Equality Maine is at it again, trying to distort people's perception of same sex marriage by calling supporters of marriage liars. Here's what I mean:

This recent ad from Stand for Marriage Maine makes a valid accusation against the Equality Maine organizers, namely, that Equality Maine had tried to push homosexual teaching in Maine schools back in 2005. In 2009, of course, they push for same sex marriage and push acceptance to neuter marriage where man and woman become meaningless attributes.

Stand for Marriage Maine rightly points out that if same sex marriage is adopted in Maine, the next step will be to push the gay agenda into schools. (Of course, homosexuals and gay rights advocates are fond of telling me "there is no gay agenda." Political activism to neuter marriage isn't an agenda? Give me a bag.)

Equality Maine flatly rejects the Stand for Marriage Maine "attack" on same sex marriage. They seemingly deny that Maine will never allow teaching same sex marriage and acceptance of homosexuality in the school system. Yet, what are they really saying? Here's the basis of discontent from Maine's attorney general:

Maine Attorney General Janet Mills ruled last week that the new law would not force schools to teach same-sex marriage, and in the wake of that ruling, gay marriage advocates want the ad taken off the air. (MyFoxMaine.com)

In effect, those in Equality Maine say that because, in the past, Maine rejected teaching same sex marriage in schools, that, in the future, Maine will reject teaching same sex marriage in the schools.

This is all smoke and mirrors. Gay activists have continually denied that they would push for teaching same sex marriage in schools. (Truth be told, back in 2003, gay activists vehemently denied they would push for same sex marriage. Look where that "promise" has led us. But I digress.) Yet, all we need is one instance where gay activists have pushed to teach same sex marriage in schools to disqualify Equality Maine's objection. Here's only one example from Massachusetts, where same sex marriage is legal:

Massachusetts parents infuriated that their second graders were read King & King, a fairy tale about two gay princes, are suing the school and the teacher in federal court. The parents say schools are violating their religious freedom. But in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal, public school officials say they not only can talk about gay couples, they are required to. (NPR)

How about this recent gem? This comes from an NPR radio interview with a Massachusetts teacher who not only taught about same sex marriage to her grade school class, but also taught about some of the finer points of lesbian sex and sex toys:

“I know that, OK, this is legal now. If somebody wants to challenge me I say give me a break.” — Deb Allen, Teacher (Beetle Blogger)

Will passing a law in Maine to allow same sex marriage open the door to laws and school policy changes to teach same sex marriage in schools?

You know it. I know it. Gay activists know it. We know it because this is exactly what gay activists want, complete acceptance and normalization of homosexual behavior and homosexual sex. In their dogmatic zeal, they will gladly hide one intention to gain another advantage. They will shout "You lie!" from the rooftops about same sex education in schools, all the while hiding behind their push to normalize the idea that two men or two women can also make a marriage.

Yet, Equality Maine and other political entities pushing to legalize neutering marriage dance the same dance, all the while producing volumes of smoke and roomfuls of mirrors in their zeal to bash those who think marriage ought to remain between a man and a woman.

Is this what you want, people of Maine? Do you want to help gay activists neuter marriage and, in some near future, teach your children that homosexual sex is all right?

Visit Stand for Marriage Maine by clicking on their banner and make a stand against the smoke and mirrors of gay activists.

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?

Once upon a time there was a cabinet maker. He produced fine, wood cabinets for the people of his village and they all came to him whenever they needed a cabinet for their home. He took great pride in producing cabinets, using wood from two different trees and fitting the crafted pieces together into a seamless union. His cabinets had many drawers and room enough to protect the things the villagers needed to store. The cabinets were strong and useful, built to last a lifetime.

Many villagers were glad to have a useful and beautiful cabinet in their home. The villagers used the cabinet's drawers to protect their possessions from dirt and bugs, filth and corruption. With care, a cabinet lasted a lifetime, protecting the villagers' possessions and making the villagers happy.

Yet, over the years, the cabinet maker discovered that many of the villagers didn't properly care for their cabinets. They no longer realized that even the best-made cabinets needed care and protection. Instead, some villagers left their cabinets exposed to the weather, to dry and crack. Some left their cabinets exposed to rot and filth. Termites ate away at others. Neglected, many of the cabinets broke to pieces. Some villagers even destroyed their cabinets outright in fits of anger or abuse. Some left their cabinets empty and unused, then threw them away because they could find no use for them.

Many villagers, whose cabinets decayed, blamed the cabinet maker for not building the cabinets strong enough. Even more villagers blamed the cabinets themselves, thinking that cabinets weren't worth the price and care needed to maintain them. Of course, the corrupted and broken cabinets weren't the cabinet maker's, nor the cabinet's fault. Neither were responsible for the villagers' neglect or abuse.

The cabinet maker shook his head in sad bewilderment at the villagers who blamed him or his fine cabinets. In neglecting or abusing the cabinets, the villagers blamed everyone but themselves.

One day, a stranger came to town, telling every villager he met that he, too, was a cabinet maker. He told the villagers that his cabinets were new and improved. The new cabinets, he assured the villagers, were much better than the old ones they were used to. He pointed to the broken and decaying old cabinets as proof that the villagers needed new and improved cabinets. According to the stranger, as soon as he set up shop to sell his new cabinets, the villagers certainly would not want any other kind.

The stranger soon showed up at the cabinet maker's door. The two shared few pleasantries, the cabinet maker finding himself in a quick and tense conversation with his new competitor.

"I understand you have a new cabinet you are trying to sell the people," the cabinet maker said.

"That's right," said the stranger. "My cabinets are newer and better than yours and soon everyone will want one. Your cabinets are now obsolete."

"We'll see," said the cabinet maker. " Do you have one of your new cabinets you can show me?"

The stranger pulled one of his cabinets out of the back of his truck and set it in front of the cabinet maker.

The cabinet maker was startled. In front of him was, not a cabinet, but an end table. "That's not a cabinet," he said. "That's an end table."

"No, you're wrong," the stranger said. "This is a new and improved cabinet and soon everyone will want one."

"But," the cabinet maker said, "it has no drawers. How can it be a cabinet without drawers? It cannot protect the villagers' possessions without drawers."

"Drawers are obsolete," the stranger said. "No one really cares about drawers anymore and those that do happen to need drawers can just stack them underneath the cabinet."

"But," the cabinet maker said, "it is made from only one tree and therefore is weak and cannot support the weight the villagers will place on it."

"Using two trees is old-fashioned. No one really believes that you need two trees to make a cabinet anymore. And besides, no one really expects cabinets to hold any weight anyway."

"But," the cabinet maker said, "it is a side table, not a cabinet. No one will buy this!"

The stranger got angry with the cabinet maker. "You are just an old man with stupid old ideas about cabinets! I will make sure your old and stupid ideas don't stop me from selling my cabinets!" With that the stranger packed up his side table and left.

The next day, the constable showed up at the cabinet maker's door. "The stranger filed a complaint against you," the constable said. "He said you were rude and unfair to him and wouldn't allow him to sell his cabinets to the villagers."

"But," the cabinet maker said, "you don't understand. What the stranger makes are not cabinets but side tables. They use wood from only one tree and have no drawers."

The constable got angry with the cabinet maker. "That's just what he said you'd say. I'm citing you for unfair business practices and hate speech." With that the constable handed a citation to the cabinet maker and left.

Soon after, the stranger showed up at the cabinet maker's door. "You stupid, ignorant old man, what do you have to say about my cabinets now?"

"But," the cabinet maker said, "you don't understand. What you make are not cabinets but side tables. They use wood from only one tree and have no drawers."

The stranger got even more angry than the first time. "You are not only stupid and ignorant, you are a liar!" With that the stranger left.

The next day, the magistrate showed up at the cabinet maker's door. "I will declare from the magistrate's bench that your refusal to acknowledge the stranger's cabinet is unconstitutional, unfair, and takes away his civil rights. If you don't agree, you'll lose your business license and will never make cabinets again."

"But," the cabinet maker said, "you don't understand. What the stranger makes are not cabinets but side tables. They use wood from only one tree and have no drawers."

The magistrate got angry with the cabinet maker. "Are you implying that I don't recognize unfair and unconstitutional acts when I see them? I'm declaring the stranger's civil rights from the magistrate's bench whether you like it or not!" With that the magistrate left.

Soon after, the stranger showed up at the cabinet maker's door. "You bigoted moron, what do you have to say about my cabinets now?"

"But," the cabinet maker said, "you don't understand. What you make are not cabinets but side tables. They use wood from only one tree and have no drawers."

The stranger got even more angry than the second time. "You are not only bigoted and a moron, you are a filthy liar!" With that the stranger left.

The next day, the mayor showed up at the cabinet maker's door. "I will pass a law that says that anything the stranger makes is indeed a cabinet. If you don't agree, you'll lose your business license and will never make cabinets again."

"But," the cabinet maker said, "you don't understand. What the stranger makes are not cabinets but side tables. They use wood from only one tree and have no drawers."

The mayor got angry with the cabinet maker. "Are you implying that I'm getting paid off by the stranger to make these laws? I'm passing that law whether you like it or not!" With that the mayor left.

Soon after, the stranger showed up at the cabinet maker's door. "You old, decrepit cretin, what do you have to say about my cabinets now?"

"But," the cabinet maker said, "you don't understand. What you make are not cabinets but side tables. They use wood from only one tree and have no drawers."

The stranger got even more angry than the third time. "You are not only an old cretin, you are a filthy $&%**#$ scumbag liar!" With that the stranger left.

The next day, a student showed up at the cabinet maker's door. "My teacher told me that you don't believe in cabinets."

"But," the cabinet maker said, "you don't understand. What the stranger makes are not cabinets but side tables. They use wood from only one tree and have no drawers."

The student shrugged her shoulders. "Whatever, old dude. You are just as bigoted as the stranger said you'd be. Your ideas are soooooo yesterday!" With that the student left.

The cabinet maker sighed and went back inside his house. He continued to make proper cabinets, using two trees and building lots of drawers, just in case any of the villagers could still tell the difference between a cabinet and a side table.

A side table cannot be a cabinet. Same sex marriage cannot be marriage. Help protect the institution of marriage from those who would change and neuter its definition, and remember, marriage isn't merely an agreement between adults, it is an institution to protect children. Consider donating a few dollars to help Maine preserve the foundational institution of marriage. Click on the Yes on 1 link to make a donation.