I’m not sure whether Harlan Gardner is the president or CEO of anything at all, but I would put him up against Chick-fil-A’s president and CEO, Dan Cathy, any day.
I have never indulged in a Chick-fil-A sandwich, nuggets or strips.
Until last month I had never heard of the Atlanta-based fast food chain, which apparently specializes in “chikin’.”
The company supposedly has an adorable ad in which a herd of cows comically encourage people to “eat mo’ chikin’.”
That cute ad and a mess of some delicious, deep-fried chicken might have been the first thing to come to mind when people mentioned Chick-fil-A – until, of course, Cathy announced out loud last month that he was a believer in “traditional marriage’’ and talked of God’s wrath being unleashed upon our country should the gays get to marryin’ one another.
Well now, the gays aren’t eatin’ any chikin’ and Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee and some tea party folks in Knox County are loadin’ up their plates.
So while all of this talk of chikin’ has been going on around the country and the gay-rights supporters have been protesting in front of Chick-fil-A restaurants and mayors in Boston and Chicago have got the idea that forcing Chik-fil-A franchises out of their cities is the proper approach, we up here in Maine have been watching a quiet but powerful ad that actually says something about family values and marriage equality.
That’s where Harlan Gardner comes in.
If the anti-gay marriage folks thought they got a nice boost from Cathy, his “chikin’” and his wrath of God speech, they should meet Harlan, the latest, unlikely frontman for the Why Marriage Matters Maine campaign.
Harlan, with his white hair and beard and his voice just a bit shaky with age, is wearing a nice red, collared shirt and suspenders at his dinner table at his home in Machias when he takes to talking about marriage equality.
He’s surrounded by four generations of his family. Dottie, his wife of 59 years, is seated by his side.
“Dottie and I have been together for 59 years now. I flew in the last battle of World War II. I can’t see how anyone who had been in combat could be cruel to anyone ever again. It takes a great deal of bravery to be a lesbian. I’m some proud of Katie and Alex. … Marriage is too precious a thing not to share.”
No wrath of God warnings. No calls to protest in front of fast-food restaurants, no threats to boycott, no promises to make illegal zoning ordinances to ban companies that don’t support gay marriage.
“It’s not about politics. It’s about family and how we as people treat one another,” Harlan gently reminds us.
If you don’t watch TV and if you have not seen it, you can at whymarriagemattersmaine.com.
So Cathy’s speech got people all over the country talking about “chikin’” and introduced me to a franchise I had never heard of before.
I’m wondering whether the Maine Lobster Council might want to hire on Harlan to say a few things in support of gay marriage and lobster.
I mean, we’re in a bit of a lobster crisis right now.
Adding Harlan’s voice to the matter could get gays all over the country eating loads of lobsters and it could bring bunches of anti-gay-marriage activists up here to protest in front of lobster pounds from Kittery to Stonington to Lubec.
And I’d guess that more than a few of those protesters might just sit down and tuck into a $5 lobster or two weren’t no one lookin’.
If done just right, we might get this marriage equality measure passed and get our beloved lobster fishermen through the winter.
Burns me up that conservatives that want government out of their lives want to make an exception for those who are different than them. How does a gay couple contemplating marriage affect heterosexual folks that are considering or are married? (They don’t.)
I’d vote for Harlan Gardner for public office after your thoughtful article, Renee.
Good thought! And if Harlan WERE able to get a bunch of folks to Maine to eat lobster, he’d have the business-growing credibility that might just get him into the Blaine House. What a relief that’d be!
With regard to your question, you are asking for the understanding of logic, and that does not happen with these people. It is all emotional reaction with no basis in fact.
What burns me up is the self-righteous indignation when someone mentions Sharia law being forced down everyone’s throats, yet they fail to see they are taking exactly the same tack with their Christian “law.” The only difference, of course, is that their Christian law is the only “true” law. And, they actually believe this! They don’t believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny, but an all-knowing omnipotent spook in the sky is completely believable.
I have the same reaction listening to them as I do when I hear some tribal elder speaking of the Great Bear in the mountains causing the elk to run through the meadow (or some such thing). Otherwise sane people believing these stories, literally, just boggles the logical mind.
“With regard to your question, you are asking for the understanding of logic, and that does not happen with these people. It is all emotional reaction with no basis in fact.”
Is that why LGBT members are now resorting to Domestic Terrorism to get their message across.
You could make the argument that domestic terrorism, in any form, from any faction, is really well beyond the norm and is not acceptable by anyone. I certainly would not lay blame to the mainstream religious or agnostic/atheist/gay/liberal groups for bad behavior from either extreme. Some individuals, for whatever reason, latch onto a cause and believe the only way to address issues is through domestic terrorism. I have not heard advocacy of this technique from anyone from either side.
That said, it appears to me the conservative religious side seems to be the most vehement and the most active in their efforts to suppress the SSM side. I suspect this is because there is no legal or logical reason to prevent SSM but they perceive it, for some reason, as a threat to the status quo and something to fear when, of course, the numbers are so small if every gay couple married hardly anyone would notice.
Sidebar on numbers: If Maine has 1.3M people and the religious right says we account for only 3% of the population, then that means there are only 39,000 gays in Maine. Of that, I would be very surprised if 50% opted to get legally married. So, now we are down to 19,500. Apparently, 19,500 people is just enough to cause the collapse of the Catholic church, society to self-destruct, the women to become barren, the fields to be consumed by locusts, and the children to grow up mentally and socially damaged. Again, my point on logic vs. emotion.
I also find it interesting the perceptions from both sides. Pro-SSM sees this as a civil rights issue having nothing to do with religion, and legally, that is a fact. The anti-SSM crowd perceives this as a threat to religious freedom and their particular religious views. I say “particular” because there are many religions who would perform SSM ceremonies [meaning the ceremony that would fulfill the legal requirements] if it were legally possible to do so. That means those anti-SSM religions are attempting to interfere with tenets of other religions, not just the legal, secular group. Again, logic vs. emotion, they don’t see it that way as they are convinced their religion is the only “true” religion – all the others are bunk.
