LEWISTON, Maine — A new political action committee that opposes Maine’s same-sex marriage referendum on November’s ballot is formally launching its campaign.
Michael Heath and Paul Madore, co-chairmen of the No Special Rights PAC, and their supporters are holding a press conference Saturday on the steps of Lewiston City Hall.
Heath and Madore have held leadership roles going back to the early 1990s opposing gay rights and gay marriage initiatives in Maine.
They say they’ve hired a treasurer for the PAC and begun raising money, and vow that they’ll be outspoken in their opposition to the proposal to legalize gay marriage in Maine.
Alternate headline:
Religious Fanatics Spreading Hate and Discontent.
Just because theydis agree with you does not men hate.
This is not about if we should spend a bond to buy a park or a high way.
When your “opinion” is to refuse rights to some minority of people based on your religion or simple “icky” feeling then like it or not that is a hateful act.
Using the word “hate” is just a liberal excuse to inflame people that is all.
That’s all? There’s no hatred in wanting to round up all the gays, corralling them in an electrified fence and letting them all die off?
Or telling us to crawl into a hole and die, as I have read here in these comment forums? Or beating us to death? Or comparing us to child molesters and rapist? Man, there is a lot of hate toward gay people out there.
It’s not “just a liberal excuse to inflame people.”
THESE men do. Heath and Madore are notorious in their hatred toward gay people.
NO special rights? So they are in favor of eliminating tax-exempt status for churches?
Don’t you get it, they mean no special rights for gays. You know, the special rights that everybody else has.
Ohhh, okay. Got it.
///
You are correct. They are not asking for special rights. They are asking to pass a special law to redefine the definition of marriage to legitimize their unnatural lifestyle.
Mountain the word marriage has been defined and redefined many times in the history of this nation.
Thats incorrect. The first time marriage was redefined was in 2000 by the Amercian Heritage to include SS couples. In 2003 it was redefined in Websters to include SS couples. I wouldn’t call that many times in the history of this nation
Well maybe you should look again.
It has happened twice in my lifetime….
1967 Loving v. Virginia
2003 Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health
Then we have the inter-religion bans from our early days and the prohibition against polygamy so might I suggest that you look just a bit deeper into U.S. History before you post.
I never claimed it didn’t happen. I simply challenged your claim that it has happened “many” times in the history of this nation.
“1967 Loving v. Virginia” did not redefine the definition of marriage, it simply ended the ban that prohibited men and women of mixed races from getting married.
“2003 Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health” was a Massachusetts was a case that upheld SSM in that State.
“Then we have the inter-religion bans from our early days and the prohibition against polygamy so might I suggest that you look just a bit deeper into U.S. History before you post. ” Inter-religious bans and the prohibition against polygamy did not redefine the definition of marriage either. The law banning Polygamy simply stated that a man could not have more than one wife and women could not have more than one husband.
I’d have to drop you score to “1”.
“”1967 Loving v. Virginia” did not redefine the definition of marriage, it simply ended the ban that prohibited men and women of mixed races from getting married.”
That has to be one of the funniest post I have ever read. Prior to Loving v. Virginia is was ILLEGAL for a person of “color” to marry a “white” person in many states of the U.S.. When it was decided it struck down the laws that PREVENTED a person of “color” from marring a “white” person. That REDEFINED MARRIAGE.
~~~~~
“”2003 Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health” was a Massachusetts was a case that upheld SSM in that State.”
Flat our incorrect statement. The case found that the state may not “deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry.” That REDEFINED MARRIAGE in Massachusetts.
~~~~~
“Inter-religious bans and the prohibition against polygamy did not
redefine the definition of marriage either. The law banning Polygamy simply stated that a man could not have more than one wife and women could not have more than one husband.”
Again flat out wrong.
~~~~~
Keep score if you want but civil rights is not a “game”.
Not interested in keeping score and SSM has nothing to do with civil rights.
“Not interested in keeping score” really Mountain because you posted earlier “I’d have to drop you score to “1” so it sure seems that you are interested in “keeping score”.
“SSM has nothing to do with civil rights” well it seems that several courts disagree with you on that point Mountain.
Humans are part of nature, therefore anything a human does is natural. Unnatural would be something that is not actually possible, like walking on water, or dying and coming back to life. Stuff like that.
Incorrect. Unnatural is defined as anything that is contrary to nature; abnormal, or not in accordance with accepted standards of behaviour or right and wrong unnatural love.
Plenty of homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom.
That would be a good point if we were discussing the animal kingdom.
So humans are not animals? Your education is severely deficient.
Then you are saying you should be allowed to marry an animal if you so desire. Their is a significant difference in the animal kingdon.
Bruce short answer…animals do not have the ability to sign a contract which is required to enter into the legal state of being married.
This is what passes for political “discourse” these days? A guy says that homosexuality is unnatural, so I point out that it exists in nature. And then you say I want to marry a dog?
Go away and keep your fantasies to yourself.
I did not say about you marrying a dog, someone is always saying it is always happening in the animal kingdom.
“Then you are saying you should be allowed to marry an animal if you so desire.”
No, I figured that what some are saying since they refer so much to things happening in the animal kingdom.
using your computer keyboard is unnatural.
I guess that would be correct for anyone borm before 1980!
Flying is “unnatural”…diving in a submarine is “unnatural”…shall I continue?
Since you are admitting that homosexuality is “unnatural” there is no reason to continue!
And where exactly did I say “homosexuality is “unnatural”” Mountain”
For that matter indoor plumbing is “unnatural”.
Space travel is “unnatural”.
Marriage got redefined the day that you could no longer sell your daughter for three goats and a cow.
//////
That would be if hetero sexual’s could not have children together “naturally”
And I know several heterosexual couples that do not have the ability to have “children together “naturally””. Should they be allowed to marry since they cannot procreate “naturally”?
That reason holds no water, because it is not a medical condition.
bruce infertility is not a “medical condition”?
I guess a man having a baby is not then.
,,,,
,,,,
,,,,,
Hetero couples that can not have children is because of a medical reason, not because they are the same sex.
That’s such a dead non-issue.
Gay and straight couples have children though natural or artificial means all the time everywhere and have for decades. This happens whether the couples are married or not.
Allowing more gay couples to marry will have no effect on that.
What’s really interesting is that all the disgusting things that they say gay people do, straight people do, too!!
You keep repeating that but it really doesn’t make any sense at all.
Sigh… There are people born with both sexes; there are people born with 2 sets of DNA; there are old people who NEVER have sex and still marry; churches don’t have to marry STRAIGHT people if they don’t want to; gay people aren’t going to stop loving their significant other because some religious fanatic has an issue with it; and the people who are spending money on this could spend their money actually HELPING people and would actually gain respect. Can we PLEASE let the religious people have their ‘marriage’ (that oh-so-holy-word) and the rest of us who didn’t bother with the ‘religious’ wedding be ‘civil unionized’ in this state? Or perhaps they can add the word “traditional’ to the verbiage to pacify the holier-than-thous in this state? They can take great delight in the fact that THEIR marriage is holier than mine is. I don’t care, because I really don’t want to be lumped in with the zealots if this state can’t figure out what IS actually the RIGHT THING TO DO.
My wife and I were married by a justice of the peace. Any overly churchy pinhead who wants to tell me the we are not married is welcome to examine my fist really up close and personal. These chumps need to keep their religion in their church where it belongs, and out of public view. It is every bit as offensive as those jerks with their pants around their knees.
I really wish these idiots would go away. It doesn’t affect them, so they need to stop trying to police the would. Separation of church and state, so stay out of it. It makes me want to start an initiative to outlaw marriage for everyone, then they can find something else to hate.
That phrase is not in the Constitution. I says “there shall be no establishment of Religion.”And just because you disagree with someone, does not mean you hate them.
Well the whole quote is, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
The SCOTUS has made reference to it 25 times in various decisions. Here are a sampling for your reading pleasure.
Reynolds v. United States, (1878)
Everson v. Board of Education, (1947)
Wallace v. Jaffree, (1985)
I know where it comes from, and the decisions.
You do? From your posts it doesn’t seem that you do.
I was stating the Fact that it is not in the Original Constitution, just Liberal Legal Law.
So is the 13th Amendment Liberal Legal Law?
Oh I know it must be the 14th Amendment that is Liberal Legal Law?
Or is it the 15th Amendment that is Liberal Legal Law?
I will give you the 16th and 18th Amendment.
Now I know that a person in your esteemed position must find the 19th Amendment Liberal Legal Law?
Or maybe the 24th or 26th Amendment….is that Liberal Legal Law?
So please which one of the above Amendments do you find to be Liberal Legal Law?
That’s one of the most absurd statements I’ve ever seen. Congratulations – it must take immense effort to maintain that level of ignorance.
Constitutional law is not limited to the Constitution itself, since it is a living document.
Whether it was intended by the founders to be a living document or not, it has turned out to be just that. There is no constitution than can hold back the state. I couldn’t agree any more with what Lysander Spooner had to say about it: “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or
another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In
either case, it is unfit to exist.”
If the Founders had wanted a “static” document they would not have provided a mechanism for amending it.
Sorry, I wasn’t alive to talk to any of the founders about this, however, from various writings that I have read (which is all we have to go by in regard to intent), I would say that the “mechanism” they provided for amending it has been abused, but you and I will never know exactly what each and every one of them thought on this, will we?
The Constitution was written by and ratified by a group of men who thought that this document laid down the framework for how our society should work. I highly doubt that they had the consent of every person who was living here at the time, and they certainly didn’t have the consent of posterity. I think it’s a very flawed document, so I don’t really care much about what went into it.
No, we have the ACTUAL document that was written and approved by the several states. It has the mechanism and if they wanted a static document they would not have included language allowing for amendments.
“I think it’s a very flawed document, so I don’t really care much about what went into it.”
Find another document anywhere in the world that extends the same liberties and rights guaranteed by the federal government to ALL citizens.
We have the ACTUAL document. We don’t have the ability to get into the heads of the founders, individually or collectively, to know what they really thought. But, we do have other writings that do provide a little bit of insight into what they may have been thinking about the amendment process and how it was to be used. Thought I made that clear.
My liberties and rights do not come from a piece of paper.
“My liberties and rights do not come from a piece of paper.”
Hmmm why don’t you take the liberties and rights that “do not come from a piece of paper” and travel to say Iran and try and speak out about the Muslim religion or Israel and see if Freedom of Speech is more than a “piece of paper. Or why not travel to Saudi Arabia and hand out Bibles on a street corner and see if Freedom of Religion is more than a “piece or paper”.
It is the most beautiful document every written.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
If you find our founding document so distasteful why do you stay here?
Because this is where my life is. There are many things that I find distasteful, but there are workarounds. Now, my turn to ask questions. Why should I leave because I think our Constitution is a farce? How about native Americans whose ancestors were trashed by our government and still don’t acknowledge or accept our Constitution? Do you want them to leave to? Who made you the gate keeper and decider of who gets to stay and who should leave? We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming of Constitution worship.
Because this is where my life is. There are many things that I find distasteful, but there are workarounds. Now, my turn to ask questions.
“Why should I leave because I think our Constitution is a farce?”
Never said you should leave. I asked you why do you stay. Huge difference.
~~~~~
“How about native Americans whose ancestors were trashed by our government
and still don’t acknowledge or accept our Constitution? Do you want them to leave to?”
Again…I never said anyone should leave. I asked you why do you stay.
~~~~~
“Who made you the gate keeper and decider of who gets to stay and who should leave?”
One last time…I never asked you to leave. I never told you or anyone else to leave. I asked you why do you stay.
~~~~~
“We now return you to our regularly
scheduled programming of Constitution worship.”
“Worship”? No. Believe that it is among the best documents ever written? Yes.
~~~~~
Now, do you often read into and misrepresent what other people say?
I was just stating that it was not in the original Constitution.
The fact that more and more of the population is becoming agnostic/atheist makes me have hope for the future. I wish people would read more about the science going on in the world than they do… If you are reading this, you have the internet. Use it for something other than spoon-fed Glenn Beck.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/ is a good start.
http://www.youtube.com/user/crashcourse is easy to digest.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html will remind you that Obama didn’t kill NASA altogether.
Heath and Madore, you two prigs must be so proud off your self-righteous selves.
Buzz off you hornets.
Seems that those who oppose what is not right are not allowed to have their opinions? Guess there are too many commenters who are not working–have a lot of time on their hands.
Heath and Madore are self-serving, but their motive is correct
It is Saturday, but I might still go to work–
4lifeandfreedom huh? Does that mean for everyone save for the gays, who just want the freedom to marry and live their lives in peace, together.
…………..
….
I love your ironic alt on the BDN. Every time you post you prove you are not actually for life and freedom. Love it! Keep up the good work.
And I work. It is after 6 pm on a Saturday. Does that meet your specs?
“I might still go to work” Good one! Too Funny!
Bishop Malone has blessed this opposition to gay marriage and will surely be keeping track of this holy crusade even after moving to Buffalo.
“Holy crusade”. You mean like the ones a few centuries back where those wonderfully religious and righteous crusaders killed all those innocent women and children trying to “reclaim” territory the was never theirs to begin with?
http://bangor-launch.newspackstaging.com/2012/04/26/news/portland/advocates-call-for-online-registry-of-priests-accused-of-sexual-abuse-in-maine/ That is nice of him to keep track of the consenting adults…
Get the state out of marriage, period.
The “state” has always been involved in marriage. The words “..and power vested in me by the State of —- …” are a part of all marriage ceremonies because marriage is a state-sanctioned contract between two people. That power to make a contract should be extended to gay and lesbian couples.
I don’t know if the “state” has always been involved in marriage or not, and I doubt that you do either, or could prove that they “always have been”. Either way, I don’t care. Just because they have, if they have, doesn’t mean they should be. There is a big difference between a contract between two individuals and a covenant sanctified by God. If a same sex couple wants certain protections that are afforded to a married couple, let them get it drafted by a lawyer and have it recorded. Doesn’t affect me one way or the other. The state has no business in any relationship between consenting adults.
“If a same sex couple wants certain protections that are afforded to a
married couple, let them get it drafted by a lawyer and have it
recorded.”
To bad it wasn’t that easy and even if it were it is unenforceable.
Because of the difference in tax status of married couples vs. unmarried cohabitants, the state has a reason to be involved. Because of the inheritance laws, the legitimacy of same-sex marriage is highly significant. Because the state actually exists and has jurisdiction over its citizens, whereas god is imaginary and unable to enforce anything, the only legitimate marriage contracts are those sanctioned by the state.
I don’t agree with the tax code, and if the tax code were thrown out in favor or something along the line of a flat tax, then it wouldn’t be involved. Even under the current tax code, it would have no effect on people who are married that don’t file jointly. Any inheritance issue can be handled with a will. If you believe the state has jurisdiction over you, then it certainly does in more ways than you’ll ever know. I’m not a bootlicker, so I can’t even begin to understand your servile attitude. In regard to God being imaginary, that is your choice to make. Not a good choice, but your choice, as it should be.
Any legal document can be challenged and if there is no legal relationship between a couple it becomes a nightmare for the survivor.
So what if a heterosexual couples wishes to get married but not in a church. What is it called then?
Two years ago, my next door neighbor died unexpectedly. He was divorced and had two grown daughters from this marriage. For about fifteen years, he had a relationship with a woman who lived a couple of miles away. She would have supper at his house every night and go home promptly at 8:30, never spending the night. It was clockwork. He died on the operating room table, but just before he did, he scribbled out a will on a piece of paper that basically said he left everything to his girlfriend. This document was not written in legalese, was not notarized, but it stood up to a challenge in court by his two daughters. In front of another judge, they would have won. What I’m saying is that no matter how loosely written, or watertight a document may be, we’re at the mercy of our sometimes corrupt, and very fickle legal system. I won’t even go into detail about what my poor Grandmother had to go through (with a clear cut will) when my Grandfather died. So if you want to place your trust in this legal system, be my guest.
_________________________
“So what if a heterosexual couples wishes to get married but not in a church. What is it called then?”
Who cares? I don’t. If it’s you and you know what you call it, then what the heck business is it of mine?
If you believe it is that easy I hope you never discover how difficult it really is.
You’re missing my point. Sorry. I tried.
Oh I got it…I don’t agree with it.
Never would have guessed that. Peace.
Whether or not you agree with the tax code is immaterial. You are subject to the law, just like everyone else. If you don’t like the law, start a campaign to change it. I don’t know where you get off telling me I have a “servile attitude” – obeying the law is pretty much de rigeur in most countries. If you don’t believe that the state has jurisdiction over you, that makes you an anarchist. That’s fine, but it doesn’t change the fact that the state has jurisdiction over you. Inheritance issues can be handled by a will – except in the cases where there is no will. You might be surprised to learn that most people don’t bother with a will because they don’t expect to die just yet. In the case of a married couple, the surviving spouse inherits in the absence of a will. Same-sex couples are currently denied that right.
As to your not being a bootlicker, I find myself wondering about your relationship with your religion and its leaders.
seems like you are not against gay marriage, but any marriage not performed in a church that you agree with.
My husband and my children would be sorry to hear that, since we were married by a Justice of the Peace surrounded by our family and loved ones.
Definitely didn’t say that and not sure what train of thought brought you to that conclusion.
LOL, they want to have rights only available for one set of people and they’re saying that gays are the ones asking for “special rights”? Too ironic.
And some people are good at creating their own temporary jobs. How much will these two get paid for scaring their supporters into forking over (I assume) hard-earned money? The church should have no say in state laws. That is what we elect our representatives for. Oh, and that separation of church and state thing.
Oh look, Heath and Madore have changed the name of their one-note band.
CATACS (Citizens against those against common sense) gives them a thumbs down.
Of course, we are only one, but we’re growing. Projections show we could easily double in growth at anytime.
The news is encouraging… as braces of homosexuals activists amass against the institution of marriage and the integrity of the family in an attempt to pervert common sense and decency by forcing their unholy will upon America’s soul. Emotional appeals to illogical arguments and straw men are the ruse and modus operandi of these unrelenting sybarites: and a constant dripping of falsehoods the bane of their horrific affliction. Come Autumn Mainers will again rise in unison to protect and defend their families against this insidious assault from without, and the perpetrators of injustice will be resigned to wallow in quintessential manifestations of godless denial.
Wow, and here I thought I was fighting just so I could marry my partner of 13 wonderful years.
Ugh..same hate, different day. The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
You wouldn’t recognize a logical argument if you sat on it. Nice work gathering up all those big words – do you actually know what any of them mean?
Last time I checked, Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality. Or birth control, for that matter. Said a lot about feeding the poor, healing the sick, and loving your neighbor.
After looking at the pictures on the news of the gay parade in Israel, I puked. Please vote “no” in November.
Maine is not Isreal. You won’t ever see a pride parade of over 100,000 people, in Maine. Interesting how you enjoy looking at pictures of gay people. All Americans deserve the right to marry, whether you approve of a parade or not.
If you approve of that mess they call a parade, you belong in a world all your own. Good luck in your new digs.
Considering over 100,000 people attended, I wouldn’t be the only person to support their freedom to express themselves. I have seen far worse at spring break parties and events, or Mardi Gras in New Orleans, but I wouldn’t use such a poor excuse to promote discrimination against you or your family.
San Quentin is full of folks who expressed themselves, and the accomplices that helped them with their expression.
And homosexuality is not against the law James. Show me one person currently in San Quentin or any other prison in the U.S. that has been tried, convicted and sentenced for being gay. Please, try….I beg of you to try.
Actually I believe in the right to assemble and the right to protest. Do you believe differently?
I do believe in those rights , with common sense applied. Those leathered and ball and chain creeps in that parade belong in jail, and they would be if we had a supreme court with guts enough to uphold the constitution and put some decency laws back on the books. Until then, were stuck with every gay pride parade that comes down the street.
Oh my mistake James…it’s the First Amendment you have a problem with….”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
So your problem is with the Founding Fathers insuring that the people have the right to speak freely and to assemble.
Nope. The founding father did not give sexual perverts the right to do anything. The liberal courts pulled that translation out of the clueless heads. Face it, most of the world finds homosexuality repugnant and most have laws against it. You are having a free ride so far in this country, but your road will vaporize sooner than you think.
“Nope. The founding father did not give sexual perverts the right to do anything. The liberal courts pulled that translation out of the clueless heads.”
The Founding Fathers established the First Amendment precisely for the reason you find repugnant. That speech, no matter how offensive cannot be limited by the government. Now not all speech is protected…you cannot yell fire in a crowed theater, you cannot libel or slander someone, you cannot threaten someone with bodily harm, etc…but you cannot limit speech because you don’t like it.
~~~~~
“Face it, most of the world finds homosexuality repugnant and most have laws against it.”
James, James, James…I really do not care what the rest of the world says or does. We are talking about the United States of America and Maine specifically not the world. If the rest of the world decided to kill their first born would you be clamoring to do it here?
~~~~~
“You are having a free ride so far in this country, but your road will vaporize sooner than you think.”
Since I am a married heterosexual male, hold down two jobs, pay my taxes, participate in my community, etc…I am far from “having a free ride so far” but thank you for your concern.
You almost made my day, your a married heterosexual male. Now all you need is to have some of your beliefs come back and kick you in the butt a couple of times, then you will be a lot more “seasoned,” and you should make out just fine. Life’s lessons are sometimes the best teacher.
James tell you what…I will stand for a persons Civil Rights everyday of the week and twice on Sunday if necessary. And I have seen more and done more in my 51 years than most people do in their entire life time. SSM does not threaten me….SSM does not threaten my marriage…SSM does not impact my life one iota.
True, but I live in a world of “we” not “me.”
Maybe that is because you have never been in the minority for anything.
I am in the minority now. I am saying no to same sex marriage. I don’t need to clasp hands. I can do it on my own.
Don’t like it….don’t look.
I guess you could say the same thing about a live autopsy in pickering square.
Autopsies are very interesting James. Have you ever seen one?
I’m straight but I’ve spent so much time in gay bars that I’ve been mistaken for a Republican Senator.
I agree with AG Schneider, state treasurer Poliquin and Gov. Paul Lepage. Marriage is for churches, synagogues mosques etc. The state should get out of the marriage business and instead issue civil unions to any consenting adults who want one. “gay, lesbian or straight” like Lepage said in 2010.