1

Man that waterboarding t-shirt chick is hot!

2 I wish those couples many happy years together. 

3 @Johnnyreb,

Share with the class!

4

Wait, John Roberts did not order an emergency stay and the installation of concentration camps on the national mall?

5 The camps are being built in rural Virginia. The mall is far too expensive.

6

..."GOProud's stance " 

that would wide, yes?

They're not leftists, but they're still gay.  Gay as in '80s type gay, not this new progressive type meaning.

7 Kudos to the Catholic Church for finding a way forward, even if it meant unfairly having to force its people to shoulder more of the load.

8 Sorry. You just cannot tell me that calling two people of the same gender MARRIED is a valid use of the term. I am not blue and no amount of calling me blue will make me blue.

9

Old employees will keep their current benefits for spouses if they're already enrolled, but to avoid providing health benefits to gay spouses in the future, the organization will not be providing spousal benefits anymore.

 

WOW....and people say the Catholic church is unpreincipled. Thank GOD they are willing to take a stand!

10 Catholic Charities highlighted this problem with the marriage law when it was proposed last year, noting that as a city contractor it would have to choose between accepting city funds (and the anti-discrimination rules that come with them) or quiting its contracts with the city. Among other things, the organization provides homeless shelters, domestic abuse prevention programs, and city-sponsored adoption placement. So the government has to take over yet more social services that the community should rightly do for itself? For a liberal, that's a feature, not a bug.

11 Catholic Charities is NOT stopping services. They are instead simply stopping all spousal benefits This formerly hot button issue will continue to fade, especially when DADT is finally buried. After that politicians will then be able to praise our brave gays and lesbians fighting whatever is the boogie men of the day

12 The african american population of DC is not at all pleased. They want a referendum. The pastors are PISSED. The media is dropping that story big time. They know that if this went to referendum it would FAIL miserably in DC.

13 There's not a parade after every wedding, is there?

14

Posted by: Sarah at March 03, 2010 10:04 AM (mhD2v)

okay, bro

15
Posted by: John Basedow, fitness celebrity

Your head is too big for your body.

16

Candi...

and the supporters of your ghei agendas are too few.  Enjoy your high water mark, because after while it's gonna be back to the closet. 

17 It rebuts the folks who keep claiming that GOProud is just another lefty gay group.

You've convinced me Gabe. GOProud is not a single issue group. After reading that interview it's clear GOProud is for the entire Gay Agenda and not just any single issue. So, not single issue. Liberal as the day is long, but not single issue.

18
hahaha @ my gay agenda!

I was the first one on here to call GOPrpud a farce.

19 Catholic Charities is NOT stopping services. They are instead simply stopping all spousal benefits This formerly hot button issue will continue to fade, especially when DADT is finally buried. After that politicians will then be able to praise our brave gays and lesbians fighting whatever is the boogie men of the day

Posted by: Sarah at March 03, 2010 10:04 AM (mhD2v)

Yes, what a grand solution. New employees will have to find and pay for heath care for their spouses and children probably forcing them into some crappy state run insurance as it will be the only thing they can afford simply so the state can force a group to adopt a position clearly at odds with their millennia old traditions.

Hmmm, I wonder how long till other businesses realize they can do away with half their health care costs by getting religion? Forcing more and more people onto state insurance rolls. Raising everyone's taxes and leading us further down the road to state run health care?

But at least Stephen and Phillip will be able to claim their married.

Yes, just grand.

20 Yeah, this is a fading issue. That's why even blue states like California are passing bans on gay marriage when put up for a popular vote, and Democratic candidates like Barack Obama and Joe Biden still claim to oppose gay marriage. Oh, and state legislatures like New York and New Jersey won't vote to pass legalization.

It's not a fading issue. There are just jurisdictions refusing to trust the population to determine its own future. When put up for a popular vote, people still don't want marriage redefined.

You can call two gays getting married "marriage" all you want, but it's not marriage. Calling a rose a pile of shit doesn't make it a pile of shit.

21 I really don't care anymore.  Just keep it out of the churches.

22 This will go away soon enough. Oh yeah, DC gay married folks, don't expect to get a divorce in Texas after promiscuity kicks back in after the bloom is off the rose.

23 It's a shame some good people will probably choose not to work at Catholic Charities because they don't provide spousal health benefits, but it's a free market. They could offer more in salary, they could hire people with a bit less experience/lower compensation expectations, etc.
Far better to do it this way than to have the Church stuck in Court with a bunch of clowns from ActUp for ten years.

24 Among other things, the organization provides homeless shelters, domestic abuse prevention programs, and city-sponsored adoption placement.

All things leftists can't wait for churches to stop providing so they can claim there is a need for more and bigger government programs/spending to pick up the slack...

New employees will have to find and pay for heath care for their spouses and children probably forcing them into some crappy state run insurance as it will be the only thing they can afford

You realize that's intentional, right?  Same thing--"look!  a need for government-run health care!"

I like you, Malor, but you played right into their hands.  And there's still no "equality" for individuals under the law--you just get to join the privileged class, if someone wants you.

25 How much of this is about money?  More money from people to get married then more money to get divorced.

26 2 I wish those couples many happy years together.

Along with the various young Filipinos who will participate at various times.

27 I didn't realize that the Catholic Church has contracts with cities.  I thought the faithful supported all this stuff and they were doing it out of the goodness of their little hearts. 
I've noticed, with healthcare, if two spouses are working and both have insurance that both insurances share the costs.  Been going on for a while.

28 A surprising demonstration of spine by Catholic Charities.  Good for them.  But I agree with Heather - and Admiral Ackbar - it's a trap. 

29
These silly homosexual issues are conservative just like Nency's Pelosi's shemes are cost-cutting and job-creating.

Lies. Spin. And lies.

30

We are gay and conservative.  We expect you to celebrate our sexuality as awesome and tell us how wonderful we are.  If you do anything less, then you are a bigot.

And yes, we will bring our sexuality into areas where it is not pertinent, like spending and defense.  Because, you know, what fun is being gay if it isn't celebrated as awesome?

31 Does this mean that Barry will be coming out of the closet?

32 Given the very clear problems with DC, I really don't think gay couples are the ones who need to get married.

33 So, is DC replacing San Francisco?  Fter all, the property values in and around DC are holding and the government jobs are plentiful.  Is it the city of choice now?

34 curious wrote:  "I didn't realize that the Catholic Church has contracts with cities.  I thought the faithful supported all this stuff and they were doing it out of the goodness of their little hearts."

The faithful do support "all this stuff."  But were you really under the impression that you could just start up a business - "curious' special-gay adoptions," for example, and just start collecting and passing out children WITHOUT a contract with the city?

35 But were you really under the impression that you could just start up a business - "curious' special-gay adoptions," for example, and just start collecting and passing out children WITHOUT a contract with the city?

Wait.  What?

36 This is why the government should not be in the business of approving marriages. 

Imagine that marriage was a concept that had just been invented today.  Would anyone accept governmental intrusion into such a private and personal decision?

Yet most people accept without question the idea that the state has veto powers over their love life.

There are legal consequences inherent in marriage, and these can and should be handled under contract law.  The government would act as a mediator of disputes between the spouses, not as approver or denier of their marriage in the first place.  Where contract law does not apply, the government need not intrude. 

37

Oh yeah, DC gay married folks, don't expect to get a divorce in Texas after promiscuity kicks back in after the bloom is off the rose.

And a few years after that, another wave of AIDS and other STD's.

38 Personally I don't think any employer should mess with spousal benefits. Family benefits could include a spouse but regardless of gender if its just two adults w/o kids neither one should have to be sponging on the others insurance. GET YOUR OWN JOB. I despise the feminazi's in most things but growing up in a sparsely populated rural area women were not decorations -they contributed full time to keeping things going and so I expect all women are capable of pulling their own weight.

39 34

And it's the City that pushes for these type of partnership things because all of their own social service agencies are incompetence-riddled nests of nepotism and depositories of entitlement jobs. CC at least can get something done.

40

"WOW....and people say the Catholic church is unpreincipled. Thank GOD they are willing to take a stand!"

Hope you weren't serious. The Catholic Church hasn't done a very good job of taking moral stands.

41 There are legal consequences inherent in marriage, and these can and should be handled under contract law.  The government would act as a mediator of disputes between the spouses, not as approver or denier of their marriage in the first place.  Where contract law does not apply, the government need not intrude. 

Posted by: Lee at March 03, 2010 11:01 AM (zF8wD)

Great concept. But how does that help gays when marriage is a man and a woman?

BTW how exactly is the state denying marriage to gays?

42 "Hope you weren't serious. The Catholic Church hasn't done a very good job of taking moral stands."

Compared to our Polit-media class they're a paragon of virtue. Besides the DC Bishop just gave away the Church's adoption program, because they won't give children to gays.
I'm also getting tired of trying to redefine marriage and the family. English is one of the most flexible languages ever, come up with a new term for the gays, like 'Homolock" or "Buttpirate and Chain" or "Holy Fudgepackery" or "Pillowbiter and Viking".

43 Oops, that should've been "Pillowbiter and techno-Viking"

44

Gabriel, CC did not say, as you imply, "that as a city contractor it would have to choose between accepting city funds (and the anti-discrimination rules that come with them) or quiting its contracts with the city."

Rather, it pointed out the opposite: the city would no longer be able to award contracts to CC, because CC can not recognize gay marriage, and the city makes recognition of gay marriage a requirement for future contracts.

In the end, CC changed its benefits structure - to the detriment of new employees - in order to continue to provide services to the poor in partnership with the city.

This degradation of benefits to CC employees is entirely the city's fault.  It need never have used the law to ding the churches.  A simple exemption for religious organizations would have sufficed.

45

The "waterboarding" girl mentioned by Johnnyreb is captured for your enjoyment here.

46 The diocese of Washington isn't just DC so they can just move adoptions to someplace outside DC I would think. But I'm sure DC will stop referring children to them because of this. I'm sure plenty of gays will apply for the new jobs the Feds have to create and pay for though.

47 Greco-Romatrimony

48

It need never have used the law to ding the churches.

But then it wouldn't be "progressive."

49 One of the things the founding fathers fought most for was freedom of religion, and the reason they did so was because they thought that it was wrong to try to "bind peoples consciences." What they meant was that it is wrong for anyone to try to force people to believe or not believe any specific thing, or to pay a price for their beliefs or faith.

Guess that's pretty much out the window now, to prevent a very small portion of society from feeling bad about themselves.

50

Hope you weren't serious. The Catholic Church hasn't done a very good job of taking moral stands.

Excuse me but the Church itself has done a fine job of taking moral stands. There are people within the church that have f-ed up like anywhere else.

This is a matter of doctrine. As I tell my adult converts class, if they are waiting around for the Church to change its mind on abortion, gay marriage, or even birth control then don't convert. It's doctrinal and has been for 2000 years.

I assume you are referring to the 2001 priest scandal. The studies proved that it was majority gay priests and teenage boys. That's not ok by any stretch but its not what the media made it out to be. The promblem was that the priests were allowed to stay in. Benedict has taken moves to prohibit that.

The Church will close its doors before it bows to this politically correct immorality.

 

51 Well the Catholics started the schools and hospitals and didn't have to ask anyone about it and Catholic charities is just that, charity, not a business.  Was always under the impression that the Catholic Church was a not for profit religious entity and that the Catholic faithful supported all this stuff.  And, honestly, they make you think that when you are in church.  They make every parish contribute to the Bishop's appeal and they say that funds all this stuff. 

52 50 or the free exercise thereof.

53 Why is Catholic Charities punishing employees to cater to government?  Why didn't they cancel the contracts?  Continue to do good works w/out govt interference.  See how fast DC makes an exemption.

54 I think the issue is that the Church does not want to get sued because it will not provide benefits to gay "spouses" not that they are in need of contracts. The city can also try to take away their non-profit tax status because they are in violation of the "law".

55 We think there should be a ban on all marriage.

56 #46
The link doesn't work, but your attempt was a noble thing.

57 My solution is that people get "bonded" by the state which carries the benefits/detriments of law. People who want to be "married" have an additional religions ceremony.

58

Correction: "Waterboarding" girl here.

And, NJConservative, there was nothing noble about it.

59 And, honestly, they make you think that when you are in church.  They make every parish contribute to the Bishop's appeal and they say that funds all this stuff. 

Posted by: curious at March 03, 2010 11:30 AM (p302b)

You are pretty clueless right? Parishioners do fund it. But if the state decides they are going to give out funds to help people why shouldn't the churches apply for it?

And they don't MAKE any parish contribute to the Bishop's appeal, that's why it's an appeal and not an order.

60 An Idea that I had only recently thought of is that there is no difference between accepting GOProud as a sponser and accepting GOPWhitePride as a sponsor. Identity politics is something conservatives should be fighting against, not abetting and tolerating.


Think about it.

61 Why is Catholic Charities punishing employees to cater to government?  Why didn't they cancel the contracts?  Continue to do good works w/out govt interference.  See how fast DC makes an exemption.

Posted by: Deb at March 03, 2010 11:31 AM (zDRUV)

This has nothing to do with contracts. DC says gays unions are marriage. If you offer spousal benefits as an employer, any employer, you have to now offer those to gay unions. Easiest solution? Don't offer spousal benefits, saves money too.

Which is the whole purpose of getting "gay marriage" in DC to begin with. It's to be used as a lever in the courts to force federal benefits as the federal government is the largest employer in DC.

62

It need never have used the law to ding the churches.

But then it wouldn't be "progressive."

Bingo! "Teh ghey" movement is just another "progressive" (and when you see that word, realize it means Communist) Left tool to undermine any institutions (like churches and families) that might get in the way of the totalitarian state that they crave.

63

"Teh ghey" movement is just another "progressive" (and when you see that word, realize it means Communist) Left tool to undermine any institutions (like churches and families) that might get in the way of the totalitarian state that they crave.

But they keep saying that will never happen.

64

51

 This is a matter of doctrine. As I tell my adult converts class, if they are waiting around for the Church to change its mind on abortion, gay marriage, or even birth control then don't convert. It's doctrinal and has been for 2000 years.

The Church includes marriage - Holy Matrimony - as one of the sacraments.

No Gay Pride movement past present or to come will ever change that.

And the resistance in the Black Christian community, most of which are evangelical/fundamental, will most likely match that of the Catholic Church.

65

The Church includes marriage - Holy Matrimony - as one of the sacraments.

No Gay Pride movement past present or to come will ever change that.

No, they'll just give the church a choice: step in line or close your doors.

66 At #58

France already has two types of union.  One is civil and the other more traditional or religious.  I am not sure of the exact difference but one is called Pax (sp?) and the other is the more traditional type.

I don't see any need for the government to be involved in marriage at all.  Let people contract with each other as they will.  There is no need for a one size fits all solution imposed by government fiat.  I could see contracts with limited years (7 would be a popular one) or where there are buyouts instead of alimony etc...

It would probably be healthy for people to have to make decisions together about  critical issues before they are married so they can see what their spouse is truly like.

67 This farce cheapens the word marriage and it's true meaning, despite the fact that I would never get married and hate women and hope they all die.

Well, except for Scarlett Johannson, but then only her boobies get to live.

Anyhoo, this is an issue because the government had to interfere and use social conditioning via taxes and other bureaucratic bulls*# to create a severe inequity of treatment between those who are single and those who are married..

68 Stop teasing us Michael. And if 2 dudes get married, is it wedding bands or cock rings?

69 Great.  Now if they could just get all the single mothers in DC to marry the fathers, we might get somewhere. 

70 Just keep it out of the churches.

Posted by: katya

But churches make their own rules. Who's going to keep it out? The government?

71 Well, heres hoping a couple hundred people getting married is worth all the people screwed by the closing of cathoic chairites.

72

It will be interesting to see what effect this has on certain groups and their voting trends -- it isn't just the Catholic Church that has an issue with the idea of gay marriage.  Many of the people hired by Catholic Charities come from within the communities they service -- at least that's the way CC operates around here; they have a very strong following among the poor, as they are the only ones who are seen to actually help them (Salvation Army and other agencies in the area have a bad reputation for taking in a lot of money, and not doing much in the way of aid -- I think in regards to the SA it has to do with the local group).  This is not the way to "win the hearts and minds" of certain segments of the population.

I'm neither in favor, nor against the idea of gay unions...but the churches should be left out of it completely.  I wonder...what would the outcome be if the government starts forcing religious bodies to recognize gay marriages vis a vis the mosques?

 

73 66

The Church includes marriage - Holy Matrimony - as one of the sacraments.

No Gay Pride movement past present or to come will ever change that.

No, they'll just give the church a choice: step in line or close your doors.

Posted by: katya at March 03, 2010 12:13 PM (27DEp)

Bingo!

74 So those 'mos that are for fiscal responsibility, pro-life, for a strong national defense, but are for a repeal of DADT and for marriage equality are supposed ot vote Dem?  Okay then...

75

Just keep it out of the churches.

Posted by: katya

But churches make their own rules.

Our rules come out of THE BIBLE.  That's why they can't be changed.

Who's going to keep it out? The government?

No, the government will force it in the churches.  That's my point.

76

75  I would say that it would come down to which issues were more important to them -- find out what is most important, and then by all means vote who would best represent one's interest.

I really believe that this did not have to become an either or sitiuation -- but soemthing seems to be forcing it that way.  As politics are a game of pandering and pimping, the two parties will most likely try to find out what stance best serves their interests, same as the voters do.

The gay community has allowed itself to be used as a hammer by the leftists against the church(es)...they may have done so unwillingly and unknowingly, but it is nonetheless there.  That's the short run; the long run is the backlash by more traditionally minded members of the populace (or even just portion of the populace that will be inconvenienced by this) against the gay community.  Something that I believe the leftists will not mind in the slightest -- divide, conquer, eliminate is their mo.

77 What about the polygamists? Why are they discriminated against? Can any adult "group" get married in DC? If not then that is not equal protection provided by the 14th amendment.

78 66 who is the "they" that will force the Catholic church to close its doors?

79

who is the "they" that will force the Catholic church to close its doors?

Government.  In the future.  All churches.  Wait and see.

80

What about the polygamists? Why are they discriminated against? Can any adult "group" get married in DC? If not then that is not equal protection provided by the 14th amendment.

That's the next step for the Commiecrats--then they can Square the Triangle, and get the Nation of Islam and other groups in line with "teh gheys". All the better to undermine and destroy the Judeo-Christian family.

81

Well the Catholics started the schools and hospitals and didn't have to ask anyone about it and Catholic charities is just that, charity, not a business.  Was always under the impression that the Catholic Church was a not for profit religious entity and that the Catholic faithful supported all this stuff.  And, honestly, they make you think that when you are in church.  They make every parish contribute to the Bishop's appeal and they say that funds all this stuff. 

I thought the faithful supported all this stuff and they were doing it out of the goodness of their little hearts. 

I approve this message. Let's bash Catholics at any and every opportunity.

82

dagny said:

"I assume you are referring to the 2001 priest scandal. The studies proved that it was majority gay priests and teenage boys. That's not ok by any stretch but its not what the media made it out to be. The promblem was that the priests were allowed to stay in. Benedict has taken moves to prohibit that."

This story was out there years before 2001.  I first heard about it back in '93 while in the Boston area for two weeks on business.  Read about it in a local paper up there.  But for whatever reason the LSM chose to ignore it until 2001.  Personally I've always been of the opinion that the national media finally decided to start talking about it after the e-vil BOOSH was elected, him being a fanatical Xtian and all.

83 80

who is the "they" that will force the Catholic church to close its doors?

Government.  In the future.  All churches.  Wait and see.

No, not all churches.  Progressive churches, welcoming churches, metropolitan churches, good churches that tell the good people that what they want to do is good, and what they don't want to do is bad - those churches will not be closed.

And mosques - they're pretty much free of government interference.

84

ka-boom.  Rinse and repeat. But that was a theorical question wasn't it?

"I wonder...what would the outcome be if the government starts forcing religious bodies to recognize gay marriages vis a vis the mosques?

Posted by: unknown jane at March 03, 2010 12:34 PM (5/yRG) "

85

katya,

Do you know those Reagan Democrats whose votes the Republicans so fervently covet are white ethnic Catholics? How many members of Congress are Catholic? Our Vice President himself - an observant Roman Catholic, remember his Ash Wednesday forehead? And who can forget those wonderful Kennedys - Grandma Rose smilin' down from heaven included.

The Catholic Church is not going to close its doors in the United States anytime soon.

86

No, not all churches.  Progressive churches, welcoming churches, metropolitan churches, good churches that tell the good people that what they want to do is good, and what they don't want to do is bad - those churches will not be closed.

Like I said: Step in line or close your doors.

"I wonder...what would the outcome be if the government starts forcing religious bodies to recognize gay marriages vis a vis the mosques?

Muslims don't count 'cause they're a peaceful religion and all.  Those contracts against family members who convert to Christianity are justified.  Cause they're not Christians.  And the ones who kill gays.  That doesn't count because they are a peaceful religion.

87

Oh yeah, when I think of "good Catholic" the first people that pop into my head are Biden, P-lousy, and the Kennedy's (I'd put an eye rolling smiley in here if I knew how).

Seriously, the Catholic Church probably isn't going anywhere soon -- but it has more to do with population dynamics than anything else imho.  There are way too many Catholics in this country -- and not all are limosine/progressive Catholics).  Plus, there are the evangelicals -- they aren't exactly too thrilled about this either.

And yes, 85, it was a rhetorical question -- but taken literally I'd say 1) they'd never even attempt it (which is religious favoritism if you ask me); 2)if they did, well, you'd probably be correct.

88

The Catholic Church is not going to close its doors in the United States anytime soon.

I repeat: the future.  How far?  I don't know.  But the churches that don't alter their beliefs and practices to suit the whims of the government, WILL have to go underground.  Check the history of every communist country in history.  Or even the  countries dominated by the government-run Catholic church in Europe.  The Bible-believers had to go underground.  Martyrs burned alive were done so because they insisted on practicing and teaching the Bible, not the govt. approved teachings of the govt. church.

89

Yes, what a grand solution. New employees will have to find and pay for heath care for their spouses and children probably forcing them into some crappy state run insurance as it will be the only thing they can afford simply so the state can force a group to adopt a position clearly at odds with their millennia old traditions.

WTF? FORCING them? They don't have to work for Catholic Charities if they do not like the compensation package offered. The State can do whatever the People allow and since the people allowed this bastardization of marriage the people will all suffer the consequences. Hetero employees with spouses can move to other jobs if they do not like the compensation. OR they can ask for a raise....say enough to cover the spousal benies. Free market babie, free market!

90

But this time the government is in the position of simultaneaously trying to pander for votes from a largely traditional RC population group (largest growing segement of the population I believe) -- that could be a sticking point.  Plus, you have the evangelicals (evangelicals or evangelical leaning churches are not a minority and are made up of very diverse parts of the country; they are not that fringe), another sticking point.  And there are those "ethnic" white, European, blue collar Reagan Dems that everybody talks about -- large portions of which are either RC, Orthodox, or evangelical (a fair number of them convert to evangelical churches from more traditional churches for their ethnic group -- they usually don't become Lutherans or Episcopalians), and still largely social conservative.  These three groups, taken together, can sway election outcomes -- imho, it's not wise to take too much advantage of their passivity; they can turn around and bite you in the ass if you legislate things in that they don't like too many times.

It will be interesting to see how the two parties try to maneuver themselves through that minefield in regards to the progressive social agenda.

91 90  I'm not so sure the people that CC typically serves were in favor of this -- and as per my comment above: CC often hires people from within the communities they serve.  These are not privately wealthy, nor even middle class people, and typically the jobs are not high paying -- there is every reason to believe that they would have to opt for some sort of state run healthcare and/or go unemployed (this is a segment of the population that faces a significant unemployment problem -- free market doesn't really have much room to operate at that level; CC is providing a free market alternative to the dole you could say). 

92 You're gay?

93 93  Who, me?

94

Pour on more homophobic bigotry and paranoia! I can never get enough!

The bill is for civil marraige as I understand it. And yes, if a religious institution is going to have govt contract, they should abide by all the regulations or default on it. And this won't stop Catholic Charities from functioning.

I contribute to it, BTW.

And for all the defenders of the faith, I would like to know what all those leaders stood for during that crisis. There's a repeat going on now in Ireland, and the church is repeating exactly the same steps - coverup the abuse for as olong as possible, then deny, then FINALLY issue a pro forma apology, and then stonewall any criminal investigations. Wow, what enlightenment. I don't have any problem with Catholics - I have a problem with the leaders.

95

No JEA, I think you have problems with Catholics (probably have problems with Christians in general).

Oh, and bless your little heart for contributing to a charity run by an institution that you seem to have more than an average level of scorn for...you are so convincing in your arguements.

96

Ehem, as far as bigotry and homophobia:

Homosexuality is not my cup of tea; I've said that many a time.  However, I really have no serious issues with glbt people -- it's a live and let live world after all.  I do try to take into consideration how a fair number of people will view this issue, and they won't be viewing it favorably.  I believe that there is quite a difference between acceptance (which is a stretch for many in our society) and approval (which is likely not to happen for many if not the majority) -- our country was founded upon the principles of acceptance (within the limits of reciprocity -- you cannot ask for acceptance and not be accepting yourself), but it never asked for approval.  I think at this time to push the glbt agenda too much (no matter how pure the person pushing it's intentions or meaning) it may be a case of too much too soon for the rest of society -- of demanding approval, when acceptance is still hardly a given.  That is a very good way to wind up in a bad spot for all concerned down the road -- "be careful what you wish for" does have some standing here.

97 For all you folks who claim that my marriage isn't affected one whit by how society chooses to recognize homosexual relationships, refer to the Catholic Charities story. Employees of the the charity, the recipients of their services, and the lay members of the Catholic Church who pay the bills - and their spouses - all beg to differ.

98

99 Catholic Charities had to give up adoptions in Massachusetts because they would be forced to allow gay couples to adopt. A young single mom-to-be did not have the right to specify that she wanted her child to go to a Catholic, hetero, married couple. Mitt Romney did not stand up for the Catholics as governor. Thousands of children had been adopted through Boston Catholic Charities. This was disgraceful,
but the gays that do care remain silent.

100 And for all the defenders of the faith, I would like to know what all those leaders stood for during that crisis

JEA

They stood for at least as much as any administrator in any public school system. The incidence of abuse in public school systems is no lower than it is within the Catholic church.And we're required to send the kids into that fun house. One here in Delaware was sentenced this week. A woman. So does that make the victim a female-phobe?

Nice attempt to obfuscate the strong-arm tactics at work here. Jerk.

101

100 Hey, I can't say I blame the gays who do care -- how much shit would they have to take for speaking up?  When you go off the reservation you're usually going it alone.

And yeah, we've had some real nasty pedophiles working in our school system -- how come nothing much comes of that story?  And what about the other, progressive churches who have some child molesters in their ranks?  Not a peep about them.

I'm trying very hard to stay logical -- but this is turning in an emotional direction...well, the Catholic Church was the church of my childhood and young adult years, the church of my family, the church of my time of need (I've been flat assed broke and homeless once in my life; it was not fun -- when I needed help who was there to help me get on my feet, the Church -- I owe them for that)...so my emotional response will favor the Church.  I don't think I'm a special case -- there are a lot of people like me.  Don't mess with the churches.

102 DC's going to be interesting.  Identity politics at its worst.  Blacks vs. Gays, whatever will the dems do?  Pass the popcorn...

103 It's a shame that Catholic Charities is going to deny doing all of these good charities because they couldn't ignore the short warning about homosexuality like they ignore all of the other things in the Bible that defines how to live.

104 Yet another wonderful gay-pride-overcomes-the-evil-Catholic-Church thread from my dear friends at AoSHQ. Thanks, guys. With friends like this, why would I ever again go looking for trouble at DU or Kos?

105 I am Catholic. I have volunteered at the local Catholic Mission to those in need.  My wife had a term as Chairperson of the local Catholic Charity.  Catholic Charities, along with Lutheran Family Services, and several other religious missionary groups provide the bulk of support to those in need in this city. All of these groups exist on donations.  The donations tend to be non-denominational, in other words, the Catholics, the Lutherans, receive a huge part of their donations from those with no particular religious affiliation.

Many Catholics have a problem with the Church's position on same-sex marriage.  We simply do not understand the Church's position, since it is obvious that a significant proportion of priests are, in fact, gay.

Frankly, there are those that suggest that Jesus was gay.  Well, we all know that openly homosexual men would have been stoned by Jews 2000 years ago, just as today, Muslims will stone openly homosexual men.  God only knows what either would have done with openly homosexual women.  The Muslims seem to want to cane them with 99 whacks, followed by stoning, followed by dismemberment.

What we are talking about today with "Gay Marriage" is a simple civil contract between two individuals.  It is noteworthy that legally, traditional marriage is just a simple civil contract between two individuals, also.  Religion, legally, is something separate from the simple civil contract of marriage.  No religion, except for some Jewish sects, have a religiously-based separate civil contract of marriage that include penalties for non-performance.

So, as a Catholic, I understand the Church's attitude about same-sex marriage, although I don't support it as keeping with the message of Jesus.  I do not understand the Church standing in the way of a simple civil contract of marriage, nor do I understand their prohibition of health care, etc., for the spouses of their employees who might have a simple civil contract of marriage.  AFIK, Catholic Charities employs many people who are NOT Catholic. They employ who they can get with their minimal paychecks.  I am almost certain that CC does not even require their employees to declare a religious affiliation.  My exposure to Catholic Charities leads me to KNOW that they are non-sectarian in the services they provide.

My suggestion to Catholic Charities (a suggestion they already use, if what I know about CC is true), is that they simply Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and move on with their chosen work. After all, if employee John has a spouse named James, or an employee named Linda has a spouse named Joan, what's in a name, anyway?

106 What a turgid pile of crap.

Try examining the sacraments of the Catholic Church. Then you just might get it.

So, as a Catholic, I understand the Church's attitude about same-sex marriage, although I don't support it as keeping with the message of Jesus.

This piece was priceless. Nancy Pelosi says the same thing about abortion. Obama's buddy Fr. Pflegler said the same thing when he endorsed fomenting class war.

Trope about significant portion of priests being gay? check
source? Of course not.
straw man about non-Catholics working for Catholic Charities? Check
Catholic Charities employs many people who are NOT Catholic. They employ who they can get with their minimal paychecks.
It would also be against the law idiot.
snide reference to don't ask, don't tell? check


The Catholic Church currently does not endorse homosexual activity. It's actually trying to be consistent with that stand. That includes being forced to pay out benefits to homosexual couples. That situation was forced upon the Church by the DC government, who deliberately tanked the idea of a referendum.

You've had your shots at the Catholic Church. Now let's see how brave you are by attacking the mosques in the DC area.

Do let us know how you fare with that.

107 Just place the District under interdict, de facto or de jure. Then let's see how long it takes Congress to take action.

108 Many Catholics have a problem with the Church's position on same-sex marriage.  We simply do not understand the Church's position, since it is obvious that a significant proportion of priests are, in fact, gay.

That's because many Catholics stop learning anything about their faith after their First Holy Communion, and because people in general have a hard time with things that are complicated. Read the blessed Bible already (Lev 18 is rather blunt). Read the Catechism. The logic is not difficult to follow.

Being "gay" (having desires for same-sex sexy time) is not a sin. Acting on it -- putting your own desires ahead of what the Big Guy wants, that's the definition of sin. It's not the only sexual sin out there, but it's the only sexual sin that people seem to want to insist is not one. I ain't buyin' it.

Frankly, there are those that suggest that Jesus was gay. 

There are also those who suggest that Jesus didn't exist at all, or that he shagged Mary Magdalane rotten and founded, of all things, the Merovingian dynasty. You can even find a few who believe that the Super-Adventure-Club can help you molest your way to immortality, or that quartz crystals cure herpes.

Well, we all know that openly homosexual men would have been stoned by Jews 2000 years ago, just as today, Muslims will stone openly homosexual men.  God only knows what either would have done with openly homosexual women.  The Muslims seem to want to cane them with 99 whacks, followed by stoning, followed by dismemberment.

So what's your argument here? That Jesus was willing to be scourged, crowned with thorns, and nailed to a cross for a crime he did not commit, on behalf of all humanity, but terrified of the average lynch-mob's high heat? If the Son of God wanted to say "Hey, sillybuns, that Sodom and Gommorrah business was so last Testament" don'cha think he would have done that? It's not like he wasn't willing to get under people's skin about pleasures of the flesh.

This whole cheap Queer Gospel is the essence of superficiality, of refusing to see history in any lens but our own.

109 healthy citizens

110 health insurance quotes,
train tickets,
life insurance quotes,
train tickets,
dental insurance quotes,
car insurance quotes

111 good!!!!!!

112 Good job for writing this brilliant article of pandora. I totally agree with you on the point of pandora charms. This is a nice article for sure. Excellent point here. I wish there are more and more New pandora beads articles like that. I totally agree with you on the point of pandora jewellery. This is a nice article for sure. Thank you so much for sharing some great ideas of pandora jewellery with us, they are helpful.