|
Published: January 21, 2010
Prop 8 Trial
Day 6
The following is the daily update from Alliance Defense Fune published on January 20 of Day 6 of the Perry vs. Schwarzenegger case, the plaintiffs for whom seek to overturn Proposition 8.
And so it goes, another day of anti-democratic efforts to redefine marriage goes into the books. Tuesday’s events saw the testimony of two additional witnesses for the plaintiffs: San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders and Dr. M.V. Lee Badgett, professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts.
Related
The themes weren’t all that different from those of last week-purely emotional appeals coupled with expert testimony (which was easily dismantled by the lawyers for ProtectMarriage.com). Yet, as I’m listening to all of the testimony, I keep asking myself this question: why are we having this debate here? Moreover, should we even be having this debate at all? After all, California has had this debate twice already, with both instances ending in the voters deciding that marriage shall remain what it always has been: one man one woman. Thus, one could make a reasonable argument that this debate is old hat and unnecessary. However, even if it is appropriate to again have this debate, why here? Aren’t changes to social policy things that belong to the legislative process (which includes the initiative), or does it really belong to one judge? Clearly, our American system of justice cannot be grounded in the principle that a handful of activists can void a constitutional amendment adopted by more than 7 million Californians.
 Mayor Jerry Sanders spent much of his time reviewing his opinion on same-sex “marriage,” much of which stems from his experiences with his daughter, Lisa, who is currently in a same-sex relationship. He recounted how he changed his position on same-sex “marriage” from one who opposed it to one who, during an emotional press conference in 2007, denounced Proposition 8 when faced with the desires of his daughter. Now, nobody doubts the true depth of Mayor Sanders’ emotions, or that he loves his daughter, but why again should the tears, however sincere, of one of hundreds of California mayors decide this question? To what extent is his testimony relevant in a court of law? It isn’t, but his opinion hasn’t been ignored. He was able to express it, just like millions more, at the ballot box in 2008. We shouldn’t be polling the opinions of mayors in court, but if we’re going to, then I have a several California mayors from the 42 California counties that approved Proposition 8 that I’d like to see testify, too.
If you spend any time in trial, as I have done most of my career, you know that jurors are regularly instructed to dismiss and put aside emotional appeals. Cases are decided on the facts and the evidence, not on how someone feels about this or that. Feelings do have a distinct place in both society and our system of justice, but that place isn’t in the courtroom. Of course, Mayor Sanders represents only one side of the spectrum of Californians who changed their mind about same-sex “marriage.” Many Californians who were initially inclined to vote against Proposition 8 also changed their mind into voting “yes,” and for good reason-they ultimately concluded that marriage should remain a unique institution that promotes the important interests of children and society and is about much more than a legal arrangement hinged exclusively upon the desires of adults.
 Professor Badgett testified for hours Tuesday, though most of those hours involved her being cross-examined on the many problems and inaccuracies with her testimony, as well as her numbers. The numbers which she put forth can be summed up as supposition upon supposition, guess upon guess. Now, economics in and of itself is usually a speculatory field in many respects, but Dr. Badgett’s testimony took economic speculation to a new level. However, as masterfully demonstrated by Chuck Cooper, the lead lawyer defending Proposition 8, facts are indeed stubborn things and don’t change for the desires of even the most staunch of advocates.
Piece by piece, Mr. Cooper dismantled the house of economic cards built by Dr. Badgett and, in the end, Dr. Badgett even acknowledged that if economics demonstrated that same-sex “marriage” was indeed bad for society, she would still support the repeal of Proposition 8 as the staunch advocate of same-sex “marriage” that she is. In other words, where the rubber meets the road, Dr. Badgett believes what she believes, regardless of what the facts (or numbers, in her case) actually show.
Wednesday, we can expect to see more of the same sort of testimony and cross-examination. Stay tuned.
And if you’re concerned about the trial not being televised, don’t worry. This trial is being heavily watched and well documented. The laptop and TV screens present in the courtroom and overflow rooms are more than numerous, and a myriad of high-tech mobile phones and PDAs are in constant use. History won’t miss an ounce.
To see more updates on the Perry case Click here.
The New York Times Bay Area blog - Click here.
And the Times itself lists other sources:
The San Jose Mercury News is providing updates on the trial, as is Firedoglake.com. Margaret Talbot of The New Yorker has a new analysis of this week’s testimony. The plaintiffs’ ally, Rick Jacobs, is covering it on Prop 8 Trial Tracker. The defense team’s Alliance Defense Fund is posting regular Twitter updates.
Posted Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:22 AM By WOODY GUIDRY
GUILTY! I have deprived myself of a wealth of information by not clicking on some of the suggested spots for updates within your articles themselves. The material I found re the Perry case in today's article was a shock! The ADF (American Defense Fund) already has a wonderful reputation for integrity and courage and today's display in no way took away from that. (Well, okay, not just GUILTY, but LAZY, too!)
|
Posted Thursday, January 21, 2010 12:54 PM By Sarah
For about 5,000 years marriage has been between one man and one woman. This protected children and society. Now the Sodomites want to change it to mean anything they want it to mean, ala Alice in Wonderland. If same-sex marriage becomes a law, why can't three or more people (polygamy/polyandry) be married? Could an older person marry a young child? There is no end to the possiblities. Once one departs from Biblical teachings, we sink lower than animals.
|
Posted Thursday, January 21, 2010 2:01 PM By Gerald
Last week, the Alliance Defense Fund itself admitted that the issue of Prop 8 "is about imposing a different and intolerant 'morality' on America and eradicating opposing ideas," for it is a legal fact that Prop 8 redefined marriage in California, that it did so in a way that does not tolerate same sex couples, and that the ADF and defenders of the intolerance called Prop 8 work to eradicate opposition.
|
Posted Thursday, January 21, 2010 2:58 PM By Alice
Sarah,it hasn't been "one man and one woman" for 5000 years. For example, the Bible records many polygamous marriages and the Catholic Encyclopedia states, "[Polygamy] existed among most of the ancient peoples known to history, and occurs at present in some civilized nations". In regard to age requirement, in Bible days, it was acceptable for an older person to marry a child. That is, if you consider an 11-13 year old to be a child. In recent years, society has deviated from that and raised the age limit even though the biological age for puberty has decreased. In most U.S. states, the minimum age, even with parental consent, is between 16-18 years and the marriage of Mary and Joseph would be illegal in most U.S. states. However, in Massachusetts as one of a few rare exceptions, Mary and Joseph can marry if Mary's parents deserted her or are incapable of consent. Also, if you are big on the Bible, you will appreciate that Biblical marriages were usually arranged, often when the persons were very young and perhaps had never even met. For example, Abraham arranged the marriage of his son Isaac to Rebekah through his servant. There'd be a financial deal, to include payoffs to a variety of persons, such as to the bride-to-be's mother for the loss of the daughter's labor. In other words, through marriage, people were treated as objects of financial trade. Once the deal was made, the bride and groom were considered betrothed but they were not to cohabitate for another year or so. After a year, the groom would go, usually at night, to fetch the bride from her father's home while her father looked the other way.
|
Posted Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:36 PM By Mark from PA
Yes, look at Jacob in the Bible, he worked 7 years so he could marry Rachel. But Rachel's father Laban tricked him and married him to his older daughter Leah. But he then told Jacpb that he could marry Rachel the next week if he promised to work for 7 more years. Later when Rachel couldn't conceive, she gave her maidservant to Jacob so he could go into her and she could bear a child for Jacob and Rachel. So these were not really "traditional" marriages as we know them.
|
Posted Thursday, January 21, 2010 5:28 PM By antonio
This statement\:why are we having this debate here- should we even be having this debate at all? After all, California has had this debate twice already, with both instances ending in the voters deciding that marriage shall remain what it always has been: one man one woman. Thus, one could make a reasonable argument that this debate unnecessary. However, even if it is appropriate to again have this debate, why here? Aren’t changes to social policy things that belong to the legislative process (which includes the initiative), or does it really belong to one judge? Clearly, our American system of justice cannot be grounded in the principle that a handful of activists can void a constitutional amendment adopted by more than 7 million Californians."/
Reflects you have some confusion about our legal system, law and due process. The great Justice Oliver Windell Holmes said famously, "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience. The law embodies the story of a nation's development...it cannot be dealt with as if it contained the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics." This has never been challenged but affirmed ad nauseum. You may consider Man's view of the word of God as unchanging. But civil law does change, It evolves. That means law is never "final".
Secondly, it was decided long ago that no matter what the majority or their Congress say, it must be consistent with the Constitution that the people created., The Courts per that constitution are the final arbiters of what the Constitution requires. i.e., you can't have a constitution and then ignore it.
Further, in another post, i hope to demonstrate that long before your puny 5000 years, at a time when God still ruled the world, same sex relationships and marriage were going on all over His creation.
I support the right of religions to advocate for their creed but don't lie in the process and also, please distinguish between our relationship with God and that with the Caesar.
|
Posted Thursday, January 21, 2010 5:46 PM By A
Sarah, Christ and the Church forbade polygamous marriages in the New Testament because most of those marriages were just awful -- jealousy between the wives and their children. In fact, one of the main reasons King Solomon's kingdom broke up later was because he took so many foreign wives with pagan religions.
|
Posted Thursday, January 21, 2010 6:42 PM By JLS
PA, you are indeed distorting the issue. Jesus teaches us that He allowed such marriages up until His time. Those marriages are traditional; what you should say is that Christian marriage is instituted by Christ as a sacrament, whereas traditional marriages are not a sacrament. The error you produce in this, PA, is confusing real authority with your opinion, the living God working through the popes with your interpretation of history, rumor and written words. Are you one of those who subscribes to the idea that God is dead or is the "absent watchmaker"? Why do you keep coming up with these false ideas and also claim to be a well formed Catholic?
|
Posted Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:38 PM By Mary B.
I'm with Cindy McCain, John McCain's wife. She supports NOH8 campaign along with her daughter.
|
Posted Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:42 PM By Anne T.
The post of 5:46 p.m. was mine --I failed to put in full name.
|
Posted Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:32 PM By Abeca Christian
JLS thanks for admonishing PA. Sometimes it goggles me on his behavior. Now lets move on.
|
Posted Friday, January 22, 2010 1:08 AM By JonJ
We're having this debate because some citizens brought legal action challenging prop 8's constitutionality. The prior law and constitutional amendment debates aren't really relevant to the question whether prop 8 conforms with the constitution (for example, if the majority decides that slavery was actually a good idea and manages to pass legislation to reinstitute chattel ownership for Arab Americans, the supreme court would properly overturn such a law as unconstitutional).
|
Posted Friday, January 22, 2010 4:41 AM By Mark from PA
JLS, I was just agreeing with Alice that "it hasn't been one man and one woman for 5000 years." We read the stories about Abraham, Issac and Jacob, year after year in grade school. I have read the book of Genesis several times plus studied it in Bible study in the last few years. I am also in agreement with what Anne T had to say. So JLS, they were "traditional" marriages for the Jewish people but were not "Sacramental" marriages so I am not disagreeing with you here.
|
Posted Friday, January 22, 2010 10:47 AM By One view
To win, the attorneys defending Prop8 must show biblical courage and not cultural sensitivity. The truth is that the two behaviors in question (which one side wishes to make equal, and the other side might not discuss for fears of being seen as 'insensitive') are quite different: factually, historically, culturally...and therefore legally. One is generative of life, with legal implications that go along with that. The other is not and may be in fact degenerative. If the attorneys do not make this point clearly, and graphically, the effort will lose (under the *incorrect* rhetorical assumption of the equality of "opposite sex" and "same-sex" "unions").
|
Posted Friday, January 22, 2010 10:49 AM By Anne T.
Traditional marriages for the majority of Jewish people, even in the Old Testament, were one man and one woman. Only the very weathy could afford multiply wives, and those marriages usually turned out disasterous -- note the continual fighting among the sons of Isaac and the sons of Ishmael down to this day. Tobit in the Old Testament, although probably wealthy, had only one wife. Uriah the Hittite had one wife. Christ said that multiply marriages and divorces were allowed by Moses because of the stubborness of the people. See: Matthew 19:8. History has shown mankind that these "alternate" marriages are not workable. We see the disasterous results of so many divorces and abortions in this country now -- young people shooting each other, tattooing their bodies to excess, etc. This was unthinkable and almost non-existence in this country when divorce was rare. The sins of the fathers (and mothers too) in some cases have been visited on the sons. In some cases the children learn by the example of their peers when they have good parents and chose to follow the peers, but these prodigals usually return home.
|
Posted Friday, January 22, 2010 11:03 AM By antonio
God has been around for lots more than a mere 5000 years—and reportedly, did quite alright. It also seems that sexual activity without marriage and same sex marriage has also been around for more than 5000 years,
There is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world. Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions. It is believed that same-sex marriage was a socially recognized institution at times in Ancient Greece and Rome, some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history. It was even more common in Africa and in the north American continent, pre-invasion.
Hu Pu'an records the phenomenon of two-women commitment ceremonies in "A Record of China's Customs: Guangdong.In the neighboring province of Fujian, same-sex marriages between males were also recognized):
In “The origins and role of same-sex relations in human societies” James Neill, writes that primitive tribes (for reasons discussed in the book) very early engaged in partnering both same sex and mixed sex. When more established ritualization of unions began, older and dominant males collected women while younger males commonly resorted to same sex unions. It is likely these same sex unions were encouraged because they created a more peaceful and less competitive intrigue and violence.
Woman-woman marriage has been documented in more than 30 African populations, including the Yoruba and Ibo of West Africa, the Nuer of Sudan, the Lovedu, Zulu and Sotho of South Africa, and the Kikuyu and Nandi of East Africa.1
Formalized, socially-recognized relations between two men also exist in Africa. Among the Zande (located in southwestern Sudan, northeastern Congo, and the Central African Republic), a male warrior could marry a teenage boy by paying bridewealth to the boy's parents.
Many indigenous societies in the Americas supported alternative gender roles for both biological men and women. Among the Mohave, men have married alyha (biological males.
|
Posted Friday, January 22, 2010 2:36 PM By Anne T.
Yes, antonio, and most of those societies that practiced such are dead, and the newer ones dying of AIDS and a multitude of other diseases. What a good example for the rest of us!
|
Posted Friday, January 22, 2010 3:44 PM By JLS
antonio, God has revealed His divine law to us and this does not contradict the law of nature. You cannot contradict divine law.
|
Posted Friday, January 22, 2010 5:42 PM By JLS
Also, antonio, since you're digging into perverse cultures, why don't you read Scripture to find out what God explains to us about such sinful ways? It will make your anthropological expeditions seem trivial.
|
Posted Saturday, January 23, 2010 4:49 PM By MarkF
Antonio, I'm going to call your bluff. Proove what you say by citing WHERE you get that nonsense about gay marriage in traditional African and Asian societies. I can guess where you got it from already. From ONE radical, homosexual book. Show me the name of a one mainstream sociology book that says that traditional African warrior cultures practiced gay marriage. I've debated with too many brainwashed, gullible gay people to not recognize a scam when I see one.l Meanwhile, since I live in DC, I'll call the African embassies to ask them what they think of this foolishness. A call to a professor of African studies should quiet you down too. Meanwhile, I'm not loosing any sleep over the crazy things you quoted from unnamed sources.
|
Posted Saturday, January 23, 2010 7:33 PM By JLS
If it's not the barnyard animals, then it's the remote cultures that get dumped on by the homoganda. No matter what the nature of a part of creation, the homoganda machine sees it as homosexual.
|
Posted Saturday, January 23, 2010 8:05 PM By Anne T.
MarkF, I am glad you confronted Antonio about his post. I should have also. There were at least one or two African societies and those of other cultures that fell into decadence. St. Charles Lwanga and his friends were murdered by one such homosexual king in an African society, but there is no mention even in those societies's history of having same-sex marriages. I am sure much of what he wrote is not true or an exaggeration. Ancient Greece and Rome had practicing homosexuals but they never had same-sex marriage.
|
Posted Saturday, January 23, 2010 8:17 PM By Anne T.
Again, MarkF and others, I am sorry I did not catch that. My "yes" made it seemed like I agreed with everything Antonio said, but I did and do not. Societies do have their ups and downs, more moral ages and more decadent ones, but I am sure not all the tribes he mentions did what he said on a grand scale.
|
Posted Saturday, January 23, 2010 8:58 PM By Art
MarkF, I'm quite sure there have been same-sex marriages in African countries for thousands of years. It just depends on what one means by "same-sex marriage". As Antonio said, "Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions." Even the terms "socially recognized" and "ritualization" are less than precise. African embassies are not an expert or source on the subject. Not even "a professor of African studies" is likely reliable, as the subject of homosexuality is rather specialized and controversial. Just as importantly, anyone who would be pacified by your phones calls needs his head examined. You are not a reliable source. You are prejudiced by your agenda.
|
Posted Wednesday, January 27, 2010 3:20 PM By Sandra
The Prop 8 backers have now rested their case, and their own witness testified that "I do believe it is almost certainly true that gay and lesbian couples and their children would benefit from having gay marriage." Whoa! The Prop 8 side has testified that gay marriage benefits children!
|
Posted Wednesday, January 27, 2010 6:38 PM By JLS
Art, are you putting yourself up as worthy of the same authority of "opinion" as God? Are you gays attempting to wreak vengeance on the Lord for His act of incinerating Sodom and Gomorrah? Maybe it's the impending disaster of the gay movement that is one reason to outlaw it.
|
Posted Wednesday, January 27, 2010 7:26 PM By Doris
The February 2010 issue of the Journal of Marriage and Family has a review by Judith Stacey, a professor of sociology and of social and cultural analysis at New York University in New York City, and co-author Timothy J. Biblarz, chairman of the sociology department at the University of Southern California. Reviewing 81 studies conducted since 1990, they found “that, in fact, there is no research that shows that children need both a mother and a father. And we looked everywhere.” In terms of parental skills, the reviewed studies typically measured familial dynamics such as parental consistency, nurturance, communication, structure, scheduling, stability, conflict and abuse. In terms of child well-being, the studies assessed psychosocial development measurements such as self-esteem, school achievement, peer relations, mental health status and depression, social problems and substance abuse. "The bottom line is that it is the quality of parenting, not the gender of the parents, that matters for child outcomes," said Stacey. Dr. Ellen C. Perrin, a professor of pediatrics at Tufts School of Medicine and chief of the division of developmental-behavioral pediatrics at the Floating Hospital for Children at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, said “It's very clear that -- with the proviso that so far the same-sex couples studied have been almost all lesbian couples -- there is no data that shows that heterosexual couples are any different than same-sex couples in raising healthy children.”
|
Posted Thursday, January 28, 2010 8:04 PM By Mark from PA
Here is some testimony from Ryan Kendall. He wrote of being called names and bullied in school. (They didn't know he was gay but he came to realize that he was .) When his mom found out from his journal she told him that he was going to burn in hell. "My parents used to take me to school, make notes and put them in my lunch, pick me up. Afterwards they called me names and that they hated me and I was disgusting. My mom told me she wishes she'd had an abortion instead of a gay son." He was asked if his NARTH experience helped him reconcile his gayness and his faith. "At NARTH I was told I was dirty and bad." He was asked why he stopped going. "If I didn't stop going to NARTH, I wouldn't survive. I would kill myself." Ryan was compelled to go to NARTH without his consent. To me this is child abuse. How horrible, this boy was called homophobic names before he even knew he was gay and then when his parents found out they called him the same names. God will call these people to account.
|
Posted Monday, February 01, 2010 7:18 PM By Anne T.
The problem with a lot of testimonies is that we never hear the other side. We do not hear from the mother, the pychologists, etc. what the child did and whether they are telling the truth, exaggerating or downright lying without hearing the other side. I know I would have been very upset if my daughters had brought a male, or female, home and went to bed with them in my house when they were teens. How do we know if that was not the case in this situation? Of course, the mother should have explained in a more rational manner why homosexual acts are wrong, but who knows what her son had done before that to drive her to saying all that she did. I know that normally I treat all people with respect, but if they are "in your face" same-sex marriage, I am going to tell them what I think about that kind of behavior, and if they keep it up, I might get very angry, and so do many other people. Then it is best to walk away. So far no one has done that to me other than on this blog. Bascially most of us do not interfere in what adults do in their own home, but what is done in our home is important to us. Also, children and teens threaten suicide many times over many issues. Are we always supposed to give into them? If a fifteen-year old threatens to commit suicide if you do not let her marry her boyfriend, and some do, should the parents give in to this? Of course not.
|
Posted Monday, February 01, 2010 8:50 PM By Anne T.
Another thing, too, without hearing from the students, who really knows what went on at that school and which children were wrong. Yes, there should be no name calling, but did that child or teen put his hands where they did not belong on another child or teen? We do not know all the truth just from his testimony alone.
|
Posted Monday, February 01, 2010 8:57 PM By Anne T.
In my 7:18 post, I meant to say, "We do not hear from the mother, the pychologists, etc. what the child did and whether HE was telling the truth, exaggerating or dowright lying without hearing the other side."
|
Posted Tuesday, February 02, 2010 3:23 PM By Mark from PA
"Did that child or teen put his hands where they did not belong on another child or teen?" Did you actually say that Anne? Unbelievable. You need to talk to young people who have been bullied or abused. Most of these kids are very intimidated. Why do people have to blame the victim? This was sworn testimony, Anne. Yes, this young man did have problems due to years of abuse.
|
Posted Tuesday, February 02, 2010 6:13 PM By Anne T.
MarkF, children do sometimes put their hands were they did not belong. The children where I worked were never allowed to call each other names, at least in the hearing ot the teachers and employees. If I, or most people, get improperly touched, we would most likely slap hands, faces or blurt out a name. That is a natural reaction. One of my daughters slapped the face of a teenage boy who touched her improperly. Some children will go on to talk about the person who did it to them, and word gets around as to their behavior. My questions to you MarkF concerning the testimony you mentioned is: Were are the people involved investigated as to the truth? Was anyone convicted of a crime? Was the truth properly and fairly determined, or did the people investigating just assume the young man was telling the truth.
|
Posted Tuesday, February 02, 2010 6:36 PM By Mark from PA
Anne, I am talking about kids who are victimized by bullies. I am not talking about boys that get fresh with girls. They are two different things.
|
Posted Tuesday, February 02, 2010 6:38 PM By Anne T.
I meant to write "Were ALL the people involved investigated as to the truth?"
|
Posted Tuesday, February 02, 2010 7:00 PM By JLS
Doris, are you so blitzed out by the fantasy of science that you believe whatever they say? Don't you know that every research project is financed by someone or some entity? Why would you place your trust in some small group of self professed gods and goddesses being paid well to come up with evidence to support an agenda rather than your common sense? Have you also no respect for God who has ordained mothers and fathers to raise their children? When people divorce God, they have only their fantasies to believe in.
|
Posted Tuesday, February 02, 2010 7:01 PM By Tom
Anne, you asked, "Was anyone convicted of a crime?" But it's not a crime to tell your child that you wished he'd been aborted, and it's not a crime for people to call your child names, to hate your child and say he's disgusting. Sadly, many children grow up in such environments. You asked, "Was the truth properly and fairly determined, or did the people investigating just assume the young man was telling the truth." It was a legal trial, and the opposing side was given the opportunity to cross-examine the witness and to call its own witnesses. Perhaps you can do a search and find what, if anything, they accomplished.
|
Posted Tuesday, February 02, 2010 7:04 PM By JLS
No, Sandra, the Prop 8 side has not testified, but one individual testified. Whoever is running this "Prop 8 side" in court is either a fool, a sellout, took a bribe, is intimidated, or is simply not worth their salt. If Prop 8 depends on this type of betrayal, then they need to be defunded asap and tossed out in the street where they can live it up at the Castro Street Faire.
|
Posted Tuesday, February 02, 2010 7:06 PM By JLS
And again we find PA gullibly believing some obstinate boy rather than the moral and devout believers of God who are NARTH! PA, why would you believe some kid in such circumstances? Is it because you also are really at the same level of maturity?
|
Posted Tuesday, February 02, 2010 7:07 PM By JLS
Art, you have zero basis for speculating that there have been institutionalized homosexual "marriages" for millenia in Africa.
|
Posted Tuesday, February 02, 2010 8:13 PM By Anne T.
Mark from PA, a boy who gets fresh with a girl IS a type of bullying. All I was saying is if the young man did, I repeat IF he did, put his hands on another child of the same sex in an improper manner, he could have gotten a reputation that led to the bullying at school. Someone could have told his mother about it, and she might not have known how to deal with it herself, and turned to NARTH, and I really doubt if the NARTh psychologists told him he was dirty and bad in those exact words. They might have told him that homosexual acts were bad and unhealthy as many of us have already said on this blog, and he interpreted it as "dirty and bad. All you gave us was the CHILD'S testimony and nothing else.
|
Posted Tuesday, February 02, 2010 8:16 PM By Anne T.
A correction: I believe you were talking about A MAN'S testimony, not a child's. Mark there is two sides to every story, in fact sometimes two or more sides to every story.
|
Posted Wednesday, February 03, 2010 7:10 AM By Art
JLS, the speculation you speak of and the words "institutionalized homosexual marriages" are yours, not mine. What I simply said is that I'm quite sure there has been some type of same-sex union (whether it be, as Antonio said, an informal, unsanctioned relationship or a highly ritualized union or whatever -- it doesn't even have to be sexual) occurring someplace in Africa in the past thousands of years which some people (past or present) may call "same-sex marriage". Terms such as "marriage", "same-sex marriage" and "institutionalized" can mean different things to different people in different contexts. To some people, every marriage is an institution, making the term "institutionalized marriage" a redundancy. Others will say a marriage is institutionalized by the commitment of the persons involved, whether anyone else approves or knows about it or not. To other people, these words may mean something else. Thus, if one is asking around, answers will vary according to how other people understand these words. If one imposes or presupposes one's own meaning (or the meaning used in Church teaching) upon someone else's words, one is not listening or hearing. Rather, one is stuffing words is someone else's mouth and making them one's puppet.
|
Posted Wednesday, February 03, 2010 7:13 PM By Anne T.
One of my posts above was mistakenly addressed to MarkF when I meant Mark from PA. Sorry! MarkF.
|
Posted Thursday, February 04, 2010 11:42 AM By Ski Ven
Art, how is anyone supposed to know what you really mean when you say something?
|
Posted Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:58 PM By Anne T.
Ski Ven, Art is saying, as an old Irish priest I knew would say, people have been "living in sin" down through the ages in most or all places.
|
Posted Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:59 PM By Anne T.
A correction: SOME people have been living in sin........
|
Posted Friday, February 05, 2010 4:33 PM By Mark from PA
Yes, Anne, it was a man's testimony. He was telling about what happened to him when he was a teen. If a devout believer in God abuses a kid, it is still abuse.
|
Posted Tuesday, February 09, 2010 11:21 AM By Anne T.
Concerning the Ryan Kendall case, as I have said before, the mother should not have said that she wished she had aborted her son if the man's testimony is true, but we all say things at times that we regret later. I find nothing online about the testimony of the parents or anyone else involved in the Ryan Kendall Case. There is also no mention of what was in the child's diary that supposedly so enraged the parents. The contents of the diary are not online as far as I know. The parents are probably dead. I knew a young man who was molested by his own uncle, and possibly his uncle's homosexual partner, when he was about 16. At least one of the adult men was into drugs, and they possibly drugged him. Later he was beaten on the streets of the city where I was raised. Awhile after that he disappeared. Who knows what happened to him. Was he killed by the drug dealers or the Lavender Mafia to shut him up? Who stands up and defends these people? My testimony would not even be accepted in court because the information was given to me by close family members. Yet those things do happen. This and other cases are are among the reasons why I am against same-sex adoptions. I know that some people have been molested by their own fathers, but that is rarer than the molestations by step-fathers, mother's lovers and people from same-sex relationships. Let us face the fact that once a person starts breaking the strong moral codes against adultery, sodomy, incest, etc. they sometimes become capable of just about anything. I don't know if the editor will post this, but I certainly hope so.
|
Posted Tuesday, February 09, 2010 12:33 PM By JLS
Certainly sodomy has been practiced for millenia, to wit the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Notice also that God's Law given to Moses specified the sin of sodom. If there was not much problem with it, then why go to the trouble to specify it in law? Thus, obviously this evil, which St Paul calls the consequence of sin, has long been condemned by God. Precedence in cultural practices is one thing, and the need for salvation is another. If sin were ok, then we would not need the Church. To make the purpose of the Church into a soothsaying institution is an utter defiance of God.
|
Posted Tuesday, February 09, 2010 12:37 PM By JLS
Now on to the core of Art's sophistry, and his attempt to trail the focus into endless drivel over terms: It is the act of same sex sex that needs to be stamped out by law. It is the attack on what God has joined together by the gay agenda fanatics that needs to be outlawed. It is not a contest of who can present the most effeminately confused fantasy, but a necessity to get rid of legalized immorality. The Church is tasked by Jesus Christ to discipline the nations ... This means make the rulers rule according to the will of God.
|
Posted Tuesday, February 09, 2010 2:37 PM By Mark from PA
JLS, you say. "The Church is tasked by Jesus Christ to discipline the nations. This means makes the rulers rule according to the will of God." We are a democratic country and a diverse country. We have freedom of religion in the US. Our country cannot be ruled according to the dictates of the Catholic Church. The bishops are not elected and therefore they can't make laws.
|
Posted Tuesday, February 09, 2010 4:51 PM By Florence
The Church proposes. She imposes nothing. She does not "make" anyone do anything.
|
Posted Tuesday, February 09, 2010 4:56 PM By Rick DeLano
Mark dissents from Church teaching on the disordered homosexual orientation, so we ought not be overly surprised that he is full of trepidation at the notion that Jesus Christ might be a King over us. He is a believer in democracy, not in Christ Our King. He is a perfect Americanist, much more faithful to the notion that 51% of the people will be right 51% of the time, than to the Faith which tells us that Christ Our Lord is right 100% of the time. Not to worry, Mark. The Kingdom over which Christ reigns as King is the Church, and it is not, and never will be a democracy, though it will continue to exist forever. The scandalously evil "democracy" which legalizes abortion, the perversion of children through homosexualist indoctrination in schools, and the destruction of the family through gender-neutered pseudo-"marriage", will not. This is why Christ is not Our President, or Our Prime Minister, or Our Party Leader. Christ is Our King, and the Catholic Church is His Kingdom, which will never cease to proclaim Him until He reigns over the entire human race and every nation, Amen.
|
Posted Tuesday, February 09, 2010 4:59 PM By Canisius
PA, you have chosen the illegitimate dictates of the State over Social Kingship of Christ..
|
Posted Tuesday, February 09, 2010 5:38 PM By Mark from PA
Rick, "He is a believer in democracy, not in Christ Our King." I never said that I didn't believe in Christ. Give me a break here. If you don't like democracy, what kind of government do you think the US should have?
|
Posted Tuesday, February 09, 2010 5:40 PM By JLS
Ahem, Florence, the Great Commission mandates both proposing the Gospel and discipling the nations. Discipline requires more than mere proposition.
|
Posted Tuesday, February 09, 2010 5:43 PM By JLS
PA, are you implying that the Church is impotant, that the bishops are effeminate, that the Church is not necessary in the world? The bishops, had they been faithful in the need to end legal abortion in the last election, would have instructed all Catholics to vote for candidates who would do just that. They refused to do so; can you explain to me that it is the will of God to allow abortion to continue?
|
Posted Tuesday, February 09, 2010 10:58 PM By JLS
The United States is a constitutional republic, PA, not a democracy. It's you blind liberals and socialists who want the chaotic application of democracy to rule ... ie you want the passions to rule instead of reason. In order to do this, you have to get rid of reason. It's the same trap that Cain fell into, when he envied his brother Abel who had pleased the Lord, then got snared by the devil after not heeding God's warning, and carried out an act of premeditated murder on his own brother, Abel. You people cannot stand those who are faithful and receive God's graces, and so despite His warning to repent, you go ahead and subject yourselves and your targets to the culture of death, murdering every soul you can murder ... by persuading to false doctrine and immoral acts.
|
Posted Tuesday, February 09, 2010 11:01 PM By JLS
PA, your idea is false that the Church cannot rule the United States. For centuries the Protestants have ruled the U. S., and not both the Protestants and the secular humanists rule this nation. So, why are you not complaining about that? Why do you support the enemies of the Church and betray Her.
|
Posted Monday, March 01, 2010 8:03 AM By Chris Davis
It was one of the defendants witnesses that put this issue in perspective for everyone " the day we allow gay marriage we will be more American the day before". This is the element in the case that is important. We are a nation of great people becuase we give everyone a fair shake. We have the ability to see that know matter what your color, sex, age, or sexual orintation you are you are a piece of this society that makes it better. The United States is working its way thru some social issues, however we do know everyone that contributes to America strengthens it. The bible has little to say on these issues remember we the people will govern ourselves, not theologist, not the government, when issues like these are brought up it is important that they are looked at from Americas postition on the land of the free. We need to see what our constitution agrees with. NOTE: the constition and bill of rights was signed off with vegue language. That leaves the courts to interpete. Its difficult at times but I do believe the judges do the best they can with what they had to work with. It couldnt be said anymore clearer that when the majority takes away rights of minority Americans that the action itself should be reviewed to see why in America this has happened furthermore what will we except of ourselves in America when rights are handed out to the majority but taken from a minority. The bible has many ideas in it that has been considered out dated because of the times, when this issue is taboo for us like slavery, began the process of outdating our biblical thoughts! On homosexuality in the same manner society has done with other social issues should be concidered out of date thinking. To close i leave you with this thought, We as Americans ALL deserve to be TRUELY FREE!
|
Posted Monday, March 01, 2010 9:39 AM By Abeca Christian
Chris Davis you are living a lie! There is no such thing as deserve to be free! Freedom is not based on immortal acceptance but freedom begins with a good moral conscience. Humanity will never be free, after all we are our brothers keepers and thus we shall take that to heart and honor God in that we do and don't do.
|
Posted Friday, March 05, 2010 9:33 PM By Anne T.
Chris Davis, sadly you have mistaken true freedom for licentiousness.
|
Posted Saturday, March 06, 2010 7:43 AM By JLS
Chris, as soon as gaydom is stomped into the dust will be the day the economy will recover.
|
Posted Saturday, March 06, 2010 9:13 AM By Canisius
Chris, your idea of freedom sounds like something that slither its way through a bathhouse. I not only reject your idea of "freedom" I, like JLS want it stomped into dust.
|
Posted Saturday, March 06, 2010 1:19 PM By JLS
The gay movement is like the king in the Shakespeare play who ends the tale while sprawled on the ground in his heavy full suit of battle armor crying out, "A horse, a horse, a kingdom for a horse". The gay movement would trade freedom of perversion for the life of society.
|
© California Catholic Daily 2010. All Rights Reserved.
|