The shameful gay marriage ban.

[Cam63]

I'm thinking that maybe it's the misguided "decent religious folk" who said it?

Just a thought.

Well said.

[Cam63]

No one ever said Christians were perfect. Are they not allowed to make mistakes?

—A!

It's comforting to know that.

[Ian Boothby]

Go read C.S. Lewis, Thomas Aquinas, Augustine of Hippo, or some of the early church fathers if you want to argue cogently about religion. If you're just pissed and whiny, leave us alone.

Well I've read Lewis. And I'll leave you alone as long as you keep God out of the real world. How would you feel if you had to let any strangers who drop be live in your house because Odin wants you to be kind to wandering travellers (which he did). And Odin worshipers made it law.


Worship Odin, Zeus, God, a pink Panda Bear, it's all good. Just keep myth and reality seperate.

Not hating. Not pissy. Not whiney. There are I don't know how many TV shows on where people are singing God's praises and saying how God directly affected their lives. They all say God exists without adding, "in my opinion". But if someone says that God is made up then you're hateful, intollerant, pissy and so on unless you add, "in my opinion". If you can scream "God is great" I can shout "God is a lie". If you try and use God to take away people's rights I can do everything I can to stop you.

[Cam63]

Whatever you believe or don't believe in, you just can't make other people to take your point of view.

That goes for me too.

[Ian Boothby]

Whatever you believe or don't believe in, you just can't make other people to take your point of view.

That goes for me too.

But you can force then to adhere to it by making it law. That's why religion is being talked about on a Gay Marriage thread. Rights are being denied because of (for the most part) religion. So even if you don't believe in God you have to obey his mythological views on same sex relations. And that's wrong.

[Buzz Maverik]

Gay marriages were banned? Hold the phone!

I kid. Keep this thread running until they're unbanned, I say!

[Cam63]

Yes, it's wrong.

[Evan Waters]

Well I've read Lewis. And I'll leave you alone as long as you keep God out of the real world. How would you feel if you had to let any strangers who drop be live in your house because Odin wants you to be kind to wandering travellers (which he did). And Odin worshipers made it law.


Worship Odin, Zeus, God, a pink Panda Bear, it's all good. Just keep myth and reality seperate.


Phrasing it as "myth" and "reality" won't persuade any believers, tho, because to us it's most decidedly not a myth. It's more a question of whether your private beliefs should decide public policy.

[Ian Boothby]

Phrasing it as "myth" and "reality" won't persuade any believers, tho, because to us it's most decidedly not a myth. It's more a question of whether your private beliefs should decide public policy.

Again not trying to persuade believers, just trying as you say to get them to keep their beliefs out of public policy and other people's well being.
I call God a myth because God as he's interpreted by religion is a myth sharing many of the same qualities of any other myth such as Zeus or Odin.

[anthony!]

But you can force then to adhere to it by making it law. That's why religion is being talked about on a Gay Marriage thread. Rights are being denied because of (for the most part) religion. So even if you don't believe in God you have to obey his mythological views on same sex relations. And that's wrong.

But you'd still have a problem even if there weren't a religious aspect to it.

Socially people may want to believe marriage is a right, but legally speaking it is more of a service/privelage. So not everyone automatically gets access to it, regardless.

I still think this would be a contraversial issue even without the religious end of things.

—A!

[anthony!]

Again not trying to persuade believers, just trying as you say to get them to keep their beliefs out of public policy and other people's well being.

Isn't the whole point of religion to get new converts. It is called the good news after all.

From the religious point of view it should almost be expected to engage in public policy. In fact tradition Catholics are expected to openly talk and debate various issues in government and law. That is not to say we advocate a theocracy, but we do believe Catholicism to be the Truth, and therefore valid when considering legal issues.

—A!

[Spike-X]

If thats the case, then what is the point you are trying to make?

—A!
The point I'm trying to make is - 'natural' family planning isn't reliable. If a couple can only afford, or only want, a certain number of children, telling them to just not have sex again for the rest of their lives rather than using contraception (which also isn't 100% reliable, but is a hell of a lot more dependable than pulling out at the last second and hoping for the best) is unrealistic, unreasonable, naive, and just plain wrong.

[the4thpip]

Another reason I wanted Kerry/Edwards to win: To give Phelps an aneurism.

http://www.rawprint.com/spaulding/westboro_e.gif

[That JonoGuy]

Wowie! That's one heckova flyer. Hadn't seen that paricular one. It's uncomforting to know people out there who supposedly are "good" people have such hate in them.

[Ian Boothby]

But you'd still have a problem even if there weren't a religious aspect to it.

Socially people may want to believe marriage is a right, but legally speaking it is more of a service/privelage. So not everyone automatically gets access to it, regardless.

I still think this would be a contraversial issue even without the religious end of things.

—A!


I doubt it. You take religion out of the equation and there's not a lot to argue against gay marriage. You can use the "the population will dwindle to nothing because they can't reproduce" line but that doesn't hold water. Since gays will be able to adopt you can argue that it'll be bad for the kids but studies have shown that's not the case. There really isn't a reason except that it hasn't been done in the past and if you use that line of reasoning women wouldn't have the vote and slavery would still be legal. Things change.

I'd say most straight people feel it's their "right" to get marriage not a privelage. If it really was a privelage you shouldn't be able to get married over and over again when you'd cocked it up in the past. A person with 5 divorces can get married but a gay man can't marry his lover. That's a messed up privelage.

[Spike-X]

I'd say most straight people feel it's their "right" to get marriage not a privelage. If it really was a privelage you shouldn't be able to get married over and over again when you'd cocked it up in the past. A person with 5 divorces can get married but a gay man can't marry his lover. That's a messed up privelage.

People who are granted the "privilege" of getting married -

Murderers.
Rapists.
Child molestors.
Wife-beaters.
Jerry Springer guests.
Britney Spears and some guy she met in Vegas.
Serial divorcees.

People who are denied the "privilege" of getting married -

Loving, committed same-sex couples.

What's wrong with this picture?

[Spike-X]

Another reason I wanted Kerry/Edwards to win: To give Phelps an aneurism.

http://www.rawprint.com/spaulding/westboro_e.gif
*shudder*

I feel ill whenever I read the words of Ph*lps and his followers.

Also, I couldn't help but notice this -

"All who incensed against, strive with, and contend with WBC shall perish. Isa. 41: 11, 12."

Westboro Baptist Church is mentioned by name in the Bible?

[Screwtape]

I can't tell you what the force that created the universe thinks and wants from us. My two year old nephew can't write my biography for similar reasons, he doesn't have the perspective. Of course all religions are wrong.Nobody claims to have that perspective except Christ. Christians claim that the Bible is the word of God, and Christ was God in human form. Most of us try to follow Christ as revealed through scripture with humility, which you could use a healthy dose of, frankly.

Christ lived in the real, physical world. The person of Jesus is not a myth. Whether you want to believe that he was tortured to death and then returned from it is up to you, but I do believe it, and it dictates the way I live my life. You're welcome to "do everything you can to try to stop me," but for right now we're on a chat board on the internet, and I'd much rather talk about comic books or movies or make stupid jokes than argue with you.

I feel obligated to stand up for my faith when someone else decides that it's his sworn duty to go around slagging it, however. If you don't hate Christians, you're doing a killer impression of someone who does. So far, you've called us mentally handicapped, compared faith to heroin addiction, and denied even the possibility of evangelical science. None of this is exactly in the spirit of honest inquiry or reasonable discussion.

edit: By the way, Fred Phelps is no more representative of evangelical Christians than "bug chasers" are representative of gay men.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Socially people may want to believe marriage is a right, but legally speaking it is more of a service/privelage. So not everyone automatically gets access to it, regardless.

I thought I was done with this thread, but I guess not.

As I have already pointed out, the US Supreme Court has already decided this issue, and legally speaking, you are 100% WRONG!

In Loving v. Virginia - the case which overturned laws against interracial marriage - the US Supreme Court identified marriage as a fundamental right of the sort the framers of he Constitution had in mind as part of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It remains to be seen if the Court will apply this precedent to gay marriage, but the idea that marriage is not a right *has been decided.* Legally speaking, that also puts the asinine arguments that marriage is a religious matter, and no business of government, right down the toilet where it belongs.

[anthony!]

The point I'm trying to make is - 'natural' family planning isn't reliable. If a couple can only afford, or only want, a certain number of children, telling them to just not have sex again for the rest of their lives rather than using contraception (which also isn't 100% reliable, but is a hell of a lot more dependable than pulling out at the last second and hoping for the best) is unrealistic, unreasonable, naive, and just plain wrong.

Hey I never said there is a catch-all answer, I just don't think you should commit a sin (under Catholicism) to ensure you're (the general "you're") not inconvenienced.

I don't exactly think birth control is a one-way ticket to hell. No one's been saying that.

—A!

[anthony!]

People who are granted the "privilege" of getting married -

Murderers.
Rapists.
Child molestors.
Wife-beaters.
Jerry Springer guests.
Britney Spears and some guy she met in Vegas.
Serial divorcees.

People who are denied the "privilege" of getting married -

Loving, committed same-sex couples.

What's wrong with this picture?

That’s a pretty sweeping allegation if your pointing it at Christianity. Certainly those injustices take place under secular law, no matter who marries.

If the Catholic Church were dealing with these people, I would be extremely doubtful they'd be rushing to marry them. It’s a bit more complicated than that. Plus, a lot of the above crimes would be grounds for an anullment anyway.

So I’m not really sure your gripe here makes much sense. Seems overly emotional to me.

—A!

[anthony!]

In Loving v. Virginia - the case which overturned laws against interracial marriage - the US Supreme Court identified marriage as a fundamental right of the sort the framers of he Constitution had in mind as part of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It remains to be seen if the Court will apply this precedent to gay marriage, but the idea that marriage is not a right *has been decided.* Legally speaking, that also puts the asinine arguments that marriage is a religious matter, and no business of government, right down the toilet where it belongs.

Then its implied. I hate implied rights. Put it in friggin' Constitution if its a "right".

When did I say marriage was a religious matter? I think the government should get out of the marriage business all together anyway.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Then its implied. I hate implied rights.

Irregardless of your feelings, it's a decided matter.

[Screwtape]

"Irregardless" isn't a word.

[anthony!]

Another reason I wanted Kerry/Edwards to win: To give Phelps an aneurism.

http://www.rawprint.com/spaulding/westboro_e.gif

You want to know what scares me about that flyer and the fact that you felt compelled to show all of us?

That you think me and my faith are like that. That saddens me more than any crappy fundamentalist rant.

Its only 10:35 AM and I'm done for today.

—A!

[JeffreyWKramer]

"Irregardless" isn't a word.

You're correct, of course, though it has come into a certain degree of vernacular usage.

[Screwtape]

You're correct, of course, though it has come into a certain degree of vernacular usage. Sorry. Pet peeve. :)

[JeffreyWKramer]

Sorry. Pet peeve. :)
Not a problem. I do essentially the same thing fairly often.

[Boldido]

That’s a pretty sweeping allegation if your pointing it at Christianity. Certainly those injustices take place under secular law, no matter who marries.

If the Catholic Church were dealing with these people, I would be extremely doubtful they'd be rushing to marry them. It’s a bit more complicated than that. Plus, a lot of the above crimes would be grounds for an anullment anyway.

So I’m not really sure your gripe here makes much sense. Seems overly emotional to me.

—A!

I should know better than to get back into this thread...

Of the crimes or sins mentioned, all a Catholic murderer, rapist, child molester or Jerry Springer guest would have to do would be to go to confession and do pennance. They would then receive absolution from the church and are good to go on the whole marraige thing.

[anthony!]

I should know better than to get back into this thread...

Of the crimes or sins mentioned, all a Catholic murderer, rapist, child molester or Jerry Springer guest would have to do would be to go to confession and do pennance. They would then receive absolution from the church and are good to go on the whole marraige thing.

And I swore I was out for today, but I can't let this one slide.

Confession is not your "get out of jail free" card. Yes, confession absolves you of the sin, but the Church as a whole wouldn't be so delusional as to allow a known rapist/abuser to marry under the Catholic Church. I would also assume that each person is taken on a case by case basis. Plus, its entirely possible that the Church is ignorant of a persons crimes if they have had past allegations.

Marriage in the Catholic Church usually means about 6 months of relationship counseling and discussion before actually going through with it. Thats the proper way. The hope is that though that 6 month process both the couple and the priest can determine whether this would be a healthy union.

And like I said before, most of these crimes would be grounds for anullment— so I fail to see how this is a hypocrasy on the part of the Church.

This is turning into a Catholic-bashing thread...

—A!

[Dreadstar]

Weird. I thouhgt Boldido was Catholic.

Gotta be the booze...

[JeffreyWKramer]

Weird. I thouhgt Boldido was Catholic.

Gotta be the booze...

shhhh... you're gonna spoil all the irony! ;)

Didn't you know good Catholics must be monolithic thinkers and perfectly adhere to the party line?

[Boldido]

And I swore I was out for today, but I can't let this one slide.

Confession is not your "get out of jail free" card. Yes, confession absolves you of the sin, but the Church as a whole wouldn't be so delusional as to allow a known rapist/abuser to marry under the Catholic Church. I would also assume that each person is taken on a case by case basis. Plus, its entirely possible that the Church is ignorant of a persons crimes if they have had past allegations.

Marriage in the Catholic Church usually means about 6 months of relationship counseling and discussion before actually going through with it. Thats the proper way. The hope is that though that 6 month process both the couple and the priest can determine whether this would be a healthy union.

And like I said before, most of these crimes would be grounds for anullment— so I fail to see how this is a hypocrasy on the part of the Church.

This is turning into a Catholic-bashing thread...

—A!


If I'm Catholic bashing, then it must be some sort of self-loathing thing, because, as Dreadstar correctly pointed out, I'm a practicing Catholic.

The sacrement of absolution, or confession, as it is more commonly known does wipe the slate clean in the eyes of the church. The priest may require more than a few Hail Marys and may tell the penetant to seek counseling or some other acts of penance, but once they receive absolution, they are eligible to take communion, get married and participate in any of the other sacrements of the church. To say that someone who repents their sins and partakes of the sacrement of confession is somehow not entitled to any of the other blessings of the church is to display a woeful ignorance of the sacrament itself.

I also got married in the church, so while I can't tell you what every Parish requires, I can tell you that St. Jeromes in Largo, FL requires a couple to take a compatiblity questionaire that consists of approximately 200 questions. They then require the couple to meet with the priest or deacon. After meeting with the priest or deacon, they are required to attend a weekend long workshop called a Pre-cana. After that, its pretty much just ordering the flowers and the tuxes. Did your parish really require you and your wife to go through six months of pre-marraige counselling?

[Boldido]

shhhh... you're gonna spoil all the irony! ;)

Didn't you know good Catholics must be monolithic thinkers and perfectly adhere to the party line?

Catholics have a long and honored tradition of having some among their midst that like to shake up the status quo and stir the pot. They're called Jesuits, God I love them.

[Buzz Maverik]

Again not trying to persuade believers, just trying as you say to get them to keep their beliefs out of public policy and other people's well being.
I call God a myth because God as he's interpreted by religion is a myth sharing many of the same qualities of any other myth such as Zeus or Odin.

Odin, a myth? Man, are you going to feel stupid trying to get into Valhalla!

[anthony!]

The sacrement of absolution, or confession, as it is more commonly known does wipe the slate clean in the eyes of the church. The priest may require more than a few Hail Marys and may tell the penetant to seek counseling or some other acts of penance, but once they receive absolution, they are eligible to take communion, get married and participate in any of the other sacrements of the church. To say that someone who repents their sins and partakes of the sacrement of confession is somehow not entitled to any of the other blessings of the church is to display a woeful ignorance of the sacrament itself.

No one is denying anyone anything. I've had many friends married in the Church who had to go through a long process, for the reasons above.

Going through Confession certainly entitles you to attempt to get married in the Church, but you can't demand that a priest give you the sacrement— at least not to my knowledge, or experience for that matter. And I doubt a priest would willingly marry a known abuser. Do you know of a case? There is an entire process to go through, you don't just get up and get one.

I also got married in the church, so while I can't tell you what every Parish requires, I can tell you that St. Jeromes in Largo, FL requires a couple to take a compatiblity questionaire that consists of approximately 200 questions. They then require the couple to meet with the priest or deacon. After meeting with the priest or deacon, they are required to attend a weekend long workshop called a Pre-cana. After that, its pretty much just ordering the flowers and the tuxes. Did your parish really require you and your wife to go through six months of pre-marraige counselling?

Not married. But I have several close friends who did. It took forever.

—A!

[Spike-X]

That’s a pretty sweeping allegation if your pointing it at Christianity.

I wasn't. I was pointing it at society in general.

So I’m not really sure your gripe here makes much sense. Seems overly emotional to me.


Overly emotional? It's simply a list of facts. As far as I know, people that fall under every category I listed above are allowed the "privilege" of marriage.

[anthony!]

I wasn't. I was pointing it at society in general.



Overly emotional? It's simply a list of facts. As far as I know, people that fall under every category I listed above are allowed the "privilege" of marriage.

Well, I was only speaking in the Catholic context. If you were only speaking in the general society, speak on speak on...

I'm intrigued by the idea of limiting mariage from those who have histories of spousal abuse, etc.... I don't know how you could really pull that off though. It’s probably not very practical.

—A!

[Spike-X]

I'm intrigued by the idea of limiting mariage from those who have histories of spousal abuse, etc.... I don't know how you could really pull that off though. It’s probably not very practical.



It's also not the point I was trying to make.

I wasn't saying we should restrict the people I listed from being married. I was trying to say that we allow those folks to get married, but we can't allow loving, committed same-sex couples to marry because that
would somehow devalue marriage?

[Dee3]

It's also not the point I was trying to make.

I wasn't saying we should restrict the people I listed from being married. I was trying to say that we allow those folks to get married, but we can't allow loving, committed same-sex couples to marry because that
would somehow devalue marriage?

Good point spike, as I was going to say before perhaps our attitudes towards marriage come from the middle ages as well as our attitude torwards homosexulity. In the middle ages hate towards homosexulity hit an all time high. During this time period the monks who were copying down the bible would draw in the corners things they did not approve of on of which was homosexulity. However in ancient Greece and Rome homosexulity was tolerated and still is in the mediterranean. The empour Hadrian built a monument to his dead male lover who was killed along the Nile. There is evidance that King Richard was gay.

The other day I was talking with my brother and he said that perhaps homosexuals are a form of population control.
but I think that anyone who wants to get married should

dee

[anthony!]

It's also not the point I was trying to make.

I wasn't saying we should restrict the people I listed from being married. I was trying to say that we allow those folks to get married, but we can't allow loving, committed same-sex couples to marry because that
would somehow devalue marriage?

I've never made the devalue argument. That would be putting words in my mouth.

—A!

[anthony!]

The other day I was talking with my brother and he said that perhaps homosexuals are a form of population control.
but I think that anyone who wnts to get married should

dee

Some also theorize that homosexuality is evolution slowly getting rid of the male sex.

—A!

[Evan Waters]

Some also theorize that homosexuality is evolution slowly getting rid of the male sex.

—A!

You're aware that there are homosexual women, right? Also known as "lesbians", feature prominently in late night cable TV, etc.?

[anthony!]

You're aware that there are homosexual women, right? Also known as "lesbians", feature prominently in late night cable TV, etc.?

Hey I'm just referencing a book on genetics I picked up. There is serious research into this.

—A!

[Dee3]

Some also theorize that homosexuality is evolution slowly getting rid of the male sex.

—A!
well it's just a theory, but it does make some sense.Then again it could be mother natures way of getting rid of the human species.

[Pixies Chick]

The4thPip -- check the link for the pictures from Democratic Underground. Onward Christian Soldier Michelle Bachmann!

Michelle Bachmann
Last week Minnesota State Senator Michelle Bachmann (R-Obviously) tried to force a vote on a state constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage; Democrats said she was trying to end-run Senate rules for political gain. That she chose to do this on the same day that the local gay community was rallying for their rights on the grounds of the Capitol was certainly dubious. According to Eleventh Avenue South, "Even Senate Republicans thought it was in poor taste to try to go around Senate rules on the same day GLBT citizens were making their voice heard. Her move was overwhelmingly defeated." But one of Eleventh Avenue South's eagle-eyed readers happened to catch something rather strange that day - it turned out that Michelle Bachmann had gone to take a look at the rally, but, obviously feeling very frightened of the scary homosexuals, decided to hide in some bushes. Fortunately, the reader got pictures:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/index.html


Peek-a-boo! What a coward. You know, that photo kind of reminds me of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney during Vietnam.

[Spackling Compound]

What kind of self-loathing homosexual would do this?

Imagine Republican and gay! FOR SHAME...


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050412/ap_on_el_se/clinton_gop

[anthony!]

This truly is the Never Ending Thread.

The only way to solve this is by having a rumble. There I said it. I suppose the conservatives can bring the pointy knives, and the liberals can bring the frilly dance routines.

[Spackling Compound]

This truly is the Never Ending Thread.

The only way to solve this is by having a rumble. There I said it. I suppose the conservatives can bring the pointy knives, and the liberals can bring the frilly dance routines.

No weapons! No dancing!

Just good ol' fashioned hair-pulling and bitch slapping!

[sk716]

Dammit Pixie! What did you go and resurrect this thread for? We tied it up and threw it in the CBR basement. Spack and Screwtape even sprinkled Holy Water on it! It was never supposed to be revived!

I knew we should have used the titanium chains.

We'll have to call in Priests and Witches this time.

[TCJohnson]

I am fully against SK716 ever marrying. I am not against most gays, just SK

[sk716]

Bite me, TC.


:p

[the4thpip]

Republican Minnesota state senator comes out, endorses 'outing' anti- gay politicians

A Minnesota state senator who bucked his party in voting against a measure that would have brought a gay marriage amendment to the floor of the legislature has revealed that he is gay, RAW STORY has learned.

The senator, Republican Paul Koering, has also endorsed efforts to expose gay politicians who wield their power to oppose gay rights.

As a proud Republican legislator who stood alone against his party to take a stand against what he sees as discrimination, Koering’s support for reporting on “hypocritical” gay politicians—including Republicans—is certain to send a shockwave through the Washington gay community.

"Somebody who is possibly in the closet and uses their bully pulpit or their position to bash gay people or to make gay people’s lives difficult... and are in essence leading a double life — people like that need to be exposed for the hypocrite that they are," Koering says.

“And I sometimes find that, I feel that the people that you find who are hollering the loudest and who are putting people down the most are the ones that have the most to hide,” he added. “They’re so uncomfortable in their own skin that they have to tear everybody else down to make themselves feel good.”



http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/paul_koering_minnesota_comes_out_413

[Spackling Compound]

Republican Minnesota state senator comes out, endorses 'outing' anti- gay politicians



http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/paul_koering_minnesota_comes_out_413
"Gay shall not Out Gay" so says the Lawgiver...

http://www.charltonhestonworld2.homestead.com/files/ch-potanewest2a.jpg

[Spackling Compound]

We tied it up and threw it in the CBR basement. Spack and Screwtape even sprinkled Holy Water on it! It was never supposed to be revived!


Ok, ok, confession here. I had no access to holy water so...after a couple of quarts of Luzianne tea...

[Screwtape]

And I'm Protestant, so when Spack told me that was how you made holy water, it totally made sense to me. I was like, "Oh, THAT'S why vampires hate the stuff so much."

Tricked!

I'll be cutting off the head of this thread and stuffing its mouth with wolfsbane on my next attempt.

[Spackling Compound]

I'll be cutting off the head of this thread and stuffing its mouth with wolfsbane on my next attempt.

Wait-a-minute! This is a COMICS thread...therefore, it can't be killed. The thread never dies. The shameful ban on gay marriage is to YABS what Wonder Man is to comics, not a great fan base but a few die-hard fans who still want him alive and married!


Your garlic cloves are impotent! This thread shall rise!

[Pixies Chick]

Ok, ok, confession here. I had no access to holy water so...after a couple of quarts of Luzianne tea...

Gotta question. I was going through some old boxes in my parents' basement, and I found a small bottle of holy water.

Bad Catholic gotta ask -- does that stuff expire? Lose it's fizz? It's the craziest thing, but I'd swear the bottle must have been there for nigh on decades and it wasn't cloudy or anything. You'd figure it'd evaporate or something.

[Pixies Chick]

Republican Minnesota state senator comes out, endorses 'outing' anti- gay politicians



http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/paul_koering_minnesota_comes_out_413

the4thPip -- you oughta read the update on Paul Koering:

BACKSTORY
How a Republican state legislator decided to come out
By John Byrne | RAW STORY Editor

On Mar. 31, blogACTIVE.com’s Mike Rogers placed a call to Minnesota state senator Paul Koering.

“He called my office and told my assistant that he was a reporter from Washington and wanted to talk to me about my video voyeurism bill,” Koering says.

The voyeurism bill the senator authored sought to increase fines for those videotaped or recorded without their consent. The bill had caught Rogers’ eye after he received photographs of Koering at a gay bar earlier that week.

“I thought, a lot of people are sending me information on this guy, maybe I ought to take a look,” Rogers says. Rogers is editor of RawStoryQ, an editorially independent franchise site of Raw Story Media, and runs blogACTIVE.com, a site which reports on what he believes is hypocrisy of political figures.

“When I saw that it was a person from Washington I was very excited,” Koering recalls. “I immediately thought: national news on this bill.”

“I started to explain to him about the bill, what the intent was,” he continues. “He proceeded to tell me, under your bill, if I said I had some pictures of you at Bang, a gay bar… would that be illegal?”

Koering says he was speechless.

“Somebody was sitting here in my office, and I was trying not to say something stupid,” he notes. “Finally I had to ask this person to step out.”

Koering and Rogers continued their banter until at one point Rogers asked, “Are you gay?”

The senator said he didn’t think it was any of Rogers’ business. Rogers said he was recording the call.

“I thought about hanging up,” the Minnesotan says. “And so I put him on hold because I didn’t know what to do, and so I went over to our chief of staff’s office a couple of doors down from me, and he was not there. It gave me a minute and a half to cool off, so I got back on my phone, and I said, ‘Mike, yeah, I’m gay, ask me whatever you want to ask me. If that’s what you want to do, it’s fine with me.’”

After admitting he was gay, the senator says he and Rogers had an amicable conversation.

“We actually had at that point I think a very civil conversation,” Koering recalls. “I actually could see that once I opened up my heart like I normally do I could see that I felt that he thought” similar things.

Koering told Rogers of an internal party discussion around the time was freshly elected. He said that he had stood up to another member of the Republican caucus who wanted to try to abolish the 1993 revision of the state’s Human Rights Act that included protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

“He said to me, I don’t really know if there’s a story here,” the senator says. “That’s kind of where we left it.”

“He did what far too few people do in our country,” Rogers says. “He took the hard road and did the hard decision to do what he think was right.”

Rogers reflected on the call on blogACTIVE on Apr. 4 without mentioning Koering by name or even the state in which he was elected to serve.

“As the legislator and I talked it became more and more clear the [sic] me that this individual was one of the many examples of a gay member of the GOP who should not be reported on,” the Washington blogger wrote. “Like every other story, I review the totality of the matter and decide with my advisors if the story is worth reporting. In this case, like so many others, the file is closed and no story is written.”

“Why?” he added. “Because blogACTIVE.com does not report on every closeted politician from one party or the other.”

Koering says he read Rogers’ post and was “pleasantly surprised.”

“I’ve got to say that I was pleasantly surprised by that, and I think it—honestly it made me think some more about who I am as a person and how much does this job mean to me,” he told RAW STORY. “Does it mean that much to me that I’m going to deny who I am?”


Several days later, on Apr. 7, Minnesota Republican state Sen. Michele Bachman moved to bring a measure allowing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to go to the Senate floor. The move was made despite the fact that measure had not been approved by the appropriate committees. Outside the Capitol, gay and lesbian activists were marching outside the capitol for equal rights.

Koering voted no—the lone Republican to do so—and along with opposition from 34 Democrats, the measure failed. The senator said he cried all the way home.

“I left the Capitol and I immediately started for home—it’s a two and half hour drive,” he recalls. “I literally cried all the way.”

That night, the senator called Rogers.

“I said hey, I voted against the marriage amendment and we talked about that and we talked several more times over the weekend,” Koering says. “I’ve got a lot of gay friends but they’re not really interested in politics like I am so it was kind of refreshing to talk to Mike.”

“So I got back to the Capitol on Monday,” he continues, “and the Associated Press reporter kind of said, if you ever want to talk about your orientation… and then the word was here that we were going to be taking another vote on the marriage amendment this week.”

“At that point I just thought, I’ve gone as far as I can go, I’ve just got to tell my constituents, you know what, I’m gay, let’s just put it out there and be done with it, and hopefully I can put it behind me and get on to work that I want to get done here.” ....

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/backstory_paul_koering_comes_out_414.htm

[sk716]

Ok, ok, confession here. I had no access to holy water so...after a couple of quarts of Luzianne tea...

No wonder it keeps coming back! Do it right this time!

I'll go get the nail gun, chains, straps and cement.

[Samurai]

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200504%5 CNAT20050414b.html

Oregon Supreme Court Upholds State Marriage Laws
By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Deputy Managing Editor
April 14, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - The Oregon Supreme Court Thursday upheld the state's marriage laws and invalidated 3,000 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples in Multnomah County last year.

On March 3, 2004, the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners began issuing the marriage licenses illegally. In Dec. 2, 2004, a voter-approved amendment, Ballot Measure 36, was adopted to the state constitution, defining marriage as "between one man and one woman."

"First, since the effective date of Measure 36, marriage in Oregon has been limited under the Oregon Constitution to opposite-sex couples. Second, Oregon statutory law in existence before the effective date of Measure 36 also limited, and continues to limit, the right to obtain marriage licenses to opposite-sex couples," the court said in its ruling.

"Third, marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples in Multnomah County before that date were issued without authority and were void at the time that they were issued, and we therefore need not consider the independent effect, if any, of Measure 36 on those marriage licenses," the court added.

The court's ruling was applauded by pro-family groups.

"We must commend the Oregon Supreme Court on their restraint and willingness to follow the law rather than making it. Last fall, Oregon voters joined 13 other states in recognizing the definition of marriage as one man and one woman," said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins.

"When the people are given a voice on this important issue, accountable judges cannot help but acknowledge the will of the people and the rule of law. The people of Oregon have clearly supported marriage as a sacred institution, and one in which same-sex couples are not able to participate," added Perkins.

"The fate of marriage should not be placed in the hands of a few judges. The Oregon voters have spoken by amending their state Constitution, and thus the courts are required to listen," said Mathew Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel.

Staver called the ruling a "tremendous victor for marriage, family and children," and he urged each state to pass constitutional amendments to their state constitutions "to preserve marriage." Staver also urged lawmakers to pass a federal constitutional amendment.

"When the courts actually follow the law, they are doing their job. Clearly, Oregon had nothing on the books that would support a claim to 'gay marriage,'" said Robert Knight, director of Concerned Women for America's Culture & Family Institute.

"The court pointed out that the legal issue was so clear-cut that they didn't even need to reference the voters' passing a marriage amendment to the state constitution by 57 percent last November," said Knight.

"It's unfortunate that Oregon's governor is now seeking to create counterfeit marriage by another name -- civil unions -- which are just as wrong and dangerous," he added.

"The events in Oregon show that the surge in demand for 'gay marriage' does not come from the majority of the American people, but from a small movement of homosexual activists who want to validate their immoral and dangerous lifestyle by breaking down the definition of marriage," said Knight.

[the4thpip]

The hypocrisy of the "sanctity of marriage" argument, part 853:

Senator backing marriage amendment getting divorce


NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- A state senator sponsoring a constitutional amendment aimed at "solemnizing the relationship of one man and one woman" is accused in a divorce case of cheating on his wife.

State Sen. Jeff Miller, a Republican from Cleveland, is accused of "inappropriate marital conduct" in a divorce complaint filed Feb. 25 in Bradley County.



http://www.wsmv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3211261&nav=1TcRYfpp&Call=Email&Format=Text

:rolleyes:

[Spackling Compound]

Gotta question. I was going through some old boxes in my parents' basement, and I found a small bottle of holy water.

Bad Catholic gotta ask -- does that stuff expire? Lose it's fizz? It's the craziest thing, but I'd swear the bottle must have been there for nigh on decades and it wasn't cloudy or anything. You'd figure it'd evaporate or something.

The official teaching is that Holy Water does not expire however;

Every Holy Saturday the holy water is blessed in each Church around the world. Therefore, the holy water from the year previous is poured out.

However, for personal use, holy water can be preserved by adding a bit of salt to it.

Also, for those who believe this sort of thing, water from Lourdes, the Jordan River or other sites considered to be holy or even miraculous (for those who believe that sort of thing) can be kept for as long as one would like it. It is also used to bless people who are ill (for those who believe that would be of help).

From what little you've said about your faithful ancestry, I'd say the water probably came from a place such as Lourdes. Many Catholics keep such a vial of water for house blessings or to put on a dying person if a priest cannot be contacted.

[anthony!]

The hypocrisy of the "sanctity of marriage" argument, part 853:



http://www.wsmv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3211261&nav=1TcRYfpp&Call=Email&Format=Text

:rolleyes:


Well, "marriage" in the modern sense stopped being full of any sanctity the moment divorce became allowed 500 or so years ago. Thats how we got into the pickle we are in today.

[Spackling Compound]

Well, "marriage" in the modern sense stopped being full of any sanctity the moment divorce became allowed 500 or so years ago. Thats how we got into the pickle we are in today.

Actually, sanctity and government don't go hand in hand.

The Church (that would be the Roman Catholic Church) ruled out divorce for married Christians when they made marriage a sacrament. Jesus even usurped the Mosaic Law and gave no provision for divorce.

Divorce,like sodomy is not something holy or sanctified.

[Spackling Compound]

Actually, sanctity and government don't go hand in hand.

The Church (that would be the Roman Catholic Church) ruled out divorce for married Christians when they made marriage a sacrament. Jesus even usurped the Mosaic Law and gave no provision for divorce.

Divorce,like sodomy is not something holy or sanctified.

Grievous error in the above post...

Change the phrase "they made marriage" to "we made marriage". I'm Catholic, so whatever "they" do, I'm in!

[Dreadstar]

The Church (that would be the Roman Catholic Church) ruled out divorce for married Christians when they made marriage a sacrament. Jesus even usurped the Mosaic Law and gave no provision for divorce.

And yet, I know more divorced and remarried Catholics than any other one group. Including my ex.

Go figure.

[anthony!]

And yet, I know more divorced and remarried Catholics than any other one group. Including my ex.

Go figure.

Legally divorced. That would be an important distinction. Unless they got an anullment, the Church would consider these people still married— and thus would not "remarry" them. The divorce may exist in the eyes of the couple, but not in the eyes of the church.

I would imagine the second marriage happened either at the court house, or in a Protestant church.

[the4thpip]

Legally divorced. That would be an important distinction. Unless they got an anullment, the Church would consider these people still married— and thus would not "remarry" them. The divorce may exist in the eyes of the couple, but not in the eyes of the church.

I would imagine the second marriage happened either at the court house, or in a Protestant church.
That is exactly the distinction opponents of gay marriage like to forget: Legal marriage is not a religious thing. So keep your religious beliefs out of it.

[Spackling Compound]

That is exactly the distinction opponents of gay marriage like to forget: Legal marriage is not a religious thing. So keep your religious beliefs out of it.

Legal marriage is not a sanctified thing either. Love also isn't a legality. A marriage ceremony is also not a legality. The vows shared can't be quantified legally , ie: How is someone being "true" to be proven legally? What constitutes a legal "good times" or "bad times"?

[anthony!]

That is exactly the distinction opponents of gay marriage like to forget: Legal marriage is not a religious thing. So keep your religious beliefs out of it.

Well the argument isn't about religious beliefs, its over the definition of what marriage is in the first place. People on both sides manipulate religion to justify their position. Christains point to judeo-christian beliefs as a rationale, and pro-gay marriage arguments immediately classify anyone who disagrees with their position as being motivated only by religion.

If it was merely an argument between religious beliefs, then you would see protestants and catholics at each other's throats. If the Catholic Church had their way, their wouldn't be divorce— and that would be another facet to the debate.

[Screwtape]

God, it's good to be home.

[Spackling Compound]

God, it's good to be home.

There is no resurrected gay marriage thread.

This is just a figment of your vicodin besotted brain.

Go back to bed and listen to your techno music and it will be all ok in the morning...

Wah-wait....

Techno music?

OH NO THEY GOT SCREWTAPE!

[anthony!]

I'm starting to think I just post here out of habit.... ;)

[Spackling Compound]

The hypocrisy of the "sanctity of marriage" argument, part 853:



http://www.wsmv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3211261&nav=1TcRYfpp&Call=Email&Format=Text

:rolleyes:

Flashback 1975...

Little Spackling: "Mom, please can we stop at the Food Mart and get a comic book? PLEASE!! PLEASE!!"

Mom: "You've been buying too many of those things. You need to save your money to buy something you really want. Like what about that skateboard you want? Or you said you wanted a lawn mower. That takes money."

Spack: "I know. But M-ahhhh-om, I want to find out what happened to Killraven! The story didn't end in the last issue."

Mom:"Make up your own ending. You don't need to pollute your mind. Plus, when you're 40, you probably will find out you will be part of an insignificant sub-culture peopled by gays and liberals and hairdressers from the west coast or of dubious geographical origin who will promote the destruction of your faith, the promotion of gay marriages, the feasibility of multiple sexual partners and the abject hatred of conservative family values. I just don't see that as healthy. Plus, who knows? Maybe if the hero in your comic book dies, he might live again when some other writer takes over. Comics are just funny books for impressionable minds."

Spack:"M-ahhhhh-OM! I don't know what you're talking about. Just please, please, please stop. I promise I won't beg again!"

Mom: "Fine. But remember, one day...

YOU'LL ALL BE SORRY!

[Pixies Chick]

The official teaching is that Holy Water does not expire however;

Every Holy Saturday the holy water is blessed in each Church around the world. Therefore, the holy water from the year previous is poured out.

However, for personal use, holy water can be preserved by adding a bit of salt to it.

Also, for those who believe this sort of thing, water from Lourdes, the Jordan River or other sites considered to be holy or even miraculous (for those who believe that sort of thing) can be kept for as long as one would like it. It is also used to bless people who are ill (for those who believe that would be of help).

From what little you've said about your faithful ancestry, I'd say the water probably came from a place such as Lourdes. Many Catholics keep such a vial of water for house blessings or to put on a dying person if a priest cannot be contacted.

Duuuude -- was that all off the top of your head? You make me regret my public school education. Though in public school we had pot. I wouldn't have remembered all of that even if I had learned it. Wait ... maybe we DID and I just forgot.

Muchas gracias.

[the4thpip]

Well the argument isn't about religious beliefs, its over the definition of what marriage is in the first place.

Like: Marriage is a bond for life vs. Marriage can be divorced?
Those kinds of definitions?

And what does Madonna's daughter have to do with holy water? :confused:

[Forsaken_One]

I just have to say: Holy mother of God this is a long thread.

[Spackling Compound]

Duuuude -- was that all off the top of your head? You make me regret my public school education. Though in public school we had pot. I wouldn't have remembered all of that even if I had learned it. Wait ... maybe we DID and I just forgot.

Muchas gracias.

We had pot in Catholic School too. It just was that in Catholic School, just the elite cool kids with the flare leg jeans and maroon sneakers did weed and not everyone else.

[Pixies Chick]

We had pot in Catholic School too. It just was that in Catholic School, just the elite cool kids with the flare leg jeans and maroon sneakers did weed and not everyone else.

Tell me they were Converse All-Stars.

[Spackling Compound]

Tell me they were Converse All-Stars.
Low tops at that...

Black tshirts with Charlie Daniels Band logs...flared Wranglers in deep blue...and the omnipresent huge comb poking out of the back pocket.

[Pixies Chick]

Comb??!? What's that? Dreds w/high tops w/Levis cut off at the knees. Or army boots (from a friend who attended military school) paired w/Baby Spice dresses. Then I went all natural fibers. Itchy and inconvenient!

Charlie Daniels was for Dads.

[Spackling Compound]

Comb??!? What's that? Dreds w/high tops w/Levis cut off at the knees. Or army boots (from a friend who attended military school) paired w/Baby Spice dresses. Then I went all natural fibers. Itchy and inconvenient!

Charlie Daniels was for Dads.

Baby, I'm talking 1977! and the South...

All that '90's pothead stuff with the Grateful Dead cover bands and the Blind Melon..meh.

I'm talking redneck, blowdried and Camaro driving weeders who are the stuff of many an ABC Afterschool special.

And the comb...

http://www.recycledproducts.com/wsp_i/product_fullsize/comb-cdn.jpg

To quote CDB, If you don't like the way I'm living, then you just leave this long haired country boy alone....

[Pixies Chick]

Baby, I'm talking 1977! and the South...

All that '90's pothead stuff with the Grateful Dead cover bands and the Blind Melon..meh.

I'm talking redneck, blowdried and Camaro driving weeders who are the stuff of many an ABC Afterschool special.

And the comb...

http://www.recycledproducts.com/wsp_i/product_fullsize/comb-cdn.jpg

To quote CDB, If you don't like the way I'm living, then you just leave this long haired country boy alone....

You mean, like Jimmy Carter and Daisy Duke? Closest I got was a keg in the trunk, dressed like Stevie Nicks, tromping through the brush in a pair of Candies.

[Blue Spider]

One thing people forget is aa "good" christian tends to be full of much hatred. I have yet to meet one that doesn't have this seed of hate festering in them. Something very much against the teachings of Jesus but there nonetheless. I guess its a result of the "us" vs "them" thinking that the churches themselves teach.

Uhhhhhh. This is what sickens me about a lot of secular folk.

You may not share what I believe and I don't share beliefs with a lot of people. My beliefs, ideas, ideals, notions, philosophies, and all this other stuff may motivate me one way or another politically and have influence over my actions.

But hatred is a deeply personal thing. No matter how distasteful anybody finds another's actions, it is among the most arrogant of actions to propose that they are doing it out of hate. To believe you know why I do anything is pretty arrogant, to guess that someone like me must be hateful towards something to explain why he does something is excruciatingly willful.

You have to be a telepath or an empath of the highest order to see what is in someone's heart. I hate people telling me whom I would be good together with and I despise people telling me whom I hate.

and I dislike people telling me whom other people hate.... as if it was a great feat of empathy in the discovery.

CJA

[Blue Spider]

Grievous error in the above post...

Change the phrase "they made marriage" to "we made marriage". I'm Catholic, so whatever "they" do, I'm in!

I never care for that choice of grammar. I'm an American but I never say that "we held slaves". I always use "They held slaves" to differentiate the dead people from the live people.

Not to mention that at the time of said slave-holding my respective forefathers drank German beer, ate German chocolate, and basically lived like Germans as Germans.

My ideological forefathers may have held slaves, but I still say "they" and I'd rather not say that you made marriage.... unless of course I can access to what ever Lazarus Pit kept you alive for 500 years. I want that!

CJA

[sk716]

Dammit this thread is back AGAIN!!!

It's the thread that won't die!!!

[Kyuubi]

Coming soon to DVD.

The critically acclaimed movie of 2004!

The movie that has garnered more Oscar buzz than a J-Bolt picture,


It's...

http://www.garbett.org/images/threadwouldntdie.jpg

I alway love getting a chance to use this picture.

[the4thpip]

"Churches say that the expression of love in a heterosexual monogamous relationship includes the physical, the touching, embracing, kissing, the genital act - the totality of our love makes each of us grow to become increasingly godlike and compassionate. If this is so for the heterosexual, what earthly reason have we to say that it is not the case with the homosexual?"

- Bishop Desmond Tutu

[anthony!]

It should be noted that Bishop Tutu is Anglican, if I'm not mistaken. And it should also be noted that in Pip's quote Tutu's definition of love and sexual expression makes no mention of marriage. Marriage in the Catholic sense is more than sexual expression. No one here is really debating the capacity of gay people to express a genuine love.

p.s. Die thread, die! ;)

[anthony!]

Like: Marriage is a bond for life vs. Marriage can be divorced?
Those kinds of definitions?

And what does Madonna's daughter have to do with holy water? :confused:

Yes, those kinds of definitions would be just as appropriate to this debate in my thinking.

Sorry, I took a break from this thread for awhile. When did Madonna get involved in this? Did I miss something, or was that a funny?

p.s. Die, thread, die!

[the4thpip]

Yes, those kinds of definitions would be just as appropriate to this debate in my thinking.

Sorry, I took a break from this thread for awhile. When did Madonna get involved in this? Did I miss something, or was that a funny?

p.s. Die, thread, die!
Madonna's daughter is called Lourdes.

[Pixies Chick]

It should be noted that Bishop Tutu is Anglican, if I'm not mistaken. ...

Well, even so, maybe you'd agree he's a good person to check in with now and then, you know, after the Catholic honeymoon we're currently experiencing dies away and we realize that there are other religious people in the world, and maybe their opinion matters for something, despite it being clearly inferior to anything that comes from God's Vicar.

[the4thpip]

By the way, here is the source for the Tutu quotes:

http://www.afrol.com/articles/13584

Archbishop Tutu: "We treat them as pariahs and push them outside our communities. We make them doubt that they too are children of God - and this must be nearly the ultimate blasphemy. We blame them for what they are."

"We struggled against apartheid in South Africa, supported by people the world over, because black people were being blamed and made to suffer for something we could do nothing about; our very skins. It is the same with sexual orientation. It is a given."

[anthony!]

Well, even so, maybe you'd agree he's a good person to check in with now and then, you know, after the Catholic honeymoon we're currently experiencing dies away and we realize that there are other religious people in the world, and maybe their opinion matters for something, despite it being clearly inferior to anything that comes from God's Vicar.

Hey I'm all for listening to other people. After all, I listen to you now don't I? — despite the fact that I only agree with you on certain social justice issues and thats about it. We really do get confused between what it means to listen and agree on this thread. Heck the people on this thread barely even understand each other.

Bishop Tutu is great, from what little admittedly I know about him. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with him, particularly when comparing struggles of race to struggles of sexuality. They aren't the same. Besides, like I said earlier— this entire debate, at least from the Catholic POV— really has little to do with a person's capacity to love and show affection. It's deeper and broader than that.

All that said, I certainly expect debate to be heated and spirited between denominations and officials over the next several years.

And considering events in the Anglican Church at the moment, you can hardly say Bishop Tutu speaks for anyone besides his own feelings— despite his wealth of knowledge and experience.

And I'd expect the limelight to be away from Catholicism for only a little while. When this pope begins to travel....

ps Die thread die!

[the4thpip]

ps Die thread die!
It might die on my wedding day. ;)

[anthony!]

It might die on my wedding day. ;)

Oh snap! :D

[the4thpip]

Oh snap! :D
That is SO gay.

[anthony!]

That is SO gay.

I can't help it if I'm well dressed and good looking. Don't jump to conclusions. :cool:

[the4thpip]

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20050422/lbs050422.gif

[the4thpip]

Elton John's Publicist Says Singer to Wed

LONDON - Pop singer Elton John will marry his longtime partner David Furnish later this year or early next year, his publicist said Monday.


Britain's The Mirror tabloid newspaper reported Monday that John, 58, would marry his Canadian partner Furnish, 42, before Christmas.

Laws recognizing homosexual civil partnerships come into effect in Britain in December.

John's spokesman Gary Furrow told British Broadcasting Corp. the nuptials may be postponed until 2006.

"A date and a venue has not been set, so it may not be until next year," Furrow told the BBC.

John was reported in The Mirror as saying the wedding could be held in Windsor, west of London, where Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall were married earlier this month.

"We definitely want to do it about the middle of December, probably in Windsor," John was quoted as saying. "But there will be no honeymoon. I'm on tour."

The pair maybe among the first British homosexuals to take advantage of new laws recognizing gay civil partnerships, which come into effect in Britain on Dec. 5.

The law, which is only applicable to homosexuals and not as an alternative to heterosexual marriage, grants lesbian and gay couples the same tax, pension, and inheritance status as married couples.

John has publicly credited Furnish, who he has dated for 11 years, with helping him to overcome addictions to alcohol and drugs.



http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20050425/capt.sge.jyh29.250405152032.photo00.photo.default-384x261.jpg

[Dazzler]

Bishop Tutu is great, from what little admittedly I know about him. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with him, particularly when comparing struggles of race to struggles of sexuality. They aren't the same. Besides, like I said earlier— this entire debate, at least from the Catholic POV— really has little to do with a person's capacity to love and show affection. It's deeper and broader than that.


well, why don't you explain how belittling one to validate the other doesn't smack exactly of race relations of past decades?
but of course, as you've obviously struggled with being gay your whole life, you are in teh perfect position to tell everyone what the struggles of sexuality are and arent? because you know, right? i mean, you've been there, you're an expert, huh?

Smarmy, sanctimonious.....

besides, i'm going the Ex Machina route in my opinions these days. If these religious jerks want the "sanctimony" of marriage, then abolish all marriage, and make marriages made outside of churches simply civil unions, for same and opposite sex couples. Make marriages inside churches "traditional" marriage. That way, it can be sanctified "by God."

But i have a feeling these self righteous assholes will *never* be satisfied until all gay people are shipped off on boats to some desert island.

--Dazz

[the4thpip]

Cardinal compares gay marriage to Nazism

Gay rights groups in Spain reacted with anger on Wednesday after a Roman Catholic cardinal compared obedience to the legalization of same-sex marriage to the process that led to the creation of Nazi death camps, Agence France-Presse reports. "If you give obedience to the law priority over obedience to your conscience, that leads to Auschwitz," Cardinal Ricard Maria Carles, former archbishop of Barcelona, told a Spanish television station.

Spanish deputies last week approved a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry and adopt children. The bill is expected to become law and would make Spain the third European country after the Netherlands and Belgium to do so. "The people who made Auschwitz were not criminals, but people who had been forced to, or thought they had a duty to, obey the laws of the Nazi government rather than their own conscience."

The Triangulo foundation, a Spanish gay rights group, said that comparison with the Holocaust was "repugnant" and called on the church to "stop sowing hatred against victims of discrimination and against victims of the Holocaust, among whom there were many homosexuals."

Another gay rights group, Cogam, said it was "incredible that the Catholic hierarchy should reach the point where it makes a link between the parliamentarians who voted for the [gay marriage bill] and Nazism" and attacked an "unacceptable interference by a foreign state in Spanish politics."

The Vatican, in the person of Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, last week called on Spanish public service workers to show "conscientious objection" to the new legislation. Justice minister Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar said that such an objection had no place in a law voted by the parliament. A large number of mayors and municipal councilors said this week they would not conduct marriage services for same-sex couples. But many conservative mayors of big cities, among them Alberto Ruiz Gallardon of Madrid and Rita Barbera of Valencia, said they would respect the law.

They lost all sense of perspective...

[anthony!]

well, why don't you explain how belittling one to validate the other doesn't smack exactly of race relations of past decades?
but of course, as you've obviously struggled with being gay your whole life, you are in teh perfect position to tell everyone what the struggles of sexuality are and arent? because you know, right? i mean, you've been there, you're an expert, huh?

This isn't about belittling. If anything both sides regularly belittle the other. Many Christians unwisely use overly harsh language to defend their position, and it comes off as a put down. Unfortunately, the press loves to give these people all the coverage, because it makes the argument heat up.

Conversley, the other side gets ticked off and starts going off on how horrible religion is, and then takes the argument to ridiculous places— like your assumption that I have no struggles in my life, or that I'm some sort of self proclaimed expert, with telepathic abilities to read the hearts and minds of others. I wouldn't presume...

And no, it doesn't smack of race relations. Try again. The two movements have similar properties and tactics, but they are far from the same or exact. No one is arguing over a persons right to exist and be counted. If they are, then there is no place for it. We are however, debating people's actions and behavior. Its about actions, not about existence. Thats a massive difference from racial debates.

Smarmy, sanctimonious.....

Oh yeah, thats how you get people on your side....

besides, i'm going the Ex Machina route in my opinions these days. If these religious jerks want the "sanctimony" of marriage, then abolish all marriage, and make marriages made outside of churches simply civil unions, for same and opposite sex couples. Make marriages inside churches "traditional" marriage. That way, it can be sanctified "by God."

But i have a feeling these self righteous assholes will *never* be satisfied until all gay people are shipped off on boats to some desert island.

--Dazz

Ironically, while you were going off on religious jerks such as myself— you just hit on exactly my solution to this whole thing, if you'd actually go back through the thread and read my posts.

I've long held the opinion that the only real way to solve the issue is to abolish marriage, make it nothing more than a civil contract between two consenting adults (which could even have different tiers of mingling between the two people), and leave the rest to the churches.

If gay people are so interested in getting married at that point, they can sign a contract and find some church out there that will give them a nice flowery ceremony— frankly its not that different from how things are now between all the various sects and denominations.

I have no clue if thats all "Ex Machina"— I stopped reading that series after the first issue, because frankly I am starting to really really loathe political and social commentary/jabs in my comics. I'm starting to get hyper-sensitive to the jabs in even Runaways. I don't need another West Wing-like piece that pats itself on the back for its individualistic, left-wing elitist philosophy while insulting the intelligence of the rest of us. Ex Machina could be awesome and great, and even none of the things I said— but I come to comics for entertainment, not to be told how I suck for believing in God. If anything thats pretty smarmy and sanctimonious of them...

So no, this self righteous asshole would actually be rather concerned if gay people were shipped off to a desert island...

[Pixies Chick]

They lost all sense of perspective...

Amen. (They haven't copyrighted that phrase yet, have they?)

4/28/2005
The Passion of the Frist
By Nancy Goldstein, for RawStoryQ

Sixty years ago this month the advance of Allied troops into Germany stopped the guards at the Buchenwald concentration camp from turning Jews, queers, and political dissidents into lampshades and soap long enough to pack as many of us into railcars as they could and send us deeper into the countryside to Dachau.

It was a preventative measure. Soviet forces had, to the Nazis’ great consternation, uncovered evidence of mass murder at the Majdanek concentration camp the summer before, in 1944: the crematorium had been destroyed, but the guards, in their haste, had left the gas chambers standing. During the liberation of Auschwitz the next winter, the Soviets discovered 7,000 skeletal prisoners and all that remained of the 1.3 million people who had been sent there: hundreds of thousands of men’s suits, more than 800,000 women’s outfits, and more than 14,000 pounds of human hair.

Three weeks after the 40-odd railcars left Buchenwald, the American forces that liberated Dachau discovered them sitting on the tracks outside the camp and opened them, finding all 2,000-3,000 prisoners in an advanced stage of decomposition. It is the sight of what is now known as the “Dachau death train” that is said to have caused the Americans, who had just accepted the surrender of the Waffen-SS soldiers stationed in the garrison next to Dachau, to break all conventions of civilized warfare by lining their POWs up against a wall and shooting them.

Despite the overlapping dates of the liberation of Dachau and last weekend’s Family Research Council (FRC) sponsored “Justice Sunday,” the murder of over 6 million people is not the kind of religious persecution the event’s originators had in mind. Instead, viewers were treated to a Republican political-operative-led Holy War against Democrats masquerading as a call to “stop the filibuster against people of faith.”

Yes, 60 years after the Holocaust, archconservatives that have always accused people of color, LGBT people, and women of playing the victim, and who now use bullying and coercion in their attempts to bypass the Constitution and level the wall between church and state, are trying to claim the moral high ground of persecution.

It would be more convincing if their self-perceived situation as victims had any basis in reality. Despite Christianity’s status as the overwhelmingly dominant religion in the United States, Christian acolytes of the FRC are trying to sell themselves as a persecuted tribe. It’s a hard sell, because over 200 of President Bush’s judicial nominees have cleared the Senate, and fewer than a dozen have been filibustered. Still, Tony Perkins, the president of FRC, is claiming “activist courts, aided by liberal interest groups like the ACLU have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary, like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms.”

But the problem’s worse than that. The Justice Sunday folks and a couple of other current major newsmakers aren’t just wrong about what constitutes persecution status. They’re wrong about what constitutes true moral evil in the world.

The archconservative Christian group Focus on the Family (FOF), which co-sponsored the event, has no apparent interest in focusing on the issues most families in the US grapple with: the rising cost of health care, the scarcity of living-wage jobs, a deteriorating public education system, and the ballooning federal deficit. Instead Dr. James Dodson, FOF’s founder, kept it real during his time at the mike by accusing justices of “a campaign to limit religious liberty.”

Sunday also marked the first mass of Benedict XVI. He, too, sees no limit on his right to intervene in the public, secular realm. He is on record as opposing Turkey’s efforts to join the European Union on the grounds that “Europe should be preserved as a Christian entity.” In a memo issued prior to last year’s US presidential elections, he instructed pastors to refuse Communion to politicians who support women’s right to safe, legal abortions - and their supporters. But this week, he was silent on the liberation of Dachau 60 years ago - even though Dachau is a part of his past.

The former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger is often defended for having been only 14 when he joined the Hitler Youth, but he was 16, and old enough to be “enrolled in an anti-aircraft unit that protected a BMW factory making aircraft engines” two years later whose workforce “included slaves from Dachau.”

But B16 refuses to take any responsibility for sitting there with his ankles crossed while millions of people were tortured to death in the name of God and nation under his nose. In a rhetorical move fondly reminiscent of a former President who never inhaled, the new pope insists that he “never took part in combat or fired a shot - adding that his gun was not even loaded - because of a badly infected finger.” And he has said that “although he was opposed to the Nazi regime, any open resistance would have been futile.”

Pay no mind to spoilsports from the pope’s boyhood village that dismiss his excuses, like Elizabeth Lohner, 84, whose brother-in-law was sent to Dachau as a conscientious objector. “It was possible to resist, and those people set an example for others,” she said. “The Ratzingers were young and had made a different choice.” But really, who wants to die for some high-minded lost cause when you can live to rise to high office instead? Who wants to wind up hanging like this foolish partisan teenaged girl? Or this poor, principled guy?

So what new humanitarian ground has the new pope marked out for himself instead? Did he speak out against government-sponsored genocide in Darfur and Chechnya? Did he plead for religious tolerance and co-existence? Remind the world of its obligation to care for the weakest among us?

Um, no.

Benedict XVI, who passively watched “Jews being herded to death camps,” and later went on to ignore the suffering of thousands of children at the hands of pedophile priests in his capacity as head of the Vatican office to safeguard the morals of the church, has chosen as his first big issue - wait for it - the decision of the democratically elected Spanish government to allow same-sex marriage. Furthermore, he has ordered the people of Spain to rise up in resistance against this atrocity, demanding, “Every profession linked with implementing homosexual marriages should oppose it, even if it meant losing their jobs.” In a moment of unsurpassed irony, B16’s cardinal, speaking 60 years too late and in the wrong country, “insisted that just because something was made law did not make it right.”

Which is apparently the way they feel over at the Air Force Academy in Colorado, too. A taxpayer-funded school whose sole charge is to produce Air Force leaders, the academy appears to have lived in denial of the constitutional separation of church and state. For one, the “official academy newspaper runs a Christmas ad every year praising Jesus and declaring him the only savior” (signed by over 200 staff, including department heads). And then there’s the example set by academy commandant, Brig. Gen. Johnny Weida, a born-again Christian who “told cadets in 2003 that their first responsibility was to God, and who strongly endorsed National Prayer Day.”

Now the same beleaguered Academy where high-ranking officials tried to cover up the rapes of half a dozen female cadets two years ago is the focus of “complaints that evangelical Christians wield so much influence at the school that anti-Semitism and other forms of religious harassment have become pervasive.” The 55+ complaints of religious discrimination include cases where “a Jewish cadet was told that the Holocaust was revenge for the death of Jesus and another was called a Christ killer by a fellow cadet.”

Apparently the same military that bars LGBT people from serving, because the very presence of a queer person is enough to undermine the disciplinary structure of an entire institution, takes a far more benevolent approach to outright proselytizing in the Lord’s name. As the academy’s board chairman piously intoned, evangelical Christians “do not check their religion at the door” - as though the request that folks refrain from imposing their religious views upon others in taxpayer-funded settings is tantamount to asking them to relinquish their private beliefs.

But don’t worry about that poor, persecuted academy. Dodson’s Focus on the Family, which is quartered nearby in Colorado Springs, has sprung to its rescue. Incredibly, FOF’s spokesperson complained that “there is an anti-Christian bigotry developing at the school” - population 2,600 Protestants, 1,300 Roman Catholics, 120 Mormons, 44 Jews, and “a few Muslims, Hindus and others.”

Holy Wars are terrific fundraisers, and great for group morale - so long as you’re not their object. But those of us who have been on the wrong end of a Crusade know that these choreographed spectacles aren’t cheap, and that they run on orders from the top. We will hold President Bush, and House and Senate majority leaders DeLay and Frist, responsible for encouraging this dangerous nonsense whereby powerful majorities pose as the victims of religious persecution in a ploy to extend Republican political dominance.

And we will never forget.
http://rawstoryq.com/news/2005/index.php?p=69

[Samurai]

Amen. (They haven't copyrighted that phrase yet, have they?)
Wow, that's just one huge frickin' Godwin's Law violation there...

[the4thpip]

I'll allow it.

[Samurai]

I'll allow it.
I won't, and since I'm part of the group being compared to Jew-roasting, human-skin-lampshade-making Nazis at length here, I think it's my call. You can protest when supporters of gay rights are compared to Nazis, as in the article you quoted a ways above.

[the4thpip]

Overruled.

[Spackling Compound]

They lost all sense of perspective...

And now what was really communicated...
From: Zenit.org
Date: 2005-04-28

Spain Split as Same-Sex Marriage Nears

Calls for Conscientious Objection Sounded

ROME, APRIL 28, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Vatican Radio says that bitter controversies have arisen in Spain given the prospect of legalization of same-sex "marriages."

"Some mayors proclaim conscientious objection" in their function of marrying these couples, "while Catholic jurists urge the magistracy not to give children in adoption to gay couples," because of the harm that could be done to them, Vatican Radio reported Wednesday.

Last Thursday, the lower house of the Spanish Parliament approved legislation to extend the right of marriage and adoption of children to same-sex couples. The text will be sent to the Senate, where approval is expected.

Disagreement over the legislation has been expressed by key institutions such as the Council of State, the Council of Judicial Power, and the Royal Academy of Jurisprudence and Legislation.

In addition, citizens groups are planning a popular parliamentary initiative to oppose the law and virtually all religious confessions have expressed their disagreement with the norm.

"A direct confrontation is taking shape in Spain between the promoters" of the law and those motivated by religion or social ethics who "are firmly opposed to this falsification of the family institution," said Vatican Radio.

In an interview Friday with the Italian newspaper Il Corriere della Sera, the president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo, called for the conscientious objection of Catholics to the measure when it becomes law.

"A law is not right just because of the fact that it is a law," said the cardinal. "Iniquitous things cannot be imposed on peoples. What is more, precisely because they are iniquitous, the Church calls urgently to freedom of conscience and the duty to oppose."

"Already some mayors in Spain have announced their refusal to hold weddings between persons of the same sex," continued Vatican Radio.

Francesco D'Agostino, president of the Italian Union of Catholic Jurists and the National Bioethics Committee, told Vatican Radio: "In all probability, a public employee who refuses to agree to a homosexual marriage will be replaced by another employee equipped with such powers," who will not have ideological or religious scruples about such a marriage.

He added: "It would seem very strange to me -- given the many requests for adoption that cannot be satisfied because of the lack of children up for adoption -- if preference is given to homosexual couples."

We've lost all perspective if your perspective is through rose-colored Gucci glasses, Elton.

[Pixies Chick]

Wow, that's just one huge frickin' Godwin's Law violation there...

Godwin's Law? This is no analogy.

Nazis are real, and this guy was a real Nazi. Granted, a nazi with an excuse. So we don't blame him for being a nazi at 16.

However, if his experience as a Nazi didn't convince him that marginalizing members of society led to violence against them, what exactly did he learn while he was a Nazi? It appears he learned that homosexuals are convenient scapegoats for those wanting to abuse their authority.

Continuing to target the group that was targeted by the Nazis proves there's a statute of limitations on his excuse. Now he's a grown man, pope and ex-Nazi who permits his underlings to say miserable things about homosexuals. If people connect that to his Nazi past, it's his damn fault for acting in such a way as to remind them that he has a Nazi past.

[Spike-X]

"Catholic jurists urge the magistracy not to give children in adoption to gay couples," because of the harm that could be done to them, Vatican Radio reported Wednesday.

And, er...what harm would that be, exactly?

[Charles RB]

I do find it lovely that he's been quoted saying it would have been futile for him to oppose a regime that is evil & murderous (and pointing out he was ignoring the allegations of paedophilia among priests), but is calling for Spanish Catholics to oppose en masse a government that is allowing same-sex marriage. There's a massive flaw in priorities here.

And, er...what harm would that be, exactly?

Gay people eat children.

[Spackling Compound]

I do find it lovely that he's been quoted saying it would have been futile for him to oppose a regime that is evil & murderous (and pointing out he was ignoring the allegations of paedophilia among priests), but is calling for Spanish Catholics to oppose en masse a government that is allowing same-sex marriage. There's a massive flaw in priorities here.
Whoa, slow down. He's not calling for government opposition just an opposition of a policy. And are you confusing the Cardinal with the pope?



Gay people eat children....not yet, silly. Give it a few years...

[Spike-X]

Iniquitous things cannot be imposed on peoples.

Who's being imposed on here? Nobody's being forced to marry anyone of their own gender if they don't want to.

[the4thpip]

Colo. gay marriage ban dies in committee

Colorado lawmakers have squashed an attempt a ban same-sex marriage in their state constitution by voting 6-5 Tuesday to kill a constitutional amendment in the House Judiciary Committee.

The party line vote means Colorado is one state that will not follow the road heavily traveled by 14 others in the last year. Those states sent to the voters amendments that profoundly limit the rights of same-sex couples. All 14 passed, as did four similar amendments a few years earlier.

Like many of these amendments, Colorado's version would have outlawed civil unions, along with marriage for gay couples. The different language and vague wordings in some of the measures have already led to unintended results in several states.

In Michigan, the attorney general has announced that the amendment prevents cities like Kalamazoo from offering domestic partner benefits based on sexual orientation, while Gov. Jennifer Granholm has pulled partner rights from pending contracts with state workers. In Ohio, a judge ruled that domestic violence statutes don't apply to fights between unmarried couples. In Utah, lawyers for Utah State University are advising the institution to drop the idea of providing medical benefits to staff partners.

Democrats on the judiciary committee pointed to incidents such as these in opposing the amendment. Republicans, including sponsor Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, extolled heterosexual marriage, calling it "the gold standard," and suggesting that same-sex relationships "jeopardize the most effective means of promoting peace and harmony."

Also on Tuesday, the Colorado House passed a Senate bill that will add sexual orientation and gender identity to the categories protected against workplace discrimination under state law. The measure must pass the House again, and return for another vote in the senate, before arriving on the governor's desk. According to the Denver Post, the Democratic lawmakers are also hoping to squeeze a hate crimes measure through the Legislature before adjourning next week.

The progressive agenda, said Mark Hotaling, executive director of the Christian Coalition of Colorado, is "plainly a payback to Tim Gill and all the money he spent putting those people in office." Quark founder Tim Gill is an openly gay philanthropist who lives in Colorado. The Gill Foundation, in turn, was established in order to "secure equal opportunity for all people, regardless of sexual orientation or gender expression."


Copyright © 2005 Planet Out.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/po/cologaymarriagebandiesincommittee&printer=1

same-sex relationships "jeopardize the most effective means of promoting peace and harmony."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/565000/images/_566045_good_grief.gif

[Samurai]

Colo. gay marriage ban dies in committee



http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/po/cologaymarriagebandiesincommittee&printer=1

same-sex relationships "jeopardize the most effective means of promoting peace and harmony."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/565000/images/_566045_good_grief.gif
Seems like some of the ire and backlash from last year's illegal flaunting of the law in SF and legalizing gay marriage in others is dying down, but if those kinds of things happen again, this bill will probably be reintroduced, and pass next time...

[the4thpip]

Seems like some of the ire and backlash from last year's illegal flaunting of the law in SF and legalizing gay marriage in others is dying down, but if those kinds of things happen again, this bill will probably be reintroduced, and pass next time...
Or maybe all the old farts who oppose gay marriage have died by then and have been replaced with a more enlightened generation.

[Ian Boothby]

I do find it lovely that he's been quoted saying it would have been futile for him to oppose a regime that is evil & murderous (and pointing out he was ignoring the allegations of paedophilia among priests), but is calling for Spanish Catholics to oppose en masse a government that is allowing same-sex marriage. There's a massive flaw in priorities here.



Gay people eat children.

Who can blame them? They're like free range veal.

[Spike-X]

Or maybe all the old farts who oppose gay marriage have died by then and have been replaced with a more enlightened generation.
Judging by the attitudes of the people I work with, it's going to take a while.

[Spike-X]

same-sex relationships "jeopardize the most effective means of promoting peace and harmony."

They do? I wonder how they do this, exactly?

[anthony!]

Or maybe all the old farts who oppose gay marriage have died by then and have been replaced with a more enlightened generation.

Actually that generation's (Boomers, I presume? X-ers?) "enlightened"-ness is merely self-proclaimed, and their self-determined "tolerance" is really a by-product of laziness and self-absorbtion. Go to any mall and see for yourself. This isn't an age of enlightenment or information, its an age of hedonism— in the western world, at least.

But of course, thats a generalization, just like your sweeping statement.

[Ian Boothby]

Actually that generation's (Boomers, I presume? X-ers?) "enlightened"-ness is merely self-proclaimed, and their self-determined "tolerance" is really a by-product of laziness and self-absorbtion. Go to any mall and see for yourself. This isn't an age of enlightenment or information, its an age of hedonism— in the western world, at least.

But of course, thats a generalization, just like your sweeping statement.

Do you really think so? I don't see this generation being any more hedonistic than the 70, 60s, 50s (we'll skip the 40s because people were busy), 30s and on and on... It's just more out in the open now.

[Pixies Chick]

Further anecdotal evidence that the biggest homophobes are the biggest homo-boys.

West's public policy conflicts with private life
Karen Dorn Steele / Staff writer
© The Spokesman-Review 2005

In an Internet chat room last New Year’s Eve where he discussed his recent date with an 18-year-old man, Spokane Mayor Jim West criticized the “sex Nazis” who try to regulate private sexual behavior.

For years, that’s exactly what West tried to do in Olympia.

Over two decades, West rose to power in the Washington Legislature with a carefully cultivated image as a fiscally conservative Republican opposed to gay rights, abortion rights and teenage sex...

In a wide-ranging interview Wednesday night, West acknowledged he’d recently begun to seek out young men on the Internet and said he couldn’t explain why. “I don’t want to go into the whole issue, but I wouldn’t characterize me as ‘gay,’.” West said...

Their 1986 bill, which failed, would have barred gay men and lesbians from working in schools, day-care centers and some state agencies. It called for screening prospective employees for sexual orientation and firing employees whose homosexuality became known...

In 1986, West voted to bar the state from distributing pamphlets telling people how to protect themselves from AIDS during sex. He said such instruction “is something people go buy at dirty bookstores.” ...

During a 1990 hearing on AIDS education, West proposed that teen sex be criminalized.
The bill, written by the abstinence group Teen Aid, would have made sexual contact – not just sexual intercourse – a misdemeanor for unmarried teenagers 18 or younger. It defined sexual contact as “any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person.” ...

During the Gay.com chat on New Year’s Eve, when West had been Spokane’s mayor for a year, the 18-year-old man who’d had a sexual encounter with West on a date in June 2004 said “you wouldn’t be in the position you are in today if the right-winged supporters knew you like to mess around with guys.”

West replied: “Two consenting adults must have the ability to protect their privacy or else the damn sex Nazis will be telling everyone what to do.” ...

As a Senate leader, West consistently opposed efforts to expand civil rights protections for gays in jobs and housing. In an interview Wednesday, he said he’s philosophically opposed to legislation that creates “special classes” of rights for minorities, including gays. “I don’t think you should discriminate against anybody. I have never been outspoken against gays, and I’ve never discriminated against gays,” West said, adding that he felt the gay rights bills were unnecessary...

It’s wrong for politicians who are privately gay or bisexual to take strong anti-gay stances, said Eric Ishino, who was Anderson’s partner. Ishino is the chief financial analyst for the city of Seattle’s legislative department.

“It really bothers me,” Ishino said. “I don’t necessarily believe in the outing of closeted individuals. But when they are so vocal against gays and lesbians, I am torn. It’s really hurting a lot of people, especially gay youth, who are struggling with so many issues,” he said, citing the high suicide rate among gay teens.

Closeted gay conservatives tend to suffer from self-hatred, Ishino said...

...In an April 9 Internet chat, West sent his photo to “Moto-Brock,” the person he believed was an 18-year-old Spokane high school senior. Instead, Moto-Brock was a forensic computer consultant hired by the newspaper to verify the mayor’s identity and presence on Gay.com.

According to the Internet dialogue with the consultant, West repeated his earlier offer of an internship at City Hall for Moto-Brock.

West told Moto-Brock he had to be extremely careful about not revealing “a part of my life I don’t share at all,” the transcripts show.

“Someday I may run for governor and this would be bad if you know what I mean.”
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/jimwest/story.asp?ID=050505_west_politics

[the4thpip]

They do? I wonder how they do this, exactly?
Well, you see, when people like Pat Rorbertson or the average Alabaman* sees a happy, committed gay couple, they get so mad they want to take their semi-automatic guns and turn said happy, committed gay couple into a bloody mess of bullets and gay, committed guts.

And there goes all the peace and harmony they strived for.






* ;)

[the4thpip]

Most retarded judge, ever:

School's mention of homosexuality blocked

Stephen Manning, Associated PressFri May 6, 8:38 PM ET

SUMMARY: A federal judge in Greenbelt, Maryland, has blocked a county school system from instituting a new health curriculum that includes discussions of homosexuality.

GREENBELT, Md. -- A federal judge has blocked a county school system from instituting a new health curriculum that includes discussions of homosexuality and religion and a demonstration on how to use condoms.

U.S. District Judge Alexander Williams issued a temporary restraining order Thursday that prevents the Montgomery County school system in suburban Washington, D.C., from using the pilot program in six schools.

The program had been scheduled to begin Monday. During the 10-day restraining order, another hearing will be held on whether to extend it, the judge said.

But school Superintendent Jerry D. Weast said in a statement after the ruling that he was suspending use of the curriculum for the rest of the school year and had ordered a review of its materials before deciding the future of the program.

Williams agreed with two groups that filed a lawsuit claiming the curriculum's discussion of homosexuality amounted to preferential treatment for religions that preach tolerance of homosexuality over those that reject it.

For example, the curriculum juxtaposes faiths such as Quakers and Unitarians that support full rights for homosexuals with groups such as Baptists, who are painted as "intolerant and biblically misguided," the judge wrote in his opinion.

"The court is extremely troubled by the willingness of the defendants to venture, or perhaps more correctly, bound, into the crossroads of controversy where religion, morality and homosexuality converge," Williams wrote.

The lawsuit was filed Tuesday by Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, a county group composed mostly of parents, and the Virginia-based Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays.

"I don't think it is right that we have 13-year-olds learning to think whether they are gay or straight," said Laura Quigley, who has three children in the school system. "We just need to let them be kids."

The new curriculum was to be used in eighth and 10th grades. The county planned to use it in all schools after testing it this spring.

Previously, health teachers could only discuss homosexuality in response to questions. Under the new program, they could bring up the issue on their own. The 10th-grade class would include a seven-minute video that discusses abstinence and includes a segment where a woman puts a condom on a cucumber to demonstrate its use.

Students and parents who choose not to take part are offered alternatives that include abstinence-only programs.

Erik Stanley, an attorney for the two groups that filed suit, said the curriculum implies that homosexuality is a biological trait, not a lifestyle choice. It excludes the viewpoints of ex-gays and those who believe that "same-sex attraction can be overcome," he said.

Williams agreed, saying that by presenting only one side to the debate, the schools were violating the free speech rights of those who may not agree.

Again, I guess you can't read the Diary of Anne Frank without reading Mein Kampf, too. :rolleyes:

[Spike-X]

"I don't think it is right that we have 13-year-olds learning to think whether they are gay or straight," said Laura Quigley, who has three children in the school system. "We just need to let them be kids."

Sorry, but your thirteen-year-olds are going to be thinking about sex, whether you think they should be or not. And that includes thinking about the gender of who they might like to do it with. You can keep them ignorant all you like, but that's not going to stop them.

Erik Stanley, an attorney for the two groups that filed suit, said the curriculum implies that homosexuality is a biological trait, not a lifestyle choice. It excludes the viewpoints of ex-gays and those who believe that "same-sex attraction can be overcome," he said.

In other words, it teaches fact as fact, rather than teaching belief as fact and fact as belief? Certainly not something anyone wants in the school system, I'm sure!

Also, have you noticed that "those who believe that same-sex attraction can be overcome" are always heterosexuals? What the hell would they know about it?

The curriculum juxtaposes faiths such as Quakers and Unitarians that support full rights for homosexuals with groups such as Baptists, who are painted as "intolerant and biblically misguided," the judge wrote in his opinion.

"The court is extremely troubled by the willingness of the defendants to venture, or perhaps more correctly, bound, into the crossroads of controversy where religion, morality and homosexuality converge," Williams wrote.

This seems to be the main reason why the curriculum was suspended. Personally, I can't see why they need to be dragging comparative religion into health studies, any more than they need to be dragging creationism into science class.

[the4thpip]

You notice that it's a neat way to kill freedom of speech if you claim it's only freedom as long as you include every possible viewpoint?
It's a big joke, and the judge should be disbarred.

[Boldido]

Its a health class that is teaching...wait for it...

RELIGION!!!

They shouldn't be discussing Quakers or Shakers or Fakirs. They shouldn't be discussing the morality of homosexuality at all. If they want to have a sexual ethics class, then it might be appropriate.

If this was a judge that shut down a program in Alabama that was teaching a lopsided view of homosexuality as a choice and unnatural, you would be jumping up and down singing his praises. That guy would be right to shut down such a program and this judge made the right call as well. The separation of church and state exists for a reason. Just as its wrong for the theocrats to try and shove their religion down the throats of public school children, it is just as wrong to introduce religion that supports your particular point of view when indoctrinating our children in the public school system.

Ask yourself this question: Knowing the direction the country is currently leaning and the amount of pressure the religious right is putting on legislators to theocratize this country, do you really want to support the introduction and inclusion of any religious teaching in a public school curriculum?

[anthony!]

I fail to understand what this curriculum tried to teach.

Here's what your lesson of homosexuality should be: Some people are heterosexual, others are homosexual. End of story. There's really no need to go further than that.

Isn't health/class really just supposed to be how you shouldn't be scared of having hair in new places and how babies are made?

Leave the rest for the kids brave enough to venture ino the Self-Help section.

I'm actually more disturbed by the condom part. Is there really a need to teach something that ventures into HOW to express sexuality and technique?

This thread never ceases to amaze.

[TCJohnson]

Here's what your lesson of homosexuality should be: Some people are heterosexual, others are homosexual. End of story. There's really no need to go further than that.

And sex ed should be some people are heterosexual, some people are not. End of Story?

What about safe sex, how to prevent AIDs and other diseases? Shouldn't that be a part of health class? How about dispelling myths such as all homosexuals sleep around and are not monogamous?

[anthony!]

What about safe sex, how to prevent AIDs and other diseases?

Then it becomes a sexual ethics class, does it not? Technique and the execution of sexual expression