Bishops defend Mormons vs. gay marriage

Amazing how he can hypocritically talk about "witnessing to the honor and respect due to every human person created in the image and likeness of God" while at the same time advocating second-class status for certain humans.

Separate but equal is not equal!

It really doesn't matter whether you're pro-gay marriage or anti-gay marriage; the acts of those on the pro-gay marriage side since 4 Nov 2008 have been despicable. The terrorism that has been shown toward the Mormon Church has been alarming and should discomfort any citizen concerned with maintaining order in the United States.

This isn't how things get done -- it isn't how you win people over to your side. The great civil rights leaders of the past century would be appalled. Shame on anyone who thinks what is happening here is okay.

For those who say "Separate but equal is not equal!" I have a question. Do you believe a same sex marriage is equal to a marriage that can create children? Seems like a big difference to me.
Nature has made same sex unions unequal. There is no law that can be written, or constitutional right that can be found, that can give a same sex couple the "right" (or ability) to procreate.

Ben...what terrorism? One single instance, please. There have been peaceful and forceful protests, but terrorism? Nice try. The Mormons involved in this, and the Catholics and their bishops also involved in this, have shown themselves to be hypocrites and bigots. They're being called out on their irrational hatreds, and now they whine about it. These pathetic excuses for human beings have spent time, money and effort that could have gone to helping those less fortunate than they, and they've spent all of that for the sole purpose of removing one of the fundamental human rights from others. And now they demand that their victims worship them. And their victims have refused. And you call that terrorism?

Hey phoney "Catholic who knows better". Learn your faith and or stop calling yourself Catholic. You are deluding yourself.

OK Ben, what about the "terrorism" that presents itself in the form of gay bashing? Have you ever walked down the street and had someone scream "Fagg*t" at you and then stop their car, chase you, throw things at you? It's been happening to gays for eons, and now that they're fighting back and attempting to be treated like human beings that are equal to you, you're complaining. Let's see how loud you complain the next time there's a hate crime against a gay or lesbian member of society.

If u believe marrage is only about ability to procreate then u should ban all people beyone child bearing age from marriage too!! There are lots of gay people with children, i.e. Rosie O'Donnell, etc. Come on....don't u have a brain?

It is clear where the Catholic hierarchy's priorities lie - in protecting their power and prerogatives. Mormon participation in the Prop 8 issue was invited and encouraged by Cardinal Roger Mahony, the Archbishop of San Francisco. Cardinal Mahony is a star of Catholic Church in the U.S. and also of a movie that will quickly disabuse anyone who watches it with an open mind of the notion that the CCUSA pays anything more than lip service to "the honor and respect due to every human person created in the image and likeness of God."

Here is a somewhat sanitized and exculpatory summary of the movie from Wikipedia:

"The 2006 documentary Deliver Us From Evil is based on accusations that [Cardinal] Mahony knew that Oliver O'Grady, a priest who sexually abused children, including a nine-month-old baby, in a string of Central California towns for 20 years, was a child molester but failed to keep him away from children. In 1984, a Stockton police investigation into sexual abuse allegations against O'Grady was reportedly closed after diocesan officials promised to remove the priest from any contact with children. Instead, he was reassigned to a parish about 50 miles (80 km) east, in San Andreas, by Mahony where he continued to molest children. Not long after, Mahony was promoted to archbishop of Los Angeles, the largest Catholic diocese in the country. In Deliver Us From Evil, O'Grady says Mahony was "very supportive and very compassionate and that another situation had been smoothly handled". Mahony denies knowing that O’Grady was a child molester. [12] However, the documentary provided copies of letters between Mahony and O'Grady during this time. The letters also were a subject of discussion in Mahony's deposition in a civil lawsuit related to O'Grady. Mahony, under oath, denied knowing of O'Grady's activity despite evidence to the contrary. During one particular line of question Mahony was asked why he claimed not remember multiple allegations of rape by one of his own subordinates (O'Grady) when he was the Bishop of Stockton. Mahony was advised by his attorney not to answer the question.

On July 16, 2007, Mahony and the Roman Catholic Church in Los Angeles apologized for abuses by priests after 508 victims reached to a record-breaking settlement worth $660m (£324m), with an average of $1.3m for each plaintiff. Mahony described the abuse as a "terrible sin and crime", after a series of trials into sex abuse claims since the 1940s were to begin. The agreement, if approved by a judge, will settle all 15 upcoming pedophilia trials against the Los Angeles archdiocese and avoids the threat of Mahony being forced to testify about how the Church dealt with abuses spanning the 1940s to 1990s. Since 2002 nearly 1,000 people filed sexual abuse claims in California. The $660m-deal dwarfs the $157m settlement paid by the Archdiocese of Boston."

You have to watch the movie to really appreciate Cardinal Mahony. I especially love the part where he disclaimed any close friendship with Father O'Grady, saying something to the effect of "it's not like he's one of the men I golf with."

Right, the organization that turned paedophilia into a cottage industry is standing up for people who purport to be qualified to define marriage. Whatta team.

OnTheLeft: You want one example? How about several? How about the packages of white powder (which turned out, thankfully, to be talc) sent to LDS Temples in Salt Lake City and Los Angeles? How about the threats received at these buildings that they would be burned to the ground? How about the burning copies of the Book of Mormon found in front of LDS meetinghouses in Utah and California? How about the rocks being thrown through the windows of churches?

Sounds like someone is trying to keep Mormons from living peacefully. And that, my friend, is terrorism. Got a response to that?

Geographical correction to post #8 above.
Roger Michael Cardinal Mahony (born February 27, 1936) is an American prelate of the Roman Catholic Church. He currently serves as the fourth Archbishop of Los Angeles [not San Fran], and was elevated to the cardinalate in 1991.

"Sounds like someone is trying to keep Mormons from living peacefully. And that, my friend, is terrorism. Got a response to that?"

I certainly do. What you're describing isn't terrorism, it's hate crimes. The types of hate crimes that gays have been subject to for decades. They're also not necessarily acts performed by Prop 8 supporters, it's very possible it's other people taking advantage of the current climate to offend Mormons and lay the blame on Prop 8ers. Who would do that? Some of the more evangelical christian groups hate gays just as much as Mormons.

Brendan: I don't know a single active Mormon who has been guilty of such things, and I know many such people. The ones I know are fine, upstanding citizens who may believe differently than you do, but certainly don't go around beating up gay people or threatening to burn down their homes. I don't think anyone in the Mormon church would begrudge anyone else the right to protest peacefully, or to disagree, even strongly, with their own positions on this charged issue. But when it crosses the line even to suggestions of violence, that's when we should all have a problem.

You're right that these acts could, possibly, be perpetrated by groups looking to frame gay marriage supporters. If so, then I suppose we all owe apologies all around.

Californian: There is no law that can be written, or constitutional right that can be found, that can give a same sex couple the "right" (or ability) to procreate.

Maybe not procreate, but from all those babies straight couples have but don't keep, there can be a law allowing those children to be cared for by...you know...real human beings, who might actually care more about the life of the child and respect it more than the biological parents of these children without a home...nevermind if the parents are irresponsible or simply unable to raise the kid.

Sorry, but religion continues to rear its ugly head in places where it has no business (that is unless, it's big business). I grow more tired each day with every branch of the religious tree preaching at me. As crimes small and egregious climb in every region of the world in the name of God, I grow more disgusted.
Fact is, it's rarely ever been about belief in a higher power...unless it's power you seek. I constantly ask myself, whatever happened to "live and let live?"
I have no doubt that Jesus for one would turn over in his grave. Oh, that's right he took off. Frankly, who could blame him?

Can someone clarify this point. I heard from a Californian that gays have civil unions available to them right now and these unions guarantee gays the same rights as married people. Is this true?

There does seem to be a lot of moral mud slinging in this "debate".

It's somewhat ironic that a social culture (i.e. Mormons) that has historically had its marriage "ambitions" (i.e. polygamy) legally limited is advocating to do the same towards another social culture. Of course, Mormons have largely agreed to conform to this limitation.

Paul- Gay unions in CA and marriages were not the same. The May 15th decision of the CA supreme court detailed 9 differences. Two among them: straights under 18 can marry with parental permission, while gays under 18 could not unite. Gays had to begin their union with a declaration to the state of an intention to live in the same abode, straights do not have to make that declaration. There are other differences; why they exist is not at all clear, and why the legislature did not eradicate these over the past decade is also not clear. None the less separate has not been equal, even legally. The list is found at footnote 24 of the case cited as In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757 [76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384],

Paul, it is true. They have civil unions which means they have the SAME rights as married people - except the name. They want society to "bless" their relationship -
government mandated. This was the biggest hoax in California. They want to redefine a word. It is not now and never will be marriage, no matter what they want to call it.

People should really do a history check before speaking about subjects they know little about. To complain and be outraged by the few reported instances of abuse to mormans or churches and turn a blind eye to the centuries of far worse atrocities commited towards homosexuals, is just plain ignorant That same ignorance turns into fear and that fear translates into the abuse and violence that gays have endured for those centuries.

Ridiculous. Don't wield the knife, then tell your victim that you expect "healing."

I do not think I have ever seen a bigger and unseemly bunch of moral degenerates as the Catholic bishops. They all looked the other way while priests were molesting little boys and transferred them from parish-to-parish to "avoid scandal". I have seen better people on The Jerry Springer Show.

@ Californian: when we say "union", you do understand it has nothing to do with the "union" of genitals-- right?

by your logic, obtaining a marriage license gives a couple the right to procreate...please!

This is about CIVIL marriage, not religious marriage. No one is asking the church to do anything it doesn't want to do. Therefore, it should keep its nose out where it does not belong. Civil marriage has no bearing on the church.

In this day and age of food pantries going empty, its truly a shame that the church spent so much money (LOTS of money) on taking away the rights of one group when another group it supposedly cares about goes hungry.

As a gay man, I am appalled at the actions of the gay community in California. This does nothing for our cause. Any form of hatred...from either side is dispicable. I don't understand why the Mormon Church is under siege from the gay rights side and protests have not been targeted towards the black christian churches or Obama campaign headquarters...both of which have also come out against gay marriage. Seems like bigotry from the gay community to me!

The bishop where I live instructed his churches to work against gay marriage. The churches were used to sign petitions for a referendum ballot initiative to overturn a state supreme court ruling. Prominent members of the gay community know that this bishop has a gay lover in a neighboring state. The local newspaper won't print this information unless the bishop admits it himself. At least 50% of Catholic priests are gay. Isn't hypocrisy some sort of sin?

TAX THE LOT OF THEM!!!

Tax the catholics for all their riches
Tax the mormons
Tax any of these "religions" with their political agendas

Tax any religion that is trying to impose their religious beliefs on our laws.

That'll shut up the hipocrits!

Pretty shocking that the roman catholic concil of bishops is supporting heretics.

"No one is asking the church to do anything it doesn't want to do. Therefore, it should keep its nose out where it does not belong. Civil marriage has no bearing on the church."
This is the first step in the agenda. Once marriage is legalized they will then start smearing public figures for attending one of "those" churches, the ones that don't allow gay marriage.

This statement is simply insufferable.

"as the objects of hostility and abuse"

RESPONSE: Benjamin Franklin: "If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution."

"We pray that prudence and healing may prevail."

RESPONSE: Yet there is a flagrant disregard for the hurt the church has caused good gay people.

"people of good will"

RESPONSE: The church has demonstrated little true "good will" towards gays and lesbians, during and after this campaign of disinformation, fear, and contempt.

"joined together to protect marriage, while at the same time, witnessing to the honor and respect due to every human person"

RESPONSE: As a gay person, I felt entirely humiliated, dehumanized, and utterly disrespected throughout the church's campaign.

GENERAL RESPONSE: The church talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk, and, having been a routine demonizer of gay people, spreading mistruths and fears about us, it is in no position to play the victim, complaining about being mistreated. NONE.

"I do not think I have ever seen a bigger and unseemly bunch of moral degenerates as the Catholic bishops. They all looked the other way while priests were molesting little boys and transferred them from parish-to-parish to "avoid scandal". I have seen better people on The Jerry Springer Show."

No, they did not all look the other way. When Cardinal Medeiros of Boston wanted to get rid of Shanley, the poster boy of pedophiles, he was attacked by the Boston Globe and the City of Boston. They empowered the pedophiles in the church to commit their crimes and so share a much larger slice of guilt than the Catholic Church for its weakness.

The Catholic and Mormon Churches should be of one voice in defense of traditional marriage.

"joined together to protect marriage, while at the same time, witnessing to the honor and respect due to every human person"

Putting a group of citizens' court-ordered civil rights up for a popular vote, then stripping those citizens of those rights, most certainly dishonors and disrespects those citizens.

It amazes me that people really buy the blatant lies and manipulations of the church.

What the church does not understand is that it is absolutely contributing to the rise in anti-gay hate crimes we have witnessed since the beginning of the gay marriage debate.

I hold many in the church responsible for unwittingly promoting hostility towards gay people, and, having been a victim of anti-gay hate crime myself, I have very little patience with anyone who tries to turn the tables and make ME out to be the bad guy simply because I have responded to anti-gay discrimination and oppression with unapologetic outrage.

I, for one, have little patience for anyone claiming gays have been barbaric, despicable, and unreasonable in response to having had their civil rights stripped. There have indeed been isolated incidents that should certainly not be condoned or applauded, but they are just that: isolated incidents. Of course, the church, an expert at public manipulation, has used these isolated incidents to gain sympathy and to justify its actions of spiritual violence against a long-demonized minority.

There has been pervasive peaceful demonstrations and protests, and there have been positive, forward-thinking campaigns to unite gays and lesbians in our continuing struggle for civil equality.

Here is one: http://daywithoutagay.org/

Dave said:

"As a gay man, I am appalled at the actions of the gay community in California. This does nothing for our cause. Any form of hatred...from either side is dispicable. I don't understand why the Mormon Church is under siege from the gay rights side and protests have not been targeted towards the black christian churches or Obama campaign headquarters...both of which have also come out against gay marriage. Seems like bigotry from the gay community to me!"

Dave, a couple of things. I know of no gay person who doesn't think the isolated incidents of despicable behavior are just that...despicable. But they are indeed isolated incidents.

Secondly, it's the big financiers of Prop 8 are being targeted, one of the largest being the LDS.

With all due respect, no candidate for President could support gay marriage, even if he or she truly wished to. I suggest Mr. Obama is more flexible than people think. It would be politically naive to believe that all those that say they believe only in "traditional marriage" are sincere; they are politicians.

Why haven't the black churches in California been targeted? Again, it's all about the money. For instance, the Mormons gave approximately $20 million towards this campaign (wouldn't Jesus have given that money to the poor and the hungry?).

As an aside, I find it interesting a lot of people suggest gays are cowards for NOT targeting black churches. Even if black churches were protestors' priority, it would be simply foolish to risk a riot situation in many areas of California. Have people so soon forgotten about the riots of '92? Seriously. Wisely choosing your battles is hardly cowardice. It is wise to target the wealthy financiers who orchestrated the entire thing, don't you think?

I must say, I have doubts about your claiming you are gay. I have not encountered a single gay person who is as naive about the situation as you seem to be.

Medeiros enabled Shanley, Geoghan, and those other perverts to molest more children. In 1979, Cardinal Humberto Medeiros reassigned Shanley to the Newton parish, even though in 1974, according to one of Shanley's victims, the cardinal had been notified of Shanley's abuse by the victim's mother. hildren. He just shuttled them from parish-to-parish.
Medeiros also knew Geoghan was raping even boys from one family and did nothing.He ignored the pleading of Margaret Gallant.
What a moral degenerate.

Let's see: conservatives lost the presidential election (unfortunately.) But have you seen any protests against President Elect Obama, boo-hooing that the democrats cheated, that YES, the Obama team outspent McCain by tens of millions, let's boycott those individuals and industries that contributed to the Dem. side? Nope, they say, we lost, let's retool our message, let's get a better candidate, but we lost fair and square, that's democracy for you, you win some and you lose some.
Nope, because conservatives are grown ups, liberals are adolescents, who pout and throw tantrums and cry "unfair" when they lose, because the think they are omniscient, they just KNOW they are more educated and smarter, so why should they have to live on this same planet with morons who don't check the same box on the ballot as them.
Liberals talk about "removing fundamental rights." But abortion, and same-sex marriage, are not fundamental rights. You can CALL them fundamental rights, the SCOTUS can call them fundamental rights, but from the beginning of human history, to the end of the world, those 2 are not fundamental rights. That's like saying you have a fundamental right to 2+2 equalling 5. Maybe in your parallel universe.
The whole debate, about same sex marriage (and abortion for that matter), is what did those words mean at the time the US constitution (1789) and the CA consitution (1850ish?). Marriage meant and continues to mean the permanent and faithful public commitment of a man and a woman; abortion was and is the unjust taking of the innocent life of an unborn child. Those are permanent truisms which don't just change because of (counter) cultural fads, my subjective feelings, etc.

Gays can and should have intimate relationships with whomever they want; these relationships are called 'friendships.' And they are not being discriminated against or persecuted; that's like saying i'm being persecuted or discriminated against because as a male i cannot give birth to a baby.

So as a Catholic i am proud that my bishops have stood tall with the Mormons, black churches, other evangelicals, and other conservatives, for wanting to CONSERVE the values and institutions, most basic of which is the man-woman-children nuclear family, rather than have liberals 'LIBERATE' this country into something totally unrecognizable and disgusting to the Founders.

"Raised Catholic" claims 50% of priests are gay; where did you get that lunatic figure, out of your deranged mind? If you can't back it up, its immoral and underhanded to just throw that into the thread.

"Someone who votes" claims the churches are trying to "impose" their views. Enough already for this puny argument. Churches don't im-pose, they pro-pose. The democrats pro-posed Obama, and they won fair and square, they did not im-pose him. If you continue to insist the churches im-pose their views, then in all fairness, and we know you libs pride yourselves on your fairness, will have to admit that you are trying (and increasingly succeeding) to im-pose your views against the will of the majority of the American people, usually through unelected courts who usurp the power which the constitution envisioned for the legislative and the executive.

And to all who bring up the abusing pedophile priests, yes, they were disgusting, and should have been and are removed from the priesthood and punished. But they (and the bishops) having been wrong on that matter does not logically entail that they are wrong on this issue, any more than if i say 2+2=5, that means i cannot be trusted if i say 3+3=6.

The degenerates were mainly outside the church.

On Aug. 29, 1982 the Boston Globe ran an article by Alan Sipress entitled ‘Catholic Gays Claim Diocese Ignores Them”. The following excerpt concerning the convicted pedophile Paul Shanley illustrates how Boston’s liberal institutions were supportive of pedophiles. The writer chides the church for not supporting Shanley, an activist then publicly known to be in NAMBLA (North Amercian Man Boy Love Association) to act as “a special priest within the archdiocese to be assigned to ministering to homosexuals”:

“Boston's Rev. Paul Shanley was such a priest. More than 10 years ago, he was the only diocesan priest in the country paid by his bishop to minister specifically to gays and other sexual minorities such as transvestites and transsexuals. His removal from that post in 1979 by Cardinal Medeiros amid controversy concerning the best way to minister to homosexuals was taken by many gays as a slap in the face.

"Paul Shanley was assigned to people who wanted to be part of the church. He was a sign," said Brian McNaught, an experienced Catholic gay activist and now City Hall liaison to the Boston gay community. "When the church removed Paul Shanley, it removed the sign of being welcome."

Archbishop Medeiros was being slammed in 1982 by the Boston Globe and by the city of Boston through its agent McNaught for acting against priests such as Paul Shanley, a national icon of the homosexual community and , in their eyes, just the right kind of ‘minister’. At the time, none of Boston’s liberal politicians, and certainly not the Boston Globe, stood by the church to support its action against the pedophile priest and to support the church teaching regarding homosexuality.

Medeiros' biggest probelm was of being too soft on the homosexual community and the problems its caused.

Did Medeiros ever call the cops on those child rapists ??
NO
He gave them new assigments.
Medeiros, Law, McCormack, Daily, Hughes, Murphy, Banks, etc
What a sleazy bunch of criminals

"The Catholic and Mormon Churches should be of one voice in defense of traditional marriage." True, until the Catholic and Protestant Churches are of one voice in defense of traditional Christianity. It all goes back to the Scorpion and the tortoise, and a very stupid Mormon church.

"conservatives lost the presidential election (unfortunately.) But have you seen any protests against President Elect Obama..."
Dude, didn't need to read any more to recognize nonsense. The morning after Obama won, everyone had the same rights from that decision. The morning after prop 8 passed, they didn't. It's really a very simple concept, but you have to have the reason and empathy centers of your brain intact, unfortunately, religion seems to cause them to atrophy.

Interesting article by Frank Turek of the TOWNHALL DAILY;
"Homosexuals want the court to believe that because of their sexual desires they are a special class of persons that is being discriminated against. In other words, they think that sexual desires guarantee people special legal rights.

That’s a preposterous premise! It would mean that men born with a desire for many women (i.e. most men) are having their rights violated because marriage laws provide no means for polygamy. Likewise, it would mean that people desiring to marry their close relatives don’t have “equal rights” because our marriage laws have no provision for incest. And bisexuals could object because existing marriage laws don’t allow them to marry a man and a woman!

If desires alone guarantee someone special rights, why no special rights for pedophiles and gay bashers? The answer is obvious—because desires, even if you were “born” with them, do not justify behavior, do not make anyone a special class, and should have no impact on our laws.

So there should be no legal class of “gay” or “straight,” just a legal class called “person.” And it doesn’t matter whether persons desire sex with the same or opposite sex, or whether they desire sex with children, parents, or farm animals. What matters is whether the behavior desired is something the law should prohibit, permit or promote. Those are the only three choices we have when it comes to making law..

Gay complaints of “discrimination” are bogus as well. Marriage laws do not discriminate against persons, they discriminate against behavior. That’s true of most laws. For example, the Thirteenth Amendment discriminates against the behavior of some businessmen who might like to improve their profits through slavery, but it does not discriminate against those businessmen as persons. And the First Amendment’s freedom-of-religion protections discriminate against the behavior of some Muslims who want to impose Islam on the entire nation, but it does not discriminate against those Muslims as persons. Likewise, our marriage laws discriminate against the desired behaviors of homosexuals, polygamists, bigamists, adulterers, and the incestuous, but they do not discriminate against them as persons.

Ironically, it’s not conservatives but homosexual activists who are acting like racists. Instead of asking the state to recognize the preexisting institution of marriage, homosexuals are asking the state to define marriage. That’s exactly what racists were trying to do to prevent interracial marriage. Racists wanted the state to define marriage as only between same-race couples, instead of having the state recognize what marriage already was—the union of a man and a woman regardless of their racial background. While racists and homosexuals may want to alter the legal definition of marriage, they can’t alter the laws of nature that helped lead to the recognition of legal marriage in the first place."

Merried between two the same sex is literally....."SIN" in the eye of God... but if you have no GOD or if you don't believe to our heavenly father.... ok... just go on and find the place were you lawfully merried the same sex... but always remember......... you are specifically in side of SATAN....

If you are intelligent or wise person.... how you believe or how you can trust to all homosexual like LESBIAN and GAY.... If this like people didn't believe or didn't trust themselves already?..... I really belive that homosexual is deceased..... so you need to go to the doctor for consultation not for a men to solve your problems.....

To on the left...
A church in Sacramento was spray-painted. A church in Twin Falls, Idaho had a brick thrown through the window. A kid tried to beat me up at school because of my religion's beliefs about the traditional family. These sound like utilization of fear to achieve one's political goals (i.e. terrorism).
I agree that same-sex couples should be entitled to the same legal status as traditional marriages, but concessions will have to be made. Gay marriages in my church, or in most Christian churches, would upset our way of life. If we really can't compromise than it is clear that the goal of these people is not really the protection of everybody's rights, just marginalization of anyone who is Christian.