Wednesday, April 16, 2014
With the fall of the Defense of Marriage Act, gay people will emerge from second-class citizenship as more states recognize same-gender marriage.
Lisa Gorney, left, and Donna Galluzzo, both of Portland, sign their marriage license at Portland City Hall on Dec. 29, 2012. Legally married same-sex couples who want “to fully claim first-class citizenship” should call each other “husband” or “wife,” a reader says.
2012 File Photo/Gabe Souza
Coming out of the closet -- being visible -- has had the greatest effect on changing hearts and minds. It has taken great courage to live life openly, to hold hands in the park, to be truthful at work, with family, neighbors and friends.
I believe there is another step needed to fully claim first-class citizenship. It is to use the language of marriage.
Once upon a time, we toed the line and dutifully used the word "partner" to refer to our mates. Using this term is like taking a seat in the back of the bus. When I hear legally married same-gender couples use "partner," I would like to ask, why? Why allow language to thus proclaim, "separate but equal"?
For me, "partner" felt safer. It had been comfortable for 16 years. Then my mate began to die.
As I cared for him, I knew I was losing my husband. I swore to use only that word, for only "husband" describes the love, commitment and depth of loss we shared. Only "husband" reflects the status we deserved and needed at this time of tragedy and vulnerability.
I believe the language we choose reflects and influences the way we think about ourselves and the way others regard us. As holding hands in public makes our spirits soar and the public take notice, so will our use of "husband," "wife" and "spouse" strengthen relationships with each other and our communities. It will inspire more people to help spread the freedom to marry.
It is not enough that our marriages be seen. Our words must reflect the empowerment we seek.
MaineCare expansion veto move toward responsibility
Led by Justin Alfond, the Legislature passed the bill offering Maine-Care to 69,000 more people.
The bait was that the federal government would pay 100 percent of the cost for the first three years. But Maine would have had to pay 10 percent of the cost thereafter.
I never saw any mention of how the federal government would get the money to cover this expense. The answer is clear. They would have paid for this by increasing our taxes!
Then the federal government would not decrease our taxes, but Maine would have had to increase taxes to cover the additional 10 percent of the cost. The result: less money for those who work for it!
While a recent article in the Press Herald ("Hospitals: Maine Medicaid expansion would help," June 18) reported that hospitals claimed that expansion of the Medicaid program would help them by reducing the amount of free care they deliver, they apparently had not considered that MaineCare already owes the hospitals $480 million in unpaid bills.
I wonder why the hospitals thought Maine would be able to afford to pay them in the future when expenses increase. Maine cannot cover the current cost of MaineCare. It is clearly not reasonable to think that Maine-Care would be able to cover increased expenses, especially with the lagging economy in our state, which is near the bottom of the list in income.
I am not writing to promote any political party or individual, but the veto of the bill was good for those of us who work and pay taxes in Maine. It is time that the working people of the state start to think about what it is that is happening, and demanding fiscal responsibility by all branches of our state government.
(Continued on page 2)