Marriage response
In response to Mike McCabe’s letter to the editor on April 12: Definitions of words, by their very nature, change by being part of human language. The word “marriage” can be defined according to the user and the society. Many words have had definition changes because of societal progression. At its root, the debate about the definition of equal marriage is a cultural discussion, which also raises emotional responses.
Marriage, in a form that is unlike what we think of today, has a history that is longer than humans have recorded. Politically, ancient societies needed to define financial, national and international security by very orchestrated unions. The security of a nation depended on complicated marriage arrangements. At all levels of the political structure, the emotions of the pair in the marriage were not of consideration. In our enlightened western society, marriage has come to define an agreement based on love, not ruled by our political structure. A secure nation, though, does reflect loving relationships.
Our modern definition of marriage focuses on love. We see marriage equaling love as a way to define ourselves in our culture. If we think of marriage as a way to secure peace within a culture and love as a reflection of the security of our society and its values, then supporting equality in marriage between two people who love each other is a natural progression of a peaceful and secure society.
Kate Jans
Whiting
Economic struggle
The United States of America: nowadays when citizens of the U.S.A. or even foreigners have casual conversations with others about our country, they might feel that we are struggling with almost everything. But the big thing that we as a country appear to be struggling with the most is the economy. Right now, our nation’s unemployment rate is 8.2 percent as of March 2012; during that same month only 120,000 jobs were added or created.
An example of a problem that is hurting our nation is the fact that the members of our nation’s Congress are being given outstanding pay raises and are receiving large amounts of money in the way of fringe benefits while countless families are living beneath the poverty level and continue to struggle when it comes to making ends meet.
Some questions that many residents of the U.S.A. want answered are: Why is so much money being spent in other ways instead of boosting the economy? Why isn’t Congress doing a good enough job so that more jobs are created, the price for a gallon of gas can start to go down more, and so that the unemployment rate can decline more quickly than it is? And why does it appear that members of Congress continue to get pay raises while millions of people continue to suffer?
Kyle Fogg
Searsmont
Postal reform bill S1789
I would like to commend our Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe and their staff for once again standing up and fighting for the citizens they represent in Maine. Their work to prevent the consolidation of the Hampden postal processing plant and their work on the postal reform bill S1789 that Sen. Collins co-authored shows once again their dedication to serving the best interest of their constituents.
They have put in endless hours writing letters, attending meetings, answering letters and telephone calls and crafting this legislation to preserve timely mail service to the majority of the state of Maine. They recognized the detrimental effect the closing of the Hampden processing plant would have on many businesses in Maine, the effect it would have on the citizens in Maine who rely on the timely delivery of the mail for prescription medications, newspapers and pension checks, the impact on the postal employees having to relocate their jobs and the financial impact of the loss of the postal employees’ payroll to the Bangor area.
They have fought long and hard to prevent the harmful effects and disruptions the consolidation of the Hampden processing plant would cause to the people and businesses of Maine. The legislation was recently passed by the Senate; I would like to ask our representatives in the House to please pass this legislation as quickly as possible to also serve the best interest of the citizens of Maine.
Phillip Hunt
Ellsworth
Attack with a vengeance
It’s been a tough year to be a wage earner. The Republican-run Legislature took their lead from Gov. LePage and went after the working class with a vengeance. The assault was often cloaked as fighting fraud, but time and time again the end result was a worse deal for the working poor and the middle class. From the “reform” of the unemployment system to the drastic changes to the workers’ comp system, LePage’s attack on those who are down-and-out has been successful.
Workers’ comp rates that were already falling will continue to drop, but only because injured workers will be denied benefits they need. The unemployment charge to employers will go down, but only because people who are already in a bind will be squeezed tighter. These changes will definitely hurt people who are already in pain. And let’s not forget the so-called right-to-work bill that’s still alive. It’s another way the governor can take a shot at people he has no respect for: his employees.
The governor’s own party has publicly rebuked him twice in the last two years, and yet they continue to follow his lead on policy. Attack the unemployed, attack the injured, attack state workers and attack the only people with a voice loud enough to defend them all: unions. I’ll remember this when I head to the polls in November. I bet the rest of Maine does, too.
Scott Cuddy
Hermon
Ted tickets
I suspect very strongly that there are far more Ted Nugent fans in Bangor than there are fans of the Bangor City Council. Many of those fans have already voted with their ticket purchases. (Alex Gray said traffic on the Waterfront Concerts website and its Facebook profile, as well as ticket sales, were affected by the controversy over the weekend. “The rate of sales for that show doubled over the weekend,” Gray said.)
I trust those same fans will “vote again” when councilmen are up for re-election.
Randy G. Day
Garland
Kate, Thank you for your letter. I will tell you to not take to heart anything bad that people say to you here in response of it. I also ask those proponants of SSM to please refrain from calling anyone out on their beliefs. They have the right to believe them. To respond in an educated and kind way is the right way to do things.
Even you know that it’s hard to read her letter without busting a gut laughing. You can’t make this stuff up. Good grief.
So what was so historically inaccurate or intellectually strange that you it made you ‘bust your gut”. It sounded like a fairly reasoned response to the question “what is marriage?”. It must be difficult to write inanities with a busted gut. Would you care to explain how you do that?
I wouldnt waste you time. Say a prayer for cp444 and move beyond the negative.
I thought it was a lovely letter, and I didn’t “bust a gut” laughing. But only “two people who love each other” Kate?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3oA2picdr8
Not sure why you are linking a video of sea turtles having sex. I didn’t know if was legal in Maine for turtles to marry? :)
I can see the comparison from SS proponents’ point of view. To most of them, children in their most nascent form shortly after conception have no more value than turtles. That said, their quest for state endorsement of their relationships is very self-serving in spite of their rhetoric to the contrary.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&rlz=1W1ADRA_enUS392&sclient=psy-ab&q=image+of+wounded+child+in+afghanistan&rlz=1W1ADRA_enUS392&oq=image+of+wounded+child+in+afghanistan&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=hp.3…1395.11421.0.11803.37.32.0.5.5.0.236.3944.14j17j1.32.0…0.0.OdikqpHHN18&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=950b9cf58d3d8f6f&biw=1541&bih=690
– Images of wounded children in Afghanistan
I didn’t catch your comment immediately. What a contrast between these children and turtles. Your priority is certainly well-placed.
Your quest to keep loving couples from making their union legal is extremely self-serving and bringing zygotes amd blastocysts into the conversation is so far off mark that it cannot be defended.
Your comment amply illustrates my point about disrespect for human life. “Zygotes” and “blastocysts” are mere medical terms like “infants” and “adults”. Your life began as a zygote. Your mother’s womb merely provided a place for you to be nourished, to grow, and develop until birth. Cut off from your mother’s womb, say, by abortion, your life would have ceased, never to be repeated again through fertilization. That’s how unique you are. Thank God your mother chose to birth you.
Tell me how it is self-serving to want to see every innocent human life protected? The truth of the matter is that an unwarranted attack on a part of humanity is an attack on all humanity. With that position, I have nothing to gain. My position on life has never wavered even throughout the many years I spent as an atheist: Human life is unique, an attack on one is an attack on all. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights (rights that cannot be replaced), that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (note the order in which those Rights are listed in the Declaration of Independence). Our founding fathers were wise men.
So tell me again how SSM has anything to do with unborn children?
As in your own words “…To most of them, children in their most nascent form shortly after conception have no more value than turtles”. And in another post you state that SS couples can only have children by artificial means which means that they really want those children unlike so many children born to “natural parents”.
” …What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder”.- Matthew 19:6 : (^_~)
Two people who love each other don’t need state endorsement of their relationship through the institution of marriage. What proponents of SSM want is public acceptance of questionably healthy relationships and behaviors, and taxpayer benefits derived from marriage. Unlike traditional marriage between a man and a woman, SS unions can never be open to the gift of new life, the real reason for the benefits in the first place. Rather, what SSM proponents propose is the creation of artificial families through artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization. The last procedure inevitably leads to the destruction of nascent human life and disrespect for human life itself. It treats human beings as chattel for adults’ own pleasure. Also, in the case of SS couples, both procedures separate at least one biological parent from each child, thus depriving a child of a natural parent. Is this what we as a society want to encourage? Please don’t be taken by this quest for so-called “equality”. Unnatural SS relationships do not equate OS ones, and never will.
That is a very nice sentiment that two people in love don’t need an endorsement from society, and if we had single payer health insurance like the cool countries do, SSM might be a moot point. Also, the Guttmacher Institute says “men and women who had cohabited were 40% more likely than others to have been unfaithful (1.4).” – http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3214800.html (fifth paragraph up)
94% of Americans supported using tax dollars to invade Afghanistan in 2001 according to a USATODAY/Gallup poll and the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan says 555 children were killed in Afghanistan in 2010
http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2011/04/23/unama-afghan-civilians-killed-in-four-years.html
I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzhAS_GnJIc – Taylor Swift “Safe & Sound”
I’m not sure what you are trying to get at. In case you are wondering, if you think I don’t care for children, be assured I do. I spend a great deal of time with my grandchildren besides my young neighbor’s children. Also, I give a considerable portion of my income to help children in need throughout the world. Yes, images of dead or suffering Afghanistan children do bother me.
And I agree with you concerning unfaithfulness among cohabiting partners: it’s a tragic situation, particularly when children are present in their union. As a society we have become very self-absorbed in our quest for power, sex, pleasure, money, glory, and goods. Regrettably none of these pursuits brings about lasting happiness and joy. Rather, just the opposite occurs, i.e., chaos, sadness, anxiety, needless suffering, etc.. I say, God save us from our own self-destruction!
Nice.
So maybe you know why children are still being killed and maimed in Afghanistan now that we found out they were?
Wanna try Matthew 18:19 with me?
https://my.barackobama.com/page/s/mypolicy –
President Obama’s Website for presenting ideas
I just asked President Obama:
“Dear President Obama,
please stop our nation from harming any more children and please ask our enemies to stop harming any more children.
Sincerely,”
(I advise you to use an alternate e-mail or the Obama
re-election campaign will load you up with e-mails)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vShCqrZiK_0 –
Taylor Swift “Eyes Open”
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=images+of+afghan+children&start=308&hl=en&sa=X&rlz=1W1ADRA_enUS335&biw=1173&bih=751&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=AGuLQjb_E9KvBM:&imgrefurl=http://alhittin.com/tag/afghan-national-police/&docid=mbUY7O0oMv1fjM&imgurl=http://alhittin.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/afghan-children.jpg%253Fw%253D700&w=600&h=450&ei=b0ukT-HuGrOD0QHlnYm9CQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=100&vpy=379&dur=1859&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=159&ty=126&sig=111726949234638868726&page=12&tbnh=130&tbnw=142&ndsp=29&ved=1t:429,r:23,s:308,i:121
So many things wrong with your post.
1. SSM has more to do with state endorsement and tax advantages. It also has to do with property righs, patient care rights, inheritence rights and over 1000 other rights that heterosexual married couple (even the ones that hate each other and we all know marriages like that) have.
2. There are plenty of same sex couples who adopt children, as well as those that have children through surrogates or artificial insemination and those children are truely wanted unlike some children born to heterosexual couples. It is hard to get an accidental or unwanted pregnancy with same sex couples.
3. Every divorce of heterosexual couples or every brake up of opposite sex couples usually ends up with the seperation one biological parent from the child(ren). And all a child wants is parents who love them, whether they are “natural” parents (I think that is a new term created for a specious argument) or same sex parents.
4. There are plenty of SS relationships that are better then heterosexual relationships, both for the adults and the children. Ask any women or man in an abusive relationship if their “OS” relationship is better than SS relationships.
In answer to your points:
1. Yes, indeed marriage has to do with state endorsement (true by definition) and benefits derived from it.
2. Adoption of children by SS partners is not something Maine people desired or wanted. It was imposed by the liberal misguided court system, the same system that forced an all-male high school wrestling team to accept a female on account of the fact there was optional all-female wrestling team at the school. Children deserve to be raised by their natural parents. For one reason or another, whenever that is not possible, they deserve to be raised by loving, married couples who resemble their natural parents in gender. State policy ought to reflect this notion for the sake of children. The fact some heterosexual couples are not capable of raising children in a proper environment doesn’t justify they be raised by SS couples.
3. I agree with you on this point in so far that the breakup of biological parents is not in the children’s best interest. Endorsement of SS unions however is not the solution to rampant divorce or the breakup of the family. What is in the best interest of children is not necessarily what they want as you seem to suggest. You seem to confuse what they want with what is in their best interest.
4. True, children are better off with loving parents, but not just any loving parents as you suggest. If my children were up for adoption, I would certainly want them to be part of a loving family with a mom and and a dad, a closer family makeup than one with adult couples engaged in unnatural relationships. It is no accident of nature that men and women are opposites. Their attributes (physical, mental, and emotional) are complimentary to benefit offspring.
If the criteria for state endorsement is reduced to the existence of exclusive relationships of mutual love, then the state at some future point in time will be judicially mandated to endorse those relationships among more than two people. I doubt that would be in the best interests of future generations of children.
I absolutely reserve the right to “call anyone out on their beliefs”. Some beliefs are simply not legitimate. I once knew someone who believed our minds were controlled by martians. That’s crazy, and his belief did not deserve, nor received, my respect. I won’t tell you how I feel about religion…
I think you just gave your card away on religion, hophead2. What gives you the right to “call one out on their beliefs”?? Last I checked, one could think the way they wanted in this country. Just because you don’t agree with someone, doesnt make them wrong. Maybe you might be wrong? And your acquaintance with the martians controlling our minds, hope they get medical help for that. Even if they didn’t, what harm is he/she doing?
What gives yout he right to tell him he doesn’t have the right to ?
If you don’t want your beliefs scrutinized, STFU.
If you lack the maturity and intelligence for your beliefs to be scrutinized, then keep them to yourself. What gives you the right to tell anyone they can’t question a belief ?
What gives me the right? It’s the same right others have to spout nonsense. “Calling someone out” simply means challenging them on what they say: the still can say it. What if someone believes black people should still be slaves? Am I to supposed to silently accept such nonsense? No: I’ll call the person out and tall them they’re crazy.
I don’t know what is mean by “calling someone out”. I do believe however that people should not be ridiculed for holding deep seated religious beliefs. Besides accomplishing nothing, ridicule only creates division and animosity. If we truly believe in democracy, attempting to ridicule others in order to subjugate them is not what democracy is all about. True democracy demands respect for others.
I am on your side. The National Org for Marriage put out a letter that stated they wanted to basically aggravate our side so much as to make us call the opposition names so as to discredit us. This, along with the fact that we should not stoop to the level of others, is the reason I asked for people to ignore the negative comments. Some religion is beautiful. Hindu, Buddhism, and some Christian religions also. Believe me, I dont like the defamation to my character that is done by those who claim they love Jesus but I can only change them by living the right way. By feeding into their nastiness, I am only making their anger stronger.
I’d be interested in knowing exactly what this statement is by The National Organization for Marriage that is intended to cause name-calling. I agree there is no place for nastiness, so I’d like to know for my own benefit.
Randy, I think I know you and yes it doesnt surprise me at all. Bangor is worse than Trenton, NJ. I would rather live there than in drug infested Bangor, Maine. Its funny, Maine is so afraid of SSM yet they are alreadY morally bankrupt due to drugs, Mental Illness, and welfare. Maybe some same sex couples can take in some of these children who are passed around from home to home and give them a loving home.
*****
Scott – the War on Maine people has been waged by the Democrats for the past 40 years. They have left the Maine people some of the poorest in the country. The business and labor laws, which have been dictated by the union bosses and their thugs, have killed small businesses, eliminated jobs and lowered pay. Or what else caused the condition we are in – Are Maine people stupid and lazy?
*****
Kyle Fogg, the simple answer is greed. Our elected officials in Congress are so far removed from the everyday strugles of your average citizen that they just don’t think their actions through. It’s much easier to listen to lobbyists and their political bosses.
Thank you. that is exactly how I feel and I bet virtually the entire population of the U.S.A. feels the same way. Thank you
Unfortunately it is all about money, money needed for them to be reelected and to amass and hold power. Until the unseemly amounts of money are removed from the election process things will not change for the better.
Kyle Fogg – The actual unemployment rate is over 14 percent when you factor in those that have given up looking for work and calculate using the pre-2008 formula (changed by the Obama administration in an attempt to falsely bring down the rate).
As for Congress, their pay raises are automatic, so unless they vote them down, their pay goes up. Also, the Congress is now split with the Republican controlling the House and the Democrats controlling the Senate. So far, the House has passed over 30 bills that would help create jobs and help the middle and lower class get by better, but the Senate Majority Leader, Sen. Harry Reid, D-NV, has blocked them from being voted on by the Senate. But, he’s a left-wing partisan, and he won’t allow anything pass that might make the Republicans look good. And the President has yet to tell Sen. Reid to allow the bills a vote. Imagine that.
So, Kyle, if you want things moving in Congress, and you want some help for the job creators, the middle class, and the poor, then you’d better vote Republican in November. Otherwise, things are just going to get worse. A lot worse.
The Monday Morning EconomistIndependent Opinion – Unadorned
Is our government “cooking the books”?The short answer is yes. There are two serious problems with our national bookkeeping. The unemployment rate and the consumer price index are being cooked.The first problem, the seeming inaccuracy of the unemployment figures, can be traced to the Reagan administration. It was decided that unemployment figures were scary for the new administration so, in 1982, they created new constraints on who could be counted as unemployed. They dropped people who had not looked for a job in the last two weeks. They also dropped teenagers who had been employed but were now unemployed. By some estimates, the real unemployment rate is closer to 10% than it is to 5%.
EJ Looks like St. Reagan started the “book cooking” not President Obama.
I agree with your analysis of the issue. That does not justify what has happened under the Obama administration and the continued kies about the improving conditions. Women and minorities are the ones who should be really upset as you will see if you read the article in the link.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/02/09/dont-be-fooled-the-obama-unemployment-rate-is-11/
Mr. Mapleton, The “women-have-lost-more-jobs-under-Obama” is conservative propaganda. That little bit of sophistry was thought up by the Loonycon press to distract from the glaring light being shined on the Republican’s War on Women. Why do you guys keep making up stuff that a quick check on google proves you wrong.
I have this vision of a nutty news room where propagandists are boiling up vats of “pasta” lies about President Obama then flinging them against the wall to see if they will stick. First it was the “birther” pasta that didn’t stick, then the “horrible crimes causing law licenses to be suspended” pasta. Now we have the “Obama hates women, takes away their jobs” pasta. You’ve got to find better pasta or quite making up crap. You just look silly.
So, you have visions. That explains a lot.
I thought you were the #1 denouncer of personal attacks? What happened?
Sometimes I get sucked into the game. Sorry. At least I didn’t call her a name.
What difference does it make? It was still clearly a rude and personal insult.
I agree. It was. And he should n’t do it. But consider the source.
But, Hillary Clinton had visions of Eleanor Roosevelt. Are you saying that if anyone mentions that, they would be rude and insulting?
Not relevant. You apologized for the comment and for getting “sucked into the game.” You clearly intended to personally insult and that’s the end of the story.
LOL personal attacks are OK as long as you don’t call a name. LOL Come on EJ.
Seems like many biblical characters had visions and you base your life on some of those “visions.”
EJ: I have searched Google for information that President Obama changed the way we count unemployment. The only sources that I could come up with were the usual Loonycon. sites like Glenn Beck’s “The Blaze”. They all claim that the unemployment figures are being cooked but they don’t credit President Obama for changing the way it is counted. It appears (below) that the method of counting was changed long ago by a Republican.
There’s a lot out there on the unemployment rate. The most interesting is the last on this list where it talks about the calculations being changed in 1994. Now, who was the President in 1994? Still, the Obama administration made changes to the calculations in early 2009 that negated a portion of the count which lowered the number by between one and two points.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/02/09/dont-be-fooled-the-obama-unemployment-rate-is-11/
http://godfatherpolitics.com/3767/obama-unemployment-figures-purposely-skewed/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/28/obamas-17-unemployment-rate/
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011-04-29/commentary/30797385_1_unemployment-rate-ben-bernanke-higher-inflation
http://www.stopthemadness.net/2012/04/will-the-real-unemployment-rate-please-stand-up/
Oh, dear. EJ with the exception of the very conservative “Forbes” the rest are nut jobs. I know. I read them to see where the latest conservative nonsense is coming from. Those are not sources of facts. They are propaganda generators.
Just more evidence that any form of proof is worthless as long as it disagrees with your way of thinking.
No. You need to cite credible sources. Elsewhere you claimed anyone can write a book. Same applies here, anybody can write a blog post. Just because it’s on the internet, doesn’t make it fact. Similarly, instead of criticizing others, you should reflect on your own behavior. Scouring the web for articles and essay that confirm your personal beliefs and ignoring all else doesn’t exactly make you a credible or informed person.
I suppose that if MSNBC or Huffington had the story, that would be credible.
Look, if you don’t want to be held to these standards, then stop demanding them of others. You questioned sources and facts elsewhere saying anyone could write a book. Now you want to be able to cite obscure sources and have them regarded as the supreme truth. Elsewhere you denounce personal attacks and today you personally attack others.
Like I said, why don’t you take some time to reflect on your own behavior instead of constantly criticizing others?
I’ll do that as soon as those on the left take some time to reflect on their behavior.
I’m in tune with my behavior. I get a little snide from time to time, but who doesn’t? And it’s hard not to get a little snippy with others when all some of them want to do is argue. When is the last time there has been an actual dialogue on these threads? Only a select few want to talk things out. And most of that select few are on the right.
EJ, if you really wanted to talk things out you would make yourself knowledgable. You do not . You post stuff exclusively from junk propaganda sites and try to tell us these are facts. They aren’t . Try reading the Washing Post instead of the Washington Times. You might find an intelligent discussion evolves. Quoting from the Bible and Godfather Politics will never earn you a discussion or respect.
In other words, if I don’t agree with your position, then my position is irrevelant. I undersand now. Trouble is, if I agreed with you, you would still argue with me. It’s in your nature.
As for being knowledgable, I am far more knowledgable than you give me credit for. I just don’t agree with your so-called knowledge.
Personal responsibility. Learn about it. It means admitting when you do something wrong and trying to correct your future behavior. It means not pointing at someone else and trying to shift the blame. Even children can grasp this concept.
EJ: The “Wall Street Journal” is a conservative newspaper. However, it’s reporting is scrupulously neutral. It would be a good source for you to use. The editorials would be conservative enough for you but the reporting would give you honest facts.
Sounds like your attitude towrd those who disagree with you.
Only when they refuse to be civil.
“The actual unemployment rate is over 14 percent when you factor in those that have given up looking for work and calculate using the pre-2008 formula (changed by the Obama administration in an attempt to falsely bring down the rate).”
You are either a liar or seriously misinformed. My mother worked for the Census Bureau in the 1980s, and the unemployment definition was the same then as it is today.
He is a liar like many on the right, they want to do anything to make Obama look bad.
He is both and yet amazingly he knows everything.
To those out there who do not get their social security pensions because of receiving another gov’t pension (fed or state), you are aware that when Congress enacted the GPO/WEP into law, they exempted themselves? So they can collect their hefty govt pensions, congressional pensions, VA, social security and any others I might have missed while the poor working stiffs get stiffed once again.
Excuse me, the getting worse started with Bush. That it is not worse than it is is what surprises me given the economic and military debacle that put is where we are.
I appreciate your advice, and thank you for the additional information. But the information that I uncovered was from several credible sources. To be completely honest, Congress’ Salaries is $174,000 and they earn another $110,000 in fringe benefits. That means that they make about 3.4 times more then what an average American worker makes.
Agreed. The salaries in Congress are off the charts. The funding provided for their offices and staffs is much, much higher. We have an over-bloated government with no respect at all for those of us that have to pay their way. And the worst of them is in control.
So what would salary would you suggest for Congress?
I would suggest cutting their salaries by half for a start. Then I would suggest cutting their office staffs and expenditures by half. After that, they would be mandated to work out of their districts for 6 months of the year and out of DC for the other 6 months, with limits on how many times they could travel back and forth. Finally, I would make them earn their retirements by having to serve for a minimum of 10 years (with term limits of 12), then cutting the present retirement percentages drastically.
None of that would work.
The country would be run by nameless and faceless bureaucrats with no loyalty to or need for the people who elect members of Congress and lobbyists whose only loyalty would be to industry and wealthy people.
You would also get less qualified people whose sole intent would be to make contacts with industry for their future jobs as lobbyists.
And, finaly, we already have a mechanism for term limits, it’s called elections. Term limits are only popular with people who can’t get their kind of politician into office.
Well, add the elimination of lobbyists to the list.
As for your assertion that we would get less qualified people, we’ve already got a Congress full of people that are so out of touch with reality and the American people that that fact in itself makes them unqualified to do the job. Lifelong politicians should be banned from Congress and the White House altogether, because they only have agendas, not plans, experience, or wisdom.
Elections are not a mechanism for term limits. In many districts, the people refuse to vote out their representative as long as he or she is “bringing home the bacon.”
I think we’d do a whole lot better if they all went home and we elected farmers, business owners, teachers, and military veterans. At least we’d have people in office that understood us.
We’ll never eliminate lobbyists, we can only hope to lessen their influence and electing politically naive farmers, business owners, teachers etc would just make their influence even stronger.
Elections must certainly are the best mechanism for term limits. The fact that politicians keep getting re-elected is not the fault of the politicians but is the fault of an uninformed lazy electorate that cares more for who got kicked off the island then they do for how the country is run. Term Limits will not fix that, we would lose the good politicians (yes, there are good politicians) as well as the bad.
When you go to a doctor do you want a new inexperienced doctor or one that has some experience? I want an experienced doctor, not someone who is learning on the job. The same is true for legislatures and “career” politicians. Lobbyists would love to get to “train” politicians every election. It woulds make their jobs so much easier.
I prefer people that are poitically naive. It’s the life long politicians that are messing things up, because they know nothing about the struggles we commoners go through every day.
Lobbyists can be eliminated. And when you say “career politicians”, those are the ones that have already been bought and paid for by the lobbyists.
Kate Jens, Kyle Fogg, Phillip Hunt, Scott Cuddy: good letters.
