Adjust traditions

So apperently because the term " Natural Law" was used by evil regimes and sepremicists completely out of the context of its true meaning to sway the followers into further believing the verbal vomit spewed from the mouths of the leaders of such causes noone can PROPERLY use the term to describe a man and a woman being REQUIRED to concieve a child. The ONLY way "natural law" was used in the previous blogs was to explain this point... If Elizabeth disputes this fact of conception then she is in for more than she bargained for and Im sure will be in for some surprises. Her equations are way off base here. Though there may be some bigots out there voting yes on 1 for they're own reasons, the VAST majority of mainers are not bigots and are very tolerant of any lifestyle that doesnt fit into the social norms of society....However if one group of people is asking for the government to legaly stomp on the constitutional rights of a religious group then that is as wrong as not allowing gays and lesbians to wed at all.. Yes on 1 voters have already stated that CIVIL UNIONS are completly fine in the eyes of the church and that Gays/Lesbians should have all the same benefits and rights that traditional married couples(man and woman) have but should not be allowed to legaly term it as marriage due to the legal and religious defenition of the word.. This shows the willingness to be accepting of the lifestyle that does not agree with they're belief system and Im sure many churches across the state welcome the gay/lesbian community into they're place of worship with open arms... but now you are asking them to compromise/change they're beliefs to suit your lifestyle and this my friends is no better than the church telling you to be straight.. You are asking them to change they're beliefs to appease you and that is wrong .... If the gay and lesbian community( or at least the no on 1 community) were willing to sit at the table and compromise then we would all be better off... from where I sit it looks like most voter supporting yes on 1 and the church have already shown they are willing , so I ask to the gay and lesbian(no on 1) community are you willing?

Natural law is simply ignorance and superstition institutionalized. Its an attempt to "secularize" the bible. Doesn't work. Marriage is a purely secular contracted created by government to organize marriage. The bible does not apply. And if it did its been re-written so often no one knows what it means. The bible is not authoritative.
Jon Albrecht Dixfield

"In 1999, Bill Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a bank deregulation bill that swept away a Depression-era law known as Glass-Steagall." This is classic Republican propaganda. Bill Clinton never signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Clinton signed an appropriations bill to which Gramm had added his act as a rider in conference committee. The appropriations bill had to be signed. Clinton did not have a line item veto so he could not remove GLB. GLB was a purely Republican bill bought and paid for by the banking industry and opposed by democrats everywhere.
Jon Albrecht Dixfield

Let's see. If those opposed to gay marriage base their argument on the bible or God, it's a bad thing. But if the pro-gay marriage side base their argument on "Jesus" it's Ok?

That sounds like a double standard to me.

The truth is, Jesus preached that marriage was ordained by God, and that it was a union between a man and a woman. That the two became "one flesh", and what God has joined together, man should not attempt to separate.

Jesus NEVER condoned sin of any kind. His message was clear; "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand." He offers forgiveness to all who repent and turn from their wicked ways. To those who do, he says "Go, and sin no more."

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)

Of course right off the bat poorman lets you know that if you disagree with their opinion, you are a bigot. So much for the party of open minds. I guess it only counts if your opinion matches theirs. How much longer are people like these going to compare homosexuality with the civil rights movement?
"Reasoning with a liberal is like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end. " Pirate

Elizabeth, you letter was an inspiration. I have thought of other examples of Natural Law that Ruth Oakley could use. The germans used the natural law theory to eliminate drains on society, we could also eliminate the elderly, and close mental hospitals since they don't abide by "Natural Law" The germans were not fond of homosexual citizens, except for Fat herman, and the head pedephile shitler. Apparently Ruth feels threatened by gay and lesbians. Perhaps a family member came out. I am straight, and always have been, but I believe that as a Christian I am bound to accept other ideas, without conditions.

Great letter Elizabeth. You argument is well thought out, so you can be sure it will fly right over the heads of the bigots opposed to same sex marriage. These are the same people who as you point out used to condone slavery and prohibit interracial marriage. Thanks for being a reasoned voice of tolerance!

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