Making the pleas

I’ve been pleading with people who I suspect or know will vote “Yes” on 1, the Maine ballot measure that would codify one group’s idea of morality over another, thus damaging the very concept of rights (and, incidentally, keeping it illegal for same-sex partners to marry). Here is one message I made specifically for someone, but it can apply to anyone leading toward oppression.

Even though I’m unlikely to change your mind if you’ve already decided, I still want you to know that no one should impose their morality upon another. That is what “Yes on 1” means. It doesn’t simply mean you are against homosexual sex or relationships. It means you believe it is your place to tell people how they should behave. Look deep within yourself and ask if your rights are being infringed by same-sex marriage. Ask yourself if you will hurt financially or physically. Ask yourself if your religious beliefs can no longer be practiced. Ask yourself if this harms your liberty or life. Does it prevent your personal pursuit of happiness?

As November nears I find myself getting more and more passionate and more and more focused on this issue. I give almost no thought any more to whether or not love matters. I care little about whether or not homosexual sex is moral or immoral (or amoral). What concerns me – and far more deeply than anyone knows – is that this is fundamentally about rights. Infringe upon the rights of one group and you no longer have those rights for any groups; they become privileges. They place one group above another based upon majority rule, not based upon equality and fairness. Rights must be rights for all.

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 (http://www.mainefamilypolicycouncil.com/) 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.

Why You May Be a Bigot

By Michael Hawkins

In the time since Governor Baldacci signed the same-sex marriage bill there has been much made of the word “bigot”. Those in favor of securing civil rights have deemed their opponents to be worthy of such a term. Naturally, those opponents balk at such an insult. So let’s take a closer look at the term.

The dictionary definition leaves a bit to be desired: “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion”. If this is the only definition of “bigot”, then most people who offer any certainty in their beliefs could fall under its umbrella. But the word clearly must have a better distinction than that.

It is actions on which the term turns. Thomas Jefferson noted in his Letter to the Danbury Baptists that “government [can] reach actions only, and not opinions”. Even if one wishes to abuse the word to include beliefs of certainty, it is not important here. Action matters.

And so it is the action of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other religious groups (and a majority of conservatives) to deny civil rights to a group of people. This is bigotry by definition. There is no way to get around this, no matter how offended one might be by the label.

If you are against homosexuality, you may be a bigot. It isn’t important to settle that issue right now. But if you are against allowing homosexuals civil rights you would otherwise readily grant to another group? Well, sir, that makes you a bigot.

The very idea of rights is that they are to be granted to anyone and everyone so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. It must be shown that granting all of Maine’s citizens (it doesn’t just apply to homosexuals) the right to marry a person of the same gender will be somehow harmful if one wishes to outlaw it. No such case has been made. No such case could be made. Homosexuality offers no threat to any individual’s or group’s welfare, property, or rightful pursuit of happiness. But denying rights to an entire group for no good reason? That does violate the concept of rights espoused by so many philosophers, professors, rational thinkers, and the founding fathers. It runs counter to what it means to be a fair and good and moral human being.

Lead us not into bigotry but deliver us from evil.

Liars and the arguments they make

Awhile back there were a couple of editorials in the local paper about same-sex marriage in Maine. I have taken to ripping apart the one that is against liberty and freedom and the pursuit of happiness and civil rights and all things good.

Research and statistics repeatedly show the best environment for stable families and children is one with an opposite-sex union of a father and mother.

This is a lie. No research has been done which compares mother/father relationships to father/father or mother/mother relationships in terms of child rearing. This is just another abuse of science by the right.

Marriage is not a civil right. Societies have always regulated marriage. A man cannot marry his daughter or mother. A woman cannot marry her brother or nephew. Marriage is a tool of the society to ensure that the next generation is stable and self-reliant.

Societies have also regulated voting. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a civil right. And that a man cannot marry his daughter goes to other reasoning than that marriage is between one man and one woman. It must. Obviously a man marrying his daughter is one man and one woman, so if we disagree that it should happen, then we must be using some other reasoning beside the one man/one woman mantra.

Marriage being a tool to ensure generational stability is a non-sequitur and bad writing.

The social institution of marriage is centered on children. Allowing same-sex couples to marry radically alters the social institution of marriage. Same-sex marriage is centered on adults and what is best for the adult rather than children. The two definitions of marriage cannot co-exist.

This is an argument against infertility, the right to choose to not have children, and marriage beyond the age of child-bearing years, too. Does the right really want to go into those grounds?

If marriage becomes an adult-centered institution, the social expectation of raising children in a home where the biological parents are married will continue to erode and fewer heterosexual couples will marry.

This is purely speculative and has no data to back it up. It is also easily countered with more speculation because one can simply say that homosexuals getting married will have no effect on a heterosexual’s decision to marry. It’s sort of like how blacks getting married didn’t cause white marriage rates to decline.

Keeping marriage defined as the union of one man and one woman is not about discrimination, intolerance or denying civil rights, it is about ensuring our society continues to reap the benefits of marriage between a man and a woman.

Lies. This is about Bible-based hatred of homosexual activity (and often homosexuals, despite lying denials). And if this is about ensuring society continues to reap the benefits of marriage between one man and one woman, then there should be a push to legally compel people to marry. After all, that wouldn’t be about denying the civil rights of individuals to choose to not get married, it would be about ensuring societal benefits, no?

Oh, this "news"paper

So the Kennebec Journal has been advertising for certain political positions lately. This hasn’t come in the form of regular ad space, but by a devotion of front page space.

A little while ago the editor, Richard Connor, printed an article advertising a political strategy for pro-bigots on the front page. This was done when Obama had just given a widely-anticipated speech on health care. After multiple opinion pieces printed by the KJ by its editors saying Obama needed to make his positions known, his speech found itself on page A3. There are two possibilities: Connor is a dumb editor who does not have a basic ability to recognize front page news or – and here’s where my money is – he’s a hack who wants to use a newspaper to prop up his particular views.

A couple days later, he followed up. The article said nothing other than “We had a meeting and decided we still hate da gays”. Not long after that, Connor, hack extraordinaire, advertised an anti-abortion rally.

Now there’s yet another article. In today’s paper, he advertised some rhetoric from the bigots. It was all about how proponents of same-sex marriage are utilizing outside resources to help with their campaign. The sub-headline said something to the effect of “People from away are helping with the campaign”. I would quote that directly, but I do not waste my money on rags, so I don’t have a copy of the paper on hand. But how about a link? Well, sir, I cannot find it. The KJ is not featuring this article on its website, despite the decision to put it on the front page of today’s paper. But I can tell you that the Vassalboro boat ramp will be closed. Because that’s important.

My favorite part of this is that this is the exact rhetoric used by the bigots. Both sides are guilty of it, actually, but the bigots seem to be more aggressive with their tactics. “From away” is a Maine phrase which means anyone who isn’t from Maine. In this context, it is designed to alienate the opposition from voters. It’s an unsubstantial ploy to woo their votes. Who really sits at home and says, “Hmm, people from out of state are trying to persuade me. Yeah, all right, voting just to spite them is a good idea”? Come on.

The kicker to all this is that it was only about 6 weeks ago that the KJ had an article which noted, simply, that both sides are getting outside funds. I guess Connor forgot about that when he decided to get hung up in all his campaigning.

Oh, this “news”paper

So the Kennebec Journal has been advertising for certain political positions lately. This hasn’t come in the form of regular ad space, but by a devotion of front page space.

A little while ago the editor, Richard Connor, printed an article advertising a political strategy for pro-bigots on the front page. This was done when Obama had just given a widely-anticipated speech on health care. After multiple opinion pieces printed by the KJ by its editors saying Obama needed to make his positions known, his speech found itself on page A3. There are two possibilities: Connor is a dumb editor who does not have a basic ability to recognize front page news or – and here’s where my money is – he’s a hack who wants to use a newspaper to prop up his particular views.

A couple days later, he followed up. The article said nothing other than “We had a meeting and decided we still hate da gays”. Not long after that, Connor, hack extraordinaire, advertised an anti-abortion rally.

Now there’s yet another article. In today’s paper, he advertised some rhetoric from the bigots. It was all about how proponents of same-sex marriage are utilizing outside resources to help with their campaign. The sub-headline said something to the effect of “People from away are helping with the campaign”. I would quote that directly, but I do not waste my money on rags, so I don’t have a copy of the paper on hand. But how about a link? Well, sir, I cannot find it. The KJ is not featuring this article on its website, despite the decision to put it on the front page of today’s paper. But I can tell you that the Vassalboro boat ramp will be closed. Because that’s important.

My favorite part of this is that this is the exact rhetoric used by the bigots. Both sides are guilty of it, actually, but the bigots seem to be more aggressive with their tactics. “From away” is a Maine phrase which means anyone who isn’t from Maine. In this context, it is designed to alienate the opposition from voters. It’s an unsubstantial ploy to woo their votes. Who really sits at home and says, “Hmm, people from out of state are trying to persuade me. Yeah, all right, voting just to spite them is a good idea”? Come on.

The kicker to all this is that it was only about 6 weeks ago that the KJ had an article which noted, simply, that both sides are getting outside funds. I guess Connor forgot about that when he decided to get hung up in all his campaigning.

More dumb newspaper

I recently wrote about the stink of dumb coming from my local newspaper. The new, conservative editor, after months of talking about health care and days of mentioning an upcoming speech by Obama, placed what was clearly the lead story (said speech) on the third page. The front page amounted to an advertisement for same-sex marriage bigots opponents. The editor has followed up with more inanity.

Law’s opponents gather in Augusta for strategy session

Christ. This was a closed-door, routine political campaign type meeting. It was not front page news. The editor – Richard L. Connor – is just a bigot pushing an agenda. That’s pretty much the norm for conservatives. But I have no problem with him voicing his silly little ill-begotten opinion in his unfortunately dwindling newspaper. As long as he does it in the editorial section. That’s where it belongs. He put his Christian-based bigotry on the front page at the expense of an actual news story. That makes him an awful editor with little to no common sense.

Ya know, this guy has a history of this sort of rubbish. When he first bought the paper, he made himself front page news to introduce himself. Okay, fair enough. But then a couple days later he did the exact same thing, except he took up something crazy like 46 inches to do it. I don’t think people subscribe to their local newspaper because they want to read about some egotistical conservative who has enough money to get his view out in the forefront.

On the upside, a reader wrote a letter making the same complaint I did.

The Sept. 10 edition of the Kennebec Journal devoted 30 column inches to the “anti-gay vow rally” planned for the following Sunday, featuring a banner headline on page one. President Barack Obama’s address on health-insurance legislation to a joint session of Congress rated 20 column inches on page 3.

Is something wrong with this picture?

A cynic might guess that the new owner of the KJ favors repeal of the law allowing gay couples to marry, and doesn’t support the president’s push to find a way to end our tragic health-care mess.

That viewpoint should appear on the editorial page, not in lopsided coverage on the news pages.

Jon Lund

Hallowell

Dumb newspaper

In recent months there has been a ruckus around town about the local paper, the Kennebec Journal. Some conservative guy bought it and has been printing the sort of editorials you might expect. Okay, whatever. I willingly listen to Howie Carr. I don’t mind hearing a conservative voice. Hell, they usually make for some good laughs. I guess dumbness can do that.

But there’s a different problem with this paper now. It isn’t that this guy has dumb views and prints dumb editorials. It’s that he is organizing the paper in a downright stupid way.

Obama made his speech to congress on health care on Wednesday night. This was no surprise. It had been mentioned countless times in the preceding days. Everyone was focused on it. It only makes sense that any good newspaper would have made it front page news. But the Kennebec Journal? Nah. It got pushed back to the third page or so. And what was on the front, you ask?

ANTI-GAY VOW RALLY SUNDAY

This was put out with what amounted to an advertisement for the event – ticket information, time, who to contact for more information. Other front page news had to do with an advisory concerning a virus (not swine flu) and an article about state revenue. These may be worthy of the front page, but the rally is not huge news. It’s a local political campaign. Obama’s speech has to do with issues that concern the nation. What’s more, this paper has had several stories discussing Republican ‘concern’ over the bill as well as various editorials. Clearly, the Kennebec Journal has an extensive interest in the topic, just like most people. Hell, just this week they had an article saying Obama needed to clarify his positions. Yet they go and pull this crap.

I don’t mind the conservative editorials, poorly reasoned as they may be. But I really rather not see straight-up stupid decisions about what constitutes a lead story.

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.”

The pride of bigotry

090801-lg_918099455

These are some of the wholly ignorant individuals who are seeking to overturn Maine’s same-sex marriage bill before it officially becomes law. They’re actually proud of themselves. It’s gross.

Bob Emrich is a hateful, stupid man. He has absolutely no idea that he’s actually advocating for discrimination against himself. He thinks homosexuality is icky or perverse or just like having sex with a dog or he’s uncomfortable in his own sexuality or he’s just another mook propping up the bible for his own ends (which is easy because that is one of the most morally malleable books ever written) or maybe it’s all of those things. Ultimately, he has no universal justification for denying people the right to marry on the (purely legal) basis of sex/gender. I doubt he’s smart enough to come up with many principled arguments for his beliefs in the first place, but even if he was capable of that, such an argument does not exist for his absurd position.

It’s an utter disgust that people like this are given legitimacy. Why don’t more people just lash into crap like this? Bob Emrich has a lot of bad ideas predicated on a lot of bad bigotry. I hate to be redundant with “bad bigotry” but aside from the grammatical flow, it supports the notion that Emrich doesn’t even understand the true basis for his hatred. He has no idea that through his outright bigoted, hateful views of homosexuals (what did they ever do to anyone?), he is taking legal aim at absolutely everyone. And that’s what this all is: a legal issue. Emrich has no logical basis to be demanding that the state of Maine discriminates against everyone on the basis of what chromosomes they have (again, go here).