The Anti-Celebration: It’s All Inclusive


I recently read a post by another activist here in Maine that brought out a point to this anti-Christian gay-rights fervor that is sweeping our nation, which was something I had never really given much thought to. Genie Jennings asked, “Why would anyone want to force anyone else to attend or approve of their day of celebration if they don’t approve or want to attend?” The quotation marks are there to provide some sense of syntax but those words are more of a paraphrase then a direct quote. I was surprised, first, because this is an issue she doesn’t generally get involved with or speak about, and secondly, the direct simple question provided one of those “stop and think about that” moments.

I have worked with Genie on several different issues and she is always very thoughtful. She consistently provides unique perspective, so the insight was not the surprise. I just had one of those very selfish “whydidn’tIthinkofthat” intraflections…I think I made that word up.

When I was in college, there were certain events that required all students and staff from the school to be in attendance. All of us knew this. This was a very strict school and we had signed an advisement when we enrolled that clearly stated that there would be required attendance at certain events. Still, it didn’t prevent many of us from making wry and cynical remarks about having to engage in “mandatory fun”.

The reason for this rule, as it was explained to me, was to promote a feeling of unity and togetherness within the campus community. What it really did, in my observations, was create two groups of people at the “mandatory fun” banquet: those who wanted to be there and those who couldn’t wait to get out of there. Quite frankly, it was a relief to those who were enjoying the banquet when the others had fulfilled their “mandatory fun” quotas and bailed out of there, taking their killjoy attitudes with them.

So, again, why would you want anyone associated with your party, your celebration, your wedding that doesn’t want to be there? Why would you want flowers or a cake provided or delivered by a business under duress, with an “I don’t believe in what your doing, it violates my faith, but if I don’t do this the government is going to take away my business, take all my life savings, destroy everything I have, and force me to take reeducation classes” look on their face with the fury of the persecuted and aggrieved simmering just below the surface. Is this truly a moment of celebration or a moment to inflict punishment on those who will not willingly affirm your expression, so then they must be forced?

The “new freedom” is beginning its conquest of the American tradition and it’s starting with the basic foundation of that tradition: marriage. The “new freedom”, the freedom to sex, demands that all other freedoms affirm its sovereignty with their allegiance. If the Freedom of Speech speaks against it: Speech is silenced. If the Freedom of Religion preaches against it: Faith is punished. If the Freedom of the Press reports against it: Reports are crushed. If Commerce disagrees with it: Commerce is blocked.

Once again I ask do we value sex above all other freedoms? Is it more important to affirm lifestyle choices than maintain our personal freedoms? And how did we get here?

A Willfully Wacky World

Its just astounding to watch the willful wacky contortions liberals will put themselves through just to attack Christians. CEO’s who berate  Christians for adhering to their personals beliefs about not promoting or sanctioning gay marriage and yet will spend millions in Countries that execute individuals who are gay.  Still others, such as Wal-Mart, decry the Christian faith and announce their support for Sharia Law and also do business with those that execute gays.  Now we have Universities that are banning Easter Services.  The persecution has just ramped up.  History is repeating itself because we willfully refused to learn from it.

The Last Stand: The Issue


“If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.” -Ronald Reagan

There are two fallacies connected with the traditional marriage versus same-sex marriage debate that we will deal with in this column. The first misconception is that love is the basic reason for marriage. The second widely propagated lie is that marriage is strictly a Christian tradition. Both have contributed greatly to the folly and contention we have today.

We should immediately dispense with the idea that marriage belongs to Christianity. Common sense tells us that Christianity is not the only religion that has had its imprint upon the rites of marriage. Not every Empire has been Christian, but every Empire has had a marriage structure by which to insure the stability of their generations in hopes to insure the longevity of their Kingdoms.

The pervasive thought that marriage tradition is rooted in Christianity comes from the fact that the United States is a Nation built on the foundation of a Judea-Christian faith. This must be tempered by the realization that we are a melting pot and not all peoples represented in this Country have their rites and traditions rooted in the same faith. While influenced by the Christian teaching of love, the origins of many of these various marital rites are very different from Christianity.

The proponents of same-sex marriage have tried to affix the label of Christianity to traditional marriage because it makes for a much easier and popular target. It is no secret that the political establishment has long resented and wanted Christianity removed from having any impact on society. Hollywood elites have longed disdained the teachings of morality and fidelity, and corporate tycoons have loathed the constant reminders to check their greed. Emboldened by the populace perception of Christianity as the evil menace to society, homosexuals have seized the opportunity to target and persecute Christians.

The prevailing argument is that homosexuals are loving couples that wish to have a marital relationship and therefore should not be denied this affirmation of love. This idea that a loving relationship is the fundamental basis for marriage is simple not correct. The institution of marriage was not created in any culture to validate a couple’s love and physical intimacy. No, the first and primary reason for the rite of marriage in every civilization throughout time was for the propagation and protection of the most fundamental and basic building block of society: babies.

The idea of a loving relationship as a prerequisite to marriage is a Western concept that has descended down from European lore and exacerbated by the modern Hollywood culture of today. In some Eastern marriage traditions, the idea of love is viewed as “bonus” that may come with time after the vows have been consummated. The one constant in every civilization is the purposing of marriage tradition as the vehicle by which children are brought into the world, raised, and taught the tenants of that society.

Not every marriage structure has demanded that physical intimacy be kept exclusively for marriage as Christianity and Islam do, but all the marriage rites of every civilization have agreed that the primary purpose of marriage was and is procreation. If a society is to survive it must have a stable structure in which to produce and raise children. The issue of marriage is simply about babies.

Even in the face of our hedonistic society the overarching truth still remains, marriage was created first for procreation not for love. It is a societal and religious rite created by heterosexuals for this primary purpose. Homosexuals did not create the rites of marriage represented in our Country and passed down by the various ethnic groups. The cold truth is homosexuals cannot procreate and, therefore, do not qualify for the purpose of marriage. Love does not qualify one’s relationship for marriage.

Marriage was not created for romance, love, or even sexual pleasure. While those ideals are not excluded, the harsh reality is that marriage was created by heterosexuals for heterosexuals who could, if they desired, create children. Marriage is exclusive for that purpose. Sadly, we are willing as a Nation, to target and revoke the rights and liberties of certain people groups based on reasoning that does not even exist.

Op-Ed by Erick Bennett on Same-Sex Marriage

Andy, I am sending this op ed out to all the mainstream media newspapers, would you please publish it in your website. Thank you.“Do you want to allow the state of Maine to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?”This is what the referendum question will ask Mainer’s voting November 6th to do.

Same sex couples have registered their wedding ceremonies with the state and received certified copies licensing that union since 2004.

A license is a permit where you must be registered with the state to have a wedding ceremony and join together in legal matrimony to get benefits.

The word “register” means an official record with the state.

Same sex couples have been able to join together in legal matrimony in Maine for 8 years with the same rights and benefits as everyone else such as inheriting their spouses property, adopt children, considered next of kin when making funeral arrangements, serve as guardian or conservator of spouses property if their spouse becomes incapacitated, visit their spouse in the hospital, purchase health insurance for their spouse if that employer provides benefits, take up to ten weeks of unpaid leave if their spouse or child is sick or dying and submit to a town clerk their spouses absentee ballot to vote.

Clearly, same sex couples already get licenses despite political rhetoric.

Marriage is not a right. You need a license to get married. You don’t need a license for your rights.

Special interest groups are not spending 5 million dollars to pass a law to get a drivers, hunting, fishing or marriage license.

All which can be revoked by the state.

This is about our rights, not special rights but taking away rights we already have such as our 1st,10th and 14th Amendment rights.

Same sex marriage is being used to attack our Constitutional rights state by state.

Here’s how.

Same sex marriage will change the legal definition from “one man and one woman” to Person A and Person B making it meaningless.

This completes the transfer of power over this institution from the realm of ‘We the People’ and grants full control to the state which strikes at the heart of our First Amendment.

Here’s why.

Redefining marriage will allow gay rights groups to join a class action law suit with Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York and Iowa against the federal government claiming discrimination.

This lawsuit bypasses Congress to go before the Supreme Court which will strike at the heart of the 10th Amendment which is states rights.

This class action lawsuit will allow non citizens to collect welfare and free healthcare which strikes at the heart of the 14th Amendment, which is what it means to be an American citizen.

This is not about love, it is about the law and the changes this law will make to our government and our rights.

Let’s look at the buzzword “equality“ they are using, it is a terrific clue as to the kind of government they are talking about.

Gay marriage is a global agenda and when they speak about “equality” they are talking about making America equal with the rest of the world, hence, the need to eliminate free speech, states rights and what it means to be an American citizen.

Eleven other countries have passed gay marriage, Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa and Sweden.

Passing gay marriage is not the only thing they have in common, they are also ranked the most socialist countries on earth.

So what does socialism have to do with same sex marriage?

To understand that we need to know what socialism is.

Socialism is a political and economic theory that believes that government should control everything. It is a stage between overthrowing capitalism and creating a communist government.

Same sex marriage is a cover so politicians can play political football in the attempt to score votes and grow government.

What voters need to understand is in Maine everything is already fair and equal.

The last thing we want to do is use a corrupt tax code to justify passing a law that takes away our Constitutional rights for the sake of changing our government to make America “equal” with the rest of the world.

For these reasons vote no to same sex marriage on November 6th.

Erick Bennett is a political consultant and strategist that owns FNX Enterprises which offer public relations and full service multi media marketing and advertising. He created the Maine Equal Rights Center campaign and the Three Point Plan specifically for this years referendum question. For more information please visit

Maine Equal Rights Center
The Maine Equal Rights Center campaign examines this issue closely as it relates to our rights, publ…

By Erick Bennett