Gays – more dangerous than King George III

Colonial America was known in part for the horrid treatment of the colonists by the British Empire. Quartering, taxation without representation, all those good buzz words and phrases, you know. But was it really that bad? I mean, really? Maybe. But it certainly wasn’t as bad as what will be the death blow to society – gay marriage.

Our society is currently faced with a threat a thousand times more dangerous than the tyranny imposed by King George III.

I say “a thousand times more dangerous,” but there is really no adequate measure for comparing a mild tyranny to the destruction of society itself. Same-sex marriage will do precisely that. By changing the definition of marriage, judicial activists and out-of-control legislators will destroy the institution of the family, an institution that is both the origin and bedrock of civil society. Same-sex marriage will be a death blow to a society that is already profoundly disordered.

Really? I thought the end of the last ice age was the bedrock of society that allowed humans to go from being nomadic to agrarian, spurring the development of written language, the idea of the village or town, and helping to form deep cultures, mores, memes, organized religion (unfortunately), and basically everything that crosses one’s mind when considering the very idea of society. Maybe I’m just crazy.

Of course, this quote comes from Michael Heath, ousted leader of the Maine Family Policy Council, formerly known as the Maine Christian Civic League. He isn’t a terribly smart man, awash in religious ideology and consequent sexual immaturity.

His editorial of paranoia, hate, bigotry, and (again) sexual immaturity comes on the same day Bob Emrich, the National Organization for Marriage, and other bigots held a rally in Augusta, spewing their inability to form coherent opinions that have any rational basis. He runs through the same tried old, long-dismissed as legitimate arguments common to Christian bigots. About the only novel idea he has is to an analogy to colonial America and its end days.

The idea that elected representatives or members of the judiciary can impose same-sex marriage against the will of the people is itself tyrannical. By referencing the American Revolution and the Sons of Liberty, I am not suggesting that the answer is a recourse to arms.

The answer is to vote out every member of the Maine Legislature who voted for same-sex marriage, and to vote against Libby Mitchell in her run for governor because I believe she plays a key role in the push for same-sex marriage.

The only major candidate who hates gay people and thinks consensual sex is just so ICKY! is Paul LePage. He’s a terrible choice if only for the fact that he’s a creationist. But then there’s this other ugly fact of which Heath has decided to remind us. LePage is a major bigot as well. (Of course, there’s also the fact that under his time as mayor, Waterville homeowners have actually ended up paying more in taxes, contrary to his claims.)

Those who dispute that the homosexual rights movement causes social instability ought to recall that Gay Pride Month, held every June, commemorates the Stonewall Riots in Greenwich Village in 1969. These riots marked the start of the homosexual rights movement. At its very inception, the movement acted to destabilize society.

Sort of like how all those race riots of 1964 (or any year) showed just how much social instability blacks cause, right?

Heath clearly believes the homosexual can be summed up with a broad brush; individuality, rights, principles, liberties, happiness, and all that other downright silliness be damned, right?

Certain members of the pro-family movement today will bring to Maine’s State House a tour that will proclaim the virtues of marriage in soft, compassionate tones. They are free to do so, but let them also speak truthfully about the appalling evils of same-sex marriage and the homosexual rights movement.

Perhaps they believe a softer, gentler tone will earn the approval of their fellow churchmen and society at large. Maybe so, but their offer of compassion will be a false one, since true compassion follows repentance and should never be construed as justifying an evil act.

I’m torn. Heath was dismissed from his former position because of his strong tone. It’s probably the only thing I can appreciate from this sexually immature man. I actually have to side with him in his chiding of other bigoted leaders who are being kind for purely political reasons. At least Heath is honest in his hatred of things he thinks are icky.

But his tone says nothing of his actual substance. His words mean just the same as what a more politically viable figure might say. He’s an ignorant buffoon who has done nothing in his life to earn respect. He hates gay people because of a book that was written by the few literate pig farmers in town thousands of years ago. The only worthwhile contribution he has to make to society is as an example of what havoc religion can bring upon a society. Because of bigots like Heath, gay couples are unable to get insurance, visit each other in the hospital with any reasonable ease, or even make funeral arrangements when the time comes. I don’t think he has any idea of the utter pain he is inflicting upon so many good people.

Michael Heath is the most immoral man not in a prison in Maine.

Maine Family Policy Council and Evil

This article experienced a printing error which caused several paragraphs to not be printed. A correctional insert should come with all physical copies of the paper. The full version appears here.

By Michael Hawkins

It takes some lingual force to make one’s point crystal clear.

So it is with the point of this article that it begins with succinct force: the Maine Family Policy Council is filled with slime balls.

A quick perusal of their website ( reveals a slew of articles attempting to disparage every homosexual not only as sexually deviant, but as wholly awful people with evil agendas. They excitedly report on a speaker (that they hired) who is going to speak in Maine next month and “show the horrifying truth about the radical homosexual agenda”. In other articles, they repeatedly disparage same-sex marriage proponents as being deceptive because money from groups outside Maine is being used to support their position. This ignores the fact that 1) both sides are getting outside help and 2) outside help does not make a group deceptive. But who expects logic from this crowd?

But the worst thing of all is the attempt to link murder (or manslaughter, as the case may be) to homosexuality. The MFPC apparently has no moral or logical qualm with trying to link the death of Fred Wilson by a gay man with homosexuality in general.

“One plausible scenario is that the sadomasochistic activity on the night of the killing became more and more depraved until LaValle Davidson [the accused killer] inflicted the greatest possible harm on his victim, that is, death. If the details of the crime come out at trial, the public will see a part of the homosexual lifestyle that is very different from the positive image the gay rights movement is trying to project.”

How many people are aware of this offensive rubbish? The Kennebec Journal and other major outlets in the state often allow representatives from the MFPC have a voice. Do they recognize the utter inanity these people believe?

In another article, the MFPC tries to connect Senator Larry Bliss of South Portland to the killing. In their wondrous display of utter slime ball-ness, they note that one group supporting same-sex marriage in Maine is based in Southern California. They then point out that Bliss was raised in the same general area. Finally, they think they’ve really nailed down the coffin by observing that Wilson and Davidson are also from Southern California AND that Bliss lived half a mile from Wilson in South Portland.

This is utterly loony.

The website calls this connection a “mysterious one”. Without Apology calls it inane, illogical, dubious, stupid, dishonest, a hallmark of being crackpots, obvious defamation of character, and above all horribly immoral. At no point should people who peddle this sort of, to be frank, complete crap be given any sort of respect or special outlet through the dominant media.

The Maine Family Policy Council has fallen far, far into sin. It is a disreputable organization that no serious thinking person can take seriously. It offends not only common sense, but common decency as well. It is a source of evil for which there is little immediate remedy. The best chance for Maine to show that it shuns such embarrassment in the short run is to vote “No” on Question 1 come November.

Vermont begins equality

Same-sex marriages have officially begun in Vermont. All monuments still stand, children are just fine, and no storms have ravaged the Ben & Jerry factory.

Maine is currently facing possible discrimination by the will of many of its Christians. One of the primary groups pushing for bigotry is the Maine Family Policy Council. You can tell just by the arrogance in its name that it’s bad news. Who the hell would want people who cannot justify their own beliefs*, who hate based upon an ancient cultural book, who have radically immature views on sex, who…well, the list goes on…who would want these people in charge of any policy regarding the privacy of one’s family?

Here’s a small taste of what these slime balls do. There’s a man who was arrested earlier this year on manslaughter charges. A few days before his arrest, he spoke at a public forum discussing Maine’s same-sex marriage bill (which passed and is now being challenged via a People’s Veto). Naturally, the MFPC is focusing on this guy a lot. It isn’t hard to find articles where this organization of immoral scumbags tries to connect homosexuality to logically leading to things such as manslaughter and murder.

One plausible scenario is that the sadomasochistic activity on the night of the killing became more and more depraved until LaValle Davidson inflicted the greatest possible harm on his victim, that is, death. If the details of the crime come out at trial, the public will see a part of the homosexual lifestyle that is very different from the positive image the gay rights movement is trying to project.

That isn’t plausible at all, and it’s irresponsible to suggest to a group of gullible readers (Christians) that these words may actually represent facts. They do not.

But that isn’t the half of it. Go back to the first link I posted to their site and there’s something even worse.

The connection between homosexual activists from Southern California and the effort to foist same sex marriage on the people of Maine is a mysterious one. The individual most responsible for the success of gay marriage in Maine, Senator Larry Bliss of South Portland, was born and raised in Southern California, and both the victim and the alleged killer involved in the South Portland killing were from Southern California. The victim, Fred Wilson, had moved to South Portland only three years ago, and lived one half mile from Senator Larry Bliss in a comfortable home near Willard Beach. The Maine Legislature acknowledged Bliss’s leading role in enacting same sex marriage by making Bliss President of the Maine Senate for a day so he could sign the bill on behalf of the entire Senate.

This sort of illogical, monstrous, immoral, irresponsible, inane, butt-headed, stupid, crass, ill-conceived, incorrect nonsense reminds me of the other bad arguing styles of Christians. The difference in the other styles in that link, however, is that they are intentionally reduced to being especially absurd. The above quote isn’t humorous at all. It’s just evil. If there has ever been a call to show a prime example of some widely-accepted dangerous thought as wrought by mainstream religion in the United States, this answers that call. People who have no moral qualms with connecting a random man with such an awful death should not be given any respect at all. The deference we give these people cannot be justified. Yet as November makes it way here I suspect I will continue to see people from this organization quoted in local papers and interviewed on the local news.

*Falling back upon faith – something all religious people necessarily must do – is falling back upon nothing at all. It implicitly says “I have no evidence, and thus cannot actually justify my beliefs. I just have them because I have them because I have them. It’s faith.”

Gay marriage in Maine

People seeking an end to bigotry are pushing for the passage of a bill that would allow homosexuals to marry in Maine, making it one of the few states which does not illegally discriminate on the basis of gender.

“Some have asked if this is the right time,” said Sen. Dennis Damon, D-Trenton, the bill sponsor. “To them, I say, this legislation is long overdue.”

The bill would define marriage as the union of two people, rather than one man and one woman. It would allow any two eligible people, regardless of sex, to be issued an application for a marriage license.

This should put an end to the ‘if you allow gay marriage, you should allow beastiality’ argument. It won’t. But it should.

Essentially, “two eligible people”, as far as the secular Maine government is concerned, are two people of age who are capable of consent. That means 18 and with an understanding of the terms of their secular marriage contract – in other words, non-human animals are not eligible since they cannot consent to or understand the contract. Of course, that’s the legal argument. The more interesting argument is that there is no good reason to deny homosexuals a certain set of rights. There is, however, the good reason of allowing two harmless individuals the right to a complete and happy life.

Gov. Baldacci isn’t so sure.

And while several Democratic legislators stood with gay advocates for the announcement, Gov. John Baldacci released a statement saying he hasn’t yet made up his mind on the issue.

“This debate is extremely personal for many people, and it’s an issue that I struggle with trying to find the best path forward,” Baldacci said. “I’m not prepared to say I support gay marriage today, but I will consider what I hear as the Legislature works to find the best way to address discrimination.”

The man has made up his mind. He’s a politician, though, so he needs to be careful with what he does. Maine is in the better part of the country politically, so he does have the advantage of having a fairly liberal constituency, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of bigots, especially in the north. (To give you an idea of the northern Maine bigotry potential, Sarah Palin campaigned there due to Maine splitting its electoral votes. The McCain campaign thought they had a shot up there. They didn’t, but the fact they even tried is disconcerting.)


Carla Hopkins and Victoria Eleftheriou, of Mount Vernon, who brought their toddler, Eli, to the Statehouse to participate in the event, said they want a secure future for their son.

“The state discriminates against his family and it affects our ability to care for him in very real ways,” Hopkins said.

For example, she said after Eli was born, they had to fight with an employer to get him covered under a health care plan, something that would have been automatic if his parents were married.

This is just one of the differences between marriage and civil unions. Aside from being insulting, they prevent parents from being able to care for their children robustly.

Bob Emrich, a Baptist pastor who leads the Maine Marriage Alliance, said he hopes for a respectful debate on the issue. The alliance wants a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

He said the gay marriage bill is “really bad for society.”

Whoa, back up the irony train. You want to be respectful? Don’t say bigoted things that aren’t true because a piece of literature claims the currently most popular god endorses that bigotry. Then you might have a shot at being respectful. Until then, you’ve done nothing to earn any respect accept insofar as a literary critic deserves respect.

“It’s changing the very foundation of our society,” he said. “It’s going to have a major impact on children. It says something about the importance, or lack of importance, of fathers and mothers.”

Yes, your god forbid children have health insurance and their parents have more complete relationships to reinforce their love. How dreadful.

More Michael Heath mumbo

He’s full of mumbo. Jumbo, too.

A lot of teenagers are unable to speak with their parents about sex. Either it’s awkward or they’re made to feel bad about their desires because of the irrationality of religion or some other shallow thought. But, of course, Michael Heath of the Maine Family Policy Council embraces shallow thought. He favors changing the current law in Maine concerning parental consent for birth control and other sexual reproductive health issues.

Maine law has allowed minors contraception without parental consent for more than 30 years, but the issue was brought back to the forefront last fall when the Portland School Committee voted to allow contraceptives to be given to girls at the school as part of the services offered at a city-run health center in the school.

Mike Heath, executive director of the Maine Family Policy Council which supported Smith’s attempts to limit the confidentiality law last session, believes Family Planning is working to hard to protect the current law because it fails to align with public sentiment.

“The public knows the Maine Family Planning Association is wrong,” Heath said this week. “The MFPA is holding the public forums because they are selling something the public has no interest in buying. The public knows that good laws honor the nobility of sex inside of marriage and the danger of fornication.”

(The MFPA is sponsoring public forums on the issue.)

Oh, Mikey. The state has no business “honoring” sexual practices within the purely legal, purely secular contract of marriage. As such, it does not do this. What’s more interesting here, however, is how childish Heath’s views on sex really are. By denying minors the right to their reproductive health, “the danger of fornification” is actually increased. What’s more, Maine law allows for a person as young as 14 to consent to sex as long as the other person is within 5 years of age. At the age of 16, a person may consent to sex with a person of any age, from 14 to 140, it’s legal. So if Heath is right (his track record says he isn’t) and minors need to get parental consent for their reproductive health issues, then that undermines Maine law. That is, Maine law states a person is responsible enough, in the eyes of the state, to engage in sexual activity at that aforementioned age levels. Forcing consent would imply that, no, these people are not responsible enough. Essentially, the freedom to engage in sex within the prescribed laws would disappear because the sexual activity of a 17 year old would become the responsibility of his or her parents.

Uncommon Descent

There’s been this big hub-bub among creationist conspiracists that “academic freedom” is being quashed by all those EVILutionists. That was the main theme of the movie Expelled and it even resulted in an anti-science bill being signed into law by Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal (most states rejected such nonsense, fortunately). For those who are unfamiliar, “academic freedom”, in its creationist sense, is just code/whine word for “no one will listen to our bad ideas”.

So it comes as an entertaining irony that the people whining and moaning about not having a voice in acadamia, have been called out for quieting dissent against their poorly thought out positions when the academics come onto their turf. This is actually something commonly practiced by the likes of Michael Heath, local Christian zealot and bigot. He actually just doesn’t approve dissenting comments, no matter how cleanly written, but it’s roughly the same principle: creationists want us to hear their voices, but cover their ears when truth is spoken to them.

Is anyone surprised?

Maine religious leaders get it right

A collection of religious leaders across Maine recently held a news conference advocating that Maine end its current policy of active discrimination.

BANGOR — Religious leaders across the state held news conferences Thursday to urge Mainers to end marriage discrimination against gay and lesbian couples, and called for the state to create same-sex civil marriages.

“We feel a moral obligation at this pivotal time to raise our voices on behalf of Mainers who are denied that most basic human right — the right to marry and form a family with the person of their choice,” said the Rev. Mark Doty, pastor at the Hammond Street Congregational Church, United Church of Christ, in Bangor.

It’s refreshing to see some of the semi-rational religious leaders of Maine finally get their voice out there (there are still religious leaders, hence the “semi”). Of course, with the semi-rational leaders come the crazies.

“I [Marc Mutty, director of the Office of Public Affairs] don’t think [the coalition] represents a great majority of the religious community in Maine,” he said. “They represent marriage as a civil right and believe that anyone that meets certain criteria should be able to marry.

Of course they don’t represent a majority of the religious community. They aren’t bigots.

“Marriage is the building block of society and includes procreation,” Mutty continued. “Without procreation, and same sex couples can’t, they’re missing out on a huge piece of the puzzle. The argument is not any more complicated than that.”

It’s beyond me why someone thinks this is a valid argument. It is not required that one have children or even touch one’s partner upon obtaining a marriage license. Intent or ability to procreate is irrelevant when the state issues a marriage license.

Unfortunately, one of the semi-rational leaders had to go and reconfirm the need for the “semi” before he stopped speaking.

“I cannot fathom a God who would discriminate based on gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity,” she said. “My Universalist tradition believes that God loves everyone equally. Why then should we deny anyone who loves the right to make a lifelong marriage commitment?”

I can fathom a god who is misogynistic. It isn’t very hard. I can also fathom one that discriminates based upon sexual orientation. In fact, the particular Christian god feels sodomy is a capital crime.