<p>Note: that’s the number of people “born” (or “baptized”) as Catholics. If you go to, say, Italy today, you’ll have a rather difficult time finding 'em. When the Pope speaks in Italy these days - be it on abortion or anything else - there is for the most part a great shrug.</p>
<p>Yeah, right. That’s why the Vatican square is wall-to-wall people when the Pope makes an appearance or gives a blessing. </p>
<p>Keep on hating the Catholic Church if it gives you pleasure, mini. We’ll remember you in our prayers…</p>
<p>" dont no about him, i wouldnt change my opinion. But on the flip side if u discover homosexuality is not genetic? then what?"</p>
<p>What does it matter? It’s not your life. And about this “recognizing” gay marriage thing, really, who cares if you recognize anyone’s marriage? I hate my sister-in-law with a raging passion and if anyone would not recognize a marriage it would be me of hers, but the law calls my brother is married to the psycho whore and that’s the way it is. What matters is that two consenting adults who choose to accept the rights and responsibilities of marriage “recognize” their union. If you get an invitation to a same-sex marriage, decline. Just make sure you have some manners and RSVP promptly.</p>
<p>"Let me tell you why i would not still support gay marriage in the form it is being asked for. "</p>
<p>Golani, why do you care? Please explain why on earth it would matter to you who some random people marry.</p>
<p>“Keep on hating the Catholic Church if it gives you pleasure, mini. We’ll remember you in our prayers…”</p>
<p>Nothing worth hating. They have an august and triumphant history worth embracing, gay marriage and all.</p>
<p>Italy has the most liberal abortion law in western Europe:</p>
<p><a href=“[Abortion law in Italy] - PubMed”>[Abortion law in Italy] - PubMed;
<p>Church attempts to overturn it failed by more than two to one.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, 250,000 people lined up a Moscow Church of Our Savior to see the right hand of John the Baptist.</p>
<p><a href=“http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5060004.stm[/url]”>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5060004.stm</a></p>
<p>It may be coming to a community near you soon, so watch for it. (I promise to join you.)</p>
<p><the catholic=“” church=“” is=“” not=“” only=“” the=“” largest=“” christian=“” church,=“” but=“” also=“” organized=“” body=“” of=“” any=“” world=“” religion.=“”></the></p>
<p>Does that mean more followers than any other religion? What is the number of Moslems?</p>
<p>mini - To what church do you belong, if any?</p>
<p>mini is Quaker</p>
<p>Italy has the most liberal abortion law in western Europe:
what follows from having judges say you can’t be raped if you have jeans on?
<a href=“http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/277263.stm[/url]”>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/277263.stm</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_romcath.html[/url]”>http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_romcath.html</a>
this is kind of interesting- anyone know the history of why so many catholics in Rhode Island?</p>
<p>“What “company” ? – mathmom, you need to do some serious rethinking about just what kind of entity you are living in. ; )”</p>
<p>ACk!</p>
<p>I seriously can’t type anymore. Country! Country!</p>
<p>“No, Leanid, that wasn’t me. My position is that “marriage” should be exclusively a religious title, devoid of any legal significance, and that the state should only issue civil partnership licenses which would carry the same legal significance that marriage now has - to gays and straights alike. (I would grandfather in all existing marriages.) Get married in the church of your choice, but fill out the legal papers as well. Or skip the religious ceremony, as many now do already.”</p>
<p>This is what I would like to see as well.</p>
<p>Catholics in Rhode Island: That’s an interesting question. There were practically none there before the middle of the 19th century, and it had a Catholic plurality (and was electing Catholic politicians) by 1900. I think it was just the happenstance of getting four different waves of Catholic immigration – Irish to the East Coast cities, Italians to the East Coast cities, Portugese to the coast between Groton CT and Cape Cod, and French Canadians throughout northern New England – and not having a large non-Catholic rural population to dilute it.</p>
<p>
LMAO!! Just be supportive if he gets some sense and files divorce papers. ;)</p>
<p>That is a liberal abortion law?
