RECENT  POSTS:  » Miami-Dade Circuit judge rules state marriage ban unconstitutional; stays ruling » Video: With marriage equality, Texas could put in a pool at the Alamo » CWA ably demonstrates ludicrousness of American Christian right's persecution complex » Video: CBS News hosts '50 Years Later, Civil Rights;' includes marriage equality, obviously » Audio: White House? Nah. But in race for most anti-gay House member, Bachmann a strong contender » Brian Brown is the victim, y'all. How many times does he have to tell you? » Congrats, gay activists—Bryan Fischer has found new group for his weekly 'Nazi' branding » Maggie Gallagher: Sexual orientation is 'more akin to religion' than to race » NOM is totally popular (*in Ethiopia) » What constitutes 'absolute pure evil' in the eyes of Liberty University dean?  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

09/02/2009

Did we miss the part where gays demanded to be married in St Patrick's?!

by Jeremy Hooper

Where there's a proposed ban on civil fairness the Catholics are not far behind. This time it's DC, where the Archdiocese of Washington is using the completely optional concept of religion to deny civil marriage -- civil, civil, did we mention we're talking about CIVIL equality? -- recognition to same-sex couples:

Screen Shot 2009-09-02 At 10.55.05 Am-1

They call their arguments holy. We use a phonetically identical term to describe their logic.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Most Reverend Barry: Efforts ARE unjust, not IS unjust. Just sayin'... a basic command of the English language would have given your points more credence. Not much, but you need what you can get.

But I like the cross at the beginning of your signature. I like the implication that all letters are signed by you AND Jesus. I might start using that.

Posted by: audrey | Sep 2, 2009 11:24:23 AM

The holy roman catholic church cerainly can't say they have done THEIR part protecting the children of opposite sex couples - - if you know what I mean!

Posted by: tom | Sep 2, 2009 11:41:43 AM

Ahem, guess we wont see his name on the new list of Prominent LGBT supporters signed up for the National Equality March... see list at Towleroad http://tinyurl.com/n2mr5c.

Hope we get some good hard. 'Youve done nothing for us yet speeches.'

Posted by: LOrion | Sep 2, 2009 1:40:36 PM

Actually lay catholics tend to be slightly more liberal than the general population, so it would probably be more accurate to say the Catholic church is not far behind. It's really unfair to lay this on every catholic.

Posted by: RainbowPhoenix | Sep 2, 2009 1:40:40 PM

Funny how churches who allow no females in the church hierarchy, as priests or pastors and so on, are the ones who are opposed to all things gay and a woman's right to choose as well. They see a patriarchal relationship in marriage where the husband makes all the family decisions. The Southern Baptists still promote the "wives submit to your husband" idea.

More thoughtful churches understand that marriage is a partnership between equals who work together to achieve mutual family goals. Marriage between two people of the same sex reinforces this equal partners view, since there is no obvious husband nor obvious wife. Two men or two women work together to reach life's chosen goals.

Patriarchal religions which hold to the view that the man is the head of the family and the wife and children are bound to follow along whatever he decides deeply oppose any suggestion that marriage is a partnership between equals which is what gay marriage implies.

Posted by: Bill Ware | Sep 2, 2009 2:16:28 PM

"Civil governments have recognized marriage throughout human history as between a man and a woman because of marriage's unique role in protecting the rights of children to have both a mother and father because it creates a stable and secure foundation for our society."

So same-sex marriage does not protect the rights of children? The couples I know are very protective of their kids.

All children have a mother and a father. But many children from opposite sex marriages live with only one. Is that because man and woman can't get along?

Marriage between man and woman creates a stable foundation for our society? What do we do with the 50% of marriages that fail? Is that stability?

Just asking, Most Reverend Barry...

Posted by: Julie M. | Sep 2, 2009 2:42:39 PM

Hey Bary,
The definition of marriage has had a consistent meaning throughout ALL times? Really......? What about the Jewish patriarchs that were polygamists? One that would be a good example of this practice would be King Solomon. One man and how many women? I don't think they saw things in the same way as you do! OK, that was a long time ago.
However, Barry, you do realize that the Holy Mother Church blessed the same sex unions of quite a few monks. You do remember, right? I will admit that it was many centuries ago. So don't tell us what the definition of marriage is and always has been, you don't have a clue! Go peddle your hate and lies somewhere else you hypocrite.

Posted by: Chuck H. | Sep 2, 2009 4:52:21 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails