Resident of West Gardiner, long-time reader. Lived in Lewiston and Auburn. Graduate of CMVTI, now CMCC. Worked in Lewiston for many years. Have lived in the Central Maine area of Maine most of my life.
My pastime is gardening, not being homosexual and although you may think that's simply parsing words, I'd like to encourage you to be as specific as possible when you castigate fellow citizens.
And if "lifestyle" was a word I'd use to describe my life, I'd certainly be spending my days sunning on a sandy beach. But, sadly, no. We do the same things that, perhaps, you do: Breakfast; walk the dog; work; lunch; work some more; commute home; dinner; a movie maybe or how about a book instead? Bedtime and do all over again tomorrow.
I don't demand you accept anything about me personally. I do, however, expect that you look upon me as a citizens of this country, just like you — not as some unnatural pervert that garners your disgust.
Do you believe, then, that homosexuals are unnatural? What, then do you suggest for those citizens who are denied the right to marry? All because they're "unnatural"? That's hardly fair — or accurate.
The story says in part: "There's no basis in nature for a right to sodomy or a right to call two men or two women who are choosing to relate to one another sexually as a marriage," he said. "There's no intrinsic or natural right to that. So we believe that these are special rights."
What do they mean by employing the word 'sodomy'?
Maine repealed its sodomy law long ago. The 1970's, in fact. Also, in 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all sodomy laws, making clear that private, adult sexual conduct cannot be criminalized, so why are Madore and Heath using this as part of their argument?
It's hardly a rational (or accurate) but more to the point — they're using tactics to incite people's irrational hate as they clearly display their revulsion for homosexuality.
President Obama didn't say we are NOT a Christian nation, he said we are no longer "just" a Christian nation, but a nation of many other faiths as well. There is no attack on religion as much as you believe there is. You're still free to believe anything you like. President Obama hasn't any desire to prevent you from spewing whatever religious rants you wish.
One source I checked indicates there less than 2,500 undocumented immigrants in the state. So you're right. If there isn't a problem here than why all the fuss about the law change?
It makes me wonder. Is this change just one step closer to a "Paper's please" law?
. . . or are you just telling yourself I had? It certainly would work better for your argument is I did. But . . . I didn't.
My parents (like many parents) didn't hope their child would grow up gay. More importantly, they didn't hope he wouldn't. Lots of parents have hopes and dreams for their children. But as their children mature, those hopes and dreams cannot be expectations. A child needs to grow up and be their own person.
But my parents love me the way I am.
Just realize please, that sexual orientation is not something chosen, it's not a genetic mistake, glitch or disease. It's normal. No matter what "fatandhappy" says.
No. Homosexuality is not a genetic mistake. And should you ask my parents what they wanted in their child they would have answered by only asking for 10 fingers and 10 toes. All they hoped for was a happy child to grow up to a well adjusted and decent human being. To intimate that a parent hopes their child isn't born gay is a low class comment freyt.
I didn't choose to be gay any more than you chose to be straight. I CHOOSE blueberries with my pancakes and that's about all there is to that.
And hopefully, you understand the meaning of "subjugate": sub·ju·gate/ˈsəbjəˌgāt/Verb - To make someone or something subordinate to.
You use your command of the English language to assault virtually every aspect of me personally, using my sexual orientation as justification. It's shameful. I have equal value to you whether you like it or not.
Further, you can write, say or scream your disgust of homosexuality all you like — but still you'll be wrong. I was made this way on purpose just as much as you were. And I don't need to spend lots of energy trying to make you believe that. Clearly you wouldn't.
Finally, I expect all people no matter who they are to live their lives with justice and equality. The laws of this country provide that right — especially in the face of people like yourself.
Your disgusting, insulting and useless attempts to emasculate me by petit insults shows just how small-minded you are. Resorting to childish taunts and insults. So goodie-goodie, you're not politically correct — obviously.
fatandhappy, that is the last time you'll have the opportunity to insult me or any other gay or lesbian on this site. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, don't get me wrong — you can think anything you like. But if you think it's acceptable to subjugate my value as a man because of my sexual orientation than you're mistaken.
I challenge you to register with this web site and give you name. If you're callous enough to write what you have than I expect you to stand by what you've written and put your name to it.
I work hard. I pay my taxes. I'm a good neighbor to the community where I live, and you . . . have no business telling me you know better the value of any gay or lesbian.
What saddens me more than anything though is that nobody objected to your noxious comment. So if I'm the lone voice in the woods, so be it. You fatandhappy . . . aren't so very.
I agree with your concerns completely. Take a username like "joseph" for instance. If you merely type into any search engine "Joseph", you'll get all sorts of results that clearly have nothing to do with my favorite SJ contributor, Joseph. But if you type in to a search engine "Joseph sun journal", you'll get all sorts of results for my favorite SJ contributor, Joseph. I apologize for the shameless plug.
So a little research from here and you just (that's just) may find out a few interesting things about that person.
And this is where I agree with your concerns completely.
Should anyone who posts a comment on this site be 'registered' with the SJ, than information such as your full name and the town where you live is listed. That will be a concern to many. I understand why.
So there's some serious considerations that need to be made before one posts comments on this web site. And that goes for any web site. Your personal information is a precious commodity and one should be careful.
I don't believe however that the Sun Journal is responsible for ensuring an individuals anonymity. Far too many people post very hostile comments here. Some even go to extraordinary lengths to discredit another's point of view. Name calling, personal attacks, you name it. All one needs to do is read.
I believe that if you're willing to post a comment, than you should be willing to post those comment with your name. The word integrity comes to mind.
I've been posting comment here with my username "Joseph" for years now. Dig a little deeper and you'll discover my full name and the town where I live. In reality, nothing has changed except for one thing. Now all of us will have to do the same thing.
Yes, I hope this doesn't create a problem for both the SJ and the people who comment here. But with some of the objections I've read here, like many others, I'll carefully weigh my future options on this site.
I used the word "courageous" and frankly, that wasn't actually directed at you. But somehow, and conveniently for you perhaps, you decided that I called you a coward.
Furthermore, I'm not criticizing people for hiding behind a pseudonym but rather merely pointing out the pitfalls of doing so. And you believe that I'm hiding behind the internet, I have to tell you that seems rather silly. I'm 'verified' and my name is easily found. You? Um . . . are opting out. Hurray.
But you think I have no value as a man and I'm glad I don't need your permission to be one. At least my mother thinks I have value, so I'm all set. Thank you, though.
Finally . . . call me sir.
Am I reaching here or are you trying to "take this outside" and bait me into a more substantive discussion?
Because you want the last word right? OK fine, I'm done here. So my blood pressure's up there. At this point, I'm sure you're getting ready to take a shower.
You mean the comment I wrote which was directly under the one — from out of the blue — that you wrote? And no, I'm not a little girl, I'm a grown up. Are you? Must you regress to such childish taunts?
Sure, we all could use a little of that — especially this time of year. But improve myself to your standards? Nah. I think I'll pass. Thanks all the same.
But to assign my value as a person by my sexual orientation is presumptuous on your part. A persons value cannot be assessed solely by that alone. The short answer to you is this: You refuse to use your name in order to post on this web site. You're complaining about the Sun Journal's policy. Fine. Lots of people are. With your immanent departure in mind, all I want to say is farewell. I for one won't miss you. Over and out.
OK, OK, you could use lots of words other than gross to describe me. So I should consider myself lucky. But really. Gross? I haven't been called that since I got caught picking my nose in the 5th grade. What do you know fatandhappy. You made me laugh.
This is exactly the reason why the Sun Journal is implementing their verification policy. And just was the purpose of that comment? To insult me, piss me off, offend me? Sure it was . . . good for you. But understand that for every one of your useless and insulting comments, it servers to reinforce the perception that you're nothing more than a snarky jerk. You purposefully antagonize me and that's a shame. You just might be a nice person. But I wouldn't know that . . . you've given me no reason to believe you are.
Am quite happy to let you do whatever it is you do. And me? What's so wrong with me? Do I disgust you somehow? No, don't answer that. I really couldn't care less. You don't disgust me, I should mention though. Dismay a little, sure. Disgust? Nah.
But the vindictive attacks come regardless of one providing their names or not. Read through any comments here on any given day and you'll read insult after insult. Although I can agree that many people have concerns about privacy, frankly anonymity is a veil that too many people hide behind in order to spew way too many vindictive and inappropriate comments. Me? I intend to keep on writing here. And I promise to keep my comments civil. No longer shall I call "fatandhappy" pork chop or fatboy, stuff like that. I promise.
Happily then, I won't have to read your comments here any longer. Look, it's as simple as this: If you're willing (or brash enough) to write a comment on a web site such as this one, than be willing (or courageous enough) to put your name to it. Because my guess is, you'll think twice before you write anything you please. You'll still be fat and happy though. That's good news.
The expression of your disgust of homosexuality is clear and frankly, I find if offensive. Clearly this pleases you, otherwise you'd be spending a little more brain power (something you seriously lack) on finding more elegant and elloquent ways of expressing your sentiments. So you understand my point of view . . . as a homosexual, I find you equally disgraceful. And for obvious reasons. A good Samaratin you're not. Untrustworthy you most certainly seem. Cruelty and obnoxiousness go without question. For you alone, I would expect, inspire many to support the reapeal of D.A.D.T. I challenge you to keep your hard-heartedness when you realize that a gay servicemember died in order to keep secure the values you hold so strongly. Understand that gays and lesbians are already serving in the military. Realize they did so for many reasons - one of them being they want to serve. Relent your useless and hateful rhetoric that displays you as nothing more than an interminable bore. Recognize that anyone willing to stand in the way of a bullet or a bomb does so for the benefit of people like you. Gay or straight why would you even dare to complain? That you do - and so disgracefully I would add - makes you nothing more than a jerk. Merry Christmas fat boy.
The expression of your disgust of homosexuality is clear and frankly, I find if offensive. Clearly this pleases you, otherwise you'd be spending a little more brain power (something you seriously lack) on finding more elegant and elloquent ways of expressing your sentiments. So you understand my point of view . . . as a homosexual, I find you equally disgraceful. And for obvious reasons. A good Samaratin you're not. Untrustworthy you most certainly seem. Cruelty and obnoxiousness go without question. For you alone, I would expect, inspire many to support the reapeal of D.A.D.T. I challenge you to keep your hard-heartedness when you realize that a gay servicemember died in order to keep secure the values you hold so strongly. Understand that gays and lesbians are already serving in the military. Realize they did so for many reasons - one of them being they want to serve. Relent your useless and hateful rhetoric that displays you as nothing more than an interminable bore. Recognize that anyone willing to stand in the way of a bullet or a bomb does so for the benefit of people like you. Gay or straight why would you even dare to complain? That you do - and so disgracefully I would add - makes you nothing more than a jerk. Merry Christmas fat boy.
So on the whole you find nothing valid about homosexuals. OK, I get the point. Happily not as many people agree with your opinion as they once had. So unless you plan on spending the rest of your afternoon complaining, I can only assume that your disgust of other peoples behavior is what drive your opinions. I don't find that rational. I don't find that even vaguely intelligent. So go ahead believe whatever you wish - you have the right - even if you lead with your knee all the time. Just remember, fat stuff, there are thousands of gay men and women willing to stand in the way of a bullet or bomb for your sake. Just remember what it takes to become a U.S. servicemember and realize that even homosexuals want to serve. That commands a great deal of respect - which clearly you cannot give. Such a shame. My grateful thanks to those who supported the real of DADT.
So clearly you're advocating discrimination. But calling people names such like "nancy-boy" is pretty neurotic, childish and just plain stupid. Grow up fat stuff.
Your comments on balance are crass, rude, disrespectful and ignorant. Think of the men and women fighting for our country before you say such blatantly homophobic comments again. You should be embarrassed.
I hope a Casino in Oxford county will prove to be the economic solution to a very challenged part of Maine. But I'll ask the question . . . how many times has this option been offered to Maine voters before? And how many times was it voted down. Why now as opposed to then? We could've had 1 or 2 by now generating revenue Maine so desperately needs. Although I don't agree with Tron's complaint, I don't understand the timing.
Calling a total stranger names in order to prove a point does not make you right. Or are you such a venom-spewing bully that you must insult somebody to seem bigger than you really are?
Yeah, here we go. Using circular logic to justify your palid excuses in order to disenfranchise groups people for the sake of your personal value system. Look, my prevous posts regarding "equality" speak for themselves easily enough. You want to have a game with me where you parse words and intent in order to prove a point, you'll have to try some other time. So go play out in the street, I'm not interested.
