CCL Launches Protect Marriage Maine
The Christian Civic League of Maine and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today announced they have joined forces to form Protect Marriage Maine, and will lead the campaign against the proposed initiative redefining marriage in Maine. The initiative is expected to be on the November 2012 ballot.
“We are pleased to bring together these key organizations to begin the process of educating voters about Maine’s marriage laws, and urging them to defeat this initiative to redefine marriage,” said Bob Emrich, Chairman of Protect Marriage Maine. “This group was instrumental in defeating Question One in 2009 and we have every confidence we will do so again.” Emrich is the founder of the Maine Jeremiah Project (MJP) which played a major role in the 2009 repeal of Question One. The MJP is the pastors’ network of the Christian Civic League of Maine.
In 2009, Maine voters defeated Question One which would have redefined marriage to make it genderless for everyone, thus enabling same-sex “marriage.” Despite being told “no” by the voters, homosexual advocates have submitted signatures seeking to put the marriage redefinition initiative on the November ballot.
“We intend to organize a broad and deep campaign across the state of Maine,” said Carroll Conley, executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine (CCL) and an executive committee member of Protect Marriage Maine. “The CCL was not a major player in the 2009 campaign, and we believe we can play a major role in the campaign this year. We look forward to doing so.”
Emrich said that Protect Marriage Maine would organize the entire community of faith, including Protestants, Catholics, orthodox Jews, Muslims and others, along with people with no faith traditions at all. “The truth about marriage is that it is profoundly in the public good and has served society well for thousands of years,” Emrich said. “Same-sex couples in Maine already enjoy full legal rights. We don’t have to redefine marriage simply because of the political demands of a small but powerful special interest group.”
The committee filed paperwork with the Campaign Finance Board on April 20th creating Protect Marriage Maine. The campaign will be based in Augusta.
“Our campaign will be about the importance of marriage and the consequences to society if marriage is redefined,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. “We reject attempts to make this campaign about the morality of homosexuality. The campaign is about marriage, and we look forward to educating voters about the importance of maintaining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”
40 Responses »
Trackbacks
Leave a Response
Facebook
Twitter
Entries(RSS)
I wish to say simply that while I agree that this campaign is about the importance of marriage it cannot be separated from the act that homosexuality is sodomy and it is abhorrent to God it is contrary to what God said to Adam & Eve in Genesis concerning the marriage relationship. Let's make sure we tell the whole truth.
By Grace,
Pastor John Dancer
This is very important, more than some people know. For Catholics, this includes realizing that this is first and foremost a spiritual battle. "Our battle is not with flesh and blood, but with principalities and powers" as St. Paul tells us.
As bitterly as they hate us, we must always remember that our opponents are not our enemies - we have a common enemy, Satan.
We must engage this battle at every level, speaking plainly of course, always in charity, with every word and action founded in humble prayer for God's guidance.
This is a fight to open the minds and hearts of people to the beauty and purpose of marriage, something our society has largely forgotten. It is only by becoming God's tools for this purpose that we will be victorious, regardless of any election results.
This is great news, however, I do not understand this line:
“We reject attempts to make this campaign about the morality of homosexuality."
How can you leave the morality of homosexuality (or rather homosexual lifestyle) out of the picture. It is the nature of the homosexual relationship (namely that it is disordered and unnatural) which is the reason it should NOT be given marital rights. Not to mention the selfishness of the fact that children raised in that homosexual environment will INTENTIONALLY be denied a proper father or mother depending if the couple are gay or lesbian.
The issue of marriage is a spiritual one, which makes it a moral one.
I can see that as Christians we respect each person, including their particular crosses in life. If homosexual persons realized that their orientation is disordered and thus a cross to bear, and ask God to assist them, rather than ignoring God and just doing what "feels best for themselves", then perhaps there would be some light in these dark political days.
I think the proper understanding of that sentence would be
"We reject attempts to REDUCE this campaign to a debate on the morality of homosexuality."
When we remember that nature provided only one way for humans to come into this world - the union of one man and one woman, then the importance of defending marriage against all assaults becomes obvious, including of course "same-sex" marriage - a contradiction in terms if there ever was one.
The gay activists want this to be about them. It's not. It's about the future of society. It's much bigger than their petty little demands for recognition.
I completely concur with Susan: how can the debate over the homosexual subversion of marriage NOT be about the "morality of homosexuality"?! And I doubt that Chris' attempt to explain away Brian Brown's curious statement away accurately explains the STRATEGY behind NOM's approach to fighting this issue. In essence, NOM (which has done much good work in defense of marriage) has tried to say the battle over homosexual "marriage" is NOT about homosexuality -- because they believe (perhaps rightly so) that people are turned off by the homosexual issue. Their argument is essentially utilitarian -- that this more "neutral" and "positive" approach (PRO-MARRIAGE) will more likely secure victories at the ballot box, from California to Maine.
Here's the problem: the homosexual side NEVER STOPS talking about homosexuality, by redefining sin and perversion as a "civil right" -- and homosexuality-based "families" as American as apple pie! In fact, their latest strategy is to recast their pro-homosexual "marriage" and pro-homosexual-adoption crusades as "moral," and "Christian." Incredible, we are now being told that legalized homosexual "marriage" PROTECTS CHILDREN! So, the morality void will be filled -- by an organized Sin Movement that is cunning in its manipulation of misguided compassion.
Just as with the abortion issue, the only way back to sanity on this issue is recognize the core principles and fight from there: homosexual behavior is immoral, unhealthy, destructive, and, thankfully, changeable. Pretending that this titanic struggle for truth is somehow NOT about the immorality of homosexual behavior -- when expanding "gay" activist power is the whole root of crisis, is disingenuous and ensures long-term -- and, I'm afraid, short-term -- disaster for pro-family forces seeking to uphold historic, Judeo-Christian marriage.
That's simple. Because it is possible to recognize the natural reality that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and that family is the foundation of a civilized society, and that children need their mother and father, without believing that homosexual behavior is sinful.
The referendum in November will be asking people to vote whether to redefine marriage in Maine. The ballot will not ask citizens to vote on homosexuality. Everyone understands that the issues are related, but THIS vote is about the definition of marriage. If we lose the vote to preserve marriage, among other things, we will be hindered from engaging in the broader discussion of homosexuality.
I can't improve on Peter LaBarbera's reasoning above.
I've never seen Bob Emrich demonstrate a serious interest in engaging in the "broader discussion of homosexuality." I doubt very much if you'll see the words "evil," perversion," "abomination" or "sin." receive any emphasis at all in his campaign to save marriage in Maine this year. I'm sure he'll talk about it as best he can with Christians who agree with him. He'll drop the Bible quoting etc. in public though.
Emrich says that everyone understands the issues are related?! I don't see the evidence of that anywhere. Is he living in a parallel universe?
I see more and more people choosing not to even think about sexual morality. Sex is about pleasure for most everyone now -- even many Christians who go to church. There's NO serious discussion about sodomy or sexual morality outside of politics.
When was the last time anyone saw a headline reading, "Abomination Forced on School Children at Asa Adams Elementary School in Orono," or "Church Chooses to Ignore Civil Approval of Sodomy in Favor of Domestic Partnerships?"
Maine state government forced the Asa Adams elementary school to "accommodate" the insanity of parents who chose to abuse their son by raising him as a girl and forcing him to use the little girls room at the public school. Bob Emrich chose to ignore the expansion of "domestic partnership" benefits by sodomy-advocates in Maine in 2004 in favor of focusing pastor's attention on a marriage license bill that was dead on arrival in the legislature.
The truth is exactly the opposite of what Bob Emrich writes above. Nobody understands that the issues are related anymore.
In a recent conversation I had with a journalist I was told that the media in Maine will not cover my use of the word "sodomy" as I defend the institution of civil marriage from this frontal attack. This individual is a veteran journalist. He said that they won't do it because sodomy is the "N word."
And Bob Emrich believes that everybody understands?
The purpose of marriage is procreation and the raising of children. Procreation is based on heterosexuality. The referendum will vote on a redefinition of marriage which includes homosexuality. To omit a discussion of homosexuality is to fail to understand our own argument. The central question at issue is this: Why should the pairings of homosexuals, which involve acts which are harmful both to individuals and to society, be put on a par with marriage, an institution which is wholesome and life-giving? If we omit this question, we do not understand our own argument.
Not only are we entering the campaign with a defective understanding of our own argument, we are in essence making the case for the other side. By omitting any discussion of the morality of homosexuality, we are painting the same rosy picture of “gay marriage” the other side is trying to put forward. Worse, we are opening the rest of us to a charge of bigotry. By using the message of the other side, our campaign is doomed to failure.
How can we appeal to the public to defend marriage, as a good necessary for the preservation of society, when a substantial percentage of the voting public is already divorced? What will be the effect of putting forward a message which is contradicted by the personal behavior of our own supporters and leaders?
Though NOM and the Christian Civic League champion the principle of one man and one woman, their understanding of marriage as a contract which can be broken at will contradicts the teaching of scripture; and God will not honor this approach.
Not only does this approach contradict human reason, it is a direct contradiction of divine revelation.
The scripture says:
“Suppose I tell you that wicked people will surely die, but you don’t warn them or speak out so that they can change their wicked ways in order to save their lives. Then these wicked people will die because of their sin, but I will hold you responsible for their deaths. But suppose you warn the wicked people, and they don’t turn from their wicked ways, then they will die because of their sin, but you will save yourself.” (Ezekiel 3:18,19)
The word of God is perfect and infallible. Had someone warned Bob Carlson that his public advocacy of homosexual “marriage” and abortion was a damnable evil, he would have repented and not jumped off the Penobscot Narrows Bridge. But his soul is suffering the torments of Hell because of the feminized, softer, more “tolerant” approach of the modern day mega-churches.
We must give the message on marriage delivered to us by scripture and the Son of God, that marriage between man and woman is a bond made by God and cannot be dissolved by any earthly power; and that sodomy is one of the four sins which cry out to Heaven for punishment.
Then God will honor us with victory.
I would highly recommend that you refrain from putting anyone in hell, regardless of how deserving of eternal punishment they might appear to us.
Fritz, You stated:
I think the most important thing in your statement is "an institution which is wholesome and life-giving. That is the root of the problem with marriages today.....they are no longer life-giving. We only need to look back to the wide acceptance/use of contraception to see where marriages started to decline.
A man and a woman that are contracepting are not life-giving, just as two men are not life-giving nor are two women. This is the argument of those that wish to redefine marriage. Procreation no longer matters in marriage....this is their cry. Couples today choose not to have children, they say in debates with people on our side. Those that wish to redefine marriage are very aware that marriages today have become sterile through the use of birth control and this is why they feel that it should be redefined to fit their relationship.
So to say that we have to speak about homosexuality in our defense against the redefinition of marriage is a shallow way of looking at the issue (I'm not saying you are shallow but there is more to it than homosexuality). There are many things that are destroying marriage today, as Chris stated earlier. But I think he left out the most important one, and that is contraception use.
I have a question for those who are obviously very worked up about the approach being taken by NOM, Protect Marriage Maine, etc.
Why does the Catholic Church teach that supporting gay marriage is seriously sinful?
Is it because homosexual behavior is sinful? So is divorce and re-marriage. So is adultery. So is fornication. So is masturbation. So is porn. Heck, so is immodesty in dress. All of these are a threat to marriage in their own way, and should be corrected by our witness to society.
Or is it a serious sin to support same-sex marriage because re-defining marriage in essence destroys the institution of marriage and is a direct threat to children, families, and the common good?
Which approach do you think is the one that needs to be made to those who have been living in a society that increasingly accepts sodomy as normal?
My impression here is that some people are missing the forest for the trees.
What is there left to say? Dear Leader has thrown his support behind another movement that is tearing the fabric of our society apart. The youth of our nation has been indoctrinated in our schools, and the media has been working away at eroding the moral sinsibilities of all generations, including the elderly. How soon will open, violent persecution of true Catholics follow?
To those of you who have posted here, what you may not know is that Bob Emrich and Mike Heath support the Ugandan government's proposal to imprison and/or execute gay citizens. What you may not know is that, in public and on blog sites such as this, the two of them will tell you to "love the sinner but hate the sin". What they won't tell you is that they absolutely hate the sin and the sinner. What they won't tell you is that they prefer terms like sodomite, child abuser and defiler of God to label gay citizens. What you may not know is that NOM (the National Organization for Marriage) is the chief out-of-state supporter of Emrich and Heath. What you may not know is that NOM's internal plans are to pit black citizens against gays, to seek children who will expose their gay parents for retribution and who regularly post, on their own blog site, some of the vilest, most hateful posts in support of their cause.
What you should know is that this has all be revealed and it will not go unreported. And the Catholic Church had better distance itself from this filth or it, too, will be dragged into the muck.
I challenge you to leave my post in place.
So, the message is clear by virtue of the posts on this site, particularly the one from Michael Heath: The Catholic Church supports his contention that gays should be punished (imprisonment? death?) and, like the others, believes that the public message: love the sinner, hate the sin is just that...a public message but not at all the message of the actual Church. Do I have this wrong?
Clearly you have strong opinions on this issue, but your blanket statements about the Catholic Church are frankly ridiculous, in particular because they do not reflect the public statements made by the Church Herself.
If you would like to understand what the Church teaches about homosexuality, and other things concerning this issue, try to refrain from putting words in her mouth via your own rather dubious "guilt by association" accusations.
Or, if you are just trying to paint marriage defenders with a wide brush so as to avoid the debate, then don't waste your time posting here. There are plenty of Catholic bashing sites available to you to vent at.
Clearly I do have strong opinions on the matter of the Catholic Church and it's associations with the likes of bigots (Emrich and Heath) and bigoted organizations (NOM). I have been in fairly regular communication with a spokesperson of the Catholc Church in Maine. I was instructed to contact the likes of NOM, Emrich and Heath if I have concerns about bigotry, hatred and simply vile postings and the stands of these people/organizations. I have done so. But, my larger concern is to what extent the Maine Diocese is still in support of these two reprehensible Maine citizens and the equally abhorrent out-of-state hate designated NOM. And, All citizens of this state should know if the Maine Diocese is, in any way, financially supporting Emrich, Heatband NOM.
Read my post above and you tell me if these are the kinds of "people" we want arguing for a religious definition of marriage, let alone a civil definition. You tell me if the Church of Maine should, in any way, be seen as even remotely associated with the evil intentions of these two and NOM (such as this site, Catholic Maine and its apparent support of them).
And then you tell me if the good gay citizens of this state, including the gay children from Fort Kent to Kittery should be subjected to the lies, vitreol and slander that Emrich, Heath and NOM will unleash in their pursuit of incarceration and death for anyone gay.
Chris Rioux, open your eyes,and more importantly your ears. Read what Heath and Emrich state here and on other sites, check out the NOM blog site for further evidence and then, if you are a Catholic, you tell me, is the Church not guilty by association?
Your judgement of those who disagree with you on the marriage question is really severe, especially as its basis is so lacking in fact. It's rather funny to read your "morally offended" tone - as though you really care whether the Church is "affiliated" with these people you detest.
But, as I posted above,
" As bitterly as they hate us, we must always remember that our opponents are not our enemies - we have a common enemy, Satan..."
Your comments certainly provide a good example of the bitter hatred I was referring to.
Your comments give me the impression that you have read very little of the thoughts posted here, in particular the disagreements between Nom and Heath, or you wouldn't be wasting your time accusing devout Catholics of promoting "incarceration and death" for homosexual persons, just because they understand the nature of marriage and the importance of defending it in our society.
Your tone resembles a 1920's fascist, ranting and pounding your fists against the Church, accusing her of things that aren't true in order to magnify a sense of "injustice". It's effective propoganda to be sure, but it's a poor defence for your ideas.
I do not speak for the Church, but our Bishop does, and he has spoken very clearly about the Church's position.
Now why don't you be honest with yourself and go read his pastoral letter. When you find the part about "incarceration and death", let me know and we'll talk about it.
I do not speak for NOM, but I am very familiar with their site, and strongly support their defense of freedom of speech and religion, especially as these rights are now so clearly under attack by activists who go around making the kind of ridiculous claims that you have repeated here.
I know that everyone who thinks nature is fundamental to marriage and disagrees with the gay activists is a "hater" and a "bigot", and now apparantly, even "murderers". But really, it must get rather old to repeat the same thing over and over....especially when the majority aren't buying it.
You and I will apparently never understand one another and so be it. But, your post, like so many others of your religionists persuasion, seeks to hide behind a curtain of piety: the pernicious attitude that you and your Church know better, that you and your God are above the fray but as long as the minions continue to "sin", you, your Church and your God will just have to slap us all down as perverts, sodomites and the worst of humanity. This, to me, is how your posts above come through and it's evil-if there is your Satan, you know him quite well but not as you think you do. And because NOM's, Emrich's, Heath's and your ultimate purpose is revealed to all, you will pull out that old canard: our speech and religious freedom are under attack. This would be laughable except that the hate that is spewed by so many and for so long against gay persons is a right you have and a right amply and freely practiced. Religious freedom, too, is certainly under no threat...as long as you follow the laws of the land which often includes protections for sexual identity. Trust me, no one is going to come after your priests or your Church. You will continue to discriminate as you see fit. Civil marriage is just that, civil and should be available to loving, committed gay couple 's, too. Now, use your speech and religious freedom to fight this all you wish; just, please, try to do it honestly and without the ridiculous scare tactics.
And as for ridiculous claims about the incarceration and murder of gay persons. Why don't you do a little research yourself. For starters, look at the number of gay kids who resort to suicide as a way out of the misery showered upon them from the likes of you. Suicide is not murder? Tell that to the parents, friends, teachers and family of that child.
1920's fascist? You bet. There is evil in this world and many of us know where it resides. Time to call it out; the majority of people in this country now know who you are and they don't agree. Oh, you'll get to continue to spew, rant and rave...so will I. You will get to continue to discriminate, but only within your Church walls. The rest of us will abide by civil and constitutional laws; the way this country has always intended it to be.
Rich,
Here is what I do not understand....you keep accusing those that protect marriage as being haters, bigots, and discrimators. But be honest with yourself....you are being hateful and bigoted against us. Just look at your words and the accusations that you fling our way.
These are your words...not ours. Your feelings...not ours. I think you might want to just stick to the facts, because (and any grown person should know this) facts aren't feelings.
The Catholic Church does not discrimate against anyone. Sorry, that is a fact...don't care what you feel about it. Also, there is a thing called truth...don't care if you believe it or not...that doesn't make the truth any less real. These are facts...not hate, bigotry or discrimation.
We need to stick to the facts. As for your accusations against NOM, Heath and Emerich....take it up with them!
"Facts are stubborn things..." (John Adams)...and the fact is that this Catholic site entertains bloggers who condemn gay people and others who support some who call for death.
I have never read anywhere, not even once, a post from the Catholic Church that served as a helping hand to gay kids in this state. I have never read anywhere, not even once, a suggestion from the Church as to what gay kids should do since the Church believes that they are not worthy of a lifetime of married happiness with the one they love. There is no love that I can see extended towards gay kids in this state from the Church yet I see much love extended by other Christian religious groups. Sorry, this is discrimination in its blatant form and this is truth. It's hateful and hurtful to them but you and the Church don't see that it is bigotry.
"Is it 2012? I can see people rationalizing their position against marriage equality, albeit in the usual wrong-headed manner, but calling for the execution of gay human beings? World-famous boxer and role model to many kids, Manny Pacquiao (@mannypacquiao), unleashed a level of public homophobia I’ve not seen in a long time." Pam Spaulding of Pam's House Blend
Manny Pacquiao is a devout Catholic.
Protect your religionists marriages as you see fit; leave the civil marriages to the state as they belong to all the people as any grown (and learned) individual who understands the Constitution will understand. If you and the Church can learn to accept that civil marriage is a requirement (therefore the right of all) and religious marriage is not (and therefore not available to everyone) then the issue is resolved, the hate can dissipate and the world will be that much better.
The fact is, you insist on attributing beliefs and statements to Catholics which are false.
That makes you a liar.
I don't use the term lightly.
If you wanted to understand, many here would gladly discuss with you, even if we disagree. There is no need for the kind of vomit you are spewing.
Your words have proven that you are an anti-catholic bigot, with no interest in discussing differences in understanding or belief - you only wish to hurl names and keep repeating the same clap-trap gay-activist propoganda.
Go troll somewhere else.
This sight also "entertains bloggers" whose own bigotry is aimed squarely at the Catholic church.
The Church doesn't "post," and you're not really searching.
Calling the union of two men or two women "marriage" is begging the question.
There is love for all, regardless of our disordered inclinations. True love demands that we will the good of the other. The lifestyle you would like to see promoted amongst our youth cannot possibly bring them true joy. How has it worked for you?
Your actual comments are hateful and hurtful to many faithful Catholics. You don't see this as bigotry. Why not?
Wow. You sure are reaching. Manny Pacquiao is so famous, that I've never heard of him.
Huh?
You portray a very nasty picture of Christians in general and the Church, without substantiating a single one of your assertions. Here's the Church I know. And love.
The Manny Pacquiao story. Shoot first, ask questions later.
Rich, Rich, Rich,
Another thing you fail to see is that someone's "values" will be imposed on society. The question is whose values? Yours, that are based on a false sense of what love really is, or ours, that are based on natural law, God's law and true charity.
Again, you may not believe in God, you may not even try to find out what the Catholic Church actually teaches, but your "facts" are not truth.
Marriage is one man and one woman that come together to bring forth the next generation. That is a fact, the truth. Every human being comes from the union of one man and one woman. That is the truth.
So, you can fight against the truth, you can ignore the truth, you can call those that believe the truth all kinds of names...but in the end, the truth (and those that defend it) will prevail.
Rich also expressed concern about the Catholic Church being "dragged into the muck" in his first post... nice try, but he revealed the truth of his faux compassion in subsequent posts.
Rich's major problem with truth and reality is that truth cares not what Rich believes, it remains the truth despite his imaginative ramblings.
As an example, try on Mark 10:6-10:9,
So-called "gay marriage" will fail to change the truth, no matter what. You see, the two fleshes involved need be male and female in order to become one flesh. An inconvenient truth for those wishing to redefine marriage, but the truth nonetheless. Eternally.
I wonder if Rich can substantiate his bizarre claim about Bob Emrich...
And really, a source more credible than Pam's House Blend would be welcome. Let's not allow another person to be hung in the public square for merely expressing their belief in the truth, that marriage is only between a man and a woman, as the Leftist media is doing with Manny Pacquiao.
Arrogance in the extreme. "Your"definition of marriage is yours and not the states; it doesn't pass muster with any court in the land. You will have to come to understand this one day.
"Your" contention that marriage is for the sole purpose of procreation is yours, alone, and will not, indeed has not, passed muster with any court in the land.
