No injustice
As a lifetime Mainer and owner of a small business, I implore our two U.S. senators to reject the tax and spending policies of their party, since it neither reflects the values of our state nor the best interests of small or local businesses.
Maine people believe in self-reliance but also in fairness and balance. A tax structure that asks proportionally more of a middle-class family than of a person with more means to contribute
does not fulfill our expectations for good public policy. Contrary to the rhetoric coming out of Washington, the fact is that cutting taxes for billionaires instead of investing in our communities hurts small business!
Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins can demonstrate their well-earned reputation for political independence at the end of this year when Congress will debate trillions of dollars worth of spending and revenue measures. A key point of contention is whether to extend tax cuts originally passed during the early Bush administration for households making more than a quarter million dollars a year. (This represents only 2 percent of all taxpayers, 3 percent of small businesses). The pro-Maine and pro-small business vote would be no.
It would be better to use the hundreds of billions of dollars that would be generated by allowing the rates on top earners to rise slightly, which would reduce debt and pay for things like Medicare, college tuition assistance and road repair that support the middle class and promote broad-based prosperity.
Ryan Toothaker
Brewer
Rejected by Maine voters
Throughout history, all religions have recognized the state of marriage is between a man and a woman. Among non-religious people, natural law has always dictated that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Now, because a very vocal minority wants to turn things upside down marriage-wise, the people of Maine are once again called to set things straight by voting down same-sex marriage. This in the face of big out-of-state money, a very biased media and some very aggressive advertising by the gay rights people.
One of the most perfidious claims the gay rights supporters made years ago was that they had no agenda, just wanted fairness in housing and employment. Now they are demanding the right to marry. Why should any serious society even consider changing the fundamental basis of marriage from one man, one woman? I understand that when one criticizes any aspect of gay conduct, one can be expected to be called names such as homophobic. Well, if speaking out for what is right and traditional gets one called names, then so be it.
Everyone has the right to a peaceful life; no one should be hassled. This having been said, no minority has the right to ride roughshod over the culture’s traditional mores. The concept of same-sex marriage is fundamentally wrong and should be soundly rejected by the Maine voters.
William D. Duddy
Dedham
Frustrated Maine voters
Count me as one of many frustrated Maine voters who view with utter disbelief the categorization of the approaching “fiscal cliff” as being the sole responsibility of the Republicans’ congressional intransigence.
Any critical reader who has followed the various AP, New York Times and Washington Post stories about this in recent weeks would see that the narrative is being constructed to blame the Republicans in Congress, notably vice presidential candidate and House budget committee Chairman Paul Ryan, for the impending and assumed negative impact on the U.S. economy.
If the fiscal cliff is as predicted, it may be the economic perfect storm — an intersection of several negative conditions, a very weak U.S. economy, legislative gridlock that created measures triggering automatic spending cuts of about $100 billion throughout the federal system (though not proportionately), and an estimated $300 billion in tax increases covering a broad spectrum of taxpayers.
The predicted effect? Another recession, a calculated 4 percent drop in gross domestic product, also bringing an increase in unemployment numbers. The Republicans must be to blame, right?
Let’s be honest here: the president and the Democratic Party controlled the House for two years and Senate all along and never passed a budget.
That’s three years of “incomplete” in my view and more than enough reason to vote for the Romney-Ryan ticket.
Paul Ackerman
Tenants Harbor
Gate access to Millinocket Stream
Mr. Charles Cirame, if you are going use our name, please get it correct: The Millinocket Fin & Feather Club.
If you would have contacted us, you would be aware we are on top of the situation. The president of the club — also a Millinocket councilor — has been in contact with Brookfield Power concerning this situation. By law, the river is considered a navigable roadway that can not be impeded. It is a great fishing area and, therefore, should not be blocked. There are, however, situations in regard to safety. The floats need to be pushed back significantly.
We have several areas of concern, including Frost Pond access which has been hindered. Also the Howland Project to stop Northern Pike from coming up the river, which you seem to have little interest in stopping. Once we have a definitive answer from Brookfield Power, we will know which direction to go in order to protect fishing and canoeing in this area that we believe is of vital interest to the town of Millinocket.
