Nation’s needs before aid

Every day we are assailed with another cut, shortfall, reduction of services or elimination of programs to the American people. We the people of the United States of America fund over 70 percent of NATO yet our veterans are homeless and in desperate need of better medical care.

We spend billions on building and staffing hospitals around the world, yet our seniors’ Medicare is constantly in jeopardy, our farmers and farmlands are in constant financial turmoil, but countless efforts and resources are applied to developing better farming around the globe.

The educational system is falling further and further behind as untold thousands are educated here only to leave. The average wage earner struggles to pay health care coverage for a family and watches as doors are thrown open to tens of thousands who have illegally entered the country for subsidized care.

When will this mad notion that the American government can embrace the world with abandon in an effort to be a good neighbor but blatantly disrespect its own citizens end? It is time for Americans to take care of Americans. We are slowly being bled to death as a nation while trying to save virtually every needy country and cause in the world.

It used to be called nationalism. Now it might simply be a last-ditch effort at self-preservation. At the polls this fall, vote for candidates who would strive to put nation’s needs before foreign aid.

Michael Aygam

Orrington

In response to Akin

I am writing in response to Missouri Sen. Todd Akin’s claims regarding the probability of a rape victim becoming pregnant. Many have condemned his words as ignorant, ridiculous and abhorrent, so I won’t bother doing so here, though I completely agree.

What I will do is encourage people to realize that Akin’s words are not those of a crazy individual on the fringe but instead are indicative of a pattern of beliefs. Perhaps unwittingly, Akin gave America a glimpse into what is increasingly the mainstream mind of the Republican Party.

He is not alone in his extreme ideology, which would not only deny a woman’s right to choose abortion under any circumstance, but would also elevate the status of a fetus to a legal position above her own and deny her access to the contraceptives that could actually help reduce the overall need for abortions. His views on women’s bodies are shared by many, including our would-be vice president Paul Ryan.

For everyone out there who found Akin’s words shocking, please consider what it will mean for his ever-further-right party to gain more power in Washington. Please think about what it will mean for your sisters, your wives, your daughters — for yourself.

I am not an advocate of one-issue voting. I understand that there are many important matters at stake in this election. However, it seems to me that maintaining and championing the basic human rights and health care freedoms of women must be a priority.

Regina Rooney

Old Town

Negative comments against Collins

Columnist Chris Busby’s “The fairy tale of Susan Collins and the freckled people” (BDN Friday, Aug. 17, 2012) is nothing more than a feeble, mean-spirited attempt to smear Sen. Susan Collins for her political views.

His strained, amateurish reference to the marriage rights of so-called “freckled people” are better suited to the population of Maine south of the proposed Vigue Road (aka the eternal east-west highway). The Bangor Daily News also would better serve its northern subscribers if it kept that in mind.

Carroll B. Knox

Caribou

Editorial sophomoric

The editorial called “Marriage and Legal Rights” (BDN, Aug. 22) contains the most sophomoric of perspectives on where our rights “come from.” The statement that government is “exactly where they (rights) come from” is ludicrous in any context. It seems to echo the recent “you didn’t build that” sentiment from our president.

The editor has the nerve to dismiss religious principles as being “beside the point” in the “larger picture.” This lack of teleological acknowledgement aside, the stated foundation of our government refers to certain “inalienable rights endowed by the Creator” according to a “self-evident” truth. Sounds like natural law to me. How this indicates a slam-dunk endorsement of redefining marriage to a definition that has nothing to do with one man and one woman is beyond most reasonable and God-fearing people.

Homosexual so-called marriage can never be marriage regardless of law, government or the decree of anyone representing a particular religion. The complementary nature of the body, mind and spirit of each gender to the other cannot be fabricated or attributed to any other form of union. Here, there is a clear truth upon which was built not only the institution of the family, but that of government.

Susan Mendell

Palmyra

Prime directive in Tampa

I’ll be in Tampa this week, serving as a delegate to the Republican National Convention as part of the “10/10” compromise offered by the Republican National Committee. The compromise is a consequence of RNC rules violations at the Maine State Convention earlier this year. The

compromise provides that 10 Ron Paul delegates will be seated and 10 Mitt Romney delegates will be seated in Tampa.

By agreeing to be seated as part of this compromise, I will be representing all Maine Republicans, both those with traditional conservative leanings as well as those with libertarian leanings.

Based on my understanding of the 10/10 compromise, I expect all Maine Republicans could agree it is better for Maine to be represented by the 10/10 delegates to the convention than not to be represented at all.

Republicans, libertarians, many, if not most, independents, and conservative-leaning Democrats will also agree that the survival of our republic will require all of our energy to reverse the bankrupting slide into a European brand of socialism by returning to the founding American principles of individual liberty and accountability incorporated in our U.S. Constitution and its corresponding free enterprise economic system.

Therefore, the “prime directive” of the Republican Party, beginning this week in Tampa, must be to unite and focus on the defeat in November of President Barack Obama and those who share his collectivist ideology.

Hayes Gahagan

Presque Isle

Join the Conversation

304 Comments

  1. Regina and Hayes present us with two different views of the future of America. I think Regina’s is the correct perspective on where the Republican Party stands today. Our own moderate is leaving because of where the Republican Party is today. That should tell us much about who is in charge in the Republican Party. They were ready to do her in. You really want them deciding the fate of the country? 

  2. Susan Mendell,

    Government can’t grant rights, but as they’re doing to gay citizens, they can indeed hold them back (or, as in the case of Maine, knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers can take them away via vote).

    Religious principles ARE besides the point. Marriage is a civil contract that requires no religious consent or trappings, as evidenced by atheists who wed all the time. Falling back on religion is the last bastion of those with no argument against same-sex marriage. Homosexuality exists in natural law. To deny it doesn’t change the fact. As for g0d-fearing, it’s sick to worship anything you fear.

    Gay marriage can and will be marriage regardless of your prudish views on the world. It’s obvious from your words that you have never known a gay couple, which is true of most mouth-breathers in Maine.

    But don’t worry… when the courts strike DOMA down, you won’t be harmed a bit.

    1. Apparently someone hit a nerve and made you have a flaming hissy fit.
      You really shouldn’t call so many people names who have a vote against your unnatural lifestyle, it’s far from a sure thing at this point.
      If anyone were to call you names that they think would fit you, it would be flagged and removed immediately.
      So why should the moderators allow you to be so rude to people who don’t share your views, or have any intention of voting in your favor? 
      “knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers”? I’m sure many people would agree that there are worse things to be….if you can figure out my meaning.

      1. No hon, just sharing facts… 

        Those aren’t names… those are perfect descriptions of mindsets and personalities. Flag away if it makes you feel better… I can repost.

        Rude? Why, I’m not being rude. Who did I single out to be rude to? No one.

        Do I care if they vote in my favor? Not really… I have no faith in their ability to see over their own blind faith in mythology and disdain for anything they don’t understand (xenophobia is the accurate term if you really want it).

        That’s a perfect description of the uneducated, mythology spewing, scared, and petty people who chose to vote away the right to marry to so many in Maine.

        See, I don’t care if I win your heart… I know I can’t. What I do know is that you will lose in court.

        And at the end of the day, that’s all that matters.

        1. you may not call it name calling, most of us would disagree.  You have no idea if those that disagree with you are educated, scared or “petty”…..that sure reads like name calling to me. Your bully tactics and lack of tolerance for other people’s opinions speaks volumes about your character. And your first response above continues the name calling. 

          1. He isnt a bully “liberals” can’t be bullies or namecallers. just as minorities can not be racist.
            It is proven by their religion, LIBERALISM”.

          2. THAT IS JUST PLAIN NONSENSICAL HYPERBOLE.
            The only oppressor here is the progressive liberal/conservative elitists.

          3. The only “NONSENSICAL” statement is assigning the oppressor label to any political party. In order to be an “oppressor” one has to either hold power by a) force or b) majority. 

          4. I have not applied the label of oppressor to any PARTY only to those that have the power to enforce their will within the political power, as was seen yesterday at the RNC, and will probably be seen next week at the DNC. Or far more egregiously daily within the government.

          5. Reposted from a comment to another poster:
            “That statement about name-calling is a laugh out loud statement. Same-sex marraige supporters here have been called degenerates, perverted, perverts, mentally ill, sick, disgusting, vile, diseased, morally corrupt, abominations, unnatural ….. just a few that come to mind. and some of these are coming from those who claim to “christians” …. are they advancing a reasonable argument or name calling?”
            You may not call it “name calling”, many would disagree.

      2. It’s okay Celer, let the voters see exactly what’s in store for us if they should ever win the vote this November. If you really think they won’t come after anyone who stands for traditional marriage, you are naive at best. One only has to look at Canada or England to see how bad it’s gotten. Ted actuall called God an a–hole on today’s letters. He even spelled out the word, and he gets a free pass. He is disgusting.

