiness? I will tell you straight out
    that I am not a religious person but I thought that the bible says not to judge
    others?

    “But we
    have no right to hate them and no right to tell them what they can and cannot
    do, but on that same note, we don’t have to accept same-sex marriage as normal
    and natural.” You say you have no right to tell them what they can and cannot
    do, and then in the same breath say that they can’t get married. That seems to
    be a bit of a contradictory. You don’t have to agree with it, you don’t have to
    allow them to be married in your church, we aren’t even telling you that you
    need to socialize with these “lesser of a persons” is what I’m sensing from
    your opinions is how you look at them. We are just saying that EVERYONE
    deserves the option to decide for themselves whether or not they want to marry
    the person they love, just like you and me! No one should have the right to
    take that away from them. My one question that never seems to be answered is,
    how does this affect your life? I don’t want to hear how it jeopardizes family
    systems, and the sanctity of marriage blah blah blah because that is not how it
    directly affects you. If you were in a room with 50 people and half of them
    were gay and happily married without them saying how would you know? And would
    you combust when you did find out, no, because it is as much of a non factor women
    voting, or interracial marriage. Equality for all is what we preach in the
    country yet we still discriminate. It does not affect your life, my life, or my
    dog’s life whether or not they have a ceremony to declare their love and a piece
    of paper to proudly show it! This is why I will be voting YES ON ONE!

  • Anonymous

    I’ve been told that Italian, Irish, German, Franco-American, Africans, South Americans, and Jews of all nationalities are permitted to marry.
    I find it suspicious that no one has mentioned that.
    Soon they’ll be letting Native Americans, Floridians, Brooklynites, and Canadians exchange vows promising to care for, protect, cherish, and listen to one another.
    Have we no shame, at long last?

  • Anonymous

    I couldn’t even finish reading this article, simply because I believe everything they are saying is ridiculous.. 

    “If this is the age of tolerance,” Daigle said, “why aren’t we being heard?”
    It’s probably because you are, by definition, being INtolerant…

  • So some believers in myth and fantasy oppose gay marriage, for their own deluded reasons, and then feel “discriminated against.”
    This is “news”?
    Is it really of any interest to know what the small-minders are thinking? We already know they’re not happy unless they’re minding other people’s business, giving their opinions about things they know nothing about, and being “persecuted” for their busybodiness.

    The bigots and haters made the exact same nonarguments, about “redefining marriage” and “destroying the institution of marriage,” when arguing against interracial marriage. Somehow the world has not ended, people’s lives and marriages have NOT been ruined, and the country hasn’t degenerated into chaos and anarchy because people of different races have been marrying in increasing numbers over the past 50 years.

    If the religious nutballs truly believed the teachings of their holy overlord, they’d abide by “love thy neighbor as thyself” and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” They’d also be consistent in following all the 1st-century dictates to the letter instead of picking and choosing what supports their latest imbecilic beliefs, fears, and prejudices.

  • Anthony Hawksley

    Is it nice to have a freedom of speech or freedom of
    religion? You sisters made me feel I’m a second class, just a hair above being
    a slave. Again Majority of people have the rights to harm minority folks. They
    talk about gay rights, we not asking for more rights than you or the next
    person… I just wanted to be treated a human equally.

     

    So can I ask, Why should I VOTE to let women vote or be
    equal. Since they cause problems to society as well, since women have rights
    now. They made society weaker and took over the man roles. Women can choose to divorce
    her husband and steal the husband money and property and refuse the father to
    see his kids. Women are allowed to seen in public which can cause a problem or
    two. Also Women are insignificant in the command chain of family.

     

    Or Religion, what if it was illegal to praise the lord in
    public, or be a Baptist or Catholic, or Muslim

     

    Yeah that what I thought, we moved pass that and let women
    to be equal. YEAH.

     

    What about blacks eh? Don’t even start me with that.

     

    I bet you ladies are nice and all. But have you EVER look at
    the bigger picture? What happen if society didn’t learn and never let women to
    be equal or blacks or any other race. I think it our turn to be treated fairly!

  • Anonymous

    It still floors me that people still think that
    homosexuality is a lifestyle, that people are choosing to be homosexual.  Why would anyone choose that if they knew
    what kind of ridicule they would be facing? 
    I do not envy those who have come out and have been faced with
    alienation, hate, ridicule, and just cruelty from being who they are.  But I also do envy them for having the guts
    to be who they are in such a world where people think their beliefs and
    opinions should have anything to do with someone’s civil rights. No one chooses
    their sexual orientation.  Heterosexuals,
    when did you choose to be straight? Oh right, you didn’t.

    • Anonymous

       God created Adam and Eve–male and female.  We were created “straight”–anything else is a perversion.

      • Anonymous

        So you support incest?  Good to know…

        • Anonymous

          Incest??  Who brought up incest??  I said God created male and female–Adam and Eve.  How is that incest?  When people such as you have a seriously deficient argument, silly little stones like this are thrown out to get attention away from the truth.  Your weak arguments are quite amusing and childish.

          • Anonymous

            If God made Adam and Eve, then who did their children procreate with?

          • Anonymous

            Good question–deserves the correct answer.  You call it incest–however, incest was NOT condemned until 2,500 years AFTER the creation of Adam and Eve.  By then, the imperfection of humans was such that close marriages would be harmful to the children.  The laws given to the Israelite nation protected them.  Yes, Adam and Eve’s children married  their brothers/sisters, but at that time was not forbidden nor considered incest.  I’m sure you won’t accept that, but it’s OK–it still is a fact.

          • Anonymous

            Except marrying brother/sisters is the DEFINITION of incest.  So, no, I don’t accept your bs cognitive dissonance.

          • Anonymous

            Check this out from the encyclopedia:
            They could have offspring with each other without genetic problems
            because the first few children were perfect and did not have any
            problems with their DNA. It was not uncommon during those times for
            brothers and sisters to marry and have children as did cousins. It was
            only later that incestuous marriages were forbidden. Even Abraham and
            Sarah were half siblings, having the same father but different mothers.

            In those times, man lived to be very old, so there were plenty of years
            to have lots of children. Also, sin was not around as long and had not
            taken the toll on man that it has today, and being inbred did not cause
            the birth defects that it causes today. The world was young and not so
            defiled. People don’t keep in mind that it was a different time, and
            things that they think couldn’t be, actually could.

            The statement that children of Adam and Eve married each other usually
            provokes a further objection that God would not permit incest. In modern
            times, incest is regarded as reprehensible, and rightly so. This is
            because of what scientists refer to as ‘the genetic load’. This ‘load’
            is the accumulation of bad mutations during the centuries. Fortunately
            for us, the genetic effect of these mutations is usually recessive. It
            remains latent, unless both parents carry the particular recessive
            genes. In that case, the offspring has a significant chance to exhibit
            the defect. The more closely the parents are related, the greater the
            risk of carrying matching recessive bad mutations from ‘the genetic
            load’.

          • Anonymous

            Wiki answers is not an encyclopedia and there is no evidence that Adam and Eve ever actually existed.

          • Anonymous

             Oh,  PUH-LEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZE…lol

          • maineiac123

            “,,,, but it’s OK–it still is a fact.”  No it is not a fact.  It is a belief and only a belief.  I tend not to believe it, you tend to believe it.

      • Anonymous

        There is nothing perverted about two people blessed enough to find in one another a supportive, honest, lifelong commitment in this world.

      • Anonymous

         No–we KNOW that God created no Adam and Eve–that is a fine myth–at least the way you believe it to be.  We have carbon dated early humans now that hold no resemblance to the buff couple we see in all pictures of Adam and Eve. AND–they both have navels–how to heck did that happen if she sprung form his rib?  Who birthed who?

      • maineiac123

         Then why did your god create gay children from straight parents?

    • Anonymous

      Agreed and very well put! 

  • Anonymous

    You ladies don’t sound like haters and bigots; just ignorant and weak-minded.

    • Passadumkeagah

      …And you sound like a name-caller. Your very words preach hatred. Your post is the definition of intolerance. That’s what the majority has come to expect from your side – putrid invective whenever a viewpoint other than yours is put forth. You and your ilk are bullies, plain and simple.

      • Anonymous

        When that viewpoint is that I should be a second class citizen, do you honestly expect me to be happy about it?  Do you honestly expect me to respect someone who want to treat me as subhuman scum?  Get real.

      • Anonymous

         Truth can be painful—take a deep breath and light up that ciggie…:)

        • Passadumkeagah

          Your response borders on being a non sequitur.

          • Anonymous

             Been reading wiki again, huh?  lol

          • maineiac123

             Been refusing to read again huh?

      • Anonymous

        Okay, honest discussion time:

        I think these sisters are wrong because they claim they do not wish anyone harm, yet by standing against civil marriage rights for same-sex couples, they are denying important benefits to families across Maine. Social security survivor’s benefits, access to military housing for spouses of soldiers, plus thousands more laws in 13 different categories.

        Real harm comes to partners left behind when a loved one dies, and without civil marriage, social security benefits are nonexistent. Hospital visitation rights are not as clear cut, especially if challenged by other family members. And funeral arrangements can be more problematic without a clear civil marriage license smoothing the way for end of life decisions.

        For me, it is how my government is treating me as a taxpaying American that is the issue we are addressing with question 1.

        What is your honest justification for denying equal treatment under our laws to same-sex couples who are just as committed in lifelong relationships as any heterosexual couple?

  • Anonymous

    So much for bi-partisan “compromise”.

    In reality there is a compromise solution but when it is proposed issue proponents ignore it for the most part. Governmental “equality” of benefits and rights can be mechanically guaranteed as a function of law and implementation of such in exchange for the definition of “Marriage” remaining exactly as it is right now…”The union of one man and one woman.”

    Name your institution! Be proud of yourselves instead of trying to live your lives by others’ definition. Create your life by your own standards and leave traditionalists alone to live theirs. However if indeed it’s relationship respect you’re demanding from them you’ll soon find you’re quite equal to everyone else who has to create their own.

    • Anonymous

      Separate but equal was ruled unconstitutional a long time ago…

      • Anonymous

        Laws can be changed should they need to be.

        • Anonymous

          Are you saing that we need to change the law to allow for separate but equal?

          • Anonymous

            I am not a lawyer, governmental official or lobbyist and refuse to back myself into that corner. I find it disturbing that you are automatically ruling out all compromise out of stubbornness. Laws can be changed.  I do not have the expertise but others do.

            I’d like to hang out and party but my life is elsewhere starting right now.

          • Anonymous

            Well, if a compromise is unconstitutional, then it should be ruled out.  The only way to make your “compromise” legal would be to overturn Brown v. Board of Education.  If you are unwilling to do that, then your “compromise” is worthless.

          • Anonymous

            As crs noted below there is already one SCOTUS ruling on separate but equal and there is one also that established marriage as a “civil right” and that ruling was called Loving v. Virginia (1967)

        • Anonymous

          You really don’t understand how our government and the US Constitution work, do you?

    • Anonymous

      No one makes such an issue over the other uses of the word marriage— I have heard no outcry when modular home makers refer to a “marriage wall” in a home they build.

      The truth is that civil marriage is a legal construct with no religious attachments, and it is civil marriage we are asking for. Churches are free to discriminate against a couple for religious marriage ceremony today, and will be in the future regardless of who has access to legal civil marriage.

      I am voting yes on 1 in November, because ALL Maine families deserve access to the protections and benefits civil marriage provides, for their lives and their families.

    • Anonymous

       The “definition” of marriage was a “created term”.  Marriage in Biblical terms is all about ownership, power, and property rights…:)  Oh, along with polygamy and some other interesting things…

      • Anonymous

        When you say interesting things, do you mean like a “you break it, you buy it” policy on rape?

        • Anonymous

           The Bible has rape in it too–full of juicy relationship stuff–:)

          • Anonymous

            Like when Lot, the most moral man in Sodom, offered his daughters to be raped?  Or perhaps later on, when his supposedly moral daughters got Lot drunk and raped him?

          • Anonymous

             Mythical takes always are fun to read about…it is when we believe them all and use them to justify current policies that they become dangerous–:)

    • maineiac123

       Ahh so you prefer separate but equal do you?  The problem with that is that it’s never equal and why should same-sex couples settle for anything less than equality.  Why would you want them to.  You say traditional marriage but which traditional marriage?  The one where non-whites couldn’t marry blacks?  The one where the wife was the property of the husband?  The one where divorce was not legal?  The permitting multiple wives?   Which traditional marriage?

  • Bright

    I believe everyone should have the right to believe what they choose, it’s when your beliefs start affect the rest of us I have an issue. When you vote with your beliefs you’re imposing those beliefs on others, and that is wrong.

  • Anonymous

    Freedom of speach only if you happen to agree with the yes on one…. thk you ladies for your courage!

    • Anonymous

      And I guess that equal treatment under the law only applies to heterosexuals…

      • Passadumkeagah

        It applies to all, but not especially to anyone of any specific gender preference (or set of preferences). They do not have to be specifically enumerated.

        • Anonymous

          Except banning same sex marriage would actually make it so equal treatment under the law doesn’t apply to same sex couples.

        • maineiac123

           So you want “special rights” for opposite sex couples.  That’s interesting because usually people who are opposed to same-sex marriage are also opposed to “special rights’.  Tell me why opposite-sex couples should get those “special right” and why same-sex couples shouldn’t be equal.

  • Anonymous

    This is the most thought out and explained “NO” vote I have heard since this has all come to light. We have enough to all fight about without adding this to it…I don’t believe that the union of marriage is all that they want. They want medical rights, they want social security and health insurance…I say they are more at risk for certain health issues and I for one don’t want to be paying more because they have a problem that is of their own doings. I realize I will get a lot of nasty grams but I really don’t care they want me to be understanding but they don’t want to be understanding of my point of view.

    • Anonymous

       How foolish you are–I am sure they do not wish to pay for your fuel assistance, rent subsidy, food stamps, and social security any longer either…no, I do not think “they” are in the mood to be “understanding of your view”.  Actually, I see clearly why—:)

  • You say…”Why would anyone choose homosexuality if they knew what kind of ridicule they would be facing?”

    The same could be said for pedophilia!

    They are both sickenesses of society!

    • Anonymous

      Yes, but if a pedophiles acts on their feelings, there is clear harm.  There is no clear harm from same sex relationships.

    • Anonymous

      If you cannot argue against gay marriage without bringing up pedophilia, you  have no argument against gay marriage.

    • Anonymous

       Many Christian sects are the sickness of society—it is others RIGHT to believe so–LOL The GBLTQ population just will not accept or tolerate  your condemnation any longer and it makes y’all angry–spend time PRAYING and stop PREYING…:)

  • Anonymous

    If the question was “Do you believe same sex couples should have a legal civil union that entitles them to the benefits of a traditional marriage.”  I would most certainly vote yes.      legal, binding Civil Union is not good enough for  them, they seem never to be happy unless they have it their way    do believe that if this does pass one day,  this part of society will always claim discrimination of some sort.  If anyone believes this would be the end of the whining they will be sadly disappointed

    • Anonymous

      Your little solution was ruled unconstitutional a long time ago.  Look up “separate but equal”.

    • Anonymous

      You say “they” as though we are all one monolithic, hive mind that has no diversity in opinions on this issue. Nothing could be further from the truth.

      I have many times pointed out that eliminating civil marriage altogether, and instituting civil unions for everyone, would be a fine compromise that would abide by our Constitution’s equal protection clause.

      It’s clear from your attitude that you are either unwilling or unable to have empathy for how someone else is treated by our government. I’m sure you will find some other group to complain about once treating gays equally is commonplace in our culture.

      • Anonymous

        Many faiths are fear-based–it has been blacks, communists, Catholics, Jews, and any number of different groups that have been the target throughout history.  If you take away the human personification of Satan, the faith is weakened–hence the current Muslim craze that has somewhat supplanted the GLBTQ “Satan” of the recent past….

    • Anonymous

       Uh, no, the whining comes from another place–look within…:)

  • Anonymous

    Why aren’t you being heard?  You’ve been heard for centuries.  But, fire has been discovered, the earth isn’t the center of our universe, slavery has been abolished and it’s time to stop letting your religious views get in the way of basic human rights.

  • Anonymous

    Im sure people felt the same way about blacks and women a few years back before they had their rights. a few years ago these Ladies would not have a say in such matters let alone be allowed to vote. .

    • Anonymous

       –and psuedo-Christians were behind those inequities as well…the storyline of fear has gotten old…:)

  • Anonymous

    Too bad for these ladies we are not a Christian society living under biblical government. This is a democratic society living under republican government. Hetero’s can marry over and over and over without getting it right, so why is it that GBLs shouldn’t have the same right?

  • Anonymous

    And I for one completely agree, and I could care less what others think of me or my position on this issue. Let them call me bigoted, I care less. Let them call me anti gay, lesbian or whatever, I could care less. Let them call me hateful, I could care less.
    And to Cindy, if you lost your job because of your views, take action against the low life who fired you. That is illegal.
    For those who would choose to harrass me for my beliefs, I say BRING IT!
    And to the sisters Carol, Valerie & Cindy, Keep the faith, there are legions who are with you, and to those who would denegrate you, fear them not, for they are beneath contempt.

    • Anonymous

       Nobody harrasses  you on your views, and you should do likewise unto others….:)

  • Anonymous

    First, I’d like to say hello to all the PPH transplants.  I was so discouraged when PPH changed their policy and I’m thrilled that I can now join debates again!  I for one do not see those that are planning to vote no on question one a bigot or a hater, just uninformed or misinformed and judgmental.  I’m not sure what you think will happen when question 1 passes in November but I can assure you that heterosexual couples will still continue to marry and reproduce.  Civilization will not end.

    • Alec Cunningham

      That is the PPH policy now?

      • Anonymous

        Their policy is you have to sign on to comment through your fb account using your real name.  I just don’t feel comfortable giving out that information.  It’s too dangerous.  It scares me to think if someone doesn’t like my point of view they could find out where I live or where I work.  Or, imagine someone I do business with who has a polar opinion and having that work against me.  I’m so sad because I live in the Mid-Coast area so the PPH is really my paper but I love to debate and as you can see I have strong opinions so I hope you will all welcome me to your discussions

        • Alec Cunningham

          I see.  Yes, I think it’s unfortunate that they have done that.  I would create an account, then, with a false name.  I’d use the “porn star” method.  Combine your first pet’s name with the street you grew up on.  I’d be “Puff Filmore!”
          I know that other places have required a Facebook account under the false impression that it will lead to more civil discussion.  I have seen some truly terrible and nasty comments made by people who use Facebook accounts-I think it will not make a difference.
          I also don’t think it’s fair that they force their readers who wish to comment share their opinions with one of the biggest data miners in the world.

  • Anonymous

    Quite frankly, I do not think that anyone will change others opinions on this topic through their postings here, and generally I would not respond to people who refuse to put their name to their comments as to me it denotes a certain cowardice. That said, I think it is important to remember that religion is a personal area of one’s life that should be kept to the individual and has no place in either politics or the nations legal structure.  lest we forget, to be valid a marriage requires a civil license, and no church at all to be consummated or considered legal.  The history of marriage began as an ownership and property rights issue and had precious little to do with love, family, or faith. I believe that passage of Question 1 does not require any church to perform “weddings” if  its members do not support same-sex unions. That should be the end of it as any church member will neither be impacted if their same-sex neighbors marry, nor will their union with their own spouse be affected unless it is already one of the 50% whose religious vows to “love, honor, and cherish” do not pan out.  For better or worse, the United States is a nation of laws, and marriage confers hundreds of benefits based on the civil marriage. The church wedding is considered null and void without a marriage license issued by our government. I have lived long enough to see certain religions cry “the ruination of society” at so many things that have turned out in retrospect to be wrong. These include-but are not limited to– the lottery, abolishing blue laws to allow shopping on Sundays, alcohol sales on Sundays, gambling, and the list goes on and on. There was a time when many of the same religions making the same arguments today against same-sex unions also made these arguments against integration, interracial marriage, in-vitro fertilization, and so many others, and all of these hurt other people supposedly in the name of the Lord.  Do as the Bible says and pray alone for in doing so you may better understand your own human foibles.  I respect everyone’s beliefs and love the person, but “hate” the sins they perform against others while using faith as an excuse to do so.
    )

    I apologize to these two sisters for them having to vote on this issue, because people should not be voting on others rights guaranteed under our nation’s founding documents. Remember, it is a civil license that allows two people to get married in the United States. At the same time, I am sad for these two sisters because I realize that had they been of voting age in the 1960s, their faith would have compelled them to vote to keep certain people on the back of the bus.  The arguments are the same in so many ways, and they have developed an odor with the passage of time.l

    Denis Cranson (I support my opinions and do not feel the need to hide behind a screenname)  :)

    • Anonymous

      I most certainly agree with you that opinions will probably not change by posting here but there is always a possibility.  I know that in the past I have gained different perspectives that I may not have considered.  Such as the case of the “johns” in Kennebunk.  I had one poster completely change my opinion.  If you keep an open mind and someone has a good argument it is entirely possible to change.  I try hard not to judge.  Now, I will give you another perspective on why some don’t want to use their real names.  I chose a screen name as a safety precaution.  I will stand up and state my opinion but I prefer to know the person I’m speaking to.  What if some religious freak is stalking the posts?  What if someone just got so frustrated with me because I couldn’t see their view?  What if I accidentally hurt someone’s feelings or made them look bad?  What if business people who I work with/for saw that I had a different opinion then they did?  I know you are not suppose to discuss politics at work but trust me…it happens and could make my life hell.  So, as you can see using my real name could make my life difficult for me and cause trouble for me. 

      • Anonymous

        I understand what you are saying, Annie, but the least of my worries in a forum like this is  caring if I “hurt somebody’s feelings” when responding to them or if others have a “differing opinion than me and they may be upset”.  I feel if a person chooses to express an opinion and want me to consider their views., they certainly should return the same courtesy as well as  be able to support what they are saying.  Remaining nameless allows people far too much freedom to say outrageous things they would never say in a face to face encounter. :)  Actually, your points are well taken though–but the nameless thing is why I seldom post here.  :)

        • Anonymous

          I agree too.  When I said “hurt somebody’s feelings”  I wasn’t saying that I was afraid to hurt others feelings..I am afraid of personal retaliation because I’m easier to find after giving my real name.  My opinion is my own…I’m not afraid of giving it…I’m afraid of some unknown person getting upset with me for it.    I agree that some say outrageous things and I have often called someone out on rude behaviour or name calling.  As far as I’m concerned once the name calling begins then you know you have won the argument because they are out of constructive commentary.  No, I’m not afraid to hurt some one’s feelings with my opinion, I’m afraid to create a hostile enviornment with someone stalking the posts.  Call me paranoid but call me safe.  I don’t go give out my personal information to strangers either

          • Anonymous

            It’s also a matter of security.  It’s so easy to get someone’s personal information with things like your name and birthday, it’s scary.

          • Anonymous

            Thank you, yes it is scary and that’s my point!  So, as sad as I am to leave the PPH I will not be giving my FB account and real name to anyone.  Disqus has my real name if I ever get out of hand go mental but it is safe and sound with them and not out for every lunatic to find.

  • Kitchell

    Great story, They are to be commended for having the courage to stand up for what they believe.
    Do not be silent. Thank you to these three sisters.

    • Anonymous

       They cannot even agree on their faith–I would not consider their views especially  expert.  One is Catholic, 2 are Baptist, and until about 1065, the 2 faith held not so nice views of each other.  LOL

  • Kitchell

    The bible also says that homosexuality is an abomination to God.  If we are going to quote the bible on a topic, lets quote the bible on the topic. People create their own interpretations and pluck verses out of the bible so they can justify the sin in their lives.  

    • Anonymous

      Yes, lets quote the bible on this topic.  What does the bible say about what these women are doing?

      “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be silent.” 1 Timothy 2:12

      Oh my…

      • Joy Eaton

        All of these bible qoutes solidifies my decision I made years ago to leave organized religion.

    • Anonymous

      It’s pretty hypocritical to stand against proclaimed sins in the bible that you have no trouble avoiding, while ignoring or dismissing the other items that are proclaimed “abomination to God” in those texts.

      Or do you not eat shellfish or any food over 3 days old, avoid wearing mixed fabrics, and stone unruly children to death?

      • Anonymous

        Don’t forget allowing these women to speak in public!

      • Anonymous

         That is the wonder of “selective faith”–absolute hogwash…:)

    • Anonymous

      Somewhere in the bible they also speak about judging.  God is the only person to judge.  Not you, not I, not anyone.  Let God judge the sinners!  Keep your religion, marry who you want, raise your children, live your life, but most of all, let others do the same.

      • Passadumkeagah

        If you’re going to cite the Bible, them quote the Bible. You can’t use it to put forth your point of view if you don’t quote it word for word and in context. It would be no different than taking a dictionary definition and using only some of the words in the definition to prove your point.

        • Anonymous

          “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” – Matthew 7:1-2

        • Anonymous

          I wasn’t trying to quoting the bible.  I believe I said, “somewhere in the bible they also speak about judging”.  If I meant to quote the bible I would have said, “judge not lest you be judged” and then I would have cited it.  Excuse me and thank you crs5012723.  My point of view bibical or not is we need to stop judging others!  It’s not our job.  Whether I believe in God, the bible or not I believe that we are not here to judge one another.   
          Here’s a quote for you and I cited the link below.

          1
          a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
          http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

    • Anonymous

       Yes, they DO interpret–that is the freedom of FAITH, buddy. The problem comes when people want (better yet, demand) everyone INTERPRET the way they do.  lol

  • sassyfrazz

    It’s no one else’s business who a person chooses to love.  I don’t believe these sisters are bigoted, but I do believe that they have no business foistering their religious beliefs on others (anymore than I have the right to tell them that they should live without their beliefs – it’s not my business how they worship).

    If they truly believe in the bible (which, by the way, some of us don’t) then they will leave the judging up to God.  Again, I would never even consider for a moment telling them that their way of worshipping is wrong. 

    We are supposed to be living in a ‘free’ country.  This country was founded by many people seeking to leave other countries to escape (among other things) religious persecution.  We seem to have forgotten this tiny tidbit of truth over the years.  This is much like we tend to forget that “One nation, under God” was not added to the pledge of allegiance until the Knights of Columbus petitioned congress to add it in 1954.  Our founding fathers originally left that out.

    I guess it’s not so “free” for people who choose to live a different lifestyle than they do.

  • Joel Alex

    Better put than I could ever say or the sisters’ could probably put themselves, this article address the sisters’ line of reasoning and highlights how both opponents and proponents both have valid points, but that not all distress is created equal: “The Distress of the Privalege”  by the Weekly Sift http://weeklysift.com/2012/09/10/the-distress-of-the-privileged/

  •  10 Reasons to Ban Gay Marriage

    1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things
    like eyeglasses, polyester and air conditioning.

    2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging
    around       tall people will make you tall.

    3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior.
    People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing
    and can sign a marriage contract.

    4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed
    at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded;
    women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce
    is still illegal.

    5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed;
    the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears’ would be destroyed.

    6) The only valid marriages are those which produce children. Gay couples,
    infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because
    our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

    7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents
    only raise straight children.

    8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours,
    the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why
    we have only one religion in America.

    9) Children can never succeed without both a male and a female role model
    at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise
    children.

    10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt
    to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector
    economy or longer life spans.

    • Carey Haskell

      Jared, is this your own? And, if so, can I “steal” it to share?

      •  Anonymously posted on Facebook… please, steal away. :)

    • Anonymous

      Congrats Jared!  Absolutely wonderful!

