Former Gov. John Baldacci will be ladling out the sauce again next week in Bangor and Portland at events sponsored by Catholics for Marriage Equality and the Religious Coalition Against Discrimination.

The money raised at the events will be donated to organizations that support the homeless in Bangor and Portland rather than to Mainers United for Marriage, the campaign to allow same-sex marriage in Maine. The events are designed, however, to raise awareness about Question 1, which is on the Nov. 6 ballot. It will ask voters to allow marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples.

“I’m very committed to this issue because I believe in civil same-sex marriage,” Baldacci said Monday in a telephone interview. “I know how important it is for Mainers to stand up against discrimination. My way to get involved was with these fundraisers. All I asked was that all the proceeds go to charity so that we put others before politics.”

Baldacci’s spaghetti suppers were a staple of his campaigns for the Legislature, Congress and the governor’s mansion. The money always went to a local charity, not into the campaign coffers. The suppers helped raise Baldacci’s profile and that of the family restaurant. Momma Baldacci’s, which closed in 2006.

Three years ago, the Maine Legislature passed and Baldacci signed into law a bill that allowed same-sex couples to marry in Maine but included a religious exemption. It was repealed the following November in a statewide referendum, 53 percent to 47 percent.

After the loss at the ballot box, EqualityMaine began gathering signatures in August 2011 to put a question before voters again. The Maine secretary of state’s office announced in February that enough valid signatures had been turned in to put the question on the ballot.

Baldacci said Monday that his decision to sign the gay marriage bill into law was rooted in the Maine Constitution, not his Catholic upbringing.

“We grew up with President Kennedy running for office where he had to draw a very strict line between church and state,” the former governor said. “[Protestant] ministers felt the pope would dictate policy. When I assumed office, I represented all people, regardless of their or my religious backgrounds.”

In his weekly radio address that aired shortly after he signed the bill three years ago, Baldacci cited the Maine Constitution, which says that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person’s civil rights or be discriminated against.”

The last spaghetti supper Baldacci hosted also was prompted by the battle over gay marriage in Maine. It drew more than 900 people

in April 2010 to the Italian Heritage Center in Portland, according to a story published in the Portland Press Herald. It was organized to raise money for the Preble Street Resources Center in Portland after the Catholic Church withdrew funds for the center’s Homeless Voices for Justice program because staff at Preble Street publicly opposed the repeal of the same-sex marriage law.

Homeless Voices for Justice is a statewide social change movement, organized and led by people who have struggled with homelessness, according to information on its website. One of its goals is to help disenfranchised people become empowered and gain leadership skills to organize and advocate for institutional change.

The organization lost nearly $50,000 when the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland and the Washington-based Catholic Campaign for Human Development alleged that Homeless Voices for Justice violated the terms of its grant by opposing the repeal of the same-sex marriage law.

Many Catholics, including Baldacci and Anne Underwood of Topsham, disagree with the church’s stand on the issue of gay marriage. They have been more vocal this year than they were in 2009.

Bishop Richard J. Malone, head of the diocese, said early in this year’s campaign that the diocese would not give money to Protect Marriage Maine, the group opposing the referendum, or lend staff to the campaign.

Three years ago, the diocese gave $500,000 to the repeal effort and lent Marc Mutty, director of public policy, to the campaign full time.

Malone moved to New York in August after he was named bishop of the Diocese of Albany. He remains administratively in charge of Maine’s Catholics until a new bishop is named. Malone said earlier this year that he would use the ballot question to educate his flock on the church’s policy on marriage but the diocese would not contribute to or be part of the 2012 campaign.

Underwood helped found Catholics for Marriage Equality three years ago after Malone pulled the Preble Street funding. An attorney who is a member of Sacred Heart Parish in Portland, Underwood said in a telephone interview Monday that her support of same-sex marriage is rooted in the social justice tradition of the Catholic Church.

Raised a Presbyterian, Underwood said she converted to Catholicism in 1996. What attracted her to the faith was the liturgy.

“The liturgy forms for me a spiritual foundation to go forward with my social justice work,” she said. “What I really loved when I converted was that, especially in the 1990s, the Catholic Church was such a wonderfully big tent. I could testify against [other Catholics] in Augusta on Wednesday and take communion with them on Sunday. We transcended all that political stuff.”

Malone’s activism in the 2009 campaign spurred her and other Catholics to action. She said Monday that her decision to go against the official teaching of the church was made after searching her conscience.

“The undergirding of Catholic intellectual history is the primacy of the conscience,” she said. “There is an obligation on the part of Catholics to form one’s own conscience based on one’s own reading and one’s understanding of the Gospel and church teaching. If one’s conscience says I can’t do that, then one is obligated to follow one’s own conscience.

“How we live within the institution enriches us but also challenges us,” Underwood continued. “If we go against the church, we must do so carefully, conscientiously and prayerfully. It is the duty of a Catholic to inform his or her conscience and follow it.”

The spaghetti suppers will be held at 5 p.m. Wednesday, Oct. 17, at Bangor High School, 885 Broadway, in Bangor and at 5 p.m. Friday, Oct. 26, at the Maine Irish Heritage Center, 34 Gray St. in Portland. The suggested donation is $5 person, but larger donations will be accepted.

For information, visit www.catholicsformarriageequality.net.

Join the Conversation

83 Comments

  1. How can they use the high school for this event. I don’t see how baldacci can call himself catholic

    1. A public school that allows private groups to rent it after hours cannot discriminate based on the Maine Civil Rights Act.

      1. Doing good works in the name of something evil does not whitewash the sin. Marriage is a holy sacrament, one of only 7 in the Church.

        1. Only in the Catholic Church.  Marriage is not a sacrament in most if not all Protestant churches.  More spin by the Catholics.  Once agian, does not apply outside the CC especially not in the civil sector.

          1. And what about the faiths that do ?

            Oh, I get it, you want to dictate to everybody else’s religion.

            Got it.

        2. Do you think that everyone in the state should live as you and follow the teachings of the Catholic church?

        3. so, how about all the marriages (like mine) that were not held in a church, or performed by a member of the clergy? Marriage by JOP, or judges? Are those not valid marriages?

      2. The homosexual marriage folks often quote “don’t judge”, but never, ever follow it with the full lesson of the Church, which are the words, “go and sin no more”.  Why? Because their “equality” is to extend into urges and actions, which is what you have in this relentless quest to make a “new normal” for our culture. This will go along the same path as abortion (choice for the squeamish), and no-fault divorce. Aren’t we a better, more enlightened  society?
        Jesus would likely hang out with the gays. However, you’re saying he would bless their behavior. Doubt it. The Church supports our human rights and dignity, all of us.

        1. You are talking about the law of your church, I am speaking about the law of our land. You also mention no-fault divorce that is a problem amongst the heterosexual population. I believe there is a quote in the bible that states “judge not lest thy be judged”.

    2. So, what are going to have done, excommunicate him?  Church staying out of politics?  Sounds like he has a lot of company, including other Catholics for yes on Question 1.

        1. what a numb comment. Bishop Malone got promoted to Buffalo, a much bigger flock.  The Pope will name a new Bishop for Maine when he finds a suitable candidate. In the meantime, Bishop Malone is handling both Maine and New York.  

    3. I believe Baldacci can call himself catholic even as he disagrees with the Catholic church, The change from lower case to upper case C changes the definition.

      1. True, many Protestant churches use catholic (lower case, meaning universal) in their Creeds.  However, I’ll call Baldacci (and the others of like mind) a Catholic even if The Church excommunicates him (and them).

    4. I’m Catholic and support Marriage Equality. I go to Church to pray. I don’t go to Church to be lectured about how I should vote this upcoming election.

      1. A true catholic supports their Church and its sacraments.  Maybe you should become an Episcopalian.

        1. May-be if they stopped the things they do to abuse children …
          like make them Catholic before they can protest.

        2. A true Christian questions all aspects of faith and the Church.  The RCC does not have a monopoly on the Christian faith.

          1. mattOT…..guess you don’t recognize sarcasm….and since you don’t know me, cannot say that I am a true Christian. 

      2. You should do your soul a favor and read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  You have a free will you do not have to be a Catholic, but you do not have right to make the Church into your image and likeness. Stop using the Church to promote what you want.

  2. Too bad he didn’t spend some time while in office on the ethics of pushing his soon to be jobless top aides like Ryan Low and Rebecca Wyke on the UMaine System without searches. Too bad he cared nothing about his Orono alma mater beyond sports/sports facilities. Too bad he appointed anti-union Republicans to the UME System Board of Trustees, with devastating consequences for all ordinary employees. He was a great disappointment as Governor and deserves only contempt.

  3. He made a mess of this State and they praise him for handing out food.. Old town dump for one. Him and Jack Cashman ought to have their names on a sign up there.. 8 years of bonding 250 millon a year for a total of 2 billon of debt. Thats without the inflated budgets. . messing with the schools. I went to some of the meetings and they screened the questions to be asked.LOL. The liquor stores.  The Maine rurn pike, Maine housing, etc, etc, etc I don’t know if it stops. 

      1. Well, to be fair, I don’t use my real name because I have experienced backlash.  This forum is open to the entire world and it’s not worth it to use my real name here.

  4. My complaint on this whole thing is any use of the word “marriage.”  I’m not crazy about the advancement of the gay culture, as I see lots of potential for ongoing psychological problems when children are involved. And i don’t care if it is only ONE child. It’s one too many! But disregarding that, I dislike most the use of the word “marriage” in what they want to do. If they want to call it “unions” or something different, yet let the laws give them all the identical legal aspects of marriage, then I wouldn’t disagree. But for them to taint the word marriage, for what it has meant since time began, is just WRONG!! If you buy a hot dog, from a local vendor, and ask for just ketchup on it, that is what you expect. You don’t want to walk away and discover it has mustard on it—and when you complain to the vendor he says….”Oh—haven’t you heard. Mustard wants to be called ketchup now too”  Gay unions are NOT marriage. Vote to keep my views of marriage sacred—and I’ll be sure to vote against any laws to make mustard ketchup!

    1. It doesn’t have any effect on your life. What do you care? People try to talk about it like it’s a social issue. Like when you see someone stand up on a talk show and say ‘How am I supposed to explain to my child that two men are getting married?’ I dunno, it’s your kid, you tell ’em. Why is that anyone else’s problem? Two guys are in love but they can’t get married because you don’t want to talk to your child for five minutes?

      1. I wasn’t referring to harm done to my children or my ability to explain it. I was referring to harm done to children put into same sex relationships. There are many children that will tell you that the loving environment was wonderful. But there are also many children that are confused by it all and will be picked on by others that are less understanding. They feel like outcasts in school and around others and have a hard time dealing with it. Many children end up with psychological scars for life. These are the things that have an impact on ALL of society. But in my comments I said I was disregarding that and focusing on the word “marriage” and how I didn’t want that to be changed to incorporate same sex marriages—or “unions” as I would prefer to hear them called. If I tell someone I am married, I don’t want them asking..”Is it a gal or a guy?” I don’t want mustard being called ketchup—and I don’t want to buy a Toyota and come home to find out it’s a Honda. I am bothered by the confusion created of a word that had meant one thing, and only one thing, since time began. Same sex people can have whatever name they want for their bonding too. At the least, I would be ok with the use of marriage if ALWAYS couple with an additional word such as “union marriage” or bonding marriage” or anything that differentiates it from the single word. But PLEASE leave traditional marriage alone. I don’t think that is too much to ask for in a trade off—do you. 

        1. “I was referring to harm done to children put into same sex relationships. ” – Really now, because all of the credible studies done on this subject say otherwise.

          1. CRS5012723—my main comments were about the use of the word “marriage” and not about the children. However, in my first comment I wanted to add that I wasn’t pleased with the possible damage done to even one child. I then went back to my MAIN topic of the word marriage. But the person’s rebuttal showed that they thought I was referring to my problem telling my own child about it and that I shouldn’t view it as a problem to society. I went back to correct them and say that it was about the children in a same sex marriages that I was referring to. I then told them I did not agree that it wasn’t a SOCIAL problem and explained why. I now have you suggesting surveys say that same sex marriages are good for the children. If you look back you will see that I agreed that some are and some aren’t. So unless you can point me in the direction of surveys that say same sex marriages are 100% successful for the children involved—then I will continue to say that they are not good for ALL the children and that it is sad if even ONE child has to be damaged by it. I would hope that you would agree. Now as for the idea of having a separate word, or words, for same sex marriages. Are you ok with that?

          2. “So unless you can point me in the direction of surveys that say same sex marriages are 100% successful for the children involved..” – The same can be said about children raised by opposite sex parents.  Bad parents are bad parents, period.  It has nothing to do with sexual orientation. 

            “Now as for the idea of having a separate word, or words, for same sex marriages.” – Separate but equal was ruled unconstitutional a long time ago.

          3. Society is what it is. There will always be conflicts with same sex marriages as there will be with interracial marriages. I am not condoning it. I am just saying that only idiots would not take that into consideration. So sure—opposite sex marriages have their problems too. I’m just saying that it is sad to add in yet another conflict for children to have to deal with. For adults that choose it, they can handle it or they wouldn’t have done it. But children are often thrust into these same conflicting situations and many are not able to cope with it.

            Now back to your comment of “Separate but equal was ruled unconstitutional a long time ago.” There you go! You have your answer of why the word marriage should be left as it is. The courts recognize it as different than same sex unions, hence they wouldn’t issue the same legalities to unions. I’m sure there have been same sex encounters since time began too. Yet “marriage” was not established to recognize those. Marriage was between two people of the opposite sex. Same sex unions are NOT the same. So in an effort to obtain the same legal regulations as traditional marriage allows, a MINORITY is driving a wedge into the word marriage so that “same sex” can be inserted for their own financial and legal gains. This is the height of SELFISHNESS and lack of concern for damage done to others. But we are fast becoming a society of complainers. If one person out of 2,000, handling a board, gets a splinter, then suddenly all lumber mills must sand their boards smooth. I don’t want to have to ask for ketchup on my hot dog and then go on to specify the red kind–not the yellow. Ketchup is RED—mustard is YELLOW! Marriages are marriages—unions are unions!! Let same sex couples work on getting there OWN laws to allow all that married people have. Stop trying to rewrite Webster and hurt people that were there before THEY were!

          4. “There you go! You have your answer of why the word marriage should be left as it is.  ” – No, that is actually the answer to why we legally cannot have two different institutions for the same thing.

            “The courts recognize it as different than same sex unions, hence they wouldn’t issue the same legalities to unions.” – What does that even mean?  FIVE different federal courts have found that same sex marriage is protected under the 14th Amendment.

            “This is the height of SELFISHNESS and lack of concern for damage done to others.” – Really, because refusing to let anyone else use a word that you have no ownership of is pretty selfish.

            “Yet “marriage” was not established to recognize those.” – You have not done your research.  Native Americans had same sex marriages.

            “Ketchup is RED—mustard is YELLOW!” – Wow, really?  That is one of the worst arguments against same sex marriage I have ever heard.  I honestly think I lost a few I.Q. points reading that.  Besides, you also seem to forget a couple years ago Heinz released purple and gree ketchup.

            You can rant and rave all you want, your “solution” is unconstitutional. Either everyone gets marriages or everyone gets civil unions. Don’t like it, tough.

          5. You obviously are not digesting all that I
            write.  I clearly stated that perhaps same sex people should work at getting
            laws that will give them the SAME rights as traditional marriage provides for
            those people.  I mean think about it.  All the tax credits and many other legal
            rights, given to married people, were initiated for THEM.  There were no same
            sex people mentioned in those laws.  So here are the laws, now established, and
            the only way same sex people can find to get them is to invade the word
            “marriage” to incorporate themselves into it too. Of course my statement on
            ketchup and mustard came from my initial scenario of mustard suddenly wanting to
            be called Ketchup and how ridiculous it was—as it was different.  But you come
            back with some idiotic statement about blue and green ketchup as if that beats
            up what I was trying to convey.  Then to suggest that holding onto a word for
            it’s true meaning is selfish—is the craziest thing yet.  Does that mean if we
            label gas as water—you hope the fire department puts your house fire out with
            gas.  Or if you send someone to the store for grape jelly, you are ok if they
            bring home a loaf of bread—because that is what they decided to call jelly. 
            Suddenly you have got me laughing.  I thought it was a serious discussion until
            you went to Fantasy Island on me.  I even see some typos where you have probably been
            beating feverishly on the keyboard for your last comments.  Plus I LOVED your
            final words.  The traditional angry and vindictive response of  basically “like it or lump
            it.”   You hang in there sunshine.  The plane will arrive soon to take you
            home;-))  You have been fun to talk to
            crs5012723.  But I think it’s time to let you go.  You’re starting to unravel on
            me;-))  Have a great evening anyway.

          6. “You obviously are not digesting all that I write. I clearly stated that perhaps same sex people should work at getting laws that will give them the SAME rights as traditional marriage provides for those people.” – You are ignoring reality.  That is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

            “But you come back with some idiotic statement about blue and green ketchup as if that beats up what I was trying to convey” – You said ”  I don’t want to have to ask for ketchup on my hot dog and then go on to specify the red kind” Guess what, there are other colors of ketchup, just like there are other forms of marriage.

            ” Does that mean if we label gas as water—you hope the fire department puts your house fire out with gas.” – Psst, there is a factual, scientific reason supporting the difference between gas and water.  You don’t have that scientific, factual reason.  But, reading your post, it makes sense,  “facts” and “reasoning” aren’t your strong suit.

            But, I must say, it has been fun talking to you too.  Trying to understand your incoherent rambling has been like a challenging puzzle.  I must also say that if this is the best your side has, we’ll have marriage equality in no time.

          7. I think that more children are “damaged” by opposite sex families than by same sex families.

            It really bothers me that people focus on the potential harm to children that might result from a same-sex couple having a child.  Why are we held to a much higher level than straight families?  If you want to save even just one child, why not ban families all together?  Raise the children in group homes where they can be monitored 24/7 to ensure that no child is harmed.  It’s unfair raise the issue of potential damage caused by this situation and ignore the real damage that occurs every day.

        2. Once again, poor analogy, due to a blindered definition.  As for harm, no harm (there is none) no foul.

        3. I’m not sure it’s fair to shift the blame for being picked on to the same-sex parents from the bullies doing the teasing.  It would be better to address the children who are intolerant and causing the psychological scars.  

          Traditional marriage will still be available, but there were be fewer people forced by society into such marriages.  I know MANY people who grew up in Maine in the 1970s-2000s who have been pressured into marrying someone of the opposite gender.   I see that you want these people to have that freedom to choose to be with the person they love.  But what exactly does marriage mean to you?  Marriage means so many different things right now to straight people.  It can mean love forever, security, companionship, stability, children, income, happiness, etc.  Marriage means something beyond the simple mantra of “ONE MAN ONE WOMAN” and a good number of people, straight and gay, believe that-not just me. 

          There are also many people who believe the purpose of marriage is to procreate.  That is fine for them, but we all know that that isn’t the way people think of marriage anymore.  Society changes and, quite frankly, I like the changes that have occurred these past 40+ years.  But if one doesn’t like these changes, there is nothing stopping him or her from continuing to live life they way it was lived 40 years ago.  It’s just that many of us want more.

      2. If the man can’t explain to there kids why they want to get married than the couple or man should not of had kids thats part on the parents  being a parent

    2. Can you prove that kids will have psychological  problems  ?  what scientific evendance do you have ? How long was the study done an were was it done  how many kids were involved  ?

      1. Please note that I am referring to the “stigma” that relates to it and causes the types of teasing that are done by other children and things such as that. I am not suggesting that a loving relationship can not raise happy children. I expressed that waaaay back. Also my main subject was supposed to be about invading the word “marriage.” But it seems everyone has gone spastic on my “children remark.” So to partially answer your question, there ARE reports that suggest harm, as I’m sure you have a list of places that say the opposite. I’m not going to waste my time listing places for you—as I said that was not my initial intention with my first article. I do believe that you can find some reports at Mayo Clinic on “Borderline personality disorder” that relate to it, if you want to take the time to look.  I hope you would see them as a reliable source.  I have also seen a girl crying her eyes out on just the reasons that I mentioned above—of feeling that everyone was judging her over her same sex parents.  We’d have to all be idiots to think that doesn’t happen.  

        But here is a thought. Perhaps someone that has had a bad experience being raised in a same sex marriage—or someone that has a friend that has—will see this and tell us their story. I know the chances are slim that anyone will, that has been in that situation.  And don’t go tell me “Because there aren’t any such people”  Geeze!!  This is just one small statement in a sea of articles.  But let’s give it a try anyway. So how about it? Is anyone out there aware of psychiatric harm being done by being raised in a same sex marriage?

        1. “Please note that I am referring to the “stigma” that relates to it and causes the types of teasing that are done by other children and things such as that.” – Children will find a reason to bully.

          ”  So to partially answer your question, there ARE reports that suggest harm, as I’m sure you have a list of places that say the opposite. I’m not going to waste my time listing places for you—as I said that was not my initial intention with my first article.  ” – So, you are going to make a claim, but then not back it up?  Guess what, until you back up your claim, you claim is worthless.

          “But here is a thought. Perhaps someone that has had a bad experience being raised in a same sex marriage—or someone that has a friend that has—will see this and tell us their story.” – Anecdotal “evidence” is also worthless.  We could just as easily find someone who had an amazing experience being raised by same sex parents.

    3. Very poor, irrelevant analogy.  Remember, the definition of marriage is civil, not religious.  However, I’ll grant you that a the definition of a religious marriage is up to the church involved.  However, those married even in a church have to have a civil marriage license.

    4. That is a hypotho-theory.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD-INsIbVcw    There are people born with both sexes, there are people born with two sets of DNA, there are people who get sex-change operations. Your argument is invalid.

  5. Baldacci’s special sauce alright.  In the pic he’s got the pasta.  If you’re a no voter “no sauce for you!”

  6. Sorry, former governor, but this is not very impressive–Catholics for Equality and Religious Coalition Against Discrimination–both hypocritical in stating that they are Catholic and Religious– and being held at Bangor High School?  I thought political events were not allowed in the schools, because you democrats/liberals constantly hype the “separation of church and state!”

    1. Political events not allowed in schools? Don’t know the rule on that one, but if I remember correctly, in the 2009 campaign, Sherry Gould used a classroom in the PUBLIC school she works in to make her ad for same sex marriage.  Did the taxpayers have any say in how the schoo was used?

    2. I think you’re a bit confused – ” I thought political events were not allowed in the schools, because you democrats/liberals constantly hype the “separation of church and state!”

      Political events are not religious events/ceremonies. When us democrats/liberals are talking about religion and schools, it’s referring to the teaching of religion in public schools. Political events happen quite often in school gyms and auditoriums,  it’s perfectly legal, and both parties take advantage of that. 

  7. Let’s see if this “Catholic” organization continues it’s work with these hosting schools and communities after the referendum, doing good deeds. Otherwise, this is politically using the name of The Church to work against it’s teaching, while wrapping the effort in a good deed.

    1. Nope, they’re using the name as a group of Catholic Christians who don’t agree (OMG, the temerity, the heresy!) with RCC teachings.

  8. Can not believe they allow this at public high schools. Wonder if the drug dealers or prostitutes are next week.We wonder why the news every night in our state is getting so bad.This is another reason to never let the dems get control of the state again.

    1. Yes.  Of course.  Loving same-sex couples are just like drug dealers or prostitutes.  What a moronic and vacuous statement. 

  9. There was a time when sodomy was against the law.  Now we have people like Baldacci concerned about sodomites being discriminated against.  This issue has nothing to do with discrimination, love or compassion.  This issue is all about the perverse lifestyle of homosexuals  and their demand for acceptance.  The truth should be told every day, everywhere and that truth is that homosexuality is an abomination to God.  Any true believer who has read the Bible can tell you that homosexuality is mentioned several times and it is written that it is a sin, it’s forbidden, and its offensive to God!  Only since the people of this country have turned their backs to God has this trend of acceptance spread.    Since this issue is forced upon us once again, then tell it like it really is!   Come on, Baldacci.  While you’re dishing out your food, explain to your guests what homosexuals do to each other and how you’re in favor of it.  Ask if they if they think this is natural? Tell them why teachers should tell the children what homosexuals do to each other.   Why hide the truth?  Why cover it up with pretty little words like “gay”?   Let’s have an honest discussion of what this issue is really all about.   

    1. heterosexuals are known for sodomy – it’s not just a male homosexual activity. 

      Why do you honestly care what two adults do in their own bedroom anyway? Being gay is not about the sex, just like in a heterosexual relationship. Relationships are not built by sex, but by love and trust. 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *