NOM Comes All Over The Archbishop


Pretty in pink, isn’t she?

Oh not really.

You’re doubtless familiar with the brouhaha cause when Nancy Pelosi told the Bishop it wouldn’t be a good idea for him to appear at Brain Brownshirt’s hate march ( a desperate last ditch plea for money when Marriage Equality is fast becoming a done deal nationwide.) Breitbartistas have called for her excommunication.

The Archbishop doesn’t mention that but does say –

The March for Marriage is not “anti-LGBT” (as some have described it); it is not anti-anyone or anti-anything. Rather, it is a pro-marriage March. The latter does not imply the former. Rather, it affirms the great good of bringing the two halves of humanity together so that a man and a woman may bond with each other and with any children who come from their union. This is precisely the vision promoted by Pope Francis, who recently said, “We must reaffirm the right of children to grow up in a family with a father and mother.” Rest assured that if the point of this event were to single out a group of individuals and target them for hatred, I most certainly would not be there.

Really? Where would you be? Palm Springs perchance?


While I cannot go into all of the details here of your allegations against the sponsors of this event and scheduled speakers, I do know that at least some of what you say is based on misinterpretation or is simply factually incorrect. For example, it is not true that the National Organization for Marriage connects homosexuality with pedophilia and incest. What is true is that three years ago a conference was sponsored in Baltimore by the group B4U-ACT for the purpose of finding ways to encourage tolerance for pedophilia. A statement on NOM’s blogpost objecting to this conference affirmed that this is something that would outrage people in the gay community as well. Unfortunately, many conclusions are being drawn about those involved in the March for Marriage based on false impressions

Oh yeah? As Jeremy Hooper points out –

“Let’s get something clear right out of the gate: This is not going to work on Archbishop Cordileone. The man is known as “the father of Proposition 8″ for a reason. He has spent a great deal of time fighting for discrimination against gay people, not only pushing very hard for California’s discriminatory marriage ban and similar measures in other states, but he has even advocated against basic employment protections for LGBT people. Archbishop Cordileone is a hero to NOM, a thoroughly Catholic organization, precisely because he has chosen to take marriage and related inequality and imprint it into a top priority, if not the top priority, among Catholic leadership. In fact, just last week he quite literally told a room of America’s most prominent Catholic bishops that this is the top fight. So no, I do not think Leader Pelosi’s letter is going to work.
But it should work, because she is very right. The NOM march will feature speakers who have described marriage equality as a “satanic plot to destroy our seed,” speakers who have equated kids of same-sex parents to kids who lost their parents on 9/11, speakers who have claimed that “homosexuality spreads because somebody abused children,” and multiple speakers who have directly compared homosexuality to bestiality and incest
Heck, even NOM’s own president, Brian Brown, has admitted that he believes homosexuality to be a sin that is both “not logical” and “degrading to the human soul,” according to his version of the bible, which is likely why Brian has advocated for “ex-gay” programs and marched in the streets against an openly gay religious figure. He even took the extraordinary step of traveling to Russia so that he could speak in favor of a ban on same-sex adoption. Who does that?!


Brian does. NOM does. And this march will only be as anti-gay as its speakers. There is simply no way one can take an objective and thorough look at the list of speakers and deny that they are against more than just equal marriage rights. This is to be a march filled with people who have made it clear that they want to undermine the rights, worth, and dignity of what it means to be an LGBT person.
Archbishop Cordileone should spend his Thursday fostering peace and bettering the kingdom. Lord knows Washington could use some good mojo! But fostering division and discrimination among a lineup that includes multiple men who have compared same-sex marriage to sleeping with a dog? I’m thinking that’s less the role of a Catholic bishop and more the role of a political activist from history’s wrong side.”

(Back to Pinkie)

It gives me assurance that we share a common disdain for harsh and hateful rhetoric. It must be pointed out, though, that there is plenty of offensive rhetoric which flows in the opposite direction. In fact, for those who support the conjugal understanding of marriage, the attacks have not stopped at rhetoric. Simply for taking a stand for marriage as it has been understood in every human society for millennia, people have lost their jobs, lost their livelihoods, and have suffered other types of retribution, including physical violence.

IOW just like –

Theoretically that would be fitting because as has been point out not that long ago, the Archbishop IS A BIG OL’ GAY HOMOSEXUAL!

Bishop Sally”, as he has been nicknamed by some in the gay community of San Francisco, will also supervise the Dioceses of Oakland, Marin, San Jose, Santa Rosa, Stockton, Sacramento, Reno, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, and Hawaii.
That’s a lot of power to bestow on a man who was caught cruising while drunk in the San Diego college district after midnight on Saturday August 25 th , shortly after midnight. The Bishop was driving with his 88 year old mother, and his “male friend”. When stopped at a sobriety check point by officer Mike McCullough, the illustrious Bishop blew over the legal limit, and was arrested. The Bishop has publicly admitted the incident, and has offered the usual professionally orchestrated public apology used by other clerical figures who have been busted for similar shameful deeds.
But apparently the more press-worthy suspicious details concerning the incident may have already been divinely cleansed by the damage control division of the Vatican. The sacrificial lamb may very well have shed its wool – to pull over the eyes of public scrutiny.
The original statement by the arresting officer reported that the male passenger cruising with Cordileone was “a young man”. This report was repeated by the San Diego news, and the press in San Francisco as well. What is puzzling is that the 88 year old mother of Cordileone was asked to drive the Bishops vehicle home in the wee hours of the morning, instead of the young man.
This casts suspicion on the age of Cordileones young male companion, as the person who would have logically been asked to drive home by the police would have been a capable young man, and not an 88 year old woman. According to officers I interviewed, even if the male companion was from another state or country, and was licensed and old enough to drive, he would have been chosen to drive the vehicle – as opposed to the octogenarian mother of the Bishop.
Adding exponentially to the suspiciousness of the incident, is the lightning quick response by the Catholic Church (or some other invisible entity), to have all press reports that mentioned the “young male companion” retracted, and wiped clean off the internet, almost immediately. The Diocese of Oakland itself reported early on that the “young man” was a young seminarian; but changed its wording quickly to “a visiting older priest” from another country.
One has to wonder, if in fact the “male friend” was just an innocent visiting elder priest, then why has his identity been wiped off the radar? And why has the description of the male companion that was admitted to early on, changed so dramatically? And most importantly, the testament of an arresting officer in a drunk driving case is deemed credible; officer McCullough would have surely been accurate is his description of viewing the young man, as opposed to viewing a mature older adult. There is little doubt that the officer would have been that confused.
The damage control on this incident has been so thorough, that all reports mentioning the “young male passenger” by the press have been eradicated. Google comes up empty handed when prompted for information that was first released by the press and the police concerning any mention of the young man.
Skeptics of the Catholic Churches handling of the incident proclaim that the answer to the question concerning the mysterious disappearance of the mention of the “young mans” identity is that the young male was gay, or under-aged — or both. The apparent defensive reaction of the Catholic Church by ommitting early reports and statements seem to raise red flags at a higher altitude than Cordileones golden tiara.
It would have been more prudent if the identity and age of the male passenger was known to the public immediately; there would have been no harm done to the man if he was merely a cleric who was traveling with a Bishop.
As a clergy abuse victims advocate myself, I think the incident is alarming. It is alarming because the Bishop was abusing his own elderly mother. He was additionally placing other innocent people in harms way, including his nameless male companion. And it is most alarming because the Roman Catholic Hierarchy has a history of concealment, secrecy, and silence; and the suspicious erasure of the male companion casts a familiar doubt on the true facts concerning the incident.
As Bishop Salvatore Cordileone takes his throne this week, and continues his assault on the gay community, the reassembled words of Bill Shakespeare will surely and repetitiously continue to echo throughout the City; “The Bishop doth protest too much”.

Doth she EVAH! But thanks to the church she’ll never have to sing these blues.

At least not where anyone can hear.

Leave a comment