Same-Sex Unions Will Enhance the Traditions of Marriage

Published on Friday, September 25, 2009 by the Portland Press Herald (Maine)

Gay couples deserve the benefits of marriage as a matter of civil rights and social justice.

by Chris Queally

CommonDreams.org Editor's Note:  This year, the Maine State Legislature and Governor Baldacci - with the rousing support of Maine residents - passed one of the most comprehensive Marriage Equality laws in the country.  Opponents of equality have now forced a statewide vote to challenge the new law.  The Vote No on #1 Campaign  - which supports marriage equality - is fighting bravely against the misleading and hateful campaign lead by those who would deny equal rights to our gay, lesbian, and transgendered neighbors.  The following was written (full disclosure) by this editor's father, but it appears here as testimony to the dignity and strength of those who fight, think, and activate on behalf of those who are denied the rights that others enjoy.  Let Maine's battle against those standing in the way of equality not go the way of California's.  In the end, this battle will be national and then global. But for now, we must fight it where the lines are drawn.

SCARBOROUGH, Maine — The headline of the Sept. 14 Maine Voices commentary by Tim Russell – co-founder of The Maine Marriage Alliance – reads: "There's lots of proof same-sex marriage will harm the rights of others." We read the column to find there is no proof whatsoever and lots of opinion based on religion.

Without the rule of law – remembering that laws change and evolve – there would have been no advances in civil rights, and the "Rights of Man" would have never given rise to freedom in France and America by limiting the power of kings and nobles.

Without the rule of law – remembering that laws change and evolve – there would have been no freedom from slavery, no women's suffrage and no civil rights movement.  And, of course, those changes in the law, and in society, always followed great struggle.

So over time and with struggle, we reinterpret what is right and become more inclusive as we discover that the changes sought in the name of social justice are good for the larger society – even when they are at first very difficult for those who have had to accommodate change against their will, like the nobility of Europe, the king of England and white men everywhere.

Mr. Russell begins his column by asserting that: "Traditional marriage is more substantial and profound than can be contained in our society's current conception of 'love' and 'equality.'"

That is absolutely true. That is why it is so important for all people to have access to traditional marriage. That is the very point. Gay couples don't want to eliminate the "substantial and profound" traditions of marriage. As a matter of civil rights and social justice, they want access to these traditions – just like every other citizen.

Mr. Russell goes on to assert that there would be "no logical, philosophical or legally rational basis for prohibiting people who want multiple wives, multiple husbands, or any combination thereof from marrying."

Nonsense! This is an obfuscation designed to help you take your eye off the ball. The law as passed has nothing to do with any of the traditional impediments such as bigamy and incest. Hundreds, indeed, thousands of people worked very hard to get the current law passed.

Logically, philosophically and legally, you need a large constituency of people to change or pass a law. Russell creates a straw man or straw menage. There is no constituency for multiple, underage or incestuous marriage.

Russell then goes on to define who can get married. But he distorts the list to serve his own purpose. He adds to the traditional impediments of bigamy, incest and majority, a fourth: You "must marry someone of the opposite sex."

In the Old South it was: You must marry someone of the same race. But we changed that tradition by changing the laws. Did that benefit society? Yes. Did it make some folks angry? Yes! But society was evolving.

Russell then asserts – with no citation, so it is impossible to check his facts – that "Social science shows conclusively that children do best when raised by their married biological mother and father."

I challenge that statement. Is it fact or opinion? What was the methodology? Who funded the study? (The scientific standard when using data to support an argument is to cite the source so the reader can examine the science underlying the data.)

What an insult to anyone raised by a granny, an aunt or uncle or an adoptive parent and to all the good men and women – gay and straight – who have successfully and lovingly raised children not biologically their own!

Finally – in a kind of reverse logic – Russell asserts that: "In states where same-sex marriage is legal, we are already seeing the threat it poses to religious liberties and personal right of conscience."

It is more the case that religious license seeks to suppress civil liberties and individual conscience.

That is why our Founding Fathers in their wisdom and experience – having seen the bloody religious wars of Europe – put into our Constitution a separation clause and a free-exercise clause, in order to achieve the delicate balance between freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

It is a balance that the same-sex marriage law brilliantly achieves and why it was passed into law by both houses of our Legislature with bipartisan support and signed by our governor to begin with.

My final claim in support of the law is the 14th Amendment. It is a matter of due process and equality before the law.

Mr. Russell says marriage is a substantial and profound tradition. I say you cannot bar a substantial and profound minority from it. Unless, of course, you'd like to bring back separate (but equal) drinking fountains, classrooms and seats on the bus.

© 2009 Portland Press Herald
Chris Queally is a retired high school teacher, wonderful grandfather, and resident of Scarborough, Maine.

Pax Christi Maine Statement on Same Sex Marriage Repeal Campaign

Pax Christi Maine Statement on Same-Sex
Marriage Legislation Repeal Campaign


Pax Christi Maine’s interest in the present controversy over same-sex marriage legislation is that the proposed denial of legitimate human rights does violence to those denied. Pax Christi Maine stands against all violence against human dignity.

We find the hierarchy’s dismissal of same sex orientation as “disordered” to be demeaning and woefully inadequate, covering lack of difficult understanding with a neat judgmental category. The Church has yet to develop an adequate theology for gays, lesbians, and the transgendered so should be extremely cautious in making moral pronouncements regarding those states. And too often church officials have failed to develop appropriate pastoral sensitivity and compassion in their regard. Actually, the Chuyrch needs to reconsider its whole understanding of sexuality.

We respect the Church’s right to reserve the sacrament of marriage to heterosexual couples. But we challenge Bishop Malone’s effort, with the so-called Christian right, to impose on all Maine citizens the Roman Catholic and Christian right reservation of marriage to heterosexual couples. Such an imposition would be contrary to necessary pluralistic accommodation in a democratic and diverse society.

Moreover, reservation of “marriage” to heterosexual couples would apparently deny same sex couples significant rights heterosexual couples enjoy, as Bishop Malone, who has supported such rights in recent years acknowledges. It is argued that estate benefits, gift tax benefits, death tax benefits, estate planning benefits, Social Security benefits, disability benefits, employment benefits, medical benefits, death benefits, family benefits, housing benefits, consumer benefits, immigration rights, adoption rights, and other rights and privileges that accompany a marriage certificate would all be denied or affected. Apart from the wrong of imposing our church’s view of marriage on all, the price of repeal of Maine same sex marriage legislation in denial of such rights is unacceptable to us as Catholics committed to justice and as American citizens. Certainly, Benedict XVI notwithstanding, there is no moral obligation to oppose legalization of same gender marriage.

We are also disturbed by campaign claims that the legislation would afford new rights, rights already enjoyed by same sex couples, and such fabrications as the claim by campaign leader Mark Mutty that it would oblige schools to teach homosexuality.

Given Bishop Malone’s departure from appropriate respect for a plurality of moral views and readiness to deny same sex couples legal rights they should enjoy, we consider it inappropriate that he should use the Sunday Eucharist, when the Christian community is united in worship and mutual love, to propagandize for imposing our church’s view of marriage on others, to deny same sex couples important rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples, and to collect funds to deny community members and others important rights. Far better were diocesan leadership to sponsor open discussions on the sacramental meaning of marriage, on how pluralism works, and on the importance of all affirming the equal rights of all.


Pax Christi Maine is the Catholic and ecumenical peace and social justice movement in Maine, a region of Pax Christi USA. It has over 200 members and networks extensively with other peace and social justice organizations. Denise Dreher is Council chair, Bill Slavick coordinator. Address: 242 Ludlow Street, Portland 04102.

Pax Christi Maine Same Sex Legislation Response