September 25, 2017
Elections Latest News | Poll Questions | Hurricane Maria | Orion Krause | Obamacare

Comments for: Former Catholic Charities official calls claims by same-sex marriage foes ‘not true at all’

Opponents of same-sex marriage in Maine are mischaracterizing the reasons that Catholic Charities of Boston stopped brokering adoptions in 2006, according to Peter Meade, the organization’s former board chairman, who spoke with reporters in Maine on Wednesday. During an episode of MPBN’s MaineWatch last… Read More
Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News and the Bangor Publishing Co. encourage comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

    No surprise here that the anti-gay bunch would lie.

    • Anonymous

      grrrr…ademain, I just made a comment that is “pending” and I really blew it.  I completely misread your post, which I agree w/100%.  I am very sorry that my “red alert” determination to nip this so-called christian anti SSM gang’s bull in the bud made me fire it off.

  • ChuckGG

    This is the same situation that occurred when DC legalized SSM.  Catholic Charities, Inc., was under contract to provide adoption services for the city and were paid with taxpayers funds to provide this service.  When the DC Council legalized SSM, CCI opted to not comply with the anti-discrimination law (gay couples having the legal right to adopt children) and left the adoption business.

    They were not “forced” to do this (despite their protestations).  They chose not to comply with the law and thus removed themselves from the tax-payer funded service which was put in place to provide adoption services to ALL taxpaying citizens of DC.

    There was nothing to prevent CCI from starting their own private adoption services for privately-funded adoptions.  However, once they agreed to accept tax-payer dollars, then they were obligated to provide the service in accordance with the anti-discrimination laws of the city.

    This seems perfectly reasonable to me.  CCI did not feel they could perform the service for the city given its restrictions.  They dropped out of contention.  Their prerogative.

    CCI also was required to provide spousal benefits to its gay employees, as would any other business in the District.  It cannot discriminate according to law.  CCI’s solution was to cancel spousal benefits for ALL its employees, gay and straight, rather than provide benefits to a legally married SS spouse.  How very kind and understanding of them.

  • ChuckGG

    “However, if Question One passes, marriage would be redefined for everyone, gay or straight. This redefined version of marriage would be the only legally recognized definition of marriage for anyone in Maine.””

    Yes, it would remove the ban against same-gender.  After that, I fail to see how it is “redefined.”  And, for that matter, who cares?  How is the meaning of “marriage” in any way changed other than now including couples of the same gender?

    Also, the original marriage law was very cut-and-dry back in 1980 or so when I reviewed it prior to performing a marriage ceremony as a Notary Public in Maine.  Sometime in the 1997 or so timeframe, the bible-thumpers got a hold of the law and turned it from a “law” to this rather flowery and overtly religious proclamation, rather than being a law in “legalese.”

    • Anonymous

      In return for supporting your cause, I hope that you will help support legislation that we are working on now to allow my wife and I to add two more wives to our marriage (All adults). We all love each other, and no longer want to just live together, we want to be a loving married foursome with all the benefits of marriage. We don’t feel that it has any psychological effects on our children and plan to have more. Surely the homosexuals will understand that we are just different, and there is nothing wrong with our lifestyle. If you don’t want multiple wives or husbands, then simply don’t get them.
      Can we count on your support? 

      • This Charming Man

        You’ll have to get support from your religious friends who are all hot for “traditional” biblical marriages, which include multiple wives, before you can count on the gays for support.

        I’m sure it won’t be a problem, after all they’re all for “traditional marriage”.

        Good luck with that.

      • If you go through the proper channels and have documentation that it is not harmful to society (ie it has been done in 26 states and countries with no ill effects to the society as a whole) and you ahve the backing of the AMA, APA, American Academy of Pediatrics, etc then absolutely. 

      • ChuckGG

        Sure.  I really don’t have a problem with the whole polygamy marriage idea.  Clearly, it has existed for a very long time and, of course, is well-known in traditional Mormonism.  You will need a two-pronged attack.  If you are concerned about the religious aspects of polygamy, then you will need to work with your church, or at least some religion that is open to polygamy.  If the religious aspect is not your concern, then just forget about it.  Religion carries no legal weight.  It’s a non-issue.

        If you are concerned about the legal aspects of polygamy, that probably is a bigger hurdle.  Marriage in the USA (well, everywhere) is focused on two people.  Far more laws and policies would need to be adjusted to accommodate polygamy.  For example, a “married couple” insurance policy was created by actuarial number-crunching for two people.  This would need to be adjusted as the insurance company would want to charge more for 10 wives than it would for just one.  Not saying this is impossible, but it would take time to accomplish.

        Some states consider just living together after a period of time as being married – the “common law” wife deal.  Here is what I would think might work – marry one wife legally, having a state-issued marriage license.  That would comply with the two-people rule and not run the risk of a polygamy charge.  Then, in church have a religious marriage ceremony for wives 2 through 10.  Since the religious ceremony is just a ceremony and carries no legal weight without the corresponding state-issued marriage licenses, you could have the one legal marriage and the usual benefits from that and have the spiritual marriages for the 2nd the 10th wives.  I would think that is about the best you can do until the law is changed.

        If you are concerned about the legal issues for wives 2 through 10, then you need to go to an attorney and have a significant amount of paperwork and agreements created to essentially “duplicate” the legal rights that you share with your one legal spouse. Again, not impossible, but time consuming and, frankly, fairly costly. Check with an attorney who has handled similar arrangements for gay couples in the past, long before the whole SSM issue gained the public awareness that it has today. Those attorneys have a great deal of experience in this area as SS couples of the past had to go down this path before the advent of civil SSM being legalized in some states – more soon, hopefully. Get a good tax attorney, as well.

        Polygamy is an entirely different issue than SSM which only amounts to removing the restriction of same-gender in the law.  Frankly, I think the polygamous marriage probably is a more complicated legal matter (although not impossible) to resolve. 

        So, my suggestion is to take the same route SSM did – get the signatures on a petition and then get the issue on the ballot.  Have the majority of Mainers vote on whether you are allowed, or not, to pursue this matter.  It will be a long battle and cost a lot of money.  I suspect the State would not really care nearly as much as the other religions who will want to force their particular religious tenants on you and your potential wives, despite you not being a member of their church.  Just as those of us in the SSM battle do, you must remind the churches there is a separation of church and state and they are not allowed to impose their religious views on others or into our secular laws that are designed to serve ALL people regardless of their religion.  Those naysayers, hands-down, will be your biggest pain in the neck.

        Good luck with it.

        Oh, and with regard to the psychological effects on children – I agree. I doubt it would have any effect. The Mormons of the past (and some today) have large families from polygamous marriages. They have a good track record of raising kids, so I don’t see any problems there.

      • Tedlick Badkey

        Get the tax laws restructured to support your arrangement (the nation cannot support survivor benefits to harems) and you’ll have my 100% backing.

      • Scott Harriman

        In return for supporting your cause, I hope that you will help support
        legislation that we are working on now to allow my wife and I to add two
        more wives to our marriage (All adults).

        Be my guest.  I am all for poly marriages, but you will have to do some serious lawyering to fix all the legal structures that assume marriage is between two people.

      • Anonymous

        So, I’m not sure if you are serious, or if you are trying to make the LGBT community look like hypocrites, but if it is the latter, the responses to your question seems to have backfired.  If it is the former, then yes, I would, as long as A. you had an agreeable plan to modify the law to include more than two people B. everyone involved was of legal age and C. everyone involved consented to the entire situation.

      • Anonymous

        Yes you can, Also the was marriage is now does more for you argument then allow gays to marry. 

      • Tom Brown III

         I am kind of stuck here… there are a bunch of responses from people that have taken your request quite seriously. But I feel your comment is sarcastic and perhaps their responses in turn are sarcastic as well haha.

        However, do you feel it would be fair to say have additional tax breaks that would come with have more than one wife rearing more than 1 child but the work load is different?

        I mean 1 wife raising say 8 kids… will probably have a tough time providing a second income. but 4 wives raising 8 kids… 1 or 2 wives can stay home while the others enter the work force and in the mean time you get to collect 3 or 4 more incomes and at the same time everyone is legal parents of these 8 kids and will claim them on your 5 way filed tax return?

        I have no problem with polygamists it actually seems like not a bad deal you have several adults sharing a traditional families workload.

        However I believe you are using the straw man argument by juxtaposing polygamist marriage against SSM. Tradition SSM and Hetero marriage are much closer in function legally than the poly marriage you propose. two responsible consenting adults who want to be bound together financially is fundamentally what marriage is. It is like the ol’ slippery slope argument “well if we let men marry men then what is to stop men from marrying their dog!? the obviously love each other!”

        • ChuckGG

           I did not take his request seriously, but I hope I responded in a manner that he would be “walking a mile in my shoes.”  I am sure he does not give a hoot about polygamy.  This was just his attempt to “shock” us as to what might happen (gasp!).

      • Anonymous

        Our support?  Why don’t you ask Willard Rmoney, whose own church practised plural marriage not long ago…and some off-shoots of it still do?

        • Anonymous

          Does that mean that you don’t think Romney would make a good president?
          Maybe someone like Barney Frank would be better?

          • Anonymous

            Er…uh…yeah, you could conclude that.  And frankly, my dear, I’d prefer to see a purple dinosaur named Barney in the White House than Rmoney.

      • Anonymous

        Here’s where your post fails;  Maine law currently allows marriage for 2 persons of the opposite gender.  Homosexuals (not bisexuals) are not attracted to the opposite gender, therefore cannot get married to their desired mate. 

        Our sexuality is part of our nature…mine, yours, his and hers.   We can’t just snap our fingers and all of sudden become something we aren’t.  Why should we?  To conform to other people’s idea of “normal”?  I don’t think so.

        So, where does polygamy fit in?  Is there something in a polygamist’s nature that makes him or her unable to enjoy a 2-person marriage?  Or is it simply a “more the merrier” choice?

        I’ve yet to be sold on polygamy marriages.  They seem to be religion-driven ideas that put women 2nd.  Not to mention the legal nightmares they could turn into.

        Just my $.02.

      • Absolutely, as long as you support them all. Actually you would have a better chance than homosexuals because the Bible says it is ok. Slavery is ok also. 

      • Anonymous

         A red herring troll … nothing to see here, folks!

  • Anonymous

    No Rev. Emrich most of us don’t “presume” that same-sex marriages “can simply coexist” with traditional marriage. We know they will because it has been proven in other countries, including Canada.  If you are going make such assertions, at least back them up with factual information. Otherwise you are merely engaging in hollow rhetoric.

    • Anonymous

      That is not true. I lived in Massachusetts when the Catholic Charities situation unfolded and the person that disputes the anti-gay group’s assertions is correct in describing what happened. It was the Vatican that demanded that CCI shut down the adoptions because of the placement of children with gay couples. And once SSM was legalized in Massachusetts, it had absolutely no effect on heterosexual couples.  The sky did not fall and nothing bad happened in Massachusetts as a result of allowing gays to marry. There was one effect, which was a positive one on the economy within the Commonwealth of MA, because there were more marriages performed and that brought some big bucks into Massachusetts.

  • The more they lie the more I vote YES on 1 God Bless them all.

  • Bob Emrich lost his job as pastor of the Sangerville church because he cheated on his first wife Sarah. The good Lord will judge him in the end and I dont think it is going to be pretty. In addition, Sarah came out shortly after and this is why he hates gays. it threatened his manhood I am sure.

    • Anonymous

      Bob Emrich is God’s messenger on earth and so cannot be criticized. 

      • Anonymous

        God called. He wants His messengers on earth to convey His message of love and tolerance for all. The rest of His messengers He wants to fire for distorting His message through their hate and intolerance.

        • Anonymous

           The “fire” that you mention might be just a BIT warmer than dismissal.No worries here.

        • Anonymous

          Catholic Charities is not a charity.. it’s a business. An out-sourcing business that is funded by the United Way, and state and county governments.

        • Anonymous

          Well said, Mimi!  I guess these self-appointed messengers of hatred are on a different frequency, so  God can’t reach them.   Just as well, too, because they haven’t finished building all the necessary “hell” towers for the ‘phones that these phonies use.

    • Anonymous

      Don’t forget the disgusting work he has done in Uganda. 

      http://forthesakeofscience.com/2010/07/02/bob-emrich-and-uganda/

      He’s no man of God.

      • Anonymous

         Thanks for reporting on this which has been ignored by the media.Eventually the CC will run out of dupes and rubes and will die off.I can’t wait.

        • This Charming Man

          A link is great, but I think someone should come right out and say loud and clear here exactly what his work in Uganda has wrought; what the goal and intention of it has been, and what it’s resulted in.

          People have been jailed, beaten, and murdered.  That’s what this “man of God” AND HIS SUPPORTERS IN NOM have advocated for in Uganda.  

          They’ve taken part in murder.  They are murderers.

      • Thank you for the eye opener. Why does everyone focus on ‘sodomy’. Lesbians are here also. It just helps the sick people bring out the ick factor. It is manipulative and just a lie. But I see that more and more now. If they want to live in a theocracy it will be interesting to see how that works for htem. Especially when another theocracy takes over and they cannot do what they want anymore. 

      • Anonymous

        I suppose Emrich and his ilk can see no correlation between Maine’s being one of the least religious states and his lying.  As long as there are brains in Maine, his type will not prevail.

      • Anonymous

         What an incredible sicko!

  • Thank you for your honesty. You are a true Christian.

  • pbmann

    What?  Same Sex Marriage opponants lying, say it ain’t so, Joe.

  • Anonymous

    More lies….. this surprises who???????

  • Anonymous

    Oh weird, more lies from the side that claims to be morally superior.

    • Anonymous

      Yep, and that must be the same side that changed the 9th commandment to, “Thou shalt not tell the truth.”

  • Anonymous

    The Danbury Baptists (to whom Jefferson wrote his famous letter that included the phrase “wall of separation between church and state”) understood that freedom FROM religion was what would allow them to enjoy freedom OF religion.  

  • Anonymous

    Look at the  BOY SCOUT that was a big cover up  .

  • Tedlick Badkey

    Is this any surprise?

    The opposition to gay marriage know that they have no legal leg to stand on. So, in lieu thereof, they lie and cheat to try and play on the emotions of citizens.

    This is absolutely disgusting, and any person of faith that does not stand against this is simply proving the hypocrisy of their “faith”.

  • Oldfishergeek

    The “christian right” is neither!

  • Anonymous

    Wow. Reading down thru this, I have learned that those opposed to SSM are hypocrites, bigots, morally superior, liars, haters, dupes, rubes, and murderers. And that this is because the pro-SSM folks understand the mind of God, as Mimi2cool said. The next time you guys have lunch with God, will you ask him want he really meant when the Bible talked of homesexuality?  Being a hypocrite, bigot,morally superior, liar, hater, dupe, rube, and murderer, I dont think he will talk to me. But please, I dont want to interrupt your hate-fest.

    • This Charming Man

      Maine needs more adult literacy programs.

  • Anonymous

    This just in!

    “A federal appeals court in New York has ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.

    The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the Act’s Section 3, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages, violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston issued a similar ruling in May. “

    • Anonymous

      What’s that, now three circuits total have declared it unconstitutional? At least, right?

  • Anonymous

    Get the government out of the definition of marriage. If people choose to take advantage of perks of being together, then let them file for domestic partnership. That ends the question of defining marriage in any terms. If some couples choose a religious ceremony, then they should go for it. Without the government in the marriage equation anymore, there should be no problems. In the past, marriage laws took care of woman whose role in the family was taking care of the home and children while the man went off to earn support for the family. Marriage laws were for the good of the wife and children. We don’t need that anymore. Let’s get the government out of marriage. Then Maine would not have this referendum over and over and over again! 

    • Anonymous

       On the contrary, let’s get the churches out of marriage!  Government can issue licenses to any two individuals who want the benefits of marriage and rights of inheritance and end-of-life issues and such — and those who wish can go to their churches and have an additional “commitment” ceremony.  Makes it all nice and legal and gets religion out of the equation for everyone, excepting those who choose the additional frippery.

      • Anonymous

        Marriage in the eyes of some churches/religions is more about marriage than the government. If people are serious about marriage, they don’t need the government to sell a license and attach more law/rules/regulations that no one needs. Seems to me like you don’t want people to skip jumping through governmental hoops. Get rid of marriage laws and then everyone is equal and anyone who wants to enter a domestic partnership can fill out the papers and do so.

        You have to be kidding to believe that marriage is a government institution and not a religious institution.

  • Anonymous

    Catholic Charities is nothing more than an arm of the federal government.  The Church needs to stop being in bed with the government.  The Church needs to stay focused on their mission. Charity is the work of the Church not the government.  

  • Anonymous

    What I cannot comprehend about the NOM campaign is the fact that they don’t want to redefine marriage. Well, in 1967 didn’t the Supreme Court redefine marriage to allow people of 2 different races to wed? Our children are going to learn about this fight and wonder why it was ever an issue, just like when I think about Interracial Marriage. Hmm.

You may also like