Why America makes me angry sometimes

[SeaOz]

Plus, gaygay33, Mitt Romney is Mormon, which makes him extra creepy. We have the mormons to thank for the passage of Prop. 8 in California. They are as anit-gay as muslims, its just so sad how some religions can be so bigoted and evil.

Considering the history of the Mormon faith. You would think they would have more sympathy for the GBTL community.

[marshlander]

Not wanting to trivialise the discussion or anything but taking of mormons i saw a truly hilarious video on youtube...

Can't touch this

The animations are edited versions of extracts from the Book of Mormon and Bible stories that started life as gospel comic books, before being transferred to filmstrip and finally animated on video. What a horrible reminder of my youth! Although difficult to follow, the commentary contained a lot of their beliefs, although I've never heard of "Mormon Jesus" ... hilarious Only missing a mask and a cape

[fredv3b]

Almost every single department of the government is headquartered here in DC, with the exception of the Military which is across the river in Alexandria, and the Space Program which is out in Maryland. Because Federal employees in the district would be allowed to marry, and federal employees are union employees, the government can not give to one employee, what it will not give to all. That means that if you work for the US Department of Agriculture, and you live in Mississippi, the federal government is contract bound to give you the same marriage benefits that you would get if you worked in their headquarters on Constitution Avenue.

Thanks for the reply. I have two points. First, I thought the federal government was immune from DC Law, am I wrong about this. Second, surely the problem you raise already exists, a Federal government employee in DC need only fly to, say, Des Moines, Iowa, with his partner, get married, return home, have the DC Council recognise their marriage and then sue to have his employer recognise his marriage. I have not heard of any such lawsuit so surely it must not be quite that simple?

[Rychard the Lionheart]

Same-sex marriage law in D.C. could ‘suppress’ Catholic institutions, archdiocese warns.

This was taken from the Catholic News Agency's website today.

Washington D.C., Nov 1, 2009 / 03:10 am (CNA).- A Washington, D.C. City Council proposal to recognize same-sex “marriage” would redefine marriage and could force Catholic educational and charitable institutions to close or face lawsuits, burdensome regulation and the compromising of their faith, the Archdiocese of Washington has warned.

The proposed law, called the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009, redefines marriage as “the legally recognized union of two people.” It says a religious association or a non-profit associated with a religion shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, facilities or goods related to the solemnization, celebration or promotion of a marriage that is in violation of the entity’s religious beliefs unless the entity makes those services available to members of the general public.

Representatives of the archdiocese spoke at an Oct. 26 hearing before the D.C. City Council’s Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary. They argued that the law would endanger Catholic services to the general public.

In written testimony, the archdiocese opposed the legislation and “any effort to redefine marriage as any other than that between a man and a woman.” The archdiocese voiced “deep concerns” that the bill would restrict religious freedom if it is passed as drafted.

To continue the archdiocese’s service to the poor of the District of Columbia, the archdiocese testified, a “meaningful” religious exemption is needed to ensure that the government “will not suppress its religious exercise in such a way.”

In its support, the archdiocese cited a legal analysis of the bill by the Williams & Connolly law firm, which said the expected effect of the bill would put the archdiocese in an “untenable” position under the First Amendment unless religious conscience protections are expanded.

“The District will effectively force the Archdiocese either to violate the law or to abandon forms of religious practice – care for the poor, hungry and homeless – that are fundamental to the practice of Catholic social teaching,” the law firm commented.

In addition to overturning the definition of marriage, the legislation has no exemptions for churches, religious organizations such as the Knights of Columbus or religiously-owned nonprofits such as Catholic Charities if they provide services to the general public or rent space to individuals or groups outside of their faith.

According to the archdiocese, six prominent legal scholars including Prof. Robin Fretwell Wilson of Washington & Lee University have independently submitted a letter to City Council Chairman detailing serious religious freedom problems with the legislation.

“They note that religious organizations are at risk of lawsuits if, for example, they decline to offer their facilities to same sex couples or to limit married student housing to couples of the opposite sex,” the archdiocese said in a press release.

Other risks for religious organizations and individuals who cannot recognize same-sex “marriages” include the denial of access to government contracts and access to government facilities, such as leases. Licenses for objecting doctors and social workers could be revoked while child care licenses could be denied.

The proposed law could also allow lawsuits against those who do not provide same-sex benefits to employees and could result in the revocation of the accreditation of religious colleges.

“This would have serious implications in the District of Columbia, where Catholic Charities provides foster care and adoption services for nearly 100 children every year as well as shelter every night for nearly one in three of the city’s homeless men, women and children under contracts with the city, which cannot provide these services itself as efficiently and cost effectively,” the Archdiocese of Washington said.

“Every year, Catholic Charities provides shelter, food, counseling, medical and legal assistance, and more to 68,000 people in the District of Columbia regardless of their faith,” explained Ed Orzechowski, president and CEO of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington. “If the Council passes this bill as written, these programs are at risk along with nearly 100 different parish social ministry programs, all of the other ministries operated by the Catholic Church and even meeting space for groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous, Scouts and neighborhood organizations who partner with churches.”

The lack of an adequate exemption, the archdiocese said, would require religious organizations and individuals to choose “between exercising their faith and following the law.” This would cause “division and dissatisfaction” among the citizens of D.C., it warned.

Now the church is using scare tactics in its battle to attack the bill.

[fredv3b]

This is the sort of statement that makes my blood boil.

To continue the archdiocese’s service to the poor of the District of Columbia, the archdiocese testified, a “meaningful” religious exemption is needed to ensure that the government “will not suppress its religious exercise in such a way.”

In its support, the archdiocese cited a legal analysis of the bill by the Williams & Connolly law firm, which said the expected effect of the bill would put the archdiocese in an “untenable” position under the First Amendment unless religious conscience protections are expanded.

There is no real need for a 'meaningful' religious exemption. Any attempt to use the law which would prohibit the free excersise of the Catholic religion would clearly violate the US Federal Constitution

“The District will effectively force the Archdiocese either to violate the law or to abandon forms of religious practice – care for the poor, hungry and homeless – that are fundamental to the practice of Catholic social teaching,” the law firm commented.

What are they saying? The would help the poor, hungry and homeless even if they were in a gay relationship but not a gay marriage?

In addition to overturning the definition of marriage, the legislation has no exemptions for churches, religious organizations such as the Knights of Columbus or religiously-owned nonprofits such as Catholic Charities if they provide services to the general public or rent space to individuals or groups outside of their faith.

The Catholic church does not accept divorce, if a Catholic organisation provides services, of one form or another, to the general public it has to provide them equally to divorcees who remarry. The church accepts this without complaint, suddenly if there is gay marriage religious organisations require a large dispensation from observing the law.

According to the archdiocese, six prominent legal scholars including Prof. Robin Fretwell Wilson of Washington & Lee University have independently submitted a letter to City Council Chairman detailing serious religious freedom problems with the legislation.

“They note that religious organizations are at risk of lawsuits if, for example, they decline to offer their facilities to same sex couples or to limit married student housing to couples of the opposite sex,” the archdiocese said in a press release.

If the Catholic Church doesn't require couples to be full adherents to the Catholic religion, no contraception, etc., why should it be able to discriminate between non-adherents.

Other risks for religious organizations and individuals who cannot recognize same-sex “marriages” include the denial of access to government contracts and access to government facilities, such as leases. Licenses for objecting doctors and social workers could be revoked while child care licenses could be denied.

Many people objected to Brittany Spears's 55 hour marriage, but we all had to recognise it. If someone had said the law should have stopped her marrying to save the rest of the nation from having to recognise the marriage, they would have been laughed out of the room.

The lack of an adequate exemption, the archdiocese said, would require religious organizations and individuals to choose “between exercising their faith and following the law.” This would cause “division and dissatisfaction” among the citizens of D.C., it warned.

Basically, what they are saying is that nothing that Catholics object to should be part of the law. There religious dogma should have a veto on proposed laws.

[Rychard the Lionheart]

UAB offers health coverage to same-sex partners

By Stan Diel -- The Birmingham News
October 22, 2009

The University of Alabama at Birmingham will extend health insurance benefits to same-sex partners beginning Jan. 1 in a move officials said was designed in part to help it compete with top medical schools when recruiting faculty.

Faculty and staff were able to enroll same-sex partners and their children in medical, dental and vision plans for the first time earlier this month, for coverage beginning in the new year. The move makes UAB the first of the big three universities in Alabama to offer domestic partner benefits to staff and faculty. Neither the University of Alabama nor Auburn University offer such benefits, though UA is studying the issue, spokespersons for those schools said.

Dale Turnbough, a UAB spokeswoman, said the change was made "to create a positive, supportive and diverse work environment," and to help the school compete for new faculty with other National Institute of Health-funded medical schools. Most top medical schools, including Vanderbilt, Duke and Johns Hopkins offer such benefits, she said.

"We believe this change will help us remain competitive," she said.

The expansion of benefits to domestic partners comes several months after the release of a UAB film student's documentary about the impact of the lack of benefits on the university. In the film "One Closed Door After Another" UAB faculty members and employees said the school was losing top talent, or not getting the opportunity to seriously recruit top talent, because competing schools offered same-sex partners health coverage. They also discussed how the lack of coverage for their partners affected their own lives.


The Federal government and many US states are now waking up to the fact that the private section is offering better employment packages for same sex partnerships. This is going to force them to recognise same sex partnerships whether they like it or not, just to keep the staff they have and for future recruitment. The next move will be The Respect for Marriage Act, it will come but there is still a long road to travel.

[Mr.Dude]

The funniest thing happened a few weeks ago at my college campus. Two very hot Mormon guys were handing out literature, so to make them super uncomfortable I hit on one of them. The other picked up on it and immediately packed up and left, but the guy I was hitting on winked at me and grabbed my ass as he left. To say I was left speechless is an understatement.

Aha that is truly fantastic. A bi girl I know who's mom is a mormon had some missionaries visit her and they tried to relate to her by saying something like "You know, Jesus is kind of like a zombie...cool isnt it?"

Mormon institutions tend to irritate me but I know alot of mormons and theyre as decent folk as any, but the policies of their church are terrible. Missionaries are usually pretty cute though so I guess that works. Really I have to wonder how much backstage fillandering goes on amongst them as it seems uptight celibate sort of religious orders tend to unintentionally encourage messing about.

As to the laws on marriage I think we'll see a Federal action which will just send all the republican state's rights fellows into a seething foaming rage and whip them into frenzy like nothing before. Should be a spectacle. From my perspective Im just as concerned about DADT and the military's policies on us but it seems like DADT is swift on its way out the door so thats good.

[fredv3b]

The Mormons used to believe in not mixing religion and politics, such a pity they no longer do.

[marshlander]

The Mormons used to believe in not mixing religion and politics, such a pity they no longer do.

Really? When was that, Fred? Joseph Smith was very much mixed up in politics in the 1840s.

[fredv3b]

Really? When was that, Fred? Joseph Smith was very much mixed up in politics in the 1840s.

Me thought that the Mormon church tended to stand back from politics for most of the first half of the twentieth century, or was I wrong about that? (I will bow to your superior knowledge of the Mormons).