Inevitably, in the debate on gay marriage, the charge of hatred will be leveled against those who defend the heterosexual tradition of marriage. There seems to be a feeling among liberals that any institution that maintains an exclusive membership policy is somehow exhibiting animosity towards those excluded. I suspect that this “feeling” is grounded more in spin than in fact. Boys are excluded from being members of the girls softball team in every state of the Union (yes, even California). Something tells me that the girls hold no feelings of animosity toward the boys being excluded from the team.     We often hear the rigid statutes of marriage being railed against by the media and its’ leftist allies. Why, then, would liberals be so intent on the homosexual community gaining access to a tradition so “confining”, so “archaic” and so “out of touch” with modern times? It’s certainly not because they admire marriage. Hollywood has made that abundantly clear. It’s not for legal status. Civil unions have already established that (and they’re so hip, cool and modern, too). So why the fixation with the heterosexual tradition of marriage? If an institution loses its’ exclusitivity, it then loses its’ societal status. It can no longer demand adherence to its’ own standards because it is no longer unique. Liberals want marriage to blend in, not stand alone. Heterosexuals provide for the greatest need a society has; regeneration. Marriage defines the parameters by which regeneration functions properly. Marriage in its’ essence is forward looking.

A young starry-eyed couple embark on a journey of love and make vows they may or may not fully comprehend. Soon, with or without warning, a child is on the horizon and this begins to accelerate the maturation from selfish love to selfless love. Every waking hour must be consumed with the future of their little ones. Sometimes driven to the brink of exhaustion, they work, pray and hope for a better future for their offspring. This is the engine that drives a nation.

Marriage by its’ very existence demands selflessness; in fact, selfishness can bring marriage to an unfortunate demise. The homosexual and hedonistic lifestyles, so prevalent among liberals, is predicated upon personal pleasure and personal gratification. You cannot function properly in a marriage and be focused on personal gain. Everything you do in marriage is focused on the future of those you’ve created.

Every society in the world has at its’ foundation the heterosexual relationship. It is the only means by which a nation can propagate its’ future. Homosexuals cannot regenerate. No matter what species of animal, you must have male and female to regenerate. Societies have established marital tradition as the governance to those who procreate. It is exclusive for that reason. Not to hate those who cannot create life, but to establish the contractual structure to define and protect those who create the future of a nation. Marriage is for the heterosexuals who love life forward.


Below are some op-eds pertaining  to the same-sex issue that I have been involved with in our local papers.  They consist of some in favor of the statute and my rebuttals.



I realize the church is trying to uphold the sacred nature of marriage and I can understand their intentions.  I think they may want to rethink who they are trying to ban though.

In the state of  Maine the following may marry: first cousins; convicted child molesters; prisoners; murderers; drug addicts; child abusers; Satanists; athiests; etc.

Anyone can today, obtain a marriage license, and marry a convicted murderer as long as they are of the opposite gender.  But two tax paying, law abiding, healthy individuals cannot marry if they are of the same gender.  Why?

The facts are that marriage is as sacred as the individual chooses it to be, and it should be sacred.  It should be monogamous, and it should be a lasting union that two healthy people work at continuously.  Unfortunatly many people do not consider it this way and marriage is not taken seriously.  Marriage is not sacred because of laws; it is sacred because of faith, love commitment, and the physical, mental and emotional health of the individuals involved regardless of their sexual orientation.

written by Nancy Rotkowitz in the Piscataquis Observer

This is my rebuttal:


I think I can understand the point Nancy Rotkowitz is trying to make; at least, I’m trying real hard.  It does pose a deep existential riddle to us all…. where in the world do liberals come up with this stuff?!!!!
If we follow her line of thinking heterosexuals in Maine seeking marriage are quite a heinous motley lot of offenders compared to the loving monogamous homosexuals we are surrounded by.  It’s the etc. that scared me the most….nothing worse than an etc…..truly scary.
Seriously, the issues and flaws within the heterosexual relationship show that marriage definitely goes beyond a matter of faith in a modern society.  While the offenders listed from Ms. Rotkowitz sound like perfect candidates for divorce, those individuals who find themselves married into a dangerous situation must have legal recourse and protection.
Society has long used marriage tradition as the basis to approach the governance and protection of procreation.  The major difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships is that only one procreates.  That is why marriage and laws pertaining to it are uniquely targeted for heterosexuals.  It is incumbent upon society to birth future generations in a stable positive manner.  That is why there are laws to protect children from those exceptions who try to destroy the rule; such as, Ms. Rotkowitz motley crew.
Unique is a word that infuriates liberals along with no.  Those words express exclusiveness and barriers that those who call for tolerance cannot tolerate.  But marriage must stand alone because of its unique solemn duty to society.  The preservation of the hope and security of our future generations.
(these next two paragraphs were edited out by the Piscataquis Observer)
Finally, let’s deal with the  supposed stable loving homosexual relationship.  The state of Massachusetts was one of the first to legalize Gay marriage.  Their reports now say that the legal system is overwhelmed with Gay divorce.  Their studies also show that a majority of Gay marriages do not last a year.  Massachusetts has also discovered that most homosexuals have many extra marital partners as hedonism is deeply ingrained into homosexuality.  How’s that for stability?  I guess fidelity is only expected in traditional….heterosexual….marriage…wow, imagine that.
How about that healthy  part?  The CDC (Center for Disease Control) has stated emphatically that those who engage in homosexual relationships take 20-30 years off their life expectancy.  They may love each other, but their killing each other off.
Traditional marriage is more than faith. It is about the future of a stable productive society.  That is what this is all about.  Our future.

(this was printed in the Piscataquis Observer op-ed)

Ms. Rotkowitz responded indirectly in the Piscataguis Times which carries my column:


In a recent posting here I wrote about marriage and was, as expected, retaliated against.  I want to add to the retaliatory response directed toward me.  If  homosexual marriage is denied gay people are not going to turn straight and start bearing children and if it allowed passed straight people are not going to stop.  No heterosexual couple is going to get divorced because a homosexual couple get married.  Homosexual marriage will not effect population because people, whether straight or gay, will have children if they choose to.  Families are not falling apart because people have been gay since the beginning of  time.  Families  are falling apart because of drug addiction and alcohol addiction among other things.  Many gay couples adopt, many straight couples choose not to have children or can’t have children for whatever reason.  homosexual people are in our society, period.  They are doctors, lawyers, teacher, social workers just like the heterosexual population.  Let’s work toward healthy families, regardless of sexual orientation, together.

printed in the op-ed section of the Piscataquis Times Oct.8, 2009

My rebuttal was sent to the  Piscataguis Observer as I have a column in the Times:


I recently responded to Nancy Rotkowitz’ op-ed on the gay marriage issue in this paper; the Piscataquis Observer.  I just read, in a another publication, that Ms. Rotkowitz characterizes those that responded to her opinion as  “retaliatory”.  Well,….hmmm… this is a debate…. on an issue that effects our civilization for generations to come.  I would suggest, Ms. Rotkowitz, that you put on an extra layer of skin before you step into this arena.
Here are some facts about gay marriage that most of our “objective’ newspapers in this state are editing out:
1.  The Netherlands was the first to legalize same-sex marriage.  A comprehensive study done in this country shows the average length of  a same-sex marriage is one and half years.  In that time, a man has an average of eight other partners in a year.  That’s twelve adulterous relationships in their “married life” per man.1   No matter how you define it, that is not stable.
2.  The noted homosexual writer Michelangelo Signorile clearly states the goal of the Gay community concerning same-sex marriage.  I quote, “A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.” 2   He further writes, “It is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture.  It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into Public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”3    Gays do not wish to honor and embrace marriage but, rather, destroy it.
3.  Same-sex marriage is about power.  The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force stated that, “Coming out is no longer the sum total of our strategy; we are about power.”4
4.  Homosexuals do not represent 10% of our population.  The Kinsey report was found to be fraudulent.  The Guttmacher report from Planned Parenthood found that only 1.1% of American were either homosexual or bisexual.5    Another report showed that 2% of American men used to be homosexual but no longer were.6   In essence,  99% of the citizens in this country are being asked to submit to the legal demands of less than 1% of society.  Somewhere I hear history books shuttering and whispering, “ This has happened before…”
Legal matters must be decided on facts not feelings.  Let us research historical precedents for facts rather than impact a civilization on the basis of emotion.

It remains to be seen whether the Observer will print this.


1.  Maria Xiridou, Ronald Geskus, Jon Dewit, Roel Countinho, and Mirjam   Kretzschmar, “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of  HIV Infections Among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS, 17 (2003): 1029-1038.

2.  Michelangelo Signorile, “Bridal Wave,” OUT magazine, December/January 1994, 161.

3.  Michelangelo Signorile, “I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do,” OUT magazine, May 1996, 30.

4.  John D’Emilio, board member of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, “The Irresistible Force of Gay Power,” 1993, quoted in NARTH Bulletin, December 1994, Volume 2, Number 3, 2.

5.  “Death of a Myth,” NARTH Bulletin, Volume 1, Number 3, July 1993, 3. See also “1% in Study Say They’re Homosexual,” Ft. Lauderdale: Sun-Sentinel, April 15, 1993.

6.  “Death of a Myth,” NARTH Bulletin, July 1993, 1.


I have started a series of columns concerning the same sex marriage issue in Maine in the Piscataquis Times

Love Life Forward: A Historical and Societal Defense of Marriage

Since I wrote my column “Love Life Forward” some time ago the debate on gay marriage has predictably intensified.  Much of the arguments have centered around an interpretation of faith and whether that interpretation is compassionate or not.  While these arguments are valid and should be addressed, I’m concerned the heated exchanges may cloud our vision and focus to the one question that defines this issue.  How does traditional marriage impact civilization in comparison to gay marriage?
I intend in my next columns to present a stark honest assessment of this question.  I am unashamedly and unapolagetically a man of deep faith, but I also realize there are those who do not share my faith.  In light of this, I think it is appropriate to acknowledge that perhaps we all may share a common hope; that is, we all wish for a prosperous, stable future for our little ones…our nations future.
So here we stand at a cultural crossroad again.  So many reasons shouted out at us to change or maintain a certain direction; all of them emotional and heartfelt.  This decision effects the future of innocents many of whom are not even old enough to comprehend the debate.  So before we proceed with the engine of passion driving us, let’s slow down and set aside emotionalism for pragmatism.  Hopefully, we can tie this all together with a thread of common sense.
The historical origins of marriage and its’ impact on society are something I want to address in future columns.  For this week I want to explore what marriage means to our society here and now.
Marriage is unique in that it targets a specific union; namely, heterosexuals with hopes of procreation.  I realize a marriage doesn’t always result in children either by a couples intent or physiological obstacles.  Exceptions acknowledged, the design and intent of marriage is to provide a stable environment for raising children.
Civilizations have come and gone.  Through the ages of time men and women have worked hard to elevate marriage to the place of honor that it holds.  With its flaws, matrimony is still regarded as sacred.  Our perceptions and laws concerning fidelity, protection, and abuse are rooted in the tradition of marriage.  The gay community has not spent the time to develop a tradition unto themselves.  They simply want what some one else has, not understanding the struggles heterosexuals have and continue to go through to give marriage its sacred status.
There is a reason marriage is exclusive.  It serves an exclusive purpose.  The laws and traditions attached to marriage are for the support and protection of future generations.  Homosexuals cannot procreate.  A civilization cannot be built upon a same sex marriage.  A gay marriage does not have a future beyond that couple.  That is why a civilization must have a tradition that exclusively governs procreation.  That is traditional marriage… heterosexual marriage.
The concept of traditional marriage demands the development of selfless love.  This concept pushes love and life forward to future generations.  This is what maintains a healthy nation.  Marriage is the engine of a successful society.
In a free nation,individuals are entitled to behave and love as they please.  This does not, however, grant individuals the right to take the hard work of others and call it their own.  Marriage was designed by heterosexuals to be specific for heterosexuals.  Exclusiveness is not wrong .  It is effective.



