PORTLAND, Maine — Scores of Maine churches will pass the collection plate a second time at Sunday services on Father’s Day to kick off a fundraising campaign for the lead opposition group to November’s ballot question asking voters to legalize same-sex marriages.
Between 150 and 200 churches are expected to raise money for the Protect Marriage Maine political action committee, said Carroll Conley Jr., executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine evangelical organization and a member of the PAC. Conley is also trying to drum up support for the Maine campaign from religious leaders from around the country.
It’s unusual, but not unheard of, for churches to take up collections for political causes. Maine’s Catholic diocese says it raised about $80,000 with a designated collection in 2009 in its effort to overturn Maine’s same-sex marriage law, which was passed by the Legislature that year and later rejected by voters. The Catholic Church isn’t actively campaigning this time, instead focusing on teaching parishioners about the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.
Father’s Day, June 17, seemed an appropriate time to kick off this year’s fundraising campaign because of the day’s focus on family, Conley said.
Additional collection-plate offerings at churches are expected in the months ahead.
“The messaging we’re using is that those who are seeking to redefine marriage in Maine believe there’s no difference between moms and dads,” Conley told The Associated Press. “We believe those differences are relevant. We don’t think the differences in the genders are societally imposed roles, and we believe that children benefit when they’re in that ideal environment where there’s a mom and dad.”
Protect Marriage Maine has been in contact with about 800 churches across the state and expects 150 to 200 to participate in the Father’s Day collections, Conley said. They include Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostal, Nazarene, Church of God, Wesleyan, Evangelical Free, Advent Christian and other denominations.
While many churches are joining the campaign against the referendum, others of various denominations are working to support the ballot measure.
Some churches have hosted phone banks where congregation members have made calls in favor of the referendum, said the Rev. Sue Gabrielson, the minister at the Sanford Unitarian Universalist Church. Other churches have held educational forums and training sessions on door-to-door canvassing.
The referendum, she said, is about inclusion, a “loving God” and being nonjudgmental and compassionate.
“What we want is for people to know that this is a religious issue,” she said.
Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, who created an international uproar when he became the first openly gay bishop in the Anglican church in 2003, is coming to Maine in early June on behalf of the campaign in support of gay marriage. He will appear at three screenings of the film “Love Free or Die,” which depicts his life, in Portland, Lewiston and Ellsworth.
Churches in Maine and elsewhere have raised money from parishioners for political campaigns in the past on issues including gay rights, doctor-assisted suicide, abortion and gambling.
Federal law prohibits churches and other 501(c) (3) charitable organizations from supporting or opposing candidates running for office, either through financial contributions or endorsements, said Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, a Washington advocacy group that supports separation of church and state.
“But they can, with near impunity, support issues and causes, including same-sex marriage referenda,” Walker said.
Supporters of Maine’s ballot question have said they expect to raise $5 million or more for their campaign. Opponents have said they expect to raise far less, but collection plate offerings will go a long way toward helping fund the campaign, Conley said.
Conley has been in Washington, D.C., this week at a pastor’s conference organized by the conservative Family Research Council. There, he met with other gay marriage opponents from Minnesota, Washington and Maryland, where same-sex marriage ballot initiatives are being debated.
Minnesota will decide in November whether a ban on gay marriage should be part of the state constitution. Maryland and Washington are expected to have ballot measures seeking to overturn same-sex marriage laws that were recently passed by their legislatures.
Conley also has obtained endorsements from well-known gay-marriage opponents who recorded video and audio clips to be played at churches taking part in Maine’s collection-plate drive, he said. Those clips will also be sent to the state’s Christian radio stations as public service announcements.
Conley said Friday that he shot video endorsements this week in Washington from Ravi Zacharias, evangelical scholar; Mark Harris, president of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina; Harry Jackson, a Maryland pastor and a staunch gay marriage opponent; and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins.
Conley said he realized churches should play a central role in the Maine campaign after being in North Carolina earlier this month when voters approved an amendment to the state constitution affirming that marriage may only be a union of a man and a woman.
“I was impressed with the coordination I saw among the faith community in North Carolina,” he said.
Christian creedo – don’t treat everyone equally.
Thou shalt hate those who are different.
Sad. They’re just driving people away.
The state can’t force the church to do anything. When they say that, they’re lying. Has the state ever forced a church to marry individuals that aren’t of the faith of the church? Have they forced the church to marry people who have previously been divorced? The answer is no and it won’t happen with gay marriage either.
The problem is that everyone keeps mixing up church law with civil law.
A church can do what it wants… no problem there. Equal protection does not mean that Catholics MUST allow women to be priests.
BUT
when a state extends rights and privileges to one group, the state cannot deny those rights to other groups.
Now why in the world would BDN flag my comment?? There was nothing offensive in it and it goes to the heart of how and why we define “rights” in these matters. What a bunch of intellectual cowards.
BDN does not flag the comments.
If you hover your mouse over any comment, you will see the word “flag” appear in the lower left corner of that comment. Clickinig on that word opens up a dialog box where you, the reader, can flag the comment. I do not know if it takes more than one reader flagging a comment to hide it, but once hidden it will not reappear until an editor reviews it for acceptability.
How is it possible for the Catholic Church to have so many pedophiles that they have hidden away and never told civil authorities? These men should have been arrested and charged in a court of law. To hide them behind their ‘church’ doors is the epitome of obscene behavior. A high mucky-muck is right now being prosecuted in Philadelphia for hiding 35 pedophiles, just transferring them from place to place so that they could damage more children’s lives. Those men should be in prison not protected by the church.
I wonder how the very religous father of a gay person wanting to marry feels when his church is taking up this special collection….especially on Father’s Day. There are far better purposes for a collection on Sunday. The local food pantry would be a better recipient of a special offering.
The check is in the mail.
As soon as they take that collection that is specifically collected to fight a political policy, they should lose their tax exempt status. This collection isn’t for the needy or the poor, it is to put forward the church’s political agenda. Tax them, tax them now.
Here, here!!! If they want to have a say in American politics, and be treated as American citizens, let them be treated like American citizens. Tax them. How did the old American Revolutionary cry go? “No taxation without representation!” Maybe it’s time for “No representation without taxation!”
Sure … now let’s enforce your dictate against the 48% of filers who pay zero income tax in this country.
They pay sales tax, churches are sales tax exempt.
Churches generally don’t have a retail operation. Even still, a lot of organizations are exempt from sales and use tax.
edited to add: Individual states set their own laws regarding sales and use taxes. Some states require churches and religious organizations to pay sales taxes. Some do not.
But they do buy things, and they do not pay sales tax on those things. Those 48% you speak of do, they buy a roll of paper towels, they pay Maine sales tax, the church buys paper towels, they do not pay sales tax.
That is true to a degree but I think the original objection you have is more pertinent to income tax exemptions. Lets be consistent with your slogan. Start taxing the 48%
Property more than income. The 48% do pay property tax, even if they rent as property tax is figured into the cost of rent. I imagine most ministers, pastors, etc are among the 48% in terms of income tax brackets. Churches should pay taxes on the property they own.
Take it up with your representative. That said, we are still left with the 48% who need to start paying income taxes for their representation, yes?
No, as the 48% still pay more in taxes than the churches do, your argument is invalid.
That is not the sum of your argument. It follows from:
Here, here!!! If they want to have a say in American politics, and be treated as American citizens, let them be treated like American citizens. Tax them. How did the old American Revolutionary cry go? “No taxation without representation!” Maybe it’s time for “No representation without taxation!”
My objection holds. To remove the tax exempt status of churches (federal income tax) based on the above, then the 48% who pay zero income tax need to be taxed as well. You might not like that but it is only fair.
Your 48% vs the church is based on income tax alone, mine is based on all taxes paid. My statement is true, the 48% pay more in taxes than the church. The Catholic Church’s property value in the U.S. is 50 Billion and they pay nothing in property tax, one of the 48% who owns a $30,000 home pays a few hundred dollars in property tax. So who is paying more in taxes?
That is because I am focusing on that income tax issue. If you want to tax the Catholic Church, by all means petition the individual states and pursue that. In the meantime, out of fairness, the 48% need to start paying their fair share of federal income tax if the mantra is “no representation without taxation”.
Take your blinders off man! That horse you are whipping is dead. Even people who end up receiving a refund from the government paid in at some point, that’s why it’s called a refund. They also pay every other form of tax, and there is no refund for those.
Stop focusing on just the income tax and look at the bigger picture, unless that would mean your entire argument would sink like a brick boat…
When you start talking taxes – there are a lot of holes !
I happened to copy this segment for future anaylsis – I haven’t gotten to it yet – and this is only for one year and only for illegals –
report of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) dated July 7, 2011, entitled ‘Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits.’ The $4.2 billion is entirely the product of the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC) for the 2010 tax processing year.”
That’s more BS than a cow farm has. The church is a business, not a person, and business with multi-million dollar profits should have to pay tax. It’s very plain and simple. If they want a say in how America is governed, then they need to pay taxes like the rest of us. Your 48% fable is 100% BS. If the same taxes were levied against the church, as they are against every citizen in this country, the church would not fall into the income bracket that receive a tax refund. They would end up owing taxes at the end of the year.Paying property tax, sales tax and excise tax is part of what keeps this country running, by funding our government. Again, if the church wants a say in the government, they should have to pay their taxes, just like the rest of us.
Churches generally don’t have any profits. Most churches struggle to get by.
Please. When the pope moves out of his palace, then we’ll talk about how rough the church has it.
I am not a Catholic and the Pope does not live in Maine. If you knew what you were talking about you would realize also that the Vatican is a Papal State, sovereign over it’s own territory.
And thus should have no say in United States policy.
Must you devolve into insults? I guess if I was trying to argue for a straw man, and knew every word I was saying was foolish beyond belief, I might too. I know what I’m talking about. Using the pope and his palace was merely my way of showing how well off the churches, and don’t fool yourself, the catholic church was the first christian institute, are doing. Even if every church in the world only took in $1 a week, that makes christanity a $194 million a year business, and we both know they make more than that. These hucksters sell an invisible, intangible product, and should be made to pay taxes on that revenue, whether in the US or not.
then how do they have the money to fight this?
They are taking up collections just like any other charitable organization.
“and business with multi-million dollar profits should have to pay tax.”
What about GE?
GE is in compliance with the American tax law. They reduce their tax burden through legal loop holes, not a government granted exemption. I agree that the loop holes that exist allowing then to get away with paying nothing should be closed.
So income tax is the only tax that matters?
Additionally, renters do not pay property taxes as part of their rent. They pay a fair market rental for the use of the property. That is why they receive no credit for property taxes when they file income tax returns.
Additionally you are wrong, when a landlord figures their rents, they figure costs first, which includes maintenance and upkeep, property tax, and if they include utilities those are also figured into the base cost of rent. Anything over and above that they charge is because they can get it due to fair market value. The State recognizes that it is the renters money that pays the property tax and does in fact give a credit for it, it is called the Renters Refund.
A house that is over-priced in any market is going to sit empty regardless of the costs the owner has incurred with it.
I was not aware of the “renters refund”. Looking at it, it looks like a general income limited credit for both property owners and renters. This is not common in most states.
Finally something we can agree on, Maine is not like most states
It used to be a better place. I doubt I will ever live in Maine again and my family predates statehood. However, I think credits and deductions for renters is generally a good thing if we are going to allow homeowners deductions and credits.
And the crappy part of it is they do not even have to be current with their rental payments to receive the refund.
Yeah but I do if I get paid from a tenant.
On rental income less expenses and basis, yes.
Huh? What do you call the Catholic universities and Catholic Charities, Inc., if not retail operations – all tax exempt. Until they learn to stay out of our secular laws, I say tax them.
Additionally, if you are going to try to take Maine exemptions away from churches because of ballot interest and activism, you need to be consistent and you might not like that effect.
http://www.maine.gov/revenue/salesuse/exemptions/exemptions.html
At least hospitals, schools, and libraries serve some sort of tangible purpose.
First, 48% of American have no tax liability due to income levels, they still pay taxes, sales tax, property tax, etc, they just get most of the income tax back at the end of the year.
Second, Income tax is against the law anyway. The IRS has no right to tax an even exchange of goods(money) for services(work), only profits. Also, the 16th amendment was not ratified by 2/3 of congress.Lastly, churches pay no tax of any sort. No land taxes, no sales taxes, no state, or federal taxes of any kind. I don’t know of any other group that gets away with paying nothing.
And they complain about “special interest” groups. Who is anymore of a special interest group than churches?
Everybody complains about special interest groups, left, center or right.
They have no tax liability because the tax code has been structured to give them that reprieve. (Churches actually pay sales taxes in half the states in this country)
Pardon me, I really don’t want to have a tin foil argument with somebody who doesn’t recognize the legitimacy of the 16th amendment to the US Constitution.
Tin foil argument? It’s not my fault you don’t know that the 16th amendment was not ratified. I’m not doubting its validity, I’m outright saying it was fraudulently pushed through, and at least 13 states did not ratify it, and that means it was never legally passed. In fact if you do just a little bit of research into the topic, you would see that only 2 states in the US did ratify the 16th amendment.
http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/
Well, enjoy the view from your perch.
“Churches actually pay sales taxes in half the states in this country” but NOT in Maine.
If a church earns less than the threshold amount to pay taxes then they would not have to pay taxes.
They would still have to pay their property taxes (like poor people must), excise taxes on their vehicles (like poor people must) and other taxes that poor people must and that churches are currently exempt from.
How would you define church earnings? Generally speaking churches don’t have earnings except through investments. It’s members contribute to the operating expenses of the church and any excesses are usually used for charitable work.
Lets keep in mind that the same rules would have to be applied to every other non-profit organization that touches the issues fence.
so if i open a consulting “business” that requires “investment” instead of “payment” then I can get around all these taxes? if i call it holy computer is that stepping on too many toes?
You would only be taxed on your net profit which would be derived from your administrative fees for managing the investments. The actual money invested belongs to the investors unless you happen to have the name Madoff.
The Vatican, a country the size of a few city blocks is one of the richest countries in the world yet it has no industry, marketable exports, natural resources or anything other than religion to make it’s wealth from. Show me one country created by another “non-profit”.
The South is full of huge mega churches (worth millions of dollars) that have been bought from nothing other than other people’s beliefs and they pay no taxes.
In most towns in Maine some of the most valuable buildings belong to churches and they pay no taxes while getting free services from the towns, cityand state governments.
You still have not defined church earnings that would be taxed. As for property taxes, lobby your legislature to do as you wish but keep in mind that it would be applicable to all charitable organizations as well as every left wing political organization you can think of.
LOL – like any politician would vote against the VFW, Lion’s, Shriner’s etc
I concur. This is not a grey area. They want to raise money to defeat a ballot item. Whether it is a referendum or a candidate–influencing a ballot item is a political agenda. Tax ’em!
“Hear, hear”.
So you are advocating that we penalize churches for expressing a social conscience? This seems like an example of the very brand of legalism you are objecting to in the first place. A pluralistic democratic society should reflect the opinions of ALL people–gay, religious or otherwise.
You are purposefully muddying the waters. If a priest or pastor or wiccan wants to use the pulpit to rail against anything they surely can do so because it is in their church, the people are followers, and they choose to be there. When you tell the government that you accept a tithe in order to do charitable works, tax exemptions are appropriate. As soon as that tithe money is taken not to do good works, but to involve yourself with government policy, you should lose your tax exempt status as you are no longer collecting money for that tax exempt purpose.
Same thing with supporting a candidate, I have no problem with the church coming out in support, but when they use tithe moneys to financially support a candidate, they should lose their exempt status.
No intention of obfuscation (i.e. “muddying), I simply disagree. If it’s okay for the church to collect and donate funds to the homeless and the hungry in our society, then it is also okay for them to apportion funds to a cause they feel important to their mission. The government’s role is to make sure that both gay marriage supporters and opposers are represented in the public debate, which will be decided by a public referendum.
Sure, and just as soon as they use those tax exempt monies for non exempt purposes they need to pay taxes. They have a voice for their mission, its a big building they don’t pay any tax on called the church. Anyone who wants to listen to them can go.
Let me get this straight. Are you suggesting that all political contributions be taxed as income?
Do you not find it objectionable for them to collect money to deny other citizens their civil rights.
I do not frame the debate that way. The issue is deviance from the norm. This is to be expected when a small percentage of people (gays) look to a large majority to “normalize” the acceptance of behaviors which many find perverse or repugnant.
I personally don’t see how the church honestly believes that gay marriage will undermine traditional marriage, so while I understand their position, I think they are objecting for the wrong reasons.
I also personally don’t believe that one’s sexual proclivity should be the basis for a political forum. Heterosexuals don’t face this struggle because civilizational societies regard man-woman unions as the natural order of things.
No matter how you frame it, you are trying to discriminate against American citizens. Hate framed as love is still hate.
I didn’t frame it as the church was passing judgement under the pretense of “love;” rather, I framed it as their aversion to something they find objectionable.
Many states found interracial marriage to be “perverse”, “repugnant” and a deviance from the norm.
Its not a penalty, its the LAW.
“The ban on political campaign activity by charities and churches was created by Congress more than a half century ago. The Internal Revenue Service administers the tax laws written by Congress and has enforcement authority over tax-exempt organizations. Here is some background information on the political campaign activity ban and the latest IRS enforcement statistics regarding its administration of this congressional ban.”
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=161131,00.html
When they lose their tax exempt status they should pay tax on all income.. including all donations made to them that exceed the annual free gift limit. Also, people who donate should not be able to deduct the donations from THEIR income.
Hate to disagree with you Mike, but if they’re supporting POLICY rather than specific POLITICIANS, then it is social engineering rather than “political.” So yanking their tax exempt status would, in fact, constitute some form of legal penalty. Either way, they have a legal right to express their opinion in a very public debate which will ultimately be decided by a citizen’s referendum.
I don’t mind disagreement, but I’m not persuaded. There’s nothing in “political campaign activity” that limits it to voting for “people” vs., “referendums”. Political is defined as “of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government.” When members of a tax-exempt charitable organization, as an organization and not as individuals, engage in activities to influence the process of government, they run afoul of the law’s exclusion. Apparently the IRS prosecutes plenty of these complaints.
The “Christian right” is neither.
If some churches want to pass the plate twice to oppose same-sex marriage, that’s up to them. If other churches want to pass the plate twice to support it, that’s for them to decide.
Both sides of same-sex marriage are looking to raise money to support their view. The supporters of same-sex marriage appear to worried about the opposition… but according to all their “polls, ” this time is supposed to be a slam-dunk “Done Deal.” Maybe not.
It voids their tax-exempt status either way.
Sickening. No wonder people are running (not walking) away from churches in record numbers. When will this madness end? They are turning more people off by these actions than attracting them to these churches.
Keep God in church but out of politics. If a church raises funds for political action then they should be taxed!!!
Any person who is apposed to bigotry should stand up and leave when the hate plate is passed around. There is no reason for a group that preaches love and tolerance to be so full of hate and spite. Shame on you.
“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.” Gandhi
I like that phrase because it really sums it all up…the HATE plate which is sooooooooooo far from the teachings of Christ.
It was the best way I could describe it.
They should have done something like this to protect children from pedophile priest.
Instead they used their tax exempt status money’s to send the child rapists off to New Mexico where they could perfect their techniques.
Oh nice. I see the Catholics are once again saying, “Do as I (God) say(s) not as I do.”
I’m sorry but the child sex scandal (still happening unfortunately) is still too fresh in my mind to take anything this cult says seriously. If they practice what they preach then I might not be so fast to dismiss their so called “beliefs”. Too many catholic boys have been molested by those church protected ministers. Yup, “do as I say, not as I do.” in it’s purist form.
And the Pentecostals, Advent Christian, Wesleyan, etc.
Not to mention no group in history got off so easy as the thousands of pedo priests worldwide.They were all allowed to “retire” and be “treated”You think the guy hiding behind a tree got such soft treatment?NOT.
It’s always curious to see the same conservative religious groups that insist that Pres. Obama is depriving them of their freedom become, as here, politically active in order to deprive others of their rights.
Not to mention the screaming that goes on if any judge rules using science and fact promulgated after the 16th century.Yet people like Roy Moore are held up as heroes when they should’ve been fired,jailed and had their gigantic pensions revoked!
Ahhhh yes those ‘loving’ and ‘accepting’ ‘christian churches’ who dislike and discriminate against everyone who are not just like them……the penultimate definition of hypocrisy, bigotry and hate. I’m sure NONE of them have ever been divorced, have tattoos, have worked on the Sabbath, all were virgins when they married, never eat/touch pork, never take the lords name in vain, don’t use birth control, never had an abortion….and the list goes on and on…. How does someone else (whom you in all likelihood you don’t know and have never met – not that it should matter either way) how does their marriage affect you or your life? and when did it become your business anymore than anyone else getting married is your business?? If the churches are going to get involved in politics and civil rights…then I think they can get involved in PAYING TAXES like the rest of us.
*Applauds*
This is so ignorant. Do we allow heterosexual people to marry their loving pets now?
A pet is not a consenting adult. Be serious.
How do you know that? Every evidence would indicate that they would be quite consenting of having that loving bond. See that wagging tail, that licking tongue? I am sure I can train a good dog to perform an approving bark.
Secondly, what does “adult” have to do with it? What does “consenting” have to do with? Young girls and boys have been married off for eons.
As soon as a pet can sign his/her name and giver verbal coherant answers to questions regarding their choice then you could argue that pets are consenting adults.
I am sure they can provide an paw print just like some can sign an x. Now look at what you have done. Only adults who can give verbal, coherent answers to questions qualify as having these rights. Deaf and dumb folks need not apply. All of a sudden you are defining who has the rights. The poor woman can’t marry hr loving pet? Aren’t you mean! What about her rights?
Incidentally, adult and consenting have no historical basis as conditions for marriage. These are very recent additions to societal expectations in the west.
Deaf people can speak or sign and people who cannot speak can be taught how to answer questions using the written word so you could substitute a written answer for a verbal answer.
As for a paw print, that would not be legal because it would be the same as a hand print (not legal) not a written X for a signature (legal).
As for adult and/or consenting, the fact that in the past a father or brother owned the female gave them, the rich property owning males, the right to enter their daughters/sisters and sometimes mothers into forced marriages. This was never the case with poor people, they never married for any reason other than love/raising a family.
Please show me one state or country that has legalized same-sex marriages where there is a movement to allow people to marry their pets. This is a straw man argument, and not a very good one, to try to enforce one’s religious belief’s (ie. bigotry) on everyone else.
Now if you wish to grant human rights on a pet for the purpose of marriage then you could always start a movement as you seem fascinated by the ability to marry one’s pet.
I can show you more states that have outlawed same sex marriage, including Maine. Civil rights are defined by a governed people either willingly or imposed. If something is not defined as a civil right, it is not one. That is what is missing in this whole discussion.
And I can show you a number of states that prevented interracial marriages until the SCOTUS ruled that those laws were illegal.
Unfortunately, the courts have had to step into the Civil Rights fray time after time because the majority simple don’t like to give up rights to the minority.
History has shown that the majority is often wrong when it comes to Civil Rights and the government or the courts have had to step in to make things right.
States had laws making interracial marriage illegal , as well as interdenominational marriages, and when those unjust restrictions were removed the world (or marriage as we know it) did not fall.
The same will be the case when, not if, SSM becomes the law of the land.
You do realize how ignorant your comments seem? It’s people like you that I fear most in this country, certainly not loving adults who wish to enter into a legal contract of marriage. You are the greatest threat to our freedom.
It is is ignorant to you because you have a myopic viewpoint and do not grasp the real issue, how we define “rights”
You are the only one who doesn’t grasp the real issue and have to bring animals into a discussion about American citizens and human beings. When an animal becomes an American citizen then they can fight for marriage equality, that is if they can speak and communicate and have the money to campaign.
You are digging your hole deeper and deeper. Deaf and dumb people can communicate just as well as others, and probably better than you.
===
OK, let’s try consenting humans, one is a 45 year old wealthy landowner and the other is a 13 year old precocious young girl. Step up and explain why the “civil rights” you claim for one group are not applicable to all groups. Such marriages were arranged for centuries including during our own national history. Forty years ago, homosexual marriages were promoted as “some twisted shock value” the point being that such arranged marriages that are deemed taboo today might once again be considered within the “rights” of parties.
This whole entitled “rights” business is a canard.
Might not wanna use that argument under a story about the church, The Holy See hasn’t updated their age of consent in a while…
Not being a Catholic, I don’t really care what the “see” has to state on the matter. However, just for argumentative purposes, the mother of Jesus was most likely a young teen girl when she was betrothed to Joseph. That aside, any 45 year old man that made such moves on my 13 year old daughter would have had a miserable life to live out for the remainder of his days.
—–
In all cases, marriage requires both parties to giver their consent, both by saying “I do” at the appropriate part of the ceremony, and by signing the application for a marriage license. States require people to obtain the legal “age of consent” before they are considered capable of giving that consent, or in some cases consent may be given by a parent or legal guardian. When you can show me a pet that can meet those qualifications, maybe then we can talk about marrying pets. Putting forth a facetious argument like this shows that you have no real grounds for your opinion.
OK Lib please follow along very closely. I will type very slowly so you will understand.
“How do you know that?”
First pets (dogs, cats, horses, etc…) do not have conscious thought. Second, they cannot give informed consent. Third, they cannot sign a legal binding contract.
~~~~~
“Every evidence would indicate that they would be quite consenting of having that loving bond.”
What you see are the actions of a pack animal. Pack animals look to a pack leader. Those pack leaders represent leaders to a pack animal.
~~~~~
“See that wagging tail, that licking tongue?”
Be careful interrupting that “wagging tail. How a dog carries the tail and the type of wag mean very different things in canine body language. That “wagging tail” and “licking tongue” may mean “that steak would look really good in my stomach”.
~~~~~
“I am sure I can train a good dog to perform an approving bark.”
Yup and I can teach a dog to dance too. Doesn’t mean they are Fred Astaire or Ginger Rogers.
~~~~~
“Secondly, what does “adult” have to do with it?”
Well lets see…what does the word “adult” mean. Someone that has reached the age of majority and has the legal ability to sign a contract.
~~~~~
“What does “consenting” have to do with?”
Well lets see…what does the work “consenting” mean. The ability to grant consent for medical procedures. The ability to give consent for a sexual relationship (without consent it becomes “rape”).
~~~~~
“Young girls and boys have been married off for eons.”
Yup, that was once true. I think it may still occur in some other countries….Maybe you would be more comfortable in one of those countries.
You are trying to explain logic to the illogical. Take my word for it – it’s a Fool’s errand. They don’t get it, and they’re not going to get it.
What a sad sad message for churches to give. It’s no wonder at all that I am anti religion. This is not the Christian message with which I was raised.
I so agree with Dane….you don’t pay taxes and separation of church and state…..you should have no right to raise money to fight any political platforms or anything. It’s time Churches paid taxes if they are going to do this crap
What makes these people so morally superior to make these judgements????? F.F.R. freedom from religion.
Visit and support FFRF(Freedom From Religion Foundation)Marvelous people doing great work.
Any church that is going to actively try to engage in politics they should lose their tax exempt status
Marriage is a religious ceremony between a man and a woman.
Usually performed in a church by the minister of the church.
Why do people who hold disdain for the church want to partake in a church ceremony ?
Totally confused illogical thinking.
Wow, so much wrong with that…
1. The state requires licenses to get a marriage
2. The state requires a license to perform a marriage
3. Religion does not hold the patent on marriage
4. You do not need to be of any religion to be licensed to perform marriages.
I will agree tho that I doubt too many homosexuals will be going to the priest and asking to be married in the church, but there are several other options available.
P.S. How is getting married in a drive thru chapel by an Elvis impersonator a religious ceremony? LOL
Marriage is a civil contractual agreement between two people, as evidenced by the license issued by the state. A WEDDING can be a religious ceremony, but without the legal document, it’s just all pomp and circumstance.
Churches have the right to refuse to perform a wedding to any one they wish.
Just like with everything else (school, court, coinage), they are just trying to take God out of it….
Whose god? There are several. If you want a Christian wedding, go have one, no one is stopping you. Nor is there anyone stopping anyone from having a Norse wedding, a Hindu wedding, or even a Jedi wedding. Don’t be all sour-grapey because your particular god is losing popularity.
Straight couples have been able to be married by a Justice of the Peace (Notary Public in Maine) forever. They are legally married. None of these marriages performed by a State representative (the JP/NP) have any mention whatsoever of God, religion, or any other hocus-pocus.
And, as far as removing religion from secular institutions – religion should be in churches and in oneself, not in institutions that exist to serve ALL the tax-paying citizens. How would you like to be sitting in class, listening to morning announcements over the PA, and then speaker stops, pauses, and says, “Now, let’s put down our prayer mats, point them toward Mecca, and perform the second of our 5 prayers today.”
Let’s keep ALL religions out of our secular world.
Marriage is a legal contract that has NOTHING to do with religious ceremony. Some people choose to have a religious ceremony but many of Americans get married outside of a church with no religion involved. You are confusing marriage with a wedding.
I know many evangelical Christians from my church who are taking a Godly stand against gay marriage. They believe in standing firm for biblical authority and principles.When Christians are asked if they attended church within the past week, about 45% say yes, that they have. That’s not a very impressive showing for “keeping the Sabbath Holy”, I know.But it gets worse.
When researched in small towns and actually counting the people in all the local churches it is shown that although 45% say they attended church, in truth only about half of them actually did. So not only did half of that 45% NOT keep the Sabbath, but they also LIED about it. Two commandments broken in one week.What percentage of Christians comply with the biblical mandate to tithe 10% of earnings?
80 % ? No. Maybe 60 %? No. How about 35 % ? No, not even close. Christians, who are so insistent on firmly supporting the authority of scripture and pointing out the failures of others to do so, tithe at the appallingly low rate of only 3 %! ( source: George Barna)Evangelical Christians are very critical of people who use the “pick and choose” bible, highlighting the verses they want and ignoring what they don’t like – but that is exactly what they do too. What is offensive to the sanctity of marriage? The 50% divorce rate maybe. The high rate of infidelity maybe. How about young people and senior citizens alike living together without the piece of paper called a marriage license….but those things don’t fire them up as much as the possibility of two people wanting to declare their love and commitment to each other who happen to be the same sex. Weird.Those “ggod Christians” we see in the old black and white film of the civil rights movement over 50 years ago – their faces contorted in anger as they scream slurs against blacks – they thought they were defending their faith too, trying to maintain the separation of the races, and justifying it with select bible passages.The “good” Christians today who are so quick to defend their faith against blessing gay relationships are being just as selective – they keep the Sabbath holy at a rate ONLY of around 25 percent, and ONLY an appalling 3 percent of Christians tithe their earnings – so the “truth” about the bible and the things we “defend” are extremely selective, while we conveniently ignore the love and mercy themes of scriptures, and display our tendency to become the Pharisees which Jesus railed against.It isn’t the Holy Spirit guiding us to campaign against gay marriage, it is our deeply entrenched prejudices – just like back in the 1950’s.
You know absolutely nothing of Christianity and yet felt qualified to speak on what you believe to be wrong with it. Identifying oneself as a Christian and being one are entirely different.
Proverbs 12:23A prudent man conceals knowledge, But the heart of fools proclaims foolishness.
You have self identified…
maineak99, you know nothing but think you know everything.
I agree – just because I am an elder in the church, led the session, and went to the denomination’s national assembly to advocate for an issue – does not necessarily mean I am a real Christian. But since I accept Jesus as my savior and acknowledge myself as a sinner with no ability to cleanse myself, totally dependent upon the grace and mercy of God – that is what makes me a Christian. Atheists are not a danger to Christianity, hypocritical and judgmental Christians are. Too many evangelicals think they own the truth. …totally lacking any humility. Too assume you perfectly interpret the bible means you either think you are smarter than everyone else in the world, or you are the holiest person in the world with special insights from the Lord Almighty. 1 out of a hundred people reads the bible. the other 99 read the Christian.
Best post I’ve seen in a very long time.A thousand likes if I could.Many thanks.
How unchristian, better they collect to aid the needy among us.
That’s more BS than a cow farm has. The church is a business, not a person, and business with multi-million dollar profits should have to pay tax. It’s very plain and simple. If they want a say in how America is governed, then they need to pay taxes like the rest of us. Your 48% fable is 100% BS. If the same taxes were levied against the church, as they are against every citizen in this country, the church would not fall into the income bracket that receive a tax refund. They would end up owing taxes at the end of the year.Paying property tax, sales tax and excise tax is part of what keeps this country running, by funding our government. Again, if the church wants a say in the government, they should have to pay their taxes, just like the rest of us.
I’m not sure – if we tax them, then they have the right to annoy us even more! They might actually get some of the blue laws back on the books. You’d never get them to shut up. Always running around trying to save everyone. It will be more annoying than that “ring around the collar” commercial from years ago.
All this anti-church sentiment and ‘make em pay’ comments coming from the residents of the least religious state in the country…
Who would have guessed?
Reason #1 why this is “Life As It Should Be”
Shame on them for getting into this controversy. Their collections should be used to help fund other things, such as helping the poor, of which Maine has many.
Why are people so afraid of their neighbors exercising their freedom of religion?
The usual spitting on the Constitution by those who have not only gotten a free ride but destroyed this country for more than two centuries.Tax them until there’s nothing left. Suport the freedom of those who truly support and READ the Constitution.
As many posters have said already, if they want to raise money for political purpose, TAX THEM!!! In regard to their paragraph regarding “ideal” situations for children. Do these folks not read the news? Doesn’t appear to me that the straight population is doing a great job of child rearing these days. I guess they would prefer to see the kids get beaten or killed than to see such unfortunate children be loved and cared for, regardless of who it is with. I agree, a perfect world would be nice, but it’s not going to happen so why continue to be so damn hateful? That is exactly what it is. Hateful.
Funny how it’s ok for SSM to bring in all the outside money and influence they want to support their feel good, I’m normal agenda but when Maine churches join together to raise money to oppose them it’s wrong.
The pro SSM groups have complied with the law scrupulously.The antis have not and never will unless forced.
Tax them. They want to play in policy-making? Tax them. There’s no other way to look at this. Separation of church and state is what makes America ‘exceptional’ (don’t the republicans just love that word?). Tax tax tax and tax some more. Or stop talking politics from the pulpit.
Some churches are going off the slippery slope which will hurt them all. I am a christian and believe that same sex marriage is wrong, but the churches role is to preach christianity, not politics. Anti -obama, anti -gay, anti this and anti that will get the church in hot water. I don’t go to church to listen to a preacher rag on about Obama or any other politican. I have my own mind and I can do the rest my self, thank you very much. The church should be warned to stay on message or it will reap the harvest it will sow.
This is a major political / Moral issue that involves the basic believes of our faith. If the church (believers) don’t get involved is like saying we support gay married. There is a reason Maine is the least religious state in the USA, because we have been in the back ground as our faith has been attached slowly over time (prayer in schools, abortion, Ten Commandments removed from buildings). The ACLU has been steady going to court to removing GOD from our society. If the Christians don’t stand up and fight we are going to lose all our rights.
One last thing churches might not be “made” to do Gay weddings, but christian businesses won’t be able to say no because it will be discrimination and they will be sued.
What your saying is true, but the church must unite, then clean up it’s own act first such as Bishop Gene Robinson. Any non believer looking for the right direction would be between a rock and a hard place if he listened to Robinson and company, then, the rest of us. They would probably shake their head and walk off.
No offense meant towards anyone’s religion but there is a separation of church and state in our country. Also it bothers me that the churches are exempt from taxes therefore should be exempt for political lobbying. Let your parishioners decide for themselves as it is your God that is your judge not a minister or priest. This is just my opinion and I asked that I not get bashed as my intent is not to irate anyone just make them think a little deeper I hope. As I publish this I also see I am not alone in my thought process.
Stories like these confirm that I made the right decision years ago to stop supporting hypocrites who claim to be spreading the word of god. I would rather donate all my money to the equality maine referendum than give a plug nickel to these religious rats who want to shove their fanaticism down everyone’s throats.
Homophobia is not a family value
So is God going to judge two people of the same sex who love each other, but not judge you for hating someone you don’t know? ….good luck with that, hypocrites !