Bruce Fremont Leavitt
Fin & Feather Club of Millinocket
Millinocket
Support Dan Levesque
By voting for Dan Levesque for the Maine Senate seat in District 34, you will be electing a strong advocate for: full public school funding and support for Maine teachers, support for postsecondary trade schools, support for education that will allow improvements in all our schools, protection of Maine jobs and protection of Maine’s natural resources.
I have known Levesque, a Democrat, for many years, and he is a determined, hard-working individual. He takes great pride in being from the County and having raised a family here. He has been part of a large family-owned and family-operated lumber industry, along with taking on being the owner of a computer/internet company. Levesque knows what it takes to be successful in the business industry. He will take those skills with him to Augusta to make some positive change.
Please join me in voting for Levesque for the State Senate District 34.
Michael Cote
Ashland
William D. Duddy–You say, “no minority has the right to ride roughshod over the culture’s traditional mores.
I assume this means you believe bullies should be allowed to be bullies, bigots should be allowed to be bigots, smokers should be able to light up when and where they please etc…….
Perhaps the majority of us believe that in a healthy civil society, which we would like to think we are, we make laws to protect minorities from people just such as yourself.
There are hundreds of rights and responsibilities that come with marriage and denying some of our brethren access to these rights, we are being discriminatory and unfair.
This hetero individual will be voting ‘Yes’ on 1.
I could not agree anymore with William D. Duddy’s assessment of the gay minority’s roughshod treatment of the traditional cultural mores anymore. The state has done nearly everything it can to prevent bullying. The suggestion SSM marriage will help further prevent gay bullying is simply ludicrous without laws and court decisions to force people to accept homosexuality. But such laws and impositions by the court system is exactly what gay activists are hoping for if SSM is permitted, and they make no secret about their intention. To them SSM is simply a stepping stone to achieve their goal of normalizing homosexuality. They know that in countries where SSM has been permitted for several years gays are not marrying in large numbers and their intention to suppress the fundamental freedom of expression and religion has been achieved or is at least in progress.
Furthermore, “as we speak” the rest of us folks who are against SSM are being called bullies and bigots and all sorts of names. Take it from me, I’ve been called these names repeatedly and non-apologetically in this forum for making a non-religious case against SSM. Besides, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been labeled a liar, a cheat, and a hypocrite by the majority of posters who regularly come out in support of SSM. As I tell these posters from time to time, their efforts to ridicule and spread false rumors about me are falling on deaf ears. “Sticks and stones” is my response to them since the moderator of this site does not appear to want to enforce the rules for posting.
I plan to vote “NO” on issue # 1 and urge others to vote likewise.
“Furthermore, “as we speak” the rest of us folks who are against SSM are being called bullies and bigots and all sorts of names” – If the shoe fits…
“I’ve been labeled a liar” – Because you have lied about supposed “scientific studies” that you seem incapable to produce.
You receive the same amount of respect that you give to the rights of your fellow citizens. You do not respect my constitutional rights, so I have no reason to respect you. The difference being, I’m not trying to take away any of your rights, but you are certainly trying to take away mine.
The issue of same-sex marriage is sticky one. I realize it can’t be discussed without offending anyone. But because of the need to air this issue openly I choose to do so under the rules for posting I’m committed to, which is more than I can say for you, as you are one of those posters in this forum who consistently violates rules for posting, not to mention those of common courtesy.
Time and time again I’ve presented my backup sources, only to have them dismissed as just another bias source. For that reason, I only bring those out that cannot be readily found through a web search. Usually I leave many key words or phrases in my discourse for readers to use.
As to respect of your constitutional freedoms, I don’t know which one you are referring to, so I assume it’s opposition to SSM that you’re referring to. Unfortunately, it’s impossible to discuss SSM without discussing the claim the state’s refusal to issue marriage licenses to SS couples is unconstitutional. So tell me, why it’s okay for you to assert the state’s refusal is unconstitutional while it’s not okay for others like myself to make a case that it isn’t? You claim SSM is a right and I claim it is not. That is what the main argument is all about. Are you suggesting that no opposition to SSM not be allowed to air their views? It sure sounds like it, doesn’t it.
“I choose to do so under the rules for posting I’m committed to, which is more than I can say for you, as you are one of those posters in this forum who consistently violates rules for posting, not to mention those of common courtesy.” – If your actions and opinions are bigoted (which they are), I will call you a bigot. I will not gloss over the truth because of your feelings. My constitutional rights come before your feelings. If my honesty offends you, then tough. If you don’t want to subject your views to criticism, then don’t post them.
