In the March 29 Maine Voices (“There can be no moral or legal right for same-sex marriage”), Michael Heath makes several statements that bring questions to mind.

One: Marriage is needed for propagation.

Does that mean that I, as a post-menopausal widow, am disqualified from remarriage?

Second: How were the children born out of wedlock conceived?

By the way, these same children are often adopted by gay couples and brought up in very loving homes that teach unbiased values.

Third: He states marriage is needed for education of children. So, is this a proposal to close schools and let all be home-schooled?

This would be rather difficult for working single parents.

Oops, I forgot. There are no single parents, all are in loving two-parent relationships.

Fourth: He states same-sex marriage is the opposite of marriage.

But isn’t the opposite of marriage not being married, i.e., being single?

Fifth: He states that “the vineyard is being laid waste by promiscuity, divorce and abortion.”

At least two of these, I believe, imply heterosexual activity, unless Mr. Heath can answer how homosexuals need an abortion, or if they can’t marry, how can they divorce?

Last – and this is not a question, but an observation as a retired teacher of primary children – how can we not present in family studies the loving home with two moms or two dads?

Years ago, we scratched to find books that showed more than little white children and little white houses.

Now, basal readers have all races and colors pictured living in apartments and trailers as well as houses of various styles.

Our job is to make all children feel they are worthy.

To negate the home lives of some children makes us unworthy, as well as very unloving (which, I believe, among other things, equals un-Christian) toward these innocents.

Jan Roberson

Harpswell

On March 29, Michael Heath did the people of Maine a service.

In his Maine Voices column, “There can be no moral or legal right for same-sex marriage,” he identifies Scott Lively as one of those martyrs persecuted for their opposition to same-sex marriage in Uganda and now in the United States.

What Heath fails to mention is the context of Mr. Lively’s anti-gay activism.

Lively’s sojourn in Uganda with other anti-gay activists resulted in the proposal of legislation there that would make homosexuality not merely illegal, but punishable by death.

That legislation is still pending.

It’s been held up by international opposition.

But the atmosphere of hatred that it engendered in Uganda has led to the murder of a gay activist there, David Kato.

Scott Lively has blood on his hands.

Heath’s absurd claim that opposition to same-sex marriage would be criminalized in the United States is a telling inversion of reality.

His “martyr,” Scott Lively, actually does support the criminalization of homosexuality in Uganda and in America.

Heath’s paranoid vision of Maine society after same-sex marriage legislation is passed is evidently derived from the fear of, contempt for and hatred of gay people that he shares with Scott Lively.

In the run-up to this campaign for same-sex marriage, it’s salutary for Mainers to be reminded of who some of its opponents hold to be heroes.

Scott MacEachern

Brunswick

Is Obama’s court warning arrogance or political ploy?

As a self-proclaimed constitutional scholar, President Obama really pushes the envelope when he refers to the U.S. Supreme Court as a group of “unelected” officials.

Clearly, the Supreme Court, as the judicial branch of U.S. government, is one of the three equal governing entities in this country.

For Obama to warn the court not to overturn Obamacare legislation, is either sheer arrogance on his part, or a political ploy to be used in the upcoming presidential campaign.

As two-thirds of the U.S. population hoped and expected, the Supreme Court held the administration’s feet to the flame during the three days of hearings last month.

The court sent numerous signals that Obama’s 2,700-page “Rube Goldberg” monstrosity of health care legislation is fraught with ambiguities and slippery slopes, too numerous to mention.

The vast majority of Americans anxiously await the court’s ruling in June.

That is “hope and change” we can believe in.

Dennis Gervais

Portland

Names sought of those ‘highly respected scientists’

I haven’t read the books Charles Barnard mentions in Another View, March 29, “Darwin’s evolutionary theory is far from a proven law.”

But I have read reviews of them by the author’s peers, and read nothing that discredited Darwin.

I wish Mr. Barnard had given the names of a few of the “highly respected scientists” who have publicly stated their skepticism of Darwin.

I would like to read the articles.

R.E. Marsh

Sanford

Eat real, locally produced food and eat less of it

Your series “Anatomy of a Recall” (March 25-26) reminds us, again, that we cannot expect big corporations to put their customers’ health before their own profits.

If consumers supported Maine’s farmers markets instead of buying produce and meat from big box corporations, they’d enjoy tastier, healthier meals, as well as minimize the pollution from billions of gallons of oil that are used to produce and transport factory-produced food.

Dietary health is very simple, really.

Eat real food, eat locally produced food, eat less of it.

Howard M. Solomon

Bowdoinham

 

Copy the Story Link