MAINE COMPASS: Same-sex marriage society’s ‘death blow’
A silversmith possesses patience, perseverance and a watchful eye. Before he turns his shining metal on the lathe, he must refine his ore in a blazing kiln, an exacting process requiring the greatest care.
At each step, he must watch for the slightest imperfection, hammering and snipping, polishing and buffing, until the product of his craftsmanship is a finished work of art, perfect in its order, beauty and tranquility.
The Sons of Liberty chose a silversmith to keep watch over the Redcoats, and that was no coincidence. Paul Revere was a man with the requisite diligence and acuteness of perception. The Sons of Liberty knew Revere was just the man to alert the patriots to an impending threat.
Our society is currently faced with a threat a thousand times more dangerous than the tyranny imposed by King George III.
I say “a thousand times more dangerous,” but there is really no adequate measure for comparing a mild tyranny to the destruction of society itself. Same-sex marriage will do precisely that. By changing the definition of marriage, judicial activists and out-of-control legislators will destroy the institution of the family, an institution that is both the origin and bedrock of civil society. Same-sex marriage will be a death blow to a society that is already profoundly disordered.
The idea that elected representatives or members of the judiciary can impose same-sex marriage against the will of the people is itself tyrannical. By referencing the American Revolution and the Sons of Liberty, I am not suggesting that the answer is a recourse to arms.
The answer is to vote out every member of the Maine Legislature who voted for same-sex marriage, and to vote against Libby Mitchell in her run for governor because I believe she plays a key role in the push for same-sex marriage.
Those who dispute that the homosexual rights movement causes social instability ought to recall that Gay Pride Month, held every June, commemorates the Stonewall Riots in Greenwich Village in 1969. These riots marked the start of the homosexual rights movement. At its very inception, the movement acted to destabilize society.
Society is just waking up to the fact that same-sex marriage has the potential to produce maladjusted children and asocial behavior, particularly when no father is part of the family.
When Paul Revere made his midnight ride through the sleepy towns of Somerville, Medford, and Arlington, he did not stop at each home to lecture the citizenry about the virtues of peace and the blessings of liberty. Rather, he issued a loud alarm about an imminent threat. We must do the same.
Certain members of the pro-family movement today will bring to Maine’s State House a tour that will proclaim the virtues of marriage in soft, compassionate tones. They are free to do so, but let them also speak truthfully about the appalling evils of same-sex marriage and the homosexual rights movement.
Perhaps they believe a softer, gentler tone will earn the approval of their fellow churchmen and society at large. Maybe so, but their offer of compassion will be a false one, since true compassion follows repentance and should never be construed as justifying an evil act.
I wish all the good people involved in the upcoming Summer of Marriage tour realize that a tone of appeasement and reconciliation will not free them from the accusation that they are haters. Despite their sincere intentions, pro-same-sex marriage bloggers already have labeled the tour, the “hate tour.” I, too, for all my good intentions, have been repeatedly slandered as a hater.
Paul Revere did not merely sound the alarm on horseback. He ordered lanterns to be hung in the steeple of Old North Church to alert his fellow patriots to the movements of the enemy. Similarly, we cannot hope to defeat same-sex marriage without making known the methods and tactics used by our opponents.
To focus solely on the virtues of marriage and the family is to do the work of the other side. It is an approach that will surely fail, and will be repaid only with hatred and contempt.
Michael S. Heath is president of Mayflower Productions, a consulting company. www.mikeheath.net
Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form
Most...
Copyright ©2010 MaineToday Media, Inc.
27 COMMENTS
Divinity said...
Mayflower Productions? My family is descendant from two of the more famous members of that group. Some of their descendants knew Paul Revere; he was a friend of theirs. Michael Heath is no Paul Revere. Heath is an abomination. He states, "By changing the definition of marriage, judicial activists and out-of-control legislators will destroy the institution of the family" contrary to all evidence and fact. Heath and NOM and Emrich all share the same agenda; they differ only in small measure and that is merely in the matter of stridency. Maine is embarrassed by their presence.
July 14, 2010 at 1:51 AM Report abuse
RobGilliat said...
Heath's opinion is a load of incendiary crap and outright fear-mongering.
July 14, 2010 at 6:49 AM Report abuse
ryeneck said...
We perform non-religious civil marriages for couples all the time in CT, where we legalized civil unions in 2005, and marriage equality in 2008. So kudos to CT and its citizens, and for the couples, many of whom have been together for 20,30, and 45 years. And lets not forget that marriage licenses are issued by town halls, not church halls, mosques, temples, etc. Onward, Joe Mustich & Ken Cornet, Justices of the Peace, Washington, Connecticut, USA. (And to the sexually phobic middle-aged flat-earthers please find another more pressing issue to focus your energy on in the 21st century.)
July 14, 2010 at 7:02 AM Report abuse
middleone said...
He proclaims repeatedly that SSM will be society's death blow, but at no time explains how that will happen. Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it true, though some will come to believe it. How will SSM destroy society? None of the same sex couples that I know are threatening, dangerous, or engaged in behavior harmful to society.
July 14, 2010 at 7:30 AM Report abuse
Divinity said...
ryeneck said..."to the sexually phobic middle-aged flat-earthers please find another more pressing issue to focus your energy on in the 21st century" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Unhappily, homophobia is often one element in a constellation of unfounded fears. Those who discriminate based upon sexual orientation more often than not are also anti-immigrant, anti-intellectual, anti-government, and anti-science. The issue du jour is easily manipulated by ignorant demagoguery to keep them a moving target politically. Admonishing them to refocus does not diminish the damage they do. Civil rights must be protected on all fronts all of the time and it becomes increasingly important (as the world continues to "flatten") that the better educated people of good will confront prejudice, bigotry, and fundamentalism wherever it appears.
July 14, 2010 at 7:44 AM Report abuse
Sherman2 said...
Wow..Mike little buddy... I think thou protests too much...
July 14, 2010 at 7:56 AM Report abuse
lotekguy said...
Mr.Heath,you say"The idea that elected representatives or members of the judiciary can impose same-sex marriage against the will of the people is itself tyrannical." Suppose it turns out the"will of the people"--the MAJORITY of the people--is acceptance of SSM,as I predict it will be in just a few years. Would society then be guilty of tyranny against itself? You confuse marriage equality with"gay rights". Gay rights,as I've come to understand it,is just another form of"group" rights,or minority rights,which are antithetical to the American ideal of individual rights. Same-sex marriage is an example of individual rights,which cannot be abridged,infringed,denied. I maintain that a Constitutional amendment would be required in order to prohibit SSM. Good luck trying to pursue that!! We must get used to the fact that the definition of"marriage"is,like everything,subject to the process of evolution.
July 14, 2010 at 11:12 AM Report abuse
Divinity said...
lotekguy said..."just another form of"group" rights,or minority rights,which are antithetical to the American ideal of individual rights." ______________________________________________________________________ Hi guy. I think that you in turn are confusing minority rights with certain affirmative action strategies. Minorities, like majorities, are comprised of individuals. When all (or the preponderance of) individuals in a class are excluded, on the basis of their group membership, from rights generally accorded individuals outside of the minority, individual rights are infringed. While people of good conscience and rationality may differ on the application of preferential treatment in righting these wrongs, there is no issue of such affirmative action involved in the blatant prejudicial discrimination shown by Heath et al. Ask him what other blows he fears are deadly. And, if you don't mind getting personal, ask him why.
July 14, 2010 at 12:17 PM Report abuse
Helena said...
Why don't I find it surprising that Heath, who was all for outing all Maine gay and lesbian legislators, is voicing support for NOM, who is defying court orders to produce the names of those who contributed to the Yes on 1 cmnpaign? "Do we out . . . do we not out . . ." I guess the decision depends on whether you're out to get the group in question, right Mikey? Here's my list: Michael Heath: Credibility=0.
July 14, 2010 at 12:36 PM Report abuse
lotekguy said...
Div,what I refer to as"gay rights"are rights that I,an individual--the most basic minority--do not have. For example,I have no right to insist that an employer hire me,or that a landlord rent me an apartment,on the basis that I belong to a certain"protected"class. As a middle-aged white male,that would be laughable,would it not? Affirmative action,or any policy that treats one group of citizens differently from another,are the moral equivalent of slavery,which did precisely that. I maintain,however,that marriage equality is an individual right,and will soon be generally,though not without dissent,recognized as such. The Constitution is silent on the issue,and in no way can it be construed to prohibit it. In fact,the 9th and 10th amendments would allow it. However,group rights would never pass Constitutional muster.
July 14, 2010 at 12:53 PM Report abuse
Divinity said...
Guy, standing things on their head is not generally the best way to increase cerebral perfusion. Identified classes are not guaranteed jobs, housing, or access to public facilities based upon membership. Rather, they are guaranteed the right not to be excluded from those opportunities based upon class membership. Big difference! You, as a middle-aged, old white guy have the same guarantees that you can not be excluded based upon your age, disabilities, religious beliefs, nationality, sex, etc. Guarantees of civil rights for identified classes are not the same thing as affirmative action. continued
July 14, 2010 at 1:17 PM Report abuse
Divinity said...
Furthermore, although you may have genuine concerns regarding the advisability of affirmative action as a tool to level the playing field for minorities disadvantaged historically by prejudice, stigma, and racism, equating its morality with that of slavery is absurd. Study the arguments for and against slavery and those for and against particular cases of affirmative action. Only an idiot or a liar would see moral equivalency there and I don't believe that you wish to be either.
July 14, 2010 at 1:24 PM Report abuse
Helena said...
lotekguy - you really do people a disservice spreading your ideas about about people's "rights". PLEASE learn the difference between illegal discrimination and protected classes. Before the gay rights law, you could refuse to rent an apartment to a gay person - and a gay person could refuse to rent an apartment to a straight person! Idiotic? Yes - it's called discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. That's now illegal, but it doesn't mean gay people can force anyone to do anything. Gays and lesbians are NOT a protected class - that's the area where people wrongly think protected class members can "force" people to hire them etc. National EEOE protected classes are based on national origin, race, sex, religion, AGE (!! over 40 is a protected class so YOU as a middle aged man are a protected class, while gay people aren't), family status, disability or veteran status. So before you base decisions on who has rights and who doesn't (in your mind) please know the facts.
July 14, 2010 at 1:27 PM Report abuse
Q2hhbmRvc28%3D said...
Thanks for mentioning Stonewall, but no thanks for misrepresenting its significance. Instead of an anarchic riot aimed at taking down society, it was an act of resistance to very real government oppression. Police and other authorities regularly raided places where gays assembled, arrested them, and published their names in the newspapers. In a society that denied them housing, jobs, and other basic protections, such persecution was like throwing them to the wolves. Such tyranny far overshadows the injustice you imagine recognizing a same-sex marriage would foist upon society. Your attempt to make our resistance sound like an offensive is laughable. It hasn't torn down anything but laws and customs that undermine our right to just live our lives with the same liberty that the founders fought for. I won't cede the founders to your interpretation. Yours is a struggle to maintain the right to to oppress, so forget Revere as your inspiration. You're on the tyrant's side.
July 14, 2010 at 1:42 PM Report abuse
Divinity said...
Q2hhbmRvc28%3D said..."You're (Heath) on the tyrant's side." _____________________________________________________________________________________________ My wife, who is a D.A.R., draws the same conclusion. Heath belongs to a genus which included a tyrant named Rex - a real saurus. Like Rex, it is long past time for the extinction of his kind.
July 14, 2010 at 2:02 PM Report abuse
MikeNYC said...
Mr. Heath's attitude is nothing new. Growing up many years ago in the deep south, people of Mr. Heath's brand wrote many editorials to the effect that mixed race marriage and integration would destroy the country, destroy the white race, destroy marriage etc. Mr. Heath is merely the newest incarnation of the old southern segregationist except he substitutes gay for black. Nothing new. The good news is, Mr. Heath is going the way of the old segregationists and the dinosaur. His kind have a limited appeal and, with the publication of this article, only serve to be a laughing stock to normal Americans. The best thing to do is simply ignore such anti-American rhetoric and support Freedom and Justice for all.
July 14, 2010 at 2:16 PM Report abuse
lotekguy said...
Div and Helena,let me illustrate using a personal story. Years ago,my girlfriend and I wished to rent an apartment from an ederly couple,who were devout Catholics. They refused to rent to an unmarried couple,as that would violate their religious beliefs. I insist that was their right,and should not be challenged. I know you and many others would disagree,but I view private property as sacrosanct. They had a right to rent or refuse to rent to anyone for whatever reason,it being their property. If you don't allow people that right,one could not refuse neo-nazi skinheads,members of the KKK,or anyone else. Contrary to popular belief,discrimination is NOT unconstitutional,and is just an artifice of fairly recent legislation. Other violations of property rights would include prohibition of smoking in bars,restaurants,and even private clubs,Michael Bloomberg's war on salt and transfats in NYC...My views may be unpopular,but I stand by them.
July 14, 2010 at 4:34 PM Report abuse
Divinity said...
lotekguy said..."Div and Helena,let me illustrate using a personal story. Other violations of property rights would include prohibition of smoking in bars,restaurants,and even private clubs,Michael Bloomberg's war on salt and transfats in NYC" _______________ Sharing your personal stories can be of great value; often assisting both you and your therapist to reflect on the origins of your beliefs and values and to explore any dissonance which may be creating conflict. Your strong libertarian sentiments appear to factor strongly into your evaluations of others' behaviors and the law. How might you respond if asked whether people who can hold their alcohol should be permitted to drink in their vehicles? If you have active, multi-drug resistant TB should you be permitted to go drinking with the boys at the local bar? If you manufacture a product that only increases the risk of brain damage to young children by small amounts, should this be regulated? Pretend it's personal.
July 14, 2010 at 7:52 PM Report abuse
MHawkins said...
I'm all for Heath's call to a stronger tone. Let's start by not shying from calling him a sexually immature bigot. http://forthesakeofscience.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/gays-more-dangerous-than-king-george-iii/
July 14, 2010 at 10:25 PM Report abuse
anticon said...
Little does Mr. Heath realize, he'll be repaid with contempt regardless of what idiocy he chooses to next focus on....Your time is up, sir. Even the more conservative of Mainers are disgusted with you, and i feel comfortable in saying that even God is pretty tired of you connecting such flagrant ignorance and fear to his name. Please, for the good of society, go back under the rock from which you came. Leave the lunatic-fringe rhetoric to those that have held onto at least a shred of credibility.
July 14, 2010 at 10:36 PM Report abuse
brcuda62 said...
Seems many comments here call Mr Heath names, such an action that they also claim a "hater" would do. What is so wrong with leaving the definition of the word "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman and just create a law giving civil unions all the same benefits of marriage? Some of us people beleive in the definition of the word marriage as stated above, but that does not make us homophobic or haters. I have friends that are gay and lesbian, and I want them to have all the same rights as my wife and I have, but that does not mean I have to approve of changing a definition as I know it. WHY not just create a law giving civil unions ALL the benefits of marriage?? Would this not please you all??
July 15, 2010 at 1:35 PM Report abuse
charlescat said...
Heath, you are one sick puppy.
July 15, 2010 at 4:16 PM Report abuse
boofaloo said...
Did anyone else catch the ad for the "bondage" shoes at the footer of the article?
July 15, 2010 at 7:20 PM Report abuse
Divinity said...
brcuda62 said..."Seems many comments here call Mr Heath names, such an action that they also claim a "hater" would do. What is so wrong with leaving the definition of the word "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman and just create a law giving civil unions all the same benefits of marriage? WHY not just create a law giving civil unions ALL the benefits of marriage?? Would this not please you all??" _____________________________________________________ Ask Paul LePage why he opposes that.
July 16, 2010 at 7:27 AM Report abuse
Billybear said...
There is nothing more dangerous that this sort of fear and hatemongering or even giving it a venue. The application of the US Constitution equally to all American citizens could not possibly be a danger to anyone. The inclusion of all citizens in civil life could not possibly be dangerous to society. Canada enacted their Civil Marriage Act 5 years ago and have we seen the destruction of that society? Mr. Heath, if you want to make a point do so with facts, not religious dogma and myth. Also….what were you really doing in Africa? Were you in Uganda bolstering support for their gay death bill or were learning how make homosexuality illegal here. We do know it is your goal to dismantle the Maine Human Right Commission and eliminate human right teams in schools, then criminalize homosexuality, which will invalidate gay people as citizens and voters.
July 18, 2010 at 10:13 AM Report abuse
Alex Rodgers said...
How can someone with writing talents and who "respects" society say something like this. You have no support for why you beleive societies downfall will be same-sex marriage, you should know better. You claim that you love family and enjoy them, but the report you made is more of a hate towards them. If you really understand love, and whats right for society, you would respect the fact that they are people to. They just try to find happieness. The fouding fathers of our nation wanting to protect the civil rights of the people. We fought the british to get rid of hate, control and tyranny that harms the people and thier human rights. The founding fathers had created the bill of rights to protect people our our freedom. That's why America wanted to defeat the British. So stop bringing out information and attacking poeple unless you have real support. Just try to use research or even common sense.
July 22, 2010 at 10:17 AM Report abuse
HesterPrynne said...
I'm sorry I missed this opinion piece. Damn, work just keeps getting in my way! Div, I beg your forgiveness up front but I've copied one of your posts as I think it's one of the best I've seen...and plan to repost it to today's spate of letters. Please don't be mad.
July 25, 2010 at 12:34 PM Report abuse