Listen to Civic Center Same-Sex Marriage Hearing Online
- Login to post comments
Who doubts that jelly-spine Baldacci would do anything other than "keep his options open" until the minute he signs it?
Gearld,
I'll give you this, you certainly have the homosexual activist playbook against Scripture down "chapter and verse." I gave you the response and you didn't like it. Jesus did "specifically" address human sexuality and it's proper relationship and boundries. I don't recall anyone bringing up "outlawing divorce", stop the red herring nonsense.
What kind of question is "Paul is not Jesus, is he?"
Feel free to "insist" on what ever you want.
Your anti-religious sentiments are already on record, democrat.
As far as the presentations, I guess it's who you listen to. I've read mixed reviews about the presentations. I listened to a good bit of it myself and I mostly heard attempts of emotional manipulation by the proponents. The only "reasoned" presentation I heard was from the homosexual woman lawyer who complained about the "presumption" of doctors that married couples had rights that homosexuals don't. That's a sociatial issue, not a legal one. Anyone can write up their own medical directives or power of attorney to give control of whatever they want to whomever they want. The argument fell flat to me.
The jeering and disrespect I heard was from the homosexual activists, was that part of the "better presentation?"
Baldacci could take a pass and simply not sign. If the Legislature is still in session ten days (excluding Sundays) after enactment, the bill becomes law. The'pocket veto', so-called, only works in Maine if the legislature adjourns before the 10-day period
If marriage is so vital to the continuation of our society, shouldn't we be mandating marriage and banning divorce? And all of you reading this that have had - and perhaps are having - sex outside of marriage - was it without meaning to you? Should sex outside of marriage be outlawed? Who knew that marriage was key to limiting "the scope, size, and power of the state?" Not me - and I'm married!
Gerald, I suggest you read the entire document. It's not long. To imagine that you'll get the drift of the whole piece is to imagine you'll understand everything about the Constitution by reading the preamble.
As to your question: No, nobody is arguing mandating marriage or banning divorce, and in raising the question you're revealing a rather stunning ignorance. Only a handful of states and cultures can mandate such things - totalitarian states, for example, or cultures in which families arrange marriages for their young. I think we can agree that neither type of society grants its citizens much in the way of liberty.
As to "limiting the scope of government:" Read the document. I find the argument compelling. Look at communities in which marriage has fundamentally (and nearly completely) broken down. Look at the amount of law enforcement, criminal activity, subsequent prosecution and incarceration, welfare dependency (along with the government control of peoples' lives THAT brings) - how can you say that the deterioration of marriage has NOT increased the scope of government? Government involvement in these areas is massive - and, in case you haven't noticed, it isn't working very well.
The Witherspoon document does not single out same-sex marriage, but rather examines a variety of ways the social institution of marriage has deteriorated and the subsequent societal costs. I suspect that if you read it with an open mind you'll find yourself (grudgingly) agreeing with a lot of it. Nor is the cure governmental action; rather, it's up to us, as a society, to reject the cheapening of marriage and instead realize its value to society.
No, Charlotte, I was not there all day. But I was there for about nine hours.
Eagle...then did you watch as the @ 115 clergy members (not all stood up)... in support of this legislation. Yes, opponents have clergy as well...but I would not say more. Not close.
Bob...NO PROPONENT testimony mocked faith. Actually to be correct it was an opponent that mocked the faith leaders supporting this legislation calling their beliefs false. In addition, many opponents called gay/lesbian from child molesters (Hal Lowberg from Washington)...to perverts, ponographers, bad parents. Did any proponent do that? No.
So you missed that Bob...Or maybe you think that is justified?
This whole topic strikes me as such a false and made-up issue which has been set as a trap to expose the bigotries of some Christian conservatives. From the sound of the hearings and from some posts to this board plenty of people have stepped right into that trap.
This shouldn't be a debate as to whether or not same-sex couples should be "allowed" to marry. Under current law there exists almost all of the mechanisms for a same-sex couples to enjoy the same privileges of traditional married couples. Fixing the few discrepancies that exist in probate law and a few other areas should be simple and uncontroversial.
The real question here is should the State be in the business of defining marriage in the first place? And if it is in that business - how should the parameters be set.? That would be a much more reasonable discussion than the one I am seeing from either side here.
Gay marriage focus now on Maine
Judiciary review is set for today
By Glenn Adams
Associated Press
April 22, 2009 6:00 AM
AUGUSTA, Maine — Gay rights activists are trying to get same-sex marriage laws passed in all six New England states by 2012.
The prospects for the bill in Maine are unknown.
Marc Mutty of Maine Marriage Initiative...counts a majority of...Senate...Republicans on his side.
""We need five or six Democrats to come our way."
Mutty also sees support for adding the proposal to [the November] referendum ballot...
Equality Maine's...side opposes the idea of a referendum...
http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20090422-NEWS-904220375
Eagle...then did you watch as the @ 115 clergy members (not all stood up)... in support of this legislation. Yes, opponents have clergy as well...but I would not say more. Not close.
Yes, Charlotte, I saw that. And if you wish to play a silly numbers game: are you aware that while approximately 165 Maine clergy of various faiths signed a letter supporting same sex marriage, well over 300 signed a letter opposing it?
I didn't hear any of the hearings, but I do have a couple of comments from what I've been reading.
First, I think that we should make a separation between "homosexuals" and "homosexual activists". Most gay people, judging from the ones whom I've met, for the most part simply want to be left alone. Some of the ones inclined to "activism", I've noticed, are the ones who are hostile to religions they don't like and want to bludgeon everyone around them with their "orientation".
Second, while it is true that Jesus never addressed homosexuality, I do find it interesting that the people who use this argument never carry it through to what Jesus did say on the subject of sexuality. All His teachings on the subject address and affirm that God created men and women to be bonded to each other in monogamous relationships--"traditional" marriage, in other words. Putting the question another way, did Jesus ever say anything that would affirm homosexual relationships, or detract from His religious culture's teaching that homosexuality was wrong? Or contradict Paul's teaching on the subject, for that matter?
One last thought: it is not true that "religious arguments" have no validity. They have at least as much validity as any other argument--this is, after all, an alleged 'multicultural society', isn't it, which means that all cultures are supposed to have "validity", including Christian culture. But we have to recognize that the philosophical underpinnings for those arguments have been removed from the mind of our culture, not because they are inheriently flawed, but because people who were hostile to them placed themselves into the seats of education and power. This happened generations ago, and there is several generations of damage to our society because of it. Another way to say this is, we have to pretty much start from the beginning with our culture, and reintroduce things like reasoned and rational thinking to them. Most of what passes for "thinking" in our society is really rationalizing ones' emotional reactions; and think about how easy it is nowadays to manipulate emotions-- he who manipulates emotions most effectively is the one who has the most power.
All the reason, fact, and moral authority in the world is useless if the people you're trying to talk to are blind to it. We live in a society that has been systematically blinded. We have the daunting task of restoring sight...
Well said, Vikingstar.
Eagle...I was just pointing out that your statement that more clergy came in opposition was incorrect.
Viking what I find interesting is that when you are a gay equal rights supporter..you are an "activist". If you are a Christian coming in opposition...you are just a good "Christian"....Let's be clear...there were loads of Christian activists that showed yesterday...As well as out of state folks with an agenda.
Charlotte, you are making a very large assumption here: that all the clergy opposed to same sex marriage that were in attendance either spoke or participated in a demonstration of support behind another member of the clergy. I can assure you that they did not.
The actual number of clergy speaking on either side was roughly even.
lsj.com
Gay marriage issue burns
By Rebekah Metzler , Staff Writer
Thursday, April 23, 2009 05:00 am
AUGUSTA - Maine Attorney General Janet Mills of Farmington testified Wednesday in support of a bill that would allow same-sex marriage to be recognized by the state.
Mills got a standing ovation...
Mills said passage of the bill would make her job of enforcing Maine's civil rights laws much easier.
But religious beliefs drove many to testify in opposition to the measure.
http://www.sunjournal.com/story/314000-3/MaineNews/Gay_marriage_issue_bu...
NO PROPONENT testimony mocked faith.
The entire concept mocks the faiths of Christianity and Judaism.
Oh, goodie! Time for Secular Humanist Bible Study!
I heard alot of compelling arguments from the opposition to the effect that the breakdown of the family is causing societal harm. I couldn't agree more. More committed marriages and united families will strengthen society. Including same sex couples in the definition of marriage can only make our country stronger and safer. May God bless the fine folks who showed up yesterday to help strengthen America.
Hehehe... HEADLINE:
Leftist Drones Use National Security to Advocate for Homosexual Normalcy
Should the state be in the business of defining marriage? No. The state's only legitimate purview is in the protection of property rights, and marriage as defined by the state has historically been grounded in property rights. The state cannot sanction or sanctify a union - that is the purview of the church. The best case scenario, in my view, is for the state to get out of the marriage business altogether, but that is unlikely to happen. The second best solution is that the state recognize the property rights of all adult citizens and protect the property (meaning here, bodily) interests of children, in an equal and fair manner by recognizing the legality of voluntary civil unions for all - regardless of sexual orientation or creedal affiliation - heterosexuals, homosexuals, polygamists...the ball game.
If a couple wants sanctification or to participate in the sacrament of marriage, they would have to appeal to the church of their faith. And, while I am sympathetic with the arguments put forth by the Witherspoon Institute, the collapse of family culture happened from within, and there is much that individual faiths can do to rectify that solution from within, to shift focus its focus and strendthen the institution to make it less vulnerable to attacks from without.
We have given the state far too much authority, but it isn't real authority only a mirage of it.
Nonetheless, I'm not sure how much good it does to repeat our own opinions incessantly. But if it is a matter of semantics at this point (and I think it is, although I recognize the significance behind the semantics) then I would be in favor of state recognition for civil unions and equal property rights for all adult voluntary unions. Marriage to return and remain as a practice of faith.
I'm sorry you can't see the logic in that, Dist. I'll pray for you.
Quote: "Mills said passage of the bill would make her job of enforcing Maine's civil rights laws much easier."
I guess they already have their docket of lawsuits ready against those who "discriminate" against homosexuals. The Christian community better brace for impact, they will be bringing suits against you every way they can to silence you or run you out of the state.
The battle plan:
1. Children in public schools will be taught that same-sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage.
The California Education Code already requires that health education classes instruct children about marriage. (§51890) Therefore, unless Proposition 8 passes, children will be taught that marriage is between any two adults regardless of gender. There will be serious clashes between the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.
2. Churches may be sued over their tax exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings open to the public.
3. Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages may be sued for “hate speech” and risk government fines.
4. It will cost you money. This change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits, including some already lost (like photographers now cannot refuse to photograph gay marriages, doctors cannot now refuse to perform artificial insemination of gays even given other willing doctors).
5. Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston already closed its doors in Massachusetts because courts legalized same-sex marriage there.
6. Religions that sponsor private schools with married student housing may be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if counter to church doctrine, or risk lawsuits over tax exemptions and related benefits.
Think of all the unintended consequences that we cannot even foresee at this time. Where will it end?
This is the kind of thing that kills honest discussion.
I was very clear in my one post on this topic what I thought about the child molester talk. But you know that, so why ask your question?
And you try to tell me that no proponent mocked faith such as mine. But I was there from beginning to end so I know better. It was in testimony and it was in the hallways and it was the very first thing I was confronted with as I waited to get in at 7am.
Thanks, Bob, and you are right - those of us that live between the liberal and conservative cultures know the hate that the left has for religion and people of religion .
There was certainly a good show put on, and I give the gay-rights activists an A+ for a masterful show. They did have a very sympathetic media on hand that would bend over backwards to show them in the best light, and to marginalize the opponents.
For example, consider that had a child spoken against the bill, tearfully crying "all children should be able to have a mother and father..." as genuine and perceptive as such testimony might have been, you can certainly expect that such would have been derided as being “manipulative,” and heard complaints "how dare they use their child in such a way."
And that kind of criticism would have had some validity.
And so, those types of complaints would be equally valid against the pro's that put forth their emotional presentation.
But from the media - the left’s antics seems to be impervious to those criticisms.
The gay rights crowd didn't, in fact, take the moral high ground, instead, by such manipulation, they took the low road.
I consider again the problem with religious arguments and Biblical reference. Those arguments will only impact religious people, or people who believe in the Bible. While those are good frames of reference for an argument in church, you will automatically lose any public debate from those positions, because a third to half of the people will not be religious or don't believe in the Bible.
If you take a third to a half of the people out of the fight the minute you open your mouth - then you're going to lose.
That is where the proponents of traditional marriage have failed to direct their efforts, not by having bad arguments, but by having completely ineffective arguments for the forum they are being thrust into. You will never convince anyone unless you provide references the audience can identify to.
The proponents of gay marriage are acutely aware of that, and will, therefore, let the religious supporters argue on.
The Bible sanctity of marriage, though, comes from the deep-rooted nature of human beings. It is possible to advance Christian values in a context other than religious or scriptural framework. And it will be necessary to do that in the uneducated society that we are becoming.
Thanks to Bob and all the supporters of traditional marriage. I know you will continue to fight on and show courage, even when the scoffers and critics throw their slings and arrows. Like it did for Paul, hardship only makes our faith stronger.
"It is possible to advance Christian values in a context other than religious or scriptural framework. And it will be necessary to do that in the uneducated society that we are becoming."
Tom C,
I'd love to see you start a seperate thread on this very topic, preferably over in BItS.
Because, respectfully, I disagree with you 100%. If that were the case, the world wouldn't have needed Jesus to do what He did.
Tom,
Respectfully, you just missed it bad. The Prophets didn't look for way to make their message paliatable to the listeners. You're falling into the liberal trap of sophistry. They spoke Truth to people who didn't want to hear it, were often persecuted and marginalized for it, but stuck to their values under continuous assult until the end. It's one thing to be offensive by calling names or degrading someone personally, it's another thing to just speak truth to a situation while the other side demonizes you and twists what you say. Don't expect them to change, outside of a miracle of Grace. Just speak Truth without fear. This is what your opponent fears the most and is the drive behind political correctness, if they can't cower you, you win in your own moral conviction, perhaps in the public arena or not. People tend to listen to someone who speaks without fear and with personal conviction and they are often the first ones "put on the block" by the opposition.
Good idea, LMD, lets start one.
"I'm sorry you can't see the logic in that, Dist. I'll pray for you."
Why, thank you, Jaspar. One can never have enough people praying for them.
Re: logic - I think it is a bit too little logic, and a might bit more too late for a movement built entirely upon emotional strawbeds to be making feeble attempts at injecting logic into the arguments. I commend your effort, however misguided. I recommend beginning with logic next time you set out to change Western Civilization.
"I do not feel any contempt for an atheist, who is often a man limited and constrained by his own logic to a very sad simplification." -GKC
Now I have spoke my peace. CAN WE PLEASE HEAR FROM OUR REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP PLEASE. THE REPUBLICAN PARTY DOES HAVE A PLATFORM AND WE NEED TO PROMOTE THAT PLATFORM.
Hey, BR, you should have been there!
All the press showed was middle-aged white guys lined up to speak.
Since everything I read in the Portland Press Herald is true, and I'm sure they were careful to be fair in their choice of photos, I guess there were no women, young people or non-whites there to oppose the amendment.
The Prophets didn't look for way to make their message paliatable to the listeners. You're falling into the liberal trap of sophistry. They spoke Truth to people who didn't want to hear it, were often persecuted and marginalized for it, but stuck to their values under continuous assult until the end.
Thanks, but I am looking at this from two points of view.
First, have non-Biblical arguments in your quiver. I am sure you can come up with a bunch of them.
Secondly, I'm not looking to change the MESSAGE, I am looking to change how it is presented.
Consider that Jesus didn't have the New Testament to read from when he was wandering around. He converted people with the pure message. (He DID have the Old Testament)
THAT is what needs to be conveyed.
Citing a KJV old Engish reference to someone who who (1) Does understand the language and (2) is skeptical about the Bible will have NO effect.
And I'm not saying dumb the message down either, or soften it.
But to say to someone who has never read the Bible, "It says in Romans 1:26..." they will just turn off. It's fine, of couse, to use that with the church people.
Jesus used parables, examples and conviction to bring people into the light. He wasn't a "Bible-thumper."
We can use that example to get OUR message across.
I understand your point. There is no saving without personal salvation. But we can move people in the direction. It's up to God to finish the job.
- Login to post comments
nytimes.com
April 23, 2009
Mainers Air Their Views on Same-Sex Marriage
By KATIE ZEZIMA
The future of the bill...is uncertain. Gov. Baldacci...is keeping his options open. The Legislature...can pass/reject the measure, or send it to voters for a referendum. If the Legislature passes the bill, citizens can collect enough signatures to place a people’s veto of the legislation on the November ballot.
The current legislation would redefine marriage in Maine, which in 1997 enacted a law stating that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/us/23gay.html?_r=1&ref=us