The Masorti movement, Israel’s branch of Conservative Judaism, voted yesterday to approve the ordination of homosexual rabbis, according to Haaretz. It was a clear mandate, with all 18 rabbis present voting in favor of the move. (One rabbi abstained.)
In 2006, The Conservative moment approved contrasting measures that both allowed and banned gay seminarians—in effect giving individual rabbinical schools the freedom to make their own decision. Seminaries in the U.S. opened their doors to LGBT students, while those in Israel and Argentina chose to forbid them.
“I see it as a very important development in Jewish law,” Rabbi Mauricio Balter, President of the Israeli Conservative Movement Rabbinical Assembly, said of the vote: “We were all made in the image of God, and as such we are all made equal. For me this is a very important value. I always said we should admit gay and lesbians into our ranks.”
cam
So now in Isreal it’s just the ultra right religious nutbags who are anti-gay….just like here.
Charles The Great
So I’m going to guess the anti Israel people are going to say this is pinkwashing?
1equalityUSA
“We were all made in the image of God, and as such we are all made equal. For me this is a very important value. I always said we should admit gay and lesbians into our ranks.”
Fantastic. Inequality creates liars and inauthentic people. Be authentic and dignified. Rebellion will lessen when the hatred is lessened.
For the United States, it’s too bad that the money-generating religious-businesses and the politicians are not yet finished exploiting our community for political gain. John Boehner is appointing Robert P. George, the hateful Princeton Professor behind NOM, to the International Religious Freedom Commission. Just Google this man and see how he cloaks hatred into a politically palatable Republican nut for perpetually tan asses like weeping-John Boehner to eat whole, without even chewing.
LandStander
@Charles The Great: Oh look a troll!
B
Re No 3: You can find a bio on Robert P. George at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_P._George – while definitely a social conservative whose views reflect a Catholic perspective, he is far too active to have more than a cursory involvement with groups like NOM.
Now, he was at one point NOM’s chairman of the board of directors, but a board of directors typically provides some strategic guidance, and a cloak of respectability when someone on it is will known, but is not generally involved in day-to-day operations. An article http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/GeorgeFinal.pdf has his attempt to justify his views on marriage. He may have a tendency to get tied up in legal arguments to the point of losing any sense that there might be an impact on people’s lives. Calling him “hateful” is an overstatement – misguided is more accurate.
1equalityUSA
“As many people acknowledge, marriage involves: first, a
comprehensive union of spouses; second, a special link to
children; and third, norms of permanence, monogamy, and
exclusivity.14 All three elements point to the conjugal under?
standing of marriage.”
Then, B, if this is the case, why isn’t NOM trying to undo divorce? These are they same arguments that discount gays as humans with psychological, biological, spiritual expression. Just because he doesn’t understand us, doesn’t mean we were made wrongly, created by mistake. We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it. Bodily function is such a small part of a union, not the only aspect of marriage.
1) Polygamy: without discussing the moral or social implications of permitting polygamy, this extension would create a whole new set of rights which no one in society currently enjoys, homosexual and heterosexual alike. The extension of marriage to homosexuals is based upon granting an existing right to a group in society who has been excluded on the basis of an immutable charactersitic – the right exists, but it is being denied to certain persons. Regardless of whether polygamy is right or wrong, that issue is completely separate from the same-sex marriage issue.
2) Incest: this has been prohibited in many societies for various reasons, one of the more prominent of which is the preservation of familial relations and prevention of abuse. Due to the importance that family plays throughout one’s life, it is wise to prohibit the development of sexual relationships, which can often result in the abuse of power differentials and the breakdown of essential, life-long family relationships. As well, by preventing homosexuals from marrying someone of the same sex, you are preventing them from marrying anyone of the gender to which they are attracted. By prohibiting incest, you are merely removing a handful of people from the 3 billion persons of the gender to which you are attracted – hardly an equivalent restriction.
3) Animals: this argument angers me, because it is the most irrational and desperate of them all. Animals cannot give legal consent, end of argument. Marriage is a contract, in the eyes of the state, and thus animals are completely out of the question. With same-sex marriage, we are talking about consenting adults. There is absolutely no logical way to think that same-sex marriage somehow leads to human-animal marriages. This argument, in my opinion, automatically identifies the speaker as someone incapable of rational thought on the subject.
1equalityUSA
No 6, that is a post I had culled a while ago, not my own writing, but it resonated
1equalityUSA
my post is awaiting moderation, B.
Jack
@Dave: Uhhh what? In what country? Israel, many, although the laws and the cities are quite welcoming. In the USA, all Jews except for orthodox are accepting (and even some Orthodox are). Check poll numbers on LGBT rights and see for yourself: The Jews loves the gays.
Ben Johnson
@LandStander: A troll? of course Blah! Blah!Blah!Blah!Blah!
Ben Johnson
@LandStander: How is this user a Troll?
CBRad
@Dave: Where in the world do you get THAT ? They are one of the coolest religions/ethnicities as far as gay equality go. You can dislike Jews for other reasons, if you want to, I guess, but….let’s be real here. (Only the Hasidim/Haredi Jews are consistently homophobic, but they’re only a bizarre Jewish-based cult, anyway).
shannon
WHAT THEY ——REALLY——- NEED TO DO IS STOP STEALING LAND THAT DOES BELONG TO THEM AND GIVE IT ====BACK====== TO NATIVE BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE THAT LAND!!!!!!!
Charles The Great
@shannon: This has to do with Judaism as a religion how?
Charles The Great
@LandStander: How am I a troll?
B
Re No 8 “my post is awaiting moderation” … why would you be posting something that needs to be moderated? Regarding Prof. George, when someone calls him “hateful”, I’d kind of expect to see the sort of ranting from him that “James the Preacher” shouted at Rosie McDonald, which was covered in a different Queerty article recently. George seems to be simply acting like a lawyer representing a client – someone who starts with a position and then generates the best argument he can to support it, where the goal becomes winning an argument rather than discovering the truth.
1EqualityUSA
The moderated pst counters the arguments he brought up regarding polygamy, bestiality, and the usual accusations NOM purports when speaking about gay marriage. hough the words are cloaked in reasoned tone, the content was the same as if someone less articulate was saying these words. He does not know what it means to be LGBT, so he should not be trying to use his education and mind to discriminate against those who have been born differently. As for polygamy, that is a law that discriminates against every person gay or straight. This extension would create a whole new set of rights that currently nobody enjoys. The extension of marriage to the gay community is based upon granting an existing right to a group in society who have been excluded on the basis of immutable characteristics–the right exists, but it is being denied to certain persons. Regardless of whether polygamy is right or wrong, that issue is completely separate from same-sex marriage issue.
To address the hateful aspect you had questioned, denying a certain set of Americans, even the most eloquent can discount an entire part of the population due to lack of understanding. NOM is a disgrace. The videos he has produced, the words he has compiled against us are based on misunderstanding. His superiority and opinions are shamelessly discounting me and my reality. That feels as though it is hate. He will stop at nothing to see our community marginalized and not allowed to be part of society. He counts his marriage as real, whereas ours are friendships. He has no idea what my spouse and I are together. We live to serve others and have a spiritual connection that very few “real marriages” will ever know.
B
Re No 16: “He [Robert P. George] will stop at nothing to see our community marginalized and not allowed to be part of society.”
That’s where we disagree – it is not that he will “stop at nothing,” if only because his professional position makes that untenable. He won’t, for example, stoop to generating “big lies” such as the pro-Propostion-Eight insinuations that gays were in general a threat to children, or Paul Cameron’s absurdly short life expectancy for gays (an estimate obtained by looking at obituaries in magazines such as “The Advocate” during the early years of the AIDS epidemic, before any medication was available). George will, however, produce the best legal “theory” he can his favor. If a Princeton student wants a career pushing for gay rights, taking a class from George would be a smart move – learning how to counter the best arguments that the other side can offer would make the opposition one is likely to find in the real world a piece of cake in comparison.
The other issue is that if you push people like George too far to the top on the “hate” scale, there isn’t room for all the vile characters who are so much worse – if you overuse superlatives to describe George, what do you use to describe Maggie Gallagher or “James the Preacher” (the Rosie McDonald harasser)?
1equalityUSA
He discounts us as total humans and is dangerous in that Scalias, Bishops, and Boehners of the world are given license to do the same, discount us, using his words. Hatred is hatred no matter how articulate the hater. Oppression is superiority that is out of control. Maggie’s a twerp and a hater. She’ll spit out “Robby’s” words verbatim, but do so in a way, with an unearned air of superiority, that turns peoples’ stomachs. The man behind the curtain cut her off and she’s likely bitter and dejected by NOM. I wonder if she’s the one who leaked the documents proving that they pit races against LGBT. She’s yesterday’s trash and not pretty to look at, so NOM most likely clipped her from the fold. George slinks around SCOTUS and marbled hallways doing his dirty deeds in private. His arguments, you seem to be in awe of, had red herrings and was all over the map. Bestiality is bogus, polygamy is unrelated and in no way compares to one set of Americans having rights that others are excluded from by way of immutable characteristics, and all the other unseemly things he can toss in to stir up hatred are superfluous. Even if he doesn’t hate, his words give others the ability to repeat back parrot-like his ideas, with a dash of unpleasantness. He does not understand that being gay is immutable, not curable, and not something to be discounted. Families are being harmed by this backwards thinking. The man is relying on minds from the 13th century, which is great, I like my monks and Carmelite Nuns as well, but the world has changed and families are brought about differently now. Aquinas is relevant, but to harm families of today is inexcusable.
B
No. 18 · 1equalityUSA wrote, “His arguments, you seem to be in awe of, had red herrings and was all over the map.” Well, that’s your problem – you are imagining things. In “awe”? To quote from No 5, “He may have a tendency to get tied up in legal arguments to the point of losing any sense that there might be an impact on people’s lives. Calling him “hateful” is an overstatement – misguided is more accurate.”
Hint: none of that was holding him in “awe.” The definition of “awe” is not “a refusal to foam at the mouth.”
He was also not comparing gays or even same-sex marriage to bestiality or polygamy. He did use those as examples of practices that someone probably supports and that the rest of us do not and then tries to show how decisions banning interracial marriages cannot be applied to those. The idea is to get people to accept his reasoning because people are turned off by bestiality and polygamy. Once he gets you to accept his argument, he then uses the same argument to justify a ban on same-sex marriages. This is not “hate” – it is a traditional rhetorical trick. He’s simply being a lawyer.
1equalityUSA
Polygamy is not available to both straight and gay, so the law applies equally to all. Where same-sex marriage differs is that there is already a right granted to one segment of society that is being withheld from another segment of society due to immutable characteristics against which discrimination is allowed.
1equalityUSA
This is the sentence that made me feel that you were a bit awestruck, “learning how to counter the best arguments that the other side can offer would make the opposition one is likely to find in the real world a piece of cake in comparison.”
Pauline Park
This is an advance, certainly, but far less of one than the reader might imagine, as only Orthodox rabbis are recognized by the State of Israel; and since the Orthodox rabbinate in Israel does not and will not ordain openly gay rabbis, there will still be no openly gay rabbis in Israel, at least none recognized by the Israeli government as such. Dan Avery really owed it to Queerty readers to acknowledge that fact.
B
No. 21 · 1equalityUSA wrote, “This is the sentence that made me feel that you were a bit awestruck, “learning how to counter the best arguments that the other side can offer would make the opposition one is likely to find in the real world a piece of cake in comparison.””
Dude, if you can hold your ground in a discussion with a professor from Princeton University, arguing with the Maggie Gallaghers that you will find in the “real world” will in fact be a piece of cake in comparison. What would you suggest instead? Practicing by arguing with some homophobic drunk who hangs out at the local redneck bar?
Just because Prof. George can produce the best arguments the other side is capable of does not mean I’m “awestruck” by those arguments. But those arguments are necessarily going to be a lot better than the ones you will typically run into if you decide on a “gay rights” career.
B
No. 20 · 1equalityUSA wrote, “Polygamy is not available to both straight and gay, so the law applies equally to all. Where same-sex marriage differs is that there is already a right granted to one segment of society that is being withheld from another segment of society due to immutable characteristics against which discrimination is allowed.”
Prof. George was arguing otherwise. His argument, cited above, is too long and turgid to reproduce, so I’ll refer you to the article I cited. If you merely make such assertions in a discussion with him, he’ll trounce you. You don’t have to agree with him – in fact, you shouldn’t – but he is not trotting out a trivial slippery slope argument either. He’s worth paying attention to – if you generate a coherent and serious counter argument and can make it understandable to people who don’t have enough time to read pages of the sort of argument that only a lawyer or a philosopher would care about, you’ll end up with something pretty useful.
1equalityUSA
Ted Olson and David Boise did a fairly good job of that during the Prop 8 trial. I’m not a lawyer, nor do I want to pursue a “gay Rights” career. Too many carrers have been made off of our backs as it is. Robert P. George said it best while speaking to the Mormons at Brigham Young University:
“Just as the nation could not endure half slave and half free but eventually had to go all one way or all the other, we will not be able to get by with a situation in which some couples are married in one state, not married when they move to or travel through the next, and married again when they reach a third.
If same?sex marriage is legally recognized in a small number of states, it will spread throughout the nation, either through judicial action under the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause or by the working of informal cultural pressures. Some states – Utah would be one – may try to hold out, but sooner or later they will be whipped into line.”
–Robert P. George, Chairman,
National Organization for Marriage,
speaking at Brigham Young University,
October 28, 2008
B
Re No 25: NOM’s current chairman of the board is John Eastman (starting Sept 2011). Its previous chairman was Maggie Gallagher. George is now “chairman emeritus”, but I haven’t been able to find the year in which he became “chairman emeritus” (nor the year when Maggie became chairman).
NOM’s own web pages are very sloppy regarding the dates – for some reason they are not giving out this information, innocuous as it seems to be.
1equalityUSA
Robert P. George is likely horrified that his little religiously based, St. Thomas Aquinas rooted, experiment turned so ugly and legally speculative. I imagine that he and Princeton would not want this information easily accessible, since it is so embarrassingly bigoted. People need to be reminded of his involvement in this hate group. Perhaps his pet ogre was dumped and she uses the name “Robby” George in her comments in an effort to remind the world of his involvement. The NOMsters are now considered a hate group. Is she punishing NOM for abandoning her, after having sold her soul for their petty, bigoted cause. Forgive my “foaming at the mouth,” I do have a good imagination. These two humans must be remembered for the damage and rancor they have caused our community. I want the name Robert P. George to be infamously remembered when all of this is over and we have attained our equality. Maggie was a good, little soldier in their bigotry barn, used, and then released to her own devices. This is one case where a straight doesn’t beat a pair.
B
No. 27 · 1equalityUSA wrote, “Robert P. George is likely horrified that his little religiously based, St. Thomas Aquinas rooted, experiment turned so ugly and legally speculative.” …. which is not consistent with the term “hateful Princeton Professor” used in No 3 above – people who are “hateful” are not horrified when their organizations turn “ugly”.
Regarding, “I want the name Robert P. George to be infamously remembered,” it is counterproductive to be vindicative in such cases – it discourages people from dumping a failed organization as quickly as they otherwise might.
1equalityUSA
So the alternative is to passively sit by and watch House Speaker, John Boehner appoint this man to the International Religious Freedom Commission. Any person belonging to NOM will not suddenly drop it because we are being cordial and polite to this hater. I believe every song writer, painter, film maker, story teller ought to talk non-stop about what Robert P. George and the NOM-skulls did to us. This is one for the history books. He may be hateful, but he’s not stupid. He knows he has lost. It’s called cutting your losses and working the SCOTUS to get your needs met in a less unsavory way. He discounts fellow Americans and feels superior enough to them to create a hate group such as NOM. He uses his knowledge and position to make the world fit into his mold. Bishops are repeating his words. Catholics are digging deeper into politics, relying less on the Word and more on worldly pursuits. They all deserve each other. At the end of the day, equality is inevitable.
As for harming marriage, similar arguments were shot down in Massachusetts. Their 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 their 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 their comfort level. The government’s ENDORSEMENT of one group’s values, especially if others that don’t hold those views, is COERCION. Their unfounded fears didn’t prove to have a legitimate secular purpose and it failed, hence, same-sex marriage. We won in Massachusetts, we won in California, we will keep on winning until every American is equal and all families are similarly protected. Being nice will not get them to change their minds. Legally, we have a valid argument, secular, contractual, and quite possible.
B
No. 29 · 1equalityUSA wrote, “So the alternative is to passively sit by and watch House Speaker, John Boehner appoint this man to the International Religious Freedom Commission.”
The alternative is to state that you don’t want him appointed due to his previous association with NOM, citing NOM’s position on same-sex marriage while he was its chairman and also citing the fact that some religious organizations are in favor of same-sex marriage. What you had said was, “I want the name Robert P. George to be infamously remembered,” and now you are trying to rewrite that into “I don’t want him appointed to the International Religious Freedom Commission”.
1equalityUSA
The link was posted many times in which to sign the petition requesting his removal from this commission.We need 25,000 signatures before April 27. I also talk about the harm this man has done to our community. It’s not a rewrite, but rather an ongoing discussion since 2008.
B
Re No 31: the ‘rewrite’ was when you subsequently tried to discount overblown rhetoric such as that used in No. 16 where you wrote, “He will stop at nothing to see our community marginalized and not allowed to be part of society.”
Some elements in NOM will stop at nothing – just look at their tactic of trying to create racial animosity between Blacks and gays. It’s not the sort of thing that George would do, however. Neither would he try to pass bald-faced lies off as facts. He will, however, use the best legal argument in favor of the positions he is touting. It seems he wants whatever arguments he uses to be ones that won’t get him ridiculed at the Faculty Club. That in and of itself puts him several grades above the typical NOM representative.
1equalityUSA
He created the monster, so he’ll need to be embarrassed by it. His experiment blew up in his face. He still uses his power badly, not understanding that we were born this way and to live any other kind of life would be inauthentic. He is not concerned and wants what he wants. Superior thinking brings about oppressive action. He wants what he wants, irrespective that we are born this way. He cannot impose his religious beliefs on a secular, contractual, family arrangement. Live and learn.
1equalityUSA
In applying the California Constitution’s equal protection clause, on the ground that there is a question as to whether this characteristic is or is not “immutable.” Although noted in Sail’er Inn, supra, 5 Cal.3d 1, that generally a person’s gender is viewed as an immutable trait (id. at p. 18), immutability is not invariably required in order for a characteristic to be considered a suspect classification for equal protection purposes. California cases establish that a person’s religion is a suspect classification for equal protection purposes (see, e.g., Owens v. City of Signal Hill (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 123, 128; Williams v. Kapilow & Son, Inc. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 156, 161-162), and one’s religion, of course, is not immutable but is a matter over which an individual has control. (See also Raffaelli v. Committee of Bar Examiners (1972) 7 Cal.3d 288, 292 [alienage treated as a suspect classification notwithstanding circumstance that alien can become a citizen].)
Because a person’s sexual orientation is so integral an aspect of one’s identity, it is
not appropriate to require a person to repudiate or change his or her sexual
orientation in order to avoid discriminatory treatment.
Read the decision here: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF
Clearly, immutability is not the issue here, the central issue here is equal protection under the constitution.
B
No. 33 · 1equalityUSA wrote, “He created the monster, so he’ll need to be embarrassed by it.” Thomas Edison created thousands of non-functioning light bulbs before getting one that actually worked. If you are involved in creating organizations, like any startup, most are going to fail and sometimes morph into “monsters” – kind of a birth defect. The idea that you should “blame” him for starting an organization that ultimately failed would get you laughed out of Silicon Valley, where failure is the fate of most startups.
1equalityUSA
Your point is what? This “religulous” nut-job believes his message. He’s going different avenues, but the message is still the same. You found it difficult to find anything relating him to NOM. No surprise. This says volumes. Is his reputation tainted by what NOM became and is becoming? Maggie Gallagher can’t stop saying, “Robbie” George. I would cringe every time I heard her say my name. She’s unpleasant and losing the hate race. Now Robbie G is moving into the inner sanctum, tugging on the Robes of SCOTUS, the vestments of Bishops, and John Boehner’s empty suit. Edison eventually succeeded in creating his bulb.
B
o. 36 · 1equalityUSA wrote, “Your point is what? This “religulous” nut-job believes his message. He’s going different avenues, but the message is still the same.”
The point is to not overreact. He apparently buys the Catholic Church’s line on marriage, but he won’t go so far as to tout lies as others have (e.g., people who claim that gays are a threat to children). He’s not a Maggie Gallagher.
BTW, most of the time you see Maggie Gallagher and Robert George mentioned in the same sentence, you’ll find it was written by someone who likes neither.
It’s OK to oppose having George appointed to any position where he could have a negative impact on gays. It’s not OK to exaggerate.
1equalityUSA
When I said, “He’ll stop at nothing…” I meant slinking into the hallowed halls of SCOTUS to influence justices, slinking into a hall of Bishops to fire up the Catholic hornet’s nest, and slinking into Washington D.C. to work his magic on Republicans. I never said the man lies, but the monster he created and gave birth to is lying and saying untrue things about our community. I don’t see Robert P. George refuting it. If he really is as above board as you say he is, then why would he allow NOM to carry on as a hate group and remain silent? He is a creep.
1equalityUSA
B, Even my Girlie-Q’s can’t stand “Robbie” George. They tore an article up, rending it with their claws on their own volition. Even cats can’t stand this guy. Let this be the last word on this disgusting man, B.
B
No. 38 · 1equalityUSA wrote, “When I said, “He’ll stop at nothing…” I meant slinking into the hallowed halls of SCOTUS to influence justices, slinking into a hall of Bishops to fire up the Catholic hornet’s nest, and slinking into Washington D.C. to work his magic on Republicans.”
Oh please. “Slinking” is loaded language. If you read http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/magazine/20george-t.html?pagewanted=all however, you’ll find that he wrote an amicus curia brief for the Supreme Court representing Mother Teresa. Also that Scalia claimed he “numbers George among the most-talked-about thinkers in conservative legal circles,” and that he once held a Supreme Court judicial fellowship. You may not like any of that, but he was not in any sense “slinking.” Scalia in particular does not need George’s advise in order to be as conservative as he is.
George’s own claims about an argument against same-sex marriage is it requires “somewhat technical philosophical analysis.” That kind of fits someone the New York Times description as someone who has “parlayed a 13th-century Catholic philosophy into real political influence.” No wonder he is popular with the Catholic Church (although in some of those circles, I suspect that a guy with a 13th-century philosophy would be viewed as a liberal).
As to him remaining “silent”, you have no idea what he told them, nor the reason he is now chairman emeritus (an honorary title) rather than chairman of the board.
1equalityUSA
NOM is his baby. Just because he no longer lets this baby suckle does not mean it isn’t his baby.
B
No. 41 · 1equalityUSA wrote, “NOM is his baby.”
And the Republican Party is Abraham Lincoln’s “baby” (never mind how much it changed after Lincoln was assassinated in 1865, and that while he was in office, the more radical Republicans [at the time] despised him for being too moderate).
1equalityUSA
2008 is just too close to make that comparison.
1equalityUSA
If numb-nuts P. George wants to believe his 13th century man and be a Catholic to the hilt, that is his business and good for him. The problem arises when he wants to force his Catholic beliefs on others and manipulate politicians and all to do it. If Islam grew into record numbers and became a political threat here in America, he would object to that as well. Separation of Church and State has never been more relevant.
B
No. 44 · 1equalityUSA wrote, “If numb-nuts P. George wants to believe his 13th century man and be a Catholic to the hilt, that is his business and good for him. The problem arises when he wants to force his Catholic beliefs on others and manipulate politicians and all to do it.”
Aside from trash talk (“numb-nuts”), the reality is that George mostly writes dull articles that others try to point to as justifications for their viewpoints. It’s not like he is twisting arms, engaging in quid pro quo deals, or raising a lot of money.
NOM probably made him chairman of the board for a while because of his credentials – hoping it would lend NOM more respectability than NOM deserves.
1equalityUSA
Scalia doesn’t thinks Robert P. George’s articles are boring. Scalia is quite intrigued with “Robbie” Scalia should recuse himself from any SCOTUS marriage equality trials. I don’t want to live under their Catholicism any more than I want to live under the religious code of Islam, Sharia law. Separation of Church and State has never been more relevant.
B
No. 46 · 1equalityUSA wrote, “Scalia doesn’t thinks Robert P. George’s articles are boring.” … Scalia doesn’t need Robert P. George to justify any anti-gay position Scalia wants to hold. All George is doing in that regard is saving Scalia or his law clerks the effort of coming up with the same or similar arguments on their own.
1equalityUSA
If they base their arguments, no matter how scholarly, on their religious beliefs, then that is forcing their religious doctrine on Americans that do not want to live under their beliefs. I cannot believe that you are unable to comprehend how wrong it is. If Islam became the predominating religion, would you not want to be protected by the Constitution of the United States to live free of others’ religious beliefs?
1equalityUSA
European Catholic leaders are reaching out to other spiritual leaders, including those of the Muslim and Jewish faiths, to possibly form an alliance against the proliferation of marriage equality.
In an address to U.K. Catholic bishops, Archbishop Antonio Mennini echoed the words of Pope Benedict, urging the church to take a leadership position in fighting against marriage rights for same-sex couples, the Telegraph reports. His address comes shortly after several clerics of multiple faiths have spoken out against U.K. Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone, who kicked off an investigation on marriage equality.
Check out this article from Michelle Garcia
1equalityUSA
http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2012/04/30/catholics-muslims-jews-consider-anti-gay-marriage-alliance
The comments below the article are priceless