58 Comments

1. Chris Baker
   Posted November 6, 2009 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

   There is little public recognition of what NOM did in Maine because NOM chose to operate in “stealth” mode in the Maine campaign to protect marriage. The local media in Maine did cover the proponents of gay marriage when they disparagingly mentioned Frank Schubert, that's of Schubert Flint Public Affairs. This is in spite of the fact that Schubert was technically the "campaign director" of Stand for Marriage Maine.

   To this day the Maine media has shown a complete lack of curiosity about NOM and why they spent nearly $2 million on successfully protecting marriage in Maine. That could because the Maine media is bigoted, or it could be to prevent NOM from gaining the national publicity that they so richly deserve. Also the Maine media failed to run an article about Maggie Gallagher or Brian Brown, who remain virtually unknown in Maine.

   PS: The national media doesn't understand that Maine is one of only a handful of states that allow voters to repeal recently passed state laws before the law takes effect. That's important because that right is under attack nationally by liberals. For example a prominent liberal group disparagingly referred to the right of voters to repeal recently passed laws before they take effect as a “quirk” of state law.

2. L. Marie
   Posted November 6, 2009 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

   Chris, huh?

   Do you really look at the choices Mainers have in newspaper and media outlets and see some kind of pro-marriage conspiracy? To the contrary, the media here was as pro-gay as it could get. Editorial after editorial parroted the same tired lines and red herrings. NOM certainly got scrutiny, more scrutiny than we ever heard for EQCA or any of the other out of state gay groups who ferried in legions of "grass roots" volunteers, lured to Maine with all expense paid "vacations". LOL. The NO people actually advertised on their website how beautiful Maine was and where to obtain one of these "voluncations" so they could import more "grass roots" campaigners.

   No. This fight was stacked against us, and with the Lord's help and the combined efforts of grass roots groups and national groups like NOM and Stand for Marriage Maine, we were able to get our message out and it resonated. Keep looking for your scapegoat.

3. Adam
   Posted November 6, 2009 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

   I'll say I noticed in many media reports that NOM wasn't mentioned or mentioned as the "anti marriage" supporters. But NOM did get plenty of scrutiny thanks to Fred Karger.

   I really like that "voluncations" word Marie. It is amazing how much effort went to get the grassroots to move from SF to Maine. 8,000 Volunteers. That's bigger than my city.

4. Michael
   Posted November 6, 2009 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

   L. Marie: Can't you read? Chris is one of yours. Yes, he's not articulating his point very well, but what he's trying to saw is that Maggie and Brian deserve credit for winning this.

   And as for LOLing. I have to LOL at you. To imply that Yes on 1 is pure Mainers while No on 1 was all imported is simply disingenuous.

5. L. Marie
   Posted November 6, 2009 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

   Haha! Michael you are right! I must have missed the nuance early on and got running on my own train of thought. My apologies Chris!

6. Amy
   Posted November 6, 2009 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

   Michael, the voluncations were actually offered on the NO on 1 website. Their campaign depended on out-of-staters doing the funding and legwork. They weren't abashed at all about it, why should you be feeling defensive? They're planning the same sort of largescale attack for other states. Have you seen Unitethefight? It's geared toward nationalizing every state fight. That's the strategy. We were outnumbered by a large degree because of the opposition shipping dollars and manpower in from out of state.

7. Heath
   Posted November 6, 2009 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

   Shame on you all. How dare you vote the rights of a group of individuals away. My vote will always be pro-marriage, because I realize that the love of any two individuals is worthy of this institution.

8. Amy
   Posted November 6, 2009 at 8:09 pm | Permalink

   The juxtaposition of Kevinn and Heath's responses are illustrative of the disconnect between visions of what the gay movement is all about. Thanks guys, I couldn't have said it better.

9. Sheryl Beckman
   Posted November 6, 2009 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

   The Maine 1 voting breakdown was that rural and older voters overwhelmingly voted YES, and larger towns and younger people overwhelmingly voted NO. Given that the older generation is dying off and the population shift to urban areas is underway, this spells a questionable future for this issue.

10. L. Marie
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

    All the more reason to stay on our toes on this one Sheryl. This issue is not one we can ever take for granted.

11. Justin
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

    L. Marie--"This fight was stacked against us, and with the Lord’s help and the combined efforts of grass roots "

    Hmm. Interesting. I was going to say that is was more of the Devil's help at work in Maine that passed question 1. Luckily, I'm free to believe that

12. Raynd
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

    Justin, I guess it all depends on who you call God doesn't it? Evil good and good evil....your view sounds a little twisted to me.

13. Raynd
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 8:22 pm | Permalink

    but you're RIGHT!! You are free to believe whatever you wish, and you know what? No one here will likely berate you as a lowly slimy bigot. Unless of course you start straying from the reservation too much and get hit by friendly fire from your side who is ALL too eager to see another marriage supporter bite the dust....

14. G.
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

    Raynd: Your victimhood schtick is tiresome.

15. Sally
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 8:48 pm | Permalink

    G: "Your victimhood schtick is tiresome."

    hahahaha wait, whose victimhood schtick was that?

    Wasn't it you just a second ago who was bemoaning the protection of children's rights over your own?

16. America
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

    Just like the anti-Prop. 8 mob in California, the left-wing mafioso in Maine are targeting Americans who oppose gay marriage.

    Where are all the civility police to decry the climate of hate?

    Voters on Tuesday repealed the state’s same sex marriage law after an emotionally charged campaign that drew large numbers to the polls and focused national attention on Maine.

    …”In a defiant speech to several hundred lingering supporters, No on 1 campaign manager Jesse Connolly pledged that his side “will not quit
    until we know where every single one of these votes lives.””

    “We’re not short-timers; we are here for the long haul,” Connolly told the crowd, some of whom wiped away tears as he spoke. “Whether it’s just all night and into the morning, or next week or next month or next year, we will be here. We’ll be fighting, we’ll be working. We will regroup.”

17. Sheryl Beckman
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 9:19 pm | Permalink

    America, how would you feel if your legal right (and gay marriage was legal in both CA and Maine before prop. 8 and prop 1) to marry was taken away from you? Put yourself in their shoes, and I think you would agree that it would stink to have rights yanked from under you. It was a cruel vote, and about as un-Christian as imaginable. It makes me sick to my stomach that people voted to take rights away. It just shows you how cruel people who call themselves Christian can be.

18. Denise
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 9:27 pm | Permalink

    Sheryl, homosexuality is not normal, it never will be. It's not healthy, not good for adults, and is especially harmful for children. I appreciate your emotional attachments, but emotional attachments and relationships can be made with lots of different people for lots of different reasons. Just because an emotional attachment exists, doesn't make it healthy, good or worth holding up as a societal ideal. Take your very sad story and apply it to the pedophile who feels very strongly about the emotional relationships he has with underage minors. Dress it up as prettily as you like but the reality exists, not all relationships are marriage.

19. Steven Lamont
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 9:32 pm | Permalink

    Sheryl, do you really endorse No on 1's threatening comments?

20. Marty
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

    I'm sorry you feel someone "voted your rights away" Sheryl, but how did you get those rights in the first place? Someone voted them in, that's how.

    Welcome to democracy. it aint perfect, and it does get ugly, but until you start bringing down stone tablets from Mt. Sania, it's the best the world has to offer.

21. Wes
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 11:30 pm | Permalink

    No one's rights were taken away. The people of Maine simply prevented marriage becoming redefined to accomidate a certain lifestyle that fancies itself as being a race. Every person has a right to marry regardless of sexual preference to a member of the opposite sex.

22. Erin
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 11:54 pm | Permalink

    Denise - Thank you for stating your true feelings. Most on this page won't just came out and say how they truly feel about homosexuals.
    People like Marty and LMarie like to hide behind this marriage battle.
    Denise is speaking the way you all would love to. She is uncovering your deep rooted dislike/hate for homosexuals. Stop acting like you care about marriage, and just say you don't like homosexuals. I'm sure you would fight the repeal of DADT, and the passing of ENDA .I'm sure you all were just livid when the Hate Crimes Bill passed...why? Because you simply don't like us.
    BTW Denise...you're wrong. Just remember, that you have to deal with things you hate on a personal level...so when your child or grandchild or close relative comes out to you, I hope you don't cast them aside like so many ignorant people do.

23. Nicholas
    Posted November 7, 2009 at 1:01 am | Permalink

    Erin,

    So, anybody who opposes the imposition of SSM onto society isn't really standing up for marriage, but, at the core, is a hater and a bigot? Really? I just thought they took marriage seriously and aren't willing to relinquish its true meaning-the union of male and female, husband and wife. Go figure.

    Also, who is casting who aside? So when you wittingly cast aside a gender in a SS relationship, what does that say about the "choice" you have made?

24. Erin
    Posted November 7, 2009 at 1:24 am | Permalink

    Nicholas - Denise is simply stating your true feelings about homosexuality. Who is she to call me abnormal.? - OR - as someone that harms myself or harms children? Do you even realize that we hear these things our whole lives, and sometimes it hurts so much that many of us take our own lives?
    And to think that you get bent out of shape because I implied that you hate us? Did that comment really upset you?
    I'm just tired of you people hiding behind this marriage battle, when it's just clear you don't like us.
    Answer this: How do you feel about repealing DADT? Does this make you uncomfortable to have gay men and women serving openly in the military? How does passing ENDA make you feel? Were you upset when the Hate Crimes Bill passed? I think I know your answer to all these questions.
    So ya, I soo apologize if I offended or hurt your feelings when I mentioned that you are a hater. I'll just take my abnormal, hurtful, sinning self elswhere.

    BTW - Marriage IS legal here...fight all you want. It will remain legal here and other parts of the world.

25. Nicholas
    Posted November 7, 2009 at 2:32 am | Permalink

    Erin,

    Rather defensive, eh? And no I wasn't offended by your implication. Since you seemingly know so well how marriage supporters think and feel, you should have known this, right?

    So, homophobia is at the root of homosexual suicide? Then, how do you account for suicides in general? Who is to blame for all the others that occur? Doesn't the person that "chooses" to commit suicide ultimately bear responsibility for doing so? Or, when I get to the breaking point, do I have no recourse?

    Lastly, the oversimplification of "my feelings" on peripheral issues (DADT, ENDA, and the Hate Crimes Bill) is only a reinforcement on your part of a preconceived notion. If not, then why bring them up? Because they just add fuel to the fire to your presupposition that "everyone" hates homosexuals. Let me ask you this: do you "hate" me because I stand for marriage as the union of male and female, husband and wife? If not, then, why would you assume the same of me?

26. Erin
    Posted November 7, 2009 at 3:26 am | Permalink

    Nicholas - Yes, homophobia is the root of homosexual suicide.

    Quit dancing around this.

    Why are you dissecting my post? Just answer the questions.

    Or - answer them internally. Whatever floats your boat. Just realize that we understand why you people fight against us in every arena.

    Let me be very clear about something. The gay community has MANY MANY straight allies.So it's not straight people that dislike us - It's you and peopleof your ilk of which I have no name or definination for.

27. Erin
    Posted November 7, 2009 at 3:28 am | Permalink

    "definition" (sp) - Yawn..it's late. Sleep well.

28. Chairm
    Posted November 7, 2009 at 4:19 am | Permalink

    Erin, the assertion of supremacy in the name of identity politics was repudiated some time ago.

    For example, see the Loving case which involved marriage. Racialist identity politics is closely analogous with the gaycentric version of identity politics in the SSM campaign.

    Love your identity group all you can, Erin, but stop pretending that society must fall-in lock-step with its assertion of supremacy over our laws, constitutional jurisprudence, and -- in the case of the foundaitonal social institution of marriage -- civil society.

    Not all identity politics entails such an assertion of supremacy; sometimes it is merely a call to ameliorate or to mitigate. Not so in the examples you have asked about.

    And certainly not so when it comes to the demand that society gut the core meaning of marriage and pour gay identity politics into the hollowed-out thing. The SSM campaign is openly about the queering of society -- as its leading lights have often acknowledged publicly. Some among them have called it reversed assimilation.

    Maine voters took no rights away from the gay individual. Neither eligiblity nor ineligibilty to marry is based on sexual orientation nor sexual identity. It is not in the black letter of the law. But SSMers insist on reading into the law what is not there; and then blatantly demanding that what is in the law be abolished.

    The man-woman criterion stands for sex integration; SSMers reject that. The marital presumption of paternity is entailed in the consent to marry; SSMers seek to deeply discount or to marginalize that. The combination of sex integration and responsible procreation is at the core of the social institution; SSMers reject marriage, as a social institution, and seek to replace it with a vague notion that relies entirely on the arbitrariness of identity politics.

    If you want to make the case for SSM, then, do so without attacking the core meaning of marriage, if you can. Make the independant claim for a gaycentric type of arrangements. Why should it be accorded a special status on par with marital status? Why should gayness be treated as special among the rest of the nonmarriage category of relationship types and kinds of living arrangements? What is the special reason for special status, in other words?

    What is the core meaning of such an arrangement and how does THAT justify society issuing a license to signify special status for it?

    Stop indulging yourself in feeling so hard put upon and blaming others. Do the basic work that is the burden of any would-be reformer. No more "me-too!" whinning that sounds like Janet Brady on the Brady Bunch: "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!"

29. Todd
    Posted November 7, 2009 at 7:57 am | Permalink

    "No one’s rights were taken away. The people of Maine simply prevented marriage becoming redefined to accommodate a certain lifestyle that fancies itself as being a race. Every person has a right to marry regardless of sexual preference to a member of the opposite sex."

    Excellent! Right on there Wes!

30. Todd
    Posted November 7, 2009 at 8:15 am | Permalink

    "Maine voters took no rights away from the gay individual. Neither eligibility nor ineligibility to marry is based on sexual orientation nor sexual identity. It is not in the black letter of the law. But SSMers insist on reading into the law what is not there; and then blatantly demanding that what is in the law be abolished."

    Good point Chairm. There's no behavioral test involved to ascertain sexual orientation before a marriage certificate is given. Two straight guys couldn't be married in Maine either.

31. Sam Jones
    Posted November 7, 2009 at 10:06 am | Permalink

    "Denise is simply stating your true feelings about homosexuality. Who is she to call me (how you act) abnormal.?"

    Erin, you are confused about the difference between you and what you do. We don't have to agree with what you do to value you as a person. It's amazing to me how many times I hear gay people rant about people hating them. Give it up already. You're not a victim. Just because you choose some kind of lifestyle that Denise considers immoral doesn't mean she despises you. Many people act immorally. Do you despise them? I ran a stopsign last week, do you despise me? This whole running to extremes to keep your lifestyle choices from being scrutinized by merit is just ridiculous. No one hates you here, perhaps they respect you less because of your inability to properly differentiate between who you are and what you choose, but sincerely. Give the whole sob story a rest.

32. Erin
    Posted November 7, 2009 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

    Sam - LOL...and what is it that I 'do'...please inform me.
    You say being gay is a choice, but as a gay person I am telling you it's not a choice.
    Noone is running extremes, silly. I would like the questions to be answered. Would you fight our rights and/or protections on other issues?
    And who are you to scrutinize what someone else does? LOL....nothing that homosexuals do affects you.
    A sob story?? One of your kind called me abnormal. She stated that I'm harmful to children and I'm harming myself...
    I don't think I'm giving you a sob story at all. One of your kind just admitted as to why you all fight gay marriage.
    I know why NOM fights it..they've stated that children need a mom and a dad.
    But you fight it because I lead an immoral life? Denise fights it because I'm abnormal. L. Marie likes to bring up the Bible and Marty...well his picture says it all.
    So I think you all need to decide the reason why you fight gay marrige. If you bundled all this up in a package, I think you could call it a package of hate.

33. Marty
    Posted November 7, 2009 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

    Who you marry is a choice, who you love is a choice. You can choose to love and marry a man Erin, or you can choose not to. If you find the idea of marrying a man so repuslive, then don't. Your choice.

    Perhaps I'm a rare creature, but I chose to be "heterosexual". Whether you remember doing it or not, I suspect you chose not to.

    Oh and feel free to judge me based on my avatar. I think that says a LOT more about you, than it does about me.

34. Denise
    Posted November 7, 2009 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

    None of what I said is directed at your person Erin, only your chosen lifestyle. You are probably a wonderful person. However, legalizing ssm IS the normalization of homosexuality. They're all part of the same effort, as someone pointed out earlier, you can't separate ssm from all the rest of the gay agenda. Either you accept homosexuality (ie gay sex acts) as normal right and good or you do not.

35. Sam Jones
    Posted November 7, 2009 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

    "Sam - LOL…and what is it that I ‘do’…please inform me."

    Erin, Well if you're trying to marry someone of the same sex, then I guess that's what you choose to do... is there rocket science involved here?

36. Bill
    Posted November 7, 2009 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

    Voters seem to know the harm of same gender marriage, but what about lawyers paid good money by NOM and others to UPHOLD prop 8?

    Hopefully NOM has better representation than this:

    Judge Vaughn R. Walker asked the NOM lawyer: What would be the harm of permitting gay men and lesbians to marry?

    “Your honor, my answer is: I don’t know,” Mr. Cooper said. “I don’t know.”

    A couple of hours later, Judge Walker denied Mr. Cooper’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit seeking to establish a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

37. Amy
    Posted November 7, 2009 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

    Bill, so what you're saying is that one man's answer represents all thought on the issue? Because he was ill prepared, or failed his case, somehow there is no answer? I think you and he have something in common then. Neither of you has (apparently) researched the issue.

38. Kevinn
    Posted November 7, 2009 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

    Amy,

    I don't know how same-sex marriage hurts society either. Do you Know?

39. Chairm
    Posted November 7, 2009 at 9:21 pm | Permalink

    What would be the harm in showing preference for the core meaning of the social institution of marriage? You know, stuff that all civilizations must grapple with one way or another: the combination of sex integration and responsible procreation.

    What is the harm in discriminating between marriage and nonmarriage when issuing licenses that signify entery into the social institution?

    What is the harm in protection equality whereby all nonmarital arrangements and types of relationships are treated equally -- regardless of gay identity?

    Indeed, there is little, if any, harm in all of the above.

    So SSMers name-call and whine about the importance of gayness in 1) discriminating in favor of gay identity politics and 2) abolishing in the law and the culture the core meaning of the social institution and, thus, the special reason for the special status of marriage.

    It seems blatantly harmful -- i.e. self-defeating -- for SSMers to hitch gayness to something and to demand special status on part with it -- but only to attack the special reason for its special status.

    It is harmful to marriage and to society. But, given that it is self-defeating of the proffered complaint and remedy that SSMers insist upon, well, it is harmful to their cause as well.

    SSMers should leave marriage alone and simply make the independent claim for special status based on gayness. Thusfar, that is all they have anyway -- a demand that gay identity politics become supreme. This is merely an attempt to inoculate that form of politics against dissent and open opposition. It is nothing more than that.

    Given the embedded assertion of supremacy via gay identity politics, SSMers reveal in their rhetoric and actions that their cause -- their "movement" -- is not about justice but about "just us".

    See Erin's comments which exemplify this.

40. beetlebabee
    Posted November 7, 2009 at 11:49 pm | Permalink

    There is no litmus test for sexuality in marriage. No discrimination, no singling out by orientation. Marriage in EVERY state has the same rules for all. Equal across the board.

41. Nicholas
    Posted November 8, 2009 at 2:58 am | Permalink

    Erin,

    So, again, the person who commits suicide has no responsibility for doing so? It is no doubt that you would come to this conclusion since you contend that "being" gay is not a choice. If it is not a choice, then why is pretty much everything else in life? Wherein is "gayness" innate?

    As to dancing around your questions, how have I done so? If my answers were not satisfactory, perhaps is just that you have convinced yourself that I am like everyone else. Have I called you names or said anything derogatory? The contempt for anyone who stands for marriage (and presumably against homosexuality) is apparent in the postings. The incessant "you people," "one of your kind," and "people of your ilk" are broadsweeping generalizations made to belittle and bemoan. They add nothing of substance to the debate, but portend to the "us vs them" mindset.

42. Nicholas
    Posted November 8, 2009 at 3:01 am | Permalink

    Kevin,

    Have you been reading any of the blogposts? It is rather evident what SSM is already doing to society. Do you need further evidence or do you just refuse to see?

43. L. Marie
    Posted November 8, 2009 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    "The incessant “you people,” “one of your kind,” and “people of your ilk” are broadsweeping generalizations made to belittle and bemoan. They add nothing of substance to the debate, but portend to the “us vs them” mindset."

    Nicholas, I noticed that as well. As if we were not all people, sharing the same air and earth. This is the arena of ideas, everyone is free to participate. We're all brothers and sisters here. It's unfortunate that some have to draw imaginary lines around classes and categories.

44. LadyofGod
    Posted November 8, 2009 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

    So now we have a hate crimes law protecting homosexuals. In California, the gays viciously persecuted anyone who donated to Prop 8, in other states they went into churchs and threw condoms, they hassled a little old lady for daring to have an opposite belief to their own and now they want to publish the names of anyone who donated to the campaigns in Washington and Maine so they can be targeted for harassment. I think we see now who the real haters are.

45. Lydia
    Posted November 8, 2009 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    Thank God the people of Maine voted this abomination down. I don't care what arguments people come up with, at the end of the day, God said that it is an abomination for men to lay with men and that if you did it, your life would be forfeit. So, even if you don't believe the Bible, believe what you see. Anytime a gay person dies, it is almost always from AIDS or an AIDS related illness. Of the 1.2 million cases of AIDS in America, over 800,000 are among homosexual men. If any other group was dying of the same disease, you would have to examine the why. The same week the homosexual community was planning a disgusting Southern Decadence festival in New Orleans, they got Katrina instead. The Bible has many examples of places destroyed because of immorality and the scientists has proven the location of Sodom and Gomorrah, a place that to this day is still a desolate wasteland with balls of 98% pure silphur embedded in all the structures, just like the Bible said. The fact that only one of the NY papers mentioned the defeat in Maine is because they are trying to pass that mess here in NY and it will be a cold day in hell before the people of God allow this.

46. Two Cents
    Posted November 8, 2009 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

    A manager at a Massachusetts retail store claims he was unjustly fired after he told a colleague he thought her impending marriage to another woman was wrong.

    Peter Vidala, 24, told FoxNews.com he was terminated in August from his position as second deputy manager at a Brookstone store at Boston's Logan Airport after a conversation he had with a manager from another Brookstone store who was visiting the location.

    Vidala claims the woman, whom he declined to identify, mentioned four times that she had married her partner. He said he then left the store briefly to visit the airport's chapel before returning.

    "I found it offensive that she repeatedly brought it up," Vidala said. "By the fourth time she mentioned it, I felt God wanted me to express how I felt about the matter, so I did. But my tone was downright apologetic. I said, 'Regarding your homosexuality, I think that's bad stuff.'"

    The woman, according to Vidala, then said, "Human resources, buddy — keep your opinions to yourself," before exiting the store.

    Two days later, Vidala, who had been employed for just a matter of weeks, received a termination letter citing the company's zero-tolerance policy regarding "harassment" and "inappropriate and unprofessional" comments.

    "In the state of Massachusetts, same-sex marriage is legal and there will be people with whom you work with who have fiancées or spouses who are the same gender," the Aug. 12 letter read. "... While you are entitled to your own beliefs, imposing them upon others in the workplace is not acceptable and in this case, by telling a colleague that she is deviant and immoral, constitutes discrimination and harassment."

    Vidala disputes using the words "deviant" and "immoral" during conversations with human resources employees on the matter.

    "I did say I regard that lifestyle as deviant, as in deviating from the norm, but I never, ever said to that to the [manager]," he said. "In general, I believe people don't want to hear about controversial issues like that in the workplace. They shouldn't have to."

    Vidala, who has not hired a lawyer, said he is considering filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

    In a statement issued to FoxNews.com, Brookstone President/CEO Ron Boire said a "thorough and fair investigation" had been completed in the matter.

    "We do not comment on any specific personnel issues," the statement read. "However I will say that Brookstone is an equal opportunity employer, meaning that we maintain a healthy, safe and productive work environment free from discrimination or harassment based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, national origin, physical or mental disability, or other factors that are unrelated to the Company’s legitimate business interests.

    "We are proud of our diverse workforce of varying cultural, ethnic, and religious backgrounds."

    Asked why he felt the need to comment on the woman's personal life, Vidala, who has since left the Boston area, said he felt compelled to do so.

    "I see, like all real Christians, homosexuals as people who, like me, are sinners and need to be told the truth in a loving way," he said. "In this situation, I took issue with the behavior. I think it's lunacy to call that type of behavior marriage in any kind of form. I had to express that I'm intolerant of that behavior. It's a love-the-sinner, hate-the-sin kind of deal."

    Vidala said he felt "intentionally goaded" by the manager to comment on her relationship.

    "She knew how I felt about homosexuality," he said. "When you talk to someone about something like that, you want their support. She was kind of looking into my eyes for that social cue for me to say, 'I'm happy for you.' But I really couldn't feel happy for her."

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572862,00.html

47. Michael
    Posted November 8, 2009 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

    Two Cents,

    Who do you think looks bad in this story? If you don't know, it's Vidala.

48. Two Cents
    Posted November 8, 2009 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

    It is interesting, I mean, their harassment policy mentions BOTH Religion and Homosexuality. Shouldn't she be fired for mentioning her view if he was fired for mentioning his? Isn't this exactly what the Maine campaign was talking about? (oh wait, you still think those were lies....)

