Whoever wrote that headline should have given it a lot more thought. I know it is an AP article but still, that is one messed up headline.

As for the article: Not worth commenting on but the rest of the comments should get interesting.

So I guess we're abandoning FREE SPEACH rights in this state??? Ridiculous.

Ann Sullivan is just not thinking striaght. We the people of the USA have freedom of speech no matter what our jobs are.

Gee me thinks that some jobs

have rules about what

is freedom of speech for ya

when you work

there job

Don`t cha know<> I think I saw that someplace

This couselor needs to be transfered to Bangor. There's about 60 young people that held a rally yesterday that need counseling. Their young minds are being corrupted.

If the article is right, The National Association of Social Workers violates the their member Constitutional Rights. I believe this is far more troubling than the State of Maine trying to redefine the word marriage.

"marriage |?marij|

noun

1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.

• a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex.

• a relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts : a happy marriage | the children from his first marriage.

• figurative a combination or mixture of two or more elements : a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel."

hey 10:03>Did ya break that rule you talk about

In front of Management<<

If you didn`t get fired or disciplined

I guess that would be a NO<<

Even if Donald doesn`t go down<>he he<<

The vote was 47% NO and 53%YES

That be awful close to have

Mouthed off For

And lose your reputation and

Possibly YOUR Job<<

Hey Maineurvivor , i agree with you whole alot. Tedlick says that they are gonna get equal righs one way or another. Pretty sad when they have to find volunteers(but paid) to hold rallys for them. Maybe they should just give this up.

9:51 AM, Kevin_of_Bangor, you're right! I think Mendell should be censured by the ASA but the local case should be dropped. However, it is not frivolous.

9:53 AM, Northwoods_Maine, Mendell broke the rules of the national organization that credentials people in his profession. He also lied.

9:58 AM, pcme2000, free speech is one thing but accepting money to do an add that was a lie in another. I think the American Sociological Association needs to censure this social worker. I don't think the school department should take action. If he can accuse another teacher, in an ad that played hundreds of times on TV, of being a "homosexual activist," he can take what's coming to him.

10:03 AM, shipbuilder, I rest my case... Your God is a delusion.

Very funny Kevin!

10:17 AM, Coronadrinker, "paid?" Maybe you should be held accountable for what you say here. Those young people are gay kids, kids of a gay parent, have a gay family member, or have gay friends. I can see you don't fall into any of those categories.

The complaint against Mr. Mendell is outrageous & asinine and should be thrown out....if not then ALL who appeared in the commercials, no matter what side they were on, and any individual with a state issued professional license that spoke out publically in any media source, should be subjected to the same complatint process and ethics violation scrutiny that Mr. Mendell has been subjected to.....

oops...my bad

Someone questions a professional ignoring a code of ethics for their profession . . so obviously the Entire State is abandoning free speech ?

Speaking of ridiculous . . .

. . . or perhaps "speach" is something different that I'm not aware of . . . . .

So if a doctor wore a pin for the NO side, should he be reprimanded as well? This whole thing is pathetic.

Is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there is none resulting in a stampede that injures innocent people an example of free speech? Free speech does not mean you can say anything you want whenever you want. This is one of the first things you learn in civics class. In our system, there are laws and rules that govern free speech. The complaint against this "educator" is not frivilous because he signed on to certain ethics rules regarding what he can and when. He broke that rule, and just as he holds his students accountable when they break rules that govern their free speech at school, so too does he need to be held accountable. I wonder what would happen if one of his students called him a liar and a homophob at school. Would they be punished or would they be defended for exercising their freedom of speech? No, I don't need to wonder after all...

Mr Mendall should not be allowed to advise ANY child.

He should resign. PERIOD

On 11/23/09 at 10:03 AM, shipbuilder wrote: God is watching you sick imoral people. He has plans for you if you don't shape up!

How can you argue with that kind of logic...or mind?

What makes Mr. Mendell's actions unethical you ask? Because the premis of his arguement in the commercial that he appeared in was that he didn't want an action pushed on Maine students. Well, that is exactly what happened. Is he pushing his way of thinking on his students? Go look up the ethics rules that he agreed to follow and that he is accused of violating. Then come back and argue he has done nothing wrong.

maybe the Councelor won't have to worry when kids BOYCOTT going to him, knowing he is just CHOCK FULL of Bias.....so IF no kids use his services - they can lay him off....too bad. How come no-one mentions the woman that WAS FIRED for USING her FREE speech in support of Marriage equality? Hmmmm>? SHe WAS FIRED,and NOT re-HIRED...FIRED! but you don't hear anyone complaining about that..do ya? Noooooo!

what logic?

10:17 AM, Coronadrinker,

Do you have any evidence or proof of this "paying" you're ranting about?

If not, why would you continue to post something that is untrue?

Lying is a sin.

Free Speech is fine, but don't claim your place of work or profession. And don't attack the other messenger, especially when you have to work with them.

Guidance councelors must be open and welcoming of all students despite their sexual orientation. By making his views public he's alienating students who deserve an unbiased guidance resource. Inconsiderate move for someone in his position.

Hey Coronadrinker....I just heard that the Yes on 1 side paid people to make phone calls to leave threatening messages on Yes on 1 supporters answering machines....sound plausible???? About as much as your 10:17 am post!

10:57 AM, DisgustedAmerican : Would this be the same woman wanting

to be a minister for a church and going completely against the doctrins of

the church that she wanted to represent? Can't imagine why they would

fire her for that...She knew what she was doing and even said herself

that she wasn't surprised by the churchs decision...so tell the whole story.

The NASW doesn't license social workers in this state, they provide guidelines for practice of social work. He would be under the state certification law for guidance, not the same thing. The real question is he whether he is "condoning discrimination". How can he be discriminating when the current law recognizes only heterosexual marriage?

The guy shouldn't have appeared on the ad, but it is not malpractice. The student who would then feel uncomfortable going to him for his stance should be shifted to another counselor just like when a kid is uncomfortable with a counselor for any other reason.

On 11/23/09 at 11:20 AM, daniel662 wrote:

Guidance councelors must be open and welcoming of all students despite their sexual orientation. By making his views public he's alienating students who deserve an unbiased guidance resource. Inconsiderate move for someone in his position.

EXACTLY!!

HRH419>You Look Insane With That One

Nope the trying to Justify Your Shameful Vote

Not even a Nice Try

On That ONE

Bigot<<

That Women You talk About had CLASS<<

Something YOU also do NOT know anything ABOUT<<

12:09 PM, ElectraGlide : You wouldn't know class if it

slapped you right in the face. But that might bring you

to your senses...oh, forget it...maybe not.

Didn't follow much about this guy but what is so wrong about him expressing his concerns about the topic? If he felt it was something that shouldn't be introduced in schools why shouldn't he speak out? Has any of this prevented him from doing his job? Has any of this prevented him from being objective in his counseling? The president of the U.S. has publicly stated he firmly believes marriage to be between a man and a woman yet I don't see anyone saying he can't do his job for that reason or that it has influenced his decisions in any way. The hatred for anyone opposed is becoming more evident daily and you "no" folks are appearing to be as obnoxious as those who you are saying are bigoted and hateful.

"Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. "

"He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized."

So, our President is against gay marraige because of his Christianity and it's beliefs. Is he a bigot??????

Best of luck, Mr.Mendell! The last time I checked I did live in the USA and freedom of speech was a US CONSTITUTIONAL right. (no comparison to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater in your statement.)

Don Mendell shoudl simply sue Ann Sullivan.

I think he could definitely prove damage to his career.

Mr Mendall - I HOPE your services are are reduced as a Majority of students decide they can't trust your judgement as a councelor..therefore leaving you with NO one to councel, and your services can then willbe NO longer needed......IF you can;t be unbiased - maybe you should go wrk at a supposed "christian" school.....ahh thats right, they don't pay very well, and thier benefits are lousy.

The proof is in the pudding, getting ahold of the school to see if the kid can give me any insight why she would do that. Then ill have the proof, because one of the freinds of her that attended said she got paid

He chose God's "code of ethics" over that of the National Association of Social Workers? Tar and feather the man!

That's not very nice to call Obama a BIGOT movethenisback.....

Why would they do that??????

This man absolutely has the right to express his opinions.

But this is a free country, therefore the other counselor also has the right to file a complaint if she feels that professional ethical violations have occured.

If it is frivolous, it will get thrown out, which I am confident it will.

gw2kpro wrote:

"Don Mendell shoudl simply sue Ann Sullivan.

I think he could definitely prove damage to his career."

If that is the case, he damaged his own career by violating his own professions code of ethics.

Parent have as much a right to refuse to expose their kids to him, as he has to his free speech.

HRH419 wrote:

"10:57 AM, DisgustedAmerican : Would this be the same woman wanting

to be a minister for a church and going completely against the doctrins (SIC) of

the church that she wanted to represent? Can't imagine why they would

fire her for that...She knew what she was doing and even said herself

that she wasn't surprised by the churchs decision...so tell the whole story."

Especially when that same church protects priests that molest children !

Tell the whole story when you talk about "Traditional Marriage"

Women were considered PROPERTY.

And the church did not bless marriages until the third century; or define marriage as a sacrament until 1215.

And only a moron would quote Leviticus as proof of anything pertaining to gay people, especially if he can't even SPELL "Leviticus".

On 11/23/09 at 1:44 PM, PIchris wrote: HRH419 wrote:

"10:57 AM, DisgustedAmerican : Would this be the same woman wanting

to be a minister for a church and going completely against the doctrins of

the church that she wanted to represent? Can't imagine why they would

fire her for that...She knew what she was doing and even said herself

that she wasn't surprised by the churchs decision...so tell the whole story."

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Especially when that same church protects priests that molest children !

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Can't stand the TRUTH so make it about something else. Your pathetic.

Twist until it sounds good to you...

I seem to remember a big piece of the argument AGAINST the gay marriage law was that it would allow Maine schools to teach about other forms of marriage. The opponents said that was a horrible thing. 1. No where in the bill did anything address educational outcomes and 2. apparently the opponents of gay marriage think it is okay to teach discrimination in our public schools, which is exactly what happens when you ignore the 6-10 percent of the adult American population that identify as gay-lesbian-transgendered or bisexual. So a big double standard there, I think.

No double standard. Gay marriage is not legal, so why talk about it. There are many things not legal that are not discussed. Son marrying Mother is not legal, so it is not discussed. If these two issues were legal, they would be discussed.

The man is a walking ethics and malpractice violation. Dump him

"Parent have as much a right to refuse to expose their kids to him, as he has to his free speech."

THANK YOU. Finally you see our point of view. We as Parents also have as much right to refuse to expose our children to gay marriage, as to your freedom of choice. Thank you.

Come on folks, get over it. The yes's won and the no's lost. If gays and lesbians want to be legally recognized, try a civil partnership and live happily ever after.

PropMgr wrote: Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

tomthompson_1 spoken like a broken homo !! will you people just please go away, "levitcus 20:13" and God decided there will be an epidemic afflicted upon the immorality, lets call it AIDS Gods answer to homos .

Too bad you weren't smart enough to realize that it effects everybody now. The most infected people in the US are heterosexuals and woman.

Do you know why?

It's called playing on the down low DL. Thats when men who claim they are heterosexuals go out and play with an infected male and then the down low guy contacts the infection ,,,goes home and passes it on to his wife or G/F.

So get your facts straight before you start throwing out verses.

On 11/23/09 at 2:16 PM, TheTruth wrote:

The man is a walking ethics and malpractice violation. Dump him

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

This man has been doing this job for 36 years...get a grip(no pun intended)

"eliteconservative: The guy shouldn't have appeared on the ad, but it is not malpractice. The student who would then feel uncomfortable going to him for his stance should be shifted to another counselor just like when a kid is uncomfortable with a counselor for any other reason."

Unfortunately most Maine schools only have one guidance counselor - Mine always did - I don't think this alone would be enough to warrant him being fired, but as a guidance counselor tolerance is fundamental to the position. The burden of finding an "un-biased" counselor shouldn't be placed on students.

This complaint is absolutely valid and the man should lose his Social Work license. For this man to take a public stand, and actively lobby for legislation that continues the oppression of gay Mainers, he must operate from a set of values that are not consistent with Social Work ethics. He is absolutely entitled to his views, but if he's not entitled to a license unless he can follow the code of ethics associated with it. Aside from that, what kind of school counselor is he - who are gay and questioning youth supposed to talk to?

why is it all right to have free speach when some one is talking positive about it in school but not all right if some one is talking negative about it in public.

what is this a one way street.free speech to me is free speech and my right to say whats on my mind and i think some people are idiots.

and yes some are going to take offence to this post and my grammar and a million other things so im enacting my free speech to them BEEEEEEP.

you figure out what this means and get back to me.

HRH419 wrote:

"Can't stand the TRUTH so make it about something else. Your pathetic.

Twist until it sounds good to you..."

What's pathetic is your own hypocrisy, the church's hypocrisy and lies, and lies that you tell about gay people.

You should be ashamed.

I'll never be ashamed to tell the truth.

Roger movethen.

I almost flattened a 6 pt buck this morning with my truck.

They are getting very active....

Too bad old Bigfoot didn't know how to hunt.

He's probably receiving his award right now as we sit here and chat......

movethenisback wrote:

"Parent have as much a right to refuse to expose their kids to him, as he has to his free speech."

THANK YOU. Finally you see our point of view. We as Parents also have as much right to refuse to expose our children to gay marriage, as to your freedom of choice. Thank you."

Since when were/are your children going to be "exposed to gay marriage?"

Lie some more, it makes my point.

People like yourself are unfit to advise children. I wonder how many gay kids were driven to suicide in Maine by people like you ?

I accuse. I accuse you and your little cowardly, lying toadies of murder.

HRH419 wrote:

"I'll never be ashamed to tell the truth."

Let me know when you finally decide to do it !

So it's ok for a school counselor to put his warped religious views on the students? What if they aren't religious? This isn't a free speech issue, it's an ethics issue.

On 11/23/09 at 10:16 AM, ElectraGlide wrote: Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Even if Donald doesn`t go down<>he he<<

The vote was 47% NO and 53%YES

That be awful close to have

Mouthed off For

And lose your reputation and

Possibly YOUR Job<<

Hmmm I seem to remember last November being told 53% to 47% was a landslide mandate for hope and change. Well question 1 wins by the same margin snd now it's a narrow defeat?

Guess it depends on which point supports your arguement. Can't be both,

I agree (partially) with eliteconservative.

As a school "counselor," Mendell had a conflict of interest problem in going public on this topic. While he may have had every right to do so (I have no insight into any legal limitations on the part of school officials), offering oneself up as an "authoritative school figure" on such an issue can be problematic, and I question Mr. Mendell's judgement. Especially, since the ad in question clearly used hyperbole -- "pushing homosexual marriage on Maine students" -- as a tactic to further inflame public opinion. Reasonable people who are active participants in their children's education recognize that merely including same-sex marriage in the litany of social interaction around the globe hardly rises to the level of active teaching or "pushing." On that basis, I feel the complaint was a valid one, although ineffectual.

Everyday : ) Unlike yourself.

Yes, Mendell is free to have is opinions and state them. That isn't the issue here. The issue is that he is NOT entitled to a license to practice Social Work anymore than I am entitled to a license to perform surgery on people. Professional licenses are obtained ONLY when the person meets the standards of that particular profession. Mendell's choice to be in that commercial and publicly speak on this issue is in DIRECT violation of the professional requirements of holding a Social Workers license. HE CHOSE to risk his license. Again...while Mr. Mendell IS entitled to free speech he is NOT entitled to a Social Workers license just because he obtained the required education to qualify him to take the exam. You do not automatically get a license to counsel...you must EARN it and meet strict requirements to RETAIN that license. He most certainly HAS violated the code of ethics that he is mandated to follow in order to retain his license. The complaint will NOT be dropped, nor should it be. I would not want him counseling my children and if my kids went to his school I would have filed a complaint as well. There are too many good Social Workers out there who DO follow the licensing requirements and they would be much better suited for that job than someone who refuses to follow the licensure rules. Again...he was entitled to say whatever he wanted...but he is NOT entitled to the license unless he is willing to follow the rules attached to the PRIVILEGE of having that license.

12:24 PM, LilMikey, he may or may not have had the opinions he expressed in the ad. He was paid to do the ad. He broke rules of ethics the American Sociological Association expects it’s certified members to follow. If you don’t understand that, there is no sense trying to explain it. The school may not require ASA endorsed social workers but I believe it may be a requirement for accreditation. A psychologist friend had to decline writing a guest column for the news because his department head suggested it would compromise his professional relationships with some people he treats. When you are a provider of care, you must think of those things. Mendell showed very poor judgment, and that should be reflected in his performance appraisal as an area where he needs to improve.

ok. so all those who appeared in no on 1 campaignes should have compliants filed against them or maybe BDN should be ordered to close its doors because it backed the no on 1ers. god forbid she spoke his mind

Are you kidding, Kevin? That headline's brilliant! Newspaper people live for the days when they get to bust out a headline like that. At least I did when I was in the business.

lobstermangarrett wrote:

"ok. so all those who appeared in no on 1 campaignes should have compliants filed against them or maybe BDN should be ordered to close its doors because it backed the no on 1ers. god forbid she spoke his mind"

I was going to respond to this, but since you can't spell "complaints" OR "campaigns" I figured it would be a wasted effort to explain that when you have a profession that requires you to be impartial and to serve the public, it is not your right to violate codes of your profession, and say and do things that make it clear that you can not DO your job with the appropriate level of impartiality and professionalism required.

lobstermangarrett...do you even know what the code of ethics and behavioral requirements are in order to hold a the license to provide counseling? I'm guessing that you do not. Mendell DID violate the licensing requirements for HIS license. As a COUNSELOR anything he does or says publicly CAN and DOES impact eligibility for retaining his license. I am not aware of any other person who violated the rules of their licenses. Teachers don't have the same code to follow as counselors. IF other people violated the rules of their licenses then yes, they should be subject to losing their licenses as well...and again, as far as I am aware, Mendell is the only person who violated any specific code of ethics. This isn't about public opinion it is about very specific licensing LAWS and rules that are written in state statutes. It's not just people wanting to be mean or get even with him...the complain IS justified and he might lose his license over it...but he KNEW he would be subject to this when he did that commercial. It's the LAW governing his license and it is his responsibility to know the rules and laws and adhere to them if he wants to retain that license. What he did was stupid, bottom line.

Gotta admit, this healine is classic

I belive Mr Mendall stated an opinion based on current law @ the time, marriage = one man and one woman . That was and is the law in this state. Are any of you looking to have any of the multitude of "professionals" who spoke for the other side of this issue fired. Hmm, im thinking No, isnt that funny.

Centaurmyst what Rule or Law did he violate, specifically? He stated an opinion that is in linewith current Law and societal norms . Where is the violation?

Let me get this straight;

Someone expressed his opinion that the ill-conceived law to redefine marriage was a bad idea and should be repealed.

People supporting redefining marriage take issue with anyone who has an opinion that doesn't agree with them.

Someone else (No on 1 supporter obviously) calls the State and tries to get his license to be a guidance councilor pulled because they claim that anyone wgo doesn't agree with them is condoning discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Wow! Talk about a narrow minded, thin skinned, bigoted view of the world.

First, traditional marriage DOESN'T discriminate based on sexual orientation. Any male regardless of sexual orientation can marry any woman regardless of sexual orientation (excepting minimum age, not already married, not closer than first cousins of course). What people are complaining about is that they can't have their union of two same sexed people substituted, for a marriage. Just because you CHOOSE not to get married doesn't make it discriminatory.

If you are a vegan and walk into KFC you don't expect them to serve you a tofu breast and the fact that they only serve chicken doesn't make them discriminatory against vegans. They are more than happy to sell you a bucket o' chicken. The fact that you choose not to, isn't their problem. Can you imagine the exchange....

Vegan: I'll have a bucket of popcorn chicken.

KFC: Sure no problem (puts bucket of chicken on counter).

Vegan: I want the chicken that isn't made of any animal products.

KFC: Huh? All of our chicken is made of, well, chicken.

Vegan: That's not fair, you are discriminating against me on the basis that I'm a Vegan.

KFC: No, you are free to buy this bucket of chicken. We don't care what you believe in.

Vegan: Then sell me the chicken made without any animal parts.

KFC: The only chicken we have is made of chicken. Perhaps you want a salad instead?

Vegan: What? A salad, how dare you suggest that I have a salad.

KFC: Well it doesn't have any animal in it, and you said you wanted something without animal parts.

Vegan: I want chicken.... I'm reporting you to the state. You are discriminating against me because I'm a Vegan. The Equal Protection clause of the Constitution is food preference neutral. You are going to be in big trouble mister if you don't sell me a bucket of popcorn chicken without any animal parts.

....... (Vegan talks to friendly Senator in Augusta. Gets a law passed that says that chicken no longer has to be made of actual chickens, tofu in the shape of chicken will henceforth be called chicken and all establishments that serve chicken must serve animal based and non-animal based chicken equally. Churches don't have to serve non-animal based chicken if it conflicts with their religion.)

.......(Citizens are up in arms, a petition is circulated to repeal the radical redefinition of chicken it's Question 1 on the ballot)

Guidance Councilor: I believe you should vote Yes on 1, Only chicken actual made from chickens should be called chicken. If this law stands we might be forced to teach our children that chicken can be made of tofu. I don't believe that would be a good thing.

Crazed No on 1 supporter: Augusta? You need to pull that Guidance Councilor's license. He's urging people to vote Yes on 1. That clearly shown that he supports discriminating against people based on their food preferences. Since he's been on T.V. and everything, vegan students won't feel comfortable being sent to him. He's obviously not suited to be working with young children. If he was he would naturally be opposed to repealing the anything is chicken law.

Yep...... that makes all the sense in the world.

3:58 PM, jilocasin, actually no, he broke the code of his professional organization, the American Sociological Association. It's just that simple.

He wants his gay marriage beef tossed...is that like getting your gay marriage salad tossed?

Jilocasin, Thank you, you've made my day just a little brighter

3:58 PM, jilocasin and furthermore, that kind of condescension makes you look like bad.

Williamds, which one? what rule did he violate? Ive been looking, and i dont see it. Unless you mean the rule that states "You must agree with My opinion or your wrong" is that the one?

jilocasin, you pretty much hit the nail right on the head. Disgusting isn't it?

daniel662: You are correct. Maybe he should not be a guidance counselor if he is not willing to treat all students with the same respect and some "objectivity."

Jennifer : Agreed.

Lesbian

4:13 PM, rockymarsh, yes, that's the one. You've been to the ASA's site and found the code of ethics for ASA certified counselors? ...and this one for starters... from the ASA and the link following to the NASW.

Principle D: Respect for People's Rights, Dignity, and Diversity

Sociologists respect the rights, dignity, and worth of all people. They strive to eliminate bias in their professional activities, and they do not tolerate any forms of discrimination based on age; gender; race; ethnicity; national origin; religion; sexual orientation; disability; health conditions; or marital, domestic, or parental status. They are sensitive to cultural, individual, and role differences in serving, teaching, and studying groups of people with distinctive characteristics. In all of their work-related activities, sociologists acknowledge the rights of others to hold values, attitudes, and opinions that differ from their own.

http://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/code.asp

Yep, watch it the BDNPD are out! I just threw something ignorant out there to see if someone was watching and they were! Keep up the great work Officer chersully2000!

William: They have that condescension thing nailed, haven't you noticed!

4:31 PM, workingpoor, you feel comfortable saying inflammatory things because you're anonymous and can't be held responsible for what you say. That's why these blogs are good places to sample the population's mentality.

WilliamDS:

Really what rule did he break? The only thing I'm hearing is that some people are equating a belief that marriage is between one man and one woman as evidence that a person discriminates based on sexual orientation. That's on heck of a stretch. Just as someone who believes that when you order chicken, the product you are served is made of parts of a deceased fowl can do so without a single discriminating bone in her body. So she can believe that marriage is between a man and a woman without a single discriminating bone in her body. Marriage isn't discriminatory (well not in the sense the revisionists believe anyway), therefore advocating that we don't change the definition of marriage can't be discriminatory.

If I am a Jew doesn't mean that I'm automatically biased against Christians or atheists. By your definition I am not allowed to let anyone know my religious affiliation if I'm a councilor. If I wore a cross then I would be unsuitable to council non-Christians or atheists. If I wore a star of David, then how would Muslim students feel about coming to me? If I didn't wear anything, then the atheists would be comfortable, but the religious students might feel that they couldn't be sent down to my office. Oh my, what if some of my students saw me coming out of a {church, mosque, synagogue }? What would they think? I better not go to any religious services, I might loose my license. Wait, if I DON'T go to a religious institution I might loose my license............. Ugg...

See, that sort of thinking is untenable. If a councilor goes on television and says that all non-white, or non-heterosexual, or non-Muslim, or what ever is {evil, bad, don't deserve to live} then I'm right there with you. Obviously unstable. Investigate him right away.

Just because he says that he thinks it's a bad idea to change the definition of marriage......... hardly bigoted. Unless you happened to be a 'No on 1' supporter apparently.

Law for requirements for licensure mandates adherence to ethical practices.

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/32/title32sec13858.html

The official complaint against Mendell that cites all the ethical violations he committed:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/userdocs/MendellComplaint.pdf

The complaint is not only justified but there is a very good chance that he will lose his license and job. If that happens it won't be because he doesn't have a right to speak freely. It will be because when he signed the application for his professional license he made a contractual agreement NOT to violate certain rules. He has violated several of them and thereby has broken his licensing CONTRACT with the state. If his license is revoked it is his own fault for the choice he KNOWINGLY made that put his career on the line.

Here you go rockymarsh. Now grow up, and next time do your own homework!!

The complaint cites a code of ethics set by the National Association of Social Workers, focusing on a section that says that social workers should "treat colleagues with respect and should avoid unwarranted negative criticism of colleagues in communications."

The complaint also cites a section of the code that says that social workers "should not practice, condone, facilitate, or collaborate with any form of discrimination" on the basis of several factors, including "sexual orientation."

Actually, I believe it was Sullivan's complaint that turned off a lot of "no on one voters" and they voted yes on one instead.......Thanks Ann !!

4:37 PM, jilocasin, questions answered? It's not up to YOUR logic. There are professional standards for all helping fields. Mendell shouldn't be fired unless his performance is not good, however, were I to be evaluating his performance, this would be mentioned in his next performance appraisal as an area in need of improvement.

The complaint SHOULD have been filed...but they should have waited to file it until AFTER the vote. Mendell being "targetted" has NOTHING to do with the vote on question 1 or same sex marriage, gay rights or politics. It has to do with him KNOWINGLY making a VERY serious ethical violation specific to HIS licensure. This issue would NOT apply to the average person and nor would the average person have any risk of being sued or fired for voicing their opinion on same sex marriage. Mendell is a special case ONLY because he is a counselor who has been given a license to help vulnerable populations, including homosexuals. By going VERY public with his personal beliefs he has essentially shown that he is INCAPABLE of doing his job effectively and ethically. If he were NOT a counselor none of this would be happening to him right now. This is about the license requirements and the code of ethics SPECIFIC to HIS field, not any field or any person.

ClydeDurp@2:49>The Maine Coon Cat never said that Nov 3rd was a landslide

I was hoping for a landslide on the NO side

So now does what I said make sense to YOU<<

~~~~

One thing I am Proud of on Here

As I do not label people and there political parties

What is up with that

Yep it is just another form of hateful Bigotry

And I have used that word A lot<

~~~~

WilliamDS@4:30<>Even I understand that ONE<<

The trying for justification of the Shame of the Yes Vote is running rampant

While I took a little ole Nap

The ignorant Stupid Bigotry of the Yes`ers is Way over the TOP Today<<

They are really starting to Show there Desperation.

Yes Sir GenYes Sir

Hey, I got some beef to slap in here! Astroglide, I could sure use a hand....:]

This is neither a moral debate, nor is it one about free speech. It is, rather, about professional ethics and the failure of a licensed professional to comply with the ethics of his chosen profession. It's fine for this person to take the public position that he took, he just can't call himself a Social Worker anymore.

6:07 PM, Bangorian, I agree.

You mean based on his answer right Bangorian. Remember back on the Equality Maine commercial I believe there was a fire fighter in there. If the public counselor broke ethics laws then so did the public fire fighter asking for gay rights. Good, Lord I don't think I can ever trust a fire fighter anymore because they support gay rights.

Wspahn I don't know if the headline was intentionally written or not. I found it very amusing but it also made me shake my head because of the pictures it created in my brain. I’m not gay but that combo of words is just downright amusing and wrong at the same time.

On 11/23/09 at 5:59 PM, workingpoor wrote: Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Hey, I got some beef to slap in here! Astroglide, I could sure use a hand

~~~~~~~

Not what I heard

Word is out don`t bother with the Little Pickle

Known as (( workingpoor ))

poor ole lack of beef for sure

Just another Bigot floppin around on the Floor

Please Please leave me Alone

A promise is a promise

A spade is a Spade

A bigot is a Bigot

Yes Sir just Yes Sir just overrun dem Nazi wanna bees<<

~~~~

movethen@5:23<>if the shoe fits wear IT<<

BTW I kinda liked the Attitude of Sarah Palin<>Still DO<<

Nice your back BTW

Poster Pea Brains are always are delight to SEE<<

Yup and the Guidance Counsilors who tell their students it's okay to be a homosexual need to be thrown out of the schools as well. All is fair in love in war!

It's about the children....

Working poor - you're wrong. There is nothing in the Code of Ethics for professional firefighters that applies to this situation. The Social Work Code of Ethics is, however, a different story. It's makes multiple references to situations like this, there is no ambiguity.

Either way if he loses his job I can guarntee that it will end up in the courts and probably all the way up to the supreme court. This accredition

I just look the fire fighter's name is Justin Bragdon and he's an employee of the Portland Fire Dept. He is a public payed employee and he shows favor towards the gay marriage movement. Also I'd like to Investigate State Rep. Denis Damon and Congresswoman Pingree. They to have violated public ethics laws being public servers and actually having an oppinion on the matter. I expect a full investigation by the Maine Ethics Panel and a full report on my desk ASAP!

dingle a ling<>just called in for a Pizza

I think I`ll have a meat lovers

Since there is sure a lack of

Beef on the Nazi Side<<

Bangorian, what if he shows favor to a gay person's house burning before mine? I just don't think I could live with all this special treatment for one group of people over another.

workingpoor wrote:

"I just look the fire fighter's name is Justin Bragdon and he's an employee of the Portland Fire Dept. He is a public payed employee and he shows favor towards the gay marriage movement. Also I'd like to Investigate State Rep. Denis Damon and Congresswoman Pingree. They to have violated public ethics laws being public servers and actually having an oppinion on the matter. I expect a full investigation by the Maine Ethics Panel and a full report on my desk ASAP!"

It's spelled "opinion"; and his opinion to treat gay people equally is not in violation of his professional accreditations, nor does it preclude him from serving in his capacity in his job. That you don't understand the distinction seems strange, unless of course, you are just playing stupid.

Workingpoor, step back and read the comments here. Do you really think gay people are treated better than straight people? Read the comments, yours included.

Grammar police are out! My bad big "P" little Chris. Quick to write I guess. All I'm saying is regardless of the man's job he is entitled to his opinion that's all. Are you saying a doctor who voted "YES" can't help a gay patient? Do you feel this would effect the gay patient's quality of care? No, I'm not stupid, but the No'ers are grasping for straws. Please feel to move to another state and fight the good fight!

to my Christian brethern... I suppose that if an ATHIEST guidance counselor was outspoken against any religious students in his/her school... you certainly would not take THAT news kindly at all... so why don't you all shut up about free speech rights. If he was speaking as a member of a profession, which he did... he needs to abide by the rules and conduct expected, which he didn't. He chose to speak out and needs to face the consequences for doing so. AND while we are on the subject... I still haven't heard ANY outrage from the YES folks on the woman who was fired by the Catholic Church for writing a newspaper editorial supporting No on ONE.

Childish snide comments alluding to sexual activity, vague arguments favoring mistreatment of gay kids, misinterpreting the term professional ethics......etc. I"m embarrassed for you if you don't know enough to be embarrassed for yourselves.

Wasn't there another teacher or councilor there who was on the other side of the issue? If so, that seems odd- you can support a bill but not appose it.

WilliamDS, I could care less what gays do, it's their right and I defend their right to the core. I really mean that! Any two consenting adults should be able to form a legal contract between each other period. It can be anything from selling a lawnmower to making last rights decisions. Instead of taking a term from a group of people who are very passionate about the matter, lets work on changing the laws so they can form these very important contracts on life changing events. Not a bad idea, just the wrong angle that's all.

All he said was not to push gay marriages on students, I took it to mean not to teach it at schools. It seems to me, being he is a counselor, has no doubt heard from the kids they don't need this crap thrown on them at an already hard age.

Kids should be thinking about education ie: reading, writing and arithmetic not adult sex and relationships.

Nope I prefer Snake Meat

On My NON-Pizza Hut Pizza

Later Gators

Safe some Meat for ME<<

workingpoor...firefighters code of ethics would not apply to political views or sharing them publicly. Counselors are considered Health Care professionals and they are held to a much higher standard than the average person. As for your "personal feelings"...you would never be limited to only having access to just ONE firefighter in the way that any homosexual kids at Mendell's school would have access to only ONE guidance counselor. The law for Social Workers and Counselors is the law, regardless of how you feel about it. The laws exist for a reason...to protect the people who need help from being harmed. ALL counselors NEED to maintain complete impartiality, regardless of how they feel about a given issue. If they have a bias they are not supposed to work with people in that population. Mendell clearly is incapable of working with homosexual students so he is not able to be an effective guidance counselor and if he were being honest he would recognize this himself and step down without any investigation.

Ah, she's at it again!

Centaurmyst, how about a doctor? Same ethic standards?

Hey, BDN you let that loon astoglide babble, but you sensor me? You are one impressive piece of work you are! Maybe, you should just let the stuff fly tonight you're not changing anyone's opinion.

darthcyclonics...Guidance Counselors need to remain impartial and provide support to each student who comes to them based on that particular student's needs. If the student is homosexual and tells the guidance counselor this then the counselor MUST accept them just as they are and reassure them that there is nothing wrong with them. If a person cannot do that they are not suited for any kind of social work or counseling. If a child is harassing or bullying a homosexual child then that bullying kid would be spoken to about respecting the rights of others regardless of how you feel about them or how they are and acceptance as a human being, not acceptance of any specific group. Counselors are expected to teach to respect and accept diversity in individuals whether those kids are homosexual or very religious.

6:53 PM, Muddah, supporting equality is not discriminatory. The counselor was advocating discrimination based on sexual orientation.

7:16 PM, workingpoor, I would appreciate you not alluding to sexual activity when you use others' names. His name is ElectraGlide. Are you 12?

Great ad on the page BDN! "All Gay Exotic Caribbean Cruise" Talk about the "Love Boat"! Jeeze! I wonder if you'd let the Church put a bake sale ad up there? I think not.

downeastdave...if an atheist counselor publicly bashed religion and another religious teacher in a political television ad intended to prevent equality to religious residents of Maine and someone complained about that they would face the exact same rules that Mr. Mendell is facing...as they should.

Donald Mendell, There are thousands of people in Maine that support the freedom of speech and what you did. This is just a smear campaign to try to use you as an example to try to silence others. Stand strong and endure this. You will be redeemed in the end.

They do Centaurmyst! It's called UMaine. They spoon feed our kids this crap and tell us they're just expanding their minds. BS! Global Warming, etc. You want to call the game down the middle that's fine, but we both know it's not black and white.

Hey, the "Tool Boat" is gone!

Medical doctors have a similar code of ethics, but more geared towards their job. Mental Health professionals have a very strict code to follow because the people they serve often are very, very vulnerable and sometimes at a very high risk of harming themselves or others if a counselors does or says the wrong thing. Out of all professions, people in the mental health field probably have the tightest leash on what they can and can't do and say publicly without getting into trouble. Mendell KNEW this when he agreed to do the commercial. If he really cared about that job he would NOT have been in that commercial. To be honest with you...I think he intended this to happen. He probably thought it would help the Yes campaign if he lost his job or license because it would play into the fears of people being fired or punished. There is NO WAY he didn't know this would happen with an investigation. That indicates, in my opinion, that he really is extremely biased against homosexuals to be willing to sacrifice his license and job just to try to prevent same sex marriage.

Maybe, he believed strongly in something Centaurmyst. There's nothing wrong with that. If he loses his job he loses his job. No worse than a growing number of Americans these days!

unreal,yes toss ot out....

UMaine is a college...and students are not minors or mental health patients...and professors are not therapists or counselors. You keep trying to compare apples and oranges. It honestly doesn't matter what the topic...counselors MUST not behave in any way that could cause emotional harm to those they counsel. They cannot behave in a way that is discriminatory of any group. This protects religious clients as much as any other group and that's how it needs to be. College professors don't have a therapeutic counseling relationship with students....and as a college student myself I can assure you that there is a mix of both somewhat liberal and somewhat conservative professors...it just depends on your course of study.

They changed the name of the headline. They must have finally figured out how messed up it sounded.

workingpoor...I don't agree with Mendell at all...but I think he has every right to voice his opinion and be in the commercial if he wanted to. At the same time, because the helping field is my chosen field as well I know that professionally, Mendell was WAY out of line. He did know that going in, so he made a conscious choice to violate his contract with the state. I'm sure he did feel strongly about this issue...but that doesn't change the fact that he violated the conditions of his license. It's a trade off...if he doesn't want to adhere to the rules required to hold his license that is his choice...but he can't complain when he gets in trouble for it.

You ever see a Snake

Caught in a Big Rat Trap

Slam Dang did that hurt much

Sorry about that movethen

You just gotta get smarter

then Dat

Come on BDN, look at this crap! You are so one sided. No wonder your subscriptions are gone!

Hey move, have you ever heard of Mainelyme?

new advertisement [done in a high pitched voice] WHERES THE BEEF

It sailed away on the "Tool Boat"!

First of all, the NASW guidelines as they are being used in this case are probably unconstitutional and Id like to see the state try and defend them so we can get a court case to prove it. Secondly, Mr. Mendell is against gay marriage, not gay people. Contrary to the No side, they can be mutually inclusive ideas. He has said nothing to show this other than a couple of statements that constitute hearsay in the asinine complaint. By the way. this "complaint" was filed by a homosexual woman who works for the principal that is married to the gay activist he called out in the ad. Now, that seems to be bias to me.

redstatepublius...nope, they aren't unconstitutional. Mr. Mendell is free to say whatever he wants to say and do whatever he wishes. However, when you break the law or professional rules there are consequences. He agreed to those rules and signed a contract when he applied for licensure. He made a conscious choice to violate those rules. People are NOT entitled to licenses of any kind. Licenses are PRIVILEGES that are granted by signing paperwork, passing a test and agreeing to follow said rules associated with that particular license. Just like your driver's license can be revoked either temporarily or permanently when you behave in a way that has been predetermined to be negligent the same is true of professional licenses. Just like you know that if you drink and drive your driver's license will be taken away Mendell knew that if he violated the conditions of his license it could be taken away. He probably should not have gone into this field if he was unable to keep his biases between him and his supervising counselor. It is his own fault this happened.

Your argument Centaur has nothing to do with constitutionality or not. Restricting someones speech is unconstitutional and is not the same as drinking and driving, and I think you know this. You assume that thought or speech that goes against the wishes of an unelected panel whose "guidelines" are used by the state is akin to breaking a driving law. Indeed in this case it appears even more likely that he is a victim of persecution for his beliefs. Being against gay marriage in and of itself does not violate a law and ironically may even not violate the foolish standard set up by this board. He would have to have done something in his work capacity to lose his license and I think that is where the state may save itself the trouble and throw out this complaint as frivolous. This board nor does the NASW want the light to shine on this so-called standard.

redstatepublus finally a comment with some relavence to the underlying theme of this complaint....connecting the dots of the complainer in regards to the gay woman and then the school principle sort of sounds like a round of the six degrees of Kevin Bacon.... I do appreciate your comment about being "against gay marriage and not gay people. Contrary to the No side they can be mutually inclusive ideas".....

WilliamsDs and PIChris...right up to your old "tough talk" accusing people of lying and calling people names. If he has concerns about that situation I credit him for being man enough to stand out in the open and not hide in "the closet" like some others do. In fact I 'll bet the more you guys whine the more likely you are to lose the non gay sympathetic voters.

PIchris, what do you know about "the church"? That's an obvious focal point of your anger. You keep saying crap like you are being discriminated against and then saying continuous demeaning, and discriminatory remarks about the people who go to church.

Also, I'll bet he is suppose to encourage people to do what is legal and since marriage between 1 man and 1 woman is the legal definition then it's pretty hard to say he was wrong to uphold the law.

Begging for mercy

Is Kinda Fun to Watch

No matter how this turns OUT<<

8:48 PM, DantheMan, show me where I called someone a name? I don't whine. I state facts. You are whining...

8:21 PM, redstatepublius, NASW is not a state agency, it's a national professional organization.

So John Baldacci as a public servant,supposedly representing our state, while trying to unrepresent the moral fiber of traditional marriage, and undermining the minority group known as Christians, is ok as long as it goes the gay way. Hmmmmmmm

Yes William and the State of Maine licensing board uses their "standards" when dealing with social worker licensing. The issue here is if the NASW "standards" were violated or even have validity to be used in this complaint. My bet is that shining a light on the political nature of the NASW and how its politically correct views are being used in licensing practice by the state might be more trouble than this licensing board wants.

So sorry @ 8:45 for my spelling...."relevance"...

At any rate, if the man is doing a good job he shouldn't lose his job. However, I would be sure his performance appraisal reflected his poor judgement.

Round and round and round. I guess I would have something to whine about if I had voted no but,...........I voted Yes. I remember the last fact we talked about and when I proved you wrong how you changed your argument. First you said they don't teach homosexuality in any schools and when I proved you wrong you changed your argument to saying that it was the responsible thing to do so boys wouldn't get AIDS. PIchris is who I was referring to with the name calling.

Aw, somebody's no fun. The headline's been changed.

WilliamDS wrote: Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

At any rate, if the man is doing a good job he shouldn't lose his job. However, I would be sure his performance appraisal reflected his poor judgement.

I agree with you on this. It may be hard to see this but I know a lot of pretty free spirited kids that go to that school that think he is the man.

9:10 PM, DantheMan, remember... gay kids are only 2 or 3 in every 100 kids. It's easy to be callous about an issue that has no impact on you. 9:07 PM, "boys?" How about "anyone?"... and they don't "teach homosexuality in the schools," what they might teach is safe sex for everyone if they were smart. Heterosexuals are transmitting HIV fast.

jilocasin hit the nail on the head with his bucket o' chicken example. Interesting that no one on the No side addressed that head on.

Question. Let's suppose a social worker spoke out in favor of Question 1. Would that have been acceptable?

Follow-up question. If someone had questioned the aforementioned social worker's license for making such a statement in support of Question 1, what would your reaction to that be?

redstatepublius...no, his speech is not being restricted in any way, shape or form. He can say whatever he wants and in some cases, what he says WILL have consequences. You seem to be approaching this operating under the presumption that Mr. Mendell is "entitled" to a license to practice Social Work and counsel students. He is NOT entitled. In fact, getting the required education does NOT guarantee licensure, just like taking Driver's Education doesn't guarantee you will get a driver's license. If you operate a vehicle in a reckless and negligent manner you are going to lose your license. If a licensed Social Worker conducts himself in a way that is considered negligent and reckless by the highly respected experts in that field and regulatory board then he's probably going to lose his license. No Supreme Court would even hear this case because there is, always has been and always will be limitations of free speech and no person is entitled to any professional license. They MUST meet certain standards to qualify and if they are negligent they are subject to having their license revoked...just like drunk drivers are or any other professional who is negligent. The state won't throw the complaint out...the complaint is valid and in no way frivolous. There was not only one violation...there were several. Again...this is NOT a constitutionality issue...there is NO Constitutional entitlement to a Social Worker's license. When he went to school there was no guarantee that he would pass the exam or qualify for licensure in the first place. While Mr. Mendell certainly has the right to have an expectation of free speech within reason he does NOT have the right to have an expectation of any professional licensure, especially when he clearly has no respect for the requirements of retaining such an important a highly coveted license. He KNEW this when he chose to violate the code of ethics he agreed to. He made his choice and every choice has consequences...now he's just going to have to live with them. If it were my decision I would suspend his license for at least a year, perhaps as many as 3 years and order him to get extensive diversity training prior to being able to re-apply for licensure.

Next question. How does everyone feel about the teacher that Mendell addressed in his ad? Was she OK to participate in the No on 1 ad? Should she be censured by the state and have her teacher's license revoked for actively participating in a partisan political campaign?

dirigodad...no social worker or person in a position of counseling others is supposed to discuss their personal views with clients or publicly because it can create a conflict of interest and be damaging to their therapeutic relationship with the people they counsel. Mental Health Professionals need to be VERY cautious about what they say or do publicly because it can have a severe impact on their ability to do their job and their clients' perception of their ability to serve them in an unbiased manner. Mendell seriously damaged his credibility by what he did and he knew it was a BIG no-no. To do that is very callous and is not what a good counselor would EVER do. A counselor NEVER puts their personal beliefs ahead of the best interest and needs of those they serve. Mendell failed in so many ways.

so, centaurmyst...just trying to understand. Would a social worker who publicly took a "No on 1" position also being seriously damaging his/her credibility? Also, how about Sherri Gould, the teacher who appeared in the "No on 1" ad. Should she lose her teacher's license as well?

Teachers have a different code of ethics, and they aren't as stringent. As far as punishment goes, I'm pretty sure she didn't violate any rules or laws. As I mentioned before...the code is VERY strict for any mental health professionals who counsel others. Was it a good idea for her to do it? Probably not, but from a legal standpoint...there IS a significant difference between a teacher and a social worker doing what each of them did. If Mendell were in a No on 1 ad instead of a Yes on 1 ad he would still be wrong because ALL counselors are supposed to refrain from publicly airing their political and personal views on these kinds of things.

Part of the violations with Mendell is that he made disparaging remarks about another staff person at the school...a big no-no. He also came out publicly in support of discriminating against a group...a HUGE no-no. He also publicized his personal biases and stepped outside of the scope of his expertise by making claims in that commercial that are NOT supported by his peers and the mental health community. There were quite a few things that sent up all kinds of red flags that this man is in the WRONG career and he actually could cause emotional harm to any homosexual students he comes into contact with. That population is already at a higher risk of suicide and the last thing they need is knowing their guidance counselor is so biased against them that he would throw away his career to try to help deny them equality and legal protections.

Thanks for your honest answer. I appreciate your consistency regarding the social worker position. I disagree with your conclusion - Mr. Mendell did nothing and said nothing that was discriminatory in nature. He simply upheld the current legal definition of marriage, as defined by the DOMA, which was passed by both houses of the Maine legislature. He did not advocate discriminatory behavior in any way.

As far as teachers go, they are bound by the Maine Teacher's Association code of ethics, which states: "The teacher should refrain from using

his classroom privileges and prestige to promote partisan politics, sectarian views, or selfish propaganda of any kind."

Prestige? Sherri Gould - Maine teacher of the Year - that was used by the "No on 1" side to provide legitimacy to their message. Blatant violation of the code of ethics.

Partisan politics - would apply to taking a public position on either side of Question 1.

Where's the outrage and outcry to remove her teacher's license? Will the "No on 1" side remain consistent?

There's the gray area with the teacher's code of ethics...it says "should refrain", which means it is suggested but not required. As I said before...the mental health code of ethics is stricter and uses stronger language. The level of potential harm is much greater coming from a counselor than from a teacher. While most people agree that teachers have a very important and difficult job...speaking out on a political issue by a teacher is going to be overwhelmingly viewed as a personal opinion and not one that holds significant professional clout on most issues outside of education and schools. A licensed counselor, however, will be perceived as being more of an authority on social issues, which is what this was. It really is like comparing apples to oranges. Mr. Mendell did make claims that are in direct conflict with the accepted position of what is held as practice standards in his profession. Regardless of how you slice it...he was wrong, and an investigation into the matter is most definitely justified. Had he exhibited the same behavior and committed the same violations while supporting the No on 1 side I would still feel the same way. If he spoke out in a way that made very religious kids feel he was biased against them and that supported the overturning of allowing them or their parents to marry and have equal protections under the law, bashed a religious teacher for taking the other side and spoke out in direct opposition of what is overwhelmingly accepted as the truth among his peers I would also think he should have his license revoked. Counselors are NOT effective without the ability to build trust and respect in their therapeutic relationships with the people they serve. Mendell has rendered himself incapable of having a beneficial therapeutic relationship with any child struggling with issues involving sexual identity. I don't think that is okay...

Unfortunately, your post is not backed up by reality.

1. If you check out the link that william provided, you'll find that Ms. Gould doesn't fit the definition of colleague provided and implied by the NASW code of ethics. That's a strawman argument. Baseless. No violation occurred.

2. The language used on the NASW site is quite similar to that of the Maine Teacher's code of ethics. Time after time, you'll read, "Social workers should..." No stricter, stronger language is used.

3. Again...strawman argument. You're really saying that a relatively unknown social worker is going to have more influence on public opinion and on the perception of his/her profession than a "Teacher of the Year"? That's ludicrous.

What Mr. Mendell said was 1) accurate, 2) legal, 3) ethical and 4) non even remotely discriminatory.

To illustrate the absurdity of the No on 1 argument - If someone said, "Gay sex is sex between people of the same gender," the No on 1 crowd would have to admit that statement was discriminatory to remain consistent. After all, can't one man and one woman engage in gay sex together?

DantheMan wrote:

"PIchris, what do you know about "the church"? That's an obvious focal point of your anger. You keep saying crap like you are being discriminated against and then saying continuous demeaning, and discriminatory remarks about the people who go to church. "

Your assumption that I don't know anything about, or go to church, is typically idiotic.

And your remark that I've insulted people that go to church, an outright lie.

My anger is towards specific church's and their parishioners that feel they have the right to dictate to other churches.

Sorry you don't "get" it, you seem to be caught up in some sort of delusion all your own.

Ann Sulllivan can't think STRAIGHT because she is a LESBIEN

PIchris you took my question about the church as my saying you don't know anything about it. I asked you a question and am asking in regards to your personal experience! Of course you calling me idiotic, a liar, and delusional prove my point. In the real world that is considered insulting.

Can You Imagine

What would of Happened

If A councilor had done the Same thing

And Said I support the Gays and Lesbians

5:43 AM, Thinkaboutit, can't ya just feeeel the love...?

NASW Code of Ethics Preamble:

Preamble

The primary mission of the social work profession is to enhance human well­being and help meet the basic human needs of all people, with particular attention to the needs and empowerment of people who are vulnerable, oppressed, and living in poverty. A historic and defining feature of social work is the profession’s focus on individual well­being in a social context and the well­being of society. Fundamental to social work is attention to the environmental forces that create, contribute to, and address problems in living.

Social workers promote social justice and social change with and on behalf of clients. “Clients” is used inclusively to refer to individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities. Social workers are sensitive to cultural and ethnic diversity and strive to end discrimination, oppression, poverty, and other forms of social injustice. These activities may be in the form of direct practice, community organizing, supervision, consultation administration, advocacy, social and political action, policy development and implementation, education, and research and evaluation. Social workers seek to enhance the capacity of people to address their own needs. Social workers also seek to promote the responsiveness of organizations, communities, and other social institutions to individuals’ needs and social problems.

The mission of the social work profession is rooted in a set of core values. These core values, embraced by social workers throughout the profession’s history, are the foundation of social work’s unique purpose and perspective:

* service

* social justice

* dignity and worth of the person

* importance of human relationships

* integrity

* competence.

This constellation of core values reflects what is unique to the social work profession. Core values, and the principles that flow from them, must be balanced within the context and complexity of the human experience.

NASW Core Values (These are the responsibility of Mr. Mendell to uphold)

Ethical Principles

The following broad ethical principles are based on social work’s core values of service, social justice, dignity and worth of the person, importance of human relationships, integrity, and competence. These principles set forth ideals to which all social workers should aspire.

Value: Service

Ethical Principle: Social workers’ primary goal is to help people in need and to address social problems.

Social workers elevate service to others above self­interest. Social workers draw on their knowledge, values, and skills to help people in need and to address social problems. Social workers are encouraged to volunteer some portion of their professional skills with no expectation of significant financial return (pro bono service).

Value: Social Justice

Ethical Principle: Social workers challenge social injustice.

Social workers pursue social change, particularly with and on behalf of vulnerable and oppressed individuals and groups of people. Social workers’ social change efforts are focused primarily on issues of poverty, unemployment, discrimination, and other forms of social injustice. These activities seek to promote sensitivity to and knowledge about oppression and cultural and ethnic diversity. Social workers strive to ensure access to needed information, services, and resources; equality of opportunity; and meaningful participation in decision making for all people.

Value: Dignity and Worth of the Person

Ethical Principle: Social workers respect the inherent dignity and worth of the person.

Social workers treat each person in a caring and respectful fashion, mindful of individual differences and cultural and ethnic diversity. Social workers promote clients’ socially responsible self­determination. Social workers seek to enhance clients’ capacity and opportunity to change and to address their own needs. Social workers are cognizant of their dual responsibility to clients and to the broader society. They seek to resolve conflicts between clients’ interests and the broader society’s interests in a socially responsible manner consistent with the values, ethical principles, and ethical standards of the profession.

Value: Importance of Human Relationships

Ethical Principle: Social workers recognize the central importance of human relationships.

Social workers understand that relationships between and among people are an important vehicle for change. Social workers engage people as partners in the helping process. Social workers seek to strengthen relationships among people in a purposeful effort to promote, restore, maintain, and enhance the well­being of individuals, families, social groups, organizations, and communities.

Value: Integrity

Ethical Principle: Social workers behave in a trustworthy manner.

Social workers are continually aware of the profession’s mission, values, ethical principles, and ethical standards and practice in a manner consistent with them. Social workers act honestly and responsibly and promote ethical practices on the part of the organizations with which they are affiliated.

Value: Competence

Ethical Principle: Social workers practice within their areas of competence and develop and enhance their professional expertise.

Social workers continually strive to increase their professional knowledge and skills and to apply them in practice. Social workers should aspire to contribute to the knowledge base of the profession.

Ethical Standards

The following ethical standards are relevant to the professional activities of all social workers. These standards concern (1) social workers’ ethical responsibilities to clients, (2) social workers’ ethical responsibilities to colleagues, (3) social workers’ ethical responsibilities in practice settings, (4) social workers’ ethical responsibilities as professionals, (5) social workers’ ethical responsibilities to the social work profession, and (6) social workers’ ethical responsibilities to the broader society.

Some of the standards that follow are enforceable guidelines for professional conduct, and some are aspirational. The extent to which each standard is enforceable is a matter of professional judgment to be exercised by those responsible for reviewing alleged violations of ethical standards.

The full Code can be viewed here:

http://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/code.asp

Mendell violated the Preamble.

Mendell violated the Ethical Principles

Mendell violated the Ethical Standards

Mendell violated the SOCIAL WORKERS’ ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES TO CLIENTS

Mendell violated the SOCIAL WORKERS’ ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES TO COLLEAGUES (Gould is a colleague in the same school he works at.)

Mendell violated the SOCIAL WORKERS’ ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES IN PRACTICE SETTINGS

Mendell violated the SOCIAL WORKERS’ ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES AS PROFESSIONALS

Mendell violated the SOCIAL WORKERS’ ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE BROADER SOCIETY

Essentially...Mendell violated each and every guideline from the NASW. His personal views are in DIRECT conflict with the official therapeutic position held by the Social Work community. His license should be revoked because he has violated this code in such a blatant way that he clearly has no respect for the code of ethics. The man is in the WRONG line of work and that's the bottom line. Frankly...they couldn't pay me enough to let that man counsel my children. If you do a quick search of his comments, letters to the editor and other positions he has held on the topic of homosexuality it is obvious that he is extremely bigoted and biased against homosexuals. He is clearly vehemently opposed to the core values of the NASW and Social Workers so he really has no business trying to be one. Perhaps he should take up preaching or something...but he should NOT be in the helping profession.

I have reviewed Mendell's letters to the editor as far back as Dec of 08, and have determined that he is unfit to provide social services to all of the people he serves. He crossed the line by repeatedly making public statements in letters to the editor and TV ads supporting unequal treatment for gay people, which is contrary to his credentialing body's research and position on equal human rights. My feeling is that he has a personal agenda of some sort... Perhaps becoming pricipal...?

"You've" determined? ... that's pricless.

The no on 1 bigots are in fine form on this one.

And so are the yes on 1 bigots - pretty much equal in trashing each other here today. It's really quite sad.

I'm not sure why you don't seem to understand that a professional or personal opinion favoring exclusion is harmful to people. Exclusion = negative. Inclusion = positive. Also religious ideology has no place in public schools that accept funds in the form of tax dollars from people who have different ideologies. Would you favor reducing gay peoples taxes by not permitting their money from going to public schools?

well......you know what I meant... "not permitting their money to go to public schools" *

Yes, HRH, just like how YOU "determine" that others are immoral.

Show me where I've EVER called you immoral...never happpened.

I don't agree with your choice of lifestyle but have not called you

any names or proclaimed you to be immoral.

Just my 2 cents, but there are contracts and agreements made all the time as conditions of employment. This has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. This has to do with a person compromising their ability to fairly counsel all the students that come to them. Certainly, there isn't a student at that school that doesn't know that he came out in the most public way opposing equal rights for some of Maine's citizens. How can every student feel comfortable knowing their guidance counselor, Donald Mendell, has a strong bias in his beliefs on equality?

Laws are made to protect people and people should never be allowed to pass laws that hurt people. So many here talk of freedom, as long as it's their way. Grow up.

2:28 PM, HRH419, you have no idea what my lifestyle is. You assume I'm gay because I support inclusiveness. Another form of discrimination.

I assume nothing...you stated a long time ago that

you were in a "commited" SS relationship and wanted

to be able to marry. So unless thats changed...which

I wouldn't doubt...

Working poor - you're foolish statements here are helping me undestand the origin of your screen name. I think you might benefit from an education, as you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. You should probably take a moment to learn what a code of ethics is before you start posting your opinions about how they are applied.

LOL, code for, "if you dont agree with me you are intellectually deficient, I will tell you what is best for you, i will help you along your way". Brought to you by the D.N.C

Good thing your opinion does not count. He did not say he was againts gay's, he was against gay marriage, not the same. I don't see any of these schools performing marriages.

HowIseeIt...yes, but straight people without children can get married, get survivorship benefits without paying a small fortune to draw up legal papers that can still be easily contested by blood relatives, etc. If a group is not entitled to the full enjoyment of all the government has to offer they should not have to fully subsidize that government to the same extent those with full rights have to.

They are entitled to it. It is the marriage they are not entitled to. The exact same as if a son wants to marry his mother, or a gay brother wanting to marry is gay brother. They also are not entitled to certain things as couples with eachother, but if they follow the law, they are entitled to everything just like the rest of us.

You example on the tax issue is discriminating against the couple that chooses not to have children, but pays the same taxes.

Actually Mendell is against a student organized group that is intended to encourage positive peer relationships and friendships between straight, homosexual and transgendered students. That, to me, is a HUGE red flag. What kind of social worker does not encourage teenagers to be respectful to each other and develop healthy friendships based on mutual respect? He had a fit over a poster on the wall of the high school that said "When did you choose to be straight?" In light of how many people seem to believe that homosexuals choose to be gay that kind of question would make teenagers stop and think that maybe it's not a choice, which is exactly what homosexual people repeatedly say is the case. Those things had absolutely NOTHING to do with same sex marriage yet Mendell spoke out in opposition to both publicly. Plain and simple...the man has a clear and strong bias against homosexuals, period.

Just Gossip unless you heard it

I keep reading about kids possibly being uncomfortable going to this counselor because he opposed gay marriage (which I do by the way believe is different than being opposed to gay relationships and/or civil unions). I know situation where there is a gay counselor in a school (with no other alternative for kids) what about a young man who is uncomfortable going to a gay counselor about his thoughts on gay marriage, I believe this would be a hard situation for the counselor to be fair with. Would this boy get in trouble for speaking his feelings with this counselor, would the counselor keep this conversation confidential or would it be reported because the boy didn't believe in his lifestyle? You see it could go both ways, kids might be uncomfortable going to someone who is against gay marriage, but other kids have to go to counselors that they might be uncomfortable with. I'm thinking kids would be much more guarded in what they wish to share with a counselor if they think they'd get in trouble for it. I would hope that my son if he was seeking counseling would be able to voice his thoughts on this issue or any other without regard to what the person's sexual preference is. But, I'm thinking if he knew the person was gay he wouldn't dare to say anything or if he did it was be guarded, he is a very open kid and over 18 and shared his decision to vote no with me. However, he knows that the gay and lesbian community are currently a bunch of angry people who actually expect more rights than others, he said it wasn't about the big mouths that are talking today, but the calm community we'd have the opportunity to have down the road with everyone being able to just life their lives without anyone giving thought to it.

I know I made many typo's, but I'm typing on a very small screen and couldn't read it well to check it...no need to comment on spelling...I can see it!

The thing is, I see some of the point trying to be made. The problem is not if he is for or against gay marriage, it is whether he broke the ethics of his job/position/profession. It has nothing to do with if a counsilor is gay or straight. Now, my opinion is he would still be able to perform his duties in this postion, but it is not up to me, it will be up to his peers. I don't think much will come of it.

President Obama has stated his Christianity does not aloow him to believe in gay marriage. Does this affect how he performs his job?

If the President of the United States can voice in opposition to gay marriage on the television or to reporters, then this councilor is peanuts compared to him.

3:15 PM, HRH419, sorry, that was tedlick, not me. :-) I do not disclose any personal information.

I'm not going to back and look William, but it was you.

I remember because shortly after you made the remark

about the "committed'" relationship, you joking asked

someone on here for a date...I believe it was capt.

if I'm not mistaken. I made the remark that it didn't

sound like your relationship was to committed after all. : )

5:55 PM, HowIseeIt, it was in a letter he wrote to the BDN. He, being Mendell. I believe he is an angry man and possibly dangerous to his peers. He obviously does not understand the basic premise of gender equality and human rights as outlined in his discipline's academic programs. Perhaps he would be happier in a religious school that agrees with his ideas. He has broken with that discipline's standards.

Oops "jokingly"

Yes, I joked, HRH. It was humor.

It's not just gossip...he wrote letters to the editor to this paper as well as spoke out publicly on homosexual issues prior to any involvement he had with the Yes on 1 campaign. Just search the archives here and do some googling and you'll find the same things I did. It's very obvious that he is biased against homosexuals in HIS own writings. He might not think that hinders his ability to do his job, but if you can't build a trusting therapeutic relationship with ALL groups and types of people then you are biased, period. He took that bias a step further and made his feelings VERY public. That sends any homosexual students in his school the message that he is NOT safe to trust. His choices have made him incapable of doing his job. He knew the consequences of his actions and he did not care. Just like I say to people who break other laws...if you can't accept the consequences then don't break the rules and laws...it's really as simple as that.

7:03 PM, Centaurmyst, I think his issues are much deeper than just bias, and I think his agenda in personal.

6:16 PM, OMG123, it's easy to be cavalier about semantics after you voted to exclude gay couples from marriage. Do I believe you would have voted NO to repeal a civil union law that was equal to marriage in every way? I certainly do not...

OMG123...Your scenario is not the same thing because the counselor in your example has not repeatedly written letters to newspapers, spoken out publicly and been in political ads pushing for actions that discriminates against the group that student belongs to. A counselor being gay would not be any reason for a student opposed to gay marriage to feel uncomfortable in and of itself. The counselor has not behaved in a way to show a bias and would be required to respect the confidentiality of that student unless he was planning on harming himself or another person...then there is mandatory reporting. The difference is that Mendell has repeatedly been extremely vocal in opposition to not only same sex marriage but also a group of high school students attempting to build bridges of understanding and respect between the straight and homosexual students of the school. There really is absolutely no doubt as to Mendell's clear and pervasive bias against homosexuals. A homosexual youth would almost certainly not only never be able to trust Mendell, they would also most likely feel persecuted by him and probably even unsafe. That is a VERY serious problem.

WilliamDS...it might be deeper and it might not be and his agenda might be personal and might not be. To be honest...it's really irrelevant anyhow...because regardless of his motivation he made a conscious choice to violate essentially every single guideline, rule and ethical standard his license requires him to follow. It wasn't an accident or an oversight...it was very blatant and repetitive. He most certainly does deserve to have his license revoked...not because of his personal views but because of the blatant lack of professionalism and respect for the license he was granted (and can be taken away) by the state. There are A LOT of fantastic Social Workers out there who are looking for work who DO respect and value that license who are able to be impartial and equally represent ALL students in a fair and unbiased manner.

6:16 PM, OMG123, what I don't see is your understanding that a heterosexual councilor and a homosexual Counselor would respond to the boy you mention in the same manner if they were following the guidelines of their discipline. Self-disclosure by a practitioner is rarely appropriate when counseling in the school setting.

So......I see "the truth hurts" someone...

All of you posters who are trying to turn this issue into some kind of moral argument or into a discussion about gay rights are off base. This is simply a matter of a licensed professional behaving in a way that is not in line with the established value of his professional. If you like this guy and want him around your kids, keep paying him to be a guidance counselor. He just shouldn't have a social work license.

Okay...if there were any doubt in my mind before that Mendell needs to have his license revoked and lose his job that has now changed after learning who he has chosen to represent him....ADF. That organization is radical and they are anti-homosexual through and through. They support religious quackery organizations that believe you can change a person's sexual orientation through damaging "therapy" that is considered abuse by experts. This organization fights against hate crime legislation under the premise of protecting free speech. They bit off more than they can chew with this one because the only reason Mendell faces his license being revoked is because his behavior violates the standards for retaining his license. He's certainly free to speak his mind but he's NOT free to hold a professional license that he is not qualified to hold due to his insistence upon violating the rules attached to holding said license.

Is that your expert legal opinion, there, Cent?

How you ever be homeless with all your knowledge?

You crack me up!

Oh, for heaven's sake, people. This argument would be tiresome enough without people constantly making the "counselor/councilor" mistake. A counselor is one who offers counseling. A councilor is a member of a council. The protagonist of this particular little drama is a counselor. It's IN THE ARTICLE YOU'RE ALL ARGUING ABOUT. Did you read it, or just spot the "gay" in the headline and dive to the bottom of the page to start spewing spleen? (Heck, even if you'd done that, "counselor" is before "gay" in the headline anyway.) C'mon it's not difficult. If you're going to sit around hurling knee-jerk insults, at least spell them right.

Harry, I don't normally respond to people who are intentionally offensive in a meager attempt to troll for a reaction and some attentions, but I'm feeling charitable so I'll make an exception this once. If you tried to offend me by referring to a comment I made regarding another article you failed quite miserably...it is impossible to offend me.

Since I am not an attorney I am not qualified to give my legal opinion. I gave my personal opinion that Mendell should lose his license. In fact, upon looking into the group defending him I now strongly suspect that Mr. Mendell may have actually planned this whole thing just to try to make himself a martyr for his anti-gay rights agenda and to set the stage for a court case. He was most likely planning on retiring soon anyhow and it's looking more and more like he did that commercial knowing full well what would happen. Of course I have no proof of this but honestly...it really is the only thing that makes sense.

He has a right to his opinion without fear of losing his job. Freedom of speech!

I give Mr. Mendell credit for giving his opinion openly. He ruined gay proponents portrayal of yes on one voters as "uneducated' backwoods rednecks. Being close to retirement may have afforded him the luxury of being able to speak openly since he has less to lose than a younger person in that position. I would argue that he did not discriminate based on the fact that gay marriage was not yet legal and was only advocating to uphold the original law. The people have spoken and that board better listen to them.

Clifford...actually, he DID discriminate because same sex marriage WAS passed by the state. An out of state organization got involved and helped religious organizations in the state force it to a vote through gathering signatures. Since the rights were granted by the state and then taken away there has been a loss suffered.

Again...anyone is free to share their opinion as openly as they choose. They are not, however, free to hold a professional license if they do not meet the standards that are required to hold the license. Many jobs require the person holding the job to conduct themselves in a way that will not embarass the company or organization or call their credibility into question. I will actually be very surprised if Mendell doesn't lose his license because he essentially took a big, fat, stinky dump all over everything the organization he is licensed by stands for. He has NO legal right to that license...it is a privilege that he has to earn and maintain their standard of behavior to retain.

Centaurmyst--your posts are getting stranger and stranger...you say you are a college student, why dont you spend more time on your studies and less on this blog. Your imagination has gotten away from common sense. He spoke of education of our children....the book in the ad was aimed at elementary school age children. He has, for years, counseled teens, and very successfully. I doubt anyone of them knew how he felt about tradition marriage until the ad came out...As far as I know, and having kids in the system and who has seen him in past years, he has not had any drop off of students seeking him out. DO the parents at the elementary school know that the counselor their kids see in grades K-4 is a lesbian? Should that make a difference any more than he believes in traditional marriage? Your imagination ran away with you without doing any research...he did not allow a poster up from the gay club as he has no political posters in his room....I remember seeing the red sox, music groups, artwork, etc...nothing at all political. So that is in keeping with the tone of his room, nothing wrong with that! There is another counselor at Nokomis if a student chooses to see the other person, but I have heard he has not had any drop off of students, he is a popular person for the troubled kids to go to, far more than any other counselor in that whole district according to kids I speak with...maybe he can, as his record shows, counsel fairly to ALL students. Dont recall reading about any families or students filing a complaint agains him; only a lesbian who doesnt like his political point of view...who does work for Randi Gould, the husband of Sheerry Gould who made the No on One ad at a classroom at Nokomis. He did not film his at school; nor did he identify where he worked. Where is the outrage over her using the school to film her ad? He may be talking from experience, after dealing with students for a few decades, over the damage done due to changes in what is acceptable over the years. And as I see it, Ann Sullivan did us all a favor by making the complaint (though I doubt Mendel would agree) as she made so many people angry that they voted YES. Gee, thanks Ann! THe community support he has received is unbelievable, I have spoken with many people who are outraged, these people know his work. I have seen petitions of support in several stores in the community and know of many people that have contacted the superintendent's office to complain about the treatment he has rec'd and to offer their support. But I dont recall the supt office saying any of that. They hide behind their little desks in their offices. So, do some research before you spout off. Isnt that what you learn at school..research first...

Centaurmyst---what is ADF?

Cliffordmc, actually, the FACT is that same-sex marriage WAS legal at the time as it had been passed back in May. He wasan't "advocating to uphold the original law", he was advocating to REPEAL a legally and constitutionally enacted law. "that board" is not controlled by the citizens of Maine any more than the State Police are controlled by the citizens.

viper13 and all other functionally illiterate posters whining about "freedom of speech".....can you tell me what the FIRST word of the first amendment to the constitution is? When you go look it up, please come back here and tell me how that exact entity is making a law(s) pertaining to the ethical standards that are to be upheld by and incumbent upon specific professions.....

hottamale said: "he did not allow a poster up from the gay club as he has no political posters in his room....I remember seeing the red sox, music groups, artwork, etc...nothing at all political."

*********************************************

so, the "gay club" is POLITICAL????? Wow, how about the Drama Club? The Debate Club for sure....and the Adventurers Club....THAT'S the MOST political club of them all!!!!!

Having read the article and the comments I am worried about the State of Maine. The man has the right to Free Speech, he could have put a sign on his front lawn or a bumper sticker..... however he is in a position of authority. Think about the gay and lesbian students at that school, how are his actions supposed to make them feel. He used poor judgement and his ethics should be reviewed. His tv commercial is equal to spitting in the face of his students who choose alternative lifestyles.

10:17 AM, frankforter, ADF is a right wing organization opposing hate crimes bills, and human rights laws. Their agenda is to advance Christian ideology in the public arena, and to eliminate separation of church and state. The are defending Mendell. This is a link to their site.

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/main/default.aspx

ahhhhh, yes, the alliance defence fund.....they bill themselves as "the answer to the ACLU", as though the ACLU is some wicked, evil organization out to "destroy Christianity"..... which is funny because the ACLU regularly represents Christians whose civil rights were harmed.

I choose and alternative lifestyle also, drugs, losts of them! I hate the comercials against drugs, it's like they are spitting in my face. Although they are not talking about drug users, but the drugs themselves.

I agree with you sundgc9. He is in a position of authority and he violated the students trust by speaking out in support of Yes on 1. I do not know how any student struggling with any issue would feel comfortable going to him for advice or asistance.

frankforter: "he was advocating to REPEAL a legally and constitutionally enacted law. "

That's correct, ff. As a result, a bad law was legally and constitutionally repealed through a "check and balance" called the referendum process!

Horraaay!

1:18 PM, mattcarbone, it is your opinion that it was a bad law, Maine is one of the few states that allow a people’s veto of laws intended to improve the lives of a minority.

This man used his position as a popular counselor in a public school to influence voters and the people he serves to oppose gay marriage based on misinformation. He sent a message to 2.5% to 5% of the students that he does not think they should be allowed to marry. He sent a message to the majority of the students that it is ok to discriminate against gay people. Taxpayers pay him and gay people pay taxes. He has done a disservice to his community by widely publicizing his personal opinion about gay marriage, rendering his services to gay youth ineffectual. Fire him. Perhaps he would be happier in a private religious school.

States with veto referendum and more

These states allow the veto referendum as well as other forms of citizen-initiated direct democracy.

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Idaho

Maine

Massachusetts

Michigan

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

South Dakota

Utah

Washington

Wyoming

California's referendum/proposition system is even more screwed up than ours, which is why their constitution is a hopeless mess and their state government no longer even pretends to work.

hottamale...everyone is entitled to their opinion. Yes, I am a full time college student at the top of my class pulling about a 4.0 GPA. While I appreciate your concern about my studies...they are not suffering at all.

Now, back to the topic since this is NOT about me...

This is NOT about what Mendell thinks, what his opinion is or his right to free speech. This is about the Social Worker's license he holds. As with ALL licenses there are limitations placed upon any person who wishes to apply for that license, rules and conditions attached to the license and that license is NOT constitutionally guaranteed to anyone, including Mr. Mendell. He, like every other licensed social worker must APPLY for the license. IF ANY social worker violates the CONDITIONS attached to that license the licensing organization has EVERY right and even a responsibility to revoke that license. This is NOT about free speech in any way, shape or form. This is about whether or not Mr. Mendell behaved in a way that not only violates the rules attached to his license but whether or not he is capable of adhering to the licensure standards. I not only firmly believe that he has violated those rules but that he is also incapable to adhering to the standards he AGREED to adhere to when he signed up for that license. Because there is more to his behavior than just this ad he is showing a pattern of both irresponsibility and a lack of respect for that license and the rules that go along with it.

3:39 PM, HowIseeIt, a referendum run against a minority is hardly democratic. This country is a "republic," by the way. You will find there are guidelines in most of those states about that process. It's not really worth debating because the supreme court will need to act on the issue.

hottamale, it wasn't a gay club. It is a diversity group. All students are welcomed.

William,

read about this issue. Right now it is not going to the U.S supreme court because it is considered a State issue, not Federal

I agree this is about his profession and his license. But don't fool yourselves if you think he cannot fight the decision in court.

5:49 PM, HowIseeIt, only because members of congress are afraid they'll be voted out of office. It will go to the supreme court but not soon, for sure.

It is interesting how the people who are willing to persecute this guy for his beliefs by way of limitations on his license are not willing to accept the limitations on a marriage license. Obviously different but some irony none the less.

Clifford...there is a difference is that a professional license allows you to work with or for other citizens in a way that impacts them directly. A marriage license is between two individuals who wish to enter into and formal domestic partnership. You don't have to meet educational requirements to get married. A marriage license is more like a fishing license...you get it from a town office to essentially register to fish or marry. It's also not the ceremony itself that same sex couples care about because there are plenty of churches that already perform marriage ceremonies to same sex couples. It is the legal protections, rights and responsibilities of a civil nature that is important. Did you know that the children being raised by same sex couples don't even qualify for child support or enforcement if one of the parents takes off on the other in a same sex couple led family? That leads to the other parent often having to get assistance from the state. It's those kids that I am concerned about and it's why I argue on these topics as loudly as I do. I'm a heterosexual mother and none of this impacts me directly. I just believe strongly in protecting innocent children and doing the right thing for ALL people. Equality is crucial because our society and this country is ONLY as good and strong as our most vulnerable neighbors. When we don't do our part to lift up those on the bottom of the heap then we are NOT as good or strong people as we can be.

9:26 PM, Centaurmyst, wow... a student and a mother! You go!

I understand professional licenses and probably hold more than most people would even care to. None have a suppression of freedom of speech provision to hold them. My point was meant to show the respect for any license can be subjective. I also find more irony in the fact that while you state your concern for the well being for of a gay couple's children, I believe Mr. Mendell also stated his concern for the well being of the same children being raised by gay couples and the problems they have. There has to be some unique problems for these children. Maybe a study on these children is warranted. There are plenty of plenty of unmarried heterosexual relationships involving children that have the same support or lack of issues. I believe you can find that in some states a non married partner may be obligated to a child if they acted as a parent to that child for a certain period of time then they can be obligated to provide support as if it were there own. As much as I am also concerned about the vulnerable in our society I also think people have to be responsible for the choices they make in life.

11:48 PM, Cliffordmc, did you read the guest column by the 3 sociologists on that subject? I think it was in October or possibly September. The American Sociological Association must have the statistics on that. That's what they do best.

Gay couples were trying to be responsible by requesting legal marriage status for their choice to be in a monogamous relationship. They deserve that dignity and respect.

Clifford...I happen to be a single mother who has essentially raised my children on my own since they were very young. The 3 kids I had with my ex husband are all adults now and are actually much better adjusted than most young adults I know who have been raised by two parents. It is NOT the marital status, gender, race, sexual orientation, socio-economic background, etc that makes for a good parent and a well adjusted child. It is love and devoting the time and effort required to teach a child how to become a healthy and happy adult. My sons are friends with a wonderful young man who is being raised by two mothers. He was adopted by one of the women. He is a great kid, very smart, very well liked among his peers and he doesn't have any psychological problems at all. His parents have raised him to be a happy and healthy young man.

Back to the single Mom thing again...while my ex husband went to great lengths to avoid paying child support...at least there were laws in place that ensured that my children were entitled to get it and the office of child support was required to help us collect it. The children of same sex couples do NOT get that help because the parent who leaves is not usually legally recognized as a parent to that child due to their family not being recognized through the LEGAL aspects of marriage. Even if someone doesn't approve of homosexuality...what do those people have against those innocent children that they don't want them to have the same protections the children of straight couples have? I just think that is very, very wrong and I'm quite disgusted with how the majority of Mainers voted. I never thought I would see the day that my home state showed such a deep contempt for innocent children as I saw after the election results of question 1.

12:38 PM, Centaurmyst, it's easy to answer that. They are misinformed, thinking that gay parents have some way of "causing" their children to become gay or they have worse misperceptions. This argument will never be won with the majority of the population who have put no time into getting the correct information, while gay people have sought information and education about their orientation since the early 1970's.

williamDS...you are off the mark with your last comment of 12:38PM...that theory is absurd and sounds like what your side wants the Yes on One side to sound like. The majority of the population have spoken, and I believe, gave alot of thought to their vote. Because they didnt agree with you or the mother of the year, Centaurmyst, does not mean they are misinformed.....The first amendment gives us room to say what we believe, and just because you don't agree, does not make it wrong. Just like you have the right to say what you want....Many of us gave alot of thought about this vote, and had many a discussion with others on both sides...so dont be so quick to lump everyone in one group.

Says:

The determined scholar and the man of virtue will not seek to live at the expense of injuring their virtue. They will even sacrifice their lives to preserve their virtue complete.

7:10 PM, hottamale, but you made an uninformed decision. A referendum run against 2.5% to 5% of the population is sure to prevail. Sad but true.

Oh ....by the way, D.C. Council voted to legalize same-sex marriage in the district today. It's just a symbolic gesture in my opinion since the federal government does not recognize same sex marriage but it's coming. A bill is being introduced to challenge DOMA. The District will join New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and Massachusetts in allowing same-sex marriage.

williamsds....my decision was not uninformed. I am very informed, I just disagree with you. maybe YOU are uninformed or misinformed...or gay

and New york voted gay marriage down....

IOWA, VERMONT & NEW HAMPSHIRE WILL BE VOTING ON GAYMARRIAGE IN THE FUTURE & IT WILL BE DEFEATED AS IT IS IN EVERY ELCTION BY THE PEOPLE. OF THE STATES.

hottamale wrote:

"williamsds....my decision was not uninformed. I am very informed, I just disagree with you. maybe YOU are uninformed or misinformed...or gay"

No, he's not gay, he's just a good person with a conscience. Try growing one of your own.

joesalters :

WE WILL HAVE EQUALITY, EVENTUALLY, IF YOU LIKE IT OR NOT.

THANK YOU FOR TYPING IN ALL CAPS AND YOUR PERPETUAL SPELLING ERRORS, IT JUST SHOWS PEOPLE WHAT KIND OF PERSON IS DETERMINED TO KEEP US DEFINED BY DISHONEST PEOPLE WHO ARE MOTIVATED BY LIES, FEAR, PREJUDICE, AND THEIR OWN INSECURITIES.

On 12/3/09 at 9:03 PM, hottamale wrote: "williamsds....my decision was not uninformed. I am very informed, I just disagree with you. maybe YOU are uninformed or misinformed...or gay "

Hilarious coming from someone who (inadvertedly) named himself "hotta male."

Can you get any more self-delusional? Can you spell denial "hotta male"?

2/3/09 at 9:03 PM, hottamale, New York City has recognized gay marriage for a long time. It doesn't matter if states refuse to legislate gay marriage. The federal courts will make a decision some day.

gay marriage may get pushed thru by state legislatures, but when the people vote on it, seems to get turned down....interesting? Funny how the majority of people are "uninformed" as posters here like to write....dont think so.....homosexuals or those supporting them dont seem to be very tolerant of a different viewpoint...hmmmmmmmmmmmm.......