Peter Pinette of Woodland is a member of the local Coalition for Marriage Compromise and writes in the Bangor Daily News:
If there is a situation that is begging for a compromise, then it exists in the coming same-sex marriage referendum. We feel that compassion, understanding and consideration are the paramount issues in this referendum. If both sides of the debate give a truly heartfelt reflection on these issues then hopefully a just compromise can be achieved. A sincere understanding of each side’s rightful wants and consideration of values will lead to fairness.
Let us begin with the essential want of the traditional advocates. They want to retain the exclusive ownership of the marriage title. They believe it is their gift; it was ordained for those who are joined in the very foundation that God requires. They want to stress the sacredness and inalterability of the marriage title; a title that holds a deeply ingrained belief. It is the belief that marriage is a union both civilly and sacramentally of one man and one woman.
... Redefining marriage alters the basic foundation of a two-gender union that is required to merit the ordained marriage title. The marriage title cannot be shared or appropriated simply because it is not ours to share.
... In this referendum same-sex marriage advocates are looking to the people of Maine for compassion and understanding to grant them the right to marry with all the marriage entitlements. The privileges of marriage can be available to them under the title of civil unions.
7 Comments
Sorry, Peter. Civil unions ain't gonna cut it. "Separate but equal" was ruled unconstitutional decades ago.
And if "traditional advocates" are of the belief that "one man and one woman" should be the only definition of marriage because of "tradition"...
...Then can someone explain to me why the otherwise "traditional" marriage between Barack Obama Sr. (a man...I'm sure you've heard of his son) and Ann Dunham (a woman) went unrecognized in about a dozen or more states back in 1961?
Oops! Looks like we already re-defined marriage a few times before! :-p
Discrimination based on race is wrong. Marriage requires a man and a woman. I've never met an ex african american, but I have met may ex-gays.
"I have met may ex-gays."
No you haven't. You've met deeply closeted, religious gay men who couldn't square their faith with their very real sexuality.
Alan Chambers and John Smid spent a collective 45 YAERS in the ex-gay movement. Both later admitted: a) They were both still gay; b) Had NEVER seen ANYONE change from gay to straigtht.
How about George Rekers from NARTH, who was caught with a rentboy? Or our old toe-tapping friend Larry Craig? Or John Paulk who created the ex-gay Love Won Out Conference before he was photographed outside of a gay bar?
Do you remember the famous Yarhouse/Jones study from a few years ago? These two guys went out into the field where there are apparently "thousands" of ex-gays, attempting to find 300 people to participate in their study.
After a year, they ended up with only 98. Yes. 98. They couldn't get 100 ex-gays to participate in this study.
Over the course of the study, 37 people dropped ouy.
Of the remaining 62, an appalling 14, yes fourteen, reported "change", although 1/3 of that group were professional ex-gays (with a conflict of interest), another third said they were "straight but still experiencing same-sex attraction", and the other third were staying chaste (a celibate gay man is still a gay man).
So no, There's no such thing as an "ex-gay". Chambers, Smid, Rekers et al spent decades talking about the gay as if it could be cured, yet couldn't even "cure" themselves.
Anyone is free to live whatever lifestyle they choose, but marriage is about children knowing and being loved by their mother and father. This is what we must continue to encourage. Otherwise we're perpetrating a grave injustice upon children.
Great article as it is about retaining our definition of marriage as it is. Not allowing a radicall group to redefine it.
In private business they use copyright, patent and trademark laws to protect the meaning of words. This is what we are doing.
Layne, same-sex sexual attraction is not one and the same as gay identity. Same-sex sexual behavior is not one and the same as gay identity. You choose to conflate 1) attraction 2) behavior and 3) group identity.
The supremacy of white racist identity politics has been repudiated. What makes you think that the supremacy of gay identity politics is any better?
Come on. You keep harping on your supposed racist analogy so now it is time you back it up with sound argumentation. Or drop it.
"You choose to conflate 1) attraction 2) behavior and 3) group identity."
Actually, you're the one who made the conflation. I was speaking soley in terms of attraction. Behavior is irrelevant because as I said, a celibate gay man is still a gay man.
As for group identity, not sure where you pulled that from. But you probably don't either. I'm sure the anti-gay website you copied and pasted it from makes even less sense.
Being gay is not a political affiliation any more than being straight is. That's the point. It's the ex-gays who made it political, using thoroughly discredited studies (like Yarhouse/Jones mentioned above) to say: "See? Gays shouldn't get married! They don't need to! They can change and be 'straight' like us and marry women!"
Except none of them ARE straight and eventually they all get caught with their pants down (Haggard, Craig, Paulk, Rekers, etc. etc.).