S. Touchette: Put an end to this now

I do not think that the public should be voting on the same-sex marriage issue again.

Most of the people believe the Bible is word of God, but then they believe that word only when it suits them. It is stated in Psalms 24:3-5, "Who may ascend into the hill of the Lord? Or who may stand in His Holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, Who has not lifted up his soul to an idol, Nor sworn deceitfully. He shall receive blessing from the Lord, ..." To me that should speak for itself.

For those Christians who call themselves Christians and not follow the Bible as the word of God, that is law, and the law states that man should marry woman and woman should marry man. Many know that it is in the Bible.

I am also concerned about lawsuits. The minister may be covered for not doing the ceremony but what about the others, such as the person handling the flowers, the DJ, hall officials, etc.? There is nothing happening to them now because gay marriage is against the law. If Question 1 passes, I expect lawsuits will triple.

I will not marry those of the same sex. As it is, chaplains on military bases will be reassigned if they do not marry couples of the same sex.

If voters do not put an end to this now, when will it stop?

Scott Touchette, Leeds

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

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

Jeff Johnson's picture

Here we go, Scott.

"For those Christians who call themselves Christians and not follow the Bible as the word of God, that is law"... Please follow up on these points of Biblical Law.

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)

I eagerly await your answers.

JOANNE MOORE's picture

You are very wrong..........

...........Most people do NOT believe the bible is the word of god. Maybe in your narrow minded world but not in reality.

As far as law is concerned, we do not live in a Taliban style government - yet.

Mark Wrenn's picture

"when will it stop?"

How about when all are treated equally?

FRANK EARLEY's picture

I'll have to agree with Ronald on this one....

I still say, gay marriage will in no way ever affect me, it shouldn't bother anyone else. Two people have the right to do what ever they want. How is it any different than me deciding to be single by choice? When you think about it, the end results are the same. The only difference is that one side is happy, the other has a husband or wife or partner to nag them for eternity. I say "What ever floats your boat"........

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Frank, you'd probably agree

Frank, you'd probably agree with Ron if he told you the world was round.....like a banana.

FRANK EARLEY's picture

Actually,,,,,,

I only agree with common sense. If you can convince me that, somewhere they grow round bananas, maybe I'll agree. Who knows....

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Well, now...I just happen to

Well, now...I just happen to know about this little village in the Northwest corner of Honduras that grows.......

RONALD RIML's picture

Lawsuits won't triple if people don't discriminate.

It's that simple.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

It's probably not going to

It's probably not going to stop. What was the purpose of the Civil Unions being legalized? We were told those would not lead to same sex couples wanting marriage and yet, here we are. Where DOES it end?
Let them have the happiness, love, companionship, and all of the other monetary and civil benefits that they seek. Just let them find another name for it. Marriage belongs to traditional man/woman unions. The gay community ought to show some creativity and come up with their own term for their co-habitative unions. They'd find that road a lot less bumpy than the one they're attempting to travel.

AL PELLETIER's picture

Sirtifcat o merig!

LOL Pirate, I just watched J.Judy trying to understand a text message, she looked at it in disbelief and said, "who re-wrote the English languish? Picture a referendum, if you will, where we are asked to vote on accept this new and improved method of communication because our traditional English is obsolete. Yup! Maine, the way life should be.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

I wonder if they even teach

I wonder if they even teach English in school anymore. How many times a day do we hear, "Me and my boyfriend went to the Mall today". If the response is "Who?", the answer is "Ya, me and him". "Hey, me and the boys are going out for beers tonight. Why don't you and him come with us?"
Pitiful. Remember when Ebonics was the big rave? That seems to have flattened out.
"Bad boy, Bad boy, watchu gun do, watchu gun do, when dey come for you?" Nice catchy tune.
Hey, by the way don't merig has two "r"s in it?

AL PELLETIER's picture

Thanks for correcting me

but your not quite right either. It would be, "Me and my boyfriend LIKE went to the mall today", "Ya, LIKE me and him"," Hey, me and the boys are LIKE going out for beers tonight", "Why don't you and him LIKE come with us". Watcha think?
Too bad our votes will cancel each other (except on one issue). I'm so happy it's over today, for a while.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Ya, but ya know, it's, like,

Ya, but ya know, it's, like, the campaigning for 2016 will begin right after, like, Thanksgiving.
My father just about disowned me when I left the democrat party. He was, like, really pissed, ya know?

