OLD TOWN — In a “last stand” effort to preserve the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland held a series of meetings across the state over the weekend urging people to evangelize and explain to friends and neighbors why same-sex marriage should be rejected.
David and Angela Franks, a married couple from Massachusetts, led a meeting at the Knights of Columbus Hall in Old Town on Sunday. Both hold doctorate degrees in theology from Boston schools. Their presentation was titled “Defending Marriage in the Public Square,” an offshoot of Bishop Richard Malone’s March pastoral letter, “Marriage: Yesterday … Today … Always.”
Mainers will go to the polls Nov. 6 to vote on a referendum that would allow same-sex couples to marry in Maine. In 2009, voters repealed a law allowing same-sex couples to marry six months after the Legislature passed the bill, which was signed into law by then-Gov. John Baldacci.
The Franks outlined what constitutes marriage as “the loving union of one man and one woman, publicly vowed, oriented toward the procreation and education of children and the good of the spouses.”
“Marriage is about children,” Angela Franks said. “Marriage is this relationship in which children are given the optimal environment in which to be raised.”
Because marriage is inherently about children, governments took an interest in licensing and regulating marriages, the couple argued. Because same-sex couples cannot produce offspring, the definition should not be changed to include them, the couple said.
Marriage between a man and a woman makes biological, societal and economic sense, the couple argued, and altering the definition of marriage would only serve to “scramble the social script.”
The differences between male and female seen across the spectrum of plant and animal life are natural indications of what should constitute marriage, the Frankses said.
“It’s not crude, it’s beautiful,” David Franks said, referring to sexual relations between a male and female. “It makes sense.”
David Franks said during the meeting that Mainers are forced to consider a second time in three years whether to recognize same-sex marriage.
“Is that equality?” Franks asked. “No, it’s violence upon us. … We’re being forced to say, ‘Yeah, it constitutes marriage.’”
The Franks said Catholics are challenged in defending the definition of marriage because many of them have homosexual friends or family members who want to carry their sexual “preferences, attractions and desires” into a marriage, and Catholics risk being called “bigots” if they push back to defend their definition of marriage.
“The Church wants to use her gifts to bolster human reason, try to blow away some of the ideological smoke and get at what’s really going on,” David Franks said.
Matt McTighe, campaign manager for Mainers United for Marriage, said Sunday afternoon that the Catholic Church was attempting to stop a change that wouldn’t affect the church.
The question on November’s ballot will ask voters whether they want the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The law contains a religious exemption, which states that religious institutions can choose not to perform or host a same-sex marriage.
McTighe said the church’s focus on marriage as a step toward procreation and rearing a successful offspring “undercuts the fundamental core of what marriage really is. … There are thousands of couples that can’t or choose not to have kids, and of course we allow those couples to marry.”
“Should we be allowing the Catholic Church to determine what the state’s definition is?” McTighe asked.
McTighe, himself a Catholic, said that the church is concerned about the sacrament of marriage, while the ballot question is concerned with the issuance of marriage licenses. He argued that allowing same-sex couples to marry and raise children would neither weaken the family unit nor harm society.
“Every couple should have that same freedom to enter in that lifelong commitment with the person they love,” regardless of sexual orientation, McTighe said.
McTighe’s defintion of marriage: “You meet somebody, you fall in love with them, you make the commitment with them, and then you get married.”



Marriage isn't a contest,
Marriage isn't a contest, it's a commitment. So when the majority of straight people in our lives divorce, it takes away from the argument that gays shouldn't marry. My partner and I celebrated 17 years on September 8th. I can't say the rest for our closest relatives.
All three of my siblings divorced. 2 years, 14 years, and 16 years. My parents divorced at 14 years. Three out of four of my partner Kevin's siblings divorced. 4 years & 10 years, 3 years, and 11 years. His parents divorced at 4 years.
PS: Jesus was all about love, but the HATE spewed by people calling themselves Christians is beyond belief. Thank you...
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Confusion
Laurel Frost writes, "telling a person that they need a sex change operation to marry the person that they love is cruel." I don't know where she got this idea, but I don't believe anyone ever, ever told anyone that they need a sex change operation to marry the person they love. If she is talking about the Catholic Church (of which I am not a member, but I know something about them), I'm pretty sure they don't even approve of "sex change operations," and that if a person who was biologically male came to them claiming to be female because of having had a "sex change operation" they would not perform a wedding ceremony for such a person. (Anyone here who can speak for the Roman Catholic Church is welcome to correct me.)
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Same sex marriage
Whatever happened to separation of church and state?
In France where they really have separation of church and state, religious personnel cannot perform a legal union. Couples who want the sacrament of marriage go before their priest and get religiously married.They have a religious union but not a legal one. Couples who want the protection of a legal union go before the justice of the peace. They have a legal union but not a religious one. In short, only secular authorities can perform a legal union. People who want both get both and those who want only one get only one.
Another important consideration is why are priests, ministers and rabbis, etc, allowed to perform legal unions? If they were not working within the secular realm, the whole question we are addressing now of honoring legal-unio rights for gay couples would be a moot question. It would not include religious discussion as legal union would not be a religious union. Perhaps we simply need to get used to using different terms. Anyway...
Why would a gay person want to be married in the Catholic Church?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.It's not a question of what is "allowed"
This question has little to do with religion, but so far it has been almost entirely religious groups that have had the resources to speak up, so that a misleading impression is given of what the issues are.
There is nothing that anyone in Maine is "allowed" to do that they can't do regardless of their sexual orientation. If two adults of the same sex want to have sexual relations with each other, they are allowed to do that. If they want to live together they are allowed to do that. If the want to raise children they are allowed to do that. If they want to make promises to each other they are allowed to do that. If they want to hold a ceremony to celebrate their commitment they are allowed to do that.
And they are allowed to call the relationship whatever they want to call it. Nobody gets arrested for murdering the English language. It isn't good English to call a same-sex relationship a "marriage," but some people do that anyway, and nobody has ever gone to jail for doing so.
This controversy is about words. Under all the rhetoric, the agenda is just to change the English language. And the problem is that languages are not changed by legislative fiat, or even by popular vote. Language changes when the way people speak it changes--and the English language has been around much longer than the state of Maine. It wasn't created by the state of Maine, and it can't be changed by the state of Maine. Legal definitions have a function in certain legal contexts, but they do not control the public language, which we share with English-speaking people all over the world.
I intend to go on speaking English.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Disagree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I wonder what the doctors of
I wonder what the doctors of theology David and Angela Franks are going to do when gay marriage is finally legal everywhere? When the population realizes that there are people born with both sexes, that there are people born with 2 sets of DNA, and that telling a person that they need a sex change operation to marry the person that they love is cruel. Why is marriage for children they only acceptable Catholic marriage when older people get married all the time, and lots of people do not want to have children but still want to get married. Does the Catholic Church want to tell me how fast I can drive too? You can still marry your first cousin in Maine, and the Catholic Church hasn't rallied against that yet...
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (3)
Disagree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.