Skip to comments.Faith Groups Campaign to Block Gay Marriage
Posted on 05/06/2011 6:32:43 PM PDT by AustralianConservative
Evangelical, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Jewish leaders, determined to head off momentum for same-sex marriage in Albany, say they are mobilizing an extensive campaign to block legislation that would make New York the sixth state to allow gay men and lesbians to wed.
Our pastors are fired up by the governors assault on marriage, said the Rev. Jason J. McGuire, executive director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, a lobbying group that represents evangelical churches in the state. Were already in gear.
Opponents of same-sex marriage have already financed a wave of 500,000 automated calls urging voters to contact undecided lawmakers. And the traditional religious coalition that has fought same-sex marriage in previous legislative sessions now counts among its members Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan, who played only a muted role the last time the issue was debated, in 2009, when he had just been appointed to lead the Catholic Archdiocese of New York.
Archbishop Dolan addressed the same-sex marriage issue in March during an interview on the CBS program 60 Minutes, urging policy makers not to tamper with the definition of what he termed authentic marriage.
I love my mom, but I dont have the right to marry her, said the archbishop, whose national public profile as a spokesman for church values rose last year, when he was elected president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
just not faith groups , most I know do not go to church but find the act of two of the same sex having sex disgusting.
Then asking for marriage because they like getting off in an unnatural way is sickening.
If they like their weird unusual unnatural sex then off they go but for crying out loud to ask for marriage and equal rights because of the way they like getting off is sick
I think theyre trying to mirror married couples (kind of like dress ups). It gets way too weird for me when two women or two men start adopting kids. Theyre missing up children.
Youre right by the way too, theres opposition inside and outside the church, but the media doesnt want the public to know that, my guess.
Ha-ha, I can see how people think that. Im glad that theyre standing up against anarchy though. Civilization is only lost when we surrender and stop fighting.
Meanwhile, people with notochords will continue to oppose the programmatic equation of catamitism with matrimony.
That reflects, I think, selective hiring and discrimination against theists and people with morals generally by "Pinch" Sulzberger and New York Times editors generally since the late 80's, when "Pinchy" came aboard and slammed the paper's editorial tiller over hard aport, turning it into a ranting cheerleader for sodomy, sapphism, and pederasty.
Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.
Now is not the time to surrender!!!
How could anyone be "undecided" about a horrendous prospect like this?
My pet theory is that NYC's passage of a sexual orientation anti-discrimination law in 1986 or so provided incentives for all businesses to promote homosexuals and otherwise adopt anti-discrimination policies to prove their compliance.
Media businesses in the nation's media capital therefore adopted an anti-discrimination editorial line, with only the most self-consciously conservative ones escaping the effects for a time.
But now even the NYC-based National Review has a significant # of staffers in favor of "gay marriage."
We have a state-controlled media, but this control is not obvious or even intentional.
Could be the magazine's been sodomized.
Bill Buckley, one would think, would have seen them coming and decamped to Connecticut.
My pet theory is that NYC's passage of a sexual orientation anti-discrimination law in 1986 or so provided incentives....
Well, perhaps so, but why would "Pinch" Sulzberger suddenly slam the rudder over hard-left on editorial policy?
On matters of "gonadal politics" (thus Jerry Brown of California, when a newsie tried to corner him once), The New York Times had always written their stories straight up the middle: A said X, and then B said Y, and then A appealed to Z, and so on. But Sulzberger turned the paper into a queer propaganda and slander sheet. It had to have been his idea.
But that's probably too blunt an action.
I'm guessing the HR department and editorial recruitment already helped prepare for the shift by the time Sulzberger could make it. Change employment policies and you can change editorial policies five years later.
Got to read the article tomorrow and see if I want to pingify it.
The point of government is to enforce peace between opposing ideologies, in our case, there is obvious favoritism toward one over others, sadly enough, at the cost of a good economy and numerous others’ employment.