If there is a situation that is begging for a compromise, then it exists in the coming same-sex marriage referendum. We feel that compassion, understanding and consideration are the paramount issues in this referendum. If both sides of the debate give a truly heartfelt reflection on these issues then hopefully a just compromise can be achieved. A sincere understanding of each side’s rightful wants and consideration of values will lead to fairness.
Let us begin with the essential want of the traditional advocates. They want to retain the exclusive ownership of the marriage title. They believe it is their gift; it was ordained for those who are joined in the very foundation that God requires. They want to stress the sacredness and inalterability of the marriage title; a title that holds a deeply ingrained belief. It is the belief that marriage is a union both civilly and sacramentally of one man and one woman.
We as traditional advocates feel this is the only ordained marriage design. However, compassion, understanding and consideration open our hearts to acknowledge and respect the genuine love between two same-gender individuals and their commitment to each other and their relationships. Love between two people, however, is not the prerequisite of the marriage title.
Redefining marriage alters the basic foundation of a two-gender union that is required to merit the ordained marriage title. The marriage title cannot be shared or appropriated simply because it is not ours to share.
The best analogy we can find is the very uniqueness in the relationship of a giver and a receiver of a gift. If we receive a gift from someone who is very dear to us, and we know this gift was made truly exceptional and unique for us alone, then sharing this gift or allowing it to be altered would be a total disregard for the love intent of our giver.
Now, it might be asked here, if the traditional advocates still retain as before their marriage title, then how does sharing the title change it? They cannot allow the marriage title to be redefined and shared without sacrificing the integrity and meaning of marriage for themselves. The title cannot encompass any union that is counter to what they believe should be valued in marriage.
Traditional proponents want to retain the uniqueness and integrity of the marriage title since they are the original and only owners. This should be allowed for the sake of justice and consideration.
In this referendum same-sex marriage advocates are looking to the people of Maine for compassion and understanding to grant them the right to marry with all the marriage entitlements. The privileges of marriage can be available to them under the title of civil unions. Their commitment and love for each other should not be hindered in any way under a title different than marriage. The civil union title could have the same validation to commitment as the marriage title.
Compassion to empathy, understanding to respect and consideration to kindness can all result with a compromise for the benefit of everyone. We believe we can speak for most of the traditional advocates in their wanting compassion, understanding and love to go with the civil union title.
Traditional advocates are also looking for understanding and consideration in their need to hold on to their deeply revered, ordained title.
The coming referendum should bring us all to the very fundamental question of where we stand in our relationship with God and marriage. Our prayer is that we choose the divine foundation of traditional marriage.
Peter Pinette of Woodland is a member of the local Coalition for Marriage Compromise.
First, Marriage has already been redefined over the years for the sake of those of you who have had the “exclusive ownership” of the institution. Second, If you want the “privileges” that come with civil marriage to be applied to civil unions, then have ALL people have to get civil unions and remove them from the link to marriage. Doing this will then make it equal for all couples.
You’re not changing my marriage to civil union just to satisify a few so-called tradionalists. It’s funny how that term has come about now isn’t it? Maine marriage laws have been changed a number of times, even since I’ve been alive but only when talking about SSM does the term tradition seem to show up. The letter writer talks about compromise. I’ve generally thought that compromise meant both sides give up something. Just what have the “traditionalists” offered to give up? Nothing at all. The author isn’t asking for compromise, he’s asking for surrender. I think it’s far too late for that. Oh, I’m a 66 year old happily married straight who simply believes we have equality for all or we have equality for none.
Speaking of only one side “compromising,” I just realized this morning something similar. Some people are saying that, although we really do deserve full rights and all, do we really need to use the word “marriage”? By forcing the rest of society to accept that, we’re trying to make ourselves feel good. But aren’t they trying to make themselves feel good by keeping the word only for “traditional” marriage?
As for the compromise of civil union, I guess you could say that the compromise is that they are allowing us to have the rights they do. They don’t have to let us have even that, so we should be happy with this compromise.
People do not know that there is no such thing as a traditional marriage there are no set rules
“They want to retain the exclusive ownership of the marriage title. ” – Except they don’t own the term “marriage”.
‘They believe it is their gift; it was ordained for those who are joined in the very foundation that God requires.” – That’s fine in their chruch. It’s not fine for public policy.
Sorry, but separate but equal was ruled unconstitutional a long time ago.
And what about churches that have no problem marrying gay couples? What gives you the right to tell them what their traditions are?
When any god wants to chime in, I’ll listen. But I’m not sold on ancient stories written by men. And people today who think they know what the god of these old tales is thinking are, in my opinion, quite delusional. And arrogant when they attempt to push that delusion onto society.
So, barring any actual divine intervention, let’s move ahead with making marriage available to same-sex couples. It’s the fair thing to do. Unless of course, some god has a problem with that.
If it’s not a legitimate marriage, god has ways of shutting the whole thing down.
Do tell.
I was making a joke about that politician a few weeks ago who talked about “legitimate rape”.
THAT is funny. I coughed up my food, thanks for the chuckle!
Too late for this, thanks to the nothing-like-marriage-ever crowd.
It’s like the anti-equality people expect us to be happy with civil unions now. They want us to see them as gracious and humble when, in reality, they know they are losing this fight and are just trying to delay the inevitable. They are about 15 years too late for their “generous” little offer.
Suppose that 50 years ago the US had told Americans of African descent that they could have high quality schools, just like other Americans, where students would be just as well taught by fully qualified teachers at similar pay levels, except that their schools would be called SbE Schools (Separate but Equal). That is what the proponents of differentiating between Civil Unions and Marriage are trying to tell homosexuals: “You are an American in every way except that you are also different”. Marriage is a civic institution that, in its various forms, predates any of our western religions. Churches of course may have the privilege of blessing that institution but nothing more. The definition of marriage is everyone’s to share by democratic process.
That is racist.. comparing Black people to homosexuals. Why don’t you like black people. Are you racist.. Black people don’t have a choice weather to be black or white. If a so called gay man wanted to start dating women he could.. Choice.
1. Gay people didn’t choose to be gay.
2. Following your logic, a black man could date any black woman he wanted..choice. We all know how that argument worked out in the 60’s…
3. Michael Jackson showed that black people, if they have enough money, can in fact change their skin color.
I was responding to the above comment..
And I was responding to your comment. What’s your point?
To place homosexual sin under the guise of civil rights is just plain stupidity!
No, it’s civil rights. Civil marriage means civil rights. I don’t believe in your bible, so I’m not subject to it’s crazy rules.
Dude! You’re going straight to H E double hockey sticks for that comment! (sarcasm)
Besides, hell sounds like a great party anyway.
Your definition, not legal. Give it up.
And I suppose I could start dating a man. But that wouldn’t change the fact I’m a heterosexual.
You ARE kidding, right??? Cause I don’t believe ANYBODY can be that uninformed.
It’s really hard to tell if some of these people are kidding or if they are really, seriously, believing this nonsense that they type.
It’s called Poe’s law. On the internet, without any obvious indications like a smily face or sarcasm tag, it is impossible to tell the difference between a fundamentalist and a person pretending to be a fundamentalist.
“Racist” is word that is WAAAAAAY overused. Racist implies that one race is lesser than the other. So, if you think comparing gays to blacks is racist, are you implying that pizanos is saying blacks are less than gays? (Never mind that “gay” isn’t a race and that there are, in fact, black gays).
Religion is a choice… yet it gets “special rights”.
Hypocrite.
To think it’s 2012 and we still have ignorant people. Sexual Orientation is an immutable characteristic like race and gender.
“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”
All marriages in Maine now are already civil in nature. You might remember the phrase, “By the power vested in me by the State of Maine.”
If Mr. Pinette will agree that a “civil union” will confer the same benefits as marriage (in regards to taxes, inheritance, child support and more), then fine. But then it would be just as easy, and make more sense, to use the word marriage and leave it at that.
I don’t even think if civil union and marriage have the same benefits that it’s fine. There should be no compromise. This wouldn’t be a compromise anyway, it would be total surrender.
a compromise is how many bad ideas become laws.
Exactly… and as long as fundies and wingnuts fight against civil unions, there’s no real reason to compromise.
It will be marriage.
Sounds like separate but equal and it also sounds like a lie. So many say they would allow for the civil union compromise, but then when the civil union compromise is up for a vote, it gets voted down.
And it’s a watered down civil union anyway.
Traditional marriage as in arranged marriages and requiring rape victims to marry their attacker?
Why even have marriage to begin with? It implies ownership and thus a form of human slavery. Simply do away with the anachronism of marriage in the laws; problem solved – lets move on from our feudalistic past once and for all.
Shhh. My wife already think she owns me…don’t say it out loud!
The fact that you can’t sell your daughter for three goats and a cow means we’ve already redefined marriage.
One persons religion and believes are theirs alone. Noone should be able to tell another they have to believe the same as they do. I have been on the fence about this same sex marriage issue for some time now and I have to say that I am leaning more towards voting yes this time. I admit I dont understand how people of the same sex can be attracted to each other and I still think its weird, but who am I to tell them they cant feel the way they do. You either are attrcted to someone or your not, it’s that simple really. I also think it would be weird and to be honest gross to see two people of the same sex acting intimately (kissing, holding hands, etc) in public. But working with and knowing people who are gay orr lesbian I can’t see why they shouldn’t have the same rights as myself. I do believe in God, but I have to say that I also believe that people who are gay are born that way. Why would anyone choose to be gay and be tormented, made fun of etc? What would I do if one of my children were gay? i’d love them just like I would if they were straight. So I”ll be honest, do I understand it? no. Do I want to see it in public? no. But who am I to tell someone else what to do? As far as the “title marriage” goes, if its a gift from God I cant imagine not sharing it.
As a gay person, I would like to thank you for your support. I am glad that you are able to separate your personal “gut reactions” from the law.
If you clean up and dispose of the false arguments, ancient mythology, and smoke-screen pandering in this piece, you will end up with one basic, simple truth “The marriage title….is not ours to share.” Bingo, sir. You don’t own it. You don’t govern it. You don’t get to decide who uses it. Live your life according to your own dictates and let others do the same. The silliness inherent in claiming that some ancient god “dictates” the use of the term goes beyond the pale. Time to come out of the dark ages and into the light. Women are human and equal; all races are human and equal; all humans (“gay” and “straight”) are human and equal. The laws that govern us should be equal as well.
And to your point: “They want to stress the sacredness and inalterability of the marriage title; a title that holds a deeply ingrained belief,” give me a break!! Have you been reading about the prostitution case and all the hundreds of “johns” (most married) who took part in it? Where was their “sacredness” and “deeply ingrained beliefs” then? Many marriages include cheating, lying, physical and emotional abuse, domination; but according to your paradigm, those couples are still the “sacred owners” of the title “marriage.” Why should they receive the benefits of the word while trampling on its worth while many loving, devoted, faithful gay couples are barred from sharing in the legal rights conferred by the term?
God has nothing to do with it… any god.
It’s a civil contract.
Get over yourselves.
This reminds me of the motto, justice is blind. Shouldn’t equal rights be blind as well?
All Mr Pinette has done in this article is take the beliefs of the consertive right and try to re-package them into a “compromise.” He failed miserably. You cannot sugarcoat inequality or bigotry! His we love everyone equally line with “compassion, understanding and consideration” is not to be believed. All it equals to is same old, same old! And “fairness”? There is nothing fair in his so called ‘compromise’! Perhaps we should feel sorry for people with such narrow mindedness? After all, how can they embrace their love and trust in God but believe they have the sole right to pick and choose who is good enough, in their terms, to be joined in marriage?
I’d say the definition and the right to marriage is, ‘not yours to decide.’
Marriage definition was instituted in Paradise when man was in innocence (Gen.2:18-24). Here we have its original charter, which wasconfirmed by our Lord, as the basis on which all regulations areto be framed (Matt. 19:4, 5). It is evident that monogamy wasthe original law of marriage (Matt. 19:5; 1 Cor. 6:16). This lawwas violated in after times, when corrupt usages began to beintroduced (Gen. 4:19; 6:2). We meet with the prevalence ofpolygamy and concubinage in the patriarchal age (Gen. 16:1-4;22:21-24; 28:8, 9; 29:23-30, etc.). Polygamy was acknowledgedin the Mosaic law and made the basis of legislation, andcontinued to be practised all down through the period of Jewishhistroy to the Captivity, after which there is no instance of it onrecord. It seems to have been the practice from the beginningfor fathers to select wives for their sons (Gen. 24:3; 38:6).Sometimes also proposals were initiated by the father of themaiden (Ex. 2:21). The brothers of the maiden were alsosometimes consulted (Gen. 24:51; 34:11), but her own consentwas not required. The young man was bound to give a price tothe father of the maiden (31:15; 34:12; Ex. 22:16, 17; 1 Sam.18:23, 25; Ruth 4:10; Hos. 3:2) On these patriarchal customsthe Mosaic law made no change. In the pre-Mosaic times, whenthe proposals were accepted and the marriage price given, thebridegroom could come at once and take away his bride to hisown house (Gen. 24:63-67). But in general the marriage wascelebrated by a feast in the house of the bride’s parents, towhich all friends were invited (29:22, 27); and on the day of themarriage the bride, concealed under a thick veil, was conductedto her future husband’s home. Our Lord corrected many falsenotions then existing on the subject of marriage (Matt. 22:23-30), and placed it as a divine institution on the highest grounds.The apostles state clearly and enforce the nuptial duties ofhusband and wife (Eph. 5:22-33; Col. 3:18, 19; 1 Pet. 3:1-7).Marriage is said to be “honourable” (Heb. 13:4), and theprohibition of it is noted as one of the marks of degeneratetimes (1 Tim. 4:3). The marriage relation is used to representthe union between God and his people (Isa. 54:5; Jer. 3:1-14;Hos. 2:9, 20). In the New Testament the same figure isemployed in representing the love of Christ to his saints (Eph.5:25-27). The Church of the redeemed is the “Bride, the Lamb’swife” (Rev. 19:7-9).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage
Ya-da, ya-da, ya-da. Read something a bit more current, would you….the rest of us have to live in the REAL world.
Dude….chill on the cut and paste. Don’t pretend like you know all those fables.
Seeing as no civil union confers all the benefits of marriage and is for the most part unavailable anyway, some compromise. Not
Civil Unions is just marriage segregation, separate is never equal. For this author to assume marriage by another name is Equal, is completely ignorant. Same-sex marriage dates back to the dawn of human existence. To make the claim that only “christians” get married is also ignorant. Marriage predates any religion you throw at it, therefore no religion can claim to “own” it. Marriage is not a religious institution, but a State sanctioned and Federally recognized contract. End of story.