Knights Of Columbus Donate More To Fight Gay Marriage Than Fight Hunger

Wolfman1982

people are hard to please
Joined
May 26, 2005
Posts
2,178
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/09/knights-of-columbus-donate-more-to.html

God's Gentle People™ at the Catholic charity Knights of Columbus have donated more to fight marriage equality than it has allocated for its own food bank program.

The Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal society founded in New Haven in 1881, does a lot of good work. In a report detailing its charitable giving during 2009, the organization noted that while the “Knights and their families are hardly immune to the economic downturn,” they had once again furthered their proud 128-year tradition of service — a tradition including “helping the widows and orphans of the late 19th century” and “providing coats to poor, cold children.” Add to that list a donation of a whopping $1.4 million in 2009 to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a nonprofit group dedicated to fighting same-sex marriage through the ballot initiative system in California, Maine and other states. While NOM hasn’t yet made public its 2009 fundraising numbers, the amount of charitable contributions it received in 2008 totaled approximately $2.9 million. The NOM donation eclipses what the Knights’ Supreme Council spent on some of its own charitable programs — such as its new effort supporting food banks or its total spending on education initiatives — in the same year, much to the outrage of some observers, including Catholic groups.

NOM has sued in state courts to prevent the disclosure of their donors, but the Knights of Columbus proudly announced their donation in a public report.
 
Tis a shame when an institution with the potential for so much good loses sight of constructive goals- distracted by what a few fear. It is true of many, unfortunately. Why DO so many feel threatened by the concept of same sex marriage? Maby because of the increasing failure of traditional marriage!. ( My traditional marriage is working just fine, but I'm not a bit bothered by any other type!) Damn, the world would be better if everyone worried about their own problems first, instead of implementing their "righteousness" upon others.
 
They are worried about it because they see marriage as a religious institution which the government is interfering with. I agree with this partly, I think that marriage is a religious thing and your church should say if you can get married or not. In other words if it's within your theology then you can but if you follow the literal meaning of the old testaments description you'll probly think gays can't marry.

I think that the government should allow 'civil unions' for any couple. Just stop calling it marriage and you solve (most people's) problems with it!
 
I have gone on at length in another thread about whether the definition of the word needs updating ( as happens regularly to many words). But that's not the core issue.Civil union is a very generic, shallow sounding term that lacks the traditional aura of committment of "marriage" ( although " marriage" has been cheapened quite a bit in modern history).At the very least, same sex couples deserve the same legal circumstances as straights; but a loving committed couple also deserves a modicum of respect ( in these times of flightiness) that a word like marriage implies. Will the hardcore on the right be content with civil unions? No. It's not about terminology to them, that's just the front that many are using to justify their bigoted opinions; methinks. For reference I AM married, and straight, and happy ( 12 years and counting).
 
They are worried about it because they see marriage as a religious institution which the government is interfering with. I agree with this partly, I think that marriage is a religious thing and your church should say if you can get married or not. In other words if it's within your theology then you can but if you follow the literal meaning of the old testaments description you'll probly think gays can't marry.

I think that the government should allow 'civil unions' for any couple. Just stop calling it marriage and you solve (most people's) problems with it!


Bullshit. Then they will start going after "civil unions" just like they did in Hawaii when the RCC's Bishop convinced their piece of shit, bitch of a Governor to veto the "civil' union" law passed BY THE LEGISLATURE! BTW, he did this with the FULL knowledge and support of the RCC's hierarchy.

http://sisterstalk.net/blog/2010/07...tatement-on-the-hawaii-civil-union-bill-veto/

BTW, it wasn't JUST the RCC. It was also a coalition of evangelical churches under the banner "Hawaii Family Forum".
 
Last edited:
Just to make myself clear, I SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE.

I also support freedom of religion, if people want to oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, well I think they have poorly thought out theology, but I support their right to do this.

To Blade Rocknut,

In the Lord of the Rings (in the book) they get in a debate before leaving Rivendell about whether the company ought to take an oath, Gimli believed they should because it would harden their hearts to face troubles ahead, "Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens." he said. I agree with him.

To safe bet,

Your probly right, as the bible says, 'the world is full of dipshits' thats why I put (most people's). I maintain that a lot of people would drop the issue if we disconnected marriage from it's legal issues. Enough I would think, that something like proposition 8 wouldn't pass.
 
I maintain that a lot of people would drop the issue if we disconnected marriage from it's legal issues.

See, that is not going to happen-- for about fifty-hundred reasons which have all been enumerated somewhere on this board and I am just sick to death of repeating them anymore...
 
Just to make myself clear, I SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE.

I also support freedom of religion, if people want to oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, well I think they have poorly thought out theology, but I support their right to do this.

To Blade Rocknut,

In the Lord of the Rings (in the book) they get in a debate before leaving Rivendell about whether the company ought to take an oath, Gimli believed they should because it would harden their hearts to face troubles ahead, "Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens." he said. I agree with him.

To safe bet,

Your probly right, as the bible says, 'the world is full of dipshits' thats why I put (most people's). I maintain that a lot of people would drop the issue if we disconnected marriage from it's legal issues. Enough I would think, that something like proposition 8 wouldn't pass.

Huh? Maybe it's too early in the morning, but...... Huh?
 
LOL, I was trying to draw an amusing comparison between Gimli's oath and marriage...

I likez the LOTRs. :)
 
I think it is unrealistic to think that if the name was different that somehow everything would be hunky dory. Sexual bigotry doesn't result from those whose appreciation of linguistics or history will not allow for any variation in the use of the word. Marriage also is not sacred in most of their minds. If it truly was sacred in their minds, then why aren't they equally fighting to ban divorce and remarriage? After all part of the vows in Christian marriage ceremonies states "... what God has joined, let no man put asunder...".

I definitely believe in the right for gays to marry. I will add that I recently attended a marriage, and I have to admit that some of it seems so lopsided. The talk about a woman submitting to her husband seems so antiquated. It isn't because I'm some militant male feminist, it just sounds so "weird" to put it nicely. Whether I was marrying my partner (same sex), or somehow was going to marry a member of the opposite sex, I would think that we would become one by being equal partners. Your partner should be your equal -- not some pet to control. It almost makes it sound like the "wife" needs that kind of ownership to be fulfilled. That seems silly. What if the "husband" has a stroke and the wife has to take charge? Is somehow their vows broken because he cannot dictate to her what to do? What if the "wife's" talents are finance, and his are more domestic? Have they offended their religion? People are free to do what they want, it just seems so strange to hear such vows in the 21st century.

I don't see my partner and I marrying anytime soon. Not because I don't want to stay with him; rather, because I fear that one day gay marriage licenses will be used to get back at gays. I'm not going to say we are going to have another period just like that in Nazi Germany, but it would be silly to not consider history. Germany was one of the most tolerant countries for gays prior to the world wars. Then the pendulum swung the other way. That being said the fact that the option to marry isn't even really available to us is like something that gnaws on me like a wound that is never allowed to heal. If it were something denied because something that physically was impossible, I could learn to accept it. People throw out reproduction, but since straight people who do not want kids or cannot have kids are allowed to marry, anti-gay marriage people really should not bring that up.

I should add that I used to think I would never be complete if somehow I wasn't "married" even if it was another guy. I think the fear was more that if there were no "vows", I could understand why partners never stay in relationships. However, I have learned that whether a partner stays is more a function of their character, than the fear of some religious and/or social damnation if you break some vow. His vow to me is the fact that eight years plus later, he is still here.

What is also strange for me on the marriage thing, is that I see no value to the "social" element of it. Getting dressed up, and having a party does nothing for me. I think that is because I'm kind of shy and a loner. For me, I guess I would rather sneak into a church with just the two of us (or a meadow) and say some kind of vow to each other. The whole social thing seems less about each other and more about some rite of passage. Regardless of my own idiocentric ideas, the rights that heterosexuals have should be extended to us -- with no if's, else, buts, or use of special-vocabulary words that won't offend someone. If I marry, I marry. I'm not jumping some broom or asking for a blessing for a "special friend" or a "f-buddy".

As to the original topic. It doesn't surprise me about the K of C. I lost respect them a few years ago. Our state passed an anti-gay marriage amendment to our state constitution by about 70%. No one would have expected a different outcome at all. Nevertheless, the K of C wanted to make sure, so they spent $100,000.00 towards that goal. They wouldn't have spent that much if the topic was abortion. Regardless of someone's opinion on abortion, doesn't it seem strange that they make such a big fuss that abortion is murder, yet when it comes to money they are more concerned about gay marriage? I've yet to here where anyone has ever claimed that gay marriage involves anything even remotely related to murder.
 
Last edited:
A shame really most Knights I've met are so civic minded and give to so many good causes....how many more kids they could have fed...don't have to support it if you don't want, but don't waste resources on it either.
 
Back
Top