        1. Votes won’t matter pp… hey genius… Gay marriage is not legal in the UK.

          Good grief… your petty fear is so deep it leads you to see ghosts in the shadows.

          LOL!!! Your god is a myth… nothing more. Calling it names is harmless. And as long as he insists on “worship me or suffer for eternity” he IS an a–hole. Don’t blame me… big guy brought it on himself.

          PS: I didn’t spell out the word… you’re just not paying attention.

          1. And you are a liar. It’s right there in black and white spelled out. Has been there all afternoon for all to see. This paper is as twisted as you are for leaving it. Not a peep from anyone else about it either….surprise surprise. I think at this point you KNOW it’s going to be shot down once again and you don’t care what you say. It just shows what a phony you have been all along.

          2. Wow… you’re not very bright are you snuggle-nugget?

            What a shame that you can’t tell a zero from the letter “O”. A shame, but not a bit surprising.

            And yes, I have no doubt that folks like you (who get thrills out of harming law-abiding citizens) will vote down gay marriage… I’ve never said otherwise little pp… 

            It will, as I have stated all along, be settled in the courts. What part of that did you miss?

          3. Don’t take it personally, he gets that way when he gets painted into a corner with no way out. Besides there are plenty of studies done that show homosexuals have never really developed emotionally. He is the classic example of a boy in a mans body that craves another mans attention to satisfy a need he never got in adolescence.

          4. Resorting to attacking posters when you don’t have a rational argument again?  
            Warms my heart to see you two are still so buddy-buddy ….. in your effort to denegrate other posters. :)
            Also interesting that you come to the defense of one who states he has “no religion”, that abortion is fine with him and that sodomy between heterosexuals (married or unmarried) is fine by him….. opposition to equal protection for same-sex couples makes for strange bedfellows … does it not?

          5. I don’t see where I attacked anyone, just stating the studies thatmive read. Strike a nerve did it? And for the record, homosexuals make the strangest bedfellows….
            And I have less of an issue with one who claims to have no religion than one who pretends to.

          6. “If you’re going to try and defend someone as vile and obnoxious as Ted then you have lost what little credibility you never had.” ….. your words from below
            You should open yourself to more recent studies …. particularly studies that are not funded by  organizations with religious affiliations  … or organizations whose sole profit comes from “ex-gay” therapy … or read the findings of those who find said studies lacking in methodology etc. 
            I have never questioned your claims of your faith in God or Christ ….. yet you continually assert that I am “pretending”.  I have never claimed that I am free of sin ….. yet you continually assert falsehoods regarding facts….. I have stated more than once that I am celibate and have been for many years yet you have repeatedly asserted and inferred that I engage in the “sinful lifestyle of homosexuality”.  
            If my greatest sin in God’s eyes is loving another human being with all my heart and soul then so be it …. I will suffer the consequences that He doles out.  Losing my spouse last year was God’s will ….. He needed her more than I did …. I accept that but I don`t believe it was in punishment because we loved each other.

          7. Twisted?  Is that not what you do. twist facts to suit your purpose .. the end justifies the means?  Isn’t it you who justifies your “hating the sin” by making false statements and posting outright lies about other posters?

          8. You’ve received some pretty bad advice in your lifetime.  Not too late to forsake it, though, as long as you still are living.

          9. Sorry sweetie… I’ve played the game of fear and oppression called “christianity”.

            I don’t play it any longer.. I find it petty and sad.

        2. No worries. It’s not going to pass. People don’t all voice their true opinions because they fear being PC and the wrath of verbal abuse by those types, but in the privacy of the voting booth, they know what’s right, and what is disgusting. I’m not a religious person, and I definitely agree with abortion, so I don’t fit the typical conservative.
          It’s such a joke when they try to explain how “natural” it is.

          1. Goodness knows heterosexuals don’t practice any “unnatural” sex acts, which is why they alone are permitted to marry. Heterosexuals don’t sin at all, which is why they alone can go to heaven. As long as you are heterosexual, you have no worries at all in God’s eyes. Have I got that right? I see now, it is you folks who are re- writing the whole creed. Looking for a scapegoat to save yourselves. Well good luck with that.

          2. You know that those that are against SSM practice “unnatural sex acts” that seems a little presumptious.
            Then I suppose you may be prescient.

          3. We can assume they don’t engage in intercourse except when a woman is fertile as that is the only time conception can take place which would serve the primary function or we can assume they engage in intercourse only when the female is not fertile for the pleasure of it.  Or we can assume they use a man-made contraceptives to limit conception for the pleasure of it or we can assume they are normal healthy active sexual beings who also engage in some form of sodomy.  The only “natural sex act” is the first …. intercourse when the female is fertile, when conception is possible. All others are “unnatural” as they won’t lead to conception.

          4. So sodomy is only “disgusting” when practiced in certain circumstances Celer?

            Is sodomy “disgusting” when two unmarried consenting adults of the opposite sex engage in it? Why?

            Is sodomy “disgusting” when two unmarried consenting adults of the same sex engage in it? Why?

            Is sodomy “disgusting” when two married consenting adults of the opposite sex engage in it? Why? 

            Is sodomy “disgusting” when two married consenting adults of the same sex engage in it? Why? 

          5. So any sexual act between a male and a female is OK then. That’s pretty opened minded of you. And female on female sodomy is OK too. So it’s just the “ick” factor you object to. Celer here is a thought for you, if it’s is the “ick” factor then I would suggest that you stop thinking about it.

          6. I certainly never claimed to be open minded JD.
            Maybe if they kept it to themselves instead of strutting around doing a bad Fran Drescher impersonation the ick factor wouldn’t be so bad.     

          7. “Maybe if they kept it to themselves instead of strutting around doing a bad Fran Drescher impersonation the ick factor wouldn’t be so bad.”

            Your seeing people in drag in downtown Bangor? Really? If not in downtown Bangor where are you seeing people in drag?

            Do you find a male and female swapping spit and tongues equally disgusting in public? I see way more male/female public display of affections (PDA) than male/male or female/female PDA. In fact I have NEVER seen male/male or female/female PDA in Maine.

            But you keep referencing male/male PDA. Do you have problems with female/female PDA or is that “OK” because it’s female/female.

            But more importantly where are you seeing this behavior that you find “icky”? And please understand that defeating SSM in November will not stop the activity that you find “icky” in private or public settings.

          8. I have seen it at the Bangor Mall, but that’s not what I was referring to.
            What I meant was the flamers on here who immediately start responding to people as “snuggle nugget”, “sweety”, “sweet cheeks”, etc. Do you address your male friends or acquaintances in that manner? Maybe they would get more sympathy votes if they kept it to themselves. As soon as I see that to anyone on here, I will be as rude as possible on a public forum. What the homosexuals get is what they dish out. More often than not, they are the first to start slinging the BS on here.

          9. Excuse me but that is exactly what you said. Ted was civil for a number of months but he has been called names too. Two wrongs never make a right.

          10. Apparently I’ve lost the thread now. What is exactly what I said?
            As for Ted, he a condescending little fem who uses his terms of endearment to further disgust any heterosexual males who may think he’s abnormal. It’s like trying to debate a trailer park queen. No matter, he knows what I think of him, and what he thinks of me is correct also.

          11. There is definitely a double standard when it comes to homosexuals.  Both in what actions and speech is condemned by the left.  And you see it as well here in the comments section.  Few things will get a post removed or even get the poster banned as quickly as saying anything negative regarding the LGBT community.

            This reminds me of an incident in my own family only 2 months ago.  My teen age niece “thinks” she is bi.   (Quotes indicate sarcasm or questionable “facts”.)    It really has more to do with extreme rebellion against her parents authority and peer pressure.  Peer pressure in that it is the “in” or “fashionable” thing in high school these days with many girls to have a lesbian relationship.

            She was describing certain behaviors she had engaged in while playing soccer that she did on purpose to antagonize a player on the other team.  She thought it was “cool” that she had antagonized this player to the point where they reacted and ended up getting red flagged and ejected from the game.  I pointed out to her that what she had done was actually sexual harassment and was inappropriate.  Period.   In fact, I pointed out to her that if the other player made a formal complaint to police or school authorities she could have been in big trouble.  And that such behavior by a male towards a female would have been met with severe and immediate consequences.

          12. Ah, so here’s your ignorant answer at last.

            See, that’s nothing but your opinion… luckily, the law of our state and nation disagrees with you.

            I guess you’re all wound up by imagining Rosanne Barr and Danny Devito chewing along in a 69, huh? After all, they’re straight.

            There is no difference except in your puny little mind my friend.

          13. Well there…so you do understand after all?
            I’m sure Rosie O’Donnell would be a worse image.
            You’re correct, the law doesn’t care what you do in private, or if you flit around like a feminine peacock, or speak like a waitress who’s been working the truck stop a little to long. Whatever you need to do to get the attention you’re after. It’s getting married that the law won’t allow, so as long as you abide by it you’ll be fine.

          14. I did not know that you were a geneticist.    Have you studied your own defective DNA.
            Now that would be a productive pursuit for yourself .

          15. How? How is it two different issues?

            Sodomy is sodomy… how is one different from the other?

            Hypocrisy so thick should be called “mud”.

          16. Because he is a willing participant in one and thinks the other is “icky” ….. course he still hasn’t addressed female/female …. so he either doesn’t think it’s “icky (if the females are attractive to him) or if he is particulary grossed out by gay males in general.  ;-)

          17. Cute, you even type like a flamer.
            You should let the sympathizers fight your battles for you, because the minute you touch your key board, and I would assume also speak, you hurt your cause more than help it.

          18. I don’t expect you or anyone else to change your minds… Like the KKKlan, I expect you to hold on to your views no matter how harmful.
            Now, answer my question little one… how is it different?

            Why is buggery OK when straight folks do it (or oral sex, which is also contained in the legal definition of sodomy), but disgusting when gay folks do it?
            How is it different?

        1.  Why should anyone tolerate, what is being said about the gays. Why should they tolerate the lies, discrimination. You have no legal base for your lies, only hate.

          1. What lies?
            Have you been discriminated against? There are laws against discriminating against anyone. If you have, maybe you should have consulted an attorney.

        2. Difficult to “tolerate” being told you are sick, mentally ill,  have defective DNA, a pervert, disgusting, a degenerate ….

    2. In many countries in Europe, a civil marriage ceremony is the only legal one.  A church wedding is just frosting on the cake.

      1. Technically, that’s true here in the USA as well.

        With very few exceptions of common law marriage (a practice done away with in most states, including Maine), the state license is required, but no religious trappings are.
        So, one needn’t have anything to do with a church and is still legally married under the civil statute.
        In marriage, religion is totally unnecessary.

        1. Since you need a license to get married or civilly joined or whatever name you want to apply marriage is NOT A RIGHT. The logic is un questionable.

          1. Larry the SCOTUS has already ruled in Loving v. Virginia (1967) that  “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man” so your argument is moot.

          2. Spoken like a true acoloyite of the Holy writ of the government .
            I have seen you decry religious institutions for aceccpting falicious statements, especially the infalibility of the Pope, you acecept the foolish judgement of the SCOTUS as if their statement came from God.
            Any legal scholar that would equate Right for priviledge is a fool.
            BTW I know that there are typos here.

          3. There is no superstition in a SCOTUS decision… no magic sky-monsters, talking bushes, or gay messiahs.

            I’ll take it over mythology any day.

          4. But you are willing to believe fallibul humans are infallible. That is especially sad since you can see how bad some of the decisions have been.
            Be honest you do see some of the decisions as mistakes.
            There have been several just within the last decade.The decisions based on the reconstruction era are the most egregious because they have used to support later decisions.

          5. Humans are real… you can reason with them, work with them, see them, talk to them.

            Not true of mythological kaiju-gods.

            Frankly, I feel SCOTUS has done very well… for every Dred Scott there was ending child labor, ending the discriminatory practices behind sodomy laws and Jim Crow… no, they’re not perfect, but they’re real.

            I’ll take the fallibility of mankind over the infallibility of man-made mythology any day.

          6. “Spoken like a true acoloyite of the Holy writ of the government .”

            Not at all. I believe in the rule of law in a secular society. Make no mistake about it, the United States of America is a secular nation. The Founding Fathers had the opportunity to establish one religion as the “one” religion and they didn’t do that. Instead the guaranteed Freedom of Religion (or some would argue Freedom From Religion) in the First Amendment.
            ~~~~~
            “I have seen you decry religious institutions for aceccpting falicious
            statements, especially the infalibility of the Pope, you acecept the
            foolish judgement of the SCOTUS as if their statement came from God.”

            You have never seen me “decry” ANY “religious institutions” nor have you seen me question the beliefs of ANY religious institution or the leadership of those institutions.

            So please, do not place words in my mouth in future posts.
            ~~~~~
            “you acecept the foolish judgement of the SCOTUS as if their statement came from God.”

            Nope. I have questioned many SCOTUS decisions most recently their decision on the ACA.
            ~~~~~
            “Any legal scholar that would equate Right for priviledge is a fool.”

            The marriage contract contains many, many RIGHTS.
            ~~~~~
            “BTW I know that there are typos here.”

            Personally I don’t care if you have “typos” in your post. What I DO CARE ABOUT is that you attribute words to me that I have NEVER said.

          7. Yes indeed marriage is a basic right, but within the context of the definition of marriage between one man and one woman. Loving vs. Virginia did not rule on SSM.

          8. Never said Loving v. Virginia ruled on SSM. What I stated was that it established marriage as “one of the “basic civil rights of man””.

          9. “one of the basic civil rights of man” refers to mankind (human beings) …. gays and lesbians are included in mankind …. we are human beings

          10. Maybe reading Loving v. Virginia would be beneficial for you. My quote was taken directly from the decision.

          11. OK… then what’s the rational legal argument for denying gay citizens the “privilege” to marry?

          12. There is no push to deny anyone, except those under 18 and non citizens the priviledge to vote once but these same vacous arguements are being used to get both of these groups permission to vote.
            I suppose that if homosexuals make the citizenry of the country upset enough to create laws saying that homosexuals can not vote maybe such an injustice could happen, but then a way to prove that someone IS homosexual would have o be found.

          13. I made a boo boo… “vote” should have been “marry”.

            As in “OK… then what’s the rational legal argument for denying gay citizens the “privilege” to marry?”

          14. It was not a “boo Boo” it was an obvious attempt to bring moral equivilency into this issue.
            No, I can not prove it but it is a tactic I have seen you use before.

          15. Wow… you’re a mind-reader too!

            Good for you… too bad it doesn’t work, as you’re completely wrong.

            Good grief, you folks are some paranoid, aren’t ya?

          16. Marriage has been identified as a basic civil right by our US Supreme Court, in several rulings (most notably Loving v Virginia).

            But ignoring that, as a license granted by our government, we expect there to be a rational, defensible reason to discriminate against someone for denying it. So far when courts have examined this issue, they have found no such reasons to support such discrimination, and have extended marriage to same-sex couples as a result.

            Allowing same-sex couples in Maine to obtain civil marriage is the right thing to do. We should afford ALL Maine families the ability to protect the lives they build together (and the children they raise together) with civil marriage.

          17. You really think that license requirements are based on rational defensable reasons? I can point to irrational and indefensable provisions of almost any license law. It may take some study, but almost NOTHING that the government makes as a law is wholly rational.
            I am not arguing against same sex couples having the priviledge of legally binding together, I don’t care one way or the other, as has been pointed out by many here it does not effect me.
            I am only protesting the making of priviledges into rights.

          18. Maybe you want to discuss the right vs priviledge with whawell ….. who said yesterday and again today (In reply to jd):  “Yes indeed marriage is a basic right, but within the context of the definition of marriage between one man and one woman.”

          19. I would have certainly have questioned it had I read it but I do not read every post. Reading much of this stuff gives he raging headaches.

          20. Yet you only seem to argue against people who are for same-sex marriage. Granted, I’m not stalking these forums looking for everything you say, but generally speaking you go after supporters of same-sex marriage but not opponents of same-sex marriage.

          21. “I am only protesting the making of priviledges into rights.”

            Then why aren’t you asking for or seeking the removal of the rights and privileges from heterosexual couples marriages?

          22. I don’t see any Rights being confered with marriage, there are various priviledges confered on formally united couples that have evolved over the centuries in order to protect children and have become benefits over the last century. I have no issue with homosexual couples getting these same benefits, especiall those coming from the government.

          23. Here are three rights which a married heterosexual couple enjoy by virtue of the marriage contract.

            The right to visit your spouse in a hospital or nursing home.

            The right to make medical decisions about care when your spouse is unconscious.

            The right to make end of life decisions when your spouse is unable to.

            Those rights do not convey with civil “unions”.

          24. These things are conveyed through the contract and could be easily be confered with the union contract. As a JD you should know this, but I assume you just prefer to confuse the issue.
            Besides they are not rights, one partner confers the priviledges to the other.

          25. You can assume that they are easy to convey but personal experience tells me otherwise. Oh and you should never assume what a persons does for a living based on a screen moniker.

          1. Our well thought out Constitution based on Magna Carta???

            Have you even read both?

            Magna Carta is a list of complaints against the monarchy by members of the peerage.

            The US Constitution protects all citizens from the e4xcesses of an all powerful government

          2. Doesn’t mean Larry’s answer is based in fact or reality Bob.

            “The “Great Charter” drawn up on the field at Runnymede on June 15, 1215 between King John and his feudal barons failed to resolve the crisis that had been brewing in England ever since the death of John’s brother King Richard I. Over the long term, however, Magna Carta served to lay the foundation for the evolution of parliamentary government and subsequent declarations of rights in Great Britain and the United States. In attempting to establish checks on the king’s powers, this document asserted the right of “due process” of law. By the end of the 13th century, it provided the basis for the idea of a “higher law,” one that could not be altered either by executive mandate or legislative acts. This concept, embraced by the leaders of the American Revolution, is embedded in the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution and enforced by the Supreme Court.”

            Thanks to Lori for the link

            http://edsitement.neh.gov/lesson-plan/magna-carta-cornerstone-us-constitution 

          3. Guess I should have used a sarcasm symbol that time, if there is one. Do you notice how Larry doesn’t acknowledge his error?

          4. Which provisions of Magna Carta were included in the Constitution of the United States?
            Widows not being forced by the King to Marry someone?
            Widows being able to inherit joint property?
            Not having to pay Jews claims on loans?
            Removal of fishweirs from the Thames?
            Return of hostages?
            Yes some of the provisions say that there will be equal justice (among peers), free movement(of merchants) and establishment of weights and measures.
            Interesting reading but hardly more than random complaints.
            I suggest reading the document.

          5. Question – “Which provisions of Magna Carta were included in the Constitution of the United States?”

            Answer – “In attempting to establish checks on the king’s powers, this document asserted the right of “due process” of law. By the end of the 13th century, it provided the basis for the idea of a “higher law,” one that could not be altered either by executive mandate or legislative acts. This concept, embraced by the leaders of the American Revolution, is embedded in the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution and enforced by the Supreme Court.”
            Source – http://edsitement.neh.gov/lesson-plan/magna-carta-cornerstone-us-constitution

    3.  I seem to recall a certain constitutional amendment prohibiting government from “respecting an establishment of religion”.

      1. But that does not protect religious folks from discrimination in the private sector.
        That's specifically why the CivilRights Acts specifically spell out protections for the choice to follow a religion.

        1.  Call it a civil contract or religious function, either way, it’s the business of the involved parties, not government.

          1. But the state IS involved and will REMAIN involved so arguing that it’s not the governments business is a moot argument.

          2. But by being a civil contract it IS the business of the government. That is the point of calling it civil marriage.

      2. Except the religion of government. OOPS that is exactly what that was to prevent.
        Yes I do absolutly believe that the religion of Government is beingestablished and the theocrats are liberal and conservative elites or more correctly the prieists of the  of holy GOVERNMENTreligion.

    4. Be darn careful, you get very close to admiting that marriage is not a right.
      Since a license to marry is required, marriage becomes a priviledge and therefore subject to rules that are determined by a State’s citizens.
      If that is true the Federal government has no say and the 14th amendment has no standing.
      Sorry

      1. 14th Amendment 

        Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 

        Care to explain how due process is not violated when a couple legally married in one state moves to another and is magically unmarried?

        1. So you are willing to admit that Marriage is not a RIGHT but a state granted priviledge subject to state laws as long as the laws are equally enforsed throughout that state. Is that correct?
          So if a State’s law says that a marriage is between one adult male human and one adult female human and evenly enforced through the state in question said law would be legal. right?

          1. Tell yeah what Larry….you answer my question and then I will answer your two questions.

            Here is my question again – “Care to explain how due process is not violated when a couple legally married in one state moves to another and is magically unmarried?”

          2. Wouldn’t it be true that in the majority of this country, and definitely when this was written, a “couple” is understood as a man and a woman, and two men or two women are just friends? 

          3. “Wouldn’t it be true that in the majority of this country, and definitely when this was written, a “couple” is understood as a man and a woman, and two men or two women are just friends?”

            Excellent observation Celer. At the founding of our country many people, even those people born in this country (and thus considered by the Constitution to be “natural born”) were not considered citizens but property. To be bought and sold and held in chains, whipped, beaten, used as the owner saw fit. Murdered, well it wasn’t really murder when you kill your own property but I digress from your excellent point.

            See a black person could not marry a white person of the opposite sex at the founding of this country in many states. Even after the Civil War interracial marriage remained illegal in those states that had laws prohibiting it. 

            It wasn’t until 1967 and the Loving v. Virginia case where the SCOTUS ruled that “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man” that a black man could legally married a white woman and a Black woman could legally marry a While Man.
            So marriage has “evolved” in the U.S. from one white man or woman to one black man or woman to one man and one woman and it has “evolved” again in some states to mean one person to one person. 

          4. Yes JD, I am very observant. I’ve probably had more training than most in surveillance.
            So marriage has evolved, the question is what do we want to let it evolve into? How far is to far? What will the next evolution be, or should we say that after this that’s it? That wouldn’t be fair now would it? 

          5. “So marriage has evolved, the question is what do we want to let it evolve into?”

            Ah the “slippery slope” argument. OK Celer please provide one example from any state where SSM is currently legal where “marriage” has moved towards incest, bestiality, polygamy, pedophilia, etc…
            ~~~~~
            “How far is to far?”

            Incest is illegal. I’m not seeing, hearing or reading about any movement to make incest legal anywhere in the U.S.. Are you?
            ~~~~~
            “What will the next evolution be, or should we say that after this that’s it?”

            Bestiality is illegal. I’m not seeing, hearing or reading about any movement to make bestiality legal anywhere in the U.S.. Are your?
            ~~~~~
            “That wouldn’t be fair now would it?”

            Polygamy and pedophilia are both illegal. I’m not seeing, hearing or reading about any movement to make polygamy or pedophilia legal anywhere in the U.S.. Now with your superior skills in observation and surveillance I am sure that you know the lawsuit cp444 keeps referring to regarding polygamy is not about making it legal. Are you seeing, hearing or reading anything different?

          6. You’ve never seen me write anything about the other perversions that you’ve listed out.
            All I asked is how far do we go? And would we still call it marriage? You sound like this will be the last straw, and marriage will be done evolving if we can just allow homosexuals to marry. Correct?
            I couldn’t possibly care any less what any liberal or conservative studies or polls, or anything else has to say. Do you need a study to tell you what abnormal behavior is?

          7. You made reference to a “slippery slope” if gay and lesbian couples are allowed to marry. Yet no one can show any movement beyond SSM in ANY state where it is currently legal.

            In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts where SSM has been legal now for 8 years no law has been introduced, debated, passed or signed into law to expand the definition of marriage. Further, no lawsuit has been introduced to expand the definition of marriage in the Commonwealth.

            Without real examples of the “slippery slope” SSM leads to the argument just fails.

          8. I believe it was also stated just a few years ago that homosexual marriage was not what they were after when Christians rightly said it was indeed what they were after. We (America) are the proverbial frog being slowly boiled to death in immorality on degree at a time.

          9. You “believe” or you know cp444? And if you know please provide a source to back up you knowledge.

          10. No, you referenced “slippery slope”.
            I’m just asking if we pass this…is that it? Period? Done? We would then have the final definition of marriage?

          11. You know the answer as well as I do. No, it would only be the beginning of all sorts of arrangements that will tie up our courts for years to come.

          12. No doubt.
            Apparently only homosexuals can define what’s perverted and what isn’t. We have no clue.

          13. You didn’t use those exact words but in inference was there. And you said the same thing above.

            So can you or can you not show any state where marriage has moved beyond SSM?

          14. Nope, and I’m not going to research that. It took years for the homosexuals to organize and push their agenda, so how do we know what will happen in 20 years?
            Maybe a better question is who determines what is perverted abnormal behavior and what isn’t? Do we really need some liberal judge to explain that to us and tell us that we will except it as normal behavior?

          15. You cannot research it because it isn’t happening. SSM has been legal in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for 8 years now and no one has attempted to advance anything…nothing…nada…zilch.

            Your liberal judge statement is out and out funny. Both sides use the “activist” judge argument. When they rule the way you think they should rule they are “wise” jurists and when they rule against you that same judge becomes an “activist” judge. What both sides cannot seem to accept is judges rule based on the rule of law, the Constitution and prior rulings. That was the case with the ACA ruling and the Loving v. Virginia ruling. One side will like those rulings so the are “wise” and the otherside dislikes the rulings so they are an “actisvist” court. And you can substitute the words conservative and liberal if you like.

          16. Well apparently you believe that acts of sodomy are perfectly normal non-perverted acts between heterosexuals whether they are married or not …. some would question you on that belief …. yet they remain strangely silent.

          17. This poster seems to be a lawyer and belives that original intent is neither here nor there and that if a word’s original meening is changed over time the law is then changed to meet the new meaning.

          18. The definition of the word marriage has changed twice in my lifetime Larry. Two court did that. The first one was the SCOTUS in 1967. The second one was the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 2004.

            Words change over time.

            Xerox is the name of a company but has become synonymous with making copies.

            Kleenex is a brand name but has become synonymous with and paper product used to blow your nose in.

            Victrola was once synonymous with any “record” player and has now disappeared into history with the advent of MP3 players.

