(New York City) As rector of St. Patrick's Cathedral Monsignor Eugene Clark blamed gays for "destroying the church", now he's been named as "the other man" in a nasty divorce involving a woman who worked for the diocese.
In divorce papers filed in Eastchester, New York, Philip DeFilippo alleges Clark had a long term affair with his wife, Laura, the Monsignor's personal secretary. The filing claims that the affair led to the breakup of the DeFilippo's marriage.
Clark resigned Thursday. The 79-year-old Clark has denied the affair with his 46-year-old private secretary.
A spokesperson for Edward Cardinal Egan said the cardinal accepted the resignation but would have no comment on the case.
Clark's duties as a monsignor in the New York Archdiocese included regular appearances on the Catholic cable television network EWTN, on a show called "Relationships."
He also worked as an editor of "When Conscience and Politics Meet: A Catholic View."
In 1999 Clark told a Catholic radio audience that gays are "the enemy of Christian marriage and Christian falling in love and all the tenderness that goes with that."
In 2002 Clark Clark blamed gays for the sex abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church. In a homily delivered from the pulpit at the cathedral Clark called homosexuality a "disorder," and said gay men should not be allowed to become priests.
It resulted in protests by gays and abuse victims who said the church was trying to make gays scapegoats for the scandal.
Clark later recanted his comments, but within months he launched a new salvo, accusing gays of destroying Catholic family life.
In a radio broadcast he said Hollywood was controlled by gays and their supporters advancing a "homosexual agenda".
"A whole generation of Americans has been solicited...by American popular culture which is Hollywood and the media, Hollywood taking the most advanced step in this."
Saturday, August 13, 2005
What goes around comes around
Why is it that the most outspoken protestors against the GLBT community have nasty, rotting, decomposing bodies in their own closets? What's that expression about removing the plank from your own eye?
Friday, July 22, 2005
Why women are "becoming" lesbians
Y'just hafta give this guy a listenin' to.
Apparently this guy's "sermon" was secretly taped by a parishoner, who is now being labeled as a "Negro spy" by the Reverend Willie. And remember, this was a sermon, in church, with children present.
By my observation, it appears that the Reverend Willie's wife got the screw AND the nut!
And let's talk about his son for just a minute. First off, how does he know that every girl in his school is gay except for the two? And the two that aren't, are too ugly for this alleged "Christian" to be seen with? It sounds to me like the Reverend Willie's son has some real feelings of inadequacy and, rather than face the fact that HE might be defective socially, it's easier for him to tell himself and his father that there's something wrong with every girl at his school. He never stopped to wonder why 90% (minus the 10% who might be gay) of the girls in his son's school would rather be persecuted and demeaned by people like him than to go to the prom with his son?! Mmm hmm. Riiiiigggggght.
And, to insinuate that all it takes to make a straight woman convert to lesbianism is to make more money than men, then why aren't ALL women dykes? I wonder if he truly realizes how much of a slam that is against straight men, as well as lesbians and straight women who have studied their asses off and worked their way up to a point where they make EQUAL money to their male counterparts? And, following this logic, does that mean that men who earn more money are "light in the loafers" as well?
And, another question. Why would LESBIANS need to grease up their BEHINDS for something to get shoved in them? Seems to me that the Reverend Willie might need a lesson in basic biology/anatomy.
No wonder his son thinks all girls at his school are gay except the two ugly ones...
Apparently this guy's "sermon" was secretly taped by a parishoner, who is now being labeled as a "Negro spy" by the Reverend Willie. And remember, this was a sermon, in church, with children present.
...and we live in a time now, brothers have been so, uh, put down, can't get a job, lot of the sisters makin' mo' money than brothers and it's creating problems in families. That's one of the reasons our families breakin' up and that's one of the reason many of our women are becoming LESBIAN.
You got to be careful when you say you don't need no man. "I can make it by myself." Well if you don't need a man, what's left? LESBIANISM 'bout to take over our community. I'm talking 'bout YOUNG girls.
My son in high school last year tried to go to the prom he said "Dad I ain't got nobody to take to the prom because all the girls in my class are gay. Ain't but two of 'em straight, and both of them ugly." I ain't got nobody to take to the prom. Can I park here for a minute? I ain't homophobic because everybody in here got somethin' wrong with 'em. Whoever you point at, you can point at your own self, you got somethin' wrong with yo' life.
But when you get down to this day, women fallin' down on women, strappin yourself up with something, it ain't real! That thing ain't got no feelin' in it! It ain't natural. Anytime somebody gotta slap some grease on your behind to stick somethin' in you, there's something wrong with that! Your butt ain't made for that! You got blood vessels and membranes in your behind. And if you put something unnatural in there, it breaks 'em all up. No wonder your behind is bleeding. It's destroying us!
Can't make no connection with a screw and another screw. Bible says God made them male and female. The Hebrew word negad which means complimentary nature, there is something unique to man and unique to woman and it takes those two things to complement each other. You can't make a connection with two screws, it takes a screw and a NUT!
By my observation, it appears that the Reverend Willie's wife got the screw AND the nut!
And let's talk about his son for just a minute. First off, how does he know that every girl in his school is gay except for the two? And the two that aren't, are too ugly for this alleged "Christian" to be seen with? It sounds to me like the Reverend Willie's son has some real feelings of inadequacy and, rather than face the fact that HE might be defective socially, it's easier for him to tell himself and his father that there's something wrong with every girl at his school. He never stopped to wonder why 90% (minus the 10% who might be gay) of the girls in his son's school would rather be persecuted and demeaned by people like him than to go to the prom with his son?! Mmm hmm. Riiiiigggggght.
And, to insinuate that all it takes to make a straight woman convert to lesbianism is to make more money than men, then why aren't ALL women dykes? I wonder if he truly realizes how much of a slam that is against straight men, as well as lesbians and straight women who have studied their asses off and worked their way up to a point where they make EQUAL money to their male counterparts? And, following this logic, does that mean that men who earn more money are "light in the loafers" as well?
And, another question. Why would LESBIANS need to grease up their BEHINDS for something to get shoved in them? Seems to me that the Reverend Willie might need a lesson in basic biology/anatomy.
No wonder his son thinks all girls at his school are gay except the two ugly ones...
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
I'm BA-ACK!
Yep, spent two weeks on vacation, at home, with no firm schedule, plans, or anything else that would tie us to any one place at any one time. We slept in, and after we got up, decided what we'd do for the day.
It's was hot, hazy, and humid the whole time, so we didn't get much done outside, but still had a wonderful, lazy time with each other.
I SO love having Lisa all to myself!
Now, if I could just get back into some sort of rhythm at work...
Check out my personal blog (other than gay marriage content) for a complete rundown in the next few days.
OK, maybe it'll happen next week.
Only two more days in my forties *whine*
It's was hot, hazy, and humid the whole time, so we didn't get much done outside, but still had a wonderful, lazy time with each other.
I SO love having Lisa all to myself!
Now, if I could just get back into some sort of rhythm at work...
Check out my personal blog (other than gay marriage content) for a complete rundown in the next few days.
OK, maybe it'll happen next week.
Only two more days in my forties *whine*
Thursday, June 30, 2005
NY State takes another step forward
NY State Gives Gays a Say in Burying Partners
(Albany, New York) In the closing hours of the 2005 session, the New York State Legislature passed a bill that provides domestic partners, both same-sex and opposite-sex, the ability to make decisions about the funerals of partners.
It allows New Yorkers to designate a person to carry out their wishes for the disposition of their body after they die. Additionally, the legislation extends domestic partners the same priority status in decision making as surviving spouses, creating historic significance for New York's LGBT community.
“For too long in New York, same-sex partners who live together and care for each other have been legal strangers when it comes to this critical moment,” said Alan Van Capelle, Executive Director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, New York’s statewide LGBT civil rights organization.
The 'death care proxy' is a simple, free, proxy form authorizing the appointment of an agent, space for special directions, to be signed in front of two witnesses, similar to a health care proxy. In instances where no one has been designated via a written proxy, a priority list of persons, including domestic partners, are established in statute to determine who has the right to control the disposition of an individual's remains.
"Over the years, scores of GMHC's clients have had severe difficulty with these issues," said Ana Oliveira, Executive Director of Gay Men's Health Crisis.
"They wanted to make arrangements but until this legislation no legal mechanism existed to ensure their wishes were followed. Because this bill gives domestic partners the same recognition as surviving spouses, we believe the many painful circumstances we have seen over the years can now be avoided."
The legislation received bipartisan support. The Democratic-led Assembly passed it by a vote of 94-25 and the Republican-led Senate passed an identical version by a unanimous vote of 58-0.
In defining a domestic partner, the bill provides for three different methods. For same-sex couples who are able to register their partnership with a government entity, the bill recognizes registration as sufficient proof for control of remains authority. Being formally recognized as a beneficiary or covered under a partner’s employment benefits or health insurance also provides this authority. If none of these methods is available or has been utilized by a same-sex couple, providing documents similar to what the private sector and New York State require for an employee to obtain domestic partner health insurance is also acceptable proof of a partnership.
