Helping Irving
I am troubled by the actions of the Legislature in recent weeks.
It has passed a bill to fund a study for a private toll highway and is considering changing the mining laws of the state. After seeing the proposed highway route in the BDN on April 10, I concluded that this route will benefit only one company, Irving. The route goes to Canada and that does not help the majority of the population. The federal highway route proposal would be a boon to all Mainers.
Similarly, the proposed changes in the mining law will benefit one company, Irving. I urge the Legislature to look at the results of open pit mining in the west and the impact on the environment. If this were an underground mine, the impact would not be so great. However, the ore concentration will not economically allow that.
I urge all Mainers to read a book called “Citizen Irving” and open your eyes to the company that is not only the largest landowner in the state but provides a large amount of fuel and now controls a large proportion of the rail access in the northern part of the state.
Geoff Anthony
Blue Hill
No more eyesores
I’m proud to be an American, I’m proud to live in Maine and I’m proud to live in Dexter, but when I see public buildings not being taken care of, I’m not very happy.
I think all public buildings in our communities should be kept in good shape and serve as examples to the rest of the town. Whether it’s a federal, state or municipal building that you think is being neglected, speak up and inquire as to what gives; there is no need for any more eyesores.
Doug Pooler
Dexter
Marriage and authority
In the debate over whether the definition of marriage can be changed, I have not yet heard an answer to the following question: whence comes the authority to change the definition?
Certainly state legislatures have constitutional and other authority to develop and define contractual relationships (e.g., a civil union). These legislatures have the authority to determine the benefits and responsibilities that accrue to any specific contractual relationship (e.g., to declare that within a state all benefits and responsibilities pertaining to a “marriage” also shall pertain to a “civil union”).
The U.S. Congress may have the same authority, and if so could choose to develop and define a civil union and direct that the benefits and responsibilities of a marriage also apply to a civil union. Alternatively, the Congress could direct that federal benefits already granted to a marriage also could be granted to a civil union in any state that chose to develop and define such a relationship.
What is not clear to me is what authority individuals, voters, judges or legislatures have to change the definition of marriage and where that authority comes from. It would seem to me that if such authority exists, someone should be able to explain what the authority is and whence it comes.
I would be very grateful if any learned person would educate me about such authority — perhaps by a thoughtful column prepared for this newspaper. I also would be happy to read any response mailed to me here in Whiting.
Michael McCabe
Whiting
Fading outrage
Once again, the people of Maine have been embarrassed by the inappropriate language and behavior of Gov. LePage when he referred to Sen. Justin Alfond as “a little spoiled brat from Portland. He’s very fortunate that his granddad was born ahead of him.” Sen. Alfond called for an apology and said “the governor was wrong to bring [my] grandfather into the discussion.”
Where is the outrage? When is this character assassination going to end? And when will some brave Republican finally say, “We’ve had enough of our governor’s bullying behavior; it needs to stop.” Gov. LePage’s behavior is outrageous, shameful and demeaning and should not be tolerated by anyone in our state, regardless of party affiliation.
Speaking of bullying, the only important piece that was left out of the anti-bullying legislation was the naming of the biggest bully of them all.
Mark D. Roth
Bangor
Governor LePage calls them as he sees them! Perhaps this Alfond is a spoiled brat!
Perhaps pigs fly.
Not before the get the proper government licences and permits.
My mother had a saying, ” You can’t expect anything from a pig but a grunt.”
Maybe Alfond is and maybe he isn’t. But Governor LePage shouldn’t be saying things like that to the public. It’s stupid and rude.
But your use of far worse terms are OK, right????
What terms do you object to? And yes, when someone behaves stupidly and rudely it’s truthful to say his actions are stupid and rude.
Be careful … your opinion that someone’s opinion is stupid, irrational or rude is bigoted and intolerant.
Larry: It is not my opinion that name calling by LePage was rude. It is the opinion of all the etiquette books ever printed and the collective wisdom of the world that considers it rude. Only stupid people resort to name calling in the face of universal disapproval. I’m sorry you think Lepage publicly pronouncing Alfond to be “a spoiled little brat” was an intelligent and gracious comment for the governor to make.
Be careful with the “collective wisdom of the world” there is much historical collective wisdom of the world that says that much of what you clammer for is wrong.
