And so it came to pass that so-called same sex marriage was pushed very hard in a certain State of the US. This State is very solidly in the hands of the Democrats, and might have been considered a reasonably safe bet. This State is also the adoptive one of the current President, who has been lovingly nurtured and protected by the local – very corrupted, as even we in Europe know – political and party machine in order to become the poster boy of a brave new world without God or shame, and recently the first honorary “Gay President” in the Land.
This new satanic measure had already made it through the Senate, which – on St Valentine's day, no less – approved the measure amidst the excited screeches of the local perverts. One would have been justified in thinking the measure would have good cards in the lower chamber.
Alas for the perverts, it wasn't to be, at least for now. The measure failed – please read this twice – to even gather enough support for a vote to be called in the first place. This, notwithstanding the intervention of the above-mentioned Gay President, who travelled to Illinois to say please, please go to hell with me.
Now let us reflect on this: the intervention of the Gay President was not even enough to allow for a vote, let alone a victory. Decidedly, Presidents are not what they used to be.
Between the lines, you get even more interesting information: when many Democrat legislators ask for more time to talk to their constituents, it means they are terrified of voting in favour of the measure and be massacred as a result; this, notwithstanding the party pressure, which must have been absolutely massive if even the President intervened. It must also be noted the black religious community has erected a solid wall against the measure, and good luck to the “Black President” on that. Thirdly, the measure had been already amended with the usual fake “protections” only extended to explicitly religious institutions, but this was evidently not nearly enough to avoid its demise.
It is very sad to see the once so celebrated heathen messiah having so little influence on his own people, in his own home turf. Sad for Democrats, I mean. We obviously do not know how this will go on, and one can be sure the minions of Satan will continue their effort against basic decency and Christian morality; but one cannot avoid noticing that, whatever the decision of the Supreme Court, the opposition to heathenism is getting more determined and organised as religious communities continue their work on the ground and oppose the stupid “human rights” mantra of the perverts.
Perversion has no rights. Those who want to see perversion as the founding principle of their community only need to be a little patient, and they will find their wish fulfilled beyond their expectation.
From the very long – and very fitting – letter #80 of Bishop Fellay to Friends and Benefactors: (emphases mine)
We beg Heaven and the authorities of the Church, in particular the new Supreme Pontiff, Pope Francis, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Peter, not to allow souls to perish because they no longer learn sound doctrine, the revealed deposit of the faith, without which no one can be saved, no one can please God.
What good is it to devote oneself to serving people if one hides from them what is essential, the purpose and the meaning of their life, and the seriousness of sin that turns them away from it? Works of charity done for the poor, the needy, the infirm, and the sick have always been a true concern for the Church, and we must not excuse ourselves from it, but if it becomes merely man-centered philanthropy, then the Church is no longer carrying out her mission, she is no longer leading souls to God, which can really be done only by supernatural means: faith, hope, charity and grace. And therefore by denouncing anything that is opposed to them: errors against faith and morality. Because if people sin, for want of that denunciation, they are damned for eternity. The Church’s reason for being is to save them and to help them avoid the misfortune of their eternal perdition.
“Mundabor”, the teacher would have said at school, “what does the author want to say”?
I am not at school anymore, but I think I know what I would answer: the author wants to say that there has been enough talk of simplicity, black shoes, iron crosses, and Argentinian newsagents, whilst the real issues continue to be happily ignored.
One month on, the silence of the new Pope concerning the new, exploding phenomenon of pro-homosexual legislation is deafening; but Heavens, we know everything about how he doesn’t like Papal Apartments, red shoes, mozzettas, or Roman cobblers.
The SSPX has certainly been prudent for a while, waiting to see how they can picture this Pontiff before speaking publicly.
Their decision to move to an open appeal clearly means they consider his silence as scandalous. Please read Bishop Fellay’s words again. They are clear enough.
Pope Francis has not justified the worst fears (up to now, at least), and has moved rather well on a couple of occasions (the LCWR comes to mind; actually nothing else of consequence comes to mind… one good homily here, one good idea there, things like that); but he has also lived dramatic weeks for world Christianity whilst doing basically nothing, or whilst letting us know how sensitive he is to his newsagent down in Buenos Aires.
God knows how much the French Catholics would have appreciated strong words of the Pontiff concerning the abomination of sodomy; it would have given – and would still give – the movement great strenght for the years of fight in front of them.
Instead, we haven’t heard one word. Not one.
I am sick and tired already to try to see Francis through Benedict. I see that Benedict was indecisive enough, and Francis can talk rather refreshingly if he wants, but he avoids to do it when it means grating the masses whose approval he is so sedulously seeking. Whilst the French members of parliament send the country’s soul to hell, he entertains us with the evil of gossiping.
Mozzetta or no Mozzetta, this is not good enough; this is no longer carrying on the Church’s mission, and allowing souls to perish.
It is a paradox that we had a Pope who saw the necessity of war but didn’t have the nerve to lead us into it; and we now have a Pope who probably has the strenght of character to lead us into any war he chooses, but seems not to think the unprecedented disintegration of the Christian fabric of the West is worth a war in the first place.
But hey, we know all about his cobbler.
The poison pill reports in the usual whining way an Argentinian priest suspended in 2010 for his support for so-called “gay marriage” has now been defrocked.
Makes sense, as if one supports so-called gay marriages one can’t call himself a Christian, let alone a Catholic priest.
I hope the chap is thrown on the road without a penny to live on (McDonald’s is hiring: a very honest job), but frankly I doubt it. He will, very probably, continue to scrounge at the expense of the Faithful of the Church whose enemy he is.
The apostate complains saying “thirty years of service to God’s people mean nothing”. One has the impression the years of service to God’s people have been rather zero.
Please reflect it isn’t really thinkable this man would have been defrocked if he had repented. Three years is a long time. This must be a very obdurate one. At this point, one must wonder about his own so-called “orientation”, too.
The Church must get rid of these people.
The lady above (starting from 2:00) has the right attitude…
Archbishop Vigneron of Detroit has stated something which I find utterly obvious but that in these troubles is worth shouting from the rooftops: of course a person who says himself a Catholic and goes to Mass but support sexual perversion commits a sacrilege if he attempts to receive communion.
You either side with the Sodomites, or with the exterminating angel. You can’t side with both.
Predictably, a rather well-known idiot of the Diocese, the former auxiliary bishop Gumbleton, being openly heretical, has begged to publicly disagree.
Gumbleton is a troubling – and troubled – personality in more than one ways. A rabid pacifist (pacifism is also not Catholic), the man has in the past been a querulous advocate of “gay rights” even within the Church, and thinks “conscience” is the new religion. He might not be homosexual, but he certainly doesn’t do anything to dispel the impression.
Bishop Emeritus Gumbleton now makes a rather pathetic attempt to move us to tears with the following words:
“Husband, wife, raised seven children, Catholics all their lives, they’re in their eighties now, and the mother says to me, you know I can’t go to communion anymore,” […] “They’re hurt and she’s crying because we can’t go communion and that means so much to them.”
She is crying, isn’t she? Ah well then…
Seriously, the old woman has all reasons to cry: the tragedy of a son very probably bent for damnation is the first very valid reason, and her not only helping him to go there and actively putting her soul in grave danger is another extremely fitting one.
Does this bother the old woman? Of course not! She cries because she can’t receive communion!
Bishop Gumbleton could have said to her that she were a decent Catholic she could help both her husband and her son by praying that they may learn to accept Catholic truth and live it in their life. Instead, he (the retired bishop) chooses to be accessory to the sin of both.
Interestingly, the simple fact that the old woman is allowed to validly receive communion if she only confesses and accepts Catholic teaching does not seem to be part of the equation, either for the woman or the bishop. Disobedience is a given, its consequences hurt them oh so much. Strange, nicht wahr?
Thankfully, Gumbleton isn’t representative of a US bishop; not even one of the wrong kind.
My former post about Gumbleton (linked above) ended with the following lines:
Bishop Gumbleton should be either laicized or ordered to lock himself in a monastery for the rest of his days to clear his head and to expiate his sins. He needs our prayer but he needs to be severely and publicly punished, too. The times in which Bishops could confuse the minds of the simpler Catholics with their heresies and remain unpunished should now slowly but surely come to an end.
A Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel is surely in order here.
His latest utterances show nothing has changed in him, and therefore also in the validity of the suggestion.
There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. And being a whining old woman – or a stupid old bishop – isn’t going to help much.
It appears increasingly more probable the tenancy agreement of David “call me gay” Cameron for the upper floor of 10 Downing Street might be the object of a notice of eviction before long.
Whilst we were all focusing on the upcoming Conclave, the discontent within what once had some reason to call itself “Conservative Party” kept growing, as the humiliating defeat in Eastleigh was clear evidence the PM has no clothes, but a pink tutu at the most…
In the last days, more devastating news have reached our rainbow heroes at and around Number 10. An internal poll indicates 7% of the party basis (no, it's not a typo) believes the Chameleon will survive the 2015 General Elections. Now, I do understand these polls must be taken with a pinch of salt, but 7% reminds one of the film “The Downfall”…
Predictably, knives are now being sharpened like it's nobody's business…
Yesterday (Sunday) there was a speech of Theresa May which, whilst still paying lip service to Cameron, was a clear programmatic platform to present a possible alternative leadership.
Today another Tory heavyweight, Liam Fox, heavily criticises Osborne and Cameron “posh Labour” economic policy, calling for real reductions in taxing and spending rather than the actual policy largely made of posturing and brutal cost reductions…. all scheduled for after the 2015 elections.
Then there is the former grandee Michael Portillo, going on record with the encouraging statement it's improbable the Party will kick Cameron out before the election, rather after the defeat in 2015….
Then there is the ascent of the UKIP; who, whilst very imperfect – they also pander to the LGBT crowd like a bunch of old trollops outside the saloon – are simply depriving the Tories of the last dreams of re-election; so much so, that the diaspora of conservative votes has now roused the appetite of the Lib-Dems in marginal yellow-against-blue constituencies.
Add to all this the death in the womb of the proposed changes in the constituency boundaries – already a heavy blow for the Chameleon – and you will understand how truly, truly desperate the situation is.
Behind all this, explicitly mentioned by many and implicitly meant by all, is Cameron's unconscionable policy on sexual perversion, in the meantime so universally refused from the party (behind a thin facade) and the voters (much more openly) as to let one believe Cameron wants to put the party on a train to Switzerland, to put everyone (himself included) in a “Dignitas” clinic. I am not sorry to say the probability only he and a couple of his will be put on the train is far higher.
What other bad news can there be for the Prime Minister? Hhmmm, let us see… what about the UKIP making clear that Cameron's head on a tray is the precondition for every talk of an alliance in 2015? Or perhaps the insisted rumours of a motion of non confidence might be of interested for the PM?
I might be wrong, but I have the strong impression Cameron's PC, pink, rainbow, all things to all people, “gay marriage is conservative” boat is sinking fast, and no one will be willing to save the captain.
Cameron has defied the very soul of the party – and of that part of he Country where its real power base lies – to play the enlightened socialite, or more probably to get some sex from his left-leaning, champagne-progressivist wife. It serves him right.
The price of a virtuous wife is far above rubies, says more or less the Bible; but the Camerons don't read the bible, so they were informed too late. What the bible does not say, is that a Prime Minister willing to prostitute himself, his party and Christian values to be in the grace of his wife marches towards political ruin in this life, and he'll in the next.
I received this question, an ideal starting starting point, from the always very perceptive Catocon:
where do Monti and this centrist coalition stand on the *really* important issues, that is, abortion, homosexual “marriage”, secularism etc…? My impression has been that he is what Europeans call a liberal, that is an economically moderate technocratic statist too timid to confront social issues but (if necessary) always a willing slave of the spirit of modernity. But my knowledge of Italian politics is certainly lacking, so maybe Italian “centrists” are different.
How certain are we that those centrists will not start to “evolve” as it is called in Obama’s language, as “centrists” all over the West inevitably tend to do when the pressure from the media and the established cultural revolution starts to mount?
As I understand the Italian electoral system, the strongest party/coalition is guaranteed a majority of at least 54% in one chamber of parliament and also, on a regional basis, in the Senate, right? Any split between non-leftist coalitions would be utterly disastrous in that case as leftists could win a majority of seats even if they lost the election in terms of the popular vote because of the split in the non-leftist vote between “centrists” and “rightists”. To support any kind of centrist coalition just to avoid endorsing someone like Berlusconi would be utterly irresponsible in this case.
Does not the Church hierarchy, by throwing her weight behind the center coalition, effectively help secure a parliamentary majority for the socialists and communists on the left even if the center does turn out to be relatively solid on the issues that matter most to the Catholic?
In order to give a better idea of how I see things, I will divide the answer in several sections: how the system works, what the Vatican is trying to do and why, and whether we can trust the Catholic parties.
Keep in mind the situation is at the moment extremely fluid and fascinating, with a very mobile electorate. Also keep in mind hardcore Catholics are, for now, slowly dying.
At the Camera there is the majority premium Catocon describes: the strongest coalition gets 340 seats out of 615. It doesn’t matter if the strongest coalition only has, say, 20% of the votes. The coalition with the relative majority gets 340 members, period.
At the Senate there are 20 regions, and 17 of them get a (regional) majority premium. The biggest ones (like Lombardia, Lazio, Campania, Sicilia) are seen as crucial. Again, the premium here is regional, so there are several decks of cards to be distributed.
At the moment the field is divided in four major major camps, again with the situation extremely fluid and changing almost daily.
1. Left wing coalition.
They are the almost sure winner of the majority in the Camera. They will probably ally with the sodocommunists, though they don’t really like them. If the centre is strong (which it might well become) they will lose some parts on their right wing side (this is already happening), which makes the alliance with the sodocommunists the more important to them. The main component of this coalition supports Monti’s agenda, though the extreme left wing of the sodocommunists don’t. This might be a split in the making, with the two allying for the vote and to bag the majority premium, but splitting afterwards as the sodocommies do not support Monti’s austerity program. Together with the sodomites, this grouping is (for now) comfortably in the 30%-35% range. But they have a difficult job as this is the only coalition with divided loyalties concerning Monti and o one can say how many moderate elements will prefer the centre instead now that they have become a very credible alternative.
2. Right wing coalition
This is what is left of the old Berlusconi coalition who won big in 2008, after losing several pieces down the road. The Lega Nord appears not to want an agreement if Berlusconi wants to run as PM, but they would support the alliance is Berlusconi renounces to Prime Ministerial ambitions.
Neither Berlusconi nor the Lega support Monti. This attracts to them a lot of protest votes, but makes them invotabili for that part of the country committed to stop Italy from becoming the next Greece. They have a component of very tough Catholics, but their Catholic credentials aren’t considered the best as Berlusconi would only follow Catholic interests as long as they serve him and would throw his weight on the other side whenever necessary.
This coalition appeared dead in the water only two weeks ago. Berlusconi’s offensive is now causing them to strongly recover. Last time I looked they were given at 20%, trend ascending, even without the Lega. If you ask me, they are going to fish protest votes from Grillo’s voters (see below) like there’s no tomorrow.
Berlusconi has now also announced a strongly Catholic program, in preparation as I write. His aim is to make the Vatican lose credibility and rally around him the Catholic voices. Brilliant strategy as always (this man is around one thousand times smarter than the foreign press depicts him), but Berlusconi still has a credibility problem, and no Vatican endorsement.
3. Centre coalition.
This is the fiscally and (in large part) socially conservative coalition created to support Monti’s program. A strong Catholic party (UDC) is the backbone of the coalition, which is integrated by non-Catholic components. The loss of the UDC is what causes the second biggest headache for Berlusconi, the Lega being the first. This coalition gained the open support of the Vatican and is, literally, defying gravity, at 23% yesterday.
They are, as a coalition, purely focused on Monti’s program. But the UDC as a party is the safest bet for Catholics in Italy. The Vatican endorsement will take care that the coalition becomes more and more dominated by the Catholic element, but do not expect them to campaign as a coalition with Catholic values: they are there to support Monti’s economic program and they want their votes, whether Catholic or not. Still, Italians are sophisticated voters and many of the supporters of this coalition will be seen (or officially vote in the Camera; in the Senate there will be a unity list for complex reasons of minimum votes necessary) as staunch Catholics.
4. Grillo (Five Stars)
Grillo is a successful comedian with the hobby of politics; he has been creating a vast consensus around him, based on the usual refusal of professional politics and desire to reinvent the wheel such protest movements always have. He is an enemy of Monti and of everything that is unpopular and difficult to bring to the masses; as always, his message appeals to the dissatisfied, the disaffected, the undecided, the irresponsible and the plain stupid. They used to be very strong months ago, when Berlusconi’s party officially (if begrudgingly) supported Monti, and they were even given as the biggest single party (not coalition) out there. If you ask me, they will have a tough time now that the populist position is covered by the Right Wing coalition. They could end up massacred, or else the second or third biggest coalition. At the moment, no one knows.
Cardinal Bagnasco, the head of the Italian Bishops’ conference, threw Berlusconi out of the window in 2011 and never fished him in again. I have already written on this blog I do not know how wise this was, but their reasoning is that it is for the right-wing coalition to get rid of Berlusconi, rather than for the Vatican to have to support Berlusconi no matter what. In fact, in Italy you are traditionally expected to listen to the Vatican rather than expect them to listen to you, as they are (for now) powerful enough to demand it. Again, Ruini swallowed Berlusconi’s toad for many years, but Bagnasco (a rather tough guy particularly compared to Ruini) has decided that enough is enough and there will be no turning back.
How powerful the Vatican (still) is can be seen in the “centre” coalition now given (last time I looked, that is: yesterday) at an astonishing 23%. Mind, these votes aren’t transferable 1 to 1 to a centre-right coalition, as a good part of the country will never vote Berlusconi anyway. By refusing to support Monti’s course, Berlusconi has chosen the populist and protest vote, but he will emphatically not get the moderate conservative vote; certainly not now that the Vatican says to vote centre, but it is clear many of them would have never voted for Berlusconi anyway.
I think Bagnasco & Co. consider the winning of the majority premium from the left side inevitable, as does the entire country. By supporting Berlusconi (largely seen as the losing camp, and irremediably opposed to the left) there is a concrete risk of leaving the left with two majorities, and a sodomarriage of sort would follow (probably) rather fast after that.
On the other hand, by trying to “defy gravity” and put all their weight behind a strong centrist coalition, the Vatican aims at warping the leftist bid for double majority, as the centre coalition amputates them on their right wing side. If they manage to thwart a left-wing majority in the Senate, which is the real name of the game, they are very probably safe against any sodomite legislation without having to marry Berlusconi’s populism, opportunism and corruption. The rallying cry of the Curia should help the centre reach critical mass instead of being massacred in the middle of the opposing left and right wing blocks. I call this “defying gravity” because what is happening now is unprecedented in the history of the new electoral system, which is designed to divide the country around two big blocks of centre-left and centre-right. Small parties have always survived (or not) as independent, but never was a big “third” coalition seen to have any chance.
The centre and the right are now fighting for the soul of the (moderate) country: they will not work together because the right is now a kind of populist “protest party” whose Weltanschauung is at odds with the fiscally responsible centre. Still, whilst you can’t unite their votes to make a government, you can unite them to avoid sodomite legislation. It everything goes according to plan, this will be an insurmountable barrier at least in the Senate.
As to the Catholic parties, be not afraid: they are very different from the CDU, or from the CSU come to that. The UDC voters have been in these twenty years such a steady element that it is utterly irrelevant whether their leaders would want to sell themselves: they won’t, because they know it would very probably be their death. As I see it, no “evolving” is to be feared from that side, rather the contrary… What Germans (and Brits of Americans) needs to understand here is that a core of hardline Catholics (perhaps 10-14% of the voters, now divided between right and centre, formerly between centre-left and centre-right) are real Catholics who have up to now always successfully gone on the barricades when necessary. They are square in the middle and they are still seen as the key to power, which is why the moderate leftists don’t want to anger them and Berlusconi wants their votes so badly.
I will, unless something huge happens, vote for the UDC myself. Not so much because Bagnasco says so, but because I think that in Italy you will not find another party you can thrust so much to defend Catholic values, and which such a good chance of your vote truly being put to work against the Left. I might be wrong of course, but as far as the Catholic vote is concerned I wasn’t these last twenty years. Italy is a country where people were ready to even vote for Berlusconi merely because he defended Catholic values (they actually voted Catholics components and candidates within his coalitions) and I can’t imagine any other European country ready to swallow so much for the cause.
As I see it (and the Vatican seems to agree with me.. 😉 ) the centre coalition is the wedge pushed in the middle of an otherwise probably unavoidable double majority for the left-wing. They have pooped in the leftist party, and if everything goes according to plan they will be the elephant in the room without which no majority – much less sodomite legislation – is possible.
Once again – and to conclude – the votes of the populist right wing and of the Monti coalition can’t be added, as the fiscal differences can’t be bridged. It will have to be the one or the other.
The Vatican has chosen the “other”. I think it’s the wiser bet.
The so-called Church of England has released a first statement concerning the satanic attempt of the satanic British Government to elevate sodomy to the rank of one of the most sacred institutions known to mankind. Cranmer has the story.
I was already expecting a weak answer, but what came out of the nincompoops of the so-called Church of England is much worse than that: it’s an incoherent agglomeration of populist waffle, blasphemies (Anglicans do blasphemy a lot; they call it “being nice”, or “inclusiveness”) and outright sucking up to the Prime Minister.
I cannot imagine how the battle can be won if these are the main regiments at our disposal. Thankfully, there are other soldiers (c4m is far more explicit and Lord Carey is certainly no pussycat, at least as far as Anglicans go; then there are the Lords, and perhaps the ordinary Christians, if they are still there in sufficient numbers) and it would not be realistic to say that this battle is lost already, at least for now. But I can’t imagine how the official hierarchy of the so-called Church of England will be able to give any contribution that does not equates to bad comedy or active help for the enemy.
Let us analyse the work of this bunch of cretins.
It is important to be clear that insistence on the traditional understanding of marriage is not knee-jerk resistance to change but is based on a conviction that the consequences of change will not be beneficial for society as a whole. Our concern is for the way the meaning of marriage will change for everyone, gay or straight, if the proposals are enacted. Because we believe that the inherited understanding of marriage contributes a vast amount to the common good, our defence of that understanding is motivated by a concern for the good of all in society.
Note here: neither God or His commandment are present. There is merely a vague idea that marriage “contributes to the common good”. Why this should be so, it isn’t said. The understanding of marriage is “inherited”, not God-given. This understanding is good because it “contributes to the common goood”, but it isn’t said what the foundations of this common good are supposed to be. It’s good because it’s good, supposedly, or it’s good because it’s inherited. No trace of Christian morality, though. “Some things seems, for some strange reason, to be good, dear PM; and then you see, they are inherited and we Brits love traditions; perhaps we might keep them that way?” This isn’t even an argument. This is waffling for the sake of it.
“The proposition that same-sex relationships can embody crucial social virtues is not in dispute.”
What?? Are these people supposed to be Christian at all? Well, actually not, as they have already refused to frame the issue within a Christian context. Here it goes on: a sodomite relationship can “embody crucial social virtues”. What does this mean? Does it mean that sodomites couples are good because they keep their gardens in order? Or because they say “good morning” to their neighbours? Or perhaps because they are good at small talk?
This phrase is straight out of Satan’s instructions manual, and already destroys everything this bunch of nincompoops might say afterwards. If “crucial virtues” can be “embodied” in civil partnerships, why should they not be embodied in marriage? “But this is not the way we inherited”, the idiots say. But you also did not inherit any idea that institutionalised sodomy might “embody crucial social virtues”, you morons…
The argument is a total non-starter. “We have completely changed our theology in what pertains to the very core of Christianity; – says the so-called Church of England – we have completely destroyed every concept of sexual morality, and we even support what Christians have always considered unspeakable abominations; but please do not change what we call marriage, because… it’s good in some strange way we can’t even explain”.
“To that extent, the Prime Minister’s claim that he supports same-sex marriage from conservative principles is readily understandable.”
This here is nothing less than sucking up to the Prime Minister. I would actually have a more fitting image using the word “job”, but I do have female readers…
You see here with what energy these nincompoops dig at their own tomb (politically, and spiritually). “There can be good things coming out of committed sodomites, and yes, prime minister, we even get how conservative it is what you are trying to do! But could we just avoid it, please?”
Once again, Christianity has been, up to now, completely absent. If sodomite couple can be something good, then God is obviously wrong. Clearly, God is supposed to be wrong and not conservative. Cameron is.
“However, the uniqueness of marriage is that it embodies the underlying, objective, distinctiveness of men and women. This distinctiveness and complementarity are seen most explicitly in the biological union of man and woman which potentially brings to the relationship the fruitfulness of procreation.”
The immense stupidity of this phrase is mind-boggling. There is no reason whatever why the “underlying, objective distinctiveness of men and women” should be anything good, unless it be because it correspond to God’s order. If this is the case, every form of behaviour undermining this must be rejected (yes, you cretins: starting from homosexuality itself, and of course continuing with sodomy; much more concerning “civil partnerships”…). If this is not so, and civil partnership embody “conservative” values, then why should marriage not be changed in order to make it more “conservative”? Or are the muppets saying that for some strange reason their opinion on sodomy can be changed 180 degrees, but marriage can’t be made to serve “conservative principles”?
“To remove from the definition of marriage this essential complementarity is to lose any social institution in which sexual difference is explicitly acknowledged”.
Again, this idiotic statement does not consider Christianity at all; besides, it begs the question. Sexual differences are acknowledged because Christianity is, has always been and always will be intrinsically heterosexual. Christianity abhors same-sex attraction, which is why Christian societies are structured in a rigid heterosexual way. Christianity does so because this is God’s will, and God’s law. This being God’s law is the only thing which gives “essential complementarity” any value at all. If we keep God’s Law out of the equation, there’s no reason why a commune of six assorted faggots, lesbians and dogs should not adopt. And there is no reason whatever why this commune should not be called “marriage”, either.
“To argue that this is of no social value is to assert that men and women are simply interchangeable individuals.”
This obviously doesn’t mean anything, but I assume some of the ladies thought it sounds well. Still: yes, of course they are interchangeable. The so-called Church of England itself says so. They have already said that in a couple, you can interchange individuals and this can (let me check…) “embody crucial social virtues” and be “conservative”. They have already said so themselves! These people have the logic of a six-years-old…
“To change the nature of marriage for everyone will be divisive and deliver no obvious legal gains given the rights already conferred by civil partnerships.”
Oh, the comedy of this! The same people who have just reneged on the most basic values of Christianity now say something should not be done because it would be… “divisive”. Seriously, how effeminate is that? Is, say, “harmony” their god? Are these people so stupid that they do not understand that if something is right, it is worth some conflict? I can’t believe anyone can write waffle like this and not wear stilettos…
“We believe that redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships will entail a dilution in the meaning of marriage for everyone by excluding the fundamental complementarity of men and women from the social and legal definition of marriage.”
For Heaven’s sake: the very same people who have diluted the gravity of sodomy up to its total obliteration as sin should now object to a small adjustment to the meaning of marriage apt to make it “inclusive” of those people they themselves say are carriers of “crucial social virtues”? Why? Why? Why?
And why should the “legal definition” of anything be of any value? Can legal definitions not be changed? Where were the Anglicans when civil partnership attacked the very core not only of marriage, but of Christianity? They were waffling about the “crucial social virtues”, these damn heathens…
“Given the absence of any manifesto commitment for these proposals – and the absence of any commitment in the most recent Queen’s speech – there will need to be an overwhelming mandate from the consultation to move forward with these proposals and make them a legislative priority”.
Oh, how pathetic is this… they now go as low as everyday party politics, and try to argument from the fact that this monstrosity was not in the coalition’s manifesto or in the Queen’s speech. Seriously, what is this to do with religion at all? If it should be “conservative” that faggots can live together, why wait for the next election or the next Queen’s speech? What pathetic excuse of an argument is this?
“In our view the Government will require an overwhelming mandate from the consultation to move forward with on these proposals and to make them a legislative priority.”
Says… who exactly? Ever heard of democracy? The proposals will be brought in front of both chambers, and the elected representative will be called to say what they think. Again, a pathetic excuse to say “I don’t want this, but I really can’t say why”.
“We welcome the fact that in his statement the Prime Minister has signalled he is abandoning the Government’s earlier intention to distinguish between civil and religious marriage.”
This is – once again, with apologies to my female readers – another “job” like the one before. The PM wants to completely demolish every concept of marriage as a religious institution, and the idiots welcome this. What a sad bunch of eunuchs.
“We look forward to studying the Government’s detailed response to the consultation next week and to examining the safeguards it is proposing to give to Churches”.
This is, at the end, the capitulation. “Give us something we can understand as safeguard, dear PM, and we will swallow it whole”. That every “safeguards” will be worth nothing in the face of the obvious challenges that will be brought against them in court, the ladies seem not to know. They are just demurely asking the PM to build some safeguards in the legislative work, which he has already announced he would do. Therefore, at the end of this pathetic piece of prostitution the so-called Church of England is basically signalling they are in agreement with the general framework of the legislation, but please let them read the details so they can be sure they can say they have saved face.
This is a shameless piece of unspeakable cowardice and prostitution, beside being heathenish in its very core; this is so senseless, it can only come from an Anglican body. This is the point this nation has come to. They aren’t even Christians anymore.
Make no mistake, they will have a lot of time to reflect on the “crucial social virtues” embodied by civil partnerships.
When they are in hell.
Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host –
by the Divine Power of God –
cast into hell, satan and all the evil spirits,
who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Cameron has, in the end, decided to try to get sodomarriage approved, against obvious massive opposition within his own party but clearly counting on the votes from the heathens within the Tories and elsewhere. Excluding that Cameron may ever have moral motives, the background of this move is clearly to be seen in his necessity to give the LibDems something to chew after the humiliations they had to suffer on the Lords’ reform affair. I don’t think this is politically wise, but I do not know how bad the mood is within the coalition, and Cameron – who is a political prostitute with no second in the land – has evidently decided the advantages for the coalition will be greater than the obvious opposition he will face within his own party.
In what could be remembered as an astonishing sign of stupidity – or the knowledge the party and the Country are so rotten this can now be made without problems – Cameron has also decided to go the full monty and decide sodomarriage should be “allowed” in churches, if the relevant congregation wishes to do so.
Only a very stupid man – or an Anglican – could now fail to see where this leads: what is now “allowed” will, in just a few years, be claimed as a “human right”. Think of the Bad & Breakfasts, who were “allowed” (but obviously not obliged) to have sodomites under their roof, until the Gaystapo sued their “right” to do so.
This legislation – if it passes; more below – will pose huge problems and cause years of legal controversy as surely as the night follows the day. Teachers will at some point not be allowed to dissent from a clearly heathenish ideology, and the lame assurances of the Government they will be allowed to “dissent” will go the same way as the right of B&B owners to refuse to have sodomy under their roof. The Established Church will be the first to face the onslaught of the suddenly so pious satanic troops, and the Catholic Church will follow immediately afterwards (and who shall fight for us? Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols? Ha!).
Our best hope are, at this point, the Muslims; but in order for them to make a serious move it might be necessary for the perverts to sue them for compliance to the Gaystapo; which isn’t easy, as the Gaystapo is scared of them.
Cameron uses, this time, a different strategy. He doesn’t even try to force the party to obedience as he did with the Lords’ reform, getting pummelled as a result; he leaves them “free” instead, hoping to get the measure passed whilst avoiding the worst of the internal damage. This is the same Cameron who applauded the decision of the courts to force B&B owners to have sodomites under their roof, so you know exactly how much his promises of respecting the religious beliefs of Christians are worth.
In the next months and years we will know how much the rot has advanced in this country; a country once able to fight bravely against Hitler, but now either scared of the whining of perhaps 1% of the population, or too stupid to call a spade a spade and see the abyss of heathenism it is getting itself into. Make no mistake, open persecution is what will come after it; then Satan doesn’t stop his march just because “nice” people have decided civil partnerships are a good thing, and we shouldn’t be rude.
Will, though, this measure be passed? This is not sure at all, but if Cameron manages to ride Labour MPs the numbers aren’t encouraging. The main argument against such a proposal was for Cameron that the party might have taken his scalp directly if he had tried to impose this new madness on him; but he avoids this from the start, riding the heathens of the other parties instead. The mere fact he might survive this tells you all you need to know about the rot within the Tory party; they would get rid of him on the spot if he tried the same trick on, say, European matters but seem – for now – unwilling to do the same on sodomy. Congratulations.
As I write (and yes, I write because I can’t sleep…) I see only few positive elements for us, none of them safe:
a) The House of the Lords. The probability that this law be massacred in the House of Lords is not remote. This in itself would not stop the process, but would constitute a strong obstacle to the definitive approval of the measure. Seldom are the cases of legislation stopped by the House of Lords and pushed through nevertheless. A prolonged fight might also give Cameron a death of a thousand cuts, if the public opinion reacts.
b) Opposition within the other parties. This is not probable, but possible. Dissatisfaction among Labour voters is said to be palpable, but as socialists never where good Christians it is everyone’s guess how much weight this will carry (if you ask me: not much). If the Christians within labour manage to remember what Christianity is, the matter will become more and more embarrassing for their own party leaders. Milliband & Co. are largely goddamned atheists, but they are still politicians and will have their nose in the air to see where the wind blows.
c) Open Labour opposition. This was just seen with the Lords’ reform: Labour wanted a reform in principle, but they didn’t want to give Cameron a success he could not get with his own coalition and of which he would unavoidably have reaped the glory; therefore, they have decided not to like the details, and to shoot at the Government for all they’re worth. It worked a treat.
In this case, Milliband & Co. must seriously ask themselves whom they are working for: this measures will most surely be sold by Cameron & Clegg as a coalition success, and Labour runs the risk to look seriously stupid. Labour being far more disciplined than the Tories, if and when they decide to shoot at the measure Cameron can say goodbye to his piece of legislative crap, then without Labour votes he is dead in the water in the Commons, and easily steamrolled in the Lords.
d) The courts. make no mistake, this is going to keep the courts occupied for decades, in a long battle of attrition reminiscent of the right for conscientious objection in case of abortion (eventually won; not before many years, though, or without the sacrifice of many brave doctors and nurses ready to lose their jobs at the NHS and even emigrate). This law impinges on so many pieces of legislation – as in the end it is nothing less than the attempt to re-invent the Christian basis of society – that the legal controversies will be countless. Many so-called Church of England parishes will also sue, as will religious schools, hopefully with the best Catholic schools at the head. This is going to be good for lawyers, and will go on for a very long time.
Cameron has just showed how much he has in contempt both his own party and Christianity. He might get away with the first, he won’t get away with the second.
Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.
I have read the “corrections” concerning the matter of the stupidly named boy “Lennon” and his even more stupid Facebook post and frankly find the attitude shown, of all people, by Catholics rather disturbing.
Firstly, it is good that a boy be denied Confirmation because in blatant conflict with Catholic values. It would be tragic if this were not the case. As a consequence, the subsequent news that the problems were antecedent to the posting do not change an iota in the fundamental matter.
Secondly, to accuse the liberal press of being slandering when stating the boy with the stupid name was excluded from confirmation because of the Facebook post is to imply that such a post would in itself not be a sufficient ground for refusal. Of course it is! If that isn’t, I truly do not know what is!
What transpires here is that the stupidly named boy had already given cause for concern, and the priest had – as he should – discussed the matter with his parents. But even so, it is clear that the Facebook post was a smoking gun that would have made the matter extremely thorny, and a valid confirmation under the circumstances impossible anyway. It was, therefore, for the boy a clear case of going before being kicked out, and I wonder that not many noticed this.
Please, please let us not start to relativise the importance of the sacraments ourselves: if the priest had denied the (stupidly named) boy confirmation purely and exclusively on the ground of the Facebook post, he would have done the only right thing anyway.
Let us call a spade a spade here, and a Sacrament a Sacrament. Quibbling about who walk away when does not help.
Several contributions have been written in the last days about the boy who was denied confirmation because in favour of so-called “gay marriage”.
What I would like to point out is, though, something different, which perhaps hasn’t been mentioned by other commenters and bloggers.
1) the Christian (sic) name of the young man is, apparently, “Lennon”. What kind of Christian name is “Lennon”? This points out to a malpractice that has started to explode some decades ago (cela va sans dire, after Vatican II) and whose consequences the clergy have refused to see: if one gives his child a heathen name, heathenism can’t be far away. Where I hail from (Italy) when I was a child there wasn’t anyone, not one, who didn’t have the name of a saint, and our Jewish classmate also had a Biblical name. The idea of calling one’s son or daughter “Moon”, “Led Zeppelin”, “Katana” or things like that would have been inconceivable, much more so in the case of the name of an openly atheist, drugs-taking, feminism-abetting, deluded cretin as in this case. When priests have allowed children to be baptised with stupid names as a matter of course without any resistance, they have paved the way for the situation we are living today. A priest would be expected to at least question the Christian spirit of parents who want to christen their son “Testarossa”, “Touring Superleggera” or whatever other madness goes through their mind, even when they are not – as in this case – explicitly atheistic in their meaning. A Christian name is supposed to be…. Christian.
2) I commend the priest for his decision, but according to how long the boy had been under instruction one wonders how things could have gone so utterly wrong as to let the boy think he can be in favour of sodomarriage and ask to be confirmed. Whilst I wasn’t there, it is not improbable – and irrespective of this cases it is certainly what happens in many other cases – that the priest either left the instruction to people not much better in their Catholicism than (uummphh…) “Lennon”, or did so in such a hushed, softly softly, weak way that the poor boy just did not get that one can’t be a Catholic and a supporter of sodomarriage at the same time. Which is a simple message, and should not be difficult to convey.
3) I have read around that the parents have told themselves “surprised” (or such like expression) at the priest’s decision. More of the same. Beside the fact that I am not surprised that people calling their son “Lennon” should tell themselves “surprised”, once again one wonders what has gone wrong. The parents should have been, methinks, ashamed for their son’s antic and should have apologised for it; alternatively, they should have said that whilst they respect their son’s decision and blabla, it is clear to them confirmation is out of the question under the circumstances. I have read nothing of the sort, but wait for developments. Obviously, questions can be asked as to the Christian instruction the boy has received; but come on, he was called “Lennon”…
In the simple world of Mundabor, people either are Christian with an acceptable degree of seriousness (which I seriously doubt in people calling their son “Lennon” in the first place) or they call themselves heathen and have the gut to accept the consequences; also because the consequences are going to come to them whether they public accept them or not.
As was, very probably, the fate of the original “Lennon”.
In the simple world in which I live, a person is only worthy of respect if he can walk the walk besides talking the talk.
Talking in abstract is fairly easy if you are a tepid shepherd, and unless one is a pathological eunuch – like too many English bishops – the one or other word will certainly find its way to the press – or to the pulpit – without causing too many controversies.
But what happens when a bishop discovers that one of his own priests openly and publicly sabotages the Christian message he wants to send to his sheep? Will this bishop be brave enough to walk the walk, after he was able to talk the talk? In Baltimore, a priest had the insolence to read in public the bishop’s letter concerning so-called “gay marriages” (who aren’t “gay”, and aren’t marriages), and then vocally oppose the very Christian message he had just read.
Now, this is where men are separated from the boys: if Bishop Lori tolerates such a scandal is his own diocese without severely punishing – best of all, defrocking – the pro-homo priest, he will show he is just another boy able to talk the talk but unable to walk the walk. It cannot be, it seriously cannot be that a bishop allows one of his own pro-homo-priests to make a mockery of Catholicism without consequences. It undermines the credibility of the Church and of the priesthood, and destroys that of the Bishop.
Man or boy? The next weeks will tell.
Imagine one day your Government, following the “call” of the times, would decide that sexual intercourse with animals does not constitute a criminal offence. It is still horrible of course, but it has now been decided that prosecution (with the added expenses) is now not the way anymore.
In just a few years, behaviour once considered criminally perverted would be considered merely disgusting; after a while, purely very strange. Disquieting people would emerge from anonymity, beginning to give themselves as zoophiles names like “smart” or “spiffy”. Soon, they would begin to consider themselves a ” minority”, and the carriers of a “culture”, and this culture would be, of course, “discriminated against” by the “hypocritical” followers of “bourgeois morality”.
Give them just a few years more (the time to infiltrate Hollywood, and be considered “normal” by a generation of people who cannot even remember zoophilia was once a criminal offence) and Bob’s your uncle: they will be accepted. This point – when people start to say “some of my best friends are spiffies” without being ashamed; nay, feeling modern and alternative and “with it” – is the turning of the tide. After a while, calls for “civil partnerships” will be heard, and when one already has a neighbour living with an extremely nice female of German Shepherd it might not sound so absurd at all because the abomination was there, to be seen every day and shamelessly practised under the sun already; after a while, the calls for “marriage” will follow, and those who refuse to congratulate Bella (the German shepherd) and Adam (the English accountant) for their beautiful relationship will be called, by the then deputy Prime Minister, “bigots”, whilst the Prime Minister of the day will call their “commitment” something “conservative” and give his blessing. In the end, they say, Bella and Adam are “happy”, and how can anyone be so cruel as to be against, oh, oh, “happiness”?
What is this all to do with the so-called “gay marriage”, you will ask?
The debate about the so-called “gay marriage” (which isn’t gay; much less marriage) is not the product of some strange combination of planets; it is the unavoidable consequence of the abolition of sodomy laws. How was it not to be expected that the toleration of perversion would not, in time, lead to calls for its normalisation? One can’t be half against abominations. Either one refuses them altogether as taboos, or one will be forced to “include” what he is afraid to condemn.
Our forefathers, much smarter than we are and with no false gods of tolerance at all costs, knew this. We know this ourselves when some types of sexual perversions (paedophilia, say) are concerned. But again, after only one and a half generation without sodomy laws many people would struggle to even link the two and put them in the same ballpark, which countless generations before us did without any problem. This happens because, as I have often repeated, the laws of one generations are the morality of the following one. Those legislators who decriminalised sodomy in the Sixties certainly did not favour the so-called “gay marriage”, but clearly did not think this through. We now pay the consequences of their folly, and it might be a long time before sanity (and with it sodomy laws) returns.
We live in such senselessly stupid times that we have lost sight for elementary truths just because they impact some neighbour or colleague or “friend”. God is not part of the picture anymore, and no average “British Neighbour” wonders anymore whether he must really tolerate scandalous perversion out of his own front door. This happens, because he has not been taught to call a spade a spade; and whilst he feels all the disgust he has no heart to say what he thinks, lest he should appear a Neanderthaler in the eyes of his neighbours; many of whom, no doubt, think exactly as he does.
This cycle of cowardice – which generates more homo screaming; which generates more cowardice – has to stop. It has to stop if we want to go back to basic Christianity and elementary decency, instead of allowing Satan to manipulate us everywhere whilst we say to our friends how modern and tolerant we are.
So-called “gay” (I’d love to see the suicide statistics of such “gay” people) “marriage” is not fought against saying that civil partnership is enough of a civil right, because this invites the problem rather than avoiding it. If perversion is right, why should only half perversion be accepted? Isn’t the very institution of “civil partnership” the statement that sexual perversion is absolutely normal? If it’s normal, what’s the fuss?
So-called “gay marriage” is fought against by calling s spade a spade, and a pervert a pervert, not by giving perverts almost full recognition and then telling them they are ok, but really, they should not ask to be treated as such.
Bring back the sodomy laws.
Those who thought Cameron a clever boy must be changing their mind very rapidly, as our man insists (for now) in not wanting to ditch the perverted idea of “gay marriage” in the face of a growing opposition within the party.
We have seen the same attitude with the Lords’ reform, and on that occasion our man ended up with a historic humiliation, to which he was forced to avoid a defeat which would have put his permanence as Prime Minister very clearly into question.
Of course, Cameron has his motives. Firstly, he has this stupid idea that he can attract Labour voters without losing his own supporters; a very imprudent reasoning even before the UKIP, and absolute madness now. Secondly, he has this other idea that values don’t count, votes do. Therefore, he goes where he thinks the votes are, and who cares whether the sane part of England is up in arms: as long as he thinks there is something to be gained, he will keep the course. Thirdly – and interestingly – he might be influenced – as conservative journalists started to theorise some days ago; perhaps trying to rationalise what must be sheer stubborn and political stupidity,but more probably hitting the bull’s eye – by the circle of liberal friends around his rather too liberal wife. A PM is a man too, and besides having his own domestic peace to maintain – Cameron is certainly no Duce at home; more likely a Neville Chamberlain – one has to think that whilst the man might not give a damn about what a dozen million of country Tories think, he might well be afraid of losing face in front of two or three dozen of family acquaintances; with the added spice of sexual perverts no doubt well represented among them, as is de rigueur nowadays.
Well, it is becoming increasingly more evident the liberal wife is a luxury Cameron will find more and more politically expensive. The support around him is eroding visibly; he has lost long ago the aura of the knight in shining armour running to the rescue of Toryism, and those who don’t despise him certainly do not fear him at all (see Brussels, and Lords).
Now Cameron may console himself thinking – like the other populist trollop, Boris Johnson, who is at least popular – that his message works rather well among the populace of the conurbations. What he conveniently forgets is that there are a lot of seat that have nothing to do with conurbations, many of them are in Tory hands, he has lost a number of them in 2010 and runs the risk of losing many more in 2015, as the UKIP slowly but surely emerges as the real Conservative party also for first-past-the-post elections.
It appears now up to thirty seats are officially in danger, and even our Chameleon must understand even half of that number would mean sudden death for a man who has been unable to win outright against Gordon Brown (who was the equivalent of Joe Biden without the smiles and an embarrassment for his own close relatives, and the family cat) and who must, absolutely must deliver an outright majority come 2015 if he is ever to see Number 10 from the inside again.
Cameron does not get (not because he be so stupid; because he does not want to accept this simple truth) that he does not get much support from the perverts (who will vote Labour, or if they drink wine LibDem, anyway) but loses massively among the socially conservative who keep him in power. It’s a situation with no upside outside his (wife’s) circle of acquaintances, and as the elections approach we will see him increasingly criticised by the same pervert activists whom he claims to support. What a joke, and what a vote loser.
A more intelligent man (one like Kohl, say; at least before he lost the coordinates during his last mandate) would now graciously steer the ship in the direction the party wants, without ever letting it appear as a concession or a defeat; actually, a man like the Kohl of the first three mandates would have rather avoided finding himself in Cameron’s situation in the first place. Kohl knew how to be arrogant, but his arrogance did not come to the point of letting him believe he can have his way just for the asking. He also had very sensitive antennae for the needs of his party boys on the ground, whilst Cameron prefers the support of his wannabe intellectual circle of friends and assorted sodomites.
Cameron does neither the first (quietly get out of the choppy waters) nor the second (avoid being there in the first place) and he still insists in his and Clegg’s pet project (Clegg had a lot of pet projects; but they have been dying like flies…). Cameron is, in fact, so much in love with his idea of the glib “pragmatic” politician who installs himself in the centre and reigns happily ever after that he does not see that his subjects are growing restive, and the dagger might not be far away.
Let us pray the dagger comes before 2015 and, when it comes, goes straight through his heart.
After that, I don’t mind how glib he looks at his evenings with his (or more probably, his wife’s) “gay friends”.
He has deserved them, and they him.
Courtesy of the “Coalition for Marriage”, the full video of Ann Widdecombe’s speech at the “fringe conference” of the Conservative Party.
I will not waste your time pointing out to this or that beautiful phrase, because there are too many of them. This is one quarter of an hour which will really put you in front of the absurdity of the political correct nightmare the stupidity of a minority and the cowardly acquiescence of the majority has plunged the country into.
Widdecombe is witty but sensible, and poses a number of very intelligent questions. Her attack on Cameron is frontal and very effective, and the long applause from an extremely well frequented “fringe” event should make Cameron shudder and think.
Her portrayal of the many ways in which Britain is transforming itself in a totalitarian faggot state is extremely well put, and should make everyone who still does not blog anonymously seriously think of how long he will be allowed to have one without endangering work and freedom.
Cameron is a cancer, and I am being nice. He must be taken down, and with him this entire perversion mania. They must be ridiculed and forgotten like the madness of “man-made global warming”, a national craze in 2006-2008, and now you would have trouble in finding people admitting they believed it.
I think we are slowing getting there in this case too, but it will be a much longer and harder battle.
For now, thank God for the Widdecombes of the world, in a country where the Archbishop of Westminster limits himself to almost inaudible ex officio meowing, and the duty of leading the charge has fallen on the shoulder of the brave Lord Carey, who in the end is a pensioner whilst those in active duty sleep or look the other side.
We are informed after days of debate the Australian Parliament has decided to face reality and reiterate that a marriage is between a man and a woman.
Make no mistake, this is still a rotten Parliament, utterly friendly to the sodomites and ready to sanction scandal and abet perversion. The country is, apparently, even worse than its Parliament, being – allegedly, but I do not doubt it – in its majority in favour of the so-called “gay marriage”.
Still, the elected representatives seem at least in their majority able to preserve a bit of decency or, failing that, a bit of logic.
“Look” – they seem to say – “we support pretty much every kind of perversion and would never dare to be counter-cultural or, even, Christian. But this here is a matter of simple logic and of facing the realities of life, and there’s no way two Lorettas can be considered “married” unless we want to cause in the future generations the same hilarity the Monthy Phyton video caused today in heterosexual people. Therefore, we will continue to be your bitches in everything concerning sexual perversion, but we will stop struggling against reality and we suggest Loretta does the same”.
At least in that, they are right.
Who knows, perhaps now that this decision has been made the one or other Australian will, even in the horrible cultural environment he finds himself in (this is the country “Anty Moly” hails from; not good at all…), start thinking in a halfway rational way and decide that this madness has gone on for long enough, and the encouragement of sexual perversion must stop.
Even after the felicitous departure of Cardinal Roger Mahony from the Diocese of Los Angeles – last time I looked, the biggest diocese of them all as far as the number of faithful is concerned – strange things continue to happen over there, hovering like ghosts over the diocese like the horrible Cathedral left to us as a memento of irreligiousness, wasteful megalomania and outright stupidity.
We are informed ( I have it from Father Z, who mentions the CNA, which mentions other sources) that a Los Angeles priest has been suspended for openly supporting what he astonishingly calls “gay marriage”.
Not so surprisingly, the chap describes himself as “a gay man and a celibate gay priest”.
Now, one can only approve of the decision of the Diocese to suspend the obviously heretical man from making further damage among his sheep; but the question is not this one.
The real question is: how likely it is that the man decided to “out” himself at the same time as he made public his support for the logical impossibility of so-called “gay marriage”? How likely it is, on the other hand, that the man was openly homosexual and had outed himself some time, perhaps a long time, before the event?
I write this because it strikes me as odd that the Priest be suspended because he “supports gay marriage”, whilst the fact that he is openly homosexual does not seem to have been a factor in the decision.
More gravely, CNA reports that the priest “will be suspended as long as he remains politically active”. What! Without making a complete abiura, and apologising for the damage done? Should he be, then, allowed to go back to his parishioners as an openly gay priest who used to publicly support “gay marriage” but is not able to do that anymore? What is this, an Anglican province of Los Angeles?
Even the notoriously weak and “nuanced” authorities if the Church in England made very clear, when the Ordinariates were announced, that no openly gay Anglican so-called priest would be accepted in the priesthood in the Catholic Church, for the simple and elementary fact that a priest cannot be more allowed to be homosexual than to be a paedophile or a lover of dogs, and that whilst the Church cannot enquire into the mind of people, once one has told that he is a sexual pervert the game is up, period.Good Lord, has the Diocese of Los Angeles not had enough problems in the past thanks to the ingress of sexual perverts (in great part homosexual) among her ranks? Are they so eager for the next payment of several hundred million dollar?
One reads such news, and wonders. There are dioceses that manage to make bad headlines even when they are supposed to make good ones, because the mismanagement, corruption or worse are so widely spread that it is difficult to give glimpses of the diocese’s workings without the rot emerging.
“Suspended as long as he remains politically active”, my foot.
Abject apology or kick him out, say I.
“If gay marriage was OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men; or indeed three men and a dog.”
‘One of the amazing things about London is that not only have we got a declining crime rate, declining murder rate, more theatres than New York, less rainfall than Rome, it’s also one of the few places in the country where the rate of marriage is actually increasing.
‘I see absolutely no reason why that happy state should be denied to anybody in our country and that’s why I’m supporting the Out4Marriage campaign.’
The last “hero” ready to sell himself to the Gaystapo is our once not at all unpleasant Major of London, Boris Johnson, known simply as “Boris” a bit everywhere.
Boris has made a great, hopefully fatal mistake: he has openly endorsed so-called gay marriage.
No doubt, Boris is very popular, and he certainly thinks this plunge into sexual perversion will help him to consolidate his support among the vast cohorts of the perverts & their friends. I do think, though, that he might have made a stupid statement too much for the following reasons:
1. Boris isn’ t Cameron. Even babies know Cameron has built his political career on duplicity and flattery. Johnson built his on sincerity and political incorrectness. When he forgets who he is to become a bad copy of Cameron, one can’t see why those who want to kick the man out should support Boris instead.
2. Cameron is losing ground not because he isn’t “pleasant” (he can be glib enough) but because more and more Conservatives want to see Conservatism again, and the voters on the ground clearly start to have enough of this stupid marketing exercise merely benefiting a couple of hundreds,well, prostitutes. How they should change their mind because Boris is a nice chap is beyond me.
3. Alas for them, prostitutes tend to be despised even when they are liked, and I can’t see why Boris should be considered any better than a street worker from true Conservatives, whom in the end he is going to need if he wants to be a real alternative to the Chameleon.
Summa summarum, I think (and hope) the party will realise Boris never made the step from pleasant clown to serious statesman; on the contrary, the power went on his head and caused him to renege his entire persona for the sale of popularity and power, becoming just another little Jezebel. I doubt this is what a growing number of Conservatives (in Parliament and, most importantly, on the ground) wants.
Cardinal Dolan invites his own (official) enemy to speak at a dinner meant to collect money against… him.
Cardinal O’Brien even refuses to meet his own chief of government, who has invited him to “talk” about “sodomarriage”.
I know only one of the two can be right.
I wonder who? Hhhmmm…
You would not believe it, but there are journalists on this world able to describe Pope Benedict “hardliner” because he says (Pope Benedict almost never does anything effective, but every now and then says something right; in this following the style of his apparently soon-to-be-beatified predecessor Paul VI) that homo marriage threaten “the future of humanity” (very bad theology by the way) and, in good substance, shows some apprehension for the measures the leftie regime of Monsieur Hollande wants to introduce.
I can’t avoid wondering how the very same Pope would be described if he began to do something rather than merely talking about apocalyptic scenarios. If he were, for example, to excommunicate all Catholic members of parliament and government who do not give allegiance to Catholic teaching on the matter, remove a couple of dozen of the worst bishops (alas, probably appointed by him; but just for the sake of the hypothesis) and start a day-in, day-out total war to the Government in a purely religious matter, would he be called, erm, hardliner?
Still, the most interesting point is another: how the Church in France will organise her troops in the battle. if they react to the predictable whining of the perverts by swearing how much they feel for them, and perhaps even that they in some way approve of the “good” that is in their “commitment”, no opposition will ever be worth anything. You can’t say the Truth by half, the truth must be told in its entirety irrespective of the risk for one’s popularity.
If the French clergy will have the gut to say it (well) straight, the chances of the message getting through will be much higher,because it will be a coherent message. If they try to stay in the middle, they will not persuade the ignorant (because they do not instruct them) and will utter displease the orthodox (because they refuse to instruct).
Early days here, and the cries of “homophobic” will certainly be an interesting test.
I am not very confident. Actually, I am not confident at all (just imagine fighting the fight for marriage with people like this chap, obviously appointed by Pope Benedict…). But you never know. At times even the worst are able to surprise…
We slowly see a reaction from the Church hierarchy to the rising cry toward the institutionalisation of sodomy or other same-sex sexual perversions. In the USA, the bishops have eventually decided to show some teeth, and in France they are even going to reintroduce a prayer which, whilst very politically correct in the tones, is still unmistakably clear in its content.
Nothing against Catholic bishops remembering what their job is, of course, but I continue to think that the excessive weakness shown in the past decades will continue to hamper the action of the Church, unless it is put in the dustbin once and for all.
For example, you see everywhere these appeals in defence of “traditional marriage”, as if the unions of perverts were, in some strange way, good, but the “traditional marriage” simply better and as such worthy of protection. The fact is, it is extremely difficult to persuade the public that the traditional marriage is good, without saying why the “modern” marriage is wrong. The simple reality is that sodomy is an abomination in the eyes f the Lord. It is a perversion. Truly truly bad. So bad that it used to be a taboo, like incest or zoophilia, until very recent times, and what goes for sodomy must be pretty much extended to other arts of sexual perversion, like being a lesbian.
Alas, the Church hierarchy (with very few exceptions, like this one) does not speak the clear language that, alone, would allow to make the matter well understood. They either shut up or express themselves in vaguely appreciative tones when there are calls for “civil partnerships”, or the like (our Vincent “Quisling” Nichols is a specialist in this art of satanic perversion of Truth under the pretence of defending Catholicism), and are then in great difficulty when they must explain to non-Catholics why one should be “nice” about civil partnership and not nice anymore when the word “marriage” is pronounced.
What should be told, is that Truth is indivisible: either sodomy is a perversion, or it isn’t. If it isn’t, then there is no problem different from those posed by, say, fornication. If it is, then it is the sacred duty of the Church hierarchy to thunder against it without waiting for marriage to be attacked.
Is this happening? I doubt. Will the French Bishop start hammering in the ears of their faithful that sodomy is a perversion and those who practice sodomy are perverts bent (pun not intended) for hell? Don’t bet your pint. We will, instead, hear more or less flowery words about how nice it is to have a family with mom and dad, which is a model which has worked rather well and therefore shouldn’t be changed. A bit like the Volkswagen Golf, you see. How many will they persuade?
This battle will only begin to be won when the clergy begins to fight it in the proper way, rather than trying not to offend anyone.
I begin to suspect the reason why the PM is generally considered somewhat intelligent is that he is too often compared with his nearest neighbours, his same-sex girlfriend (Clegg) and puppy-Chancellor (Osborne).
Still, taken in isolation this man makes more and more the impression of a man who would cause a fit of extremely vulgar hysterics in Malcolm Tucker if he did not happen to be, well, the PM himself.
Now, you must know the PM has just taken a sound thrashing in the matter of homo-marriage but, like Oliver Twist, keeps saying “I want more”. Some days ago (your humble correspondent did not report in detail) he expressed his wish for sodo-marriage in front of an audience of unrepentant perverts and, taking the part of said degenerates, accused the so-called church of England of “locking them out”.
Of course, this is delicate: the PM has been thrashed on sodo-marriage and knows that the country has seen it, so he wants to show he is still on his legs and very much in command. Therefore, he insists in a very stupid, populist defence of – how much? – scarcely one percent of the population and their generally Lib-Dem or Labour voting friends, and throws an arrow or two against… the majority of his Christian voters. Well done, PM?
Erm, no. Not a good idea, it appears.
I wonder to what extent – and this links to the observations made at the beginning – the PM realises to what extent he is digging his own grave. The very moderate sympathies won towards a tiny minority or perverts and their friends – again, most of them reasonably not even thinking of ever voting Conservative, Cameron or no Cameron – was paid with the loss of an absolute majority in 2010, and continues to be paid with the continued deterioration of the Conservative – and Christian – deterioration of his own party, and a growing awareness among the Tory ranks that Cameron is their worst enemy.
No doubt, Cameron will continue to raise his voice at regular intervals, as he evidently considers it paramount to prove the thrashing he received from his MPs (make it two, with the Lords’ reform) hasn’t really hurt him much. But in doing so, he is simply helping them to realise they must get rid of him, as they realise more and more clearly his sound bites (like the favour for sodo-marriage because he “believes passionately in marriage”, which by the way gives you all the extent of the pervert idiocy of this man’s ideology) do not impress anyone.
I begin to wonder how many Tory MPs have already realised the folly of running with such a ridiculous tool in 2015, and apparently even some of his “cuties” start to rebel (again: see Lords’ reform). This shows the extent of the deterioration of the PM’s power base. What is certain, is that he is doing what he can to force them to open their eyes.
I can’t wait for the day. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
If you thought you knew how bitchy a fag can be, wait until you read this. In short, some homo-activists running the place (the place is, clearly, in San Francisco; I bet he/she/it votes Pelosi) has decided that “any celebration of straight marriage” is banned. Basically, perverts are supposed to be the only one who have right to “celebrate” what they (being pervs) call marriage.
This is not even the stupid – and to be refused, erm, straight – idea that marriage as God intended and that abominable parody attempted by perverts be “equal”. We are already beyond that. This is the idea that there is only one marriage worthy of celebration, and it is the non-existent one.
I am tempted to tell you where I think these people have their brains.
Of course, I must also disagree with the idea of the author of the article, who has no problem with what the wannabe girls are doing.
I have. I can’t imagine a Christian society “ok with perversion” and if it must be that we Catholics have to live with such abominations until the time comes when sanity prevails and sodomy laws are reintroduced (astonishingly, this appears to be now a very naughty things to say; two thousand years of Christianity look at us and cry), this does not mean we are ok with it. Freedom can only exist within the boundaries God has given us, and freedom of this kind has simply no right to exist.
The people of North Carolina have spoken.
Nay, they have shouted.
61 to 39 percent in favour of banning so-called gay marriages, these are percentages you won’t see often in the free world.
This is, I think, the more relevant because it comes in the middle of a presidential campaign increasingly more dominated by religious questions: the HHS mandate and now the attitude of a Christian country toward open perversion.
If I were Obama, I would start to think my advisers are a bunch of idiots who will drive me to the wall before I can say “Kathleen Sebelius”; with the first of the idiots being, of course, his VP, who makes everything he can to make Obama look as he deserves.
Also note the direction things are taking: North Carolina already banned so-called gay marriages, but the electorate clearly wanted to slam the door altogether, and twenty-eight other states preceded it. Make no mistake, this confrontation is getting harsher.
I have often expressed the opinion, and repeat it today, that the so-called gay movement has some chances of success until there is no great opposition on the other side and they can hope in a benevolent disinterest from mainstream America.
This dynamic will, I think, entirely change when the conflict erupts and becomes open war. When the average citizen awakens to the perversion of sodomy and the absurdity of giving it legal recognition, homos will have no better cards than paedophiles.
For a while, judicial activism can hope to compensate for the several dozens of defeats in the popular vote, but if the USA are to survive as a democracy, the people will demand that their voice be heard.
Today, once again, the people have spoken. There is no mistaking either the message in North Carolina, or the general climate in the rest of the country.
On this occasion, Obama has tried not to shoot himself in the foot but thankfully, his VP did it for him. North Carolina could be decisive in November, one cannot but feel Biden is doing an excellent job. I wonder how Obama’s opinion on the matter will “evolve”, though.
Kudos to the people of North Carolina. They have reacted in the right way to the attempt to make abomination presentable.
But make no mistake, the only way to let this nonsense end is the reintroduction of sodomy laws. We’ll get there one day, though I doubt I will live to see it.
Something is happening in this once proud country. If not an awakening – we are far away from that – a refusal to become completely asleep to Christianity, and reason.
The Coalition For Marriage is now happily sailing toward half a million signatures. For an initiative never mentioned on the BBC or Classic FM (5 million listeners a day, the latter; and a news desk drowning in socialist champagne) and supported mainly by internet tam-tam and mailing lists, there’s enough to deprive a giant like Margaret Thatcher of sleep, let alone a pigmy like Cameron.
Cameron’s problem is that part of his party insists in not wanting to become Liberal-Democrat and seems, rather, intentioned to remain Conservative. This is a big problem for him, because if they wake up to the fact they are Conservatives, they’ll realise he isn’t.
On the matter of so-called “gay-marriage” (by which an allegedly Conservative government started to sound proposal not even about the if, but about the how of the measure; if they’re Conservatives, I must be Muslim) things seem not to go very well for our dear Chameleon.
It would appear Tory MPs are terrified, and are imploring – or rather, demanding – that Cameron allows the thing to die quietly, with the least possible loss of face.
This is a typical English way: in theory I want to do something, in practice I let it be. This way, I try to smuggle myself as the right guy for both camps. Alas, I doubt it will work for Cameron, because he is now damaged goods among his own MPs, who slowly start to realise prostitution doesn’t let you stay in power for long, and it’s bad for your soul.
The “warnings that a Tory rebellion in the Commons would eclipse last year’s EU referendum revolt, when 81 Conservatives defied the Prime Minister” is perfectly credible, as whoever follows British politics knows Cameron went out of the confrontation as damaged goods, with his reputation as leader shattered and now firmly in the viewfinder of the (really) conservative wing of the party.
MPs have been so stunned by the scale of the protests that a secret group has been set up by Tory MPs at Westminster to force Mr Cameron to back down. Many of the MPs admit that the ‘avalanche’ of letters from the Tory grass-roots was forcing them to change their views.
This is embarrassing but, I think, credible. Tory MP have been stunned at knowing there are still Christians around, and at the discovery they are still enough to make them unemployed. Some of them, not having morals of their own, have decided to embrace the morals of their constituents, as their jobs depend on them. Therefore, they have told Cameron he should stop being silly, and pretend to believe in God once in a while.
A Tory MP put it this way:
‘It is clear from both my postbag and the Coalition for Marriage petition… that a significant body of opinion in our city and up and down our country share my views.’
Incredibile dictu, even in the secularised, tepid, indifferent, “let’s be nice to each other” United Kingdom opposition is starting to form to the perversion of what is most sacred, driven from a Prime Minister for which nothing is sacred, but his permanence to power.
You can sign the petition here.
Please notice this might become more than a rearguard battle, as the number of people getting slowly but surely angry is – incredibly – increasing. More than 50,000 citizen have already signed, and the tom tom can make this thing become huge with – if they wake up to the huge lie called “David Cameron” – vast support in rural England, which is absolutely vital to the Tories’ permanence in power; or, more to the point, to Cameron’ s permanence at the head of it.
I will write about the situation separately. Please send the link everywhere, tweet it, forward it, mail it, let it come into the furthest corner of the British Isles.
I doubt Cameron will be stopped as I can’t imagine Labour not helping the lavender “Tories”; but he should be made to pay at least a high price, so that more and more people understand what a disgrace he is.
Please sign the petition.
Very courageously, His Heremeneuticalness has published a scandalous video of “bidding prayers” in a so-called “gay mass”. You find the video here.
If you have the stomach to listen to it, not only you will hear the usual passive-aggressive “oh how I am persecuted” crap, but you will notice the lectern covered with a rainbow cloth. In a sacred place. At Mass.
When you are already wondering whether this is a joke, or some fake staged by right-wing extremists, you’ll see a strange guy dressed in drags, the very epitome of a carnival figure, reading some of the prayers with a desperate attempt to look and sound like a stupid woman, and only succeeding in making a very sad joke of himself.
Of course, we know that such people exist. People not only perverted in their sexual orientation; not only utterly refusing to do anything against it – and be it a daily prayer that they might be freed from their, erm, perversion rather than being proud of it – but even hijacking what is most sacred for the sake of their propaganda. We know these people exist, and we know they will find priests – homosexual themselves, or without any sensible notion of their job and duties – ready to be their accomplices.
What really makes me angry, is that from the very top of the E&W hierarchy, such desecration and perversion of Christianity is tolerated and silently or openly approved. Archbishop Nichols, the man who allows so-called “gay-masses” in the heart of London, has openly expressed his support for “civil partnership” legislation (just use the search function of this blog, and you’ll find more than you wished for). In this country we are at the vigil of the introduction of so-called gay-marriages, a pet of our disgraceful Prime Minister, and his opposition to this has been limited to the murmur of half-disapprobation ex officio which clearly gives to understand he is not contrary at all, he merely must say so.
Archbishop Nichols is the single biggest problem of the Church in E&W today. If we had a Catholic as Archbishop, the fight he would start on these issues would make it impossible for the likes of Cameron to act the liberal and progressive without paying a heavy political price, and at that point even Cameron would get that there’s nothing to be gained. Not so with Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols, possibly the most shameless accomplice of secular values and betrayer of Catholic truth this country has ever seen. Archbishop Nichols abets perversion every day with his words, with his acts and with his silence. He sells Catholic – nay, elementary Christian – values for the sake of an easy popularity among those who don’t care for the Church; he is every bit as bad – nay, worse still, much worse – than the pitiful pervert in drags you can see in the video: then the pervert may claim ignorance of the very basis of Catholicism and has no responsibility for so many sheep.
Yes, we must pray for the Archbishop. But we must also pray that he be removed, at once.
Laura L. Iberal
The DMAOLA (Dog, Mule and Alternative Oriented Lovers Association) has yesterday demanded that the State of New York recognises their right to lawfully wed their loved ones.
“It is a pure matter of justice”, says their national speaker, Mr Dan B. Ass: “Now that the gay community has finally succeeded in obtaining that their right to love finds legal recognition, we DMAOL community demand that the same criteria be used with us”. The “Smarts” (this is how the members of the DMAOLA call themselves; Mr Ass informed me that every other definition will be considered extremely offensive, hurtful and, as he says, “lovephobic”) have made very clear that their human rights are at stake, and that they are going to fight the battle for their right to love until final victory.
“We don’t need to win any referendum anyway”, says again Mr. Ass, “as we plan to win our battles largely through judicial activity, following the example of the GLBT community”. Mr. Ass expects the general population to remain against them for a while, as – as he puts it – “the lovephobic prejudices of the conservative, most notably of the Christian population are not going to go away overnight”. Still, he is adamant that “the fight for our human rights will go on” and “you can’t stop love”.
I have asked Mr. Ass how the DMAOL community reacts to some problems that will be posed by critics: isn’t marriage supposed to be between a man and a woman? “Nonsense”, says Mr. Ass whilst caressing his female Great Dane called Valeria, with whom he has been romantically involved since 2009; “It is clear that marriage is now, from a legal point of view, completely detached from every gender definition. The New York Legislative clearly states so. We only propose to go a little step further and to state that marriage is a union between loving beings. To deny us our right to love is to oppress our most elementary human rights; an expression of sheer, blind lovephobia”.
What about the consent? Isn’t consent necessary for a valid marriage? “It is as long as the law says so”, replies Mr. Ass. “A man and a woman were necessary too, but they aren’t anymore. As the recent example of New York shows, you only need to change the legal parameters to adequate them to the result you wish to obtain. Besides, if desired the consent can be either legally presumed until proof to the contrary, or ascertained with other means” [he goes “woof! woof!” and Valeria, the female Great Dane, enthusiastically joins him].
And what about the money? Are dogs, mules and other animals allowed to become heirs of their partners? [“spouses”, Mr. Ass corrects me somewhat peeved]
“This is possible, but not necessary”, answers Mr. Ass again. “Our non-human spouses could be given title to a patrimony administered by trustees, as it is the case now for human minors; at their death, the money would be distributed according to normal law of succession, unless the original donor has disposed otherwise. But we don’t insist on this; rather on the legal recognition of our right to love”.
In the end, says Mr. Ass, “we want to work to put an end to the endless prejudices of a culture based on the oppression of those who prefer alternative loving. This oppression is based on the supremacy of the strictest conformity to Judeo-Christian values that has damaged humanity for so many years. The recent legislation de-coupling social institutions from Christian values makes it not only perfectly possible, but socially imperative that the same criteria be applied to us. We only demand the right to love, and ask that our civil rights be respected”.
But what about harming the animal? Is this not going to be hurtful? “Hurtful? Ha! – laughs he – do you think that sodomy is a walk in the park? This hasn’t been an obstacle, has it?”
But do you really think that you will change the mind of the people? I ask Mr. Ass again. “In time, of course I think so”, he answers, “I am absolutely persuaded of it! Look at homosexuality! Only two generations ago, homosexuality was considered a disgusting perversion not even to be mentioned in front of children, and at the same level of being smart! Nowadays, children are taught in “sensitivity classes” about homosexuality, and are given books with homosexual penguins and dolphins!” I must admit that he has a point here. “And look at the churches! The Episcopalians have women priests, women bishops, even gay and lesbians bishops! Give them some time, and they will have alternatively loving priests and priestesses, bishops and bishopesses! Haven’t they always followed the evolution of the general mentality?” I reflect, and stay silent. He is unstoppable: “If someone had told you sixty years ago that in two generations the Episcopalians would have priestesses, bishopesses, and gay and lesbians everywhere, even in bishop’s positions, would you have believed him?”
I can’t contradict Mr. Ass here, either. “You see”, he continues now fully animated whilst Valeria, the female Great Dane, wags her tail, “just give us the right President, and we’ll even have a smart judge at the Supreme Court! Heck, who knows – he continues – perhaps we already have! There are so many smarts forced to remain in the closet because of society’s lovephobia! We calculate that we are at least 5% of the population. Julius Caesar, Dickens, Beethoven, Napoleon, Queen Victoria and Gandhi were certainly or very probably smart”.
“What you really need to understand”, says Mr. Ass now entirely animated, “is that you either follow religious principles, or you don’t. You can’t stop in the middle. Once you have decided that religious principles aren’t the foundation of civil legislation, who is to say what is right and what is wrong? The lovephobic prejudices against us is purely the result of a Judeo-Christian reflex, totally opposed to the rights and freedoms of our modern, inclusive society! How can you decide that the gay community should be included, and the smart community should be excluded? I know, some excuses can be found for us as they were found for the gay community. But in the end, it’s on the Judeo-Christian prejudices that they’ll be based.” I listen with interest. He is not deprived of logic. “Besides, we don’t think that real Christianity condemns alternative loving. Jesus is love!”.
“Our society is based on freedom, tolerance, inclusiveness, love, change, and doing no harm. We demand that you truly embrace these values. We harm no one, we do not want to take any right away from anyone, and we are accepting of any lifestyle. Who is more modern and democratic than us smarts?”
Interviewed about the matter, Mr Mario C. Uomo, the Governor of New York, has stated that “whilst the smart lifestyle is not one I would personally endorse, I fully understand the desire for equality of the DMAOL community”. He will not actively seek to promote legislation in that sense, but “if the state legislature finds that this can be done” he doesn’t feel that it is in his duties to “impose his conviction on those having different opinions”. Mr Uomo, who said that his Catholicism is “sincerely felt”, made nevertheless clear that he wishes the DMAOL community every success “in their fight for equality, human and animal rights”.
For the Poofington Post,
Laura L. Iberal