Are advocates of traditional marriage intolerant?
Most are not. The pro-traditional marriage movement is not trying to outlaw or to discriminate against individuals who engage in the practice of homosexuality.
Additional Photos
It would, however, be intolerant if this movement were promoting legislation that prohibits homosexual relationships, much like anti-incest or anti-polygamy laws.
Of course, that is not the case here in Maine.
State-sanctioned marriage was established as an institution that provides certain benefits to society.
Not the least of these benefits is that of procreation. A mother, father and their children are inarguably the basic building blocks of society.
The procreative aspect of traditional marriage is unique among all human relationships. This is the highest of all biological purposes, and when exercised within the confines and protections of traditional marriage, it provides an unmatched benefit to society.
Traditional marriage is by no means a perfect or infallible institution, but that doesn’t diminish the fact that the concept is something to be preserved and recognized as uniquely beneficial in its potential.
Just because someone has a different view on something doesn’t mean that we should set out on a “search and destroy” mission by belittling and degrading the opposition.
That is precisely what is happening when someone is wrongly branded as being “intolerant” or a “bigot.” This kind of intimidation-derived bullying is an unconscionable detriment to society.
Unfortunately, that is precisely the position that the gay marriage proponents appear to have taken. More and more advocates of traditional marriage are being silenced for fear of being branded with a scarlet “I” for “intolerance.”
I have little doubt that I will be branded as an intolerant hater and a homophobe by certain individuals who read this opinion piece. Therein lies the source of the problem.
Ted Bennett
Scarborough
News items recently have given us information concerning the status of same-sex marriage.
We are told that six states allow gay marriage, but it is very important to acknowledge that these six states have this distinction only through court order or state legislators.
However, when the people themselves have had the opportunity to vote — more than 30 times since 1998 — they have all soundly rejected what has been arbitrarily forced upon them! Should all of these voters, therefore, be considered “bigots” and “homophobes” — labels that homosexuals always put on those who oppose them?
Traditional marriage is the cradle of life: one man, one woman. This definition must not be tampered with, nor falsely redefined. “Marriage” is not a word that can be stamped on all relationships.
Homosexual behavior is what it is — but it is not, and never could be called, marriage. Let Maine voters again affirm this fact in November!
Pat Truman
Hallowell
Get to know King attackers by ‘following the money’
“Follow the money.” Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward, received this advice from his source Deep Throat, leading the him to the White House and ultimately to the demise of Richard Nixon’s presidency.
When I learned that a Republican PAC was pouring cash into Maine to target Angus King with negative ads, I thought I would do a little digging of my own.
I wanted to follow the money and learn who was trying to buy our Senate seat and tarnish King.
The PAC’s biggest donor is Goldman Sachs. Wall Street financial firms dominate the donor list. The biggest individual contributors include Donald Trump and the Koch brothers. The money is plainly from away.
The PAC’s ad attacks King for allegedly benefiting from a federal loan (more on that in a moment). Presumably his detractors believe that we should distrust someone who invests in a Maine business that plays by the rules and applies for a government-backed loan.
I did a little more digging and made two more interesting discoveries. King and his business partner had sold their 10 percent stake in this business seven months before this loan was made.
An independent fact-checker declared the ad “false.”
However, I did discover a substantial federal loan of $10 billion.
The beneficiary? Goldman Sachs, of course, one of the out-of-state financiers of these Republican attack ads.
It’s no wonder we feel such disgust with the ways of Washington.
These insiders feel very threatened by Maine sending a man of integrity and independence to break up their party.
Beltway-controlled PACs have now spent $1.3 million targeting King with deceptive and negative advertising.
Let’s show them that their money and hypocrisy are not welcome here in Maine by supporting Angus King.
Peter Lowe
Brunswick
Concerning the article “Angus King defends his wind efforts,” Sept. 16.
Are you serious?
The Republican majority-run House is reviewing whether the Record Hill Wind energy project legitimately qualified for loan guarantees. A blog post was circulated by Maine Republicans last week suggesting that Record Hill got the grant because of King’s political connections.
Do you seriously think that this somehow clouds Angus King’s legitimacy in running for the Senate?
Because Record Hill had asked Rep. Chellie Pingree to write a letter on its behalf, does that mean that anyone who has been a key person at, say, Bigelow Labs or Brunswick Naval Air Station or Bath Iron Works should be barred from running for office because Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins have written a letter supporting their projects?
Our own Charlie Webster, chairman of the Maine Republican Party, is saying King needs to answer for this. Does this mean that it is wrong to have a business in Maine that is forward looking enough to earn federal dollars?
Perhaps he does not want federal dollars to go to the state of Maine.
Perhaps all innovation funding should go to other states that don’t have people who will do anything to make sure an independent doesn’t get elected.
Mr. Chairman, are you serious?
Renee Givner
Falmouth
Warning by Napoleon might apply to Romney
The Romney campaign has featured one blatant lie after another about the Obama administration.
It alleged that Obama eliminated work requirements for welfare, whereas the policy cited required that waivers increase job participation by at least 20 percent.
It has also accused Obama of “stealing $716 billion” from Medicare to finance “Obamacare.” This amount is a projected saving that would significantly extend the life of the Medicare trust fund.
Romney’s latest fabrication, on the killing of four Americans in the attack on the consulate in Libya, said: “It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”
The Obama administration did nothing remotely resembling Romney’s charge.The actual statement referred to by Romney was issued by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo six hours before the attack.
It said: “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”
Most Americans would agree with this statement. It is not “apologizing for America.”
Charles Fried, a Republican who was the Reagan administration’s solicitor general, wrote in a Sept. 13 letter to the editor in The New York Times: “Mitt Romney’s response to the killings in Libya reminds us again of the wisdom of Napoleon’s warning that ‘the man who will say anything will do anything.’ “
Meredith N. Springer
Scarborough
Send questions/comments to the editors.
