GIVE EQUAL PROTECTION OF MARRIAGE TO ALL

I wrote yesterday about the foolish statement of Pope Benedict saying that homosexual acts constituted as grave a danger as global warming.

I thought Benedict was more thoughtful than his statement indicates. But this seems to be the way with all churchmen, no matter the denomination. Sex "morality" is most central to their teachings. Witness the actions of some authorities in the LDS Church in helping bigots pass Proposition 8 in California which bans marriage other than between a man and a woman.

Equal protection has no place in small minds. However, marriage is a legal contract regulated by the state. It is not governed by religious institutions. To deny the legal protections of marriage to two men or two women flaunts the notion of equal protection under the law. If a state allows marriage for a heterosexual couple, how can it deny the same right to a homosexual pair?

Yet for Benedict as well as for other religious authorities, equal protection means little. All they care about is their warped sense of sexual transgressions. Morality for them is boiled down to observance of sexual "norms." No matter that many of these same people who complain the loudest about sexual "deviations" are in secret the worst offenders of their own principles.

There is a recognized long-standing legal axiom, false in one thing, false in all things. We can apply this axiom to Benedict and church teachings in general. Be careful of trusting anyone or any authority whose principles on sexual morality are so patently and hypocritical wrong.

POPE THINKS HOMOSEXUALS ARE THREAT EQUIVALENT TO GLOBAL WARMING

What is the Pope thinking? Saving the world from homosexuality is just as necessary as protecting the environment? Here Benedict, otherwise seemingly rational, has gone off the deep end.

The BBC reports on the story:

"Speaking on Monday, Pope Benedict said that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour was as important as protecting the environment."

The Pope displays utter ignorance about sexuality and those who are born homosexual. It prompts my question, has the church or the clergy ever understood human sexuality in the church's two thousand year history.

By emphasizing celibacy and by refusing to accept the facts of life, the pope and the church naturally fear and diminish anything having to do with either hetero or homo-sexual practice.

Here we see ecclesiastical anti-lust in action, and quoting one of Shakespeare's sonnets, it is mean, cruel, rude, not to trust. Furthermore from a legal point of view, the pope is violating principles of equal protection. Everyone has a right to his or her own sexuality.

Reports the BBC:

"The comments were "irresponsible and unacceptable", the UK's Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM) said.

"Vladimir Luxuria, a transgender former Italian MP, called his words "hurtful". . . .

"LGCM head Rev Sharon Ferguson said the Pope's remarks justified "gay bashing" and bullying.

"Mark Dowd, strategist for Christian environmental group Operation Noah, said the comments betrayed "a lack of openness to the complexity of creation".

"And Ms Luxuria, who recently lost her seat in the Italian parliament, said suggesting people like her were destructive was very hurtful.

""I'm someone who was born as male and has a spiritual and female soul, and it's contradictory that a Pope just thinks of people just made as flesh and not made of a spiritual aspect." "

BUSH THINKS HE IS MORALLY RIGHTEOUS EVEN AFTER APPROVING UNJUST INVASION, GUANTANAMO AND EVEN TORTURE

Dan Froomkin today has a good post about Bush's attempt to position himself as one taking the high road on ethics and morality during his formal greeting of Pope Benedict XVI in Washington yesterday.

Bush claims that his fight is against terrorists who invoke God's name in order to kill innocent people and deprive them of their God-given rights. Yet this definition of a "terrorist" applies to Bush himself. He is the one who started the unjust and immoral invasion of Iraq that probably has killed over 600,000 Iraqis not to mention the U.S. soldiers killed or maimed for life. Bush is the one who deprives suspects of their liberty and freedom by locking them up without recourse in Guantanamo. Bush is the one who approved the extraordinary harsh interrogation methods that are torture by any other name.

Bush tries to position himself as God-fearing and ethical, yet he is the one, as Froomkin points out, who constantly says that 9/11 changed everything, and his main job is to protect the American people, as if the horrible event of September 11th or his mandate to thwart any more attacks could justify the most evil of methods and procedures.

INAPPROPRIATE SUBSERVIENCE - NANCY PELOSI KISSES POPE'S RING

I realize that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a Catholic born and raised in a Catholic family from Baltimore. But why did she think it necessary to kiss the Pope's hand when she met him yesterday? I hardly ever disagree with Speaker Pelosi and I hardly ever agree with George and Laura Bush, especially when it comes to foreign policy and W's war-making around the world. However, the Bushes handled it just right when they merely shook hands with the Pope but Nancy Pelosi did it all wrong.

Kissing the Pope's hand or ring is unseemly and inappropriate for a public official of the United States. It is a throw back to medieval practices that were meant to demonstrate fealty and subservience. Someone should have warned Nancy Pelosi. I am ashamed and embarrassed by her ring-kissing.

BUSH THRILLED POPE WILL VISIT 9/11 SITE BUT WHY NOT AHMADINEJAD?

The Pope has begun his visit to the United States. Benedict will visit New York City and plans to pay his respects at the 9/11 site in lower Manhattan. Dana Perino, Bush's press secretary, says that the president values that Benedict will visit the World Trade Center site.

Recall that last September at the start of the United Nations General Assembly, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wanted also to pay his respects. But Bush and the State Department would not allow it. Why?

Iran had nothing to do with the attack of September 11th. The hijackers were Sunnis most from Saudi Arabia. Iran is predominantly Shia. No hijacker was Iranian. Yet Bush and Cheney kept Ahmadinejad from paying respects on the part of Iran and Iranians.

So Bush's policy is to allow Pope Benedict but bar president Ahmahdinejad. Sounds like Bush's foreign policy as well as his decency is all messed up.