Borrow for a Greek vacation
The state is once again not paying its MaineCare (Medicaid) bills, leaving hospitals around the state holding no-interest, unknown maturity state paper to the tune of $150 million. The problem dates back to the King administration.
The unpaid debt to the hospitals is a violation of the Maine Constitution — specifically, the requirement for a balanced budget.
Three plus years ago Sen. Kevin Raye, then minority leader, submitted a bill to bond the unpaid hospital debt. Then-Attorney General Janet Mills ruled that the bill was unconstitutional because it violated the prohibition of borrowing to pay current expenses.
The unpaid debt is a current expense. It is not unexpected. The budget is out of balance. Gov. Paul LePage has an obligation to call a special session to bring the budget in balance. Or we could just stay in denial and borrow some money for a Greek vacation.
Jon Reisman
Cooper
Brighter future
Last week U.S. Rep. Mike Michaud co-sponsored the Incentivizing Offshore Wind Power Act, joining our other congressional delegates in supporting this important bipartisan piece of legislation.
The act would extend the existing tax credits that are necessary in order to spur private investment in offshore wind power projects here in Maine and around the country.
As a college student about to enter the workforce, it is encouraging to see our leaders are working to develop new industries here in Maine. Maine’s offshore wind power potential is enormous, and fully developing it off our coast could bring billions of dollars of investment to the state and create thousands of new jobs, all while protecting our environment and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.
I applaud Michaud and our other congressional delegates for working to move our country and Maine forward to a brighter, cleaner future.
Shwetha Hemavathi
Farmington
Same-sex marriage
“It takes a great deal of bravery to be a Lesbian” — a quote by Harlan Gardner on the latest commercial airing on TV. A World War II veteran comparing lesbianism to fighting a world war.
Really? I wonder what the other WWII vets think about this. Did they go to war so gays and lesbians could get married? I think not. What this boils down to is this: A special interest group wants to change the meaning of the word “marriage” to suit their own interests and lifestyle.
Marriage, as defined, is between a man and a woman, not same-sex couples. Period! We can not allow special interest groups to redefine the dictionary. Have a union, an agreement or whatever, but not marriage.
This referendum must be defeated!
Joseph Kelley
Hampden
Childish thoughts on Collins
As a longtime admirer and supporter of Sen. Susan Collins, I took offense at Chris Busby’s lame and childish column in the Aug. 17 edition of the BDN.
First, let’s dispense with the silly attempt at allegory. The senator is hardly a Snow White-like person. This story line continues to where Busby seems to be overtaken with his own attempt at cleverness and it rises to a level of obscurity where this reader, at least, is left fishing to find the author’s point.
On a serious note, a little lesson in politics. Freckles aside, if you wish to encourage or gain the senator’s support of any objective, poking demeaning fun is not the way to do it.
Bill Shook
Bangor
A vote for humanity
Thank you, Dr. Erik Steele, for having the compassion to bring up the topic of physician-assisted suicide. I’m sorry for the pain that you have dealt with over David’s situation.
Yes, we should be able to end our lives at the time of our choosing. When we are no longer able to do for ourselves, suffer pain, lose our dignity and loved ones are devastated — it’s time to go. If we choose physician-assisted suicide it should be available to us without multiple restrictions. With so few taking advantage of the peaceful way out there have to be many conditions to deal with.
Every week people will ask: Where is Dr. Jack Kevorkian’s remedy to help me or someone I love? Those who feel negative about this procedure have the choice to linger and suffer until they succumb naturally. A vote for humanity is long overdue. Kudos to Oregon and Washington for being merciful states.
Carol Norwood
Ellsworth
Giving makes a difference
An Aug. 21 article in the BDN, on how less-religious states are less generous to charities, got me thinking about the generosity of people running for office.
People get connected to reality through charity. If you are not connected in giving of time and money to charity, you are not connected to the real world. How much have the candidates for our highest office of government given to charity, not taxes to a government that will give back 10 cents on the dollar?
Let’s take a look at who is connected to the people through giving of time and money. Charity usually gives back up to 80 percent of what comes in to the cause it is championing. How much is taken in taxes does not make America great. How much is given in time and money to the people of America and the world is what makes this country great. It is the giving that makes a difference. Taxes are not given; they are taken.
R. Scott Jellison
Hermon
Akin definition
After reading U.S. Rep. Todd Akin’s recent comments about “legitimate rape,” I was surprised and pleased to discover that “the female body has ways to try and shut that whole thing down,” a fact that was hitherto unknown to me.
I had not heard anything of this sort from my biology or health teachers in the past. It’s a welcome relief that I no longer have to worry about my own health and safety anymore, knowing that the female body has such abilities. Now I don’t even need to carry pepper spray!
It is patently clear that Akin is a man of great knowledge, so I would lastly just like to inquire what else the female body has the power to do. It would be neat if it could function as a kitchen appliance or could convert dollars into euros. If Akin could enlighten me on this matter, I would greatly appreciate it.
Emma Howard
Bangor
Joseph Kelley–I am a member of a special interest group…….Americans who believe in equality.
As long as “marriage” is a legal term denoting a service of the state, then denying SSM is denying equality.
Perhaps your church can change the name of the service it performs–maybe holy matrimony–the state doesn’t deal in that.
Really? I wonder what the other WWII vets think about this. Did they go to war so blacks and whites could get married? I think not. What this boils down to is this: A special interest group wants to change the meaning of the word “marriage” to suit their own interests and lifestyle.
Marriage, as defined, is between a man and a woman of the same race, not interracial couples. Period! We can not allow special interest groups to redefine the dictionary. Have a union, an agreement or whatever, but not marriage.
This referendum must be defeated!
The referendum will pass.
In your dreams.
Maybe it will maybe it wont. We will know for sure after the vote is held. Until then we only have the polls to judge voter sentiment and those polls show voters looking favorable on the SSM question.
Interracial marriage would have never passed a vote either — doesn’t mean it was wrong. And guess what, people were making that same religious and moral argument you make now about gay marriage. Funny how history repeats itself.
You will lose in court either way.
Stay tuned… DOMA will go the way of DADT as there is no rational basis for it.
It has been redefined, when Mass Judges ruled not allowing them to marry to be unconstitutional. Also what about churches that will marry gay couples? Why do you have the right to say they can’t do that? The special interest group is the Christians that think they solely own the world marriage.
I know, I was replacing same sex couples with interracial couples in the original letter to show how those same arguments were used in the 60’s. They didn’t work then and they won’t work now.
“We can not allow special interest groups to redefine the dictionary.”
Mr. Kelley, if it were just about one word in the dictionary I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t be so hepped up about it. Let’s face it, you just don’t want homosexual couples to have the same rights you and I do. I wonder what’s happening to the Maine I’ve lived my entire life in where we kept our noses out of other people’s business. Live & let live. If you don’t like what they do then you’re free not to do it yourself.
Joseph Kelley,
Can you, or ANYONE who agrees with you, give us a rational legal argument against gay marriage? Not your personal opinion… not your mythology… but something that will actually stand in court?
You can refer to any of the lost federal court battles to see what has been put forth so far… that’ll save you lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth.
I’ve asked this question repeatedly, and you guys keep proving that you cannot. As such, you will lose, and America will be a better place when you do.
Well, of course. If you remove beliefs and God (not a myth), then the only thing left is nature. It is unnatural in that it does not promote the survival of the species. And you will come back with, “what about infertile couples…. why do you think children are necessary for a loving relationship…… let the heterosexual populate……. there are too many people in the world as it is…… etc.”
There is no argument that you would accept. And, according to your latest comments, you would no longer accept a civil union compromise. Also, you’ve changed from rational to mean-spirited in these discussions. What you gonna’ do if the proposal loses again this November?
Sure it’s a myth… no different than those of the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Scientologists, Muslims, or Hindu…
If it were unnatural, it wouldn’t occur in nature, which it does. Now, plastic… THAT is unnatural as it doesn’t exist in nature. Do you boycott all items plastic, EJ? No? Hypocrisy again…
Infertile couples are no different than gay couples regarding procreation, which , by the way, is not a requirement for marriage anywhere.
EJ, you’re not TRYING to convince me… the argument I’m looking for will be valid in a court of law. So far, not ONE defensive argument by those on your side has stood in court. They have been summarily tossed out by all but ONE federal judge, and no legal scholar who has commented feels he acted within his role in that role (Hawaii).
Mean spirited? Oh wow… pot, meet kettle…
There is NO civil union compromise EJ… that is a fallacy you keep dragging out to keep yourself from looking as if you wish harm on people. When one comes up at the federal level, let me know, I’m all ears, but til then, it’s a meaningless discussion.
What Am I going to do? I’m going to wait on the courts, as I’ve said repeatedly. That’s where this will end. Not with a vote of the people (in fact, no civil rights change has EVER been brought about by a vote of the people). I have no faith in the vote in November, because I’ve seen the level of ignorance, intolerance, disgust, and fear in those voting against us.
1. God is not a myth, and you will realize that one day. Just hope you realize it before you realize it.
2. It is unnatural in that it does not promote the survival of the human species.
3. I am not trying to convince you, because there is no convincing you. Just like there is no convincing me that you were born that way.
4. You have become increasingly and obviously agitated as the argument has progressed. I have tried my best to remain constant. Of course, my consistency depends a lot on the manner in which my comments are reacted to.
5. The civil union compromise has been presented in some states and by some in Congress, but is always rejected because it doesn’t satisfy the SSM zealots.
6. Eventually, and because of the moral decay in this nation, the courts will most likely rule in your favor. When that happens, then so be it. It will be just one more sign that America is losing the vision that the Founding Fathers had.
7. The levels of ignorance, intolerance, disgust and fear have been on both sides of the issue. From the SSM supporters side, there is no room for compromise, and that’s sad.
1. Yes… your god is as real as those of the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Scientologists, Muslims, or Hindu. Keep your worship through fear (figure it out and worship or suffer!!!) nonsense to yourself. It’s nothing more than a choice you have made.
2. It occurs in nature all the time… and procreation is not the only reason for sex except for prudes and those afraid of experience in life. Procreation, like religion, is only a choice.
3. Good. Now, show us the legal argument you have that will stand in court.
4. No agitation, just tired of the same old religious and other bogus arguments against gay marriage. If you have nothing you can put forward that will stand in court (and again, I urge you to go see what your side has put forward thus far to save time), you will lose.
5. States? Who cares? NO civil unions are recognized at the federal level, and you know this. Until promotion of it comes at the federal level, it’s not real… it’s pacification and will never offer the same benefits and protections that marriage does.
6. They will rule in our favor because there is no rational reason not to. There is no government objective that must include such discrimination in marriage to be met, and there is no harm to those who do not take part in gay marriage. Blaming your inability to put forward a rational basis legal argument against gay marriage on “moral decay” is a cop out.
7. Why compromise? There is NOTHING to compromise for! Federal law recognizes only marriage, and religious zealots have attacked any state who even mentions civil unions as “fake marriage”. Marriage exists, marriage is nothing more than a civil contract, marriage will work. Again, there is no rational argument supporting the creation of another civil contract.
Fortunately, we’re not and never have been a Christian nation.
Come on @EJParsons:disqus
Show us that legal argument… not for me to buy into, but for the courts.
I still don’t think you have one, and I KNOW you haven’t kept up with the trail transcripts of cases before the court.
But you can take a stab at it anywah.
Come on EJ… what do you have that will work in court?
Forget convincing me… you’re not TRYING to convince me.
Show us what you have that will work in court.
Personally, I think you know you have nothing, so you ofer nothing.
Verterans fought for us all alike — many veterans being LGBT, whether it was known or not. Don’t you dare disgustling try and strip that away. We’re all good and we’re all Americans.
Well, thank you very much. It’s great to know you think I’m a good American.
That was perfect EJ. You couldn’t have made a better point for ole Wolfe to digest.
While I don’t think he fought for us all, it’s more than you’ve done little pp…
All you’ve done is try to scare people into worshiping your jealous kaiju-god.
Constantly insulting God will really win us all over to your side.
Part of the Constitution you defended EJ…we may not agree with the words but Ted has the right to say them.
Did I say he didn’t have the right? I think if you read through these comment threads, many on the left make it their job to tell others that they have no right to say or believe what they say or believe.
There you go screaming victim again. No one ever said you didn’t have a right to say or believe the garbage that you do.
Not trying to win you over.
There is no point. You made a disgusting claim implying that vets didn’t fight for gay people. Of course they did, they fought for all of us. Gay people also fought for those like you who engage in bigotry. Digest that.
Actually, we fought for America.
The gays fought for America too, the America that they’re rightly and equally a part of.
At least in America, people have the right to choose and live the homosexual lifestyle. However, demanding special treatment or privileges based on a lifestyle choice is pushing things a little too far. They should take the civil unions offer and leave traditional marriage alone.
How is it special to have the same marriage rights that are given to opposite sex couples?
Anything provided to a group that chose their lifestyle is a special privilege.
A. I’m gay, and I didn’t choose to be gay. That kinda hurts your argument, doesn’t it? But, I welcome you to prove me wrong. Go ahead, try to prove that I chose to be gay. I’ll wait.
B. Following that logic, churches should be taxed. After all, they chose their religion.
I’m still waiting for EJ to prove that I, in fact, chose to be gay…
Well, since I believe that God creates all life, and I believe He would never create a life that He disapproves of and would reject on Judgment Day, and that 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 clearly spells out that it is a choice that can be turned away from (with His help), then I don’t believe you were born gay. It doesn’t hurt my argument at all. Humans do things all the time that they actually believe to be true, even though it was a choice they made, sometimes consciously, and sometimes unconsciously.
A. None of that actually “proves” anything. I asked for proof that I “chose” to be gay, and here you are, saying that you “believe” it is a choice, but you don’t have anything to back that up. It hurts your argument because I am a counter example to your “it’s a choice” bs and all you can say otherwise is “nuh uh”.
B. If a “choice” is unconsciously made, is it really a choice?
C. If god is omniscient, then he would know that I would “choose” to be gay and not turn away from it, yet made me anyway…
Then the converse is true and a straight marriage is a special privilege. People aren’t stupid, you’re not going to convince anyone beside bigots that being treated equally is somehow special.
Like the ones given to christians, muslims, and other religions?
Really EJ? Like that? Well, we agree on that one.
Did you serve for ALL Americans EJ? Did you serve to preserve freedom for ALL Americans EJ? Did you serve to defend the civil rights of ALL Americans EJ?
Of course I did. And I served to uphold the moral traditions that come with being a free American. As for special interest groups or those that wish to upset the moral apple cart, that’s a horse of a different color.
As expected…
Fought for the groups you like and stand against liberty for those you don’t.
Sad…
I did not serve to support immorality. I did not serve to support abortion disguised as a woman’t right to choose. I did not serve to support an overreaching government that has no regard for the Constitution or the feelings of the American people. I did not serve for higher taxes and out-of-control spending by our government. I did not serve to support the socialistic wishes of the progressives that have infiltrated our government.
I served for freedom, liberty, and the preservation of the greatness of this nation.
If you fought for the USA then you fought for the wrong country.
“a woman’s right to choose”…that is the problem with your thinking. How dare you decide what a woman can or cannot do with “her” body. It is the woman’s right to choose “today”…not yours.
A woman’s body is not her own. All of our bodies belong to God, who created us.
And when did Biblical law become U.S. Code?
Wow… the insanity is strong in you.
Please cite your ludicrous statement from US civil law.
I see that you wish to impose Sharia Law onto the US.
Yeah sure and just as soon as ‘ god’ shows up and presents me with the title of ownership over my body… I’ll be sure to jump right on your ship of crazy.
Tell that to a rapist.
How dare anyone say that it’s all right to murder an unborn, innocent, defenseless child. The woman can do whatever she wants with her body. But as soon as she becomes pregnant, her body is no longer hers. Her body becomes a host for the unborn child.
Constitutionally though, it is her right to have an abortion within limits.
Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it right. It’s still taking an innocent life, and that’s murder.
Legally, it’s not murder. In your opinion it’s murder.
So what about a miscarriage? That considered manslaughter in your mind?
nope … that is god saying “whoops” ;)
Excellent…
Are you SERIOUS??? So now women are incubators???? NEWSFLASH women’s bodies never STOP being their bodies and just as soon as you boys can incubate a fetus for 9 months, give birth and lactate to feed said child THEN you have equal say. I can guarantee if males were able to get pregnant, go through child birth and lactate to feed their child there would be no question about abortion.
