Print
Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage
by Bob Egelko
Reposted from:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/24/BA6D11EE2L.DTL&tsp=1
The Mormon Church, a major backer of the 2000 ballot measure that reaffirmed California's ban on same-sex marriage, is asking its members to "do all you can" to support a November initiative that would reinstate the ban as a state constitutional amendment.
"The church's teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God," the church's governing First Presidency said in a letter to be read Sunday to all congregations in California. It urges members to donate "your means and time" to the ballot measure campaign.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which estimates its California membership at 750,000, is one of the largest and best-organized of several denominations expected to be active in the initiative campaign.
It's all legal, says the Internal Revenue Service. Long-standing federal law prohibits churches and charities from endorsing or opposing political candidates, at the risk of their tax-exempt status. But they are free to work for or against legislation, including ballot measures, as long as they don't devote a substantial part of their activities to those efforts.
The distinction between candidate endorsements and legislative activity is based on free speech and freedom of religion, said Ellen Aprill, a law professor at Loyola University in Los Angeles. She said proposed laws may raise moral issues that touch "what churches and religious organizations think are at the core of their mission."
The government periodically investigates churches for allegedly crossing the line. A Minnesota pastor, Gus Booth, told his congregation last month that Christians couldn't support Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Obama, and later told ABC News that he had invited the IRS to do something about it. The Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian law firm, is urging pastors to endorse candidates in their Sept. 28 sermons and bring the issue into court.
The constitutional amendment on the Nov. 4 California ballot would overturn last month's state Supreme Court ruling that struck down two state laws, the 2000 ballot measure and a 1977 legislative bill, limiting marriage to a man and a woman. Religious organizations have already spoken out on the issue, filing competing sets of arguments to the court before its ruling.
Opposing same-sex marriage were the Mormons, the California Catholic Conference, the National Association of Evangelicals and the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations. On the other side, backing same-sex couples' right to marry, were the Unitarians, the United Church of Christ, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Soka Gakkai branch of Buddhism, and dissident groups of Mormons, Catholics and Muslims.
The California Catholic Conference, representing Catholic bishops, criticized the ruling and said it plans to support the ballot measure. The conference has also backed unsuccessful initiatives in California that sought to require parental notification for minors' abortions. A similar measure has qualified for the Nov. 4 ballot.
Other religious denominations are likely to be active in the campaign against the marriage initiative, said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which represented same-sex couples in the court case.
Among religious supporters of gay and lesbian marriage, there is "a real thirst to not have their view rendered invisible by other denominations," Kendell said. "There will be a much more coordinated effort now" than in 2000, when the first initiative passed with a 61 percent majority.
As for the letter from Mormon church leaders, Kendell - who grew up Mormon - said it was "unsurprising but painful."
Read the letter
The letter to be read in Mormon churches Sunday can be found at:
links.sfgate.com/ZDXR
Chronicle staff writer Matthai Kuruvila contributed to this report. E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/24/BA6D11EE2L.DTL&tsp=1
The Mormon Church, a major backer of the 2000 ballot measure that reaffirmed California's ban on same-sex marriage, is asking its members to "do all you can" to support a November initiative that would reinstate the ban as a state constitutional amendment.
"The church's teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God," the church's governing First Presidency said in a letter to be read Sunday to all congregations in California. It urges members to donate "your means and time" to the ballot measure campaign.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which estimates its California membership at 750,000, is one of the largest and best-organized of several denominations expected to be active in the initiative campaign.
It's all legal, says the Internal Revenue Service. Long-standing federal law prohibits churches and charities from endorsing or opposing political candidates, at the risk of their tax-exempt status. But they are free to work for or against legislation, including ballot measures, as long as they don't devote a substantial part of their activities to those efforts.
The distinction between candidate endorsements and legislative activity is based on free speech and freedom of religion, said Ellen Aprill, a law professor at Loyola University in Los Angeles. She said proposed laws may raise moral issues that touch "what churches and religious organizations think are at the core of their mission."
The government periodically investigates churches for allegedly crossing the line. A Minnesota pastor, Gus Booth, told his congregation last month that Christians couldn't support Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Obama, and later told ABC News that he had invited the IRS to do something about it. The Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian law firm, is urging pastors to endorse candidates in their Sept. 28 sermons and bring the issue into court.
