Morning Sentinel
Comments about: BRIEFS
PORTLAND -- Stand for Marriage Maine, a coalition opposing the state's new gay-marriage law, announced the launch...
[ back to story ]
Bookmark & share: digg del.icio.us Reddit

Welcome to onlinesentinel.com's reader comments forum, which is offered as a "public square" for our audience. We view this space as our readers' section of the Web site, separate from our journalistic offerings. We hope you will use the forum to advance public dialogue and community discourse. As such, we ask that participants refrain from personal attacks and offensive comments. If you believe a comment is inappropriate or offensive, you can bring it to our attention by clicking on the 'report abuse' link by the comment. It will be reviewed by online staff. Please understand that 1) a comment is not "inappropriate" solely because you disagree with its author; and 2) there may be a delay while the comment is being reviewed. Please review our Reader Comment Guidelines.


Reader comments

Sort by: Oldest first | Newest First

SlyME of Augusta, ME
Jul 4, 2009 12:43 AM
Neighbor of Rome, ME
Jul 3, 2009 12:34 PM
"Opening up the constitution to changing definitions is a very slippery slop(e)."

Actually, as of Independence Day, 2009 we have over two centuries of experience on this slope. Justices of our Supreme Court have been diligently defining and interpreting the meanings and definitions within the articles of our constitution throughout our history and have "handled this type of thing" sufficiently well that no calls for a Constitutional Convention are seriously considered.report abuse
Neighbor of Rome, ME
Jul 3, 2009 12:34 PM
Marriage was constitutionally defined as between a man and a woman. Opening up the constitution to changing definitions is a very slippery slop. Clearly, humankind cannot handle that type of thing. Just look at how we justified abortion to the point where we now have partial birth abortions. Nasty stuff.
I absolutely support equal rights. Gays want to marry and they should. But they can just as easily be called civil unions & be protected etc.. Why change a constitutional definition? I guess I don't understandreport abuse
Hipupchuck of Augustaa, ME
Jul 3, 2009 8:21 AM
Mainetoday servers are crap and all locked up again this morning. What are they runing, 8088's? CP/M machines?report abuse
Norto of Waterville, ME
Jul 3, 2009 6:46 AM
Sly, we are not too far apart on this issue. When the government started collecting a fee for marriage and codifying it, that is where the problem began. Like many things, murder, theft, etc. logic and common sense tell us they are wrong. We really did not need laws to tell us so. Some actions are judged, but not condemned by Scripture from a New Testament perspective. From a natural perspective homosexuality would seem to be counterproductive unless you are a zero-growth advocate.

See. lawyers and legalists have put this game in their court, so like the proverbial tennis match, get ready to get a stiff neck trying to watch the ball. Remember there are 30 states in our union that have codified marriage as between a man and a woman, and that is not to say the people of Maine cannot have their say. Rumor on the web is that POTUS may sign an executive order making all of this null and void and homosexuality will be validated in the populous' eyes, but never in God's. Jesus said, as a man I do not judge you neither do I condemn you. The judgement comes later and it is righteous.report abuse

Show all 5 comments

You must be a registered user of MaineToday.com to post a comment. Register or log in.