Those who want to repeal Maine's anti-discrimination law with a "yes" vote on Question 1 base their argument on a definition of marriage that reflects their own religious beliefs and traditions. When I was young, similar religious arguments were used to defend segregation and ban interracial marriage.

It was wrong then and it's wrong now.

What a "yes" vote amounts to is the granting of special rights to those of a particular religious belief. That's discrimination.

The idea of same-sex marriage is slowly destroying and corrupting the cultural development of America. Voting "yes" on Question 1 defends traditional marriage and stops the so-called Bible-believing homosexuals from reframing God.

Today, I watch others trying to destroy God and the meaning of the Bible, and saying that God has nothing to do with America. Our country developed laws and a way of life based on the Bible. People should check out the faith of the nation's Founding Fathers and look at how many have tried to destroy those founding principles.

An excellent photo of one of Fryeburg Fair's pig scrambles appeared on the front page of Sun Journal recently. I realize that the majority of people see pig scrambles as harmless fun, that they enjoy watching excited children chasing terrified baby pigs around an enclosure until the piglets are captured and stuffed in large sacks.

I am told that I am standing in the way of a loving couple's happiness, "minimizing" them, and lacking compassion if I vote "yes" on Question 1 (Pamella Beliveau, column, Oct. 18). I beg to differ.

When did it become acceptable to encourage others to pursue and achieve happiness at any cost, no matter who or what else is affected? That is false compassion.

It seems to me that many people miss the point on Question 1, arguing what God wants, what the Bible says, etc.

The fact is, states regulate marriage, not churches, and marriage is subject to the laws of states that pass them.

Maine's marriage equality law is clear: If a church doesn't want to perform a gay marriage, it doesn't have to. In this nation, church and state are separate, and while all are free to worship as they please, society is shaped according to rules of law, not rules of religion.

On Nov. 3, this Catholic will be voting "no" on Question 1. As a former bartender, it was always a given that politics and religion did not mix; it always causes trouble.

In September, I started to attend Church for the first time in awhile. On my third visit, the Monsignor gave his departing words: "Support Question 1." My first thought as I was leaving — politics and religion don't mix, anywhere.

I attend church to pray to God, the God who created and loves us all.

Before the same-sex marriage law was passed, the wording in the previous Maine marriage law stated:

"The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society; the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in traditional monogamous marriage."

There are so many opinions about gay marriage. If gay people want to be gay, that's fine, as long as they don't push it on anyone else.

I will vote against gay marriage for so many reasons. To list a few: Men's and women's bodies are made to complement one another. We were made that way for a reason — to procreate. That is too obvious. And God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Adam, or Eve and Eve. Perhaps I'm not supposed to talk about God or anything that might give others some hope in such a corrupt world.

I am somewhat taken aback by the tide of disdain and fierce criticism regarding the Nobel Committee's decision to award President Barack Obama the Peace Prize. The emphasis seems to be on his lack of accomplishments. I admit to being surprised myself initially, but then realized how ahead of the curve that international group may be.

This is response to the editorial of Oct. 18, "Question 4: The time for TABOR."

In their efforts to provide for public safety, Maine's first responders are always evolving to the threats facing our communities. For those in law enforcement, it's not the crime that changes; it's the person and the way they perpetrate it that changes.

In the efforts to provide for public safety, Maine's first responders are always evolving to the threats facing our communities. For those of us in law enforcement, it's not the crime itself that changes; it's the person and the way he or she perpetrates the crime that changes with the times.

Today, it is as likely that we will be robbed at the end of an Internet connection rather than with a weapon, burglarized for our personal information rather than our TV, or defrauded by a junk stock or mortgage sold "legitimately" rather than by the stereotypical con-man.

Question 4 on the ballot in November is one of great concern to me as a taxpayer, parent, teacher, and Maine citizen.

In 2006, Maine voters rejected a similar proposal because a majority knew then as is still known now, that the legislation would hurt Maine families, schools and communities.

Voters in Colorado accepted TABOR and soon found their state in major crises with schools, health care and the economy; so much so, that voters there suspended TABOR in order to allow the state's economy to try to bounce back.

