COMMENTS: 51
The Da Vinci Senator
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
Not so for Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., who took to the Senate floor last week to deliver a strident push for the bigoted "Marriage Protection Amendment." Alongside the typical massive distortions of the issue was an argument that was based almost solely on the opinion of a little-known conservative think tank affiliated with the Roman Catholic organization Opus Dei.
"The problem we have in front of us is the institution of marriage has been weakened, and the effort to redefine it on this vast social experiment that we have going on, redefining marriage differently than it has ever been defined before," the Kansas senator grimly intoned last week. "This effort of this vast social experiment, the early data that we see from other places, harms the institution of the family, the raising of the next generation. And it is harmful to the future of the republic."
Brownback then went on to give figures for how various states have shown their hatred of gay people with their own prohibitions on same-sex marriage and used that as his rationale for a similar amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
But Brownback really hit his stride when he described a paper called "Ten Principles on Marriage and the Public Good," published by a fairly new and extremely conservative group at Princeton University. According to Brownback, the paper is an "important statement of principles from top American scholars [to] be considered carefully by my colleagues." He then added that the sentiments expressed in the nonscientific treatise were so vital to our national dialog that they should "… help guide our debate on this issue."
The paper, sponsored by the Witherspoon Institute at Princeton, makes a case for banning same-sex marriage altogether. What's extraordinary is the idea of a United States senator attempting to sway opinion on an amendment that would have altered our Constitution (had it not been defeated last Wednesday) by using a paper from an organization linked to Opus Dei, a strict religious group that some former members have described as a cult.
Brownback spent a good part of his lengthy Senate speech last week citing the study and attributing it to "this Princeton group of scholars," while never mentioning that all of the findings were based on the ultraconservative Witherspoon Institute bolstered by the involvement -- directly or indirectly -- of a nonprofit, tax-exempt religious organization in Opus Dei.
So what exactly is the Witherspoon Institute, whose paper formed the foundation of Brownback's anti-gay argument?
The institute, which has only been around since 2003, has close ties to Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council, but is also tightly aligned with Opus Dei. Indeed, Luis Tellez, the president of the Witherspoon Institute is also the director and lead cleric /www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2005/03/22/news/12386.shtml> of Opus Dei in Princeton.
Since its founding in 1928, Opus Dei has been known for its traditionalist values and right-wing political stances. And critics in academia -- which include former members who sometimes go through "deprogramming" upon exiting Opus Dei -- charge that organizations like the Witherspoon Institute are just veiled attempts by Opus Dei to spread its influence in top-tier academic circles.
So why then, is a U.S. senator offering to Congress "research" linked to Opus Dei on something as vital as amending the Constitution? It turns out that Brownback, who was formerly an evangelical Protestant, converted to Catholicism by way of Opus Dei in 2002 and was sponsored in that conversion by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn., a vocal Opus Dei advocate.
Tellez, the leader of Opus Dei in Princeton, is a "numerary," considered the most conservative of the sect's members -- they are unmarried, celibate, devote every aspect of their lives to their spiritual beliefs and turn over their salaries from secular jobs to Opus Dei.
Again, it bears repeating that Tellez is also the head of the Witherspoon Institute, the group Brownback cited at great length as his primary argument against gay marriage.
And remember, it is Brownback, as an Opus Dei convert, who also leads the charge on Capitol Hill against abortion and stem cell research and who, along with Santorum, is seen by the Religious Right as a point man on "culture war" issues.
The other central figure in the Witherspoon orbit is Dr. Robert George, a Princeton professor and a board member in the institute who, not coincidentally, helped draft the federal gay-marriage ban that was just defeated in the Senate. George chaired a meeting of religious leaders in late 2005 that included Dr. James Dobson and other members of the extreme Religious Right. In fact, in addition to his pivotal role in the Witherspoon Institute, George is also a board member at Perkins' Family Research Council, a group known for its bigoted positions on the gay community.
And, via Brownback, all of this is ultimately finding its way into the halls of Congress.
While it may not be technically illegal for Brownback to be so clearly mixing hard-right religious ideology -- and faux-academic papers promoted by religious organizations like Opus Dei -- with debate on the Senate floor, it should certainly raise some eyebrows. In a country where strict separation of church and state is mandated, it seems Brownback is freely blending the two, attempting to use religious dogma to influence public policy -- all the while not disclosing to his Senate colleagues the background sources of the research he is citing.
But this should not be surprising coming from Brownback.
In a January 2006 Rolling Stone article, "God's Senator," Brownback is described as a religious zealot with a view for America's future that could almost be described as medieval.
"In his dream, America, the one he believes both the Bible and the Constitution promise, the state will simply wither away. In its place will be a country so suffused with God and the free market that the social fabric of the last hundred years -- schools, Social Security, welfare -- will be privatized or simply done away with," reads the article. "There will be no abortions; sex will be confined to heterosexual marriage. Men will lead families, mothers will tend children, and big business and the church will take care of all."
After all, it was Brownback, who came to Congress in 1994 and refused to sign Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America" because he felt it wasn't conservative enough. Even then, as a newcomer to the House of Representatives, Brownback believed that the vast majority of what he saw as Big Government should simply be eliminated, including the departments of education, energy and commerce.
And, yes, it was also Brownback who was so outraged at the split-second glimpse of Janet Jackson's nipple during the 2004 Super Bowl, that he introduced the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, which substantially raised fines for such simple on-air displays of nudity.
Finally, in addition to being brought into Catholicism by the likes of Opus Dei and using laundered research by an affiliated group on the Senate floor, Brownback chairs a meeting every Tuesday night with the "Values Action Team," consisting of religious leaders like Dobson who help the senator formulate his thoughts on public policy issues.
According to Time magazine, Opus Dei has assets in the neighborhood of $2.8 billion and, with John McCain unlikely to significantly rouse the Religious Right in 2008, look for Brownback to be the guy that Opus Dei, Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council turn to as their presidential candidate.
And make no mistake about it: Brownback wants to run. So if you think his views for a new America, as viewed from the Senate floor, are scary, think of what he'll be like sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
In his mind, it may already be ordained.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ChristopherLL on Jun 19, 2006 4:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Illusion and Delusion
Posted by: Sanballot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: whoopingcrone on Jun 19, 2006 4:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "Why" does Brownback etc?
Posted by: cbeltran
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ZPaul on Jun 19, 2006 5:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The new ecumenism.
Posted by: Mutternich
» RE: Catholics and Protestants United For A Common Cause:Power
Posted by: ZPaul
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ellie1 on Jun 19, 2006 7:13 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: veive on Jun 19, 2006 7:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Erik1968 on Jun 19, 2006 8:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sincerely: please stop this. Religion isn't necessarily evil. Can I remind people of Rev. William Sloane Coffin, who passed away recently, and who would be horrified by this kind of talk? The guy who helped stop the Vietnam War?
I'm no fan of Senator Brownback, and I'm certainly no fan of his ideas, but this article just makes me cringe. Generally the tenets of the Catholic Church are pretty great for liberals; against war, against poverty, against the death penalty.
I just saw Sir, No, Sir! this week, and what I was struck by more than anything in watching the film was the moral tone, the religious fervor these people had in trying to fight for what was right. Religion isn't always bad. Despite conservatives' claims, it doesn't say anything in the Bible about Jesus hating gays. But it says plenty about him loving everyone.
This article doesn't even make sense. So what if Opus Dei paid for this research? What difference does it make? It's clearly a secular document, and some of it is pretty accurate: divorce helps make people poor. Now, homosexuality has NOTHING to do with that, but our brutal neo-monopoly capitalism certainly does.
I worry that the cruelty of our economic system, and the cruelty of the right, are simply helped along by these sort of heavy-handed assaults on the whole idea of religion. I'll take William Jennings Bryan over the latest incarnations of Kerry and Gore any day.
Sigh. Is it so terrible to believe that God is on our side? That God loves gays? That God wants the poor to win? That God is against the war? Would it be SO terrible if a senator said that for once??
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Goodness!
Posted by: g
» RE: Goodness!
Posted by: Erik1968
» RE: Goodness!
Posted by: ZPaul
» Bandaging A Brain Tumor
Posted by: Steven Wanzell
» RE: Goodness!
Posted by: hcb1975
» RE: Goodness!
Posted by: Solar Wind
» RE: Goodness!
Posted by: babs
» RE: Goodness!
Posted by: Erik1968
» God is on our side?
Posted by: tap17x
» RE: Goodness!
Posted by: progressiveview
» RE: Goodness!
Posted by: albagem
Comments are closed-
Posted by: g on Jun 19, 2006 8:57 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Mutternich on Jun 19, 2006 9:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xbj on Jun 19, 2006 10:53 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the GOP really wanted to protect marriage and the family, they'd be pushing to OUTLAW ALL DIVORCE FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER. DIVORCE is what is destroying marriage and the family, NOT gay marriage.
This argument CLEARLY exposes the fight against gay marriage for what it is, a hollow sham of sexual preference-baiting, with nothing at its heart but hatred, fear, homophobia, and jaundiced wink-wink political opportunism.
As if they'd EVER do something to REALLY protect marriage and the family. And then, once they make ALL DIVORCE FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER ILLEGAL BY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, they can work on STONING ALL FORNICATORS AND ADULTERERS.
Yeah, that will REALLY protect marriage and the family.
But, first things first... you have to crawl before you walk, you know?
(Ironically, by outlawing divorce, they'd probably nip the fight for gay marriage in the bud!)
As if...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The GOP give a damn?
Posted by: Ghoulman
» that's true "defense of marriage"
Posted by: orwellwasn'tdreaming
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hcb1975 on Jun 19, 2006 10:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Big surprise
Posted by: ZPaul
» RE: Big surprise
Posted by: Ghoulman
» Religious tolerance.....
Posted by: tap17x
» RE: eligious tolerance.....
Posted by: ZPaul
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ghoulman on Jun 19, 2006 11:52 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, I doubt you could get a study rationalizing a bigoted stance from the ACLU.
Love the "Da Vinci Code" connection... just goes to show how delusional the Congress is. Remember, Opus Dei is real, the Priory of Sion is a hoax created by a clever frenchman in 1953.
Oh yea, Supreme Court Justice Scalia is a practicing member of Opus Dei... I guess any challenges to any future bills Congress passes to oppress peoples rights will have to deal with Opus Dei philosophy too? Count on it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Justice Scalia
Posted by: chaoslegs
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chaoslegs on Jun 19, 2006 12:23 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That women's sufferage didn't help either. They had been really uppity since Seneca Falls.
Remember Michael Savage is worried about "women marrying turkey basters" which you can listen to (opens mp3 file) on the Stephanie Miller show.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sausage on Jun 19, 2006 12:42 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's get this straight, folks:The bullshit Sen. Brownback (what an appropriate name), Santorium, and their Republican cronies in the federal congress and Robertson, Falwell, and the rest of those holy-roller phonies, are peddling as "religion" is MAGIC!
In other words, if you undertaker this ritual then "god" will grant you this result. A new pony for example. This kind of magical thinking is not only unsophisticated, primitive and ignorant, it's childish!
But that's the bullshit these charlatans are peddling, Magic. If the US bans "gay marriage," outlaws "abortion," etc., etc., etc, "God" will return his anointing, whatever that is, to the United States, and, I guess then, we won't be bothered by high gasoline prices, terrorists etc. And the rest of the world will do whatever we, Americans, want because God's on our side. How utterly puerile!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com on Jun 19, 2006 12:51 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: electriclady281 on Jun 19, 2006 1:14 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about a morbid lack of spirituality in the land, practiced by even preachers, ministers, and priests, let alone politicians and businesspeople, whom it is well know that church is just another way of making connections to get ahead?
