For student council elections, we had to think about who would make a good leader, not just choose our friends or someone we liked.

A good leader has patience. They need to have patience because they need to wait for the followers to follow their lead. A good leader needs responsibility. They need to be responsible because they need to make good choices for a group and they need to take care of others.

A good leader needs to be trustworthy because they could be leading you into a trap or a series of dangerous events. A good leader mostly needs to think of others and what is best for others, not just themselves.

Ellis Dougherty, 10

Frank I. Brown Elementary School

South Portland

One definition of marriage excludes heterosexual pair

In his Oct. 24 letter opposing equal marriage, Philip E. Sumner calls for different terminology to describe different lifestyles (“Differences in lifestyles merit different terminology“).

By establishing criteria distinguishing marriage from civil unions, Mr. Sumner relegates my 15-year marriage to civil union status. My wife and I never intended to have children, and, not meeting his criteria of mother, father and child, God’s creating new life and multigenerational perpetuation, our marriage would be downgraded to a civil union.

While opponents of gay marriage contend that there is a fixed, traditional definition of marriage, that is not the truth. The polygamy referenced in the Bible is now illegal. In Exodus, the Bible states that if a man seduces a virgin to whom he isn’t married, he will pay the bride price for a virgin and marry her.

For centuries, spousal abuse was an accepted practice that women were expected to tolerate. As recently as the 1970s, society at large considered marital rape an impossibility.

The simple fact is that as society has evolved, we have redefined marriage. Part of this evolution is the understanding that society has the right to legally define marriage, separate from religious beliefs and forcing no practices on any religion.

This referendum poses a simple question: Will we refuse to two loving people the right to marry? It is a small-minded and backward-looking society that answers “no” to that question.

Equal rights are inevitable, and we can either proudly embrace the future now or be dragged kicking and screaming into it in the future. I pray that Maine votes for equality and respect.

Reid Scher

Windham

Summers hard to pin down on reproductive care rights

Throughout the campaign, I’ve been concerned about Charlie Summers’ candidacy for Senate because I haven’t heard reasons why we should vote for him, just reasons why voters shouldn’t support Angus King.  

Now, Charlie Summers’ obtuseness about his views on women’s reproductive health have given me another reason not to trust him or vote for him.  

Like Mitt Romney, Summers seems to have changed his position on access to abortion.  

His language on a recent survey indicated that he supported choice in instances of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother and he has clearly changed his position to no longer support federal funding for abortion.  

Summers also does not support the Affordable Care Act, despite its significant gains for women’s preventive care and access to contraceptives without co-pays. Recent stories in the news have cited studies showing that access to contraceptives has reduced the abortion rate, which is a very positive thing.

Two of the many reasons I am supporting Angus King for Senate are because he is a straight shooter who is very clear about his views, and he believes that reproductive rights are human rights.  

Even though our views may differ on some issues, I can trust Angus to let us know what he stands for and why, and he can be counted on to be a strong advocate for women’s reproductive health.

Shari Broder

Freeport

Four years under Obama have hurt U.S. economy

Am I better off today than four years ago? When I retired I invested in CDs instead of the stock market, thinking that the interest on my money would supplement my Social Security and my money would be safe. Ten years ago it would have, but now I get practically nothing.

Seniors are hurting, yet the welfare costs keep going up. You are better off not working with the minimum wages that most companies pay.

If you are lucky enough to get a job, it’s a minimum-wage job, and you need two or three jobs to make ends meet. And with Obamacare coming, no business will be employing people full time as they will not want to cover the insurance.

I feel so bad for our children and grandchildren who will not have the opportunites that my generation had. I am 78 years old.

I cannot understand why people will want to send the same people to Washington who have not done anything but play politics. Chellie Pingree and Mike Michaud will only vote on what Nancy Pelosi tells them to do. Just my thoughts.

Gerard A. Prevost

Portland

Columnist misleads readers about candidate’s character

I’d like to express my disappointment in Alan Caron and his column that appeared on the op-ed page of the Oct. 25 Press Herald (“Vote for the candidate who says his opponent is a good guy”).

Caron urged readers to cast their votes for Dick Woodbury, who is running for state Senate, because, among other positive characteristics that Caron mentioned, Mr. Woodbury is a nice guy (which I believe he is) and because he speaks well of his opponent, Chris Tyll (which he does).

Unfortunately, you wouldn’t know it from reading Caron’s column, but Tyll is also a nice guy and speaks well of Woodbury. So, by omitting half of the good news (two political opponents speaking well of each another), Caron chose to mislead the voters into thinking that Tyll, unlike his opponent, is not taking the high road.

It would have been helpful to the voters if Caron had displayed the magnanimity that is being displayed by the two candidates about whom he wrote. Bulletin to Mr. Caron: You are not helping!

John Rourke

Portland