EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Pregnant Anti-War Soldier Sent to Prison
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- Time for Big Green to Go Fossil Free
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- The Downwinders: Fracking Ourselves to Death in America
Popular content
Today's Top News
Marriage Equality: The Way Life Should Be
The Introduction for Maine's LD #1020: An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom
On Wednesday, April 22, 2009 a public hearing was held to allow Maine residents to comment on a proposed legislative bill to allow full marriage equality in the state. The following remarks were offered by Maine State Senator Dennis Damon as he publicly introduced LD 1020: An Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom:
Sen. Bliss, Rep. Priest, esteemed members of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary, I am Dennis Damon. I am honored to represent the 28th District in the Maine Senate. My district includes twenty-three coastal and island communities in Southern Hancock County, two unorganized territories in the same county and the island of Isle au Haute in Knox County.
I have enjoyed many wonderful days representing the people of my district and of Maine. I have sponsored legislation that I know will benefit Maine and her people for generations to come. Today is one of the most meaningful days of my legislative career. It is today that I am proud to present to you for your consideration, LD 1020-An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom.
Rarely do we as legislators have the opportunity and the privilege to introduce legislation that so wholly corrects discrimination and provides the means for us to move forward as a civil society bound by laws. As I stand before you today flanked by my colleagues and supported by family, friends, neighbors and strangers-citizens all of this great state and nation-I feel at once both tiny and huge, tiny because I am but one in this sea of change whose tide is sweeping us now and huge because I am blessed with the honor of presenting this landmark legislation to you and to our law making process. Everyday I feel the responsibility of doing the people's business. Never have I felt it more than today.
At its core this bill allows two people to marry. Any two people who are of legal age; who love each other, who have agreed to support and care for each other, through thick and thin, sickness and health, richer and poorer and all the other conditions we ask of them, as long as they each shall live, will be allowed to marry when this bill passes into law. Any two people regardless of their gender or sexuality will be allowed to marry and they will be treated the same in the eyes of Maine law. They will be treated equally.
Additionally, this bill respects religious freedom and it does not require that any church in any religion conduct any marriage ceremony it feels violates its tenants or doctrines. Simply put this bill will allow people to live and let live.
Thomas Jefferson said, "...laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind." Laws and institutions MUST go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. It is my deeply held belief that the progress of the human mind in this state and in this country does not tolerate discrimination, does not tolerate social injustice, and does not tolerate hatred and bigotry. The progress of the human mind does not tolerate homophobia.
The progress of the human mind does embrace and promote love, understanding, compassion, fairness, freedom, liberty and justice for all.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Committee this bill is fair, it allows same sex couples who love one another and who have vowed to spend their lives together supporting and caring for one another the same status and protection under the laws of Maine that opposite sex couples enjoy. It's fair.
This bill is right; it does not set up a fictitious class of ‘separate but equal' status by which we pretend to afford different groups the same rights and privileges. It's right.
This bill's time has come. It relieves the burden which has oppressed us for too long. It recognizes the worth and dignity of every man and every woman among us. It announces to all and verifies that all people; gay, lesbian, straight, bisexual, or transgendered must have and will finally have the same rights and protections as everyone else. It's time.
Your task today is enormous. The testimony you are about to receive will be compelling, contradictory, affirming and humbling. It will tug at your heartstrings with compassion and it will redden your face with anger. However, the enormity of your task will be exceeded by the awesome responsibility you bear as you deliberate on today's words and cast your vote on this bill. I encourage you, I support you, and I praise you as you do the people's work.
I have faith in you for you are the sons and daughters of Lady Liberty and Madame Justice. You will not forget: It's fair...It's right...It's time.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this bill to you today. I will be honored to take your questions.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
17 Comments so far
Show AllMost of us will not argue the point that everyone should have the same basic rights to get through life. However the writer pretended that the gay, lesbian, straight, bisexual, and transgendered were all in the same boat, disregarding the fact that straights are the great majority of our citizenry.
There is a difference between being allowed to live in whatever manner people prefer, with neccessary rights, and attempting to have their union called "marriage" as then it becomes something else entirely. Miss California should never have been asked her opinion on gay marriage as that was totally out of bounds for that occasion. However, she had the correct answer according to her belief, which she also has a perfect right to hold.
