Opposing Views: Gay Marriage Supporters in Maine "Lie" About Catholic Support

Gay Marriage Supporters in Maine "Lie" About Catholic Support

Video by The American Papist
(October 14, 2009) in Society / Gay Issues

CatholicVoteAction brings to our attention a duplicitous tactic being employed by homosexual activists in the lead-up to Maine's Nov. 4th marriage vote:

CatholicVoteAction.org Calls on Maine Group to Pull ‘Catholic’ Gay-Marriage Ad

Homosexual advocates have released a shameless new ad featuring a grandmother and two gay men urging Maine voters this November to approve ‘same-sex’ marriage. The grandmother in the new commercial speaks about her Catholic faith and the importance of the institution of marriage, but then urges voters to support ‘same-sex’ marriage.

Here is the video:

Look at how subtly this ad works: "I've been a Catholic all my life ... my faith means alot to me."

This ad is deceptive because it implies that this woman supports homosexual marriage because of her Catholic faith.

Of course, the universal Church only supports traditional marriage between a man and woman, as God instituted it, in harmony with natural laws which defend and promote human dignity and flourishing.

This video ad is doubly duplicitous because it ignores the clear teaching and activity of Maine's own Bishop Richard Malone, who is a staunch defender of traditional marriage and is mobilizing and urging Catholics in Maine to Vote Yes on November 4th.

I mean, who are Catholics supposed to believe - a woman who claims to be Catholic in an advertisement sponsored and run by homosexual-marriage advocates, or the local Bishop together with his priests in agreement with the constant teaching and universal witness of the Catholic Church? Really, it's not even close.

So let us come together and refute the lies being fed Catholics in Maine by those who created this advertisement. Catholics proudly support traditional marriage as God instituted it, and we won't let homosexual marriage activists try to hide the clear teaching of the Church and their local Bishop from Catholics in Maine.

Visit www.standformarriagemaine.com where you will find ways to support their efforts to preserve traditional marriage. There's an action item for most everyone who is passionate about this issue. Even those of us who can't vote in Maine.

They also have documents and arguments showing why all citizens have an interest in supporting traditional marriage.

Regarding Video

It does appear dishonest in nature.

However, I don't think that dishonesty is the driving force.

I think desperation of a community fighting for equality under the law is the driving force.

I'd have to ask myself honestly: If I needed something badly enough, and felt I deserved it, would I lie to get it? Which forces me to ask: what would I want and need as badly as the gay community wants and needs equality?

The only thing I can think of is my family... Which brings me back to the question. Would I lie to protect or keep my family?

In a fu**ing heartbeat.

- SolarSanitizer October 14, 2009 2:09PM

Reply to this Recommend (1)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Well ....

is she Catholic or not? To suppose that she can't have independent thought from the church because she is Catholic and so must mindlessly listen to her priests or the Vatican because she is too incompetent to interpret biblical text (yeah, a 12 year old could do this) is pretty absurd.

Find out if she's Catholic before calling the organization liars. If she's not catholic, feel free to do so. But you don't have any evidence to suggest she's not.

- caelum October 14, 2009 2:16PM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I don't see

I don't see any dishonesty here. I see someone speaking up and saying, to paraphrase: "Even though I am a lifelong Catholic, I think for myself and I support equal civil rights for gay people."

Many Catholics DO, you know, despite the prejudices and hatreds held and pushed on them by the Pope and the RCC hierarchy. There are a lot of good, faithful Roman Catholic citizens of this country who do NOT support the Church's agenda of hatred and disenfranchisement of gays .

- Babaroni October 14, 2009 2:21PM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- In fact
  
  In fact, the only way this ad could be construed as "deceitful" or "misleading" is if a Catholic person watching the ad was unaware of the Roman Catholic Church's stance in the gay marriage debate. Pretty unlikely.
  
  - Babaroni October 14, 2009 3:07PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - You mean this stance?:
    
    "As a leader in the Roman Catholic Church Pope Benedict has long been concerned about homosexual behavior, taking the stance that there are different kinds of homosexuals. In 1975 he issued the "Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics" which delineated a difference between transitory and pathological homosexuality . However, even in denouncing homosexual behavior, he called for empathy and compassion from followers. He denounced violence of speech and action against homosexuals in "The Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons."
    
    Despite his call for compassion, he has not stepped down from his stance that homosexuality is a moral evil. He stated that the inclination toward homosexuality is not necessarily a sin, it can be considered a "tendency toward an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder." He continued, "A person engaging in homosexual behavior therefore acts immorally," because he feels that sex is only good if framed in the stance of being for procreation between a married man and woman.
    
    Pope Benedict is not the only Pope or Vatican member that has denounced homosexuality. In 1961 the Vatican discouraged church officials against ordination of homosexuals, because they were "afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty." Currently the Roman Catholic church has strict limitations on allowing homosexuals to become members of the clergy, and it also continues to fight the legal recognition of homosexual couples."
    
    http://christianteens.about.com/od/homosexuality/f/RomCathHomosexu.htm
    
    It seemed to me that the lady in the ad "supports homosexual marriage because of her Catholic faith," just like the article accuses.
    
    If I am wrong in how I interpreted your comment, please correct me.
    
    - SolarSanitizer October 14, 2009 3:26PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Ummm...
      
      The stance which leads the Roman Catholic Church to conduct witch hunts for even celibate gays among its priesthood, instead of purging the pedophiles from among its ranks.
      
      The stance which led the Roman Catholic Church to assist the LDS Church in spearheading the efforts to pass Prop 8 in CA and is leading the RCC to again help spearhead efforts to pass Question 1 in Maine.
      
      THAT Catholic Church stance.
      
      You can call it "love, love, love the sinner, hate, hate, hate the sin," all you want, but it really all comes down to hate.
      
      The Roman Catholic Church needs to confine its teachings on what it believes constitutes "sin" to its followers in church , not to attempting to influence public policy and civil rights in the public square.
      
      Hate does not equal Love no matter how much rhetoric you use to reframe it.
      
      - Babaroni October 14, 2009 4:27PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Well....
        
        "The stance which leads the Roman Catholic Church to conduct witch hunts for even celibate gays among its priesthood, instead of purging the pedophiles from among its ranks."
        Indefensible, but this has nothing to do with gay marriage .
        
        "The stance which led the Roman Catholic Church to assist the LDS Church in spearheading the efforts to pass Prop 8 in CA and is leading the RCC to again help spearhead efforts to pass Question 1 in Maine."
        What is wrong with this position? It fits the Church's policy and they have every right to lobby for and fund legal activity to promote their agenda. You can disagree with the Prop8 amendment and Question1 (Which I'll have to look up, but I assume it is about gay marriage.) on one hand, but wouldn't you really rather your political adversaries operate within the law as opposed to against it?
        
        I am a little confused about your statement:
        "You can call it "love, love, love the sinner, hate, hate, hate the sin," all you want, but it really all comes down to hate."
        
        With my limited understanding of sin and repentance, sin is transient, but people are far more permanent, relatively speaking. So how do you justify the feeling that love for the person is fleeting while hate for the sin is timeless?
        
        You disagree with the Church's mission to spread it's teachings to anyone who will listen. This is also within the nature of the church . I resist having religion forced down my throat as much as the next guy. But at least it is an act I understand. They feel they are following God's teachings by spreading their God's message. This is part of the faith. This will not change any time soon.
        
        "Hate does not equal Love no matter how much rhetoric you use to reframe it."
        
        No, hate does not equal love. I don't think anyone is trying to claim it does. If anyone is reframing in this instance, it is you. Yet, am confident I understand why.
        Being that you put this at the end of your post, I would venture to guess that this is a comment borne out of frustration after thinking about the content in the post you wrote. Your frustration is warranted, if you ask me.
        
        - SolarSanitizer October 15, 2009 2:02AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        The problem
        
        The problem with what the RCC, LDS and a variety of evangelical churches are doing with respect to the various gay rights measures of the recent past and currently before voters is that, in great measure, they are *sponsoring* this legislation, and, through their campaigning (with piles of lies, incidentally) and funding of the measures, are ensuring their passage. Without the funding and campaigns (of lies) being conducted, the measures would most likely fail. Prop 8, for instance, was failing in the polls until the LDS Church started their heavy campaigning with expensive television and radio ads stuffed full of lies and gross distortions.
        
        And the problem with all of this is that what is happening, in effect, is a group of religious organizations are using money and political power to ensure that their *religious* tennets are written into *civil* law , thus violating the separation of church and state .
        
        The state has no vested interest in question of denying equal civil rights to gay people. The only legitimate reason the state has for passing legislation against a citizen's freedom is if that freedom impinges upon the rights and freedoms of other citizens, or causes harm to society as a whole. In the case of gay civil rights, there is no such impingement. Gay people and their relationships do not interfere with the rights of fellow citizens to conduct their lives and marriages, nor do gay people and their relationships present any threat or harm to society at large.
        
        Conservative religious people have attempted for decades to find proof that gay people are intrinsically harmful in some way to society. They've made all kinds of spurious accusations based in hateful stereotypes. None of these things, however, has been proven out in actuality or can be supported by logical argument.
        
        There is no legal , civilly justifiable cause for denying gay people equal civil rights.
        
        So what it comes down to, in the end, is the argument which underpins all of the misleading and garbled distortions: "It's wrong because my religion says so. It's 'immoral.' And it's 'icky.'"
        
        And none of those things is a *legally* defensible reason for denying other citizens equal civil rights. That being the case, the fact that these religious groups have STILL been allowed to conduct their hate campaigns and pass the resulting laws stripping their fellow-citizens of civil rights in this society is a travesty of constitutional justice.
        
        Should churches be allowed to teach that gays are immoral, dirty sinners bound for hell? Of course. That is both free speech and freedom of religion. They can TEACH whatever they want. Should they be allowed to write those beliefs into binding legislation, stripping other citizens of CIVIL rights? Absolutely not. This is unconstitutional. There must be a valid, civil reason for our laws, showing demonstrable harm to society or to other individual citizens. No such case can realisitically be made for denying equal civil rights to gay citizens.
        
        As to the phrase "Love the sinner, hate the sin," while, on the surface, it would seem a perfectly acceptable sentiment, the fact is, it has been used for ages as a means of reviling gay people.
        
        While spouting this platitude, churches have kicked gay people out of their congregations, induced families of gay people to disown and disinherit their gay children , and have nothing further to do with them. Churches have worked obscenely hard to pass legislation which directly harms gay citizens and their children, and have spouted hateful lies and stereotypes about gay people.
        
        This is not "love," Solar. This is hate. And it's not hatred of "the sin," but rather, hatred of "the sinner." Churches have not historically demonstrated love to gay people. They have seen us imprisoned, committed to mental institutions, burned at the stake, hung, stoned to death, sent to the Nazi death camps. Every major religious "inquisition" in the West in the past 2000 years has included gays among the categories of those to be persecuted.
        
        That's not "loving the sinner but hating the sin." That's persecuting those with whom you disagree. "Love the sinner, hate the sin," sounds very lovely and Christian, but it is not borne out by actual practice among most supposedly "Christian" groups (and not by many other religious groups, either).
        
        - Babaroni October 15, 2009 11:25AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        I'll start by saying
        
        I feel that your frustration is totally warranted. I do not say this to tell you anything you do not already know, but to tell you that I feel it is warranted. I agree with you that there is persecution of the gay lifestyle from the church . The church considers the act a sinful act and acts appropriately... As far as they are concerned.
        
        You know it isn't just or fair. I am not gay, and have never been persecuted for being so. I cannot even imagine the feeling. I can try, but I wager that I'd fall short in my attempt, so I will not pretend that I fully understand. What I can say with honesty, is that I have never persecuted a gay person. I have never been in a fight with an openly gay person. I have politely turned down the advances of gay men. Exactly twice in my 33 years. No feelings were hurt, and nobody was embarrassed. I have not avoided gay men, in fact, I was invited to a birthday party of a gay co-worker thrown by his boyfriend. I was not uncomfortable. I am not homophobic, I am not worried that I might become gay by hanging around gay people, and I know I am not gay.
        
        I will agree that money in politics is a scourge. It makes no difference what political 'side' one is on, when money starts being funneled into a political measure, like Prop8, it will influence the outcome.
        
        Both sides of the debate spent record-breaking amounts of money on Prop8. In fact, more money went into that proposition than in any other ballot initiative in the history of California. Both sides are equally guilty of influence-peddling. This is the bottom line and is a fact. I am not aware of any blatant lies or gross distortions, though. This smacks of sour grapes on your part. I think you should have qualified those accusations with more than your opinion.
        
        About attacking the church. You should try to remember that churches are mostly composed of the congregation. To call a church hateful, is actually maligning entire communities of people and seems a little over-the-top.
        
        - SolarSanitizer October 15, 2009 4:41PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        More comments in this thread
    - Vatican teaching on Homosexuality
      
      Thank you for enlightening us on the midevil views of the Pope and Homosexuality. Basically, you are saying that sex is sin if you can't procreate. This is the most absurd idea and would make sinners of pretty much 98% of couples: gay, lesbian, trans, bisexual, and heterosexual. The Roman Church is in a pickle here because the Roman Catholic Church's historical Papal anti-gay teaching and teachings on sexuality are supposed to be infallible. If the Pope changes the Churche's historical views on Homosexuality, then it undermines the belief that the Pope is infallible. I think this is why the Vatican is so invested in such midevil beliefs.
      Secondly, to try to imply that to say "We accept the sinner, but realize that you are an abomination" is a compassionate stance is every bit as homophobic as anything I've heard. No wonder most GLKBT people with any sense of self esteem have long since left the Roman Catholic Church and found other places and ways to find God and a loving spiritual community .
      
      - Nikki H October 14, 2009 4:40PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - You are welcome.
        
        Know that I stopped reading your post when you tried to assert that this is something I am saying.
        
        You could not be further from the truth, Nikki. I posted a quote. Nothing more.
        
        I don't put words in your mouth, so don't put any in mine. Thanks.
        
        - SolarSanitizer October 14, 2009 4:48PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        let me rephrase it
        
        You are defending what the Pope has stated. I assume that you believe it if you took the time to post the quotation.
        
        - Nikki H October 14, 2009 5:20PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        To be fair
        
        To be fair to Solar, he's (she's?) a pretty open-minded guy who does support equal marriage rights. He enjoys a good debate and will often represent the arguments from the other side in order to keep one going. I have also made the mistake of assuming that the argument he was supporting represented his own beliefs -- it's an easy mistake to make, because he is vigorous in his defense, regardless of his personal convictions on the subject (like any good debater used to supporting the side to which s/he is assigned).
        
        Just because he represents a particular argument does not mean he agrees with it. As long as you know this from the get-go, I think you'll find him an interesting debate partner.
        
        - Babaroni October 14, 2009 5:41PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        More comments in this thread
        
        Am I?
        
        Did I suggest anywhere in my post that I agree?
        
        Please, stop putting words in my mouth. This is the second time I have requested this.
        
        - SolarSanitizer October 15, 2009 12:26AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Being Catholic
    
    I agree that the video makes a very valid point. I thought it was excellent. I do not feel this woman is trying to portray the Roman Catholic Church as gay friendly. Any person that hasn't been in outer space for the last century would know that the Church is rabidly anti-gay. I think that she is implying that her "faith" and "Church experience" it what has shaped her beliefs and moral practices.
    If the Catholic Church got rid of every member who does not agree with Vatican teaching, there would be no one left in the pews.
    I can assure you that you will not hear an uproar over the use of birth control because everyone in Church uses it. Inciting the masses to leave by enforcing outdated restrictions would empty the Church coffers and they aren't about to do that. It's all about money and power.
    
    - Nikki H October 14, 2009 4:53PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (2)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
When will it happen

The US, in its discombobulation and political correctness, might it ever see fit to recognize another perversion, pedophilia, and establish rights to accommodate these freaks of nature?

As the protection and promotion of any specific behavior is advanced, the subjects eventually become a majority. In doing so, they fail to reciprocate the same protection and advancement to others and society tends to become mono-societal..., as did the Romans, and others.

- dingo1 October 18, 2009 11:08AM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- See, this is common, but irrational
  
  Homosexuality and heterosexuality are RELATED, in that they're both describing a sexual preference--but so is heterosexuality. The comparison to pedophilia is one of those irrational things--it's like the sexual version of calling someone Hitler, or Nazi-esque.
  
  I will try and explain this. Pedophilia is wrong. It is wrong for a specific reason--Children cannot give consent. Since they cannot give consent, all sexual acts between an adult and a minor consist of rape, making a pedophile, in essence, a serial rapist. If there's ANOTHER reason why pedophilia is wrong, I'd very much like to hear it.
  
  Now, for homosexual relationships, this factor isn't present. Most homosexual relationships, like most heterosexual relationships, are consensual. So, that wrong factor isn't there.
  
  - quantummechanik October 18, 2009 12:23PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- inherently
  
  "The US, in its discombobulation and political correctness, might it ever see fit to recognize another perversion, pedophilia, and establish rights to accommodate these freaks of nature"
  
  As QM has pointed out paedophilia, by definition, requires a non-consenting partner.
  
  What is the similarity between paedophilia and homosexuality that it does not similarly share with heterosexuality?
  
  "As the protection and promotion of any specific behavior is advanced, the subjects eventually become a majority. In doing so, they fail to reciprocate the same protection and advancement to others and society tends to become mono-societal..., as did the Romans, and others"
  
  What does Rome have to do with this? If anything it showcases how our current view of homosexuality is the product of more recent cultural changes... rather then something that has always been present in the human species (as is often times argued).
  
  - MrBook October 18, 2009 1:35PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Rome
    
    The ancient Roman culture epitomized the acceptance and protection of sexual perversion. Didn't you study Roman history?
    
    You and QM don't seem to be able to grasp the simple point of my comment and wander off on some tangential unrelated subject.
    
    - dingo1 October 18, 2009 3:20PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Actually, it was the other way around.
      
      Rome, pre-Christianity, was the point at which it was strongest, most stable. Same thing with Greece--when sexual expression was more free, culture flourished, philosophy grew, and territory expanded. Once Constantine entered the picture, it was a quick tumble downhill.
      
      This is just one of those historical truths. Sexually liberated societies in Europe, like Greece, Rome, and Renaissance Italy and France, were when MOST of the societal, philosophical and technological advances were made. Sexually repressed societies like Christian Rome\Dark Ages Europe, Puritan America and Nazi Germany, are where things go very, very downhill.
      
      - quantummechanik October 18, 2009 8:35PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - built in a day
      
      “The ancient Roman culture epitomized the acceptance and protection of sexual perversion. Didn't you study Roman history?”
      
      Yes I have it is a rather fascinating, the rise and fall of a major civilization is always intriguing. But as QM pointed out Rome did not enter into its last days until after it became a Christian empire.
      
      Now to prevent any ‘flip-outs’ by future readers: I do not believe that Christianity was a direct cause of the Empires collapse. It is a vastly complex subject that, while enjoyable, does not belong in this forum.
      
      “You and QM don't seem to be able to grasp the simple point of my comment and wander off on some tangential unrelated subject.”
      
      Was your point “Rome allowed sexual perversion, therefore it collapsed.”?
      
      What does Rome allowing perversion have to do with homosexuality
      
      - MrBook October 20, 2009 6:18PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.