Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Gay Activists Sue to Overturn Will of People

Once again same-sex "marriage" activists seek to thwart the will of the people. As we said this morning, they have maintained their perfect record: zero wins whenever the people have a chance to have they say. Now they are arguing that yesterday's resounding victory for marriage is irrelevant.

It's hardly newsworthy except inasmuch as it is another example of the narcissistic contempt they feel for the common good and for this funny comment by Andrew Pugno, the General Counsel for "Protect Marriage--Yes on 8":

"The ACLU/Equality California lawsuit is completely lacking in merit. It is as if their campaign just spent $40 million on a losing campaign opposing something they now say is a legal nullity."

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

From the AP:

"Obama had a nuanced position on the issue, saying he opposes gay marriage while also speaking out against Proposition 8."

Oh, is that what you call it?! Having contradictory positions is "nuanced"??? It's a wonder conservatives can get anything through with the press so against them.

Anonymous said...

I am tired of the bigotry of narrow minded "Catholics" like you. It is frightening to see how the definition of Catholic, understood as universal, that which encompasses everything and EVERYONE, is being mutilated by your fear and hate towards a particular group of people. I am deeply, deeply sorry for the anger that your soul holds.

Francis Salmeri said...

The will of the people has been expressed to invalidate the marriages and legal standing and dignity of gay and lesbian families. The will of the people is expressed in its preference for religious doctrine and ideology over the value of the lives and well being of a minority of families in California.

The utter disregard for our lives is stunning. The Catholic supported stripping us of our right to marriage. The Catholic Church is unable to accept that gay and lesbian people are equal citizens under the California Constitution and saw fit to have our constitution changed so it reflects Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church expressed it utter disregard for the lives, the dignity and the families of gay and lesbian people.
The pain, suffering and threat to our families is the consequence.

Fr. John Malloy's snarky tone in the face of such suffering reflects his limitations to embrace gay and lesbian people with compassion and dignity. His battle against gay people spans many decades and betrays an inability for him to come to peaceful resolution with these issues in his soul and fuels his lack of regard for us.

Francis Salmeri

fred said...

To Anonymous:

Yes, Catholic means universal; encompassing everyone at all times. But it calls for conversion to Jesus Christ and living in his grace - conforming our lives to his will and his teaching. All are called - to conversion.

Anonymous said...

The common good? The truth is that right wing "Catholics" like you, father, would rather that every gay kid killed himself at 13.

Your support of Proposition 8 tells such adolescents that they have no future. You're worse than a child molester.

Francis Salmeri said...

I left the Catholic Church at age 30. At that time I gained enough self esteem to refuse to allow myself to remain in abusive relationships. When your own church describes you as intrinsically evil and diminishes the quality of your love to an aberration, that rebuke is religious abuse. It was too painful for me to remain.

That this kind of abuse continues to rain down on Catholics who are gay and lesbian, and on Catholic children who will be gay and lesbian, speaks directly to darkened spirituality which has bloodied the Catholic Church throughout history. If this were an earlier time I'm certain the Church would be executing us after torturing us. Today it sought and succeeded in stripping us of our right to marry.

The Catholic Church has injected itself in politics by actively campaigning to overturn the CA Supreme Court ruling guaranteeing gay and lesbian people the equal right to marry. This is a violation of the spirit of the separation of church and state. The Church did not have to do this. As a consequence it has fueled an attack on the families of gay and lesbian people and fueled deep suffering and divisions among Californians.

That the Catholic Church saw fit to judge the marriages and families of thousands of Californians as insignificant and not deserving of legal protections or human dignity enjoyed by heterosexuals speaks volumes about its spiritual arrogance and its desire to exert greater and greater influence into politics. But most concerning in its disregard for the lives and families of gay and lesbian people and for the suffering it now has inflicted on us is the Church's spiritual darkness demonstrated throughout history and more recently in rampant child molestation and its attempted cover up and now this.

If the Catholic Church were considered parents, one would be tyrannical and abusive, much like a dry alcoholic who has not embraced recovery. The other parent would be the nurturing and healing, demonstrating unconditional love. Until the Church's tyrannical and darker side is transformed the Church will never flower as a force for healing the world and instead will continue to cause division and strife in the world.

Francis Salmeri

Anonymous said...

Narcissism is right. The Church and people of California wisely vote to defend natural marriage, the foundational societal institution, and all we hear from commentators is "OUR rights, OUR this, OUR that..."

Thank heaven for the clearheded people of California (same-sex attracted and otherwise)who looked beyond their own desires and saw, that maybe, just maybe, there is something unique about the unity of the two halves of the human species, and that all children (including same-sex attracted children) have a fundamental right to a mother AND a father. That's voting for the common good.

Gibbons in SF

Francis Salmeri said...

Dear Gibbons in SF, is that all you heard in these posts is a narcissistic expression of Our this or Our that? Have you no capacity for empathy? Does not the pain you have caused us challenge you to reconsider even a little? Doesn't that fact that we have families that are now at legal risk mean anything to you beyond your ideology?

In your world all children would have a mother and father. But that is not the reality. There are many gay and lesbian families with children. There are many single parent families. There are many, far too many children without any parent. In my world all children would have loving parents. But you and your Church actively pursued an ideology that all children should have a mother and a father. You claim that is the common good. But you have just excluded many families from the common good causing great suffering and legal risk. In fact you have gone against the Supreme Court's ruling which included our families into the common good. So now what? Will you try to take away our children? And would that be part of your plan for the common good? What will you do now to our families that you've just put at risk and to whom you've caused great suffering?

You mention that even some homosexuals support your definition of marriage. This does not surprise me. Did you know that some gay and lesbian children kill themselves because they are taught by the people they love and trust that they are evil and sick? So what you say does not surprise me, but instead speaks directly to heart of how deeply the Catholic Church has wounded us, all in the name of ideology.

So yes, there are some homosexuals who have voted for the Proposition and it causes me great pain to have some understanding of how they may feel. You must know that there were millions of heterosexuals, many Catholics too, about a third of Catholics who voted, who believed that what you were doing was wrong and voted against it?

You and the Catholic Church value ideology over people's lives. I value the lives of people over ideology. You may call that narcissism valued over the common good. But in my world the common good is made up of people and the reality of their lives and how we can all best live together in a better world. For you, the ideology defines how people should live. For you, the common good is an idealized fulfillment of that ideology. But what of the lives of the people who live outside of your ideology and your narrow definition of what the common good is? You and the Church exclude us from the common good, you label us as not worthy of the human dignity you enjoy. You exclude us and through history your Church has done great evil in its crusade to exclude all who do not live and believe according to Church ideology. And it goes on, Gibbons in SF, it goes on!

Francis Salmeri

Anonymous said...

Mr. Salmeri,

No, I don’t see ONLY narcissism, but I see a lot. This is expressed through the willingness to use courts to overturn the right of the people of self-government, which happened in California when the Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22, and which some same-sex marriage activists hope happens again with Proposition 8. It also has happened in Massachusetts, where the legislature refused to even allow a similar amendment on the ballot, despite a record number of petitions. The denial of the people’s right to self government is a denial of the common good; when this is attempted by a small percentage of the population to further their own personal desires, yes, I call it narcissism.

Let me ask you two questions:

1) Would you support prohibiting the recognition polygamous of relationships as marriage? If so, why?

2) If a same sex couple and a heterosexual couple are each raising a child, and those two couples are exactly equal in terms of financial stability, emotional stability, intellectual stimulation, care for the child’s well-being, and the sharing of a mutually loving relationship, does one couple provides the child a better home and upbringing?

Gibbons in SF

Francis Salmeri said...

Dear Gibbons in SF,

Your need to minimize and demean my expressions of pain in the wake of the passing of prop 8 and my struggle to save my marriage to the man I love and have committed my life to as narcissistic is insulting to me, and says more about you. Before the Supreme Court overturned the ban on inter-racial marriage a huge majority were against it. There were religious citations from the Bible and people talked about the children. What about the children who would be of mixed race? And now the President of the United States is a man of mixed race! In your thinking you would label the struggle of the couple who fought for their right to marry as narcissistic. In my view they struggled for what they believed was right. By calling that narcissism you seek to justify your vote to take away the rights of gay and lesbian people to marry, causing us great suffering and great division and strife among neighbors and in communities throughout our state. They are just a bunch of bleating narcissists! Maybe you misspoke?

I will not answer your first question. I will not indulge you in distractions from your need to take away my right to marry! The issue is the legal recognition of same sex marriage in our state and please, kindly stick to that.

Your second question though goes right to the heart of your ideology. Yours and the Catholic Church's need to judge others who are different as inferior. Would you label one religion as better than another? As a child I was taught that the Catholic Church is the one true church and that other religions were inferior. Actually i was taught that people from other religions would go to hell after they died.

It is the ideology which justifies discrimination, that some people are inferior and others better which has been taken to extremes in the punishment, repression, even torture and extermination. It is now the justification to remove the marriage rights of gay and lesbian people. It is an ideology which speaks to our lower angels.

This is the ideology that is reflected in your second question. To answer your question directly: either child is deeply fortunate to have a loving and stable family. And you, Gibbons in SF, have just voted and succeeded in removing the legal sanctions of one of those families! Now you tell me, what would you say to that family and to the children that could ever justify what you have done! I look forward to your answer.

Francis Salmeri

Anonymous said...

Mr. Salmieri,

You avoid both questions, and I don't blame you. To the first you respond:

"I will not answer your first question. I will not indulge you in distractions from your need to take away my right to marry! The issue is the legal recognition of same sex marriage in our state and please, kindly stick to that."

No, Mr. Salmieri, it's not. The issue is the preservation of natural marriage--which can ONLY be between one man and one woman. Natural marriage can be attacked in a number of ways: by redefining marriage to include same-sex couples or polygamous relationships or polyandrous relationships. You won't answer the question because to do so you would either have to admit that 1) society does have the right to define what is marriage (which it did on November 4); or 2)you are fine with polygamous/polyandrous relationships being defined as marriage.

Secondly, you are unwilling to admit that, all other things being equal, it is better for a child to grow up with a mother and a father than with two "mothers" or two "fathers." That is simply not a reasonable position, and it entails a denial of a child's fundamental right to both a mother and a father.

Gibbons in SF

Francis Salmeri said...

No, Gibbons of SF. The issue is not about natural marriage. Each time you bring up new twist. Before polagamy it was narcissism. And how in your world does polagamy relate to natural marriage? And why should I care and how does that relate again to you and the Catholic Church taking away my right to marry?

I answered your second question with an analysis of your ideology and of yours and the Catholic Church's need or obsession to declare through doctrine that some people are inferior. It goes against my spiritual integrity to make such judgments of other people.

Natural marriage? Natural marriage sounds like straight or heterosexual marriage. Why suddenly call it natural marriage? But here again is your need to put other people's marriages down by inferring that other marriages are unnatural. Clevah! Very clevah, but really, isn't this more of the same? I can't comprehend even inferring that someone's relationship is unnatural. But for argument's sake, so what? Does that give you sanction to remove their civil rights and create a whole new classification of inferior people?

But I want to talk about what is real, about are the very real human and civil right to marry, granted to same sex couples by the CA Supreme Court, which you and the Catholic Church saw fit to take away. There are real consequences to taking away our rights. Call them natural consequences, if you will, and the real people and real institutions that now have to answer for what they have done.

You seem unable or unwilling to respond to my question about what you would say to the family whose legal rights you just took away by removing the couple's status as married.

Or maybe your response to the family and that family's children is simply they do not have a natural marriage and therefore the marriage is invalid and the children... Little Bobby, your two mommies have an unnatural marriage. You should have a mother and a father. Your family Little Bobby is defective so I have helped to remedy that and your two mommies will never be married to each other again.

Francis Salmeri

Anonymous said...

Mr. Salmieri,

Since you ask, here's narcissism, and I quote from your post of 10:19AM:

"I will not answer your first question. I will not indulge you in distractions from your need to take away my right to marry!"

The defense of natural marriage is a distraction? The redefinition of society's foundational institution is a distraction?

Mr. Salmieri, for you it seems to be all about your personal "rights." The people of the state thought about that argument, and decided your "rights," (actually only the counterfeit "right" to have a same-sex relationship recognized as a "marriage," which was dreamed up by a court's 4-3 ruling about 6 months ago), do not outweigh other issues. That's a rational, considered judgement. Its concern is not with same-sex "marriage," but with the defense of marriage, period.

The relevance of polygamy & polyandry to a Constitutional Amendment that says "Only marriage between A MAN and A WOMAN is valid or recognized in California" is obvious, and you are only pretending not to understand it.

You also write:

"You seem unable or unwilling to respond to my question about what you would say to the family whose legal rights you just took away by removing the couple's status as married."

Not at all. I'd say I'm sorry you were disappointed. It's unfortunate that a foolish Court ruled in such an irresponsible way that such disappointment became inevitable.

Finally, yes, I absolutely agree with your statement that little Bobby should have a mother and a father. Every child, and that includes every gay child, has a fundamental right to a mother and a father.

Gibbons in SF