Heath rallies opponents of gay marriage

AUGUSTA — Question 1, the referendum to legalize same-sex marriage in Maine, represents the latest salvo in a national assault on the rights of people who oppose a “gay agenda,” three longtime opponents of gay rights told a sympathetic audience of about 35 people Monday morning at the State House.

Michael Heath

The media, in part, provides the ammunition for those salvos, they argued.

Peter LaBarbera of Illinois-based Americans for Truth about Homosexuality joined Paul Madore and Michael Heath, two veteran opponents of gay rights in Maine and co-chairmen of the No Special Rights PAC, in the Hall of Flags to present what they believe to be the real stakes in the same-sex marriage debate.

As silent men stood to either side of the podium holding banners proclaiming “God’s marriage = 1 man and 1 woman” and “Stop Promoting Homosexuality to Children,” the trio lambasted the media, government and even some Mainers working to defeat Question 1 for failing to deliver the message that homosexuality is, in Heath’s words, “intrinsically harmful and evil.”

“The truth about the homosexual rights movement is hidden,” said Heath, who served as executive director of the Maine Christian Civic League from the mid-1990s until he resigned in 2009. “The pro-family movement hides this fact for the fear of being labeled bigots.”

In a phone interview Monday, the Rev. Bob Emrich of Protect Marriage Maine said that his organization, which is leading the campaign against Question 1, has not conversed with Madore and Heath about this year’s referendum. He said his organization’s sole focus is on whether Maine will redefine marriage.

“They have no way of knowing what our motive is,” Emrich said of Madore and Heath. “We are not hiding from anything. We are simply trying to convince voters to vote against Question 1. The issue is about marriage. … This is about what we’re voting on.”

Madore, who has been an outspoken opponent of gay rights and same-sex marriage initiatives in Maine since the early 1990s, told the crowd, which included a contingent of suit-clad men from the Pennsylvania-based American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, that if Question 1 passes, “you give up your rights to free association.”

Citing an Oct. 12 BDN report in which pollster Patrick Murphy of Pan Atlantic SMS raised concerns about contradictory answers to questions about Question 1, Madore accused the media, the courts, universities and pollsters of being complicit in allowing a “pro-homosexual lobby” to influence public opinion.

“The media has a double standard the size of a dump truck,” said LaBarbera, who came to Maine from Illinois and served alone as the rally’s guest speaker after a Massachusetts man could not travel to Augusta because of Monday’s storm. “The media has the gay activists’ back. … If there was a fair media, 75 percent to 80 percent of American society would be opposed to the gay agenda.”

As evidence, LaBarbera cited an October 2011 incident in which two bricks were thrown through glass doors at Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights, Ill., allegedly to protest an appearance by Scott Lively, an outspoken opponent of gay rights. LaBarbera criticized the media’s lack of coverage of what he labeled an act of terrorism.

LaBarbera and Madore also equated what they believe to be media shortfalls in sharing their perspectives on the “gay agenda” to the delay in reporting details of a Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Suggesting that listing gay rights as “civil rights” does a disservice to Martin Luther King Jr., LaBarbera predicted that if Question 1 passes, “Christians and people who have moral opposition to homosexuality will lose their rights.”

In closing remarks, Madore reiterated LaBarbera’s rejection of the notion that gay rights should be considered civil rights. “Gay marriage is not a civil right,” he said. Instead, he argued, it’s a way to use the legal system to indoctrinate young people.

LaBarbera and Madore also shared their beliefs that the “pro-homosexual lobby” has a “devious” and “cunning” incremental agenda that starts with laws against hate crimes, then moves to anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation and eventually same-sex marriage.

David Farmer, communications director for Mainers United for Marriage, which is leading the campaign for passage of Question 1, rebuffed that criticism, saying that Madore and Heath “are good at saying outrageous things,” but that their “rhetoric is marginalized by their allies.” Farmer emphasized that passage of Question 1 would not require any religious institution or clergy person to perform a marriage with which he or she disagrees.