Thank you very much.
Kate
Everything you said in your letter is true. But you carefully left out one very important fact.
In all of history, with all the many changes that have occurred over time with the definition of marriage, ONE central thing has remained constant. Whether it was one man and one woman or 1 man and multiple women or men and 1 woman…. Marriage has always been between 2 sexes. Not 1.
No, no it has not. In antiquity Christian churches married people of the same sex.
Just treating people like they are invisible doesn’t make them cease to have existed.
“Traditional Marriage” is about property, it’s about treating women as property – slavery light, so to speak. Quite a thing to be so very proud of.
Can you provide a link to this?
You don’t need a link. Just open your high school world history book. Royalty arranged marriages of their kids for political or economic gain. Look at modern day India with arranged marriages.
We are talking about christian marriages between same-sex couples. Give me an example of royalty arranging same-sex marriages or India for that matter.
Sorry, I misunderstood. Thought you were simply talking about marriages for political and economic gain. See the above report about affrèrement. I think you will find it interesting.
Here are some links for affrèrement
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070823110231.htm
http://hnn.us/articles/42361.html
Please provide your sources for your claim that In antiquity Christian churches married people of the same sex.
And to be meaningful your source will have to show that this practice was both widespread and accepted.
If it was only 1 little sect with 10 members then using it as an example would be like claiming the Westboro Baptist Church represents mainstream Christians. Or Jim Jones, or the Branch Dividians.
You might wish to read John Boswell, “Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe.” (New York: Random House, 1995). Pages 80-85 describe the same sex unions performed in the early years of the Holy Roman Empire.
or perhaps this article on same sex marriages in Medieval France: Tulchin, Allan (September 2007). “Same-Sex Couples Creating Households in Old Regime France: The Uses of the Affrèrement”. Journal of Modern History. The article argues that the practice of entering a legal
contract of “enbrotherment” (affrèrement) provided a vehicle for civil
unions between unrelated male adults who pledged to live together
sharing ‘un pain, un vin, et une bourse’ – one bread, one wine, and one
purse. This legal category may represent one of the earliest forms of
sanctioned same-sex unions.
Little known facts that are good to know.
Little known facts are often no facts at all. Anyone can write a book. Not everyone can write non-fiction.
Dear EJParsons, I have cited several articles that you have just dismissed entirely. Might I ask if you read them? Might I ask that you cite your own articles disproving that say, Nero, the Emperor of Rome married two men in highly public ceremonies?, or that same sex unions have NEVER existed before the 19th century? I would love to see the research that you come up with. Anyone can write a book or an article, but not too many can get it published in the Journal of Modern History.
EJ never researches anything. He reads “Sodahead”, “Godfather Politics”, “The Blaze”, “Teapartiers Blogspot”, “The New Civil Rights Movement” and then regurgitates it on comments pages.
I wasn’t dismissing anything. I was commenting on ms and her assertion that she would accept things that support her position as facts, when, in fact, they have not been proven as facts. And that’s a fact.
And using Rome when it was in the grip of immorality and on it’s way out as a world power is not much to rely on. Rome fell from the inside, from its own immorality, selfishness and greed. If America continues on the same path, it, too, will fall.
EJ, if the French went to all the trouble to give a name to a marriage between same sex couples you can believe that it really happened; that it is a real word backed by facts that you can take to the bank.
The French do not fool around about language!!!!!
The French. Now that’s funny.
What’s funny about the French? I’m French, grew up speaking it, and proud of that. Our govenor is as well.
To quote your own post from 30 minutes ago “Just more evidence that any form of proof is worthless as long as it disagrees with your way of thinking. “
Why?
Because there is no more liberal society on this earth than France. California even pales in comparison when it comes to liberalism.
We are not talking about liberal or conservative we are talking about language.
Yes such a “liberal” society that they assisted us in the American Revolution. That they followed our own Revolution with their own. That the sent us a gift of permanent friendship that still stands today in New York Harbor.
That was a very long time ago. A lot has happened since then.
Yes…just like lots of things have happened in this country.
Thank you for admitting that they did not call this “union” for ” one bread, one wine, and one purse” marriage.
Like the Bible?
The Bible has never been proven to be wrong. There are many discoveries over time that back the historical accuracy of the Bible. That cannot be said of any other holy book.
I know a few members of the Jewish faith that would disagree with your assessment.
They didn’t call it marriage, did they. Civil Unions. Sounds a lot more like roommates. I don’t see the words love or consummation mentioned anywhere.
John Boswell. Highly controversial with an interpretation of various old texts that appears to have been for the purpose of creating a “gay history”. Creating that gay history was something he felt was necessary to legitimize gay relationships.
So the reason that marriage is so sacred is not because marriage is about love and commitment, but instead, because it’s between the two sexes?
I guess you didn’t read where I agreed with most of what Kate said. That means I agree that today marriage is often connected to love and commitment. At least in Western societies. There are still many areas in the world and cultures where this is not the case. The Love connection is a recent development historically.
I could argue that the commitment idea has much deeper traditions since many of the historical marriages referred to by Kate required a deep commitment by those being married, even if they hated each other. Considering the way people divorce these days for the most frivolous of reasons I could also argue that commitment isn’t such a big deal these days.
And I never said anything about marriage being sacred.
I guess comprehension is not your strong suit. Or were you simply ignoring my point and twisting the meaning?
I don’t need to quote you verbatim, sentiment is what matters. You stated that what remains consistent is that marriage has been between the two sexes. So regardless of the fact that in our history it has been men as property owners of women or men with multiple wives, what you choose to highlight as a defining factor of marriage is that it’s between the two sexes.
You can insult me all you want, but it just further demonstrates the desperation of your argument. You concede that the definition has changed, but you grasp at the straw that it has been between the two sexes. Next, when you’re corrected that in many instances marriage hasn’t always been about love and it hasn’t always been between the two sexes, you create new narrow boundaries for your argument, “Western societies.” Again, grasping at straws.
*****
“with all the many changes”………….. So, the definition of marriage has gone through changes, many changes? Then now is a good time for another change. ………… SSM.
Completely untrue. Please go back to History 101. Gay marriage was prominent in almost every major society in history.
Kate: Thanks for your letter! The great thing about our country is that with enough support from voters, definitions can be expanded and changed. The time has come for Mainers to really think about the loving relationships between committed adult couples who want to marry. Come November, I would hope that the majority will be in favor of granting the right to marry to same sex couples. But make no mistake, if the referendum does not pass, my husband of 13 years and I will still be here. Denying committed couples the right to marry will not magically make them disappear.
Ms. Jans – If words do not have a meaning then communication is impossible.
It would be like when I said to a cat or dog, in a loving tone, “who’s a stu#id cat” and the cat seemed to enjoy it.
What we seem to be trying to do is build a society like the mythical Tower of Babel, where no one understands what is being said..
Gay used to mean happy, now the meaning of that word includes same sex males. words evolve all the time, bad is good.
I believe that the evololution of words is just plain destructive to society, especially when the evolved meaning is used in regards to past useage.
50 years ago “gay marriage” would have refered to a happy mariage but would never have been used to describr same sex mariage. Which 50 years ago would be met with incredulity.
I do find it incredibly destructive that a phone now means something wildly different than it did 50 years ago.
How about the evolution of the English language since the King James Bible was published? By royal comminssion, the language used was already obsolete, more Elizabethan than Jacobean. Not only is the syntax cumbersome, but the meaning of many of the words have changed. For a more accurate translation, check out more recent translations.
Larry if words AKA language didn’t evolve, we would still be grunting and beating our chest. I know it’s hard for those humans that are more conservative, but time to move on man and join the rest of us, in the 21 century the water is fine. (;0)
So make the language evolve. leave the words alone. Words can not evolve if communication is going to work. What is happening now is people changing what words mean to suit their own wants.
Create new words DO NOT change the meaning of words words.
Larry my god man open your brain, and think. Even here in Maine we use words that mean other things. Take the word wicked, in Maine it means very as in wicked good, or just plain awesome ( as in isn’t that wicked). A few years ago the was no such word as email, now it is part of our daily life. It’s doesn’t matter if you like the way language evolves, you can get with the program, or get left behind, it’s up to you.
Do you also get upset about to, too and two? Words have always had multiple and differing definitions. This is a poor excuse to discriminate.
I have never advocated discrimination, My problem with the mealy mouth crap in the changing the meaning of words is that it is done to obsscutate..
You’ve taught me well.
Randy – Just curious – how many people voted in Bangor in the last election for city council and how many Nugent tickets have been sold?
Mitt Romney sent me a donation request – ha! – ha! – ha! – ha! – ha! – ha! – ha! – ha! – ha!
Too many of his buddies have been giving death threats to EPA officials like Al Armendariz! It’s an EPA official’s duty to CRUCIFY violators. Lisa Jackson should sue Romney for every last cent he has!