August 18, 2019
News Latest News | Chellie Pingree | Bangor Metro | Paupers' Grave | Today's Paper

Comments for: Portland bishop says Catholic Church won’t actively campaign against gay marriage

  • Anonymous

    This is the best decision the Catholic church has made in a long time.

    • Anonymous

      I bet they will give money to some one else to do there fighting for them .

    • Anonymous

      The reaction to all of his political posturing, last month, must have showed up in the collection baskets. 

      • Anonymous

        Not to worry.The Mormons,Focus on the Family and all the other hate groups are still loaded.What they don’t want you to know is how few real Mainers support their hate.

        •  This is the PC Police, I’m going to give you a warning this time. Please do not call these groups “Hate Groups.” In future please  refer to them as “Equality Challenged” or “Rights Only for Those Who Think Like Us” groups. Thank you, and have a wonderful and politically correct day.

          • Anonymous

            Yeah, don’t you just  hate people who say it like it is, instead of being politically correct ? 

          • Anonymous

            Being politically correct is, in part, why we are in the jam we are in today!!! What we really need is for someone to have the balls to call a spade a spade-SCREW POLITICALLY CORRECT!!!

        • Anonymous

          Focus on the Family is very far from being a hate group.  People have turned what was once good into evil and now what was evil is now called good.  If I tell you the bridge is out down the road, that means I care and show concern for you, but if I let you continue down a road of destruction, that would mean I don’t care or have hatred in my heart toward you.  The truth will save you from destruction.  Homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle of destruction!

          • Anonymous

            The concept of sin is based on a fictional book. A lifestyle based on belief in such obvious fiction is a destructive lifestyle, as evidenced by your obvious prejudice towards gays. Homosexuality is natural, occurring in about 10% of the population of most mammal species. Its evolutionary advantage is unknown, perhaps it is a form of non-destructive population control. Certainly it is harmless to anyone and everyone. What goes on behind closed doors between consenting adults is none of your business or anyone else’s. Prudes like you need to learn to stop peering in through other people’s bedroom windows, and concentrate on living your own lives.

          • So let’s keep it out of the law books and quit interferring with church teachings and beliefs. 

          • Anonymous

            Because a) not everyone is religious, b) not everyone wants a religious ceremony for their marriage and c) the law we will be voting on in November protects religious denominations teachings and beliefs.

          • Anonymous

            As long as the religions can keep their prehistoric draconian ideas out of public laws, I have no problem with them. When they try to take over my country, I’ll fight them however I can. Anyone who wants to live in a theocracy is welcome to move to Iran.

          • Anonymous

            GREAT post,especially your closing sentence!Thanks.

          • Anonymous

            Ha, ha…harmless to anyone. Homosexual practices are normal, ha, ha…

          • Anonymous

            It must be great to be able to just ignore reality like that. Unfortunately for you, ignoring reality will not change it. 

          • Anonymous

            Sorry, if the SPLC and others that work on these issues call them a hate group,then they’re a hate group.Interesting analogy about the bridge though.

          • Anonymous

            Let the public see the “Gay Pride” parades, and hear the words of the leaders of the homosexual rights movements. Once the public sees and understands, that will be the end of the “gay marriage” movement.

        • Actually I’ve found more hatred among the gay population who think that everyone is homophobic or against them.   I know a lot of Mormons and from what I’ve seen they hold a strong conviction against the homosexual lifestyle but do not hate them.  It doesn’t mean that everyone has to associate with homosexuals either.  Last I read we are a free society that has a right to disassociate with people we do not agree with, when that right is taken away, then we no longer become a free society.

          • Anonymous

            There is a big difference between disassociating with those whom we do not like and actively working to deny them the rights you were gifted with at birth and never had to think about.

        • Anonymous

          Groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center push political correctness in order to destroy our nation.

          They are the real haters.  

          And a substantial part of the homosexual rights movement is a hatred of women on the part of homosexuals and a hatred of men on the part of women.

    • Anonymous

      In order to keep their No-Tax status, they are prohibited from active politics. Nice of them to state the obvious and expect to be rewarded for good behavior.

      • Anonymous

        That is not 100% accurate.

        “Tax Exemptions vs. Church Political Activity”

        “What sorts of things are churches and other religious organizations allowed to do? They can invite political candidates to speak so long as they don’t explicitly endorse them. They can speak out about a wide variety of political and moral issues, including very controversial matters like abortion and euthanasia, war and peace, poverty and civil rights.”

        “Commentary on such issues can appear in church bulletins, in purchased advertisements, in news conferences, in sermons, and wherever else the church or church leaders would like their message to be transmitted. What does matter, however, is that such comments are limited to the issues and do not stray towards where candidates and politicians stand on those issues.”

        “It’s fine to speak out against abortion, but not to attack a candidate who supports abortion rights or to tell a congregation to urge a representative to vote for a particular bill which would outlaw abortion. It’s fine to speak out against war, but not to endorse a candidate who is also opposed to war. Contrary to what some partisan activists might like to claim, there are no barriers preventing the clergy from speaking out on the issues and there are no laws forcing clergy to remain silent on moral problems. Those who claim or even imply otherwise are deceiving people — perhaps deliberately.”

        http://atheism.about.com/od/churchestaxexemptions/a/churchpolitics.htm

        • Anonymous

          Except with The Unitarians, honestly, how is a church inviting a political candidate to come 
          speak in their church NOT endorsing them ?  

        • mangosmum

          If they “can’t endorse” a candidate why are they still allowed to tell people not to vote for Obama? Isnt that the same thing??   Bishops across this country are doing this same thing which sounds illegal to me.  Just asking a question and won’t read your response if it is an attack.

          • Anonymous

            First off I don’t “attack” people. I normally state facts which when they don’t agree with a persons position some will fell that they are being attacked.

            OK, now that we have gotten that out of the way, I am no expert on IRS and 501 (c) non-profits. Having said that, I wonder if the Bishops you mention are urging their congregants not to support President Obama which is different from saying do not vote for him.

            Either way, I really do not know the ins and outs of this topic but felt the above reference was as good as any that I have seen.

  • Anonymous

    $500,000 would buy TONS of peanut butter and jelly…..

    • Anonymous

      Don’t forget fresh baked bread from Dysart’s! 

  • Guest

    I believe strongly in the ability for same-sex couples to be married.  The church is (for once) doing the right thing.

    • Anonymous

      I went looking for that scripture you speak of . 

      This is what I found on the sanctity of marriage : 

      Deut. 22:13-21″If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, 14 and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, ‘I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,’ 15 then the girl’s father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. 16 “And the girl’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; 17 and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, “I did not find your daughter a virgin.” But this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. 18 “So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, 19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl’s father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days. 20 “But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, 21 then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel, by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you,” (Deut. 22:13-21).

      They get don’t to have it two ways at once.
      If you don’t buy into this and call this God’s will too, then siting other more politically convenient verses just does not hold water.

      If being scripture is what make it right, then all the scripture counts.

      Now, that all or nothing thing IS TRUE of the US Constitution, too.
      And that is what this is about.

      I appreciate what what you trying to say, but it needs saying with more conviction.
      People are free to believe in what they want, BUT that does not give some the right to deny others their rights liberty and pursuit of happiness.

      • Guest

         What is wrong with what you have quoted above?  The bible teaches purity before marriage, the lesson above supports that.  I agree, all the scripture does count.  Also, Leviticus 18:22…

        And whomever said gay marriage is a right granted by the US Constitution????

        • Anonymous

          There is nothing in the Consitution about marriage at all, so your argument is invalid. There are parts about equal protection though.

          • Guest

            Good, I hope we are all supportive of the businesses and churches that exercise their rights to not marry or work at same-sex weddings without fear of a lawsuit. 

          • Anonymous

            That was already in the legislation that was passed back in 2009.

          • Anonymous

            So do business that oppose racially mixed marriages have the right to refuse service ? 
            You seem to think they should. 

          • Guest

             Yeah, why not?  They can go on down the road and find another business that wants to serve them.

          • Anonymous

            bears_beets try not to be such a troll

          • Guest

             Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy round these parts

          • Anonymous

            So tell us bears_beets, how did you change your screen name to “Guest”?

          • Anonymous

            bears_beets it is already illegal in Maine to discriminate based on sexual orientation (even “perceived” sexual orientation).

            So any establishment that caters to, or offers its goods, facilities or
            services to, or solicits or accepts patronage from the general public is
            a place of public accommodation and will be guilty of discrimination if they refuse to provide those services to a gay or lesbian couple based on sexual orientation.

            In the question that will appear on the ballot in November, churches and church organizations are specifically exempted from having to provide services to a same sex couples if it goes against the teachings of the church. That is the same protection offered in the overturned same sex marriage law in 2009.

          • Anonymous

            Bears beet advocates stoning the innocent and opposes the use of tampons by virgins, 
            I must guess. 

          • Guest

             If your faith teaches “no sex before marriage” then having sex before marriage makes you guilty, right?

          • Anonymous

            Did I ever say anything about what my faith is ? 
            It is not your business, nor for a public forum like this, is it ?  
            I keep it the closet where it belongs, EVEN according to (YOUR ????) Christ. 

            The point is what the  US Constitution says. 
            Do you support that or not, Miss Beets ? 

            I do feel as if peoples minds are so locked into the right/ left thing they only react to the keywords. 

            I can’t call it out in some without calling it out wherever it happens.
            So stop it.
            You too, Seth.  

            Now look, some on the right say “you must respect our religion.
            The Bible is the my final authority, it is what tells me how to live.
            NO COMPROMISE. ” 

            That is a clear statement of their intent. 
            Fine, they are free, if  NOT RATIONAL, but still within their ights. 

            So I have decided that if someone demands I must respect THEIR  religion, then THEY better  show me not only what they think it says but that they actually do know what it does say.
            I want to see just how they do what they demand of me, too. 

            Opps, I read your guide book, and know it says to judge those who claim to speak for God by the worldly results of their work, and o sthat have if you profess to be a Christian, that you live it up to what Christ said or appear to be a Pharisee, at the best of the various Biblical possibilities  

            So is anyone on the right or left  is going to judge me for saying that “do unto others as you  would have them do to you. ”  works fine for me ?  

            Now, let’s look at what is really being done in political terms. 
            The conservatives all use any means necessary to promote their
            anti-progress agenda. 

            That includes religion.
            Worse they are using the religious people to promote the right wing agenda AND suppress all others. 

            Now,  if someone says to you this book is my only and final authority, and I will never compromise on that.” 
            then why shouldn’t  anyone who disagrees with the political results, study that book too ? 

            People like that can’t hear anything else. 
            They say so themselves.

            Now, in the secular world they ARE voting as part of a block… 
            > say about 5 % Neo John Birch Society wing-nuts ,  no tax ever, shrink the government until they drown it in a bathtub, extremist,  
            > the 15% of the regular voters who are Republic die-hards;
            ” My first vote was for Goldwater and I will never vote for anyone but a Republican” , 
            > and  15% ( only 1.5 persons out of ten) who are “the faithful” ,
            so voting as their preachers and Bishops tell them.  

            Add to that the protest vote … people who vote the most outrageous guy because … whatever. 

            And in off year election, it adds up to the 37% of off year election votes whose fruits are blundering about Augusta, currently.

             Now, let’s focus on the faithful who say : “you must respect our religion. It is the my final authority, this book is what tells me how to live. NO COMPROMISE. “, 
            then vote as their preacher or Bishop say is politically correct.  

            IF THEY say they are Christians, then they should be like Christ told them to be. 
            That is just logical. 

            In THEIR book, Christ has the most lines in Matt. Chapters 5
            though 7. 
            It is just three computer pages, total, and from any point of view, religious or otherwise, it spells out how to identify
            and deal with cynics who would use religion, would manipulate
            the faithful, for their own political or other evil ends. 

            It is just logic to know the book and use it if you are dealing with people who are saying they it is their final autority,  and that we must respect it, them and whatever they claim the book says, 
            and they will not never compromise on that, isn’t it ?  

            What else will ever work ? 
            So why not read it as political primer; 

            http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NIV 

            Ironically enough, toward its end  Ch.7 address the point specifically … and suggests what to do with that sort in no uncertain terms.    
            True and False Prophets    
            15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 
            16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 
            17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 
            18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 
            19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 
            20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

            True and False Disciples    

            21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 
            22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 
            23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ 

            But my point really is  just that the Bishop (et al) is no one’s final authority on political matters, is he ?

          • Guest

             Wat.

          • Anonymous

            Wat ? 

            Okay, now we all know how to reply to you. 
            That is in scripture too, huh ? 

          • Anonymous

            You won’t make any progress with them, db. It’s not possible to reason with someone who did not arrive at their opinion through reasoning. Not even when you try to reason using their parameters and premises.

            Nice try, though.

          • Anonymous

            Yawn.

          • mangosmum

            Equal Protection means we all have the same rights and protections. Are we to go back to before the Courts ruled on interracial marriages too?  As far as I and many of others are concerned you  have whatever marriage you want, go to or not go to a same sex wedding etc, BUT don’t YOU be telling someone who they can and can’t marry or love and I won’t tell you that you shouldnt marry who you love.

          • poormaniac

            In effect , those voting on this matter weather pro or con are doing just that, telling you who you can or can’t marry.

        • Anonymous

          Gee doesn’t ‘We the People’ mean everyone or just those people who want special rights….you know the one’s who already have the right to get married and want to prevent ‘other’  people from having those same ‘special rights?’

          • gays have the right to marry, a gay man can marry a woman , and a gay woman can marry a man

          • Anonymous

            “a gay man can marry a woman , and a gay woman can marry a man”

            But I thought it was about the sanctity of marriage. 
            Bigots have no arguments at all, if they can’t have things
            two different ways at once.

          • How is that bigoted? men and women come in a varity of colors and flavors :)

          • it’s not bigoted, it’s just a stupid argumentative point that has no merit.  Kinda like one of my favorites  “It’s Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve”  gimme a break

          • If thats ur favorite, its pretty superficial, do you understand truth, Try reading Genisis.

          • Anonymous

            What your “truth” is is not accepted by all living people. That is one of the reasons we have something called the U.S. Constitution and the 1st Amendment. People have a right to worship or not worship whomever or whatever they want. And the government cannot force one religion over another not can they favor one religion over another.

            The above is one of the major reason the Bible is not the basis for the laws of this nation.

          • Because the Truth is not accepted does not make it not true. I don’t know about the Bible not being the basis for laws of this nation, do not kill,do not steal etc. etc.

          • Anonymous

            Rick the laws of the U.S. are based on English Common Law which can be traced back to Mosaic Law and beyond.

            Most scholars and Constitutional law students learn early on that the basis for our laws can be traced all the way back to the Code of Hammurabi which pre-dates Mosaic Law by close to 400 years.

            The Code of Hammurabi contains such things as the “presumption of innocence”, contract law, oaths of witnesses, and a primitive form of a Constitution among other things which can be found in modern day law.

          • yup, still do not kill, do no steal etc. etc.

          • Anonymous

            Do you always ignore facts that are inconvienent?

          • jd2008jd I’m not ignoring facts, and your “facts” are very interesting, you gave me a general view on English commom law, so what! we got hospitals, universities, etc. ( sorry I’m not as aritculate as you) from the Catholic Church.

          • Anonymous

            Rick, Rick, Rick…my facts show that our laws can be traced back 400 BEFORE Mosaic Law. If you don’t want to admit that is fact, fine. Here are some additional facts which I am sure you will have issues with:

            Fact #1 – Our laws are not based in Biblical law. 

            Fact #2 – The Constitution of the United States is the foundation of our system of government and our laws.

            Fact #3 – The 1st Amendment specifically prohibits the government from establishing a religion.

            Fact #4 – The 1st Amendment specifically allows one to worship in any manner they wish (or not worship as the case may be) and the government cannot interfere with that right.

            Fact #5 – Our nation is a secular nation and to argue that the Bible says homosexuality is an “abomination” is a waste of time as the Bible is not used in our law making process.

            Fact #6 – The Catholic Church (and many other churches and religious organizations) have done many wonderful things (and a few truly evil things too) but that doesn’t allow them (or any other church or religious organization) to create laws for the rest of the state or nation.

          • Thank you for #4 I don’t belive in the hhs mandate either. the rest of it basicly ignors the Truth and the Truth is taught in the Bible, and should guide the hearts of man (note: should) not does obviously

          • Anonymous

            And that is why the 1st Amendment exists Rick. Because your Truth is not everyone’s truth.

          • its not my Truth, the Truth is absolute, man’s laws, beliefes, etc. are not truth, they can change with the change of a “law” some dictatore comes in here and mandates this and that does’nt make it the truth.

          • Anonymous

            Your truth is the parts you like and then you willfully ignore whatever else is included because, whatever, right?

          • mangosmum

            The HHS is not mandating that anyone use birth control. They are saying if you take federal dollars and hire women in your non CHURCH companies your insurance policy must cover birth control for those women who want it. No one is making nuns or priests or even Catholic women USE birth control. The GOP should stop trying to say it does.

          • Anonymous

            The bible is a work of fiction, written by ignorant sheep herders in an attempt to explain complex natural phenomena that they had neither the technology nor the background to understand. Parts of it were demonstrably plagiarized from earlier folk tales. To accept the obvious fictions therein as factual is astonishingly foolish, and requires one to ignore reality in many cases. Ignoring reality will not change reality.

          • Anonymous

            “… do you understand truth, Try reading Genisis.”

            I have.
            If you are representing “the truth” , who did Cain and Abel marry ? 
            So isn’t the truth of it that marrying your own sister is endorsed by Genisis, too, then ? 
            You can’t have it two different ways at once.
            You are a hypocrite if your point is that the scripture is true, except when you don’t think so. 

            Do you eat shellfish, cheeseburgers, spare ribs or wear blended fabrics ?
            If so, you are abomination according to the same way you would see others judged. 

            Would you marry your brother’s widow if he died ? 
            If not, you are abomination according to the same way you would see others judged.

            If you were to suggest “that part doesn’t  count”, because you do not believe in it, then are you one to to be telling others to believe the scriptures
            literally ? 

            But it is okay. 
            You are still clearly struggling  with your savior’s greatest commandant.
            It is hard.
            I know and I love and forgive you, anyway. 

            But I  would council you to go into your closet, 
            or somewhere private, but at least, certainly,
            not a public message board, and pray on this
            to work out your own yayas.

            I’m not writing this because I am being mean, rather because I do respect,
            because I am seriously respecting, your faith.  

            Oh, and BTW, please consider that you might
            not be representing the love and tolerance aspect
            of it so very well, today, too, okay ?

          • wow, slow down mate, I”m  not a Bible scholar, it was insinuated here I’m bigoted, I’m expessing my beliefs here OK. remember the American way! BTW I say all this with love and tolerance sorry u missed it.

          • Anonymous

            Well your point was what then ? 

            I’m American and am free to both think 
            and say you are wrong, aren’t I, still ? 

            What I called bigoted, and properly so,
            was :”gays have the right to marry, a gay man can marry a woman , and a gay woman can marry a man”

            You did write that, didn’t you ? 
            It makes a mockery of the meaning of marriage.
            If that is not unfortunate ignorant bigotry, 
            when the issue is the meaning of marriage, 
            then you  must being willfully hypocritical.

            You really should quit while you are ahead, ignorance is easier to change than  hypocrisy.

            But you are free, so pick your own poison.
            I’m free to call it what it is, too.
            And the truth is positive defense.

          • mangosmum

            Cain and Abel didn’t have a sister to marry….so it was sex with EVE or with a monkey if the Bible is to be totally believed.

          • Anonymous

            Genesis 5:4 tells us that Adam and Eve “begat sons and daughters.” 

            I Goggled it. 
            Genesis is the truth according to Rick. so incest must be the truth of it,  too. 
            We have to respect incest, I guess. 

            So it goes. 

          • Anonymous

            What is it that makes your magic book right, and other magic books (the Koran, the Rig Veda, the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc.) wrong?

          • Anonymous

            It is so bigoted if it is supposed be about the real meaning of marriage, Seth. 
            How can a gay man have a real (sanctified ) marriage with a woman ? 

            That marriage is sacred is the anti-human right people’s main point. 
            How can marrying a beard be a sacred thing, ever ? 
            It is a con.   
            So if saying that is a solution is not knowingly hypocritical, 
            then ” bigoted ” is the correct word. 

            My broader point is if  people think others must respect their “faith”, 
            then they should respect my “reason”.

            Even THEIR faith say says so.  

          • Anonymous

            Rick I am going to attempt to explain the parallels between interracial marriage and same sex marriage to you.

            Interracial marriage was not legal in all 50 states. Same sex marriage is not legal in all 50 states.

            The Loving’s were a black/native American woman and a white man that were married in the District of Columbia (where interracial marriage was legal) and returned to Virginia where interracial marriage was banned by law. Same sex couples may currently marry in 6 states (two additional states will be added to this count as two Governors signed laws within the past two weeks) and the District of Columbia and may if they wish return to those states that do not allow same sex marriage.

            The Lovings were arrested by Virginia police after they were found in bed together. The police were hoping to find them engaging in intercourse (which was also a crime). Mrs. Loving pointed to a marriage license on the wall to show they were married. It was used as evidence instead at their trial where they plead guilty and in exchange for agreeing to leave Virginia for life their 25 year prison sentence was suspended. While same sex married couples are not subject to arrest, they suffer the same discrimination in that their marriage is invalidated by simply stepping over an invisible state border.

            When the case (Loving v. Virginia) landed at the feet of the SCOTUS it ruled that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

            The key turning point came with Perez v. Sharp (1948), also know as Perez v. Lippold where the Supreme Court of California found that interracial bans on marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. (Aside: isn’t it funny how that state seems to lead the way).

            Justice Stewart filed a brief concurring opinion where he reiterated his opinion from McLaughlin v. Florida that “it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our
            Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race
            of the actor.”

            Based on precedence, I don’t see how the SCOTUS could rule any other way but that bans on same sex marriage are illegal in the United States based on both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

          • I never mentioned interacial marriage, a man and woman period, ok a man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man, dont spin this off into all your agendas.

          • Anonymous

            I knew if I used words with more than three syllables you wouldn’t understand.

          • you got me figured out

          • Anonymous

            Okay. 
            So now, respectfully, why would we listen to your political opinions 
            or should we care about them at all ? 

          • mangosmum

            Don’t bother…he is just being a jerk…sort of a Mainer’s Limbaugh

          • Anonymous

            Historically, marriage has predominantly been between one man and one woman.  The race issue in this country was mainly a result of Jim Crow laws.  While there is some merit in applying the test from one to another interracial marriage and gay marriage are not homogenous.

          • Anonymous

            Wow five syllable words…I am impressed.

          • Anonymous

            No, it was one man holding one or more women as property.  But that’s irrelevant, you don’t get to point to the past and use that as justification. There needs to be a bit more, especially if you’re going to treat groups of people different.

          • Anonymous

            And here is another reading recommendation for you, “The Warmth of Other Suns: The Epic Story of America’s Great Migration” by Isabel Wilkerson

            Pulitzer Prize–winning author Isabel Wilkerson chronicles one of the great untold stories of American history: the decades-long migration of black citizens who fled the South for northern and western cities, in search of a better life. From 1915 to 1970, this exodus of almost six million people changed the face of America.

            You will have a much better understanding of Jim Crow laws when you finish this quick read.

          • Anonymous

            Re: “gays have the right to marry, a gay man can marry a woman , and a gay woman can marry a man” 
            > “How is that bigoted?”  

            I’m glad that you asked. 

            How can can a gay man marry a woman and respect the real meaning ( the sanctity) of marriage ? 

            Expecting it to be about “the real meaning of marriage” only when you think it supports your points, 
            but not when it  it is inconvenient to your political position is hypocritical, at the very least, if you know you are doing it, 
            or bigoted,  if you are not bright enough to know that it is being hypocritical.

          • If they got married they can respct the real meaning by living it! Your right marriage has real meaning.

          • Anonymous

            But they would be living a lie! And to quote from a post of yours above, “to encourage the traditional monogamous family unit as the basic building block of our society, the foundation of harmonious and enriching family life” how is living a lie creating a “harmonious and enriching family life”?

            And as marriage is a legal contract, that contract is null and void when you enter it knowing that it is a lie.

          • Oh then the hhs mandate is null and void because I know its a lie

          • Anonymous

            And what does hhs have to do with SSM? More smoke and mirrors.

          • Nope were back to the Truth again :)

          • Anonymous

            As much as you would like to think we are, we aren’t if we are talking about people marrying when the do not love each other and one of two parties is gay. That is living a LIE, nothing more and nothing less.

          • Anonymous

            is that like, blacks have the right to marry as long as they marry within their race?

          • no

          • Anonymous

            It’s the exact same logic. 

          • ????

          • Anonymous

            You can create all these restrictions that specifically target people and claim that things are equal. No interracial marriage — see? Everyone is equal, we all can marry, just inside our own race. No cross shaped jewelery — see? Everyone is equal, we all can wear the jewelery we want, as long as it isn’t Christian styled. 

          • Anonymous

            What ?
            Is logic beyond you ?
            Well, okay, but shouldn’t reason
            be respected as much as some
            demand that their faith must be ?

          • Anonymous

            See what I mean?

          • Anonymous

            Please read the unanimous ruling in LOVING v. VIRGINIA, (1967)

            “These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

            “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of
            liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”

          • Anonymous

            False – the State does infringe on that right because it charges fees to become legally married.

          • Anonymous

            Ahhhh no paying a fee is not an infringement anymore than paying a fee for your drivers license.

          • Anonymous

            The SCOTUS ruled in Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) that marriage is one
            of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence
            and survival.

            And the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in Goodridge v.
            Massachusetts Department of Public Health (2003) ruled that barring
            “access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage,
            a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of
            the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our
            community’s most rewarding and cherished institutions. That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for
            individual autonomy and equality under law.”

            And while the SCOTUS has not ruled on same sex marriage yet, they will and the outcome likely will not be to your liking.

          • Anonymous

             Oh, my … how CLEVER!!

          • mangosmum

            And I give you the right to marry any stupid woman who would have you.

          • Anonymous

            Cool answer.

          • Anonymous

            Thanks, April. 

          • And be miserable for the rest of their lives. 

        • Anonymous

          “And whomever said gay marriage is a right granted by the US Constitution????”

          The SCOTUS ruled in Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) that marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.

          And the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in Goodridge v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health (2003) ruled that barring “access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community’s most rewarding and cherished institutions. That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law.”

          And while the SCOTUS has not ruled on same sex marriage yet, they will and the outcome likely will not be to your liking.

          LOVING v. VIRGINIA, (1967)
          “These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

          “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes,
          classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”

      • Anonymous

         I am surprised that any Christian sect claims that “marriage has always been between one man and one woman” when there are lots of examples of it being between one man and many women. Just reading the book of Kings will show how many of them had multiple wives, including king Solomon who, after one battle, married one hundred or more.

        • then read the New Testament

          • Anonymous

             Oh, I’ve read the NT many times. The Gospel of Thomas too, or what we have of it. And nowhere is anything said about same sex marriage, indeed there is no condemnation of same sex anything. In the Epistles there are a plethora of places where sex in general is damned, and Paul’s Epistles makes sure to condemn all sorts of behavior, especially sexual.

            Sometimes I wonder about Paul. He never had a girlfriend, traveled with his one buddy all the time, is prudish about sex. I had a gay friend who was like that until he came out of the closet. Now he’s normal.

            So if you only base your objection to same sex marriage to the NT, can you show where JC condemns same sex marriage? Or same sex anything for that matter.

            On the other hand, using the OT to condemn same sex marriage leaves the possibility to multiple wives. This is not the same as the cry from religious Christians who continually say that it has always been between one man and one woman.

      • That is great for you and your god and his book of stories.  If you want to live your life by this book, then that is so excellent for you.  I happen to not believe in your god and his book of stories, so please do not presume to tell me that I should.  Thank you.

        • Seth u brought up Adam and Eve, a Bible story.

    • ChuckGG

      Well, let’s just stop there at your second sentence for a moment.   The church has no say in secular, civil marriage.  Oh, it may voice its opinion, but it cannot be actively changing secular law to comply with any religious tenet.  What the church says is a moot point as far as I am concerned.

      To me, the apparent “back off” from actively attempting to change law if, in fact, this is real, seems like a means to “save face” and distance themselves from the inevitable.  Someone else said “stop throwing good money after bad.”  However, I would not let my guard down for one moment.  This borders on “sour grapes.”

      The Portland Diocese also has started this “Courage” program, modeled after the AA Twelve Step program to teach gays to live a “faithful and chaste” life.   Apparently, being gay is something that needs to be cured, or at least put into remission.  It is appallingly insulting and out-of-touch with the times.  There was no word if the priests themselves would be allowed to attend the program.  Frankly, in Maine, if I were hosting a “Courage” meeting, I would not bother making a full-pot of coffee.

      I managed to listen to all 28 minutes of the video.  This sounded to me to be a very CYA and “back off” a losing battle speech.  Perhaps, they are concerned that NOM’s donor list will be released finally (after losing appeals in Court).   There was mention that NOM will be in Maine this time around.  Given they are in contempt of Maine law, why isn’t the AG barring their ability to do business in the State?

    • Anonymous

       I have the utmost respect for all religions and insist that they keep their beliefs out of my life!  I also have Freedom FROM Religion …

  • Anonymous

    Sounds good. Get your own home in order before telling others how to live. 

  • Anonymous

    Of course they won’t…the priests never marry their victims…

  • Wait, the Catholics are going to discuss gays and gay marriage in schools?  Didn’t they predict this would happen in 2009? 

    • Anonymous

      Wasn’t that supposed to be a bad thing, then, too ? 

  • Anonymous

    he already made his poor decisions very clear to the public about gays what does he care he does not even follow the bible he is supposed to live by

  • If you don’t like gay marriage blame straight people. They’re the ones who keep having gay babies.

    • Anonymous

      So how do you tell who will have gay babies  ??

      • Anonymous

        I wonder what the position of the far right Christian extremists would be on abortion if they knew which baby would be gay and which one would be straight?

        •  It would stay the same, you can “Pray away the gay,” remember? I really tried to type that without laughing… I failed miserably

          • Anonymous

            So “christians” think we were born sinners and destined to suffer, 
            so they only care about children before they are born.

          • Anonymous

            The sad thing is,those nuts really believe it.The hurt they cause is immeasurable.Read the recent article in Rolling Stone about teen gay suicides in Bachmann’s home cong. district.The school did NOTHING!

          • Anonymous

            Three men + four drugs + a shotgun = Gay Marriage.  

            The Bangor Daily News reported on the Gay Marriage Activist, Bruce LaValle Davidson, who testified “My partner and I are married in the eyes of God.”  

            http://bangordailynews.com/2010/01/13/news/skowhegan-man-guilty-in-sex-play-shooting-death/

          • Anonymous

            Give me a break.  I have met several ‘straight’ people who’s sexual practices would put those three men to shame.  It would be just as easy to generalize all heterosexuals, by posting links of several articles about child abuse.  Hell, you could even go so far as to label all priests as perverts, by posting several links to stories of sexual abuse by priests.    Correct me if I am wrong, but I did not see the quote you offer, in any line of that article.  Yours is an example of 3 mentally disturbed people, not gay marriage.  

          • Anonymous

            Wrong…find me an advocate of traditional marriage anywhere in the U.S. who killed someone in an orgy just before they testified in favor of traditional marriage.

             The homosexual ‘marriage’ movement did produce such an individual because the occurrence of various forms of depravity is much more frequent. 

            And please don’t forget the name of the most influential advocate of homosexual ‘marriage’ in the state: 

            ‘REVEREND’ BOB CARLSON. 

          • Anonymous

            “And please don’t forget the name of the most influential advocate of homosexual ‘marriage’ in the state: 

            ‘REVEREND’ BOB CARLSON. ”

            ROFLOL you have no idea what you are talking about. I used to listen to the “God Squad” on WVOM and I think Rick and George asked him may 3 times leading up to the vote in 2009.

            And as far a orgies are concerned. Do you really think that heterosexuals don’t engage in “orgies”. Remember the “swinger club” in Sanford. I don’t seem to recall the police observing any “gay” sex but they did report lost of heterosexual “getting it on with multiple partners.

            In fact, I am willing to bet 6 months pay that somewhere in Maine  last night more than a few heterosexual married couples engaged in intercourse with other people they were not married to for the “thrill” of having sex with other people. They likely engaged in this in full view of their spouse and may have even swapped back and forth several times.

            Homosexuals do not own the corner on kinkiness when it comes to sexual activity. 

          • Anonymous

            ALL gay sex is “kinky” disgusting and immoral. Not the same with hetero’s. So yes, they do own the corner on it.

          • Anonymous

            So orgies, group sex, etc…among heterosexuals is not “disgusting” or “immoral” cp444?

            S&M, bondage, etc…among heterosexuals is not “disgusting” or “immoral” cp444?

            Swinging, wife swapping, etc…among heterosexuals is not “disgusting” or “immoral” cp444?

            Is there anything that a heterosexual does in the area of “sex” that you would find “disgusting” or “immoral” cp444?

          • Anonymous

            ALL gay sex is disgusting and immoral. Not ALL hetero sex is. Does that clarify it for you? BTW I just love the way you put my name at the end of every sentence..very effective (eye-roll)

          • Anonymous

            But that is not what you said before cp444. You said “ALL gay sex is “kinky” disgusting and immoral. Not the same with hetero’s.”

            And you still haven’t identified what heterosexual sexual activity you classify as “kinky” disgusting and immoral.

            And the reason I use your screen name (and I do the same with other too) is you (and others) have a higher then normally post removal rate and when the BDN changes the screen name to “Guest” I like to know who’s post was removed.

          • Anonymous

            …..as he slowly changes the subject . lol

          • Anonymous

            I didn’t change the subject, you didn’t answer the question.

          • Anonymous

            Good, then find me an example of a traditional marriage advocate who was taking four drugs, using a shotgun and  handguns, then killed one of the participants in the orgy four days before they testified at a hearing in favor of traditional marriage 

            And that isn’t even half of the Bruce LaValle-Davidson story. 

            It gets much, much, much worse!

            The really bad part  hasn’t been revealed to the public yet.

            Three men + four drugs + a shotgun = gay marriage.

          • Anonymous

            Don’t you think it is kind of stupid to highlight one bad apple and then claim that all are alike? I could point to a million examples of bad straight marriages. It doesn’t mean they all are. 

          • Anonymous

            This wasn’t an example of a bad gay “marriage.” It was an example of an advocate for gay “marriage” who turned out to be a participant in a deviant lifestyle, and a killer. 

          • Anonymous

            But it’s to the same effect. You’re taking one example and trying to represent it as though it is the whole. That’s not fair. Timothy McVay was a Christian — does that mean all Christians are evil like McVay?  The vast majority of murders are heterosexual — does that mean all heterosexuals are evil?

            You aren’t presenting a compelling argument. You’re trying to smear people. That’s wrong and that’s disgusting. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

          • Anonymous

            Good, then find me an advocate of traditional marriage who shot and killed someone in a drug-crazed orgy. 

          • Anonymous

            You haven’t established the fact that an exception represents the whole. You’re just being a bigot. Plain and simple. 

          • Anonymous

            Now that you have lost the argument you resort to name-calling and invective.

            This is object proof of what awaits those who oppose the homosexual rights movement. 

          • Anonymous

            I haven’t lost the argument. You have NOT produced objective proof. You cited one example that is an exception to the whole. I’ve pointed out numerous times how that is unfair. I can find a person that has no arms, but that doesn’t mean all people have no arms. That is essentially what you’re saying.

            You haven’t presented any argument. You’re just a hateful person with an agenda. 

          • Anonymous

            You’ve lost the argument so now you resort to name-calling and invective, which is always the last resort of the Left.

          • Anonymous

            So what are you doing claiming that all gays are evil and bad? That’s not name-calling and invective? Your behavior is incredibly hypocritical and inconsistent. That’s fact. 

          • Anonymous

             Not in SOBs world.

          • I can ind you hundreds who molested children……priests. 

          • Anonymous

            Bruce LaValle-Davidson, Jim Jones, Bob Carlson…try to find the like in our movement. 

          • Anonymous

            It doesn’t matter!! American Neo Nazi groups support Ron Paul, but that doesn’t make Ron Paul a Nazi. You’re being really ridiculous. You’re nothing but a bigot. I can point to hundreds of loving same-sex couples that are raising a family and doing so in a positive way. Why don’t they represent the whole? You’re being selective to further your hateful agenda. It’s disgusting. 

          • Anonymous

            And incidentally, Bruce LaValle-Davidson pleaded AIDS dementia as a defense, and to get a reduction in his sentence. 

          • Anonymous

            The good Rev Jim Jones and he even enticed the mothers to have their children drink the kool-aid. Some Catholic priests and other memebers of the clergy.

            There are more than enough closets full of skeltons on both sides of this issue. They really have no place in discussion.

            This issue needs to be discussed openly and freely and stand on its own merits. To accomplish both sides need to enter the debate open mindedly without preconceived ideaology.

            Hetrosexuals need to have honest open discussions with  gay couples so they can begin to underrstand their commitment to each other and what they stand to gain if this referundum is successful. Put aside the fringe elements that sonofbangor would like you to consider.

            Gays need to have the same discussions with hetrosexuals so that they can understand what the hetrosexual community feels that they will lose if this referendum is successful.

            As a hetrosexual I have not totally made my mind up on this issue. Between now and November I plan on reading and listening to both sides of this issue while attempting to block out the fringe elements of both sides so that I can make up my mind based on the merits.

            I am glad the Bishop has taken this stand. Churches, Catholic and otherwise, do not belong in the middle of this. As the Bishop said the churches and their clergy have their platform and that is where they need to do their work not on the street.

             

          • Anonymous

            Two men or two women cannot be married, because the very word “marriage” indicates a differentiation between the sexes. 

            This is the result of a society totally given over to a depraved mind, after having accepted  abortion, divorce,  and all other forms of immorality. 

            When a man dresses up like a woman and plays the role of a woman in a marriage, that is not normal.

            We cannot make personal delusions public policy.

            Any society which puts perversion  on a par with the sanctity of marriage  is doomed.

            And Jim Jones was not a Christian. See Wikipedia. He was an atheist and Marxist peddling cultural Marxism disguised as Christianity, just like Bob Carlson.  

          • Anonymous

            “Two men or two women cannot be married, because the very word “marriage” indicates a differentiation between the sexes.”

            Currently in six states (two more soon) and the District of Columbia they can.

          • Anonymous

            Laws which violate natural law are null and void. Slavery was legal, too. 

            We are living in a depraved society, so it is not surprising when depravity becomes legal.

             For a man to be married to a man who plays the part of a woman, domestically and sexually, is madness. And the same is true for women who marry women.

          • Anonymous

            Natural law, hmmmm. Well it isn’t natural that man flies or travels in space or walks in space. It isn’t natural that infertile couples use artificial means or surrogates to have children. It isn’t natural to use oral contraceptives, IUDs, etc…to prevent impregnation. There are many things that man does that violate “natural laws”. Are you suggesting that we stop any and all things that violate “natural laws”?

            And I know more than one marries heterosexual couple where the woman “wears the pants” in the family. Do you find that part of a “depraved society”?

          • Anonymous

            Correct in part.

            Contraception does violate Natural Law.

            The others you mention do not, since they are in accordance with right reason and the nature of man.

            Homosexual practices violate Natural Law, and hence result in the spread of AIDS, Hepatitis C, and many other diseases.

            This is object proof that it is not normal, and is in fact, exceedingly harmful, both to individuals and to society.

          • Anonymous

            Since when does a couple unable to conceive on their own and resort to artificial means “natural”?

            And I hope you understand that HIV/AIDS, HepC, etc…are also spread via a multitude of means and is not confined to the homosexual community. Or do you believe, like a pastor I once looked up to, that HIV/AIDS is Gods “vengeance” on the gay community?

          • Anonymous

            Yes, disease is often the penalty of sin.  Whether it is God’s vengeance, I do not know.

            But the Apostle Paul says:

            “And likewise the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and RECEIVING IN THEMSELVES THAT RECOMPENSE OF THEIR ERROR WHICH IS MEET.” (Romans 1:27)

            So Paul is saying rather than God’s vengeance, AIDS is the appropriate outcome and reward of their behavior: bathouses, gay pride parades, etc.

            And may I be bold enough to agree with the great Apostle Paul in this matter?

          • Anonymous

            And since Paul was a man I will ask you this, what did Jesus say about homosexuality?

          • Anonymous

            You have the words of Paul, and you refuse to accept them.

            You will not believe the testimony of Jesus.

            Jesus  spoken often about the sacredness of marriage between man and woman, and used Sodom and Gomorrah as an example of wickedness.

          • Anonymous

            You didn’t read my post very well SonofBangor.

            Here is the question I asked, “And since Paul was a man I will ask you this, what did Jesus say about homosexuality?”

            I know you are capable of looking up the chapter and verse as you did with Paul. So, to be clear I am asking you to post chapter and verse on what Jesus said about homosexuality.

          • Anonymous

            First of all you can look up 2 Tim chapter 3 verse 16. Read that then we will move on. Don’t want to overwhelm you all at once.

          • Anonymous

            Seems that you did read the post either…”What did Jesus say about homosexuality”? Seems like a pretty straight forward question to me. Why not answer it?

          • So you feel that children with cancer are Gods will. 

          • Anonymous

            “And likewise the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and RECEIVING IN THEMSELVES THAT RECOMPENSE OF THEIR ERROR WHICH IS MEET.” (Romans 1:27)

          • Anonymous

            Are you incapable of answer ANY question?

          • Anonymous

            God’s law on homosexuality is clear and unequivocal.

            In Leviticus,  God calls it ‘an abomination.’  Jesus said that He did not come to abolish the Law, but every part of it was to remain in effect. He spoke of marriage as between one man and one woman, and as lasting until the death of either the man or woman. He spoke of the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah. 

            There was no need for Him to speak directly on the morality of homosexual acts, since this was clearly understood by the people. For the same reason, He did not go to any length to explain the ethics behind murder. 

            You can infer His views on homosexuality from His other comments.

            To say He approved of homosexual acts, when the opposite is clearly the case, is blasphemous, and deep down in your heart, you know this is true. 

            You are as capable as I of looking up the pertinent verses. And you would benefit more from a Biblical inquiry into this subject, so I will leave looking up the verses to you. 

          • Anonymous

            What does any of your response have to do with my post? 

            Here is my original post – “Natural law, hmmmm. Well it isn’t natural that man flies or travels in space or walks in space. It isn’t natural that infertile couples use artificial means or surrogates to have children. It isn’t natural to use oral contraceptives, IUDs, etc…to prevent impregnation. There are many things that man does that violate “natural laws”. Are you
            suggesting that we stop any and all things that violate “natural laws”?

            And I know more than one marries heterosexual couple where the woman “wears the pants” in the family. Do you find that part of a “depraved society”?”

          • Actually most societies have homosexuality. The only ones that were doomed were after the Western influence came in and pitted one against the other by calling people sinners and abominations. China is the oldest society and homosexuality was prevalent for years. Since it has become closeted they struggle with overpopulation and abortions issues along with over filled orphanages. You really have issues and i am a professional and know when someone has issues. 

          • Anonymous

            A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, Jersey.

            You may be a professional, but you are not a historian or an anthropologist. 

            Homosexuality was never accepted in China. They are still more opposed to it than Americans are.

            The anthropologist Robert Edgerton in his book “Sick Societies” has discussed a few of the societies destroyed by normalizing homosexuality. 

            “Homosexuality was prevalent for years.” 

            Which years,  Jersey?

            Are you speaking of the Ming Dynasty, the Chou Dynasty or as far back as the Shang Dynasty?

            You are talking about a period of over 4500 years.

            Speaking as a professional and an expert on Chinese history, which period do you mean when you say “It was prevalent for years?”

          • Anonymous

            Well we already know your not a “historian” either.

          • Anonymous

            I just read two different reviews of Robert Edgerton’s book “Sick Societies” and not one of them mentioned anything about homosexuality.

            The focus of his book was pre-modern, non-Western folk-societies (primitive societies) and common “folk” customs such as infanticide, clitoral excision, ubiquitous warfare, foot binding, etc., these, while perhaps repulsive to Western mores, are held to be sensible and legitimate practices that cannot be subjected to our culturally biased judgment.

            http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/sick-societies-by-robert-b-edgerton/
            http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4011

          • Anonymous

            Pardon me, infanticide and foot-binding are “legitimate and sensible” practices?

            I have read the book and it describes the destruction of a Polynesian society which normalized homosexuality.

          • Anonymous

            You have an issue with the quotation (you do understand what a quotation is don’t you?) take it up with Sick Societies, by Robert B. Edgerton and the abstract written by Bret Stephens in June,  1993.

            And I just read a synopsis of French Polynesia and while it mentioned many different things it didn’t mention homosexuality once.

          • Please read the headlines today and tell me how many heterosexuals killed people. You are fishing for one instance and the guy that committed the crime was not a good person. Just because someone is for or against something doesnt make them a posterchild for it. So if someone is trying to get people to join the priesthood do we find news articles to call them names also. There are over 3,000 SS families in Maine. I am part of one of them. I have beautiful healthy children who are assets to their school and community. I know several students who live in OS families who are a mess. You really need to find a good 12 step program and examine your life. I will pray for you. 

          • Anonymous

            From World Net Daily:

            A manslaughter trial begins next week in Portland, Maine, that should be of interest to the entire nation.

            The story begins last year on April 22, when Malcolm Bruce LaVallee-Davidson made a widely reported and emotional plea at the civic center for a statewide same-sex marriage initiative as he stood with his homosexual partner – maintaining that they “were already married in the eyes of God.”

            What few in the civic center forum knew then was that just four days earlier, LaVallee-Davidson had shot dead with a .44-caliber handgun Fred Homer Wilson, in a South Portland basement after wild night of drug taking and drinking.

            Wilson was a member of a local homosexual sadomasochistic leather club. Lavallee-Davidson’s faux spouse was not in attendance that evening.

          • Anonymous

            World Net Daily: “Independent conservative news website with an emphasis on aggressive investigative reporting and gossip”. I wouldn’t call any organization that, by their own description, places emphasis on gossip, a credible news organization. People who break the law come in all varieties, as well. There are religious criminals, gay criminals, black criminals, native american criminals and so on.

          • Anonymous

            Then google “Bruce LaVallee-Davidson and Maine” and you will see that the story was reported in hundreds of media outlets, include CBS and ABC.

          • Anonymous

            yes, reported, not turned into an op-ed piece.

          • Anonymous

            Who needs to turn it into an op-ed piece?

            The facts speak for themselves.

          • Anonymous

            WND…but I am done. To continue this back and forth would be pointless. I have better things to do with my time than argue with someone who uses this forum to insult the people they disagree with.

          • Anonymous

            No serious thoughtful person places a nickel’s worth of credence in WND.And as a straight man,I’m happy to join the fight for equality for my sisters and brothers who suffer discrimination.I wish you much success and happiness in your life.

          • Anonymous

            Agreed, and thanks for your support.

          • Anonymous

            YVW!Have a wonderful gay day!and eventually haters like the well named SOB will die off and America will be greater than ever.

          • Anonymous

            There were more than three mentally-disturbed people at that hearing.

            Do you consider it normal for a man to believe he is a woman, and to play the role of a woman in a marriage?

            Is that normal, or is it what the Bible correctly calls “an abomination?”

          • Anonymous

            lol…does it change my point? NO. They are not an example of gay marriage, they are an example of people who were obviously mentally disturbed. Does it really matter what I or you consider ‘normal’? The definition of ‘normal’ varies from one person to the next. Your response, clearly illustrates how ignorant you are to any issue that concerns a gay person. It is really none of your business what role a person plays in their own marriage. For instance, in today’s world we have stay at home dads, and moms that often become the bread winners for their families. Would you just as quickly call them an “abomination”? Gay people are still people. We are varied just as much as any other human being, despite how hard you might try to group us all in one category. Some may be feminine, some are masculine, some do great on broadway, and some would better fit in a log yard. I don’t ASSume to know what another person believes about themselves or their role in their own personal relationships, and it isn’t up to you or I, whether or not those roles should be considered ‘normal’.

          • Anonymous

            No, “normal” is not defined by any individual. “Normal” is defined by right reason and natural law. If homosexual sex practices were “normal” than tens of thousands of people would not have died from blood transfusions contaminated with Hepatitis C and AIDS. 

            This was a result in part, of Mayors Harvey Milk and Ed Koch refusing to close the bath houses in NYC and San Francisco.

            And please do not tell me this was not related to the spread of these diseases. 

          • Anonymous

            Pssst….heterosexuals transmit HIV/AIDS, HepC, etc…too.

          • Anonymous

            Sure, sure…and the kind of depravity we see in “Gay Pride” parades is in every other parade, too, correct?

          • Anonymous

            I am a gay person, who has never participated in a pride parade. Somehow you think you can define who I am, by a parade I have never participated in? Not that I wouldn’t participate, because pride parades are another great example of the diversity that exists in the gay community. Something you, clearly, know nothing about.

          • Anonymous

            So?14 people were injured yesterday in AZ by a crazed gunman.Not a word of gay marriage there.

        • Anonymous

          Now that would be instresting

        • Anonymous

          The child would be born.

          • Anonymous

            I hope you would be correct. Just remember the extreme far Right Christians are the one that justify the murder of physicians by saying we are saving babies.

          • Anonymous

            The far right, near right, center, near left, and far left Americans justified the murder of Nazis because we were saving those in concentration camps.

          • Anonymous

            Well I will give you an “F” for that history statement.

          • Anonymous

            If you give it an F then it is at least an A-.

          • Anonymous

            Here is a reading recommendation for you, “Auschwitz and the Allies: A Devastating Account of How the Allies Responded to the News of Hitler’s Mass Murder” by Martin Gilbert

            After reading the book you will have a better understanding on why the “F” I gave you is an “F” for Failure

          • Don’t feed the troll.

          • Anonymous

            Normally I don’t Kevin but in this case it was just irresistible ;)

          • Anonymous

            Exposing them for what they are, Kevin, is more fun that pretending to respect them, anymore . 

            What is the point of doing that  after they have said “NO COMPROMISE!”  ?  
            Joke them if they can’t take a …  

          • Anonymous

            His score keeping must be like conservative math… you know like how can cut taxes 
            and balance the budget, but only if you use imaginary numbers. 

          • Anonymous

            Just because a person confesses to be a christian doesn’t make him/her a christian.  If that person murders a doctor for committing a murder on a baby while still in the womb, he is a murder.  A christian will not murder, a murderer murders.  I can sit in my cellar and call myself the furnance that doesn’t make me a furnace, makes me an idiot.  Jesus Christ came to give life and life more abundantly….

          • Anonymous

            That is true. 
            It is what Jesus said. 
            The Bible told ME so; 
             
            22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 
            23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ 

        • Anonymous

          It takes a village to abort an unborn child.

          • Anonymous

            It has been done since there were any villages, too. 

          • Anonymous

            Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld (see wikipedia) first advocate of gay marriage, first doctor to perform a sex change operation, Communist; Wilhelm Reich (see wikipedia), coined term “Sexual Revolution”, Communist; Harry Hay (see wikipedia) “Father of the Gay Rights Movement” card-carrying member of the CPUSA, the Communist Party of the United States.  When Ethan Strimling was the Grand Marshall of the Portland Gay Pride Parade he called out “Welcome to the People’s Republic of Portland!” 

            Wake up, this is about the destruction of our nation! 

          • Anonymous

             Wake up, you’re lost in delusions.

        • Anonymous

          If they were real Christians they would stay with the conviction that murder (abortion) is still murder, regardless of one potentially chosing a homosexual lifestyle.  Murder or homosexuality either one is sin, but sin is a choice not a destiny.

          • Anonymous

            Then how do they justify murdering physicians that perform abortions?

          • Anonymous

            Snap. 
            They have nothing if they don’t get to have it two different ways at once. 

            But help me out here, abortion is related to the issue of gay marriage, HOW, Chump ?

          • Anonymous

            I was just pondering what the extreme Christian right would do if gay babies could be identified while still in an embryonic state.

          • Anonymous

            Huh?  Murder is chosen, sure.  But sexual attraction?  Do you choose who you’re attracted to?  Curious minds want to know…

        • Anonymous

          They would have to find another sign to wave around instead of helping people.

      • You test the parents to see if they carry the gay gene, duh!

        • Anonymous

          A quote from Dr. Clinton Anderson perhaps summarizes it best: “To date, no researcher has claimed that genes can determine sexual orientation. At best, researchers believe there may be a genetic component. No human behavior, let alone sexual behavior, had been connected to genetic markers to date … sexuality, like every other behavior, is undoubtedly influenced by both biological and societal factor

    • Anonymous

      No, actually the “Reverend Bob Carlson” created at least one homosexual, and I am sure that many more have been created by recruiting. 

      • Anonymous

        Pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality. But I wouldn’t expect you to know or understand that.

  • Anonymous

    Who actually cares what the catholic church believes?  They are out of the loop.

  • Lord Whiteman

     Just say what you believe, teach us by example and everything will be fine. 

  • Guest

    The Catholic Church will not actively campaign against gay
    marriage because they have spent their monies on
    settling Pedophile cases defending their
    priest…No money left for a good thing…

    • Anonymous

      Exactly what I was thinking!

    • Anonymous

      They will just give the money to some  else to do there work

      • ChuckGG

         I watched all 28 minutes of the press conference.  The Bishop was asked just this question.  He said that no monies would be coming from the diocese.  He said individuals may contribute if they wish but no official funds would be spent.

        Believe me, I still have my guard up.

        • Anonymous

          Yes i know what you mean on guard up

        • me too

  • Anonymous

    With Mike Heath gone, the CCL virtually irrelevant to Maine’s community any longer, and now the Diocese pulling their funding, it will be interesting to see who heads up the anti-equality campaign. We live in a much different social environment since the days of Mike Heath and the CCL. Conley is no Heath. If anything Conley is a moderate and the CCL has fallen out of favor and lost funding, even facing internal lawsuits from Mike Hein and others who tried to cut their losses in the last days as the former CCL crumbled.

    I predict out of state interests and NOM will get heavily involved. In 2009 the Diocese provided the leadership role to oppose marriage equality, and likely provided the majority of advertising funding directly from collection plates (though since NOM continues its lawsuit against the State of Maine, we still don’t have the donor list).

    We can only hope that the opposition will fail to raise any real money for advertising, which costs millions of dollars. It’s no secret that the tiny margin of difference in 2009 was not the result of voters truly being opposed to same-sex marriage, but rather was the direct result of the Diocese smear campaign, particularly TV ads that ran in the last few days prior to the vote, ads that falsely claimed that teachers would be forced to instruct school children about gay sex if LD 1020 were upheld. Many people told me they had no problem with gay marriage, but that they voted “YES” because they didn’t want gay sex being taught to their children. This, of course, was a complete falsehood and even Marc Mutty, who lead the anti-equality campaign and formerly represented the Diocese, has since admitted that it was a complete lie that he regrets telling the Maine public (refer to “Question 1: The Movie”).

    • Anonymous

      !,000 LIKES here.Best post ever on this!

    • ChuckGG

      I also ask why NOM is even allowed to conduct business in Maine given they are in contempt of Maine law and have lost part 1 of 2, so far, in their appeal to SCOTUS.  Most feel part 2 of 2 will not be heard by SCOTUS, either.  If NOM fails to produce the list and comply with Maine law, I wonder why that AG is permitting the group to be in Maine?

  • Jazz11

    Let’s see if his underlings will follow what he is saying. I hope they do.

  • Anonymous

    Do you think it was just the catholic church against gay  marriage?  Not so~

    • Anonymous

      No one said so~

    • ChuckGG

       No, they just happen to be the 800 pound bear in Maine and one of the major contributors to the anti-SSM effort in 2009.  Certainly, other churches around the country are against SSM but in Maine I would say the RCC is the big-boy on the block.  Hence, they are the ones drawing the most fire.

      • Anonymous

        A 800 pound bear, speaking for people who don’t even pay any attention to the Bishop’s nonsense. 

        Why is whatever he says news ? 

        Shouldn’t it be noted when he quoted that 98% of sexually active Catholic woman do NOT follow what says about birth control,  and that he is the voice in Maine of an organisation that took 500 years to admit it was wrong and Galileo was not about the earth being at the center of the universe and the Vatican being at the center of  all knowledge and Western Civilization ?

  • Guest

      It’s nice to hear that the church is keeping it’s nose where it belongs, inside the church. There are too many good things that they can be doing besides what’s going on inside someones lifestyle. Wasn’t one of the founding tennents of our country the seperation of church and state? Preach your dogmatic view to your members if you want.Leave the rest of us to decide for ourselves what we should think and do on this and other matters.

  • Anonymous

    Historically , Christian marriage has included one man and many wives.

    • Anonymous

      Nor is all marriage a Christian marriage.

      • Anonymous

        American freedom and liberty is not Christian. 

    • Amelia Gilly

      Correction: Historically, Jewish royalty’s marriage has included one man and many wives, which was not God’s original intention (Gen 2:24 ) , and got many of them into trouble down the road in their lives.

  • Anonymous

    Looks like they finally stopped throwing good $$ after bad.Now if they’d just shut up and go away once and for all.They have no business in politics.

  • ChuckGG

    Just a quick point from the 28 minutes of video.  The Bishop mentioned that New England is the most secularized area of all the States.  It used to be that the upper-Northwest (Washington, Oregon) was at the “bottom of the list.”  And, “now Maine is 2nd from the bottom.”  I would beg to differ.  Replace that “bottom” with “top.”  That’s my own personal “spin” on the terminology.  New England led the way in the country.  We can do it again.

    • Anonymous

      He has lots of things all upside down. 

  • Anonymous

    and does anyone of reasonable sense really care?

    • ChuckGG

      About the pastoral letter?  No, I doubt it.  It is an “official statement,” but it looks to me to be an agreement to withdraw from the battle without admitting defeat or even admitting the war is over.  Even the guy next to the Bishop said this issue probably would be resolved at a national level.  Eventually, it will have to be in order to resolve Federal benefits and recognition of marriages across state lines.

      • Anonymous

        This, which I just wrote above,  belongs here, too: 


        Shouldn’t it be noted when he quoted that 98% of sexually active Catholic woman do not follow what says about birth control,  and that he is the voice in Maine of an organisation that took 500 years to admit it was wrong and Galileo was not about the earth being at the center of the universe and the Vatican being at the center of  all knowledge and Western Civilization ?”

        : }

        • ChuckGG

           I missed a bit of your wording here… Shouldn’t that be, “98% of sexually active Catholic women do NOT follow…”

          But, in a nutshell, I think the Bishop has caved on this issue and has issued a pastoral letter as his “official statement,” allowing the chips to fall where they may.  With 98% of the women not following the contraception ban, it is reasonable to presume this level of disregard extends to other edicts from the church.

          The Bishop must realize these numbers.  He cannot be that much in the dark.

          I think this pastoral letter will be read by a small percentage of Catholics, they will nod, and then go about their business and little else will occur.  The Bishop can take the high road and say he has “done his best.”  After all, I think there is some escape clause in the church – they are there to “teach the laity.”  Whether the laity follows those teachings is up to the laity.  Of course, they usually throw in the “or else you’ll burn in hell” part but I’m not seeing that here.

          That “Courage” program they started, too, is another feeble attempt to delay the inevitable.

          I think these are all just smoke-screens to allow them to say they have done their best but knowing the inevitable is coming.

          • Anonymous

            Thanks for pointing that out. 

            Re: the Bishop, caving

            It is a remarkable change after all his political pronouncements last month.
            One thing American Catholics will do is say when they do not agree with the Church taking political positions.  
            He really did go overboard last month. 
            All politics are local, even at the Bishop’s Palace.  

            Overall, I think there is both a backlash against the tired, diversionary, conservative tactics, and the one trick conservatives redoubling their nastiness in reply to the backlash. 
            The Church is wise to opt out of that. 

            In terms of really solving any issues, doubling down it is sad.
            It is embarrassing for the conservatives. 
            But being embarrassed for them, but not countering their 
            … hatefulness ? … has proven not to work.

            So  tactically speaking the conservatives doubling down on 
            what people are already tired of is something to encourage.   
            It shows them for what they are. 

            The bottom line on the conservative  surge is that once that they have aired their position, what besides the marginalization of all the extremists who will not compromise is possible  or productive ?  
            What place do people who will not compromise really have at the table ? 

            The OWS movement deserves credit for broadening the political discussion 
            beyond the the conservative talking heads and FNN comfort zone. 
            Was that their “demand” ?

          • ChuckGG

             I think the OWS movement is just that.  There is no official strategy from the OWS but there certainly is the observation from us on the outside that OWS members “had had enough.”  It reminds me of the 1960’s and 1970’s peace marches that I lived through.  People reach a point where they have had enough.  The USA is mostly moderate.  After awhile, listening to the claptrap from the right just gets beyond annoying.

            The ultra-conservatives, as you said, after they have stated their positions have little else of worth.  They offer no solutions but only the status quo or actual regression.  I find it interesting these people seem to have no sense of history whatsoever.  They cannot see the big picture.  They do not see history repeating itself, nor the outcome of that history.  The outcome does not favor them.  Wouldn’t you think they might want to reevaluate their positions?  Apparently not.

            I can offer no solid reason for this anger and angst other than to surmise it has to do with the economy and people are frustrated.  They need a whipping boy and it just so happens that same-sex marriage is in their gun sights.  Because, if you look at SSM just from the legal aspects of it, there is no justification for the continued ban on gender in marriage.  That certainly has been talked about ad nauseum with the Prop-8 arguments.  The religious objections carry no weight in the secular legal world.

            My hope is the pendulum will swing back toward the center.  The fact that the Portland Diocese, if they are to be believed, are doing so, bodes well.

            In the end, same-sex marriage will be the law of the land and we will not think any more of it in 10 years than we think today of the Women’s Right to Vote or that a couple who are of different races decide to marry. 

          • Anonymous

            ” They need a whipping boy and it just so happens that same-sex marriage is in their gun sights. ”

            Well, nationally it was birth control, health  insurance and the Church/State thingy, whipping up something because the economic news is not bad enough to satisfy the right’s needs. 
            But the right’s own nut cases poured gas on their already  burning  cross with laws about sticking things into woman.  

            I can’t fault the politics of the Gay Marriage people. 
            Right is right, but it too, is an added distraction in Maine.
            It did passed once, already, in fact,
            and so a mixed bag if one takes the broader political point of view. 

            To best deal with, it making the crazy people on the right be the most crazy people at the circus is how to get the moderate middle, this time. 

            Gay couples own the family values issue now. 
            Imagine. 
            But just that shows the changes. 

            Thinking that in these economic times, making birth control harder and picking on Planned Parenthood is good politics is as dumb as saying ; I feel you pain because my wife owns a couple of Cadillacs.    

            Tactically especially on the gay marriage front , all the right wing hatred, be it focused on woman, health care, “separation of Church and State” (as if), no taxes, or Obama barking jokes
            is helping the cause. 

            So, I’m all for waving red flags at the bull headed. 
            Keep them baying at moon, I say.
            No compromise ? 
            Fine. 
            In fact, what great fun !

            What could be more entertaining than class warfare with
            those on the right that have none ?

  • The important word in the headline here is “actively”  They will certainly continue to speak out against marriage equality, even as the divorce rate continues at 40-50% of all married people.

    • ChuckGG

       No money for TV ads he said.  So, I suspect this will be in the churches only or limited in public speaking engagements.  If the laity follows this pastoral letter as well as it does the ban on contraception, we have nothing to worry about.

      I think they will be preaching to the choir but even the choir thinks they’re nuts.

  • Anonymous

    I hope we all can be civil and respectful of each other.  I was talking the other day with two people for whom I have a great deal of respect.  They both said that they struggled with the subject of  gay marriage for a very long time.  They both decided that they could not support it because of their Catholic beliefs.  They are not haters of gays; they simply cannot support gay marriage.  I, on the other hand, feel that I cannot know what is important to gays so I feel we should support what they think is important to them as human beings.

    • Anonymous

      Did you ask them about birth control ? 
      It prevents abortions, after all. 

    • ChuckGG

       Fair enough, but unlike the church, they probably are not spending millions of dollars to spread lies and change the laws to deprive their fellow citizens of their civil rights.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion.  They are not entitled to harm me when what I do have no bearing whatsoever on their lives or what they do.

    • Thank you dlaurels.  I can tell you what is important to me as a human being:  Because we are all human beings and all taxpaying American citizens, we should all be afforded equal treatment under the law of our country.  I do not believe in a god and do not believe in the book of stories often cited as a god’s word, mainly because there is no original bible from which to quote.  I stand by our own Constitution and Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence, all of which stress Equal Treatment under the law. 
      My husband, for that is how I think of him in my heart, and I have been together for 13 glorious years.  He is the only person who gets me, who lights up a room for me.  We just spent a week together in a van loaded with stuff for my business driving over 3,000 miles.  He didn’t have to come with me, but he wanted to make sure that I was safe and wanted to help me drive, etc.  He kept me sane and stress-free and we returned laughing together just as we did when we left.  We love each other and are going to spend the rest of our lives together regardless of whether we are married or not.  But, civil marriage affords over 1,000 benefits and protections that we should be able to enjoy as taxpaying American citizens. 

      thanks for reading

  • Anonymous

    Catholics are HIPPOCRATES!!!

    • Anonymous

      Boxes to ship hippos ? 

    • Anonymous

       Hypocrites DUMBNUTS!!!!

  • Anonymous

    It isn’t a matter of hate or of equal rights.  It is a matter of right and wrong.

    • Anonymous

      You are correct…extending same sex marriage is the RIGHT thing to do because anything less is just plan WRONG.

    • Anonymous

      So which side of what is right or wrong are you on, April ? 

  • Anonymous

    I am glad to see the Catholic Church dropping its millennial-long campaign to enforce its beliefs on other faiths.  Maybe nobody will get burned for heresy this time.

  • Anonymous

    This is not about gay marriage.Gays can get married in 7 states , its about recognition 

    • 8 states and counting…..Maine will be one of the next few states I hope.

  • from the Bishops letter
    it should be of interest for all the citizens of our state to read how marriage is described in Maine law:
    The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society; the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in traditional monogamous marriage.
    And then, the State of Maine states the purpose for its legal understanding of marriage in these words:
    to encourage the traditional monogamous family unit as the basic building block of our society, the foundation of harmonious and enriching family life…
    The state further explains the purpose for its current legal definition of marriage:
    to nurture, sustain and protect the traditional monogamous family unit in Maine society, its moral imperatives, its economic function and its unique contribution to the rearing of healthy children.10

    • Anonymous

      Gee, it’s almost like the Bishop’s letter cut and pasted Maine law as it exists today. Your point?

      • no I cut and pasted it, its the law of Maine anyway, based on the Truth.

        • Anonymous

          If it were based on the “Truth” it would allow multiple wives as that was the original form of marriage found in the Bible.

          • what bible is that, original for whom, its not taught in th New Testament

          • Anonymous

            Alright then if you wish to toss out Old Testament where does Jesus say anything about homosexuals in the New Testament. To be clear, not Paul or anyone else but what did Jesus say about homosexuality in the New Testament?

          • Im not tossing out the OT. Just what Bible teaches a marriage is between a man and several women? And the New Testament has teaching as does the CCC based on scriprure on homosexual behavior

          • Anonymous

            Now that you are done with the smoke, mirrors and deflection would you like to answer the question asked – What did Jesus say about homosexuality in the New Testament?

          • And the New Testament has teaching as does the CCC based on scriprure on homosexual behavior. As I said I’m not a Bible scholar I would love to look that up for you, but I’m going out with my wife tonight SHE loves me and our children and grand children sorry to get that personal with you, with all love and consideration good night:)

          • Anonymous

            Well I hope you enjoyed your evening out with your wife (as I did mine) and your family.

            Now I hope you will take the time to look for that information. It is critical to your argument to find out exactly what Jesus said about homosexuality.

          • Anonymous

            “Im (sic) not tossing out the OT ”
            Then you don’t eat lobster, pork or cheeseburgers ? 

        • Anonymous

          Then why did you start you post with “from the Bishops letter” if what you were posting was not from the letter?

        • Anonymous

          When did monogamy become the “the truth” ? 
          Look at Solomon. 

        • ChuckGG

          Did you ever read the law before it was corrupted in 1995? 97?

          Then, it was written in legal-ese.  Now, it is written in religious claptrap.  Far too flowery and not very legal.  It is an embarrassment to the State of Maine.

    • Anonymous

      “how marriage is described in Maine law: The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage …” 

      So if monogamy is civil law and polygamy is Bible law;   two points, how and why did that change, …  and doesn’t that all that is said about 
      changing marriage laws, now, apply to that, too ? 

      I’m just asking. 

  • Anonymous

    Roman L. Bishop Malone;
     I think that you are not listening to the teachings of Lord Jesus Christ.  You spent a lot more with the Knights of Columbus  than $500,000.00 last time the Gay marriage referendum was up for a state vote in 2009, be honest; tell the truth as you would in confession.

     Romans don’t take votes from the congregation, they give orders and expect obedience.
     The sacrament of Holy Orders. Sacramentum, Latin, a military oath of allegiance, an oath, from L. sacer, sacred. Webster’s dictionary.

    I do believe that the actions of the Roman Catholic Bishops, citizens of the Vatican, are in part responsible for expanding the bigotry in our society against gay people which has led to death through suicide for so many young people.  Gay people do not choose to be gay, God created them that way, and God does not make mistakes.

    Your teaching on this matter are anti-Christ, it is nothing Jesus ever preached, as it is completely bigoted. Show me otherwise in the New Testament, the Good News Bible.  You do not have an argument in this jurisdiction of law. Who are you working for?

  • Anonymous

    Doesn’t have the money anymore…spent it all protecting their pedophile priests.

  • Anonymous

    Do we really care what this man, the head of an organization in Maine that actively worked to keep the truth of pedophile priests from seeing the light of day has to say about MARRIAGE, seeing as how he can’t be in one?  For once I agree–MOVE ON!

  • Anonymous

    I guess I’m still waiting for someone to explain why gay relationships are bad. I know the Bible just barely refers to it and all, but can you articulate actual harm that comes from a gay relationship? There are parts of the Bible that are ignored and glossed over — so why fight over this part? A lie, stealing, murder, etc. are all wrong and for very clear and distinct reasons. I don’t see anybody presenting real evidence here beyond pointing to the Bible, which fails as an argument because how can you hold strangers legally accountable when you don’t do the same for your own sins?

  • Anonymous

    The man that won’t stand for anything will fall for everything….homosexuality is a sin, it has always been a sin, and shall always be a sin.  But seeing how, the catholic church is infested with a spirit of homosexual sin, it is no doubt that it will not fight against it.  Just like it would be hypocritical for them to stand up against idolatry.  However, the Christian church needs develop an attitude that homosexuals can be delivered and need to be loved just as much as someone saved from drugs or alcohol, pride, lying, stealing, etc. By saying homosexuality is a sin, does not constitute hatred, it is stating the truth.  For all have sin and fallen short of the Glory of God.  God made a way of escape for us from sin….His Son Jesus Christ.

    • Anonymous

      Are sins illegal in America ? 

  • Anonymous

    Did they re-write the Bible yet? Where they created Adam & Steve? Where they create Eve & Gwen? 

    • Anonymous

      I don’t believe anyone has suggested “re-writing” the Bible. I think the point many people have made is the Bible is not the law of the land. That title belongs to the U.S. Constitution.

    • You know that Adam and Eve had sex against their god’s will and were tossed out of paradise for doing so, right?  And if you believe the book of stories that is often cited, that the human race was created through incest between Adam and Eve’s  children, right? 

  • Anonymous

    Not to mention the collection plate shakedown that comes right after whipping the fools into a frenzy.TOTALLY illegal but they get away with it every time.Churches need to be taxed on their billions and stay out of politics.The FFRF is doing the best work in America.

  • Anonymous

    Keep smoking.Santorum and the rest of the rights denying dirtbags will be gone soon.

You may also like