sorry some of the links got truncated. in my blog a couple items above....... Trying again.

Vatican letter told Ireland’s Catholic bishops not to report child abuse
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...
) Vatican Bank ‘allowed clergy to act as front
for Mafia

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

) Catholic Church Child Abuse Claims Sweep
Across Europe

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

the list is endless

And of course Diaz forgets that blacks couldn't marry until 1867

But there is nothing you can do with paranoids  - their next step is irrational hate.\\

And Diaz supports marriage by being divorced. Probably just another Minister Ted Haggard
who ranted against gays until his male prostitue outed him.

And foot tapper Sen Larry Craig, rep Foley, and so many others.

whose hatred of gays as expressed - their real audience per my psychology professor, is themselfves.  Self hating puppies.

Oh I should add re NOM, Maggie Gallagher's contract with NOM specifies she gets 30% off the top of their contributions (2010)

And she supports conventional marriagbe by having 2 illegitimate children,a nd her now husband is no where to be found.

Hate is a great business., isn't it - people getting filthy riich while demoniziing others.  Reminds me of the Krupps in germany who got rich building the armaments for hitler.

NOM is a hate group, per the Southern Poverty Law center, whos past includes bringing to justice KKKs  who murdered children and lynched black people

What is so interesting is that the catholic church is funding a hate group. If you read the book  "A Moral Reckoning"  by Goldhagen ***(who writes about various genocides),  he points out how the catholic church, with terms such as "Christ Killers and the "blood libel"  Poisoned western society for a thousand years, against the Jewss, all thanks to the catholic church.

and Hitler leveraged that hatred to gain power and 55 million died, thanks to much of the heirarchy of the church ( yes there were many great priests and even the polish pope and Roncalli who saves some Jews)

but the bottom line is that the catholic church is an absolutist , totally dominating organization, which will stop at nothing for power and money.

go to www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm to be horrified at how the church consorted with the nazis during WWII, and took over 20 years to even begin to try and change their ways, but didn't admit guilt

another example is how RATZInger, born and brought up in Nazi Germany, UNexcommunciated Bishop Williamson, who had been kicked out of the church of England for denying the holocaust. of course,  williamson had 600,000 followers and that equates to an estimated S100,000,000 million for the Vatican.

And of course there is the endless molestation of children, all over the world, hidden by the hierarchy for God only knows how long.  So far in the USA, about $2 billion in damages,  heading for $1 billion in Ireland etc etc.

Vatican letter told Ireland’s Catholic bishops not to report child abuse

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...

Vatican Bank ‘allowed clergy to act as front for
Mafia
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

Also see www.catholicarrogance.org, by a priest and others who couldn't take the lies and hypocricsy any more

Do not forget - the Southern Poverty Law Center has declared NOM a "hate group," and it is easy to see why.  They never will understand the separation of church and state any more than they will understand logic.  It is pointless to argue with them.  All you can you do is make sure you effectively counter the lies in their ads.  And, as a Mainer who lost his right to marry because of these nimrods,  be very careful with them.  They are conniving, manipulative, and devious, in their ads.  They pulled the "think about the children being taught about homosexuality by a HOMOSEXUAL!"  "Oh, the horror of it all!" 

In Maine, they found some idiot school counselor who should have been fired for explaining his reasons why gay marriage should never be allowed or discussed in schools.  What kind of counselor could he possible be to the gay kids in that same school who come to him to seek his counsel?  After the damage was done, even the local head of the anti-same-sex marriage group apologized for the hyperbole and damage he and his group had done.  He, by the way, used to work for the Portland, Maine Catholic Diocese. 

In Maine, a state with 1.3 million people, the vote was lost by only 30,000 votes.  Appalling and so stupid.  Aside from this being a denial of civil rights, it is estimated Maine will lose $20M per summer in lost tourism revenue.  I still remain angry with NOM and their intrusion into my life when I am not even a member of their church (we all know who is behind NOM).

"After the damage was done, even the local head of the anti-same-sex
marriage group apologized for the hyperbole and damage he and his group
had done. "  quote

ChuckGG

What you are missing is another of the catholic church's tricks.

its called the "bad is more powerful then the good"

In this case they destroyed marriage for gays, and then apologize.

Knowing the apology is meaningless, or in other situations not heard like the hate and bigotry that underly the churches horrible 'teachings"

BTW two of my three kids are making their contribution to the bigoted institution of marriage

By refusing to marry but living and bedding with their GFs'

We can stop the whole stupid battle by abolishing legal marriage for everyone.

Oh where did the marriage license come from - When blacks were finally allowed to marry in 1867, the bigots instittuted the marriage license - because most blacks were desittute and couldnt pay the fee.

The same game as the poll tax that was finally killed completely in 1966

And the battle to end bans on inter-racial marriage - those bans were finally ended in 1967

And the only reason the catholic church didnt strongly support bans on black marriage was they were small before the civil war. It appears they simply went with the local flow.

Steve - You make some good points.  Actually, I do not know where/when the State started instituting a marriage license recognized by the State.  Although doing so changed a great deal our secular structure.  The marriage license has been recognized as a legal contract between two people (excluding all the religious stuff) and our society, right or wrong, now is kind of locked-in to that structure.

That is, so much of our tax code, insurances, inheritance defaults, child custody, and so on, are in one way or another often affected by whether or not the parties are married.  How we could "un-bake" that cake in the legal sense by getting rid of state-issued marriage licenses I do not know.

Part of my argument for same-sex marriage is that in most countries, ours included, there really are two marriages - one recognized by the State and the other optional ceremony done in some church of the couple's choice.  In Europe, it is quite customary for the couple to marry at City Hall, thus satisfying the legal requirement, and then again, in a church of their choice.

Here in the USA, the churches are granted the right to "act as an agent" for the State to certify the participants have agreed to the marriage contract.

This separation is obvious when you look at a couple married by a Justice of the Peace.  The couple is legally married and has all the secular legal rights of a couple married in a church.  The church may disagree as it feels all couples must go through some ceremony but as far as the State is concerned, the couple is married.  This is further proven when a divorce occurs.  The couple ends up in "Divorce Court" and not "Divorce Church."  This separation is so obvious yet the churches (and NOM) drone on about the "redefinition of marriage."

Another point:  You spoke of the RCC apologizing after the damage is done.  Very true.  Have you seen their new campaign?  Joseph Goebbels would be proud.  So subtle.  So innocuous.  So absent of any gay couples.

In it, they have this ad now being aired on TV where married couples are being interviewed on the street and being asked about how their marriage affects people around them. [The hair on the back of my neck stood up as these people don't do anything without an ulterior motive.]  It is all very light, happy, cute, and it is only at the end where the RCC logo pops up.  The message they are sending is that marriage affects many people around you, NOT just the couple being married.  Of course, the very successful message by the Marriage Equality groups is that same-sex marriage affects no one but the participants of the marriage.

Aside from the ground-work being laid here (they've had centuries to perfect this propaganda) that marriage DOES affect others, the insulting part is that apparently same-sex marriages would negatively affect others!  That is the real insult.  I would say to the contrary.  In their ad, to the extent that they claim marriage affects others socially (which is simply socially), I would agree.  Marriage, in the broadest sense has some affect on those around the married couple in that it shows the couple is together and are a family and so on, but the same is true of same-sex couples.  They just cannot seem to grasp there is little difference between a straight married couple and a same-sex married couple when it comes to ordinary day-to-day living.  Until these people "get it," just as it took them decades to "get it" with inter-racial marriage, their attitude never will change.

The new ad, by the way, can be seen at http://foryourmarriage.org/

See the upper, right corner.  Very slick.

CG

If this were pre Loving v. Virginia, NOM mouthpiece and windbag of hate Maggie Gallagher Srivastav couldn't even be legally married to her current husband:  She's still be the had-a-baby-out-of-wedlock single mother she once was.
Hypocrite.  Rich, rich hypocrite.

OF course, but she'd prob be talking about protecting the sanctity of marriage by what they said in the battle to end the ban on inter-racial marriage

It was to protect the sanctity of the white race

Oh, that woman is just horribly horrid.

And exactly how does marrying out of wedlock and homosexuality relate??

Both are "sins", no?

Who are you to define sin? Whatever side you may be on.

You have encouraged my two kids to get the vantiy plates  SINMORE and MORESIN

hey great job necroposting in a 6 month old article, clownbag.

NOM NOM NOM.

Obama is officially against gay marriage.

HIs comment was his views are evolving. SRI

the USA will soon join the rest of western Europe except italy and greece of course, in having gay marriage over most of the country.

Catholic Latin America now has gay marriage in Mexico, Argentina and columbia (common law)  CUs in  Equador,  Ururguay, and Brazil

And  chile will be next - their president is pusshing thru a bill for CUs.

As for NOM, notice how maggie gallagher has disappeared from view - as soon as she was outed for supporting marriage by having not one but two illegitimate children.

And NOM was listed as a hate group by the SPLC, which resuilted in NOM renaming itself the marriage anti-defamation league.

A rose by any other name smells the same and so does horsepoop.

BTW  Ruben Diaz supported marriage by being divorced. The gall of some people is beyond belief

Now they're trying to criminalize the donors and make it seem as if they're wrong for recognizing the dysfunction in homosexuality. Nothing new, the sickos are just becoming more persistent in their quest to disease the entire country with their sickness.
I say, just take all the funding and use it to give the gay community their own island out in the middle of the Pacific, far and away from the normal civilization, and let them live out the rest of their short misery that they call life and they can all roll around in each other's feces and whatever else they like doing with it. We can't lose, they'll spread their diseases amongst each other and be gone in a decade or so

Fail at trolling.  No they're not trying to criminalize the donors.  They are trying to enforce the rules of disclosure of funding for a political action organization that everyone else has to follow by forcing them to make themselves known.  It's anti-democratic for an anonymous organization to front as a political lobby group to strong arm policies in other people's states.  If their cause is so morally noble and righteous, then why not face the light of public examination and scrutiny rather then hide behind front organizations like terrorists?

"If their cause is so morally noble and righteous, then why not face the light of public examination and scrutiny rather then hide behind front organizations like terrorists?"

Right. And we'll keep waiting on the public examination of the ??? that once funded Al Qaeda 6 billion dollars from 1989 to 1992. You know, the terrorists.