Do Gay Rights Violate Religious Freedom?

Freethought Arizona - Reason, Science, and Freedom of Expression

Do Gay Rights Violate Religious Freedom?

by jason on Oct. 05, 2011, under Art & Culture, AZ Politics, Christian Self-Righteous Arrogance, Christianity, Conservatism vs. Liberalism, Critical Thinking, Ethics, Faith, Fundamentalism, Gay Marriage, God & Bible, Government, History, Libertarianism, Logic, Mormonism, Reason, Religion, Responsible Government, Sanity, Separation of Church & State, Supreme Court

Is it a violation of someone’s freedom of religion if part of their job requires them to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples? That is the question at issue in the case of a New York town clerk, who feels it violates her religious rights of conscience to issue marriage licenses to gay couples:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/nyregion/rights-clash-as-town-clerk-rejects-her-role-in-gay-marriages.html

The article poses this as a clash of rights. But is it? On the one hand, it’s good, and long overdue, to recognize that same sex couples do have a right to marry. That recognition is required for there to be any kind of “clash” in the first place. So at least one cheer for the article. But what about the rights of the town clerk, who feels that gay marriage is immoral?

Does she have the right to hold that opinion? Yes. I think she’s wrong, but freedom includes the right to hold ideas that others consider wrong.

But does she have the right to let that opinion interfere with the execution of her duties as town clerk? No, she doesn’t. If she gets sued or fired for not issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples, is that religious discrimination? No, it isn’t.

First of all, no one has a right to hold any particular job, least of all a government job. Holding a job is contingent upon, among other things, an individual’s capability and willingness to execute all of the duties required of that job. This is behind the idea of a “Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ)”, meaning a legitimate requirement of a job. Some people talk about the need to make “Reasonable Accommodation”, but this needs to be understood as an accommodation that does not reasonably impact one of the legitimate job requirements.

Basically, you can’t discriminate in employement against someone for their religious *beliefs*, and you can’t make them do things that aren’t legitimately required for the job, but you also don’t have to change the fundamental characteristics of a job to accommodate someone’s belief. Which means, this town clerk can believe whatever she wants about same sex marriage. She can even publicly condemn such marriages all she wants – in her off hours. But if she won’t do the job she’s being paid for, which requires that she issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, then the citizens are 100% correct to either sue or fire her ass.

Otherwise we open the door to all sorts of nonsense. Maybe someone has a religious belief that dark skinned people are satan’s followers, like the Mormons originally did, and so won’t issue licenses to people of color. Would that be accepted? Or perhaps someone’s religion tells them to take 3 hours off in the middle of the day to recite prayers – must we accommodate that? Of course we should not. How about something as simple as a bartender who undergoes a religous conversion experience and now believes serving alcohol is a sin and so is no longer willing to do so? Is the bar owner required to keep him on as an employee and make accommodations for his new religious beliefs? Clearly not.

This town clerk in New York should do her job, or vacate the position to someone who will.

That said, two caveats are in order.

The first one is simply that in at least some regards the left has brought this on themselves by persistently attacking the idea of at will employment over the years. Some lefties may take exception to my blanket statement that no one has a right to hold a particular job, particularly if they are unable or unwilling to perform one of the legitimate requirements of the job. Or would, if instead of a town cleark unwilling to issue gay marriage licenses I was talking about a disabled delivery truck driver unable to meet the physical requirements of the job. Principles should be applied equally, no matter whose ox is being gored. And the principle of at will employment is an important one in both government and private sector jobs.

The second caveat is that the entire practice of state issued marriage licenses is an antiquated holdover from more repressive times, when interracial marriages were prohibited. Really, the state should eliminate even the perception of a “clash of rights” by simply stopping the requirement for and the issuance of marriage licenses to anyone, gay or striaght. Instead, counties should accept, but not require, recording of marriage contracts as public documents. The whole idea of a “license” to get married is repugnant to the idea of marriage itself – as if some government bureaucrat failing to grant permission would change who I love and want to spend my life with?

It boggles the mind that those who scream most loudly about “traditional” marriage, the conservative christians, won’t acknowledge how repugnant the idea of government controlling it is in the first place.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 5th, 2011 at 06:00 and is filed under Art & Culture, AZ Politics, Christian Self-Righteous Arrogance, Christianity, Conservatism vs. Liberalism, Critical Thinking, Ethics, Faith, Fundamentalism, Gay Marriage, God & Bible, Government, History, Libertarianism, Logic, Mormonism, Reason, Religion, Responsible Government, Sanity, Separation of Church & State, Supreme Court. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

RSS feed for this post (comments)

leftfield

Myself, I believe everyone who wants to work has a “right” to employment at a job that provides a livable wage through productive and self-affirming labor, but not necessarily a specific job. I agree that this conflict and others of similar nature come about from leftist policy.

As to the issue of state-issued licenses for marriage, the question that seems to come up legally is whether the state has a “legitimate interest”. Does the state have a ‘legitimate interest” in who is and who is not married? I think so, given that so many benefits are determined based on marriage status. An example is filing taxes as a single vs. married person.

madest

Does the state have a “legitimate interest” in heterosexual marriage? The fact is the constitution guaruntees everyone equal rights. Two consenting adults should be allowed to marry no matter their sexuality of race. The legitimate interest you bring up is nonsense.

leftfield

I think thou has missed my points, madest.

David

I actually, question the notion that the state has a legitimate interest in who gets married, and I think they need to stop giving so many benefits based on marriage status. I see this as a form of social engineering. I personally favor seperation of state and marriage.

2 tell the truth

Except the State is the body that governs society, not “the Church”. “The Church” does not perform divorces. “The Church” does not decide alimony or child-custody/support. “The Church” does not decide immigration cases vis a vis sponsoring a foreign-born spouse. ”The Church” does not dole out your Social Security, or any other pension. “The Church” does not decide inheritances (nor the taxes on them). ”The Church” does not decide that you cannot be compelled to testify against your spouse. ALL these things (and much, much more) are woveninto the fabric of society and ‘governed’ by the Government, not “The Church”.

I say separate “The Church” from marriage and let them stick to performing the Rite of Holy Matrimony. Because “The Church” only “marries” couples because of “the power vested in [it] BY THE STATE. The documents signed at the ceremony are issued BY THE STATE. The license to wed is issued BY THE STATE.

Ergo, the State most assuredly DOES have an interst in who gets married. Seems to me that all too often, “The Church” is in the business of deciding who DOESN’T get married. They’re welcome to do that – but ONLY in the confines of their religion.

John Bartlett

Actually this question is a “no brainer”. In the south many, many, many churches opposed mixed race marriage based on Scripture. In 1967 the US Supreme Court overturned all anti-miscegenation laws and clerks HAD to marry mixed race couples regardless of their “religious” beliefs. How is this any different?

2 tell the truth

It isn’t any different.

what

It’s different because one is born a certain race, homosexuality is a belief acquired after puberty. One is genetic, the other is behavioral.

notsofast

All science that is actual, valid science fundamentally disagrees with your assertion that it’s a belief and/or choice. I’ve been gay since I was old enough to know what sexual attraction was, and I didn’t learn it from anyone. I was born this way, baby. Religion, on the other hand, is learned and acquired through brainwashing, I mean socialization by religious parents. Therefore it’s a choice.

So on the vanishingly slim chance that my orientation is a choice, it should be abundantly apparent that your religion is also a choice, and if your religion is protected under law, my sexual orientation must be also. You don’t get to have it both ways.

Pacific Babe

Notsofast: Excellent! Babe

Chu

lol, this is rediculous

Pacific Babe

Chu, of course you find this ridiculous. You wear blinders and want one outcome and that outcome is the dictates of your religious dogma. Babe

Chu

to commit homosexual acts is a choice…. no matter how you frame it… to have black skin is not an action…. now whether you should be discriminated against…no… but it is right for a religion/moral standard to stay some actions are against its moral/religious code…. pedophilia is not a choice, science has stated that being monogamous or not is based on genetics…

Pacific Babe

Chu it appears your comprehension skills are equal to your writing skills. Very poor! Now go and crawl back under your rock. Babe

Chu

stay=say… i didn’t know that you could not understand a simple typo

Mav

This woman has a right to her religious beliefs, but she does not have a right to use her position of governmental power to enforce those religious beliefs on others who do not hold them. That’s the bottom line. This woman is abusing her powers as a government official in order to press her own bigoted agenda.

If you think eating shellfish is an abomination, don’t work at Red Lobster. If you think homosexual marriage is an abomination, don’t work as a marriage official in a state where homosexual marriage is legal. Cite religious conflict as your reason for leaving if you must, but personally-held religion does not trump the elected secular state.

Ever.

It really is as simple as that.

2 tell the truth

Amen.

what

I thought gay marriage didn’t affect anybody? if you don’t like it don’t get one? Clearly the belief that gay marriage does not affect anyone is erred.

Jasonb84

Firstly compared to most western countries, Religious groups and organisations have more freedom in the USA than they actually realise. Its my belief that gay and lesbian people cannot express and take advantage of freedom in the USA due to homophobia which partly comes from the Religious groups and organisations which want more freedom. The truth is that a convicted heterosexual serial killer has more rights than a gay or lesbian person in the USA.
AlanW

She can believe what she wants but not to sign a marriage license, come on. She is not marrying the two, she is issuing a license. Here in Las Vegas there are thousands upon thousands of Mormons. I know many who work in the casinos as dealers. In temple interviews the officiator asks if the person gambles, and then is told not to. That doesn’t stop them from working in the casino and on Sunday no less.
Inis Magrath

I do not accept at face value your assertion that “the left has brought” this clash of rights. That subject would require much more extensive analysis and is not so simple a proposition as to ascribe it to any one political sphere, either right or left. Moreover, so what if it is a product of the left? Expanding equality and civil rights, as championed by the left, is a good thing. Further, as a liberal myself I fully understand that expanding equality and civil rights for all may sometimes result in some clashes of competing rights. All civil rights compete with others in some respect. The right to freedom of speech, for example, cannot extend so far as to the rights of others to be protected from slanderous speech or the incitement of violence.

2 tell the truth

The clerk is not being forced to have a same-gender marriage. She is not being forced to officiate at a same-gender marriage. She is being asked to do her job, namely,to issue a marriage licence to all couples who come before her and are legally qualified to marry. She should either do her job or quit. Or be fired.

what

So, because one is a Christian one cannot have a job as a clerk? That’s religious discrimination.

what

and besides Christianity you have Islam and Judaism whom oppose gay marriage.

Inis Magrath

For those who think the Clerk has a right to refuse issuing marriage licenses based on her religious beliefs, I would ask you to contemplate the full impact that position. There are lots of things Clerk’s Offices do.The premise is this: “The Clerk believes homosexuality is a sin and does not wish to participate in the marrying of two gay people.”What’s next? How about: “The Clerk believes REJECTION OF CHRIST is a sin and does not wish to participate in the MARRIAGE Of JEWISH people.”How about: “The Clerk believes homosexuality is a sin and does not wish to participate in the CO-HABITATION of two gay people, so she is refusing to record their property deed and mortgage.”Or: “The Clerk believes GAMBLING is a sin and does not wish to participate in the issuing of Bingo and Games of Chance Licenses to local churches.”Or: “The Clerk believes violating BIBLICAL KOSHER LAWS is a sin and does not wish to participate in the issuing of shellfish licenses. (maybe not the best example for Arizaona)Or: “The Clerk believes HARMING ANIMALS is a sin and does not wish to participate in the issuing of Hunting Licenses.The fulness of religious exceptions could conceivably render the Clerk entirely unable to fulfill any meaningful facet of the job. In this I agree with the editorial author; if your faith commands you to refrain from activities that are an integral part of a job, then do not accept or keep that job.

2 tell the truth

Excellent ovservations. Would a Catholic clerk be able to refuse to issue a marriage licence to non-Catholics? (Catholic priests CAN refuse to marry non-Catholics.) What about to a divorced person or couple? (Catholic priests CAN refuse to marry divorced persons, too. And I’m fine with both of these examples, because the job of the priest is as a “religious officiant. The same does NOT apply to the clerk.)

LD

I’m gay and married (California 2008). The article raises many questions, answers a few.

If the town clerk in New York has no legal standing to refuse issuing a marriage license because of employment duties, why do some voters in some state elections have legal standing to deny gay couples a marriage license?

Is there a larger, societal duty of neighbors and strangers to interfere with, or to leave alone their married (straight and gay) neighbors and strangers?

Beyond laws based on maturity (age of spouses), family links (consanguinity), and voluntary consent to marry, what objections or interests are served by saying yes to all straights, no to all gays?

Don’t give the false worry about polygamy. It remains outlawed because financial support of spouse and/or children, paternity, inheritance, taxation, property and a lot of other laws, efficiently work for married couples, but not groups of individuals with unequal obligations and responsibilities. And, four Southwest states (Arizona is one) that ban gay marriage have an ongoing problem with polygamy, but states allowing gay marriage don’t.

Is marriage something society (through law) promotes because it helps most of us mature and take on adult responsibilities?

High school graduation, driving a car, getting a job, serving in the military – all promote adult maturity and responsibility. Why not marriage, too? Traditionally, marriage was said to promote maturity. And, gays, especially gay men, have been characterized as irresponsible. Why not promote marriage for them? Seems to work for many straight men.

If there is “at will employment,” is the same concept applied as “at will marriage?” Would hate to see a connection. Many straight couples would fail to meet the minimum requirements of marriage, at-will. The contracts would be impossible to write, fulfill or adjudicate.

BT

I fully, wholeheartedly endorse marriage equality. But you are conflating some issues which I believe is causing you some confusion.

The reasons that the clerk does not have the right to keep her public sector job while refusing to issue marriage licenses to some, are completely different from the reasons that it is inappropriate/unconstitutional to allow the public to vote on the civil rights of minorities. They are distinct.

The clerk has a job with specific dities to perform, if he can’t/won’t perform them, she should not have the job. While it is true that her duties were modified from what they originally entailed, the employer (in this case the state) made that change in a legal fashion that was not discriminatory in its nature(did not target her or people like her who share her beliefs), therefore the at-will employment factor comes into play. She will no longer do her job, so she should not stay in it.
That the majority does not have the right to vote to change/withhold the fundamental civil rights of minorities is a well established legal precendent in the United States, repeatedly held up by SCOTUS rulings.
I will translate your question of ‘purpose’ into this one: What rational basis does the government have to withhold marriage licenses from gay couples while issuing them to heterosexual couples? The short answer to this question is ”None”. You will have some put up thin strawmen stating things like “encourage procreation”, or ”children are better off with both a mother and father”, but these arguements do not hold up under even mild strutiny, despite how well they pair with many people religous beliefs.

The longer answer to that can be found in the transcripts (and hopefully soon the trial videos) of California’s Prop 8 trial, where these questions and ‘reasons’ were offered and put up to cross examination. You can get the full transcripts here: http://www.afer.org/our-work/hearing-transcripts/

But it boils down to this, marriage in the United States is not contingent upon the couple doing do wanting/intending/having the ability to have or raise kids. By SCOTUS ruling, it is not even about their ability to have sex with each other. And any study finding that parents do better with ‘both a mom and dad’ out there is actually comparing those kids with single parent homes. More recent studies are more generic and state in their conclusions that kids do better in homes with 2 parents as opposed to just one, regardless of the gender of the parents.

Polygamy is a sideshow argument, a desperate ‘slippery slope’ argument that doesn’t hold up logically, and also doesn’t hold up in a court of law. For more information about this, the wikipedia article about these kinds of arguments in general is instructive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

An examination as to why the government is involved in regulating and formally recogizing these kinds of relationships, while an interesting question is, seperate and apart from the question of should the government recognize ‘gay marriages’.

The fact of the matter is, today, more than 1000 rights/responsibilities/laws/regulations/etc.. ranging from tax breaks, inheritence, immigration, bankruptcy, etc.. derive from one’s federally recognized marriage status. (add a few hundred more on a per state basis). This is fact, this is how it is. Therefore, denying a couple the ability to get married solely based on their gender is discriminatory.

As for “At will employment” vs “at will marriage”? I am not aware of anyone advocating for ”at will marriage”. A no-fault divorce is available in all 50 states, and divorces are granted as soon as one party wants out, BUT you still need to go through the legal hoops to do it so that all the legal concerns (kids, inheritance, property, etc..) get straightened out. Most employment contracts are no where near as complicated.

Pacific Babe

BT …. Excellent! Babe

tiponeill

My possible career plan is to become a pharmacist and then convert to Christian Science.
I will refuse to fill your prescriptions, but I will pray for you.

Such “religious liberty” claims are utter nonsense but the christians - especially the Catholics – have been using them for years. It “violates their religion” let someone have birth control pills or condoms.

That said, you are wrong about the State regulating marriage – there are so many privileges and laws attached to the status of marriage in the modern world that it is essential for it to be regulated and documented.

what

Your rant is consistent with all bigoted rants, this time is against religious people.
leftfield

Welcome back, tiponeill.

Frank

On a lighter side, I’d like to quote my dad. Marriage licenses should require renewals like driving licenses.
Ursomniac

This really has nothing to do with the clerk’s freedom of religion or freedom of expression, because were either the case, it would have already arisen in many other situations.
If you’re using your religious beliefs as a weapon against same-sex couples because your religious beliefs do not allow for same-sex marriage, then why hasn’t this ALSO applies with your religious beliefs against atheists? Or as a Christian clerk, against any applications where either of the (heterosexual) applicants are Hindu, or Buddhist, or Muslim, or Wiccan, or Taoist, and so on?
How much accommodation should we allow? Can EMT’s refuse to help someone because their religion prohibits contact with the unsaved? (A previous poster brought up the example of a Christian Scientist pharmacist.) At what point do we need to mark all civil services with an asterisk and the disclaimer “applicants might have to pass a religious affinity test at the discretion of the clerk in order to receive service”?
If your job conflicts with your religion, then you either need to select a new job or a new religion.

RM

Interesting points. Reminds me of law in one (or more) states allowing medical personnel to deny reproductive health services to women if it violates their religious beliefs (and I presume protecting them from losing their job for doing so). Kind of a similar problem.

Jeepstud1221

Millions of people believe in keeping the Sabbath holy. That means NOT working on Sundays (or Saturdays for some religions). In keeping with my faith, if I’m a flight attendant, server, hotel front desk clerk, fast food restaurant employee, convenience store clerk, nurse, doctor, mall employee, or any other job that requires working on Saturday or Sunday, I can just tell my employer I need to have Sunday off because of my religion, otherwise I will get an attorney. Now, I ask, is that fair to the employer? The answer is NO. Unless you work in a religious setting, keep your religious beliefs outside of the workplace.

mishi

Indeed, Exodus 35 commands the Yawehites to put Sabbath-defilers to death. One assumes that if the clerk went on a killing spree some Sunday at WalMart, she could easily argue she was following a Higher Power that trumped secular civil law.

2 tell the truth

That is precisely what this clerk is doing, she’s saying her version of her “Higher Power” exempts her from doing her job. Which, observably, infringes on the religious beliefs (if any) of her customers.

what

then the state should supply a deputy or another option that has no problem with homosexuality….just don’t let homosexuality infringe on the clerks religious beliefs.

mishi

One of the most irritating things about this case is that the same forces supporting the clerk are fighting a proposed federal law protecting LGBT people from employment discrimination (now legal in half the states). One argument: that being gay is a choice, not an inborn condition, as though being a religious zealot is somehow genetically determined and therefore Bible-based discrimination is sacrosanct.

Poor, poor put-upon rightwing Christians. If only this were a theocracy, they’d be happy as pious pigs in scriptural slop.
Mike

“Maybe someone has a religious belief that dark skinned people are satan’s followers, like the Mormons originally did, and so won’t issue licenses to people of color.”

As a Mormon who knows something of my church’s history, I can tell you this is complete and utter nonsense. Any person who chose to do so, regardless of skin color, has always been able, and even encouraged, to be baptized as members of the “Mormon” church (properly known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). We certianly did not tell black people that they couldn’t be married, but in fact that they SHOULD marry. The church was founded during the time of slavery, and one of the big reasons why church members were driven out of Missouri (a slave state) was due to our political views, particularly the church’s staunch opposition to slavery of any kind.
Admittedly, there was at one time a policy that black men could not hold the priesthood. I’m not sure what the reason for that was, but supposedly Joseph Smith (the first prophet and founder of the church) did in fact ordain one or more black men to the priesthood (which would have been during the time of slavery when any other predominantly white church probably wouldn’t). I don’t know the reason for the change. But the church has always taught that all people — regardless of skin color — are literal children of God and have the potential to return to live with God again if we will accept the atonement of Jesus Christ by repenting of our sins and following his example and teachings.

LG

Yeah, that’s why the Book 0f Mormon contains the phrase “white and delightsome,” huh? Busted!

At any rate, this is one of the many reasons I left America and subsequently renounced my American citizenship. The prohibition of same-sex marriage is evidence that America is nothing short of a full-on theocracy. >_<

Chu

hate to break it to you… but white has been a symbol of purity for many religions… and probably even to most atheists

2 tell the truth

White SKIN?

I think not.

Chu

how do you know they were talking about skin??? your interpretation…
from the same book…(which i know you believe is not God’s word..or in fact it could be God’s word…but whether it is a racist book or not…)
For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

mishi

Funny, Mike, that you use the phrase “complete and utter nonsense.”
The LDS believes that Native Americans arrived here on a cruise from the Middle East, whereas DNA evidence shows that to be ”complete and utter nonsense.” The so-called Book of Abraham, translated from the nonexistent “Reformed Egyptian” by Smith, has been proven by the Rosetta Stone to be, yes, ”complete and utter nonsense.” And we won’t even go into the “Mr. and Mrs. God living on Kolob” hoo-hah.
Admittedly, you have the right to believe any silly thing you want to. But using such a nonsensical faith as a pretext to strip away MY pre-existing right to be married in California is simply offensive to my rational, non-nonsensical self.
Oh, and since your God, via his mouthpiece Smith, got to call all other Christian faiths “abominations,” I get to insult yours, too.

Chu

hoo-ha… you wasting so much time write this is “complete and utter” non-sense… you can live with who you want and call yourself “married”…why do you care what the “state” and “wackjobs” think?? whoo-ha… complete and utter nonsense..its funny how you use that phrase and than repeat information that all Mormons above the age of 21 know

2 tell the truth

No, mishi does not “call [her]self “married”. She IS married, and not smarm quotes needed.

Thanks for playing.

Chu

“married”

mishi

Chu, it’s very, very simple. Same-sex marriage was legal in California and polls showed Proposition 8 losing. The local Catholic dioceses, alarmed at the prospect, got in touch with the LDS and huge amounts of out-of-state Mormon money helped fund a scare campaign that – according to the Federal court – impermissibly overturned established civil rights.

That campaign was predicated on theology, the whole concept of Mr. and Mrs. God and eternal marriage. (The LDS also managed to keep gay kids out of Boy Scouts, too, though what that had to do with Moroni’s message escapes me.)

Sure, plenty of religions are full of hooey, but the LDS is particularly vulnerable. While I can’t decisively PROVE that all the many animal species on Earth did not descend from Noah’s boatload, there’s enough DNA evidence to demonstrate that the Book of Mormon’s notion of migration to North America is horse pucky.

And sure, maybe every adult Mormon in his magic undies knows that the Book of Abraham is a fraud and just doesn’t care, and that’s surely their right. But when wackjobbery is used as a pretext to undo my rights, that’s when I care.

Pacific Babe

Excellent again! And, yes one can prove that Noah’s silly little sail boat could not have contained all the animals that populate the world. But that’s a whole other topic. Babe

mishi

thanks, Babe! I do think that polar bears and kinkajous came from elsewhere, but that’s it. :)

Pacific Babe

Mishi: I’ve been following this blog for a long time and this is the first time I’ve ever seen your name. I am enjoying your arguments (and sense of humor) very much. I hope you continue to return to the site. It’s quality people like you that we need to help us beat back the christian wackos and their archaic views. Please keep speaking up. Babe

Chu

its so predictable and boring to be honest

Pacific Babe

Actually Chu you are boring and predictable. All the others have made comments worth reading. You have contributed nothing. Babe

Chu

really? really?

Chu

ummm, there is not enough DNA evidence…. enough DNA evidence for your set point of view… , now from the very first thing I said…DNA does not prove the BOM but it can’t disprove it b/c it would be expected that a small group would not leave an identifiable DNA marker 2,600 years later…. but in your eyes, its disprove so be it….
and ps. you are not funny in the slightest with the magic undies

and LDS is not particularly vulnerable…. I think Noah and the ark thing you can definitely “prove”
You know why Prop 8 passed..b/c Obama got nominated and more African-American voters came out and voted than was expected from a normal voting year…
and just b/c one judge(who was obviously as bias as any Catholic or Mormon, or whatever other religion “hate” gay people) decided that way, does not make it “fact”
most people ridicule his decision for being bias and stating “facts” that are more social reconstruction than “facts”

Pacific Babe

To Mishi and LG …. Good job! Babe

Chu

No it wasn’t…mishi just pick and choose her sources…DNA evidence can’t disprove a small group entering a larger gene pool…. dna doesn’t prove the book of mormon by any means but it doesn’t disprove it… and the kolob stuff is no more weird than any christian belief…
and your pre-existing right was granted by one judge in California but not granted by other judges in other states
and the book of abraham contains stories and names that are later found in ancient Abraham text that were discovered after the Book of Abraham was written..and o, a story of Abraham was found in other Egyptian scrolls that contained the story of the dead….
i believe the nonsensical rational that most people made in denying your preexisting right to marry was that marriage is between a man and a woman.. who can procreate… just like a quessadilla contains cheese and a tortilla, not cheese and lettuce

2 tell the truth

Sooo much ‘god-talk’ in what is supposed to be a secular setting – a city licensing office.

Chu

ugh, secular does not mean no “god” talk allowed…the constitution just provides that anyone can practice any belief(or non-belief)

mishi

On the other hand, until early this very year, merely expressing support for LGBT rights was an infraction of the BYU Honor Code. Apparently, freedom of conscience is a one-way street.

Chu

wow, a private university compared to a court house…. no difference uh????

and you seem awfully obsessed with the Mormons

mishi

chu. Iknow you’ve heard this before, but neither the ability to procreate, nor the intent to do so, is a prerequisite for marriage, neither civil nor religious. Plenty of gay couples are raising kids, plenty of straight ones aren’t.

And yes, I’ve seen Mormon apologists tie themselves into knots trying to prove that the “Book of Abraham” scroll doesn’t say what it in fact does, rather than what Smith envisioned in his hat. Or to explain why horses are mentioned as living here eons before the Spaniards brought them. Or why, to quote Wikipedia, the “mainstream archaeologists, geneticists, and historians (who) do not recognize the existence of Lamanites” are wrong.

But the obvious explanation – that Smith did not know the Rosetta stone would soon be decrypted, that DNA tracing would show Native Americans came here from Asia, and that HE MADE STUFF UP – is so, um, inconvenient, no?

And like I said, I don’t give a tinker’s dam if you believe in Zenu, Moroni, or the Wizard of Oz. Just please keep your theology tucked firmly in your pants, rather than trying to shove your lifestyle down our throats, eh?

Oh, and by the way, what IS the Mormons’ theological justification for keeping self-identified gay kids out of the Boy Scouts?

Chu

lol, wrong scrupitures…BOM=HAT
abraham =no hat
thanks for playing

Chu

i prefer Wizard of Oz

Pacific Babe

Chu … Not a bit of difference from your god and the wizard. Babe

Chu

God*

Chu

and your wrong… egypotogists, “anti-mormons”, “mormon-apologist” all say that is says the same thing… that it is the Egyptian Book of the Dead… so you have not read that much
Chu

“mainstream archeologists” who believed in the “Lmanites” would be Mormon archeologists, who would you than immediately shun
Chu

and I “quote” Wikipedia….. which is the source of all knowledge and wisdom in the world… and we know as humans we are never wrong, or there is nothing in history that we don’t know about presently or has been lost in history…if wiki says it…than I join the humanist society of tuscon

Chu

and good job.babe

Chu

why do you bother..they will just attack you

Chu

just wanted to add, that i believe the state should get out of marriage, and issue civil contracts that any two people can enter

2 tell the truth

Civil marriage IS a “civil contract”. The State is doing the State’s business when performing or recognizing such contracts. It shure isn’t the business of “The Church”. So let’s get “The Church” out of the marriage business. They can stick to what they do best – performing the religious Rite of Holy Matrimony, during which the religious officiant will intone the magic words, “and now, by the power vested in me BY THE STATE” to a couple that has obtained a State-issued marriage license, and after which, the officiant and the couple will sign the State-issued Marriage Certificate.

The State will thenceforth regulate – as it does now – all of the ‘effects that flow from marriage”. “The Church does not do that – nor should it. It isn’t their business.

Please re-think this “the state should get out of marriage” nonsense. IT will not happen. (In fact, it CAN not happen, per all of the above.) The State is in the business of issuing and acknowledging the civil contract we call marriage. And that should not, will not, MUST not change.

Anyone who thinks differently must tell me which “Church” should replace the government and do the ‘governing’.

Chu

well, i’m just suggesting that they do it like they do it in Europe

Pacific Babe

So Chu it sounds like you might just be ok with the status quo. Why is that? Babe

Chu

then why all the fight between civil unions and marriages??? if they are the same thing… and yes, the state can get out of issuing “marriage licenses”
Chu

its my belief that 2 dads and two moms do not equal 1 mom and 1 dad….

Pacific Babe

Chu, I suppose you are right. I however, would much prefer to see two loving fathers or two loving mothers raise a child than a husband and wife who are hateful to each other. And we know the world is full of those. Any gay couple who contemplate adopting a child do so because they love each other, intend to grow old together and want a child. That shouldn’t be denied NOR should a marriage be denied. Heterosexual couples who procreate just because they can don’t necessarily make good parents. Babe

Chu

but most gay couples are now doing it through surrogate pregnancy not adopting

Pacific Babe

If two loving people want a child, they should have a child. I don’t care if they’re green! If they want to use a surrogate then that’s fine! Babe.

Chu

yea… but they should adopt

mishi

But see, they may not be the “same,” but they are equivalent. The vast preponderence of scientific studies show that kids of same-sex parents do every bit as well as children in het households. I suppose it’s like the Mormon doctrines we’ve been discussing – your beliefs trump evidence.

Chu

not equivalent…and bask research shows that their is some difference…a nd 2) anyone who has lived with a mom and dad know that their difference, 3) those studies are run by people looking to advance the findings that they find
Chu

lol, equivalent my …… my mom and dad were so distinct….. b/c they were different GENDERS

notsofast

And yet your church couldn’t be bothered to give the priesthood to black men until 1978, and you actively discriminate against gay men and try to take away our rights (Prop H8, for example). Yeah, keep telling me how you’re totally not bigoted. Really.

Chu

really, not….

Pacific Babe

No Chu, really you are! Very bigoted. Not just the cult of Morons, but YOU. Read what you’ve poorly written. You are a bigot. Babe

Chu

no not bigoted… how can it be bigoted to think that two people of DIFFERENT genders (which only can produce offspring, which has developed over MILLIONS of years of evolution, and specific characteristics have developed) make a nuclear family and are the best situation for kids to be raised in…. I respect that you have a different opinion…but to call me a bigot for saying that I believe parents who besides for an accident or for a genetic reason can produce a child, would be the best for children.

And I am sorry for my poorly written responses. I am no good at the talk thing since I believe in bronze-age religion . Thank you for putting up with my unenlightened responses.

Pacific Babe

Chu, you are entitled to your own set of beliefs but not your own set of facts. If it’s important for you to carry around an imaginary friend then do so. You are uncompromising in pursuit of your religious ideals and that Chu makes you a bigot. Gays have been oppressed for centuries and you’d like to see it continue. Instead of responding to comments in blogs you would be better to use the internet to search out REAL studies which have concluded gays are born GAY. And, it’s not just humans who have an interest in same sex. If you search YouTube you’re bound to come up with a number of animals who step outside their heterosexual bounds to enjoy a few moments of fun. If you are the religious zealot you pretend to be, then I can assume that your sky fairy/wizard didn’t make a mistake and wanted some individuals born GAY. And, if it did want individuals born GAY then it would be reasonable to assume that it is humans with free will who have mired in all their glory to oppress gays (and others as well). You know your wizard doesn’t make mistakes, so stop punishing gays! Grow up! Babe

Chu

I have looked at all the research… and I have come to the conclusion that most gay people are predisposed by genetics or pre-natal hormones to have same sex attraction when they hit puberty. Not all homosexual attractions are caused by this but a vast majority.
But your logic of it being ok if animals do it is faulty.

Pacific Babe

Same sex attraction happens long before puberty … unless you consider puberty to start at ages 4 or 5. I didn’t address whether or not is OK to have same sex because animals are drawn to same sex relationships. The point that I am making is that we are animals and like other animal groups, some of us are drawn to the same sex. I didn’t extrapolate to discuss the ethics. That being said, I am PRO-gay relationships and I don’t understand your need to be against it! Just because you spend your time with the Mormon community (or any other religious community) doesn’t mean that you need to follow instructions that MIGHT have been good for a community 2000 yrs ago but not now. I’m sure you wouldn’t use a surgeon who only used 2000 yr old methods. Get with it my little bigot! Babe

http://www.storeyinstitute.blogspot.com J.Peron

You were doing fine until you got to the unsubstantiated, and blatantly false claim that marriage licenses were issues to stop interracial marriages. Licenses are much, much older than that and originated in places where people were pretty much all of one race. John Calvin had marriage licenses issues in Geneva in the 1500s. Geneva in the 1500s was pretty much monoracial.

As for the state not issuing licenses but just recognizing them, would this apply to issue like immigration? If there is no legal marriage just private contracts the state recognizes, should Americans then be able to sponsor immigrant “spouses?” And, can they then make their contract null and void after the immigrant spouse arrives and make marriage available to a new immigrant after that. It could be lucrative and since it is a private contract, should be their choice.

Does the state still allow spouses rights not left to others, such as child custody rights, rights to make medical decisions for the spouse, the right not to testify against one’s spouse? Or, do we have to litigate every single issue over and over from couple to couple as the state is out of marriage business? Oddly, the demand to get the state out of marriage would leave so many legal issues in limbo in marriage that the state would be more involved than it is now.
Boarderthom

Love the religious bigot, disagree with the religious bigotry. Sympathetic joy is when we take delight in the happiness of another instead of begrudging it. Can we allow the lives of others to be different from ours and feel happy for them? Can we rejoice for them as their happiness grows? I do not believe that happiness is a limited resource, that the more someone else has, the less there is me for. I do not believe that heterosexuals have a monopoly on love and commitment. If Ellen Degeneres is happy in her same-sex marriage, than I am happy for her too.

2 tell the truth

You are much more charitable than I. I do NOT “love the religious bigot”. At. All.

Pacific Babe

2 tell the truth … I’ve enjoyed reading all of your comments today but none more than “I do NOT “love the religious bigot”. Babe

Dave

You don’t get it

2 tell the truth

Who doesn’t get what?

2 tell the truth

“Is it a violation of someone’s freedom of religion if part of their job requires them to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples?”

The job is to issue licences to all who come before the clerk and are qualified. Her religious beliefs cannot trump the customers’. Since when must citizens agree with or abide by the tenets of a religion of which they are not mebers?

The State makes provisions for religious officals to decide who they will marry, and I’m fine with that. But the city clerk is not a religious official. She is a civil servant, refusing to do her job – which is to serve the public. She is not officiating at the wedding. Not even close.
S

Atheism……Christian zealots not one wit of difference both demand their way or the highway!

Chu

so true

Pacific Babe

So S & Chu prefer ignorance over critical thinking. Interesting.

S

How does my choice for heterosexual christianity make me ignorant and your choice of homosexual atheism make you more intellectual, smarter?:-) I guess one of us will procreate and one will not!:-)

2 tell the truth

Atheists do not “demand” anyone agree with their tenets. This clerk DOES.

P.S. Procreation is not a requirement of marriage – ANYONE’S.

David

S, the thought of you procreating is scary. & your question is a total false dichotomy, you don’t have to be homosexual to be an atheist or heterosexual to be a Christian. & Yes homosexual atheists or religious people can and do procreate.
S

Visit the atheist web site, they glory in glee at forcing their view on folks via civil suits, am sure their site is full of examples, I only visited once out of curiosity to reassure myself they were the zealots I believe them to be!:-) I have no argument with the fact this clerk ought to be fired, dismissed, their religous freedom is not being infringed upon, now had they been a preacher or some other religous official of a church, mosque, synagogue etc., forcing them to perform a ceremony they might view as condmening them to hell would be a infringement on their religious freedoms, states issue marriage licenses, can perform the ceremony, since there is no set standard by law ceremony other than one has to be performed by someone who is legally able to do so, a magistrate is fine, forcing priests, preachers, imam’s, rabbi’s, etc. goes to their rights, a state employee can work or not work! I see a simple solution for all involved but zealots don’t what a solution they want their way or the highway!:-)

Pacific Babe

Are you RH in disguise? Babe

S

Are you the suffering from some form of paranoia? I don’t know who your referring too, but feel free to imagine me as anyone you wish too, if it helps you feel more intellectual, wise!;-)

Pacific Babe

No I’m not paranoid, but you sure have a lot of his traits and use the same language. Very odd. Gressinger threw him off the blog and perhaps he should consider doing the same with you, since you’re not making any logical argument, you are just arguing and acting like a cyber troll. Babe
Steve Holt

Not much of a disguise.

Pacific Babe

Steve, your right. RH can’t disguise himself. No one rambles more about BS than he. I hope we can have him removed from the site once again. Babe

mishi

I’m sorry…I understand that belief is, by definition, irrational, and that perfectly smart people have been Christian. So if you want to believe, actually belief, that an incorporeal spirit impregnated a virgin, who gave birth to an immortal god-man, knock yourself out. But it’s not, by me, an impressive intellectual feat to swallow a two-millenia-old myth whole.

mishi

Funny…I keep saying “I don’t care what you believe, as long as you don’t attempt to get the government to do the work of your particular chosen god. But you insist on coming up with this ridiculous equivalence, like atheists are trying to shut down churches or prevent Methodists from marrying. Nobody I know thinks that our money should say, “In existentialism we trust.”

What I really, really think is that true believers, in their fact-free certitude, think they should get a pass from us non-believers. Saying that your sacred cow smells like cow pies is viewed as an impermissibly aggressive act. “Sure, you can believe with all your might that Athena sprang from the forehead of Zeus. It could happen…”

But really, we’re just saying about all of you – that you’re worshiping false gods – what you’ve been saying about one another for thousands and thousands of years. Live with it.

mishi

whoops, bad meaning-changing punctuation in the previous, and I can’t edit. Should be quote marks after “chosen god.” So sorry.

S

Marriage in religious context, church by a preacher, rabbi, imam etc., is something one ought to have a choice on, now if a magistrate performs a cermemony to consumate the legal marriage license issued by a state, and the magistrate is being paid a salary by state he/she ought to seek other employment if they cannot perform their legally obligated duties, I am not pro-gay marriage, find the whole issue a sad thing, the gays folks desperate to be accepted, find salvation and justification on religious grounds by forcing a religious ceremony when a mere non-religious ceremony performed by a magistrate would do, it will not eliminate the bible passage of them being a abomination before god, nor will it get them excused on jugment day but no doubt it will make them feel better on this old earth, of course they then after getting the non-religious marriage ceremony, filing their marriage certificate can experience the 50% plus divorce rate, and them contentious divorce court proceedings arguing over property, visitation with kids whether they be biological, artificially inseminated or surrogate created or adopted!

2 tell the truth

This is not an example of ” forcing a religious ceremony”. The couple are seeking a civil service from a (not-so-)”civil” servant, a SECULAR thing (the issuance of a State-rendered document. In fact, I have never heard of a same-gender couple even ASKING for a religious marriage ceremony that would be contrary to the tenets of the officiant’s faith. EVER.

If you’re going to bear false witness to make a “point”, you’ve already lost the argument.

P.S. It is YOU that inserts/imposes your religious beliefs on others (just like the clerk is trying to do). Many faiths do not agree with yours that loving, committed, consentin, adult, human same-gender relationships ARE “abomination”.

S

If the bible description of man laying with man and woman laying with woman is a abomination offends you, angers you sorry, but I did not write it, nor am I the one who will judge those whom choose these life styles, actions, now if your one of them sad individuals who is unfortunately in one of these confused orientatons in your sexuality, getting angry at me will not sure your issues, I think I have stated a few times in my comments a magistrate/clerk what ever name you wish to apply here ought to be fired, dismissed, he is not a person whom I would consider a religous official, I draw a distinction between the two! Much as I draw a distinction between a practicing homosexual and a abstinent one, I believe some folks are born the way they are, one would have to be a “zealot” to believe other wise, but I refuse to believe performing sex of any type/orientation versus celibacy is anything but a choice!

mishi

I am, well, somewhat offended that you, S, who do not even know me have the absolute effrontery to call me “sad.” I happen to be happy, satisfied, and well-loved – by my partner, my friends, my Mom.

Now I know that YOU, in your hubris, WANT me and those like me to be sad. But you know, that’s just plain chutzpah on your part. I might be tempted to characterize those who believe in a 3000-year-old text rather than thinking for themselves as frightened of death, intolerant of ambiguity, and intellectually lazy, but hey, I would never do that in a public forum.

Pacific Babe

2 tell the truth, you need to realize that S is more than likely a man who used to use the identifier of RH. Gressinger ran him off the blog several times and he kept coming back. You can’t reason with him. He makes all sorts of circular arguments and contradicts himself and (just saying), if I were you I wouldn’t bother to respond to his nonsense. He’s a christian. He’s the proof that christians aren’t too bright. Babe

mishi

S, sorry to disabuse you, but I for one, am not “desperate to be accepted.” Not by you, not by anyone. I am not, after all, a high-school girl. What I do want is not to be treated as a second class citizen, not to be subjected to nasty invective without cause, and not to walk down an alley and be beaten by bashers who figure they’re doing no more than Yaweh did in Sodom. I honestly don’t care if Fred Phelps despises me; heck, I’d disrespect myself if he didn’t. And, though it’s nervy of you to ascribe motives to folks you haven’t met, I don’t care if you accept me, either. Y’know, I don’t even care if you despise me as much as Phelps does. Just give me equal rights and stay out of my way.

I mean, I find it sad that people are so desperate to believe that when they die, they’ll find not nothingness, but Granny playing a harp. They’re sooo desperate to please their chosen Sky Daddy…and to condemn, be it ever so lovingly, those who think Sky Dad is as real as the Wizard of Oz. But that’s just me…

bob

I can see where a goverment employee needs to be able to provide all the services the government agrees to give their citizens. But it should not extend to private business. A photographer should not be required to photograph a gay wedding, for example. Fundamentally, I don’t think it is “settled” that discrimination based on action (gay sex) is the same as discrimination based on say, skin color. I beleive it is ”the law of the land” that I cannot refuse to rent my upstairs apartment to a black person. I think it is reasonable, however, that I be allowed to not rent my upstairs apartment to a stripper, for example.

2 tell the truth

This is not a discussion of “action (gay sex)”. It is about orientation and the human beings that have them.

And, you are quite mistaken that you “cannot refuse to rent my upstairs apartment to a black person”. Not in a private home. Commercial apartments are another thing, but that is not the scenario you presented.

DO BETTER.

S

Being gay or straight is a orientation……but having sex is action, abstinence can be practiced by either orientation and its a choice, I might agree sexual orientation is a genetic thing, a hormonal effect, who knows no one has proven beyond a shadow of doubt but fact is having sex of any type/category is a choice not orientation, there is a distinction between feeling something and acting on it!

mishi

So since it’s fairly well established that religious belief is a choice, not an inborn trait, can we agree that it should be the law of the land that private business should be allowed to discriminate against, oh, Jews?

No?

S

Madelyn O’hare the infamous atheist…..allegedly was a hedonist who disowned her son due to his rejection of her atheism life style, and became a preacher! Ironically he was exposed to his mothers atheism, hedonism, greed, avarice and he turned away from it to god! Of course he also said his mother stole, forged documents trying to take over other atheist organizations, and sadly in the end she, her granddaughter and son who stayed a atheist died at the hands of their atheist employee’s who robbed them of their wealth they had gained from law suits, donations etc., etc.! Now one being fair one see’s just as many crooked, hedonistic men/women preaching the word of god, but guess one has to do like the old good book, when it comes to false prophets whether they be preaching Christianity, Islam, Judiasm, Hinduism, Buddhism, Wiccanism, Satanism or Atheism etc. in case I missed anyone but take what they all say with a grain of salt, believe half of what they say and half what you see them do, and always judge them by that which proceeds from their mouths or key borads!:-)

2 tell the truth

WTF has this tiatribe got to do with the topic?

S

Well what does hedonism have to do with homosexulity, heterosexuality, asexuality guess that depends if one is atheist or a believer in a god or some being more powerful than ourselves!:-) They are all choices, when one acts on them, when one does not act on them one can say they are life style choices, life style orientations, pretty much what ever cute words make you feel intellectual, smart!:-)

S

Don’t see much difference between hedonism, homosecuality or heterosexual promiscuity, all pretty much are choices since abstinence is a choice much as indulgence is as well!

2 tell the truth

What does this have to do with the topic?

S

The good thing about America I can choose to be a moderate christian, a moderate democrat and no one can force me to become a extreme christian zealot or a extreme right wing republican or a extremist atheist who hates god, hates the idea of the possibility of a atonement one day for ones choices in life!:-)

Pacific Babe

S … It’s impossible to hate something that doesn’t exist. Stay on topic ok? Babe

S

The topic is gays versus religious freedom……religion, atheist zealots are about as on topic as gays who exist, some are zealots some not, some hide in the closet some not, when did you get assigned moderator here?:-) And I am not your babe….sorry find someone else am not interested in getting to know you!;-)

mishi

Still, to echo Pacific Babe, atheists don’t “hate God,” any more than we “hate” Valdemort or the Wicked Witch of the West. Imaginary, see?

Q

Hate…..how does one detect hate, use of profanity, name calling, denigrating ones intelligence, calling folks ignorant, unintelligent less than the one feeling the anger/hate when one disagree’s with them, imagining they are being persecuted by mere fact others have different views than they have?

Pacific Babe

RH you are so transparent. Glad to know you’ve kept up with the site. The big question is “have you learned anything?” From the statements you’ve made it appears as though nothing has sunk in. Take you meds and go to bed… Ok? Babe

Q

Paranoia is pretty easy to spot, imagining things one cannot see, cannot prove, feeling persecuted, antagonized, being descriminated against by some imaginary issue in ones own head!

Pacific Babe

Poor RH. You just want to play with us don’t you? And, yet we know you’re not up to par. Take your meds, it’s bedtime. Nitey nite. Babe

B

As the alter ego/gender bending moderator/owner of this site do you really think no one knows your not the owner, high priest of atheism here in Tucson, your disquise is not working, do you really think no one can spot you and your control on who is allowed to post and who is not?:-)

Pacific Babe

RH, you are too funny. I love all the credit you give me, but I’m afraid you are WRONG … I’m betting you’ve been kicked off of other sites as well. Dang, RH that must be very frustrating, nobody wants to play with you. Babe

S

My personal view let the gays marry, give them their piece of paper marriage license, order any magistrate who refuses to perform the ceremony to find/seek employment else where, and let the preachers, rabbi’s, imam’s, guru’s, witches, satanist’s, atheist’s do what they feel comfortable doing or not doing!:-)
MD_LA

Question Posed:
Is it a violation of someone’s freedom of religion if part of their job requires them to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples?

Answer:
HELL NO! Since when are county clerks allowed to play “Morals Police”… picking and choosing what they personal deem “acceptable”.

Catholics do not belief in Divorce, and many other religions (Mormon, Evangelicals, etc.) believe that women should be submissive to their husbands. Can a County Clerk refuse a marriage license to a divorcee? Can they refuse a marriage license to a career woman who will NOT give up her job to have children for her future husband? HELL NO!!! So, why is this any different.

What a ridiculous argument… and, yet ANOTHER angel Religious Zealots are trying to use in order to discriminate against something they personal don’t like.
Steve

If I read this right, a religious school should be able to fire someone if that someone comes out of the closet because it is against the beleifs of the school.

Pacific Babe

Steve:Who did you direct your comment to? Babe

Q

Life is full of mysteries, conflicts, will be so till the end, this issue of god existing, not existing or whether gay folks are going to lake of fire or not will one day be settled when we all do the one thing we cannot avoid, meet our demise!
JUST LIKE GREECE

Again with the top priority assigned to a few people’s rutting habits… Who sticks what where and how is not necessarily a lifestyle or the most critical definition of a human’s being.
When the state steps in and tells a church that a facility they have been renting out for marriage ceremonies MUST be rented out to gays, that is enough.
Q

I guess the issue of what christians eat, what gays eat or what atheist’s eat is a moot issue, since what each category dines on will not make the other one fat!

Pacific Babe

El Lobo, RH, S & now Q is it? How do we keep track? Babe

B

As the alter ego of site owner, moderator am sure you can use some of that genius, journalistic higher education and work miracles……high priest of atheism, defending the late high priestess Madelyn O’Hare…..so sad, worrying about some paranoid fear of a some mythical moderate christian whom seems to befuddle, confuse all that alleged logic, atheistic intellect!
B

All anyone needs to do is google Madelyn O’hare and read about her interesting life, she is the modern day high priestess of “modern atheism” and worshipped by her devoted followers of atheism, don’t say anything negative about her, don’t quote any factual history about her or you will be banned from comment here, by her devoted follower the High priest of atheism in Tucson…..aka Pacific Babe…..who seems obesessed with gay issues, the male member….one has to wonder what deep psychological issue lurks in that twisted atheistic hedonistic mind!:-)
B

Now I will bid you ado, been fun, interesting but truly no intellectual geniuses here, merely atheist zealots who think some how they will convert the world to their belief, if not by argument then by force of law suits, just visit their national web site, they work mostly on law suits trying to force god out of America…, sad thing is they will fail, miserably!

Pacific Babe

Bye my little wolf … Babe

Search the Citizen

What Is Freethought Arizona?

Do Gay Rights Violate Religious Freedom?

RSS Feeds