December 20, 2010

With the end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," where will the gay rights movement go?

The New York Times reports on a Media Matters project called Equality Matters.
It will be run by Richard Socarides, a former domestic policy adviser to President Bill Clinton who has been deeply critical of President Obama’s record on gay rights. A well-known gay journalist, Kerry Eleveld, the Washington correspondent for The Advocate, will leave that magazine in January to edit the new group’s Web site, equalitymatters.org, which is to go online Monday morning.

“Yesterday was a very important breakthrough,” Mr. Socarides said... “But we will celebrate this important victory for five minutes, and then we have to move on, because we are the last group of Americans who are discriminated against in federal law and there is a lot of work to do.”
Yes, there's the obvious issue of marriage, and one might want a federal statute forbidding employment discrimination.  All right. Fine. But let's look a little farther into the future and think about the political repercussions. What would happen to the gay rights movement if the specific discrimination ended and ordinary legal equality were achieved?

Right now, gay people look to the Democratic Party (and to judges appointed by Democratic Presidents) to get these basic rights. The Democratic Party gets a political advantage by looking like a repository of hope. But would gay people continue to favor Democrats if the Democrats actually followed through and satisfied those hopes? There'd be some gratefulness, but — unless Republicans succumb to the temptation to say mean things — wouldn't gay people melt into the general population and, from that point on, vote based on what they thought about economic policies, national defense, environmental issues and so forth? Achieving equality would liberate gay people in may ways, but one of those ways would be that they could vote for Republicans if they agreed with them about issues other than gay rights issues.

Ironic, no?

256 comments:

1 – 200 of 256   Newer›   Newest»
Jay said...

Right now, gay people look to the Democratic Party (and to to judges appointed by Democratic Presidents) to get these basic rights.

And that is the problem with America in 2010.

The government, and especially judges, don't grant you "rights."

"Liberals" turned the constitution on it's head with this concept.

And the country is all the worse for it.

t-man said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
t-man said...

The activists know what they are going to do next. The local head of the bar association, who is lesbian, gave a speech in which she argued that gay marriage is necessary, but not enough, and that we have to do away with outmoded concepts like "mother" and "father". I'm completely serious.

Rumpletweezer said...

They will go after gay marriage and bring lawsuits against churches who won't perform them.

Skyler said...

You're kidding yourself. The homosexual political movement was driven primarily as a tool to divide the republican party. That it pulled people from otherwise different political perspectives is why it was chosen and why it worked.

There is no way the political powers that be will let this be a victory. It will only be seen by them as a step towards further goals. They will continue to exploit this successful method as long as they can. If you look to how race has been used long past the time where racism actually exists as a prominent factor in our society, you can see that homosexuality will be used in the same way.

This is why people are opposed to the agenda. Homosexuals by themselves are pretty harmless. It's the political movement that is the problem.

Next we will have sensitivity training, transexuals demanding equal rights as homosexuals and men demanding the right to wear women's uniforms. It's coming. It's coming because it serves a political agenda, not sense.

Scott M said...

lol

Only the laughably short-sighted would think they could celebrate for five minutes and then move on to another issue.

Although the military has said, correctly, that implementation will be deliberate and measured, the number of potential problems this is going to cascade are going to require a lot of this organization's attention if they are anything more substantial than "SQUIRREL" about this issue.

Pogo said...

"Achieving equality would liberate gay people in may ways..."

Achieving equality will never end. Just like spending, it's never enough. The bar association has indicated this is only a start.

Just like I said last night, we will seeing laws as they stand in the UK and Canada here in the USA very soon.

They don't want colorblindness, they want special treatment. Just watch; the demands will now increase, not lessen.

Scott M said...

Does DADT apply to polygamists as well?

Dark Eden said...

Its almost like the Democrats have no incentive to deliver actual results to their victim groups or something.

PS the future of gay rights activists at least: See NAACP and Al Sharpton.

"Heads up Gay Rights League I hear a twelve year old in Ohio said, 'that's so gay!' Alert our Lawyer All Stars and fire up the Justice Plane!"

Smilin' Jack said...

What would happen to the gay rights movement if the specific discrimination ended and ordinary legal equality were achieved?

It moves on to affirmative action, of course. Quotas for hiring and promotion of gays, lesbians, trannies, etc. will have to be set and enforced. Lots of work still to be done....

Marshal said...

"wouldn't gay people melt into the general population and, from that point on, vote based on what they thought about economic policies, national defense, environmental issues and so forth?"

No. Democratic Party activists will identify a new fringe idea and with the cooperation of the media and academia contend that the lack of this new policy is no different than living under Jim Crow laws. Most gays won't really agree but will fall in line because political activists can and will socially ostracize them if they don't.

Quayle said...

"because we are the last group of Americans who are discriminated against in federal law and there is a lot of work to do."

What an self-centered and ignorant view of how the "civil rights" business works in America when unattached to the public's sense of morality.

Gays are only the most recent in what will be a long line of "oppressed" groups that will keep coming forward.

After all, it's what majorities do, don't-cha-know - oppress minorities.

peter hoh said...

and to to judges appointed by Democratic Presidents

I'm no legal scholar, but Vaughn Walker (Perry v. Schwarzenegger) and Justices Kennedy and O'Connor (Lawrence v. Texas) were appointed by Republican Presidents.

AJ Lynch said...

You have a huge blind spot on the "victim" movement. My very liberal township just passed a "gender identity" law that protects people who dress differently than their God-given gender. It will never end Althouse.

wv = butchest [I swear that was the wv]

peter hoh said...

Rumpletweezer, churches are currently free to refuse to marry couples who don't fit their guidelines. This is not going to change.

PatCA said...

I distinguish between self-appointed advocates and the general population. The general population of gays are already melting into the fabric of American society. The activists, however, will go on pressuring for more money, more "rights," more sensitivity training for soldiers, more special treatment. You need only look to the Islamic lobby, the enviro lobby, the anti-gun lobby, the language police, the food police to see the strategy. It never ends. It's political.

chuck b. said...

I don't see where the money or manpower is going to come from for any broad-based, sustained gay activism after gay marriage. I agree people will always be pushing agendas--people tend to like to do that; it's therapeutic or something--but it will be a different group of people. Anyway, I know I won't be donating any money for gay affirmative action the way I have for, say, marriage.

dick said...

Question is has this article from the UCMJ been rescinded with the repeal of DADT? Unless it has this is still in effect.

Interesting:

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)

ART. 125. SODOMY
Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal
copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an
animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is
sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-
martial may direct.

I don't think the repeal of DADT rescinded this so now the gays are in worse shape than when DADT was still there. Before they do more celebrating they better make sure this part is gone as well.

FloridaSteve said...

I suspect that a lot of gay people might already be concerned enough with economic policies to get them to vote republican. Certainly more than is suggested in the general media.

chuck b. said...

"I suspect that a lot of gay people might already be concerned enough with economic policies to get them to vote republican. Certainly more than is suggested in the general media."

Indeed. I often vote Republican even though I feel very nearly no sense that my vote is welcomed or appreciated by Republicans. Well, too bad for them!

David said...

There will always be enforcement, Althouse.

The enforcement apparatus will grow, jobs, bureaus, commissions, departments will be created, and the heroic effort to achieve true equality will endure for decades (since it is so profitable.)

You can count on the natural bureaucrats and tin horn authoritarians to become the enforcers.

You can also count on their being enough homophobes to provide grist for the mill.

MadisonMan said...

The activists, however, will go on pressuring for more money, more "rights," more sensitivity training for soldiers, more special treatment.

This is always the case, whatever the "cause". Otherwise, the activists would have to get a job doing something useful.

Viewed through such a prism, it's pretty easy to dismiss them. It's too bad the political process is so befouled that Politicians think activists of most persuasions actually have valid points.

William said...

Outsider status gives one unique insights into the ways of the majority. However, the resentment caused by pariah status just as often causes such hostility as to make many of those insights distorted and just plain wrong....The Catholics, who were once a self conscious minority, have given up their resentments and are now part of the herd. I don't see that happening with most gays. Their outsider status also makes them part of a tribe, and they don't want to give that up. Whatever misperceptions straights have about gay sexuality are more than mirrored by the views gays hold about heteros. They will always find a bone of contention to struggle with.

MnMark said...

Gay activists' agenda will never be completely satisfied because at root what they want is for society to treat homosexuality as if it was exactly as valid and normal as heterosexuality. Gays don't want to feel like they're any "less" than normal people.

There's an analogy with interracial dating. It was once forbidden. Then it was legalized. Now it has been pushed to the point where a white woman who doesn't want to date black men has to fear being called a racist, and there is pressure on her to date black men to prove her social acceptability, to prove she doesn't consider blacks any less than whites.

The same sort of thing is the logical endpoint of the gay rights movement. Homosexual behaviors will be increasingly forced on normal people, who will be under increasing pressure to prove that they're not bigots by engaging in some homosexuality.

This has already happened to a married couple I know who took a Samba class which had a homosexual couple in it. At a certain point it was time to learn a type of dance where partners are exchanged. The homosexuals didn't excuse themselves from that, and thus the men among the normal couples either had to abstain from an important part of the class or else dance a hot sexy Samba with a homosexual man. My friend, a liberal, went ahead and did it, trying to make a joke of it. But to the homosexual lobby it's no joke. You had better not act like it's silly or weird to engage in pseudo-homosexual activity like hot latin dancing with someone of the same gender or, increasingly, you will be ostracized as a bigot.

