WASHINGTON — Rep. Mike Michaud (D-Maine) announced he’s gay in an Op-Ed article published by Maine newspapers Monday, making him the seventh openly gay member of Congress.
The five-term representative, currently running for governor, said that he was prompted to speak out by “whisper campaigns” alleging that he was gay.
“Allow me to save them the trouble with a simple, honest answer. ‘Yes I am. But why should it matter?’” Michaud wrote. “That may seem like a big announcement to some people. For me, it’s just a part of who I am, as much as being a third-generation millworker or a lifelong Mainer.”
Citing his Franco American Catholic upbringing as one of the reasons for his silence on his sexuality, Michaud said he hopes to inspire others to be open about themselves.
I am so bored with faux-gay bravery and victimization.
November 5, 2013 at 1:25 am
"I am so bored with faux-gay bravery and victimization." Seriously? Your post is disgusting. It does take bravery to come out. I did, and it's not easy. Your posts continue to spread the fact that Catholic followers are not very accepting of LGBT people.
November 5, 2013 at 2:32 am
In private life it might take some bravery. As a politician from a Northeastern state? Please, that's like outing yourself as a hunter in a Southwestern one.
November 5, 2013 at 2:54 am
Uh Sophia, I from lower NY state, one of the most liberal regions in the Northeast, and it was incredibly difficult to come out. My entire family is Catholic, I was born an raised in the religion but moved on from it recently. Although political careers are different than private life, it can still be difficult. Additionally, he says " For me, it’s just a part of who I am, as much as being a third-generation millworker or a lifelong Mainer.” It's a part of him, like everything else. Why is that such an issue and necessary to comment on?
November 5, 2013 at 4:31 am
It's difficult for people to "come out" because it's revealing that you have a sexual paraphilia and often habits of sin that are keeping you bound. A lot of such people decide that is who they "are" and that they are not going to try to get free. From the point of view of the broader society where chastity is not valued, marriage and children are not valued, sexuality becomes trivialized, is used much like a drug, and there is a sense of liberation of deciding "so what if my sexual affectivity or behavior is deviant? says who?" Choosing to live your human dignity in accord with God's plan, to live chastely in single life or married family life seems like the path of a fool because it is costly and involves sacrifice, effort, humility and intense honesty before God. Few today can fathom how this can be the way to true joy.
November 5, 2013 at 4:59 am
Elizabeth, that is your opinion, coming from your beliefs. There are people who don't believe in sin, and people who don't believe that homosexuality is sin. Are you suggesting that one can be "freed or cured" from being gay? Additionally, it doesn't define a person, it is merely a part of them.
"Choosing to live your human dignity in accord with God's plan….Few today can fathom how this can be the way to true joy." That's exactly the point. You believe that what you are doing is right. How can you know? You can't. So you latch on, deluding yourself with thoughts of "God told me through the Church/teachings/dreams". But this is not faith at all. It's merely belief in something. Faith is about accepting life for what it is and letting go, not grappling on.
November 5, 2013 at 9:18 am
77a35f90-24aa-11e3-b423-000bcdca4d7a: I'm curious to know who exactly you think you're impressing, with this display made of equal parts self-righteous preening and illiterate posturing that demonstrates only your own ignorance (well, it also demonstrates the Dunning-Kruger effect).
You assert made-up definitions of "faith", which is 100% synonymous with "belief" in all senses, in the Western world among other places (also in Japanese and I'm 90% sure Chinese and Korean). You claim there are people who disbelieve in sin, which is largely not true unless you question-beg a made-up definition of that, too ("sin" means "wrongdoing", nothing more, nothing less, and only nihilists disbelieve in that).
You can't get people's usernames right (I am "Sophia's Favorite", not "Sophia"—tell me, Captain Reading Comprehension, if a person posted as "Billy's Mom", would you be so stupidly rude as to address them as "Billy"?). You respond to things they didn't say (I didn't say "living in the northeast it's not brave to come out", which is the only thing your reply to me would refute; I said "as a politician in the northeast it's not brave", because it's not brave, it's a laughably transparent PR stunt).
Your laughable little tantrums do absolutely nothing to aid your agenda, unless perhaps you're actually stealth-marketing rigid restrictions on Internet access.
November 5, 2013 at 2:05 pm
Er… with all due respect, Anonymous: while I'm sorry to hear of the pain and/or struggles which misled you to leave the Church, you've really gone far off the tracks. You're espousing moral relativism (i.e. there is no absolute right or wrong, only opinions and views, etc.), which is as logically and morally incoherent a position as any dreamed up by human mind; it's almost always embraced (at least initially and fundamentally) as a way to excuse oneself from any moral restrictions which one happens not to like (almost always about sex, I've found), and it's nonsense. To gain sexual license for oneself and others, one throws away sanity. There are only three possible outcomes to any embrace of moral relativism: (1) solipsism (i.e. "I am the only provable being in existence"), (2) insanity, and (3) conversion away from moral relativism.
By the way: would it be possible for you to choose a slightly less cumbersome pseudonym than a string of characters which looks more like a Windows Product Key than anything else?
November 5, 2013 at 3:15 pm
It's so difficult to come out, eh? Well there are Christians in Muslim countries who don't dare to "come out" because their friends, neighbors, and families will kill them if they do. And you're whining because you're upset that normal, decent people don't like your sexual kink? Boo-hoo!
November 5, 2013 at 3:58 pm
This gentleman is obviously struggling with something that is a painful burden for him. There is no call to be insulting or condescending. I didn't note anywhere that only comments agreeing with the majority here were allowed. 77 is one of the wounded that the Pope has called for us to minister to, and we're failing miserably. No wonder he's moved on. 77, have you ever looked into the Courage program of the Catholic Church? The sexual morality of the Church is more than just a set of beliefs that may or may not be true, it is the road to holiness and happiness. And happiness is more than just feeling good for the moment, it is the deep joy that comes from loving God and submitting to His will, allowing Him to love us more than we can ever imagine. God bless you, I hope you find your way home.
November 5, 2013 at 6:33 pm
Hi Soph!
November 5, 2013 at 7:27 pm
@"Sophia's Favorite" When did I attack you or your name? I apologize as I was trying to quickly respond. But your comment is ridiculous. "
You can't get people's usernames right (I am "Sophia's Favorite", not "Sophia"—tell me, Captain Reading Comprehension, if a person posted as "Billy's Mom", would you be so stupidly rude as to address them as "Billy"?). " I didn't mean to be rude at all. It's your own ignorance for taking it that way.
I merely responded to your comment. That does not invite an attack. Illiterate? Are you kidding me? What kind of Catholic are you? You try to insult me when I offer a response to you and others. Show me where I am being self-righteous, as you are the one trying to purposely use sophisticated language for whatever reason and trying to insult my intelligence. I happen to be a student of engineering. It doesn't matter what one studies in general. But the fact that you are trying to make me seem like an idiot has provoked this. I am currently taking the equivalent of what lay people would call calc 5. I have previously taken courses in various types of engineering as well as Modern Physics and Quantum mechanics. I enjoy reading philosophy and leisure adventure, and science fiction. I enjoy anime, as I see you do too. Naruto happens to be my favorite. And I happen to be gay. So what? Why does there have to be an attack on the gay part of a person, such as this Representative? That was my main point. Other commenters switched to marriage and how homosexuality is evil, so I responded to them about that. My point in addressing faith:
"In other words, a person who is fanatic in matters of religion, and clings to certain ideas about the nature of God and the universe, becomes a person who has no faith at all." ~Alan Watts
November 5, 2013 at 7:39 pm
@paladin "By the way: would it be possible for you to choose a slightly less cumbersome pseudonym than a string of characters which looks more like a Windows Product Key than anything else? " Well according to Sophia's favorite, you are being stupidly rude and ignorant of my username. Completely ridiculous. Yes I know. I signed in to my aim account and for some reason this site doesn't read my screen name and instead uses a bunch of characters. Sorry about that. Regardless, I am not using moral relativism to gain sexual license to do anything. I try to live as a good person. I do not need the Church to tell me how. And yes, I may be far off the tracks. I don't mind that. It is frustrating to see people, commenting on how I should convert back to Catholic beliefs and join a program. I'm past that stage. I don't believe in what the Church has to offer. That is it. Additionally, my main point was to criticize the hypocrisy in the article. It truly is difficult to come out. It may have been easier for this representative, but to take someone coming out as a faux bravery is wrong, especially from a Catholic perspective. It's also interesting how people do not respond to the anti-gay animus portrayed in some comments, such as Steve Dalton's.
Siobhan, thank you for your thoughts! I have looked into the Courage program for years. I honestly have moved past that, and don't believe in much of what the Church has to say, in regards to sexuality and the notion of faith within the teachings. I don't mind other people's beliefs at all. I accept that the Church isn't going to accept same-sex marriage. However, I am calling out to Catholics, especially the Patrick Archbold, to actually stick to Catholic teachings and support and defend against LGBT people from discrimination. It is unfortunate that many Catholics focus solely on the issue of sexuality than they do on caring for the person.
November 5, 2013 at 7:46 pm
@Sophia's favorite,
"(I didn't say "living in the northeast it's not brave to come out", which is the only thing your reply to me would refute; I said "as a politician in the northeast it's not brave", because it's not brave, it's a laughably transparent PR stunt)."
To get back to your argument….So would you say that if a politician in Texas came out, he would exhibit bravery because he lives in the Southwest, where it is more difficult to live as an openly gay person?
November 5, 2013 at 8:21 pm
What I think is unusual about the Representative's comment is how he stated coming out was difficult due to his Franco American Catholic heritage. I'm 55 and the Rep looks my age or a little older. It wasn't just Catholics who treated gays poorly–so did Lutherans, Episcopalians and people who believed in nothing. His difficulty coming out is probably an artifact of being raised in the 60s and 70s (if not the 50s). I'm a mental health counselor–I can guarantee that all kinds of gay men have a hard time coming out. Even guys from agnostic families.
November 5, 2013 at 8:21 pm
What I think is unusual about the Representative's comment is how he stated coming out was difficult due to his Franco American Catholic heritage. I'm 55 and the Rep looks my age or a little older. It wasn't just Catholics who treated gays poorly–so did Lutherans, Episcopalians and people who believed in nothing. His difficulty coming out is probably an artifact of being raised in the 60s and 70s (if not the 50s). I'm a mental health counselor–I can guarantee that all kinds of gay men have a hard time coming out. Even guys from agnostic families.
November 5, 2013 at 9:34 pm
@77a35f90-24aa-11e3-b423-000bcdca4d7a: You were "trying to quickly respond"? "Select, Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V". There, you've just gotten my username right, with one mouse-movement and two keystrokes. How do you think I get your ridiculous gobbledigook right? You took the trouble to type out the wrong name, and now you claim haste as your motive?
It is not much harder to live as an active homosexual in the southwest; the personal issues are the same as in the northeast, except that "live and let live" is a stronger cultural trend (also unlike the northeast we have no cultural legacy of Puritanism). But we were not actually discussing this politician's private life, and it is disingenuous to pretend we were; we were discussing his public life, and yes, it is probably harder to succeed as a politician, in the southwest, being openly gay.
For the rest: I say you are illiterate because you say (or imply, because stating outright would require guts) that words, such as "faith" and "sin", mean things that absolutely nobody even functional in English thinks they mean. "Functional illiteracy" is still illiteracy.
I say that you are self-righteous because you like to imply (stating outright would require guts) that everyone is being very judgmental—which, of course, implies that they have no right to judge your preferred form of mutual masturbation that mostly only achieves increased risk of disease and colonic injury. You imply that they are illegitimately "imposing" private opinion on others—ignoring that you are, indisputably, illegitimately imposing your private opinion that they should not do that.
You are self-righteous because you cast yourself as the hero of a tragic persecution tale, merely because some dare express disapproval of things that most societies in history—especially the non-Christian ones—would kill you rather messily for. Most eras of Hindu history had death by hot brands for homosexuality; all disapproved it as strongly as incest (read, for example, the treatment of homosexuality in the Kama Sutra). The Islamic world universally stones people for homosexuality (at the very gentlest—Turkish law had many artistic ways to torture people to death), sometimes with an exception for rape as a punishment inflicted on male slaves. The most advanced civilization in the New World, the Colhua Mexica, which you would doubtless erroneously call the Aztecs, had garroting the penalty for lesbians, and rectal disembowelment for gays. They, too, made an exception for the punitive rape of male slaves. And a few Catholics question whether you should be allowed to pretend you're actually married to your butt-wank partner of the moment, and you pretend we are persecuting you?
(Continued)
November 5, 2013 at 9:34 pm
(Continued)
The fact of the matter is that of the (few) civilizations that valued homosexual relations—the Greeks and their sphere, the Chinese (only at certain periods—Taoism strongly taboos it, as does Buddhism) and their sphere, some ancient Near Eastern cultures, and the Maya—all but the Maya were among the most rabidly misogynist things that ever existed. They valued homosexuality (only among males) because why would you want to fall in love with a "mere" woman? The Maya valued homosexuality—although they viewed it as a decadent practice, possibly because it seems only to have come into wide use after the fall of their Classic phase—solely because it gave their aristocracy's teenage sons a way to sexually abuse their slaves, without producing illegitimate heirs to complicate their arranged marriages, the way knocking up the maids might.
The evolutionary-psychology theory of how a predilection to homosexuality evolved, meanwhile, is that a taste for being butt-banged by the dominant male (generally one's father, in a great ape social group) meant that there was a second adult male on hand who didn't compete with the silverback for mating rights, so the group was stronger against attacks. Thus that silverback's genes got passed down more, including whichever cocktail may or may not lead to a predilection for homosexuality, despite it being (obviously) a counter-pressure against reproduction.
Homosexuality is indisputably a legacy of misogyny and slavery, and it may possibly also be a legacy of incest. That's not to even bring up the evidence it arises as a maladaptive coping mechanism for childhood sexual abuse. The Catholic Church, or any other religion, is not the origin of the taboo; only principles derived from the religions you blame for the taboo, keep the taboo from breaking out into bloodshed.
November 5, 2013 at 10:01 pm
Could the blogger please explain to us mere mortals why he allows Sophia's favorite to hurl such filth? I'm truly curious.
November 5, 2013 at 11:06 pm
@Sophia's favorite: Because I didn't write your whole name means that I am being rude to you? I have apologized for that and have been correctly using your profile name. It's done. What more can I do. Yet you continue to attack me. I never implied that I was a tragic hero. I only stated my beliefs to answer someone else's comment.
For the rest: I say you are illiterate because you say (or imply, because stating outright would require guts) that words, such as "faith" and "sin", mean things that absolutely nobody even functional in English thinks they mean. "Functional illiteracy" is still illiteracy.
I say that you are self-righteous because you like to imply (stating outright would require guts) that everyone is being very judgmental—which, of course, implies that they have no right to judge your preferred form of mutual masturbation that mostly only achieves increased risk of disease and colonic injury. You imply that they are illegitimately "imposing" private opinion on others—ignoring that you are, indisputably, illegitimately imposing your private opinion that they should not do that."
I could say that you are being self-righteous as you make an implication that you are a crusader for the truth against LGBT people who are deviants. My comments were meant as a discussion. You are taking them way out of context completely. I was never discussing the moral value of homosexuality. I was confronting people who claim to be Catholics who do not act upon Catholic teachings.
"And a few Catholics question whether you should be allowed to pretend you're actually married to your butt-wank partner of the moment, and you pretend we are persecuting you? " I don't care if you or anyone else opposes same sex marriage. And I am not even comparing my experiences to people in the past. It's not relevant at all to what I am saying at all. If you continue to purport this then it's very clear that you are deliberately misconstruing what I am saying. And your words are disgusting. Reminds me of Tom in AZ's posts in ncregisters articles. Maybe you are him, considering you use similar statements and are both from AZ. Are you truly a member of the Catholic Church?
Taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"Same-sex Attraction
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."
Regardless of your position on marriage, the Church calls for decency and respect of gay people. That includes insults, persecution, and bullying.
November 5, 2013 at 11:08 pm
@Pat, thank you. I've been on multiple blogs and people don't care at all. It's disgusting