Quantcast
Faith

Pelosi to San Francisco archbishop: Don't march for marriage

Comments

Return To Article
  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    June 18, 2014 6:56 a.m.

    One problem -- the Archbishop isn't marching for marriage. He's marching to limit and deny marriage to people who have a right to marry, and his position is based on discrimination and animus. In his church service, he has every right to preach against certain marriages consisent with his church doctrine. That's his job. What he does not have the right to do is try to impose a religious position on a secular country. He is also trying to deny free agency. That's not a good position to take.

  • U-tar Woodland Hills, UT
    June 18, 2014 7:02 a.m.

    Her arrogance seems boundless

  • Zac Ogden, UT
    June 18, 2014 7:04 a.m.

    Remember at the beginning of these debates, all the gay groups and supporters stated that they only wanted marriage equality. They stated that they were not going to go after religions and faiths. People knew that was a lie then, and Pelosi is showing that it is a lie now.

  • slcdenizen Murray, UT
    June 18, 2014 7:06 a.m.

    "to silence anyone who disagrees with them"

    Wrong, the opposition to SSM bases its arguments on false premises and deserves no platform with which to argue fundamentally ignorant assertions. Homosexuality is not a choice and proclamations to the contrary should be neither addressed nor encouraged. The issue of disagreement requires basic constraints, one of which being an honest attempt at deferring to the broad scientific consensus. Those opposing SSM aren't in need of opportunities for civil disagreement so much as a lesson in basic integrity.

  • Spellman789 Syracuse, UT
    June 18, 2014 7:09 a.m.

    Interesting that a congresswoman is asking someone not to exercise their first amendmenet rights because it differs from her views.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    June 18, 2014 7:30 a.m.

    To This Beloved Archbishop: Please participate in the March for Marriage to show your support for this most basic unit of society. I totally agree with your statement:"While it is true that free speech can be used to offend others, it is not so much people exercising their right to free speech that drives us further apart than people punished precisely for doing so that does," he wrote, adding, "Please do not make judgments based on stereotypes, media images and comments taken out of context. Rather, get to know us first as fellow human beings."

    I have found that being tolerant toward my Gay friends has been an enriching and good experience. I have learned to listen to their point of view and discovered new perspectives. I note that many of my Gay friends want to be tolerant to my conservative point of view as well and that there is some common ground and mutual respect to be found.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    June 18, 2014 7:31 a.m.

    A church leader has every right to speak out and support moral issues, who is miss Nancy to tell him to not march in it?

  • Mexican Ute mexico, 00
    June 18, 2014 7:47 a.m.

    If the guy wants to march for traditional marriage, let him.

    If he wants to march for gay marriage, let him.

    Last time I checked the First Amendment has a right to speech and to peacefully assemble.

    Last time I checked religions have the right to discipline others within their religion for not completing with the religion's norms.

    One of the Catholic norms is opposing abortion.

    Pelosi breaks that norm and in spades.

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    June 18, 2014 7:55 a.m.

    It is remarkable that Nancy Pelosi is opposed to a Christian march to promote keeping a holy commandment. Sad.

  • Andrew American Fork, UT
    June 18, 2014 8:14 a.m.

    Sounds like to me he supports traditional marriage. Supporting traditional marriage does not mean you are discriminating against others or bigoted. False conclusion. I have family who are homosexuals that I care for; however marriage is for a husband and wife to raise children/a family. Not for friends to feel their relationship deserves attention/recognition and that ones lifestyle/orientation is not sinful. That point totally misses the mark as to why we need strong families in society and why God has said that marriage is between a husband and a wife.

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    June 18, 2014 8:29 a.m.

    @Spellman789

    Welcome to liberal "tolerance". Free speech is great - as long as it agrees with my point of view.

    Also interesting that Nancy Pelosi claims to be part of a religion (Catholicism). I wonder when was the last time she went to church?

  • 65TossPowerTrap Salmon, ID
    June 18, 2014 8:44 a.m.

    Nancy Pelosi should stick to what she does best, which is .... Can I get back to you on that?

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    June 18, 2014 9:10 a.m.

    So let's see....an elected politician is trying to interfere with not just the freedom of religion but also the freedom of speech of this Bishop and the hypocritical liberal posters on the site are trying to twist this and condem the bishop and paint the leftist politician as the victim.

    Hypocrisy, dishonesty, immorality, really there aren't enough words to describe this absolute hypocritical and dishonest behavior by the leftists and gay marriage crowd.

    Your true colors are more than exposed.

  • Chester Brough Providence, Utah
    June 18, 2014 9:19 a.m.

    The Minority Leader is and has always been about herself, having a government jet with a $160,000 month spirits bill, saying: "let pass it, the Affordable Care Act, and then we will read it"? Are you confused? This is the woman who called herself the smartest woman in America in a past debate? Why would anyone take her comments serious?

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    June 18, 2014 9:26 a.m.

    How dare she, try to influence religion. SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE NANCY!

    It doesn't surprise me coming from a left wing nut case. It's always do as I say, but, not as I do. Which is why, I will never agree or go along with the left wing or other wings for that matter. Just a huge cess pool of losers, that want all of the power, glory, money and financing to benefit themselves.

    Let me keep my money and determine my own destiny. I don't need barack, nancy, bohener, reid and others to steal my money and redistribute a fraction back to me, telling me they know what is best. While they live it up on our money.

    Get rid of barack and michelle (who admitted she can't even feed her kids healthy meals; then why is she lecturing us?)

    I'm done with them. I want my freedom!

  • Andrew American Fork, UT
    June 18, 2014 9:35 a.m.

    @RanchHand
    Wow, we have never met and you have made so many conclusions and derogatory statements about me based on a few comments on a chat board. You obviously have strong opinions on this subject. I appreciate you challenging me to think outside the norm on the paragraph about heterosexuals. My previous marks regarding having children should have been included a word like ideally or primarily. As in primarily to have/raise children etc. Yes married, being young and intentionally hot having children is sin/ethically wrong. We should multiply and replenish the earth; if you can is the commandment. Being older and/or not capable is not sin.
    The FYI comment "It is absolutely bigotry to deny others the legal benefits you enjoy." well that is true depending on the meaning of bigotry. I would prefer the word discriminatory. I can vote my 11 year son can not. Yes that is discriminatory. Bigotry has a lot of negative connotations which you seem to be willing to toss around. The criteria which you mock is God's whose criteria and personality I choose not to mock. A healthier discussion would be legality(civil) versus ethical(moral) right for homosexuals to marry.

  • Big Bubba Herriman, UT
    June 18, 2014 9:59 a.m.

    Much of what I am thinking about Pelosi has already been said, so I will add just one thing: Who keeps electing this woman into office?

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    June 18, 2014 10:05 a.m.

    @ slcdenizen: "the opposition to SSM bases its arguments on false premises and deserves no platform with which to argue fundamentally ignorant assertions"

    This is your opinion, not fact. This is the point. The LGBT movement is about indoctrination and forced acceptance of a lifestyle. TO disagree is to be shouted down. Hardly what Free Speech is all about.

    Why is Pelosi not concerned with the "actions and rhetoric" of the pro-gay groups? Why does she not decry the "bash back" gangs commiting violence and property damage in her home state?

    Hypocrisy is the name of the game on the Left....

  • slcdenizen Murray, UT
    June 18, 2014 10:30 a.m.

    @RedWings

    This is the point. The religious movement is about indoctrination and forced acceptance of a lifestyle. TO disagree is to be shouted down. Hardly what Free Speech is all about.

    I fixed it for you. You're right, if my claim is perceived as an opinion and you possess a right to disagree, then please grant that same right to others that disagree with your religious interpretation and allow adults of the same gender to marry one another without cruel harassment.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    June 18, 2014 10:37 a.m.

    Did Nancy write letters to gay paraders?

  • 4Freedom Columbus, OH
    June 18, 2014 12:13 p.m.

    It is well beyond time to send Pelosi packing. If the tables were turned there would be such an outcry from everyone on the left. She does not support the law of the land. Nor do the others of her circle. Enough o this already!

  • mhenshaw Leesburg, VA
    June 18, 2014 12:22 p.m.

    >>You're right, if my claim is perceived as an opinion and you possess a right to disagree, then please grant that same right to others that disagree with your religious interpretation and allow adults of the same gender to marry one another without cruel harassment.

    No one should ever be subjected cruel harassment, but you err on conflating opinion with action. Your position is, essentially, that because everyone should be able to *believe* what they want, they should also be able to *do* what they want. Opinions hurt no one, but actions might. That is why we allow anyone to believe whatever they want, but pass laws regulating actions.

    And that is also why those who support SSM should have to offer evidence that the practice at least wouldn't be harmful to society; and why those who oppose it must offer evidence that it would be harmful. Opinions either way (whether based on religious teachings or an inability to foresee negative consequences) aren't evidence.

  • rhappahannock Washington, DC
    June 18, 2014 12:24 p.m.

    I support the position of the Catholic clergyman. Those attacking him by calling him a "bigot" are engaging in hate speech.

    Those who oppose the march discussed in the article seem to be opposing traditional, scientific marriage, and advancing non-traditional, non-scientific marriage. Scientific observation clearly demonstrates and optimal, scientific marriage. It the coming together of xx and xy. Modern gender theories are not based on biochemical scientific evidence. Though the march is based on moral grounds, as a scientist I prefer to look at the real biochemical evidence, which clearly shows the primacy of xx and xy.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    June 18, 2014 12:37 p.m.

    slcdenizen:

    Your claim is an opinion. Just as mine is.

    I never denied you a right to disagree with me. Your statement was a denial of religious opinion because you do not believe the argument is valid. You are illustrating the "my way ot hte highway" attitude that is the problem with the Left.

    People can join or leave religions at will. Not true with the LGBT indoctrination. I am inundated through the media with one-sided reporting, tv shows which include gay characters, etc. Kids are taught in school that homosexuality is acceptable, and their parent's belief on the issue is wrong.

    Are you inundated with religious programming and media in your home? Are your kids being taught religious doctrine at school? I hardly think so....

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    June 18, 2014 2:27 p.m.

    "Leader Nancy Pelosi has written to ... Catholic Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone asking him to skip a controversial "March for Marriage" to be held in Washington Thursday"

    Mrs. Pelosi is a Catholic political leader. Salvatore Cordileone is going to participate in a political event.... I don't see where is the incongruence in her asking this spiritual from her church to skip this march. The Archbishop refused as is his right.

    Guys let me tell you a secret.... This is not the first time that Catholic Leaders are asked to lean one way or other because of politics. Shhhh!

    I agree with Mrs. pelosi that is contradictory to be pro-marriage and pro-family but exclude a whole segment of the population from those benefits.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    June 18, 2014 3:27 p.m.

    slcdenizen -

    Your sideways insult to my intellectual capacity aside, I agree that we should all respect each other's opinions and beliefs and act accordingly. This was the basis of my first post to you.

    Neither of our opinions should have more weight than the other. But neither should be summarily dismissed because one of us disagree. That is precisely what is happening in the argument between gay rigths vs religious rights. There are many ways to recocile the two in a civilized society. Unfortunately we do not live in one.

    And for the record, I support the concept of civil unions administered by the government for any couple - gay or straight. All couples would then have the same secular rights. "Marriage" should return to a religious ceremony and each church can adminsiteer according to their beliefs or doctrines without interference.

  • shadow01 Edwardsville, IL
    June 18, 2014 3:28 p.m.

    @ Big Bubba
    Californians of course. No other explanation needed. Remember the last time Utah imported a California Governor. That’s what they do, that’s who they are, and they want desperately to share with the rest of us whether we like it or not.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    June 18, 2014 4:06 p.m.

    @ RedWings
    You wrote:
    ""Marriage" should return to a religious ceremony and each church can adminsiteer according to their beliefs or doctrines without interference."

    Would you mind providing some historical foundation to your statement?

    You see, marriage as works in the United States and in most countries around the world is already a "civil union" called "marriage". The power to create this union is hold by the state.
    The state in the U.S. allows religious entities to finalize the union through a religious ceremony "after" the stae has provided a license.

    In other countries it is customary that couples marry twice, the first time "civilly" (court House)and then through a religious ceremony (church). However, the "only valid marriage" is the one in the Court House, the one at church is an act of faith with no legal binding.

    Do you know of any country without marriage? Even Cuba, China, the old U.S.S. R. had/have marriage, a secular yet legally binding marriage.

    During the 1980's the religious right kidnapped the term "Christian" for themselves. Remember when Mormons were Less Christians than today?

    Now, people opposed to SSM are attempting to kidnapp the term "marriage" for them.

  • The Skeptical Chymist SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 18, 2014 4:09 p.m.

    To those who say Nancy Pelosi is interfering with the Archbishop's right to free speech, I say "Nonsense!". She is making an argument for him not to march. She is asking him not to march. She is not calling out the Federal Marshals to stop him from marching. That would be a violation of his freedom of speech. She is merely exercising her own freedom of speech, a perfectly legitimate action.

    Neither is she interfering with the Archbishop's freedom of religion. He is free to interpret his Catholic religion as he sees fit, and so is she. He is in a position of some authority, but she is free to disagree with him as she sees fit. If there is a conflict and the Catholic Church decides to excommunicate Nancy Pelosi, that is its right. But none of this in any way impinges on the religious freedom of either individual.

  • BrentBot Salt Lake City, UT
    June 18, 2014 7:59 p.m.

    Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Chairman of Harvard University’s sociology department, Pitirim Sorokin. found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of homosexuality.

    When marriage loses its unique status, women and children most frequently are the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships or out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special status and benefits as the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the destruction of a principle.

  • K Mchenry, IL
    June 19, 2014 5:21 a.m.

    I don't believe Ms Pelosi is in communion with the church. I'm don't understand why she is calling herself catholic. Politicians are excommunicated for voting for abortion. I'm not saying she can have that view, or vote that view. Just that calling yourself catholic is a problem when you publicly behave this way.

    This letter writing is perfectly fine, he can do so or ignore her. But the fact that it's news suggests she simply is trying to get herself in the news for her own perspectives.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    June 19, 2014 7:54 a.m.

    For those of you who are attacking Pelosi, she is expressing her wishes and views, not denying the Archbishop from anything. Don't distort. You are OK if churches influence government leaders, so why can't government leaders try to influence church leaders? You accuse Pelosi of the same thing that you yourselves are guilty of.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    June 19, 2014 8:29 a.m.

    Brentbot

    Sorokin has been dead for almost 50 years. He was a refugee from Leninist/Stalinist Russia, and must of his thinking is a reaction to the early communist regimes. And his thinking was a great deal more nuanced that what you present here.

    And finally, I think that sociological thinking has evolved greatly from the works of a long dead sociologist.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    June 19, 2014 9:07 a.m.

    Baccus0902-

    You can't "kidnap" something that is already yours. Marriag has only been between one man and one woman. If there is a kidnapping going on, it is by the LGBT.

    Marriage is ordained of God (see the Book of Genesis). Adam and Eve were the first married couple. YOu prove my point by showing that other countries have separate civil and religious ceremonies. I am honestly fine with that. Go to the courthouse and become civilly united, then (for LDS couples) go to teh Temple and be sealed for time and eternity (religious ceremony).

    Why is that not a viable option to protect everyone's rights? For all the bantering from the LGBT about their rights, I have not heard on concern for the rights of others....

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    June 19, 2014 10:59 a.m.

    RedWings:
    You wrote:
    "I have not heard on concern for the rights of others...."

    How your rights or marriage are bein affected? Please do tell.

    I will not accept forecast of doom unless you provide some coherent reasoning to arrive to that conclusion.

    I read the book of Genesis and I don't see any wedding taking place. Actually is very much a couple living together type of thing. Yes, I acknowledge that many Chrisitans and Jewish scholar have "inferred" a wedding. But Gnesis never comes out and state it as such.

    Besides, do you take Genesis literally? I love the Bible and the book of Genesis, but I consider it an allegory about creation and other myth attempting to explain human nature. Nothing more nothing less. I go more for Big Bang, evolution, even the idea of an intelligent designer has merit in my opinion.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    June 19, 2014 11:52 a.m.

    @Redwings
    "Why is that not a viable option to protect everyone's rights?"

    Because there is no reason to pursue that. There are no rights of yours that would be protected with "civil unions for all" that aren't protected with "marriage for all". The only reason to do that would seem to me to prevent the government from labeling same sex couples as married (even though they would totally be married anyway since it's not like there aren't churches that do that).

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    June 19, 2014 12:10 p.m.

    This Archbishop has his right to speak out. But other people, including Pelosi,also have their right to speak, including make a petition to Archbishop not to march.

    She did not use government power to force Archbishop not to go, just practiced her own free speech.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    June 19, 2014 12:12 p.m.

    Marriage is a religious institution that the government is trying to take control of.

    If the government wants to create something different and call it something else, so be it. But you will not redefine marriage. Marriage is one man and one woman period. Everything else is just that, everything else.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    June 19, 2014 1:11 p.m.

    @ Liberal Ted

    " Marriage is a religious institution that the government is trying to take control of."

    Trying??? Remember when the US Government forced Deseret to get rid of Polygamy as a legal form of marriage?

    It seems that the US Government and the States have had control of marriage for a long, long time.