Remember how anti-Mormon, anti-Christian hate crimes totally skyrocketed in California after Prop 8 because gays and lesbians are so angry and violent and hateful and intolerant? LA Times:

Los Angeles County saw an overall 4% drop in hate crimes last year, while crimes against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people increased, prompted in part by last November’s highly charged Proposition 8 initiative, the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage in California, according to a new report released today.

There were 134 sexual-orientation hate crimes reported last year, up from 111 in 2007, and [anti-gay hate crimes] were more likely to be violent than hate crimes motivated by race or religion, according to the annual Hate Crime Report by the Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations.

Gay people sure are violent—just look at how we're always throwing our faces at the fists of gay bashers and how we make conservative religious people look bad by forcing them to strip us of our civil rights. How do we sleep at night?

And they're not talking about labor unions.

The letter defines marriage as "a natural institution established by God the Creator" and called it "a permanent, faithful, fruitful partnership between one man and one woman" that has two purposes: "the good of the spouses" and "the procreation and education of children." ... "Since marriage and same-sex unions are different realities, it is not unjust discrimination to oppose the legal recognition of same-sex unions," the letter says. "These unions pose a serious threat to the fabric of society that affects all people."

The reality, of course, is that marriage is an institution created by humans, not supernatural superfriends, and that the institution of marriage has evolved over the ages to accommodate changing realities and changing cultural values. Why aren't women property anymore? Why is love central to our understanding of marriage? Why are women allowed to have custody of their children in the event of a divorce? Because the institution of marriage has evolved and changed. Marriage, as practiced by heterosexuals today, may be permanent, may be faithful, and may be fruitful. But heterosexuals are not required to remain in marriages that make them unhappy, they are not required to be monogamous, they are not required to procreate. Some more from me—and my enormous, illuminated nose—on marriage...

Back to the Baltimore Sun's write-up...

While "Marriage: Love and Life in the Divine Plan" does not represent new Catholic teaching, bishops said the pastoral letter would address a need for an authoritative source to which church leaders may refer as they campaign against divorce, unmarried couples living together and same-sex unions.

The Catholic Church is campaigning against divorce and cohabitation? Really? Is there any evidence of that? Is the Catholic Church funding ballot initiatives that would make divorce illegal? Are they pushing legislation that would make it illegal for landlords to rent apartments to unmarried heterosexual couples? Is the Catholic Church demanding that opposite-sex couples provide proof that they're married before they're allowed to check into hotels?

Please. The Catholic Church is only "campaigning" against the rights of gay couples. They want discrimination against gay couples enshrined in secular law. The Catholic Church does make gentle suggestions to opposite-sex Catholic couples—pretty please don't get divorced, pretty please don't shack up—but they'll annul a Catholic's first marriage (or second or third) for a fee, and they'll still marry straight Catholic couples who are already living together. There is no "campaign" being waged by the U.S. Asshole Catholic Bishops against the rights of straight couples. Please.

Gay activists in Washington D.C. are launching an outing campaign targeting Catholic priests.

This site was created to provide you with an outlet to save LGBT children from the hypocrisy of priests in the Archdiocese of Washington who engage in romantic and sexual relationships, and yet stand silent while Archbishop Wuerl and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops increase their dogmatic war against all LGBT children of God. If you know that one of the priests in the Archdiocese is gay, or having a heterosexual affair, please share your story.

Was it something I said?

Andrew reacts to the Mormon Church's backing of a gay rights ordinance in Salt Lake City...

Gays should and must reciprocate. For this is not something that many other churches, including my own, have been able or prepared to do. I wish, of course, that Michael Otterson, who is also a decent and sincere man, had not framed the position in such a defensive way: "The church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage." That's a lamentably inflammatory way to describe gay citizens' genuine attempt to seek equality in civil marriage—which we certainly don't see as "violence" in any way at all. But the extremity of that quote may well have been necessary to avoid a backlash among conservative Mormons. And I would much rather focus on the positive gesture than the back-handed swipe that accompanied it.

