Gene Robinson, the first openly gay man to be elected a bishop in the Episcopal Church, will be in Maine next month showing a documentary film about his life and struggle to be acknowledged by the worldwide Anglican Communion.
The screenings of the documentary, “Love Free or Die,” are being sponsored by Mainers United for Marriage, the coalition supporting passage of the same-sex marriage referendum on the November ballot.
The film and its director, Macky Alston, recently won a Special Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah.
“Love Free or Die” will be shown the first week of June in Portland, Lewiston and Ellsworth followed by a question-and-answer period with Robinson. A fundraiser for the campaign will be held in connection with the Portland screening, David Farmer, spokesman for the campaign, said last week.
Robinson’s consecration as the ninth bishop in the small diocese made him an instant celebrity and thrust him into the limelight as an advocate for gay rights, including same-sex marriage. It also increased tensions between conservatives and liberals in the Episcopal Church in the U.S. and among member churches in the worldwide Anglican Communion.
The decision to let a filmmaker into his life was not an easy one, Robinson said Thursday in a telephone interview.
“I knew [Alston] through the Auburn Media Group at Auburn Theological Seminary,” the bishop said. “He came to me in late 2007 and said that he thought the next few years would see dramatic developments around issues affecting GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender] people. My husband Mark [Andrew] and I considered it, then invited him into our life for a three-year period.”
The film includes the more than three weeks Robinson spent in England in summer 2008 during the Lambeth Conference, a gathering of the members of the Anglican Communion held every 10 years. Because he is openly gay, Robinson was not allowed to participate in the official meetings or worship services.
Instead, he spoke, worshipped and met with others who felt marginalized by the Anglican Church. He blogged about his experiences on a website called “Canterbury Tales from the Fringe.” Alston captured much of Robinson’s time in England on film, including a moment when the bishop was called a “heretic” by a heckler.
The film ends with the consecration of Bishop Mary Glasspool, 58, as an assistant bishop for the Diocese of Los Angeles, according to Robinson. Glasspool is the first open lesbian to be elected a bishop in the U.S.
Robinson said Thursday that recently he has been traveling around the country promoting the film and talking about same-sex marriage, among other things.
“I’m very hopeful the referendum will pass,” he said. “I think that while Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont are very different states, the one thing they have in common as a real Yankee value is the value of fairness.
“I think it won’t be too many years before we look back on same-sex marriage as we now do on miscegenation,” Robinson said. “Allowing interracial couples to marry didn’t change the definition of marriage. What changed was who had access to a marriage license.”
Robinson, 65, will retire in January. His replacement, the Rev. A. Robert Hirschfeld, rector of Grace Episcopal Church in Amherst, Mass., was elected May 19. Hirschfeld, 51, and his wife, Polly Ingraham, have three children, one of whom is expected to attend Bates College this fall.
Robinson said that in retirement he would continue to work on issues affecting the GLBT community at the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C., a liberal think tank. The bishop’s second book, “God Believes in Love: Straight Talk About Gay Marriage,” is scheduled to be published in September. His first book, “In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God,” was published in spring 2008.
“Love Free or Die” will be shown at 6:30 p.m. on the following dates in the following locations:
• Monday, June 4, Portland Museum of Art, 7 Congress Square, in Portland.
• Tuesday, June 5, Benjamin Mays Center at Bates College, 95 Russell St., Lewiston.
• Wednesday, June 6, The Grand Theater, 165 Main St., Ellsworth.
The doors open at 6 p.m. at each event. To RSVP, visit http://action.mainersunited.org/page/event.
What a sad day for the church!!
Yeah, it’s really to bad he has to be known by a label and can’t simply be known as “Bishop Gene Robinson”, an advocate for equal rights for all.
Sad day indeed.
I’m sure he’ll misuse the Bible in order to get his misinformed point across. If one chooses to be gay, then that is their right. After all, the right to choose is the only power that God passed on to we humans. It’s just too bad that a church that is supposed to follow the Bible could so blatantly ignore the truth of the Bible when it comes to homosexuality.
What truth of the bible? Try again!!
“If one [is] gay, then that is their right”
“…the [opinion] of the Bible”
FTFY
I do believe the bible says that a man should not go against his nature. If his nature is to be attracted to one of the same sex then he is following how God made him and following what God intended. That is my interpretation just as organized religion is an interpretation.
Actually the bible says that “the natural man is the enemy of God”. God gave us free will to choose to follow the righteous path or not to. God intends for us to follow the righteous path but left it to our own choosing. We will be judged in the after life. This is all written and not interpreted. If homosexuality had been acceptable it would have been mentioned literally in the bible and not just opened for someone’s interpretation.
Would you say the same is true for pedophiles or liars or drunks if that is their nature? Are they just following the way God created them. Good grief do you really believe what you posted?
I certainly do believe what I posted and if you want to interpret the Bible in the way you wish then go ahead. That is your interpretation not mine.
The Bible is not subject to our individual interpretations. It means what it says and says what it means. I can back up all my claims with scripture, you can’t. The Bible is quite clear on the subject of homosexuality. To try and make it say otherwise is just plain nonsense. God calls it an abomination.
The bible is actually written by man and is interpreted by man to use in the way he desires. That is why we have so many religions based on the bible as it is all interpretation. In fact religion is man made and they all pick and choose what they want to take literally, what they want to interpret to benefit themselves or discriminate against others and some verses they just ignore completely.
So, when Sarah told Abraham to bear a child with Hagar, and they bore Ishmael out of wedlock, what did that mean? Isn’t it a sin to commit adultery?
The Bible is full of contradiction because people insist on reading it literally; which by the way, Jesus was against. He rebelled against the strict rabbinical laws of the Old Testament and instead preached that people show compassion for each other. This is clearly demonstrated when he asked “he among you without sin cast the first stone”.
We have had this conversation before, and you have FAILED to provide scripture that supports your bigotry.
Very simple – It meant that Sarah, Abraham and Hagar were all sinning and the fruit of that sin today is found in the Arab-Israeli conflict to this day.
It’s interesting. Much has been said on these comment pages about the abundance of polygamy in the Scriptures. Never once has any of these commenters been honest enough to also include the facts that a) the Scriptures never condone such relationships and b) the Bible in many instances reveals the destructive fruit of such relationships.
the Bible doesn’t condone online commenting either, yet here we are.
Brilliant response! I’m amazed anyone can keep up with your penetratingly logical contributions to the comment section…except for the fact that you completely ignored the second half of my response.
See under Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, etc, etc, etc…
The Scriptures are clear – one man, one woman is the only acceptable and productive relationship.
we live in a Constitutional state, however. Supplanting the Constitution with Scripture is what the Taliban propose.
Freedom of religion and tolerance is also suggested in the Scripture. Timothy 2:1
My point is, and will remain that the Bible has many authors and that men have used its Word to support tyranny and torture since the beginning. So, I am highly skeptical when Scripture is used to do anything but guide us spiritually.
There are far, far more references in the Bible to loving one’s neighbor, showing compassion, tolerance and leaving judgement to God; than there are references to (what is frankly, bigotry).
My God is a loving, tolerant God. I cease to be logical at this point and just know what I know.
Peace.
Conversely, nothing has been said of how these books of the Bible have been carefully picked and chosen by men, years after they were written,and that the books were written years after what supposedly happened. (The earliest book of the New Testament is believed to have been written 40 years after Christ.)
Even now, scholars widely accept that King James greatly modified his version of the Bible, and that even the Torah’s story of Genesis was actually put to parchment at least 500 years after their version of the creation supposedly happened (which King James left largely intact).
That’s why I am an agnostic that believes if you basically follow the good advice of the 10 commandments, the rest can and should be taken with a grain of salt. It’s hard enough to read its contents without trying to personally interpret it with our level of mental capacity.
So then stone them to death. That’s what the Bible says to do. Stone them. Why aren’t you fighting for the legal right to kill gays? You’re a bad Christian otherwise as the Bible is not subject to individual interpretations.
Also, do you read the Bible in its original text and language? It may be distorted if you read a translated version. Just watching out for you, you know.
What a disgusting comparison. Please indicate how someone is harmed in a gay relationship.
Please note that many used the Bible to fight against interracial marriage. Your pedophile comparison was used in the same way back then.
how can you compare pedophiles and drunks to a relationship between two, loving consenting adults?
Because he’s the south-end of a north-bound mule.
indeed
Just like you choose to blatantly ignore the truth of the Bible when it comes to eating shellfish (or wearing different kinds of fabric, or shaving, etc. etc.), but I’m sure God will forgive you as long as you don’t act on your desires to actually eat a lobster or shrimp.
If anyone misuses the Bible, it’s those who selectively pick and *choose* which parts to ignore and which parts to keep. The world would be a lot scarier place if we took scripture literally, sending us back to the dark ages. Maybe in a couple decades the debate will end and the fundies’ problems with other people’s biology will go the way of the shellfish.
This is exactly what the Taliban think. Can you please explain to me, in terms that I can understand, how your way of interpreting the Bible is different than the Taliban wanting to apply Sharia Law?
Perfect response, perfect and valid question! Tanx.
Your so-called “Truth of the Bible” is what you learned from your pastor no doubt. He learned it from his and so on down the line. Problem is you fail to realize that times have changed, acceptance is the new world order and equality if important to all. You can continue to believe the way you like, but you should allow others to do the same.
I’m trying to think of a denomination that doesn’t “misuse” the Bible. I would define Denomination as a group that agrees on how to “misuse” it “correctly.”
If that’s the case,then when are churches going to do the right thing and support a woman’s right to choose instead of bombing clinics?Oh wait,it’s different for girls.SIGH.
Sounds like you’re the one guilty of misusing the Bible.
If one choose to be a Christian, that’s their right, don’t oppress others because of your hatred. That’s NOT your right.
Nowhere in the bible is it written condoning homosexuality…You bozo’s that say homosexuality is right and say the bible condones homosexuality need your eye sight corrected and your reading skills improved…
DAVID & JONATHAN
2 Samuel 1:26
I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.
RUTH & NAOMI
Genesis 2:24 (on marriage)
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall *cleave* unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Ruth 1:14
And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth *clave* unto her.
Ruth 1:16-17
And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the Lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.
The Bible supports gay marriage!
Actually none of the scripture that maine_seashore quoted supports gay marriage. I think he was just trying to get you to actually read the Bible, which from your post, it is apparant you did not!
I have read, even studied the Bible for many decades. I was just trying to demonstrate the level of idiocy displayed by those who make the claim that other, similarly obscure passages “prove” that God condemns homosexuals even though He created them.
Even though I’m gay I believe that it takes more than the bible and a lawyer to force the Church to accept gay marriage. It’s up to the Christians to translate and understand their own bible in the context of their own religion. The term “context” is important. Also nowhere in the bible does it explicitly describe homosexual sex. Even if the text can be implicitly misunderstood by those who are not Christian. There is more to a religion than just their holy texts as well. I’m not Christian and I don’t actually believe in any organized religions but I do respect the Christian Church to worship the way they see fit. I also don’t believe in using the law to force a religion to change. Change as big as this should be a choice from within their own faith, via their own interpretation and understanding within the CONTEXT of Christianity. It’s only logical.
not on your life.. but it is noteworthy that the excuses you people make to justify this has no end
And what else is noteworthy is that throughout history people have used the Bible to support their misdoings. Such as advocating for slavery, fighting against women’s suffrage, fighting against interracial marriage, etc. What a great bunch you’re joining Paul!
I’m gay but I don’t consider myself one of those “people”. I don’t believe in forcing the Christian faith to be hypocritical to itself and accept gay marriage by law. I’m no conservative but it seems that Liberals are way too liberal sometimes. They want all their opinions to be respected & obeyed but not that of others within the serious context for which it stands. Even though I’m not Christian I respect freedom of religion. Freedom of choice is also important. It takes more than a bunch of votes via the legal system to change a serious religion. This sort of change needs to come from within the Church itself. I consider myself an “Independent” person politically, I also consider myself “Spiritual” though I personally don’t believe in the Christian Faith. However I respect Christians rights to worship their religion the way they see fit. One of Americas founding cornerstones was freedom of religion without using the government to push it around.
A voice of reason in this wilderness! Well expressed, and I applaud your common sense middle of the road reasoning. Thank you.
I believe the biggest difference in this instance is as follows:
The liberals want the government to remove the different-gender restriction on marriage licenses so that two people of the same gender may, if they wish, apply for and receive a state-issued marriage license from the government.
That’s it. No more.
The conservatives and the religious people want that same state-issued license to retain the different-gender restriction.
The liberals want to include people in secular marriage. The conservatives want to continue to exclude people from secular marriage. No liberal is interested in forcing a church to perform a same-sex marriage. The First Amendment prevents such government intrusion into religious affairs.
What I have described is the essence of the issue. It has been clouded with the fear of the loss of religious freedom, fear for children, fear for society, and whatever else the conservatives can dig up and throw into the mix. But, in reality, and despite what they say, religion, traditional marriage, society, children, and all that, is not in the slightest affected by secular same-sex marriage. It just is not.
I guess I do not understand what you are concerned about with regard to liberals being too liberal. The fact is religion is not in any way affected by the proposed change in the law. The fact is the churches simply do not have a dog in this fight. They think they do, but they do not.
I challenge them to provide to me one valid example of how their straight marriage or their church or their religion is directly and adversely affected by same-sex marriage.
