For once, we can easily agree with a Catholic Church spokesman when he says in his Feb. 11 Another View editorial, “..The vast majority of Catholics … will continue to support and defend marriage as an institution that unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born from their union.”

But we would go further and support and defend marriage that unites a man and a woman who are unable to have a child or who decide to adopt a child or who come to the decision that parenthood is not for them.

We would go even further. We have been married to one another for almost 52 years and we absolutely believe in marriage not only because there are probably over 1,000 state and federal laws that confer rights only to the “married,” but because we believe in the commitment and stability that marriage offers to a loving couple and their family. Therefore we support same-sex marriage and are certain that it is morally wrong and legally discriminatory to deny marriage to a minority population.

Though our definition of marriage is broader than Mr. Souchet’s, we, too, will continue to support and defend marriage as an institution.

Sandra and Ole Jaeger

Georgetown

I recently saw the following on Facebook:

So let’s get this straight. . .

1. Charlie Sheen can make a “porn family.”

2. Kelsey Grammer ended his 15-year marriage over the phone.

3. Larry King has had eight divorces.

4. Kim Kardashian’s marriage cost $10 million and it lasted 72 days.

5. Brittany Spears had a 55-hour marriage.

6. Tiger Woods and Jesse James were having affairs while married.

7. 43 percent to 50 percent of traditional marriages end in divorce.

But somehow it is same-sex marriage that is going to destroy the institution of marriage — really?

Dennis Ouellette

Saco

I read with interest the letter by Robert R. O’Brien in the Feb. 7 paper and his assertion that all is well with same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. Mr. O’Brien asks us to look at scripture in Deuteronomy that has nothing to do with same-sex marriage at all.

I would suggest that Mr. O’Brien look first at Leviticus 20:13 to see what God thinks about the acts of homosexuality. People who engage in same-sex marriage are committing an abomination (something displeasing) to God, and they will have to answer to God someday for the lifestyle they chose. I have people ask me if God caused HIV and AIDS to punish gay people, and my reply is, “I don’t know, God didn’t tell me.”

I refer these folks to Romans 1:24-27, where, in the last part of verse 27, Scripture states, “Men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” This could mean any number of maladies homosexuals suffer because of their lifestyle.

Just because the folks in Massachusetts do it, does that make it right for Maine? I don’t think so, and neither do other Bible-believing evangelical Christians all over Maine.

Rev. Frederick H. Giese, M. Th.

Lisbon Falls

Occupy movement start of a revolution in thought

If I hadn’t decided recently to become actively involved in Occupy Maine, the fine Maine Voices column by Michael Shaughnessy (“Transition at Lincoln Park offers new opportunities for Occupy,” Feb. 11) would certainly have convinced me to join this transitional movement.

As Mr. Shaughnessy wrote: “The Occupy movement and the community at Lincoln Park is based on a simple notion — that too few have garnered far too much of the nation’s wealth and effectively own the political system for their own benefit.”

This sentence should be read and considered by all Americans who believe in the Declaration of Independence’s guarantee of “unalienable rights” to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” And equally important, that government must derive its powers “from the consent of the governed.”

That concept, along with constitutional guarantees to “establish justice” and “promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” have been turned on their head by the endless corrupting dollars that flow into the system of government from the 1 percent at the expense of the rest of us in the ever-nosediving 99 percent.

The war we face now must be peaceful in intent but unbending in resolve. It is a battle against entrenched minions of wealth who have bought their way into the heart and soul of our government. This war will be fought and won, as was our Revolution, by the rising up of the 99 percent, the people of America who demand the return of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Leading the way is the Occupy movement, as unlikely an assortment of committed Americans as were the Minutemen at Concord and Lexington. For all who are “mad as hell” and want to do something in this battle.

Norman Abelson

Moody

Lawmaker wrong about not having true numbers

On Saturday afternoon, Feb. 4, I attended Sen. Cynthia Dill’s town hall meeting that she called to answer questions about the governor’s proposed method — Sen. Dill called it a “patchwork gimmick” — to get the Department of Health and Human Services back in the black.

Sen. Dill was adamant that Gov. LePage’s proposal “would not solve the problem” because, she said, the Appropriations Committee is operating without knowing “the true numbers,” the exact amount of the shortfall. According to her, since the people responsible no longer work for the DHHS, “we don’t know the true numbers.”

My first reaction was: “For crying out loud, let’s get those people back to give us ‘the true numbers’!”

My next reaction was: “Wait a minute, wasn’t the Baldacci administration responsible for oversight of the DHHS?”

My final reaction as of Sunday morning, after consulting with a member of the Legislature, is one of outrage at Sen. Dill for not telling the truth!

The Appropriations Committee has all the numbers needed — “the true numbers!” — to make a decision about the DHHS budget! Her working against them does not help.

Is Sen. Dill out of the loop, trying to cover the tracks of Democrats in power during the time of the DHHS scandal, or just trying to undercut Gov. LePage’s support as a fiscally responsible governor?

Rose Marie Russell

Westbrook