See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On July 11th, 2009 at 9:50 am, right4life said:

   just like the catholic charity case…you twist everything into being about government funding…

   and then you LIE and say they can still do adoptions…when they no longer can because they don’t support the gay agenda. but none of that troubles you of course.

   and you are unable to deal with any issue deeper than saying ‘ensign destroyed his marriage’ and ‘government pays, you do as they say’

   talk about dishonest, you have been from the beginning with your snide little comments about ‘this happened because gays want to be married’.

2. #102
   On July 11th, 2009 at 9:58 am, right4life said:

   just like the boy scouts, its OK, according to you, to deny them access to facilities that *we* pay for, while giving them to ‘approved’ others. the boy scouts don’t receive government funding as far as I know, but you don’t have a problem with this denial of access. so to you the government can decide which beleifs are ‘correct’ and reward and punish them with *my* money.

   or the CA doctor…apparently because he accepts governemnt money in one form or the other..(I don’t know that he does) but you just breezily assume that the government can tell him how to practice medicine because they supply part of his income.

   but of couse that ‘rational’ could be extended to every area of our lives..you benefit from the roads and schools and libraries that the government supplies, so they should be able to control your life.

   you are unable to deal with these issues, preferrring to stick to gay talking points…no surprise.

3. #103
   On July 11th, 2009 at 10:38 am, zyzzyg said:

   On July 11th, 2009 at 9:58 am, right4life said:

   The one opportunity for you and I to agree, you can’t simply say so, but you have to say, “thats mighty white of ya’”.

   Not helpful.

4. #104
   On July 11th, 2009 at 10:39 am, zyzzyg said:

   On July 11th, 2009 at 9:58 am, right4life said:

   I asked several simple direct questions and few of them were answered directly.

5. #105
   On July 11th, 2009 at 10:39 am, zyzzyg said:

   On July 11th, 2009 at 9:58 am, right4life said:

   I sense something latent and hidden deep within you, and your apparent inabilty to be direct, is also a reflection of your honesty.

6. #106
   On July 11th, 2009 at 10:40 am, zyzzyg said:

   On July 11th, 2009 at 9:58 am, right4life said:

   You call me names, and assign motive to me. That is too easy.

7. #107
   On July 11th, 2009 at 10:41 am, zyzzyg said:

   On July 11th, 2009 at 9:58 am, right4life said:

   We disgree on this issue, so be it. But, that does not mean you have to be disagreeable.

8. #108
   On July 11th, 2009 at 11:16 am, right4life said:

   again you cannot deal with the issues…all you can do is stick to talking points…

   as far as being ‘disagreeable’ well your first little snark about ‘gay marriage being the cause’ was disagreeable.

9. #109
   On July 11th, 2009 at 11:17 am, right4life said:

   I sense something latent and hidden deep within you, and your apparent inabilty to be direct, is also a reflection of your honesty.

   oh I was very direct, you just don’t like the answers…as far as lying, you have done so repeatedly.

10. #110
    On July 11th, 2009 at 3:47 pm, zyzzyg said:

    right4life,

    An unanswered question -

    What has destroyed more marriages, infidelity, or Gays getting married?

11. #111
    On July 11th, 2009 at 3:48 pm, zyzzyg said:

    right4life,

    An unanswered question -

    As for ‘meaningless’, your word, what has made more marriages ‘meaningless’, infidelity, or gays getting marriage?

12. #112
    On July 11th, 2009 at 3:49 pm, zyzzyg said:

    What if a couple chose not to be intimate in their marriage? Would that be a ‘meaningless’ marriage, or impact the ‘concept of marriage’? And, does their ‘concept of marriage’ impact other marriages?

    OK, now it is the ‘concept of marriage’ that is destroyed, or becomes meaningless. But, marriage (marriages) will still exist, correct? Men and women will still be able to get married, correct?

    Two different questions -

    1. What has destroyed more marriages, infidelity, or Gays getting married?

    2. What has destroyed more the ‘concept of marriage’, infidelity, or Gays getting married?

    And when these individual marriages ‘come and go’ is it because of infidelity, or because gays are getting married?

    Now I am destroying marriage? LOL. Mr Ensign is destroying marriages, not me. BTW, isn’t he heterosexual?

    Because there is no threat. And, freedom? Where is that coming from? Freedom to do what? To marry who you want?

    right4life,

    An unanswered question -

    Should the Episcopal church split, so what? One half will recognize and perform gay marriages and/or civil unions. The other half won’t. How does each half impinge on the others religious liberty, that is, to practice religion the way each wants?

13. #113
    On July 11th, 2009 at 3:50 pm, zyzzyg said:

    right4life,

    An unanswered question -

    If your religious liberty is dependent on Government funding, then exactly how much religious liberty do you have?

14. #114
    On July 11th, 2009 at 3:51 pm, zyzzyg said:

    right4life,

    An unanswered question -

    Nope. Catholic charities can still do adoptions, they just no longer receive Government funding. True, or not true?

15. #115
    On July 11th, 2009 at 3:52 pm, zyzzyg said:

    right4life,

    An unanswered question -

    The Catholic Church has not lost their tax exempt status. True, or not true?

16. #116
    On July 11th, 2009 at 3:53 pm, zyzzyg said:

    right4life,

    An unanswered question -

    What are those “trends”, they were unfortunately never specifically mentioned, hence your answer is wanting. Tell me about the trends, tell me how one couple conducts their marriage impacts another couple’s marriage?

17. #117
    On July 11th, 2009 at 3:53 pm, zyzzyg said:

    right4life,

    An unanswered question -

    And, infidelity still destroys marriage. True, or not true?

18. #118
    On July 11th, 2009 at 4:00 pm, zyzzyg said:

    right4life,

    An unanswered question -

    When you don’t take Government money, you still maintain your religious liberties. True, or not true?

19. #119
    On July 11th, 2009 at 4:01 pm, zyzzyg said:

    right4life,

    An unanswered question -

    Now I am destroying marriage? LOL. Mr Ensign is destroying marriages, not me. BTW, isn’t he heterosexual?

20. #120
    On July 11th, 2009 at 4:03 pm, zyzzyg said:

    right4life,

    An unanswered question -

    And, freedom? Where is that coming from? Freedom to do what? To marry who you want?

21. #121
    On July 11th, 2009 at 4:03 pm, zyzzyg said:

    right4life,

    An unanswered question -

    Should the Episcopal church split, so what? One half will recognize and perform gay marriages and/or civil unions. The other half won’t. How does each half impinge on the others religious liberty, that is, to practice religion the way each wants?

22. #122
    On July 11th, 2009 at 8:48 pm, right4life said:

    zyzzyg

    an unanswered question

    is tax exemption a benefit?

23. #123
    On July 11th, 2009 at 8:48 pm, right4life said:

    zyzzyg

    an unanswered question:

    should the government be free to discriminate against groups just because the governemnt doesn’t like what they believe?

24. #124
    On July 11th, 2009 at 8:49 pm, right4life said:

    zyzzyg

    an unanswered question:

    What social benefit does gay marriage bring? other than to satisfy the greed of the gays, what is it good for?

25. #125
    On July 11th, 2009 at 8:49 pm, right4life said:

    zyzzyg:

    an unanswered question:

    where is your support for anything you have said? in other words, just because you say it, doesn’t make it so.

26. #126
    On July 11th, 2009 at 8:50 pm, right4life said:

    zyzzyg:

    an unanswered question:

    should the government be able to tell you what to do with your private business because one of your customers receives social security benefits that they pay you with?

27. #127
    On July 11th, 2009 at 8:51 pm, right4life said:

    zyzzyg

    an unanswered question:

    why do you continue to lie about the catholic charities in MA…is just ignorance or are you just a liar by nature?

28. #128
    On July 11th, 2009 at 8:52 pm, right4life said:

    zyzzyg

    an unanswered question:

    does gay marriage destroy the entire concept of marriage and make it meaningless?

29. #129
    On July 11th, 2009 at 8:52 pm, right4life said:

    zyzzyg

    an unanswered question:

    are you this big of an ass outside of the internet?

30. #130
    On July 11th, 2009 at 8:53 pm, right4life said:

    zyzzyg

    an unanswered question:

    why should religious freedom, or any other freedom, be contingent upon taking government money?

31. #131
    On July 11th, 2009 at 8:55 pm, right4life said:

    zyzzyg

    an unanswered question:

    why are the gays and their supporters such fascists??

32. #132
    On July 11th, 2009 at 8:56 pm, right4life said:

    zyzzyg

    an unanswered question:

    if homosexuals can marry, then why not polygamysts or polyandrysts??

