The RECORD

UMaine News Release
Contact: Jennifer Crittenden

ORONO A recently completed study by the UMaine Center on Aging on alcohol and drug problems among older adults in Hancock County has revealed that abuse is pervasive and getting worse as Baby Boomers age.

The center found through a year-long study that as drug and alcohol problems are increasing among older Mainers, particularly in rural Hancock County, they are poised to become worse as a new generation of boomers, aged 40-60, joins an existing older population already afflicted by substance abuse.

The study, conducted for the Maine Office of Substance Abuse and in partnership with the Healthy Hancock Collaborative, further confirmed what researchers had discovered in previous studies that many older people suffering from alcohol and drug problems go unnoticed if they routinely drink at home alone. Also, some people may not think about how much they are drinking on a daily basis. For example, someone who has a glass of wine with dinner and a night cap later in the evening would be exceeding federally recommended limits on alcohol consumption.

"They are not getting arrested for OUI and they're not getting treatment in large numbers, signs that otherwise would underscore the social and health consequences of this disease," says Jennifer Crittenden, research associate with the Center on Aging. "We're having a really hard time identifying numbers because with older adults, the abuse issues are really hidden."

The study will form a foundation for a more ambitious approach to prevention and treatment work that would be carried out by the Center on Aging, Healthy Hancock Collaborative members in their communities, in addition to physicians, social workers and others who work with aging adults...

On a more positive note, Crittenden says that while many older adults deny they have substance abuse problems and tend to reject professional intervention, members of the boomer generation may be more willing to seek help. Traditionally more liberal attitudes about drugs and alcohol among many boomers, which in some cases leads to addiction problems, also extend to their attitudes about counseling, therapy and seeking help.

By Jason Cunningham

The Supreme Court announced on February 21, 2006 that it will take up the issue of partial-birth abortion otherwise known by the politically correct phrase "late-term abortion" (kinda hides the ugly truth, doesn't it?) and this couldn't have happened at a better time.

While abortion is one of the most heated topics of debate in our country, it's also one of the most misunderstood, with many people, especially abortion proponents, being woefully ignorant of the misapplied logic behind Roe v. Wade. Roe, of course, is the landmark 1973 decision that not only declared abortion to be legal, but a fundamental constitutional right that cannot be denied. This decision can be summed up in three words: Just plain wrong. And when I say wrong, I don't just mean from a moral standpoint, but also from a legal standpoint: Roe doesn't have a legality to stand on. For a fuller analysis of the sheer legal lunacy of this decision, see Mark Levin's Men In Black; but for now, I ask that you hear me out, because what I'm about to say won't be pointed out in most mainstream news sources.

Out of all the individual aspects comprising the abortion debate, the thing that sticks in my craw most painfully on the moral side of the issue is the often-voiced notion of the health of the mother. Thanks largely to Sandra "I'm a liberal in conservatives clothing" Day O'Connor, it's nearly entrenched in legal minds and the public's mind that any restriction on abortion must always allow this exception: that an abortion must be allowed to take place if the health of the mother is in jeopardy. Now, I'm going to give you three seconds to figure out the one absurdity inherent in that principle. Ready? Go. One, two, three. Did you get it? Well, hopefully you did, but just in case you didn't: Why is it that proponents view the mother's health as more important than the child's? No wonder we can't convince people that abortion is wrong; they think that the only person who matters in this situation is the mother. Why? Why is that? Tell me, if you please, because I want to know. On tonight's CBS evening news, Eve Gartner of Planned Parenthood said that the mother's health is paramount. Really? I'll say it again "why is that"? Why isn't the baby's health, the baby's life, paramount? I don't mean to sound cruel, but sometimes it's nature's course that the mother dies in childbirth, with humans as well as the animal kingdom. She dies so that the child gets to live. It seems selfish to me that the mother, someone who's already had a chance to live, would prevent her child from getting to enjoy the same opportunity. It makes no sense to me; there are two people involved, but apparently only one who counts.

And did I say two? I should have said three. Yes, that's right, don't forget about the father. Yeah, yeah, spew all the liberal lines you want "It's the woman's right to decide" but it takes two to tango, so it should take two to decide. The child is half his, after all.

Some more ridiculousness for you to chew on (and maybe choke on), this from a Dan K. Thomasson column that appeared in the Sunday, Feb. 12, edition of the Kennebec Journal (Augusta, Maine). The background of the situation is this: Wal-Mart has refused to sell the morning-after abortion pill and is now being pressured to reverse its position. In his column, Thomasson rails against Wal-Mart's anti-pill stance, stating that the company is not only undermining patients rights, but also putting people's lives in jeopardy.

My first question for Thomasson is this: Why do you make this sound like a life-threatening situation for the mother? She's not going to die if she doesn't get the morning-after pill. On the other hand, if she does get ahold of the pill, the baby will die. Call it another case of screwed-up, "me first" ethics.

My next point of contention is this: Just because something is legal doesn't mean that everyone has to like it and it doesn't mean that every business has to sell it. Free enterprise dictates that a company can sell any product it wants, so long as the product is legal. But nowhere does free enterprise or the law, for that matter dictate that a company must sell every legal product. Wal-Mart doesn't sell cars, after all, even though they're legal. Maybe we should force every Wal-Mart store to open a showroom. Or maybe we should force health-food stores to sell cigarettes.

Furthermore "and of much greater import, in my opinion" to force a pharmacist to dispense a medication that violates his religious beliefs (such as the morning-after pill) is a clear case of forcing him to go against the religious doctrine of his choice, which is a true violation of the First Amendment's oft-misinterpreted free-exercise clause. Our Constitution grants religious freedom a much higher priority than health care, in fact, our Constitution doesn't even mention health care, while it places religious freedom in the forefront of the Bill of Rights, which I can only presume means that the Founders viewed religious freedom "along with freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom to peaceably assemble" as being of the utmost importance. Abortion, on the other hand, is based on a so-called "right to privacy" (established in the Supreme Court's 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut decision), a right based on one word "liberty" found in the phrase "life, liberty, or property" of the 5th and 14th amendments; amendments, by the way, that were intended, respectively, to protect people accused of crimes, and to ensure the rights of the newly freed slaves, both having nothing to do with privacy, sexuality or abortion.

Jason Cunningham is an author and freelance writer from Windsor. His first novel, an adventure story titled From Gun-Draw To Getaway , is available online at www.publishamerica.com . More of his columns can be found on his blog, http://truthemporium.blogspot.com , where comments and questions can be posted.

New Jersey's Supreme Court copied Massachusetts this week. They pulled out their legal gun and pointed it at the head of the New Jersey Legislature. They gave them 180 days to create either same sex marriage or civil unions, the marriage look alike program created in Vermont in 2000. The gun isn't loaded, of course. The courts have no enforcement authority. That power rests with the executive branch, the Governor.

When the court did this same thing in Massachusetts, the Governor, Mitt Romney, decided to create "gay marriage" licenses. There still is no law passed by the Legislature authorizing same-sex marriage in the Bay State.

Here in Maine, outspoken lesbian activist Betsy Smith trumpeted her pleasure with New Jersey's troubles in a press release yesterday. Smith can't wait to enact same-sex marriage here in Maine. Smith is only the latest in a long line of deceptive and outspoken homosexual activists going all the way back to Dale McCormick in the 1970s. They began by saying all they wanted was to be treated equally. They wanted an end to job discrimination etc. They hitched their political wagon to the black equal rights movement and never looked back. They never acknowledged the truth. Their plan from the beginning was to soften the Christian church and general public for a legal redefinition of family and marriage based exclusively on secular legal rights.

At a time when radical secularism has the upper hand on thoughtful religious discourse, the battle is shrewdly framed to pit the idea of "freedom for all" against the straw man idea of "freedom for none." "Gays" have created a straw man argument...a false argument, if you will...for Christians. "Gay" activists, working hand-in-glove with the popular media, are trying to paint thoughtful conservative Christians into a corner.

It isn't working.

They are winning short term victories, but they will lose in the long-term.

"Too many hearts are breaking," said League director Mike Heath. "The ranks of the ex-gay movement are filling up, while the institutions that are trafficking in this worldview poison are coming apart. Just look at the Episcopal Church USA and the global Anglican communion. It's brutal."

Heath concluded, "And the liberal position is losing."

Heath said he feels sorry for homosexual political activists. They have hitched their wagon to an evil idea, and politicians have been only too happy to take their money and tromp all over their hearts.

"The real answer for sin and a broken heart is Jesus Christ," said Heath. "In Maine and America, we place our trust in God, not sex and pleasure."

Please read the important financial request at the bottom of this email. Thank you. -- Mike Heath

A SIMPLE RULE

"Husbands, be affectionate to your wives, and do not treat them harshly."

(Colossians 3:19)

QUOTATION FOR THE DAY

"What greater thing is there for two human souls than to feel that they are joined for life and to strengthen each other in all labor, to rest on each other in all sorrow, to minister to each other in all pain, to be one with each other in silent, unspeakable memories at the moment of the last parting."

(George Eliot)

AN ANSWER TO DR. MARVIN ELLISON
ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

Those who are faithful readers of The RECORD will know of Marvin Ellison, the state's leading exponent of so-called same-sex marriage. Ellison, who is Professor of Christian Ethics at Bangor Theological Seminary, is called on by the liberal establishment whenever a clergyman is needed to give expert testimony in support of gay marriage. Ellison's impeccable credentials as a liberal theologian, an undergraduate degree from the University of Chicago and a PhD from Union Theological Seminary, give him the power to steer public opinion along the lines desired by the liberal elite, and at the same time, to steamroller the opposition from Christian conservatives in Maine.

But whatever his credentials as a theologian and an academic, Ellison is hardly a credible expert on the subject of homosexual relationships. After Ellison's divorce, he went on to take up housekeeping with a male domestic partner. By no stretch of the imagination can Ellison be considered an impartial expert on the subject of marriage.

But assuming for a moment that Ellison is capable of taking an objective view of traditional and same-sex marriages, his recent letter to the Bangor Daily News entitled "Equality in Marriage" is worth a second look. In the letter, Ellison gives an encapsulation of most of the ideas which are being put forward in support of same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, no part of Ellison's thinking on the subject is free from the most blatant forms of error -- although suitably dressed up in a saccharine coating.

Ellison's errors result from a misunderstanding of the real definition of marriage. Ellison states that the purpose of marriage is 1) an intimate bonding between individuals 2) the sharing of economic resources 3) and the nurturing of children. This definition fails on many levels, and proceeds from the modern misunderstanding of marriage as an institution based on economics and sex, without the element of procreation. The proper definition of marriage is one based on the primary purpose of marriage, which is procreation, and the rearing of children. A secondary purpose of marriage is the mutual help between husband and wife, including economic support. Since no procreation can take place between individuals of the same sex, Ellison changes the definition of marriage from procreation to the nurturing of children.

Second, Ellison states that "defining marriage is not the business of government." This is a bold and breathtaking claim, one which defies all of human experience. Each and every human society has enforced rules governing the relations between the sexes. It is the universal judgment of mankind that society has the right and obligation to define marriage. Interestingly, no society which has put homosexuality on a par with marriage has survived for very long. The anthropologist Robert B. Edgerton has shown in his book "Sick Societies", how societies which tolerate homosexual practices quickly die out, causing a great deal of human suffering in the process.

Ellison proposes that "each faith tradition should be free to recognize and bless the union of any couple." Unfortunately, in our heterogeneous society, this would lead to a very confusing state of affairs. Polygamy would be allowed under the Moslem and Hindu religions, and polyandry under other religions. Society's interest in maintaining the traditional definition of marriage has little to do with religion. Society clearly has an interest in defining marriage to be between man and woman, purely on secular, utilitarian principles. No argument can be made that same-sex marriage is in the interest of society, and advocates of same-sex marriage are thrown back on the principle of what is called private utilitarianism or hedonism.

The most deceptive part of Ellison's argument is that homosexuals are being discriminated against and are being denied equality by not being allowed to marry a person of the same sex. His reasoning assumes a right to same-sex marriage, but no such legal right exists, since every law which is contrary to natural law is invalid. It is obvious that no moral right can exist which is contrary to natural law. The moral right which Ellison claims is based on an appeal to public opinion to approve of behavior which is essentially immoral and destructive, both to the individual and to society. The role of public opinion in the same-sex marriage debate is of paramount importance; and it is no coincidence that the judge in the case which legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts is the wife of a prominent New York Times columnist.

To claim a moral right to same-sex marriage, pundits such as Ellison must first convince the public that homosexuality is not only not sinful, but also on a par with marriage. Here Ellison is quick to replace an understanding of the sinfulness of homosexual acts with talk of covenantal relationships and the freedom to love. Those who oppose the absurdity of same-sex marriage are labeled as "dehumanizing" and "oppressive" - when in fact they are merely upholding the interest of society and the homosexuals themselves.

Seen in this light, there is no basis for supporting gay marriage except for the desire of homosexuals to be involved in such relationships. Society does not benefit, nor do the individuals involved. This clearly explains why Ellison's real motive for endorsing same-sex marriage is not based on any concern for society, or any devotion to Christian principles, but is instead based on his own involvement in a homosexual relationship. A better and more trustworthy expert on the worthiness of homosexual relationships would be Dr. Ellison's ex-wife.

PETITION CIRCULATORS URGENTLY NEEDED

Are you interested in making a difference for Maine, and making sure that "The Way Life Should Be" doesn't disappear overnight? Maine has a once-in-a-lifetime chance next Tuesday, election day, to ban ALL slot-machines permanently. But it will happen only if you get involved!

A new study by Earl Grinols of Baylor University and David B. Mustard of the University of Georgia, published in The Review of Economics and Statistics this year, shows that for the casinos they analyzed "By the fifth year of operation, robberies were up 136%; aggravated assaults, 91%; auto theft, 78%; burglary, 50%; larceny, 38%; and rape, 21%." The authors concluded that the costs clearly exceed the benefits. We can expect the same here in Maine. But now we have a chance to shut it all down.

The No Slots for Maine campaign needs volunteers to collect signatures in polling places statewide next Tuesday. If you are interested in volunteering, please call the League at (207) 622-7634 Ext. 1 for information on how you can make a difference.

THE LEAGUE NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT

The League has enjoyed a series of victories, including an end to the trouble at the Spellbound lingerie store in Augusta, the publication of the first photo of a U.S. governor hobnobbing with Fidel Castro, and the very successful start of the League's monthly newspaper, The RECORD.

Recently, the League opposed the efforts of the Westbrook School Board to introduce lessons on same-sex marriage in kindergarten. But the League's rainy day fund was used up in its campaign to defeat Governor Baldacci's sexual orientation law, and the League is now experiencing a critical financial need.

The League is the most effective voice for traditional values in the state, and we ask that you please prayerfully consider making a donation to help the League continue its vitally important work. Online donations through PayPal, the method shown below, are safe and secure. You can send checks to the Christian Civic League of Maine, 70 Sewall Street, Augusta, ME 04330. Drop off cash donations to that same street address.

BE ON GUARD AGAINST FALSE TEACHING

"You, therefore, dear friends, having been warned beforehand, must continually be on your guard so as not to be led astray by the false teaching of immoral men nor fall from your own steadfastness."

(2 Peter 3:17)

QUOTATIONS FOR THE DAY

"When by night the frogs are croaking, kindle but a torch's fire
Ha! How soon they all are silent! Thus truth silences the liar."

(Longfellow)

"But tis strange;
And oftentimes to win us to our harm,
The instruments of darkness tell us truths;
Win us with honest trifles; to betray us
In deepest consequence."

(Shakespeare)

"Point your tongue on the anvil of truth."

(Pindar)

HAD ENOUGH?

OUTRAGED PARENTS FILE FEDERAL LAW SUIT AGAINST MORALLY-BANKRUPT SCHOOL DISTRICT

TEACHERS, SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS NAMED IN LAWSUIT
MAY BE LIABLE FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES

David Parker, the devoted father arrested for speaking out against the homosexual agenda at a Lexington, Massachusetts school has filed a Federal lawsuit alleging the school is continuing to violate his civil rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Parker was arrested at Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington after he insisted on being notified whenever his six year old son was being taught about same-sex relationships. The trespassing charge against Parker was subsequently dismissed as groundless. Photos of a handcuffed Parker are still making the rounds on the Internet, as an outraged public learns how much power homosexual activists are wielding in our public schools.

The controversy between parents and the school administration intensified over the last few weeks, after the school introduced the book "King and King", a pro-homosexual fairy tale which shows a young prince rejecting a bevy of beautiful girls in favor of another boy.

When one young couple, Rob and Robin Wirthlin, insisted on being notified when such books were used, the principal, refused, saying that same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, and is not covered by the Massachusetts parental notification law. The principal, Paul Ash, also refused to allow the Wirthlin child to be removed from class when same-sex marriage was taught.

Now Lexington, the town which saw the first battle of the Revolutionary War -- a battle led by a Captain John Parker -- is home to a revolt of a different kind, as David Parker and the Wirthlins have filed a lawsuit in United States District Court in Boston. The lawsuit alleges violation of the federal civil rights of the parents, violations of their civil rights under the Massachusetts constitution, and violation of the Massachusetts parental notification law.

The suit seeks punitive damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees, and names the Superintendent of Schools, the members of the School Board, and a second grade teacher, both individually and in their capacity as school officials.

The lawsuit marks the first determined act of resistance by parents against the homosexual agenda in our schools, and the indoctrination of youth into a perverted and deadly lifestyle.

A WICKED AND PERVERSE GENERATION?

It is interesting to know that the definition of the word "perversion" originally had nothing at all to do with morals. Rather, it had more to do with an obstinate rejection of the truth.

The RECORD found the following definition of the word "perversion" in the Oxford English Dictionary, and would like to ask its readers, if this definition proves that our generation is in fact, a perverse generation.

Perverse: 1. Turned away from what is right; perverted, wicked. 2. Incorrect; wrong. 3. Obstinate or persistent in what is wrong; self-willed or stubborn. 4. Disposed to be obstinately contrary to what is true or good, or to go counter to what is reasonable or required.

Perversion: 1. The action of perverting, or condition of being perverted; turning aside from truth or right; diversion to an improper use; corruption; distortion.

Pervert: 1. One who has been perverted or corrupted.

VOLUNTEERS NEEDED

Are you interested in making a difference for Maine, and making sure that "The Way Life Should Be" doesn't disappear overnight? Maine has a once-in-a-lifetime chance to ban ALL slot-machines permanently. But it will happen only if you get involved!

The No Slots for Maine campaign needs volunteers to collect signatures in polling places statewide. If you are interested in volunteering, please call Leslie at the League (207) 622-7634 Ext. 26 or e-mail her at leslie@cclmaine.org for information on how you can make a difference.

NOBLE ROMANS

The following is by Marcus Aurelius, Emperor of Rome, and stoic philosopher. In a very few words, he give profound advice for a happy life.

"Labor not unwillingly, nor without regard to the common interest, nor without due consideration, nor with distraction; nor let studied ornaments set off thy thoughts, and be not either a man of many words, or busy about too many things.

And further let the spirit that is within you be the guardian of a living being, manly, of ripe old age, and engaged in political matters, and a Roman, and a ruler, who has taken his post waiting for the signal which summons him from life, and ready to go, having need neither of oath or any man's testimony.

Be cheerful also, and seek not external help, nor the tranquility which others give. A man then must stand up straight, not be kept standing straight by others.

Let this truth be present to you in the excitement of anger, that to be moved by passion is not manly, but that mildness and gentleness are more agreeable to human nature, so also they are more manly; and he who possesses these qualities, possesses strength, nerves, and courage, and not the man who is subject to fits of passion and discontent. For in the same degree in which a man's mind is nearer to freedom from all passions, in the same degree he is nearer to strength.

Short is the little which remains to you of life. Live as on a mountain. Be like the cliff against which the waves continually break, but it stands firm and tames the fury of the waters around it.

Such as are your habitual thoughts, such also will be the character of your mind, for the soul is dyed by these thoughts. Dye it then with a continuous series of such thoughts as these: for instance, that where a man can live, there he can also live well. But if he must live in a palace -- well then he can also live in a palace!"

(Marcus Aurelius)

NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER

The National Day of Prayer will be observed Tuesday May 4th, at 12 Noon at the steps of the Capitol Building in Augusta. The purpose of the National Day of Prayer is to communicate with every individual the need for personal repentance and prayer, and to mobilize the Christian community to intercede for America and its leadership in the five centers of power: Church, Education, Family, Government and Media.

The League encourages its friends and supporters to attend. The League will hold an Open House starting at 10:00, and then proceed together to the Capitol Building.