I've been waiting for that caveat. I know you'd let out with it sooner or later. So inequality it is then for those whom you believe deserve less than you. Because of what? According to your post, it would seem one must meet a specific criteria in order to receive (or deserve) equal treatment, equal access, equal opportunity. That's too bad. Should you encourage others to aspire to a better, more productive way of living, that's really something quite nice. But assigning value based on your singular point of view is exactly how discrimination begins. And that's what equality is all about — fighting against bias to assure that everyone has a fair chance at (wait for it . . .) "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Integrity is an important part of individual character. It's something to strive for and certainly something to admire. But equality is a more specific term than what you describe. In my opinion, equality is about a fair society, where everyone participates (and is responsible) in the same measure. Economically, socially, politically. It's as simple as that. To measure a persons character after all is said and done speaks to them alone. Equality speaks to society as a whole. It's something I hope to see come true in my lifetime.
Still, you try to rationalize the comparison between Obama and Hitler. Clearly you just don't get it. More to the point, I'm assuming it wouldn't serve your argument not to. But if you want to search through history to explain Hitler's raise to power than help yourself. The difference between Hitler and Obama - and history will bear this out - is that Hitler was an insane xenophobe, Obama is not. Comparing Nazi Germany to this nation at this point in time serves nobody. It's hardly accurate and most important, it's disrespectful to our President, our country, 6 million Jews and countless homosexuals, Russians, Gypsies and so many more.
Why I use this image, an equality symbol for my icon image is a personal decision. My motives are as obvious as the image. Equality is an asperation for all of us, regardless of who we are. Sadly, for many equality has yet to be achieved. It's not a concept that needs much explaination, much less something to question. It's kind of obvious, wouldn't you say?
Your comment is pretty vile. Hitler was a despotic megalomaniac who was consumed with world domination. Toward that end, he devised a vision for Germany that did not include certain people — Jews among them. The atrocities he committed are beyond comprehension even to this day. Comparing anyone to Hitler is far from appropriate. It's disrespectful for one and pretty darn (how can I say this without sounding like a jerk), well never mind, it's just wrong. To minimize Hitler's crimes as merely "cost-cutting" while comparing those measures to President Obama is inane. Perhaps you should look toward Congress for those same comparisons. Everyone's talking about "cost-cutting", everyone.
I mentioned nothing regarding their right to protest. I did however say their method of comparing President Obama to Adolf Hitler was designed soley to create hatred - an effective tactic Nazi Germany used against Jews. Regardless if Mr. LaRouche is responsible for orchestrating these types of protests, the fact remains it was designed to do nothing more than stir economic, political and quite possibly racial bias. I agree with you, their message was vile. Further I'm not advocating censorship. But should sensible, rational people consider such tactics as valid and worthy of consideration? Hardly.
The point isn't whether or not those people had the right to protest or not - that wasn't the point of the writer's letter - obviously. The point of her letter (and I agree) is with their method of protest. For anyone to draw a comparison between anyone and Adolf Hitler is extreme and in the case of those protesters in Brunswick and Lewiston, clearly meant create, if not inspire hatred.
Pages and pages of vitriolic rants, complaining about a social welfare system I'm convinced most people here know nothing about.
And for some reason it seems many here feel it's the Somali communities fault. Read through all of these horrid comments and you'll get the general notion that most people here truly want to blame some group — any group, for Maine's dire financial situation. And today it's Maine's Somali families turn to bear the brunt of all your ire.
But do any of you know any Somali families here in Maine? If you had, you might form different opinions than the ones I'm reading here today.
Thanks go to Lady Gaga for being an advocate of equal rights for all people but especially for giving her support to the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell". Let all citizens serve without fear from the country they wish to serve! Doesn't anybody that wishes to serve in the military deserve enough respect for being willing to stand in front of a bullet or bomb? This really shouldn't be such a big deal but sadly it is. Realize that gays and lesbians willing to serve do so for the same reasons any straight person would? There's no shame in that. They deserve our respect, our thanks and our support. Please support the repeal of DADT.
And don't your comments sound much like the ones used to describe every other immigrant group that came to the United Sates? In the 1850's, protestant Bostonians called Irish immigrants "the slime on our shores". Sounds pretty hateful doesn't it? Doesn't it seem LA's Somali population are enduring the same vitriolic diatribes as the Irish and French once had? I'm certain that most of you all don't know one Somali in town. If you did, than perhaps you'd think twice before you rant and rave as you have.
I'm sure you Google all sorts of things in order to gain a little enlightenment no? That said, Wiki is merely a source for information — its reliability may be unverifiable in some cases but that's what their "citations" are for. But without question sourcing the internet is a valuable and increasingly viable way to get the information we all seek. Now just tell me you haven't used Wikipedia yourself to bolster an argument or two?
but as I read these comments, I'm struck by the general tone of dismay and dislike for LA's Somali population. Like it or not folks, they are here to stay and like most immigrant families that came before them, they'll make their homes here, raise their families here and eventually (and hopefully) thrive here. Just keep in mind as you all minge and complain of their existence you should realize that LA's Somali population are not expected to change to your flippant whims and desires. Someday (and sooner than later) all of your complaints will fade away into distant echos, so nobody will remember how virulent many of you sound.
How it is reasonable to for anyone toactually cast a "vote" for equal rights? Sexual orientation, same-sex marriage and adoption issues aside, how is it possible that we are expected to believe it reasonable to accept discrimination as valid when it's enforced by a popular vote? Do you all want to explain that to me?
and it bears worth repeating. Some people commenting here have been cruel. Just keep in mind that people died here. For whatever reasons involved, just realize there are grieving people left behind.
Tron, I usually appreciate your comments but it's becoming very uncomfortable reading how you and "thinkingman" war back and forth. Although I realize that both you and he cannot get along in a civil manner, I for one, would like to respectfully ask that you dial it down a little. It's because I would prefer to read your comment regarding the subject, rather than the petit wars that you and "thinker" elect to play out in this forum. Just asking sir and I hope you understand.
You're over reacting to tron's postings. And although It's clear that both you and he cannot be civil under any circumstances, you must admit you have (on occasion) elected to get into very personal and vitriolic arguments which have nothing to do with the subject at hand. In this case a tragic accident. Sorry he called you names "thinker" but I would have thought you'd be above such trivial jabs. Clearly not though it would seem. Yes, tron pokes at you purposely but in my opinion, it becomes embarrassing and obnoxious to read your petit wars play on through postings such as this. Clearly, you both have valuable things to contribute in these types of discussions but really now . . . can either of you back off and behave as mature adults? Surely you realize this?
Oh hardy Pirate . . . if it's the "word" than what's the problem here? It's only a word isn't it? When somebody wants to get married in Maine but elects to get married in a civil ceremony, the certificate reads: “united in MARRIAGE,” but in the Catholic ceremony (as an example) the document reads: “united in HOLY MATRIMONY.” (Capitalized words are on the documents.) How is it that any religion that joins people in holy matrimony can object to two people being joined in marriage? Was the same-sex law voted down simply because of a misunderstanding of semantics? Sure seems that way to me. Or do you believe that "separate but equal" is an acceptable way to treat one's neighbors?
It's offensive to me that Ceplikas would impune that we're ashamed of each other for the defeat of LD1020. And threats? What sort of threats? Just some more pidgeon chested gloating from indignant individuals who resent the fact that Maine's gay and lesbian community strive for civil equality. Furthermore, the will of the people endorsed discrimination and personally I don't think that's much to gloat about.
Why should we? We love this state as much as you do. And . . . we want to live here with the same rights and responsibilities as you do. So if you don't like "married homosexuals" living in this state why don't YOU move instead?
Oh, I can't stand it. You're such a ranting cluck! In my case, (you garrulous crank) I'm healthy, well adjusted and the furthest thing from a life spiraling out of control. I have no mental health issues and short of being diabetic as my family is genetically prone, I'm as normal as you are. My life is in not destructive in any way, shape or form. You want to know what the "homosexual agenda" is? I'll tell you. It's REALLY EASY to remember. It goes like this: Breakfast; Work; Lunch; More work; Early dinner; Movie maybe; Read; Floss; Leno. That's it pal. It's called "life" Sammie and it's pretty average as compared to everybody else. So the next time you want to start spouting your venom and disgust over homosexuality just remember one thing. Simple human kindness goes a long way. And you sir, don't appear to have any.
Ilk? What you think we are anyway? We're not bizarre or anything else like that. Stop your nonsense and treat us with the humanity and respect we deserve. Furthermore, I chose nothing. And neither did you when it comes to your relationships. I can no more be straight than you can be gay. My sexual orientation is just as much of a given as being left-handed or right. And yet you still rant and rave about choice; and unnatural acts; ilk and the like. You're sounding pretty superior in your convictions and clearly at the expense of simple human kindness. So YES "Sammie" I do. I want you to say we're OK. Because we are. We deserve civil equality, justice and respect. Nuff said!
Well for starters, how about the 9th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Perhaps it's a stretch but as a gay man in a long term relationship who's been denied equal access to state and federal benefits garnered through the legal union of marriage, I don't see why this is a question that needs to be justified. Equal access to all that the law provides should be the issue here. And it certainly is an emotional issue here, especially when somebody declares that I don't deserve civil equality.
Gays and Lesbians who wish to marry are not freaks. So grouping this issue into some ridiculous association with farm animals is callous and uncalled for. And same-sex marriage IS a civil rights issue regardless of whatever histrionic comparisons you try to make.
Symantecs. You're parsing words and splitting hairs. Deriding homosexuals for no other reason than the sexual act while simultaneously extolling their virtue as human beings is an incompatible argument. Your arguments read hollow. Vacuous. A white elephant. A paper tiger. Tempest in a teapot. Shall I go on? I'm assuming you're voting yes? Fine then, vote. But afterwhich, I seriously hope you consider getting off this razor thin line you sit upon and decide once and for all how you plan on treating your fellow gay and lesbian neighbors. Loving them and all the while hating what they do is still an oxymoron.
Homosexuals are not deviant, self-damaging, societal misfits. And this isn't an issue about sex and your disgust and objections about it. This is about dignity, fairness and civil equality. I pay my taxes and take care of the responsibilities of life faithfully. I want no more out of life than what everyone else has. I deserve to live my life as equally as my brother. Prejudice is a stalwart belief that one person is superior to another or group of people via unreasonable and unfair actions or words. To equate gay couples whom wish to marry as deviant is unfair, unjust, prejudiced and pretty darn mean. So write on and on . . . and on as you have. It's merely hot hair, taking up more scrolling space on a newspaper's web site. I suggest you retire for the evening and let a few others have at it.
As laudable as your assertion may TRY to be . . . it's nothing more than an oxymoronic statement. What you're clearly stating is a homosexual's "dignity" not withstanding, you will not stand for sexual deviants trying to assert themselves into society. But trying to be nice about it all the while. OK, fine. But what you wrote really just smacks of "No, I'm not prejudiced, really I'm not. Some of my best friends are (insert type of person here)."
It saddens me to realize that the Sun Journal advocates for "status quo" when it comes to civil equality in Maine. How can this newspaper reconcile the inadequacy in which Maine treats its citizens? For the Sun Journal to advocate and ultimately endorse discrimination is troubling. The institution of marriage not withstanding, it is fair, and is it just to treat our gay and lesbian neighbors with such blatant inequity? Putting the question to the voters by referendum is appropriate for myriad issues ranging from tax reform to bond initiatives but for this newspaper to actually believe that civil equality is best decided by asking voters to give permission to a marginalized group of law-abiding citizens whom merely wish to get married is unconscionable. The issue of same-sex marriage goes far beyond religious convictions or objections. Should Question 1 strike down same-sex marriage in Maine, it could be seen as a mandate which would allow religious dogma to become the arbiter of justice and equality for virtually every social issue imaginable — gays and lesbians included. Is this what the Sun Journal advocates?
Hey, you said it. I'm VERY disappointed in the SJ for not taking an editorial position on this issue. I'm expecting the board to sway in one direction or another on the remainder of the ballot questions, so why the SJ didn't on this issue is bothering me. Yes or No. . . which is it SJ? What say you? I wanna know!
How are those details important then? And yes, you're very right and I agree with you. We're all born with equal rights. So let's make sure that happens in Maine by voting NO on Question 1, Nov. 3
How in the world would anybody argue their point with such circular (and false) logic as yours? Clearly my sexual orientation disgusts you and that's what you're reacting toward. Obviously you couldn't care less for the humanity or dignity of your fellow gay and lesbian neighbors and that's really a shame. Because you're not looking at the person. You're looking at what you dislike (and what disgusts you) about them. Criminals such as pedophiles, deviants such as those whom engage in bestiality are not what we're talking about. That you associate Maine's homosexual citizens with those things is cruel, offensive and wrong. What else is there to say? You don't see me. And without question, you don't care to. Too bad. You're vilifying people you know nothing about. Again, that's cruel. Shameful, actually.
I'd venture a guess that neither of you are bigots per se. So why are you shoving that word around? It doesn't help anything — except add more fuel to the fire. Is that what you're about?
Yes, Tron . . . I realize he's picked a fight or two with you in these comment sections but please Tron. I understand but let's not do this today shall we?
It is unfair, cruel and ridiculous to associate same-sex couples with bestiality and incest. We're not criminals, perverts or deviants. Where it ends is when our society recognizes the humanity in each of us and values all of its citizens with equal measure. Currently that's not happening. And even though it it may not have been YOUR lame argument, you in fact DID ask the question.
This isn't about "preference" and that word is misused often. Preference indicates a choice which clearly homosexuality is not. I can no more choose my sexual orientation as a gay man than can you as a straight man. I "prefer" blueberries in my pancakes. I do not merely "prefer" men over women. These aren't special rights. Do you consider equal protection based on ethnicity a "special right"? There is no difference between you and me except I love a man and hope to marry him. We've been together for over 20 years now and by many standards we're doing a great job. And I'm not looking toward religious organizations to bend to my will and let me marry. I'm looking toward the State of Maine to let me live as equally as my neighbors do and allow me to get married.
The legislature passed and the Governor signed LD1020 into law because it was the right thing to do. This law ensures civil equality for all of Maine's citizens. As a previous post points out, civil equality was a "contentious issue" in other civil rights causes and this is one no different. Maine's gay and lesbian citizens are no different than their straight counterparts. I urge you all to please see this as a civil equality issue and realize that voting yes will endorse discrimination against people who bear no ill will against society. Rather they merely wish to participate fully in all that our nation affords to everybody else. Myself . . . I honor marriage just a fervently as my brother does and hope someday to marry my partner of over 20 years.
Never badgered? Seriously Madeline, I'm laughing out loud. Perhaps not badgering Madeline. . . but deride, castigate, vilify and dehumanize SURE You've done that! I've been a witness. I'm actually quite heartened however to realize that you're perfectly willing to allow civil unions which act the same as "marriage". And if Question 1 on November's ballot strikes down the same-sex marriage law than I would be proud indeed to consider you a supporter of same-sex civil unions and will be glad and grateful to work in concert with you toward that end. Thank you.
You've called me a pervert and that offends me — deeply. I'm certainly not perverse and your insistence that I am (and all of Maine's gay and lesbian citizens) serves to do nothing more than dehumanize us. That's cruel, and you know it. And as far as "kindness" is concerned, you've been everything BUT kind yourself. I've already told you what I believe your behavior to have been previously. In virtually every one of your posts, you've railed against a population of which you know nothing about and care even less to consider. That is unless they confirm to your religious expectations. It's presumptuous, it's pompous and it's wrong. I'm not deriding your religious conviction, mind you. But what I'm telling you is you're foisting them in a hostile and cruel way. Your noxious and obsessive compulsion to use perversion as the "watch-word" of the moment and all the while slipping in "incest" to bolster your arguments is fantastically strange. As one poster had previously mentioned, it serves to do nothing more than display you as a fanatic. It's not working to your best advantage. Try a much different approach. You might, just might, gain some respect. For me . . . as you assign me as perverse, you haven't got my respect. You earned my disgust.
I'm not "name calling" and you know it. But for some reason (in order to discredit my arguments) you try and pass it off as an offense. I know name-calling and plenty of other posts have done just that toward you. Me? I've refrained. And I'll write it again — just so we can be clear on this point — your insistence that homosexuality is a perversion is offensive to me. I'm not in the least concerned in your ridiculous reasons on why it shouldn't be. And understand this clearly. I'm not attacking you. Should you care to read your previous posts, you'll plainly see the strident and vitriolic language you've employed. It's hostile, mean-spirited and cruel. You've been pompous, sarcastic and snide. Your biting vitriol and free-wheeling sanctimony has served to offend plenty of readers here, including me. By now, I'm sure you've figured out that a more 'mannerly' approach to your assertions works better, as illustrated by the calmness of tone in your most recent posts.
The solution to your concern is quite easy. So rather than creating fictitious claims such as yours, why don't you go to your local school board and make your feelings known. Local school boards and the State education commission are the ones that decide and regulate the curriculum in regards to sex education.
Gays and Lesbians aren't perverts and to refer to us as such only serves to diminish your arguments against us. So thanks for showing yourself in such a manner, even though your comment is offensive and cruel.
Madeline . . . your hypocrisy is astonishing to me. In one post you deride Maine's gay and lesbian population for their sexual perversion. Then you castigate them for contributing to the moral decay of the "family" and use Gay Pride parade videos as your reason. And now here, you take an astonishing reversal in rhetoric and call for a change in civil law to accommodate same-sex marriage. "leave marriage alone" is what you write, clearly stated for all to see. Well then, thank you. That's very generous of you. But is it the "word" or the "deed" that upsets you so much? What upsets you more, homosexuals and "sex" or homosexuals and "marriage"? And furthermore, if you're so willing to allow same-sex couples to join in civil unions that are the same as "marriage" than what's with all the fuss you've been creating for the past two days? You posts have been offensive and noxious up till this one. What's the story Madeline? You're confusing people.
In order for everyone to understand the full depth and breadth of Madeline's posts, I suggest you read as far down as you possibly can. You'll get a more clear view of what she's trying to accomplish. I hope you'll find it illuminating. I sure have.
Listen lady, if you're "not against gays" than I'm a red herring and I can fly. I don't know about you but when somebody labels me a pervert, I'm not all that likely to assume they're "for me" in any way shape or form. Oh, and yeah . . . if this is about same-sex marriage than fine. Vote! But use "perversion" as your reason and then later on expect anyone to believe you as not being "against gays" than don't expect anyone to believe you as being fair minded. No, that wouldn't be you at all. Nope, not in the least.
Would you care then to comment on the U.S. internment camps forced upon Japanese Americans during WWII? Or how about "Jim Crow" laws. Can you justify how this nation treated generations of Native Americans and how they were forced onto reservations, loosing their land, their identity and their dignity? Do you find an acceptable reason for those events? Are you willing to argue in favor of such ways of treating your fellow citizens? This is about fairness and equality — not your twisted issues regarding sex education, incest and sexuality.
Correction Madeleine and this is a detail that most German's would insist upon. The term would be Nazi Concentration Camps, not German. And Dorothy makes an excellent point here. The detention and ultimate destruction of millions of Jews was enacted by a group that sought to destroy Jews and believed them to be of significantly lesser value than themselves. They believed this so strongly that they were willing to murder millions in order to accomplish that goal. But as I've read you previous posts through out this section, I've seen what you believe Maine's gay and lesbians citizens to be. You've accosted them as being perverted and frankly that assertion is cruel and mean spirited. The revulsion you harness regarding homosexuality serves to provide a reader the serious impression that you consider gays and lesbians to be less than worthy in comparison to someone such as yourself. Continually you write in twisted and manufactured screeds and use Maine's gay and lesbian population as the whipping post. At every turn, what you write is nothing more than a virulent diatribe against the validity and the humanity of homosexuals. What we are is insufficient for you. It grates against your moral convictions. Your disdain for same-sex marriage is clear. And ultimately if more people like you were in power (such as the Nazi party was) than I — like Dorothy, would be fearful of something quite similar happening here. Dorothy shouldn't be ashamed. Personally, I'm proud of her — and thankful. I've seen and experienced violence against gays and lesbians in Maine. It's something we should all take seriously. Civil equality is a just and fair step in the right direction.
Tron didn't name call. But by all means, go to the Maine.gov web site and request an absentee ballot. That way, you'll have your chance to vote and vote early. And then hopefully, you'll "belt-up".
Sorry lady . . . but I'm not leaving. Perhaps I live right next door to you. Wouldn't that give you a fright. Maine's gays and lesbians are just as much a part of Maine as you are and we contribute in every way shape in form to this place we all love. I thank Dorothy, this letter writer for making that point so clearly and so strongly. Cheers, once again to Dorothy. Thank you.
So flattering to think that you feel I'm trying to intimidate you, because truly I'm not. I wouldn't waste my energy and really now, how in the world could I possibly accomplish that in the first place? But yeah, sure - you think homosexuality is a perversion. And sex between cousins? How does that factor into anything here? And so as obviously as you display your disgust for gay's and lesbians the same is obvious for your issues regarding sexuality in general. Plenty of individuals here have pointed out that your hysterical rants seem to effect nothing more than a mild irritation of the skin. If I could scrape you off I would. But your posts are as offensive as they are noxious. You're really quite a package.
Sir? Oh please skip those vapid salutations. And as far as angry goes, have you read your posts lately? You're sounding pretty strident yourself there missey. Or should I perhaps say Madam? And if the issue here is sex education than I will state once again that if you have an issue with sex education being taught in Maine classrooms than here is not the forum for that. Take the issue up with your local school board. But to finish the point and to make sure that everyone understands — if not you — that homosexuality is not taught as an instructional course in Maine's sex education classes. As far as the rest of that curriculum, go to your local school board and start a ruckus. You seem to be really good at that.
OK, so you're labeling homosexuality as a perversion. It shows everyone who reads these posts the level of your intolerance. Not only is your assertion misplaced, it's mean spirited. Why would you find it so necessary to foist such an aspersion upon your fellow neighbors? You're devaluating Maine's gay and lesbian citizens and casting us down to the level of vermin — or criminals perhaps. Clearly you look down upon us and hold no value for our humanity. And obviously you don't see us as equal to you in any way shape or form. In the case you didn't realize it, that's how some of the most hideous crimes in human history have been enacted — by one group in power that destroys another group because they believe them to be of lesser value; that must be eliminated. Look to this letter writer's excellent points for greater detail. She makes a good point — one I believe you should examine more closely.
Ah, no I didn't. I wrote that homosexuality is not being taught as a course in Maine schools or in Mass., NH or VT. But for some reason, you're stuck in your absurd mantra of sex. Is this all it's about for you? Sex? OK, fine then. But it's not a good enough reason.
What are you nuts or something?? That article is about a lack of funding for sex education, not the age of the children being taught sex education. And furthermore, that story had nothing whatsoever to do with students being instructed on how to be a homosexual. What are you trying to do, extract facts from out of the atmosphere? And look. If you have such an issue with sex education and what school grade that curriculum is taught than take the issue up with your local school board. The fact that any school teaches sex education is not at issue here. Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with teaching children. You're trying to foist a diversion in order to promote discrimination. Shame on you.
Excuse me but are you calling homosexuality a perversion? If so than why? Homosexuality is not a perversion much less anything else you might claim, other than a perfectly normal human state of being. And of course, I find it totally offensive that you'd stoop to such a level as to assign your fellow Maine citizens as perverts. That's really mean spirited of you.
Outlandish assertions and totally false. Discrimination against Maine's gay and lesbian citizens has been carefully documented and that information is easily available. And no, civil unions are not the same as marriage in any way shape or form. Furthermore, there is no education program in Massachusetts, New Hampshire or Vermont that "teaches" children now to be homosexual. And there is no plan to have anything remotely resembling your hysterical claim in Maine either. You're trying to scare people with falsity and lies Your claims are offensive and flat out wrong.
You'll find that most local newspapers in Maine struggle with this issue every day. We're all waiting to see which newspaper makes a decision first. Scary.
Threats? What threats?? And yes. If two people want to get married, they have to apply for a marriage license. I'm not complaining. I think that's great. Lots of people have parties afterward. I'd like to do that myself. I'd like to go down to the town hall and get that marriage license. I'll have a party afterward and celebrate with my family and friends. I'd be grateful. I'd be happy. And I'd be married. But it seems I'll have to dream and only dream. Hmmf!
We've gone this route before. You've said the same things. And I couldn't care less. Vote as you see fit and I'll do the same. That you would vote at all based on what I write and nothing else is a clear indication of what your intentions were in the first place. You're full of hot air. And just so you'll understand completely. I'm far too old and far to impatient to wait any longer to be allowed to live my life equally as the rest of you. That I must wait for someone such as you to "let" me is just intolerable. I couldn't care less that you find my anger and frustration off-putting. But you didn't have to do a single thing to "deserve" the ability to get married. That you must "decide" to let me is horrible. Why wouldn't I be angry? Why wouldn't I be fed up?
You're not asking Reed. You're requiring. There's a difference. A "spiritual choice" is my deciding to become a Unitarian rather than Catholic. To be "spiritually grounded" as I had mentioned earlier indicates something quite different as well. You're splitting hairs councilor in order to remain safely couched in your mantra of "choice". I think it's ridiculous. I expect more from you than this. Horrifyingly you believe otherwise. For you to begin to believe differently, you'll have to develop some compassion.
Your reply is blatantly offensive Reed. Your rights as a heterosexual are protected without prejudice, while mine however are stunted, abridged and discriminated against. You relegate Maine's gay and lesbian citizens into a second-class status based upon a trump card that you proudly hide behind. You do this in order to gloss over your lack of compassion or even plain common sense. That you would compare my life with "onions" is a clear indication of your true nature. THIS is what Lewiston has to rely upon! A city councilor who believes gay men and lesbian's are as easily explained as onions on a hamburger. You should reconsider your belief system councilor. You should ask some sincere questions and learn something for a change, rather than some inane and pointless argument which serves to do nothing more than minimize your neighbors into the margins of society.
Your gay "friends" allow your option of Civil Unions. Oh, how wonderful for you. But the law before us is "marriage" and don't even try and tell me you're aren't going to vote it down? But there are laws in Maine already which address your post and they have nothing to do with the issues that face committed same-sex couples. Marriage is the issue here and not Civil Unions. If you seem to believe that's all I should be asking for that plainly state that. But marriage is what I want and it's what I hope happens. Your insistence for civil unions is like a punishment. You believe it's all we deserve. Because you think less of my gay relationship.
Reed, your reply is not only offensive, it's just plain stupid. Do you mean to explain that regardless of any testimony a gay man or lesbian would provide, you still default to your implacable claim of a "lifestyle choice"? A lifestyle choice is blueberries with my pancakes - not whether or not I WANT to be gay. My sexual orientation has nothing to do with sex. It has everything to do with whom I'm spiritually grounded toward. I cannot be straight anymore than you could be gay. I'm sure you understand this. I would expect that as an intelligent person you would posses some sort of insight that would lead you to believe what I'm telling you. You couldn't possibly be that stubborn. You can't possibly be that blind, that unfeeling, that callous. Your continued insistence that I "chose" to be gay is the single point which invalidates anything else you may claim. Gay "friends" my foot. Your assignment of a "choice" upon Maine's gay and lesbian citizens does nothing more than clearly show that you look down upon us. That you disregard our value as human beings. That you see no validity in our search for civil equality. It's because you don't believe we're equal. It's shameful. It's wrong. Seek out these gay "friends" and listen to them. And then you'll see that they chose nothing except to live their lives openly. That's pretty courageous in my estimation. That you stupidly default to your simple minded claim of "choice" is cowardly.
Then address Mr. Reed, the issues which come up when a spouse is denied access to SSI benefits, insurance and health benefits to name only a few. Why should same-sex couples go through legal wrangling and obfuscation in order to achieve a means to an end when "marriage" covers these inequities already? Why are same-sex couples so "different" that they cannot get married the same as you? Is it the word or is it the deed, Reed which disgusts you so?
Baloney! I'm curious to understand your claim of gay friends who are fine with without the ability to marry. Civil marriage is not a non-issue for same-sex couples. I contend you're twisting the question you pose to your "gay friends" in order to produce your tepid answer. Considering you believe homosexuality to be "a choice" I wonder how any homosexual would consider your a friend at all? Your hiding your true feelings as you present your friendship to these people. In effect, you're lying to them. That's a shame. This nations gay and lesbian citizenry may be a small and vocal group but it certainly doesn't mean they're any less valid in their desire to get married. Once again. There's no difference between you and me so I cannot see why you find it justifiable to deny me the ability to get married the same as you. Civil Unions are not marriage and you know it. That is unless you'd care to push for a change in the law. Shall you spearhead the effort? You're right Reed. I don't know you. Furthermore, I don't want to.
I suppose your issue is with homosexuality itself. So putting your religious objections aside, can you still act to prevent same-sex marriage? I suppose you would. But how about providing us a clear reason why? I'd like to know. I'd like to know how you can justify pushing the law of the land in my face to keep me from living my life the same as you.
I'm with "tron". Reed, you've asked this inane question before. And you get the same answer every time. And as per usual, you ask it again. Clearly, you do not support same-sex marriage so how about just dropping the question and voting as you see fit? Civil unions are not marriage. Same-sex couples don't want a union of convenience. They want marriage. Marriage that provides the same status, protections and obligations as what marriage provides to heterosexual couples. There is no difference between you and myself. So why cannot I marry my partner of over 20 years? There is no reason you can provide Reed to justify preventing this.
If you're referring to me when you mention "threats" than you better check again. I've never threatened you. You're doing just fine on your own making a mess of your reputation and your office. Your superciliousness is only overshadowed by your lack of common sense. If you post a comment at one moment, alleging what appears to be a rumor, then neglecting to follow up by corroborating facts than it's your mistake and no one elses. But regardless of whether or not your allegation of clandestine meetings were true or false, do you really believe this is the place to expose them? I don't believe so. I think your tactics are unprofessional and prankish. As an elected official I would expect better of you. So as you accuse fellow council members of sneaking around, be careful or you'll find yourself hoisted by your own petard. You're well on your way.
You have participated in gossip and mentioned it as a rumor in your original post. And then you invite others to participate in sharing of this "rumor". And then after that you adjust your statement and call the rumor fact. What concerns me is you're on a newspaper web site and blogging your way into an embarassing and potentially harmful situation. More importantly, you're shooting off into a wild tagent as you bring up painful family issues for another blogger. Do you realzie the very public forum you're using? What you "have to loose" is the respect of this community, the cooperation of your fellow council members and the effectiveness of your elected office. Your hubris will continue to trouble you. But you should pay more attention to what you write. Do you realize that you've just about accused your fellow council members of fraud and corruption? Once again. What is your motivation?
Seriously councilor, are you paranoid? Do find it in your best interest as a member of the city council, to participate in rumor and gossip? What sort of behavior is this that you should "blog" on the local newspaper web site in such a way? Are you trying to subvert your fellow councilors, embarrass them, cause them trouble? All for the sake of participating in gossip? What's your motivation here Reed?
Councilor, you're out of line. You have no business shaming anybody from "out of town". Once again, smug and childish responses form you. Once again . . . very unprofessional.
I hope Lewiston's voters check this site regularly enough to notice how sarcastic and smug your replies are. I hope they realize how unprofessional and childish you appear when you write. The only description which comes to mind at this moment that I believe would describe you accurately would be: "feckless".
I'm sure you've figured out by now that I'm ignoring you. However, please refer to another persons post listing the accomplishments of Mr. Bennett. I agree heartily with that post.
Reed. If you're referring to me (Joseph) than I must tell you that you're sarcastic reply by naming "Joey" is unprofessional and childish. As an elected official I expect you to be more than a mere petulant child when you respond to critics. I must tell you that if you voted to remove Mr. Bennett because of a "dare" than you're not only stupid, you're a sucker. In my estimation you made an expensive mistake by responding to playground tactics. You refer to your decisions as a councilor as a "right", well I hope voters will exercise their "right" to vote you out of office. Lewiston deserves and needs better than what you provide.
The "rain tax" called that by many who deem the FEE unpopular was something which I actually supported. I merely mentioned as something unpopular by many.
Robert61, I read the Twin City Times article and as well, your letter to the editor and not contained in either article were clear reasons for Bennett's dismissal. Other than your dislike of Bennett's management style. Actually, that's not the issue here. Your lack of forthright answers however is the issue. Your vague explanations are the problem. Your stubborn refusal to list exact reasons for voting to dismiss Bennett leads anyone to believe that your decision was based more on a professional dislike, rather than any other reason. An open mind is only open when there is equal dialog in a discussion. Which is something seriously lacking in your case. You will continue to have your feet held to the fire over the coming weeks for your participation in the removal of Bennett. I hope you do a better job than you're doing right now.
Publish your letter here Reed. Your assertion that the SJ wouldn't publish your letter because of an errant 30 days is a little bit of a limp excuse. I'm more than certain the SJ would be more than pleased to hear from you. So why don't you try again? As their editorial clearly points out, they're more than eager to hear from you.
Watch your mouth Publik. Mr. Bennett (not one of my favs) managed the city of Lewiston during the largest period of renewal since the turn of the previous century. Under his leadership and encouragement, the face of Lewiston changed for the better, tearing away the ugly face of Lewiston's waterfront to what we see now. Lewiston has improved by leaps and bounds over the years in large part to Bennett's leadership. And as well, some of the most unpopular events as well. ie: The "rain tax". But regardless of whether or not anyone supports Bennett, the question at hand is what interests me; the reasons behind Bennett's removal. And the two which say the most in public but explain the least are Reed and Theriault. To insist they provide a more clear perspective is a perfectly reasonable question. And since Reed is such a faithful contributor to this site, I find it reasonable to insist the question. And as such, I find his reasons unacceptable, lazy and glib. And now let's here it for "publik" who shall now tear me apart via every crass word possible. Go to it publik!
Your ego is astounding if it weren't so laughable. Regardless of whether or not I live in Lewiston now is hardly the issue. As a matter of fact, I lived in Lewiston for years, only leaving LA recently. Finding flattery in controversy is amusing as you mention but still does not excuse your glaring lack of common sense. Let Lewiston's voters decide whether you're doing a good job or not. And for me, I hope they vote for somebody who can write clearly and explains themselves and their actions with candor. In the meantime, why don't you write a letter to the editor? Explain your participation in the removal of Mr. Bennett. Explain your accomplishments. Share your vision for the future of Lewiston and avoid your childish complaints. You're not being bullied. As a city councilor, you should be able and prepared to be questioned. So get busy.
As usual Robert61. Glib and smarmy. The Sun Journal is accurate in challenging you to offer up facts. So do that, rather than your evasive and "quite frankly" lazy approach to an answer. Do your job Reed.
Councilor . . . do your job. The community you serve expects you to convey information clearly and in detail. Something you endlessly fall short upon. The Sun Journal does not owe you an apology and further, your bruised feelings only indicate what another commenter accurately points out. That you point the finger to distract from the fact that you're ill-prepared, ill-informed and incompetent. The communities eyes are upon you and expect and deserve form all members of the council a detailed explanation for Bennett's removal. Telling them to review council meeting minutes is not the answer. Once again . . . DO YOUR JOB.
OK, "nonstop", point made. But why stress the point when the point isn't mentioned? Nobody wrote anything about the young girl 'getting away' with this. And you're right. Things happen when you do something irresponsible like this. But like what Jay Bee wrote earlier: "Driving is dangerous; this is life." True. Race, color, creed and all of what you mention has very little to do with the accident. The girl has enough problems to deal with. Must you assume more?
So what then is the alternative? Cap-and-Trade is better than nothing and personally, $20 more a month won't hurt my feeling much. So long as that money is spend on actually reducing greenhouse emissions. So let's all quit complaining and actually do something. Before we need oxygen tanks to breath.
Recent Comments
Why?
Usually you have something to say all the time?
Congratulations
Best wishes.
Nice letter
Thank you for your perspective.
Same here . . .
Nice work! I'm looking forward to more.
Point taken . . .
Now, did you return and pay your bill — like an honest person should?
REBUTTAL:
My pastime is gardening, not being homosexual and although you may think that's simply parsing words, I'd like to encourage you to be as specific as possible when you castigate fellow citizens.
And if "lifestyle" was a word I'd use to describe my life, I'd certainly be spending my days sunning on a sandy beach. But, sadly, no. We do the same things that, perhaps, you do: Breakfast; walk the dog; work; lunch; work some more; commute home; dinner; a movie maybe or how about a book instead? Bedtime and do all over again tomorrow.
I don't demand you accept anything about me personally. I do, however, expect that you look upon me as a citizens of this country, just like you — not as some unnatural pervert that garners your disgust.
Thank you.
Nicely put.
!
Here! Here!
Well, then. . .
Do you believe, then, that homosexuals are unnatural? What, then do you suggest for those citizens who are denied the right to marry? All because they're "unnatural"? That's hardly fair — or accurate.
What are trying to say?
The story says in part: "There's no basis in nature for a right to sodomy or a right to call two men or two women who are choosing to relate to one another sexually as a marriage," he said. "There's no intrinsic or natural right to that. So we believe that these are special rights."
What do they mean by employing the word 'sodomy'?
Maine repealed its sodomy law long ago. The 1970's, in fact. Also, in 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all sodomy laws, making clear that private, adult sexual conduct cannot be criminalized, so why are Madore and Heath using this as part of their argument?
It's hardly a rational (or accurate) but more to the point — they're using tactics to incite people's irrational hate as they clearly display their revulsion for homosexuality.
Check your facts, please
President Obama didn't say we are NOT a Christian nation, he said we are no longer "just" a Christian nation, but a nation of many other faiths as well. There is no attack on religion as much as you believe there is. You're still free to believe anything you like. President Obama hasn't any desire to prevent you from spewing whatever religious rants you wish.
Problem here?
Do you mean to day then, there's a problem with voter fraud in Maine? And if there is, it's the Democrats fault? I hardly think so.
Is there really an illegal immigrant problem in Maine?
