I don’t get what the religious community is so worried about. Do we have a problem with Jewish couples showing up at the doorstep of a Catholic Priest and demanding to be married? What about a Southern Baptist couple showing up at a Islamic Mosque. No, we don’t have this problem…. people getting married use an officiant that meets their needs and beliefs. For some, this is a religious event, and others it is a civil event. Either way, they are both marriages.
Same sex couples will seek the route that is appropriate for them.
I just don’t understand what religious leaders have to fear. Do they really think a same sex couple will show up and demand to be married in a church that does not support them? Do we have a problem with Jewish couples showing up at a Catholic church and demanding to me married? Or a Southern Baptist couple showing up at an Islamic Mosque and demanding to be married?
No, we don’t. People getting married will use officiate that matches their own personal beliefs. Same sex couple are no different. My husband and I chose to be married by a Justice of the Peace and not in a church. That does not make us any less married. It just means we chose the path that was appropriate for us.
Having the blessing of a church is not our concern. Showing our love for each other and having legal standing is what we found important.
Sorry for the duplicate, it took over 30 minutes for my first comment to show up.
This is exactly what the C4M petition did in the UK as well as the recent CES debacle. It omitted the fact that no religious cult would be mandated to recognise or perform same-sex marriages. It’s nothing more than a deliberate attempt to thwart equal marriage being back on the books in Maine, a deliberate attempt to not tell the entire truth of the matter. That’s why I think the C4M petition should be voided.
What is worse is that Hilary Clinton endorsed the current version on the ballot in Maine, but then she’s against equal marriage.
Hilary Clinton did no such thing. Had she done so, it would have generated world-wide headlines: “U.S. SoS Endorses a State Ballot Issue!” The Secretary of State doesn’t even endorse Federal domestic political issues, much less political questions proposed in an individual state.
The POTUS (president of the united states) can, does, and has addressed individual state ballot issues when those issues are a change in the state’s constitution. For example, Obama has addressed Minnesota’s pending vote on constitutional prohibition of same sex marriage. He did not address North Carolina’s vote.
Even the POTUS doesn’t address political ballot issues that don’t rise to the level of an actual alteration of an individual state’s constitution. Legally, he could, but it would be considered very bad form and would cost him politically big time if he did so. The Secretary of State, appointed by the POTUS and approved by the U.S. Senate, is barred by statute from even commenting on domestic matters
More likely that the Christian Civic League of Maine don’t want any mention of religious freedom in the question because it will negate their planned ad campaign.
I imagine they will run the usual “Christian children will be FORCED into being gay if you vote yes. So for the sake of Christian children, vote NO” nonsense they like to fill the airwaves with. If nothing else they are extremely predictable in their hatred.