On Dateline, Curry acknowledges "many constitutional experts say" Warren claim on Prop 8 was "totally unfounded"
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: In a Dateline NBC report on Rev. Rick Warren, after noting Warren's support for California's Proposition 8, co-host Ann Curry reported that "Warren says he joined the fray out of a concern that if Proposition 8 wasn't passed, pastors would lose their right to preach about the biblical definition of marriage." Curry then added, "But many constitutional experts say that fear was totally unfounded, and gay rights leaders saw Warren's stance as an infringement on their civil rights." Curry had uncritically reported the previous day that Warren "was worried that this Proposition 8 would prevent him from getting up on the pulpit and speaking out against same-sex marriage."
During her December 19 Dateline NBC report on Rev. Rick Warren, after noting Warren's support for California's Proposition 8 -- which amended the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage -- co-host Ann Curry reported that "Warren says he joined the fray out of a concern that if Proposition 8 wasn't passed, pastors would lose their right to preach about the biblical definition of marriage." Curry then added, "But many constitutional experts say that fear was totally unfounded, and gay rights leaders saw Warren's stance as an infringement on their civil rights." As Media Matters for America documented, while previewing her interview with Warren the day before, Curry uncritically reported that Warren "was worried that this Proposition 8 would prevent him from getting up on the pulpit and speaking out against same-sex marriage," echoing the falsehood that had Proposition 8 not passed, members of the clergy could have been restricted in what they could say in the pulpit and could have been forced to perform same-sex marriages.
In fact, Proposition 8 and the California Supreme Court decision it sought to overturn had nothing to do with members of the clergy, and did not address their actions or speech in any way. As Media Matters has documented, the California Supreme Court itself noted the irrelevance of its decision to clergy, saying in the majority opinion that "no religion will be required to change its policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."
From the December 19 broadcast of Dateline NBC:
CURRY: Pastor Rick Warren has always take pains to stay above political battles -- that is, until just before this past election, when he took a stand on a bitterly fought ballot initiative banning gay marriage.
[begin video clip]
WARREN: And is with great honor and great humility and respect --
CURRY: Earlier this month at a World AIDS Day event, Pastor Rick Warren gave President Bush a medal for his groundbreaking efforts to end the AIDS epidemic in Africa.
And President-elect Obama appeared via satellite at the same conference.
WARREN: A lot has been done, but there's a lot more to be done.
CURRY: In fact, many AIDS activists say Warren's efforts to fight the disease have been exemplary.
WARREN: I want to alleviate suffering as much as I possibly can.
CURRY: He has given away millions -- 90 percent of his income, he says -- in a worldwide effort to help end disease and poverty and to promote reconciliation.
WARREN: Good. How are you?
CURRY: But in the last two months, some of the goodwill Warren has generated across the social spectrum has been put to the test.
WARREN: I hope you're praying about your vote. One of the propositions --
CURRY: In an Internet video released just before Election Day, Warren urged his followers to vote for California's Proposition 8, which aimed to reverse a ruling by the California Supreme Court allowing same-sex marriage.
WARREN: If you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8.
CURRY: Warren says he joined the fray out of a concern that if Proposition 8 wasn't passed, pastors would lose their right to preach about the biblical definition of marriage. But many constitutional experts say that fear was totally unfounded, and gay rights leaders saw Warren's stance as an infringement on their civil rights.
UNIDENTIFIED PROTESTER: Equal rights.
CURRY: After Proposition 8 passed, same-sex marriage supporters converged on the entrance to Warren's Saddleback Church.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The church is against it -- that's fine, that's their -- but they shouldn't be taking over state issues, and that's what they are doing right now.
CURRY: And this week, when President-elect Obama named Warren to deliver the opening prayer at the inauguration, the controversy flared up again. The president of the gay rights group, Human Rights Campaign, wrote a letter to Obama saying Warren's selection "tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table."
DAVID SMITH (Human Rights Campaign): This selection is so disrespectful of a constituency which the president-elect has embraced and has included in his campaign.
CURRY: Some people in the gay community wonder why you supported Prop 8 --
WARREN: Sure, sure.
CURRY: Why you supported taking away their right to love each other --
WARREN: Sure.
CURRY: -- in marriage.
WARREN: Well, that's --
CURRY: In marriage.
WARREN: Yeah. Well, I'm not taking away their right to love each other --
CURRY: In marriage.
WARREN: I am opposed to the redefinition of marriage. First place -- to me, it was a free speech issue, foremost of all. First place, I don't know any church in America that's done more to help the gay community, particularly with AIDS, than Saddleback.
CURRY: And in fact, gay people will say that is true.
WARREN: Yeah. And my wife and I have given millions of dollars to help people --
CURRY: -- which is why they are so hurt.
WARREN: Yeah.
CURRY: Why many gay people are so hurt.
WARREN: Yeah. Yeah.
CURRY: -- because of their faith and reverence for what you have done in this issue.
WARREN: Yeah.
Sure,sure. Yeah......uhuh.
Clinton tried to work with the neocons. For many reasons. One was to try to earn some goodwill with them.
This didn't work.
I cant believe these gays, and their supporters... Who says that marriage is a civil right anyway??? Its a luxury, not a right!!! If the gov't says you have to 18 to drive, then so be it, or is that discrimination against minors?? duh
Paul your an idiot. I am amaze you can even operate a computer. Marriage is not a luxury. It is a union between to consenting people. And your logic about being 18 to to drive. Well you can take a bullet for this country at 18 for an unjust war but you can't have a beer. Now thats stupid.
And if the gay agenda people have their way it will be a union between 3 or 4 people, then a union between family members then a union between owner and his/her pet. Sorry, michael (savage?), but a "chosen" lifestyle doesn't give you civil rights.
