Friday, May 1, 2009

Governor reveals he will probably sign Damon's bill

In a blog posting Governor John Baldacci has offered his real views on homosexual marriage. I have never believed that he was truly undecided. I have always believed that he was being merely political as he pretended to "evolve."

He called a gay rights supporter yesterday. "I was extremely impressed by the arguments for both sides, but especially by the proponents," the governor reportedly said. "I was opposed to this for a long time, but people evolve, people change as time goes by."

I have always believed that homosexual marriage would happen on Governor Baldacci's watch. The only thing that surprises me a bit is the lack of character in our politicians. Pragmatism has truly taken the front seat in lawmaking and statecraft. Everything, even morality or understanding God, is a compromise now. Everything is up for grabs, and subject to a "negotiation."

This is an ancient problem. Pilate questioned Jesus. He said, "What is truth?" Jesus stood mute before him. In another place in the New Testament Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the father but by me." Pilate, as a Roman ruler was used to having to deal with a variety of truth claims. The truth stood before him but he didn't have eyes to see it.

The truth is that we can find rest for our souls in Him, and in Him alone. Maine will not continue as anything recognizeable without Christian theology, truth and reasoning. The Governor's embrace of the homosexual agenda is ominous.

We are headed into some very confusing decades indeed.


  1. This is something you, and the opponents of the bill, don't seem to understand. Our Constitution guarantees freedom of (and consequently from) religion, as well as separation of Church and State. The arguments against same-sex marriage were almost all on religious grounds, and a segment of only one religion protested at that. There are many Christians who do not agree with you. There are many in this state who are not Christians. There are many who do not believe in any god at all. But all these people are deserving of the same protections under the law. Period.

    Why don't you focus on deteriorating family values instead of family structure?

  2. Responding to anonymous .... Maine citizens have equal rights under the law BECAUSE of the Christian/Jewish natural law tradition, not in spite of it. They do not have legal rights because of moral wrongs, like homosexuality. Ignoring science and religion with respect to sex is not going to create a lasting and progressive society. This sort of willfull ignorance will only destroy us. Sex outside of marriage must get back in the dark recesses of our social closet. Virtue, purity, decency, marriage, responsibility and respect must stand tall in the daylight. There is no dignity in the idea of sex outside of marriage. It is always shameful. And it always will be shameful.

    There is no distance between family values and family structure. The two walk in hand in hand, just like a loving husband, wife and children.

    My wife sent me this email last night about T.S. Eliot. It is instructive:

    In The Idea of a Christian Society (1939), as well as other works, Eliot argued that the humanist attempt to form a non-Christian, "rational" civilization was doomed. "The experiment will fail," he wrote, "but we must be very patient in awaiting its collapse; meanwhile redeeming the time: so that the Faith may be preserved alive through the dark ages before us; to renew and rebuild civilization, and save the world from suicide."

    He didn't believe society should be ruled by the church, only by Christian principles, with Christians being "the conscious mind and the conscience of the nation."

  3. Michael, I have a question that I'm not sure the Governor or anyone has really considered that seriously. Perhaps I'm being a little premature here, because I don't really know how the people's referendum works and whether or not it will take place BEFORE what the Governor signed goes into effect. But here in California, our state Supreme Court rashly allowed gay marriage for a few months knowing full well that this question was going to be on the ballot in November. Now that the voters of California have said NO to gay marriage, the court is having to decide what to do about the presumed 16,000 so-called same-sex marriages they mistakenly allowed during that interim They could dissolve them since they are now totally illegal or they could create a special exception for them because they relied on the legality of the court's decision when they married. No one knows what they're going to do. So, my question is whether or not the Governor has considered the likelihood that he or the court may have to decide the fate of any interim marriages conducted between when this new 'law' goes into effect and the people repeal it a few months later. Clearly, the California Court did not, though they could easily have stayed the implementation of their decision until after the election. Is that something we can ask the Governor to consider? It just doesn't seem fair to put any of these couples through the uncertainty they'd face after the vote, or the voters through the expense of having to pay for changing all the forms etc. when they're going to have to be changed back anyway. How do we communicate this clearly to the Governor so he'll consider staying this law from going into effect until after the vote? Please let us know.