    So shouldn't we be asking—"How Does Losing Your Freedom of Speech Affect Your Family?"

49. Chairm
    Posted November 8, 2009 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

    No, Michael, it's the manager who kept pressing for compliance instead of the quiet tolerance that the newly-hired assistant manager respond with.

    She was senior to him in the work relationship. She had power over him on that basis. She also exerted gay identity politics via the HR department to end his employment. The guy was vulnerable as a new hire anyway. If the HR department wants to hire and fire based on ths sort of stuff, then, the HR department should ask people for their views on SSM before they are employed. That way the litmus test can be upfront and honest.

    Instead the manipulations are peddled as making others look bad.

    Do you really think that this makes the manager and the HR department look good? Okay, then, you'd do the same thing, right? Provoke discussion of SSM in the workplace and press identity politics into hire and fire decisions. Would you if you could?

50. Chairm
    Posted November 8, 2009 at 9:19 pm | Permalink

    Suppose signatures were being gathered for a state amendment on marriage in Massachusetts. Should people be fired for seeking signatures or for signing it? I mean, if you could get them fired, would you?

51. Wes
    Posted November 8, 2009 at 9:32 pm | Permalink

    "It is interesting, I mean, their harassment policy mentions BOTH Religion and Homosexuality. Shouldn’t she be fired for mentioning her view if he was fired for mentioning his?"

    It would seem that homosexuality is more equal than religion. That is the gay activist's idea of civil rights.

52. Joe Lins
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

    With the legislators in New York and New Jersey looking at same-sex marriage bills, now is the time to meet outside the Capitols at Albany and Trenton!
    Let's be heard. Protect Motherhood - Protect Fatherhood - Protect Childhood - Protect Marriage!!

53. Clark
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    Joe...protect them from what? The scary gays that are the downfall of our society and cause catastrophes like Hurricane Katrina?

54. Clark
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

    Listen to yourself. You sound crazy. Motherhood, fatherhood, childhood, and marriage aren't under "attack". Chill out.

55. john
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

    Way to go Maine! Most of the people of Maine apparently realize that civil rights do not apply to behavior and that extending such rights to behavior, particularly behavior inconsistent with human survival and social harmony, would set a dangerous precedent.

    The militant feminist lesbian war on traditional values, on traditional families, and on men and boys generally suffered a setback, but all people who care about the future of society and future of civilization need to keep on fighting.

    Sometimes it almost seems there is some genetic self-destruct mechanism that explains this insane movement to divide and weaken the human family, creating a risk of developing splinter groups of human beings who will never come together and will inevitably destroy each other through never-ending conflict. Sometimes it just seems like bad luck that the successful struggle against racism would be followed by a destructive struggle by those who would misapply the lessons from that struggle in order to promote and celebrate exclusion (e.g. lesbians excluding men from their families and their company) of those different from them. And sometimes it seems there must be some conspiracy of the corporatist elites who understand that gay marriage will further divide, distract, and confuse the masses, making them politically weak and ineffectual and less able to resist the social evolution from corporatism to full-blown fascism.

    In any event, it was a great victory for the traditional family and for the whole human family in Maine. It is critical that we give people in most of the US time to see the destructive power of gay marriage where it has been accepted before they decide to take that plunge and fundamentally alter their society forever. Once it becomes legal, I am afraid there will be no going back as the lesbians will quickly alter the social rules so that we can never again get back to where we were.

56. Bobby
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

    I think if we deny a couple their marriage, then they should not be required to pay taxes.

57. Marty
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

    Sorry Bobby, but they chose non-marriage. They're still free to choose a real marriage, just as they always were. Separate isn't equal.

58. Laura
    Posted November 10, 2009 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

    John, very well said. Homosexuality is inherently self and otherwise destructive. Homosexual "marriage" legitimizes and promotes homosexuality, thereby significantly increasing its destructive power.

    You focus on lesbians who have waged war on men and boys. They clearly have. But let us not forget that more and more homosexual male "elites" are raising children (status symbol), exploiting them to legitimize their deviant lifestyles. They selfishly and cruelly deprive those children of mothers for a simple reason that they prefer sodomy with men to conjugal sexual relations with women.

    In any event, I agree with you that there must be some kind of a self-destruct mechanism there, genetic or otherwise.