The constitutional amendment on the Nov. 4 California ballot would overturn last month's state Supreme Court ruling that struck down two state laws, the 2000 ballot measure and a 1977 legislative bill, limiting marriage to a man and a woman. Religious organizations have already spoken out on the issue, filing competing sets of arguments to the court before its ruling.
Opposing same-sex marriage were the Mormons, the California Catholic Conference, the National Association of Evangelicals and the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations. On the other side, backing same-sex couples' right to marry, were the Unitarians, the United Church of Christ, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Soka Gakkai branch of Buddhism, and dissident groups of Mormons, Catholics and Muslims.
The California Catholic Conference, representing Catholic bishops, criticized the ruling and said it plans to support the ballot measure. The conference has also backed unsuccessful initiatives in California that sought to require parental notification for minors' abortions. A similar measure has qualified for the Nov. 4 ballot.
Other religious denominations are likely to be active in the campaign against the marriage initiative, said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which represented same-sex couples in the court case.
Among religious supporters of gay and lesbian marriage, there is "a real thirst to not have their view rendered invisible by other denominations," Kendell said. "There will be a much more coordinated effort now" than in 2000, when the first initiative passed with a 61 percent majority.
As for the letter from Mormon church leaders, Kendell - who grew up Mormon - said it was "unsurprising but painful."
Read the letter
The letter to be read in Mormon churches Sunday can be found at:
links.sfgate.com/ZDXR
June 20, 2008
To: General Authorities, Area Seventies, and the following in California: Stake and Mission Presidents; Bishops and Branch Presidents
(To be read in sacrament meeting on June 29, 2008)
Dear Brethren and Sisters:
Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families
In March 2000 California voters overwhelmingly approved a state law providing that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The California Supreme Court recently reversed this vote of the people. On November 4, 2008, Californians will vote on a proposed amendment to the California state constitution that will now restore the March 2000 definition of marriage approved by the voters.
The Church's teaching and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator's plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.
A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause.
We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.
Sincerely Yours,
The First Presidency
Chronicle staff writer Matthai Kuruvila contributed to this report. E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 646 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #199063 by Bonzai on June 25, 2008 at 6:44 am
What is next, the goat fucking alliance united against same sex marriage?Stupid religious hypocrites.
Other Comments by Bonzai
3. Comment #199065 by mordacious1 on June 25, 2008 at 6:46 am
My humblest apologies to TeraBrat, but these guys are, of course, Fucktards. Therefor I expect nothing less from them.Other Comments by mordacious1
4. Comment #199066 by King of NH on June 25, 2008 at 6:47 am
Wow, I guess a lot of Mormons, Catholics, and other Fundies fear they might run out and jump into a same sex marriage if the law isn't protecting them from it. It just baffles me. If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, don't. End of debate. Who cares that someone else did? Not to mention that EVERY argument against same sex marriage is religious. I've heard people try and offer secular reasons, but they make no sence, they get flustered, and then they scream that gays and their supporters will burn in hell for ruining Christian families.
Sorry for the rant, but I'm sick of this. I don't care who marries who, so long as it's between sane adults. Hate is not a family value!!! (I read that on a bumper-sticker)
Other Comments by King of NH
5. Comment #199069 by Faithhead on June 25, 2008 at 6:54 am
To take liberty with a D. Adams quote:
'religion must love the changing moral zeitgeist, or at least the sound it makes as it whizzes by'
Other Comments by Faithhead
6. Comment #199071 by Layla Nasreddin on June 25, 2008 at 6:56 am
Oh, but we should respect their Christian culture and not force our own "elite" culture on them! (Takeoff from the last story about the Saudi cleric saying it's OK to marry a one-year-old...) Honestly, is this really a convincing argument to anybody at all? Isn't it really obvious that this kind of argument is just a cover for the worst kind of bigotry, sexism, homophobia, religious obscurantism and all kinds of other crap (in either this case or the Saudi one)?
OK, I'll stop now...
Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin
7. Comment #199072 by mordacious1 on June 25, 2008 at 6:58 am
The marriage contract should be between a white man and as many white females, no matter how young, that he can marry and get on the welfare rolls.I know, they've been forced by the government to change this position over the years, but doesn't polygamy leave a lot of men with no one to be with of the opposite sex? Seems in the past, and some present sects, they've promoted gay sex.
Other Comments by mordacious1
8. Comment #199073 by Tyler Durden on June 25, 2008 at 6:59 am
Opposing same-sex marriage were the Mormons, the California Catholic Conference, the National Association of Evangelicals and the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations.Well, that's them off my Christmas card list :-)
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
9. Comment #199074 by decius on June 25, 2008 at 7:00 am
Wait a few decades, when ban on same-sex marriage will be regarded as primitive as slave-holding, the apologists and religionists will no doubt take credit for its lifting. Other Comments by decius
10. Comment #199081 by mordacious1 on June 25, 2008 at 7:09 am
I've been watching the news coverage of CA gay marriages. It is a lot of people that have been in long term relationships, some of 50 years. Why deny them this right? It is stupid. They showed George Takei marrying his lover of 21 years. I think if they want to break these couples up, the best thing is to let them get married, nothing worse for a relationship...just kidding...or am I?Other Comments by mordacious1
11. Comment #199082 by Cartomancer on June 25, 2008 at 7:10 am
I'm beginning to wonder if the best option might not be to just abolish the official legal institution of marriage altogether. The various tax benefits could then be rationalised on a fair basis and legislatures the world over would be freed from discussing this sort of asinine nonsense and could turn their attentions to more profitable things.People who had a hankering for ceremonial pageantry could then do it entirely their own way and nobody else would give two hoots how they choose to define marriage for themselves.
Other Comments by Cartomancer
12. Comment #199083 by Philip1978 on June 25, 2008 at 7:10 am
Yes, of course, you can really trust the Mormons, its not like the founder of their religion was a charlatan or anything...!Stupid, credulous, scaremongering bastards, they make me sick! Its not enough that their batshit religion tells them they have it on almighty authority to marry as many women as possible so then they turn around and use the same batshit authority to stop people getting married! Bloody hypocrites! Grrrr!
(*Note to self* Calm down Philip, drink some Tea...)
Other Comments by Philip1978
13. Comment #199084 by advocatus_diaboli on June 25, 2008 at 7:10 am
This makes me think of an article I came across in the advocate several years back The article dealt with some sort of awareness tour that was going on and was discussing being expelled from a Mormon University campus. The part of the article that caught my attention was it mentioning the high suicide rate among gay teens in Mormon families. It prompted a bit of study on my part and I was rather disgusted with the results.Other Comments by advocatus_diaboli
14. Comment #199092 by Diocletian on June 25, 2008 at 7:17 am
The Church's teaching and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator's plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.
What??? Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.... what a bunch of pricks trying to bring back the term illegitimacy! The only ones who are illegitimate are the f*%^$ing Mormons and other religious wingnuts who force their archaic beliefs on others! Clearly another fine example of child abuse!!
Other Comments by Diocletian
15. Comment #199093 by Apathy personified on June 25, 2008 at 7:18 am
(*Note to self* Calm down Philip, drink some Tea...)
No Philip, unleash the fury!
Really though, who's gonna take advice on marriage from mormons,
'I had an argument with my wife, it's ok though, i have 6 others - all under 16'
Other Comments by Apathy personified
16. Comment #199096 by Tyler Durden on June 25, 2008 at 7:21 am
Comment #199083 by Philip1978
(*Note to self* Calm down Philip, drink some Tea...)Such a pity the Mormons don't, nice cup of tea might just do the trick!
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
17. Comment #199098 by Manson on June 25, 2008 at 7:22 am
I like what lawyer Alan Dershowitz proposes... separating marriage as a religious rite from the legal status of civil union.Civil unions are between two consenting adult human beings and represents a legal agreement for purposes of state as well as business, insurance, etc.
Marriages are done by churches as rites of passage and can be restricted based on freedom of religion and speech. If the Mormons won't wed in marriage a gay couple, maybe the Episcopalians will.
