An Open Letter To National Organization For Marriage **VIDEO ADDED
By Nicole Belle Friday Apr 10, 2009 5:00pm
Dear Maggie Gallagher, President and Brian Brown, Exec. Director, NOM:
I admit, this is something that I normally would not do, seeing as I find that your values are completely abhorrent to me.
That's right, I am a long-time married heterosexual with children, and I find your stance akin to those bigots who protested for miscegenation during the Loving v. Virginia battle that finally decreed that in this country, we had no right to deny marriage rights to people because they were not of the same race. You, Ms. Gallagher and Mr. Brown, are the bigots that fight to hold on to notions that should have been put away long ago to deny human beings equal rights because of their sexuality.
You see, my sexuality is quite secure and I feel no threat to it by homosexuality. I hold no fear for the strength of my marriage by allowing gays and lesbians to marry. My ability to procreate has not been adversely affected even with my fellow San Francisco residents having the right to marry. My job is not--nor my spouse's job, nor my children's education--in danger from us being around committed homosexuals. I'm curious if you could even outline how any of that could be threatened, because I've taken a good look through your website and I can't find one single way that you've been able to show a threat...unless of course, your marriage is simply not as strong as mine and having others commit would suddenly inspire you or your spouse to up and leave. Personally, I find the ease that divorces are available far more destructive to the institution of marriage. You know, if you looked at the number of marriages of all the GOP presidential candidates in 2008, you would have more divorces than candidates...add Newt Gingrich in there, and whaddya know? You'd have divorces in the double digits. From the "Party of Family Values?" Now, that's a threat.
But I digress. I just have a few pointers to you if you want to be taken credibly, instead of laughed off the national stage, as Rachel Maddow has done so well above.
1) Admit this is a violation of your faith. Be honest. I have yet to meet one opponent of marriage equality that when you scratch the surface, doesn't boil down to an issue of faith. In fact, your own website admits as such:
NOM seeks to (a) educate the public about the consequences of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, especially for children and people of faith, and (b) organize a political response to the Tim Gill coalition, supporting pro-marriage legislators and exposing key proponents of same-sex marriage.
Because here's the thing: if it's a matter of your faith, you lose. Your faith cannot dictate civil rights, any more than it could when the southern states invoked Scripture to justify slavery during the Civil War. So please, be honest and let's just be done with this hate and bigotry.
2) If you're going to put out an ad to frighten citizens about the ooga-booga scary notion that marriage equality will somehow bring down civilization as we know it, it might actually have more credibility if you could find an actual doctor to claim her job is somehow threatened, rather than using a really, really bad actor. Better hope they haven't heard of Norway, Denmark or The Netherlands, where marriage equality has not resulted in dogs and cats living together nor mass hysteria.
And for crying out loud, don't let your audition tapes get out. You may have pulled them for copyright infringement from YouTube, but we still know they're out there and we know that it proves how fraudulent your fearmongering is when you have to resort to Z-list actors to "act" it out. Were Chuck Norris and Scott Eckern not available?
3) And really, this is just silly. If you're going to launch a new campaign called "Two Million For Marriage" (2M4M) you might want to check who owns that domain first, you boneheads.
Yours in complete and utter scorn,
Nicole Belle
Login or Register to post comments.
n/t
Hu? how did this get at first post?
It didn't take long for the youtube video to get pulled. http://rachel.msnbc.com/
I saw it. Does that mean it existed?
SPECTACULARLY written. No more needs to be said.
Thank you for your eloquence, Nicole.
Classic. All the political and technical bullshit in the article and you end with "boneheads". Literary briliance Nicole.
Big fan and first time caller
Yes, I stand applauding.
The stormclouders are beyond pathetic.
nice work Nicole. NOM has to one of the most disgusting and disingenuous groups that I have ever heard of.
p.s. Admit your own desires and let go. You'll feel a lot better than living a continual lie.
.
they pulled the youtube clip.
can we get a transcript of rachel's commentary?
thank you.
+
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30153242/
Human Rights Campaign, the gay rights group notable for not having the word gay in their name, has pulled off a coup and they‘re counter-organizing against a group called the National Organization for Marriage. The National Organization for Marriage is itself notable for not having in their name the phrase, we mean just straight people‘s marriages. The “National Organization for Straight-only Marriage” is running a new multimillion ad campaign warning about how scary it is for gay people‘s relationships to have legal recognition.
Here‘s a little bit of the ad.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There‘s a storm gathering.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The clouds are dark and the winds are strong.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And I am afraid.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: Spooky, right? Spooky.
Human Rights Campaign has done a good job refuting some of the “Gay marriage ruined my life” stories that are in the ad, but they‘ve also gone one better—somehow obtaining video footage of the people who applied to pretend that they were straight people who had been somehow hurt by gay marriage. These folks have been referred to elsewhere today as actors.
I‘m going to withhold judgment here and just let you make that call.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, the storm is—there is a storm gathering.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The clouds are dark, and the winds are strong.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am afraid—and I am afraid.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Some who would advocate—some who advocate for same sex marriage have taken this—the issue .
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: . far beyond same-sex couples.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A storm—the storm is coming. But we have hope.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A rainbow of coalition of—a rainbow coalition of people.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A rainbow collision of people of every creed.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Creed—creed and color are coming together.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It allows us to perfect—to protect marriage.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: We do not know how Human Rights Campaign got access to the audition tapes, but because they did, we do know that pretending to be a straight person hurt by gay marriage is apparently very, very challenging.
thanks!
:)
When you don't have truth on your side, make sure the video is pulled ASAP so no one can critique it.
The video (from the Rachel Maddow show, right?) was pulled because the "National Organization for Marriage" complained copyright infringement?
Huh?
WTF???!!!
How do these zealot thugs get to pull an MSNBC vid???
The video was pulled from YouTube, but Rachel's show is still available on the MSNBC website; go to the April 9th show, and click on "From gas station to the Masters" which is the "Ms. Information" part of the program; the appropriate part is about 2 minutes in.
Then a promise to break. Let others have the same "joy" of divorce!
When has John Voight said anything bad about gay marriage? He may be a republican-but ive never heard him say anything bad about it.
And I wasn't trying to say he was...I was just trying to name a visible Republican actor.
Then dont throw his name in there. I really dont think thats fair nicole.
I don't believe Norris has spoken one way or another either.
The point is that NOM knows that they're in such an indefensible position that they have to resort to unknown--and let me reiterate, really bad--actors to give voice to their fear mongering.
Look at his wiki....
On November 18, 2008, Norris became one of the first members of show business to express support for the California Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage, and he heavily criticized the gay community for "interfering" with the democratic process and the double standard he perceived of criticizing the Mormon Church without criticizing people of color.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Norris
It doesnt matter you were just trying to make a point-its not fair to attach peoples names to issues without knowing one way or the other how they feel. You didnt research very well.
I didn't research the subject of celebrities against gay marriage at all.
But to please you, I've changed it to someone who did publicly support California's Prop 8.
I disagree with the article, as a gay man, I appreciate the support. I just didnt agree with the name throwing.
btw...John Voight is actually a pretty good actor. :)
"John Voight"
Who?
It's Jon, not John.
But Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives....
2 Chronicles 13:21
Rehoboam ... took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines.
2 Chronicles 11:21
And he [Solomon] had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines....
1 Kings 11:2-3
And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives.
Judges 8:30
Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.
Matthew 25:1
Gotta love the believers in the Bible's literal, inerrant truth. Have they read the passages on hypocrisy?
Those Bible dudes partied hearty!
"And he [Solomon] had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines....
1 Kings 11:2-3"
Proof that the bible is a fantasy book!
QED!
Can you imagine the constant nagging that poor Solomon had to endure ... :)
FTD person on Valentines Day?
Good one, fiver!
I've been censoring myself for a while re: Abijah waxing mighty with his fourteen wives. :)
Yeah, i guess he died of PTSD!
maybe he was whipped to death!
He was into SM? who would have known!?
:)
..how did all their enemies get their 'hordes'?
weren't a gay or lesbian on the planet tomorrow, there would be some other group that would move to the top of the list. Their fear and hate requires an object or it would turn inward.
what a comforting thought...
while its not longer fashionable to hate on jews, blacks, women, those dirty mexicans to the south, etc... I think you would agree that gay people still enjoy a special place atop a bigots list.
Often times our relations are compared to bestiality, and child molestation.
I guess my partner and I should take comfort in the your idea that if it wasnt us....it would be someone else.
take one for the team!
Seriously, if it wasn't you, it would be someone else. Perhaps someone who isnt as strong, and doesnt have the love in their life that you do. I still wish it werent an issue, but honestly, can you think of a better group of people to fight back? I sure as hell cant!
Gay Rights Now!!!!
Are you under the impression that it could be otherwise? Hate has always existed and it always will. Whether it's one object or another, that's part of our species. That doesn't make the effort to get past it futile, just endlessly challenging.
I think when Nicole writes in "complete and utter scorn" she is my favorite contributer to C&L.
I saw the vid over at Rachel Maddow's MSNBC page. I was expecting something with an angry tone but, to my surprise, was actually quite hilarious.
Am looking for link to the video. Obviously the YT got pulled (.."copyright violation"?! right - A$$h0les), and I tried poking around RM's page with no luck. Would appreciate a link!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#30145786
It starts at about the 2 minute mark after the advert
.
Thanks Moose.
But I liked the first two minutes too...
... "Change we can believe in? Until then, not so much."
Same-sex marriage certainly does carry consequences. It threatens the oppressive power these people of "faith" hold.
I'll fucking drive the wedding limo for Adam and Steve if it takes these demagogues and con-men of pseudo-faith down.
It seems odd that to be called a person of faith isn't more generally considered an insult.
That's probably got something to do with the fact that the majority of "people of faith" are reasonable, average citizens. It's the loudmouthed lunatics that get all the press and drag the idea of religion into the mud.
.
This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by National Organization for Marriage
.
Yeah, I just saw that too. What gutless cowards.
http://barbinmd.dailykos.com/
.
Dear Nicole Belle,
The poster foxnewsboycott has been spamming Think Progress for the last two days. Each thread has been hit and not just one post. Several posts, IN BOLD, in a row. Today, this poster struck one thread about ten times with the same B.S. spam.
T,P. does not block IP addresses but does cancel accounts. To date, this poster has been cancelled THREE TIMES and currently is on it's fourth incarnation.
Please consider close baby sitting the spammer, foxnewsboycott. Or, if possible, block IP address.
.
{ It's been taken care of. Thank You. SiteMonitor}
Thanks
.
As a gay man, the only threat I pose to heterosexual marriages...
... Is to those with closeted husbands.
.
How cute we can't view the video because the National Organization For Marriage claims copy right!!!
Yeah, stupid fuckers! time to spread some copies! :s
.
The biggest threat to the institution of marriage is DIVORCE!
PRESERVE MARRIAGE...
... OUTLAW DIVORCE!
.
People should be coupled by random and than stay together forever and breed! Unhappy about it? Tough luck bucko!
Well, the way I see it, if the National Organization For Marriage is so concerned about families of Faith, then isn't divorce enemy number one? Because of it, children suffer when torn apart in these families of little faith, NO?
NO! My parents where married for way to long! I was happy when they divorced, what a crap marriage and me and my sister where the one that where suffering! (they also btw)
Alerta,
I'm not really advocating doing away with divorce. In many cases, it IS the most prudent thing to do. However, I am attempting to highlight these extremists hypocrisy.
I thought so, i just want to point out that NOM are a bunch of idiots. I took your comment as pointing that as well.
Actually, given the latest election season, I'd say the biggest threat to the institution of marriage is Republican politicians: they just can't seem to stay married. Perhaps we should ban...
Naah, not going to go there. :)
Nicole forgot to mention Canada.
Hasn't changed a damn thing here. Life is the same!
We've had gay marriage here in Canada for some time now. It is a none-issue, never mentioned in the media, nor do most people care one way or another. For example, the blue collar neighbourhood that I live in has a gay couple who bought a house on our block a couple of years ago (Mrs. & Mrs.) They babysit the neighbourhood kids, mow their lawn and keep a flower garden. No one seems to care about their arrangement, although we have the gamut of people ranging from a young sheet metal worker to a retired fireman. They are viewed as respected members of the block. As Pierre Trudeau (one of our greatest Prime Ministers and the father of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms) said: "The government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation"
He was one of our best and brightest ... such a brilliant man.
I agree with you, NS57, gay marriage is a non-issue here in Canada and a lot of credit goes to Mr Trudeau for that.
What a nom de plume.
As a LOLcat fan I keep thinking "Dis nom's flavr not so gud."
If only there was a picture of a cat chewing on a NOM brochure somewhere...
Some say stay married and ban divorce, some say stop State interference into what is a spiritual/religious ceremony and then we have those that say, just call your legal union one thing and we'll keep calling ours marriage, like they have copyrights to the word and it's meaning. :-/
With a general understanding regarding genetic abnormalities and the potential pitfalls of interbreeding, I can see why the States' have an interest in overseeing the marital process and the church obviously does as well, for reasons I'm ignorant of.
I've found this, though I'm not sure how too interpret it's scope and meaning.
RE:"The Marriage License Laws for a man and a woman to marry vary from state to state. Although there are differences between the requirements in the various states, a marriage between a man and a woman performed in one state must be recognized by every other state under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution."
→ → →[ http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_s... ]
→ → →[ http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constituti... ]
What bearing does that have on marriages performed in MA,CT,VT,IA and the like?
They passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which nullifies the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the cae of homosexual marriage...
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/gay_marria...
:-( Major suckage...
I thought it took a Constitutional amendment too change the Constitution? Will we just have to wait until the Supreme Court is confronted with the conflict? Was it allready addressed by the court? Did they amend the Constitution or just create a law?
that's really it, nicole. the great threat to marriage, the stability of family life and the emotional health of children is not gay marriage. it is divorce. and if they were honest about it, those that shiver at the thought of gay marriage on the grounds that it threatens the institution of marriage would instead be focused (on their own marriages first and foremost) on trying to figure out how to reduce the number that take place in this country...
children need two parents who love one another and who can model healthy adult relationships so that they can grow to become healthy adults themselves.
eom
I wish I could have put it half as well.
"Better hope they haven't heard of Norway, Denmark or The Netherlands, where marriage equality has not resulted in dogs and cats living together nor mass hysteria."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCHFVTQKqdQ
They are nothing but cowards. Cannot take criticism. Sad.
Their deviant acts don't work so well in this day and age... Things are only gonna get better or worse depending on your beliefs.
as long as people are Loving one another - what's the problem??!!
We should be promoting love and togetherness and tolerance in this country /world, not nitpicking every single difference. These NOM folks profess to be Christians - well, it's time they actually read the Gospels!! Jesus would have none of this crap.
Girl, that's Communist talk. You'll end up in hell if you keep thinking like that.
the GLBT communities had issued an edict saying that straight people's marriages are to be forceably ended and that Bob must marry Steve, Sue has to marry Peggy, etc.
They really need to get over themselves.
They are afraid that the country would turn into a sodom and gomorrah i guess! Or they are afraid that they are gay themselves. IDK!
that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which is used so often to illustrate the fall of society because of "gay love" is a story in which the "hero" offers his daughters to be raped by a mob. I've yet to hear any religious zealot challenge this notion that we should emulate Lot's behavior. Morality my ass.
According to the bible, where does God live?
How can the "God of light" live in darkness?
"Then spake Solomon, the Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness." (I Kings 8:12. Repeated in II Chronicles 6:1) "And he made darkness pavilions round about him, dark waters, and thick clouds of the skies." (II Samuel 22:12) "He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies." (Psalm 18:11) "The Lord reigneth; let the earth rejoice . . . clouds and darkness are round about him." (Psalm 97:1-2)
Then again?
This contradicts I John 1:5: "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all . . . If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another."
I don't know. :-/
Very well put. Your questions go to the heart of the "reasons" that people oppose gay marriage. However, I don't really expect you to get a response to your questions, and I'm sure you don't either.
I've asked the same questions on several blogs/message boards. The latest was a few months ago. As you did, I asked a girl how gay marriage affected her marriage, or that of her friends or family. No response. So I asked again. No response. I asked a third time, and she finally said that gay marriage affects all of us because God is going to punish us for allowing it to happen.
But I had to laugh the other night when I heard a guy call in to a talk show on the radio and declare that homosexuality was immoral. The host said to the caller that homosexuality is a normal occurrence in the animal kingdom. The caller asked why he said that. The host said, "Sir, have you ever watched a documentary on PBS?" After a brief pause, the caller said, "No." The host laughed a little, and said, "Well, there you go."
The bottom line is that this group is demanding that a people give up a form of happiness in life. There is great joy in marriage. A person is committing to someone for life and I would venture to guess that most gay people commit to the marriage more seriously and with more devotion than most heterosexuals. The gay people I know who have married have wanted marriage for so many years and to have that opportunity is a blessing, a true blessing.
Great letter. People need to be told how ignorant they are when they do things like this....bigots really, really upset me.
Who knows? Maybe they might respond to you. Several years ago (think it was 2006), when there was an awful lot of talk about having a constitutional amendment "protecting marriage" as the union between just a man and a woman, I sent an email to one of these groups....I actually think it was Focus on the Family, Dobson's group. Surprisingly, I did get an email response. In my email to them, I pointed out the hypocrisy of them saying that they wanted to protect the sanctity of marriage by preventing gay marriage....but at the same time, I had not seen them speaking out about divorce. They gave me some cockamamie answer about how they do speak out against divorce....although I asked them why they were not asking for a constitutional amendment to outlaw divorce! I'll have to dig that old email exchange out....at least I did get a response from them.
(I took out my last comment/question...think I understand, now, what I was curious about)
You know what bothers me? Not their opinions, because certainly people should be free to debate whatever they want.
The thing that really eats me up (and it's the same thing that eats me up about Fox News and the Republican-style Swift Boaters, etc.): The misinformation. If you've got a point of view, speak out about it, use the facts that support your point of view, but goddamn it, don't lie to people.
Tell people you don't like the idea of gays teaching kids, or you don't think it's appropriate for same-sex couples to get married. THAT's the truth. THAT'S what you believe. But don't tell people the schools are teaching kids how to be gay, or doctors can't practice medicine because of same-sex marriage.
As a 20-year veteran of advertising, it just baffles me why Ford is required to back every single claim with a battery of research, but any nutter who starts a political action group can spew unadulterated lies for 60 seconds without so much as a disclaimer. Then, of course, those lies can be debated ad nauseam as if they're fact on Fox News. Infuriating.
That they have to lie to people, because that's all they got. Try as they may, there are no facts to support their views.
They want to convince me that same-sex marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage? Then convince me. Don't throw out some bullsh*t about men and women in another country waiting until after the birth of a second or third child before they get married, whereas they used to get married after the birth of their first child, and then blaming it on the legalization of same-sex marriage.
of an exchange I saw at a convention:
Audience member: "I'm entitled to my opinion!"
Harlan Ellison: "No, sir. You're entitled to an informed opinion."
Where these Repug yahoos get the idea that "freedom of speech" means the right to LIE to people, I'll never know. It's certainly nowhere in the Framing Documents.
It's always about the threat with re-Thugs.
They need people to be fearful and worried - AND/OR - terrified and unstable and violent. The Corporate owned and run media and reich-wing groups are in bed together - dedicated to devoting every media minute possible to force-feeding Americans lies and distortions that deliberately ramp up the rhetoric.
They're working to unhinge and break us with FEAR. They DO want Americans rioting in the streets - with their guns.
What they desperately want, is a body count.
*
Like gay people are a new fangled threat we never experienced before. Look out! What's in that dark closet!? ooooh it's the gay boogey monster! Be very afraid it has an odd look in it's eye, and we can't have that! If we allow gay's rights who knows what they will become!? They'll probably turn into confused goat porn loving pedophiles and will violate their furniture in public! The deviants!
ROLMAO! You know that is where the hysteria ends up going.
I too am heterosexual, I lived and worked in SF and Piedmont near Berkeley for 10 years and was never threatened by gay people at any level. I got hit on often by the same sex, I always promptly but courteously declined and that was the end of it.
The worst that ever happened was occasionally getting leered at, all you do is ignore the individual or tell them to end it. What's the big threat?
Were you single at the time? How do you know they didn't threaten your future marriage?!?
I'm being snarky of course. How these fools can believe anyone else's marriage will harm their own marriage - I guess the only way someone getting married could harm your marriage is if they marry your spouce. otherwise...I just don't see how this could harm their own relationship.
And great letter Nichole, I always dig your work!
Just not my bag, I can't see what gay people see in the same gender. But I have never felt threatened by it either, it's not that hard to say no thanks, I'm not gay.
Today I have an 11 year old son pushing 12, I'm not worried in the least about gay forces influencing him. We have a great line of communication going. But then again, I don't think you get turned into being gay. As a kid I grew up around others my age I know for a fact did not get taught about being gay, but they ended up being gay anyways. Very unexpected, I knew a few who were obviously gay from 1st grade. Nature is more diverse than people like to give it credit for being.
I totally agree. What does another persons marriage have to with mine? LMAO! Oh my God honey, look, it's a gay married couple! Our marriage is threatened! That does it I want a divorce!, it's really that stupid.
Nicole,
This is a half-truth.
In NJ, Mass., religious liberties were specifically lost, a fundamental violation of the First Amendment.
In NJ a church was forced to violate its conscience in renting it facilities.
In Mass. the R.C. church was denied participation in the adoption process.
If this could be done without the loss of other liberties, that would be a different matter. But there is not.
It is not bigotry and to call it that would only, in light of real events, place you in the position of being a religious bigot.
If what you say is true. However, I search for something happening is some NJ church because you made a claim and did not back it up with a link.
If you say something happened, back it up or your just pulling stuff out of your ass.
for your reading pleasure ...
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/200...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/nj-r...
Was this clear?
The Boston issue is basically just an underlying tax thing. Sure they like too look like the good guys with their side businesses, but they obviously cherish their tax exemption more.
I think you'll find the NJ issue fortunately confronted with a similar situation.
It's kinda like... The law is only good when it works for me and to "Hell"(pun intended) for everyone else!
The state does not accomodate the church and limits participation, or removes private property rights, and you are willing to suggest that it's about taxes? An amazing leap in logic. That might be the case if what you want to do is coerce religious liberty away for the sake of tax exemption. That is called "extortion" in any sense of the word.
And I thought you folks supported "separation of church and state" or is that only the case when the state has control of religious system? That's hardly "separation".
This is preciesely why the right's thinkers attack the Hegelian character of the Left. This is statism, and it is both wrong and dangerous.
Talk about extortion... why should they enjoy the benefits of my tax dollars with their usurpation of my public services, paid for by tax dollars?
Not to mention the obvious...
"I would like to call your attention to ... an evil that, if allowed to continue, will probably lead to great trouble.... It is the accumulation of vast amounts of untaxed church property."
[Ulysses S. Grant]
Churches pay for utilities and such. We all pay taxes on roads, etc. And what makes private property or open participation in civic matters a "public service"? Taxation is a punishment method, a manner of control, as well as a way of raising revenue.
At least we know where you stand in regard to the First Amendment. So much for separation.
If you really think that the state should control all hearts and minds, please remember the one who held his nation's conscience, to whom the (first and loudest) liberal church gave allegiance. Statism is ugly. Then remember Bonhoeffer. Our current situation is not the same, but the tendency to grab onto Hegelian ideas is dangerous. Our outcomes may be different but they will be equally harmful.
are pure hyperbole and quite common I might add. Though nonetheless, I thank you for your time.
There was no hyperbole in that remark at all.
These are matters of history and philosophy.
What is hyperbole is to suggest that churches are somehow soaking society of money.
But since you (and Nicole) have nothing of substance ... enjoy your weekend.
Your argument is pointless since it's against a former president of the United States, dead for over a 100 years, cited in Sat, 04/11/2009 - 08:10 — Truth_Critic
Churches don't pay taxes for church property.
Some even have their own religious TV networks and cable channels for which they are not taxed as regular networks and cable, although I'm sure they pay individual income taxes.
Some televangelists own huges estates and multiple cars, but they just list them as religious property that they are only using, even though often the televangelist, their spouse or other close relative is often the bookkeeper.
That's why church members have the right to individually speak among friends on the issues, and to vote accordingly, but not with money that the government has made non-taxable.
Otherwise that puts those of us with opposing views, whose properties are taxed, at a decided disadvantage.
However, at the time of our Founding Fathers no income tax existed, because that did not exist until the ratification of the 16th amendment in 1913, so it becomes problematical. Indubitably some would be for it, some against, as they were not necessarily of one mind on all topics.
But property taxes did exist.
Libs and Lefties have most of the TV & newspapers.
Even before 501(c)(3), within fundamentalist circles (early 20th c.), it is documented that many did not endorse candidates. And churches still were not taxed. It is only since the mid 1950s that the Left has attempted to silence churches with IRS and FCC rules and regs. Documentation is available here:
http://www.amazon.com/Social-Thought-American...
TV's, newspapers and most media outlets are owned by GE, Verizon, News Corp (FAUX), Time/Warner (Now split), and Disney, none of whom are known for being "liberals." Time/Warner could be when Ted Turner owned it, but it's been sold at least twice since then to conservative companies.
And they have to pay taxes on their holdings unlike churches.
And by your own admission, "Even before 501(c)(3), within fundamentalist circles (early 20th c.), it is documented that many did not endorse candidates..." that apprarently the only thing that changed was certain churches getting more active in politics, when before they did not. So why should they now?
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was charged with a murder attempt, and apparently that was based on fact.
The Boston case is about gay adoption, not marriage.
The NJ case, I agree, is unfair. I don't believe churches should be forced to endorse gay unions if it goes against the tenets of their faith.
However, the bottom line is that human beings deserve equality.
The topic for application was adoption.
But the core issue is how "rights" and "morality" are confused so that church liberty is affected.
That's only if you adopt, so to speak, the corporate "legal person" argument, and are defining churches as corporations, otherwise a church is an institution.
To say that the State was suddenly infringing on religious freedoms because of same-sex marriage is ridiculous
Catholic Charities has be helping same sex couple adopt for nearly 2 decades. They were under contract by the state. They received major public funding and that meant they also had to comply with sexual orientation anti discrimination laws,, which they did without any problems.
Enter the funny looking guys in expensive dresses and Prada shoes. The Vatican has become increasingly hardline in its crusade against homosexuality in the last couple of years. The Vatican pretty much gave Catholic Charities an ultimatum to comply with its archaic moral code or else. That meant to stop adopting to gays pronto or face sanctions from the Church. In doing so they'd lose their contract with the state of Massachusetts and most of their funding. They had to cave to the Vatican.
http://www.mail-archive.com/religionlaw@lists...
The people you talk about want to hold onto outdated, bigoted attitudes AND benefit from government help. Well, as the society evolves, so does the government, and if those crusty old hatreds are thrown out of the laws, the religious will either have to conform to the new laws or find another way to fill their coffers and do their business.
They don't want to acknowledge the rights of gay parents, even though the law does? Fine. Then they don't get to be in the adoption business, plain and simple. The same goes with any business that doesn't want to abide by government regulations - either fly under the wire and risk getting penalized, or get into another line of business - so don't act like this is some kind of anti-religion attack. Churches may like facilitating adoptions, but it's hardly a required activity for religious organizations. They want to have their cake and eat it too. We've seen where that leads lately.
Bottom line - this is a matter of evolving social mores. If you don't evolve along with the rest, you get left out in the cold. Sorry, but that's life.
Only if you want to sacrifice a *free and open society* (you know, a classic liberal democracy) and make the government into the arbiter of morality and so exclude the principle of accomodation from law. That is the religious bigotry of today's movement, and the facts make that clear. Don't call us bigots without addressing your own bigotry.
You're presupposing that all of us on this site, and by extension all liberals are not religious in themselves. That's not a logical argument.
And isn't passing laws to placate certain religious demographics, to forbid freedoms to others to share in certain civil rights, reflective of the attempt to MAKE government the arbiter of moral law?
Your argument also presupposes that morality and religion is synonymous.
Actually here is why NJ and MA
* The New Jersey church group runs, and profits from, a beachside pavilion that it rents out to the general public for all manner of occasions –concerts, debates and even Civil War reenactments— but balks at permitting couples to hold civil union ceremonies there. The law does not challenge the church organization’s beliefs about homosexuality – it merely requires that a pavilion that had been open to all for years comply with laws protecting everyone from discrimination, including gays and lesbians.
* The Massachusetts parent disagrees with an aspect of her son’s public education, a discussion of the many different kinds of families he will likely encounter in life, including gay and lesbian couples. The law does not stop her from disagreeing, from teaching him consistently with her differing beliefs at home, or even educating her child in a setting that is more in line with her faith traditions. But it does not allow any one parent to dictate the curriculum for all students based on her family’s religious traditions.
Bravo Nicole.
I wonder if this type of madness will ever end! People continue to use "Christianity" or "Religion" as some ultimate moral compass. Common conceptions of morality have changed significantly over time and this is not something to be afraid of. The type of behaviour that you have pointed out here Nicole is exactly the type of thing that continues to create turmoil in this country. Using religion as something to hide behind as some "authority" and use it to attack others is truly disheartening and evidence of the current human condition. EX. If my life is not exactly what I hoped it to be gives me no right to try to control or stand in the way of other peoples happiness.
If we could just all be happily married everything would be just fine. ;)
Was it the Thom Hartmann show last week that asked who the demographic would be for this campaign? I figure Al Franken has the best take in asking whether gay marriage will have him asking himself, "Hmm. That homosexuality is looking really good. Maybe I'll have to drop Frannie." How ridiculous. Is everybody who worries about this issue a repressed bi, or just a stupid redneck or a bitter black who doesn't want to believe that gays can be discriminated against too? What a platform builder for '12. Invest heavily in it GOP.
As no lesbian has ever tried to hit on my husband, there is no doubt that my marriage is more threatened by straight women. My marriage is also more threatened by single people than by those who are in a committed relationship. So gay and married is the very safest thing possible. Right?
I hope you're not going to use that logic, because it leaves a big gay-man-sized hole. Lesbians wouldn't be the ones who'd be looking at a man, after all.
Just picking at the logic, not actually arguing the position.
Ah, but you see, my husband is straight as the day is long. So that's not a concern either. But if it was, a gay man who was married would still be less of a danger. I personally want everybody in a happy, committed relationship. That would pretty much ensure the sanctity and security of marriage.
o'rielly is right. Nicole has been paid off by george soros to...wait...SCORN! if she had just gone on tv and doused some religious nut with mock gasoline, that would be fine.
I would think legalizing gay marriage, or at least civil unions, would be to the Church interests.
Or are they for promiscuous homosexuality?
My sexuality is secure.
No one wants it.
I made a video response to the NOM ad that finds interesting similarities between the NOM ad and images the KKK used in the 1920s to promote antisemitism, anti-Catholicism, and nativism.
Please take a look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYtr6-gP0t8
The more I think about it, it's as if "traditional marriage" is somehow a heterosexual-marriage-only club. I remember how upset people got when NASCAR decided to allow Toyota into the Sprint Cup. People were up in arms about it, declaring that Toyota wasn't welcome because NASCAR had always exclusively been an American-only sport and by damn, it should remain that way. That's what the same-sex marriage argument reminds me of.
Login or Register to post comments.