To answer that question, let’s take a little trip down the road of history. Marriage licenses in some form or another have existed since the Middle Ages. In the mid-19th century U.S., many states saw an opportunity to boost revenues. Others saw a racist reason to make marriage licenses mandatory, such as preventing people of different skin color from marrying. By the late 1920s, most states issued marriage licenses for record keeping, vital statistics and, of course, revenue. Today, it would be nearly impossible for governments to extricate themselves from the business of marriage because so many legal benefits depend upon a license proving marriage as recognized by the state. Property rights, death and estate benefits, insurance and repayment of debt obligations are inextricably linked to the legal state marriage.
For those arguing that modern marriage is primarily a Christian institution, the answer is no – it definitely is not. Why? Because it doesn’t matter if you are black, white, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, Buddhist or completely nonreligious, everyone in this nation wanting to get married needs to get the same marriage license from the state. My marriage, for example, was a nonreligious ceremony by a notary public. Marriage for same-sex couples would change nothing about how marriage is delivered from a religious point of view, with church leaders still being able to choose who gets married in their house of worship. We do not discriminate about who can get married in other aspects of life, so why should we do so when it comes to same-sex couples? There doesn’t seem to be a good reason.
Same-sex couples are different, you say? Well, people of other faiths are different, and people of dissimilar skin color or ethnicities are different, yet we accept marriage as vital for those families as well. For anyone who thinks marriage is the best institution for a family, there is no doubt that marriage would allow same-sex couples to raise their families with greater stability and protection. It would be hypocrisy to decry same-sex couples as having less stable relationships while denying them the right to marry. Same-sex couples want to get married for the same reasons as opposite-sex couples, which are love, commitment and the solid legal recognition and benefits that only marriage provides.
At one time in the U.S., it was impossible in most places for an African American to marry a European American. Some of the same arguments used against same-sex couples today justified denying couples of different races from marrying then. People said it was an abomination, that it would degrade society and that blacks and whites were just too different. Communities were so afraid of integrating society that Southern states instituted laws preventing African Americans from using the same fountain, attending the same schools or sitting in the front of the public bus with the white folks. The “separate but equal” doctrine was in effect until the Civil Rights Act and the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision ended what we now consider a shameful part of our history.
Some people think that domestic partnerships or civil unions are the same thing as marriage, yet we know they are not because same-sex couples are often denied access to their loved ones in times of emergency or have legal difficulties. Only marriage offers federal benefits and protections. Further, civil unions and domestic partnerships are not transferrable to other states under the “full-faith and credit” clause of the U.S. Constitution. We all know today that “separate but equal” is the same as saying “separate but second-class” – and it is complete nonsense.
Marriage for same-sex couples is one of the greatest civil rights issues of the 21st century. On Nov. 6, you will have the opportunity to cast your ballot and say yes for marriage equality. How will history judge the side you choose?
Nathan Grant is a happily married, lifelong resident of Maine. He lives in Gardiner.
No-Brainer here…YES!!!!!
This is just such common sense that it is bound to boggle the minds of some.
Yes… and we will.
— Duplicate post… —
Thank you for this rational, common-sense piece on civil marriage, explaining why allowing it for same-sex couples is indeed the right thing to do!
The message I have seen from those opposed to same-sex marriage this time has been “gays and lesbians can already protect themselves with domestic partnerships, they don’t need civil marriage”
I applaud the fact that their argument now agrees that we should be treated equally under our laws, but their argument that we already have these rights is UNTRUE.
There are over 1,100 benefits and privileges that our government extends to us based on our marital status. Many of these benefits cannot be obtained outside of a civil marriage certificate.
There is nowhere in our nation where civil unions or domestic partnerships come close to reproducing the breadth or depth of protections that come from a $40 civil marriage license.
I hope that most Mainers will join me this November in voting YES on question 1, because ALL Maine families need the important protections of civil marriage, so we can protect the lives we build together, and the children we raise together.
Odd, this post disappeared completely, which is why I rewrote it later!
Thank you to all the straight allies of fairness and equality for others. It’s a testament to your good character.
The voting decision is easily made by taking the Golden Rule test: Do I, myself, want to have the ability to legally marry the consenting adult that I love? Simple, right?
Absolutely.
Regardless of how the (primarily religious-to-the-point-of-mental-illness) opposition feels.
Your parenthetical comment is right on point, Reason. There’s but a very fine line between the two, as witnessed by some of the online comments.
It brings to mind a House-ism, “Rational arguments don’t usually work on religious people. Otherwise there would be no religious people.”
Great advice from a drug addict doctor with anti social behavior patterns !
Except he’s not really a drug addict doctor with anti-social behavior patterns, because he is a fictonal character…
Just like the Jewish Middle Eastern carpenter who is depicted as a white guy that the anti-SSM crowd like to quote so much.
Ha, that reminds me of the quote “Obama isn’t the brown skinned, anti-war socialist who gives away free healthcare. You’re thinking of Jesus”.
Thank you for a well reasoned editorial regarding civil marriage! Truly, the more Mainers learn about this issue, the more support we see for granting civil marriage benefits to same-sex couples.
The message I have seen from those opposed to same-sex marriage this time has been “gays and lesbians can already protect themselves with domestic partnerships, they don’t need civil marriage”
I applaud the fact that their argument now agrees that we should be treated equally under our laws, but their argument that we already have these rights is UNTRUE. There are over 1,100 benefits and privileges that our government extends to us based on our marital status. Many of these benefits cannot be obtained outside of a civil marriage certificate.
There is nowhere in our nation where civil unions or domestic partnerships come close to reproducing the breadth or depth of protections that come from a $40 civil marriage license.
I hope that most Mainers will join me this November in voting YES on question 1, because ALL Maine families need the important protections of civil marriage, so we can protect the lives we build together, and the children we raise together.
How does a SSM get consummated?
Pathetic question.
There is no legal “consummation” for marriage anywhere in the contract.
Barren folks are unable to “consummate” their marriage any more than gay folks, so if it’s just the act you’re looking for, then it’s all taken care of sweetheart… your answer is all over the interwebs.
How is that anyone’s business?
that’s an interesting thing to fixate on. i think there is a closed closet door with your name on it.
My mother’s second marriage, which occurred late in life, was never consummated. Yet no one questioned her right to civil marriage.
Is there a wife when two men get married and vice versa?
Now, what do you think, brah?
What does that matter??? A partner is a partner no matter what you call them. Your predjudice is showing!
It matters to him/her/it because like most of their ilk, they’re fascinated by gay sex.
It get’s ’em all riled up and hot & bothered.
Do you think he wonders the same thing about opposite-sex couples … my guess would be yes. He appears to be obsessed with sex in general.
Who cares?
No, they would be husbands to each other, or spouses.
Any more questions?
LOL, A very odd personal bit of information I really don’t need to know any more.
And you call yourself a doctor!
And just how do you know that? (You might be surprised….)
If you must know, she told me as we were packing up his belongings after his funeral.
Any more questions?
For those who think this is too much information, my point here is that the opponents to same-sex marriage seem myopically focused on sexual activity. Marriage is not about sexual activity— people can have sex without being married, and people who are married aren’t necessarily sexually active with their soul mate.
Same way any other marriage is consummated. Why are you so concerned what happens behind closed doors between two consenting adults? And you do realize that heterosexual couples (married and unmarried) engage in sodomy don’t you?
Oh boy, here we go, jd. Ex_ung’s next question: “Is sodomy a landscaping term?”
Depends….
MY father was married to my mother 32 years before divorcing. His second wife wanted to marry in the Catholic church. My father was told for a sizable donation they could be. Spare me your religious platitudes.
Thank you, Nathan Grant, for this practical look at this issue.
SSM is a matter of economic equality and fairness, pure and simple. The notion that all marriages revolve around sex and offspring is arcane. If that were the case there would be many more marriages registered. Marriages are consumated first and foremost by love and mutual respect.
Incorrect— homosexuality is a sexual orientation, not a sexual perversion.
And there is no justifiable reason to discriminate against same-sex couples in regards to civil marriage.
Sure there is! It’s wrong! That’s why we can’t have it! And why is it wrong? Well, because it IS!!
Then stop doing it, Joe.
I can’t do it because it’s illegal!
Ah Joe….homosexuality is not illegal.
No, little one, that’s just your opinion. It’s perfectly legal, much to your chagrin. Besides, not all marriages in this world are opposite sex couples, or are you too dumb to be paying attention?
Your mythology is not enforced as our civil law.
Why do you refuse to see that simple little fact?
Pathetic fear mongering.
