Catholic church threatens to hold 11 million Latinos as human shields of hate

The Catholic church, in its traditional move when it doesn’t get its way at the ballot box, is taking human shields in order to force its minority religious view on 100% of the American people.  This time the Catholic leaders, infamous for their ongoing aiding and abetting of child-rape in their own church, have taken 11 million undocumented Latinos hostage in yet another of their ongoing efforts to gay-bash.

The Catholic bishops, who have no business telling non-Catholic Christians like myself how to live our lives, let alone the rest of non-Catholic America, sent yet another anti-gay nastygram to President Obama, demanding he exclude gay binational couples from any immigration reform package, or they’ll torpedo the legislation.

Catholic hypocrisy via Shutterstock

Catholic hypocrisy via Shutterstock

The Catholic bishops threw a similar hissy fit over immigration reform in February.  Oddly, the bishops have yet to throw a hissy fit about their own colleagues aiding and abetting pedophilia.  It’s only the gays’ presumed-pedophilia that worries the Catholic bishops – the real thing, not so much.

The Catholics elders are known from their human-shield-taking.  They’ve taken children hostage in Illinois, Massachusetts and Washington, DC as part of their church’s ongoing political vendetta against the gays.  And the lead Catholic bishop in France recently seemed to justify anti-gay hate crimes.  So if they’re willing to harm children, and tolerate a few hate crimes, in order to get their way, they’re certainly willing to take a swipe at Latinos too.  (Perhaps it’s time Latinos learned that the Catholic church is not their friend – and perhaps this latest move will finally prove it.)

You might recall that the President included a fix for gay binational couples – where one partner is American, the other is foreign, and their relationship is not recognized under US law, so the foreign partner gets deported – his version of the immigration bill.  Congressional Democrats, sadly all too often happy to do the Republicans’ bidding, threw gays under the bus and excluded them from the bipartisan immigration deal worked out last week, ostensibly because gays are icky. (And don’t believe anyone who tells you that immigration reform is already super-gay. It’s not even close.)

But we’re not too icky to donate to Democrats and help elect them to office.  Come November of every even-numbered year, and suddenly Democrats are magically cured of their political homophobia.  But like herpes, it’s pretty much a guarantee that it will eventually come back.  It always does.

And what do you know. Not only did Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) throw gays under the bus in the recent talks with Republicans, but AP reports that Democratic Senators are tired of having to vote on hard stuff.

Someone pays you $174,000 a year and then expects you to do stuff that’s hard.  This is not America.

But the party’s senators are still bruised from an agonizing defeat on gun control this month. And few seem eager to inject divisive issues that might sink their best prospects for a major legislative victory this year and a potential keystone of President Barack Obama’s legacy.

“Any amendment which might sink the immigration bill, I would worry about,” Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said in a brief interview, adding that he had yet to decide whether an amendment for gays and lesbians would meet that yardstick.

Wow, I know what you mean.  You were already asked to do one “hard” vote this year on background checks, and now they want you to do another in the same year?!

Of course, “hard” is a relative term.  In US Senate parlance, a “hard vote” is one where only 94% of the American people are on your side:

Background check polling, via CNN.

Background check polling, via CNN.

Yes, the background check vote was SO hard that even 89% of Republicans, and 93% of gun households, supported the legislation in a recent poll:

Support for universal background checks went across party lines: 89 percent of Republicans and 93 percent of Democrats and independents were in favor, as well as 93 percent of gun households and 85 percent of those living in a household with a member of the National Rifle Association.

Your heart really goes out to these guys.

Catholic priest scandal via Shutterstock

Catholic priest scandal via Shutterstock

As for the Catholic threat to torpedo immigration reform lest the gays be free – let them try.  The only reason immigration reform is moving at all is because the Republican party is terrified that its lost the Latino vote forever, while Latinos are an ever-growing percentage of Americans.  That, along with traditional GOP bashing of gays, women, and African-Americans, among other people and causes, has so turned off young voters that it’s not clear, other than the South and very old white men, just who is willing to vote for a Republican anytime between now and the next century.

So let the Catholic church just try to torpedo the GOP’s big comeback with Latinos.  That should be fun to watch.

