politics
Romney running mate search enters audition phase
More in politics

nation
Food stamp fraud raising concern in government offices
More in nation

local
Auburn Council gives L/A Arts allocation to Community Little Theatre
More in local

maine
Damage could knock nuclear submarine out of action
More in maine

Anti-gay hypocrisy

Kathleen Coriell
Letters |
Sunday, October 18, 2009 at 3:03 am

Hypocrisy screams loudly from the anti-gay marriage letter by preacher Keith Hamel on Oct. 9.

Like so many other "religious" people before him, he tries to use the teachings of his own faith to "prove" that we must all act a certain way. Well, let me enlighten. It's not logical to use personal beliefs as evidence to convince others who don't share them!

Hamel states, "Christianity is a choice." So, one can choose to live by the judgmental values of Hamel's letter, but the government gives everyone the right to their views on spirituality (even if the founding fathers were primarily Christian, which is doubtful).We wisely do not use religious belief as a basis for our laws.

Mr. Hamel should look around. There are gay, lesbian and transgender citizens in every crowd, every restaurant, every classroom. He may not recognize them because, contrary to his fears, they work, they vote, they volunteer, they raise their children with love, they attend church, and their sexuality is only one part of their lives. They want to live their own dreams, not threaten his.

Like it or not, marriage has as much legal meaning as religious meaning. It's time to embrace our neighbors, as Jesus would have done, and give full rights and recognition to same-sex couples. God bless America, he says? I say God bless everyone.

Vote "No to bigotry" on Question 1 in November.

Kathleen Coriell, Durham

More from Letters

R. Sabine: Judging the need and the truth 1
P. Mador: Remember their sacrifice
J. Grover: Religious state of Maine 1
R. Baskett: Council's decision promotes civic engagement 1
M. Jalbert: Taking earmarked money 2
more

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

Taxpoor's picture

If the no vote wins will

By Taxpoor, unverified — Mon, 10/19/2009 - 22:49

If the no vote wins will that mean they will reopen the pickle parks and build more of them. Maybe we could charge admission to help with the taxes and fix our roads that are not fit to drive a skid dah on

jalbrecht1's picture
verified

"By bringing the issue of

By Jonathan Albrecht, verified user — Mon, 10/19/2009 - 10:27

"By bringing the issue of gay marriage to public vote, you are asking that either religious persons not be allowed to vote or that they only be able to give assent and approbation to a *public act* of marriage between same sex couples. Further, you are asking that they recognize these marriages as real and valuable to society."

Mrs McG, that is precisely what you are not asked to do. LD 1020 states clearly that religions do not have to acknowledge or perform gay marriages. So your argument is completely false.

Jon Albrecht Dixfield

Mrs. McG's picture

Those who accuse religious

By Mrs. McG, unverified — Sun, 10/18/2009 - 13:24

Those who accuse religious folks who are against gay marriage of "imposing their beliefs" on others with regard to gay marriage have the matter exactly backwards. Marriage is in part a civil, therefore public, act. Religious persons are, just as much as non-religious persons, part of society and part of the general public. By bringing the issue of gay marriage to public vote, you are asking that either religious persons not be allowed to vote or that they only be able to give assent and approbation to a *public act* of marriage between same sex couples. Further, you are asking that they recognize these marriages as real and valuable to society. Neither can be done in good conscience (or even in good sense) for the religious person. Religious persons are not demanding that all persons with same-sex attraction cease and desist from the activities religious persons find morally objectionable or compelling them to believe some point of religious doctrine, they are simply requesting that they not be forced to recognize as valid and good something they cannot see as such.

gdls1's picture

"...they are simply

By gdls1, unverified — Sun, 10/18/2009 - 13:55

"...they are simply requesting that they not be forced to recognize as valid and good something they cannot see as such."

Because YOU will not recognize gays and lesbians as "valid and good" does not mean you are right and/or moral. You are entitled to your views, but you are NOT entitled to impose restrictions on the liberties and freedoms of others based on YOUR religious beliefs.

Mrs. McG's picture

Whoa! Do NOT conflate

By Mrs. McG, unverified — Sun, 10/18/2009 - 15:00

Whoa! Do NOT conflate persons with same-sex attraction with gay "marriage." Gays and lesbians *are* valuable as persons. And, they are free and at liberty in our society to live as they wish. Marriage is not an absolute right. There will always be limitations and restrictions on marriage for the proper ordering of society, e.g., no polygamy, age restriction, issues of consanguinity, etc. Moreover, this is an issue of natural law morality, again, not sectarian doctrines or principles. Religion also prohibits rape and murder and lying and stealing - should we also suspend our moral prejudices against rapists, murders and liars because they do not share our values? Separation of church and state with regard to this issue is simply a red herring.

gdls1's picture

Mrs. McG, How can you

By gdls1, unverified — Sun, 10/18/2009 - 16:45

Mrs. McG,
How can you seriously write:" ...And, they are free and at liberty in our society to live as they wish...." when you are fighting to deny them the right to the benefits of civil marriage?

And then you say: ..."Marriage is not an absolute right." Well, marriage is not an exclusive right for those who call themselves Christian.

And your bigotry is showing when you compare homosexuals to rapists, murderers and liars.

What a snotty and nasty woman you must be.

Mrs. McG's picture

"What a snotty and nasty

By Mrs. McG, unverified — Sun, 10/18/2009 - 18:57

"What a snotty and nasty woman you must be."

My, how very open-minded and non-judgmental of you to arrive at such a conclusion, and in saying so publicly demonstrating your own apparently very charitable nature. The demonizing tactic is one I have found extremely tiresome in the whole marriage debate. Good, kind-hearted and intelligent people can oppose gay marriage and remain good, kind-hearted, intelligent people.

With regard to my supposed comparing of persons with same-sex attraction to rapists, murderers and liars, you either failed to comprehend my substantive point, or mendaciously perverted it just so you could throw in another one of your side's pet accusations: "bigotry"!

Gary C's picture

"Good, kind-hearted and

By Gary C, unverified — Fri, 10/23/2009 - 07:53

"Good, kind-hearted and intelligent people can oppose gay marriage and remain good, kind-hearted, intelligent people. "
I applaud your ability to write coherently and passionately regarding such a controversial subject.
However, I disagree with your statement above, inasmuch as I believe that no "good, kindhearted and intelligent person" can lay claim to any of these attributes while preventing good, kind and intelligent people who happen to be gay from having the same legal rights as those who happen to NOT be gay. It is illogical to me to think that one can regard themselves kind hearted and be so exclusionary at the same time.
One measure of intelligence would be to recognize that others may have different preferences, but may still be of value to society and deserve the same protections as those who share your preferences. Wouldn't THAT be kind hearted?
"...with liberty and justice for all." Does this have no meaning anymore?

Taxpoor's picture

MORAL DECAY

By Taxpoor, unverified — Sun, 10/18/2009 - 10:20

MORAL DECAY

news4u's picture

You must feel threatened

By news4u, unverified — Sun, 10/18/2009 - 10:58

You must feel threatened taxpoor as you have resorted to typing in Cap Lock, which equates to screaming.

news4u's picture

Excellent article Kathleen!

By news4u, unverified — Sun, 10/18/2009 - 10:12

Excellent article Kathleen! My thoughts exactly.

“Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself”: FDR

triumph's picture

School is for preparing kids

By triumph, unverified — Sun, 10/18/2009 - 08:29

School is for preparing kids for the realities of life. Familes come in many different configurations. Same gender parents exist, married same gender parents are a reality, are raising kids, have been raising kids for all time, and kids need to understand this reality, not a church's interpretation of morality. Not with my tax money, thank you. Grandmother, I don't want my kids learning your bigotry in school.

jojolou's picture

God does love everyone but

By jojolou, unverified — Sun, 10/18/2009 - 08:22

God does love everyone but does not condone the acts they do. I certainly don't want my grandchildren to be learning about homosexuality in school. Let the parents do that. Schools are for learning the three R's, they have a hard time comprehending, how will they register the homosexuals.
Homosexuals have civil unions, let it be. I have friends that are homosexuals and wouldn't even consider the marriage, they are voting against it.
What next, a man marrying his dog, or three people getting married. May God bless us all.

news4u's picture

Your comment "What next, a

By news4u, unverified — Sun, 10/18/2009 - 10:03

Your comment "What next, a man marrying his dog, or three people getting married." is shared by many others who plan to vote yes on 1. Just as there is more to a heterosexual marriage than 2 individuals having intercourse, the same is true for same sex couples.You are unable to look at the individual as a whole and only focus on one aspect of their lives. It's a shame. God may love everyone, but you obviously don't!
Vote No on 1!

news4u's picture

Why do you think that your

By news4u, unverified — Sun, 10/18/2009 - 09:55

Why do you think that your grandchildren will be learning about homosexuality in school? The focus in most Maine elementary schools today is on math and literacy (reading & writing). There is barely enough time in the school week for Art, Music & Physical Education.

Your sentence "Schools are for learning the three R's, they have a hard time comprehending, how will they register the homosexuals." is very confusing. Who has a hard time comprehending? What do you mean by registering homosexuals? Registering homosexuals for what- school, to vote? Please clarify your thoughts.

triumph's picture

No on Question 1 By BDN

By triumph, unverified — Sun, 10/18/2009 - 08:13

No on Question 1

By BDN Staff
BDN Staff

Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?

Mainers have heard a lot in recent weeks about the consequences of allowing same-sex couples to marry, some of it accurate, some of it not. While such debate is healthy, this question boils down to a simple point: Everyone must be treated equally under the state and U.S. Constitution. Denying civil marriage rights to same-sex couples violates that tenet.

Further, extending the right of marriage to a small segment of the population that has been excluded furthers the state’s interest in promoting stable families and communities. The Maine legislation also took important steps, mirroring the state’s Human Rights Law, to respect religious freedom and traditions. No church will be compelled to perform or recognize marriages that run counter to its faith. This strikes the difficult balance of respecting religious freedom while ensuring equality.

Maine was unusual in passing a law to allow same-sex marriage rather than being required to do so by a court order. Since then, Vermont and New Hampshire have followed suit.

Lawmakers, including Gov. John Baldacci — the first governor to sign such legislation into law — moved Maine toward tolerance and fairness. Repealing this law would move the state backward while denying guaranteed rights to a small minority.

The repeal effort has been led by the Roman Catholic Diocese. Bishop Richard Malone called same-sex marriage “a dangerous sociological experiment.” The fact that gay couples have existed for generations — many of them raising children — counters this argument. Worse, however, is the church’s attempt to force its views on all Maine’s residents, whether they are Catholic or not.

“It’s important to have your own faith and connection to God,” Gov. Baldacci, a Catholic, told The Associated Press recently. “At the same time, it isn’t just that faith that you’re the governor of. … You’re governor of all the people.”

Taking the next step, the governor explained why civil unions — a popular alternative to same-sex marriage — are inadequate. “I was creating second-class marriage for certain people, which wasn’t right. I wasn’t doing my duty to the constitution I swore to uphold.”

It is only natural that changing the definition of something as fundamental as marriage makes some uncomfortable. However, marriage has changed over time — interracial marriages were once banned, and men were allowed to have many wives — without harming heterosexual marriages. In a country where the divorce rate is too high and too many children grow up in dysfunctional and abusive families, encouraging more adults to commit to long-term, loving relationships is a positive, not a negative.

Opponents of same-sex marriage warn of the consequences — all negative in their view — of such a definition change. When pressed to list those consequences, they cite lawsuits and a requirement to teach same-sex marriage in schools.

There are likely to be lawsuits, as that is how the boundaries of laws are tested and set. At the same time, gays and lesbians are already protected under the state’s human rights laws — a protection Maine voters refused to rescind in 2005 — so discrimination against them is already illegal and there has been no flood of lawsuits.

As for education, children are already being raised by gay couples. Those children attend our schools, and have for decades. If Sally’s two dads come to an elementary school awards night, or if Billy’s two moms come to the school concert, the relationships may become a topic of discussion at school the next day. Whether Sally’s or Billy’s same-sex parents are married or living together does not change the discussion the teacher might facilitate.

Along the same lines, those seeking to repeal the law have used the book “Who’s in a Family?” as evidence of homosexual education. The book shows families made up of a mother and father, single parents, grandparents, stepparents, husband and wife with no children — and gay and lesbian parents. “Who’s in a family?” it asks. “The people who love you most.”

It is hard to see how allowing more people to marry will weaken marriage. Instead, it seems the strong desire of gay and lesbian couples to be married, rather than declared domestic partners, shows the value and importance of marriage.

Advertisement

opinion
Politicians should stick to their duties
More in opinion

business
Norway's farmer's market opens Thursday
More in business

sports
Softball: Eddies red light Blue Devils
More in sports

lifestyle
Present Company will kick off 'Music for Mavis' concerts
More in lifestyle