Protect marriage

I remember, in the early 1990s, sitting in the auditorium of the Lewiston Middle School, listening to the debate concerning a homosexual civil rights ordinance that the City Council was deliberating. A number of speakers warned that should it pass, as it had in Portland earlier, it would ultimately lead to homosexual marriage.

"Not true," was screamed by homosexual activists. All they wanted was "tolerance" and "acceptance." The ordinance passed but was voted down later by citizen initiative.

The radical homosexual movement has seen many victories in many places since, and proved that their goal is to force their perverted plan on society of forced acceptance of homosexual marriage and the death of traditional family values.

The TV ads for "No on 1" depict happy faces and asks the public to accept equality in marriage, as if it is wrong to discriminate against any loving relationship because, after all, it's all about love and that can't be wrong.

That is the big lie, because it is wrong and goes against traditional family values and the God-given premise of marriage as between one man and one woman. Period.

The radical homosexual agenda would have people feel sympathy and compassion because that is the only way their plan will work. But the truth is simple: Homosexual marriage is the bastardization of the law of God and must be stopped now.

I hope others will join me in voting "yes" on Question 1, and protect traditional marriage and family values.

David B. Gilchrist, Lewiston

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

I'm interested in ...

In order to make comments, you must verify your account.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your profile. A member of our staff will call you to verify this information. To join in, fill out your user profile completely and check the box "please verify my status." We'll get back to you within one business day to verify your account.

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.

Advertisement

Displaying comments, from newest to oldest

Ares's picture

What are the people who are

What are the people who are against same sex marriage afraid of? What is so damn scary? I know that the next comment I make may put me into a category of crackpots but it needs to be said. Has it ever occured to any of you bible quoting anti-gay rhetoric spewing, closed minded mental midgets that Jesus was gay. Seriously, think about it with an open mind. Here is a man, in his late 20s to early 30s, who cavorts in secret with 12 men in undicsclosed locations. All of the men except for Jesus, have wives. Could some of the secret meetings have been some sort of clandestine meeting for those on the down low. I know it may make you cringe but my guess is that a great deal of you would be wondering about a guy you knew who was in his 30s, had no girl friend, spent his days and nights hanging out with a select group of men, and spoke in a soft voice might be gay. You probably know someone who fits the bill. And, if all of the quotes that are used from the bible to attack homosexuality are in fact anti-gay, doesn't it fit into that "protest too much" category, sort of like Ted Haggard.

I am just saying...isn't it possible?

Scotty_O's picture

Lets get this argument

Lets get this argument straight (no pun intended). It's all about drawing a line in the sand. We can apply the same argument to drugs. Lets legalize the Mary J. Alot of people argue that its just as safe as drinking. Ok, now we got booze and pot. Uh Oh, here comes Mr. LSD user..."what about me I Have a right to trip, man". Ok Ok, legalize LSD. Uh oh, here comes Mr. black-tar heroin user...what about me, I have a right to cook crap on a spoon and inject in to my veins. Are you willing to restrict marriage to two people only? Key word restrict. What about the bi's? What about brother/sister (yes look it up on google, it's true). And go ahead and post your 33 or whatever rights that gay couples don't have? Did you even read them? There are many legit ones (which can be amended with civil union) and there are many that deal with divorce. Imagine that! I want marriage rights to access divorce rights! And you know child custody would be a mess compared to hetero marriages. Whose sperm or whose egg was used? One of the parents isn't bilogical....how will the courts decide? What about the other donor not part of the relationship wanting rights......all legit questions.

news4u's picture

When's the last time you

When's the last time you heard of someone being arrested for being under the influence of homosexuality? People are arrested daily for being under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

You write: "What about brother/sister (yes look it up on google, it's true)." Only a individual with a perverted mind would consider this (& want to look it up). But, I'm not surprised. The people who plan to vote yes on 1 seem to only think about the sexual activity of others.

Scotty_O's picture

"Only a individual with a

"Only a individual with a perverted mind would consider this (& want to look it up). " It's called research, and the truth (it was a story on ABC). So to say that I am perverted is to say the act I was researching was perverted. Therefore you are an exclusionist. You are nothing more than the door man at Studio 54, picking and choosing who can come in and who has to stay out. And using drugs was an analogy how legalizing one thing can snowball into others, but to humor you, people have been arrested for being under the influence of homosexuality. Google it, you will find cases. Remember, sodomy was illegal in some states as early as the 2000's.

gdls1's picture

"...And if you were able to

"...And if you were able to have kids..." And your implication here is?

news4u's picture

Have you been in a classroom

Have you been in a classroom recently? There is barely enough time for reading, writing and math, let alone physical education,music and art.
Where would you fit in Homosexuality 101? How would it be "taught" to children in school? Would you stand two men up in the front of the class and have second grade students guess which one was the homosexual and which one was the heterosexual? Or, maybe you could stand 6 adults- 3 males and 3 females- in the front of a 4th grade classroom and the students could guess which couples were heterosexual and which couples were homosexual?

“We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” FDR
What are you so fearful of?

FeloPrergoHok's picture

I agree that such comments

I agree that such comments are unwarranted and hurt our cause (YES on 1) but if you really want viciousness just google some of the truculent threats from gay activists against anyone who speaks out especially those who lived the gay lifestyle and left it. Many who live the homosexual lifestyle change and leave that lifestyle. blowing the "born gay" theory away. This is perhaps the greatest kept secret about homosexuality - that homosexuals often change and return to heterosexuality. Christians should stand confidently against gay marriage. Homosexuality is not a fundamental part of human nature. It is a sinful lifestyle that should not be encouraged. Of course, Christians should be careful not to condemn and ignore homosexuals, but to love all, including those who are embracing a sinful lifestyle.

gdls1's picture

Congratulations! You seem to

Congratulations! You seem to be equally offensive to both sides of the issue. (And you seem to be out of control.)

Flowerman's picture
verified

GDLS1No I cant and wouldnt

GDLS1No I cant and wouldnt even imagine me bengw ith a womenIm all set thats your choice Im good Thanks

gdls1's picture

What?

What?

news4u's picture

How do you plan to vote

How do you plan to vote Nogays2009?

gdls1's picture

Feeling powerless?

Feeling powerless?

Mrs. McG's picture

You do more for the "No on

You do more for the "No on 1" cause than you do your own. Though I promote "Yes on 1," I don't want to be found standing anywhere next to your kind. Persons with same-sex attraction deserve to be treated with dignity. Almost makes me wonder if you're not authentic and are just an agent provocateur.

gdls1's picture

Another heart-felt sentiment

Another heart-felt sentiment from the Yes-On-1 group.

Flowerman's picture
verified

ITS A CHOICE

ITS A CHOICE

John 28's picture

What choice? Vanilla or

What choice? Vanilla or chocalate ice cream?? LOL

gdls1's picture

Yell it all you want, but

Yell it all you want, but you're still wrong. If you're right, then you , as a presumably straight female, must be able to imagine yourself happily and comfortably engaged in whatever with another female. That would be a choice. Can you imagine?

Flowerman's picture
verified

Sammie you got the right

Sammie you got the right idea YES ON 1

John 28's picture

But what if sammie already

But what if sammie already voted NO on 1? lol

Robert61's picture

regardless of where you

regardless of where you stand on this issue, this type of blogging is unacceptable, everyone should join in reporting as offensive.

gdls1's picture

Another lovely post from the

Another lovely post from the Yes-On-1 crowd.

Flowerman's picture
verified

No its the way we teach our

No its the way we teach our children John its not a normal lifestylethey can see that you arent born gay its the lifestye you choose.Thats what I believe

gdls1's picture

Well, you are wrong. It is

Well, you are wrong. It is not a choice, but go on blindly believing...

crash694's picture

LaurianneS read my reply to

LaurianneS read my reply to sammie

Flowerman's picture
verified

Hey John you dont need to

Hey John you dont need to worry about my kids if they turn gay my kids arent taught thats a normal life style Sorry John

gdls1's picture

So, only the children who

So, only the children who were taught that being gay is a normal lifestyle end up being homosexual? Your logic is flawed.

crash694's picture

Sammie on the no proof that

Sammie on the no proof that one is born gay, Not entirely true statement. Science has proven, if you belive in science, that we all have a gene in our body that is ether female or male depending on the obvious. Only after we are born sometimes is that gene some time not fully develop that a person true gender really has developed. And this is why some gay have a coming out as they say, later in life, That has been proven in the Male species, hate that word. There is also another scientific proof, on males that depending on a family with more children a woman has, not all at once, meaning in her life time. The more chance that the male will become gay, after the 2-3 the ratio is more so that 1st born. This is only for male and for female they are still doing research So Back to your statement Sammie yes we are oll born with that gene,

Robert61's picture

CRash, can you state your

CRash, can you state your source please?

Flowerman's picture
verified

30 other States have voted

30 other States have voted on question 1 and have been shot down I believe we have some smart people who live in Maine Vote YES ON 1

Ron's picture

I don't intend to reveal

I don't intend to reveal here how I plan to vote on this issue (you may be surprised, despite what I write), but there is one matter I'd like to opine on: why is it that if someone disagrees with a "liberal" (or "progressive"), they are labeled a hater and bigot, but if someone disagrees with a "conservative" there is no such label? I sometimes agree with conservatives and I sometimes agree with liberals; I like to hear both sides of an issue. But I am totally disinterested in hearing another person's point of view when they pull out disgusting labels, such as "hater" or "bigot", to describe someone who simply diagrees with them. Rarely do they even know the person; all they know is that the person has a different viewpoint then them. This qualifies use of those hateful terms? Quite frankly, "hate" and "bigot" when discussing social issues are starting to lose their effectiveness, at least with me, because sadly, they are used so often by those with "liberal" viewpoints.

gdls1's picture

Ron, you make some

Ron, you make some interesting points, and I agree with you that there's been lots of name calling from both sides. I see it this way: The Yes-On-1 folks wish to exclude one group of people (homosexuals) from obtaining benefits that are automatically given to another group (heterosexuals). It is this desire to keep homosexuals EXCLUDED and SEPARATE that reeks of bigotry.

Ron's picture

I believe there are many

I believe there are many Yes-On-1 folks that would agree to equal rights for homosexual couples, just simply not call their union "marriage". I don't find that bigoted; I find it a semantic difference.

tron's picture

So when the haters and

So when the haters and bigots use terms like sinners and perverts to describe people you disagree with, that's acceptable?

Robert61's picture

so whats the difference

so whats the difference between them and those who use the words haters and bigots to describe those they disagree with..gosh at least go back to school and learn new words, lord knows you do nothing else with your life.

tron's picture

Ah yes, my own personal

Ah yes, my own personal hater rears his ugly head and fat mouth to attack. How appropriate for a public servant. Thankfully for the people that will be ending in one week.

Robert61's picture

Once again - news at 11, pot

Once again - news at 11, pot calls kettle black..musts til be upset about not being invited to certain family functions. And I will be back soon, so don't get too excited, my political career is actually going to grow. No matter how many times you try to intimidate me, harass my employer and other shenanagans, I will be here while you lead your miserable pathetic life.

Ron's picture

Nope. I don't care for

Nope. I don't care for name-calling. I find it a turn-off, and I become disinterested in hearing the other person's point of view. Everyone should be able to express a thought on an issue without labeling another. Personally, I find more liberal posters on the SJ site (and other media) that call people who lean conservatively "haters", "bigots", etc. just because they disagree with the poster, than I do conservative posters who call people "sinners".

FeloPrergoHok's picture

There is no genetic proof

There is no genetic proof that one is born gay. Read empirically, peer-reviewed studies for yourself. And, that lack of proof is despite the millions of dollars spent by very left wing university researchers trying to find the gay gene.
The best empirically, peer-reviewed statistics and the concensus among such left-wing university studies show that only 2 - 3% of the USA population is gay.

Lil's picture
verified

There is also no empirical

There is also no empirical proof god exists.
______________________

"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward."
Franklin D. Roosevelt

news4u's picture

Sammi writes: "And, that

Sammi writes: "And, that lack of proof is despite the millions of dollars spent by very left wing university researchers trying to find the gay gene."

Please tell me Dr. Sammi- were they able to locate the straight gene??

gdls1's picture

"...And, that lack of proof

"...And, that lack of proof is despite the millions of dollars spent by very left wing university researchers trying to find the gay gene."
Gee, Sammie, if we follow your logic we might as well stop spending money on all research. The heck with finding a cause or a cure for cancer.

John 28's picture

Sammie, I can see that you

Sammie,
I can see that you are not afraid to tell us how ignorant you are!

FeloPrergoHok's picture

God Bless you David as you

God Bless you David as you are so courageous. I applaud you!
As you see when faced with such rational discussion and facts, the liberals scream loud and long with their mantra of bigotry.
God is a Holy Perfect creator who abhors sin - all of it including homosexuality. Love the sinner; hate the sin is not just a trope that we mindlessly repeat. And, yes Jesus taught compassion and here is an excellent example: the woman (prostitute) at the well - Jesus spoke to her compassionately but His last words to her were, "Go and sin no more." Note fully that He did not say go and I will be tolerate of your sin. We Christians are supposed to love you homosexuals but to boldly proclaim the truth (God's Words = the Bible) and say to you "sin no more." We don't do that well I acknowledge.
No on 1 will be destructive to our state!
VOTE YES on 1.

Flowerman's picture
verified

may be old but so true no

may be old but so true no special rights.still sticking to YES ON 1

gordonandpepper's picture

Mr. Gilchrist, should the

Mr. Gilchrist, should the God you believe in be able to trump the God that my church worships. This is why you buy your marriage license from the town and not the church. The government already decides who can marry. Thats why Athiests, Hindu's, Muslims, Buddists, and even convicted felons and first cousins can marry in this state. The government had to pass a law at one time to allow intermarraige between the races (which many churches fought) when, even now, blacks only account for less then 0.8% of the population of Maine. Why should gays be treated any different. Don't tell me what they do is perverted because many more heterosexuals practice the same acts. Your argument doesn't hold water sir.

jalbrecht1's picture
verified

Placing prejudice into

Placing prejudice into something else like the Bible or moral beliefs so that it seems ok is called institutional prejudice. Its providing cover for irrational hatred. That's all we have heard from the Yes on 1 side. They never give a concrete reason why discrimination against gays makes sense. They always hide behind some ridiculous biblical quote while ignoring the weight of the rest of the bible. Or they say its a matter of morals. Morals is learned behavior. Sexual oreintation is not. Adam and Eve is a fairy tale. Let's write our laws to make them consistent with Grimm's Fairy tales. It would make as much sense.
No on 1
Jon Albrecht Dixfield

zidwineeLix's picture

Since you call Adam and Eve

Since you call Adam and Eve a fairy tale, all your statements relative to the Bible become suspect. Logically, if you don't believe the beginning, why believe any of it? The Bible is the revelation of God to man and God always allows man freedom of choice to believe in Him or not. For those who believe, Question 1 is about God's law; for those who do not, God is not in the equation. Those who claim to reconcile God's love for man and God's holiness and law with the result of either tolerant love or tainted holiness do not truly know God. He is our Creator, our Savior, and our Friend, but judgment will be meted out in His time based on His law.

Yes on Question 1.

crash694's picture

David, Wow i have know you

David, Wow i have know you for some time, and i really thought i knew you. But i guess i didn't. So if your Daughter was to be gay, and that she and her partner want tobecome a "marriedcouple" your would appose to her being happy? David, David, David. All humand have rights to be happy in a union, or marrage.

LewistonNative...'s picture
verified

I always hear about how gays

I always hear about how gays being perverted. Which leads me to believe that people are caught up on what they do behind closed doors and nothing to do with marriage. People need to get their head out of the gutter. Do you hear gays calling straight people perverts for what we do? NO. So feel free to jump back into the marriage conversation.

queenhoneeybee's picture
verified

I can't even believe that we

I can't even believe that we really have people in the world that writes letters this.

EQUALITY for everyONE! =]

Flowerman's picture
verified

I dont think its about hate

I dont think its about hate I belive its about morals Its hard enough to raise our childen in this world lets not confuse them anymore not TWO MEN NOT TWO WOMEN NOT ADAM AND STEVE ADAM AND EVE.YES ON 1

John 28's picture

You will understand only

You will understand only when you find out one of your kids or grandkids or kin is gay, then your eyes will open to LOVE!

gdls1's picture

That "Adam-and-Steve" line

That "Adam-and-Steve" line got old months ago. Posting it three times is annoying.

Flowerman's picture
verified

I dont think its about hate

I dont think its about hate I belive its about morals Its hard enough to raise our childen in this world lets not confuse them anymore not TWO MEN NOT TWO WOMEN NOT ADAM AND STEVE ADAM AND EVE.YES ON 1

Flowerman's picture
verified

I dont think its about hate

I dont think its about hate I belive its about morals Its hard enough to raise our childen in this world lets not confuse them anymore not TWO MEN NOT TWO WOMEN NOT ADAM AND STEVE ADAM AND EVE.YES ON 1

cranky yankee's picture

David, the passage of equal

David, the passage of equal rights legislation and ordinances did/does not automatically lead to the push for marriage equality. They were and are seperate laws. The fact that they apply to a common group of people is irrelevant.

Further, people like you are screaming that "it's against God's law." The same things were said about giving rights to women, ending slavery, and passing civil rights legislation. People like you talk gloom and doom, telling us how this will bring the end of civilization as we know it, that it will do irreparable harm to society and children, and yet not one of you has produced any facts. Sure, you've trotted out "studies" that were conducted by people who either support your beliefs or were paid by those who do, studies where the outcome was determined and the facts created to fit the outcome. That's not a study, that's propaganda.

Loving couples being allowed to married will in no way diminish your marriage. If you believe it does, then your marriage is on shaky ground to begin with and not much will save it. Further, anything the actually strengthens and supports families, which marriage equality does, is a benefit to society.

jalbrecht1's picture
verified

Once again we have hatred of

Once again we have hatred of gays. Marriage to the Yes on 1 folks is not the issue. Elimination of gays is. Stoke up the ovens these people want to eliminate gays, destroy them, not because gays do any harm to society or anyone but because the Yes on 1 folks can't tolerate them
Vote No on 1. Protect children from hate.
Jon Albrecht Dixfield

the_poorman's picture

Another bigot terrified that

Another bigot terrified that if gay people are allowed to marry then ............. what? This same bigotry is what perpetuated racism and Jim Crow laws for many decades and it must be destroyed. Vote No on 1 and allow people who love one another to marry one another. Don't worry if you are already married - allowing gay people to wed will have ZERO impact on your marriage!

Any problem that can't be solved with taxcuts, republicans pretend doesn't exist.

rogor's picture

Jotter: Perhaps you should

Jotter: Perhaps you should consider becoming a Christian.

news4u's picture

Just be sure to choose your

Just be sure to choose your demonination carefully....some are more accepting than others.

jotter's picture

I'm not a Christian, so

I'm not a Christian, so correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Jesus teach sympathy and compassion? I don't believe hatred and intolerance was a big part of what he wanted for humanity. In fact, Matthew 25:40 says pretty clearly how a Christian should treat his neighbors. How will Jesus view those who cannot show compassion?

jchick's picture
verified

Yes, Jesus taught

Yes, Jesus taught compassion, but he also taught righteousness and holiness. He also taught about marriage and was specific that it is a union between one man and one woman for life. Never did he teach that we are to tollerate sin, never. Sin is bondage, he came to set us free.

No one is against extending the bennefits and protectionis of married couples to homosexual and heterosexual domestic partners. The government has the authority to do that. But the government does not have the authority to redefine marriage.

John A. Chick

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Colonel Charles Yancey (January 6, 1816)

Advertisement