“Our campaign has had more than 250,000 conversations where people are talking to their friends, neighbors and co-workers about why marriage matters to them and why same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. While not everyone agrees, the overwhelming majority have been civil,” Farmer said.

Question 1 is the second statewide vote on same-sex marriage in three years, following a 2009 people’s veto that overturned the Legislature’s passage of legalized same-sex marriage earlier that year. Madore expressed frustration about revisiting the issue so soon after the people’s veto.

“What we need in Maine is a marriage amendment,” he said to cheers Monday.

In a financial disclosure statement filed Friday to the Maine Ethics Commission, the No Special Rights PAC reported receiving $1,652 and spent $1,001 to oppose Question 1.

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.

Advertisement

Comments

Love all these comments

I have read all the comments here and I find them very entertaining, but the bottom line is, nobody has the right to impose their beliefs on others. Madore has been trying for years to do this and it has failed everytime. Maybe he should take care of his crappy house that he has neglected for years. A paint job after 25 years doesn't look like someone that is on top of things. When you're too busy sticking your nose into everyones business, it doesn't make you look like someone that can run a household, but you want everyone to listen to you. Get a grip man...Just because you want it doesn't mean that it will happen.. You're not exactly someone that people want to follow blindlly. It's time to take your nose out of other peoples business and let everyone enjoy the freedoms this country has to offer, and go about your homophobic way...and this is spoken by a straight woman!!

Diana Currier's picture

man

THAT was hypocritical if I read one, you say everyone has a right to their opinion, then you turn around and call names, again.... UNREAL. we ALL have a right to our opinion, you can have yours as well as we have ours, thank you. This seems to be the biggest damn argument on the net.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

You criticize Madore for

You criticize Madore for sticking his nose in other peoples' business and then what do you do? You stick your nose in his business by attacking the condition of his house, which is absolutely none of YOUR business. See how that works, Linda?

KATHY WILLIAMSON's picture

Being that hung up on other

Being that hung up on other peoples' sex lives is not normal. You don't get to deny someone their rights because YOU are a pervert. For the life of me I can't fugire out why we are even allowed to vote on civil right! But as long as it keeps coming up on the ballot, I will vote yes for marriage equality. What consenting adults do in the bedroom is none of my business. What YOU do in the bedroom is none of my business, so quit being a pervert!

Diana Currier's picture

hum hum

YOUR always on here for the topic??? OH but your on that end of it, so it's all good. Do you get it?? We can be entitled to OUR opinion also.

KATHY WILLIAMSON's picture

Sorry for my typos. I type

Sorry for my typos. I type too fast when I am angry.

Diana Currier's picture

wow

Being THAT angry over people sex life doesn't seem normal.

Jeff Johnson's picture

In the recent debate about

In the recent debate about gay marriage, someone said, "God's law is firm. Leviticus: 18:22 states... 'Man shall not lay with a man as with a woman. It is abomination'." This is going to be my response to him:

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? Keep in mind that she's 13 and spends a lot of time on her phone.

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 asking them up front, 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)

RONALD RIML's picture

I recall seeing Paul Madore at a "Gays in the Military" Lecture

given by Col. David Hackworth at Bates College in 1994.

I challenged Col. Hackworth on several points. He refuted my points with the same old propaganda.

As I was leaving the lecture, I noticed a man - who I now recognize to be Paul Madore - giving me weird, 'Funny' looks. How odd.

It brought to mind warnings my mother told me when I was but a young lad. "Watch out for 'Funny Men" she said.

"Funny Men?" Red Skelton, Jerry Lewis? Funny Comedians?

I don't think that was her point.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

It was a rally in support of

It was a rally in support of defeating the referendum to allow same-sex marriage in Maine. What did the supportive (of same-sex marriage) posters think the topics of discussion were going to be? The pros and cons of hitch hiking?

Diana Currier's picture

hitch hiking

Not like it used to be, haha just like everything else.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

I grew up in a world where

I grew up in a world where many things were considered to be impossible. That world ceased to exist 11 years ago when 19 Arabs orchestrated the forced crashing of two passenger airliners, full of passengers, into two tall buildings in New York City resulting in the total destruction of the two buildings, and more importantly, the deaths of almost 3000 innocent Americans.
In the world of today, I no longer assume things to be impossible.
Hitch hiking? I probably wouldn't accept a ride from a stranger even if I were packing a loaded gun. Pretty sad commentary on our society, isn't it?

 's picture

Its difficult to tell

if this story is any good. If Heath and Madore provided evidence, facts, or some justification for their outrageous and patently false statements, then this story is very poor. If they didn't as I suspect, the story is great and Madore and Heath continue to exposes themselves as irrational.
The homosexual agenda has been constant since the 1970's - full and equal civil rights for homosexuals as the Constitution clearly states they deserve. Nothing nefarious in that they have often set partial goals to allow people time to grow in their understanding of homosexuals and to prove that no harm results from granting homosexuals the rights they have long deserved.
Mr. Heath declares that homosexuality is "intrinsically harmful and evil". Where is the evidence to support this. Homosexuals have existed throughout all of human history. Same sex marriage is legal in several states. Surely Mr. Heath could find one specific harm that homosexuals or same-sex marriage has caused. The story indicates that he did not.
Mr. Heath and Madore's real message is that all sexual acts are intrinsically harmful and evil. A view which Mr. Emrich realistically sees will not do his campaign of hatred any good. Better the soft sell of lies and misrepresentation that Mr. Emrich learned so well as staff director of the Maine Republican Senate caucus.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Nice job of demonizing the

Nice job of demonizing the opposition. Where is the tolerance that same sex marriage proponents are always preaching?
How does that work? If you support same sex marriage, you are tolerant and understanding; but if you oppose it, you're a bigot? Wow!! That makes about as much sense as same sex marriage.

Diana Currier's picture

AMEN

My point exactly!! Thank you.

RONALD RIML's picture

The 'Opposition' does an admirable job of Demonizing itself...

No further help needed.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Oh, I'll grant you that, as

Oh, I'll grant you that, as all people in opposition of same sex marriage aren't as articulate as others, but one thing is pretty certain. Same-sex marriage is not the end, but rather, only the beginning. Anyone who believes that same-sex marriage will bring about the end of special rights demands from homosexuals and lesbians, PINCH YOURSELVES!! You are dreaming.

RONALD RIML's picture

No 'Special Rights' to it - merely Human Rights

Now if they were 'Corporations' - they could be 'People' too........

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Same sex marriage is as much

Same sex marriage is as much about human rights as affirmative action is about fairness.

 's picture

Now explain with some facts that conclusion,

and who knows. Because same sex marriage is a fundamental human right and always has been. And affirmative action is about fairness. The idea of affirmative fairness has been used by the courts for hundreds of years. People only objected to it when it recognized the real, measurable harm done to black americans.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Where in the Constitution

Where in the Constitution does it make same sex marriage a fundamental human right?

RONALD RIML's picture

Ignorance of Court Decision (Law) is no excuse, Pirate

I refer you to Perry v. Brown, 10-16696, 11-16577 (underlining mine)

The panel majority affirmed the judgment of the district court and held that Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to eliminate the previously guaranteed right of same-sex couples to marry, violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The panel majority held that by using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed, without a legitimate reason for doing so, the People of California violated the Equal Protection Clause. The panel majority held that in this particular case it did not need to decide whether under the United States Constitution same-sex couples may ever be denied the right to marry because under California’s statutory law pertaining to “domestic partnerships” same-sex couples had all the rights of opposite-sex couples, regardless of their marital status. Proposition 8’s only effect was to take away that important and legally significant designation of “marriage,” previously recognized by the California Supreme Court, while leaving in place all of its incidents. The panel majority determined that in taking away the designation of “marriage,” while leaving in place all the substantive rights and responsibilities of same-sex partners, Proposition 8 could not have reasonably been enacted to promote childrearing by biological parents, to encourage responsible procreation, to proceed with caution in social change, to protect religious liberty, or to control the education of schoolchildren. The panel majority concluded that Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationship and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The panel majority determined that it need not and did not consider whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry, or whether states that fail to afford the
right to marry to gays and lesbians must do so. The panel held that proponents of Proposition 8 had standing to bring this appeal
on behalf of the state. The panel accepted the determination of the California Supreme Court that the official proponents of an initiative have the authority to assert the State’s interest in defending the constitutionality of that initiative, where the state officials who would ordinarily assume that responsibility choose not to do so.

The panel affirmed the denial of the motion by the proponents of Proposition 8 to vacate the judgment entered by former Chief Judge Walker, on the basis of his purported interest in being allowed to marry his same-sex partner. The panel held that Chief Judge Ware did not abuse his discretion by finding that Chief Judge Walker was not obligated to recuse himself on the basis that he could be affected by the outcome of the proceeding. Judge N.R. Smith concurred in part and dissented in part from the majority
opinion. Judge Smith agreed with the majority’s analysis that proponents had standing to bring this appeal and that the motion to vacate the judgment should be denied. Judge Smith dissented from the majority’s analysis regarding the constitutionality of Proposition 8. He wrote that he was not convinced that Proposition 8’s withdrawal from same-sex couples of the right to access the designation of marriage was not rationally related to furthering the interests of promoting responsible procreation and optimal parenting.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Amending the California

Amending the California Constitution does not exactly constitute a sweeping national mandate. Using California (America's nut bag) as an example of acceptance of off the wall behavior almost negates any credibility to your submission. That wouldn't have been San Francisco's 9th District Court by any chance, would it?

RONALD RIML's picture

And how was California's Constitution Amended???

"Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

So California's Constitution had been amended so that only marriage between a man and a woman was recognized, and this was found to be a violation of the U.S. 14th Amendment. But U.S. Constitution trumps California Constitution.

You are aware that this case was argued by Ted Olson, George Bush's Solicitor General, for the Gay Rights people......

Do something useful, Pirate: go salvage HMS Bounty.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

What a tragedy that is. What

What a tragedy that is. What the heck was that thing doing out there? It isn't like Sandy sneaked up on us. That vessel should have been in port securely moored (I think that's the right term.)
The parrot sez if the storm hadn't gotten her, one of our galleons would have taken her captive. Guess I have to take him off the SCOPE, which he likes to sip on, similarly to how you and I might sip on Bailey's.

 's picture

Don't play these silly conservative games of where is it

in the Constitution. Where is unregulated Capitalism in the Constitution.
For a full explanation, see the US Supreme Court decision in Loving 1967 - the Virginia inter-racial marriage case.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

No one is claiming

No one is claiming unregulated Capitalism to be a fundamental human right.
And Jon, as long as I keep it clean and civil, I'm free to play whatever silly conservative games I choose to play. If you don't like it, you're free to.......well, you know the drill.

 's picture

You need to keep up with the lunatic fringe of the

Republican Party i.e.the Romney/Ryan campaign.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

I prefer to stay in the eye

I prefer to stay in the eye of the fringe.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Now let's see....in order to

Now let's see....in order to be fair to black Americans, we had to be unfair to non-black Americans. Yup, that's fair....how can anyone not see that?

 's picture

That's your assumption not the facts.

Affirmative action means doing something positive for injured parties to compensate for that injury. Also the injury in this case was done by institutions not individuals; therefore the institutions must compensate. The case before the Supreme Court is a good example of how not to do affirmative action. The school is saying that it has a cap on enrollment say 3000 freshmen for example. So if 25 blacks who otherwise do not meet entrance criterion must be enrolled then 25 non-blacks have to be unenrolled. That's ridiculous. If 25 blacks have to be enrolled the cap must be done away with and if that causes the school problems, too bad. Entrance criterion are always subjective and therefore subject to irrational prejudice. Or to say it another way Schools have a very poor record picking winners and losers.

 's picture

Pinch Yourself

Homosexuals are demanding noting less than what everyone else assumes - full and complete civil rights. The US Supreme Court agreed in the Loving Decision 1967 that marriage is a fundamental human right. Nothing special about it. Its a right everyone has. Your attempt to call these rights special is a lame attempt to create envy and jealousy and hatred among non-homosexuals. Of course, homosexuals will continue to demand that the Constituton be fulfilled in their case. They deserve nothing less.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

You mean like your lame

You mean like your lame attempt at legitimizing something that laughs in the face of rational and conventional belief?

 's picture

When Paul will you discover a fact, any old fact

Its not a conventional belief that marriage is defined as 1 man and 1 woman. Most religions today do not agree. Biblically based religions like the original Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints didn't and don't believe its a conventional belief. Islam does not agree. The folk religions of Africa do not agree. Confucious and the religions of Asia do not agree. A thin majority here believed it up to Nov. 6th when we may find that "conventional" belief is now unconventional. Only the myopic vision of some Christians believe its conventional and even their belief is irrelevent because the state not churches issue marriage licenses and here we should have a complete separation of church and state.
There is nothing "rational" about belief. The whole point of belief is that it is not limited by the constraints of logic or rationality. If a belief is rational its a fact not a belief.
But is what bothers you that it "laughs in the face" of your beliefs or you think it does. The idea of equal rights for all people scorns your belief. If it does, good.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Whoa, Nelly...you've changed

Whoa, Nelly...you've changed my mind, now....
Jon, you and I are never going to agree. The best you can hope for is that I don't have you walk the plank.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

And that's a FACT.

And that's a FACT.

 's picture

Yes, you have it right.

I didn't demonize anyone. I asked that they provide a harm any harm that passing same-sex marriage would cause. They invited me to do that by saying that homosexuality was intrinsically harmful. They haven't provided what harm it would cause. In the many years that this has been debated no one has provided any harm that same-sex marriage or anti-discrimination would cause. I'm waiting.
If you look to another of my comments you will see that it does make sense just as same sex marriage does.
Homosexuals do not deserve tolerance. Tolerance and understanding mean that we are right but we will allow those folks to do whatever they are asking because we will be forgiving. Bull. Homosexuals have no problem. We do. Our bigotry is our problem not theirs. They deserve full and equal rights because they are "people". The Constitution clearly says in many places that the rights are the people's rights. Doesn't say a thing about "except for homosexuals, blacks, and women" or left-handed people or blondes or weight-lifters.
But if there is a demonstratable harm that society in general would suffer then the government has an interest in restricting an activity whatever it is. No harm; no restriction is justified.

Diana Currier's picture

'

I WILL turn off the channel right now, after I say this, hope it DOES pass, then we will see what the gays "need" next...... and God forbid we call a gay person a faggot or something like you just called us bigots !!! Hypocrite!! But I will check back later. Unreal!

 's picture

Hypocrite???

bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. That is a characterization of a person that can be easily established by facts. You do or you do not hate. You do or do not hold those views even when presented by overwhelming facts to the contrary. You are or are not irrational in your views. To call a person who represents these characteristics is accurate and truthful. To characterize people as a stereotype which is inherently false proves bigotry.The two are completely different. One is true and helpful; one false and hateful.

Diana Currier's picture

hypocrite

Hypocrisy Defined

Hypocrisy simply means to present yourself as honest, upright and moral to the degree that you are willing to put others down and critique them for not having the same values ... when in fact you are no where near what you pretend to be... you are in fact doing what you have reprimanded others for
(calling names)... I only stated that I voted no, then the name calling started. Just because I don't see things the same way you do.......

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

You haven't seen anything

You haven't seen anything yet, Ms. Currier. This is a pretty tough crowd. When this room opens up, they add 4 additional bouncers.

Diana Currier's picture

.

I am a tough old goat, I've hung with the best of them :) TY for the warning tho : )

Diana Currier's picture

bounce

bounce away man, I already voted, too late, and guess I never will see it right.

RONALD RIML's picture

You would prefer Homophobe??

????

RONALD RIML's picture

Rights of People who Oppose Gay Marriage

1. Turn off the Channel

2. Don't marry anyone of the same sex

3. Turn around and walk away when someone exposes you for the bigot which you are.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

4. Do whatever it takes to

4. Do whatever it takes to keep this lunacy from ever coming to referendum again.

Diana Currier's picture

if

if i am a BIGOT then YOU are a HYPOCRITE

RONALD RIML's picture

Thank You and God Bless.......

Two people apparently

Two people apparently disagree with "Thank you and God Bless and Have a Nice Day." What does it even mean to disagree with that? Come on people. Get a grip.

RONALD RIML's picture

I knows my audience......

There's just no pleasing them.

Diana Currier's picture

whatever

he is saying people are scared to say their right to vote NO for fear of being called names and such just like you just did, but you see I don't give a crap what you call me I VOTED NO and always will as long as it's on MY BALLOT!

Ma'am, you sound angry, and I

Ma'am, you sound angry, and I don't know why. In the end, we're merely discussing committed same-sex couples who love each other and who want the same right to a marriage license as other committed couples who are not of the same sex. They love each other and are committed, but the state doesn't treat them the same as other couples. The unfairness of that is what makes me angry. But you simply seem angry that loving, committed same-sex couples want the same access to marriage licenses as other couples. That is simply sad.

Diana Currier's picture

sorry

I only get angry when they start throwing names around, I guess we just let them all comment and all will be well......I am happy with my life, always will be and I personally think being single is the BEST ever !! OH NO I'm a bigot again. :)

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

These people have overused

These people have overused the word "bigot" to the extent that it has become a badge of honor.
Dictionaries will soon define "bigot" as, "One who disagrees with a liberal irrespective of the topic".

RONALD RIML's picture

As you prefer the 'Single Life' you've got no dog in this fight.

So what's it to you????? Just want to make life difficult for others???

I'm in a hetero-sexual marriage, and don't feel it threatened in the least.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

How about she's expressing

How about she's expressing her First Amendment right to disagree?

RONALD RIML's picture

She's using her 1st Amendment Rights

to express her bigotry. And then wonders why she gets criticized for it.....

Who'da thunk it!!!

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Do you people ever read what

Do you people ever read what you type in before clicking save?
If she agrees with you the 1st amendment protects her and she's looked upon as a caring and tolerant person. But, if she happens to disagree (still protected by the 1st amendment) by your judgment she is then deemed to be a bigot. Where's YOUR tolerance? Forgive me, Veritas, but I've learned to expect more than that from you.

RONALD RIML's picture

My mother taught me to never tolerate intolerance.

Be it racial, sexual, whatever.

So she doesn't tolerate equal rights for homosexuals. I'll gladly call her out on that.

She stated she wasn't married. So does she even have a legitimate interest in 'marriage' as I, a married person does? that's debatable in and of itself.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

I get your point, but she is

I get your point, but she is entitled to her opinion whether, you, Albrecht, or I agree with it or not. And, she ought to be able to express it without being called a bigot by those who will hear no side of an argument other than their own. That's not unreasonable, is it?

RONALD RIML's picture

Opinions have consequences.

And when those consequences include depriving an entire segment of the population to second-class citizens - then I'm alarmed.

Now Miss Currier tells us that she is single, and intend to remains so.

So why does she even have an interest in the institution of marriage, and depriving fellow citizens from legal privileges which attach to it? She doesn't tell us that.

So why, then, would it be unreasonable for one to believe her opinion rises out of bigotry rather than any possible harm which could be done to her?

She needs to tell us.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

One has to have aspirations

One has to have aspirations of owning a lion, an elephant, three chimps and a panda in order to legitimize enjoying an afternoon at the zoo? Her unmarried status has nothing to do with her passion in opposing same sex marriage. It's an emotional issue for both sides of the argument whether married, single, gay, straight, and all are entitled to their opinions and should be able to express said opinions without being called names by the supporters of same sex marriage. I'll bet most of the bigot card playing isn't coming from the gays; it's coming from the straights. Disagreeing and intolerance are NOT the same thing.

RONALD RIML's picture

Reading her postings here which now including football teams...

One sees her emotional passions are expressed in a plethora of arguments.

Logic need not apply.

Diana Currier's picture

Again!!

All this because I said I voted no on one, do YOU understand this is my RIGHT? LOL :) TRY to have a good day ok. LOOK BELOW..... . You and I both know eventually this will pass, when we don't know, so be it. I won't sit and complain, laugh, OR cry. I will be the first to say congrats. , Also I will sit back and watch and learn, and one thing I won't do is dwell on it like you. Is this REALLY your big issue, or are you a mean spirited man by rights?? I don't know, I don't know you, and your use of big words don't bother me either, you sound like a big bully. you linger on here just to argue I guess. I really am not commenting again on this story anyways. You should take a break too, head up and go see who I voted for President you may have more to bi$%h and moan about. It's all about opinion and if we don't agree will you we have to explain, I think not, like I said have a good day..... if you can. I am turning off my comment notifications, so b%^ch away :) new nick name for u BULLY haha

RONALD RIML's picture

Dwell on it???

I'm not the one who keeps claiming this is their last word on the subject.

Diana Currier's picture

calm down

All this because I said I voted no on one, do YOU understand this is my RIGHT? LOL :) TRY to have a good day ok.

RONALD RIML's picture

Calm Down?? Who's the one typing in 'Caps?'

So you're not married, yet you want to deny other people marriage.

Sounds like "Busy-Body Control Central" to me....

Diana Currier's picture

no not married

The smart single one, and here you go AGAIN, name calling..... just like he said if I agree with you people, I am OK, if not oh bogot, a$$h&^e, etc..... the only thing I have called you guys is a hypocrite because if you go back and read you will ( or should) see it yourselves that you are. I do have a right to my opinion and vote, and you nice people I guess have a right to your nastiness. Have a good one, I refuse to comment on this story again.

RONALD RIML's picture

You jump in this pool, you swim with the Sharks (and Pirate)

If you can't stay afloat and defend your position without crying about it - it's best you go back to the Minnow Pool

Diana Currier's picture

you know

Whatever, I simply stated I will always vote no, I can... you blew it out of the water, calling names and all, I then told you I am DONE commenting on this story, and you come back with all this bull. I don't HAVE to defend anything to you, I have my reasons, and like I said I am DONE arguing with you who knows everything! so GO COLTS and CONGRATS GIANTS !! OH NO SHE DIDN'T!! lives here in MAINE and loves COLTS..... Give you something else to STEW on. Like I told you I am DONE on this subject, you are ALWAYS right!!

Diana Currier's picture

PS

Why do you ASSume, just because I am single doesn't mean I am out of the click, maybe I am or have been Gay too. Keep ASSuming buddy!! you'll never know

RONALD RIML's picture

So you really are never done, are you.......

Didn't think so...... ;)

Greg Rose's picture

Spell check?

"Health rallies" or "HEATH rallies", as in homophobic Michael HEATH...

RONALD RIML's picture

Do you think someone's eyes light up

when he sees his favorite 'Heath' bar????


PAUL ST JEAN's picture

The parrot sez he read in

The parrot sez he read in Popular Science Magazine that these are a huge favorite in gay bars.

RONALD RIML's picture

Whazzat??

Hide the 'Heath Bar?"

No wonder the Heath Guy is all bent outa shape.....

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...