There is no conflict between every person’s right to practice his or her religion and a proposed law to allow committed same-sex couples to marry. In fact, the proposal on the November ballot specifically protects the rights of clergy and churches to maintain their religious traditions regarding marriage.
It is disappointing that Carroll Conley Jr. distorts long-established legal realities about freedom, liberty and marriage to conjure up fears in his Feb. 23 OpEd, “Freedom, liberty and marriage.”
The proposed law allowing same-sex couples to marry protects the unique role religion and clergy often play in marriage. Clergy would not have to perform any wedding to which they object, or host such a wedding on their premises, or lose any tax exemption for following their beliefs.
And the proposed law will make no changes to current anti-discrimination laws for those selling goods and services.
Our civil society has never given permission to individuals, unaffiliated with a religious institution, to ignore the same rules that everyone else must follow. Even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia rejects the view that people can “become a law unto” themselves based on their religious views.
Our state laws expect that commercial businesses will welcome all comers regardless of the business owner’s religious view of any particular customer.
If some “florists and organists” object to working with same-sex couples, the marriage law doesn’t change anything for them. Marriage law or no marriage law, they may not discriminate based on sexual orientation when selling their services.
The absence of lawsuits in other states that allow marriage for same-sex couples is clear evidence that most wedding-related businesses welcome new customers. Anti-discrimination laws are in place for important reasons. They ensure that people are treated fairly as they go about their daily lives, and they help to prevent the religious and ethnic schisms that divided people in the past.
A Protestant baker cannot refuse to bake a cake for a Catholic wedding. That’s the law today. Likewise a government clerk cannot deny a marriage license to a couple of a different faith or ethnicity because that relationship might somehow conflict with their personal, religious views.
Existing law works: All citizens have a right to trust that public servants will serve everyone.
Faith-based social service organizations also obligate themselves to comply with general laws when they seek and receive government contracts to provide services in exchange for public dollars. When a religious organization accepts taxpayer money, it must not use those resources to facilitate discrimination.
This is why some Catholic Charities “adoption agencies and foster care providers” in Massachusetts and Illinois chose to withdraw from providing government-financed services. Quite simply, they did not want to provide services in a nondiscriminatory manner. They were not forced out of business by the government or by “marriage.”
Mr. Conley references a New Jersey “campground association” without giving full information. It received a special property tax benefit because it promised to make its land available to everyone. It lost that benefit when it failed to do so. How can it be wrong to revoke a benefit when the benefit recipient breaks its promises?
Religions, clergy and individuals are already free to say what they want based on their beliefs. Opinions about government licensing of marriage for same-sex couples are a person’s own business.
And despite exaggerated claims that suggest otherwise, Maine law already requires that all residents be treated equally by government employees, businesses, employers, landlords and organizations that receive government money to do government work.
Marriage for same-sex couples and religious liberty can and do co-exist.
Perhaps Mr. Conley’s real objection is that he doesn’t like speech that counters his own. Or perhaps he doesn’t have a good answer to why he opposes allowing same-sex couples to marry or how such marriages would affect his own marriage. Instead, he obscures the question at hand.
But as our Founding Fathers planned, in America we answer speech with more speech, regardless of hurt feelings.
Same-sex couples who wish to join in marriage are not looking to pick fights. Instead, they wish for a day to affirm and celebrate their commitment to one another with family and friends, a new shared life with each other over the long haul, and equal rights from their government.
Mary L. Bonauto, an attorney with Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, lives in Portland.
Bravo, Mary. Well said.
Mary is a very good writer and she should get an A. However she is wrong and actually very self serving. She sees potential married homosexuals as future clients when they are demanding their divorces and Mary like other attorneys will be laughing all the way to the bank.
I don’t see how saying that she’s basically lying so that she can get more business really supports your arguments.
It isn’t as if there are THAT many gay people, much less that many that are going to get married.
If you have an argument that isn’t based on insulting somebody, let’s hear it.
So far your insistence that you are concerned about the souls of gay people comes off as way more false than the lady that wrote that article.
State should only provide civil unions, if you want to get “married” go to a church or some other body. The State of Maine should not be in the business of marriage for anyone just legal civil unions.
“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” – Shakespeare (Maybe, cause of the mounting plagiarism claims who really knows who wrote it)
Marriage, civil unions, etc. it’s all a game of semantics. Whatever name we go with, the whole point is to get rid of the special rights some now have, and create a society of equality.
There you go using that word “Equality again, equality would mean that people would be able to have more then one wife or husband, it is not Equality if it is only focused on one special interest group.
You make Dane’s point when you get all whiny about semantics.
That straw man you keep attacking is prety worn out.
Bigamy is illegal in the state of Maine. It’s a class E crime.
Tell me you are joking.
The more I think about it, the more I think I’d encourage young people today not to get married at all. They can find a minister to perform a committment ceremony, and then go on to have several legally illegitimate children and apply for and receive a host of welfare benefits. Mormon polygamists have been using that technique with great success, and it’s the way that we can have the last laugh. Bleed the beast.
My wife and I were married in our apartment in Fort Kent nearly 25 years ago by a Justice of the Peace and have the marrieage certificate to prove it. But by your definition, we are not married, but only have a civil union??
“There is no conflict between every person’s right to practice his or her religion and a proposed law to allow committed same-sex couples to marry. In fact, the proposal on the November ballot specifically protects the rights of clergy and churches to maintain their religious traditions regarding marriage.”
These two sentences that begin your piece show exactly that there IS a conflict. So much so that wording has to be added to accommodate the conflict. My goodness people. You think that if you say it is ok over and over and over and over that it becomes ok. It is not ok. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Period. How many times do we have to vote on this? Yes, I know the answer. Until these people get their way. And if they don’t? What then?
“these people” you ask about are citizens of Maine just as you are. They are seeking the same civil rights that you enjoy with your spouse and rights that no religion is needed to make legal. Face the fact that marriage is an evolving institution that will continue to evolve with or without your approval.
I think devolving institution would be more accurate if you get your way. And no it will not be with my approval. There are legal ways to give you what you say that you want without changing what marriage is….between one man and one woman.
As far as “devolving”, you can only blame those who have had the right for that. They are the ones with a 50% divorce rate, marriages that last 48 hours or 72 days and remarrying numerous times. Marriage has already changed Harry and you need to face the facts. It used to be a way to pass property on, that being a woman to a man. It used to be that divorced people were unable to marry in the church, that ship has sailed. People of different races were banned from being wed and that is history. You see society, religion and government have already redefined marriage and it will continue to change.
Oh, separate but equal? I don’t know if that worked well last time we tried it.
I suggest.. actually no, let me provide for you the definition of marriage as cited from Dictionary.com which of course takes the definitions from printed dictionaries…
mar·riage [mar-ij] Show IPA
noun 1.
a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.
b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.
Seems that if you wish to spout definitions you should learn them first :)
And who put the definition on the internet? is it the same from lets say a dictionary in hard copy from 20 years ago.
Actually you are wrong, our language, unlike many of the bigots that post on this particular subject, evolves over time. The dictionary today is different than it was 20 years ago. Words take on new meanings over time.
Wow, what a compelling legal argument, pointing to an old dictionary.
The Merriam Webster dictionary adds thousands of new words and revises thousands of definitions yearly. It’s a pretty terrible argument to say, let us just keep things the same. You could literally argue for the most horrible things with that kind of logic. Voting rights? Oh, well that has historically meant white property owners, so we should keep it to its original definition.
Because nothing supports and irrational, fear-based argument better than a twenty year old dictionary !
Oh look I found one too:
mar·riage/ˈmarij/
Noun:The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.
Woah, doggie ! No link, no cred !
Go to wikipedia. You can make it whatever you want.
I also found another one, if you want to look you can find many different ones
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/marriage
I understand that it is hard for you to accept the fact that marriage is changing, but that will not stop it. You have to realize that it is not only evolving because of those who want the same civil rights, but because those who have the rights have changed it to suit their own desires and demands. Define it however you want, but marriage will always be an evolving institution.
What marriage is in the straight community is a dying institution. I should think with 50% of all newborns born out of wedlock and with a 40% divorce rate, that people would welcome a breath of fresh air by seeing hundreds of thousands of committed couples wanting to enter into a marriage together. But no, you are happy with the institution of marriage the way it stands now: a Kardashian $10 million dollar publicity stunt, a Brittany Spears drunken decision that cost her all of 55 hours of “wedded bliss” and a million dollar payout, a Presidential candidate who changes wives almost as often as he changes his mind about political policy.
Tell us how many time have WE voted on it ?
too many.
You still have not told me because you do not know do you ?
Nov. 3, 2009 Maine voters voted 53% to 47%to repeal the same sex marriage law signed by Johnny B. I voted that day. Did you? If you did too then WE did vote on it already.
there thats was i was looking for so according we have onely voted ONCE
yes i did vote agence the repeal
There is a difference though, pumpkin. The repeal side pushed it last time. This time it’s the marriage equality folks pushing it. My heart bleeds for you having to check an additional box in the voting booth this November. I hope you can make it through.
once
The same could be said when people vote down a town budget how many time do we half to vote on it the same with schools ?
So you are equating a town or school budget vote with this issue? And yes the people of Maine voted once 53% to 47% to keep the definition of marriage as one man and one woman. How plain must this be for you to understand?
Nobody’s making you vote on it.
The way it works is anyone can get anything put on the ballot if they get enough signatures.
It’s called democracy. We learned all about this in civics class, weren’t you paying attention ?
If you and the person you love were told that you can’t marry, at what point would you give up ?
See, the anti SSM side doesn’t understand, they are not going to prevent SSM, the best they can do is slow it down.
So all you’re really going to accomplish is to prevent a few elderly SSM couples from getting married before one or both of them die.
Something to be real proud of, and something that just makes same sex couples and their friends even more determined.
Not only was I paying attention I was a straight A student. And you?
Straight A’s and you still don’t know how democracy works ? Really ?
I guess you were sick that day, I learned all about how the ballot measure system works in school.
Did we get to vote on women to have rights ?? Did we vote to give colored people rights ? Did we vote on given handycap people special rights i could go on an on . So what you are saying is once some thing is voted down it should not be brough up agen only if you want it brough up right .
Not the same and you know it. Nice try though.
yes its . So tell my why this is diffrent
It’s only not the same because you say so and you say so in order to feel alright about discriminating against your gay and lesbian neighbors.
“what then?”
If Americans hadn’t gotten their way and abolished slavery, what then?
If Americans hadn’t gotten their way and given women the right to vote, what then?
If Americans hadn’t gotten their way and ended segregation, what then?
If Americans hadn’t gotten their way and ended miscegenation laws, what then?
The answer to this question is that we would have ceased to be true to the promise of our Constitution and our ideals.
That is far more important than protecting the delicate sensibilities of people who are uncomfortable with gays and the idea that we form lifelong families together.
Mr. Conley was right on target in his article. Ms. Bonauto is obscuring the facts.
How?
Please explain, because I read the exact opposite.
Civil marriage for same sex couples is the right thing to do, and does not infringe on religious liberty any more than abolishing slavery did.
After all, there are plenty of religions and religious people who have no problem with the idea of gays marrying. If allowing it infringes on your religious rights, then prohibiting it infringes on theirs…
Actually, your statement is untrue. Read the articles again to see that Ms. Bonauto fills in the facts for Mr. Conley, who chose to make statements not backed up in fact.
The fact is that I am a taxpaying American citizen and if Catholic Charities, an organization that is funded in part by my tax dollars, chooses to discriminate against me by not allowing me to adopt a child through their organization, they are being discriminatory and that is against Federal law. Rather than comply with Federal Non-discrimination laws, the organization chose to close it’s doors.
The same is true for the New Jersey camp ground. The camp ground was not a religious place, but rather a public place owned by a religious organization. Rather than comply with Federal non-discrimination laws (since the religious organization took Federal tax dollars) they chose to discriminate against the public by not allowing them access…that would be against the law…and so they were sued.
Interesting the Conley used the same 5 instances of what the Catholic Church believes to be discrimination against them that are used all over the country to decry marriage equality. Really, the same stories…..this is because Conley cannot come up with any other arguments against a group of people getting married.
You’ll have to be a tad more specific…
The world is way to complicated, our society is way to screwed up to be worried about whom falls in love with whom. Love is love, who are we to say what it entails? We should embrace societal relationships and not govern who loves who. Love is love…..don’t anyone try to convince me differently that people aren’t capable. What people are trying to say is ….that one is right and one is wrong But, love is love, the emotion is the same; it’s not political, it’s not societal, it’s not parental, and it’s not conventional……….isn’t that what the lord Jesus Christ is?………..love?
In mine and my wife’s opinion ( we are both catholics) , understanding is much better than discord, we have the ability to love, we shouldn’t take it for granted and place parameters on emotions. Nor should we allow those who feel that that the circumvention of such a powerful thing as love, get in the way of our essence, and hence our liberty. We have much, much more to worry about. Really?, do you really care if a girl loves a girl? or a guy loves a guy?…..is it really going to change your world?
Will this apply to prisoners as they are good finding loopholes in any law
This editorial? I suppose if they get the newspaper… What is your question?
I don’t think we should redefine “Equality” in order to please some folks who insist that only straight people be allowed to marry. I understand they don’t want to redefine marriage, or at least the part of marriage that describes who may marry (as opposed to what marriage is) but we’re either going to have to redefine marriage or redefine equality and I think it’s more important to honor our commitment to equal legal treatment for all citizens. Otherwise, what group is next, to be denied equal legal rights? And can you be sure it won’t by the group YOU belong to?!
I’d also like to say that, sadly, respect for marriage on the part of the straight community is so lacking that we as a country are actually seriously considering electing a man who is on his third wife, after two divorces! Newt Gingrich’s serial adultery should be enough to disqualify him as a candidate, and would have been 50 years ago. Not now though, because marriage has evolved and been redefined from a lifetime commitment to a “so long as I’m happy and no one better comes along!” arrangement. It is distressing to think we could actually have the country’s first First Mistress, as Mr. Gingrich was having an affair with his current wife while still married to his second wife.
Um… where have you been? This “adultery” is as old as our Union. Does the name JFK ring a bell? How about Washington? He slept everywhere during the Revolution and rarely alone. Jefferson fathered black children… If your prerequisite for president is never having committed “adultery” you are not going to have many choices. Well, maybe you can write in Taft, he was an ugly cuss, I don’t imagine he had too many women lined up for him.
I didn’t know that. It was my belief that Americans have never knowingly, and with indifference, elected a man who cheated on his wife (in Gingrich’s case, cheated on two wives, and, for all we know, cheated on a third wife). But you’re saying, perhaps, that presidential candidates have often been adulterers, and Americans didn’t care. I’ll have to think about both those points for a while, before I can agree or disagree. In any case, if marriage status and commitment have become this unimportant, then it’s hard to use “the sanctity of marriage” argument against letting gay and lesbian couples marry.
Thank you Mary for a great editorial filled with actual facts rather than just vague suppositions. The fact is that marriage is on a downward spiral due to the crush 40% divorce rate and backed up by the fact that 50% of all newborns are now born to couples out of wedlock. Marriage Equality will bring new life to the institution of marriage by adding hundreds of thousands of loving committed couples to the marriage rolls
Once of for all churches should get out of the marriage nonsense with the state. If you want a civil union ( heterosexual, homomsexual, bestiality, polygamist) you get that from the state, then if you want the sacrament you go to the church for the blessing. The church can then choose who may or may not receive the sacrament. If you aren’t going to follow a certain churches beliefs then why would you even want to attend that church?
Once of (sic) for all. Read the referendum. It gives churches the right not to perform SSMs.
Mary you write very well and try to be very rational, however for some of us, homosexual people pretending to be married is a serious sin. Stealing, murder, taking our Lord’s name in vain and divorce are all sins that should never be accepted by society. Just as you will fight for this aberrant behavior to be accepted by society I will fight to keep it from ever being accepted.
Then if you are homosexual and to you ‘pretending to be married’ is a serious sin, don’t get married.
I would not be pretending to be married, I would have civil marriage benefits with the man whom I have shared my life for decades.
Hopefully you will come to see that our live together does not affect yours in any negative way at all, because civil marriage equality is coming. I can’t wait!
I really don’t think you want to be married, I’m sure you and your partner have arranged everything to take care of each other. What you want is for society to accept your aberrant lifestyle.
I can’t and I won’t, however I will be civil to you as I expect you to be civil to me, for all I know we’re neighbors.. I love you more than you love yourself, I am thinking about the salvation of your soul.
That’s called paranoia.
No it’s called thinking beyond ourselves.
No, when somebody tells you something with all truth and sincerity, and there is no real evidence to believe otherwise, yet you still distrust them — that’s paranoia. I find it sickening that you hold those beliefs about people you clearly don’t even know.
You can have the sincerity you want but God ‘s truth holds. Having a homosexual relationship is a sin.
That’s not what you said. You said you don’t believe gay people when they say they want the rights and privileges of marriage.
That’s right, I do believe that marriage is not what homosexuals want. What homosexuals want is for everyone to accept their aberrant lifestyle. I believe you are sincere in what you think you want, but I believe that’s not what you want. You and your homosexual partner are looking beyond the homosexual (gay) friendly community for acceptance.
I’m not gay, but you remain paranoid.
Legal rights and protections, the ones granted through civil marriage, are what gays are looking for. I doubt they want to be accepted by bigoted strangers. What I’m sure they’re much more concerned about is their own family and their communities.
I find it funny that so much of this revolves around you. They don’t get the 1100+ legal rights associated with marriage because you’re concerned about how that might taint what marriage means for you? They only want to wed because they want your approval? It’s pretty ridiculous.
It may be a blessing to being unacceptable to my20.
I’m gay, and I don’t care if you “accept” my “lifestyle” or not.
I do think that it’s dishonest and shows your own bigotry when you automatically claim that posters that support SSM are gay.
You’re basically calling them gay as a slur to dismiss their opinions.
And yes, you are absolutely correct, when gay marriage passes we plan next to take over the whole state, paint it bright pink, and teach you how to (finally!) dress properly.
Sweat pants at WalMart ? At least we have some common courtesy !
So when did God die and appoint you to take over the decision making for everybody? LOL
I am never going to believe that my relationships are a “sin”.
No matter what you claim, that’s a lie.
It’s convenient for you to avoid dealing with your own sin, though, so I see why’d you be so obsessed with us.
So when kids don’t honor their parents you’re OK with stoning them to death. Come on! The bible is filled with nonsense.
“Thinking beyond ourselves” appears to be bible-thumper-speak for: “It’s OK to deny your civil and religious rights because my god says I’m right and you’re wrong”
You may want to check that arrogance at the Pearly Gates coat room because your god had quite a lot to say about the arrogant.
” I love you more than you love yourself” Pffft. What a incredibly egotistical thing to say.
It’s funny that you would make this argument, that gay people who have married are “pretending”.
Many of them go to churches that accept and condone their marriages, and recognize their commitment. In the eyes of God.
So the REAL question is why should YOUR church have control over any other church ?
The answer of course, is that YOUR church and YOUR religious views are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.
Nobody’s trying to impose anything on you, you don’t believe in SSM, don’t have one. Don’t go to a church that supports them. But you have absolutely zero right to dictate to another church that accepts gay people as they are, what to do.
You want to make this a religious issue, fine then. Your church is not any more superior to any other, and your religion can not impose itself on anybody that doesn’t want anything to do with it. Not now, not in America. If you want to change that, change the Constitution.
Good luck with that.
Now take the plank out of your own eye, and concentration on your OWN failing and failed marriages, your own divorce rate.
You outnumber us 10 to 1 at least.
Seems to me like you’re using this issue just to hide from yourselves, your own failures, your own “sin”.
We’re used to being scapegoated, we’re just not used to you making it so easy for us to point it out.
Fine, my20, I suggest you not enter into a same sex marriage. Unlike murder, theft and fraud SSM does not hurt anyone. There are no victims. It does not affect your life in any way so it’s none of your business. Follow your church’s teachings. Just don’t use the political system to make your religion into law.
“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”
Galileo Galilei
I guess I would ask what you would say about people who said interracial marriage was a sin. (Some still do, of course). Were they right, but the popular culture overwhelmed them?