How about the ordeal of getting to work, selling your soul while there, trekking home again late at night with no time to attend to family relationships?
How about children marrying and reproducing in the hopes of having someone to love and love them back without having the vaguest notion of how to go about it because their own parents didn't have the time to properly parent them?
How about those so wounded in their own childhoods who live in denial because the truth is so difficult to bear clinging to the desperate belief that they turned out ok so it's ok to do the same to their kids and doing otherwise would repudiate their parents' childrearing methods and they're still grovelling for approval from them?
How about those hanging on to the conservative plank for dear life in the chaos created by the Right because it's all they've been programmed to do and are fearful of doing anything radical like using their eyes to see and their brains to think for themselves?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: montag on Jun 19, 2006 2:05 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Google "Brownback" "C Street Center" and "The Fellowship" and there's an afternoon of interesting (and disturbing) reading.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chanceny on Jun 19, 2006 3:02 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: PREACH & CHOKE ON YOUR WORDS! sickofsleaze
Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
» RE: PREACH & CHOKE ON YOUR WORDS!
Posted by: Erik1968
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Iowan on Jun 19, 2006 3:02 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Maryanne on Jun 19, 2006 3:57 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a child, I grew up in a neighborhood where wife abuse was common. Through my bedroom window, I watched the man next door beat his wife, even as she already had fallen to the floor, every Saturday evening. This was a hardworking woman, mother to a dozen children, who baked everything including bread, cooked huge meals, brought up the children, kept a spotless house, etc.
My friend's father also beat his wife on a regular basis, and added his son for good measure. Across the street another wife was beaten so severely that we children followed the trail of blood in the street as she fled to her relatives living several doors away.
Why did they stay? No where to go. No way to support themselves, especially since there were children involved. There were no support services at the time. And often extended fasmilies were in the same boat.
Years later, as a social worker, I dealt with many situaations in which the couple should not have married. The relationship was not only destructive to both parties, but to the children as well. Fortunately by then, support services were available, and divorce was no longer a scandal- more scandalous than the abuse.
A number of my friends stayed in bad marriages for years, "for the sake of the children" or because they felt they could not make it economically on their own. When they finally made the break, often at the point of being on the verge of a breakdown, they regretted not having made the break decades earlier. They regained physical and mental health when on their own.
Being a child of parents in a happy and respectful relationshaip, and having married a wonderful man, I can attest that marriage can be a the most satisfying relationship. If this were true of all situations, I would support a need to "protect marriage" but unfortunately this is not the case. A bad marriage is not limited to the poor or ignorant. It affects people of all economic levels as well as all educational levels.
Any happy, lasting and secure relationship should be honored and respected. If a homosexual union meets this criteria it should not be rejected, in order to protect marriage where physical, emotional, economic abuse is the norm.
All marriages are not of such nature that tthey contribute to the stability of the country, of the family or of the children involved. And have you noticed that it is usually the men who are so concerned about protecting "marriage"?
Sorry for being carried away. I am now climbing off my hobby horse.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Protecting marriage sickofsleaze
Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
Comments are closed-
Posted by: albagem on Jun 19, 2006 8:07 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: albagem
Posted by: Erik1968
Comments are closed-
Posted by: apost8 on Jun 19, 2006 11:20 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Regardless of what one believes, we all must realize that secular government is the only real alternative. The one obvious step we must take is to make the Republican party pay, and pay dearly for marching in lockstep with these fascists. At their core, these people are bullies and liars. They must be stood up to and confronted as such.
One thing about this article really raises my curiosity, and that's Sen. Brownback's conversion to Catholicism. I did a good amount of time as an Evangelical Christian, and what I've heard in sermons about Catholicism is not kind. The Pope being the Antichrist, and the Roman Church being the Whore of Babylon about the nicest. I smell a whole lot of ulterior motives in this. I'd aprreciate input from anyone with additional insights.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The enemy we need to focus on...
Posted by: Urstrly
» RE: The enemy we need to focus on...
Posted by: ozziechic
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cpatton on Jun 22, 2006 11:53 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As far as the homosexual issue goes, there is no real need for great sums to be spent on research or studies. The life force of this world is universally acknowledged as yin-yang. Yin-yin and yang-yang are out of balance and will not sustain life for any extended period of time. It will re-balance itself over time, or God will come Himself and deal with it in person.
Meanwhile, who are any of us to judge another? But why should sexual activity even be so outrageously pervasive in our culture - cheapened by greed-driven commodification, be it hetero or homo? That is wrong. For example, children deserve a chance for a reasonably extended innocence.
Sure persons who identify themselves as homosexual should not be discriminated against in the market place nor should they be treated as criminals. There are many sinners out there, and most are heterosexual. It is not a matter of importance to explore relative intensity or frequency of sin. God hates all of it because sin hurts people indiscriminately and whether you consider it a sin or not. Predatory sex is absoutely wrong regardless of orientation.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Coffeeinmybelly on Aug 21, 2006 6:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ChristopherLL on Jun 19, 2006 4:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Illusion and Delusion
Posted by: Sanballot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: whoopingcrone on Jun 19, 2006 4:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "Why" does Brownback etc?
Posted by: cbeltran
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ZPaul on Jun 19, 2006 5:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The new ecumenism.
Posted by: Mutternich
» RE: Catholics and Protestants United For A Common Cause:Power
Posted by: ZPaul
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ellie1 on Jun 19, 2006 7:13 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: veive on Jun 19, 2006 7:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Erik1968 on Jun 19, 2006 8:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sincerely: please stop this. Religion isn't necessarily evil. Can I remind people of Rev. William Sloane Coffin, who passed away recently, and who would be horrified by this kind of talk? The guy who helped stop the Vietnam War?
I'm no fan of Senator Brownback, and I'm certainly no fan of his ideas, but this article just makes me cringe. Generally the tenets of the Catholic Church are pretty great for liberals; against war, against poverty, against the death penalty.
I just saw Sir, No, Sir! this week, and what I was struck by more than anything in watching the film was the moral tone, the religious fervor these people had in trying to fight for what was right. Religion isn't always bad. Despite conservatives' claims, it doesn't say anything in the Bible about Jesus hating gays. But it says plenty about him loving everyone.
This article doesn't even make sense. So what if Opus Dei paid for this research? What difference does it make? It's clearly a secular document, and some of it is pretty accurate: divorce helps make people poor. Now, homosexuality has NOTHING to do with that, but our brutal neo-monopoly capitalism certainly does.
I worry that the cruelty of our economic system, and the cruelty of the right, are simply helped along by these sort of heavy-handed assaults on the whole idea of religion. I'll take William Jennings Bryan over the latest incarnations of Kerry and Gore any day.
Sigh. Is it so terrible to believe that God is on our side? That God loves gays? That God wants the poor to win? That God is against the war? Would it be SO terrible if a senator said that for once??
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Goodness!
Posted by: g
» RE: Goodness!
Posted by: Erik1968
» RE: Goodness!
Posted by: ZPaul
» Bandaging A Brain Tumor
Posted by: Steven Wanzell
» RE: Goodness!
Posted by: hcb1975
» RE: Goodness!
Posted by: Solar Wind
» RE: Goodness!
Posted by: babs
» RE: Goodness!
Posted by: Erik1968
» God is on our side?
Posted by: tap17x
» RE: Goodness!
Posted by: progressiveview
» RE: Goodness!
Posted by: albagem
Comments are closed-
Posted by: g on Jun 19, 2006 8:57 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Mutternich on Jun 19, 2006 9:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xbj on Jun 19, 2006 10:53 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the GOP really wanted to protect marriage and the family, they'd be pushing to OUTLAW ALL DIVORCE FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER. DIVORCE is what is destroying marriage and the family, NOT gay marriage.
This argument CLEARLY exposes the fight against gay marriage for what it is, a hollow sham of sexual preference-baiting, with nothing at its heart but hatred, fear, homophobia, and jaundiced wink-wink political opportunism.
As if they'd EVER do something to REALLY protect marriage and the family. And then, once they make ALL DIVORCE FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER ILLEGAL BY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, they can work on STONING ALL FORNICATORS AND ADULTERERS.
Yeah, that will REALLY protect marriage and the family.
But, first things first... you have to crawl before you walk, you know?
(Ironically, by outlawing divorce, they'd probably nip the fight for gay marriage in the bud!)
As if...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The GOP give a damn?
Posted by: Ghoulman
» that's true "defense of marriage"
Posted by: orwellwasn'tdreaming
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hcb1975 on Jun 19, 2006 10:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Big surprise
Posted by: ZPaul
» RE: Big surprise
Posted by: Ghoulman
» Religious tolerance.....
Posted by: tap17x
» RE: eligious tolerance.....
Posted by: ZPaul
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ghoulman on Jun 19, 2006 11:52 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, I doubt you could get a study rationalizing a bigoted stance from the ACLU.
Love the "Da Vinci Code" connection... just goes to show how delusional the Congress is. Remember, Opus Dei is real, the Priory of Sion is a hoax created by a clever frenchman in 1953.
Oh yea, Supreme Court Justice Scalia is a practicing member of Opus Dei... I guess any challenges to any future bills Congress passes to oppress peoples rights will have to deal with Opus Dei philosophy too? Count on it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Justice Scalia
Posted by: chaoslegs
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chaoslegs on Jun 19, 2006 12:23 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That women's sufferage didn't help either. They had been really uppity since Seneca Falls.
Remember Michael Savage is worried about "women marrying turkey basters" which you can listen to (opens mp3 file) on the Stephanie Miller show.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sausage on Jun 19, 2006 12:42 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's get this straight, folks:The bullshit Sen. Brownback (what an appropriate name), Santorium, and their Republican cronies in the federal congress and Robertson, Falwell, and the rest of those holy-roller phonies, are peddling as "religion" is MAGIC!
In other words, if you undertaker this ritual then "god" will grant you this result. A new pony for example. This kind of magical thinking is not only unsophisticated, primitive and ignorant, it's childish!
But that's the bullshit these charlatans are peddling, Magic. If the US bans "gay marriage," outlaws "abortion," etc., etc., etc, "God" will return his anointing, whatever that is, to the United States, and, I guess then, we won't be bothered by high gasoline prices, terrorists etc. And the rest of the world will do whatever we, Americans, want because God's on our side. How utterly puerile!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com on Jun 19, 2006 12:51 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: electriclady281 on Jun 19, 2006 1:14 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about a morbid lack of spirituality in the land, practiced by even preachers, ministers, and priests, let alone politicians and businesspeople, whom it is well know that church is just another way of making connections to get ahead?
How about the ordeal of getting to work, selling your soul while there, trekking home again late at night with no time to attend to family relationships?
How about children marrying and reproducing in the hopes of having someone to love and love them back without having the vaguest notion of how to go about it because their own parents didn't have the time to properly parent them?
How about those so wounded in their own childhoods who live in denial because the truth is so difficult to bear clinging to the desperate belief that they turned out ok so it's ok to do the same to their kids and doing otherwise would repudiate their parents' childrearing methods and they're still grovelling for approval from them?
How about those hanging on to the conservative plank for dear life in the chaos created by the Right because it's all they've been programmed to do and are fearful of doing anything radical like using their eyes to see and their brains to think for themselves?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: montag on Jun 19, 2006 2:05 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Google "Brownback" "C Street Center" and "The Fellowship" and there's an afternoon of interesting (and disturbing) reading.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chanceny on Jun 19, 2006 3:02 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: PREACH & CHOKE ON YOUR WORDS! sickofsleaze
Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
» RE: PREACH & CHOKE ON YOUR WORDS!
Posted by: Erik1968
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Iowan on Jun 19, 2006 3:02 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Maryanne on Jun 19, 2006 3:57 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a child, I grew up in a neighborhood where wife abuse was common. Through my bedroom window, I watched the man next door beat his wife, even as she already had fallen to the floor, every Saturday evening. This was a hardworking woman, mother to a dozen children, who baked everything including bread, cooked huge meals, brought up the children, kept a spotless house, etc.
My friend's father also beat his wife on a regular basis, and added his son for good measure. Across the street another wife was beaten so severely that we children followed the trail of blood in the street as she fled to her relatives living several doors away.
Why did they stay? No where to go. No way to support themselves, especially since there were children involved. There were no support services at the time. And often extended fasmilies were in the same boat.
Years later, as a social worker, I dealt with many situaations in which the couple should not have married. The relationship was not only destructive to both parties, but to the children as well. Fortunately by then, support services were available, and divorce was no longer a scandal- more scandalous than the abuse.
A number of my friends stayed in bad marriages for years, "for the sake of the children" or because they felt they could not make it economically on their own. When they finally made the break, often at the point of being on the verge of a breakdown, they regretted not having made the break decades earlier. They regained physical and mental health when on their own.
Being a child of parents in a happy and respectful relationshaip, and having married a wonderful man, I can attest that marriage can be a the most satisfying relationship. If this were true of all situations, I would support a need to "protect marriage" but unfortunately this is not the case. A bad marriage is not limited to the poor or ignorant. It affects people of all economic levels as well as all educational levels.
Any happy, lasting and secure relationship should be honored and respected. If a homosexual union meets this criteria it should not be rejected, in order to protect marriage where physical, emotional, economic abuse is the norm.
All marriages are not of such nature that tthey contribute to the stability of the country, of the family or of the children involved. And have you noticed that it is usually the men who are so concerned about protecting "marriage"?
Sorry for being carried away. I am now climbing off my hobby horse.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Protecting marriage sickofsleaze
Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
Comments are closed-
Posted by: albagem on Jun 19, 2006 8:07 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: albagem
Posted by: Erik1968
Comments are closed-
Posted by: apost8 on Jun 19, 2006 11:20 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Regardless of what one believes, we all must realize that secular government is the only real alternative. The one obvious step we must take is to make the Republican party pay, and pay dearly for marching in lockstep with these fascists. At their core, these people are bullies and liars. They must be stood up to and confronted as such.
One thing about this article really raises my curiosity, and that's Sen. Brownback's conversion to Catholicism. I did a good amount of time as an Evangelical Christian, and what I've heard in sermons about Catholicism is not kind. The Pope being the Antichrist, and the Roman Church being the Whore of Babylon about the nicest. I smell a whole lot of ulterior motives in this. I'd aprreciate input from anyone with additional insights.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The enemy we need to focus on...
Posted by: Urstrly
» RE: The enemy we need to focus on...
Posted by: ozziechic
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cpatton on Jun 22, 2006 11:53 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As far as the homosexual issue goes, there is no real need for great sums to be spent on research or studies. The life force of this world is universally acknowledged as yin-yang. Yin-yin and yang-yang are out of balance and will not sustain life for any extended period of time. It will re-balance itself over time, or God will come Himself and deal with it in person.
Meanwhile, who are any of us to judge another? But why should sexual activity even be so outrageously pervasive in our culture - cheapened by greed-driven commodification, be it hetero or homo? That is wrong. For example, children deserve a chance for a reasonably extended innocence.
Sure persons who identify themselves as homosexual should not be discriminated against in the market place nor should they be treated as criminals. There are many sinners out there, and most are heterosexual. It is not a matter of importance to explore relative intensity or frequency of sin. God hates all of it because sin hurts people indiscriminately and whether you consider it a sin or not. Predatory sex is absoutely wrong regardless of orientation.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Coffeeinmybelly on Aug 21, 2006 6:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
One Company Thinks They've Created Fast Food With a Conscience -- Are They Right?
ACORN Smear Collaborator Claims Persecution to Raise Money for Her Legal Troubles
When Will Obama Stop Trying to Work with Republicans?




