Posts made by leatherbear

Catholic Church gives more than $ 1 Million, Human Rights Campaign Reports

Continuing its efforts to fight same-sex marriage in four ballot measures around the United States, the Catholic Church is now the top donor to the cause among religious institutions, according to a new report from the Human Rights Campaign.

This fall in Washington, Maryland and Maine, voters will decide whether same-sex marriage should be legal, and in Minnesota, voters will weigh in on a ballot measure amending the state's constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

According to recent news reports, opponents of same-sex marriage are expected to be widely outspent by gay rights advocates this election season, and recent polling has shown voters in Maryland, Maine and Washington are warming to the idea of legalizing marriage for same-sex couples. But opponents have history on their side: 32 states have previously held votes on same-sex marriage and, each time, voters have opposed it.

According to the report from HRC, a gay rights group has spent $4.4 million across the four ballot states, while the Catholic Church has spent at least $1.1 million on efforts to oppose the measures. A significant portion of this money comes from the Knights of Columbus, a fraternal organization within the church, while other funds come from dioceses nationwide. The church's donations amount to roughly a quarter of the effort across the four states to fight same-sex marriage, and in Minnesota, the Catholic Church has funded more than half of the efforts to support the constitutional ban, according to HRC.

“The Catholic Church hierarchy has positioned itself as the leading religious organization funding discrimination against LGBT people,” said HRC President Chad Griffin, in a press release that highlighted recent polling from the Public Religion Research Institute, which found that a majority of Catholics support same-sex marriage.

“Perhaps most disturbing is the number of local parishes redirecting the hard-earned dollars of its members in the name of discrimination," Griffin said. "The Church hierarchy owes the laity an explanation as to why they are spending this
much money on discrimination, and at what cost to other crucial Church programs.”

Jessica Zittlow, a spokeswoman for the Minnesota Catholic Conference, told the Huffington Post that funds devoted to advocating for Minnesota's marriage amendment have not taken away funding from other programs in the state.

With just a few exceptions, Minnesota Catholics have not been directly asked by the church to donate to these efforts, she said.

"Our marriage amendment activities, like our other activities, are aimed at fostering the common good," Jason Adkins, the executive director of the Minnesota Catholic Conference, said in a statement.

Prop 8's Strategist Seems To Sense He's Losing The Battle By Michelangelo Signorile

Forget Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. Forget Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage. Forget even the American Family Association's bilious Bryan Fischer. The most potent force pushing anti-gay bigotry in America is Frank Schubert, a man whose name is relatively unknown but who has empowered each of those individuals and many more in their anti-gay crusades, a man who stripped his own lesbian sister and her children of their rights in exchange for big money.

Schubert clearly knows he's peddling distortions and is demonizing gays in his own lucrative cottage industry of homophobia, and now he also seems to sense that he's on the losing side of a civil rights battle. This week that became more evident than ever in a lengthy interview with me in which he couldn't adequately answer basic questions about his mission, becoming so frustrated and agitated that he eventually lashed out and called me a "dummy."

Schubert is the strategist who ran the campaign that convinced voters to pass Proposition 8 in California in 2008, using ads that, among other things, framed gay marriage as dangerous to children. He moved on from there to other states and helped in the campaign that got three judges who had ruled in favor of marriage equality removed from the Iowa Supreme Court in retention elections in 2010. He successfully beat back marriage equality in Maine at the ballot box in 2009, and he got the marriage amendment passed in the brutal battle in North Carolina last May, a battle that inspired anti-gay preachers to call for violence and even death for gays.

Now, according to a profile in The New York Times, Schubert is on retainer for $10,000 to $20,000 a month from each of the anti-gay campaigns in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington, where gay marriage is on the ballot next month. And he gets a commission on all the ads he's airing in those states. On top of that, he's a paid consultant for the National Organization for Marriage. According to the Times article, Schubert hadn't previously cared much about the gay marriage battle, having made his career as a strategist helping back or block voter initiatives in California and representing Big Tobacco and other interests. But after he was brought into the battle to get Prop 8 passed and was successful, he became a convert. This year he founded a separate firm with a rich new revenue stream, devoted solely to putting social issues like gay marriage and abortion on the ballot.

But with things getting a little tougher for Schubert (gay marriage activists are emboldened by polls that show that, after losing at the ballot in over 30 states in the past, this year they may win in one or more of the four states where gay marriage is on the ballot), he is starting to lose his cool. When he appeared on my radio program this week, I cordially and calmly challenged him, but he could not even defend the most basic arguments he puts forth. He denied facts that have now become conventional wisdom even among some leaders on the Christian right, such as the fact that there has been a massive shift in public opinion in favor of marriage equality. As he became increasingly overwhelmed by the simple facts I was presenting, unable to offer logical answers, he went from being friendly and engaging to becoming agitated and angry. (And if you think I'm biased, listen to the interview for yourself in the audio posted below.)

That was particularly true when I pointed out that the claim that children do better in homes of heterosexual parents – and the insinuation that they are harmed by gay parents -- couldn't even stand up in federal court during the Prop 8 trial, when expert witnesses dismissed such claims and helped in getting Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional. (That case now awaits action from the Supreme Court.) Schubert lashed out, saying, "Nobody put me on the stand. Your great heroes Olson and Boies had me on the witness list. I was in the courtroom every day. I was happy to testify at any time."

That begged the question of why his own side didn't bring him to the stand if he would have made such a great witness. He had no real answer for that one. Ted Olson and David Boies, representing the plaintiffs, apparently saw no reason to call him. He is, after all, just a PR flack, if a pretty good one. Olson and Boies had actual social scientists and experts testify to refute his lies, while the proponents of Prop 8 offered no such experts.

Schubert seemed to crumble when I played a clip of Marc Mutty, his campaign manager in Maine in 2009, admitting in the new documentary Question One that the campaign had used hyperbole and engaged in distortions and untruths (and saying that he was worried that he would be remembered for that ugly campaign). Schubert responded to me by oddly distancing himself from the campaign while also saying that Mutty was "misrecalling" events.

And Schubert had no answer to the question of why he isn't trying to stop gay adoption, not gay marriage, if he believes children are better off with heterosexual parents. Maine, for example, allows two-parent adoptions by gay and lesbian couples, so keeping same-sex marriages unrecognized there will not prevent children from being raised in homes with two gay parents. Schubert couldn't answer that because his modus operandi is to convince others (and himself), through his ads and campaigns, that they can be against same-sex marriage but still be supportive of gay people, including their right to adopt. And that is a complete contradiction.

Several times he said he is not trying to stop gay adoption because he just wants to "protect" traditional marriage and is not "on a crusade" to take away the rights of gays -- including those of his own sister. (I raised the fact that she, a Sacramento deputy district attorney, is a lesbian in a relationship and has children, as has been reported in the media.) But why isn't he on that crusade if he truly believes that children do better in heterosexual households, as his campaign rhetoric claims? The only answer is that his money is coming from the folks trying to ban gay marriage, not from those trying to ban gay adoption. And that's what it seems to be all about for Schubert: money.

Schubert got so wound up on that question that even after I'd moved on, he nastily attacked me, calling me a "dummy" in response to a simple question about the difference between banning gay marriage and banning interracial marriage. "Was President Obama racist prior to May of this year, dummy?" Schubert shot back, making little sense.

I called his sister, Anne Marie Schubert, but she didn't return the call. She has said in the past that she can't comment on the issue in her capacity as a deputy district attorney, but her brother has said that he's "certain" that she disagrees with him on Prop 8. I can only imagine what it's like to have a brother who makes money by stigmatizing you and your children, his own nieces and nephews.

Schubert knows he's losing. He sees where the trend lines are going. My prediction is that he's going to get really desperate, and he's going to get really ugly before he gives up. Be ready for it. If you're gay, Frank Schubert is your enemy. And you should know him.

LISTEN: hXXp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/frank-schubert-anti-gay-marriage-amendment_b_1980260.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices

By NIGEL DUARA

PORTLAND, Ore. — An array of local authorities – police chiefs, prosecutors, pastors and town Boy Scout leaders among them – quietly shielded scoutmasters and others who allegedly molested children, according to a newly opened trove of confidential files compiled from 1959 to1985.

At the time, those authorities justified their actions as necessary to protect the good name and good works of Scouting. But as detailed in 14,500 pages of secret "perversion files" released Thursday by order of the Oregon Supreme Court, their maneuvers protected suspected sexual predators while victims suffered in silence.

The files document sex abuse allegations across the country, from a small town in the Adirondacks to downtown Los Angeles.

At a news conference Thursday, Portland attorney Kelly Clark blasted the Boy Scouts for their continuing legal battles to try to keep the full trove of files secret.

"You do not keep secrets hidden about dangers to children," said Clark, who in 2010 won a landmark lawsuit against the Boy Scouts on behalf of a plaintiff who was molested by an assistant scoutmaster in the 1980s.

The files were shown to a jury in a 2010 Oregon civil suit that the Scouts lost, and the Oregon Supreme Court ruled the files should be made public. After months of objections and redactions, the Scouts and Clark released them.

The Associated Press obtained copies of the files weeks ahead of Thursday's release and conducted an extensive review of them, but agreed not to publish the stories until the files were released.

The new files are a window on a much larger collection of documents the Boy Scouts of America began collecting soon after their founding in 1910. The files, kept at Boy Scout headquarters in Texas, consist of memos from local and national Scout executives, handwritten letters from victims and their parents and newspaper clippings about legal cases. The files contain details about proven molesters, but also unsubstantiated allegations

Many of the files released on Thursday have been written about before, but this is the first time the earliest ones have been put in the public domain.

The 1959-85 files show that on many occasions the files succeeded in keeping pedophiles out of Scouting leadership positions – the reason they were collected in the first place.

But the files document some troubling patterns.

In many instances – more than a third, according to the Scouts' own count – police weren't told about the alleged abuse.

And there is little mention in the files of concern for the welfare of Scouts who were allegedly abused by their leaders. But there are numerous documents showing compassion for suspected abusers, who were often times sent to psychiatrists or pastors to get help.

In 1972, a Pennsylvania Scouting executive wrote a memo recommending a case against a suspected abuser be dropped with the words: "If it don't stink, don't stir it."

In numerous instances, alleged abusers are kicked out of Scouting but show up in jobs where they are once again in authority positions dealing with youths.

One of the most startling revelations to come from the files is the frequency with which attempts to protect Scouts from alleged molesters collapsed at the local level, at times in collusion with community leaders.

On the afternoon of Aug. 10, 1965, a distraught Louisiana mother walked into the Ouachita Parish Sheriff's Office. A 31-year-old scoutmaster, she told the chief criminal deputy, had raped one of her sons and molested two others.

Six days later, the scoutmaster sat down in the same station and confessed.

"I don't know an explanation, why we done it or I done it or wanted to do it or anything else it just – an impulse I guess or something," the man told a sheriff's deputy.

The decision was made not to pursue charges. "This subject and Scouts were not prosecuted," a Louisiana Scouts executive wrote to national headquarters, "to save the name of Scouting."

In a statement on Thursday, Scouts spokesman Deron Smith said" "There is nothing more important than the safety of our Scouts."

Smith said there have been times when Scouts' responses to sex abuse allegations were "plainly insufficient, inappropriate, or wrong" and the organization extends its "deepest and sincere apologies to victims and their families."

The Scouts in late September made public an internal review of the files and said they would look into past cases to see whether there were times when abusers should have been reported to police.

The files showed a "very low" incidence of abuse among Scout leaders, said psychiatrist Dr. Jennifer Warren, who conducted the review with a team of graduate students and served as an expert witness for the Scouts in the 2010 case that made the files public. Her review of the files didn't take into account the number of files destroyed on abusers who turned 75 years old or died, something she said would not have significantly affected the rate of abuse or her conclusions.

The rate of abuse among Scouts is the not the focus of their critics – it is, rather, their response to allegations of abuse.

Throughout the files released Thursday are cases in which steps were taken to protect Scouting's image.

In Newton, Kan., in 1961, the county attorney had what he needed for a prosecution: Two men were arrested and admitted that they had molested Scouts in their care. But neither man was prosecuted.

The entire investigation, the county attorney wrote, was brought about with the cooperation of a local district Scouts executive, who was kept apprised of the investigation's progress into the men, who had affiliations with both the Scouts and the local YMCA.

"I came to the decision that to openly prosecute would cause great harm to the reputations of two organizations which we have involved here – the Boy Scouts of America and the local YMCA," he wrote in a letter to a Kansas Scouting executive.

In Johnstown, Pa., in August 1962, a married 25-year-old steel mill worker with a high school education pleaded guilty to "serious morals" violations involving Scouts.

The Scouting executive who served as both mayor and police chief made sure of one thing: The Scouting name was never brought up. It went beyond the mayor to the members of a three-judge panel, who also deemed it important to keep the Scouts' names out of the press.

"No mention of Scouting was involved in the case in as much as two of the three judges who pronounced sentence are members of our Executive Board," the Scouts executive wrote to the national personnel division.

Associated Press writers Matt Sedensky in West Palm Beach, Fla.; Rebecca Boone in Boise, Idaho; and Shannon Dininny in Yakima, Wash., contributed to this report.

:welco: to GT.ru and enjoy your time here!!


:cheers: In fact it doesn't get much better than this!!  :cheers:

https://forum.gaytorrent.ru/index.php?topic=18056.new#new

This is the source I use to Convert Measurements :

hXXp://southernfood.about.com/library/info/blconv.htm

:panic: If you have a problem then so do I  :lolp: I have the same attraction to some Str8t Porn and Black Men on White Women is a favorite for me as well. I never download any of it but will watch it given the chance. Sometimes I even create a "chance" by navigating to the Str8t Porn section of such sites as you speak of. My interest is only about the dick on the man involved and usually the woman is secondary. I do not think you have a problem at all  :bighug:

It is not likely that you have an identity crisis at this time in your life. After 28 years with your Life Partner can you honestly say you are thinking of leaving him for a Woman? I seriously doubt it.

We all have secret pervs and yours is no different than others that people have. Just my opinion  :ok2:

:drool2: OMFG he is a  Ginger Man!!!

Both men are

I think the hardest thing any Gay Man has to do is Come Out to his parents. Hard to imagine the results and judge reactions and none of us want to disappoint our parents.

I came out in 1973 in an age where no one would think of doing such a thing as openly admit to being Gay. My Mother really struggled with this fact of my life. There was trouble early on but within the year she and I were back to our selves and in fact better than before I came out. I was finally able to be the real Michael.

Have courage and faith that all will be well even if it takes some time. However, be prepared for other possibilities.  :hug:

The new Beta Version  (3.2.2) of UTorrent is banned only. Other versions are still the recommended client for members to use. for some reason this version is not compatible with our security system.

Download another Version of Utorrent and all will be fine. If you need help getting your torrents to seed again just let us know.

John M. Burns

The U.S. Supreme Court reconvened last week for its new term and the court is expected to hear several major cases from affirmative action to voting rights, among other high-stakes cases. Perhaps the most highly anticipated cases, however, involve gay marriage and a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"). Indeed, when speaking at the University of Colorado at Boulder three weeks ago, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke candidly, and confirmed that DOMA would most likely come "before the court toward the end of the current term." Such an affirmation from such a senior judge on the High Court comes as a welcomed acknowledgement for many gay-rights proponents whose fight for equal rights hinges in part on the repeal of DOMA.

The DOMA, which was passed by congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman and provides that no U.S. state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state. Since the act has been passed, several states – including Massachusetts, New York and Iowa -- have legalized same-sex marriage with key states -- including Maryland, Maine and Washington -- considering marriage equality this November. Last summer, Bush pollster Jan van Lohuizen and Democratic pollster Joel Benenson outlined in a memo the change of public opinion in support for marriage equality. Their analysis confirms public opinion is shifting: more Americans support marriage equality today than oppose it and that's true across all demographics regardless of party affiliations or religious backgrounds.

Unfortunately, public opinion is at odds with current law. Here is where the rubber meets the road: Section three of the DOMA is at the core of the majority of the disputes, the highly controversial section codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits and the filing of joint tax returns. Accordingly, numerous plaintiffs have challenged DOMA on the grounds that it denies critical federal benefits. In fact, section three of DOMA has been found unconstitutional in seven federal courts and five of those cases are awaiting a response for review from the U.S. Supreme Court. Accordingly, Justice Ginsburg's recent acknowledgement that the court will address DOMA in short order is welcomed news to same-sex marriage supporters who are frustrated with the clear jurisdictional divide and lack of uniformity. Indeed, this inconsistency presents a practical need for the Supreme Court decision as there are conflicting decisions on DOMA's constitutionality in various federal courts and additional challenges are pending. Consider the splitting of hairs by the Obama administration: On the one hand, the administration announced they will not defend the law in court, but is still enforcing it, resulting in more lawsuits filed against DOMA.

The High Court is expected to announce its decision whether to hear this case in the next few days. If it proceeds with the hearings, the case is expected to take place sometime in the next year and early indications suggest that the Supreme Court will most likely strike down section three of the DOMA. Not surprisingly, the case will most likely come down to the usual ideological split with the four liberals (Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor), most likely striking down the law, and the four conservatives (Roberts, Scalia Alito, Thomas), most likely seeking to uphold it. Thus, leaving the deciding vote in the hands of Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose powerful opinions in the landmark gay rights cases Romer vs. Evans and Lawrence vs. Texas suggest that he would most likely vote against the DOMA.

If the DOMA is struck down, the High Court's decision will certainly provide precedential effect in resolving future disputes involving equal rights for same sex couples. And while any victory before the High Court will resound across jurisdictions, the fight for progress on the marriage rights front for same-sex couples will continue to face challenges, especially considering the economic and political undertones that underscore this issue. Nonetheless, like civil-rights struggles of prior years, each victory serves as a vital building block and if the Supreme Court votes to strike down the DOMA, it will surely serve as a pivotal step in ensuring that same-sex marriage becomes a mainstream value in America.

It's not like it's okay to go around dropping the word "faggot," but if you're going to be spreading hate speech, you should probably get a read on your crowd first.

In this viral video, which was posted to the hip-hop/shock video site World Star Hip Hop on Oct. 16, a man at an Atlanta Waffle House gets into an altercation after using the homophobic slur on a group of patrons.

A woman won't stand for it and goes after the man verbally, but things escalate quickly, and a fight breaks out. The man who made the homophobic remark is smacked to the ground, then beaten by three men.

Members of the crowd appear to support the action taken. One man in the background applauds the beating, while other people can be heard cheering.

"Get mad!" one man calls out.

The World Star Hip Hop video headline presumes that the man who made the remark is straight and that his assaulters were gay. It also says that the man was "mollywhopped," a demeaning slang term that carries implications of violence towards women.

The video was posted to a Reddit forum by user "PositivEnergy," where it received hundreds of "upvotes." One user likened the incident to those involving the Lavender Panthers, a gay vigilante group that prowled the streets of San Francisco in the 1970s.

Earlier this year, two men were beaten in an apparent hate crime at an Ohio Waffle House.

Video @ hXXp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/waffle-house-homophobe-smacked-down-video_n_1970880.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices

Aziz Ansari Blasts Chick-Fil-A, Compares Being Anti-Gay To Being Anti-Interracial Dating

Aziz Ansari is a South Carolina native – and he's very pro-gay marriage -- but he's also very pro-delicious chicken sandwich. So what's is a conscientious foodie comedian from the South to do?

On Monday night's "Jimmy Kimmel Live!," Ansari sat down with Kimmel to talk about the ongoing Chick-Fil-A anti-gay marriage controversy and how the fast food chain's popular food is partially to blame ("No one would be talking about this if it were Long John Silver's").

The "Parks And Recreation" star also blasted people who are anti-gay in general, wondering how anyone couldn't see that they are on the wrong side of history at this point. He went on to compare it with being opposed to interracial dating:

"These are the same people that didn't want women to vote, that didn't want black guys to play football... What was the last thing they were opposed to, interracial relationships? Look, if you're opposed to interracial relationships, guess what: I'm f***ing white girls, and there's nothing you can do about it!"

Watch Aziz's interview above to hear more about his politically-charged sex life, plus his theory on how the gay struggle with equality might just be parallel to their struggle to find delicious fast food.

Video @ hXXp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/aziz-ansari-chick-fil-a-gay-marriage-interracial-relationships_n_1971184.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay%20Voices

Chick-Fil-A Ad Proclaims 'Only A Fruitcake Wouldn't Love Our Party Trays'

We don't want to make too many assumptions based on Chick-fil-A's notorious anti-gay history, but does anyone else find this advertisement for the restaurant chain – which proclaims, "Only a fruitcake wouldn't love our party trays!" -- a little suspect?

Update at 6:03pm ET on October 16: Chick-fil-A offered the following statement to the Advocate today: "This is an advertisement that a locally owned and operated restaurant has been using for the past five years to promote Chick-fil-A's catering options during the holidays. It was simply a play on words referring to the traditional holiday food, and the restaurant had no intention of offending anyone whatsoever. We regret the flyer may haven been taken out of context."

Booted From Other Campuses In North Carolina

The Huffington Post  |  By Tyler Kingkade

Students at North Carolina's Elon University this week became the latest to push back against Chick-fil-A and its anti-gay stance. The student government voted 35-11 to ask the school's food vendor, Aramark, to find another restaurant to take the fast food chicken chain's place, the Times-News reports.

Chick-fil-A was at the center of a very public controversy this summer after its president and COO, Dan Cathy, openly declared his opposition to LGBT rights – saying legalizing same-sex marriage was like "shaking a fist" at God -- and stood by the company's millions of dollars in donations to anti-gay groups. In the wake of the controversy, Cathy reportedly held a "diversity" meeting with campus leaders in Atlanta back in August.

While broader attention to Chick-fil-A seems to have subsided, college students have continued a push on several college campuses to give Chick-fil-A the boot. Two other colleges in North Carolina have ended their relationship with the company (even after North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage earlier this year).

St. Mary's College in Maryland ended its relationship with Chick-fil-A over a year ago. And Davidson College decided to refrain from serving Chick-fil-A at a school sponsored event after students started a petition.

Yet despite the national outcry and dozens of petitions calling for the removal of Chick-fil-A restaurants from college campuses, very few schools have taken any action to kick out the chicken joints.

In July, New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn wrote a letter to New York University President John Sexton requesting Chick-fil-A be removed from the school's campus in Manhattan. And even though NYU students have been speaking out against Chick-fil-A for some time, student leaders so far have resisted booting New York City's only Chick-fil-A location.

Duke University's on-campus location is closing in 2013, but due to campus renovations rather than student protests. Rick Johnson, associate vice president of housing and dining, told the Duke Chronicle he received some emails over the summer calling for the university to cut ties with Chick-fil-A. "I told them it’s a moot point because their contract is up at the end of the year," Johnson said. "That seemed to satisfy them."

At Elon, a private college, the school president and other senior administrators will have the final say on whether Chick-fil-A stays on campus.

seattlepi.com

Sixty-three former Roman Catholic priests in Washington state will announce on Thursday that they support Referendum 74, which would make Washington the nation’s seventh state to legalize marriage between same-sex couples.

The stand comes as the state’s four Catholic bishops intensify a campaign of pastoral statements and videos urging parishoners to vote against marriage equality.

In the latest pastoral letter,  Bishop Joseph J. Tyson of the Diocese of Yakima told his 41 parishes that Referendum 74 “jeopardizes freedom rather than expands it” and “endangers our religious liberty and the rights of conscience.”

“Once marriage is redefined as a genderless contract, it will become legally discriminatory for public and private institutions such as schools to promote the unique meaning of marriage . . .This law will challenge our right to educate about the unique value of children being raised by his or her own mother and father in a stable home,” Tyson wrote.

The 63 former priests, with collectively more than 800 years of service to the Church, beg to differ.

“We are uneasy with the aggressive efforts of Catholic bishops to oppose R-74 and want to support the 71 percent of Catholics (Public Religion Research Institute) who support civil marriage for gays as a valid Catholic position,” they said in a statement.

Former priest Pat Callahan, who organized the statement, added:  “This is the first public action we’ve taken.”  Callahan was in the Catholic priesthood for 15 years.

Washington, Maryland and Maine will vote on marriage equality this November.  Minnesota is voting on a constitutional amendment that would enshrine marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman.

The ex-priests in Washington are taking a lesson from the playbook of their counterparts in Minnesota.

Minneapolis-St. Paul Archbishop John Nienstedt has warned any active priests opposing the gay marriage ban to keep their feelings to themselves.  With no threat of ecclesiastical retaliation, three retired priests and dozens of former priests have made public statements against the proposed amendment.

In Washington, ecclesiastical shepherds are finding a lot of trouble herding their flocks.

Same-sex marriage legislation passed last winter.  It was championed by Gov. Christine Gregoire, a Catholic:  Its chief legislative sponsor was State Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, a practicing Catholic and long-partnered gay.

A group called Catholics for Marriage Equality-Washington was prominent in Seattle’s Pride Day march last June.

Several major Catholic parishes — including Seattle’s St. James Cathedral — refused Archbishop J. Peter Sartain’s request to serve as collection center for petitions to force a vote on same-sex marriage.

With same-sex marriage fueled by an $8.5 million campaign warchest, the Catholic bishops are taking their case to the pews.

“Although our surrounding popular culture may define human identity by the terms ‘gay’ and ‘straight,’ our church has a deeper and more accurate understanding of human identity based on male and female — sexual difference,” Tyson argued.

The bishop, a young and outspoken conservative, wrote of “recent attacks on churches, businesses and nonprofit organizations that express their conscientious objection to the redefinition of marriage.”

Tyson even published a picture of his mother and father at their marriage more than a half-century ago.

“I opened this letter with a wedding picture of my parents,” he wrote.  “I close by asking you to consider what kind of picture of marriage you desire to give to the next generation.  If you and I don’t uphold marriage as the union of a man and a woman, who will?”

Washington’s faith community is divided over same-sex marriage.  Episcopal Bishop Gregory Rickel has endorsed Referendum 74 as a “conservative proposal” consistent with basic Christian teaching and the Christian life.  Two prominent Methodist pastors appear in TV ads backing marriage equality.

Catholics for Marriage Equality, in a statement this weekend, said:  “We are shocked when we read the language and examples used by our bishops to incite fear in our Catholic brothers and sisters if Referendum 74 passes.  The message of Jesus is love and compassion, not fear.”

Same-sex marriage has never won a statewide vote, although Washington voters approved civil unions in a 2009 referendum.

But the statewide Elway Poll last week pegged support for Referendum 74 at 57 percent.