Adjust traditions
This is in response to Ruth Oakley (Oct. 28) and others who use "natural law" as an argument against same-sex marriage.
Let's not forget that natural law is the same argument that was used to condone slavery and prohibit interracial marriage. It is the same argument that pushes an unhealthy "separate but equal" stance. In the nation's not-so-distant past, separate but equal ideology produced separate water fountains for whites and for blacks.
These examples that have used the natural law argument contradict the teachings of Jesus. Let's learn from history and not repeat that unhealthy pattern.
Given his living example of how to conduct ourselves before God, Jesus taught people that traditions must be adjusted when they do not hold others in equality. The Gospels are clear on that message.
The tradition of civil marriage should be adjusted in a way that provides equal rights for all.
Elizabeth Henry, Auburn
concerned KD says
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?