www.usatoday.com/news/nat...shop_x.htm
The vote has been rescheduled for today.
--
10^57 varieties
by Evercat » Tue Aug 05, 2003 12:56 pm
--
10^57 varieties
by dekalog » Tue Aug 05, 2003 5:36 pm
by Gatito Grande » Tue Aug 05, 2003 6:07 pm
Out by daiailun » Wed Aug 06, 2003 2:08 am
by urnofosiris » Wed Aug 06, 2003 2:17 am
-------------------------
Coffee, Food, Kisses and Gay Love........Get it while you are hot
by Gatito Grande » Wed Aug 06, 2003 5:32 pm
Quote:
Idle Threat?
Lessons of ‘70s May Prevent Conservative Schism Over from Gay Bishop
By Deborah Caldwell
Aug. 6 — More than a dozen conservative bishops may have angrily walked out of the Episcopal Church's convention on Tuesday, but don't expect them to leave the denomination.
Why? Because they learned a lesson 27 years ago, when the church battled over whether or not to allow female clergy. After a huge fight that Episcopalians still recall and dissect, the church voted yes — and some of the conservatives said with much fanfare, "Goodbye, we're starting our own church."
Who’s Mainstream?
Yet today, few people even remember the names of the splinter churches they formed. They are tiny and without influence. Conservatives are well aware of the history and have played the gay issue quite differently.
Lesson One: Schism gets headlines (briefly) but not much else.
Forming a new denomination would disconnect conservatives from the 73 million-member Worldwide Anglican Communion — churches in England and around the world — denying them influence, money and support. Individual parishes will also be reluctant to leave because the Episcopal Church owns the buildings and their financial assets. Instead, conservatives will look to affiliate with a church overseas so they can remain part of the official Anglican Communion.
Lesson Two: It's all about the battle to define "mainstream."
Today, women are accepted as clergy in most Christian groups, and those who opposed women's ordination appear in hindsight to have been on the fringe. And so, conservative Episcopalians in the current debate have been careful to present themselves as moderate, while portraying Episcopal church leaders as ultra-liberals who stole "their" church out from under them.
"This body, willfully confirming the election of a person sexually active outside of holy matrimony, has departed from the historic faith and order of the church of Jesus Christ," Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh said on behalf of the dissenting bishops.
The Web site of the main conservative group — the American Anglican Council — welcomes visitors with this greeting: "We are mainstream Anglicans. We are orthodox Episcopalians. We're missionaries called to fulfill the Great Commission, to proclaim Biblical truth and to transform the Episcopal Church from within. We'd love to share our mission and ministry with you."
Worldwide Alliances
Lesson Three: Play on liberal white guilt.
Last time, conservatives opposing ordination argued that a rift would harm relations with the Roman Catholic Church. This did not persuade American Episcopalians, who were (and still are) the church of elites and intellectuals.
This time, the AAC has teamed up with Anglican leaders in Africa and Asia — where, they point out, Anglicans are growing the fastest — who say they will not associate with a church that permits a gay bishop.
Archbishop Peter Akinola, head of the Anglican Church of Nigeria, condemned Robinson's election as "a Satanic attack on God's church." The Church of Nigeria serves 17.5 million people and ranks second in size to the mother Church of England. The Anglican Communion brings together 38 churches founded by the Church of England in the days of the British Empire.
"What makes this battle interesting is that the conservatives know how to play upon white liberal guilt," says Robert Bruce Mullin, an Episcopal Church historian at General Theological Seminary in New York. Mullin said the appeal to Third World Christian sensibilities is "poignant" and smart, though he believes they will ultimately fail.
Others disagree. Allen Guelzo, an Episcopal Church historian at Eastern College in St. David's, Pa., said the Third World alliance may give dissidents the leverage they need to actually split the Worldwide Anglican Communion.
"People in Africa don't have this American clubbiness," Guelzo says. "They'll walk. They are the majority. So that gives an entirely new heft to dissident protests. If the African bishops really do proceed as they have threatened, then we have introduced an entirely novel situation.
"All bets are off," he said, "And no one knows where this takes them."
But that doesn't mean the conservatives will leave their denomination. Instead, they will try to have the Episcopal Church forced out of the Anglican Communion.
Next Moves?
At a meeting in Virginia last month, 23 bishops from eight countries issued a statement saying that if Robinson were confirmed as bishop, the action would "separate" the Episcopal church from "historic Christian faith and teaching," and "alienate it from the fellowship and accountability of the worldwide Anglican family."
Bishops from Africa, Asia and Latin America, representing more than one-third of Anglican Communion members worldwide, earlier this year announced they were severing relations with a diocese that authorizes same-sex blessings — the Diocese of New Westminster, based in Vancouver. One of the leaders in that split was Akinola.
In the days before the vote, AAC president Canon David Anderson said that if the Episcopal Church confirmed Robinson, "The Anglican Communion will see one of its family members leave the fold. As for the AAC, we are committed to remaining very much a part of the Anglican family. We're staying."
He said the AAC will hold an "extraordinary meeting" in October to decide its next move.
After Monday's vote, conservatives appealed to overseas bishops to "intervene in the pastoral emergency that has overtaken us."
What the conservatives plan is unclear, however. Some parishes could, for instance, split from their dioceses and refuse to recognize more liberal Episcopalians, yet stop short of schism.
Ultimately, conservatives and liberals alike will pray, cry, and yell at each other. They'll hold meetings and caucuses and issue pronouncements. There will be a gay bishop in the Episcopal Church and conservatives won't like it. But the most likely outcome is that all of them — conservative, moderate, liberal, gay, and straight — will remain in the same church.
Outby BBOvenGuy » Wed Aug 06, 2003 7:57 pm
"The first task of anyone, lest you get canceled, is to entertain people, because they ain't there for message." - Dick Wolf
by daiailun » Thu Aug 07, 2003 3:39 am
by Gatito Grande » Thu Aug 07, 2003 1:47 pm
Quote:
Bishops turn down development of same-sex liturgies
Richelle Thompson
Episcopal News Service
Posted: 8/6/2003
A day after confirming the election of an openly gay man as bishop, the House of Bishops on Wednesday agreed to a compromise and decided not to move forward with the development of same-sex blessing liturgies.
