In Maine, same-sex marriage is a Catholic issue

Once again, a Catholic bishop sticks his nose into a civil issue. Marriage is a civil institution. Even atheists and people of no church can get married. Priests and ministers are allowed by the state to be officiants of a civil ceremony. But these bishops want their religious beliefs to be enshrined in the laws of the state and imposed on those who do not share their beliefs.

Once again a Catholic bishop wages a campaign against gay and lesbian people. Bishops have been doing this since at least the Seventies. Back then they were telling their people to vote against legislation guaranteeing equal rights for gay people to housing, jobs and access to public accommodations. Once again a Catholic bishop wages a campaign of lies, spending hundreds of thousands dollars of who knows whose money on ads to lie about what the legislation means and to lie about gay people. Of course Benedict and John Paul II before him have used lies to attack gay people and their relationships, insisting that same sex relationships could not be loving and that gay and lesbian couples do emotional violence to the children they raise. Bishops around the world have waged this campaign. The bishop of Guam praises the fundamentalist Islamic people who kill gay people. Cardinal Ratzinger in a letter John Paul II ordered to be printed stated that no one, not even the church, should be surprised when people react violently against gay people when they claim that being gay is not disordered, when homosexual activity is condoned and when civil legislation is introduced to protect gay sexual behavior.

I have wondered why it is that these Catholic bishops and popes are so much against equal rights and the recognition of gay relationships that they wage these battles. I have wondered why these bishops take the expansion of marriage rights to same sex couples so seriously and personally. I have wondered why these unmarried men who would be excommunicated if they were married claim to be such experts about marriage and are so vehement about keeping marriage limited to opposite sex couples. I have wondered why they have been spending so much more energy on attacking gay couples and families than they have been spending on health care for all or on opposition to wars or on keeping their parishes open.

But I am fully aware that many of those Catholic bishops are closeted homosexuals, and that closeted homosexuals are often the greatest enemies of gay and lesbian people. Perhaps they think that their vehemence keeps people from seeing through their actions. Or perhaps they just hate their own sexuality too much to accept who they really are.

Whatever the reason, it is disgraceful to see so many Catholic bishops in many countries around the world, from popes on down, spending so much time and energy and money on campaigns of lies trying to keep gay and lesbian, and also bisexual and transgender people from having equal rights. The ads some of these bishops have been buying accuse gay relationships of perverting children. But the very actions of these bishops is an attempt to destroy the self-esteem of gay children and to keep them from ever having the equality that the bishops demand for themselves. Indeed, this behavior is in truth a form of psychological abuse. I can only imagine the pain of gay and lesbian youths and their families, sitting in the pews as unmarried priests and the unmarried bishop decry equal treatment for those who are gay and as the collection baskets are passed to try to overturn their civil rights. I don't have to imagine their rage. I understand that rage as a gay person who has seen the leaders of the church I used to love become more and more intolerant and vehement in their opposition to my rights and the rights of all my people. This is not the church of Jesus Christ. This is the church of the Sadducees and Pharisees.

This only shows how deep the rot of immorality & irrationality has sunk into the Catholic Church since the unfortunate council. All people who support this nonsence should receive an automatic excommunication. The canon law needs to be revised.

The mailed fist needs to be smashed down on the unholy troika of homosexuals, feminists & liberals who have seized control of the chanceries & the UCCB. One third of the American hierarchy needs to be removed. Liberal nuns need to be expelled from their orders. The LCWR needs to be no more.

Let a holy war finally begin! Hear the clarion call! The time is long past due for the Second Counter Reformation to begin in the Roman Catholic Church!

My guess is that many of tese "cathoics" have not darkened the door of their local parish for three consecutive Sundays in any given year... Nor have they read the CCC...

By indirectly inject large sums of money into the "anti-same sex marriage" side of the ballot questions in both California and now Maine, especially when this Maine bishop is saying that Catholics have a religious obligation to vote in a certain way, the Catholic Church is seriously jeopardizing its status as a religious tax-exempt institution before the IRS...

They have already wasted over $2+ BILLIONS in fighting rear-guard actions because the hierarchy failed to exercise due diligence over its subordinates and then compounded the felonies by aiding and abetting obstruction of criminal investigations...

Are they deliberately selected for their arrogance and lack of knowledge in basic civics and American legal and govt traditions???

Yes, it is one's duty to follow one's informed conscience. It is also one's duty to discern and correct a misinformed conscience. It the service of the Church to distinguish one from the other.

I applaud you & after you succeed in your hm State of ME, pls cm out here to CA & help us Catholics (other denominations too)who support gay marriage...civil marriage is a civil rt!!! In Europe, ALL marriages are performed 1st, in a Civil Ceremony, prior to being married in the Church. I guess the good Bishop, along w/too many others have forgotten 'bout the Separation of Church & State!

One bit of advise, there's a very simple solution, if your donations are being used in this way; to support their cause, STOP giving!!! My late husband & I made that decision, bk in 2002, for another just cause...ALL the Church money (parishioners donations)that was going for legal fees to settle the myriad of Church law suits!!! At the same time, we joined VOTF!!!

I applaud you & after you succeed in your hm State of ME, pls cm out here to CA & help us Catholics (other denominations too)who support gay marriage...civil marriage is a civil rt!!! In Europe, ALL marriages are performed 1st, in a Civil Ceremony, prior to being married in the Church. I guess the good Bishop, along w/too many others have forgotten 'bout the Separation of Church & State!

One bit of advise, there's a very simple solution, if your donations are being used in this way; to support their cause, STOP giving!!! My late husband & I made that decision, bk in 2002, for another just cause...ALL the Church money (parishioners donations)that was going for legal fees to settle the myriad of Church law suits!!! At the same time, we joined VOTF!!!

"Catholics for Marriage Equality?" As Catholic as "Catholics for Free Choice?" What about

"Catholics for Divorce?"
"Catholics for Adultery?"
"Catholics Personally Opposed to Stealing?"
"Catholics for Liars"

Since when is being Catholic pick + Choose morality?

Agree strongly with other posters that civil unions are a civil issue. Give unto Caesar and all that. A little disturbed, though, by the tone of some of the post-ers who, when they disagree with other comments, go so far as to question the "Catholic-ness" of the commenters. Seems a little uncharitable at best.

Who am I to say to God, "You made a mistake in the way you created Gays and Lesbians."? Making such a statement strikes me as the height of arrogance.

The Bishop can and should make rational arguement for the Church's view of marraige. With all due respect to his teaching authority he is simply factually wrong that "that it is the doctrine of the Catholic church -- not [his] personal opinion — that all Catholics are obligated to oppose legal recognition" of same sex couples entering a civil insitution called "marriage" that heterosexuals can enter and leave at will.

Regarding the question of marriage and civil rights: the principle involved is equal protection under the law. Separate but equal didn't work regarding laws against racial discrimination, and it doesn't work regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Isn't it interesting that these Bishops can always find money to prevent people from exercising their civil rights. I am sure that all that money could have been used to help the poor. I wonder how much Bishop Malone would be willing to help spend money for Health Reform. Maybe he could even help some of his fellow Bishops who are declaring bankruptcy (I believe there are seven now.) In other words, the Maine diocese is wasting a lot of its money in a place it should not be. How many couples have asked the Catholic Church in Maine to perform marriage rites for them in the last six months? Maine Catholics should be very alarmed that their Bishop is a fish out of water in these matters.

I think it is high time that the Catholic Church lost it "tax-free" status. Clearly it has become a political lobbying organization. The Constitution is for a separation of Church & State but the Catholic Church (and Mormon Church) are not. If the Catholic Church stopped driving people away by the thousands in this country they wouldn't need to be recruiting Episcopalians and creating yet another double standard within their own church.

In a democratic society, we should elect the Bishops so that they don't take hair brained positions such as this. God gives each of us free will and an informed conscience and the Bishop should first ask the faithful before he takes such positions. We are as much the Church as he is.

Of course, I can see what he is afraid of. If Catholic families with gay members get used to marriage equality they will begin to demand that these unions be blessed in the Church. Indeed, in much of the rest of Christendom, the legal and religious ceremonies are separated and over the history of marriage, the Church usually follows the lead of civil society. This would present a problem for the Church, as it would require a rethinking of its teachings on homosexuality (which has little scriptural support). Indeed, the whole one man, one woman theme in the Gospel, which echos Genesis, is not about homosexuality, but about the equal dignity of women in marriage.

Of course, conservatives don't believe in that much either, since to do so would be to concede to women the right to reject sex - which the Church did not believe they had until very recently (and still may officially reject on doctrinal and scriptural grounds - something about being submissive to one's husband). If conservatives really put the relevant scripture into practice, it would support women's equality in both civil and canon law and would ordain them to the priesthood and ministry. (Fat chance).

"Render unto Caesar..."

The Church is not being asked to change or compromise its teaching. This is a question of civil law. My own ideas came into focus when I realized that some of the neighborhood kids have less security and fewer rights than my own son because their parents can not marry in my state. For their sake, and for the sake of those people whose desire for life-long partnership with a single spouse seems as sincere as my own ever was, I would not vote to overturn the law in Maine.

Frankly, I would approve a civil law that recognizes the domestic partnership that adults sometimes enter into for the purpose of raising children or caring for each other. I know of a Catholic brother and sister who set up household together to raise their nieces and nephews when those kids were orphaned and I know of several cases of elderly sisters (often one healthy and one infirm) who set up a household together. These folks have rights and responsibilities in the partnership that the law should recognize. Society runs better when people take care of each other. Whether consenting adults are having sex or not is not an issue for the law. Maybe "marriage" as a spiritual union is best left to the churches, some who recognize same-sex unions as sacramental. Maybe the civil law should just recognize and support the domestic partnerships, whether "traditional" or not.

What gets lost when same-sex marriage gets debated in many circles is charity. What Maine's bishop is lacking is a Catholic compassion, solidarity towards the persecuted, as Catholic Social Teachings mention. I also see the near rabid at times approach by bishops and higher as trying to get back the respect and control they lost in the sex scandals. What we have are old men living in fear and the underlining root of this same-gender marriage is their inability to deal with the fear on a personal and institutional level. The fear goes beyond same-gender marriage to in some circles a fear about everything that is not in their tiny world of liturgy. The Church to them is only about the liturgy and the church buildings, not about the church in the wide world in that they seem totally terrified of and react so defensively. What is happening in Maine now has happened in other parts of the country already (MN, MA, CA, WI, etc...) and it is always the same tear someone down (same-gender preference people in committed relationships) to build themselves up.

Until the fear of the sex scandals goes away, we will remain stuck in this repeating cycle of fear towards the outside world, fear of anything except perfection during masses, etc... Eventually a new Pentacost will come upon the Church and open the windows up again as a future generation will engage the world instead of living in fear of it.

"'Question One,' on the ballot reads,'Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?'

If passed, it would be the first time -- in more than two dozen tries -- that same-sex marriage would be approved by a majority vote of the people."

Just to clarify: Supporters of same sex marriage are looking to DEFEAT this initiative. If Question one PASSES, the new same-sex marriage law will be repealed. A NO vote is a vote in SUPPORT of same-sex marriage. There has been a lot of confusion surrounding the wording of the question. All you Catholics out there, and everyone else for that matter, who support LGBT rights...make sure you get out there on Tuesday and vote NO on 1! I'll see you at the polls!

(You can also vote early Friday or Monday at you town clerk's office)

As long as the most immature consciences, formed by decades of excessive narcissism and chemically assisted self indulgence, are pretending to run the American Catholic asylum, why not just throw the doors open wide (forgive the Vatican II pun) to all categories of "marriage"? That should make our heterodox Catholics friends happy and provide great cultural sport for the rest of us.

A person (which could include any legally designated sentient being except for a human embryo or fetus) should be able to marry anyone of his/her/its choosing including one, two or more members of his/her/its own sex, the other sex, a re-engineered third sex, a direct relative, an animal, an idea, an inanimate object, or even the ham sandwich the local district attorney indicted last week.

Just don't be too shocked or angry though when your child, produced from the invitro fertilization of two related men and carried by a surrogate birth mother not related to you so you could work full time and not be bothered by pregnancy, says that she'd like to marry the "nice boy next door" because he's not as screwed up as the rest of her family.

Pax.

I have a very good friend who lives in Maine. He attends Mass (or did until Bishop Malone's condemnation of him hit him in the face two Sundays in a row) every Sunday. He is an educated Catholic who has struggled to reconcile his own sexual identity with his faithfulness to the Church for over fifty years. He has been in a faithful and committed relationship for over thirty years. I feel his pain, I let God judge him, and I pray that somehow he can continue to overlook the tyranny of his bishop who has contravened the separation of church and state, the sovereignty of his conscience, and tried to tell him what how to vote. "As you treat the least of the brethren, so have you treated me." God help Bishop Malone on Judgment Day.

Have the Catholic Bishops been elected by all the voters to perform marriages for all comers?? No!! So they should not be interfering with that job. The Bishops seem as prejudiced against non-heterosexual couples as that LA Justice of the Peace did against interracial couples.

He was a PUBLIC OFFICIAL -- Catholic Bishops are not!
NO LAWS ALLOWING same sex marriage REQUIRE PRIVATE religious figures to marry those who do not meet the qualifications of the denomination.

Let the Maine, along with all other states', Bishops do more about removing the moral rot among their own ranks of clergy (pedophilic priests and co-enabling supervisors) as their first priority, especially in this Year of the Priests...

The Roman Catholic Church has lost its credibility on sexual issues, yet this is the primary focus of almost every statement coming from the hierarchy. We are expected to obey the rules of these men who have become so preoccupied and obsessed with sex that they have virtually destroyed the viability of Catholicism. Once the hierarchy discovered that they cannot control the majority of their own members they look to the law to solve their pereceived "issues." While the situation is embarrassing to most Catholics, it is absurd to the rest of the world.

Treating the FACT that homosexuality is a normal sexual orientation as if it were not has somehow created a very large segment of priests to cower in fear rather than admit their true sexuality. The result has been a comparatively small number who have abused male and female children, then been given a general amnesty by equally dysfunctional bishops, archbishops, cardinals and popes. The rest have been merely immature and tormented on sexual issues.

The Catholic Church has the right to dictate its own rules, but it cannot dictate for society by demanding that Catholic beliefs be made part of the law.

In reality, if we don't call a halt to this kind of attempted bullying now, we will soon find a law making masturbation illegal and a vastly expanded juvenile detention system unable to punish the "criminals."

If we really analyze it, this is what Bishop Malone and all of his cohorts are ultimately trying to achieve.

By not allowing gays to marry -- what's next? Individuals of different Races? Individuals from different economic backgrounds? Individuals with different eye color? Malone & his group make a good base for the Fourth Reich!!!

This article reminds me of a year ago when my 88 year old sister, a USA lifetime democrat abstained from voting for the USA president because her local pastor announced from the pulpit that it would be a sin to vote for B.Obama, and her common sense forbade her to vote for any USA republican.

I seem to hear the voice of that “slob prophet from Nazareth”. “ How terrible for you, teachers of the Law and Pharisees! Hypocrites! You give to God one tenth even of the seasoning herbs, such as mint, dill and cummin, but you neglect to obey the really important teachings of the Law, such as justice, mercy and honesty. ... Blind guides! You strain a fly out of your drink, but swallow a camel.”

Here are a few considerations that pop into my mind. Dogmas, catechisms, religious teachings, “infalibiity” etc. do not change either history or reality. They might change our personal appreciation of history or reality, but not the objective facts.

For those who still believe in “going to heaven or hell” -- In Rome, Washington, Beijing, Calcutta, Moscow, Buenos Aires, Brisbane, Tokyo, Nairobi, Alaska, Maine or Managua -- it’s our own conscience and only our own conscience that has the ultimate say of any “where to”.

The First Vatican Council (1870+) in the RCC limited extremely the scope of “infalibility of the church” to expatiating on themes of faith and morals --“the deposit of faith”-- transmitted by the apostles”. When the pope speaks “ex cathedra” i.e. as universal teacher, reflecting the belief of the universal church, then the pope shares the same infalibility that has been granted to the church. Since 1870 the only attempt at an “infalible declaration” has been that of “the assumption of Mary into heaven in body and soul” by Pope Pius XII, which still seems rather dificult to find in the “depositum fidei” left by the apostles.

As Jesus prayed to his Daddy, “abbá-Father”, and taught us: “OUR Father ...THY KINGDOM COME” we find out who we are before God and what’s our purpose in life as followers of Jesus of Nazareth. Although each and every human person exists in hundreds of different ages, cultures and “existential conditions”, we all are made to the “image of God”, -- no lines are drawn between genders, life styles or “existential conditions” neither of “who’s who”, much less of “who’$ got it”. The very idea that there might exist an absolute “God’s sexual ethics” results extremely far fetched. The so called Christian Religion today (a little less that 25% of the world population) has had roughly 2,000 years trying to convince the world of the correctness of its moral vision, and it seems as though it still has a long, long road ahead to get there.

The second part of the prayer that Jesus left with us is the reason for his life and death and for the lives of those of us who believe that he is still alive among us. “Thy kingdom come right here on earth as it is in heaven.”

According to Jesus building his “kingdom” that “other possible world” means loving the excluded persons, the poor, the abandoned, the hungry, those suffering from abuse and injustice, those deprived of their human rights, the marginal “slobs”, those with a different “existential condition” than the majority, etc. etc. “Love one another as I have loved you;” “Love your enemies and do good to them;” “Blessed are you poor for yours is the Kingdom of God;” “How difficult it is for the rich to enter into the Kingdom of God;” “Whatever you do to the least of my brothers and sisters you do unto me.”

I live in the “third world” where more than 60% of the population lives on a daily survival basis, in social/political systems that produce an obscene inequality in the population where today every four seconds another person dies of hunger, and the “first world” continues degrading our planet “Mother earth” so that it´s getting harder even to produce our food.

With this scenario for us third world christians, our priorities and pre-ocupations are very different from what I read about in these comments. For us, faith in Jesus is working for liberation from oppression on so many different levels. From these comments I get the impression that “religion “ tends to be “staring at our belly buttons” instead of working to build that “other possible world” for which Jesus lived, died and arose to be with us. It all seems so profoundly superficial, apart from the crude reality in which we “other people” live.

Justiniano de Managua

MEMO TO IRS:

550,000
86,000
50,000
__________

Are these $686,000 of Portland, Maine diocese really meeting the criteria for Federal TAX EXEMPTION status? If not, please send the bill to Bishop Malone, who is, I am sure, more than happy to put "his" money where "his" mouth is.

The following is from another blog concerning another religion other than our own Roman Catholic faith. That Religion, as well as our own, really only provides two options for the homosexual adult.
The church is entitled to preach its own two options, but we its members should also remember the words of our Lord: "love they neighbor as thyself".
The options are:

"Option 1: To enter into a heterosexual marriage in spite of their dismal success rates — most often leading to misery and disaster for both husband and wife. Consider what it would be like to either: 1) marry someone you were not physically attracted to, or 2) marry someone who is not at all physically attracted to you. Would you want your child to marry someone in this situation? For most, this option is simply not viable. But Option #2 is just as hopeless…
Option 2: To voluntarily choose a lifetime of celibacy and solitude – where one of the most basic human needs (that of human physical intimacy) – is made unavailable for the entire lifetime of the homosexual member. Can you imagine for a second being asked to remain alone your entire adult life – never to know the joys of spousal companionship and intimacy? To us, this is perhaps the cruelest of requests. In prison, the worst possible punishment is not capital punishment, it is solitary confinement. And this, in essence, is what we’re asking of our gay brothers and sisters with this option. Can you imagine living the rest of your life unable to reach out and touch someone you love? While it’s true that some heterosexual people never marry, at least they have the HOPE of physical intimacy and can freely give and receive physical affection to those they are dating."
These observations of the two options offered by the Roman Catholic Church come from a Mormon blog, yet the shoe fits us as well.
... The greatest of these is charity

Why does it seem that NCR frequently pays so much attention to small groups who dissent from Church teaching? One might start to get the unfortunate impression that NCR is pushing an agenda.

Bishop Malone by his actions proves yet again how little the Church cares for its members. He would probably argue the opposite. Malone would argue that it is because he cares that he is doing this. Yet, forcing others to accept your love is not love at all. He clearly has no idea how to love others, and he a bishop. If you want people to follow you, you have to show how much you care for them first, not the other way around. You don't demand that people follow you because you care for them. Jesus understood that vital difference long ago. Jesus invited, never forced. The bishops in the US have proven beyond all doubt that they do not care for their members. What they care about is their position and status. That is why the bishops continue to fight tooth and nail the legal process which seeks to hold them and abusing priests accountable for their crimes. As long as no bishop is held accountable for his actions in covering up the sex abuse scandal by hiding abusing priests, and as long as Cardinal Law has a place of honor and influence in the Vatican, these bishops are simply whistling Dixie when it comes to moral matters. They haven't got the slightest idea of whence they speak. And it may come as a total shock to poor misguided Malone that homosexuality has been around for centuries; so has marriage. Neither shows any sign of dissipating.

Poor National Catholic Reporter lol It will always be 1968 for you guys!Sorry somethin is blowin in the wind and it aint some lefty nuns polyester slacks folks.Its a new wind of orthodoxy that has come to sweep away the wreckage of the Post Vatican II debacle.So I say go Bishop Malone go.All faithful Christians Muslims Jews Hindus and Buddhists and even conservative atheists should make sure they get to the polls in Maine next Tuesday and vote to preserve traditional marriage as a union between one man and one woman!

One day, hopefully, some of the bishops will actually remind themselves of their obligation to listen to the faithful, through whom the Spirit speaks. I realize that there are many who are convinced that the Spirit speaks only through the heirarchy, and that their role is not to listen, but to teach. However, it seems that the Spirit speaks where and when she wills - and does not always follow our commands or prejudices. The Spirit is amazing and uncontained by dogmas, formulas or laws. We are called to be a community of people open to the Spirit who speaks in all of the wonderful and awe-full diversity of creation, always becoming. Finally, we as a community are called to serve, not to be served - to proclaim the love of the Creator-God for all of creation - even to the decision to engage in the Incarnation within suffering and pain filled humanity - to walk with us on our common pilgrimage - not to decide who should leave the path but to invite

Great story, even the comment thread is good. Way to go, National Catholic Reporter!!

There are eight passages in the Bible that have most commonly been cited in direct condemnation of homosexual activity. Some others are related to or comment on these. It should be noted that the sexist bias with which the authors, editors, redactors and translators colored their writings and with which the editors prejudiced their choices of word translations is apparent in the fact that only one of these passages may refer to homosexual activity, and that, more especially among women. [Remember, in approaching interpretation, that specific occurrences of sexism usually apply only in understanding the application of a passage for its original readers. In understanding the universal application of a passage, we may justly acknowledge our fuller understanding of the value of every human being under God. We can then come nearer to making a holistic approach to God's inclusive universal Word before we come to the point of drawing a
specific contemporary application.]

I. De 23.17-18 (Related passages: 1 K 14.22-24; 15.22; 2K 23.7.)

[Much of the traditional application of this passage to homosexual activity
is based upon a mistranslation in the AV.]

"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow, for even both of these are abomination to the Lord thy God."

Far more reliable are the renderings found in most modern translations:

"No Israelite woman shall become a temple-prostitute and no Israelite man shall prostitute himself in this way. You shall not allow a common prostitute's fee, or the pay of a male prostitute, to be brought into the house of the Lord your God in fulfillment of any vow, for both of them are abominable to the Lord your God." (NEB)

The central word at issue in this passage is [Qadesh – H6947] בַּרְנֵעַ, קָדֵשׁ בַּרְנֵעַ (qadesh), the masculine form, and the feminine form of the same word, [Q’deshah – H6948] קָדֵשׁ (qedeshah). While "whore" is simply an inaccurate translation of the feminine form, the translation "sodomite" is wholly unjustified and may be ascribed to a bias in translation without attention to the actual meaning. This may well be a case in which the translators lacked sufficient understanding of historicity, and even hielgescheit, to comprehend the background and intended meaning of these words. (The word "sodomite" itself was coined into usage in the English language based on the misinterpretation of the story of Sodom, which will be discussed next. "Sodomytis" was first used by Wyclif in Wks. 55, c.1380. "Sodomits" if found in his Apol. Loll. 55, c.1400. Caxton next picks it up in Dictes IIb in 1477 using the term "sodomytes.") Since both the masculine and feminine forms are of the same root, both should be translated "temple" or "cultic prostitute." The cultures that surrounded the Israelites included fertility cults. It was believed by these cults the gods could be encouraged to make the earth and its inhabitants fertile through engaging in sexual intercourse with sacred prostitutes in the temples.

It must be remembered that the Hebrew peoples had just left Egypt where gods were the order of the day. There was a god in, of and/or for everything. There are extant, at present, names for over 2000 of these gods with many, many more still unnamed, but each with a specific purpose. Israel was aware that Yahweh was their special "tribal" God, but remained unconvinced of monotheism until the period of the Babylonian captivity some 700 plus years after the Exodus. Hence, "Yahweh could bring us out of Egypt, but now that we are in Canaan maybe we need to appease the local gods of the land (fertility, etc.) so that we may have good crops." The Israelites lived in constant temptation to adopt the religious practices of their neighbors and the focus of this passage is that they are to be set apart with a new understanding of one God who deals with them personally.

Objectionable as prostitution may have been, in and of itself, the issue here was the fact that they were not to relate to God in terms of magic and idolatrous rites. The condemnation applied equally to female and male prostitutes--regardless of sexual partners. In fact, there is no direct reference here to homosexual activity. Some archaeologists and historians believe that male temple prostitutes may have served male worshippers. Others believe they served women. I, myself, deem it unlikely that these prostitutes were engaged in homosexual activity since that would seem pointless in a fertility cult. Whichever scholars you find persuasive, the fact remains that the condemnation of this passage is directed at prostitution--specifically ritual or cultic prostitution, at that--regardless of whether it was heterosexual or homosexual in intent.

II. Genesis 19.4-11; Judges 19.22. (Related passages -- Jude 6-7 and 2 Peter 2. 4, 6-8.) Genesis 19.5, the focus of the issue here, is translated:

"And they called to Lot, "Where are the men who come to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them." (RSV)
The related passage in the story of the men of Gibeah in Judges reads:

"Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, saying bring forth the man that come into thine house, that we may know him." (AV)

The traditional interpretation of the Genesis account of Lot and the destruction of Sodom is that God's reason for destruction of the city was the depravity of the people, particularly expressed here in homosexual behavior. (The passage in Judges is similar.) One major point of controversy in this verse is the word [Yada – H3045] דָּעָה, יָדַע (yadha), which literally means "to know, or to experience fully". A word study reveals the following concerning the use of yadah: The word occurs, outside of these two passages, 943 times in the OT and in only 10 of those occurrences does it specifically denote sexual intercourse. The term occurs in five additional instances combined with the word [Mishkab – H4903 & 04] מִשְׁכָּב mishkabh) to mean simply the act of lying down. By comparison, the word [Shakab – H7901] שָׁכַב (shakhabh), which is the root of mishkabh occurs fifty times to mean "lie with" in a sexual sense. Moreover, in its sexual applications yadha always means heterosexual intercourse. Shakhabh is used of both homosexual and bestial intercourse, in addition to that of heterosexual.

Some interpreters hold that if the writers had intended the meaning to be homosexual intercourse, they would have used a form of shakhabh and not yadha. By this evidence, and by the simple statistical incidence, the traditional interpretation of yadha as sexual is open to question. On the other side of the debate, however, falls the observation that yadha here means "to be acquainted with" is not off the mark. While its customary meaning is "to know" things, it means an intimate, close and complete knowledge in all of its aspects - hence the sexual interpretation when applied to persons. It is not simply used as a euphemism for sexual activity as some seem to think. There are interpreters who feel if the men of the city were simply demanding the presence of the visitors to "get acquainted" with them (and perhaps to assault them physically), then Lot's offer of his virgin daughters was unmotivated. These, for the most part, are convinced that Lot's offer was meant as a substitute for the other sexual activity. The same argument is applied to the word's occurrence in the verse in Judges.

Place this in the context of life in that time and place. Lot had given the hospitality of his home to two strangers to the city. Unknown strangers were suspect in the walled cities of the day. They could have been spies or saboteurs. Lot, himself, was a "resident alien" in Sodom and had taken in two unknown guests. The men of the city could well have been suspicious and angry. They could have been planning an assault on the guests simply because they were foreigners. This sort of "inhospitality" was a heinous crime even in that day. Lot was aware of the divine nature of his guests and was so concerned and frightened by the consequences such treatment would bring that, in casting about for any alternative, the first thing he settled on was the offer of his virgin daughters--presumably to take the men's minds off his visitors. Remember, too, the sexist bias of the culture. Lot's daughters were chattel – his property. Their value as chattel, to offer in marriage especially, was enhanced by their virginity. He was, in effect, offering the men of the city a valuable bribe, perhaps, in his view, the most highly cherished of his possessions. In view of this cultural background one could assume that emotions were running high and there was a very real and present danger involved--at least from Lot's point of view. This, certainly, quite apart from any homosexual intent.

There are, then, two strong sides of the controversy over the translation of the word yadha. It is interesting that modern translators have seen fit to go further than simply here translating it "to know." Hence, we have a variance in latitude in the interpretation of the Genesis verse: "have intercourse with" (NEB); "abuse" (JB); "rape" (Moffatt). While this issue is important in deciding whether or not there is a connotation of homosexuality in these passages, this is not really the central issue. Whether or not the incident was homosexual; whether or not it was to involve abuse and injury; the reasons for the destruction of Sodom were far larger and more longstanding. A clearer definition of the sin of Sodom is found in Ezekiel 16.46ff:

"This was your sibling Sodom's crime: Sodom and its children lived in pride, in plenty, in careless ease; she never lent a hand to the weak and wretched. Haughty they grew, and they committed detestable impieties before my face. So I swept them off, when I noticed it." (Moffatt)

Note the translation "detestable impieties". This is much closer to the true meaning of the word than the "abominations" of the AV. This word occurred in the passage studied in Deuteronomy, as well. We shall examine it when we consider the verses in Leviticus. According to the writer of Ezekiel, then, Sodom's sin was not primarily sexual. In the general scope of the overall sinfulness, sexual sins could undoubtedly have been part of the transgression. Whether you feel that yadha here is sexual in meaning or not, the attitude of the men, their evident intent to abuse, was simply characteristic of the evil of the city which had already decided its destruction.

Another point to consider is that lists of things in scriptures are usually enumerated in order of importance from beginning to end. It is interesting that "abominations", the sin for which Sodom is remembered today, whether or not it refers to homosexuality appears last on the list. A useful comparison to the indictment in Ezekiel for this sin of "inhospitality" may be found in Jesus words on similar cases such as Luke 10.10-12 and 16.19ff:

"But whenever you come to a town and they will not receive you, go out into the street and say, "The very dust of your town that clings to our feet we wipe off as a protest. Only be sure of this--the Real of God is close at hand". I tell you that it will be more endurable for Sodom on that Great Day than for that town." (Weymouth)

Note, too, that in the only other passages that comment on Sodom, 2 Peter does not refer to a sexual transgression at all and Jude does not define it as homosexual. It was not until the first century, A.D. that the interpretation of Sodom's sin as homosexuality began to emerge in writings.
This is some two millennia after the occurrence and is first to be found in the works of Philo and Josephus. This interpretation did not occur at all in any of the writings of Jewish religious scholars. The early church based its anti-homosexuality attitudes and interpretations upon acceptance of writings such as those of these two nonreligious scholars (?). Church historians are beginning to learn that homosexuality was not universally condemned nor a settled issue during the first few centuries of the Church. Some Church Fathers were not opposed to it and a few were even involved in it to some degree. By looking at the passages in Genesis and Judges, we can see that, even if the proposed activity was to be sexual, the sin in that moment lay in the intent to violate, to abuse rather than in the choice of object.

III. LEVITICUS 18.22, 20.13-14:

"You shall not lie with a man as with a woman: that is an abomination."
(NEB)

" If a man has intercourse with a man as with a woman, they both commit an abomination. They shall be put to death; their blood shall be on their own heads." (AV)

These verses occur in the portion of Leviticus that is known as the "Holiness Code." These were laws specifically addressed to the Hebrew people who were surrounded by pagan and polytheistic peoples. Their uniqueness in worship was constantly in danger of contamination. They were commanded to be holy--that is, set apart to God. This code of laws was to keep them visibly set apart as a reminder to them and a witness to others. It was mandated to keep them separate and maintain their cultic purity.

The word [Towebah, Toebah – H8441] תֹּועֵבָה (toebhah) that occurs in these passages is most frequently translated "abomination." In English, "abomination" connotes general distaste and disgust, filthiness. The Hebrew word from which it comes, however, has a specific relationship to idolatry. Moffatt's translation of the word quoted earlier is a good one: "detestable impieties." This translation focuses attention on the fact that the problem here is a religious one, a violation of God's sovereignty. It is applied to practices throughout the OT that were characteristic of idolatry. It refers to any idolatrous practice, not only to sexual ones. The reason cited for the wrong doing associated with these acts, then, was that they were idolatrous. (i.e., I Sam. 15.23: For rebellion is as the sin of divination and stubbornness is an iniquity and idolatry. (RSV) Leviticus 19.26 and Deuteronomy 18.10ff. both speak to these "abominations" as well and the sin of witchcraft all of which are to result in the death of those practicing such. As noted in Ezekiel 16.46ff, God is uttering a diatribe against the house of Israel and comparing their sins to those of Sodom; where the sins of Sodom are listed--biblical listings are usually in order of importance--the word says, "...she and her daughters had (1) pride, (2) surfeit of food, (3) prosperous ease, (4) did not aid the poor and needy, (5) haughty, (6) committed abominable things--note: (a) things is plural, more than one, and (b) abominable is not necessarily equated with homosexuality--before me. (RSV).

Once again, our knowledge of the culture and history of the time will explain why this was true. In the context of Israelite patriarchal society, anal intercourse between men was regarded with suspicion. The man who was the recipient was viewed as submissive, even passive, very much in accord with the common modern sexist stereotype. It was even customary in some surrounding cultures to consummate the humiliation and defeat of an enemy, especially one who was to become a slave, by subjecting him to anal penetration. This was to emphasize the fact that he was property, of status no better than a woman. This similarity to the role of a woman is the key, for once again we are confronted with the sexist cultural reality that women were chattel and that one of their roles as such was to be the recipient of sexual intercourse. Israelites believed the male sex to have absolute dignity, inviolable dignity, because males were created in the image of God. To treat a male like a woman, then, was to violate the image of God and this was idolatrous. This casts a new light on the phrase, "lie with a man as with a woman," or, "has intercourse with a man as with a woman."

IV. 1 Corinthians 6.9, 1 Timothy 1.9-10
The central issue here is translation of specific words.

"You know perfectly well that people who do wrong will not inherit the kingdom of God: people of immoral lives, idolaters, adulterers, catamites, sodomites . . . ." (JB)

"He must keep in mind that no law is ever made for honest people but for the lawless and the insubordinate, for the impious and the sinful, for the irreverent and the profane, for parricides and matricides, murderers, immoral persons, sodomites . . . " (Moffatt)

The words at issue are malakoi (ma-la-kee) [Malakia – G3119] μαλακία, translated "catamites" above, and arsenokoitai (ar-sen-o-kee-teh) [Arsenokoites – G733] ἀρσενοκοίτης, translated "sodomites" by Moffatt. malakos comes from a root word (ma-la-kohs) [Malakos – G3120] μαλακός, which literally means "soft" (as in clothing) or even "effeminate". Note that effeminacy to the Greeks did not equal homosexuality. The context of "effeminate", however, in the absence of adequate word study led some translators to the unsupported conclusion that the word meant "catamites", even a sort of temple prostitution. However, the word was used in contemporary literature to mean moral weakness, sometimes even cowardice. It was an adjective which Paul used here as a noun. The fact that he speaks of people who do wrong (the present imperfect tense here used means people who are now doing wrong and will continue to do wrong -- a habitual practice) indicates a particular reference. So, the combination of evidence indicates a translation of "the morally weak" or, as Moffatt has translated it, "immoral persons".

The second word, artenokoitai (arsenokoitai) , appears in both passages. Once again, an adjective becomes a noun characterizing a person by a habitual behavior. Forms of the word in writings fairly contemporary with this one indicate that it does probably refer to a form of temple prostitution, a practice which persisted in some cultures. In later centuries the word began to apply more broadly to excessive, perhaps abusive sexual practices. Even in its appearance as a noun in the 6th century Penitentiale of Jahannes Jejunator, Patriarch of Constantinople, it is clear that the word applies to both heterosexual and homosexual activity. Therefore, it is certainly not a specific reference to homosexual activity in this early usage and the translation "sodomite" is without merit. The word might better be translated "temple prostitute".

Neither of these words applies to homosexual persons, or specifically to homosexual activity. One refers to a form of prostitution and the other probably to consistent moral weakness, of whatever sort. The use of the adjective "homosexual" as a noun, as happens in English, is unjustified in the translation of Greek. Greek had no word equivalent to the use of "homosexual" as a noun. There were a number of Greek words for people who engaged in certain homosexual practices. Had the writers meant to indicate homosexual activity, there were certainly words they could have used. The two words in question do not even approach such meanings. They occur in lists of crime and abuse of other persons.

The teaching of Scripture here as in Leviticus, is a reminder that Christians are to relate to others in love and not to use others as objects.
Persons who consistently and habitually objectify others, as Paul points out, cannot be in God's realm since they obviously do not understand God's love. It is interesting, then, to look at the ways various translators have rendered these words, reflecting their biases. Note, especially, the translations which have chosen to ignore that fact that there are two quite different words at issue in the 1 Corinthian passage. They have combined them without comment under one erroneous designation. The words in 1
Corinthians are translated:

"Nor effeminate, nor homosexuals" (ASV)
"Men guilty of unnatural crime" (Weymouth)
"nor homosexuals" (RSV)
"or of homosexual perversion" (NEB)
"Nor catamites nor sodomites" (Moffatt)

The word in 1 Timothy is translated:

"sodomites" (Weymouth)
"homosexuals" (ASV)
"immoral ... with boys or with men" (JB)
"perverts" (NEB)
"sodomites" (RSV)

V. Romans 1:26-27

"That is why God has abandoned them to degrading passions: why their women have turned from natural intercourse to unnatural practices and why their men folk have given up natural intercourse to be consumed with passion for each other, men doing shameless things with men and getting an appropriate reward for their perversion." (JB)

We would be remiss should we not point out at this juncture that verses must be interpreted within the overall context of a particular pericope or within the total scope of a specific author. These verses occur in the midst of a discussion of idolatry. "That is why" refers to the fact that they have been putting other things before God, in this case their sexual desires—more often than not, associated with their idolatrous religions.

The first important issue that arises in the passage centers on whether vs. 26 speaks of homosexuality among women. The Gk word methllaxan (meh-teel-lax-ahn) [Metallasso – G3337] μεταλλάσσω, translated "turned from" or "changed", only says that the women altered former practices. It does NOT specify what their new practices were. It does NOT specify that they were homosexual ones. The reason for believing that they were comes from the first word in vs. 27. In Gk the word omoios [Homoios – G3668] ὁμοίως, translated in the Jerusalem Bible as "and" is more accurately translated "likewise" or "in the same way". It has the grammatical effect of an equals sign. Since the practices of the men Paul mentions in vs. 27 are clearly homosexual, the word omoios indicates that the practices in vs. 26 are, as well. If we accept this reasoning from grammar, vs. 26 is the only reference in scripture to homosexual activity among women.
In speaking of homosexual practices, Paul uses the word parafusin (pa-ra-fee-seen) [Para: ‘against’ – [G3844] παρά + Physis: ‘nature’ – G5449] φύσις. JB translates it "unnatural" but a more literal rendering is "against nature". This word is not to be confused with the L. contra naturam (against nature), which is traditionally ascribed by theologians for such descriptions. This argument is based on bios (or more properly, human physiology) rather than Jewish religious tradition. When parafusin is used by Paul he is speaking in the latter vein. Anything that was contrary to Jewish religious imperatives was, in Paul's consideration, "against nature". Paul sees a violation of the law and traditions contra idolatry--the primary topic of concern is this pericope. To rephrase, Paul, thus, considers these lustful sexual practices to be idolatrous, rather than biologically unnatural.

The use of the word afentes (a-fen-des) [Aphiemi, Enaphiemi – ‘leaving’ – G863] ἀφίημι, ἐναφίημι, of the action of the men in vs. 27. The word is clated "given up" or "left to" or "abandoned". Some interpreters feel that the use of this word appertains to those who leave heterosexual behavior that is "natural" to them for homosexual behavior that is not. They maintain that for some people homosexual behavior is already the "natural" course and this verse is not applicable to such people.

This interpretation fails to allow for the variety of human experience. Like Paul himself, it assumes that all humans are sexually polarized. Kinsey Institute (1994 report) reflects a spread all across the spectrum which renders null and void this interpretation of afentes in reference to people who are primarily homosexual, but because of societal stigma and pressures practice an altogether different lifestyle. With this interpretation there is no room for bisexuality that seems to be a major trend in the world today. Other interpreters emphasize an earlier point. There is no Greek word or concept equivalent to homosexuality used as a noun to describe one whose lifestyle was such. In Greek writings people engaged in homosexual activity but were not characterized as such.

Paul, being an educated Roman as well as a Jew, was not accustomed to thinking of a person as a "homosexual' but rather more likely, that engaging in homosexual activity was the leaving behind of the heterosexual. His personal and cultural bias would have included the Jewish view of the absolute dignity of the male. He would have believed--in line with scriptural teachings--that a man was incomplete without a wife. As a good Pharisee, he was, at some point, probably married and we have no idea what happened to his wife. At the time of his writings, he was celibate and counseled others also so to do. He obviously did not believe that homosexual activity could be held in the same context as a love relationship between a man and a woman. He uses the word orezis (o-rex-es) [Orexis – G3715] ὄρεξις, that may be clated "desire", "lust" or "passion", in referring to homosexual activity. He believed that such behavior could only be self-centered, using the other as an object, and in the process refusing to acknowledge the sovereignty of God.

As Paul explains, the results of putting self or things before our commitment to God is disastrous. When we so abandon ourselves to desire and selfishness we are certainly not acknowledging God as a part of that relationship. The same may also be said of illicit heterosexual relationships as well. Indeed, there is no difference in the sight of God. Marriage was divinely designed as a relationship between one man and one woman who through the process of totally "knowing" or "experiencing" each other become one flesh. Anything else is a misuse of that which was provided for us by our Maker. Who also happens to love us enough to allow us to go our own way and do our own thing until we have finally had enough and make the effort to return to our relationship with him. We have freedom of choice--even to the extent of self-destruction. As Paul states, if we insist on giving ourselves up to our lust, God will allow us to do so and will not abridge our freedom to reject Him.

Biological aspects of homosexuality are also a reality but God did not make us that way. It is the end result of sin and the existence of evil in this world. Here, too, he has provided a way out, but we have to desire it and seek it out. In ministering, we should remember that sin is sin is sin. Homosexuality is no different in the sight of God than illicit heterosexuality or, for that matter, the overindulgence (lust, if you will) of food, drink or anything else that becomes an idol by coming between you and the One who made you in his image and likeness and that One whose temple these earthly abodes of our spirit are said to be. Perhaps if those whose attitudes are blatantly homophobic could develop a like attitude towards all heterosexuality outside the marriage relationship in a sort of matching Hetero-phobic concept we could possibly be in a better place to minister to all who come to us in need.

The most degrading, discriminatory, insulting, dehumanizing thing a person could ever do towards a homosexual? Support him/her in sin. Homosexuals are human beings. They have the same dignity as other human beings. They are not defined by their sexuality, they are worth so much more than their tendencies. And therefore, the Church has the same obligation to hold them to a high moral standard as for everyone else. Do you have homosexual tendencies? Chastity is the way for you! You're better than your tendencies! Remember, Christ came to hold us to that same high standard. It IS hard, but the cross was hard, too. Should we expect less of a person only because to do so would make the way easy for them? No! And should they fail in seeking chastity, then we should forgive. This is the Church's way.

Thank God, NCR presents thinking that other Catholic papers cannot and will not state.

I disagree that "Marriage" and "Civil" are synonymous. The gay community is hurting itself by demanding to be recognized as a Marriage. I approve "Civil Union" as the proper appelation, and I propose they receive the same legal rights as anyone who is "Married'and not discriminated for any reason. Both can be regarded as "contracts" with similar responsibilites, but these are unique,distintive relationships and should remain so. I regret that our Bishops as well as our representatives, are so blinded to these essential realities. `

To our Anonymous friend of “the eight passages in the Bible”. I get the impressión that you are trying to find a basis for sexual morality in the Bible. It seems to me that ever since Pope Pius XII, launched his “Divino aflante spiritu” on the feast of St. Jerome 1943, recognizing the right and the obligation of catholic biblical scholars to use all scientific means available to discover the meaning of Sacred Scripture, it no longer makes much sense looking for a scriptural basis for history, geography, science, politics, morals, world planning, eccology etc. in the Bible.

The final two paragraphs of your long and quite interesting disertion remind me of one of our common local house pests here in the tropics: the scorpion – it carries it’s stinger in it’s tail. You finally end up by simply “begging the question” that you had so ardently been trying to prove from the Scriptures when you paraphrase Gertrude Stein by saying: “we should remember that sin is sin is sin”.

Justiniano de Managua

Kudos to Bishop Malone for standing his ground and upholding the truth that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Like abortion, same sex "marriage" is one of the non-negotiables in the Catholic Church. How gays live their lives is their own business, no one is imposing their views on them. A marriage has to be open to life and all studies show that children thrive in a family where there is a mother and a father. Of course there is the tragedy of divorce, but two wrongs do not make a right.
I know the people of Maine will uphold the truth as the people in California did. Of course, given that the NCR is a semi-quasi Catholic paper, it's not surprising to see so many buffet-Catholics posting here and my prayer is that maybe someday they may be reunited with the true Catholic Church.

The notion that "TM" posits, that the Catholics who signed the petition should be cut off from the church as lost causes... What an unkind, uncharitable, unChristian position to take.

Anybody remember the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector? Who do you think you resemble more - the vocal, judgmental self-righteous man who passed judgment on his brothers for their flaws, or the humble sinner who was conscious of his own failure and didn't waste his time condemning others?

Pure and simple.

The Church needs to stay out of politics. The Church can practice all of the teachings and policies within in the Church, but if the bishops want to get involved in politics, then they need to give up their tax-exempt status.

FYI to my more conservative brothers and sisters. Gay marriage has been legal here in the state of Connecticut for a while now, and here in the land of steady habits, there are no naked gay people parading down the street. Just folks raising kids, paying their taxes, mowing their lawns and staying in lousy jobs to keep a roof over their heads. Not exactly Sodom and Gomorrah. And btw, churches are not required to rent their halls to gay couples.

If you truly believe that encouraging stability and responsibility in gay relationships is bad for society, you do have a moral obligation to speak out against gay marriage. However, the bishop of Maine is skating on thin ice if he's using the money from your Sunday collection baskets to lobby on a political issue. He would be better off forming a PAC or hiring an official lobbyist and funding those entities in accordance with Maine state law.

Of course there are "Catholics" who must go with the flow, wherever it may be flowing! It doesn't matter what it is so long as there is a flow, then they will be going with it! Where were these people ten years ago? Were they for "gay" marriage then? If this is a worthwhile cause then why wouldn't it be just as true ten or even twenty years ago?

These "Catholics" read the secular media to see what's in flow now and then they go with the tide. That's all there is to Catholics for "gay" marriage or Catholics for a free choice or whatever. These people have no values or markers. They have no honesty or integrity. They have no connection to the one true God or eternal truth. Their destiny is the fires of Gehenna!

There have been so many comments that sya "The Church has always taught that ...". First of all, the gift (or the requirement) of celibacy was not made a 'discipline" (not doctrine) until 1100 years of existence of the Catholic Church. Secnd - for 1850 years the church always taught that "slavery was a God-ordained social order" WHAT!? Now the Church doctrinal states that slavery is evil. So church doctrine has changed in this area. It can change(and has) in other areas. Sorry to burst that bubble.

Hopefully when people vote tomorrow in Maine, they will reject this nonsence. It has been rejected in every state referendum on the question. The American people as a body have more common sense than the US Supreme Court, the Congress & the state legislatures. I hope that my own state, NJ, will reject Corzine tomorrow. That will be a real slap in the face to Obama! Corzine & "gay" marriage, two losing propositions!

Anonymous, Since you quote Genesis to make your point, I humbly suggest that you read a little further into the same chapter ie 2:18-25.
If that doesn't describe the meaning of true marriage I don't know what does.
Only when God had shaped a WOMAN out of the man's rib, did the man know that he had found his true "helpmate".
As per Genesis 2:24 "This is why a man leaves his father and mother and joins himself to his WIFE and they become one body". Wife being the woman God had just fashioned out of the man's rib.
Had God given the man another man as his "helpmate" none of us would be here having this interesting conversation.

Pray a few decades of the rosary today that ME rejects this nonsense and that NJ rejects it's present pro-choice governor!

The people have spoken!! No so-called gay marriage in Maine!! The people of 31 states have said NO! The people of 0 states have said yes.

Personally, I respect but do not agree with the opinion of both sides in this gay-marriage debate. Principally, I think it is important to ask the question, "If I were gay, then would I not appreciate the chance to make a long-term commitment to another human-being--in an effort to grow towards God?" That is the whole point of marriage from a spiritual point-of-view. Secular aspects like tax-breaks, etc., are also only fair, and it is clearer still that such is a secular human-rights issue. Nevertheless, the important point is to not judge another human-being and to recognize that our fundamental nature is spiritual. Commitment and growth towards God matter most. Judge not lest ye be judged. It is a sobering truth that we cannot judge gay humans, Jesus was never documented as speaking on this topic of homosexuality, and there was *a lot* of human misapplication of spiritual principles in the Old-Testament/Torah. Homosexuality was not one of the 10 commandments, either. Is this a human precept? Christ said that the pharisees taught human precepts as divine law....is faithful human commitment to another what really matters most? Difficult questions--from a dogmatic religious perspective, indeed; it's easier from a purely spiritual point-of-view.
Are we being like the pharisees and straining the gnat but swallowing the camel? Remember the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Am I loving my neighbor by denying them the chance to grow towards God in concert with an equally-committed spouse? Hard questions, but remember that Jesus never spoke on homosexuality, but he sure-as-heck spoke about not trying to remove the splinter from another's eye when we have a plank in our own eye! Compassion, love, charity, and non-judgment are not just religious fashion accessory buzz-words; they need to be applied and the Golden Rule helps in their application. Please remember that we are spiritual beings who are *not* married in Heaven, because the nature of Heaven is fundamentally *not* physical: it is spiritual, because God is pure spirit and we are created in God's image--not the Earth's image. Judge not, lest ye be judged.... God bless us all. --In Christ's Love, Jesse--

Dear Craig B. McKee

Good point. Predisident Obama should use the IRS to crush the anti-abortion crowd.