Maybe I’ve missed something in this particular conversation, but I don’t know of any person who wants to force any church to accept marriage between people of the same sex.
I am gay and I by NO MEANS want any church to do this is they don’t want to. They currently can refuse to wed people now for whatever reason and I don’t think that that should change. I don’t want to marry in a church that doesn’t want me-I have a fully supportive church right here that will marry my boyfriend and me.
The whole point IS freedom of choice. If the Catholic Church doesn’t want to marry us, then fine-that’s their choice. What isn’t fine is when these churches remove the choice from my and other churches that do want to marry any two people who love each other.
Allowing the churches to make this choice is the middle of the road reasoning.
no where in those passages is there even a passing reference to condemning homosexual relationships.
Had to stop in the first paragraph because he will never be accepted by the Anglican Communion! He alone is responsible for many people leaving the Episcopal Church. Those that didn’t join the Anglican or Catholic Churches simple quit the faith! Instead of thinking of the masses he served, he put himself first. Not a leader anyone sensible person would follow.
Says you.
Membership in the Episcopal Church has declined slightly, but less than the average overall for all Christian denominations in America.
Blah …crapola
Crapola is what you find in a landfill.
No its what comes out of the mouth of any Democrat here in Maine.
That’s uncalled for and shows how narrow-minded you are.
If you truly believe that the government should not be able to force churches to behave in a way they do not believe then you must support full marriage equality for gay people.
The gay marriage law that is proposed exempts any and all churches from ever having to participate or approve of gay marriages. The US Constitution also guarantees this so no state will be able to change that.
On the other hand, the current law forbidding gay marriage discriminates against all churches that want to perform gay marriages and whose religious beliefs are deep and strong that they should be able to marry their gay members.
Support religious freedom – vote in support of the marriage equality law that guarantees it.
I appreciate the framers of the SSM question on the ballot this November including the religious exemption. But, you know, it really is frivolous and not legally needed. There is no way, as you quite rightly stated, the government is going to force churches to perform SSM if they do not want to. It is there in the First Amendment. It has always been there. It was there in 2009 but the public, thick as a brick, never understood the separation of church and state, what is secular and sectarian, and probably still does not, to a degree.
I take your point on the current law forbidding gay marriage in a church, but I’m not sure I agree. I need to reread the Maine marriage law. When I performed a Notary Public wedding in 1980, the law was very plain Jane and legal (as laws should be for clarity). Since that time and before the 2009 debacle, I reread the law and it was full of the fluff and religious bullcrap having nothing to do with law. It read more like a ceremonial proclamation than a law crafted for accuracy and clarity. Whoever created it should be sent back for a review before the bar for professional incompetence.
That said, a church should be able to perform any kind of ceremony it so wishes assuming it does not harm anyone or any living creature (no human or animal sacrifices). Church ceremonies carry no legal weight unless a state-issued marriage certificate has been issued. I do not believe the law gives a toot about what a church does or declares. These ceremonies may mean something to those participating but without that state issued marriage license, it’s a yawner for the state.
I’m sure this never is checked but take two couples – one married by a Notary and the other married in a church. The Notary couple has a marriage license issued by the state. The church couple “see no need for state involvement in their blessed sacramental la-di-dah marriage ceremony” and do not get a license. Excluding common-law issues and “intentions” from the law, have both couples file jointly on their income tax. Assuming IRS checks this (in fact, I doubt they do), the Notary couple would have their return rubber-stamped approved while the church-married couple would not be considered legally married and filing jointly would be disapproved. You do need that marriage license because, ta-dah, marriage is ALSO a legal matter as well as an optional religious ceremony.
This is nothing radical. It has been this way since the states first developed the concept of being married by the state.
In a nutshell, if adding this frosting to the SSM question on the ballot placates the religious crowd, then throw them this pacifier and let’s move on.
It is unnecessary, but it’s going to point to in terms of political discussions as one side is guilty of frequently distorting the truth.
Absolutely. While canvassing, I have talked to people who thought that the 2009 would force their church to perform same-sex marriages. And THAT is why we are going door-to-door – to help clear up these misconceptions.
My response has always been the same for those concerns: does the state ever force churches to marry inter-faith couples? does the state ever force churches to marry couples who have previously been divorced?
a foolish and moronic argument… it’s God’s law that you should be worried about
Living by your interpretation of God’s law is all fine and good in your private life.
However, it is illegal for the government to choose YOUR version of God’s law over all others and then apply it across the board to everyone.
Are you kidding me, where is the amendment the gives anyone the right to get married, there is one the gives the church the right to believe how they want. the Church is protected under our Constitution Marriage is not.
So you are now claiming it is illegal for the government to marry anyone?
One of those commenting previously on this article had it right, when he/she said that nothing in the Bible condones homosexual behavior or marriage. If there was, then Scripture would specify conditions under which homosexual behavior would be acceptable, as it does for heterosexual behavior in marriage. However, no such Biblical text exists for homosexual behavior – not in the Old Testament nor in the New Testament.
There are some, though, that persist in believing otherwise. maine_seashore, for example, lists passages from the OT involving David and Ruth. However, the love alluded to in each verse is not one of “eros” love or sexual attraction, as is indicated in the original Biblical text. Rather, it is a brotherly or sisterly love. Further, with David and Ruth being devout Jews they would’ve been adherents of Levitical Law, even though David strayed from it at least once by engaging in adultery with Bathsheba, the wife of one of his generals – further proof that he was definitely not gay.
As for Jewish dietary laws forbidding the consumption of certain foods, such as shell fish or pork, these issues were dealt with by the Apostle Paul in the New Testament. There, Paul made it clear that gentiles who had become Christians were not obligated to follow Jewish customs as a condition of their faith.
So – again – proponents of gay marriage are distorting the true meaning of the Bible to achieve their own ends. They’ve done so with the science of homosexuality, so we shouldn’t be surprised that they’d do so with the Bible.
Amen!
Okay, so you’ve eloquently explained why people you would consider to be “faithful” Christians shouldn’t enter into SSMs. Why must everyone else live by this?
You don’t have to live by Christian standards for sexual behavior, if you don’t want to, nor should you be personally persecuted in any way shape or form, if you choose not to. We live in a free and democratic society, where people are allowed to live as they choose, while having their individual rights and liberties rigorously respected. But that’s not the point.
The point is whether we as a society are Constitutionally and/or factually obligated to legally recognize same-sex behavior in marriage. For the reasons cited in my second post (about 20 minutes ago) and below, we are not only under no obligation to legally recognize gay marriage, we’re obligated not to:
14th Amendment – U.S. Constitution
“Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
In saying that same-sex couples should have the same rights and privileges as heterosexual ones, proponents of same-sex marriage (SSM), cite the 14th Amendment as justification. I agree that the 14th Amendment is applicable to this argument but not as justification for SSM. Rather, the 14th Amendment is a powerful argument against bestowing homosexual couples such rights and privileges.
