Marriage referendum
I recently attended an informational meeting in Houlton for the EqualityMaine referendum to allow same-gender couples the same right to marry afforded to other consenting adults. Five different faith traditions were represented at the meeting. I am moved to know that I have friends and loved ones on both sides of this issue, which prompts me to write this letter to share my feelings.
I find it difficult to understand why this has become such an issue in Maine. Although I have heard from various sources that allowing same-gender marriage somehow threatens the institution of marriage, I just cannot see how that is so. My own marriage will be secure, independent of what my neighbors, be they gay or straight, may be doing in their homes. My marriage is strong and will not be harmed by allowing same-gender couples the same rights I enjoy.
Whether marriage is between a man and a woman or two men or two women, it is the institution itself which is important. Marriage signifies the covenant between two people to be faithful, loving and supportive through the legal contract of marriage. I use covenant and contract in the same sentence because, certainly, there can be covenant without contract and vice versa.
If you support the freedom to marry and EqualityMaine, please visit www.EqualityMaine.org to volunteer your time or to make a generous donation in support of equal freedoms, rights and privileges for all Maine’s residents.
Mellissa Fuller
Houlton
Dunlap for Senate
This election season, I’m supporting Matt Dunlap for U.S. Senate. Matt knows firsthand how important the rural economy is to Maine and has always supported farming, fishing, hunting, snowmobiling and everything to do with the outdoor economy. He has been a steadfast supporter of the Second Amendment and is well versed in the issues facing rural and small-town Maine.
With Matt standing up for us in the U.S. Senate, we will have someone speaking up for us who doesn’t just get it, he lives it every day. Join me in supporting Matt Dunlap for U.S. Senate.
Tonya Shaw
Corinna
EHMS selling out to Davita
I read the article about EMHS selling their dialysis services out to Davita, a Fortune 500 company. I counted three cases of corruption under investigation in this article. I also got a warning from a fellow patient safety activist from California about this company. She works with California officials as a patient advocate on dialysis-related harm, and she warns against Davita. Her own father died of infection contracted during his dialysis treatment. She is very passionate about dialysis patient safety.
Why would EMHS throw dialysis patients from our region to the wolves? This company certainly seems wolflike to me, from all appearances in this article.
We all know that money is the motivator in all things health care related, but we don’t need another disaster like the one at Acadia (CEO and OSHA investigation) a few years ago. EMHS should seriously rethink the sale of their dialysis “business” to Davita. High-quality care and patient safety needs to be the most important “business” of EMHS.
Please EMHS, rethink this business transaction. Remember that patients come first.
Kathy Day, RN
Patient safety activist
Bangor
Heed the sage agreement
The Bangor Public Library allowed its property to be used by Occupy Bangor. It cost the city money. But that should not determine the allocations of funds it receives from the city. Instead, the city council should reread and heed the sage agreement made over 125 years ago between the library and the city. That city council recognized value. What a deal. What a steal. If that long-ago city council ended the library’s nonprofit status and it completely became a city department, would there even be a public library? Would its community educational services be reduced? How much more would the library cost if all its employees had the same salary scale and same health and retirement benefits as other city employees?
So a key question to ask is: How much has this library saved the city over the decades? Currently, it picks up 40 percent of its cost. What other city department does that? Decisions should be made on an objective, comparable basis. The library board must act as a board as it is legally required to do. I’m glad it wrestles with the question of free speech.
I also sympathize greatly with our city council. Gov. Paul LePage’s line-item veto has put great and unfair pressure on it. Moreover, the governor and state Legislature’s failure to make true structural changes in state government itself insures more devaluing of counties, cities and towns, nonprofit organizations and the people of Maine. I hope our library’s not one of the casualties.
Joe Pickering Jr.
Bangor
Anti-Catholic article disturbing
I find the April 23 OpEd by Melinda Henneberger of The Washington Post disturbing on several levels. First, her blatantly anti-Catholic bias is all too transparent and is merely a continuation of the tiresome and politically correct anti-Christian rhetoric that frequently finds its way into the media.
Secondly, her assumptions are false. She states that “the nuns are the only morally uncompromised leaders poor Holy Mother Church has left.” There are many leaders of the Catholic church who are morally upstanding. It happens that the Catholic church is an institution made up of people, and people are imperfect. However, there is no higher incidence of scandal in the Catholic church than there is in any other institution. Furthermore, she postulates that the Vatican’s move was a retaliation against the nuns who capitulated to the Obama’s Health and Human Services mandate. Untrue.
The mandate strikes the heart of the issue of religious liberty of all Americans, not just Catholics. The church must be united at a critical time in history for all Americans, and this issue has nothing to do with being anti-feminist, as Ms. Henneberger claims. She cites the Vatican’s move to reign in the individuals who have taken an oath to represent the church, but who are now misrepresenting the official position of the church, as a reason why Catholics will be “moving beyond the church.” I would ask people like Ms. Henneberger this question: If the church does not have some fundamental teachings it considers basic truth, such as sanctity of all human life, than why bother calling it a church at all?
Sara Alexander
Etna
To Sara Alexander: without denying that every organized religious movement of any significant size surely has its share of persons who violate the well-being of children and young adults, what other group in America at least has committed–and then hidden for decades–the crimes committed by so many Catholic priests? Name one other example. And how do these “holy men” reflect “the sanctity of human life” when they routinely and shamelessly ruin the lives of the young? Or do you typically care far more about the unborn than about the born? Your defense of the Catholic Church is not exactly persuasive, not that it concerns those who defend what cannot be defended.
So what does this mean for about those who wage Avarice war against Nature? Blood letting and it’s well on it’s way! No mistake.
E=MC^2 is not a joke.
except for the dumb and witless.
Sara, You are right. People have no idea, for the most part, what the Catholic Church stands for or believes. Most who criticize it take their info from poles and speakers who are designed to bias them and they follow like sheep. I use to be a sheep. Now I am Catholic because I bothered to actually read both sides. And I asked the Savior for truth. I and the Catholic Church defend children and as an X protestant know that there was far more of a problem in those other denomination. There are those who who harm the Church by behavior but they, at least, are VERY few and can be called to responsibility. In most protestant churches there is no responsibility to authority or even a real authority. There are underlying reasons why this info doesn’t get out. There are causes that support faulty thinking against the Church. I have been Catholic 30+ years and I have seen the grace of Jesus first hand in the people and priests. I know the truth that is in the Church and, though not spotless, she is by far closest to what Jesus taught and through the Holy Spirit still teaches. Opinions are not worth much unless we back them up with credible research and in this case a lot of open minded prayer. If all else fails read the Bible clean through. Read either Catholic or protestant after you find out who initiated it, who took books out and why. Then read the last sentence in either. Connie
“If the church does not have some fundamental teachings it considers
basic truth, such as sanctity of all human life, than why bother calling
it a church at all?” +++++++++++++++ Sanctity of all human life like homosexuals? I guess that’s a good question.
I don’t think the church officially wants us (gays) dead. Just neatly hidden away, like that relative who’s a little “different”.
I’m not Gay and that’s not good enough for me.
I’m a straight guy, married 33 years to the same woman, who thinks we should all be treated equally and fairly. Because I support marriage, I support the freedom to marry. Let’s work together to assure fairness for all Mainers.
Mellissa Fuller–I too find it difficult to understand why there is so much opposition in Maine for the freedom of all to marry who they love.
We either have liberty and justice for all…….or we don’t.
Either All men are created equal…….or they aren’t.
The tool of choice in those who oppose equal marriage rights is fear. I am not afraid of any two people marrying–it only affects me if I am invited to the wedding.
So why isn’t there a petition to let mentally ill people marry? – http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/19-a/title19-Ach23.pdf
I guess we’re not hot enough :’ -(
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=images+of+veronica+lake,+clara+bow&hl=en&sa=X&rlz=1W1ADRA_en&biw=1173&bih=751&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnso&tbnid=D1upq9KbnmfrDM:&imgrefurl=http://primped.ninemsn.com.au/blogs/zoes-blog/iconic-beauty-trends-that-influenced-the-world-yes-even-the-highest-peaks-of-peru&docid=Dkm8ssiueaAC9M&imgurl=http://primped3.hcdn1.net/images/uploads/zoes_blog/maycelebs/clara-bow.jpg&w=300&h=373&ei=6SagT9idDIGN6QHNiKyhAg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=887&vpy=119&dur=941&hovh=250&hovw=201&tx=111&ty=164&sig=107088720508774241768&page=1&tbnh=134&tbnw=108&start=0&ndsp=31&ved=1t:429,r:6,s:0,i:83 – Clara Bow , the “It” girl.
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=beautiful+images+of+veronica+lake&hl=en&rlz=1W1ADRA_en&biw=1173&bih=751&tbm=isch&tbnid=UeHRk6OPrXePiM:&imgrefurl=http://elvesandgnomes.tumblr.com/post/3483063959/veronica-lake-sure-was-beautiful&docid=LNmFp1BH-UgBcM&imgurl=http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lh4kouTfcI1qc0tsro1_500.jpg&w=500&h=389&ei=dSegT6XIFIee6AH295mwAg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=577&vpy=293&dur=1058&hovh=198&hovw=255&tx=167&ty=69&sig=107088720508774241768&page=1&tbnh=127&tbnw=16&start=0&ndsp=32&ved=1t:429,r:12,s:0,i:94 – Veronica Lake, the “Peekaboo” girl
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=nancy+spungen&hl=en&sa=X&rlz=1W1ADRA_en&biw=1173&bih=751&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnso&tbnid=HlrT0yBRCormUM:&imgrefurl=http://themusicsover.com/2009/10/12/nancy-spungen-sid-vicious/&docid=zngPga-BLBJDaM&imgurl=http://themusicsover.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/nancy.jpg%253Fw%253D292&w=438&h=449&ei=hyqgT6mMIqGf6AGejvmeAg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=773&vpy=367&dur=1805&hovh=227&hovw=222&tx=93&ty=114&sig=114391931269985765394&page=2&tbnh=136&tbnw=134&start=19&ndsp=35&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:19,i:193 – Nancy Spungen
Generally, the issue rests (as far as the State goes) with the question of competence. That is, is the person to be married capable of understanding the consequences of entering into this contract (a marriage license is a contract)? If the person is deemed competent, then I see no reason to deny the right to legally marry.
I do not want to associate mentally ill people with other issues but instead to associate those other issues with the concept of competency:
We often hear the argument against SSM as opening the gates to people marrying their dog, their car, or a child. The competency test precludes these possibilities. A dog, a car, and a child (a person under the age of majority) are not considered “competent” to enter into a contract. This is such a basic legal concept, putting forth the original premise speaks volumes about the person suggesting it.
The Minot Daily News says a judge in Massachusetts ordered a mentally ill woman to have an abortion and be sterilized against her will: http://www.minotdailynews.com/page/blogs.detail/display/751/Massachusetts-judge-orders-mentally-ill-woman-to-have-an-abortion-and-be-sterilized.html
In 2009 131 children in Afghanistan were killed in arial bombings by international forces:
http://childvictimsofwar.org.uk/countries/the-state-of-afghanistans-children/
Gallup/USATODAY says Only 6% of Americans thought invading Afghanistan was a mistake in 2002: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-03-16-poll_N.htm
The Nazis thought they were competent too.
I am a bit lost as to where you are going with the three references you made, especially the last two. And, what do Nazis have to do with anything?
We are talking about the competency of the individual. Can the person understand what they are about to undertake if they enter into a marriage contract? The test isn’t that profound. But, neither a chair or a dog has the capability to comprehend a marriage concept. As far as the minor goes, the law has determined that children are not capable of such decisions. It is presumed a 12 year old child is not yet mature enough to understand what it means to be married and thus is not eligible to enter into a marriage contract.
We are not talking about the competency of the State, but we are speaking of it with regard to the individual. This hardly is some new earth-shattering concept.
Another example is that during a divorce young children may be asked with which parent they choose to live, but not usually, as it is too much burden to put on a child and the child is not deemed competent to make such decisions for themselves, just like we don’t allow them to eat an entire pan of brownies for dinner.
So it’s not okay to let children eat a whole pan of brownies for dinner, but it’s okay to kill and maim them? That doesn’t seem rational to me, but then I’m mentally ill.
Would President Bush have invaded Afghanistan if 55% Americans opposed it? If not, then does that make the 94% of Americans who supported invading Afghanistan responsible for the deaths and mutilations of tens of thousands of children?
Or did the American people not understand that we would be killing and maiming children when they made their descision? Or did they also not know that there are supernatural consequences for harming children (Luke 17:2, Matthew 18:10 KJV)? Or did they just not care?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antisocial%20personality%20disorder – Definition of antisocial personality disorder
http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/CA/CA.html – California Euginics movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_for_the_Prevention_of_Hereditarily_Diseased_Offspring – Nazi sterilization law
http://www.chgs.umn.edu/educational/homosexuals.html – “Genocide of Homosexuals” – The University of Minnesota
Thank you for being quite polite, and robins are monogamous.
You are having a discussion with someone who keeps changing the subject and keeps going off on bizarre tangents. You are being very patient — but I really have no idea what truthandmayoholdthe firmness is talking about.
You are changing the subject.
Sara, when the RCC takes action against a nun at a Catholic hospital for allowing the abortion of a fetus to literally save the life of a dying woman, but covers up the atrocities committed by pedophile priests for decades, then I call anti-feminist not too much of a stretch. Why is a dying woman’s life worth less thatn the fetus? Should she have allowed them both to die?
Yet it is less morally objectionable to destroy the lives of numerous children to protect the church. Actions and attitudes such as these are turning modern Catholics away in droves.
Mellissa Fuller, thank you for your support! I am encouraged to know there are literally hundreds of thousands of Mainers who share our view on this subject. I hope we can become the first state in the nation to affirm same sex marriage via popular vote this November!
It is unfortunate we had to go the popular vote route due to the 2009 circumstances but in doing so, and assuming we win, it will shoot down the tired argument I hear from NOM and the team of Heath & Madore about how SSM has always failed when put to the popular vote. The same, of course, could be said for Women’s Right To Vote, Inter-Racial Marriage, and the need for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
So, the victory this November will serve two purposes. We will obtain the right to marry and we will have set an example for the Country. Not bad.
There is no good reason to deny gay people the right to marry. They’re just as good as the rest of us. Their love is just the same. They raise children just as well. You can’t honestly say they don’t deserve these same rights unless you think gay people are less than equal. As Americans, we don’t do that. I hope Maine does the right thing this fall.
Pretty sure Kathy was all about the Nurses’ strike. Patients first balogna.
Guess you didn’t follow the strike very closely….it was all about patient care first!
That’s only in your imagination. The so called patient safety issues were settled a couple weeks before the negotiations ended. The issue was health insurance coverage for long term nurses which they wanted to keep which differed from more recent hires. Why do people always fall for the patient safety issue?
because those are the ones that tug at people’s heartstrings, if they have any (jd2008jd’s heartstrings are definitely in question). He should be thankful that he wasnt at the need of an overworked nurse caring for too many patients. Thanks for clarifying that, Cheesecake1955!. did he forget to mention that there was no salary issue also?
My “heartstrings” are just fine thank you. I question the motives of the union and why they never went public with concerns over patient safety prior to contract negotiations. Want to try and answer that schmidla?
Funny how all those “patient care” issues that EMMC had have gone away with the signing of a pen…especially when “minimum” staffing was not part of the contract…I wonder if we will hear all about “patient care” issues at EMMC again in a few months when the one year contract expires.
I am all about Patient Safety and that does include the nurses. Bedside Nurses
are the patients’ front line advocates in Hospitals. There is a very significant
symbiosis between patients and their primary nurse caregiver. I also fight for
safer care at the State and Federal levels as a professional nurse and a
healthcare consumer advocate. Without patient safety, there is no quality in
healthcare. Please remember this when you or a loved one, is a patient.
Expect and demand safe high quality care.
I had a relative in the hospital for over a month recently. One nurse made mistakes that put him at severe risk of death. Quit pretending that all nurses are saints and competent ant should not be questioned.
you must be related to LePage, vilify the whole group because of one?
thank you for your service kathydayrn.
Melissa Fuller, Joe Pickering: good letters.
Sara Alexander; some Catholic basic “truths” are not theologically based, such as unmarried male priests and even infallibility. If it wants unity The Church needs to demonstrate reasons for asking for it.
What is a “patient safety activist”? Is this an official title of some group? Or is it a self proclaimed title? Can anyone proclaim themselves such and is it valid if they do?
Is it valid that you proclaim yourself a cheesecake?
Why, if the Catholic church is so adamant about family and having so many children, do they demand their priest and nuns to be celibate and not reproduce. You would think that the most loyal would make the best Catholic parents?
I asked a Catholic friend of mine just this question! He told me it all had to do with inheritance. Back in the dark ages (that would be present day for the RCC), priests and nuns could not marry because the laws of inheritance were pretty strong. The legitimate son of a dying priest risked inheriting property which, of course, the church would not want to give up. However, if the priest had illegitimate children, they stood to inherit nothing, as “bastard children” (the term of the times) would not permit such inheritance.
That’s what I was told. It certainly seems plausible given how power and money centric the RCC is.
never heard of this, do you think your friend was making this up? He may be one of those angry Catholics. try googling this question and you will get the same answer over and over again.. understand that priests and nuns are married. They are supernaturally married. Priests are married to the Bride of Christ, the Church, and nuns are married to the Groom of the Church himself, namely Christ. (yes I cut and pasted this)
No, I doubt he’s one of those angry Catholics, although I know of what you speak. I will try to find some information on it.
As far as being supernaturally married, I don’t think that addresses the issue at hand as compared to the inheritance issue. It does provide an explanation as to why they are not married to other humans. Somehow, that explanation seems a tad “convenient” to me. Much like the whole “fish on Friday” deal.
From a “Brief History of Celibacy in the Catholic Church” by Glenn Weiser
To begin with, Jesus designated St. Peter, a married man, to be the first pope. Priests had married in Judaism (the priesthood itself was a hereditary profession), and it would seem that Christ accepted this part of the tradition in his choice of Peter. Although St. Paul believed that spreading the Gospel was easier for a man who didn’t have a family to provide for, he still mandated that bishops, elders and deacons be only “the husband of one wife.” (Even then, polygamy among all ranks of the clergy persisted, and by the third century bishops alone were required to be monogamous.)
The change began with the Council of Elvira in Spain in about 306, which prohibited bishops, deacons and priests from marrying. Shortly thereafter, the early church fathers began to stigmatize sex as sinful in their writings. St. Ambrose (340-397) wrote, “The ministerial office must be kept pure and unspoiled and must not be defiled by coitus,” and the former libertine St. Augustine (354-430) even went so far as to consider an erect penis a sign of man’s insubordination
With the advent of the Dark Ages around 500, the upheavals in society saw a decline in clerical discipline and with it, a return to marriage and even the keeping of concubines by priests. During this time, the wealth of the church was also increasing, a development not lost on Rome. Many priests were leaving church lands to their heirs, and others handed down land of their own through primogeniture. The Holy See saw that a return to the celibacy rule would result in a real-estate bonanza, and in about 1018 Pope Benedict VIII put teeth in the Elvira decree by forbidding descendents of priests to inherit property. Later, in the 11th century, Pope Gregory VII, who had assumed vast power by declaring himself the supreme authority over all souls, went even further by proscribing married priests from saying mass; he also forbid parishioners from attending masses said by them. Scholars believe that the first written law forbidding the clergy to marry was finally handed down at the Second Lateran Council in 1139.
From a Catholic Q&A forum
……. Later in the 11th century, Pope Benedict VIII reinforced the decree of Elvira, forbidding the children of priests to inherit property. Most scholars place the date of church law absolutely forbidding clergy to marry at the Second Lateran Council in 1139, becoming an official church discipline in 1563 at the Council of Trent.
Very interesting. It would seem the Church considers celibacy for priests to be a kind of birth control.
And real estate venture.
… And real estate investment. The Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not inherit property owned by Me. (The Church as God’s property manager.) I am beginning to see a disconnect between the spiritual and the profane. Mankind as God’s property. It’s all beginning to make sense.
LOL
Well, there you go. Again, it goes back to money and power. Sounds a bit “all too human” to me. And, too, there was at the time that illegitimate children had no rights to inheritance.
I particularly liked the part where the married priests not only were forbidden from saying mass but so were the parishioners forbidden from hearing one from a married priest. No doubt under the threat of eternal damnation. That’s one way to kill the concept – drop the speaker and his audience. That should shut him down once and for all.
I won’t pretend to make any value judgement on any of this. I don’t have a dog in this fight. My only concern has been with what appears to me to be attempts by the RCC (and other churches) to quell the civil rights of others, all in the name of their flavor of religion, even if that flavor is not universal. Combine that with the presumptuousness that their way is the only true way, and, of course, all of us uninformed need to be informed, and you can see where my eye-rolling is the result.
Their blinders are on. No one studies history any longer – goodness, we might find something contrary to the dictum taught us! It is all a 180 degrees from the way I was taught. I see them with blinders pop-riveted to their heads and fed only what the church wants them to know, vs. other religions that want to explore all subjects thoroughly. The former is the definition of sheep. The latter is the definition of where I think we should be going. Just my opinion – 12th century or 21st century?
Do you really want to know–or are you just looking to find fault with the Catholic Church?
Again, everyone thinks I’m out the sink the RCC. I just don’t care about them as long as they leave us non-Catholics alone. They don’t seem to be doing that of late. They are getting as bad as the Evangelical, Fundamentalist, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, as far as banging on our door, figuratively and literally – usually under the guise of “teaching and showing us the way.” Gag.
I will leave the RCC to sink itself. It surely isn’t making many friends of late.
I don’t think you are out to sink the Catholic Church and I agree that when they enter into a debate that touches on politics, you have no choice but to refute their argument. But there is this prurient interest so many non-Catholics seem to have in the RCC. Supposedly the RCC has all these dark, devious motives and it is full of vice and oppression. It just isn’t so. In that aspect, Sara is right. There is not more pedophilia in the Catholic priesthood than society at large. The RCC suffers from the same troubles all societies suffer from.
Your Catholic friend has it wrong. Nuns and monks have always chosen a life that forbids marriage. The priesthood ban on marriage is a rule of the church that can be changed, and exceptions are allowed. The theological basis for the unmarried state is based on St. Paul’s writings on how it would be better for followers of Christ to remain unmarried as he is.
AS for jersey’s comment–the Catholic church does not advocate having so many children. It is not a quota to be filled. But they do recognize that children are a blessing of marriage.
Perhaps the RCC does not have a greater number of pedophiles than any other organization. (Personally, I’m skeptical.) I really haven’t done the study. But, that really isn’t the point. Americans, in particular, are understanding and forgiving, assuming an organization or person admits the mistake and tries to correct the issue. The backlash against the RCC and against those churches such as the Evangelicals and the Fundamentalists is because these groups/organizations claim the high road of morality, scorn others who fail to comply with their definitions of morality, go out of their way to deny our civil rights, and then turn around and are caught-up in some of the most horrendous scandals ever recorded.
We see it time and time again. It almost is a running joke when we hear of some Southern preacher ranting on about the “evils and perversions of homosexuality” and the next day the video comes out showing him in leather chaps, a ball-gag, and a feather duster where the sun don’t shine. It isn’t that he has a secret boyfriend and two children hidden away in Spokane. No, it is the kinkiest of kinky. All the while these preachers could have kept on the down-low, minding their own business, and living their lives. Instead, they rail against us, rallying the troops to donate funds for outlandish ads against us, and do everything in their power to quash gay rights, civil rights, and civil same-sex marriage. Again, I ask – Does anyone understand the concept of hypocrisy?
As far as the RCC goes, let me tell you from the outside looking in – the efforts to correct the priest pedophile problem look lame, at best. It was clear from Day One the effort was to protect the church with not the least bit of concern shown toward the victims. In fact, even after the story broke, the effort was to “fix the church.” Hey, what about the victims??? Yes, the RCC has paid billions to “settle” lawsuits but how much money fixes sexual abuse, I do not know. Once again, it is the hypocrisy of these organizations people find so offensive. And, the organizations are so out-of-touch with this concept, they just don’t “get it,” and they never will.
Let’s take the flip side. Remember that South Carolina governor who was hiking some trail? Turns out he was visiting his girlfriend in some country in South America. Well, he got caught (surprise, surprise). Instead of denying everything, lying to the public, and claiming “it was only sex,” he ‘fessed up, took the heat, and explained how he and his wife were estranged and that he and the lady he met in South America had fallen in love. The public understood and the public always loves a good love story. Elliot Spitzer and the expensive call girls? Not so much.
Do you see the differences I am trying to point out? The RCC seems clueless to this situation and it comes across as uncaring, unaware, and self-righteous. Americans don’t like snobs and the RCC is looking pretty snobby – like their poop doesn’t stink.
With regard to the RCC not advocating for children – it is more of the passive-aggressive behavior. You have to be married, you can’t have sex except for the idea of having kids, you can’t use birth control, and no, we are not telling you to have as many kids as possible. Kind of hard to believe when you throw in all those conditions. “Well, of course, you could abstain.” Ridiculous. Of course, the RCC disclaimer is that they are there to “teach the laity,” but what the laity does with those teachings is up to them. Translated: “Here is what you we think you should do. If you don’t do it, that is up to you, but if I were you, I would not want to burn in the Fires of Hell for All Eternity, Amen.”
It’s getting kind of old. It is especially old for those of us who are not even members of any of these churches.
Bishop Malone has it right this time around. I give him credit. He has issued his pastoral letter speaking about what he feels is marriage. He has started a voluntary organization called, “Courage” for those of the laity who are gay who are “having difficulty with their faith and how they may learn to live a life of chastity.” He’s done his duty for his church and the laity. He isn’t delving into the secular world as he did in 2009. I don’t agree with any of it, but he at least has kept it within the church and that is to be commended.
Why is it that 2 generations of Biblical scholars have determined that the words of the Bible are not condemning committed homosexual relationships yet a handful of Christians want us to believe it does? Jesus said the only way into Heaven and eternal life is to love Him and thy neighbor with all our hearts. Let us pray for the Christians who are not going to eternal life.
Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one can get to God without Christ. We have to admit our sins, believe that Christ is the Risen Messiah, and commit our live to Him. Christ must be our Savior and should be the Lord of our lives.
As for loving our neighbors, we are to love them in the same way we love ourselves. Since no follower of Christ want’s to spend an eternity separated from God, then we are to tell our neighbors the truth about God and about Jesus Christ.
Question: If your neighbors house were on fire, and they were in the home, would you try and get them out? Or would you just call 911 and hope that help gets there in time? Or would you just look the other way and make sure your home was safe?
Far too many Christians have friends and family members that are heading for an eternity separated from God. If we don’t tell them, it’s the same turning our back on a house fire.
For those who do not believe, your example is not salient. IMO most humans would come to the aid of their neighbors to prevent them from dying in the fire …… living or dying … existing in the living world or not – here and now. They do not believe in the Kingdom of Heaven and the like … they do not exist.
If your neighbor does not wish to hear your message, dust off your shoes and move on – while you may believe that repeating the message to the same people over and over is doing what you believe is best for them … it is not heeding the direction given.
The average non-believer hears the Word 7 to 10 times before anything begins to click in their hearts. Some put up a wall, while others silently weigh the possibilities.
IMO they begin to resent the messenger (ie those repeating over and over, kind of like that annoying mosquito in the middle of the night) and auditory channels shut down. Then again in some cases that continuous repetition has been successful in cult initiation, brainwashing, learning your multiplication tables …. mind control, Pavlov response and rote memory ….. it isn’t receiving the information itself but taking into the heart and soul.
Why do you suppose that many things can be repeated over and over and people just let it go, but when the name of Christ is mentioned, people get all riled up? What is it about that name that rips at peoples’ hearts and minds? Could it be that the truth hurts, especially when it spurs guilt and shame in a person that actually knows they are living a sinful life? Could be.
Perhaps because they feel they are being preached at ….. it isn’t the mention of Christ that riles people up and causes them to shut down, IMO, it is the incessant noise of the mosquitoes who believe they follow him.
And the in-fighting between denominations does not help.
I’m not here today to argue with anyone or tell anyone what to believe or how to believe or how not to believe. Everyone sins and their sins are no greater than anyone else’s – we were not designed to be sinless only to do the best we can. All we can do is live each day doing the best we can in trying to make someone’s life more bearable in the reality in which they live. Many spend their days thinking about what happens in the “after-life” and many are just trying to get through the one they are living day by day.
It’s not the truth that hurts it’s the sound of bibles being thumped and thumped and thumped ad nauseam that sends people running off with their ears covered.
Oh, and that constant drip, drip, drip, of guilt, shame and sin to which you subject everyone (except yourself) tends to be less instructive than it is terminally annoying.
Yes, they really are into that guilt and suffering thing. Someone must have beaten them as children. I have a friend of mine, “a recovering Catholic” as he calls himself, who cannot get through the day (it seems) without apologizing for something. It is as if he runs around looking for swords to fall upon. I don’t get it.
you are sounding like a fanatical nut…
We’ve heard the word according to EJ way more than 7 times. We still don’t buy it. Quit selling and do something that is really Christian for a change, like stuffing the sanctimony. I think Jesus said something to that effect. Perhaps you didn’t read that part 7 times.
EJ people like you, are why I turned away from organized religion. I’m a firm believer that the world would be a much better place if, everyone stopped thinking god loves them best.
God loves us all. We are all His creations. Never have I said that God loves me more than anyone else. You’re gonna’ have to do better than that.
Can you answer my questions?
EJ, I don’t have to be any better than that, I never said that I thought you thought God loved you more. You just think God loves Christians more. I don’t believe that.
Nope. Wrong again. God loves us all.
and when does your wall come down….
It seems far too many Christians are selective in warning for those “house fires.” Do you seek to discourage sin through the law with other issues, such as divorce or pre-marital sex? Singling out gay people for this kind of treatment demonstrates there is a hatred and disgust. A Christian might tell themselves they’re doing the right thing, warning their neighbor of a fire, but that’s not actually what’s happening, otherwise you’d be “warning” one and all in a similar fashion through the law.
Actually, I’m just trying to keep marriage between one man and one woman. I have offered a compromise of full entitlement civil unions, but that has been rejected by the vast majority of respondents, especially by the “no compromise” group that is pushing for their so-called equality.
You see, I believe that the homosexual lifestyle is a choice. My belief is based on my upbringing, my belief in Christ and the Bible, and my belief that God makes all life, and He wouldn’t create any of us counter to His own teachings. I also believe, based on 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11, that there is a way out of all chosen lifestyles through the strength of and justification by Jesus Christ.
Of course, that’s the way I believe.
You have “offered” a compromise, some agree and some do not. That compromise has been offered in various other states and the same entities that are strongly opposing marriage are strongly opposing any compromise whether it be unions or partnerships or whatever…..
I don’t dispute those things. What I’m asking is how you square all this away. If your beliefs are a set, how do explain using the law to have others adhere to that belief set in one way, but not another? For example, why don’t you support a law banning divorce or pre-marital sex with similar vigor?
It seems to me, if you are doing this with good intentions (helping move others away from sin, “warning them of fire”), you’d be crusading against all sins in similar ways. But as it seems, you’re not doing that. I want to know why.
You only know me from what I comment in these BDN threads. You really have no idea about what I speak out for or against. I write poetry, dramas, and devotionals that cover a plethora of different subjects. I’ve been doing that for years.
As for laws, I believe they should be based on morality and majority. I do not believe in special rights based on choices. And, I do not support laws that go against those that can’t speak for themselves, such as abortion or the severely handicapped.
EJ, please stop the “special rights” nonsense. Stop bearing false witness. It’s not “special” to want to be treated like everyone else.
I once debated Michael Heath about the Maine Human Rights Act, which protects people equally on the basis of religion, race, etc. — and now also protects people on the basis of sexual orientation. I pointed out that, under this law, you can’t be fired just for being Baptist. Yet we don’t say it gives “special rights” to Baptists, because Catholics, Jews, Buddhists, Quakers, Hindus, agnostics and atheists, etc., get the same protection. It’s not a “Mormons Rights” law, it’s an equal rights law.
The same is true when applied to sexual orientation — we all have some sexual orientation or another. So now, under Maine law, you can’t be fired simply for being straight. That’s right, straight people are protected equally with gays and lesbians. So how does that make it a “special rights” law, when everyone is protected equally?
So I asked Michael Heath why he kept calling it “special rights,” when gays were not getting anything that was different or better than anyone else. He said, lamely, that such rights are “special” because they are “helpful.”
So, what Heath is against is really “helpful rights.”
But when he says “special,” it sounds as though he means “better rights” or “different rights.” He is deliberately misleading people — and so are you, EJ. You shall not bear false witness.
Gays want the same freedom to get married that you and I already have. They don’t want something special. they want the same thing as we have. That’s equality and fairness.
But you want a “special right” for yourself — you want the right to deny equality and fairness to others. You want to keep marriage to yourself and deny it to others. So YOU are the one asking for “special rights,” EJ.
You’re not answering my question. Why not support a law banning divorce?
Tyranny of the majority, eh.
You have repeatedly stated in these comment sections that heterosexuality is a choice … you chose it based on your belief that it the only moral and godly way (not your verbatim statements but the gist of it) …. so in your above statement “I do not believe in special rights based on choices.” you are contradicting yourself IMO – opposite sex couples who have made the choice to behave heterosexually are indeed receiving special rights based on their choice.
I won’t go over the whole story again. Basic concept: Civil Unions are not equal to Marriage. Marriage is a legal term. It’s also a religious term, but it is a legal term. Marriage is recognized by the State, all other States, the Federal government, and all other Countries. Civil Unions are not recognized by all other States, not by the Federal government and not by all other Countries.
Therefore, Civil Unions .NE. Marriage.
In your church, marriage can remain to be defined as between one man and one woman. As the term is used in secular law, I hope not.
Being gay is not a choice. It just is not. Is heterosexuality a choice?
Your belief is your belief. Mine is mine. Until I become a member of your church, you have no say in my civil rights.
Actually EJ the people rejecting Civil Unions as an alternative to SSM are the same people and groups that oppose SSM. Namely the Maine Christian Civics League (or what ever they are calling themselves these days) and NOM. Both have said they oppose ANY formal recognition for same sex couples.
a civil union is not equal to or the same as marriage…
Never said that was the same thing or equal to. I was responding to EJs post on his compromise and what groups were opposing his compromise.
thanx
Anything that is like marriage but called something else is automatically, by definition, not marriage. If it were the same as marriage, then it would, in fact, be marriage!
Law 101. They never will grasp it. Believe me.
And let’s not forget our friend, Mike Heath, who also doesn’t want anything for the sodomites, especially sodomy-based marriage.
Lawrence v. Texas, 2003. All sodomy laws found unconstitutional. Aside from Rick Santorum’s marriage, I’m guessing there’s a bit of sodomy going on in most marriages, straight and gay. I wonder if anyone has cared to explain to Heath just what the definition of sodomy covers?
EJ, you write, “Actually, I’m just trying to keep marriage between one man and one woman.” That’s one half of what you are doing. The other half is that you are trying to prevent same-sex couples from sharing in the benefits of marriage, such as marriage’s encouragement for fidelity, commitment, and family stability — and the legal benefits of marriage, such as inheriting your late spouse’s Social Security.
Like you, I’m a straight married guy. The difference between you and me is that I know that my marriage is not threatened by the possibility that someone else might get married. I also don’t want to punish other people by denying them the benefits of marriage. Others don’t have to be unhappy in order for me to be happy. Others don’t have to be denied the freedom to marry in order for me to enjoy my freedom.
You offer what you call a “compromise” of having first-class marriage for people like yourself, and second or third-class marriage for people who are not like yourself. Most people would say that’s not a real compromise. You want special rights for straight people — you want to keep the right to marry for yourself, and give other people something lesser, something less than equality and fairness. That won’t fly.
A loving God would not torture anyone in Hell forever simply because that person disagreed with the theological opinions of EJParsons.
A loving God gives us all a choice. It’s not Him that tortures.
EJ, that’s a slogan, not an answer, and you know it.
Your theology says that God created the entire universe — everything.
“Everything” includes everything, including Hell and Satan. God, being all-powerful, can do away with Hell and Satan any time God chooses.
Your theology says we are living under the system and rules God laid out for the universe. God created the rules, enforces the rules, and condones and cooperates with those rules. And your theology says that if we don’t follow those rules — which conveniently, also happen to be exactly what you believe — we will roast forever in Hell, under God’s rules.
2Pe 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.
2Pe 2:2 Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned;
2Pe 2:3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
2Pe 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment;
2Pe 2:5 and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a [fn]preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;
2Pe 2:6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;
2Pe 2:7 and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men
2Pe 2:8 (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds),
2Pe 2:9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from [fn]temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment,
2Pe 2:10 and especially those who [fn]indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic [fn]majesties,
2Pe 2:11 whereas angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a reviling judgment against them before the Lord.
2Pe 2:12 But these, like unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed, reviling where they have no knowledge, will in [fn]the destruction of those creatures also be destroyed,
2Pe 2:13 suffering wrong as the wages of doing wrong. They count it a pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are stains and blemishes, reveling in their [fn]deceptions, as they carouse with you,
2Pe 2:14 having eyes full of adultery that never cease from sin, enticing unstable souls, having a heart trained in greed, accursed children;
2Pe 2:15 forsaking the right way, they have gone astray, having followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
2Pe 2:16 but he received a rebuke for his own transgression, for a mute donkey, speaking with a voice of a man, restrained the madness of the prophet.
2Pe 2:17 These are springs without water and mists driven by a storm, for whom the [fn]black darkness has been reserved.
2Pe 2:18 For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error,
2Pe 2:19 promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved.
2Pe 2:20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.
2Pe 2:21 For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them.
2Pe 2:22 [fn]It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.”
thanks for your input ……… there are false prophets in every generation …… it is up to each believer to listen carefully, weigh the messages, the heart of the messages and discern whether they are true to the teachings of Christ or have twisted His message. And of course we all are certain we know who they are … and they differ.
You’re quite welcome. Don’t you especially like verse 2? It’s what we see happening today.
But why not then legislate bans or punishment on infidelity or pre-marital sex?
I wonder if you will get an answer?
Because the bible isn’t about enforcing morality via government. The bible is a book of spiritual things, and on that basis, it is trying to change your heart. Nothing more, but than to look at things from God’s perspective, given that if he does exist, then how big and awesome is his task of keeping us safe from ourselves does anyone have other than God?
You see, if what the bible says is true, then Satan is real, and he doesn’t care about you. All he wants to do, is destroy what God has created, just to mock him. That’s what all this is about. Getting you to turn away from God, for any and every reason possible. Satan is so good, he’s even got people believing that “all this” is actually God’s fault, of all things!
If what the bible says is true, then the implications of who and what Satan is, will change your view of the world. It will open up your heart, and you’ll finally feel free.
In Jesus’ name, bless you.
Why not take a step back and cut out the childish finger-pointing and picking behavior …. my point was that false prophets have always been and always will be … and everyone believes they are following the true ones. I was not questioning your post but only commenting on the content.
And you feel this applies to us and not yourself? The largest church in the word is the one who is falling into the arms of evil.
Dear cp444:
I find is so heartwarming that you are extremely passionate about your god. Excellent for you. However, marriage is a civil contract and so I, for one, do not understand what your god has to do with a state- sanctioned institution. People need certificate of marriage signed by a Government official, not an official of the church. I also say that your god is not my god and I don’t believe that I need to live my life according to your lord.
thank you for reading
And, to repeat a point made over and over again, the process that ends a marriage has nothing to do with any church. It’s entirely possible to get a marriage and a divorce without ever even looking at a church, much less be in one for a ceremony.
Melissa – Great letter. It seems it is a battle between logic and religion. I doubt the two ever will agree.
I don’t see this as a conflict between logic and religion — certainly some people who claim to be religious are bigoted against gays and lesbians, but there are a growing number of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and people of other religious faiths who support fairness, justice, and equal treatment, and because of their commitment to these principles, support the freedom to marry. In Maine, the Religious Coalition Against Discrimination http://www.rcadmaine.org/ is working to pass Marriage Equality in Maine.
Because I’m a Christian I support the freedom to marry.
I appreciate your point and your support. It never has been a concern to me about the enlightened churches that exist out there. But, let’s face it, there are some big boys on the block with millions of dollars behind them, some with a huge group of religious zealots. In their minds they are against SSM because they are Christians.
Thank you for your letter, Ms. Fuller.
Thank you Melissa! I hope we win marriage in November….’cause I have a wedding to plan and it is my intention to use all local vendors. Marriage Equality is a great job and revenue creator and there is no downside!
Sara – Do you not wonder why there is this anti-Christian rhetoric in the media? Do think this is some plot out of nowhere to discredit the church? Has Satan returned to deliberately shut down the RCC?
There is something about the RCC and many of its followers that, well, stuns me. It is the presumptuousness of their correctness. Rarely have I seen a group so passive-aggressive. The problem is not their problem but someone else’s. This seems to be an institutional level personality disorder.
When I was a kid, nobody but nobody cared about what any church did, much less the RCC. We all lived in peace and harmony in Waterville, Maine, with several churches of different faiths and even a synagogue. The topic of religion never came up in conversation. It just did not.
Something has changed. Could you do a bit of self-examination of what the RCC has been involved in over the past decade or so? The priest scandal probably is number one. As bad for the victims as it was, the general public found the coverup and denials nearly as bad. Do you understand the concept of hypocrisy? Surely, the Grand Poobahs at the RCC seem to have no idea of the concept. Again, more passive-aggressive behavior. They even blamed the priest sexual abuse issue on society, calling it permissiveness of the times and their priests were insufficiently trained to handle it. Reporters coined this the “Woodstock Defense.” Will they accept any responsibility for their behavior? I’m surprised they are not blaming the victims for being too cute.
And, no, you can’t do the deflection routine, “Well, other churches have the same level of scandal.” Well, no they don’t. And, even if they did, this does not lessen the problem at the RCC. The RCC’s own report showed over 41,000 accused priests over the recent decades. Isn’t there any of this famous contrition by the RCC clerics? I’m not seeing it.
More deflection: The Obama administration provided a perfectly acceptable solution so the 98% of the Catholic women who use contraception still could obtain it and the church upper-ups could save face. What more do you want? Your church gets to officially protest to its laity about birth control yet the “evil insurance companies” can provide it, free of charge, to any of the laity who request it. It could not be simpler. My suggestion to the church leaders? Drop this hot potato before you burn your fingers. You are lucky you have been handed a solution on a silver platter. Shut up and move on.
Finally, and this goes to that presumptuousness I mentioned earlier, for those of us who are not Catholic, we simply do not care. I realize you think the sun rises and sets on the RCC and that everyone else in the world feels the same way – after all, you are the one “true” church, or so you’ve been told. But I don’t, and I doubt many other non-Catholics, pay any more attention to the church then we do to the crickets scores in England. It’s a yawner for us.
So, Sara, why is there this sudden interest by non-Catholics? Why is it in the news all the time? In case it isn’t obvious to you, your church is butting into our lives. Instead of leaving us alone to pass CIVIL secular same-sex marriage, your church is dumping millions into impeding our secular laws. Your pedophile priests and the coverups are in the News because they are criminals. Yes, they may be sinners, too, but they are criminals. Does the church quite grasp this? I think not. While your church doesn’t believe in contraception, 98% of its followers use contraception. Our government now has provided a nice way for ALL women citizens of our country to have access to contraception without violating your church’s tenets and yet your church keeps poking that dog.
Don’t try to drop the blame on the doorstep of society. We will kick it to the curb. These problems we did not create. The church should buck-up, step-up, accept responsibility, and fix their problems. For the rest of us, we frankly do not care what happens one way or the other, as long as your dog is not using our lawn to relieve itself.
Sara Alexander: That the high administrative officials of the Catholic Church are so willing to corrupt the very foundations of what it means to be Christian in their struggle for political power in the US is hypocritical to say the least. That they have used faithful and trusting people like you to help them play power politics is manipulative, cynical, corrupt, and vile. In no way is this what Christ had in mind for your church.
Good luck with that Sara…just keep drinking the Catholic Church Kool-Aid…because that has worked out so well for so many people. However, you are right…the editorial mentioned nuns as the last morally upstanding part of the RC church…and they aren’t…at least not yet knowing how many nuns are involved in Spain’s baby selling scandal…so you’re right…they’re all dirty now. Oh, that wasn’t your point? Well, keep on with the Kool Aid then.
Joe Pickering – actually, there are a few departments who make more than 40 percent of their cost – don’t think the library is special because they pick up 40%. And that may be why this department was mentioned with cuts rather than other smaller departments. 40 percent of the library budget is about $553,000 – so, the city and its taxpayers pay the other 60%, which is over half a million – with a capital M. Some smaller departments actual generate revenue, and for the most part, pay for all or almost all their designated yearly budget.