October 23, 2017
Bangor Latest News | Poll Questions | Haunted Maine | Bald Eagles | Medicaid Expansion

Comments for: Gay Mormon couple feels validation with outcome of Maine’s vote on 1

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

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

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

  • Anonymous

    “Smith said he translated the record with divine help and published it as the Book of Mormon.” ….Trust me , Smith said…

    • Anonymous

      and this is different than the old/new testament how?

      • Anonymous

        Actually, the Old and New Testament make no overall claim to have come directly from God. Sometimes the prophets of the Hebrew Bible would say, “thus says the Lord…” but for the most part the Bible doesn’t claim to be a divine document.

        The letters (or epistles) of Paul, which make up the largest part of the New Testament, were just letters he wrote to various churches. He didn’t think he was writing Scripture. It’s only later that some (not all) Christians decided that this was the “Word of God.” And the idea that it is without error is a thoroughly modern idea, rare before 1900 and unheard of before 1600.

        • Anonymous

          I beg to differ on your interpretation of what the letters from Paul meant to early Christians. Paul was an apostle. He himself made the claim that anyone who preached a different gospel was not to be listened to or taken seriously. His letters were incorporated into canonical form by the Church to ensure they would be passed on to future and current generations as an authoritative and dependable source for handing down the Church’s teachings. It was not the case as you stated that some Christians decided only later that this was the “Word of God”. There is no basis in history for that assertion.

          • Anonymous

            In early Christianity — the first few centuries — there were many Christian denominations — the Ebionites (probably descended from the Jerusalem Church), the Marcionites, Adoptionists, Gnostics, Donatitists, Montanists, Arians, Proto-Catholics, etc. It was not clear that the Proto-Catholics would eventually win control.
            The Marcionites rejected the entire Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, but used the letters of Paul and the Gospel of Luke. The Gnostics had their own scriptures, such as the Gospel of Thomas. The Ebionites had their own Gospels, and they rejected Paul’s letters.
            Even the Proto-Catholics didn’t have an agreed upon canon of Scripture for about 300 years after the death of Jesus. For a long time some churches just used one Gospel, for instance. They (the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox) eventually won control of the church under the Emperor Constantine.
            A bit later under Emperor Theodosius I, the Catholics got the right to ban all other Christian churches, such as the Arians (followers of the teachings of the priest Arius).
            When Paul wrote his letters, yes, he said that his version of the gospel was the correct one. But there is no evidence that he thought he was writing Scripture, a Bible. He was simply writing letters to churches.
            It was only later that his letters were collected, and over time they became thought of as “Scripture.”
            I know that many people would like to think that the Bible was handed down from Heaven on golden tablets (kind of like the Book of Mormon is said to have been). But in fact it took the Church over 300 years to develop a consensus on which books to include as Scripture, and which books to reject.

          • Anonymous

            From the time of the Apostles to the Council of Carthage the Church had two traditions for handing down its teachings as it does to this day. One was oral and the other was written. Even the apostle Paul confirms this. At the Council the church finally compiled a list or collection of writings (cannon) to be used for reading during church services. Undoubtedly it used its understanding of the faith to decide which writings would form part of the cannon we now refer to as the New Testament. Unlike what you seem to suggest, its teachings and traditions were not decided at the Council, but instead were used as the basis for selecting the writings to include in the cannon.

            I’ll leave you with this reference I happened to find among my bookmarks that sheds more light.

            Did the Council of Carthage select only the books of the New Testament for the canon? | Catholic Answershttp://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/did-the-council-of-carthage-select-only-the-books-of-the-new-testament-for-the-canon

          • Anonymous

            Thank you for your reference to “Catholic Answers.” Of course the modern Roman Catholic Church has a particular spin on their history, an outlook that is generally not shared by non-Catholic historians and theologians.

            From about 50 to 150 a number of “scriptural” documents circulated among the various churches. Some were gospels (like the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Gospel of Thomas), some were epistles (1 Clement, Paul’s Epistle to the Laodicians), some were about doctrine and practices (like the Didache), some were “Acts” (the Acts of Paul and Thecla). Some books that eventually got in to the canon were disputed (such as Revelation). Most of these books made the claim that they were written by Apostles.

            By the way, some of the books that did get into the canon make that claim, but almost certainly were not written by apostles — that is, some N.T. books are forgeries, such as 1 and 2 Peter, 1 and 2 Timothy, Ephesians and Colossians.

            Your answer suggests that you see “the Church” as one entity. I am
            suggesting that early Christianity was as divided as it is today. Not all branches of Christianity agreed on the canon. Even the proto-Catholics did not agree among themselves, at first, which books should be included (The books of the Old Testament? 1 Clement? The Didache?) and which should not (Revelation?).

            In his Easter letter in 367 Athanasius gave a list of the books of the New Testament as they are now generally accepted. By this time a consensus had developed among those (the Catholic-Orthodox Church) who had won control of the Christian Church under the sponsorship of the Roman emperors. When the Catholic Council of Carthage was held in 397 it basically confirmed the canon that Athanasius had set out in 367.

            But to my original point: Paul (in his authentic letters) did not think he was writing Scripture. It was only in retrospect that the various churches began to treat Paul’s letters as Scripture.

          • Anonymous

            I don’t know what basis you have for asserting Paul did not think he was writing Scripture when he wrote his letters. We do know however he maintained that any gospels that contradicted his teachings were to be rejected. We also know his letters were intended as teachings. Therefore his letters would necessarily be the equivalent of Scripture. As to authorship of the books in the New Testament, you are correct in maintaining they were not always written by the person they are identified with. I have no problem with that. That doesn’t make them any less authentic since they were generated by the Church itself.

            Unlike what you stated, most of the Church’s take (not spin, which is an attempt to explain away some untenable notion) on its early history is accepted by most Christian denominations in existence for the last 100 years or so and by most church historians. That’s why today we are witnessing a lot of Protestant ministers converting to the Catholic Church.

            Finally, there’s evidence the list of books presented by Athanasius existed as early as the second century, which would have been the century following Christ. All those other books you mentioned were not really taken too seriously by most bishops even though there existed errant bishops like Arius of Alexandria for one.

            I don’t know about you, but I’ve taken two successive courses in Church history. The Church has a collection of early writings no other source or sources combined can even remotely match.
            If its massive collection doesn’t point to an institution that had to be well-known and organized for its time, then I don’t know what it could possibly mean otherwise.

          • Anonymous

            You and I may have different understandings of what is meant by “spin.” To me it is the same thing as what you mean by the Catholic church’s “take” on the matter. In politics, both sides have a certain “spin,” the interpretation they put on events. Bill O’Reilly has his own spin in his “No Spin Zone.” But if you prefer “take” or “interpretation” that’s fine with me.

            I think you are confusing Paul’s reference to “the gospel,” that is “the good news of Jesus,” with the Four Gospels. Paul was writing epistles (letters), not Gospels like the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Thomas, Peter, and others that circulated among the early churches.

            Paul was saying in his letter to the church in Galatia (Galatians 1:6-8) that he is amazed that the Galatians were listening to others who preached something different (another “gospel”) than what Paul himself preached. Who were those dastardly people? He names them in Galatians 2:9. They were Peter, James and John, people who had actually known Jesus (Paul himself never met Jesus).

            Paul was arguing with the Apostles about whether kosher dietary requirements applied to both the Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus. He’s telling the Galatians, “Don’t listen to the people who actually knew Jesus, listen to me. Their gospel is wrong and mine is right.” Read Galatians chapters 1 and 2. “But when Cephas (Peter’s name in Aramaic) came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned” (Gal. 2:11).

            But Paul was writing epistles, not gospels, even though he references “the good news,” that is “the gospel.” Remember, this is decades before Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were written — so he is not referring to the gospels that had not yet been written.

            Paul was writing letters to specific churches about specific situations, such as the situation he mentions in his letter to the Galatians about Peter, James and John telling the Galatians something different from what Paul told them about eating in a kosher manner.

            You say, “We also know his letters were intended as teachings. Therefore his letters would necessarily be the equivalent of Scripture. ” No, not all teachings are scripture. I’ll bet you’ve heard a lot of preachers give teachings in sermons — but they are not scripture.

            Arius of Alexandria, by the way, was a presbyter (priest) and never a bishop.
            As for the books that were left out of the canon, while some were used only by so-called “heretical” groups, others were considered orthodox. 1 Clement is credited to an early bishop of Rome, Clement. The Didache (“The Teachings of the Apostles”) was listed by many proto-Catholic “church fathers” as a book that should be considered part of the canon, as was the Shepherd of Hermas; and Revelation was left off of many proto-Catholic lists. The list by Athanasius in 367 is the first known time that all of the now accepted books of the New Testament were on one list together.

            You seem to be saying that other Christian groups, such as the Ebionites, Adoptionists, Marcionites, Donatists, Montanists, Arians and others didn’t exist. They are well know to historians, and any good church history class in any seminary — Catholic, main-line Protestant, or evangelical Protestant — teaches about them. They are mentioned in all of the Church history textbooks I’ve seen, and several chapters are spent on them. Since they and others all existed it would be false to say that there was always only one branch of the Christian Church. The Arians survived until the 700s, even though their existence was illegal within the Roman Empire beginning with the reign of Theodosius 1.

            You say, “I don’t know about you, but I’ve taken two successive courses in Church history.” I have a Master of Divinity and have taught church history. We both obviously have some knowledge here, but different outlooks and understanding of the past. When teaching history there are many facts, and some facts sometimes appear to contradict other facts. We have to teach what is our best guess of what actually happened. Remember, even when all of this was happening, different people understood the situation differently.

            Finally, forgeries are forgeries. 1 Peter claims for instance, to have been written Peter. That is a lie. Even if it is a pious lie, written by an early proto-Catholic Christian, and accepted by the churches for millennia, it is still a lie. A forgery is a forgery, even if it is accepted as “Scripture” by most Christians.

        • Anonymous

          comment has been moved

    • Anonymous

      If they’re not picking on Catholics, they’re picking on Mormons to elevate gays. Welcome to the Bangor Daily News.

      • Anonymous

        No one was “picking on” Mormons there. Only in your mind that always looks for the worst. You sure seem “invested” in the “gays.” Very strange. Go find a newpaper site that is more about the “straights” then.

      • Alec Cunningham

        They are not picking on the Mormons. They are reporting on people who are affected by this issue, just as they reported on those three sisters a few weeks ago.

        • Anonymous

          This is another one of this paper’s “news” stories to promote homosexuality and take down religion. There’s one almost daily. The vote on gay marriage is over but the stories continue to pour in. How about stories on women who were hurt by abortion? There are thousands and thousands of those. Why don’t these make the news headlines? The answer is obvious: This paper has a leftist political agenda.

          • Anonymous

            Those stories are not main stream and the injuries only occur to a few and for the left, that is nothing more than collateral damage, perfectly acceptable to them.

          • Alec Cunningham

            Why don’t you contact the paper or specific reporters and ask them about this issue.
            You cannot deny, though, that SSM is a more current event than abortion-therefore there will be more articles about it.  If you know of children, adults, or families who have been harmed by the new law or feel that they will, suggest that the BDN write about them.  I would like to know if there are any.

          • Anonymous

            whawell, I don’t see how this story in any way “takes down religion.” It’s a story about how two Mormons (or ex-Mormons) are struggling to hold on to their faith despite the fact that their sexual orientation — who they are — is condemned by their church. I thought the statement by the local Mormon bishop (that he had no plans to excommunicate the men), and Miner’s statements about his faith (“I want you to know that I still respect the church, what it does for the world, and for the lives of its members”) helped put this in context. This article shows more than one side — too bad you are only seeing one side.

          • Alec Cunningham

            Good analysis.

          • Anonymous

            But these types of stories continue to pour in. How do you account for that fact if not for a continuing effort by the News to keep it alive. Look, it’s no secret, the News staff has been a major supporter of “gay marriage” and Abortion “rights”. This is not a recent phenomenon. It has been years in the making.

          • Anonymous

            Yes, The BDN editorial page supported the freedom to marry, and has generally supported equal rights.

            At the same time, this is a legitimate human interest story about the effects of the recent election. If you aren’t interested, you don’t have to read it. I don’t mean that to sound rude — it’s just that some stories might not appeal to you. If that’s the case you may choose to move on.

          • Anonymous

            What you stated only confirms my point that this paper’s content is biased in favor or “gay marriage”. No longer can it be validly considered as an unbiased and dependable source for news.

          • Alec Cunningham

            You mean every single article it publishes is now suspect because the editors support equality for all citizens?  That’s a harsh standard you have there.

          • Anonymous

            So-called “marriage equality” for all citizen is a matter of debate. I won’t go there now because that’s another topic of discussion. Tell me, though, if “marriage equality” is really an issue, why does this newspaper not support equality for everyone including babies in the womb? Many women who have had an abortion are going around the nation with their own tragic story to tell. When they come to Maine before a significant audience the press is notably absent or refuses to publish. Sounds to me like this newspaper has an agenda besides being fair and balanced in its coverage.

          • Alec Cunningham

            You know I can’t answer that.  But you also know that this current topic is marriage equality.  If you think there must be more said with the abortion issue, I think you should bring it to the attention of the BDN, especially if you have specific examples and not just a vague notion that there is a problem.  If the BDN chooses to ignore the story of women who regret having an abortion, then let’s discuss it.  But you can’t accuse us of not being for equality if we don’t stand together against abortion.  By that token, I can say you don’t stand for equality for those in the womb because you don’t stand for equality for those outside the womb.
            Humans and their emotions, desires, wants, needs, personalities, responsibilities, priorities, etc. are not so easily pigeonholed.
            I say, find some examples and talk to a reporter.  I think that women SHOULD have a choice, but I also think that they should be educated on all their options and know the ramifications of their decision (but I don’t think that should have an invasive ultrasound or be made to wait 24 hours or have a psychiatric evaluation).

          • Guest

            it’s because these stories are reflective of the times.
            Papers do that.

          • Guest

            Times are changing. They always have and always will. As people evolve so do their ways of life. You can’t stop life from going on and the change that occurs naturally as it does.

            You can stand and fight it and be miserable or just live and let live.

  • How can they “respect” a Religion that rejects them?

    Look, I proudly voted Yes on 1, and am all for SSM. But, I’m much less enamored with any and all religions. They’re all based on BS, to put it plainly.

    • Anonymous

      I also proudly voted yes on 1 and if it were up to religion most would have them stoned to death in honor of their invisible gods.I am happy for them and I hope they can have a long and healthy marriage.

      • Rocky4

        It all makes sense now. Gay marriage and marijuana being legalized on the same day.
        Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lays with another man he should be stoned.”

        We’ve just been interpreting it wrong all these years. ;+)

        • Anonymous

          That’s funny right there!

        • Maybe one of the best posts here, ever!

        • Well played, sir. Well played.

        • Anonymous

          when was marijuana legalized?

          • Rocky4

            Amendment 64, was on the November 6, 2012 ballot in Colorado as an initiated constitutional amendment where it was approved

          • Maine should be taking notes. It’s an issue many on the right and left actually agree on.

          • Anonymous

            Same day — in Colorado.

          • Anonymous

            Colorado and Washington states passed referenda that legalized the recreational use of marijuana on election day.

        • jerrymyx

          LOL….. ya made my night!!! Hi Five!!

        • Anonymous

          Thanks for the laugh!

        • Anonymous

          Clever – I had to chuckle at that even though I am a gay marriage supporter. Very funny!!

        • Anonymous

          You should be writing Halmark greeting cards. You have a way with words. :^)

          • Rocky4

            I heard it somewhere or something similar but thanks anyway.
            Glad everyone had a chuckle. We could use a few more laughs
            around here anyway.

        • yutman

          I see we have a fan of Reddit/Imgur. It’s been floating around since the day after the election.

          • Rocky4

            Never heard of Reddit.

        • Anonymous

          So you’re saying that heterosexual people/ marriages are more moralistic. Give
          me a break! Having lived in a small town in Maine growing I remember my
          parents being invited to a house party and at the end of the evening the
          husband of the HETEROSEXUAL couple putting their car keys into a hat,
          then the woman would select a set of keys from the hat and the owner of
          the keys and she would spend the night together….yes very moralistic
          indeed. Then you have the minister having affairs with the women of
          the congregation and abusing children. HOW DARE HETEROSEXUAL people
          make accusations. Look at your own, in your own closet and be the
          first to cast a stone. Hypocrites and so called Christians….NO!

          • Rocky4

            Are you suffering from (IDD),intellectual deficit disorder and a
            persecution complex?
            What the hell are you talking about?

            I’m not a christian either, so quit labeling people you don’t know.
            Sheeeeesh…………….relax ole boy/girl or whatever.

          • Anonymous

            Absolutely not…. matter of fact I have 2 masters degrees – both in theology no less. I’m simply sick of bigoted so called Christians imposing their religious “views” on the gay population by trying to deny them equal rights.

          • Anonymous

            I think you missed the joke. Rocky4 agrees with you, so why are you arguing? :-)

          • Rocky4

            What I’m “saying” was a J-O-K-E ! I guess you missed the smiley face, the bunch of comments and the hundred “likes” among the comments. You need help with anger issues.

      • Anonymous

        I believe only one religion still stones their people to death – the same one that kills daughters with acid for looking at a boy.

