A legal contract

Jami!! I just googled “1972 Gay Rights Platform” and was FLOORED by what I read. Repealing age of consent laws!??! NO WAY!

To the honorable Sen. Deb Simpson from Auburn,

Nothing in the Constitution of the State of Maine or the Constitution of the United States gives you the authority to redefine marriage. Claiming that "civil" marriage and "religious" marriage are not the same is a straw man. People of faith are required to obtain a marriage license from the State even though their marriage cerimony will likely take place in a religious setting and be officiated by a minister, priest, etc. When it bennefits the State, they are the same, yet in the case of same sex marriage, they are not (according to you).

Currently Title 19-A, p650 reads:

"A. The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society; the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in traditional monogamous marriage."

Marriage is what it is. Marriage is not a right, civil or otherwise. We already have equal rights. Government cannot grant rights. If government could grant rights than government could take them away. Our rights are inherent and are a gift from God. If religion plays no part in this debate, how is it that our founding fathers claimed that our rights to Life, Libery and the Persuit of Happiness are bestowed upon us by our Creator?

Go back to the beginning of the text:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Did you catch that? Their justification for the separation from England was based on what they felt they were entitled to according to the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God".

We call the union between a man and a woman, marriage. In the eyes of God it makes no difference if someone is married by a Justice of the Peace or a minister. It's still a union between a man and a woman. This union is not only considered Holy and Sacred by religious people, it is the foundation of the family, the cornerstone of civilization and societies and cultures all around the globe. We have laws that extend bennefits and protections to married couples because society would not exist if it were not for "Natural" union between a man and a woman.

If government wishes to extend the same protections and bennefits to same sex couples and domestic partnerships, that is perfectly acceptable. But you should also extend them to heterosexual couples who prefer to NOT be married, yet still maintain a partnership.

No matter how you look at it, the same sex marriage law that you and your fellow representatives and senators passed is a bad law. It needs to be repealed and rewritten so ALL of the people enjoy equal bennefits without changing the definition of marriage.

It is ironic that you should mention our ancestors coming to this country to escape persecution for their religious beliefs while at the same time urging us to accept a law that desecrates one of the most sacred tenents of their faith.

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)

jojolou, Every time one of you yes-on-1 folks adds the idiotic "what's-next---marrying-your -pet" comment, I don't even bother to consider that you just might have something worthwhile tucked into your post.

rogor,
Apparently along with not being able to think you also can't read. Sen. Simpson quoted the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution. But nothing in either document supports a pro-life position. Once again that is a religious not a secular position. The point of Sen. Simpson's letter is that secular not religious considerations should determine our vote on question 1. And the only rational vote on 1 is NOOOOOOO.

jojolou,

Another nonsensical comment. Would you find the time to stay on subject. Come to think of it don't try.
Jon Albrecht Dixfield

Thanks Senator Simpson for providing a cogent response to all these nutziod argument about how gay marriage will destroy us all. You have earned my vote as you always do!

Any problem that can't be solved with taxcuts, republicans pretend doesn't exist.

Sen. Simpson, since you quote the preamble to the Constitution, are you pro-life?

It is all about redefining marriage. What next a man marrying his pet? May God bless us all.