Mexico City Legalizes Gay Nuptials : Catholic Clergy Aghast

Gay rights activist cheer after a session at the city's assembly in Mexico City last December. Photo by Daniel Aguilar / Reuters.
Mexico City sanctions gay marriage:
Catholic Church warns of Sodom and Gomorrah

In Morelia, Michoacan, Bishop Alfredo India added to the homophobic frenzy by avowing that even dogs did not engage in same sex fornication.

By John Ross / The Rag Blog / February 8, 2010

MEXICO CITY -- As Valentine's Day approaches, stationary stores in the old quarter of this megalopolis are awash with Cupids and hearts and the effusive iconography of romance. Ten-tiered wedding cakes spire to the chandeliers in the windows of the Ideal, the palace of such confectionary extravaganzas.

Down the block, beribboned classic cars are lined up outside La Profesa, a colonial church much favored for high society weddings. Marriage is merchandise for the Roman Catholic Church -- priests charge sumptuous (30,000 pesos) fees for tying the knots.

Meanwhile, Church and State, ancient rivals for the affections of the Mexican people, are nose-to-nose over who exactly can marry whom.

The Princes of the Catholic Church are aghast at the recent vote of the Mexico City Legislative Assembly to legalize same sex marriage that in their jaundiced vista has transformed this megalopolis into one monstrous Sodom and Gomorrah. This past December 21, local legislators, led by the left-center Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) which holds a lopsided majority in the Assembly voted 39 to 20 to amend the city's civil code by modifying the definition of marriage, striking down language that restricted such coupling to a man and a woman, and upgrading civil unions ("societies of conviviality") between lovers of the same sex to matrimony.

The new law also specifically stipulates that same sex couples can adopt children, a right they previously enjoyed -- any Mexican can adopt a child so long as they are 17 years older than the adoptee -- but which has the Church's testicles in a major uproar.

In the aftermath of passage, the scene in the old, ornate chambers of the Legislative Assembly was one of widespread jubilation -- with pockets of bitter recrimination. Up in the balconies, gays and lesbians smooched and waved enormous rainbow flags. Down on the Assembly floor, the right-wing PAN party delegation led by Mariana Gomez, cousin of first lady Margarita Zavala, stomped out, threatening to take the notorious changes in the civil code straight to the Supreme Court.

Like with passage of such liberalizing social measures as free abortion on demand, a right to die act that promotes euthanasia, and the aforementioned civil unions, both the PAN and its perpetual allies in the Catholic hierarchy have gone ballistic at the prospect of homosexual nuptials.

Under the vaulting arches of the ancient Metropolitan Cathedral, Cardinal Norberto Rivera, the shepherd of the most populous archdioceses in Christendom, condemned same sex marriage as an "aberration" that "will invariably lead to the ruin of society" and called upon Mexico's Catholics to disobey the new law, an edict that spurred threats by "Jacobins" as secularists are quaintly maligned by Holy Mother Church, to take the Cardinal to court on charges of "treason." Grievously offended, Rivera protested that leftists are "trying to prohibit us from speaking in the name of Jesus Christ."

Such Church-State conflicts have stippled the history of this neighbor republic since it declared its independence from the Spanish Crown 200 years ago this year, a bicentennial that is being celebrated with much hoopla here and which the Church demands a piece of despite separation from the Mexican State that has been defined as a secular institution by three of its Constitutions.

Writing in the Archdioceses' weekly From the Faith, Cardinal Rivera's mouthpiece, Father Hugo Valdemar, advocated for excommunication of all legislators who had voted up same sex marriage and suggested that couples who adopted children would do so to abuse the youngsters or exploit them for kiddie porn.

If a child has two fathers which one would be his role model, inquisitioned Father Valdemar? Would he emulate his parents by wearing make-up and mini-skirts? In Morelia, Michoacan, Bishop Alfredo India added to the homophobic frenzy by avowing that even dogs did not engage in same sex fornication.

The Catholic Church was hardly alone in its vivid vindictiveness. Both Antonio Chaudruhi, Patriarch of the Orthodox Church, and Arturo Favela, president of the Confraternity of Christian Churches, joined in denouncing such "sinfulness."

The Mexico City Archdioceses' hypothesis that same sex couples are child molesters is a textbook exhibition of the Church's malignant hypocrisy. Recent scandals involving pederast priests have stained the hierarchy's reputation and depleted its coffers. The Legionnaires of Christ have paid out millions USD to compensate victims of the order's founder and serial sodomist Macial Marcial. (The omnisexual priest also fathered children with three different women.)

Cardinal Norberto himself has been implicated in multiple imbroglios -- as Bishop of Tehuacan Puebla and Mexico City, Rivera personally shielded Father Nicolas Aguilar, accused of as many as 600 incidents of pedophilia by moving him from parish to parish, ultimately shipping him off to Los Angeles where Cardinal Roger Mahoney continued the subterfuge. Mahoney and Rivera have been called to account for their cover-up by authorities in both countries.

Separation of Church and State as mandated by the Mexican Constitution has narrowed dramatically in the 10 years that the PAN has held the presidency. Vicente Fox, the first opposition party candidate to take power, campaigned literally wrapped in the banner of the Virgin of Guadalupe and stunned so-called Jacobins by kneeling to kiss Pope John Paul II's ring during the late pope's last visit to Mexico. His successor, Felipe Calderon, whose Catholic zealot father was a hero of the "Cristero War" against the federal government that took 30,000 lives between 1925 and 1929, shares the podium with high Church officials at Vatican-sponsored venues such as the 2008 Catholic Families Congress in Mexico City.

The PANista governor of Jalisco lavishes state funds to refurbish churches that served as sanctuaries for the "Cristeros" and the governor of Mexico state Enrique Pena Nieto, the frontrunner for the once and future ruling PRI party's nomination in 2012 presidential elections, just returned from a pilgrimage to Rome to obtain Pope Benedict's blessing for his impending marriage to soap opera mega-star Angelica Rivera (no relation) AKA "La Gaviota" ("the Seagull").

Pope Benedict used the occasion to rail against same sex marriage in Mexico as "a crime against creation that will destroy the differences between sexes…"

When Mexico City legalized abortion in the first 12 weeks of gestation, Cardinal Rivera ordered the capital's churches to ring their bells in mourning. Collaboration between the PAN and the PRI has resulted in the criminalization of abortion in 18 states and the two parties are expected to soon announce the introduction of a constitutional amendment to outlaw the procedure everywhere in Mexico, including the capital.

Despite raging homophobia in the provinces, Mexico City remains an oasis of sexual liberation. Men holding hands and women soul kissing women in public no longer invoke horrified stares in this cosmopolitan capital where every June since the Stonewall riots convoked the movement for gay, lesbian, and transgender rights, tens of thousands march and party to celebrate their sexual orientation.

Despite the PAN's and Cardinal Norberto's obstreperous recriminations, in a recent survey of the right-wing party's own base in preparation for an upcoming lawsuit to nullify same sex marriage when it kicks in March 4, half of those polled supported the new law -- although 70% vehemently opposed adoption.

As the tide shifts north of the border where six U.S. states, the nation's capital, and one Canadian province now provide legal cover for same sex marriages and unions, in Latin America, a bastion of virulent Machismo, the times too are a-changing. Uruguay and Colombia have put a legal stamp on such arrangements, as have three provinces of Buenos Aires and a Brazilian state. Cuba, led by President Raul Castro's daughter Mariela, is moving in the same direction. Mexico City was not even Mexico's first jurisdiction to approve such legislation -- Coahuila in the north held its first same sex wedding three years ago.

This Valentine's Day all over the Latin continent, gays and lesbians will be exchanging hearts and flowers and vows of undying love as they hand out slices of wedding cake to celebrate unholy matrimony.

[John Ross is touring Obamalandia from sea to stinking sea with his latest cult classic El Monstruo: Dread and Redemption in Mexico City ("a gritty, pulsating read" -- NY Post). This week he will be in Los Angeles at Cal State L.A. (Feb 9, 4:20 p.m., Student Union), Eso Won Books (Feb 10, 7 p.m.), Pomona College in Claremont (Feb. 11 -- noon lecture, Oldenborg Center), and the Urban Survival art space (Feb 13, Boyle Heights 4-7 p.m.)

Here are John's upcoming Texas visits: Austin: Feb. 15, 7 p.m., Resistencia Bookstore; Feb. 16, 2 p.m., UT Journalism School (Talk: "Five decades of Journalism in Latin America"); Feb. 16, 7 p.m., MonkeyWrench Books; Houston: Feb. 17, 7 p.m., Sedition Books; Feb. 18, 11:30 a.m., University of Houston, with John Mason Hart; Edinburgh: Feb. 19, 7 p.m., Pan American University (Talk: "1810-1910-2010: Cycles of Mexican Revolution"); San Benito: Feb. 20, 7 p.m., Narciso Martinez Cultural Center.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

The Rick Warren Debacle : Views From the Left and the Right

Barack Obama's choice of pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration has stirred up a storm.

Dancing with Rick Warren is more than making nice with a sector of our society that Obama probably views as an important component in his perceived grand consensus. This is a move that carries with it great symbolism, and it seems quite clear that it reflects a serious tactical miscalculation on the part of the Obama transition.

By Thorne Dreyer / The Rag Blog / December 19, 2008

See 'Censuring and Moving On' by Todd Gitlin, and 'Why Obama Chose Rick Warren' by Jon Henke, Below.

Below are two interesting takes on President-elect Barack Obama’s astonishing choice of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration – and the ensuing storm that decision has created.

The first is from sociologist and former SDS leader Todd Gitlin; the second is from a right wing blogger. Carl Davidson of Progressives for Obama sent them our way with these words:

“The right has its own troubles here, and senses it is being divided, as in 'unite the progressive forces, win over the middle and divide the right.' Todd Gitlin's piece is a call to unite the progressives once again, post-venting. Somehow, though, I suspect there's too many wild cards here to render a final verdict yet.”

Bottom line, most of us remain appalled and at the moment have trouble seeing explanations as anything more than rationalizations. And I am one inclined to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, at least until the man takes office!

I believe Obama to be his own man to a unique degree, am not all that concerned about his appointments, and still think that, in the end , he will be one of our most progressive presidents – if only because the times and the economy will demand such a president. And because I believe the left will work hard to hold him accountable.

But dancing with Rick Warren is more than making nice with a sector of our society that Obama probably views as an important component in his perceived grand consensus. This is a move that carries with it great symbolism, and it seems quite clear that it reflects a serious tactical miscalculation on the part of the Obama transition. Personally, I strongly believe that it reveals nothing about the man’s character, but it may give even reluctant supporters pause about his eccentric strategic approach as has been revealed so far.

Rick Warren, though he stands out in the religious right for his positions on AIDS and the environment, has not simply opposed abortion and Proposition 8. This man has compared efforts to make abortion more accessible to the Holocaust and has informed us that homosexuality is akin to incest and pedophilia.

Censuring and Moving On
By Todd Gitlin / December 19, 2008

My initial reaction to Obama's Rick Warren announcement was horror.

After what seems like weeks of intense back-and-forth, but in fact is only a day's worth, I'm still appalled. It's one thing to invite the adversary into the tent the better to defeat him with a smile--neutralize him, in colder terms--but it's quite another to give him a throne, even if a purely symbolic throne. Warren's political interventions are mostly terrible (AIDS and environment are the exceptions). The argument that this was crass political calculation--triangulation, as another president once said--comparable to FDR making nice to segregationists and Stalin, falls afoul of the fact that this overture to Warren was unnecessary. To get the New Deal, FDR really did have to make deals with the racist devil. To defeat Hitler, FDR really had to ally with Stalin. It's history: get used to it. But I've yet to see a single argument to the effect that Obama's invitation to Warren accomplishes a single practical thing, let along that it was necessary. So I take it as an ugly brush-back: a gratuitous slap at feminists and LGBT's. I hope it's ill-considered, impromptu, but suspect it's actually one of a series--bridge-building to the right on principle.

But meanwhile, some proportion here, people. Other appointments are arguable but some are clearly superb. Harold Meyerson, than whom no one knows L. A. and labor better, says bluntly: "Hilda Solis is great." (So does every union person I've seen quoted.) E. J. Dionne, Jr., makes a firm case for Arne Duncan at Education. John Judis calls Obama's incoming science adviser John Holdren "the Mick Jagger of climate change," meaning that "by the end of Holdren's speech, I was ready to join the world environmentalist crusade." When I was teaching at Berkeley, I heard Holdren, who taught physics there, give a fabulous talk about nuclear dangers.

