White House Petitioned to Declare Catholic Church a “Hate Group” — Will it Comply?

This isn’t as far-fetched as we’d like to imagine:

An online petition asking the White House to designate the Catholic Church as a “hate group” for its views on marriage is drawing criticism for generating unjust animosity.

The petition reveals an “underlying agenda,” which is not simply to prevent violent crimes, but to “stigmatize any disapproval of homosexuality at all and essentially to silence us,” said Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C.

He explained to CNA on Jan. 3 that applying the “hate group” label to organizations that are morally opposed to redefining marriage is simply “name-calling designed to cut us out of the public debate.”

Initiated on Christmas Day, a petition on the White House website had collected 1,640 signatures by Jan. 3. [CNA]

(Nice touch, initiating the petition on Christmas Day.)

Here’s my reaction to this news: I’d love to see the White House declare once and for all that it does NOT consider the Catholic Church to be a “hate group”.

You see, this is one of the most insidious arguments used by those bent on redefining marriage: they claim, time and time again, that laws, traditions, individuals and institutions which understand marriage to be the union of one man and one woman do so because of animus towards gay people.

It’s an absurd claim, of course: the notion that thousands of years of civilized human beings all coming to the same conclusion that, to make a marriage, you need both sexes was purely a way of expressing “hatred” towards gay people.

But an absurd claim repeated often enough by powerful people can still do incredible damage.

Which powerful people are repeating this absurd claim that marriage is rooted in hatred, you might ask?

Obama’s Justice Department, that’s who:

“…The [Department of Justice’s] 31-page brief asserts that DOMA’s “official legislative record” shows clearly that Section 3 of DOMA, which limits the federal definition of “marriage” to the union of one man and one woman, and “spouse” to indicate a member of the opposite sex, was “motivated in large part by animus toward gay and lesbian individuals and their intimate relationships.” (LSN, emphasis added).

And, in another instance:

“… Stuart Delery, acting assistant attorney general of the Department of Justice’s Civil Division, argued for the government, against the constitutionality of Section 3 of the act [before the Supreme Court]… Delery said. “Furthermore, there’s clear evidence in the legislative record of animus including prejudice and stereotyped-based thinking.” (Law.com, emphasis added)

Yes, you read that right: official representatives of our own government claiming in the highest court of the land that the reason a law was passed to protect marriage was because of “animus” and “prejudice” towards gay and lesbian people.

For gay marriage activists, including many representatives of our own government, failure to support gay “marriage” makes one immediately guilty of being “anti-gay.”

That’s why I’m really curious to see how the White House answer the question: is the Catholic Church a “hate group” because of our understanding of marriage?



73 thoughts on “White House Petitioned to Declare Catholic Church a “Hate Group” — Will it Comply?

  1. Greg B. says:

    “…they claim, time and time again, that laws, traditions, individuals and institutions which understand marriage to be the union of one man and one woman do so because of animus towards gay people.It’s an absurd claim, of course…”

    Um Thomas, we’ve read your tweets.

    1. abadilla says:

      “Um Thomas, we’ve read your tweets.” And Thomas could say to you, “Um Greg, I’m deleting your comments.”

      1. Greg B. says:

        But he hasn’t. So your point is?

        1. abadilla says:

          Greg, I would interpret your words as a threat, but either Thomas has not seen your message, or he has giving it another interpretation. Time will tell!

          1. Greg B. says:

            A threat? You’re insane.

          2. abadilla says:

            Unless you are a psychiatrist or a psychologist, I doubt you can make this judgment. I certainly would not do it with the limited knowledge I have of you, even if I were a psychologist or a psychiatrist.

  2. […] Petitions Of course, you’ve heard about the petition on the Whitehouse.gov site that urges President Obama to designate Catholics as a hate group, […]

  3. […]  Punditry  Add comments Jan 052013   Of course, you’ve heard about the petition on the Whitehouse.gov site that urges President Obama to designate Catholics as a hate group, […]

  4. Philip D. says:

    The Catholic Church that I grew up in, spent their time trying to end wars, feed the hungry and promote peace. The Catholic Church of today spends millions of dollars every year trying to promote prejudice against gay people and trying to ban them from legal protections. They partner with groups that say they want to “export homosexuals” and even helped fund a conference call where a preacher said that parents should “slap their sissy children”. It seems to me that the church that Jesus founded has died and been replaced with one that could not be further from his teachings if it tried.

    Jesus stopped the angry mob from stoning the sinner at the well. Today’s Catholic Church has decided to fan hostility against the sinner and hand out boulders to he angry mob instead.

    Rather than complaining about the petition that someone started to declare the church a hate group, faithful Catholics should sit down and look at the condition of the current church and figure out a way to fix it. This is a wake up call. Ignore it at your own risk.

    1. naturgesetz says:

      Philip D. — From all I have read, I believe that it is false to characterize the statements of Bishop Paprocki and Cardinal George as “offensive rhetoric” or attempting “to incite feelings of prejudice against gay people.” I believe that it is also false to accuse the Church of “trying to promote prejudice against gay people,” or to claim, even figuratively, that it “has decided to fan hostility against the sinner and hand out boulders to [t]he angry mob.”

      You disagree with the Church as to what the true rights of gay people should be in a well-ordered civil society, but it seems to me that if anybody here is using offensive rhetoric and fanning hatred, it’s you, not the Church. So I challenge you, give actual quotes from current bishops which you imagine support your overheated rhetoric, and try to show how they go so far beyond simple disagreement with you as to justify your characterization of them.

      1. David Hart says:

        Paprocki’s letter is intellectually dishonest. First of all, he is doing the Frank Schubert two-step by redefining marriage. The purpose of, and for, marriage for thousands of years has been to create a marital estate. Cranking out kids has never been part of the deal. The notion that the purpose of marriage is procreation was manufactured specifically to oppose marriage equality.

        Moreover, he cites the potential persecution of having to hire a gay person who is wed as a reason to oppose equal marriage. The issue is whether or not he has to hire a gay person in the first place and has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage equality.

        He also spends considerable time on “children need a mother and father.” That, too, has little to do with equal marriage. Gays adopt children who have NO mother and NO father. Sometimes, children are being raised by a gay parent due to divorce. Those kids are better off if the couple raising them is married. Paprocki is just repeating the talking points without considering their meaning or impact.

        1. naturgesetz says:

          You can go back to Aristotle and see at the beginning of the “Politics” that he characterizaes the union of man and woman as necessary for the propagation of the species, the source of the family, which in turn is the foundation of civil society. The idea that a primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children has been around for millenia — long before anybody ever though of “marriage equality.” The assertion that “The notion that the purpose of marriage is procreation was manufactured specifically to oppose marriage equality,” is demonstrably absolutely false.

          I don’t understand Bishop Paprocki’s concern about being forced to hire a married gay person, but it hardly seems to rise to the hateful level that you ascribe in your earlier comments.

          Further, I see nothing hateful in suggesting that being raised by one’s mother and father is, as a rule, best for children, and noting that same-sex marriage tends to encourage situations where children are raised by one parent but not the other (surrogacy) and others where there are not parents of both sexes, and that these situations should not be encouraged.* Again, you may disagree about what is best for children, but the Bishop’s point is hardly novel or hateful. Certainly, we make provisions for adoption and foster care when it is not possible for both parents to raise their children, but these have never been considered better than having the biological parents raise them.

          *In all honesty, I’ll say that I think that the Church is still on a learning curve with respect to adoption by same-sex couples, and that eventually it will recognize that being raised by two men or two women in a stable home can be better for children than being shunted around through a series of foster homes and/or spending significant time in unsuitable institutions where no consistent love is given.

          1. abadilla says:

            Where were you? I’ve been waiting for you!

          2. Justin Hart says:

            flaws with “Marriage for child birth and propagation of the human race”:

            1) Gays do not create nor do they destroy children. If every gay person got married today there would be 0 more or less children brought into the world. They have literally no impact on “propagating the species”

            2) The human race is mass procreating even without marriage.Gays getting married will not change this. Marriage isn’t a requirement for childbirth.

            3) I go back to the fact that the world is over populated. We could do with having less children. Even if homosexuals getting equality did somehow miraculously convince some people not to pretend to be straight and instead be gay and thus prevent the birth of a few children, the impact would be minor at best, and it would prevent a child being born into a very dysfunctional and unhappy household of someone who is just being straight cause they are “supposed to” and not being happy about being there.

            4) The catholic church preaches the only acceptible birth control is abstinence. This laughable policy is the reason why many catholic families have like 9 kids. Most people now days have no intention of abstaining, even though they should. This leads to parents that are never home because they are constantly working to support their huge families, and congratulations you have just multiplied the family unit by 4.5 times, which will continue the same trend. not doing anything to help get our population under control before we destroy God’s planet.

          3. said she says:

            • The world is NOT over-populated. Clearly explained here: http://www.pop.org

            • The Catholic Church does NOT preach “the only acceptible birth control is abstinence”. That is completely false. The Church’s teaching is that we are ALL called to chastity (which is NOT the same thing as abstinence), Resources: http://www.chastity.com and 1flesh.org

          4. Thank you … 1 more person who understands Truth.

          5. “Gays do not create nor do they destroy children. If every gay person got married today there would be 0 more or less children brought into the world. They have literally no impact on “propagating the species”.

            Er… Surrogacy, A WOMAN’S egg and a homosexual’s sperm (or the opposite). Can’t do it without both! A child is best raised with a father and a mother. To say otherwise is to demean one or the other. We are CO-CREATORS with God. Jesus will return when our almighty Father has been able to co-create all of the children He had in His mind’s eye before the world began. Contraception, abortion, etc. only delay His 2nd coming…

          6. Justin Jurek says:

            Population control is evil. Large families are a blessing from God.

        2. said she says:

          If marriage has never been about kids, then how’d we ever get the “shotgun wedding”? Marriage binds the father to the mother and to the children they bring into the world. Admittedly, that helps the estate: it determines who gets what. But lots of poor people get married and have kids, even when there’s no estate to speak of.

          As to the adoption of children by same-sex couples: First, it should be pointed out that for every child adopted in the U.S., there are 36 couples waiting to adopt. So, it isn’t about unwanted kids not having any parents.

          Secondly, using just a little common sense, we can know that a child raised without the benefit of a mom and dad is at a distinct disadvantage. Children need both parents to learn how men and women differ and interact in a loving family. Every broken family is harmful to kids, and we should do everything we can to support single-parent situations. But forcing the law to support a broken-from-the-get-go family model is harmful to kids from the get-go. And unnecessary, because there are so many hetero couples waiting to adopt.

          The problem is that you’re putting the desires of the adults ahead of the needs of the children. Children have rights, too. They are not able to fend for themselves, so their rights and needs should take priority. Healthy kids are a benefit to all of society. Same-sex couples are not.

        3. Joe M says:

          The problem with this angle of argument is that people do not need to be married in order to create an estate together. Gay people can already call each other married, have a ceremony, wear rings, live together, co-own property, etc.

          It’s easy to discredit the argument you are making by pointing out that virtually all of the practical affects of marriage are already easily available to gay people who want them.

      2. Justin Hart says:

        Quote: “You disagree with the Church as to what the true rights of gay people should be in a well-ordered civil society”

        The problem with your statement is that due to the separation of church and state the Church has no right to dictate what rights anyone has in the “ordered civilized society” of the United States.

        1. Deker71 says:

          “Give to God what is God’s, and to Caesar what is Caesars'”. Genesis defines marriage as a union between man and women to become one resulting in children. It’s interesting how the discovery of DNA and meiosis supports this since it shows that children are a ‘oneness’, and truly a biologic union of man and woman. Thus heterosexual marriage alone is the societal structure for raising a family which is the backbone of society.

          Gay unions are not for procreation, and cannot create a union of one , and therefore cannot be a marriage. And what about the constitutional rights of children to have a mother and father. Gay marriage cannot be justified since it destroys those rights. Family and marriage is a gift from God; not Caesar.

          1. Justin Hart says:

            The constitution says nothing about a right to a mother and father. And according to your claim then all hetero’s who can’t have or don’t want kids aren’t married either. Since marauder is “only for procreation”

          2. Deker71 says:

            The constitution gives a person the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The natural law guarantees that every person conceived has a mother and father – that’s a right that can’t be changed or redefined which gay marriage is trying to do. You’re right though, if a hetero-couple doesn’t want kids, then they are not really entering into a marriage convenant as defined by natural law.

          3. Patrick says:

            Deker71, you are quoting the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. One is binding law, one is a letter written to a king. Get your facts straight. And our civil laws do not follow the natural law theory of marriage. Another fact you didn’t know. Should you really being typing here? I think you should be reading instead.

          4. Deker71 says:

            My mistake Patrick. Thanks for the correction. My point is that ignoring natural law leads to bad laws like slavery. Because you have the right, by civil law, to do something doesn’t make something right – just legal. Gay marriage ignores natural law, and is harmful to children.