33. #133
    On July 11th, 2009 at 8:57 pm, right4life said:

    zyzzyg

    an unanswered question:

    why should the catholic charities be PROHIBITED from proving in adoptions in MA just because they won’t violate their religious beliefs by giving children to gays for adoption?

34. #134
    On July 11th, 2009 at 8:58 pm, right4life said:

    zyzzyg

    an unanswered question:

    do you think children need a REAL mother and father, and not 1 of the 2 people playing the role of the other sex??

35. #135
    On July 11th, 2009 at 9:00 pm, right4life said:

    zyzzyg

    an unanswered question:

    do you think losing religious freedom is an acceptable price to pay for homosexuals given the ‘right’ to marry?

36. #136
    On July 11th, 2009 at 9:03 pm, right4life said:

    zyzzyg

    an unanswered question:

    are you for ‘hate-crime’ laws too? do you think its OK to silence people for expressing opinions the homosexuals, or any given group, or the government, disapproves of?

    and what if they get a direct,or indirect benefit from the government…should the government still be able to censor them?

37. #137
    On July 11th, 2009 at 9:04 pm, right4life said:

    zyzzyg

    an unanswered question:

    do you think the Bible approves of homosexuality, or not?

38. #138
    On July 12th, 2009 at 1:40 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On July 11th, 2009 at 8:48 pm, right4life said: #122

    zyzzyg
    an unanswered question
    is tax exemption a benefit?

    Nope. The question was never asked.

    The first time tax exemption was raised was in your post #78. And, I addressed it in my post #83.

    You made a Statement and did not ask a question.

39. #139
    On July 12th, 2009 at 1:46 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On July 11th, 2009 at 8:48 pm, right4life said: #123

    zyzzyg
    an unanswered question:
    should the government be free to discriminate against groups just because the governemnt doesn’t like what they believe?

    Nope, The question was never asked. (At least you did not cut and paste it from any of your posts, as I have cut and pasted previously unanswered questions by you, from my posts. Yep, I did a search of the way you spelled ‘governemnt’)

    However let me help you out.

    In your post #92 where the theme of your new question was discussed. I responded to your posts #92 thru #95 in my post#98. I did not specifically respond to each of those individual posts.

    From your post #92 -

    You did ask the following question that I did not answer, “are there any MALE girl scout troop leaders??”

    My answer is I don’t know, but suspect there very well might be. There are single male parents and there should be no reason that they shouldn’t be able to contribute their daughter’s activities.

    More from your post #92 -

    You made the statement, “so to you the government can decide who ‘discriminates’ and who is punished for that ‘discrimination’”, which I addressed with the following, ” . . . the Government is not telling them who they can discriminate against . . .”

    Very well, my response could be viewed as clunky, but no, the Government should not discriminate. Caveat, when an organization does not follows the rules, they have to live with the consequences of their actions.

    More from your post #92 -

    You asked,
    

    “. . . why should the govenment be in any position to tell any group what to believe or not believe???”

    My answer is, the Government does not tell any group what to believe, or not believe. Especially with respect to religion.

    And, don’t get your shorts in a bunch, the ‘unanswered question’ is different from the actual question from post #92.

40. #140
    On July 12th, 2009 at 1:50 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On July 11th, 2009 at 8:49 pm, right4life said: #124

    zyzzyg
    an unanswered question:
    What social benefit does gay marriage bring? other than to satisfy the greed of the gays, what is it good for?

    Nope. The question was never asked, well at least as written.

    I get what you are doing. Instead of being specific, you are working from memory. I, on the other hand, am being specific, because I am cutting and pasting what was actually said.

    That being said, let me help you out.

    It was in your post #64 where you actually asked, “. . . what social good will come from gay marriage?. . .” and “. . . so why bother to satisfy the greed of gays at the expense of religious liberty??”

    Yep, I did not address your post #64 at the time.

    My answers -

    The same ‘social good’ that heterosexual marriages provide.

    I see no connection between religious liberty and gay greed. Religious liberties and convictions remain unchanged because others are doing something that you may disagree with.

41. #141
    On July 12th, 2009 at 1:52 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On July 11th, 2009 at 8:49 pm, right4life said: #125

    zyzzyg:
    an unanswered question:
    where is your support for anything you have said? in other words, just because you say it, doesn’t make it so.

    Nope, The question was never asked.

    Try cutting and pasting.