Meantime, Obama still hasn't taken up residence in the White House.

Wes Boyd and Joan Blades had the right idea, back in the fading days of the 20th century, when they started what became the excellent Move On with a simple petition.

Vis-a-vis Clinton-Lewinsky, recall that their petition read: "Congress must Immediately Censure President Clinton and Move On to pressing issues facing the country."

Censure Obama over Warren--directly, sincerely, viscerally--and move on.

Source / Talking Points Memo

And, an extremely interesting view from the right:

Why Obama Chose Rick Warren
by Jon Henke / December 17, 2008

Barack Obama's selection of Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inaugural ceremony may seem like a nice overture - a reassuring gesture - to the middle and the Right, but it is stirring up a great deal of grief on the Left.

This is exactly what Obama intends.

Let's back up for a moment: President Clinton went into office in 1993 and quickly alienated the public, resulting in an opposition Congress for the next 6 years.

Clinton's later triangulation conceptually legitimated the policies of Republicans, but it put public approval (and some political capitabl) back behind Clinton.

But Barack Obama faces a much different situation. He will walk into office with a very solid majority Democratic Senate and House, and with overwhelming public favor. Obama does not have to seek the best deal he can get out of a Republican agenda; he does not have to moderate his policy agenda for a Republican Congress.

Obama can set his own agenda....as long as he has the public on his side.

Clinton faced an opposition Congress, so he had to moderate on policy. Obama faces a friendly Congress, so he has to moderate on rhetoric.

I'm not sure why this rhetorical moderation is still a surprise to anybody. Obama has been doing this for awhile: he praised Reagan, recognized legitimate grievances of opponents of affirmative action, affirmed the excesses of New Deal/Great Society liberalism. But while each of those set aflutter the hearts of independents, moderates and the Right, none of them involved actual policy changes.

Most people have only a very superficial intersection with politics, so trivial gestures - like inviting an evangelical preacher to deliver the invocation for a Democratic President - are powerful. They send the signal to a low-information public that Obama is one of them, sympathetic to them, respectful of them...without actually requiring substantive political concessions of the Obama administration.

And if the noisy Left cries foul at Obama's un-progressive rhetoric...well, so much the better for the substantive progressive agenda.

Rhetorically moderate, politically Left. Expect to see that over and over again from President Obama.

Source / The NextRight

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Schwarzeneggar : Time to Show Some Muscle on Prop. 8

Douglas Kmeic: 'Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger may well be a proximate cause of this breakdown … the Prop. 8 case should be settled, and there’s no one better to do it than our governor.'
By Jon Ponder / November 20, 2008

Douglas Kmeic says the Prop. 8 debacle could be resolved by limiting the state of California prospectively to the issuance of civil unions for all couples, rather than marriage licenses, leaving marriage to the churches.

The California Supreme court announced yesterday that it will hear arguments challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the anti-gay amendment that overturned the right of gay people to marry in the state.

The Prop 8 debacle could be resolved by limiting the state of California prospectively to the issuance of civil unions for all couples, rather than marriage licenses, leaving marriage to the churches.

In May, the same court, which is composed of seven Republicans and one Democrat — who are all elected for 12-year terms — decided 4-3 to strike down a law banning same-sex marriage.

The judges are being asked now to decide whether the constitution can be amended to make discrimination against a minority group legal, a move that directly violates the constitution’s foundational principle of providing protection of rights equally to all residents — or whether a change of that magnitude should have been made through the constitutional “revision” process instead. A revision to the constitution would have required a two-thirds vote by both houses of the legislature before going before the electorate as a ballot initiative.

In a recent San Francisco Chronicle op-ed, Douglas Kmeic Pepperdine law professor , who served as a high official in the Reagan and Bush I Justice departments but who supported Barack Obama this year, laid out a compromise to the constitutional debacle brought on by the passage of Proposition 8 that puts the solution in the hands of California’s governor:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger may well be a proximate cause of this breakdown … the Prop. 8 case should be settled, and there’s no one better to do it than our governor.

After all, the governor has been on both sides of the same-sex marriage issue. Twice the governor was against gay marriage and twice the governor was for it.

The governor told CNN that he hoped the state Supreme Court would overturn the people and Prop. 8. While there are some respectable legal arguments that the initiative does not meet the requirements of Article 18 of the state constitution, asking the court to invalidate Prop. 8 is a tall order. Properly, judges look for ways to avoid holding laws unconstitutional, and that is especially so when the law comes directly from the people.

All that said, the case is too close to call because Prop. 8 did not directly address the portion of the state Supreme Court decision that declared sexual orientation to be a suspect classification requiring compelling justification and because there is federal precedent that decries singling out any vulnerable group for legal disadvantage. In short, neither side can be confident of victory, and that is the best kind of case for settlement.

The governor should break the tie and free the judges from having to either set aside democracy or to uphold the decision of the people in a way that the governor and others would perceive as unequal treatment among his fellow Californians.

The governor has administrative authority to have regulations issued interpreting family law, and nothing in Prop. 8 precludes him from ensuring that homosexual and heterosexual couples are treated equally under state law so long as he stays clear of “marriage.” This could be accomplished by limiting the state of California prospectively to the issuance of civil unions for all couples, rather than marriage licenses, leaving marriage, which in origin is predominantly a religious concept and not the real business of the state, to religion.

To convince both sides to come to the table, the governor’s ruling should:

– Eliminate any doubt as to the validity of same-sex marriages undertaken between the time of the Supreme Court’s judgment and the effective date of Prop. 8. This is only fair because the proposition did not clearly state that it would be retroactive. People are entitled to have confidence in the law as it exists today without having to anticipate how it might change.

– Reaffirm the unfettered freedom of religions (not the state) to be either in favor or opposition to same-sex marriage as their doctrine teaches.

Is this perfect? No. Better than waiting for the outcome of an uncertain case? Yes.

Respectful of the dignity and equality of gay and straight citizen alike? It is intended to be so.

Mindful of the tradition of religious freedom? I think it is.

As Kmeic noted, Schwarzenegger could have prevented this entire debacle by not vetoing the legislation passed twice by both houses of the legislature that made gay marriage legal.

But what are the chances Schwarzenegger would take charge of this contentious issue? Politically, he is quite likely looking at the end of his political career. His approval ratings now are back down into George Bush territory, around 34 percent. He is term-limited out from running for re-election in 2010, and it is doubtful he’ll run against Sen. Barbara Boxer that year, if for no other reason than the fact that he is temperamentally unsuited for the U.S. Senate. In short, Schwarzenegger has nothing to lose, and could well burnish his legacy with a landmark resolution to this civil rights case.

And yet, despite his on-screen superhero persona and his bluster, nothing in Schwarzenegger’s record indicates he’ll make a bold move on this case along the lines Kmeic suggests.

Meanwhile, homophobe activists are threatening to recall the California Supreme Court justices who vote to overturn Proposition 8. But that could be a risky scheme. They might want to look at the recall in 2003 of Gov. Gray Davis, in which the extreme right attempted a legislative coup to replace Davis with an arch-conservative — at first it was Rep. Darrell Issa from San Diego County — but ended up with a liberal Republican Hollywood actor instead.

Given the decidedly leftward trend among the California electorate since 1992, a recall vote on these Republican Supreme Court justices could lead to their replacement by truly liberal Democratic justices.

Even without the Kmeic compromise, California gays and their supporters have reason to be cautiously optimistic. It appears the law is on their side — and a right-wing recall of GOP Supreme Court justices is as likely as not to backfire on the right.

Source / Pensito Review

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Replacement For 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' : 'Don't Care'

Congress Revisits Military's Policy On Gays
By David Welna / July 24, 2008

More than 12,000 gay men and women have been expelled from the U.S. armed forces since the Pentagon's policy of "don't ask, don't tell" took effect 15 years ago.

On Wednesday, Congress held its first hearing on whether to repeal that policy. It happened to coincide with the 60th anniversary of the order by President Harry Truman that ended racial segregation of the military.

Speaking in the Capitol Rotunda to lawmakers, administration officials and African-American veterans, the first black chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell, proclaimed, "We are all created equal, with inalienable rights."

"We have to make sure that those rights, those inalienable rights, belong to all Americans," he said. "Thank you, God bless you, and thank Harry Truman."

California House Democrat Susan Davis was at that commemoration. Hours later, she cited it as she chaired the first post-"don't ask, don't tell" hearing ever.

"I couldn't help but just change some of the words that were being stated about how important it is for us to have equal treatment under the law," she said.

Davis was unable to persuade anyone from the Pentagon to testify at the hearing. But the Armed Services panel did hear from a straight, retired African-American Army major general, Vance Coleman. He compared today's official policy against gays in the military to the segregation he encountered enlisting in 1947.

"It's bewildering and counterintuitive to me that we maintain a federal law that says no matter how well a person does his or her job, no matter how integral they are to their unit, they must be removed, disrespected and dismissed because of who they happen to be or who they happen to love," Coleman said.

Another witness, retired Navy intelligence Capt. Joan Darrah, was once secretly gay. After nearly 30 years in the military, she had an epiphany after leaving an area of the Pentagon minutes before it was obliterated on Sept. 11, 2001.

"The reality is that if I had been killled, my partner then of 11 years would have been the last to know, as I had not dared to list her name in any of my paperwork or on any of my emergency contact information," she said. "It was the events of Sept. 11 that made me realize that 'don't ask, don't tell' was taking a much greater toll than I had ever admitted."

Darrah then retired from the Navy a year earlier than planned.

Marine Sgt. Eric Alva, a gay man visited by President Bush after losing a leg to a landmine — the first U.S. casualty in the Iraq invasion — also testified.

"That landmine may have put an end to my military career that day, but it didn't put an end to my secret," Alva said. "That would come years later, when I realized that I had fought and nearly died to secure the rights for others that I myself was not free to enjoy. I had proudly served a country that was not proud of me."

Taking the opposite side was another witness, retired Army Sgt. Brian Jones, who said, "With all the important issues that require attention, it is difficult to understand why a minority faction is demanding that their concerns be given priority over more important issues."

Jones got a sharp comeback from Connecticut Republican Chris Shays.

"We know that gays have served in every conflict in our country," Shays said. "They've served in every war, and we know that gays have given their lives for everyone in this room. So, Sgt. Jones, that's why we're having this hearing."

Also arguing against allowing gays in the military was Elaine Donnelly, who heads the Center for Military Readiness.

"We would lose thousands of people if they were told under a zero tolerance policy that you must accept the new paradigm, which is forced cohabitation of men and women with homosexuals in the military," she said.

But California Democrat Ellen Tauscher, who is sponsoring legislation to repeal "don't ask, don't tell," said the issue was one of civil rights.

"I believe that repealing the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy is probably the last civil rights issue we have," Tauscher said.

Still, Democrats say Congress won't act on repealing the policy until a new president is elected.

Source / National Public Radio

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Snickers : 'Get Some Nuts'

New ad encourages drive-by shootings of unmanly men

See video below.

Via Towleroad comes a new spot for Snickers which appears to endorse violence against the effeminate, or at least against speed-walkers. In the spot, a yellow-shorts-sporting butt-shaking speed-walker is attacked by former A-Team star Mr. T (?!) with a Snickers-shooting machine gun, for being "a disgrace to the man race." Ga-wha? The ad was created by AMV BBDO, a subsidiary of the retro-futuristically named Omnicom, which turns out to be the company also responsible for a Dodge spot and another Snickers ad that inspired claims of homophobia. Ad Age critic Bob Garfield has written an open letter to Omnicom calling the spots "simply sick."

I've been a vocal proponent of everybody chilling out over fictional portrayals of LGBT people and the gender non-conformist, but this is appalling, and also completely unfunny: making fun of racewalkers is so, like, 1993. Watch the offending ad after the jump. What do you think, Riffers, does it make you feel like "getting some nuts" and having a Snickers?



Snickers TV Commercial - Get Some Nuts - video powered by Metacafe

Source / The Riff / Mother Jones / Posted July 22, 2008

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

African Anglican Leaders Call For Ouster of Gay Bishop

Rev. Gene Robinson touring stalls at Lambeth. He is not invited to the conference itself. Photo by Peter Macdiarmid / Getty Images.
'Should resign for good of the church...'
By Riazat Butt / July 22, 2008

Rev. Gene Robinson, the gay bishop of New Hampshire should resign in order to save the Anglican Communion, a senior African archbishop said today.

The call came from the Rt Rev Dr Daniel Deng, the archbishop of Sudan, and followed a strongly worded statement that accused the US Episcopal church of exposing Anglicans to ridicule and damaging their credibility in a multi-religious environment.

African bishops who signed the statement rejecting homosexual practice said they could not accept it as part of their church. They reiterated their opposition to developments in the US and Canada, where gay clergy are ordained and where same-sex relationships are blessed.

"This has not only caused deep divisions within the communion but it has seriously harmed the church's witness in Africa, opening the church to ridicule and damaging its credibility in a multi-religious environment."

The statement was endorsed by more than 150 bishops attending Lambeth, who represent 17 of the 38 provinces in the Anglican Communion.

Deng said: "He [Robinson] should resign for the sake of the church. The people who consecrated him should confess to the conference because they created an outcry in the whole Anglican world. God is not making a mistake creating Adam and Eve - he would have created two Adams if he wanted. If he was a real Christian he would resign."

There was already a breakdown in the Anglican Communion, with around 230 bishops boycotting the conference because of Robinson's election, he said.

"Can he not resign to allow the 300 bishops to come back to the house? The norms of the communion have been violated. We're asking them as Christians to keep the Anglican world intact."

Robinson's election divided the communion and his exclusion was intended to appease traditionalists. However, the decision of Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, to keep Robinson away angered the Episcopal church, which until 48 hours ago was lobbying to have him brought back into the fold.

US bishops expressed their anger and hurt over his exclusion at a closed meeting. However, the leadership declined to take up the issue and an increasing number of bishops are said to be distancing themselves from the New Hampshire cleric in order to avoid conflict with conference organisers.

Officially, today was the second day of the most important gathering in the Anglican calendar. But the crucial summit is descending into farce, with bishops publicising their disputes and grievances. Robinson complained at being shut out, not only from Lambeth but also from a key US House of Bishops meeting.

On his blog, he wrote: "It really puts all of us in a lose-lose position: if I abide by their ruling, I am excluded; if I fight it or simply show up, then I'm the troublemaker and rebel. This is not a ditch I feel called to die in. I will just mourn the sadness of it, and move on."

Source / Guardian, UK

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Taking the Bible to Court

Ned Flanders of The Simpsons agrees with Bible publishers Zondervan and Thomas Nelson that homosexuals are "wicked" and won't go to Heaven.
Bible Publishers Sued for Anti-Gay References
By Rick Pedraza / July 10, 2008

A Michigan man is seeking $70 million from two Christian publishers for emotional distress and mental instability he received during the past 20 years from versions of the Bible that refer to homosexuality as a sin.

Bradley LaShawn Fowler, a gay man, claims his constitutional rights were infringed upon by Zondervan Publishing Co. and Thomas Nelson Publishing, both of which, he claims, deliberately caused homosexuals to suffer by misinterpretation of the Bible.

Fowler, 39, is seeking $60 million from Zondervan and another $10 million from Thomas Nelson.

According to a USA Today report, Fowler’s two separate suits against the publishers claim the intent of the Bible revisions that refer to homosexuals as sinners reflect an individual opinion or a group's conclusion.

Fowler says the deliberate changes made to first Corinthians, chapter six, verse nine caused him "or anyone who is a homosexual to endure verbal abuse, discrimination, episodes of hate, and physical violence ... including murder."

Fowler, who is representing himself in both lawsuits, claims the publishers are misinterpreting the Bible by specifically using the word homosexuals, which made him an outcast from his family and contributed to physical discomfort and periods of demoralization, chaos and bewilderment.

“These are opinions based on the publishers and they are being embedded in the religious structure as a way of life," he tells a local NBC TV station affiliate in Grand Rapids.

Fowler admits that every Bible printed is a translation that can be interpreted in many ways, but he says specifically using the word “homosexual” is not a translation but a change.

Fowler says Zondervan Bibles published in the ‘80s used the word homosexuals among a list of those who are “wicked' or unrighteous and won't inherit the kingdom of heaven.”

Zondervan, for its part, issued a statement to the Grand Rapids press stating it does not translate the Bible or own the copyright for any of the translations it publishes

“We rely on the scholarly judgment of the highly respected and credible translation committees behind each translation and never alter the text of the translations we are licensed to publish,” the statement reads.

“We only publish credible translations produced by credible Biblical scholars.”

U.S. District Judge Julian Abele Cook Jr., who will hear Fowler’s case against Thomas Nelson, says the court “has some very genuine concerns about the nature and efficacy of [Fowler’s] claims."

Source. / Newsmax

Thanks to Jeff Jones / The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Oops! Christian Site's Homophobia Leads to Big Faux Pas

Calls Olympian Tyson Gay 'Homosexual'

The American Family Association obviously didn't foresee the problems that might arise with its strict policy to always replace the word "gay" with "homosexual" on the Web site of its Christian news outlet, OneNewsNow. The group's automated system for changing the forbidden word wound up publishing a story about a world-class sprinter named "Tyson Homosexual" who qualified this week for the Beijing Olympics.

Tyson Gay won the men's 100 meters final in June at the U.S. Olympic Track and Field Trials. The problem: Tyson's real last name is Gay. Therefore, OneNewsNow's reliable software changed the Associated Press story about Tyson Gay's amazing Olympic qualifying trial to read this way:

“Tyson Homosexual was a blur in blue, sprinting 100 meters faster than anyone ever has. His time of 9.68 seconds at the U.S. Olympic trials Sunday doesn't count as a world record, because it was run with the help of a too-strong tailwind. Here's what does matter: Homosexual qualified for his first Summer Games team and served notice he's certainly someone to watch in Beijing. "It means a lot to me," the 25-year-old Homosexual said. "I'm glad my body could do it, because now I know I have it in me."

Source. / Fox Sports / July 3, 2008

And from the Slueth:

Contacted by the Sleuth for comment on the software mishap, American Family Association spokeswoman Cindy Roberts in Tupelo, Miss., told us, "I think it was just a fluke."

Fred Jackson, news director of OneNewsNow, tells the Sleuth his organization has now fixed the software glitch. "We took the filter out for that word," he said, without uttering the "G" word.

"We don't object to the word 'gay,'" Jackson explained, except "when it refers to people who practice a homosexual lifestyle." And the "G" word, he says, has "been co-opted by a particular group of people." (People who are g-a-y.)

The OneNewsNow story about Gay, which was spotted by blogger Ed Brayton at scienceblogs.com, as well as by gay blogs, including PageOneQ, even included these nice details about Mr. Homosexual's qualifying sprint:

Wearing a royal blue uniform with red and white diagonal stripes across the front, along with matching shoes, all in a tribute to 1936 Olympic star Jesse Owens, Homosexual dominated the competition. He started well and pulled out to a comfortable lead by the 40-meter mark. This time, he kept pumping those legs all the way through the finish line, extending his lead. In Saturday's opening heat, Homosexual pulled way up, way too soon, and nearly was caught by the field, before accelerating again and lunging in for fourth place.

Source. / Mary Ann Akers / washingtonpost.com / July 1, 2008

Other items we'd like to see on the offending web site:

Enola Homosexual Drops A-Bomb on Japan!
Typhoon Homosexual Causes Devastation
Priest and writer Jean Pierre Homosexual Is Descendant of Lord John Peter Homosexual
Memorial Day Service Commemorates Hobart R. Homosexual (1894-1983), American general, and George Homosexual(1917-1994), Naval Aviator in World War II

Travel section: Visit These Happy Locales!

Homosexual Mountain, Virginia
Homosexual Spring, Tennessee
Homosexual Farms, Virginia
Homosexual Creek, Alabama
Homosexual, Georgia, Michigan and West Virginia
Homosexualville, South Dakota
Homosexual Hollow, Texas
AND Homosexual Head, Massachusetts!

Posted by What Big Implications You Have! / the sleuth / washingtonpost.com

Thanks to Jeff Jones / The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...