LEWISTON — Advocates for both sides of the gay marriage issue will have a chance to share their views at this month's Great Falls Forum presentation Thursday, Oct. 15. It will be held from noon to 1 p.m. in Callahan Hall at the Lewiston Public Library.
Lew Alessio
Marc Mutty
Speaking on the topic "Marriage in Maine: Gay or Nay" will be civil rights advocate Lew Alessio and Mark Mutty, chairman of the political action committee Stand for Marriage Maine.
Alessio is a lifelong champion for social equality who, since 1994, has served as a speaker with Maine Speakout, which seeks to address issues of discrimination in the state. A former actor, director, playwright and teacher, he currently works as a public health educator and the program coordinator of MaineGeneral Health's HIV prevention education program for men under the auspices of the Maine and national Centers for Disease Control.
In this role he has been effective in furthering understanding of the direct correlation between the spread of HIV/AIDS and discrimination, and as a result was the recipient in 2007 of Equality Maine's Cameron Duncan Award for outstanding achievement.
In addition to his experience as a civil rights activist, Alessio will bring a personal perspective to the upcoming forum program. Ten years ago his life partner, with whom he had shared a home for 30 years, passed away from pancreatic cancer. Because Alessio was not recognized as a legal relative, he was not allowed to make any decisions regarding the handling of the his partner's remains. The complications that followed motivated Alessio to pursue marriage equality in Maine.
Marc Mutty has served for many years as the director of the Office of Public Affairs for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland. In this position, he has functioned as spokesman as well as registered lobbyist for the diocese, testifying frequently before legislative committees and commissions. He has co-chaired a legislative commission to study poverty among working parents, and has been involved with several other commissions, committees and statewide referendums over the years.
Mutty is a past trustee of Mercy Hospital's board of directors, member and past president to the Maine Equal Justice Partners, a member of Consumers for Affordable Health Care, vice president of the Maine Council of Churches and a member of the South Portland/Cape Elizabeth Rotary Club. He also serves on a number of boards and committees for other service organizations.
Lewiston Public Library Director Rick Speer said he anticipates Thursday's Great Falls Forum to attract a large and enthusiastic turnout, and feels "privileged to be able to host such a timely examination of both sides of this important issue which is up for public vote in November."
The audience will be invited to submit questions to the speakers following their presentation. Admission to the event is free, with attendees invited to bring brown-bag lunches. Bottled water will be available.
Attendees may also take advantage of the forum's partnership with Guthries cafe and request one of the eatery's sandwiches or salads to be delivered to the library in advance of the talk. Orders should be placed preferably by 7 p.m. the day before the event.
Partnering with the library as cosponsors of the Great Falls Forum series are the Sun Journal, Bates College and St. Mary's Regional Medical Center.
The Lewiston Public Library is located at 200 Lisbon St., at the corner of Pine Street. More information on Thursday's lecture, or other upcoming events in the Great Falls Forum series, is available by contacting the Lewiston Public Library at 513-3135 or www.LPLonline.org.
Report a correction
Thanks Dr. Dosh. I edited my
Thanks Dr. Dosh. I edited my post and changed the wording to same sex marriage. I was responding to a specific post, but should have used the correct terminology.
Vote No on Question 1!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.vink80 Leave them alone --
vink80
Leave them alone -- let them do what they want BUT DO NOT CALL IT MARRIAGE !!!!
This whole world is based on a man and woman marrying to form and raise a family
don't change the basics of civilization now.
.
If these gays and lesbians need government hand outs find a way to do it BUT DON'T
CALL IT MARRIAGE. THEY DO NOT MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR WEDLOCK.
They are a minority group ---- let them exist but don't give them unrealistic and non
fitting benefits.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I agree. I am a straight
I agree. I am a straight married man. I have been in a relationship with my wife for many years. She knows me and what I want, and we've talked about after life instrucions. I believe that homosexuals SHOULD be able to enter into a civil union with all the same benifits as marriage. All I want is for it to be called just that. A civil union. Marriage is defined as between 1 man and 1 women. It seems like the homosexual community will not settle for anything less then changing the definition of that word. If all they want is equal (not more) rights then me and my wife have. So be it. I should not be telling someone how to live their life. However, I am married, they are not. Call it anything they want, it does not concern me. Changing the word is what I care about. I know that churches will not be forced into performing weddings for homosexual couples, but I bet there are some that will because it is becoming acceptable. I am voteing yes to protect my religious stand point.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.vink80 Leave them alone --
vink80
Leave them alone -- let them do what they want BUT DO NOT CALL IT MARRIAGE !!!!
This whole world is based on a man and woman marrying to form and raise a family
don't change the basics of civilization now.
.
If these gays and lesbians need government hand outs find a way to do it BUT DON'T
CALL IT MARRIAGE. THEY DO NOT MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR WEDLOCK.
They are a minority group ---- let them exist but don't give them unrealistic and non
fitting benefits.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.First and foremost, I am a
First and foremost, I am a heterosexual male. What the gay community opts to do among themselves in their own home is their business, and personally, I don't care one way or the other, as long as it has no effect on me, my wife or children. However, I am voting "YES" on question 1, for the following reason. A close friend of mine is a well respected member of her community, and is also a justice of the peace, who has performed a multitude of marriages in the state of Maine. She has the same attitude as I, which is let them do as they please in their own home. Though she is not bigoted by definition, her family values and beliefs are such that she would not feel comfortable in performing a gay wedding ceremony. and would prefer to decline doing so. If the gay marriage bill passes and she declines to perform a gay wedding ceremony based upon her upbringing and beliefs, her justice of the peace license can be revoked. Is that fair? I think not. As such, I am voting "YES" to repeal question 1.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I assume that you mean your
I assume that you mean your friend is a Notary Public. What if your friend refused to marry a heterosexual biracial couple because it made her feel uncomfortable? If the same sex marriage bill passes and she refuses to perform a same sex marriage then she is not meeting her obligation. If she will feel uncomfortable providing this service to all than perhaps she should no longer be a Notary Public.
http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/notary/jp.html
The office of Justice of the Peace was merged into that of Notary Public between 1981 and 1988. The old-fashioned Justice of the Peace, who hung out a shingle and married people and performed minor judicial duties, no longer exists in Maine. The duties that formerly were attached to this office were transferred to that of Notary Public; the transfer concluded in 1988. That's why Maine Notaries can officiate at marriages and perform certain other duties that would not be allowed in many other states for their Notaries Public.
According to the website http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/notary/notaryguide.pdf it states:
"All Notaries Public share a common endeavor: to justify their public's trust by providing a vital public service in the fairest and most professional way possible. "
"As mentioned earlier in this handbook, but again worth discussing here, a Notary Public must never discriminate because of a person’s race, color, sex, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, religion, creed, age, ancestry or national origin. Often, the Secretary of State hears from Notaries Public that they do not want to perform wedding ceremonies or believe that persons should be married in the church; neither is a valid excuse to refuse. Maine law authorizes a Notary Public to perform wedding ceremonies so this is a duty of a Notary Public."
Vote No on Question 1
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.And that problem is even
And that problem is even more serious for ministers who have religious reasons for not wanting to perform marriages between two homosexuals. The second part of this bill specifically protects such ministers from being forced to perform marriages that are against their beliefs.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I am a straight married man
I am a straight married man and a catholic. What concerns me with this whole debate is that the Yes on 1 campaign seems to be focusing on making this not a gay marriage debate, but rather an education issue. They are trying to make it seem like its a forum on whether gay marriage should be taught in schools. Both commericals that have been aired have made arguments that passing this law will lead to gay marriage being taught in schools. At the least, that is misleading. If a school wished to teach that gay marriage exists, it does not really matter if it is legal in Maine or not. They could simply teach it exists in some states irregardless of whether it does here . Therefore, to focus on that issue, in my opinion, is misleading. They wish to have parents scared that voting no will mean that gay marriage will be taught against their will. This is not what the law is about. I am still undecided as to how I will vote, but I wish that there was a more "on the point" discussion coming out of the Yes campaign. I think it would go further to help their cause.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.It is all those issues. We
It is all those issues. We were told at first that there was no homosexual agenda...homosexual people just wanted not to be the victims of discrimination in housing, employment, etc. Then we were told that there was no homosexual agenda...homosexuals just wanted to have their unions recognized as legitimate, carrying the same legal rights as marriage. Now we are being told there his no homosexual agenda...homosexuals just want their loving relationships to have the same legal and societal standing as those of heterosexuals, ie. marriage.
The fact is that the agenda is that homosexuality will be accepted as a moral equivalent to heterosexuality and this law will lead not only to the legal validation of homosexual marriage, but also to the institutionalization of homosexuality being taught in schools... not just that homosexual marriages exist, but that they are the moral equivalent of a marriage between a man and a woman. (See what's happening in England...who is way "ahead" of us in this regard...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qhEOHwSHfw).
In addition, it will eventually lead to an imposition by the state on churches who believe the Bible and what it teaches..that homosexuality is a sin. Such talk will become a "hate crime", and we will have truly crossed the line that is supposed to separate church and state.
For an interesting summary of the two sides of the issue see http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat1.htm
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Point #1: The two books the
Point #1: The two books the Yes campaign is using in their commercials (and they're just books, not full-blown indoctrinating lectures) can and probably have been read in Maine's schools. This law does not change that. Period. End of story.
