Skip to comments.Archbishop Cordileone doubles down on gay marriage stance
Posted on 06/19/2014 7:07:20 PM PDT by madprof98
Same-sex marriage isn't a debate in San Francisco. It's state law. Same-sex marriages take place every day in the city, including at City Hall.
That's why, despite all the heat he's getting, it is puzzling that San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone continues to stubbornly insist on speaking at the March for Marriage on Thursday in Washington, D.C.
A long list of local politicians and community leaders, including Mayor Ed Lee, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, have signed letters imploring Cordileone not to participate in the divisive, politically charged event.
Cordileone is flying across the country as the only announced representative of the Catholic Church to participate in an event that surely has little support in San Francisco. If the archbishop would like to take on gang violence or homelessness - the church-affiliated St. Vincent de Paul homeless shelter is one of the largest in the city - that would be fine.
But the fact is that this marriage crusade is his issue, not San Francisco's. There may be a place where his views would represent the community. This isn't it.
Time for Cordileone to move on from San Francisco.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Speak Truth to Power
Democrats are so good at saying “separation of church and state”. So why is that out the window in this case?
Same-sex marriage isnt a debate in San Francisco. Its state lawNo, Prop 8 is state law, unjustly struck down by an openly-biased gay judge.
It makes perfectly good sense.
They are expecting a church to be democratic as in dominated by the city mood.
Well any church that insists on a standard of absolute truth (even if they disagree about exactly what that is) has the right to laugh at the notion.
The good Archbishop should not be flustered at all. They should be told they cannot legislate marriage to be gay any more than they can legislate water not to be wet.
They’re being uppity.
Imagine that?The Good Archbishop Actually believes in his Religion????Boy,is something that’s NOT”Up-For-Grabs”??????????????
It is puzzling.
It's almost as if - call me crazy - other human beings exist besides CW Nevius.
Imagine that: actual people who have their own opinions that are different from Nevianism.
Could such a thing be?
Is it still”Legal”for a Man and a Woman to MARRY???I guess they can”Slide”if they include some of their pets??????
It’s better! It’s like... there’s a GOD!
Yep, right and wrong are not subject to popularity, and we can’t make God in our own image. We have to raise ourselves to His level, not lower Him to ours.
God bless him, and He will.
Well we can’t exactly “raise ourselves” from sin, but we CAN permit Him to lift us.
It isn't puzzling at all. It is the act of a man who knows what God requires, and does it--one who knows that we must obey God rather than men. This Lutheran is praying for his Catholic brother in Christ.
I’d think that just about every Protestant preacher in this land that still takes the real Christ seriously would say amen to this archbishop. He’s protesting in the old, good sense. He’s protesting for what’s right.
You know, if you take a step back and really look at this article, it’s astonishing that it was published in the USA.
It rejects pretty much everything the Constitution stands for. It’s not at all about gay rights or even gay marriage.
It’s just pure collectivist totalitarianism, straight up, without apology or any attempt to hide it.
This is just how socialists in their bubbles, babble.
Were it not for socialists, what would comedians use for laughing stocks, straight men(pun intended)?
So let me get this straight... the archbishop shouldn't appear at a rally for traditional marriage because same-sex marriage is legal in San Francisco?
Gee, I guess all those Christian ministers protesting slavery back in the 1800s were wrong. Shame on them for criticizing state slavery laws and saying things that were "hurtful" to the slave owning community. Buying and selling slaves was perfectly legal and sanctioned by the government, so they should have respected that, right?