Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
Digg
Tell us what you think!Send a letter to the editor about this or any other article in The Maine Campus.
Despite the repeal of same-sex marriage in Maine, Wilde Stein at the University of Maine raised the pride flag Wednesday afternoon on the mall.
Vice President of Wilde Stein Charles Chapin opened the ceremony to let the supporters know while the election outcome was not what the No on 1 campaign hoped for, the university community voted for same-sex marriage by more than 800 votes on Election Day.
“Not only did we take this campus, but we took it by over 800 votes. That’s because of people like you, everybody that helped the No on 1 campaign, everybody that voted got a friend to go out and vote,” Chapin said. “It’s because of people like you why, in the end, equal rights will win, and that this fight is far from over.”
President of Wilde Stein Zachary Knox said he wants supporters who are gay or straight to know that despite their own beliefs, they are not “second-class citizens.”
“Never have I felt such contempt for people who disagreed with me. Never have I felt more like a second-class citizen, because yesterday 291,000 people in the state of Maine said I wasn’t worthy of the institute of commitment for love, because I might love a man and not a woman,” Knox said. “I can’t tell you how many times I heard people say, ‘I don’t hate gay people, dude, but I don’t agree with gay marriage.’ But the people who voted against us yesterday have just put on the biggest show of bigotry and hate since Proposition 8 in California.”
Vice President of Student Affairs Robert Dana stood to tell supporters the university does not support the election outcome and that UMaine is a place for students to feel accepted.
“It’s never the right time to do wrong, and wrong has been done,” Dana said. “Every one of us, the people who think about fairness and kindness and compassion and justice, every one of those people thought, ‘Yes, that this was going to happen,’ and we believed it. You have expressed yourselves so publicly and personally. You expressed yourself so eloquently, and you have been slapped in the face. You have been done [wrong] to in a very public way, a very personal wrong, and here at the University of Maine, you are loved. You are cared for, and you are part of this community. I support you, and the University of Maine will support you. There is no room here for hate. There is no room here for intolerance, and there is no room here for injustice. I am furious about this and I know that the pain you are feeling is pain that I share and people across the university share.”
Dana said the university plans to do everything to celebrate equality and push for equal rights.
“We will go forward with this because we will not tolerate it. I am committed to that, and I can assure you that the university is committed,” Dana said.
Coordinator of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender services on campus Danielle Steele said the election results have inspired Wilde Stein to persevere.
“I’m inspired, for one, by my students. This morning, the first thing I see on my phone is, ‘We’re having a meeting. We’re going to find out what we’re going to do now.’ Because our president of Wilde Stein said, ‘Where do we go, what do we do? What can we do now?’” Steele said.
Chapin said Wilde Stein plans to continue working closely with deans and within their group to push on for equality.
“We’re going to keep working closely with the organizers with the No on 1 campaign to see what we can do next, what our options are, what exactly we can do to get the University of Maine to help. We work closely with Dean Dana and Dean Loredo. We have a good group here that’s pretty much willing to do whatever we can to get civil rights,” Chapin said.
No matter the outcome, Dana announced the pride flag is not coming down anytime soon.
“We will fly it high until it’s shredded,” Dana said.
Related Posts:- Maine to vote on gay marriage in Nov. (September 10, 2009)
- Voters veto gay marriage (November 4, 2009)
- Editorial: Opponents of same-sex marriage don’t have a leg to stand on (October 8, 2009)
- Airwaves heat up over same-sex marriage (October 5, 2009)
- No on 1 ahead in fundraising, finance reports show (October 18, 2009)
It would be awesome if the VP of Student Affairs embraced the ideals of everyone on campus – now that would be equality! Dr. Dana, what about the feelings of those who support gay marriage, but not Question 1? Ever think about those who have a big problem with LD 1020’s stance on “Affirmation of Religious Freedom” and how Question 1 would change that?
Sorry for not being moved by baseless emotion and buzzwords, but rather for taking a more analytical approach to things and hoping to make an informed decision, one that will ultimately come with a better defined set of laws. Sorry, Dr. Dana, for embracing the concepts of critical thinking in higher education, but I’d rather do that than have your support in blindly following the buzzwords on campus…
[Reply]
Claire F Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Question 1 had absolutely nothing to do with LD 1020’s stance on “Affirmation of Religious Freedom.”
The language stated clearly that religious organizations and individuals would not be penalized for refusing to participate in same sex marriage ceremonies.
Anyone, and I do mean anyone, who voted yes on question 1 due to this concern was sadly uninformed.
Further, Dr. Dana’s statement is in line with the University of Maine’s non-discrimination policy and mission statement.
[Reply]
I am appalled by this man’s speech. It is intolerant behavior towards students and future students at the University who favor traditional marriage or have experienced it.
Even history and evolution itself attest to the value of marriage between a man and woman. It is the foundation of a society. Even if they change the law someday to favor gay marriage, it doesn’t make it right. It never will. And deep down, supporters of same-sex marriage know that.
[Reply]
June Howard Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 8:30 am
There was nothing “intolerant” toward traditional marriage in his speech what so ever. Saying that the University remains committed to complete equality, not some joke of “some are more equal and deserving of rights than others”.
You want traditional marriage? That’s fine, but don’t you -dare- deny other people the protections for their loved ones that the legal institution of marriage secures them and call that “equality”.
[Reply]
Kaylan Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 8:54 am
It IS intolerant…accusing trad. marriage supporters of bigotry and hate. That IS intolerance. Here is the quote:
“biggest show of bigotry and hate since Proposition 8 in California.”
Trad. marriage supporters base their views on morals and/or religious views not hate or bigotry.
And the article is worse as it says:
“Never have I felt such contempt for people who disagreed with me.”
That probably sums up what most gay supporters think given their actions during the election. They HATE those who have moral convictions.
It is very sad and intolerant behavior.
[Reply]
June Howard Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 10:29 am
And you’re doing the same thing you’re accusing this group of, making sweeping generalizations about an entire group of people. That’s just as sad and intolerant.
Most of us have felt disappointment and hurt. To be blunt, we’re being told very bluntly “You’re not deserving of these protections that keep your family safe in times of financial, physical and emotional difficulty.”
Can you honestly imagine what would happen if one of your parents, assuming they’re together and they’re dependent on each other due to income, shared housing and children, gets into a car accident. The car is totaled, the parent is hospitalized, and the other is told at the front desk, “No, you cannot see your partner, because you’re not related.” The parent stays hospitalized, and because they’re not a spouse legally they’re denied coverage in insurance. Bills start coming to the house. Electric, car payments, mortgage payments, hospital bills. They can’t afford to pay for it.
Why? Because legally they’re not married. Would that be a slap in the face? Would you be angry and hurt? Most people would. This is exactly is what’s being said to the LGBT community.
What the heck does being with someone who has the same genitalia as you have to do with being able to protect your family?
I’m just curious why there is a LGBTQIA flag being hung and not an American flag?
Aren’t we all American? Why was that flag not hung in order to unite the campus and rather a flag with the goal of dividing it?
I feel sorry for those who because of their religous beliefs now must suffer from an unsafe learning enviroment. We have had many people complain of hate speech being used against them at USM and it takes away from what college is there for: an education.
[Reply]
Kaylan Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 8:59 am
I agree. This is my concern, that those with religious convictions or have grown up in traditional marriage will be treated unfairly and with hate by those who support gay marriage. There is already a school employee at Nokomis being targeted by gay marriage supporters because he stood up for traditional marriage. They are trying to take his job away, his livelihood in which he provides for his family merely because he supports traditional marriage. That is discrimination outright and persecution against freedom of speech.
[Reply]
Adam Flanders Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Concern about treating those unfairly who have religious convictions? How about being harassed all through high school for being gay, how about being hospitalized after someone decides they don’t like gay people? I had a friend who committed suicide because he was gay.
Almost all the homophobia comes from people with “religious convictions.” In many ways, you started it, not us. We continue to have to defend ourselves against people like you. UMaine has a very clear nondiscrimination policy. Maybe you don’t belong on this campus, Kaylan. Your religious beliefs don’t belong in our laws. You can believe whatever you want, but same-sex marriage has no effect on you at all.
That high school employee wasn’t being targeted for his beliefs – he’s being targeted because 1) He participated in a political campaign to take away equal rights of same-sex couples, and 2) He violated the conditions of people in his practice must follow (psychologists of sorts) to not discriminate based on sexual orientation. I sincerely hope he loses his career – we can’t have people like him in our schools.
And Kaylan, I guarantee that 50 years ago, you would have been lobbying for “traditional marriage” of another kind – that is, the traditional marriage of only whites marrying whites.
[Reply]
Hanging a flag other than the United States flag, State of Maine flag, military flag, or an official campus flag is desecrating to the same pole that would carry the United States flag. On the note of equality, I am sure that a Christian group would be forbidden to have a rally here and fly the Christian flag. The major portion of people in 31 states have voted against gay marriage, yet the 291 thousand people in Maine who did vote against where accused of hate and bigotry. The gays are the ones who are currently spewing hate and shouting discrimination. I voted yet on 1 because it is right. Don’t compare your cause to slavery, or womens rights, or justify it because some catholic priests do bad things.
[Reply]
Kaylan Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 9:04 am
Actually, the percentage of clergy that are accused of sexual crimes is low or equal to the general population of the same crime. In other words, there are not more bad priests but it is merely sensationalized by the media. There are actually more GOOD priests than bad.
The gay marriage supporters shouldn’t use a argument like that, as many of the clergy sex crimes were homosexual in nature, not heterosexual.
[Reply]
June Howard Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Sex crimes are not about the gender of the victim, ma’am, they’re about power and domination. Look at the crimes taking place in prison systems. Perfectly heterosexual men go into a prison system and they are sexually dominated and overpowered for the purpose of creating and sustaining a hierarchy.
If you’re going to argue that that’s a good reason against homosexuals, keep in mind. Rapists don’t focus on gender so much as dominance. Children and women are the most prominent victims because society trains them to be vulnerable (high heels make it hard to run, don’tcha know) and the rapists are given ample opportunity (parents not paying attention to where children are or aren’t actively supervising).
[Reply]
Kaylan Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I agree and disagree that sex crimes are based on power issues alone. I’m a victim of sex crime myself and I know for a FACT that the offender was obsessed with sexual materials. Lust was a huge factor, not power. This same person was into porn and other sexually explicit actions and given their psychology at the time, it was not based on domination. Sadly, too many people read psychological reports based on one or two authors rather than looking at the whole scope of the problem.
I do think that it is a factor that many of the sex crimes associated with the sex scandal were homosexual in nature.
The Church also made point in the 1970’s that homosexuals were not to enter seminary because it would possibly lead them into tempting situations (they would be living amongst other men which would be akin to someone living with the opposite sex, like a coed dorm room).
Alas, some places (or the men themselves) ignored that Church rule and entered the seminary anyway (possibly assuming they had it under control, which is noble of them to begin with…the Church believes those with homosexual tendencies are to remain celibate no matter what their vocation and to offer it up like any other sexual illness as a “cross”; heterosexuals also suffer various disorders and must endure them throughout life as well.
Another factor, many talk about the Church but have not researched it or even been Catholic to begin with. Most people who are not familiar with the Church have no idea what they are talking about aside from seeing some clips on tv or reading a scant article or two.
I, myself, was in a monastery and studied moral theology extensively; so I’m pretty educated on Church matters.
I am sorry free speach has disappeared as well. That when comments are posted that support the oppisite side, you remove them.
It is a sad day.
[Reply]
I would support civil union for gays, as long as a clear distinction remains that the civil union is not the same as marriage, yet has all the benefits of such. Don’t ask religious groups to be forced to change or ignore what the Bible has to say and perform gay marriages. Freedom of religion is just as important to me as your cause is to you. My favorite co-worker is gay/lesbian.
[Reply]
Katie Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 9:44 am
You must understand that this is exactly what the marriage law proposed. Civil unions do not provide the same legal benefits that a legal marriage does. The title ‘marriage’ is used in a legal sense, no a religious sense. NONE of the churches would have been required to perform a religious marriage ceremony for gay/lesbian couples. They withhold the right to deny them such. It was purely for legal protections and privileges.
[Reply]
Bruce Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
I do not wish to be associated with G&L marriage. When someone asks me if I am married, I am proud that they know it is to a woman. Marriage has been around for thousands of years rooted in culture world wide. Marriage and its title “marriage” and the ceramony a “wedding” along with “bride” and “groom” are what people like me have a problem with when new laws are pushed to change thier definition.
Why keep pushing for equality when all you will get is resistance? What is wrong with being different?
Embrace your difference and be proud of who you are. Unions between two people are as valid as the people who are commited to them.
Create a union that is new and wonderful, that reflects who you are, that is something that you can be proud of. You don’t have to wait for laws for these unions to start now.
If every G&L couple in this country reconized this new form of union and where joined, in time it would become accepted, and law.
Everything takes time, and in more time this new type of union, while not equal because things that are different can not be equal, would gain rights and priveledges.
So many times black slavery is used as an example to get equality for G&Ls. When the blacks where pushing for freedom, they did not wish to become white, nor did they push for everyone to be a shade of gray. They are americans and they are black and or referred to as african/americans.
Gays and lesbians (black) can have all the rights and privelidges of being married (white) without people loosing the unique distinctions (gray).
I am allowed to call myself married (white) without offending G&Ls (black) because while it is different, both are respected. They are not equal, but have the same rights and priveledges.
Different is not equal. Respect what I have which is one man and one woman, and I will respect the different and new union that you want, with a new name, and with equal benefits.
[Reply]
Adam Flanders Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
It’s been shown that civil unions have failed wherever they have been placed into law. Our system cannot handle a separate institution. It creates confusion and still results in unequal treatment. Research the success rates of civil unions in the US – they fail.
Your analogy about black slaves not wanting to be white is irrelevant. As gay people we do not want to be straight. We do, however, want the same right to get married as heterosexual couples have, just as black slaves wanted to have the same freedoms as white people. Later interracial couples wanted to have the same rights as white/white and black/black couples, but they did not desire to be a white/white or black/black couple.
I have no desire to be straight and if there were a pill to make me straight, I would not take it. Same-sex couples seeking marriage equality have no desire to be a straight couple.
Marriage has been many many things through the years, in many nations, in many religions. Christianity does not hold a monopoly on marriage. Additionally, we are speaking about CIVIL marriage, not religious marriage. We are not trying to be like anyone else. 50 years ago your argument would be the same except that you’d be accusing interracial couples of trying to redefine marriage, and saying that black people were trying to be white by seeking interracial marriage equality with their white spouses.
Katie Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
I’m sorry that you have a personal insecurity about sharing the title of ‘marriage’ with gay and lesbian couples, but that does not make it okay to give us a separate ‘union’. Maybe you get the creeps when you think of a same-sex couple going at it, but so do I when I think of heterosexual couples going at it. That doesn’t mean I have an issue sharing the title of ‘marriage’ with you. People are people. Yes, we are different, but that does not make me unequal to you. We are both people, and I deserve your respect.
Marriage has not always been between heterosexual couples. There are several documented cases of homosexual marriage ceremonies in the Roman Empire. Same-sex marriage was not outlawed until CHRISTIAN emperors came in and took over in 300 AD. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions)
As a secular country, we cannot abide by non-secular moral principles. There is absolutely nothing harmful about same-sex marriage to society, (which is why a federal court case concerning the legality of banning same-sex marriage in California is now being tried), and other countries that provide same-sex marriages do not suffer because of them. It is only the “I’m better than you” attitude of heterosexual couples that is stopping us in this country. It is unfair. It is unjust. It will be changed.
There is absolutely no way that this country will not one day allow same-sex marriages. My generation is much more open-minded and accepting, and when the time comes in a few decades we will be running the country and it will show. That is why we continue to fight. We are here, we deserve our rights, and we’re not going anywhere else.
Adam Flanders Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Nobody’s forcing the church to do anything. Same-sex marriage has absolutely no effect on religious freedoms. We even including an affirmation of religious freedom in the marriage equality law. This is civil marriage we’re talking about, not religious ceremonies. The churches wouldn’t have had to perform anything they didn’t want to.
I’d like to reiterate your words, going back 50 years:
“I would support civil union for interracial couples, as long as a clear distinction remains that the civil union is not the same as marriage, yet has all the benefits of such. Don’t ask religious groups to be forced to change or ignore what the Bible has to say and perform interracial marriages. Freedom of religion is just as important to me as your cause is to you. My favorite co-worker is black.”
The vast majority of arguments against interracial marriage were based on Biblical scripture and in the Loving v. Virginia case, before it went to the Supreme Court in 1967, the judge prosecuting the (interracial) couple stated,
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
This is the same kind of bigotry that is being used against same-sex couples 50 years later. I am anxious for our day in the Supreme Court.
[Reply]
Bruce Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 12:02 am
You did a good job of taking my comment “my favorite co-worker…” and turn it to sound as a bad thing. In the article that started this debate, 291 thousand people where accused of hated and bigotry. My comment was a small attempt to say I don’t hate and I am not a biggot. Changing my words to reflect 50 years ago is also not right as I am not guilty of what my grandparents and great grand parents did. G&Ls use examples of injustice from the past many times, but it will not justify your cause. Your cause must stand on its own merrits if it is to succeed.
I attempted to use an example of past events to show the goodness of different, but you use past examples in attempts to telling me how I am a biggot now, or fifty years ago.
Debate it good, and I will stand by what I have stated with every opportunity to vote.
The one thing that we can both agree upon is that this issue will ultimatly come to the Supreme Court, and once they come to a decision, you will not have to worry about anyone changing the ruling. John Roberts is impressive and I am sure he will rule according to laws and not opinions. I too would like it to go to US Supreme Court, that it would be done with, either yay or nay, that the debates would stop and the media could move on.
[Reply]
I think the University of Maine has just been seduced into an untenable legal, and societal, position in flying this flag. Down the slippery slope you go! Now, as Bruce, Matt and Kaylan have observed, you have become hostile to other Americans, and prospective students, by so vociferously supporting this position. You should have remained more intellectually discreet. And furthermore, you will be hard-pressed not to fly a flag for other LEGALLY protected classes–under the Constitution. You will now NOT be able to decline to fly flags representing every religious and ethnic group on campus, or you will be discriminating on the basis of race, religion, etc. There can be no “disparate treatment.” Open up the purse-strings and start erecting flag poles. REALLY bad judgment, University of Maine!
[Reply]
Claire F Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
The University of Maine is a diverse group. It does us no harm to fly flags representing various student populations.
Dr. Dana’s comments are in-line with the University of Maine’s stated policies. He has not created an atmosphere of hostility at all, in fact his comments condemn hate, intolerance, and injustice.
Flying flags does not necessitate more flag poles. There is one, that is all we need. Any group which feels a need to be visible on campus can arrange to fly their flag same as any other.
[Reply]
I think this is a perfect example of how schools, and yes, UMO is tax payer funded, use their venue to push social agendas….and people were wise to listen to the warnings of the Yes on One crowd.
Maybe there should be a push to remove tax exemptions from UMO. In reality, the staff are government/state employees who have just told anyone with a religious objection to same sex marriage that they are wrong. this violates those peoples first amendment rights as well as their civil rights. SHAME on UMO. keep your opinions to yourself, do your jobs, and stop using UMO as a soap box for the progressive agenda.
[Reply]
Claire F Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Dr. Dana did not mention religion at all. Religion was not addressed by any statements in this article. Further, in order to violate first amendment rights, the university would have to restrict religious expression, or favor one religion over another.
This was not done. Question 1 even had a clause allowing any religious entity or individual to refuse to perform and acknowledge same-sex ceremonies. Religion was not a part of this at all beyond where individuals choose to inject it. This is a civil issue.
When the progressive agenda is defined as supportive of caring, love, and support. I will be glad. When the progressive agenda is in opposition to hate, intolerance, and injustice, I will be happy. When the progressive agenda is about helping those underserved by the majority, I will be proud to be progressive. I am proud to be progressive.
[Reply]
The only way UMO can get out of this without legal jeopardy (lawsuits), and potential loss of revenue (either via students or state funds) is to immediately distance themselves—which means throwing Robert Dana under the bus and denouncing his incendiary comments–saying he didn’t have the authority to act as the agent for the university in this instance. Then, the flag needs to come down AND, temporarily, they will HAVE to agree to fly other flags for ESTABLISHED constitutionally protected groups–
[Reply]
Adam Flanders Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
That is laughable. I would expect such foolishness from CCL.
