(Weekly Column)
It is time to admit that the gay community has a gigantic Pope problem. Under the leadership of Benedict XVI, the Vatican has become an implacable foe of liberalism, modernity and basic rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. Rome has eagerly jumped with both feet into America’s culture wars and is working on a global scale to punish or purge ideological dissenters within the church. This aggressive activism presents a formidable new front in the fight for parity – one with considerable political clout and financial resources.
Last week, a coalition of totalitarian religious activists and radical clerics joined forces to unveil the “Manhattan Declaration” at Washington’s National Press Club. This rambling manifesto, written by former Watergate felon Chuck Colson, called for “Christians” to disobey laws they didn’t fancy and to ignore civil rights laws that protected GLBT people from discrimination. It was a dishonest document filled with historical revisionism that promoted theocracy, encouraged anarchy and supported the dissolution of the rule of law. It falsely portrayed right wing Christians as victims, even as they pledged to work tirelessly to deny equality to those who would not adhere to their sectarian church rules.
An extreme manifesto of such breathtaking cynicism and insincerity is no surprise coming from what passes for “leaders” in today’s evangelical circles. It was striking, however, that more than 15 key American Catholic leaders signed on to the “Manhattan Declaration”. Signatories included heavyweights such as Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York and Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, DC. This was clearly a call to arms and a powerful signal that the Roman Catholic Church is taking the gloves off to fight political battles in America.
This hands-on involvement from Rome has passed the “trend” stage and appears to be official policy. Consider the significant involvement the Catholic Church had in stripping marriage rights away from GLBT couples in a Maine referendum held earlier this month.
In the same manner, on June 11, the Washington, DC Archdiocese threatened to abandon the homeless and quit charity work in the District if it had to comply with anti-discrimination laws. Catholic Charities had the audacity to believe it was entitled to collect $8.2 million in tax dollars meant to serve all DC residents, and then still get to handpick whom it deems worthy of assistance.
Catholic involvement with arch-conservative politics is growing by the day. In May, Catholic groups tried to stop President Barack Obama from speaking at a Notre Dame commencement ceremony because of his pro-choice position.
Earlier this month, Providence Bishop Thomas Tobin put the clamp on Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), banning the lawmaker from communion because he is pro-choice. This was reminiscent of The St. Louis Archbishop refusing to give communion to John Kerry during his presidential campaign.
The Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis has suddenly begun to steer GLBT Catholics to 12-step programs that promise to “cure” homosexuality or support them in a lifelong celibacy. The Catholic Diocese in Sioux Falls, South Dakota urged its 128-thousand members to oppose an attempt to bring legalizing embryonic stem cell research to a public referendum. (I guess the sacrosanct “people’s right to vote” on controversial social issues only applies to same-sex marriage)
In fighting back, we must remember that the Vatican is launching these attacks from a position of weakness. It has yet to recover its moral authority from public exposure of rampant child sexual abuse scandals that cost the Church billions of dollars in legal settlements.
The Vatican appears to be acutely aware it is losing its worldwide market share. It is basically defunct in the Middle East, where the religion began, and on life-support in Western Europe, where it once prospered. In Africa, Rome competes with Islam and Anglicanism for a shrinking slice of the pie. (Who can forget that while in Africa the Pope said condoms could make the AIDS crisis worse.) South America, one of its few remaining strongholds, is losing Roman Catholics to evangelical faiths by the millions.
Instead of competing against the conservative evangelical brand, Pope Benedict has decided to embrace it, shaping a conspicuously political Catholicism that embraces extremism and drives out dissenters. The Vatican has become so doctrinaire that it recently launched an invasive probe into the lives of America’s 60,000 nuns to enforce anachronistic rules. In January, Benedict welcomed back excommunicated Bishop Richard Williamson who denied that millions of Jews died in Nazi death camps.
Fortunately, Benedict is a cold, unsympathetic figure and the majority of American Catholics often ignore his edicts. The strategy for the GLBT community should be to stand up to Rome and help mobilize mainstream Catholics to fight back against an authoritarian Pontiff who is hell-bent on making the Catholic Church as unpopular and unappealing as His Holiness.
Related posts
39 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
I thought that things would get more fascistic under Herr Obergruppenfuhrer and they have. I am getting all kinds of flack from some gay Catholics because I sound too intolerant. Intolerant? Has anyone listened to some of the US Catholic bishops? These guys give “intolerance” a whole new meaning! I certainly hope that the Church continues to lose people. After Maine and California, I hope they have their tax exemption pulled.
BTW, Wayne, have you ever noticed what an evil looking creature B16 is?
Comment by Merlyn — November 23, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
Don’t forget that the Roman sect is not the only Catholic group. The OLD CATHOLIC CHURCH has been offering solace and comfort to those persecuted by Rome for hundreds of years. The Sacraments of our Lord were not given to mankind to be used as a weapon against individuals. They are not to coerce someone to conform to the rules of modern day scribes, and the Vatican knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Comment by Abp Winfield Wagner — November 23, 2009 @ 1:54 pm
The shame is that theCatholic Church, and the Vatican is a State and is attempting and has in the past to influence law, politics in the United States, This is not only illegal, but is morally wrong. Especially in light of the sexually scandalous way they have hidden the wrong doings of their church in the way they mov…ed around the abusers within their midst and now are paying out of their proverbial asses. Deny communion to those who would not promote the same doctrines of hate as them, yet they espouse nothing but hate, what is the life affirming life in their teachings towards the GLBT community? A den of vipers I say! The Pope has no clothes, wait he does wear a dress! I am glad I am not a Catholic and do not have to wrestle with the thought of being denied communion in the church of my faith etc. Suffer the little children to come unto me Jesus said, Vipers are those who would keep people away from the Gospel of Jesus, Jesus is the Word of God made flesh, nothing can separate us from word of God, especially not someone who proclaims that he can!
Comment by Don Craddock — November 23, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
I left the evil empire more then 25 years ago.
Comment by Rich — November 23, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
A Pope problem? How about chalking it up to a religion problem? You would have to completely re-write Catholicism and all the other “big cults” before gays and lesbians are ever fully accepted into these massive congregations. We can continue opposing and fighting certain religious leaders and their edicts until we’re blue in the face. But the offensiveness pointed at gays and lesbians will never stop until we confront the very core of every religion. Some of the most exceptionally kind and humane people I’ve ever known belong to NO organized faith. It’s time we start teaching the brainwashed that spirituality and goodness doesn’t require churches, temples and dogma.
Comment by David Christy — November 23, 2009 @ 5:27 pm
It’s time we did nationwide ACT-UP style demos at Sunday Masses, like in 1991 at St. Patrick’s in NYC after Cardinal O’Connor blocked NYC public schools from educating students about the protection offered by condoms. When the celebrant offers “The Lord be with you!” we need to make a change from “And Also With you” to “Does that include LGBT congregants also, Father?” The Church is not in Vatican CIty. It’s everywhere that a Catholic is. People need to take back the Church from the Fellini Movie Drag-Show Men in the Vatican.
Comment by Fergal O'Doherty — November 23, 2009 @ 7:33 pm
I left the Catholic seminary 27 years ago. I had never seen such a strange bunch of ideologue misfits. It hasn’t changed much.
Comment by Edward — November 25, 2009 @ 12:09 am
Another alarming aspect of all this is that the three most radical members of the U.S. Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, who would like to criminalize homosexuality (see Lawrence v. Texas) and who has very little regard for equal protection under the law; Samuel Alito, who cites his opposition to the Warren court’s strict division of church and state as his motive to become a judge; and Clarence Thomas, who does whatever Scalia tells him, are Roman Catholic. The emerging disregard of that Church for equal rights and protections can only embolden these bigots on the Supreme Court in their efforts to prevent and destroy equal rights for LGBT people.
Comment by Neal — November 25, 2009 @ 1:08 pm
[...] Catholic Church, in particular, is entering politically perilous territory it will soon regret. For most of American history, many voters were concerned that Catholic [...]
Pingback by Truth Wins Out - ‘Social Issue Santa’ Is Coming To Town! — November 25, 2009 @ 9:43 pm
[...] http://www.TruthWinsOut.org Share this on del.icio.usDigg this!Share this on RedditStumble upon something good? Share it on [...]
Pingback by Wayne Besen: The Gay Community’s Pope Problem | Obama Biden White House — December 2, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
Is the Bible supposed to be politically correct? Basic points changed to meet the human’s needs? Or are believers to follow God’s rules as written? I can’t claim to know the pull of a man to man (or a woman to woman) relationship, but in no place in the Bible does God condone such relationships.
Comment by Nina — December 2, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
Nina, unfortunately it seems to be you and the Vatican that promote “political correctness.”
The Vatican distorts the Bible and exempts itself from “basic points” in order to conform religion to a biased, immoral, and self-serving ideology that intentionally harms people.
And you, in particular, mistakenly conform God’s will to a book that you know to contain numerous factual errors, contradictions, and promotions of immoral conduct.
Even the Vatican is smart enough not to hitch itself to a literal reading of Biblical texts that it disagrees with. Perhaps you should take a lesson from the Pope.
Comment by Mike Airhart, TWO — December 2, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
Yes, he is engaged in “conservative correctness”
Comment by Wayne Besen — December 2, 2009 @ 10:28 pm
Because of your expressed bigoted hatred for Jesus Christ and his Catholic Church and his friend Pope Benedict who teaches and acts in union with God I call down the justice of Almighty God and the divine curse of our Lord Jesus Christ upon the whole gay movement on earth until you die and burn in Hell unless you seek and do God’s will according to his laws and teachings. If you don’t like it complain to Him.
There can be no gays in Heaven because there is no interest in sex or self love or pride there because of higher joys transcending all that.
The affections gays have for their things cut them off from God by rejecting God’s will and love in preference for the idolatry of self and self will.
Comment by Mikelley — December 3, 2009 @ 2:15 am
Mikelley, according to Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan’s logic you may not find yourself in an ultraconservative Heaven due to your own disordered passions, hatreds, arrogance, and rush to judgment.
I am a born Roman Catholic who, unlike you, has the courage to name obvious immorality and obvious violation of the church’s own values when I see it. The Pope and this cardinal have both made their immorality, cynicism and insincerity apparent, and the church is dying because of leaders like them.
There is a word that describes their claim — and yours — to speak for God. That word is blasphemy.
I hope you find yourself welcome in a less conservative afterlife where truth and compassion are the rule — but first, you might have to purge yourself of the blasphemy and the arrogance.
Comment by Michael Airhart — December 3, 2009 @ 2:37 am
Mikelley:
No sexual interest in heaven? Wow, how boring and uninspiring. At least the Muslims promise virgins.
So, I guess heaven is sitting on a cloud with a harp while harping about gays with bigots like yourself. Sounds kind of Hellish.
Comment by Wayne Besen — December 3, 2009 @ 10:04 am
“… the human being, like the immortals, naturally places sexual intercourse far and away above all other joys – yet he has left it out of his heaven!”
MARK TWAIN, Letters from the Earth
However, Emanuel Swedenborg, the great Swedish scientist and seer, believed that there would be sex of some kind in heaven. If he was right, then that must include gay sex of some kind, since gay love, like straight love, is a beautiful and sacred gift from God and is a reflection of divine love.
Comment by William — December 3, 2009 @ 12:01 pm
Oh no! Mikelly called down his imaginary god and divine curse on us, what’ll we do? What’ll we do?
You’re so big and scary Mikelly I’m going to continue on exactly as I have before with this wonderful life I have with the most wonderful man in the world – laughing at your impotent rage all the time.
Comment by Priya Lynn — December 3, 2009 @ 5:47 pm
Personally, I don’t believe God is imaginary. Mikelly’s god, unfortunately, is his own ego.
Comment by Michael Airhart — December 3, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
Heh.
This reminds me of the secret conversations I used to have with my brother when we were younger, being raised in an Evangelical home:
He: Playing harps and praising God for all eternity? Sounds kind of, um, boring.
Me: OMG SRSLY I’M SO GLAD YOU SAID IT OUT LOUD. Has no one else ever noticed this?
He: They probably think it, but they’re too scared to admit it.
Me: Anyway.
Comment by Evan Hurst — December 3, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
Nina, check out http://www.fallwell.com. I doubt if you could live comfortably conforming to what the bible says about a lot of things. The problem with you so called “christian” cultists is that you cherry-pick this and that to suit your own agenda, mainly the Leviticus quote to justify discrimination and homophobia. Read the quotes referenced in the website I just posted and tell me you really believe in what the bible says. If you claim to be a “christian”, you have to believe in all of it, all or nothing. You can’t have it both ways.
Personally, I’m an avowed atheist, formerly catholic. The genesis of all hatred, intolerance and violence in this world is religious cults. Look at the history. There is hardly a war that wasn’t fought because of religion and the violence the cults perpetrated against civilization are unrivaled, especially the roman and islamic cults. What do you think the root of the violence in Israel is all about? Its religion, stupid! Religion is the last refuge for the insecure, the sexually repressed, the weak and mentally ill.
Comment by Robert, NYC — December 5, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
Whenever I hear about some new version of the atrocities that the Catholic Church or some other religion propagates, referencing the will of God, Jesus, the Apostles, etc., I’m forced to remember a few historical facts about Christianity…. (a) The Church (and in fact no formal body whatsoever) was not created by the historical figure Jesus, nor condoned by Jesus, from any documents that can be found. Even supposing that Jesus was the son of a monotheistic God, which is rather dubious, this mortal hand of God had no direct involvement in the creation of the institution (beyond the act of creation, theoretically). It is itself a historical body, more shaped by political convenience and socio-historical circumstance than anything else; (b) Large tracts of the bible (ie, the New Testament) were written long after the death of Jesus (again, supposing that what he said had any validity whatsoever), and what tracts we are given of him are merely hearsay, tainted with the bias and inferiority of mortal man; and, (c) And, of course, like Robert above, I find it difficult to accept the judgment of someone who would follow parts of the old testament (which is appropriated from another religion) that fit in with one’s particular set of views, but ignore others. You either accept the authority of the whole shebang (as your reason for accepting it lies in the authority of the text, which is somehow related to a monotheistic God in a manner I can’t quite understand, not the soundness of the arguments therein), or you don’t.
These have to be the most stupid grounds for denying someone’s liberty and autonomy. If you want to believe these things and practice them yourself, fine. Just leave the rest of us to conduct our lives as we see fit and go to hell, or (more likely) not go to hell as we so choose. I really don’t see how it affects your status as a religious human being, beyond merely affecting your sensibilities equally as much as your existence and your superstition affects mine. While I would rather that these organizations wouldn’t exist, precisely because of the reason that they create people who feel entitled to force their beliefs on others and generally make people repressed and miserable, I’m not exactly out there lobbying the government to remove rights to religious self-determination. I would like this civility to be reciprocated.
Comment by Annie — December 9, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
Cathlics (Vatican) are NOT opposed to basic rights for ANY people regardless of their sexual orientation…
Life,Liberty and the pursuit of hapiness….
The freedom to assemble, to carry arms, to free speech, to equal protection under the law, to worship whatever religion, etc. are usually seen as basic rights…
Now Catholics do oppose re-defining the definition of marriage as a union between a man and woman to a union between to adults regardless of gender….
I defend your right to publidsh this article and have your say but redefining terms that has historically be define by relgious institutions and people by civil means is wrong….
If you want to make a new word that is defined as “union between two adult humans (regardless of gender) that makes them family to each other” and place that into civil statutes and replace the term married amd marriage with it so that you can visit your partner the hospital, buy a house together, or insure each other, or claim federal income tax exceptions then I understand….
I do not think that homosexual sex is moral but I do believe that 2 adults should be able to ‘adopt’ each other as family much as heterosexual couple do in marriage.
Comment by Sam — December 10, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
Sam, marriage never belonged to religion, marriage took place long before any religion existed. Religious people have tried to wrongly lay claim to something that doesn’t belong to them. Gays have a moral right to marry, religion has no business sticking its nose in other people’s lives.
Comment by Priya Lynn — December 10, 2009 @ 2:38 pm
I should add that the right to marry the person of your chosing is a basic right and the Vatican is most definitely opposed to such basic rights. The vatican is immoral.
Comment by Priya Lynn — December 10, 2009 @ 2:40 pm
marriage is a basic right?
What text are you getting that from?
From what are you getting your definitions for basic rights? I used the U.S. Constitution. Are you
using Canada’s constitution?
Religions (regardless of which one) teach.
They do have the obligation to teach their
believers or those interested the religious teaching and moral teaching of their faith…
People who have a religious faith, should live out their faith in the public square…
I do not want to dive into your bedroom and stop you from what you do, but I do not want you to redefine my terms or beliefs
Comment by Sam — December 10, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
Sam, you say you do not want me to redefine your terms or beliefs, yet you want to redefine mine by trying to prevent me from having the marriage I want. I on the other hand am not preventing you from defining your own marriage as you wish to, but you don’t have the right to define what marriage is for someone else.
That marriage in your country is a basic right was defined by the court in Loving vs Virginia.
Comment by Priya Lynn — December 10, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
Sam,
As a Catholic myself – although by now a somewhat marginal one – I should like to comment on what you have said above.
I too have some reservations about calling gay relationships “marriages”, albeit for rather different reasons than those of the Vatican. Shortly after the introduction in Denmark of Civil Partnerships for gays and lesbians, a Danish professor of theology said on UK television: “I think it is important to accept oneself as a minority and not to try to be just as all the others.” I agree with him. We are just people, like our heterosexual confrères, but in one respect we ARE different from the majority, and I believe that we should never try to deny that difference, nor should we apologise for it in any way. I am therefore perfectly content with the Civil Partnership law which we now have here in the UK. It strikes me that if, in reply to the question “Are you married?”, you can reply “I’m in a civil partnership”, that is a convenient, non-aggressive and matter-of-fact way of saying that you’re not only totally out of the closet (if you were ever in) but also happy to be who you are. Others, I know, will think differently.
However, I must disagree with your statement that the Vatican is “NOT opposed to basic rights for ANY people regardless of their sexual orientation.”
In his March 2003 statement, “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons”, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) made it clear that the Vatican is opposed to giving ANY legal recognition to gay relationships, no matter by what name they are designated, urging all Catholic politicians to oppose any such legislation and to campaign for its repeal in those countries where it is already in force.
In his 1992 statement, “Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons”, Cardinal Ratzinger also made it clear that the Vatican is opposed to any legislation to give gay people the same job security as everyone else, giving as one of the reasons: “there is a danger that legislation which would make homosexuality a basis for entitlements [sic] could actually encourage a person with a homosexual orientation to declare his homosexuality or even to seek a partner in order to exploit the provisions of the law.” That reason, as well as the others given, strikes me as cruel, immoral and contemptible. I wrote to the then Cardinal Ratzinger at the time saying so and telling him that I regarded the statement as a shameful one. Needless to say, I received no reply.
Comment by William — December 10, 2009 @ 3:27 pm
From the Court opinion in Loving vs virginia:
“Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html
Comment by Priya Lynn — December 10, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
William, when the U.N. introduced a resolution to end the criminalization of gayness the Vatican came out in opposition. The Vatican is opposed to all manner of basic rights for gays.
Comment by Priya Lynn — December 10, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
Yes, Priya, thank you for reminding us about that as well.
Comment by William — December 10, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
Sam said “People who have a religious faith, should live out their faith in the public square”.
No they shouldn’t sam, that goes directly against your bible:
Matthew 6:6
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
You’re welcome to live your life as you choose, but its immoral for you to attempt to dictate to anyone else how to live their’s when they aren’t harming you.
Comment by Priya Lynn — December 10, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
Sam, civil marriage is NOT religious marriage, the two are totally different. Further, the state owns marriage when it issues marriage licenses, not religious cults. Religion doesn’t own marriage, not did it invent it. Various forms of it existed long before the abrahamic cults came along and manipulated it to suit its agenda.
How would you like it if we sought a ban on religious marriages based on the premise that secular state governments issue only licenses for civil marriages? How would you like that?
William, civil partnerships don’t convey every single right of marriage, although most of them are conferred. They are second rate and carry NO portability once you leave the UK. If they’re so equal, why can’t straights enter into them, if they choose not to want marriage? I don’t believe in legal segregation which is what these partnerships are about and have absolutely NOTHING to do with full equality. Why do you think more countries are turning to same-sex marriage, seven so far and five American states, possibly six if the District of Columbia gets on board shortly? Civil Partnerships/unions will NEVER be the gold standard anywhere on this planet nor internationally recognized either. They are progressive in the short term, but incredibly regressive in the longer term if you look at the bigger picture.
Comment by Robert, NYC — December 12, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
Excellent point Robert. If civil partnerships were the equivalent of marriage there’d be no point in having a seperate name for them. They are called something different precisely because they are different, as in lesser.
Comment by Priya Lynn — December 12, 2009 @ 5:24 pm
I see your point, Robert, but I remain unconvinced. You say that civil partnerships “carry NO portability once you leave the UK.” Is the situation not similar as regards gay marriage? If you contract a gay marriage in, for example, Spain or the Netherlands, is it recognized if you move to a country like Italy, Poland or Lithuania – not to speak of the situation if you move outside Europe? I don’t know the answer for certain, but I strongly suspect that it’s “no”.
If civil partnerships are so equal, you ask, why can’t straights enter into them, if they choose not to want marriage? Why should they want to, unless it’s to pretend that their relationship is the same as a gay relationship – which it’s not? And I can’t see any more point in that than in a gay couple wanting to pretend that their relationship is the same as a straight one – which it’s not.
Priya says: “If civil partnerships were the equivalent of marriage there’d be no point in having a separate name for them. They are called something different precisely because they are different, as in lesser.” I agree that they are called something different because they are different, but I can’t agree that “different” means or implies “lesser”. I LIKE difference. I don’t want everyone to be exactly the same. (Even those who think that they would like drab uniformity would, I’m sure, repent if their wish were ever granted.) I don’t want my Jewish or atheist friends to be Christian, my straight friends to be gay, my black friends to be white etc.
As the psychiatrist Thomas Szasz observed, to argue for the acceptance of a minority on the grounds that it resembles the majority amounts to a denial of the minority’s right to be different.
Comment by William — December 13, 2009 @ 7:08 am
So William, you’re basically saying this:
“Having separate drinking fountains for blacks and whites isn’t unequal, because they both get water! From a fountain! But they’re different! Because different is beautiful!”
It has nothing to do with “being different.” Everybody is “different.” We all have different DNA. It’s not a good argument for satisfying the Equal Protection clause in the Constitution.
Comment by Evan Hurst — December 13, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
William, if you have a gay marriage in Spain, it is portable if you move to Canada, the Netherlands, or Massachusetts.
William, why do you think its a good idea to distinguish a gay relationship from a straight relationship? What is different of any significance than the gender of the participants (which is not an important difference at all)? Once you create two seperate institutions you create the likelihood that they will be treated differently, one as less than the other. Your argument is akin to saying we should have seperate educational institutions for men and women, because they’re different. That opens up the institution to abuse to treating them as something other than equals. We should never treat people as something other than equals unless there is damn good reason to do so, and you’ve presented no pressing reason why gay relationships should be treated differently than straight relationships.
Comment by Priya Lynn — December 13, 2009 @ 6:41 pm
Priya Lynn, you made the point for me in responding to William regarding the portability issue. Another thing that William fails to understand is that civil partnerships and the hodge podge of other forms of same sex unions across the EU are not identical and are not recognised by many of the member states. Take the French model, PACs for example that offer less than half of the rights found in civil partnerships. How on earth could a British gay partnered couple expect to have all of their rights recongised if for some reason they moved to France? It would mean they would have to remain permanently in the UK to enjoy those rights.
I’d like to ask William why Portugal is now considering same-sex marriage and not civil partnerships? Why did any of the current seven countries upgrade to full marriage equality instead of accepting the lesser form of civil unions or partnerships?
Comment by Robert, NYC — December 19, 2009 @ 10:34 am
[...] ** The Catholic Church’s increased involvement with Anti/Ex-Gay Activity [...]
Pingback by Truth Wins Out - Top 10 Ex-Gay-Related Events of 2009 — December 31, 2009 @ 5:26 pm