UPDATE: Eich resigned yesterday as Mozilla CEO. Read more about the resignation here.
The following comes from an Apr. 2 story on the Christian Post.
Brendan Eich, the new CEO of Mozilla, which is behind the Firefox web browser, is speaking out amid criticism that he made a donation in 2008 to California’s amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. Eich said he keeps his personal beliefs and work separate.
Saying he has kept his beliefs out of Mozilla “all these 15 years we’ve been going,” Eich told the Guardian on Tuesday that the principle that he has operated by and that is also formalized in the company’s code of conduct “is it’s really about keeping anything that’s not central to our mission out of our office.”
Following Eich’s appointment last week, groups on both sides of the gay marriage debate have called for a boycott of Mozilla, based in Silicon Valley, Calif. The dating website OKCupid and some Mozilla employees have asked the software company to remove Eich over his donation to Proposition 8. Meanwhile, conservatives, including Robert P. George, a professor at Princeton University and chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, have refused to use the company’s Firefox web browser, citing the tech corporation’s criticism of those who support traditional marriage.
The controversy began last week when Eich was internally promoted as chief executive of the company. Eich, who also created JavaScript, previously worked as the company’s chief technology officer since 2005. In 2008, Eich made a $1,000 donation in support of California’s Proposition 8 that sought to amend the state constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. The proposition was approved by voters but later struck down in court.
Eich’s promotion to CEO drew criticism, with some Mozilla employees and other activists expressing their concern online. Sydney Moyer, a member of the company’s engagement team, tweeted: “I’m an employee of @mozilla and cannot reconcile having @BrendanEich as CEO with our org’s culture & mission. Brendan, please step down.”
Other Mozilla employees began tweeting similar messages, including Chris McAvoy, lead of Mozilla’s Open Badges project, who wrote: “I love @mozilla but I’m disappointed this week,” referring to the appointment of Eich. McAvoy then asked Eich to step down as CEO, adding that he’s fortunate to work for a company where he can express himself on issues such as gay marriage “without fear of retribution.”
Criticism from Mozilla employees and other groups prompted the software company, and Eich himself, to release statements clarifying that they support the inclusion of all people, regardless of their sexuality.
“Mozilla’s mission is to make the Web more open so that humanity is stronger, more inclusive and more just. This is why Mozilla supports equality for all, including marriage equality for LGBT couples. No matter who you are or who you love, everyone deserves the same rights and to be treated equally,” the company said in a statement on its official blog.
Eich also issued his own statement on his personal blog, in which he promised to “foster equality” for all individuals through his role as CEO at Mozilla. He also listed several ways in which he will foster such equality, including working with leaders of the LGBT community.
“I know some will be skeptical about this, and that words alone will not change anything. I can only ask for your support to have the time to ‘show, not tell;’ and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain,” Eich wrote, adding that he is “committed to ensuring that Mozilla is, and will remain, a place that includes and supports everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, age, race, ethnicity, economic status, or religion.”
….While some have boycotted Mozilla for Eich’s support of traditional marriage, Robert P. George, an influential conservative, has called on those supporting religious freedom to boycott Mozilla for not defending Eich’s beliefs.
“The employees of Mozilla evidently think that people like me, and perhaps you, are not morally fit to be employees of their company,” George wrote on his Facebook page.
“The CEO isn’t out yet, but he has already caved to the pressure, apologizing for ‘causing pain’ by supporting marriage. … That won’t be enough. His ‘sin’ is unforgivable under the new morality. He’ll soon be gone.”
With that, George said he deleted Mozilla Firefox from his computer.
To read the entire story, click here.
Each and every day we’re getting more and more like Nazi Germany!!!
Elizabeth:
It’s more like the British policy in 18th century Ireland. You could live there as a Catholic, but you had no voting rights, could not hold office, bear arms, enter a profession (except the army, where you could never become an officer) and where your church could not train its own clergy. If you wanted these things, you had to become a member of the Established Church, which you signified by taking communion there. California’s established church is left-liberalism, to which you give assent by supporting gay “marriage”. Failed to do that and you must either accept diminished rights or move out.
Elizabeth: what the Commies in power seek is to terrorize. So that one would never again donate to a cause that is not blessed by the extreme left-wing. For example, one will not be as willing to donate to the Tea Party because the IRS demands to make any donations over $200 public, and these gifts are preserved forevermore in the Soros/Huffington Post Webpage apparatus. In addition, I happen not to believe that Global Warming is caused by man (or woman) so any gift to scientists that are not organizers of Communistic alarmism over Global Warming would get me fired from my most appreciated and needed job instantly. So our First Amendment rights have been neutralized by Gays egged on by an Indonesian-raised Commie Agitator of the School of Saul Alinsky. It is all about intimidating the opposition. If Nixon had had a son he would have been like young Hussein Onana.
I have used Firefox for years, and it was with great reluctance that I deleted my Mozilla browser the other day after reading in Lifesite News about how they’re caving in to homosexual police-state pressure . It’s no different than when Germany began giving up its integrity, individual freedom and rights, such as free speech and the power to make individual choices to the Brown Shirts. Thuggery and bigotry is swanning it over the law and the constitution and more importantly, persecuting those who stand for the morality and truth found in the Bible and Church Tradition or for those who aren’t religious, the Natural Law. It is with a heavy heart I write this, as there won’t be a happy ending in all this. Anytime a nation is forced to change it’s principles and morality by a small percentage of evil bullies has always ended with terrible consequences for EVERYONE, as seen in the French , Chinese or Russian revolutions, what took placed in Germany in the 20’s-40’s or in countless countries around the world throughout history. It always begins with a small coterie of monomaniacs driven by complicated and self-serving motives that eventually spreads itself like poison through the body until either the victim dies or is able to restore itself. I’ve noticed that when any fanatic become driven by his or her passions, whether it be sex, politics or religion, they’re incapable of seeing beyond their desires. If you disagree with them or try to reason with them they only see you as an enemy. Every Catholic should read Frank Sheed’s “Theology and Sanity”.
This is really an act of terrorism. It is a hit on someone to scare others in business not to support with money, time or words any position that disagrees with the homosexual agenda. The Christian mindset of welcoming all has cut their own throats and now they are paying the price. I remember that the homosexual mafia said that they would go after those that supported Prop 8. Well, there will be more. The first was a theater director. Who is next. This is no different than the Unabomber.
You know I actually happen to know one of the Unabomber’s victims. A professor at UCSF who had his hand blown off. You are really making quite an insulting claim to those like him who really are the victims of terrorism.
YFC – haven’t you heard of economic terrorism?
YFC…”Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”
The homofascists are destroying the freedom of speech, religious liberty and the civil rights of those who disagree with their immoral agenda
900 Lb Mozilla – the Gaystapo Goon Squad Strikes Again –
Below is the Original Listing from the “Lavender Liberals” of me as Lucky #13 for punishment for the “Anti-Happy” Thought Crime of ‘Ism-Obia’. The “Lavender Liberals” have since modified the site to more heavily propagandized, but the entry below was the Original targeting me back then.
The attacks on Mozilla CEO Michael Echt are just the tip of the Titanic Iceberg of Gaystapo Retaliation against all who dare oppose their Pander or Perish Pogrom –
I figured this is as good a time as any to show my own standing on the Hit List of these Gaystapo mafiosa, who continue an ongoing retaliatory campaign against all who donated to the Winning Side and Placed Proposition 8 in the California Constitution, where it still remains today.
Note that as a poor man I could only make two $100 donations ($100 each to two groups listed) – which nonetheless placed me on the Permanent Stalker Blackball list
This was later used by the Insider Administration “Tweakers” manipulating the 2010 Decennial Census count (in violation of Existing Federal Law of DOMA & USSC Rulings) to retaliate against me (Lost my job as manager for field ops in Idaho) – and all others who dared stand up to them.
I guess being ‘Lucky # 13 on the list was just another sign of the ‘tolerance’ for those of us who are going to face ever more fierce retaliation as the power of the Gaystapo Grows – under their ‘Mess-I-Ya’ – POTUS Down Low Soetoro.
I am not at all sure I agree with those who called for his resignation. As a general rule, I don’t think that what people believe should have relevance in their work lives, unless they take actions at work that violate a corporate policy. So for example, if he were only willing to extend corporate marital policies to straight married couples, then he might face corporate discipline, but so far as I know he did not propose that at all.
But there are two other things that I am weighing in my analysis before I come to a final conclusion. One is that if his views were so well known and so much a part of his management persona that employees felt harassed by his presence, then there is some additional relevance to the decision to oust him. I’m still not sure that makes it for me.
But the second one is more pointed for me: What if, instead of being against gay marriage, he were in favor of racial segregation? That is also an opinion. And maybe he made no effort to segregate his own employees by race, so we could say he took no action to impose his views on the corporation. Well….I’m not sure a person who supports racial segregation deserves a job that manages thousands of others. It is clearly contrary to corporate policy. It clearly degrades members of non-white races. It clearly creates tension in the workplace that detracts from a productive environment.
So I’m mixed on this development, but I think I will be listening to others before I make up my mind.
YFC, this man was forced out of his job because Gay thugs who scream diversity but really want conformity, as for your hypothetical there is no comparison. You and your gang will not be happy until the gay agenda is crammed down everyone throats. In a way I am glad this happened because it exposes exactly what you people are all about. The laws that your crowd demanded so that you could be protected from being fired are now being used by your crowd to have opponents fired from their jobs. This all comes down to Truth, so YFC whose Truth will choose God’s or Satan’s thats right I said it….
Canisius,
Tell me. If, suppose, he had donated to a pro-choice group and Catholic Action raided such a stink that Mozilla fired him.
Would that be “thuggery”, “terrorism” , and “people who hate diversity”? I doubt the readers here would think so. They would extol the brave action of spreading the Word of Jesus Christ.
So, I ask you, is it the tactics that is wrong, or their ideas?
If it is their ideas, then how are they any different in terms of compelling others to conform to their views than the readers here?
I will put it this way,,, this man should not been fired or forced to quit for simply giving money to cause that the gays are offended by….
JonJ, the only outcry I have seen from those who uphold the sanctity of life is when a pro-abort is teaching in a Catholic school and indoctrinating our children with their support of government approved execution of innocent little human beings in the womb.
YFC… I see your point. If all he did was donate to Yes on 8, I don’t think he should have been fired . A teacher in one of our local Catholic schools was fired because she simply answered a student’s question about how she was going to vote on Prop 8. (She is also a lesbian which may have had something to do with it.) she shouldn’t have been fired either.
Whatever his reasons for the donation, he sounds sincere about supporting the company’s inclusivness policies. Prop 8 is dead and life goes on. 2008 was a long time ago and …who knows … maybe he’s “evolving” on marriage equality.
He shouldn’t, because it’s freedom of religion. Except, in this case, did he not decide to step down? Since Mozilla is a private company and his resignation was voluntary, no constitutional freedom of religion case can be made.
This has nothing to do with freedom of religion it has to do with being able to have an opposing view from the gay mafia and not losing your job for it….
Should gay people lose their jobs, Canisius?
