Proponents of segregation claimed that "Separate but Equal" treatment with respect to people's rights and benefits was sufficient under the U.S. Constitution. Some still do. But separate treatment turned out never to be equal treatment.
"The 'Separate but Equal' doctrine was eventually overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page)
Proponents of "civil union" as an alternative to full marriage rights claim that permitting civil union would result in equal rights being available to those who are now denied access to marriage rights. 'Separate but Equal' rights, it should be noted.
Proponents of separate but equal access to marriage rights are as wrong now as proponents of racial segregation were in 1954.
Out with the old and the lovely.
In with the new and the ugly.
I just couldn't figure out what your post meant. If ironic, why the irony?
Has the governor, or a governor's appointee, or any of the people writing news stories on this issue bothered to actually read the Maine statutes that apply? It doesn't seem so. If hearings officers are issuing decisions that are wrong, the losing parties and commission and the governor already have a way to fix the problem. Under ALREADY EXISTING Maine law the party that feels it has been wronged can ask for further review within the DOL. Here's what the law has to say:
"5. Commission review. The commission may on its own motion affirm, modify or set aside any decision of the Division of Administrative Hearings on the basis of the evidence previously submitted in that case or direct the taking of additional evidence, or may permit any of the parties of that decision to initiate further appeals before it. The commission shall permit such further appeal by any of the parties interested in a decision of the Division of Administrative Hearings and by the deputy whose decision has been overruled or modified by the Division of Administrative Hearings. The commission may remove to itself or transfer to the chief administrative hearing officer or to another administrative hearing officer the proceedings on any claim pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings. Any proceedings so removed to the commission shall be heard in accordance with the requirements in subsection 3. All hearings conducted pursuant to this section may be heard by a quorum of commissioners, as defined in section 1081, subsection 3. The commission shall promptly notify the interested parties of its findings and decisions."
[ 1987, c. 641, §10 (AMD) .]
How often have the complaining parties actually followed through and asked for further review? How often has the commission on its own motion or otherwise "affirm[ed], modified] or set aside any decision of the Division of Administrative Hearings" as it is authorized to do?
Even more telling, how often has a commission order setting aside a hearing officer’s decision been upheld in a followup court appeal? How often has a hearing officer’s original decision been reinstated by a court after being set aside by the commission? That is, what have the courts had to say about the decisions being made by hearing officers?
Lie down. means get horizontal.
You can lay a thing down, but you can't lie anything down.
To understand these things, all you need to know is that chickens can lay eggs, but they can't lie eggs. And roosters can't lie chickens. A person could lay down, but it would most likely involve getting intimate with duck feathers in a pillow or ski jacket. If you say "lay down" to your dog and your dog is a grammarian, your dog will give you a negative look in response to the suggestion.
Do realize that your comment that newcomers should "just stop and live here and stop with this separate stance" is in conflict with your approval of how things were in the past? You wrote: "in yester year it was the responsibility of the person coming here to . . . open their own schools where they could practice their religion and all the children wore the same cloths."
A "simple man that doesn't pay a ton of attention" talking about how things "appear" is not always the best person to listen to in deciding public policy. Appearances are often deceptive. To believe that the Governor THINKS he's "doing whats best for Maine" does not require a conclusion that he IS doing what's best for Maine. The power to make decisions in important matters should be given to people who are competent and who actually do pay attention to details. There are, after all, details that are both difficult and crucial. And, despite your opinion to the contrary, there are plenty of people in the legislature who are competent and who do want what's best for Maine. Democracy is ponderous and slow. Government action in Italy before and during WWII was quick, and the trains ran on time. But that's not what the USA or Maine is all about.
So what we need is someone who can make the trains run on time, and not put all this "democracy" stuff in his way?
Alternative: A teacher in every gun shop.