AL PELLETIER's picture

How true, unfortunately

My father is 93 and has voted in every election since WWII. I've seen him vote R as often as D, as I have. I guess we just go with your gut feeling. Right to wrong ratio at present is about 50/50.
Time to get the snow tires, like, on and the snow blower, like, ready. My youngest daughter, who's 30, talks this way and it drives me, like, f----- nuts!

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

LMAO.....That's funny. You're

LMAO.....That's funny.
You're fortunate to still have your father with you. Mine passed away when he was 65 back in the late 70's.
I tend to vote the man rather than the party, and contrary to what many people believe, I am not a republican, but a registered independent. The elections for the last 30 years, though, have been a case of voting against someone rather than voting for a candidate.
The last two candidates I voted FOR because I wanted them to be president, were Jack Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. The rest were substitute votes to keep someone from getting elected. Sorry way to do business, isn't it?

Zack Lenhert's picture

"Just let them find another

"Just let them find another name for it"

Really?

So how about the state just calls everybody's union a "domestic partnership"?..and you can get "married" in your church?

Do you support giving all the same legal protections of marriage to domestic partnerships?

You do realize that all the same arguments your making were made in the fifties in regarding multi-racial marriages.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Yes, yes, and yes.

Yes, yes, and yes.

Zack Lenhert's picture

...so it really just comes

...so it really just comes down to a word for you? and you're willing to vote "no on one", which would continue to deny our gay brothers and sisters the same legal rights granted by legal marriage (not the sacrament of marriage from a church), because they're using the word "marriage"?

...it's just a word. Ask Ann Coulter about how the meaning of words can change.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Why ask the question if all

Why ask the question if all you're going to do is whine about the answer?
You didn't state in your questions that 2 out of 3 of my answers had to be in accord with your views.

Zack Lenhert's picture

Did I hit a sensitive spot

Did I hit a sensitive spot with you? I'm not whining. I'm really looking for a logical answer to why someone would against question one.

If you agree that same-sex couples should have the same legal rights as everybody else it doesn't make sense to me that you would vote "no on 1"... I was looking for some clarification, which you did not provide, only "find another word for it".

The fact that we can't sell our daughters for two goats and a few chickens means that we've ALREADY redefined marriage from its biblical traditions. Time to drag this State/Nation into the twenty first century.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

After having re-read my post

After having re-read my post I see how you could conclude that my response was just blowing you off. I apologize for that as it was not my intention.
The main reason I'm opposed to it is that history shows that same-sex marriage won't be the end of it. Civil Unions were supposed to take care of all that, remember? If this flies, it won't be the end of it; they'll want something else. If it fails, guess what? It won't be the end of it; we'll just be faced with another referendum and it won't end. Not until equal rights becomes more than equal rights. I'm just plain tired of gay referendums. How about an equal rights referendum for one of the very few remaining unprotected classes of citizens in our society; white, Christian, heterosexual working males? That's my opinion. I hope it clarifies my position for you, although I have no expectations of you agreeing with any of it.

Zack Lenhert's picture

"Civil Unions were supposed

"Civil Unions were supposed to take care of all that, remember?" I remember that same-sex couples wanted EQUAL rights, which civil unions do not provide. So it shouldn't be shock to anyone that proponents will keep trying until everyone has the same rights.

"How about an equal rights referendum for one of the very few remaining unprotected classes of citizens in our society; white, Christian, heterosexual working males?" Well...

You can't be discriminated against for being white. (discrimination based on race)
You can't be discriminated against for being Christian. (discrimination based on religion)
You can't be discriminated against for being heterosexual. (discrimination based on sexual preference)
You can't be discriminated against for being male. (discrimination based on sex)

You already are protected. Protecting the rights of a minority doesn't take away the rights of the majority.

Jeff Johnson's picture

"You can't be discriminated

"You can't be discriminated against for being white. (discrimination based on race)"

Wrong. It's called Affermative Action.