The other thing to say about this is that it speaks very highly of the strategy of Equality Utah, the state's main gay group, who decided to call the LDS bluff when the church said it was merely opposed to civil marriage—and not other protections for gay and lesbian citizens. Equality Utah immediately tried to get the church to endorse civil unions. That was a non-starter, but in response, we have this support for an anti-discrimination ordinance. Treating religious groups as interlocutors to be engaged, rather than as enemies to be attacked, has not been successful in most places. I did my best with the Catholic hierarchy in the 1990s and got little but contempt or terrified silence in response. Imagine the impact if the Pope came out and explicitly endorsed anti-discrimination laws for gay and lesbian people and used those words and expressed the kind of respect the Mormons just have. It would do a huge amount of good—for gay people and for the church. This Pope cannot do that; but the Mormons just did. More power to the Mormons.

"It's deplorable what happened to you," says Barbara, "on the other hand—it's the best thing that happened to you." My point exactly, Barbara.

Magic Underpants, Inc., came out in support—support—of a gay rights law.

Salt Lake City has become the first Utah city to offer housing and employment protections for gays and lesbians—an action supported by the Mormon church. The City Council, in a unanimous vote Tuesday, passed a pair of nondiscrimination ordinances that would bar landlords and employers from discriminating based on sexuality—a protection not currently afforded under state or federal laws. In a rare public appearance before local lawmakers, a representative from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints read a supporting statement at a public hearing before the Salt Lake City Council....

It's a welcome development—we'll take it—but no one is fooled: this "rare" action is an attempt to blunt charges of anti-gay bigotry leveled against Magic Underpants, Inc., in the wake of Prop 8 and the assault on the rights of gay couples that was waged and funded by the Mormon Church. This action wouldn't have been taken if those charges—legit charges—hadn't been leveled. And they just had to get a dig in...

"The church supports this ordinance because it is fair and reasonable and does not do violence to the institution of marriage," said Michael Otterson, managing director of the LDS Church's public affairs office.

Take it from the Mormons—they know all about doing violence to people's marriages.

The presence of gays and lesbians—even as tourists—represents "a provocation and an abuse," and is "offense to our religion." Um... has this guy met the light-in-his-Prada-loafers pope? And good thing there wasn't a ban on gay people hanging out at the Vatican when that cocksucker was painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

Twenty-five years ago, at the height of the AIDS crisis, there were hundreds—thousands—of gay men walking around with two or three T cells and six-months-or-less to live. The religious right was doing what it always does: it's worst, demonizing gay people, kicking us when we were down, attacking us on the airwaves and in Congress, and neglecting us to death at the White House. Those were dark days. And yet no gay man—none of those gay men with just a few months to live and nothing left to lose—picked up a gun and took at shot at Jesse Helms or Jerry Falwell. The only political assassination attempt during the Reagan years was on Reagan, of course, and it was made by a deranged straight boy who wanted to impress a girl.

If gay people didn't shoot our political enemies during the AIDS crisis, Peter, it seems highly unlikely that a gay assassin is coming to kill you, despite the loose talk of one anonymous commenter. No need to make a federal case out of it.

And we all know it's not a cap you want popped in your ass, Peter.

Gay and lesbian tourists are not welcome at the Vatican, says Bishop Janusz Kaleta...

"I consider if someone is homosexual, it is a provocation and an abuse of this place... It is offensive to our buildings and our religion."

From the Bangor Daily News:

“We went up against tremendous odds,” Marc Mutty, public affairs director for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland who has been on loan to the [Yes on 1] campaign, said from Portland. “We all know we were the little guy going up against the big guy, but we prevailed."

First, is that legal? Can the Catholic Church really just loan employees to political campaigns without losing its tax-exempt status?

Second, the Catholic Church and the forces arrayed against marriage equality and the 95+ percent of voters who are straight... are the little guys? And embattled same-sex couples are the big guys?

Third, I'm off to throw cans of creamed corn through a few stained-glass windows.* Who wants to join me?

* Kidding, just kidding.