Priests Support Gay Discrimination
Praying for the right to discriminate, a trio of Catholic priests in Hamtramck, Michigan, are asking their townsmen to vote against a gay inclusive non-discrimination law.
The city’s council passed a homo-friendly ordinance this year, but right-wing voters managed to get it on the ballot. And now the priests are trying to sway the ballot box, saying in a joint statement: “The proposed ordinance does not provide new protection for anyone in Hamtramck, except that it gives new rights that would protect homosexual and lesbian behavior, expression and attire.” Reverend Andrew Wesley elaborated, “We feel that this proposal goes against the rights of straight people.” What? The right to be a prick? That’s ridiculous.
Another Reverend, Miroshaw Frankowski, framed the debate in terms of “regular families:” “We have to keep the morals and have the regular families and bring up children according to God’s law. Keep it the way it was from the beginning.” That would require eons of devolution. But obviously some people are more far along than others.
They’re opposed to homosexual attire? Have they looked in the Pope’s closet?
Thankfully, Jesus rose from the dead. Otherwise these priests would have Him spinning in His grave.
Oh Ajax. The Pope’s closet – most notably his cassock – has nothing to do with homosexuality. It has everything to do with Counter-Reformation (especially Jesuit) tradition, though.
In fact, homosexual attire (i.e. gowns, capes, and robes of the Walter Mercado and Liberace type) leads back to a Victorian practice where gay artists represented themselves as religious figures in self-portraits — particularly as Christ.
The point? To hide the artist’s body, making him a sexual subject (with desires), rather than a sexual object (the person towards which these desires are directed). For, during that time, the eroticization of the male body was usually done through the nude figures of the he-man (muscular physiques) and the ephebe (prepubescent ones).
Now you know!
The picture on this article is terrible. You can make your point in a more dignified respectful way.