        • Anonymous

          Yes, and when it happens it’s terrible. However, let’s not lump the Millions of Muslims who share our horror at such behavior, with the few who commit such acts. There are many shades of opinion among Muslims, just as there are many shades of opinion among Jews and Christians.

    • Anonymous

      Everyone has a religious belief.We all believe in something or nothing like Atheists. It is still believing.That would make your opinion, BS!! The question is that is it blind or reasonable faith.Joseph Smith was right about homosexuality but just as guilty with adultery.That would make your opinion, BS!!

      • Anonymous

        He was hanged as a horse thief.

      • You might want to look up the word atheist. As an atheist I believe in a lot of things, just not god’s.

        • Anonymous

          My point is,respectively ,you believe in something and your belief is no more validated than anyone else. You would be arrogant to think so Kev. :)

          • Belief in the unbelievable is not equal to dis-belief in the unbelievable. Belief in any superstition, it matters not which one is not just as valid as non-belief in any superstition. By your logic, belief in Santa Claus is just as valid as non-belief in Santa Claus. Geez.

        • ChuckGG

          Kevin – first off, congratulations on the vote in Maine – I couldn’t be happier.

          With regard to atheism, an empty set is empty. It is not “just like a religion.” It is not a belief in nothingness. Those who think so simply cannot grasp the idea that not believing in religion is believing in something else and everyone must believe in something. Baloney.

          Are you a database person? If so, atheism is null. Religion is “not null.” Simple.

          I like Bill Maher’s quote on being an atheist. He likes being an atheist as “it requires so little of his time.”

          • I would say that agnosticism is the null, religious have a positive integer, atheists have a negative. From my perspective of course. ;D

    • Anonymous

      Excellent point! Whats the reason to be a Mormon if one of your most important life facts is that you are gay?Mormons,among other cults{Jehovahs Witnesses,etc} HATE homosexuality.Leave that stupid old dogma behind,if you dare!

      • Anonymous

        That “stupid old dogma” comes from your Creator – God. As the creator, I propose that he knows what is best for you and all His creations as He has outlined through his prophets and written as scripture. The same as an Apple iPhone engineer that created the mechanics for that device says, “don’t submerge in water or the device will not function properly”. You have the choice to do whatever you want with your iPhone, but don’t expect it to work out all that well for you if you choose to not follow the warning from its creator. not trying to be hateful here, just pointing out another opinion.

        • Anonymous

          It’s your opinion that the dogma in question comes from God.

          As for the Bible, it is not an iPhone, nor is it an app. It’s far more complex than that. It is a collection of books written by humans, in the language of humans, for humans. It is a great religious classic, written in many different genres (history, poetry, hymns, proverbs, philosophy, testimonies of faith, visions and dreams, mythology, etc.) and we have to employ our human reason when reading it. Not all of it was intended to be taken literally. I believe that “God’s word” may be found in the Bible, but not everything in it is God’s word. The Bible is “the Good Book,” not the perfect book.

    • It actually happens far more often than someone outside of religion (like say.. myself!) would think.

      I have a pal who was part of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but didn’t agree with the, “And you have to only be friends with other JW folks” part. Everything else, they were fine with, but didn’t care for that one part.

      But since it’s all or nothing, they were excommunicated even though they still respect the JW church.

      • Anonymous

        I had a friend that was in the same situation in
        middle school, except his church found out he had the idea of asking out a girl in school who was not a JW, and they kicked him and his mom out before he even asked the girl (he didn’t end up asking her either). You cannot simply isolate yourself from the world, you have to lead by example and stick to your convictions and people will recognize the advantage of living your life in the way you are living it. If you actually read the bible, and not the extra JW or Mormon material, it is clear that participating in homosexuality is living in sin and there is no state or federal law that can change that interpretation.
        The need for excommunication comes when a church needs to maintain its congregation to be defined in the way that they believe they should be. If a person is actively participating in homosexual acts and is part of a church, then if the church does not excommunicate them the policy of the church then becomes that homosexuality is simply ignored, and to people on the outside it seems to be accepted. Typically this behavior is followed up by other things which start to be ignored, like substance abuse, adultery and not participating in church
        on a regular basis. The church needs to be able to maintain its beliefs. One belief that a lot of Christians tend to neglect is that we are all children of God and just because someone has committed a homosexual act or are actively living a homosexual lifestyle; it does not necessarily condemn them. We are all living in sin and require reconciliation, and we all require our own sacrifices in life to receive the sacrifice that Jesus made for us. Know this: if a Christian is actively participating in hateful behavior against a gay person that you know or just speaking in general, this is not the word of God, but the impulses of human beings.

    • Dr. Cowboy

      The Religion did not reject them…they rejected the Religion. We all make personal choices.

    • Anonymous

      I voted Yes on 1, and my church and pastor also supported Yes on 1. Not all churches/religions are the same.

  • I hate to be a cynic, but you might not want to wait 2-3 years guys.

    Whigham, whose family roots are in Hawaii and parents are divorced,
    worked in the local Starbucks, even though his religion forbid him from
    drinking coffee and other caffeinated beverages.

    This among other things in the story about their families just goes to show how sheltered I am. What a bunch of weirdos (imo of course.)

    • Guest

      If you had read the article… “The couple have not had a wedding or commitment ceremony but plan to marry in two or three years after Whigham completes school and they are able to save some money for a large wedding to accommodate their large families.”

      • I did. My point is that there will be another vote on this issue in Maine (unless it is settled federally beforehand.) You think the opposition is taking their ball and going home? No, they’ll be back.

        • Anonymous

          You might be right. They don’t like losing and will want to impose their sense of “superiority” again. I don’t think they will get far though.
          Why don’t they just mind their own business, get on with their lives and allow these couples the same courtesy.

          • They’ll have enough to get it back on the ballot. I have no doubt. Though the numbers in favor of SSM should only continue to grow, not decrease, I would not take anything for granted. Not yet. Let’s get a decade (at least) behind this law.

        • Dr. Cowboy

          It is doubtful that it will be brought up again. If it is then there should be a Constitutional Amendment where it takes 3/5-3/4 60%-75 majority to pass a referendum before hand. This 50%-55% winning is only polarized and dividing the state population.

        • ChuckGG

          That is a possibility. The first time around they managed to get 55,000 signatures on a ballot – oddly, the same number of people in Maine who believe the world is flat.

          However, once civil rights are granted, the courts frown upon rescinding those rights. This would mirror the Prop-8 case which stands little chance of survival. It has been shot down twice by the 9th Circuit and we will hear from SCOTUS by the 30th as to whether or not they will hear the case. My guess is that they probably will not hear the case (as they have nothing to contribute to it) and will allow the 9th’s finding to stand. The Prop-8 case was written as “narrowly defined” (or “strict scrutiny” – I forget) so that its findings apply only to California. So, based upon all this, I’m inclined to believe Prop-8 will be shot down one way or the other and SSM will once again become the law of the land in CA.

          If the opposition wishes to go through this all over again, and even if they were to win, it would again be a duplicate court case to Prop-8 where there already is precedent.

          I really hope they do not waste their time on this. The trend lines on the graph have been showing pro-SSM climbing while anti-SSM on the decline. The two lines have diverged and have not crossed. Furthermore, in another election cycle, there will be another set of young people entering the voting pool and another set of older, more conservative voters leaving the pool. We all know the acceptance of SSM is better than 70% among the 29 and under crowd. That’s a big percentage and a lot of bang for the buck considering the older crowd’s anti-SSM numbers are closer to the 50% mark. You are getting more pro-SSM than anti-SSM voters.

          Additionally, the GOP (post-election) had their rear-ends handed to them on silver platter. More than one GOP pundit has said that unless the GOP changes its attitude on gays, gay marriage, Latinos, women, blacks, Asians – heck, it is just easier to say “everyone other than angry old white men” – they will never win another race. If you think the funds were cut from the RCC and the other anti-SSM sources this most recent time around, just wait another couple of years. No one wants to back a losing proposition.

          Then, you have the courts. Chief Justice John Roberts was the swing vote on Obamacare. Some were shocked. I was not. He was following the strict constructionist view of the court and as so, followed the law and approved Obamacare. Similarly, the Prop-8 case (and others) must prove some “harm” would come from SSM in order to justify the denial of civil rights to a specific group. In Prop-8, the pro-Prop-8 people to no one’s surprise could not find and validate any “harm” from SSM. And, despite what the bible thumpers think, there is no harm to anyone if SSM were to be the law of the land.

          So, in a nutshell, I hope we do not have to spend a few more millions just to defend our civil rights from misguided people who somehow think their religion is impacted by SSM. I defy them to come up with a valid case in which SSM has denied religious freedom to any religious organization.

          • I agree Chuck…though as you’ve stated, logic isn’t a major factor here with these folks.

        • Anonymous

          No, there won’t be another vote — there can’t be. I know we voted on this issue before, but it was a different avenue. We were doing a people’s veto in 2009. This time it was a ballot initiative and those can’t be repealed by another ballot initiative.

          • Really? Only reversible by the legislature?

            Though I don’t doubt you, I’d love to see your source (I can’t find anything.)

          • Anonymous

            I read it in an election statute, but I can’t seem to find it now either — so I guess I could be wrong. What I remember though was that you can’t use the ballot initiative mode to repeal something that was previously passed through ballot initiative. You can’t use that same mode to repeal.

        • Anonymous

          I have a hunch that Maine’s freedom to marry law will stand. The leaders of the “No” vote said after the election that they didn’t see any point in contesting this again. They saw no legal recourse in the courts, no “people’s veto” could be used to overturn a referendum vote, and they said that the people of Maine have spoken.

  • Anonymous

    So what? Are we to be treated to the fine details of every gay proposal in the State for the next zillion years?
    Who cares.

    • SierraTango

      Nobody’s making you read the articles. I’m not into sports… I’d be miserable if I read every sports article.

      Don’t like it, don’t read it.

    • Rocky4

      It helps them “normalize” the deviant lifestyle ya know.

      • I don’t see much “normal” about their story…though it helps “humanize” them certainly. Though I suppose we can’t have that. :D

      • Not only a racist, but a homophobe as well?

      • Melora

        Yes, men always seek to glorify their evil ways but homosexual relations will never be normal. Deep down those who partake of it KNOW it is a grave moral evil but they decide to follow themselves rather than God.

        • Anonymous

          No, they don’t. Everyone does not think like you do!

    • Anonymous

      Why all the interest then? Don’t let it bother you and move on. It is important to those whose lives have been impacted positively with this vote in Maine. It is wonderful for them and they have many people who are happy for them. It does not affect you or your life, so why not just forget about it.

    • Anonymous

      I couldn’t agree more! The gays got their way and have now achieved their goal and couldn’t be gayer. I personally didn’t read the article, only read the headline and saw their “lovely” pictures and knew there was no need to go any further…

      • Anonymous

        And the hetero’s got their way and now they couldn’t be any more hetero.

      • Anonymous

        If you hadn’t gone any further, you wouldn’t have read the comments enough to respond to any…

      • Anonymous

        Well, if you actually read the article, you would see that it isn’t about them in particular – more about the Mormon religion and they are used as a positive example. If you didn’t read it, you shouldn’t be commenting.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      If it were stories about gay marriage losing at the polls, would you feel the same way?

    • Anonymous

      Tux – this isn’t a story about a gay couple. It’s a story about a religious denomination, that is stuck in the 1950’s, being left behind by society’s progress. To most of us, that is a welcome development.

      • Dr. Cowboy

        You mean stuck in the time of Christ!

      • Anonymous

        The minister/pastor at the Unitarian Universalist Society of Bangor (UUSB) is an ex-Mormon, and her church welcomes and celebrates the participation all people regardless of sexual orientation. UUSB supports same-sex marriage.

        • Anonymous

          Ah yes, Unitarianism…the “church” for those who don’t believe in God.

          • Anonymous

            Your dismissive answer is a bit simplistic.

            My understanding is that historically Unitarians (unity=one) believed simply in one God, not a Trinity of three-Gods-in-one.

            But they no longer require a particular belief in God, or a particular definition of God. They acknowledge that all people are a little different from each other, and so while they encourage you to grow ethically, spiritually and religiously, they don’t expect you to conform to a doctrine. You are responsible for what you believe. They welcome a variety of different beliefs, emphasizing that how you act, what you do, is more important than the doctrines you claim to believe in.

          • Alec Cunningham

            It’s funny when people use the term “Unitarian” like it’s an insult.  When I said my church supported SSM, I was “accused” of attending a Unitarian church.  Sort of like being accused of being a liberal…

          • Anonymous

            It shows a lack of critical thinking skills on those people’s part (those who make those comments. )

          • Anonymous

            Yes, we are told that all moderates are liberals, all liberals are socialists, all socialists are communists — therefore, all moderates are certainly communists!

          • Anonymous

            Don’t forget that all conservatives are RINOs… all they want in their party are wingnut taliban wannabees, it seems.

          • One God, three Gods, a thousand Gods… It’s all the same to me. Faith in fantasy and fiction.

          • Anonymous

            Then you would actually like the Unitarians, who say that how you live is important, not whether you believe in God. They no longer expect agreement on a theology, just an ethical life.

          • Anonymous

            That is your opinion only. You don’t know what is in the hearts and minds of every one , who attends that church, others or none at all.

    • Anonymous

      Well let’s see….. pretty sure there is a section in the BDN about engagements and wedding announcements for heterosexual couples and that has been in the paper for a zillion years…..so what’s the difference and what do you care ?

      • Anonymous

        Straight people PAY for their wedding announcments, and they are on page 16. This announcment is not an announcment and it is on page one.
        I thouhght you folks were touting “equality?”

        • Anonymous

          Equality = equal treatment under our laws.

          You do realize that the Bangor Daily News is a newspaper, and not our Maine government’s meeting minutes… right?

          • Alec Cunningham

            Holy cow, that sure is a reach, Tux!  Convival is right.  And besides, there are PLENTY of articles about straight people getting married.
            This is really nit-picking….

        • Anonymous

          This wasn’t a wedding announcement! I think you may want to read it again.

        • Anonymous

          Ohhhhhh so your concern is about people PAYING for their wedding announcements THAT’S what makes the difference- good to know. I’m sure that when women were able to finally vote or when civil rights finally became law you would be b*tching about those topics being covered by the news too. Yeah we all get it- your a straight white guy who whines when having to hear about anyone else having what you have always had and taken for granted in your life.

          That said, same sex couple’s being able to get married in this state IS news- whether you agree with this or like it is irrelevant. It’s a fact. Don’t want to read about same sex couple news….DON’T READ ABOUT IT…fairly simple one would think.

          Equality will be when same sex couples can also PAY for their wedding announcements (like everyone else does) to be in the BDN….and you don’t HAVE to read those either. Too bad they didn’t have straight DIVORCE announcements in the paper THAT would take you awhile to go through.

    • Anonymous

      Yes, and just like New Hampshire, we’re going to pass a law that makes old people attend gay weddings. http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-hampshire-passes-law-forcing-old-people-to-wat,6770/

    • Melora

      Sadly, same sex marriage will greatly harm many souls–including children who are adopted into these unnatural families. God never sanctioned homosexual marriage and the laws of men are not always just–remember, slavery was legal too but it was and always is a grave evil. God will judge souls when they pass away.

      • Anonymous

        Do YOU speak for God here? Under what authority?

      • Anonymous

        Since you brought up slavery— the bible says far more in support of slavery than it says against homosexuality. How can you not see that understanding one another’s humanity better is in line with the spirit of the Gospel? Romans 9-18 certainly applies to committed, loving same-sex couples.

      • Anonymous

        Have a strong feeling God will find your judging very wrong and disgraceful.

      • Anonymous

        Why do you keep bringing up the slavery issue? Are you for slavery? And your point about God will judge souls when they pass away – you’re right on that account (if there is even a God) – it isn’t your place or mine to judge how a person or persons live their lives. As long as you are a good person and do right in your life, I think that “God” will accept you into his heaven.
        Please stop bringing up the slavery issue when commenting about same sex couples – it makes you look like you are a bigot in more ways than one!

      • God told me he was cool with it.

    • Anonymous

      This wasn’t about a gay proposal – it was about two Mormon followers that happen to be gay and their struggle within the Mormon church. If you don’t like the articles having to do with anything in the gay community I suggest you just skip over it and read something more along your lines.

  • SierraTango

    Nice couple. Adorable dog. I wish them all the best.

  • The title is misleading…because they are marrying, they are not a Gay Morman couple. They are just a gay couple…just like all the other gay couples out there. If they respected the church and their teachings, they would not be together.

    • It’s a free country. They (and the writer) can call themselves whatever they want.

      • Dr. Cowboy

        So if they want they can call themselves Black Women? I suppose they can but it still doesn’t make it correct or right.

    • The church is the problem, not the gays.

      • Dr. Cowboy

        The Church isn’t telling them they can’t be gay. All organizations and societies have rules, you either follow the rules or at some point you are no longer welcome as a member.

        • Anonymous

          And membership has its privileges. Like looking down your nose at others and feeling superior to others.
          What’s in your wallet?

    • Anonymous

      Why just that one sin? Why is that the only sin that constitutes disrespect?

      Fortunately, we’re allowed to come to our own conclusions on religion and we don’t have to answer to busybodies like you when it comes to making those decisions.

    • Anonymous

      The headline might have said “ex-Mormon.” I know several ex-Mormons who left that denomination because of its policies that discriminate unfairly against women and gays.

    • Anonymous

      Then what would you call them?? If they still consider themselves non-practicing Mormon’s then so be it – the church will not allow them to attend and that is just sad and unfortunate.

  • Anonymous

    Bahahahaha

  • Anonymous

    God’s got a lot of explaining to do on Sodom and Gomorrah. If homosexuality is fine now, when did God figure this out? If God isn’t part of the discussion then what is the point of participating in a religion?

    • I know lots of people that go to church for the socializing. Which isn’t to say they’re atheists, but it’s more about community and socializing than it is about god.

      • Anonymous

        These two will be welcome to attend activites at church. No one is pushing their excommunication. Their intention to publicize the issue makes it a visible and intentional decision to separate themselves from the church. Even if they were excommunicated, they would be / should be welcome to participate socially unless they intentionally prove disruptive to the congregation. But these levels of separation are very much a condition of thier actions and not a vigilant desire to chastise or punish them.

        • Anonymous

          Hard to argue not to “punish them”. You point out that the outcomes are due to the couple’s actions. These outcomes are intended to dissuade others from making the same choice – otherwise there would be no need to take any action – since according to these folks the ISW has the final say after death anyway. Hence, the Church’s actions are explicitly punishment as we define it.. no different than a prison sentence meant to cause pain to the offender and alter the balance of the hedonistic calculus so that others will not make same choice. Scientific inquiry has shown us that human motivation is much more complex than this but institutions change very slowly. Evidence abounds….

      • ChuckGG

        Actually, I heard that from my elderly mother. When she was younger, living in rural Maine, church was kind of a weekly social gathering and before the days of cars, telephones, Twitter, and Facebook, this was how people often socialized.

        This may also account for the decline in church attendance especially by the younger generations. Much like many of the fraternal organizations (Elks, Masons, Grange, etc.) that have seen sharp declines, the social need for the church just isn’t there so much. That leaves the “hocus pocus” part and as people become more educated and worldly, and exposed to other religions and people in the world, this need for an institution to tell you how to live (for which you pay money each week) seems to be far less. A quick glance around at the pews shows fewer people and mostly a much older crowd. That’s a problem/issue the church needs to address but it has little to do with SSM.

      • Anonymous

        And many go to compare clothing.

    • Anonymous

      Since when did what one character say in one religion’s reading material take precedence over any law, or any other character in any other religion’s reading material?

      • Anonymous

        That sounded like you intended to say something meaningful. Please elaborate a little less abstractly if this was more than a rhetorical question.

        • Anonymous

          Y UR GOD IS GOOD AND IS ABOVE LAW, BUT ALL OTHER GODS AND LAWS ARE NO GOOD?

          Better?

    • Anonymous

      Don’t worry, God still condemns rape, which is what the story you refer to was about.

    • Anonymous

      Sodom and Gomorrah is a story about inhospitality and the attempted gang rape of strangers, not about a loving, committed same-sex couple. Read the story, people!

      • Anonymous

        Their reading skills seem limited. (comprehension,etc.)

    • I give, what IS the point of participating in a religion? I don’t think there is one. It makes no sense to me at all. And if it’s because of all the good-works that churches do, well you don’t need superstition to be kind or generous. So…

  • Lori Littlefield

    Bottom line is that we are all sinners….i, myself am against the redefining of marriage in maine, not just because the Bible says that you can’t be with same sex, but because I just don’t see why it needs to be changed.. Maybe do something else to make thier relationships legally binding, but not marriage itself, in a church. If these two were really as active in their faith as they let everyone believe, they would not be in the relationship they are in in the first place….BUT they gays are not the only ones who think they THEY can do what they want in life now even when “saved” because the times have changed and what was written back then shouldn’t apply to today….i include myself here actually because although I grew up in the church, i have only been “active” (and not nearly enough) for the past 2 years…and not ready to give up all my “old habits”…..but i don’t look at it as “the times have changed”…. i look at it as “i have work to do” basically…..

    • Anonymous

      No,Myself? I do not believe in sin.or Santa or Bigfoot.But thats just me..

      • This Charming Man

        Well, MAYBE Bigfoot…

    • I don’t subscribe to your BS of sin so I’m not a sinner and marriage has been redefined plenty of times. If a man was to rape my daughter he can no longer do the below.

      (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

      That is simply one example of how marriage has been redefined.

      • Anonymous

        It has been redefined many times. These people conveniently overlook that part. Or maybe some of them would like to go back to the time when marriage was about the woman being little more than property. Subscribing to alot of the Bible’s version of marriage is mostly hypocrisy.

        • They just enjoy picking out the parts of the bible that suit them and nothing more.

    • Anonymous

      “but not marriage itself, in a church.”

      See, this is the problem you have— you refuse to acknowledge that this was about granting the government license of civil marriage, which has nothing to do with your church at all. Your church cannot issue a marriage license— that must come from the state. Your pastor or priest can officiate the ceremony and sign the license, but that civil marriage license must still come from the state FIRST.

      I am thankful that most Mainers understood that this is about treating our gay and lesbian families in Maine equally under our laws.

    • Anonymous

      I think you think it’s fun to judge others. Deep down you get some satisfaction from it.

      By the way, you are NOT married in the state of Maine until you have a marriage license issued by the state.

    • Anonymous

      Your judgments do not elevate you at all.

    • Anonymous

      We redefined marriage when we decided that blacks and whites could marry (before that we were told that interracial marriage was “unatural” and “against the Bible”).
      We redefined marriage when we ended polygamy. We redefined marriage when we invented the marriage license and the church wedding. We redefined marriage when we passed laws that said a man can’t beat his wife or rape her. We keep redefining marriage over and over.
      It’s time we treat all consenting adults equally and fairly under the law. Some churches agree, some don’t, but the churches don’t make the laws. The state does. Legal marriage is a governmental matter, not a religious matter.

    • Lets see… How can I possibly say this in a way that doesn’t get the reply removed? Let’s try this…

      Your God and your dogma, mean absolutely nothing to me. So, no. I’m not a sinner, and I don’t need to be “saved”, by any of these fraudulent faiths.

  • Anonymous

    Maine is a Gay State

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Awwww… Still upset?

    • Anonymous

      Go back to your fire works rants.

      • Anonymous

        fireworks nonsense is about to go away…Dem legislators already have legislation ready to re-lilegalize fireworks

    • Anonymous

      So does that make you gay?

      • Alec Cunningham

        Now skowheganresident is free to marry to person of the same gender he or she loves!!!

  • robertetozier

    For a sensible Christian perspective on contemporary Mormon religion, see dozens of brief papers at http://www.immanuelbible.net/outreach/mormon-outreach.html

    • Anonymous

      ROFL!!!! “Sensible Christian”?????

      I followed your link and it makes me nauseous to see the wealth tied up in that church. A real saint would pray in a cave and use the rest of the money to help the poor, build housing for the homeless (yes, with a work-fare requirement), etc. If you need a place to get together on Sundays, why not meet at the mall or Walmart? Wait! Was religion actually invented by the construction industry to drive up demand for large useless buildings and pyramids?

      Ok, I didn’t just follow the link. I actually READ some of it. OMG unbelievably hilarious!! Get this.

      “According to Mormons, Joseph Smith is a prophesied, modern-day Elijah. They know this because they rewrote scripture to say so.”

      But they left out, “We originally wrote it to say something else!”

      Once again I am reminded of the movie “Life of Brian”. Its the best commentary on religion ever. Much more powerful than our departed friend Hitchins. If you haven’t seen it, please do so right away. Take the day off and watch it now!

  • Dr. Cowboy

    Another out of State couple that came in to decide on how Maine people should be living and telling us what our laws should be.

  • Anonymous

    Gay stories of the week now ???

    • Anonymous

      We need some positivity between all the stories of conservatives whining or conservatives saying something they now apologize for.

      • Anonymous

        like what?
        could you please cite some examples to support your unfounded statement?

        • Anonymous

          Have some etiquette. If you’re sincere in asking for examples, don’t punctuate your remark with an accusation like you’ve already made up your mind.

          Examples: Charlie Webster’s comments about black voters,
          John McCain’s comments about Susan Rice
          Matt Gagnon’s whining about King’s caucus decision
          Mitt Romney saying he lost because of “gifts”
          Boehner’s tears about the election not being a mandate
          etc.
          etc. etc.

    • Anonymous

      It’s almost like they live in our communities and build families together! The horror.

      • Anonymous

        “family” would imply a biological offspring.
        since this is not possible with homosexual couples, perhaps they should just call it like it is.

        • Anonymous

          Family implies a family.

          Or are you claiming that couples who adopt a child are not a family? That step-parents aren’t a family?

          Seriously, your obsession over denying the humanity of gays and lesbians is offensive when you throw so many families ‘under the bus’ in your zeal to protect some nostalgia over ozzie-and-harriet style ideals.

        • Anonymous

          Perhaps you should stop seeing the world in black and white. You are missing quite a bit.

        • Anonymous

          And what would that be?

        • Anonymous

          My wife and I have no biological offspring, but we’ve been married 33 years and are a family. We are now past the child-bearing years, and (as you say) it is “not possible” for us to have children. Your implication that we are not a family is insulting.

          • Alec Cunningham

            Then they will say that it’s not the same because there is always that idea of the man and the woman who can make the baby anyway.  It doesn’t make sense to me…

          • Anonymous

            If God can create a miracle that would give a baby to a couple that is long past menopause, then God could also create a miracle that would give a baby to a gay couple!

      • Thanks for the laugh :)

  • Anonymous

    Cute couple.

  • Anonymous

    This story is a good example of the BDN trying to create a story out of nothing. Is it a surprise that the LDS church is against homosexuality? As I’ve stated many times before, now that same-sex marriage has become legal, this movement will now turn its attention to criminalizing any actions that churches take that oppose homosexuality. Ministers who quote from the Bible against homosexuality will soon be subject to hate crimes prosecution. The groups that will soon need to go into the closet are conservative Christians, Catholics, and Mormons that have deeply-held religious beliefs about this lifestyle that Maine has now sanctioned..

    • Anonymous

      “now that same-sex marriage has become legal, this movement will now turn its attention to criminalizing any actions that churches take that oppose homosexuality.”

      No it won’t. Why would it? Our First Amendment has protected churches since our nation’s inception, and it will continue to do so. Same-sex couples are no different than excommunicated catholics, orthodox jews marrying outside their faith, or muslims marrying non-muslims. ALL are denied marriage ceremonies by some church or another.

      • Anonymous

        There are already many examples in Europe where pastors have been arrested for speaking out against homosexuality. It will come to this country too before long. Ten years ago, many gay rights activists said that all they wanted were civil unions to afford them the same legal rights that married couples enjoyed, and they said they would never seek legal marriage recognition. Today, gay rights activists want the same status as the marriage offered historically to opposite sex couples, not because civil unions wouldn’t give them all of the legal protections that marriage would, but because they want to force acceptance of their lifestyle upon all of society, including those whose religious beliefs condemn homosexual behavior. This is, in essence, an attempt to deal with the shame that they still feel. Ultimately, even after legal recognition of gay marriage is forced upon those whose religious beliefs are violated by it, the emphasis will turn to punishing those who have still not “accepted” this form of behavior. You can deny it now, which I would completely expect you to do, but I have no doubt that the gay rights movement will next target prosecution of those institutions that publicly voice opposition to homosexual behavior.

        • Anonymous

          And there are examples of gays being executed in countries in Africa, but you don’t see me pretending that such a thing would happen in America.
          Seriously, it’s absurd to use examples from Europe to refute my assertion that the First Amendment protects churches in America. Europe does not have our First Amendment!

    • Anonymous

      Ministers — and everyone else — can say whatever they want (okay, you can’t shout “fire” in a theater if there is no fire). Please try using a little bit of logic, “PureLogic 101.”

      • Anonymous

        Try reviewing some facts, such as the arrest of Pastor Ake Green of Sweden, who was sentenced to one month in prison for preaching a sermon in his own church that condemned homosexuality. He was indicted on charges of “hate speech” for quoting the words found in the Bible. History has revealed that the United States generally follows many of the patterns first experienced in Europe. Anti-Christian bigotry will come to the United States. It may take 3 years, or it may take 10 years, but it is coming. It would be illogical to presume anything else.

        • Anonymous

          Your “logic,” or lack of it, is off-kilter. Let’s start with the fact that we don’t live in Sweden (I assume you don’t mean New Sweden, Maine).

          I’m well aware that the anti-gay folks have found a few isolated incidents in far-away places, and have taken those incidents out of context and have misinterpreted them to make it sound as though someone, somewhere, was discriminated against for saying hateful things about gays. When these “incidents” are investigated, the anti-gay spin always turns out to be false.
          But regardless of what may or may not have happened on some other continent — in a galaxy long, long ago and far, far away — we live in the United States, and abide by laws passed under the U.S. Constitution.

    • Anonymous

      Those gentlemen are peacefully leaving their church, not trying to prosecute! And the new law specifically protects clergy and churches who do not wish to recognize same sex couples. Your paranoia is sad and unfounded.

      • Anonymous

        It is clearly not paranoia. Just do a quick study of Europe and you will see examples of Christian ministers getting arrested under “hate crimes” laws for preaching against homosexual behavior.

        The real issue is, why did the BDN feel that this story was worthy of front page coverage? The local church wasn’t even aware if these gentleman were active members of their assembly, so it sounds like they didn’t attend regularly. It sounds more like a good opportunity for the BDN to do a hit piece on Mormonism. I’m just surprised that they didn’t do it before the election?

        • Alec Cunningham

          The EU doesn’t have the US Constitution.

          • Anonymous

            “Hate crimes” weren’t included in the original US Constitution, but we have them as part of our legal system now, thanks to our progressive political system.

    • Anonymous

      Don’t go off the deep end now.

      • Anonymous

        I won’t. Our country might, but I certainly will not.

    • Anonymous

      I do believe that their is a law that separates church from state so you don’t have to worry about “these gays” coming into your beloved church and making the priest, minister, reverend or what have you, do a marriage ceremony because of the law. Please educate yourself before spouting off about this. Get over it – the law passed and thankfully everyone has equal rights and can marry the one they love! That is what marriage is about – love between two humans whether it is same sex or opposite sex. Religion doesn’t have a hold on this any longer!

      • Anonymous

        I wasn’t referring to churches being forced to perform gay weddings. You need to educate yourself on proper reading comprehension. My point was to suggest that the gay rights movement will now move to use “hate crimes” legislation to punish those who disagree with gay marriage and speak publicly about it. First will come loss of tax exempt status as a charitable organization for churches. Then the move will be to prosecute those who continue to speak out against homosexuality. It has started in Europe, and it will come here too.

    • Anonymous

      No it won’t. The First Amendment has protected churches from that for hundreds of years now. Same-sex couples join excommunicated catholics and people marrying outside their faith as Americans entitled to civil marriage yet denied marriage ceremonies by their church.

      • Alec Cunningham

        Absolutely!  People accuse me of being paranoid, but sheesh!  This panicky “sky is falling” routine from people who don’t support us really takes the cake.  None of the people I know who support SSM are in favor of this alarmist scenario.  And if anyone tries to criminalize such actions, we all will be against it.
        I wish people would understand the difference between a church’s right to practice religion and a person’s non-right to discriminate.  A church can condemn homosexuality ’til the cows come home.  A shop owner cannot refuse me service because I’m gay.

      • Anonymous

        The First Amendment is only as good as the court that is “interpreting” it. Courts are now as “political” as the other two branches of government. The existence of “hate crimes” laws has already taken away some of our right to free speech, and more should be expected in the future.

        • Anonymous

          I have seen no indications that the First Amendment’s religious protection for churches is threatened by any ruling in recent decades. Please point to one if you know of it, otherwise I’ll assume this is just baseless paranoia.

  • Anonymous

    The media will try and make people think religion is bad because they will not marry same sex couples!!! Don’t let this happen, stand for what you believe and don’t let 3% of the population intimidate you.
    For all you hate filled people out there, I feel churches have just as much of a right to do what they want as the gay population thinks they do.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      So you believe that folks should be able to discriminate against you for being christian?

      • Anonymous

        People do!!!

        • Tedlick Badkey

          If people deny the services of their company/service to folks of any religion it is a violation of the Civil Rights Acts of ’64 and ’68.

          Please tell me why the choice of religion gets such protections, but Christians feel they should be able to deny such services/goods to gay people? Why is that OK?

          • Anonymous

            What the heck are you talking about!!! I am not advocating that gay people get denied services/goods. What do you think I am, a monster???/
            Get a life.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Then what does ” I feel churches have just as much of a right to do what they want as the gay population thinks they do”…

            They’ve got that.

        • Guest

          Today’s christians are the persecutors not the persecutees.

    • Anonymous

      You have the wrong idea about who are the “hate filled” people.

  • Anonymous

    I noticed Hannaford is selling Holiday cactus plants. Please do not buy Holiday cactus, because the proper name is Christmas cactus. Stand up for what you believe.

    • Anonymous

      Does the cactus know what its name is?

      Seriously, I am happy whenever someone wishes me good tidings and cheer, I refuse to have a chip on my shoulder that everyone must use the X-Mas label for their well-wishes.

    • Anonymous

      Really? I thought the proper name was “cactus.”

      Where in the New Testament are we told that Joseph and Mary had a Christmas cactus?

      If Jews buy cactus plants in December, do they have to call them “Christmas” cactuses? Good grief!

      • Anonymous

        Google Christmas cactus smarty pants, it is a specific plant, I am not calling all cactus Christmas cactus.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          My Christmas cactus blooms in October and November… there are holidays in those months but not Christmas.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            A thumbs down? Really? Because my cactus doesn’t bloom in December? Wow…

        • Anonymous

          You are correct. Cactus that grow out in the desert in the West are certainly not Christmas cactus.

        • Anonymous

          Sounds like a marketing gimmick to sell cactus plants. Isn’t Christmas commercialized enough already?

          To my knowledge, Joseph and Mary never had a Christmas cactus — or a Christmas tree for that matter. Whether you call it a Yule tree, Christmas tree, or evergreen, it’s all the same to me.

    • Guest

      They are Schlumbergera, house plants known as christmas cactus or thanksgiving cactus, easter cactus or simply a holiday cactus.

      In the southern hemisphere they bloom in the spring and are referred to as May cactus.
      It has many names.

    • Anonymous

      lol, who cares? You guys act like gay people have never been discriminated against, but then you want us to believe that you’re being attacked because Hannaford calls one of their products a holiday cactus? Get some perspective.

      • Anonymous

        They make a big deal out of minor things. To them , a word for a cactus means more than extending decency and fairness to others. Sad really.

    • Anonymous

      What in the world does that have to do with this article!! Complete nonsense…

    • Anonymous

      Big deal ……my Christmas cactus is starting to bloom now…also many times in January.

      • Alec Cunningham

        Good grief, so many important issues in this country and state to address.  I’d buy one and tell my friends I bought a Christmas cactus.  I’d also write a letter to Hannaford (but my experience with that is that they’ll just ignore you).

    • Happy almost pagan solstice celebration season to you friend!

  • Anonymous

    I think it’s wonderful these two have found each other. The certainly seem to have some great values, and I hope they are able to overcome the challenges that will more than likely come along in regard to this break in ties with their church. Think of how much the church can be part of one’s identity, depending on the level of faith and participation, and how much it can impact a person when they are no longer a part of it.

  • Anonymous

    Now they need a law to change their church and everyone must agree with them because they are different. This is what our country is coming to.

    • Guest

      A person still can be ‘religious’ at home without the help of a formal church.
      That was a reach……

    • Anonymous

      Um, no— our First Amendment protects churches, always has, always will. Catholic churches don’t marry excommunicated catholics, many muslim mosques don’t marry non-muslims, yet all of these people are allowed access to civil marriage.

    • Anonymous

      Notice how they have no ill intentions toward their church? They are content to leave and live in peace. They aren’t banging down the door, demanding that they be recognized.

      • Anonymous

        just give it time.
        eventually the libs will force everyone to agree with them and accept their viewpoint and lifestyle.

        the day will come when churches that refuse to support that lifestyle will be labeled as homophobic, bigoted, and evil.

        • Anonymous

          Churches are already suffering – science has shown us other probable ways that we were created. And, they are homophobic and were so before this passed. Get over your bitterness and move on…

        • Anonymous

          Your two statements here don’t line up.

          The day has ALREADY come that Churches get labeled homophobic, bigoted, and evil.

          BUT they have the right to BE homophobic, bigoted, and evil! No one is forcing them to change, we just wish they would.

          • Anonymous

            “No one is forcing them to change”

            yet.

          • Anonymous

            Aaaaand we’re back to that scarey lie.

            Fact: The First Amendment has protected religious freedom of churches for hundreds of years, and will continue to do so.

          • Alec Cunningham

            Well, when that does happen, let’s talk.

        • Guest

          What BS! Keep believing those lies.

          It’s the churches that are doing the persecuting.

          • Alec Cunningham

            However, I can see, by the way Christians are often ridiculed and mocked, that some people could extrapolate such a ridiculous scenario.

  • Old Bear

    This is just wonderful to see first thing in the morning.NOT

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Then why did you come read this?

      YOU chose to hotshot… no one made you.

      • Old Bear

        Saw the headlines did not read it. Made me sick to stomach.

        • Anonymous

          Being hateful toward life will give you ulcers. Let it go, and embrace empathy and love!

        • Anonymous

          Then don’t come on to the comments and say anything if you didn’t read the article – or are you just trolling??

    • Anonymous

      Then why did you read the article?? If you don’t like it, skip by these types of articles and DON’T comment!

    • Anonymous

      Don’t read it then OLD Bear. You need to evaluate why this bothers you that much. What makes me sick to my stomach is bigotry and prejudice. Judging others when you are far from perfect yourself.

      • Alec Cunningham

        I don’t care to read the sports section, so I don’t.  I don’t make a federal case about it.

  • Anonymous

    Oh Goody.

  • Anonymous

    Another fine couple who are better people than their church wants them to be.

    • Anonymous

      Happens alot. Although there are good people who attend church,there are also plenty of hypocrites and not so nice ones who attend regularly.

      • Anonymous

        Yes— I usually find that when I take the time to talk with actual Christians, I find that they support my rights and aren’t opposed to same-sex marriage.

  • Guest

    His mom threatened to kill him? Wow, that’s really Christian/Mormon of her! Mormons are a cult- gay/straight, you are better to be rid of it! I grew up in the Mormon church so I really do have a clue of what they are really all about. Family- yeah- on THEIR terms only. I left the church nearly 40 years ago, I now live 3,000 miles from the community/church I grew up in, and they STILL makes attempts to herd me back into the fold. I’m all for people believing what they want & practicing their beliefs, but not when it infringes on mine or others rights to do the same, and they are a very intrusive religion/business.

  • Anonymous

    great story. I wish these brave young men well. Thank you Judy Harrison.

  • Anonymous

    Stories like this will not help bridge the gap. The Yes on 1 supporters consistently said the issue was about “civil” marriage and not “religious” marriage and that no churches would be pressured to perform gay marriages. If the beliefs of this particular religion don’t align with yours, move on. There are many others out there who will welcome you and give you the wedding of your dreams. Best of luck to both.

  • Anonymous

    Joseph Smith was a con artist of the first and highest order. He wanted to be polygamous and he figured out a way to do it. Mitt Romney had five grandmothers. His family had to move to Mexico to get away from the US feds. I wish the feds would go after the FDLS which holds great power in the Western states and are still practicing polygamy, sometimes with the men ‘marrying’ their 13 year old step-daughters. It’s blatant child abuse and it needs to be shut down.

    I am very happy for these two young men. They are building a strong place in our community and I welcome them. Good luck to you! And just think how that big wedding will help the economy!

    • Anonymous

      FLDS had very little influence in the western US except for a few small and remote communities which were set up by the FLDS.

      • Anonymous

        The FLDS has a lot of property and money. There are thousands of them. They are not just some few, isolated religious nuts. I am so sorry for their children to be brought up with the knowledge that you’ll (if a girl) be married off young, way before you should marry of your own free will and the young men who are banished because they are seen as threats to the patriarch. Texas tried to intervene and did it all wrong and made a bad situation worse. Now, no government intervention ever happens.

        • Anonymous

          I do not see any evidence that FLDS has that much property or money. FLDS would be small compared to many other churches. Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not defending the FLDS. I also disagree with them.

    • Anonymous

      Joseph Smith was no con artist and those who say he was are just repeating revisionist history created by critics.

      • Anonymous

        We all can believe what we want to believe. I believe he was a con. A very good one.

      • Anonymous

        Joseph Smith was the biggest con of all.

    • Anonymous

      why can’t people just live and let live?

      • Anonymous

        Well, when it comes to child abuse I have a problem with live and let live.

      • Anonymous

        Because it’s child abuse that’s why. If a woman wants to co-habitate with a man who has four or five wives already, fine with me. I have no problem with that. Marrying 13 year old step-daughters? Uh….no. I have a BIG problem with that and so should you.

  • Anonymous

    Ahh in the NAME OF RELIGION… as long as people can draw the line of what they believe or tolerate where ever they wish that line to be….and anyone on the wrong side of that line is EVIL…they are in their minds good Christians.. It’s sad that people are not allowed to live a good and kind life with whomever they choose without others BULLYING them. Yes, it’s bullying.

    • Anonymous

      are you referring to one group of people bullying another group of people to change the meaning and definition of a word that has existed for thousands of years?

      • Anonymous

        Did we bully conservative religious people to give up slavery, when their bible clearly gave them guidance on caring for their slaves? I suppose a case can be made that we did, but we can agree it was the right thing to do, can’t we?

      • Anonymous

        the word written by man – the Bible is just a famous book, nothing more.

        • Anonymous

          the earth was a name written by man.

          shall we change that while we’re at it?

          maybe we could rename it planet bob.

          • Anonymous

            Well, by your logic we “redefined earth” in 2004 when the US Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws, allowing gays and lesbians to live without fear of prosecution nationwide.

          • Anonymous

            You can’t compare the two – that’s just foolish. Come up with another comparison that makes sense.

  • Anonymous

    I know these guys and they are awesome. So happy for them!

  • Melora

    It is not a validation at all. Sliavery used to be legal too but it was and always is a moral evil. The same goes for homosexual relationships. And sadly, those who partake of same sex marriage KNOW deep down it is wrong but they decide to follow themselves (and the ways of “men”) rather than God. Remember, Jesus is not of this world. Those with same-sex attractions should be offer it up as a cross to bear, not celebrating unnatural desires.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Not everyone follows your faith.

      Is that really that hard to understand?

    • This Charming Man

      Keep your religion in your own church; nobody else cares what you think, and nobody else is going to permit the malignant and bigoted influence of your version of your faith be imposed upon them.

      Don’t like it, move somewhere like Iran.

    • Anonymous

      Funny you should mention slavery, because there are indeed many passages in the bible that are instructive for how to treat slaves, and supportive of that practice. The bible says more in favor of slavery than it says against homosexuality, in fact!

      The truth is that there is nothing morally wrong with two people blessed enough to find in one another a loving, supportive relationship. Whether gay or straight, God blesses people who find supportive, positive happiness uplifting others in this world.

  • Anonymous

    The verse in Leviticus goes something like this: If a man lay with another man, he shall be stoned. With rocks, not weed.

    • Anonymous

      Do you personally believe that gay and lesbian couples in Maine should be put to death?

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Who cares?

    • Anonymous

      Once again, another quote from the Bible that was written by man, not by the hand of God.

  • Kevin Grant

    So, if you’re gay and belong to a church that does not support the gay lifestyle, leave. If you voted yes on 1, you won. Stop bashing the churches and people who voted no on 1. YOU WON. This is beginning to look like “we won now we can shove it down the throats of those who disagree with us”. What happened to the “same sex marriage won’t affect you” ads before the election? Were they the fertilizer ejected from the south end of a northbound bull?

    • Anonymous

      How HAS same-sex civil marriage affected you? You’re the one here choosing to read the article and leave a comment, after all.

    • Anonymous

      If an article such as this (which you certainly do not have to read or bother with) elicits that kind of response from you, it seems you are way over-reacting. It seems to bother you way too much. Odd.. There all kinds of articles written in papers. So what.

    • Kevin Grant

      It wasn’t the article I was commenting on. It was the comments on the article. The fact that this couple can now marry in Maine isn’t what I’m commenting on. The people who think they can tell me what to do (ConvivialVisits and cosmos012) are they types of people who are commenting and spreading said fertilizer.

      • Anonymous

        Um, where have I told you what to do? I’m just pointing out that same sex marriage HASN’T affected you… unless you count your choice to obsess over the comments on articles on this topic.

      • Anonymous

        I don’t think that they are trying to bully you into thinking the same as them – they just want to see the same respect that they show others. They are advocates for this (along with the majority of Maine voters) and they want their voices heard. If they can change a few minds in doing so, then kudos to them. I don’t find they are spreading your said fertilizer, they are trying to educate and to get the non-supporters to be more open minded and accepting, that’s all.

  • Anonymous

    How sad and shallow…..there are 148 comments on this non -news story….and only 12 comments on the war going on in Israel.

    • Anonymous

      where’s the article for that? it seems to have been buried somewhere.

      • Anonymous

        Yes under politics….beneath the 13 day old headline of the election results

  • Anonymous

    now that we’ve had that side of the story, perhaps the BDN could write one about the way the opponents to question 1 feel?
    If we’re going to pretend to be unbiased and all.

    • Anonymous

      So, how do you feel? How has your life been changed by my equal treatment under Maine law?

      • Anonymous

        I didn’t say anything about my personal opinion.
        I’m fairly certain my comment was clear.

        • Anonymous

          So you admit that your life has not been changed at all by the outcome of this vote.

          Do you realize now your opposition to the equal treatment of others was unnecessary and misguided?

          • Anonymous

            that’s like saying “you have a right to your opinion, as long as it’s the same as mine”

          • Anonymous

            Not really. We’re all entitled to have our own opinions, I’m just pointing out that your life has not been affected negatively now that same-sex marriage is becoming legal in Maine.

    • Anonymous

      They have written articles about the opposing side! Check out their archives and you will see…

    • Tedlick Badkey

      So… how do you feel?

      You can write all the letters to the editor you choose.

  • Anonymous

    what’s with this obsession by people of the Christian religion with the genitalia activity of others?

  • Isaac

    I am so sick of these articles. Ever since the vote there have been a million BDN articles rejoicing at how great redefining marriage is and not a single one on the possible consequences (or those on unhappy about the vote). And yet people still tell me that there isn’t mainstream media bias…

    • Anonymous

      There certainly have been articles about the possible consequences! One headline read “gays may get civil marriage licenses as early as January 6″… That’s sure a consequence, and a great one!

    • Tedlick Badkey

      OK… write your letter to the editor and outline the “possible consequences”. As for unhappy with the vote, that’s not an issue for the news.

      BTW… if you’re sick of it, why are you here?

    • Anonymous

      This is a big deal despite how much you dislike seeing or reading about it. We had to hear from many different religious affiliations before the election about how much they are against same sex marriage. Sorry you feel this way but don’t read the articles if you are so sick and tired of it all…

  • Anonymous

    The Mormon Tabernacle Choir sings somebody that I use to know.

  • Anonymous

    As far as I’m concerned and I understand my opinion is just one small humble one among all the others, the case is closed. We have voted to treat all equal in marriage, none of you woke up on Wednesday, November 7 and found your own marriages dissolved, the sky didn’t fall in, the world didn’t crumble before God and disappear. The only thing that really happened is a group of people who were otherwise denied the opportunity to marry are now able to make that commitment. That’s all that happened people. Whether you agree or not is immaterial because it’s NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! You don’t get to decide who can marry and who can’t. It never was your business and never should have been.

  • Samuel Norton

    OMG

    • Anonymous

      Original Mormon Gangstas?

  • Anonymous

    so, here’s a quick question for all of you logical liberals out there:

    if it’s okay to fight for and legalize gay marriage shouldn’t it also be the same with intermarriage between blood relatives?

    *note that I do not support either.

    but, according to your thinking, everyone should have equal rights when it comes to civil unions such as marriage. so why not extend this “right” to everyone?

    so, please weigh in on this issue.

    • Anonymous

      Our understanding of science informs both positions here:

      Scientifically, it’s not a good idea for blood relatives to interbreed; offspring could exhibit recessive genetic traits.

      Scientifically, there’s no reason to oppose same-sex couples from marrying.

      But it’s important to note that in Maine it’s legal to marry your cousin, the gay marriage vote did not change that (except now you can marry your gay cousin, I suppose).

    • Guest

      Actually you probably have relatives that married that were first cousins or closer. Most people do. It was commonplace many many years ago, then people stopped doing it for the obvious reasons you are choosing to ignore.

      That argument of yours isn’t legitimate.

    • This Charming Man

      I think that if you are so hot to marry your sister, that’s you problem, it doesn’t have a thing to do with gay people getting married.

  • they would be very welcome at the Hammond Street UCC. They should check it out.

  • When two people love each other whether those people are of two different genders or the same gender, it is a gift to those who love and those in the community. It does not matter, to me at least, what religion the couple is from – a covenant of marriage should be possible. Maine’s vote on marriage on Nov 6 declared that these two young men can marry if and when they wish – legally. Being Mormon, their church will not marry them. But, there are communities of faith who are open and welcoming of all couples who love each other. I minister to one of those communities of faith – the Unitarian Universalist Society of Bangor. More importantly, those who are not included in their faith communities because they are gay or lesbian, need not live a life without faith. We would welcome Mr. Miner and Mr. Whighan in our church as would many other churches in the Bangor area.
    It is wonderful that two such people can find love and be open about it. We should all be expressing thanks that such love is possible. Thank them for their courage and resolve to be who they are and love who they will.
    I, by the way, left the Mormon church in my early twenties. It is a culture of love and famility and was difficult to leave, at the same time, there were theological tenets that were untenable. But, I know it takes courage to leave and I so appreciate the difficulty of leaving that faith. My prayers send love and support to all who are not validated for who they are by their faith community. God is love and we should love and appreciate all of our fellow humans.

You may also like