Friends,
Let me be direct: Unless we act now, marriage will be redefined in Maine. Never before have voters had the chance to directly overturn the legislative enactment of same-sex marriage in any state in the country. If we lose marriage in Maine, we risk losing marriage everywhere.
I'm not asking you today for contributions for the National Organization for Marriage. NOM is dedicated to winning the marriage fight. Period. We don't have a bloated staff or overhead. We were the largest contributor both to the Proposition 8 effort in California and to Stand for Marriage Maine. We put our money where our mouth is. But we have stretched ourselves as far as we can go.
It is now up to you to make the difference. We want your money to go where it is most useful in the fight. And right now, Yes on 1/Stand for Marriage Maine needs your support in a way that no state marriage group has needed it before.
I'm asking you to read the powerful e-mail below from my friend, Marc Mutty, chairman of Stand for Marriage Maine, and to think long and hard about what marriage is worth to you, your family, and your country---and then to give whatever you can today to Stand for Marriage Maine to protect this precious institution.
I'm also asking you to forward this e-mail to everyone you know that supports protecting marriage across the country. Send it to your friends on Facebook, post it on your blog, send it to your e-mail contacts. Do anything you can to get the message out: If we don't act now we risk losing the most important state battle for marriage since California. It's that simple. And it's up to you.
Yours for marriage,
Executive Director
National Organization for Marriage
**************************
October 13, 2009
FROM: Marc Mutty, Chair, Stand for Marriage Maine
RE: URGENT DEVELOPMENT: Marriage Under Financial Assault
We knew we were being vastly outspent from the fact that the No on 1 campaign was able to air their advertising upwards of 50% more than our Yes on 1 campaign ads. We had a clue that the other side was awash in money because of the dozens of paid staff members they have on board their campaign. But we never dreamed the situation was as dire as it is: our opponents have raised approximately $1.6 more than we have and are conducting a financial assault on the institution of marriage. Overall, they have raised an astonishing $2.7 million from gay marriage supporters across the country!
We are in desperate need of additional financial support or we risk losing because our opponents are attempting to buy themselves an election - and destroy the institution of marriage in the process.
The latest financial reports detailing the amount of money that has come in for both sides of the Question 1 campaign shows that our committee, Stand for Marriage Maine has raised approximately $1.1 million while our opponents have raised about 2.5 times more than we have. This is an astonishing financial advantage our opponents have amassed. It explains why they were able to be on the air with ads nearly three weeks before our campaign was able to begin advertising. It explains why they can afford to operate multiple campaign headquarters. It explains how they can afford a statewide staff of field organizers and operate dozens of phone banks. And it explains why the institution of marriage is teetering on the ledge - at risk of being forever redefined in Maine. Our opponents are raising money from across the country from gay marriage supporters who see an opportunity to win their first victory at the ballot box in the history of the nation.
We cannot let them get away with this. We cannot let homosexual marriage activists from virtually every state in the nation decide that marriage will be redefined in Maine. Please don't let our opponents succeed with this financial assault on marriage. Will you please, right now, make a generous donation to our campaign?
The good news is that even though we are being vastly outspent, we have run a financially prudent and efficient campaign. Our polling shows that we are dead-even right now and in a good position to win the campaign. Voters recall our advertising more so than the ads from the other side. We are defining Question 1 on our terms. And we know that we will win when voters come to understand the many consequences to families, children and society as a whole if same-sex marriage is legalized in Maine.
The only way our opponents can win is if they try to confuse the issue by running millions of dollars in advertising with false claims that we are lying about the consequences of legalizing homosexual marriage. They don't want to defend the teaching of homosexual marriage to young children in public schools, so they are spending millions to try to deny and deny. They don't want to talk about individuals, small businesses and religious groups being sued for refusing to support homosexual marriage, so they are spending millions to calls us liars. And they don't want to explain to voters why the law they sponsored and advocated strips from Maine's marriage statutes the interests of nurturing children, so they are spending millions making the oxymoronic claim that we are trying to "harm children." We are trying to prevent 5, 6 and 7 year old children from being taught about homosexual marriage in school against the wishes of their parents and we are accused of "harming children?" If it weren't so serious, this would be like describing an 'Alice in Wonderland' situation.
But it IS so serious. Our campaign strategists, who helped pass Proposition 8 in California and who have won dozens of initiative campaigns around the country, tell us that we cannot win if we continue to be outspent as we have to this point. It is amazing that we are still in a dead heat. We've had to cut our voter contact program dramatically. Every week we've cut our advertising budget. We've eliminated a statewide bus tour that we had planned for next week. We've had to cut back on staffing. And collateral materials. And direct mail. Our grassroots organizing has suffered.
Yet still we are in a position to pass Question 1. This is a testament to your strong support and to the common sense of average Mainers who know in their heart that marriage is worth preserving.
But let's not fool ourselves. We have to raise more money, right now, if we are to pass Question 1. Please make a sacrificial contribution today, as if the survival of marriage depended on it.
Because, quite literally, it does.
The campaign reports made available today lay bare the falsehood of our opponents' claim that they have a homegrown, grassroots Maine-based campaign. The truth is their support has come mostly from the gay activist political elite from all corners of the nation, including Hollywood, Colorado, New York, Massachusetts, and the Democratic national political machine, Act Blue.com. They have raised money from virtually every state in the nation.
Why are homosexual marriage activists pouring money into Maine? Because never before have they been able to convince voters to approve homosexual marriage. Voters in thirty states have considered this issue, and in all thirty states they have voted to preserve traditional marriage and reject homosexual marriage. But our opponents think they can win in Maine. We are a small state. Raising millions of dollars to spend here will make a big difference. Recruiting hundreds of volunteers to come to Maine will make a big difference. And if they can win in Maine it would be historic. They will use a victory to attempt to convince the media that the mood of the nation has changed and that it is time for America to also abandon the God-created idea of marriage.
Will you let them get away with it?
So much is riding on the Question 1 election. We have three weeks left. We have three weeks to close the financial deficit we are in. We have three weeks to add to our advertising campaign. We have three weeks to buttress our grassroots operation. We have three weeks to talk to Maine voters about the importance of traditional marriage, and the consequences of abandoning it in favor of homosexual marriage.
But all this must start right now - today - and it must start with you and me. We've learned an important lesson. Our opponents are determined to do whatever they can to secure victory. We must respond, and respond now. It is up to you. There is no one but you. The only question is, will you be there for us when the fight for marriage needs you the most? We pray you will be.
Thank you for all your efforts to defend God's precious institution of marriage. We look forward to your continued help. We are counting on you at this critical time.
Sincerely,
Marc Mutty
Campaign Chairman
65 Comments
I love seeing people I have a problem with suffer and eventually loose.
Enjoy what you have left.
We're just getting warmed up.
Clyde,
How magnanimous of you to revel in the premature "defeat" of marriage. Even moreso, why gloat in a hollow "victory?" Simultaneously, marriage is held up as ideal and yet at the same time, torn asunder in order for it to be remade into the likeness of SSM. Wherein is the logic in holding up marriage as worthy to attain, yet dismantle its core meaning in the process?
Also, you concede that there is more at stake than "marriage" with the last statement. Indeed, the "battle" has just begun as the fight over SSM will go down in infamy.
Nicholas,
You misunderstand me, as I've never claimed victory. I'm also not necessarily claiming I'm fighting for same sex marriage. I am of course, but I represent a group of whose primary target is NOM specifically.
I encourage you to look up Hal Turner. Find out how he faired.
Yeah, like that.
Expect us.
"You misunderstand me."
No Clyde, we understand you very well. You stand against anything that is good, true, absolute and timeless, such as marriage between a man and a woman. You stand against people's religious and moral beliefs, just because they are intrinsically good and help people lead more fulfilling lives.
You are probably one of those hate-mongers for hire, people with no real agenda, other than fighting good for the sake of fighting good.
Going back to the homosexual "marriage" quest, your arrogant and openly hateful campaign will fail, regardless of the billions you spend to buy support from corruptible and unscrupulous politicians and judges. You will lose because the majority of the U.S. public is on the side of traditional marriage. The numbers are only growing.
But the fight is not over. Please make a generous contribution to NOM and to Stand for Marriage Maine today.
Clyde stated:
"I love to see people I have a problem with suffer and eventually lose."
Perhaps a consultation with a reputable psychiatrist would be helpful. Such feelings could be symptomatic of psychosis and sociopathic tendencies.
This organization is a sad and sorry attempt to usurp the freedoms established by our founding fathers. Read and attempt to comprehend the Constitution before spending even a minute of your time in this vile, preposterous endeavor.
Laura,
You stand against morality, goodness, and freedom by fighting so hard to keep others away from it. Did you really just say that people who stand for marriage equality are "hate-mongers"? And that the fight for marriage equality is the one that's the hateful campaign? Ridiculous. Are you really so self-righteous and selfish in your quest to dehumanize others that you boil down the stance of fighting for basic civil rights for all people to "fighting good for the sake of fighting good"? There was once (still is in some places) a cause for fighting against the basic civil human rights for people of color. Before that, people of different creeds. We have learned (hopefully) that those who would do so were wrong. It's called progress. You may think you're on the winning side, but...you're not. It doesn't make me happy to see people who have a problem with this suffer and lose. It makes me sad that these people think this way in the first place.
People are fighting to make sure America stands for what it's supposed to stand for: liberty and justice for all. It is YOU who's fighting against goodness. If your faith (or just your homophobia) tells you that this is wrong, then don't have anything to do with it. Just don't try to impose yourself upon the rest of the world becasue you find gays "icky". This whole organization is a joke. "Threatening marriage"? There's a reason that on NOM'S "Threat to Marriage" page, they talk about reaching out to people to be "informed", "especially people of faith and children." It's not a coincidence they lump people of faith in with children. My goal is not to offend people of faith, but you need to understand. NOM says this because they find that religious people and children are very impressionable for their cause, to easliy strike unecessary fear into their hearts. It's disgraceful.
"More fulfilling lives"? I'm sorry, but there is no cure for "gay", and people who have told you that with "proof" are lying to you because, again, you are easliy impressed. There are some young adults who discover that they are gay and they kill themselves, even while in the process of trying to be "cured", because of people like you and this organization. What could be more evil? Gay people getting married, or an entity that is causing people to take their own lives because they are told that who they are and what they can't help is wrong?
Homosexuals want the same thing heterosexuals want: to take the next step in their relationship, to marry the person they love. You are fighting against love, because it's not your ideal kind of love. You are selfish, ignorant , and intolerant. THERE IS NO THREAT OR WAR ON MARRIAGE. There is NO weird agenda to ruin marriage or morality. People who are against you aren't hateful, they just laugh at your naivety and ignorance and wish you would stop spreading your poison. You people are using the word "traditional" to mean "moral", and it doesn't. If you want tradition, live in a log cabin and live by candlelight. What could be more traditional? Knock yourself out and build that cabin, preferably far from the rest of civilization.
Do you understand the irony of someone like you calling anyone else a hate-monger? I laughed when I read that. I do not care if my children are gay, if they are around gay people, or learn that there's nothing wrong with being gay. I am absolutely TERRIFIED that my children might learn from people like you or learn that there is nothing wrong with being someone like you. That would truly be a mother's worst nightmare.
Jules, do not make the mistake of substituting the value of a person for the folly of their actions.
It is the underlying false premise of your entire comment. Take that away and everything you've said falls like a house of cards.
People are not their sexuality. People are people, valued brothers and sisters of the human family. Nothing they do will change that.
To simply dismiss the arguments against ssm as hate is dishonest.
I for one am concerned about what children are going to be learning if SSM becomes legal in Maine.
Jules, I'm appreciate your heartfelt comment, but even with your very emotional plea for acceptance, I have to agree with NOM that there is a difference between accepting you as a person and condoning your lifestyle. Let me clarify there, it is your chosen lifestyle.
You disingenuously claim:
"THERE IS NO THREAT OR WAR ON MARRIAGE. There is NO weird agenda to ruin marriage or morality."
yet time and again this has been disproven. This is the basis for the opposition to your chosen morality. You may say it is good, and you may even believe it, but that doesn't make it so.
You have no right to force your version of morality on society.
Then please, take a lesson from your own book and don't dismiss the arguments for ssm as hate. That's even more ridiculous and dishonest.
People are not just their sexuality; that is obviously not my point and for you to twist it like that is dishonest.
People are not their sexuality, but do you not identify yourself (among other aspects of identity of course) as a heterosexual?
And, no. The underlying premise of my argument is that all people deserve basic human rights, but thanks for your gross misunderstanding. It only falls like a house of cards when you read selectively, as you clearly did.
"People are people, valued brothers and sisters of the human family. Nothing they do will change that." Couldn't have said it better myself. If homosexuals, defined by their sexual and romantic preference for people of their own gender, are valued brothers and sisters of humanity, then why are you trying to dehumanize them and take away their civil rights? Pretend that that's the premise of my argument (Hint: It actually is!).
This is the reality of what states who have accepted homosexuality are taught. This is from NPR, the full context of the teacher's comments. Be warned. It's graphic.
Jules,
The fraudulent, arrogant campaign waged against the timeless institution of marriage by radical homosexual activists has nothing to do with fight for equality. It is nothing more than an attempt to further legitimize and promote an unhealthy, unproductive, and ultimately annihilistic lifestyle.
Any adult can get married to an adult person of the opposite sex. The fact that you chose to be homosexual is your problem and your responsibility. Get help and you will be able to get married anywhere you want.
"don’t dismiss the arguments for ssm as hate. "
No one is dismissing the arguments for SSM as hate. Yet time and again there have been a dearth of actual arguments in support of redefining marriage and in the place of solid reason, there's been an abundance of mocking, ridicule, threats etc.
Take her comment in context.
"The underlying premise of my argument is that all people deserve basic human rights"
All people have basic human rights. The basic human rights endowed by the constitution, which does not mention gay marriage as a basic right.
"If homosexuals, defined by their sexual and romantic preference for people of their own gender, are valued brothers and sisters of humanity, then why are you trying to dehumanize them and take away their civil rights?"
Dehumanize? Never. Why do some people want extra rights? That is the real question. We all have the same rights.
"You have no right to force your version of morality on society." You don't either. How about we just all live our own lives as we see fit and not impose our beliefs on anyone, especially those we don't personally know? Please tell me about the agenda to "ruin" marriage. Looking at it like that is pretty negative, don't you think? You could always turn the term "ruining marriage" into "making marriage accessible for all people". But, selfishly, you want it to only be for you, so you call it a "ruin". Like a kid in a sandbox who doesn't want his toy anymore because another child has used it, thereby "ruining" it for him.
I'm not sure if you were just generalizing or not by speaking in the second person, but I'm not gay. And, sigh, you have stated that homosexuality is a"chosen" lifestyle. "Yet time and time again, this has been disproven"! There is really nothing more to say to you if you really believe that it's a choice to be gay. Why would anyone choose that, when there are so many ignorant people who hate them? If you want to say NOM isn't hateful, whatever. Bu you definitely can't argue that those people exist.
Jules, your comments are dripping with disdain and mocking. If you wish to have a respectful debate, then have one. Don't throw in with the Oprah types that try to win a few cheap shots at the expense of civility.
You know, just because you feel wronged doesn't mean you have been. Just go ahead and pretend people here care, because in my experience they do. You'll get a lot further with a bit more levity.
Homosexuality is indeed a chosen activity. You may or may not not choose the orientation, but you always have control over your behavior.
I'm actually feeling like I'm losing faith in humanity being here, so this will be my last post. I said all I needed; none of us are going to change the mindset of the other. But please. Homosexuals are not asking for extra rights. They are asking for the same right heterosexuals have: to be able to get married. I don;t understand how you can view this as an extra right, when they are basically without that right. I'm pretty sure math works this way: 0 + 1 = 1. 0 + 1 =/= 2.
"You have no right to force your version of morality on society.... You don’t either. "
Society must have a set of rules to govern it. Like it or not, this is tied to a society's morality. Morals being an expression of what is important to them.
Jules, just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they hate you. Just because people feel that homosexuality is a bad idea doesn't mean they hate people who experience attraction for the same sex. All it means is that we disagree. We are free to disagree, just as you are. This idea that disagreement necessarily equates to hate is facist in nature. Like all the people who disagree with Obama being called racists. As if racism has anything to do with politics.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Any man and woman. There is no litmus test for sexual orientation. If there were, you'd have grounds to say homosexuals were barred from marriage. There has never been a right to indiscriminately marry any person of your choosing.
It's not written in the constitution, it's not in the 14th amendment, it isn't a human right. There are some courts who would like to create that as a human right, and have had had the mind to impose this newfound right on the population, but that doesn't make it a guaranteed right either.
So who gets to decide what the morality is that we will live by? The people.
Sorry. One more. The orientation comes with the behavior. You can't ask some people to not act upon their natural, adult druthers because you don't like it. Would you be willing to stop your heterosexual behavior? of course not, and no one would ask you to. Yet you feel it's totally alright to tell an adult to cease his sexual and/or loving activities with another consenting adult, even in their own bedroom.
Honestly, Raynd, I know I have had a sarcastic attitude in some of my posts, and I really did edit some of what I wanted to say in order to be more respectful. Again, it is not actually my objective to mock and ridicule, but it's been difficult to completely level-headed when I'm really shocked and saddened by what I'm reading. But I won't waver in my belief that this organization is harmful and should be erradicated.
"The orientation comes with the behavior. You can’t ask some people to not act upon their natural, adult druthers because you don’t like it. "
That would be a pedophile's dream. What about people who feel sexual feelings toward other deviant behaviors?
I'm not asking anyone to do anything because of my own personal opinion. We're not talking about outlawing homosexuality here. That's not on the table, and if it were, I'd be against it. I firmly believe in people's freedom to choose how to act consensually between adults. That doesn't mean everything everyone does is right, but they still have the freedom to choose their own path.
However, that is not what we're talking about with SSM.
The idea that people are forced to act on their feelings of same gender attraction is false. I believe people can choose to be celibate outside of marriage if they desire. That's not something I or anyone else could ever "impose" on someone. It would be a personal lifestyle choice, and those who make that choice should be respected and allowed their freedom to choose same as anyone else.
Jules,
I respect your candid honesty. Thanks for trying to be respectful. Too many opposition posters come on here with a chip on their shoulders. It does their position a great disservice. I believe honest people can honestly disagree.
"I won’t waver in my belief that this organization is harmful and should be erradicated."
What do you mean by this statement?
I had quite a violent commenter in this vein of thought. johnbisceglia from http://gaytaxprotest.blogspot.com/
From John’s site:
“So what’s stopping a gay person from Seriously harming the heteros who vote against her or him? I mean, they harmed us first, right?”
“YES – I am condoning Counter-Terrorism and Self-Defense against ALL who vote and pay to harm our families and children, esp. the institutions of church and government.”
“So yes, if a gay-basher tries to harm me, I will GLEEFULLY cut out his lower abdomen with a hunting knife. If PROP 8 is upheld, I will ENCOURAGE Queers to vandalize and burn anything and everything they can that belongs to the government or churches who allowed this process, if anything, to bring a sense of urgency and attention to this very important CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE.”
John, I have to thank you for providing yet another example of the love and tolerance we can expect from the opposition.
I guess I would have to agree with the idea that some, not all, but some commenters have quite the chip on their shoulders.
Personally, I think that John is a little off. However, there are enough like minded commenters on his site that it may call that assumption into question.
Wow. That's quite the quote.....!
Jules, I hope your "erradication" comment isn't as harsh as it seems. We should all be free to disagree.
Yes L.Marie, we are all equal, but radical homosexuals think they should be "more equal" than everybody else.
And yes Jules, radical homosexual activists are a classic example of hate-mongers. They pander to religious prejudice and hate to get what they want. Consider Clyde Cash above. He is not sure if he supports homosexual marriage, but because he "ha[s] a problem with NOM", he wants NOM to lose its campaign to protect marriage. Isn't Clyde perhaps driven by religious hate (since radical homosexual activists insist NOM represents "the Christian Right")?
Homosexual radicals intimidate, harass, boycot and physically assault people (including elderly women). Why? Just because these people believe marriage means husband and wife and that a child should not be deprived by design of a mom or dad.
Radical homosexual activists bribe politicians and judges to get what they want. Look no further than the White House. During his campaign, Obama unequivocally stated that marriage should be reserved for a union between a man and a woman. However, since homosexuals gave his campaign billions of dollars, he is now under considerable pressure to repay the debt to the homosexual community. Simply stated, his support for radical homosexual agenda has been bought.
In addition to buying politicians and judges, radical homosexuals manipulate public opinion via otherwise unemployable "legal professionals" who litter legitimate websites with illegitimate "legal" claims of "marriage equality." This blog has a couple of those.
Well, for me, radical homosexual activists are a bunch of well-funded thugs, who should be spending the billions of dollars they are wasting to pay for HIV/AIDS research and education on blood and feces borne infectious diseases. But no, why should they, taxpayers will continue to bear the exorbitant costs of their unhealthy lifestyle. And, to make matters worse, these costs will only increase once homosexuals can get "married" just to get health insurance.
Jules, the only irony I see is that these radical and hateful individuals have the audacity to label a bigot (or another favorite"b" word if it is a woman) anybody who disagrees with their intolerant and annihilistic agenda.
I think it's good to point out too that it's not just "the bible" that dictates morality and people's ideas of what is good and what isn't. There are many sources of insight to draw from. One is history. Historically marriage has been between a man and a woman in stable societies all across the world. Those societies did not all have the bible telling them what to do as some of the religion bashers would like to believe. The tradition of man/woman marriage is something that every successful society has supported in order to provide the best situation possible for children.
That's something that is hard to argue with. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of independently evolving societies have all come to the same conclusion. Marriage between a man and a woman is what is best for children. In contrast, the SSM fad has become popular only in the last few years. Arrogantly, those pushing the acceptance of SSM do so on the basis that it must be so for "equality"s" sake. We are not asked to weigh SSM on the merits, in fact to do so is hateful. We are yelled at and told to "evolve", yet evolution itself depends upon merit in order to successfully perpetuate. Demanding everyone change to accommodate the preference of a few, without merit, is dangerous and foolish.
I think NOM would make a more convincing argument against legal same-sex marriage if it were also against legal adultery and legal divorce. Oh and legal pre-marital sex. Then they’d be consistent with biblical teachings, and therefore more authoritative.
