If a referendum on defending the designation of marriage that has been in effect for thousands of years and upheld by 7 million Californians as the union of one man and one woman can be undone by one federal judge, the value of a referendum in deciding contentious issues is now useless.

The millions spent in the effort are a total loss, and the faith and value in our laws is on the verge of total disregard.

How soon will we replace a masterpiece of a Constitution governing a peaceful, prosperous and orderly society, with tyranny becoming the law of the land, fostered no less by those appointed to protect it?

Same-sex couples seeking the same financial and legal benefits of married couples are the driving force behind this movement.

Why not rewrite the laws that currently apply only to marriage to apply to civil unions? Following, that is, the establishment of basic laws governing the basis of civil unions.

Hasn’t marriage as viewed through the centuries by the majority had assuring the continuation of the species as its main objective?

We credit a superior being or creator with having devised a pleasurable method to ensure the continuation of His handiwork.

That fact is attested to by the number of abortions sought each year by pleasure seekers.

The importance of marriage derives its special place and designation in our lives from God’s legacy in making both men and women partners in the creative process.

That is a high honor deserving special status.

It is not a ploy subject to convoluted reasoning by a so-called legal authority who fails to recognize the importance of God’s gift to his people, His own birth.

Laurent E. Senechal
Westbrook

 

U.S. District Judge Vaughan Walker said that (California’s) ban on same-sex marriage violates the 14th Amendment’s rights to equal protection and due process of law.

Judge Walker has interpreted the Constitution conservatively.

If our fundamental constitutional rights were decided by a majority “people’s vote,” as in a referendum, the United States of America would still have slaves and would still deny women the right to vote.

Sue Cabot
Portland

 

Marriage for either heterosexuals or homosexuals is not among the “certain unalienable rights” listed in the Declaration of Independence.

What is troubling about this claim is the foundation upon which it’s built.

The gay community has gone to great lengths to paint a picture through propaganda and paid pseudoscience to try and convince society that their plight falls under the category of “civil rights,” because they want the public to believe their choice of lifestyle could not be helped. They were born gay.

And in order to dress it up and make it clean and wholesome, the ticket through the gate is marriage.

Then it gets woven into society through alternative lifestyle classes through many venues and others who teach tolerance and acceptance as a norm.

This is the altering/restructuring of a society and amounts to test-tube manufacturing — junk science, to simply promote homosexuality as a normal behavior.

Now, note I have said nothing about an illness. I believe people are gay; it’s they who have doubts. Homosexuality cannot be validated simply by a lifestyle or desire.

The agenda is not because gays want to enjoy the rights and privileges and protections under the law that heterosexual married couples enjoy, because they already have that, and the president reinforced that this year.

No, the agenda is to have society accept the behavior, choice and desire as normal. I say, prove it!

My children born of natural conception validate my heterosexuality. The gay utopia to create their own society has no legitimacy within an American context.

We have no obligation to grant gays anything but their right to their existence, and that is all.

John W. Russell
Portland

 

A federal judge in California decided that the state’s Proposition 8, defining marriage as a relationship between a man and woman, is unconstitutional.

The precedent this sets is interesting.

In the past, variants of something have adopted new names. As variants of the color red were invented, they were given names like pink or magenta.

Variants of tennis named themselves badminton and pingpong. Variants of baseball chose names like stickball and softball. Soccer is not called football in America.

Now, using the California precedent, can we expect people who love pink to petition the Supreme Court to have the definition of red changed to include pink? Should the definition of tennis be changed to include pingpong and badminton?

It is interesting that the civil rights movement never involved black people suing to have the definition of white changed so to include them. After all, equality was the bottom line.

The judge’s reasoning violates common sense. Language matures toward clarity, not toward confusion. The meaning of marriage has always been clear. It involves a bride and groom, husband and wife, and many times, mother and father.

Would including same-sex relationships under the marriage definition force a change in the definition of bride, father and husband? Why bother?

If people want to start variants of marriage, let them come up with a new name for it, just the way sports, colors and lots of other things have done.

Leave the word marriage alone. Invent another one. Clarity should be the goal, not confusion.

Alan Bebout
Westport Island

Hearing next week on ban for Bisphenol A

 

I am writing to voice my support for the banning of Bisphenol A (otherwise known as BPA) from all products marketed at children and pregnant women in the state of Maine. As part of the Kid Safe Products Act of 2008, Maine is required to phase out two chemicals per year that have been proven harmful to the health of children.

On Aug. 19, the Department of Environmental Protection will have a hearing to decide if BPA should be banned.

BPA is a chemical produced in large quantities for use in hard plastics and epoxy resins. It can be found in many food and beverage containers, including baby bottles and canned food. It is also a dangerous substance that must be kept away from our most vulnerable citizens.

When the National Toxicology Program conducted tests on BPA, it concluded that it is linked to adverse effects on the brain, behavior, and prostate glands of fetuses, infants and children. We cannot continue to allow the health of our future generation to be put at risk in these devastating ways.

As a young woman and an advocate for reproductive health and choice, it is very important for me to know that when I wish to have children, I will be able to raise them in the healthiest and safest environment possible. banning BPA on Aug. 19, we will get one step closer to that ideal.

Bess Beller-Levesque
Planned Parenthood of Northern New England
Falmouth

 

Popeye’s no dive, but a warm, friendly place

 

I moved to Portland about 10 years ago, a short block from Popeye’s Tavern. I went in off and on, often with visitors from out of town, and sometimes with a friend who liked a game of 8-ball.

Popeye’s was a fine part of my neighborhood, and I’d like it remembered as part of the historic fabric of the West End.

Popeye’s was friendly and comfortable, and made Portland’s diverse history richer.

P.L. Green
Portland