That brings me to my final point on perception. Without trying to be inflammatory, but trying to point out how some groups are utterly convinced in their righteousness, I mention how Hitler and Hirohito were utterly convinced they were right. Killing Jews and American prisoners/Chinese, respectively, was absolutely the right thing to do in their minds. They did not see this as genocide but instead the right thing to do – much like the eugenics movement here in the USA.
That is why when we hear statements such as those from CEO Dan Cathy of Chick-fil-A, the religious crowd believes this to be the “true word” and the “dictum from God,” all that. Cathy is right and he is being persecuted for his views.
For those of us on the other side, we hear Cathy’s statements and am reminded of similar mindsets from George Wallace, Robert Byrd, and Strom Thurmond. I wish the anti-SSM crowd spouting views similar to Cathy’s would look back at history and hopefully draw a parallel between the segregationist, anti-black, racist, statements from that crowd and their own words from today. I believe the statements are obviously similar. The anti-SSM crowd states “all that is different” because they are speaking for God. Uh-huh. Well, news flash, that is exactly what was said back in the 1960’s – mixing of the races and all that was against God’s wishes.
There will be no changing of anyone’s mind on any of this. Those who are the most anti-SSM are old, but they are dying off. The young crowd overwhelmingly “gets it” and is very pro-SSM. This battle will be won through attrition. The trend lines pro/anti separated years ago. The anti line continues its downward trend while the pro line continues its upward trend. The two lines have never crossed and continue to diverge.
Between you, me, and the lamppost, and according to studies and surveys, participation in religion (especially the older, conservative, structured religions) by young people is waning. I saw ads on TV by the Catholic church to “come back to the church.” So, apparently, they need to advertise now? Well, that should say a lot right there. And, again, not to be inflammatory, but just working on facts and logic, the better educated and aware of the world you are, the less involved you are in the traditional dogmatic religions, and, interestingly, the more socially liberal you become, especially if you are younger.
Time will resolve this. In another 50 years, we won’t look on SSM any differently than we look on inter-racial marriage. And, the Rapture will not have come nor will the world have collapsed into a heap.
The only reference to anything from the shooter at the FRC were “words to the effect of “I don’t like your politics”” before shooting the Security Guard. Both the NYTimes and Newsmax reports the same thing.
NewsMax goes on to say that Corkins parents “said he strongly supported gay rights” so maybe you are correct in calling this an act of Domestic Terrorism. But to brand all LGBT people as supporting Domestic Terrorists like Corkins is alleged to be is just plain wrong.
But then again I am sure that a person who murders an OB/GYN physician for performing legal abortions would be hailed as a hero and not a “Domestic Terrorist” by you too. Or, that all Muslims or Arabs are terrorists because of the actions of a few radicalized members of the Muslim faith.
Maybe you missed this articel from the Christian Post “LGBT Groups Join Christians in Condemning FRC Shooting But Support ‘Hate’ Label” ( http://www.christianpost.com/news/lgbt-groups-join-christians-in-condemning-frc-shooting-but-support-hate-label-80172/ )
As of yesterday 44 GLBT groups have condemned the shooting. Funny think is I don’t recall any Christian group that oppose gay rights condemning the hate crime committed by three young men that murdered Charlie Howard or the murders of Matthew Shepard. All I recall hearing from teh Christian Right were the *chirp, chirp* of crickets.
I condemn murder of any kind committed by anyone for any reason. I also condemn mainstream media for burying a story when an act of Domestic Terrorism is committed by an LGBT member but can’t wait to get the front page story out when the act is committed by a Christian, Muslim or Arab.
Good I am glad you do condemn violence of any kind. To many people turn a blind eye when they should be shining a very bright light on the reasons behind the violence.
But I have to disagree with your characterization of the main stream media. I don’t watch “network” news at all any more so I cannot speak to when and how this was presented. I take most of my news on-line and I can state that my phone “lit” up with notifications about this shooting and they came from FoxNews, Yahoo News, etc…I would also say the NYTimes is main stream and they covered it as well. Where they placed it in the news cycle I have no idea.
So we have found common ground…that hate and violence regardless of the focus is wrong. Now if we can just convince a few more people we would be making some good headway.
This we know … he strongly supported LGBT rights and worked at an LGBT community center. Until he makes a statement regarding his reason and states that he is a member of the LGBT community …. don’t assume he is gay.
In the mean time … whenever a similar act is committed by someone who identifies themselves as a ‘christian’ or a ‘conservative’ or whatever, the group they identify themselves with says this person is not a ‘real christian’ or a ‘real conservative’ or a ‘real’ whatever. Recently a member of the military took offense that the shooter in Colorado was reported to be former military, well he was but that does not mean that all former military members will open fire in a public place.
Many right-wing conservative ‘christian’ groups (ie the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins) are blaming the Southern Poverty Law Center’s listing the FRC as a hate group for fueling Corkin’s actions. Where are the press releases from Mr. Perkins and others denouncing the following?:
· Indiana pastor Jeff Sangl and his congregation encouraged a
four-year-old to sing a song called, “Ain’t no homos gonna make it to
heaven.”
· Kansas pastor Curtis Knapp said in a radio address: “They [gay
people] should be put to death…Oh, so you’re saying we should go out
and start killing them? No, I’m saying the government should.”
· North Carolina pastor Charles L. Worley called for all LGBT people
to be forced into camps with an electrified fence, where food would be
dropped until they died off.
The FRC has made similar statements. Is that why they don’t speak out against them? Should we blame them for violent acts committed against LGBT individuals on their statements and beliefs or should we do as they do in these cases, put the responsibility on the individuals committing the acts …. except when their organization is directly affected by such an act?
A slight difference between Christian and Sharia Law; gays are executed under Sharia Law. Does the BDD consider that worth mentioning?
I believe Sharia law is much like the Christian old testament – very strict. Having lived the the Middle East for several years, I can tell you there are plenty of gay people there. Iran is about the only place I know where Sharia law was quoted and a couple of gay kids were hanged (we’ve all seen the photos). I lived in Teheran for a couple of years, before the Shah was overthrown, and it might as well have been San Francisco. That all changed after the nutbar religious types took over. (That alone, should be a lesson the West should heed – any religion becoming an instrumental part of government.)
I am surprised you don’t see the parallels between Sharia and Christian OT. It seems pretty similar to me and the OT often is quoted as justification for discrimination against gays. A quick review of the OT has some executions by stoning in it, as I recall.
So, I suppose Christian law has evolved up to the 12th century whereas Sharia law is only up to the 6th century or so. Seems both could get a dose of reality and some updating.
I don’t believe your statement gets you a free pass for the justification of any religious laws to be injected into our secular law. Your Christian law is far from sainthood.
Um ….. they were executed in Colonial America too. Actually anyone (heterosexual or homosexual) known to engage in sodomy (non-procreative sex) was sentenced to death.
Harlan is a reminder of the best of what America, and the human race, is all about. This is a man from what is called The Greatest Generation reminding us all of what is at stake in the vote re SSM. It is not about whose religious view are more valid, or whether the liberals or the conservatives are on the side of the angels. It is a reminder of what this is all about is love and equal rights for all. And I like the tie-in to the lobster vs. chicken too. I hope this suggestion about making lobster the choice of the the SSM catches on, because it could be a win-win for gay marriage supporters and lobster fishermen.
I continue to question why something that should just plain be a civil right — marriage — has to be put out to be voted upon? It should never need a vote — it should simply exist! Why should anyone be given a vote on what is a right?
Well, it would not be, had 2009’s cross-burning vote not occurred. Now, this November’s vote is just trying to undo the 2009 fiasco.
Well said, Mimi. Thank you.
Such an amazing and wonderful article. Thank you and thanks to Mr. Gardiner for such a moving view of marriage and honor and respect.
thank you.
Any businessperson aiming to sell to the general public kicks the shins of a good segment of that same public at his/her own risk. Harlan on the other hand shows us a class act.
First of all you lied about what took place at chick Fil-A that day. I wonder what your now favorite spokesperson would say about the new kid on the block… Pansexuals. That’s right we now have gay, lesbian, bi’s, trans, undecided, flex sexually and not to be left out….pansexuals. Oh it just keeps coming at us. Wonder what else is in that closet to confuse our children. Wonder what that fine gentleman and his adoring wife would say? Please don’t presume they speak for Mainers, Mainers spoke clearly at the polls with their vote and will do so again this November just like every other state has done…100% of the time.
More like spoke barely. And the anti-SSM crowd sure was not speaking truly. Any other fiction you care to drag out of your closet?
I feel bad for your children if you have any and I truly mean that. My 13 year old daughter has grown up around her two gay aunts. She loves them dearly and my daughter likes boys. She has zero interest in girls, none, nada, zero.
Please tell me why my daughter is not confused, please tell me why she likes boys. Please tell me why she in a honor student with the dream of one day finding a cure for cancer.
You are the one that needs to stop living in a world of darkness. Get to know some gay couples, you will be surprised to learn they are just like you.
My children have also grown up around gay relatives and they love them as do I. My children have also grown up with relatives that are drunks and drug addicts, and guess what, they love them too as do I. It’s not my children that are confused, their feet are firmly planted on solid ground. So thank you for your concern, but that is not the subject about which I posted. You avoided that quite nicely.
So you are saying that children being brought up in families that have gay or lesbian relatives does not” make” them gay… thank you for dispelling that much repeated lie.
Who (You) lied about what took place at (which) Chick-Fil-A on (what) that day?
Please don’t disrespect Mr. Gardner or his wife, they are your elders and he is a WWII vet. You don’t know them or their family. They are free to speak in personal support of SSM on behalf of their family members and others, just as your are free to speak in personal opposition. You are not free to personally disrespect them ….. it is offensive.
I normally don’t respond to your posts as I find you to be quite out of touch with any sort of reality. You won’t find anywhere in my post where I disrespected this gentleman. This is is just another attempt to avoid what I originally posted. If you would like to see disrespect and hatred in action you can find it on yesterday’s article on the couple that has been hired to represent opposition to homosexual marriage. Sorry, your side wins the hatred award hands down.
Well of course you didn’t …. you were supporting that Mr. Gardner and his wife are wonderful people: “that fine gentleman and his adoring wife” wasn’t sarcastic at all. Thanks for clearing that up.
There is no excuse for personal attacks against others based on their appearance, speech patterns, demographics, race, ethnicity, gender, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, age …… I hope any posts were flagged as inappropriate. I make an effort to do that but focus mainly on posts that use inappropriate language and suggest violence no matter which side of the issue the poster is on.
Are you willing to fill in details of the first sentence of your original post?
Who is “You”, what did they lie about, is there a particular Chick-Fil-A you are referring to and what day are you talking about?
But you once again avoided the content of my original post. We now have gay, lesbian, bi, undecided, trans, flexi, and pansexual. Honestly folks. Goggle it. This for real and is endorsed by GLEN. It’s coming at us fast and furious yet just the sound of crickets from our normally boisterous homosexual crowd. Wake up folks, this needs to stop. Our children are being bombarded with enough as it is.
Are you going to tell us who lied and about what? Are you going to tell the readers here that you truly believe that Mr. Gardner is a fine gentleman and you respect his wife and family … or were you being sarcastic and disrespectful?
