76 Comments - wordslinger - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 2:07 pm: –ECFA’s obvious position that they will not place children in the homes of homosexuals because ECFA believes homosexuality is sinful. […]– So only non-sinners need apply? Where does one get that merit badge, Monkey Wards? - walkinfool - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 2:12 pm: The IL Family Institute does nothing positive for families or children, as far as I can tell. They simply attack and criticize others. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 2:26 pm: –Multiple times in multiple ways I attempted to engage Withrow directly on the salient issue of homosexuality,– Is that “salient” or “salacious?” By the way, you folks at Illinois Family Institute — you’re not into anything weird, are you? I think I have a right to know. What kind of “conservative” is it, anyway, that spends so much time and energy worrying about the private sexual activity of consenting adults? These are the same guys who think it’s a mortal affront on freedom and liberty to make people enroll in a health insurance plan. - Ian - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 2:28 pm: Wow! This just demonstrates your profound misunderstanding of the Christian conservative community Rich. First Amendment rights to freely exercise religion and to live out their faith — corporately or individually — should not be quashed by the state in favor of a radically liberal political agenda. An agenda that is based on volitional sexual behavior. These religious child care agencies have been operating for decades in good faith — serving needy children and being subsidized by their faith communities to do it. Suddenly, with the lame duck passage of a “civil unions” law, these upstanding selfless agencies are going to be forced to bow to the state’s new law or have their contracts terminated. Don’t tell me that the state has the children’s best interest at heart… - wordslinger - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 2:30 pm: Wow, Ian, so it’s just about the money, then? Because the state is not making them do anything. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 2:31 pm: Ian, what is the “Christian conservative community,” anyway? I missed that it my reading of The Gospels. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 2:32 pm: Ian, first of all, bite me. Secondly, what does your little rant have to do with the IFI going off on a group that you apparently agree with? Riddle me that one, Batman. - Michelle Flaherty - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 2:36 pm: That is one crowded, angry closet. - Seriously??? - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 2:37 pm: Cutting off a contract because organizations don’t comply with the law in Illinois doesn’t restrict freedom of religion. The people at Catholic Charities and the ECFA are free to believe whatever they want. They just can’t get a state contract because of it. But their freedoms are still in place. - Ian - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 2:40 pm: Another wonderful demonstration of liberal maturity Rich. “Bite me?” Really? To answer your question: The Christian conservative community has been far too apathetic and has failed to champion their values in the public square. The ECFA’s willingness to slink away instead of standing up for their First Amendment rights deserves to be criticized. That doesn’t somehow discount the great work they’ve done in caring for needy children. - Spliff - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 2:41 pm: It is already hard enough to adopt in this state with all the red tape and understaffing at DCFS. Now we have organizations attacking each other. There are too many children in this state and around the world who need help and a family for any of these fights to be happening. If the church based groups don’t want to follow the law then move on … after all that seems to be the christian thing to do. And yes I am adopted and have adopted. - Colossus - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 2:42 pm: Ian, you seem to have glossed over the fact that they were also subsidized by the State of Illinois. And that the First Amendment also allows the rest of us to live out our faith unquashed by the state in favor of a radical Christianist/Dominionist political agenda. If I remember correctly, there is a way for adoptions to be done entirely privately through attorneys. Would it be feasible for organizations like ECFA or CC to offer these private matchmaking adoptions if they received no money from the state and independent attorneys handled the legal end of things? - stateandlake - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 2:42 pm: Are there more couples wanting to adopt than there are children? If not (and I assume this is the case) then these agencies’ refusals to place children with vetted same sex couples deny children a good home based on religious ideology alone. Doesn’t seem very Christlike to me. - I'm Just Saying - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 2:43 pm: Hey Ian, dont’ get into a fight with a guy who papers paper by the ton, ink by the barrel or bandwidth by the TB, you’ll never win But I do look forward to watching this one - soccermom - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 2:43 pm: Ian, if it shocks and surprises you when Rich says “Bite me,” we are going to go out on a limb and guess that you are not a regular visitor to this site. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 2:43 pm: Ian, I use “bite me” to people who are clueless. Doesn’t happen every day. Only when people like yourself come around. Also, members of a “community” don’t usually treat each other in the way IFI just did, unless, of course, it’s a highly dysfunctional “community,” which I suspect it is, judging by your comments. - CircularFiringSquad - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 2:44 pm: Ian We have known liberals and mature Americans Capt Fax is neither Bite All of Us BTW when will the right get into their noggins that religious freedom is not some get out of jail free card for those who cannot follow the law. The says “x” if someone cannot do “x” then someone cannot play in this park TTFN - ArchPundit - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 2:47 pm: ===The ECFA’s willingness to slink away instead of standing up for their First Amendment rights deserves to be criticized. First amendment rights don’t include a right to government contracts. - Farker - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 2:51 pm: Ian here’s what you and the rest of the zealots do not seem to be able to grasp. If you want state dollars to subsidize your operations you have to play by state laws. No one is imposing on your religious freedoms, you can continue to discriminate all you want as you have done for years. You just can’t do it with state dollars anymore. - Seriously??? - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 2:52 pm: =The Christian conservative community has been far too apathetic and has failed to champion their values in the public square.= What the hell channel have you been watching Ian?? The Christian right has been pushing their agenda on the rest of us for a very long time. Their anti-gay, anti-choice, everyone has to think just like us attitude has been on display for a very long time. - Easily Entertained - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 2:55 pm: IFI’s position is at least true to its beliefs. IFI, ECFA & CC want state contracts but don’t want to follow state law. It is laudable that they hold true to their beliefs. To do otherwise would concede that money - not belief, motivates them. But they can’t have state funds if they can’t follow state law. Religious law can’t take precedence over state law. - Ian - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 2:57 pm: Disqualifying upstanding organizations merely because of they want to uphold religious tenants — as they have for decades — is “religious discrimination” as defined by the Illinois Human Rights Act. And yes, I am moved by all the name calling here. It more convinced then ever. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 2:59 pm: So, just so I understand this correctly, IFI has its collectively undies in a bunch because ECFA is not screaming about that homosexuals are sinners loud enough for IFI’s liking? Maybe the folks at ECFA looked down at their bracelets and decided that Jesus wouldn’t throw a hissy fit, cast stones, etc. Forgiveness and acceptance and community are central to what Jesus taught us, and it seems to me like that’s exactly how ECFA has chosen to respond. IFI is a bunch of zealots masquerading as Christians. I’m so impressed with Winthrow, I might even send them a donation. - Seriously??? - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 3:06 pm: Discriminating against a same sex couple is also illegal under the IL Human Rights Act. And again, you are free to believe whatever you want to believe. You just can’t use state money to discriminate. - Michelle Flaherty - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 3:07 pm: Now look what you’ve all done. You all ganged up on Ian and he’s run away. This had all the makings of a wonderful afternoon-filling beatdown. Please, some patience people. We’ve gone and blown the entertainment value. Ian, if you’re out there, please, please come back. We hadn’t even gotten to the “lame stream media” and Obama had yet to come up. There’s like 90 minutes left in my day and now there’s nothing to fill them. - Boone Logan Square - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 3:13 pm: This popcorn is delicious. - train111 - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 3:16 pm: I’m an adoptive parent in Illinois. During the process I happened to meet two same sex couples who were also in the process of adopting. I found them to be sincere and dedicated prospective parents. It really opened my eyes. They certainly would be better parents than several people out there who have children naturally. But I guess natural parents who are unfit isn’t ’sinful’ or ‘outrageous’ enough to get IFI’s eyes and promote their adgenda. Personally, Jesus said absolutely nothing about homosexuality–he did say a whole lot however about hypocricy. IFI and the Conservative Christian community would do themselves a whole lot of favors if they got rid of the second before addressing the first. - Ian - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 3:21 pm: I’ve not run away Michelle, I’ve decided not to waste my time on this liberal blog any longer. Name calling and sarcasm trump honest intellectual debate here. Have fun at my expense! - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 3:34 pm: ===Name calling === You come in here calling names, that’s what happens, bub. - steve schnorf - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 3:35 pm: “That is one crowded, angry closet.” LMAO, Michelle - I'm Just Saying - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 3:37 pm: Cya, I don’t think the lord was this judgmental as you are though But if this not the place for ya, bye……. - steve schnorf - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 3:38 pm: No, for DCFS kids there aren’t more adoptive families than children available. And by the way, Ian, there are plenty of conservatives who post on here. Most of them are pretty thoughful. They often get disagreed with, but not so often attacked. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 3:39 pm: Ian, where does one get the delusion of grandeur where they feel they can speak for all Christians, especially in the defense of discrimination and in order to make a buck? - Michelle Flaherty - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 3:42 pm: C’mon Ian. Only 45 more minutes. Would it help if I said please? Would it help if I said I would agree with you that name calling and sarcasm trump honest intellectual debate. If course I’d qualify that remark by extending it to say it applies here and just about everywhere else. I mean, Pat Quinn is our governor for a reason. But you know what trumps sarcasm? Sardonic wit. Most people don’t even know what it is let alone the difference. Once you have sardonic wit, everyone else might as well be English as a second language. - Seriously??? - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 3:48 pm: I’m sorry Ian, where you called a “name”? So people just generally disagreeing with you on your not so strong point is considered name calling? I think someone needs a tougher skin. - Seriously??? - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 3:49 pm: Oh, and “bite me” isn’t calling you a name. It’s a request for you to take action. Not the same thing. - Cheryl44 - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 3:55 pm: Yeah the Christian right is so oppressed (apologies to the thoughtful conservative regular posters here who are also Christians). - Demoralized - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 4:06 pm: Ugh. Religious debates drive me batty. Granted, that’s not a far drive, but still . . . Anyway, contrary to what Ian, the Illinois Family Institute, and others of their ideology believe, there is NOT religious discrimination going on here. None of these organizations - not one - has been told by the State of Illinois to stop placing kids with families. And, none of these organizations - not one - has been told that they cannot have a contract with the state, no matter what. What they have been told is this - there are 3 million (exaggeration) provisions in your contract with the State of Illinois, of which placing children with now legalized couples in Civil Unions is one of those provisions. Adhere to ALL of the contract provisions and you can have state money. If you don’t want state money, you are free to continue your services in the manner you see fit. Every entity with a contract with the State has to abide by all of the contractual provisions contained in a contract. To suggest a religious institution gets to trump one of those provisions because - well - they are a religious institution is nonsense. - Easily Entertained - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 4:07 pm: @Wordslinger: Don’t I have the right to refuse to purchase health insurance just like the G has the right to refuse to continue contracting with ECFA? - Chevy owner/Ford County - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 4:07 pm: This is amusing. Somehow the same folks that are always advocating for “smaller government” get their undies in a bunch when their link to the cash cow of government funding is cut. No one is saying that these agencies cannot continue placing children for adoption or foster care, they just cannot do it with state monies, some of which comes from homosexual taxpayers. It is unfortunate that these groups have become so reliant upon government for their existence. Where is the old, “pull yourself up from your bootstraps” work ethic? - JL - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 4:11 pm: “I’ve not run away Michelle, I’ve decided not to waste my time on this liberal blog any longer.” This blog tends to be thoughtful, pragmatic, and unbiased. So if that is your definition of liberal, you’ve got more problems than I originally thought. - John Galt - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 4:12 pm: 1) It is a circular firing squad. It’s a big reason why the ILGOP has been in the minority for so long. Not only do you have your moderates vs. the conservatives–which most state GOPs can eventually handle. But the conservative wing is sub divided into more of a practical/mainstream conservative wing (mostly on tone, tactics & having a realistic view of how to affect change in Springfield) versus the truly ultra-conservative wing that’s run on pure passion and not much else. It’s like herding cats. 2) I don’t think the Human Rights Act applies to private religious based institutions. It specifically excepts employers & labor unions from act—and they don’t even involve the 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion. Plus there’s the 1st Amendment right to freedom of asssembly. Obviously we’re talking about private groups here and not governmental or public spaces. 3) I believe the Civil Union bill specifically had amendments carving out religious institutions, but perhaps I’m wrong. 4) I agree that there’s no right for religious institutions to have a services contract with the state. They can do all kinds of non-subsidized outreach as they wish. 5) All that being said, traditionally part of that outreach has been adoption & other family services. Maybe you want to sever the ’subsidized’ portion from the state for what that’s worth. But I do think you could make a strong argument for why it’s bad public policy to yank the adoption charters, etc. from Catholic Charities and other similarly situated groups. Religious groups were in the business of running foster care, adoption agencies & orphanages long before the modern state even existed. So it’s not like religious groups are trying to do anything new here. So long as the state run agencies and secular charters are out there for gay folks to access, I don’t see a huge problem if religious groups want to set up their own criteria. Some parents who take their newborns to certain agencies may want to take them there specifically BECAUSE XYZ ageney uses ABC criteria in selecting potential adoptive parents. People may disagree about that, but I don’t think it’s a totally insane proposition. But yeah Ian dude, you aren’t really being a strong advocate for your position here. Not a good idea to pick a fight with Rich. - Colossus - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 4:12 pm: JL - Apparently that is the conventionally held definition these days among the conservative folks in Illinois. At least the overly vocal ones. - chuddery - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 4:19 pm: @Easily Entertained Your rights are not coterminous with the government’s. Your analogy makes no sense, but clearly you weren’t going to let that get in the way of making a political point. - Michelle Flaherty - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 4:30 pm: You have the right to not purchase car insurance, so long as you also express your right to not drive. - nickname - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 4:33 pm: the IFI put their “Cutlural Analyst” on the case - In 630 - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 4:37 pm: It is thoroughly disheartening that having an anti-gay stance is so important to these organizations that they’re willing to undercut their larger mission to help children in need. Having a state contract is a platform to do a lot of good, but based on their actions, they’d rather do less good and be anti-gay, than do more good and be neutral when it comes to sexual orientation. - Wensicia - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 4:44 pm: This is what amazes me about some of these far-right organizations and their rabid supporters. They demand everyone on their side follow the political script the head nutjob organization (IFI) sets and scream in protest when they don’t. Similar to the Tea Party take over of the Republican Party and their demand that all within follow their ideology. - Just Me - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 4:54 pm: With friends like this, who needs enemies? And people still can’t figure out why Bill Brady lost? - Ghost of John Brown - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 4:59 pm: I’ll try to go where Ian probably should have, but brought on the responses he got. The State certainly has the ability to make the laws that it wants to. If the State wanted to make a law that said that a gay friendly organization could assist with adoptions, it can do that. Here is the central issue, though. There are organizations like Catholic Charities and EFCA that work with families that are not gay. They do that because of THEIR principles. I hope everyone could agree that as a private organization, they have the right to do so. Because of their principles, they are now at odds with the new State law. Prior to the change in the law, they were abiding by the law of the land. The passage of the law means that they either have to stop assisting with adoption or violate their principles. It is hard to imagine that the framers of the law didn’t realize that this would be one of the ramifications. If that is the case, then the law was framed to specifically put these organizations in conflict with their principles. The last comment by Wensicia seems to indicate that when right-wing groups don’t follow along, they scream. Well, the reverse can be said. When Catholic Charities didn’t “follow the script”, the framers of the law proverbially “screamed” and changed the law. Seems like the left is every bit as capable of demanding conformance to a rigid set of rules as the right is accused of. - Easily Entertained - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 5:00 pm: @Chuddery Ok, politically I am against mandatory health insurance. And yes I understand my rights and the G’s are not coterminous. However, I do believe it is an affront to liberty to require me to buy health insurance. Worse, it is an intellectually disingenuous way to nationalize healthcare, which by the way the courts would not have stricken as they have mandatory insurance. @Michelle Flaherty: Kudos for the funniest post here this afternoon (one angry closet.) Very funny. Your auto insurance analogy however is lame. Auto insurance as a condition of using public property is different than health insurance as a condition of breathing. - in the trenches - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 5:23 pm: Ken Withrow chooses to cooperate in the orderly transition of the kids he and his staff have cared for and his foster parents to a different agency and catches hell for it from his own community? Ken Withrow and his board of directoirs made the right decision for all involved. His agency is not part of the lawsuit being pursued by Catholic Charities. ECFA is doing the right thing in the face of very long odds for successs. Leave them alone. - D.P. Gumby - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 5:40 pm: Ian, don’t go away angry (just go away). Seriously, you have been honored by a royal Rich “Bite Me”. That is one of the highest honors a poster can receive. And you have prompted one the most delightful streams in weeks. It’s been like watching a room full of cats w/ a very confused mouse. This list is full of wags of all stripes and from every spectrum but w/ a very ripe sense of the absurd–that is what you mistake for a lack of intellectual debate. You mistake a lack of boring debate for a lack of intellectual debate. Alas poor Ian, ’twas gone too soon. - D.P. Gumby - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 5:42 pm: BTW, Withrow and ECFA deserve major cudos for class whatever their private religious beliefs that I probably disagree w/! - John Galt - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 5:53 pm: ==== It is thoroughly disheartening that having an anti-gay stance is so important to these organizations that they’re willing to undercut their larger mission to help children in need. Having a state contract is a platform to do a lot of good, but based on their actions, they’d rather do less good and be anti-gay, than do more good and be neutral when it comes to sexual orientation. ==== That can cut both ways too. “It is thoroughly disheartening that having a PRO-gay stance is so important to these organizations that they’re willing to undercut their larger mission to help children in need.” For all of the struggles Illinoisians are having these days, Democratic politicians and political appointees are willing to pull contracts that serve at-risk kids to score political points on the Left. Catholic Charities aren’t going to end up doing “less good.” They will simply shift their energies towards some other need in society that won’t force them to compromise their honestly held religious convictions. - Calhoun Native - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 6:11 pm: Best. Post. Ever. - MrJM - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 6:15 pm: It more convinced then ever. Zing! – MrJM - Plutocrat03 - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 6:39 pm: And the children who need help are denied access to a major provider of services. Is that really a win? If so to who? - murray - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 7:54 pm: This has been a most insightful thread.Reminds one of a piranha attack.Both a revealing and interesting response by the regulars as well as the moderator.Thanks! - CircularFiringSquad - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 8:00 pm: Gotta wonder just how many jobs, salaries, rre involved. How much admin money does these groups lose. Bet it is a bunch of bucks - Small Town Liberal - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 8:11 pm: Pluto - First of all, other providers are stepping up to fill the gap. Second, it’s a win to folks that don’t want their taxes going to organizations that discriminate. - OneMan - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 8:16 pm: You know there is something to be said for the idea that the civil authorities have their responsibility and the church has it’s responsibility and the two are not one and the same. Luther made that argument in the books of concord, having seen the role of the state arguing that the state was not responsible for your salvation nor should it be responsible for your salvation. If the organization does not feel it is either worth the fight or their fight to have it is their right and perhaps even their responsibility in terms of being good stewards of their resources. If you participate with the state in any activity you should expect (and even demand) that the state have some restrictions and constraints on how the states resources are used. That the resources are not wasted or used in a way that is against the public policy of the government. As for the argument that children who need help are denied to a service provider, that is true for a great many things, would we let an organization only cater to a specific group or exclude groups that are generally protected? How much variation from a government standard (even one you disagree with) is a good idea? If you could convince me that I could legislate morality and make it work I would be all over that. But you can’t, I can’t legislate the idea that everyone respect their marriage vows, I can’t legislate that everyone treat everyone with respect, I can’t legislate what is in peoples hearts. I consider myself a conservative but leave government to government and God to God.. - Plutocrat03 - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 8:17 pm: Right, keep telling yourself that tall tale. Perhaps you will believe it some day - OneMan - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 8:28 pm: Which tall tale? - Small Town Liberal - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 9:25 pm: - Right, keep telling yourself that tall tale. - You know, not to disparage any religion or even say I don’t have some beliefs of my own, but someone who apparently thinks laws should be based on a book that says five loaves and two fish fed five thousand people might want to be cautious with the phrase “tall tale”. - Michelle Flaherty - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 10:04 pm: Notice that the book never says how big the loaves or fish were. - Regular Reader - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 10:10 pm: Too much reaction. So little thinking. Some of these posts have nothing to do with the original article… Anyways, IFI has strong views. So does just about everyone here. I think what’s troublesome is IFI’s methods at times. There are ways of constructively and gradiously disagreeing. - Regular Reader - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 10:10 pm: *graciously - steve schnorf - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 10:49 pm: So now, to be true blue, you have to not only be really conservative, you have to be angry about it? There must be a lot of Old Testament in those conservative Christian groups, I guess. - in the trenches - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 10:52 pm: Not only angry Steve. Defiant. Would they have Ken Withrow stand in the doorway of his foster homes and refuse entry to another agency’s worker? Change the locks on his office? Take the files to another location and refuse all efforts to transfer these cases? Just what do they want him to do? - Tired of it All - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 10:52 pm: Religion really has no place in politics. The Republicans will find out about that before long. A lot of the issues raised by this group, conservative, Christion beleifs are at the core of the Republican/Tea Party. These people are activist and refuse to compromise because God is on their side. Does that sound familiar to anyone? I beleive the entire state of the Tea/Republican Party is kind of like it was in the 80s with the Moral Majority which eventually petered out. Their message has been amplified by the likes of Glenn Beck. They can get people elected governor and to Congress but they’ll never pull it together for the White House. Sorry to ramble. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 11:24 pm: ===So long as the state run agencies and secular charters are out there for gay folks to access, I don’t see a huge problem if religious groups want to set up their own criteria. Some parents who take their newborns to certain agencies may want to take them there specifically BECAUSE XYZ ageney uses ABC criteria in selecting potential adoptive parents. People may disagree about that, but I don’t think it’s a totally insane proposition. But yeah Ian dude, you aren’t really being a strong advocate for your position here.=== OK, wow. John Galt, I’m going to accept your offer and disagree about that. I don’t think you’re a strong advocate for your position either. Which is totally insane btw. PS: it isn’t like herding cats, it’s more like blowing a dog whistle. - Aldyth - Wednesday, Sep 28, 11 @ 9:09 am: I have never appreciated the concept of separation of church and state more than I do right now. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Sep 28, 11 @ 9:20 am: –There must be a lot of Old Testament in those conservative Christian groups, I guess.– Yeah, the Old Testament is a comfort to the angry right. The Gospels are a little too lovey-dovey and inclusive. Consider it the original New Deal. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Sep 28, 11 @ 9:43 am: - It is thoroughly disheartening that having an anti-gay stance is so important to these organizations that they’re willing to undercut their larger mission to help children in need - It is just as easy to say our current government is far more interested in its pro-gay constituency than helping children in need. I think there should be room for everyone… - wishbone - Wednesday, Sep 28, 11 @ 10:43 pm: “…sarcasm trump honest intellectual debate here.” Just saying “God wants it that way” is NOT “honest intellectual debate”? Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.