42. #142
    On July 12th, 2009 at 1:55 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On July 11th, 2009 at 8:50 pm, right4life said: #126

    zyzzyg:
    an unanswered question:
    should the government be able to tell you what to do with your private business because one of your customers receives social security benefits that they pay you with?

    Nope. The question was never asked.

    Let me help you out.

    The above new question follows, at least thematically your post #79, and which I responded in my post #84. You followed it up with your post #93, and my response from post #84 still applies.

    At this time I will quote you (from your post#54), “I have already answered your absurd questions..you just don’t like the answers.”

43. #143
    On July 12th, 2009 at 1:58 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On July 11th, 2009 at 8:51 pm, right4life said: #127

    zyzzyg
    an unanswered question:
    why do you continue to lie about the catholic charities in MA…is just ignorance or are you just a liar by nature?

    Nope. The question was never asked.

    Let me help you out. You first raised Catholic Charities as an issue in your post #78 and I responded with my post #83. You even cut and pasted my response, from my post #83, in a subsequent post #95, though you did not present a follow-up question in that post. You raised the issue again in your post #101, and I cut and pasted my response from post #83, again, in my post #114. My answer did not change.

    We could really move forward on this issue if you simply answer the questions I posed, as to whether Catholic Charities can still do adoptions (using private resources).

    At this time I will quote you (from your post#54), “I have already answered your absurd questions..you just don’t like the answers.”

44. #144
    On July 12th, 2009 at 2:01 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On July 11th, 2009 at 8:52 pm, right4life said: #128

    zyzzyg
    an unanswered question:
    does gay marriage destroy the entire concept of marriage and make it meaningless?

    Nope, The question was never asked. Try cutting and pasting.

    Let me help you out.

    You first raised the issue of ‘meaningless’ in your post #32, which led to my asking several questions which you never answered. It involved the ‘concept of marriage’ , ‘individual marriages’ and definitions with even more unanswered questions by you.

    We could really move forward on this issue if you simply answer the questions I posed.

45. #145
    On July 12th, 2009 at 2:02 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On July 11th, 2009 at 8:52 pm, right4life said: #129

    zyzzyg
    an unanswered question:
    are you this big of an ass outside of the internet?

    Nope. The question was never asked.

    In fact it is an entirely new question, which I will not address, until you address my old questions.

    Quoting myself from post #83, “Name calling does not help. Reading and writing comprehension does.” And, it still applies.

46. #146
    On July 12th, 2009 at 2:04 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On July 11th, 2009 at 8:53 pm, right4life said: #130

    zyzzyg
    an unanswered question:
    why should religious freedom, or any other freedom, be contingent upon taking government money?

    Nope, The question was never asked. Try cutting and pasting.

    Thematically, the issue has been discussed throughout, and I have provided answers throughout. I even asked questions, that you did not answer. Then made statements that you did not address.

    We could really move forward on this issue if you simply answer the questions I posed.

47. #147
    On July 12th, 2009 at 2:05 pm, right4life said:

    We could really move forward on this issue if you simply answer the questions I posed, as to whether Catholic Charities can still do adoptions (using private resources).

    sigh…I think we’ve answered the question on your reading comprehension…

    On July 11th, 2009 at 9:50 am, right4life said:
    just like the catholic charity case…you twist everything into being about government funding…

    and then you LIE and say they can still do adoptions…when they no longer can because they don’t support the gay agenda. but none of that troubles you of course.

    On July 11th, 2009 at 8:57 pm, right4life said:
    zyzzyg

    an unanswered question:

    why should the catholic charities be PROHIBITED from proving in adoptions in MA just because they won’t violate their religious beliefs by giving children to gays for adoption?

    On July 10th, 2009 at 2:34 pm, right4life said:
    from stanley kurtz…

    It’s already happening, as we’ve seen with the recent withdrawal of Boston’s Catholic Charities from the adoption business.

    #78On July 10th, 2009 at 7:14 pm, right4life said:
    the catholic charity in MA cannot participate in adoptions anymore because they won’t place children with homosexuals…so they have LOST the FREEDOM they once had…freedom isn’t that important to you obviously…only the freedom of the gays to oppress others apparently.

    if you still don’t get it

    THE CATHOLIC CHARITIES IN MA NO LONGER PARTICIPATE IN THE ADOPTION BUSINESS BECAUSE THEY ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO PLACE CHILDREN WITH HOMOSEXUAL COUPLS

    sigh….

48. #148
    On July 12th, 2009 at 2:06 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On July 11th, 2009 at 8:55 pm, right4life said: #131

    zyzzyg
    an unanswered question:
    why are the gays and their supporters such fascists??

    Nope, The question was never asked. Try cutting and pasting.

    You have repeatedly made such assertions, using other terms of derision. In fact it is an entirely new question, which I will not address, until you address my old questions.

    Quoting myself from post #83, “Name calling does not help. Reading and writing comprehension does.” And, it still applies.

49. #149
    On July 12th, 2009 at 2:08 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On July 11th, 2009 at 8:56 pm, right4life said: #132

    zyzzyg
    an unanswered question:
    if homosexuals can marry, then why not polygamysts or polyandrysts??

    Nope, The question was never asked. Try cutting and pasting.

    Let me help you out.

    From your post #37, you asked, “if gays can get married, then why not 3,4 20, whatever, and whoever?”. I responded, in fact I cut and pasted your exact question, and answered it, in my post# 43.

    At this time I will quote you (from your post #54), “I have already answered your absurd questions..you just don’t like the answers.”

50. #150
    On July 12th, 2009 at 2:09 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On July 11th, 2009 at 8:57 pm, right4life said: #133

    zyzzyg
    an unanswered question:
    why should the catholic charities be PROHIBITED from proving in adoptions in MA just because they won’t violate their religious beliefs by giving children to gays for adoption?

    Nope. The question was never asked.

    In fact it is an entirely new question, which I will not address, until you address my old questions.

51. #151
    On July 12th, 2009 at 2:10 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On July 11th, 2009 at 8:58 pm, right4life said: #134

    zyzzyg
    an unanswered question:
    do you think children need a REAL mother and father, and not 1 of the 2 people playing the role of the other sex??

    Nope. The question was never asked.

    In fact it is an entirely new question, which I will not address, until you address my old questions.

52. #152
    On July 12th, 2009 at 2:12 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On July 11th, 2009 at 9:00 pm, right4life said: #135

    zyzzyg
    an unanswered question:
    do you think losing religious freedom is an acceptable price to pay for homosexuals given the ‘right’ to marry?

    Nope. The question was never asked.

    In fact it is an entirely new question, which I will not address, until you address my old questions.

53. #153
    On July 12th, 2009 at 2:12 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On July 11th, 2009 at 9:03 pm, right4life said: #136

    zyzzyg
    an unanswered question:
    are you for ‘hate-crime’ laws too? do you think its OK to silence people for expressing opinions the homosexuals, or any given group, or the government, disapproves of?
    and what if they get a direct,or indirect benefit from the government…should the government still be able to censor them?

    Nope. The question was never asked.

    In fact it is an entirely new question, which I will not address, until you address my old questions.

54. #154
    On July 12th, 2009 at 2:14 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On July 11th, 2009 at 9:04 pm, right4life said: #137

    zyzzyg
    an unanswered question:
    do you think the Bible approves of homosexuality, or not?

    Nope. The question was never asked.

    In fact it is an entirely new question, which I will not address, until you address my old questions.

55. #155
    On July 12th, 2009 at 2:28 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On July 12th, 2009 at 2:05 pm, right4life said: #147

    if you still don’t get it

    THE CATHOLIC CHARITIES IN MA NO LONGER PARTICIPATE IN THE ADOPTION BUSINESS BECAUSE THEY ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO PLACE CHILDREN WITH HOMOSEXUAL COUPLS

    sigh….

    From the Catholic Charities of Mass website -

    “Catholic Charities agencies serve people of all faiths. They provide a wide range of services — housing, emergency services, health care, child care, adoption, and other critical services.”

    Look for your self using the link -

    http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=292

    Catholic Charities still does adoptions, they do fewer because they lack the funds that used to be provided by the Goverment. They still do adoptions using private, non-Governmental, funds. The convictions, and Religious liberties of Catholic Charities remains unchanged.

    Do you get it?

    I am going to ask one last time, . . . ummm, no I am not. You will find a way to call Catholic Charities a liar because they admit to still doing adoptions.

56. #156
    On July 12th, 2009 at 2:30 pm, right4life said:

    Catholic Charities still does adoptions, they do fewer because they lack the funds that used to be provided by the Goverment. They still do adoptions using private, non-Governmental, funds.

    are you just PATHETICALLY STUPID…or a really stupid liar??? duhhhhhhhh moron…

    Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions
    Gay issue stirred move by agency
    By Patricia Wen, Globe Staff | March 11, 2006

    In a stunning turn of events, Archbishop Sean P. O’Malley and leaders of Catholic Charities of Boston announced yesterday that the agency will end its adoption work, deciding to abandon its founding mission, rather than comply with state law requiring that gays be allowed to adopt children.

    The Rev. J. Bryan Hehir, president of Catholic Charities of Boston, and Jeffrey Kaneb, chairman of the board, said that after much reflection and analysis, they could not reconcile church teaching that placement of children in gay homes is ”immoral” with Massachusetts law prohibiting discrimination against gays.

57. #157
    On July 12th, 2009 at 2:31 pm, right4life said:

    forgot…

    link

58. #158
    On July 12th, 2009 at 2:33 pm, right4life said:

    oh I get it..you don’t understand what MA means…its a state abbreviation…see states have full names…and they have abbreviations…which are smaller ways to refer to the state…

    and MASSACHUSSETS has a state abbreviation of MA..duhhhhhhhhh

59. #159
    On July 12th, 2009 at 2:40 pm, right4life said:

    Banned in Boston
    The coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty.
    by Maggie Gallagher
    05/15/2006, Volume 011, Issue 33

    CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF BOSTON made the announcement on March 10: It was getting out of the adoption business. “We have encountered a dilemma we cannot resolve. . . . The issue is adoption to same-sex couples.”

    It was shocking news. Catholic Charities of Boston, one of the nation’s oldest adoption agencies, had long specialized in finding good homes for hard to place kids. “Catholic Charities was always at the top of the list,” Paula Wisnewski, director of adoption for the Home for Little Wanderers, told the Boston Globe. “It’s a shame because it is certainly going to mean that fewer children from foster care are going to find permanent homes.” Marylou Sudders, president of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, said simply, “This is a tragedy for kids.”

    From there, it was only a short step to the headline “State Putting Church Out of Adoption Business,” which ran over an opinion piece in the Boston Globe by John Garvey, dean of Boston College Law School. It’s worth underscoring that Catholic Charities’ problem with the state didn’t hinge on its receipt of public money. Ron Madnick, president of the Massachusetts chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, agreed with Garvey’s assessment: “Even if Catholic Charities ceased receiving tax support and gave up its role as a state contractor, it still could not refuse to place children with same-sex couples.”

    link

60. #160
    On July 12th, 2009 at 2:41 pm, right4life said:

    from the same article…

    I PUT THE QUESTION to Anthony Picarello, president and general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The Becket Fund is widely recognized as one of the best religious liberty law firms and the only one that defends the religious liberty of all faith groups, “from Anglicans to Zoroastrians,” as its founder Kevin J.
    Hasson likes to say (referring to actual clients the Becket Fund has defended).

    Just how serious are the coming conflicts over religious liberty stemming from gay marriage?

    “The impact will be severe and pervasive,” Picarello says flatly. “This is going to affect every aspect of church-state relations.” Recent years, he predicts, will be looked back on as a time of relative peace between church and state, one where people had the luxury of litigating cases about things like the Ten Commandments in courthouses. In times of relative peace, says Picarello, people don’t even notice that “the church is surrounded on all sides by the state; that church and state butt up against each other. The boundaries are usually peaceful, so it’s easy sometimes to forget they are there. But because marriage affects just about every area of the law, gay marriage is going to create a point of conflict at every point around the perimeter.”

    For scholars, these will be interesting times: Want to know exactly where the borders of church and state are located? “Wait a few years,” Picarello laughs. The flood of litigation surrounding each point of contact will map out the territory. For religious liberty lawyers, there are boom times ahead. As one Becket Fund donor told Picarello ruefully, “At least you know you’re not in the buggy whip business.”

61. #161
    On July 12th, 2009 at 3:57 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On July 12th, 2009 at 2:30 pm, right4life said: #156 thru #160

    Don’t take me to task, take the Catholic Charities to task for saying they still do adoptions. Did you even check out their website? Are they lying about doing adoptions? Did you notice it was the Catholic Charities of Massachusettes website?

    Go ahead and explain why the Catholics Charity website still says they do adoptions? Do you have an a nswer for that?

    Absolutely. Catholic Charities is not changing it’s convictions and Religious liberties. They will not place children with Gays. I am citing your own sources.

    Do you understand that?

    It is about tax support and being a Government contrator. Catholic Charities has given up its’ role as a Government contractor and accepting Government money. True, or not true?

    They will however continue to do adoptions. Adoptions supported by private funding. Again, look at their website.

    Why are you unwilling to accept what Catholic Charities says of themselves?

    Cite all the opinion pieces from 2006, all you want, but realize this is 2009, and accept the Catholic Charities’ position is that they still do adoptions, at least, according to their current website. Are they lying? Besides, opinion pieces are just that, opinion pieces.

    Let me help you. I will do it for you, because you are either unwilling, or unable to answer simple questions. -

    Does Catholic Charities still perform adpotions?

    Yes. With Private funding, according to their website.

    Have the convictions or Religious liberties of Catholics Charities changed?

    No. Catholic Charities will not place children with Gays.

    Will Catholic Charities place children with Gays using private funding?

    No. Because it would violate their convictions and Religious liberties.

    And, while you are it, try responding to some of the previous questions, from Posts #110 thru #121.

62. #162
    On July 12th, 2009 at 5:09 pm, right4life said:

    Don’t take me to task, take the Catholic Charities to task for saying they still do adoptions

    your page is an overall listing of what they do…there is also a link to state agencies…the information is very sparse…you could have done a google on whether they do adoptions in MA

    Go ahead and explain why the Catholics Charity website still says they do adoptions? Do you have an a nswer for that?

    again you prove yourself to be amazingly stupid…you do know they have agencies in many states, not just MA??? right??? you do know that???

    They will however continue to do adoptions. Adoptions supported by private funding. Again, look at their website.

    are you masochistic? do you enjoy making a fool out of yourself…you’re good for a few laughs..but this is getting pathetic…

    Besides, opinion pieces are just that, opinion pieces.

    what does it take? a voice from God or something??? you’re an idiot. seriously, laughably, pathetically stupid.

    you do realize the ‘globe staff’ is referring to the boston globe??

    and you do realize that ‘opinion piece’ said:

    From there, it was only a short step to the headline “State Putting Church Out of Adoption Business,” which ran over an opinion piece in the Boston Globe by John Garvey, dean of Boston College Law School.

    keep posting, I need a few more laughs..moron.

63. #163
    On July 12th, 2009 at 5:13 pm, right4life said:

    oh here’s another one..from CATHOLIC.org…

    Boston’s Catholic Charities to stop adoption service over same-sex law
    By Father Robert J. Carr
    3/10/2006
    Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

    BOSTON, Mass. (Catholic Online) – Catholic Charities in Boston announced March 10 that it is getting out of the adoption business, over Massachusetts state law requiring that that the agency place children with same-sex couples.

    link

    The recent decision by Catholic Charities of the Boston Archdiocese to stop offering adoption services to avoid placing children with homosexuals is reverberating through child welfare circles and sparking fears that other Catholic Charities agencies may follow suit.

    link

    that was from the washington times…but those sites are just OUT TO GET YOU!!! they’re part of the VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY!!! and they’re listening to your thoughts…at least when you don’t wear your tin-foil

64. #164
    On July 12th, 2009 at 8:51 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On July 12th, 2009 at 5:09 pm, right4life said: #162

    Your words, not mine

    . . . page is an overall listing of what they do . .

    What they do. What they do? WHAT THEY DO???

    I stand by the Catholic Charities website and believe that they still perfom adoption services. OK, you can choose to call them liars. I do not.

    Try addressing another of the other unanswered questions I asked you.

65. #165
    On July 12th, 2009 at 8:56 pm, right4life said:

    I stand by the Catholic Charities website and believe that they still perfom adoption services. OK, you can choose to call them liars. I do not.

    I call you a lying idiot!! BWAHAHAAHHAH

    what a moron!!

    you must be in a great deal of pain, such stupidity has to hurt!!
    

66. #166
    On July 12th, 2009 at 8:57 pm, right4life said:

    Try addressing another of the other unanswered questions I asked you

    as we’ve seen you wouldn’t even be able to comprehend the answers…it would truly be casting pearls before swine…

67. #167
    On July 12th, 2009 at 9:27 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On July 12th, 2009 at 8:57 pm, right4life said: #166

    Very well. I’ve not called you names, assigned motive to you, or even claimed that you were wrong.

    I have no respect for you and would hope that you will not ever address anything I have to say from this moment forward. Should you wish to engage in a conversation in the future my hope is that you will answer direct questions directly.