The reason has to do with the phrases, “…without due process of law…” and the “…equal protection of the laws.” The whole purpose of law is to govern human behavior for the benefit of the individual and society. Thus, law prohibits, limits, or encourages different behaviors, based on their merits or lack of them. Merits, in turn, are based on objective facts – not feelings without facts. For example, facts prove that some behaviors furnish positive benefits to individuals and society, and should, therefore, be encouraged with financial and legal benefits. Examples in this first category would include going to college, starting a business, buying a home, giving to charities, and entering into marriage. Other behaviors have the potential for harm but banning them would cause an undue burden on personal liberty. So, we limit these behaviors to consenting adults. Examples in this second category would be smoking, drinking, gambling, and human sexual relations outside marriage. Finally, some behaviors are so egregious that we prohibit them. Examples in this third category would be the taking of life or property.
So law isn’t based solely on what people want. It’s also based on the people or their representatives objectively reviewing facts to indicate why a law is justified or not. This is the “…due process of law…” mentioned in the 14th Amendment. In accordance with this process, the facts (science) show that homosexual behavior (not the urge for this behavior, which is the driving force for the behavior) falls within the second category of human behavior. It does so because homosexual behavior is associated with serious bodily damage, disease, instability of commitment, and infidelity (1).
For these reasons, government recognition of SSM is wrong, because it mischaracterizes same-sex behavior. SSM does so by erroneously placing same-sex behavior in the first behavioral category – one that’s beneficial to the individual and society and, therefore, one that’s deserving of encouragement through the rights and privileges mentioned above. Clearly, in accordance with the facts, society shouldn’t encourage same-sex behavior, especially since its origin is partially external (like ones peer group, family, and society). Consequently SSM will encourage those who wouldn’t otherwise engage in homosexual behavior to do so (1).
For every other external factor, like this one, we’ve recognized their ability to influence problematic behaviors and have, therefore, taken measures to limit them. For instance with smoking, which is subject to peer and societal influences, we’ve stopped advertising that might encourage it. Yet for another unhealthy behavior – same-sex behavior, which is also subject to peer and societal influences, some want to do the exact opposite and encourage it with government recognition of SSM. This view is not only contradictory but it’s also blatantly hypocritical and without merit of any kind.
Indeed, with respect to SSM, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is clear. We cannot say that one unhealthy behavior (smoking) deserves no encouragement, while another unhealthy behavior (same-sex behavior) does. Hence, for this reason and all the others mentioned above, we’re obligated to oppose the legal recognition of SSM.
(1) http:\marriage-onemanandonewoman.blogspot.com
I’m not surprised that the homosexual community relies on equal protection arguments in advancing its position, as much as I’m surprised that so many others accept those arguments and, in the process, reduce equal protection to an amorphous and changing constitutional doctrine that depends more on popular opinion and changes in cultural mores and feelings than on facts and reasoned legal analysis. The changing nature of equal protection over time is why I think that eventually ssm is going to be universal in this country through a combination of court rulings and state and federal legislation. It’s just a matter of time, and then we can start wondering about the next group and the next right that will be claimed as a Constitutional right under the equal protection clause. Indeed, we might wonder if there are any bounds at all to equal protection.
Your statement goes to the heart of the problem. In the judiciary, there’s two schools of thought: 1) Original Intent; and 2) The living or dynamic view of the Constitution. The former championed by most conservative justices seeks the intent of the framers. The championed by liberals believes that the meaning of the Constitution changes with time according to changing views and mores. This latter interpretation is the one preferred by gay activists, because it allows the Constitution to be stretched to fit just about any behavioral desire.
Hence, using this rationale (no matter how flimsy it maybe) proponents of gay marriage have tried to frame their cause as a “civil right,” even if doing so flatly contradicts the true meaning of the 14th Amendment. Indeed, this is another reason why same-sex marriage is so harmful and the desire for it is so selfish and self-absorbed. To achieve it, proponents would misinterpret the Constitution well beyond any plausible meaning, setting precedent that would justify other behaviors, no matter how harmful they are.
Thomas Jefferson foresaw this problem in the early 1820’s. In a letter written to a friend, Jefferson complained about how the Constitution could be like wax in the hands of a Judiciary, who could mold it and shape it as they saw fit. In light of the current demand by some for gay marriage and some judges acquiescing to this demand based on twisted and implausible legal reasoning, far too many in our judiciary system have come to the point that Jefferson foresaw.
Go ahead and follow the strict constructionist view of the Constitution. I’m all for it.
Marriage is a legal contract.
We do not discriminate on the gender of people participating in a contract. We cannot say, “I will not hire this person (a contract) to fix my plumbing because the contract participant is a woman.”
Currently, the state bars participants in the marriage contract solely based upon gender.
Some harm needs to be demonstrated to uphold this discriminatory practice. There is none.
Appears unconstitutional to me.
Doesn’t appear to be very “activist judge” to me.
Oh, and before you ask – no, I’m no attorney, but I cannot see how you can be, either, based upon your comments.
But we do discriminate with respect to behavior, whether it’s beneficial or not. Whether you’ll admit it or not, the facts are clear: same-sex behavior involves an elevated risk of bodily damage and disease and will occur with greater frequency and among more people in a society the encourages same-sex behavior through gay marriage or other means because homosexuality is a behavioral tendency that’s partially due to social influences. Gay marriage would be just such an influence, which is why it needs to be opposed and not endorsed. So to exclude gay marriage from legal recognition is Constitutional, logical, and factual.
You still have the false assumption that SSM will somehow encourage more people to be gay. That’s ridiculous. You are either gay or you are not. Fostering SSM will benefit the parties involved and society in general by providing and encouraging stable relationships.
There is nothing Constitutional, logical, or factual in your statements.
Oh, that slippery slope argument! That’s a good one. Like how giving women the right to vote led to us giving children and our pets the right to vote.
But yeah, not to laugh at your desperate argument, we’re simply better realizing the truths of our Constitution. Sorry that offends you because you have an issue with gay people (I won’t call it hatred because I know how sensitive you are about that). So we were wrong to extend protections in all instances? Like when we decided it wasn’t right to be able to fire someone for a disability? Or when we said national origin isn’t a good excuse to discriminate?
I have to wonder, what about equal protection under the law offends you so much? Why do you feel that extending the same rights you enjoy to others makes you somehow less free?
If you wanted to write an article, why don’t you submit your own opinion piece? Otherwise, outrageously long rants, ripped from the pages of another bigot’s blog, just make you seem obnoxious, and unwilling to hold a discussion or civil dialogue.