One source I checked indicates there less than 2,500 undocumented immigrants in the state. So you're right. If there isn't a problem here than why all the fuss about the law change?
It makes me wonder. Is this change just one step closer to a "Paper's please" law?
Nicely put
Here! Here! Mrs. McG
Never said they had
. . . or are you just telling yourself I had? It certainly would work better for your argument is I did. But . . . I didn't.
My parents (like many parents) didn't hope their child would grow up gay. More importantly, they didn't hope he wouldn't. Lots of parents have hopes and dreams for their children. But as their children mature, those hopes and dreams cannot be expectations. A child needs to grow up and be their own person.
But my parents love me the way I am.
Just realize please, that sexual orientation is not something chosen, it's not a genetic mistake, glitch or disease. It's normal. No matter what "fatandhappy" says.
A genetic mistake?
No. Homosexuality is not a genetic mistake. And should you ask my parents what they wanted in their child they would have answered by only asking for 10 fingers and 10 toes. All they hoped for was a happy child to grow up to a well adjusted and decent human being. To intimate that a parent hopes their child isn't born gay is a low class comment freyt.
Didn't choose a thing pal . . .
I didn't choose to be gay any more than you chose to be straight. I CHOOSE blueberries with my pancakes and that's about all there is to that.
And hopefully, you understand the meaning of "subjugate": sub·ju·gate/ˈsəbjəˌgāt/Verb - To make someone or something subordinate to.
You use your command of the English language to assault virtually every aspect of me personally, using my sexual orientation as justification. It's shameful. I have equal value to you whether you like it or not.
Further, you can write, say or scream your disgust of homosexuality all you like — but still you'll be wrong. I was made this way on purpose just as much as you were. And I don't need to spend lots of energy trying to make you believe that. Clearly you wouldn't.
Finally, I expect all people no matter who they are to live their lives with justice and equality. The laws of this country provide that right — especially in the face of people like yourself.
Your disgusting, insulting and useless attempts to emasculate me by petit insults shows just how small-minded you are. Resorting to childish taunts and insults. So goodie-goodie, you're not politically correct — obviously.
You need to dial it down . . . way down.
Snarky
Yep. . . snarky.
Oh, and by the way . . .
fatandhappy, that is the last time you'll have the opportunity to insult me or any other gay or lesbian on this site. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, don't get me wrong — you can think anything you like. But if you think it's acceptable to subjugate my value as a man because of my sexual orientation than you're mistaken.
I challenge you to register with this web site and give you name. If you're callous enough to write what you have than I expect you to stand by what you've written and put your name to it.
I work hard. I pay my taxes. I'm a good neighbor to the community where I live, and you . . . have no business telling me you know better the value of any gay or lesbian.
What saddens me more than anything though is that nobody objected to your noxious comment. So if I'm the lone voice in the woods, so be it. You fatandhappy . . . aren't so very.
Well, I agree with you, certainly
I agree with your concerns completely. Take a username like "joseph" for instance. If you merely type into any search engine "Joseph", you'll get all sorts of results that clearly have nothing to do with my favorite SJ contributor, Joseph. But if you type in to a search engine "Joseph sun journal", you'll get all sorts of results for my favorite SJ contributor, Joseph. I apologize for the shameless plug.
So a little research from here and you just (that's just) may find out a few interesting things about that person.
And this is where I agree with your concerns completely.
Should anyone who posts a comment on this site be 'registered' with the SJ, than information such as your full name and the town where you live is listed. That will be a concern to many. I understand why.
So there's some serious considerations that need to be made before one posts comments on this web site. And that goes for any web site. Your personal information is a precious commodity and one should be careful.
I don't believe however that the Sun Journal is responsible for ensuring an individuals anonymity. Far too many people post very hostile comments here. Some even go to extraordinary lengths to discredit another's point of view. Name calling, personal attacks, you name it. All one needs to do is read.
I believe that if you're willing to post a comment, than you should be willing to post those comment with your name. The word integrity comes to mind.
I've been posting comment here with my username "Joseph" for years now. Dig a little deeper and you'll discover my full name and the town where I live. In reality, nothing has changed except for one thing. Now all of us will have to do the same thing.
Yes, I hope this doesn't create a problem for both the SJ and the people who comment here. But with some of the objections I've read here, like many others, I'll carefully weigh my future options on this site.
Called you a coward? Hardly
I used the word "courageous" and frankly, that wasn't actually directed at you. But somehow, and conveniently for you perhaps, you decided that I called you a coward.
Furthermore, I'm not criticizing people for hiding behind a pseudonym but rather merely pointing out the pitfalls of doing so. And you believe that I'm hiding behind the internet, I have to tell you that seems rather silly. I'm 'verified' and my name is easily found. You? Um . . . are opting out. Hurray.
But you think I have no value as a man and I'm glad I don't need your permission to be one. At least my mother thinks I have value, so I'm all set. Thank you, though.
Finally . . . call me sir.
Am I reaching here or are you trying to "take this outside" and bait me into a more substantive discussion?
you hang up . . . no, YOU hang up.
Because you want the last word right? OK fine, I'm done here. So my blood pressure's up there. At this point, I'm sure you're getting ready to take a shower.
Yes, I did read the comment, I wrote it after all didn't I?
You mean the comment I wrote which was directly under the one — from out of the blue — that you wrote? And no, I'm not a little girl, I'm a grown up. Are you? Must you regress to such childish taunts?
Improve myself?
Sure, we all could use a little of that — especially this time of year. But improve myself to your standards? Nah. I think I'll pass. Thanks all the same.
Leave you alone? Sure
But to assign my value as a person by my sexual orientation is presumptuous on your part. A persons value cannot be assessed solely by that alone. The short answer to you is this: You refuse to use your name in order to post on this web site. You're complaining about the Sun Journal's policy. Fine. Lots of people are. With your immanent departure in mind, all I want to say is farewell. I for one won't miss you. Over and out.
Gross? Did you really use the word gross?
OK, OK, you could use lots of words other than gross to describe me. So I should consider myself lucky. But really. Gross? I haven't been called that since I got caught picking my nose in the 5th grade. What do you know fatandhappy. You made me laugh.
See?
This is exactly the reason why the Sun Journal is implementing their verification policy. And just was the purpose of that comment? To insult me, piss me off, offend me? Sure it was . . . good for you. But understand that for every one of your useless and insulting comments, it servers to reinforce the perception that you're nothing more than a snarky jerk. You purposefully antagonize me and that's a shame. You just might be a nice person. But I wouldn't know that . . . you've given me no reason to believe you are.
Wasn't asking you . . .
Am quite happy to let you do whatever it is you do. And me? What's so wrong with me? Do I disgust you somehow? No, don't answer that. I really couldn't care less. You don't disgust me, I should mention though. Dismay a little, sure. Disgust? Nah.
But . . .
But the vindictive attacks come regardless of one providing their names or not. Read through any comments here on any given day and you'll read insult after insult. Although I can agree that many people have concerns about privacy, frankly anonymity is a veil that too many people hide behind in order to spew way too many vindictive and inappropriate comments. Me? I intend to keep on writing here. And I promise to keep my comments civil. No longer shall I call "fatandhappy" pork chop or fatboy, stuff like that. I promise.
Happily then . . .
Happily then, I won't have to read your comments here any longer. Look, it's as simple as this: If you're willing (or brash enough) to write a comment on a web site such as this one, than be willing (or courageous enough) to put your name to it. Because my guess is, you'll think twice before you write anything you please. You'll still be fat and happy though. That's good news.
Listen pork chop . . .
The expression of your disgust of homosexuality is clear and frankly, I find if offensive. Clearly this pleases you, otherwise you'd be spending a little more brain power (something you seriously lack) on finding more elegant and elloquent ways of expressing your sentiments. So you understand my point of view . . . as a homosexual, I find you equally disgraceful. And for obvious reasons. A good Samaratin you're not. Untrustworthy you most certainly seem. Cruelty and obnoxiousness go without question. For you alone, I would expect, inspire many to support the reapeal of D.A.D.T. I challenge you to keep your hard-heartedness when you realize that a gay servicemember died in order to keep secure the values you hold so strongly. Understand that gays and lesbians are already serving in the military. Realize they did so for many reasons - one of them being they want to serve. Relent your useless and hateful rhetoric that displays you as nothing more than an interminable bore. Recognize that anyone willing to stand in the way of a bullet or a bomb does so for the benefit of people like you. Gay or straight why would you even dare to complain? That you do - and so disgracefully I would add - makes you nothing more than a jerk. Merry Christmas fat boy.
Listen pork chop . . .
The expression of your disgust of homosexuality is clear and frankly, I find if offensive. Clearly this pleases you, otherwise you'd be spending a little more brain power (something you seriously lack) on finding more elegant and elloquent ways of expressing your sentiments. So you understand my point of view . . . as a homosexual, I find you equally disgraceful. And for obvious reasons. A good Samaratin you're not. Untrustworthy you most certainly seem. Cruelty and obnoxiousness go without question. For you alone, I would expect, inspire many to support the reapeal of D.A.D.T. I challenge you to keep your hard-heartedness when you realize that a gay servicemember died in order to keep secure the values you hold so strongly. Understand that gays and lesbians are already serving in the military. Realize they did so for many reasons - one of them being they want to serve. Relent your useless and hateful rhetoric that displays you as nothing more than an interminable bore. Recognize that anyone willing to stand in the way of a bullet or a bomb does so for the benefit of people like you. Gay or straight why would you even dare to complain? That you do - and so disgracefully I would add - makes you nothing more than a jerk. Merry Christmas fat boy.
So on the whole . . .
So on the whole you find nothing valid about homosexuals. OK, I get the point. Happily not as many people agree with your opinion as they once had. So unless you plan on spending the rest of your afternoon complaining, I can only assume that your disgust of other peoples behavior is what drive your opinions. I don't find that rational. I don't find that even vaguely intelligent. So go ahead believe whatever you wish - you have the right - even if you lead with your knee all the time. Just remember, fat stuff, there are thousands of gay men and women willing to stand in the way of a bullet or bomb for your sake. Just remember what it takes to become a U.S. servicemember and realize that even homosexuals want to serve. That commands a great deal of respect - which clearly you cannot give. Such a shame. My grateful thanks to those who supported the real of DADT.
Yes, embarassing
So clearly you're advocating discrimination. But calling people names such like "nancy-boy" is pretty neurotic, childish and just plain stupid. Grow up fat stuff.
Seriously?
Your comments on balance are crass, rude, disrespectful and ignorant. Think of the men and women fighting for our country before you say such blatantly homophobic comments again. You should be embarrassed.
That being said . . .
I hope a Casino in Oxford county will prove to be the economic solution to a very challenged part of Maine. But I'll ask the question . . . how many times has this option been offered to Maine voters before? And how many times was it voted down. Why now as opposed to then? We could've had 1 or 2 by now generating revenue Maine so desperately needs. Although I don't agree with Tron's complaint, I don't understand the timing.
Uncalled for
Calling a total stranger names in order to prove a point does not make you right. Or are you such a venom-spewing bully that you must insult somebody to seem bigger than you really are?
Bla, bla, bla . . .
Yeah, here we go. Using circular logic to justify your palid excuses in order to disenfranchise groups people for the sake of your personal value system. Look, my prevous posts regarding "equality" speak for themselves easily enough. You want to have a game with me where you parse words and intent in order to prove a point, you'll have to try some other time. So go play out in the street, I'm not interested.
There it is . . .
I've been waiting for that caveat. I know you'd let out with it sooner or later. So inequality it is then for those whom you believe deserve less than you. Because of what? According to your post, it would seem one must meet a specific criteria in order to receive (or deserve) equal treatment, equal access, equal opportunity. That's too bad. Should you encourage others to aspire to a better, more productive way of living, that's really something quite nice. But assigning value based on your singular point of view is exactly how discrimination begins. And that's what equality is all about — fighting against bias to assure that everyone has a fair chance at (wait for it . . .) "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Integrity rather?
Integrity is an important part of individual character. It's something to strive for and certainly something to admire. But equality is a more specific term than what you describe. In my opinion, equality is about a fair society, where everyone participates (and is responsible) in the same measure. Economically, socially, politically. It's as simple as that. To measure a persons character after all is said and done speaks to them alone. Equality speaks to society as a whole. It's something I hope to see come true in my lifetime.
Really?
Still, you try to rationalize the comparison between Obama and Hitler. Clearly you just don't get it. More to the point, I'm assuming it wouldn't serve your argument not to. But if you want to search through history to explain Hitler's raise to power than help yourself. The difference between Hitler and Obama - and history will bear this out - is that Hitler was an insane xenophobe, Obama is not. Comparing Nazi Germany to this nation at this point in time serves nobody. It's hardly accurate and most important, it's disrespectful to our President, our country, 6 million Jews and countless homosexuals, Russians, Gypsies and so many more.
Equality is equal
Why I use this image, an equality symbol for my icon image is a personal decision. My motives are as obvious as the image. Equality is an asperation for all of us, regardless of who we are. Sadly, for many equality has yet to be achieved. It's not a concept that needs much explaination, much less something to question. It's kind of obvious, wouldn't you say?
Wow Mari . . .
Your comment is pretty vile. Hitler was a despotic megalomaniac who was consumed with world domination. Toward that end, he devised a vision for Germany that did not include certain people — Jews among them. The atrocities he committed are beyond comprehension even to this day. Comparing anyone to Hitler is far from appropriate. It's disrespectful for one and pretty darn (how can I say this without sounding like a jerk), well never mind, it's just wrong. To minimize Hitler's crimes as merely "cost-cutting" while comparing those measures to President Obama is inane. Perhaps you should look toward Congress for those same comparisons. Everyone's talking about "cost-cutting", everyone.
My icon image?
It's an "equality" sign.
Yes, Steve
I mentioned nothing regarding their right to protest. I did however say their method of comparing President Obama to Adolf Hitler was designed soley to create hatred - an effective tactic Nazi Germany used against Jews. Regardless if Mr. LaRouche is responsible for orchestrating these types of protests, the fact remains it was designed to do nothing more than stir economic, political and quite possibly racial bias. I agree with you, their message was vile. Further I'm not advocating censorship. But should sensible, rational people consider such tactics as valid and worthy of consideration? Hardly.
The point is . . .
The point isn't whether or not those people had the right to protest or not - that wasn't the point of the writer's letter - obviously. The point of her letter (and I agree) is with their method of protest. For anyone to draw a comparison between anyone and Adolf Hitler is extreme and in the case of those protesters in Brunswick and Lewiston, clearly meant create, if not inspire hatred.
Know any?
Pages and pages of vitriolic rants, complaining about a social welfare system I'm convinced most people here know nothing about.
And for some reason it seems many here feel it's the Somali communities fault. Read through all of these horrid comments and you'll get the general notion that most people here truly want to blame some group — any group, for Maine's dire financial situation. And today it's Maine's Somali families turn to bear the brunt of all your ire.
But do any of you know any Somali families here in Maine? If you had, you might form different opinions than the ones I'm reading here today.
Disrespectful at the least!
At the very least, that comment is clearly disrespectful and I agree it should be removed. Please reconsider?
Thanks
Thanks go to Lady Gaga for being an advocate of equal rights for all people but especially for giving her support to the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell". Let all citizens serve without fear from the country they wish to serve! Doesn't anybody that wishes to serve in the military deserve enough respect for being willing to stand in front of a bullet or bomb? This really shouldn't be such a big deal but sadly it is. Realize that gays and lesbians willing to serve do so for the same reasons any straight person would? There's no shame in that. They deserve our respect, our thanks and our support. Please support the repeal of DADT.
Sounds a little too harsh to me . . .
And don't your comments sound much like the ones used to describe every other immigrant group that came to the United Sates? In the 1850's, protestant Bostonians called Irish immigrants "the slime on our shores". Sounds pretty hateful doesn't it? Doesn't it seem LA's Somali population are enduring the same vitriolic diatribes as the Irish and French once had? I'm certain that most of you all don't know one Somali in town. If you did, than perhaps you'd think twice before you rant and rave as you have.
And what about Google?
I'm sure you Google all sorts of things in order to gain a little enlightenment no? That said, Wiki is merely a source for information — its reliability may be unverifiable in some cases but that's what their "citations" are for. But without question sourcing the internet is a valuable and increasingly viable way to get the information we all seek. Now just tell me you haven't used Wikipedia yourself to bolster an argument or two?
Complain all you like . . .
but as I read these comments, I'm struck by the general tone of dismay and dislike for LA's Somali population. Like it or not folks, they are here to stay and like most immigrant families that came before them, they'll make their homes here, raise their families here and eventually (and hopefully) thrive here. Just keep in mind as you all minge and complain of their existence you should realize that LA's Somali population are not expected to change to your flippant whims and desires. Someday (and sooner than later) all of your complaints will fade away into distant echos, so nobody will remember how virulent many of you sound.
Perspective anyone
How it is reasonable to for anyone toactually cast a "vote" for equal rights? Sexual orientation, same-sex marriage and adoption issues aside, how is it possible that we are expected to believe it reasonable to accept discrimination as valid when it's enforced by a popular vote? Do you all want to explain that to me?
Here we go again
And how "thinker" are these comments helpful to anyone — much less yourself?
Well said
and it bears worth repeating. Some people commenting here have been cruel. Just keep in mind that people died here. For whatever reasons involved, just realize there are grieving people left behind.
In agreement
Here! Here! Ms. Gervais
Please tron . . .
Tron, I usually appreciate your comments but it's becoming very uncomfortable reading how you and "thinkingman" war back and forth. Although I realize that both you and he cannot get along in a civil manner, I for one, would like to respectfully ask that you dial it down a little. It's because I would prefer to read your comment regarding the subject, rather than the petit wars that you and "thinker" elect to play out in this forum. Just asking sir and I hope you understand.
As usual "thinker"
You're over reacting to tron's postings. And although It's clear that both you and he cannot be civil under any circumstances, you must admit you have (on occasion) elected to get into very personal and vitriolic arguments which have nothing to do with the subject at hand. In this case a tragic accident. Sorry he called you names "thinker" but I would have thought you'd be above such trivial jabs. Clearly not though it would seem. Yes, tron pokes at you purposely but in my opinion, it becomes embarrassing and obnoxious to read your petit wars play on through postings such as this. Clearly, you both have valuable things to contribute in these types of discussions but really now . . . can either of you back off and behave as mature adults? Surely you realize this?
Here! Here!
Here! Here! Excellent letter. Well said. Thank you.
An example?
President Obama rages against our nation? Really? How? When? Saying what? Or are you just saying that for the sake of saying it?
Here we go again!
Once again an Elaine Graham rant about homosexuals. Like I've said before, to describe Graham one needs few words: "Tiresome and SHRILL!"
Well said . . .
Here! Here!
Oh hardy Pirate . . . if
Oh hardy Pirate . . . if it's the "word" than what's the problem here? It's only a word isn't it? When somebody wants to get married in Maine but elects to get married in a civil ceremony, the certificate reads: “united in MARRIAGE,” but in the Catholic ceremony (as an example) the document reads: “united in HOLY MATRIMONY.” (Capitalized words are on the documents.) How is it that any religion that joins people in holy matrimony can object to two people being joined in marriage? Was the same-sex law voted down simply because of a misunderstanding of semantics? Sure seems that way to me. Or do you believe that "separate but equal" is an acceptable way to treat one's neighbors?
It's offensive to me that
It's offensive to me that Ceplikas would impune that we're ashamed of each other for the defeat of LD1020. And threats? What sort of threats? Just some more pidgeon chested gloating from indignant individuals who resent the fact that Maine's gay and lesbian community strive for civil equality. Furthermore, the will of the people endorsed discrimination and personally I don't think that's much to gloat about.
Why should we? We love this
Why should we? We love this state as much as you do. And . . . we want to live here with the same rights and responsibilities as you do. So if you don't like "married homosexuals" living in this state why don't YOU move instead?
Oh, I can't stand it.
Oh, I can't stand it. You're such a ranting cluck! In my case, (you garrulous crank) I'm healthy, well adjusted and the furthest thing from a life spiraling out of control. I have no mental health issues and short of being diabetic as my family is genetically prone, I'm as normal as you are. My life is in not destructive in any way, shape or form. You want to know what the "homosexual agenda" is? I'll tell you. It's REALLY EASY to remember. It goes like this: Breakfast; Work; Lunch; More work; Early dinner; Movie maybe; Read; Floss; Leno. That's it pal. It's called "life" Sammie and it's pretty average as compared to everybody else. So the next time you want to start spouting your venom and disgust over homosexuality just remember one thing. Simple human kindness goes a long way. And you sir, don't appear to have any.
...
...
Ilk? What you think we are
Ilk? What you think we are anyway? We're not bizarre or anything else like that. Stop your nonsense and treat us with the humanity and respect we deserve. Furthermore, I chose nothing. And neither did you when it comes to your relationships. I can no more be straight than you can be gay. My sexual orientation is just as much of a given as being left-handed or right. And yet you still rant and rave about choice; and unnatural acts; ilk and the like. You're sounding pretty superior in your convictions and clearly at the expense of simple human kindness. So YES "Sammie" I do. I want you to say we're OK. Because we are. We deserve civil equality, justice and respect. Nuff said!
Well for starters, how about
Well for starters, how about the 9th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Perhaps it's a stretch but as a gay man in a long term relationship who's been denied equal access to state and federal benefits garnered through the legal union of marriage, I don't see why this is a question that needs to be justified. Equal access to all that the law provides should be the issue here. And it certainly is an emotional issue here, especially when somebody declares that I don't deserve civil equality.
Gays and Lesbians who wish
Gays and Lesbians who wish to marry are not freaks. So grouping this issue into some ridiculous association with farm animals is callous and uncalled for. And same-sex marriage IS a civil rights issue regardless of whatever histrionic comparisons you try to make.
Symantecs. You're parsing
Symantecs. You're parsing words and splitting hairs. Deriding homosexuals for no other reason than the sexual act while simultaneously extolling their virtue as human beings is an incompatible argument. Your arguments read hollow. Vacuous. A white elephant. A paper tiger. Tempest in a teapot. Shall I go on? I'm assuming you're voting yes? Fine then, vote. But afterwhich, I seriously hope you consider getting off this razor thin line you sit upon and decide once and for all how you plan on treating your fellow gay and lesbian neighbors. Loving them and all the while hating what they do is still an oxymoron.
Homosexuals are not deviant,
Homosexuals are not deviant, self-damaging, societal misfits. And this isn't an issue about sex and your disgust and objections about it. This is about dignity, fairness and civil equality. I pay my taxes and take care of the responsibilities of life faithfully. I want no more out of life than what everyone else has. I deserve to live my life as equally as my brother. Prejudice is a stalwart belief that one person is superior to another or group of people via unreasonable and unfair actions or words. To equate gay couples whom wish to marry as deviant is unfair, unjust, prejudiced and pretty darn mean. So write on and on . . . and on as you have. It's merely hot hair, taking up more scrolling space on a newspaper's web site. I suggest you retire for the evening and let a few others have at it.
No, I for one am not willing
No, I for one am not willing to compromise on basic civil rights. Why should anyone?
As laudable as your
As laudable as your assertion may TRY to be . . . it's nothing more than an oxymoronic statement. What you're clearly stating is a homosexual's "dignity" not withstanding, you will not stand for sexual deviants trying to assert themselves into society. But trying to be nice about it all the while. OK, fine. But what you wrote really just smacks of "No, I'm not prejudiced, really I'm not. Some of my best friends are (insert type of person here)."
It saddens me to realize
It saddens me to realize that the Sun Journal advocates for "status quo" when it comes to civil equality in Maine. How can this newspaper reconcile the inadequacy in which Maine treats its citizens? For the Sun Journal to advocate and ultimately endorse discrimination is troubling. The institution of marriage not withstanding, it is fair, and is it just to treat our gay and lesbian neighbors with such blatant inequity? Putting the question to the voters by referendum is appropriate for myriad issues ranging from tax reform to bond initiatives but for this newspaper to actually believe that civil equality is best decided by asking voters to give permission to a marginalized group of law-abiding citizens whom merely wish to get married is unconscionable. The issue of same-sex marriage goes far beyond religious convictions or objections. Should Question 1 strike down same-sex marriage in Maine, it could be seen as a mandate which would allow religious dogma to become the arbiter of justice and equality for virtually every social issue imaginable — gays and lesbians included. Is this what the Sun Journal advocates?
Hey, you said it. I'm VERY
Hey, you said it. I'm VERY disappointed in the SJ for not taking an editorial position on this issue. I'm expecting the board to sway in one direction or another on the remainder of the ballot questions, so why the SJ didn't on this issue is bothering me. Yes or No. . . which is it SJ? What say you? I wanna know!
How are those details
How are those details important then? And yes, you're very right and I agree with you. We're all born with equal rights. So let's make sure that happens in Maine by voting NO on Question 1, Nov. 3
How in the world would
How in the world would anybody argue their point with such circular (and false) logic as yours? Clearly my sexual orientation disgusts you and that's what you're reacting toward. Obviously you couldn't care less for the humanity or dignity of your fellow gay and lesbian neighbors and that's really a shame. Because you're not looking at the person. You're looking at what you dislike (and what disgusts you) about them. Criminals such as pedophiles, deviants such as those whom engage in bestiality are not what we're talking about. That you associate Maine's homosexual citizens with those things is cruel, offensive and wrong. What else is there to say? You don't see me. And without question, you don't care to. Too bad. You're vilifying people you know nothing about. Again, that's cruel. Shameful, actually.