Kernelz said:
"Miss California should never have been asked her opinion on gay marriage as that was totally out of bounds for that occasion."
Why? Just because you say the question was out of bounds does not make it so. Make an argument.
Are you aware that other contestants were asked about their opinions on current affairs issues?
Are you aware the Miss North Carolina, Kristin Dalton, who won, who has a degree in Psychology and Spanish, was asked about her opinion on the taxpayer bailout of banks, to use one example? This is Miss Dalton's answer:
"education and school systems and welfare and health care. That's what out taxpayers money should go to, absolutely."
Miss Arizona Alicia Blanco was asked about: "Do you think the United States should have universal health care as a right for citizens? Why or Why not?"
Her answer: "You know, what this is an issue of integrity, regardless of which end of the of political spectrum that I stand on. I've been raised in a family to know right from wrong, and politics whether or not you fall in the middle, the left or the right, it's an issue of integrity whatever your opinion is and I say that with the utmost conviction."
Miss California comes from a state that has just voted to treat GLBT as non equal citizens. Why is asking her opinion out of bounds?
This is Miss California, Carrie Prejean's answer to the question of same sex marriage:
"Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there.But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you."
Miss Prejean has every right to hold whatever belief she wants, and to express that belief, even incoherently. HOWEVER. 2 points:
Firstly, part of this pageant is to see if the contestants can at least come up with semi coherent answers to current affairs issues. Miss Prejean failed abysmally. Read her answer. It is ridiculous. Not because she believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. It is ridiculous because she opined that the US is a land where one can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. What does that even mean?
Secondly, her right to express her opinion does not trump the right of other people to express their opinion of her opinion. She has a right to say whatever she wants. And people have a right make an argument that what she said is ridiculous. Freedom of speech does not apply only to Carrie Prejean, or you. It applies to everyone. Even GLBT people.
Kernelz said:
"Most of us will not argue the point that everyone should have the same basic rights to get through life. However the writer pretended that the gay, lesbian, straight, bisexual, and transgendered were all in the same boat, disregarding the fact that straights are the great majority of our citizenry.
There is a difference between being allowed to live in whatever manner people prefer, with neccessary rights, and attempting to have their union called "marriage" as then it becomes something else entirely."
So, you are arguing that straight couples should not be able to call their unions marriages? Otherwise it isn't equal, no matter how much you pretend it is; separate but equal is not equal. Especially not when a GLBT couple can be denied as next of kin of their partner under a civil union: can be denied as next of kin for claiming the body of their deceased partner, to use one example.
And what the hell does the fact that straights are the great majority of the citizenry even mean?
Can anyone figure out just which side of the "universal healthcare as a right for all citizens" Miss Arizona was on? Is this what passes for a "coherent" answer to a question? Or any answer at all? It's just totally meaningless blether having nothing to do with the question.
With muddle-headed (but no doubt very assured and confident) young adults like these, I wonder why I worry about the kind of country we'll be leaving to our descendants. Perhaps I should worry instead about the kind of next generations we're leaving to our country.
Rainborowe
It was typical corporate speak, where you talk out of every side of your mouth, and nothing you say can be held against you.
On the bright side, at least the winner gave a coherent answer, and didn't try to hide.
Miss California rocks. Perez Hilton sucks.
Ah, who would have guessed that the defunct White Man's burden would be replaced by the Heterosexual's Burden?
The "the fact that straights are the great majority of our citizenry" may be true, but it assuredly IS irrelevant to the question. See, the Founders explicitly considered the tyranny of the majority as abominable as the tyranny of a monarch.
The basic purpose of the Bill of Rights, which some considered superfluous and unnecessary because the "rights" were so obvious and guaranteed by the Constitution, was to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
Better rationalizations, please.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Kernelz is way off, in my opinion. Ultimately, the only argument against gay marriage that isn't simple Bigotry is a Religious argument..."in the bible it's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.." Et. al. That is the argument, Gay people getting married makes baby Jesus cry.
What this argument misses is the point that we have a separation of Church and State, and that the State's duty is to give equal protection under our laws, while making sure that the individual's Rights do not infringe on any other persons' Rights.
I think American's are confused. I think that people have begun to believe that somewhere in the Constitution it says that they have the Right not to be offended. Sorry folks, it's not in there. Its why being a Racist isn't a crime until you act out on someone else. Its why you can say WHATEVER you want (save shouting Fire! in a crowded theater) in this country.