Point #2: I keep hearing the phrase "homosexual agenda" like it's a bad thing. Every group has an agenda, this is nothing new. And some of these agendas are good things. What might have happened at the turn of the century if the Progressives didn't have an agenda? To go even farther back, what if Abraham Lincoln didn't have an agenda that involved freeing slaves? Agendas are part of our everyday lives. You may not agree with their ideas, but to use the phrase "homosexual agenda," you're really just trying to feed the fear machine.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.You're right...everyone has
You're right...everyone has an agenda. My point is that the gay lobby has been disingenuous in it's denial that there was one. I am not fearful, and I am not trying to engender fear. Rather, I am trying to make the point that people often say one thing and really want something else, something more. I think that it would be naive of anyone to think that there is no agenda to silence those who believe that homosexuality is a sin. What else is behind the constant (and misled) call to separate church and state? If the church can be silenced, then people can behave in any way they like (and this includes much more than homosexuality) without fear that anyone will put forth a standard other than what is right in one's own eyes. This is the definition of anarchy.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Congratualtions, you are
Congratualtions, you are the first person I've met that says Thomas Jefferson is misleading, since the phrase separationg of church and state comes down from him. And precisely what is the agenda that you and your bigotted friends have? Restrict gay people to sub human status? Codify discrimination in the State Constirution? Require people to adhere to your narrow definition of life and reward all who do while punish and deprive people who don't? No one is trying to silence the church, to my knowledge they still preach against lying, but people still do it.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I find the ideology of the
I find the ideology of the phrase “separation of church and state” a bit confusing, see on one hand I am someone who goes to church very active in my community, I spend time mentoring teens and young adults and all of this is firmly rooted in my religious beliefs. Don’t misunderstand me I enjoy all that I do. Now when I go and vote, how am I supposed to leave who I am out in my car and vote away that I cannot agree with? I am not telling you what to vote I am just disagreeing with you and the way I believe is not a judgment towards others it’s my conviction to me.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.No one has the right to tell
No one has the right to tell another who to love. Let the gays get mjarried. They aren't hurting anyone. Have a heart straights...
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Well worth attending. The
Well worth attending. The Maine State Legislature passed and Governor Baldacci signed this law into effect; then came the bigots and naysayers. The Catholic Church has raised a lot of money to interfere with State government. Where is the separation or church and state? Are we to be held hostage by a hate group? Who will they come for next? Blacks, the disabled, or Jews? Please vote NO one one.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I guess I don’t understand
I guess I don’t understand what you are complaining about. Your compelling argument about how the church is a hate group. What is very misleading about this whole bill is the fact that most of the influence generated to pass the bill through the Legislature came from outside the state, so they passed a bill for the comfort of outsiders. No I’m not sure but wouldn’t that sound like we the taxpayers of the state are being held hostage? I think it’s funny that people bring race into this because I’ve never heard a person go black then go white. Then the disabled I would have to say that the Catholic Church has done more for the disabled than our own government. Then you mention the Jew’s which is in fact a religious organization that is against same sex marriage. Well at least you brought up the fact that Baldacci signed it into law after all did hold a commanding 38% of the vote, so if anyone knows what the people want…
Please do know that I am not a hater.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Well, MrT, if it looks like
Well, MrT, if it looks like a hater, talks like a hater, walks like a hater........
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Politics and religion don't
Politics and religion don't mix under any circumstances, and people that can't accept this obviously have nothing better to do. They really need to find something better to do with their time. The catholics also need to stop judging others, about their lifestyles as well, they "ARE NOT GOD" although they may think that they are, holier than thou but they're no better than the gay guy down the block. Leave the issue alone. "GOD IS THE ONLY ONE" who should and can decide whats right and wrong.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.butters dad: This post is a
butters dad: This post is a judgment of others while scolding them for their supposed judgment of others! Interesting.
It is too bad that neither side appears willing to talk with one another to really listen and hear what is important to them regarding either/both sides of this issue. If both could do that with honest and honorable intentions and without condemning one another, they might be surprised at the outcome.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I don't understand this
I don't understand this "politics and religion don't mix" argument. One of the ten commandments says thou shalt not kill. So if we legislate against murder, is that mixing politics and religion? My understanding of the separation of church and state is that the state was being blocked from undue influence of church matters, not the other way around.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.jpat: power of attorney ends
jpat: power of attorney ends at death. A will takes 7 days to probate. The question is what could he do with the body meanwhile if he couldn't legally sign for it to be moved? And if he died in another state, what then?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I feel sorry for the
I feel sorry for the quandary that Mr. Alessio was in after his partner died. What I don't understand is why, after a relationship of 30 years, they did not make legal arrangements so that Mr. Alessio could direct things after his partner's passing. Doesn't power of attorney or naming someone as the executor of your estate, or both of those, take care of this? Homosexual or not, there are many, many times when someone does not want their blood relatives in charge, and appoints someone else.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I hope that Lewiston's
I hope that Lewiston's finest are in attendance. The level of "enthusiasm" could be over the top.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.