CyberDisobedience on Substack | @aravosis | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

89 Responses to “Catholic church threatens to hold 11 million Latinos as human shields of hate”

  1. Sean Gregory says:

    The article is hate-fest wrapped in journalism. I think the author should examine his conscience.

  2. Skeptical Cicada says:

    You church has despised and crusaded against gays for decades. Wake the fuck up. Shame on you for choosing a bigoted institution over your own sister. It is your church, dear, who wants bi-national gay spouses ripped apart by deportation or the entire bill killed. If you believe asking the bigots who run your church WWJD will have any effect whatsoever, you are a naïve child.

  3. Jack says:

    “Human shields of hate”? There is so much hateful Catholic bashing in this article, that it is just a complete turn off for people like myself, who try to be objective and fair. I am a Latino Roman Catholic who has a gay sister. Some of the points raised in this article are good points and many of us Catholics have sympathy and love for our GLBT brothers and sisters. We seek a way to reconcile our faith and our love, and to take the discourse in a positive direction. But, this article contributes nothing towards a meaningful dialogue, because, it just pours gasoline to the flames. The best argument to use against Christians is: What would Jesus do? Of course Jesus loves gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people, because, He loves everyone. But, instead of taking a smart and sensible approach, you (and many misguided liberals) resort to spewing hate and negative stereotypes against Catholics and creating a bigger divide between Christians and the GLBT community. Shame on you John Aravosis.

  4. Jack says:

    “Human shields of hate”? There is so much hateful Catholic bashing in this article, that it is just a complete turn off for people like myself, who try to be objective and fair. I am a Latino Roman Catholic who has a gay sister. Some of the points raised in this article are good points and many of us Catholics have sympathy and love for our GLBT brothers and sisters. We seek a way to reconcile our faith and our love, and to take the discourse in a positive direction. But, this article contributes nothing towards a meaningful dialogue, because, it just pours gasoline to the flames. The best argument to use against Christians is: What would Jesus do? Of course Jesus loves gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people, because, He loves everyone. But, instead of taking a smart and sensible approach, you (and many misguided liberals) resort to spewing hate and negative stereotypes against Catholics and creating a bigger divide between Christians and the GLBT community. Shame on you John.

  5. BeccaM says:

    You do have a point. To extend my metaphor a little further to include what you’re saying, there is a difference between an enemy who lives several houses away and who you don’t see all that much…and another who’s moved right next door and who keeps flinging his dog’s crap over the fence into your yard.

    That is to say, someone who merely opposes our civil rights, versus someone willing to work to help stop them.

    Personally, my motivations are somewhat selfish in that my wife and I both know we have fewer years ahead of us on this mortal coil than behind, and like Martin and Lyon would like equality under the law before one or both of us passes on. For that, it might require risking the ire of others.

  6. samizdat says:

    My thoughts were more along the lines of acknowledging the movement of Latinos to fundy denoms. These denoms, as I’ve noticed, seem to breed extremists wherever they go. I assume that not all Catholic Latinos are as conservative as you may suggest, and thus I look at any movement towards fundy churches as a negative. I’m no Latino, but in my late teens, in the early 80s (we are one year apart in age, Becca), being a disillusioned Catholic boy, I attended a few meetings of The Way group which had sprung up around that time. They were a kind of precursor to the proselytizing we see today, and just as conservative. I rather quickly learned that they weren’t my cup of tea, and stopped going. I suppose I’m doing a bit of concern trolling about this, and the numbers of converted Latino Catholics in the US may not be as high as I may imagine, but I still wonder what the numbers are, and what the impact of converted Latinos may be.

    As you note though–and I agree–moving to a different house won’t take the enemy away.

  7. Deven W says:

    Reversed roles in what way? The Democrats hijacked the Civil Rights Movement after they failed miserably to stop it. (over 75% of opposition in House and Senate were Democrats). They took credit for it while simultaneously doing everything they could to re-enslave black people to the democratic vote.

    The Republican Party ended slavery, championed black suffrage, championed women’s suffrage, and championed civil rights. The Republican Party has always been on the side of equality, which is why Republicans are against affirmative action.

    Look through the Party platforms through the ages. The Republican of today has the same political mindset as the Republican of yesteryear. Not that I agree with all of it, I’m just saying that the Republican Party is mostly unchanged since the days of Lincoln.

    Look up “WSJ – Democrats Missing History” for further reference.

  8. Naja pallida says:

    You do understand that almost all of the “Southern Democrats” who were among the faction that opposed civil rights jumped ship to the Republican Party around the time of the Civil Rights Act, and the parties have essentially reversed roles on civil rights issues since then, right? Nobody denies the disgusting things they did, and in some cases continue to do, but you’re looking in the wrong direction to draw parallels to modern politics.

  9. Deven W says:

    And the Democrats were the original terrorists. The KKK was the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party. They lynched blacks and Republicans. So, since you are a democrat, and you follow the democratic party, you are a racist and a terrorist, and your opinion doesn’t matter. For the rest of history, you are marginalized because of your past mistakes.

  10. Papa Bear says:

    Oops! missed that altogether — you were too subtle for the board…

  11. JamesStone says:

    So sad.. I have two sets of binational couples. Both are UK-US. One couple is living in the UK. They have a civil partnership and since the UK is civilized the American partner has a UK green card. The other couple live in California and they are terrified.. The money they have spent on attornies is I am sure unbelievable. They have gone through an interview but no green card has been issued. At any time an agent could knock on their door and arrest our one friend and send him back to the UK.

    The Catholic Church is out of control!! Every hateful bigoted move they make towards LGBT people is pushing more and more people out of the flock….

  12. d3clark says:

    Amazingly, back in the day, the Catholic Church decreed that if a choice had to be made between saving the life of a pregnant woman and her about-to-be-born fetus, the doctor, mother and husband all had to agree to let mom die. Made no difference if mom had multiple other kids, if mom were a recent widow, id mom’s husband were handicapped, etc. Mom died. Sometimes leaving just dad, or maybe grand parents to take care of the other kids. Sometimes all the kids went to an orphanage if there were no responsible adults to take care of them.

    Now the Catholic Church says kids need a mom and dad. Not two moms or two dads. A heterosexual parental married couple. Amazing. All of those kids who lost their moms because of the church’s dictates DIDN’T need moms. Sometimes they didn’t have moms OR DADS. Sometimes were raised by NUNS in orphanages. That was OK, because the church SAID it was. Kids raised by a tribe of cloistered women. But kids CAN’T be raised by two dads or two moms because the church says that, in THIS particular circumstance, the child needs married, heterosexual parents.

    What total, politically slanted, homophobic bullshit.

  13. FauxReal says:

    The Catholic Church has no moral authority to speak on any issue and pedophilia is just the tip of the iceberg. The Church has committed atrocities throughout it’s history. I think about this whenever we have them getting all sanctimonious about an issue.

    We have the abuse they committed in the Catholic-run institutions in Ireland. There was a 9 year probe that resulted in a 2,600 page report.

    Then there’s an article in Amnesty International Magazine about the church-run Native American Schools in the U.S. and Canada. From the article:

    A 2001 report by the Truth Commission into Genocide in Canada documents
    the responsibility of the Roman Catholic Church, the United Church of
    Canada, the Anglican Church of Canada, and the federal government in the
    deaths of more than 50,000 Native children in the Canadian residential
    school system.

    The report says church officials killed children by beating, poisoning,
    electric shock, starvation, prolonged exposure to sub-zero cold while
    naked, and medical experimentation, including the removal of organs and
    radiation exposure. In 1928 Alberta passed legislation allowing school officials to forcibly
    sterilize Native girls; British Columbia followed suit in 1933.


    The report also says that Canadian clergy, police, and business and
    government officials “rented out” children from residential schools to
    pedophile rings.
    officials to forcibly sterilize Native girls; British Columbia followed
    suit in 1933. to pedophile rings.

  14. Russ says:

    FYI everybody: various groups of churches now calling themselves “Anglican” in the United States are ultraconservative parishes/dioceses that have split off from the fairly liberal Episcopal Church in opposition to gay rights, women priests/bishops, even in protest at updating the 1928 prayer book, etc. Some of them have put themselves under the nominal leadership of archbishops in other countries, including the homo-hating archbishops of countries like Nigeria and Uganda.

    But this American schism is not to be confused with the worldwide Anglican Communion of which the Episcopal Church is an independent member, or with Anglican churches in other countries, e.g., the Anglican Church of Canada, which like its American counterpart is fairly liberal.

  15. pappyvet says:

    I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
    Mahatma Gandhi

  16. George Melby says:

    Find a pregnant “Sister” and watch the circus in the RCC= Roman Cackling Church. Of course, we never hear about “those” people, but they do keep the Catholic Adoption Agencies open and in business.

  17. Stev84 says:

    It depends on how they strike it down. If they decide for heightened scrutiny, most anti-gay laws would fall. Not automatically, but with further lawsuits. The problem with that is that DOMA is so stupid that it fails even rational basis review.

  18. BeccaM says:

    Might could be.

    A commenter above bitched about the Catholic church being unfairly bashed. As far as I’m concerned, a religious organization whose official position is that my marriage and the marriages of every other gay and lesbian couple in the world are evil and satanic — a mortal sin rising to the level of gleeful approval by Lucifer himself — deserves to be criticized, ridiculed, and bashed.

  19. nicho says:

    If you think abortion is the same as infanticide, you are an idiot.

  20. nicho says:

    Wow. Over the years, the Catholics have been pedaling faster and faster to catch up to the nuttier Christian cults. Maybe they’ve passed them by.

  21. nicho says:

    Pffft. So you read Opus Dei claptrap?

  22. HeilMary1 says:

    The RCC has committed more genocide, gynocide and infanticide than any other fascist cult or empire in history.

  23. HeilMary1 says:

    What is especially egregious about the bishops opposing bi-national gay couples is not only their own closet gay relationships but also the probability that the insulting UNnatural Family UNplanning (NFP) scam they push on couples results in higher rates of intersex LGBT children whom the hypocrite bishops then snub! NFP is probably the reason why Catholics have more gay children! If the bishops are going to oppose all family planning and abortion, they better accept equal rights for all born gay and intersexed children.

  24. LOrion says:

    HERE from a google+ follower where I posted this piece: If the Italian government had any dignity, they would charge Club Pedophilia with violating the Treaty of Lantara, which was negotiated to allow the Pope to travel and not be arrested if caught on Italian soil outside of the Vatican and tried on charges of pedophilia committed by the priests as decreed by Ferdinand I in 1870. This was negotiated in 1929 and probably has been forgotten because of who negotiated the Treaty in the first place because they would have to deal with something else that was done by Benito Mussolini.

  25. redraider1 says:

    More hating on the Catholic Church from an ignorant group that supports infantocide. How surprising. You people are pathetic.

  26. BeccaM says:

    Indeed. So far the only stick in the equation has been the one the Dems keep beating us with.

  27. BeccaM says:

    I try not to pretend to expertise and knowledge I don’t have. (Don’t always succeed… but hey, I try.) It’s true I do live in a state with a very large Hispanic population. In fact, “white but not Hispanic” are outnumbered 40.2% to 46.7%. (And 10% Native American.)

    In truth, a majority of the conservatives in NM aren’t Hispanic, but rural white folks, particularly in the eastern and southern parts of the state — a supposition supported by the fact that the Dems have an 80-20 advantage in voter registration among Hispanics.

    As near as I can tell, the basic position is the Hispanic community here wants pretty much what they want everywhere: Liberalized U.S. immigration laws, so they’re at least put on equal footing with immigrants from other nations. And a fair and equitable path to citizenship. I honestly could not see serious push-back from them simply because a decent immigration bill happens also to include a gay rights measure.

  28. FLL says:

    My thought is that if something has proven to be a winning formula, use it again. The timing of GetEQUAL’s direct action campaign to repeal DADT was excellent: months upon months of embarrassing, media-savvy actions running right up to the 2010 midterm elections. The possible timing during this year’s immigration-reform debate may be even better: 31 flavors of holy hell this year, which would then give the Dems a brief respite in 2014 before the midterms (assuming, of course, that same-sex binational couples wind up with fair options). This would allow the Dems a respite before the upcoming midterms that they didn’t get before the 2010 midterms. The carrot and the stick, no?

  29. BeccaM says:

    I know… I almost wrote it as ‘large planet’ but thought people might get the sly Star Wars Death Star reference instead. ;-)

  30. likeasaint says:

    I prefer work that’s more scholarly and less biased. Sounds entertaining though.

  31. karmanot says:

    The Catholic Church is way ahead of the game. With failing parishes in urban settings, they decommission the church and then sell it and the property for millions of dollars and pay not one cent of tax. SF is a perfect example.

  32. karmanot says:


  33. BeccaM says:

    First off, I just want to mention again that whatever was done to tweak the Disqus comments format, it’s mucking up the text entry window whenever one goes beyond 15 lines or so. The scrolling doesn’t work right. The bottom-most lines are cut off from view and it keeps getting worse the more you type. (Probably doesn’t affect most folks’ comments… but you all know how I am here.)

    Anyway… We’re going to continue to be thrown under that bus repeatedly until there is a significant political cost for doing so. As things stand, the Dems have been taught in thoroughly Pavlovian fashion they need only make promises to the gay community and almost never have to follow through with them.

    I know that DADT is held up as an example of them finally doing the right thing, but that only came about because groups like GetEQUAL raised 31 Flavors of holy hell when after the 2010 mid-terms, every indication was the Dems were going to punt. Again. (In fact, I believe the phony narrative that “gays stayed home, hence were at least partly responsible the Dem mid-term disaster” was the planned excuse. We were to be the scapegoats and bailing on the DADT repeal the intended punishment.) All because Obama and his DoD deliberately scheduled the completion of yet another unnecessary study for post-election lame-duck December. I actually believe we prevailed in part not because our cause was just (and it is) but because the Dems finally realized we weren’t going to go away and it was best to try to make the issue disappear as quickly as possible and at a time when it would have the least possible impact on the 2012 cycle.

    As for the hate crimes law, they had to tack on “or disability” and include expanded authority to prosecute race-bias hate crimes. To date and to the best of my knowledge, since 2009 it has been used only once to prosecute on the basis of an anti-gay crime. The case was in Kentucky last year, when a young man named Kevin Pennington was kidnapped, savagely beaten and probably would’ve been killed had he not escaped.

    There’s no way in the last four years there’s been only one anti-gay bias crime that met the threshold of failing to be prosecuted by state or local authorities.

    How the hell is it ‘hard’ to correct the injustice of forcing a U.S. citizen to choose between country and family, simply because their legally married spouse happens to be the same gender? Or to finally pass ENDA — or for the president to sign an executive order, as he is legally entitled to do? Why can he not order the INS to go ahead and for all intents and purposes classify a same sex spouse as “legal family” even if DOMA still says the feds can’t say it’s a marriage?

    We should know why by now: They’re afraid of offending bigots like the Catholic Church… and they also know that throwing us under the bus won’t have any effect come election time because apparently we’re collectively gullible enough to keep believing their promises and giving them our money and votes.

    Until the Dems face some real cost in the form of losing elections — or risk losing them — this is all we’ll ever get: Broken promises, again and again.

  34. UncleBucky says:

    Naw. Repeat, repeat, repeat. Bush: “You Have To Keep Repeating Things
    To Catapult The Propaganda”

  35. UncleBucky says:

    Tax the income-rich, corporate persons and politically-active religious groups until their leaders’ eyes bulge out.

  36. Papa Bear says:

    Because our founding fathers said that the power to tax was the power to destroy, therefore, the church should be exempt. They didn’t say why ordinary people were okay to destroy, however…

  37. FLL says:

    You would be in a good position to let us know about the opinions of Hispanics in New Mexico who are either native-born or naturalized U.S. citizens. My guess is that they understand the validity of this argument very well. Cuban-Americans here in South Florida also understand the argument, but they might not be as good of an example because many of them (perhaps half) vote Republican, as opposed to Mexican-Americans, who overwhelmingly vote Democratic.

  38. Papa Bear says:

    I’m not so sure I agree with you on that, Bec — I think they have the inertia of a LARGE moon…

  39. BeccaM says:

    I dunno — I personally find today’s Catholic church to be plenty obnoxious when it comes to LGBT civil rights.

    They’ll shut down orphanages and adoption services rather than allow a gay couple to adopt a parentless kid. They’ll gladly and swiftly fire employees for being gay or lesbian. And now we have this: Opposition to an immigration reform bill because one of its provisions would allow a gay or lesbian U.S. citizen to sponsor permanent residency for a spouse.

    That’s pretty frickin’ obnoxious — and gratuitously cruel.

    Last night, the Santa Fe city council voted for a non-binding measure in support of marriage equality and called upon the NM state attorney to issue a clarification, because current NM law can be read easily in a literal fashion to indicate that same sex marriage should both be legal here and all marriages performed in other states should be recognized as well.

    This was the response by Father Duncan Lanum of the St. Thomas Anglican Church, “Satan is, I believe…and I really mean this, Satan is down in Hell clapping at this point over what they have just done.”

  40. BeccaM says:

    So… you’re saying that conservative Catholic Latinos are switching their allegiance to conservative fundamentalism, and this should concern us why? Both religions hate gay people, so there is no net change.

    If an enemy moves to a different house, he’s still the same enemy.

  41. BeccaM says:

    I’ll echo FLL with respect to your last paragraph: Stop resisting. That is actually a brilliant argument.

    Why indeed are we giving precedence to those who knowingly broke U.S. law (regardless whether those laws are fair or not, it is what it is) over U.S. citizens who have broken no laws at all and merely want to keep their families together?

    And to clarify, this shouldn’t be an either-or. These are two related but nevertheless separate issues that both need serious and comprehensive reforms.

  42. pappyvet says:

    Hatred is as hatred does.

  43. BeccaM says:

    I have my doubts that even if DOMA is overturned that all the anti-gay laws and regs suddenly become moot.

    Our government and its many bureaucracies have the inertia of a small moon. I believe there’s a good likelihood that a number of existing practices would continue unless or until someone takes them to court.

  44. nicho says:

    Especially the ones who use their tax-exempt status to act as political pressure groups — which is pretty much all of them.

    The most egregious abuse are those mega churches that hide behind their tax status to run vast commercial enterprises. Some of them have retail stores, health clubs, etc on premises and pay no taxes on those things.

  45. karmanot says:

    Tax Churches!

  46. karmanot says:

    They have no shame whatsoever.

  47. karmanot says:

    We do, thus the reaction to brainwashed Catholics.

  48. karmanot says:

    Mother T was a sweetheart alright.

  49. karmanot says:

    “violate the language and logic” Indeed,–thanks to Augustine and Aquinas, who played with Plato and Aristotle to whip up a magical fantasy land of a Mr. sky god and all his realms. the Catholic magisterial fantasy machine has created the most logical evil in the world, even tipping the hat to Nazi’s, whom they aided and abetted during the war and after. Come to think of it, even appointed one of them as Pope not too recently.

  50. karmanot says:

    Oh please…….

  51. FLL says:

    After immigration reform comes tax reform, and guess who isn’t paying their fair share (as in $0)? The massively wealthy Christian churches. It’s a winning argument in hard economic times. We can’t afford to carry the Christian churches on our backs anymore. Their privilege in the U.S. today is similar to the tax-exempt status of the First Estate in pre-revolutionary France.

  52. Sean says:

    This is why I refuse to pay taxes to this government. It has decided that it is going to listen to un-elected non-tax paying bishops over LGBT tax payers. It is illegal and anti-American therefore this government does not deserve one [email protected]#king dime of MY hard earned money.

  53. FLL says:

    I’ll reply separately to your last paragraph where you contrast law-abiding same-sex couples with illegal aliens. Not only is your logic convincing, if you’ll recall from December of 2010, your logic was convincing in terms of both public opinion and the result in Congress. The Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell took precedence over the Dream Act for the very reason that the interests of loyal U.S. citizens took precedence over the interests of those who were not citizens or legal residents. Don’t hesitate to use that logic in the present debate about immigration reform; that logic worked before, and it will work again. Also, don’t think that your logic won’t be convincing to Hispanics who are U.S. citizens. They are perfectly aware that the interests of citizens should take precedence over those who are only permanent residents or illegal since they have expended the time and effort to become citizens themselves.

  54. Indigo says:

    Sadly enough, I’ve seen exactly what you’re talking about both here and in Mexico.

  55. nicho says:

    Wall of shame? Or wall of a penitentiary?

  56. lynchie says:

    that has nothing to do with this issue. If you prefer not to have an abortion that is of your choosing. The same can be said for gay couples marrying. If you don’t like it don’t do it, but you have no right to dictate to others what they should and shouldn’t do especially when the catholic church has defended, hidden and lobbied for the pedophiles in their ranks. I ofter wonder why the priests are not all in jail and registered sex offenders;.

  57. nicho says:

    No, keep the pressure on. Something will change sooner or later.

  58. nicho says:

    We don’t want it pulled because we disagree with them. We want it pulled because they’re violating it egregiously. They’re not religious organizations. They’re just political pressure groups who shout “Jesus” once in a while and pretend they’re a religion. Besides, why should religious groups have tax-exempt status. I can’t think of a reason in the world why they should.

  59. Skeptical Cicada says:

    Um, no, welcome to the world of gays–for the last 40 years. We didn’t just arrive on the scene yesterday, and we’re not novices.

  60. John Valdez says:

    Exempt status ain’t a gambling tool. You can’t pull it away because some people disagree with you.

    Hate to break it to you, but it will never happen, never will, and never should.

  61. FLL says:

    The support of non-gay groups would be helpful, but not necessary. The only thing that is necessary is presidential leadership. Without that, senators will duck. Non-gay immigration interest groups do not necessarily hold leverage over senators, but a sitting president, the leader of his party, does hold that leverage.

  62. Skeptical Cicada says:

    If omitting UAFA merely maintained the difficult status quo for bi-national gay couples, it would matter what non-gay groups thought about it. But since the draconian new enforcement will make things untenable for bi-national gay couples if UAFA is omitted, the de-gayed legislation would be an attack on gay families. Since that is the case, I don’t much care which non-gay groups think gay families should be sacrificed for them.

  63. Skeptical Cicada says:

    Cheers, John. Stay on them.

    The bullshit about a de-gayed bill being pro-gay is one of the most absurd, intelligence-insulting bits of spin that Democratic sellouts have coughed up in years. Having the dismissive gall to even try that stunt has ensured my vigorous opposition to any de-gayed bill. Why don’t they just revert to the smug Robert Gibbs attitude and instruct us that we have nowhere else to go? That worked so well for them in 2010.

    As for Carl Levin, he’s one of the main reasons nothing can get done in the Senate. He derailed filibuster reform, so it’s his fault that background checks couldn’t pass. He wanted utter dysfunction; he’s got it!

  64. PeteWa says:

    you mean like here:
    where the catholic church argued that fetuses were not people because if they agreed in this case that a fetus was a person it would cost them money?

  65. FLL says:

    Everybody on all sides of the immigration debate are interested in hearing what Hispanic rights groups and immigration rights groups have to say about the threat to sink reform if gay-inclusive provisions are not thrown out. But they need someone in Washington to defend the gay-inclusive provisions, and that can only be Obama since senators like Schumer are determined to knife gay Americans in the back. Yes, Obama proposed the gay-inclusive provisions in January, but that was before senators like Schumer threw them out of the bill.

    This is one of those times when there is just no substitute for presidential leadership. If Obama takes the leads and defends the gay-inclusive provisions at this point, then Hispanic/immigration rights groups would have something to agree with. So the real question is will Obama defend his original proposal or cut and run at the slightest hint of opposition? Which will it be? The only prediction I’ll make is the chaotic fallout for Obama’s presidency that would result if he cuts and runs. Can you imagine groups like GetEQUAL and Immigration Equality creating public-relations hell for Obama for most of his second term by splashing the faces of same-sex binational couples everywhere throughout the media? Ditching his own proposal for immigration equality would be an incredibly stupid, self-destructive move on Obama’s part, but I won’t make any predictions.

  66. So these mincing asses care more about denying rights to gay people than they do about the very real consequences to undocumented immigrants in the US? I’m sure their Jesus would feel just the same way.

  67. Think of all that tax money from all those Catholic churches.

  68. nicho says:

    But it’s no fun arguing if you can’t corrupt the language. It’s amazing that the Catholic hierarchy, which is so bent on parsing every syllable, is willing to violate the language and the logic when it helps their political cause.

  69. nicho says:

    Already have. Read “Absolute Monarchs” by Norwich, a history of the papacy that shows what a corrupt crime-ridden gang it’s been since almost the beginning. Stay away from the pap put out by the Vatican propaganda machine.

  70. tsuki says:

    The Republicans don’t like to abort babies until after they are born. No medical, no WIC, no food stamps, and like Joe Walsh, no support. It’s more fun that way.

  71. clarknt67 says:

    Henceforth I will only be referring to them as The International Association of Pedophile Protectors™.

  72. tsuki says:

    “But we’re not too icky to donate to Democrats and help elect them to
    office. Come November of every even-numbered year, and suddenly
    Democrats are magically cured of their political homophobia. But like herpes, it’s pretty much a guarantee that it will eventually come back. It always does.”

    Welcome to the World of Women.

  73. dcinsider says:

    True enough but you’re dreaming. It will never happen. Let it go.

  74. likeasaint says:

    Read more history.

  75. PeteWa says:

    there is no such thing as a “preborn baby”.
    a baby is the term given to offspring who have made it past their first month, and generally applied until that offspring begins walking.
    from birth until that first month, the offspring is considered a newborn.
    before birth the terms fetus and embryo apply, depending on the point of gestation.

  76. Stev84 says:

    Yeah, American fundies and the Mormons have been very busy proselytizing in South America for the last few decades and had had some success in gobbling up people who left the Catholic Church.

  77. Stev84 says:

    Late June

  78. nicho says:

    Not to mention “pre-conceived babies.” Every sperm is sacred. Interesting that your sig photo includes two of the biggest frauds of the 20th century — Wotyla and Teresa. I can’t believe so many people fell for those two scam artists.

  79. robert samija says:

    i say NO to CIR if UAFA is not in it, immigration reform is not comprehensive if all the issues are not addressed and forced to live in exile to be with my foreign partner is a big issue for me

  80. likeasaint says:

    You would have a point except for: DOMA.

    Some Americans are not cool with killing preborn babies so they vote Republican.

  81. samizdat says:

    “Perhaps it’s time Latinos learned that the Catholic church is not their friend”

    Be careful what you wish for, John. Some Latinos have been heading to the fundies in decent numbers for years. The fundies are crazy, but they ain’t stupid, and have been taking advantage of the disillusioned amongst Latino Catholic populations.

  82. stainpouch says:

    Correct. Utterly. Let this separation of church and state thing run the other way. If the church won’t separate from the state, they pay. Lots. As it stands, even if a candidate is endorsed from the pulpit, the feds are reluctant to revoke tax-exempt status for fear they’ll be understood as attacking religion. Someone inside has to complain and that rarely happens.

  83. nicho says:

    And the new pope is a fraud. He’s just part of the criminal gang hired to try to paint a happy face on the cesspool.

  84. nicho says:

    Yeah, but the Latinos who leave the Catholic church are running to the even more obnoxious evangelical churches. In our area, they’re popping up like mushrooms after a rainstorm. Any jut with a rental space and a bunch of folding chairs can start a “church” and preach any kind of religious nonsense mixed with hate that he wants.

  85. Indigo says:

    Then let them scuttle it so the undocumented Latinos have a reason to turn against them.

  86. rmthunter says:

    Considering the success the Church had with its bullying tactics in Illinois, Massachusetts, and D.C., you’d think Obama and the Democrats in the Senate would ignore them. They just don’t have the balls. (Illinois revoked the licenses of Catholic Charities to run adoption services in three dioceses.)

  87. MyrddinWilt says:

    When is SCOTUS due to rule on DOMA? The need for an amendment might become moot.

    Benedict and John Paul II are gone but the bigoted bishops they appointed remain. Virtually every bishop in the church now was appointed by Benedict or on his advice.

  88. kingstonbears says:

    Once again it’s time to revoke their tax exempt status. If you can’t keep your damn miters (sp) out of politics be prepared to pay to play.

  89. lilyannerose says:

    These Bishops need to be secluded behind a wall of shame and not trying to dictate to others. The end results of this much arrogance is disgusting.

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS