CBN News:
Some of you may have seen portions of the following videos but The Brody File has gone through them and found them to be pretty interesting.
Pastor Rick Warren talks to Church members about his support for Proposition 8 in a video address on the church website. Near the end he says the following:
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Yup, it's a humanitarian issue.
That's why 4,557 churches in Californian are fighting Prop 8 in the supreme court.
(California Council of Churches v. Mark D. Horton)
Those who live with prohibitions create violators. So say the Eastern religions.
My Bible says to live love, and that it's God's goodness that makes people want to change. Not being mean, nasty, intolerant, etc. etc. to them. Not hating them, that's for sure.
I have some good friends who are gay and as far as I'm concerned, if they want to marry that's their business, not mine.
I would like for Rick Warren or any other henchmen or henchwomen for religious tyranny to LISTEN TO the stories of Detective Lieutenant Laurel Hester and Stacie Andree , or Tim Coco and Genesio “Junior” Oliveira, or .... [ 1,000's ]
....and THEN tell me these families do NOT deserve Equal Protection Under the Law. America, all hell is about to break loose, but those NOT affected by H8 seem to care less about those who are. WHY is NO ONE telling these stories??! (besides some documentary film makers).
If RICK does think we deserve this treatment as a community, then it IS indeed going to be a WAR of religious tyrannists and those who believe in Human Equality. Soul Equality.
Condom Burnings and Anti-Gay Witch Hunts:
How Rick Warren Is Undermining AIDs Prevention in Africa
http://www
In August 2007, Ssempa led hundreds of his followers through the streets of Kampala to demand that the government mete out harsh punishments against gays. "Arrest all homos," read placards. And: "A man cannot marry a man." Ssempa continued his crusade online, publishing the names of Ugandan gay rights activists on a Web site he created, along with photos and home addresses. "Homosexual promoters," he called them, suggesting they intended to seduce Uganda's children into their lifestyle. Soon afterward, two of President Museveni's top officials demanded the arrest of the gay activists named by Ssempa. Terrified, the activists immediately into hiding.
Warren, in his effort to dispel criticism, has denied harboring homophobic sentiments. "I could give you a hundred gay friends," he told MSNBC's Ann Curry on Dec. 18. "I have always treated them with respect. When they come and want to talk to me, I talk to them."
But when Uganda's Anglican bishops threatened to bolt from the Church of England because of its tolerant stance towards homosexuals, Warren parachuted into Kampala to confer international legitimacy on their protest.
"The Church of England is wrong, and I support the Church of Uganda on the boycott," Warren proclaimed in March 2008. Declaring homosexuality an unnatural way of life, Warren flatly stated, "We shall not tolerate this aspect [homosexuality in the church] at all."
We have heard of this Rick Waren story for a month now. it was given extensive coverage by the media for two weeks.I'm sure Obama got the message- it was a bad choice and gay folks are mad.He tried to explain his choice- His explanation was not accepted.H
The most liberal state was duped into voting for Prop 8 by people and churches who lied and stuck their noses where they didn't belong.
I disagree, the most liberal state did not vote for prop 8 because they were 'lied' to. I'm sure you'd like to believe that to console yourself. People knew exactly what they were voting for,it's just the truth. If they were to vote again today,you wouldn't see so much difference.
A man stands up and finally say the unfolding truth and a backlash of controversy follows.
Rick Warren doesn't know what the truth is.
Nor does he know the definition of the word "humanitarian".
And what "truth"are you referring too? Do you agree that homosexuality is equivalent to bestiality? Incest? What about pederasty?
Is that what you are saying?
Warren....
a matter of opinion.
Gay people are still allowed to have opinions..
why do we give these insanely dangerous religious leaders a pass?
everything they stand for is detrimental to a modern, free-thinking, rational and civilized society
Because the culture and government of the United States has a deep-seated Calvinistic belief that some people (i.e., wealthy heterosexual white people, male in particular) have more rights than others.
Not pretty, but there it is.
Yep. No part American culture or subculture is exempt from this.
how bout this:
we get ourselves into the 20th century and start becoming civilized ... that "Calvinistic belief" is what i rant about here constantly (like a madman) because it is uncivilized and a detrament to our society
as a heterosexual white person, male in particular, i would gladly give up my right as the "superior" subset of our species to bring about this necessary change ... we all HAVE to to grow up!
Here is my counter to Mr. Pupose-Drvien Warren (with credit to W.H. Auden):
The windiest militant trash
Important Persons shout
Is not so crude as our wish:
What mad Nijinsky wrote
About Diaghilev
Is true of the normal heart;
For the error bred in the bone
Of each woman and each man
Craves what it cannot have,
Not universal love
But to be loved alone.
.......
All I have is a voice
To unfold the folded lie,
The romantic lie in the brain
Of the sensual man-in-the-street
And the lie of Authority
Whose buildings grope the sky:
There is no such thing as the State
And no one exists alone;
Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police;
We must love one another or die .
If 10,000,000 gay people tell you that it was not a choice to be gay...(if that matters?)
And you still say it is...
You are being deliberately and willfully ignorant..
If you use the "choice" argument to say this is any different from any other minorities
attempts to gain the same rights and privileges of the majority..
You are deliberately and willfully being a bigot....
Now, continue..
look it is time to take down the church - strip it naked and let all see that its foundation is built on lies, deceit and out-right fraud ...
do i need to mention what the "history" is built on?
isnt teaching hell and damnation a form of child abuse and brain-washing?
when are WE going to take away their power ... who are these people to define our lives?
If the government would enforce laws that prevent churches from engaging in politics, we wouldn't have to take down any church.
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
Thomas Jefferson'
being gay and being black (or Latino or Asian..) aren't even in the same ballpark..
BTW....10M gays? nioce round number puled out of thin air...and how did this number come about? polling? census? drawing straws? cutting cards...ar
I've said it before and I'll say it again: discrimination is discrimination, whether it's against one person on one day or against millions for centuries. No person or group should be more entitled to be treated like a human being more than any other person or group.
That wasn't his argument.
Even if it is a matter of choice, it's my choice to make and should not be subject to anyone else's morals.
Thanks for proving my point....b
So what is it to you? choice or...it is what it is?
Also, on the "straw man" numbers...
305,577,244 americans.
If we use Warrens number, 2%......th
If we use kinsey....
That is 3 out of 100 folks....
10,000,000! ..........
Your bigotry shines through!
If 10,000,000 Alcoholic people tell you that it was not a choice to be an alcoholic (if it matters?) does that mean we should accept that being a drunk is OK?
If 10,000,000 drug addicts tell you it was not a choice to be a drug addict (if it matters?) should we accept that being a drug addict is OK?
If like Rick Warren you use the Bible as a standard those are all a sin and should be turned away from.
Bad analogies.
Wrong.
It is an Equality and Civil Rights issue.
As long as the religious ceremony of marriage has legal rights attached to it, it is and shall be subject to the Constitutional rights of all. The Supreme Court's most fundamental purpose is to uphold these rights of the minority.
I regard it as a human rights issue.
I find Obama's choice of pop culture moralists and so called "experts" like Warren and Gupta extremely disturbing.
A human rights issue lacks the clear protection in our Constitution, so that is the diversionary tactic being foisted.
Does the government have the right to define what is and what is not a marriage? That is the real question here.
If the answer is the government does not have that right, then any 78 year old FLDS man could marry his 14 year old grand niece (with her parents permission) and have her become his 17th wife. How about a 50 year old man and an 11 year old boy and call that a marriage? Wouldn't preventing those violate equal protection?
If the answer is that government CAN define what is and is not marriage then debate is how do you define it and write the laws? We currently have two systems to do that. They are by the legislative process and by state propositions. That is the system in place now and in 42 states it has defined marriage as between one man and one woman.
For as long as this country has existed courts have ruled that government can define marriage as long as there is no racial discrimination. Long legislative and election debates have defined marriage as between a man and a woman. If the argument against defining marriage as between one man and one woman is so strong then why has it not prevailed?
Courts have ruled that government has a legitimate interest in defining what is and is not marriage. In all cases all Federal courts have ruled defining marriage as between a man and a woman does not violate the US constitution.
Nope. It is a civil rights issue.
After viewing Warren videos the idea arises, maybe it is time, finally, for a national convention to be held to draft an amendment to the U.S. Constitution outlawing lobbying by religious leaders on any government law or policy.
Once the final draft has been approved by the convention it would be submitted for approval by the American people and ratification.
The draft would serve as a policy statement by a concensus of the convention arrived at through discussion, debate and compromise such as the original Constitutional Covention. Naturally there would be wide spread public discussion as well media coverage.
The first and most critical step would be to determine the criteria for selecting delegates to represent the people at the convention. Does anyone have suggestions?
I propose another attempt at passing the Equal Rights Amendment:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
Let's try to finish what Alice Paul started.
http://www
Part One
A lot has been made of the passage of Prop 8 in California and the support it received from minority communities. Initial exit polling data pointed to majorities of Latino, Asian, black, republican and religious voters as the reason for the slim 4% margin of victory that put Prop 8 over the top. Subsequent news reports on CNN, MSNBC and FOX News singled out black voters and created the beginning of a backlash that I predict will be in full swing come the days following Rick Warren’s invocation of President Obama’s inauguration.
One of the biggest grievances that I’ve encountered from blacks in particular while watching and participating in this debate is that some people do not appreciate it when gay people compare their struggle for marriage equality to the struggle of blacks for basic civil rights. The offended people usually argue several points.
One of the major points is that being black is not something one can hide, unlike being gay which can be revealed whenever one desires. This begs the question – if you could change your skin color to white, would you do it? And if you did take that step, would you tell your friends and family in the black community about your decision? What do you think their response would be?
Part two
The other point frequently brought up is that blacks experienced centuries of unimaginable suffering at the hands of white westerners and gay people have never experienced this level of abuse, therefore they should not dare to compare the two groups because the suffering is simply not on the same level.
The problem with this thinking is that it assumes the two groups are mutually exclusive. The fact of the matter is that there are black people who are gay. What about their suffering? Do they not deserve to be treated the same as everyone else?
The most commonly made point is that homosexuality is an abomination and can never be approved of by Christian people. This point is nearly impossible to combat. If you think your religious beliefs should dictate how other people live, what amount of discussion is going to change your mind? It should be pointed out, however, that it is the same Bible used to condemn homosexuality that was used to justify slavery, Jim Crow laws and lynching.
Part Three
So I completely agree. Being gay is not the same thing as being black. Being gay is worse in today’s world. All the problems that come with being black in America are compounded when one is also gay. And I would never dare to try and excuse the behavior of a small minority of white gays who responded to the passage of Prop 8 with anger towards blacks. But I can say unequivocally that the issue of gay equality is not a white issue, it is an issue for all of us. The gay flag is a rainbow for the specific reason of representing our community’s racial diversity. The gay issue is an issue for every race because every race has gay people.
Another Try, I want to take all of your points but alas...I am at work, So I'll try to address these one at a time.
1) Being "gay" does not mean being "out." And for a white person, yes, there was (and is) a psychological cost of staying in the closet but it also allows for full participation in the community and society. And one of the institutions of society doing is the participation racism and white supremacy. Provided you stay in the closet, you can do that. And a lot of people did. Being "out" is another matter. And being openly "gay" (for a lack of a better word, since this isn't applicable for all times and civilizations) is a hazard. And it's not just the Christians. read Satire #2 of Juvenal (Juvenal wrote the conservative, wingnut dittohead playbook 2000 years ago).
Not to parse what you are saying here too finely (but, well, I am), but are you saying that marriage equality is NOT a "basic civil right?" Then what kind of civil right is marriage equality? Because that is the way you worded the comparison.
Back to work for me, that phrase kinda jumped out there...
"some people do not appreciate it when gay people compare their struggle for marriage equality to the struggle of blacks for basic civil rights."
Not too parse this statement too finely, AnotherTry, but are you saying that "marriage equality" is not a "basic civil right?"
Maybe Huff Po will post the question this time!
Gay people are sick of having to "reveal" themselves. We just want to be gay and go about our lives like everyone else which includes marrying our partners.
My best friend is gay. He still encounters people who think that "gay" equals "pedophile
So why all the voluntary high visibility "outings" by Celebrities, Sports figures, Media folks and others?
And just who are "some people?"
For all you defenders of BO on this particular issue... I assure you, that you are going to eat crow one day.
Even though BO stated he is against gays rights to marry eventually he will reflect and ADMIT he was wrong on both this decision to invite Warrne and his view on gays right to marry under the law.
It may not come until he leaves the presidency, but there is no doubt in my mind that it will come and since many of you are unable to think independently of BO, you will be eating crow.
It's so scary that many people can't be enlightened to higher thinking unless BO tells them it's okay.
Loading comments…
First Posted: 01- 7-09 04:20 PM | Updated: 02- 7-09 05:12 AM