    • Joy Eaton

      I love this Jared!! Way to rule the comments on here and make a statement without name calling or degrading to others! Kudos to you!
      These woman live in a different time (like the 1600’s) and I am just waiting for the torches and pitch forks to come out from religious groups.

    • Anonymous

      Bravo Jared…Bravo !!

  • Carey Haskell

    “The sisters say they want people to know they don’t hate gay people.”

    Nope, no hatred, they just don’t think that “gay people” are worthy of the same rights that they enjoy.

     “My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart . . .”
    Mildred Loving, 2008

  • Anonymous

    I don’t believe that those who oppose same sex marriage are necessarily
    bigots but I fail to see why the protections afforded to  one group
    cannot be afforded to another.  Especially when the failure of such
    protections to be granted under the law should fall to those who have a
    faith based reason for doing so.  No church should be allowed in any way
    to influence public policy.  While there is a general misunderstanding
    that the founding fathers were all devout Christians and founded this
    country on those values according to their faith.  This is patently
    false.  Yes, some of the founding fathers were Christians.  Others were
    agnostic and atheist.  All of the founding fathers were adamant that
    government not be influenced by religious authority.  The debate over
    equal marriage rights from the Christian perspective is about moral
    responsibility based on the spiritual values of those that wish to speak
    out against it, values that are not shared by everyone in this country. 
    Pat Robertson, one of the more vocal opponents once said (in reference
    to the passage of marriage equality for same sex couples, paraphrased)
    “What is next?  Sex with Ducks?”.  I would rebut that with another question:  What is next, laws that ban premarital sex? 
    Sex for anything other than procreation?  Sound ludicrous?  So does
    preventing others from having a happy and fulfilled life that doesn’t
    depend on what other people deem as “Sinful”.
     

  • Anonymous

    I don’t believe that those who oppose same sex marriage are necessarily
    bigots but I fail to see why the protections afforded to  one group
    cannot be afforded to another.  Especially when the failure of such
    protections to be granted under the law should fall to those who have a
    faith based reason for doing so.  No church should be allowed in any way
    to influence public policy.  While there is a general misunderstanding
    that the founding fathers were all devout Christians and founded this
    country on those values according to their faith.  This is patently
    false.  Yes, some of the founding fathers were Christians.  Others were
    agnostic and atheist.  All of the founding fathers were adamant that
    government not be influenced by religious authority.  The debate over
    equal marriage rights from the Christian perspective is about moral
    responsibility based on the spiritual values of those that wish to speak
    out against it, values that are not shared by everyone in this country. 
    Pat Robertson, one of the more vocal opponents once said (in reference
    to the passage of marriage equality for same sex couples, paraphrased)
    “What is next?  Sex with Ducks?”.  I would rebut that with another question:  What is next, laws that ban premarital sex? 
    Sex for anything other than procreation?  Sound ludicrous?  So does
    preventing others from having a happy and fulfilled life that doesn’t
    depend on what other people deem as “Sinful”.
     

  • I don’t think that being on one side or the other makes you hateful or a bad person. What I don’t understand is why it’s ok for Pagans, Athiests, Agnostics, and the like who do not belive in “The One God” to get married, but Catholic’s/Christians think they have the right to tell people who want to marry someone of the same sex that they can’t because it’s a sin….whether or not the couple follows that religion. I absolutely think that churches should have a right to dictate who can get married there. A pastor should be able to decline to marry someone because he does not agree with the lifestyle. But why shouldn’t it be ok for a same-sex couple to be married by a church who DOES agree? Or a Justice of the Peace? I just think if a religion is going to fight against something that’s a sin, they should be consistant about it!

  • I can tell you why, because they’re ignorant, end of story.

  • Anonymous

    I will be voting NO. If it does not pass this time, I will vote NO again next time. Repeatedly pummeling a population with referendums that were turned down is enough reason to vote NO again. Additionally, the hollow screams of hate-speech (protected by the Constitution as well BTW) have made me more staunchly anti-gay marriage. My gay friends actually understand my point and we have had good discussions about this. There does seem to be an element of anger from that side of the campaign this time. I firmly believe that a child should be raised by both a man and a woman. I think its clear you need one of each to make a child and I think it takes one of each to raise a child. Just because it isnt always possible (single parents) doesnt mean it is not better to have both. The world is not perfect and I understand that many single parents do a great job but again, I have single parent friends as well, some gay, they will admit to anyone that it is a difficult job to raise a child on their own. It doesnt take a village, it takes a mom and a dad. The law of unintended consequences is going to kick it after this passes (and I believe it will pass this time). I read an editorial written by a gay woman from Hampden last week and she requested in a very threatening way that those who are against gay marriage to please refrain from placing signs on their lawns. She explained that she did not want to know who her neighbors were that were against her. She went on to explain that she did nt want to think ill of them after the campaign is over. Unbelievable. I went out that day and picked up three signs and posted them proudly. The threatening manner that the Yes side of this campaign has gone is outrageous. Again, No. Thanks

    • Anonymous

      “My gay friends” – I doubt that…

      • Anonymous

        Ahhh, the true colors come out. Because someone disagrees with you or your opinion, they cannot be your friend. You are wrong and I will still be voting no.

        • Anonymous

          No, you cannot be “friends” with someone while simutaneously voting to make them second class citizens.  You are a bad “friend” and you should feel bad.

          • Alec Cunningham

            And are they really friends?  Even before Facebook corrupted the meaning of that word, people used it too frequently when they really meant “acquaintances.”

          • Anonymous

            It could just be “people who are too nice to let coldnbored how they really feel about him”

          • Anonymous

            Look at the name calling and hate-speech that came out of me giving my opinion and all because I disagreed with yours. Now, according to Regular Joe, my friends are not true friends and you believe that no one tells me how they really feel about me. It comes down to the fact that you need your lives and choice legitimized by a vote. The women in this article came out against what you want and now its great to ridicule them, their religion and their God. Your cause and its followers make it okay to be intolerant to others. Yet, you defy anyone be intolerant to you. It is unbelievable.  Not one of you would have ever heard from these three women until this referendum was put in place. They do not appear to be intolerant of your decisions and choices. They believe that marriage is something ordained by God for a man and a woman. They were not preaching this around the country and coming into Gay institutions and forcing their beliefs on anyone. Your referendum brought them out of their religious institution. They have an opinion, they shared it. They didnt threaten anyone. Sure, they dont want it to pass and they are using constitutionally protected free speech to say what they believe. Rest assured that your campaign will be successful at some point. I appreciate the advice that I should just let it happen because I believe that it is fruitless to fight by checking off the “No” box on my ballot.  I dont think any of those pushing this agenda would have ever had any issue with these three sisters until you brought forth this referendum.  This will open the door for lawsuits against anyone who disagrees with you and your cause. Good for you. You found the soft underbelly of those who believe differently than you. Claim that it is hate and not a disagreement. Claim that you are scared of the intolerance. Then examine at what many of you said about the women featured in this article. Some would argue that more Mainers support this than those that do not support it. I say it is very close to 50/50. Clearly not a majority in either direction. Your win will come from brow beating and spreading a message that if you dont vote yes, you are intolerant. I know I am tolerant. I will be voting No…and still wont hate you.

          • Anonymous

            “Now, according to Regular Joe, my friends are not true friends and you believe that no one tells me how they really feel about me. ” – If one of your “friends” was going to vote to take away your rights, would you still consider them a friend?  I know I wouldn’t, because they obviously don’t care enough about me or respect me.

            “They believe that marriage is something ordained by God for a man and a woman. ” – And they are wrong.  We are talking about a civil marriage, so religion is not relevant.

            “They were not preaching this around the country and coming into Gay institutions and forcing their beliefs on anyone. ” – Well, except for denying same sex couples their rights…

            “Your win will come from brow beating and spreading a message that if you dont vote yes, you are intolerant” – The truth hurts.  If you don’t want to be called intolerant, then don’t vote to take away my rights.

            “I know I am tolerant. ” – No, you aren’t.  Tolerant would be allowing civil marriage for same sex couples while not allowing it in a church.  You are most certainly not tolerant.

            “I will be voting No…and still wont hate you.” – But apparently  you think that you are more deserving of equal treatment under the law.  You say you don’t hate me or any other gay people, but your actions say otherwise.

    • Anonymous

      “Repeatedly pummeling a population with referendums that were turned down is enough reason to vote NO again.”

      We have only had a vote on same sex marriage once, in 2009, and that was because those against gay marriage initiated the referendum.

      This is the first time we have raised the issue to a vote ourselves.

      If you believe (as do I) that same sex marriage will come one day regardless of this vote, why do you stand in opposition to it? What point are you trying to make? That you want to be able to stand in the way of fellow Mainers being treated equally by our government?

      I just don’t understand how you let the actions of some people on either side of this issue sway your opinion on whether Mainers are entitled to be treated fairly and equally under our laws.

    • Alec Cunningham

      Please keep in mind that the actions of one don’t represent everyone in the group.

      While I don’t condone the message of refraining from showing one’s position on this issue, I can see her side, too.  I, too, would rather not know who in my neighborhood will be voting against my intended marriage to my boyfriend.  I don’t want to know who thinks of us as less worthy than themselves.  

      As for threatening manner, there is no way to describe the fear that gay people feel if they find themselves in the wrong part of town or the wrong group of people.  The idea that someone might do physical harm to us simply because of who we love is unbelievable.  The idea someone could beat me up because I love a man is outrageous.   Asking someone from not displaying their intolerance?  Doesn’t compare.

  • Carey Haskell

    I’m starting to admire the Amish.  
    They may not “believe” in zippers, but at least they haven’t come to take my pants away.

    • Anonymous

      The Amish shun homosexuals. Admire that as well?

      • Carey Haskell

        coldnbored, My comment was meant to show the ridiculousness in trying to translate beliefs into laws, not as an actual endorsement/condemnation of any religion.  

        But then, I’m not all that surprised that someone who think the same sex marriage supporters are guilty of “Repeatedly pummeling a population with referendums that were turned down” when, in reality, they have brought it to referendum a grand total of ONCE to grasp the difference.

  • superdog207

    “what we are saying is this degrades the foundation of the family and society, promotes diseases and dysfunction and tears down the person’s dignity.”

    Wow! Are these women from Maine or Mississippi?

  • Anonymous

    what does “redefine” marriage really mean?  would it then allow polygamy? or the man in Dover who wanted to marry his dog or an inanimate object? 

    the purpose, in my opinion, is to legitamize our children.  but with so many people out there having children out of wedlock, why does marriage mean? 

    why are there so many commercials out there of straight parents and grandparents begging for everyone to vote YES but not their gay children or grandchildren? 

    I say Thank You three sisters for standing up for your beliefs! 

    • Alec Cunningham

      I think that average regular straight people would be more likely to listen to other average regular straight people in this situation.  If you had a bunch of gays on there, would you listen?  Or would you think it’s just those gays again telling me how to live my life?

      In any case, there have been gay people in some of the commercials-most recently the one with the firemen.

    • Anonymous

      If you can’t argue against gay marriage without bringing up polygamy and bestiality, you don’t really have an argument against gay marriage.

    • Anonymous

      Oh lordy, lordy, lordy!  Are you seriously suggesting by allowing same sex couples to marry we are opening the door for polygamy and marrying your dog?  Do you really believe that the only reason people get married is to legitamize their children?  What happens when you divorce?  Are your children delegitamized?  What if you opt not to have children?  Is your marriage wrong?   How about we try not to act as judge and jury and let God sort em out?

  • Anonymous

    All in all, I find that this is a pointless debate.  In my estimation of things the concept of marriage as a legal contract is foolish.  If the Christians are so outraged that this defies their spiritual beliefs, the only ones that care should be them.  Ultimately, marriage, if it is in fact a SPIRITUAL union, should not fall under the purview of the federal, state or municipal government.  The problem is that disentangling ourselves, legally, from marriage would require too much from our legislators who are busy voting in raises for themselves and carrying on their own business before that of the people they are elected to represent.

    That’s okay though.  Let’s make sure that while we are getting poorer and poorer and our elected officials get richer and richer that we make ourselves feel better by denying people common rights under the law so that we can maintain an air of superiority while we eat our Ramen.

  • Anonymous

    My Lord died for my eternal salvation. I cannot walk away from Him. If this is the only reason you had no children then I have to ask; who has the closed mind? But rest assured, I am retired, and most public classroom teachers follow your ideas.

  • Alec Cunningham

    “But if you’re talking about law- there’s no standing for an equal protection argument.”

    Really?  Have you read the Prop-8 verdicts?

  • Alec Cunningham

    Quite frankly, I don’t give a da*m what they accept or not accept.  What they do in their own personal lives doesn’t affect me in the least (except for their “no” vote).  How they practice their religion, wear their hair, or what baseball team they like-it doesn’t matter to me.

    And the same is true for my life affecting theirs.  If I get married to the man I love, they don’t have to accept it as “normal and natural,” just as they probably already don’t accept my life with him in the first place as “normal and natural.”

    Live and let live.

  • Anonymous

    I feel sooooooooooooooooo badly for these 3 sisters—poor lil’ things playing all “victim”  here.  Perhaps we should pray for them that they find inner peace and enlightenment in their hour of stress and need? Hmmmmmmmmmm….:)  Married once, ladies?  How ya doin’ on following the Commandments?  Speaking ill of others?  Eating pork?  Gamble any?  Smoke?  Drink? Praying in you room only like the Bible says?  How often you help others in need?  Uh-huh–just as I suspected…:) 

  • Anonymous

    Kudos to Scott Thistle for managing to get this piece of garbage published. I’m sure the gay and lesbian community thanks you for publishing untrue and slanderous opinions, and presenting them as fact.

    • Anonymous

      How much were they paid just like that couple in VT. at the wildflower inn . How much were they paid for there lies  ?

  • Anonymous

    Well, if THEIR God is ok with it, then stop oppressing the religion of the people who are gay and want to get married.  There are people born with both sexes, there are people born with 2 sets of DNA, there are people getting sex changes, and using religion as a scapegoat for not even trying to understand other people’s lifestyles is silly and wrong and we Mainers are better than that. 

    • Anonymous

      …using religion as a scapegoat for not even trying to understand other people’s lifestyles is silly and wrong and we Mainers are better than that.

      Well said!

  • Anonymous

    these women are not examples for why I am voting no on 1.  They are good publicity for voting yes, that’s why bdn put it in. 
    They can love who ever they want, marriage is between a man and a woman. Why don’t we bring back poligamy, let everyone do what ever they want to do.

  • Anonymous

    Your argument is invalid because your god doesn’t exist.

    If Q1 passes it does not actually affect you.

    • Alec Cunningham

      I really wish people would stop saying such things.  We accuse the other side of being hateful, but saying “your god doesn’t exist” is just as hateful.
      Many gay people and their supporters believe in God.  Many churches here in Maine are some of our biggest defenders.

  • Alec Cunningham

     If you were voting “yes” just for the sake of political correctness or to just be nice, then you missed our point completely.

    And it’s telling that you focus only on the negativity here.

  • Alec Cunningham

     “Now, according to Regular Joe, my friends are not true friends and you
    believe that no one tells me how they really feel about me.”  Did I say that? 

  • Anonymous

     One thing you said I will agree with “Just because you believe something does not make it true”
    Man’s opinion vs the Bible .. man looses every time. Man may have the ‘opinion’ that same sex marriage and the gay lifestyle is ok but the Bible says just the opposite. Man’s opinion isn’t true because you believe it It is only true if it is real fact. A real fact is true whether you believe it or not. Likewise, the Bible is not made true by our believing it, it is true because it is the truth whether believed or not. It is the Almighty, Authoritative Word of God. The problem with society is that it has thrown the bible behind’s it’s back and relied on human reason, philosophy , psychology and a secular humanistic view as their ‘authority. Look where that has got us.. nice  world to live in isn’t it? We are now such a warped society as to have people like yourself believe that somehow two men or two women in a sexual relationship should be the new definition of marriage. It’s sick and God is very very clear in denouncing it. You like to argue about all kinds of verses in the bible that you neither understand or use properly but our subject is homosexuality and this is what the Authoritative Word of God says about it :
    “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. ”
    (Rom 1:26-27)
    It’s “vile affections”
    It’s against nature”
    It’s “lust”
    It’s “error”
    Not much to interpret there. It’s true. Believe it or not it’s true.

  • Anonymous

    Marriage is not a Biblical “right”.  Marriage is a civil action that is often performed by a religious figure, i.e., a priest, preacher, minister, etc.  However, it is an action that is a State sanctioned event.  Given this, religion or religious institutions should not be determining who can and cannot marry.

  • Anonymous

    No, no, he’s right.  Logical fallacies have no place in a debate.

Similar Articles