Archbishop Nienstedt: Gay marriage ban is not anti-gay

Who is advocating polygamy or marrying their mom? Nienstedt must either be misinformed, lying or delusional. And he certainly should not be influencing public policy.

Praise Jebus, God hates the Truth, Amen.

Just like bans on interracial marriage were not anti-black.

“But a review of 81 studies of many family types released late last year showed the opposite.”

Lies in the name of God are still lies.

Nienstedt is just plain stupid IMO! Every time he opens his mouth, I’m simply amazed he has the position he has.

“Archbishop” John Nienstedt is not married. Priest and bishops are forbidden by archaic Catholic man-made “rules” from getting married. They have no experience with raising children. Priest and bishops are forced by the Vatican to preach hate and intolerance. Priest and bishops are out of touch with average Catholics and Americans.

These people aren’t REALLY worried about ‘polygamy’ or ‘incest.’ They are worried that they will not have the force of government behind their silly notion that heterosexuals are superior to all the gay people that heterosexuals alone create.

If the standard for marriage is lowered to simply whoever one want’s to marry, the door is opened for any and all to walk through.

Um—right—it’s not anti-gay—uh-huh…This is why people were afraid of voting for catholic politicians: they would be puppets of deluded theocrats like Nienstedt. The church has a long and tarnished history…this is just another notch in their belt of evil. I am all for religious freedom, both “of” and “from”, but please leave my marriage out of it. I am not catholic and could care less about your “laws’.

A gay-marriage ban is anti gay-marriage. Many of us who oppose gay marriage have no problem with domestic partnerships already afforded to gays. I don’t hear heterosexuals demanding access to domestic partnerships from which they are exlcluded.

The national organization for marriage and anti-gay groups are seeking to REDEFINE state Constitutions and would like to redefine the US Constitution. Let’s not “redefine” the Constitution. Americans want that precious document for all US citizens.

I still wonder that the Catholic clergy aren’t required to register as agents of a foreign power.

I’ve also heard that rules prohibiting women from showing their face or speaking in public are not anti-woman. Try again, bishop. If this is the best logic the church has to offer…

Anytime you limit someone’s behavior without actually protecting them or anybody else from anything, it’s an attack.

Joseph,

The only attempt to redefine marriage is on the part of the gay marriage proponents. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Always has been.

Lane,

If you’re talking about the clergies loyalty to the Vatican, I’ve wondered the same.

If anything needs to be written into any constitution, it should be written that, “children fare best when kept away from priests in robes.”

And that is not anti-Catholic, it is pro-children.

He should have started with: “This is not a factual statement.”

Ok, if it is truly not anti-gay then at the least it is anti-civil rights of a section of our society.

But fucking children is perfectly ok

The Catholic Church of all organizations on the planet pretending to be concerned with the welfare of children should make anyone vomit.

“Where would then the tampering stop? I love my mom, I don’t have the right to marry her.”
——————–
Seriously? These people don’t know the difference between a romantic, sexual relationship and a relationship with family members? It must be incredibly difficult for straight people to figure out who they can and can’t marry, right? Gee… should I marry my grandmother or the person I fell in love with, and want to spend the rest of my life with? Yeah, that is a tough call.

By the way, Archbishop John Nienstedt. There are currently 20 states that allow first cousins to marry. So, straight couples are basically practicing incestuous marriage right now.

Let’s accept for a moment that objection to marriage is not anti-gay. How about objection to civil unions? Anti-discrimination law? Decriminalization?

The RCC is anti-gay in every way possible.

Ah the American Taliban. Imposing religion through fear, misinformation and apparently a tradition fetish.

Praise Jebus, God hates the Separation Clause, Amen.

HG,

“A gay-marriage ban is anti gay-marriage. Many of us who oppose gay marriage have no problem with domestic partnerships already afforded to gays.”

Actually, domestic partnerships are not available statewide in Minnesota. In fact, Pawlenty vetoed a bill that would have given domestic partner benefits to same-sex couples a few years ago. It’s pretty weak to claim that your support for a non-existent right justifies your position on a current legislative issue.

“I don’t hear heterosexuals demanding access to domestic partnerships from which they are exlcluded.”

You are apparently not reading the news. A growing number of straight couples for various reasons have opted to register as domestic partnerships. The domestic partnership law recently passed in Washington state, for instance, made the option available to opposite-sex couples over 65.

Never said my support for DP’s or civil unions justifies anything. Simply, it is a fact that many gay marriage opponents, like myself, have no issue with DP’s or civil unoins. The current marriage amendment is the right thing to do. It prevents a new legislative definintion of marriage and respects the history, traditions, and religions society holds to.

HG: “Many of us who oppose gay marriage have no problem with domestic partnerships already afforded to gays.”

So I assume your objections would thus be taken care of if all laws dealing with marriage were amended to substitute the term “civil union” for “marriage”? Then you wouldn’t need your amendment, right?

You can add your comments for the readers of the Catholic Spirit on its Facebook page. Look for the story near the top. https://www.facebook.com/TheCatholicSpirit

Personally I would like to see the State and Federal government start issuing licenses for civil unions/partnerships and stop issuing marriage licenses. If someone wants to be married by a church that’s fine but it would have no legal standing or benefits from the government. As soon as the license is signed and witnessed by the clerk at the licence center you are officially partnered. No ceremonies required, like getting a driver’s license.

The Catholic Church is against ANY recognition for same-sex couples. So are plenty of anti-gay organizations like NOM, No matter what they say. They open their mouths and lies come out.

The CC fights against Civil Unions wherever they can. Their priests constantly “testify” (read: lie) in legislative hearings about the topic. Currently, they are fighting in Illinois so that they don’t have to follow the law despite receiving almost 30 million dollars in state funding.

TSG,

So you want to do away with civil marriages altogether?

@TSG
That’s already how it is. Marriage is a civil institution. Not a religious one. The state-issued license and certificate is all that matters. Interestingly, even the theocratic Puritans wanted it that way.

I wish they’d introduce the European model of requiring a civil ceremony in any case. In many European countries you have to get married at city hall. Then you can walk over the church if you want or have a religious wedding some other day. The idiotic practice of having priests act as agents of the state led them to believe that they have some authority in the matter.

Historically, the church didn’t get involved in the marriage business until the somewhere around the 10th or 11th century when people started asking priests to bless their marriages. Marriage didn’t become a sacrament until the 16th century with the Council of Trent. Before that, a priest wasn’t strictly required.
Before that common-law marriage was the norm. If two people considered themselves married, it was usually recognized as such. But in general, marriage used to be an agreement between families over the distribution of land and money. Religion was just tacked on at best.

I have come to regard religion as the static that interupts my conversation with
God.The Catholic Church is no different. Its position on the nature of homosexuality
as contained in its Catecism should be regarded as a flawed theolgy regarding
human sexuality.

Archbishop Nienstedt’s religious organization needs to be investigated and audited to see if they can retain their nonprofit status, since they have been consistently engaging in political advocacy. Nothing would shut this self-righteous old bigot up faster than the threat of losing the Catholic church’s nonprofit status in Minnesota.

Steve
Comment posted June 9, 2011 @ 4:02 pm
@TSG
That’s already how it is. Marriage is a civil institution. Not a religious one. The state-issued license and certificate is all that matters. Interestingly, even the theocratic Puritans wanted it that way.

I wish they’d introduce the European model of requiring a civil ceremony in any case. In many European countries you have to get married at city hall. Then you can walk over the church if you want or have a religious wedding some other day. The idiotic practice of having priests act as agents of the state led them to believe that they have some authority in the matter.

Historically, the church didn’t get involved in the marriage business until the somewhere around the 10th or 11th century when people started asking priests to bless their marriages. Marriage didn’t become a sacrament until the 16th century with the Council of Trent. Before that, a priest wasn’t strictly required.
Before that common-law marriage was the norm. If two people considered themselves married, it was usually recognized as such. But in general, marriage used to be an agreement between families over the distribution of land and money. Religion was just tacked on at best.

——————————————————————————–

Thank you, Steve! Someone has finally demonstrated, through historical evidence, that marriage hasn’t always been defined the way in which current religions portray it. It’s true that most marriages in the Middle Ages were common law arrangements, and religious “marriage” was strictly for the elite and entitled to ensure property rights (including women) for men in succession. The artifact of that practice is the walking of the Bride down the aisle, and being handed from the father to the husband. I wonder how many women realize just how degrading that practice really is, as they are playing out the fact that they are nothing but property in the eyes of their religious institutions.

And marriage, as we know it today, is a relatively new invention, and not the only arrangement. Many cultures sanction polygamy and polyamory, and the Native American Indians allowed same-sex couples to unit in a ceremony sanctioned by the entire tribe. In fact, it’s primarily westernized religion since the founding of Christianity that has ever defined marriage as strictly between one man and one woman (until divorce and remarriage, and then divorce again and perhaps another marriage).

The Catholic Church and its monolithic and anarchronistic belief system will dwindle as humans realize that the foundation of marriage isn’t dependent upon gender, but upon the union of two individuals united in love and commitment for life and their family (and that that can be true for both heterosexuals and homosexuals).

A ban on gay marriage denies people the right to get married, whereas allowing gay marriage doesn’t affect anyone who DOESN’T want to get gay married. Don’t like gay marriage, don’t have one, but stop pushing your prejudice in the name of your faith and piety and baseless fear mongering! This holy man should be about the real business of Jesus, namely helping the poor, the lonely and the forsaken rather than sitting in judgment of others!

Steve wrote, “The idiotic practice of having priests act as agents of the state led them to believe that they have some authority in the matter.”

Beautifully put!

I remember hearing all this nonsense when I was a kid in the late 60s and adults would be debating interracial marriage. Amazing that while their targets change, there are always bigots among us trying to dehumanize one group or another. If you fools have a problem with homosexuals, take it up with the God that created them ! That goes for you too, Archbishop Bigot!

Once again, the Roman Catholic church is trying to use civil laws to ram Catholic dogma down the throats of everyone. Many of our ancestors came to this country to get away from the tyranny of the Catholic Church and it’s time we stood up to them again. They have no right to use laws to supersede other religions expressions of faith. Many churches perform same sex marriage and the Roman Church is NOT the established religion in this country. It’s time to stop them.

HG,
Marriage has not always been defined as between a man and a woman. The bible, in fact, has had several different, evolving definitions for marriage.

Here are the main types of Christian bible sanctioned marriages. Remember, God’s word is infallible, and the Bible is literal, so all of these should be codified into law.

1. The standard nuclear family: Genesis 2:24 describes how a man leaves his family of origin, joins with a woman, consummates the marriage and lives as a couple. There were quite a few differences between the customs and laws of contemporary North Americans and of ancient Israelites. In ancient Israel:
* Inter-faith marriages were theoretically forbidden. However, they were sometimes formed.

* Children of inter-faith marriages were considered illegitimate.

* Marriages were generally arranged by family or friends; they did not result from a gradually evolving, loving relationship that developed during a period of courtship.

* A bride who had been presented as a virgin and who could not be proven to be one was stoned to death by the men of her village. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21) There appears to have been no similar penalty for men who engaged in consensual pre-marital sexual activity.

2. Polygynous marriage: A man would leave his family of origin and join with his first wife. Then, as finances allowed, he would marry as many additional women as he desired. The new wives would join the man and his other wives in an already established household. Polygyny was practiced by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormons, until the practice was suspended, a least temporarily, in the late 19th century. It is still practiced by separated fundamentalist Mormon groups which have left and been excommunicated from the main Mormon church.

There are many references to polygynous marriages in the Bible:
* Lamech, in Genesis 4:19, became the first known polygynist. He had two wives.

* Subsequent men in polygynous relationships included:
o Esau with 3 wives;

o Jacob: 2;

o Ashur: 2;

o Gideon: many;

o Elkanah: 2;

o David: many;

o Solomon had 700 wives of royal birth;

o Rehaboam: 3;

o Abijah: 14.

o Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives.

* From the historical record, it is known that Herod the Great (73 to 4 BCE) had nine wives.

We have been unable to find references to polyandrous marriages in the Bible — unions involving one woman and more than one man. It is unlikely that many existed because of the distinctly inferior status given to women; they were often treated as property in the Hebrew Scriptures.

3. Levirate Marriage: The name of this type of marriage is derived from the Latin word “levir,” which means “brother-in-law.” This involved a woman who was widowed without having borne a son. She would be required to leave her home, marry her brother-in-law, live with him, and engage in sexual relations. If there were feelings of attraction and love between the woman and her new husband, this arrangement could be quite agreeable to both. Otherwise, the woman would have to endure what was essentially serial rapes with her former brother-in-law as perpetrator. Their first-born son was considered to be sired by the deceased husband. Before the details of conception were determined, such a belief made a lot of sense. It lives on in some version of Sharia law among Muslims which state that a woman can conceive any time up to seven years after engaging in intercourse.

In Genesis 38:6-10, Tamar’s husband Er was killed by God for unspecified sinful behavior. Er’s brother, Onan, was then required by custom to marry Tamar. Not wanting to have a child who would not be considered his, he engaged in an elementary (and quite unreliable) method of birth control: coitus interruptus. God appears to have given a very high priority to the levirate marriage obligation. Being very displeased with Onan’s behavior, God killed him as well. Ruth 4 reveals that a man would be required to enter into a levirate marriage not only with his late brother’s widow, but with a widow to whom he was the closest living relative.

4. A man, a woman and her property — a female slave: As described in Genesis 16, Sarah and Abram were infertile. Sarah owned Hagar, a female slave who apparently had been purchased earlier in Egypt. Because Hagar was Sarah’s property, she could dispose of her as she wished. Sarah gave Hagar to Abram as a type of wife, so that Abram could have an heir. Presumably, the arrangement to marry and engage in sexual activity was done without the consent of Hagar, who had such a low status in the society of the day that she was required to submit to what she probably felt were serial rapes by Abram. Hagar conceived and bore a son, Ishmael. This type of marriage had some points of similarity to polygamous marriage, as described above. However, Hagar’s status as a human slave in a plural marriage with two free individuals makes it sufficiently different to warrant separate treatment here.

5. A man, one or more wives, and some concubines: A man could keep numerous concubines, in addition to one or more wives. These women held an even lower status than a wife. As implied in Genesis 21:10, a concubine could be dismissed when no longer wanted. According to Smith’s Bible Dictionary, “A concubine would generally be either (1) a Hebrew girl bought…[from] her father; (2) a Gentile captive taken in war; (3) a foreign slave bought; or (4) a Canaanitish woman, bond or free.” 1 They would probably be brought into an already-established household. Abraham had two concubines; Gideon: at least 1; Nahor: 1; Jacob: 1; Eliphaz: 1; Gideon: 1; Caleb: 2; Manassah: 1; Saul: 1; David: at least 10; Rehoboam: 60; Solomon: 300!; an unidentified Levite: 1; Belshazzar: more than 1.

6. A male soldier and a female prisoner of war: Numbers 31:1-18 describes how the army of the ancient Israelites killed every adult Midianite male in battle. Moses then ordered the slaughter in cold blood of most of the captives, including all of the male children who numbered about 32,000. Only the lives of 32,000 women – all virgins — were spared. Some of the latter were given to the priests as slaves. Most were taken by the Israeli soldiers as captives of war. Deuteronomy 21:11-14 describes how each captive woman would shave her head, pare her nails, be left alone to mourn the loss of her families, friends, and freedom. After a full month had passed, they would be required to submit to their owners sexually, as a wife. It is conceivable that in a few cases, a love bond might have formed between the soldier and his captive(s). However, in most cases we can assume that the woman had to submit sexually against her will; that is, she was raped.

7. A male rapist and his victim: According to the New International Version of the Bible, Deuteronomy 22:28-29 requires that a female virgin who is not engaged to be married and who has been raped must marry her attacker, no matter what her feelings were towards the rapist. A man could then become married by simply sexually attacking a woman that appealed to him, and paying his father-in-law 50 shekels of silver. There is one disadvantage of this approach: he was not allowed to subsequently divorce her. However, the King James Version and American Standard Version translate the same passages as having the man “lay hold on her” which seems to imply some sort of force was used that might be interpreted as rape. Youngs Literal Translation refers to the man catching her which also seems to involve force. Finally, the New Living Translation simply refers to the couple having intercourse. The original Hebrew seems to be ambiguous.

8. A male and female slave: Exodus 21:4 indicates that a slave owner could assign one of his female slaves to one of his male slaves as a wife. There is no indication that women were consulted during this type of transaction. The arrangement would probably involve rape in most cases. In the times of the Hebrew Scriptures, Israelite women who were sold into slavery by their fathers were slaves forever. Men, and women who became slaves by another route, were limited to serving as slaves for seven years. When a male slave left his owner, the marriage would normally be terminated; his wife would stay behind, with any children that she had. He could elect to stay a slave if he wished.

“”Nienstedt: Gay marriage ban is not anti-gay”"
_________

yes and Bradlee Dean is by no means a homophobe!, right?

“”Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, who says if same-sex marriage is legalized, it could lead to polygamy and incest”"
_________

WOW…LOL..what on earth a loving and committed same-sex couple can have anything to do with a man having five wives or catholic priests molesting 10 or 12 year olds? ??

This dude is mental!!!

This guy is delusional.

The Catholic Church has never respected or incorporated the research of sexologists and social scientists that study sexuality. It has failed again and again to deal with its own deep internal problems relating to sexuality and much else. And yet it expects to retain its moral authority? The hypocrisy couldn’t be greater:

1) A gay theologian speaks out about the Vatican’s vile attitudes and the company it keeps:

“I kept having to listen to inhuman views. For example, Hitler was praised for having interned and murdered homosexuals in concentration camps. The point came when I couldn’t remain silent any longer …”
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,730520,00.html

2) Vatican Bank ‘allowed clergy to act as front for Mafia
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vatican-bank-allowed-clergy-to-act-as-front-for-mafia-2158692.html

3) Dutch Catholic Priest Pedophilia Endorsement Shocks Church
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/21/dutch-catholic-priest-pedophilia-endorsement_n_865124.html

4) The founder of the Legion of Christ was a pedophile:
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/03/14/secretive-catholic-order-founded-by-accused-pedophile-under-fire/

5) Catholic Church Child Abuse Claims Sweep Across Europe
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/13/catholic-church-child-abu_n_497942.html

6) Vatican letter told Ireland’s Catholic bishops not to report child abuse [A smoking gun which one would hope would bankrupt this wicked religious institution.]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/18/vatican-irish-bishops-child-abuse

Concerned, you hit it spot-on. Thank you so much for pointing out everything that the Bible also points out. On that same note, this webcomic also lists 8 things that the Bible bans, often in the same list that the intolerants cite as the biblical evidence against gay marriage.

http://survivingtheworld.net/Lesson167.html

I’m a Catholic, and I consider myself to be strong in my faith. But it makes me wonder what people like the bishop hear when they go to church. Do they only hear “HATE EVERYONE THAT’S NOT LIKE YOU,” or do they even listen to the gospels? What about “love thy neighbor as thyself?” It sickens me that the Bible has ever, and still is, being used to justify violence and hate.

@HG, Nienstadt, and other busybodies — Gays and lesbians aren’t the ones attempting to force radical social engineering on everyone. We already have families, marriages, and lives that we define for ourselves. I have two gay friends who have been together for eleven years, who consider themselves married. Their families consider them married. Their friends consider them married. Their co-workers consider them married. But you just cannot abide by that and so attempt to redefine their marriage with your anti-gay marriage bans. Guess what? It’s not really working for you. Over half of America thinks my friends should have their government consider them married too. Game over for you, but its too bad you and your friends will pour millions more down the drain fighting this losing battle when families are starving in our streets and the economy’s in shambles. Yeah, that’s mighty Christian of you. Get your priorities straight!

The hate of the prelates of the Catholic Church encouraged me to explore my longstanding sense of the real presence of Goddess-the-Mother – and I found Her, and have been one of Her priestesses ever since.

On the other hand, If God-the-Father exists, he’s a pretty crappy parent. There is only one word for a parent who wants you to destroy yourself and sacrifice any chance at happiness in life to please them: ABUSIVE.

I am reminded of a line from the Carter years… “You no playa’ da’ game, you no maka’ da’ rules.”

That’s what I’d say about Nienstedt weighing in on marriage. How about he pay attention to his misbehaving priests and leave the secular world to us citizens who pay taxes on our properties.

Jeff Wilfahrt, Rosemount, MN

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, Archibishop…

I really object to the Catholic church being tax-exempt when they are pushing an agenda to limit my civil rights. The taxes I pay provide police and fire protection to church property. Kind of ironic…..

[...] The Neinstedt article. [...]

Probably too late for the fray over the HG comments, but I wonder what his brain waves would reveal if he watched girl on girl stuff, which after all is still homosexuality…

Double standard methinks… ah but pleasure is pleasure, and a rose is rose by any other name.

Jeff Wilfahrt, Rosemount, MN

[...] Full Story from the MN Independent [...]

I am SOOO glad i am not Katholic or anything.
Seriously though, America needs to get to the 21st century!

Most of these responses show the silliness of the Archbishop’s arguments. Not allowing gays to marry or allowing Domestic Partnerships both mean gays are not full citizens.
Is this not anti-gay?

What children need are concerned and loving parents. Most child abuse comes from heterosexual parents. Read the papers.

Let it never be said that scientific study or facts should get in the way of dogma!

“Nienstedt argued that children fare best in families with one mother and one father”

Even if this were true, it is a relative statement taken as an absolute. “one mother and one father” is not the only possibility, and it cannot be mandated. Murphy Brown aside, parents sometimes die. Should the children of a dead soldier be taken from the remaining parent and adopted to “one mother and one father”? Or should the surviving parent be forced to remarry immediately? Should divorce be illegal for couples with children?

History has shown us that one mother and one father is no guarantee of good parenting skills. I suspect that traditional marriages are more likely to harbor generational abuse than families formed by adoption, regardless of the gender of the adopting parents.

An adopting couple is more likely to take parenting seriously, and do it well, than a couple that reproduces because it is expected of them.

“An adopting couple is more likely to take parenting seriously, and do it well, than a couple that reproduces because it is expected of them.”

Or reproduces by accident.

Zera Lee: “Even if this were true, it is a relative statement taken as an absolute. ‘one mother and one father’ is not the only possibility, and it cannot be mandated.”

Absolutely. For example, the premise brought forth is that “a child raised by their biological mother and father are best, so that is the only case that should be prescribed.” However, I can tell you personally as an adopted child that that was definitely not the case with me. I have met my birth mother and while she is a wonderful person, she was very young (just a teenager) when she had me, and my biological father was in no shape or condition to raise me. We all agree all around my adoptive parents did a fantastic job and that was absolutely, without a doubt, the best possible thing that could happen to me.

Likewise two male friends of mine adopted a child who had been sent from foster home to foster home for years. She’s now in a very stable, loving environment, and every time I see the joy in her face that she just can be a kid without worry about where she’s going to be going next or if she’ll have to make new friends at her new school, she’s now happy, and there is no way you can tell me that she would be better in foster care or with her biological parents.

Every family needs to make these decisions on a case-by-case basis, and there is no way the government should be making these decisions for them. Quite the opposite, government should support ALL families and all kids deserve a right to grow up in stable, loving households.

Could someone explain to me that, even if it were true that a child “does best” when raised by a male and a female couple, how does outlawing same-sex marriage ensure that child a male/female parenting duo? So far, illegal same-sex marriage hasn’t stopped same-sex couples from raising children. If same-sex marriage were legal, what are the real implications for children and since we don’t much care what happens to kids in the hands of straight couples, why are we suddenly so concerned now that gay couples are in the picture?

I know this is an easy and often-used criticism, but exactly what in the world is a man who has never been in a romantic relationship in his adult life doing telling us who we can and cannot have a relationship with?

the bishop is so far along the catholic hierarchy’s animus for gays that he is a pathological liar. The only explanation for what he said.

Just like those people who can fool a lie detector. So convinced of their own righteousness that there is no emotion at all.

the bishop of the church that gave the world the hatred of the Jews, which the catholic Hitler (born and baptised in very catholic austira) leveraged to gain power and 55 million died. for the church that supports life.. and no wonder the church has not yet EXcommunicated him See http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

The same church whose german born Pope in 2009 UNexcommunicated Bishop Williamson, who is a holocaust denier.

He had been kicked out ot the church of england.

the same church whose people, beginning to understand all the crimes of the church, now support marriage equality for gay people by about 43%. And an additional 31% support civil unions.

Also go to the website http://www.catholicarrogance.org by a couple of ex priests who became methodist ministers.

they couldn’t take the lies and hyporisy any more. And the Methodists, the most conservative of the middle of the road christian churches, are now rushing headlong into suspporting gay people.

Even doing marriages e g here in DC. Even though it violates their “book of discipline’

Some people really have the gonads to do what is right.

Strangly enough, with about 10 major/ significant denominations supporting gay ministers in relationships,a nd most moving toward gay marriage ceremonies.

we may be witnessing the end of blatent discrimination against gays.

Via religions, on which all the animus and hate is based.

Go figure

BTW, the whole catholic world is imploding. Only about 15% of west Europeans go to church regularly. And virtually every one of those countries except italy and greece now have marriage or civil unions for gays.

Brazil is the most catholic of all nations. Recently their supreme court ruled that the entire nation must have civil unions, Vote 10-0

As Brazil joins 5 other latin american nations (3+3 in granting marriage or civil unions to gays. And just the other day, chile made moves that could have it join those 5.

Ireland, another very catholic nation just got civil unions the beginnig of the year. And polls show a majority of the people there support mvoing to marriage.

I see the reference to cardinal dolan in NY.

While he was archbishop of Milwaukee, the truth came out about how the church molested children.

It was so bad that the diosces had to declare bankruptcy. And Dolan has also been considered the next pope.

Milwaukee Catholic diocese to file for bankruptcy citing clergy abuse lawsuits
LaToya Sawyer at 10:40 AM ET

[JURIST] Archbishop Jerome Listecki announced Tuesday that the Archodiocese of Milwaukee [official website] will file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection [press release] as a result of financial strain from lawsuits over the clergy sex abuse scandals [JURIST news archive]. The archdiocese’s purpose in filing the petition is to achieve the dual goals of compensating remaining victims and survivors of the abuses and continuing to carry out essential ministerial functions of the archdiocese. Listecki expressed his belief that Chapter 11 reorganization was the best approach to address these goals:
It enables the archdiocese to use available funds to compensate all victims/survivors with unresolved claims in a single process overseen by a court, ensuring that all are treated equitably. In addition, by serving as a final call for legal claims against the archdiocese, the proceeding will allow the archdiocese to provide closure and resolution so we can move forward on stable financial ground, focused on our Gospel mission.
The Chapter 11 process provides federal court supervision of the development of a plan that requires that the remaining archdiocesan resources are allocated fairly. Additionally, the plan must be feasible and not likely to require any further modifications to keep the archdiocese financially viable. The archdiocese expects the reorganization process to be complete within 12 to 18 months.
Further heightening the financial frustrations of Milkwaukee’s diocese is the recent Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision, which held [opinion text] that insurance companies do not have to contribute to the clergy abuse settlements. Milkwaukee is now the eighth American diocese to file for bankruptcy [NYT report] in response to the clergy sex scandals. Other state dioceses, such as Vermont [JURIST report], have resorted to selling church property and securing loans as means to meet the financial demands of the abuse settlements. Since 2007, in the US alone, the Catholic Church has settled more than 500 cases [JURIST news archive] of abuse for over $900 million.

I know this is an easy and often-used criticism, but exactly what in the world is a man who has never been in a romantic relationship in his adult life doing telling us who we can and cannot have a relationship with? end Quote

Almost certainly he has been in a romatic relationship in his own mind. The only question is whether it was with a little girl or little boy.

the poor creep was most likely abused by his church in his youth. And ask any Psychologist – abusers become abusers. Actting out their own suffereing on others.

the bishop – his lies saying “what me guilty?” one must wonder what he would say when he got caught with his member in the “cookie jar” of a little boy.

catholic should be spelled

KKKatholic

Child abuse should be spelled VATICAN

If you tell a lie often enough and outrageous enough,it will be seen as the truth

The basis of the catholic church and why it has to……

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we practice to decieve.

go read the book “A moral reckoning ” by Goldhagen, where he in equisite detail explains how the catholic church, with its “blood libel” and Christ killer belieffs caused the hatred of the Jews. A hatred Hitler leveraged, and 55 million died for the church that supports life.

And re Hitler, little is known of his early life, except as documented in his mad manifesto, Mein Kampf.

Saddam Hussein was sexually abused by his uncle who brought him up, Psychologists all understand that abused people become abusers. As they act out their own trauma on others.

Given the endless child abuse of the catholic church all over the worrld, its quite possible that hitlers madness also came from being abused by his priest or bishop.

And Goldhagens book, with many photos of bishops, priests, etc withhigh nazi officials, is just one piece of the endless examples, in detail of how the church sided with the nazis (yes there were some great exceptions who became popes), but for the most part the books detail lays wwII and the holocaust at the dorrstep of the vatican.

One would think that Pius XII would have simply stood in front of the nazi officials, and held out his arms in the form of the cross, to stop the nazi roundup of the Jews.

Sure they would have killed him, but dont these people beleive in an affterlife, and that the Pope, as the vicar of christ would end up sitting with Jesus beside God.

HYpocrisy hardly / barely begins to define these utter criminals. Our greatest mistake during WWII was not taking out the vatican, turning it into rubble and the cardinals food for the maggots.

Yet instead, today we have a German born, nazi era youth pope. Who in 2009 UNexcommunicated Bishop Williamson, a holocaust denier.

if there was a god, Vesuvius II would have opened up under the vatican, and sent these people to the real hellfires of the earth. We could in this case rejoice, rather then cry, for all those who were mass murdered, their bodies burned by the tens of thousands every day, by the born and baptised catholic, Hitler.

Still no, dead or alive , EXcommunicated.

USING THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE TO PROVE BEING GAY IS WRONG

All quoting of the bible is lost upon me. It has as much impact on my decision making as a drop of acid has upon polluting an ocean of pure water.

There are other reference books religious people swear allegiance to. There are even some citizens who refuse to be guided by any antique document composed of myths passed on like a game of telephone through the millennia and finally written down by ignorant first century tribesmen.

When we manage to see the old religious texts for what they are; great fictional stories, a little history and a means of promulgating primacy (dominion) over women and men not of a specific denomination, we will be a mature species able to govern with compassion.

Let us make our law for the good of all citizens, not by what a discredited* document says.

*Google biblical errancy.

interesting…in the few states and DC where Gays CAN Marry – doesn’t seem to be a run on INCEST or Polygamist marriages……….the catholic church sticking its nose into secular law needs to STFU….and mind thier own business.

I dont remember any LGBT person EVER wanting to get married where they weren’t wanted……and what makes this A-hole Bishop think HIS religion supercedes all others? There ARE religions that are MOre then Happy to Marry LGBT people too…..who’s to say, who’s religion is better??? Keep your Dammed Religion OUT of OUR secular Gov’t!

HG
Comment posted June 9, 2011 @ 1:40 pm
If the standard for marriage is lowered to simply whoever one want’s to marry, the door is opened for any and all to walk through.HG
Comment posted June 9, 2011 @ 1:45 pm
A gay-marriage ban is anti gay-marriage. Many of us who oppose gay marriage have no problem with domestic partnerships already afforded to gays. I don’t hear heterosexuals demanding access to domestic partnerships from which they are exlcluded.

WOW – HG you are oBSESSED with Gays 24/7, 365 days a yr??? FYI – GAYS & LESBIANS ARE Marrying already, 1000′s upon 1000′s ARE MARRIED…..You must be some dumb person…….and einstein- hetero HAVE FULL access to marriage EVERYWHERE…thats why you dont hear them wanting DP….and THEY Know they are NO-WHERE Near EQUAL to marriage either…..they aren”t stupid…..how about YOU go get a REAL edumacation..ok.

It’s a darn shame the religionists want to impose their religious beliefs on others. This is counter-evangelizing. It goes against what God wants. He doesn’t want people turning away from Jesus Christ because the “faithful” are filled with hate for their fellow citizens.

Oh yes, let the catholic church begin to lobby. Then we can tax them, just like any other BUSINESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh yeah….they are worried about gays? And marriage? Can the pot call the kettle black? I think the gays win the morals and values debate hands down. The catholic church is nothing but a child molesting hide out. The Catholic church already did a great job of destroying all of society’s values and morals on their own. And with a tax exemption, too!

Those who stand in the way of marriage equality will be, in only a single generation after it passes, remembered by history as the troglodytes they are. Their arguments linking same-gender spouses gaining legal recognition to polygamy, incest, pederasty, and bestiality will be revealed to be the last gasps of scared, tiny-minded people more interested in the safety of their religious convictions than the well-being of their fellow human being.

Until then, those who are rabidly opposed to common decency and participation by all adults in our democracy in its institutions should be treated with the same regard as they treat all of us: with constant, in-your-face lobbying. If yelling is the only language they understand, I’m tempted to not let up for a minute and -in so doing- force them to continue to spew their hatred and bile until they either choke on it or reveal themselves to the entire world as the frightened frauds they are.

…they act like no other same gender people have ever been married…….1000′s of cpls are married,and are getting married…..Many with Families/children…… this idiots will go down in history like the Shameful George Wallace…….who NOW everyone remembers as being a RACIST!

I think if most of the readership (and/or writership) of the above remarks regarding Archbishop Nienstadt had ever met him (as I have) they might observe a different person than the one they are hanging in effigy. As a Catholic (arch)bishop he is responsible for the care of souls, and for instructing Catholic laity, religious, and institutions in the teachings of the faith, which, while promulgated by the Catholic Church — starting at the parish level, and going all the way up to the Vatican — are ultimately the truths that God has revealed to humanity over at least some number of millennia.

Among other things, God has made it clear (at least in the Jewish and Christian sacred writings with which I am familiar) that the purpose of sex is the transmission of life. This is hardly a theological novelty, since a mere appeal to biology supports the concept. At the natural level, the fact that there is a pleasurable aspect to this is perhaps simply Mother Nature’s way of ensuring that the human race continues to live long upon the earth. In addition, at least for the human species, it helps to bind together a man and woman (who are the ones for whom marriage is designed, and reserved) in mutual and lasting fidelity, so as to provide stable environment for the begetting and rearing of children.

The problem arises when sexual relations are:

1) used purely for the pleasurable aspect, where the transmission-of-life aspect is nonexistent, because they involve same-sex acts, or,

2) are opposite-sex acts, where one or both individuals have deliberately frustrated their body’s capacity to give life, or,

3) are opposite-sex acts between a man and a woman who are not married to each other.

Cutting to the chase:

1) God is perfectly good (i.e, morally incapable of evil).
2) God wants us, his adopted children, to also be perfectly good.
3) God will make us perfectly good if we let him.
4) God desires us to love him above all else — a love that is not demonstrated by mere strong feelings, but is demonstrated only by obedience to His law and revealed will.
5) Those that make it their aim to love God — not on our terms, but on *his* terms — as their highest goal, can have the hope of eternity in heaven, where we will be loving (which also means obeying) God forever.
6) If we chose not to love God, i.e., not obey him, God will not force us to live with him, to love and obey him forever — but in so doing, we consign ourselves to an eternity in Hell.

The good archbishop is not anti-gay. He is incontrovertibly pro-gay, because he shows those with same-sex attraction how to live a holy life that they might know the joys of heaven forever.

Archbishop Nienstedt’s support of the marriage amendment is wrong, misses the whole idea of marriage and comes from a very myopic point of view.

Read more…

http://www.archspm.us/node/66

Shame on you for PLAYING GOD. These people that you diminish by calling them a sex act or behavior probably dont agree with your self-accalades. If you think thats love, you FAIL.

Just imagine the surprise that these believers won’t experience when at the moment of death, they discover that there is no such thing as the afterlife. You are alive one moment, dead the next.

It’s what you do with your life while you are alive that makes life heavenly or hellish for yourself and those around you. This is what is real. So is the reality of people who are LGBTI who live among us peacefully and lawfully.

By denying these realities using myth, lies, disinformation and appealing to prejudice, the Archbishop has proven himself incontrovertibly evil.

@Octavius,

Please continue to underscore the extent to which this ridiculous amendment represents the imposition of religion on everyone. Thank you.

PS. Nienstadt is one of many self-deluded zealots that wouldn’t know Christ if He kicked him in the asinus equus.

Praise Jebus, God hates the secular state, Amen.

Polygamy & Incest?? Really??? Here’s the difference: NO ONE gets to practice polygamy, and (thankfully) NO ONE gets to practice incest. These are illegal to the entire population. Marriage, on the other hand, is granted to a majority and withheld from the minority. It’s a clear cut civil rights violation, and furthermore, marriage discrimination sends a clear message to gay youth: “You’re not as good as everyone else, the world is against you, our lawmakers are lining up to withhold your rights… Enjoy the life ahead of you!”…. And we wonder why gay youth commit suicide in staggering numbers.

Octavius..

You do realize your religion is not law, it is not my Religion and I do not follow your beliefs and that there are billions of people that do not? You can no indoctrinate me and no one is in charge of any soul I may or may not have.

I’m glad that the archbishop can speak for me and tell me that I’m not offended by his actions. I guess that’s like telling me I chose to be gay, when I know I didn’t. What would we do without these people to guide us?

I still don’t see how the Catholic church can retain their tax-exempt status in light of their political actions.

Jerry …. I am. Not really sure how any of the so called churches and organizations that publicly lobby the way they do get away with the way they manage any of their financial side. Especially since my tax dollars pay their way!

This is why I’m not Catholic anymore. Lies and bigotry pervade the leadership of the church.

I FREAKING LOVE THIS WEBSITE!!! I also agree with totally that the Catholic Church is basically a BUSINESS now and should be TAXED!!!

As a Minnesotan and as a Roman Catholic, I find this extremely disturbing. The Church has shown, in the last century, a lot of backbone standing up for the oppressed and the marginalized, taking a stand for justice even when temporal powers want to exploit. How is it that the Archbishop now wants to collaborate with the bigots in oppression? This is disgraceful! All of us, Catholics and Lutherans, Christian and non-Christian, religious and not religious, should be standing shoulder to shoulder with our gay, lesbian, and bisexual brothers and sisters to ensure that their rights are as protected as any of the rest of ours!

(Oh, and a number of comments here seem to favor doing away with the separation of church and state by giving religious bodies a voice in government via taxation. I suggest you look into American history to understand why religious bodies are tax-exempt and then re-consider whether you really want them to have a claim to meddle in politics by taxing them.)