RE:its statements at the pulpits.WHY? Why is the Catholic Church not taking the same kind of heat that the Mormon Church is?
LL. IMHO, I never have heard a priest preach about how a person should vote on a specific amendment. Not to say it doesn't happen. The sermon every Sunday is and is encouraged to reflect on the selected bible readings that Catholic calandar year. Same day, same reading each year.
It is about how an individual should conduct their life-preaching how to vote or endorse a candidate would be mixing state and church. Voting pro-life is the usual stance, But "voting".....- never heard it mentioned or as the topic of a sermon.
The people of CA voted, the majority was heard.
The people of Ca should be "blamed" not the Churches. How much influence in CA does The church of LDS have anyway? Sounds life their past with "multiple spouses" made them an easy target to cry hypocrisy.
Non Y - the Catholic Church in California apparently DID according to news reports our here in MormonLand...one of the reports even went along the lines of showing a priest saying "wait a minute - we spoke out about it too..."
What the activists are up in arms about is that individual Mormons from Utah and other states donated to the pro-Prop 8 folks and even (gasp) campaigned for it. Never mind that the anti-Prop 8 folks out SPENT the pro side something like 8-1.....
LL
Yeah, I am pretty sure that Catholic Churches were speaking about all social issues this time, even in California. I think Mormons are just an easier target, smaller in number and more concentrated. Also Catholics have been targeted for decades over social issues. Protesting them some more is not likely to get them to back off. Mormons have been politically invisible in most of the rest of the country other than Utah and this is the first time they have been publicly pulling for an issue that I can remember. Maybe activist groups think if they give them a ton of grief, the turtle will go back in the shell.
This will become a Supreme Court case at some point -- and bigotry will lose. This is no more a states rights issue than segregation was. The federal government will step in and mandate equality.
LEGAL UNIONS WITH EQUAL RIGHTS -
YES. BUT you can't legislate or re-legislate the legal definition of "marriage." That's a major thing with me personally.
LeT's not redefine a word like "blue" to mean "kind of blue," "almost blue", near blue etc.
Semantics and consistency.
So GF, tell me can you point out where the gays only fountains, booths, sections of the bus and bathrooms (actually they probably wouldn't mind having their own bathrooms 
) are? You cannot compare the two, there are no lynch mobs running around the country trying to find a fag to kill, frankly if they tried they'd probably get their asses kicked (and then raped). Do NOT compare the two, it is beyond insulting. Besides the gay community claims to be tolerant yet they go around into churches demonstrating and disrupting the peace, so basically their saying that if your not tolerant to my beliefs I don't have to be tolerant to yours. It will never reach the SCOTUS and if it does it will be thrown out by Roberts.
frankly if they tried they'd probably get their asses kicked (and then raped).
Huh? Raped? Jesus Ben, dial back on the stupid rhetoric. That was utterly ridiculous and frankly reeks of the bigotry that Guy lumps on all conservatives. You can get your point across without going there... But if you must, then I respectfully ask that you get off my side. Seriously.
The marriage issue is a canard. What most gays want is equal protection under the law. That will be the case before the Supreme Court eventually and it will be difficult for any court to rule otherwise.
And Jim, no one called or insinuated you or conservatives were bigots. But as many of the posters here repeatedly said when considering Obams's relationship with Ayers -- you are, to a certain degree, measured by the company you keep.
And when you continue to be associated with a guy who repeatedly posts statements like "What happens when you move 60,000 tribal savages . . .", you should expect some of the stink to fall on you.
What most gays want is equal protection under the law.
"Most gays" could give a shit. But we aren't talking about "most gays", are we? We are talking about the radical fringe, and "equal protection under the law" is the real canard, isn't it?
Guy,
We believe in free speach and usually don't restrict who can post on the comment threads. I know that this is a very hard concept for the left to understand, especially Obama.
Ben goes too far at times but censoring him is not the answer. We prefer to refute what we disagree with, regardless of whether it comes from Ben or you. That is debate.
You guys on the left should try it some time.
The radical fringe want marriage to mean two people who love each other... they getting mightily annoyed when anyone suggests a marriage is between a man and a woman.
If you suggest straightforward contract law to solve the problem, thus allowing for transfer of property, visitation, etc., they call you hateful, they say you are infringing their basic human rights, and then call you a bigot.
These people are nuts.
The basic objective is to get society to agree that the perversion of natural human sexuality is actually not a perversion, but natural.
Not all gay people have this objective, which would indicate that they are comfortable with their sexuality and don't really need that separate validation. The ones that do have, I suspect, serious issues with what they are and want to force us to make it better by pretending it is what it is not.
"The basic objective is to get society to agree that the perversion of natural human sexuality is actually not a perversion, but natural." Did that come from that fantasy read you so blindly follow -- the Bible?
No, I think they just want equal rights under the law. The fringe want the right to marry but that is a joke. Anyone can become a licensed minister over the internet. And given more than 50% of marriages dont last anyway, it seems moot.
There will be federal legislation at some point guaranteeing them equal protection and the marriage issue will dissapear.
And given where SCOTUS will be in a few years, it will be sooner rather than later. Hell, Repubs, especially their Senators are becoming an endangered species. If Coleman does win, he may be indicted and have to resign anyway.
You never fail to dissapoint, Albert.
Gay Fawker is out of touch with reality; the fact is we all have the same rights, period. It doesns't matter if you are homo or hetrosexual. Stop being such a dumbass, Gay boy Fawker.
The Gay community loves to get their way through judicial fiat and thrm scream when the democratic process is applied. for example: http://www.reuters.com/article/
b...935377720081119
Guy, is it so strange to you that Kermit (and others like myself) would suggest that there might be something objectively wrong with a behavior that tends to cause massive e coli infections and worse?
And equality? Last I checked, homosexuals had the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals, no? Reality is that government gets into family law really for the cases where families part ways and there are weaker vessels--like women and children. Obviously an inherently sterile union between two men, or two women, doesn't meet this standard, and hence it ought to be obvious that marriage involves a man and a woman.
The sad fact is that Albert, er, I mean Guy, chooses not to address the substance of my opinion. Instead He (she, it?) chooses to attack religion. How original. And how sophomoric.
Commenting by HaloScan