Geez, in America, parental notification is considered to be a return to the back alleys! These people require consent!</p>
<p>“Why are the excretory and sexual organs placed so close together?”</p>
<p>Well, gla, that is simple. The answer is: so that they are within reach of the BIDET, of course!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Does the term “seperate but equal” ring a bell?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If black-white marriage becomes legal than I have to recognize it, certain professionals have to recognize it, those race traitors are a married couple like me, in contracts I enter with etc… and this is what I don’t like.</p>
<p>The majority of Americans opposed Loving v. Virginia (which lifted anti-miscegenation laws) when that decision was first handed down. Are you saying the SCOTUS shouldn’t have overturned it, then? The majority do not, have never had and never will have the authority to take away the equal rights of the minority.</p>
<p>The difference about Loving is that it was sound constitutional analysis. Quick overview: the Lovings were Virginia residents; they went to DC (I think) to wed; they returned to Virginia. The police raided their home. Under Virginia law, they were convicted and told to not return to the state for 25 years. The purpose of this was to ensure that they would not be in Virginia during child-bearing years. The statute had a few problems. A black person could wed a Hispanic; an Asian could wed a white; pretty much everyone was allowed to marry everyone else except for black-white marriages. The Lovings then made an Equal Protection claim.</p>
<p>Why does this matter? First of all, the statute explicitly forbade only black-white marriages; ergo, the state had very little ground to stand on when it asserted an interest against such unions. Arguably, the case could have come out differently if ALL interracial marriages were prohibited. Secondly, the Lovings fell squarely under the original purpose of the Equal Protection Clause: prevention of racial discrimination.
<a href=“14th Amendment | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute”>14th Amendment | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute;
<p>For those of you who are familiar with your history, the Equal Protection Clause has never held to mean what its words say it means - i.e. equal protection for all. It was passed with the intention of changing the country after slavery. Minorities have the strongest claims to its protection. Susan B. Anthony tried to argue that it gave women the right to vote, but lost that case. Hence the reason for the XIX Amendment back in 1920. </p>
<p>The Equal Protection Clause has not been held to give equal rights to women in the same way that equal rights are given to minorities; hence the attempt at the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. </p>
<p>Why does this matter? Simply, gays do not fall under the umbrella of Equal Protection in the way that blacks do. We do NOT have a “save us from ourselves” Equal Rights Amendment; we have an amendment which has, for the past 150 years, been limited to minorities and to give more limited protection to women. (Of course, it has been used to remedy “reverse discrimination” as well, but that at least is within the purview of racial issues.)</p>
<p>If you do not want the rights of the few to be at the whim of the majority, then the Founding Fathers designed a mechanism for that. Amend the Constitution - which is a living document in that it is subject to change - and create a “protect us from ourselves” amendment. Until then, there is a difference between morals and legal, Constitutional rights. That disparity is not a fault of the Constitution; it cannot truly be remedied by judges pretending that it means something that it does not; it is the fault of citizens who do not care enough or legislators who are too apathetic to pass an amendment to the contrary. </p>
<p>Rant over. :)</p>
<p>Excellent contribution, aries.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, HH, what about civil union? I believe certain states have majority rooting for that. How conveniently you avoid mentioning that. I have a gut feeling that you just don’t want them to have any legal recognition even if they label it as “civil union”, not marriage.</p>
<p>Anybody who’s ever been married would never call the arrangement a “civil union.”</p>
<p>Someone made a commment earlier about how acceptance of gays is a tide that will not be turned. It’s just a matter of time till they will no longer be considered freaks. This article about “mainstream” gay cruises seems to support that: </p>
<p><a href=“http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/travel/29prac.html[/url]”>http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/travel/29prac.html</a></p>
<p>Hey Tourguide, I resent that! My marriage is a “civil union” - well, most of the time, anyway…</p>