Tuesday, 8 September 2009

Advocate: Catholics Fight Maine Gay Marriage

The diocese of Portland plans to ask parishioners to give money to the campaign to repeal the new same-sex marriage law in Maine.


By Julie Bolcer

The Roman Catholic Church inserted itself more aggressively into the fight against gay marriage in Maine, where the bishop of Portland asked the diocese to take a special collection this weekend to benefit Stand for Marriage Maine, the campaign to overturn the new marriage equality law through a November ballot initiative.

Bishop Richard Malone (pictured) requested that a second collection take place during services for the benefit of Stand for Marriage Maine, according to WBLZ-TV.

Stand for Marriage Maine was instrumental in the collection of well over 60,000 signatures to place a “people’s veto” on the ballot to repeal the same-sex marriage law, which the legislature passed in May.

The marriage equality law was supposed to go into effect in September, but it suspended pending the outcome of the ballot initiative, known as Question 1.

[Click on the hyperlink above to view the comments on the Advocate's website.]


  1. Any excuse for a bloody collection! Don't fret, my dears. The way they are going is great for us. I mean what is wrong with public recognition of two men or two women loving each other? They are just upset because we pinched all their vocations.

  2. The wish to marry:
    Why you & not me?
    Who gets to choose?
    Let's vote!
    1) The English can vote on what the US should do with its money.

    2)Each riligion can vote on the rights and freedoms of those who don't follow their beliefs.

    3) and we can all vote on who we want as our next door neighbour!


    What would the world look like if your Human Rights were vetoed?

    As I wrote and will keep writing; why is it that a religion based on love, one that recognizes judgment as God's domain (rather than the dubious domain of near-sighted mortals) insists on focusing its resources on preventing a state recognition of what amounts to a basic right to civil union - the right to equal protection and representation regardless of faith, race or sexuality?

    Trying to influence that which is out of its jurisdiction reduces the value of something that is quite simply beautiful; but part of the beauty of religion is that it is there to be chosen – chosen as a guide for those adherents within the bounds of its given place in their lives. An act of will, an expression of freedom, and an application for membership to a way of life.

    The state is there to represent its citizens regardless of faith, gender, ethnicity or even sexuality. There should be no need for an opt in or opt out of a person's birth right: their citizenship. What kind of a country is it that would have its people seek asylum elsewhere simply because their wish to register for recognition of relationship has been denied on the grounds of not falling in with the faith of the majority?

    If the state receives taxes from all but only provides for the union of some it does everyone a disservice. This is not even something that could conceivably be up for referendum – the majority don't get to choose who gets to have their human rights relinquished. We should be acknowledged as all being equal both in the eyes of God and under the law despite what some might think.

    For some reason some in the church presume to assume a power they were not elected to receive. Unless people want to vote for them in an ellection they really should not interfere with the running of the country. The church should cater for the souls of man and leave affairs of state to those who have been voted to run said state.

    Leaning on politicians and using their faith against the good of the country's citizens is wrong. Leaning on a congregation to give money to fight something that has nothing to do with the Church is grotesque! It is so wrong on so many levels that I fear the seeds of fundamentalism have born fruit; otherwise, there would have been an outcry - the position those parishioners were publically put in was outrageous. Also, obtaining money for such an end during a service suggests the priest expects no comeback.

    The government has a responsibility. If it fails to provide the equality we each and every one of us have a right to it should be held accountable.

    As for the men of cloth? Let me make peace with my God in my own way. I have heard your argument, I understand it, I now wish to exercise that God given right to free will. I will meet my maker soon enough and when I do I want to be able to honestly and without resentment say ''I weighed the options and chose to express the freedom of my equality in such a way.''
    In the mean time - if I am ever in church and anything like this happens I will stand up; I will be heard. Church is a place for the worship of God not the futherment of someone's ambitions to rule beyond Rome's Vatican.

  3. By the way,
    why is it that an anonymous comment invariably gets no reply? Do you have to know who writes to know how to colour your answer?

    Let there be one truth and let it be said by many so that we might know who is friend and who is foe. The silver tounged approach that plays the game of diplomatic cloak and dagger impresses only the impressionable.

  4. Catholics: We Do Not Like Your Families Either.