Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
oh jesus

Virginia + Maryland’s Governors Are Catholic. And They’re Furious With the Church’s Threats

169864

Even some high profile Catholics can’t believe their own Church is going after the gays in the nation’s capital. Like Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine and Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who are livid the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington D.C. is threatening to cancel its social services programs if gay marriage passes.

“I’m Catholic, and I think it’s wrong,” Kaine told radio listeners yesterday. “I don’t think you take your ball and go home.”

But that’s exactly what the Church is threatening to do, complaining that gay marriage will so infringe on their right to discriminate that they’ll have no choice but to end their homeless and adoption programs.

Kaine, for one, can’t believe the Church is engaged in such bullying: “I think the strategy of threatening to pull back, it doesn’t seem like the church I’ve come up in.” Same goes for Maryland’s O’Malley either: “I don’t understand how they can possibly do this. I have a hard time believing that the nuns and priests who taught me about the Corporal Works of Mercy would agree that this is an appropriate response for the church.”

Yeah, where is that love and compassion thing we hear so much about?

By:           editor editor
On:           Nov 25, 2009
Tagged: , , , , ,
  • 48 Comments
    • Cam
      Cam

      When the chruch starts proposing laws that outlaw divorce and Adultry, which is based upon the Ten Commandments THEN I will think that they aren’t doing this out of straight up bogotry. The Ten commandments according to them were handed down straight from God. The proscriptions supposedly dealing with Homosexuality come from Pauls letters to the Romans. So you tell me, why do they seem MUCH less worried about “Gods Laws” than they do about gays? Bigotry, they are using it as an excuse to attack the people they hate….or they are also a bunch of closet cases afraid of exposure.

      Nov 25, 2009 at 11:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • toots
      toots

      oh jeebus!

      Nov 25, 2009 at 12:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      How is it, “showing love” to strip families of legal protections? Don’t children of gays deserve stability too?

      Our commandment was to love, not exclude a segment of people from equal legal protection.

      Jesus never talked about gays, nor are gays mentioned in the Ten Commandments, nor in the Summary of the Law. No prophet expounds upon gays. It really wasn’t that concerning in early churches. Being judgmental is the worse offense. That’s spoken of so often that it would seem to be the more important lesson for us.

      It’s easy to love one of your own. If you merely love those who love you, what quality of credit and thanks is that to you? For even the very sinners love their lovers—those who love them.

      Nov 25, 2009 at 12:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      The Legal Precedent and the Constitutional Case:

      “The closest parallel in our legal history to the debate over gay marriage has been the miscegenation laws of the 1950’s (Interracial Marriages in America). These laws prevented interracial marriages between whites and blacks. Hannah Arendt, a journalist and intellectual of the ‘50’s and ‘60’s, as quoted by Andrew Sullivan in “Why civil union isn’t marriage,” (2) argued against the miscegenation laws, saying, “The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one’s skin or color or race are minor indeed. Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to `life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ … and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs.” Sullivan, senior editor at the New Republic, goes on to say, “Would any heterosexual in America believe he had a right to pursue happiness if he could not marry the person he loved? What would be more objectionable to most people — to be denied a vote in the next presidential election or to no longer have legal custody over their child or legal attachment to their wife or husband? Not a close call.” This being said, can we deny that the right to marriage – to whomever one might choose – is constitutionally guaranteed?

      Keeping gay marriage illegal also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. According to the American Civil Liberties Union in 1996, (3) “The law [against same-sex marriage] discriminates on the basis of sex because it makes one’s ability to marry depend on one’s gender.” The ACLU goes on to say, “Classifications which discriminate on the basis of gender must be substantially related to some important government purpose…tradition by itself is not an important government purpose. If it were, sex discrimination would be quite permissible; discrimination against women has a pedigree in tradition at least as long and time honored as that of discrimination against same-sex couples in marriage.”

      Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution is preservation of tradition cited as a power or intention of our government. There is no constitutional basis for denying gay couples marriage, and every constitutional reason why our government should actively pursue legalizing gay marriage in order to give gay men and lesbians their rights as equal citizens of the United States and to ensure their inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness that every American is guaranteed. Our government’s purpose is to defend the rights of the people, and in this instance our government has undoubtedly failed in its duties.

      At one time it was considered perverted and unnatural for black and white people to want to marry each other. Despite protests from the prejudiced, the Supreme Court defended the rights of the people. Now who would say that a black and a white should not be allowed to marry? It would be considered the height of bad taste and racial prejudice. I am confident that after gay marriage is legalized, it will soon be considered just as prejudiced to say that they should not have that right as it is today to say that different races should not marry.”

      As for harming marriage, similar arguments were shot down in Massachusetts. Your moral beliefs cannot strip others of contractual protections. We should not have any “onus” or burden, or any other hoop to jump through to justify our existence. We are American citizens and many disagree with your beliefs. There are over 1300 rights that we are being denied because of other peoples’ beliefs. This persecution has gone on long enough and we are not tolerating “outsider status” any longer, just to satisfy your comfort level. The government’s ENDORSEMENT of one group’s values, especially if others that don’t hold those views, is COERCION. Your unfounded fears didn’t prove to have a legitimate secular purpose and it failed, hence, gay marriage.

      Nov 25, 2009 at 12:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      The DC Human Rights Act makes it unlawful to coerce, threaten, or retaliate… Is that what the Archdiocese is doing?

      1-2525. Coercion or retaliation.

      (a) It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice to coerce, threaten, retaliate against, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of any right granted or protected under this chapter.

      (b) It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person to require, request, or suggest that a person retaliate against, interfere with, intimidate or discriminate against a person, because that person has opposed any practice made unlawful by this chapter, or because that person has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing authorized under this chapter.

      (c) It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person to cause or coerce, or attempt to cause or coerce, directly or indirectly, any person to prevent any person from complying with the provisions of this chapter.

      (1973 Ed., ? 6-2271; Dec. 13, 1977, D.C. Law 2-38, title II, ? 261, 24 DCR 6038.)

      Nov 25, 2009 at 1:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mark from Tesuque
      Mark from Tesuque

      “When the Founders wrote the nation’s Constitution, they specified that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” (Article 6, section 3) This provision was radical in its day– giving equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike. They wanted to ensure that no single religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention religion, except in exclusionary terms. The words “Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, and God” are never mentioned in the Constitution– not once.” Found this doing some searches about religion.

      Here’s another I love from President Abraham Lincoln. “My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them.”

      Nov 25, 2009 at 2:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ali
      Ali

      This isn’t new. In Canada’s gay marriage fight, bishops threatened to excommunicate the Prime Minister and other MPs who voted for equality.

      I guess they’ve kicked their tactics up a notch. What they may not realize is that if they cease to provide these services, they’ll lose a lot of the power they hold and will have less left to bargain with. They will also lose any moral high ground remaining to them if they end their ministries to the disadvantaged over such a comparatively trivial issue (when you compare the effects on Catholics of secular gay marriage vs. the effects of homelessness/parentlessness on the people they minister to. Which one might actually be more important to Jesus and offers the opportunity to convert more Catholics?)

      It’s a pity. As someone who grew up around a lot of Catholics, I have a kind of faith in their ability to do good. This is disappointing, like the excommunication of that little 9 year old girl and her mother in Brazil, who sought an abortion when the girl was raped and became pregnant. It does not illustrate the best values of Catholicism at all.

      Nov 25, 2009 at 2:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Stef
      Stef

      I’m impressed with O’Malley and Kaine standing up against it. It’s a big wall to go up against politically. Kudos to them.

      Nov 25, 2009 at 3:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sarah Allen
      Sarah Allen

      Hi,

      It doesn’t matter what the governor of Virginia or Maryland think. The church has been around for 2000 years, nothing new here. Hebrew or Christian scriptures refer to men behaving as women and visa versa as an abomination …a label reserved for idol worship and homosexuality.

      In Christ, Sarah

      Nov 25, 2009 at 4:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sceth
      Sceth

      Modern churches are community service hubs. These people are threatening to make themselves irrelevant in their own communities. It’s just too stupid to act on.

      Nov 25, 2009 at 4:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jonjon
      jonjon

      I’m so sick of christians…..and muslims and jews and all other religious, motherfucking, voodoo-spouting ignorant assholes.

      Nov 25, 2009 at 4:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Dear Sarah Allen, Christ never mentioned a word about this issue the entire time He was on this Earth. If it wasn’t notable enough for Christ to comment on it, then why is it so important to you. Judgmental people get more tongue lashings than people who were born with an orientation that is discriminated against. The word homosexual was added in 1949. If you were truly versed in Scripture and took it down to its original Hebrew and Greek, you would see that different translations have lead to our being unnecessarily signaled out for your special judgement. Perhaps Christ Jesus knew what Paul (Saul) could not have known and that is why He was so silent on the subject. I would encourage you to do the same as your Father and stay silent. You’ll save yourself from embarrassment. You’ve been commanded to love. One can’t go wrong with love.

      Nov 25, 2009 at 5:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 9 · Sarah Allen wrote, “The church has been around for 2000 years, nothing new here. Hebrew or Christian scriptures refer to men behaving as women and visa versa as an abomination …a label reserved for idol worship and homosexuality.”

      What’s “new” is that the term “homosexuality” or “homosexual” did not appear in the Bible until the mid twentieth century, with some of the changes occurring in passages where the phrasing was rather vague. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm describes some of the translation problems in stuff that Paul wrote. One term he uses, Malakoi, refers to people who are indolent, pliable, perhaps with “loose morals”, etc. Recent translations render it as “effeminate” but that is pretty much a mistranslation. The other word Paul uses is arsenokoitai, which seems to be a term Paul made up. “Arsen” refers to males, but the rest is rather vague. He might have made up the word so that readers could fill in the details – the early Christians were a fractious bunch with beliefs all over the map, so a little vagueness was useful in any attempt at unifying such a theological hodgepodge – everyone could pretend the term did not refer to them. Translating “arsenokoitai” as “homosexuality” is simply a case of reading society’s current prejudices into the text.

      The Old Testament stuff refers to sex acts, not sexual orientation, and the reason idol worship is paired with homosexual acts is that some pagan rituals included having sex with a temple prostitute as a fertility rite to ensure a good harvest. Leviticus in particular was written after the Babylonian exile and the Jews who stayed behind were being culturally assimilated by the others in the area. The returning priests who wrote Leviticus wanted to stop that, but in any case the last sentence in it says it only applies to Jews (the ones living in Israel at that time).

      Your church may have been around for 2000 years, but the main thing that is not new is the use of ancient religious texts to justify the prejudices du jour, and the translators are at least someone cognizant of marketing – you want them to buy it, you better tell them what they want to hear.

      Nov 25, 2009 at 8:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Dear B, Once again, I appreciate your posts. Sarah is going to cling to her hatred. Even if God, Himself came to her and said, “Hey, Sarah Allen, lay off of your brothers and sisters, they were born this way.” She would likely call God a fag-hag and continue to hate. Peter J. Gomes said it best, “That fear stems from their own recognition that their “values” are not derived from Scripture, as they publicly claim. Indeed, it is through the lens of their own prejudices and personal values that they “read” Scripture and cloak their own views in its authority.” She won’t want to hear anything that tears her away from feeling superior to others. Sad for her, really.

      Nov 25, 2009 at 9:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      “If you rely on an English translation, you may be shielded from God’s word through translators with their biases and prejudices. NIV uses the words “practing homosexual” in the epistles written by Saint Paul, which is not what the Greek nor Latin nor Syric passages state. The Greek word used by St. Paul that NIV translated as “practicing homosexual” was used by his contemporaries to mean some type of sexual practice among HETEROSEXUALS not HOMOSEXUALS. The Latin Vulgate translates the word to mean a “catamite” which is a nice way of saying “a male prostitute.” Male prostitutes in the Greek world during St. Paul’s time were temple prostitutes who serviced both men and women.

      Bibles are translated to fit the translators own prejudices. Just look at the verse where the Hail Mary derives from. Catholics translate it to say “Hail, full of grace …” to justify the Immaculate Conception. Protestants translate it “Greetings, O favored one ..” to emphasize Mary’s unique role in bringing Christ to the world, but not to confirm any type of immaculate state of her soul. How can we as normal readers of Scripture know who’s right? Well, we have to dig a little deeper in the well and educate ourselves in the languages the Bible was written in. I’m sure you question what other Christians who hold different opinions on certain subjects. We all do. So how do we get to the truth? Well, if we rely on translations on the Bible then we may be holding on to an erroneous translation.” (Freedom4All,Tx)

      Nov 25, 2009 at 9:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B Stupid
      B Stupid

      Hey 1EqualityUSA:

      Thanks. I am looking for some wikipedia stuff to post. I love copy and paste. It makes me look smart.

      Nov 25, 2009 at 9:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      It’s the content of the paste, that’s what most kids say when they’re eating it. I learn something everyday, B. Most of my books are 40 years old and some beyond that. If they were cut and paste-able, I’d do more of it. Keep them coming.

      Nov 25, 2009 at 9:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      1930′, 40’s, 50’s one’s so old that it lost it’s spine and cover. They smell old too.

      Nov 25, 2009 at 10:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Don
      Don

      The Communist Party of the USSR and Eastern Bloc seemed invincible until just before their demise. Anyone who would have predicted this demise would have been dismissed.

      I believe (and hope) that the Roman Catholic Church in the United States will, before long, meet with a similar fate.

      A number of the excellent comments above address the bigotry.

      If Bill Donohue of the Catholic League and Archbishop Wuerl continue with this insanity, they will lose credibility with rational, educated, sophisticated people as well as with people who have a good heart.

      While we lament the Church’s extremism, it may be just this type of position that will lead to the RCC’s implosion.

      I’m surprised that the Pittsburgh victims of years ago continue to remain silent.

      Nov 25, 2009 at 10:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mac mcneill
      mac mcneill

      Sarah Allen, what you are referring to is a book WRITTEN BY MAN, NOT BY GOD. Who knows what God Really wants? If God’s word is so important, why don’t you straights follow the Ten Commandments? You kill (wars), you divorce, you cheat with neighbors spouses, and every 10 commandment is broken, but you throw out it’s sleeping with another man is an abomination! Live what you preach and stay out of my life. I don’t tell you how to live, but maybe the Californians have the right idea, if you are banning gay marriages because they destroy marriages, the lets ban divorces. Put them on the same ballot on the same law, gay marriages aren’t allow neither are divorces. PROTECT YOUR MARRIAGES THE REAL WAY.
      And please, the Catholic church is nothing more than a group of pedophiles telling people how to live their lives, first needs to get their own house in order, starting the guy who runs the place.

      Nov 26, 2009 at 1:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 18 · 1EqualityUSA wrote, “It’s the content of the paste, that’s what most kids say when they’re eating it. I learn something everyday, B. Most of my books are 40 years old and some beyond that. If they were cut and paste-able, I’d do more of it. Keep them coming.”

      What’s funny is that I suspect this character calling himself
      “B Stupid” is probably one of those who were so factually challenged that a quick Google search turned up articles showing that he was full of it. When they don’t know what is really text-book material, it is no wonder that they whine when shown some citations.

      I guess his feelings were hurt and he is now playing “cyberstalker”, rather ineffectually.

      Nov 26, 2009 at 2:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • naghanenu
      naghanenu

      We can debate the bible from now till continents shift again, and wont get anywhere

      That bible has endured and trust me sweeties will still endure. We can only hope and pray that we humans do right by God’s Word.

      Wat the catholic church is doing is extreme. im a devout catholic and i do not support this nonsense. Gay marriage might be seen as an abomination in the church but is that a reason to shut down useful organisations that benefit everyone? What the Holy Father has to say here is what i’d like to know.

      The amazing thing is that the membership of the catholic church will not even be affected by this, not really. Too many devout catholics out there.

      THIS IS WRONG DC

      Nov 26, 2009 at 5:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B Stupid
      B Stupid

      Look for more copy+paste brilliance. B Smart looking.

      Nov 26, 2009 at 11:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Dear Naghanenu, It’s good to talk. People out there might believe that Jesus was a leader of ancient NOM, when nary a word escaped His lips about gays. I’ve learned a lot from “B” and “Freedom4All,Tx” and many, many others that send me to the books to verify. As long as it is civil and intelligent, opening up the floodgates can be surprisingly informative. (For one, I found out Huckabee’s son tortured a dog.) Thomas Jefferson, the Constitution, laws, political characters have all been under heavy scrutiny. It stimulates the mind. Did you ever read that article I suggested to you, under Queerty’s Bernice King? If so, I’m wondering what you thought about the points made by Peter J. Gomes. He’s written several books. The article is titled, “Bernice King could denounce her own bigotry. Will she?” below that is Peter J. Gomes’ piece. Food for thought. I believe the the gay community needs to UNIONIZE all of the organizations under one umbrella and streamline efforts to win our equality. This thought had not occurred to me until all of this discussion. We may not agree in the end, but at least it was a banquet of food for thought.

      Nov 26, 2009 at 11:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Boys, Boys, to your rooms! It’s Thanksgiving. Let’s be thankful that we have a site in which to exchange ideas, a Country where it’s possible to fight for equality, a government that doesn’t torture us for being gay (yet), and computers with information at our fingertips. I sing to you in a Delores O”Riordan Irish accent….”No need to Argue” Now go eat cranberries and listen to them too. Enjoy each other. The attacks are not necessary. Our community rocks. Love to you all.

      Nov 26, 2009 at 11:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      Sarah Allen: Sarah, Sarah, Sarah, I was going to refrain from using this word on Thanksgiving but I am sorry this is something that I need to do: You are a cunt

      Nov 26, 2009 at 1:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Miss Understood
      Miss Understood

      What do you really think is up with people like Sarah? What draws her to a blog like Queerty? Why would a good Christian woman be reading a gay news blog anyway? Maybe she has her own unresolved issues.

      Nov 27, 2009 at 12:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      I have never understood heteros like Sarah Allen who lurk on gay websites and who feel the need to provoke, lecture and condemn. I mean, what’s in it for them anyway?

      I don’t lurk on straight websites because there is nothing there for me. And my posting comments on a straight site would be even more ridiculous, because I have nothing to say that would be of interest to any of them.

      Nor, would I wish to subject myself to the tirade of verbal abuse I would receive if I did.

      Sign me flabbergasted in Florida and baffled in the Big Apple.

      Nov 27, 2009 at 1:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mark
      mark

      Quote from the Marriage Ruling – remedy section – paragraph 149

      At the heart of these principles lies the notion that in exercising its legislative discretion Parliament will have to bear in mind that the objective of the new measure must be to promote human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights and freedoms. This means in the first place taking account of the fact that in overcoming the under-inclusiveness of the common law and the Marriage Act, it would be inappropriate to employ a remedy that created equal disadvantage for all. Thus the achievement of equality would not be accomplished by ensuring that if same-sex couples cannot enjoy the status and entitlements coupled with the responsibilities of marriage, the same should apply to heterosexual couples. Levelling down so as to deny access to civil marriage to all would not promote the achievement of the enjoyment of equality. Such parity of exclusion rather than of inclusion would distribute resentment evenly, instead of dissipating it equally for all. The law concerned with family formation and marriage requires equal celebration, not equal marginalisation; it calls for equality of the vineyard and not equality of the graveyard.

      Nov 27, 2009 at 5:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rainfish
      Rainfish

      “B Stupid” retardedly wrote: “Thanks. I am looking for some wikipedia stuff to post. I love copy and paste. It makes me look smart.”

      =======================================================

      Hey, “B Stupid”, try “copying” your ass and “paste” it back on to your face. It might make you look smarter — but I doubt it. Just because the concept of sharing knowledge is foreign to you, don’t knock it for those of us who appreciate information gatherers. …Now, go back to your “Archie” comic book, and keep those lips moving.

      Nov 27, 2009 at 6:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tarxien
      tarxien

      We had this struggle over discrimination with the Catholic church in the UK two years ago. They lost the argument then, but have continued to discriminate and now face losing their charitable status:

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5433917/Catholic-charities-breaking-law-on-homosexual-adoption.html

      Nov 27, 2009 at 8:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Rainfish, You must have had brothers. #31 is not a line a brotherless guy could create.

      Nov 27, 2009 at 9:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      Who gives a damn if the cult withholds services. In the UK, the roman cult threatened the same action in regard to gays adopting children. The bottom line was, the government didn’t cave in to them and they had to shut down several adoption agencies. The same should apply here. It will diminish their power and send them a message that if they keep on meddling in the political process, they’ll suffer the consequences. How about attacking their tax-exempt status for starters, give them a dose of their own medicine for a change?

      I’ve never supported in faith based oganizations and cults doing the work that government should be doing. About time that stopped too

      Nov 27, 2009 at 10:29 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Attmay
      Attmay

      @34 Robert NYC:

      “I’ve never supported in faith based oganizations and cults doing the work that government should be doing”

      Government cannot do that work effectively. Secular charitable organizations should be the ones doing that work.

      I, for one, would like to see a country declare war on the Vatican (hopefully Israel will carpet bomb them for their participation in the Holocaust).

      Nov 27, 2009 at 10:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Faith based organizations supported by government funds does blur the line. It should be stopped before religion becomes permanently ensconced in political posturing.

      Nov 27, 2009 at 12:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B Stupid
      B Stupid

      I can be smart if I cut and paste from other sites. It means i don’t have to actually think or understand anything.

      I thank Microsoft for this valuable innovation.

      Nov 27, 2009 at 12:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      1EqualityUSA, I’m afraid its too late, Obama has continued the Bush policy on faith base organizations and I don’t see that changing whoever lives in the White House. I know of NO current politician willing to stick his or her neck out to take it on because they’re more concerned about their careers and voter turnout than doing the right thing. This is the only western country I know of that allows religion a say in politics and legislation and we’re not even supposed to have state religion as many others do, although most of the time it seems to the contrary.

      Nov 27, 2009 at 12:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      I’m afraid its too late, Obama has continued the Bush policy on faith base organizations and I don’t see that changing whoever lives in the White House.

      And here we were worried about “pinko commies” taking over our government, Robert. Remember the Mc Carthy witch hunts back in the 50s?

      Who wudda thought it?

      Nov 27, 2009 at 1:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      Schlukitz, exactly.

      Nov 27, 2009 at 1:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ”. ~ Mahatma Gandhi

      Nov 27, 2009 at 2:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      Gandhi was one smart cookie, 1EqualityUSA! ;)

      Nov 27, 2009 at 5:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      Attmay, yes, as long as those secular organizations are not affiliated with any religious cult, then I have no objection to it. I would love to see the Vatican razed to the ground and the hierarchy and ringleader along with it who should have been brought before the world court in the Hague to stand trial for crimes against humanity in regard to the statement that condoms do not help prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, among other things including the centuries old molestation of boys and girls. Incidentally, there’s a tinderbox of a case flaring up in Ireland about that very issue. Sick bastards in a sick cult.

      Nov 28, 2009 at 2:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      Robert, you said Incidentally, there’s a tinderbox of a case flaring up in Ireland about that very issue. Sick bastards in a sick cult.

      The RCC learned a long, long time ago, that the best defense, is a good offense.

      That is precisely the reason why the RCC continually points fingers at LGBT people and attempts to demonize them.

      It takes the spotlight off of their own sick activities and egregious sins.

      Nov 28, 2009 at 5:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      Schlukitz, its about time we played their game. It makes me even more resolved to strongly support the outing of gay and straight priests and hierarchy, whatever it takes. I don’t care if they’re supportive but remain and silent when it comes to bishops and popes making anti-gay pronouncements. We need to start sewing the seeds of unrest within the roman cult and others that publicly advocate anti-gay discrimination via elections of all kinds. The day of political correctness should be over, even if it comes across that we too are becoming intolerant. Our problem is we’ve been far too tolerant of them, politicians included. Time for that to change, sooner rather than later.

      Nov 29, 2009 at 8:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      I could not agree with you more, Robert.

      As far as I am concerned, tolerance sucks. Big time!

      I don’t want to be “tolerated”. Being tolerated only confirms my acceptance of second-class status and citizenship.

      What I DO want, is my equality and to be treated fairly and equitably in a society where my input and participation in the fabric of our society should be recognized and respected by all.

      Hence, I feel no need to tolerate anyone who refuses to afford me my equality and civil-rights.

      So, as far as this queer is concerned, all bets are off! I say, go after the sons-of-bitches in the same manner in which they are coming after us.

      Fair is fair.

      Nov 29, 2009 at 1:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Attmay
      Attmay

      @44 Schlukitz:

      “That is precisely the reason why the RCC continually points fingers at LGBT people and attempts to demonize them.”

      They learned it from one of their most famous adherents: Adolf Hitler.

      @46:

      “Hence, I feel no need to tolerate anyone who refuses to afford me my equality and civil-rights.
      So, as far as this queer is concerned, all bets are off! I say, go after the sons-of-bitches in the same manner in which they are coming after us.
      Fair is fair.”

      I agree. If you show bigotry to me, I will turn that bigotry on you and throw it right back at you. Slur my sexual orientation, I will slur everything that you are. Attack me physically and I will use force to defend myself, including deadly force if necessary.

      Fuck tolerance. I want my rights and I will take them by any means necessary.

      The government will get zero dollars and zero cents of my money until I am equal under the law. I say now is the time for gays to turn deadbeat.

      Nov 29, 2009 at 3:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @47 – Attmay

      They learned it from one of their most famous adherents: Adolf Hitler.

      Careful there, kiddo. You are skating on thin ice. You don’t want the Holocaust nay-sayers coming after you now, do you? :-P

      I just got accused on another Queerty thread, of having played the Hitler card over some comments that I made.

      These threads seem to have become so politically correct, that one cannot even mention WWII, much less make any reference to Hitler lest we be accused of using Godwin’s law to win the argument.

      Strange, is it not, this need to bury the horrible details of history and pretend that they never did happen to make everything nicey-nice and squeeky-clean.

      Nov 30, 2009 at 3:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gay guy from New York
      Gay guy from New York

      Well if the Catholic Church cuts these programs, I suggest that somebody publish the percentage of the budget that went to the eliminated program, and parishioners withhold at least that percent from the collection box in protest!

      If the Catholic Church refuses rites or otherwise “punishes” public officials, I’m sure that they can find a more welcoming church!

      Feb 29, 2012 at 10:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

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



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     




    FROM AROUND THE WEB

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