AUGUSTA, Maine — Scores of churches around Maine are passing the collection plate a second time at Sunday services to raise money for the campaign in opposition to November’s ballot question asking if same-sex marriage should be legalized.
Between 100 and 150 churches are expected to participate in the special Father’s Day plate offerings to raise money for the Protect Marriage Maine political action committee.
The offerings represent the kickoff to the PAC’s fundraising campaign to oppose November’s statewide referendum.
Referendum opponents say they expect to be far outspent by gay marriage supporters in the campaign.
And Christians complain that they’re under attack? If they’re feeling any backlash, THIS is why.
Oh, and happy Fathers Day…including all of you gay dads!
Support marriage between one man and one woman. Christians don’t hate gays…Many are against gays’ perverted lifestyles and they are against redefining marriage. More than 30 states have banned gay marriage, most recently North Carolina. Are all these states and people wrong?
Those who oppose gay marriage will raise their funds the way they will, the supporters will raise theirs the way they will. Been going on that way in this country for a long time.
Edit: jd2008jd: 30+ states in 2012 are not wrong. We’re living in and dealing with 2012 issues…why don’t you get out of 1948?
ptkitty let me answer your question and ask you one.Question – “More than 30 states have banned gay marriage, most recently North Carolina. Are all these states and people wrong?”
Answer – Yes
Now for my question to you – “Prior to 1948 approximately 30 states had bans against interracial marriage, were all these states and people wrong?
Was the ban against RACIAL marriage a ban
on a man and a woman because of race? I don’t
recall that ban being about 2 men or 2 women.
It was marriage between a man AND a woman of
different races…not of different sex.
Homer I think it is pretty clear that the ban on interracial marriage was a ban that was in place in about 30 states beginning around 1948 and ending in 1967. The only reason for the ban was the color of the skin of the two people getting married. In other words it was an arbitrary standard.
The parallels between the ban on interracial marriage and the existing ban on SSM and the arguments used to justify both bans are strangely similar in tone and tenor. i.e. in many cases those opposed to interracial marriage and SSM used the Bible to justify their position.
LMAO….talk about a stretch!!
Where in the definition of marriage do you see reference to race?
Changing the definition of a word that has stood for millenia as being the union of a man and a woman is hardly arbitrary…
The “word” has changed twice in my lifetime….1967….2003.
You may also wish to look at the “history” of the word as it meant many thing over time.
Besides, in Maine the word marriage is codified in Maine law which makes the word a) a legal terms and b) a civil and not a religious word.
But thank you for playing.
Yes, all those people are wrong.
Those same states outlawed interracial marriages for religious reason. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.
Unless i am completely mistaken, and i dont believe that I am. The Government put this into effect in North Carolina without even a vote by the people. I think if you took those 30 states and asked the people, there would be far fewer. The problem is people like you that continue to believe that politics and government belong in our personal choices, which they do not. I dont support anyone that does not believe in the bond of marriage, but i certainly have no problem if that bond is created by a man and a woman, two men, or two women….Nobody else’ life effects mine in that way. Treat others ptkitty as you wish to be treated yourself.
North Carolina put the issue to a vote by the people, as have the other 30 states being referred to.
Historically it is very rare for the majority to vote for extending civil rights to a minority, so while these popular votes are unethical and immoral, they aren’t surprising.
I do think that the attitudes in these states has changed over time, and were you to hold the same vote again in many of them, they would not vote to enshrine discrimination in their constitutions.
Agreed. I made a similar statement sometime ago. We need a graphic showing the polls per state at the time that state voted against SSM. Then, we need the same polls by state today. I think we’d see a significant difference. Add the dates, too.
That old “32 of 32” states quote is losing steam. With the exception of NC, those votes were taken years ago. A great deal has changed, even since the 2009 repeals of SSM in Maine.
U are wrong, over 60% voted against it.
There ya go right from the paper u libs love to read.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/us/north-carolina-voters-pass-same-sex-marriage-ban.html?_r=1
Well thank you for lettings us know that keeping the races “pure” for you is the same thing as keeping SSM for “infecting” your marriage. Always like to know the level of bigotry we are dealing with. And yes kitty by refusing to answer the question tells many of us what we need to know about you.
ptkitty’s marriage must be on very shaky ground to be threatened by giving someone else the special right that she has been awarded.
It’s hard to believe you don’t dislike gays when you use words like “perverted lifestyle” to describe them.
More than 30 states opposed interracial marriage once, and they were wrong. Discriminating against same sex couples is wrong, too.
Discriminating against people that want more then one wife, is wrong also, but it’s law, why is that ok to discriminating against them ok??
Polygamy is a different issue, and the US Supreme Court has already ruled that it is not protected under our Constitution.
Mister Bilbo – Pete Seeger sure said a lot with this song. Maybe you should take a look at it. Then again, maybe you shouldn’t as you might see how others see you. http://www.lyricsmania.com/listen,_mister_bilbo_lyrics_pete_seeger.html
Perverted lifestyles? LOL! Seriously, you’re too funny. Do you think that all straight people engage in just the type of sex that the authors of that ancient bible would approve of? Hardly. There’s an entire industry built around so-called kinky sex, and it’s aimed mostly at heterosexuals.
Redefining marriage? Do your homework. It’s already been redefined.
Here’s my challenge to you; examine some of the places where SSM is currently legal, then tell us how their society has crumbled as a direct result.
The anti-gay side is always talking about how bad things will get if gays are allowed to get married, but I never see an example. Just why is that, I wonder?
There’s no bigger group of crybabies than the religious right anyway.All their babbling about being persecuted and they persecute worse than anyone.It doesn’t help that they have a TV network and plenty of slimy lawmakers in their pockets.
I hate that the catholic church in Maine is involved in this. That is not my catholic church, mine is open, loving and accepting to all, this is a hateful cause for homophobic bigots.
You obviously do not know your church. Have you ever considered joining another church?
Go back to your cave, troll.
Quartz is right. The Catholic church as a whole, does not support gay marriage. The Catholic church as a whole is not accepting to all. If there are any Catholic churches that do support gay marriage, I expect that if anyone higher up on the food chain in the church finds out, they would get smacked down for it.
Look how they’re punishing the nuns.There are many denominations who support ALL choices- UU for one.
Actually, I heard the Catholic church was not to be involved this time around. I thought these 100-150 churches are non-Catholic, but some form of Christian churches. Did I get that wrong? I thought Dolan pulled the plug here in Maine.
The Catholic Church isn’t involved.
LOL
The Catholic church is to busy paying off victims of priest pedophilia.
Until every church is closed worldwide and every piece of art in Rome is sold,not enough will be done.
And they wonder why people are leaving the Church.
I’ve actually considered joining it.
The fight for gay marriage?
No, the Catholic Church. The only Christian church that actually values human life. Homosexuals do not value life they only know how to abuse it.
Quartz24 says: “Homosexuals do not value life”
What an offensively ignorant attitude you take toward people.
We are your neighbors, your coworkers, your customers and your family. Being gay or lesbian does not predispose anyone to be abusive any more than heterosexuals are.
Look at photos of those who are getting married in states where civil marriage is available. These are loving, lifelong partners who support and treasure their lives together.
Please, the next time your community is hosting a debate or dialog on this issue, you should go and see us in person, talk to us directly, and hopefully see that we are Mainers like you, only seeking to live a life here and protect what we share.
Sorry, if they valued life they wouldn’t be abusing themselves the way they do.
You concede you know nothing about what you oppose, then.
That’s sad, your world would be a better place I think if you had less of that needless disdainful judgement.
yeah, how about you ask all those children who were abused by the Catholic church (and let the priests get away with it) how they feel?
Please enlighten us as to how gay people do not value life?
The high drug and alcohol abuse rate among them.
provide the proof – and if there is a high rate of alcohol abuse rate and drugs, why do you think that is? Might it have something to do with the hatred and bigotry that they experience in this world? What would you do, if your family threw you out, were constantly harassed, bullied, beaten etc? What and who would you turn to?
I would turn to the power within myself and by the way I’ve experienced family throwing me out, constant harassment, physical and emotional abuse. I never turned to alcohol or drugs or perverted sex.
A Democrat was having a conversation with a Republican acquaintance, hoping to arouse some compassion for the sick and the poor. He began relating the parable of The Good Samaritan, to which the Republican replied; “He’s from Samaria? Deport him!”
The good Samaritan was from Samaria. He was in his own country. Why would there be a need to deport him?
Because the rain in Spain falls mainly on your brain.
Quartz do you attend Westboro Baptist Church by any chance?
No I am not Baptist. jd2008jd, do you attend the Rev Wright’s church out in Chicago?
Why? Do I display what is called “black liberation theology” in my post?
Ummmm last time I knew all the sheeple who are SUPPOSED to be ‘kind’ and ‘loving to all of god’s children’ (unless you’re god’s gay children and then we hate you, won’t let you marry and hope you all burn in hell or worse) I thought the church sheeple were supposed to stay OUT of politics or pay the entrance fee (i.e. taxes) like the rest of us.
All churches that collect for political causes or advocate them from the pulpit, should lose their tax exempt status regardless of which side of the issues they are on.
If they are expending resources to destroy the separation between church and state then they no longer deserve to benefit from that separation at the expense of other taxpayers who fund the infrastructure that supports their existence.
You really need to look up what the “separation of church and state” really meant. It’s not in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson wrote it in a letter to a Baptist church saying ”
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. ” Meaning it was to keep the GOVERNMENT OUT OF CHURCH not the Church out of Government. Another Founding Father John Adams stated “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other” They expected the church and the religious people to be a part of government, and wanted to make sure the government stayed out of their way.
LOL, no. It was to allow for a freedom of religion and for that freedom to exist, religion had to be out of government. You can’t have a freedom of religion if your government is imposing religious doctrine on you.
So, in other words, you do not believe churches should have ever been tax exempt?
Because otherwise government is subsidizing churches free use of all of the infrastructure the rest of us pay for.
RogueMomma please go back and READ the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is called the Establishment Clause for a reason. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;….”
What that means is the Government will not create OR establish one religion as THE religion in the United States akin to the Church of England which is THE church for the United Kingdom and the King/Queen is the head of the church (where at one time they were considered divine.).
It also means that you or I are free to worship (or not worship) whatever being we wish to and the government cannot interfere with our decision.
The Doctrine of Separation of Church and State is a long standing doctrine supported by multiple SCOTUS decisions and case law.
I have found some people are “literalists.” We see this in the Fundamentalist and Evangelical camps. For some reason, they cannot grasp inferences. Either it is in black-and-white, or it doesn’t exist.
An example might be: “The store is open from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.”
Most of us therefore know the store is closed during all other hours. This is implied. But, they don’t get it.
Much like the First Amendment – the government shall ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ This also implies religion shall not have any influence on government because if it did so, the government, in fact, would be “respecting the establishment of religion.”
Again, I have to create the comic book version. I have given up trying to explain this in English. I will have to say that with the advent of the internet available to the general public, I am pretty dumbstruck as to how many illogical people exist in the world. Perhaps, they always were there and now they have a bigger microphone called the internet. Who knows?
OH NO ! What an awesome duty you have….explaining the 1st Amendment to comic book lunkheads. Even using English, you feel you are failing in getting through to them. Oh well, life can rough.
Actually, it is tough. As a 30+ year member of Mensa, I have learned how to deal with people of all ilks. There are many more intelligent than I. However, when you run into belligerent people telling you the world is flat and the moon actually shines (vs. reflects light) and do so with no basis in fact, it is very trying on one’s patience.
Now, normally, it is just easier to allow people to wallow in their ignorance. It’s not my place to attempt to change them or cause them consternation. But, when they start intruding into my rights and freedoms, they have crossed the line. SSM will not in the least affect them yet they feel they have a dog in this fight. They simply do not. It is that simple. The secular world is blind to religion. It says so in our laws. It always has. There are countless similar situations in history and religion has yet to be persecuted, much less prosecuted, for failing to perform one of its rites to non-traditional couples.
So, pardon me if I get a bit perturbed with “lunkheads.” I am doing so only because they now are piddling in my punchbowl.
MENSA !! How fair is it that you attempt to communicate with people on the BDN comment section who are obviously, of average IQ or below. That’s like a skillful cat playing with their prey before they deal the final blow.
With respect to your philosophy and beliefs, why torture yourself with the common herd? Wouldn’t you be better served by communicating with other Mensa members? But then, I suppose you do that already.
I would say any debate with you that involves the general public, so to speak, would be a lop-sided debate…a touch of unfairness…wouldn’t you say? I can only surmise that you are willing to mix with the monkees (the piddlers) because “they vote.” Therefore, they infringe on your preferred version of life. Other than the impact that comic book lunkheads have at election time. (in regards to your priorities) I suspect we commoners are expendable otherwise?
Oh, puh-leeze! Sounds like sour grapes.
The facts are this:
1. Those who are piddling in my punchbowl are intruding in my life when my life has zero impact on theirs. You speak of fairness? Their intrusion is not fair. You can listen to rap music all you want. The moment you start disturbing others you have crossed the line. SSM will cause the public no harm and the ban against it cannot be justified. Your church is not impacted in the slightest with SSM nor would it be.
2. My “preferred version of life” is my life, preferred or not. There is no choice in this. You have a choice to actively lobby against a minority people, or not. The choice you made is abundantly clear. For me, you and your church can exist – it bothers me not in the slightest, until you and your followers take up torches and pitch forks and start heading down the road.
3. I do communicate with other people from Mensa. But, I communicate with many others, as well, from all walks of life. Unlike you, I am willing to be open and learn from others and I certainly have over the years. If anything, you learn in Mensa that you don’t know everything, but because you are open and willing to listen, you might learn something new and perhaps, change your views. Adherence to dogma is its antithesis of this.
4. If I “torture myself with the common herd” it is because I am part of the herd, and unlike many of those in a cloistered religious world, I am at least open for discussion, but ultimately facts rule. The facts are the world is round, it is not hollow, it rotates around our sun, and all the stars we see (and some we don’t) are within our galaxy. But, there are billions of galaxies. Those are facts. Two other pretty reliable facts: The Constitution is what it is with its separation of church and state, and SSM isn’t going to affect you one way or the other unless, of course, you wish to torture yourself with its existence.
Finally, the degrading description you made of the other 98% of the population is your description, not mine. My statement was about how some people are incapable of understanding logic (and this is frustrating to me) and perhaps a comic book version might help because English isn’t. That is about as insulting as I got. That fact is that some people truly cannot understand logic. I did not call them lunkheads. And, they are piddling in my punchbowl when I am not in theirs. Big difference.
WOW….both barrels! My comment was meant to be sardonic in nature. I suppose tone, body language, pause and inflection just can’t be transferred from a keyboard.
Because I can’t ever be a Mensa member, my IQ doesn’t help me in comprehending where I made a degrading description. Are you referring to the “common herd” term? It only means “the masses.” I don’t know why Liberal and or Progressives are always expounding on planet earth….how it’s round….revolves around the sun….galaxies and universes. I’ m still trying to see Andromeda with my naked eye.
The Constitution does not imply separation of church and state. That term is from a letter from Mr. Jefferson…who btw, had nothing to do with drafting the Constitution.
Why do you think you are responsible for pounding, what you consider logic, into the brains of ….hmmmmm, what shall I call them…..people with average and below average IQ’s? Most of them got their minds made up.
And, for other readers, you now can see my frustration.
Okay, let’s go over this again:
“The Constitution does not imply separation of church and state. That
term is from a letter from Mr. Jefferson…who btw, had nothing to do
with drafting the Constitution.”
Although I am not entirely comfortable with quoting Wiki, this is close enough:
===================
“Separation of church and state” (sometimes “wall of separation between church and state”) is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson (in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists) and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly cited by the Supreme Court of the United States.”
===================
So, what’s the Establishment Clause since the above definition does not explicitly state the detail of the First Amendment? Let’s try this:
===================
“The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Together with the Free Exercise Clause (“… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”), these two clauses make up what are called the “religion clauses” of the First Amendment.[1]
The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the “separation” or “no aid” interpretation, while the second approach is called the “non-preferential” or “accommodation” interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government’s entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.”
===================
So, while the First Amendment does not state “separation of church and state,” SCOTUS calls it that, and that is close enough for me.
Now, to answer your last question: “Why do you think you are responsible for pounding, what you consider
logic, into the brains of ….hmmmmm, what shall I call them…..people
with average and below average IQ’s? Most of them got their minds made
up.”
Responsible? Call it self-preservation. When someone is attempting to deny legislation to provide you the same rights as others, I would think it common sense to try to pound some logic into their heads in an attempt to dissuade them. I hope I have been successful these past three years with some people. Certainly, I have not in all cases. I also have come to realize (perhaps, because unlike some, I am open to change), that arguing logic with religion is a Fool’s errand. As you said, some people have their minds made up and nothing will change that, facts be damned.
Are we done with this? After all, those of us in Mensa have our Sunday night conference call to discuss the fate of the world.
LOL….yes, we’re done with this! I would have replied sooner but had to watch the Heat & Thunder game last night. I assume you enjoyed your conference.
You said: ” When someone is attempting to deny legislation to provide you the same rights as others, I would think it common sense to try to pound some logic into their heads in an attempt to dissuade them.”
**************************************
It would appear you might have Barack Obama sorta hooked in? Evidently that takes a whole pile of pounding to dissuade him. (and he is in the higher than average IQers) He’s got more “evolving” to go, but he still left it “up to the States.”
On Friday, he made all of Mexico happy just by throwing around another Executive Order. He’s mighty handy with those Exec. Orders. I don’t know why he just doesn’t Exec. Order this SSM issue. He was for SSM for a certain length of time and then he changed his mind…for a certain length of time….and then that evolving theory kicked in again in the past 6 months and he now favors SSM.
But on the other hand, Obama’s dawdling on this issue hurts him with wealthy LGBTQ supporters. Now that fact fast-tracks his evolving bouncing ball (in an election year…imagine that)
I have to empathize with Obama on a number of issues. He has a role to play in order to keep the ultra-conservatives from storming the White House. I think everyone knows he was pro-SSM and religion is not any higher on his list than it was for Nixon, Ford, or most other Presidents before the Jerry Falwell “born again” movement waddled onto the scene. But, he has to try to play the middle of the road and while SSM is harmless, the ultra-right considers it second only to Armageddon.
And, yes, the pro-SSM stance and the non-prosecution of illegal-immigrant children ann0uncement are election year moves to improve his reelection chances. That is typical of all Presidents. This is not exclusive to Mexico, by the way. It applies to any origin but most are from South American countries, of course.
I checked on E.O.s and that past few Presidents have issued between 165 and 380 E.O.’s with Reagan at 380. The record is 3,700 or so from FDR but he was in office forever and had the Depression and a war to deal with, so I’m not surprised.
With regard to an E.O. for SSM, short of non-enforcement DOMA, I doubt there is much he can do. Marriage is a per-state issue and always has been. Until DOMA came around, the Feds had little to say about marriage other than it recognized whatever each state defined as legally married. There are some variations, state to state, such as minimum age, first-cousins, and that sort of thing. But, at the Federal level, I’m not seeing what kind of E.O. could be issued to make any difference. I think ultimately SSM will be decided in SCOTUS as there will be a significant number of states that have SSM and having the disparity among the states between same-gender couples and different-gender couples is an imbalance the law does not like. Each state where SSM has been implemented, the same-gender couple is treat the same as the different-gender couple. That is, the marriage law is “blind” to the genders of the participants. There is not “married” and then “gay married.” It’s just “married,” period.
So, with that in mind how do you, at the Federal level, distinguish between same-sex couples and different-sex couples? Well, you cannot, really. There is no means to do so. Now, you bump up against the “Full faith and credit” clause (Article IV, Section 1) of the Constitution that, among other things, allows for the recognition of a secular marriage contract (which are all legal marriages, straight or gay, that have a state-issued marriage license) across state lines. A marriage performed in Maine is legally recognized in Arizona and vice versa.
I suspect a case will come along (and may be in the works) to shoot down DOMA once and for all. I also suspect a case will appear to resolve the inter-state marriage issue. It really has to as having some states recognize SSM and others not, is a legal nightmare. Suppose a gay couple legally marries in MA. They move to AZ. Now what? For a straight couple, no problem. For a gay couple, there’s a problem. Even if Civil Unions were enacted, you’d run into the same problem – recognized in one state, not in another. That conundrum right there shows Civil Unions are not equal to Marriage. The problem would exist for any couple, straight or gay, who had a Civil Union vs. a Marriage.
It’s a legal landmine but it will get resolved.
Um… your religion is not found either.
This is only the tip of the iceberg Churches been messing around in political issues forever. That’s how much of rural Maine is influenced. They’ve high jacked our system and use their right wing religious nonsense to effect elections. If Jesus Christ himself where running they’d label him a socialist and a liberal who favors acceptance of others and caring for the poor and down trodden, while insisting his ideas are ruining our country.
BarstVanDeRechts: Seeing as you know what the mind of Jesus Christ is….do you think He supports the Liberal’s position on the killing of the unborn?
We already know what was on his mind when He spoke of “marriage.” Matthew 4.”Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,5 and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh.
********************************************
You will have to blame St. Paul as the author of the ideas that are”ruining our country”
Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder (killing of the unborn), strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them. (Book of Romans)
You Liberals howl all the time how outdated the Constitution is but how about the Biblical scriptures? St. Paul certainly qualifies for you Libs to call him a homophobe and Jesus Christ……well, I suppose in your world, he would just be an old fuddy-duddy….not up with the times, so to speak.
the truth hurts huh? Funny isn’t how those who cry about less government are the first to insist that the government get involved with issues they consider immoral. What pack of hypocrites.
I love the twisted logic.
I think Jesus has a wonderful message, it’s the foaming at the mouth followers that scare the hell out of me.
You didn’t answer this question: Seeing as you know what the mind of Jesus Christ is….do you think He supports the Liberal’s position on the killing of the unborn?
the answer is……….. you’re off topic.
Quit messing around in politics if you wanta keep your tax exempt status!
I’m not “off topic”…not yours anyway.
Here is what you said: ” If Jesus Christ himself where running they’d label him a socialist and a liberal. ” You’re the one who suggested the idea of Jesus running for office?
There is no Socialist or Liberal that I know of who doesn’t support legal access to abortion. What are they calling it now……oh yes, women’s health. If Jesus were running for office, as you suggest, would He be in favor of the killing of the unborn? Wouldn’t He have to be “pro-choice” to join the Liberal club?
Do you think he’d be with the love the fetus hate the child
crowd or with the crowd who threatens and bombs and kills the providers?
I don’t know what or where the “love the fetus..hate the child crowd is or exists.
“He” (I assume you mean Jesus) would not be in favor of bomb threats or killings…..which brings me back to the question you still avoid….if Jesus was running for office and you are convinced He would be a Liberal and seeing as you know what the mind of Jesus Christ is….do you think He supports the Liberal’s position on the killing of the unborn?
It’s like pulling a well entrenched tooth for you to answer the question.
I never said he’d be a liberal ….. better read that again.
But I think this little excerise is proof how your ilk read words and twist them.
Interesting dodge. I assume it is too much of a loaded question for you to answer.
Might Jesus change His mind on the killing of the human fetus if we just shoved the U.S. Constitution under His nose and told Him to find the verbiage that 7 robes discovered in 1973 that says it’s a “right” afterall to kill human fetuses. Do you suppose He would be that “progressive?”
Yea….can’t you see Jesus saying..just ignore that “thou shalt not kill’ deal. My Father in heaven is kinda wobbly on that one anyway ! Yah, yah, yah…the 7 robes got it right. I’ll just have an up-to-date talk with the Creator.
Kiki the topic at hand is SSM…not abortion.
And the correct translation for the word “kill” was “murder”.
Does this mean when we take antibiotics to kill a bacterial infection, that antibiotic is “murdering” the bacteria. Don’t most logical people say, I’m on an anti biotic to kill the bacteria? Chemotherapy “kills” dividing cancer cells. I’ve never heard anybody say, “we’re murdering the cancer cells. “Killing of the unborn”….proper and appropiate medical terminology.
Kiki you made reference to “thou shall not kill”. I was simply pointing out that in relation to the ten commandments the original word “kill” was a mistranslation of the word “murder”. That’s all.
can you please quote from the bible, specifically where it says abortion is a sin, or wrong in any way? Specifically, abortion.
so off topic…..
#6. Thou shalt not kill. Exodus 20:13
Humans are made in the image of God. This is why we are not to kill people (or developing humans in utero) like we might decide to kill an animal.
“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.”“I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.”
“My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret.” Psalm 139: 13-15 A psalm of David
Oops…shot yourself in foot with that one. The Christian pro-life crowd seems to LOVE capital punishment. Guess it’s all in the timing, huh? :)
Oops….shot myself in the foot, you say? In what way?
You Libs fall in the sterotyping hole all the time. I’m opposed to capital punishment. I’m opposed to the killing of the unborn and opposed to killing inmates in penitantaries. Isn’t that only logical? No human on earth should have the power to kill another human, whether they be in prison or in their own death chamber…. called the womb.
In case some other genius wants to nail me to the wall for being a war-monger, I’ll save you keystrokes on that drivel also. I was opposed to the Iraq war.
Read my post again, if you need to. My reference was to your bible quote regarding not killing…anyone. Am I incorrect in stating that capital punishment is strongly supported by many who also call themselves pro-life Christians? I’d dare say they make up the majority.
It’s the hypocrisy of religion that I really get a kick out of.
PS…love the way you stereotype “libs” by saying we all stereotype. Nice :)
Am I incorrect in stating that capital punishment is strongly supported by many who also call themselves pro-life Christians?
********************************
I don’t know……whenever I start commenting on SSM, the usual crowd pounces on me insinuating I must belong to the Westboro Baptis church (whatever that’s supposed to be) and have I protested any soldier’s funerals lately? If the commenter who asked me that knew anything about my family, he or she would cut their tongue out before asking me that cruel question.
And what else…..oh yes, I’m a foaming at the mouth religious zealot, I must be a supporter of bombing abortion clinics and killing abortion providers. I get called a bigot and homophobe…a “hater” of the my fellow man and on and on go the name-calling and labeling. If that’s not sterotyping, then I don’t know what sterotyping is. I guess only Libs and Progressives can throw that term around. With all that malicious condemnation, I don’t see how that encourages me to suppot the SSM cause. That’s a whole lot of collective malice.
And last but not least, I get accused of wallowing around in the height of ignorance because I’m a practicing Catholic. I practice my Catholic faith and adhere to its principles and Canons. That means I am opposed to SSM marriage..opposed to the killing of the unborn…I’m opposed to capital punishment and I’m opposed to war, with the exception of a war that can be defined as just and necessary. I did not support the Iraq war.
“I don’t know……whenever I start commenting on SSM, the usual crowd pounces on me insinuating I must belong to the Westboro Baptist church (whatever that’s supposed to be) and have I protested any soldier’s funerals lately? If the commenter who asked me that knew anything about
my family, he or she would cut their tongue out before asking me that
cruel question.”
For someone to claim that they know nothing about the Westboro Baptist Church and then to group that comment with “protesting” at soldier’s funeral comments lead me to believe that you know more about the Westboro Baptist Church then you are admitting.
Alright, I’ll go look it up on Google. My listing of accusations that get thrown at me are a bundling of several comments. One was “have I protested any soldier’s funerals lately?” Another was “what was my opinion of the Westboro Baptist Church” along with other accusations and labeling.
All I can tell you is, I know of a bunch of church members who are ignorant and cruel enough to protest at soldier’s funerals. (they didn’t find their way to my son-in-law’s funeral…22 yrs old) The patriot guards now protect those military funerals from these nutbags. On the other hand, I don’t know if they are connected to this westboro church? Is it in maine or Florida? Is this the bunch that likes to burn the Koran?
So have you found the time to look up Westboro Baptist Church yet Kiki?
Umm, I’m not sure why you’re making this about you. My initial post to you was about the hypocrisy of those who preach “Thou shalt not kill” when it comes to abortion, then cheer on capital punishment. When I said that you shot yourself in the foot, I meant that you didn’t catch that irony before you posted.
It must be that I hang around Catholics too much. The “thou shalt not kill” command extends to death row inmates also.
Your indictment of pro-life Christians tending to support Capital punishment is a statistic you know more about than I. In my religious world, the RCC does not support Capital punishment. I don’t either.
I do know a Liberal humanist that favors Capital punishment. As a rule, he doesn’t, but when it comes to courts proving that a pedophile has molested, raped or murdered a child (or all 3 crimes) he is in favor of those offenders being put to death.
Ask Rick (243 and counting)Perry.
Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. – Genesis.
Man not alive until he took his first breath.
now this is way off topic, and am done with the abortion debate.
I donated $25 dollars to the equality marriage campaign today in your “name” :)
$25.00 dollars you say. Does in my name mean you donated the $25 for KikiEm? It doesn’t matter to me but if it makes you “feel good” go for it!
APPLAUSE!Many many likes.
Look up the string of clinic arsons going on in 2012.The corrupt media won’t cover that.
Once issue doesn’t define things. Jesus was a socialist. Deal with it.
Protested many soldiers funerals lately?
Brilliant reply.You could add-bombed any clinics or shot doctors in church or in front of their families lately?
Killing – Unborn
You have to pick one. By definition something that is unborn is not alive.
A seed is not a tree, an egg is not a bird, a fetus is not a child, and your bronze age book of fables has no place, or right, interfering in peoples bedroom, or doctor’s offices. Google images of interracial marriage protesters, you’ll see how foolish you will look in 40 years.
I purposely use killing…because that is what it is. A beating heart is stopped. The fetus is killed.
Many of my right-to life-members prefer to call the destruction of the human fetus…murder or slaughter. I’m actually putting it in medical terminology. Like anti-biotics “kill” bacteria. It’s a killing. Chemotherapy kills cancer cells. Bacteria is alive….cancer cells are alive.
The killing of the unborn fetus is appropiate medical teminology.
it doesn’t matter what the bible says…and if you are going to follow it, then I’m sure you accept the beating of wives…public stonings…and you do not wear clothing of mixed threads.
The point is…it doesn’t matter as it has no place in government. None.
The scriptures I quote are from the New Testament. I live out my faith under the New Covenant established by Jesus Christ. (not the old Covenant in the days of Moses)
great, you live your life how you like then…don’t impose on other’s rights because your own beliefs disagree. It still doesn’t matter what any bible says…it still has no place in our government. I’m an Atheist. How would you like it if we tried to ban you from your religion?
I’m not imposing on anybody’s rights. I don’t have that kind of power.
If things keep going like they are, you may get enough of an upper-hand to give Christians no choice but to worship in secret (again) Christians and Catholics are attacked and villified on a regular basis by heretics as well as the godless.
“heretics and godless” – this is why. (shakes head, laughing) You do have that power, by not allowing a minority the same rights as you, because of your own religious beliefs that you insist on dumping on others.
BTW, Atheists, which are small in number in comparison to those of religion, are the most hated group in the US, even more so than gay people. We are hated by those who are supposed to love thy neighbor. Hypocrites.
This is getting absurd and bizarre. Godless are people who don’t believe in God. That’s fairly simple.
Heretics have earned an unfair perception. Heretic: somebody who holds unorthodox religious belief: a holder or adherent of an opinion or belief that contradicts established religious teaching. There are a certain percentage of Catholics who are considered heretics. It’s not really a bad word (or label)
I don’t hate atheists. I don’t hate gay people. I do abide by and adhere to the teachings and Canon of the Catholic church.
Heretic or heresy is a word that the Catholic church stole from the greek, (like many other numerous items Christians stole) which originally meant “choice” . It is now used generally as an insult against someones morals that don’t agree with yours. An insult, claiming that I am “evil” (oooh evil…devil etc..) The same thing for “godless” – yes I am god-less, for good reason. It also implies that I am “evil” in fact, the definition is “wicked or unprincipled” – The correct term you are looking for in the way that you would like to use it, is god-less, but even then the second definition of it is “wicked or unprincipled”.
One does not need to worship a god to hold morals.
Maybe they should stop raping little kids, murdering non-believers, and oppressing all ideologies but their own. The public’s disdain for christianity is nothing if not well deserved
We should be so lucky!
Support FFRF(Freedom From Religion Foundation)Awesome people doing great work.
The New Testament says more in support of slavery than it says against homosexuality, but you can agree our government should allow everyone their freedom from that bondage, correct?
How is it that much different, then, to see that your particular religious view of the situation should not be used to take the rights away from others to have a civil marriage?
Homosexuals do not have the “right” to marry in Maine, therefore there are no rights being “taken away” from them.
Is your marriage recognized in all 50 states Kiki?
I know my marriage is recognized is all 50 states.
But a SSM couple married in New Hampshire lets say and comes to Maine to visit loses all rights and privileges just because they move across an invisible line.
Is that right?
I’ll take your word for it. If that be the case, I advise them to stay in NH.(or visit some other State where their union is recognized as marriage.)
Do you read and I mean really read your post before you click “reply”? Because you just said homosexuals with legal marriages should not travel to areas that do not recognize it. Are you for real? Are you serious?
Yes, I really read my posts before I click reply. I NEVER said that homosexuals with legal marriages should not travel to areas that do not recognize it. YOU said..quote “”But a SSM couple married in New Hampshire lets say and comes to Maine to visit loses all rights and privileges just because they move across an invisible line.”
What rights and privileges do they lose if they come to Maine “for a visit?” If they want to “move” to Maine to live, then their NH marriage won’t be recognized as legal in Maine. But that has nothing to do with that NH gay couple coming to Maine for a visit. They have the same rights and privileges that any citizen has. What would be going on with them during a visit in Maine that would deny them our usual rights and privileges?
If there are some strange and quirky laws, rules or regulations here in the State of Maine, as soon as the NH gay couple crosses our State line that will infringe on their rights and privileges, then be so kind as to let me know what they are. Are gay or lesbian couples stopped somewhere as they enter Maine and quizzed as to what their marital status is? Are they handed informational brochures advising and warning them that if they are legally married in another State, then they enter our State at their own risk because all rights and privileges afforded all citizens will not apply to them?
And yes, I’m for real.
Kiki all the rights and privileges that you and I have end for a SSM when they enter Maine either for a visit or with a permanent move.
Do you enjoy the right to visit your spouse in the hospital?
Do you enjoy the tight to make medical care decision for your spouse if they cannot?
Do you enjoy the right to make end of life decisions for our spouse if they cannot?
Those are three big rights that you and I enjoy and SSM do not because they move over an invisible state line.
Do you enjoy the right to visit your spouse in the hospital?Do you enjoy the tight to make medical care decision for your spouse if they cannot?Do you enjoy the right to make end of life decisions for our spouse if they cannot?*************************************************
If the NH gay couple comes for “a visit” and hospitalization is in their plan while they are visiting Maine, I know and you know they will remain in NH until the scenario you describe has passed. Your point should have been…this gay couple whose marriage is legal in NH can’t contemplate moving to Maine to live. But they certainly have the freedom to visit? They have as many rights and privileges in Maine as the gay population who already live in Maine. BTW…I know of no hospital that can legally deny a gay or lesbian’s partner visitation to their hospitalized partner.
Kiki have you ever heard of a couple traveling and one of the couple ends up in the hospital due to an unexpected illness or injury?
And a hospital most certainly can ban visitation. Especially when that visitation causes a disruption in patient care. And just imaging how much of a disruption you would make if you were told “sorry only their next of Kim can tell us what to do.”
Bottom line is this. You don’t see the problems that a gay or lesbian couple experience on a day to day basis. It doesn’t impact your day to day life and you have a problem with the “ick” factor. On the other hand, I have seen the hate and problems gay and lesbian couples have on a day to day basis in working through the mounds of legal paperwork to have the same rights and privileges you and I enjoy with one single piece of paper issued by the Vivek authorities here in Maine called a marriage license.
And before you jump on the “legal paperwork” solves all problems I know first hand that it doesn’t and if you don’t have the financial resources to fight the blatant disregard, someone else can and will call the shots for your loved ones.
You wrote: “And before you jump on the “legal paperwork” solves all problems.”
**********************************************************************
I’m not going to jump on anything.
This next information I am posting. Is it true or a lie?
Sept. 7, 2011
The Department of Health & Human Services on Wednesday unveiled a new policy to enhance hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples.The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid sent a letter on Wednesday to states building off the memorandum President Obama issued last year mandating that hospitals receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds allow patients to designate their own visitors during a hospital stay, including a same-sex partner.
Jesse Moore, an HHS spokesperson, said his department generally works with hospitals to bring them into compliance with rules and, at this point, HHS hasn’t heard of any problems with the guidance related to same-sex couples.The letter also issues guidance mandating that hospitals recognize advance directives designating a same-sex partner as someone who can make emergency medical decisions for a patient who’s incapacitated. The department clarifies hospitals should defer to patients’ wishes concerning their representatives — whether expressed in writing, verbally or through other evidence. — unless prohibited by state law.
In Maine, a domestic partner will be appointed the guardian of a disabled partner before a family member and will also take property as a spouse if their partner dies without a will.
The key word was “should” defer. That means they don’t have to defer.
And why should a same sex couple have to travel with legal paperwork that designates a health care proxy when you and I don’t have to do that? That is unequal on its face.
By the way, I have extensive experience with Power of Attorney, Health Care Proxies and Durable Medical Power of Attorney documents and they are ignored on a routine basis her in Maine. Especially when they were completed and sworn to in another state.
The HHS policy information and the Maine policy of a domestic partner being appointed the guardian of a disabled partner before a family member and will also take property as a spouse should their partner die without a will. Is this HHS information and the Maine domestic partnership factual information?
“Is this HHS information and the Maine domestic partnership factual information? ”
I have no way of knowing as no link was provided to verify what your wrote.
~~~~~
However, my knowledge about how Maine DHHS and healthcare providers honor POAs, Healthcare Proxies and Durable Medical POAs is from first hand knowledge. Maine DHHS gave the medical facility one answer about a POA, Healthcare Proxy and Durable Medical POA that they didn’t like. So the healthcare facility (not a Maine corporation but with multiple facilities in the state) called their attorneys and were told “call a different department at Maine DHHS”. They did and guess what….they got an answer more to their liking which they used to take over care and prolong a life of a person in a vegetative state against their expressed written, documented and notarized POA, Healthcare Proxy and Durable Medical POA.
~~~~~
That’s what it is like in the real world Kiki. As much as I would like to think the HHS and Maine DHHS is on the side of the patient, it really isn’t in the final analysis.
There is MUCH discrimination that happens along those lines.Look at the “conscience clause”A more misnamed lie could hardly be imagined.EVERY ONE of them needs to be fired.
All we can hope for is once we win,they’ll get disgusted and leave.Maine will be better off twice.
”
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
unless you’re gay. Right?
In 2009 it was very much being taken away from us.
The biblical scriptures to which you refer are nothing more than heavily edited meaningless junk.In a perfect world every woman who has an abortion would get a huge tax credit.But the rest of us taxpayers-especially childless ones-have to subsidize your unnecessary broods since your god told you so.Stay out of every woman’s reproductive choices and out of my life.Back to the 11th century and candlelight.
Simmer down now…..simmer down ! You’re getting hysterical.
Hysteria=lies,bombings,harassment,murders and arson.You know,the tactics that your side and only your side uses
considering the statistics on religion in the US, most are Christian. Which (if you can find the stats) wouldn’t surprise me that most of the women having abortions in the US are Christians. Again, hypocrites. – oh wait, here it is….
heh, the Catholics beat us Atheists in the abortion rate….huh, wonder why that is?
Who’s having abortions (religion)?Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as “Born-again/Evangelical
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
Thanks!As usual,facts defeat religious garbage.Imagine what the numbers would be if so many women weren’t in situations that didn’t allow them to choose as is their protected right.
Leviticus 19:28 “‘Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD.”So will you be lobbying to close down all the tattoo establishments and maybe we could put all tattooed people in concentration camps, just like some christians would like to do to gay?. And, oh, by the way, how’s that kosher kitchen of yours coming? Picking and choosing Bible verses makes you nothing more than a hypocrite.
Yo Tyke, you are my hero today!!! Say it loud and often!
Wouldn’t it be more productive to be raising money for a worthy, needy cause? This is throwing money away. If gay marriage doesn’t pass this year, it will eventually, even if it takes federal intervention to do so.
These people need to take a long look at themselves. They are raising money to serve THEIR OWN, selfish insecurities, instead of doing something that could benefit their fellow human. If they succeed, there will still be loving committed gay couples out there, but there will also be people out there that could have used the help, whether to keep their homes warm, keeping food in their stomachs, or buying necessary mobility supplies. If these people think that somehow this will make their marriages stronger, then they are doing it wrong!
If they succeed they will only benefit their own insecurities. Since there is no way to prove that god exists, then how can they honestly say that they are speaking for him? From what I was taught, this is the complete opposite of “christlike”
The gay side is raising money for gay marriage so that they can protect themselves, their families and children. Being a gay family in today’s society is scary, you stand to lose everything that you worked for if the other dies, no matter how prepared you were legally, blood relatives often contest and win, because the gay partner is seen only as a friend in the eyes of the law, even if they have been together for decades. You can lose the legal right to the children that you have raised, if you are not a blood relative. The list goes on. But I guess that marriage needs to be “protected”, protected from what I don’t know.
Imagine if every church took up a collection for the children who were terribly harmed by the church fathers.Instead you still have people believing Penn State,etc.The hell they are going to will be hotter than anything I can imagine.Glad I’m not going there!
Then can we pass a motion to allow brothers to marry their sisters? How about Dads to marry their sons? People to marry their dogs/cats? Where does it end…. If you say all of those hypothetical scenarios are different, does it not matter that you are infringing on those people’s rights?
See that’s the difference between you and me. You seem interested in telling people who they can and cannot marry, why don’t you mind your business? And you cannot compare my relationship to a dog or cat, dogs and cats cannot give consent, so that is ludicrous. I’m not even sure why I’m taking the time to try to explain this to you.
How about father/daughter or father/son… please explain to me how that is any different.
That isn’t what this is about, I don’t want to marry a family member! Why do you seem so fixated with this? How many people are fighting to marry their father? Is that even a real issue? Same sex marriage has existed in other states for a while now and I don’t see any people pushing for incest marriages there, have you? The same “slippery slope” argument was used to outlaw interracial marriages. It was nonsense then and it is nonsense now.
I’m sure it is a real issue for some people… So you can’t tell me why you should have the right you marry an individual of the same sex, yet a father shouldn’t be allowed to marry his son or daughter? It’s stating to sound like you think that certain discrimination is okay.
Try to twist my words any way you want, but your argument still holds no water. Please show me where any of your “concerns” are actually based in reality, you can’t. You think you are clever trying to twist my words, but you come up short on wit. Good try though, thanks for playing.
Cop out. You know you can’t win that argument. My concerns are that I have to go and vote on this same issue over and over to show you that Maine won’t allow it. Good luck – I’m sure that we will be having this same discussion in another few years.
I highly doubt this conversation will be happening in a year or two…the SCOTUS will have it settled by then.
So why so we need to vote it down again? Why not just let SCOTUS settle it?
Because a group of Maine people went out and followed the path that the Maine Constitution allows them to. They gathered the signatures and the question is on the ballot.
Actually, there has to be a case brought up before the Court. SCOTUS cannot just rule on something without a test case existing. That is why no challenges have occurred to DOMA until now, despite it being 15 years or so old. There had to be a particular circumstance arise that warranted a case. And, that happened.
As I recall, a lesbian couple legally married in Massachusetts brought the case forward. One of the women works for the Federal government and her spouse was denied spousal benefits at the Federal level because DOMA forces the Federal government to not recognize same-sex marriages, despite the State having approved it. Now you have the Feds interfering in a State’s rights issue not to mention the discrimination that exists because a similar straight couple would have obtained spousal benefits.
I was not surprised parts of DOMA were declared unconstitutional. I felt that way back when the law was enacted. It made no sense to me that the Feds can dictate how the states recognize marriage as up until that time, the Feds remained fairly neutral on marriage and had left that to the states.
Really, if you look at all of this in the strict constructionist view in law (skip the “activist judges” malarkey), it is pretty obvious the justifications for the bans against SSM hold no water.
I would ask you this: Skipping all the religious stuff that has no bearing in court, please provide a legal justification against SSM. Please show the harm to traditional marriage and to society by allowing SSM to exist.
I do not see where it is possible to do so. And, if you read the Prop-8 trial transcripts, you likely will concur. Again, this is purely from the legal standpoint.
So what your saying is that your concerns of people wanting to marry their fathers have no merit, and you can’t come up with any proof that it does, even though marriage has been legal in other states for a while now. And for the record, this article isn’t about incest and I am not sure why you think it is.
Here is the difference….Incest is illegal in all states….Homosexuality is not illegal in any of the states.
But at one time sodomy was illegal almost everywhere. Here we go with the special rights argument.
And last time I checked sodomy was practiced by HETEROSEXUAL couples too. Do you think it should be banned for them and who are you going to get to enforce the law?
“And last time I checked sodomy was practiced by HETEROSEXUAL couples too”
Who have you been checking or is it just something you’ve seen in the movies?
So oral sex is not practiced by heterosexual couples Made?
Actually, that was the reason in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 (SCOTUS) why the sodomy laws across the nation were made invalid. SCOTUS ruled:
“Lawrence explicitly overruled Bowers, holding that it had viewed the liberty interest too narrowly. The majority held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Lawrence invalidated similar laws throughout the United States that criminalized sodomy between consenting adults acting in private, whatever the sex of the participants.”
People seem to think SCOTUS is ultra-conservative, but most of the time I agree with their decisions. I always seem to accept how they arrived at the decisions they did even if I disagree with the particular decision. Their logic and interpretation of the Constitution generally is right on the mark. Often, it is in contrast to what the religious crowd has deluded themselves into believing it is.
Here is the difference….animals have no conscious thought, no ability to give informed consent, no ability to read a contract, no ability to sign a contract….Homosexuals have conscious thought, can give informed consent, can read a contract and can sign a contract.
How about father/son? What’s the issue with that?
Here is the difference….Incest is illegal in all states….Homosexuality is not illegal in any of the states.
Well, here in Maine you can marry your first cousin, but I suspect your parents explained that to you when you were a kid.
Comparing bestiality and incest, two illegal, depraved acts…to two people who love and care for each other, who work, live and contribute to society, is pretty backwoods.
— “Where does it end.”
Ah! The famous “slippery slope” argument. Well played, MadeinMaine…. except… that argument works both ways.
We let these “Christian” churches force their definition of marriage on us by a referendum at the ballot box. What’s next? Laws limiting marriage to only Christians? No Jewish or Buddhist weddings allowed? No divorced people allowed to re-marry? The church says gluttony is a sin! What’s next… overweight people cannot get married! Oh, the tyranny of the Church! Where does it end…
Ok, do I understand you to say that it’s ok for non church people to raise money (36 to 1) for what they believe, but it isn’t for people in the church to raise money for what they believe (1 to 36)? That sounds like discrimination.
if they are collecting for political purposes during an official church function (services on Sundays etc…) then they are at risk of losing their tax exempt status. If they were doing this outside of an official function, then it’s perfectly legal. We have separation of Church and State for a reason. If they want to influence politics, elections, etc…then they should be paying taxes like the rest of us do.
They have the right to raise money for this. But I think it’s sad that they can be in a house of worship where they learn “love one another” and “treat others as you would have them treat you” and then they willingly fund an effort to stop our government from treating couples equally.
About 50 years ago as a child I had to find my own faith after my church sided with the racists during the civil rights movement. That just didn’t seem Christian to me.
Today the gospel of hate continues to be sold, but the salvation is that younger, more truly Christian, people aren’t buying it anymore.
If these are the things being taught at these churches then I’ll stay home. Where is the ” do unto others as you would have them do unto you?”
—- “Where is the ” do unto others as you would have them do unto you?”
Ah, there’s very little money in that. Passing the “second plate” for that cause just didn’t bring in enough cash.
It would help if this article was more specific on which denominations are collecting these funds.
Everybody here seems to be assuming that it’s the Catholic church, but I think if the Maine diocese where doing this statewide the article would have said so.
Anybody know the answer before we pile the criticism on?
I had heard it was not the Catholic church involved in this but a collection of Christian churches of varying denominations, although I don’t know what ties them together except perhaps the KKK.
White people running around, capturing blacks and hanging them can’t be compared, in any way, to homosexuals demanding a legal right to marry one another. There are plenty of black people who are incensed and outraged when they hear a Gay or Lesbian comparing their cause with the murders and lynchings that happened to blacks by the KKK.
It’s the same mindset – their supremacy over others. Forcing their religious views into our secular world. The KKK has evolved, too. They are much more polished, they don’t hang or burn people any longer, and they rarely wear the hoods. But, the intolerance is still there.
And, if you don’t think there isn’t any violence against gays today, you are quite mistaken.
My point is that there is something that ties together these small churches. It is a KKK-like mentality, circa 2012. Perhaps, I should have used the John Birch Society – that’s basically the Klan with suits and ties.
How many gays have been beaten or murdered for just being gay? How many are bullied to the point that they kill themselves? How many have been fired from jobs for being gay? How many have been denied services for being gay?
Now, take out the word gay, and replace it with black people.
Now, tell me, how does a gay couple getting married affect you personally?
And if you’re so concerned about the “sanctity of marriage” why do you not try to make divorce illegal? How about all the people that make a joke of marriage by getting divorced with in hours/days/weeks of being married?
And why does God keep making all these gay people anyway?
How many gays have been beaten or murdered for just being gay? How many are bullied to the point that they kill themselves? How many have been fired from jobs for being gay? How many have been denied services for being gay?
**************************************************
I am of the persuasion that the gay and lesbian communitiy has come a long way in turning back these atrocities perpetrated on them. I’m not a proponent of murders or beatings on anybody. (Hitler deserved what he got) Teachers and school administrators look the other way when it comes to bullying. Bullying crosses all peramaters in public schools. School officials could come close to eliminating bullying in their schools if they wanted to. They can’t stop it outside of school though.
************************************************************
How many have been fired from jobs for being gay? How many have been denied services for being gay?
************************
This I don’t know? In my work history, I worked with many gays and lesbians. They never lost their jobs because of their sexual orientation and no services were denied them. The company I worked for changed their policies to have partners of gay and lesbians to be added to their medical coverage. I assume heterosexual couples had to be afforded the same benefits, but I didn’t inquire about that.
***********************************************
I have no interest in making divorce illegal. I divorced because I finally couldn’t endure abuse anymore. Jesus did say that divorce was acceptable in cases of adultery. Well, that was one aspect of my marriage plus abuse. I think Jesus understands. He would probably have said, “what took you so long?” 17 years of marriage for me…..but I did get an annullment through the Catholic church.
******************************************
How about all the people that make a joke of marriage by getting divorced with in hours/days/weeks of being married? Be sensible……this is the Hollywood culture you’re talking about.
Don’t white wash the history of LGBT individuals. They were exiled from their countries, killed in the holocaust, hunted down during the McCarthy era, subjected to phony science and lies, scapegoated, fired from their jobs, etc.
Quit pretending like these things didn’t happen. Gays WERE and ARE murdered. They ARE hunted down. That’s reality.
Ask the many parents of LGBT kids who aren’t able to celebrate Father’s Day except at a grave.
The Catholic Church isn’t involved.
I can’t see how Christians can justify gathering money in their church to oppose the happiness of other people (who are also God’s children, after all).
Jesus preached that we should not judge each other, and we should treat others how we want to be treated. I don’t recall “the ends justify the means” being one of his parables.
The headline should be: Traditional Marriage Supporters Begin Fundraising………….this is not about hatred or discrimination; it is about protecting what God has instituted as marriage between a man and a woman.
Your god is not our civil law.
Marriage requires no religious trappings whatsoever.
It is absolutely about discrimination; our government is denying access to over 1,100 benefits and privileges contingent on marital status.
Please do not confuse civil marriage with your religion’s attitudes on the subject; your church is free to deny marriage ceremonies to anyone, for any reason (Catholic churches don’t allow excommunicated Catholics to wed in their churches, for example). This is about our government and how it must extend protections equally among Americans.
It is all about discrimination and homophobic bigotry. You are free to believe in the faith and God of your choosing. But if you use your faith to justify depriving others of equal civil rights, you are acting in a hateful and discriminatory way.
“Referendum opponents say they expect to be far outspent by gay marriage supporters in the campaign.”
Firstly, I question the truth of this statement. I expect the anti equality mob to resort to their usual tactics, a blitz of ungrounded negative attacks in the week before the election.
Also, perhaps if our laws did not require disclosure of donors then more people, churches and corporations would dump more money in without fear of being “outed” as the bigots they are.
The primary funding organization against same-sex marriage simply violate Maine law, refusing to publish their donor list.
They even sued the state of Maine in an attempt to justify their unethical behavior, and lost (the US Supreme Court ruled Maine had a right to enforce it’s election laws).
In contrast, those of us who support marriage equality have our donations made public in accordance to the law.
WHat happened to separation of church and state? Marriage is a church thing except when it comes to collecting taxes.
Sorry… that is untrue.
Marriage requires recognition by the state, but not by the church. Atheists wed all the time with no religious trappings whatsoever.
Your church is free to deny marriage ceremony to whoever they want, for whatever reason.
Civil marriage is a license issued by our government though.
For example, a Catholic church may deny an excommunicated Catholic from remarrying, but they cannot keep that person from getting a civil marriage license.
Any church that actively raises money for a political purpose should lose their tax exempt status.
At my church, of which I am a member, we follow Christ’s teachings to love our neighbors. We try not to hurt anyone in any way. It is my experience that that love is returned to us in abundance–thousands-fold. Anyone can have this, just this day…
What a terrible message to send people on Father’s Day. It’s insulting. It’s sad. It’s demeaning.
My partner of 15 years and our soon-to-be 12 year old daughter consider ourselves a family, and here comes these Christians collecting money in a church, of all places, to belittle us. And, on Father’s Day! It is one of the happiest days of the year for me. I don’t ask for much but when our little one (not so little anymore!) makes me a hand-written card or drawing, along with a big hug, it means everything to me.
And, this crowd picks today, of all days, to collect money in a church for this action. It saddens me. Perhaps, this is the way black people felt in the 1960’s when they were not allowed to eat at a lunch counter. It’s just so hurtful.
Someone, in another blog, in Washington State, noted that in a Catholic church (some time ago) when a “second plate” was passed around to collect funds for the battle against SSM, many of the laity stood up, said nothing, but turned and walked out the door. What a simple, but dramatic statement. Some have not returned.
I would hope this Father’s Day would be celebrating all dads. I think this mistaken effort is well in the minority, fortunately. It will be interesting to see how it went.
But, from me, I would say, “Happy Father’s Day!” to all the dads out there!
Happy Father’s Day to you AND your partner!
I am donating for the 4th time to MUM.It won’t help the awfulness of the sheep today,but it’s all I can do.MANY more HFDs to ALL the fathers out there and to anyone who truly helps and loves-you know,like Jesus would.
Happy Father’s Day ChuckGG
Thanks to Seth & ConvivialVisits! Much appreciated. Let’s keep our fingers crossed for November.
Good for your family. I hope you soon have the same rights that I already enjoy!
Thanks!
I am not a church goer at all, and there certainly is no love lost between the Catholic church and me. However, I have to admit, I like this priest’s logical stance of Minnesota’s ballot to enact a constitutional amendment against SSM.
It is a new video (6/12/12 or so). It is entitled, “Why Catholics can say ‘No’ on the Vote.”
http://youtu.be/NXB8eACUwjM
Happy Father’s Day, one and all!
We had better start thinking in terms of ……….. “Freedom from Religion”
I have actually heard from some ultra-conservative religious politician that “freedom of religion does NOT mean freedom FROM religion!”
Well, no, that’s exactly what it means.
FFRF.org(Freedom From Religion Foundation)
http://www.thechristianleft.org/
Thanks!There’s more in that group than the right would have us believe due to the corrupt media.
Welcome, they are also on Facebook.
People with religious beliefs should let their religion dictate ONLY what they themselves do … otherwise, what others do is absolutely NONE of their business.
Maybe they should stop raping little kids, murdering non-believers, and oppressing all ideologies but their own. The public’s disdain for christianity is nothing if not well deserved.
In some churches, hate is preached instead of love. In some churches the pastors encourage the belief that those who accept welfare are undeserving parasites. In some churches the hierarchy looks the other way when children are abused. In some churches the hierarchy thinks its okay when women are abused. I think the problem could be the conservative principles that all churches ( okay maybe not the U.U.’s ) want to bring us backwards to. It’s the conservative backwards that’s the problem in any and all churches. Be spiritual if you want but stay away from established churches.
“In some churches, hate is preached instead of love.”
Ain’t that the truth, though. Would you include Rev. Wright’s church in this preach hate instead of love catagory? Black Liberation Theology.
What is your opinion re: Westboro Baptist Church?
I don’t know what the westboro baptist church is or where it is. Is it in maine?
I’m a practicing Roman Catholic. I haven’t crossed paths with whatever a Westboro Baptisit Church is.
Goggle the “churches” name kiki…the BDN blocks the web address due to certain words in the address.
And remember, everything they do they do in the name of Gad.
OK…I’ll “goggle” it.
Have you found the time to Goggle it yet Kiki?
No….I haven’t goggled it yet ! But I will go straightaway now and goggle it. I was watching judge judy and fell asleep….
************************************
one hour later…..
OK…..an extemist hate group. Not from Maine or Florida. I’m even more confused. All through my comments, it is obvious I am opposed to SSM and I haven’t made it a secret that I’m a Catholic and my SSM position stems from my Catholicism.
I’m not mean or nasty to others when I reveal my position. I just simply state it. Certain SSM supporters then start inquiring if I belong to the westboro church and have I been protesting soldiers funerals lately. Have I engaged in bombings , rapes and killings or at least support that kind of criminal activity. I’m a foaming at the mouth Jesus follower, homophobe, bigot and on and on it goes from commenters when they discover I’m anti-SSM. (nice, huh?)
Now to my confusion. I finally took the time to google the Westboro Baptist Church and read the terrifying repugnancy of their activites. As I kept reading, I discover a part of their hate targets are Catholics.
So, WHO KNEW? In directing me to google these malicious extemists, I find you and I finally have something in common. They hate Roman Catholics as much as they hate homosexuals. They call priests draculas and vampires. And the rest of what they say about the Catholic Church is not fit for print.
I’ll have to keep a sharp eye out for any of their members as I walk around with my crucifix necklace on . They could spy my rosary hanging off my rear view mirror too and run me off the road somewhere.
What an absolutely disgusting website! Truly sad to think there are most likely many people that actually believe all that crap.
I wonder if Kiki will ever look at it? It reminds me of the KKK, white supremacy groups, radical Muslim jihad groups, etc…Hate breeds hate and until we all realize that (Kiki included) the cycle will continue.
Yes, I’d include Wright’s and any other church that preaches things I don’t believe. Most important, though, is that I demand — yes, demand — that the laws in the United States of America be faith-neutral and I will remind you that there are many faiths that accept same-sex marriage. Equal protection of the laws. Marriage equality is justice.
Bring on all the nimwits who live to hide behind their bibles to justify their pathetic behavior and bigoted attitudes toward their fellow Americans who want equal protection under the law….yet these are the very SAME sheeple who; get divorced, aren’t virgins when they marry, eat pork, work on the sabbath, have tattoos, play football, get haircuts, eat shellfish, shave, curse, gossip, wear cotton polyester blended clothing, commit adultry and are supposed to love all of god’s fellow children (but clearly don’t)……yet somehow these same sheeple seem to ignore all that other inconvenient stuff in the bible that applies to all of them and instead of trying to be a decent human beings…continue to beat their drum of civil inequality (separate but equal has never worked kids) against other Americans who just want to get married legally by the STATE OF MAINE and not by any freakin church.
This is a CIVIL matter not a religious matter- as you need a marriage license issued by the state of Maine NOTHING is needed by ANY religious institution in order for someone to get married.
These fat cat churches need to have their cushy tax exeption revoked IMMEDIATELY.That would balance the budget and force them to comply with the law for the first time-unlike NOM.
Why don`t all church members from across the USA get together and Pray Away The GAY.And while they are at it pray away brown eyes..who needs them.We should all be the same.If it does not work..then it must be in gods will..that invisible guy who lives on clouds works in mysterious ways.
All the more reason to never attend any church.At least Wright never made a soldier’s mother cry even harder on her worst day.
This is the same Rev, Wright who condemned the U.S. Military, saying, “fighting for peace is like raping for virginity.” (April 10, 2012)
That’s not condemning the military at all.That’s condemning the war and politics.I will give you your props for being consistently pro life-unlike many who love holding their anti choice posters up,while having NRA stickers,voting for the Pentagon and supporting capital punishment..And I’m not defending Wright.What he,
Rick Warren,Benedict or any other huckster says is irrelevant to me.Everything I’ve achieved in my life is due to work,education,skill,luck or some combination of those.God has nothing to do with it and never will.
Everything I’ve achieved in my life is due to work,education,skill,luck or some combination of those.
************************
Kudos to you GP for all your achievements and successes.
All this for 2% of the population of this country.
Without using the Bible, church, religion, God, etc…please provide one reasonable argument against SSM.
We allow jewish people to wed in America, and there are more homosexuals than there are jews. So yes, all this for whatever percentage of the population is denied equal access to civil marriage.
A marriage is created by 2 people. God is optional.
IT’S ALL ABOUT SEX, BUT IS IT WORTH IT?
Why did Terri Schiavo’s husband have her legally murdered? Because sex was more important to him than fulfilling his marriage vows in regard to his unfortunate wife.
Why is it legal to murder babies in this country? Because many people believe that the enjoyment of sex is more important than loving and nurturing the baby that was conceived as a result of sex.
Why is pornography legal and so prevalent in this country? Because people prefer the enjoyment of sex to avoiding the sin of lust, which is one of the seven deadly sins.
Why did almost every Protestant denomination embrace artificial birth control, starting in the 1930’s? Because the enjoyment of sex was more important to them than to adhere to the natural law of God, which had endured for 1900 years of Christian history.
Why do the majority of Catholics today use artificial birth control, even though their church teaches that the use of it is a mortal sin? Because the enjoyment of sex is more important to them than to obey Jesus Christ, who founded their religion and redeemed their souls.
Why do pedophiles act as they do? Because their enjoyment of sexual perversion is more important to them than to gravely offend God, by destroying the innocence and dignity of a child.
Why do gays want to get married? Because their enjoyment of homosexual acts is more important to them than obedience to God. And they feel that if their “marriage” is legalized, it will somehow assuage their consciences by helping them to feel better about what they do if other people recognize it as being legal.
Our miserable life on earth is just a flash in the pan, a mini-dress rehearsal for what’s far more important – where we will spend eternity. We can make sex the most important thing in our lives of 70-90 years, no matter what God has taught us since 2000 years ago. If we disobey him and do not repent, we can spend millions, billions, trillions, etc., of years in a place where everyone hates God and each other, and are in horrifying pain without a second of respite, with no hope of getting a break from it, FOREVER.
On the other hand, we can pray to God for the grace to deal properly with our sexual urges, and cooperate with those graces that he will surely send. If we fail from time to time, we can repent, especially before we die, and be forgiven. And then we can be in a place where we will always be happy, where we will never feel pain, or be hungry, or cold, or too hot, FOREVER.
What”s it worth to us? Is 50 years of unbridled sex comparable to FOREVER? Let’s put ourselves in God’s hands and obey his teachings. He has a lot of good waiting for us if we do. If we reject and disobey him, we must remember that the God of mercy is also a God of justice, and that God is not mocked.
no. thank you.
In the United States laws are civil, not religious.
Wow how many years did you have to have all that drivel pounded into your head to make you believe it?
My God and faith teaches: love the homophobic bigots, but hate the homophobic bigotry.
They should be ashamed of themselves for preaching love and tolerance when they so obviously can’t abide by their own words. Any person whom is opposed to bigotry should stand up and march right out of the church when that hate plate is passed around.
A relationship with feces? Google First Scandal.