How do swine like you take things that have been happening for years if not decades and proclaim that it somehow justifies fear mongering you’ve been doing here lately?
You’re pathetic. Truly a great servant for that monster you call god.
Oh, no, not my God. My God is an awesome, loving, caring God who wants all of his children to live by his edicts…. not penalizing some of them because HE made them that way.
“Worship me or burn for eternity in a lake of fire” is as far from loving as one can get.
Interesting, but not the issue. If you say I can’t marry the man I love because some 72 year old British woman is having a relationship with her grandson, then you really don’t get it. Drawing parallels like this (and an old murder in Los Angeles) is really just an attempt at misleading others. Alarmist and deceitful.
The issue here is: “Do you want to allow the State of Maine to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?”
No, bigotry is a perversion, ignorance is a choice.
Excellent!
It might be for heterosexuals; the simple solution to THAT issue is, stop doing it.
Now, gay people on the other hand, it’s what they are.
Mind your own business.
But if SSM is allowed all same sex marriages will instantly dissolve when the gay assault troops sneak in and seduce the heterosexuals. A closer equivalence to bigotry against SSM would be the Mormons spending millions to defeat the equal rights amendment, the Catholics and other Patriarchal religions blaming women for “forcing” men to lose control, all of which paint men as weak, unable to choose while being victims to a stronger, smarter, female or gay.
Who is playing victim now?
The religious blame on women sounds very similar to that of the Muslims and their subjugation of women.
I think your side arguing for the right for incest really does damage to their own integrity.
But good luck with trying to convince people that you have the right to incestuous marriage, and that it has anything to do with gay people marrying.
Where are all the hateful comments form those in favor? Oh, that’s right, he’s FOR it.
Guess you save the hateful comments for those that respectfully disagree with you.
Or are they now. I beg to differ.
What is hateful about wanting to allow same-sex couples the same rights of civil marriage as any other couple?
All Maine families deserve the ability to protect the lives they build together, and the children they raise together, with civil marriage.
Yes because it is SOOOOO hateful to want to see two consenting adults happy.
Wow, you poor victim!
You know, I might be swayed by your arguments and the arguments against same sex marriage…
If those who argue most passionately against it didn’t come off like that crazy religious lady in the film “The Mist”…
But, since they always do sound just like her, and I’ve yet to hear, read, or see a single rational argument, or even an argument that doesn’t discredit the opposing side, I have to say, I view it as my duty to vote FOR marriage equality.
There is no way you’re going to convince me that fear, obvious lies, slander, and just plain crazy talk is a substitution for love. Ever.
Or for that matter, that God has anything to do with such arguments that denigrate gay people the way you do here.
So, basically what you are saying is that if same sex marriage is legalized, a portal to another dimension will open up and the United States will be overrun by hellish nightmare creatures, leaving survivors to fend for themselves in grocery stores? /sarcasm
moved
There have always been problems with society. However, what you might think of as sinking, others might see as freedom.
I think most of any decline in morality come from heterosexuals, both in absolute and relative numbers.
Heterosexuals gave this country Snookie.
If you cannot argue against gay marriage without bringing up incest, you don’t have an argument against gay marriage.
Then fight against that. Don’t use “oh, look what might come next!” as an excuse to treat fellow Americans as less-than-equal or less-than-deserving of equal protection under our laws.
Marriage should always be about love not what some hogwash religion says or what the goverment thinks if your against gays and lesbians then your a bigot plain and simple put the white hood on and join the kkk
Funny thing about marriage, in the Middle Ages one need only say “I marry you” to be considered married.
Marriage = ONE man and ONE woman…
And always will–regardless of the outcome of this vote.
The definition change in 2004
Nope. Regardless of the outcome of this vote, gay marriage is inevitable because there is no rational legal reason against it.
For some reason, many think that allowing same-sex couples to enter into civil marriage will nullify opposite-sex marriage ….. just like allowing interracial couples to enter into civil marriage nullified same race marriage. ;)
At one time in our nations history
Marriage = ONE white man and ONE white woman…
or
Marriage = ONE black man and ONE black woman…
But not…
Marriage = ONE black man and ONE white woman…
or
Marriage = ONE white man and ONE black woman…
That wasn’t “right” either.
Not paying attention are you… around the world and in the US, that definition fails.
Eventually, it will fail in all states.
