LEWISTON, Maine — Christian Breau believes all Mainers ought to be treated equally.

“It’s time,” he said in a recent Facebook posting.

Raised Catholic and a regular churchgoer until he went to college, Breau knows his church and many in it are opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage in Maine. The issue will go before voters Nov. 6.

Breau said people who have faith in Christian beliefs should recognize they are not the ones to pass judgment on others.

“It does not affect my marriage and my life at all to allow other loving life partners to finally enjoy the same rights that I have,” Breau said. “If this is against your religion, then let God deal with the ‘sin.’ You and I were not meant to be the judges; we were meant to love others as we would be loved.”

Breau said he’s not much of a practicing Catholic anymore, but he was taught by his mother at a young age that true love is unconditional, and that’s a Christian value, too. But law and religion should be kept separate in America, he said.

“The Bible has no place in our laws,” Breau said. “That’s religion, and I have no right to force my religious beliefs on people who believe differently than me.”

He said it’s hypocritical of heterosexuals of Christian faith to say who should and should not be married, given the divorce rate in America.

“(It will be) interesting to see if gay couples have a lower divorce rate than the embarrassing rate that we (heterosexuals) have,” Breau wrote. “We’ve set the bar pretty low.”

Others of the Catholic faith, including former Maine Gov. John Baldacci, who once opposed same-sex marriage, share some of Breau’s views.

In a recent interview, Baldacci said his views on same-sex marriage have changed.

A lifelong Catholic, he said his faith is still strong and he still supports all the good work the church does in the U.S. and around the world. But as an individual, he can’t support its position on same-sex marriage.

Maine people, Baldacci said, are also more accepting and inclined to live and let live. But the state’s very foundation is based in freedom, Baldacci said.

“Maine is a state that doesn’t discriminate,” Baldacci said. “We came into the Union by the Missouri Compromise; Maine came in as a free state. I’ve always believed as governor that there’s something in the water and the air in this state that protects individuals against discrimination.”

Baldacci said he believes most Maine people recognize that if discrimination against any group of people is tolerated, discrimination could be pushed on any group.

“I think when we feel discrimination against anyone, there’s a sense that it could happen to any one of us also and we’ve got to stand together,” Baldacci said. “It’s almost a Libertarian quality this state has, more than any particular political party.”

The former governor said he knows reconciling this concept with one’s personal faith can be difficult.

“This is an issue which is not an easy issue in terms of people’s understanding, because in a lot of cases it’s something we were not exposed to early on, growing up,” he said. “Recognizing that people do want to live together, love together and become a family together is something to be appreciated, especially in the difficult, challenging world that we live in.”

Baldacci said when he was governor, he was more comfortable recognizing civil unions, rather than gay marriage “because I always had the understanding that marriage was something that was conveyed by the church and civil union was recognized by the state, and there’s been a separation of church and state.”

He said the referendum question before voters does nothing to erode that separation and that churches are still free to practice their beliefs, including not marrying same-sex couples.

It allows same-sex marriages to be recognized under the law and grants same-sex partners all of the rights that married people have.

“It’s important to treat people equally and not have people in different categories of unions, because the Constitution is for all of us. It’s equal protection for all of us citizens,” Baldacci said.

He said Maine people should celebrate whenever two people want to make a lifelong commitment to each other.

Reconciling his views on same-sex marriage with his own faith was something that wasn’t simple, but Baldacci said it doesn’t diminish his faith.

“I have a tremendous amount of respect for the bishop and for the work the bishop does and for the Catholic church,” Baldacci said. “I was an altar boy, and I still go to church and believe in it very strongly.”

But Baldacci said his life experience included growing up when John Kennedy, the country’s first Catholic president, had to go to certain religious groups, such as the Convention of Southern Baptist Ministers, to “assure them that the church, the Pope were not going to dictate policies to him as president of the United States out of the Oval Office.”

Kennedy’s response was a promise that a very clear separation of church and state would remain, Baldacci said.

Kennedy also advocated the idea that when you held a high elected office in the United States, you were there to represent all faiths and all people, Baldacci said.

“There’s an understanding that we are not all of the same faith or all of the same background, but we are all Americans,” Baldacci said.

He said he drew encouragement and confidence on his decision to support same-sex marriage based on the way Kennedy wrestled with the issues.

“How he drew a strong line between church and state is where I felt, as governor of the state of Maine and as an individual citizen under the Constitution, that the same rights and freedoms that I enjoy should be available for all people, regardless of their religious background, their racial background, their sexual orientation,” Baldacci said. “We are all people, and we should all be treated equally under the Constitution.”

Scott Thistle is the State Politics Editor for the Lewiston Sun Journal. He has covered federal, state and local politics in Maine for nearly two decades.

Join the Conversation

147 Comments

  1. I think this is spot on. This isn’t about protecting traditional values — you can tell because they’re making absolutely no attempt at a legal remedy to divorce. 

      1. So why not do the same to every one that commits a sin an that would include you to an your wife an kids now that fair

        1. wolly, clues are free today.  Reread Wayne’s post.  It was in reference to Noleman’s comment.

    1. I sure will be glad when this gets voted down again and everyone can debate what  creep/loser/idiot/blah,blah,blah gets to be president  and continue pushing this country into a 3rd world nation of poverty.

      1. The only thing pushing America into poverty is so-called ‘jobs creators’ ONLY creating part-time jobs at minimum wage with no benefits.

        Meanwhile, back at the topic, voting on OTHER people’s rights and freedoms is both an affront to the Constitution and an obscenity unworthy of the promises America makes to ALL citizens.

        Shame on your.

        1. Well are they both not saying they’ll create jobs. It’s not their job to create jobs, it’s their job to lighten up the laws and B.S. so more people can start businesses.
           The thing is ALL citzens have a right to get married, if people choose not to utilize this right, thats their choice.

          1. Willard has a history of destroying businesses and American jobs.  Thanks for making our choice clear.

          1. As long as LGBT Americans are denied equality, we will continue to fight for that equality using the Proper Rule Of Law exactly as the United States Supreme Court instructed us to do in its 1995 “Romer vs. Evans” ruling.  You want a new topic?  Vote YES.

          2. Sure, but first lets do away with people using their kids as tax shelters, no special tax breaks for marrieds, no drawing off their spouses S.S.I. if they have ever worked, ever, and those who do not have children get the big tax breaks.
            Then i’ll vote yes and hten we’ll change the topic.

          3. Unfortunately, Scintillate is NOT on to a new topic, his screed about “let’s do away with people…” is the same old anti-gay nonsense we’ve all heard a million times before.

          4. That’s just what I like about you, no matter what anyone says, you make it in too something not said and it just convinces people if you can’t understand basic english, your not ready for a responsibility like marriage and perhaps you don’t understand what that means either.
            Thanks for reminding us……… again.
             

      2.  Man…you’re a fruit cake….you’ve described yourself exactly….creep loser idiot….along with all your blah blah blah.  Guess you’re not as ignorant as you come off. 

    2. Listen, if you’re going to toss out words right from the priest’s mouth, at least spell them correctly.  It’s “heretics.”  Now that I have your attention, could you perhaps think of stepping away from  the bible, catechism, missal long enough to learn one more word:  “catholic?”  In that form, it means “free from provincial prejudices.” Ironic, eh?

      1. Note that that definition of catholic is for lower case c (aka universal).   Spelled ‘catholic’ it’s even included in the Creeds of many protestant churches.  Capitalized Catholic has come to mean the Roman Catholic Church (they wish it was universal).

        1. Absolutely true, Gopher.  I mentioned “in that form” so I wouldn’t confuse Noleman further w/ “lower case.”   As one of the many who left the Catholic Church, I always found it odd that the church of my youth had truly been “catholic”  yet today it has evolved into something almost unrecognizable.

          1. I hope you’ve found a more accepting church home, like several of my friends and former Catholics have.

          2. Haven’t found one yet, Gopher.  Still smarting from the wounds and not inclined to want to be a part of any organized religion.  Guess that makes me a non-believer in the eyes of some here, to which I say, “Tough.”

    3. I’m Catholic and I support same sex marriage and most of my family and Catholic friends agree. Catholics have no right to be so damn self-righteous considering what’s gone on in the Church for decades.    

      1.  During the 60’s and 70’s Catholics were always on the supporting side of equal rights. Though I’m not a catholic, I’ve been told a change in leadership in the church is responsible for the resurgence of fundamentalism and conservatism. But some still follow the old methods of giving to the less fortunate and loving thy neighbor. Many nuns and the progressive Catholics are up in arms about the direction the church has taken in the last couple decades.

    4. > “Then they are not true Catholics but heratics!”

      Are the anti-equal rights people American at all ?
      Where does that leave the Bishops ?
      Let them begin their Inquisition and all the ex-commutations.

      Bring it on.
      Something needs to give, as the Church treats everyone as badly as do they do their nuns.
      It would be a relief to many, who can’t support the church, have no voice in it,
      but were taught to never deny being a Catholic on the threat of Hell.

      Can we get our infant baptisms annulled, too, because technically, they weren’t real because …
      so many reasons, fit.

      Would that cost as much as the Church selling annulments to their Sacrament of Marriage does ?
      What a great new profit center !

      Noleman, you went here, so just man up, about it being said like it really is.

  2. It’s very simple…..your religion has every right to bar same sex couples from the church doors. It has NO right to bar them from the courthouse doors.

    1. That’s debatable too, seeing how their tax exempt. “What belongs to Ceasar give to Ceasar.” There will always be a cross of churh and state, as long as their tax exempt. 

      1. Considering the list of major Christian and Jewish churches that WANT to marry same gender couples:

        The Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
        The Episcopal Church
        Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
        Metropolitan Community Church
        Conservative Judaism
        Reform Judaism
        Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
        Unitarian Universalist Church
        United Church of Christ

        It’s just ridiculous for some skanky anti-gay cult to worry that some nice same gender couple would want to get married by them when the nicest churches and synagogues in America WANT to marry us NOW.

        1. They are tax excempt, so the door is open for some skanky anti-gay cult and their lawers to pursue it  as ridiculous as it might be–Just say’in. 

          1. I agree with you that anti-gay cults will use those right-wing legal firms to try that tactic to try to SUBVERT the United States Constitution’s guarantee of “Equal Protection Under the Law,” I just want to make sure readers know there’s really no reason for ANY same gender couple to want to get married by any of them when SO MANY other churches WANT to marry us.

          2. “some skanky anti-gay cult and their lawers to pursue it as ridiculous as it might be–Just say’in. ”

            Not under the Maine Law that results from a YES vote.

            Are you saying otherwise ?

            If so please show us why, besides that you are desperately grasping for straws
            … and pushing that false witness thing to it limits, too.

        2. Well said, carrotcakeman!  Interesting, isn’t it, how these fundamental/evangelical cults operate?  They solicit and court the intellectually-challenged (I’m being polite), so they can open their skulls and start pouring their toxic craziness in, all in the name of Jesus.   
          Jesus must be mighty proud of them.

          1. Vache Sainte  Holy Cow! un amour réel fest pour SSM ce matin. Anti-SSM, faites des commentaires à votre propre risque.

      2. So why are the Church’s sacrament of marriage recognized by the State, at all ?

        Civil marriage laws always have trumped what each different Church does.

        If where and when it was illegal would a mixed race marriage preformed in any church be legal ?It is a real marriage  sure,  but it was still illegal before the law.

        Connect the dots.
        If you do, relative to rendering equal rights before the law your only options are to vote YES, or work to make homosexual acts illegal, again.

        But, the latter would be more Big Government, wouldn’t it,  and make you a RINO, too.

        So in my experience when before Caesar a position is inconsistent with your own political values, that is because you’ve got it wrong, and need to change it.

        So before  your God you really can only steer your own boat, right Pilgrim ?
        You will be judged as an individual, for what you do.
        Am I respecting the beliefs, enough, here, with that point ?

        So, even if homosexuality is sin for someone, given as an American their duty before their God is to render unto the US Constitution equal rights for all before the law.
        That means voting YES.

        Might doing otherwise get you judged as not rendering … 
        .. and besides if you go the big government route, well, did Jesus abide blatant hypocrisy, well ?

        1. “work to make homosexual acts illegal, again”

          That door is permanently CLOSED to anti-gays by the US Supreme Court’s “Lawrence vs. Texas” ruling.  Although some anti-gays seek to SUBVERT the Constitution that way also, they will FAIL.

          1. Ah-yup, but it still shows just how off base their defend “chistianity” thinking is and what it  would take to get it right.

            In fact:

            NY appeals court nixes Defense of Marriage Act

            NEW YORK (AP)
            — A federal appeals court in Manhattan has become the second in the nation to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional.The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling Thursday. The decision upholds a lower court judge who ruled that the 1996 law that defines marriage as involving a man and a woman was unconstitutional.The three-judge panel says the law violates equal protection. A federal appeals court in Boston earlier this year also found it unconstitutional.

            So which side of this issue should the strict Constitutionalist,
            less Big Government, no compromise  conservatives  really be on ?.

          2. no……..you have it dead wrong.. I am against same sex marriage.. I would never go to court to prevent it.. I would never stand on a street corner stating proclamations… I would , however, publically speak about God and His direction and commandments.. take it or leave it at that point.. there really is no discussion to be had,, judgement will be rendered by God..  not by any other …. ever.. it’s not even an opinion.. it God’s Law.. again, take it or leave it.. intellectually , most Christians understand this.. especially the ” take it or leave it” concept.. Homosexual acts are already ” illegal ” against God’s Law.. so there is no need for man to make a ruling on it… take it or leave it…

          3. It’s no more “God’s Law” than any of the other things in the Bible you’re told not to do that you totally IGNORE and make excuses for ignoring.

            If you have a problem with “homosexual acts”(which are NOT illegal, regardless of your putting “illegal” in quotation makes) just stop doing them.

        2. I have the option not to vote. If I look at this in a religious context, it would be a civil matter, and would think “What belongs to Ceasar give to Ceasar,” I have no dog in this fight. So, grasping at straws? No, carrotcakemans post under my previous one summed up my point very well. The church is attached to the state or federal government because of it’s tax excempt status. So there is still an open door.  Because it is the law now does not mean it will be in the future, Did you know that people of the same sex want to get married now? You never know what will come through an open door.          

      3. I would suggest researching the history of the tax status of the church, 501(c)(3)’s, and the role that Lyndon Johnson played.  Then, instead of taking a snippet of Scripture to make a secular argument, doing some serious study of Romans 13, Titus 3, 1 Peter 2, Acts 5, and Exodus 20 to learn about the proper role of government in a Christian’s life.  Scripture is used to interpret Scripture.

    2. Or, no right to bar them from getting married–with a license–from church doors willing marry them.

    3.  No, the definition of marriage should NOT be changed to accomodate those who have unnatural sexual desires. If you open the doors to same-sex couples to “marriage” then you’d have to allow polygamy, incest and other immoral options.

      1. Shhh, Larry. need’s pastor isn’t going to like your trying to introduce him/her to reality.  These fundamental/evangelical church-on-every-street-corner  men of the cloth like to keep their flocks in the dark.  Makes it easier to use the scare tactics and feed them nonsense.

    1. Existence-wise, more like both of those today, both of those tomorrow.  Nothing new under the sun.  Oh, did you mean legality?  Gays are legal but they can’t legally marry.  Prostitution is legal in Nevada and has no connection to SSM.

    1. And some other union members support denouncing red buttons.  Spread the word.  Those unions are dangerous, I tell you.  Dangerous.

      1. It was in response to the title of the story.  Example; some french canadians say yes to gay marriage.. The story could be an opinion  from anyone. does being a stray Catholic give it any more cred then coming from a fisherman?   “Fisherman OK with gay marriage” people are pulled into the votex of making this man opinion have value.
        Nothing personal

  3. I found this story on MSN interesting.   If this link does not work, google reverend Phil Snider. 

    http://now.msn.com/rev-phil-snider-preacher-gives-gay-rights-speech-with-a-twist

    The only group which is attempting to force views / opinions / morals or limit the rights of others, are those attempting to block gay marriage.  No one is attempting to force the Catholic Church to perform gay marriages.  However, why should the Catholic Church be allowed to prevent another denomination which believes in gay marriage from performing them?   It is very clear there shall be no church of the State – however, the Catholic Church is acting as if it is. 

    1. It is the loopy the fundamentally politically motivated conservative “christians”,who want see the world end in their life time, 
      … and the authoritarian  Catholic Bishops , who covered up child molestation 
      and, now, are hassling the nuns, not Catholic lay people, that are the problem 
      relative to equal rights for all Americans . 

      How do ya like them apples ?.

      No seriously, think about it, … the fundy/Bishops reactionary cabal …
      aren’t they supposed to be judged by the fruit that they bear ?
      I’m not the first to say that, am I ?

      1. Umm, who cares what  some fundamentalist sect, e.g., catholicism, believes?  What thinking free person would put their church before civil order…the very ones who would decry the Talliban?  There is no difference between fundamentalist christians and the talliban, no difference at all.

        1. You are absolutely correct, letterreader, but get ready for the religious right to start in now.
          They need to read the book, “Stealing Jesus-the rise of fundamentalism in America,” and maybe they’d get a clue about what is going on in this country.

    1. Why? Remember that the state issues marriage licenses and that makes marriage a civil issue. You are free to take that civil license and take it to a house of worship or to a Justice of the Peace. Doesn’t matter if you choose a religious marriage ceremony or a civil marriage ceremony you are just as married either way.

  4. Thanks, Mr. Breau, for your comments!  You “get it” and I certainly appreciate it.  I only wish others would be as equally understanding.

    I might add that a vote of No on SSM will also affect the religious freedom of some faiths in Maine.  Some religions willingly would perform SSM ceremonies if so permitted.  A vote against SSM denies those faiths their religious freedoms.

    But, bottom line, the November vote is for civil marriage, not religious marriage.  And, for those who say “civil unions” are the answers, I would say that civil unions are not recognized by all other states, by the Federal government, or by other countries.  Therefore, civil unions are not equal to civil marriage.

    Thank you again for your support.  My partner of 15 years and our 12 year old daughter appreciate your support.

  5. Re: ““It does not affect my marriage and my life at all to allow other loving life partners to finally enjoy the same rights that I have,” Breau said. “If this is against your religion, then let God deal with the ‘sin.’ You and I were not meant to be the judges; we were meant to love others as we would be loved.”

    Wow! A Christian actually followoing what Christ taught.

    Color me ‘pleasantly surprised’.

    1. Don’t be so surprised.  A probable majority of us Christians do try to follow Christ’s teachings.

      1. Amen!  There are actually those who give their faith the dignity it deserves…by not blathering on and on about being “saved”  or “reborn,” etc. etc. while acting in a way that is 100% contrary to everything God expects. 
        The ones I respect are the ones who never say one word about their faith, but practice it in every thing they do.

        1.  Which is completely contrary to The Great Commission.

          Just so we’re clear; You respect the “Christians” who don’t follow the precepts of the Christian faith.  Ok.  I understand now.  You respect “nice people”.

          By your own statement, these “nice people” you respect cannot be classified as Christians because they’ve never avowed their faith.  Acting nice doesn’t make you a Christian any more than coating yourself in syrup makes you a pancake!  You might be sweet, but you’re probably not that good with bacon.

          Is it any wonder people prefer the cheap trick “Christianity” that is good to all, and shuns nothing with no condemnation for sin.  Big surprise there.

  6. “The Bible has no place in our laws,” Breau said. “That’s religion, and I have no right to force my religious beliefs on people who believe differently than me.”I guess he thinks stealing and lying about people is ok?     

    1. No, Breau clearly rejects the anti-gays’ lies and stealing of elections.  You DO know the anti-gay Hate Cult, NOM, was caught AGAIN committing the SAME CRIME as in 2009, don’t you?

    1. I’m sorry to learn you hope to SUBVERT the United States Constitution’s guarantee of “Equal Protection Under the Law.”  What OTHER parts of the Constitution do you want to violate?

      1.  > What OTHER parts of the Constitution do you want to violate?
        Besides the Anti-establishment, clause, obviously.

    2. But are you a Christian (and I mean that in the broadest sense, not the restrictive conservative sense)?

          1. I believe if you are the way you are you have the right to be the way you are. If you want to be straight and have sex/relationship with the other sex go ahead. If you want to bisexual and have sex/relationship with either or both at the same time – go head. If you want to take it up the poop shoot from another guy or force yourself into another guy’s butt go ahead. If you want to eat carpet or scissor go ahead. I don’t care what people do in their own homes and you should have the right to live the way you want to live. Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transgendereds, they all want to “marry” so they can have access to their partner’s money.

             Every gay person I’ve talked to says that THIS is the focal point. Money. If you love someone and want to be with someone go right ahead – even if you’re straight – why is marriage so important? And that fact is MONEY.

          2. Yeah, equal rights and the same treatment on income taxes as other families raising children is a big part of it, which you oppose, why ?

          3. if love is such a big deal why is money at the foremost of the argument? I guarantee you most STRAIGHT couples marry for love not money

          4. Your desperation is showing and your credibility is flagging.
            Too hard dealing  with it being about equal rights for ya ?

          5. “if love is such a big deal why is money at the foremost of the argument?
            I guarantee you most STRAIGHT couples marry for love not money”

            Let me, a heterosexual male married close to 30 years try and answer that question for you.

            When I proposed to my wife I didn’t have a large amount of wealth. In fact I had no wealth but goals and dreams. We started our lives together and over the past 29 years we accumulated some modest wealth. A business, a home, etc…

            I imagine that many same sex couples start the same way my wife and I have. With little wealth and lots of love. Over a period of time if things go well they will also accumulate wealth and build a life together.

            Right now, if something happens to my wife or I we are provided with certain rights and privileges which come with the marriage contract.

            If that same thing happens to a same sex couple they don’t have the same rights and privileges of inheritance, social security, pension rights, etc…

            So while you want to make it about MONEY above all else you are ignoring the fact that many couples start with love and gradually build wealth. One system (civil marriage) allows those couples to preserve much of that wealth. The other system (living together without the benefit of marriage) allows the state to take a much larger slice of the pie.

            Is that fair? I say No. Do you think that is a fair system?

          6. Right on, I couldn’t have written it better.  My wife and I can say the same and we’vebeen married even longer.

          7. Please document that ANY mixed-sex couples forego the rights of marriage.  Please document ANY legally married American mixed-sex couples DO NOT file their federal income tax JOINTLY.

          8. Just HOW MUCH TIME today did you spend fantasizing about “gay sex,” Mr. Flagg?  Scientists have established just why you fantasize about “gay sex”:

            “Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.”

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

      1. Don’t hold your breath, Mountain.  This “recovering Catholic”  will vote a resounding YES, along with many, many others who left while they still had compassion for their fellow man and woman. 

        1. As a Catholic I know for sure there is no recovering. Can’t happen. I don’t see a problem with you except of maybe not enough shame or guilt

        2. As a recovering Catholic…does your compassion for your fellow man and woman extend to the “unborn?” 
          When you vote YES…how will you specify that it is “resounding?”

          1. We’re not voting on abortion though.
            ***********************************
            That’s a clever little dodge. In your  “recovering Catholic” mode, I was just curious if your recovery went so far as to support the killing of the unborn?  (in keeping with your declaration of compassion on men and women who are lucky enough to make it out of the womb) 

          2. You’re the one dodging by changing the subject. 

            There is nothing that can be done about abortion. No one “supports” abortion. No one wants to see more abortions. That’s ridiculous and lazy — you distort the position of those you disagree with in order to simplify things and make yourself feel righteous. 

            Abortion will always be legal in this country. Women have a constitutional right to choose. We can work together to keep the numbers at the lowest possible, but prohibition doesn’t work. Your position of labeling them as killers doesn’t work. 

          3. Interesting little bit of information.  Banning abortion does not reduce the number of abortions that occur.  Severely restricting abortion does not reduce the number of abortions that occur.  Easy access to birth control does, in fact, reduce the number of abortions that occur.  The funny thing is, the Catholic church says that they are pro life, but oppose the one thing that would reduce the number of abortions that would need to happen.

          4. I’ve been perusing the Constitution since 1973, still trying to find the clause or even a sentence (evidently remained hidden for 184 years) that 7 black robes finally discovered, through divination, and based their 7 votes on, declaring that ending the life of the human fetus is legal and CONSTITUTIONAL !  I called no one a killer. I state, in a medical term, what has to happen to the human fetus in order for women to exercise their so-called constitutional right to end the life of their fetus. I deliberately avoid using murder, slaughter, massacre. Perhaps you don’t know, but the fetus has to be killed during the aborting procedure.  I am not in a position to condemn any woman who made or makes that “can’t be undone” choice. I am a member of Right To Life. We oppose the elimination (how’s that for a euphemism?) of the human fetus, at all stages. There is an average of 3500 beating fetal hearts stopped per day in the U.S.

          5. I somehow you doubt you’ve done much perusing as there are few Constitutional rights and understandings that are explicitly laid out in direct terms. If you really want to have a discussion, prove to me that you know what logic Roe v. Wade is based on. You don’t have to agree with it, but I want to know if you really understand what was said in that opinion. 

            And quit playing with words in order to skirt responsibility for what you said. You referred to it as killing, therefore someone who has an abortion has killed. If you’ve killed, you’re a killer. 

          6. I’m not playing with words. For decades now. I’ve described abortion, as ghastly as the results are depending on the trimester,  as the “killing of the unborn.”  Medical intervention contributes to killing bacteria…..chemo and radiation kills cancer cells. Fetuses are killed also.  (legally) 

             Roe v Wade  (9th/14th)      In 1980, Miss McCorvey publicly identified herself as Jane Roe. After converting to Catholicism, she joined an effort called “Operation Rescue.” She has become an outspoken figure in the prolife movement.

            Untold amounts of women regret abortions and want the Supreme Court to reverse Roe v. Wade … millions of  women who had abortions say they regret their decisions.

          7. You’re playing with words if you say you didn’t call  anyone a killer, but then call the act killing. It’s the same thing.

            Second, I asked you for the court’s logic behind Roe v. Wade. You’re dodging at this point. 

      2. You only barely squeaked by in 2009, Marine73.  Since then, some 15% MORE Americans support marriage equality.

    1. But what about the signs hanging at almost 100% of the Catholic churches that read “Catholics Can Always Come Home”?

      Isn’t that saying once a Catholic always a Catholic?

      1. The Church doesn’t believe in “former Catholics” unless THEY excommunicate you.

        Ask the Bishop … oh, yeah, sorry, but Maine doesn’t really  have one, now.
        My bad.

      2. Those signs are probably the singlemost reason I left.  On the one hand, the church has a program trying to get those who left to come back.  Shortly after I got suckered into it, the vile, homophobic stuff started spewing from the pulpit.  My husband and I left because we could not support a church that killed the one of our youth.

    2. No, why are they former Catholics?  Breau says he’s “not much of a practicing Catholic anymore” and Baldacci says he is.  Does not going to church every Sunday make one a former Catholic?  If so, things are worse than I thought.  if so, God save the Catholic Church–they need it.

    3. Because everyone knows that the only thing that a catholic has to do in order to be a catholic, is to go to church. Nothing else matters.

  7. Thank you for supporting same sex marriage and not using your religion as an excuse to not treat people equally.

  8. I go to church every Sunday.  I also believe what people do between themselves, consententual adults, and should have the rights to decide who gets their stuff when they die, like heterosexuals.

  9. I love how they pit religon against political agendas. Not much happening in the lobe area is there..  I would rather follow my God over your political idol.

    1. You mean how the “Gay Obsessed Party” is attacking all the major Christian and Jewish denominations who WANT to marry same gender American couples?

      1. Our God hasn’t stopped loving you Kevin, When we are laying on our death beds, God will be remembered, believed in  and trusted.

  10. I was raised Catholic in a very different era, when God was about Love more than Judgement. It is very dismaying that the official stance of the Roman Catholic Church is to oppose SSM. I do not see how it is the job of any human being to make choices for other adults.  It is good to see that not every Catholic drinks the Kool Aid.

     As Whoopi Goldberg says, if you don’t believe in gay marriage then don’t marry a gay person. For those that decry the alleged immorality of gays, is it any more moral to discriminate and make other people unlike yourself live lives as “less than”? I do not believe that. Bigotry is not a Christian value. And when Jesus Christ looks at some of the horrible things that people do and say in His name, it must make Him want to vomit.

  11. I agree that it is not our place to judge others.  However, with the recent birth control mandate, I don’t know what would stop government from deciding that Catholic churches should perform gay marriages later on.  That’s why I am voting no.

    1. Okay, so Catholic churches doesn’t have to hold ceremonies for couples of mixed faith or people who have been previously divorced. The state doesn’t step in in those instances, so why do you think they would step in for gay marriage? 

      The state gives marriage licenses, not churches. What happens in church is a ceremony and a blessing. It’s not related to what we’re voting on. 

    2. ” However, with the recent birth control mandate,…”
      Red herring. 
      The government stepped in because the hospitals, a secular business that accepts federal funding, were attempting to bar their employees, whether Catholic or not, from having access, through the insurance companies (another secular business), to birth control products.   This could easily be equated to the Jewish community feeling they have the right to prevent Hannaford’s from selling pork products.
      At no time did the government infer that the church, itself, must supply the products.  Or  that the products had to be allowed inside the church. Or that the church could not preach about the “sinfulness” of using birth control. 

  12. so why is this newsworthy ? it’s just another once upon a time Christian that has lost his way.. now a dime a dozen.. he doesn’t want to be a judge, yet, that is exactly the position he has taken.. it’s God’s law not his, if he has any questions , it’s right there in his bible…God calls this activity an Abomination. it has been the downfall of entire civilizations .. This isn’t news, it’s a promo.

  13. this really is amazing.. God’s Book tell us that marriage is between and man and a woman
     
    Jesus said that “heaven and earth will pass away but [His] words will never pass away” (Matt
    24:35).Just how serious did God take the sin of homosexuality?

      In Leviticus 20:13 He says, “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” Read more: http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/what-does-the-bible-say-about-same-sex-marriage-is-it-sin/#ixzz2A2QjVf7I

      1. I think the point he’s making is that The Bible DOES CLEARLY say to do this.

        So just how “Christian” are people that are using The Bible to justify the horrible defamatory things they say every day here about gay people, when they don’t even have the conviction to actually DO what The Bible says they should do TO gay people ?

        It’s hypocrisy.  They don’t REALLY believe The Bible, they don’t REALLY have the faith IN it.

        If they did, they’d be in prison, where they would most certainly BELONG.

        Just sayin’.

        1. Oh, I figured that was the case, but these “Christians” should be held accountalbe for what they say.  Anytime someone says  “Oh, well I believe in the Bible and the Bible says blah blah blah about gay people..” they need to recognize that when they say that, they are endorsing the execution of all gay people.  If they try to deny it, then they aren’t really following what the bible says to do with gay people.  They are literally picking and choosing to follow only the first part of one verse while ignoring the second part.

    1. The Bible can say what ever it wants about any topic under the sun. But the Bible is not the law of the land and does not serve as the basis of civil law in the U.S.. Additionally, no one religion is any more or less important then any other religion in the U.S. and if you doubt me all one needs to do is look at the wording of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

  14. Sorry, but if you agree to same-sex marriage you are NOT a practicing Catholic–period.  The Bible is very clear on homosexuality both in the Old Testament and the New Testament.  This is a good explanation of Catholic teaching on homosexuality: “Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are
    subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little
    direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon
    them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and
    deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted
    by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual
    desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some
    manner. ” (from Catholic Answers site)

Leave a comment

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