Again a liberal avoids the question…no I have worked with plenty of them… so I will turn it around should those who believe marriage is between and man and woman lose their jobs????
No. As long as they aren’t creating a workplace problem by too much preaching (and this goes for gays, too).
(She is also a lesbian which may have had something to do with it.).. Why are lesbians teaching at Catholic schools….????
Umm …because they’re qualified and are committed to the mission of the school.
BAM
It’s because the employees at Mozilla are very clear in their mission statement and culture, Canisius. They are educated regularly about what precisely that mission statement is by a united management via assorted meetings, off-sites, team building exercises, etc.
Catholics are not as a rule. At least not with a CLEAR mission statement. And not with a clear moral code. Not for a long time.
We could learn something from corporate structure.
Lesbian and gays have no business teaching in Catholic schools despite what C&H says
The success of the Homosexual Agenda has been complete since the last win by the last electoral win by the extreme left-wing. Proposition 8 won in an election but the popular vote was invalidated by a Judge who after deciding this came out as Homosexual himself. No conflict of interest there. This persecution for an 8-year old donation for a public proposition strikes fear in the hearts of normal America. The sin of Sodom, one of the sins crying to Heaven for vengeance, has ruined our seminaries and now our political system.
(Sins crying to Heaven for vengeance: Willful Murder. The sin of Sodom. Oppression of the poor. Defrauding laborers of their wages.)
Your Fellow Catholic, Catholics are against gay marriage. It is not discrimination. It is because two persons of the same sex cannot be married. Recently states have been allowing same-sex marriage. It is a mortal sin for a Catholic to be married by a justice of the peace or any other civil authority. So, obviously we cannot support someone committing a mortal sin. Thank you for reading this.
You might be surprised to learn that a majority of catholics are actually in favor of civil marriage licences for same sex couples.
A majority of Catholics are also using birth control, luckily the Church is not run by polls or opinion piece but by the Truth established by Christ….so argument means NOTHING
Canisius, I agree with you that the Church is not run by polls, and it shouldn’t be. Nor should our government be run by polls. The Bill of Rights established the notion for ALL of us that majoritarian ideas should not rule the minority. Even those of us who are a mere 2-4% of the population should not be under the thumb of a majority even if they hate us and condemn us to violent death.
And nor should the majority be ruled by 4% who have specials laws protecting them
You don’t really get what the Constitution is about, do you Canisius?
Not surprising as many Catholics like to mislead others into believing that supporting sin is not sinful – usually done so under the cloak of not wanting to turn people off of God by being too Catholic.
That’s why the Truth needs to be taught – not folks opinions.
God bless :)
Go back to a Roman Catholic Church, AM, and then you might have a place from which to opine about catholicism.
“One of the difficulties in substituting society for God, is that any human society, even at its best, is too often undiscriminating in its judgments, and sometimes too ignorant and cruel, to serve as an object of worship. It likewise fails to take into account the fact that great heroes, saints, and sometimes scholars are those who opposed public opinion in the name of conscience and moral insight.
Public opinion and social judgments are sometimes wrong.
It was public opinion that crucified Christ.” – Venerable Fulton Sheen
YFC, you might be surprised to learn that the Catholic Church has never been, nor never will be, a democratic institution. Can you point to me where Jesus ever changed his teaching based on a majority consensus? Of course not! Read Chapter 6 of John’s Gospel. You may be surprised at what you find there!
How about the election of the pope? or, for example, the requirement that all new doctrine enjoy the agreement of all the faithful? Or the rulings of the ecumenical councils?
Thus, you see, at its most critical junctures, the Church has relied upon democratic principles!!!
YFC, your example of voting for a Pope is more closely analogous with a representative republic than a democracy. Your original statement referred to “a majority of catholics” concerning a moral issue, not a majority of Cardinals voting for a new Pope. Let’s stick to the subject. On the matter of faith and morals, the Pope, who is the representative of Jesus Christ on earth, always has the final say, just as Jesus did.
Tracy, apparently you don’t really understand how the magisterium gets its authority to teach. It is not up to the person of the Pope to say what is moral or worthy of our faith. We look to the Bishop of Rome when he speaks with one voice with all the Bishops, who can only teach what is held by all the People of God. We are much more consensus driven than any democratic organization I know of.
YFC, “……..who can ONLY teach what is held by ALL the People of God”?!!!!!!! and “We are much more consensus driven than any democratic organization I know of”?!!!!!!
HERESY!!!!!!
YFC, if your highest value is the “majority rules” principle, then why don’t you champion the fact that Prop 8 won a “majority vote” among California voters and decry the fact that it was overruled by just ONE man?
Furthermore, if the majority of Catholics are in your words, “actually in favor of civil marriage licences for same sex couples”, then wouldn’t it therefore be reasonable that Prop 8 did not win the majority consensus with the Catholic vote? If this is true then Prop 8 was not a Catholic issue, was it! :(
Good post. Two points. One, civil rights, by principle, ought not to be subjected to majoritarian rule. This is why we need the first amendment, among others!
Second, the majority has shifted, and in a very big way. Every major poll shows majoritarian support for same sex marriage in the last year or so!
YFC, even if the “majority has shifted” and every majoritarian poll shows support for same sex marriage in the last year, what is your point? Polls also show that support is nearly non existent for Obamacare too. Are you therefore suggesting that we can now be rid of that monstrosity, not to mention Obama himself, who the majority of people do not want anymore? I guess the rule of law doesn’t matter anymore. How about the civil rights of Catholics who do not want to support intrinsic evils in society?
Tracy in case you didn’t notice, Obama was reelected AFTER getting Obamacare passed. You may want him gone, but the American people voted otherwise.
Your Felloe Catholic, I’m not surprised at all. They are disobeying the Will of God. God established marriage between one man and one woman. It is divinely revealed in Scripture, in Tradition (whose Sources is the same as Scripture) and in the natural law (as in-it takes a male and female to reproduce.) It does not matter how many Catholics reject the teaching. It does not change. God does not change. Please pray over this. Please understand that any time a person believes that which is contrary to the Church they are rejecting the Will of God. It may be difficult for people to suspend their own Will, but it is simply a matter of saying “OK, God knows more than I do.”
Anonymous, I wish you could come to understand that many of us have prayed over this probably a lot more than you have. It is simply a matter of listening to the Spirit of God that lives within us and speaks to us if we dare listen.
Your Fellow Catholic, the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit is the infallible guide of the Church. From the diary of St. Faustina:
“If these inspirations are not in accord with the faith or the spirit of the Church, they must be rejected immediately as coming from the evil spirit.”
“If these inspirations do not refer to souls, in general, nor specifically to their good, you should not take them too seriously, and it would be better even to ignore them. But you should not make this decision by yourself, either one way or the other, as you can easily be led astray despite these great favors from God. Humility, humility and ever humility , as we can do nothing of ourselves; all is purely and simply God’s grace.”
Jesus Christ is the Head of the Catholic Church. He will not lead souls astray. You must trust the Church in everything. God desires you to hear Him and to trust Him in utter simplicity and in total serenity. “Be still and know that I am God.” Ps 46:10
There are 4 states of life which are recognized by the Church: The single life dedicated to God, the priesthood, the consecrated life (religious brother or sister), and married state (must be one man and one woman.) Discernment of God’s Holy Will requires that all options must be morally acceptable. Civil marriage between same sex partners is not morally acceptable. All are called to one of the 4 choices listed above.
Remember the universal call to holiness? One cannot achieve holiness in any situation other than those 4 listed. Sometimes great evil masquerades as a good.
The suggestion that being opposed to gay marriage is on the same ethical footing as being in favor of racial segregation does not bear scrutiny. At the time Mr. Eich donated $1000.00 to the Prop 8 campaign, prop 8 was an initiative on ballot in California It was voted on and passed by the people of that state. Similar initiatives had passed in many other states, usually by pretty lop-sided majorities. There is no way one could claim that society has repudiated opposition to gay marriage, as it has repudiated racial segregation. The idea that marriage is an exclusive relationship between one man and one woman is still widely held and widely respected all throughout our country. There is a strong and almost universal consensus that racial segregation is a bad thing. There is no such consensus that same sex marriage is a good thing. Large numbers of our finest citizens share Mr. Eich’s views concerning it.
But in any case, suppose Mr. Eich were in favor of racial segregation, but was discreet about it and never let it affect his activities or color his judgment in the running of his business, and then one day someone discovered it and outed him. Would the company show him the door?
Rodney, I think there is an important point in your post. In twenty years, I am fairly certain, most if not all folks will think racial segregation is morally the same as being opposed to equal rights for LGBT people. But, you are right, at the time the donation was made, a majority of CA voters had not “evolved” enough on the issue to make it a consensus point of view. And there is a part of me that says that because he was in the majority, maybe he shouldn’t lose his job because of it. There are certainly examples of public people opposed to civil rights for African Americans who went on to grow into a new understanding and were rewarded with long careers.
I’m not so sure that being in the majority is a good shield for pushing immoral positions, however. Certainly, there are many of us on this website opposed to artificial birth control, even though the vast vast majority of Americans find little or no moral question to its use. After all, the Bill of Rights itself was included early on to protect minority positions from the whims of majoritarian domination. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly mean nothing if everyone in power talks like we do, worships like we do, and all congregate in the same place.
YFC, “maybe he shouldn’t lose his job because of it”? Maybe Obama and Biden should loose there job just like Mr. Eich since they supported traditional marriage between a man and a woman at the same time Mr. Eich made his $1000 contribution.
You’re right that currently, there’s no clear majority in favor or opposed to gay marriage, but it’s evolved dramatically over a relatively short period of time. Prop 8 was a kind of last gasp in California, and would never pass now.
If you look at the age/demographics that comprise the tech sector (the valued audience, and more importantly, the work force), you will find an overwhelming majority in favor.
Brendan Eich’s quick departure as CEO only really means that the company was embarrassed by the controversy and wanted to remedy any negative public perception, or that he saw himself as a liability, or merely unsuited to being a such a public figure. It’s doubtful it means much other than a title… he’s a co-founder of the company. It appeared that he handled the controversy badly, and as such, wasn’t well suited to a role as a political figurehead, regardless of how competent he might be operationally. Tech CEOs are public figures, and brand properties.
This whole situation is little strange. There wasn’t any major public outcry, and if you were to ask people who opposed Prop 8, most wouldn’t care that someone had an opposing opinion. He could probably have ridden it out, too.
What is certain is that: if a corporation does ever take a political position, you can be fairly certain that it’s calculated to by minimally divisive and risk averse. So it shows where the treasured tech/youth demographic is socially.
^ ^ ^ That Rodney Comment was mine.
agreed, Rodney, on all counts. Which, if you are right, goes against the meme that it was a gay mafia who ousted him. It was a growing consensus among tech leaders, coders, and followers that discrimination and people who perpetuate it should not be elevated to a leadership position over them. They saw discrimination when it was in their face, and they rejected it.
I’m with you YFC. A strong corporate culture is a top down proposal – it begins with senior management. Any organization that alleges to support workplace diversity and equality, and wishes to maintain a fully engaged workforce becomes a parody of itself if that culture is not fully embraced and endorsed by its figureheads and leaders. Eich understood this – the success and image of the company was more important to Eich than the position which is why he stepped down as CEO.
Maybe you would support Obama making the same move.
Since the 60’s there has been an active lavender mafia in the Catholic Church. They have been very progressive and have been extremely vicious towards traditionalists. In the past several years they have come out of the closet, being unashamed of their life style, and they seek to destroy anyone who stands in their way of dominating the Church. I have seen them in the seminary, in chancery offices, as well as in the clerical and religious state. They are very active in the parishes, especially in the music and liturgical aspects, and as several articles here in Calcatholic have pointed out, they are also entrenched in the educational field. May God have mercy on us,and Our Lady protect us from this horrendous influence which is destroying the Mystical Body of Christ.
Father,I know what you mean. I have a priest friend is very traditional and has told me the same. What really needs to happen is for the faithful laity to find out who these traitors to the Church are and they they be confronted. Perhaps that will send a message to the Vatican very loud and clear that we have had enough of this.
Your words are true Father Karl. Thank you again for caring about the souls of the faithful and for charitably working towards the conversion of all sinners. God bless you Father Karl.
Too bad that CEO Eich lacked the moral courage to confront the homosexual sexual Nazis. In fact, good evidence of the moral vacuity of their arguments towards “normalcy” is shown by the “Your Fellow Catholic” comment and query: in fact, there is no comparison — none — between a person that discriminates against a person born of one race, and a person that believes that homosexual deviancy, even if normal for that class, is a moral issue. Surely there has always been (and is, presently) slavery, although that is often based on economic status rather than only race. Homosexual sex, however, operates against the most basic unit of social cohesion — the family. It is destructive to every commodity of the virtuous life, including the raising of children. Being against the societal recognition of homosexual unions as normal is a civil virtue, not an offense to the conscience of mankind. Everyone, everyone, knows this, as it is part of God’s Natural Law written on the hearts of all. It is a heavy burden, certainly, to be inclined to homosexual sexual behavior. But the performance of the homosexual sexual act is forbidden from a Catholic perspective, and will stay forbidden. It is this moral opprobrium that drives homosexual sexual lobbyists crazy. They demand to be treated as normal, even a gift to all, when what the Church, and society, should say to them, out of Charity, is that we will pray for them to reject acting on their sexual impulses. It is only if this is not correct, that is, that homosexual sex is fine and dandy, that discrimination against their marriage might be equated to any other form of discrimination.
St. Christopher, you say that the performance of homosexual sexual acts is forbidden from a Catholic perspective. Mozilla is not a catholic company, our country is not a catholic country, and no one is talking about sexual acts. We are talking about a legally recognized fundamental right for people to marry the person of their choosing. Others claimed that we are shoving things down people’s throats. The problem here is that Catholic moral theology is what has been shoved down throats of others for centuries. Now that we are coming to claim our freedom of religion, catholics want to cry fowl. Freedom of religion only applies, it seems, if you are catholic.
How do you get the nerve to write such a piece of tripe like this? “No one is talking about sexual acts”? Yet we’re talking about “a legally recognized fundamental right for people to marry the person of their choosing?” Really, YFC? And what do “people” do who get “married?” They head for the wedding night and play Parcheezie?
Well, markrite, the reality is that in our country —for better or worse— the notion that a marriage license is a license to engage in sex has been destroyed long before the current question of same sex marriage. We can debate whether that is a good thing or not. I assume most of us would say it is not. But, it is irrelevant, however, because in law, people are not prohibited from having sex outside of marriage, and very very few people view marriage as a gateway to sex.
Gay people are not going to be more encouraged to have sex because they can get married. They just are not. If anything, marriage might just encourage couples to remain monogamous and committed to each other in ways that extend far beyond their sex life. And most people, when faced with a moral choice between stability and monogamy vs instability and plurality will opt for stability and monogamy.
Having said that, anyone in a successful marriage will tell you that it is far far more than just a socially acceptable “place” to have sex. It is about a lifetime of love and commitment, which brings mutual support and stability to the couple who, if they were independent of each other, might have a harder time in life. The ability to pass on a house without tax consequences in the event of death, for example, only comes through marriage. The ability to cover a partner in health insurance, for example, by and large comes through marriage.
YFC, you cannot serve God and Mammon. You’ll have to choose one day. And that is not irrelevant as you are pulling hard for the other team whether you ‘believe’ it or not.
God bless.
AM i agree when you say we cannot serve God and mammon. I serve the Lord who teaches in death and in life that love and love alone, along with faith and hope, lives eternally.
CCD cut me off, presumably at the word limit. The point I was driving home was that couples who engage in marriage do so for their mutual support and sustainability, which, without marriage, leaves people to fend for themselves, oftentimes as wards of the state. Thus society as whole benefits that marriage gives to couples, regardless of what happens in their sex lives.
YFC did Jesus call Fornication Love? No He did not. This, however, has never stopped fornicators from calling their relationships acts of “love”.
Your Fellow Catholic, “Catholic moral theology” is the Will of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier. The moral teaching of the Church is infallible. People don’t have a right to marry the person of their choosing. How would that work? Know how many women would choose Brad Pitt? One must freely consent to marry the person and the person cannot be or have been married to another. I know that you haven’t been Catholic very long. You don’t seem to know some of the basics of living the Faith. Love, of course is the Commandment. Love God. Love neighbor. Love others the way Christ loves you-He gave up everything for you. There is a prayer in which one asks God “to remove from my heart all emotions of which you do not approve and from my mind all thoughts which do not come from You.” Catholicism (Love of God and neighbor in its purest form) is very demanding, but of course, it is highly rewarding and really, the only prudent course of living.
Dear Anonymous, I thank you for seriously giving me a belly jiggling laugh when you said: “Know how many women would choose Brad Pitt?”. Trust me when I tell you that if we all could choose Brad Pitt, many of us would. But those of us who live life in the real world recognize that that is not an option. So what is your point, after all? Marriage require mutual love, not love between pretend individuals!
Sadly, it seems to me, that you don’t yet recognize that I have both chosen to be catholic, and that that event happened a long time ago. You seem to think I have a disagreement with your statement, which I do not:
“Love, of course is the Commandment. Love God. Love neighbor. Love others the way Christ loves you-He gave up everything for you. There is a prayer in which one asks God “to remove from my heart all emotions of which you do not approve …. is very demanding, but of course, it is highly rewarding and really, the only prudent course of living.”
Your Fellow Catholic, no I realize that you were chosen to be Catholic but believe that you do not yet understand all that you are called to believe and to obey and to live. (And this is true of all of us.) You can always trust the Church on matters of faith and morals. Don’t listen to the white noise on the internet. Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium. You can’t go wrong.
Anonymous, I endeavor to listen deeply to the spirit infused in me by my baptism and confirmed within me at my confirmation. The internet had nothing whatsoever to do with my being gay, as THAT happened long before the internet was even invented by Al Gore :)
I trust my conscience, as our Holy Catholic Church commands.
This has nothing to do with whether you are gay. The white noise I was referring to is anything about the Church that is not from the Church-whether it is on a blog or comments on CCD or secular newspapers. And so what if you are gay? It is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Gay people do not have a separate faith and a different moral code from everyone else. I am speaking to you of how to discern God’s Will. There are times when it is difficult but other times that it is easy. If the Church says that something is a sin, it is.
You should trust God. He does speak to us in our conscience. But He speaks to us plainly in the Church-Scripture, Tradition. the Magisterium. If something the Church says is sinful does not bother your conscience-let’s take the example of gossip-it is an indication that you have not arrived at a level of understanding that the Church has on this behavior. Gossip is very hurtful; until you have experienced the hurt of it, you may gossip. Once you have been hurt by it, you may arrive at “I don’t like it when it is done to me so I will not do it to others.” Your conscience has been formed in the school of hard knocks. However, if you had obeyed the Church, you would have formed your conscience in obedience to Her and you would not have hurt so many people by gossiping.
I use Kaspersky exclusively…I had a couple of internet hackers, one named buddha, the other byron/bron…these miscreants hacked into my computer…and got their jollies looking at pictures of my wife and I, while on vacation in Rome and Vatican…both were outed as being ex- “gay” seminarians some years ago…they were part of the so-called “lavender mafia”…that swished it’s way around Ventura and Oxnard…
‘Straight’ talk Banning the ‘H’ Word
The 2010 Decennial Census training incorporated the “GLAAD” glossary via Media Specialist Deni Luna – asserting, “Straights who used “Homosexual” were ‘anti-gay bigots’.
Although Obama endorsed Man/Woman Marriage, the Irony of soliciting FREE training space from Catholic Churches didn’t bother them.
Yet a recent NY Times piece denouncing the ‘H-Word’ found no irony in denouncing Narrow Linear Types in their linguistic mau mauing.
My question – As with Orwell’s Animal Farm: are Two Legs still Bad and Four Good, or is it now Four Legs Good and Two Better?
“The Decline and Fall of the ‘H’ Word
For Many Gays and Lesbians, the Term ‘Homosexual’ is Flinch-Worthy… it probably sounds inoffensive. A little outdated and clinical, perhaps, but innocuous enough: homosexual.
But that five-syllable word has never been more loaded, more deliberately
used and… more pejorative….
Substitute the word “gay” in any of those cases, and the terms suddenly
become far less loaded, so that the ring of disapproval and judgment
evaporates
Gays and lesbians adopted various terminology of their own, often code
words in conversation with one another. Because gay was already a known
adjective meaning joyful, it could be used as a way to communicate same-
sex desires to others who were in the know
They left out the ‘punch line’ to my post above on the ‘h’ word, which NY Times Story ended by saying straight out:
““A lesbian could say she met a gay gal the night before and her lesbian
friend would know exactly what she meant,” Professor Chauncey said
“…while her Straight boss would have no idea what she was talking about.” NYT
Ba Da Bing!
You are looking for some greater conspiracy of semantic manipulation and missing the point completely.
Language is fluid, and the meaning and import of words changes over time, no matter how much any group or individual wants to control the process. “Gay” has multiple meanings, too. (“Dude, that’s so gay”).
There’s nothing explicitly derogatory about “homosexual”. It’s bluntly descriptive, and in a clinical context, it’s fine.
It’s developed a pejorative connotation because it’s been abandoned for use of group or self identification, and in a social/political context, is almost exclusively the province of those who hold a negative bias, or at least a lack of understanding and sensitivity. Decry that all you want, but it now exists in the same realm as Oriental, Colored, etc… and lots of characterizing words that were once in common usage and are now characterize a speaker as out of touch.
That being the case, using it suggests either ignorance or intentional lack of respect. Both reflect more poorly on the person using the word than those characterized by it.
Gosh, I had felt so gay when I first got my brightly Colored Oriental rug, but now it is just a rag of shame – say some. Some others say one Dare Not Say the bright Oriental Colors make them Gay either.:
“Don’t Say Gay” – Or Get Beaten like a Rug
There is a new viral video on the internet (A Boy Beaten for using ‘gay’ Wrong) -being shared via ABC and Huffpooo, and the claim is the boy got an “A” in School for the project, and it will be used for Public Service Announcements in the Schools and TV…
Notice that he is Beaten for Not Showing Proper Reverence for a Sanitized Misleading Euphemism – but Not for using “God” as an exclamation of pain…
Terrific Sound Effects Though – ought to scare those unbendingly inear ‘straights’ in to the hairy arms of the Twysted Systerhood
https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/dont-say-gay-video-viral-15066995
We should USE the term of the Bible “SODOMITE”!
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika!
Viva Cristo Rey!
Yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
By all means, Mister Fisher, go on using the biblical term sodomite, and see how welcome that term becomes alongside “Israelite”, “Babylonian”, “Pharisee”, “Levite”, etc. etc. etc.
Oh sorry, I’ve stopped buying 501’s, lest I be known as a Levite.
I won’t be using hoMozilla Firefox anymore.
I’m sure you will be using Microsoft Internet Explorer or Google Chrome or Apple Safari. All three have donated significant sums to promote LGBT equality :)
No need to send them money, they’re already equally sinful.
YFC, you notice that those of us who support traditional marriage do patronize these companies in spite of the fact that they give “significant sums” to promote queer agendas. The Mozilla issue, however, is very different. Here an individual was harassed by queer activist into resigning his job because he gave an insignificant amount of money to support traditional marriage.
Behind every COEXIST bumper sticker, lies a liberal leftist fascist…
Spot on.
Is this not outright discrimination of a Catholic exercising his treasured right to freely support or oppose a political agenda in good conscience? This ought to be a case in federal court.
Eich’s bishop is Patrick McGrath of San Jose. Eich should not expect his own politically correct bishop to protest this flagrant discrimination.
What happened to this man is inexcusable. Whatever happened to free speech? Mr. Eich donated to a cause he believed in. (So did I.) He is ostracized by his own firm, but he acted on his own with his own money and didn’t make a big deal out of it. Sad and tragic. Getting people dumped from their jobs for their beliefs is a Nazi tactic.
Mario Savo, are you listening? The “Free Speech” movement you founded at UC Berkley in the early `60s is dying.
“Your Fellow Catholic”: Your comment is odd: go ahead and “claim your freedom of religion” all you want to (you are free to do so in the USA). However, in doing so, do not try to fire people that disagree with you, or slander and blaspheme a Faith that has taught, for centuries, that homosexual sex is an abomination. The lack of homosexual sexual groups’ acceptance of the rule of law and of moral commandments is the root proble here (aside from the inherently evil nature of what you perform with, on and to, each other). There is absolutely no issue with homosexual sexuals claiming to head a new political party, for example; as long as, when the votes are counted, and you lose, you go home. Oh, wait, you do not do that, do you? No, you run down to the courthouse and try to file a constitutional claim against what people just decided against. And then, judges appointed by Obama and other Democrats, that lack even a shred of intellectual depth or support (? have you read the decision of Federal Judge Arenda Wright Allen in the VA litigation?), or that are homosexual sexualists (like the paragon of discretion and legal acumen, now-retired Judge Walker, just waiting for the right case to give his fellow-homosexual sexualists a boost). Remember, YFC, Nazis and communists had many, many laws, courts, and legal process as well, that is easy. What the storm trooper approach always leaves out, however, is the knowledge, in each heart and mind, that these decisions are the result of the corruption of the human spirit, and of Natural Law. Right now the homosexual jackboots are coming into their power; it is time to fight. Remember Lepanto.
There is now chatter on the web by Homosexual Activists to now go after EVERY single individual who was publicly listed as a Prop 8 donor by the Los Angeles Times. Self-professed “tolerant loving” merry and lighthearted people are now calling for an intimidation champaign to force every one of their opponents into giving up his/her position through the threat of financial ruin. Apparently there is not enough satisfaction in the fact that a single California judge overruled the majority of Californians on this issue. They do not plan on stopping until everyone who disagrees with them is punished into financial ruin!
Tracy – I think you misunderstood the Extent of the Ruling by the SF Court by Walker and the refusal of the USSC to deal with it.
Apparently (and there is great disagreement of course) Walkers ruling only effects His District (Northern CA) and does Not Alter the California Constitution, which Upheld Proposition 8
Bit os a sticky wicket, but lots of wriggle room appears to exist = at least until the next Gaystapo Attack.
Michael McDermott, legal eagle of cal catholic gets it wrong when he says that the Prop 8 ruling only affects northern california and not the california constitution. The ruling struck down as federally unconstitutional the entire California Constitutional Amendment commonly known as Proposition 8. There is no binding court ruling that upheld Prop 8, in contrast to McDermott’s legal “analysis”. Even his verbiage “Apparently (and there is great disagreement of course) Walkers ruling only effects His District (Northern CA) and does Not Alter the California Constitution, which Upheld Proposition 8” is incredulous on its face, as a constitution does not uphold its own legality, by definition.
“Two other bills that cater to LGBT causes by making simple word changes into existing law include Senate Bill (SB) 1306 (Leno-San Francisco) and AB 2344 (Ammiano D-San Francisco).
Both bills are awaiting hearing assignments in the Judiciary Committees of their respective chambers.
Leno’s SB 1306, set for a hearing tomorrow in the Senate Judiciary Committee, is designed to “clean-up” language in existing law in Proposition 22, the original traditional marriage ballot initiative approved by voters in 2000, but which was overturned in 2008 by the California Supreme Court.
That action by the state’s highest court prompted Proposition 8, which tackled the issue through a constitutional amendment. (While Proposition 22 is no longer valid, Proposition 8 still remains on the books because of the narrow decision issued last year by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Although the justices ruled that supporters of Proposition 8 had no legal authority to file an appeal, they declined to actually decide on the constitutionality of the amendment, leaving it in legal limbo.)
In addition to cleaning up the language in Proposition 22, Leno takes it a step further, though, by scrubbing all references to “husband” and “wife” in the Family Code, choosing instead the generic phrase “spouse.” It also eliminates the words “male,” “female” and “opposite sex.”
The trend continues with AB 2344 (Ammiano D-San Francisco) Ammiano’s “Modern Family Act,” which paves the way for sperm and ova donors to also be listed as parents, meaning some children could find themselves with three legal parents.
Dubbed the “Modern Family Act,” the law requires the creation of a standardized form that undermines the well-established roles of mother and father, by replacing those words with the gender-neutral terms Parent 1 and Parent 2.
https://californiafamilyalliance.org/TWIC2014.04.07.html
Tracy, you see chatter at every turn. Please point us to this chatter?
do a web search.
I, KENNETH M. FISHER, BY THE GRACE OF GOD DONATED TO PROP 8 AND I HAD A YES ON PROP 8 BUMPER STICKER ON MY CAR. THANKS BE TO GOD AND HIS MOTHER!
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika!
Viva Cristo Rey!
Yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Mr. Eich was not removed from his job by his company because of his beliefs. He was in fact promoted, even though it was already known he contributed to Prop 8. He was forced to resign (most likely) because the company feared boycotts from supporters of LGBT rights more than they feared boycotts from those opposed to LGBT rights. It was strictly a financial reason. Mozilla did not anticipate people would get so excited by his political beliefs. They miscalculated.
The Gaystapo Thought Police are at it again – stand up while you still can.
“Reshaping families one word at a time
This week, the Assembly Health Committee will consider Assembly Bill (AB) 1951(Gomez D-Los Angeles), a measure that would modify birth certificates by removing the lines “mother and “father” and replacing them with checked boxes that read “mother and “father” and parent.
Offering a generic option to appeal to the whims of today’s “modern family” may appease an adult’s need to have their alternative lifestyle accepted, but it does little to nurture a child who is left wondering why the parental relationship is relegated to little more than checks in random boxes.
https://californiafamilyalliance.org/TWIC2014.04.07.html
Yeah, McDermott, I’m sure that will leave the child wondering. LOL! It’s too bad the child’s formative months as a newborn will be plagued by concerns of a check box on his birth certificate. God only knows how many kids will be tormented later in life by same sex attractions because of it. But hey, that’s a new pitch for the bogus “ex-gay movement”: check boxes make you gay . . . if you have same sex attraction it’s because one of your parents checked off “parent” on your birth certificate thus making that piece of paper insufficiently nurturing. Come hug with our therapists properly completed birth certificates from Mississippi – those without check boxes – and beat severely with a tennis racket your own un-nurturing, uncaring California birth certificate. You’ll be cured of your unwanted same sex desires in no time: paper shredders available upon request.
“One of the difficulties in substituting society for God, is that any human society, even at its best, is too often undiscriminating in its judgments, and sometimes too ignorant and cruel, to serve as an object of worship.
It likewise fails to take into account the fact that great heroes, saints, and sometimes scholars are those who opposed public opinion in the name of conscience and moral insight.
Public opinion and social judgments are sometimes wrong. It was public opinion that crucified Christ.”
SSA (same sex attraction) is merely a temptation. Homosexual ACTS are MORTAL SINS, and without repentance can send Souls to Hell for eternity.
Some never leave the Age of Wonder – and others just Wander Clueless on purpose, but Children old enough to ask questions very often want to know, which is why they created:
“The Donor Sibling Registry (DSR) was founded in 2000 to assist individuals conceived as a result of sperm, egg or embryo donation that are seeking to make mutually desired contact with others with whom they share genetic ties.
Without any outside support, the DSR has single-handedly pioneered a national discussion about the donor conception industry and families, with its many media appearances and interviews. DSR advocates for the right to honesty and transparency for donor kids, and for social acceptance, legal rights and valuing the diversity of all families.
The DSR’s core value is honesty, with the conviction that people have the fundamental right to information about their biological origins and identities. The donor conception industry is largely a for-profit enterprise, and after the “product” has been purchased, most doctors, clinics, egg donation agencies and cryobanks do not engage in discussions and activities which acknowledge the humanity and rights of the donor-conceived.
It is our mission to bring these concepts to the public arena for discussion, as has been done in many European countries, as well as New Zealand and parts of Australia.
https://www.donorsiblingregistry.com/about-dsr/history-and-mission
Two points – it is probably true that Prop-8 could not pass today, if only because Donors would be too afraid to publicly support it and the lamesteam media would never allow any of the Rational & Valid Arguments in favor to be published.
Still – so long as the ballot box remains anonymous, it is unlikely a Pro-Gaystapo Pandering law could pass either, at least until the individual voters are Outed by some hi-tech means.
As for the manipulation of the language via the Politics of Adversarial Terminology, ABC News has already shown the gay way towards ‘tolerance’ Enforcement:
“Don’t Say Gay” – Or Get Beaten
There is a new viral video on the internet (A Boy Beaten for using ‘gay’ Wrong) -being shared via ABC and Huffpooo, and the claim is the boy got an “A” in School for the project, and it will be used for Public Service Announcements in the Schools and TV…
Notice that he is Beaten for Not Showing Proper Reverence for a Sanitized Misleading Euphemism – but Not for using “God” as an exclamation of pain…
Terrific Sound Effects Though – ought to scare those unbendingly inear ‘straights’ in to the hairy arms of the Twysted Systerhood
https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/dont-say-gay-video-viral-15066995