In the Biblical marriage definition, women are to be subordinate to their husbands, both in Genesis, and Paul’s letters to the Corinthians. We now accept that women should be held as the equals to men, not inferior or chattel, as was previous custom.
Biblical marriage in Genesis, under the Levirate rules, meant that a woman who was widowed would marry her husband’s brother if she didn’t have a son…. and submit to him as his wife in every way.
Many famous Biblical figures had both wives, sometimes many, and concubines, which was perfectly well accepted under the traditions of the time. And no, Jesus never said anywhere in the New Testament that he would do away with the old laws.
If you rape a woman according to the old laws in Deuteronomy, the woman must marry you and you give her father some coin as recompense…. sounds fair, right?How about what the Bible says about soldiers taking virgins as spoils of war and being forced to become wives (Numbers and Deuteronomy)? The point is that the very definition of marriage has changed many times over the centuries. It is now a State sanctioned legal contract between two people, and we might as well make it available to all for the good of society. It is the compassionate thing to do.If Christians want a separate institution that shows they are married under God, they can give out certificates of “Holy Matrimony” to their opposite-sex married members if it means that much to them.
Civil marriage = two consenting adults who wish to protect the lives they build together.
When we pass laws dictating a certain moral code, particularly a code based on religion we’re moving on a path that leads to the same sort of society that the Taliban envision. Keep religion out of our civil laws.
Amen.
RAmen.
May his starchy goodness bless you and yours.
And may you be Touched by His Noodly Appendage, brother!
Most if not all of the laws of this country seem to be based on some sort of ” moral ” code. That in fact is what proponents of gay marriage are trying to pass right now isn’t it ?
Not really as the proposed law doesn’t dictate that people behave a certain way if they don’t wish to. What it does do is take away the ability of “No” folks to force their own moral code, whatever it’s origins, on those who don’t hold the same beliefs, which is not the same thing at all.
There are plenty of things in life that we (collective) don’t agree with or approve of that we have to tolerate in others. For instance, I don’t really approve of organized religion, instead believing that faith is a personal and private thing. However, I don’t have the right to tell others that the churches must close and they can no longer worship God in public. Instead my rights are, correctly, limited to not being a member of a church.
Well said.
No. You can hold whatever “moral code” you wish.
Even after gay marriage passes, you can hold whatever “moral code” you wish. One can be just like the KKK is today… no one has taken their “moral code” away from them.
“Actually it’s a sneak preview of what’s down the road. Immorality only
begets more, your imagination is the only limit.”
Well Massachusetts has allowed SSM since 2004 so it should be very easy to provide “what’s down the road” to show you are right….please do.
~~~~~
“We are slowly being
boiled to death.”
See response above.
~~~~~
“It won’t happen over night.”
2004 is not overnight so you should have plenty of examples from Massachusetts. Or if that doesn’t work Vermont legalized “Civil Unions” in 1999 so you should be able to show examples of “what’s down the road” from that state….please do.
~~~~~
“Polygamist are already
making the same arguments as homosexuals.”
Gee cp444 you stopped posting the link to that article. Why?
~~~~~
“It isn’t out of the realm for
brothers or mother daughters wanting the to make their stand for
“equality”.”
Please show one state or country where SSM is legal where a move has been made to legalize incest.
~~~~~
“Fear mongering, hardly.”
No, when you can provide not even one example to back up your claim of “what’s down the road” it is nothing more than fear mongering.
~~~~~
“Look back a mere generation or two
and look how far we’ve sunk”
Loving v. Virginia (1967) yup never should have allowed those uppity blacks marriage equality. Marriage has NEVER been the same.
BDN keeps beating the drum….
And for that I’m thankful— this is truly an issue of treating Mainers equally under our laws.
So when the publish a pro-SSM opinion piece they are “beating the drum”.
What do you call it when they publish a anti-SSM opinion piece?
Sounds to me, cp, like you’ve been spending too much time under the control of one of the cults-disguised-as-churches, which have more toxicity in them than the worst landfill around.
Our decline in morality, cp, comes from the religious right, which purports to have all the answers. You and they have done nothing but work to erode human freedom and happiness, all under the guise of knowing what’s best. My regards to your ill-informed master hypnotist/pastor.
Marriage is not about securing property rights or wealth for the family like it was in the middle ages, and it certainly has not been about sex since the population explosion pushed the earth to carrying capacity.
Marriage is now about four letters, L-O-V-E. Otherwise, we still wouldn’t allow young persons to pick their own mates similar to 400 years or more ago. The purity of marriage is maintained in love and commitment, not sex.
cp does not believe same-sex couples are capable of L-O-V-E like opposite sex couples. We are not capable of the depth of emotional commitment, respect, honor or adoration that opposite sex couples have for each other …. because we are not real human beings in his mind ….. we are nothing more than selfish sexual perverts who are only capable of lust. No one will persuade him to examine or question his misguided beliefs ….. the validity of any marriage is determined by coitus and coitus alone.
The interesting thing is he doesn’t realize how he’s an ally for our side. His demonstration of Christianity as mindless zombies following a horrible monster out of fear of pain and suffering only helps us… his use of Christ as a bludgeon helps us even more.
Back in the days before Disqus, he called me a “demon”… sent from the devil to unleash unspeakable horrors upon Maine. I’ve never been given such a great compliment in my life.
I know I’m doing something right if those like him think I’m devil-sent!
Still twisting the Brown case are you ….. how many times has that case been explained to you? The Browns are not asking that the state of Utah or the federal government recognize their faith-based marriages, only that they not be prosecuted. The only legally recognized marriage with a civil marriage license is between Mr. Brown and his first wife.
The grandmother and her grandson …. incest. A father and son …. incest. A mother and daughter …. incest. A father and daughter …. incest. A man, a woman and a deity that people refer to as Father ….. sounds like polygamy and incest.
Look back a generation or two … incest, child molestation, sexual abuse and physical abuse were not discussed and largely ignored by the public …. they were family matters. A man could rape his wife and she and could not file charges against him ….. rape within a marriage did not exist legally. Women died or were permanently made unable to have a child due to back alley abortions. It was illegal for interracial couples to marry in many states. I think we have come quite far in the last couple of generations.
PS Why do you have such disdain for the 1st Amendment …. does Freedom of Religion only apply to you and those whose beliefs are the same as yours?
He doesn’t really care that it happens… he just doesn’t want to see it.
For him and those like him, if you don’t see or discuss it, it doesn’t exist.
Only one lost here, little PP, is YOU. Lost in the insanity wrought by your mythology.
No, this is your fear mongering.
I guess THIS is a preview of what’s down the road if you have your way, little PP:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/videos/2012/05/25/north-carolina-pastor-put-gays-in-concentration-camps.html
Or this
http://www.godhatesfags.com
Or this
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/paul-cameron-suggests-obama-gay-and-demands-gays-be-imprisoned-they-rape-kids
Or this
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/01/american-family-association-radio-host.html
Frankly, I’d rather live in your fantasy world where incest is embraced.
I have to wonder why you don’t shout out against Maine’s laws allowing first cousins to wed considering all the genetic harm that can come from it. I guess it’s just your obsession with gay sex… still dancing with the Lion King in Narnia you’re so far in the closet.
He will either ignore your links or inform you that those people aren’t real christians. That is his MO. :)
Actually, he’ll ignore me.
Funny that his hatred is “real christianity” while those who think just like him aren’t.
He is, however, my little Snuggle Nugget, so I’ll always love him!!!
And he no longer responds to me because he believes I am out of touch with reality…. ;)
Hell No!
What rational legal reasoning do you have to support your view?
PS: You’ll lose you know… what then?
Why not? There are over 1,100 benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage. Why should same-sex couples be discriminated against in how our government treats them?
It is a mockery of marriage. Marriage is for one man and one woman.
1Co 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
1Co 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Why do same sex couples want to redefine marriage. If you want the same rights then fights for those rights to be recognized by civil unions, which most are already. Don’t attack holy matrimony. Don’t mock it. It is bad enough that people in Califorina are marrying their pets! I read arguments about how same sex couples want rights, then fight for them in a civil union. I read how it is all about love, then get a civil union. If it is called a civil union and not marriage, does that mean you love each other less? Why don’t you have the same rights, because you don’t have the right! It is an abomination!
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Not only does it talk about homosexuality being unnatural and vile but those that are doing it are given to a reprobate mind. Unaware of their sin anymore.
