My comment to the post is below:

Yes, Frank, thank you for sharing this story. And while I share the respect expressed by others who are able to admire someone who now sees the “error of his ways,” the question then becomes, Now what?

At the time of the Maine initiative against same-sex marriage, I took the time to write to Mr. Mutty’s boss, Portland Bishop Richard Malone. Bishop (then Father) Malone had been a professor and advisor of mine at St. John’s Seminary College in Boston. “Dick” Malone — whose doctorate came from a secular, not Catholic, institution, Boston University — was well-like and admired as a careful thinker, a good teacher, and someone who challenged students with high academic standards. I reminded Bishop Malone of this in my letter, challenging him to see that from the perspective of reason, opposition to same-sex marriage (especially in the civil context) is on very flimsy footing. Needless to say, I never heard back from him.

So, I come back to my initial point, which I hope Mr. Mutty would consider. In our theology of Reconciliation, when we recognize we have done wrong, we are called upon to embrace a firm “purpose of amendment” through which we commit to changing past ways. So, Mr. Mutty …. Now what??

School Administrator (talking to an off-camera mic/reporter–as he talks, we see images of teachers in classrooms reading from blurred-out books, GLSEN-style posters, etc.):

No, we’re very proud of the new curriculum. It’s all about teaching kids to embrace different lifestyles and explore their own sexuality.

Switching from images of sex ed classrooms to little boy on a bench in a darkened school hallway. We can see an adult male (not his face, we’re looking from the perspective of the child and the view never includes his head) come out of an office, take the boy’s hand, lead him into the office, and close the door. Freeze on the closed door, which has a sign that says, “Counseling Session: Do Not Disturb”

Reporter (VO): Yes, but is it appropriate for kindergartners to be receiving counseling about whether they might be gay?

School Admin (VO): Sure, we’ve had a few complaints, but there’s not much parents can do. It’s the law, after all.

VO: Think gay marriage won’t affect your family? Think again.

Pan Atlantic’s Patrick Murphy says the survey of 400 likely voters found 53 percent opposing Question 1, which would repeal Maine’s gay marriage law, while 42 percent favor the measure and six percent remain undecided. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percent.

• We know from other states where gay marriage has been legalized it has been taught to young children in the public schools. We know Maine already has a well-developed structure in place to advance gay issues in the schools, including the Gay Straight Alliance that operates in schools statewide and the Gay Lesbian School Education Network.

• We know the state-sanctioned Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Questioning Youth Commission has recommended we hire gay advocates in every school in the state.

• We know books and films are already used in Maine schools to talk about same-sex relationships and gay-headed families.

• We know the state Department of Education says Maine’s education code neither requires nor prevents teaching about homosexual marriage, so that door is already open.

• And we know when all these facts are presented, the backers of same-sex marriage cannot address them, so instead they call us liars and fear-mongers.

To the first statement–gay marriage may be taught in Massachusetts, but can also be taught in states that don’t allow it legally.  The two issues aren’t related.

Importantly though, you’ll note that–after the first sentence–every statement is about what is currently going on.  This really undercuts his own alarmist claims about what will happen.

To the last point, I don’t call Yes on 1 votes liars and fear mongers–just people like you, Marc.

But here is where No on 1 is challenged.  They have done a great job of saying this isn’t the case for reasons XYZ.  Unfortunately, No on 1 can’t go deep in addressing these tactics because it allows SFMM to control the debate and distracts from the real issue.  So, I wrote a letter that I’m sure will never be read by Maggie Gallagher, Brian Brown, Marc Mutty, or Bishop Malone.

Dear Ms. Gallagher, Mr. Brown, Mr. Mutty and Bishop Malone,

Throughout the last few months, you have either financially supported, or actually spoken, claims that LD 1020 will impact what kids are taught in school.  In fact, you often invoke kindergartners.  Since this campaign isn’t about education policy, your opponents have–very rightfully–only responded by refuting the facts of the case.

So, without in any way admitting that LD 1020 has anything to do with education, I’d like to go down that road for a moment.

If this bill did in fact require that same sex marriages be discussed in classrooms (even kindergartners!), what is the fallout that you so oppose?

You invoke this vague threat without saying why it is bad.  Since you’re not being upfront, I will be.

I think you’re trying to instill a fear that this will somehow make kids gay.  You make claims like this (second 13):

But step back and be honest for a second.  Do you, as apparently very heterosexual adults, think that someone could have taught you to be attracted to someone of the same sex?  Do you think that lifestyle would have felt right?

Schools are about teaching reality, and the reality is that same sex couples exist.  The question now is whether or not we are also able to teach that the state values all loving adult couples equally.

Teaching that same sex marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage only increases understanding and acceptance of others (which I think 90% of people agree is a positive thing).  Even if you believe that homosexuality is a sin, doesn’t it help you love the “sinner” and see them as a person and not an affliction?

You complain that people call you bigots and haters for opposing marriage equality.  I won’t speculate on that, but I can certainly say that this fear mongering is based in ignorance–your own and the ignorance you’d attribute to voters.

We’ve never said that schools will be mandated- or, actually, perhaps we did in one ad, or certainly led people to believe that, inadvertently,” says Yes on 1′s Chairman Marc Mutty.

Here is the audio (via UniteTheFight):

The other piece of the debate that I found really confusing was the argument that a same-sex marriage and a “different gender” couple can’t both be described by the same word.  Mutty repeated this throughout the debate, and it’s totally bogus.  A great dane and a poodle are very different, but they’re both called dogs.  Drawing arbitrary lines isn’t a convincing argument.  Watch:

BANGOR — Religious leaders across the state held news conferences Thursday to urge Mainers to end marriage discrimination against gay and lesbian couples, and called for the state to create same-sex civil marriages.

“We feel a moral obligation at this pivotal time to raise our voices on behalf of Mainers who are denied that most basic human right — the right to marry and form a family with the person of their choice,” said the Rev. Mark Doty, pastor at the Hammond Street Congregational Church, United Church of Christ, in Bangor.

It’s refreshing to see some of the semi-rational religious leaders of Maine finally get their voice out there (there are still religious leaders, hence the “semi”). Of course, with the semi-rational leaders come the crazies.

“I [Marc Mutty, director of the Office of Public Affairs] don’t think [the coalition] represents a great majority of the religious community in Maine,” he said. “They represent marriage as a civil right and believe that anyone that meets certain criteria should be able to marry.

Of course they don’t represent a majority of the religious community. They aren’t bigots.

“Marriage is the building block of society and includes procreation,” Mutty continued. “Without procreation, and same sex couples can’t, they’re missing out on a huge piece of the puzzle. The argument is not any more complicated than that.”

It’s beyond me why someone thinks this is a valid argument. It is not required that one have children or even touch one’s partner upon obtaining a marriage license. Intent or ability to procreate is irrelevant when the state issues a marriage license.

Unfortunately, one of the semi-rational leaders had to go and reconfirm the need for the “semi” before he stopped speaking.

“I cannot fathom a God who would discriminate based on gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity,” she said. “My Universalist tradition believes that God loves everyone equally. Why then should we deny anyone who loves the right to make a lifelong marriage commitment?”

I can fathom a god who is misogynistic. It isn’t very hard. I can also fathom one that discriminates based upon sexual orientation. In fact, the particular Christian god feels sodomy is a capital crime.