December 13, 2017
Letters Latest News | Poll Questions | Closings, Cancellations and Delays | Roy Moore | Susan Collins

Comments for: Friday, Nov. 16, 2012: Health care, obesity and DOMA

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

    Helen Patterson, that very issue has been playing out in many courts across our nation where same-sex couples have access to civil marriage.

    What has been found to be unconstitutional, 100% of the time, is this so-called “Defense of Marriage Act”.

    I predict the US Supreme Court will declare DOMA unconstitutional within the next 12 months, for it truly is an unwarranted intrusion on states rights!

    Please educate yourself more on this issue, because your short letter to the editor here makes you sound uninformed.

  • Helen, you are very misinformed. Please read the language of the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution limiting Federal Government’s power over the states. Marijuana was just legalized in states also. The marriages are not recognized by the government yet. We will have to file state taxes together though. The states have their own rights to enact laws whether they are in course with federal law or not. God Bless and know you were prayed for today.

    • Anonymous

      What you are saying does not make any sense. For example, much of Arizona’s immigration law was struck down by SCOTUS. Try re-entering the State of Maine from Canada with marijuana in full view. Customs will no doubt nabbed you even if you have a prescription for it.

      • I love you whawell and God loves you. i prayed for you today.

  • Anonymous

    Ms. Wilcox – let me get this straight, those of us without children are now paying to educate other’s children (and a huge amount I might add), in many cases we are providing meals to those children who’s parent can’t or won’t pack them a lunch. And now, we are on the hook cause the children are fat? When did parenting become everyone else’s problem, and not the problem of those who created these children? Did I miss something? Seems to me, getting the chubby little ones to get outside to play, or get those chubby little fingers off the keyboard, or game box – is THE PARENT’S RESPONSIBILITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I certainly don’t remember being asked if I would help, before the child was made – it is way past time for parents to become parents, and if they can’t or won’t – how about some birth control?!?!?!?!

    When the choice is food for my family, or spending that money to make sure someone else’s chubby child is active – guess which choice I’m making?!?!?!?!?

    • Anonymous

      When did we as a nation Stop caring. We will never any solutions to any of our problems simple because people all yell now, I WANT SOLUTIONS! But it better not cost me anything.

      • Anonymous

        Sometimes yelling just fits! Yes, I want solutions – is that wrong?
        Because I don’t want to enable the drugged up breeders – that makes me a bad person? Feel free to enable all you want – I chose not to – thanks!

        • Guest

          “Drugged up breeders” nice language and the GOP can’t figure out why they lost.

          • Anonymous

            Read enough of their posts on the BDN and you can see why.

    • Wow you are an angry person. God Bless. I prayed for you.

      • Anonymous

        Not angry, just poor & tired of giving and giving and giving…….
        Parents need to be responsible for those lives they choose to bring into the world – I really don’t see what is wrong with that attitude.

        While you’re praying for me, please also pray for all the neglected and abused children won’t you! There are many out there, and more are being brought into the world daily. And it seems those who are not pro-choice are all about all us taking care of them – I’m fine with them taking on the role – I believe just because you “can” doesn’t necessarily mean you “should”!

        • Guest

          ,nnnfgsgretwe

        • Anonymous

          You’re absolutely right. As you say, “Parents need to be responsible for those lives they choose to bring into the world”. But what about those who are in the world already but not born yet? What do you suggest we do with them? Ironically, since Roe v. Wade and its companion decision, Doe v. Dolton, permitted women to kill their unborn child essentially for any reason throughout pregnancy, the number of children born out-of-wedlock increased substantially and the number of children of divorced parents increased likewise. It seems to me legalized abortion has had the opposite effect of what those who pushed for it said it would. Besides that, we are finding out that “free choice” is not all that free. The majority of women who abort claim they were pressured into doing so. It seems to me after all is said and done abortion on demand has not really served women and has reaped unforeseen consequences on society.

          Here’s a relevant link for you with supporting resources:
          http://www.unfairchoice.info/coerced.htm

          • Anonymous

            I looked at your article and then looked at the citation in that article that supposed backs up the claim that “majority of women who abort claim they were pressured into doing so” and that’s not what the study actually says at all. So not only are you lying, you found a source that is lying about the facts as well.

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15448616

          • Anonymous

            Par for the course with that poster. “She” has said in the past she is a woman.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Well, it obviously ain’t no lady!

        • My children are all well cared for, educated, athletic, active in school. i have a little to give. I am not so much pro choice only in certain circumstances.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      So… you’re pro-choice then?

      • Anonymous

        Yup!

        • Anonymous

          In case you weren’t aware, most women who abort claim they were pressured in doing so. If you are “pro choice”, can I assume you are against allowing women to kill their own offspring? After all, a “choice” is not really a personal choice if it is coerced.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Funny… I know women who’ve had abortions…

            None that felt pressured to do so.

          • Anonymous

            Can you provide a citation for your “most women” claim? I want to know where that fact is coming from.

          • Anonymous

            Yes, I can provide a citation. But why do you want to know where the fact is coming from? If past events have any significance, facts don’t appear to mean anything to you unless they agree with your world view. So why waste my breath?

          • Anonymous

            Put up or shut up.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          Just checkin’.

  • Tedlick Badkey

    Helen Patterson,

    BWA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

    So much for the wingnut cry of “STATES RIGHTS!!!”, huh?

    Don’t worry… DOMA will be dead (or maimed) very soon. See, the justices know DOMA has no real value to America… and it cannot be defended with rational arguments.

    To quote Antonin Scalia, your greatest ally on SCOTUS:

    “If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct…what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “the liberty protected by the Constitution”? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.”

    If he knows it’s coming, whether he likes it or not, then we all know it’s coming.

    • Anonymous

      Where have you been? I’ve been defending DOMA with rational arguments all along? SCOTUS will not undo DOMA unless it decides to stray from the Constitution.

      • Tedlick Badkey

        LOL!!! Procreation?

        Yeah… um… that argument was part of the loss of Prop 8.

        You’ll have to come up with better arguments than that.

        What, exactly, is it in the constitution that supports DOMA?

        I’m afraid I’ve missed that discussion.

        I’d think that the 10th and 14th amendments are both violated by DOMA.

        Whatcha got?

        • Anonymous

          You’ve artfully asked the wrong question since it is you who stated DOMA was unConstitutional. The question is not “what, exactly, is it that is in the constitution that supports DOMA?” but rather “what is it in the Constitution that does not support DOMA”. You say the 10th and the 14th Amendment prohibits DOMA. But I say you misinterpret the Constitution on account of your definition of marriage. Marriage is a government endorsement of certain types of relationships. The Constitution nowhere spells out what that type of relationship should be.

          • Anonymous

            No, you are wrong. If a federal law is being challenged, then you have to prove that the Constitution grants the federal government power to enact and enforce that law. So Tedlick is right. You have to point to an aspect of the Constitution that grants the federal government the power.

          • Dont talk to him please.

          • Anonymous

            Don’t you know what it means when we say a law is unConstitutional? It means it violates the Constitution. If a law does not violate the Constitution than it is valid or “Constitutional”.

          • Anonymous

            Sweat heart, when a law is unconstitutional it’s either because it violates an aspect of the Constitution (like a required freedom) or because Congress isn’t given the power to enforce such a law in the Constitution (like the Obamacare challenge). Tedlick is right and you are wrong. Quit making stuff up.

          • Alec Cunningham

            Like the arguments against the national Romneycare plan…

          • Tedlick Badkey

            But it does spell out that citizens must be treated equally where government benefits and protections are concerned.
            I have 8 (I believe) federal judges who have already found just that to be true?
            What do you have?

          • Anonymous

            Equal protection does not mean equal treatment. Besides, liberals know which federal judges are activists and which ones aren’t. Believe me, its always the same impartial judges who are making these decisions. Unless Obama gets to nominate another liberal justice what you are implying simply won’t happen.

          • Anonymous

            Equal protection does mean equal treatment for similarly situated individuals. No one is going to believe you when you make stuff up.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Ah, “activist judges”…

            Good grief.

          • Alec Cunningham

            Some of these activist judges were appointed by Republican presidents.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Most of the ones who have thus far declared DOMA unconstitutional are conservative appointees…
            Funny how wingnuts overlook that fact.

            Even Vaughn Walker is a conservative appointee…

          • Anonymous

            Um, you really have no idea what you’re talking about, do you?

          • Anonymous

            Well you do know that almost all the judges that have rule DOMA unconstitutional have been appointed by republicans. I can’t remember where I found it but there was a great article thanking the republicans for Gay marriage because all there judges were ruling it unconstitutional You can’t simple label someone an activist judge simply because he rules against what you want.

          • Anonymous

            Here is an answer to your question, “what is it in the Constitution that does not support DOMA”.

            Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution

            Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution
            Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution

            For details, please see the FIVE DOMA rulings I call attention to above.

          • Anonymous

            The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment will be the basis for the Supreme Court striking down DOMA. It has been the basis for eight federal court decisions, two at the Circuit Court of Appeals level (First and Second Circuits), striking down DOMA. Many of the judges who have found DOMA unconstitutional have been Republican appointees.

            But be assured, no one will force you into a same sex marriage.

          • Anonymous

            I’d rather die than be wedded to someone of the same sex.

          • Alec Cunningham

            That’s rather strong.

      • Anonymous

        You absolutely have not. None of your predictions ever come true, so it’s enough already. 8 different federal courts have already ruled DOMA to be unconstititional. It hasn’t been upheld. The legislative record of DOMA proves that it was passed to hinder gays and lesbian due to moral disapproval. That doesn’t even pass the lowest test, “rational basis.” I’m guessing you know nothing about constitutional tests and you’re just trying to turn your personal feelings into facts — am I right?

      • Anonymous

        Oh this I’ve got to hear— what is your rational argument (meaning it would be accepted by a court of law anywhere in our nation) that defends DOMA?

        Because several federal courts have heard challenges to DOMA in recent years, and consistently rule that DOMA violates the US Constitution:

        Gill v. Office of Personnel Management: section 3 of DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

        Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services: section 3 of DOMA violates the Tenth Amendment and falls outside Congress’ authority under the Spending Clause of the Constitution.

        Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management: DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

        Windsor v. United States: section 3 of DOMA violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

        Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management: “no conceivable rational basis exists for the provision” in section 3 of DOMA.

        Alright whawell, please show us how you understand our Constitution more than the array of federal judges in multiple circuit courts!

        • Tedlick Badkey

          Don’t expect anything but mindless tripe on “for the sake of the children” and “gays can’t procreate”…

          That hypocrisy is all whawell ever uses.

  • Anonymous

    Or we could ask our Congress to repeal DOMA. Take the Dirigo motto seriously. Let’s ask our Democratically controlled State House to do just that.

  • Anonymous

    Actually Patterson, DOMA itself is unconstitutional and has been ruled and upheld as such in multiple court circuits across the country. DOMA is going to be struck down very shortly, probably during the 2013 year.

    • From your lips to God’s ears.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      How?

      According to whawell, ending DOMA will violate the constitution.

      Don’t you pay attention?

      • Anonymous

        LOL, I wouldn’t take whawell’s advice on anything, let alone legal matters! I’d say DOMA has a 100% chance of being struct down, then shortly after either the Prop. 8 case or a challenge to any of the state constitutional gay marriage bans will result in a higher level of scrutiny (ratcheted beyond rational basis) for the LGBT community. My second prediction is more of a long shot, but not by much, maybe 80%. Robert’s isn’t going to let the legacy of his court be backwards rulings. The 4 state wins proved the direction this country is heading in and I think that serves as an affirmation for Roberts, the swing vote.

      • Shhhh dont mention his name and maybe he wont come. He only trolls things that say ‘gay’.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          And says he has a rational legal basis for his views, but offers none.

          • Anonymous

            Actually that poster said once she is a woman but who knows if that is true either. So many untruths and lies.

          • Anonymous

            Yes, Poster Whawell likes to keep posters guessing because the views offered by that poster are not relevant to his or her gender. Only irrational posters draw that conclusion by implication.

          • Anonymous

            I’ve offered many rational debates in the past. There’s an old saying: You can lead a horse to water but but you can’t make it drink. You are that horse!

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Nothing you have put forward has stood in court.

            Just sayin'…

          • Alec Cunningham

            I thought it was that you can’t lead a dead horse to a beating but you can teach him to eat for a year….?

          • Anonymous

            Build a man a fire, heat him for a day. Set a man on fire, heat him for the rest of his life.

      • Anonymous

        According to Whawell ending DOMA will not violate the constitution. You’re putting words in his mouth.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          Where is that rational legal argument as to why gay married soldiers are being denied federal marriage benefits whawell?
          We're still waiting.

          • LOL and he talks about him/herself in the second person.

          • Alec Cunningham

            Regular Joe does that all the time-there’s nothing wrong with that.

          • Anonymous

            I think whawell meant to login under another of their accounts :)

          • Like Oasis or Randall Flagg

  • Anonymous

    Poor Helen. The world is passing her by.

  • Anonymous

    Appreciated the letter of Judson Esty – Kendall . He has helped a lot of individuals and families in this area with his legal and other work for those who otherwise could not afford representation. He is professional and compassionate.

  • Anonymous

    Ms Patterson the Federal Defense of Marriage Act , passed in 1996 by a claque of the sanctimonious (some of whom turned out to be gay as a feather boa), prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. It does not prohibit states from recognizing same sex marriages. Don’t bother suing the federal government; save your money for a nice welcome to the neighborhood party for the first gay couple to move to your street.

  • Anonymous

    S. Wilcox; good letter.
    H. Patterson; nice try, but no cigar. Don’t waste your (or anyone else’s money on that frivolous lawsuit.

  • Alec Cunningham

    Ms. Patterson, the DOMA does not make same-sex illegal, it just says that states don’t have to recognize it and that the federal government won’t recognize it.

    It would be good to research the topic that you are writing about before you send your letter to the editor.

  • Anonymous

    Helen Patterson . . news flash . .it is 2012 . . .not 1912 !

    Equality and other social changes will continue to happen . .with you or without you!

  • Anonymous

    Helen- SCOTUS will be taking up DOMA very soon and after the court rules that the 14th Amendment really does apply to ALL American’s DOMA will become ridiculously obsolete, much like your sad and antiquated view already is. Time to beat a new drum chum.

You may also like