The automobile excise tax proposal will decrease that tax by about 40 percent. But there are some facts opponents neglect to tell. Only 32 percent of the vehicles registered in Maine will receive a break on the tax. Vehicles five years and older will not have any reduction in the tax. Hybrids rated to get at least 40 miles per gallon will not be taxed for three years from the model year. Yet these vehicles will cause wear and tear to the roads. These same hybrids would be exempt from sales tax, which will further lower revenues.

This is in response to the letter from Trudy Chasse, "An infringement?" (Oct. 14) regarding same-sex unions in the state of Maine.

The state does not infringe on the power of any church to decide who will, or will not, be married under its roof. It is up to each individual religious institution to decide who has or has not met particular marriage requirements, such as pastoral counseling, for example.

Despite individual positions on the Taxpayers Bill of Rights, choices remain highly personal and reflect countless years of deep-seated opinions on Maine's political and financial performance. For the most part, discussions between those sharing opposing views reflect sensible elements of concern.

First, God created the Earth, and then created plant life, followed by animal life. Next, he created a man, Adam. He then created a female, Eve, to keep Adam company. Of one male and one female, the first human beings were born, followed by countless new births.

Now, if God had created a second man, instead of a woman, to keep Adam company, the entire population of the Earth would still be only two, providing both were still living today. So, why should state officials pass a law creating a different kind of marriage than the one created by God?

I almost laughed out loud reading Leonard Pitts' column of Oct. 4 on why he mistrusts Fox News. Yes, every news outlet gets it wrong on occasion. But those inaccuracies are very small potatoes compared with Dan Rather pushing a forged document on the American public in order to discredit former President George W. Bush.

Now that was a news organization in a class by itself.

Real Fox News programs are, in my opinion, as fair as any.

It's truly unfortunate how many people are confused about Question 1 to be voted on in November.

Essentially, it is about redefining marriage. Think about it. How can the Maine Legislature vote such a law without bringing this to the people. Fortunately, signatures were obtained and as a result, we all now have the opportunity to vote on this important issue. Hopefully, Maine people will understand the pitfalls of allowing this legislation to prevail.

They need only to look at what has occurred in Massachusetts because of such a law.

I am concerned by the ads in favor of voting "yes" on Question 1. Those ads are a mix of deception and outright lies.

The deception is about lawsuits. There can be grounds for lawsuits against businesses that discriminate, but those lawsuits would not be based on the Marriage Equity Act; they would be based on non-discrimination laws.

What does that mean? Voting "yes" on Question 1 would have no effect of lawsuits. Interesting.

I believe that the right for gays to marry each other should not be an issue for any public law to decide. It is a personal one, not a political one; not a law to be voted upon in an election.

As for fearing that children will be taught to be gay in school if the law isn't repealed is ludicrous.

My dictionary defines a republic as "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law." The United States is supposed to be such. We declare this every time we say the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. Millions of worthy Americans have given their lives to build this great nation and keep it free.

Things are not how they used to be when my parents were kids. My parents will simply never understand or adapt to such things as MySpace, Facebook and texting. And being in a relationship with someone is so much different than 10 or 20 years ago. It has more to do with technology than reality.

The word that seldom comes up in the current arguments over homosexual marriage is "love." The implication seems to be that attraction to deviant sexual behavior motivates the call for marriage. But in these days, it's not necessary to marry for sex.

Except sometimes for practical reasons, people marry for love and companionship. Quite apart from the benefits of legal marriage, homosexuals want their unions to be respected just as are those of heterosexuals. They are friends, who respect, as well as love, each other.

It was good to read the "Our view" column Oct. 12. That view expressed my thoughts about President Barack Obama. I trust him and I want him to be successful in all the good policies and plans that he has for our people and people everywhere.

He has been accused of being a "community organizer." I heard Mark Shields, a favorite reporter of mine from the "News Hour" on PBS, say that "Christ was a community organizer." He was crucified.

To think that homosexual activities can change the laws of God, and that God is wrong, is stunning. God made marriage to be a sacred covenant and sacrament between man and a women; his laws and order cannot be nullified.

It is a mortal sin. It is self-destructive. It is against nature. It needs forgiveness, not codification and normalization. Yet amidst all this, they must be told God still loves them and they can be redeemed, but society cannot "normalize" a self-destructive behavior that can rob a human being of their eternal soul.