Not once in any of my posts did I attack anyone or falsely call them a bigot or infer them to be one, as you did above. I reported only on what Constitution says and what the facts say concerning same-sex behavior. Therefore, what I wrote was neither obnoxious or uncivil. On the contrary, you were the one who falsely accused me of having these traits, making you – not me – obnoxious, bigoted, and unwilling to have a civil dialogue.
There is a difference between saying someone IS obnoxious and unwilling to hold a civil dialogue, and saying someone SEEMS that way for a specific reason. The specific reason being that you feel the need to type/copy and paste unnecessarily long responses, trying unsuccessfully, to invalidate the arguments of several people in one fowl swoop. All that was necessary to show your support for the blog, was for you to post a link, not copy and paste nearly the entire blog post. The only thing I actually accused you of being is a bigot.
You have hardly reported on any facts concerning same-sex relationships. What you have reported are the assumptions and conclusions, drawn by another person, from several biased sources, one of which is the already debunked theory of ‘reparative therapy’. The few unbiased sources used are all out of date, and have been twisted in a way that supports the Blog writer’s opinion, and apparently yours. As another person suggested, all you need do is click on the few comments to the story to see how easily the blog writer’s claims can be refuted. Ultimately, you are only trying to argue that same-sex couples do not deserve the right to marry, through ineffective, offensively bigoted means. Unfortunately, it is possible to be intelligent and a bigot; a title that would likely fit you well. A person completely intolerant of any ideas beyond his or her own.
Now, I am willing to admit that gay people can be predisposed to certain medical conditions, but I am completely unwilling to accept that as a basis for denying us the right to marry. Would you want your likelihood of getting diabetes or cancer to determine your right to marry? I don’t think so.
This is a grandiose stretch. Your assumptions are false. That is, that SSM is detrimental and does not benefit society and thus should be excluded from equal treatment under the law. In the second-half of your sixth paragraph you speak of limiting negative behavior. You are assuming being gay and being married is negative behavior. This is not the impartial view of the law.
I disagree with your premise. Being homosexual is a human trait, is not learned, and thus is no different than being born with blue eyes. Therefore, treating these citizens differently is not permitted. We must first agree on that.
Secondly, the benefits. Fostering laws allowing people mutual benefits such as those in a marriage is good for all. If you buy into the fact that marriage benefits society by providing this vehicle to straight couples then it follows that it will benefit gay couples.
Marriage benefits society by providing stable relationships among people. Clearly, marriage today is not required for procreation as only 50% of couples with children are married. Also, as we well know, many marriages for many reasons, do not have children. There is no marriage requirement for children. Additionally, there certainly are many gay couples with children. In fact, I would not be surprised the majority of those gay couples who chose to legally marry, children are involved. The protection of the children gained by marriage is a prime motivating factor for gay couples.
Your argument about the 14th not being “what people want” should be countered with Article IV, Section 1, “Full Faith and Credit Clause.” Up until 1967 in Loving v. Virginia when SCOTUS found in a 9-0 decision the ban on interracial marriages to be unconstitutional, marriages in one state (interracial, in this case) were not required to be recognized by others. Today, thankfully, that is not the case. Right now, there is controversy in this situation because DOMA is in effect, but dying on the vine in the courts, and some states have legally recognized SSM. Your argument about SSM not being what people want does not hold water as apparently six states plus the District of Columbia have SSM laws and thus “is what people want.” It has been codified. More states have voted for SSM but have yet to implement it.
We can see this will hit critical mass soon enough where a decision similar to 1967 will come from the courts thus resolving the issue. I fail to see how we can have SSM in a handful of states and not have it recognized at the Federal level since there is no compelling reason at the Federal level not to recognize it. DOMA is on the way out – we all know it. With that gone, and the 1967 case as precedent, how could SSM be found any other way?
SSM will become the law of the land. The only question is when. There is more than enough ground swell and leaving it for time-eternal where SSM is recognized by only a few states is highly unlikely. There certainly will be no repeal of SSM in those states that already have it. Look at NH. In a Legislature where 2/3rd of the House is GOP, the concessionary bill to repeal the two-year old SSM law and replace it with Civil Unions was defeated by a 211-116 vote! Respected polls in NH reported those in favor of the repeal bill amounted to only 32% while those in favor of dumping the repeal of SSM amounted to 57%. Let us also look at the demographics – well-known pollsters have found people under 30 years of age favoring SSM in the high 70+% area while those over 50 are under 50% in approval. Do you see a trend?
I realize the religious crowd has found their original religious arguments falling on deaf ears. The “harm to children” argument now is just embarrassing and no one brings that up. Finally, we are seeing the sectarian crowd trying to look secular and coming up with arguments interlaced with false assumptions. Fortunately, the judges on the courts actually attended law school.
ChuckGG:
Provide information from respected, apolitical, and peer-reviewed research like that listed at the end of the essay linked below proving what I wrote about the detriments of same-sex behavior and same-sex marriage to be wrong and the benefits you claim to be right. Otherwise, you’re making the same unsubstantiated and intellectually dishonest claims that proponents always make in support of gay marriage.
Also, Loving v. Virginia, 1967 is not applicable to gay marriage, no matter how much it’s misused for that purpose. That case dealt with two truly immutable, natural, and solely genetic traits – race and gender – over which no one can exert any control. Further, the case did nothing to alter the fundamental basis for marriage, which was to join one man and one woman in a legally binding contract that would be officially recognized by the State and encouraged with tax incentives because it’s a beneficial behavior, according to peer-reviewed research, that the State has a reason and interest to promote.
In comparison, homosexuality bears no resemblenece to race or gender because it’s a behavioral urge that’s acted on by choice. The person having the urge may not of chosen to have it or feels they have little to no control over having the urge, itself; however they can control whether they’ll act on the urge and engage in the beahvior or not.
Thus, homosexualityand same-sex behavior are no different than any other behavioral urge and the behavior that results from it: They’re subject to laws passed by the people based on facts indicating the harm or benefit of the behavior. Because peer-reviewed research from respected sources shows that same-sex behavior is unhealthy, the appropriate legal category for this behavior is to leave it to consenting adults without legal recognition or incentives like those given in marriage becasue to do otherwise would be to encourage an unhealthy behavior that remains so even if it occurs in a committed (i.e. “married”) setting.
http:\marriage-onemanandonewoman.blogspot.com
The first thing I did was look at the dates of the studies and the organizations representing the studies from your link. The newest study was 2007 from what I see but most were in the 1990’s or earlier. I cannot say I recognized many of the organizations, either.
Did you happen to expand the blog and read the 29 comments? Those went into far more detail than I care to in refuting the claims in the studies.
Additionally, I disagree with your assessment of Loving v. Virginia. You arguments against its use: “That case dealt with two truly immutable, natural, and solely genetic traits – race and gender – over which no one can exert any control. ” – Just as is the case with homosexuality.
And, your next statement: “Further, the case did nothing to alter the fundamental basis for marriage, which was to join one man and one woman in a legally binding
contract that would be officially recognized by the State and encouraged
with tax incentives because it’s a beneficial behavior, according to
peer-reviewed research, that the State has a reason and interest to
promote.”
Why would not the state wish to promote this same behavior with SS couples? I believe there exists a benefit to society of a SS couple being legally recognized by the State. I can think of many reasons. In the simplest of terms – you are aware that mayors of major cities court gay couples – they come in, re-build and entire neighborhood, and property values go up. Look at Chelsea, MA, South Beach, FL, etc. Your argument makes no sense and making the statement doesn’t make it true.
More baloney: “In comparison, homosexuality bears no resemblenece [sic] to race or gender because it’s a behavioral urge that’s acted on by choice. The person
having the urge may not of chosen to have it or feels they have little
to no control over having the urge, itself; however they can control
whether they’ll act on the urge and engage in the beahvior [sic] or not.”
There is no “thus” about it. It’s hogwash. “Thus, homosexuality and same-sex behavior are no different than any other behavioral urge and the behavior that results from it: They’re subject to laws passed by the people based on facts indicating the harm or benefit of the behavior. Because peer-reviewed research from respected sources shows that same-sex behavior is unhealthy, the appropriate legal category for this behavior is to leave it to consenting adults without legal recognition or incentives like those given in marriage becasue [sic] to do otherwise would be to encourage an unhealthy behavior that remains so
even if it occurs in a committed (i.e. “married”) setting.” I question the peer-review and the respected sources – look at who backs most of those studies.
In conclusion, I will repeat what I said before:
I have been in this battle since long before 2009. When my home state overturned SSM due to a bunch of bible thumpers spewing lies all over the place, war was declared. I personally refuse to be treated like the blacks were treated in the 1960’s. Suffice it to say, I am a middle-aged, white WASP, well-off, and I am completely unaccustomed to not being on the top of the food chain, and to have, of all things, a bunch of religious nutbars spouting off about how I live, and interfering in my secular laws, is just beyond my level of acceptance. I have tolerated this foolish dancing around the fire claptrap all my life, figuring they may do whatever they wish as long as they are not bothering my family or me. Now, for some reason, they feel they can drop a poop in my punchbowl and walk away. Wrong. It won’t be permitted.
I have watched the religious crowd spout off about how SSM is against their religion, when this is a secular-only issue. That argument, no surprise, has failed. People now realize it is a secular issue and religion will remain unaffected.
I have listened to the B.S. about polygamy, marrying dogs, cars, small children, and pedophilia, and that children will be molested on the way to school, and that kids will actually learn about others in school, of which a certain percentage are gay. The anti-SSM crowd has found that argument also has failed. The public just isn’t that stupid.
I am seeing the hauling out questionable studies, peer reviewed by other questionable organizations, in a bizarre attempt to come up with some justification against SSM. It is an attempt by the sectarian crowd to appear secular. It won’t work. The facts do not support is. It is their last gasp.
Finally, let’s look at the numbers. Your religious crowd claims that only 3% of the public is gay. Okay, let’s go with that number. Of that number, I would think it to be very optimistic if 50% of the 3% decided to get married. That leaves 1.5% of the population that now has a piece of paper and the same civil rights as the straight couple across the street. There now are no more and no fewer gays or gay couples. Just 1.5% of the population has a legal piece of paper that they before did not have.
And, from this small group of people, calamity and pestilence will befall mankind. It is so utterly preposterous, I cannot imagine why we even discuss it.
—
there is no Scripture supporting commenting online as acceptable behavior either. So, whatchya doing?
…and the science concerning homosexual behavior is clear – it entails an elevated risk of bodily damage and disease, a fact that is succinctly summarized in the following verse:
Romans 1:27 – “In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
Today, we understand that that “due penalty” stated in this passage is the following maladies (1):
1. Homosexuality bears no resemblance to race or gender. Unlike these conditions, which are purely genetic, homosexuality is a behavioral urge that’s no different than any other behavioral urge. Though many perceive as having little to no control of the urge, they can control the manifestation of the urge – behavior – because they can choose to engage in the behavior or not. Thus, homosexual behavior, like every other behavior, is not above laws passed by the people, like race and gender, but is subject to these laws, despite what some illogical and politically-motivated courts may say.
2. Unlike race or gender, homosexuality can be triggered through social/cultural influences. This condition is because like every other behavioral urge, homosexuality originates from genetic, biologic, and social influences, which vary in significance among individuals, with some being more prone to developing the urge than others. Thus, even though these traits don’t guarantee homosexuality, encouraging this behavioral urge through same-sex marriage or other forms of government recognition will encourage those with a tendency for the behavior to either develop and/or engage in the behavior, when they wouldn’t otherwise do so in the absence of said influences.
3. In comparison to heterosexuals, homosexuals are far more prone to bodily damage and disease, much of which is serious and life threatening. Among the many diseases to which homosexuals are inordinately susceptible are HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, cancers, and gastrointestinal ailments.
4. Even in so-called “committed” relationships, homosexuals, primarily men, are notoriously non-monogamous, much more so than heterosexuals, which defeats the main purpose for marriage.
5. In jurisdictions that permit same-sex marriage, such as Sweden and Norway, homosexuals are far more likely to divorce than heterosexuals. This fact, including the one in item 4, above, would not enhance marriage, as some falsely claim, but would diminish it below its already weakened state.
6. In general, heterosexuals experience a higher incidence of emotional and mental illnesses, than heterosexuals, even in countries like the Netherlands, which is very accepting and tolerant of homosexual behavior. In fact, between the U.S. and the Netherlands, the incidence of emotional and mental maladies among homosexuals is the same.
7. Domestic violence is much more prevalent in male same-sex relationships than in heterosexual ones. Though the reasons are unclear, lesbians, who’ve been in at least one same-sex relationship, are more likely than heterosexual women to have experienced some form of domestic violence, even though females within an existing same-sex relationship are less likely to do so but may experience other forms of abuse. (such as verbal or emotional).
(1) Peer-reviewed references upon which above is based:(1) Peer-reviewed references upon which above is based:
http:\marriage-onemanandonewoman.blogspot.com
LOL, pure hypocrisy.
You demand biological evidence that homosexuality is innate. Well how about I demand you provide scientific evidence that God, and more specifically the Bible, is real?
Why do you hold others to a standard you don’t hold yourself to? Sounds pretty unfair. There are no truths in your lies, just hatred. What does the Bible have to say about that?
Ignorance, lies, and misinformation—are you a member of NOM?
cicchino84:
Instead of making baseless and unsupported assertions, as you did above, provide facts from reputable, apolitical, and peer-reviewed sources (that are neither anti- or pro-gay marriage) proving what you said to be true. Without these facts, your assertions are just the usual intellectually lazy and dishonest claims that proponents of gay marriage make against the opponents and do nothing to convince any one about why we should legally recognize gay marriage.
LOL…what assertions? I only see one, and that would be that you and the blog writer are bigots. However, I could give you several supported, peer-reviewed sources, that refute the claims you support in a bigoted blog. Fortunately I have better things to do with my holiday than post 8 mile long rants, trying to pass them off as conclusive evidence for my cause.
And what remains is that some people are so bigoted and have enough free time that they’re able to copy and paste hateful lies from across the net here.
What a stupid argument. Gays are so promiscuous according according do you, so why do you want to deny them marriage rights? Because suddenly if they can get married they’ll be even more promiscuous?
What you’re saying is nothing but a bunch of lies. You just hate gay people. Quit trying to act like there is a rhyme or reason for it. You hate them and it’s based on nothing but ignorance.
Fantastic job obliterating the arguments by the proponents of legally recognized gay coupling!!! It’s easy to tell how effective you’ve been by the amount of foaming-at-the-mouth vitriol and name-calling directed your way.
Keep up the good work!
Fantastic job of spreading lies, myths, and rumors. Very disappointing.
LOL, you get upset over “name-calling” and call that vitriol, but denying your neighbor equal rights is fine and dandy? What a joke.
LMAO..Oh yeah, copying and pasting the biased opinion of a Blogger, obliterates arguments promoting marriage equality. Pulling at straws. It does a better job of proving how desperate opponents are to find a legitimate argument against marriage equality.
Good for him for telling his story and that of others in the face of threats and hatred!
Either way its gonna be a close call again, but i just have a feeling it will not pass for the second time. We will see in November, good luck to all involved.
I agree I voted No last time in 2009 and will this time as well. Nothing has changed in my opinion. The first polls on this are closer with the yes side ahead like it was in 09. Wait till the ads hit the air and the debates. I think it will end up the same result maybe a few points more this time for the NO side 56%, maybe 57% possibly but the Gay Marriage folks are going to be disappointed again. They already made one mistake already proving one of the NO’s points from the last campaign already. The School issue with the MEA (TEACHERS UNION) already throwing support for it and raising money for them.
I thought it was the position of SSM proponants that religion had nothing to do with homosexuality! If thats truly the case, why do they keep running these stories to support their position?
Not to blow your mind or anything, but there are some who are both very religious and gay. There are some who are very religious and supportive of their gay friends and neighbors. Startling, isn’t it?!
And there are some that are not religious and do not support ssm. like myself.
That’s interesting! You’d be the first person I’ve heard from that was against SSM but also was not religious. So, just curious, if you don’t like SSM and it is not because it is in violation of some great religious edict, then what is your reason against it? Seriously, I’d like to know. This is a first for me.
interesting – really – I don’t think you been out of your hut for to long have you? Many people are against SSm and do not have strong religious ties.
Well, if it is not religion, then it must be bigotry and prejudice. I mean, what else could it be? You haven’t provided any reason other than the vague, “Many people are against SSM…”.
How are you on blacks, Asians, the deaf, and the physically challenged? Any special hatred toward the French – that’s always a good target in Maine. Overweight people – lots of those in Maine.
Just curious.
Since God is a loving God and asks to love our neighbors as we do ourselves, assuring that my neighbor has the same civil rights that I do, is def. a religious matter.
I would also add that the only group we hear from that is against SSM is the religious crowd. I have yet to hear a valid argument against SSM that did not come from a religious source.
We are see an uptick in the sectarian crowd trying to come up with secular reasons against SSM. Their religious reasons and “harm to children” reasons are shot full of holes and holding no water. The last ditch effort is to try to come up with a legal reason against SSM. Of course, there are none and never have been.
You see people like GGGP1856 putting forth questionable legal arguments and “health concern facts” that look like they came from the 1980’s. The AIDS thing along is ridiculous – look at Africa – huge number of cases from heterosexual contact.
Furthermore, all the more reason to support SSM. Presumably, with SSM, a gay male couple would be less likely to be dating the world and would be with his partner. Of course, the rate for AIDS among lesbians always has been far below any other group. So, denying them SSM is justified?
Look – it is this simple – there is no compelling reason against secular SSM. The bible thumpers just have to find someone else to beat-up for awhile. Why we are even beating this horse even deader still amazes me. Get over it already.
The same sex marriage referendum has nothing to do with anyone’s religious rights.
It is a legal question and a equal rights question and not a spiritual question. No one cares if a congregation wants to ban any particular marriage since church weddings are not legally binding anyway.
Agreed. Unfortunately, it is the religious crowd that fails to understand this and wants SSM banned for everyone, even if they are not part of their congregation! The unmitigated presumptuousness of this crowd is amazing!
It is not an equal rights question they already have equal rights like the rest of us. This is nothing more than feel good legislation that Mainers will end up having to pay for. Just like with Welfare this is another Social Program that Liberals can feel good about giving a small voting block of theirs “equal rights”. While providing little economic boost at best for the Maine Economy while in the long run it will be a drag and a drain on Maine and its taxpayers. What are they going to do if they lose again attack us with another televised public tirade on the news like they did in 2009. These folks I have no sympathy for they add little to our state, while Democrats were in power they were getting a huge amount of our tax money from. If you don’t think so Dale Mccormick and MSHA was even giving them our money. It’s time to send these folks on their way if with another huge defeat on November 6th.
Equal rights? How so? If it’s the right to marry any person of the opposite gender who will have you, sure. The right to marry the person you love? No, we do not. Exactly what is the point of marriage?
And drag and drain on Maine? How so? If I my friend were to be allowed to marry her girlfriend, it would actually be better, because then she’d be covered on her partner’s insurance and wouldn’t have to depend on MaineCare. Same for their children. There will be LESS reliance on welfare.
And I add little to the state of Maine? I work here. I live here. I pay income tax, property tax, and sales tax. I pay taxes on my fuel AND I even pay use tax. My property taxes pay for the schools and I don’t even have children nor do I even want any. My worth to the state of Maine and to society here is as important as yours and anyone else’s.
A drag and a drain? That’s a pisspoor excuse to deny others equal rights.
Maybe we should restrict who can vote and make it male property owners only again. After all, those extra ballots and polling places are pretty expensive. Certainly a drag on the taxpayers dime.
NEWSFLASH PAL: gay couples pay taxes! They pay more taxes than we do because they can’t file jointly. This is about fairness. Currently, they’re picking up the extra slack, so you probably shouldn’t be talking about “drags and drains” because as it is, the special rights and tax benefits for us straight couples is what the real drag is.
