<a href='http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/09/18/national2324EDT0649.DTL' target='_blank'>Louisiana voters approve same-sex marriage amendment; opponents promise court challenge </a>

John Kerry says Same Sex Marriage is a state issue, but just as I have said Gay "Activists" will never let individual states decide. This is why "W's" proposed constitutional amendment is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY! First Gay Activists and Activist Judges will attack states and force them to acknowledge gay marriage, then they will go after churches. They will go after churches on their tax-exempt status, perform gay weddings at your church or lose your tax-exempt status.

This is far more serious than the abortion issue as most Pro-Abortion activists stop short of attacking churches or denominations. Most Gay Activists won’t stop until they have forced all churches and denominations to accept them or lose their tax-exempt status.

There is no more intolerant group than the gay rights activists who define anyone that is against gay rights as a hate monger.

THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:This is why "W's" proposed constitutional amendment is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY!&nbsp; First Gay Activists and Activist Judges will attack states and force them to acknowledge gay marriage, then they will go after churches.&nbsp; They will go after churches on their tax-exempt status, perform gay weddings at your church or lose your tax-exempt status.

Give me a break!! The church will never be forced to recognize same-sex marriages. Geez - some Catholic churches will disallow a Catholic and a Protestant to marry in their church, but you think they'll be forced into this?

It has to do with rights - there are no inherent rights with your marriage being recognized by the church versus solely by the state.

This is where the name-calling rule is difficult. What freaking century do you live in?

Roberto Gato Wrote:

THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:This is why "W's" proposed constitutional amendment is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY!  First Gay Activists and Activist Judges will attack states and force them to acknowledge gay marriage, then they will go after churches.  They will go after churches on their tax-exempt status, perform gay weddings at your church or lose your tax-exempt status.

Give me a break!! The church will never be forced to recognize same-sex marriages. Geez - some Catholic churches will disallow a Catholic and a Protestant to marry in their church, but you think they'll be forced into this?

Give me a break. Your failure to research public policy is abhorant. Your failures at logic are typical, but your lack of real research is deplorable. First ammendment rights are being trampled...all in the name of "tolerance". Talk about double-standards and bigotry!

Quote:California Bill Would Force Catholic Hospitals Into Abortion

SACRAMENTO (CWNews.com) - Two California Assembly members have proposed a new state law that would force Catholic hospitals either to provide abortions or referral services to abortionists.

The bill, proposed by Democrats Sheila Kuehl and Helen Thomson, was passed by the Assembly Appropriations Committee and is now due for floor debate and vote. The committee said in its analysis, as an example of implementation, would ban "the recent merger in Los Angeles between Queen of Angels Hospital and Tenet Healthcare, where Tenet, a non-religious provider, agreed to continue the ban [instituted by Queen of Angels] on reproductive health services [i.e., abortions] for the next 20 years."

The California Public Policy Foundation said the bill would also punish Catholic health care providers "who dissent from the authors' pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality ideology by barring them from publicly-funded health programs and by making construction loans and loan insurance more difficult to obtain." The group quotes a source in its Capitol Watch newsletter who said, "The bill mandates discrimination based on religious belief against Catholics and anyone who disagrees with its authors' narrow moral code."

<a href='http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=10340' target='_blank'>The reference.</a>

DrTorch Wrote:

Roberto Gato Wrote:

THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:This is why "W's" proposed constitutional amendment is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY!  First Gay Activists and Activist Judges will attack states and force them to acknowledge gay marriage, then they will go after churches.  They will go after churches on their tax-exempt status, perform gay weddings at your church or lose your tax-exempt status.

Give me a break!! The church will never be forced to recognize same-sex marriages. Geez - some Catholic churches will disallow a Catholic and a Protestant to marry in their church, but you think they'll be forced into this?

Give me a break. Your failure to research public policy is abhorant. Your failures at logic are typical, but your lack of real research is deplorable. First ammendment rights are being trampled...all in the name of "tolerance". Talk about double-standards and bigotry!

Quote:California Bill Would Force Catholic Hospitals Into Abortion

SACRAMENTO (CWNews.com) - Two California Assembly members have proposed a new state law that would force Catholic hospitals either to provide abortions or referral services to abortionists.

The bill, proposed by Democrats Sheila Kuehl and Helen Thomson, was passed by the Assembly Appropriations Committee and is now due for floor debate and vote. The committee said in its analysis, as an example of implementation, would ban "the recent merger in Los Angeles between Queen of Angels Hospital and Tenet Healthcare, where Tenet, a non-religious provider, agreed to continue the ban [instituted by Queen of Angels] on reproductive health services [i.e., abortions] for the next 20 years."

The California Public Policy Foundation said the bill would also punish Catholic health care providers "who dissent from the authors' pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality ideology by barring them from publicly-funded health programs and by making construction loans and loan insurance more difficult to obtain." The group quotes a source in its Capitol Watch newsletter who said, "The bill mandates discrimination based on religious belief against Catholics and anyone who disagrees with its authors' narrow moral code."

<a href='http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=10340' target='_blank'>The reference.</a>

Some scientists now believe that marriage and abortion are somewhat different.

If a hospital receives public money or is part of publicly funded health programs, then they should perform (or refer, I think I read that in there too) requested medical procedures.

They CAN'T go after churches BECAUSE they don't get public money. It will never happen if the churches don't want it.

Your kneejerk reaction (and let's face it, thinly veiled namecalling) is abhorrent, deplorable, typical, and...oh, Christ, take a valium. *

*no name calling

Roberto Gato Wrote:George Bush - THE candidate for socially retarded half-wits and religious freaks.

Vote Kerry/Edwards!!!

(unless you're a socially retarded half-wit or religious freak)

I am not a religius freak so I must be a socially retarded half-wit.

FU :chair:

Typical Democrat...."if you're not a democrat you're stupid"

jw

That was placed in there by a moderator. It replaced something he said, hence, "edited by TJRocket".

My apologies - I digress and have edited my post. :rolleyes:
jw

tigerjoe Wrote:My apologies - I digress and have edited my post. :rolleyes:
jw

No worries; I can understand your anger at his signature though.

tigerjoe Wrote:

Roberto Gato Wrote:George Bush - THE candidate for socially retarded half-wits and religious freaks.

Vote Kerry/Edwards!!!

(unless you're a socially retarded half-wit or religious freak)

I am not a religius freak so I must be a socially retarded half-wit.

FU :chair:

Typical Democrat...."if you're not a democrat you're stupid"

jw

I'm an independent, and my signature does not have the word republican or democrat anywhere in it.

Might I lean a bit left? Perhaps, but I hate labels. If John McCain were the Republican candidate (admittedly a very moderate Rep), I'd have a much tougher decision.

Had he been the candidate in 2000, which he should have been before the most evil political attack machine EVER went into action, I would have had a very tough decision then as well. I vote for the person, not the party.

And I believe Bush is every bit as bad as the worst words people say about him.