The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

Jonman wrote:

Quite what the implication of that is, I don't know. I haven't tried to follow the money on the pro side, so I'm not sure whether that 13.6 million dollars was largely private or corporate donations.

The Washington United for Marriage folks said they had some 20,000 donors. The top named donors were responsible for just shy of 30% of their final tally.

This top donor list was was from back in July, so it's way outdated:

Jeff and MacKenzie Bezos, $2.5 million
Steve Ballmer, $100,000
William Gates, $100,000
Freedom to Marry Action Inc., New York, $100,000
SEIU Wash. State Council, $100,000
Joe Curiel and Tony Raugust, $50,000
Joel Spiegel and Karen Van Dusen, $50,000
Lawrence Stone, $50,000
Jennifer Cast, $25,000
Laurene Powell Jobs, $25,000
Bradford L. Smith, $25,000
Benjamin Waldman, $25,000

I believe Gates subsequently went in with his wife and made an additional donation of $500,000. NYC's Bloomberg had a $250,000 matching grant. I think TMobile chipped in $25,000 as well.

Woo, states' rights, bitches!

OG_slinger wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Quite what the implication of that is, I don't know. I haven't tried to follow the money on the pro side, so I'm not sure whether that 13.6 million dollars was largely private or corporate donations.

The Washington United for Marriage folks said they had some 20,000 donors. The top named donors were responsible for just shy of 30% of their final tally.

This top donor list was was from back in July, so it's way outdated:

Jeff and MacKenzie Bezos, $2.5 million
Steve Ballmer, $100,000
William Gates, $100,000
Freedom to Marry Action Inc., New York, $100,000
SEIU Wash. State Council, $100,000
Joe Curiel and Tony Raugust, $50,000
Joel Spiegel and Karen Van Dusen, $50,000
Lawrence Stone, $50,000
Jennifer Cast, $25,000
Laurene Powell Jobs, $25,000
Bradford L. Smith, $25,000
Benjamin Waldman, $25,000

I believe Gates subsequently went in with his wife and made an additional donation of $500,000. NYC's Bloomberg had a $250,000 matching grant. I think TMobile chipped in $25,000 as well.

Hmmm, do any of those names work in the Wedding Industrial Complex? Maryland wedding venues? Tuxedo rentals? Flower companies? Caterers? Jewelers?

Tie the Knot, Jessie Tyler Ferguson's charity went live today. He and his husband-to-be are selling bow ties to raise money for marriage equality. And MAN do they have some awesome designs!
IMAGE(http://www.tietheknot.org/images/ties/fall2012/ttk-tie0.jpg)
IMAGE(http://www.tietheknot.org/images/ties/fall2012/ttk-tie4.jpg)
IMAGE(http://www.tietheknot.org/images/ties/fall2012/ttk-tie14.jpg)

Here we go again.

A Christian legal group on Monday sent a memorandum to marriage officials in the three states where gay marriage was legalized in last week's elections, advising them they "do not have to violate their faith or conscience by personally issuing licenses to applicants who are of the same sex."

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF, formerly Alliance Defense Fund) a American conservative Christian nonprofit organization, sent the advisory to municipal clerks and other officials responsible for issuing marriage licenses in Maine, Maryland and Washington.

The memos stated:

[...] In light of the three states’ “recent redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples,” some clerks and auditors “might believe that they face a serious dilemma: either resign their positions or violate their sincerely held religious beliefs by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.”

However, those officials “can readily resolve this potential religious conflict” by acting on the authority they have to appoint their responsibilities to deputies or assistants.

Any government official that is unwilling to issue a bona fide government license to anyone who meets the governmental criteria needs to be terminated and barred from public service ever again.

There is absolutely no justification for anyone using their personal beliefs (religious or otherwise) to deny a legally obtainable government license to anyone for any reason.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Here we go again.

A Christian legal group on Monday sent a memorandum to marriage officials in the three states where gay marriage was legalized in last week's elections, advising them they "do not have to violate their faith or conscience by personally issuing licenses to applicants who are of the same sex."

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF, formerly Alliance Defense Fund) a American conservative Christian nonprofit organization, sent the advisory to municipal clerks and other officials responsible for issuing marriage licenses in Maine, Maryland and Washington.

The memos stated:

[...] In light of the three states’ “recent redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples,” some clerks and auditors “might believe that they face a serious dilemma: either resign their positions or violate their sincerely held religious beliefs by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.”

