Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  public statements

The Curious Timing of Rick Warren’s Attack on Uganda’s Kill The Gays Bill

We’re not sure how far Rick Warren’s message is going, given it’s been seen just over 300 times so far, a fully day after it was uploaded to YouTube. And while we’re pleased to see the hate leader Warren come out against Uganda’s Kill The Gays bill, this video message is as much about salvaging his reputation as it is denouncing a piece of legislation.

Warren’s message arrives — coincidentally? — just as Uganda’s Ethics Minister James Nsaba Buturo informs us the anti-homosexuality bill that Parliament will consider no longer includes the death penalty or life sentences a draft version included. Whether Warren, or his well-connected religious cohorts, had any direct involvement with the bill’s lesser punishments is unclear. But now he’s calling the bill “un-Christian.”

“It is my role to correct lies and errors and false reports when others associate my name with a law that I had nothing to do with that I completely oppose and vigorously condemn,” Warren says in the video, aimed at Uganda’s faith leaders. From there he goes on to defend his silence on Uganda’s bill, because he prefers to work behind the scenes, you see, rather than through the media. (Evidently, he was “forced” to make this video message then.)

It’s hard to believe anything out of Warren’s mouth anymore. He’s on the record speaking out against homosexuality; but he’s on the record saying he loves us anyhow and never said those things. He’s a noted flip-flopper. But still, we agree with all five of Warren’s points about why this bill isn’t just unnecessary, it’s vile.

And we’re glad to see Warren finally hear Jesus’s call — and do some good for humanity.

By:           editor editor
On:           Dec 10, 2009
Tagged: , , , , , , , , ,

  • 95 Comments
    • Jeff K.
      Jeff K.

      Everyone knows that an anti-homo bill isn’t “Christian” unless it lets you waste a few fags in the process. There’s no fun without it!

      Dec 10, 2009 at 1:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      Oh Puh-Leeze! He found out the bill was going down and so NOW comes out and says something. If it had gone through he would have continued to say that it was not his place to comment on it.

      Dec 10, 2009 at 1:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ken L
      Ken L

      I appreciate an official statement condemning this. I have to give the guy some credit for taking a stance. It actually tells me more about the media, that did no fact checking to see that he was not a sponsor of the bill. A little late maybe, but at least it is the right thing to do.

      Dec 10, 2009 at 1:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rodrigo
      Rodrigo

      It’s the right thing to do regardless of his motivation.

      Dec 10, 2009 at 1:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rhydderch
      rhydderch

      This guy is a lying opportunist piece of shit.

      Dec 10, 2009 at 2:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Justin
      Justin

      “Profe$$ional Chri$tian$”… that’s what my good friend Tim calls them, and quite appropriately (except maybe the “Christian” part). John 10:12-13 says, ” But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming , and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth : and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.” The Ugandan Wolf was after our people, and he disappeared like a FART IN THE WIND. His reputation is the only thing he cares about.
      Jackass…

      Dec 10, 2009 at 2:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taylor  Siluwé
      Taylor Siluwé

      @ no. 5 –

      Preach. This portly douche wouldn’t denounce the bill before and he had ample opportunity. Now, when its going down in flames, he calls it un-Christian.

      Eureka! Who woulda thought legislating genocide wasn’t Christian? I’m so glad he cleared that up.

      Dec 10, 2009 at 2:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John McLaren
      John McLaren

      HIs condemnation is designed for Americans NOT Ugandans. Besides, the Uganda parliament announce yesterday that the Bill would not include the death penalty or life sentences. So it’s a huge win for Warren who is in the “power business” It looks like he saved the day for the gays. What a powerful guy he is as it would appear he’s able to influence the entire legislative body in Uganda! No big loss for him and more USA headlines.

      Dec 10, 2009 at 3:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alicia banks
      alicia banks

      odd are that we would win a national lottery than expect this rabid vulgar gaybasher to ever sincerely regret anything he does to destroy gays…

      this is as convincing as his cleaning of his homohating website after his bromance with obama began…

      spare me the PR stunts!

      alicia banks
      eloquent fury

      Dec 10, 2009 at 4:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • HarveyLiveS
      HarveyLiveS

      I agree with both #4 and #5

      Dec 10, 2009 at 5:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      One small step for man. One giant step for mankind. – Neil Armstrong

      Dec 10, 2009 at 6:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • christopher di spirito
      christopher di spirito

      My guess is, he saw the tide of public opinion begin to turn and always mindful of his accounts receivables, didn’t want to do anything (like keep his face mouth shut) that could impact his income.

      Dec 10, 2009 at 6:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WillBFair
      WillBFair

      He prefers to work behind the scenes rather than through the media? Please. So his recent thirty minute interview on a primetime, network, Sunday news show was an accident? What a liar.

      Dec 10, 2009 at 7:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BTPeri
      BTPeri

      Unfortunately your comments are based on negative assumptions and have no basis in fact. I’m truly sorry to see so much hate and anger on the surface of all the comments posted here. No matter what attributes you would like to ascribe, Rick Warren, the man, bears no resemblance to the image you wish to create. If you ever have the opportunity to spend some quality time with him, you will realize this fact.

      Dec 10, 2009 at 8:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @ no. 14 – BTPeri

      Suck ass much, do you?

      Dec 10, 2009 at 8:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WillBFair
      WillBFair

      @ #14
      Rick Warren is the moderate face of homophobia. He’s the old ‘hate the sin, love the sinner’ hypocrite. But where exactly is the love? There’s no love in cherry picking obscure bible passages to condemn us. There’s none in ignoring the gospels’ repeated demands for fairness and mercy for the oppressed. And there’s none in denying us our civil rights. There’s only hatred, however sugar coated.
      We’re not ascribing attributes or creating images. We’re responding to this creep’s oft repeated contempt for us. And his rap is old news. We’ve heard it a thousand times and don’t need you to white wash it.

      Dec 10, 2009 at 9:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SoylentDIva
      SoylentDIva

      He had everything to do with that law despite his claims to the contrary, and while he’s making this statement condemning it to appease US audiences he’s probably on the phone with Ugandan clergy telling them to ignore the statement and proceed with business as planned. I don’t trust that POS for a second.

      Dec 10, 2009 at 10:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike in Brooklyn
      Mike in Brooklyn

      @ No.3 and No. 14:

      Warren was asked specifically about this bill last month on Meet the Press and DID NOT DISTANCE himself from the draft bill that included death penalties and life sentences. And Ken L. (No. 3) only members of legislatures and parliaments (in a few case proposals from the executive branch) can be sponsors of legislation. While Warren may not have had involvement in the drafting, once the legislation was proposed, announced publicly, and discussed nationally in the US, Warren refused to denounce it.

      @No. 11 — Schlukitz my friend, the quote is hardly appropriate. Warren’s self serving “cover my ass” after-the-fact retraction is such a tiny tiny tiny half step it is not any type of leap forward.

      Dec 10, 2009 at 10:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      In No. 14, BTPeri wrote, “I’m truly sorry to see so much hate and anger on the surface of all the comments posted here. No matter what attributes you would like to ascribe, Rick Warren, the man, bears no resemblance to the image you wish to create.”

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/07/rick-warren-calls-gay-mar_n_156044.html

      http://www.americablog.com/2008/12/rick-warren-pulls-anti-gay-language.html

      http://www.newsweek.com/id/176269

      http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/12/18/rick-warren-compares-gay-marriage-to-incest-pedophila/ :

      RICK WARREN: But the issue to me is, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

      STEVEN WALDMAN: Do you think, though, that they are equivalent to having gays getting married?

      RICK WARREN: Oh I do. …

      It seems he is reaping what he sowed.

      Dec 10, 2009 at 10:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      Hi Mike in Brooklyn.

      I was being facetious. LOL

      I probably should have added (sarcasm font on) after the Armstrong quote.

      Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I sure as hell wouldn’t people on this thread thinking that I am Prick Warren ass kisser. ;)

      Cheers.

      Dec 10, 2009 at 10:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike in Brooklyn
      Mike in Brooklyn

      @No. 20 — Great relief!

      Oh, and as I have been referring to the queen bitch of all as Maggot Gallagher, I love the Prick Warren moniker. Please use Maggot frequently as I am going to steal Prick for the future.

      Cheers to you too!

      Dec 10, 2009 at 10:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @ no. 21 – Thank you for the invite to use Maggot freely. Please be my guest with the use of Prick Warren.

      Incidentally, it’s cold as a Maggot’s tit over here in E. Elmhurst. Hope you’re bundled up good over there in Brooklyn.

      28 degrees F. and dropping…just like Maggots tits, come to think of it. LOL

      Dec 10, 2009 at 11:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • oh, sugar
      oh, sugar

      gosh durn it, that crazy homophobe just made me cry with his video in support of uganda’s gays. i am so conflicted right now.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 1:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      http://www.inkycircus.com/photos/uncategorized/hookworm_mouth.jpg

      Dec 11, 2009 at 4:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • christopher di spirito
      christopher di spirito

      BTPeri — Are you Melissa Ethridge? She said nearly the identical thing about this Bible thumping asswipe when the whole Prop 8 thing exploded. She counts Warren as her BFF and even claims to cook him chicken soup and deliver it in person anytime he comes down with a cold. That’s why I smashed my Melissa Ethridge CDs and tossed them in the garbage.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 7:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      Warren only backed off when he found out the issue was exploding in his face. Ditto the three U.S. morons who’ve been active in influencing this piece of hate legislation in Uganda. They too have backed off now that the controversy has erupted before them. They’re all afraid they’ll lose financial support and credibility. Its beyond hypocrisy, bigotry and cowardice, the kind that motivates people to defeat marriage equality.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 8:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rev Rowland Jide Macaulay
      Rev Rowland Jide Macaulay

      The message from Rick Warren is a mere damage control, a statement to fend off any blame, I think it is too late and he is not to be believed. To claim that he had no idea of the Uganda anti gay bill is blatant ignorance, there is a vicious attempt to deflect from accepting responsibility from an aggressive situation. He is not alone, I believe that many irresponsible Pentecostal and conservative ministers with extreme personal views on homosexuality should be questioned, these view are not Christianity at all. Regardless of what changes the politicians introduce to the bill, there is a long way to build back trust for the people of Uganda, let alone LGBTI community globally. This in my view is religious genocide. Revd Rowland Jide Macaulay, Pastor House Of Rainbow Metropolitan Community Church Lagos Nigeria.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 9:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      There were a good number of American rightwing-nutbag lunatics ova in Uganda “advising” the savage thugs who drafted this bill. Maybe they were using Uganda as a test as a dry run for their hope that they can enact similar legislation in the US. And if anyone thinks there are not a large population who don’t wish to see similar legislation in the US take a gander over at Briebarts website. They had a post on this legislation, If you read their comment sections it is chilling how many people were applauding this with a fevor.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 9:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      Terrwill, quite!

      Has anyone noticed how silent the Roman cult has been throughout all this? The UK Government and state church have all condemned it. Not one word from Jewish groups and of course, expect nothing from Islam which supports the annihilation of LGBT people according to Sharia law. Silence does give consent.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 10:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Didn’t numb-net-warren send out a twitter about 9 days ago saying that many Christians were murdered and nobody said a word about that. It was posted on Queerty.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 11:10 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      talking vagina

      Dec 11, 2009 at 11:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      No. 29 · Robert, NYC: The local Jewish leaders have been too busy protesting the Gay marriage legislation in NJ. I find those orthodox pigs to be the most reprehensive creatures on the face of the earth. They seem to convientley forget what happened to six million of them by a group who simply didn’t approve of their lifes……………………

      Dec 11, 2009 at 11:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike in Brooklyn
      Mike in Brooklyn

      @No. 29 Robert, NYC

      Robert, you must have missed the comments by the Archbishop of Canterbury. He said, essentially, that the internal affairs of another country are for them to decide and that the Church of England should not interfere with how other nations pursue moral standing.

      Being the limp-dicked hypocrite that he is, the great leader of all Anglicans, is “praying” that the recently elected lesbian bishop in Los Angeles withdraws herself from her new position, or loses confirmation, to bring harmony within the church.

      Lump the Church of England, and its Ugandan chapter, with the Roman cult, et al.

      On the other hand, the Quakers (in Minnesota anyway) are ceasing officiating at ALL weddings until their same-sex couples can also receive sanctioning.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 11:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      The talking vagina with facial hair that does little to hide his looks says that Jesus reiterated what Moses had stated about marriage, giving the impression that Jesus was speaking out against gays. Jesus never said a word about gays the entire 33 years He was on this planet. Pastor Gyno-facial-hair is actually referring to 1. Marriage (Matthew 19:3-1 2) Matthew has already discussed divorce in 5:31-32; cf: notes on that passage. He draws this section from Mark 10:2-12, which consists of two parts; (a) Mark 10:2-9, a little ” ;paradigm” or “pronouncement story,” which culminates in the saying, “Therefore what God has yoked together, let not man separate”; and (b) Mark 10:11-12, a sayings group from a separate source, which resembles the Q logion in Luke 16:18. Mark links the two together with vs. 10. Matthew, wishing to construct a smoother story, transposes the substance of Mark 10:3-5 to follow Mark 10:9, and makes other changes to accord with his own point of view.
      3. Matthew writes for Christians who probably know that the rabbinical schools of Hillel and Shammai debate the legal grounds for divorce (cf. on 5:31); hence he adds the phrase( for any cause )
      4-6. Almost the same argument is given in the “Fragments of a Zadokite Work” 7:1-3 “The builders of the wall (the Pharisees?) are caught by fornication in taking two wives during their lifetime.But the fundamental principle of the creation is “Male a nd Female created He them.’ And they who went into the Ark, “Two and two went into the Ark.’” (R. H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudpigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), II, 810.) Like the principle in Luke 16: 18, this teaching, if taken by itself, would seem to rule out divorce entirely. In any case, Jesus goes beyond the Pharisees in emphasizing the permanence of marriage. God’s purpose is a stable family life, and divorce is no part of that purpose. Here the Savior answered that because there were infidelities in some marriages. As Freedom4All so eloquently posted, “Nowhere in Scripture (translated properly) states that a homosexual is a sinner based on their sexual orientation. There are practices the Scripture condemns: temple prostitution, using sex for religious worship, and rape. These “lifestyles” are condemned to all people. Christ welcomed all to him, and rejected no one. If the person changes, it is they who change NOT the congregation towards them. Christ’s commandment is TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER, not, “love them only if they conform to your understanding of my message.
      When you can show your love for your neighbor without any strings, that is when you will know that Christ is in you and you in him.” (thanks Freedom4All of Texas, beautiful words)

      Dec 11, 2009 at 11:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BTPeri
      BTPeri

      The sadness here is you all express such deep anger and its based on slanted reporting and analysis. Do you do this with everyone you hear about ? Do you bias yourselves against everyone you meet based on what other people have to say about the person ? Please don’t tell me its rage over discrimination because thats weak. You’ve allowed various media organs to manipulate your thinking about someone you have never met, and never talked to in person !

      Anger is an expression of fear and hurt, but it never resolves the core problems within you. Not all GLBTs share your emotions, and your anger. Many have seen beyond the obvious attempts to manipulate you toward rage. Might you look deeper into what is enabling you to be tools of others ?

      Do any of you hold opinions that differ from others ? Do you feel it is fair for people to attack you because of your differing viewpoints ?

      Here is a thought you might ponder, and answer reflectively. There is nothing in the constitution or Bill of Rights which says marriage is a right ! So lets say we took all legal / political issues related to marriage off the table, and removed them from laws. Would that be OK ? In other words, what if we only had laws that gave “rights” to any two people, regardless of any sexual orientation, who entered into a committment contract with each other, and which held them jointly responsible for any actions they persued as a couple, ie. buying property, raising children, etc. Would that be OK ?

      Personally, with the amount of anger expressed here, do you believe you are able to exist in a committed relationship, and provide a warm, nurturing, environment to raise children ? Are you ready to commit to a life long relationship with all the ups and downs that will occur, or are you simply on a warpath to express your rage because others have hurt you along the way ?

      Dec 11, 2009 at 11:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      BTPeri, I married my spouse of 14 years and we never have fights. I don’t like when Pastors, who use sketchy, E.S.T. Werner Erhard-like tactics to reel in seekers, using tax exempt church money for political stances. Conveniently, he misrepresents Matthew 19 to make it seem as though Jesus was anti-gay, rather than anti-divorce. I bet if you gave him a written theological exam, multiple choice, he would not be able to pass it. He’s using Scripture to support and foster the prejudices he holds dear and to make money doing it. He adopts very strange practices to keep people contained into his structured “church”. Not everybody has just fallen off of the turnip truck. Some do research into these wolves in sheep’s clothing. Dig a little, before you become hoodwinked. This guy is not a good egg.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 11:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BTPeri
      BTPeri

      #36 … Do you know him ? Have you studied that church ? Do you know people who attend that church ? Or are you just parroting incorrect information passed on by others which you willingling accepted.

      I’m familiar with EST and there is no similarity between that church and EST methods.

      Church money is not used for political stances, nor is the pulpit.

      He does not receive money from the church. In fact, he paid back 100 % of his salary ever received. This is not a man who is focused on money. That is readily apparent to anyone who opens their eyes and does the slightest bit of checking.

      You probably don’t even know what the focus is of that church, nor do you know it has many teaching pastors who speak from the pulpit. You probably don’t know that there is a very strong outreach around the world, and AIDS is a major focus. The work to overcome AIDS reaches deep into the gay community without any prejudice or prerequisites.

      Jesus taught a message … he said that God’s plan was very simple. He made it clear that sex was designed to be between a man and a women, for pleasure and procreation, inside of marriage only, and that committment was for life ! You don’t have to accept that message, and you can make all the arguments you want, but that is the message of the Gospel. If you believe in God, and you realize that only a female can bear a child, and only through intercourse ( without human interventions ) will a child be conceived, it makes sense. He didn’t give women the ability to unilaterally conceive, nor did he equip men to become pregnant.

      If you want to dismiss all of this because you don’t want to believe in God, fine. But a careful reading of the scripture, placing the original greek text in context, doesn’t leave room for debate among those of the Christian faith, and those views are shared universally among all religions of the world, even in the most primitive of locations. Once you use Bible translations, and cut verses out of context, you create a pretext upon which you may wish to build your viewpoints.

      I’ve not been hoodwinked. I know of what I speak, and I daresay, I have far more knowledge then can be discussed in these comments. Simply stated, you are working on false assumptions based on what you want to believe, rather then what is truth, when speaking about this man.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 1:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      “If the liberties of the American people are ever destroyed, they will fall by the hands of the clergy.” Marquis de Lafayette Revolutionist – France, the United States

      The Ugandan haters and their American handlers were preparing for a dominationist reign of mass murder, final solution, LGBT genocide, gender cleansing or whatever you want to call it.

      What stopped them, at least Warren, was the fear of being called an accomplice to mass murder. He, and all cult leaders who attack us are exactly that but are terrified of being recognized for the murderers they are. That’s why every time the murder of a GLBT person makes the headlines they all immediately deny complicity. Even the Ugandan haters have backed down and eliminated the death penalty. They’ll save money and just ‘disappear’ our brothers and sisters.

      The truth is that their bigotry, echoed by politicians like McCain and Obama, are the principal reason that harassment, violence and the murder of LGBT folks takes place. (Some like B, the obdurate apologist for Obama will deny the complicity of Democrat politicians but that’s he’s never met an injustice created by Democrats that he didn’t like. And AndrewW will tell you that our only hope is to give up the fight and depend on liberal cultists, a notion way beyond delusional.)

      The central leaders of the American Revolution were adamantly opposed the cult interference in the affairs of the Republic but greatly underestimated the greed of the cults. We have to go one step further. We have to criminalize cult interference in civil and political affairs and fight to take away their tax breaks and secularize their educational and medical properties. And it goes without saying that they should not be compensated.

      Their other properties should be seized without compensation to compensate rape and abuse victims.

      We should demand that Obama immediately denounce Warrens murderous and illegal interference in the affairs of the long suffering sovereign people of Uganda. We should also demand that Obama fire all the antiSSM bigots in his Administration beginning with Hillary Clinton and Josh Dubois, and everyone connected with his administrations disgusting legal defense of DOMA and DADT. He should also fire bigots in the leadership of the Democrat Party like Leah Daughtry and Tim Kaine of the DNC.

      If he won’t we should call for his impeachment.

      “Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst.” Thomas Paine – Revolutionist – England, the United States, France

      Dec 11, 2009 at 1:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      He speaks out of both sides of his mouth. There’s even film footage of it, so don’t deny your man does not do this. And Christ Jesus said absolutely NOTHING about gays, likely because he understood what Paul (Saul) was not able to comprehend at that time, that there are physiologic influences to one’s orientation. So, for you to extrapolate that, because I believe that there are those of us born this way, I don’t believe in God. Indeed, who are you to say who will have a place in the Kingdom of God? Are you The Reader of Hearts? Christ knows people on levels that man cannot even fathom, before they had even entered into these temporal vessels. Flesh is overrated with too much ego, rancor, hatred, and fighting comprised in it. Politics is no place for the Word of God. If this man truly believed in the Word, he wouldn’t be involved in the worldly snare of politics. Wisdom would have him rely strictly on the Word to transform hearts. As for this ordinary man’s dalliance with Prop H8, marriage is a civil contractual relationship. You say in the post above, “If you believe in God, and you realize that only a female can bear a child, and only through intercourse ( without human interventions ) will a child be conceived, it makes sense. He didn’t give women the ability to unilaterally conceive, nor did he equip men to become pregnant.” So if two seventy year olds want to marry, is this justified? Clearly procreation is impossible and, yet, they are allowed to marry and share contractual protections and benefits. This “religious” figure had no business butting into a political fight. Interesting article attached:
      http://www.projo.com/news/efitzpatrick/edward_fitzpatrick_22_11-22-09_6TGGHEO_v32.36f5eed.html

      01:00 AM EST on Sunday, November 22, 2009

      Conservatives shouldn’t just allow same-sex marriage. They should insist on it.

      The conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks made that argument in a 2003 column, and the liberal Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. recalled his words when he was in Providence on Nov. 8 to speak at the Central Congregational Church.

      Brooks’ argument is worth revisiting now that Governor Carcieri, a conservative Republican and Catholic who opposes same-sex marriage, has vetoed a bill that would give domestic partners the right to claim the bodies of — and make funeral arrangements for — their loved ones. The bill passed the House and Senate by a combined vote of 101 to 1. (Only Rep. Arthur J. Corvese, D-North Providence, voted against it.) Two days after the controversial veto, Carcieri told a gay-rights group he was open to a domestic-partnership law bestowing many if not all the rights of marriage, without the right to marry.

      Dionne, who describes himself as a progressive Catholic, said he used to oppose same-sex marriage while favoring civil-rights laws protecting gay people. “I’m not going to say anybody who is against gay marriage is a bigot because I once held that position myself,” he said in an interview.

      Dionne said he changed his mind because he was persuaded by the conservative case for same-sex marriage.

      In a November 2003 column, “The Power of Marriage,” Brooks noted nearly half of all marriages end in divorce and, in some circles, marriage isn’t even expected. Men “trade up” for a younger “trophy wife.” Men and women split when their “needs” don’t seem to be met. “Marriage is in crisis because marriage, which relies on a culture of fidelity, is now asked to survive in a culture of contingency,” he said.

      Brooks noted some conservatives base their opposition to same-sex marriage on biological determinism, portraying men as savages who need women to tame them. “But in fact, we are not animals whose lives are bounded by our flesh and by our gender,” he wrote. “We’re moral creatures with souls, endowed with the ability to make covenants, such as the one Ruth made with Naomi: ‘Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried.’ ”

      Brooks concluded, “The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn’t just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.”

      Dionne quoted Brooks in his 2008 book, “Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith & Politics After the Religious Right,” and he quoted Jonathan Rauch’s book, “Gay Marriage: Why it is Good for Gays, Good for Straights and Good for America.”

      “A solitary individual lives on the frontier of vulnerability,” Rauch wrote. “Marriage creates kin, someone whose first ‘job’ is to look after you. Gay people, like straight people, become ill or exhausted or despairing and need the comfort and support that marriage uniquely provides. Marriage can strengthen and stabilize their relationships and thereby strengthen the communities of which they are a part.”

      Rauch agreed that until recently no Western society had embraced same-sex marriage.

      “But until recently, no Western society had ever understood, to the extent most Americans do today, that a small and more or less constant share of the population is homosexual by nature. Homosexuals aren’t just misbehaving heterosexuals,” he wrote. “Barring them from the blessings of marriage is inhumane and unfair, even if that is a truth our grandparents did not understand.”

      Rauch agreed that allowing sex-same marriages would in a sense redefine marriage. But given what we now know, he said, “Today’s real choice is not whether to redefine marriage but how to do so: as a club only heterosexuals can join or as the noblest promise two people can make. To define marriage as discrimination would defend its boundaries by undermining its foundation.”

      In his book, Dionne said he understands how hard it is for people who live “traditional lives” to accept same-sex marriage. But he said the main cause of family breakdown isn’t that homosexuals want to wed; it’s that heterosexuals leave marriages to pursue other heterosexuals.

      “I confess that watching self-proclaimed conservative traditionalists who divorced one, two or three times profess their loyalty to ‘traditional marriage’ by opposing gay unions made me highly cynical about their supposed fealty to family values,” he wrote. “In 2007, the conservative writer Kate O’Beirne quipped that among the front-running Republican presidential candidates at the time, the only one with only one wife was the Mormon, Mitt Romney.”

      Dionne said one of the most extraordinary changes over the last generation has been “increasing openness, connectedness and empathy toward homosexuals.” He said, “This happened because so many heterosexual Americans discovered, as their gay and lesbian friends and relatives came out of the closet, that people they liked and loved were homosexual.”

      Consider former Republican Vice President Dick Cheney, who has a lesbian daughter. In June, Cheney said he supports gays being able to marry but believes states should make that decision. “I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone,” he said.

      In opposing same-sex marriage, some conservatives cite the Scriptures and talk about values. But they could just as easily cite those sources in support of same-sex marriage, talking about the values of fidelity and commitment, fairness and equality, love and acceptance.

      Newsweek ran a December 2008 cover story by religion editor Lisa Miller under the sub-headline: “Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side.”

      “In the Christian story, the message of acceptance for all is codified,” Miller wrote. “Jesus reaches out to everyone, especially those on the margins.”

      In an interview, the Rev. Christine Johnson Foster, co-pastor of Providence Presbyterian Church, said Jesus says nothing about homosexuality in the Bible, but in at least 14 stories and parables Jesus explores the issues of poverty, the use of money and economic justice. “He talks more about those issues than any other subject,” she said.

      And what does that tell you? “That where we put our energies is out of balance,” Foster said. “To me, the amount of energy that goes into trying to keep same-sex couples from committing to marriage is unbelievable.”

      In her article, Miller concluded that “religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible” but “in custom and tradition” and “to talk turkey for a minute, (in) a personal discomfort with gay sex that transcends theological argument.”

      A federal judge talked turkey in October when supporters of California’s voter-enacted ban on same-sex marriage argued that Proposition 8 is constitutional because it furthers the state’s goal of fostering “naturally procreative relationships.”

      Vaughn R. Walker, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, asked: What would be the harm of allowing same-sex couples to marry?

      Charles J. Cooper, a lawyer for the group that sponsored Proposition 8, replied, “My answer is: I don’t know.”

      But Cooper insisted the government should be allowed to favor opposite-sex marriages “to channel naturally procreative sexual activity between men and women into stable, enduring unions.”

      Walker, who was appointed to the federal bench in 1989 by former Republican President George H.W. Bush, said, “The last marriage that I performed involved a groom who was 95, and the bride was 83. I did not demand that they prove that they intended to engage in procreative activity. Now, was I missing something?”

      The judge wasn’t missing anything. But Governor Carcieri is. He is missing the chance to usher hundreds of committed couples into the stability of an ennobling institution: marriage.

      efitzpat@projo.com

      Dec 11, 2009 at 1:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • romeo
      romeo

      @BTPeri #37: You don’t know shit about what Jesus said. Nothing that exists about His actual pronouncements reflect what you’re saying he said. But the hysterical tone of your post says it all about you.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 1:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BTPeri
      BTPeri

      Bill,

      Sorry you feel so much anger !

      “That’s why every time the murder of a GLBT person makes the headlines they all immediately deny complicity.”

      I see a lot of murder in this country every day, but rarely do I hear of the killing of GLBT persons. Is this prevalent and the media ignores it ? Could you give me some statistics ?

      Is Rick Warren required to speak out every time someone is murdered in this country ? Around the world ? Why is that his responsibility ? What could that accomplish ?

      Probably 50 or more people die in the US every day due to gang killings ? Does that cause you conern ?

      How can we turn this tide of hatred ? What can we do to change the emotional orientation of those who seek to do violence toward others ? What actions can we take today to make this a better society in which to live ?

      Dec 11, 2009 at 1:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      “Anyone who knows history, particularly the history of Europe, will, I think, recognize that the domination of education or of government by any one particular religious faith is never a happy arrangement for the people.” (Eleanor Roosevelt)

      If religion should be the standard to which every American is subject, then which religion? In the future, if the world’s second largest religion, the Islamic religion, is favored and the population in the Islamic community grows substantially higher, should Americans then be subject to the concepts and laws of that particular religion? If religion comes down to a vote, to which religion should the laws of the land ascribe? Buddhism? Taoism? Jefferson was so wise. Separation of church and state is good for believers and non-believers alike.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 1:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Attmay
      Attmay

      @37 BTPeri:

      Christianity = Ignorance + Evil. Gawd did not “create” mankind. They evolved over billions of years. That is a proven fact thanks to Charles Darwin and those who carried on his work. The fact that only a man and a woman can make a baby (and they don’t even need to be heterosexual to do so) is a biological coincidence that accords them no special privileges, not even to further this collective called “society”, which without individuals is nothing more than an abstract concept. No wonder Ayn Rand called Christianity “the perfect kindergarten for Communism.” Gawd didn’t even write the “Bible.” Men wrote it and slapped his name on it.

      Put down the Bible, read a science textbook. Those gays who have been hurt have been hurt in the name of Christianity and Islam, two of the greatest perpetrators of man’s inhumanity to man in history. Both were spread by violence, both have strong ties to Adolf Hitler, and while Islam is continuing to perpetrating mass murder throughout the world, Christianity has the blood of the victims of the Spanish Inquisition, Russian Pogroms, and the Holocaust on its hands. If you people don’t knock it off, what happened to the Jews and gays living under Nazi rule will be your fate. And not only will those brave enough to do it be totally justified, but monuments will be constructed to glorify them, and holidays will be commemorated in their honor. All for finally eliminating the Christo-Islamic menace.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 1:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      BTPeri, If Warren was as concerned about AIDS as you think he is, he would want gays to enter into committed relationships that supported the union with strengthening legal ties and benefits. He spoke out in support of Prop H8.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 1:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/vc84.jpg

      (Separate but equal)

      Dec 11, 2009 at 2:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      Bill, I wholeheartedly agree and endorse all of your points. Thank you for that.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 2:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      I am afraid that all of the well-articulated and well-intentioned arguments many of you have offered, fall on the deaf ears of people like BTPetri, whose eyes, ears and mind are closed and who march only to the sound of their own drum (bible) which they beat/pound incessantly.

      So much for winning over the hearts and minds of people who have no desire to be “won over”.

      The only minds we are going to win over it seems, are “inquiring minds need to know” types.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 2:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Bill Perdue is starting to make sense to me. These nut-jobs don’t want to hear anyone else. It’s time we start being less cordial. We need to fight. Not pretty.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 2:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      Schlukitz, these bible freaks conveniently use that worn out mantra in Leviticus to deny us equality, but conveniently and deliberately cherry-pick references that they’re not comfortable with or can’t abide by and simply disregard them. They can’t have it both ways, they either believe all of it or they don’t. BTPetri needs to check out http://www.fallwell.com and illustrate how Warren and his cult among others are living by the bible, both old and new testaments alike, especially by those absurd references in the old part that are irrational, illogical and just risible. I want him to point to one quote from Jesus Christ condemning gay people or advocating discrimination against us.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 2:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BTPeri
      BTPeri

      So much stated out of context.

      1) Rick Warren issued a statment to church members who subscribed to a newsletter he writes stating his view on marriage and why he supported Prop 8. That was the end of it. He gave no money to the campaign, did not speak on its behalf, nothing ! Everything else has been interpretation and people attributing what they wanted to his very basic statement based on what he, personally, believes.

      2) FYI, I did not support prop 8 ! So, no need to lecture me on that point !

      3) Nothing in what Rick has ever said urges discrimination against gays, and gay rights. Furthermore, nothing he says in anyway suggests that any law should be written to hanmper the rights of any individuals who are in a partnership of any form. That is all assumption by people moving on their own agenda.

      I realize you love to have a target. Unfortunately, in this case, your wrath is focused against vaporous images created by opinions of angry people rather then the actual beliefs and statement of one individual. And, yes, I have read IN FULL every word and interview he has given on this subject !

      The bottom line is that your concerns will never be resolved when you focus on the wrong “source” of concern. And all of the name calling you use in your campaigns, and the inflammatory speech, will only increase the anger, hatred, and acts of violence by those who do have an agenda against those with a different sexual orientation.

      I realize I won’t change one viewpoint or strategy here, so I’ll be happy not to comment further.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 3:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @ no. 29 – Robert NYC

      Martin Porter
      March 2002

      I find that I am not the first to present the manifold forms of Burke’s Triumph of Evil quote. Lee Frank had already given his own list,

      The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

      All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good men to do nothing.

      All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

      In order for ‘evil’ to prevail, all that need happen is for ‘good’ people to do nothing.

      All that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

      The surest way for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

      All it will take for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing.

      All that is necessary for the forces of evil to take root in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.

      All that is needed for the forces of evil to succeed is for enough good men to remain silent.

      All it takes for Evil to prevail in this world is for enough good men to do nothing.

      The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

      http://tartarus.org/~martin/essays/burkequote2.html

      Dec 11, 2009 at 3:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      Re” your comment no. 30 – 1EqualityUSA

      It’s obvious that Prick Warren is a subscriber to the Italian Mafia school of thought.

      “Don’t get mad. Just get even.”

      Dec 11, 2009 at 3:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @ no. 49.

      I want him to point to one quote from Jesus Christ condemning gay people or advocating discrimination against us.

      Robert, Amelia Earhart will probably make an appearance before that happens. ;P

      Don’t hold your breath, in either event.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 4:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      Re: NO. 50

      I realize I won’t change one viewpoint or strategy here, so I’ll be happy not to comment further.

      Yeah! Happy days are here again. :) ?? ??

      So long sad times
      Go long bad times
      We are rid of you at last

      Howdy gay times
      Cloudy gray times
      You are now a thing of the past

      Happy days are here again
      The skies above are clear again
      So let’s sing a song of cheer again
      Happy days are here again

      Altogether shout it now
      There’s no one
      Who can doubt it now
      So let’s tell the world about it now
      Happy days are here again

      Your cares and troubles are gone
      There’ll be no more from now on
      From now on …

      Happy days are here again
      The skies above are clear again
      So, Let’s sing a song of cheer again

      Happy times
      Happy nights
      Happy days
      Are here again!

      http://kids.niehs.nih.gov/lyrics/happydays.htm

      Dec 11, 2009 at 4:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      I need a vacation. BTPeri changed the tone of these posts in nanoseconds. It went from reflective, somewhat saddened and dismayed (#35) to indignant Bible thumping generalizations and assumptions (#37) to psyche-speak 101 and accidental gay advocate (#41) to lies and complete resignation (#50). It all ended with, “I realize I won’t change one viewpoint or strategy here, so I’ll be happy not to comment further.”
      Is that how the seekers get hooked in? Tell them anything they want to hear, assign them to a mini-”group”, get them nice & vulnerable, and then tap, tap, tap the buttons revealed in the “let’s get real with each other” exercises. Cements the deal. Mind control is so easy. No need to bother thinking for yourself because the family will break bread and be your friend. ew. That dip-wad’s book is screwy too. ew! When my cat steps in water she shakes her paws rapidly. We have much to learn from animals. They are spiritually truer than humans. Dear Schlukitz, I am going to take a vacation. I need to paint. In one more month, this baby will be done. A year went into it. I’m going to miss you big. Take care.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 4:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Ehrenstein
      David Ehrenstein

      My guess is he didn’t want to go on Rachel and have his clock cleaned.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 5:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rhydderch
      Rhydderch

      @BTPeri
      I’m guessing that you were recently laid off from work and have decided to live off the severance + unemployment benefits train for a while, cause there’s no way you believe this shit you’re spewing! This is what happens when once productive individuals lose their jobs and instead of getting high and watching ‘The View” you wage an online turf war defending ass wipe religious capitalist CEO Rick Warren.

      Seriously?
      http://tinyurl.com/ybbcppd

      Dec 11, 2009 at 5:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      In No. 50. BTPeri wrote, “So much stated out of context.
      1) Rick Warren issued a statment to church members who subscribed to a newsletter he writes stating his view on marriage and why he supported Prop 8. That was the end of it. ”

      In No 19, I posted a link to http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/12/18/rick-warren-compares-gay-marriage-to-incest-pedophila/ which quoted Warren in a video interview comparing same-sex marriage to marriage between a brother and sister and to polygamy. When asked if he meant what he said, he said, “Oh I do.” He went beyond publishing something silly in a church bulletin.

      That URL has a link to a video to go with it, but Youtube is now blocking it due to some service violation (probably copyright, but I can see how some Christians would want it suppressed). Normally people don’t misquote someone and then include a video link that can prove they got it wrong.

      So, it seems he said things that were completely out of line. If he was merely preaching in his church or babbling while drunk in a bar, nobody would care, but this was with respect to an initiative to change the California State Constitution to deny a minority civil rights. People are mad at him for a very good reason. If Warren had done something to take away BTPeri’s civil rights, he would be mad at Warren too.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 5:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 33 · Mike in Brooklyn wrote, “Lump the Church of England, and its Ugandan chapter, with the Roman cult, et al.” … you might want to read up on how the Church of England was started – it seems Henry VIII had a problem with the Pope, and as a king Henry had no trouble showing the Pope to the door.

      Curiously, the squabble was about sex – Henry wanted to change spouses.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 5:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BTPeri
      BTPeri

      OK … so I need to clarify a bit more.

      Nope, didn’t get laid off. I’m still a CEO who does just fine, thank you.

      Nope, didn’t thump any bibles.

      Nope, didn’t get hysterical. I just asked some questions that were conveniently ignored.

      Nope, I don’t do gay bashing. My gay friends wouldn’t appreciate that … don’t feel that way, see no reason to go there. And, please note, I didn’t find a need to add any profanity, name calling, or character assassinations to my posts.

      As for the video … did you see the whole interview or read the transcript. Yes, it is out there, but perhaps not the edit job posted on You Tube. And no, he wasn’t equating gays with pedophiles … he was talking about a more generic issue, and made that clear when the “semantic analysis” of his words was interpreted in a negative context …

      No, I’m not a fan of anti-gay activists or sentiment.

      And your assumptions continue to be way off target.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 6:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      BTPetri said: I realize I won’t change one viewpoint or strategy here, so I’ll be happy not to comment further.

      Guess I was mistaken about Happy Days Are Here Again.

      Rain caps back on everyone.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 8:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      Dear 1EqualityUSA. I am going to miss you too. You have been such an inspiration to so many of us but I do understand your need to withdraw and pursue a project that is dear and near to you.

      One should always pursue one’s bliss and it is my fervent hope that your painting gives you great satisfaction and purpose.

      I would more than welcoming for a missile from you, should the spirit move you. I can be reached at cbdcs4u@yahoo.com

      May the Universe continue to guide and inspire you.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 9:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike in Brooklyn
      Mike in Brooklyn

      @ No. 60 B:

      I don’t understand your reference. My comment referred to a claim that the Anglican Church has previously rebuked the Ugandan homosexual legislation. My post pointed out that the leader of the Anglican Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury had actually NOT rebuked the Ugandan legislation (and in the same comments rebuked the election of a lesbian to the position of bishop is the Los Angeles diocese).

      My point is that today, the Church of England, has not rebuked the proposed Ugandan bill that included the death penalty and life imprisonment for homosexual sexual conduct. To me, the Church of England is as culpable as Prick Warren. (The post I referenced, to me, made a reference that the Church of England was not like the Catholic cult and was for civil rights. And that is NOT correct).

      If I am in error, please explain.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 9:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      Mike in Brooklyn wrote, “@ No. 60 B: I don’t understand your reference” I was referring to your statement, “Lump the Church of England, and its Ugandan chapter, with the Roman cult, et al.”

      The Church of England split off from the Roman Catholic Church because Henry VIII wanted to dump his wife ( he dumped quite few in succession) and needed an annulment. He fixed his problems with a couple of his wives by separating their heads from their bodies. In any case, he sent the Pope packing for not being responsive and, as the new head of the church, got just what we wanted.

      Given the history, I don’t think the Church of England has any desire to be lumped with the Roman Catholic Church. :-)

      Dec 12, 2009 at 2:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @ No. 64 · Mike in Brooklyn and No. 65 · B

      Slightly off topic but germane to the conversation you are both having, have either of you had a chance to view the Showtime Production of The Tudors with Johnathan Rhys Meyers?

      Dec 12, 2009 at 2:34 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      Mike in Brooklyn is right in his analysis.

      The anglo catholic cult is, like other prots and evangelicals, a child of the roman catholic cult which in turn is a child of jewish and roman state cults. All the cults are united by their grounding in superstition and coldhearted dogmatism, in their origins in the howling madness of the christian Dark Ages and by their centuries long heritage of ferocious homohating, the racism of the crusades, the enslavement of tens of millions of colonized peoples and the awful effects of misogyny.

      Cults have no redeeming features.

      There are some differences between the cults but their debates over the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin are meaningless. We have no stake in their debates over who’s the most ignorant. They all are. A tiny number of cults are more ‘tolerant’ but that’s also meaningless. We need to politically suppress their 24/365 barrage of violence inducing hatred. No one has the right of free speech to promote violence.

      The anglo catholic’s have in fact discussed unification with the roman cult for a long time and they have ecumenical consultative bodies that hold frequent discussions. queen Elizabeth, titular head of the anglo cult has had more than one meeting with whatever lunatic in Prada was the current pope.
      All of that was spoiled when Karol Wojty?a and his successor, Joseph Alois Ratzinger, aka, der papenfuehrer, made a hard right turn in response to the international explosion of sex abuse scandals. They made homohating a cardinal rule. Most of Williams maneuvering is an attempt to placate the anglican global south group, violent bigots who comprise the vast majority of anglicans. Global south, under Akinola of Nigeria, wants to secede and/or unify with the roman cult. The would leave a tiny rump anglican ‘community’ of mostly European anglicans even more dependent on the episcopal cult in the US for money. Money is the driving force behind jesus christ inc.

      Williams would probably lose his job, although there’s absolutely no likelihood that he’d ever become a productive member of society and get a real job. He’d probably be reduced to selling used cars or maybe shudder, becoming a lawyer.

      Dec 12, 2009 at 4:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      Its truly amazing that apologists for bigot Warren always claim to have gay friends just so they can claim they’re not homohaters. So transparent, just like that other idiot bigot Michael Letterman who spews his venom on here.

      The majority of these cults are nothing more than parasites, a cancer in society. Religious cultism is the last refuge for the insecure, frightened, mentally ill and sexually repressed and perverted.

      The Anglican cult for the most part will NEVER merge with its big sister in Rome, transubstantiation is the major obstacle to that as well as papal infallibility. The rottweiler in Rome is delusional if he thinks that’s ever going to happen. He’s only making overtures because his own cult has dwindling vocations, in some countries none. Its an act of desperation for a sick cult on the verge of extinction. Proof positive that devolution exists.

      Bill, well said, I couldn’t have put it better, thank you.

      Dec 12, 2009 at 8:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      aka, der papenfuehrer

      I love it, Bill. What a perfect description for the Prada bedecked and House of Whoville toppered, Pope Ratzass! LOL
      I’ll have to remember that one.

      Humor aside, everything you said about the church is dead-on and like Robert, I could not have put it better either.

      Dec 12, 2009 at 10:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike in Brooklyn
      Mike in Brooklyn

      @No.66 Schlukitz

      Love the Tudors, and Jonathan is hot (well except the sex scenes are with women; he’s a brute; rapist; and murderer).

      (BTW, it got cold here too, but here is Asheville, NC. Weird, I changed my name and it appears in most posts as Mike in Asheville, not sure why under this article, my name reverted back to Mike in Brooklyn.)

      @No. 65 B

      I know the history well enough. That the reformation grew out of Martin Luther’s 95 theses; that Henry VIII joined the march of the reformation in [significant] part so that he could divorce his first wife and marry Anne Boleyn, yadda, yadda, yadda …

      My point referred to comments that unlike the Catholic “cult” (referenced @No.29) the Church of England had rebuked the proposed Ugandan legislation. This is in error; as I posted earlier, the Archbishop of Canterbury made specific statements supporting the Ugandan government’s right to criminalize homosexual conduct with penalties of death and life imprisonment. He argued that the Church of England should not interfere with Uganda’s efforts to determine acceptable moral conduct. At the same time, the Archbishop did involve himself and the Church into countering the election of a lesbian to the post of bishop in Los Angeles.

      To the Archbishop and the Church of England, it is acceptable that gays and lesbians be executed or imprisoned AND that it is unacceptable for gays and lesbians to hold positions within the Anglican Church.

      The Archbishop of Canterbury is as culpable and two-faced as Prick Warren and their dress wearing colleagues in Rome; the Anglican Church is as evil as the Roman Cult; thus “lump” them together.

      Dec 12, 2009 at 11:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @ No. 70 · Mike in Brooklyn

      Ah yes. Now that you mention it, I do recall your having posted something about the name change awhile back. I take it then, that you relocated from Brooklyn, NY to Ashville, NC? And, if that is the case, how do you like your new home?

      With respect to your comment about the dress wearing colleagues in Rome:

      I can deal with with a man wearing a dress. The Irish come close to that with their kilts, which can be kind of sexy on the right kind of guy.

      What blows me out of the water, are those mitered, jewel-bedecked chapeaus from the House of Whoville. LOL

      Dec 12, 2009 at 11:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Schlukitz–Did the painting come through? Check your email.

      Dec 12, 2009 at 1:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mark
      Mark

      Honestly, I seem to like the guy, and I’m a gay guy in Uganda. He seems pretty sensible. So sensible that maybe he knows down deep he’s oppressing us us on the marriage issue. Maybe he could be turned around on that issue?

      Dec 12, 2009 at 2:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taylor  Siluwé
      Taylor Siluwé

      @ no. 73. Mark –

      Sensible? Are you freakin kidding me?

      Dec 12, 2009 at 3:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @ No. 72 · 1EqualityUSA

      Yes, they did…and beautifully I might add.

      Thank you ever so much. It was very kind and thoughtful of you to send them and I do appreciate it.

      No doubt, you have received my email reply by now. :)

      Dec 12, 2009 at 3:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      Co-sign no. 74 – Taylor Siluwé to no. 73 – Mark

      Sensible? Say what???

      Dec 12, 2009 at 3:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @ no. 67 – Bill Perdue

      One of his Bishops recently had the audacity to suggest to the Papenfuehrer that it might be in the best interest of the Church to adopt a more positive and supportive position with respect to homosexuals if the they wished to survive and prosper during the new millennium.

      This so enraged the Papenfuehrer, that he erupted into a Hitleresque display of anger wherein he made the following proclamation.

      Er FlugenHeisten bolstein fuuger er unsten holstein kreima un FOLGERSPIFT!

      Dec 12, 2009 at 5:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • imani
      imani

      hmm guys, at the end of the day we are all human, and we all make mistakes- the gay community, the church, the uganda Bill, Rick Warren etc can all be messed up! But God doesnt mess up. He alone is the author and finisher or our lives, not Darwin’s research. His plan for a marriage is between a man and a woman. God hates sin and homosexuality is one of the sexual perversions God is clear about. But above all, unlike us, God doesnt force things on us- He says choose life that you might live or death and you will find distruction. So it is our choice to what he wants or not. Whatever direction we take, there are consequences. so in the confines of your bedrooms and in the quietness of your heart whether your are aethist or christian- God’s word doesnt Change, but your choice for or against it does matter. so lets just not pluck up verses from the bible here and there- and put them out of context to justify our actions, plus God can defend his word without any one’s help. so don’t treat the bible like it is another of those college books you can just quote and go! All gays like any other person shdnt practice religion-they need a personal experience with the God and his sonJesus to understand why he didn’t mention any thing about gays – but about the habit of homosexuality just like lying, killing etc. so lets all get bak to the drawing board and check- who rules our lives. is it just us or there is a creater to whom we are answerable to. this world is messy whether people are a gay or not – but God isnt interested in the collective noise of people, he needs everyone to speak up and speak out for themselves and that is what really matters . he is not coming for religions/ groups or institutions he is coming for individuals- sojust think about it- you know the truth, you are deliberately making excuses and justifications against it. but if you met your maker what is your opinion going to stay the same?

      Dec 13, 2009 at 3:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      In No. 41 · BTPeri stupidly said “Bill, sorry you feel so much anger!”

      Actually, although I do get angry about the violence christians inflict on us but most of my comments are in line with the thoughts of an AmeriCANcAN

      Dec 13, 2009 at 3:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      Oops, I fat fingered the enter button too soon.

      In No. 41 • BTPeri stupidly said “Bill, sorry you feel so much anger!” Actually, I do get angry about the violence christians inflict on us and especially about their lying denials that it occurs.

      However most of my comments are in line with the thoughts of an American revolutionist named Samuel Adams, a key leader in the world-shattering transformation that began at Lexington in 1775 and ended at Yorktown. Adams, an accomplished political rebel said, “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.”

      Many of the ideas that leftists raise are perfectly reasonable although audacious. Things like ending the war, spending trillions on workers not the rich and derailing the theocrats need to be implemented. The difference between a revolutionary leftist approach and a ‘let’s all hold our noses and work in the Democrat party’ reformist approach is that the ideas and program leftists raise, however reasonable, cannot be accomplished without a fundamental change in society.

      ” De l’audace, encore de l’audace, toujours de l’audace…!”

      “Audacity, more audacity, always audacity …!” Danton, French Revolutionist

      Dec 13, 2009 at 3:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      No. 77 · schlukitz “I’m not getting any results on “Er FlugenHeisten bolstein fuuger er unsten holstein kreima un FOLGERSPIFT!” It gave the Google translator a stroke. What does it mean?

      And on “der paperfuehrer” I first read that on an English blog, but I like it and use it often. Here’s my favorite picture of young Alois Schickelgruber… er Ratzinger in his HitlerJugend drag. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_uuEaCUoipUg/SBgmPgL1XoI/AAAAAAAAAC4/W6_LfTm_kdY/s320/ratzinger

      Later he wore Luftwaffe drag and now he wears Prada.

      Dec 13, 2009 at 4:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      No. 68 • Robert, NYC

      I’m so sorry to hear that the poor anglicans reject one of the central dogmas of the roman lunatics and deny transubstantiation, that fantastically mysterious, magical transformation of bread and wine into the meat and blood of jebuz.

      Without ritual cannibalism how can any self-respecting cult expect to attract loonies.

      Dec 13, 2009 at 4:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      Bill, you are too funny. A lot of people forget that Herr Schickelgruber was baptized in the roman cult in Austria who is alledged to have once spat in church.

      #78 Imani….what an idiot you are. Check out the old testament, part of your book of fairy tales in which it permits husbands to kill their wives and children for adultery and insubordination, among many other things. Your insistence that “homosexuality” is a perversion is all down to the moron(s) who wrote it and it wasn’t some sky pilot since you have no proof. Do yourself a favor and refer to http://www.fallwell.com then tell us you believe it all and if you don’t, you can’t claim to be a believer. Stop cherry-picking this and that to suit your own hate agenda and address the hypocrisy and bigotry of your own ilk and get your own breeder houses in order first before judging us. You either believe in the book, all of it which makes you even more of a moron, or you don’t, you can’t have it both ways.

      Dec 13, 2009 at 10:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      Bill, #82….and to say nothing of the very primitive adoration of an effigy nailed to a cross, bordering on necrophilia. Just how primitive does it get, no wonder they’re all delusional and mentally ill?

      Dec 13, 2009 at 10:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tarxien
      tarxien

      This article from the Observer suggests that US evangelical bigots are behind the anti-gay laws in Uganda and 37 other African states.

      As well as Warren, Scott Lively, Don Schmierer and Caleb Lee Brindridge are named

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/13/death-penalty-uganda-homosexuals

      Dec 13, 2009 at 10:56 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • romeo
      romeo

      Imani #78: Thanks for the condescending post. Are you aware of how many contradictions there are in what you wrote? LOL

      Bottom line, the bible is very clear — it’s the death penalty for eating clam chowder.

      Are you really so sure that you can discern God’s meaning? You are a poor, deluded soul.

      Dec 13, 2009 at 12:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      The problems our people face in Africa are getting worse becasue of two of the facts noted in The Guardian article cited in No. 85 by tarxien.

      It says “Around 85% of Ugandans are Christian – 40% Catholics, 35% Anglican. Muslims make up 12% of the population…” The European cults have to keep a lid on it in Europe and the because of the advances of the American and French revolutions, particularly the widespread use of the guillotine for especially backward clerics.

      In Africa no such examples hold them in check (except in South Africa) because for the most part Africa is not post-colonial but neo-colonial. “A policy whereby a major power uses economic and political means to perpetuate or extend its influence over underdeveloped nations or areas: “Strong elements of neocolonialism persist in the economic relations of the rich and poor countries” (Scientific American).”

      The Guardian also quotes Peter Tatchell, a leader of the LGBT movement in England saying “In many cases, these countries are using laws imposed by the British in colonial times. Before that, homosexuality was actually tolerated or accepted in the traditional cultures.”

      Dec 13, 2009 at 1:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      No. 81 · Bill Perdue

      Damn. Herr Hosen Schisser (trousers shitter) looked liked he was possessed by a demon even as a Jugend. I mean, look at those scary eyes.

      The Google translator was not the only one to have a stroke. LOL

      After countless hours of trying unsuccessfully to decipher der Papenfuehrer’s Proclamation, translators concluded that “holstein” which was the only recognizable word, seemed to imply that this was just another pile of bullshit, just like all of his other Proclamations and hence the words are meaningless and irrelevant. LOL

      Like your wundervoll, der papenfuehrer, read on an English Blog, I too garnered the meaningless statement in German I quoted above from a blog following a video on YouTube “When Hitler finds out Governor Palin has resigned”. It is subtitled in English and is hysterical.

      Dec 13, 2009 at 3:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      Some interesting background on Herr Hitler’s ancestry.

      http://history1900s.about.com/od/hitleradolf/a/hitlerancestry.htm

      Dec 13, 2009 at 3:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      No. 86 · romeo @ Imani #78

      You wrote:

      Thanks for the condescending post.

      Please allow me to amend your reply to Imani, if I may be so bold as to do so.

      “Thanks for the condescending, demeaning, mean-spirited, bigoted, hateful, Christian, anti-homosexual, spit-in-our-eye, post.

      I wonder when was the last time that Imani sent his hair shirt out to be dry cleaned? It must stink to holy hell from having been worn it for so long without being removed, don’t you think, Romeo?

      I also know of this great little shop down in the West Village where he can get that whip he has probably worn out by now from all that self-flagellation, replaced by a brand, spanking new one.

      Pun intended. ;P

      Dec 13, 2009 at 4:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike in Brooklyn
      Mike in Brooklyn

      @No. 88 Schlukitz

      OMFG!!! That Hilter & Palin video is fucking brilliant!

      I am amazed only 14,500 views; I will be sending the link often. This video should be hitting all over the web — hysterically entertaining and major league social commentary.

      Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svf0vhVZ3Fo&NR=1

      Thank you Schlukitz, my hubby and I enjoyed really good laughs watching Herr GOPFuehrer!

      Dec 13, 2009 at 4:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      You are very welcome, Mike in Brooklyn. It was sent to me by my old school buddy from upstate New York and who now lives in Tennessee. Glad that you and your hubby got some good laughs watching that video. I know, I sure did. ;)

      The look of disappointment on Hitler’s face and the trembling fingers as he removes his glasses upon hearing the news of Palin’s resignation, reduced me, literally, to ROTF and LMAO.

      The guy who played Hitler sure had the look, actions and the voice down pat. He deserves an Academy Award for that performance. LOL

      Dec 13, 2009 at 5:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      Bill Perdue “Mike in Brooklyn is right in his analysis. The anglo catholic cult is, like other prots and evangelicals, a child of the roman catholic cult which in turn is a child of jewish and roman state cults.”

      The truth is that the Church of England under its founder Henry VIII disowned the Roman Catholic Church and wanted nothing to do with it. Basically, the Church of England was founded to further a sex scandal of sorts – Henry VIII serially dumping one wife after another because he wanted a male heir to the throne and blamed his wives for not producing one.

      Dec 14, 2009 at 1:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Phil
      Phil

      I love Rick Warren!

      Dec 17, 2009 at 2:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike in Asheville, nee "in Brooklyn"
      Mike in Asheville, nee "in Brooklyn"

      @No.94 Phil

      Now aren’t you precious? Maybe you should go suck his dick.

      Dec 17, 2009 at 7:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Queerty now requires you to log in to comment

    Please log in to add your comment.

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.