I find it interesting on the historical experience and merit argument that rather than explore the merit and make the case honestly to the American people, those pushing the gay agenda (Jules, this isn't just a boogie man word, it means the things necessary to normalize homosexuality in America)
---those pushing the gay agenda would rather IMPOSE their morality on society rather than convince them of it through the regular channels of democracy.
I've looked into the states that are fighting the imposition of SSM in the northeast, Even in cases where legislatures were involved rather than activist courts, the legislators did not bring the issue to the people and encourage input, they took pains to hide what they were doing and in backroom deals, decided the fate of marriage without public input. In fact in many states when the people asked for referendum, they were denied.
That is not how the system works. If you have an idea that you honestly think is great, you should bring it to the people. Make your case and let the people decide based on the merits of that case.
The spurious claim of hate and bigotry is not a good excuse for disenfranchising the democratic process.
Ross, are you really concerned with biblical teachings? If so, you should go to church. They often preach about morality, including fidelity in marriage and the evils of divorce.
Beetle,
I'm not concerned at all about biblical teachings. I'm just saying, for people who use their religion against others, and demand illegal same-sex marriage, they should also commit themselves to the biblical marriage program, and criminalize adultery and pre-marital sex, and outlaw divorce.
There is a difference between self government and public government. Divorce, premarital sex, being kind to your neighbor etc, all fall under self government. Certainly there is an argument to legally curb rampant divorce, for instance in some places in New York, they have a cooling off period before you can apply for divorce. That simple restriction improves their divorce rate dramatically.
There are many groups, including churches that support marriage and decry divorce. I doubt that many people advocate divorce as a good of society that should be upheld as the ideal to strive for. In the case of SSM, which is also harmful to children and families, we are being asked not only to hold it up as good, but to teach it as an ideal situation.
Outlawing divorce would be like outlawing homosexuality. It's a bad analogy.
I was going to comment, but I think Raynd covered it.
"I'm actually feeling like I'm losing faith in humanity being here."
Jules,
The good news is that, thanks to radical homosexual activists who will stop at nothing to legitimize and promote homosexuality, there may, one day, be no humanity to lose faith in.
Basting sessions and surrogates will not sustain the human race. Neither will families, which, by design, eliminate a mom or a dad from a child's life.
all of you NOM people are inbred sickos who probably haven't had sex in like 15 years. You've probably never been cool except for at church camp, and you've always wished the world excepted you, but it just doesn't. if you don't have any gay friends, then odds are you're from a small town or that you're from a city but you have NO social life outside of your church bake sales and revivals. NOM is an organization of morons. Seriously, idiots.
Steven. Are personal insults the best you have to offer in this debate?
"As the campaign on Question 1 has unfolded, repeal supporters have hammered hard at the prospect of having children taught about gay marriage in schools. Opponents of the repeal reject the idea that Maine’s gay marriage law will open the door to teaching same-sex marriage in public schools.
Education Commissioner Susan Gendron, who asked Mills for the analysis, has said Maine’s law will have no impact on curriculum decisions because marriage is not part of the state-approved curriculum."
Look at how marriage equality opponents are willing to use children as pawns in this fight. They'll lie, even hurt kids, to get their way. Thank God they're losing in Maine!
Kevin,
I'm not sure you can really guarantee with any accuracy that approval of gay marriage will not open doors to teaching homosexuality in schools. How could it not? Are there specific provisions in the law that protect children from teachers who want to teach homosexual morality in schools?
The audio for Maine's new ad that L. Marie posted is quite convincing. The opposition in Maine is not. Merely shouting "liar" doesn't make it so. A quick search on Youtube brings up several tried and true examples of gay activists using the schools as a tool to push the normalization of homosexuality.
Parents, Please be aware of what is going on in public schools at your expense.
Children from the tenderest age are being indoctrinated with ungodly views on relationships and society. At a time when few children can read well, I think that schools should be focusing on teaching academic skills instead of destroying our children’s souls with this garbage. These teachers refuse to teach the Bible in schools saying that they must protect the “religious freedom” of each child. Yet they have no problem with violating the moral freedom of each child and parent in teaching them evil things that they do not wish to be taught.
For these degenerate people “freedom” is the power to impose their immoral lifestyle on everyone else.
Raynd If you have problems with homosexuality being taught in schools, shouldn't you logically be fighting school provisions? Shouldn't you be lobbying school districts, fighting principals etc. If that's what you're concerned with why aren't you fighting the source?
I think it's ridiculous when gay advocates say "Who taught me how to be gay?!", meaning that homosexuality is immutable. But this guy contradicts that argument. If gay advocates have their way, when someone asks that question, the answer will be "My kindergarten teacher".
"If you have problems with homosexuality being taught in schools, shouldn’t you logically be fighting school provisions? Shouldn’t you be lobbying school districts, fighting principals etc. If that’s what you’re concerned with why aren’t you fighting the source?"
I am fighting the source. I'm involved of course at the local level, but fighting one thousand small battles while leaving the larger battles to fate is not a very good way to win the war.
Stand for Marriage Maine Responds to Attorney General's "Independent" Opinion
The following statement can be attributed to Marc Mutty, chairman of Stand for Marriage Maine, the official campaign of Yes on Question 1:
"It was a foregone conclusion that the Attorney General, an ardent supporter of same-sex marriage, has taken the position that there will be no change in public school curricula if Question 1 fails and LD 1020 takes effect.
"Ms. Mills has long supported LD 1020, the gay marriage legislation. Nearly a week before she released her opinion, she told a local television reporter that she was "appalled" by our ads, which do nothing more than point out the real consequences to school children and parents if a new legal definition of "any two will do" marriage replaces the union between a man and a woman.
"In her capacity as Maine's Attorney General, Mills testified in support of it before the Legislature's Judiciary Committee at the LD 1020 public hearing on 4/22/09, saying, in part, 'I speak as someone who is now charged with enforcing Maine's civil rights laws, and hopes that passage of LD 1020 will make my job so much easier.'
"Her legal opinion has not even a shred of pretense of independence or objectivity.
"The request for and her opinion itself is nothing more than the classic lawyer scheme of creating a straw man argument simply for the benefit of striking it down. The opinion poses a position that our campaign does not advocate - that LD 1020 affirmatively changes the curricula to require instruction on gay marriage. That is not our position. Our position is that no change to Maine's curricula is necessary in order for homosexual marriage to be taught in our schools. Further, that homosexual marriage is taught in other states where it has been legalized. When they study the facts, Mainers will see right through Ms. Mills' opinion for what it is: a shameless political ploy by supporters of homosexual marriage.
"There is no getting around the fact that gay marriage has been taught in Massachusetts and California. There is no denying that the author of the "Who's in a Family" book that discusses homosexual relationships and is currently used with young children in Portland said, "The whole purpose of the book was to get the subject out into the minds and the awareness of children before they are old enough to have been convinced there's another way of looking at life." And it is a fact that the Maine state-government sanctioned LGBTQ Youth Commission suggests that gay advocates be placed in every school and every school building, giving greater influence to the gay rights structure that already exists through the Gay Straight Alliance and the Gay, Lesbian Education School Network.
"Yes on Question 1 has shown - and our opponents have been forced to acknowledge - that existing curricula ALREADY create an opportunity for teaching about same-sex relationships under the guise of "safe schools" instruction. We know, for example, that the Portland schools already show films on gay relationships. What is to stop them from showing films about homosexual marriage if it becomes legal?
"Quite simply, the issues we have raised in this campaign were the very same issues raised by many at the single public hearing on LD 1020; none of our arguments are news to our opponents. They had ample opportunity to blunt our concerns by expressly prohibiting same-sex marriage from being discussed in public schools, but they did not do so.
"It is irrefutable that there is nothing in LD 1020 that prevents our children from being taught about same-sex marriage. Maine Department of Education spokesman David Connerty-Marin confirmed that point earlier this month when he told a Maine reporter, 'There's nothing in Maine's standards that requires or encourages teaching on that topic and there's nothing that prohibits it either.'
"We have demonstrated how it could be taught in schools, and that it HAS been taught in other states that have legalized gay marriage. It's a shame that Maine's top lawyer is using her good office for such a transparent political stunt."
The little girl on the video is a victim of child exploitation. The "mothers" use this child to legitimize their deviant lifestyle. The homosexual teacher exploits this child to promote homosexuality in an elementary school. It is criminal that our society allows such horrors.
Laura: "The little girl on the video is a victim of child exploitation. The “mothers” use this child to legitimize their deviant lifestyle. The homosexual teacher exploits this child to promote homosexuality in an elementary school. It is criminal that our society allows such horrors." Deviant lifestyle? Deviant from what? Please explain.
I'm stunned that you people still believe that being gay is a choice. Or, for the few of you who say that the orientation isn't a choice - but the "behavior" (eg, SEX) - is a choice, you'd still deny those people the right to act on what's natural to them.
Look at Larry Craig. He's a gay man trying to live a straight life by staying married to a woman. He's making a "choice" and I'll bet you dollars to donuts he's miserable for it (which is why he trolled mens rooms for anonymous sex).
Sexual orientation isn't a choice. There is not one reputable, peer-reviewed research paper (or scientist for that matter) who would say that it is. And to deny gay people to live the life that's right for them - especially when it has ZERO impact on your lives and your marriage, is bigoted and intolerable. And that's why the tide is changing.
I live in Massachusetts. Children in our schools are taught tolerance and respect for all people. We're not churning out gay kids at any higher a rate than Oklahoma.
Oh, and SINCE gay marriage became legal, our already LOW divorce rate lowered even FURTHER!
Grow up and fight for something truly worth your efforts and money: poverty, homelessness, the environment, etc.
Same sex marriage will be the law of the land and we will all be better off for it.
NYer, I would suggest looking up the definition of "deviant" in any dictionary.
Rob, homosexual "marriage" is an endorsement of a lifestyle which is unhealthy, unproductive, and ultimately annihilistic. Homosexual "marriage" also sends the message that it is not important for a child to have both a mom and a dad. That is why homosexual "marriage" is a very bad idea for our society as a whole.
And yes, homosexuality is a choice, however politically and personally inconvenient that may be. Look no further than the Spitzer study at Columbia which demonstrated that nearly every highly motivated homosexual can change his or her sexual orientation.
Finally, you urge that people should have "the right to act on what is natural to them." Well, why don't we give pedophiles the right to do what is natural to them? We know that mainstream homosexual media would celebrate that. And why don't we give murderers the right to kill? That is, after all, natural to them?
Everybody has the right to get married. You made the choice to be homosexual and therefore forfeited your right to get married. Get help and you will be able to get married just like everybody else.
"Oh, and SINCE gay marriage became legal, our already LOW divorce rate lowered even FURTHER!"
As the number of marriages go down over time, then OF COURSE there are going to be less divorces!
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_19.htm#table2
The decline in the number of marriages can be seen in other places where marriage has been imposed like in Scandinavia and the Netherlands.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200602230800.asp
This is because traditional family values support traditional marriage. When it is officially recognized as a civil and human rights violation in a country or a state, the frequency of marriages decrease. THAT'S the reason for less divorces as you need a marriage to have one in the first place.
“The decline in the number of marriages can be seen in other places where marriage has been imposed like in Scandinavia and the Netherlands.”
Marriage is not imposed in any country in the world, so far as I know. You don’t have to get married anywhere. How could the number of marriages decline if marriage was being imposed?
Kevin
I was talking about gay marriage being imposed, as you well know.
Well, gay marriage isn't being imposed anywhere either. No one is forced to marry a same-sex partner. In some countries and some US States, adult citizens are treated like, well, adults, and given the choice to marry a same-sex or an opposite-sex partner. It makes a lot of sense, especially when the welfare of children is involved. Kids deserve to have married parents.
"Since society obviously approves of same-sex couples raising children (it’s legal in all 50 states), why not give those children the security of having married parents?"
Marriage between one man and one woman provides the ideal setting for the procreation and raising of children. A mother and a father are shown to comprise the best structure. That is the kind of family setting that should be promoted and encouraged by society.
Homosexual relationships always deny children of either a mom or a dad. Mothers and fathers are not interchangeable sicne men and women each have unique contributions to the well-being of children.
I find it ironic that gay acvivists notice clear differences between men and women when choosing mates to satisfy their sexual desires, yet insist that men and women are interchangable when it comes to parenting. So homosexuals get what they want sexually, but children must settle for whatever their same sex "parents" give them.
This places sexual fulfillment above what is best for children and is yet another reason why homosexual relationships should not be equated to marriage.
Legalizing gay marriage IS an imposition in that it trivializes the importance of natural marriage. It will come to be seen as only about sexual fulfillment rather than procreation.
This is the case in Scandinavian countries where gay marriage is legal where illegitimacy is exploding now that people there no longer connect marriage to childbearing. And when illegitimacy goes up, so does the crime rate and social welfare costs.
This is so stupid, gay marriage will not hurt your marriage!
"This is so stupid, gay marriage will not hurt your marriage!"
I should hope not! But most of us are not content to live in a bubble while the rest of society is affected for the worse.
Same sex marriage minimizes birth rate and additionally leads to adoption of unwanted babies.
Our country is terribly overpopulated today and really doesn't need more "traditional" baby-generating marriages.
Most hetro marriages are not worth a crap, anyway.
alfred lange,
"Our country is terribly overpopulated today and really doesn’t need more “traditional” baby-generating marriages. Most hetro marriages are not worth a crap, anyway."
HM, you don't like marriage, or kids, so let's just get rid of them? Can you even hear yourself? I don't think that's going to go over well, but it does show your bias though doesn't it?