However, those officials “can readily resolve this potential religious conflict” by acting on the authority they have to appoint their responsibilities to deputies or assistants.

Any government official that is unwilling to issue a bona fide government license to anyone who meets the governmental criteria needs to be terminated and barred from public service ever again.

There is absolutely no justification for anyone using their personal beliefs (religious or otherwise) to deny a legally obtainable government license to anyone for any reason.

This "legal" group needs to be investigated as well.

I assume they sent a similar letter to everyone currently issuing divorces, too?

SixteenBlue wrote:

This "legal" group needs to be investigated as well.

One of their lawyers was just arrested for child pornography...

I love the irony of these idiots being able to say what they want due to the protection of the same amendment they clearly don't agree with when they try to create these laws banning gay marriage or telling government officials to use their faith to make legal decisions.

Mixolyde wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Quite what the implication of that is, I don't know. I haven't tried to follow the money on the pro side, so I'm not sure whether that 13.6 million dollars was largely private or corporate donations.

The Washington United for Marriage folks said they had some 20,000 donors. The top named donors were responsible for just shy of 30% of their final tally.

This top donor list was was from back in July, so it's way outdated:

Jeff and MacKenzie Bezos, $2.5 million
Steve Ballmer, $100,000
William Gates, $100,000
Freedom to Marry Action Inc., New York, $100,000
SEIU Wash. State Council, $100,000
Joe Curiel and Tony Raugust, $50,000
Joel Spiegel and Karen Van Dusen, $50,000
Lawrence Stone, $50,000
Jennifer Cast, $25,000
Laurene Powell Jobs, $25,000
Bradford L. Smith, $25,000
Benjamin Waldman, $25,000

I believe Gates subsequently went in with his wife and made an additional donation of $500,000. NYC's Bloomberg had a $250,000 matching grant. I think TMobile chipped in $25,000 as well.

Hmmm, do any of those names work in the Wedding Industrial Complex? Maryland wedding venues? Tuxedo rentals? Flower companies? Caterers? Jewelers?

When I worked at a jewelery store we used to LOVE when lesbians would come in and buy engagement rings for each other.

OG_slinger wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

This "legal" group needs to be investigated as well.

One of their lawyers was just arrested for child pornography...

And not just possession, either. Ugh.

And this is why DOMA is a tool of the Devil (and, apparently, Boeing):

Today the Boeing Company told union negotiators that it intends to deny pension survivor benefits to same-sex married couples, even though Washington State voters decisively approved a marriage equality law earlier this month.

Representing 23,000 Boeing engineers and technical workers, Ray Goforth is executive director of the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA), IFPTE Local 2001. He was sitting at the negotiation table today—as part of ongoing talks over retirement benefits—and says the company's position "says to employees that they can be discriminated against based on who they are."

Goforth explains that his union has long sought equal pension benefits for same-sex domestic partners, to no avail. But since voters approved same sex marriage—establishing parity with married straight couples—Goforth re-framed the proposal to apply to his union's gay Boeing employees who wed. "Their answer was that they had no intention of granting pension survivor benefits to legally married same-sex couples because they didn't have to," Goforth explains. Boeing representatives told him that pensions are governed by federal law, which doesn't recognize same-sex marriage, thereby trumping the state law on the matter.

So, Washington State will allow gay marriage in just a few weeks, but Boeing is using DOMA as a shield in order to deny survivor benefits to the surviving spouse of a same-sex marriage. Despicable.

The only silver lining is that Boeing has been getting a huge amount of push back and has softened its stand:

Doug Alder, a spokesman for the aerospace giant, says that "any assertion that Boeing discriminates is blatantly false and, quite frankly, offensive." Late this afternoon, Boeing issued a statement to its employees saying it will assess the impacts of Referendum 74 on company policy. "Boeing is taking a closer look at how R-74 might impact company policies once it takes effect in December," the statement said.

Asked directly, however, if Boeing did in fact refuse these benefits at the negotiating table today, Alder evaded the question. "Nothing is ever final in negotiations until they're over," Alder told me. "What we said today is that [these pension benefits] are not currently addressed in the contract."

This, of course, begs the question of why the survivor benefits is governed by DOMA today, but not later with negotiations?

Again, despicable.

NathanialG wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Quite what the implication of that is, I don't know. I haven't tried to follow the money on the pro side, so I'm not sure whether that 13.6 million dollars was largely private or corporate donations.

The Washington United for Marriage folks said they had some 20,000 donors. The top named donors were responsible for just shy of 30% of their final tally.

This top donor list was was from back in July, so it's way outdated:

Jeff and MacKenzie Bezos, $2.5 million
Steve Ballmer, $100,000
William Gates, $100,000
Freedom to Marry Action Inc., New York, $100,000
SEIU Wash. State Council, $100,000
Joe Curiel and Tony Raugust, $50,000
Joel Spiegel and Karen Van Dusen, $50,000
Lawrence Stone, $50,000
Jennifer Cast, $25,000
Laurene Powell Jobs, $25,000
Bradford L. Smith, $25,000
Benjamin Waldman, $25,000

I believe Gates subsequently went in with his wife and made an additional donation of $500,000. NYC's Bloomberg had a $250,000 matching grant. I think TMobile chipped in $25,000 as well.

Hmmm, do any of those names work in the Wedding Industrial Complex? Maryland wedding venues? Tuxedo rentals? Flower companies? Caterers? Jewelers?

When I worked at a jewelery store we used to LOVE when lesbians would come in and buy engagement rings for each other.

Who wouldn't want twice the commission?

Phoenix Rev wrote:

And this is why DOMA is a tool of the Devil (and, apparently, Boeing):

Today the Boeing Company told union negotiators that it intends to deny pension survivor benefits to same-sex married couples, even though Washington State voters decisively approved a marriage equality law earlier this month.

Representing 23,000 Boeing engineers and technical workers, Ray Goforth is executive director of the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA), IFPTE Local 2001. He was sitting at the negotiation table today—as part of ongoing talks over retirement benefits—and says the company's position "says to employees that they can be discriminated against based on who they are."

Goforth explains that his union has long sought equal pension benefits for same-sex domestic partners, to no avail. But since voters approved same sex marriage—establishing parity with married straight couples—Goforth re-framed the proposal to apply to his union's gay Boeing employees who wed. "Their answer was that they had no intention of granting pension survivor benefits to legally married same-sex couples because they didn't have to," Goforth explains. Boeing representatives told him that pensions are governed by federal law, which doesn't recognize same-sex marriage, thereby trumping the state law on the matter.

So, Washington State will allow gay marriage in just a few weeks, but Boeing is using DOMA as a shield in order to deny survivor benefits to the surviving spouse of a same-sex marriage. Despicable.

The only silver lining is that Boeing has been getting a huge amount of push back and has softened its stand:

Doug Alder, a spokesman for the aerospace giant, says that "any assertion that Boeing discriminates is blatantly false and, quite frankly, offensive." Late this afternoon, Boeing issued a statement to its employees saying it will assess the impacts of Referendum 74 on company policy. "Boeing is taking a closer look at how R-74 might impact company policies once it takes effect in December," the statement said.

Asked directly, however, if Boeing did in fact refuse these benefits at the negotiating table today, Alder evaded the question. "Nothing is ever final in negotiations until they're over," Alder told me. "What we said today is that [these pension benefits] are not currently addressed in the contract."

This, of course, begs the question of why the survivor benefits is governed by DOMA today, but not later with negotiations?

Again, despicable.

Boeing has always been one of the douchiest companies out there with a long history of questionable business practices. This doesn't surprise me. Douchebaggery is almost part of the corporate culture.

Well Phoenix, Boeing is more or less just begging for a lawsuit from the union. I am not sure where Boeing got their information, but labor bargains and contracts in general are governed by state law almost exclusively.

KingGorilla wrote:

Well Phoenix, Boeing is more or less just begging for a lawsuit from the union. I am not sure where Boeing got their information, but labor bargains and contracts in general are governed by state law almost exclusively.

But the benefits of those contracts are sometimes governed by Federal laws like ERISA; from GLAD:

Employers may provide tax-free health benefits to their employees’ different-sex spouses. However, DOMA prevents recognition of marriages by same-sex couples for federal tax purposes. Therefore, if a same-sex spouse receives health benefits through the partner’s employer-sponsored plan, the fair market value of those benefits is treated as income to the employee and subject to federal income tax.

Another reason for women to support gay marriage--if you don't, lesbians will marry your boyfriends.

So funny.

CheezePavilion wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Well Phoenix, Boeing is more or less just begging for a lawsuit from the union. I am not sure where Boeing got their information, but labor bargains and contracts in general are governed by state law almost exclusively.

But the benefits of those contracts are sometimes governed by Federal laws like ERISA; from GLAD:

Employers may provide tax-free health benefits to their employees’ different-sex spouses. However, DOMA prevents recognition of marriages by same-sex couples for federal tax purposes. Therefore, if a same-sex spouse receives health benefits through the partner’s employer-sponsored plan, the fair market value of those benefits is treated as income to the employee and subject to federal income tax.

Ah, but this is about a union negotiated contract, not merely health benefits for any at will employee. This Union seems to have counsel stating that the present contract does in fact extend benefits to spouses, regardless of gender or sexual identity. If that Collective Agreement is neutrally worded, it does not matter what DOMA says. Now, our present Supreme Court has not been shy about using Federal Supremacy to stamp out areas often seen as a state jurisdiction, such as criminal legal enforcement. Pot is apparently part of interstate commerce when Nixon declared a war on drugs.

KingGorilla wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Well Phoenix, Boeing is more or less just begging for a lawsuit from the union. I am not sure where Boeing got their information, but labor bargains and contracts in general are governed by state law almost exclusively.

But the benefits of those contracts are sometimes governed by Federal laws like ERISA; from GLAD:

Employers may provide tax-free health benefits to their employees’ different-sex spouses. However, DOMA prevents recognition of marriages by same-sex couples for federal tax purposes. Therefore, if a same-sex spouse receives health benefits through the partner’s employer-sponsored plan, the fair market value of those benefits is treated as income to the employee and subject to federal income tax.

Ah, but this is about a union negotiated contract, not merely health benefits for any at will employee.

I don't see how that changes anything, though.

This Union seems to have counsel stating that the present contract does in fact extend benefits to spouses, regardless of gender or sexual identity.

Well, sure, just like I'm guessing Boeing have their lawyers saying the opposite.

If that Collective Agreement is neutrally worded, it does not matter what DOMA says.

I wouldn't be so quick to jump to that conclusion. This is why DOMA is such a headache--it keeps popping up in the least expected places.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

And this is why DOMA is a tool of the Devil (and, apparently, Boeing):

Today the Boeing Company told union negotiators that it intends to deny pension survivor benefits to same-sex married couples, even though Washington State voters decisively approved a marriage equality law earlier this month.

.

Some backstory here - that's my union, and it's my contract that's currently under renogotiation.

Boeing is playing hardball this time around. Their first contract offer was laughably/insultingly poor, and was almost unilaterally rejected by the union's members in a vote. They are starting to give some ground on that original terrible proposal, and negotiations are ongoing.

So what's my point? I believe that provisions like this are offered in early contract offers so that the company can then "grant" them in later offers to put themselves in a good light. It seems to be the tactic that the company is pursuing this round of negotiations.

That is, until the contract is signed, don't necessarily assume that this is the company's stance so much as a negotiating gambit.

On a side-note, the company is trying to hamstring the pension scheme all over the board - they're attacking it from all different directions (the current negotiating position is to discontinue the pension scheme for new employees as well as decrease the pension for existing employees). This is just one thread of that overall strategy.

For the record, Boeing is actually pretty good on gay rights, they have strong anti-discrimination policies, have recognized domestic same-sex partnerships for years now.

Jonman wrote:

For the record, Boeing is actually pretty good on gay rights, they have strong anti-discrimination policies, have recognized domestic same-sex partnerships for years now.

Perception is reality and right now the perception is that Boeing is so greedy that it's going to purposely screw the survivors of its gay employees out of the benefits they deserve.

Such a tough position might help them a little in the contract negotiation, but their brand and goodwill just took a massive hit (and one that is likely much greater than whatever they hoped to gain by nickle and diming their gay employees).

OG_slinger wrote:
Jonman wrote:

For the record, Boeing is actually pretty good on gay rights, they have strong anti-discrimination policies, have recognized domestic same-sex partnerships for years now.

Perception is reality and right now the perception is that Boeing is so greedy that it's going to purposely screw the survivors of its gay employees out of the benefits they deserve.

Such a tough position might help them a little in the contract negotiation, but their brand and goodwill just took a massive hit (and one that is likely much greater than whatever they hoped to gain by nickle and diming their gay employees).

Well, no. Perception is not reality. Reality is that nothing has changed for Boeing's gay employees as I write this. Reality is that no-one can currently tell you how the new, as yet un-inked, contract is going to affect employees, gay or otherwise.

My point was to not let arguments over the negotiating table be reflected as reality, because until there's a contract that's accepted by both parties (company and union), everything you hear from both sides is bluster.

OG_slinger wrote:
Jonman wrote:

For the record, Boeing is actually pretty good on gay rights, they have strong anti-discrimination policies, have recognized domestic same-sex partnerships for years now.

Perception is reality and right now the perception is that Boeing is so greedy that it's going to purposely screw the survivors of its gay employees out of the benefits they deserve.

Such a tough position might help them a little in the contract negotiation, but their brand and goodwill just took a massive hit (and one that is likely much greater than whatever they hoped to gain by nickle and diming their gay employees).

But does it matter? An individual person isn't really in the market for an airplane so the fact that you think Boeing is scum is pretty meaningless, and I doubt Southwest (probably not a great example - I think they lease most of their planes) is going to consider 'do gay employees' spouses get survivor pension benefits' as opposed to 'how may millions does this plane cost compared to an Airbus plane'. I suppose there might be some people who choose which airline to fly by which type of plane is used, but I've never met one and I'd assume they're in the minority compared to people who choose flights based on price.

Edit: Also, this:

Jonman wrote:

Well, no. Perception is not reality. Reality is that nothing has changed for Boeing's gay employees as I write this. Reality is that no-one can currently tell you how the new, as yet un-inked, contract is going to affect employees, gay or otherwise.

My point was to not let arguments over the negotiating table be reflected as reality, because until there's a contract that's accepted by both parties (company and union), everything you hear from both sides is bluster.

When I was part of SPEEA, I never bothered paying attention to anything about each new contract until it was signed. It's all bs.

Jonman wrote:

Well, no. Perception is not reality. Reality is that nothing has changed for Boeing's gay employees as I write this. Reality is that no-one can currently tell you how the new, as yet un-inked, contract is going to affect employees, gay or otherwise.

My point was to not let arguments over the negotiating table be reflected as reality, because until there's a contract that's accepted by both parties (company and union), everything you hear from both sides is bluster.

Perception *is* reality for things like brand image and goodwill. Boeing's negotiation ploy has hurt both.

It doesn't matter that Boeing might actually have a good record on gay rights. That's because few people actually know that. All the public is hearing now is that Boeing is trying to screw its gay employees to save a buck or two. That is the perception that will stick. That will be the new reality. Even if Boeing eventually relents it will not get a similar positive reputation bump. It will be seen that it was shamed/cajoled into doing the right thing.

I'm sure Boeing's lawyers thought that denying its gay employees benefits was a shrewd negotiating ploy, something low value that they could eventually relent on as long as they got concessions elsewhere. But the fact that we're discussing that tactic here means that it has completely escaped the conference room and Boeing's negotiation bluster has harmed its brand.

OG_slinger wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Well, no. Perception is not reality. Reality is that nothing has changed for Boeing's gay employees as I write this. Reality is that no-one can currently tell you how the new, as yet un-inked, contract is going to affect employees, gay or otherwise.

My point was to not let arguments over the negotiating table be reflected as reality, because until there's a contract that's accepted by both parties (company and union), everything you hear from both sides is bluster.

Perception *is* reality for things like brand image and goodwill. Boeing's negotiation ploy has hurt both.

It doesn't matter that Boeing might actually have a good record on gay rights. That's because few people actually know that. All the public is hearing now is that Boeing is trying to screw its gay employees to save a buck or two. That is the perception that will stick. That will be the new reality. Even if Boeing eventually relents it will not get a similar positive reputation bump. It will be seen that it was shamed/cajoled into doing the right thing.

I'm sure Boeing's lawyers thought that denying its gay employees benefits was a shrewd negotiating ploy, something low value that they could eventually relent on as long as they got concessions elsewhere. But the fact that we're discussing that tactic here means that it has completely escaped the conference room and Boeing's negotiation bluster has harmed its brand.

Eh. As bilt pointed out, I'm not sure that there's any real damage done to it's brand. It's not exactly a consumer brand whose customer base are motivated by social issues like this.

I also suspect that if there *is* financial damage done by this, it's significantly outpaced by the potential financial gains available via getting a (to the company) agreeable contract signed, with the diminished costs of downsized pensions, cost-shifting of healthcare to the employees, and reduced wage pools that are currently also being talked about in the same breath over the negotiation table.

Jonman wrote:

Eh. As bilt pointed out, I'm not sure that there's any real damage done to it's brand. It's not exactly a consumer brand whose customer base are motivated by social issues like this.

Yes, Bilt and you are likely right that Boeing's customer base won't punish them for this negotiation ploy.

But Boeing also needs to attract and retain the best talent to remain competitive regardless of the sexual orientation of those employees. I'm sure there's quite a few gay Boeing employees who are looking at their employer in a different light now as well as gay engineers, programmers, and other talent Boeing needs who will pass on the organization because of this.

Jonman wrote:

I also suspect that if there *is* financial damage done by this, it's significantly outpaced by the potential financial gains available via getting a (to the company) agreeable contract signed, with the diminished costs of downsized pensions, cost-shifting of healthcare to the employees, and reduced wage pools that are currently also being talked about in the same breath over the negotiation table.

Again, you're likely right.

But Boeing's negotiation bluster over benefits for its gay employees has blown up in its face. We just have to wait and see how bad the damage gets. Considering the inertia of the recent election and the victories for gay marriage proponents, this might not be the year Boeing for to use the benefits of its gay employees as a negotiating chip. If it stays in the news cycle it could get very bad for Boeing.

The more I read about Pastor Rick Warren, the more I wonder if someone should check his academic and ministry credentials.

On last night's Piers Morgan show, Warren said that gay people acting like, well, gay people, was akin to being violent or drinking poison.

WARREN: Here’s what we know about life. I have all kinds of natural feelings in my life and it doesn’t necessarily mean that I should act on every feeling. Sometimes I get angry and I feel like punching a guy in the nose. It doesn’t mean I act on it. Sometimes I feel attracted to women who are not my wife. I don’t act on it. Just because I have a feeling doesn’t make it right. Not everything natural is good for me. Arsenic is natural.

Here's the video:

That was bad enough.

Today, we discovered that Warren is either a blithering idiot or is a consummate liar.

WARREN: I never made a single statement on Prop 8 until the week before. In my own church, some members say, “Where do we stand on this?” I released a video to my own members. It was posted all over like it was an advertisement. [...]

HILL: When your have a church of 20,000 people and you have a book that 32 million people have read and that 60 million people have accessed, to say, “I was just giving a message”—

WARREN: You’re exactly right, Marc, and I learned a lesson from that. What I learned from that is that anything I say privately is now public. And I actually learned from that mistake… Everyone took that to mean I was pontificating to the whole world.

HILL: If you could do it again, would you not have made that statement a week before Prop 8?

WARREN: I would not have. I would not have made that statement. Because I wanted to talk to my own people. As a duty, as a shepherd, I’m responsible for those who put themselves under my care. I’m not responsible for everybody else.

My emphasis.

If Warren truly believes that as a pastor he is only responsible to the members of the flock he shepherds, perhaps he needs a Divinity School refresher. The Christian concept of being a pastor/deacon/priest/bishop/evangelist entails a ministry to all of God's creation. This is basic Christian understanding of the role of the pastorate. There is no concept in Christianity of being called to minister to only one group, and one group only, of the Body of Christ. I suspect that Warren knows this, but he got burned for his "pontificating" because he said outlandish things prior to the Prop. 8 vote including that homosexuality was akin to bestiality and pedophilia, and now he needs some excuse to heal his wounds.

Either that or he fell asleep during class.

And I don't even know where to begin with his whole dewy-eyed schtick about how he never imagined that his video posted on the Internet would be passed around like mashed potatoes at a Sunday supper.

Gee, who could have ever thought that something like that could happen?

If he is not responsible for everyone else, why is he on CNN?

Could it just be that many of these televangelists are just media whores? Is gay the new staged faith healing?

KingGorilla wrote:

Could it just be that many of these televangelists are just media whores? Is gay the new staged faith healing?

As soon as somebody pretends to stick their head inside a gay guy's head and pulls out a bloody lump of chicken liver proclaiming it to be the source of his homosexuality then I'll... wait. They're kind of already doing that with the rehabilitation classes aren't they? Never mind. My analogy is void.