Pansexual is something you brought up that has absolutely nothing to do with this column. It is not something new… you are just hearing that some people identify themselves that way. And who is “GLEN”?
“First of all you lied about what took place at chick Fil-A that day.” What was the lie cp444?
I posted some examples of the statements made by organizations CFA donates to (in case you missed them):
” pedophilia is a ‘homosexual’ problem, gays and lesbians should be
exported for the US, should be incarcerated, should be forced into
re-orientation programs and should be executed by the government”.
Are they hateful statements or not, in your opinion?
You are the reason children who are LGBT stay in the closet my friend. We have always been here (LGBT people), we just have had to stay in the closet for our safety. The world is changing my friend, acceptance exists and SSM will catch up to this.
What would be more confusing to kids would be why a group of narrow minded biggots would even want to have control over the rights of other citizens to the point of telling them how to live their lives! What possible reasoning can you be using to deny the rights of others that you enjoy yourself? How can you even rationalize that you are that much better?
gsgofer – You say, “What possible reasoning can you be using to deny the rights of others that you enjoy yourself?” Does that suggest you would support marriage between 3 or more consenting adults? Or would you deny them the same rights ” to marriage that you enjoy yourself?”
I support MINDING MY OWN BUSINESS! and suggest others do the same. Once you take away the freedom of one, you hurt all, including yourself. It is not my decision whether or not to “allow” rights to anyone. If you believe in God, you know that has already been done.
and I think you’ll be surprised in Nov. exactly what Mainers have to say.
And the “lie” would be what cp444? Once again you make a claim and then go off in another tangent and never back up the first sentence. So, what did Ms. Ordway lie about?
I see that at this moment cp444 has 34 likes to his post ….. since he refuses to explain what the lie was and who lied.. perhaps some others would like to explain it?
Guess you haven’t been South recently, Renee. There are some CfA restaurants north of there but once you get below the Mason Dixon Line, the ads, billboards, and restaurants start popping up everywhere. The ads are cute. On shows a cow boosting another up the billboard to scrawl “Eat more Chikin””. Another is in 3-D with cow statuary.
Then there’s Cathy’s fervent but unwise pronouncements on SSM. Apparently he also funds other anti-gay endeavors.
Wait ’til he finds out homosexuality is not limited to humans. Could it be? Could it be that he’s been serving lesbian chickens in his joints? Ha! That would be the ultimate justice.
What y’all missed here is the man’s right to have an opinion and his right to speak that opinion…no matter how vile it might be! By the way they make a great chicken sandwich!
Actually, that was not missed at all in these posts. Of course he has a right. As a businessman serving all Americans, however, he is stupid to inject his bigoted biases into his marketing plan. He and CFA got an appropriate response. Marketing 101
Mr. Cathy’s speech is not the reason for the boycott. Mr. Cathy’s religious beliefs are not the reason for the boycott. Those are 1st Amendment rights, whether everyone agrees with him or not. Chick-Fil-A has donated millions of dollars through their charitable arm, to organizations that have made incendiary statements including that pedophilia is a ‘homosexual’ problem, gays and lesbians should be exported for the US, should be incarcerated, should be forced into re-orientation programs and should be executed by the government. These same organizations have spokespeople who also make incendiary statements regarding racial, ethnic and religious minorities.
Y’all sure sound (and write) like you’re from down south. If so, you can rest assured that Mainers haven’t missed a thing. We’re pretty good at recognizing that one man’s right doesn’t have to negate an entire segment of our population. We make a pretty great lobster roll, too.
How well put!
I don’t feel threatened in my marriage in the least bit if SSM passes. I do feel that if I was that insecure in my marriage if someone else is allowed to marry, that my marriage must already be in trouble.
In the meantime, at my age, I’m pretty much set in my ways and eating habits. I love to eat lobster on occasion and still eat chicken. Even though I have to block out the immages of how chickens are raised in this country.
How about also saying that many who stood by
the Chick could have cared less about gay marriage
and were more in support of someone being able
to voice his/her opinion without political dopes
trying to threaten or stopping a business from opening
just because the owner didn’t dance to their tune. You
don’t like the business…don’t go there. But who the heck
are these politicians to TELL someone they can’t voice
what they believe in. If the business was descriminating
against gays, that would be another story. Getting sick and
tired of every time someone has an opinion of what they believe
the institution of marriage is and it doesn’t meet the gay theory,
then they…their business..family..whatever are made to be the
most terrible people on earth. The owner has the right to say
what he believes and the phoney politicians have NO RIGHT
to threaten his business because of it.
But of course *this* is perfectly okay, right?
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/02/01/416430/anti-gay-group-calls-for-boycott-of-jc-penny-over-ellen-degeneres-partnership/
of course not, two wrongs dont make a right.
Well at least you’re consistent. However, if according to the Supreme Court, money equals speech, shouldn’t we be able to speak out against causes/policies we don’t like (and the people who support them with *their* dollars) by spending our money elsewhere? And, for that matter, encouraging others to do likewise?
It’s a stretch to draw a parallel between simple overfishing and bigotry.
The BDN is really scraping the bottom with bloggers like Renee… and a few other callow left-wing cuckoos. Notwithstanding, and inasmuch as homosexuality represents a deliberate and personal choice to engage in unnatural behavior — which is fine by most folks so long as the offenders engage in their respective perversions in the privacy of their own homes — Renee once again adds confusion to the mix. Of course this is de rigueur for liberals when they seek to control or usurp the rights of others, or imply that certain behaviors like homosexuality are a far cry from murder, incest or pederasty. Anyone with a sense of decency can see through the maudlin ruse of tears and compassion to recognize that Renee and legions of sheepish homosexual captives are hell-bent on one thing — and one thing only: the destruction of the institution of marriage and the family through a forced-fed diet of disgusting and immoral behavior that seeks to ennoble immorality. Most Mainers are just not buying this kind of offal.
What a bright and cheerful opinion! Counseling and Xanax might help…
When heterosexuals engage in sodomy (and they do) is that a “perversion” or an acceptable act committed by two consenting adults in the “privacy of their own homes”?
IMO, their silence is akin to pleading the 5th. ;)
I have found that simple question seem to through two or three posters for a loop. Just a simple observation.
We’ve known that homosexuality is a natural variant of human sexuality for half a century. Where have you been? For people that are born gay, being attracted to someone of the same sex is completely natural and normal. If you don’t know the difference between a consensual adult relationship and that of murder, incest or pederasty, you truly are clueless.
You believe that if gay couples can marry, that somehow that will destroy the institution of marriage? You have an obligation to prove it. You cannot use hyperbole without any kind of proof to deny gay Americans their civil rights. Same-sex couples have been able to marry in Massachusetts for over 8 years. The state has the lowest divorce rate in the entire country; and straight couples are still getting married there. Totally shocking, I know. Some of those couples are even starting families, even though they know that somewhere else in their state a gay couple can also get married. Based on your warped logic, that straight couple should never have gotten married because those awful gays have destroyed the meaning of marriage for them.
PS: You think gay people are immoral. Congratulations. Here’s a news flash: Straight people that are immoral have ALL of their civil rights, including the right to marry… or do you think thrice-married two-time adulterer Newt Gingrich is a moral person? Our country doesn’t dole out civil rights based on your concept of morality.
Off your meds today, queeg?
It amazes me that people claim to know God’s wishes only when it aligns with their own ideals. And they have to go back 3000 years to try and prove it.
32 States have had a vote on this issue and all 32 States have voted against homosexual marriage. If two people of the same sex want to be together; fine. However it cannot be called marriage, that is impossible. Whether you like it or not, whether you believe it or not; the word marriage was created and defined by God. It starts in the book of Genesis and is defined the same all the way through to the book of Revelation. You can no more re-define the word marriage as I could re-define the word murder. This is not about political correctness; this is about being grammatically correct.
Know what great about this nation? People like you get to be wrong, and that’s ok. What is not ok is when you are wrong and try to force it onto other people. Christianity does not own the patent on the word “marriage.” There were marriages being performed before your Christian god was even being recognized. They took places at temples that were in honor of great gods such as Zues, Athena, and all the thousands of gods that man prayed to. And why does man pray to the gods? Because he wants thing explained that he cannot understand, and the easy course is to say, “it is because of god, Zues, Thor, etc.” The smarter we get as humans, the more your theories of your god are proven wrong. Have your faith, you have the right to be wrong and find comfort in being wrong. Just do not try and force others into living your way. One final thought, according to your fairy tale book, Jesus had two dads.
The exact same thing can be said right back to you. “Know what great about this nation? People like you get to be wrong, and that’s ok. What is not ok is when you are wrong and try to force it onto other people.” There are those of us who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. I am not a bigot, a homophobe or a hater. The majority of people who live in this great state and this great country agree with me. That is a fact.
The majority believed that black kids and white kids shouldn’t go to the same schools too. The best part about SSM is that… wait for it… if you don’t want one, you don’t have to have one. You are denying rights when you vote against SSM. Homosexuality is not illegal, gay men and women can walk down the street holding hands, kiss, and everything else a hetero couple can do. Anti-SSM forces gay couples to live by someone elses point of view, not their own. If SSM passes, you still get to live as you want, and finally so do they. Not to mention equality is never wrong.
What exactly would be forced upon you if SSM becomes legal in Maine? No one is going to force you to marry a gay person, if that is what you are afraid of.
jason you are factually incorrect when you say SSM “cannot be called marriage” because it can and is in several states where SSM is legal.
Without using religion in your argument (because the state not a religious institution issues marriage licenses) please provide your reasons for denying two consenting adults of the same sex the right to join together in a committed legal relationship sanctioned by the state in the same way and manner that the state allows two consenting adults of the opposite sex.
30 states out of 48 had voted on interracial marriage, and had voted to ban it. Even when the Supreme Court overruled those unconstitutional bans, 72% of the public was still against race-mixing. No doubt, those people didn’t believe that mixed-race couples could ever be considered married. For the record, marriage has been “redefined” numerous times throughout history. When the U.S. was first formed, women were considered chattel in the marriage, and blacks couldn’t marry at all. (They were too busy being slaves.) I also shouldn’t have to remind you that non-religious (heathen) straight couples are permitted to marry in our country. So why aren’t you using your “chosen” religious beliefs to ban them from getting married? You’re right. This has nothing to do with political correctness, and everything to do with bigotry and homophobia masquerading as “strongly held religious beliefs”. Sorry, but your chosen beliefs don’t trump someone else’s civil rights. You do not have the right to force everyone else to embrace your chosen ideology. The opposite is not true: Marriage equality does not impact your life at all. The marriage of two virtual strangers cannot possibly effect your life, your marriage, or your family. Massachusetts has proved this for the past 8 years.
Dear David,
Please understand that we are discussing behavior, not the color of skin. Just so you know, there is only one race, it is called the human race. I realize that Darwinian teaching may have you confused, but in the beginning God made Man and Woman. They were a shade of brown with enough melanin in their genes to produce many different shades of people. Also, you called me a bigot and a homophobe? Really, are you saying I hate people? Are you saying that I am afraid of homosexuals? Please sir, if you want to discuss this, do not attack me. Attack my argument. And about the definition of marriage, go back to what I said, man cannot re-define what God has created and ordained. Also, marriage is about the Jesus “the Bride Groom” returning to his “Bride” the church. So I will be tolerant of your views if you will be tolerant of me saying that every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
God Bless
Your God, Genesis, and Revelation are irrelevant here. While the first amendment grants you the right to practice your own religion, it does NOT grant you the right to impose that religion on others.
As for redefining words, that happens all the time. “Gay” used to mean lively or light-hearted. “Faggot” originally referred to a bundle of sticks used for fuel. If you look at dictionary.com or merriam-webster.com, you’ll see that both include definitions that recognize both heterosexual and same-sex marriages.
What you’re missing here is the legal side of marriage, which has nothing to do with any church. There’s a contractual side, which involves legal and financial matters. Barring gays from marrying their partners denies them equal protection under the law, which is unconstitutional. Your church is well within its rights not to recognize or perform same-sex marriages, but it has no right to prohibit them either.
Your God, Genesis, and Revelation have no place in this
conversation. The first amendment grants
you the right to practice your religion, but it does NOT grant you the right to
impose it on others who believe differently.
Words are redefined all the time. “Gay” used to mean having or showing a merry, lively mood.
“Faggot” used to refer to a bundle of sticks intended for use as fuel. If you refer to dictionary.com or Merriam-Webster.com,
you’ll see that both include references to same-sex marriage. And if you actually read the whole bible, you’ll
find that it’s full of contradictions and inconsistencies.
Nobody is asking your church to condone or perform marriages
between same-sex couples. However, you
seem to be forgetting is the legal and financial part of marriage, which includes
a binding civil contract between two people.
In being denied the right to that kind of partnership, gay couples are denied
equal protection under the law, which violates a fundamental principle laid
down in the 5th and 14th amendments. There’s a reason that a federal appeals court
ruled the ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ to be unconstitutional, and if the suit
makes it to the supreme court, I have no doubt they’ll come to the same conclusion.
Dear LLPV,
You made many comments to my post, so I will answer each of them.
1st, You wrote that my God has no right here. You do not sound like a very tolerant person, are you being intolerant to my beliefs? You stated rightly that I do not have the right to impose my religious belief’s on you. Naturally I want you to repent and profess Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior so I will see you in heaven. However, I cannot force you, but I can pray for you.
2nd, LLPV, please understand that words have meanings. Political correctness is nothing more than “new speak”. You know in the book “1984“, limiting the language so people could not speak out against the government. If people do not know the history of the language and the real meaning of the words, then they will not rightly understand history. I would recommend you use a real (old) dictionary. I would recommend the Noah Websters 1828.
3rd, Right now, there is a bed and breakfast that is being sued for refusing to rent a room to a homosexual couple. So how long before they sue my church for refusing to marry them. If you read my comments carefully, you would see that I said that two people of the same sex can be together, it just can not be called “marriage”. Again, I am going back to grammar.
“Contradictions?” Lastly, the Bible is not just a book. It is a collection of 66 books written over a 1500 year period, on three different continents and with 40 different authors. It has the same theme from beginning to end and if you spent just a 1/2 hour in a library studying the issue, you would find that it has no contradictions and has be verified thousands of times by historians. So please, do some research before you make arbitrary statements. And yes, to bluntly state that the Bible is full of contradictions, is an arbitrary statement. God Bless
Dear Jason,
Please let me know when you enter the 21st century.
Regards,
LLPVT
Harlan Gardner- A true Mainer!
Every person born is a result of a man and a woman. Not two men and not two women. Yes, people have independent minds and can choose to follow their own paths in life. But when it comes to birthrights it will always take a man and a woman to procreate and children should always know that they do not have ‘two daddies or two mommies, but a mother and a father, even if they were adopted, conceived by invitro or the natural way of conception. People choose how they will lead their lives, always have and always will. Criminals choose to be criminals, they were not born a criminal. A teacher chooses to be a teacher, they were not born a teacher, etc. I am straight, but I have the choice to become gay if I want that kind of lifestyle. Just as gays and lesbians can choose to become straight if they so choose. Life is always about choices. bottom line.
” I am straight, but I have the choice to become gay if I want that kind
of lifestyle. Just as gays and lesbians can choose to become straight
if they so choose.”
Actually Noleman2, if you are straight (heterosexual orientation) then you are attracted to members of the opposite sex, not just physically but on several levels. For you to choose to be gay then your attraction (physical, emotional etc) to the opposite sex would cease and be replaced by attraction to members of the same sex. Do you truly believe you could choose to not be attracted to members of the opposite sex?
It is absolutely impossible for you to “choose” to be gay. Sexual orientation is hard-wired into the brain. Some parents know their 5-year old child is going to be gay just from watching their mannerisms and behavior.
You’re basically saying that you could force yourself to stop being attracted to the opposite-sex, then somehow force yourself to find the same gender sexually attractive. Yeah, good luck with that. I’m sure “little” Noleman2 would have a problem with that scenario. The only choice a gay person has is to accept that they happen to have a different sexual orientation, or pretend to be straight in order to pacify straight society. (ex: Senator Craig, Marcus Bachmann, Dr. Rekers, etc.)
Sorry but God says diffrently.
So God does not create us in his own image? Or does god just create straight people in his own image?
News flash. The God I know isn’t impressed at those who rake in cash from phony counseling that portends to “pray away the gay.” In fact, He says they should be more honest and admit they are “preying” away the gay.
Now I am not a psychologist or anything. I am a mother. I don’t want a bunch of hateful remarks. I have observed that children go through different stages in life. Children go through phases and children reject things. Then they revert back to the same thing they reject. Elementary aged students often go through stages of rejecting the opposite sex and then often – but we all now not always – sooner or later – go through stages of being a attracted to someone of the opposite sex. What if a child who is going through a tough time in his childhood/teen/early adult years – because of the break down of his/her family or society latches onto homosexuality out of confusion. What if that child is really heterosexual. How easy it is to say you are “born” homosexual. Let’s face it. Do we really know that is true? There are so many things that happen in childhood that we don’t remember. Everyone have different sensitivities towards the same things. Maybe seeing gay couples and our culture that embraces it just might affect such a child. I am not hateful. I have more than one homosexual in my family that I love and that my children love. However, I have made observations of the years and I am concerned that the open acceptance and endorsement of homosexuality will have detrimental affects on society – no I don’t hate gays. No I am not a bigot. I am a person with concerns.
So you are saying that bringing up children in a society where denying a segment of the population equality is not harming our children or effecting the way they grow up? Your argument isn’t new, it has been used over and over again. White children and black children could play together, but when my white son hits a certain age i’ll have to put a stop to it so people don’t get the wrong idea about him… This kind of thinking is just as damaging as being an outright bigot. Also, if your child, as an adult, does experiment with homosexuality, who cares? In as much as it is no business of your child’s what goes in in your bedroom, you don’t need to know what goes on in your child’s (assuming the child is above the age of consent of course). In the main, people do not have just one sexual partner their whole lives. If you want to be a good parent, teach your kids that equality, even when you disagree with the group that is seeking equality, is right. Equality fosters compassion, understanding, and unity. The other side of that coin is hate and ignorance. Which would you prefer? A child who is open and caring or one that tries to keep people under their thumb and make them live as they, and only they, believe?
I don’t understand your argument. The way you are stating it (& you aren’t alone, many do it) is by setting up a false premise, a straw man if you will, & then defending something called “equality, ” when no inequality exists. What “rights” are being denied anyone? That is the true question. (Please be intelligent or intellectually honest enough to understand the term “rights.” Thanks)
How about all those lovely civil rights that are given to married couples, like the rights of inheritance in the case of no will. How about the rights to end of life decision making for your partner, when they are unable to do so. These are the rights in which homosexual couples are being denied. Ive seen a lot of number being floated around, but there are hundred of rights afforded married couples that gay couples do not get to have because they are denied a marriage license. Not to mention not being able to check the “Married filing jointly” box on their tax returns.
Understood & exactly what I expected.
What you are talking about are not “rights.”
Rights can only be granted by one’s creator simply by being born as a human
being.
What you mean are laws, rules, regs, social mores, religious POV, etc. ad
nauseum.
The argument gets contaminated & diverted when one side or another
resorts to the lowest common denominator & applies inappropriate terms to
define that argument.
Indeed the classic straw man.
The laws in the United State of America and the State of Maine are not based on any religious texts. They are based on and derived from free thinking men (and women). You will find no reference to a supreme being, a heavenly father, a God (or a god), etc…in the U.S. Constitution.
We are a secular nation with secular laws and the state (not a religious institution) issues marriage licenses.
Non sequitur. Your (seeming) obsession w/religion & religious
connotations is interesting… from your POV apparently.
Unalienable Rights were the premise for the USDI & indeed were not
included in the COTUS because they were deemed to be self evident.
In any event, I wasn’t even talking about that, yet you were able to
further my original point.
Thanks!
Who issues marriages licenses in the United States?
Once you answer that question you will find that it is a matter of civil law and not religious doctrine.
Thanks for responding. You just allowed me to further my point that marriage is a civil institution with religious ceremonies if one chooses.
The other side of the coin is certainly not hate and ignorance. Marriage – between a man and a woman is an institution that has existed back to the beginning. Marriage, as such, has been recognized throughout time; throughout the world. It is the children that come from such marriages that carries on civilization into the future. Societies have chosen to give families as such certain benefit to help them raise their children since their children will be carrying on the culture and the country they live in. Merely recognizing this fact does not mean that one hates homosexuals or are ignorant. Recognizing this fact does not make one a villian. Many people feel this way and they are painted as people who hate homosexuals. Not true. The fruit of a marriage is the children. No matter how loving a homosexual couple is; there physical unioin cannot produce children. Their relationships are not the same as heterosexual relationships.
“The fruit of marriage is the children” ….. and for those couples who chose not to or are unable to “bear fruit”, are they denied civil marriage? Should my mother, who is 74, be denied civil marriage because she is no longer able to “bear fruit”?
No matter how loving she and her soon-to-be husband are, their physical union cannot produce children.
Congrats to your mom and fiancé.
The reason that the state gave benefits to married couples was to help them to raise a child/children. The nature of the physical relationship between a man and a women have the potential to result in a child. There is no potential there in the physical relationship than a man and a woman. I am not saying one relationship is better than the other. I am just stating fact. Yes, sometimes people are too old to bear children. Yes, sometimes no children result in the union. The reality is, it is the children who result from the union of a man and a woman who will carry on our society when all of us here are dead and gone. It is these children from the union of the man and women who will be bearing the burden of helping all of us and paying for our debt and our social security. There is no reason why the state should not give special benefits to people who have relations that have the potential to result in a new life. I am not saying one relationship is better than the other. I am just saying the two type of relationships are not equal. The relationship between heterosexuals have the potential to bear life. The relationship between homosexuals never do. That is not equal. That is very, very different. No hate, no anger, just recognizing obvious differences.
The majority of the human population is heterosexual …. were they born heterosexual or did they choose it or did something happen in their childhood to cause it? Do we know which is true? I know a great many heterosexuals and they didn’t choose to be and nothing happened in their childhood or family that caused it….. they can’t explain why they are, they just are. Why is it so difficult for many heterosexuals to understand that gay and lesbian individuals didn’t make a choice … they just are? As someone who denied and fought my orientation (hindsight is 20/20) for many, many years because of societal expectations and disapproval, I can tell you that there is far more damage in denial than in acceptance.
Because God says diffrently is why.It is a choice.
If homosexuality is a choice as you claim, when did you choose to be heterosexual? See implying that homosexuality is a choice means that you have to choose between being heterosexuality and homosexuality. So when did you make the choice?
When did you choose?
As much as I respect your concerns, I will suggest that your denial is every bit as dangerous as allowing your kids to learn about diversity and probably more so.
Consider the case of the man I knew whose personal inclinations leaned toward being gay, but he was raised in a very conservative family who would never accept such a thing. Instead, he lived a lie. He pretended to be straight, married, had kids, and festered. Then his parents died, taking with them his need to hide. He didn’t ‘want’ his wife any more, but still tried to keep up the pretense, making her feel somehow inadequate until she finally figured out what he was hiding. The marriage fell apart, hurting everybody connected with it: kids, friends, and community alike. How is that better than letting him be honest about who he was in the first place?
Personally, I will admit to being just a bit homophobic. I don’t want to know what other people do in their bedrooms. But I’d much rather give them a fair place in the world than promote lies that fester and harm.
Your concerns are valid and quite astute. There is a lot of wisdom in what you posted which by the way has been validated, you just won’t read about here or anywhere else in the mainstream media, and you are correct in that you will unleash a floodgate of hate from those who are desperately trying to validate their immorality.
So when did you choose to be straight cp444?
Immorality reveals itself in its worst form when people stick their noses in other peoples’ business because they cannot mind their own.
It’s easy to wrap yourself in a flag and demand equal rights when you already have it, and blasting the other side with hate speech and name calling, and all the while calling for repect and understanding. SSM pro groups should watch there tongue and learn the wisdom of their own pleading words.
A gay person having the right to marry someone of the opposite-sex is NOT equal rights. Even a five year old knows the illogic in that statement. Do you REALLY not understand what the difference is between straight and gay? I’m curious why you believe that gay people should have to pretend to be straight just to pacify you? You’re calling for respect and understanding when apparently you don’t have any respect for gay people (you want them to marry straight people), or have any understanding of human sexuality.
Just think, there are 330 million Americans and 2% are gay. We are all wrong but you. That tells me all I need to know.
Where did you find your 2% figure?
When I Goggle “percent of us population that is gay” ranges from 2-4% to as high as 10%.
In 2009, 47% of Maine voters said they wanted to keep the law that extended civil marriage to same-sex couples ….. I guess that Maine has a much higher gay and lesbian population. Either that or 45% of voting heterosexual Mainers didn’t agree with you.
Gays have every right that the Constitution demands and protects.
What are being demanded as “Rights” are priviledges granted to people by the government. Everyone of these “rights” would disapear if the government disapears. Therefore not rights, the courts and Webster not withstanding.
My wish would be to have all of these government supplied “rights” disapear. But that will not happen until the government goes bankrupt and that I do not want.
Live & let live is fine by me.
What I don’t understand are the people who label someone who simply believes in a traditional marriage as a “hater?” The ranting rhetoric from supposedly “tolerant” people undermines your own argument.
Your “chosen” belief is harming gay Americans that want the same exact right that you have. I’m still waiting to hear a single rational argument that explains how the marriage of a gay couple (that you don’t even know, located somewhere in your state) harms the marriage of straight couples. The only thing I’m hearing is that your (chosen religious) feelings will get hurt if gay couples are actually considered equal members of society. Sorry, but hurt feelings are not justification to ostracize a segment of the population from constitutionally guaranteed equality.
Just as of curiosity, what would you call people that vote to make sure that you can never get married? Your friends? Opinions are one thing. But when people all over this country vote against people’s civil rights, that’s another thing. Yeah, “hate” might be an appropriate term when you take away people’s freedoms and liberty.
Talk about a non sequitur…
Balance your emotion w/a tad bit of understanding & logic.
Interesting that you jump to (your own) conclusions beyond anything stated
in my original post.
From the few words I wrote, please define anything I said that would allow
you to define me as in:
“I’m still waiting to hear a single rational argument that explains how the
marriage of a gay couple (that you don’t even know, located somewhere in your
state) harms the marriage of straight couples… The only thing I’m hearing is
that your (chosen religious) feelings.”
Therein lies the rub, you have no idea what my personal POV actually
is.
I could be gay, I could be agnostic, an atheist.
You inadvertently make my original point.
Thank you & be well.
People who simply believe in “traditional marriage” are not “haters”. People who misrepresent gays and lesbians as a group, suggest incarceration, exporting LGBT people from the US, believe the government should “sanction” LGBT people, or that the government execute LGBT people IMO are full of hate. These are some of the beliefs and statements that groups and organizations who identify as “family values” and “christian” organizations. They are also some of the groups that Mr. Cathy’s company donates to. Would you “tolerate” these statements if they were directed towards any minority you were part of ?
In my time, there was a perfect phrase that described those whose sole purpose in life was to foster ignorance and bigotry. It’s time to bring it back. White trash.
I’ll just keep on eating my lobster and chicken as God intended.Jesus himself told the woman to get up off the ground.Her sins had been forgiven to go forth but sin no more.Jesus will come like a thief in the night.People better be ready.
Did you ever wonder why the man she was “caught” engaging in adultery with was not even mentioned in that story? Was he not a “guilty” as she? Why didn’t they bring him along with her?
Hmmm, don’t you just love the spins these (so-called) christians put on everything they read in the bible? Lawdy, Lawdy, cain’t you give these people a brain that works?
I would also rather show someone love rather then hate.According to God true love is helping each other to Heaven.To me hate is not telling a person the diffrence.
A certain Southern CEO claims that, while his restaurant chain “respects everyone”, he and his family are in favor of biblical slavery (See Leviticus). While we would roll our eyes, we’d acknowledge his right to express himself freely and there would be no problem. Some folks may institute a boycott. Nowhere is it writ that expressing one’s ideas and belief exempts one from other folks’ reactions,whether by word or deed. Now, add this to the equation; It is revealed that the CEO has donated $3 million to the KKK. Does that fact change anything? I think so.
Isn’t this the same blogger who told us what a nice guy that pedophile preacher was?