So Maine—How Does Losing Your Freedom of Speech Affect Your Family?

freedom_speech_conflicts

No on 1 Campaign’s Hypocrisy on Parade

Don Mendell, a public school counselor, is in the position of losing his job because he exercised his free speech in choosing to stand for traditional marriage in Maine.  That was the story that came out Friday.

Now information is coming out on just WHO sent the complaint forcing him to defend his stance, his family and his job.  It was another teacher!  Another teacher whose husband ALSO took a stand— only his stance was AGAINST marriage.  That teacher has suffered no repercussions whatsoever for his stance.  The hypocrisy of this situation is exactly what those who support traditional marriage have been concerned about.

“All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.” –George Orwell 1945 Animal Farm

Why is there one set of rules for one side of the issue and another set of rules for the other?  Isn’t this the very thing that the No campaign has tried to deny all along?

Everyone is equal.  Everyone is free—-but not according to gay activists who hold one standard for those who agree with them and another for those who don’t.

They love to try to bring this down from a societal argument to a personal one.  “How will their marriage affect yours?”  Their point being that it won’t affect you so why should you care?  We’ve all heard it.  But that isn’t the real question.  The Mendell situation illustrates this more poignantly than any other because it’s happening RIGHT NOW in Maine.

So Mainers: How does losing your freedoms affect YOUR family??

— Beetle Blogger

See this from the Maine Campaign:

stand_for_marriage_maine

The latest example of how those in power in Maine schools will push homosexual marriage on students involves Don Mendell, a public school counselor who appeared in a Yes on Question 1 television ad. Mr. Mendell is a two-time recipient of the state Department of Education Commissioner’s Recognition Award and was nominated as Maine State Teacher of the Year. Despite a lifetime of service, a formal complaint was filed with the state seeking to have his license revoked. They say because Mr. Mendell spoke out in support of Question 1 he should not be allowed to counsel students anymore.
We learned just Friday that the person who filed the complaint against Mr. Mendell works for a school principal who happens to be the husband of the gay activist teacher who appeared in a No on Question 1 commercial!

If this sort of thing can happen before homosexual marriage is even legalized, can you imagine what will happen once they have the law on their side? The message is unmistakable: It’s fine to speak out if you support gay marriage, but if you speak out against it, they will punish you. It’s just the latest example that if Question 1 fails and homosexual marriage is legalized, those in power in Maine schools will push it on students just as they are trying to punish one of Maine’s best educators for supporting traditional marriage.

It is outrageous what is happening to Don Mendell. Voters need to hear about it, but we are out of money. We need to raise $25,000 right away so that we can buy more air time and inform voters about what is going on.

Will you please help us one more time?

Our polling shows the race to be very tight and there is evidence that undecided voters are starting to move our way. However, Question 1 could go either way depending on who actually votes. We’ve emptied our bank account to fund our get-out-the-vote campaign and pay for our advertising. If we can raise just $25,000 more in the next 48 hours, we can help make sure those remaining undecided voters hear about what is happening to this courageous school counselor who supports Question 1.

I know you have already sacrificed to help us, but please make a last-minute contribution right now so that we can make sure that every undecided voter knows about the latest consequence if Question 1 were to fail.

Thank you for everything you have done. Please don’t forget to vote Yes on Question 1 on Tuesday and call all your friends to do so as well. And if you have not signed up to be an Election Day volunteer, there is still time to do so! Please email doug@standformarriagemaine.com to sign up!

Marc Mutty
Campaign Chairman

Advertisements

31 Comments

  1. Bart said,

    November 2, 2009 at 1:30 pm

    I haven’t heard anything about the referendum in Washington (the state, not the city) that’s being manipulated by the same thuggish behavior that the homosexual community is using in Maine and used in California.

    From the Washington Post article I just read:
    On Tuesday, Washington residents will vote in a referendum that has national significance because of a controversy about disclosing the names and addresses of those who signed petitions to trigger the referendum. Disclosure threatens the right to privacy, which is under assault by a spreading movement — call it thuggish liberalism — that uses intimidation to suppress political participation.

    “The referendum is on a new state law that some say establishes same-sex marriage. This is a matter about which people differ. What is, however, unambiguously wrong is the attempt by some supporters of the law to force disclosure of the names and addresses of the 138,000 people who signed the petition bringing about the referendum. This can have no other purpose than to make it possible to harass those signers.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/30/AR2009103002868.html?wpisrc=newsletter

    The message is clear: you’re either with the homosexual thugs or you had better stay out of it. Any resistance to the homosexual agenda will be met with threats and intimidation.

  2. beetlebabee said,

    November 2, 2009 at 1:41 pm

    Bart, excellent point! I’ve heard a little about the Washington State, D.C. and also Michigan fights, but not nearly on the same scale as Maine. It’s interesting to note that the tactics are ubiquitous. No creativity there, just “my way or the highway.” Voters take note!

  3. Phil said,

    November 2, 2009 at 10:56 pm

    Good news! If Question 1 fails, then Maine citizens will have enshrined into law the right of individuals and churches to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

    If Maine citizens succeed in defeating Question 1, then the law will be explicit: the pro-gay marriage forces will never be able to force any church or individual to marry them!

  4. beetlebabee said,

    November 3, 2009 at 7:21 am

    Phil, what are you talking about? Did you read the post?

  5. Thomas More said,

    November 3, 2009 at 1:51 pm

    No law regarding same-sex marriage has ever forced any church to perform a marriage of two men or two women, and it never will.

    I don’t think anyone should be fired for their political speech, whatever it is. But free speech doesn’t mean speech without consequences. If you sign a public petition designed to remove rights already granted to citizens, you should be prepared to have that support made public.

  6. beetlebabee said,

    November 3, 2009 at 4:05 pm

    public for what reason? That is the question. In California, public information was exploited shamelessly for persecuting those who voted for traditional marriage. People were harassed, boycotted, etc. This family has been unfairly targeted because of their beliefs. Do you support what is happening?

  7. Ross said,

    November 3, 2009 at 4:53 pm

    Ummmmmm… a person has the right to boycott any business they choose for whatever reason.

  8. beetlebabee said,

    November 3, 2009 at 5:33 pm

    did you read the post? Do you agree with what was done here?

  9. Thomas More said,

    November 3, 2009 at 5:36 pm

    If you’re talking about the school counselor, I doubt we know the whole story. I absolutely don’t support a teacher getting fired simply for, say, appearing in a political ad. But is that all? Was the counselor discriminating against gay students in any way? We have no idea how his political stance was influencing his counseling.

    It has to do with the job and whether you can do the job. If a pharmacist objects to birth control and won’t give it out, he can’t do his job as defined. If a school counselor shows any sort of prejudice against students, he can’t do the job.

    If a teacher at your child’s school appeared in a “Protect Marriage Against Miscegenation” ad, would you want that teacher in your school? There is a lot of blurring of private and public lives in schools as it is, already. You probably don’t want the guy in the “No on 1” ad in your school anyway, do you?

    As to the “public information” question, public information is just that. I wonder why these people are so ashamed of their core beliefs. Harrassment, violence etc. are already against the law. But we deserve to know who in our democracy is demanding these measures, and they should be willing to stand by their convictions.

  10. beetlebabee said,

    November 3, 2009 at 5:52 pm

    Dodge Thomas.

    “While the issue of same-sex marriage stirs lots of passions on both sides of the debate, one thing that should be clear is that citizens should feel free to support groups that share and advance their views without fear of recrimination enabled by government.”

    Sean Parnell, president of the Center for Competitive Politics

  11. Chairm said,

    November 3, 2009 at 6:20 pm

    All supporters of SSM should be fired if they are school counsellors! Public school employees who have made financial or other types of contributions to the SSM campaign have just disqualified themselves from the jobs they are supposed to perform.

    That’s NOT what marriage defenders say and not what we’d press for — and have not pressed for anyplace where state marriage measures have passed with popular support.

    But if we followed the supposed reasoning fo the SSMers in the comments above, then, SSMers would point to the examples where we’ve pressed such policies into the public schools. They haven’t because they can’t. Thus they’d concede the toleration long-exibited by those with whom they disagree so dogmatically.

    Meanwhile SSMers excuse the intolerance of those who support the abolition of the core meaning of marriage both in the law and in the culture. And they’d excuse the namecalling as the first axiom of SSM argumentation which, should it succeed in merging SSM with marriage, serves as the basis for the assertion of supremacy in the name of gay identity politics.

    Thomas Moore, you referred to miscegnation and yet the racialist analogy fits the stance of the SSM side far more readily than you seem to be aware. That lack of self-awareness on your part is no excuse for the racialist-like reasoning behind the attempt to stigmatize supporters of marriage and to attack the freedom of conscience of those whtih whom you’d disagree. Identity politics — racialist or gaycentric — is an just basis for discrimination.

    Your remark strongly suggested that anti-miscegenation is distasteful (or worse) and your attempt to position marriage defenders as analogous to those who defended racialist identity politics.

    But there is one human race and it is essentialy two-sexed, not one-sexed. Your underlying assumptions are profoundly mistaken.

  12. Thomas More said,

    November 3, 2009 at 7:09 pm

    Chairn, I guess I don’t get your point. I already said I didn’t support a teacher getting fired for simply a political contribution or appearance in an ad. Are you saying people should be insulated from “name-calling”?

    Societal norms do change. When Loving v. Virginia was decided in 1967, 75 percent of the American public thought interracial marriage was wrong. Just last month, a judge in Louisiana refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple. If he had done the exact same action in 1967, the reaction would have been much different.

    People are people. We’re getting there. “The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice.”

  13. Patrick said,

    November 3, 2009 at 10:41 pm

    Thomas,

    you’re dodging the issue of harassment and violence and how they are terribly anti-democratic.

    Actually, those who support traditional marriage are not at all ashamed of our core beliefs. We just believe that gay marriage activists only want the donor information so they can harass, intimidate and perpetrate acts of violence against anyone who disagrees with them. You would be much more informed on this debate if you read “The Price of Prop. 8” at Heritage.org. I challenge you to find any shred of decency by gay rights activists in this catalog of abuses hurled at supporters of Prop. 8. Swastikas painted on churches, political signs stolen, envelopes of white powder sent to Mormon Temples, people who lost their jobs over their vote. Do you support these cowardly acts? They are undemocratic tendancies, plain and simple.

    You sound reasonable; I hope you don’t believe that these cowardly acts were justified because one group believed their so-called rights were stripped. Those of us who voted Yes on 8 never believed gay marriage was a right in the first place so you can’t claim that gay marriage is a universal truth just because a couple of activist judges in CA overstepped their bounds.

    And by the way, I think the arc of history argument is completely hollow. The main reason people (religious and non-religious) do not want to legalize gay marriage is that it is completely counter to natural law. The law of Mother Nature- homosexual acts will never create an offspring like heterosexual acts will. So your desire to label homosexual love “marriage” flies in the face of reality. The arc of history cannot change reality.

  14. Thomas More said,

    November 4, 2009 at 7:27 am

    I have said several times here that I don’t support violence, intimidation, or people getting fired for a political stance alone. How exactly was I vague on that? I do think people have the right to boycott businesses, put pressure on broadcasters, or speak out peaceably against what they see as discrimination.

    Civil marriage has nothing to do with “natural law,” however you personally define it. It’s a contract, pure and simple, and the state has every right to define its parameters. You want to strengthen “traditional marriage”? Fine. Make childbearing a condition of civil marriage. Disallow marriage for infertile or elderly couples. Outlaw divorce. Monitor all marriages as is currently done with immigration cases, to make sure the participants are in a legitimate relationship (designed to produce children, of course) and not just doing it for convenience, benefits, etc.

    Support those things, and maybe we can talk about your fervor to uphold “traditional marriage,” rather than your desire to make sure gay people are never thought of as equivalent to straight people in American society.

  15. Smokezero said,

    November 4, 2009 at 8:06 am

    History does not bend towards justice. It bends and moves with the culture, whatever way the wind blows. We merely look back at the actions of our ancestors and find the way we do things now more “just.” Hindsight being what it is, we feel that we’re better than what happened before us. How could we not? We have progress!

    But look at war. During WWI, fighter pilots shot down behind enemy lines were allowed to return to their respective sides unharmed. Same went for cavalry. Chivalry was an important aspect of war, because chivalry is not just the way to treat a lady, but the way to treat others.

    Over time, we’ve lost respect and dignity that should be afforded to other people. We sit here and we argue, and as the post has shown, things get ugly fast. Being undecided in the California Prop 8 decision, I was mortified every time I saw vandals take out the signs and desecrate what was a very visual marker for another person’s freedom of speech. This is not justice, this is blind intolerance. If you want to change the world for the better, start by being the better person.

  16. Thomas More said,

    November 4, 2009 at 8:49 am

    How is this thread ugly? I’m the one being implicitly charged with supporting violence and intimidation.

    The fact is, things are better for gay people today than they were 40 years ago. They face less overt prejudice, and are more accepted than ever in many areas of American society. That trend will continue, slowly but surely, whether you want it to or not. But is there full equality? Absolutely not.

  17. Chairm said,

    November 4, 2009 at 11:38 am

    Thomas Moore, you said:

    “we deserve to know who in our democracy is demanding these measures”.

    By “we” you mean the pro-SSM side. And by “deserve” you mean that your disagreement with the core meaning of marriage has earned you this pose you have struck for political effect. You mean to excuse the intolerance exhibited by the SSMers. (See note at bottom.)

    The SSM side makes its demands. You could do better, Thomas Moore, than namecalling via the profoundly flawed racialist analogy. An analogy, by the way, that sticks very closely to the arguments made by the SSM side.

    The assertion of supremacy via identity politics is unjust. The gaycentric version of identity politics is closely analogous with the racialist version that you just tried to artificially associate with the defense of the core meaning of marriage. Your underlying assumptions are mistaken.

    There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed.

    * * *

    Note: If you did not mean this, then, please plainly state what you meant by “we” and “deserve”.

  18. Chairm said,

    November 4, 2009 at 12:03 pm

    Thomas Moore said: “the state has every right to define its parameters”

    Misleading and profoundly mistaken. There is no such right.

    The governing authority is empowered to regulate the boundaries on behalf of society. We have a government, not the other way around.

    The boundaries are drawn around the core meaning of marriage. That core is expressed in our laws — see the marital presumption of paternity and see the man-woman criterion — and as such our laws recognize the social institution of civil society that provides for responsible procreation and sex integration.

    You might choose to misinterpret that core meaning as a mandate that would make childbearing compulsory, but that does not fit with the role of the state in regulating the boundaries of marriage. It would, sadly, fit with the totalitarian impulse of the SSM campaign and, implicitly, your own remarks above.

  19. Thomas More said,

    November 4, 2009 at 12:04 pm

    Chairm: “We” refers to the American people – everyone. “Deserve” means that in a democracy, important policy decisions should not be made in secret. Is that so hard to understand?

    For the LAST TIME: I don’t excuse violence or intimidation. I won’t repeat that again.

    This is not a pose. This is my life.

  20. Patrick said,

    November 4, 2009 at 3:49 pm

    Thomas- why are votes held secret? So that those who want to exercise their freedom of speech are not intimidated, harassed and had violence perpetrated against them. Those of us who are against gay marriage are now not just against gay marriage – we are against the antidemocratic impulses of the gay rights activitists. Over the past couple of years the gay rights political machinery has taken a decidedly anti-democratic, anti-free speech tone.

    You personally may be against violence and intimidation – but do you think individuals should lose their jobs over their political views? Like the theatre director in Sacramento, or the waitress in Hollywood who were hounded because they contributed to Prop. 8? Sounds too me like the gay rights activists have absorbed the McCarthy-ite tactics of the 50s and are now representative of the new thought police. When the Republics were blacklisted liberals it was bad, but when gay rights blacklist people who give $100 to Prop. 8, it’s a good thing to intimidate those individuals until they lose their jobs? It sounds like the gay rights community believes it is OK to discriminate based on religious and political views that they don’t agree with.

    Again, what you’re seeing in these posts is a frustration at the “no more mr. nice gay” tactics of the past year since Prop.8. I’m glad you don’t support the violence – it would be great if you could convince others in the gay activist community to be similarly respectful of the democratic process and free speech.

    No one is calling you a poser. We just believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. To call any other union a marriage would be a mislabelling of the reality of nature. Men and women are profoundly different. Until you realize that, you will continue to be frustrated. Go ahead and be gay. But don’t call it marriage. It is not and the majority of Americans do not agree that gay marriage is a right.

  21. Thomas More said,

    November 4, 2009 at 4:04 pm

    Re: losing jobs. I won’t repeat myself again. Read what I wrote. You’re running out of things to “corner” me with.

    Civil marriage unfortunately shares a name with a religious sacrament, even though the two things are profoundly different. You want to conflate the two, but even if you do, which religion’s marriage traditions will you enshrine into law that affects everyone? Catholic? Jewish? Hindu?

    Sorry to break it to you (again), but civil marriage is a legal contract. Nothing more or less. It has more in common with a fishing license than it does a Catholic marriage mass. Deal with that and understand it, and maybe we’ll have something to talk about. Probably not, though.

    But you guys don’t want civil unions, either, do you? Because the real agenda is to make sure that gay people are never seen as equivalent: their relationships, their families, their very lives.

    Finally, basic rights should never be subject to popular vote. Read what I wrote about Loving v. Virginia. Was that decision wrong because it went against the will of the people?

  22. Ross said,

    November 4, 2009 at 4:25 pm

    Oh please, Beetle. For every Mendell out there there is a Danny Choi out there who is removed from his position for being gay. What makes it ok to remove Danny Choi for his “beliefs” but not Mendell?

  23. beetlebabee said,

    November 4, 2009 at 5:55 pm

    Ross, was Danny Choi censured by the government for those beliefs?

  24. Chairm said,

    November 4, 2009 at 10:32 pm

    It is the SSM side which has sought to publicize the names of those with whom they disagree. You did indeed mean the pro-SSM side when you said “we” since the marriage defenders have not sought to publicize the names of those with whom they disagree. It is one-sided as you well know.

    I made that point earlier. You would try to dodge it.

    Whether defenders of marriage protect their privacy or are quite open and/or public (like the man in the ad or like Brian or like Maggie and many others including myself and various other pro-marriage bloggers whose participation goes beyhond the blogosphere) the pro-SSM side uses tactics of hyperpersonalization and intimidation rather than dialog. They rely on namecalling, as you have done implicitly in your own comments. That is where SSM argumentation begins — with the axiomatic belief that to disagree with the SSM merger is itself an act of bigotry or an act driven by bigotry.

    And all of this SSMers struggle to excuse, as you have done here.

    * * *

    Let’s take at face value your insistence that you oppose what you say you oppose. Please plainly describe how you have opposed this. Other than show up at pro-marriage blogs like this one and repeatedly claim for yourself plausible deniability.

    Thanks.

  25. Patrick said,

    November 4, 2009 at 11:05 pm

    Thomas,

    Here is something you really need to understand if you want to know why the majority of Americans do not believe that gay marriage is the equivalent of traditional marriage:

    men and women are different. they are fundamentally different.

    we disagree with most of your claim above about equivalence. However, gay people’s lives are just as valuable as straight people’s lives. However, a gay relationship is not the same as a straight relationship. I know your head is spinning right now with that statement, but please, step back and re-read the line above: men and women are different. I’m not making a value judgement on the people within the above relationships, I just stating a fact that you need to come to grips with – men and women are different.

    You can talk all you want about childless marriages but the ultimate purpose of marriage is to provide a place for children to come into the world safely and securely. The family unit is the bedrock of society and when the family is destroyed, society crumbles. You can argue the exception all you want, but the fact remains that all man + woman marriages theoretically have the possibility of bringing children into the world and building these strong family units. A homosexual union has no theoretical possibility for bringing children into the world, thus our insistence that the gay and straight relationships are fundamentally different.

    You can continue to talk about gay marriage being a fundamental right until your blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of Americans (31 states and counting) do not agree that it is a right. The gay movement has set up a false argument by first positing that gay marriage is a right. Because you do not have agreement from the majority of Americans on so basic a premise, you can’t move forward with arguments like “how can a majority vote on a minority’s right.”

    And please, stop bringing up Loving – you’re comparing apples to oranges. A black man marrying a white woman is no different than a black man marrying a black woman. Because man + woman = marriage. A black man marrying a white woman is NOT equivalent to a white woman marrying a white woman. Again, men and women are fundamentally different.

  26. Chairm said,

    November 4, 2009 at 11:11 pm

    Thomas Moore, marriage is first and foremost a social institution which is foundational to civil society.

    It has a core meaning — including universal features which have remained despite there also being many variable features. How a society — how a culture or a religion for example — responds to the core meaning of marriage will vary but the core does not. The historical and anthropological record cannot be wiped away, try as you might. Nor can the two-sexed nature of humankind, the opposite-sexed nature of human procreation, and the both-sexed nature of human community. From this the social institution arises; this is the specialness that merits special status in a civilized society.

    Marriage is marriage. SSMers have tried to capture the word by gutting it of its core meaning. Defenders of marriage have attempt to respond with their own rhetoric by adding the phrase “traditional marriage” to the discussion of the SSM-merger. That’s all the phrase is — a political label for what marriage has always been and continues to be: the conjugal relationship of husband and wife. It is not sex-neutral. It is not one-sexed. The phrase does not mean a certain kind of tradition.

    Accept this and move on to the actual disagreement rather than the strawman of which you have been so very fond.

    * * *

    As for your talk of “civil union” …

    Plainly state the core of the relationship type you have in mind when you refer to this or that version of the one-sexed arrangement. It would be sex-segregative so it is not the same as marriage; it could not provide for responsible procreation (i.e. the solidarity of motherhood and fatherhood) and so it is not the same as marriage; it must have some other core meaning that differentiates it from the rest of the nonmarriage category.

    You suggest it is merely a legal contract. But that does not suffice to differentiate it from other nonmarital arrangements and agreements. You have repeatedly emphasized gayness.

    But this contract would not require same-sex sexual behavior, nor same-sex sexual attraction, much less gay identity. Correct?

    So this relationship type you have in mind must have some other core meaning. Something that makes it different from the families, relationships, and arrangements that are also in the nonmarriage category.

    But I think you begin, and end, with your emphasis on gayness rather than on the definitive feature(s) of a legal contract. And it is gayness for which you seek a special status rather than equality with others in the nonmarriage category.

    * * *

    What is “civil union,” in your viewpoint? If it is just another way of demanding a merger of nonmarriage and marriage (ie. the SSM merger in all but name), then, you are still stuck with the task of stating its core meaning such that it merits a special status on par with marital status.

    You can keep dodging that, too, but don’t pretend to be more engaged in the subject of SSM, much less the subject of marriage, and setting the standard of substantive discussion higher than you would drop it. You have not yet grasped the actual disagreement.

    * * *

    I read what you said about Loving. Your underlying assumptions are mistaken. There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed.

    Your own argumentation and repeated emphasis on gayness means you cannot now deny the fact of sex differentation. You would differentiate in some other way you’d deem of great societal significance, yes?

    Gayness is not a legal criterion of ineligibility to marry. The conjugal contract includes society and one man and one woman. Boundaries are drawn — ineligibility and eligibility — based on the thing being recongized and licensed and accorded a special status. The core of the thing is within those boundaries. Gayness is not relevant to marriage but seems to be of the utmost importance to “civil union” or what SSMers call “same-sex marriage”. This is a fundamental problem for your side and you might do better at resolving it without double standards.

    In any case, your complaint made in the name of gayness must mean that you have in mind a type of relationship that is defined by gayness. Yes? Then tell us how the contract you speak of would make gayness mandatory for two persons of the same sex. If it does not mandate gayness, then, you have knocked the knees out from under your complaint.

    Of course, “straightness” is not a criterion of eligibility to marry. Never has been. Is not, today. The marital presumption of paternity is a legal requirement that is vigorously enforced. It makes of marriage a public sexual type of relationship. Nothing comparable is on offer to make of SSM a public sexual type of relationship. Nor to make of SSM a public type of relationship that is

    Marriage defenders understand that the SSM campaign is an attack on the core meaning of marriage. It is an assault on the special reason for special status of this foundational social institution. Whatever the merits, and demerits, of the pro-SSM proposal, it does not share that special reason. You must come up with something else.

    Andn since you insist on sidelining the core of marriage via a merger (of one kind or another, call it what you will) you must come up with something else that is superior to the core meaning of marriage itself.

    Marriage integrates the sexes and provides for responsible procreation. This is extrinsic to all one-sexed arrangements, gay or not, sexualized or not, contractual or not. So that something else cannot be grafted onto the very thing your argumentation rejects as bigoted. Right?

  27. Ross said,

    November 5, 2009 at 10:07 am

    SPEAKING of conservatives being treated unfairly. How hilarious is all of this new Carrie Prejean news? Beetle, didnt you say she was treated unfairly for her beliefs? Her supposed “morals” and “family values”…
    Wonder if NOM’s golden child will claim that God had “chosen” her for her little sex tape as well?
    I’m surprised NOM hasn’t removed her from their front page. They must be doing some MAJOR damage control right now.

  28. Gerry said,

    November 5, 2009 at 1:37 pm

    http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/128048.html

    No on 1 campaign manager Jesse Connolly pledged that his side “will not quit until we know where every single one of these votes lives.”

  29. beetlebabee said,

    November 6, 2009 at 12:04 pm

    Gerry, I have seen these tactics used in California. It’s an attempt to silence the opposition through fear and intimidation. While technically legal, it’s morally reprehensible. For me, my position is that standing up for marriage is worth whatever mud, intimidation or slander they can throw. I will not be bullied into silence. Bring it on! Show the world your true colors Jesse Connolly.

    And they are the ones who say we have nothing to fear from the normalization of homosexuality in the political sphere? Reprisals….labels of “hate speech”….that’s all just normal politics as usual stuff. Ya right.

  30. goldnsilver said,

    November 10, 2009 at 8:41 pm

    “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.” –George Orwell 1945 Animal Farm

    Do you understand the irony of quoting George Orwell, in particular this passage from Animal Farm, to defend yourself on a blog determined to deny the rights of a minority?

    George Orwell would turn in his grave.

  31. beetlebabee said,

    November 11, 2009 at 11:11 am

    Goldnsilver, it depends on whether or not you consider the right to indiscriminately marry without limitation a true right. Everyone has the right to marry. It’s marrying without limitation whatsoever that is in question. The Constitution does not delineate indiscriminate marriage rights as a human right. It’s only a small handful of activist courts that have newly “discovered” (invented?) this so-called “right”.

    There are many limitations to marriage that society generally agrees on, especially with regard to marriage, family and children. Outside of those purposes for marriage, various other sexual activities are possible, but not protected or held up as ideal behaviors. Limitations include how many people you can marry, how old you have to be before you can marry, etc.

    If there is a right to marry indiscriminately as you have intimated, you have to allow polygamous marriages, group marriages, underage marriages and so on. Indiscriminately. Polygamous groups are already preparing their arguments for inclusion in marriage. If they truly love each other, who are you to deny them their “rights”??? Aren’t they equal as well?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: