UMO VP Student Affairs: UM Doesn't Support Outcome Gay Marriage Vote

Always plenty of room for hate on an American campus.

Further proof that Mainers voted wisely on Question 1!

Hate? Intolerance? Injustice? Furious? Seems overly dramatic and completely misguided.

from article above: "Never have I felt such contempt for people who disagreed with me....the people who voted...yesterday have just put on the biggest show of bigotry and hate.."

I thought liberals didn't do "hate speech.."

These hacks are dividing the campus. What about those students who support traditional marriage?

Op-Ed: Dean Dana inhibits dialogue with pro-tolerance speech
By The Maine Campus
November 9, 2009

One would hope...our colleges/universities would be a place where there could be a free exchange of ideas, where people could come together to discuss and debate...same-sex marriage. Unfortunately.., Robert Dana demonstrated that UMaine...will only accept those who agree with one side of the debate.

http://mainecampus.com/2009/11/09/op-ed-dean-dana-inhibits-dialogue-with...

Civil rights take time... : D

...but the bigotry of the Left is on instant display.

president@umaine.edu

Ask the University President if Dana had authorization to speak for the University. If he did not, what steps will be taken to terminate this man.

I think that the next law out there to "save families" should be that anyone who got married via clergy has to have a year of marriage-counseling before they can get divorced. Let's see how much support that bill would garner from the religious in this state? We ought to do it NOW before we lose the demographic upper-hand. : D

Domino,
You get your legislator to sponsor it and I will work with them. Ask them to sponsor a covenant marriage law like some other states have done.

Excellent recommendation, Bob. Will do.
Reminds me of Crystal Dixon incident at Univerity of Toledo. You'll recall she was fired for expressing her personal opinion and support of traditional marriage - on her own time, as a private citizen, in a letter to the editor.

ditto that, already done.

Just out of idle curiosity, will you, Domino, ever:

A. Present factually and honestly what our concerns were in opposing same-sex marriage, and

B. Stop ridiculing other people's beliefs?

I could add a "C." which would be, "Are you capable of stating, in an logical and intellectually defensible manner,
why the behavior of homosexuality (let's not even mention 'crossdressing' and 'transsexuality') should be raised to the level of a 'civil right'?"
ONe of the really, REALLY irritating things about the "homosexuals need civil rights" movement is how there is ultimately no logical starting point--it's one great grand exercise in circular reasoning; "it is because it is because it is, and because we started saying 'it is' now means that It is True, and you're just a (bigot/sexist/homophobe/extremerightwingrepublicanchristianhater) to even think of questioning it!" That, and the circular statement that "tolerant people want everyone to have civil rights", and only intolerant people would question if a particular behavior (because the only way to identify homosexuality is either by observed behavior or self-reporting) merits Special Protection.

We've been insulted, ridiculed, called various forms of haters, but speaking for myself, no one who supports gay rights have ever calmly appealed to logic or used fact-based reason with me. I start asking questions, and about 30 seconds into a conversation, either they simply say "Well, it true, and you'll come around" or it's deteroiated into me becoming a "hater" for the audacity of questioning them.

Maybe Mr Dana has forgotten who pays his salary. I too would like to know if this is the official position of the University.

I think he should know enough to shut up.

Domino, can you explain why this is a civil rights issue? As it is now homosexuals have more protections (hate crimes) than others, they are a protected class. Sorry civil unions wasn't good enough for them, and now they are angry and hateful towards anyone that voted against them, I guess they do believe in my rights.

The reason that "civil unions" is not good enough is to miss the point of the whole exercise. The need for homosexual "marriage" has less to do with the love for one another than it has to do with making the lifestyle "right" or "legitimate".

And I suspect it is as much for their own peace of mind as anything.

I can, and do, accept homosexuality as something that exists. I hate no one for it but wish they would stop trying to kick their choice of lifestyle into the faces of those who believe it to be wrong.

WC

You are right Woodencanoe, to bad Charlotte, Domino and Avg Joe wouldn't admit it or maybe the believed it really was about love or benefits or equality or...

Bob,

I sent an email expressing my outrage as a taxpayer and one who supported Question 1.

President of the University of Maine,

I have made repeated calls and have sent several email messages to ask for help with regard to protecting the citizens of Maine against the University of Maine and VP Robert Dana. He has pledged the University’s support contrary to the will of the people of Maine. He has IN THE NAME OF THE UNIVERSITY, condemned the majority of Maine people as hateful. What is going to be done about this?
As one of the principals for the recent People’s Veto, I have an obligation to report back to the thousands of Mainers who worked on the campaign. There are over 100,000 people who signed a petition and they deserve to know why their University is calling them despicable names and pledging to work against them. This is not the voice of an individual, but the Vice President of Student Affairs specifically pledging the University to a course of action.
“Vice President of Student Affairs Robert Dana stood to tell supporters the university does not support the election outcome and that UMaine is a place for students to feel accepted.”
“It’s never the right time to do wrong, and wrong has been done,” Dana said. “Every one of us, the people who think about fairness and kindness and compassion and justice, every one of those people thought, ‘Yes, that this was going to happen,’ and we believed it. You have expressed yourselves so publicly and personally. You expressed yourself so eloquently, and you have been slapped in the face. You have been done [wrong] to in a very public way, a very personal wrong, and here at the University of Maine, you are loved. You are cared for, and you are part of this community. I support you, and the University of Maine will support you. There is no room here for hate. There is no room here for intolerance, and there is no room here for injustice. I am furious about this and I know that the pain you are feeling is pain that I share and people across the university share.”
“Dana said the university plans to do everything to celebrate equality and push for equal rights.”
“We will go forward with this because we will not tolerate it. I am committed to that, and I can assure you that the university is committed,” Dana said.
http://mainecampus.com/2009/11/05/wilde-stein-remains-vigilant-in-the-fa...
Please return my calls today.

Bob Emrich
Stand For Marriage Maine
Maine Jeremiah Project

Thanks for the letter Bob, I can't wait to hear what they say but something tells me it may be a long time coming. I would love to see the students ask him to explain his intolerance and hatred of them and their parents and especially to the people who pay his wages.

Paul LePage Supports Civil Unions

Paul and I are on the same page on this issue. I did not participate in the ongoing campaign on either side because as I have stated on a regular basis, I don’t believe government should be in the marriage business. I did work to keep the party out of the campaign, because I don’t believe it is our role to support or oppose referendums not directly relegated to the four principles of Republicanisms (I know some disagree with me on whether gay issues falls under one of those principles, but I don’t want to get sidetracked on that here). I also voted against the question, because I felt that the law does not take away from heterosexual marriage while allowing same sex partners to be afforded some protections in a contract that they are otherwise denied.

I had a good conversation with Paul about his position on this a couple of weeks ago and at this point he is my second choice for governor. I told him that I will be supporting someone else if he gets in the race and he understands why.

BTW, I have no idea where my first choice candidate stands on gay and lesbian issues. That is not a litmus test I ever use for supporting candidates.

Steven Scharf
SCSMedia@aol.com

From: Robert Dana [mailto:Robert_Dana@umit.maine.edu]
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 10:20 AM
To: Paul Lepage
Subject: Re: Wow!!!

Dear Mr. Lepage:

Thank you for writing to me with your concerns. This is a horribly complicated issue and your letter has helped me be more sensitive to the fullest picture of the issues before us. Thank you for taking the time to write me. I do appreciate the feedback.

RQD

Robert Q. Dana
Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students
The University of Maine
5748 Memorial Union
Orono, Maine 04469-5748

Telephone: 207.581.1406
Fax: 207.581.4215

"Paul Lepage" writes:

"It's never the right time to do wrong, and wrong has been done," Dana said.

Mr. Dana,

While I do not know you nor have I any understanding of your views but to continue to have freedom society must establish the standard. Thirty-one states have voted to separate marriage and civil unions. However, you seem to
indicate that anyone who voted "YES on 1" is a bad and evil person, that they are guided by hate and intolerance. Well, I beg to differ! Several years ago when the state passed gay civil rights legislation, the gay community specially campaigned on a platform they did not seek nor want marriage they simply wanted equality. At that time I
supported the gay position and am a believer they deserve equality.

Now in 2009, they come back to the troth asking for equality calling it marriage. The alternative life style constituency lied to Maine people. This time around I voted "YES on 1," for two reasons. First, they reneged on their promise of not seeking marriage. Second, marriage in my mind is not a matter of intolerance or hate. While I am not a bible carrying preacher, I have religious values and in the Catholic religion "marriage" is a sacrament. Therefore, if we are to separate
church and state, we must do it all the way, without exception.

My vote was purely on the basis of separation of church and state. Government tells us we cannot pray in school and I abide by this silly notion. However, when it comes to same sex marriage our government discounts the sacrament of my church for the sake of hijacking the term "marriage." My belief is very simple, I do not pray in school and you do not get to use the word marriage. Government should not be allowed to be in the marriage business, whether it be "heterosexual" or "homosexual" unions. The state should sanction all unions between people as "civil legal contracts" and not marriage. If people choose marriage they go to church with a "civil legal contract" and ask the church to sanction the contract as marriage.

Therefore, state sanctions civil legal contracts and churches sanction marriage. It is then up to individual churches to accept or reject marriage as their respective ideology provide. I have gay brothers and they feel exactly the same way, I do. Are they intolerant and hate mongers, I say not, they simply have the depth of understanding of the difference between common law and spiritual law. I think your statements are divisive, troubling and uninformed. Your comments are not rooted in intellectual thought but rather in hatred of those who disagree with you. If that is what universities teach, wow it is time for change.

Regards,

Paul R. LePage

UMO Alumni

Now in 2009, they come back to the troth asking for equality calling it marriage.

troth?

troth = n. Archaic 1. a pledge or oath of fidelity, esp a betrothal 2. truth (esp in the phrase in troth) 3. loyalty; fidelity

Maybe trough? 1. a. A long, narrow, generally shallow receptacle for holding water or feed for animals. b. Any of various similar containers for domestic or industrial use, such as kneading or washing. 2. A gutter under the eaves of a roof. 3. A long, narrow depression, as between waves or ridges. 4. A low point in a business cycle or on a statistical graph. 5. Meteorology An elongated region of relatively low atmospheric pressure, often associated with a front. 6. Physics A minimum point in a wave or an alternating signal.

I would use a different word, though, in that context. "Trough" is degrading, it connotes your opponent as a feeding pig, which is harsh, and could be a turn-off in a respectful consideration.

I saw the use of the word, but did not feel it was appropraite to correct. I suspect it just did not come up on Paul's spell checker and he missed it.

Steven Scharf
SCSMedia@aol.com

It is my opinion that the UMO is a large cesspool. It should be completely dismantled and rebuilt to reality specifications .
I'd rather that those students were in soviet re education camp than UMO because if they were being forcefully held, they would rebel. At UMO, they don't know they are prisoners and have as much chance as a frog in boiling water.
If any action is taken, it would strictly be for public consumption. That guy pretty much reflects UMO atmosphere.

It's about VALIDATION....

I have already sent a letter to the president of the university.

I'll support that.

I, too, would support that bill, as long as the counseling is conducted by a religious counselor. I have heard too many stories of secular counselors who immediately urge each party to throw in the towel and seek a happy, friendly divorce, even going so far as to encourage "bird nesting" to save the children from undue distress. But the primary consideration is always the peace and happiness of the selfish parents...

"I did not participate in the ongoing campaign on either side" - we know better, don't we?

"I did work to keep the party out of the campaign, because I don’t believe it is our role to support or oppose referendums" - even though it is a specific part of your party's platform.

The reply to my email from VP Dana -
"Dear Mr. Emrich:
Thank you for writing to me with your concerns. This is a horribly complicated issue and your letter has helped me be more sensitive to the fullest picture of the issues before us.
Thank you for taking the time to write me. I do appreciate the feedback.
RQD"
I think I read that somewhere.

No word from the President yet - His office said he is out of state but will reply to my email (s)

I just got off the phone with Joe Carr, head of University Relations. Mr. Carr said, "Nobody -- no one person -- speaks for the university on political issues."

When asked if there would be a statement refuting Mr. Dana's statement, he was silent. When asked if there was someone who would retract that statement on behalf of the University, Mr. Carr said, "Robert Dana is the only one who can retract it."

When I mentioned irate taxpayers, Mr. Carr laughed unapologetically. Not sure what he found so funny.

I have a call in to Robert Dana. I hope to be surprised by his returning of said call.

maybe we should back off of this guy, he does look like one tough hombre.