Church/State, Politics and Money

On Tuesday, voters in Maine were asked to allow a law supporting same-sex marriage to stand. The law was passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor. Marriages were to begin 9/14/2009 but delayed pending Tuesday's vote.

Four states have been progressive enough to pass similar laws with New Hampshire starting Jan. 1, 2010. Three states plus Washington, D.C. recognize the marriages from other states but do not allow licenses to be issued in their state. Several European countries (including Spain which is about 94% Catholic) and South Africa allow gay marriage.

Since September, however, the forces of the Church and Focus on the Family vowed to defeat the law. Focus on the Family, based in Colorado Springs, donated $115,266 in Maine and $91,000 to fight a law in Washington state. Tom Minnery, senior vice president of Focus Action, the group's political arm, said it would have donated more were it not for Washington's campaign finance limits.

Then we have the Catholic Church; an entity whose worth is incalculable. The Boston Diocese alone is estimated to be worth $500 million. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, Maine shows expenditures of $511,934.05 to StandForMarriageMaine.com since June 9th, 2009. A chart of the contributions to the Diocese of Portland dating from July 16th, 2009 shows $553,608.27. Much of the "contributions" were out-of-state. In other words, money for meddling in Maine's fight for equality. These monies went to print and TV attack ads featuring frightened children and misinformation.

I've always supported the concept of separation of Church and State. Opponents always say "But it's not in the Constitution!" meaning those particular words are not there. I agree, they aren't. But the 1st Amendment contains what is known as the Establishment Clause. It prohibits a) forming a National Religion by Congress or b) showing a preference of one religion over another. These are commonly referred to as "separationist" and "accommodationist". But, the naysayers respond, "No, that's an interpretation!".

Not being a Constitutional lawyer (although I agree with the majority of them), I tell the "bad guys" that the Supreme Court was established in 1789 as the highest Federal Court in the country. It has the final say on legal matters with their powers of judicial review, an inarguable fact. Then I talk to them about the decision in Everson v. Board of Education.

Justice Black writing for the majority said "the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State" and "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

It's unlawful for a religious entity to endorse a specific candidate. It's time for a law or Constitutional Amendment to finally put to rest the issue of separation. No organized religion, fellowship, union, society or coalition should be allowed to donate money advocating any side of a local, state or federal proposition before the voters. We can allow individual donations but only with the strictest of limits and maximum of punishments.

Extreme? Perhaps. But I fought hard against a defense of marriage act in Missouri several years ago and for a bond issue to expand my high school alma mater. Both of these were issues were valued to me, but both lost. Imagine that one day, you are confronted with outside groups attempting to overturn a law or defeat a ballot proposition. They might be the NRA, Focus on the Family, a church or even the TEA Partiers. They'll flood the area with money, bus in out-of-state people and disrupt town halls and meetings. When you're faced with defeat, you might wish something had been done earlier.

Whoever first said "all elections are local" was wrong. Dead wrong.