SPARROW4

I like that term, cardiac Jew, it says a lot.

May G-d, Y-hw-h, keep smiling in your heart.

Thanksgiving day is coming up and I wish you a nice one and I happen to believe that you will spend it in a good way.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas- I've joked often that I'm a cardiac Jew (I feel it in my heart). I agree with you on the difference between faith and religion. Religion tries to codify teachings and somehow give them a ritual format. but often the format solidifies like cement and the essence is lost. I feel that way about the ultra-orthodox of my own faith. But then, like you, I only have to answer to G-d at the last.I can't speak for Him, I won't interpret for Him, I won't pretend to know Him- I can only live my life guided by the commandments, tempered by the golden rule.

thank you for your very kind and thoughtful words. I know there are several things we disagree on, but I really think people like you are truly the ones who know G-d, it's in your heart and soul- not in the pews.

SPARROW4

Hi, hope you are doing fine and congratulations on being voted an honorary Irish woman, I would imagine that gave your heart a warm feeling.

One of the things that I have noticed on here is that sometimes it is tougher to get across with the written word than with the spoken word.

Even tho with the spoken word there are some that disagree big-time with what I have to say at least, some of the time, they at least know what I am trying to say.

I am Catholic and I cherish my Catholic Faith and I can see a big disconnect at times between the Catholic religion and the Catholic Faith. Some say that they are one and the same but I disagree.

By this I mean: Faith, the core values and beliefs; religion, the rules and regulations and some trying to either run other people's lives and/or be their conscience.

I have been referred to as a "cafeteria" Catholic by some and I imagine for quite a few things, one of which is that I have said that we are to follow Jesus, not follow the Pope and you know what, I believe that the present Pope would whole-heartedly agree with what I said.

I would also say that any Pope that would disagree with that is not worth his salt.

Also, some that refer to me as a "cafeteria" Catholic would have also referred to Jesus as a "cafeteria" Jew if they were alive when He walked on this planet.

Thanks for replying to my post and as for anyone posting on any of these sites, we are ALL God's children whether we believe this or not, we are also His brothers and sisters.

One of the things that I have said is, "If one is going to be a Catholic, might as well be catholic", you probably know but in case others might not, catholic means universal and there is a reason for it's meaning.

And as I have also said, "God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof", this is direct and simple and it most definitely seems that there are going to be some that will be quite shocked to find this to be true, believers and non-believers alike.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas- too true. You're right. And since I have probably spent more time in catholic churches since 9-11 than in temple, and was voted an honorary Irish woman by the families of 9-11 firefighters, I should clarify my comment. Mary posts from London and seems to think she knows it all about religion in America and how it works. My comment truly was meant for her (as was my poetic attempt). No catholic person I know (and I know quite a few, mostly Irish) is anything like her with her narrow minded and rigid faith.

My reference was to the well documented years of religious wars between Irish catholics and protestants, a war which created the IRA, a bunch of terrorists as venal and destructive as Al Qaeda. so i find it rather amusing that she seems to see herself as an expert on American religion (but of course we , as non-catholics, don't have the right to post on On faith. Or as she calls it No Faith)

Thank you Thomas, for the comment.

MARY CUNNINGHAM

You wrote, "Because ask yourself, why are there no Catholics posting in 'Catholic America'?"

I am a Catholic and I cherish my Catholic Faith and I do post here and other places, as a matter of fact some of my posts on Catholic America have been blocked.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

SPARROW4

You wrote, "I guess I'm a little skeptical of an Irish Catholic talking about religious issues in America."

Isn't this kind of lumping all "Irish Catholic" as one rather than that one is an "Irish Catholic"?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Mary_Cunningham writes
'Intelligent piece. The American liberal elite should be worried about its disconnect with the common people, evidenced by their simultaneous support of Obama *and* Proposition 8'

I don't see the relationship. On one hand the American people, after 20+ months of campaigning, made a clear choice between conservativism and liberalism and gave Obama and his center-left positions a clear mandate. In CA there was a well finianced campaign by one side that was at it's heart deceptive, and it won by a slim majority.
Moreover, I believe the opposition to gay marriage is broad but shallow. It wasn't long ago (the 1960s) when gays were brought out on shows like 'donahue' like circus animals. Today gays are widely accepted. In the 1970s and 80s conservatives tried to pass laws mandating discrimination against gays. Today, in most of normal America (I'm not talking about you Alabama) nobody would consider it legal or right to ban gays from certain jobs. In short, as more old bigots die off acceptance of gay marriage will become normal.
One more 'wedge' issue will bite the dust.

Ooops, got distracted by an IM message. I do apologize.

So consider the state legislature to be a group requesting a special plate thereby fulfilling the requirements of the law.

To wit:

The SC Christian State Legislature Association.

Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary,

The Orthodox garden is still wilting, day by day, week by week, year by year. Reality has arrived in the pews in those few that are still being used!!!

mary mary quite contrary
believes in the great big airy fairy
Oh wait, that's wrong, she's anti-gay,
she learned religious tolerance from the IRA

mary mary too contrary
finds the world too big and scary
she cowers behind her catholic dogma
screeches and howls over Barack Obama
Wonders where all the catholics went-
Perhaps to church to think and repent?

John, John, the big black swan
Is coming for the athies
Who can’t hold on.
They cannot win, their money’s gone!

So farwell then to
Free market-ology and atheology,
Crossan-spam
And Cunningham.

Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary, and the Orthodox Garden is Wilting, wilting, wilting!!!

I guess I'm a little skeptical of an Irish Catholic talking about religious issues in America. Anyone remember the lovely relationships of Irish Catholics and Protestants? Yes- I'm sure maryc could teach us a thing or three about our society.

I mean, hey, Ms. Cunningham. If you have some kind of problem about criticizing the Church, well let's just say one thing you don't hear 'former Catholics' disputing is the constant 'sheep' metaphors.

What do you expect? :)

Seriously, Ms. Cunningham.

You're always whining about being 'Catholic-bashed' if anyone shows a little, what'd they call it, 'Spit and Vinegar' about a lot of things that 'Catholics' didn't seem to muster any effort to think or talk about while it was going on in front of their *faces.*

If 'Catholics' aren't here *now,* what's new?

"Because ask yourself, why are there no Catholics posting in 'Catholic America'?"

Why were there no Catholics in Church standing up and doing something when they thought sure I was being sexually-abused?

Is it cause no one thinks a thing, or cause...

Of something else that might be more obvious about Catholic authority?

farnaz2- I agree. I posted on that earlier in the thread. I doubt Mr. Arroyo-stevens would know a gentrifying neighborhood if it smacked him in the back of the head. I know about it first-hand, living in Brooklyn. the majority gentrifying are young families, or middle aged couples. I have no idea where he got that truly ludicrous idea from. And I'll tell him something else, people in my neighborhood would love for some of those businesses he mentioned to come to this neighborhood. They want services. But blame homosexuals for this? Not even close.

"That's just 3. You really need to get a grip on your emotions, and stop venting. You can do it! But you must try harder. If you do, you'll find the benefits of thinking rationally outweigh the drawbacks."

well mary- I just call it like I see it. I'll make a deal- the day you take a shot at a rational argument instead of hiding under the I am a catholic therefore I am better than you barrel, I'll stop telling you what I think of you. If you can actually use logic instead of your dogma, we can have a conversation. Until then I can't see being subtle or rational with you- it doesn't make a dent.
------------------
"This marked lack of Catholics merely demonstrates my point that Washington Post readers--typical of the Am elite--are disconnected from the common folk they profess to lead. Badly, badly out of touch."- maryc

sp- see, this is just an example. first of all the Wash Post AM elite, as you call it, is a classic example of Ann Coulterish sloganeering. Mindless, disconnected from reality, ignorant of the facts. Perhaps the fact that so few Catholics- at least in your opinion- post here simply means most of them are not quite as narrow-minded or fundamentalist as you are. Lastly, if you are really going to tell Americans anything, at least know something about us, instead of repeating headlines from the right, slogans and sheer ignorance. What lessons did you learn from the election of Obama? None, it seems.