Jeff Johnson's picture

Affirmative Action.

spelling error. my apologies.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

You make a great point, Jeff,

You make a great point, Jeff, spelling error notwithstanding. 0O:-)

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

I'll try to remember that the

I'll try to remember that the next time I get mugged by a person of minority status and shatter his left knee cap with a well placed bullet.

RONALD RIML's picture

Pirate - You should come up with a bit of Creativity yourself...

And get your nose out of other folks' business.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Spoken from a man who wants

Spoken from a man who wants to take other peoples earned income. Perhaps a dose of your own medicine (keeping ones nose to ones self) is in order.

RONALD RIML's picture

I still Reserve the Right

to have my Government tax all Persons, no matter their Sexual or Corporate Persuasion

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Ah, but your government does

Ah, but your government does manage to discriminate against married folk!

I take it your homestead weathered the storm without incident?

RONALD RIML's picture

We were in Rochester, NY visiting Grandspawn.....

I ruined the party be insisting we leave a day early. Damned glad we did!!!

Drove back to Maine to find Beantown emptying out. Day of Storm Wet & Windy - three days with power out, but trusty generator on-line. No real damage to the homestead.

Praise Buddha!!!

MARK GRAVEL's picture

No damage, that is good.

No damage, that is good.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

You mean like you just

You mean like you just did?
You and I have had this conversation previously, but in the highly unlikely event that you weren't paying attention, I am simply exercising my First Amendment right , guaranteed to me by the U.S. Constitution, of expressing an opinion. Now, I realize that said opinion may not be of your choosing or liking, but until you're able to get the Constitution amended to deny me that right of differing opinion, you're just going to have to exercise some of the tolerance you so often preach about to the conservative element of these forums.
It's always a pleasure to hear from you, though.

RONALD RIML's picture

First Amendment Right is a Protection

against government interference.

Not against me telling you to STFU when I believe you're out of line.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

So our right to free speech

So our right to free speech is only valid when it is aimed towards the government?
Come on, even the parrot isn't numb enough to believe that bomb.
As for as your telling me to STFU when YOU think I'M out of line. That's your school yard bully alter-ego getting the best of you. You might want to work on that.

RONALD RIML's picture

Jeez - Who/What did you think the 'Bill of Rights' was

Protection Against??? Gays and/or the Church???

It was Protection Against the Only Entity with enough Force to Make You STFU - The Government!

(I may tell you to STFU, but I don't have the POWER to Shut you the F*** Up - only Government might legally have that - hence the 1st Amendment.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Play nice boys.

Play nice boys.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

While Frank Sinatra sings,

While Frank Sinatra sings, "Stormy Weather", the flies and the spiders get along together..

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Well, tomorrow I look forward

Well, tomorrow I look forward to having a new Rep. president. How about you?

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

The parrot predicts BHO will

The parrot predicts BHO will lead by a slight margin throughout most of the day till around 4 PM, when the republicans get out of work.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

The question is, will BHO cry

The question is, will BHO cry foul when it is all said and done?

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

If it's close BHO and the

If it's close BHO and the dems will steal it. Romney's only chance of victory is a clear cut landslide.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Perhaps if BHO loses, he can

Perhaps if BHO loses, he can remain in character and blame Bush!

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Can't you just hear him? "I

Can't you just hear him? "I inherited this defeat from the previous administration."
We all know that Bush was in charge of the Republican Weather Machine that brought us Hurricane Sandy just one week before the election as a Republican attempt to throw the election into total chaos, hoping to give them an advantage over the dems. Those darn republicans, there's just no stopping them from trying to steal stuff.

RONALD RIML's picture

You may also

Shidt in one hand, and wish in the other......

See which one fills up first.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Ronald, Obama is hoping for

Ronald,

Obama is hoping for change; I say let's give it to him. Vote Romney/Ryan tomorrow.

RONALD RIML's picture

Sorry

They already called the election for Obama in Maine......

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

"Thank God there are 56 other

"Thank God there are 56 other states to take up the slack", cried the worrisome parrot.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Great counting skills Mr.

