Friends —
As you have no doubt heard, the Catholic Church has a new Pope! Pope Francis (formerly Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina) is a humble man and a dedicated servant to the poor. He is also an outspoken advocate for God’s design for marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
But don't take my word for it. Read what Pope Francis said when a bill to redefine marriage was proposed in Argentina:
"Let's not be naive, we're not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God."
He has also said:
"At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God's law engraved in our hearts."
I believe Pope Francis will follow in the steps of Pope Benedict XVI and provide a consistent and strong voice in support of marriage and children. Our prayers go out to him as he leads the world's over 1 billion Catholics in the weeks, months, and years ahead.
This message has been authorized and paid for by the National Organization for Marriage, 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006, Brian Brown, President. This message has not been authorized or approved by any candidate.
94 Comments
Let's hope this new pope makes a big fuss about legal same-sex marriage, so the US can more fully understand how religionism is at the heart of anti-gay rhetoric.
@Robert---agreed!!! The more hateful religious rhetoric the better for American civil rights!
As demonstrated by the two previous posts; when you find yourself on the right side of history you can take it as a given that you are on the wrong side of God.
No R E. K, just the typical sour grapes from anti-life advocates. To be on the wrong side of God is to be on the wrong side of history. I'll stick with Francis I.
The left just cant stand that the pope is catholic.
Anti-live advocates...?
This coming from a heathen who's depravity is more important to them then life itself.
As those that have studied the Bible know; the reason why Satan could offer Jesus the world in exchange for his fidelity is because Satan is the master of worldly things.
Robert,
I don't understand why you can't understand....
We all came into being the same way..
Our parents chose not to act gay...
Earth to wobbie and flaflop: you still running around loose? Move on to Moveon!
Ed, I have no idea what your point is. Did you have one?
Robert,
Ed was just referencing the laws of nature as dictated by the authentic science of biology; not something you would know anything about.
Boys, you're hollering from the schoolyard. Let's bring the bulling inside and elevate the discussion. Zack, as the head of the Catholic Church, can the Pope be affiliated with any other religion?
Richard,
Whenever you have been presented with examples of guiding SCOTUS precedence -Baker v. Nelson; Lawrence v Texas; Reynolds v U.S - , or clearly articulated amicus briefs in support of this nations history and traditions as it relates to marriage law in these United States you run for cover.
You are pimping a new right that has no bases in this nations history or traditions and the pathway you have claimed as your right-of-way will require SCOTUS to declare the 1st Amendment un-constitutional.
I think a black Pope could have been the best Marriage defender. SSM advocates frequently invoke the false interracial marriage analogy - A black Pope from Africa arguing for Marriage would make their heads explode.
The new Pope is Catholic. News at 11.
I certainly didn't hear any "hateful religious rhetoric" (comment 2) or "anti-gay rhetoric" (comment 1) from St. Peter's Square today, but the liberal knees are already jerking in reaction to the selection of a Catholic Pope.
Im not Catholic but I have a lot of respect for Francis I
"The left just cant stand that the pope is catholic"
What I cannot believe is that the wonderful news that we have a Pope who is modest and anti-materialist and can serve as a refutation to rampant Capitalism - which is globally what ALL should be concerned with right now - is drowned out by the whining of the gays, who think everything is always about them. It isn't.
And adding to the above, if one views the demise of the big circus of rampant capitalism and leftist glitzy values as a good thing, and the return of decent family and salt of the earth values as something to strive for, then it would appear that those who are PRO-SSM are the ones who have reached their apex and reversal, and are on the wrong side of history.
Randy, "guiding SCOTUS precedence" from earlier findings are just that findings. They have been relied upon by those afraid of what SCOTUS might do in the next round. In any event, doesn't it make much more sense to debate amicus briefs that will impact current SCOTUS deliberations. And, accordingly, you have not offered one quoted argument from any brief in support of your stand. This is what I have asked for.
This Pope doesn't play the anti-Christian politics. He says it like it is, speaking to his church (not to anyone else, in this instance). People will take his statements to his church out of context. That's is a given. It has already started - crooked illogic.
This is not from a secular angle, it is from his own precepts as leader of his church. First, the R. Catholic church as a whole has to stand its ground. Then, they can bring in the secular arguments, which abound.
I agree with the Pope (not that it matters much), and so do not believe in Same-Sex Civil Unions with the same benefits and responsibilities as marriage. That was dumb to accept. Legislators are so naive, for the most part. Shake hands is all they know, and it is not even hygienic. Sorry, SSCU are for unmarried opposite-sex couples who desist from getting married, but live together anyway for several years, and children start popping out
The SSm drones are here just to leave a one-liner, and get everyone roused up. They are laughing in their pants.
@Richard,
I beg to differ; filed under "NEW VIDEOW: ..." I noted on post (19):
BRIEF OF FEDRALISM SCHOLARS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT WINDSOR
That the point made by the scholars was in regard to the right of Congress to define the terms used in its legislation under Federal law; which you promptly ignored.
I reiterated under post (31); redirecting you to address the point made; which you also ignored.
Additionally; binding SCOTUS precedence is not a suggestion; it happens to be the law as interpreted by the highest court in the land.
Richard is just here to make pronouncements and prophetic judgements. Anyone can do that. He has no legal background, so believes anything goes, in Court. That's the extent of the Same-Sex marriage bizarre arguments. But, it works on some people, that's why they are dangerous to society, like a cancer that can spread if not checked.
No one has anything against friendship, but it doesn't make it marriage, unless marriage simply means friendship. Can you imagine the government regulating friendships? What a waste. . .
Cut off?
Back on: Randy yes you did post a comment but it contains no specific quote of scholars to address. Then as now you need to provide clarity. Your post spoke to a scholarly response "in regard" to an unspecified comment. Simply quote the brief and we can continue.
Little Man and what are you here for? You seem to have no imagination or interest in the questions SCOTUS might ask, the points the lawyers might make and the determinations SCOTUS might find. A discussion of the merits of the case may scare you but what value is there in a low information blogger?
No value, my dear low-information blogger.
I see NOM's Eastman is criticizing Chief Justice Roberts for adopting kids. That doesn't seem like such a bright move if you want to win a Supreme Court case upholding "marriage for straight people only!" laws!
@Richard,
I provided you with the name of the brief and its central point. Your disingenuousness is showing when you insist it be spelled out for you in a blog as restricted as this; let alone any blog.
The central point is that Congress has the Constitutional right to define the terms used in its legislation; that the right to define is provided for in the Constitution.
What marriage corruption supporters must find particularly disturbing is the fact that the minority of courts that have ruled in their favor have each found that the defendants satisfied the rational basis test; that in order to come to their decision they each had to construct an entirely new basis just to accommodate these heathen.
These miscreants couldn't even satisfy a single one of the half dozen characteristics needed to trigger heightened scrutiny consideration.
I still think we should leave it to SCOTUS. Richard just wants to show his incomplete knowledge of the cases. B O R I N G.
@ Robert and Flanoggin,
How is supporting a mother and father for each child "anti-gay"?
What do you call two men intentionally depriving a child of her mother? Anti-child? Anti-mother? Anti-female? Anti-heterosexual?
Little Man, now you are on to something. We all have no choice but to leave it to SCOTUS. Does that mean that those of us who are interested in exploring various options available to SCOTUS should not discuss, argue even, the possibilities that come as a result of briefs supplied by both sides? You are remarkably disinterested.
mominvermont, many of us call them heroes for willingly adopting a precious child in need of a loving, committed married couple. And you?
Randy, pst the specific quote from the brief. You will not be cut. Are you sure, however, that you want to quote from this particular brief which cannot be named on this site?
@ mom.
Read into what alot of the more virulent marriage corruption supporters say about straight people and you will see the real animus is with them.
Google Dan Savage and you can find a litany of anti- heterosexual hate speech including terms like " breeders" and other derogatory terms.
Our freedom is their oppression but they are just going to have to deal with it.