Even your statement “Only stupid people resort to name calling in the face of universal disapproval.” could be seen as stupid and rude.
You certainly know stupid and rude..
I’m reminded of my days on the playground in junior high school…
So you’d be willing to call a state representative a spoiled brat in public without any personal knowledge of that person, based only on what someone else said.
Do you know that LePage and Alfond have never met?
That is because Paul would have to stoop so low….
Any chance you could answer my question?
I probably would not. Now you answer my, far more pertinent.
He’s more immune to slander and libel suits. You aren’t.
I call them as I see them. You’re a fool.
Takes one to know one, LePage should know.
Mr. McCabe says: “What is not clear to me is what authority individuals, voters, judges or legislatures have to change the definition of marriage and where that authority comes from. It would seem to me that if such authority exists, someone should be able to explain what the authority is and whence it comes.”
Mr. McCabe, look no further than the United States and Maine constitutions.
“And when will some brave Republican finally say, “We’ve had enough of our governor’s bullying behavior; it needs to stop.””
Mr. Roth, didn’t a group of Republicans do just that about a year ago?
Paul LePage is beyond the reach of any law, regulation, ethical guideline, code of conduct, or rule of civilized behavior. He is incorrigible and irredeemable. By January of 2015 he will be on his way to Jamaica, never to darken the halls of power again.
Yes, he will head off, with his pension and medical insurance paid for by us, the citizens of Maine. He cares not a farthing for us: he’s got his.
Don’t forget his seat on the board at Irving that is waiting for him.
It would seem that John Martin, of at least some relative sitting on the Irving board.
Mark Roth: We are still outraged but we are now so inured to LePage’s regressive policies and stupid verbal bullying that we just don’t comment on it any more. It’s a bit like ignoring a really badly behaved two year old.
You see the world as you are yourself. Governor LePage is small minded, not very smart, rude, selfish, ungrateful and a bully. Of course he will call names and bully.
You forgot serial prevaricator.
Well there are so many undesirable and anti-social characteristics one can’t be expected to remember to list them all.
I guess it was ok for Alfond to call the commissioner of DHHS a liar. Alfond deserved more than being called a spoiled brat.
The real problem with LePage is that he started from absolutely nothing and is now sitting in the highest office in Maine. Liberals hate that. He did it without them.
How transparent, hypocritical and pathetic you liberals are.
Most regrettably Alfond may to be right: the Commissioner of DHHS appears to be either lying or incompetent or perhaps both.
Not personally knowing mr. Alfond personaly, it is as possible that he is a spoiled brat. Many second and third generation rich people are.
No liberals don’t hate that, someone works his way to the top. What liberals hate, is the stepping on and hurting people to get there.
When a not liberal does it liberals hate it, when a liberal does it is just social justice.
working for social justice, is something to be proud of, being a bully is not!
Since when is there something evil about social justice? There is something significantly wrong with the thinking process of someone who thinks social justice is wrong.
Social justice like economic justice are subjective. This means it is opinion not necessarily fact.
It is quite obvious the reason for the extreme disdain shown by liberals against the governor – he is not one of the beautiful people, he came from nothing. It makes liberals feel small knowing they could never have done what he did so they find other reasons to hate him. It is truly sad.
I’m a person, who comes from poverty. My mom and Dad were 16, and 17 years old. They work hard, as have I. I have never purposely hurt anyone, to get out of the poverty, I was born to. I do not dislike Paul LePage, because of the fact, he pulled himself out of poverty, I dislike Paul LePage, because he bullied his way to the top.
Politically Wrong: You will have a hard time making that accusation stick as Democrats elected as president someone who has overcome not just poverty but also racial prejudice. If anyone has distain for the self made I believe it is Republicans who openly express almost fanatical animosity for President Obama.
About time someone called Alfond for what he is. He also hangs around with John Martin scheming ways to fleece the public.
LePage started his Governorship by telling the press to “Kiss my butt” continued it by telling northern Mainers they were lazy and went on to pass estate tax reductions for the wealthy on the backs of the poor and handicapped. Democrats think this behavior is churlish, egotistical and mean spirited . The uneducated and uninformed think this is wonderful. The pathetic, transparent and hypocritical ones are not the Democrats.
Real nice Sally. pot calling kettle clean it up
Mr. McCabe, As I have stated before, the definition of marriage has always been an evolving and changing one. I am sure that people have questioned these changes and people will continue to question them for many years to come. These changes though have been brought about by aristocracy, society, religion, rituals and governments or basically whoever has the “authority” at that time in history. Right now in Maine the authority is coming from “we the people” and I believe that history will be made again.
Mr. McCabe it seems that you are attempting to make an argument that the word “marriage” has never meant anything except one man and one woman without using those words.
The problem with that argument is the word marriage has been redefined several times. While the word may not have existed in ancient times, at one time marriage was defined as one man and multiple women.
As recently as the 1800’s in Utah it meant the same thing. Among the Sioux it meant the “marriage” of one man and two women.
As recently as 1966 the word “marriage” meant one white man and one white woman or one black man and one black woman.
In 2003 the word “marriage” again changed in Massachusetts to mean one man and one woman or one man and one man or one woman and one woman.
So, as you can see the word has been defined and redefined over time based on the society the institution it rests in.
Now how does the change take place? Well that depends on the laws governing that society. In a society that governs itself by a religious institution or book they would derive their laws from that institution or book, i.e. Saudi Arabia. In a society that governs itself by elected representatives and laws based on a Constitution they would derive their laws from the elected representatives and laws based on that written document, i.e. the United States of America
Exactly. It seems as if the “definition” was cast in stone in 1940, with no memory of the past, and that’s that.
If same sex couples were “married” under a term (let’s for argument sake, civil unions), given a certificate of that union legal and tender, have the ability to have basically anything covered as a married man and woman, or “same rights” as people term it, and everything was on equal grounds–everything–except their one legal document states the term CIVIL UNION LICENSE instead of MARRIAGE LICENSE, this is not acceptable? I thought the reason behind all this was to ensure that all couples, same sex or hetero-sex, are given the same rights and responsibilities. So we are willing to hold up everything and and continue to fight with hate and discontent and accept nothing for the sake of one word?
When my spouse and I were not married, we were still termed “domestic partners” and were able to put each other on insurance, or be the beneficiary of whatever, co-exist on bank accounts, rental agreements, with simply showing proof of a couple of documents. I didn’t even have to get married to receive many rights that married couples do. I’m just saying…..
That is the crux of the issue goodcitizen73 – all the same rights and responsibilities – currently only “marriage” provides these under law … domestic partnership registries do not, civil unions do not. A marriage between heterosexuals is recognized no matter where they were married or where they live in the US or abroad, Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships are only valid in the state they were entered into or in a few cases, a state that recognizes them in law …. reciprocity…. another example being: one’s driver’s license is recognized as valid country wide no matter where the license was issued.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the opposition to same-sex civil unions in other states …. many of the same groups/organizations and the same arguments that were heard in Maine in 2009 and that are being heard now have been actively opposing civil unions. I, for one would be fine with a civil union license replacing a civil marriage license – if it applies to all couples whether straight or gay.
But… if the law recognized same sex couples as “married” as hetero-couples, only the license stated any other word but marriage, what I am trying to get across is that it seems that it wouldn’t be good enough – some same sex couples are stuck on that one word, and not willing to accept anything unless that word’s definition is changed and their license says “marriage”. If it were the opposite in the world, and my husband and I would get the same under the law as same-sex couples (if hetero was the minority) I woudln’t care what my licenses stated; the fact is now we have the same opportunities as any other couple.
I agree ….. as long as the civil marriage license is replaced with a civil union license for all couples…. and state and federal governments amend the over 1100 mentions of married and/or spouse to be replaced with civil union.
But are you sure you’d feel that way? The word “marriage” means commitment and love until death. It tells the world that you and your partner aren’t just dating, aren’t just shacking up, aren’t just drifting along together until something better comes along-it’s telling the world that you and your partner are together as one in your lives and that you will always remain so no matter what. What other word can say the same thing?
If you believe that, I got a good bridge to sell you. If marriage meant all of that to people, there wouldn’t be 30-something percent divorce in this country. “I do” is all I needed – whatever is at the top of that licenses is moot. The definition of marriage is not those things – those are your vows. And a third of the population can’t follow them for the first year of said marriage. I think you are referring to the words husband and wife – husband/husband and wife/wife works, too.
Mark what is your stand on the insults and disrespectful comments the democrats and Obama have been making against Bush for the past several pears, or is that somehow ok in your thinking
The issue is Gov. LePage. Do stay on topic.
the issue is disrespect for those who were voted in by the majority of the people, the specific topic in this wxample you were using was Lepage,, why the double standards??
What majority ever voted for LePage?
the same majority that voted for baldacci last election the % was exactly the same do your homework
Neither was a “majority”. Take out your dictionary and look up the meaning of the word.
The second choice of most of those who voted for third party candidates would have been Baldacci per every exit poll I read. No one suggests that the second choice of Libby Mitchell voters would have been LePage. Be real. If you want majority rule, support run-offs or instant run-off voting. Otherwise, don’t call an onion an apple and expect anyone to take you seriously. At no point have a majority of voters ever supported LePage
you liberals cry a river of tears when things dont go your way, he got more votes than any other individual running that is why he won deal with it
I am trying to deal with your failure to grasp the English language. Look up the definition of majority and plurality. Write both definitions down ten times. By the ninth time you may have learned the difference, but I am not hopeful.
you liberals just dont get it. If you have such a grasp on the english language why do you keep trying to go against the constitution and re define that. He got more votes than any other individual running for his position. is that really that hard to comprehend??? I can only hope that you libs get a grasp when we have the moving party for the Obamas next election. But I too am not that hopeful of you!!!
Don’t bet the homestead on the President’s defeat, as we would hate to see you homeless.
Please point to any post in which I have shown anything but reverence for the Constitution.
You don’t even give it the respect of capitalizing it, probably because you have never read a single case by the Supreme Court that explains it. I have.
Actually the issue being discussed is not LePage or Obama. The issue is either SSM , strip mining in Maine orthe State government causing landowners to lose property value.
Please pick one and stay on topic.
Please quote where Pres. Obama has bad mouthed Bush.
every time he opens his mouth blaming bush for his failed policies
You said it W’s failed policies. You got that right. Who else should one blame for Bush’s cluster.
the failed policies are Obamas policies if you may take notice he is not running his campaign on the success of his policies he tries anything to keep the focus off them
“Failed policies” are defined by the laissez-faire, crony capitalism of the Gilded Age; of Herbert Hoover….. “Supply side” “Trickle down” slash, slash, slash, privatize…… Poverty and pain are what failure looks like!
Nice try… but you did say Bush’s failed polices. At least have the honestly to stand by your own words. Otherwise you are just another EJ Parsons.
typical left wing spin you must make the other moonbats proud
UndertaxedunderObama, calling Bush the worst President in US history is a considered historical judgment that will be increasingly validated with the passage of time. It reflects his actions in ignoring the warning signs of 9/11, invading Iraq, ballooning the deficit, failing to respond to Katrina, and allowing the worst recession since 1929.
Calling someone a “spoiled brat” is an attack on a person’s character, devoid of any sense of analysis. When I critique a conservative, it is for what they say or do. Too often the conservative critique of a liberal is simply a schoolyard label.
Mr. McCabe: Our government is an institution created by the people and governed by the people. Our founding fathers wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Democracy works when a group of people garner enough support and momentum to change laws that affect that group of people. The LGBT community has been working towards equality for a long time. Unfortunately, I don’t agree that a majority should ever vote on the civil rights of minorities, but that is the way it is going to unfold in the state of Maine.
Civil Unions are not going to voted on in Maine. What is being voted on is whether the populace of the state of Maine would extend marriage rights to include the LGBT community. Civil Unions are not marriage and are no substitute for that glorious institution.
thank you
Irving, …”the company that is not only the largest landowner in the state but
provides a large amount of fuel and now controls a large proportion of
the rail access in the northern part of the state.” And perhaps Irving controls a large portion of the legislature and of Maine politicians.
Michael McCabe, if you are married and wish to end that marriage, where do you go to have that marriage undone?
Mark Roth: good letter.
Michael McCabe: the state defines what marriage is, even if performed in a church. They issue the license. They call the shots.
It shouldn’t be so difficult for us to understand that some words can have multiple meanings especially in different contexts. A legal definition is going to be different from a historical one of course. This is no excuse to deny rights to a group of people.
Of course the legal definition of a word is different than the historical one, otherwise lawyers would have far fewer BS lawsuits to make money from.
Since you liberals (cowards) consider LePage a bully, why don’t you tell it to his face? It’s not like he is that hard to find.
They consider all right wingah’s bullies and bigots…… Dont forget they ar Faux Christains too…..I just LMAO when I read their comments…
That’s probably because you don’t understand them. Many conservatives have that problem. If I were you I wouldn’t bruit it about.
I think it is comical you guys group all Conservatives as bigots, bullies and bible thumpers….It brings comic relief…….I will bruit about anything I want , thank you….
Why don’t you help us out here instead of simply throwing brickbats and tell us what Tea party conservatives we should be talking to that are not at their core illogical, uninformed and often racist and rude. I’d be happy to discuss politics with them. Mostly what I see on this board are conservatives like you that make quick unpleasant personal remarks and then leave. Are you interested in a discussion?
The position of Governor is to be respected no matter who holds the job. Insulting a sitting governor because he is rude is churlish and disrespectful of the office.
Michael McCabe, the authority to challenge the discrimination same sex couples face with civil marriage comes from our US Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment. For civil marriage extends legal protections from our government, and our constitution demands that we receive equal protection from laws of the land.
It is appropriate that every time state legislatures and judges have faced this question in recent years, they have found no valid, justifiable reason to keep gays and lesbian couples from civil marriage. In turn, they eliminate this unwarranted discrimination… And this is a good thing.
I look forward to joining hundreds of thousands of Mainers in voting for same sex marriage this November!
Again with ihe Fourteenth Amendment.
Last I looked, it still exists.
And still being used in ways that the people of late 1800’s would never have expected.
Which is exactly why it was written the way it was written.
And people of the late 1800’s wouldn’t expect us to be having debates on this subject using computers connected to the Internet. But they would have expected there to be policy debates.
My point is that the equal protection clause of the Constitution was intended to ensure laws were extended equally to all citizens. The fact that they didn’t think same sex marriage would be an issue 6-plus score later does not mean the intention of the amendment is invalid.
Geoff Anthony
That is Mr. Irving to you….
“…whence comes the authority to change the definition?” I would ask, “from whence comes the authority to extend the definition of “marriage”, which describes only the nature of the relational commitment, to the gender of those engaged in it?”
“Marriage” describes the union only — whatever the sex of those involved.
I would say if “similarly situated” ballots in Florida are covered under the Constitution’s equal protections clause, gay people are too. McCabe, the authority comes from the Costitution.
If you are refering to the federal Constitution, you’re wrong that document never mentions marriage in any way.
That duty was left to the states.
Does the State Constitution mention marriage? I’ve never seen it, but if the State has something in it’s Constitution, it will define a marriage to be one male of legal age to one female of legal age. Up to ten or so years ago the thought of SSM would never have been imagined.
The 14th Amendment doesn’t mention voting ballots either and still the SJC determined the language to be fitting and applicable. The Constitution doesn’t necessarily have to make specific statements in order to rule an issue.
I never mentioned the much misused Fourteenth Amendment. Besides Bush won Florada, so even though I believe that the amendment was misused, the court was right.
The Court uses the Constitution and applies it to the situation at hand. The document is not so long and so specific as to refer to every single issue that comes up. How could the founding fathers possibly know the entire body of constitutional issues that would arise?
The 14th Amendment was used at justification in Bush v. Gore to stop counting votes and stop re-counting votes. The equal protections clause blocked the re-count because there was no set standard for a re-count. The Court found that the possibility of treating two ballots differently to be unconstitutional.
Equal protection means that the law must apply to all who are similarly situated equally. That is a universal concept and obviously could apply to the issue of marriage as the clause refers to all laws.
So Alfond can spout whatever he wants and LePage cannot? Alfond pals around with John Martin, the evil one. Birds of a feather…..
Alfond was commenting on the mess in the DHHS. He may have been right. Mayhew is either lying to cover mistakes or she is incompetent or perhaps both. But something isn’t right over at DHHS. LePage just hauled off and called Alfond a spoiled brat because Alfond wouldn’t cave to LePage’s bullying. There is a big difference.
Yes Alfond is a trust fund baby who wants to live on the public dole and is a limousine liberal. Our Governor is on the right track. If he says anything, you see it as bullying.
So because Mr Alfond has money that is a good reason to approve of a governor of the state of Maine that publicly insult him. That sounds like jealousy, insecurity, poverty and lack of education talking.
“Whence came the authority to define marriage”?