“Time and time again I’ve presented my backup sources, only to have them dismissed as just another bias source.” – Because time and time again you present a Catholic blog post, or an article from a Catholic website as supposedly “unbiased” sources. I have yet to see the numerous peer reviewed and unbiased sources you claim to have.
“For that reason, I only bring those out that cannot be readily found through a web search. Usually I leave many key words or phrases in my discourse for readers to use.” – I don’t have time to do your homework for you. If you can’t provide a link to a source, I assume that you do not have a source.
“You claim SSM is a right and I claim it is not. ” – Because the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage in general is a right. Five separate federal courts have ruled that same sex marriage is protected by the 14th Amendment. Your religion does not get to dictate which citizens get rights in this country. Is that really so hard for you to understand?
“Are you suggesting that no opposition to SSM not be allowed to air their views? It sure sounds like it, doesn’t it.” – If you want to “air your views” fine, but it seems that you want to present your views without getting criticized for those views. Just as you have a right to air your views, I also have a right to criticize your views and point out the flaws in your argument, of which there are many.
Overall, this is what I have come to expect from you and the rest of the religious right. You don’t want to just ” air your viewpoint” you want to do so without any challenges to those views. When someone procedees to call you out on your bigotry and lies, you suddenly complain that you are being “suppressed”. So, I challenge you, when have I tried to prevent you from posting? When have I tried to use the law to take away your free speech? If you can’t show that, then, not surprisingly, you are simply working your martyr complex into overdrive. You have confused “silencing the opposition” with criticism. So, I won’t stop you from posting your view that LGBT Americans should be treated as second class citizens, but if you don’t like your views being criticized, then stop posting. If you want to continue posting, then just know that I will point out your lies and hypocracy.
Sometimes I have reasons to call you a bigot, but I’ve refrained from doing so up to this time out of respect for you and the rules for posting. Besides, I’m not interested in shouting matches. I can’t say that for you.
Also, I disagree with you on most of your points. But it’s no use elaborating on them on account of your emotional disposition.
Furthermore, most of my references are not from “a Catholic blog post, or an article from a Catholic website”. But what if they were? What difference does it make who puts it out if the information is accurate and fully annotated with footnotes, or is presented as an opinion piece? There again, your objection shows your own personal bias against Catholics. Isn’t that bigotry?
I think you need help to control your own personal emotions, which quite frankly are getting in the way of clear thinking.
“Sometimes I have reasons to call you a bigot, but I’ve refrained from doing so up to this time out of respect for you and the rules for posting. ” – If you really respected me, you wouldn’t be trying to take away my rights.
“Also, I disagree with you on most of your points. But it’s no use elaborating on them on account of your emotional disposition.” – AKA, you don’t actually have an argument, but don’t want to admit you are wrong.
“What difference who puts it out if the information is accurate and fully annotated with footnotes, or an opinion piece?” – Because they were NOT “accurate and fully annotated”, they were just opinion pieces. Those are NOT, unbiased, peer reviewed sources and it is dishonest to try and present them as such. Isn’t there a commandment against lying? But, as long as you are hurting same sexcouples, then I guess you see your lying as something for the “greater good”. Because make no mistake, the sole consequence to your action of opposing marriage equality is harming same sex couples. That’s it. You can lie to yourself at night so you can sleep, but make no mistake, you are still lying to yourself.
“There again, your objection shows your own personal bias against Catholics. Isn’t that bigotry?” – There you go, playing the victim again. I did not oppose your sources for being written by Catholics, I opposed your sources because you presented Catholic opinion pieces as peer reviewed, scientific fact. You will probably just ignore this and continue your whines of persecution.
“I think you need help to control your own personal emotions, which quite frankly are getting in the way of clear thinking.” – And it appears your devotion to your religious dogma has gotten in the way of you being a decent human being and respecting the rights of your fellow Americans.
But surprisingly, yes I am emotional about this issue. I’m angry that someone like you constantly tries to take the moral high ground when denying American citizens their rights. I’m angry that you try to play the “victim” when the LGBT community no longer tolerates your bullying. And I’m angry that you refuse to see the harm you are doing. Guess what? I was raised Catholic. It was people like you that drove me to attempt suicide instead of accepting who I really was. So, whenever you see a news article about an LGBT teen commiting suicide, of which there are far too many, just remember one thing. You may not have contributed directly to their death, but you sure are part of the larger problem of telling these teens that they have something wrong with them. I sure hope you’re proud of that.
William D. Duddy: You may think that you are doing some good, standing up for some “moral” principle, but you are not. You are instead standing up for inequality and discrimination.
” The concept of same-sex marriage is fundamentally wrong and should be soundly rejected by the Maine voters.” – You state this as if it is a fact, when it is really just your opinion. Why should you get to dictate the relationships of people you don’t even know?
You talk about the “definition of marriage” being changed when in reality, that definition has changed multiple times in our countries history. Legal marriage not too long ago was between a man and a woman of the same race. Back then, many people thought interracial marriage was “fundamentally wrong”.
If you care about equality and about equal treatment under the law, support same sex marriage.
If you believe that ALL Americans deserve their constitutional rights, regardless of sexual orientation, support same sex marriage.
However, if you do not believe in the ideals of freedom and equality for all, then by all means, oppose same sex marriage, but keep in mind, history will not look kindly on your attempts to fight equality.
William D. Duddy, thoughout history there have been a lot of things that were considered right and proper because that’s the way it’s always been. In this country women didn’t gain the right to vote until a hundred years ago. 150 years ago slavery was finally abolished. In fact slavery is still alive and well in some parts of the world. In many parts of the world religious law dictates that women can be stoned to death after they are raped. Now that is a wonderful old religious tradition.
Mr. Ackerman, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts was built into the cuts when first enacted; this expiration was supported by Congressman Ryan. The automatic spending cuts were also passed with Ryan’s vote as part of the GOP’s demands for raising the debt ceiling last year. Every aspect of the “fiscal cliff” has Ryan’s fingerprints upon it.
There is a simple solution: rescind the automatic spending cuts and extend the tax cuts for all taxable income below $250,000. That way, everyone, including the billionaires, gets a tax cut on their first $250,000 of taxable income (which is the equivalent, for most taxpayers, of about $350,000 in gross income).
Tax cuts for the rich rarely get spent. It is more likely that the money will be invested overseas and such tax cuts are the least stimulative type of deficit spending.
Yup, the wealthy’s money doesn’t get spent. George Mitchell & company in the early 1990s thought they could just raise a tax rate on those other than themselves and bring in more revenue. Of course that that tax that George & Co. applied to luxury yachts resulted in the loss of 26,000 jobs in the boat building industry, many in Maine. Income is not static, raising the tax rate doesn’t necessarily equate to more revenue. Why is so much of the campaign focused on raising taxes on the rich and all will be well? Will it create more jobs, will it even create more revenue?
You’re saying stuff and presenting little theories, but it’s not backed up by reality. Clinton era tax rates will suddenly destroy the earth? Why is it then that the Clinton era tax rates led to a surplus? Probably for the same reason as to why you’re wrong.
You wish to go back to Clinton era tax rates or only Clinton era tax rates for someone else and how did they lead to a surplus? I have no problem going back to those rates but don’t see how they are going to make everything hunky dory. Don’t think a family of four making $40,000 who paid federal tax of $1,924 in 2001 but paid no tax in 2010 and received a check for $2523 in 2010 for a cut of $4447 would see how your Clinton era tax rates would benefit them. Now what am I wrong on? The yacht luxury tax did lead to the loss of 26,000 jobs and no increased revenue. Income is not static, I’m not wrong on that. If the Clinton era tax rates lead to surpluses then lets go back to them, all of them. Problem is some have said tax cuts for the rich for so long don’t realize how far reaching the cuts really were and how much they gave the middle class. Of course you will make my reply personal as usual but I am not defending tax cuts or any class just pointing out that any change does have an effect or reaction and you cannot raise a rate and expect what you apply that rate to to stay the same.
How about we just cut all taxes on the rich. Will they then create all the promissed jobs that were supposed to be created when they got their tax breaks? Will they create those promissed jobs here in the USA?
How about we don’t raise them or maybe just tweek the capital gains/dividend rate? If you think raising the taxes on the top two brackets will have a benficial effect then go for it. I don’t think it will but am personally ready for whatever happens.
I don’t think it will either because the top 2% own our congress, lock stock and barrel. They will have their lawyers re-write the tax code so that it will look like they are paying but actually won’t.
Do you actually buy that Romney will eliminate some loopholes?
I’ll eliminate some loopholes, but I’m not going to tell you which onces until AFTER you elect me. I hear you “humans”, I mean citizens, love surprises. I’m Mitt Romney, and I am a real human.
Have you never been to DC to visit a Congressman?
Oh look! A dodge from Cheesecake.
Nope. I worked for Congressman Coyne of Philadelphia about 40 years ago. Drove truck for him. Not long as he didn’t pay worth a damn. I believe he was a one termer after the people found he was not looking out for their interests.
I would like to see these loopholes that are going to be plugged, wouldn’t your?
I would wholeheartedly support going back to the Clinton era tax rates as long as we can also go back to the Clinton era spending rates! The Clinton era tax rates would not even put a dent in the deficit.
Spending has been cut and it would have been cut further if the Republicans would agree to returning to the Clinton era tax rates. It was 2.5 cuts in the budget to 1 in tax increases. They wouldn’t agree though.
That plan would put a huge dent in the deficit, but some refuse to compromise.
Read Woodward’s book. Boehner and Obama had a deal until Obama pushed for more. It was not the Republicans who refused to compromise.
You are confusing a sales tax, which necessarily impacts consumption and gross demand, with an income tax, which does not. Whatever the merits of a tax on yachts, the Clinton income tax rates generated significant income and helped spur growth.
Given the income level of most Senators, Mitchell was surely raising taxes on himself. The rates went up for most taxpayers. Get your facts straight.
Each of Reagan’s eleven tax hikes generated more revenue. Bush I’s tax hikes generated more revenue. Clinton’s tax hikes generated more revenue and a budget surplus.
The non-partisan CBO has affirmed that raising the tax rates as Obama proposes will generate more revenue.
As for creating more jobs, consider Clinton’s success on that score. Consider that the two steepest tax cuts, under Reagan in 1981 and under Bush II, were followed by a steep recession with unemployment above 10% in 1982 and a sluggish economy followed by a recession under Bush II.
You can believe in magic, but don’t expect your readers to.
Taxes for the rich and huge corporations need to be restored and used as revenue for our infrastructure (jobs) and social programs (health care and social programs) which will improve the economy and welfare of our country, not for shopping, if that is what you meant by won’t be spent.
Bruce Leavitt
Do you think there is any way you folks could entice Charley Cirame to go back to Mass ?
If it’s just the cost of a bus ticket, I’ll front you for it.
Not likely, One correction that should be the Millinocket Fin & Feather Club of Maine. Though I wonder why he is not so concerned about the gates and blockages Quimby has established. People keep telling me she wants people to view here land.
Dan Levesque, democrat? Ha! That’s not what he told me when he came to my door. I told him I was a republican and he told me he use to be a republican but that he switched just to run and he still considered himself a republican. He told me that he was too business friendly to support the way democrats view business. Wolf in sheeps clothing folks.
Ryan Toothaker: good letter.
William Duddy: note the support from heteos without an agenda (alleged or otherwise). Note the closeness of the vote 3 years ago in the face of out of state money and a platform of lies and deception.
Ryan- The solution is simple. We need to “off shore” all the jobs in Washington. Send all of THEIR good paying jobs to China. Then give them all applications for a job at WalMart. This should ram home the point about what a mess they have made of things down there.
William D Duddy….
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding Nature’s Law as well as religion. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination… End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of Religion and Natures Laws and how to follow them. So perhaps you can clarify some of these for me-
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
We all know that the question being asked on 1 this November exonerates religious institutions from preforming any marriage ceremonies they do not wish to preform….so your rationale regarding religion is a ridiculous and frankly a moot point. This is about equal standing under the LAW not equal standing under the bible. One is required to obtain a marriage license by the state- there is no law in any state that mandates religion need be included in ANY marriage. If you don’t believe in same sex marriage, by all means don’t get one, but attempting to prevent fellow Americans from having the same opportunities as any other Americans are afforded- is wrong. Being an American should be enough to be treated equally by any other Americans and under the law- gay or not. Maine can do better and I hope this November Maine will do better.
Awesome!
Simply Awesome!
That was perfect. Just perfect. Thank you!
I have yet to see an argument that convinces me that a civil union between a same sex couple that guarantees them the same rights as a marriage between a heterosexual couple wouldn’t solve the “issue”. Don’t give the the “separate but equal” argument, it doesn’t wash. Wouldn’t “gay rights” be seperate but equal? I would support a civil union that guarantees equal rights. I will never support same sex marriage.
Why does the “separate but equal argument” not work? Because what you are proposing is two separate institutions that grant the same exact thing. That is probably one of the most clear cut examples of separate but equal.
I didn’t say it wouldn’t be seperate but equal. The argument that it has to be called marriage or it won’t be equal isn’t supported by the argument “separate but equal”. If it is truly equal rights same sex couples are seeking, it doesn’t have to be called marriage to gain that status.
If it is separate but equal then it is unconstitutional. See Brown v. Board of Education.
There were white schools and black schools, both called schools
What really needs to be done is if you are married in a church its marriage, if you are married anywhere else its a civil union.
No. All marriages should be equal under the law, and all marriage should be civil.
In Europe all marriages are civil, done at the city hall. That’s the legal wedding.
Then if the church chooses to bless the marriage, they may — after getting married at the city hall, the couple goes to the church and the priest or minister blesses the marriage. That’s the “church wedding.”
That way the priest, psator, minister or rabbi does not sign any legal documents.
The legal part is taken care of at city hall. The priest only does the religious part, the blessing.
Keep the church out of the business of signing legal documents for couples. Priests and pastors shouldn’t act as agents of the state.
Let the church be the church, and let the government be the government.
If you don’t call it marriage, it isn’t marriage. If you say “you aren’t good enough to have a real marriage,” tht’s unfair discrimination.
Then you would have no issue if the state replaced Civil Marriage with Civil Union and left Marriage to the discretion of optional religious ceremonies? All citizens who are “married” and have filed a Civil Marriage License would have that License replaced with a Civil Union License so they would be covered under the updated change of name within laws formerly pertaining to “civil marriage” and “spouse”…
What do you propose spouse be replaced by?
More like separate but unequal, just like the pre-Brown school segregation laws. That’s what a civil granted marriage license is–a nationally recognized civil union. For gays, that is not available. Might as well call it a marriage license and church-blessed weddings can be just that: church weddings.
They don’t get the tax breaks, Boom Roasted! Also what about churches that have not problem marrying Gay couples?
Roasted? What part of having equal rights would say they don’t get tax breaks? Unroasted. If a church will marry same sex couples, they are choosing to do so in contradiction to the scripture the church I used to attend followed but that honestly doesn’t pertain to why I believe a civil union would be the answer vs marriage. My beliefs are strictly mine, I believe a marriage should be between one man and one woman. I believe same sex couples deserve the same rights as married couples. There is a solution, same-sex proponents simply do not want to accept it.
We do not “accept” your solution because it is a form of separate but equal, which is unconstitutional. You can deny that all you want but you are making a separate institution for the same rights, hence separate but equal.
Federal Government doesn’t, ROASTED AGAIN!
That equality civil union is not available. Might as well grant it and call it a marriage license (see my other post).
Kevin, I am saying I am sorry for those who are yelling at you. You dont deserve it. But I would like you to research how SSM has been legal in many place for many years will no ill effects barring a few idiots.
You say, ” I believe same sex couples deserve the same rights as married couples.” Then they should have the right to call their marriage a marriage. If you won’t allow it to be called “marriage,” you are labeling it to be something inferior to marriage.
No … I believe he is saying that we are not allowed to use the word marriage, just not sure what sanctions and legal punishments would be put in place for those who use the term when they aren’t supposed to …. :)
I guess the word marriage needs to be designated as meaning only a one man/one woman. That means it can no longer be used in the definition of a song: a of words and musical notes, or when combining any two things other than one man and one woman.
Now if we take over the meaning of “union” then it cannot be used for anything other than the “union of two individuals in a life-long contractual commitment” … marriage can no longer be defined as a union of one man and one woman ….. sorry, you gifted it to us and now you can not use it.
Unfortunately if they get Civil Union, because the name is different, companies will be able to take away those rights.
I hope you will see that this is a Civil Matter and in no way religious. God Bless and thank you for your honest opinion.
All people should be treated equally under the law. We should not have marriage for first-class citizens, and civil unions for second-class citizens, those who are “not good enough” for first-class marriage. When you set up a separate institution for some citizens, you are telling everyone that they are not good enough to have a real marriage.
So the “separate but equal” analogy is exactly correct. Separate institutions (such as separate schools for blacks) are inherently unequal.
If you don’t want a same-sex wedding, don’t have one.
But don’t deny others the right to be treated equally under the law.
William Duddy — The essence of freedom in the US is that no one has to live by the tenets of any particular religion. Natural law is based on human reason and since human reason has evolved, so has natural law. It’s entirely reasonable to argue that since homosexuality occurs naturally and as all citizens are entitled to equal treatment under the law, the privileges of marriage may not be withheld from same sex partners. Under the democratic system laws are passed by voter majorities, not by institutions, religious or otherwise.
Hey Duddy… “traditional mores” have been “trod upon” many times regarding marriage.
Get over it… your mythology is not civil law, and it does not affect you.
Why is it your kind like seeing gay citizens harmed? Do you get off on it?
1: Any couple, whether Gay or Straight, does not require a marriage license to have children … whether those children are adopted, created through artificial insemination or surrogacy, or produced by way of good old fashioned SEX.
2: No couple is required to demonstrate the ability or even the willingness to have children as a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.
3: In my lifetime alone the human population of the Earth has gone from 3 billion to 7 billion, so frankly I think a theoretical dearth of new babies would be the very LEAST of our problems right now.
Ask ANY couple, Gay or Straight, why they want to get married. The answer will not be, “So we can make babies!” The reason couples marry is to make a solemn commitment, often in the presence of friends and family members, to the health, support, and well-being of one another. Those friends and family members subsequently provide encouragement for the couple to hold true to their vows.
THAT’S what makes marriage a good thing. And there’s no reason for denying Gay couples that opportunity.
As Judge Vaughn Walker said in the decision on California’s Prop. 8 Case: “Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages.” It was a view shared by the courts in the Golinski case against DOMA, where a Bush appointee in the Northern District of California concurred: “The exclusion of same-sex couples from the federal definition of marriage does nothing to encourage or strengthen opposite-sex marriages.”
Yes, my wife and I have not had children, and are now passed child-bearing age. Yet our marriage is very meaningful — marriage promotes loyalty, fidelity, family stability. It is about “for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health to love and to cherish.” That’s what marriage is about, and same-sex couples should have the same freedom to marry that my wife and I have.
Bravo!!! This is, without doubt, one of the most truthful and well spoken posts on this subject I’ve seen in a long time.
Thank you for this. Forgive me if I steal it and plagiarize the heck out of it!
Dear Mr. Duddy, throughout history marriage has not been between a man and a woman in most societies. It has been between an man and several women, a man and his woman who is his property, a man and a man, a man and a young girl (Jerry Lee Lewis) etc. The more the opposition lies the more inclined I am to vote Yes on 1. God Bless you and He sees your lies you will be judged sir.
Right on Ryan.
Mr. Duddy:
Funny you speak of aggressive tactics…just this week I was planning to visit a campaign office and get a “Vote yes on 1” lawn sign…that is, until my husband heard that people who had placed them on their lawns had the windows of their homes shot out. I had been wondering why there were no signs…
If that’s true, why isn’t the BDN reporting it ?
edited
I misread the post …. SmrtyPnts states that it was a “Yes on 1” sign they were going to put up. Still this has not been reported anywhere …. the only reference I could find was on youtube; a swastika sprayed onto a sign.
Because it’s not true.
Knuckle-draggers are known for lying about anything to insure they get the joy of seeing people singled out as second class citizens.
Mr. Duddy ….. ProtectMarriageMaine has released a couple of ads. One of them states that same-sex couples in Maine (through the Domestic Partnership Registry) have virtually all the same legal protections as opposite sex married couples. Now I am certain you take their word for it but you really should research that statement on your own. Everyone should if they want to truly be informed.
The Domestic Partnership Registry offers 7 benefits/protections and they are not equal to those offered couples through a Civil Marriage License. In Maine, Civil Marriage conveys a minimum of 150 benefits, rights and protections to couples. Think about that. Here is one example of the inequality of just one of the benefits offered by the DPR: Next of Kin for those in the DPR applies only in the instance of making funeral and burial arrangements……. Next of Kin for those with a Civil Marriage License applies to financial decisions, health and medical decisions, visitation rights as well as funeral and burial decisions.