An amendment offered by Bishop Peter Lee of Virginia and approved by the house deleted the lines from resolution C051 that asked the Standing Committee on Liturgy and Music to develop rites for blessing same-sex relationships. The resolution now goes before the House of Deputies for consideration – but without a measure that would provide for developing same-sex blessing liturgies.
The amended resolution calls the church to “continued prayer, study and discernment on the pastoral care of gay and lesbians persons.” The work is to include the compilation and development of resources under the direction of the Presiding Bishop to facilitate as wide a conversation as possible throughout the church.
A similar measure to develop same-sex rites was narrowly defeated by the House of Deputies at the last General Convention.
While the decision disappointed some activists, others said the resolution offered some latitude in the phrase, “We recognize that local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions.”
The move was taken as an encouraging sign by bishops affiliated with the American Anglican Council. “I think it is something we can go home with,” said Bishop William Skilton, suffragan of South Carolina. He would have felt better, he said, if there had been no resolution moving the church toward accepting gay and lesbian relationships, but was willing to live with the compromise worked out by the bishops. “It is certainly better than what was originally proposed,” he said.
Bishop Edward Salmon of South Carolina, who chose not to vote on the resolution, said he had no major objection to it since the language to develop rites had been dropped out. The more significant action, he said, was yesterday’s consent on the bishop coadjutor-elect of New Hampshire, the Rev. Gene Robinson, which makes the vote on the resolution moot. Robinson is an openly gay man living in a committed relationship.
More moderate conservatives saw the measure as something of speed bump. More reflection and study is needed on how the church incorporates gay and lesbian members, said Bishop Herbert Thompson of Southern Ohio. He noted the “wonderful pastoral way” both sides of the issue had agreed to the compromise. The message today, he said, is that the church is not yet ready develop rites for blessing same-sex unions. “Maybe down the road but we need a conversation and they are allowing that to happen.”
Bishop Lee said he offered the amendment in consideration of the 43 bishops who voted against the Robinson's confirmation. After Tuesday’s vote, several bishops said they would be calling on the other primates of the Anglican Communion “to intervene in the pastoral emergency that has overtaken us.” Some deputies walked off the floor Wednesday and have made dire predictions about schism and the future of the church.
Lee, who voted in support of Robinson, said that the “exercise of restraint,” in the church, the nation and around the world, would be an appropriate pastoral response.
Bishop John Lipscomb of Southwest Florida was on the opposite side of the debate Tuesday and has spoken against the confirmation of Robinson. But on Wednesday, he offered support for Lee’s amendment.
He pledged to “do everything possible to help my diocese turn to godly conversation about what will continue to be a difficult issue.” He said the amendment provides the opportunity to engage and continue that discussion.
Bishop Henry Parsley of Alabama also cast a "no" vote against Robinson’s confirmation, but he found common ground in the amended resolution.
“Our liturgy expresses what we believe. So we need to be particularly clear theologically before we move forward liturgically,” he said. “This amendment helps us be a church together as we seek theological consensus more solid and sound than we have found.”
While the Diocese of New York is stronger and growing because of the ministries of gay and lesbian priests and lay people, Bishop Mark Sisk also said he was aware of the worldwide implications of approving the development of same-sex liturgies.
“I am mindful that our actions do have an impact around the world. We are not alone,” Sisk said. “I believe we are growing in the direction that will, in the future, authorize such blessings. I am also aware that all growth needs to take place in a measured way. Growth that is too quick leads to weakness.”
There was dissent as well. Some bishops urged the house to reconsider and to approve this step in developing same-sex blessing liturgies.
“You cannot understand the experience that it is for every gay and lesbian member of the Episcopal Church when this house debates whether or not our relationships can be honored and celebrated,” said Bishop Otis Charles, who announced he was gay after he retired as bishop of Utah. “We must be mindful of the pain that is in the hearts of all the people in your conversations, known or unknown, who are gay and lesbian … who would like to have the same dignity that each one of you has in your relationships.”
Bishop James Kelsey of Northern Michigan read his diocese’s vision statement, saying that it calls the church to move ahead with faith and compassion.
Gay and lesbian persons “deserve our support and affirmation,’’ he said. “They should not be asked to live in hiding. They – and we – should celebrate the gifts they bring to us.”
Two proposals to reinstate resolution B007, crafted and proposed by the bishops of Province IV, also failed.
The Prayer Book, Liturgy and Music Committee reworked C051 to merge several of the resolutions in an effort to find common ground, said Bishop Catherine Roskam, suffragan of New York and the committee’s vice chair.
The fear among many committee members was “If we don’t bring home something, we are going to lose people,” Roskam said. “We worked to craft something where we might not lose one.”
It essentially codifies where we're at now: some diocese do, some don't . . . some might. One thing that article doesn't mention, though: the actions of the Diocese of New Westminster in British Columbia, and possibly other dioceses of the Anglican Church of Canada. Their experience w/ formally (officially) blessing same-sex unions over the next three years (till the next Episcopal Gen.Conv.) will undoubtedly will have to be taken into account (i.e., if lo, the sky does not fall there, that will be noted as far as developing nation-wide liturgies in the next go-round). 
Outby Gatito Grande » Sat Aug 09, 2003 1:39 am
to warrant it's inclusion here (and, for my money, Dubya-bashing is kosher on every thread!)Quote:
Chris Floyd: 'Straight & narrow'
Date: Friday, August 08 @ 09:57:14 EDT
Topic: Gays & Lesbians
By Chris Floyd, Moscow Times
From out of the mists of a black and bloody history, the Inquisition reared its head last week (pun entirely intended) to condemn a goodly portion of humanity as "inhuman" practitioners of "evil," a people so "intrinsically disordered" that even their most noble and loving action -- raising a child -- is a crime that "does violence" to society. Yea, the very existence of these evildoers threatens the entire structure of civilization -- the "common inheritance of humanity."
The target of this frothing revenant -- now known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith -- was not, as of old, thrice-damned Jews, hellbound heretics or devil-worshiping Mohammedans, but that ever-popular Vatican whipping boy: homosexuals. Oddly enough, the thing that has so incensed the aging, arch-conservative pope (who is definitely not going gentle into that good night) is the fact that so many same-sexers -- long condemned for their intractable promiscuity -- want to settle down and get married, just like real humans do.
Pope John Paul George Ringo II (or was Pete Best really one of the original apostles? The doctrinal debates rage on) launched his broadside against homosexual marriage last week in a well-timed one-two punch with President George W.M.D. Bush, who pronounced his own anathema on gay monogamy. In a rare incarnation at a formal press conference (only his eighth blessed appearance since the Lord appointed him to office), Bush sidestepped unimportant issues like, oh, launching unjust wars on the basis of known lies, and instead thrust boldly into the open maw of gay sex -- a rampaging obsession with his "core supporters" on the hard Christian right.
(Bush also took the opportunity to warn Americans of imminent terrorist attacks from al-Qaida -- before taking himself off for a monthlong vacation at his fortified ranch in Texas. Well, discretion is the better part of valor, they say. And no one knows that better than Ole AWOL Bush.)
With the linguistic precision for which he is so justly famous, Bush told reporters that unspecified "lawyers" in the White House were working on unspecified measures to make sure that "someone like me" doesn't have to "compromise on issues such as marriage." It wasn't immediately clear if someone who wasn't like Bush would be allowed to compromise on issues such as marriage, but no doubt it will all come out in the wash. At any rate, we will probably see a Bush-sponsored "Preserve Gay Promiscuity" Act in Congress real soon.
Perhaps Bush's eagerness to protect his homosexual subjects from the ravages of matrimony was inspired by the recent travails of his brother, Neil. (Yes, the same Neil Bush whose insider savings-and-loan scamming cost taxpayers $1 billion to clean up during Daddy's presidency.) Neil, who has ditched the old ball-and-chain for a racier model, admitted during his rancorous divorce proceedings that he'd engaged in extramarital sex with "three or four women" during supposed business trips. Three, four, who can say? They all look alike to a really manly man. Especially one who has as much trouble with numbers as Neil does.
Anyway, while those manly Bush boys are down in Texas this month, Pope Ringo and his band of skirted celibates will carry on the good fight for holy heterosexuality. Or, to be more accurate, for a single tightly circumscribed manifestation of heterosexuality. For it turns out that Ringo is not only all het up about homos. Even straight married couples engaging in the most prayerful congress are "inhuman" and "unnatural" -- unless they do it the way Ringo likes it. In his latest blast, the pope reiterates the doctrine that "sexual relations are human" only when they "are open to the transmission of new life."
In other words, sexual relations are human only when they are most animal-like -- i.e., when they involve the genetically programmed injection of sperm into an egg to effect the mindless replication of DNA. Thus, by this demented logic, a rutting hog is more human than, say, a married couple pleasuring each other in some fashion -- or at some time of the month -- that is not "open to the transmission of new life."
This divine elevation of rutting hogs over "intrinsically disordered" gays and insufficiently procreative straights is bestowed by something Ringo calls "natural moral law" -- which, naturally, stems not from nature but from whatever the Vatican's interpretation of various passages of scripture happens to be at any given time. Slavery, war, autocracy, conquest and racism were once countenanced under this most elastic rubric, but it's pretty much down to various forms of genital friction these days. It appears that the wrong kind of friction will lead inevitably to the "collapse of the family" -- as if men and women who are attracted to the opposite sex will no longer join in legal unions and raise children just because men and women who are attracted to the same sex are allowed to do likewise. One begins to suspect that the Inquisition's natural lawyers know very little about human nature.
And yet these sexless, childless, womenless old men believe that their peculiar and entirely non-experiential view of family life and sexuality should be imposed on the whole world -- by government force if necessary: Ringo has called on all Catholic politicians to take up the cudgels (figuratively we hope) against matrimonial-minded homosexuals. He's certainly found a willing partner (of the same sex!) in the Protestant president.
Surely, in the spirit of this ecumenical crusade, they'll soon be joined by the like-minded bin Laden?
Outby Diebrock » Wed Aug 13, 2003 1:46 pm
Quote:
Being Exposed
A gay bishop is smeared, jeered, cheered.
They tried to take down the president in 1998, impeaching Bill Clinton for his personal behavior. They succeeded in stealing the presidency in 2000, bussing partisan street thugs in to Florida to win the p.r. campaign during the recount, and relying on the more high-brow ideologues on the Supreme Court to make it all legal. Now the hard-right smear artists and power grabbers have mounted a campaign to oust the Democratic governor of California—a largely Democratic state that George W. Bush wants in play for the 2004 elections—by installing a film star whose positions on issues are a mystery. Contrary to a media-generated image of him as "pro gay," he has not offered a position on any gay issue. What we do know is, he’s a Republican who supports this White House.
Oh, and of course, they’re already saying that Arnold Schwarzenegger’s own peccadilloes—which, from what you hear, make Bill Clinton look like Mother Teresa—should be completely off limits. Smearing is okay as long as you’re the one doing it, right?
You have to marvel, too, at the hypocrisy, as Joe Conason sharply pointed out on Salon last week, of the rightists suddenly heralding a Hollywood celebrity for his politics after they just spent six months bludgeoning Sean Penn, Janeane Garofalo, the Dixie Chicks and assorted other liberal-leaning artists for speaking their minds. When celebrities are on the left, they’re treasonous "Hollyweirders" who should shut up and stay out of the politics. But when they’re on the right, they’re just the kind of "outsiders" who can do the job.
Governor Gray Davis wasn’t the only one the sleaze traffickers were set on destroying last week either. A drama played out, mostly under the radar, regarding the 11th-hour charges of "touching" and a "connection" to "sex sites" against the Rev. Canon Gene Robinson, the new, openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church. The fact that the charges surfaced literally minutes before the bishops were to vote on confirming Robinson as a bishop—after weeks of bellowing outcries from conservatives and lots of media attention—was enough to give off the whiff of a smear campaign. But throw in the identity of who broke the non-story and what his connections are, and the stench becomes totally unbearable.
The nasty business began on Monday. As it happened, that afternoon on my radio program I was interviewing Diane Knippers, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, an orthodox Christian group. The IRD stands against "radical forms of feminism, environmentalism, pacifism, multi-culturalism, revolutionary socialism, [and] sexual liberation," and includes a subgroup, Episcopal Action, that opposes gay unions and was fiercely opposed to having Robinson become a bishop. Shortly after our spirited exchange, the vote on Robinson’s fate was postponed, because the charge had surfaced that a gay-youth group he had worked with had links from its website to porn, and, in a separate charge, that a man claimed Robinson inappropriately touched him.
Still on the air, I did a search and found that the source in the media that "broke" the "sex site" story was Fred Barnes in the conservative Weekly Standard, on its website. (Barnes is also a Fox News commentator, which explains why Fox seemed to be breaking it first on television.) I then realized that, in researching Knippers, I’d noticed how Barnes had been named to the board of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, which made his dubious hit on Robinson not only unseemly but a conflict of interest, to say the least.
The vote was postponed, with the wingnuts thinking they’d scored big. But a day later, the bishops completed their investigation into the charges, dismissing them outright. The conclusions: Robinson hadn’t been involved in the youth group for years; the links from the group weren’t direct but rather were several clicks removed from porn (as if just about every site on the web isn’t three clicks away from porn) and the "touching," claimed in an email from an adult male parishioner to one of the bishops, amounted to Robinson having touched the guy’s forearm and his back—something that, as the White House website shows, our president has done to just about every foreign leader he’s met. (W even grabbed Ariel Sharon—heavens to Betsy!—on the knee.)
Exactly who put the "touching" guy up to his dirty work isn’t clear (he later said he’d not really meant for his charges to become public). But it turns out that the smear about the link to "porn sites" was apparently shopped around to other news outlets, including CNN. Nobody ran with it because there was nothing there. The non-story only had legs after Fred Barnes finally wrote it up and Fox picked it up.
It’s curious that the orthodox group on whose board Barnes sits, the Institute for Religion and Democracy, is bankrolled by Richard Mellon Scaife and others who funded the smears about the Clintons. I talked about Barnes’ connection to the group on my program, and it was reported on a few websites—pushed by the blogger Atrios—but the only mainstream media outlet to pick it up, as far as I can tell, was the Minneapolis Star Tribune, which connected all the dots in a stinging editorial, headlined "The Anatomy of Smear."
"So we come full circle," the editors wrote, covering the events that impacted the Episcopal bishops’ convention, which was taking place in their city. "Gene Robinson, meet Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky. But there is a difference: In Clinton’s case, years of digging eventually produced evidence of private sexual misbehavior. Robinson appears guilty of nothing at all—save being a gay man who wants to be a bishop. For some, unfortunately, that is enough to justify all sorts of innuendo and dirty tricks. Be warned: This is the way they play."
And the only reason why they can get away with playing that way is because no one seems to expose it.
Michelangelo Signorile
www.nypress.com
Quote:
Robinson Ambush: The Anatomy of a Smear
Editorial
We had hoped to comment this morning on the meaning of the Episcopal debate over the nomination of the Rev. Gene Robinson to be bishop of the New Hampshire diocese. Why is it happening now? What does it portend? Is the Episcopal Church, as it often has before, signaling a significant change in the social fabric of American life?
That was before Robinson was ambushed, hours before the House of Bishops was to take the final vote on his nomination, by the most scurrilous smear: He was accused of linkage to a porn Web site and of inappropriately touching another man. The church investigated both charges and cleared Robinson. The House of Bishops then voted to accept his elevation to Bishop of New Hampshire. End of story? Not quite.
The Every Voice Network Web site, a liberal Anglican site, reported Tuesday that the alleged inappropriate behavior "occurred when Robinson touched a married man in his 40s on his bicep, shoulder and upper back in the process of a public conversation at a province meeting around two years ago." Oh, please.
The phony accusation that Robinson was linked somehow to porn on the Web was easy to track down. It was a deliberate, calculated lie, apparently held in reserve until the last minute in case the first vote, in the House of Deputies, went against those opposed to Robinson's elevation to bishop -- which it did on Sunday.
The question of whether Robinson should be a bishop is -- and probably will remain for some time -- an issue for the Episcopal Church. But the smear is an issue for the larger community as well, for it demonstrates just how low some people will stoop when honest, reasonable debate is going against them. In fact, it links to the same sort of behavior in the American body politic.
Years ago, Robinson helped organize the Concord, N.H., chapter of Outright, a group that, essentially, ministers to young gay and lesbian people. He has had little contact with the group in recent years, and had nothing to do with its Web site, as the group has confirmed.
At Outright Web site that Robinson had nothing to do with, you find links to nine Outright groups in Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire. One or more of them once had a link to bisexual.org, a support site for bisexual people. At bisexual.org, in the bottom left corner, is a link to "3 pillows."
If you click that link, you get a bisexual.org splash screen telling you that "Three Pillows is the net's premiere site for bisexual erotica." If you click the link in this window, you get a Three Pillows warning page: "Warning -- Adult Content Ahead! You must be over 18 to proceed. Three Pillows contains adult erotica of a bisexual nature."
If you click the "Enter" link, you get a fairly explicit page with the naughtiest bits blanked out. To actually see the explicit stuff, you must become a member and pay for the privilege.
That's, what, seven clicks and a Visa card from the Outright page that Robinson had nothing to do with? As one online wag said, you can get from the conservative Weekly Standard to porn in just two clicks: to Salon, then to porn. Frankly, porn is much closer than seven clicks to Startribune.com as well. Everything on the Web is a few clicks away from porn; that's the Web.
The Weekly Standard is important in this. Executive Editor Fred Barnes gave the Robinson story a major boost -- after it was shopped to other news outlets that refused to bite -- when he posted information about the controversy on the magazine's Web site Monday. Barnes asserted that, "Episcopalian bishop-elect Gene Robinson has some curious affiliations," meaning the porn Web site.
No he doesn't, but Barnes does. He's not simply a journalist in this; he's a conservative Episcopalian of outspoken views who sits on the board of the Institute on Religion and Democracy. It's a conservative group which believes that mainline Protestant churches "have thrown themselves into multiple, often leftist crusades -- radical forms of feminism, environmentalism, pacifism, multi-culturalism, revolutionary socialism, sexual liberation and so forth." The group vigorously opposes gay rights within the church.
Also fascinating is who funds the institute. The most prominent names on the list of contributors are Olin, Scaife and Bradley, the same folks who bankrolled the Clinton wars.
So we come full circle. Gene Robinson, meet Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky. But there is a difference: In Clinton's case, years of digging eventually produced evidence of private sexual misbehavior. Robinson appears guilty of nothing at all -- save being a gay man who wants to be a bishop. For some, unfortunately, that is enough to justify all sorts of innuendo and dirty tricks. Be warned: This is the way they play.
www.commondreams.org
_________________
How can you kill people who killed people, to show that killing people is wrong?
I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams
by Gatito Grande » Wed Aug 13, 2003 11:43 pm
Quote:
Priest stands up to church on same-sex issue
St. John’s — A Roman Catholic priest in Newfoundland is speaking out against the Roman Catholic church's opposition to same-sex marriage, saying it is hypocritical.
"I will not perform same-sex marriages here, but I also will not encourage anyone to try to stop the government from allowing same-sex couples to do so elsewhere," Rev. Paul Lundrigan of Goulds, Nfld., said in his weekend sermon.
Father Lundrigan said the church has picked a poor issue to oppose vehemently when it has stayed silent in the past on sexual abuse of children.
"The church should have spoken out on so many other tragic issues and didn't," the priest said.
"The church, in recent years, has had thousands of children paraded across the same television screens telling horror stories of how their lives have been shattered by the abuse they suffered in Catholic-run orphanages and residential schools."
"I think that the hierarchy of our church has lost the moral ground to make judgment on how best to raise children."
As a Catholic priest, Father Lundrigan said he is neither for nor against performing same-sex marriages and respects the right of the church not to perform the unions. But he said he hasn't seen any evidence that the marriages cause moral harm to society.
Father Lundrigan received a letter from his own archbishop, Brendan O'Brien, urging all priests of the archdiocese of St. John's to encourage parishioners to lobby MPs to vote against same-sex marriage legislation.
Father Lundrigan assured his parishioners that same-sex marriages would not be performed in the church.
He pointed out, however, while the Vatican opposes the unions because the couples involved cannot procreate, opposite-sex couples are married in the church whether or not they are able to have children.
The sermon drew applause Sunday morning at St. Kevin's in Goulds, a community on the outskirts of St. John's. Father Lundrigan also delivered the sermon at St. Joseph's in Petty Harbour and in Goulds on Saturday night.
About 700 Catholics heard his words, and since then the sermon has been e-mailed as far away as Ontario.
"I was surprised. It was very positive. People have been very supportive and encouraging," Father Lundrigan said.
The priest said he has not heard from the church hierarchy, which vehemently opposes same-sex marriage and is lobbying the federal government not to bring in a bill allowing the legal unions.
Under the legislation, churches will not be forced to perform the marriages.
Calgary Bishop Fred Henry has said Prime Minister Jean Chrétien risks the eternal damnation of his soul by pushing forward with the law.
Father Lundrigan said if two women or two men want to get married and live a normal, happy healthy life, they should be allowed to do so.
"However, they cannot do it here (in the Catholic church). Yet this institution that will not allow such marriages, and of which I am a part, demands that its leaders lead a celibate life and suppress their sexuality to the point that hundreds of them around the world have been perverted into abusers of children."
"So, while I cannot perform same-sex marriages, neither can I support the institution of the Roman Catholic Church in its efforts to suppress those who wish to live a more open, honest and healthier lifestyle."
by jaxxofdeath » Sat Aug 16, 2003 12:10 am
by Gatito Grande » Mon Aug 18, 2003 9:08 pm
Quote:
ELCA votes to not delay decision on blessing same-sex marriages
Tim Cigelske, Associated Press
Published August 17, 2003
MILWAUKEE -- The nation's largest Lutheran denomination voted Saturday to avoid further delaying a decision on blessing same-sex marriages and allowing sexually active gays and lesbians in the clergy.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) voted 526-462 to defeat an amendment that would have postponed the decisions from 2005 to 2007.
Members wearing rainbow scarves, signifying support of keeping the timeline on track, hugged one another and cheered after the assembly sang the hymn "I've Got Peace Like a River" after the vote.
The church's assembly in 2001 commissioned a four-year study on homosexuality in the church and called for the vote to be held at the completion of the report.
Some members had sought to delay the vote until 2007, when the church's study on human sexuality is scheduled to be completed.
Directors of a Lutheran study on homosexuality issued an interim report on their progress Friday that did not make any conclusions. The report outlined how the directors were conducting the study in terms of budget and timeline.
The next step in the timeline of the sexuality study is the release of interim findings to the ELCA's congregations in early September for further comment and debate.
Later Saturday, the ELCA assembly rejected by 832-139 a motion to break ties with the Episcopalians. Last week the Episcopal General Convention ratified the election of that denomination's first openly gay bishop and affirmed same-sex blessings as "an acceptable practice in the church."
The ELCA recognizes and shares Episcopalian sacraments and clergy under a full communion pact the ELCA approved four years ago.
Although the ELCA doesn't have a definitive position banning same-sex unions, an advisory statement in 1993 said its bishops did not approve of such a ceremony as an official rite, because they saw no basis for it in scripture or church tradition.
)
to believe that our Gen.Conv. opened the floodgates of justice---especially w/ our ELCA Lutheran kin. Out British parish names).by DaddyCatALSO » Wed Aug 20, 2003 12:19 pm
by Big Dummy » Thu Aug 21, 2003 3:47 pm
Quote:
This is a moment of woe and wonder for supporters of gay rights. The Episcopalians elected their first openly gay bishop, braving a last-minute sex scandal and the threat of schism. The Massachusetts Supreme Court is about to rule on legalizing gay unions. The first LGBT high school is set to open in New York City. And Jay Leno got a makeover from the boys of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.
But there are also signs of a serious backlash. On Wednesday, the president vowed to codify "one way or the other" the "sanctity of marriage" between a man and a woman. On Thursday, the Vatican launched a crusade against same-sex unions, equating gay parenting with doing violence to children. On Friday, a group of Latino ministers led by Ruben Diaz, the city's most homophobic politician, pledged to cut off public funding for the Harvey Milk School. And on Tuesday, Episcopalian dissidents denounced the election as a "cancer on the body of Christ." They are hoping higher Anglican authorities will reverse it, under a 1998 resolution declaring that "homosexual relations are incompatable with the church."
The most ominous news of all was last week's Gallup poll, commissioned by CNN and USA Today. Its numbers were so stunning that the surveyors ran a second poll, but the results were similar. For the first time in nearly a decade, support for key items on the gay rights agenda has declined.
In May, 60 percent of Gallup respondents thought gay sex should be legal, but by last week that number had shrunk to 48 percent. For the first time since 1997, a majority think being gay is not an "acceptable alternative lifestyle." And when it comes to civil unions, the trend towardacceptance has been reversed. Fifty-seven percent think gay couples should not have the same rights as married people, the highest number since Gallup first posed the question in 2000.
Nor is this opposition limited to the right. The biggest negative shift has occurred among moderates and even liberals. In May, 80 percent of liberals favored gay civil unions, if not full-blown marriage; in July, that number was down by 23 percent. Support for same-sex marriage rights has always been shaky among African Americans, but they have never thought sodomy should be a crime—until now. In the new Gallup poll, only 36 percent of blacks think gay sex should be legal, compared with 58 percent who thought so in May.
*******
The good news is that a majority of young people still support this cause. The bad news is that the elderly, the poor, the rural, and the religious do not. This broad opposition will be significant if state legislatures are asked to ratify the Federal Marriage Amendment. The president has yet to endorse it, but the measure already has 70 Republican (and six Democratic) sponsors in the House, and last week the Senate Republican Policy Committee urged its passage. There are other moves the GOP could make, such as stiffening the Defense of Marriage Act or voting to withhold federal funds from states that allow same-sex weddings.
***************
Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (and a former pollster), agrees. "I think this is an aberration," he says. "But if Massachusetts goes our way, we are going to witness a backlash the likes of which we've never, never, never seen."
************
Yes, America is in the throes of a fascination with all things gay. Yes, the media are treating Queer Eye for the Straight Guy as if it were the Second Coming. Yes, homos are turning up in all sorts of unlikely places. This week, auditions will be held for "the first openly gay country music star," as if such things can be programmed—and perhaps they can. But anyone who regards pop culture as the tail that leads the horse of politics has a lesson to learn from Gallup.
Culture and politics do operate together, but not necessarily in tandem. Rather than reflecting a shift in acceptance, the new queer visibility may be fueling resentment. TV shows featuring well-heeled, happy homos feed the perception that gays are doing fine—so why should they qualify for "special" rights? Gays themselves are prone to see these spectacles as proof that the struggle has been won. But if millions watch Will & Grace, millions more are appalled by it; that's the nature of niche marketing. Nonstop media chatter about these shows gives the impression that everything on TV is gay. Add the Supreme Court's sodomy decision and the Canadian move toward same-sex marriage, and you've got a picture of radical change. This image may belie the fact that progress on gay rights is incremental at best, but it frightens the masses nonetheless.
Fundamentalists aren't the only ones upset. The rising prestige of homosexuals threatens a much more diverse population: those who feel anxious about their uncertain status. It was one thing to sympathize with gays when they were pariahs; it's quite another to embrace gays as equals and even potential competitors.
African Americans were once staunch supporters of gay rights, and most black leaders still are. It's no accident that the two black presidential candidates, Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun, are the strongest proponents of gay marriage in the Democratic pack. If there's a new wariness in the congregation, it may stem from the experience of seeing group after group rise while blacks are left behind.
The poor are less sanguine about gay rights than the prosperous. High school dropouts are more distressed by gay unions than those with college degrees. Every poll, including Gallup's, shows that support for same-sex marriage is higher among women than men. Women are looking up toward power, while men are looking nervously down. To guys under duress, the glut of gay shows is yet another insurrection—and gay marriage is a fucking coup d'état.
Cultural commentators don't spend much time in the harsher precincts of Bush's America. In their secure circles, gay rights is a testament to freedom, not a threat. The mainstream gay movement sees the world through this same rosy lens. Its middle-class focus keeps it from noticing the dissed and dispossessed, who tend to view gays as sinners with way too much power. This bitter perspective will seem familiar to students of Jewish history. Not that queers are headed for concentration camps, but unless the triumphal mood submits to a reality check, the current wave of resentment could become tidal. It's crucial not to confuse a pop trend with a juggernaut.
**************
The old gay-lib slogan is still true: We are everywhere. But the mainstream gay movement projects a refined white face, furthering the perception that it represents an elite.
by Gatito Grande » Fri Aug 22, 2003 10:50 pm
Quote:
Alabama's Judicial Inquiry Commission said it filed a complaint against Roy Moore, who has been fighting to keep the two-ton granite monument on display since he installed it in the state judicial building two years ago. The monument remains in the building's rotunda, and Moore's supporters have vowed to risk arrest to prevent it from being moved.
***
Meanwhile, Moore's Christian supporters, who have held round-the-clock prayer vigils in hopes of saving the monument, took their demonstration to the U.S. courthouse in Montgomery where Thompson works.
Protesters burned copies of six Supreme Court decisions they said had dealt a setback to religion, including 1973's Roe vs. Wade, which legalized abortion, and the high court's decision earlier this year to strike down a Texas sodomy law.
Outby maudmac » Sat Aug 23, 2003 12:07 am
by Gatito Grande » Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:56 am
Out by maudmac » Mon Aug 25, 2003 1:58 am
That article goes on to say that Moore ordered the partitions removed, but it doesn't clarify whether they were removed or not.Quote:
But the eight associate justices -- seven of them, like Moore, Republicans -- invoked a little-used Alabama law that allowed them to overrule an administrative decision of the chief justice. The building manager erected partitions Aug. 21 to block the monument from public view.
In his very long, very rambling, very incoherent opinion (in which he quotes liberally from the Bible, of course, but also English common law), Moore actually advocated executing us. For real.Quote:
An Alabama court denied custody to D.H., a lesbian mother, and awarded custody to the father despite evidence that the father beat the children and routinely called them abusive names such as "fucking little assholes." In a concurring opinion, the Chief Justice stated: "Homosexual behavior is ...an act of sexual misconduct punishable as a crime in Alabama, a crime against nature, an inherent evil, and an act so heinous that it defies one's ability to describe it." Ex parte H.H., 830 So.2d 21 (Ala. 2002) (Moore, C.J., concurring).
He's nutty as a fruitcake and I won't be sorry to see him go.Quote:
The State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution. It must use that power to prevent the subversion of children toward this lifestyle, to not encourage a criminal lifestyle.
by Caoilin » Mon Aug 25, 2003 11:15 am
Quote:
A Queer Girl's Top 10 Gay Myths
By Jennifer Holladay, AlterNet
August 25, 2003
I had a long conversation with a straight conservative the other night. We were both standing in the "Christian smoking section" outside the Alabama Supreme Court. There were about 1,000 people there, most of them gathered to protest the removal of Chief Justice Roy Moore's two-ton Ten Commandments monument from the building. I wasn't one of the protesters, but my smoking companion was.
He felt strongly that the monument had to stay, because the Commandments represent the "moral foundation of America" and because our nation has strayed from its roots. Divorce rates, spousal abuse and sexual violence against children can all be traced back to the abandonment of prayer in public schools and to the homosexual agenda, he said.
I decided this wasn't a good place for a queer girl and went home.
Gay folks have been in the news a lot lately. We can have sex legally now, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Episcopal Church got itself a gay bishop. But these victories for "my people" don't seem to translate into greater understanding. Straight conservatives seem to hold onto gay stereotypes as if they were the Commandments themselves.
If I could, I would try to debunk some gay stereotypes and to foster some homo-hetero understanding for those on the right side of the political divide, like my smoking buddy from the other night. I might as well start with my own Top 10 list:
1. The myth of gay recruitment. I can find a spouse from the existing pool of gay people the Creator created. I am not out to convert you or your kids. Don't want to. Don't need to. God gave me plenty of people to choose from. I chose one already.
2. Being gay is about more than sex. My gayness is based in love, not sex. I have an emotional, intimate connection with my spouse. Sure, we have sex, but it doesn't define us as a couple, or as people. She rocks, in and out of bed.
3. Pedophiles come in all forms. There are "bad gay people" just as there are "bad straight people." We've got some pedophiles among our group; so do you – you actually have more, because there are more of you. Can we agree to focus on fighting pedophilia? Gay, straight. Doesn't matter. Pedophiles are bad for kids.
4. The gay community is diverse. We are not all men in leather thongs with feather boas dancing on top of Gay Pride Parade floats. (Gotta love 'em.) We're not all male, all white, all rich or all anything else. (Also, we're not all liberal. Ever heard of the Log Cabin Republicans?)
5. Some of us believe in God. If James Lipton of the Actor's Studio ever has occasion to interview me, I have a ready-made answer to one of his standard questions. When I arrive at Heaven's Pearly Gates, the first thing I hope to hear God say is: "Yes, Jennifer, you have a reservation – but I'm afraid I don't see Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the list." The God I believe in is loving, liberatory and downright radical. (OK, I know wishing hell on anyone isn’t exactly a demonstration of loving. Forgive me Father, for I have sinned....)
6. I already can get married in a church. Some Christian denominations allow for this. Others don't. I'm not asking your church to bless me and my spouse. When it comes to "gay marriage," all we're after is the civil stuff. You know, things like having the rights of a spouse when my partner's dying in the hospital. Being able to be a Mom to our kids, in a legally protected way. Those sorts of things.
7. Slurs go both ways (pun intended.) The gay community has names for you, too. I won't call you a "breeder," if you don't call me a "sodomite." (I admit "breeder" has less of a sting to it, sort of like "cracker" for white folks.)
8. Rainbows belong to us. Please quit putting rainbow stickers on your cars. Please quit hanging rainbow flower leis on your rearview mirrors. Contrary to popular belief, not all of us are equipped with 100-percent accurate gaydar, and if you have rainbows all over your person or property, we may well assume you are a "member of the family."
9. Gay TV belongs to straight people. With the ratings that "Will & Grace" boasts each season, I suspect a lot of straight people are glued to their TV sets week after week. Gay folks aren't the ones keeping Gay TV alive. We're a small portion of the market share. Were you – or anyone you know – watching "Ellen" reruns last night? Or "Queer as Folk"? Or, heaven forbid, "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy"? Or, gads, "Boy Meets Boy"?
10. We notice your inconsistencies. If you really, really don't like gay people and think gay sex is disgusting, quit buying porn with women having sex with women. (That's gay sex. In some cases, it's bisexual sex, if a real – not plastic – penis is involved.) Americans spend a billion dollars a year on porn; it's been a long time since someone produced a "straight" porn film that didn't have two women going at it. If you quit buying this stuff, maybe the porn industry would fold – something that, I think, might benefit women across all orientations. Go ahead. Do it. Call me a conservative.
by xita » Mon Aug 25, 2003 11:18 am
Quote:
an act of sexual misconduct punishable as a crime in Alabama
- - - - - - - - - - -
"Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose."
-Me & Bobby
McGee
by BBOvenGuy » Mon Aug 25, 2003 8:01 pm
) She'll be talking about her experience at the convention, and what it all meant to her.
"The first task of anyone, lest you get canceled, is to entertain people, because they ain't there for message." - Dick Wolf
Edited by: BBOvenGuy
at: 8/25/03 7:02 pmby Caoilin » Fri Aug 29, 2003 12:08 pm
Quote:
Save My Marriage
Adam Felber
I've only been married for seven months, but without your help, it could be over.
The problem is those gay people. And I mean that in the best possible way. If not for the bold pronouncements of President Bush and the Pope, it might already be too late. But now, thanks to them, we might be able to save it.
President Bush wants to make a move to "protect the sanctity" of marriage, defining it as between a man and a woman. Legislate sanctity now, in other words, or lose it forever. That's true in my case, and I suspect I'm not alone.
See, what makes our marriage so special to me and my wife is that our government recognizes it as a sacred union that gay people can't have. I mean, sure, we love each other and everything, but the real glue that holds us together is that we've joined an exclusive club that gay people aren't allowed to join.
Now don't start thinking that we're anti-gay or anything. We have lots and lots of gay friends. And we love them and want the best for them.
But not this. Because when our gay friends start getting married, it will cheapen and destroy what we have. Not in a religious way (No. Legislating on those grounds would be illegal, for heaven's sake). It's more of a general thing. Like, generally, gays getting married will undercut everything Jeanne and I have tried to build because... because... it will make our union less special. It will. We'll lose interest. We'll probably just start thinking, "What's so important about our vows? After all, even gay people can make them."
And that's not a knock on gay people. No no no. America loves its gays. Look at the TV, with all those funny gay people on "Will and Grace," and "Queer as Folk," and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy." They're funny! Funny, colorful people - they're nature's clowns, really. Like penguins.
I'm not sure if legalizing penguin marriages would have any effect on my own marriage. I'd have to think about that. And obviously, gay people are people, not penguins. It's just a metaphor. But I think you all probably know what I mean.
Straight people are good with marriage, too. Jeanne and I can look around at other married couples - at least the ones that aren't currently dealing with serial infidelity, divorce, spousal abuse, or bigamy - and think to ourselves, "Yes, that's what we're striving for. That kind of sanctity." I'm not sure that gays would show the same universal respect for the institution that comes so easily to us straight people.
Anyway, these are dark times in my household. My wife and I look at each other with haunted, suspicious eyes, feeling like we've bought a whole bunch of shares in a stock that is about to be devalued. Suddenly, the eternal, personal vows that we swore to each other will mean very little. How could they, when gay people are out there making similar vows? We'll basically become roommates who happen to wear matching rings, while meanwhile out our window we'll see gays and penguins feeding each other wedding cake willy-nilly on our very own street corner.
Don't let that happen. Save my marriage. Call your congressman or your clergyman, whichever, and tell 'em that to stop this madness before it's too late. It's only good sense. And you may just save my marriage.
by sam7777 » Fri Aug 29, 2003 3:11 pm
_____________________
I see dead lesbian cliches
by xita » Fri Aug 29, 2003 9:00 pm
- - - - - - - - - - -
"Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose."
-Me & Bobby
McGee
by Iamyouknowyours » Mon Sep 01, 2003 11:41 pm
by daddykat » Wed Sep 03, 2003 9:49 am
by Gatito Grande » Fri Sep 05, 2003 8:26 pm
Quote:
COLUMN - Arrest proof of AFA hypocrisy
by Chris Kelly
DM Columnist
September 03, 2003
Can conservative Christians be identified by nose length? It is beginning to look that way. We could call it the Pinocchio Syndrome.
I was quite shocked (well, not really) when I read in an article in the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal last Thursday that an employee of the conservative American Family Association was arrested on charges of child pornography.
I do not find this particularly surprising, considering that hypocrisy among uber-religious types is nothing new. However, further down the page, you will find the following quote: "We are praying for Dwayne (the arrested employee) and his family," Patrick Vaughn (general counsel to the AFA) said, adding the incident is a reminder of the destructive nature of pornography. "AFA has been in a fight against pornography since 1979, because pornography is so destructive to individuals, families and society," he said. "We would like to remind everyone that they need to be on guard against pornography's addictive lure."
I also am not surprised that they would use this incident as an opportunity to preach about one of their pet issues. But, pornography is not the real issue here. I mean, would someone be arrested and in danger of spending up to 20 years in prison for having a stack of Playboy magazines?
Obviously, the answer is no. The issue is clearly child abuse. What makes child pornography different from Playboy or Penthouse is that the producers are victimizing innocent, defenseless children, but nothing in the AFA's comments suggests knowledge of that fact.
Isn't the AFA supposed to be concerned about children? After all, they constantly invoke "the children" anytime they need to demonize the gay community, pressure couples to remain in loveless marriages rather than divorce, or promote censorship. Yet, they are strangely silent about "the children," when one of their own is under suspicion for engaging in actions harmful to children, preferring instead to focus on the pornography issue.
Where are the prayers for the children who were exploited in such a heinous manner? This can lead one to wonder if the AFA is being entirely honest with its constituents.
I would say no. I would say that the AFA, like so many other conservative Christian groups, is very dishonest and unscrupulous in working toward its goals. You can find more about the AFA's not-so-holy activities at the Web site, afaexposed.com. This site contains examples of deception and demonization, cases of illegal activity and an article by a former white supremacist illustrating disturbing similarities between the Ku Klux Klan and an AFA-supported group.
They can talk about God and the church all they want to, but that kind of behavior is profoundly un-Christian. If they can achieve their goals only through corrupt means, then they should stop calling themselves a "Christian" organization (or, even better, reevaluate their goals, but that's a topic for another opinion piece).
Where's the truth throughout all of this? The people deserve it; Christianity demands it.
Whatever one's political agenda, one should maintain integrity in pursuing it. To do otherwise is an insult to both one's opponents and one's constituents. Do not claim your agenda is to preserve families and then preach about pornography instead of child victimization.
The moral of the story is: Organizations like the AFA sell a pretty package (pretty to the heteropatriarchally inclined, at least), but caveat emptor, let the buyer beware. There is no telling how many Christian values were compromised in bringing the package from the AFA to you without so much as a warning label. Watch those noses!
]
OutUsers browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
