Marriage money
Supporters of same-sex marriage have raised lots of money. What else is new? Generally speaking, liberals and liberal-based organizations and causes tend to outraise and outspend their opponents. The money is mostly in southern Maine. Again, no big surprise there. It’s been my opinion for years that southern Maine, in general, has reverted back to its original roots and become part of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
People of Maine, let me kindly remind us all of something. Money isn’t everything and there are certain things money won’t buy. Take the 2009 referendum, for example. How much did it cost the 53 percent of us to drive to his or her voting place and repeal the same-sex marriage law? I think the answer is a resounding “Not very much!”
It’s four years later, and I know gas prices are higher, but if you stop and realize what the long-term cost will be if same-sex marriage becomes law in our state, I know you will agree with me that driving or being transported to the polls this November and casting a “no” vote against same-sex marriage is a small price to pay to keep “Maine, The Way Life Should Be.” Remember, 50.1 percent or more of registered voters in the state of Maine to vote against gay marriage is all we need to keep the legal definition of marriage in Maine as between one man and one woman.
John Henderson
Bridgewater
Take time to compare
Why do people just assume or believe in gossip and not get the correct information? We have a great opportunity in our area to allow DCP to put in a propane tank of great opportunity for so many of us and the entire region.
Are we so blind or busy we do not take time and compare pros and cons anymore? We need this opportunity here. Searsport is a working port! This propane tank is far safer than the tanks there now.
Just because of its size you worry? This product will be detained and have multiple safeguard methods, including being kept at a temperature that nothing can burn. We are worried about the burn-off sound at night? Really? Go to Auburn and check it out there. It is not going to be as loud as everyone thinks.
So what more trucks! Every year there are a lot more trucks. People are working. This is a positive thing. We need work. This tank is going to attract people. Everyone is going to want to see what caused so much controversy, not to mention see it.
This product, as we speak, is in your backyard or in your house with no safeguards except a shut-off switch, which most people do not even know how to turn off. How about the natural gas pipeline? Now, my friends, that is far more dangerous than this propane tank. No one really questioned that.
Why? Because we need work here. We need opportunity. This is not a retirement state. Let’s keep it alive!
Carie Murray
Winterport
Bee extermination
As someone who raised bees during all of my young adult life, I was greatly saddened and at times angered to read of the actions taken by the city of Bangor with respect to the bee swarm in Fairmount Park.
There is absolutely no reason why a beekeeper could not have been contacted to try to hive the swarm.
Swarming bees sate themselves with honey before leaving the hive with their queen, and are generally docile and easily approached by a knowledgeable beekeeper with the proper equipment. I would frequently help my father when he was called to hive a swarm and we welcomed the opportunity to try and get another beehive.
Bees are responsible for the success — or failure — of many of Maine’s crops, including blueberries. Such an extreme measure of exterminating bees in the face of other much more beneficial solutions should have been avoided at all costs. The use of pesticides in this situation was totally uncalled for.
I would hope that the city of Bangor rethink its actions and in the future contact a beekeeper. It would be a win-win-win solution. The park is free from the bee swarm, the community benefits from the continued necessary presence of these hardworking insects, and a beekeeper gets another hive from which to perhaps harvest honey.
Susan Pope
Bangor
The benefits of faith
Faith and belief make a difference in how people live in troubled times. While many believe, as some past world leaders, that “religion is the opiate of the masses,” true religion does more than narcotize the spirits and frustrations of the people. Faith and belief provide more than placating, soothing, comforting and inspiring participants.
Faith and belief provide that much needed boost to confront the challenges of a slow economy, national crises, an election year and personal obstacles to happiness. There is honest comfort in spirituality because the majority of beliefs advocate for a greater meaning than the immediate.
Spirituality is not a negation of the real world: It says there is something more. While denying the world and its appetites has its legitimate place in beliefs, we are striving for a deeper connection than the material and the obvious. Life must consist of more than accumulation of goods and services. The principles of love, justice and mercy are not antiquated notions merely for motivational speakers at fancy gatherings. Spirituality has its limitations, but the rewards vastly outweigh those.
Faith and belief do make a difference in how people live in troubled times. Believing in something higher, more lasting and meaningful alleviates stress, boosts the immune system and improves overall health to the body. We have a relationship that validates our existence and reminds us that life is a precious gift, to be cherished and enjoyed. Our sense of isolation and estrangement become moot points: Faith and belief propose connection to Divinity. Find comfort, joy and yes — peace, in your daily living: Pax, Salaam, Shalom.
James Weathersby
Spruce Head
Unconstitutional classes
Why does the American Civil Liberties Union have any interest in how a school runs a class in which boys choose to join? It seems to me that by shutting down single-gender classrooms, it is thwarting the civil liberty of those who want single-gender classes. The ACLU says that single gender classes are unconstitutional.
Whose constitution do they go against?
Ed Huff
Old Town
John Henderson,I would like to kindly remind you that people do change. Since that 2009 vote many people have opened their hearts and minds to educate themeselves. Maine citizens from all parts of the state have listened to the stories of their family members, friends, neighbors and co-workers and have come to the conclusion that a marriage between two loving same sex adults has no negative impact on their own lives. We are all fortunate that the right to vote costs nothing but gas money and we all should be thankful for that privilege. We also should remember that these couples only want the civil right granted to other couples, that of civil marriage and to them that civil right would be priceless.
Maybe Henderson meant only Maine, but nationally the conservatives seem to have the most money to spend in most elections. Recently in Wisconsin’s recall election, the Republican outspent the Democrat by 9-to-1. No wonder he won. The voters only got to hear one side.
Here in Maine those who favor equal treatment for everyone regardless of their sexual orientation tend to raise a lot in Maine, but just before the election those who oppose fairness and equal treatment pour in a lot of last minute out-of-state money. We don’t generally know how much the anti-equality folks spent because their out-of-state money pours in after the last reporting period is over.
This year super rich right-wingers are funding several Super-PACS. Progressives and liberals dislike that kind of influence in politics, and so are raising a lot less Super-PAC money. We’ll see how that influences the elections around the country.
I would like to invite readers who are serious about learning how state endorsement of same-sex marriage will likely impact society to read and ponder on the following discussion:
http://www.catholic.com/documents/gay-marriage
Are you for real? The only piece of literature you can find to make your argument on how same sex marriage “will likely impact society” is from the Catholic church, the leaders in funding the 2009 campaign and the author that is referenced many times as a source is none other than Maggie Gallagher! If you want to be taken serious you must do better than that!
Have you read and pondered on that discussion? If you have spent 28 minutes doing this, the time difference between my comment and your response, then you have not nearly spent enough time pondering. Keep in mind the message is what is important to the issue. The fact one of the sources of information is someone named Maggie Gallagher or a Catholic should not make any difference in the facts recited therein.
I have pondered for 51 minutes since you posted and remain unconvinced that same sex marriage threatens my marriage, or that of any other heterosexual in the slightest degree. I am also aware of Maggie Gallagher, who has previously backed abstinence only sex education and opined that someone chooses to be gay. I have never found her to be credible when it comes to objectively analyzing data.
Please ponder this: Massachusetts, which allows same sex marriage, has the lowest divorce rate in the nation among heterosexuals; Oklahoma, which outlaws same sex marriage in its constitution, has the highest divorce rate.
Ponder this, Massachusetts has one of the lowest marriage rates in the country. If there are few divorces maybe its because of that fact, wouldn’t you say? Heterosexual couples in Mass are more likely to cohabit than those in most other states.
I haven’t checked the stats in Oklahoma, but I’d be surprise to find out the high divorce rate there has something to do with their constitution.
Can you provide us with any documentation that supports your claim about unwed mixed-sex couples? Hint: Your last source was worthless. I mean REAL documentation, not something you found at one of your anti-gay hate cult websites.
Just because you disagree with the contents of the discussion I offered does not mean it is worthless. I’m sure others will read it and find it very relevant like I did. Incidentally, Ms. Gallagher and most certainly the Catholic Church are not an anti-gay hate group. And I myself am not part of – nor wish to be any part of – any anti-gay hate group, even though I am falsely accused of being anti-gay and hateful from time to time.
Call it what you want, but you’re still willing to deny others legal rights and protections because you disagree with them.
Be it as it may, let’s call this quits. It’s getting late. Sleep well.
Anti-gays typically slink away when caught.
Another anti-gay poster denies he’s anti-gay. Sigh…
I have not called you any names, so why are you now calling me a name or accusing me of being anti-gay? I am not anti-anyone.
I remember when I had to discipline my child once. My child was very upset with me for doing this and shouted, “you hate me, you hate me”. Of course I knew I loved my child even though I felt compelled to discipline her for her own sake against her will. Believe me, if I thought going against gay marriage could cause harm to gays, I would not do so. I have no personal enmity towards you or anybody else. With that, I wish you a good night. If you are bothered by what I have said, I would advice you to put all your cares and worries in God’s hands. That’s what I try to do when my own mind feels unsettled.
“Anti-gay” isn’t a “name,” it’s simply a statement of fact.
That’s a cop-out though. People are telling you that this is harmful to them, that your mere attitude is harmful to them, but you ignore it and state you are in bliss. You advise those who are hurt by your actions and actions similar to yours to just put their worries in God’s hands? Come on.
“If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen”. This posting area is a forum for free discussion until the Bangor Daily News does away with it. All it asks is that would-be posters register and abide by the rules for posting. If you or others have any problem with my comments, you are free to flag them for removal at the arbitrator’s discretion. Once again, good night.
What’s your point? I didn’t tell you to stop posting. I’ve pointed out where you’ve been in correct about the facts and challenged the logic (or lack of) of your position. That’s all.
Oh, no, we want you to post all the anti-gay lies you want, it gives everyone else a chance to see that anti-gays lie AND for everyone else to point out the lies.
“Believe me, if I thought going against gay marriage could cause harm to gays, I would not do so. ”
Bigot.
Nothing more ridiculous, absurd and pathetic for an anti-gay to deny being anti-gay.
The Catholic Church is an anti-gay hate group. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
If you look closely at the statistics, no. Google the percentage of the population that is married by state and you will find a swing between a high of 60% and a low of 50.1%. Thus, one could adjust the low Massachusetts divorce rate to reflect the slightly lower percentage of its population that is married by artificially raising its divorce rate from 2.2 to 2.6. That assures us an accurate comparison.
In contrast, the five states with the highest divorce rates (excluding Nevada, as so many non-residents get divorced there) are Wyoming, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Idaho, and Arkansas (all very red states that oppose gay marriage). They all have divorce rates of 4.9 or higher. Thus, even adjusting for the slightly higher likelihood of marriage in those states, they have divorce rates that are double those of Massachusetts.
Do not look at marriage rates, as a state with a low divorce rate will always have fewer marriages per capita every year: couples that are married 50 years only show up in the marriage rate once. Additionally, marriage rates make no distinction between out-of-state and in-state marriages.
Thus, a close analysis of the statistical evidence demonstrates that the states that most loudly proclaim the “sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman” tend to walk away from those marriages most frequently. Sanctity has been replaced by sanctimony.
Divorce rates relate to only one thing: marriages that end in divorce. if you didn’t get married, you can’t get divorced. It doesn’t matter if every couple gets married or if only 20% of couples get married. The divorce rate refers only to marriages that end in divorce. Rate of cohabitation has no effect on divorce rate.
I thought that was the case until I googled the phrase “divorce rate by state.” Surprisingly, divorce rates are generally tabulated per 1000 residents, not per marriage. Thus, I did the analysis you have read.
We agree on the primary principle here: civil marriage should be extended to all.
I grant you in all honesty you are probably right about that states mostly opposed to gay marriage being the states with the highest divorce rates. I’d have to study this issue more closely. This doesn’t mean however that states ought to endorse gay relationships.
Thank you for the discussion. It’s past my bed time now so I’ll have to pull back to better ensure a good night’s rest.
What the statistics show is that letting same-sex couples get married does not destroy straight marriages. My now 33-year marriage will not be affected if my neighbors are granted the same freedom to marry that my wife and I have.
Letting people get married does not destroy marriage. Marriage is not being threatened by people who want to get married.
Whawell, the operative word here is “rate.” It doesn’t matter if only 2 couples in the state get married, or if 10,000 couples get married. If every other marriage ends in divorce, the divorce rate is 50%. Massachusetts has for years had the lowest divorce RATE in the country, meaning that fewer marriages end in divorce. It doesn’t matter if greater numbers of people don’t marry. They are not included in the divorce rate.
The reality is that not a single consequence predicted by the Catholic Church has come to pass because of legal same-sex marriage. Not one. It’s been nearly 10 years. Whatever the challenges of married life, they can’t be blamed on gays and lesbians.
Any church in the state can refuse to perform a ceremony for anybody right now. This law doesn’t change that. It only means that a different group of people can get a marriage license at town hall. The current law does not require that a couple get married in a church or religious ceremony.
The churches can make their own rules about their churches. They can’t make the rules for the rest of us. Nor should they.
The issue in the current campaign for gay marriage is not whether churches should endorse gay marriage. So, I don’t know why you brought this up. Rather it is about whether the state should endorse gay relationships. That said, we all know the church may not force any civil rulings on anyone. And it doesn’t. Simply urging people to vote one way or another on issues of concern is not “making rules for the rest of us”, as you contend.
“The issue in the current campaign for gay marriage is not whether
churches should endorse gay marriage. So, I don’t know why you brought
this up.”
That would be because anti-gays typically SCREAM that they have a “special right” to force their anti-gay “religious” views on other Americans in violation of the US Constitution.
No connection to reality there…
It is not about the state endorsing any relationship. The state allows heterosexuals in crazy, dysfunctional, non-monogamous, or completely business-based relationships to fill out a civil marriage license. The people opposing this bill primarily come from churches and selectively use Scripture to bolster their arguments. The churches are not simply urging people to vote one way or the other. They are arguing for one way, their way. They have no basis in civil law to oppose it.
By their reasoning, 2 gay men could marry 2 lesbians, with no intention of fidelity to the person to whom they were being married, nor intention to produce offspring, though they certainly could. They could be legally wed to someone of the opposite sex, yet living and having sex with the person they love. They wouldn’t have to get married in a church, but as long as it was opposite sex marriage, that would preserve the sanctity of marriage in a traditional way.
And the church would not have any legal standing to oppose that marriage. But if they married the person they loved, that event would rend “traditional marriage” asunder.
It makes no sense. A pedophile ex-priest and a pedophile ex-nun can legally marry, but a lesbian doctor can’t marry a lesbian accountant. It makes no sense.
You either don’t understand what the churches’ arguments are or you are totally bent on misrepresenting what the Catholic Church is saying to suit your argument. Almost everything you stated his false or a misrepresentation. You must be getting very tired and impatient to be reacting as you are.
And the Catholic Church isn’t misrepresenting gay people, their humanity and their desire to get married? Be honest here.
There are churches on both sides of this issue — my church supports the Religious Coalition Against Discrimination, which supports the freedom to marry.
Churches cannot endorse candidates or political parties, but they have a right to speak out on what they regard to be moral or ethical issues. I disagree with the Catholic Church on this issue, but I support their right to express their beliefs.
But the other side of that coin is that everyone else gets to express their beliefs too. So when Whawell says, “you are totally bent on misrepresenting what the Catholic Church is saying to suit your argument”, he’s refusing to accept that concept. Gay people or anyone for that matter have a right to express what they believe the Catholic Church is doing.
Yes.
I stand by what I said. Besides, there are plenty of posters misrepresenting my positions all the time. It’s rather frustrating because I know it is done purposefully or recklessly. They like to put words into my mouth. For them “Winning the argument” to raise one’s own ego is more important than the argument itself, even if it means resorting to misrepresentations and name calling.
You can stand by it all you want, but it doesn’t make it true. Science disagrees with you greatly. Any good and compassionate person who has actually met and spent time with gay parents would disagree with you greatly.
You can claim these lies are simply you expressing your opinion, but don’t go getting upset when people start calling you out for hypocrisy and bigotry, after all, they’re just expressing their opinion too.
I do find it pathetic that you take umbrage with name calling, but then are completely comfortable denigrating parents that you don’t even know and will never meet. You can say they’re unfit parents and will never be as good as your family, but you can’t handle anyone commenting on your character? What a joke.
Yes, you’ve been consistently dishonest, as I observed above.
What I am saying is that the Church’s opposition to gay marriage is that the same gender gets to get married. I am not saying the other marriages are the ideal of the Catholic Church. I grew up in the Catholic Church so I know full well what the Church would ideally like to see in every marriage.
But the Church doesn’t take up extra collections when a gay man marries a lesbian, just so they can legally marry. They don’t take up extra collections when people with no intentions of having children wed. They don’t take up extra collections or object politically when a pedophile ex-priest and a pedophile ex-nun marry. They might not approve, but they don’t attempt to wield power in the political arena to keep the laws to their liking, or change laws to their liking.
Well, actually, in the case of abortion, they do.
The Catholic Church is welcome to keep their rules and standards. They do not have the right to impose them on the rest of us.
And impatient? Hell yes I am impatient. In America, it’s supposed to be liberty and justice for all. What part of that are you having such a hard time with? You have the same rights and responsibilities as anybody else. Why shouldn’t everybody? Why should one class of people be denied a civil rite ( yes, rite) to which any other citizen has a right, with certain reasonable restrictions? ( Marriage within families, marriage underage, polygamy, all of which the state has an interest in preventing.)
The reality about the Church is that, if you’re having sex in a way of which the Church disapproves, you’re a problem. The Church is welcome to enforce that standard on its members, pun intended. It would do well to practice that uniformly. For those of us who are not Catholics, they don’t get to make the rules for us.
Massachusetts has the very lowest divorce rate in the country. If letting people get married was a threat to marriage (you seem to think it is) then Massachusetts, with the longest experience with the freedom to marry would have a high divorce rate. But it is the lowest in the nation.
So how does letting people get married destroy marriage?
You mean their Constitution which outlaws Sharia Law, which was never an issue in OK.
I didn’t know that different states had different constitutional restrictions on divorce?
I know MANY Catholics here who know that letting me, a non-Catholic, marry the man I love has no bearing on their religion or their practices.
Agreed.
They’re not real Catholics then. Real Catholics know that it is to commit the mortal sin of scandal by approving the commission of mortal sin by other people.
Is their not taking action against me “approving” it? And if that’s the case, is your mission as a Catholic to fight to ensure that everyone on this planet follows your doctrine?
I was raised Catholic, attended Catholic school for 10 years, and NEVER heard of:
“the mortal sin of scandal”
Shame on you, I bet you aren’t Catholic, just anti-gay.
Anti-gays always lie.
You say we should ignore the established FACT that Gallagher committed criminal acts in Maine meant to POISON our political process and THROW the 2009 anti-gay Hate Vote? Forget that!
I’m not aware she committed any criminal acts in Maine. Did she commit theft, arson, rape, fraud, child abuse, or any of the like? Was she convicted in a court of law for any of these offenses? Those charges of intending “to poison the political process” and “throwing the 2009 anti-gay hate vote” (whatever that means) sound like opinions intended to discredit her. I’ll say this much, I voted against the gay marriage act in 2009. Does that make me a bad person or a person who can’t be depended upon to present facts?
It’s not an excuse that you’re unaware of the facts.
http://bangor-launch.newspackstaging.com/2012/02/27/news/portland/supreme-court-rejects-national-organization-for-marriage-lawsuit-in-maine/
They broke our campaign laws. Plain and simple.
Although they may not have been in compliance with Maine law, they felt the law was unjust. That doesn’t make them criminals. They will become criminal only when they are convicted. Right now there are no convictions, just a failure to comply. If the court orders compliance and they refuse to abide, then they will be held in contempt of the court. So far that has not happened. People disagree at times. That is why we have a court system to settle disagreements. Plain and simple.
They broke our disclosure laws. It’s not up to debate. The law says you disclose your donors and they didn’t. That’s it.
Until that matter is settled in court, we don’t know for certain if they will have to disclose their donors. If the court decides against them, then they will have no choice but to comply. So far I don’t see anything wrong in what they have done.
Our campaign laws state you disclose your donors. Everyone else seems capable of following the law and yet, they haven’t. You don’t see anything wrong with that?
That’s the whole problem, anti-gays feel they are above the law.
I suspect that whawell is claiming that anti-gays have yet another “special right,” in this case to commit criminal acts in violation of campaign finance and disclosure laws. I’m sure Gallagher will never return to Maine to face her criminal acts. “No convictions” is just another anti-gay dodge.
Fail.
“If the court orders compliance and they refuse to abide, then they will
be held in contempt of the court. So far that has not happened.”
Yes, it has.
Fail again.
Check your information again. This case could go all the way to the Supreme Court unless they decide to comply with Maine law.
But again, I must ask, what criminal law has Ms. Gallagher violated? I’m still waiting for an answer. Failure to comply with a state provision is not necessarily a criminal act. Also, Ms. Gallagher has no fear of appearing in Maine because, for one, there is no warrant for her arrest.
Ask the Maine Ethics Commission. They will explain it all to you. Not that I think you would allow your feeling of “special rights to violate the law” you think anti-gays have to be challenged that way.
Whawell, failure to comply with laws is the very definition of criminal. A bank robber may feel that laws against robbing banks are unjust. She robs the bank, she breaks the law.
By your definition, any woman who gets an abortion is not a criminal. What she has done is legal. Your church might have a different opinion. Luckily, your church doesn’t make the laws.
Again, the law allows couples to marry outside of a church, without benefit of clergy. This just opens the option to same-sex couples.
You apparently missed my point. There are no criminal penalites for failure to comply with the state laws NOM is accused of breaking. An offense is considered criminal if it is punishable by imprisonment or death. NOM’s unwillingness to comply with certain Maine election laws it considers unconstitutional is not an offense classifiable as a crime. In fact it has not even reached the level of being an offense. As I stated earlier, the final court of appeal will decide whether NOM must comply or not. Keep in mind NOM is not even an organization that resides in the state of Maine.
Good night.
“You apparently missed my point.”
No, we all get your point, you think that anti-gays have a “special right” to commit criminal acts in violation of Maine campaign finance and disclosure laws, so long as anti-gays get to HURT their intended victims and SUBVERT our political process by throwing an election.
Get real, whawell, the Maine Ethics Commission caught Gallagher red-handed! And NOM is STILL in violation of Maine campaign finance and disclosure laws.
No arrest, no conviction to date. Obviously there is a disagreement between the state of Maine and NOM as to whether the law is just or not. As I stated earlier, the state of Maine will have to wait until the matter is settled in the final court, which could be the US Supreme Court, before it can force NOM to comply. If and when NOM is forced to comply, I’m sure it will.
And you aren’t anti-gay. No connection to reality!
“No arrest, no conviction to date.”
Because the criminal has avoided Maine since then…
“I’m not aware she committed any criminal acts in Maine.”
And you deny that you denied she committed a crime an hour later.
My, how often your story changes!
I restate my position that has been consistent so far. Not being in compliance with certain election laws is not necessarily a criminal offense. NOM has not committed any criminal offense. If you still maintain it has, please state the criminal statue it has violated. Remember, all criminal statues carry penalties of either imprisonment, death, or both. I doubt you’ll find such a statue.
That said, what NOM has done so far is to have challenged certain parts of Maine election laws in court. It has every right to do so while the state attempts to bring it in conformity.
“my position that has been consistent so far.”
Consistently anti-gay. Consistently deceptive. Consistently giving aid and comfort to criminals. This consistency you’ve exhibited is nothing about which to boast.
You ask, “Does that make me a bad person?”
It is possible to be prejudiced, and still be a good person in other ways. I don’t think you are necessarily a bad person (I don’t think I know you), but you do seem to be prejudiced.
And why not? The person who is spearheading the movement had a child out of wedlock and is divorced. Odd, given that the main argument is that children need their biological parents to be wed.
It’s hypocrisy. You can dress up the arguments all you want, but when it’s this inconsistent, when one of the leaders of the movement lives a life so far from the standard that you’re arguing gays need to be held to? It seems more like hatred and bigotry.
The fact I argue for certain values that I may have personally failed to abide by does not make me a hypocrite if I am sincere. If that were they case, then I’d have one of two choices: to give up all my values or stop encouraging people to pursue values that I feel are worthwhile.
Also, if Ms Gallagher had a child out of wedlock, does that make her an untrustworthy person? Moreover, about half of the US population has gone through a divorce in the past 10 years. Are all those people not trustworthy? There is nothing odd about people like myself believing children are better served by their biological parents in a loving relationship. Oh, by the way, I have never borne or been responsible for bearing any child out of wedlock. All three of my children were born in wedlock. That said, Ms. Gallagher whom you say is divorced and bore a child out of wedlock is probably twice the person I ever hope to be.
With all that said, aren’t you really trying to kill the messenger simply because you dislike the message? It sounds like it to me.
Overall, I would say it makes you unfair. What makes it hypocrisy though is the fact that you’re using the law in one case and not in the other. For example, I’m sure you’re against divorce as well as gay marriage. By why no push for a legislative ban of divorce?
I didn’t say Gallagher is untrustworthy because she has had a child out of wedlock. My point is that Gallagher is willing to hold (and demonize) gay people to a standard she refuses to hold herself to. She has a political agenda and she heads an organization that breaks campaign laws. Any means to an end. Further, you can’t hold gay people responsible for the divorce rate. That’s absurd.
I’m not trying to kill the messenger. The message itself is very weak and it’s made weaker by the hypocrisy of its author. A flimsy message that its own author doesn’t even abide by? Come on. There is something deeper and it’s my opinion that it’s a dark and malicious intent.
I’m not against all divorces. Sometimes a party to a marriage has no choice but to take that action for the good of all, including children. Obviously if I was against all divorces I would push to outlaw it.
Also, for your information, no one is accusing gays for the divorce rate. Furthermore, Ms. Gallagher is not a hypocrite. She is not holding gays to a standard she refuses to hold for herself. And she doesn’t demonize gay people any more than anyone else does. It sounds to me like you are trying to paint her black simply because she opposes gay marriage.
I don’t see it that way at all and I doubt anyone who clicked the link you provided earlier would see it that way either. You cited a Catholic source. It calls gay relations sinful and the logic that follows is that sin should be banned. Are you against pre-marital sex? Why no ban?
The link you provided also refers to homosexuality as a disorder. The medical community does not agree with that, not even close. Calling it a disorder sounds hateful to me and I don’t think you’d be met with pleasantries if you told a committed gay couple they were suffering from a disorder. Neither would they be happy about this, “Two men together cannot capture the fullness of human personhood, and neither can two women;”
The link you provided states how harmful divorce is. The article also tries to connect the divorce rate to gay people, contrary to what you’re claiming now. “One of the downsides to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would be the weakening of the meaning of marriage, which would cause more divorces.”
Look, I really don’t care what you want to call it. You can say you believe gays are less than and don’t deserve the same rights with a smile on your face, but you’re still saying the same thing.
Also, maybe you shouldn’t be making all these claims if you’re unsure whether you’re correct or not. You doubted that I actually read the article you provided, but then you misrepresented what it said yourself. You doubted that NOM broke campaign laws, despite clear and unambiguous language in those laws.
I said good night a while back only to see this response from you sometime later while I was bidding good night to other posters. Because it’s late I’ll just make one comment: I don’t recall saying I doubted NOM broke Maine law. (If I said that I was certainly not correct.) Obviously NOM is refusing to comply with certain provisions of Maine’s election laws because it feels that the state may not legally force it to comply. After all, it is not even based in this state. As you know the court of final appeal will have the final word. If NOM is ordered to comply it most certainly will because it will realize it has no other choice. Regardless of what you say, if the state wins its case it can only make NOM comply. It won’t be able to arrest NOM members or leaders for contesting Maine’s election law.
“I don’t recall saying I doubted NOM broke Maine law.”
Your memory is very convenient for you. Balderdash.
” because it feels that the state may not legally force it to comply.”
Also balderdash. They are protecting their contributors whose contributions are a clear violation of IRS 503c3 regulations. That makes their crime one of collusion as well.
“As you know the court of final appeal will have the final word.”
Maine taxpayers know that NOM’s continued criminal behavior is STILL COSTING THEM until that final court rules.
“It won’t be able to arrest NOM members or leaders for contesting Maine’s election law.”
More balderdash. Maggie Gallagher isn’t even “in charge” at the Hate Cult because of her risk of prosecution and daren’t return to Maine.
And “contesting”? TOTAL LIES. NOM snuck around and hid their misdeed because they knew what they were doing was criminal.
But enjoy your fantasy of “special immunity” you think the Hate Cult has.
By the way, what does NOM have to do with whether one should support gay marriage or not? Aren’t we way off the subject right now? After all, the issue for Maine voters this coming Fall is not about NOM, it’s about whether the state of Maine should endorse same-sex relationships. Don’t you remember the referendum the gay community worked to put on the ballot? Right now most Mainers just don’t give a hoot about whether NOM should or should not be made to comply with Maine election laws. Only gay supporters do because they are trying to tell voters not to pay attention to what NOM has to say about the real issue at hand. I say lets air all the views for or against gay marriage to give voters a better chance to choose their votes.
Still trying to deflect from the fact anti-gays committed criminal acts that poisoned our political process in 2009 by throwing an election?
“Right now most Mainers just don’t give a hoot about whether NOM should or should not be made to comply with Maine election laws.”
Please give readers some documentation for your wild claim “most Mainers” show flagrant disregard and contempt for our laws the way anti-gays have been PROVEN to show by their criminal acts.
“I say lets air all the views for or against gay marriage”
It’s painfully obvious the only stuff you want to “air” is anti-gay propaganda and hate speech.
I believe in democracy and the right of people to be informed. Therefore let all the differing points so view be aired so that voters can decide.
You aren’t “informing,” you are trying to deceive readers by posting lies about LGBT Americans.
“Furthermore, Ms. Gallagher is not a hypocrite.”
And you aren’t anti-gay. And Gallagher’s hate cult, NOM, has not been found by the Maine Ethics Commission to have violated Maine law.
Anti-gays are simply disconnected from reality.
But how about this qualifier, folks?
“And she doesn’t demonize gay people any more than anyone else does.”
You mean any more than the other few remaining anti-gays?
It’s very simple: A person can like or be respectful of another while not agreeing with that person in every detail. You may consider my intended vote against gay marriage this coming November as harmful to gays. I certainly feel just the opposite. Nothing here is intended to be personal. Also, Ms. Gallagher does not belong to a hate cult. Whoever told you that is spreading false rumors.
You announce you will vote to HURT your fellow Mainers, and then you have the gall to claim that hurt won’t HARM us? Anti-gays clearly live in a sociopathic Bizzaroworld of their own, trying to tell themselves they aren’t “trying to hurt” their intended victims.
No one else is fooled.
And no one else is fooled about the anti-gay Hate Cult NOM, especially the Maine ethics Commission that caught them committing criminal acts.
I have at no point announced that I will vote to hurt my fellow Mainers. I know of no person trying to hurt anyone else by their vote. Mainers have rejected SSM before, and I can hope they will do the right thing by turning it down again at the polls. Play the victim role all you want. It won’t change my mind.
You do realize you are helping the cause with your comments?
Whawell, all hypocrites are sincere. It’s the very definition of hypocrisy.
No, you have it exactly backwards: hypocrites are certainly not sincere, by definition. They are pretenders, and pretenders are not sincere. Beware of those who pretend to be something or someone they are not!
With that, I’ll have to close by wishing you a good night.
Reading Maggie’s comments on children needing a mother and father, her words make her a hypocrite, just as yours have so many times in the past. Hypocrisy is not respectful or admirable.
It shows she is not a trustworthy person. Nor are you.
This sounds like name-calling. I’m not persuaded and I hope others will not be either.
No, it’s fact. So many people have called you out on it… it is absolutely fact.
You and Maggie are the poster children for hypocrisy.
The idea that marriage is being threatened by people who want to get married is absurd. My now 33-year marriage will not be affected in any way if my neighbors gain the same freedom that my wife and I have.
I’m for the freedom to marry because I’m for marriage. Same-sex couples should have the same benefits from marriage that my wife and I have — marriage encourages family stability, fidelity, commitment, and these are good things. If they are good for straight couples, they are also good for same-sex couples. Let’s treat every adult equally and fairly, the same under the law.
A clarification is warranted here. (Civil) marriage is not a “freedom” as you said. It is a state endorsement of a relationship between a man and a woman committed to each other exclusively and permanently in a bond of love. Human beings regardless of sexual preference are free to form and break up whatever relationships they desire for each other. What proponents of same-sex marriage are arguing is for like treatment of homosexual and heterosexual relationships without distinction. What they fail to mention is that they are very different indeed, with traditional marriages being far more advantageous to heterosexual couples as studies have confirmed, not to mention the impact on children in the union. Furthermore, one relationship (hetero) is designed by nature and is open to new human life while other (same-sex) is unnatural and is not open to new life. The latter is less stable and therefore not in the best interest of children and society. Your plea to treat “every adult equally and fairly” wrongly assumes they are not treated equally by the state.
Let’s see if I get this — you don’t want to encourage stability in same-sex relationships by treating same-sex couples the same under the law as my wife and I are treated. And your’re against encouraging their relationships to be stable because, you say, their relationships are less stable. That’s your argument.
I’m for family stability. Marriage encourages commitment, fidelity, and family stability. I’m for these family values. Why are you against them?
You write, “Your plea to treat ‘every adult equally and fairly’ wrongly assumes they are not treated equally by the state.”
They are not treated the same as my wife and I. I am allowed to marry the adult person I love and am attracted to. Gays and lesbians are NOT allowed to marry the adult person they love and are attracted to. Therefore, I have the freedom to marry, and they do not. They are being unfairly discriminated against.
It’s possible that you might say, “Sure, they aren’t allowed to marry the adult person they love. But they are allowed to marry someone they DON’T love and AREN’T attracted to. So they have the SAME rights you have.”
No, it’s not the same.
All adults should be treated fairly and equally under the law.
I don’t endorse any sexual relationship, including any homosexual relationship, except for that between one woman and one man committed to each other in a mutual, exclusive love bond. The state and people benefit by endorsement of the latter, but not by the other ones. I have enumerated my reasons in this venue before on more than one occasion, and obviously you weren’t persuaded. Therefore, I’ll refer you to this website that offers a different explanation. When you read it pay particular attention to Part II as Part I gives an explanation from a religious faith perspective that might not make you want to reconsider your position on gay marriage.
http://www.catholic.com/documents/gay-marriage
You write, “I don’t endorse any sexual relationship … except …”
Why are you (and so many on the right) so obsessed about sex?
You seem to be laboring under the misconception that marriage is principally about sex. You also seem to have the misconception that mutual, loving, committed same-sex relationships are principally about sex. Neither is true.
Marriage is mostly about mutual support, love, commitment, fidelity, family stability, for richer for poorer, for better for worse, in sickness and in health.
Sex can be a part of that, and almost always is for young people. But when you get to be my age, and married as long as I have been, sex is only a very, very small part of the relationship, maybe the least important part.
Same-sex couples my age tell me that their lives are just as “boring” as mine. Yes, of course, for young people sex is part of the relationship, but usually only a small part. And frankly, I’m not interested in what anyone else does in their bedroom.
Right-wingers have dirty minds. I’m convinced that this issue is not about sex, except in the smallest part, and you are just plain wrong when you try to make it about sex.
When you say “you seem” you are making misleading statements with false presumptions. For instance, you said, “You seem to be laboring under the misconception that marriage is principally about sex”. No, I believe as you do that marriage is not primarily about sex. Rather it is about a relationship enforced by sexual activity. Likewise, your other statement that follows is misleading for the same reason. That said, your conclusion about me trying to make the issue of gay marriage about sex is mostly false even though I believe sex does indeed play a role in it.
Marriage is “a relationship enforced by sexual activity”?????????????????
You’re nuts.
You don’t “seem” nuts, you are nuts.
Well, its been my and others experience that sexual relationships help them bond to their spouses. I guess according to you we’re all nuts, aren’t we? Penzance, you know better. Why are you trying to trip me? I don’t do that to you, a fellow retiree.
I think your wording was kind of weird. A relationship “enforced” by sexual activity isn’t the same as a relations where two people are bonded by sexual activity….
Look at what you said, that a marriage is “a relationship enforced by sexual activity.”
My marriage doesn’t need or have any “enforcement.” My wife and I entered into marriage voluntarily, and remain married voluntarily. To “enforce” a marriage by “sexual activity” sure sounds like a man keeping a woman against her will, and forcing her to have sexual activity with him.
That’s not marriage. That’s what I call nuts. It doesn’t just “seem” nuts, it is nuts.
Get real, we all know anti-gays are totally obsessed with “gay sex.”
I haven’t met “anti-gays” for some time. I know a lot of people like myself who are not “anti-gay”. Besides, as far as I know, none of them are obsessed with “gay sex” with the possible exception of some gays.
I have met a few and seen comments by more than a few. It’s really hard to tell sometimes, though, who simply doesn’t agree with the use of the word “marriage” and who thinks we should all get AIDS and be left to rot and die on an island behind an electric fence. Not everybody who believes the latter actually states it…
Are you being negative? If you are alluding something about me, why don’t you speak your mind.
“Why are you (and so many on the right) so obsessed about sex?”
“Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014
“Right-wingers have dirty minds.”
Science has confirmed your statement, penzance.
Thank you for your support.
Yes, you were pushing that anti-gay propaganda before. Fail.
As far as YOUR “endorsing” ANY relationship in which you are not involved, you have NO BUSINESS INTERFERING in anyone else’s relationships. Please learn to mind your OWN business.
I’m not interfering nor trying to interfere with anyone’s relationship one iota. And the last time I checked I was still free to endorse or not to endorse any type of relationship I want. I am also free to influence others in their choice. Besides, SSM will not likely even make SS couples happier and more fulfilled as the website discussion I have referenced amply shows, and will create an additional burden on taxpayers to boot. SSM is a social experiment bound to fail.
Well, our wedding will make my MOM happy, that’s for sure! And we’ll be happy initially. And then he’ll probably go on again about how I need to mow the lawn. And then I’ll go on again about how he needs to fix that lamp. And then he’ll go on again about how great the lawn looks and then I’ll go on again about how nice it is to have light in that room again. And the cycle goes on like it did before. But we’ll both know that we are MARRIED. And we’ll also feel that much better knowing that if something should happen to either one of us, we won’t need that stack of papers from the safe to show whoever chooses to acknowledge them that we have a relationship recognized under this condition or that condition. But again, we’ll be MARRIED and COMMITTED (well, not at Mt. Hope yet) and everyone will know that our relationship has that same level of commitment, trust, and sacrifice that others have. (Domestic partnership doesn’t convey the same meaning-sounds more like a couple joined together to clean houses….)
Will it put us on a constant and higher level of happiness afterwards? Probably not. I know many married couples that go up and down in their level of happiness-that’s human nature. I don’t think anyone is saying that marriage will make us happier and solve all our problems.
But I really don’t know how this is going to be a taxpayer burden. If anything, more “single” people will then be able to go on their spouses insurance-that will save the state some money!
It’s really odd that saying that gays who will have the freedom to marry the person he or she loves will be a tax burden when all along people are saying that we are already able to marry anyone of the opposite gender. What’s the difference?
Do not lie. There is nothing unnatural about homosexuality. It has been exhibited throughout human history and it is exhibit in thousands of other animal species as well. Science does NOT affirm you phony claim that homosexual parents are unstable and/or unfit parents.
State your opinion all you want, but do not spread disgusting misinformation about your neighbors. You’ve made several bogus claims both today and yesterday and you’ve been corrected every time. Stop doing it. It’s not right.
“(Civil) marriage is not a “freedom” as you said.”
Totally false. In 1967, the US Supreme Court established we ALL have a Constitutionally protected “fundamental right” to marry the person of our choice. Several state High Courts have established that ruling also applies to same gender couples.
Fail. Here’s your next LIE:
“traditional marriages being far more advantageous to heterosexual couples as studies have confirmed […]”
What studies were those? No, you cannot prove hurting loving, committed same gender American couples will “help” mixed-sex couples. Fail. Here’s your next lie:
“not to mention the impact on children in the union”
Here are the FACTS on that:
“[S]tudies on children dating back 25 years conclude that children raised by gay and lesbian non-adoptive parents fare as well as those reared by heterosexual parents (Breways, Ponjaert, Van Hall, & Golombok, 1997; Chan, Raboy & Patterson, 1998; Golombok, Perry, Burston, Murray, Mooney-Sommer, Stevens, & Golding, 2003; Wainwright, Russell & Patterson, 2004).”
A 2008 report from The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Agency, America’s most respected experts on adoption.
http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/policy/2008_09_expand_resources.php
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/339
“Children deserve to know that their relationships with both of their parents are stable and legally recognized. This applies to all children, whether their parents are of the same or opposite sex. The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual.1–9 When 2 adults participate in parenting a child, they and the child deserve the serenity that comes with legal recognition.”
Fail. Your next lie:
“(same-sex) is unnatural”
Wrong. Sexual orientation, whether gay or non-gay, has been shown by science to be inborn and unchangeable, and psychologists have shown being gay or lesbian is just as healthy and “normal” as being non-gay. Here are several respected websites (and a citation from Fox News for the doubters) that document this:
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
http://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172/
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/17/science/sci-gaybrain17
http://psych.fullerton.edu/rlippa/bbc_birthorder.htm
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12465295
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/06/26/brothers=gay.html
http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/Pregnancy/3641
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local&id=6209976
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html
Fail. Your next lie:
“The latter is less stable and therefore not in the best interest of children and society.”
Prove that wild claim. Fail.
Your final LIE:
“Your plea to treat “every adult equally and fairly” wrongly assumes they are not treated equally by the state.”
No, LGBT Americans DO NOT have the SAME right to legal marriage as mixed-sex couples do. The Iowa State Supreme Court unanimously established marriage equality in April 2009, and this is their answer to “You have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else”:
“It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation, and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute. Instead, a gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class-their sexual orientation.”
http://www.iowacourtsonline.org/Supreme_Court/Varnum_v_Brien/Supreme_Court_Ruling/
Not really relevant. This is about civil law and the referendum question specifically protects religious liberties — not that religion is an excuse to deny equal rights anyway. We can look to the various states that have already legalized gay marriage and see that the sky has not fallen. This is about fairness and doing what’s right. You may not agree with how gay people are living, but that doesn’t mean you get to deny them rights. Just the same as you don’t agree with a Jewish person’s religious beliefs, that doesn’t mean you would strip their rights.
It doesn’t sound like you have read Part II of that discussion that gives a reasoned response.
Incidentally, at the end our last discussion yesterday concerning Obama’s executive order to suspend deportation of certain immigrants here illegally, you stated you believed he had no other recourse due to lack of resources to enforce deportations. Yes, that was the Administration’s official line yesterday when it could no longer answer why it felt the order was legitimate. But guess what? It was revealed by several sources coming straight from the U.S Senate that Janet Napolitano was offered over the years more resources if she felt they were needed to carry out her mission to deport unauthorized aliens. Each time the offer was made she declined it stating that there WERE SUFFICIENT RESOURCES, contrary to yesterdays excuse for the illegal executive order.
It doesn’t give a reasoned response. It uses studies of wed heterosexuals and unwed heterosexuals and then tries to claim that the unrelated evidence reflects on homosexuals — that’s ridiculous. It argues for marriage, but then claims, with absolutely no basis, that these benefits wouldn’t exist for homosexuals. It cites speeches and opinion articles. It cites dated and irrelevant studies. It’s not reasoned.
Like I said, your personal choice isn’t the only choice. Let others determine how they want to live. It’s not harming you or anybody else, so let them be and let them have the same rights as you and I. You don’t have to use the law to try and convert people to your brand of thinking.
I don’t know why you’re still harping on an old discussion. There is never enough resources for at or even near 100% enforcement of criminal laws — that is unless you want to exist in a police state. Notice how we don’t pull over people who speed 1 mph or even 5 and 10 over the speed limit?
Look, to be honest with you, I disagree with you about the discussion. To me it’s a very helpful one. Also, in the past I have stated my own set of reasons why I felt state endorsement of same-sex relationships is not a good idea. The discussion only adds to my own previously expressed reasons.
Yes, as you have asked me, I intend to let others live the way they want to live. And I expect the same from everyone. Part of that means that people, including us, must be allowed to choose between endorsing and not endorsing gay relationships. That is why we have elections! But tell me, what’s wrong using to the law to persuade others? I mean, isn’t the law design to protect people like us who desire to express themselves publicly even though we may take opposing positions?
I think it’s wrong that this is even going up to a vote. I don’t think people should be able to vote on the rights of others. For example, 4 decades ago, legalizing interracial marriage would not have survived a popular vote. Just because something is unpopular, it doesn’t mean it automatically should be banned. You’re not expressing yourself in this matter, you’re using the law to coerce those you disagree with. That’s beyond expressing your opinion.
“I have stated my own set of reasons why I felt state endorsement of same-sex relationships is not a good idea.”
“Yes, as you have asked me, I intend to let others live the way they want to live.”
Which is it? Both of your claims CANNOT be true.
“But tell me, what’s wrong using to the law to persuade others?”
The United States Constitution requires Equal Protection Under the Law. You are trying to MISUSE the law to make your fellow Mainers who are LGBT to be NOT equal.
Anti-gays just dig themselves in deeper and deeper…
A decision of how to spend prosecutorial resources is never illegal. The executive always has discretion as to which violations of law to pursue. No lawyer worth her salt would contend otherwise. There is nothing illegal in deciding that certain individuals pose so little risk of illegal conduct that they should not be deported.
Get real and put aside your Obamaphobia.
That’s an IMPEACHABLE source. I’m surprised you didn’t link to the anti-gay Hate Cult, NOM, that is STILL in violation of Maine election law from 2009!
….
Maybe Mr. Henderson would like “southern Maine” to revert “back to its original roots” of Massachusetts. Of course one would have to have an understanding of the “original roots” which included:
The “Blue Laws” which banned many things including shopping on Sunday, or
Allowing only male members of the “right” church the right vote in local elections, or
The “obscenity” laws that if enforced to the letter would have prevented the KJV of the Bible from being mailed to people (commonly know as “banned in Boston”), or
Only being allowed to worship AT the right church (yup Catholics, Jews, Methodists, etc…need not apply), or
Being told what to wear every day of the week, or
That Sabbath Day worship was an all day event, etc…
Answer this question Mr. Henderson…how does SSM impact your day to day life and marriage (assuming that you are married)?
John Henderson–
……..” liberals and liberal-based organizations and causes tend to outraise and outspend their opponents”
Wha!?!?!?!
What planet do you live on?
His planet is GlennBeckistan.
I regret I can like your comment only once! Thanks for bringing a smile to my evening, and thank you for your kindness and support as well as your knowledge.
That is very kind of you.
Your support for marriage equality is much kinder. Thank you.
The redneck planet.
Speak for yourself, Henderson. Born, raised and living in the St. John Valley and I’m proudly going to vote to afford my gay neighbors the same rights I enjoy. Is that honestly your argument? That they’ve raised money and are assuming a position that Massachusetts has? Come on. This is about fairness. Meet some gay couples and see. They’re just like you and me and they love Maine just like you and me.
Mr. Henderson, please tell us what the long term costs to society are in allowing for gay marriage. I for one would like to hear your reasoning. While you are doing that, you might also tell us about the long term consequences of interracial marriage.
Based on Massachusetts’ experience, we will lower the divorce rate in this state if we allow same sex marriage. That will drive down the earnings of lawyers and the filing fees in our court system.
Mr. Henderson claims that Americans who support marriage equality for their fellow Americans who are LGBT raised more money for the 2009 anti-gay Hate Vote, but how do we know that? We DO KNOW that the Maine Ethics Commission caught anti-gays violating our campaign finance and disclosure laws. We know one anti-gay Hate Cult is STILL in violation of Maine laws.
Until there is a full accounting of every penny anti-gays spent, we’ll never know exactly how much in secret, illegal contributions anti-gays spent in 2009–OR THIS YEAR.
To John Henderson: your comments about liberals routinely raising more money than conservatives is almost funny. But of course it’s ever less true, and anyone who reads a newspaper once a month would know the real score. It’s so typical of those who oppose gay marriage to argue that those who want it can’t win on the strength of argument–or of compassion–and must instead outspend the true believers who don’t want to undermine the character of our state or of other states. Am sure that, to you, the millions from outside funds in Maine–as in California–the last time around were, by contrast, completely justified. You might try these specious arguments in a serious debate when one needs to produce facts and figures, not fantasies.
John and James – Great letters.
Mr. Henderson, your letter seems to imply that there is little money being raised by those who don’t support SSM, that the big bad liberal gay mafia is steamrolling the opponents.
Let me give you a rundown of the donations the opponents got from out-of-state three years ago in 2009:
The Stand for Marriage Maine PAC in 2009 received the following (http://www.mainecampaignfinance.com/Public/report_list.asp?TYPE=PAC&ID=4477):
Focus on the Family (Colorado Springs, Colorado):
08-25-2009 $10,000
09-11-2009 $50,000
10-06-2009 $15,000
National Organization for Marriage (Princeton, New Jersey):
07-07-2009 $40,000
07-17-2009 $50,000
08-13-2009 $50,000
09-04-2009 $140,000
09-11-2009 $50,000
10-01-2009 $300,000
10-09-2009 $300,000
10-14-2009 $500,000
As for churches, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland made many donations, five of which really stand out.
07-17-2009 $149,3000
08-29-2009 $52,000
10-01-2009 $48,000
10-15-2009 $47,000
10-20-2009 $50,000
Let me also add that there are PLEEEEENTY of cases where the liberals were outfunded, especially in SSM campaigns.
It’s an awful thing when a Mainer says that other Mainers don’t belong, that they should secede. We’re ALL Mainers, liberal and conservative, Republican or Democrat. This state does NOT belong to just one party.
Those who support equality and know that no church will be forced into marrying any couple, please drive to the poll (or vote early!) and vote YES!
And these are only the contributions anti-gays reported.
It’s unfortunate that comment on Ms. Pope’s letter wad drowned by diatribes on the same sex marriage issue.
In these days of declining honeybee populations, swarm collection is an easy way to help sustain their populations. And yes, swarms are generally harmless, and, as a beekeeper, quite fun to collect. And by the way, a swarm collected early in the season that is successfully hived is worth around $100 to a beekeeper. And yes, honey is sweet.
For those whose rants and invectives tend to make these comment sections uncivil and at times nauseating, I suggest you read Robert Seeley’s book “Honeybee Democracy” and learn another more civilized method of discussion and decision making.
People will talk about it if they want to. It’s easy to ignore the threads that aren’t of interest.
It is NOT a “diatribe” to fight for equality. Please direct your criticism to the anti-gays and their constant hate speech.
To my fellow readers. Please do not argue with those who will condemn us. Please pray for John Henderson and continue to live in peace with yourselves. Being in a loving, monogamous homosexual relationship is not against any God, does not hurt any society, and will be a moot argument in 10 years as it is in the 26 + otther countries where it is legal and/or accepted. Let them find those far fetching law suits that they twist to suit their needs. Let us live in peace and love and harmony. Let us lead by example. God Bless you John henderson. God Bless the world…ALL of it.
I’m just going to take the phrase “long term cost” from the letter about gay marriage. I believe I understand what he means. Bear with me folks, and truly read it all before bashing…
Let’s take a few smaller companies in this area with, say, 50 employees. The employers have been able to offer insurance, although costly, to its employees. Obviously, married couples have to pay more for two adults, as so does the company. So these company have, say, 10 percent of their employees are same sex couples. So…same sex marriage is voted in. Now these companies have 5 additional people/couples they have to insure, and maybe the company now can’t afford to offer insurance, so everyone at the company loses their insurance, maybe jobs because the company is in a position that they have to offer insurance, and now can’t afford to employ everyone.
I’m not saying it’s fair, and whether or not you are for or against gay marriage, but there will be some economic or financial fallout for some businesses – you can’t argue that. And whether or not you are for or against, there may be some families who lose insurance or jobs if and when it’s voted in. There will financial cost. Some People would vote differently if they knew their insurance coverage or jobs would be eliminated. Do same sex couples deserve the same as a married couple – of course. But there will be a $$$ cost down the road.
So what you are saying is you are afraid YOU will lose YOUR benefits if long-term, loving, committed same gender Maine couples get the same benefits you’re enjoying now? Same gender couples are denied the ability to file income taxes jointly, costing us more in taxes than mixed sex couples who are similarly situated in that we have equal or nearly equal incomes. Same gender American couples pay into Social Security at the same rate mixed sex couples with similar incomes, but the mixed-sex couple is likely to get more of their OWN money back than same gender couples.
Shall we say that you like being subsidized by same gender couples? That isn’t a very good excuse for violating the United States Constitution’s guarantee of Equal Protection Under The Law.
The cost is no different than for straight couples.
What a rediculous argument.
Yeah. What about companies that have a higher than average rate of married straight couples? It really seems like an awful mean position to take to say that we can’t get married because we’ll be a greater burden on an employer’s insurance. Yet we can get married to straight people for just that purpose if we want. But I would like clarification…
His has to be the second most senseless argument I’ve yet seen.
The first is the argument of “whawell” that gays can’t naturally produce kids so they can’t be married, but sterile straight people can even though they can’t naturally produce kids. He and Maggie G. are among the biggest hypocrites I’ve ever seen.
And neither one of them understands or respects US civil law.