Gay marriage is not a civil right

Mr. Mutty is absolutely right. This is not a civil rights issue. Marriage always has been and should be regulated. Otherwise, if we could marry anyone we love, it would open it up to polygamists, etc. They would be the next group to lobby against "discrimination". It's so ridiculous. Marie Hodgdon

Mr Mutty, NEVER Explains HOW allowing LGBT Tax Paying Citizens to be included in Civil Marriage - will affect heterosexual Marriages....? How Mr Mutty..? How will those str8 Marriages be affected.......No one ever answers that question....HOW Directly will your Marriage be affected..? Is Your marriage affected now by the 50% divorce rate? Does that make you want a Divorce? Seriously - Either PUT UP or SHUT UP......and lets include ALL Americans in Equality!

As a mother of 4 children, I can firmly say, and I believe, credibly state, as well, that what hurts children more than who marries whom, or not at all, is bigotry, hatred and intolerance. You can claim all you like Mr. Mutty, that you and your organization are indeed not promoting prejudice and that you are not a bigot, but that does not make it so of course. I bet if you peeped under the hood of your local Klansman, and asked him if he is a bigot, he'd respond, "why heck no, I am just trying to protect my children..." Sound familar? The worst service a parent can do for his/her children is to pass on bad ideas from previous generations. That marriage has not existed for gay people previously, does not make it a good idea to continue to not allow it, just an idea that should be expanded upon to include all citizens.

I don't see the argument cited here by Mr. Mutty as being relevant. Women also never were able to vote until 1920, yet, allowing us to vote thereafter was a bad idea, because we'd not had the vote previously? Look at slavery. Many plantations owners in the South claimed their economy would crumble without slaves. Slavery was absolished and VOILA, the cotton gin was invented! Just because an injustice has always existed does not make it right or justifiable. It actually makes the need to change the wrong more profound and urgent.

I really resent those who hide behind children, as an excuse to cloak their bigotry. Sir, you are harming MY children, by perpetuating this grotesque show of prejudice, and your pretending you are trying to protect them is utter nonsense. You insult my intelligence and the intellect of anyone who has happened onto this oped piece, and YOU clearly do not understand what a civil right actually is. Your piece is cleverly worded, to take the opposition's arguements and refute them; however, your arguments are based in fear and ignorance, thus, are irrational, no matter how nicely you have wrapped the package. I too am a practicing Roman Catholic, who is preparing to baptize my fourth child, and I am deeply ashamed at the behavior and the rhetoric coming from my own church, and moreso, disgusted that monies that could be going to the poor and disenfranchized are being squandered on pettiness, as you further alienate the youth from our church.

Those souls lost in your desperate pursuit to justify your own bigotry sir, will be something for which you will have to account on judgement day. Your ramped up rhetoric is also the wind beneath the wings of the folks who are fond of bashing gay people to death with baseball bats. If I were a DA, I would charge you and everyone with NOM on felony murder charges for every hate crime against gay people in Maine going forward. I pity you and all your kind, you make me sick.

As a mother of 4 children, I can firmly say, and I believe, credibly state, as well, that what hurts children more than who marries whom, or not at all, is bigotry, hatred and intolerance. You can claim all you like Mr. Mutty, that you and your organization are indeed not promoting prejudice and that you are not a bigot, but that does not make it so of course. I bet if you peeped under the hood of your local Klansman, and asked him if he is a bigot, he'd respond, "why heck no, I am just trying to protect my children..." Sound familar? The worst service a parent can do for his/her children is to pass on bad ideas from previous generations. That marriage has not existed for gay people previously, does not make it a good idea to continue to not allow it, just an idea that should be expanded upon to include all citizens.

I don't see the argument cited here by Mr. Mutty as being relevant. Women also never were able to vote until 1920, yet, allowing us to vote thereafter was a bad idea, because we'd not had the vote previously? Look at slavery. Many plantations owners in the South claimed their economy would crumble without slaves. Slavery was absolished and VOILA, the cotton gin was invented! Just because an injustice has always existed does not make it right or justifiable. It actually makes the need to change the wrong more profound and urgent.

I really resent those who hide behind children, as an excuse to cloak their bigotry. Sir, you are harming MY children, by perpetuating this grotesque show of prejudice, and your pretending you are trying to protect them is utter nonsense. You insult my intelligence and the intellect of anyone who has happened onto this oped piece, and YOU clearly do not understand what a civil right actually is. Your piece is cleverly worded, to take the opposition's arguements and refute them; however, your arguments are based in fear and ignorance, thus, are irrational, no matter how nicely you have wrapped the package. I too am a practicing Roman Catholic, who is preparing to baptize my fourth child, and I am deeply ashamed at the behavior and the rhetoric coming from my own church, and moreso, disgusted that monies that could be going to the poor and disenfranchized are being squandered on pettiness, as you further alienate the youth from our church.

Those souls lost in your desperate pursuit to justify your own bigotry sir, will be something for which you will have to account on judgement day. Your ramped up rhetoric is also the wind beneath the wings of the folks who are fond of bashing gay people to death with baseball bats. If I were a DA, I would charge you and everyone with NOM on felony murder charges for every hate crime against gay people in Maine going forward. I pity you and all your kind, you make me sick.

My ten thoughts about this article:

(1) Same-sex marriage is a fundamental civil right, irrespective of how others wish to be thought of with respect to the rights of everyone, or how I wish to be thought of with respect to me liking pistachio ice cream.

(2) Marriage has been determined as a fundamental civil right by the US Supreme Court in overturning all bans against interracial marriages in their ruling on Loving v. Virginia, to which with that decision interracial couples were given the right to legally marry each other for the first time in the United States.

(3) Our US Constitution and most if not all state constitutions have a declaration of rights which include the equal and sometimes inalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Marriage is considered a significant means towards fully realizing life, liberty and pursuing happiness. The California Supreme Court has determined same-sex marriage to be a fundamental civil right closely tied to the fundamental right to liberty.

(3) Same-sex marriages may be novel, but then again, there are many rights that were novel at one point in time. Interracial marriages were once novel. The right of women to vote was once novel. Freedom for African-Americans was once novel. Same-sex marriages being novel today is the result of our country recently gaining a better understanding of what it means to be LGBT, as professional organizations almost unanimously if not unanimously do not consider homosexuality as a disorder, and as tens of thousands of LGBT couples lead lives that can not be told apart from straight marriages. A society has to be carefully taught to invoke prejudice and discrimination against a group of people, and ignorance is invaluable towards achieving such ends. With greater understanding of things comes general evolution.

(4) Marriage is about the coming together of two consenting adults who love and commit to each other in a sacred life-lasting bond. Family is about raising children in a loving and nurturing household. Marriage and family are two very related concepts, but they are separate words with specific and unique meanings.

(5) Studies have shown that children of LGBT parents are as good and well-adjusted as children of straight parents. Extending marriage rights to LGBT people ensures that all families, and not just most families, are strengthened within our communities.

(6) Children need love, nurturing and direction from their parents, and gender does not discriminate on the parent's ability to provide for their children. For those children whose gender is dissimilar from their parents, in most cases there are relatives with the same gender who could function as gender role-models for the children, and in addition, there are organizations such as Big Brother Big Sister to provide similar role-models and guidance.

(7) Treating people with dignity and respect should never be compromised by distorted, limited, prejudiced and ignorant views of the institution of marriage. The virtues of dignity and respect are among the highest virtues that every society should strive to embody and exemplify.

(8) A recent poll shows that a majority of Mainers accept same-sex marriage, which reflects on the passage of the Maine Marriage Equality Bill.

(9) Saying that we need to preserve the opportunity of children to know and be raised by their own mother and father is suggesting that one sexual orientation is superior to another and therefore should be the basis towards rendering corresponding inequality within our society. If children deserve to have a mother and a father, then make sure that the mother or father doesn't unexpectedly die during the children's childhoods, or make sure that the parents are not stricken by such poverty that they have to give up their children for adoption, or make sure that the parents are being responsible in engaging in sexual activities, or make sure that the parents can not legally divorce from each other when/if their relationships reach an impasse during their children's childhoods. As you can see, the world is not a perfect place, and our society benefits from same-sex couples that provide loving and nurturing homes for orphans who need homes.

(10) It takes an awful lot of daring to say that someone like me who believes that same-sex marriage is a civil right is disrespecting others' right to vote or to practice their religious faith, and it shows a glaring ignorance towards our very government of the United States.

(10a) Our government is a federal constitutional republic, not a pure democracy, and that means that while citizens have the right to vote, our US Constitutions and state constitutions serve as the supreme law of our land, and the US constitution can only be amended by two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress (or constitutional convention) and then ratified by three-fourths of the states. Otherwise, laws that are passed must conform to our constitutions, or they will be considered as unconstitutional through court challenges. Again, our US Constitution and most if not all state constitutions have a declaration of rights which include the equal and sometimes inalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. No passed law or measure can infringe on these basic rights, no matter the result of public votes.

(10b) Legalizing same-sex marriage has no effect on our right to freedom of religion and religious beliefs. The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that our government can not adopt any religion. Therefore, as marriage is determined as a civil right by the US Government, the legal right of marriage can not be associated to any religion practiced in our country and is therefore viewed as a social, civil, non-religious marriage. The Maine Marriage Equality Bill is titled to include the words "Affirms Religious Freedoms", and the bill lists a number of religious activities protected by the 1st amendment with respect to same-sex marriages. To me, that is our government clearly being respectful to the people's various religious beliefs with respect to same-sex marriages.

It is insulting to the people of Maine to falsely assert marriage is not a "civil right." "Civil" is related to the State or its citizens and "right" is the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled. Of course marriage is a civil right. All of the arguments he's using are the same arguments people like him made against interracial marriage and against letting women have the right to vote. As equal citizens, same sex couples deserve the rights and protections of civil marriage. Kids who are born gay deserve to grow up in a world where they are loved and nurtured with hope for a normal life. I hope the people of Maine recognize what Mr. Mutty represents is dehumanizing to a class of people who have had to struggle with being born different.

Mr. Mutty claims that no one has the "right" to marry. Yet, oddly enough, he actually DOES have the "regulated authorization" to marry someone of the opposite sex. Is that how he expects people to describe marriage now? What utter nonsense. Of course people have the "right to marry". To say otherwise is disingenuous.

He is so desperate to come up with reasons to deny gay couples marriage equality that he conveniently throws millions of single parents under the bus. According to him, marriage is primarily about a mother and father raising a child. Perhaps those single parents ought to give their children over to an adoption agency? They need to "thrive" with a mother and father. Right, Mr. Mutty? Apparently, falling in love and making a lifelong commitment didn't make his "marriage" qualification list, since two people of the same gender are capable of this task. He also doesn't mention that neither "children" nor "religious beliefs" are a requirement to getting married. I'm also curious why he didn't discuss the 50% divorce rate, and why he doesn't he have an issue with heterosexuals that make a mockery of marriage by getting married over and over again? If marriage is so sacred to Mr. Mutty, why isn't he advocating a ban on divorce? The Bible clearly says that divorce is not permitted: Mark 10:8, Mark 10:9, Mark 10:11-12. I guess some Bible passages, or traditions if you will, aren't that relevant in 2009... except for those that condemn homosexuals of course.

He says, "...the idea of same-sex marriage was utterly alien until a very, very short time ago." That's true. But the same can be said of interracial marriage. For thousands of years the idea of interracial marriages were "utterly alien". What changed this TRADITION that was ROOTED IN HISTORY? The enlightenment of society. In other words, social progress. So, yes, there IS a valid comparison to be made; whether Mr. Mutty wants there to be one or not. History and tradition fought against interracial marriage until 60 years ago. The Supreme Court legalized it, even though 70% of the citizens were against it. Sound familiar? The citizens of this country were given the "right" to marry someone of a different race if they so desired. How did this effect those that did not want to make use of this "right"? It didn't effect them at all. The same can be said for same-sex marriage. It will not prevent or dissuade men and women from getting married and having children. One has NOTHING to do with the other.

Which brings me to my final point. The idea that traditions never change is ludicrous. Slavery was a tradition. Women not having the right to vote was a tradition. Forced childhood labor was a tradition. The list goes on and on. Traditions change over time. Mr. Mutty knows this simple fact, but just doesn't want to accept it. -- As for what President Obama thinks? Whoever said he was the last word on civil rights? Prior to running for president, he was on-record as supporting gay marriage. His current revised position stating that "God is in the mix." is just a 'bone' he tossed out to pacify the religious folk. As a lawyer, he obviously knows that a belief in God, or a church's blessing are not a requirement to getting married. He does support civil unions, which will quickly lead to full marriage equality.

Mr. Mutty is the Director of Public Affairs for the Archdiocese of Portland, and the attack dog of the Catholic Church in their endless drive to enforce their narrow, bigoted religious order onto our civil, secular government.
The Catholic Church already refuses to recognize any marriage which they feel doesn't conform to their religion, i.e. divorcees, those of other faiths, etc. This is their right to do. What they don't have to right to do is make the rest of our civil secular legal system conform to their narrow bigoted standards.
They wish to twist the legal system, and pervert it to their own selfish ends.
The Catholic Church has a long history of oppression of homosexual people. The pope describes homosexuality as "intrinsically disordered" and "moral evil". The Church spent most of the middle ages burning homosexuals in public, the last such burning actually occurring in the early nineteenth century.
The Pope is the man who forms policy for the Catholic Church. Yeah, let's take advice about marriage and childrearing from an 80+ year old celibate Italian in a dress who was a Hitler Youth and the Head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Inquisition) before he took office as the Pope, and head of an organization at the heart of one of the biggest sexual child abuse scandals in world history. They have lost their moral high ground, if they ever had any, when they sheltered pedophiles and moved them around to avoid disclosure and bad publicity. The way they treat gay people, and their own priests creates shame, guilt, secrecy, and horrible abuse for all involved.
As the point man of the Archdiocese of Portland, we must question Mr. Mutty's ability and motives in commenting on a question of civil rights, in which he has absolutely no expertise whatsoever. The church opposed civil rights for African Americans and the vote for women in the past. Their opposition to full civil rights inclusion for gay Americans guarantees that we should take the opposite position if we wish to stand on the right side of history.

Excuse me Mr "Muddy" ...but LGBT Americans ARE Tax Paying Citizens MANY WITH CHILDREN and FAMILIES......LGBT Americans are NOT ALIENS....they are Our Fireman,Policemen,Drs,Nurses,teachers...mothers,fathers,brothers and sisters...OUR Family Members. LGBT Americans are NOT just thier sex lives sir.....just like heterosexuals are NOT just thier sex lives.....Marriage is a Commitment from the Heart & Soul...Interesting how LGBT Americans are FIGHTING for something so hard...something that Heterosexuals TAKE for GRANTED ie: Divorce,remarry,divorce,remarry etc etc.....there are Gay cpls wgho've been together 5,10-15,20yrs or more.....now thats commitment! There is NO Pre-requisite that Children Must be bred of married cpls..none! Also, you do NOT have to be religious to be married....you say:

The civil rights argument is nothing more than a slogan without substance. It is, in fact, deeply disrespectful of those who have been denied their true civil rights, like the right to vote or to practice their religious faith. ->> You sir have Obviously NEVER Read the writings of Corretta Scott King? ..or Julian Bond? Who are you to speak of thier perspecgtive on TRUE Civil Rights? Religious Faith is a CHOICE..yes a choice...being an LGBT citizen is NOT a choice...you are born that way....99.9% of Gay citzens ARE Born to Heterosexual parents. Why don't you worry about the Homeless,or Soup kitchens that need help and food, or about the 100's of Mainer's who will NEED assistance PAYING thier HEAT bills this winter? No, you are too busy feeding the monster of In-equality and religious Tyranny. Growing up in the 60's, I was raised to keep my religion to myself,and within my church....I do NOT wear it on my sleeve. Now go help the poor and STFU!

I am not familiar with Mr. Mutty, unfortunate name, but I gather he is a "religious" man? I also imagine he is anti-health care reform, anti-welfare, anti-affirmative actiion, anti-school lunch, anti-"Happy Holidays," anti-teletubby with the purse, anti-Harry Potter, anti-sex ed, blah blah blah. With all your anti's Mr. Mutty, how do you seek out other anti-minded folks? Oh, right, your church...JulieL

Churches will not be required to perform marriages to same sex couples. This has to do with legal rights. Civil unions do not give total rights. Mr.Mutty, your church will not have to change their stand on marriage. Yes, this has to do with civil rights. You are wrong. How do you feel about divorce? How do you feel about abuse in marriage? Maybe you should focus on those issues. I suspect you will not be reading these comments. I remember the day I could not take the host in my own hand. The nuns could not even touch. ONLY the priest. God gave us brains. Let us use them.

Hey Mutty,
Bishop Boloney, that's right, that one, sends you out to spread his hatred of God's Children who he created in His image for HIS purpose. What right do you have to question God's motives. You are all a bunch of hypocrites and it's no surprise how many have left the church with thousands more leaving all the time. Now closing our churches per Caron's report that your deficit is at $100,000 when this is the amount you spent to hire out of state people to spread the hate!! Go ahead and close all the churches and pocket the money to pay off for your pedophile priests!!

So, when the institution of hetero marriage ends in divorce, what should we do with the kids? Is it better they be raised by a single parent, or by 2 loving adults who happen to be the same sex? And through all of the debate over this issue, there has not been a single, credible assertion made that hetero marriages will suffer because same sex partners married. Another point, if society sets the rules for marriage, cannot society also change those rules?
______________________

"We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give."
Winston Churchill

You claim that denying people of the same sex the right to marry is not similar to denying someone of race the right to marry, because with race the laws were essentially claiming one race is better than another. But by not permitting gay marriage, aren't you then claiming that either A)One's sexual preference is better than another or B) Homosexual parents are worse than heterosexual ones? (an argument that falls apart when you identify the number of single-parents in our country). If you believe either to be true in spite of various scientific findings, you would by definition be ignorant.

Somebody spiked your pineapple juice with too much vodka Dr Nosh. What is your ME connection, and why don't you spew your nonsense in some other venue? I could care less about what happens in your state. Is your state so perfect you have to look to ours to comment?