Voters of Maine - Beware!
Once you stand up to protect marriage, vote yes on 1, and successfully pass a legal definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, you will open the door for gay activists to stab at constitutional government.
What? Is that right? How does that work? How does defending marriage lead to gay activists challenging the foundations of US government?
Here's an example of the lengths gay activists will go: After Proposition 8 passed in California, gay activists took to the streets to protest - an understandable reaction for a group who think that their "rights" have been taken away. However, taking to the streets in this case, meant threatening others, unrestrained rage and destruction of property.
More egregious, however, was the huge backlash against the religious community for supporting the institution of marriage. The Mormons still take flak for taking a stand to protect marriage. (For example, note Keith Olbermann's recent diatribe
against a Mormon general leader who supports the institution of marriage.)
"So what?" you say. Perhaps you could care less about religion and the religious. All right, but what about the backlash against the black community? Exit polls showed seventy percent of the black people in California voted to uphold marriage, in favor of Proposition 8. The result? Gay activists blamed the black community for their "insensitivity" to gay "rights." ("Blacks and Latinos are being blamed for helping put Prop. 8 over the top. Only the Mormon Church has been slammed harder, by loud and passionate crowds." LA Weekly
"Okay," you say. "That can't happen in Maine. We're nothing like California. We know that marriage is between a man and a woman, and we'll settle this once and for all."
Yet gay activism doesn't hold the view that elections settle anything. Gay activists will use any means to get at the institution of marriage that they deem necessary. This includes tactics that are outright dangerous to constitutional government.
Directly after last year's election in California, gay activists started an online campaign to publish the names and addresses of those who supported Proposition 8 with money. Besides setting a dangerous precedent for elections (a sort of payback against people you don't agree with), the action violates the very principles that gays strive to promote.
Homosexuals, as a group, have pushed for gay "rights" by arguing to interpret the concept of constitutional privacy. This "right to privacy" was established through such means as the court decision Roe v. Wade, where the Supreme Court created a woman's right to privacy and included the right to abortion within that right to privacy. In 2003, in the case Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas sodomy laws were unconstitutional, that homosexuals could engage in homosexual sex without constraint of law because those laws invaded the privacy of homosexuals.
Gay activism now bases many of its ideas of rights on the establishment of the Supreme Court conjured right to privacy. Gay activists argue that marriage is a private matter, and not a public one, in order to throw the weight of the right to privacy against the institution of marriage.
Yet gay activists are perfectly happy to break their sacred right to privacy, when it suits them politically, by publishing names of individual donors in an election. This tactic, while not unconstitutional, does eat away at the very idea of privacy that homosexuals depend on to exist as a protected class of citizens. In effect, gay activists imply that they have a right to privacy, while anyone who doesn't agree with them has no such right to privacy.
It gets worse. A group of gay activists have attacked the very institution of constitutional government and rule of law in their zeal to strike down Proposition 8.
Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker opened the gates to hell this month when he ruled that strategists for Proposition 8...must release internal campaign documents to measure opponents. (San Francisco Chronicle)
What? Is that right? A US District judge has ordered those who wrote Proposition 8, to release documents to determine if they were prejudiced in writing Proposition 8? Here's the dangerous implication:
Political activists of all stripes beware: Unless this ruling is overturned, the word will be out that sore losers who can't beat you at the ballot box and probably can't beat you in court can file a lawsuit designed to pry away proprietary information that they later can use to embarrass you. (San Francisco Chronicle)
Embarrassment is the least of the problems this strategy opens.
The plaintiffs - two same-sex couples, a gay rights organization and the city of San Francisco - cite a previous federal ruling to argue that if the court finds that Prop. 8 backers were motivated by discrimination, then the court can strike down the measure without having to decide if gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry. (San Francisco Chronicle)
This is the danger. This is the heart of gay activists who will stop at nothing to gain neutered marriage. This law flaunts the intent and purpose of rule of law to create rule of expediency. Make no mistakes about this, gay activists now attempt to get rid of an unwanted law by circumventing the entire constitutional process.
The slippery slope of this law suit staggers the mind. If anyone can challenge a law based on the "bias" of its backers, then any and all laws can be struck down. Why? Because all laws are backed through a process of bias, assumption, and discrimination.
Gay activists cry for equality, yet will not allow dissenters the same privilege.
Voters of Maine beware. This is what awaits you if you don't give in to gay activism and its demands to neuter marriage. You and your laws will be treated with the same contempt as those who supported Proposition 8 in California. The question is, will you give in to expediency? Or will you stand firm in the defense of an institution you know is the foundation of society?
Remember Maine's own values on marriage and the family:
“The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society; the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in traditional monogamous marriage.” [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
Is this no longer true for the people of Maine?