When passing the bill, both the Assembly and the Senate agreed to further modify the third prong of this definition to have it conform more closely to the one used in the hospital visitation bill passed in 2004 where the focus was on demonstrating mutual dependence and the totality of circumstances that show mutual dependence. Both chambers are expected to adopt this change later in the year before the bill is sent to the Governor.
Passage puts legislators in line with New Yorkers on the issue. In a statewide poll conducted in March by Global Strategy Group for Pride Agenda, 83% of New Yorkers said providing this right to same-sex partners was important. Support crossed party lines with 89% of Democrats, 81% of Independents and 76% of Republicans believing control of remains authority is an important right that should be provided.
(Albany, New York) In the closing hours of the 2005 session, the New York State Legislature passed a bill that provides domestic partners, both same-sex and opposite-sex, the ability to make decisions about the funerals of partners.
It allows New Yorkers to designate a person to carry out their wishes for the disposition of their body after they die. Additionally, the legislation extends domestic partners the same priority status in decision making as surviving spouses, creating historic significance for New York's LGBT community.
“For too long in New York, same-sex partners who live together and care for each other have been legal strangers when it comes to this critical moment,” said Alan Van Capelle, Executive Director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, New York’s statewide LGBT civil rights organization.
The 'death care proxy' is a simple, free, proxy form authorizing the appointment of an agent, space for special directions, to be signed in front of two witnesses, similar to a health care proxy. In instances where no one has been designated via a written proxy, a priority list of persons, including domestic partners, are established in statute to determine who has the right to control the disposition of an individual's remains.
"Over the years, scores of GMHC's clients have had severe difficulty with these issues," said Ana Oliveira, Executive Director of Gay Men's Health Crisis.
"They wanted to make arrangements but until this legislation no legal mechanism existed to ensure their wishes were followed. Because this bill gives domestic partners the same recognition as surviving spouses, we believe the many painful circumstances we have seen over the years can now be avoided."
The legislation received bipartisan support. The Democratic-led Assembly passed it by a vote of 94-25 and the Republican-led Senate passed an identical version by a unanimous vote of 58-0.
In defining a domestic partner, the bill provides for three different methods. For same-sex couples who are able to register their partnership with a government entity, the bill recognizes registration as sufficient proof for control of remains authority. Being formally recognized as a beneficiary or covered under a partner’s employment benefits or health insurance also provides this authority. If none of these methods is available or has been utilized by a same-sex couple, providing documents similar to what the private sector and New York State require for an employee to obtain domestic partner health insurance is also acceptable proof of a partnership.
When passing the bill, both the Assembly and the Senate agreed to further modify the third prong of this definition to have it conform more closely to the one used in the hospital visitation bill passed in 2004 where the focus was on demonstrating mutual dependence and the totality of circumstances that show mutual dependence. Both chambers are expected to adopt this change later in the year before the bill is sent to the Governor.
Passage puts legislators in line with New Yorkers on the issue. In a statewide poll conducted in March by Global Strategy Group for Pride Agenda, 83% of New Yorkers said providing this right to same-sex partners was important. Support crossed party lines with 89% of Democrats, 81% of Independents and 76% of Republicans believing control of remains authority is an important right that should be provided.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
"Same Sex America"
Last night, Showtime premiered a documentary called Same Sex America, which chronicled the journey toward same-sex marriage in Massachusetts after the landmark ruling in November, 2003 by the state supreme court.
This documentary featured people on both sides of the issue -- REAL gays and lesbians with families who contemplated marriage, and finally took that giant leap. It also features those who oppose same-sex marriages, even those whose children are gays or lesbians.
One such young lady, attending a rally for same-sex marriage tells the camera/reporter that her parents are there, too...on the "other side." She loves her parents but the issue is so divisive as to tear families apart. A clip shows Dick Cheney being interviewed prior to the recent presidential election, seeming to support Dubya's call for an amendment banning same-sex marriage, yet at the same time proclaiming his love and support for his lesbian daughter. Politics or family? Tough choice to make.
Protestors with signs reading "Let the People Vote" gave me pause. If we allow THEM to vote on whether *I* can get married to my partner, shall we allow all citizens to vote on who else can and can't get married? Shall we negate the Supreme Court ruling Loving v. Virginia and put that concept to a vote via a constitutional amendment? Shall we vote on whether the mildly retarded or brain-injured should be allowed to marry and procreate? Shall we vote on prohibiting senior citizens from remarrying because it's clearly just a sham to defraud good taxpayers like ourselves out of more Social Security benefits?
One young man relates his father's opposition to his marriage, expressed to him just before his wedding. The young man says that his father indicates that he has an issue with same-sex marriage but can't express what the issue is or where it comes from. I believe that this truly represents the feelings of many who oppose same-sex marriage -- people, as a whole, don't adapt to change well. And, when you can't wrap your brain around the whole homosexuality concept, it's hard to accept that kind of change. I understand that but, where I draw the line at compassion or empathy is where they've drawn the line. They don't understand, yet they don't SEEK FURTHER UNDERSTANDING. They just go with their lack of understanding, embrace it, and accept THAT as reality.
And then there's the man holding a sign (which I couldn't determine it's message) who insists that (and I'm paraphrasing here) "you have to be sick to want to let a man marry a man." He clearly doesn't know why he opposes it, and it was evident that the *ICK* factor is what puts him on the side of the opponents of same-sex marriage.
One couple, in the original 7 couples that filed the lawsuit against the MA Dept. of Health, has been together for more than 30 years. They own a business together and one of them had some severe health problems. This was what drove them to seek recognition of their relationship, right now, and in preparation for their eventual demise. This story was reminiscent of the first segment of If These Walls Could Talk 2, where one partner died and the other was left with nothing but her grief.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If it bothers you to call it marriage, then call it purple crunchy peanut butter if you want, as long as I can pass OUR home on to my spouse after my death, without her having to incur a large tax burden. Let her make the decision to remove me from life support, or sign for a risky surgery that can potentially save my life. Let her live WITHOUT fear of ending up in the street because the loss of my income upon my death made her unable to support herself any more. I don't seek your approval or endorsement of my relationship with my partner. All I ask is that you stop attacking us, let us live in peace, with the same rights and responsibilities that you have. No more, no less.
This documentary featured people on both sides of the issue -- REAL gays and lesbians with families who contemplated marriage, and finally took that giant leap. It also features those who oppose same-sex marriages, even those whose children are gays or lesbians.
One such young lady, attending a rally for same-sex marriage tells the camera/reporter that her parents are there, too...on the "other side." She loves her parents but the issue is so divisive as to tear families apart. A clip shows Dick Cheney being interviewed prior to the recent presidential election, seeming to support Dubya's call for an amendment banning same-sex marriage, yet at the same time proclaiming his love and support for his lesbian daughter. Politics or family? Tough choice to make.
Protestors with signs reading "Let the People Vote" gave me pause. If we allow THEM to vote on whether *I* can get married to my partner, shall we allow all citizens to vote on who else can and can't get married? Shall we negate the Supreme Court ruling Loving v. Virginia and put that concept to a vote via a constitutional amendment? Shall we vote on whether the mildly retarded or brain-injured should be allowed to marry and procreate? Shall we vote on prohibiting senior citizens from remarrying because it's clearly just a sham to defraud good taxpayers like ourselves out of more Social Security benefits?
One young man relates his father's opposition to his marriage, expressed to him just before his wedding. The young man says that his father indicates that he has an issue with same-sex marriage but can't express what the issue is or where it comes from. I believe that this truly represents the feelings of many who oppose same-sex marriage -- people, as a whole, don't adapt to change well. And, when you can't wrap your brain around the whole homosexuality concept, it's hard to accept that kind of change. I understand that but, where I draw the line at compassion or empathy is where they've drawn the line. They don't understand, yet they don't SEEK FURTHER UNDERSTANDING. They just go with their lack of understanding, embrace it, and accept THAT as reality.
And then there's the man holding a sign (which I couldn't determine it's message) who insists that (and I'm paraphrasing here) "you have to be sick to want to let a man marry a man." He clearly doesn't know why he opposes it, and it was evident that the *ICK* factor is what puts him on the side of the opponents of same-sex marriage.
One couple, in the original 7 couples that filed the lawsuit against the MA Dept. of Health, has been together for more than 30 years. They own a business together and one of them had some severe health problems. This was what drove them to seek recognition of their relationship, right now, and in preparation for their eventual demise. This story was reminiscent of the first segment of If These Walls Could Talk 2, where one partner died and the other was left with nothing but her grief.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If it bothers you to call it marriage, then call it purple crunchy peanut butter if you want, as long as I can pass OUR home on to my spouse after my death, without her having to incur a large tax burden. Let her make the decision to remove me from life support, or sign for a risky surgery that can potentially save my life. Let her live WITHOUT fear of ending up in the street because the loss of my income upon my death made her unable to support herself any more. I don't seek your approval or endorsement of my relationship with my partner. All I ask is that you stop attacking us, let us live in peace, with the same rights and responsibilities that you have. No more, no less.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)