No law, anywhere across the land proscribes the requirement of children for a marriage to exist.
Marriage is not mentioned even once in the the United States ConstitutIon. Due process and equal protection under the law are stalwarts of the Constitution. You will have to come to grips with this sooner rather than later. Indeed the prohibition of marriage equality has already been declared unConstitutional; you will have to accept this sooner rather than later. There have been no arguments by your side that have carried any weight in any court that is currently under consideration. Indeed, the findings have been that it is pure animus that leads the charge for discrimination of gay persons.
In an earlier post I said that you will lead your battle for discrimination as you see fit. I asked that you do so with honesty. Perhaps I should have said: fight your battle with an understanding that there is a difference
between civil marriage and religious marriage. You don't like this but this country is not and never will be a
theocracy. Hundreds of thousands of gay couples are married in this country. Millions of gay citizens will seek
this right in the years to come. The arc of history is clearly bending towards a day when marriage equality will be the law of the land and it will be here much sooner than later. The gay kids of today will be, perhaps, in
loving marriages throughout the land and Edward, I'll put my 19 year relationship with my life partner, our
three grown sons, their wives and two grandchildren, not to mention my 38 years as a teacher to children up
against your snide and reprehensible question: how has my "lifestyle" worked for me? Beautifully, lovingly and I do hope that, one day, you will understand the joy.
There is only ONE type of marriage...between one man and one woman because marriage predates the state of Maine, the United States (and thereby the US Constitution) and even Jesus Christ Himself.
Marriage always was and always will be the union of one man and one woman united to bring forth the next generation. Two men cannot do this, nor can two women. That is a fact...the truth.
The only reason there are people like us trying to defend and protect marriage is because it is under attack from those that wish to redefine the institution. Otherwise, we could all sit back and live and let live. But we can't do that because you are bringing this fight to us.
Make no mistake....we will never relent, we will never give up. So keep slinging all the malarchy you want to; as for us....we won't be bullied into going away!
Such contempt for nature has never been so widespread as it is today, as evidenced by the so-called "gay marriage" movement. Just a complete and total declination of nature...
Sorry, Rich, but you do not come across as a person full of joy. You vilify those with whom you disagree, and refuse to substantiate your charges of hatred and bigotry with any evidence of either hatred or bigotry. The only hatred and bigotry demonstrated has been your own.
Here's the irony: you seem to take great pride in your children and your grandchildren yet you also seem very dismissive of the procreative aspects of the male / female bond. Your three grown sons have a mother out their somewhere, as do your grandchildren, as do you. You are correct when you state, "[n]o law, anywhere across the land proscribes the requirement of children for a marriage to exist." But this misses the point. Every human person in existence, including your three sons, was born of both a mother and a father. If you want children to be known and loved by the two people who brought them into this world, then start promoting marriage for what it is, and not for what you want it to be.
Apologia and Chester, you continue to not understand. From a civil and Constitutional perspective, your beliefs are bogus. Gay marriage exists in this country and throughout the world. Your refusal to accept that fact holds absolutely no sway except in your minds and in your Church. And, no surprise, you are absolutely within your rights to believe that. But that is where the laws of the land and your beliefs diverge. No where in the Constitution do I see a clause that requires this country's citizens to uphold a supposed law of nature over a law of mankind.
Apologia, no one is retreating on this field of battle but in the end it will be the Constitutional laws that determine the right to marriage under due process and equal protection. And as more and more states move in the direction of marriage equality (Maine next), the interstate commerce clause will come into play; you can't win here because your cause is religious in nature and, in America, we don't recognize any faith over our established rights and guarantees. It is nice to know, however, that there are a number of truly Christian denominations that are eager and anxious to bless gay marriages. So, who can claim ownership of God and nature? I leave that up to you and your Church. Your fights will prove to be far uglier, I suspect, than any battle you now have with those of us who are gay. For the rest of us, we'll just live, celebrate and get married by the rule of law, thank you very much.
Rich,
I guess you didn't see the vote in North Carolina. In all 32 states where a redefinition of marriage has been put on the ballot, marriage has won. It will again here in Maine. I am sorry that you don't understand this. The only states that "allowed" the redefinition of marriage had it forced upon the citizens by activist judges or legislatures. When put to the people, they all say NO to redefining marriage, not because they hate those people that are same-sex attracted but because they all understand the meaning of marriage.
You also do not understand equal protection under the law. This only applies to things that are the same. Same-sex relationships are NOT the same as one man and one woman, and they never will be because they are sterile by their very nature. So equal protection does not apply when it comes to marriage. You are trying to compare apples to oranges, both may have some qualities that are similar but they are NOT the same. This is just a fact. It isn't hate, it isn't bigotry and it definitely isn't discrimination.
Good luck with your arguments, they don't hold up very well.
Oh Edward, if you and your kind would simply put all your financial and emotional resources into supporting marriage this would be a much much better world. Do you really care about the origins of children? Do you really care that all kids deserve a loving, supportive home and for some kids that means two moms or two dads? Do you really believe that you, your Church, indeed anyone, can legislate who has children and who does not?
As I said Edward, your posts suggest that you don't understand, perhaps even know the great joy and love that comes with children and it is not your place to even question the relationships among the members of my family. I support every family that exists in this country. I don't judge the make-up of such family. I trust and do (remember 38 years with students) whatever I can to protect kids and celebrate their families. In those years I have seen many family structures. Some are abhorrent to be sure; I have never, not once, seen a family with gay parents that was not loving, kind and successful. I have, unfortunately, known parents who were hateful and destructive to their gay kids.
Laws don't "miss the point" as you say. Laws exist to protect and define each of us and our existence. If your Church laws run counter to Constitutional law, you will lose in a battle on this matter. Again, why not put your energy into supporting all marriages and turn your animus into a vehicle of love and support? You see Edward, I am fully capable of love and show it to those who love in return. I just don't see the Church or anyone here genuinely ready to get to that place.
Me and "my kind" do support marriage. Fully and emphatically.
Yet another false charge. I questioned nothing. I merely pointed out the fact that your three sons have a mother. As do your grandkids. As do all of us. And a father, too.
This is a fact that should be of great concern to any parent who does not endorse your bigoted views of those who stand up for marriage. Where do you teach? Do you protect the Christian kids who disagree with your views on human sexuality, or do you treat them in the same intolerent manner as you have treated other commenters on this site with whom you disagree?
I have. Remember that ever child placed in a same-sex household is intentionally being denied a mother or a father. This is not an act of love.
Yet another false charge. I never claimed that laws miss the point (which they do, at times.) It's your statement that missed the point. Marriage laws do not proscribe the procreation of children anymore than they proscirbe that the two parties love each other, and yet each of these are an integral part of marriage. For the record, the Maine law governing marriage does speak to "the traditional monogamous family unit in Maine society, its moral imperatives, its economic function and its unique contribution to the rearing of healthy children."
The battle is already won. Of these, we are assured.
You can keep your qualified "love." I'll strive to follow Christ.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors* do the same? - Mt. 5:46
Rich you state,
Here is a quote from one loving, kind and successful person...
You can read other comments directed toward this young lady because she defended marriage for what it is..one man and one woman here..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/14/bristol-palin-death-wishes_n_1515114.html
Bullying, death threats...doesn't sound very loving, kind or successful.
Yes, the supporters of so-called "gay marriage" have a long track record of public displays of loving, kind, successful and tolerant behavior... here is the latest:
Parish Threatened Over Sign Opposing Gay Marriage
"The battle is already won. Of these, we are assured." If this makes you feel better. But, of course, gays feel equally assured of the outcome. Marriage equality exists in the United States of America.
Finally we agree! It's true, everyone is free to marry. What we are not free to do is completely redefine what marriage is. Marry away, but recognize that words have specific meanings.