The breakdown of the poll is rather interesting but not surprising. Those who indicated they were Catholic and attended mass at least once a week, 54% opposed while 37% favored; if they attended once a month, 35% opposed while 46% favored.
"As with several social issues, many Catholics support a more liberal public policy than does the Church itself," said David Redlawsk, director of the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll and professor of political science at Rutgers University. "Given that Catholics comprise the largest religious group in the state, this makes a difference in overall support for gay marriage in New Jersey, especially since a majority of Protestants — many of whom are Evangelicals — oppose the bill."
Evangelical or "born-again" Protestants opposed marriage equality by a margin of 55% to 35%, with 11% undecided.
Another religious group with an encouraging majority. Jewish respondents supported 56% to 40% with 4% undecided.
Least shocking, those not affiliated with any religion support marriage equality 85% to 10% with 5% undecided.
The poll of 903 New Jersey adults was fielded November 6-10 and has a margin of error of 3.3 percent.
Recently, the sponsors of the state's marriage equality bill requested that the Senate delay its vote so that the Assembly could hold its own public hearing and vote in its Judiciary Committee.
I would like to bet that this poll will grab the legislature's attention. Despite what the bill's sponsors may say, it's rather obvious the votes are not solidified in either chamber of the state's legislature. Now with the vote delayed, hopefully they'll have time to review the poll that indicates that some of the bill's biggest objectors, who belong to people of faith groups and in particular the influential Catholics, are a minority within their own demographic.
The Archdiocese of Washington D.C. and Catholic Charities are still “committed to continuing to serve the people of the District of Columbia as we have done for more than 80 years,” despite D.C. Council members voting in favor of same-sex “marriage” in the nation's capital yesterday.
Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese said in a statement yesterday that they will move forward “with the resources available to us,” though the current legislation could threaten to cut government funding of faith-based organizations, such as Catholic Charities, if they do not compromise their religious beliefs.
On Nov. 17, Archbishop Wuerl stated that the same-sex “marriage” bill would cause the city itself to withhold contracts and licenses since Catholic Charities and other religious institutions cannot comply with city mandates to “recognize and promote” it.
Gibbs continued to say in her statement that “as the legislation moves forward, the Archdiocese of Washington will continue its dialogue with the Council to seek a balance of interests in the legislation – that of the city council to legalize same sex marriage and that of religious organizations to protect religious liberties.”
New Jersey's Star-Ledger isn't backing away from painting a bleak picture of marriage equality's prospects in the Garden State.
In a story issued today, they report that support for the marriage equality bill is plummeting, calling legislators "scared herd animals" who run from an issue even if only one of them get skittish.
"I can’t say I’m confident now," Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen), a lead sponsor, told the Star-Ledger. "I think we still have a pretty good chance. But people are getting nervous and weak-kneed."
But this is all spin, says the story. Basically, the bill is dead.
"They’ve lost the momentum," says Sen. Kip Bateman, a Republican who once considered supporting the bill. "I don’t think it’s going to happen."
"So mark this as a black day for the cause of gay rights in New Jersey," reports the Star-Ledger. "Marriage equality was supposed to be the big prize, the final measure of respect, a sign that gay families were indeed equal under the law."
Why?
Despite valiant efforts from Garden State Equality, the state's largest LGBT advocacy group, the Catholic Church has flexed its mighty arm. They hold a lot of sway with the legislature since 40% of New Jersey is Catholic.
On top of this, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has made its presence known in New Jersey for some time, recently launching an ad campaign against the marriage bill. Also, a turn in the polls against marriage equality, an about face from past support, has also shook up politicians as well as the ouster of pro-marriage equality Gov. Jon Corzine. Governor-elect Chris Christie is adamantly against LGBT rights.
The loss in Maine, a very secular state, also appears to be the death knell for many advances in marriage equality in other states.
"Politicians better realize the gay community is looking around and taking note as to who is supporting advancement of our equality and who is just saying one thing and doing another," Timothy Beauchamp of AmericaBlog writes. "It isn't a threat. It's a promise."
"Many of us in the progressive movement just want to throw up," says Steve Goldstein of Garden State Equality. "Democrats put out one hand out to ask for money, and with the other they stab you in the back."
ACTION: The door is not officially closed on the bill. Go to Garden State Equality and find out how you can help get the bill to the senate floor.
They have also announced a lobby day.
At the direct request of state legislators who support marriage equality, Garden State Equality and our organizational allies are doing another lobby day -- on Thursday, December 3rd in Trenton beginning at 8:00 am.
Thursday, December 3rd at 8:00 am, we'll meet at Garden State Equality's office at 110 West State Street in Trenton, across from the State House. From there we'll do a public march to the State House, where we'll have a hospitality room to serve free breakfast and then free lunch.
We're now at the tipping point of history: Every event we do must have unbelievable turnout, just like the previous lobby day that influenced legislators tremendously. That's why legislators have requested we do another. Please attend if you possibly can.
Forward this email to your family, friends and congregational and organizational colleagues, and to any blogs and list servs of which you are a member.
Questions? Contact Hannah Johnson, Garden State Equality's Field Director, at Johnson@GardenStateEquality.org or cell (920) 222-1878.
In what Sen. Patrick Kennedy has admitted was a long time coming, Bishop Thomas Tobin of Rhode Island wrote the Catholic senator an email informing him that he will not be allowed to partake of the Eucharist, or what is commonly known as Communion, because of his support of reproductive rights, in particular when it comes to health care reform.
In a statement issued Sunday, Tobin made known he informed Kennedy in February 2007 that it would be "inappropriate" for him to continue receiving the fundamental Catholic sacrament, "and I now ask respectfully that you refrain from doing so."
The bishop is not deterred. The most recent development occurred Tuesday morning on a Rhode Island radio show on which Bishop Tobin appeared.
"If [Sen. Kennedy] cannot abide by the teaching of this church, not just this one but others and ... what it means to be a Catholic ... maybe he should find another fine Christian denomination where he can be more comfortable," the bishop said.
Bishop Tobin also has the ear of Rhode Island Gov. Carcieri, who is a member of the anti-LGBT National Organization for Marriage and, in a move many criticized has heartless, recently vetoed the bill that would have given domestic partners the right to make burial arrangements for each other.
But can we honestly be surprised that this is the direction that Catholic Church leadership is headed? Strong-arming politicians to craft secular law to reflect church law?
Patrick Kennedy told the Providence Journal that Tobin had barred him from receiving communion and instructed priests in the diocese not to administer the sacrament "because of the positions that I've taken as a public official."
Naturally the question arises, "What public policy positions will the church hound policy makers on next? Marriage equality?"
Michael Jones at Change.org says, "It was a narrowing of Catholic theology to strip issues like poverty and social justice from the forefront of the Church, and replace them with opposing abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research. It was also a call to Catholic politicians: oppose abortion and gay marriage at all costs, or risk the threat of the Church denying you Communion and publicly tarring and feathering you as a sinner."
Let's not forget to that they are issuing a new edict that will be signed by hundreds of U.S. Bishops that will strongly unite them all behind a common statement condemning the love between gays and lesbians. Behind this they can rally and step into public policy making more than ever before.
More recently, some Bishops signed onto the Manhattan Declaration with a swath of excitable, anti-LGBT evangelicals. The Declaration in part states, “We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence."
Even more, “We will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other antilife act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent.”
What's shocking is the church leadership's blatant intimidation and misuse of the Eucharist, one of the most sacred rites of Catholicism, in an attempt to force upon those with the hefty responsibility of writing secular law what the Church believes should be the law all U.S. citizens must abide by.
Are we to see next Catholic members of Congress strong-armed by their bishops to vote against the Respect for Marriage Act? Are we to see politicians blackmailed into voting against ENDA? Will the bishops manipulate these policymakers by using their beliefs of salvation by threatening their very souls?
This is exactly why Thomas Jefferson wrote of the need for the separation of church and state - to avoid this very wrong and morally corrupt yet powerful tactic that history has witnessed those in a position of religious power use time and time again.
Thankfully, Sen. Kennedy is not easily jolted by Tobin's blatant tar and feathering of his soul, but we all know many politicians are not as steadfast and grounded, their religious beliefs scaring then into manipulating hands of bishops.
The best we can do is keep on top of the church and watch their every move, and when we see them strike, we back up our allies in Congress.
Putting aside whether or not you're religious, I would hope that you would agree that no religious member of Congress should be manipulated into fearing for their salvation simply because they're doing their job.
The Washington Post reports that some of the D.C. Council members and Del. Eleanor Homes Norton are looking for a compromise with the Archdiocese of Washington to find a way to avoid ending the Catholic Charities in the District while at the same time have legal same-sex marriage. Archbishop Wuerl threatened to close the public services if marriage equality was legalized in the capital.
D.C. officials believe a way can be found for Catholic Charities to continue operating under their current contracts with the District while at the same time have their gay employees be treated equally as their straight counterparts if they were to get married.
"The rights of [gay] partners cannot be any different from similar situated couples, but with that said, if other jurisdictions have found a way to accommodate Catholic Charities, that would be very much be desired," said Norton, who wants to avoid Congressional intervention.
While Norton has been doing her best to avoid Congress from intervening (and we really don't want that - lately, it doesn't appear many in Congress has a spine to stand up to the Catholic Church - Stupack Amendment anyone?), marriage equality champions Council members David Catania and Phil Mendelson have written directly to the Archbishop of Washington. I obtained a copy of the letter and will post below.
Susan Gibbs, spokesperson for the Catholic Church, told the Washington Post that the church was pleased to see the council members "finally responding" to their concerns, but that it may not be enough to alleviate the Church's fears of having to end their contracts and shut down public services.
I myself would be sad if the Church felt the need to close these services because they do in fact help many homeless and poor people get by day-to-day. However, I am not satisfied with the proposal given by council members because the solution they offer has to do with domestic partnerships and not necessarily with marriage (though I applaud the effort). And in this case particularly, you will be yet again relegating same-sex couples to a lesser status, but you would also have to do this to employed straight couples. Not very good.
On top of this, the fact that's really itching at the back of my brain is that the Catholic Church has declared full on war with marriage equality throughout the nation.
Yet this same Church cries foul when they're held to the same standards as any other business receiving public funds. They say they shouldn't be forced to follow discrimination laws because of their beliefs, and if they choose not to receive public funds anymore so they can continue to discriminate, then they'll be forced to close because they won't have enough money to function.
I say, Why not dip into the marriage war chest? Function as a private institution. Instead of using the $2 million to fight fellow citizens' rights, why not use it to do the good work you're already doing and let people live their lives as they see fit?
I'd have more respect for the Church if they did this than if they acknowledged my relationship in a compromised form. Don't want to acknowledge a gay employees' marriage? Don't hire gay employees! As a religious institution, they're exempt (in many circumstances) and able to do so.
As long as they're not receiving government funds.
Ah, but there's the rub. It's about the money.
Gibbs, the church spokesperson, seems to agree with me about the domestic partnership angle of the council members' proposal. She said that Archbishop Wuerl was reviewing the council members' letter, but church staffers wonder how the council can equate domestic partnership in San Francisco with same-sex marriage. See, even the church knows the two categories are not equal. She noted that the District has a domestic partnership law but that the Church is not covered by it.
So do you remember that hefty statement that's being prepared by U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference which will condemn same-sex marriage? Well, the conservative evangelicals saw this and decided they wanted something similar for themselves.
More than 150 Christian leaders, most of them conservative evangelicals with a smattering of traditionalist Roman Catholic bishops, issued a joint 4,7000-word declaration Friday called “The Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience." It reaffirms their opposition to abortion and marriage equality and pledges to protect religious freedoms, referencing Martin Luther King Jr.'s "A Letter from a Birmingham Jail" as a call to civil disobedience.
Signatories include 15 Roman Catholic bishops, including New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan and Washington Archbishop Donald Wuerl; Focus on the Family founder James Dobson; National Association of Evangelicals president Leith Anderson; seminary leaders, professors and pastors.
“We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence,” it says.
Even more, “We will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other antilife act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent.”
But you see, this is exactly what they want. Though it's far from the truth that they'll be forced to do any of these things (hence, the separation of church and state the protection of religious freedom), they want their followers to the believe the end times are nigh, which encourages drastic actions and behavior. (Remember the Bush years? He led them into what they were hoping was their Armageddon - it just ended up being the trap that is the Iraq War.)
Craig von Buseck of the Christian Broadcasting Network (click at your own risk) compares the Manhattan Declaration to the Declaration of Independence, claiming just like the colonialists fighting the English, they have been pushed far enough by the "anti-family" and "anti-religious" movement and their religious freedoms are threatened to the point of necessary action.
"Today, Bible-believing Christians find themselves in an eerily similar situation as the activist Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the U.S. Federal Government move swiftly to deny religious liberties, and impose a radical anti-family, anti-Christian agenda upon the people of America," says von Buseck.
"Christian leaders today have arisen to echo the words of the colonial patriots, 'You have pushed us far enough. We will be pushed no further.'"
Ah, but see, these Christians are themselves guilty of breaking the vows of marriage and committing a multitude of other sins. Some of them have even had "relations" with members of the same sex. But they have a way around that, writing in the manifesto:
"We confess with sadness that Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage and to model for the world the true meaning of marriage. Insofar as we have too easily embraced the culture of divorce and remained silent about social practices that undermine the dignity of marriage we repent, and call upon all Christians to do the same."
So they confessed, they're absolved and are now free to strip the rights of others away in the name of their faith.
Oh, and they also rely on the old adage that allowing same-sex marriage will allow legalized polygamy and incest.
"We understand that many of our fellow citizens, including some Christians, believe that the historic definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is a denial of equality or civil rights . . . the assumption that the legal status of one set of marriage relationships affects no other would not only argue for same sex partnerships; it could be asserted with equal validity for polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships. Should these, as a matter of equality or civil rights, be recognized as lawful marriages, and would they have no effects on other relationships? No. The truth is that marriage is not something abstract or neutral that the law may legitimately define and re-define to please those who are powerful and influential."
This does make sense. It really does. My not having a choice about my sexual orientation, something that the American Psychological Association confirms that I cannot change, but my conscious decision to be with only one person in a monogamous relationship is equivalent to a man or woman making the conscious choice to have more than one partner - They can't control themselves! They MUST have more than one spouse! They were born that way! So therefor must be legally recognized!
As for incest - c'mon, really? I do feel awful for those who have been abused in such a way or have fallen for a family member or are the shunned offspring of such a union, but comparing my relationship to these damaging circumstances is offensive.
But I'm not saying anything new here. And neither are they. All they're doing is trying to rally their troops and recapture the glory of their Bush years. We all know well they don't like it when other opinions are voiced as loudly as theirs and are actually considered!
The New York Times says, "They want to signal to the Obama administration and to Congress that they are still a formidable force that will not compromise on abortion, stem-cell research or gay marriage. They hope to influence current debates over health care reform, the same-sex marriage bill in Washington, D.C., and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation."
"They say they also want to speak to younger Christians who have become engaged in issues like climate change and global poverty, and who are more accepting of homosexuality than their elders," the Times continues. "They say they want to remind them that abortion, homosexuality and religious freedom are still paramount issues."
Which is ironic. Because they believe God gave us the Earth to take care of, Bush their hero is from an oil family, oil and the burning of oil causes global warming, global warming is effectively destroying the planet and could ruin the very world God bequeathed to us, but priorities people! DON'T LET THE GAYS MARRY OR WE'LL BECOME EXTINCT!
But I know full well not all Christians, Catholic and Protestant, feel this way. Many support marriage equality, encourage health care reform and believe that President Obama has our nation's best interests at heart. These I view as true Christians, who love their neighbor as themselves. These are true people of faith.
These manifesto Christians are political mongers desperate to stay relevant and to keep their political power. And all I have to say to them - "Oops, your hypocrisy is showing."
In September the Vatican tried to shift the blame of the pedophilia problem plaguing its priests on gays. The Guardian reported, "In a defiant and provocative statement, issued following a meeting of the UN human rights council in Geneva, the Holy See said the majority of Catholic clergy who committed such acts were not paedophiles but homosexuals attracted to sex with adolescent males."
However, the AP reports that a preliminary study commissioned by the the U.S. Roman Catholic Bishops has found this statement to be false and that gay priests are no more likely to molest children than their straight counterparts.
"What we are suggesting is that the idea of sexual identity be separated from the problem of sexual abuse," said Margaret Smith of John Jay College, in a speech to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "At this point, we do not find a connection between homosexual identity and the increased likelihood of subsequent abuse from the data that we have right now."
-------
At the meeting Tuesday, Bishop Edward Braxton, of the Diocese of Belleville, Ill., asked the researchers whether their study indicated that homosexuality should be considered when evaluating a candidate for the priesthood. In 2005, the Vatican issued a policy statement that men with "deep-seated" attraction to other men should be barred from the priesthood.
Smith said: "If that exclusion were based on the fact that that person would be more probable than any other candidate to abuse, we do not find that at this time."
The AP also reports that experts on sex offenders reject any link between sexual orientation and committing abuse and that one should approached incidents by examining the offender and the victims they had available to them.
The final report won't be finished until the end of next year. But so far, it does indicate that the rate of abuse has declined steadily since the 1980s and that the peak was in the 1960s and 1970s. Cases arising today usually deal with incidents that occurred decades ago. Nearly 14,000 molestation claims have been filed against Catholic clergy since 1950 and abuse-related costs paid out by the church have reached a minimum $2.3 billion in the same period.
Though I do have a lot of issues with the Catholic leadership, it is a positive sign that they're looking into this problem within their ranks. However, the study is obviously not giving them the results they were hoping for. The true test comes after the report is finished and how the Vatican reacts to continue to address this serious problem. Maybe now they can stop trying to shift the blame and address the issue.
Recently, the Archdiocese of Washington threatened to end all of its charitable work in the District of Columbia if marriage equality is passed. Father David O'Connell, President of the Catholic University America, appeared on CNN to address the issue.
A few choice quotes from Father O'Connell:
"The archbishop of Washington and the staff of the office of the archdiocese of Washington has indicated as late as yesterday that it has no intention to stop serving the needs of the people of the archdiocese of Washington, especially the poorest of the poor."
"[Marriage equality in D.C.] will force us or put us into a situation where we may be at legal risk because of our own teachings and the beliefs that we experience and express that do not allow us to engage in some of the activities that are supported or promoted in the legislation."
"[The Church] will do its best to continue as usual. The legislation puts our relationship with the District of Columbia at risk, and that's the issue. It's not that we want to do this, that we need to do this, that we have to do this. We can't represent something that goes against our core beliefs, and this is an issue that is part of our core beliefs."
The last sentence is a head scratcher. It sounds like a bit of subtle backtracking but not really. In other words, he says they don't want or have to do this. So why do it?
Such a threat if followed through could affect tens of thousands of residents, reports the Washington Post, because of the assistance the church provides for adoption, homelessness and health care.
"If the city requires this, we can't do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."
However, it appears to me that the Church's biggest problem is with existing legislation, the Human Rights Act, which demands that discrimination against gays and lesbians not be tolerated.
The church is not the dominant provider in the district for its charitable services, though if they pull out, it will have an impact. But WaPo is saying that the church's influence is limited, with the marriage bill's sponsor, councilmember David Catania, who claims to have been a big supporter of their charitable work, says he'd rather part ways with the Church than to give into their threats.
"If they find living under our laws so oppressive that they can no longer take city resources, the city will have to find an alternative partner to step in to fill the shoes," Catania said. He also told WaPo that the Catholic Charities was involved in only six of the 102 city-sponsored adoptions last year.
Marriage equality advocates are telling the paper that this is the first that such a heated falling out has occurred over a marriage bill and public services.
But this has been a long-time coming. Who doesn't remember the Yes on 1 campaign crying foul that a Catholic adoption agency in Massachusetts, which was receiving government funds, chose to shut down instead helping same-sex couples adopt?
It's the same thing here. What the church is really objecting to is LGBT citizens receiving equality and as a result, more standing in society. This forces the church to deal with them publicly instead of keeping the status quo, which is acting like the LGBT population doesn't exist (unless of course to use us as a scapegoat for pedophile priests).
The crux of the problem is that the existing Human Rights Act, which is separate from the marriage bill, already demands that the church offer its public services to all residents if these public services are receiving public money. I've already objected to the fact that the current religious exemptions in the marriage bill violate the Human Rights Act, but now that the church is demanding even more coddling and special treatment, they're beyond reproach.
Let's face it. The Catholic Church will soon argue itself into non-relevance, exposing its hypocrisy to the point where society will have no interest in any of the actual good that it performs. Which is a shame because Jesus ordered that they feed the hungry and shelter the poor, something that the Church is good at doing. Jesus didn't say anything about gays or lesbians. Unfortunately, the Church has interpreted that as persecute and then ignore them.
The Mormons no doubt are very happy that Question 1 passed, but may be not for the reasons you would think. Finally, the scorn of the LGBT population is off of them (so they believe) and on to another target: The Catholic Church.
This past week in Maine, several protests took place against the passage of Question 1, but on Sunday, a silent protest took place in front of the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Portland, organized by the Facebook group Demand Equality Now.
But what's different about these protests compared to last year's against the Church of Latter Day Saints is that Catholics are either joining in with them or voicing their support.
America Blog's Joe Sudbay states that he was baptized in this particular church and that his mother still attends there. "That's the church my parents attend, where I was baptized and confirmed and where we had the funerals for my grandparents," he said on his blog. "The Facebook crowd was organizing the protest, but when I told my 73 year old mother about it (and she's not the Facebook crowd), she said, 'Oh, I wish I knew.'"
This echoes the larger, growing divide within the Church.
. . . Malone chastised "a group of self-described Catholics who have chosen to dissent publicly from established Catholic doctrine on the nature of marriage as the union of one man and one woman."
Malone was writing about 140 people whose names appeared in a newspaper ad titled "Statement of Conscience by Maine Catholics Regarding Marriage Equality." Malone wrote, "A Catholic whose conscience has been properly formed by scripture and the teachings of the Catholic church cannot support same sex marriage."
But hundreds of Catholics disagreed with the bishop.
"It is a sad day, as the leaders of the Catholic church in Maine relish, in delight, that they have succeeded in keeping the homosexual families of Maine outside of the walls of society where they must beg to maintain their very existence, much like the lepers and blind in the Bible were kept outside the city walls in days of old," said Jack Dougherty of Eliot, Maine, a member of Catholics for Marriage Equality.
Portland attorney George Burns, who helped draft the Catholic statement on equality, said "The bishop won at a great price -- whether he cares about that price or not. He has divided his flock."
One Catholic, Pamella Starbird Beliveau of Lewiston, Maine, was removed as a lector and eucharistic minister after her pastor read an opinion piece she wrote for the local newspaper approving of same-sex marriage.
She told a rally outside the Portland cathedral Nov. 1, "I am sad but not surprised by what happened. … The Catholic church has every right to determine who can and cannot serve as ministers in the church. I respect that. We must keep our eyes focused on the issue and that is equality for our gay and lesbian citizens."
With all of its past problems, can the Catholic Church sustain its momentum against LGBT rights amongst growing criticism?
Patricia Brinkman said it best in her letter to the Portland Herald Press' editor. "Newsflash to Bishop Malone: civil rights are not 'values.' And, as the multitude of successful lawsuits against the church on behalf of exploited children will attest, you long ago surrendered your legitimacy to dictate morality regarding sex."
The NO on 1/Protect Marriage Equality campaign has called out the Yes on 1 camp, specifically the Catholic Church, for the hypocrisy in claiming they "support" domestic partnerships and using this as proof of their tolerance of gays, when in fact they opposed DPs when they were first introduced. (Oh, and it's the Catholic Church that's fighting Washington state's new DP law RIGHT NOW.)
This announcement from NO on 1 was spurred by the new opposition ad that shifted its tone from crying wolf about marriage equality being taught in schools to saying that gays and lesbians already have their civil rights.
Today, No on 1 held a press conference. (Video from America Blog)
This was coupled with the following press release.
Yes Campaign Ad Promoting Domestic Partnerships a Sham Biggest Funders, Managers Opposed DP
Portland, Maine (October 30, 2009)---The NO on 1 campaign charged that the biggest backers and manager of the Yes campaign have opposed domestic partnerships for same-sex couples for years, even though their latest political ad promotes Maine's domestic partner registry.
After weeks of a paid advertising campaign that attacked Maine schools --attacks that were rejected by Maine newspapers, the Commissioner of Education, the Attorney General and others -- the Yes campaign released a new ad this week applauding the state's DP registry as sufficient to protect same-sex couples and their families.
But in fact, campaign manager Mark Mutty, as director of public affairs for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, opposed the DP registry bill both in 2003 and again in 2004 when it passed in the Maine Legislature. In addition, Mutty and others associated with the Yes campaign were silent on the alternative bill to the marriage equality legislation this spring which would have expanded the DP registry.
"This is the height of hypocrisy and double-talk," said Jesse Connolly, NO on 1 campaign manager. "Their new ad actually invokes domestic partnership as a solution, yet they're on record either directly or by their silence as opposing even this measure of protection."
In testimony submitted for the 2003 DP bill entitled "An Act to Promote the Financial Security of Maine's Families and Children," Mutty wrote and signed on behalf of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland:
"Our opposition to LD 1579 is foremost rooted in moral and ethical principles that are not only applicable to Catholics, but serve society well as a whole. However there are more practical considerations…Several attorneys who have reviewed this bill have indicated their strong conviction that such a drastic change in the code would lead to mass confusion in the courts and tie up probate claims for months without clear resolution. These are but a few of the perhaps unintended consequences that such a measure would bring to Maine."
"When I wrote Maine's domestic partner registry law, no group fought against it harder than the Roman Catholic Diocese," said former State Representative Benjamin Dudley, sponsor of the bill creating Maine's domestic partner registry. "Now the Diocese, through its campaign against marriage equality, says they 'want to be tolerant of gays' and stands behind the registry law they fought so hard to defeat. I'd call that the height of irony."
In addition, Maggie Gallagher, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, which has contributed at least $1.6 million to the Yes campaign, has long opposed both domestic partnerships and civil unions. In fact, Gallagher, in 2002 argued against DP benefits because they "erode the status" of marriage.
Finally, the principals of the Yes campaign were notably silent on a 2009 bill entitled, "An Act to Expand Rights for Maine Families," which would have expanded Maine's DP registry, and was proposed as an alternative to the marriage equality law.
"The Yes campaign in the final hours of this election can't simply reinvent itself and try to claim some sort of new platform," added Connelly. "The record shows that time and time again, they either opposed domestic partnerships or were silent on them, even when they were offered as an alternative to full marriage equality. This is nothing more than a Trojan horse and voters should not be fooled."
"The DP registry, in fact, has a few but not the hundreds of protections spouses receive under marriage," added Mary Bonauto, the civil rights director at GLAD and a member of NO on 1's executive committee. "Separate systems are not equal and never have been. Domestic partner laws simply don't apply to the things that allow you to take care of your partner or your children, and it is still impossible for many people to get a family policy of health insurance without getting married.
"Marriage offers protection in times of greatest need and crisis," added Bonauto. "Equality, family, protection and respect only come in one package, and that's marriage."
Interestingly enough, a poll released in May found 60% of Rhode Island residents supported marriage equality. Now if we can only get their representatives to listen to them instead of cowering to the Catholic Church.
I'd like to begin this post with a short, rare, personal insight into this blogger.
I was raised in an evangelical, Christian, non-denominational, missionary family. Since I can remember, we traveled the world, spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ. I have seen parts of the world by the time I was twelve that most people don't get to see in their lifetime, and I wouldn't change my upbringing. Ever.
Though I didn't have the vocabulary to voice it at the time, I knew I was gay by the time I was four. I had crushes on boys, but I thought that was normal and in time would grow up and find my attraction focused on girls.
It didn't happen. And I grew up hating myself because everyday, I read my Bible and heard how 'homosexuals' were deviant people.
My parents are amazing people, and though they had their suspicions about me while I was growing up, they loved me.
Luckily, as I got older, I was able to separate myself from the self-hatred and accepted myself for who I am. Unfortunately, my family is several steps behind. But what my upbringing has given me is insight into those who practice organized religion.
It's hard for me to shout "bigot" or "hater" because I know that a majority of these people are not (though I acknowledge many do act out of animus - growing up, I witnessed that, too). They have good intentions, and they have been forced by zealots to make an unconstitutional decision at the ballot, to choose between their faith and their civil duty to respect equality. That's wrong. And in many cases, they're victims of having to choose as we are victims having to vote on our own rights to save them. This is why the judicial and legislative system exists, but they're failing.
So why am I saying this? I'm saying this because I think it's important to separate those who attend church, who practice out of their convictions an organized religion, and the leaders of their church who dove into the social and political arena. Many times, these leaders say they speak for their congregants when in fact, many of these congregants don't agree.
Why is this important? Because over 300 bishops will collectively sign this statement that will enact this as the new language that the U.S. Catholic Church will stand behind in regards to marriage.
In the statement, it condemns co-habitation, divorce and contraception as "intrinsically evil", even stating that in vitro fertilization is wrong, but it also clearly attacks marriage equality.
This is a long document - same-sex unions is addressed in lines 423 - 465. An excerpt:
Today, advocacy for the legal recognition of various same-sex relationships is often equated with non-discrimination, fairness, equality, and civil rights. However, it is not unjust to oppose legal recognition of same-sex unions, because marriage and same-sex unions are essentially different realities. "The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it." To promote and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman is itself a matter of justice. In fact, it would be a grave injustice if the state ignored the unique and proper place of husbands and wives, the place of mothers and fathers, and the rights of the child.
--------
The legal recognition of same-sex unions poses a multifaceted threat to the very fabric of society, striking at the source from which society and culture come and which they are meant to serve. such recognition affects all people, married and non-married: not only at the fundamental levels of the good of the spouses, the good of children, the intrinsic dignity of every human person, and the common good, but also at the levels of education, cultural imagination and influence, and religious freedom.
This statement will be powerful in that it will unite the various parishes throughout the country behind one new, solid language regarding marriage.
I don't think I need to repeat the argument that, though the church has every right to believe what they do and should practice that freedom, civil marriage "intrinsically" is not the same as religious marriage, and therefore renders this statement moot when it comes to the issue of civil justice.
Being a priest and psychologist, I know the kind of serious harm that is caused to children who grow up gay by those who oppose Marriage Equality. “Kids are being hurt!!!” There is plenty of research data that makes that [sic] supports this statement. I have been an advocate for children who grow up gay for their protection from antigay statements.
Benedict XVI's continual ordering the hierarchy in a united effort to oppose Marriage Equality is proof that they have not even considered the harm to children and have ignored the overabundance amount of research data. The harm that is done to children is tremendous. It cuts deeply at the very core of child's ability to bond/attach to another or other human beings for life. However, in the meantime how many millions of innocent children will continue to be abused in this way because of their criminal neglect of their responsibility. Everyone is responsible to thoroughly study and learn the facts and research data about human sexuality for the safety and well-being of children. There is a lot more to learn than the outdated, inaccurate and whimsical ideas of "the birds and the bees," a child's life depends on our being responsible in this regard. In order to be more like this mom was in this ad.
The U.S. Bishops are currently individually reviewing the draft of a pastoral letter -- "Marriage: Love and Life in the Divine Plan" --which they will formally consider at their Nov. 16-19 national meeting [2009]. With all due respect this pastoral letter will become their most vivid indictment against them and Benedict XVI exposing their irresponsible leadership at the expensive of millions of innocent children, globally.
Father Tony, a man who was once a Catholic priest, blogs at Bilerico Project. He will be issuing a series of responses to this statement. This is his first:
It is so easy for us who are fighting for our rights, and in many cases, protecting our existing rights, to lose sight of the fact that the symbols of our opposition, such as the Catholic Church, can easily lead us to judge them with a broad stroke. We know how it feels to be judged the same way, so let us remember that nothing is as it seems.
When this statement is issued in November, we must remember that not all Catholics will agree, and let that truth guide us in how we respond.
This diatribe from Bill Donohue of the Catholic League on the 700 Club, making an appearance to pitch his new book, made my stomach turn.
First he rants about the fact that some Catholic adoption agencies chose to give up government funding rather than to place children with gay and lesbian couples.
"We're not going to allow gay people to adopt children," he rails. "That's against nature. It's against nature's God! But they won't stop!"
Being a gay male myself who wants nothing more than to have a family with the man I love, hearing this makes my ears bleed. But I respect the Catholic Church's opinion and believe they have every right to deny me their services due to their beliefs, as long as they're not accepting government money (gritting my teeth as I say this). But to go on the attack against me is simply hypocritical.
But it gets worse. Donohue goes back to the ol' tried and true slander of equating homosexuals with pedophiles by denying the Catholic Church even has had a pedophile problem.
"They lie about the Catholic Church. They say, 'Oh, we have a pedophile problem.' It's been a homosexual problem all along."
Sure, OK, older priests abusing their power by having inappropriate relationships with underage altar boys is equal to two adults in a consensual, loving relationship. What? And we're the ones against nature?
But then he goes on to say that most of the priests were homosexuals who were predators aiming at POST-pubescent boys. As if again, that makes a difference and that most gays and lesbians would think that type of relationship is OK.
Who in their right mind would condone this? The implication that the LGBT population is somehow at fault for the Catholic Church's inability to handle a problem within their own ranks is deplorable.
Yet I remind myself, Donohue is not the church. He's just a guy peddling a book.
This past Sunday, Maine's Bishop Malone had the following homily played in parishes across the state followed by another special collection to go towards the Yes on 1 campaign.
Transcript:
...Furthermore, we believe the natural institution of marriage has been blessed and elevated by Christ, to the dignity of a sacrament.
This means, a Christian marriage is more than a contract. Because they are married in the Lord, the spouses acquire a special relationship to each other, and to Society. Their love becomes a living image of the manner which the Lord personally loves His people and is united with them. Living a Christian sacramental marriage becomes their fundamental way of attaining salvation.
Because the marital relationship offers benefits unlike any other, to persons, to Society, and to the Church, we wish to make it clear that the institution of marriage, as the union of one man and one woman, must be preserved protected and promoted, in both private and public realms. At a time, when family life is under signifigant stress, the principle defense of marriage is an urgent necessity for the well-being of children and families and for the common good of Society.
Thus, we oppose attempts to grant the legal status of marriage to a relationship between persons of the same sex. A same sex union can never realize the unique and full potential that the marital relationship expresses. For this reason, our opposition to same-sex marriage is not an instance of unjust discrimination or animosity toward homosexual persons; in fact, the Catholic Church teaches emphatically that individuals and Society must respect the basic human dignity of all persons, including those with a homosexual orientation.
Homosexual persons have a right to, and deserve, our respect, compassion, understanding and defense against prejudice and abuse.
We urge Catholics and all our fellow citizens to commit themselves, both to upholding the human dignity of every person and to defending the distinct and irreplaceable institution of marriage.
Louise from Pam's House Blend posted a story today about how not all Catholic church members support the Bishop's stance of marriage equality. I recommend reading it.
Maine's Catholic Church Pours More Money Into Question 1
In Catholic parishes across the state Sunday, a recorded message from Bishop Malone played in which he asked four things from church members, reports the Bangor Daily News: pray that “marriage as we know it” prevails, financially support the Yes on 1 campaign, volunteer in support of the campaign and vote yes on Question 1.
“Marriage matters,” the bishop stated. “This above all things is the driving force behind Question 1.” Despite research claiming otherwise, Malone claimed that history shows that a family with one man and one woman provides the best upbringing for children.
“Same-sex marriage is a dangerous sociological experiment that many of us believe will have negative consequences for society as a whole,” he said. “Children need the love of a mother and a father.”
Following the message, another special collection was held for the Yes on 1 campaign.
In a statement released Sunday, Catholics for Marriage Equality (C4ME) want the public to know that the bishop does not speak for all church members.
“The informed consciences of many Catholics compel them to reject the bishop's political opinion about same-sex marriage,” said Anne Underwood, a founding member of C4ME. “Marriage in the Catholic Church is a sacrament reserved to the Church to define and administer. Civil marriage is a right of the state to define and with it comes over 300 state benefits to better the lives of our families and children. No church can morally deprive families and children of state recognition.”
Yes on 1 Campaign to Deride Diverse Families
The Yes on 1 campaign is gearing up to attack a 35-minute educational film currently being shown to Maine 5th graders titled That's a Family! Here's the trailer:
Made in 2000 and screened at the White House during Clinton's administration, the film educates students on family diversity. Profiling single-parent families, adopted children, bi-racial families, children of divorced parents and of gay and lesbian couples, the focus of the documentary is that all families are different but equal.
Yet the Yes on 1 campaign doesn't believe so.
Frank Schubert, main consultant for the Yes on Prop 8 campaign and who successfully scared parents in California to vote against marriage equality because he told them "homosexual marriage" would be taught in schools, is hoping to do the same in Maine. However, it may not work this time.
Maine's NO on 1 campaign has already claimed that Maine schools should be a haven for children who come from all families. Potentially, if Schubert goes after this film, the public can see him as attacking all other families who don't fit the heterosexual mold.
On top of this, since the film is already being shown in Maine's public schools, doesn't this show that voting against marriage equality will have no effect on school curriculum? It is a separate issue that should be taken up with the local school boards, a process that Schubert, who is not from Maine, has criticized.
The Yes on Prop 8 campaign also used President Obama's statement that he believes marriage is between one man and one woman, despite the fact that he also said that discrimination should not be in legislation. The his helped convince many in the African American community to vote in favor of banning marriage equality. But just this past Monday, in his Family Day Proclamation, Obama included families of gays and lesbians: "Whether children are raised by two parents, a single parent, grandparents, a same-sex couple, or a guardian, families encourage us to do our best and enable us to accomplish great things."
(On a related note, David Mixner states that Obama needs to speak up now against Question 1, lest his words be twisted again in favor of discriminatory legislation.)
If the Yes on 1 campaign goes down this road, they could be sending the message that if children don't belong to a nuclear, heterosexual family, then kids should keep the fact hidden in fear of being bullied.
Boston College Professor Sparks Outrage By Appearing in Yes on 1 Ad
The appearance of Scott Fitzgibbons, a professor in the Boston College Law School, in an ad campaign in support of the Maine Marriage Initiative, which seeks to overturn Governor John Baldacci's signature of the same-sex marriage bill, has sparked controversy in the BC Law School.
Fitzgibbons did not obtain clearance from the BC Law School before appearing in the advertisement, in which he stated his opposition to gay marriage and identified himself as a BC professor.
--------
In the wake of the advertisement's release, it became apparent that Fitzgibbon's public stance on gay marriage was a sensitive reality for many members of the Law School community.
In a letter released last week, Law School Dean John Garvey spoke to the emotions expressed by several members of this community.
"Professor Fitzgibbon, as a member of our faculty, is free to express his views … we also have faculty members who hold a contrary view, which they too are free to express publicly," Garvey said. "As I think any of our faculty might have done, he stated his views without prior notice to or clearance from the Law School."
Garvey's letter also details what was outlined in a memorandum recently released by the university, clarifying their stance on what behavior it deems acceptable in the context of professors publicly expressing their political opinions.
Among the list of prohibited political actions faced by faculty and staff are the usage university letterhead to distribute printed materials supporting a candidate, the endorsement of a political candidate at university events and holding political rallies or fund-raisers in university facilities.
I find it rather ironic that Fitzgibbon would use hypothetical consequences of law while living in a state that has had marriage equality for five years and seems to be functioning just swell and boasts the lowest divorce rate in the country.
Yet he doesn't see it that way.
"Legal consequences of the legal recognition of same-sex marriage are detailed in a letter to the governor of Maine from four law professors," he said to Fox. "These legal concerns underlie, in part, my opposition to that legalization." Get involved with the NO on 1 campaign! There's only five weeks left before election!
ACTION: The campaign must turn in a third quarter report on finances that will be made public. The media will scrutinize it to determine if the NO on 1 campaign is strong enough to win.
Help reach their goal of raising $28,000 by Wednesday midnight.DONATE HERE!
As reported last week, the Catholic parishes across the state of Maine, at the request of Bishop Richard Malone of the Diocese of Portland, held a second special collection to raise funds for the Yes on 1 campaign who is eager to throw out the state's new marriage equality law.
After an initial $100,000 had been pledged by church officials, this second collection will be added on top.
The Catholic New Agency reports, "Marc Mutty, director of Stand for Marriage Maine, said 140 churches across the state took a second collection on Sunday. He reported that the churches could have raised as much as $100,000 to $300,000."
Officials plan to ago ahead with these donations despite the fact that at least five parishes in Maine have had to be closed to lack of funds. Catholics for Marriage Equality have raised objections to these efforts, not only citing that the church is losing sight of its purpose, but also calling its efforts to undo marriage equality discriminatory. WMTW of Portland reported that outside the churches, protesters dressed as angels and held signs that read, "For Heaven's sake, all love is divine - Vote No On 1."
Posts
Despite the ongoing efforts of the Catholic Church's leadership in New Jersey, a new poll released today finds that a majority of the Garden State's Catholics support marriage equality. 48% support, while 40% oppose and 12% are undecided. This is big news given that 37% of New Jersey is Catholic.
