Set an example

I am outraged by the disrespect shown "No on 1" voters by the editorial staff of the Sun Journal. The description of the defeat of Question 1 as "torpedoed" by Maine voters was not only juvenile and unprofessional, but also exceedingly insulting to the 48 percent of voters who voted to preserve marriage equality.

How dare you belittle our substantial opinion? I expect professional journalists to set an example for the rest of us and fulfill their obligation to report news in an unbiased manner.

The Sun Journal policy requires letters to the editors to include name and town, while the editorial board hides behind a curtain of anonymity. Is the editorial of Nov. 1 truly a consensus of the entire editorial board?

I, too, would be ashamed to put my name to such a biased and ill-researched message.

Webster's definition of democracy includes "the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges." That means history and tradition are not acceptable excuses to deny anyone equal status or benefits under the law. The U.S. Supreme Court has already struck down "separate but equal" as unconstitutional. Any attempt to recreate such a system is rightfully doomed to fail.

Surprisingly, I do agree with the last sentence of the editorial on Nov. 5. "The repeal of same-sex marriage should not hinder further progress toward doing what is right and just — that is, treating all citizens equally under the law."

That will be accomplished only when full marriage equality is re-established.

Martha D. Palmer, Lisbon Falls

Co-president, Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians and Guys (PFLAG), Portland

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

 's picture

Martha said, "Webster's

Martha said,

"Webster's definition of democracy includes "the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges." That means history and tradition are not acceptable excuses to deny anyone equal status or benefits under the law. The U.S. Supreme Court has already struck down "separate but equal" as unconstitutional. Any attempt to recreate such a system is rightfully doomed to fail."

Martha, the key word there is "arbitrary." The State does not arbitrarily extend bennefits and/or privileges to married couples. It has a reason for doing so. It is because traditional monogamous marriage and the family that is the result, is the basic building block of society.

That does not infringe on anyone's rights. And though we may all be "created equal", we, as citizens of Maine, and by extension, citizens of the United States, certainly do not have equal status or bennefits under the law, married or otherwise. Look around. There are plenty of class distinctions; the "rich", the "middle-class", the "poor", the "homeless" and the list goes on. You can beat any rap if you have enough dough to get a really slick attorney (remember OJ?)

If "separate but equal" is, as you say, unconstitutional, then the "Equality in Marriage" law would have been unconstitutional. It created two "separate but equal" definitions of marriage (religious and civil) and granted certain immunities for religous organizations who did not wish to recognize same-sex "marriage."

For arguments sake, let us assume that other couples and/or families are being denied certain bennefits and privileges that are currently offered to married couples, and that it is a "bad" or "unfair" practice. It would be far more logical to simply pass legislation extending those bennefits to same sex couples, non-married couples and single parent households.

I think you'll find that most Mainers would favor such an approach. It would leave the concept of traditional marriage intact, while ensuring that all Maine couples and families recieve equal bennefits and privileges.

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)

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Your last two paragraphs sum

Your last two paragraphs sum it up quite well, John. Well put. I believe that many, if not most, of those who voted yes on 1 would be supportive of that approach. There is a compromise solution to this situation if we can get the emotions and name calling out of it and allow cooler heads to prevail.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

The parrot has set up a

The parrot has set up a cheese tray in the back of the room for the whiners.

Fear not the enemy at the gate, for it is the enemy within that will devour you.

JONATHAN ALBRECHT's picture

The Yes on 1 capaign was not

The Yes on 1 capaign was not a campaign to repeal Marriage Equality; its was as its supporters so frequently said and wrote a campaign to force gays back in the closet.
They want to discourage gay Mainers from living here by making Maine "gay unfriendly". They hope gay Mainers will move to Mass. or elsewhere that they can get their full civil rights. If that doesn't work they want to return to the pre-US Supreme Court decision on sodomy when they could imprison or kill gay with impunity. Won't work. We, those who believe in equal rights, will stop you. Jon Albrecht Dixfield

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Excellent points, Brian.

Excellent points, Brian. Good post.

iangol Why would you smell

iangol
Why would you smell lawsuit?Ms. Palmer does accurately point out theLSJ's hypocrisy!

 's picture

Oooo 1%...

Oooo 1%...

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Why not quit the name

Why not quit the name calling, plan your strategy for the next battle, and move on. Remember, 53% said NO to your request. Get over it.
The problem is, you people dont' want to slaughter the moose for the meat. You want the rack. The trophy; the prize.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

1. There's nothing you could

1. There's nothing you could say or do that is capable of upsetting me.
2. Where's the rack?

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

We have found common ground.

We have found common ground. Bull meat gets tough from all that time spent chasing cows.

Advertisement

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

I'm interested in ...