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 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.

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.

Greg Quinlan (PFOX), Austin Nimocks (ADF), Derek McCoy, and Rob Anderson

The Maryland Marriage Alliance, the group of religious conservatives campaigning against Question 6 to approve marriage equality in Maryland, held a panel over the weekend that demonstrated how anti-gay their campaign truly is. Jeremy Hooper noticed two important details: the inclusion of an ex-gay advocate, and the violent Biblical language promoted by one of the religious leaders.

Greg Quinlan is the President of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays), an ex-gay advocacy organization that manufactures visibility for the supposed ex-gay community. He also serves as director of government affairs for the New Jersey Family Policy Council, which has advocated against LGBT equality there. In his testimony, Quinlan claims that the only reason he was ever gay was because he was abused and sexually molested, and that now he has left the “lifestyle” and identifies as ex-gay. By advocating that gays can and should change, the Maryland Marriage Alliance proves that its motivation is not just about the definition of “marriage,” but clear animus against people who are not heterosexual.

If that weren’t proof enough, consider the testimony of Pastor Robert Anderson, who joined the panel to share a Biblical perspective for why same-sex marriage should be opposed. After comparing homosexuality to prostitution, bestiality, polygamy, and incest, Anderson endorsed the Biblical interpretation that both gays and their allies are “deserving of death”:

ANDERSON: The Scriptures in Leviticus 18:22 — you know what that says, that a man is not to lay down with another man; if they do that, it’s an abomination. But there is one verse I really wanted to drive home and then I’ll stop, but that’s in Romans Chapter 1. And it’s the very last verse — as you know, Paul addresses this. Listen to the last verse: “Knowing the righteous judgment of God that those who practice such things are deserving of death. Not only do the same” — but watch this — “for those who also approve of those who practice these things.”

If we don’t vote against it, then we are approving these things that are worthy of death!

Watch it:

Of course, Quinlan and Anderson flank Derek McCoy, executive director of the Maryland Marriage Alliance. And the juxtaposition of these two ideas illuminates the official campaign’s philosophy: gay people have to deny their own existence, and if they don’t, then they and their allies are worthy of death. That is not a paraphrase or an interpretation, but the verbatim language of those advocating against Question 6. To vote No to marriage equality is to endorse that position.