BTW, Syria is still accepting immigrants. If you love the terrorists so much as to call a war on terrorism "unjust" you are more than welcome to move where your idols are. Just be careful, if you're gay they will hang you. But being the knowledgable liberal you seem to be, hanging gays in terrorist laden countries is ok, but fighting the terrorists who want to hang the gays is "unjust"... as long as gays get to marry, you don't seem to care who hangs them.
WARNING! "Slippery slope" argument.
Being 18 to drive, or 16 in my experience, is a safety concern. What is the objective concern with gay marriage?
The concern with gay marraige is that its very existence will so confuse and demoralize religious funsimentalists that they will no longer be able to reproduce.
That is one of the reasons that I am in favor of gay marraige.
If only, mescal, if only...
"The concern with gay marraige is that its very existence will so confuse ... blah blah blah "
There you go. If a "religious funsimentalists(SIC)" would have said something like that they would be called a racist bigot. However, when a liberal uses phrasing like that they are looked upon as a hero to the cause. Are liberals that hypocritical?
Also, mescal, marriage is spelled m-a-r-r-i-a-g-e.
And "seperation" is spelled "separation".
How do you spell it again?
"How do you spell it again?"
IT
"What is the objective concern with gay marriage?"
#1: It isn't a civil right and #2: a majority of the inhabitants in this representative democracy choose not to allow it. If you don't like the choices Americans make at the voting booth, then...well...too bad. I don't like who got elected president, but I'll have to live with it.
That didn't answer the question. Even if it's not a civil right, that's not a concern. Again, what objective reason is there for gay marriage to be denied?
Come on brab. It fully answered the question. It just didn't answer it the way YOU wanted it answered. The question was 'what is the concern', MY answer is it isn't a civil right. Which is what is claimed by gays who want that allowed. I really don't care that you don't like my answer, but it is very disingenuous for you to say it isn't an allowable answer.
No, it's not an acceptable answer. That's not an objective concern. What harm does it do? What legal issues does it raise? What other laws does it conflict with? Just saying that there's no right doesn't explain why it shouldn't happen.
Well be one of the continual whiners then, I don't care. The harm is undeserving people will recieve rights that aren't due them (when you prove they are born that way, they will be deserving of civil rights). Gays marrying is illegal. And gays marrying conflict with the laws of nature AND with laws of THIS country. So, there you go. Gays demanding civil rights that aren't due them is a valid concern.
No matter how many times you restate it, it doesn't become true. You change the law, and what adverse affect occurs from it?
Who cares? You asked for a concern and I gave it to you. No matter how many times you change the question around, I'll never give you the answer you want to hear, not until you give me the evidence I ask for. What was Einstein's definition of insane... doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results? Well you're asking the same thing over and over again expecting a different answer.
No, I asked for an objective concern. There's a big difference. The fact that you don't like gay people doesn't qualify. Remember the context here. The law that you had to be 18 to drive was cited. Well, if you didn't have any law on that, you might have kids as young as seven wheeling around town. You can't have that. There's a very clear consequence to that, and I want to know what the consequence would be if homosexuals are allowed to marry.
I'm not the one changing the question. You are.
So you're saying that if a 9-year old can drive safely he should be allowed to? Or are you saying that nobody can drive, even if they drive safely, until they reach YOUR self-defined age limit where people suddenly and automatically are safe drivers? How about the 30-year old who can't drive safely, are they to be stripped of their license? Suppose all they do is weave in and out of lanes but never cause an accident, would you strip them of their "right" to drive?
You really don't have a clue, do you?
You have to have a line somewhere. And yes, someone who can't drive safely should have their license taken away. What are you arguing, exactly?
"MY answer is it isn't a civil right"
"people will recieve rights that aren't due them"
Having trouble keeping it straight, aren't you?
No, there's a difference between 'civil' and 'rights'. Perhaps that's YOUR problem, you are blind to that difference.
#1: It isn't a civil right and #2: a majority of the inhabitants in this representative democracy choose not to allow it.
You just won't let up on your un-American and un-constitutional rants. It IS a civil right because courts have said that it is. And it doesn't matter if 99.9% of the people are against gay marriage. Courts are there to protect the minority from rights-stealing thugs like YOU!
It's funny, but the Simpsons covered this issue years ago in the episode "There's Something About Marrying," when Springfield legalizes gay weddings and Reverend Lovejoy refuses to allow any in his church. Separation of Church and State. it's as simple as that.
Maybey Warren should have watched that episode.
OK. I've thinking about this: Rick Warren is either lying, or he is a complete moron.
If you are going to take such a strong and vocal stance in favor of Prop. 8, shouldn't you have a basic knowledge of what the current law actually states? Especially since you are voting to amend Prop. 8 to the State Constitution? By voting it down, nothing changes.
What do you mean, nothing changes? An activist judge changed the constitution without any vote at all and stated that gays can marry. A rogue mayor changes the law in his city (before the activist judge did for the state) and stated gays can marry. If we're going to have individual leaders choose and implement our laws for us we would be called Cuba. But, this is America, where we VOTE on things that affect OUR lives. In every election there is a winner and a loser. In this instance the loser is upset they lost and continually whine about it ....get over it. Try again next time.
You can't be serious. A Supreme Court can interpret its state Constitution. That's part of the process. That's exactly what happened in California, the SC interepreted its Constitution. There's nothing "activist" about that.
"interpreted",of course.
No, they changed the law to fit their agenda. Judges are hired to "interpret" not institute law. Law makers are hired to create laws and judges rule on legality of those laws. If they weren't activist then they would have ruled the law was illegal and a new law would have been forced to be written.
No, they struck down a law because it conflicted with their interpretation of the Constitution. "They would have ruled the law was illegal" is exactly what happened.
No, they changed the law. Read up on it.
Cite your source.
No. Do your own reading.
I have. Everything I've read says it was an interpretation. Show me something that contradicts that, please. You're responsible for supporting your arguments, as you said yourself.
I want to know how judges can "change" laws or "legislate from the bench". Please enlighten me, philib.
It's just a flesh wound!
MMFA has a habit of doing a follow-up when the MSM corrects itself after an initial post criticizing them.
Warren's fear is flat-out wrong. That's not hard left, it's just plain fact. Reporting plain fact is not creating news.
Do you think people should be informed whether or not pastors' speech rights are being threatened? If so, who should tell them?
(Of course the media has revealed its incapacity to report fact decades ago. Thus it has no reason to exist and nobody should watch the news.)
So you think the media's job is to parrot back what someone tells them?
What you're discribing, Johnny, isn't journalism, but stenography.
All this stuff merely proves that Rick Warren is right. People here and organizations like MMFA ARE tryingto stifle what he says from the pulpit- otherwise, why would theybe making such a stink about it. I didn't see this level of umbrage over Jeremiah Wright's commentary on "G-d D A M N America in any way shape or form. You all scream about clergy involved in making political statements or working as causal advocates, but only when they say something that's not what YOU like to hear. Again, Liberal Hypocrisy in action.
Completely wrong. He can say what he wants, he just gets criticized for it. If Wright was chosen to be in the inauguration, you wouldn't make a stink about it? I find that nearly impossible to believe.
And you know what? Obama can choose whoever he wants to officiate the invocation for his inauguration, be it Rick Warren or Jeremiah Wright, or the Delhi Lama... Are all of you going to start eating each other now because it has to be YOUR way or NOWAY ?? What's the matter? dissilusioned with the Obamessiah, are you? Obama's a smart guy. Despite all the leftist rhetoric he handed out to get himself the nomination and then the election, I think you hard core lefties are going to be sadly disappointed- the goverment will run as usual- down the more-or-less middle of the road, and I predict his biggest enemies will be in his own party in the House of Representatives. before too much time passes.
The problem is that Warren isn't middle of the road. Choosing him sends the signal that homophobia is an acceptable point of view, and it isn't. Obama has the right to do it, and we have the right to point out the problem.
Make up your mind. If everyone just went along with anything Obama said, then we would be disingenuous because we're not standing up for our stated beliefs. But we express displeasure with his actions, and there's something wrong with that? It's called consistency, and it's a good thing.
And you have the right to point out that O'bama is a homophobe but you don't do it. Like MissDee pointed out, he can choose whoever he wants. Your demands of "middle of the road" are wasted on a president-elect who opposes gay marriage also. WHERE are you complaints about his stance??
Obama may very well base his views on a pragmatic basis. More people support civil unions, so that's where the progress is to start with. If he really believes that gay people should never be able to get married, I would disagree with him. I also have said that the Warren pick creates the impression that he agrees with Warren, and makes homophobia an acceptable point of view. So I have complained about that.
Delhi Lama
Are you Archie Bunker?
Actually, there was left-wing umbrage over Wright's commentary. Obviously you weren't paying attention.
We could go back and forth on this. Wright, Warren, Hagee, Pfleger. Your side has theirs, our side has ours. The difference is, our side doesn't want to legislate religious principles. Yours does. Your side spews hate and vitriol towards gay folks (I've experienced it first hand from you worthless blowhards). The point is, you righties will never accept the 'live and let live' mantra that your savior preached. Real christians, indeed.
Get off your high horse. The issue, as Rick Warren has said time and again behind Prop 8 is the use of the term Marriage.. it's an institution that has been religously based for thougsands of years. It doesn't define marriage as between two men, two women, or a man and a goat. There are civil unions that cover all the civil rights issues. The problem with liberals is that it isnt' enough to have that- you have to try to subvert or co-opt the religious aspect to make it socially acceptable, and society has clearly at the ballot box that it isn't. I personally don't care if homsexuals form unions. What they do in their bedrooms is no concern to me either. It's the militant, corrosive-to-societ aspects of this whole thing that are anathematic to me, and another example of the left's constant attempt to undermine the voices of opposition to your views. You cant' accept that the things you cry out for as principles are something you need to adhere to yourselves- democracy ensures all the right to their opinion. Real "democrats" indeed.
Here's what I don't get. The right wing says the word 'marriage' is really, really important. And that's why they can't agree to gay marriage. And then they say that gay people should be happy with civil unions. Don't you see how gay people would be upset that they couldn't use this very, very, important word? If 'marriage' means so much, then you are MAKING the argument that gay people being denied the right to use it is denying them a very important right. Now, I understand that it's just a smokescreen, since you don't want civil unions either, but if you really meant it, you should campaign to get the word marriage taken out of ALL state licenses, and just issue civil unions to everyone, gay or straight, and make marriage ONLY available in churches. Everyone wins!
That's an excellent post. If it really is about the religious ownership of the word "marriage", then these people should be fighting to have my marriage dissolved as well, and turn it into a "civil union".
Of course, they won't buy that idea, because all that needs to be done is for a church to cater to gay weddings, and then that would earn the sacred "marriage" label. Lord knows how angry people would be at the sinful homosexuals to demonstrate religious faith and commit themselves to healthy, monogamous, life-long relationships.
And, of course, you probably know that there are churches that will gladly perform same-sex marriages - mine (UUA) is an example of one of those churches.
By that logic, there would indeed be same-sex MARRIAGE.
As our great mayor Gavin Newsom said, it will be legal, whether you (people) like it or not.
No, you dont'[ get it. Marriage is an important word in a RELIGIOUS context. Since those who subscribe to Judeo Christian teaching will tell you the the bible doens't condone homosexulaity, then it follows that marriage in that context is alos disapproved. Get your own head right- you're the ones advocating total separation of state and church, and since marriage using that word is definited in a religious context you shouldnt' have any problem seeing it as some kind of right denied to gays, when the equivilent CIVIL function is avaialble to them. Again, you're just being prissy and throwing a tantrum because you want it all, with no respect for religious institutions' views in every day life.
Who cares if religious people don't approve of homosexuality? They don't own the concept of marriage. People get married outside of churches, without religious involvement whatsoever. All you can really say is that there won't be gay marriages in certain churches, which nobody expects anyway.
Last time I checked, atheists could marry...
So why not ban marriage for atheists? It's the same logic you're using to ban marrige for homosexuals.
OOOPS, not you, Brab...
That was meant for MissDee...
I'm curious - where in the Bible did Jesus condemn Christianity? I'd like the specific red letter verses, please.
You do realize that Christianity is based on Jesus Christ, right?
Judging by this last post of yours, I'd have to say they increased the hallucenogenic component of the Kool-Aid today.
So, you're not going to answer the question?
Typical rightwing a$$clown. Insult because you don't have an answer.
And for the record, Kool-Aid isn't very tasty to me anymore. I switched to Power-Aid.
Why would she answer? I answered that question yesterday (several times), in another thread, and you refuse to accept it. Both you and brab refused to accept actual proof that was given to you. So stop lying and just admit you would not accept ANY Bible verse whether it was "red letter" or not.
"Typical rightwing a$$clown. Insult because you don't have an answer."
And what are YOU doing? (a$$clown?)
"God is Jesus" is not an answer. This was explained to you several times. It's not accepted because it's not acceptable. For someone who dismissed scientific studies on how homosexuality is not chosen, you have some nerve talking about people not accepting actual "proof".
I think that even though I made a typo, you would have deduced that I meant:
"where in the Bible did Jesus condemn homosexuality."
While I apologize for the error, I can understand how you'd decide to insult someone instead of answer a question. You consider yourself to be an intelligent hag, so why not act like one and answer the question - the way you knew it was meant to be asked.
How am I being "prissy" or "throwing a tantrum"? You're still arguing my point. If the STATE is issuing "marriage" licenses, then it is a RIGHT of couples - gay, straight, religious, atheist, agnostic, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. - to get a "marriage" license. YOU should be arguing to get rid of state marriage licenses if the word holds so much religious connotation to you. MY head is on right - YOU are the one arguing a religious point where one legally doesn't exist.
High horse? Not sure where you got that, but OK.
The thing is, our country is NOT a democracy, as much as you'd like it to be. It is a representative republic. Have you ever heard of 'tyranny of the majority'? If we adhered to what you claim are 'democratic' principles, we would never have outlawed slavery. I'm only comparing the gay movement to slavery in that when slavery was legal, the majority of people thought it was acceptable to OWN another person. Nowadays we understand the error of their ways. It's not acceptable. The constitution protects those who are in a minority who would succomb to the tyranny of the majority. Society clearly thought that slavery was acceptable, even at the ballot box. This also means, that if everyone voted at the ballot box to have you, MissDee, stoned to death (let's say, for having the name MissDee), that you would be protected from what everyone else wants to do to you that's unconstitutional.
This isn't about what goes on in bedrooms. This is about equality. No one is advocating someone marrying a goat. That's a strawman made up by those on the religious right. This whole 'civil unions' thing is nothing but a modern-day rendering of the separate but equal clause. It's unconstitutional.
Righties just don't like the fact that it is indeed unconstitutional. Courts have found it unconstitutional. The fact of the matter is - and there's no way around it - that denying gays the right to marry is, in fact, discriminatory. You're basically saying that it's OK for everyone else, but not gay folks. That, my dear, is discrimination. It's the very definition of it.
And folks like you want to legalize discrimination because you feel some sort of imaginary threat to marriage - something heterosexuals don't even respect.
No one is advocating that marriage must happen in a church. Nobody is suing for rights to have a wedding in a religious building in front of a pastor, preacher, rabbi, or whatever. This isn't about religion - but you righties are making it about religion.
Haven't you ever heard of the separation of Church and State? I'm sure you have - but you must not believe in it. And that, my dear, makes you un-American.
Go ahead. Shred the constitution. One day, you'll need it - and it won't be there to protect you.
"People here and organizations like MMFA ARE tryingto stifle what he says from the pulpit- otherwise, why would theybe making such a stink about it."
Because these people-- these show-biz "preachers," are lying, and they used these lies to push Prop 8 to victory.
Their free-speech fears and claims were phony.. they were lying. On election night, they were even making mass robocalls throught California, claiming that Obama-- using his own words (!)- supported Prop 8. That too was a lie.
Hey, and remember when Warren lied at his litle debate, falsely claiming that McCain was in a sound-proof room.... ?
Barry Lynn is right: Rick Warren is Jerry Falwell in a Hawaiian shirt.
That's because they understood what he was saying. You don't, so you remain stupidly in a state of umbrage.
I have seen the light.... the next wave of opinion sayers and *journalists* are going to be hollywood actors. The *news* announcers are looking younger, smiling nicely, and saying whatever they want to make a buck...
i suppose there are people somewhere who would want to legislate something like that, but it would have to be an tiny, tiny minority. warren knows damn well he could have kept right on saying anything he wanted about the subject from his pulpit. this is the constant victim mantle people like him want to wear. preach whatever you want, but just do it in your church, and don't force it on others. this "explanation" is just an attempt to deflect from the real subject. it's virtually the same as "they don't want us to pray in school". go ahead, pray away. it just can't be organized by the school.
Amazing, isn't it? These same righties spent years trying to legislate away others constitutional rights, now this. And the worst part of it is they aren't having any rights taken away from them, they are losing the legislation they helped create to take away others rights.
These people are constantly trying to impose their dogma or their brand of morality on the whole of society. If you're against gay marriage don't get married to someone of the same sex. It's as simple as that.
Amen, Loonz.
ANd you aren't trying to impose your dogma or brand of immorality on the whole of society? Face it.. liberals can't stand opposition to their views. they defend their political ideology with more fanatacism than most others do their religion, with the same level of intolerance and hupocirsy that they ascribe to others.
Our views don't hurt your life. Your imposing your morals on others does affect their lives.
As usual, the ridiculous cry of "intolerance" about people that criticize those who are intolerant. Do you really not understand how dumb that is?
I understand how dumb it is for ideologues on the left to cling to the same old meme that used to work and suddenly doesn't anymore. The fact is, again, that you pervert the intention of the message- that Marriage is defined as between a man and a women, and has been a religious tenet for thousands of years. It isnt' enough that you have civil unions to provide all the same rights to gay couples- you have to co-opt and overtake a religious institution. It's in the same vein that lefties can't understand that our constitution grants freedom of religion and not freedom from reliigion. You cannot stand having anything that morally opposes your views, and as such you have to either stamp out the opposition cry or somehow co-opt it and make it your own morality after perverting its intent.
Marriage isn't exclusive to religion, period. People get married outside of church. It's a legal institution for societal purposes, whether churches are involved or not.
Marriage was also for those of your own race, as well. White people couldn't marry black people. What happened to that definition? It's a man-made institution and we change it as the circumstances dictate.
It's in the same vein that lefties can't understand that our constitution grants freedom of religion and not freedom from reliigion.
Actually, the first amendment protects both. It prohibits congress from enacting laws "respecting an establishment of religion" and from prohibiting the free exercise thereof. There's two aspects . ..
I'm not sure how you conclude that leftists are seeking to overtake the 'religious' institution of marriage. Are gay right's activists seeking to require religious institutions to consecrate gay marriages or otherwise change their own definition of marriage? Aren't guys like Warren entirely free to exclude gays from his congregation . . . and to never allow gay marriages under his church roof?
Actually, I believe that Warren is indeed allowed to exclude gays from his church.
What homosexual would go to a church where s/he's not welcome? It makes no sense....except to the idiotic righties who have a very vivid imagination when it comes to taking away their 'God-given' rights...
Believe me, I wouldn't go to a church where I wasn't welcome...
I wouldn't ask a pastor who didn't believe in same-sex marriage to marry me and my partner. Why would I put myself, the pastor, and the church in that position?
Again, the righties just don't have the intellectual capability to follow their own convoluted thought patters to their logical conclusions.
Exactly,
nobody's precluding them from being narrow-minded and bigoted, under the guise of freedom of religion/speech.
And your other, longer, post, is correct as well. It simply is unconstitutional to deny gays the same rights granted straights . .. There is no logical, constitutional argument, that plausibly sustains the claim that prop 8 (and others like it) passes muster under the equal protection clause. That's why Warren and is ilk resort to fallacious arguments, cherry-picking mythical history, which clearly have no authority under our constitution. The issue is clear, and although it's taking time, opposition to gay marriage cannot be sustained over time unless the EP clause is totally re-interpreted . . .
I notice how you didn't get a response to the shocking inaccuracy of MissDee's post with regards to freedom of and from religion...
"that Marriage is defined as between a man and a women, and has been a religious tenet for thousands of years."
Wrong. Marriage is, and always has been, a legal contract. Here's how it works: if you get married in a church and the presiding religious officer does NOT sign those legal papers you may very well be married as far as the church is concerned, but you are NOT LEGALLY MARRIED. Until you get some presiding officer to sign those documents - either civil or religious - you have no LEGAL claim to be married.
It's just SO simple - even a simpleton should be able to understand it.
Nice to see Curry correct her flub...
I sent her an e-mail on this, as I'm sure many others did.
Well done, Media Matters for America.
Nobody is imposing anything on anyone - except right-wing bigots.
Show me, one way, just one way, how my marrige to my partner would interfere with any heterosexual marriage.
How would a civil union impact it? No difference? Just the word marriage? You righties are all up in arms about a WORD? REALLY?
How childish can you folks be?
One more point - I'm willing to bet that if you came here to San Francisco, you wouldn't be able to tell the gay married couples from the straight married couples. There are heterosexual married couples who don't wear rings. Nobody would even know they are married, unless you knew them personally.
Just how would you know who is married, who is gay and married, straight and married? Just walking down the street, eating in a restaurant, shopping at the Safeway, how would you know? (and no, two men, one cart and fresh pasta does not a gay couple make).
I wear my partner's ring, he wears mine. We aren't legally married in the eyes of the California. We had the chance to get married when it was legal. We didn't. The reason we didn't get married was because we wanted to be responsible about it. We wanted to make sure we did it for the right reasons, not just because we could. Now if that isn't respect for the institution of marriage, I don't know what is. Obviously straight folks don't, what with their 50% divorce rate.
I think it's hilarious that you would defend marriage as you do, but turn around and divorce and remarry at rates that would make Liz Taylor jealous.
"Face it.. liberals can't stand opposition to their views."
What right do conservatives have to impose their religious views on the rest of us-- like...er... being against gay marriage? (!)
You guys are pretty dumb, right? Do you realize your inconsistency, your hypocrisy?
-- We observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom—symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning—signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.
And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God...
So let us begin anew—remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness...Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us...
With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own. -- John Kennedy, Inaugural Address 1961
That's a fine argument in support of gay marriage. I think the second highlighted portion is particularly good.
Thanks, Wesley!
What was the logic behind posting that? I think most people here knew that JFK was religious.
What about those who disregard miniscule, unimportant bible verses and believe that God made them gay? Aren't they doing God's work then by being openly gay?
That form of circular logic is what is known as BS in most circles. Using your logic, every criminal shoud get off because "God me them a crook", I suppose your opinion is that the unimportant stuff in the bible is that which labels homosexual acts as sinful?
I love how people who decry and disdain Judeo-Christian beliefs, the existance of God and the Bible/Torah as false, will try to use it when it suits theri purpose. There's also mention in the bible of a certain malevolent being who can cite scripture for his own purpose too, you know.
most fundamentalist christians use the bible when it suits their purposes. they will quote what they want, but then when you point out a verse such as you should have a rebellious son stoned to death, they claim that's the old testament and doesn't count.
I don't get it. I was married for 23 years. The only marriage I cared about was my own. I really didn't care who was getting married. I think it is true. You can not work with neocons. Their heads need to be cut off and the body burned. I don't see any other way.
Ditto- neocons are so devoted to Small Government That Stays off Our Backs, except when it comes to telling other people what kind of marriages they are allowed to have, tapping our phones, reading our mail, fighting expensive and unnecessary wars overseas, etc. etc. etc.
So if Kennedy had a racist preacher at his inauguration, would that have been a problem? Or would people be told to overlook that because we should "disagree without being disagreeable"?
and how is Rick Warren now a racist, by your implication? You people really stretch the truth. I'd recommend most of you who inhabit this forum hold up a mirror someday while you're talking. it might actually scare some of you into seeing just how much disingenuity you all libs present.
I didn't say Warren was a racist. I'm comparing Warren's homophobia to the views on race in a previous time. Did you notice the name "Kennedy" there? If I was talking about Warren there wouldn't be any need to cite a previous time period, now would there?
Maybe you should wait for an answer to your question before you spout off about "disingenuity". Hasty assumptions don't make you look particularly intelligent.
See, this is what they have to do. They have absolutely no argument against gay marriage that isn't a lie, or something about how God hates fags. So now he has to act like his rights may be infringed because he doesn't want other people to have theirs. Hey, to any conservatives on this board, and I know that you pop up from time to time, can you please provide me an argument for why we shouldn't have gay marriage without either making baseless claims against them or invoking God? I'm really curious if there is one. Please, just one sensible argument. It's all I want.
On the subject of Warren's invocation, I don't understand why so many on the left are so upset. It's not like Warren's in the cabinet or in any kind of policy role. It's not like he's there to talk about gay people. He's just going to stand up there, say some nice words, and leave. There's also going to be a Gay and Lesbian marching band there, which is a first.
We (as lefties) and I (as a gay man) are upset because Warren compared us (gay folks) to pedophiles and those who engage in beastiality.
I don't need to say that nothing is farther from the truth.
Stats show that most pedohpiles are heterosexual...
Explain that away, Reverand.
Okay, this is another "hide the statistics" statement on your part. It is ture that most pedophiles are hetero, but studies place that "majority" at 2 to 1. SO while technically correct, your attempt to be a minimalist in your stats is disingenous. Now even if you take the base statistic that 10 percent of the population is homosexual (and I think that's high, but let's go with it), that means there are statistically a 10 percent base of the general population contributing 1/3 of the pedophelia incidents. It's funny how that form of homosexual pedophelia is a common warcray for the liberals against the Catholic church's priesthood (and I agree- it's reprehensible . Being a Catholic myself, I find any instance of that at all occuring in a class of people who vowed chastity and vowed to embody the teaching of the church in their actions to be a travesty that needs to be rooted out of society. it's just amazing how you will try to minimalize such things because it makes your case better.
I dont' think the Reverend needs to explain it away. I think when it's placed in the correct context it speaks for itself.
It doesn't matter. The overwhelming number of pedophiles are indeed heterosexual. This disgusting excuse for a "man of God" compared me to a pedophile. And as I said above, nothing could be more false. I'm offended that a self-proclaimed, supposed "man of God" would even come close to saying such a thing.
I couldn't care less about your religious beliefs. The catholic church, in my opinion, is a sham, especially since all of this came out about the abuse of children at the hands of priests. Your church lost all respect in my eyes when they failed to do anything about it. Talk about minimizing, you say that I am minimizing such things to make my case better, but when you look at it, your stats are on their face, incorrect - and your calculations are, at best, suspect. The travesty that needs to be rooted out of society isn't only the pedophiles who commit these heinous atrocities, but people like you who want to inject religion into politics and force everyone to live by YOUR beliefs.
Sorry doll, but this country wasn't founded that way. Our constitution guarantees us freedom of religion, freedom from religion and separation of church and state. What part of that can't you understand? This is not a theocracy. You do not have a right to legislate YOUR morality; nor do you have the right to treat others as second class citizens.
I think I've got this whole homophobia vis-a-vis religion figured out. You conservative religious folks need to feel superior to others. You need to feel better about yourselves because of the fear you have of almost everything in the world. You need to feel superior - and you need to other's to fee inferior in order for you to feel that superiority. You feel the need to make everyone believe as you do, just to reinforce your beliefs. You know, the more the merrier. If they don't believe the same way, well, you're just better than they are, aren't you?
I've come to the conclusion that conservative religious folks are mentally ill. Seriously. There is a difference between religious dogma and reality - and you folks blur the line consistently. If you want everyone to believe the way you do, please, by all means, move to a theocratic country where everyone is forced to believe a certain way. Your life will be much easier.
Now, if what I've described above is not the case, why are you so worried about what people do (actions which harm no one, such as same-sex marriage), even those you don't even know?
Oh, you're a rightie...there is much that eludes your black and white thought processes.
"If you want everyone to believe the way you do, please, by all means, move to a theocratic country where everyone is forced to believe a certain way. Your life will be much easier."
Or to be more succinct: Don't tell me you're a Christian. Show me
Or, as Jesus said: Let him who is without sin cast the first stone
Too many "Christians" are so busy casting stones they can't see how UNCHRISTIAN they are.
Jesus also said "I am the way, the truth and the light". Too many liberals are ignoring that fact that Jesus has only ONE parameter for entering the Kingdom of Heaven. BELIEF that Jesus is the way, the truth and the light.
Jesus also said "only those who are born again can enter the Kingom of Heaven". Are you born again? Do you live a born again life?
. BELIEF that Jesus is the way
Does that mean you are free to sin all you want, just because you are a true believer? Isn't that Dubya's excuse? That he can kill as many Arabs as he wants and torture as many people as he wants and keep them prisoner for as long as he wants because come judgement day, his sins will be magically washed away because he's a true believer.
That's not how I interpret Christianity.
Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. You dont' scare me in the least. Just because i find something not acceptable doesn't mean it frightens me. You libs on the other hand fear everything and see lurking oppression everywhere it ain't. As far as your "fear factor" you are a nightlight in a 100 watt world, as far as I'm concerned.
You couldn't be more wrong.
It's those on the right, especially those like you who are on the wacky right fringe, who are scared of everything. You instill fear in those who are even more mentally weak than you are. You cannot stand it that people whom you deem to be inferior can have the same rights as you do.
Why does this bother you so? Are you worried that one day, if you ever were able to get someone stupid drunk enough to procreate with you, that you might have to explain to your child that the couple down the street with the tastefully decorated house is a married homosexual couple? Is that your fear?
Get over it, sweetie. We will have the right to marry. It's just a matter of time. The California Supreme Court has already ruled that a ban on gay marriage in California is unconstitutional. They will rule the same way again, even as soon as the next session.
You claim to be a Christian - which I find suspect. Real Christians love their neighbor, even their enemy. Love doesn't require understanding, but tolerance. Why do yo make Jesus cry so?
And you are a typical "I dont' hear what you say, I hear what I want to hear coming from you" brainwashed liberal. I've already said I could give a big rat's behind what two people do in their bedroom. I also said I support civil unions. However, you target anyone who wont' kowtow to your militant and total demands over the use of the word marriage as some kind of "christian hypocrite". The Bible says to hate the sin and love the sinner. As a Christian, homosexual practices are viewed as a sin against God or nature if you wish to phrase it that way. I would suppose, if I used your method of evaluation, that you are one who would knock down an old lady carrying a crucifix, stomp through a Catholic Mass in SFO with a gaggle of gays dressed up like a Drag Queens at Mardi-Gras, and then go throw rocks at a Mormon temple. Your lame old crapola about "Making Jesus cry" is just getting old. Try something original, okay? Rick Warren himself has explained that he loves straights and gays- he simply doesn't agree with their lifestyle because of his faith. I'm saying the same thing here. You wont' settle for equal- you have to make the world like you, and that's the thing I resent in the militant GLAD community.
To address the end of your post first, it's LGBT community. There is no GLAD community. It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about when you cannot even get a community's name correct.
I never said that I would disrupt anyone's religious services, throw rocks at temples. That's shameful, wrong and totally against my belief structure. The fact that you would attribute such actions to me show (1) you don't know me; and (2) you don't know how the LGBT community works. The LGBT community, for the most part, accepts the fact that there are bigots like you who like to put others down in the name of religion. We know you're out there. We could care less.
You see, twit, the law is on our side. Denying marriage to gays is discrimination. But you wouldn't know discrimination if it smacked you in the face. If you did, you wouldn't be as hateful as you are. This country is built upon the separation of Church and State. Why you refuse to acknowledge this, I'll never know. Again, your beliefs are unAmerican.
I don't care what your religion, bible, priest or anyone else says. I don't have to follow your tenets of faith. That's the beauty of this country. As I said before, if you want to force everyone to a certain belief system, by all means, move to a theocratic nation where you can live in peace with other like-minded folks.
The difference between you and I is that I can accept the fact that you're a religious woman, but you cannot accept that I don't buy into your fairy tale book. I'm not the kind of person who would deny anyone else any rights, but you are, based on religion. I live the 'live and let live' lifestyle. To me, we are commanded by whatever higher power there is to respect one another and leave each other in peace. If you cannot help someone, at least do not harm them. I don't need a 2000 year old book or a pedophilic priest to teach me that.
Face it: Gay marriage will be legal - and there's not a damned thing you can do about it.
"Just because i find something not acceptable doesn't mean it frightens me"
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, hon. Of course it frightens you. Frightens you to the point of shrillness. So what if homosexual behavior is a sin? (It isn't, as long as it's consenting adults) IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. What 2 consenting adults do in a loving caring relationship is FAR, FAR more "Christian" than the eagerness of those who would condemn them even though what they do, and how they do it, affects NO ONE but themselves.
Frightened? To near the point of being petrified. Yep, own it babe. It belongs to you and those scardy cats like you.
here comes the delusional "I'm more christian than you, even though I don't believe in God bilge that the left has used so ineffectively in the past. Maybe it makes you feel good, but if it looks like crap, smells like crap, then it's usually crap. Read my last post. And you dont' scare me in the least.Again, it's more of your delusional diatribe to make yourself stop shaking in your shoes. What terrifies you is the morality of the vast majority of the people of this country. You can't possibly stand being viewed as wrong, so you have to try to tear down the morality of others. That's been exemplified time and again in the liberal play book.
Thank you SO much for making SO clear my point about your fear level influencing your shrillness level. I couldn't possibly have done it any better than you had done. Keep up the good work!
what's really terrifying is that the vast majority of americans believe in angels. they actually think there are beings flying around with feathered wings. they also think there's a place where you hang around on the clouds all day and worship god. i can just see the "activities" sign. 8am-breakfast. 9 to 12pm-worship the lord. 12pm-lunch. 1 to 5pm-worship the lord.
half of all americans also believe that the earth is only 6 to 10 thousand years old, in spite of all scientific evidence to the contrary. if anyone wonders why simpletons like bush get elected, with their glib and simplistic answers to everything, look no further than that. the fact is the bible was written by a bunch of uneducated people to explain a scary world and set rules, who then proclaimed it the work of a superior being. that's sort of understandable for them, but it doesn't explain supposedly educated people nowdays clinging to that nonsense, because mommy told them that when they were six.
Your description sure sounds a lot better than your belief that when you die you come back as a tree. Unfortunately and factually, when you die your body rots in the ground until it is dug up or washed away. You non-religious people are more screwed up than us religious people. We pray to God for assistance, you whine at mmfa for your joy.
"Unfortunately, the state cannot force religious institutions to follow through on the gay agenda"
You are so right. Isn't it great that NO ONE IS TRYING TO DO THAT? Nothing about the so-called "gay agenda" is trying to force any church to do anything against their doctrine. What they want, and what the constiution guarantees is EQUAL RIGHTS. There's no logical or legal reason that gays should not be able to marry in a civil ceremony, just as many heteros do. No church is needed for a LEGAL MARRIAGE.
After gays finally are able to marry, then churches will still be able to refuse to marry them, or agree to marry them...just as those same churches can NOW do with heteros that want to marry. It's all about equal rights. It's not about churches.
Yes they are trying to do that. You live in denial if you say that Churches won't lose their 'tax exempt' status if they refuse to marry gays when (if) the law is passed. THAT is forcing religious institutions into doing things against their doctrine. Are you really that blind?
There is ALSO NO LOGICAL (or legal) reason gays can't seak to implement stronger 'civil union' laws that achieve the SAME thing as the word 'married'. The only reason they are NOT seeking those laws is because they intend to bring down religious institutions because religion does not accept homosexuality as a non-sinful lifestyle.
" Yes they are trying to do that. You live in denial if you say that Churches won't lose their 'tax exempt' status if they refuse to marry gays when (if) the law is passed. THAT is forcing religious institutions into doing things against their doctrine. Are you really that blind?"
Do churches NOW lose their tax exempt status if they refuse to marry a hetero couple? Nope, they do not. So they won't lose it if they refuse to marry a gay couple. It's so easy, why can't you see it? Churches are not required to marry every couple that comes through their doors asking to be married. Heck, even a civil office is not required to marry EVERY couple that comes before them, churches are no different.
"There is ALSO NO LOGICAL (or legal) reason gays can't seak to implement stronger 'civil union' laws that achieve the SAME thing as the word 'married'."
Yes, there is. It's the same thing as the "separate but equal" form of racism. They would be separate, and they would NOT BE EQUAL. There's nothing special, nothing religious, about the word "married." It's a legal term and nothing else. It conveys legal rights and privileges on a couple and there's nothing inherent in the word that restricts it to hetero couples only...except custom. Customs can be changed, and in this case, NEEDS to be changed.
"The only reason they are NOT seeking those laws is because they intend to bring down religious institutions because religion does not accept homosexuality as a non-sinful lifestyle"
Baloney. Maybe YOUR form of religion does not accept homosexuality. It doesn't necessarily follow, in fact it DOES NOT follow, that ALL forms of religion don't accept homosexuality. SOME people, SOME churches, and SOME forms of religion truly understand what it means to "judge not, lest ye be judged"
Nobody's "forcing a particular religion" into doing anything.
As far as "it's still a choice", I pointed out why that was crazy the other day. You have no interest in science anyway. There's no way that civil rights can be delayed until Biblical literalists like you can be satisfied with scientific "proof", because you have a vested interest in denying any scientific evidence you don't agree with.
You proved NOTHING. Hiring a couple people to say what you want them to say is not proof of anything. Well, unless you're a liberal, then that's all the proof you need.
I didn't say I "proved" anything. I said that it's insane to wait for people like you to accept proof that you'll never accept.
Oh, well that's different. What PROOF do you have that this 'Biblical literalist' can use to make a decision on whether gays are born that way or not. You know...something that can give them a "civil right"? Wait, let me guess what proof you have: "because barb and mefirst said so". Oh yeah, that's very scientific proof.
But you won't accept any evidence at all. You've demonstrated this.
"What PROOF do you have that this 'Biblical literalist' can use to make a decision on whether gays are born that way or not"
Why does it matter? Choice or chance, they are still human beings and they are still being denied the equality guaranteed under our Constitution. Prosititutes and their "Johns" (clients) are also commiting a sexual sin and I don't see you calling form THEM to be denied the right (whether civil or not) to be married.
If the "sexual sin" of homosexuality is reason enough to deny gays/lesbians the right to marry, then so should the sexual sin of prostitution be enough to deny both partners in THAT relastionship the right to marry.
It's late in the thread to get into this, but it actually does make a difference whether it's choice or nature as far as rights go.
The reason for this is that public reaction is a negative effect, without doubt. Theoretically you can argue that it should be universally accepted whether it's natural or not, but that's not how it actually plays out. The negative reaction then becomes a legitimate factor in evaluating whether homosexuality is acceptable behavior or not.
Society isn't obligated to conform to the whims of a small minority, simply put. Again, you can make the argument that people should accept it either way, but it's a much, much more difficult argument to make. Essentially you would have to say that all the people who have brought conflict into their environments, who have brought grief into the hearts of people who believe it to be a sin and have done so by choice, are lying when they say they've always been that way and were never attracted to the opposite sex. It gives those that condemn them on a religious basis much more leverage and a much more legitimate argument against it. "Tradition" and "morality" become things that trump any potential rights, while they are irrelevant in the face of natural behavior.
The issue for me is that it's next to impossible to believe that this has happened on so many occasions over such a long period of time. It simply makes no sense that anyone would choose something that brings out so many negative reactions, and violent reactions at that. But if it were to come out (somehow) that it was willful behavior, I can be convinced that people should accept it, but I can't as easily blame people for not doing so.
Let me expand on this just a bit with an example we can all see first-hand.
Look at Philib's behavior on this thread and the Washington Times Warren thread from Friday. When people bring up the issue of choice vs. nature, what does he do? He clings to his belief blindly. Any logical argument is ignored or twisted beyond recognition. Any scientific argument is dismissed out of hand, or grossly misrepresented as well. He insists that he chose to be straight, but can't explain exactly how he did so.
The reason for this is obvious:the idea that homosexuality is chosen behavior is absolutely essential to any argument against gay rights. It's the only way that anything he says could possibly have any merit or relevance to the issue at hand whatsoever. He's crazy, but even he realizes that to argue "it's natural, people are born that way, but they don't have rights" is completely untenable. This is why it's very important never to cede any ground on this. As soon as it's granted that it's a choice, then the will of the people (with a largely Christian population, mind you) gains a great deal of power.
And pointing to a 2000 year old book written by uneducated folks over a number of centuries isn't proof of anything either. Your religion relies on you having faith, not proof.