RECENT  POSTS:  » Scott Lively equates accurately noting his public record with inciting murder » Audio: Mark Regnerus doesn't think marriage equality has 'a lot of gas left' » Friday: NOM president shares the bill with 'ex-gay' activists » Today in 'um, yeah, obviously': Stunt marriages not confined to opposite-sex partnerships » Video: Brian Brown's fellow panelist gives insight into Moscow panel's extreme views on homosexuality, marriage » Video: TN man condemns gays with Leviticus billboards; oddly allows local Red Lobsters to remain open » Video: 'Ex-gay' speaker at upcoming ERLC summit equates talking to gay people with talking to cancer patients » GLAAD: Mainstream media is catching on to NOM's broader agenda » FRC's Values Voter Summit puts anti-gay bakers on a marriage panel; so we won, basically » GOP front group NOM raising money for a GOP US Senate  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

09/16/2009

On 'banning'

by Jeremy Hooper

When perusing this week's bulletin for Portland, Maine's Cathedral of the Catholic Immaculate Conception (gay-banning Bishop Malone's home church), we couldn't help but notice the ironic placement of two items:

(highlighting our own)
200909161316-1
9/13/09 Bulletin [Cathedral of the Catholic Immaculate Conception]

Banns on the left, Bans on the far-right. It's as poetic as it is disturbing.

Now if you'll excuse this writer, I need to go give my husband dangerous redefinition a kiss.

***

By the way: We just spent the past hour or so looking at scores and scores of bulletins from Maine catholic churches. We found maybe three that didn't contain mention of this "special collection," last weekend's rally, the "yes on 1" campaign, or all three. Weird, as we didn't mention them even once in our wedding invitations.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Wow. Didn't think anybody still posted the banns anymore.

Posted by: matthew | Sep 17, 2009 12:07:17 AM

Interesting that they ask for checks to be made out to Stand for Marriage Maine. I suppose this is to keep them insulated from tax exemption status reprocusions and go on to point out that they are not tax deductable, I assume as contributions to the church are considered charitable contributions under the tax law.

Posted by: Bob Miller | Sep 17, 2009 11:40:24 AM

Yes, its the religionists work around. Even the National Organization for Marriage has a PAC so that they can collect millions in the name of bigotry from the churches without running afoul of the IRS tax code. So far they have collected 6 million mormon dollars to derail the Respect for Marriage Act through Maggie Moo Gallagher.

Posted by: Mykelb | Sep 17, 2009 2:29:22 PM

Yes, banns are still done in a lot of places. In the province of Ontario, Canada, for example they can be used in place of a government-issued marriage license. It was such a procedure back in 2001 at the Toronto MCC that produced the first legal same-sex marriages in Canada. The legality of those wasn't confirmed until 2003, but that set the precedent that led to legal same-sex marriage nationwide.

Posted by: Neil | Sep 22, 2009 2:39:33 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails