The watchful eyes of the fox are ever on the vineyard. Biding his time, he waits until the farmer leaves, then with a bounding leap he is over the wall, devouring a meal of golden grapes. If the fox is especially clever, and the crop is a fine one, a higher and better wall is needed.
Marriage is more valuable than any vineyard or field, because marriage is needed for the propagation of human life. For that reason, marriage must be fenced in with a wall of right reasoning and logic, with each block in that wall, whether it be civil or religious, skillfully made and well-fitting.
While the sacred union of one man and one woman for life is for fruition, same-sex marriage hinders propagation. While marriage between man and woman is needed for the proper education of children, same-sex marriage teaches away from the most basic truths pertaining to the meaning of gender.
Same-sex marriage is not merely an alternative form of marriage. It is the opposite of marriage. And at the very moment society accepts the illogic of same sex marriage, the wall around traditional marriage shatters and crumbles into dust.
There can be no moral or legal right to claim what does not exist in nature and for which no proper term be found. The term “same-sex marriage” contains an inherent contradiction, and is therefore false.
Advocates of same sex-marriage claim they are victimized by being denied this nonexistent right. Yet these same activists drag caterers and photographers into court for refusing to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies.
If we lose the referendum on same-sex marriage, objecting to homosexuality on religious or moral grounds may someday become a crime, as it is now a crime in Canada, in Britain and in Europe.
A case in point is the recent lawsuit against Dr. Scott Lively. Dr. Lively is a theologian and evangelist who runs a mission for the homeless in Springfield, Mass. Dr. Lively is being sued in federal court for comments he made in opposition to homosexuality, not here in America, but in Uganda. The lawsuit against Dr. Lively alleges he committed crimes against humanity when he spoke out against homosexuality.
Nor will the homosexual rights movement rest content after it has criminalized opposition to homosexuality. The homosexual rights movement will compel the public to acknowledge same-sex marriage as worthy as, and yes, even preferable to traditional marriage. Children are now being taught this lesson in the public schools.
If pro-family groups rely solely on their current message — that marriage is good for society — while ignoring the tactics and goals of the same-sex marriage movement, the upcoming referendum vote will be the demise of traditional marriage in Maine. Pro-family groups must do more than use the same message the homosexual rights movement is using.
Praising marriage while ignoring those who wish to destroy marriage is like the vine-dresser who takes his eyes off the fox in order to tend his vines. Meanwhile, our opponents wait patiently, referendum after referendum, lawsuit after lawsuit. Pro-family organizations in Maine are not defending marriage with this message. They are planning for defeat.
The advocates of same-sex marriage are well-organized. They are clever, resourceful and relentless. They enjoy every worldly advantage, including financial support and advice from Boston, New York and abroad.
Meanwhile, the vineyard is laid waste by promiscuity, divorce and abortion. Those who are noncommittal on the issue of same-sex marriage say let the wall fall, because the vineyard is no longer worth having. The advocates of same-sex marriage welcome this argument.
But the advocates of same-sex marriage do not desire marriage. They are working hard to create an institution which is the opposite of marriage. And if they succeed, an already blighted vineyard will become no vineyard at all. It is left to the rest of us to repair the wall, and this can only be done by having the clearest possible understanding of the methods and goals of our opponents.
Michael S. Heath is minister of Helping Hands Ministry and treasurer for the No Special Rights PAC.
I thought this guy moved to Florida? Yet, here he is again, alleging deep, dark conspiracies and trying to stir up fear about how gay marriage will destroy life as we know it. Hopefully, Mainers have learned something since the last referendum and don’t buy into his fear-mongering again.
He was out of work so he formed a PAC, Remember PAC’s can be formed by friends of people with an interest in the political agenda. I can almost guarantee Bishop Malone is behind this one.
And the far right wants to pretend that their basis for being against same-sex marriage isn’t disdain. You read vile garbage like this and you can tell quite easily that it is in fact hate.
Live and let live. You get your family, I get mine and our neighbors get theirs. Just butt out.
While homosexuality exists in nature there are no gay marriages in nature. No gay mating for life amongst the flora and fauna.
Well, we humans are a part of nature, so that torpedoes your argument.
On the other hand, if you want to take humans out of nature (which you can’t), marriage doesn’t exist in nature. I have never met a bear or deer or porcupine or hare in the forest that was married to another.
There are certain species that mate for life but always a male and female
But they’re not married.
They are married by definition. No matter how much you try to substantiate gay marriage by creating labels and rearranging meanings it is still an unnatural act.
They are? So if I go to the city clerk’s office, I will be able to look up a bear’s marriage license? Somehow, I don’t think I’ll find any.
What he’s saying is certain species are monogamous ( think doves).
This issue is marriage as a legal contract, not whether some species of animal is monogamous.
And certain species are polygamous — and certain species are promiscuous.
Then give up all the legal rights associated with marriage if that’s all it is. Otherwise, you’re discriminating by definition.
So your argument is that “traditional marriage” is a marriage without a church service, priest, pastor, rabbi, or marriage license? Doesn’t polygamy also happen in nature? Is that what you mean by traditional marriage? Some species are promiscuous — how far do you want to take your analogy?
Please state your facts from reputable organizations sir.
Wait a minute. “They are married by definition” ?????? Are you trying to say that animals are married because they pair up and that act of pairing up is the definition of marriage not a piece of paper from the church? Doesn’t that then, make both hetero and homosexual pairings marriage in your definition of marriage? So, we’re good here. SSM is OK. Thanks, for clearing that up Flat.
Mallards form male-female pairs only until the female lays eggs, at which time
the male leaves the female. Mallards have rates of male-male sexual activity that are unusually high for birds, in some cases, as high as 19% of all pairs in a population
mallards are also a hybrid , a freak per say.
They’re their own species. What you’re trying to imply is disgusting.
Fred, who is the freak here? Shame on you!
So? Trying to take human relationships “down” to those of animals?
Aren’t we animals
Tell yeah what…go ask a lion what the square root of 9 is.
Then ask a person, a human the same question.
One will answer you, might not be the right answer but they will answer you. The other will not. The one that answers your question is a HUMAN BEING and the one that does not is an ANIMAL.
That is the difference between a person that thinks, reasons, has conscious thought and an animal that does not.
You have a reading disability, also. Did you not read the above posts about homosexual pairings?
I received a public education
Not always.
“Animals that live a completely homosexual life can also be found. This occurs especially among birds that will pair with one partner for life, which is the case with geese and ducks. Four to five percent of the couples are homosexual. Single females will lay eggs in a homosexual pair’s nest. It has been observed that the homosexual couple are often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples. ”
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
An estimated one-quarter of all black swans pairings are of homosexual males. They steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs. More of their cygnets survive to adulthood than those of different-sex pairs, possibly due to their superior ability to defend large portions of land. The same reasoning has been applied to male flamingo pairs raising chicks.
So the male swans have sex with each other?
Both male and female lions have been seen to interact homosexuality. Male lions pair-bond for a number of days and initiate homosexual activity with affectionate nuzzling and caressing, leading to mounting and thrusting. About 8% of mountings have been observed to occur with other males. Pairings between females are held to be fairly common in captivity but have not been observed in the wild.
What has happened to you??? Are you listening to yourself?
Do try to catch up cp444.
WHY WHY WHY do you feel the need to focus on sex all the time. A successful long-lasting marriage has so much more to do with common interests and goals in life than sex.
Beautifully said.
At least you admit that your agenda is to prevent two people whom love one another from mating for life.
Huh? Illogical non-analogy.
Flat Lander, when did you ever see a squirrel with a veil cutting a cake? It’s mating, not marriage. If you can’t tell the difference between the two, you’re not fit to raise children.
Heath’s PAC is called “No Special Rights”. I totally agree. Heterosexuals shouldn’t have rights that other citizens don’t have. Murderers, the impotent, adulterers, pedophiles, liars, and thieves can marry legally at any town hall, or be married in prison by anybody who is licensed to perform the rite, without benefit of clergy. If a pedophile priest and pedophile nun can legally be married, then two law-abiding citizens who happen to love someone of the same gender should be allowed to.
How about that teacher who married the student who she had been sexually abusing since he was at least 14, and was sent to prison for it? I believe she had his second child while still in prison (and he was still under age) They married as soon as he turned 18. Ah, young love! REALLY young. But legal.
Did you ever see two squirrels having anal sex or performing oral sex?
You seem to be big into animals having sex. What ever floats your boat I guess.
I hope you realize that your naming sexual acts which also happen in the straight world.
While most animals do not mate for life, same-sex relations are very common in nature (including human nature).
define very common
There are only a handful of species that do mate for life. To say there are no gay marriages makes no sense. In nature there are no marriages period.
OMG . That is so stupid on so many levels. LOL
There’s also no heterosexual marriage in nature. So, what’s your point?
same sex marriage is unnatural
Then why is it found in nature?
There are no heterosexual marriages either….where did you get this stuff??
There are also no civil marriage benefits and privileges in nature, so what is your point?
Civil marriage offers over 1100 benefits contingent on marital status at the federal level alone. It is wrong to deny maine families and their children these protections.
Wow–this editorial is so off-base it’s not worth a real response. Nobody can buy this illogic, can they?
You must be mistaken, the collumnist has ordained his side to have logic on it’s side, it doesn’t matter what the rest of you think.
More like illogic. Ordained?
heath is as pathetic as he ever was
As my good friend Bill once said, “the lady doth protest too much.” I think we all know what is behind the zealots trying to tell other people how to live their lives.
Honestly, what kind of person dedicates their life to deny rights to others?
According to Rev. Heath and his bigoted followers that’s what Jesus calls good Christians to do. Jesus isn’t happy.
“Marriage is more valuable than any vineyard or field, because marriage is needed for the propagation of human life.”
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha….
Really, Mr. Heath? Who told you that?
Excellently written. Thoughtfully accurate. And boldly stated.
Accurate? Look around: lots of people who are not married are having kids. Heath says marriage is necessary. ‘Tis not. Thus not accurate.
Bold, yes. Accurate, no. Futile, desperate. yes.
Oh my goodness, EJ, even you should be able to see that Heath’s prejudice and blindness are based in fear, not thoughtfulness. There is no logic to his arguments at all.
I support the freedom to marry because I support marriage. Marriage is a good thing — it encourages fidelity, mutual support, and family stability. If these things are good for straight families they are also good for gay families.
I also believe that the law should treat everyone equally and fairly — gay adults should have the same freedom to marry the person they love that my wife and I already have. My marriage is not threatened if someone else is granted the same freedoms I already have.
Sometimes marriage includes procreation, but my (so far) 32 year marriage has not produced children — yet it is the most meaningful thing in my life.
Jesus never said, “Blessed are the prejudiced, for they shall see their victims roast in hell”, or “Blessed are the mean-spirited.”
No, he told us to be merciful, show compassion, and welcome the stranger. He associated with people that “proper” society regarded as outcasts — lepers, the poor, Samaritans, women, even tax collectors. He never preached against sexual practices, but he said “Judge not so that you will not be judged,” “He who is without sin may cast the first stone,” and, “Take the log out of your own eye before you attempt to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.”
It is so strange that the more “Christian” a politician claims to be, the more that person is likely to support hateful legislation that persecutes minorities, especially gays or immigrants.
Shame on Michael Heath!
Dont talk to him he is not helping anyone. Lets not waste our time. You have more important facts to state. This mans mind will only change when karma comes around. Bless him and move on to bigger things.
I think it is important to counter hate and prejudice with reason and compassion.
Only to someone that :
1. Hasn’t read Aesop’s “The Fox and the Grapes”
2. Doesn’t think logically
3. Misunderstands the Ugandan interpretation of marriage
4. Approves of idiots meddling in other country’s affairs
5. Has not looked up the meaning of accurate
6. Thinks expressing bigoted religious drivel is a bold statement.
There was nothing accurate in that at all, but you are right that Mr. Heath boldly spouts his misinformation.
Mr. Heath with all due respect…
“caterers and photographers” are not dragged “into court for refusing to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies” but for violating anti-discrimination laws. Those same laws that protect you and I from being discriminated against for our gender, our country of national origin, the color of our skin, etc…It is called “public accommodations”. If you offer a product or service to the general public you cannot refuse to offer that product or service to someone based on who they sleep with. That type of discrimination is illegal today, just like it was in 2009 and will be tomorrow and has NOTHING TO DO WITH SSM.
OK so much for “red herring” argument #1.
“A case in point is the recent lawsuit against Dr. Scott Lively…Dr. Lively is being sued in federal court” Well this sure sounds serious Mr. Heath. Which federal court system would that be because I certainly feel that Dr. Lively should have the freedom to exercise his Freedom of Speech as guaranteed in the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Wait, what did you say? Oh, the “federal court” is “not here in
America, but in Uganda” you say. I look at the 17 pages of the Uganda Constitution and I would think that you would be applauding this country and its constitution as they have a clause prohibiting abortion except in the case to save the life of the mother. There are other things that I think you would like about it to. But you find fault because they also prohibit discrimination. Just in case you haven’t looked at the Uganda Constitution here is a link to it – http://www.uganda.at/Geschichte/verfassung_der_republik_Uganda_2008.pdf
OK that takes care of “red herring” argument #2.
“Marriage is more valuable than any vineyard or field, because marriage is needed for the propagation of human life.” Well if marriage is for the “propagation of human life” why does the state require a marriage license for post menopausal woman to marry or for those couples that are incapable of having children due to fertility issues or medical issues? Oh and without a good vineyard or field that does not provide food it doesn’t matter what you or I think about SSM.
And that takes care of “red herring” argument #3
As an added note: Uganda continues to legally recognize polygamous marriage … as it is a cultural tradition. Several attempts to limit or end the practice have failed.
Yes, when Heath talks about “traditional marriage” I wonder whether he means polygamy, arranged marriage, or what exactly?
Until the 1500s there were no church marriage ceremonies — and didn’t those folks have “traditional” marriages? Marriage licenses are a modern idea, not traditional. Until modern times the parents came to a financial agreement, the parents threw a party (like the wedding feast at Cana that Jesus attended in the Gospel of John), and the couple consummated the relationship in the marriage bed. That’s traditional marriage — no priest, rabbi, or government official was involved.
Thank you, good response — regarding #3 my wife and I have no children, and are now way past menopause, so we will never have children; apparently Mr. Heath does not consider our marriage to be valid!
Regarding Heath’s statement about Dr. Scott Livey, his “Abiding Truth Ministries” is considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. He is the co-author of an book titled “The Pink Swastika,” which blames Nazism and Nazi atrocities on gay people. He has called for the criminalization of “the public advocacy of homosexuality,” and is a supporter of the infamous “Kill the Gays” bill in Uganda.
The Ugandan bill, introduced again this year, would make gay sex punishable by death under many circumstances (for instance, any person “in a position of authority” who engaged in gay sex would get the death penalty), and punishable by life in prison in other circumstances. People who failed to turn gays in to be arrested would be liable for a three-year prison sentence.
Some LGBTQ activists have been murdered in Uganda since the bill, backed by American evangelicals, was proposed.
Livey is being sued in federal court in the United States by a group called “Sexual Minorities Uganda.”
My husband and I are married, not same sex, but we have not decided if we want children. Many couples wed, and do not have children, even celebrity couples. It in no way makes their marriage less valid. Marriage is not only there so they can have children!
hermonmo you will get no argument from me. I don’t subscribe to the “marriage is for procreation” line of thought.
And your marriage is just as valid and valued to society as anyone’s marriage is.
My beef (and based on your comment I believe your beef too) is with Mr. Heath’s use of the “procreation” argument in his opinion piece.
Yes that is my beef along w his saying same sex is not natural in nature when animals routinely have sex with a same sex partner and his comment that promiscuity divorce and abortion is all because of same sex pairings. Id like to see statistical proof of that
We would all love to see statistical proof but it will never be shown because if it existed he (or someone) would have produced it already.
Excellent news out of New Hampshire today on the topic of marriage equality. The tide of opinion is slowly, but certainly moving in our favor.
What a sad, desperate editorial. Mr. Heath is still unable to accept that marriage is an evolving institution that is a civil right that needs no religion to exist. He likens marriage to a vineyard, and I say raise a glass and let ALL adult, loving couples eat, drink and YES Marry!!!
Mr. Heath–I fear you have been tending the grapes too long and they are becoming fermented and clouding your thought. Perhaps it is time to plant some new vines. Please write again when you can think rationally.
I sure would not have wanted my physically abusive alcoholic ex-husband givingmy children a “proper education” Despite being raised by a single mother, my children turned out wonderfully. There father was never in there lives by his own choice!! This whole article is such B—. go back to Florida, Mr Heath.
I, too, was raised under the same circumstances you have spoken about here….and all of my mother’s children turned out to be law-abiding, tax paying citizens….no thanks to Daddy. Mom did not choose single parenting, but did a damn good job with the hand she was dealt. Thank you for your contribution here.
Welcome back Mike. You. Keep up the good fight.
Not welcome. He’s fighting all right but hardly “good”.
PLease dont talk to this guy either. They are not in our food chain. They are insignificant becaus they do not follow any Word of any God or any Christian or otherwise. These are the people who are destroying this country. cp444 is only to be prayed for, not engaged with.
cp444 and I trade barbs, and I am no where near his biggest fan, nor is he mine, but to say he is insignificant is just plain wrong. Engaging is exactly what we need to do, and to suggest otherwise is to suggest some people are worth more than others. I can not accept that. While I will not pray for him, as I am an Atheist, I will hold out hope that he will someday see the truth and logic that the dogma he adheres to is hurtful to others and its practices are the exact opposite of the love that they profess to be all about.
I pray to the Universe that he will have positivity and truth. The thing is, when we trade barbs, people see us as ignorant. The significance is questionable in this argument. He does not state facts. He spreads hatred and sometimes violent rhetoric. This makes him insignificant. If I am having a discussion on a topic and someone just starts yelling ridiculous hateful statements, I walk away and find someone who has a legitimate fact to share and then the argument becomes intelligent conversation. When we argue we look bad. We look like we are attacking religion and others POV. Myself, and many others, are working tirelessly to be noticed as intelligent hardworking people who want equality. By engaging in negative arguments it counteracts our progress.
You seem to be saying no one should anwer Michael Heath, no one should counter what Rush Limbaugh says, no one should answer Rick Santorum, etc. That lets them win. If good people do nothing, evil will triumph. It is important to counter hate and prejudice with reason and compassion.
We cannot fight hate with hate — only love can counter hate. At the same time, we cannot let hate go unanswered.
“If good people do nothing, evil will triumph.” You’re absolutely right. And that’s why I’m doing something so evil will not triumph. And I don’t hold you in contempt because you are on the wrong side of the issue, because, I’m sure, in your heart you believe you are in the right. But, from my perspective, and from the perspective of the Bible, you are wrong on this issue.
Mr. Heath is correct in his beliefs according to the Bible. And, he is more than likely correct that if SSM is approved, then the same group will move on to fulfill their next demand. Equal civil unions aren’t enough, and marriage will not be enough, either. Just wait and see.
You cannot call my desire to protect the life I have built with the love of my life evil, and keep a straight face, can you?
EJParsons the objection I have is using the Bible as the basis for law in this country. You would feel the same way if someone wanted to base laws on the Quran or the Church of Satan – Grotto Master’s Handbook. I bet you would be screaming if either one of the above was happening. So why should people feel any different when folks keep referring to the Bible in this way?And another thing, I have heard the “slippery slope” argument over and over when it comes to SSM. I have asked this question more than once, can you show me one state where SSM has been approved and further “demands” have been made?
What you are doing is evil — your prejudice and hate is evil — and you must be answered so that evil will not triumph.
I think it is important to counter hate and prejudice with reason and compassion.
Here’s something that’s a real eye opener. http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=KZYGZWNX&utm_source=GodTube%20Must-See%20Video&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=03/23/2012
God has a TV show?
Show me a liberal, and I’ll show you someone who isn’t from Maine.
Like Mr. Heath and EJ? Neither of them seem to be from Maine. Must be liberals.
Oh, but I am “from Maine”. I was born and raised in Northern Maine. And just because I live 1750 miles from my home town, it doesn’t make me any less a Mainer than anyone else that was born and raised there. At least I don’t think so.
In truth, being from Maine, living in Maine, or never having been to Maine doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not a person is a liberal, a conservative, a libertarian, or a progressive.
If we liberal Maine natives didn’t exist, you wouldn’t have posted that bitter comment.
Fake Mainer.
What does that bumper sticker say? “The Real Maine Begins in Easton: Every other place north, west, and south is a fake Maine “.
We don’t need to live our lives in accordance with ridiculous bumper sticker slogans.
I agree. Thats why I always say- “The real Maine begins At Kittery”.
The real Maine begins at Maine’s borders. Period.
Huh?
show me a conservative and I’ll show you someone who claims to be from Maine but belongs in the deep south
Interesting you choose the deep South, since it was the democrats who wanted to keep slavery, started the KKK and made the Jim Crow laws. Just saying……
Just irrelevant.
…and when the democratic party did not accept that platform, they all became modern republicans. just saying.
And Christians once believed slavery was ordained by the bible… Attitudes change. The Republican party was once liberal, after all.
There are conservatives for SSM.
I am not a liberal. I am an educated, hard working, taxpaying, Maine citizen. I am also gay. I want the Constitution to uphold my rights.
Born This Way!
And your point would be………?
Civil marriage equality is a conservative issue, actually– because the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause demands we extend the benefits of civil marriage equally… An’t conservatives supposed to defend our constitution?
Once upon a time ideological voices supported slavery. Not so long ago many refused to stand up to fascists. Less than fifty years ago more than a few still fervently opposed racial integration. Today Mr. Heath wants us to deny same-sex people the right to enjoy the rights and benefits taken for granted by opposite-sex couples. Any church is free to set it own rules regarding marriage but Maine voters will determine state policy regarding who may or may not get married under state law.
Guess who’s the fox on this issue. SSM the opposite of marriage? (more like reinforcing). The only reason for marriage is procreation? (Wrong, degrades marriage by ignoring the other benefits). SSM reponsible for divorce? Get real.
It’s not the opposite of marriage. You can;t say that the only reason for marriage is procreation, because hundreds of couples who have no interest or ability to procreate are married every year in Maine.
It doesn’t cause divorce. One need only to look at Massachusetts, which has consistently had the lowest divorce rate year after year. The year MA legalized same-sex marriage, the divorce rate was 2.2 per 1000 population. The lat year for which figures are available had the rate at 1.8 divorces per 1000 people. In the Bible Belt, the divorce rates are much higher.
Those are the facts, Mr. Heath.
Here is the problem with your reasoning. It is perfectly legal now for a homosexual male and a homosexual female who have no intent to raise children or be faithful to each other to get married. They could even get married in a church, as long as they hid their intent. Their marriage would be legal, and sanctioned by the church. It would accomplish none of the objectives you say are part and parcel of a marriage, yet it would be legally and religiously sanctioned.
There is no logic to the anti-marriage folks like Heath and Madore. They play Scripture a la carte, choosing the Scripture they like and ignoring the inconvenient passages, like the one that says a husband must kill his wife if he discovers she’s not a virgin.
Equal rights for all. That’s American.
Thank you, Seth!
Go back to Africa Heath, where there is “less resistance to your ideas”.
Maine is better off without you.
A male (straight or gay) can marry a female as long as it isn’t incest. A female (straight or gay) can marry a male as long as it isn’t incest. Seems fair to me. Also for the people for SSM I have a question. I think we all can agree that incest is wrong for many reasons but most importantly because of the offspring produced. So what happens if SSM is legal and two gay brothers want to get married? They are two consenting adults and there is no risk of producing offspring, so can they get married?
How is that fair? You could say that a law banning interracial marriage is fair using the same logic. A white person can marry as long as it is within their race. A black person can marry as long as it is within their race. That’s fair?
No, they would be denied as per consanguinity prohibitions, just as opposite sex siblings are denied even if they have each been sterilized or are beyond child-bearing age. However, first cousins of the opposite sex can be legally married as long as they have a certificate of genetic counseling.
That’s your argument against SSM?
Can a brother marry his sister under current law? Can a father marry his daughter under current law? Can a mother marry her son under current law?
If the above combinations cannot marry under existing law, why do you think your example will be able to marry under the proposed law?
Nope, that is illegal. SSM is not illegal. I was married to a man. I was miserable and so was he. I am gay, he knew it and so did I. I tried, we went to church, to counseling, we have beautiful successful children. But, we are divorced and I want to marry my partner. ps Those beautiful successful children were raised by two women.
The theory that SSM would make people marry their dogs is disproven in the 26 states and countries that have had SSM for years. Well, except for the guy in Parkman Maine who wanted to marry his dog years before SSM was heard of. jus sayin
If you cannot argue against same sex marriage without bringing up incest, you have no argument against same sex marriage.
In 2009, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a Mormon front group, spent $1.9 million dollars on the ballot question to repeal Maine’s same-sex marriage law. The Portland Diocese chipped in another $500,000. The campaign was based on the successful Proposition 8 fight from California – in fact, in some cases it used the same ads used there.
Heath conveniently does not mention this.
Karen Ocamb wrote this piece in 2009 explaining how Frank Schubert ran Prop 8 for NOM, and what that meant for Maine. Expect much of the same this summer.
http://www.dirigoblue.com/2009/10/swiftboating-same-sex-marriage-in-mainenom-california-prop-8-karen-ocamb-no-on-1protect-equality-ld-1020-same-sex-marriage-s4mm/
good grief.
I’m SO glad he’s back to help us win marriage. His hyperbole is so over the top that it’s really amusing in a sort of scary way.
I hope to God they don’t hide him in Africa again this time around.
Oh-
I thought foxes want hens, not grapes…
Aesop’s fables…interesting that Mr. Heath opens his fable with one from Aesop.
Dear Mr. Heath: There you go again, spreading disinformation to the people of Maine.
Let’s deconstruct a few of your more salient points, shall we?
1. Marriage is not a requirement for procreation as the new statistics of 50% of newborns being born to unwed parents points out.
2. I can’t imagine that allowing me to marry my husband of 13 years is going to somehow diminish the number of children born in the State of Maine. Perhaps in your next missive, you can point out the statistics here
3. Court cases against professionals who refuse service to gay couples has to do with anti-discrimination laws. If one want to freely discriminate against people in one’s business, one should not have public access to said business, but rather one should become a private consultant.
4. You fail to mention that Scott Lively is being sued in court by a group of Ugandans who maintain that Lively’s speeches about the “evils of homosexuality” in Uganda contributed to the growing support of the “Death to Gays” law that is being debated in that country. Lively’s “ministering” is actually contributing to the arrest of people for simply being gay.
and finally:
5. As Marc Mutty already pointed out, the whole “children are going to be taught that gay marriage is preferable to heterosexual marriage” was and still is complete hogwash. No one is saying that gay marriage is preferable…where does your information on this point come from?
“While the sacred union of one man and one woman for life is for fruition, same-sex marriage hinders propagation.” Do you think that outlawing gay marriage will suddenly make gay people want to hetero-marry and have babies?? Do you think gay people can’t have kids?? In what way can 2 people who love each other possibly threaten your marriage? 2 people who love each other have a much better chance at raising a healthy, normal, well-adjusted child than 2 hetero people who hate each other but won’t divorce because it’s against their religion. They are teaching kids in school not to hate, which is clearly a lesson you missed.
“While the sacred union of one man and one woman for life is for fruition, same-sex marriage hinders propagation.” I guess my 25 year marriage is a failure because my wife and I are childless (by choice). As for “sacred”, we were married by a Justice of the Peace, so guess that doesn’t qualify us either.
…”the upcoming referendum vote will be the demise of traditional marriage in Maine.” I told my wife that if the gay marriage referendum passes, I’m going to divorce her. I would encourage all other couples to do the same in order to prove Mr. Heath correct in his assumption.
“…marriage is needed for the propagation of human life…” Well there is strike 1. That statement is obviously absurd with millions of babies being born out-of-wedlock. “marriage between man and woman is needed for the proper education of children…” Strike 2. “… no moral or legal right to claim what does not exist in nature ..” Strike 3. Do we have to go any further in this absurd, irrational parade of bigotry. Marriage does not exist in nature. Very few whales, foxes, or grapes go through a civil or religious ritual that duplicates or looks like marriage.
Mr. Heath has been wrong about everything in this life no one should be surprised that he is wrong again.
The opposite of married is unmarried.
I notice that– Heath makes this claim in the headline and the article, but does not explain how civil marriage for same sex couples is actually the opposite of civil marriage.
Well I do believe that is because the only marriage that Mr. Heath feels that should be recognized are those marriages performed in a church….a Christian Church.
It’s so weird though. It’s like saying the opposite of up is going up in a different fashion.
Allowing escalators would institute the opposite of elevators!
Heath, please, please, please go back to Africa. You’re vile, evil, fascist, and Maine is better off without you.
I’m very perplexed at your statement that marriage is necessary to continue the human race. Are you really that dumb? Procreation is neither a requirement for marriage, nor something that depends on marriage to happen. Fact is, you’re lying. Fine example of a hypocritical chrsitian you are, sir.
It is people like you that I wish I could watch as gay marriage comes to Maine and all of these United States. Your hysteria over something that only affects you if you want it to is very fun to watch. Your angst when you have finally lost the battle for good will be as sweet as spring rain.
I don’t know, I think Mr. Heath entering this debate will do us great facors in public opinion. Between his puzzling choice of name for his PAC, to this editorial’s laughable logical fallicy (unmarried women can’t reproduce?!), Heath makes our case for us more than he realizes.
Rev. Heath’s usual over-focused ravings and ramblings often lead to some pretty hilariously dysfunctional thinking but his strange and florid misinterpretation of Aesop’s fable of the fox and the sour grapes leaves me, and probably Aesop, laughing hysterically and gasping for breath.
The “one woman/one man” people really ought to get a more intelligent spokesperson. On the other hand, perhaps Rev. Heath is the most intelligent .
Please give specific examples of lawsuits other than the one you have given. If, after 11 years of SSM legal marriage in 26 + states and countries you can only find one lawsuit that is sad. Please name lawsuits where the person sued was a non profit religious organization and lost their suit. Please give examples and facts about SSM being un natural. In nature 1500 species are Bi or homosexual. Please use facts…you used few. PLease explain why The Netherlands lives in Peace Prosperity and SSM for 11 years now. Please explain to me how you know what is in my heart and that you know that I do not want to marry the person I love. Please get right with God.
“traditional marriage shatters and crumbles into dust…” if gay marriage exists? Yet traditional marriage has been vanishing for decades, despite the fact that in most places gay people can’t marry.
My husband and I have gay friends, and wish they could marry. If Mr. Heath is correct, this should have destroyed our marriage by now. Then again, we’ve only been together 42 years… perhaps there’s a delayed reaction?
Let us not forget that Mr. Heath tried to get on the ballot in 2009 a referendum that would have removed sexual orientation from the Maine Human Rights (public accommodations, employment, housing, education etc), removed funding for Civil Rights Teams in public schools and forbidden the establishment of civil unions and same-sex marriage.
Right you are… I’m fairly confident that he goose-steps around his house with a riding crop and full Nazi regalia… he’s a very, very sick and sad little man.
Marriage is important. If it were not important we would not be fighting so hard to get it. The issue is that marriage between two loving healthy people is good for the country. Period. It does not matter their gender. The population has not decreased in The Netherlands where it has been legal for 11 years. Heterosexual people are not going to stop being heterosexual. Teens may experiment but that is all. Dont put down marriage it is what we want. Stay positive and keep stating facts. Those who are on the fence want to hear facts not fighting.
I thought he was off distributing solar ovens in Africa. Whatever happened to that?
Do not provoke The Invisible Sky People!
Pathetic
yessah
I support the legal union of peanut butter and chocolate.
It should be called the Reeces Law.
LOL, I support Reece’s Law!
That’s nice, I support the need for civil marriage rights between same sex couples in Maine!
ok, let me get this straight There can be no moral or legal right to claim what does not exist in nature and for which no proper term be found. The term “same-sex marriage” contains an inherent contradiction, and is therefore false.
um, well for one thing, there is no marriage in nature because animals don’t get married, however, animals do have same-sex pairings. You also state Meanwhile, the vineyard is laid waste by promiscuity, divorce and abortion.
Same sex relationships or marriage does not and has not bred promiscuity, divorce or abortion, these things were around long before same sex was an issue, and they are around quite often because of non same sex pairings. To defines these as problems created by same sex pairings is ludicrous.
How about the LEGAL marriage between that 51 year old actor from Lost/Green Mile and that 16 year old aspiring actress/singer. Legal because her parents gave the ok. EWW. But perfectly legal.
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/doug-hutchison-51-weds-courtney-alexis-stodden-16/story?id=13893244#.T2tc3BH2aSo
Is Heath a real minister or a minister in the way that Fred Phelps is a minister?
Why BDN chooses to include editorials by this self-righteous twat, I’ll never know.
Well, well, well….look who’s back. Please, Dear God, make him go away! I can’t take his brand of “Christianity”…you know, the hateful, self -righteous, bigoted kind all in the name of the Lord. Shame on him!
Marriage is between a man and a woman. If two men want to get married or two woman or a man a goat for all I care great for them but it is NOT marriage. Do not twist a word that already has meaning. Make up your own word and have a blast and enjoy your life but leave the word many of already have use and respect alone.
I am fine with you not believing my civil marriage license is a real marriage. It is unjust and wrong for our government to deny us these real protections, though– and that is what I am fighting for.
Maybe you know this and maybe you don’t but the definition of marriage and the word has already changed twice since 1967.
Yeah, civilization really teeters on the edge everytime a word has multiple definitions or alters.
Michael Heath, please peddle your hateful misinformation somewhere else.
You act as though allowing same sex marriage would stop people who would otherwise enter into a heterosexual marriage from producing children– this is absurd.
We seek the very real and tangible benefits of civil marriage to protect the lives we are already building together. We seek this to support the childen we are already raising together. We will not be going away should civil marriage be denied us, obviously– because we have built these famiiles already without civil marriage available.
Offering civil marriage to all Maine families is the right thing to do, and it is moral to offer support for all Maine children, regardless of who their parents are.
Has anyone read Mr. Heath’s blog….pretty much every entry discusses a slight against him that Mr. Heath perceives. He really wants to be on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s group of hate mongers, but he hasn’t been put up there yet and that really chafes his shorts. An interesting read.
Can people of the same sex marry under Maine law?
not yet
Michael Heath’s next editorial–
Allowing escalators would institute the opposite of elevators