Civil Unions on the other hand remain the jurisdiction of the state like any other legal contract.
Problem solved.
Edit: human beings, not human begins.
Other Comments by Manson
18. Comment #199103 by King of NH on June 25, 2008 at 7:27 am
Cartomancer:
I'm beginning to wonder if the best option might not be to just abolish the official legal institution of marriage altogether.
Agreed. The government should only be concerned with Civil Unions, for same and opposite sex. As far as the government needs be be concerned, it's a legal contract between two people.
Side note of interest:
The US state of Georgia voted a ban on same sex marriage and civil unions in 2004. However, it is still legal for adults to marry children without parental consent if a pregancy has already occured and Georgia still has the 'Romeo and Juliette' clause that says statutory rape is okay if both parties honestly state their love for one another. So pedophiles and child molesters? Git-er-done! Gay people? Gergins dernt cot'n tyer kine!
Other Comments by King of NH
19. Comment #199105 by Philip1978 on June 25, 2008 at 7:27 am
Apathy personified No Philip, unleash the fury!
What? A strongly worded letter to The Daily Telegraph newspaper? :)
Tyler
A fine idea sir, like it, if only they drank the RIGHT kind of tea!
Other Comments by Philip1978
20. Comment #199107 by Podaar on June 25, 2008 at 7:30 am
I read this in my local paper when I got home yesterday...I live in Mormon Zion where this shit is publicly reported as a proper stance. I was depressed for hours after.
All I can say is the response on the Salt Lake Tribune website http://www.sltrib.com/ is generally negative and I hope the Mormon leadership continues to make public statements that get them ridiculed. It's sad to hear this crap, but ultimately it will be their undoing.
I have to believe that.
Other Comments by Podaar
21. Comment #199109 by Epinephrine on June 25, 2008 at 7:32 am
Agreed. The government should only be concerned with Civil Unions, for same and opposite sex. As far as the government needs be be concerned, it's a legal contract between two people.
Totally on board. Civil unions for everyone! What you do elsewhere has no bearing on legal status - "marry" as many people (or non-people)as you like; so long as marriage is just a token handed out by some religions I don't care how it's applied.
Other Comments by Epinephrine
22. Comment #199110 by Eventhorizon on June 25, 2008 at 7:32 am
What is their obsession with other peoples sex lives? Seriously, what the fuck have I done to these people? Other Comments by Eventhorizon
23. Comment #199115 by Apathy personified on June 25, 2008 at 7:40 am
Philip,What? A strongly worded letter to The Daily Telegraph newspaper?
Hey, i know i said unleash the fury, but please, let's not over react here...... people could get hurt!
Other Comments by Apathy personified
24. Comment #199118 by Broicher on June 25, 2008 at 7:55 am
... and the next thing they want is declaring black people as second class humans again in a constitutional ammendment.BTW: Has anyone recognized the similarity between Mormon and Moron? That is no coincidence I'd say.
Other Comments by Broicher
25. Comment #199120 by tahustvedt on June 25, 2008 at 7:56 am
It's funny that 99% (or something like that) of the people opposing same sex marriages are religious people who base "their" opinions on prejudice.
Actually, it's not funny at all.
Other Comments by tahustvedt
26. Comment #199125 by Philip1978 on June 25, 2008 at 8:04 am
Philip opens his hotmail account, new message to dtletters, thinks to self "I will do such things, what they are yet I know not, but they shall be the terrors of the Earth... no wait Philip, you can't send them some of your cooking!" Now get on and type the strongly worded letter, damn those Mormons and their holy trousers! Philip pauses, feels great compulsion to slurp at Tea... white light floods head...no, I just can't do it...the women and children, they would get caught in the crossfire...
Praise Quetz, for he did send me this Tea that has cured my rage!
Fear not Apathy, for I shall not send this letter! :)
Other Comments by Philip1978
27. Comment #199126 by justaperson on June 25, 2008 at 8:05 am
"'The church's teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God," the church's governing First Presidency said' . . .So why are the Mormons trying to force their beliefs on everyone in California? Can't they just excommunicate people of their own faith for disobeying doctrine?
Other Comments by justaperson
28. Comment #199128 by AllanW on June 25, 2008 at 8:07 am
Philip1978'I will do such things, what they are yet I know not, but they shall be the terrors of the Earth.'
Oooh thanks Phil; took me right back to 'A' level English Lit. Ahhhhhhh those were the days :)
Other Comments by AllanW
29. Comment #199130 by jimbob on June 25, 2008 at 8:11 am
Dershowitz has it dead right (see: http://www.rossde.com/editorials/Dershowitz_marriage.html)I'd like to see Richard et al. get together with the like of Americans United to lobby for this.
If you agree, then show it by reinforcing this message!
Other Comments by jimbob
30. Comment #199136 by Apathy personified on June 25, 2008 at 8:20 am
the women and children, they would get caught in the crossfire...
Always the way when people rashly send strongly worded letters to the editor..... :-)
Indeed we must say 'Praise be to Quetz', colourful cape wearer (i'm guessing) and tea bringer.
Other Comments by Apathy personified
31. Comment #199138 by Border Collie on June 25, 2008 at 8:26 am
I can see now that a huge part of the presidential race will revolve around sexual issues (you can thank the fundies for this). The world is disintegrating around us, the US economy is tanking, the terrorists are strapping on their bombs and Americans are sitting around worried about who's doing who. Tabloid America.Other Comments by Border Collie
32. Comment #199141 by liberalartist on June 25, 2008 at 8:31 am
I agree with Cartomancer, we should do away with marriage completely. There are many laws across the US that harm women due to marriage (for example you won't be punished as much for beating up your wife as for beating up a stranger in many states). And it really bugs me that married persons get better tax breaks than me! I say the easiest way to solve this problem is tell all these religious people their marriages are null and void by the government!
another reason why the US government has no business in the marriage racket: "Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God,"
Other Comments by liberalartist
33. Comment #199143 by al-rawandi on June 25, 2008 at 8:35 am
I notice, no feminist has ever complained when the captain of a sinking ship yelled "Women and children first"....
Funny how that works.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
34. Comment #199145 by Nick6742 on June 25, 2008 at 8:39 am
It's not just religious people who get married. I'm married and my wife and I are both atheists. This ban is ridiculous, but marriage is not. Other Comments by Nick6742
35. Comment #199147 by Cartomancer on June 25, 2008 at 8:41 am
Actually, thinking about it, in Britain at least it should technically be possible to sue a religious organisation for not offering gay marriages under the 2007 goods and services (discrimination) act. After all, marriage is a service - just like buying a car or adopting a child - and catholic adoption agencies are explicitly NOT exempted from this provision on adoption as the high-profile media coverage at the time it was passed demonstrates. Why should religious dogma be ANY excuse for not offering the same services to everyone who can use them?Of course, I doubt anybody would really want to have their marriage conducted by somebody who disagreed with it in principle and was only forced to by legal injunction. Well, I say anybody, I'm the sort of bloody-minded bugger who would positively enjoy the look of discomfort on the vicar's face throughout the service (as it happens I always imagined my own wedding would look rather like the end of the "I can make you a man (reprise)" scene from the Rocky Horror Picture Show). It would be an interesting test case to bring.
Other Comments by Cartomancer
36. Comment #199149 by Podaar on June 25, 2008 at 8:42 am
33. Comment #199143 by al-rawandi
Uh, Al? *taps on shoulder*
Next forum to the left dude. :)
Other Comments by Podaar
37. Comment #199152 by Tyler Durden on June 25, 2008 at 8:46 am
Is same-sex marraige available in Las Vegas? Other Comments by Tyler Durden
38. Comment #199155 by atkinson on June 25, 2008 at 8:52 am
BTW: Has anyone recognized the similarity between Mormon and Moron?According to Mormon tradition, Moron the First was the angel who guarded the golden plates (google Moroni).
Other Comments by atkinson
39. Comment #199160 by Driver on June 25, 2008 at 8:56 am
I used to me Moron (that's not a typo). They believe this First Presidency to be latter-day profits (that's not a typo either), seers, and revelators.
In my experience, when the First Presidency says, "Jump," members say, "How high?" in mid-air.
If there are 750,000 members in California, I expect 749,999 members to take action. (I have to account for the possibility of a guy running out of gas and not making it to sacrament meeting where the announcement is to be made)
Other Comments by Driver
40. Comment #199161 by mordacious1 on June 25, 2008 at 8:57 am
AlBeen on a lot of sinking ships lately? Methinks you've been watching "Titanic" too much.
Phillip
I'm suprised that you have the time to write anything. With all the tea you're constantly drinking, I'd expect you'd be spending most of your time in the loo.
Other Comments by mordacious1
41. Comment #199175 by eno on June 25, 2008 at 9:13 am
What are they scared of?Other Comments by eno
42. Comment #199176 by al-rawandi on June 25, 2008 at 9:16 am
mordacious,
The only sinking ships I am on are the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
43. Comment #199178 by EvidenceOnly on June 25, 2008 at 9:23 am
I'm not singling out 1 religion but ALL religions or groups who think that freedom of opinion equates to the right to enforce their views on all of society.The title of this article should be:
MORONS URGED TO BACK BAN ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE.
Scrapping the second letter "m" in the title makes it abundantly clear what is going on here.
Other Comments by EvidenceOnly
44. Comment #199181 by Animavore on June 25, 2008 at 9:27 am
Why do homosexuals want to be like the rest of us anyway? I'm breaking away from the whole marrige tradition like a lot of my generation. Such a load of fuss made about what essentially boils down to a piece of paper. Other Comments by Animavore
45. Comment #199182 by Cartomancer on June 25, 2008 at 9:31 am
Well, yes Animavore, a lot of gay people do find the idea of marriage a bit archaic and irrelevant these days (by beloved among them), but another lot of gay people also see it as relevant and important. We should at least be given the choice of conforming or standing out don't you think?There are also real benefits to marriage offered by society: tax breaks, inheritance issues, hospital visiting rights etc.
Other Comments by Cartomancer
46. Comment #199183 by Dhamma on June 25, 2008 at 9:33 am
al-rawandi:Haha, so we agree on something(besides how awesome The big Lebowski is). I find it hilarious how the feminists are complaining about absolutely everything that is "against" them, yet say nothing when it's the other way around.
The suffragettes actually had something to fight for, but the feminists today are feminists only in order to fight for something. They don't have any of my respect at all, and I'd say they're to a great deal counter-productive.
There are still things to fight for for the female cause, but the feminists go way too far to be taken seriously. And today I'd say we men have rights we need to fight for as well. Difference is, we really can't be bothered that much.
Other Comments by Dhamma
47. Comment #199185 by Tyler Durden on June 25, 2008 at 9:36 am
What are they scared of?eno,
the way I see it is that they are afraid of going against the dogma of their church/priest/elders, therefore risking the wrath of their god, therefore going to whatever version of hell they've been taught to fear.
Essentially, they are scared of thinking for themselves.
So. Very. Sad.
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
48. Comment #199186 by decius on June 25, 2008 at 9:39 am
Animavore,it's a piece of paper that recognises the will of two strangers to become the closest of relatives, and it has enormous legal implications, particularly regarding the rights of one's partner.
Imagine if your spouse were to be turned away from your death-bed, just because a bunch of ignorant busy-bodies can't keep their prudery out of your pants.
Other Comments by decius
49. Comment #199187 by al-rawandi on June 25, 2008 at 9:39 am
Dhamma,
I may stop holding doors for women :-), and I am definitely done paying for dinners.
"Leave my special lady friend alone man... I'm helping her conceive."
-The Dude
It seems like the people who push for genuine equality always get labeled "racist" and "misogynist". It is more ad hominem nonsense.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
50. Comment #199188 by advocatus_diaboli on June 25, 2008 at 9:43 am
Any time a woman stops to let me open the door for her I ask if she's ever voted or ever intends to vote. If she says yes I assume she can handle the door situation by herself. If she says no, I tell her she needs to start and assume she can handle the door situation by herself.Other Comments by advocatus_diaboli
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #199062 by rod-the-farmer on June 25, 2008 at 6:39 am
Other Comments by rod-the-farmer