Homosexual love and commitment freaks some people out, and they think it is an abomination under God. But hey, The Fox News Network TOTALLY freaks me out, but I can't stop them from broadcasting their hate rhetoric. I have to live my life, and although I have a right to hold and speak my beliefs, I ultimately have to concede to other's rights to their particular pursuit of Happiness.
Just, grow up people. GLBT people are people, and they deserve the respect that we all deserve, especially when they want to make that sacred commitment to love and take care of another person. America NEEDS more families, even if those families aren't what your pastor or your Bible claims they ought to be.
Why should the State sanction gay marriage? Why should the State sanction non-gay marriage? The important question is why should the State be involved in any marriage.
There are between 200 and 1000 (depending on which State) legal rights that accompany marriage. Those rights should be separated from marriage and EVERYONE should have those legal rights - married or not. The move toward State sanctioned gay marriage puts the government in the bedroom - because the rights are available only to those who are in a sexual relationship.
The answer is a "Next of Kin Law". This is important for the elderly, disabled, and all of those for whom marriage is not an option.
Sometimes it is too easy to forget about all of those who are not exactly like we are.
why should the State be involved in any marriage
because it's a contract joining two bank accounts
smipypr
Making marriage universally accessible would not put the government INTO the bedroom - or any other room - marriage equality would exclude government from people's rooms. Regulation of non-heterosexual shenanigans would no longer be necessary. "Traditional" marriages exist wherein, for any number of reasons, there is no sexual activity.
The assignment or selection of "next of kin status" already exists, and is open to abuse by unscrupulous "trustees" and/or family members.
States are involved in marriage because it is essentially a property distribution agreement which carries tax ramifications. There are many angels dancing on the head of this pin, and they are all trying to split hairs whilst dancing. Article IV, section 1 requires all states to give full faith and credit to each others' acts, records, and judicial proceedings. Article VI, paragraph 3 prohibits any religious test for any office or public trust under the United States, so no religious consideration can be applied anyway. The concern is for equal protection under the law, as well as equal application of the law. It's time for people to grow up and stop saying "EEEWWWW" anytime the conversation gets to sex. Of any kind.
Freedom is man's right to do good which is the will of God. Homosexual "marriage"is morally wrong and has no place in society. It is not a matter of discrimination against a minority, it is a matter of understanding natural law and living ones life as a mirror of Christ, who is ultimate love. Do not debase the sanctity of procreation and place it on the same level as absolutizing the selfish I which drives our secular culture today.
It is great to be back!
Peace
Freedom to not marry, and the freedom to not marry right now, is just as important as the freedom to marry.
It is interesting to see how some people get so upset at the thought that those who do not marry should also have the same legal rights as those who marry. Makes one wonder if this is really about legal rights, or is this all about getting society's imprimatur. That is a totally different issue.
issues like these go into the category I call Personal, meaning: polar caps aren't melting due to this, inocent civilians aren't being killed, carbon isn't being spewed into the atmosphere, no radioactivity involved, etc...this doesn't mean it isn't important, just that scope needs to be considered...along with other subjects, like race, or abortion, I feel they become distractions from the issues that are not Personal, but Global, like industrial contamination...this is simply because, if all goes to hell globally (ecologically), no one's going to give much of a crap about who wants to get married, or whether they can...they make for, at times, elevated emotional discourse, but rather preoccupy from what, to me, are more urgent issues...
I am on my second marriage now, and offer this institution to any and all who are determined to enter, and as many times...
Angie Zapata. In so called tolerant western countries that preach equality, such as the US, innocent GLBT civilians ARE being killed.
yes, i know...that is a terrible thing, and should absolutely be pursued and punished accordingly, and I apologize if I sounded unsympathetic...I meant to express support for all inherent individual rights, including sexual preferences and choices...in my more cycnical moods, I'm simply and deeply disappointed that we haven't, as thinking creatures, been able to clear these most fundamental hurdles, (in this case, the simple respect due another entity's unalienable right to their own internal, psychological structures regarding their life here, and their resulting non-violent choices and interactions), and to be able to concentrate on clearing, together, the yet higher, and worldwide, hurdles looming ahead...