RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists'  

« 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