[Reply]
You know, tolerance is a two way street.
[Reply]
Claire F Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Agreed.
[Reply]
Adam Flanders Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
The problem is that it becomes a one-way street with these people. Religious zealots are actively imposing their religion on society by taking away GLBT rights. On the other hand, same-sex marriage would have absolutely no effect on religious freedoms or religious rights.
People don’t understand that all the other classes protected under civil rights take precedence over religious freedom anyway. When you enact a religious-based law to strip away equal rights, you actively oppress a minority group. On the other hand, when you legalize same-sex marriage, there is no oppression to any group, certainly not religious groups.
GLBT equality is “live and let live.” Our opponents are not.
[Reply]
As the parent of a UMaine student and supporter of traditional marriage, I am appalled that Dr. Dana has made these statements. He is a public servant and while he is entitled to his opinion, he should not be using his position to push his agenda. He needs to remember who is writing his paycheck, the people of Maine who voted to return the law to it’s previous state.
[Reply]
Katie Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 10:01 am
He is not pushing any agenda other that equality and tolerance. The campus polls showed an overwhelming voter support for No On 1. He was speaking from a factual perspective, not just from personal opinion.
[Reply]
Get rid of Dr Dana: he has more concern for the plight of the poor homosexuals than actually doing his job as a representative dean of students.
He is also a dangerous poster-child for the gay agenda, and that is a clear and present danger to our youth.
Shame on you!
Congrats to Yes on 1 !!
[Reply]
Dr. Dana has been a consistent advocate for all student populations at the University of Maine. To lose him would deprive the university of a talented and compassionate individual.
Dismissing him would essentially create a living martyr. This would energize the GLBT community far more than leaving him be to do his job.
Besides, he was acting in-line with published university policy. If the people of the state of Maine want to discriminate against the GLBT population s dearly, they are welcome to attempt to change existing policies, however, firing a person for acting in line with his employer’s documents is a dangerous precedent.
[Reply]
These colors don’t run! We don’t tolerate intolerance on this campus. If you believe in discrimination, you’re not welcome here.
I AM proud to be an out gay UMaine student/employee and there ain’t nothin’ anyone can do to tear down that flag, because it’s also in the hearts of all of us who stood out there and said, “We are in this together! We will never give up until all our brothers and sisters are equal!”
[Reply]
In the State of Maine, all protected classes take precedence over religious freedom. My protected status as a gay man (sexual orientation) takes precedence over everyone’s religious freedom. This is contained within the Maine Civil Rights Act, which was amended in 2005 to include sexual orientation and gender identity. For example, a devout fundamentalist hotel owner may NOT refuse business to a gay couple simply because he is opposed to homosexuality.
The Civil Rights Act extends into several areas of public life, including education. UMaine desires to not discriminate against people based on sexual orientation, but the law also requires that they not discriminate. UMaine extends employee partner benefits to same-sex couples, just as if they were married. They have been doing this for years.
Again and again in UMaine policy are sentiments about affirming sexual diversity. We have the GLBT Allies Council, the Wilde Stein Alliance for Sexual Diversity, GLBT Affairs, and all other student organizations, including religious organizations, giving us their full recognition and support. Every year we celebrate Pride Week, Coming Out Week, and many many other GLBT events.
If you don’t agree with UMaine’s anti-discrimination policies, or the State of Maine’s anti-discrimination laws, then LEAVE! Your voice is irrelevant, your bigoted beliefs are irrelevant, you are irrelevant. Gay pride will always have a strong place here on campus! I AM proud.
[Reply]
Bruce Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 1:00 am
I as one of the 291 thousand am accused of hatred and bigotry. Those of us who refer to religion are called religious zealots.
I am a Christian. I have religous freedom. I have freedom of speach.
In Canada it is against the law for a preacher to preach against homosexuality, even though it is part of the Bible which has been around for many years. Hate speach against homosexuals is now a law. G&Ls say the new laws do not infringe upon religious freedoms, but they do and they will.
G&Ls will probably achieve what they want, but will not be happy if religion continues to preach against G&Ls. Why does my freedom of religion have to be revoked for you to gain what you want?
Leviticus 18 : 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (kjv)
Even nature agrees. Homosexual acts between animals do occur, but they are not a problem for the species because of natural selection for obvious reasons.
I have freedom of religion? I have free speach?
I do not hate and I am not a bigot. I am not against you. I am against gay marriage.
I am a Christian. I AM proud.
[Reply]
Adam Flanders Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Yes, you do have religious freedom and freedom of speech and you are perfectly in your right to have those. I personally believe what’s going on in Canada (if that’s true, which I am somewhat doubtful of) is wrong. We have freedom of speech and religion – anything SAID (as long as it’s not a direct threat) should be allowed and certainly the speech within a church should be protected. That’s separation of church and state. The state should not have the right to dictate speech and certainly not religious freedoms within a church. I also believe the state should not be able to force the church to wed same-sex couples if the church is against it. That was part of LD 1020, in fact – the affirmation of religious freedom.
But it’s a two-way street. While you have freedom of religion and speech, you do NOT have the freedom to breach the separation of church and state by imposing your religious beliefs on our laws, thereby forcing everyone to follow your religion. Same-sex marriage has no effect on anyone except the same-sex couples getting married. We take pride in our laws being secular. The churches breach of separation of church and state, and hence IRS violations, is why many YES on 1 churches will lose their tax-exempt status in the coming months and years. Visit MEmarriage.com FMI
The Bible also says that seafood, for the most part (shrimp, lobster, etc.) is an abomination, MORE times than the so-called prohibitions against homosexuality. The Lord commands us to commit rape, incest, slavery, and to murder unruly children. Why aren’t your people creating laws to outlaw lobster, one of Maine’s primary economic resources? By outlawing child murder, rape, and slavery, isn’t the the state infringing on your religious freedoms? What about the Mormon’s religious freedom to marry multiple little girls?
All other class rights (gender, sexual orientation, etc.) take precedence over religious freedom. For example, in NM a Christian photographer was sued by a gay couple when the photographer refused to photograph their commitment ceremony. You have the freedom to practice your religion, but it must not infringe other fundamental rights. Our laws are first and foremost secular and that is written right into the Constitution.
And in terms of nature, homosexuality is genetic but it’s not a heritable trait – it doesn’t get passed on through generations like fur color, etc. It naturally manifests regardless of natural selection. Arguably homosexuality is a natural means to regulate overpopulation and provide better population fitness by providing surrogate parents to adopted offspring. I don’t like to compare humans to animals because our motivations are often different, however animals do engage in homosexual behavior for the purpose of enjoyment (dolphins), family adoption (penguins), and conflict resolution (baboons and other primates).
You have no reason to be against gay marriage – it would have zero effect on your life. We’re redefining CIVIL marriage to be more inclusive, but we’re not redefining religious marriage. Christianity does not have a monopoly on marriage – is everyone who gets a civil marriage a fundamentalist Christian? No! We redefined CIVIL marriage in 1967 (interracial) and before that when women weren’t allowed to consent to marriage. Religious individuals used to have polygamy until we removed that with the anti-bigamy laws (I’ve always considered it strange that the religious fanatics accuse the gay rights movement of a slippery slope toward polygamy and child molestation when it was the religious fanatics decades ago that promoted polygamous marriage with young girls).
I have no problems with your religious beliefs. I’m not telling you or anyone else how to think or how to speak. I don’t even want your fundamentalist/traditionalist churches to be forced to marry same-sex couples. All I want is separation of church and state – just because you believe something, I don’t want to have to be forced to live by it because you and others choose to violate IRS policy and the Constitution by legislating your version of morality. That infringes on my civil rights.
It will come with the Supreme Court, in any case.
[Reply]
There are plenty of religious groups and organizations active on campus and receiving support from staff members and public figures. No one cries out that they feel threatened or outraged because they disagree with that group’s point of view. It seems that the tables are turning and the people who once felt safe denouncing the rights of gays and lesbians here now feel that they can no longer do that and be in the majority.
The University of Maine is going to support the rights of all its students. If a person disagrees with this and does not want to be a part of our community then he can transfer to a private college with religious affiliations.
If a person feels uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuals having the same rights as heterosexuals they need to educate themselves and do some deeper soul-searching.
[Reply]