Goony-ga-ga people are suffering a from an extreme case of identity crises.
Goony-ga-ga's need our sympathy and understanding as they work through this difficult time in their respective lives.
Randy is this your reasoned response?
Randy, you ok man?
"How is supporting a mother and father for each child "anti-gay"?"
Who said it was? But same-sex marriage is not the same as same-sex parenting. Same-sex parenting is already legal in all 50 states.
Kids need loving adults to parent them. The gender is far less important than the love and the nurturing. That's why any decent person would rather see a child raised by two upstanding gay men, than a drug dealer father and drug addict mother. And of course two gay parents are better than only one parent of either gender.
Richard,
You provided nothing of substance; which led me to conclude that Goony-ga-ga paralyses syndrome has taken over all of your faculties.
If you have regained control your senses then maybe you could bring it upon yourself to articulate a coherent response to the point made in fore noted amicus brief?
http://www.adfmedia.org/files/HollingsworthAmicusLegalScholars.pdf
Depriving children of a mother and a father with wholesome psychologies about sexuality (which people with a homosexual problem are incapable of) is to deprive them of their most basic rights.
People with a homosexual problem need to investigate and resolve their underlying psychological problems that cause them to be homosexual in order to be able to live out their heterosexuality like everyone else.
Alessandra, please explore whether you have unwholesome psychologies first before you ask others to consider whether they have any. Your absolutist sense of entitlement renders you unreliable.
Randy, keep at this. Find a specific point (argument) from the brief that we can discuss. Extract a quote to represent your stand. Here is an example from the ASA brief: "The facts demonstrate that children fare just as well when raised by same sex parents." I have posted this quote before by the way and you have not addressed it.
And Randy see if it is at all possible to avoid a nonsensical and child-like addition to your response. We are all adult here.
Richard,
You refused to address the point presented; the right of the Congress to define the terms used in its legislation.
I then provided you with a link to the amicus brief in question; which you also refused to address.
You are not the master here; nor are you the only one capable of bastardizing language I find your insistence on using bastardized words in defense of your depravity highly offensive.
Pervert is what you are and corruption is what you do. Putting lipstick on that pig by declaring it to something other than it is will not turn the truth into a lie.
You might as well be declaring yourself to be Goony-ga-ga's for all the good it does for you; or to quote the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals:
Plaintiffs own expert witnesses cannot even agree amongst themselves upon the definitions of the words Gay, Lesbian, Homosexual, Innate, or Immutable - paraphrased
Richard, your example is not of the kind that you asked of others. Try again. But not here under a blogpost about Pope Francis.
Can you do that or are you going to persist in the unreasonable goal of making the comment sections all about you?Think in terms of basic courtesy.
Randy, post the specific quote. Your point is not a point; it is a broad topic. You need to create a clarifying statement. Actually, no you don't. You need to quote the clarifying statement.
Chairm, you can make the choice to respond or not to any posts I choose to enter. Now, should you choose to respond; the ASA statement is, again, "The facts demonstrate that children fare just as well when raised by same sex parents." And Chairm, the statement addresses children with same-sex parents.
Randy, temper, temper. One's integrity as a debater is important. There are protocols for good behavior. Do you know them?
Richard,
The point was made clearly, but I will reiterate using words you may better understand:
Congress has a constitutional right to define the terms used in the legislation it drafts.
The Broad topic that set you afire was another point made that you refuse to address; which is that SCOTUS has learned it s lesson in Roe v Wade not to get to far ahead of the public discussion.
Richard,
No anger here; I expect you do respond the way you do. My hope is that you will either see the light, or feel confident enough to show more of your true self so other may see you for who you really are.
Randy, now you have a statement. My retort is that I believe your statement to be probably true but not worth a whole lot. It is mostly meaningless. When would Congress ever use language it didn't mean? That is not really the issue. The language is very clear but the Executive Branch contends the intent of the language is unconstitutional. SCOTUS (the Judicial Branch) will agree. I will steer you to the amicus brief statement supporting this shortly.
Randy, your first statement BTW may be your own and not specifically mentioned in a brief. Please verify.
Your second statement, again, is too arbitrary. Who, other than you, has said this? Is it part of a brief? It reads as one person's opinion. What are the statement's credentials? And, who are you Randy?
Richard,
It is the exact same statement provided on three separate posts; be that as it may...
Congress defined a Tomato as a vegetable for the sake of public commerce even though a Tomato is a fruit, and Congress defined marriage, for the purpose of public law, as the union of one man and one woman, back in the mid 1800's, in order to keep Polygamy from gaining ground - each upheld by SCOTUS.
So why wouldn't Congress have the power to reiterate its intent of what constitutes a marriage now...?
Why would it be constitutional to define marriage so as to disfavor Polygamy, but unconstitutional to define marriage so as to disfavor same-sex constructs?
Richard:
Alessandra, please explore whether you have unwholesome psychologies first before you ask others to consider whether they have any. Your absolutist sense of entitlement renders you unreliable.
================
What a nice projection. Don't you have anything but an absolutist sense of entitlement? Isn't your life based solely on denial of any and all problems?
I think everyone should not only investigate their minds, but resolve any respective psychological and ethical problems. Contrary to you, I don't have an "absolutist sense of entitlement." However, it's exactly what you and the bulk of LGBT individuals claim to have. Perhaps you should take your own advice to explore how deformed your psychologies might be - before you ask that of anyone else.
Your political agenda states that people with a homosexuality problem have no psychological problems and nothing to investigate.
This is one reason why people with a homosexuality agenda are so destructive in society. Their entire attitude in life is one of denial, of lying to themselves that they have no problems. Psychologists who have investigated the psychology of someone with a homosexuality problem have found a host of underlying problems: psychological, emotional, cultural, and ethical.
People with a homosexuality problem like to run away from their psychological/cultural problems, they hate to investigate them and resolve them. Being ignorant and blind is how they pretend to go through life.
Alessandra, please read the amicus briefs submitted by professionals in support of plaintiffs with respect to sociology and psychology. They contradict you, a non-professional.
Randy, I can't imagine anyone with any interest in taking the issue of tomato as vegetable or fruit to SCOTUS for want of a constitutional question. Can you? Congress has the right do whatever it wishes subject to the will of the people in elections or the protections of the Constitution. DOMA's defense is shallow, both in the strength of support from Congress (BLAG is a 3-2 split) and its veracity. It has been declared unconstitutional (section 3) and the government nor the people support it.
Five federal courts have ruled DOMA to be Constitutional, Richard: The District of Nevada, District of Hawaii, Middle District of Florida, Western District of Washington (Bankruptcy), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Congress still defends DOMA in court and 32 states have Marriage Amendments in their state constitutions.
You have been spoon fed a lot of misinformation and half truths and desperately need to broaden your perspective.
SoA, in short (as my last post to you was too long)... Your five cases date to 2005 or thereabouts and did not address the constitutionality of DOMA, just bankruptcy and cross state provisions. More recently 5 federal courts have ruled DOMA, section 3, unconstitutional. 7 others are challenging DOMA as I write. Nine states now have gay marriage; 8 now have civil unions. A majority of Americans are in support. Better odds I think.
Richard,
The lone case you point to that you interpret as your rational for your position dates back to 1996!
So is it just those findings that appear to give your argument merit when taken out of context that have staying power, or is it just court findings that stand in opposition to your demands for special consideration that have a limited shelf life?
continued:
Is there a reason why you ignored the fact that SCOTUS ruled in Reynolds v. The United States (1878) that Congress had a right to define what constitutes a marriage; that procreation is a rational basis to limit marriage to one man one woman pairings?
Randy, what lone case have I pointed to?
As regards your second question, I haven't ignored an 1878 ruling but then I don't see very many references to a ruling some 135 years old. What I do pay attention to are federal court rulings in our immediate past and the fact that SCOTUS intends to address two of them.
@Richard,
Baker v Evans (1996)
In the above; SCOTUS, in a 5 to 4 decision, ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny people equal protection under the law.
Justice Kennedy's majority opinion noted that "personal religious animus is an insufficient reason..." Yet; the 5 to 4 decision was not based on Justice Kennedy's misinterpreted personal opinion; it was based on established Constitutional principles by 5 of 9 appointed attorney's.
Baker v Nelson (1971) is a very recent SCOTUS unanimous finding - recent in that it has happened in my lifetime - that you insist be discarded because it was handed down outside the window of opportunity you arbitrarily established by the power vested unto you so help you, you.
Randy, what to make of your comments. Let's see. I like the established Constitutional principles that will prevail in the SCOTUS rulings to come. And I like Kennedy's comment, too. Yup, thank you for this. Now, as regards the second part of your post. You have an anger streak which clouds your message. It is not whether I or you insist on anything and it is strange of you to think it. SCOTUS has agreed to hear DOMA and Prop 8. There are current cases that led to the two ending up at SCOTUS.
SCOTUS has agreed to hear DOMA and Prop 8 because the Jurists find serious decencies in lower court findings that adversely affect the appellants in the case.
The lower courts based their rulings on the opinions you pimp; SCOTUS obviously disagrees.
Again, you demonstrate how misinformed you are, Richard. The most recent federal court to uphold DOMA was in Nevada in 2012. And you should know as well as I do that gay activists shop around for judges who are likely to rule in their favor, and have been able to find a few. But that will not help them in SCOTUS. And the fact that your side has to rely so heavily on the courts to attack DOMA and other legal statute supporting natural marriage shows that you are unable to garner enough public support to repeal these laws through the democratic process, regardless of whatever loaded polls you have been spoon fed with.
Richard,
Do you seriously believe that SCOTUS agreed to hear the appeal because they wanted to rub it in?
SoA, Nevada upheld a state statute; the case is pending the SCOTUS DOMA determination.
If gay activists have been shopping around, there must be plenty to choose from considering the results. But, of course, you are silly to bring that up. Throughout history blacks, women, Christians, atheists, Native Americans and gays have relied on legal justice to prevail. What's your point?
Randy, perhaps SCOTUS chose to hear the appeals because it thinks there is a Constitutional question to be resolved. Since lower federal courts have determined DOMA (section 3) to be unconstitutional, I suspect they want to weigh the merits. If they had not chosen to weigh in, Randy, Prop 8 and DOMA would be illegal today. We will all have to wait and see.
The 15th and 19th amendment wasn't created by SCOTUS giving blacks and women the right to vote. It was all done through the democratic process. There is no reason why gays shouldn't do the same to create a right to redefine marriage instead of relying on judges to invent one.
Richard,
SCOTUS chose to weigh in because at least four of nine SCOTUS Jurists found serious issues with its lower courts rulings; not because they saw a need to pile on.
In order to come to their findings the lower courts had to declare guiding SCOTUS precedence unconstitutional.
Unconstitutional in that they each declared that rational basis was the improper basis from which to decide issues related to sexual deviants.
I'm quite sure SCOTUS was very surprised to find out about that little bit of news from three of its subordinate courts.
Keep in mind that when SCOTUS upheld the Affordable Care Act it was in response to a lower court ruling that declared said Act unconstitutional; not the lower court ruling that upheld it.
SSM advocates never appealed any of the (10) District Court rulings against their demands because they feared a summary ruling like the one they got in Baker v. Nelson.
Richard has relied on a gay emphasis that he cannot justify. He has argued for special treatment, based on that gay emphasis, but has failed to justfy special treatment. E has argued in favor of the abuse of judicial review even as he poses as holding dear the constitution that is deigned to thwart abuses of governmental power.
He imagines that the contradictions within the range of pro-SSM opinions of a handful of federal jurists has no bearing on the case before the highest court. He starts with a predrawn conclusion and emotes that the legal reasoning, such as it might be, is subservient to that conlusion. The rule against contradiction does not apply, conveniently, for Richard.
This s what the SSM campaign has taught its followers. Ad hoc arguments lack the intellectual capital that is long invested in the societally significant marriage idea. The SSM idea is an outright rejection of the marriage idea. How does someone like Richard seek to abolish marriage, to disparage it as unconstitutional, and yet poses as someone wo demands that his favored type of nonmarital relationship be attached to the hip of marriage?
The answer is that the rhetoric of the SSM advocates is stuck on stupid.
Richard's comments on the federal case hardly merit further discussion. Let him blather on but there is nothing there.
Chairm you possess a wild imagination. Let''s see. You have the drama, the pathos of some threatened protagonist, the bad guy (me and all other gays?) the hero ( you, Christ, all married heterosexuals?). The plot line starts with a scene out of the American Dream, mommy and daddy and two adorable twins. Ah, but the storm arrives in the form of yikes!, a married gay couple and their adopted...twins. Oh my, tension rises, mommy and daddy fight, divorce ensues, the gays did it and, and, and...nothing happens. SCOTUS rules and Chairm throws the script into the basket, where it belongs.
Professor Chairm, words are cheap; where is your intellectual capital? Stuck on denial, perhaps. I will continue to "blather"; you will continue to imagine. Keep trying, there is a story there somewhere and I have a great ending for it should you be interested.
REAL marriage has still won 31 referendums, the most recent being in North Carolina , compare that to the 9 for SS”M” in the deep, deep blue states. If that was the score by halftime in a Superbowl game, no one in their right mind except deluded faux marriage supporters would say that the team with the 31 points was losing.
Richard, brilliant remarks. Yes, bang your shoe on the table. You are on the public record here and, unlike your thin veneer of civility, that will actually stick to you.
Carry on.
Charim.
The point in addressing the Richard's of this word is not to correct the messenger, but to expose the true intent of the message.
I know these people to be traitors to this nation; cowards hiding behind the veil of anonymity.
Randy, what was the true intent of my message?
Richard, what do you mean by that?
Yes, Randy, of course, however, Richard has now established himself as a dishonest participant in discussion of the federal case.
Here, under the original blogpost, the subject is quite different but Richard hopes to make this all about him instead.
The American dream, or the dream of the American (goofy)"
"the drama, the pathos of some threatened protagonist, the bad guy (me and all other gays?) the hero ( you, Christ, all married heterosexuals?). The plot line starts with a scene out of the American Dream, mommy and daddy and two adorable twins. Ah, but the storm arrives in the form of yikes!, a married gay couple and their adopted...twins. Oh my, tension rises, mommy and daddy fight, divorce ensues, the gays did it and, and, and...nothing happens."
... and then changes to a different 'face' and states: "Words are cheap."
The real Richard surfaces. . . (Let me get out of here.)
Randy, you said the purpose of responding to "the Richards of this wor[l]d is to...exposé the true intent of the message".nWell expose away...what is the true message?
Chairm, you seem to devote a good deal of space in response to me and my posts. You have 5-6 posts that neither mention Francis by name or address the blogpost. I love sparring with you; I feel like a matador waving my red cape at the bull. Ole'
Richard, you are no matador. But you dish the bull.
@Richard,
Could you be more specific; which message are you referring to?
Richard loves attention. Him, a matador?
Well, it's not illegal to dream. Not really, just a dodger as long as he remains anonymous. (That makes him more like a clown in a Rodeo 
) Yes, he was funny. Count the amazing number of comments with different users.
The matador who repeatedly claimed to want to elevate the discussion and whined about being banned from this blog for a period of time.
Ole' ...the red cape gets to them every time.
Richard, you get horned every time, you know where. But you love it.
Little Man, clever repartee' and bantering back and forth are hallmarks of mature debate. Sure, we can get testy and riled up in defense of our positions but there is no need for the puerile type of comment you posted. Perhaps I better understand the name under which you post.
There is no need for procreation in civil marriage, either. You just gave a fine example of how a civil license works. Well, you posed yourself as a Matador, making fun of other commentators here. You can give it, but cannot take it. . . typical.