Remember back in January, when it was argued by the GOP that Maine's proposed legislation regarding marriage equality was a waste of money?
The Maine Republican Project, a group led by 1st Congressional District primary candidate Dean Scontras, announced this week that they will work against Sen. Dennis Damon's bill to allow gay marriage in Maine."Among our growing membership, it seems a bit of a concern that Sen. Damon chose to introduce this legislation when Maine faces one of the worst economic climates in some time," Scontras said in a statement.
"This will simply absorb valuable legislative cycles that should be dedicated toward repairing the economic situation of so many Mainers."
Well, earlier this week it was announced that Stand for Maine Marriage had raised twice the number of their opponents.
Anti-gay and Catholic groups made the largest donations in recent months to overturn Maine's new same-sex marriage law, helping opponents of such unions outraise supporters more than 2-1.Campaign finance reports made available Wednesday show that while people trying to defend the law raised $148,930.32, opponents of same-sex marriage raised $344,619.50.. The reports detail the period between April 1 and July 5.
It sure did look impressive at first glance. But after further examination, there does not appear to be much in the way of financial or individual local Mainer support.
Some of the organizations that donated to the campaign in favor of the "people's veto" also donated to the campaign in favor of Proposition 8, which last year ended same-sex marriage in California. Active political action committees in favor of the referendum are Marriage Matters in Maine and StandforMarriage.com.
Catholic organizations and anti-gay groups were the most noteworthy donors:
? National Organization for Marriage donated $160,000 in cash contributions and $9,066.43 in in-kind contributions;
? Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland donated $100,000 in cash contributions and $10,339.73 in in-kind contributions;
? Focus on the Family's Maine Marriage Committee donated $31,000 in cash contributions and $2,594.62 in in-kind contributions;
? Knights of Columbus donated $50,000 in cash contributions;
? and Maine Family Policy Council donated $625 in cash contributions.
Catholic organizations outside Maine also made major donations to the campaign. Catholic Charities for the Diocese of Evansville in Indiana and the Archdiocese of Santa Fe in New Mexico donated $1,000 each.
(Excuse me for a second, as I "ROTFLMAO" at Mike Heath's incredibly meager and lame THREE digit donation...
That is an awful lot of non-Maine money especially out of New Jersey, California and Colorado. But for today, let's focus on the local Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland and their loaned-out to SFMM spokesman, Marc Mutty.
More below the fold. One even publicly told the good bishop offat the public hearing in April.
Yesterday the Lewiston Sun Journal reported on the Diocese's donation, interviewing Diocese spokesman, loaned out to SFMM for the duration, Marc Mutty.
"I saw that $100,000 figure in the paper and it was very demoralizing," said David Webbert, an Augusta lawyer, who for years attended Auburn's St. Philip's Church with his family and now occasionally attends in Winthrop.
But Marc Mutty, a leader of the group seeking to repeal the law who is on leave from his work at the diocese, said parishioners should know the donated funds were not taken from the collection plate.
"The money is dedicated revenues that were provided by a donor for causes such as these and money from the collection basket or any of those types of things would never be used," he said.
Mutty said he only had limited details regarding the origins of the donation.
"It's my understanding the money was left to the Portland diocese for defending church dogma or policy, that sort of thing. It wasn't specific to this particular issue. Our application to this issue was our choice, but it fell within the general parameters of ths of the donor's request," he said.
Mutty said he understands why people get upset when they that the diocese spent money on this issue, regardless of where the money actually came from.
"There's no question that some would say that it's a shame we have to spend this kind of money on this kind of issue when we should be spending it on the poor or those kinds of things," he said.
And now that the actual donation numbers have been released and the extent of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland's financial involvement is public knowledge, the voices in Maine are speaking up again. Here are a few:
The Catholic Church and the other political activist churches need to have their tax exempt status revoked. Who are going to be the brave politicians to take the Catholic Church on??
What a waste of money that really could be put to good use. Keep crying about job layoffs. All this money that the churches are putting towards
Wow a $100,000 donation from the Catholic Church! Is that the same church that has been hiding their property and funds in Vermont and other states so their pedophile priests will not have to pay for their crimes? This while decent and honest Gay persons are trying to have a decent life? Yea if it's hypocritical it must be them.
