For Pope Palpatine

This week you came out against fertility treatments and all pregnancies that involve ANYTHING other than direct conception.   This pronouncement raises MANY questions since the reality that such treatments have had viable successes consequently raises questions about their effect on Catholic dogma...

I have to ask:  what is the religious status of all CHILDREN who ARE the product of fertility treatments, or surrogate pregnancies?

Are they human?   If "natural" consummation within marriage is the ONLY way to have children in the eyes of the Church, aren't you implying that the product of any other process are abominations?   Does your rhetoric concerning the sanctity of life apply to them or only to "real" babies?

Are they eligible for salvation?  If they were not produced in the ONLY allowed way,  then are they also outside the minimal conditions for being welcomed into the Church?   If not - where is the dividing line?   Given that DNA splicing has already become a nascent field, you are rapidly reaching the point where fetuses might become the product of more than one source of DNA (in order to avoid horrible life-threatening diseases like Tay-Sachs).   Under what exception would the Church allow those fetuses salvation if they - by your own definition - not permissible pregnancies?

After birth, should they damn their parents as sinners?   How should other family members react to their existence?  

Where do Caesarian sections fit into this ruling?   After all that's not a natural method of delivery and technically would be contrary to God's plan - under the rhetoric used against interfering with pregnancies in the case of abortion, shouldn't the Church ALSO be taking a strong stance against methods of delivery that are similarly "not natural" leaving the mother/child subject to God's will even if the delivery might endanger the life of either or both?   Presumably one could argue that God was "claiming" them then, and interfering with the death is a violation of God's plan.   If INSTANTIATING life is "science playing God" aren't Caesarian birth likewise "science playing God"?   If not - where is the dividing line whereupon medicine is no longer allowed to interfere?

If children borne of artificial means in turn have children - even by completely "traditional" methods - are those children also tainted with incompleteness owing to their unholy DNA?   How many generations are required before they are permitted salvation?

If someone has in-vitro fertilization and then regrets it owing to their religious beliefs, is abortion of the non-natural fetus permitted since it is actually not the product of Church-permitted conception?

For that matter - if someone who is technically virgin is implanted with fertilized eggs without causing subsequent anatomical loss of virginity, are the products of such a "virgin birth"?   How does that impact other Catholic canon?

Anti-marriage zealots

When you state that you support a constitutional amendment banning marriage equality, do not you realize that you're implicitly admitting that a constitutional right TO marriage equality exists?  

Why else attempt to BAN it?

Om, nom nom NOM...

Brian Brown:

When Massachusetts gained marriage equality, you complained that using the judiciary to uphold fundamental unalienable rights was "activism", and said that extension of equality (which is an entirely impossible concept) needs to be done through the legislature.

When New York gained marriage equality through the action of the legislature, you complained that this was inappropriate, and that it should be done through referendum (even though that's not possible in New York).

With the odds mounting that at least ONE of the upcoming referendums on marriage equality will actually come down on the side of marriage equality - what do you plan to do then?    Will you be so dishonest as to suggest that that state's judiciary block marriage equality?

Also, shouldn't you rectify your campaign donation issues with the state of Maine (and all of the other states) before entering into the fray with this current referendum?

So - Callista Gingrich...

What is YOUR opinion on "open marriages?"

After all you were the mistress back when Newt allegedly asked wife #2 to have an open marriage so as to maintain a relationship with you.

Are you against them - then when did this change of heart take place?

Are you for them as you must have been then (it would be impossible to claim that you didn't KNOW Newt was married)?   Was this discussed when planning your marriage?    Do you have veto power on any of the potential dalliances that Newt seeks to undertake or does he basically have carte blanche when it comes to acting on his open marriage?

Given that his previous open marriages seem to always spawn a divorce and re-marriage, why does it apparently not concern you that wife #4 isn't (aliready) waiting in the wings?


Your experience with this issue would be extremely helpful to many people dealing with relationships where infidelity might become (or is already) an issue.   So, PLEASE help us with your thoughts and guidance!

So - Willard...

... did you REALLY think that everyone who was around in 2002 would have completely forgotten your lame attempt to swing GLBT votes?   

OK - after this weekend's GOP "debate"

...   where do I POSSIBLY begin?

Perhaps the single follow-up question:   Gentlemen - do you think that we're absolute IDIOTS?   Really?

Speaker Bohner... can you explain?

How is it possible that letting the Bush tax cuts expire represented a "tax increase" for the wealthy, but letting the payroll tax cut expire is NOT also a "tax increase"?

Sincerely, the American people

Ms. Bachmann - I have a followup question...

So - Michelle Bachmann was asked a question about same-sex marriage while at a pizza restaurant in Waverly IA.  (http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/11/30/michele-bachmann-debates-same-sex-rights-with-high-school-students-in-waverly/).

As predicted she gave the extremely tired response as to why gays and lesbians can't get married that "They can get married, but they abide by the same law as everyone else. They can marry a man if they’re a woman. Or they can marry a woman if they’re a man."

So - Ms. Bachmann - I have a follow-up question:

Are you saying that in order to "get around" the issue of marriage equality, you're actually ENCOURAGING that people enter completely sham marriages?   Doesn't that completely invalidate the idea that marriage is a sacrosanct institution that must be protected?   After all - you seem to have NO PROBLEM AT ALL supporting bogus marriages solely for appearances.

This makes me wonder: is it possible you support this because - just perhaps - your own "marriage" falls under that category?

Freedom only for Some Mr. Romney?

So, in the speech Willard Romney gave to an audience of sympathetic listeners (as opposed to JFK's speech which was to an audience of people largely unconvinced of his ability to act as President outside of the Catholic church), we get this gem:

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom..."

How does this translate for the millions of Americans who are not religious? As no questions were permitted after the speech,
there was no chance to learn more. Ought we conclude that for the non-religious there is no expectation of freedom?

Whether or not you believe that a leader has to have a religious background, the ideals and values of the US are intended to treat everyone equally, regardless of differences in religious belief. It's no longer certain if those values are apparent in Mr. Romney's world.