What People are Reading
Recent
Popular Alltime
Recent Comments
- Ms. Tilberg criticizes Naomi
2 days 12 hours ago - Naturally I am flattered that
3 days 13 hours ago - For a fine expose on liberal
4 days 9 hours ago - 8-25-10
Just passing along a
4 days 20 hours ago - So distinct from legal
1 week 23 hours ago - Very Orwellian of you, my
1 week 1 day ago - Pleased to be of service.
1 week 1 day ago - Glorious is the liberal
1 week 1 day ago - Who's denying them freedom?
1 week 1 day ago - Steve, it is ridiculous to
1 week 1 day ago
The Universal Notebook: Marriage is a gay inevitability
Nov 16, 2009 12:10 pm
Edgar Allen Beem
Photo:
Photo: The Universal Notebook is Edgar Allen Beem's personal look at the world around him.
"Mainers vote down gay-marriage law" screamed the banner headline on the Portland Press Herald. The cover photograph, however, was of Frank Schubert, the California carpetbagger who led the Yes on 1 campaign, exulting in victory.
How very fitting.
Like the majority of voters here in greater Portland, I was greatly disappointed in the outcome of the Nov. 3 referendum to repeal Maine's marriage equality law. In Yarmouth, where I live, 66 percent of the voters favored keeping the law that would have allowed same-gender marriages. The church I attend voted overwhelming to allow our pastors to perform same-gender covenanting ceremonies 10 years ago, for heaven's sake.
In hindsight, however, I wonder why I ever thought that Maine would break with the rest of the country and support gay marriage. We could have made history. As Maine goes, etc. Instead, we became the 31st state to reject gay marriage.
When you look at the election results you see that No on 1 only prevailed in four of Maine's 16 counties – Cumberland, Hancock, Knox, and York, home to Maine's more affluent, educated and progressive coastal populace. Inland and upstate it was a different story. Yes, folks, there really are two Maines – one that lives in the present, another that's wedded to the past.
As everyone seems to understand though, legalization of same-sex marriage is inevitable. As I see it, it's just a matter of my generation passing away and my daughters' generation taking control. Tess, 18, cast her first vote on Nov.3 and she was as disappointed in the outcome on Question 1 as I was. She actually thought it was going to pass easily. That's because her friends don't even understand what all the fuss was about. Of course gay and lesbian people should have the same rights as everyone else. Duh!
Tess would have been a lot more upset by the referendum vote, however, were she a lesbian. Most referendum votes are about issues, but Question 1 was about identity. Maine voted against who some of its citizens are. It told some families that they are not legitimate. When you come right down to it, marriage equity is probably not something we should be voting on at all. I have a funny feeling African-Americans still wouldn't have civil rights in some Southern states if it were a matter of popular vote.
My greatest disappointment about Question 1, other than the fact that it succeeded, was that the Catholic Church was the driving force behind the anti-gay marriage campaign. In California, Mormons got the credit or the blame for the rejection of gay marriage. In Maine, we have the Catholic Church to thank or blame. I have no problem with the Catholic Church not sanctioning gay marriage for Catholics, but I have a big problem with it forcing its religious views on the rest of us. It's like saying no one can practice birth control because the Catholic Church is opposed to it.
Does that make me anti-Catholic? I don't think so. But I have lost a great deal of respect for the Catholic hierarchy. Practice and preach what you will, but don't try to dictate public policy for everyone else based on your own religious beliefs.
That said, I confess that I find the Catholic Church's stand against gay marriage somewhat hypocritical, coming as it does from a church that has failed to come to grips with homosexuality in its own priesthood. If you teach someone that his natural instincts are sinful and shameful, you shouldn't be surprised if he ends up expressing his sexuality inappropriately. I suspect there is a certain degree of self-loathing involved in the Catholic leadership's campaign against gay marriage.
Homosexuality is natural and healthy. It's just that homosexuals are a minority. They are misunderstood, feared, and targets of discrimination. That's what makes gay marriage a civil rights matter.
Maine got it wrong this time. We will eventually get it right. In the meantime, the Yes on 1 forces have pretty much obligated Maine schools to do exactly what gay marriage opponents like Frank Schubert warned they would do – teach our children the truth about homosexuality and about the moral and legal issues surrounding equality in marriage.
Comments
RicksCafe says:
eabeem says:
Yes, you can sometimes change people's minds with facts and logic, such as the fact that no mainstream medical or psychological association regards homosexuality as a mental disorder. But beliefs are irrational, so facts have little effect. What we are up against are ingrainned prejudices and I'm afraid we are just going to have to outlive them. Yes on 1 may have won, but it has done irreprable damage to the Catholic Diocese of Maine. Not only was it on the wrong side of history, it was on the wrong side of the angels.
RicksCafe says:
I think you are right with your assessment of having to outlive the competition. About "No mainstream psychological association" regarding homosexuality as a mental disorder--I'd have to fact-check that claim. However, until the relatively recent push to have homosexuality regarded as normal and acceptable, those same psychological associations all classified homosexuality as a disease. A stigma like that does not just blink out of existence.
eabeem says:
If you look on the American Psychological Association website under "Is homosexuality a mental disorder?" you will find this:
No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.
Janek says:
I ignore your articles in the Forecaster, Edgar Allen Beem. They are predictable. I did read your latest about marriage. You were unhappy with the democratic process. It didn’t go your way this time. Try being a conservative, Mr. Beem!
I read your tired terms. The banner headline “screamed”. Isn’t that what headlines do? Then, there was “carpetbagger”. The activists your side bussed in from out of state are not “carpetbaggers”?. Another oldie: “wedded to the past”. I suppose we should stop celebrating wedding anniversaries? How about, “I have a funny feeling”. What about having a funny “thought” instead? Isn’t debate about thinking through the issue, not about “feelings”?
And there is, “I have no problem with Catholics, but...” How would this sound: “I have no problem with Blacks, but...”? Finally, but not last or least, is your “hypocritical”. Your Catholic adversary is “hypocritical”, but you, the hyper-critic, are “justly” critical.
There is also your logic, as to the law of non-contradiction. “Homosexuality is natural and healthy”, just like heterosexuality. What of gay bowel syndrome? Public sex in bath houses? The frequency of AIDS among the “gay” community? Ineligibility to donate blood if one has had sex with a same-sex partner since 1977?
Mr, Beem, take the beam out of your own eye before you claim the right to pick the speck out of the eye of the majority of Maine voters.
Jddogmatic says:
Janek says: "And there is, 'I have no problem with Catholics, but...' How would this sound: 'I have no problem with Blacks, but...'?
Gotta love it when the intolerant whine about intolerance. Even better that Janek's user profile says he's a "concealed weapons permit holder", right next to "former liberal" and "public school teacher". How reassuring that my kids could've been taught by a hypocritical, ignorant fear-mongerer who attaches his identity to the right to carry a weapon.
eabeem says:
If you check your facts you will find that heterosexual contact is the leading transmitter of AIDS. People who have a problem with homosexuality and gay marriage seem sadly unable to make a distinction between two people in a loving, committed relationship and two people having anonymous or casual sex. And I didn't write "I have no problem with Catholics, etc", I wrote that I have no problem with the Catholic CHURCH" not sanctioning gay marriage for Catholics. The church has no right, however, to force its theology on the rest of us. Am I unhappy with the democratic process? No. I am just unhappy with the outcome this time. But as I also said, I'm not sure we should be voting on matters of civil rights at all.
Hussar says:
Mr. Beem,
I believe that somehow you think that "Maine's more affluent, educated and progressive coastal populace" will make better choices and decisions. I believe that they made a bad choice. Gay Marriage in the State of Maine was not about equality by about the freedom of Religion.
You and the rest of the population want equality for gays. Fine. But, why force the issue to be taught in schools to my children when I view Gay Marriage as wrong and against Judeo-Christian values. I want my children to treat everyone equally, but I don't want my children to think Gay Marriage is correct. I base my decision on the Bible and specifically Leviticus 18:22 which states "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination." I view any church that sanctions Gay marriage as going against the will of God. Equality, "yes", forcing your and other supporters views onto my children in schools, "no".
As to views on Catholics; If you are going to criticize Catholics, than I believe that you should became little more familiar with it's teachings and practices. One can be homosexual and be active member of the church. One cannot be practicing homosexual member and still be in good standings, because it goes against the teaching of God, as quoted above.
God gave more than just 10 commandments to Moses. Many of us are not familiar with them. Maybe all Jews and Christians should become familiar, start reading the Bible, and do as God asks. I follow the teachings that are as you state "wedded to the past". Thousands of years in the past, teachings that have been followed by billions of people and great nobles. Do you put yourself above God's teachings. They did not. "Maine's more affluent, educated and progressive coastal populace" also should not.
As to my background, I am an Airline Pilot, former Naval Officer and Naval Aviator, Aerospace Engineer and a proud Christian that follows the teachings of the Bible. Do you believe that would qualify me as "educated". Maybe, "Maine's more affluent, educated and progressive coastal populace" need little education of their own.
Again, this is not about equal rights, but our freedom to chose. I am for equal treatment of all people, but do not force any issues that go against God's teachings on my family and me.
Thank you.
eabeem says:
So it's okay for you to force your religious views on those of us who favor gay marriage, but it is not okay for us to do so. I've said until I'm blue in the face that gay marriage is not a religious issue. Your church would not be forced to perform or recognize same sex marriages if they were legal in Maine. What must be taught in Maine schools are the issues raised by gay marriage. And as far as Leviticus goes, unless you're advocating death for homosexuality you are not being true to that ancient and absurd biblical teaching. No one follows the teaching of the Bible literally. Everyone picks and chooses.
Hussar says:
That is the problem isn't. Choose what you is convenient. That is why we have so many religions. Don't we? There is only one truth and you, I, nor anyone can change that. Bible was written long time ago and it has been followed by billions of people, through thousands of years. Face it, you and many liberals don't agree with the word of God!
My religion does not force anything! It is equality for everyone. I will gladly vote for any civil union that provides equality for gay couple. That is it!!! Equality!!! Do not force it into schools and onto my children! You do not have that right!
If you are blue in the face and say that gay marriage in not a religious issues, please don't call it "marriage", which is a religious term. Call it civil union and equal rights for couple. Personally, I believe that there should be two separate certificates, one from the state (civil union for all heterosexual and homosexual unions, providing equal rights and benefits) and one from what ever religious groups one belongs. The second certificate should optional and only recorded with the church. Call it what you want.
By calling the Bible's teachings "absurd", you put yourself above God and thus you will be judged by Him accordingly. Basis of Judeo-Christian religion is the Bible in it's original unmodified form. And, last time I checked even modified ones have Leviticus section in it.
Mr. Beem, millions of people and I, follow the Bible as it is and was for ages. Please, do not include me in "everyone". I don't pick and choose. You do. Yes, I sin, just like everyone else, but I don't manipulate or choose the teachings of the Bible. Sorry, that is your view not mine.
eabeem says:
The Bible is an historical work written by mortal men. Despite what you'd like to think, God did not write the Bible. And 'marriage' is not a a religious term. Many religions take marriage as a sacrament, but the Bible says little or nothing about it. And if you don't pick and choose what to follow in the Bible we must assume you believe in the death penalty for homosexuality. In Leviticus 20:13, the Lord says to Moses, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.” Is that what you believe? And do you believe Deuteronomy 22:20-21 where it clearly says that any bride who is found not to be a virgin should be stoned to death. Come on, man, wise up! It's fine for you to believe the Bible, but no one believes everything in it. We are all selective.
1truthseeker says:
Yes I was disappointed also with the results of the Nov.3 referendum but I was more disappointed with the weak campaign by the No on 1 supporters. I felt they didn't touch on the real issues of how the rejection of gay marriage can personally effect caring and loving people. I was again disappointed with Edgar's solution that gay marriage is inevitable and only can be corrected by people dying off. The issue has nothing to do with people living in the past or present. It has to do with education and the No on 1 supporters gave nothing in that regard to educate people in rural areas of the importance of equal rights. It just became a debate about us verse them and that will never presuade people from changing their views. Using your daughter as a basis for all younger adults is ignorant in itself and I am sure their is an 18 old in Maine that believes the opposite Tess does. The vote wasn't even close and I just think a different approach should used.
eabeem says:
I'm not sure whether you can educate prejudice. I am sure, however, that if only voters under 25 had voted the outcome wouldn't have been close at all. That said, yes, No on 1 could have done a better job making its case. Elections tend to boil down to slogans and sound bites.
Mr. Beem has made the same mistake that may have cost the gay and lesbian community the vote. Sun Tzu said that to win a battle, one must understand the enemy. The NO ON ONE side, and Mr. Beem, fail to understand what the Catholic church (and Protestant Church) believe.
Mr. Beem states as fact that homosexuality is natural and healthy. Most Christians believe that all people are born heterosexualy: the way in which they were created by God. They also believe that homosexuality is the genesis of many mental disorders, if not an outright disorder of itself.
The truth of these beliefs are not relevant, yet it is the truth of these beliefs that the NO ON ONE side campaigned against. They just can't change people's beliefs. Perhaps a winning strategy could have been born from a true understanding of these beliefs.
Also, much of the NO ON ONE shared Mr. Beem's immature habit of insulting their opponent at every turn. Calling us uneducated, bigots, and haters. A more professional, decent-minded person could have led NO ON ONE to victory.