NOM BLOG

Video: Gay Liberation Network Taunts Priest Praying Rosary Outside Chick-fil-A Inbox

 

This video of a Catholic priest in Chicago praying a rosary while walking with a group of Gay Liberation Network protestors outside a Chick-fil-A in Chicago is making the rounds. Look what happens:

At one point they tell him: "We don't want tolerance, we want equality."

37 Comments

  1. Pocketharpy
    Posted August 14, 2012 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

    So does praying the rosary really make someone a "hateful bigot"? Is this now hate speech?

    Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.
    Blessed art thou among women
    And blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
    Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners
    Now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

  2. Mary Pooler
    Posted August 14, 2012 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

    May the Lord have mercy on us, on the people of this country for treating those who seek to teach love and understanding with such a great level of hate and intolerance. It's very saddening for homosexual to think they are somehow living a lower quality of life because they can't participate in the sacrament of marraige when there are people in other countries who are executed and scorned from society for being homosexual.

  3. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 14, 2012 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    "For behold, at that day shall [the devil] rage in the hearts of the children of men, and stir them up to anger against that which is good." (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 28: 20, pg. 108)

  4. OvercameSSA
    Posted August 14, 2012 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

    These are the people for whom so-called ss"m" is intended, and Obama supports them. Wow, just wow.

    Would love to see a clip of this in a Romney ad broadcasted in the Bible belt.

  5. Jake4156
    Posted August 14, 2012 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    They're right - we don't want tolerance, we want equality. I'd think you'd all be happy to hear that we're not actually looking for your acceptance or approval - we just you want to stop infringing on our rights.

  6. Posted August 14, 2012 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

    Jake:

    What rights?

    In what way are your rights being infringed, by us?

  7. Louis E.
    Posted August 14, 2012 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

    Jake,we want you to stop pretending to have rights no one has,and stop demanding right and wrong be treated as if equal.

  8. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 14, 2012 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

    Jake, you are already treated with equality, under the law.

  9. Bruce
    Posted August 14, 2012 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

    DoE,
    Do you honestly believe that LGBT people are treated exactly as straight people in the law? Or do you believe the inequatites which exist are right?

  10. Randy E King
    Posted August 14, 2012 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    @Jake,

    "we're not actually looking for your acceptance or approval "

    How can you sit there demanding societal acceptance and approval via changing the meaning of marriage and then claim that you do not want our acceptance and approval; you do realize we are members of society don't you?

    Are you saying that you expect our acceptance and approval?

  11. Ron Lussier
    Posted August 14, 2012 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

    Why is this representative of a hate group harassing the protesters? Aren't priests supposed to stay out of politics?

  12. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 14, 2012 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

    Bruce, there are no inequalities, except for those the LGBTQetc. Imposes on themselves. You own your freedom. time to accept accountability for your choices.

  13. Bruce
    Posted August 14, 2012 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

    DoE,
    So, you're fine with the fact that in many states a gay person can be denied housing and/or employment simply because they are gay? For the record, I'm fully prepared to accept responsibility for my choices in life, and I don't need your smug condescension to be able to do that. Your side frequently complains that GLBT supporters don't respect your deeply held beliefs. You might try giving some to get some.

  14. MarriedGayChristian
    Posted August 15, 2012 at 1:15 am | Permalink

    If we owned our own freedom, then you wouldn't be able to vote those freedoms away. Duh.

  15. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 15, 2012 at 1:22 am | Permalink

    MarriedgayChristian, specifically which right is on a ballot to be "voted away?" And who's "we?" Last time I checked, there is no existant legislation or pending legislation, which specifically names and singles out "gay" people as ineligible for marriage. Surely you don't conflate "same-sex" with "gay," do you? Because not all same-sex relationships are "gay," and not all would qualify for "marriage," even in states offering such a service. Individuals have rights, not couples or groups. "Gay" is not a qualifier or disqualifier for marriage.

  16. Posted August 15, 2012 at 1:54 am | Permalink

    Excellent work, NOM.

    Posting examples of hysterical hatred and anti-Christian bigotry by homosexualist extremists is opening a lot of eyes across this country.

    Very necessary.

  17. MarriedGayChristian
    Posted August 15, 2012 at 3:27 am | Permalink

    DoE.

    Lawrence v Texas(read anti-sodomy laws) didn't single out gay people either. Yet somehow only people who were perceived as gay ever got arrested. Despite the fact that the overwhelmingly vast majority of all sodomy is performed by heterosexuals.

    Loving v Virginia didn't single out black people. All people were equally restricted to marrying someone of their own race.

    If 51% of voters voted for Christianity to be defined as a cult(rather than a religion) and banned. it would treat everyone equally. Everyone would be equally banned from the cult of Christianity.

    That is the logic you use. I think logic like that is perverse and evil.

    Marriage equality is already legal. It is a right in several states. Those laws apply equally to everyone, right? How can u oppose people using that right, but then say you aren't trying to take that right away?

  18. Publius
    Posted August 15, 2012 at 7:21 am | Permalink

    Marriage equality exists in all 50 states. There is no orientation test for marriage, just like there is no racial test for marriage. The law is both color blind and orientation blind.

    However, if total equality is your goal, then de-gendering marriage does not achieve it. Singles and threesomes would still be excluded from the government benefits of marriage. Moreover, polygamy is punishable by fines and jail.

  19. Posted August 15, 2012 at 11:13 am | Permalink

    Publius, since your observations are logically sound, the conclusion cannot be avoided:

    Equality is *not* the goal.

    Stage One: We want tolerance.

    Stage Two: We want equality, not tolerance

    Stage Three: We want intolerance of those opposed to equality.

    Cue mandatory child indoctrination in six-gender role playing "fantasy games" in five......four....three.....two....

  20. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 15, 2012 at 11:41 am | Permalink

    MgC, once again, you conflate political ideology (gay) with race. And, the idea that government can "ban" a person from being a disciple of Christ is illogical. One's devotion to God (or an idol) comes from within. That can't be "banned" by external forces. I don't think your logic is perverse and evil--I don't think you're using logic at all. Laws govern behaviors, not a state of being, or state of attraction. If "gay" people were being arrested for commiting sodomy, it's because they were breaking the law. If you choose to do something illegal, you choose the consequences that go with it. Stop breaking the law. Simple. But, like you pointed out, perverse sexual behavior is now recognized as "legal," though no one rational could argue it's moral. Redefining marriage is not a right, for anyone calling themselves "gay," or for those who don't subscribe to that politcal ideology. And "gay" people aren't prohibited from entering into that institution. Accept the truth. It will make you free.

  21. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 15, 2012 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    Furthermore, MgC, SSM doesn't provide "equality,' it actually promotes inequality, creating the same "separate but equal" status (as in former racially discriminating marriage laws) for men and women. SSM is organized on sex, not political affiliation. And it creates inequality. That travesty will be righted by those who understand the real issue: that real equality includes both a male and a female equally represented in each marriage union. "Gay" people could marry before marriage was redefined, they can marry in states offering the marriage counterfeit of SS"M" and they will still be allowed to marry after SSM is abolished and marriage restored to its true form.

  22. Bruce
    Posted August 15, 2012 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

    "...it (same sex marriage) actually promotes inequality, creating the same 'separate but equal' status (as in former racially discriminating marriage laws) for men and women."

    Nonsense. By this logic, all those who have married within their own race are racists.

  23. AM
    Posted August 15, 2012 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    “Loving v Virginia didn't single out black people. All people were equally restricted to marrying someone of their own race.”
    The Virginia statute found unconstitutional in Loving was the “Racial Integrity Act” which defined race as white and “colored.” Anti-miscegenation laws restricted whites from marrying outside their race. Not all other races/ethnicities were restricted. It was a white supremacist policy that violated Equal Protection.
    Loving v Virginia did not redefine marriage. It applied 14th Amendment EP claims to the existing definition of marriage. Currently in the state of Virginia, gay persons are no more denied a marriage license because they don’t like the other sex, than vegetarians are denied a hunting license because they don’t eat meat.

    “If 51% of voters voted for Christianity to be defined as a cult(rather than a religion) and banned. it would treat everyone equally. Everyone would be equally banned from the cult of Christianity.”
    Except that freedom of Religion is in the US Constitution under our Bill Of Rights. Any attempt to ban Christianity would ultimately be declared unconstitutional. Unlike Baker v Nelson, where the USSC rejected an appeal to Minnesota’s marriage law for want of a substantial federal question.

    "Marriage equality is already legal. It is a right in several states. Those laws apply equally to everyone, right? How can u oppose people using that right, but then say you aren't trying to take that right away?"
    CU or DP can provide for the mutual obligations and privileges similar to marriage while retaining the cultural and legal distinctions between op and ss couples.

  24. Chairm
    Posted August 15, 2012 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

    When the SSMers try to change the topic from the original blogpost to, oh I dunno -- say their proposed race analogy, then you know that they are desperate to draw attention away from the way in which their first premise -- that disagreement on SSM is itself an act of bigotry and hatred -- promotes the sort of behavior that is captured in the video.

    Below are a few examples:

    MarriedGayChristian (a foolish moniker but that is your choice), you claimed that "the overwhelmingly vast majority of all sodomy is performed by heterosexuals."

    Sodomy is disproportionately practiced in same-sex sexualized scenarios. First, there is the obvious limitations of such scenarios, male or female. Second, given such limitations, this behavior is done far more frequently within these scenarios than outside of such scenarios. This stands to reason.

    But sodomy is not the sexual basis for marriage. It may well be the proposed sexual basis for SSM, however, and therein lies the problem. What is the societal significance and interest in such behavior?

    Now, sure, that may be the basis for the SSM idea, I dunno, you tell me. If, yes, then, you need to explain how sodomy merits special status. If, no, then, what is the sexual basis for imposing SSM on society?

    Also you said:

    "Loving v Virginia didn't single out black people. All people were equally restricted to marrying someone of their own race."

    White people were prohibited from marrying outside of their race. This was an abuse of marriage law for it deeply discounted the core meaning of marriage which justifies the special status of the social institution. The racist identity filter was used to press white supremacy onto marriage. It was wrong then.

    It would be wrong to press the supremacy of gay identity politics onto marriage law. But that is the purpose of the SSM campaign.

    Note that there is one human race. Its nature happens to be two-sexed. As such each union of husband and wife integrates the sexes of the one human race. It does not exclude based on race. Neither men nor women are subspecies of humankind so integration by sex is not analogous with racist segregation.

    The gay identity group is not a race or race-like entity. But if you insist that it is, then, you favor a racist-like basis for changing the marriage law. You favor the segregative SSM idea which segregates by sex and by sexual attraction. But the segregative is not integrative and your racist analogy falls apart.

    But it blows back into your face. Your remarks are analogous with the racist identity politics you pretend to deplore.

  25. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 15, 2012 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    Illogical fallacy, Bruce. See Chairm's comments.

  26. MarriedGayChristian
    Posted August 15, 2012 at 10:34 pm | Permalink

    That is definitely one of the silliest claims I've ever heard.

    That marriage = segregation if the married people happen to be gay. Lol

  27. Chairm
    Posted August 16, 2012 at 12:46 am | Permalink

    MGC, what is very silly is your blatant misrepresentation of what was actually said.

    The segregative is not integrative.

    Is not your complaint with the bride+groom requirement in marriage law? Yeap.

    Is that complaint based on your own gay emphasis? Yeap.

    Is it not your complaint that the prototypical bride+groom is a heterosexual relationship? Yeap.

    And that the type of relationship you have in mind ... with your gay emphasis ... is homosexual? Yeap.

    And that it lacks either bride or groom? Yeap.

    Is it your insistence that the lack of either man or woman is a desirable and defining feature of this type of relationship? Yeap.

    And that this is because of the purity of sexual attraction? Yeap.

    That the protoypical SSM is segregative by sex ... excluding either male or female? Yeap.

    That is is segregative by sexual attraction ... either male sexual attraction or female sexual attraction? Yeap.

    So your own SSM idea means revising the law to enshrine supposed purity by identity group because of the desire of the participants to equate the segregative (by sex and by sexual attraction) with the integrative ( i.e. man and woman; male sexual attraction and female sexual attraction).

    But it goes deeper for you demand that the integrative marriage idea must be demoted from its preferential status to a barely tolerative status. And so the integrative marriage idea must be replaced by the segregative Priority of those who favore the SSM idea.

    It is not really that you demand that the segregative male-only or female-only be treat the same as the integrative male-female. The SSM idea does not mean that one of the men is to be the bride; nor that one of the women is to be the groom. Nope that is not the SSM idea.

    The SSM idea is that nonmarriage be merged with marriage.

    In terms of the false equivalence ... segregative = integrative ... the SSM idea means that all unions of husband and wife must be treated as if they lacked either husbands or wifes, fathers or mothers, men or women. It means treating marriage as indistinguishable from nonmarriage.

    And this false equivalence is promoted for the sake of the elevation of gay identity politics over and above the core meaning of marriage, over the integrative, over procreative justice, over the inity of motherhood and fatherhood.

    The supremacy of identity politics was wrong when it pressed white supremacy onto marriage ... and onto much else ... and it would likewise be wrong to press the supremacy of gay identity politics onto marriage and much else.

    You thus stand accused by your own proposed racist analogy. You might hope to dodge moral accountability for your progay bigotry but you own your own rhetoric and argumentation that promotes the SSM idea as superior to the marriage idea.

  28. Chairm
    Posted August 16, 2012 at 1:22 am | Permalink

    MGC inadvertently mocked MCG's own segregative SSM idea.

    MGC said: "That marriage = segregation if the married people happen to be gay."

    If there is a real marriage, then, there is a bride and a groom united. There is no gay criterion for ineligibility of either the man or the woman. That is a fact of law. That is so because it is a fact of the social institution which the law recognizes as marriage.

    Either the man or the woman could yell in the streets about being a member of this or that identity group (including the gay identity group) and would still be eligible to form the union of husband and wife.

    But the SSM promoter would complain that such a marriage is a sham. Why? See the claimed priority on the purity of gay identity. If gay is analogous with race, then, the claim is analogous with racial purity and with the dogmatic objection to mixing races under the auspices of marriage law.

    Just as the anti-miscegenation system promoted the selective segregation of the sexes via an identity filter, so too the SSM campaign promotes the selective segregation of the sexes via the gay identity filter. Moreover, just as the protion of the SSM idea deeply discounts the provision for responsible procreation ... rejecting it as irrelevant to man-woman basis of marriage itself ... well, the anti-miscegenation system deeply discounted and undermined the provision for responsible procreation by cutting children off from the marital presumption of paternity.

    The anti-miscegenation system promoted white supremacy and corrupted the legal system and through the levers of government it demoted the core meaning of marriage to a very low status. But it did so by acknowledging that the supposed races can and do mix in terms of the sexual basis for the presumption that the husband will father the children born to he and his wife during their marital relationship. That repudiated system saw this connection as looking both forward to future generations and backward toward ancestors and forebearers. It was repudiated because is abused marriage for a clearly antimarriage purpose. The core meaning of marriage was not the problem;the problem was the supremacy of identity politics over marriage itself.

    SSMers do not bother to acknowledge that much because it gets in the way of their flawed racist analogy and it backfires on them.

    The core meaning of marriage is rejected by those who favor the SSM idea instead. Marriage is rejected for what it is; but it special status is utilized as a vehicle hijacked to carry the supposedly greater societal significance of gay identity politics.

    SSM advocates might hope that their abuse of marriage is more benign but, just like the racists, their over riding concern is group identity written onto marriage like an act of cultural vandalism akin to a crudely scribbled moustache on the Mona Lisa canvas.

  29. Chairm
    Posted August 16, 2012 at 1:26 am | Permalink

    That said, now let's consider the Gay Liberation Network'sperformance in the video. It is seen in its proper light as an act of hostility toward civil society.

  30. MarriedGayChristian
    Posted August 16, 2012 at 3:30 am | Permalink

    First off, I said in the original post that i disagreed with those analogies.

    You guys are using way to many big words to say something simple.

    Just say 'we don't like that over 100,000 gay families have been allowed to marry. We want to give the govt the power to divorce those families'

    It's much easier to understand.

    If you only want people who can procreate be allowed to marry, then say that instead.

    If you want to make sure polygamists can't marry pass laws that say only 1 marriage is legal(oh yeah, this is already federal law).

    If you want to give families with children extra incentives to stay together, then say that. Just don't say gay families with children don't deserve the same incentives. That is discrimination. If you only want those incentives to go to families whos children are biological, then say that. But know that makes you especially cruel and unpopular.

  31. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 16, 2012 at 11:58 am | Permalink

    "Just say 'we don't like that over 100,000 gay families have been allowed to marry. We want to give the govt the power to divorce those families'"

    Because those are your words, not the words of NOM supporters. I venture to say most NOM supporters would agree to a reciprical beneficiaries act, which would give all the legal protections any group choosing to live together could want, without redefining marriage. Divorce can only happen in relation to marriage--and marriage is between a male and a female. If the "gay" couple includes a male and a female, they are welcome to their divorce, though I wouldn't reccomomend it, except in cases of abuse. So hard on the children.

  32. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 16, 2012 at 11:59 am | Permalink

    "If you only want people who can procreate be allowed to marry, then say that instead."

    Again, those are your words, not the words of NOM or NOM supporters. Of course not every married couple can or will procreate. But just in case they do, or they adopt, their children will be guaranteed a married mother or father. SSM can't say the same.

  33. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 16, 2012 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

    "If you want to give families with children extra incentives to stay together, then say that. Just don't say gay families with children don't deserve the same incentives. That is discrimination. If you only want those incentives to go to families whos children are biological, then say that. But know that makes you especially cruel and unpopular."

    What does marriage have to do with "gay?" Families with children have them because at least one of the parents engaged in procreation which is an opposite-sexed behavior, 100% of the time. Children have both a mother and a father, and society expects both male and female to step up to the plate and take equal responsiblity for their offspring, so we-the-people don't have to get involved and do their job for them. Who needs or wants more government intervention in their lives? If a "gay" mother married to a "gay" father adopt, more power to them.

    I might suggest that the half-truths you're promoting don't make your views popular with those who believe in true justice, true equality, or common sense. Believing your own falsehoods is the cruelest trick of all.

  34. Chairm
    Posted August 17, 2012 at 4:13 am | Permalink

    MCG, what did you mean when you "said in the original post that [you] disagreed with those analogies"?

    What analogies? And in what comment did you state your disagreement with those analogies?

    You did say that you thought it silly that "marriage = segregation if the married people are gay."

    No one here said that. You misrepresented. Deliberately.

    1. Gay or not, the bride and groom marry. That is not sex segregative but sex integrative. There is no gay criterion for ineligibility to form the marital relationship.

    Fact.

    2. Each instance of the type of one-sexed relationship you have in mind is sex-segregative; it is also segregative by sexual attraction. SSM is segregative. It is not the marital relationship.

    Fact and fact and fact.

    It is unfortunate that you find the words too big for you to understand rather simple things. And unfortunate that when these things are spelled out for you thoroughly, you complain of too many words.

    And it is unfortunate that you'd rely on strawman arguments so very often in your reactions (rather than responses) to comments you do not try to comprehend (as you now have now admitted).

    ---

    The government is not empowered to unilaterally divorce married people. In fact, in CA, the state high court relied upon that principled basis of marriage by overstretching it to cover the interim SSMs that occured prior to the approval of the CA marriage amendment. So your comment is ill-informed both on principle and in practice.

    ---

    If you want to cling to your remarks about procreation, go ahead, but you have invoked the rule that unless something is mandatory, it cannot be a legitimate basis for lawmaking on eligibility. That stabs a dagger into the heart of your gay emphasis for gay identity is not a legal requirement for SSM anyplace where it has been imposed; and not anywhere does such a requirement make it into even a proposal.

    Meanwhile see the sexual basis for marriage that is in our laws: that is a two-sexed sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity, consummation, annulment, adultery, and so forth. That sexual basis is a requirement to which those who enter marital status give their consent; and to which society gives its consent, via government and the law.

    So the marriage law already has legal requirements that you want to brush aside for the sake of your complaint about a non-existing gay criterion for ineligibility.

    The marital relationship is orientated toward procreation; it is consummated and renewed by the procreative type of sexual relations that signifies bodily union. All of this fits the two-sexed sexual basis of our marriage laws. None of it fits the one-sex-short basis of the sex-segregative type of relationship you have in mind.

    ----

    The justification for limiting marital status to one-man-one-woman is found in the nature of marriage itself. It is a comprehensive union; it is therefore exclusive to one spouse-at-time. This is intrinsic to the marriage idea. It is extrinsic to the SSM idea because SSM cannot be a comprehensive union ... because there is no means whereby an all-male or an all-female scenario can form a bodily union. Coital relations of husband and wife is the only such means and that is outside the bounds of the limitations of the one-sex-short scenario.

    And such a one-sex-short scenario could be comprised of non-gay participants; and more than two participants. So this is not aimed at the gay subset that you would rather society show favoritism.

    ---

    The mere presence of children does not bestow marital status; nor does it justify marital status for those ineligible. This is so for two-sexed scenarios. This is so for one-sexed scenarios comprised of non-gay participants. Why would you imagine that the gay subset is so very special to be treated as superior to the rest of nonmarriage? You have yet to explain your proposed favoritism.

    Meanwhile, the provisions for designated beneficiaries are available -- and long been available -- to families outside of marriage. Especially families with children. This does not necessitate special legislation; it does not necessitate a new relationship status in the law; it merely needs those desirous of such provisions to partake of them. If there really is a problem of either access or affordability, then, that can be addressed. And even at that there is no need to treat the gay subset as superior to the rest.

    ---

    But that favoritism? That is discrimination. If you only want those provisions to go to families led by members of the gay identity group, then say that. If you only want those provisions available to those who engage in same-sex sexual behavior, then say that. If you only want those provisions to be accorded based on same-sex sexual attraction, then say that.

    And say that you do -- and in this you are not alone among SSMers.

    But know that such favoritism and such utter dependence on the supremacy of gay identity politics makes you especially cruel and unpopular.

    ----

    If you need a summary, well, you are wrong to misrepresent and wrong to attack the marriage idea and wrong to demand favoritism.

    The segregative does not equal the integrative.

  35. Chairm
    Posted August 17, 2012 at 4:19 am | Permalink

    Once again, having dealt with your ploy of distraction, readers can ponder how your remarks, and the bizarre misrepresentations that you continue to rely upon, jive with the performance of the Gay Liberation Network in the video.

    The video. Remember the video, MCG?

  36. leehawks
    Posted August 17, 2012 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    A magnificent performance as always, Chairm

  37. Chairm
    Posted August 18, 2012 at 11:50 am | Permalink

    leehawks, I appreciate that.

    SSMers complain of inadequate responses to their challenges. But when they are forthrightly confronted with thorough responses, they plead that they got more than they had asked for. Or that they can't understand even after efforts made to spell-it-out for them. So they shrug and go back to their misrepresenations and denounce us a bigots and so on.

    Here, in this thread, MGC raised stuff that got well-answered (not just through my efforts) and yet remained stuck on misrepresentations and the angry and violent feelings aroused by his own asserted half-truths.

    Meanwhile, he did all of that under a blogpost about a video that demonstrated that the Gay Liberation Network operates just about the same way.

    I do wish the SSMers would raise their game a few notches and got to work on substance.