E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Catholic Church on Thursday installed Salvatore Cordileone, a leader in the fight against same-sex marriage, as archbishop of the Archdiocese of San Francisco.
Archdiocese Of Oakland / Reuters
Bishop Salvatore Cordileone, bishop of Oakland since 2009, is shown in this publicity photo released to Reuters August 27, 2012. Cordileone, renowned for his conservative stance on same-sex marriage, has been arrested in his native San Diego for drunk driving, police said on August 27, 2012.
Following his installation as the religious leader of more than 500,000 Catholics in the largely gay-friendly Bay Area, Cordileone, 56, delivered a sermon and spoke about his recent arrest after failing a sobriety test at a police checkpoint.
"God has always had a way of putting me in my place," he said. "With the last episode in my life, God has outdone himself."
Cordileone spent about 11 hours in a San Diego jail cell in August after he was arrested on suspicion of drunken driving. On Monday, he pleaded guilty to driving with alcohol in his system, said Gina Coburn, spokeswoman for the San Diego City Attorney.
Cordileone has been particularly outspoken in Church opposition to same-sex matrimony as chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, a role that has put him at odds with many Bay Area Catholics.
He also led Church support for the 2008 voter-approved California state constitutional amendment, Proposition 8, that banned gay marriage.
Same-sex marriage, which the majority of Catholics support, according to a report from the Public Religion Research Institute,will likely be a key issue in the upcoming elections. President Barack Obama voiced his support of gay marriage earlier this year.
Other bishops, such as Archbishop John J. Myers of Newark, N.J., have also expressed strong opposition to gay marriage. Myers urged Catholics who support same-sex marriage to refrain from communion, NPR reported. In Maryland, the Archbishop of Baltimore co-hosted a fundraiser to fight gay marriage in that state, according to NPR.
For his part, Cordileone wants to deny communion to Catholics who are in an active gay relationship.
While taking his place as the archbishop of San Francisco and two other area counties, Cordileone called the drunken driving incident a "regrettable mistake."
Pope Benedict appointed Cordileone to preside over the Archdiocese of San Francisco in July.
"The archbishop is an advocate for immigrants and an opponent of the death penalty, but he comes here perceived as a one-issue bishop," Brian Cahill, former San Francisco Catholic Charities executive director, wrote in an editorial published in the San Francisco Chronicle on Wednesday.
"He can continue to be the aggressive, outspoken leader of the American Catholic bishops in their effort to prevent civil gay marriage, or he can be the shepherd of his flock. He can't be both, and if he tries, he will fail."
Cordileone said his grandfather settled in San Francisco 100 years ago.
"If someone had told him that his grandson would become the archbishop of this place, I'm sure he would think they were out of their mind," he said. "I'm sure there are people who think that today."
About 2,000 people, including 40 bishops, attended the installation and mass in the Cathedral of St. Mary. Outside the church, dozens of supporters carrying welcoming banners mixed with protesters, including the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence -- a group of gay male activists who dress as nuns.
Reuters contributed to this report.
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Snowstorm hits North Dakota, Minnesota, dropping up to 14 inches in some areas
- Americans ignore 'great risks,' travel to Pakistan to protest US drone strikes
- Up for grabs: the $300 million estate of reclusive heiress Huguette Clark
- Unarmed man shot dead by police in NYC
- Gray wolves probably real target of poisoned meat that killed dog
- Video: Could Border Patrol agent's death have been friendly fire?
Leave a Comment:
...but he's all for driving while drunk. Oh, well, I guess that arrest was only his first offense.
This Arch Bishop can oppose gay Holy Matrimony, all he wants. Gay marriage, is none of his business.
except for right now, it's up to his discretion in his church. Hey, I'm against it as well, but I also know it's really none of my business what other people do (so long as it doesn't affect me). I will always disagree with it, but won't think less of anyone who has a different opinion than me.
Diana,
Actually, right now marriage is up to the discretion of the state, not the church. They only thing that's at the church's discretion, is it's sacrament of Holy Matrimony or wedlock.
That's why atheists can get married, or that anyone can get married without stepping foot in a church.
correct, I'm speaking of getting married in the church directly. It's up to the specific church.
And why you apply for a marriage license, and why the preacher/preist says "by the power invest in me by the Church and <name> State . . . "
I got you. Gay people aren't fighting for the right to get married in a church though. They're fighting for the right to civil marriage, that comes with 1000+ benefits. That's a distinction, the uber-religious seem to have a difficult time understanding.
But thanks, for showing that some people can separate what they "like" from what "effects them". That's another distinction, not many anti-equality folks can make.
Throw this guy back and get another one.
.
@ Sarah, there are a lot of things I don't like, but if I wasted my time on everything I don't like, I wouldn't be able to enjoy the things I do!
never understood why gay people want to get married. havent they seen how happy straight married people are?
What do you mean? Just over 50% of marriages last forever !
It wasn't his first offense. It was the first time he got caught.
Is it me, or does the, "Asinine, Slippery Slope, Cram Their Religion Down Your Throat Club" seem to be eerily silent, today?
How am I supposed to get out of writing my paper, if they don't show up and engage me in ridiculous arguments and/or condemn me to hell?
i know, right ? i think its just plain rude to not show up like this
That can be said about having to accept gays,same sex marriages being forced on me. I doubt very seriously that God will accept those who ignored his words. Instead of embrassing God's words, man decided that under mans laws, we can do just about what we want, providing it's within man's laws and not God's. I truly believe that there is such a thing as somenthing being morally wrong.
Edward, don't worry about it. No one is forcing same-sex marriage on you. They are just telling you not to force your own ideals about marriage on THEM.
Is this just another attempt by gay activists to say that even minister's aren't perfect( drunk driving)? If so, most people already knew that.
However, I do find it sad to think that gays can compare their whole lifestyle to someone's one night of drinking.
As for gay marriage, most people don't care whatever happens to gays, which is why they will allow them to do whatever they want. But I think this minister chose to speak out when it was really needed.
Gays don't have to go to church and receive communion; so clearly if they choose to do so, it is because they feel something is wrong. Afterall, no one is forcing them to go to church.
(One of the reasons why I think this protesting by gays is silly. )
I suppose you know marriage was a pagan ritual adopted by Constantine around the 6th century. Many roman nobles "married" their sisters. Homosexuality was, and still is, widely practiced. They dont fugg with me, I dont fugg with them.
The real question is: How does this rummy know God is a HE?
How is same sex marriage being forced on you? Were you forced to marry someone of your gender?
Was mixed-race marriage also forced on you?
It's not that those who oppose gay marriage are necessarily anti-equality.
There are many people who would be fine calling it a civil union, leaving marriage up to churches and giving everyone the same benefits.
Not recognizing the legitimacy of another's lifestyle is not necessarily based upon hatred, those who feel compelled to spew out homophobic insults notwithstanding. They merely represent a parasitic sub-genre of conservative thought.
Just as the pseudo-liberals who mock, denigrate and demonize people of faith are a cancerous sub-genre of, rather than actual representatives of the true liberal community...
Whatever it ends up being called, I hope it adds up to equality.
This country is in the shape it is in because of to many ignorant people the same reason why Obama is president , to much white trash (Hollywood, the Libera media) there is no right or wrong anymore, we have allowed anything to go and the more preverse the better the sick trash in this country embrace it, I believe thats where we get the word liberal or liberals, thats alright its all coming to an end and people will be in shock when the day of accountability hits them right between the eyes , but then it will be to late to change their ways.
Now that we know who he is, it's time for the homosexuals and leftists to start sending him their death threats and hate mail.
Funny how the libbies turned on the church since when they had no place to go in the seventies they went to the church for help. Now they attack the church and soon will turn on themselves. Thank goodness because it is about power and while they are all fighting it out the rest of us can live out our lives without their constant dribble. I predict once gays get the right to marry they go after the church next. Bet a pepsi.
So you support Jim Crow laws? Can we have mixed-race couples use civil unions too?
Maybe we can compromise......you bigots can use civil unions, and everyone else can use marriage. Good luck getting your civil union recognized by the feds, between states, or when you travel overseas.
Sounds like you've confused the legal contract of marriage with the religious rite of holy matrimony. Ask a divorced and remarried Catholic to explain the difference to you, or ask a married atheist.
Sarah-
I'm trying to figure out what your afraid of...are you a "hetrophobe". I mean really, everyone who doesnt have the same opinion as you has a problem. Ok, so you support gays and their cause, good for you, thats great. But do you have to run people down who dont?? I think everyone has a right, to believe in what they want, they want to pray to Jesus, great, Jehova, fine, and if you have a giant dildo up in your closet you pray to thats your business.......so get over it already and move on, because your not convincing anyone of anything.
The Catholic church is so full of hypocrisy and brutal persecution of the human race that it should be placed in the same category of the Muslims who openly murder even their own people in the name of God. I have read accounts of the Inquisitions where murderous mobs of people cheered in a carnival atmosphere at the suffering of people being literally ripped apart to the delight of the religious fanatics.
After reading about the development of The Roman Catholic church and all of the human rights violations and transgressions against humanity, I cannot see why we tolerate its existence? Popes declared themselves Gods and dared their bishops to oppose them. Pious made a deal with Hitler that cost all of the Jews in Rome and most of Europe to be killed with the Church's blessings and assistance. The history between Germany and Catholics goes way back to the days of fighting the Ottoman Empire. The pious Catholics say they uphold the laws of Christ and God, both claims are outright Heresy during the thousand years between the death of Christ and the birth of the Roman Catholics, the writings of the Hebrews were gone over and rewritten dozens of times. The few letters of the apostles were transformed into the New testament hundreds of years after their deaths. all of this was sanctioned, paid for and approved of by the Roman Catholics to create the Cannon of Law that we use today.
Christ was killed for opposing the Hebrew laws and teachings and we can even see the truth in the New Testament. You need to read around the angelic slant the Catholics placed onto the history, but it is there.
They condemn Homosexuals but keep Nuns and so called celibate priest that sleep with boys. I call that state sanctioned pedophiles, what do you call it? The Nuns are persecuted in the same way the Muslim women are in order to maintain the male superiority.
As to the bishop's DUI, I have not ever met a Catholic that did not have a drinking problem, I say not yet, but I am young.
We humans do not have the right to judge others as if we were God. But the self righteous do just that to a point of using the power of God in the measure of LIFE and DEATH. Who lives and who dies?
Until the hateful laws of Moses were applied to humanity, Homosexuality was a common and very normal lifestyle in all the great cultures of the world.
A brief history of Religion as we know it:
When people quote from the old testament, they either are unaware of or want to
ignore the source of the writings.
The Jews were slaves of the Egyptians who used them as well as other slave nations
to build the great empire and its lasting architecture. Four thousand years went by, and by the account of the life of Moses around 2500BC, he grew up in Pharaoh's household as a prince. A Jewish prince in the house of Pharaoh.
He led the tribes out of Egypt in search of the promised land. He eventually settled in the land of Canaan, but look at the history of that region. It was continually contested by wars for time on end.
The ancient writings of the Hebrews were a culmination of tales of creation and of
the great genetic line of Abraham. As Moses led his people around looking for the "Promised" lands, he led the tribes near other civilizations and city states like ancient Babylon. That was too bad for the places he visited.
His tribes were tired of wandering on the way to Canaan, and many wanted to stop and assimilate into local societies. Moses wrote his five books of law to stop this from happening. How did the laws do this? The answer is by pain of death. Moses laws were ordained as Divine Inspiration and as such were the direct communication from God to Moses.
He wrote the laws, and to break a law was a sin. The wages of sin is death, and to
break a law was to die as ordained by Moses and god. He enforced the laws by
giving permission for the True Believer to enforce the laws as Gang or Mob rule. The fact that a violent mob can take it upon themselves to murder people in God's name gives the laws validity as a sort of unity. It also served to send a message to any who might oppose the persons behind the power, "Defy me and you will die".
Muhammad stole the Hebrew writings and added some of his own justice to it in the 7th Century AD.
These people we see in the news today shouting and killing people are acting exactly
as we would have seen in Jesus' time and before/during Moses a thousand years earlier.
What is relevant about this is that we are seeing a reenactment of the religious
persecution of over four thousand years ago acted out today. This type of fanaticism does not go away by itself, it, by its own nature must die a violent death since Violence is the fuel that drives the engine.
When Jesus opposed the Police State of the Hebrews and died for his efforts, the Hebrew state kept gaining in military power to a point where they made the mistake of challenging their Masters, the Romans some 45 years later. They lost and became reduced to the status of slaves to be tortured and murdered alongside of the Christians in the coliseums for the entertainment of the loyal subjects of Rome. Because they murdered Christ, they have suffered since they lost the friendship of their protectors, the Romans. The Romans later became Catholics (400ad-1000ad), go figure.
Before I am criticized for not providing exact date, I am writhing from memory and not
teaching a class. I am trying to demonstrate the origin of so much of the
hatred we have seen derived from this religious foundation.
So many people today want to hate for a variety of reasons including homosexuality. Read history, and determine for yourself what is true. Hatred or Homosexuality come from Moses laws since he had to condemn the city states he and his tribe were near. The Homosexual human emotion is natural as we see in history and was a socially accepted normal human response until Moses need some sort of hatred to unify his tribes and to threaten his own people with Death as a consequence.
Personally, I do not believe Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God at all. I believe his people wanted to stay there and he ordered the place destroyed. He is the
author, and controlled what history recorded, so he had the power to write whatever he wanted history to read. That is just deductive reasoning from an educated standpoint. Since the Ancient writings were edited and rewritten over a period of a thousand years after the death of Christ, who living can say what the ancient scrolls truly say. Before the Christian laws were made into law, the Romans literally hired hundreds of Scholars to put the writings into a usable form that we see today. The purpose for the writings is the same today as it was during the time of moses when it was written, to control large masses of people. FEAR GOD, LOVE JESUS is the massage. Jesus had no part is that message, as he had been dead and gone from Earth for a thousand years.
Lazarus
On the EDGE: Really, because the bible talks of marriage way before the 6 th century. But I guess that even you won't consider it a done deal until it is adopted by constantine.
Constantine!!!!!!! Marriage was practiced by the Israelite tribes way before Noah. That was 2500 BC. Constantine was a political type in the 300 AD era. You are walking around without a cane.
Christ said that Homosexuals are "Worthless". He cared more for murderers than homosexuals. Murderers kill the body, Homosexuals kill the soul.
Jim,
Tsk, tsk, you hurt my feelings. How about this... How about, no one says anything ever again about your or anyone's religion or opinion on gay people. This is ALL you have to do, for that to be achieved...
Cease to deny equal protection under our laws, and civil rights to your fellow citizens.
You're entitled to your opinions, BUT NOT to use them to keep your fellow Americans at the status of second class citizens. Capiche???
I don't give a @!$%# about your opinions or religion. I give a @!$%# about my country and my fellow citizen's rights.
Now, care to discuss the actual topic with me, or are you still creepily fixated on what sex toys I may pray to?
Everyone Else,
I found 'em!!!
What's wrong with a little morality in the city of inmorality.
Really? I don't recall that your Christ ever said anything about gays.
All I recall is that your Christ was really fond of his friend John and even ordered his mother to treat John as her son-in-law. Your Christ also was kind enough to bless a Roman Centurion and his male lover.
Funny that all you homophobic Christians have been worshiping a gay dude.
Skrekk,
You must have missed that one. I believe it goes something like this..
"And on the third day, Jesus sayeth to his disciples, 'Go forth, and hate thy gay brothers. Disparage them and call them deviants and abominations. Excuse thyselves by saying, thou merely hates thous sins and not thouset who does thy sinning. Then deny my gay children their rights, and force my name into thous government. Do this in my name. Amen.'"
Or something like that.
I've known many, many glbt persons throughout the years. Not once have they disrespected me nor tried to push their anything on me. The christians on the otherhand. It's like an in the closet gay person who's hatred, "much like this fake arch bishop catholic", that screams their bigotry the loudest eventually takes the deepest fall when they're finally exposed. This particular hater is an alcoholic so it's just a matter of time.
1. AND another asked him saying, Master, wilt thou that there be marriages among us as it is among the nations of earth? And Jesus answered, saying, among some it is the custom that one woman may marry several men, who shall say unto her, be thou our wife and take away our reproach.
Among others it is the custom, that one man may marry several women, and who shall say unto him, be thou our husband and take away our reproach, for they who love feel it is a reproach to be unloved.
2. But unto you my disciples, I show a better and more perfect way, even this, that marriage should be between one man and one woman, who by perfect love and sympathy are united, and that while love and life do last, howbeit in perfect freedom.
But let them see to it that they have perfect health, and those they truly love each other in all purity, and not for worldly advantage only, and then let them plight their troth one to another before witnesses.
3. Then, when the time is come, let the ... presbyter offer prayer and thanksgiving and bind them with the scarlet cord, if ye will, and crown them, and lead them thrice around the altar and let them eat
of one bread and drink of one cup.
Then holding their hands together, let him say to them in this wise, Be ye two in one, blessed be the holy union, you whom God doth join together let no man put asunder, so long as life and love do last.
4. And if they bear children, let them do so with discretion and prudence according to their ability to maintain them.
Nevertheless to those who would be perfect and to whom it is given, I say, let them be as the angels of God in Heaven, who neither marry nor are given in marriage, nor have children, nor care for the morrow, but are free from bonds, even as I am, and keep and store up the power of God within, for their ministry, and for works of healing, even as I have done.
But the many cannot receive this saying, only they to whom it is given.
Sarah- I see a picture of a young woman with a child. I don't post often, but I believe I see you write a lot on this topic. Does a young mom with small children have nothing better to do than be constantly posting. Try reading to your kids or something and get off the damn internet.
Shrekk: I don't believe that I have read that in the bible. Just tell me where you got that from?
Patriot,
I guess that goes to show, you can't judge a stranger by their internet picture. It's my older sister. She's sitting down. I was standing next to her.
But thanks so much for your concern about my parenting skills. Now all I need are the kids to parent, I guess.
Nope, the only thing I'm neglecting right now, is my Con Law and Crim Procedure paper.
P.S. And can you really expect me to focus on my liberal, elitist, education when there are "I hate Gay" folks to play with?
I really have to give you credit though. I've been accused of being gay, "illegal", a Muslim, an abortionist... Like I would give a flying phazoo, seeing as none of those are insults to me, but anyway, I digress...
This is the first time any one's accused me of being a neglectful mom.
Congrats!
It's called building on your social skills. :o)
Mike,
I'm just wondering how many conservatives crapped their pants when I said I had a sister.
Oh, @!$%#, there's two of us. And she's even MORE of a liberal, earthy, crunchy, granola eating, gay supporter, then I am.
Sarah, are you sure she isn't your gay lover? Because that is what everyone on this site assumes.
Unhappy,
Ooooh, burn. Do you really think someone as adamant about gay rights as me, is going to find that an insult?
It's more an insult to gay people, seeing as they tend to be a lot more gracious (and less sarcastic) then me, in the face of your bigotry.
Sorry, gay folks. She knows not, what she says.
Obviously.
Sarah, I figured the person was a little presumptive. When they cannot come up with an argument against your opinion, they try to belittle you and in this case ended up belittling their own character.
Yeah.... that's why gays were protesting outside a church in the article....... because they are more gracious......hahah.
Sarah....... nobody cares if you find it as an insult or not. Just be glad that as a gay person you can stand up for your gay rights.
One of the reasons why you take these debates seriously, right?
Right. It has nothing to do with your religion being the basis for their inequality.
A: Then why did you put in the effort to post it, not once, but TWICE? B: Ouch, you called me gay again.
Silly lady, didn't you hear, I'm not JUST gay. I'm a gay, "illegal", Muslim, who provides abortions in her free time.
Sheesh, can't you at LEAST get that right?
Mostly it's because it's getting me out of doing my paper right now. Reading your posts, is way more interesting. At least from a "case study" type view.
P.S. If you're going to vote your own posts up, you might want to wait until others have actually had time to read them.
Reading the comments posted here is unbelievable. Larry 553 has just re-written history to suit his needs. It is so factually incorrect it is laughable, but that's okay because he wouldn't believe other wise anyway.
As far as the gay thing with the Catholic Church, in the Holy Bible, assembled by the Catholic Church at the council of Trent in the 4th Century, God the Father instructs his followers to not lay with another man, he clearly states this. This is not the mindset of man, this comes from God. Now, this only applies to those who believe in this God and want to do his will. If you are not a believer, and everyone has a free will to choose their life's path, then you are subject to rule of man or if you choose another religion.
The Catholic Church is keeping true to God's commandments and trying to repremand it's followers from defying God's laws. Jesus clearly states that marriage is between a man and a woman and if one decides to be Catholic, he or she must follow the rules. If you don't approve of the rules, then leave the church and be whatever you are comfortable with, but don't profess to be Catholic when you're not, it's that simple. For those of you who literally hate the Catholic Church of Rome, I understand the Church over it's 2000 year history has given you plenty of ammunition to curse it, but it is the Church founded by Jesus trough Peter. Do you think salvation is that easy? God has given you many questions causing doubt; faith is the key and it is a gift and many are without.
It is true homosexuality has been around forever and many claim it is a natural state of being. Then why haven't Gays already achieved a marriage status? With a six thousand year history of mankind, if the state is so natural, why has it never come about? We know procreation is not possible and that's a negative putting a dent in the natural status.
Personally, I feel we should live and let live. I admit I don't understand homosexuallity but I don't look down on those who are Gay. Why do I have to know you're Gay? I don't spread the word that I'm straight. Because I'm a Christian, I follow the rules of Christianity and I've been taught not to judge others, because the yard stick that I judge others will be the stick that I'm judged by, and I ain't going there.
The culture of today, this anything goes mentality is a slippery slope; we reap what we sow.
Shrek, You have fulfilled the prediction, Thank You kindly.
It appears the meaning of my last statement was lost upon you.
Here is is again: "Whatever it ends up being called, I hope it adds up to equality".
How does supporting equality add up to an example of bigotry...?
How does suggesting a compromise equal intolerance..?
Please do explain, it shouldn't be hard since you're one of the occupiers of the intellectual high ground....
Sounds like you never learned the lesson that separate ain't equal, but fortunately our courts have.
How do you feel about separate drinking fountains for blacks and whites.....as long as they're getting more or less the same water there shouldn't be a problem, right?
You are a typical pseudo-liberal. Your behavior a classic example of a mentality poisoned by intolerance.
The PL mantra is " if they don't agree completely, they are a bigot blah blah blah.
You're really not that much smarter or kindhearted than all of the conservatives you view as beneath you, even though you tell yourself otherwise.
My mantra is pretty simple - if you want a class of Americans to be denied the rights you enjoy, you're a greedy bigot.
Christ never said anything about Pedophilia either, so that's okay then?
Don't like same sex marriage, don't get one!
Considering your god never condemns homosexuality, I doubt there's an issue.
Why bother? The churches are doing just fine imploding on themselves.
One of the dumbest comments I've read...
Sure it does. Did you forget the First Council of Nicaea was convened by Constantine I? Hmmm...coincidence? By the way, that was 325CE, not 6th century.
Really, and I'm sure you can quote, using the original and linguistically correct translations, the passage in the Bible that supports that contention? I highly doubt it, given it doesn't exist.
Try addressing the topic at hand rather than attack the debator. Ad hominom, worthless.
Factually false. At no point does this god of yours condemn homosexuality or order that men not lay with men. The passage of Leviticus is part of the social code of the Jews, using the terms that most closely mean "taboo", against what is expected.
Some of us don't give a flying @!$%# about your christ.
...but I guess his conscience is clean with his priest pals molesting young boys and the Catholic Church hiding it for decades!
Protect the Fetus
Abuse the Child
Protect the Abuser
JMM, your argument (?) is really getting old. Maybe you could come up with your logic for your support of gay marriage, maybe you could come up with some information that would allow someone to come to a different decision? The constant use of cute little sound bites works well in grade school, it just doesn't work well when trying to convince someone to think differently.
really "jrl"...like someone could ever make you think differently on this issue!
btw - on some issues "logic" doesn't have to be involved....on some issues there are many people who just know what is "right"!
* and that can apply to either side
b dune, you will not find any statement that indicates whether or not I agree. The point is that people use meaningless comments to bolster their point. If you choose to wallow in the mud, that is your choice. Personally, I'd like to learn something, if for no other reason than to better understand a different point of view on any subject.
here's a clue for you "jrl".....I said "and that can apply to either side"....I didn't say you were one way or another....guess you have to deal with your own insecurities on the issue!
One side thinks all Americans deserve equal legal rights, the other side thinks some Americans should be 2nd-class citizens who are denied equal rights. The latter group also usually thinks that the state should enforce their sharia laws.
It's no more complicated than that.
b dune, I accept your correction, you did indeed say exactly that.
Please answer one question, I would like to have a factual discussion, yet, to accentuate your comment, you feel the need to attack. Why is that.
He is a documented pedophile priest protector.
Actually it's not irrelevant, by the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ, this is an apostate church claiming to be His, the ongoing protection of child raping priests is simply more proof of that.
ShreKK: So what you are telling me is that you are replacing our " sharia" laws with those of your "own"? No wonder americans are now forced to pay for birth control that are support by your "side" and your moral code.
Second, if I didn't know any better I would say that you forgot what the first amendment was. Our freedom of religion is protected by the govt. Where does it say in the constitution that you have the freedom to be gay?
Still waiting......
No, I'm saying that your sharia laws should control your life, not mine.
Should you be banned from drinking coffee because it's against the Mormon religion, even though you're not a Mormon? The problem here is that you think your religion belongs in other people's lives.
Clearly, you're the one who doesn't understand the 1st Amendment. You're free to hate gays and to practice your religion, but the government can't be used to enforce your sharia laws against gays.
That would be in Lawrence v Texas, 2003. That's when you bigots really lost on this issue. In reality you lost in 1868 with the 14th Amendment, but it's just taken the courts a few years to catch up.
Shrekk; First of all, I am not mormon..... I drink coffee all the time. So for you to say it is banned by God is an outright lie. But being that you are atheist, you probably couldn't tell the difference anyway.
Which is why we have the problem, Too many atheists can't tell the difference, so their logic is off. Want to know how to get correct logic? Stop wasting our time with your gay rights. No one is gay except 4% of the population. In fact, there are more christians in this country, then there are gays. Don't like it.... Too bad.
The country is already being forced to pay for your "moral codes" with the use of free birth control. No one is forcing you to pay for communion. I think you are getting the better of the deal. You should quit now.
Do you know what this case was even about? Three gay men; one of them went out to buy drinks because the other two were flirting with each other. That third gay man then decided to call the cops for sodomy laws. In other words, the gays turned on each other.
Which is precisely what will happen now and in the future.
shrekk, this may come as a suprise but I have no idea what sharia law is, or nor really care. Not only that but as far as I am personally concerned you can take all religious doctrines and shove them where the sun dont shine.
Now before you start ranting, I definately believe in god(for the want of a better word) I just dont believe in religion. Religion has been responsible for more death and destruction than all of the natural disasters combined.
Wait a minute.....are you saying that Mormons can't use the government to force you to comply with their sharia laws?
Why not? Isn't that exactly what you're trying to do to gays, even gays who are members of the Episcopal church which recognizes same-sex marriage?
Why should they be forced to live according to your bigoted religious views? And why do you think your religious views are relevant to the legal contract of marriage?
Shrekk: I'm saying that mormons are not in control of the govt. If it were, not only would coffee be banned, but soda as well. Am I right? Are those things banned? I guess your logic then about mormons enforcing sharia law is a complete waste of time.
Gays who are members of the episcopal church are just that, not really members of a real church. Only atheists can't tell the difference.
Those that have split from the episcopal church, are where the true believers are. Which is why the episcopal church's numbers aren't as big as they used to be.
I suppose anyone can go up to you and tell you about a 'church" and you think it is from God, right? And you would believe them too?
Same reason why protesting by a bunch of gays is useless. If they are going to sin, they don't need the confirmation of the church.
They want however, the confirmation of the church, because it somehow makes their sin okay. Why else would they be protesting?
So the Mormon cult isn't in control of the government but your favorite cult is? I thought you said you believed in the 1st Amendment?
So the Episcopal church isn't real? Who says that - the government or your favorite cult? What about all the other gay-friendly denominations like the ELCA? Are those "not real" too?
I'll ask again since you were afraid to answer before - why do you think your religious views are relevant to the legal contract of marriage?
Wow this person Unhappy-1583758 is as obtuse as they come!
He's not the brightest bigot is he? Direct analogy seems to be over his head.
Skrekk,
Unhappy once tried to convince me, that Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which defines the powers of our legislative branch, somehow governed the executive branch also. That was a fun day.
I will give her this though... She just keeps coming. She's got no quit in her.
Sarah, I think most of these nuts - Unhappy and RandyEK in particular - must either have been home-schooled or are products of the Texas edukashunal system.
And I wouldn't be at all surprised if most of them are Southern Baptists.
Shrekk And Sarah: Unfortunately you are both wrong. I was never home-schooled and I am not southern baptist. I was born and raised in NY, so your ideas to me seem to be a little lacking. Around here, we don't take someone at their word, we are taught to challenge it.
Sarah, it's obvious that you can't debate further than what your teacher tells you and you still have to explain why you allow homosexual marriages and not those done by siblings? I have already proven to you in earlier posts, debunking all the reasons YOU gave on why you allow homosexuals to marry but not siblings. You still haven't given your proof. It's okay though, I heard you recently graduated from a liberal school and they are not much for logical thought.
Tell me, were you home-schooled in the past?
Shrekk: What do you mean that we are in control of the govt? If we were in control of the govt., you would not have free birth control. And it is such a shame for you that you don't see homosexuals as bullies. Even when christians outnumber gays by a landslide, we don't do nearly as much bullying as they do.
You know, here in NY we even have churches that are named " The church of science". We see churches of all kinds. Doesn't mean they are real churches. But I guess to an atheist only the word "church" has to appear and you assume they follow God, right?
No wonder people like you are so easily confused. It shows.
Sarah: I remember you didn't win that argument. Because then you would have realized that the President has blurred the lines between them.
But hey, only liberals are allowed to change past history, right?
Oh Unhappy,
We've been through this sooo many times. I feel like the others are getting sick of reading it. And you know, YOU'RE the one who wants to limit what citizens can do, so it should really be YOU providing evidence as to why it WOULD lead to incest. So I ask you this...
Why doesn't straight marriage?
First, there are certain "protected classes" laid out in the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. Two of them are race and gender. In the Supreme Court case Loving v Virginia, SCOTUS ruled that,
Now this case was based on race, BUT to support gay marriage, all you have to do is change race to GENDER, another protected class. PLUS, the 14th Amendment has a little something called the "Privileges and Immunities" clause. Which means, you can't deny the citizens, their privileges, or immunities, based on those classes. In this case, that'd be gender.
So, since marriage is a legal (that means law) contract, that comes with PRIVILEGES, you can't deny citizens, without a damn good, already been shown to exist, reason, based on gender, among other things. So, if the state can't prove a reason, to deny privileges to people based on gender, they can't make that particular law. Now, put it together. If two gay people want to enter a contract, and the state tells them they can't, because of the gender of one of the parties, THAT'S A BIG NO NO.
Also, the logic that gay people are free to marry, just as you are, i.e they're free to marry one of the opposite sex, is the EXACT same defense that Virginia used in their defense, again just turn gender to race.
The court ruled, AGAINST that logic.
Second, you have an implied right to privacy, mostly through the 9th and 4th Amendments. In a the SCOTUS case Lawrence v Texas, the court said this...
Third, AGAIN, marriage is a civil contract, that comes with over 1,000 benefits granted by the state. Most of these benefits deal with property, insurance, tax and probate law. Civil unions, do NOT grant equivalent benefits. In order to enter a legal contract, the parties have to have LEGAL CAPACITY FOR INFORMED CONSENT.
Furthermore, marriages are NOT religious, that's Holy Matrimony, which a church can NEVER be forced to perform against its dogma, due to protections in the 1st Amendment. This is why people can, and do, get married any day without ever stepping foot in a church.
Also, marriage has NOTHING to do with procreation. After all, we let people have kids OUTSIDE of marriage, and NOT have kids while married.
Fourth, there are very few limited reasons for the government to discriminate in law, against one of these protected classes, and in order to do so, the government has to pass the test of strict scrutiny, which is that compelling state interest mentioned in Lawrence v Texas.
So....
The real question, those making the case for continuing the gender based discrimination of DOMA is, what is that compelling state interest? And before we start talking about marrying appliances, nephews, sheep, or dead people, ask yourselves this...
Since the only difference between a gay marriage and a straight marriage, is the gender of a single party, what is inherent to that single party's gender which would lead to bestiality, incest, polygamy, pedophilia, or marrying inanimate objects? Remember, you're ONLY changing ONE person's GENDER, so logically, it must be something within that one person's gender, which would lead you to believe gay marriage would open the door to any of those things, so... WHAT IS IT? Why would gay marriage lead to the repeal of the laws we have on the books, banning all those things?
Or, in easier terms...
Why doesn't STRAIGHT marriage lead to any of that?
You're right, Unhappy. You totally got me. The Executive Branch, has the right to do EVERYTHING laid out for the legislature, in Article I, Section 8.
Sarah.... your logic is still skewed. Don't tell me that if I change race to gender, that everything is the same. I could say the same thing about pedophiles wishing to marry their child brides. Age is a protected class as well, and you can say that if the courts don't agree, they are being biased. Afterall, don't children get the same right as citizens? Are they being biased against because of their age?
So why do we have these laws on the books? Only one guess........ it would be detrimental to society.
And you still haven't given reason why siblings should not be allowed to marry. They can want all the things that gays want and do all the same things and still not be allowed to marry. Why is that? Does that mean they are a protected class as well?
You are thinking that by allowing gay marriage I would be opening the door to other relationships. That is not my point. However, if you are looking at only ONE THING in the relationship, such as gender, than I can honestly say that in the case of siblings, the only ONE THING in the relationship that is different from other "normal" relationships is that they are related.
Your logic makes no sense. You could say the same thing about pedophiles and the ONE THING IS age. You could say the same thing about beastiality and the ONE THING about are they sexual compatible.
The list could go on and on.....
Glad you finally agree. It's what Obama has been thinking for months.
Le Sigh...
No, they don't. Because they don't have legal capacity for informed consent, and can't enter into contracts. That goes for both animals and children.
A: You guessed wrong. It's because we have powerful, religious bigots in this country. And B: You can't assume that, you have to PROVE it.
Remember that whole compelling state interest thing? Yup, the government has one there, because incest is based in power, control, abuse, and leads to genetic issues.
Now, you didn't answer my questions, and again...
And you know, YOU'RE the one who wants to limit what citizens can do, so it should really be YOU providing evidence as to why it WOULD lead to incest, or SHOULD be illegal.
Here, I'll help you out. In order to do that, you have to answer the questions you've been avoiding. And might I add, avoiding FOR A REALLY LONG TIME...
Since the only difference between a gay marriage and a straight marriage, is the gender of a single party, what is inherent to that single party's gender which would lead to bestiality, incest, polygamy, pedophilia, or marrying inanimate objects? Remember, you're ONLY changing ONE person's GENDER, so logically, it must be something within that one person's gender, which would lead you to believe gay marriage would open the door to any of those things, so... WHAT IS IT?
Why would gay marriage lead to the repeal of the laws we have on the books, banning all those things?
Why doesn't straight marriage?
Wow...Really? You can hear the surprise in *MY* voice. I wonder how he feels about pedophile priests?
He is a known Catholic drunk driver, and documented pedophile protector.
He's a guy who has never had sex with a woman who is trying to tell other men not to be gay.
Of course Catholics will make him a bishop. He's perfect for leading Catholics, doing the
opposite of What Jesus Would Do.
Marriage by definition produces a husband and a wife. This irresponsible concept of homosexual 'marriage' is based on delusional desires from a very small but vocal group of homosexual radicals who are desparately trying to find validation of their abnormal behaviors through traditional channels.
Marriage by YOUR definition does not mean it's an ACCURATE definition.
Gratefully we haven't put you in charge of the defining everyone's lives.
Believe_me
You are exactly right. They are a SMALL and very VOCAL group. I am tired of having the gays and lesbians shoved down my throat. I mean, if we are going to redefine marriage then by all means let's allow brother and sister to be joined in holy matrimony. There are no morals anymore. Just do whatever makes you feel good. No consequences either.
Dimples,
Why doesn't straight marriage lead to polygamy?
Believe... You forgot the second part of the definition: (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>. (Merriam Webster).
Dimples: I agree, they can be a small and vocal group, just as the anti-abortionists that force their views onto everyone , creationists trying to force their way in science classes, climate change deniers, and a very long et cetera. These are all small groups that make too much noise, the big difference is that homosexual marriage is between two people, the rest are affecting all of us.
You know dimples, you may be close to what your God actually did with your tongue in cheek remark...let's take a look here - God put Adam and Eve here to start the world. Adam and Eve had kids. Who did Adam and Eve's kids procreate with - well, it would have to be their brother/sister/mom/dad...so you see, within one generation, God was all about incest. And God forbid, were Adam and Eve married in a church by a priest - well, that would have to be a no also, as there were no churches or priests. Holy cr&%, God must have no morals. (I didn't even bother to mention God murdering people in a flood...oh wait, I just did)
Now, if you want to keep marriage a 'religious' institution, then you have to do away with all the breaks that come with it - such as insurance stuff, tax stuff, etc...and just make it about religion. If you want to have state/federal things that come along with marriage, it needs to be open to everyone.
Stop trying to make who someone loves and wants to spend their life with about your 'morals'. You can't have your thoughts both ways - if God created everything, God created homosexuality...how do you know God didn't create it to test those that claimed to follow his teaching of love your neighbor, turn the other cheek, acceptance, etc...and most of you are failing.
If your statement about Adam and Ever were true then how in the world did we get races of all kinds? Wouldn't all of us be caucasians? Kind of hard to deny, don't ya think? But you probably believe that we all came from monkeys and if that is the case then why do we still have monkeys? Hmmmmmm......a lot to think about.
It was Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Bruce.
What is your definition of small?
The last I check the LGBT community is estimated to 5-10% of the population and when you add in their family and friends that are in favor of them have marriage rights that number is around 50%
Wouldn't be the first time it has been "redefined".
The government has legitimate interest in preventing sibling marriages. Offspring of siblings have a 6-31% of being born with some form of birth defect. It depends on if there are adverse recessive traits within the family line.
The government can't use this arguement to ban same-sex marriage so what would you deem to be a an arguement against gay marriage that would be of legitimate interest to the government?
Holy matrimony (a religious right) is not the same as marriage (the civil contract)
Really? So the world has fallen into total anarchy?
If it does not unwillingly harm another then what business is it of yours?
Why should there be consequences for something that does not harm another?
Dimples,
You didn't answer my question.
Also, skin tone developed due to the geography and climate of certain areas.
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/LifeScience/HumanRaces/BiologyRace/BiologyRace.htm
And I think you need to retake eighth grade science...
http://www.dorak.info/evolution/
Well dimples, there is this thing called evolution...see people in Africa developed darker skin because of the sun and its affects on the body and people in differing areas have done the same over millions of years. So, no, I don't see how you'd think we'd all be caucasians and it's not difficult to deny - it's called logical thinking.
See, I don't actually profess to know where we all came from or if there is one God or 1,000 Gods up there looking down and laughing.
It's actually not a lot to think about, to tell you the truth. I don't sit around thinking of where we came from or stuff like that - I'm too busy trying to be a good person today.
But notice how I've answered your questions but you didn't come close to responding to mine...so I guess I gave you more to think about.
But maybe I'll go one step farther - you may be basing your morals on a book that talks about stoning people to death, a flood killing everyone except for those on a boat, the first born of a nation being killed in their sleep, etc...and of course the leaders of this religion have gone on to cover up for pedofiles in their ranks, moving them around to commit more crimes. Ahhh, how the morals abound.
Dimples - "They (gays) are a SMALL and very VOCAL group." So are Christian conservatives. What is your point?
Actually it was more likely Adam and Lilith, but in the end...it doesn't matter.
Your religion doesn't dictate the civil institute of marriage, which as been a civil institute far longer than the involvement of any religion.
There are way more differences in race than just the tone of someone's skin. For instance, blacks have thicker bone structure and thinner skin than whites. I have zero chance of producing that when I procreate with my caucasian husband, even if our child were raised in a different geopgraphic region. Keep tryin........
Dimples,
You still haven't answered my question.
Oh, you know what, you're right. It's because a couple thousand years ago, some people built a really tall building, and God didn't like it. So he sent them flying all over the world.
You didn't click on the link, did you?
There is no question that not all gay people want to get married or want gay marriage to be legalized. But, similarly, many straight people don't want to have anything to do with marriage and prefer to be in a "free" relationship or no relationship at all. Does it mean that we should abolish heterosexual marriage? Just because something is legal doesn't mean that you must take part in it. That's what individual freedom is about. I fail to see in what way some gay people getting married would change anything for the rest of the population.
Dimples, you should really change your name to Simples...in case you have a problem with reading comprehension skills, you should have noticed that evolution takes generations to occur, it doesn't happen in one generation. Are you truly that obtuse?
You know, one of my parents had blue eyes and one had brown eyes, how come I didn't get one of each color? I ended up with blue eyes and my sister with brown - so see, different characteristics happen differently. Otherwise, if you have brothers and sisters how come you don't look exactly alike if you came from the same parents? So when you procreate with your caucasian husband, do you expect your kids to turn out exactly alike, each with half of your features? No, because you have an understanding of how genetics work, right?
Notice how you've wavered from your original 'morals' post when questioned on that and now are trying to argue genetics and evolution (and doing a rather horrible job).
Do you have any siblings of another race?
I think not.
No, we're all of the human race - you?
Dimples,
You still haven't answered my questions.
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
Please, do yourself a favor and click on this. Any one of them. Just one. Anything! No wonder we're down to 26th in the world, in education.
Dimples # 4.2
If you are having "gays and lesbians shoved down your throat".....you have bigger problems then the whole marriage issue....you need "identity therapy"....learn who you really are - embrace it!
Forgot a comma.
Seriously, what is your argument? First you claim holy matrimony, then you claim that Adam and Eve couldn't've been brother and sister? That's fine and all, but their children who had to procreate were siblings.
Anyway, incest is a non-sequitur in the discussion on same-sex marriage.
allswell, I agree it's a non-sequitur, but I only mentioned it due to the statement dimples made along with their morality thinking about letting brothers and sisters marry, so I mentioned that funny observation about Adam and Eve's children.
Of course, dimples head probably started spinning then and she hasn't been able to stay on track since.
I miss you dimples...so I'll make one last point - you mentioned you have a caucasian husband and that you are of a different race...I'll just guess african american since you mentioned some of their characteristics...
You do realize that just awhile back, it would have been considered immoral (and illegal) for you 2 to be married, even right here in America...look up Loving Vs Virginia. Only now, since that's ok, you want to enforce that same belief on two other people who may be in love and just happen to not be your vision of what a relationship is.
Dimples
Ever heard the phrase....quit when you are behind?
Here Dimples, I'd like you to read this and really think...
U.S.
interracial marriage: Also in the US, miscegenation laws
that restricted marriages on the basis of race were enforced in many states
starting with Maryland in the 1660s. By the early 1960's at least 41 states had
enacted such statutes at one time. 4 By 1967, 16 states still
had anti-miscegenation laws in effect.
In 1959, Richard and Mildred Loving -- an inter-racial married couple who had
been married in the District of Columbia a few weeks before -- were arrested in
Virginia. They pleaded guilty to a felony and were not permitted to be together
in the state for 25 years
dimples, if we we started from just two people, as you claim, then incest is primarily responsible for the human race, and genetic defects would have killed us most likely with 100 generations.
Oh wait, you're a phucking inbred religious hypocrite, never mind.
Just an observation: You are living in la la land. Just because someone is gay doesn't mean that all of their family and friends approve. Haven't you ever been friends with someone and didn't approve of their relationships? If not, you are just acting naive.
PMDWW2: Yeah, we christian conservatives are a small group. So small that when we campaigned for chik-fil-a, you didn't even hear about us.
Put down the crack pipe the guy who said God made homosexuality , right , he made all things that are , which includes things that are posionious but you know better than to digest it...... or do you ?
Dimples, just as an FYI - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1387468/Black-couple-Francis-Arlette-Tshibangu-white-baby-blond-hair.html
It happens. There are also reports of white couples having black children. In fact there was a HUGE issue with this in apartheid South Africa several years ago if I recall correctly.
Adam and Eve were not first. If you allow 30 years per generation Adam was created in Eden(Northern Syria) around 1850BC, reference the bible. Their only documented(?) children ,Cain slew Abel end of the line.
Bone fragments from Oldivie Gorge have been carbon dated to be much older.
10000 years ago Asiatic nomads walked across the land bridge to Onion Portage Alaska. Not as old as Oldivie Annie but still 6150 yrs before Adam.
So how did the Jews come up with this fantasy that has the Christian community taking it as the absolute truth?
Unhappy, by your logic we should control based on what the majority thinks is right, this goes against the Constitution. There are texts in the constitution that protects the minority.
Dimples I truly hope your a troll. If not then your probably from texas and went to church school instead of science class. Your thoughts on evolution are wrong. The reason we still have monkeys is that we did not descend from them, but a common ancestor. Here is a simple chart.
Common Ancestor----
Aldo very crude and not accurate it should give you a picture. We did not come from monkeys but from a common Ancestor
I'm not interested in getting into an argument, but On the edge if you believe that the only documented children of Adam and Eve were Cain and Abel than you have obviously never read the book of Genesis. After Cain was banished and Abel Deceased, Seth then became the son with right of first born. His name found in every bible on earth. Those same chapters in Genesis also clearly state several times that Adam became Father to SONS AND DAUGHTERS. My only point is that if you are going to State something as fact, to prove your argument, you should indeed make sure it is fact. Also not trying to hurt your feelings but you are very off on your location of the Garden of Eden. More factually located in what is now the Persian Gulf. The bible states the names of the 4 rivers that were part of Eden. Only 2 of those are in existence today, the Tigris and Euphrates. Until recently when NASA Scientists found 2 other underground rivers that connect with these 2 and form one long river bed, that is underwater down the middle of the Persian Gulf. Now before you argue that it makes no sense because of the ocean being there...please keep in mind that the Flood of Noah's day covered a substantial amount of land mass with water. Meaning that prior to that Flood event, there never was a Persian Gulf. A little science and religion education for you. Have a good day. :)
And if you're going to state something as fact, to prove your argument, you shouldn't use the bible.
@Unhappy, where in my statement did I say or even imply that all family members of gays approve of them?
As for friends, I think you are confusing it with the term acquaintance.
Not approving a friend's relationship because you dislike the person is quite different than not approving a "friend's" relationship because of the gender of the person. A friend can possibly find someone you do like but your acquaintance will probably not find someone of a different gender.
Anyway, sticking with your totality, if all the family and acquaintances of homosexuals were approving of them the number would be be above the 75% mark.
Well Wayne, I probably put more than a few odd chemicals into my system, but I do happen to be straight and just chill with a wide variety of people, every one of which I support as humans and believe they should have the same rights across the board as Americans. See, my parents taught me to accept people and get to know them before I determine whether I like them or not - I may err on the side of trusting at first before I'm given a reason not to.
But see, in your small minded view of the world, someone who thinks like I do (and posts it) must be gay. But see, I'm able to see things such as I stated that less than 100 years ago, right here in America, it was illegal (in parts) and immoral for a white person to marry a black person. In the eyes of the church, it was an abomination. See how that's changed? So then the church had to get on their soapbox about another type of love that they could be against and damn how their followers love to hate, so it was easy to whip them into a frenzy again.
How do you know this isn't a test by your God? How do you know he isn't up there judging you and your hate right now?
This is news? I mean he's an archbishop.
Priests don't want to MARRY boys, only molest them.
...here come the Catholic bashers ready to blame this bishop for every sin committed .....
Not every sin....but if he has made it to Bishop"...then he has known and helped in the cover up of "pedophiles" in the Church!
nice spin though on your part....now do you get to skip confession or something for defending the Church even though you knew your statement was inaccurate?
I'm an equal opportunity basher: I bash all religions that seek to control people who aren't in their religion and can't provide a shred of evidence as to why we should believe them over anyone else.
Perhaps if they kept their religion in their churches, homes and hearts, and stop trying to force it into our legislature, no one would be bashing it.
I'll happily bash the dumb bigot since he thinks the sharia laws of his religion should control my daughter's life.....even though she's not a Catholic.
LOL.....you lefties are too funny.....where does it say he wants to control your daughters life, or he is less entitled to his opinion of gay marriage than you are....or he covered for pedophiles in his church......you people make all this crap up and then you force yourselves to believe it.......no, you people are bigots who can't stand anyone who disagrees with them....worse than what you accuse this man of.....
Everyone that is anti-gay marriage (NOT anti-gay Holy Matrimony), controls his daughter's life, by supporting discriminatory legislation.
You all can have your opinion. You don't get to base laws on that opinion, however.
What this particular bigoted bishop did was spend millions of church money lobbying against civil marriage equality in California and throughout the country, in an attempt to restrict the legal rights of gay folks like my daughter.
It's no different from the Southern Baptists 50 years ago who lobbied against the legal right of mixed-race couples to marry. Just like archbishop Cordileone, those dumb bigots thought that their religious views should control other people's civil rights.
And I wouldn't be at all surprised if Cordileone sits on the board of directors of the NOM hate group.....in the same way that historically lots of Southern Baptists have led the KKK and CCC white-supremacy groups.
...but YOU want the law based on YOUR opinion, don't you?.....and to you, that's ok.....
...NEWSFLASH.....the Catholic Church is one of many religious organizations that do not support gay marriage....they are not changing their opinion because YOUR daughter wants to marry her girlfriend....please stop expecting everyone to accept your view of homosexual marriage, you do not have to accept theirs.....
.
Yep. Call me crazy, but I think my daughter should have the same legal rights I enjoy. America should have no 2nd-class citizens.
And I definitely think your bronze-age sharia laws should be irrelevant to everyone but you. Your bizarre cult belongs in your life, not mine.
You're free not to "accept" same-sex marriage, but the government shouldn't be enforcing your sharia laws against it. Just as racist Southern Baptists had to learn to live with the fact that mixed-race couples could marry, so too shall you soon be forced to live with the fact that your religious views shouldn't control the lives of other people.
...your daughter DOES have the same rights as you.....both of you can marry anyone of the opposite sex.........and your bizarre cult of homosexual marriage is not the equivalent of inter-racial marriage.... so please drop that analogy...
Funny....that's pretty much what you bigots told mixed-race couples, that everyone had the same right to marry someone of the same race as themselves. SCOTUS was easily able to recognize your odious bigotry masking as equality.
No wonder you bigots keep losing on this issue in court, because you don't understand the basics of what equal protection means.
...your anti-religious bigotry trumps any anti-homosexual marriage bigotry...
incorrect nycguy, YOU have the right to marry the consenting adult you happen to be in love with
skrekk's daughter does not have that right
there is a difference
anti-religious bigotry ? sorry, doesn't work.. since religion is one of the biggest proponents of suppressing the rights of homosexuals and treating them as second class citizens - they are the bigots
homosexuals are fighting for equal rights, thats not bigotry
Strange.....I thought we had religious freedom in this country, but it seems that you want to use the government to enforce your religious views on everybody....even upon the Episcopalians who support marriage equality and perform religious weddings for gays.
Apparently both atheists and Episcopalians must conform to the tenets of your cult.
all I blame him for are the crimes his church is commiting against children by continuing to protect child raping priests, I wouldn;t blame him, but he has never condemned it, and in fact has been one of satans minions helping to protect child raping priests. The only people who defend that kind of evil are other catholics.
Seriously, if it is bigotry to engage in consensual behavior, not with you, then you have a perverse definiton of bigotry.
You may find it offensive that two men or two women love each other, but that does not make it, or the support of it, bigotry against you and your religion. Jesus was a victim, you are not, so get over yourself.
nyc of course is one of those whom God will squash like a bug for defending child raping priests in a church that worships satan.
skrekk
It's BITE Me - Not eat Me !
"same rights as you.....both of you can marry anyone of the same race."
And people seriously don't see the parallel to interracial marriage? Seriously?
They must be @!$%#ing stupid.
...lol...you anti-religious and anti-Catholoc bigots are so stupid, I can't believe you defend your hate by disguising it as the "fighting for human rights" lie......you hate all those opposed to your promotion of homosexuality and can't deal with the 90% of heterosexuas in the world who believe gay marriage is a farce....
Considering the number of countries that already permit same-sex marriage, combined with the fact that over 50% of those in the US support it...you've once again managed to pull a number out of your ass.
..lol...when given the chance, not one State's electorate ever voted for gay marriage....sorry to burst your bubble, but heterosexuals laugh at you.....
Lol, most of those supporting same-sex marriage here are heterosexual.
Also, nobody cares about voting. You can't vote on civil rights, which will soon be proven.
I love how you wouldn't be so out of place amongst the anti-interracial crowd. Your rhetoric is exactly the same.
...gender and race are not comparable when it comes to marriage....sad how you cling to the same stale reasoning....
I'm afraid they're quite comparable. You have two parties who desire to enter into a contract of cohabitation, shared assets, and shared benefits. The innate (born) qualities of the parties are irrelevant (age, gender, race). All that matters is that they consent to entering the contract (excludes pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, inanimate objects), and are reasonably capable of performing to the purpose of the contract (most marriage contracts are monogamous, hence someone who is currently married can't enter one of those re: bigamy).
Your only tired argument against it is that you feel marriage has always been man/woman, which is historically false.
Also, the continued overuse of ellipsis makes you look like you're hesitating constantly.
...same sex partnerships should remain just that because they are not marriages, no matter how hard you close your eyes and wish they were......it's just playing house, but you continue with your illusions...
According to what? According to the dictionary, same-sex is marriage. According to the Episcopalians, same-sex is marriage. According to six states, same-sex is marriage. According to 20+ countries, same-sex is marriage.
No matter how loud you sing "lalalala", you won't change reality.
....Reality?????....when you and your husband can theoretically, produce offspring together....let me know....until then you're just buddy humping.....and you want everyone to play along with your fantasy.....sad.....
How quickly we forget, and how quickly we fail.
Not a requirement of marriage. So, lets try again.
Not marriage according to what?
Is not found any any definition of the word marriage either past or present.
So, should we stone gays to death like other fundelmentalist religions do, or just have their families shun them or just maybe "convert the gay away"? The Roman Catholic Church needs to clean it's own house of child molesters before it goes invading the bedrooms of consenting adults - same with the Tea-baggers! Leave your 2000 year-old zombie fairy tales out of our government!
Archbishop Cordileone, YOU put yourself in that place by drinking and driving. Accept responsibility for your actions, don't say (Sic) "God put me there" as if you didn't have a choice.
With respect to single sex marriage, condemnation of single sex relationships and denying that God made people they way that they are is a rejection of the acts, actions, and will of God. Good luck with that.
Oh yippee. Another old traditionalist. Who the freak cares what he wants.
Bravo Archbishop Cordelione! Congratulations and Welcome. May God grant you grace to continue to be a beacon of truth in this challengingly dark culture.
There is nothing "Challengingly dark" about gay marriage.
Very poetic way of saying it though. I get so bored with the "abominations", "deviants" and "pillars of salt".
If he's preaching against homosexuality, he's preaching false translations of his vaunted Bible.
The RC church gave up any claim to morals years ago when they violated laws and people. No one is listening to them anymore.
Getting drunk and then driving home obviously helps with that. Otherwise it would be depressing.
Mickey,
Yeah, it is still just the largest single religion in the world. One out of every six people in the world are Catholics.
NC, at least Catholicism is losing membership rapidly in the US and Europe, and their funding has dropped dramatically. I think they posted a net loss last year, and lost 400,000 members in the US in 2008 alone.
And since hardly anyone is entering the seminary the average age of priests is getting rather ancient.
http://theweek.com/article/index/202388/catholics-in-crisis
Sounds like people are waking up and ignoring the bigoted cult of pedophilic conspirators, or they're just realizing that the Catholic church is intrinsically disordered.
Of course he opposes same sex marriage that should go without saying. Another useless story.
Seems like he must be against "opposite sex marriage too" when it comes to priests and nuns!
I know its not scientific but my gardar goes off just looking at this guy....wonder what impulses he keeps under control by his drinking....seems to me in the long run anyone who expends this much anti-gay energy, is deep, deep in their own closet.
Not uncommon for someone so conflicted by their sexuality to enter an institution where they have to surpress it. In fact is psychology 101. And I agree with you, that guy is gayer than Christmas morning.
Probably why he drinks so much. Can't deal with who he really is.
The Catholic church picks a bishop who is against same sex marriage. That's not news that's a duuuh moment. lol
The sun will rise in the east
Set in the west
Godzilla will stomp Tokyo
Duuuh!
Haha, I thought exactly the same thing when I spotted the headline:
"A highly ranked member of the Catholic clergy supports the official teachings of the Catholic Church? No f-in way!!"
Who cares what that drunk a s s h o l e thinks. He doesn't govern or administer marriage licenses.
Gays are fighting for CIVIL marriage, not religious marriage, so this bishop's opinion is irrelevant.
IF there actually were a "god" to put you in your "place", that same god would tell you to get the hell out of San Francisco if you have problems with gay people and gay marriage . . . you're living and preaching in the gay capital of the world you drunken fool. Your god would better serve you by putting you on the wagon, or quite possibly in heaven rehab. Seems your god can cure everything but stupidity -- yours . . . not to mention you look a little gay yourself in your little costume.
Ya, God is going to outdo himself when he forces this guy out of the closet.
Simple solution for Catholics in San Francisco that do NOT agree with Archbishop Cordileone:
Stop dropping money in the collection plate and instead donate DIRECTLY to causes and organizations that help the needy.
Exactly, DVG - that's what I and hundreds of others have done here in Madtown when we were saddled with the worst Bishop in the world. I have not and will not ever give another cent to the Diocese as long as the self-aggrandizing, bullying bozo is Bishop of Madison.
Oh, but pedophilia is OK. Just sweep that under the rug, right? Organized religion does nothing but oppress, and stir hate and misery. Where is the IRS when you REALLY need them?
Given that the Vatican put a deeply closeted bigoted drunk in charge of the SF Archdiocese, the only possible conclusion is that the Catholic church is "intrinsically disordered".
I see a sequel!!!!
Doubt II
OK ..
This guy is against gay marriage, which hurts no one but is OK with driving drunk which can KILL people.
Some people need to get their priorities straight.
When did he say he was ok with drunk driving?
Gee, NC I don't know. Mayhaps because he DID it himself. Gotta think if he got behind the wheel drunk, he was OK with it.
God put him in his place? I am highly skeptical that God popped open a bottle of Boone's Farm and forced it down the archbishop's throat and then made him get in the car and drive. It's a classic case of a drunk not taking responsibility for his own actions.
It looks like the good archbishop wanted something other than boones farm down his throat....perhaps that is why he has so much boones farm in the first place. Another papal hypocrite.
Proof please.
Homosexuality is incorrect. At least this Bishop has some common sense. Good Pick!!
How is homosexuality, "Incorrect?"
Cause he believes its so. Donald is a known anti-gay troll, he'll never listen to a word you have to say. He'll just pull "facts" out of his ass until he gapes more than goatse.
No it's not. That's just ignorant nonsense.
Mickey,
Check out his page, if you want a good chuckle.
WOW Donald - a quick look at your newsvine site shows that you are seriously fixated on homosexuality.
As the saying goes... "Me thinks he doth protest too much!"
A lot of commen sense Donald...............he's all for drunk driving including any injury or death he may cause. Nothing hypocritical about that !!
well Donald can overlook the drunk driving as long as homosexuals can't marry, because in Donald's mind - drunk driving is common and natural to people while homosexuality is not ... and i'm sure Donald will look it up on the totally credible (not credible at all actually) Yahoo Answers to support his answers like he usually does since he actually can't find a credible source to back up all the claims he makes and everything he believes to be true
its quite sad honestly ... and yet, society let people like Donald reproduce and continue the heritage of ignorance and hatred through his offspring
Donald has great views like - any child at any age can give consent to sex, including his own son who is around 10 years old... its really great to see the morality that Donald upholds LOL
If homosexuality is incorrect then slavery was correct. Donald.
If you folks truly believed masturbating against same gender companions was correct you would not be bastardizing language so as to lend an appearance of acceptability to it. I predict, in the not too distant future, these parasites will be forced to bastardize another word because everybody will be associating the word "Gay" with corruption, decadence, and pedophilia just like they already do with the words "Queer" and "Homosexual."
Face it; you perverts need to find a better publicist because the one you got now is old and tired.
Randy,
You still haven't responded! Remember this...
And I responded with this...
Your 1st Amendment has a little something called the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.
See...
McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71 , 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.
Burstyn v. Wilson , 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)
Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.
Torcaso v. Watkins , 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.
Engel v. Vitale , 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)
Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.
Abington School District v. Schempp , 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.
Epperson v. Arkansas , 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)
State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.
Lemon v. Kurtzman , 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)
Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.
Stone v. Graham , 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.
Wallace v. Jaffree , 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)
State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.
Edwards v. Aquillard , 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)
Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.
Allegheny County v. ACLU , 492 U.S. 573 (1989)
Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.
Lee v. Weisman , 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)
Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.
So, that 1st Amendment, is what decrees religion HAS NO legal or governing standing. You can practice it, but you CAN'T govern with it.
Furthermore, homosexual activity, any consensual sexual activity is protected under the 9th Amendment, and the IMPLIED RIGHT TO PRIVACY.
You see, we have many more protections, then just those regarding our religion, race, or gender.
So...
Unless you're doing it in public, it SURE ENOUGH DOES.
So try again. The 1st Amendment as an authority for state sanctioned religion, quite clearly, FAILS.
Your opinion of the ideological leaning of any given court, gives your opinion standing, because???
Please, show me some CREDIBLE STATISTICAL evidence of that, which also has legal authority.
Which are? And of course any you may post, are still good law, right? If I were to look them up in Shepard's, they'd still have standing?
Oh my God, you got something right! So please show how homosexuality, violates that premise. Of course, using credible evidence and law in good standing as your authority.
Did you miss the word, "until" in there? News flash, it's AFTER 1970.
Authority, in good legal standing for that?
Because??? Because you say so??? Where's your authority? Oh, and by the way, until you answer the rest of those questions, the laws of nature and nature's God, still have no standing.
I noticed you didn't provide a single defense or case, with any authority, other then your say so. And, your "say so" is not a legal or governing authority.
JUST LIKE YOUR RELIGION.
How long is it going to take you to answer???
And because I know you're going to post your Thanksgiving speech again, I'll just get this over with now...
And
And
And...
Now, find me that governing, legal authority that allows for government to impose religion on us.
And don't you give me that 10th Amendment crap. That would only be valid, say in 1860, before the 14th Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states.
You do some nice cherry picking and mis-quoting here to misrepresent the founders' notions of the place of religion in society, but this is beside the point as you present the straw man argument that objection to homosexual marriage and more to the point, homosexuality, is a religious one. From a purely atheistic/evolutionary point of view the facts are even more damning: Nature has produced us as men and women, not all men or women, and our sexuality only exists and makes sense in light of the opposite sex. To put it bluntly, men do not have their sexuality and anatomy to engage in sodomy, for instance, but to have intercourse with a woman. From a godless viewpoint the only reason for our sexuality, our anatomy, and sexual behavior can even be further reduced to perpetuating the species. Homosexual attractions and conduct are instrinsically incapable of ever fulfilling this purpose. Something that contradicts the way we exist, as men and women, and our abilities and functions can in no way be normal or natural, and therefore positive or good. Rather it is disordered, deviant- going away from the order and purpose nature intends. If someone claims, falsely, that people are "born that way", then we are simply talking about a mutation, a defect of nature, also something negative and abnormal.
The "Establishment Clause" is governed by the "Free Exercise Clause."
All the words matter Sarah; not just those snippets you believe give your depravity merit when viewed out of context. And let us not forget that same-gender sexual activity was punishable by death by the laws enacted by those you claim vindicate your ridiculous assertions.
Randy, Randy, Randy...
Did you see anywhere, in any of my posts, where I said you couldn't practice your religion? Please quote, where I ever said that. Or where the state ever said that.
See, you ONLY look at the Free Exercise part. But, both, are equal. That's why you CAN'T quote ANYWHERE, where I have said or where I have quoted the government saying, you can't practice your religion.
All I've said, is you CAN'T FORCE OTHERS TO. Nor can the government. None of what you quoted, allows for government sanctioning of religion. No where does it say, we have to conform to a religion.
Yes, and then we over turned them. That's what we call PROGRESS.
Try again.
P.S. You do realize that the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause, aren't mutually exclusive, right? You can have both, at the same time.
But, since MARRIAGE, is a civil, legal contract, as opposed to Holy Matrimony, THIS has to do with the Establishment clause, since no one, is infringing on your right to practice.
Call me, when they try to legalize, Gay Holy Matrimony. I'll defend you too.
I think we need to steal a billboard for this. Maybe then they'll get it.
Then again, I doubt they're that smart.
I'm curious to know why Dimples believes we would all be caucasian if we were all descendants of Adam & Eve. I'm going with darker skinned based on geography. Just as Jesus was not white. In any event, the distinction between Holy Matrimony and a civil marriage is critical here. The fact is that if you don't agree with the Church's stance on homosexuality or any other issue for that matter, there are other religions to seek out. As with most things in life, you give and take what you can and leave the rest on the table. An Archbishop is just a human being afterall and subject to the same failings of us all (gasp!). One would hope however that he strives to open his mind and heart to the folks he is supposed to shepherd and not approach his position from the perspective of needing to control or judge.
Comment # 24 deleted for advertising.
Yep, and that's why 71% of Catholics support marriage equality......because their religion's teaching about divorce forces them to understand the simple difference between marriage and Holy Matrimony.
There are lots of divorced & remarried Catholics in the pews who can't get their divorces or their second marriages recognized or blessed by their church.
As long as the RC's keep it in their own church, no one cares. But in this country, civil law has NOTHING to do with religion and he needs to stay out of it or pay taxes on his church.
The Bishop can oppose same sex marriage all he wants. The majority of the country doesn't. The majority of Catholics don't. And his Bible doesn't even care about it.
"the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" - I like that!!LOL
That's what has the bigots in the church scared.......71% of American Catholics support marriage equality.
Where do you get your figures from, the gay man's mag? 69 per cent of homosexuals wish they were "breeders."
The data are from the Public Religion Research Institute:
While it's not terribly surprising that 71% of Catholics support marriage equality, the interesting thing is that 43% support it even before the question is clarified to be about civil marriage. I don't know if that means 43% of Catholics also support "holy matrimony equality" within their church, or whether 43% of Catholics simply understood from the outset that marriage is a secular legal contract and not the same as the religious rite of holy matrimony, or a combination of both.
Regardless, the support amongst Catholics is far higher than the general public which is currently at 54%.
Same question to you. Where'd you pull that number, Donald's ass?