That was crass. That was
That was crass. That was insensitive.
I'd venture a guess that
I'd venture a guess that neither of you are bigots per se. So why are you shoving that word around? It doesn't help anything — except add more fuel to the fire. Is that what you're about?
Yes, Tron . . . I realize
Yes, Tron . . . I realize he's picked a fight or two with you in these comment sections but please Tron. I understand but let's not do this today shall we?
It is unfair, cruel and
It is unfair, cruel and ridiculous to associate same-sex couples with bestiality and incest. We're not criminals, perverts or deviants. Where it ends is when our society recognizes the humanity in each of us and values all of its citizens with equal measure. Currently that's not happening. And even though it it may not have been YOUR lame argument, you in fact DID ask the question.
This isn't about
This isn't about "preference" and that word is misused often. Preference indicates a choice which clearly homosexuality is not. I can no more choose my sexual orientation as a gay man than can you as a straight man. I "prefer" blueberries in my pancakes. I do not merely "prefer" men over women. These aren't special rights. Do you consider equal protection based on ethnicity a "special right"? There is no difference between you and me except I love a man and hope to marry him. We've been together for over 20 years now and by many standards we're doing a great job. And I'm not looking toward religious organizations to bend to my will and let me marry. I'm looking toward the State of Maine to let me live as equally as my neighbors do and allow me to get married.
The legislature passed and
The legislature passed and the Governor signed LD1020 into law because it was the right thing to do. This law ensures civil equality for all of Maine's citizens. As a previous post points out, civil equality was a "contentious issue" in other civil rights causes and this is one no different. Maine's gay and lesbian citizens are no different than their straight counterparts. I urge you all to please see this as a civil equality issue and realize that voting yes will endorse discrimination against people who bear no ill will against society. Rather they merely wish to participate fully in all that our nation affords to everybody else. Myself . . . I honor marriage just a fervently as my brother does and hope someday to marry my partner of over 20 years.
Here! Here!
Here! Here!
Never badgered? Seriously
Never badgered? Seriously Madeline, I'm laughing out loud. Perhaps not badgering Madeline. . . but deride, castigate, vilify and dehumanize SURE You've done that! I've been a witness. I'm actually quite heartened however to realize that you're perfectly willing to allow civil unions which act the same as "marriage". And if Question 1 on November's ballot strikes down the same-sex marriage law than I would be proud indeed to consider you a supporter of same-sex civil unions and will be glad and grateful to work in concert with you toward that end. Thank you.
You've called me a pervert
You've called me a pervert and that offends me — deeply. I'm certainly not perverse and your insistence that I am (and all of Maine's gay and lesbian citizens) serves to do nothing more than dehumanize us. That's cruel, and you know it. And as far as "kindness" is concerned, you've been everything BUT kind yourself. I've already told you what I believe your behavior to have been previously. In virtually every one of your posts, you've railed against a population of which you know nothing about and care even less to consider. That is unless they confirm to your religious expectations. It's presumptuous, it's pompous and it's wrong. I'm not deriding your religious conviction, mind you. But what I'm telling you is you're foisting them in a hostile and cruel way. Your noxious and obsessive compulsion to use perversion as the "watch-word" of the moment and all the while slipping in "incest" to bolster your arguments is fantastically strange. As one poster had previously mentioned, it serves to do nothing more than display you as a fanatic. It's not working to your best advantage. Try a much different approach. You might, just might, gain some respect. For me . . . as you assign me as perverse, you haven't got my respect. You earned my disgust.
I'm not "name calling" and
I'm not "name calling" and you know it. But for some reason (in order to discredit my arguments) you try and pass it off as an offense. I know name-calling and plenty of other posts have done just that toward you. Me? I've refrained. And I'll write it again — just so we can be clear on this point — your insistence that homosexuality is a perversion is offensive to me. I'm not in the least concerned in your ridiculous reasons on why it shouldn't be. And understand this clearly. I'm not attacking you. Should you care to read your previous posts, you'll plainly see the strident and vitriolic language you've employed. It's hostile, mean-spirited and cruel. You've been pompous, sarcastic and snide. Your biting vitriol and free-wheeling sanctimony has served to offend plenty of readers here, including me. By now, I'm sure you've figured out that a more 'mannerly' approach to your assertions works better, as illustrated by the calmness of tone in your most recent posts.
Crass comment.
Crass comment.
The solution to your concern
The solution to your concern is quite easy. So rather than creating fictitious claims such as yours, why don't you go to your local school board and make your feelings known. Local school boards and the State education commission are the ones that decide and regulate the curriculum in regards to sex education.
Gays and Lesbians aren't
Gays and Lesbians aren't perverts and to refer to us as such only serves to diminish your arguments against us. So thanks for showing yourself in such a manner, even though your comment is offensive and cruel.
Madeline . . . your
Madeline . . . your hypocrisy is astonishing to me. In one post you deride Maine's gay and lesbian population for their sexual perversion. Then you castigate them for contributing to the moral decay of the "family" and use Gay Pride parade videos as your reason. And now here, you take an astonishing reversal in rhetoric and call for a change in civil law to accommodate same-sex marriage. "leave marriage alone" is what you write, clearly stated for all to see. Well then, thank you. That's very generous of you. But is it the "word" or the "deed" that upsets you so much? What upsets you more, homosexuals and "sex" or homosexuals and "marriage"? And furthermore, if you're so willing to allow same-sex couples to join in civil unions that are the same as "marriage" than what's with all the fuss you've been creating for the past two days? You posts have been offensive and noxious up till this one. What's the story Madeline? You're confusing people.
Thank you for the list.
Thank you for the list. It's very helpful.
In order for everyone to
In order for everyone to understand the full depth and breadth of Madeline's posts, I suggest you read as far down as you possibly can. You'll get a more clear view of what she's trying to accomplish. I hope you'll find it illuminating. I sure have.
Listen lady, if you're "not
Listen lady, if you're "not against gays" than I'm a red herring and I can fly. I don't know about you but when somebody labels me a pervert, I'm not all that likely to assume they're "for me" in any way shape or form. Oh, and yeah . . . if this is about same-sex marriage than fine. Vote! But use "perversion" as your reason and then later on expect anyone to believe you as not being "against gays" than don't expect anyone to believe you as being fair minded. No, that wouldn't be you at all. Nope, not in the least.
Would you care then to
Would you care then to comment on the U.S. internment camps forced upon Japanese Americans during WWII? Or how about "Jim Crow" laws. Can you justify how this nation treated generations of Native Americans and how they were forced onto reservations, loosing their land, their identity and their dignity? Do you find an acceptable reason for those events? Are you willing to argue in favor of such ways of treating your fellow citizens? This is about fairness and equality — not your twisted issues regarding sex education, incest and sexuality.
Correction Madeleine and
Correction Madeleine and this is a detail that most German's would insist upon. The term would be Nazi Concentration Camps, not German. And Dorothy makes an excellent point here. The detention and ultimate destruction of millions of Jews was enacted by a group that sought to destroy Jews and believed them to be of significantly lesser value than themselves. They believed this so strongly that they were willing to murder millions in order to accomplish that goal. But as I've read you previous posts through out this section, I've seen what you believe Maine's gay and lesbians citizens to be. You've accosted them as being perverted and frankly that assertion is cruel and mean spirited. The revulsion you harness regarding homosexuality serves to provide a reader the serious impression that you consider gays and lesbians to be less than worthy in comparison to someone such as yourself. Continually you write in twisted and manufactured screeds and use Maine's gay and lesbian population as the whipping post. At every turn, what you write is nothing more than a virulent diatribe against the validity and the humanity of homosexuals. What we are is insufficient for you. It grates against your moral convictions. Your disdain for same-sex marriage is clear. And ultimately if more people like you were in power (such as the Nazi party was) than I — like Dorothy, would be fearful of something quite similar happening here. Dorothy shouldn't be ashamed. Personally, I'm proud of her — and thankful. I've seen and experienced violence against gays and lesbians in Maine. It's something we should all take seriously. Civil equality is a just and fair step in the right direction.
Tron didn't name call. But
Tron didn't name call. But by all means, go to the Maine.gov web site and request an absentee ballot. That way, you'll have your chance to vote and vote early. And then hopefully, you'll "belt-up".
Sorry lady . . . but I'm not
Sorry lady . . . but I'm not leaving. Perhaps I live right next door to you. Wouldn't that give you a fright. Maine's gays and lesbians are just as much a part of Maine as you are and we contribute in every way shape in form to this place we all love. I thank Dorothy, this letter writer for making that point so clearly and so strongly. Cheers, once again to Dorothy. Thank you.
So flattering to think that
So flattering to think that you feel I'm trying to intimidate you, because truly I'm not. I wouldn't waste my energy and really now, how in the world could I possibly accomplish that in the first place? But yeah, sure - you think homosexuality is a perversion. And sex between cousins? How does that factor into anything here? And so as obviously as you display your disgust for gay's and lesbians the same is obvious for your issues regarding sexuality in general. Plenty of individuals here have pointed out that your hysterical rants seem to effect nothing more than a mild irritation of the skin. If I could scrape you off I would. But your posts are as offensive as they are noxious. You're really quite a package.
Sir? Oh please skip those
Sir? Oh please skip those vapid salutations. And as far as angry goes, have you read your posts lately? You're sounding pretty strident yourself there missey. Or should I perhaps say Madam? And if the issue here is sex education than I will state once again that if you have an issue with sex education being taught in Maine classrooms than here is not the forum for that. Take the issue up with your local school board. But to finish the point and to make sure that everyone understands — if not you — that homosexuality is not taught as an instructional course in Maine's sex education classes. As far as the rest of that curriculum, go to your local school board and start a ruckus. You seem to be really good at that.
OK, so you're labeling
OK, so you're labeling homosexuality as a perversion. It shows everyone who reads these posts the level of your intolerance. Not only is your assertion misplaced, it's mean spirited. Why would you find it so necessary to foist such an aspersion upon your fellow neighbors? You're devaluating Maine's gay and lesbian citizens and casting us down to the level of vermin — or criminals perhaps. Clearly you look down upon us and hold no value for our humanity. And obviously you don't see us as equal to you in any way shape or form. In the case you didn't realize it, that's how some of the most hideous crimes in human history have been enacted — by one group in power that destroys another group because they believe them to be of lesser value; that must be eliminated. Look to this letter writer's excellent points for greater detail. She makes a good point — one I believe you should examine more closely.
Ah, no I didn't. I wrote
Ah, no I didn't. I wrote that homosexuality is not being taught as a course in Maine schools or in Mass., NH or VT. But for some reason, you're stuck in your absurd mantra of sex. Is this all it's about for you? Sex? OK, fine then. But it's not a good enough reason.
What are you nuts or
What are you nuts or something?? That article is about a lack of funding for sex education, not the age of the children being taught sex education. And furthermore, that story had nothing whatsoever to do with students being instructed on how to be a homosexual. What are you trying to do, extract facts from out of the atmosphere? And look. If you have such an issue with sex education and what school grade that curriculum is taught than take the issue up with your local school board. The fact that any school teaches sex education is not at issue here. Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with teaching children. You're trying to foist a diversion in order to promote discrimination. Shame on you.
Excuse me but are you
Excuse me but are you calling homosexuality a perversion? If so than why? Homosexuality is not a perversion much less anything else you might claim, other than a perfectly normal human state of being. And of course, I find it totally offensive that you'd stoop to such a level as to assign your fellow Maine citizens as perverts. That's really mean spirited of you.
Outlandish assertions and
Outlandish assertions and totally false. Discrimination against Maine's gay and lesbian citizens has been carefully documented and that information is easily available. And no, civil unions are not the same as marriage in any way shape or form. Furthermore, there is no education program in Massachusetts, New Hampshire or Vermont that "teaches" children now to be homosexual. And there is no plan to have anything remotely resembling your hysterical claim in Maine either. You're trying to scare people with falsity and lies Your claims are offensive and flat out wrong.
HERE! HERE! Dorothy!
HERE! HERE! Dorothy! Thank you. Excellent points. Great letter.
You'll find that most local
You'll find that most local newspapers in Maine struggle with this issue every day. We're all waiting to see which newspaper makes a decision first. Scary.
HERE! HERE!
HERE! HERE!
Threats? What threats??
Threats? What threats?? And yes. If two people want to get married, they have to apply for a marriage license. I'm not complaining. I think that's great. Lots of people have parties afterward. I'd like to do that myself. I'd like to go down to the town hall and get that marriage license. I'll have a party afterward and celebrate with my family and friends. I'd be grateful. I'd be happy. And I'd be married. But it seems I'll have to dream and only dream. Hmmf!
We've gone this route
We've gone this route before. You've said the same things. And I couldn't care less. Vote as you see fit and I'll do the same. That you would vote at all based on what I write and nothing else is a clear indication of what your intentions were in the first place. You're full of hot air. And just so you'll understand completely. I'm far too old and far to impatient to wait any longer to be allowed to live my life equally as the rest of you. That I must wait for someone such as you to "let" me is just intolerable. I couldn't care less that you find my anger and frustration off-putting. But you didn't have to do a single thing to "deserve" the ability to get married. That you must "decide" to let me is horrible. Why wouldn't I be angry? Why wouldn't I be fed up?
You're not asking Reed.
You're not asking Reed. You're requiring. There's a difference. A "spiritual choice" is my deciding to become a Unitarian rather than Catholic. To be "spiritually grounded" as I had mentioned earlier indicates something quite different as well. You're splitting hairs councilor in order to remain safely couched in your mantra of "choice". I think it's ridiculous. I expect more from you than this. Horrifyingly you believe otherwise. For you to begin to believe differently, you'll have to develop some compassion.
Your reply is blatantly
Your reply is blatantly offensive Reed. Your rights as a heterosexual are protected without prejudice, while mine however are stunted, abridged and discriminated against. You relegate Maine's gay and lesbian citizens into a second-class status based upon a trump card that you proudly hide behind. You do this in order to gloss over your lack of compassion or even plain common sense. That you would compare my life with "onions" is a clear indication of your true nature. THIS is what Lewiston has to rely upon! A city councilor who believes gay men and lesbian's are as easily explained as onions on a hamburger. You should reconsider your belief system councilor. You should ask some sincere questions and learn something for a change, rather than some inane and pointless argument which serves to do nothing more than minimize your neighbors into the margins of society.
Your gay "friends" allow
Your gay "friends" allow your option of Civil Unions. Oh, how wonderful for you. But the law before us is "marriage" and don't even try and tell me you're aren't going to vote it down? But there are laws in Maine already which address your post and they have nothing to do with the issues that face committed same-sex couples. Marriage is the issue here and not Civil Unions. If you seem to believe that's all I should be asking for that plainly state that. But marriage is what I want and it's what I hope happens. Your insistence for civil unions is like a punishment. You believe it's all we deserve. Because you think less of my gay relationship.
Reed, your reply is not only
Reed, your reply is not only offensive, it's just plain stupid. Do you mean to explain that regardless of any testimony a gay man or lesbian would provide, you still default to your implacable claim of a "lifestyle choice"? A lifestyle choice is blueberries with my pancakes - not whether or not I WANT to be gay. My sexual orientation has nothing to do with sex. It has everything to do with whom I'm spiritually grounded toward. I cannot be straight anymore than you could be gay. I'm sure you understand this. I would expect that as an intelligent person you would posses some sort of insight that would lead you to believe what I'm telling you. You couldn't possibly be that stubborn. You can't possibly be that blind, that unfeeling, that callous. Your continued insistence that I "chose" to be gay is the single point which invalidates anything else you may claim. Gay "friends" my foot. Your assignment of a "choice" upon Maine's gay and lesbian citizens does nothing more than clearly show that you look down upon us. That you disregard our value as human beings. That you see no validity in our search for civil equality. It's because you don't believe we're equal. It's shameful. It's wrong. Seek out these gay "friends" and listen to them. And then you'll see that they chose nothing except to live their lives openly. That's pretty courageous in my estimation. That you stupidly default to your simple minded claim of "choice" is cowardly.
Then address Mr. Reed, the
Then address Mr. Reed, the issues which come up when a spouse is denied access to SSI benefits, insurance and health benefits to name only a few. Why should same-sex couples go through legal wrangling and obfuscation in order to achieve a means to an end when "marriage" covers these inequities already? Why are same-sex couples so "different" that they cannot get married the same as you? Is it the word or is it the deed, Reed which disgusts you so?
Baloney! I'm curious to
Baloney! I'm curious to understand your claim of gay friends who are fine with without the ability to marry. Civil marriage is not a non-issue for same-sex couples. I contend you're twisting the question you pose to your "gay friends" in order to produce your tepid answer. Considering you believe homosexuality to be "a choice" I wonder how any homosexual would consider your a friend at all? Your hiding your true feelings as you present your friendship to these people. In effect, you're lying to them. That's a shame. This nations gay and lesbian citizenry may be a small and vocal group but it certainly doesn't mean they're any less valid in their desire to get married. Once again. There's no difference between you and me so I cannot see why you find it justifiable to deny me the ability to get married the same as you. Civil Unions are not marriage and you know it. That is unless you'd care to push for a change in the law. Shall you spearhead the effort? You're right Reed. I don't know you. Furthermore, I don't want to.
Here! Here! Take that Reed!
Here! Here! Take that Reed!
I suppose your issue is with
I suppose your issue is with homosexuality itself. So putting your religious objections aside, can you still act to prevent same-sex marriage? I suppose you would. But how about providing us a clear reason why? I'd like to know. I'd like to know how you can justify pushing the law of the land in my face to keep me from living my life the same as you.
I'm with "tron". Reed,
I'm with "tron". Reed, you've asked this inane question before. And you get the same answer every time. And as per usual, you ask it again. Clearly, you do not support same-sex marriage so how about just dropping the question and voting as you see fit? Civil unions are not marriage. Same-sex couples don't want a union of convenience. They want marriage. Marriage that provides the same status, protections and obligations as what marriage provides to heterosexual couples. There is no difference between you and myself. So why cannot I marry my partner of over 20 years? There is no reason you can provide Reed to justify preventing this.
Here! Here!
Here! Here!
If you're referring to me
If you're referring to me when you mention "threats" than you better check again. I've never threatened you. You're doing just fine on your own making a mess of your reputation and your office. Your superciliousness is only overshadowed by your lack of common sense. If you post a comment at one moment, alleging what appears to be a rumor, then neglecting to follow up by corroborating facts than it's your mistake and no one elses. But regardless of whether or not your allegation of clandestine meetings were true or false, do you really believe this is the place to expose them? I don't believe so. I think your tactics are unprofessional and prankish. As an elected official I would expect better of you. So as you accuse fellow council members of sneaking around, be careful or you'll find yourself hoisted by your own petard. You're well on your way.
You have participated in
You have participated in gossip and mentioned it as a rumor in your original post. And then you invite others to participate in sharing of this "rumor". And then after that you adjust your statement and call the rumor fact. What concerns me is you're on a newspaper web site and blogging your way into an embarassing and potentially harmful situation. More importantly, you're shooting off into a wild tagent as you bring up painful family issues for another blogger. Do you realzie the very public forum you're using? What you "have to loose" is the respect of this community, the cooperation of your fellow council members and the effectiveness of your elected office. Your hubris will continue to trouble you. But you should pay more attention to what you write. Do you realize that you've just about accused your fellow council members of fraud and corruption? Once again. What is your motivation?
Seriously councilor, are you
Seriously councilor, are you paranoid? Do find it in your best interest as a member of the city council, to participate in rumor and gossip? What sort of behavior is this that you should "blog" on the local newspaper web site in such a way? Are you trying to subvert your fellow councilors, embarrass them, cause them trouble? All for the sake of participating in gossip? What's your motivation here Reed?
Councilor, you're out of
Councilor, you're out of line. You have no business shaming anybody from "out of town". Once again, smug and childish responses form you. Once again . . . very unprofessional.
I hope Lewiston's voters
I hope Lewiston's voters check this site regularly enough to notice how sarcastic and smug your replies are. I hope they realize how unprofessional and childish you appear when you write. The only description which comes to mind at this moment that I believe would describe you accurately would be: "feckless".
I'm sure you've figured out
I'm sure you've figured out by now that I'm ignoring you. However, please refer to another persons post listing the accomplishments of Mr. Bennett. I agree heartily with that post.
Reed. If you're referring
Reed. If you're referring to me (Joseph) than I must tell you that you're sarcastic reply by naming "Joey" is unprofessional and childish. As an elected official I expect you to be more than a mere petulant child when you respond to critics. I must tell you that if you voted to remove Mr. Bennett because of a "dare" than you're not only stupid, you're a sucker. In my estimation you made an expensive mistake by responding to playground tactics. You refer to your decisions as a councilor as a "right", well I hope voters will exercise their "right" to vote you out of office. Lewiston deserves and needs better than what you provide.
The "rain tax" called that
The "rain tax" called that by many who deem the FEE unpopular was something which I actually supported. I merely mentioned as something unpopular by many.
Here! Here!
Here! Here!
Here! Here!
Here! Here!
Robert61, I read the Twin
Robert61, I read the Twin City Times article and as well, your letter to the editor and not contained in either article were clear reasons for Bennett's dismissal. Other than your dislike of Bennett's management style. Actually, that's not the issue here. Your lack of forthright answers however is the issue. Your vague explanations are the problem. Your stubborn refusal to list exact reasons for voting to dismiss Bennett leads anyone to believe that your decision was based more on a professional dislike, rather than any other reason. An open mind is only open when there is equal dialog in a discussion. Which is something seriously lacking in your case. You will continue to have your feet held to the fire over the coming weeks for your participation in the removal of Bennett. I hope you do a better job than you're doing right now.
Publish your letter here
Publish your letter here Reed. Your assertion that the SJ wouldn't publish your letter because of an errant 30 days is a little bit of a limp excuse. I'm more than certain the SJ would be more than pleased to hear from you. So why don't you try again? As their editorial clearly points out, they're more than eager to hear from you.
Watch your mouth Publik.
Watch your mouth Publik. Mr. Bennett (not one of my favs) managed the city of Lewiston during the largest period of renewal since the turn of the previous century. Under his leadership and encouragement, the face of Lewiston changed for the better, tearing away the ugly face of Lewiston's waterfront to what we see now. Lewiston has improved by leaps and bounds over the years in large part to Bennett's leadership. And as well, some of the most unpopular events as well. ie: The "rain tax". But regardless of whether or not anyone supports Bennett, the question at hand is what interests me; the reasons behind Bennett's removal. And the two which say the most in public but explain the least are Reed and Theriault. To insist they provide a more clear perspective is a perfectly reasonable question. And since Reed is such a faithful contributor to this site, I find it reasonable to insist the question. And as such, I find his reasons unacceptable, lazy and glib. And now let's here it for "publik" who shall now tear me apart via every crass word possible. Go to it publik!
Your ego is astounding if it
Your ego is astounding if it weren't so laughable. Regardless of whether or not I live in Lewiston now is hardly the issue. As a matter of fact, I lived in Lewiston for years, only leaving LA recently. Finding flattery in controversy is amusing as you mention but still does not excuse your glaring lack of common sense. Let Lewiston's voters decide whether you're doing a good job or not. And for me, I hope they vote for somebody who can write clearly and explains themselves and their actions with candor. In the meantime, why don't you write a letter to the editor? Explain your participation in the removal of Mr. Bennett. Explain your accomplishments. Share your vision for the future of Lewiston and avoid your childish complaints. You're not being bullied. As a city councilor, you should be able and prepared to be questioned. So get busy.
As usual Robert61. Glib and
As usual Robert61. Glib and smarmy. The Sun Journal is accurate in challenging you to offer up facts. So do that, rather than your evasive and "quite frankly" lazy approach to an answer. Do your job Reed.
Here! Here! Lacombe.
Here! Here! Lacombe.
Councilor . . . do your job.
Councilor . . . do your job. The community you serve expects you to convey information clearly and in detail. Something you endlessly fall short upon. The Sun Journal does not owe you an apology and further, your bruised feelings only indicate what another commenter accurately points out. That you point the finger to distract from the fact that you're ill-prepared, ill-informed and incompetent. The communities eyes are upon you and expect and deserve form all members of the council a detailed explanation for Bennett's removal. Telling them to review council meeting minutes is not the answer. Once again . . . DO YOUR JOB.
OK, "nonstop", point made.
OK, "nonstop", point made. But why stress the point when the point isn't mentioned? Nobody wrote anything about the young girl 'getting away' with this. And you're right. Things happen when you do something irresponsible like this. But like what Jay Bee wrote earlier: "Driving is dangerous; this is life." True. Race, color, creed and all of what you mention has very little to do with the accident. The girl has enough problems to deal with. Must you assume more?
So what then is the
So what then is the alternative? Cap-and-Trade is better than nothing and personally, $20 more a month won't hurt my feeling much. So long as that money is spend on actually reducing greenhouse emissions. So let's all quit complaining and actually do something. Before we need oxygen tanks to breath.
And here's MO4 with yet
And here's MO4 with yet again, another snarky comment. You know that claim is baseless right MO4? You realize you're just being a jerk again. Right?