"We can also add the economic motives to any political pattern. In case you haven't noticed recently, gentrification is under way in many formerly Latino or African American neighborhoods. Often you can find prosperous members of the gay communities setting down roots in these gentrified streets. Where bodegas once dominated, Starbucks and fancy salons now dazzle the pedestrian walkways. Without dissecting the ins and outs of gentrification, it is a pattern of housing restoration that disturbs the status quo. If religion were not enough motivation, losing your neighborhood might be reason to vote against same-sex partners."

Anthony,

This is ridiculous. Now, you are on my home turf. Gentrification is something I know quite a bit about, and, in fact, had some small success in thwarting quite awhile back. Housing, like the media, should be in the public domain, but that is beside the point.

Gentrification of Latin and African American neighborhoods is the work of powerful real estate interest and other business interests in cahoots with banks and local administrations. Often the first generation of gentrifiers don't know that that is what they are. What they have in common is that they are white. Historically, they have been heterosexual, perhaps, because the majority of white Americans, as well as brown, black, etc. is heterosexual. ( Just guessing...What do you think?)

By your absurd reasoning, Latinos should be voting to deny heterosexuals the right to marry.

But this is all from me, American John.

Because ask yourself, why are there no Catholics posting in 'Catholic America'? What does that say about the blog, American John? What have you done to cause American Catholics to boycott?

(And tell David Waters, that Boycott originated with Captain boycott in Co. Mayo. It's an Irish term although Boycott himself was English..and should be spelled Bouycott)

John John John

(Because I am assuming you are none other than John Dominic Crossan)

I often wonder why I'm the only Catholic here. Why? I think it is to see if the courage I had when I grew up is still around...do you know what it was like to be one of the two Catholics--and Irish too!--in a top CofE school? Do you know what it was like to have cousins in Belfast during the worst of the Troubles?

So I am not afraid of the worse the Sparrows and Farnaz's--and you, John, you too-- of this world have to throw at me. Maybe all of you have intellect, but my God you counteract it with astronomical arrogance...

And John, all that Mary Mary Mary stuff. You should stop. Tacky, John. Very tacky.

Mary, Mary, Irish Mary,

There are statistically fewer Catholics defending orthodox Catholicism on these commentary pages because "Crossanization" of Catholicism/Christianity has begun. Welcome to reality.

PS CCNL

Try counting not spamming. I recommend it heartily for determining what's really happening. It helps clear the mind as well--an added benefit.

Sparrow4:

If you want to discuss intelligently, you need to keep a firm grip on abusive language, starting with adhoms. Let's see, just counting:

==dysfunctional drivel from a fiend
==shouldn't expect any intelligent analysis (and THIS is intelligent analysis? Too rich, sparrow)
==false sense of smug superiority

That's just 3. You really need to get a grip on your emotions, and stop venting. You can do it! But you must try harder. If you do, you'll find the benefits of thinking rationally outweigh the drawbacks.

CCNL

Irish, although I've lived here for a long time. I guess a LOndoner.

I would note: in demonstrating how out of touch and hostile to traditional religions liberal ideology is, this blog is as good an example as any.

Let's look at the numbers. Of 41 comments *3* are from Catholics. And I'm an Anglo-Irish Catholic, you can eliminate me, so *2* are from Catholics (I'm assuming American).

Now, this is a tremendously lopsided responce. Catholics make up 25% of the US population so there should be at least *10* responces (out of 40) here, just by the law of averages. (If Catholics are 25% of the pop., if the blog is representative, then there should be 10 Catholics responding). And a blog named "Catholic America" should draw, well, Catholics. (I would have thought). So, if we take a total of 40 (rounding the responces down) there should be 10 as a base case, and maybe 6-7 more because of the heading. That's 16. Instead there are 2. Catholics are thus underrepresented by a factor of 8. Or another way of putting it: there should be 14 more responces from Catholics than there are.

This marked lack of Catholics merely demonstrates my point that Washington Post readers--typical of the Am elite--are disconnected from the common folk they profess to lead. Badly, badly out of touch.

But don't take my word. Take the professor's :

=====>..U.S. white liberals, in contrast, are secular to the point of being anti-religious. Bill Maher's recent film, "Religulous," is an example of how all-too-many white liberals adopt attitudes of arrogance and condescension towards religious belief. If you look down upon the people of color holding up the ranks, don't be surprised if they decide not to follow you into battle.=====<

VictorLove1,

There never was a paradise on Earth nor a biblical Adam and Eve. And snakes then and now cannot talk.

We evolved and continue to evolve. Deal with it!!

The Big Bang is real and so is the Gib Gnab when the Universe will recycle itself with our atoms and molecules made and remade in the fiery blasts and condensations of supernovas.

If god exists, he/she/it plays no role as is so obvious from the intrinsic human attributes of free will and future.

"Intelligent piece. The American liberal elite should be worried about its disconnect with the common people, evidenced by their simultaneous support of Obama *and* Proposition 8. Certainly the contempt for religious believers shown on No Faith, from the sophistic spam of a CCNL to the outright abuse of the 'Gang of Four'--Farnaz & co (well, she posts under different names)--is evidence of this troubling tendency."-marycunningham

I knew I could count on another piece of dysfunctional drivel from our fiend across the pond. The American liberal elite is a myth perpertuated by the republican party, which a little research on your part would have been shown to be the party of preference of for Wall St., old money families, Halliburton and the religious wingnuts. the democrats on the other hand are the party of your so-called "common people." Ever watch a republican rally? A rainbow coalition it isn't.

But then, I shouldn't expect any intelligent analysis from you. You don't live here, you live in a rigid wingnut world where everything is all about being "catholic." Irish catholic. It seems to give you a false sense of smug superiority, which is misleading since you seem to fall for every piece of far right punditry known to the republicans. Keep trying, mc- maybe someday you'll get it right. (And by the way, despite your insistence and lies, farnaz2 does not post under any other names. Nor am I her- I know that is your next big yap.)

No- prop 8 passed because the rightwing nutjobs still know how to twist every good impulse into a bastion of fear and repulsiveness. Just like you do.

REALITY 101

God does not believe in Utopian societies, He gave us that chance in the creation of Paradise, and with only 2 people on earth, they still managed to screw that up. Those 2 people were quite literally made by the hands of God, having domain over all living creatures and plants on earth, and they still managed to screw that up.
Why, because even then balance was in play,I.E.
the serpent!

All you finger pointing liberals and conservatives
need to get a grip on reality, within your ranks
and in the ranks of all religions, evil and good
exist, within yourself you must constantly balance the weight of good and evil. Why is that?
BECAUSE
God does believe in balance, an equilibrium of sorts, that balance gives one the ability to
effectively measure the good and evil that exists in the world and within ourselves.
A true Utopian society is one that is equally
balanced in the eyes of God, Post paradise.

Just because we were made in the image and likeness of God, does not mean that we were also blessed with His superior knowledge and abilities.
How else can you describe the humans capacity
for destruction of all things on earth, that, by all accounts, were made by the hands of God.

How many people die or get sick or bear lifelong illnesses from contaminates in our water,air and earthen environments? Directly or indirectly,
each of us are guilty of egregious acts that have or will have the effect of causing death,sickness,
and disease among the people and our environments
and the animal kingdom, not only now, but all life lost in the future as well.What we do now affects all life, your death does not exonerate
you from future liabilities.

Do you still feel good about your righteous self?
If you have the ability to look deep into your soul, you will realize that your actions have
greater and longer lasting consequences for all life here on earth. So stop cherry picking!

And then we have the English woman, Mary Cunningham still suffering from her Three B Syndrome, i.e. being Bred, Born and Brainwashed in the orthodox Catholicism. Her more serious symptoms: belief in-

1. "pretty/ugly, wingie, talking thingies".

2. a 24/7 bloody body ritual.

3. resurrecting bodies.

4. original sin.

5. atonement theology.

6. the second coming.

7. an all-male, celibate priesthood.

8. prayers/prayer beads.

9. miracles.

10. infallible popes.

Intelligent piece. The American liberal elite should be worried about its disconnect with the common people, evidenced by their simultaneous support of Obama *and* Proposition 8. Certainly the contempt for religious believers shown on No Faith, from the sophistic spam of a CCNL to the outright abuse of the 'Gang of Four'--Farnaz & co (well, she posts under different names)--is evidence of this troubling tendency.

A lot depends on whether Obama can rein in these people...or if he even wants to. If the new president and the resurgent Dems launch a Kulturkamph (culture struggle) against the conservative religious, the Dems will fragment--Latino voters or no.

And then there is the fact that BO rode to the Blood-Red house on the backs of 35+ million aborted womb-babies and their 70+ million living and voting "mothers and fathers"!!!!

How sad and disturbing!!!!

Thank God the media has finally taken over Armerica. I have lived under dictatorship, socialism, and so called democracy. I'll take media socialism any day of the week over democracy. Go Obama!

For those disturbed by the slaughter of the Holy Innocents:

"The Massacre of the Innocents is not mentioned in the other gospels nor in the early apocrypha except for the Protoevangelium of James 22:

Currently there exists no historical or archaeological evidence of this event having actually happened aside from the account by Matthew. The Jewish historian Josephus (c. 37–c.100) who wrote about the period, makes no mention of this event, but does record Herod's cruelty in other incidents. Many scholars argue that the account was invented to glorify Jesus.[4]

Matthew's nativity story, including the massacre, is presented as showing Jesus to be the Messiah, in fulfilment of a prophecy from the Old Testament (Jeremiah 31:15).[5] Raymond Brown suggests that the account in Matthew is based on an earlier narrative, patterned on the events in Exodus regarding the killing of the Hebrew firstborn by Pharaoh and the birth of Moses[6], a connection which would have readily been understood by a Jewish audience. Some Christians doubt the event on ethical grounds, as Paul L. Maier explains: "believers are used to Jesus dying for people, not people dying for Jesus ... when the 'people' are babies, it becomes easier to doubt Matthew than wrestle with theodicy".[7]

Bottom line: OT myths followed by NT myths!!!

ATLMichael writes
'Mr. Stevens-Arroyo has managed to draw the ire of homosexuals who support gay-marriage.'

And plenty of straights who support civil rights for all Americans.

'But I think the real question is why conservative African Americans and Latinos continue to support a Democratic party that does not support their values.'

Senator Obama did not run his campaign championing gay marriage. Not sure if it's in the platform. Where's the conflict you're talking about? Why would blacks and latinos support Republicans because they pay anti-gay lipservice and otherwise have policies that work against the black and latino communities?

'Democrats run on a platform of raising taxes on the "rich" and reducing taxes for the middle class, but the fact is that George Bush and the Republicans lowered taxes across the board for all income levels.'

Bush's great tax cut sunk our nation into a deep hole of debt, and most of the payoff went to the wealthiest. Having three kids we got a nice tax cut, but inside 2 years health insurance premiums (and we have no major health problems) ate that tax cut right up. We'd have been better off getting a tax increase and a national health insurance system.

I can't take seriously an essay, by its own admission, about "liberal caricatures".

Since the eighties, the word "liberal" in America has been so demonized many resist the label, even if their politics qualify. The same increasingly applies to the word "conservative" but in the opposite direction. It's now so idealized many blame all govt problems on a failure to be adhere to "true" conservative policies, even when those policies have failed in their promise, like deregulation and upper income tax cuts.

I think it's a very anti-religious attitude to imagine that the state (whether that be Caesar, Pontius Pilate, George W. Bush, or whomever) has the power to annul a religious marriage. In my religion -- Reform Judaism -- gay marriages are performed, accepted, and recognized. We don't have a problem with this. Now to say the state by popular vote ought to just annul all these religious marriages that a member of the clergy has presided over seems very anti-religious to me. I think the author has a narrow definition of religion and forgets that in our country, we have many diverse religious beliefs.

Somehow I suspect Mr. Arroyo voted for McCain but is now trying to do damage control. You don't represent the liberal, Mr. Arroyo.

altmichael wrote:"Surely, it cannot be economic motivations. Sure, Democrats run on a platform of raising taxes on the "rich" and reducing taxes for the middle class, but the fact is that George Bush and the Republicans lowered taxes across the board for all income levels."

Gee- did you miss the entire election process? And you still missed the point that Obama was elected, and the republicans lost seats because the American people were sick of the toxicity and ruinous policies the republicans have used to run this country since the day the shrub took office?
Hmmmm......guess not.
--------------------
bluefish2012:"Call it what you will, the realities of the two relationships are ontologically different from one another and utterly incapable of equality. Where is the rational counter to such a self-evident fact?"

If you're hoping to set up a practice in psychology, don't give up the day job. I venture to guess you neither know any gay people and certainly no gay couples. Nature did not discriminate against them. G-d does not discriminate against them. Only humans with pea-sized brains and bigoted hearts discriminate against them.

And here's something for ya- since you believe G-d created the heavens and the earth and everything else- who do you think created gays?

Not surprisingly, Mr. Stevens-Arroyo has managed to draw the ire of homosexuals who support gay-marriage.

But I think the real question is why conservative African Americans and Latinos continue to support a Democratic party that does not support their values.

Surely, it cannot be economic motivations. Sure, Democrats run on a platform of raising taxes on the "rich" and reducing taxes for the middle class, but the fact is that George Bush and the Republicans lowered taxes across the board for all income levels. See the link below:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/22958.html

So if it's not values or economics, then what is it?

Can we assume that liberal politics follow cetrain skin tones? Nope. Can we assume outdated bigotry follows certain religious beliefs? According to Mr. Arroyo, the answer is "yep."

Why Mr. Arroyo and others continue to deny others their full humanity will continue to puzzle anyone with even a cursory familiarity with the gospels.

The LIBERAL soul shall be made fat: and he that waters shall be watered also himself. - Proverbs 11:25

Organized religion - - - as always THE major cause of War and Controversy, and THE major obstruction to advancing in understanding, and release from superstition.

Never heard that Jesus was gay, but he did have two daddies.
Crossed my mind recently, because of the supposed slaughter of the innocent that occured around Jesus's time of birth, he must have had a lot of female callers. Can you imagine his high school? No males besides Jesus in the soph, junior or senior class. Must have made for an awful season of football.

Many of U.S. white liberals, in contrast, are secular to the point of being anti-religious. Bill Maher's recent film, "Religulous," is an example of how all-too-many white liberals adopt attitudes of arrogance and condescension towards religious belief. If you look down upon the people of color holding up the ranks, don't be surprised if they decide not to follow you into battle.

-- I'll be damned but I'm starting to like you, Mr. Arroyo.

Posted on November 19, 2008 15:45

rb-freedom-for-all :
Jesus Christ was gay.

-- Yes, Jesus was often happy. But sin made him upset. Just sayin'.

There is more that can be said and done in this matter - it is far from being settled - but don't presume anymore that being a liberal includes support for same-sex marriage.

-- Oh man, I feel bad for all the hate-mail you're going to get now.

Jesus Christ was gay.

So is Jesus Christ "not acceptable to people who take their faith seriously"?

This kind of smug, semi-logical support for discriminating against gay people is egregious. The reason that anyone, of any color, creed, or demographic voted against gay marriage is prejudice. That's it. They don't like gay people and they don't believe that they should have equal rights in the United States.
Mr. Stevens-Arroyo presents the same argument made in 1959 by the judge Leon Bazile of Virginia: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." (see Loving v. Virginia for more).
As a straight person in America I am disgusted and amazed to find this kind of prejudice repeated again so comfortably in the public forum. It goes to show that it's not just southern white people in America who are capable of bigotry and discrimination.
(And as side note: the picture of Stevens-Arroyo laughing in the top left makes it seem like he's mocking his opponents as well. It's creepy.)

the only issue that Catholics cannot tolerate is abortion, because it cannot be undone...
if the homos want marriage, ban abortion...

oops - my former post should've read "astrology" not "astronomy". Damn, I need an editor, huh? ;-)

ANFDC was dead right about the hypocrisy of Stevens-Arroyo referring to secularists/atheists being arrogant & condescending toward believers. I can't imagine 10 million Bill Maher's could begin to return pennies on the dollar for the amount of condescension theists heap on non-believers.

So Gawd (or Flying Spaghetti Monster) forgive me if I should harbor condescending attitudes toward those who believe in astronomy, alchemy, geocentric universe, flat earth, virgin birth, 6000 year old earth, creationism, numerology, and all other such thoroughly disproven superstitions of theistic (or other) provenance. *rolls eyes*

No one is going to force you to have same-sex marriage ceremonies performed in your churches. It's not about sacraments, it's about civil rights. There are civil benefits conferred on those who are "married" and refusing those benefits to individuals based on their gender and sexual orientation is wrong and un-American.

I think there are several germs of truth here. Voting against gay marriage, by the way, does not mean, in my opinion anyway, that a person disapproves of any sort of legal relationship being permissible between two gay people. I personally am not sure that marriage should be re-defined in this way, but I happen to believe strongly that there should be some way for gay people to make it clear that they have a strong, legally recognized commitment to each other that entitles them to legal rights--inheritances, sharing of retirement benefits, etc.

"Many of U.S. white liberals, in contrast, are secular to the point of being anti-religious. Bill Maher's recent film, "Religulous," is an example of how all-too-many white liberals adopt attitudes of arrogance and condescension towards religious belief. If you look down upon the people of color holding up the ranks, don't be surprised if they decide not to follow you into battle."

This statement is problematic for me. I don't deny that there are some "secular" people who view religious people with arrogance and/or condescension, but I think the author is overlooking a large faction of religious people who view non-religious people the same way. Speaking as a white liberal (and I'm only speaking for myself here), I was raised Catholic and have really struggled with my faith during the past 7 years or so. And any time I speak to a person of faith about the fact that I disagree with some of the Church's teachings, I'm invariably met with some sort of patronizing diatribe about how I've allowed myself to become unduly influenced by the materialistic, liberal world and I've strayed from the path of righteousness. But I'm told not to worry - with the right amount of prayer I can return to the right path. To me, this is the epitome of arrogance and condescension. And I think this is why a lot of non-religious people have a problem with some people of faith: Who are you to tell me that I'm wrong and you're right? Why can't we just agree to disagree? I don't think you're wrong; I just think we believe different things and that's perfectly fine. Why is it that's so difficult for some people to understand?

First of all, Christians do not represent all religions and Catholics do not represent all Christians. Furthermore, how can you call yourself religious if you are preventing two persons who love each other from committing to each other and taking care of each other. How do you feel if you loved one is in the emergency room and you can't visit because you're not family. How can you justify imposing your belief on others and taking away their rights when they have done you no harm? What they do, at least homosexuals do it with love. What you do, however, you do it with judgement. Is that your job or God's? I think you should go back and consult with your bible.

Bluefish2012 writes
'The gay rage'

Plenty of us non-gay folks are angry about prop 8 too - it's the outrage of real Americans over civil rights being denied based on sex.

'that is being directed at the pro-Prop 8 folks is only going to serve to harden the attitudes'

As if the bigots would change their stripes. Fortunately most of them are old people who will die withen a decade or so and the issue will go away.

'of those who see the simple reality that there is no natural equality between a hetero couple who complement one another physically, psychologically and every other way, and a gay couple of the same gender.'

LOL
Not sure what you're talking about, but studies show that gay couples communicate better than straight couples, and communication is about 1/3 of a successful relationship. Not sure how gay people marrying straight people would be better psychologically.

'Call it what you will, the realities of the two relationships are ontologically different from one another and utterly incapable of equality.'

In the eyes of the law and God there is no reason to think they are inequal.

'Where is the rational counter to such a self-evident fact?'

You're using circular reasoning, which isn't reason at all. My straight marriage isn't any better or worse than Mr. Sulu's gay marriage.

'Does that mean gay couples have no rights? Of course not'

Yeah, it always starts that way. Just take away a few rights and promise to stop. I'm old enough to remember people like you trying to prevent gays from adopting kids or teaching. Back in the old days you'd have had the same attitude about interracial marriage and black people voting.
Bigot, bigot, bigot.

Ok, while we are at it, let's ban divorce. Since divorce is against the popular religions in America. Let's vote on that too then:)

"Call it what you will, the realities of the two relationships are ontologically different from one another and utterly incapable of equality. Where is the rational counter to such a self-evident fact?"

What? I don't see the "rationality" in your argument. I'm heterosexual, but I would even begin to suppose that homosexuals don't "complement their partners psychologically." How can you even justify that?

The gay rage that is being directed at the pro-Prop 8 folks is only going to serve to harden the attitudes of those who see the simple reality that there is no natural equality between a hetero couple who complement one another physically, psychologically and every other way, and a gay couple of the same gender. Call it what you will, the realities of the two relationships are ontologically different from one another and utterly incapable of equality. Where is the rational counter to such a self-evident fact?

Does that mean gay couples have no rights? Of course not; they should not be discriminated against in any way other than the way nature has already discriminated against them.

sparrow4 writes
'hey marcedward- I saw that too and wondered why anyone would spend so much money on prop 8 but let kids starve. You really have to wonder what their priorities are.'

I'm not up on mormon theology, but I certainly know the NT well enough to recall words attributed to Jesus
'How you treat the least among thee is how you have also treated me'
Stripping civil rights away from a minority is hardly 'christian'. More to the point, tossing millions of dollars at expanding power on earth instead of helping the poor (which was Jesus's #1 concern) certainly reveals the lack of belief in the RCC leadership. Somehow I don't think the pope and bishops in Rome believe in an afterlife. Heck, if the pope were serious, why would he need a popemobile?

hey marcedward- I saw that too and wondered why anyone would spend so much money on prop 8 but let kids starve. You really have to wonder what their priorities are.

Hmmm, so one and half children went hungary vs. only the one??

1) As I understand it the anti-gay folks were heavily funded and well organized, the opposite for the pro-civil rights side.
2) As I understand it, anti-gay folks ran ads featuring the picture of Obama as if he endorsed prop 8
3) As usual Christians aren't big fans of Jesus's words.
'As you treat the least among thee, so you have treated me'
Taking away the rights of a minority is something to be ashamed of. Tying to Christianity deminishes what Jesus stood for.

BTW, just read that the number of kids going hungry in the USA went up 50% in the last year - better to spend church funds stealing people's civil rights than to help the poor - real 'Christ-like' of ya!

Steve,

You noted: "Without the votes of African Americans and the Latinos, Obama would not have been elected the nation's new president. "

Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!

Without the votes of the Immoral Majority i.e. the 70+ million "mothers and fathers" of aborted womb-babies, BO would not have been elected President.

BO collected $640 million (~$64 million went to his not-so-ethical campaign managers/money collectors at ASK.) Actually he did not need any money, as the comment that he was pro-choice and he would approve FOCA would have been sufficient.

Best to distinguish between liberal, as in Hillary Clinton, and neo-liberal, as in Barack Obama.

Same-sex marriage, however, is a political litmus test of neither identity. The old John McCain favored same-sex marriage and the current one probably does, too.

Whether politicians say yey or ney on this issue depends on their (a) current constituency, (b) thoughts about their political future, (c) actual position, and/or (d) principles.

"Where bodegas once dominated, Starbucks and fancy salons now dazzle the pedestrian walkways. Without dissecting the ins and outs of gentrification, it is a pattern of housing restoration that disturbs the status quo. If religion were not enough motivation, losing your neighborhood might be reason to vote against same-sex partners."

I happen to live in a black neighborhood that is slowly gentrifying. What does this possibly have to do with same-sex marriage? Of all the ridiculous, out of left field comments, this has got to be one of your best. I warrant you have never lived in a poor neighborhood or a working class neighborhood? the resentment is against the rich- those who come in, drive up prices, push people out. Same sex marriage? What utter tripe- you are definitely no social analyst. try living in it as I do. You'd be surprised.

"They apply the principle of democracy that the government represents the people, so that when the government helps the poor and needy, the voter does so. Same-sex marriage falls outside those parameters and as presented today is not acceptable to people who take their faith seriously."

Falls outside what parameters? Do you think gays are not citizens? Don't they follow the laws? Don't they pay taxes, run businesses, buy goods to keep the economy going, love, raise kids, own property, get sick and die? Jeez- you people are suffering from some pretty sick, undemocratic thinking.

I wonder how hypocritical people can actually get? while you complain about Latino civil rights, you still think its ok to take them away from someone else. someohow I don't believe G-d is cool with that (and I am a straight woman. I think your attitude is despicable and has no place in American society.)