Great counting skills Mr. Obama.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Yup, and he claims to have

Yup, and he claims to have been to all 57. Everyone knows there are only 53. 0O:-)

RONALD RIML's picture

There is the 'Two Maines' - you know.....

Then start analyzing the rest of the Country.

You might even get into the 60's........

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

That's right, and according

That's right, and according to Kerry's wife, we have the Virginias, the Carolinas, and the Tennessees.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Maine is usually blue (that

Maine is usually blue (that is why I moved) and has only a crumb of Electoral College votes to offer, so Maine is effectively irrelevant.

Lastly, there is no need for you to apologize (your subject line) for voting blue; everyone has challenges to deal with in life.

RONALD RIML's picture

Obviously Maine is relevant enough for you to 'post' here....

Do the 'Big Kids' out west intimidate you?????

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Perhaps you can consider my

Perhaps you can consider my posts as giving back to the community. A voice as to why Maine’s politics drive the youth to exit the state.

An outside view of what is wrong with the state; I provide a window into Maine’s unknown, unknowns which result from incest politics.

RONALD RIML's picture

Ignorant poor youth - such as you - leave the state

While wise retirees with money migrate in.

Come back when you can buy some waterfront property.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Now, you're talkin'.

Now, you're talkin'.

Actually, yes

Actually, the First Amendment is only about government-imposed restrictions. What did you think it said?

And, as for your separate reply to me, pointing out that fact doesn't constitute appointing oneself any special role except "fellow citizen."

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Fair enough. Now, you hang

Fair enough. Now, you hang onto your beliefs and I'll hang onto mine. There's room for both of us, but I won't allow myself to be silenced by you or any other "citizens" just because my opinion, though unpopular, happens to differ from yours.
If Question 1 passes, I'll suck it up, put on my big boy pants and move on. But, what will you do?

Once more

Obviously, I am hoping that Question 1 does pass. As I have stated for years (http://www.sunjournal.com/node/296737), there is no evidence that any state interest is served by denying same-sex couples access to marriage licenses that are available to opposite-sex couples. To maintain that policy is discriminatory. It is tantamount to telling gay and lesbian couples that, no matter how much they love each other and are committed to each other, the state is going to treat them as if they are unworthy to have marriage licenses. And that is to treat them as if they are second-class citizens. For as long as that is the policy of the state of Maine, I will do what I can to change it.

I take it that you prefer that gays and lesbians be treated as second-class citizens?

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Since your last question was

Since your last question was based on groundless supposition, I shall respond in kind.
Why should you care how I think gays and lesbians ought to be treated. Are you gay?

Really? Wow.

Mr. St. Jean,

Although I am under no illusion that anyone other than those of us making comments is even paying attention to this exchange anymore, I will pay you the courtesy of a response. When you ask why I should care how gays and lesbians are treated, unless I am myself gay, I'm hoping your question isn't serious. It appears that you are making some sort of attempt at fighting what you see as rhetorical fire with fire. In other words, you accuse me of "groundless supposition," and so you offer a less than serious response in turn. Well, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are serious. Because if your question were serious, it would suggest a striking lack of moral imagination. It would suggest that you think that only gays and lesbians have reason to care about what treatment people think they deserve. More generally, it would suggest a view of democracy whereby every individual or group looks out for itself and itself alone. The notion that we might feel some obligation to put ourselves in the shoes of people different from us and, when we think they are being treated unfairly, join them in struggling to ensure they are treated fairly would be foreign to you. As a Black American, I appreciate the White Americans who rejected that selfish logic and fought to persuade their fellow citizens and the government to treat my ancestors fairly--not because they were a member of the groups themselves, but because they cared about fairness and their fellow man and woman, boy and girl. Moreover, as an American, I take pride in the fact that they didn't think, "I'm not Black, so why should I care how Blacks are treated?" By fighting alongside Blacks in the civil rights movement, they made our country better. And so it is now. Whether I am gay or straight doesn't matter. I'm an American, and as such, I want my country to treat all of its citizens fairly, because ours is a lesser country until it does. And since ours is a democracy, that means I must care about how other citizens--whose vote counts--think gays and lesbians should be treated. It means that I respect their right to hold contrary views, but I do what I can to try to persuade them to change their opinions or, failing that, I hope that pointing to the shortcomings in their (and, frankly, I mean "your") reasoning convinces others not to stand with them.

I hope your questions about why, unless I'm gay, I should care about how gays and lesbians are treated isn't serious. Because if it were serious, it would suggest you don't appreciate that all of us as Americans have a stake in our country living up to its principles.

Of course, if you are serious, then this is my response to you: If I had to choose between being as small-minded and selfish as the mindset implied by your questions (if serious) versus being committed to fair treatment of all Americans (even those in groups different from mine) but also gay, I would choose gay every day.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Clearly the same arguments

Clearly the same arguments for same sex marriage can equally apply to polygamy . If not, then there is equally no argument for same sex marriage.

No

Since the arguments for same-sex marriage are about couples, no. They don't apply to polygamy. Any arguments for polygamy are different. Why are you changing the subject to those arguments because you are unable to directly rebut the arguments for same-sex marriage? Allow me to repeat that argument: It is unfair for the state to treat opposite-sex couples one way (granting them marriage licenses), while treating same-sex couples differently (denying them marriage licenses), unless the state accomplishes something of great value through that difference in treatment. To rebut that argument, you have to show that the state does accomplish something of great value through that difference in treatment. You have yet to do so.

Let me put it as simply as possible: What does the state of Maine accomplish by granting opposite-sex couples marriage licenses while denying them to same-sex couples?

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Oh, same-sex marriage is now

Oh, same-sex marriage is now about couples today. Yesterday, it was a civil rights, equal rights, or freedom of choice. I guess the cause or reason is fungible.

Anyhow, what does the State of Maine accomplish by granting couples marriage licenses while denying licenses to trios?

If we can change the the definition of traditional marriage from one man and one woman, to two men or two women, we can equal change couple to plurality. It is really the same thing even though you may not want to admit it.

Careful...

Mr. Gravel,

The arguments look the same to you because you are only focused on the form of the argument and not its content. What you had to do in your response just now was substitute terms, but that substitution changes what the argument is. And if you remain unconvinced, and if you only want to focus on the form of an argument, you'd better be careful, sir, because you are boxing yourself into some bad positions.

You see, a limited focus on form cuts both ways. There were once laws called anti-miscegenation laws, which banned marriage between people of different races. So when those laws were in place, so-called "traditional marriage" was defined as marriage between a man and woman of the same race. When the Supreme Court struck down those laws in Loving v. Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia#Decision) it held that the state had no reason to permit the issuance of marriage licenses to same-race couples while denying them to different-race couples, thus doing so was discriminatory. Note that the form of the argument for permitting different-race couples to receive marriage licenses is the same as that for permitting same-sex couples to receive marriage licenses. Given your focus on form, it's "the same thing." That means that, if you reject the arguments for permitting same-sex couples to marry, then you must also reject the arguments for permitting interracial couples to marry. In other words, the logic of your position leads to a racist stance on interracial marriage.

By your logic, it's the same thing, even though *you* may not want to admit it.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Loving v. Virginia - 388 U.S. 1 (1967) – What does it mean?

1. The Supreme Court did not interpret what marriage is since that is a power granted to the States to define marriage.

2. The State must apply a law equally to all citizens of that State. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14 Amendment. In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court decided that Virginia violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14 th Amendment.

3. Loving v. Virginia only applies to the equal application of a law. That is why States are scrambling to change the law and define what constitutes marriage. Ostensibly, states fall on both sides of the argument. This is why it is a question Maine’s ballot.

All that said, if this measures fails, your argument needs focus on constitutionality. Since Loving v. Virginia or the 14th Amendment only applies to equal application of the law, using that as a constitutional argument may not stand if the State is applying the law fairly. All laws discriminate; there is nothing wrong with that as long as the law is applied equally.

So, the next time you are confronted with a question that I posed, a better response is to say the law says marriage is defined as a man and a woman for a traditional example (or whatever it is), and it is applied equally to all State residents. If you want polygamy, lobby to change the State law.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

We can probably keep going

We can probably keep going around in circles. Perhaps a full reading of Loving v. Virginia is in order (not just the Wikipedia page) because I recall, perhaps incorrectly, there is no mention of “couples” in the Supreme Court’s decision. It only talks in the context of marriage. It is my opinion that you are purposefully trying to narrow the argument to avoid discussions on other forms of marriage, which is nothing more than using tactics of the anti same-sex marriage crowd.

Loving v. Virginia - 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

The question before voters

The question before voters tomorrow is whether the state's policy on marriage laws should remain as it is (denying same-sex couples access to licenses) or whether it should change (to allow both same-sex and opposite-sex couples) to marry. It's that simple. I'm not narrowing anything. I'm just stating what the issue is. Raising polygamy is an attempt to change the subject.

Moreover, you didn't respond to my more general point (which goes beyond Loving): in their form, the arguments for licensing same-sex marriage are the same as the arguments for licensing interracial marriage. The state has no reason to permit one class of couples to marry while denying that same right to others. If you reject the arguments for licensing same-sex marriage, then your commitment to only focusing on the form of arguments, and not their content, binds you to the position that interracial marriages should also not be licensed.

Of course, if I am in error, and you actually are a supporter of same-sex marriage, then the point is moot and I would then apologize for misunderstanding your position. Are you a supporter of same-sex marriage? Do you support a "yes" vote on Question 1?

MARK GRAVEL's picture

One last point – if you are

One last point – if you are so sure the circumstances is similar to Loving v. Virginia, then same-sex marriage supporters should have challenged Maine’s law in court. Opening up the choice to referendum means the outcome may not be in your favor – what then?

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

It'll be more of the same,

It'll be more of the same, Mark. If Question 1 succeeds, the demands for other things will continue, and who knows what will be next. If Question 1 fails, you can bet your ticket to next year's Super Bowl that the movement to put the issue on another referendum will begin anew.
This whole issue is not that big a deal. One side should not have to "lose" in order for the other to "win". We're dealing with peoples' lives here, but no one seems willing to come up with a common ground compromise that will satisfy both parties. Many of us thought Civil Unions would do that, but who knew? This thing's going to be around for a long time, irrespective of tomorrow's outcome.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

I keep my position

I keep my position undisclosed, so I can discuss the arguments. Once you take a side, then the discussion often breaks down to an emotional one.

Take for example two mechanics who are arguing the problem with a car. We can discuss the points of each argument without taking a side.

It is my opinion that Loving v. Virginia does not apply in this case; that is why States are writing marriage law. For those States that do not support same-sex marriage, the outcome will ultimately be decided in the U.S. Supreme Court.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

I too demand fair treatment.

I too demand fair treatment. I would like to marry more than one wife.

RONALD RIML's picture

You can satisfy the one you have now.....?

Keep dreamin' - Boyo!

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

On 11-3 at 19:32 you said. "I

On 11-3 at 19:32 you said.
"I take it that you prefer that gays and lesbians be treated as second class citizens?"
That was nothing more than a cute attempt at putting words in my mouth.

on 11-4 at 09:34 I said.
"Why should you care how I think gays and lesbians ought to be treated. Are you gay?"

On 11-4 at 13:19 you said.
"When you ask why I should care how gays and lesbians are treated"....

As you can see, I did not ask you why you should care how gays and lesbians are treated.
I did ask you, though, why YOU should care how I think gays and lesbians ought to be treated.
Two totally different questions.
I suspect that had you responded to my actual question rather than what you thought was my question, your response may have been different and somewhat less lengthy.
And, did you really have to bring the black thing into it? Really?

Is this productive?

I believe that each of us fully understands where the other stands on this issue, as well as his reasons (such as they are) for taking that position. Moreover, it is exceedingly unlikely that either of us is going to persuade the other. Finally, I have grave doubts that other readers are interested in our continuing this exchange. (As an aside, each time one of us replies to the other's reply, the text is tabbed a bit farther to the right; soon, we will have little room except for sound bites.) In light of all those considerations, I doubt that anything of use will come from further exchanges. I therefore propose that we simply wish each other well and call this mini-debate over.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

I agree and I do wish you

I agree and I do wish you well.Your persistence is admirable.

Thank you. I wish you well

Thank you. I wish you well too.

(Corrected version)

Note: In one sentence, I said "serious" when I meant "not serious." This is the corrected version:

Mr. St. Jean,

Although I am under no illusion that anyone other than those of us making comments is even paying attention to this exchange anymore, I will pay you the courtesy of a response. When you ask why I should care how gays and lesbians are treated, unless I am myself gay, I'm hoping your question isn't serious. It appears that you are making some sort of attempt at fighting what you see as rhetorical fire with fire. In other words, you accuse me of "groundless supposition," and so you offer a less than serious response in turn. Well, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not serious. Because if your question were serious, it would suggest a striking lack of moral imagination. It would suggest that you think that only gays and lesbians have reason to care about what treatment people think they deserve. More generally, it would suggest a view of democracy whereby every individual or group looks out for itself and itself alone. The notion that we might feel some obligation to put ourselves in the shoes of people different from us and, when we think they are being treated unfairly, join them in struggling to ensure they are treated fairly would be foreign to you. As a Black American, I appreciate the White Americans who rejected that selfish logic and fought to persuade their fellow citizens and the government to treat my ancestors fairly--not because they were a member of the groups themselves, but because they cared about fairness and their fellow man and woman, boy and girl. Moreover, as an American, I take pride in the fact that they didn't think, "I'm not Black, so why should I care how Blacks are treated?" By fighting alongside Blacks in the civil rights movement, they made our country better. And so it is now. Whether I am gay or straight doesn't matter. I'm an American, and as such, I want my country to treat all of its citizens fairly, because ours is a lesser country until it does. And since ours is a democracy, that means I must care about how other citizens--whose vote counts--think gays and lesbians should be treated. It means that I respect their right to hold contrary views, but I do what I can to try to persuade them to change their opinions or, failing that, I hope that pointing to the shortcomings in their (and, frankly, I mean "your") reasoning convinces others not to stand with them.

I hope your questions about why, unless I'm gay, I should care about how gays and lesbians are treated isn't serious. Because if it were serious, it would suggest you don't appreciate that all of us as Americans have a stake in our country living up to its principles.

Of course, if you are serious, then this is my response to you: If I had to choose between being as small-minded and selfish as the mindset implied by your questions (if serious) versus being committed to fair treatment of all Americans (even those in groups different from mine) but also gay, I would choose gay every day.

RONALD RIML's picture

That it not pass only serves the positions of:

1. Religious Discrimination
2. Sexual Bigotry
3. Whatever it is you don't do to resuscitate Tinkerbelle.......

O.K. - I'm really Bad......

Enough already....

Your refrain about exercising your First Amendment right is beside the point. If anyone were calling for the local, state, or federal government to fine you or imprison you for stating your opinion, asserting your First Amendment right to free speech would be relevant. But no one is saying anything like that. Obviously, you have a right to express your opinion, and no one has implied otherwise. Still, as a reasonable person should expect, others are going to point out where your opinions are ill-informed and badly reasoned. Even if you aren't persuaded to change your mind, one hopes that others who are reading will be persuaded to ignore you.

For all its glory, the First Amendment is not a guarantee that you get to spout off opinions without being challenged by others. What do you expect? That you just get to deliver a monologue and people aren't going to offer rebuttals?

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

With all due respect, Mr.

With all due respect, Mr. Sargent, I don't recall an election having been held in which you were elected moderator and editor of what is said in this forum.
Secondly, where in my post did it say that I believed the first amendment guaranteed me a receptive audience? Thought so.
If you want to get contentious, have at it, but at least, come in through the front door.

RONALD RIML's picture

Your opinion ends

Where others' rights begin.

And hopefully those rights will be marital.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

An "Exchange of Vows" has a

An "Exchange of Vows" has a nice ring to it.

RONALD RIML's picture

So does an "Exchange of Shots at 30 Paces"

But that's not 'Marriage'

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Neither is Ted and Hank

Neither is Ted and Hank walking down the aisle.

RONALD RIML's picture

Hey - Butt as Long as They Think It Is.....

Who are We to Care.........??????

Advertisement

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

I'm interested in ...