No infringement

This is in response to the letter from Trudy Chasse, "An infringement?" (Oct. 14) regarding same-sex unions in the state of Maine.

The state does not infringe on the power of any church to decide who will, or will not, be married under its roof. It is up to each individual religious institution to decide who has or has not met particular marriage requirements, such as pastoral counseling, for example.

That will not change if voters uphold the state law legalizing same-sex unions. If a church chooses not to marry a same-sex couple, that would be legal.

As a notary public (all notaries in the state are authorized to perform civil marriage ceremonies within the state), I am well aware that a very important document is required for any couple to be married in Maine, in a religious ceremony or otherwise: a marriage license.

Therefore, I do not think the state is on shaky legal ground by using the term "marriage" or "defining the legal rights thereof."

I am voting "no" on Question 1. I hope to soon be able to marry both same-sex and heterosexual couples in this state.

Michelle Rice, Auburn

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

citrus's picture

Quote OUTnABOUT says

Quote
OUTnABOUT
says newRobert Taylor of the NAACP on discrimination: "It was wrong 40 years ago. It's wrong now."

Being born black is one thing, alternative sexual lifestyle is another.
Don't mix race with Gays.

jchick's picture
verified

Rational argument #1 - The

Rational argument #1 - The law discriminates against both heterosexual and homosexual couples who choose to live together without being married. Rather than change the definition of marriage, the law should extend the same bennefits and priviledges to all domestic partners, whether they choose to be married or not.

Rational argument #2 - Those who are for same sex marriage, state as one of their reasons, that to do otherswise (i.e. civil unions instead of marriage) would create a situation where there would be "equal but seperate" bennefits and priviledges, that we should all be equal under the law. But that is just what the same sex marriage law has done. Now there are seperate guidelines for religious institutions that exempt them from recognizing same sex "civil" marriages.

Rational argument #3 - Both the federal and state constitutions prohibit government from making laws establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. By granting religious entities "permission" to ignor the law regarding same sex marriages, government has set a dangerous precedent that could pave the way to government regulation of religious entities in other areas.

Rational argument #4 - Nothing in the state or federal constitutions grant government the authority to redefine marriage. In fact, it may be argued that government has overstepped its bounds by getting into the marriage business in the first place. The government DOES have the authority to extend the bennefits and priviledges of marriage to all domestic partners.

The rational, fair and equal thing to do is repeal this law, leave the deffiniton of marriage alone, and extend said bennefits and priviledges to all domestic partnerships.

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)

nikita80's picture

Very interesting. Your

Very interesting. Your solution might even satisfy the business group that thinks same sex marriage could help Maine's economy. Although I don't agree with everyones' views, I can see where some would take a stand for equality, and some would take a stand for morality. But, for the economy? I can't believe people would want to make this about money for the State of Maine.

jojolou's picture

YES on @1, why redefine

YES on @1, why redefine marriage, they have civil unions. What next ---three getting together, a man and his dog, may God bless us all.

news4u's picture

"What next ---three getting

"What next ---three getting together, a man and his dog" What movies have you been watching??????

tron's picture

Like I said, the YES on 1

Like I said, the YES on 1 people have yet to make a sane rational agrument for their side. jojolou just proved that.

Traylblaze's picture

Thanks for writing this

Thanks for writing this letter. Please vote No on 1!

kant.linkbuilder's picture

Robert Taylor of the NAACP

Robert Taylor of the NAACP on discrimination: "It was wrong 40 years ago. It's wrong now."

tron's picture

The yes on one people have

The yes on one people have not made a rational arguement for their viewpoint. This referendum may pass, but unless they make valid reasons against equality, they will lose in the long run.

Advertisement