The New York State senate appears to be moving the marriage bill to the floor, with agreement on still-weak religious protections. (You may want to give your representatives a Friday-night holler.)
They also happen to be redefining marriage in it.
New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan calls it a “a real David and Goliath battle.”
For those of us not following this closely, can you please explain K-Lo why the religious protections are weak or how marriage is being redfined?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusemr. joe: you don't know how marriage is being redefined? you do know that REAL marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. how hard is this?
no doubt the 'protections' for religious liberty and freedom of speech are lukewarm at best, and will soon be redefined by the fascist gays and their allies on the courts. so much for freedom to disagree with the gay special rights movement.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse" or how marriage is being redfined?"
You can't be serious.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo the legislature is voting to allow a same sex couple the same rights as a heterosexual couple. Okay. It is not jusidically imposed. How does this in any way affect your traditional marriage? My marriage was not created by some state license. It was created by a ceremony in front of friends and family (in a church in our case) followed by a life together and children.
I would rather gay marriage than civil unions, the later may have a bigger negative impact on the institution.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse1- Marriage is being redefined from an institution primarily focused at channeling men and women's procreative abilities into a family strucutre into an institution primarily aimed at recongnizing adults love and affection for one another. It is a fundamentally different institution.
Neither institution is perfent, not every heterosexual can or will have kids and not everyone couple will have love or affection for one another. These are merely the primary pruposes of the respective institutions so the talking point about people who can't or won't have kids is irrelevant.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHowie, they can call it marriage, or a ham sandwich, it is not going to be the same as a traditional marriage. The state is not any authority, beyond the limited legal rights that are available.
This will not change your marriage, unless you let it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI assume Dolan pictures himself as the Goliath figure since 1) he has a trillion dollar world-wide organization behind him and 2) Goliath lost. Otherwise, to posit himself and his cohorts as the weak underdogs in the situation is not only a lie but it's ludicrous.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, this is a simple assertion to refute: Whatever the value of the Catholic Church may or may not be, it PALES in comparison to the liberal media machine.
In the last 20-years, liberal activists disguised as Hollywood writers, actors and producers have put out tens of thousands of hours of leftist propaganda. What has been one of, if not their premiere agenda items? The destruction of the traditional nuclear family.
I suspect if the Catholic Church had 12-hours of primetime program, 265 days a week - just like the "progressives" have - you might see an entirely different outcome, and then your argument might have some merit. Instead, even as large as the Church is, it bows in the shadow of the liberal media.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYaknow, television broadcast is a mostly free market situation. People vote with their dollars, and if folks were screaming to see more socially conservative, Catholic-oriented programming, that's what you would see on TV.
I think your 'massive media conspiracy' complex is a little nuts, man. You ought to have that looked at.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"People vote with their dollars, and if folks were screaming to see more socially conservative,",
Passion of the Christ grossed $611M dollars on a $30M budget (a budget that was fronted primarily by Gibson himself, not a studio), proving without equivocation that there is a massive untapped market for Hollywood to address.
The film was the third highest grossing movie of the year(2004), and one of the highest grossing R-rated movies of all time. Even with the unquestionable success of Passion of the Christ, not a singe major studio has endeavored to reach out to the Christian community with other biblical-themed movies.
But yeah, you're right - the "conspiracy" against conservatives and Christians in Hollywood is all in my head, or something.
You really should pick yourself up a copy of Ben Shapiro's latest book, Primetime Propaganda. Stupid isn't endearing, not even on a fish.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGreat minds, eh, Scott?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse:)
Why should a major studio have to do the reaching out? If there's such a large, untapped market there, who is willing to spend money to see biblical-themed movies, where are the Conservatives who are looking to capitalize on this?
I submit that there is no real evidence that such a market exists; and that attempts to gather money to fund such projects have met with failure in the past. But, don't let a far more realistic explanation get in the way of your paranoid delusions about massive conspiracies.
I swear (to god!), some of the posters on this site make me fear for the future of the GOP and Conservatism.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I swear (to god!), some of the posters on this site make me fear for the future of the GOP and Conservatism."
The concern of DU trolls is always touching.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't know why a Libertarian would fear for the future of conservatism considering they want to destroy it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Why should a major studio reach out?" I'm late to this discussion, but weren't you just insisting that media companies are responsive to the demands of the market - specifically that
"...if folks were screaming to see more socially conservative, Catholic-oriented programming, that's what you would see..."
Scott Wilson then points out an evidence that suggests people do vote with their dollars on this issue and that it doesn't seem to influence the decision makers in Hollywood accordingly. If your thesis was so ironclad, it would at least try to explain why these particular market indicators don't seem to have the same impact as others.
And please point to an actual 'massive conspiracy' theory that you're trying to debunk using Occam's Razor. The argument I'm seeing advanced is that a liberal ideology common to the industry constrains and channels business decisions in entertainment. Nobody's hinting at smoking men or magic bullets.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRead this book, Fish.
Primetime Propaganda
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
Seeing as I consider Shapiro to be a pinhead and a twit, why would I read his book? His analysis is generally shallow and quite obviously works backwards from a conclusion, cherry-picking data to support whatever contention of the day he's throwing up atcha.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHis analysis is "cherry picking" and "generally shallow"? You mean like the "cherry picked" interviews he provides, in their entirety with roughly a dozen Hollywood producers that say pretty uniformly that Hollywood does indeed have a liberal agenda? THAT kind of "shallow analysis"?
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn other words, Shapiro is right.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMore on Passion's reception in Hollywood...
Even though the Movie was a box office juggernaut, it only managed three Oscar nominations: Makeup, Score & Cinematography. Not a single actor is nominated, and the film is ignored for Best Picture. What film did win that year for best picture? Million Dollar Baby, a movie that ends with an assisted suicide. Isn't that swell. Nope, no agenda there.
And Gibson, a director who managed to make a compelling, even riveting film that utilizes a language that has been dead for more than 1500 years, was completely overlooked for best director. However, the director of "Vera Drake" (a movie I guarantee no one remembers 6-years later), was nominated. And what was Vera Drake about? Well, it was a celebration of a woman who provided abortions in England during a time when abortions were outlawed. Yipee!
Yessiree, It's all in my head; No liberal agenda in Hollywood whatsoever. It's all about making money.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse