Hundreds of Prop 8 Opponents Rally at the Mormon Church

Although many forces contributed to the passage of Prop 8, the biggest chunk of advertising dollars came from the Mormon Church. They have brought this against them selves by using tax except money and their national influence to secure donations to flood California with political campaign dollars and ads chock full of outright lies. Exit polls showed many of the votes were swayed by advertising claims that are not true and are not written anywhere in law.

If the Church wants to get in involved with political smear campaigning, then perhaps we should reconsider their tax except status. Separation Of Church & State.

Someone forgot to tell voters in poorer communities (Compton, E.L.A., Florence) to vote against the measure. It passed at 2:1 margins in those areas. http://www.lavote.net/VOTER/PDFS/STATEMENT_VOTES_CAST/11042008_COM.pdf

true. No group contributed more than the Mormons.
They gave 17.6 of the 22.8 million raised to fund deceptive TV commericals and fliers that took away the civil rights of CA tax-payers.

The tax-exempt Mormon Church of Utah interfered with a CA election stripping away civil rights of tax-payers.

Other numbers paint an even grimmer picture. If exit polls are to be believed, some 70 percent of African-Americans voted Yes on 8, as did 52 percent of Latinos and 49 percent of Asians; each of these demographics went heavily for Obama, blacks by a 94-to-6 margin. Los Angeles County, heavily minority, went 50-50 on Prop 8. These results have shocked gay activists, who knew from earlier polls that black voters favored Prop 8, but they were seeing much smaller margins, closer to 50 percent."Avoid all you want but at some point, you will have to address those black and hispanic, asian voters. And "pushing" them will only enhance their resolve...trust me.

Also, the gay community might want to avoid further comparing gay rights struggles to the civil rights movement.

Believe it or not, many blacks find that highly insulting.

If my candidate had just won the most historic presidential election in our nation's history, I'd be celebrating instead of being sore losers

Blacks Americans have endured centuries of inequality before reaching this moment. You might do well to remember that by expressing a bit more appreciation for how far we've come rather than what we didn't get.

shut the fuck up LAhipster. your faux concern is nauseating.

i'm mixed race and gay. i - and the african american part of my family - find direct parallels between the civil rights movement of the 60s and the gay rights movement of today.

simple fact. i was born gay. i know this. i spent too many of my adult years trying to convince myself otherwise. you don't know that conflict.

the fact that i was born gay makes my fighting for gay rights PRECISELY like the black civil rights movement.

the african-american community is far more complex than you can ever understand, so don't pretend to know of what you speak.

dickhead.

"Believe it or not, many blacks find this highly insulting"

Fuck them.* They betrayed us. They betrayed the entire civil rights movement. They betrayed King's legacy.

*Those who oppose equality. Not all blacks. Not our allies.

The LDS Population here in California is about 2% of the total population of the whole state.

The ammendment passed 52% to 48%. Even if the Mormons decided to stay home and not vote, it would have still passed.

Those intent on attacking a minority for their beliefs should ask themselves are they treating others how they would like to be treated?

Some young men are tearing down the signs that were posted on the fence and ripping them up.

Lahipster is dead wrong in attempting to throw minorities under the bus on this proposition. If African Americans make up under 6.7% of the California population, and Latinos a bit more, the proposition would've passed without their vote altogether. Statewide the majority vote was from Whites, and would've passed by a slim margin on their vote alone.

I think the most disgusting thing is that Lahipster is doing his/her damnedest to convince you it wasn't his fault, it was the brown folks. This shows the level of the mentality of those that crafted and pushed Prop 8- bigoted from the ground up. They are willing to sell this victory as a mandate against a minorities and push you to blame them for the result. It demonstrates the baseness of the proposition in general, and their intent in obfuscating the language of the ballot to those that have English as their second language. African American communities were delivered a flyer that wrongly connected Obama to anti-gay marriage statements that were taken entirely out of contest. Prop 8 supporters utilized off-base rhetoric and a confused minority to create a mandate that alienates another minority. It's just slimy.

You're one piece of work, Lahipster, I hope you and your other bigot friends can reconcile your hate at some point. If not, I don't care.

Poq, you are missing the point. Mormons, whether sanctioned by the Temple or not, have donated millions to deny another people's rights. Money talks and they have spoken. Mormons may have not "converted" others but they certainly supported the measure.

The US is about equal rights for all, gay people are born gay no matter what your temple tells you. The Mormon Church should be careful with their money lest the Constitution that protects your religious freedom also allow it to be checked. Freedom of religion goes both ways, freedom from government, and government free from religious influence. Push it and you might lose. Keep it in mind.

To tell you the truth I saw maybe 2 or 3 pro prop 8 ads on tv. The overwhelming majority were no on 8 commercials where i live in the bay area. If ads were an issue why didn't the no on prop 8 campaign win?

Was it the money contributions?
According to the LA Times as of Nov. 6 here's the break down:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220.htmlstory

Total:
$38.4 million against prop 8
$36.1 million for prop 8

In State contributions:
$26.4 million against
$25.3 million for

Out of state contributions:
$11.9 million against
$10.7 million for

Both sides received a lot of money, both in state and out of state, but in every category supporters of prop 8 were out spent by opponents.

If financial backing and out of state money was such a big issue, why didn't opponents of prop 8 win?

Mormons played a part in passing prop 8, yes, but a small part. No one was forced to vote one way or the other by the church. No Church funds we're used. No members of the church we're excommunicated or dis fellowshipped for opposing prop 8, in fact many Mormons did.

My point here is that there is no need to vilify the Mormons. They are a minority standing up for their beliefs. Just like the gay minority standing up for their's. Therefore targeting and attacking another minority because they disagree with you is directly counter to everything the gay community and its supporters are trying to accomplish. That said I hope we can continue this discussion civilly and hopefully someday soon find a resolution that everyone can live with.

Sorry should have been "except make the news". I don't want to be cast in the same grammatical boat as lahipster.

Thanks for the honesty damian_z. I was actually pretty impressed by the passion and enthusiasm this proposition brought about from both sides. People really taking up their civic duty.

As for people protesting at the Temple, that's fine we don't mind so much, people can assemble to protest on public property, as long as its peaceful, as in no vandalism or violence, you can say or shout what you want.

Although protesting at the Temple is kind of silly if you ask most any member of our church. Its like protesting at say, the Statue of Liberty because you want Congress in D.C. to change something you don't like. It doesn't make a lot of sense does it? Same with the Temple, you're barking up the wrong tree so to speak. No church governance or decision making goes on there. The Temple is more of a symbol for us, a place we go to worship and find sanctuary on a occasion. All major church decisions are made in Salt Lake City and locally at LDS stake centers, or local churches where we have our weekly Sunday school meetings and what not. Besides the Temples are pretty much sound proof, so we can take a break from the world when we go there and reflect peacefully. Who couldn't use that now and then?

Anyway, it will probably make the news but not do much in the way of changing the churches mind. It'll most likely just upset people who are just trying take a break from the busy work week and stresses of life to find a little peace and spiritual direction. hardly effective when your trying to win people to your side.You'd be better off addressing church headquarters directly.

Or you can always try the fun Mormon method of spreading your message, go door to door! w00t! (Seriously try that out, you'll see how much you truly believe in your cause, its no picnic, oh and watch out for dogs). Just some friendly advice to those I believe have great intentions although I may disagree them, happy campaigning.

"A perfect counter-balance to the vociferous (and often ridiculous) megaphone approach of the NO on Prop8 folks."

I could counter that I have seen videos of yes prop on 8 people shouting anti-gay slurs and screaming at the top of their lungs and assaulting people with yes on 8 signs. This issue has brought out a lot of ugly in people.

With a thin margin of victory for prop 8, having slipped in support since the previous measure and a counter movement that is now more motivated then every, this isn't quite over yet. I see this coming to ballot next election cycle.

It bothers me that we can live in a culture that loves to watch gay sitcoms and listen to their interior decorating advice, but is unwilling to see them as equals. The nasty deceitful tactics employed by the Yes on 8 campaign has inspired me to become a straight ally of the movement.

I met a lot of gay and lesbian people riding bikes from San Fransisco to Los Angeles as part of AIDS LifeCycle, and these are not immoral people, these are people who deserve the same legal protections as everyone else. Not some half assed almost like marriage civil union agreement that is missing some of the benefits straight marriages receive.

poq - You may find it reprehensible that proponents would act in such a manner, but it was not an uncommon sight in the campaign. Is it any wonder the gay community is responding with messages that demand an
end to hatred.

The Mormon temple was the site of the Thursday protest because it's money in the yes campaign was greater then any single group, which is pretty impressive considering the "piddly" presence as you say is here in California. The lies paid for by advertising dollars bank rolled in large part by Mormon followers, were highly influential in public opinion as polls before and after the election had shown. But as can be seen by the protests going on tonight in Long Beach and more planned elsewhere, this is much bigger then a statement about Mormons, or even religion, but a movement for equal rights for all.

I disagree about the lies.
The few pro 8 ads that aired on my tv did not contain lies, but they were however presented in a displeasing way to me, as things that "WILL" happen should prop 8 fail, instead of presented as "possibilities" should it fail.

An example, pro 8 ads stated gay marriage "will" be taught in schools should 8 fail. They should have stated it will have the "possibility" of being taught in schools. Under California State law, that would be lawfully possible.

In a rebuttal, a no on 8 ad had the state school superintendent say this possibility is false, that schools are not "required" to teach it. See what he did there? Schools are not required but that doesn't mean that they won't. And if they do teach about marriage, under California state law they would be required to teach both traditional and gay marriage. So in fairness and not to excuse our own errors, the No campaign was not free of deceptive wording either, whether intentional or unintentional.

All and all i would say they canceled each other out. Even though I would say no ads outnumbered yes ads 10:1. Perhaps due to living in the Bay area.

But once again back to the point, singling out and ridiculing Mormons will not help your cause.

A sign from the Long Beach rally from the article on this site:

Mormons = American Taliban.

Hateful statements like that, regardless what side they come from need to stop. You know I will do my part, even at the risk of offending my fellow supporters. I can only ask that you do the same.

No on 8 Leaders speak about this in LA Times:

"On Friday, four leaders of the No-on-8 campaign put out a statement urging cooperation among groups around the issue. "We achieve nothing if we isolate the people who did not stand with us in this fight," the statement said. "We only further divide our state if we attempt to blame people of faith, African American voters, rural communities and others for this loss."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gayblack8-2008nov08,0,1601616.story

good luck at your rallies, and remind others that hateful signs and speech have no place in your movement

Poq,

You've attempted to come out on the good side of this but your logic fails when you consider that you have voted to take rights away from someone else. All rhetoric aside, this is a Civil Rights issue and LDS leadership picked the side they stand on. You cannot simultaneously respect someone and remove their rights as a human being.

The LDS church should look towards it's past and remember when it was persecuted for it's beliefs on marriage before deciding who should be allowed to be married and under what circumstances.

I don't blame protestors for bringing their protest to the Temple, but only for their actions. This is Civil Rights, lets act civil. I hope your church feels the same.

This very much is a civil rights issue. Marriage is more then a fight over use of a word, it comes attached with lots of legal rights and protections only granted at the federal level, which does not recognize civil unions. So long as civil unions lack the same rights and protections as marriages, than there is inequality and this is a civil rights issue.

Quote that sums it up in a nutshell:

""The most significant difference between marriage and civil unions (or domestic partnerships) is that only marriage offers federal benefits and protections.

According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.

Because same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and California, civil unions, and domestic partnerships are not federally recognized, any benefits available at the state or local level are subject to federal taxation. For example, a woman whose health insurance covers her female partner must pay federal taxes on the total employer cost for that insurance.""

Is the right to get married a civil right?

I can see how everyone has the right to have a relationship with whoever they want. The right to live with whoever you want. And the right to do whatever you want between consenting adults. But marriage is not a civil or fundamental right.

Also, if a man and a woman want to get a 'civil union' can they do that? I do not think so. Maybe the different sex couples should protest that.

Unless I am mistaken, the CA statue says that a civil union is treated the same as and has all the rights and benefits of a traditional marriage. So everyone is upset because they have to call it a civil union and not a marriage? I do not understand?

I understand civil unions PERFECTLY. The problem is with the federal government. Even if CA permits same sex marriage, those same sex marriages would not be recognized by the federal government. We even have a perfect example of this: Massachusetts permits same sex marriages, but those marriages are not recognized by the federal government; couples united in same sex marriages in Massachusets still are not permitted to file joint tax returns and other things married people get. Also see Defense of Marriage Act and 1 U.S.C. § 7. If you trust wikipedia here is their article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

As far as CA is concerned they are the same. Marraige and Civil Unions in CA are treated the same. CA has done everything it should to garantee equal rights and benefits to all. So the fact that PROP 8 passed changes nothing. Unless you do really care about the defenition of the word.

The true fight is with the Federal Government. If the Federal Government does start recognizing 'same sex marriages' and says they have to be called a 'marriage' then something like PROP 8 would matter. If the Feds do change, which is very possible under Obama, then they would undoubtedly recognize civil unions and not be so petty as to require them to be called marriages. So take the protests to Washington and write your Senator and Congressman/Congresswoman.

Perhaps the Mormans understand the issue better than most and just care about the definition of the word. Otherwise the Mormons and PROP 8 supporters would be trying to change the statute that makes civil union the same as marraige.

It is no coincidence that you falsely attempt to portray my name tag. You are symbolic of the Anti-Christ, which is the only God that you could be concerned with.

If not, consider reading and lving the Word of God. Jesus came to set the captives free, He came to loos e the binds of slavery that had enslaved me under Satan. He came to free the homosexuals, the alcoholics, the pedophiles, the polygamist, the drunks, the non-believers, and those who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and continued the practice of their SINS.

Leviticus; Homsexuality is an abomination to the Lord.

It is no wonder that the biggest contributors of No on 8 were the Utah Polygamist and the pedophile members of NAMBLA.

marriage is ordained by God in Geneis as being between a man and a woman, Adam and Eve. Fr this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. Man and woman.

If you do not accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, you will be in Hell. If that is not your God, then you speak only of the Anti-Christ,. Read the Bible and study the Word of God. Father, Son and Holy Ghost. My God.

To Questions25

No, it is your type of watered-down go to Church on Easter Sunday and maybe once a month, don't read the Bible, poor example of a light to the world, that leads the lost further astray.

God says come out from amidst the world and be not unequally yoked with non-believers. They convert you to drinking and night clubbing and foul use of language, but you are the one who is useless.

You call the Word of God Crazy talk, which is what they called Jesus' talk and crucified. You fear being identified as Christian and letting the lost know that they are lost. Why should they change,they see an unchanged you.

As for me, my lesbian friends talk with me, and they wish that are was No on 8, until I give them the real facts. They also tell me of their hurts, how their parents left and there were men in and out of their lives. How a father left, and the girls first boy friend was abusive to the point of terrifying, which started our friendship off with her fearing men including me. Or, the girl who says that if she saw a naked man she would faint, she was lesbian. Or the girl who was in an abusive relationship with a guy, but was now the abuser in her lesbian relationship, but she did not know it until I pointed out that what she was decribing was her now being the abuser. I know who I help, do you?

Since you beleive that you accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and you follow the Word of God, the Bible, and you know that Jesus is the Word of God in the flesh,then I will give you the legal stuff, you know the law, the California DOMA which parallels the Federal DOMA inacted in 1996 by your then Democratic Pres. Bill Clinton.

It is amazing, i think that in order to support No on 8, the people had to have IQ's below 100.

Consider, millions of dollars came from the Polygamist in Utah and the homosexual pedophiles in the Catholic Church and NAMBLA.

Also, I hear them suggest that Civil Union is not goood enough, because they don't get the same federal rights of marriage. But,

Read the Federal DOMA inacted in 1996, and by the way Califirnia's DOMA in 2000 followed this.

DOMA: The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

Prop 8 is consisted with the guidelines for the Federal DOMA and just like Protectmarriage.com said the No on 8 people are politically postering to no avail.

Also, consider The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives[2], and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

That means that it was passed by 85% vote in the Senate and 85% in the House, which is consisted with 87% of America who value a traditional marriage.

Also, at the start of the human race, at the outset of Sacred Writ, it is ordained the divine origin and Sanctity of marriage. One Man nad One Woman, One Flesh.

I'm so glad I left the church when I did. Christianity is setting it self up for it's biggest fears by pushing away every logical thinking, open minded, tolerant person, and fewer and fewer people will respect the institution. If homosexuality was such an evil as you claim, give me one quote where Jesus said one word about it. Might take you a while, because there isn't one. References to homosexuality are all in the old testament, along with mass genocide and other fun acts of God.

Came to fulfill the law, which laws are these? The 10 commandments seem to be missing a lot of injustice so fill me in on the others. Saying it is written is somehow a blanket endorsement for every detail of the Old Testament seems like a cop out to me. You didn't say anything about the genocide at the hand of God in the Old Testament.

Concerning NAMBLA, I was not aware of this previously. NAMBLA as I come to understand is a completely different story because that brings minors into the mix, and consent becomes debatable. Maybe they supported it because they thought they could slip in their agenda later, but they seem to be a highly fringe group with little support among anyone. Gay's are fighting for their right to the same standard of treatment as everyone else, no more no less.

"Since you did not have this relationship, you left the church, but never found God. You won't find your parent sin a church building either, but you might know them better if your relationship consisted of knowing them. if they wrote a book,you might be wise to read it."

Not sure I am correctly understanding half of this babbling, but I went to Church for many years sheepishly swallowing what I was told, believing in a relationship with God and all the rest.

Then when I got older and started thinking about the bigger picture of the problems of our world I started questioning things. I started making a connection between our Earth and the importance we have in being it's good stewards. I thought Bush would be an absolutely terrible president who would usher in human suffering through war and environmental harm upon the world.

Everyone at my Church was gung ho for Bush, based on 1 issue, abortion. So they all voted for the man who supposedly cared more about the unborn despite the potential for far greater harm to our world and it's people. Look how well that turned out for us. His policies have resulted in numerous deaths and no budge in the abortion debate. I felt ostracized for my questioning of the assumptions of the Church, and although I still went for a few years after, that began the dismantling in my mind of what I came to understand as a sham institution wrought with hypocrisy.

I still live my own personal life in accordance with my interpretation of the principles Jesus taught, but without the religious dogma that plagues the Church, and an open mind to accept others.

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." Matthew 5:9

To GarySe7en:

FAIR. I will repeat fair. Al l that you bring up is fair.

As an adult, we all learn reasoning and we question things. That is not the issue, but does become a big issue, if you don't have the trust in your parents.They have to create a foundation.

I do not beleive exactly the same as my parents. As a matter of fact, as they taught me in youth, I now share in teaching and teach them to.

DOCUMENTATION? I looked to see, if you or any asked for documentation that the Mormon church donated millions. They did not. If you are sincere, ask the blacklist people, they know who their contributors are, and I will stand on National TV and announce it.

I do understadn the Republican Bush issue. Not a good argument. The Bible belt of the South is full of racist people, uneducated, and vote Republican. Hillary proved that the democrats have their share also.

Gays are not fighting their rights. It wasnever theirs. People on No don't get this.

Helpful?

I again ask. How many people have you led to Christ, by leading them to believe that all is good. By telliong them, "Don't worry, Hell is not your destination."
It seems that you can't lead the world to Christ, because you can't let go of it. The truth always helps, even if it is rejected.

My brother just told me about this guy who e-mailed him after 20 years to tell him thanks. Back then he hated my brother, because he was young, black, and had surpassed him in rank. My brother had given him an order. My brother told him, you have to obey this order by military law, but you are your problem. You need to take responsible for yourself.

Sorry, you are very lacking in your understanding of the Bible. Not to argue, but it is because you think that other interpretations ar ejust as valid as yours. No right, no truth, just interpretation.

But, there is only One Truth, One God, One Jesus, and it is only God's interpretation. The context is only in the context of God. He is Alpha and Omega. What He wrote thousands of years ago, is the same today. If you beleive that man has had the power to alter the meaning through time, then you question the power of God. God holds my life in His hand and no one can take it away. He proves it every day. Read Psalm 91.

Judge, Matt 7:1 . you prove that you are young in relgion.

What did Jesus tell the woman being stoned and the crowd. He told her" Where are your accusers. They are gone. They do not condemn you and neither do I. NOW GO AND SIN NO MORE.

Most people and lots of Christians miss the last part. We are not to judge until condemnation. Jesus judged that she had sinned, forgave her and told her to go and sin no more.

If I rell you that you are smart, then you except my judgment. If a judge awards yo money, then you accept his judgment. If a boss gives you a raise and says job well done, then you accept his judgment. If you are fired, you are judged as having done a bad job.

Every person who has accepted Christ was first judged to be a sinner. If you can not judge that one has sinned, you offer no reason for him to accept Christ and give up his sin. Alcohols have to be judged that they are alcoholics first.

MY best friend was a drug addict, but now he is a Christian. Trust me, he thanks that I judsged him and a drug addict and offered him a way out and also a place to stay while he got it together. That led him to church and then God. It first started with harsh words with me refusing to give him his money to go buy drugs and ended with his tears.

Lady, if you don't understand that the battle against sin is full of tears, and often anger by the sinner, then you just might be judged luke warm. I am 51 years old and I know that it takes a strong soul to strive in California. I'm just betting that you have a lot of friends who are not Christian. How does that work, they either lead you away from God or you lead them to Him. No other choice there.

I pray that you go to the Word of God and judge my words.

By the way, I had two academic scholarships, to both UCLA and USC, so I might not be that smart, it is not Harvard,where another friend of mine went.

Trtuhspeaker23,

I should clarify, when I quoted Matt. 7:1 and said "Now that is funny," that means it is a joke. I understand people often misquote that passage to argue that we should never judge. I understand the scriptures and Christ's teachings well enough to know that some judging is necessary. As an Attorney I see and accept judgement everyday. I just thought it was funny because I thought you would realize the true meaning of that verse thus I said it was funny. Obviously you do understand, but felt the need to correct me when no correction was needed. This just demonstrates your hostile attitude which does not help when discussing the actual issues. In case you did not read all my post, I actually agree with you and personally believe marriage should be between a man and a woman and supported Prop 8. What did you think I meant when I said I thought that was funny?

I do not know why you keep saying I am a "watered-down christian" or a bad example of a christian because we do not know each other and I think you do not have enough information to declare that. Not to get into a pissing contest about who is the better christian but I attend church every week, actively participate and study the scriptures regularly. I routinely share the gospel and my beliefs with others and invite them to come to Christ. Making personal judgments based on limited contact over the internet does not hold much weight.

As far as the many interpretations of the Bible. I know there can be only one truth. And I personally know mine is the correct one. Other interpretations are not as valid as mine, but simply telling people they are incorrect will not change their mind or their views. How do you suggest we determine the correct interpretation to determine the truth? I would like to hear you answer to that.

As far as documentation and the Mormon Church donating money. The Mormon Church donated no money, it was the members of the church who donated. I am sure informed people realize this. I realize we cannot determine the source of every dollar contributed to each campaign but the list I referred to would have accounted for a large part of the No on 8 funding. Also I do not think NAMBLA and those polygamist sects have millions of dollars to donate.

If you think Obama is going to pick some moderate Supreme Court justices, think again. Once Obama gets to pick a few new Justices, which he most likely will, the Supreme Court is going to see some changes. Justices often turn out to be very different from who the appointing president thought they would be. I think Obama will be picking some pretty liberal justices. But none the less I like Obama and think he will do an excellent job or at least be more transparent than Bush.

For someone with academic scholarships to UCLA and USC, your post are confusing to read and disjointed. I think GarySe7en will agree with me on that. I am still unclear who is "entrenched in that this battle with the Polygamist." ? The Mormon Church could care less about those sects and ignores them.

Trtuhspeaker23, I think our beliefs are the same or very similar. I support Prop 8, traditional marriage, and probably many other things you do. But I am pretty sure our Bible views would differ and would be happy to discuss those differences in a rational manner. The only thing I have a problem with is your combative way of speaking to those who oppose you. I think it is ineffective and makes things worse; FOR ALL OF US.

To GarySe7en:

Another note on your referene to God and genocide.

If God being almighty and the creator of man, deems that it is time to cast his judgment, then he has more power than any court or government that professes this rights.

Man has declared that a woman has the right to kill her unborn baby, and that she is respected in her moral judgment. God's moral judgment eclipses that of woman by mega light years.

Genesis 20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;

21I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

32And he said, Oh let not the LORD be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.

Genesis 19
4But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
8Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

18And Lot said unto them, Oh, not so, my LORD:

19Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast shewed unto me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some evil take me, and I die:

24Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

Many have looked upon God as committing genocide, but when their daughter is raped they want justice. In this story, God was willing to spare Sodom if they could find but ten righteous men out of the hold bunch. The belief was that with at least ten good apples the bunch of rotten apples could be redeemed. But, these men of the village sought to kill the angels that visited Lot and was willing to rape Lot's duaghters to satisfy their thirst for evil.

If God gives man 120 years to live his life and find Christ, what matter if God judges that a man is beyond redemption and only gives him 20 years. It is a difficult subject for many, because they do not understand the nature of life and death to God.

I ask any one to try to explain time. Explain the passing of a week of time, 7 days. Now, imagine being on the moon, do you have the same time? Imagine you are seated next to God, now explain time. Can you? If we let the things that we do not understand stop us, most would never drive a car, most would never go to sleep, most would never get on an airplane, and most owuld not even be using this computer.

No man understands the absence of time, and therefore can not put it into language.

By the way, my wife grew up Catholic, and when I met her she had a hate for the church. I am not Catholic, but she transformed to the point that we had a Catholic wedding.

I agree that God means what He says.

But I still have a question. I read a passage from the Bible and one person tells me it means 'x' and another person says it means 'y'; perhaps I think it means 'z.' I project my statements or interpretations on nobody - whatever that means.

How are we to know what is right or if they are all wrong? How do we determine what God means? I realize God means what He says, but when we read something we have to attach some meaning to it - How do we know which meaning God wanted to attach to his words?

Basicaly I am asking the same question in different ways - How can we know the truth, i.e. the correct interpretation?

In simple terms, 'Try the spirits and see if they be of God.

Greatgatsby2, JRB and I had a few choice words with Truthspeaker23 about a lot of his opinions already. You can ready it here...

http://laist.com/2008/11/05/its_official_prop_8_passes.php#comments

I wouldn't recommend editing him since the more he posts the more people will see the "Truth" about this zealot thus coming to the conclusion that he does not live in the same world we do.

Questions25:

What you say makes a lot of sense, and people do rationalize and interpret vased on their own experiences. When it ocmes to the Bible, this is a flawed approach. The start of any understanding is coming to the realization of the need of a Saviour. Without the acceptance, one will never reach the point of allowing the Holy Spirit to enter, and ggive them understanding.

I am certain that a lot of people are convinced of their interpretaion about Prop 8, Prop 22, or the California DOMA. But, how many have researched and have opinions based on the evidence.

Roman 1:26
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.
27-And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly (not good or suitable but perverted), and receiving in themselves that compense of their error was meet.
28- And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.
29- Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, whisperers,
30 -Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents.

God is clear about homsexuality here. If one interprets it, because of their denial then they will conclude base don their reasoning. NOt to make a direct comparison, but a drug addict can give you a thousand justified reasons for doing drugs and why he is not an addict.

If you are in a discussion with a Mormon, Evangelical, Catholic, Buddhist, Muslim, and Hindu, you will get totally different interpretations of God . They will be based on their religion, but they all have different texts that they use.

If you are an Evangelicast and you are in a discussion with four other people that share your same faith, since you all have the same faith there should be a shared belief. Obviously, this is not always the case, and there are multiple reasons. One may be the level of the spiritual development, while it may be that they are lending unto their own understanding. This is a human condition. God said let's make man is our own image. Then man said let's fashion God according to our own image. So, we have the Greek and Roman Mythology conceptualization of gods. We often try to judge or interpret God according our infantile human perspective.

We have a carnal mind, that has to be spiritually developed. We have to be led by Spirit.

You are spot on. I am a Zealot and I do not live in the same world that you live in. In your world homosexuality prevails and a God who calls it an abomination does not measure up to your judgment.

You have judged me correctly. Remember that, when you misquote the meaning of tolerance.

In your world, you would persecute the church and desecrate the temples, and practice your bigotry against the church. You would denounce and censor their Free Speech and deny their civil rights.

In your world, you are justified because they do not share your beliefs. Well, you do not have the same beliefs as the church, so should they persecute you, hunt you down to desecrate your bars and streets. Should they blacklist you from jobs and deny you employment, because you voted No on 8.

Please continue these types of actions, it just makes it easier, when what we know is true 'Only marriage between ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN is valid in California and recognized by the Federal Government under DOMA.

To Greatgatsby2 & Questions25:

If quoted the bible is bigoted, then maybe it is you two who should redefine yourselves as Christian. What do you prefer the more secular, bible in the closet approach. I get it, gays out of the closet, luke-warms christians hiding in the closet.

Try this and maybe you will reach out and help, instead of being an enabler. It is a shame that the last place a Christian will find to read his/her Bible, is in the company lunchroom. Thank God for the Mormons, the ones who stood up and showed their faces and said' We're proud, we're Mormon, and we ain't going no where."

A common argument is that an inclination to homosexuality is inborn and immutable. It is widely believed that the public will become more accepting of homosexuality if they are convinced that it is inborn and immutable. For example, neuroscientist and homosexual Simon Levay stated: "...people who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are also more likely to support gay rights."[3] Research into the issue of the origins of homosexuality suggests that adoptive brothers are more likely to both be homosexuals than the biological brothers, who share half their genes which suggests that homosexuality is not genetically caused. [4][5][6] This data prompted the journal Science to report "this . . . suggests that there is no genetic component, but rather an environmental component shared in families".[7][8][9] However, in regards to psychosocial and biological theories in regards to the origin of homosexuality, Columbia University psychiatry professors Drs. William Byrne and Bruce Parsons stated in 1994: "There is no evidence that at present to substantiate a biological theory. [T]he appeal of current biological explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data".[10] Dr. Tahir I. Jaz, M.D., Winnipeg, Canada states: "The increasing claims of being "born that way" parallels the rising political activism of homosexual organisations, who politicise the issue of homosexual origins . In the 1970s, approximately ten percent of homosexuals claimed to be "born homosexual" according to a large scale survey....However, in a survey in the 1980s, with the homosexual rights movement increasingly becoming active, thirty-five percent claimed to be born that way.[11]

Alcoholism is a fatal chronic illness affecting the lives of 20 to 30% of the homosexual population (Ziebold & Mongeon, 1982). Studies have found that 35% of lesbians had a history of excessive drinking, compared to only 5% of the heterosexual women in the sample (Saghir, 1970; Lewis, 1982). Approximately 30% of lesbians and gay men are addicted to drugs (Rofes, 1983). The facts show that the homosexual community constitutes a high-risk population with regard to alcoholism and drug abuse.The process of recovery allows you to heal by working through those feelings you have pushed down with alcohol and/or drugs. It is often said that when you have a substance abuse problem, your emotional development stops when you start abusing. When you medicate your feelings, you numb yourself from conflicts and reality. Once you decide to no longer abuse, those feelings and emotions will surface and may be overwhelming. Self-help groups offer a safe and supportive environment where people share common experience, strength and hope.This article was written by Dot Wojakowski as part of a Challenge Grant, produced and distributed by McGill Student Health Services:It is commonly believed that factors such as stigma, denial, alienation, discrimination, and the cultural importance of bars place lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals at higher risk of developing problems with alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs (ATOD). We do know one thing: many issues need to be understood and addressed by prevention professionals working with lesbian, gay, and bisexual communities before they can deal with the destructive consequences of ATOD.I guess my facts are not baseless.

Let's hear from Albert Einstein, surely his beliefs are purely secular.
"The higghest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward trtuh and understanding. This source of feeling, however springs from the SPHERE OF RELIGION.

While it is true that scientific results ar entirely independent from religious or moral consideration, those individuals to whom we owe the great creative achievements of science were ALL OF THEM imbued with the truly religious conviction that this unviverse of ours is something perfect and susceptible to rational striving for knowledge."- Albert Einstein.

Johnny,

We can agree on one thing, you do not know me, and I do not know you. But, I do know that you are intolerant, and you have said just that, in your above posts. You think that if your peer group allows for your intolerance, then it is okay. For instance, gays who support Prop 8 have been ostracized and called traitors.

My tolerance for gays and straights that don't agree with me, extends to allowing them to vocalize, speak, march, conduct business, hire them, and invite my friends who have chosen that lifestyle into my home, which are all things that the No on 8 people have demonstrated hate and intoerance towards.

Since, I have a number of friends who are gay, and they know that I do not agree with their lifestyle choice, your characterization is invalid. I have had friends leave that lifestyle, just as i have had friends give up the drug lifestyle for Christianity.

I am speaking of your intolerance for polygamist, rapist, child molesters, incest, and anything else like that because it is against the law. That would include Same-Sex marriage if you spoke the truth. We are in agreement on all except the same-sex marriage part. You claim that these people ar enot in your world, but by your alliance with them in the No on 8 campaign, they are in your world, to the tune of millions that they donated.

Your reasoning falls apart, because same-sex marriage has always been against the law, except for a brief period from June 2008 to Nov. 4 2008 and is currently just that. I have the same regard for homosexuality, as I have for all of the above fore-mentioned. They are sins, and the wages of those acts are death, in the hands of God. There is redemption and forgiveness, but God calls acts of homosexuality an Abomination to Him.

I see however, because I and the church are in agreement with the law, we warrant your intolerance and hate, and your dispacable comparison to Osama and Hitler. I don't have to bend those words as hate and intolerance, they speak for themselves. I say to you, that it is your comrades that are more like Hitler, in their desecration of churches and bigoted hate attacks and obstruction of businesses and discrimanatory firing of employees who had the audactiy to have a different belief and opinion. If you know of one employee that has been fired for opposing Prop 8 please bring it to light, and I and most Prop 8 supporters will hail that act as discrimination and unfair.

It might be prudent for you to focus on the whole world of what you do not understand. DOMA is the lw of California and the federal government, you do not wish to get that. The federal DOMA does not recognize Same-Sex marriage nor Domestic Partnerships, so in your mind they must be bigots and intolerant, to the tune of 85 senators and 342 congressmen, and of course Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary, because Bill signed DOMA in 1996.

The intent of Separation of Church and State is spelled out here; People eventually understood that if government had the power to promote religion, it also had the power to destroy it, and that true religious liberty required the government to stay our of religion completely.

Now, we see a complete pre-emptive strike on God's ordained and established institutions of MARRIAGE AND THE CHURCH. Coincidence, not quite. Believe in Satan or not, but he has been to instigator of these types of acts as far back as history will go. All of this hate and biogtry from the gay activist and yet not one march by Prop 8 supporters through West Hollywood and the gay communities of San Franciso. (TOLERANCE)

PantheonZeus

Yet you prove yourself to be dumber than a whole sack of nonsense.

You lump Santa Claus with God, then lump sexuality with race.

Only marriage between One Man and One Woman is valid under the U.S. Constitution (DOMA) and the California Constitution (the state DOMA).

So get over your ignorance, and do the research and it would not be necessary for the education lesson which requires rebosity.

Actually, you must believe in Santa Claus, or else you would not be begging for a Christiams present that you will not get.

"The governor is being politically sensible but legally naive about this; the arguments against Proposition 8 hang on different precedents, issues and history.

The definition of marriage in the two initiatives is identical: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." But Proposition 8 embeds that definition in the state Constitution, and it would defy reason for the court to hold that part of the Constitution is unconstitutional.

And this year, the Oregon Court of Appeals rejected a suit on same-sex marriage much like the current lawsuits -- Oregon's Constitution has similar provisions on revision and equal protection. As a result, the legal challenge to Proposition 8is generally seen as a long shot.

If you wish to be informed, then research why millions of dollars for the No on 8 campaign came from NAMBLA members and Polygamist in Utah.

Truthspeaker23,

I liked your last two posts. But where is your evidence that NAMBLA and polygamist in Utah contributed 'millions' to the No on 8 campaign?

Thank you for misinterpreting my words as I said you would. I never compared religion to the evils of Osama/Hitler. I compared YOU as a zealot (as you are proud to admit you are) to those two men because I'm sure they were just as devoted to their cause as you are to your "truth".

I have pretty much reached my end with trying to exchange ideals with you because you clearly are biased with what you believe. So have your last words as I know you will. I have moved on.

Thanks for playing.

Johnny

I know exactly what you said and I totally got your comparison. You did not choose to compare me with Martin Lauther King, Gandhi, or Abraham Lincoln, but chose men who would kill and destroy other men to prosper their own Atheistic Evil Secular agenda. Not me.

The sad thing about Christianity that people like you conveniently leave out, is that Christianity is inclusive. You are invited. You are like the rich man, who simply had to trust in God and give up his wealth in order to enter the kingdom of Heaven. This rich man could not do it, because he put his trust in his riches.

The drug addict, alcoholic, atheist, and homosexuals simply are invited to give up their sin and trust in the laws of God.

So to be clear, my devotion does not come close to even a desire to kill or inflict harm on others. My devotion to the truth, is a desire to invite those who desire to be free, by sharing with them the only true freedom which comes from Jesus Christ.

I see you were playing, but this is no game. You always get to accept God or reject Him, but His Word is final.

By PantheonZeus: "I do not believe in God. At all. To me the heavenly Father or"Zeus" is all fable. Purely."

That is Simply sad and without reason.

I wonder if you come to your conclusion, based in lies or scientific deduction. You capitalize God, which means that you exclude all of the fictitious pagan gods. You Deify God by recognizing Him as heavenly, but you get lost with the Greeks who attempted to make God into MAN'S image, Zeus.

Consider Albert Einstein's words: surely his beliefs are purely secular.
"The higghest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up.

But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward trtuh and understanding. This source of feeling, however springs from the SPHERE OF RELIGION.While it is true that scientific results ar entirely independent from religious or moral consideration, those individuals to whom we owe the great creative achievements of science were ALL OF THEM imbued with the truly religious conviction that this unviverse of ours is something perfect and susceptible to rational striving for knowledge."- Albert Einstein

MARRIAGE IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHT, GUARANTEED TO ALL.
1. The married man can not proclaim a civil right to matter again, that would bve polygamy.
2. The siblings cannot proclaim a civil right to marry, and thus go out and marry each other.
3. The pedophile can not proclaim a civil right to marry, and go out and marry some one under the age of 18.
4. Sadly, but true, the mentally incompetent can never marry.
5. Straights and gays can not marry some one of the same-sex, because it is not a civil right.
6. A person engaged in homosexual activity has the right to marry, that person that he/she decided to have that child with when they engaged in a heterosexual activity.

By PantheonZeus: am a priest of satan, truthspeaker23 Of course you would claim to be a host for the dead, Pantheon.

The Lord of Darkness and I have placed a curse on your computer keyboard. (You are of your Father Satan, the things that he doeth, you do the same)

Sadly, you typed and used those keys. I will pray for you. I hope that your curse was not too severe. Didn't Satan warn you not to go casting your little curses on Christians that are covered by the BLOOD OF JESUS. Imagine That.

I would advise that you need mental counseling, but I know that it is a spiritual issue, and is commonly amongst the oppressed. Spiritual oppression leads to possession.

Christian, But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. Now the body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.

And of course you know, that Jesus Christ is your Lord.

(psst pantheon, he's serious with all that horseshit too!)

I voted no on propostion 8, but I wish I had my vote back. I am glad that it did not pass. How come we were not told that the gay activist movement is tied to NAMBLA and pedophilia.

Also, I found out that a lot of lies are being told, and sorry guys it is mostly from those opposed to proposition 8. Like, it might be a federal issue, but not a California issue because civil unions grant the same rights as marriage for same-sex partners in California. It's over, forget about it.

I want to know where any of the evidence of this NAMBLA involvement is coming from?

Truthspeaker keeps saying that NAMBLA, or its members, were major contributors to No on 8 but I see no evidence of that. Just because you opposed prop 8 does not mean that you are a member of or support NAMBLA.

We know members of the Mormon Church contributed to the Yes on 8 campaign because the Official Mormon Church suggested to its members that it would be worthwhile to contribute time and money. But I see no indication that NAMBLA or its members were at all involved in a significant amount. The same goes for the polygamist Truthspeaker talks about.

Evidence Please.

P.S. I voted yes on 8, but still want some justification for this claim.

QUICK NOTE: IT IS A RED HERRING TO SAY THAT NOT ALL WHO SUPPORTED NO ON 8 WERE MEMBERS OF NAMBLA.

That is obviously a true statement and obviously was never suggested by me.

To be clear, in sheer voting volume, the major majority of No on 8 supporters were not members of NAMBLA or even homosexuals.

Also, to be clear the major majority supporters of Yes on Prop 8 were not Mormons and some Yes supporters were homosexual. A radio talkshow host in particular, unless he voted against his voice.

hey, liespeaker23, here is a quote from a speech made by one of your "good Christians"...

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those (the Jews) by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited. "

Adolf Hitler, in his speech on 12 April 1922

Questions25 You sure do seem to know a lot about Harry Hay. While he was probably an evil man any discussion about him is meaningless; he died in 2002.

2002 is after Prop 22 was passed. Any discussion about the gay movement has to start with him. What is your problem anyway. To suggest that 2002 is anything but a short period is ridiculous, considering that the same-sex marriage ruling in June 2008 started with the passage of Prop 22 in 2000.

I know a lot about Harry Hay, and if you say Harry was evil how can the gay liberation movement which is founded and principalled be anything but evil. He is not a fringe of the movement, he is the core.

Newsflash, any knowledge about Harry Hay can be found by going to LBGT, NAMBLA, and CPUSA, websites or simply searching under Harry Hay.

Harry Hay (April 7, 1912, Worthing, England – October 24, 2002) was a leader in the gay rights movement in the United States, known for founding the Mattachine Society in 1950 and the Radical Faeries in 1979. He was raised as a Catholic.

Harry Hay, as you say, a evil man.

Founder of the Mattachine Society
Hay was born in 1912 in the coastal town of Worthing, Sussex, England where he grew up until his parents emigrated to California in 1919. Starting in Los Angeles in 1950, Hay worked with a handful of supporters to found the Mattachine Society. At this time, nineteen years before the Stonewall riots, virtually no gays or lesbians were publicly out, it was illegal for homosexuals to gather in public, and the American Psychiatric Association defined homosexuality as a mental illness. Very slowly, he gathered members to this group. The Mattachine Society met in secret, with members often accompanied by a female friend to prevent being publicly identified as gay. Though Henry Gerber's gay rights group The Society for Human Rights had briefly flowered in Chicago twenty years earlier, it was quickly shut down by authorities. Hay's successful launching of a lasting national gay network makes him a plausible entry for the founder of the American gay rights movement.

.

Harry Hay

Collection: Hay, Harry

Harry Hay (1912-2002) is best known as the founder of the U.S. gay movement but is increasingly known as a pioneer of gay spirituality. He started the Mattachine Society in 1950 and launched the Radical Faerie movement in 1979. Behind both efforts, he hoped to recover and affirm the nature of homosexuals as "separate people" with a consciousness that distinguished them from heterosexuals even more than their sexuality.

Just a tidbit of information, Separation and Church and state was principled on the legal position that the church would have independent powers side by side with the state. The church would have the power with the people, to check the state, and the state would not infringe upon this right to free speech, peaceful assembly, and call to action to abolish and reform the state if necessary. All these things are denied and restricted in communist states, and the irony is that the founder of the gay rights movement, Harry Hay was a member of CPUSA.

You will find the information that you seek. As I have said before, Albert Einstein even said that science and government are principled in Judeo-Christian religion and law. Our forefathers design was to prevent totalitarian government and a state that would impose atheism and deny religious practices. Even our school systems were founded in religion, with our churches being the founders of many major universities.

According to Questions25, who asks 25 plus questions, Harry Hay, who died 6 short years ago, is inconsequential. I guess she considers the holocaust and Hitler too distant, 63 years ago, to even be spoken of. So, jrb, you are out side of her boundaries.

However, Hitler was working with the Office of the Inquisition, with Cardinal Ratzinger. This office is the same office that killed millions of Jews and Christians and was a part of the Catholic church.

Some would argue that the Catholic church does not support this, which is fine if they choose this argument. They can also argue that the Catholic church does not support homosexuality and pedohilia.

Furthermore, Grigg suggests the homosexual infiltration of the Catholic Church follows the blueprint created by Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci, and homosexual “commie” priests are waging a “war of [political] position.” Catholic author Michael S. Rose, in Goodby! Good Men, describes this strategy after interviewing priests and students of the seminaries. Rose’s “carefully documented study” illustrates how homosexuals and cultural revolutionaries have taken over much of the American Catholic Church’s seminary system.

Harry Hay, who died in 2002, was all of the above, founder of the gay activist and liberation movement, homosexual, pedophile, and communist.

In 1973, aggressive homosexuals successfully lobbied the American Psychiatric Assciation to expunge homosexuality from the list of psychological disorders. Yet homosexual priests are considered deeply ill and perverted.

However, of the thousands of pedophile abuse cases, 95% were homosexual in nature.

Fr. Cozzens, the head of a Catholic seminary, says that estimates range as high as 60% of American priests are homosexual.
Cozzens is not against ordaining gay men, and concedes some effective bishops and even some popes may have been gay.

So, Hitler and Ratzinger could have very well been gay. Fallen Roman Catholic priests are identified as pedophiles, sex abusers, or just nasty perverts. Though they do what homosexuals do, the popular, liberated social status of “homosexual” is denied them, both by their own Church, and by homosexuals at large.

Divested priest Paul Shanley, recently convicted of raping several young boys in St. Jean’s parish in Newton, Massachusetts, was associated of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). As early as 1970 he had publicly defended the pederast enterprise. NAMBLA, according to William N. Grigg (New American, June 3), is a criminal syndicate composed of homosexuals who prey on young boys. Obviously, Catholic Church doctrinev completely condemns “deviant” sexual behavior, and that outrages the homosexual community at large.

"Their main excuse to kill our Lord was that He should die so that the NATION as a whole wouldn’t perish." Adolf Hitler That is the ultimate communistic ideal! This is exactly what both Ratzigner and this quote are saying.

Eugenio Pacelli (Pope Pius XII from 1939 to 1958) was a brilliant diplomat, a cunning politician and a religious crusader. He was appointed Papal Nuncio to Germany in 1920 — the first since the Reformation!! He, more than anybody else outside Germany, helped Hitler to power. He was one of the paramount personalities of the 20th century. He transformed the Vatican into a global political instrument. His pet obsession was Communism, and he became the main instigator of the Cold War.

The 69-page Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII was sent to every bishop in the world. The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest' secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.
They also call for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of making a complaint to Church officials. It states that the instructions are to `be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia [Vatican] as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries.'

[...] Bishops are instructed to pursue these cases `in the most secretive way... restrained by a perpetual silence... and everyone... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office... under the penalty of excommunication'.

Lawyers point to a letter the Vatican sent to bishops in May 2001 clearly stating the 1962 instruction was in force until then. The letter is signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the most powerful man in Rome beside the Pope and who heads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - the office which ran the Inquisition in the Middle Ages.

"Hitler was not a Christian and you can find no biblical references and doctrines from the Bible."- me

Not surprising since most of the bible was written a few thousand years before Hitler was ever born. -you

Yes, uneducated, and your point. My typo and your education or lack thereof.

Because, your comment is leaping above your brain. You suggest that since the Bible was written a few thousand years before Hitler was ever born, that Hitler could not use biblical references and theological doctrines from the Bible. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Roman 1:26
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.
27-And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly (not good or suitable but perverted), and receiving in themselves that compense of their error was meet.
28- And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.

Gosh and 63 years after Hitler and 1,000s of years after the Bible was written, I just used biblical reference and theological doctrine.

"No, I just thought since you are trying to imply that all the voters who voted no on 8 are pedophiles, pederasts, child molesters, or members of NAMBLA, I'd give a few examples of some "good Christians" through out history."-you

That is an extremely obtuse statement. Only some one not paying attention or who is lying, would make such a statement. Just for your record, since your abnormal group only represents two percent of the populus, that means that 45% of the normal populus voted along with some homosexuals, not all, members of NAMBLA, pedophiles, polygamist, and banned Catholic priests.

Harry Hay, is extremely important and instrumental in the gay movement,because he founded it, and since he was a self-professed advocate of pedophilia, member of NAMBLA and supporter, and the LGBT invites numerous NAMBLA speakers to promote their shared cause there is no leap. Good ole Harry has to be considered the best of the best homosexual activist.

Note: If 95% of a census group engages in a practice and 2% engage in a contrary practice, the practice of the 2% by definition is abnormal.

Ther4e is dopcumentation that Hitler was a pedophile homosexual and he would take high achieving and promising youths from his Hilter Youth group into his private quarters.

Harry Hay, CPUSA memeber and the founders of NAMBLA used the Youthe Hitler youth groups as a model for their programs.

What is wrong with questions? Just trying to enlighten myself. Harry Hay and NAMBLA may be very important to this discussion but I would just like some outside evidence of their involvement. Like a news article or a study that was conducted to see how much NAMBLA supported the No on 8 campaign.

If NAMBLA was so involved, like Truthspeaker keeps saying, I think some news agency would have been all over it.

Truthspeaker please direct us to some sources to back up your claims. And I realize that NAMBLA's teaching would support the No on 8 campaign but what I want to know is the extent of its involvement. The same would go for the polygamist.

Why do you keep telling me to do my own research? Just point us to some sources that say NAMBLA and Polygamist groups were a large part of the No on 8 campaign. That is what I have a problem with. You are making this connection that these two groups were are so involved with No on 8 and nobody else is talking about it.

If NAMBLA or polygamist groups were involved extensively in the No on 8 campaign I can garantee Fox News would have been all over it.

I do not understand what researching all those people will prove. Obviously I am too stupid to find information on this NAMBLA and No on 8 campaign. Once again, please direct us to some sources to prove your points.

I have been aware of who and what NAMBLA is for many years and know all about the gay rights movement but have never heard that NAMBLA or its members have major economic resorces. Just stating that all these organizations and people are petophiles and bad people proves nothing and does not show that they made a large contibution to the No on 8 campaign.

Pay close attention.

Do you know who was involved with the No on 8 campaign? How much did the executives in California at Target, Macys,Applebys, ABC, NBC, Sundance, the Marriott, Hilton Hotels, Outback Steakhouse, etc. spend on the No on 8 campaign?

This is a question. Do YOU know who was involved with the No on 8 campaign? YOU.
Executives at Sundance Film festival, Outback, and Marriot donated to the Yes on 8 campaign. Targets has been pro gay, Applebys, Lowe's, Old Navy, and ABC also support gay agendas, but did they vote No on 8?

I proved my point, you don't research, because if you had you would have identified the different positions. Gosh and I thought every one on this board knew Marriott, Sundance, and El Coyote were on the boycott list.

The gay protesters decided to ignore Sundance, for self serving reasons. Just like a lot of gays did not care enough about their cause to risk their employment today on " A Day Without a Gay Day"

NOW, if you wish, you can search all the individual names that I gave you and the business names I provided as well.

If you had any evidence you would have provided it. Instead you just tell everyone else to go do their own research. Your claims are based upon your own bias and have no factual basis. Although we may agree on the principles at issue, you make claims that are not based in fact or you cannot show to be based on fact. If you had any facts to back up your claims you would have provided it long ago. Instead you make connections that may or may not be true, but present no facts that prove your points.

I have tried to have a reasonable discussion with you but you are unhelpful and petty. I am ashamed to have you supporting and arguing for Yes on 8.

You my friend are a FOOL!

To LaLive:

No ripping.

Qustions25 is a Chicken who only lays eggs in the form of questions and is too chicken to commit to a position for fear of being fried.

Example: Questions25 said "As far as the many interpretations of the Bible. I know there can be only one truth. And I personally know mine is the correct one. Other interpretations are not as valid as mine, but simply telling people they are incorrect will not change their mind or their views. How do you suggest we determine the correct interpretation to determine the truth? I would like to hear you answer to that."

If she knew her interpretation of the Bible to be true, then she would have the answer to her own question. She is a lukewarm, carnal, baby wanting to be christian. That is not bad, but until she is borned of the Spirit she wil never taste God's word.

Regarding Muslims and their interpretation:
Belief in all of the Prophets and Messengers of God is a fundamental article of faith in Islam. Thus, believing in Prophets Adam, Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon them) is a requirement for anyone who calls him or herself a Muslim. A person claiming to be a Muslim who, for instance, denies the Messengership of Jesus, is not considered a Muslim.

The Quran says in reference to the status of Jesus as a Messenger:

Belief in all of the Prophets and Messengers of God is a fundamental article of faith in Islam. Thus, believing in Prophets Adam, Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon them) is a requirement for anyone who calls him or herself a Muslim. A person claiming to be a Muslim who, for instance, denies the Messengership of Jesus, is not considered a Muslim.

The Quran says in reference to the status of Jesus as a Messenger:

Belief in all of the Prophets and Messengers of God is a fundamental article of faith in Islam. Thus, believing in Prophets Adam, Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon them) is a requirement for anyone who calls him or herself a Muslim. A person claiming to be a Muslim who, for instance, denies the Messengership of Jesus, is not considered a Muslim.

The Quran says in reference to the status of Jesus as a Messenger:

Belief in all of the Prophets and Messengers of God is a fundamental article of faith in Islam. Thus, believing in Prophets Adam, Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon them) is a requirement for anyone who calls him or herself a Muslim. A person claiming to be a Muslim who, for instance, denies the Messengership of Jesus, is not considered a Muslim.

The Quran says in reference to the status of Jesus as a Messenger:

Belief in all of the Prophets and Messengers of God is a fundamental article of faith in Islam. Thus, believing in Prophets Adam, Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon them) is a requirement for anyone who calls him or herself a Muslim. A person claiming to be a Muslim who, for instance, denies the Messengership of Jesus, is not considered a Muslim.

The Quran says in reference to the status of Jesus as a Messenger:

Belief in all of the Prophets and Messengers of God is a fundamental article of faith in Islam. Thus, believing in Prophets Adam, Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon them) is a requirement for anyone who calls him or herself a Muslim. A person claiming to be a Muslim who, for instance, denies the Messengership of Jesus, is not considered a Muslim.

The Quran says in reference to the status of Jesus as a Messenger:

Belief in all of the Prophets and Messengers of God is a fundamental article of faith in Islam. Thus, believing in Prophets Adam, Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon them) is a requirement for anyone who calls him or herself a Muslim. A person claiming to be a Muslim who, for instance, denies the Messengership of Jesus, is not considered a Muslim.

The Quran says in reference to the status of Jesus as a Messenger:

Belief in all of the Prophets and Messengers of God is a fundamental article of faith in Islam. Thus, believing in Prophets Adam, Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon them) is a requirement for anyone who calls him or herself a Muslim. A person claiming to be a Muslim who, for instance, denies the Messengership of Jesus, is not considered a Muslim.

The Quran says in reference to the status of Jesus as a Messenger:

Belief in all of the Prophets and Messengers of God is a fundamental article of faith in Islam. Thus, believing in Prophets Adam, Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon them) is a requirement for anyone who calls him or herself a Muslim. A person claiming to be a Muslim who, for instance, denies the Messengership of Jesus, is not considered a Muslim.

The Quran says in reference to the status of Jesus as a Messenger:ISLAM

1. Do Muslims believe he was a Messenger of One God? YES

Belief in all of the Prophets and Messengers of God is a fundamental article of faith in Islam. Thus, believing in Prophets Adam, Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon them) is a requirement for anyone who calls him or herself a Muslim. A person claiming to be a Muslim who, for instance, denies the Messengership of Jesus, is not considered a Muslim.

The Quran says in reference to the status of Jesus as a Messenger:ISLAM

1. Do Muslims believe he was a Messenger of One God? YES

Belief in all of the Prophets and Messengers of God is a fundamental article of faith in Islam. Thus, believing in Prophets Adam, Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon them) is a requirement for anyone who calls him or herself a Muslim. A person claiming to be a Muslim who, for instance, denies the Messengership of Jesus, is not considered a Muslim.

The Quran says in reference to the status of Jesus as a Messenger:

ISLAM

1. Do Muslims believe he was a Messenger of One God? YES

Belief in all of the Prophets and Messengers of God is a fundamental article of faith in Islam. Thus, believing in Prophets Adam, Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon them) is a requirement for anyone who calls him or herself a Muslim. A person claiming to be a Muslim who, for instance, denies the Messengership of Jesus, is not considered a Muslim.

The Quran says in reference to the status of Jesus as a Messenger:

ISLAM

1. Do Muslims believe he was a Messenger of One God? YES

Belief in all of the Prophets and Messengers of God is a fundamental article of faith in Islam. Thus, believing in Prophets Adam, Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon them) is a requirement for anyone who calls him or herself a Muslim. A person claiming to be a Muslim who, for instance, denies the Messengership of Jesus, is not considered a Muslim.

The Quran says in reference to the status of Jesus as a Messenger:

ISLAM

1. Do Muslims believe he was a Messenger of One God? YES

Belief in all of the Prophets and Messengers of God is a fundamental article of faith in Islam. Thus, believing in Prophets Adam, Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon them) is a requirement for anyone who calls him or herself a Muslim. A person claiming to be a Muslim who, for instance, denies the Messengership of Jesus, is not considered a Muslim.

The Quran says in reference to the status of Jesus as a Messenger:

ISLAM

1. Do Muslims believe he was a Messenger of One God? YES

Belief in all of the Prophets and Messengers of God is a fundamental article of faith in Islam. Thus, believing in Prophets Adam, Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon them) is a requirement for anyone who calls him or herself a Muslim. A person claiming to be a Muslim who, for instance, denies the Messengership of Jesus, is not considered a Muslim.

The Quran says in reference to the status of Jesus as a Messenger: Belief in all of the Prophets is a fundamental article of faith in Islam. They beleive that Jesus was both a prophet and Messenger of God. There confusion is that Jesus said that He and the father are One and that he is the only way to the Father.

All I ask is for some other evidence or outside authority that NAMBLA was heavily involved in the No on 8 campaign.

All I have right now is Truthspeaker making that claim. I just do not think they have the resources to be that influential.

P.S. Anyone can create another screen name to make it seem like there are others agreeing with you. I think LaLive is just you Truthspeaker using a different name. And what is with all the nonsense about Muslims and Hindus, I did not even bother to read any of that. Obviously off topic and unhelpful. You still have not told me how I can 'know' for myself which interpretation of the Bible is correct.

I think that LaLive actually agreed with you. I don't need any one to agree with me. Truth is Truth.

You are a PIG and that is a fact. "And what is with all the nonsense about Muslims and Hindus, I did not even bother to read any of that. Obviously off topic and unhelpful." You sound so dumb. You are the one who has problems with different interpretations and knowing which one is correct. Well, here is info regarding Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhist and there interpretation and you don't get it.

By the way, PIG stands for Policitally Ignorant Guppie.

Bruce Bastian of Orem, Utah of WordPerfect Software donated $1 million to the No on 8 campaign.

John Stryker of Kalamazoo, Mich. donated $1.06 million to the No on on 8 campaign.

David Maltz of Cleveland, Ohio donated $1 million to the No on 8 campaign.

California Teachers Assn. donated $1.3 million

Robert Haas owner of Pacific Gas & Electric donated an unspecified amount to the No on 8 campaign.

Do your research and find the connections. NAMBLA has a small membership log, but a big base. Do you think that they are principles spekaers at LGBT because they are fringe? DO you think that Harry Hay the founder of the National Gay Rights movement, a pedophile, who promoted man/boy relationships taught anythign different? Do a little research on Harvey Milks and you will first fund that he supported NAMBLA and there inclusion and that he pushed for stretching the sexual boundaries.

Statement and Claims and I will get to that in a minute.

The La Times makes a statement and claim that the Mormon church threatened its memebers and said that if they did not donate they were not going to heaven. It is publicized.itr is not true. Many members have since called and written telling them that this is a lie but no retraction and no peep from you.

Use what you wish, but NAMBLA is entrenched in the LGBT, National Gay Activist Movement and with the Catholic homosexual priests.

How did you like that PIG? You though thought it was a derogatory remark didn't you?

This LA Times writers suggested when asked what about the California Teachers Association being opposed to Prop 8. He said that they only became involved when the Yes on 8 campaign said that Gay marriage would be taught in schools. In actuality they donated $1.3 million to the No on 8 campaign and Jack O'Connell was a principal spokesman.

Use whatever facts that you discover and I suggest that you discover them on your own, so yo ucan own them. Until then, I have spoken on the radio and made many posts and have yet to have anyone refute my claims. You see, the No on 8 cmpaign did not want to debate prior to the election and they still do not. For over 30 years, the gay movement has tried to skirt around its ties to pedophiles and NAMBLA, but its hard to do when you are Harry Hay and Harvey Milks.

Having seen the powerful documentary Deliver Us From Evil (required viewing for all Catholics) this past weekend at my local theater, my belief that the Catholic Church is nothing more than a front for NAMBLA has been reinforced tenfold.
The movie follows the carousings of Father Oliver O’Grady as he uses the Catholic cloak to diddle the private parts of young girls and boys, all under the strict supervision and full support of the Catholic Church. Whenever the heat from parents or law enforcement grew a bit too hot, O’Grady’s fellow NAMBLA members such as Cardinal Roger Mahoney (notable to those of us living in Southern California), forgave and blessed the Irish pederast, and sent him on his way to yet another community so that O’Grady could rack up more victims in the name of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, the Catholic Church, and all those who call themselves Catholics.