            Words change all the time. So do the definitions.

          19. I agree but should the meaning of a law change with thechange of the word, or is the original intent of the law the issue.
            Corrupting the meaning of a word should not corrupt the law. Otherwise we may as well stop enforcing any law.

          20. Larry, Rape once meant forced sexual intercourse by a male on a female victim. During the 1970s and 1980s a movement removed the reference to gender and replaced it with “actor” and “victim” in many states so males and females could be charged with the crime of rape.

            Did the “meaning of a law change with the change of the word”(s)?

            or

            Was “the original intent of the law the issue”?

            I would argue that neither the “meaning of the law” or “the original intent of the law” changed with the change in words.

            Did changing the words to “actor” and “victim” “corrupt the law”?

            Should we stop enforcing the law because we changed two words?

            The same words were changed in many areas including sexual abuse of minors. Should we stop enforcing those laws?

          21. In this case the word rape was changed by an act of a legislatrure especially to clarify a law. in this case we have had words evolving into different meanings with no redefinition of the meaning in the law. Very different.
            One modifies the original intent of the legislation by legislation, the other just corrupts the law by corrupting the words.
            I believe, and this is going to outrage many religious people, this has been done to words even in the Bible. 

          22. The word rape was not changed. What was changed was who could be charged with rape.

            The word marriage was not changed. What was changed (and repealed in 2009) was who could be married.

            Both changes in the law were done in compliance with the Maine constitution and signed into law by a sitting Governor.

            See at one time rape meant unlawful sexual contact of a female. Now rape means unlawful sexual contact. The word didn’t change nor did the act. The only change was who can be charged with rape.

            Marriage means two adult people of the opposite sex entering a civil contract with each other. In some states marriage means two Adult people entering a civil contract with each other. The word marriage doesn’t change. It still means a civil contract between two people. The only change we are voting on in November is adding a group of people to an existing law. The change has no impact on the word it still means the same thing.

          23. If we grant that your due process argument is legitimate does that not make all state laws null and void if another state does not have the same law?
            For instance, if a citizen legally purchases a firearm while resident in one state and moves to another is that citizen no legally allowed to posess that firearm in opposition of the new states laws? Remember that the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution specifically states that citizens have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, and the Federal government has the duty to protect that right.

          24. Interesting argument but let’s look at another. 

            A marriage license is a contract. Contracts are enforceable across state lines. For instance, you purchase a new car with bank financing. You sign a contract where you promise to pay a certain amount of money each and every month until the loan (contract) is completed (paid off). Now if you purchase that new car and the loan (contract) is from a local Maine bank or credit union and you move from Maine to another state that contract is still enforceable isn’t? Of course it is still enforceable.

            And the same holds true for a marriage contract for a heterosexual couple. But when a homosexual couple is married in one state their contract evaporates like so much smoke in the wind when that couple moves from one state to another and those rights enjoyed in one state are removed with out due process of law.

            As to your 2nd Amendment argument the SCOTUS has ruled that reasonable restrictions (like those on Freedom of Speech) are constitutional. But, recent decisions by the SCOTUS have established that out and out bans are not constitutional. i.e. a Glock 23 comes standard with a 17 round magazine but Massachusetts and California ban “high capacity” magazines so Glock makes a 10 round magazine and presto the Glock 23 with 10 round magazine is no legal not withstanding local restrictions on conceal carry.

          25. Citizens have been working against discriminatory laws for decades.   That is what is happening now.
            You do seem to get hung up on trivial points for no good reason that I can see.

          26. There is a difference between what is legal and what is constitutional.

            A State law can say whatever it wants, and it is by definition legal. But once it is challenged to the US Supreme Court, it can be struck down as unconstitutional.

            Discrimination against same-sex couples is absolutely an unconstitutional violation of the 14th Amendment’s demands of equal protection under the law. It just takes time for the bureaucracy to handle this challenge.

      2. It doesn’t matter if it’s a right or not. Even if it is a privilege, it’s offered to people in an unequal fashion without rational basis for doing so and therefore it violates the equal protections clause. 

      3. Please share with us where the 14th Amendment has no standing because it’s a license? What case law has set this precident?

  3. What I do not get is how some Christians can tell some churches they can not Marry gay couples. What gives them the right to say, No you can’t do that because we own the word marriage? Also do you really Believe that God is going to ban two people from heaven for being married to each other but happen to be the same sex? How is that sin any greater then the life of sin we all live? No one is free of sin? Heck rich people can never get into heaven, they do seem to care. How can you tell me that your loving all caring God would deny two loving, caring individuals from heaven because they are gay? They can be the best  people on this earth and they wouldn’t get in because they are gay? That is not a loving God, that is just plain Spiteful. 

    1.  the rich, like Willard Romney think they can buy their way into heaven, some day they’ll find what trickle down is all about.

    2. While most of your theology is out in left field, at least you know homosexuality is sinful. That’s a start in the right direction.

      1. So is your life, You were born a sinner, and live a life of sin. Your sins are no less then those of Homosexuality. But why do you get to decide how the word marriage is used? shouldn’t it be up to the individual churches? Isn’t the relationship with God supposed to be private? I am surprised that more christian are not fighting to get rid of Mega churches. Jesus would not approve of those at all. 

          1. And what are those sins cp444? False witness? Judging other? Any others that you would like to publicly confess?

          2. You’re sounding like someone in full blown damage control. Tough road to hoe….justifying immorality.

          3. There’s a certain poster here that loves to say when they resort to name calling its a sure sign they have lost the argument. Do you have any idea who that poster might be JD? Hehe

          4. There is a certain poster who calls others liar frequently and when called out as posting the same stuff with the same tone as in the past under a new moniker here tells a falsehood ….. Do you have any idea who that poster is?

          5. Well you are judging, that that is not your place now is it? Please why don’t you do what Jesus actually wanted you to do? Be private about your religion and don’t judge. You commenting on here is going against the teachings of Jesus. You are using the bible to justify why they should not be allowed to marry, which goes against his teachings. So yes you are. They are not trying to justify anything do any God. They are trying to get the same protecting under the LAW, that heterosexual couples have. So BOOM ROASTED!

          6. So outright lying, misrepresenting factual information by omission or addition, spreading misinformation .. etc …. is not sinful in your mind?  Or are you one who lives by “do as I say, not as I do”?

  4. Regina Rooney – You say you’re not a one-issue voter, yet you only focus on one issue.

    Hayes Gahagan – Yes, it is time for Republicans, Libertarians, and conservative minded Independents and Democrats to unite and vote out Obama in November. He has done damage to the nation, and his reign must end before America reaches the point of no return.

    1. Doing damage like trying to dig the country out of the mess your conservative party put us in by giving large corporations and the wealthiest americans large tax breaks and then not paying for them or dragging us into two wars and forgetting to pay for them is hardly doing damage.  By trying to see that all Americans have an opportunity for decent healthcare and not allowing insurance companies to deny coverage to those who need it the most, and by the way saving billions in the process, by keeping the auto industry afloat keeping jobs in a depressed part of the country and not catering to a few billionaire supporters who have no regard for the middle class he is doing damage?  I think your memory of the Bush years obviously was affected by some Limbaugh influence.

  5. Susan the evidence of our country’s moral decay is seen not only on the television but in our papers and here on theses posts. It’s endorsed by the media, Hollywood, and yes even our president who morals took on a sudden “evolution” this election year.
    We as a nation are disintegrating under immorality. We have lesbians, gays, bi, transsexuals, undecided, flex-sexuals, pan-sexuals, boys encouraged to wear dresses depending on their mood. The closet door has swung wide open and It is far from empty. They redefine marriage, the cornerstone of our society and we will be left to accept any and all combinations.
    Make a stand this November and vote to keep marriage between a man and a woman.

    1. All you have to point to is the Bible and many Christians aren’t in agreement with you. I think you’re going to need a better excuse than moral disproval alone to deny gay people their equal protection under the law. 

        1. Personally, I’m not.

          However, the current tax law is not structured for multiple partners… that will stop it until they decide to rewrite tax law.

          Once that’s done, go for it. As long as they’re all consenting adults, why should I care?

          1. Polygamists won’t ask for marriage rights because they like things as they are. Since they are not legally married, sister-wives qualify as singl mothers and receive $millions in WIC and food stamp benefits. They don’t want anyone looking into their pedophilia or incestuous practices either. If polygamy were legalized it would cease to exist.

          2. How else do you think the man can afford to have five child brides and 40 kids? He’s not paying for it, that’s how. Strange that you’re against someone who is only acting on his chosen religious beliefs.

          3. Polygamy isn’t biblical. They’re only justifying their behavior by twisting scripture, to get money. The love of money is the root of all evil, and these people are certainly evil.

          4. Nope never a pastor cp444. But you already know that. 

            You do know that polygamy predates Christianity right?

          5. I’m not saying it didn’t happen, but it isn’t biblical in the sense that “it’s okay” to do. Jesus taught us that many of those old laws were given to us out of the “hardness of our hearts”. Jesus said that from the beginning it was one woman and one man, for life.

            But God allows sin to happen, to show us what we are capable of doing on our own, and it isn’t pretty.

            Beware of false Christians, who in one sentence deny the validity of the OT laws on things like shaving and shellfish, and yet in the next breath claim that violence is okay? Even when Jesus told a Roman Centurion to “do violence to no man”, and to turn the other cheek?

            People twist scripture to whatever they want, just so they can be the judge of someone else. Don’t believe these hypocrites for a second, just focus on asking Jesus for forgiveness of sins. How hard is it to not lie, cheat or steal? And yet we’re all guilty of it, no matter how good a kid you think you were. I don’t care how many grandma’s you’ve walked across the street, yes that’s great, but it doesn’t make you any less a sinner. This is why Christianity is unique in saying that we are saved by FAITH alone, and not by works.

            It has to come from the heart.

        2. Didn’t check the link but other than the discredited Jeffs polygamist colnies in the Southwest, I don’t see any lining up.

          1. But polygamy isn’t going before the courts… if you can’t argue against gay marriage without dragging fanciful predictions and unrelated issues into the discussion, you can’t argue against gay marriage.

          2. And so long as everyone is consenting adults, and we restructure the tax laws to accommodate it, I have no problem with it.
            It doesn’t affect my life.

          3. Correct….and one has nothing to do with abortion OR same sex marriage…did you even read the case or just take your info from Citizen Link a Focus on the Family Affiliate?

          4. So you really think that there wouldn’t be that many abortions if Roe vs Wade hadn’t passed?

          5. There are thousands of FLDS people in the Western States that practice what they call polygamy but which is really about child sexual abuse.  They’re mostly left alone.  It’s bizarre to have that in America.  And it has nothing to do with same sex marriage.

          6. Well put.  It is called “polygamy,” but really, it’s a bunch of older men breeding and grooming young girls for marriage to them.  It’s very hard for women to leave these communities, but the boys and young men are routinely kicked out for perceived infractions.  Why?  Because younger guys are cutting in on the old guys’ action.  Even the LDS folks I know who would support a return to plural marriages see Jeffs’ group for what it is.

        3. Which brings to mind, why did George Romney go to Mexico?  Missionary work or was he escaping polygamy restrictions in the US?  Was Mitt indeed born in Michigan or was he born in Mexico?

          1. I don’t think that is true. When the parents are American citizens then their offspring are American citizens.  Even if they are born in a foreign country. How many children of our Armed Forces have been born in a foreign country?  George Romney was born in Mexico, the son of an American father and an American mother. His parents registered him as an American citizen.

          2. President Age and Citizenship requirements – US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

            No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

            14th Amendment (1868), Section 1, Clause 1:All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

            My grandfather was born in Canada to U.S. citizens. Yes he was a U.S. citizen but was also by birth a Canadian citizen.

            Yes when a person serving in the U.S. military overseas gives birth on a U,S, military base they are a U.S. citizen. Senator McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone on a U.S. military base and was considered a “natural born citizen” as U.S. military bases are considered U.S. soil.

        4. Are you going to find out exactly what the Browns are filing suit for or are you going to continue to misrepresent???  The Browns are not asking for the gov to recognize any other marriage than the 1st marriage which has a civil marriage license in place and is legally recognized by the state and federal governments …. they are asking the state to not prosecute them for the subsequent marriages performed through religious rites (according to their fundementalist mormon practice).  Again they are not asking that the state legally recognize the marriages, only that they not prosecute them.

        5. Same misrepresentations, same distortion of facts, same refusal to actually research the arguments you post as fact, same slippery slope arguments, same bible passages, same references to Focus on the Family links ….. when are you going to put in the plug for Exodus International?

        6. Polygamists …. Fundementalist Mormons …… why do you hate them for following their religious beliefs?
          Pssssssst: They are not suing the state of Utah for legal recognition of their marriages but that the state of Utah not prosecute them for the marriages entered into through purely religious ceremonies.

        7. I do believe that certain Native American tribes are allowed to “break” state and federal laws when it comes to using eagle feathers, peyote, etc…as part of their religious beliefs and ceremonies.

          Why aren’t you screaming about that?

    2. Aye, pp, the world just keeps getting better and better!

      Make your stand… in the end it won’t matter because you refuse to put anything forth defending your views other than mythology.

      You insure your own loss.

      1. I beg to differ, cpp444 did offer a defense. Whether you agree with him or not he  suggests that state endorsed relationships of same-sex couples will open the door to state endorsement of polygamy and all sorts of other relationships. As the letter from Susan Mendell states, relationships outside the natural order of one man and one woman will be sanctioned by the state. I know this is hard for you to accept, but it is factual because sex between adults of the same sex is not part of the natural order or design.

        1. What defense? His religious views? Good… as we saw in Lawrence v. Texas, that will not stand in court.

          Whether gay marriage will open the door to polygamy is unknown… to state it positively is fear mongering and nothing more… and it’s an argument already put before the court and shot down, as the discussion is not on polygamy. So yeah, use that one too. Use your favorite, procreation, as that’s been entered into court too, and shot down.

          Mendell is fear mongering… nothing more. Such presumptuous statements about the future have so far been summarily tossed on their ear.

          There was one correct prediction though… in Lawrence v. Texas Justice Scalia stated that if religion and personal morality were no reason to proscribe law (and they’re not), then what would stop gays from marrying? The answer is simple:

          Nothing.

          You really, really, need to take some time out and read the court cases as they stand now… against Prop 8, and against other state laws and DOMA. It’ll keep you from making the same invalid arguments over and over and over.

          And again, here you are on a computer full of plastic… you care nothing for the “natural order”. Hypocrite.

          1. Now be civil. There is no need to be calling posters names if you can advance a reasonable argument. This is a forum for airing views. Holding grudges against anyone for holding a view different than yours only shows immaturity. As to federal and state court statements and arguments you are free to pick and choose those you want. I do the same to support my argument now and then. Welcome to the civil world, that is, if you can remain civil.

          2. Screaming victim when you’re not the victim. It isn’t a matter of disagreement when you work to systematic oppress a minority group. This is a civil discussion, so stick to civil truths. There is no requirement to procreate to obtain a marriage license, quit acting as though it is. 

          3. But there is a requirement for a couple to be of the opposite sex, regardless of their sexual orientation.

          4. Just because there is currently a “requirement for a couple to be of the opposite sex” in order to be married it does not follow that they be able to procreate also. 

          5. I’ve been reading “not for much longer” for years on here. You may save yourself a bit of heartache if you don’t get all excited just yet.
            More than likely it will depend on if your boy stays in the White House.

          6. No sweetie… it will come from the courts, which have nothing to do with who is in office.

            Such items before the court do take years… but that’s where it will be finished.

            Not by a vote of people wishing to see law abiding citizens harmed under our government.

          7. Do you have friends or family members that you would encourage to enter into marriage with someone who does not share their orientation?  Do you encourage friends or family members to enter into marriage with someone of the opposite gender they do not love or does not love them as you love your spouse?  Or do only suggest that gays marry lesbians and lesbians marry gays if they just want marriage?  Would you support these sham marraiges?…… the state and federal governments would…

          8. True… But hypocrisy is hypocrisy.

            When you put forward a defense for your views that hasn’t already lost in federal court, you’ll have something.

          9. That statement about name-calling is a laugh out loud statement.  Same-sex marraige supporters here have been called degenerates, perverted, perverts, mentally ill, sick, disgusting, vile, diseased, morally corrupt, abominations, unnatural ….. just a few that come to mind.  and some of these are coming from those who claim to “christians” …. are they advancing a reasonable argument or name calling?

        2. Please provide one example of a state that currently allows SSM that has moved on to allowing “polygamy and all sorts of other relationships”.

    3. Another tired and invalid repetition of the “slippery slope” warning on further opening marriage to ‘any and all combinations”.

      1. Do you have any idea what is happening in Brazil?  You absolutely cannot start redefining marriage.  It is a very dangerous slope.  What if a bisexual wants to marry someone of the same sex and also be married to someone of the opposite sex?  what about all the other deviant sexual behaviors?  This could just get more and more twisted.

        1. Do you have any idea what’s happening in Massachusetts? It’s been legal there for nearly a decade and all the crap you’ve been saying will happen hasn’t happened. 

          Slippery slope isn’t an argument. You can use it to arguing against anything. 

        2. Can you find an example within the United States where SSM has been legalized to support Your slippery slope argument?

      2.   Remember when the gay rights activists told us they wanted sexual preference added to anti discrimination and civil rights laws.  They told us they had NO intention of  pursuing same sex marriage.

        Now they tell us they have no intention of going after religious
        organizations or of requiring an LGBT curriculum requirement in schools.

        Right….

        1. Hmmm have you read the law we are voting on?

          The Establishment Clause in the Bill of Rights (aka the 1st Amendment) has specific language preventing the government from establishing a law that prevents the “free exercise” of religion. That means a law established to force a religious denomination to marry a same sex couple where there religious doctrine does not allow it would be ruled unconstitutional.

          Next argument….

          Back in 2009 NOM and the Yes on 1 group had many commercials that featured the argument that “it” would be taught in schools if SSM was allowed to stand. After the repeal Yes on 1 admitted that “it” would not have been taught in schools if SSM was upheld. School curicculum is not set at the state level and forced on local communities here in Maine. Your local school board reviews and sets what is taught in your community here in Maine. If you bothered to attend a School Board meeting you would know this fact.

          So, your second argument is as much of a lie today as it was in 2009.

          1. I no longer have confidence the supreme court will uphold the constitution. Remember decisions regarding eminent domain and the ACA as examples. They could easily decide that marriage was no longer a religious issue but was now a civil one and that religious exemptions no longer apply.

          2. OK but what would they base that decision on? What legal theory? They would have to ignore ( I don’t know the exacforking but it could be dozens) several prior rulings to do that. I don’t see this court in its current make up doing that.

          3. I have no idea what convoluted reasoning they might use to justify such a ruling.   I do see the reasoning used in decisions such as the eminent domain case in New London Connecticut and to support the ACA. 

            Just think if Obama wins the election and gets to appoint 2 more justices in his next term.  All we need is 2 more like Ginsberg who think we should use foreign laws as a basis for supreme court decisions.

          4. Marriage is not a religious issue.

            If it is, please explain how atheists wed.

            I’ll wait.

          5.  I agree that marriage is not a religious issue except for those who are religious. 

            However, marriage is a social and societal issue and as such should support and promote values that make that society stronger.

          6. So, insuring stability for gay citizens and their families does not make society stronger?
            Really? I guess insuring they’re lives are always separate and chaotic and that many of their children go without healthcare is a great way to help society, huh?
            Good grief… what a sham.

        2. Um… sweetheart, what you’re bellyaching about is happening in states without gay marriage.

          Good grief.

        3. Did those with a hetersexual “preference” benefit from that addition?  Can you be legally fired for just being hetersexual?
          You know many states don’t have that protection written in so in those states, heterosexuals could legally be fired because they “prefer” an opposite sex partner.

          1. Right you are!

            But their choice of religion is protected under the Civil Rights Acts…
            And they’re always bellyaching about “special rights”.

        1. When did “marriage” over take the U.S. Constitution as the “cornerstone of our society”?

      1. Yes, I feel sorry for his family as well.  Your opinion of the cornerstone of  our society must be why you spend the majority of your time posting about SSM.  Do you have any belief system?  I’m just wondering because I am still recalling you responding to one of my posts about Bob Carlson in which you felt he received no salary.  Ever since I have had a difficult time understanding your values or knowledge of the Bible.

        1. The “cornerstone of our society” is the U.S. Constitution. It gives us the structure of our government. It delineates our rights as citizens. 

          Marriage is part of society but is not and has never been the “cornerstone” of that society. And if marriage is the “cornerstone of our society” then that cornerstone has been crumbling for a number of years with a divorce rate of greater than 50% year over year. Maybe cp444 and your time would be better spent finding a solution to divorce rather than denying two consenting adults a civil marriage.

          1. Actually homosexuality has played a huge part in the destruction of marriage and the downfall of our society. We only have to go back to the sixties and see the devastation brought on by the sexual revolution. They took the sacredness of marriage and turned it into a free for all. Homosexuality coming out like gang busters is directly tied to it. Once this becomes the norm, it’s only a matter of time before the next perversion steps up to the plate for acceptance. Polygamists are now up to bat also. Downward we go. Families are disintegrating while jd holds up his copy of the constitution and loudly proclaims “look folks, everything is ok”

          2. Can you provide an example for ANY state where SSM is legal where a bill has been introduced, defeated, passed or signed into law to make any of the following a legally acceptable activity:

            Incest

            Beastility

            Polygamy

            Pedophilia

            Your slippery slope argument fails without real examples cp444.

          3. Dude, you come across exactly the same as those racist southerners when interracial marriage was legal only in some US states.

            Since our country’s inception there have been groups that have seen the promise of our Constitution, and petitioned our society for equal rights, access to government, and legal protections. And all along the way there have been people predicting doom and gloom and national destruction if we extend these things to one more group, race, sex, or other minority.

            And every time they have failed, and every time our nation has failed to self-destruct. This is just the next way in which our constitution is fulfilling its promise to ALL Americans.

          4. You, sir or madam, are clinically paranoid. Either that or you never got to experience the Sixties in all its glory and you are seriously envious of those that did. I suspect the latter.

    4.  Remember when the gay rights activists told us they wanted sexual preference added to anti discrimination and civil rights laws.  They told us they had NO intention of  pursuing same sex marriage.

      Now they tell us they have no intention of going after religious organizations or of requiring an LGBT curriculum requirement in schools.

      Right….

      1. So pesky, aren’t they? It’s like, we gave you SOME rights, why aren’t you satisfied? Full equality? LOL, get real.

  6. Hayes Gahagan: loved your description of Pres. Obama’s  “collectivist” policies. I’ll bet you didn’t object when he bailed out the nation’s biggest banks and most of the other leading financial institutions, did you? Only when it’s something the federal govt. might do for the 99% would you and most other critics of Obama denounce him. As the NYTimes editorialized a few days ago, not a single banker or other financial honcho was indicted, much less jailed, despite overwhelming evidence of poor judgment, or worse, in the 2007-2008 financial meltdown.  Republicans want small govt. when it doesn’t help the rich and the powerful but relish it when it helps them–and when, of course, it intrudes on the most personal aspects of daily life like abortion.

    1. Hayes Gahagan and the rest of the Ron Paul supporters have been assigned seats in the nosebleed section at the convention to make sure they can’t be seen or heard by their fellow Republicans . I guess his Republican pals just aren’t feeling the love. 

    2.  ” not a single banker or other financial honcho was indicted, much less
      jailed, despite overwhelming evidence of poor judgment, or worse,”

      Guess what.  Poor judgement is not against the law.  But it should have resulted in bankruptcy and the individuals making those poor decisions losing their jobs and more.  First government interfered in the financial sector and created the problem and then messed up the cure for the problem.

  7. @ Michael Aygam & Susan Mendell…. You both so spot on!

    @ Hayes Gahagan….keep drinking your kool aid…what Charlie Webster, Jan Staples and Peter Cianchette did was reprehensible. They have fractured the Republican party in Maine beyond repair.
    Democrats now have an opportunity to once again become the majority party…all thanks to these fools.

  8. Akin isn’t alone. The GOP hasn’t done enough to denounce extremism and as result, their party has unfortunately mutated. They’re almost tribal in how they accuse others of being RINOs and then take them down in primaries if they, God forbid, compromised on anything. The real GOP has let the extremist take over and it’s their party now — look no further than their new GOP platform which advocates a complete abortion ban with no exceptions for rape or incest. 

    1. RAmen… well said.

      It’s very very sad what has become of the republican party… leaves me voting independent or libertarian, and those choices aren’t always available.

  9. Michael Aygam, Regina Rooney:  good letters.
    Note that, as poster elsewhere, the invalid, extreme views of Akin and others stem from a 1971 book by Jack Willke.

  10. Hayes Gahagan, I,m not clear on why Libertarians align themselves with Republicans in the first place. It seems incongruous with the GOP’s anti-privacy platform.

  11. I am not a Republican nor am I a fan of the GOP, however, I will give the vast majority of them the benefit of the doubt that they have a better understanding of anatomy than Akin.

    1. That’s very generous of you. See Republican Tom Smith’s more recent gaffe re rape babies and children born out of wedlock. Both well- meaning men, I’m sure . And lest we forget our esteemed governor’s “little beards” remark. Oh, for the day when synthetic sperm becomes a reality, and all men will be rendered obsolete!

  12. The GOP just lost the Ron Paul supporters and women. Good news for the Democrats. Keep that train wreck a-Rollin’ Repubs!

  13. Regina Rooney:  What I find extreme is that views of people like yourself are not on the radical fringe, but are indicative of a pattern of beliefs.  The fact that this country legalizes the murder of unborn babies puts us in a category of barbarism rarely exceeded by other societies in the history of civilization.  I’m glad that you’re not a one-issue voter, because hopefully there will be other issues that keep you from voting for the promotion of abortion.

    Many Christians, and I among them, are primary issue voters.  It’s really hard to come up with an issue that is more primary, however, than the fact that the slaughter of babies is legal in this nation.  Until that legality is overturned, the issue of abortion will be a burning one in every election.  If we can believe any polls out there, some show that Americans are increasingly becoming more pro-life.  The day that all Americans become that way cannot come soon enough.

  14. Hayes Gahagan was FDR a socialist, was Harry Truman a socialist, was the Heritage Foundation a socialist organization, is Mitt (R)money a socialist and last but not least was G W Bush a socialist? 
    All of the above were involved in your words an “European brand of socialism”.  Why don’t you have the b-lls to come out and say what you mean.  Obama is black and does not belong in the White House, he doesn’t come from the USA he is a foreigner. 
    My ex party has gone to h-ll, and there seems to be very few ladies or gentlemen left in it who are willing to sit down and work out compromises.  When will they realize that compromises is what made this country great, the R’s are right the country is on the wrong track and they are the ones driving it there.

  15. Susan Mendell,
    As great a country as this is, all earthly governments is something God is at odds with, even though He allows it. In 1 Samuel 8, God tells Samuel that the fledgling nation of Israel wanted a king to rule over them (like their neighboring countries), not because they were rejecting Samuel and his sons, but because they were rejecting God.

    Don’t look to the government to save the marriage situation. It doesn’t matter one whit if same-sex marriage is ever passed. God, and God alone defines marriage, no matter what the government says. But that is why they hate what the bible says marriage is, because they can’t understand why their behavior is a sin.

    It doesn’t matter why it is a sin or not. God said it was a sin, so hey, it must be a sin for a reason. But God also said that lying, coveting, and stealing are sins– and anyone who breaks the lest of the commandments, breaks the whole thing. Yes, the wages of sin is death. But Jesus forgives sins, and not simply as a magic or secret pass-word to get into heaven, but by a firm belief in Him as our personal savior from that sin. That’s all that matters, because being a hypocrite is a sin on top of your salvation. We’re not called to make other people’s lives difficult. Yes, they’re sinners, and need Jesus… But at some point in your life you needed Him too. Share it with them, don’t accuse them.

    So don’t be the hypocrite and vote against Same-Sex Marriage laws, because only He who is without sin can cast the first stone. You’re not without sin either. Let them pass their SSM law, because if God allowed governments back in 1 Samuel 8 (even though it was against His will), God is going to allow them to pass SSM with or without your vote. You fight in vain against the flesh and blood with a vote, rather than the spiritual wickedness in high places in the hearts of men and women.You need to work in people by getting to their hearts and minds, and that is only possible with the Holy Spirit. You can’t do it on your own, which is why voting against SSM is pointless.

    1. Pat, one of the most serious sins we can commit is the sin of scandal.  I’m sure you’re aware of what Jesus said about scandal in the Bible, that it would be better to have a millstone tied around your neck and be cast into the sea, rather than be a party to scandal.

      The sin of scandal is to promote sin, or to approve of others to commit sin.  By voting for SSM, you are approving that people commit homosexual acts, which are against the commandments of God.  If you vote for SSM, therefore, you are engaging in the sin of scandal.

      You say that we should not fight SSM.  Would you also say that we should not fight legalized abortion?  Maybe we are all sinners, but that doesn’t mean that we should not fight sin.  The fewer sins in the world, the better, and maybe more souls can be saved if they are not deceived by others who sin.  God holds us responsible to warn others of sin, and we will be judged on whether or not we tried to keep others away from sin.  The tide of sin may seem to be overwhelming as it tries to swallow us, but with the help of the grace of God, we should never stop bailing against it.

      1. And I thought a scandal was when someone well-known or considered morally “right” was got caught doing something they not ought to be doing …. like DUI, molesting children, chasing 12 year olds down the street at night while wearing only their underwear, hiring prostitutes, cheating on their spouse, using controlled substances without a prescription, evading tax laws ….

      2. Sin… god… holy books.

        They’re not our government… they’re not our law.

        If you want that, then you will need to allow Islam to reflect itself in our law too… Do you want that?

        Really?

      3. Wrong and wrong.

        Scandals have nothing to do with “offending these little ones”, to which it would be better that a millstone was hanged around your neck. Offending a child, in this parable that Jesus teaches, is this: Misleading them or causing them to emulate your sinful behavior– Being a false prophet. Surely, it leads to scandal, but it is not the root of the problem.

        And no, riding the world of sin is something we as humans can never do. Then you have the problem of who, exactly, defines sin? Who is interpreting the Law to define what sin is? And worse yet, who decides what the punishment for these sins are? (Thank you RCC, you apostate church, for the dark ages). This is why your struggle against the flesh and blood is pointless: You are attempting to legislate morality, externally.

        The only way a person’s morality can change, is if it is changed from within. You can’t do that by passing laws. We have how many laws against drunk driving, and people still do that. Kids still get alcohol and cigarettes. The world is full of evil and sin, and nothing you do will change that. That is why I said in my first statement to Susan, that you need the Holy Spirit to change people. The Holy Spirit is of God, and changes people from within, in their hearts.

        “He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.” – Revelation 22:11.

  16. “Homosexual so-called marriage can never be marriage regardless of law, government or the decree of anyone representing a particular religion.”

    Says who, Miss Mendell?

    1. says the majority of the Americans since EVERY state that has voted on SSM has voted it down!  Also the 31 states that have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.

      1. And the courts will trump them, as there is no rational legal reason to continue the discrimination.

      2. Hmmmmm just like there were 17 states (until 1967) that still banned interracial marriage…until SCOTUS told those states (in 1967) ….NO.  It’s only a matter of time and SCOTUS will rule on SSM as well- the 14th Amendment applies to ALL AMERICANS not just white, heterosexual entitled twits.

        1. Next, you’ll hear “being gay is a choice and is not immutable like race” ignoring the fact that religion is a choice and is not immutable, yet is protected under civil rights statutes from ’64 and ’68.

          The hypocrisy is as thick as tidal mud.

    2. I believe it is Mrs. Mendell …… Remember Don Mendell, the high school guidance councelor from the 2009 repeal?

  17. @ Regina Rooney….To place blame on an entire group for one persons comment is a stretch. I guess your’e willing to grab anything and manipulate it to fit your viewpoint. My sense is that you are a Democrat. Make sure you “vote on the bill so you know what is in it”. Kind of putting your Donkey cart before your horse.

    1. Akin also believes that breast milk can ‘cure’ homosexuality….could this man BE anymore inane and uneducated???  Yet he’s on the science committee…..more the like science fiction committee….he’s a sad, sad, joke.

      1. Um… that was a piece of satire that has run amok online…

        As for the science committee, yes, that is true… likely a goal of his to replace science with mythology.

    2. Akin was speaking for the vast majority of the Republican Party.  His only fault was that he said it out loud. 
      Take a good look at the Republican platform and all of the presumptive vice presidential nominee’s votes in complete agreement  and co-sponsored with Akin.

  18. @Susan Mendell- ‘reasonable.. God-fearing people’  is an oxymoron and you may ‘fear’ god all you want.  I fear small minded obtuse people like you.  You say marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman….well sweets, the divorce rate in this country says other wise.  Your catchy little slogan of 1 man and 1 woman needs to add ‘at a time’ to it.   Marriage: 1 man and 1 woman at a time (until the next divorce) and I’m certain I have read in the god fearing people’s book that divorce is considered adultery ….and how were adulterers dealt with?  Oh right they were put to death…..works for me- does that work for you Suzie Q ??

  19. In Alabama, in the year 2000, voters voted to repeal a provision of their constitution that prohibited interracial marriage. The vote succeed in doing so, but 40% of voters voted against it. This is decades after the SJC ruled prohibiting interracial marriage was unconstitutional and 40% of Alabama still hasn’t caught up. Can you imagine if they held the vote decades ago?

    You can clap your hands and cheer all you want about being in the majority at times, but simply being in the majority doesn’t make you right.

    1. You’re right Wolf- In the republican primary held this year in Mississippi a poll was taken about interracial marriage
      only 54% of voters think it should be legal, while 29% believe it should be illegal…… and this is 2012……In 1967 when SCOTUS ruled on the anti-miscegenation laws (Loving v. Virginia) there were still 17 states (all the ‘slave’ states + Oklahoma) who did not ‘allow’ interracial marriage…..so much for the ‘majority’ being right….or moral.

      http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/03/other-notes-from-alabama-and-mississippi.html 

  20. Susan Mendell, your beliefs are just that-beliefs. Not facts, not objective reality, just beliefs. Beliefs are only feelings dressed up as facts. They are not facts, and endlessly saying that they are does not make them so. 

  21. If you’re going to try and defend someone as vile and obnoxious as Ted then you have lost what little credibility you never had.

    1. I love you too little pp!!!

      Amazing… so, no one has credibility that completely and utterly disagrees with you, when it is YOU who cannot offer examples that demonstrate a rational basis for your fear mongering.

      Oh, that’s just hysterical!

  22. @cp444:disqus 

    You’re posts aren’t lining up with who you’re replying to.

    Clear your cache and restart your browser and the problem will go away.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *