Dear Walter Gooley and Lance Harvell,
I write to you today to ask you both to support Marriage Equality (LD 1020) when it comes to the floor of the House next week. I realize that at least one of you (Mr. Gooley) has taken a public stand against marriage equality, and that this suggestion may not fall on the most receptive ears. However, since you are both conservative, I would like to make the argument for Marriage Equality based on the conservative principles that I believe you both hold.
For example, one of the tenets of conservative thinking is a belief in limited government. LD 1020 would do just that; it would limit the government’s involvement in what should be a very personal matter – marriage. When Loving v. Virgina, for instance, declared that the state had no compelling interest in stopping interracial couples from marrying, the Supreme Court was making a very conservative statement. The government should leave individual decisions to the individuals. The same standard applies here. LD 1020 would allow two individuals (no matter what gender) to make the proper and necessary decisions about their lives without government intervention. LD 1020 is not the approval of special rights; it is the removal of governmental involvement in people’s personal lives.
Another worthy element of conservative thought is the desire to support communities and the traditional social structure. That is what LD 1020 does at a very fundamental level. If the state has a vested interest in supporting stable relationships for the benefit of the community and the larger social structure, and I believe that it does, in what way can expanding the ability of people to form those relationships be anything but beneficial? The ability of gays and lesbians to form stable, permanent bonds, to join in the larger community of couples and receive the benefits of social support and legal recognition, will do nothing but strengthen our communities.
Finally, and most importantly, LD 1020 represents the expression of freedom that conservatives so rightly value. It means that gays and lesbians are free to marry as they please without worrying about the opinions of judgments of others who may not care for them. I, for instance, am not fond of white supremacists, and, in fact, wish that they should not be allowed to marry and spread their particular brand of hatred and bigotry. However, I have no standing in law to ask for such a thing nor would I. They need to be free to act as they wish, so that I can be free to act as I wish. Every diminished freedom diminishes my own in equal measure.
There are many other arguments I could make in support of Marriage Equality and in particular in support of LD 1020; however, I will stop here and hope that you will consider these arguments that are based in bedrock conservative principles.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Jeffrey Thomson
Farmington
Beautifully written. Thank you.
May 1, 2009 Sen. Walter Gooley, R-Farmington: “I had a couple of cell phone calls driving down here this morning, one in support, one not in support and reasons why. One was from a mental health person, talking about how young children are affected emotionally and I’m not going to get into that, but I just wanted to get up and say that it’s the right thing to do to send this out to referendum and to put the trust in the citizens of the state of Maine.”
Sadly, I would suspect Rep. Harvell’s stance hasn’t changed since February….
See http://lanceharvell.com/debate.html
<>
From the Daily Bulldog By Bobbie Hanstein • Jan 21st, 2009
“On the gay marriage legislation proposed in the current session, … Harvell said he doesn’t support gay marriage. He added that the proposed gay marriage legislation simply “diffuses the issue of Baldacci’s failed economic policy.” It’s meant to distract from the real issues at hand, he added.”
Jeffrey Thomson’s letter illustrates the tendency of the homosexual
movement to misstate all the issues. I would hope that Walter
Gooley and Lance Harvell, to whom Thomson’s remarks are ostensibly
addressed, are intelligent enough to see this. But since Thomson
could easily have written to those two men without writing to the
Daily Bulldog I assume that he is really hoping to influence the
general public.
First of all, the issue has nothing to do with “equality.” The
legislature is being asked to redefine “marriage,” a word which has
always referred to the union of a man and a woman. There is no
inequality in the present definition, any more than it is unequal
to call grass green rather than blue.
Thomson writes, “one of the tenets of conservative thinking is a
belief in limited government. LD 1020 would do just that; it would
limit the government’s involvement in what should be a very
personal matter – marriage.” On the contrary, LD 1020 would
increase the government’s involvement, by asserting the
government’s power to redefine a common word. I would prefer to be
free to speak my native language, without the government telling me
how to use it.
There is no parallel with Loving v. Virginia, since interracial
marriages were always marriages in the common meaning of the term,
whether they were legally recognized or not. The English language,
and the institution of marriage, are both much older than the
United States or any state legislature.
Thomson writes, “LD 1020 would allow two individuals (no matter
what gender) to make the proper and necessary decisions about their
lives without government intervention.” They can do that now.
“If the state has a vested interest in supporting stable relation-
ships for the benefit of the community and the larger social
structure, and I believe that it does, in what way can expanding
the ability of people to form those relationships be anything but
beneficial?” They can form any relationships they choose to form,
now. The government can neither increase nor decrease their
ability to form relationships.
Thomson goes on, “LD 1020 represents the expression of freedom that
conservatives so rightly value. It means that gays and lesbians are
free to marry as they please without worrying about the opinions of
judgments of others who may not care for them.” They are free to
do, now, whatever it is that they do. They can even call it
“marriage” if they don’t mind murdering the English language. But
what they are trying to do in LD 1020 is to take away from the rest
of us the right to speak English. Many of us will go on speaking
English anyway.
I continue to note that the gay movement apparently cannot make its
case without misstating all the issues, which suggests that it is
a very weak case indeed.
Licia Kuenning
Farmington
What needed, and each day now, needs to be said!
Henry Braun
PLease no on this issue
Dear Bulldog,
Because my comment #6 is placed after Ms Kuenning’s #5 it seems that I agree with her. Nope, it’s Jeffrey Thompson who has said eloquently and clearly what needs to be said.
Henry Braun
Weld
I’m counting my blessings that Harvell doesn’t support gay marriage. It’s one of a myriad of reasons people voted FOR him.
Remove the word “marriage ” from all legal definitions.
Let the religions worry about whose unions they want to bless with the “marriage” label
Civil unions between two consenting adults should cary all the leagl weight of what is now called marriage
Marriage equality is simply that- Equality. Quibbles over the definitions of words are heartless and insensitive when compared to the real problems and burdens lack of equality forces citizens to deal with. There are over 1000 rights and benefits that legal marriage provides people. Isn’t it time to treat everyone the same?
Dennis,
This is one of the reasons we chose Lance over you!