There are arguments that there is nothing in the bible about same sex marriage. Each time same sex is mentioned it is called an abomination. If it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man, or woman with woman does God really have to tell you, “You cant marry”
Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. So back to the question at hand. Why do same sex couples want to redefine marriage instead of fighting for civil unions with all the same rights? It is just another attack of satan.
Sounds nice if you believe it. But what if one is Buddhist, Hindu, or even a non-believer? Is this not a country where one can believe in any religion (or not) he or she wants?
All of that religious nonsense has nothing to do with US civil law.
It’s mythology… chosen, and only accepted because you want to accept it.
It’s meaningless drivel, and at the end of the day, can’t even be used to defend your wish to harm gay citizens in court.
So stick with it… it insures your ultimate loss.
I have to say, I do think it’s kind of disrespectful when you say these things about faith. I know that it’s accepted because one accepts it and I know that the Bible and religion are used as weapons sometimes, but there are MANY people in Maine and in the country who are religious and who go to church every Sunday and who have strong faith and do NOT believe as “SinisSin” does.
It is the “god” cp et al continues to channel …. not the majority of Christians, Regular Joe.
Okay. I just fear that sometimes people might forget the fact that there are MANY people of faith who support SSM and that the religious people here against it don’t have a monopoly on the Bible and Christianity.
When people of “faith” stop calling me and mine “abominations” and calling for our incarceration, stop calling for us to be treated differently under government, I could see things your way.
Those of faith who do not wield their faith as a bludgeon of harm against other citizens, I hope know that I wish them nothing but the greatest bliss this life has to offer.
Those that make a mockery of that faith have turned it into a weapon worthy of derision and disdain.
I don’t care how “SinisSin” believes… when it’s wielded as a weapon against law-abiding citizens, they should be called out for what they are and for what they have turned faith into.
I make no apologies.
Wonderfully explained.
I pointed out where you stated in your post that homosexuals should be put to death, and you claimed you didn’t say that.
But your words are right above here, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death”
So which is it: do you believe homosexuals should be put to death, or are you sharing bible verses with us that you disagree with?
I never said that same-sex couples are incapable of forming relationships. I said that God doesn’t agree with same-sex. I didn’t say you should be put to death. I gave scripture from the Bible. I have no hatred twords you. It is not only same-sex, but adultry, false witnesses, murder, stealing, divorce, the list goes on and on. I try to follow the rules that God gave us all and not all believe. I am not a hypocrite and I fall short too. When talking about shellfish and food over three days, God was trying to keep us safe. We didn’t have an understanding of bacteria. Shell fish are the filter for the ocean. He told us not to touch dead bodies for the same reason. Later in the Bible God reveals to Paul all food that was unclean and said that he has blessed it and is now clean. I have people in my circle that are Athiest, gay, mormon, jew and so on. We all get along and know each others beliefs. I see scriptures that people are posting with no understanding of them.
Mat 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. Mat 13:122For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. Mat 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: Mat 13:15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. . Mat 13:16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. Mat 13:17 For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them. Mat 13:18 Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower. Mat 13:19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side. . Mat 13:20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; Mat 13:21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. Mat 13:22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful. Mat 13:23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
Also let us remember that Jesus said: Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
I don’t hate ss people but don’t agree with the sin due to what God wants. If you don’t agree or even believe in God then you shouldn’t be offended by his words, just pass over them like they are a fairy tail. Any Christian that believes in the Bible must vote No.
What about divorce?
Isn’t adultery mentioned in the Ten Commandments?
Why isn’t homosexuality?
(crickets)
Because nobody makes a “mockery of marriage” like most self-proclaimed “Christians” do.
Civil Marriage is NOT regulated by any denomination or religion. The civil government does not disallow civil marriage to couples based on whether or not you or others believe they are “sinners”. In the Bible all sin is abomination and all heterosexuals have committed “sin”, this does not disqualify them from obtaining a Civil Marriage License. You wish to disallow the state from issuing Civil Marriage Licenses to a specific group of people based on specific “sin” you disapprove of ….. but I am sure you do not see the hypocrisy in that wish.
If you so strongly believe that marriage is religion-based, when will you “divorce” the benefits and rights provided by the civil government?
Why do same sex couples want to redefine marriage instead of fighting for civil unions with all the same rights? It is just another attack of satan .The same was said when people of colored married whites
Are you saying colored marrying whites is an attack of satan?
To SinisSin: “If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days” – Deuteronomy 22:28-29
I guess we are just ignoring the parts that are inconvenient to you…
Just received this email from Protect Marriage Maine and thought it would be interesting in reviewing some of the new and recycled lies they are using to “Protect Marriage”.
“With only 43 days left until Election Day, it is critical that you reach out to your family, friends, and neighbors and explain to them what is at stake on November 6 and why it is vital that they protect marriage between a man and a woman by voting No on Question One.
In your day to day conversations, I encourage you to share these points:
1. Traditional marriage between one man and one woman has existed for thousands of years and,
clearly supports the public good.”
And so did bans on inter-religion marriage and inter-race marriage.
~~~~~
“2. An overwhelming body of social science research shows that children do best when raised by their married mom and dad.”
If that is the case why aren’t you attempting to change the divorce laws in Maine?
~~~~~
“3. A new, redefined version of marriage would be the only legally recognized definition of marriage in Maine. Citizens, small businesses and religious organizations would not be allowed to let their beliefs determine their decisions, and they would find themselves in
legal trouble if they do not comply with the new law.”
First it is already illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation in Maine in “public accommodations. This law does not change that.
Second this law specifically exempts religious institutions from preforming a religious ceremony for a same sex couple if the proposed marriage goes against religious teachings and doctrines.
Third the law changes nothing concerning citizens. First Amendment protections allow individual to continue to speak out.
~~~~~
“If you are like me, you probably know people who say they are personally opposed to same-sex marriage, yet believe same-sex marriages would not threaten their own traditional marriages.”
So how does it “threaten” traditional marriage Mr. Emrich?
~~~~~
“These folks mistakenly presume that all marriages can simply coexist, including those of the “same-sex” variety. However, the reality is a new, redefined (genderless) version of marriage would be the only legally recognized definition of marriage for anyone in Maine. And
experience elsewhere establishes those who do not agree with this new definition of marriage – whether for moral, religious, personal or any other reason – will soon find themselves facing consequences. For example:
1. A Catholic Archbishop in Canada was hauled before a human rights commission on charges of “hate speech” for communicating the church’s teachings on homosexuality and marriage.”
This is Maine not Canada. Again nothing in this law changes Free Speech or creates a “Hate Crime” category for speaking out about or following the teachings of your particular churches faith.
~~~~~
2. In Sweden, an Evangelical pastor was jailed for preaching about the nature of homosexuality.
This is Maine not Sweden. Again nothing in this law changes Free Speech or creates a “Hate Crime” category for speaking out about or following the teachings of your particular churches faith.
~~~~~
“3. In New Jersey, a Methodist church group lost part of its tax exemption for refusing to make its facilities available for a same-sex commitment ceremony.”
This law specifically exempts churches from legal penalty for refusing to hold a religious ceremony for a same sex couple when the churches teachings say it is wrong.
~~~~~
“4. In neighboring Vermont, Christian innkeepers were sued over their reluctance to make their
facilities available for same-sex weddings because of their deeply-held religious views, even though they told the lesbian couple that they would agree to host the reception.”
It is already illegal to discriminate in Maine in “Public Accommodations” based on sexual orientation. Nothing in this law changes that. Let me say that again, it is already illegal to discriminate in Maine in “Public Accommodations” based on sexual orientation.
~~~~~
“5. In nearby Massachusetts, kids as young as second grade were taught about gay marriage in class. The courts ruled that parents had no right to prior notice, or to opt their children out of such instruction.”
And the lie that keeps repeating itself. NOTHING in this law changes how school curriculum is developed in Maine. It is developed on the local school board level. Didn’t you admit this was a lie after the vote in 2009 Mr. Emrich?
~~~~~
When you resort to lies Mr. Emrich it normally means you have nothing else to fight with. Sad that you not only resort to new lies but go back to the ones from the last time too.
What’s interesting is that there’s a story behind each and every one of those lies, and they full well know that each one has been thoroughly debunked and exposed for being a deception
But they’ve never hesitated to bare false witness before.
Good post. Just wanted to add that the New Jersey church did NOT lose it’s tax exempt status. The church had an agreement with the city where they would receive a tax exempt status on a pavilion they owned AS LONG AS the pavilion was open to the public. When the church denied the same sex couple access to the pavilion, the city decided that the church had violated the terms of the agreement, as it was no longer open to all members of the public. The church lost their tax exempt status on the pavilion, not in general.