Father Richard T. Lawrence

As many Catholic leaders have done, Baltimore Archbishop William E. Lori required all parish priests to read a letter from him this past Sunday denouncing marriage equality and encouraging parishioners to vote no on Maryland’s Question 6. When Father Richard T. Lawrence read the letter this past weekend at Baltimore’s St. Vincent de Paul church, he then added his own thoughts, breaking from Lori and the Vatican to suggest that voting for marriage equality may be the Catholic thing to do.

According to BuzzFeed, the response was swift. Lori asked that Lawrence’s homily be removed from the church’s website, though no other punitive action has been taken. Here are some excerpts from Lawrence’s remarks as reported in the Catholic Reporter:

LAWRENCE: I will continue to stand in genuine awe of all those couples — straight, gay and lesbian — hose day-to-day, year-to-year, and decade-to-decade faithfulness to each other is to me a sacrament, a believable embodied sign, of the absolute faithfulness of God to us all. [...]

While the federal courts respect the rights of churches not to hire anyone for a ministerial position whose marriage does not comply with the laws of that church, we do hire and pay spousal benefits, such as medical insurance, for employees whose marriages are not valid in the eyes of church law. It seems to me, therefore, that even if we do not believe that gay marriage ever could or should be allowed in the church, we could live with a provision that allows civil marriage of gay and lesbian couples. Personally, however, I would go farther than that. [...]

Could we not then say that their devotion to and support of each other … could be recognized by the church as a valid sacrament of God’s unrelenting faithfulness to us just as much as the union of an elderly straight couple? Neither will procreate children, but both can be sacraments of God’s faithfulness in the living out of their commitment to each other.

Lawrence said he will not perform same-sex marriages, but he will continue to attend the weddings of gays and lesbians “whom I love and support.” He encouraged his parishioners to rethink Lori’s suggested vote:

But could not civil law be allowed to progress where church law cannot go, at least not yet? Personally, I believe that it can and that it should. So there you have it: the official teaching of the church and my personal reflections.

The St. Vincent parishioners responded with a standing ovation.

The National Organization for Marriage and Family Research Council have unveiled two new videos today in an attempt to reinforce their argument that heterosexuals are somehow made victims when LGBT equality advances.

NOM’s newest clip in its so-called “Anti-defamation Alliance” collection is one of its weakest yet. In an attempt to drum up support from individuals who oppose unions, NOM interviewed Sara Rowe, a firefighter in Duluth, Minnesota. When Rowe’s union came out against the state’s marriage inequality amendment, she disagreed and wrote a letter to the editor expressing her dissent. That’s her entire story; there was no backlash or discrimination or legal issues of any kind. She simply “was made to feel uncomfortable and unaccepted” for who she is, and it seems the irony is lost on her. Watch the clip:

Meanwhile, FRC has reached out to Kathleen Crank and her 14-year-old daughter Sarah, who testified against marriage equality to the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee in January. Kathleen’s concern rises from the offensive negative feedback left on Internet comment threads after Sarah’s testimony was posted online. Watch it:

Bullying a 14-year-old girl as these trolls apparently did is no doubt wrong, but not exactly a compelling argument against marriage equality. And Kathleen shares her own burden for posting offensive comments online. When ThinkProgress posted Sarah’s testimony, Kathleen actively engaged in the post’s feedback thread to defend her family’s anti-gay views. Many of those comments seem to have been deleted, but some remain. She claimed that Sarah “wrote [the testimony] herself,” but admitted that she is “thankful that she has embraced my values” — perhaps not surprising considering Sarah is homeschooled. In various comments, Kathleen laid out exactly what those values are:

CRANK: I simply pointed out that AIDS is devastating an entire continent. AIDS is a terrible disease, and in the US [men who have sex with men] are 44 times more likely to contract it than heterosexuals. [...]

I have had friends who chose that way, I have family that chose that way. The problem with the GLBT community is that there is this viewpoint that if you love me, if you accept me, then you must celebrate my behaviour and give me everything I want. To me it is similar to alcoholism or drug addiction. I know many many people who have successfully come out of that lifestyle. [...]

Truthfully, the best kept secret in the GLBT community is that very few GLBT people want to get a marriage license or parent..so speaking out against this legislation is not speaking out against gays. I do believe the practice of homosexuality is harmful and destructive to individuals and society, as I testified several years ago, and that is borne out by the health stats. [...]

Nature itself forbids same sex couples to marry. The parts don’t fit and no children can be created. No laws will ever change the natural law. The rage of the GLBT community is really against God and nature.

These are apparently some of the best arguments that opponents of equality can come up with: pity the woman who disagreed with her union and the mother teaching her daughter a distorted reality about the lives of gays and lesbians.

The Baltimore Sun published a detailed endorsement Tuesday of Question 6, Maryland’s referendum on marriage equality. Not only did the editorial board affirm that the law would “treat everyone the same” and protect religious freedom to not solemnize same-sex unions, but they took ample time to dispel opponents’ “scare tactics,” rebutting claims made about straight victims and kids learning about same-sex marriage. Instead, the Sun points out that marriage equality will benefit children and families:

As for Maryland’s children, this law only improves their welfare. Thousands of Maryland children are being raised by same-sex parents in this state already. Allowing their parents the chance to marry strengthens their families and provides them with crucial protections under the law. More fundamentally, it recognizes that their families are equal to everyone else’s.

The board also points out that out-of-state same-sex marriages are already recognized because of a recent court decision, so rejection Question 6 is pointless sacrifice of state income that helps nobody:

If that happens, Maryland will lose more than the money those couples would have spent here on cakes, photographers, caterers and florists. Some couples, no doubt, will return to Maryland to settle down, but others will surely decide to stay someplace where the law fully recognizes their value as members of the community.

Nothing short of marriage equality will accomplish that. Civil unions and domestic partnerships in some states have sought to afford gay families the same packages of rights and benefits as married couples — a difficult and usually incomplete task, given the number of laws that reference marriage in one way or another. But that approach creates two kinds of marriage — one for straight people and one for gay people — and that inevitably relegates same-sex couples to second-class citizenship.

Polls over the past few months (August 2, September 26, October 1, October 18) have all shown strong support for marriage equality, though a new poll this week shows a much tighter race. The Baltimore Sun has spelled out a very clear case for supporting the measure, but now it’s up to voters to ignore conservative fear-baiting and vote in the best interest of Maryland families.

The campaigns against marriage equality in Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, and Washington are all running some variation on an ad featuring David and Tonia Parker, a Massachusetts couple who in 2005 objected to their kids learning in school that same-sex marriages existed. Conservatives regularly highlight David Parker as a victim to scare voters, but his story is told in incredibly misleading ways.

There is a big difference between mentioning that some kids — including students in the class — have same-sex parents and teaching about same-sex sexuality. The former is what happened in schools, but the latter is what the Parkers claim they objected to. In fact, David Parker so objected to the use of materials including all families that he appeared at the school to protest and refused to leave, forcing an arrest for trespassing. Parker then sued and a federal judge dismissed his complaint, saying that schools are “entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy.” Parker has since become an outspoken enemy of LGBT equality; Jeremy Hooper has a round-up of his various interviews, in which he calls homosexuality a disease, claims that gay people “use” and harm their children, and urges schools to promote harmful ex-gay therapy.

Parker responded to Hooper’s clips to make one clarification about whether homosexuality is a “disease,” choosing instead to describe it as an “addiction” that people are “drawn in” to:

PARKER: I could have been more clear about the “disease” correlation. If you really listen — I was led down this thought path unprepared — and went reluctantly and clumsily. Let me clarify — I believe that engaging in homosexual conduct becomes more addictive with practiced frequency until a person “feels” like that’s “who they are.” It shouldn’t be contriversial [sic] that a “sexual feeling” has a physiological addictiveness — when something “feels good” to a person — psychologically, they are compelled to do it more. I also believe that intense love for the same gender is NOT “homosexuality” — as is commonly understood. I also, VERY strongly believe that sexuality is fluid — especially when young. And, I do not look down on persons with same-sex attraction; my worldview informs me that ALL of humanity has urges and temptations  — and the more you “give in” the more you are “drawn in.” I hope you except [sic] the authenticity to genuinely put forth my clarification, though, I know this is not an explanation that you will embrace.

David Parker does not have any known psychological qualifications to inform his positions, which is likely why his understanding of homosexuality in no way aligns with what all professional social science organizations have been saying for decades. Given that many consider addictions like alcoholism to be a disease, his clarification here is a distinction without a difference. He clearly sees gays and lesbians as disordered and troubled and not worthy of respect in society, which is why he has no problem serving as a spokesperson against equality at every opportunity.

Watch a mash-up of the Parkers’ ad as it’s running in all four state campaigns, with comparisons to fear-mongering ads of the past:

Pastor Robert Anderson

At a recent panel hosted by the Maryland Marriage Alliance, Pastor Robert Anderson claimed that according to the Bible, both gay people and their allies are “deserving of death,” calling on voters to oppose marriage equality so as not to “approve these things that are worthy of death.” The group’s executive director, Derek McCoy, was seated next to Anderson and laughed approvingly when Anderson condemned gays and lesbians to the “wrong side of eternity.”

Media backlash was swift, but McCoy called any implication that this was a “call to harm gays and lesbians” as a false “distraction from the real issues of this campaign.” Anderson was quiet on the matter until this weekend, when he issued an “apology” that his comments were misunderstood, essentially doubling down on his biblical condemnations of death and an eternity of Hell:

I regret that many have misunderstood my comments regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage to mean that I endorse or support physical violence in any shape or form against anyone. The statements in Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:32 (KJV) can stand for themselves. The Bible is very clear on the subject of homosexuality, and I do not need to apologize for God’s word, but I do want to be perfectly clear that I am not promoting violence, bullying, or hatred toward homosexuals and neither is God.

Either the Bible verses he cited do call for gays to be put to death, or they do not, and if they “can stand for themselves,” then they very much do. McCoy could not have been more wrong about what the “real issues of this campaign” are. It’s quite clear that his group’s blatant animus against gays and lesbians and their families is at the very root of this challenge to marriage equality.

Maryland Sen. C. Anthony Muse (D)

Maryland state Sen. C. Anthony Muse (D) has penned a column for the Washington Post in which he tries to drum up fears about the consequences of approving Question 6, upholding the state’s marriage equality law. His primary complaint is that people opposed to the freedom to marry will have to function at a most basic level with same-sex couples by not discriminating against them:

As has happened in other states, individuals — such as an innkeeper in Vermont or a wedding photographer in New Mexico — who decline to assist with celebrating unions contrary to their beliefs could face fines, lawsuits and infringements on their business. If Question 6 passes, there will be no legal protection for individuals, business owners and the everyday citizens of Maryland if their deeply held beliefs about marriage come into conflict with state law.

As for protections for religious institutions, voters need to know that the ballot language omits a significant piece of the law — the provision that takes away any such protection if the religious organization conducts social, educational or medical services under a contract with government and receives state or federal funds.

Further, the ballot language includes wording that is not part of the law. The question states that religious organizations do not have to provide “benefits” in violation of their beliefs. But the word “benefits” does not appear in the law. In fact, my colleagues in the Maryland Senate rejected an amendment to include the word “benefits.” In reality, the law provides no protection to religious organizations whose tenets would be violated by providing employment benefits to gay and lesbian married couples.

First of all, the two cases Muse cites both address nondiscrimination laws, not marriage equality. Though the innkeepers in Vermont are now portraying themselves as victims, they admitted that they broke the law in the court settlement. Courts have similarly ruled against the photographer in New Mexico, where same-sex marriage isn’t even legal. After losing in the state Court of Appeals in June, Elane Photography has appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court. Any individual operating a business open to the public is bound by a state’s laws not to discriminate based on sexual orientation — laws Maryland already has. It’s just as illegal to refuse to host a same-sex commitment ceremony today as it will be if voters approve Question 6 next month or when marriage equality takes effect in January.

As for the rest of his arguments, Muse believes that religion should be a sufficient legal excuse to blatantly discriminate against same-sex couples. If he had his way, even if same-sex marriage were legal, anybody who wanted to could just ignore those unions under law without consequence, whether it’s a business refusing health benefit coverage to a same-sex spouse or a Catholic-run hospital that doesn’t allow a same-sex spouse to make medical decisions. He is attempting to paint bigots as victims, without any recognition for how those actions might harm same-sex families and their children. Of course, the National Organization for Marriage has no problem promoting this argument.

It’s worth noting that Muse is himself a minister, though apparently not a very responsible one. Despite his 2,000 members, his church has gone bankrupt on two different occasions, including this past June. Though he is entitled to both his religious views and practices, it is unfortunate that they cloud his ability to appreciate what would be in the best interest of his constituents.