in various formats -- now online

Click here to subscribe to the free daily RECORD newspaper email

Click here to go to the RECORD daily email archive

Click here to read timeless RECORD articles

"Fearful lest it be relegated to the position of an isolated sect, Christianity seems to be making frenzied efforts at mimicry in order to escape being devoured by its enemies--a reaction that seems defensive, but is in fact self-destructive. In the hope of saving itself, it seems to be assuming the colors of its environment, but the result is that it loses its identity. . . ."
--Leszek Kolakowski, from Modernity on Endless Trial

There are several concerns that I wish to raise concerning the proposed legislation.  My thoughts are as follows:

First, this legislation assumes within its definition of sexual orientation that homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism and transsexualism is morally legitimate.  A moral assumption is  being made that these expressions of sexual identity are legitimate behaviors equivalent in dignity to that of heterosexuality.  Where does this assumption originate?  And what is its moral foundation and authority?  Do they represent eternal truth, goodness and virtue?  Who decides that any sexual choices outside that practiced by monogamous heterosexual men and women is natural and worthy of lawful recognition?   This legislation represents a specific effort to impose a moral imperative upon those of us who disagree with its fundamental moral assumptions.  The issue is not about civil rights, the issue is about morality.  Its about a life-style choice the advocates of which represent a small minority and who desire to force their will on the rest of us.

Put simply, it is my position that we live in a moral universe created by God and He created men and women to engage in heterosexual intercourse.  Any sexual behavior that deviates from that norm is unnatural and therefore, immoral.  We know this, in part, from the design of our bodies.  Our bodies are created man and woman.  Man and woman are perfect complements.  This is a self-evident truth.  What about non-heterosexual practice is complementary?  More than that, heterosexual sex within the confines of a monogamous relationship is healthy.  What about such non-heterosexual sexual practices is healthy and morally virtuous for individuals and society?  Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., in his book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, quotes from studies showing that homosexuality, for example, leads to a decrease in life expectancy, chronic liver disease, frequent fatal rectal cancer, multiple bowel and other infectious diseases, and higher incidents of suicide.  In addition, he points out that homosexuals generally lead much more promiscuous life styles than heterosexuals.  Is this what we want for our society?  Is this healthy and good and reflective of moral goodness?   

If God did not create the universe in which we live, and He did not set forth natural laws to govern our behavior, laws that promote our well-being and which lead to healthy, vital societies, then the choices that we make and the behaviors that follow can only be judged as being right or wrong as a matter of social convention.  If what is defined as just, as right and as wrong derives from man-made and man-centered ideas, then the moral legitimacy of any idea becomes a matter of preference backed by force (moral or actual).  Fairness and justice amount to nothing more than fads.  Fairness and equal protection are reduced to temporal, utilitarian concepts.

If natural moral truth is not rooted in God, and the God of nature, then the decision to limit “sexual orientation” to the definition provided for in LD 1196 is a subjective one.  Why are we precluding the pedophile?  What about those who engage in necromancy, or incest?  Why do we define these behaviors as wrong?  On what basis do we declare homosexuality, transgenderism and bisexuality morally legitimate?  Simply because we think that certain behaviors are harmful to others?  Consent?  If a brother and a sister or a father and a daughter want to freely engage in sexual intercourse, why is this wrong under this legislation?  What about the polygamist?  Under this legislation, how do we discriminate against him?  Why can’t we redefine “sexual orientation” to include all or some of these categories on the same basis as that used by advocates of this legislation? 

This is why race and gender (male and female) as concepts of human rights must be rooted in God.  Race and gender are immutable characteristics created by God.  So too is heterosexuality.  Non-heterosexual practices are not innate, natural characteristics of man in this God-ordained universe.   

Second, I submit that this legislation, far from being about fairness, is a thinly disguised agenda to position Maine to legalize homosexual marriage.  If enacted, this law secures the legal apparatus necessary to accomplish this end by eliminating the legal and moral distinctions between heterosexual marriage and all other sexual practices.  This combined with the state’s existing employment benefits for “partners” works to undermine the legal rationale for sustaining marriage as being limited to one man and one woman.  Is this in society’s best interest?

My third point that I wish to express concerns the politics of this legislation.  Please explain to me why, knowing that this state has been through this fight twice before, the Governor is moving forward with legislation that serves the interest of a small minority? 

My last point is that this legislation presents a Pandora’s Box of legal ills.  These are discussed more fully in a separate paper that I have attached as an exhibit.  (We will be adding this analysis soon.  Email us if you don't see it here.  Email mike@cclmaine.org)

Thank you.

Michael L. Stultz

Home

The Christian Civic League of Maine

70 Sewall Street

Augusta, Maine 04330

v- 207-622-7634

f- 207-621-0035

email@cclmaine.org