Delusions as usual darkcat? My ability to marry would only affect my tax rate, not yours. How could marriage equality ever be comparable to welfare? It can’t. Exactly what money from Dale McCormick and the MSHA was given to the gay community? None. Last I checked, many people use wedding planners, photographers, caterers, etc., to perform their wedding ceremonies. This would be no different for the union of many same-sex couples, and does provide an economic boost. Regardless of whether marriage equality is approved or not, gay people and couples will always be a part of Maine, and we will never stop fighting for equality.
I’m going to pose this question again since nobody seems able to give me an answer?
Without throwing god under the bus, without using the bible as a
crutch (because nobody can prove that either are real or true) why are
people who love each other, have been in a committed relationship for
years, not deserve the right to marry like everyone else?
Before anyone throws out the “it’s not natural” argument, let me
remind you, thousands of species do homosexual acts INSTINCTIVELY, yet
we are the only species that worships a magical sky wizard. Should we
really be trying to discriminate based on a hunch that a deity whom we
have no idea if they even exist, would want that?
So how does that act pro create? many species do homosexual acts? who and what are you talking about(dogs, cats animals ect…) But they sure know the defference when it comes to procreation, it come natural to them.
So what you are saying is NO, you don’t have an answer? If you are trying to say that people only have sex to procreate than you are obviously lying. Are you saying that infertile couples shouldn’t be able to have sex?
When you can come up with a real answer and the ability to grasp even the most basic grammar, I’d like to hear it.
You forgot to indicate exactly at what point in time procreation became a requisite for marriage.
maybe they should just buy him a new bible .. and he should completely understand what our Lord and Savoir has to say about this.. hate the sin not the sinner… but pray for them for they do know what they do
That’s your interpretation. They have their own. What makes you so great that you get to trump others?
I’m gay and like the idea of Gay Marriage BUT I also don’t believe in using the law to force the church to include gay marriage. After all one big reason we formed the USA was to have freedom of religion. I’m not a Christian myself and I don’t actually believe in organized religions of any kind. I do consider myself a spiritual person however just not dogmatic. But in any case I do respect the Christian Faith and their right to worship according to their own beliefs. If they view Marriage within their own faith as only being between a man and a woman then so be it. Even though the term marriage has been around before and outside the Christian faith I respect the “context” in which they view it in relation to their own faith. To force them to change via the law would force them to be hypocrites against their own faith. It would be nice if the Vatican and any other officially recognized leaders of the Christian faith CHOOSE to change their definition of the term Marriage on their own, that would be different. But to abuse democracy to vote on it is abusive. It’s simply not right. After all one reason we departed from England hundreds of years ago was to have freedom of religion without government interference. It’s a matter of “RESPECT” for the “CONTEXT” of “THEIR RELIGION”. I mean it’s not like going to McDonald’s and voting on which food items go on their menu just for our convenience. This is a religion we are talking about. People choose the Christian faith for a reason. I don’t agree with everything the Church does, BUT, I respect their right to worship without me or anyone else FORCING them to be hypocritical to their own faith. It’s sort of like when we FORCE other countries to accept democracy at gunpoint. It’s just not gonna work. People need to CHOOSE for themselves to CHANGE. If the Christian Church doesn’t want to collectively CHOOSE FREELY this change doesn’t mean we should force them by law to do our bidding. It’s a matter of respect.
So who is forcing a church to perform same-sex marriages? No one I know.
No one is forcing the church to do anything.
Does the state force churches to marry inter-faith couples? No. Does the state force the church to marry peopl who have previously been divorced? No. So why do you think it would be different here?
Most gay people agree with you, and would never try to force a religious institution to recognize or perform our marriage. That is why the exact language on the ballot will read as follows: “Do you favor a law allowing marriage licenses for same-sex couples
that protects religious freedom by ensuring no religion or clergy be
required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious
beliefs?”
sorry for repeat post.
PS Some people might argue that they should be respected too (most likely liberals) which there is nothing wrong with that, But consider this. Is it really respectful to bend the world to our wants and desires? Sure I can respect a liberals opinion to want Gay Marriage, but I can’t respect them forcing the church to change against it’s collective will. I’m not saying no one should be respected but at the same time we live in the USA for a reason. Freedom. Sure we live in a democratic society but should we abuse democracy to bend everything out of context? That is what Hitler did for anyone who knows the history of how he came to power. He used Germany’s own system of voting against itself. When we take things out of context and not respect other people we can lead to chaos. I’m no Conservative either but it seems that all too often a certain party of people want all their opinions and views respected but don’t actually respect the context of others. Also they don’t understand that because someone didn’t change their mind and choose your way doesn’t mean they disrespect you either. I can still respect your point of view without changing my mind. Sure I have my own wants, desires, and needs but we share this planet. If you respect the freedom of choice you shouldn’t abuse the law to do your bidding. Something as big as the Christian Faith needs to make changes from “within” and not by using the law like a sharp machete. Again, I’m not Christian, I just respect their rights to worship the way they see fit according to their own faith. Change comes from understanding, choice, and other factors not force. And even if they do understand doesn’t mean they need to change. One can understand something but still have the freedom to deny it based on their own rules, beliefs, interpretations, and context within their own religion. To them, to call yourself a “gay christian” is technically an oxymoron. If I ever do get hitched as a gay man I will gladly settle for a civil union until such time the Christian Faith chooses on it’s own to include Gay marriage. But I could never live with myself knowing that I used the government laws to force them to change. Some may say “how is change ever going to happen if not by force”? Well, is it really change? No. Change comes from within. Sure over time even by force they may come to embrace it but the ends don’t justify the means.
love my church!!
Who gives a fart what the Bible (Book of Babble) says? It was written collectively by a bunch of ignorants who thought the earth was flat and the center of the universe. The Bible has been re-written so many times it has less credibility than a comic book. Time you all used your brain and common sense. It’s really not that difficult to know right from wrong.
So we should trust the views of the Democrats and one of their voting blocks. The Maine people spoke clearly in 2009 when we said No. If we say No again are they going to bring it back like the Special Rights law of theirs. I don’t feel sorry for these folks at all. If they want to get married go somewhere else or head to Quebec or New Brunswick, Canada where they accept that type of behavior. But to expect us to approve a law that they are selling as Maine’s Economic Savior LOL NO THANKS. This will be another Liberal Social Program that will be a boondoggle that Maine Taxpayers will end up being on the hook for.
Live and let live.
Sigh… Protestantism. The get rich quick scheme of religion.
Well now! If it isn’t more of the religious left trying to legislate morality. Getting kinda tiresome, people.
Doesn’t the Constitution prevent the government from getting mixed up in religious matters?
Silly me – that’s only when the issue is from the conservative point of view.