“Marriage is the union (of the representatives) of two different surnames, in friendship and in love, in order to continue the posterity of the former sages …” so said Confucius in reference to the Chinese family system. There seems to be some confusion in some quarters concerning what it means to “continue the posterity”, but for  Confucius and the Chinese, in one of the oldest remaining civilizations, it is quite apparent what it means.  Marriage was intended to insure that there would be a posterity.  Those who desired to produce the future of the Ancient Chinese culture were provided with a system to provide a stable environment for their offspring.
This system is not unique to the Chinese.  All the great civilizations have risen to prominence through a stable system of marriage.  Each culture has had a form of marriage with a system of rules designed to encourage procreation.  Humanity has learned through the ages to perfect and modify marriage as it has maneuvered from civilization to civilization.  The constant found in all the dominant societies of history is a marriage tradition that provided defined roles for both male and female.
For the first 500 years of the Roman Empire, essentially through its rise to power, polygamy was outlawed and divorce was unknown.  Romans married primarily for procreation; in fact, the “marriage couch” was generally placed in the center of the home; a not so subtle declaration of the reason for the marriage.  Romance was not considered necessary, but there is some historical evidence that love and affection grew in time.
Later, as Romans began to indulge in hedonistic and homosexual lifestyles, divorce became more prevalent in the society.  Emperor Constantine tried to impose the more stricter confines of Christian marriage to try and curb this disintegration.  The Theodosian Code was later passed into law prohibiting same-sex marriage as a last attempt to solidify heterosexual marriage in the Roman Empire.  Homosexuality had infiltrated the Roman army; particularly, the Praetorian Guard.  The mighty Roman army had begun to lose its discipline as soldiers would break ranks when they saw their lover fall in battle.
The Code was also an attempt to stop the rapid drop in the birth rate amongst Romans.  Without children, the Roman Empire predictably contracted and weakened.  History shows that the Roman addiction to self and pleasure caused them to abdicate the confines of marriage and child rearing to the  “freedom” of hedonism and homosexuality at the cost of infanticide and abortion.  The Theodosian Code tried to stunt the effects of this on the Empire but it was too late.  Rome was overrun and defeated.
It’s not too late for us.  We have the luxury of history at our disposal.  Let us use it to our advantage.  Heterosexual marriage encourages procreation.  It must be protected, stable, and unique.  If marriage disintegrates, so will our society.  History speaks if we will listen.


When the Romans took power from the Greeks, the weakness of the Greek Empire was something the early Romans did not want to replicate.  This is evidenced by an early marriage certificate discovered in Tebtunis, Egypt circa. 92 B.C..  Remember that in the first 500 years of the Roman Empire divorce was virtually non-existent; yet, in these early marriage papyri grounds for divorce was stipulated as follows: “It shall not be Lawful for (Husband) to bring in any other wife but (Wife), nor to keep a concubine or boy, nor to have children by another woman while (Wife) lives…”
It seems the early Romans took a dim view of polygamy, concubines, homosexuality, and promiscuity.  Why?… because they had a front row sear to the fall of Greece and saw the reasons for it.  Early Rome wanted nothing to do with hedonism and homosexuality.  It wasn’t a “Christian” decision.  Rome was hundreds of years away from a Christian influence.  It was the civil populace that decided to preserve marriage solely for procreation in an effort to build an stable empire.
The Babylonians similarly grew an empire through a strong tradition of marriage designed to encourage procreation.  The decline of Babylon was in direct correlation to the advent of homosexuality.  The men began to paint their nails, wear makeup, and wear women’s clothes.  Homosexuality invaded the army and soon the Babylonian Empire crumbled.  Historical accounts shout warnings to us on the winds of time.  It remains to be seen if we will heed them.
The effect of marriage on society is something that must be addressed.  Most importantly, its role in civilizing men.  Sociologist Stephen Nock, through longitudinal research, found that after marriage men tended to work harder, caroused less, and spent more time with their families.  A procreative relationship that is long term, as marriage is, has been shown to moderate levels of testosterone in men.  Studies of testosterone would assure us that because of marriage men are less promiscuous, aggressive, violent, and other risky behavior.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, has a detrimental effect on society.  Research shows that those involved in homosexual activity take 20-30 years off of their life span.  The Center for Disease Control Atlanta estimates, through interviews, that the average active single homosexual male has unprotected sex with 200-300 different partners in a year.  Research of the Netherlands shows same-sex marriages only last a year and a half.  In that “married life” each individual partner has had 12 extra marital affairs.
Domestic violence is higher amongst homosexuals than heterosexuals.  Research from the Gay and Lesbian Center for Domestic Violence Los Angeles found that domestic violence among gay men was 6 to 7 times more than straight married couples.  Amazingly, Lesbian couples had the highest rate of violence at 8 to 10 times more than heterosexuals.
The idea that homosexuals make up 10% of our population has been debunked.  The Kinsey report was proven fraudulent.  The Guttmacher report from the President of Planned Parenthood showed that that 1.1% of American males claim to be either homosexual or bisexual.  Another study found that 2% of American males claim to have once been gay but have rejected it.  That means that we as citizens are being asked to change our laws, our traditions, and our futures for less than 1% percent of the populace.  Look at history and read what happens when you let the minority rule.  It’s not a pretty picture.  Remember, we hold the vote!  Go and vote yes on 1!

4 comments on “LOVE LIFE FORWARD

  1. Just had an opportunity to read Andy Torbett’s column of “A Historical and Societal Defense of Marriage” which appeared in the October 8th Somerset Times. Well written and to the point – and addressed something I had not thought of previously – “The gay community has not spent…unto themselves. They simply want what someone else has….” How true — and how closely related to the liberal way of thinking – imagine that!

  2. more facts: 1. domestic violence amongst homosexual men exceeds those of heterosexual married couples by six to seven times; lesbian couples 8-10 times (S. Holt, “Ending the Cycle of Domestic Violence,” Gay and Lesbian Times, September 26, 1996, 39.)

    2. A typical active homosexual man may have 200-300 sexual encounters in a year so says the CDC of Atlanta 3. Dr. Simon Levay’s discovery of a supposed difference in homosexual and heterosexual brain was debunked as Levay himself could not replicate the findings. 4. Researcher Dean Hamer claimed he found gay gene. Scientists have not been able to duplicate his “findings” some calling it “pseudo-science” others unsupportable. (Dr. Charles Socarides, Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far (Phoenix: Adam Musgrave Books, 1995), 93.) (George Rice, Carol Anderson, Neil Risch, and George Ebers, “Male Homosexuality: Absence of Linkage to Microsatellite Markers at Xq28,” Science, April 1999, 284:665.)

  3. Andy, I have tried to talk to so many people from the Yes side and none of them want to have a conversation. I understand your points and yes, there is civil union for homosexuals and yes I agree with it as long as it carries the same rights but, we do not have civil union in Maine. We do have domestic partnership which can be utilized by both homo and heterosexual couples.
    I hate the horrible things that are said from both sides but I do think there has to be a happy medium. People that say horrible things about homosexuals dont represent the majority of the Yes side and the people you are describing above dont represent the No side or homosexuals as a whole. Lesbian relationships actually normally last longer than any other.
    Please feel free to email me at
    It seems like no one want to resove this, they just want to fight.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s