          5. Patrick says:

            Deker71, MOST of our laws about sexuality ignore natural law theory – and they should – because natural law theory doesn’t work to regulate human sexuality any more than Sharia law works to regulate the rights of women. And gay marriage is not harmful to children. Quoting the Bishop of Rome – who makes that conclusory statement with no evidence or support – is not a persuasive argument. On the contrary, there are many children in the 8 European countries and 9 US states and DC who are better off now that their parents are married to each other. Its that simple.

          6. Deker71 says:

            What do you mean by “regulate human sexuality” and “gay marriage is not harmful to children”? Where’s are your references? Recent studies and blogs by children raised in gay environments show gay marriage is harmful and homosexuality can be cured (see the Regnerus study, Robert Oscar Lopez blog, and Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX)). These studies support the Bishop of Rome, and does Jesus Christ that children should be raised by a mother and father. Jesus loves the sinner, but not the sin.

          7. Patrick says:

            Deker71, By your own words, “if a hetero-couple doesn’t want kids, then they are not really entering into a marriage convenant as defined by natural law” and they ARE entering into a marriage covenant as defined by civil law. So the 2 are different? Hmmm. That’s what I thought. In the same way gay marriage is marriage as defined by civil law, but not marriage as defined by natural law theory. Perfect! We are all in agreement. And as the issue in the USA is changing civil law, while NOT changing Natural Law Theory or any other philospohical construct, then you have no argument. Unless you maintain that civil law must follow natural law theory, which is in direct conflict with reality, as per your quote above.

            As for the Regenerus Study, those are YOUR conclusions about his study, not his. In fact, he disagrees with you. He has expressly stated that his study was not about gay parenting and that the foundation of his study is too weak to draw the conclusions that you and others have have made. (I refer you to his post-article interview with Focus on the Family).
            And the blogs you reference are anecdotal at best. Stick with the American Academy of Pediatrics: “The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way… In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures.”

          8. Deker71 says:

            Patrick, you’re making my point. Natural law should direct civil law in the case of marriage. When you ignore natural law you end up with civil laws like those that support slavery. Gay marriage lacks the characteristics of a moral law. It violates several legal principles – the limits to Freedom, beneficence, fundamentality of rights, full human potential, and nonmaleficence. These are the same principles that were ignored by those advocating slavery.

            The American Academy of Pediatrics study that supported gay marriage was found full of inaccuracies by the American College of Pediatricians. Also the APA no longer adheres to the Leona Tyler Principle, which required that all public positions of the APA be supported by scientific evidence.

            As far as the Regenerus study, you’re incorrect about those only being my conclusions. Here a summary from the paper: Regnerus found that in comparison with children of traditional families, those raised by lesbian couples had negative outcomes in 24 out of 40 test categories. Those raised by homosexual men had negative outcomes in 19 categories. He has tables in the paper that clearly show this.

            It all comes down to common sense: children deserve a mother and father because that’s how God intended it.

          9. Justin Jurek says:

            Not they’re not, they’re being abused. They’re intentionally deprived of a natural family (mother and father) and being given a counterfeit “family” of “married” homosexuals.

        2. naturgesetz says:

          “Dictate” is an incorrect word. If the Church were dictating, there would be no discussion: the Church’s word would be law. What the Church is doing is attempting to persuade, something it has every right to do.

        3. Justin Jurek says:

          One of America’s great failings. “Separation of Church and State” is modernist and heretical.

    2. Joe M says:

      Philip D. The Catholic Church you grew up in held the same principles on marriage as the Catholic Church of today.

      It is society that has changed during that time. Not the Church.

    3. Justin Jurek says:

      I should also add that Jesus told the woman to stop sinning, or did you miss that part or cross it out?

    4. Proteios says:

      I don’t see that at all. Sounds like you aren’t really seeing the charity that exists all around you.

  5. David Hart says:

    Mr. Peters:

    You have indulged in a logical fallacy. In point of fact, DOMA was motivated, at least in part, by animus towards LGBT people. DOJ’s recognition of that fact has absolutely nothing to do with animus towards the Catholic Church.

    I do not concur that the Catholic Church is a hate group (in contrast to your employer). Nevertheless, Bishops of the Church have made some profoundly anti-gay and hateful statements. Your employer makes denigrating statements on a daily basis and it often serves as a proxy for the USCCB.

    The reason that the Church is suffering harm to its reputation is an effort to impose Catholic doctrine on civil law. The effort to ban same-sex marriage is as foolish as a prospective effort, on the part of the Church, to outlaw divorce. The bishops need to get a grip on reality. Americans generally don’t view the bishops as privileged aristocrats in spite of all of the chivalric trappings.

    There is nothing in any of the gay marriage initiatives that limits the ability of the Church to define what it considers a marriage. The Church does not consecrate the marriages of divorcees either. Yet nowhere in the US do we limit their ability to remarry under CIVIL law.

    Get over it. NOM’s expiration date is coming quicker than you might think.

    1. Joe M says:

      “There is nothing in any of the gay marriage initiatives that limits the
      ability of the Church to define what it considers a marriage.”

      That statement is simply not true. As one example, according to State Mandated Definition, gay marriage initiatives would make it illegal for Catholic adoption agencies to decline adoptions to same-sex couples.

      1. Proteios says:

        The reality is that these amazing institutions are being driven out of existence. The problem is that they aren’t being replaced at the same rates. The left puts so much faith in a government that isn’t providing the services left vacant be bankrupting or chasing out Catholic charitable organizations that serve children as adoption agencies or foster parents, the community by feeding the poor, etc.

    2. Justin Jurek says:

      One of America’s great failings is it’s refusal to listen to the wisdom of the bishops. You are a heretic (Americanism, Modernism).

  6. abadilla says:

    Mr. Peters, you are already witnessing this type of language in this forum simply because Cardinal George and Bishop Paprocki have spoken forcefully on this issue, and when the Holy Father in Rome referred to the Christian family on Dec 21, headlines acrossed the world accused the Pope of hatred of homosexuals.
    “they claim, time and time again, that laws, traditions, individuals and institutions which understand marriage to be the union of one man and one woman do so because of animus towards gay people.” That’s exactly what you will read here in the reactions to what Cardinal George and Bishop Paprocki said.
    As for this White House, I would not be surprised if they go as far as naming the Catholic Church a hate group. And then I would love to see the reaction of American bishops and Rome. Why shouldn’t this administration call us a “hate” group when it is now demonstrating to everyone what they think of Catholicism with the implementation of the HH Mandate?

    1. Philip D. says:

      “Spoken forcefully” = used offensive rhetoric and attempted to incite feelings of prejudice against gay people.

      There was no “respect” in either of their statements, as the teaching of the church requires.

      1. abadilla says:

        Of course, you don’t use offensive rhetoric, only Catholics who defend the moral teaching of the Church do, right?

      2. Joe M says:

        Prejudice against gay behavior is not the same thing as prejudice against gay people.

          1. Joe M says:

            So, if you think that a person drinks too much alcohol, that makes you prejudiced against that person?

          2. Justin Jurek says:

            what part of “a behavior is not a person” do you not understand?

        1. Philip D. says:

          So it’s OK if I’m prejudiced against people that go to mass and drink the blood of Christ as long as I’m not prejudiced against Catholics?

          1. Joe M says:

            A lot of people are prejudiced against going to mass and drinking the blood of Christ. They’re called non-Christians.

            A behavior is not a person.

          2. Justin Jurek says:

            Or Protestants, which is what a lot of liberal commentors on this blog seem to be.

    2. David Hart says:

      What gives the Church the right to impose its doctrine on the citizens of Illinois – most of whom are not Catholic? It is comparable to a group of Hasidim attempting to outlaw the sale. consumption and holding of traif (pork, shellfish, etc.).

      1. abadilla says:

        The Church is imposing nothing, the Church is simply asking the state to keep its present laws on marriage because those laws protect the family and its integrity, whether those families are Catholic or not.
        To compare the Roman Catholic Church, 1 billion souls, with Hassidic Judaism, not even 1% of the planet’s population according the the Pew Research Institude, tells me volumens about what you know about Catholicism

        1. Justin Hart says:

          Doesn’t matter if you had 42 trillion Catholics and 2 homosexuals. In the united states the first amendment guarantees EVERYONE the freedom of religion including the freedom not to believe. It does not specify freedom of Christian religion, freedom of catholic religion, or freedom of Abrahamic religions to include Islam and Judaism. Freedom of religion. That also does not grant you the right to force your faith on others.

          Additionally the separation of church and state has NOTHING to do with stopping kids or teachers from praying in school or even in government offices or celebrating a religious holiday. It was put in place SPECIFICALLY to ensure that the Catholic and Anglican churches could not take over the government like the did everywhere else at the time, and To prevent religious entities such as the church from generating laws based on a specific religion or set of religious principals and enforce those laws on all Americans including those who’s beliefs they would violate.

          DOMA is therefore by it’s very nature a violation of the separation of church and state and as such is unconstitutional. Furthermore the church and the religious right in general has no right to to enter laws based on religious principals through the use of the Republican party which it has hijacked, in order to force it’s beliefs to be law.

          This is not the opinion of a “gay rights activist”, it is fact of law.

          How long before you decide that maybe the sale of herbal plants, candles, and incense should be illegal because you woke up one day and started crying satanism even though those items are used in various holistic medicines and cultures? Or decide maybe meditation should be illegal because it’s not prayer? Or that pore and shellfish should be outlawed because they violate the Old Testament, the Torah, and/or the Koran? At what point do we allow you to enforce the teachings of Christianity as science (creationism) which has no research or supportability, instead of philosophy?

          As for the argument that you are protecting the family, no one is intending to force every family into homosexuality (unlike the desire of DOMA). No “christian” family will be broken up to force this on them so the “Christian family” isn’t under attack. You are more than welcome to practice your belief in family in your way. Do you see a difference?

          As for the argument that if we allow homosexual marriage then the earth’s population will be wiped out, the Human race as currently so overpopulated the planet that we are destroying entire specifies of animals that God created. We are consuming every available resource and very soon the planet that God gave us will not be able to support us. We could actually do with a few billion less people in the world.

          As for homosexuality being a sin, That should be between them and God who has said to you “Judgement is mine thus sayeth the lord.” If God has an issue with their sins HE will deal with it come judgement day.

          I do not believe the church should be listed as a hate group. I do, however, SERIOUSLY believe the church should reconsider it’s behavior, ask itself if it is truly being Christ-like in its judgmental attitudes and lack of forgiveness. Possibly even consider if it’s hipocracy and many of it’s “policies” might be one of the leading causes of it’s decline. And possibly just maybe if rather than trying to force convert the world, maybe if instead by being compassionate, caring, accepting and guiding of it’s fellow man, it might instead return to being a guiding beacon of God’s glory and intent for mankind.

          1. disqus_NFTX9Yjqrg says:

            That was a HUGE long winded nonsensical liberal screed….My short response—SHOVE IT!

          2. Justin Jurek says:

            The Episcopal Church already tried to do what you suggested the Catholic Church do (allow acceptance of homosexual sin and redefinition of marriage). The result? It’s on life support.

          3. Proteios says:

            Wrong! The first amendment protects religious institutions from dictatorial governments interfering with itspractices. That is all. The silliness…or ignorance of your comments indicate you need a remedial course in constitutional law.

        2. Greg B. says:

          And there it is folks – “we have more people in our religion so we get more rights”.

          1. abadilla says:

            That’s not what I say and now you are twisting my words to mean something I never meant.
            As an example, Judaism has a very small number of people, especially after the Jewish population was decimated by the Holocaust. However, as small as the religion is, they have a tremendous influence on the Greco Roman culture that saw the rise of Judaism and on Christianity. Confusianism is very small in numbers but the teachings of Confucius are still of tremendous importance in many Asian countries. The “validity” of a teaching has nothing to do with the numbers of followers of a particular religion, but to call the Roman Catholic Church a “sect” as was previously done before, is simply not accurate because there is no sect in this world with 1 billion followers.
            Greg, if you want a dialogue, fine, but don’t twist the meaning of the person who is making an effort to communicate with you.

          2. Joe M says:

            What right do Catholics have that others do not?

          3. Proteios says:

            And that’s your argument? Manipulating a valid statement of comparison. Pease provide some reason to your silly outburst.

      2. Joe M says:

        What gives gay marriage advocates the right to impose their doctrine on the citizens of Illinois?

        1. Philip D. says:

          The beauty of freedom. If you don’t believe in gay marriage, then don’t get gay married. Otherwise, get your nose out of the affairs of other people.

          1. Joe M says:

            The state definition of marriage IS an affair of all people in that state.

            Getting “gay married” is not the only issue. For example, gay marriage laws prevent Catholic adoption agencies from declining to adopt children to gay couples.

            Claiming this is about freedom is like saying that Mussolini justifiably silenced his critics to allow himself more freedom.

          2. Proteios says:

            Sounds good. Bt the reality is that gays are suing people, threatening people and sting as bullies to anyone who so much as disagrees with them. Sounds like what you mean to say is if you disagree with me, prepared to get fired, harassed, etc. if it were as peaceful as you pretend I think people might feel different, but as it is…that is a misrepresentation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



Receive our updates via email.