That's the problem with all this gay rights stuff. They want to be treated as if they were no less than normal people, but the truth is that homosexuality IS abnormal, always will be abnormal, and is not entitled to be treated as equal to heterosexuality. It is a disorder, probably a birth defect of some sort. For the sake of adoptive children, if nothing else, we have to stop pretending it is not a disorder.

former law student said...

where will the gay rights movement go?"

Disneyland?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUPUKU8AgsA

MadisonMan said...

Now it has been pushed to the point where a white woman who doesn't want to date black men has to fear being called a racist, and there is pressure on her to date black men to prove her social acceptability, to prove she doesn't consider blacks any less than whites.

What a bunch of bullshit.

Ralph L said...

and to to judges
Quit the stereotyping. We ain't all fairies.

MnMark said...

That's not bullshit at all. I've heard stories about this first-hand from young white women who are daughters of friends of mine. Aggressive black males call them racists if they won't date them.

Skyler said...

Peter Hoh wrote, Rumpletweezer, churches are currently free to refuse to marry couples who don't fit their guidelines. This is not going to change.

I'm not sure where you get this confidence. Marriage is a religious act, but it is also a public act. The government can certainly require that anyone who licenses a marriage must also license any who request one.

Someone will very likely try to make it happen.

MadisonMan said...

Call them racists

(eyeroll). If I call them leprechauns, will they give me gold?

My initial assessment may have been harsh -- I was gonna delete it, but you replied -- but there are groups of people you should ignore. Professional victims are part of that group. Nothing will satisfy them, and they cannot accept that something is wrong with them -- it's always someone else's fault.

If you are being called racist for not dating someone you don't like, you tell them to stop being a victim and you'll reconsider. Being a victim is a complete turnoff.

Scott M said...

The government can certainly require that anyone who licenses a marriage must also license any who request one.

I'm not sure about this nationwide, but I had to get the license from the county. The church I got married in had zip/zilch/nada to do with it.

I would be more worried about a left-hook attack on 501c status for churches that won't "marry" same-sex couples.

Rialby said...

Yesterday in another related thread, MadisonMan said "I don't see how the government can tell someone how to practice their religion."

I said - look to Washington DC and the Catholic Church's decision to end foster care

He said - well, they're taking city money and therefore the city can tell them what to do.

My retort - Isn't that just what we're talking about here. Gay activists are going to go after every Christian Chaplain in the military who refuses to marry two gay privates. They take our money, right?

There will no longer be any paid chaplains in the military if they refuse to marry gay people. This will end.

former law student said...

dick -- When the UCMJ was enacted, every state in the union had an anti-sodomy law. One by one the states repealed the ban as applied to consenting adults. Lawrence v. Texas put the last nail in the coffin.

Is there something special about the military that would prevent a soldier's going down on his wife?

MnMark said...

Marriage is a religious act, but it is also a public act.

And the homosexual lobby will relentlessly work to eliminate any suggestion in the cultural sphere that marriage is man/woman thing. Just as we are relentlessly shown blacks in leadership roles in tv programs and movies, even though qualified blacks are rare in those positions, depictions of marriage will increasingly be of homosexual couples in an affirmative-action-style liberal media push to make homosexuality seem like the norm.

A few years ago in England homosexual activists got a wedding chapel that had performed weddings for centuries, and which had an ages-old painting of a couple being married, to remove the painting because it suggested that marriage was for men and women only. That kind of thing will be pursued with a vengeance: anything traditional, anything hinting of marriage as being between men and women, will be hounded out of the public eye.

The grievance lobbies always start by claiming they just want to be left alone. Then when they are left alone they claim they just want to have equal rights to do what others do. And then when they have that, they continue on to try to change the culture so that THEIR group becomes the norm. Because that was the real goal all along: not to just be left alone or to have equal rights, but to be the ones in power.

Paul Brinkley said...

This is actually two questions: where will the gay rights movement go, and where will its self-appointed watchdog group go.

Its self-appointed watchdog group will find something. This is just another example of a bureaucracy attempting to perpetuate itself.

As for the movement, I have a suggestion: go to Iran. That is, go where gay rights are most oppressed in degree and visibility.

k*thy said...

In reality, it will still be a long time coming, as there are still a lot of pieces to clean up. One less cause or discriminated group? I welcome it. Anyway, party dynamics and hot-button issues are fluid on both sides. The strange bedfellows of today will not be the same as they are tomorrow…

Trooper York said...

MmMark said....
"That's not bullshit at all. I've heard stories about this first-hand from young white women who are daughters of friends of mine. Aggressive black males call them racists if they won't date them."

Well the have to stop hanging out with the Crack Emcee. Tell them to say they are Scientologist and that should take care of that.

Trooper York said...

It could happen the way the blogger lady cites. I mean the African Americans abandoned the Republican Party that freed the slaves and passed the Civil Rights Act.

What you thought it was Richard Russel, Robert Bryd, and Sam Ervin?

No good deed goes unpunsihed.

EDH said...

"Strange bedfellows" hasn't been declared hate speech yet?

Next item on the agenda!

dbp said...

I think we all agree that "movements" always push for more. At some point, pushing further creates more injustice and we have to do what WFB said:

Stand athwart history and yell Stop!

Trooper York said...

As a general rule, activists keep pushing until they push too far.

What that will look like I don't know. But it won't be pretty.

I suspect it will look like Al Sharpton outside of Freddie's Fashion Mart.

Skyler said...

K*thy wrote: The strange bedfellows of today will not be the same as they are tomorrow…

A very curious choice of words when discussing homosexuals.

MadisonMan said...

but I had to get the license from the county. The church I got married in had zip/zilch/nada to do with it.

That was my experience as well. The only thing the priest did in my case was sign the license. But any officiant could have, like a Justice of the Peace or Ship's captain.

Perhaps people are afraid that some Govt entity will disallow Priests as officiants from being able to sign the document. But the person is still married in the Church's eyes -- the idea that the Govt would prohibit a religious service is laughable -- and all you would have to do is be married in two places. A little cumbersome, perhaps, but this is the problem when the Government sticks its nose into your business.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"The Democratic Party gets a political advantage by looking like a repository of hope."

Only because people like you advance that stereotype.

It was Democrat Bill Clinton who created DADT.

It is Barack Obama preventing gay marriage (because he would lose his black support).

Gays are too dumb to recognize which party is keeping them dependent.

Lincolntf said...

It would be nice if the "homosexual movement" would focus one-tenth of the outrage they mustered over military culture on the cultures (like the one trying to build a Victory Mosque in NYC) that don't discriminate against gays, they just slaughter them.
But it won't happen. Cowards.

Scott M said...

(like the one trying to build a Victory Mosque in NYC)

Scuttlebutt is that it may be moved to Greenwich Village...which is both hysterical and makes it a non-issue all at the same time.

edutcher said...

I think MnMark nails it on what the homosexual lobby's goals really are.

As some of the military sites have noted, what happens the first time a homosexual serviceman fights being discharged due to HIV (in some quarters, you aren't gay if you don't have it) or some of them want to have sex in public (a big thing in SF)? That's when the military branch of Equality Matters will swing into action and we'll have the endless round of lawsuits, Congressional hearings, etc.

Skyler said...

You're kidding yourself. The homosexual political movement was driven primarily as a tool to divide the republican party.

No, the Demos noticed urban homosexuals bloc vote and decided to harvest those votes.

peter hoh said...

and to to judges appointed by Democratic Presidents

I'm no legal scholar, but Vaughn Walker (Perry v. Schwarzenegger) and Justices Kennedy and O'Connor (Lawrence v. Texas) were appointed by Republican Presidents.


Kennedy by the very "moderate" Republican who appointed Souter. O'Connor got increasingly nannyish as she aged.

Dark Eden said...

Its almost like the Democrats have no incentive to deliver actual results to their victim groups or something.

You broke the code. The Demos never fix problems because the aggrieved might wake up and realize they've been had.

former law student said...

dick -- When the UCMJ was enacted, every state in the union had an anti-sodomy law. One by one the states repealed the ban as applied to consenting adults. Lawrence v. Texas put the last nail in the coffin.

Is there something special about the military that would prevent a soldier's going down on his wife?


Last I heard, the military has been allowed to do things for the good of the service that weren't allowed in civilian life because of the Constitution, so dick is probably right.

Trooper York said...

"the idea that the Govt would prohibit a religious service is laughable"

No it's not. It is no different than forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. It is the goal of some people to destroy religion and religious people. If you don't believe that you haven't been paying attention.

Just imagine if someone like downtownlad was in charge.

EDH said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
EDH said...

Where ill the gay rights movement go?

"Tell me where specifically..."

Michael said...

They will go to the schools next. It is pointless to be oppressed unless your oppression is appropriately and copiously documented and then taught. We have some, perhaps a lot, of this already but you can count on the gay rights movement occupying a chapter in your kid's social studies texts in the years to come. Speech codes will have to be weighted towards hurtful words, pictures, commentary on the topic of homosexuality. Hiring and promotion statistics will have to be carefully studied to ensure that the proper gayness is represented in all parts of corporations and government. Oh, there are quite a few places where the movement can "go."

peter hoh said...

William wrote: The Catholics, who were once a self conscious minority, have given up their resentments

Bill Donohue excepted.

Cedarford said...

Trooper - "As a general rule, activists keep pushing until they push too far.

What that will look like I don't know. But it won't be pretty.

I suspect it will look like Al Sharpton outside of Freddie's Fashion Mart."

I had to look that up. Some NYC riot back in the 80s.
Since then, Sharpton continues to make an excellent living off perpetual grievance, the race card, moaning and agitating in public.
Since that "fashion mart" riot, Al Sharpton has had two Presidential runs with all the Dem whiteys kissing his ass to "respect him publicly" because he commands the black tribal vote.
Al Sharpton has gone on to thousands of paid TV appearances, 5 Star hotels, White House dinners in his honor, having wealthy progressive Jews underwrite his travel and lodging expenses for "raising awareness and being a force for progressivism".

Rich and famous, with a slight whiff of disrepute outside his base and media bookers and wealthy patrons....but emphasis on the "rich and famous".

Trooper York said...

"Bill Donohue excepted."

Yeah. And I bet he doesn't know my Aunt Rita.

peter hoh said...

Trooper -- got any citations to back the assertion that Catholic hospitals are required to perform abortions?

Trooper York said...

Freddies Fashion Mart was a protest where a protester went crazy after being whipped by Sharpton and went in and killed a couple of people who were just working people trying to eek out a life at a minimum wage job.

This is the kind of thing that is coming.

MadisonMan said...

Just imagine if someone like downtownlad was in charge.

The National Enquirer is salivating at the thought.

President Caught in Thai 'Tween Tryst!

woof said...

Homosexual behaviors will be increasingly forced on normal people, who will be under increasing pressure to prove that they're not bigots by engaging in some homosexuality.

As some of the military sites have noted, what happens the first time a homosexual serviceman fights being discharged due to HIV (in some quarters, you aren't gay if you don't have it) or some of them want to have sex in public (a big thing in SF)? That's when the military branch of Equality Matters will swing into action and we'll have the endless round of lawsuits, Congressional hearings, etc.


Paranoid and delusional

peter hoh said...

Skyler, the state issues marriage licenses. Churches do not issue marriage licenses. Marriage licenses do not compel churches to perform marriages.

Had Althouse and Meade wished to marry in a Catholic church, with the ceremony presided over by a priest, they would have been refused. And had they sued, no court would have found in their favor.

Youngblood said...

Dick wrote:

"I don't think the repeal of DADT rescinded this so now the gays are in worse shape than when DADT was still there."

See the decision of the United States Court of Appeal for the Armed Forces in U.S. v. Marcum.

Alex said...

They will go after gay marriage and bring lawsuits against churches who won't perform them.

Yes, this!

peter hoh said...

MnMark: Just as we are relentlessly shown blacks in leadership roles in tv programs and movies, even though qualified blacks are rare in those positions,

Aha. It's all clear now. FOX is to blame for making people think a black guy could be president.

Alex said...

No it's not. It is no different than forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions.

There is nothing inherently religious about operating a hospital. The government can set the regulations on what procedures should be allowed at ANY hospital whether they call themselves Catholic or not.

Trooper York said...

Peter, it hasn't happened yet as far as I know....but the ACLU and the rest of their ilk want to do this.

I know in NYC, Catholic Charities is planning to stop much of it's activities because of laws aimed at forcing political correctness on religious people.

If you don't think that is their aim you are fooling yourself.

rhhardin said...

Nothing singles out gays in the Constitution.

They already have, and have always had, the rights that Americans have.

Any argument is with public morality and its changing fashions.

It's a fashion statement.

You have to be so careful with plaids.

Trooper York said...

Thank you Alex for proving my point.

Freddie's Fashion Mart here we come.

Beth said...

After Obama was elected and nearly two years went by with no movement on DADT, I joined with others in the Don't Ask, Don't Donate response and let every activist group as well as the Democratic Party know that so long as they were happy to use gay rights issues to prolong their own existence and string gay voters along towards an undefined "someday," they'd be getting no money and no votes from me.

DADT passed after the Democratic Shellacking of 2010; I have to wonder how many traditionally Democratic voters stayed home in November, and how much of their money didn't make it to the usual campaign pots.

I don't know that this means more gay people will vote Republican in the future, or that Democratic incumbents won't be as secure in their primaries, but I'm interested in seeing how things develop.

jerryofva said...

DADT repeal is a check in the box for the gay rights movement. (Don't expect to see a mad rush to recruiting offices in San Francisco.) In and of itself it has little impact but taken in larger context it is not an attempt to make homosexuality equal in society's eye. It is an attempt to privledge it.

Marshal said...

"paranoid and delusional"

It's amazing what the left supports only a few years after claiming critics concerns were paranoid and delusional. I recall a certain someone being widely mocked for suggesting a particular ruling would lead to gay marriage. Today if you're not for gay marriage its supporters claim you're a bigot.

I recall someone else mocked for saying activists' successful campaign against smoking would lead to similar action against food items deemed unhealthy.

Alex said...

Changing mores. 80-90% of young people believe homosexuality is normal, healthy behavior.

peter hoh said...

Edutcher wrote: Kennedy by the very "moderate" Republican who appointed Souter.

Try to get your facts straight.

peter hoh said...

Trooper, what the ACLU and Alex want is not the same as what the courts will allow.

No court has ruled that Catholic hospitals must perform abortions.

You have not supported your earlier assertion that Catholic hospitals are required to perform abortions.

Should the ACLU or Alex persuade majorities to legislate otherwise, Catholic hospitals will have to look to the courts to protect their rights. And I am confident that they will win.

Alex said...

peter hoh - wrong. When the social more are changing so rapidly to pro-gay it's only a matter of time before all of society will turn against the churches and force them to accept gays.

AJ Lynch said...

Peter:

I assume states determine/ regulate who can officiate at a marriage.

Are you 200% confident the state would never withold that offical status from those who refuse to do same sex marriages?

Scott M said...

I dunno, Alex. Quite a few people I know use electric light bulbs and televisions, but I'm not sure how much societal pressure there is on the Omish to do so.

jerryofva said...

Alex:

Oh, you mean the "General Will." Your inner Facsist is leaking out.

Alex said...

Believe me the gays will seek to remove 501c status from all churches. Oh and if you think they will let the Amish alone, you're deluded. The gay activists are Stalinist absolutists, they will not stop until 100% of society gets gayness rammed down their throats.

Scott M said...

they will not stop until 100% of society gets gayness rammed down their throats.

...so to speak...

Alex said...

Basically gays want to facefuck society.

peter hoh said...

Dark Eden said: Its almost like the Democrats have no incentive to deliver actual results to their victim groups or something.

Edutcher added: You broke the code. The Demos never fix problems because the aggrieved might wake up and realize they've been had.

How many years have Republicans campaigned against Roe v. Wade? It's the gift that keeps giving to the GOP. What's prevented them from proposing to amend the Constitution to do away with Roe?

Deficit spending is another favorite target of Republican politicians, and yet they never seem to do anything about spending when they are in power, either. But that's going to change this time, isn't it?

Youngblood said...

Edutcher wrote:

"Last I heard, the military has been allowed to do things for the good of the service that weren't allowed in civilian life because of the Constitution, so dick is probably right."

In this case, FLS is pretty much correct.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces found that the right to engage in sodomy identified by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas applies to men and women in the service just as it does to civilians. In order to regulate the sexual conduct of military personnel, the military must demonstrate a legitimate and compelling interest in doing so.

They can't throw a soldier in jail for going down on his wife or fucking his boyfriend in the ass but they can for doing the same to one of his subordinates.

peter hoh said...

Jerry, et al. Don't feed the troll.

Alex said...

Yup, you're gonna see pink officers in tutus forcing straight soldiers to suck their cocks at morning inspection. That is where it's all headed to.

Scott M said...

@peter

But that's going to change this time, isn't it?

You're noticing the number of "unprecedented" things that have occurred in the past two years, right?

Trooper York said...

"Should the ACLU or Alex persuade majorities to legislate otherwise, Catholic hospitals will have to look to the courts to protect their rights. And I am confident that they will win."

I wish I was so sangiune, but I am not. I would welcome your support, but you know what, I don't think you would support religious rights over the rights of abortionists. Or homosexuals. Or racial minorities. The only religious rights that the left will fight to protect is those of Muslims. It's a sad fact.

I haven't had the time to research the facts so I will agree that I didn't prove it to you. Fair enough.

I personally support homosexual rights. Including the right to worship at Catholic churches. Several people in my parish are gay. The prieit who married us is gay and a great and holy man. But just as someone who was married in the church can't get married again in the church after a divorce without an annulment because it is against church doctrine.....a religious gay marriage is not currently in the cards. If church doctrine changes that would be fine with me. But that won't ever satisfy Alex or downtownlad or any one else who wants to destroy the church. If you don't think that is true you are sadly mistaken.

peter hoh said...

I can't tell if it's growing or not, but there appears to be discontent brewing among gays and lesbians against the Human Rights Campaign, which has long tried to position itself as the powerhouse of gay rights advocacy.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"Where will the gay rights movement go?"

NAMBLA. Naturally.

They want to fuck your adolescent son. And currently, society is oppressing their civil right to do that freely by using hate speech and bullying.

But pretty soon, hate speech will be outlawed by the SPLC and there will be zero tolerance for bullies.