That’s very true. I forget where, but there was a proposed law that would make it illegal for a man to deposit sperm in any place other than a woman’s vagina. A lawmaker against abortions criticized it because “it would tell men what they can and can’t do with their own bodies”.
Perfect example. Imagine women telling males that males cannot have a vasectomy or that their viagra will no longer be covered by insurance…. males would have a hissy fit. If one does not have a vagina then one has a limited opinion…..if you do have a vagina then you have a choice as to what you want to do or not do re: abortion.
So you condone the taking of an innocent life? You’d rather have the death of an unborn child on your conscience just to please your selfishness and unwillingness to take responsibility for your actions? Interesting.
Do you think WOMEN get pregnant all by themselves? I love it- no accountability of the males in your scenario. Do you know how many children are in foster care in this country because their biological incubator and their biological sperm donor couldn’t take care of them? Over 420,000 children are in foster care -of which your taxes go to support. Here’s the problem people like you b*tch and moan about abortion- yet don’t feel ‘comfortable’ teaching kids about contraception in school (because we all know abstinence works so well) ….so then the female has the child and POST birth of said child then people like you b*tch and moan about single parents and people on welfare and how you don’t want to have single parents on welfare or it’s not your problem that they have housing or have enough to eat or are safe…..so which is it? And to answer your question- choosing to have an abortion IS taking responsibility…..having a child you cannot possibly provide for (and then are demonized by people like you -for not being to take care of said child) is IRRESPONSIBLE.
I happen to believe that the father should be held responsible for his actions. I think the father should have a say in the child’s fate, particularly when the father wants to take care of the child and raise the child. But, when that is brought up, the fems will scream that the father has no right to tell the woman that she has to carry the child to birth. So, there’s a catch 22 there.
Did you know that the number of abortions in the US almost match the number of unfilled adoption requests? Did you know that the adoption industry in the US is so expensive and filled with unnecessary paperwork that most couples that want to adopt end up going overseas? And did you know that ALL children are precious in the eyes of God?
Of course you didn’t know. You’re too busy assuming. Abortion is murder, plain and simple.
Can a fetus sustain itself out side of a women’s body at 1 week? 2 weeks? 3 weeks? 4 weeks? 5 weeks? 6 weeks? 7 weeks? 8 weeks? No it cannot and cannot for quite some time. That does not make the fetus a ‘person.’
Women are NOT incubators and just as soon as you acquire a vagina maybe you will not be doing all the ‘assuming.’ Cite the information you use re: abortions and adoption for this country. So in essence what you are saying is that women should be required to ‘fix’ the issue of people who want to adopt children in this country BRILLIANT……aren’t you for smaller government and less regulation…..just not when it comes to women apparently- then for you it’s all about regulation and government…interesting.
Outside of the woman’s body, it is a baby, not a fetus. Inside the mother’s womb, it is an unborn child. “Fetus” is used in an attempt to deny that there is a life within the woman, therefore dehumanizing the unborn and making it easier to treat is as disposable.
But, since you have no respect for the life of the unborn, and you would never consider that the pregnant mother should take responsibility for her actions, there is no need to argue with you.
You’re right we don’t need to argue and here is the difference between you and I- What I have respect for (and that you do not clearly have respect for) is this- my personal beliefs do not give me the right to force a woman into having an abortion anymore than my personal beliefs give me the right to force a women into not having abortion. It’s not my body, it’s not my choice, it’s not my situation, it’s none of my business….my personal opinion applies to me and what I would or would not do- I have no right to force my opinion on anyone else. If I don’t believe in abortion I don’t have one or if I do believe in abortion I have one- other than that it’s NO ONE ELSE’S BUSINESS what I do or do not do. If people like you spent more time worrying about yourself and your business instead of making everyone’s business your business the world would be a nicer place.
What about my right to speak for the unborn, defenseless, and innocent life that is snuffed out in a violent manner? I guess that’s no one’s business either.
You’re expressing that right.
You seem to be confused…you have all the right in the world to spew on and on about whatever you wish to spew on about- what you DON’T have the ‘right’ to do is force another person into doing or not doing something based on YOUR personal beliefs and not that other person’s personal beliefs. You don’t agree with abortion or smoking or drinking or same sex marriage- don’t have an abortion, don’t smoke, don’t drink and don’t marry someone of the same sex…..easy fix….this really isn’t quantum physics EJ…it’s common sense- which apparently(so they say) is not so common.
Because a woman who decides to have an abortion is all about you and your rights is that it EJ? REALLY??? Wow.
Might I suggest you read this: http://global.christianpost.com/news/rapists-can-claim-custody-visitation-rights-for-victims-babies-80656/
Do you believe that rapists should have custody/visitation rights and/or have the right to deny that the child born of their actions is allowed to be put up for adoption?
Give me a break. Rapists are criminals, and they should have no rights concerning the child. Still, there is a life, and that life should be protected.
Spoken like a white male….pfffffft.
Well in 31 states it doesn’t matter … its the law. Guess it just doesn’t jive with your idea of “fathers taking responsibility” …
Does that include Ryan’s theory that rape is just another method of conception? Women who become impregnated through rape must take responsibility for their actions (ovulating) or the actions of the male who raped her?
That is the “function” of females …. incubators for a man’s seed …. ;)
I hear scientists are working on synthetic sperm. Soon there will be no reason for men.
===
Actually you did EJ…you can say you didn’t but you served to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”…
That means the whole Constitution EJ and the Constitution is not “selective” when it comes to two consenting adults.
You forgot that every individual has rights. Not two, not special interest groups who put their interests over others. It is social injustice and I fought to preserve justice. It is the choice of 2 people to do what they want moral or immoral.
I don’t think I said anything different devonshire….
The U.S. Constitution does not draw any distinction between individual rights and the rights of a couple (heterosexual or homosexual).
Not sure what oath you took but I don’t recall any part that referred to “moral or immoral” acts.
I don’t quite understand what you are saying. I know that any two or more people, regardless of sexual preference, are free to form relationships of their choice. That was not the way it was 3 or 4 decades ago in many parts of the country. So what freedom are you seeking? Don’t tell me the freedom to marry. You can marry. You can form your own ceremonies. But you can’t force people to accept same-sex relationships by having the state endorse and promote them with a change in the definition of marriage. Marriage is a right only in the context between a man and a woman regardless of their sexual preferences or non-preferences.
You’re referring to only some parts of the country. Call enacting and changing laws “forcing” all you want, but it is what it is. We move closer towards realizing “all men are created equal” every day and thank God for that.
“But you can’t force people to accept same-sex relationships by having the state endorse and promote them with a change in the definition of marriage. Marriage is a right only in the context between a man and a woman regardless of their sexual preferences or non-preferences.”
That horse left the barn back in 2004 when Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gay and lesbian couples had the same right to marry as a heterosexual couple did under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Hmmmm …. repeatedly on this forum posters have stated the marriage is not a “right” but a priviledge and therefore same-sex couples do not have the right to enter into it. You state that marriage is a “right” but only between a male and female. Which is it whawell … a priviledge or a right?
It’s funny, because either way, it is protected by the 14th amendment.
There is NO legal contract that bestows the benefits and guarantees of marriage.
And you know this.
Why do you lie repeatedly?
As for acceptance… what makes you think I want acceptance by someone like you?
You deny the right of same-sex couples who love each other to be afforded the “priviledge” of civil marriage because you believe they are immoral and put their “interests” over others. At the same time you believe that you have the right to do this because you believe that “marriage” belongs to a special interest group ….. who puts their interests over others. Hmmmmm
“Religious marriage” is regulated by which ever religion one choose to be a part of but they do not have the right to regulate those marriages conducted by other religions. No matter what religious ceremony is held, it is not legal without a civil marriage license.
“Civil marriage ” is regulated by the state through the issuing of a civil license. It does not mandate that a religious official conduct the ceremony or discriminate against those of any religious affiliation or those who do not have a religious affiliation. It allows that a couple may choose an agent that the state whom the state have given the authority to conduct the legal witnessing of the contract.
Same-sex couples are getting a fair shake in America. Many laws have been enacted to protect gays. Now gays can get around without being molested or jeered at. People are free to form relationships of their choice, sexual or otherwise. Society however is not obligated to endorse nor promote same-sex relationships, something which the current proposal to change the definition of marriage between a man and a woman would do. I doubt most people want to go that far once they understand what civil marriage is all about, that is, a state endorsement and promotion of certain relationships.
“Same-sex couples are getting a fair shake in America.”
Really? According to who? cp444? EJ? You?
Do you realized that a gay couple are not legally allowed to make end of life decisions when the person they love cannot make them for themselves? That something that you (assuming you are married) and I do not have a problem doing.
Did you know that net of kin of a family member of a gay or lesbian couple can deny visitation rights in a nursing home or hospital. That is something that you (assuming you are married) and I do not have a problem doing.
~~~~~
“Many laws have been enacted to protect gays. Now gays can get around without being molested or jeered at.”
You live a very sheltered life if you think or believe that gays are protected and are not the object of hate.
~~~~~
“People are free to form relationships of their choice, sexual or otherwise.”
Yes they are.
~~~~~
“Society however is not obligated to endorse nor promote same-sex relationships, something which the current proposal to change the definition of marriage between a man and a woman would do.”
The definition has changed twice in my lifetime so that horse left the barn a very long time ago. Now, if you marriage is valid in any state you travel to that is another right or privilege that a gay or lesbian couple does not have.
~~~~~
“I doubt most people want to go that far once they understand what civil marriage is all about, that is, a state endorsement and promotion of certain relationships.”
The state already endorses marriage and promotes heterosexual relationships and marriage is a CIVIL law represented by a state issued marriage license. Once that license is issued, the couple it is issued to can select between a civil ceremony or a religious ceremony.
“Now gays can get around without being molested or jeered at.” …. if you believe that statement you are living not in America but in Denial.
Past laws to ensure protection have changed attitudes towards how we treat people. But no matter how many laws are passed, there will always be isolated incidents of abuse. I know because I have 2 disabilities. Also, no matter how the election results turn out here in Maine this November there will always be a sizable portion of the population that will loathe same-sex relationships. The difference between the treatment people were subjected to in the past and are now subjected to today it that it is no longer institutional.
It is institutional if you have all sorts of anti-gay marriage amendments across the country. If you have DOMA which has a legislative history of being anti-gay. It’s still institutional whether you want to admit it or not.
You’re so freaking out of touch… in over 2/3 of America, you can be fired from your job for being gay, kicked out of housing, denied services… all of which is illegal to do to someone for their choice of following religion.
There’s a sick double standard in this country, kept alive by people like you.
When this is all settled in court, I’ll be here to listen to you wail and gnash teeth… it’ll be great, and your life won’t change one bit.
Whawell is the kind of commenter that doesn’t let facts sway him/her.
The gay marriage referendum is not nation-wide. It’s here in Maine where civil protections are already in place.
They are no where near equal though. Why do you insist on ignoring facts? You refuse to educate yourself and continue to spread misinformation despite the fact that you’ve been corrected over and over.
During the discussions concerning the beginning of life you made the same objections over and over: Why do you insist on ignoring facts? Do I have to prove you wrong again this time? Save yourself the humiliation. I’d tried not to humiliate you the last time by repeatedly offering you the key (textbooks on embryology) but you refused to resort to it. Finally I felt compelled to lay out the facts for the entire world to see because you kept insisting I was lying. My, my.
Is an acorn a tree?
Or a tadpole a frog?
A bean a vine?
And on and on and on…
Haven’t you heard, trees reproduce differently than humans? One belongs to the animal kingdom while the other, a lesser developed form of life on the biological scale, does not.
You’re not an honest person. I’m sorry. You cite science when it’s convenient for you and then you ignore it when it’s not. The other day you were singing the praising of embryologists because you (erroneously [an embryo is the beginning stage of life, but it’s not a human yet and none of your sources said otherwise]) believed they were saying something you liked. But not too many weeks ago, you were denying science when they said that gay parents are just as effective at raising children as straight parents.
I have absolutely NO problem with disagreement. I have no problem learning about new things and having my opinion changed. What I do have a problem with is hypocrites who do things as a matter of convenience. So for the issue of embryos, you love science, but for gay parents, you hate science. You can’t both love and hate science at once without being a hypocrite. Trust me, your unprincipled behavior and willful ignorance of facts doesn’t humiliate me.
I did everything possible to show you the evidence in written form. It looks like you are having trouble understanding written English or, more likely, you are just ignoring factual data when it does not advance your false notions. So far, you’ve shown nothing but contempt for me for a long time. I can’t help it if you take well-intended arguments personally. People like you should not post unless they can take opposing views. It’s not good for their mental well-being.
I can take opposing views. You saying that I can’t over and over again doesn’t make it so. What I can’t take is hypocrisy. You loving science one second and then ignoring it another. That’s hypocrisy.
a word to the wise..
whawell is a rabid anti-gay poster….. in my opinion not worth a reply…
Oh I know… he’s hung up on procreation even though it’s not a valid rationale against gay marriage.
He has nothing else… so he’s replaced it with venom.
Reply to him… we want to be sure he’s still coming around when SCOTUS finds against him and his so we can watch is reaction.
It’ll be worth it I’m sure.
Oh, he will keep coming around. I do not think that he can help himself. I find his unending prurient interest in SSM absolutely creepy. I will leave it to you and others to reply to his posts. I have done my part more times than I can count. He is a fellow who cloaks his malevolence in religion and polite verbiage. I must say though that it seems to me from reading his latest posts that he is unraveling.
You actively fight against liberty. It shows in every post you make.
War is immoral….it must be nice to pick and choose what exactly it was you were serving for…that being said I pretty sure you also ‘served’ with fellow Americans who were gay…and that’s the point..the Constitution applies to ALL AMERICANS – it doesn’t only apply to white, entitled, christian males…who have never been denied anything in this country since it’s inception. Read a history book.
Good job EJ of turning a discussion of same sex marriage into a debate about your favorite subject Abortion. If I remember my high school biology class two people of the same sex can not produce children.
And what branch did you serve in and in what war?
I have combat veterans in every single generation of my immediate family and I know they didn’t fight for America with an asterix on the end indicating they were only fighting for some Americans. I think it’s so disgusting and offensive that you and others are trying to imply that this country is only made up of people like you. Only were the wars fought by people like you and only were they fought for by people like you. How shameful and selfish.
You are disgusting. I was drafted, served in Nam and am a disabled vet. While it may not have been a just war I was taught that when called you serve as every generation of family before me served. It is people such as yourself who denigrated us when we returned home. We were the most maligned group of veterans. To insinuate that this country is made up of only people like me is even a greater affront. You should be ashamed. It is people like you who spit on us when we returned because of the way you think. You believe you are better than us terds.
You did what society expected of you. You did what the government required of you. You don’t know what wolf would or wouldn’t have done on your return.
In the United States when it comes to Civil Rights we are all supposed to be equal. No one person or class of person is any more or less important than any other person.
The point you, cp444, EJ, etc….keep pounding away at is you are more equal then gays and lesbians.
At one time or other many groups have been “less” than full citizens. “No Irish Need Apply”, “Whites Only”, etc….could be found all over this country and now we look back, scratch our heads and say “why”?
One day we will do the same thing when we look back at this period in our nations history.
I believe that gays and lesbians have equal rights. The problem I have is their affront to what I consider to be marriage and that their opinion differs from mine. Yes they should be able to have the rights of a couple. They should be allowed to engage in a civil union.
And you think you should be able to use the law to keep them down because you don’t agree with them. I don’t agree with your religious choices, but I’m not using the law to try and endorse and preference my religion over yours.
Maybe you do not know that civil unions are not equal to marriage rights in many ways and therefore many rights that are available to married couple are denied to gay couples. There is actually no way to protect the rights of couples other than allowing them to be married.
I am surprised that someone such as yourself who has fought to protect the freedoms of your fellow citizens would now be voting to deny them, no matter your personal discomfort or prejudices in regard to the word ‘marriage’.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. I’ve never denigrated veterans — I have denigrated bigots, but I try to be respectful of the ignorance of others. I didn’t spit on a veteran and I don’t think that is acceptable behavior. You know nothing about me, so back off. You have no basis to make the claims you’re making.
Other posters and you including were implying and saying directly our wars weren’t fought for gays and lesbians. Well guess what, the gays and lesbians were there serving their country whether you knew it or not. The veterans in my family fought for everyone, not just some. They didn’t fight so they could come home and single out minority groups and demonize them — Calling them “special interest groups” simply because they want to be treated equally. That’s wrong and that’s un-American.
the Nam vets were singled out and demonized…that is un-American. I am voting on principle and it ain’t gonna be for SSM.
Communist principles?
@ Truemarxistnative……You obviously mispelled Christian principles!
In many parts of the country, vets coming home from the Middle East are being demonized and discriminated against. Of course, the President talks a lot to, not with, the troops, but only when he needs them for a political cause. He’s not at all in touch with the troops.
So then you know what it’s like being a gay person.
I’m not saying you deserved the treatment you got after war, however, those detractors in their own minds were acting on their anti-war principles. They acted in varying degrees, some simply spoke out against the war and some spit on veterans. Similarly, there are those who are against gay people. Some simply speak out and vote against them and others decide it might to be good to beat them up or kill them.
When you say you will work against gay people based upon your faith and principles, it sends a message to the more extreme people, it lets them think it’s alright to be against gays and lesbians, just like that anti-war and anti-vet sentiment did. So when people say, no, gays don’t deserve to be married, they taint the institution. No, gays should have never been able to serve openly in the military, they’ll ruin morale – that sends a message that it’s alright to treat them unequally and the result of that is thousands of kids being kicked out of their homes when their parents find out they’re gay. Thousands being attacked and bullied for being gay. Thousands having their contributions to society erased and minimized.
It’s not right. It’s not right when it happens to ANY group of people.
maybe that’s because ‘nam vets’ did some atrocious things while in nam and laos….if you can go to war and kill people on ‘principal’ then SSM is a no brainer for someone like you.
The way that the veterans returning from their service in Vietnam were treated was shameful.
No question about that.
Whatever principles that now lead you to vote against other citizens equal rights are certainly not humane . Too bad that you are so narrow minded, but of course it is your right to vote your own conscience. I find your position completely shameful.
You denigrate everyone that disagrees with your opinions and beliefs. And you do it consistently. You are not respectful of differing opinions, and can’t stand it when someone points out your faults. You can’t even accept a person’s apology or accept the fact that once in a while people on the other side actually agree with you. And you can’t handle humor.
I can’t speak for all veterans or retired military, but I can tell you that when I went in in the early 70s, there was no thought about any particular group or cause that I might be fighting or dying for. All I knew is that I was serving my country and willing to do whatever I was ordered to do, go anywhere I was ordered to go, and fight any battle I was ordered to fight. While in uniform, my number one goal was to do the best I could for the country.
Now it seems that some people in this country and in these comment threads think that if I didn’t serve to provide them with SSM or entitlements or some other special right, then my service was worthless. Well, they can stuff it where the sun don’t shine, as far as I’m concerned.
I proudly served for over 2 decades to make darn sure that America remained a free and prosperous nation. And I will continue to do whatever I can to make sure it remains that way. That’s why I fight daily to get rid of the present administration, because they are pushing us over the economic and social cliff. We have the most anti-American group in charge that has ever been in charge. America is dying, and the Progressives are the ones that are driving the knife into America’s heart.
I also will continue to stand for the voiceless and innocent unborn, and for traditional marriage. Murder and immorality should not be condoned.
As for you, you really need to open your eyes and realize that not everyone thinks or believes the way you do. If you can grasp just that little bit, you’ll be a much happier person, and you just might start treating those of us that disagree with you as humans.
“You denigrate everyone that disagrees with your opinions and beliefs. And you do it consistently.” – Is that why anyone who disagree’s with you is “anti-American”?
“I proudly served for over 2 decades to make darn sure that America remained a free and prosperous nation. And I will continue to do whatever I can to make sure it remains that way.” – Is that why you fight against same sex couples seeking equal protection and treatment under the law?
I respect your service to our country. What I do not respect is your efforts to deny other Americans their rights simply because you disagree with them.
I directly point out those that I feel are anti-American. For some reason, some on here think I’m talking about them. If the shoe fits.
I will stand against immorality, and that included SSM. I would support equal civil unions, but that’s not good enough, because it doesn’t fit their agenda. SSM is only a stepping stone to more immoral demands.
I’m not personally denying anything to anyone. If the laws change, I’ll abide by them, even if I disagree with them. I will continue, however, to support those that will put their efforts behind getting things back to the way I believe.
And those that are “anti-American” just so happen to be all the people you disagree with. Hmm…
“I would support equal civil unions, but that’s not good enough, because it doesn’t fit their agenda” – Except that whole “separate but equal is unconstitutional” thing gets in the way of your “solution”
“I’m not personally denying anything to anyone. If the laws change, I’ll abide by them, even if I disagree with them. I will continue, however, to support those that will put their efforts behind getting things back to the way I believe.” – Oh, I see, you don’t deny Americans their rights, you just support the people who deny Americans their rights. If that’s what it takes for you to sleep at night…
So, did you give your fellow soldiers a litmus test to see if they were “moral”?
Civil unions, where they do exist are indeed not “good enough”.
You can keep lying about me all you want, but it’s not going to change things.
I have no problem with those who disagree with me. I have a problem with people who lie and are hateful.
Personally, I think the extremists, the Tea Party aka the American Taliban, are the true problem this country has right now.
We’re all one country. We all love the country. Seems like you’re the one who can’t handle disagreement if you call those you disagree with anti-American and say they’re trying to destroy the country. So ridiculous and not even worth a response.
The Tea Party are not extremists, and it’s immature to label them the American Taliban when you haven’t an honest clue what the Tea Party stands for. OWS much more fits that mold.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but we all do not love this country. Many of Obama’s closest advisers praise China over the US. Obama, himself, believes that the US is cause of poverty and oppression in many of the other countries in the world. He spent many of his developing years in Muslim controlled countries and has been mentored by anti-Americans at all levels of his development and education. His goal is to bring this nation down to the same level as the rest of the world and implement socialism. Trouble is, he actually believes that he’s doing what’s best for everyone, because that’s all he’s been told all of his life.
I’m well informed. The Tea Party is an extremist group nad they’re the reason why our government is functioning the way it is. Period.
If you think the Tea Party is an extremist group, then you are uninformed.
The Tea Party started out as a great fiscal movement…
Then it was hijacked by those with a fundy agenda… terribly sad really.
Actually the Tea Party was conceived, begun and financed by the Koch brothers.
There is a thorough expose on this in an issue of the New Yorker from last year.
Not sure but I believe that it is still available online.
So misinformed. Sad that you would believe such tripe. Even sadder that you would spread such tripe.
Speaking of …
Accusing the President of being a socialist Kenyan Muslim who wasn’t born here and wants to destroy the country sounds pretty extreme to me.
You might want to back that one up.
LOL, that’s rich coming from you. Care to back up any of the outrageous claims you’ve made just today? Many have asked you to back your claims up and I notice you’ve ignored those requests…
Anyway, you and Herman Cain claim that liberals hate and are destructive to America. You and Donald Trump have questioned Obama’s birth place. You and Michele Bachmann have questioned Obama’s religious believes. Etc.
And uninformed.
The Tea Party are extremists. Their actions are destroying this country.
Examples, please. And while you’re at it, make a list of all the Tea Party members that have been arrested at rallies. Show me pictures of the Tea Party burning property, blocking people trying to go to work, spewing profanity, or disrupting.
We are not extremists in any way, with the exception of caring about America.
Hyperbolic. Again. Propaganda of dubious or non-existent validity.
War and killing is immoral- and I believe not killing was what? One of those pesky 10 commandments wasn’t it? Funny how you can ignore that ‘moral code’ because you were somehow justified in your tiny little mind for not having to follow it. Big deal so you served…get in line with everyone else who has also served this country- it was a choice to serve (unless you were drafted) so yippee you chose to serve….I would dare say going to war and killing other people is no different than how you perceive abortion …a life is a life isn’t it? Oh right after the life is born all bets are off…then killing that life is A-OK. You speak out of the place where the ‘sun don’t shine’…..you justify your close minded bigotry by trying to hang your so called patriotic flag on your sad little opinion…..try again EJ try again.
You have much to be angry about.
Yes, the Christian special interest groups trying to force all other Americans to live by their creed are indeed a horse of a different color.
President Truman “upset the moral apple cart” when he signed Executive Order 9981 in 1948: “It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. This policy shall be put into effect as rapidly as possible, having due regard to the time required to effectuate any necessary changes without impairing efficiency or morale.”
Now it didn’t work instantly but it certainly “upset the apple cart”. And you can say that it’s not the same thing but at the TIME, it was the exact same thing.
Secretary of the Army Royall was fired (forced into retirement) in April 1949 for continuing to refuse to desegregate the Army.
In 1963, Secretary of Defense McNamara issued Directive 5120.36 obligating military commanders to employ their financial resources against facilities used by soldiers or their families that discriminated based upon sex or race.
Now I expect cp444 to chime in that blacks take offense at the comparison of Civil Rights to Gay Rights but the comparison is fair and proper. Blacks were treated as second class citizens in many places, non-human in others and subject to “street” justice and lynchings. Can anyone argue that gays and lesbians have been treated any differently?
Gay people served right along side you whether you realize it or not. They served with you so you could be a bigot under the guise of upholding “morality” and you served for them so they could be immoral. Wonderful, isn’t it?
Should we have integrated the military under Harry Truman or did that, too, upset the moral apple cart at the time? Clearly, those supporting segregation pointed to the Bible to justify their beliefs.
Would love to poll our WW11 vets and see what they think of not only our gays and lesbians, but also what they think of our bi-sexuals, trans- sexuals, trans- genders, flex-sexuals, pan-sexuals, undecided…..and now we have boys wearing dresses claiming their preference can change from day to day.
Read all about it here: http://engagefamilyminute.com/2012/08/boys-wearing-dresses-and-pan-sexuals-are-we-confused/
Come on little one… what’s your legal argument to defend your views against same-sex marraige?
Funny that you guys never put any forward… and I’m sure you’ve done the research </sarcasm>.
Just kidding… I know you guys research nothing.
Your comment is disgusting and hateful. There are many gay veterans. They fought for all of us. Why don’t you ask those gay veterans what they think of your bigotry? While you’re at it, look up Alan Turing, the gay man who devised the techniques used to crack the German code.
Not only that, Alan Turing was also a major contributor to computers as we know them today. cp444 is relying on technology made possible by a gay atheist to criticize the LGBT community.
Very good point… I wonder how pp444 feels about supporting gay marriage supporters every time they get online…
Hopefully, they feel proud… unfortunately, I don’t think they get it.
I’m curious about what operating system cp444 uses…
I’m pretty sure it’s not Linux or Unix…
As such, pp444 is supporting gay rights every time the boot up. Then they get online and support Cisco, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Adobe, and many other major contributors to gay rights.
So, I guess we really owe him/her/it a thanks for all the support.
Well, at least he still has Chick Fil A…
And Pep Boys…
Ah, I see. Your litmus test on morality is based on what a person does for a living or what they have contributed to society. Gosh, you guys are really deep.
It doesn’t change the fact that no matter how much you rant and rave about gays and lesbians, everytime you turn on your computer, you are most likely supporting same sex marriage. And the only thing you can do about it is to stop using a computer.
and your litmus test on morality is based on your own debased prejudice…
Your morality pp, is your opinion. You’re welcome to it.
But stop expecting it to be instituted as civil law.
And thanks for all the support little guy!
And your litmus test is based on what two consenting adults does in the privacy of their home.
You make sure to thank Alan for his service to our country and his contributions to society. Make sure you also tell him that God finds homosexuality to be immoral and he should turn from his ways.
Well, he was also an atheist, so he would not care about threats from what he would have considered “imaginary friends”.
Oh, he doesn’t sound very smart to me…but thank him anyway.
pp, smart doesn’t matter to you… fear and blind faith in things producing fear.
That’s all you’re interested in.
Well, when you achieve anywhere near what Alan Turing achieved, then maybe I’ll start to take you seriously…
He was British… Not very educated are you? Good grief.
Commented on wrong post.
Huh?
I wasn’t knocking the guy!
Sorry, that was meant for cp444.
You didn’t even care to look what he did and what he’s about. Pathetic.
Alan Turing died in 1954 ….. you can tell him when you see him.
If he went to his death an atheist I won’t be seeing him again, so you will have to do it.
If Alan Turing is in hell, then I would be honored to stand by his side.
It will be the worst decision you ever made. There will be absolutely no love there whatsoever. I certainly don’t wish that on you or anyone else.
What you call the worst decision sounds like a great decision to me.
Satan wants you there, God doesn’t . The choice is completely yours to make.
I don’t know who originally said this but:
“I mean, if you really think about it, the Devil was the one that offered up critical thinking, which God didn’t want. God didn’t want us to eat from the tree of knowledge or whateverthehell it was so that we would be thought-slaves for eternity. The Devil actually did us a favor and turned the table witha single conversation. Plus, it is known that the Devil only killed about a grand total of ten (10) people, whereas God killed somewhere around 2.3 million in the Bible.The Devil understands our human nature, but doesn’t judge you for being human. I mean, he accepts God’s unwanted children unconditonally. And still, people think that he’s the bad guy here. He’s considered the d*ckhead. Why? Because he can take it. He’s our dark night.”
Go ahead Eve, God didn’t really mean you will die if you disobey Him. Satan has not changed his tactic at all, no need to, it’s just as effective today as it was then.
Is that why he killed Lot’s wife for disobeying him?
I would say partly, her reluctance to leave such an evil city probably played a part in it.
You stated: “God didn’t really mean you will die if you disobey Him.” Lot’s wife disobeyed god, and was proptly killed by god. That is just one of many examples of god throwing hissy fits over people not following all of the strange requests he gives them. Satan only killed 10 people, and even then that was because god made a bet with him.
Maybe it’s just that your “god” is an assh0le.
“Worship me or suffer for eternity for I am the petty, jealous Kaiju-god!!!” – Jehovah
What a sham… worship through fear is not worship, it’s cowering.
DOOM DOOM DOOM!!! SPOOKY SPOOKY SPOOKY!!!
FEAR FEAR FEAR!!!
“Worship me or suffer for eternity for I am the petty, jealous Kaiju-god!!!” – Jehovah
More mythological hogwash, pp?
Is that really all you have?
I am pretty sure that God is not going to care about Homosexuality. As long as they live a life of happiness and love. If God does care, then why worship him. If he can’t look past the fact that someone is in a loving committed relationship with someone of the same sex then why call him God? If you are a great wonderful loving person you will get into heaven, however if you get up there and God say no, simply because you were gay or didn’t believe in him then that is not a loving god, but a spiteful one. Also Gay couples do not sin anymore then you do, so BOOM ROASTED
Also Poll them and see what they thought about serving with blacks.
Mr. Kelley, it appears that you haven’t looked up the word “marriage” in the dictionary, so please allow me.
From Webster’s:
a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage (same-sex marriage)
Yeah, how about that 2nd definition!
That’s the new version paid for by the LGBT lobby.
OMG, are you really picking a fight with Webster’s?
LOL
It’s worth remembering that beyond the dictionary definition, marriage exists legally between persons of the same gender in other states and countries.
It’s real.
You can continue to believe that “same sex marriage” is an acceptable new concept of marriage.
And I will continue to laugh at how ridiculous this contradiction in terms is.
Well, it IS an accepted definition of marriage to a lot of people, and it’s legal in many places. Laugh all you want to, but opinion polls show that the number of Americans who favor SSM is increasing, not decreasing. They don’t see it as a contradiction at all. They see it as the right thing to do.
Peculiar sense of humor.
Care to back up your claim with facts?
Prove it.
Your comment is delusional.
Shwetha Hemavathi – “tax credits that are necessary in order to spur private investment in offshore wind power projects.” Subsidies to wind and solar are nothing more than programs that will make a select few rich so they can go belly up and leave the taxpayer with the tab. If you want new industries in Maine, make sure the investment is going for industries that will last and will actually benefit Mainers. Wind is a scam, and these monstrosities will be left to rust away when the subsidies dry up.
Joseph Kelley – Well stated. Hope you got on your flack jacket.
Carol Norwood – Have no fear, my dear. If Obamacare is ever fully implemented, the elderly, invalids, and the sick will be discarded because they won’t be worth the money necessary to keep them alive. Your wish will come true.
R. Scott Jellison – Only in the last two years have the Obama’s upped their charitable giving. Prior to that, they averaged less than 2%, with a slight increase when he because an Illinois Senator. Of course, the increase is most likely due to him trying to look charitable, not because he actually is more charitable.
So EJ, only money is true charitable giving? I don’t have a lot of money, but I give time almost every day. It’s a sad day when we a judged by how much money we give, to the plate.
It’s not just to the plate, and it’s not just money. But, that’s the only gauge that we have for comparing Obama and Romney. If you want to add in time, then Romney stomps Obama into the ground. Obama’s free time is spent on the golf course.
SO What he plays golf to unwind.
The mainstream media got on GWBs case for playing golf when the country was at war, so he quit playing for the last 5 years of his administration. We’re still at war, and in the worst recession since the 30s, and Obama gets in plenty of golf. Of course, that’s all right for him because he’s a Democrat.
EJ Here’s your sign!
You keep it. It looks better on you.
It wasn’t just golf. GWB had 1,020 vacation days. That is over 1/3 of his entire presidency. Obama has taken 61 vacation days. At the same point in Bush’s presidency, W had taken 180 vacation days, nearly three times as many as Obama has taken. Just a little perspective…
General observation….does anyone really believe that the President has a “vacation” in the truest sense of the word? It’s not like he can call up the Vice-President and say “Joe (or Dick) I am headed out for a week or two. I am leaving the nuclear football for you and the Red Phone to the Kremlin.”
That’s a left wing lie conjured up to allow Obama to take as many vacation days as he wanted.
You’re the one lying. You don’t like a fact so you pretend it just doesn’t exist. It’s ridiculous what you do.
Nope, not lying. Camp David and the Crawford Ranch were alternate work sites, and many, many Congressmen and foreign dignitaries were entertained at both locations. Summits and meetings were also held at both locations. Very few of Bush’s days at either Crawford or Camp David could be classified as vacations. Of course, if the libs want to say that every day away from the White House is a vacation day, then Obama better stop campaigning.
The libs, the libs, the libs, the progressives! God, grow up. You’re literally making things up just to get a political dig in. I’m glad you believe the stuff you manufacture, but no one else does. Get over it. The President doesn’t hate the country. You just disagree with him, that’s all.
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/president-obamas-vacation-days/
General observation….does anyone really believe that the President has a “vacation” in the truest sense of the word? It’s not like he can call up the Vice-President and say “Joe (or Dick) I am headed out for a week or two. I am leaving the nuclear football for you and the Red Phone to the Kremlin.”
Even though you cite an article from January of 2010, it backs up my claim. Camp David and the Crawford Ranch were far from anything that could be classified as vacations.
You missed my point EJ…Presidents don’t get vacations like the rest of us. Even John Adams went home to Quincy to escape Washington politics.
When you focus on the little stuff you miss the big stuff.
None of them are remotely anything like a vacation, except that the President can spend his “leisure” or fitness time someplace other than in DC. The White House pretty much goes with him everywhere he goes. The rest is optics.
Agreed
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-503743_162-4735360.html
Days at Camp David: 487
Days at Crawford Ranch: 490
Days at Kennebunkport: 43
Total: 1020 vacation days
Yes, another “left wing lie”, otherwise known as reality.
Camp David is where the President’s go away to work.
Crawford Ranch, also called the Texas White House, is where the President worked and entertained delegates from around the world and Congress (it was the requested place for many that came to the US because they wanted to get away from DC).
His father lives in Kennebunkport and has a compound there. That was an actual vacation destination.
Even some of the lefties on here have excused the Camp David days. Some have even given Bush credit for many of the days at Crawford because of all the work he did there.
Others on the left twist these figures in order to make Obama look good. Ain’t working.
LOL, pathetic.
Disprove it.
I honestly don’t think you can.
Already did.
ROFLOL!
No, EJ, you didn’t.
Direct me to where you have proven it to not be true. EJ… I’ll wait.
No, it is not a lie of any sort. It is a fact. You call any fact that you do not like a ‘left wing lie’.
also EJ, they both give about, 14% of their earnings to charity, Romney gave more because he has more. It seem to me that Romney might have more time to give, then Obama, being President is a full time job, and most of them played some golf.
A percentage make no matter of the amount. 14% is 14%, whether it’s from a million or a thousand.
As for Obama being so busy since he’s the President, maybe you haven’t noticed that he’s done more than 200 fundraisers and has been on the campaign trail for nearly a solid year. He spends very little time doing the nation’s business.
And before you say that he has to campaign because all the other Presidents campaigned, Reagan didn’t have any fundraisers when he was running for second term, and GWB had just a handful. They both did the nation’s business.
Romney gives almost exclusively to his Mormon church. I personally do not call that charity. I call that tithing, The Mormon church and Bishop Romney are both very powerful. He gives to increase his own power.
And it would be informative to know how this money tithed to the Mormon Church is spent.
Churches should be taxed. The Mormon church is political as is the Catholic church. Tax both of those entities and we’d be well on our way to eliminating our deficit!
Carol Norwood – Tony Nicklinson is a prime example of why we need laws allowing for assisted suicide. He attempted to challenge the British courts to allow for a doctor to assist in his suicide, as he was incapable of administering a lethal dose himself. He was paralyzed from the neck down and unable to speak. He ended up dying a week after his request was denied by the courts, after he starved himself.
Emma Howard: Wonderful! Thank you.
Joseph Kelley wrote:
“What this boils down to is this: A special interest group wants to change the meaning of the word “marriage” to suit their own interests and lifestyle.”
Wrong..what it all boils down to is this: A specialist interest group wants to make all other Americans live by their narrow-minded belief system to discriminate against other American citizens. One special interest group wants to make everyone live by the way they say so and who have no intent in preserving freedom and upholding the Constitution.
“Marriage, as defined, is between a man and a woman, not same-sex couples. Period! We can not allow special interest groups to redefine the dictionary. Have a union, an agreement or whatever, but not marriage.”
Over the course of human history, there have been many forms of marriage. It has constantly been defined and redefined. This is nothing new if one reads history. Biblical marriage often included a man married to several women. Biblical times had grown men taking 12 year olds for their brides. Marriage was merely an exchange of resources and property at one time. Once marriage was defined as something only two people of the same race could enjoy together.
“This referendum must be defeated!”
Bigotry, discrimination and homophobic special interest groups must be defeated!
Carol Norwood – Assisted suicide may sound like an easy way out, but we should allow God to play his part in our lives, and not try to play his part on our own. God hates sin so much that he condemned humanity to suffer and die as punishment for sin. God loves us so much that he was willing to take human form in the person of Jesus Christ, and Christ willingly suffered vicious torture and a horrible death in order to set an example for us of how we need to suffer in order to enter the kingdom of God.
This seems like foolishness in the eyes of humanity, as we of course strive to avoid suffering as much as possible. But God’s plans for us don’t always coincide with our wishes, and he is willing to give us graces for salvation in exchange for our suffering, in order to make up for our sins. And we can offer our sufferings to God in union with the sufferings of Jesus even for the sake of other peoples’ salvation, as the apostle Paul mentioned several times in the Bible.
The Bible has many passages relating to how we need to suffer before we are to be saved. And Jesus promised his disciples that they would have suffering in this world. The great thing about our suffering, though, is that if we accept it without complaint, and recognize that God allows it for our own benefit, is that God promises us an eternity without the least bit of suffering, and filled with happiness that we can’t imagine as human beings.
So if you are suffering, it is because God is allowing it for your eternal good, and maybe for the eternal good of others. Suffering is a waste only if we don’t accept it properly. If we do accept it, then God will not allow us to suffer more than we can handle, with the help of his grace that he wants us to lean on. This is why the Catholic Church, which was founded by Jesus Christ, is so adamantly opposed to assisted suicide and euthanasia.
Disclaimer: I have been sick, disabled, and suffering for almost 23 years, and I have a lot of experience in this subject. I pray every day that God will take it away from me, but I try to press on every day with the help of his grace, hoping in his promise of salvation and eternal happiness.
Those who, like Joseph Kelley and EJ Parsons, believe that virtually every American veteran of WWII or other wars was heterosexual delude themselves. Scholarship in recent decades has revealed a hitherto largely secret history–secret to most straight Americans– of closeted gays and lesbians fighting alongside straight Americans without undermining the war. Maybe these folks who demonize gays and lesbians at every opportunity likewise believe that African American soldiers didn’t mind being discriminated against in very public ways while eventually distinguishing themselves in the army, the navy, and the new air force. Maybe they’d never heard of men of color being lynched while in uniform! Your John Wayne version of American military history if just that: a homogenized version that bears little resemblance to reality. And by the way, tell us how superpatriot Wayne spent WWII (not fighting, to be sure).
Also, the most decorated soldier of WW2, Audy Murphy was gay.
Not sure if your information on Audie Murphy is correct.
Unsubstantiated and slanderous. This is a rumor put in place by a gay group and never proven. Of course, John Wayne and a couple hundred more famous people have been declared gay, most of them after they died so they can’t defend themselves.
No need to defend themselves. Being gay isn’t a bad thing — only to hateful bigots it is.
Many soldiers were gay. Many gay people contributed greatly to society. As I’ve already mentioned, the man who designed the tool to crack the German’s code in WWII was gay. He’s also considered the father of modern computing. That means you’re blabbing away online because of a gay man.
We are all free to choose our path in life and our lifestyle. It’s a right in the US. What I don’t like is the homosexual community putting together lists of people they think may have been gay or bisexual just to promote their cause. I checked out the Audy Murphy rumor and could find not one piece of evidence that he was actually gay. Not even his widow, who died in 2010, mentioned anything about it. Of course, it’s easy to put a name on a list if the person is no longer alive to defend him or herself.
Doesn’t matter whether they were out or not. You refuse to admit that anyone is good but the people you agree with and that’s disgusting.
Alan Turing WAS in fact gay. He was an amazing and brilliant man and he changed history. There were so many gay people who weren’t able to come out and enjoy their lives because of the hatred people like you spew. They’ve contributed so much and yet they have their histories whitewashed and glossed over — they’ve had their contributions erased and minimized becasue of narrow-minded bigotry.
I’m so glad we’re moving away from that. We’re all good — not just the white straight conservative Christians with domestic sounding names.
I wish I had learned about Alan Turing in high school. You would think that the man who was instrumental in cracking the German Enigma code AND considered the father of computer science would warrant at least a mention in high school history class. But no, he was a “gay” so we don’t get to learn about him. Luckily, I am in a technology related major, so it’s kinda hard to teach anything without at least mentioning him.
Nothing slanderous about it EJ… when you say things like that, you show your true colors.
I have no doubt that if civil unions were offered at the federal level, you’d be like Brian Brown condemning “fake marriage” for gay citizens.
I wouldn’t be shocked or brokenhearted to learn he was gay, but I have never heard that as a serious assertion. Do you have a link?
Like every veteran who fought in a war, we were considered brtohers or sisters. WHether someone was African American, gay or heterosexual didn’t matter each one of us had the other persons back. For you to go to the extreme and imply that Joesepf Kelley and E J Parsons dulude themselves makes a statement of your opinion. You do not know what it means to be in the military and you do not understand the commonality of veterans. There is pride and no predjudice.
The military is a microcosm of society. If you seriously believe that prejudice does not exist in the military you are seriously deluding yourself.
There are individuals who are prejudiced. But in general there is not because of common interests.
So prejudice does exist in the military then.
Don’t get ridiculous, jd. Of course there is prejudice, bickering, bigotry, divisiveness, and all the other things that happen in civilian life. But, unlike civilians, when there is a cause, we unite to fight against that cause. We don’t care if the person on our right has a different skin color, gender, or gender persuasion. We don’t care if the person on the left is from a different state or believes in a different god or doesn’t believe at all. We come together as a unit, ready to fight and die for the country we love.
This comment thread has unraveled. Demeaning the military or nitpicking those of us that served is pretty low.
Not true. You screamed up and down how gays would ruin the military if they were allowed to serve openly like their straight counterparts have always been able to.
I said that repealing DADT would damage the military. And my prediction is slowly coming true.
How?
You’re lying again.
Care to provide some tangible proof EJ? Just like in 1948 when Truman dragged the military kicking and screaming into one unified military without segregated units.
Sure we might lose some experienced leaders as a result but that is the great thing about the military. They are always training the next group of leaders to step up and fill the shoes of those that die, are wounded, decide to leave, etc…
The military is not a static organization. It’s dynamic and ever changing.
Seems that I have more faith in the military when it comes to its ability to improvise, adapt and overcome then you do.
What?! Please explain how, when even chaplains have admitted it to be a non-issue.
Exactly what damage has been done, EJ?
You have some data on that?
I am not “nitpicking” or demeaning your or devonshires service EJ devonshire made a statement, that the military is without prejudice that I took issue with.
That last comment wasn’t directly at you, even though you were pushing a point that you already knew the answer to.
Not pushing a point EJ. There are no absolutes when it comes to prejudices. We ALL are prejudice in one way or another. The difference is some can admit it and others cannot.
Wasn’t it you who railed against gays serving openly and how harmful it would be?
Nitpicking those who are currently serving in the military is pretty low.
Joseph Kelley…I agree with you completely. The last referendum on same sex marriage was voted down by the majority of people in Maine. Now Obama has everyone whooped up because he is for it.
This referendum will go down in flames because of the many Christians who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is a rite that should be respected. Yes civil partnerships and equal rights should be allowed. Don’t mess with marriage.
You attribute to much power to President Obama. The petition that resulted in the current referendum was thought of and long on its way to the Secretary of State before President Obama came out in support.
By the way, which one of your rights would you be willing to put out to a vote of the people?
Do you think it is right to govern based on religion? Doesn’t that contradict our Constitution? Isn’t that what nations we’re at war with do?
Meh… You’ll lose in court.
It’s in unAmerican to force Christian beliefs on the lives of our citizens. Religion has no place in politics and is best left in churches. There are far more loving, accepting and supportive people behind this measure than Christians who want to use their religion as justification to discriminate, bare false witness and limit the lives of others.
to mereside: I didn’t know that Audy Murphy was gay. Surely there’s time for those who demonize gays to try to take away his medals, no?
Mr. Kelley: I’ll bet most WWII vets didn’t “go to war so gays and lesbians could get married…” nor did they go so blacks could sit anywhere on the bus. They went to war to defend freedom…and sometimes freedom is messy.
Dont worry Jon, Mr. LePage is working on paying the billsHe has the Get-R-Done attitude.
I go back and forth on the penguin…
Some days, he makes perfect sense, then others he comes across as a good ole boy, wink wink, nudge nudge, kind of pompous-ass.
We could do worse… but we could do better too.
RE Brighter future:
“The act would extend the existing tax credits that are necessary in order to spur private investment in offshore wind power projects here in Maine and around the country.”
If this is a viable industry, why are tax credits necessary to spur private investment? I’ve got no specific arguments against ocean wind power development at this point, but why are taxpayers responsible for helping to finance industries that no one else is willing to finance on their own? If they (wind industry and its investors) want to build it, let them pay for it. The expense and risk should be theirs alone. Doesn’t this all sound a bit like the ethanol mistakes we should have learned from?
On the other hand, there is no scientific proof that you were born that way. So even when God is not in the equation, there is no proof. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
Do any of these prove 100% that homosexuality is biological? No. Is it more evidence than you’ve been able to provide? Absolutely. I’ll “agree to disagree” when you can provide valid evidence to support your claim
Jon Reisman, S. Hemavathi, Carol Norwood, Emma Howard: good letters.
Joseph Kelly: I didn’t know a referendum of WW II veterans was needed on such social issues.
THE ALASKANS AND THE CONGESS WERE WIDELY CRITICIZED FOR SENDING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO ALASKA FOR THE INFAMOUR “ROAD TO NOWHERE’ BUT NOW WE HAVE OUR CONGRESSMAN MICHAUD PLAYING THE SAME GAME WITH HIS ILL-ADVISED CO-SPONSORSHIP OF MAINE’S ROAD TO NOWHERE CALLED OFF-SHORE WIND POWER. YES, BOTH OF THOSE WASTEFUL PROJECTS CREATED JOBS BUT SO WOULD THE REVIVAL OF THE STANLEY STEAMER AUTOMOBILE. IT IS DISAPPOINTING TO SEE THAT CONGRESSMAN MICHAUD STILL HAS NOT EDUCATED HIMSELF ON THE WIND POWER. CLYDE MACDONALD, HAMPDEN