I wonder how many people in the church have lost a job and a home after faithfully giving every week into an offering plate? I bet the church wasn't showing up with a check to help, probably a prayer or two though.
$193,0000 spent so far to collect the signatures for the petition. I thought that this was going to be a grassroots campaign where people that genuinely believed in their cause would be volunteering their time to collect signatures.
This state should not have referendums. It's flat out not fair. Look at the population base. Whatever the people in Augusta and South want, that is what they will get. The people north of Augusta have no say in anything because nobody lives up here. So just take a poll in Southern Maine and see what they want and that is what will happen.
"The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland contributed $100,000." I am so glad I rejected the Catholic Church decades ago. What a waste of time and money.
If gay marriage is allowed, it will definitely wreck my marriage as it won't have "sanctity". I am Catholic, well, sorta, and not at all surprised and happy with the donation of 100K
It is manifestly unfair that the church should be allowed to raise money and collect signatures without paying taxes. Look at all the wealth in the Vatican and the corrupt priests,bishops and higher ups. Meanwhile real Mainers who want fairness have to pay taxes and struggle.
The church should have no involvement in this unless they start paying taxes on the land and building that they have there services at. The money that they collect during services also. If they want to be that involt involved with the voteing process then they should also have to do like the rest of us and pay taxes on the churches ,land and money collected. Plain and simple.
Tax the Catholic Church!! It's outrageous that the church is getting involved by contributing $100,000 of money that they get tax free for being a religious institution. If they want to be a PAC, MAKE THEM PAY THE PRICE!
I think a petition should be started to take away the "tax-exempt" status of this, no longer religious, political organization. Anyone with me?
The "special fund" was probably private donations from church members in which they received a tax-break for contributing to a non-profit and which the church paid no taxes because of their status as a religious institution. It still violates the law that a church can only be tax exempt if it does not use its money to affect political events. The church is in violation.
And it's relevant because this Catholic Church has violated the 501c rules that govern tax-exempt status for organizations. If the Maine legislature or judiciary branch chooses to pursue this (or in Maine's citizens mobilize) the church would probably lose its tax-exempt status.
I don't know where you people get your facts about 501(c)3 organizations, but you might want to read the IRS rulings again. There is no gag rule on churches - they are not allowed to endorse a candidate from the pulpit, but they are allowed an opinion and spending in political issues.
It still violates the law that a church can only be tax exempt if it does not use its money to affect political events.
I hope that they take this into consideration, It has been reported and it will be investigated so I hope that all their paperwork is legit.
... but it violates the 501c rules established by the IRS to be able to maintain their tax-exempt status. That's it.
... the church is actively seeking political change. Violation of 501c, they should no longer be exempt. And Duckwa... the scenario you painted is actually skirting the edge and is probably also a violation. Because they've done it before isn't much of a legal defense.
- it does not violate the 501c3 rules -that is all I was trying to say. There is significant precedent for it in IRS rulings.
Hey, did anyone happen to realize that we are more concerned that 45 million people don't have health insurance - and it's a NATIONAL CRISIS. But the 40+ million children our country has allowed to be butchered over the last several decades don't seem to matter much! Just saying . . .
The true measure of support for any cause will only come about when the State of Maine re-writes the 501c3 rules so that 'donors' are not hiding behind the curtain.
That last is my personal favorite- the State of Maine's legislature decides all of the FEDERAL IRS tax laws!
This is getting messy indeed...
Some Maine Catholics had already been quite upset with Bishop Richard Malone's involvement in the equality marriage debate.
In the face of recent firings at the Trinity Catholic School and the plans for closing two Catholic parishes in Lewiston, both due to declining revenue, the revelation that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland had spent $100,000 on efforts to repeal the recently passed same-sex marriage law took some Catholics by surprise.
I think if the Catholic Church is going to act as a political organization they should pay taxes on that money. People are giving to a tax exempt church and it's turned into political activist funds.
fighting gay marriage and it could be going to hundreds of other uses that actually help people.
Groups are probably still debating if the sun revolves around the earth or vice versa, if the earth is flat , whether witches and demons are out there prowling around.....I expect this to get squashed, big time.
I mentioned in my Walter Cronkite tribute thread that when I was a youngster he was the only public figure that I asked my mom if we could invite him over for dinner. I think I started asking around 5 or 6.
Here's the Q of the day:
When you were a kid, what public figure from your childhood years would you have wanted to have over for dinner? It can also be a fantasy figure like H.R. Pufnstuf, Tinkerbell, whatever.
Greetings and Salutations, Blenders! How the hell are ya?
Over here in defense and public policy nerd land, I noticed something both interesting and heartening while cruising through the text of H.R. 2647, the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. You know, the bill that the Matthew Shepard Act has been attached to, and to which an amendment for an 18-month moratorium on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has been proposed. I mean the bill that President Obama has threatened to veto if there is funding for the F-22 Raptor beyond what the Pentagon has already accepted. Yeah, THAT bill. There’s actually a pleasant surprise in it.
Remember that growing problem the U.S. Armed Forces have about white supremacists in the military? The ones that Southern Poverty Law Center has been tracking and wants Congress to investigate? Seems someone on the Hill was actually paying attention when drafting the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.
Section 524 of H.R. 2647 contains a provision that amends 10 U.S.C. 504, which is a U.S. code defining who is disqualified from military service. Section 524 would amend the U.S. Code to specifically prohibit members of violent hate groups, criminal gangs, and separatists from enlisting. It mandates that recruiters cannot enlist such people, and requires that if identified, such people be immediately expelled from the armed forces. It defines both hate and separatist groups, and deliberately identifies as ineligible people who join the armed forces “in order to obtain military training to be used for acts of violence against minorities, other groups, or the United States government.” Specifically, it defines a hate group as, among other things:
(F) Groups or organizations that espouse violence based on race, creed, religi religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.
Good. As a citizen, as a veteran, and as a civilian defense professional, I’ve been seriously alarmed by the reports of the highest level of identified hate group affiliation among U.S. servicemembers since the mid-90s. As an intelligence specialist working on new systems, it sickens me to think that my work might be exploited for use to harm my country by right-wing extremists seeking to destroy my Constitution. The language in section 524 is mostly common sense and straightforward, very hard to hair-split. However, there is one sentence that gives me pause.
(C) Individuals known to be involved in online activities with a hate group, including being engaged in online discussion groups or blog or other postings that support, encourage, or affirm the group's extremist or violent views and goals.
This paragraph makes me stop and think. In remembering the Bush years, I have to wonder, exactly how will this language be interpreted in military regs? Knowing that many of us here advocate civil disobedience and pushing the limits of activism for our rights, who will be suspect? How will this policy be enforced? What will mean the difference between agitating for our rights and "extremist or violent views and goals"? Will servicemembers be targeted if they are members of groups or informal online activist communities such as ours, for example an environmentalist or civil rights activist community? Could suspected gay or lesbian troops be targeted for discharge under DADT AND the hate group affiliation if they are found to be part of an online LGBT activist community? We all want to believe that common sense will apply, but if following politics has taught us anything, it's that EVERYTHING can be politicized to extremes if someone in power wants something out of it. I read section 524 with joy in my heart, but not without an undertone of trepidation. Fellow Blenders, your thoughts on the matter?
Exact language of the proposed bill and comparison to current U.S. Code below the fold.
The current language for 10 USC Sec. 504 is thus:
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCESSubtitle A - General Military Law
PART II - PERSONNEL
CHAPTER 31 - ENLISTMENTS
-HEAD-
Sec. 504. Persons not qualified
-STATUTE-
(a) Insanity, Desertion, Felons, Etc. - No person who is insane, intoxicated, or a deserter from an armed force, or who has been convicted of a felony, may be enlisted in any armed force. However, the Secretary concerned may authorize exceptions, in meritorious cases, for the enlistment of deserters and persons convicted of felonies.
(b) Citizenship or Residency. - (1) A person may be enlisted in any armed force only if the person is one of the following:
(A) A national of the United States, as defined in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)).
(B) An alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined in section 101(a)(20) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20)).
(C) A person described in section 341 of one of the following compacts:
(i) The Compact of Free Association between the Federated States of Micronesia and the United States (section 201(a) of Public Law 108-188 (117 Stat. 2784; 48 U.S.C. 1921 note)). (ii) The Compact of Free Association between the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the United States (section 201(b) of Public Law 108-188 (117 Stat. 2823; 48 U.S.C. 1921 note)). (iii) The Compact of Free Association between Palau and the United States (section 201 of Public Law 99-658 (100 Stat. 3678; 48 U.S.C. 1931 note)).
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Secretary concerned may authorize the enlistment of a person not described in paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines that such enlistment is vital to the national iional interest.
Section 524 of the proposed Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 reads as follows:
SEC. 524. PROHIBITION ON RECRUITMENT, ENLISTMENT, OR RETENTION OF PERSONS ASSOCIATED OR AFFILIATED WITH GROUPS ASSOCIATED WITH HATE-RELATED VIOLENCE AGAINST GROUPS OR PERSONS OR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.Section 504 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
(c) Persons Associated or Affiliated With Hate Groups-
(1) PROHIBITION- A person associated or affiliated with a group associated with hate-related violence against groups or persons or the United States Government, as determined by the Attorney General, may not be recruited, enlisted, or retained in the armed forces.
(2) DEFINITION OF HATE GROUP- In this subsection, the terms `group associated with hate-related violence' or `hate group' mean the following:
(A) Groups or organizations that espouse or engage in acts of violence against other groups or minorities based on ideals of hate, ethnic supremacies, white supremacies, racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, or other bigotry ideologies.
(B) Groups or organizations engaged in criminal gang activity including drug and weapons trafficking and smuggling.
(C) Groups or organizations that espouse an intention or expectation of armed revolutionary activity against the United States Government, or the violent overthrow of the United States Government.
(D) Groups or organizations that espouse an intention or expectation of armed activity in a `race war'.
(E) Groups or organizations that encourage members to join the armed forces in order to obtain military training to be used for acts of violence against minorities, other groups, or the United States Government.
(F) Groups or organizations that espouse violence based on race, creed, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.
(G) Other groups or organizations that are determined by the Attorney General to be of a violent, extremist nature.
(3) EVIDENCE OF ASSOCIATION OR AFFILIATION WITH HATE GROUP- The following shall constitute evidence that a person is associated or affiliated with a group associated with hate-related violence:
(A) Individuals possessing tattoos or other body markings indicating association or affiliation with a hate group.
(B) Individuals known to have attended meetings, rallies, conferences, or other activities sponsored by a hate group.
(C) Individuals known to be involved in online activities with a hate group, including being engaged in online discussion groups or blog or other postings that support, encourage, or affirm the group's extremist or violent views and goals.
(D) Individuals who are known to have in their possession photographs, written testimonials (including diaries or journals), propaganda, or other materials indicating involvement or affiliation with a hate group. Such materials can include photographs, written materials relating to or referring to extreme hatred that are clearly not of an academic nature, possession of objects that venerate or glorify hate-inspired violence, and related materials, as determined by the Attorney General.
(E) Individuals espousing the intent to acquire military training for the purpose of using such training towards committing acts of violence of a purpose not affiliated with the armed forces.
(4) REQUIREMENTS FOR RECRUITERS AND ENLISTMENT PROCESSING STATIONS- A military recruiter may not enlist, or assist in enlisting, a person who is associated or affiliated with a group associated with hate-related violence, as evidenced pursuant to paragraph (3). A person at any military enlistment processing station who, during the screening process, is found to be affiliated or associated with a hate group (including through admitting to any such affiliation or association on any form or document) is automatically ically prohibited from enlisting.
(5) SEPARATION-
(A) SEPARATION REQUIRED- A person discovered or determined to be associated or affiliated with a group associated with hate-related violence, as evidenced pursuant to paragraph (3), shall be immediately discharged from the armed forces, in the manner prescribed in regulations regarding discharge from service.
(B) EXCEPTION- Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a member of the armed forces who has renounced the member's previous affiliation or association with a group associated with hate-related violence, as determined by the commanding officer of the member.
(6) REPORTING REQUIREMENT- Not later than April 1, 2010, and annually thereafter, the Secretary concerned shall submit to the Committees on Armed Service of the Senate and House of Representatives a report--
(A) on the presence in the armed forces of members who are associated or affiliated with a group associated with hate-related violence and describing the actions of the Secretary to discharge such members; and
(B) describing the actions of the Secretary to prevent persons who are associated or affiliated with a hate group from enlisting.'.
'Tis t
www.GayTalkRadio.org
Subscribe to daily Email
0 comments:
Post a Comment