Then they can fuck your adolescent son legally.

From there, it's on to the pre-pubes.

peter hoh said...

Scott, it would please me to no end if either of our major parties got serious about bringing federal spending under control. It would be particularly nice if their seriousness about spending coincided with their status as a majority party.

Trooper York said...

Religious rights means protecting people who worship someting we find horrible. And their doctrine and teachings can be disgusting. But they have the right to freedom of religion. So if the Black Muslims want to exclude Irish guys and say we are the white devils, fair enough. If Mormons want to exclude blacks they can. If the Jews don't want to have Cedarford at their seder who am I to say no.

That is the province of the ACLU, Nanny Bloomberg and the Democratic party that want to strip our freedom of choice. Just sayn'

Scott M said...

@Peter

I'm of the optimistic, if somewhat morbid, opinion that as soon as a majority of the Boomers shuffle off their mortal coils, a lot of this crap will go bye-bye. My uncertainty is how much damage they're going to do on their way out.

sethfontana said...

@Tropper

If church doctrine changes that would be fine with me.

I guess you're not Catholic, right?

edutcher said...

woof said...

As some of the military sites have noted, what happens the first time a homosexual serviceman fights being discharged due to HIV (in some quarters, you aren't gay if you don't have it) or some of them want to have sex in public (a big thing in SF)? That's when the military branch of Equality Matters will swing into action and we'll have the endless round of lawsuits, Congressional hearings, etc.

Paranoid and delusional


Documented. Take a long, hard look at zombietime.com

peter hoh said...

Dark Eden said: Its almost like the Democrats have no incentive to deliver actual results to their victim groups or something.

Edutcher added: You broke the code. The Demos never fix problems because the aggrieved might wake up and realize they've been had.


How many years have Republicans campaigned against Roe v. Wade? It's the gift that keeps giving to the GOP. What's prevented them from proposing to amend the Constitution to do away with Roe?


Democrats and RINOs - you need 3/4 of the states, 2/3 of Congress and, until the RINOs are driven into the Democrat Party and the Democrats confined to the Northeast and Pacific Coast, it's tough to get an amendment through - but hoh knew that, he just wanted to obfuscate the issue.

Youngblood said...
Edutcher wrote:

"Last I heard, the military has been allowed to do things for the good of the service that weren't allowed in civilian life because of the Constitution, so dick is probably right."

In this case, FLS is pretty much correct.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces found that the right to engage in sodomy identified by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas applies to men and women in the service just as it does to civilians. In order to regulate the sexual conduct of military personnel, the military must demonstrate a legitimate and compelling interest in doing so.

They can't throw a soldier in jail for going down on his wife or fucking his boyfriend in the ass but they can for doing the same to one of his subordinates.


You miss the point (surprise!). The military goes back to the old regs - about behavior, not sex.

sethfontana said...

I meant Trooper, of course. Sorry.

peter hoh said...

Trooper, I support religious liberty.

I don't think that Catholic hospitals should be forced to perform abortions. Ever.

I don't think that churches should be forced to marry people. Ever.

FWIW, I'm fairly certain that Alex is posing. I don't know what the artist currently known as Alex really wants. I have long suspected that Alex is a conservative who is interested in making liberals look bad.

edutcher said...

woof said...

As some of the military sites have noted, what happens the first time a homosexual serviceman fights being discharged due to HIV (in some quarters, you aren't gay if you don't have it) or some of them want to have sex in public (a big thing in SF)? That's when the military branch of Equality Matters will swing into action and we'll have the endless round of lawsuits, Congressional hearings, etc.

Paranoid and delusional


Documented. Take a long, hard look at zombietime.com

peter hoh said...

Dark Eden said: Its almost like the Democrats have no incentive to deliver actual results to their victim groups or something.

Edutcher added: You broke the code. The Demos never fix problems because the aggrieved might wake up and realize they've been had.


How many years have Republicans campaigned against Roe v. Wade? It's the gift that keeps giving to the GOP. What's prevented them from proposing to amend the Constitution to do away with Roe?


Democrats and RINOs - you need 3/4 of the states, 2/3 of Congress and, until the RINOs are driven into the Democrat Party and the Democrats confined to the Northeast and Pacific Coast, it's tough to get an amendment through - but hoh knew that, he just wanted to obfuscate the issue.

Youngblood said...
Edutcher wrote:

"Last I heard, the military has been allowed to do things for the good of the service that weren't allowed in civilian life because of the Constitution, so dick is probably right."

In this case, FLS is pretty much correct.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces found that the right to engage in sodomy identified by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas applies to men and women in the service just as it does to civilians. In order to regulate the sexual conduct of military personnel, the military must demonstrate a legitimate and compelling interest in doing so.


That's the point - the good of the service. The military goes back to the old regs - (stopped clock, and all that...).

jerryofva said...

Trooper:

So your parish priest is a good and holy man. The Church's problem with pedophilia must have come from homosexual priests who were neither good or holy.

Skyler said...

Alex wrote, Changing mores. 80-90% of young people believe homosexuality is normal, healthy behavior.

After being bombarded by homosexuals in the media everywhere as though it were normal and healthy behavior.

Believing something is right doesn't make it right.

Youngblood said...

"You miss the point (surprise!). The military goes back to the old regs - about behavior, not sex."

If that's your point, you're right. I am missing it.

Which "old regs" that deal with "behavior, not sex" are you talking about, specifically?

Bender said...

With the end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," where will the gay rights movement go?

That's a no-brainer. They will go to asserting protected status and seek to destroy the careers of anyone in the military who does not now give them satisfaction. They will go to openly and purposely causing disruption and dissension in the military ranks.

Just as the "gay marriage" movement is largely a movement, not for "equality," but a movement to destroy the institution of marriage, so too is the openly-serve movement a movement to destroy the military.

Tearing down existing social structures is what the gay and other leftist movements is all about.

Trooper York said...

Yes I am a Catholic. And I believe in loving the sinner and still pointing out the sin. Listen I go to the Latin Mass any chance I can get. I can still pray in Latin like I did when I was an altar boy. But things change. Even in the church. The day may come when the church would accept gay marriage. Or women priests. Or who knows what. If it ever does something so terrible that I can't live with then I would leave. Unlike you I don't think accepting gay people into the body of Christ is such a terrible thing.

But I as sure as hell not going to let the government force the issue. It has to be natural and organic within the Catholic community.

I am happy to love and worship with gay people. That's part of being a Catholic. Sorry you don't feel that way dude.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Re: marriage...

Right now, clergy are routinely given licenses, by the state, to officiate at marriages and thus have those marriages also be recognized civilly. That is not how it's done in other places in the world--where couples must have a specifically civil ceremony in order to have it be legally recognized.

I predict a move to have those licenses to officiate at marriages be refused to those clergy who have "bigoted" views of marriage (i.e., they don't recognize the state's radically new definition of marriage). I don't know if it will succeed.

Maybe no clergy should be given such licenses; however, there is history here: the reason secularists have so often forced this issue in other countries -- France and Mexico for example -- was to weaken people's connection to the church. If a couple has to have two ceremonies, that's a hassle, so at least some will forego the one without legal effect--i.e. the religious one.

And it's hardly paranoid to say that a witch hunt is coming. All one has to do is stroll over to the thread here on the DADT repeal vote, and see folks like Revenant declaring that anyone who believes homosexual behavior is sinful (which is what Christianity teaches) is, quote, a "bigot." And they should be driven from the military if they don't keep that to themselves.

Of course, Althouse thread-commenters speak only for themselves, but it's clear this is the moral lens with which the activists intend to refit our society.

NB: those who found it outrageous to justify DADT on the grounds that members of the military cede some civilian rights turn on a dime to cite that very justification for restricting service-members religious rights.

Repealing DADT need not be a blow against religious freedom; but it looks like it will be, at least in the military.

Scott M said...

They will go to openly and purposely causing disruption and dissension in the military ranks.

I don't know about that. The military doesn't suffer fools the way civilians do.

Trooper York said...

jerryofva said...
Trooper:

So your parish priest is a good and holy man. The Church's problem with pedophilia must have come from homosexual priests who were neither good or holy.

Yes. There is no doubt of that. When I was a kid one of the parish priest had a girlfriend that he knocked up on Sackett Street. He was a sinner. As we all are to one degree or antoher. In this Christmas season all we can ask for is God's forgiveness and mercy.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I don't think that churches should be forced to marry people. Ever.

I don't believe they can be forced. Unless a Catholic is granted an annullment, the RCC won't marry a divorcee either. The whole forcing churches (and what about synogouges or mosques?) to violate their own doctrine is just a red herring.

Honestly I just don't see the repeal of DADT as something worthy of getting my boxers in a twist. Are there that many gay people itching to don the camos and get thier head shaved and serve in exotic locales were the indigenous population hates your guts? And what does being 'openly gay' mean anyway? Is there a sign they intend to wear?

Seems to me this is a lot like the big push to give 18 year olds the right to vote and they end up being the smallest demographic who show up at the polls.

peter hoh said...

AJ, we don't decide public policy on hypothetical outcomes, do we?

The best I can answer your 12:29 is that I'm fairly certain that a minister would be within his or her rights to refuse to marry an interracial couple, while a justice of the peace could be subject to losing his or her license for refusing to marry an interracial couple.

The government provides for a broad interpretation of religious liberty when it comes to churches and ministers. I believe this will continue.

Trooper York said...

"I don't believe they can be forced. Unless a Catholic is granted an annullment, the RCC won't marry a divorcee either. The whole forcing churches (and what about synogouges or mosques?) to violate their own doctrine is just a red herring."

I wish that were true. But since they want to control our light blubs and how much trans fat there is on our french fries I am not convinced.

Nanny Bloomberg, the ACLU, the liberals and the mainstream media want to destroy and control everything to mold it into their politically correct image. It is as simple as that.

Trooper York said...

Listen to Father Fox.

He is also a wise and holy man.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I predict a move to have those licenses to officiate at marriages be refused to those clergy who have "bigoted" views of marriage (i.e., they don't recognize the state's radically new definition of marriage). I don't know if it will succeed.

I don't think it will. To do so would require that to any religion which refused to recognize gay marriage as part of thier religious doctrine. And as we all know, some religions are not to be trifled with.

peter hoh said...

Fr. Martin Fox, are you aware of any cases in which the state (at any level in the U.S.) has acted against a minister who refused to marry an interracial couple?

Jay said...

Where will the gay rights movement go?

I think they should go to Riyadh, Pyongyang, or better yet Beijing, that place Tom Friedman loves, and hold a "rights" march.

I bet it will turn out swell.

Really, I do...

Marshal said...

Future activist endeavors will include incorporating leftists opinions on homosexuality into the certification requirements in areas like teaching, social work, or becoming a foster parent.

Whoops, these are already ocurring.

And of course once this is complete standard will change from "tolerance" to "celebrate". Those insufficiently celebratory will be deemed homophobic, just as advocates for color blindness in racial matters are now called racist.

jerryofva said...

Trooper:

As a Lutheran (LCMS) I would disagree with your characterization of any person as good and/or holy. We are all tempted by sin and we all fail. That's what it means to be human and that is what grace is all about.

The Lord's Prayer says lead is not into temptation because we are weak and are bound to fail. Perhaps your parish priest is perpetually strong enough to resist his natural self. Perhaps when he falls he follows the [secular] law and limits his partners to those who are older than the age of consent. However, not everyone is that strong. Enabling the sinner is not good policy.

As far as your childhood experience with the wayward priest with his girlfriend goes, the Church of Rome is the only denomination that enforces celibacy and it only does so in the Western Rite. Eastern Rite Catholics follow the oldest tradition that allows prospective priests to marry just before their ordination. In the Eastern Rite only Bishops must be celibate.

Fr Martin Fox said...

about the witch hunt...

I might add that one can see members of Congress moving into the camp of saying, the opponents (to "gay marriage") are bigots--simply by virtue of that stance.

And one can easily see in the entertainment industry a concerted effort, in entertainment imagery and story lines, to craft a new "normal" and new "acceptable."

In a few years, you will this line reflected throughout tv, movies, music and ads: that anyone who deems homosexual behavior as sinful is a pariah.

DADvocate said...

...we are the last group of Americans who are discriminated against in federal law and there is a lot of work to do.

Really?! How about all those affirmative action laws that mandate discrimination against white males? How about the incredibly low enrollment and graduation rates of males in college, law school, medical school, etc?

Jay said...

Deficit spending is another favorite target of Republican politicians, and yet they never seem to do anything about spending when they are in power, either. But that's going to change this time, isn't it?


Er, the last "balanced budget" was written by a Republican Congress

You mean other than that?

How many years have Republicans campaigned against Roe v. Wade? It's the gift that keeps giving to the GOP. What's prevented them from proposing to amend the Constitution to do away with Roe?


Um, huh? Are you in your silly ignorance really pretending they haven't done this?

Are you that uninformed?

former law student said...

U.S. v. Marcum

Good case. Restrained.

The conduct at issue was outside the protected liberty interest in Lawrence because in violation of an Air Force regulation and thus Article 92, the initiator-defendant directly supervised the other participant. Further the imbalance of power meant the subordinate could hardly protest his superior's advances. So Lawrence did not apply to this particular case.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Fr. Martin Fox, are you aware of any cases in which the state (at any level in the U.S.) has acted against a minister who refused to marry an interracial couple?

Is there any specific denomination that prohibits interracial marriage?

Sofa King said...

I don't think that Catholic hospitals should be forced to perform abortions. Ever.

I don't think that churches should be forced to marry people. Ever.

Maybe you do but I doubt most liberals would give those ideals more than token lip service. When push comes to shove and discrimination by churches is outlawed under public accomodation doctrine, most will find a reason to support that. "I don't think churches should be forced to marry people. BUT..." Not to question your sincerity. But I have never in my life seen a die-hard liberal defend freedom against tyranny with good intentions, *when it really mattered.*

Sofa King said...

The government provides for a broad interpretation of religious liberty when it comes to churches and ministers. I believe this will continue.

I don't, because the general trend of actual liberty in almost all spheres has been downward. People will be against encroachments *in principle,* but will be apathetic when it is boiled down to a law that, after all, doesn't affect *them.*

Jay said...

Paranoid and delusional



Yeah, uh-huh:

Christmas has been banned by the Red Cross from its 430 fund-raising shops.
Staff have been ordered to take down decorations and to remove any other signs of the Christian festival because they could offend Moslems.

The charity's politically-correct move triggered an avalanche of criticism and mockery last night - from Christians and Moslems.

Christine Banks, a volunteer at a Red Cross shop in New Romney, Kent, said: 'We put up a nativity scene in the window and were told to take it out. It seems we can't have anything that means Christmas. We're allowed to have some tinsel but that's it.

'When we send cards they have to say season's greetings or best wishes. They must not be linked directly to Christmas.

'When we asked we were told it is because we must not upset Moslems.'


That is how the British celebrate this "winter holiday"

peter hoh said...

Jay, the GOP made a lot more noise about an effort to amend the constitution to ban same sex marriage than they ever made about a life amendment.

peter hoh said...

Hoosier, I'm not aware of any denominations that prohibit interracial marriage, though the odd case of an individual opposed to these marriages comes up now and again.

There are denominations that refuse to marry interfaith couples. No one has asked the state to overrule these churches, have they?

Fr Martin Fox said...

Peter:

I am not. And, as I granted, this effort I am predicting may not succeed (and it may not happen, which is fine with me of course).

You have a valid point: insofar as civil-rights activists did not seek to revoke marriage licenses from racist clergy, gay-rights advocates may, likewise, not seek to revoke marriage licenses from clergy who won't approve of "gay marriage."

But that may be a matter of fact: I'd be curious to know just how many clergy in this country, circa 1960, actually refused to officiate at inter-racial marriages. I would guess very few, but I really don't know. But if my guess is right, then there simply was no need to do that.

The fact is, the comparison is being forced by gay-rights activists--it is no a valid comparison, but it is a very useful one, because it brings with it all manner of moral-high-ground references that are otherwise hard to obtain.

A digression...

It was never the case that Christianity or Judaism taught any essential difference between races. (It is certainly true that many people of many religions have dressed up racial discrimination with religious justification.)

It has always been the case that Christianity (I won't speak for Judaism) has taught that sex outside of marriage (as always understood as heterosexual) is sinful. That includes lots of other things besides homosexual behavior. Historically, this was one of the striking notes of comparison between early Christians and their pagan neighbors.

So while Christians as individuals have certainly been guilty of racism, and have needed to change those ways, there was nothing in Christianity that provided a barrier.

Indeed, if one studies the history, one can find not only instances of bigotry all the way back, one can also find Christianity challenging racism (an anachronistic term to apply to ancient times) in very fundamental ways. One need only look to the writings of St. Paul about breaking down barriers and distinctions between "Jew and Greek."

But back to the comparison to civil rights. There is the obvious distinction between a person's physical attributes and a person's behavior. Race is a solely a matter of attributes and is unchangeable. But homosexual behavior is...behavior. Quite apart from the question of orientation, itself a very complex mystery, there is no denying that behavior is changeable.

So it's very different to make what one is an object of moral opprobrium, as opposed to what one does.

But this distinction is inconvenient for gay-rights activists, so it will be ignored or shouted down: "shut up bigot!"

What's likewise at issue here is Christianity's idea of chastity: namely, that sexuality is not simply an animal urge, but a gift to be used according to God's law, and with God's help, one can and should use it in certain instances (marriage, and that only with openness to procreation), and not in others. Subordinate to this is the idea of celibacy--that some forms of devotion to Christ are so great a thing that one may even choose to give up a very good thing (marriage) for the sake of the Kingdom.

Titus said...

By my condo in Boston is a catholic church on Harrison Ave. in the South End and the entire congregation was gay.

Gay chorus, gay congregation, just gay. All gay all the time.

When my mom would come to visit she would hang out with the nuns that did not wear the nun outfit.

I think the place has since been turned into condos. Had to be sold after the scandal in Boston.

It was weird.

Titus said...

One of the items on their gay agenda at the church was Potlucks.

They are also having gay potlucks.

former law student said...

How about all those affirmative action laws that mandate discrimination against white males?

White males still have a majority on the Supreme Court, still an overwhelming majority in the House and Senate -- what are the objective indicia of discrimination against white males?

Jay said...

Jay, the GOP made a lot more noise about an effort to amend the constitution to ban same sex marriage than they ever made about a life amendment.


How in the hell would you know?

Here you go:
Several different Human Life Amendments have been proposed in Congress since 1973, with twenty total days of hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1974, 1975, and 1981, several other hearings before other committees, and a number of floor debates. Between 1973 and 2003, the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment reports a total of 330 proprosals using varying texts, with most dying in committee


How many hearings have there been on banning gay marriage?

OOPS! You're lying.

That's how many.

woof said...

one can and should use it in certain instances (marriage, and that only with openness to procreation)

So birth control is a sin ? And sex between man and wife is a sin when the women is no longer fertile ?

Fr Martin Fox said...

Woof:

The Catholic Church teaches that marital relations must be -- key words -- open to the gift of life; so yes, no contraception.

"Open to" does not mean actually fertile--so actual infertility is not the issue; intervening to prevent fertility, is.

Until 1930, this was pretty much what all Christian denominations taught. I am not able to say what they all teach now, but obviously a lot of denominations have changed their teaching since the Anglican Communion--in 1930--accepted contraception (at least to some degree).

AJ Lynch said...

Peter said:
"AJ, we don't decide public policy on hypothetical outcomes, do we? "

On the contrary, the hypothetical is what most of our social welfare and education policy counts on i.e ....give us more money it's for the children and "hypothetically" the kids will get better educated.

Trooper York said...

Well jerryofva, I certainly respect your opinion but you do realize as a dirty Protestant you are going to burn in hell for all eternity for rejecting the one true church. Just like that diry apostate Luther.

But in the spirit of the season I will be happy to get you a mackerel snapper membership card in time for the Rapture.

All the best,
Your pal
Trooper.

peter hoh said...

Jay, hearings were held forHouse Resolution 56.

A federal amendment to ban same sex marriage was debated by candidates for president in the past decade. I can't recall hearing the life amendment debated at that level.

Hoosier Daddy said...

There are denominations that refuse to marry interfaith couples. No one has asked the state to overrule these churches, have they?

Not that I am aware of. I can't imagine a scenario that they would either. I can't imagine that the very strict proponents of 'seperation of church and state' are going to successfully advocate that the state can dictate to religious organizations who they must perform marriage ceremonies for otherwise remove thier 'license' to perform legally recognized marriages.

former law student said...

And sex between man and wife is a sin when the women is no longer fertile ?


Never say never -- I think the Church takes its cue from Sarah and Abraham.

Fr. Fox: you spoke of fertility, but isn't s actual consummation a requirement for Christian marriage?

former law student said...

troop let the cat out of the bag -- demons are already stacking Protestant souls by the pallet load for shipment to Eternal Torment.

Sofa King said...

White males still have a majority on the Supreme Court, still an overwhelming majority in the House and Senate -- what are the objective indicia of discrimination against white males?

You don't honestly believe that the a U.S. Congressman is representative of the average white male, do you? Why can't you address arguments substantially, instead of attacking them with red herrings and semantic irrelevancies?

peter hoh said...

Fr. Martin Fox, thanks for your thoughtful response.

I'm fairly certain that a good number of churches would have refused to marry interracial couples in the early 1960s. The only federal action I recall related to the matter was the Bob Jones University case.

But you are absolutely right that there was no historical connection between bans on interracial marriage and the Christian church.

In general, I don't like to use Civil Rights cases to argue the for same-sex marriage. I think race and sexual orientation are different issues.

Lincolntf said...

"How in the hell would you know?"

He wouldn't. That statement rang so hollow, I didn't even bother Googling it.
At some point in your life, Peter, you should stop spouting whatever you think will help your case without regard for veracity.
It's a common thing on the Internet and it's annoying to those of us forced to read it. Plus, we're often embarrassed for you and it distracts from the discussion.

peter hoh said...

AJ, maybe hypothetical isn't the right term. You were asking me to guarantee that a negative outcome would not happen, even though there is no precedent for such an outcome.

I wouldn't like it if a second amendment opponent insisted that I had to guarantee that no innocent person would get shot as a result of the Heller decision.

sethfontana said...

Ok, let me begin saying that I am Spanish and my writing skills in English are quite limited. I read it without problems, but redacting is another story. I’m sorry for this.

I’m glad you go to Latin Mass as often as you can and I’m glad you pray in Latin because you remember the words from your altar boy days. (I was an altar boy too, assisting to a really wonderful priest. The Mass was always in Spanish, though.) However, I think this has nothing to do with our conversation. I don’t even go to Mass, and we could discuss if I am Catholic (I’ve thought on that for years), but nothing of this changes my position nor my authority to hold it, because we’re not discussing our loyalties to the Church: we’re discussing the Orthodoxy. I only say that marvels to me that you can call yourself Catholic when, it seems, you’re open to the possibility that Church changes his doctrine from one point to the opposite. You say you could be Catholic both if the Church says one thing as if says the opposite. I don’t know why a guy would be genuinely Catholic (not culturally, but spiritually Catholic) when the Catholic doctrine is so irrelevant.
It’s false that things change inside the Church. It’s possible -true, in-deed-- that certain nuances have changed subtly across the centuries, but the Catholic anthropology (the concept of Man in the eyes of the Church) is today the same than ever. God created men and women as complementary beings and He commended them to “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it” (having children). According to the Church, marriage is a man/woman business because the transcendent end of the Sacrament is to complete the man and the woman as an unity and to perpetuate the life. You can change that without changing at the same time ALL the Catholic anthropology: that is to say, you can’t marry a man with a man because, doing it, you destroy the catholic definition of man and woman.

And I believe in loving the sinner and still pointing out the sin.

I try to love the sinner and despise the sin. You don’t. You don’t even recognize the sin. Or maybe do you think that the Church could marry men with men even thinking that union would be anti-natura?

I am happy to love and worship with gay people. That's part of being a Catholic. Sorry you don't feel that way dude.

But nobody is speaking of worshiping with homosexuals. We are dis-cussing if the Church considers homosexuality a sin and an abomination. But you don’t care. Because can come the day when things change.

jerryofva said...

Trooper:

That rapture thing is an evangelical thing. I will check in with my local Baptist Church for my rapture card, thank you very much.

Jay said...

Jay, hearings were held forHouse Resolution 56.


A "House Resolution" is not legislation.

So, you lose.

A federal amendment to ban same sex marriage was debated by candidates for president in the past decade. I can't recall hearing the life amendment debated at that level.


Huh?

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee on Monday endorsed a proposed Colorado Human Life Amendment that would define personhood as a fertilized egg.

The former Arkansas governor and Baptist minister also supports a human-life amendment to the U.S. Constitution


You don't know anything about this.

So you can stop while you'r behind.

Hoosier Daddy said...

The Catholic Church teaches that marital relations must be -- key words -- open to the gift of life; so yes, no contraception.
I attended Catholic school for 12 years and in high school (early 80s) was taught (or drilled into my head) that artificial birth control was not acceptable to the Church. We were informed, however, that natural family planning was considered an acceptable method of managing the number of offspring a couple wanted to produce. Without getting into the details, the Church approved method basically was the whole monitoring the female cycle thing to ensure that sex only took place when she was least fertile (senior year we actually had a lecture by a married couple who practiced this method).

My whole objection to this method was that it was still birth control nonetheless. As you say padre, relations must be open to the gift of life (reproduction) therefore whether I use a condom or just schedule the wife’s least fertile time of the month, the goal was to prevent conception. Therefore what I was trying to point out was that it wasn’t so much the prevention of conception but the method which was used. Needless to say it didn’t go over well.

Jay said...

federal amendment to ban same sex marriage was debated by candidates for president in the past decade. I can't recall hearing the life amendment debated at that level.


Vice President GHW Bush said on September 25, 1988 he supported a human life amendment.

20 years later, Mike Huckebee endorsed the same amendment.

peter hoh said...

Lincoln, edutcher asserted that Dems never fix problems. I merely pointed out that both parties play that game.

traditionalguy said...

Since a council of elders in the Church in Jerusalem reached their decision that seemed good to them and to the Holy Spirit, to settle what part of the Law of Moses had to be obeyed by the gentile converts to the Church of the Jewish Christ, the sexual morality Laws have remained applied 100% to us. But our immorality sins are atoned for by grace, whether we are immoral in men/women or in men/men, or in women/women acts. So let's celebrate a forgiven Christmas for all. So I predict that will be the next issue for Gay Activists...can Judeo-Christian traditions be used to judge their sins. Stay tuned.

edutcher said...

Youngblood said...
"You miss the point (surprise!). The military goes back to the old regs - about behavior, not sex."

If that's your point, you're right. I am missing it.

Which "old regs" that deal with "behavior, not sex" are you talking about, specifically?


The ones that allowed questioning or investigation of, and threw out homosexuals. Any suspicious conduct observed or reported (think Klinger in MASH).

The courts, even during the Vietnam War when they were packed with Lefties, allowed the military to do what it thought was for the good of the service

Fr Martin Fox said...

FLS:

Marriage is validly contracted by consent between two parties free to marry; consummation is not necessary for the marriage to be valid, but for it to have a sacramental quality and absolutely indissoluble. I.e., a marriage that is "ratum, sed non consummatum," can be dissolved.

(Obviously I'm now speaking of Catholic understanding of marriage, viewed as a spiritual reality.)

So, if you're asking me, does a couple "have to" consummate their marriage, for it to be a valid marriage? No. But it is important in expressing its complete character as a sacramental reality. Also, for anyone who might be wondering, all this also presupposes both parties are baptized. I.e., when two Hindus marry, as Catholics believe, that's a good, holy, natural marriage; a sacramental marriage is what happens when two Christians marry (nb: not just two Catholics; two Christians).

peter hoh said...

Jay, I realize that a life amendment has been in the GOP platform, and that various candidates have supported it, but if you think the GOP has done heavy lifting required to reverse Roe through an amendment, you are kidding yourself.

Jay said...

if you think the GOP has done heavy lifting required to reverse Roe through an amendment, you are kidding yourself.


Er, you asserted this:
What's prevented them from proposing to amend the Constitution to do away with Roe?


Now you're back-tracking.

Why?

You're wholly ignorant on thsese topics.

sethfontana said...

Sorry again: my previous comment should begin with '@Trooper'.

Jay said...

I realize that a life amendment has been in the GOP platform

The GOP first introduced a human life amendment in 1973.

In 2008, GOP presidential candidates were still talking about it.

And here you are asserting that they never introduced an amendment.

You're an idiot.

peter hoh said...

Jay, my claim is that the GOP made more noise about a marriage amendment than they made about a life amendment. Perhaps I should have added the "in the last decade" clause, but I will stand by taht assertion.

You are free to disagree, of course, but don't claim that I insisted that Republicans never introduced a life amendment.

Youngblood said...

Fr. Fox wrote:

"Repealing DADT need not be a blow against religious freedom; but it looks like it will be, at least in the military."

True story:

One of my Army buddies was an evangelical Christian who genuinely believed that Catholics worshipped demons. According to his religious beliefs, rank and file Catholics are duped by evil clergy who are in the service of Satan.

I'm not making that up because you're a priest, either. That's what he believed and, to the best of my knowledge, still believes.

Are his religious beliefs being trampled because the government allows open Roman Catholics to serve?

peter hoh said...

As for my being an idiot, I'm on your side.

madAsHell said...

We have a black president, but don't think the NAACP is going away.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Hoosier:

Well, here's the key distinction.

When a couple practices natural family planning, they are not in any way preventing life from being conceived through their marital act. They are choosing to refrain from marital acts at times of fertility, and using knowledge through observation to know when those times are. That involves some discipline and sacrifice, which are not morally objectionable, but actually commendable. (FYI, I'm told that fertility experts often recommend the very same methods to couples struggling to have babies.)

The Church's issue with birth control is not based on some idea that couples are supposed to have maximum number of children or only have sex to conceive. The issue is active interference with the marital act. Per Catholic teaching, the marital act, by its nature, is both unifying and procreative. One is not free to separate out either quality: hence, no contraception, nor conception outside the marital act.

A couple practicing natural family planning is not preventing conception. No matter how highly predictive their observations may be (and they can be very predictive), they still are cooperating with the natural order of things.

They are no more doing something morally questionable, than a couple having relations when were never fertile, or a couple ceasing to be fertile. The Church never taught that, once you're no longer able to conceive, you stop having marital relations.

Here's an imperfect analogy:

A 97 year old man is fading; he's being cared for with food, water, etc., but his body is slowly shutting down.

There is nothing immoral about providing solely basic care, yet declining to apply the paddles when his heart stops.

There is something very immoral about taking a pillow and intervening.

Same outcome; but one means is gravely wrong, the other perfectly moral, even commendable.

Kirby Olson said...

Who will be the first openly gay president?

Neither of the major parties have ever fielded an openly gay candidate.

The Democrats should do this!

Many say that Buchanan was gay because he didn't have a wife, but Buchanan scholars are dubious.

So, there's a first in the offing!

I sense that the Democrats will try to run the first openly gay candidate in the next election and that this will sideline Obama and his first, which has already happened, and is now old news.

Then, we need an openly trans-sexual president.

Maybe finally a president who is a member of another species. That's presently so unthinkable as to be laughable and there's the problem of communication. Is Mr. Ed still around?

Kirby Olson said...

If you laugh you're speciesist!

Trooper York said...

"sethfontana Indio Montoya said...
I don’t even go to Mass, and we could discuss if I am Catholic (I’ve thought on that for years), but nothing of this changes my position nor my authority to hold it, because we’re not discussing our loyalties to the Church: we’re discussing the Orthodoxy."

I went to a funeral mass Saturday for my friends mom. There were about fifty people who were nominal Catholics. As the priest was saying the Mass......the only people who responsed with the correct responses were me, my wife and two seventy year old ladies. You see none of these people ever go to Mass. If you don't go to Mass you are not really a Catholic. You are something else, but not a real Catholic.

Go to Mass sethfontana.

Trooper York said...

Who will be the first openly gay president?

James Buchanan.

Jay said...

@peter hoh
Jay, my claim is that the GOP made more noise about a marriage amendment than they made about a life amendment.

Well, I don't think the GOP has really done much regarding a "marriage amendment" at the federal level.

The real efforts have been to amend state constitutions to define marriage between 1 man & 1 woman. Esp in the last decade.

Bender said...

The day may come when the church would accept gay marriage. Or women priests. Or who knows what.

Actually, no.

The day that the "church" accepted "gay marriage" or "women priests," it would no longer be the Catholic Church, it would be something else. And the day that anyone accepts "gay marriage," it would no longer be marriage, much less the Sacrament of Matrimony. And the day that there would be "women priests," then the Sacrament of Holy Orders and minsterial priesthood would have lost all meaning.

Truth is truth. Regarding marriage and the priesthood, these are not opinions of the Church, these are not the policy positions of a bunch of old men in Rome. They are moral, sacramental, and ontological truths. The Church teaches these things to an ignorant world -- and ignorant Catholics -- because they are truth and she cannot teach untruth.

These things are not open for debate, they are not open to reconsideration. They are truths that the Church has always taught and will always teach.

I know that there are many who are members of the Church of Do Your Own Thing, but that is not the Catholic Church.

sethfontana said...

@Trooper

That's funny, then, don't you think? I am a not-really-Catholic who believes in Catholic doctrine, and you are a real Catholic who doesn't believe in Catholic doctrine, like Walter Percy's characters, uh?

Regarding Montoya, I guess you meant Íñigo, not Indio, but whatever.

Kirby Olson said...

Buchanan wasn't gay. No Buchanan scholar thinks he was gay.

If he was he wasn't openly gay.

We need a gay president!

There have been HEADS OF STATE who were gay. Nero, for instance, was gay.

But we haven't had a gay president of the USA.

That's where this should go. Now that the army can take gays, we need a commander in chief who is gay. It's the new imperative!

Youngblood said...

Edutcher,

Having been in the Army myself, I know that the military doesn't just punish people or throw them out on a whim. Military personnel are not entitled to the same protections as civilians (such as the right to a jury trial), but the protections they are afforded are not insignificant.

Which "old regs" are we talking about here, specifically?

I mean, Dick suggested that Article 125 would be used to kick homosexuals out of the Army, presumably because anyone who admit to being a homosexual would be guilty of sodomy.

However, U.S. v. Malcum suggests that approach is unconstitutional.

So which regulations allow dismissal or punishment for homosexual behavior, exactly? Simply saying that civilian courts gave courts-martial leeway in Vietnam doesn't really cut it -- it's still possible to appeal the decision of a court martial (U.S. v. Malcum was a CAAF decision after all.)

sethfontana said...

Who is Walter Percy? I know Walker Percy, but Walter? Ah? Ah? I don't know who you are speaking about, boy...

edutcher said...

Don't know the book, but I've read of cases in which a soldier was used to entrap another soldier to prove homosexuality. One case given by the media in support of Willie's original policy.

Also, a college prof (back in the 60s) mentioned (he was in during WWII) his knowledge of a case where a homosexual NCO would pull rank to force recruits to put out. A court martial ensued (hearsay, I know).

Bender said...

A couple practicing natural family planning is not preventing conception

Yes, Father, but it should be pointed out that that does not mean that NFP is always and everywhere automatically licit and moral.

As with any moral question, there is both the action and the intent to take into consideration. And as John Paul II pointed out (Theology of the Body), people can use NFP with a contraceptive mentality. That, of course, would not be physical contraception, but it would be mental contraception -- it would be an anti-child and not really "open to life" on the spiritual level.

Such NFP with a contraceptive mentality advances a utilitarian sexuality of use, rather than a sexuality of love. A contraceptive mentality, even if not a physical contraception, still frustrates the unitive component of sexuality, it frustrates the fostering of a true communion of persons. Likewise, a contraceptive mentality, being anti-child, seeing children as unwanted burdens, and sex as recreational activity, also frustrates the fruitful component of sexuality, it does not produce the fruits of authentic love, but insteads produces alienation.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Fr. Fox

That's a reasoned explanation, a better one than I was provided at the time :-)

I do think that it is a fine line, mostly probably due to the more hardline sex education I received because I was simply told preventing conception was wrong therefore we're just arguing methodology. But you did hit on one point that the married couple who did a NFP lecture did say was following such a method did require sacrifice and discipline.

Scott M said...

Are his religious beliefs being trampled because the government allows open Roman Catholics to serve?

Is his daily life impacted by having to shower, shit, and otherwise co-habitate in close proximity with someone who deems his gender sexually attractive?

If that's okay, I wonder why the military hasn't had men and women showering, shitting, hotbunking, and otherwise co-habitating for years.

I'm all for an across-the-board spending reduction, in all departments including the military, of 5%. Having to implement this new policy, or rather a reversal of previous Democrat policy, is going to cost A) less money or B) more money...which is it?

I'm on record here as saying I don't care if gays openly serve in the armed forces without impacting mission readiness. This includes the MWR of the troops which is very closely related to their living conditions. Waving a magic pen at this issue doesn't make the human sexuality part of it disappear. To think so is disingenuous at the very best.

Trooper York said...

"The day that the "church" accepted "gay marriage" or "women priests," it would no longer be the Catholic Church, it would be something else. And the day that anyone accepts "gay marriage," it would no longer be marriage, much less the Sacrament of Matrimony. And the day that there would be "women priests," then the Sacrament of Holy Orders and minsterial priesthood would have lost all meaning"

Dude that is just not true. If the Holy Father and the requiste members of the Church determine that Christ teachings embrace something like gay marriage or women become priests or dogs and cats can get married....well then that is what you have to accept. You might not like it....just like there a lot of things in the current church that I don't like....but if you are going to be a card carrying mackeral snapper you have to go to church every Sunday and listen to the rules that El Papa lays down. Capice.

Otherwise I can give you Mel Gibsons phone number.

Trooper York said...

"Buchanan wasn't gay. No Buchanan scholar thinks he was gay."

Wrong. He openly lived with the Vice President William Rufus King for fifthteen years. Andy Jackson used to call them Miss Nancy and Aunt Fancy.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I mean the next thing you are gonna
tell me that Cary Grant and Randloph Scott lived together for thirty years because they were just good friends. And to save on utilities.

Bender said...

Dude, please don't spread misinformation or disinformation or otherwise continue in your total ignorance.

"Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

"Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.
"
--Pope John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (May 22, 1994)

Listen to the rules that El Papa lays down.

Kirby Olson said...

"He openly lived with the Vice President William Rufus King for fifthteen years. Andy Jackson used to call them Miss Nancy and Aunt Fancy."

Citation?

Trooper York said...

"Dude, please don't spread misinformation or disinformation or otherwise continue in your total ignorance"

Dude you have got to be kidding me. Just because that is the law today doesn't mean that is what is going to be the law in twenty years from now. Things change. I know it is hard for you to accept but it's true. I mean I never thought I would see regular people give out the host. But now I see I guy who I know picks his nose every hour on the hour is giving out the host.

I never thought I would see a Mass in English, regular people giving out the Host or a whole bunch of other stuff that goes on today.

The 1950's aren't gonna come back anytime soon. Hey don't get me wrong....I wish it would. But it ain't gonna happen.

Bender said...

In addition to the many encyclicals and other authoritative magisterial documents on marriage, it will suffice merely to cite the Catechism, which states, of course, the exact same at the prior Catechism of the Council of Trent --

CCC 1625 The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman

This isn't open for debate. Nor should anyone entertain such relativistic ideas and scandal as that proffered here.

Bender said...

Trooper -- it pains me to have to say this, but you are an ignorant boob. Not only that, but you are obstinate in your error. You refuse to accept the truth that is FUNDAMENTAL Catholic doctrine.

Do not toss up your so-called bona fides here -- you do not know what you are talking about. I strongly urge you to educate yourself. You are sorely in need of remedial catechesis.

sethfontana said...

@Trooper

Guy, I don't even think you're speaking seriously. Let's see:

1. His Holiness (Su Santidad, el Papa, el Sucesor de Pedro, el Obispo de Roma) says Jesus said 'There's no god'.

2. If there's no God, Jesus can't be God's Son.

3. Therefore, Jesus has no authority.

4. If He has no authority, His words are worthless.

5. Therefore there's a God.

6. Therefore Jesus is God's Son.

7. But then Jesus said 'There's no God'...

See? See? See?

This paradox could drive crazy a nice little and Orthodox not-a-real-Catholic like me.

Although according to you the Pope (el Papa) could say anything, the most bizarre thing, we are safe because we have the Holy Spirit, Who lives inside the Church and guides her movements.

MadisonMan said...

Buchanan scholars

What a sad thing to be a Buchanan scholar. I'd be asking: What, were all the good Presidents taken?

It's snowing again. Just in time for rush hour in Madison. Good day to work from home!

Trooper York said...

Hey Bender...I don't want to fight with you...I love you on Futurama.

Tell you what...let's put it to Father Fox...if he agrees that they will never ordain woman than I will say you are right and shut up about it.

Oh and one of my proudest accomplishments is the fact that I am a ignorant boob.

But then I just love boobs.

Bender said...

Sorry, apparently I messed up the link to Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in which Pope John Paul II, by his magisterial authority, settled the question once and for all time. This link should work.

former law student said...

A "House Resolution" is not legislation.


Bzzzt! A Joint Resolution, like H.J.Res. 56, is the only way to amend the Constitution. Thanks for playing, we have a lovely parting gift for you -- a panini press.

Bender said...

Why not simply agree with Pope John Paul II who settled the matter?

What part of "I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women" do you not understand?

What part of "this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful" do you not understand?

If you are one of the Church's faithful -- YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DEFINITIVELY ACCEPT IT.

Trooper York said...

"Although according to you the Pope (el Papa) could say anything, the most bizarre thing, we are safe because we have the Holy Spirit, Who lives inside the Church and guides her movements."

This pope or that pope might say or do something totally wrong. I mean I didn't like it when John Paul #1 lent all that money to Michael Corleone. That's why the other cardinals had him whacked. I trust the truth to reveal itself in time and the proper corrections to be made. No one pope's mistakes will ever destroy the Holy Catholic Church.

You see I have faith in the ultimate truth of the Church and its teachings.

Trooper York said...

Bender....dude....chill out...we are not so far apart. I don't want women to be priests. They are too mean. I mean I imagine if the Nuns I had in Sacred Hearts were priests I would still be saying Hail Mary's and Our Fathers for just the stuff I did in 1968.

I am just trying to acquaint you with the fact that things change. You can't be sure that what is kosher today will be kosher tomorrow. If you think that....well good luck to you buddy.

Cause sometimes change is so bad. I enjoy a meatball hero on Fridays. Just sayn'

sethfontana said...

@Former Law Student

Please, FLS, shut up. This section has become a Catholic battlefield.

@Trooper

Lending money to Michael Corleone is not a doctrinal issue. Here we are discussing doctrinal issues (and religious paradoxes stolen from the science fiction imaginary, thanks). By the way, let's no mention the concept of papal infallibility.

AJ Lynch said...

The Catholic church will either allow priests to marry or it will wither and die within 100 years.

former law student said...

I mean I didn't like it when John Paul #1 lent all that money to Michael Corleone. That's why the other cardinals had him whacked.

Ask Robert Calvi. Only you can't. He "committed suicide."

jnseward said...

Don't worry. They'll think of something, just as have all the civil rights, women's rights, environmentalist, union, and other movement organizations. Once the goals are achieved, the organizations live on as money and power nexuses. They can run protection and extortion rackets like Jesse Jackson's PUSH, or any number of other scams.

edutcher said...

AJ Lynch said...

The Catholic church will either allow priests to marry or it will wither and die within 100 years.

You're assuming the Church outside America is like the one inside it.

former law student said...

The Catholic church will either allow priests to marry

Supposedly there are 46,000 Catholic priests in America. Imagine if each had a wife, and none could practice birth control. Figuring an average family size of eight children, instead of supporting 46,000 priests, the American Church would have to support close to half a million priests and dependents.

Trooper York said...

What's wrong with that fls?

We need to keep up with the Muslims for crying out loud.

AJ Lynch said...

FLS:

High birth rates are good for a religion- ask any Muslim.

AJ Lynch said...

Edudtcher:

No I am assuming the real world all over which surrounds the catholic church is similar to America.

The church can run but it can't hide from reality- smaller families in America, Ireland, Italy,Germany, Poland mean most families are way less eager to give one of their [perhaps only] son to the Church. The priesthood has to evolve into more of a normal career choice. That's all. Or the church will be way smaller in 100 years.

Youngblood said...

Scott M,

In this thread and at least one other, Fr. Fox expressed concerns about the First Amendment rights of military personnel.

The concerns you're expressing are different. The problem is that homosexuals have already been showering, shitting, hot-bunking, and otherwise co-habitating with heterosexuals (totally legally) for the better part of two decades.

That ship sailed a long time ago.

I'm not trying to wave that issue away, but I'm not clear on how co-habitating with an open homosexual is all that different than co-habitating with a closeted one.

former law student said...

I'm not clear on how co-habitating with an open homosexual is all that different than co-habitating with a closeted one.

Don't Ask
Don't Tell
Don't Peek
Don't Stare
Don't Leer

Jason (the commenter) said...

Little did I know when I opened up this comment thread, that the commenters here would have decided the next big issue for the gay rights movement should be an end to priestly celibacy in the Catholic Church.

Palladian said...

"Little did I know when I opened up this comment thread, that the commenters here would have decided the next big issue for the gay rights movement should be an end to priestly celibacy in the Catholic Church."

There's just no telling what us devious homosexuals will visit upon our innocent straight victims next!

Palladian said...

Sorry, to interrupt, let the wailing and rending of garments and prophesy of doom and darkness continue!

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 256   Newer› Newest»