Marry for love

Equality for everyone!

The general public is invited to attend a panel discussion on Maine referendum #1 tomorrow, Thursday, 10/22, from 11:00-12:00 in the gym at Unity College, 90 Quaker Hill Road, Unity, Maine. The panel is sponsored by The Unity Experience course at Unity College.

Referendum question # 1:
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?

The panel speakers are listed below. The format: Each speaker will have 8-10 minutes to state her or his position on the referendum. Members of the audience will be invited to make comments or ask questions after all speakers have had their turn.

The speakers:

VOTE YES
Rick Carver Pastor, County Road Baptist Church, New Limerick, ME
Bill Cripe Senior Pastor, Faith Evangelical Free Church, Waterville, ME

VOTE NO
Margaret Beckman Pastor, First Universalist Church, Pittsfield, ME
Penny Guisinger Director of Development and Communications, Cobscook Community
Learning Center, Trescott TWP, ME (speaking as a private citizen, not
representing CCLC)

In one sense we could have avoided this problem centuries ago had the government prohibited religions from conducting "marriage" ceremonies. Instead they could have used "holy matrimony" or some other words. But government can't interfere in the rites and dogma of a church. So they could have ignored the prohibition. So there is nothing to be done. Religion has kidnapped the word marriage and we have the right as has been done many times in the past to re-define it at our whim.
Jon Albrecht Dixfield

"If our government wishes to extend these to unmarried heterosexual and homosexual couples, they could easily do so". They could. You and people who believe like you have fought against granting those rights and benefits at every turn. You false believe in the definitiion of marriage compels you to continue to oppose equal rights for homosexuals. You have convinced those who support human rights that the only way left to us to grant homosexuals equal rights is to include them in civil marriage.
Jon Albrecht Dixfield

lobster,
LD 1020 changes no definition of these words you mention. That change comes from your head not the law. The law grants equal rights as required by the Constitution. We are not bound by your concepts of societal customs. We are bound by the Constitution.
Jon Albrecht Dixfield

jchick, You need to go back to school. Re-read the state and federal constitutions, the federalist and anti-federalist papers (remembering that these are political propaganda not truths), notes of the Conventions both Constitutional and Ratification.
Your libertarian comments have no basis whatsoever in American history. Marriage is a contract. Contracts are a civil not a religious agreement between two people. Any interaction between two people can rise to be a civil matter. The enforcement of contracts is entirely a civil matter. All of this is in our Constitutions in various ways. The US Constitution specifically says that just because some human rights are enumerated in the Constitution (both in the original text and in the bill of rights) that does not mean that there are not other rights of equal or greater importance that are not enumerated (9th Amendment). One of those is privacy. You see the enumerated rights were those that the British Government violated in the run up to the revolution and therefore of particular notice to the founding fathers.
So privacy dictates that government have nothing to do with the consensual sexual interaction between two people. We don't and shouldn't care. But marriage is much more than sex and we should care. Because we should, all citizen should in conformance with the Constitution be treated equality with respect to the laws.
Vote No on 1
Jon Albrecht Dixfield

"No" on #1- Think about it!

Do you believe your “wife” can be a man, and your “husband” can be a woman? That's current state law, subject to repeal in Question 1.

Do you also believe the same about bride, groom, widow, widower, uncle, aunt, niece, nephew, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, etc.? That’s also current state law, subject to repeal. What kind of social engineering madness did the legislature inflict on us? Please vote YES on Question 1.

I read the bible once. Too much gratuitous sex and violence. And wow, is that God angry a lot. I did like the love parts, like about how David love of Jonathan's was greater than that of a woman. I like that God condoned that part. That's a God I can have faith in! You go, God!
Tom Schmidt, conservative Christian scholar: "In reality, the traditional view of Genesis 2, believed by many Christians, distorts scripture by assuming facts not in evidence. Genesis is an explanation of origins. It is not a dissertation on marriage relationships. God asserts the importance of human relationships by observing:

“It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” Genesis 2:18

("Meet" means fitting, suitable, appropriate for). (Actually I love yanking the chain of a religious addict. Chick could go on for hours...kind of like a wind up doll. But gets kinda boring after a while.)

jchick says: God's original plan for marriage has been "distorted."
Do you mean like...his plan that the wife was property? And the husband could have many wives? That original plan? Millions of people come to a healthy life through their religion, but beligious addiction is more scary than any other addiction because religious addiction is sanctioned by our society.

Dorithy said: "For religious groups, the possibility of procreation determines the legitimacy of marriage."

Not exactly. God determines the legitimacy of marriage, procreation is just one of the desired results. God's plan for marriage is one man and one woman for life. The fact that his original plan has been distorted by believers and non-believers alike, does not legitimize the deviation from his original design.

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)

Dorothy,
A Great truthful letter that the 'other side' with their hate will keep insulting all of God's children. Like above, I agree, God does not make mistakes.
No switch to turn on or off at birth. You are born in His image, which so many can't get to understand. Thanks for writing this letter.

Great letter. If you have to understand the issue in such an innocent way that's as good as it comes.
Vote No on 1.

Jon Albrecht Dixfield

a distinguished psychiatrist, to explain it to me. He said that everyone goes through a homosexual phase in early sexual development.

WOW this Dr needs his license revoked! holy tamales! I don't know what school he got his degree at but this Dr is giving out the wrong information. I'd love to see a medical journal that states this information.

Where does one find such innocent times to grow up in that they're 40 before homosexuality exists? Can you say bubble?

Bravo, Ms. Prince. Bravo.

Thank you, Ms. Prince, you said much that is true. Some that is not.
Over the centuries psychiatrists have come up with all sorts of reasons why people are gay. Believing them to be nature's (God's?) mistake, society over time has tried many things to change them: electric shock, canstration, removal of parts of the brain, inprisonment, and murder among many "cures." Not unlike over centuries when society tried to change left-handed people because it was a sign of the devil. (Right=deter side as in dexterity. Left=sinister side, as in "sin.")
Many people remember nuns who tried to beat left-handedness out of their students. I sure do!
While it's true gay people don't make a choice any more than straight people do, gay people are not an "accident" any more than left-handed people. Homosexuality is seen throughout the animal kingdom, and for gay people, loving someone of their own gender is perfectly natural. The mistake is in not recognizing nature's creation. "God don't make no mistakes."