One problem -- the Archbishop isn't marching for marriage. He's
marching to limit and deny marriage to people who have a right to marry, and his
position is based on discrimination and animus. In his church service, he has
every right to preach against certain marriages consisent with his church
doctrine. That's his job. What he does not have the right to do is try to
impose a religious position on a secular country. He is also trying to deny
free agency. That's not a good position to take.
Her arrogance seems boundless
Remember at the beginning of these debates, all the gay groups and supporters
stated that they only wanted marriage equality. They stated that they were not
going to go after religions and faiths. People knew that was a lie then, and
Pelosi is showing that it is a lie now.
"to silence anyone who disagrees with them"Wrong, the
opposition to SSM bases its arguments on false premises and deserves no platform
with which to argue fundamentally ignorant assertions. Homosexuality is not a
choice and proclamations to the contrary should be neither addressed nor
encouraged. The issue of disagreement requires basic constraints, one of which
being an honest attempt at deferring to the broad scientific consensus. Those
opposing SSM aren't in need of opportunities for civil disagreement so much
as a lesson in basic integrity.
Interesting that a congresswoman is asking someone not to exercise their first
amendmenet rights because it differs from her views.
To This Beloved Archbishop: Please participate in the March for Marriage to
show your support for this most basic unit of society. I totally agree with
your statement:"While it is true that free speech can be used to offend
others, it is not so much people exercising their right to free speech that
drives us further apart than people punished precisely for doing so that
does," he wrote, adding, "Please do not make judgments based on
stereotypes, media images and comments taken out of context. Rather, get to know
us first as fellow human beings."I have found that being
tolerant toward my Gay friends has been an enriching and good experience. I
have learned to listen to their point of view and discovered new perspectives.
I note that many of my Gay friends want to be tolerant to my conservative point
of view as well and that there is some common ground and mutual respect to be
A church leader has every right to speak out and support moral issues, who is
miss Nancy to tell him to not march in it?
If the guy wants to march for traditional marriage, let him.If he
wants to march for gay marriage, let him.Last time I checked the
First Amendment has a right to speech and to peacefully assemble.Last time I checked religions have the right to discipline others within their
religion for not completing with the religion's norms.One of
the Catholic norms is opposing abortion.Pelosi breaks that norm and
It is remarkable that Nancy Pelosi is opposed to a Christian march to promote
keeping a holy commandment. Sad.
Sounds like to me he supports traditional marriage. Supporting traditional
marriage does not mean you are discriminating against others or bigoted. False
conclusion. I have family who are homosexuals that I care for; however marriage
is for a husband and wife to raise children/a family. Not for friends to feel
their relationship deserves attention/recognition and that ones
lifestyle/orientation is not sinful. That point totally misses the mark as to
why we need strong families in society and why God has said that marriage is
between a husband and a wife.
@Spellman789Welcome to liberal "tolerance". Free speech is
great - as long as it agrees with my point of view.Also interesting
that Nancy Pelosi claims to be part of a religion (Catholicism). I wonder when
was the last time she went to church?
Nancy Pelosi should stick to what she does best, which is .... Can I get back
to you on that?
So let's see....an elected politician is trying to interfere with not just
the freedom of religion but also the freedom of speech of this Bishop and the
hypocritical liberal posters on the site are trying to twist this and condem the
bishop and paint the leftist politician as the victim.Hypocrisy,
dishonesty, immorality, really there aren't enough words to describe this
absolute hypocritical and dishonest behavior by the leftists and gay marriage
crowd. Your true colors are more than exposed.
The Minority Leader is and has always been about herself, having a government
jet with a $160,000 month spirits bill, saying: "let pass it, the Affordable
Care Act, and then we will read it"? Are you confused? This is the woman who
called herself the smartest woman in America in a past debate? Why would anyone
take her comments serious?
How dare she, try to influence religion. SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
NANCY!It doesn't surprise me coming from a left wing nut case.
It's always do as I say, but, not as I do. Which is why, I will never
agree or go along with the left wing or other wings for that matter. Just a
huge cess pool of losers, that want all of the power, glory, money and financing
to benefit themselves.Let me keep my money and determine my own
destiny. I don't need barack, nancy, bohener, reid and others to steal my
money and redistribute a fraction back to me, telling me they know what is best.
While they live it up on our money.Get rid of barack and michelle
(who admitted she can't even feed her kids healthy meals; then why is she
lecturing us?)I'm done with them. I want my freedom!
@RanchHand Wow, we have never met and you have made so many conclusions
and derogatory statements about me based on a few comments on a chat board. You
obviously have strong opinions on this subject. I appreciate you challenging me
to think outside the norm on the paragraph about heterosexuals. My previous
marks regarding having children should have been included a word like ideally or
primarily. As in primarily to have/raise children etc. Yes married, being young
and intentionally hot having children is sin/ethically wrong. We should multiply
and replenish the earth; if you can is the commandment. Being older and/or not
capable is not sin. The FYI comment "It is absolutely bigotry to deny
others the legal benefits you enjoy." well that is true depending on the
meaning of bigotry. I would prefer the word discriminatory. I can vote my 11
year son can not. Yes that is discriminatory. Bigotry has a lot of negative
connotations which you seem to be willing to toss around. The criteria which you
mock is God's whose criteria and personality I choose not to mock. A
healthier discussion would be legality(civil) versus ethical(moral) right for
homosexuals to marry.
Much of what I am thinking about Pelosi has already been said, so I will add
just one thing: Who keeps electing this woman into office?
@ slcdenizen: "the opposition to SSM bases its arguments on false premises
and deserves no platform with which to argue fundamentally ignorant
assertions"This is your opinion, not fact. This is the point.
The LGBT movement is about indoctrination and forced acceptance of a lifestyle.
TO disagree is to be shouted down. Hardly what Free Speech is all about.Why is Pelosi not concerned with the "actions and rhetoric" of
the pro-gay groups? Why does she not decry the "bash back" gangs
commiting violence and property damage in her home state?Hypocrisy
is the name of the game on the Left....
@RedWingsThis is the point. The religious movement is about
indoctrination and forced acceptance of a lifestyle. TO disagree is to be
shouted down. Hardly what Free Speech is all about.I fixed it for
you. You're right, if my claim is perceived as an opinion and you possess a
right to disagree, then please grant that same right to others that disagree
with your religious interpretation and allow adults of the same gender to marry
one another without cruel harassment.
Did Nancy write letters to gay paraders?
It is well beyond time to send Pelosi packing. If the tables were turned there
would be such an outcry from everyone on the left. She does not support the law
of the land. Nor do the others of her circle. Enough o this already!
>>You're right, if my claim is perceived as an opinion and you
possess a right to disagree, then please grant that same right to others that
disagree with your religious interpretation and allow adults of the same gender
to marry one another without cruel harassment.No one should ever be
subjected cruel harassment, but you err on conflating opinion with action. Your
position is, essentially, that because everyone should be able to *believe* what
they want, they should also be able to *do* what they want. Opinions hurt no
one, but actions might. That is why we allow anyone to believe whatever they
want, but pass laws regulating actions. And that is also why those
who support SSM should have to offer evidence that the practice at least
wouldn't be harmful to society; and why those who oppose it must offer
evidence that it would be harmful. Opinions either way (whether based on
religious teachings or an inability to foresee negative consequences)
I support the position of the Catholic clergyman. Those attacking him by
calling him a "bigot" are engaging in hate speech. Those
who oppose the march discussed in the article seem to be opposing traditional,
scientific marriage, and advancing non-traditional, non-scientific marriage.
Scientific observation clearly demonstrates and optimal, scientific marriage.
It the coming together of xx and xy. Modern gender theories are not based on
biochemical scientific evidence. Though the march is based on moral grounds, as
a scientist I prefer to look at the real biochemical evidence, which clearly
shows the primacy of xx and xy.
slcdenizen:Your claim is an opinion. Just as mine is. I
never denied you a right to disagree with me. Your statement was a denial of
religious opinion because you do not believe the argument is valid. You are
illustrating the "my way ot hte highway" attitude that is the problem
with the Left.People can join or leave religions at will. Not true
with the LGBT indoctrination. I am inundated through the media with one-sided
reporting, tv shows which include gay characters, etc. Kids are taught in
school that homosexuality is acceptable, and their parent's belief on the
issue is wrong.Are you inundated with religious programming and
media in your home? Are your kids being taught religious doctrine at school? I
hardly think so....
"Leader Nancy Pelosi has written to ... Catholic Archbishop Salvatore
Cordileone asking him to skip a controversial "March for Marriage" to be
held in Washington Thursday"Mrs. Pelosi is a Catholic political
leader. Salvatore Cordileone is going to participate in a political event.... I
don't see where is the incongruence in her asking this spiritual from her
church to skip this march. The Archbishop refused as is his right. Guys let me tell you a secret.... This is not the first time that Catholic
Leaders are asked to lean one way or other because of politics. Shhhh!I agree with Mrs. pelosi that is contradictory to be pro-marriage and
pro-family but exclude a whole segment of the population from those benefits.
slcdenizen - Your sideways insult to my intellectual capacity aside,
I agree that we should all respect each other's opinions and beliefs and
act accordingly. This was the basis of my first post to you.Neither
of our opinions should have more weight than the other. But neither should be
summarily dismissed because one of us disagree. That is precisely what is
happening in the argument between gay rigths vs religious rights. There are
many ways to recocile the two in a civilized society. Unfortunately we do not
live in one.And for the record, I support the concept of civil
unions administered by the government for any couple - gay or straight. All
couples would then have the same secular rights. "Marriage" should
return to a religious ceremony and each church can adminsiteer according to
their beliefs or doctrines without interference.
@ Big BubbaCalifornians of course. No other explanation needed.
Remember the last time Utah imported a California Governor. That’s what
they do, that’s who they are, and they want desperately to share with the
rest of us whether we like it or not.
@ RedWingsYou wrote:""Marriage" should return to a
religious ceremony and each church can adminsiteer according to their beliefs or
doctrines without interference."Would you mind providing some
historical foundation to your statement?You see, marriage as works
in the United States and in most countries around the world is already a
"civil union" called "marriage". The power to create this union
is hold by the state.The state in the U.S. allows religious entities to
finalize the union through a religious ceremony "after" the stae has
provided a license.In other countries it is customary that couples
marry twice, the first time "civilly" (court House)and then through a
religious ceremony (church). However, the "only valid marriage" is the
one in the Court House, the one at church is an act of faith with no legal
binding.Do you know of any country without marriage? Even Cuba,
China, the old U.S.S. R. had/have marriage, a secular yet legally binding
marriage.During the 1980's the religious right kidnapped the
term "Christian" for themselves. Remember when Mormons were Less
Christians than today?Now, people opposed to SSM are attempting to
kidnapp the term "marriage" for them.
To those who say Nancy Pelosi is interfering with the Archbishop's right to
free speech, I say "Nonsense!". She is making an argument for him not
to march. She is asking him not to march. She is not calling out the Federal
Marshals to stop him from marching. That would be a violation of his freedom of
speech. She is merely exercising her own freedom of speech, a perfectly
legitimate action.Neither is she interfering with the
Archbishop's freedom of religion. He is free to interpret his Catholic
religion as he sees fit, and so is she. He is in a position of some authority,
but she is free to disagree with him as she sees fit. If there is a conflict
and the Catholic Church decides to excommunicate Nancy Pelosi, that is its
right. But none of this in any way impinges on the religious freedom of either
Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several
continents, Chairman of Harvard University’s sociology department,
Pitirim Sorokin. found that virtually all political revolutions that brought
about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage
and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of homosexuality.When marriage loses its unique status, women and children most
frequently are the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships or
out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special status and benefits as the
marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the destruction of a
I don't believe Ms Pelosi is in communion with the church. I'm
don't understand why she is calling herself catholic. Politicians are
excommunicated for voting for abortion. I'm not saying she can have that
view, or vote that view. Just that calling yourself catholic is a problem when
you publicly behave this way. This letter writing is perfectly fine,
he can do so or ignore her. But the fact that it's news suggests she simply
is trying to get herself in the news for her own perspectives.
For those of you who are attacking Pelosi, she is expressing her wishes and
views, not denying the Archbishop from anything. Don't distort. You are
OK if churches influence government leaders, so why can't government
leaders try to influence church leaders? You accuse Pelosi of the same thing
that you yourselves are guilty of.
BrentbotSorokin has been dead for almost 50 years. He was a refugee
from Leninist/Stalinist Russia, and must of his thinking is a reaction to the
early communist regimes. And his thinking was a great deal more nuanced that
what you present here.And finally, I think that sociological
thinking has evolved greatly from the works of a long dead sociologist.
Baccus0902- You can't "kidnap" something that is
already yours. Marriag has only been between one man and one woman. If there
is a kidnapping going on, it is by the LGBT.Marriage is ordained of
God (see the Book of Genesis). Adam and Eve were the first married couple. YOu
prove my point by showing that other countries have separate civil and religious
ceremonies. I am honestly fine with that. Go to the courthouse and become
civilly united, then (for LDS couples) go to teh Temple and be sealed for time
and eternity (religious ceremony).Why is that not a viable option to
protect everyone's rights? For all the bantering from the LGBT about their
rights, I have not heard on concern for the rights of others....
RedWings:You wrote:"I have not heard on concern for the rights
of others...."How your rights or marriage are bein affected?
Please do tell.I will not accept forecast of doom unless you provide
some coherent reasoning to arrive to that conclusion.I read the book
of Genesis and I don't see any wedding taking place. Actually is very much
a couple living together type of thing. Yes, I acknowledge that many Chrisitans
and Jewish scholar have "inferred" a wedding. But Gnesis never comes out
and state it as such.Besides, do you take Genesis literally? I love
the Bible and the book of Genesis, but I consider it an allegory about creation
and other myth attempting to explain human nature. Nothing more nothing less. I
go more for Big Bang, evolution, even the idea of an intelligent designer has
merit in my opinion.
@Redwings"Why is that not a viable option to protect everyone's
rights?"Because there is no reason to pursue that. There are no
rights of yours that would be protected with "civil unions for all" that
aren't protected with "marriage for all". The only reason to do
that would seem to me to prevent the government from labeling same sex couples
as married (even though they would totally be married anyway since it's not
like there aren't churches that do that).
This Archbishop has his right to speak out. But other people, including
Pelosi,also have their right to speak, including make a petition to Archbishop
not to march. She did not use government power to force Archbishop
not to go, just practiced her own free speech.
Marriage is a religious institution that the government is trying to take
control of.If the government wants to create something different and
call it something else, so be it. But you will not redefine marriage. Marriage
is one man and one woman period. Everything else is just that, everything else.
@ Liberal Ted" Marriage is a religious institution that the
government is trying to take control of."Trying??? Remember when
the US Government forced Deseret to get rid of Polygamy as a legal form of
marriage?It seems that the US Government and the States have had
control of marriage for a long, long time.