Dear Editor:

I would like to respond to last week’s commentary, “Reflections on marriage equality: The Biblical Mandate.” In it Rev. Dudley-Moore states, “...the Bible never raises up one model of human relationship to the exclusion of others.” Let me quote what Jesus said in Matthew 19:4-6(NRSV), “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Rev. Dudley-Moore also states, “One's sexuality is not a disease, so it cannot be cured or rewired.” I know people who have come out of the homosexual lifestyle. Research backs that up. Jeffrey Satinover, author of “Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth,” published in 1996 by Evangelical Christian publisher Baker Books, stated in a February 19, 2005, interview in Christian news magazine World Magazine, “We now know that in the majority of both men and women, 'homosexuality,' as defined by any scientifically rigorous criteria, spontaneously tends to 'mutate' into heterosexuality over the course of a lifetime. The proportion of people who adopt a homosexual identity and the length of time they persist in holding onto it are affected primarily by environmental factors clearly identifiable in these...studies. These factors....include effects such as social networks, education, early sexual experiences, childhood sexual abuse and cultural beliefs.” Satinover is a graduate of M.I.T., Harvard and Yale. He received an M.D. from the University of Texas Medical School. He has conducted research into complex systems at the National Center for Scientific Research at the University of Nice in France. He has also taught civil liberties and constitutional law part time at Princeton. According to Satinover, studies around the world that have sampled more than 100,000 individuals have come to the same conclusion.

Let's look at some history in our state. I kept the Portland Press Herald from Wednesday, November 9, 2005, the day after Maine voters approved adding sexual orientation to Maine's Civil Rights Statute which defined “a person's actual or perceived heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality or gender identity or expression.” What stood out for me at the time was a quote by Matthew Perchinski who voted against adding sexual orientation to Maine's Civil Rights Statute because of the opinions of his gay friends. “They didn't believe they needed special laws to protect them,” said Perchinski … The laws that are in place protect everyone. If you make special laws for one group, where do you draw the line?”

The Portland Press Herald also reported that day, “The law says it is not intended to redefine marriage, which a separate state law defines as the union of a man and woman. But opponents of the law … argued during the campaign that keeping the gay rights law on the books would pave the way for legalizing same-sex marriage.

Maine Won't Discriminate, which led the fight to retain the law, countered that the law had nothing to do with marriage.”

I kept that issue of the Portland paper because I knew legalizing gay marriage would be next. So how many people are we talking about when we want to change the definition of marriage that has stood for several thousand years? According to surveys conducted in 2002 and 2011, pollsters at Gallup found that members of the American public massively overestimated how many people are gay or lesbian. “U.S. adults, on average, estimate that 25 percent of Americans are gay or lesbian,” Gallup found. Only four percent of all those surveyed in 2011 and about eight percent of those surveyed in 2002 correctly guessed that fewer than five percent of Americans identify as gay or lesbian. (Source: The Atlantic, May 2012)

Rev. Dudley-Moore says near the end of her commentary, “First one might ask, 'Where do my beliefs about marriage equality (same-sex marriage) come from? Is my conclusion based on current scholarly research and scientific studies? Does it stem from accurate Biblical interpretation … Am I being fair … Or, Am I buying into an exclusionist, prejudicial point of view?'”

In a recent opinion piece by Victor Davis Hanson in the Downeast Coastal Press (August 14-20, 2012) titled “Double Standards More Blatant Than Ever” he noted that “until recently, President Obama was on record as opposing gay marriage … Some pastors in churches with black congregations have been quite loud in their denunciations of gay marriage. Fundamentalist Islamic mosques routinely disparage homosexuals, often publicly in their literature. Is there something about white Christian males that make their opposition to gay marriage different from that of their black or Muslim counterparts?” Hanson was referring to the statement by Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy that so upset homosexual activists. What did Cathy exactly say when asked about his company's support of the traditional family. “Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy, “We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.” You will notice that Cathy made no statement with regard to same-sex marriage or his views on homosexuals, many of whom are employed in his restaurants.

So why do I support traditional marriage? Children are a primary reason. Decades of reliable social science research finds that children do best on every measure when raised with their own married mother and father. While that's not always possible, that's the ideal we should strive for.

Another area of concern is the impact on religious freedom. There's a growing list of legal cases involving people of faith who are penalized for refusing to participate in same-sex ceremonies. Faith-based adoption agencies are getting out of the business rather than violate their deeply held religious beliefs to only place children with a married mom and dad.

There is also an economic cost as state marriage amendments defining marriage as one man and one woman are challenged in court by same-sex marriage advocates regardless of state constitutions and statutes that define marriage as one man and one woman.

May 8 this year North Carolina voted to amend their constitution to say that the only valid “domestic legal partnership” in the state is marriage between a man and woman. The amendment passed 61-39 percent. North Carolina became the 29th state with a gay marriage ban in its constitution. Supporters of gay marriage raised more than $2 million while those supporting traditional marriage raised a little more than $1 million.

In 2005 the Portland paper reported that gay activists raised almost $930,000 compared to less than $336,000 raised by those opposing adding sexual orientation to Maine's Civil Rights Statute. Maine people that support traditional marriage are being outspent again. “Recently, hedge-fund manager Paul Singer, contributed more than $1 million to redefine marriage here in Maine and in other states where the fate of traditional marriage will be decided at the ballot box,” said Bob Emrich of Protect Marriage Maine. “Our opponents continue to bring in large contributions from out-of-state billionaires.” This is the most important issue we will be voting on in our state this November. Please get out to vote.

Mary Rose Pray
Wiscasset