Posted on 11/02/2006 2:45:28 PM PST by dogbyte12
The leader of one of Colorado's most popular mega-churches, Ted Haggard, is temporarily stepping down from his leadership role, after allegations from a male prostitute that Haggard solicited gay sex.
Haggard, the founder and senior leader of the 14,000-member New Life Church in Colorado Springs and president of the multimillion- member National Association of Evangelicals, denied the accusations raised by the prostitute on Wednesday.
Today, a press conference by church leaders to support Haggard was cancelled shortly before it was scheduled to take place.
In stepping down, it was emphasized that Haggard did not admit any wrongdoing, but that he felt his effectiveness would be hampered by the cloud of inquiry.
Male escort Mike Jones of Denver told 9News he'd had a three-year sexual business relationship with Haggard.
Jones went public about their alleged relationship Wednesday morning on talk radio.
"People may look at me and think what I've done is immoral, but I think I had to do the moral thing in my mind and that is expose someone who is preaching one thing and doing the opposite behind everybody's back," Jones told 9News.
The station spoke to Haggard outside his home in Colorado Springs, and he fervently denied the allegations. Haggard is married and has five children.
"I've never had a gay relationship with anybody. ... I am steady with my wife. I'm faithful to my wife. I don't know if this is election-year politics or if this has to do with the marriage amendment or what it is," Haggard said.
The Denver Post could not reach Haggard for comment.
Haggard has been one of the major proponents for a state constitutional ban on gay marriage.
After watching the video I agree with all of your comments. Something ain't right with this guy and the situation. Also wonder what the issue is with his motorcycle or "scooter." Part of the allegation?
Your bias is showing again.
First, the idea that Christians (or evangelicals, mega-church members, or whoever you were bashing) don't think or reason is so silly it barely deserves mentioning. That's just you saying "they don't think like me, therefore they don't think." That's emotion you're using there, not reason.
Second, if this guy thought he was a king (and his dumb unreasoning followers treated him as such) he wouldn't be stepping down. That's pretty much the definition of thinking you're a king.
Third, this is hardly a common occurence. The last time there was a sex scandal with a major eveangelical leader was back in the Eighties, i.e. Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggart.
Fourth, imagine how you would react if some evolutionary scientist got caught spending his department money on meth, and I posted "Only shocking to those in denial. These guys don't believe there's a God, so they have no moral character, and they have lots of students and hangers-on who don't keep an eye on them because they all think atheist types are better than the rest of us." Would you feel like I was painting thousands of Americans with a broad brush of bias? BTW, I would never write that, because I use my brain for reasoning instead of using it as a second heart. (props to Darkwolf for coining that phrase)
Pro Stem Cell Research
Just adult and umbilical, or embryonic? You see, I'm always amazed at the number of people who claim to be guided by reason but can't tell the difference between the number 72 and the number zero.
Not sure why you sent this to me.
This is one of the reasons I have fought so loud the churches trying to impose the word of God rather than expose the word of God. They no ignore the rot under their own steeples.
Good post. I am disturbed by the number of Freepers who believe the worst about this guy based on the word of a male prostitute, some voice mail that may not be from Haggard, and the specter of other evidence the prostitute will not share. There's not enough evidence here to conclude
anything except that the timing is politically motivated.
It may well be that your pastor did this, but for now I don't think this is any more credible than the allegations against Gibbons in Nevada.
The fact that such a site (or a site called rentgirl.com for that matter) is left to operate means somebody in law enforcement isn't doing their job.
I know of a pastor speaking out openly about the SIN of practicing homosexuality who has to wear security west and always needs escort of an armed body guard because of threats on his life from that community!!!
Hmmmm???
Very true. It's a mistake a lot of people make. I learned this lesson the hard way, but I learned. People will always fail us. But He never will.
Praying for his family. This has to be so hard for them.
Agreed.
i REALLY hope that you are not referring to Fred Phelps, and his "God Hates Fags" crew.
It's more Christian-bashing by a supposed person of reason...but I didn't ping you just for that. The paragraph that begins "Fourth" ends thus:
BTW, I would never write that, because I use my brain for reasoning instead of using it as a second heart. (props to Darkwolf for coining that phrase)
Have a great day.
BECAUSE, if you really believe what you are preaching from the scripture (GOD's WORD) you should NOT be tempted. However, we are ALL sinners!!
…PROTECT MARRIAGE !... Your children deserve it as wholesome as possible…
…You saw what happened in NEW JERSEY!... Don't let it happen in your state! Colorado, Virginia, Tennessee, Arizona, Idaho, Wisconsin, South Dakota and South Carolina see details below how to vote on all 8 states - links to each state’s election boards - etc)
| Why gays hate marriage - By Kevin McCullough - Sunday, October 29, 2006 -- [ excerpt ] -- Despite of all that their angry-mob front groups argue for in front of television cameras to the contrary, radical homosexual activists despise the institution and more importantly the sanctity of marriage. That is also the fundamental reason why they are seeking to destroy the institution. This week - dateline Trenton New Jersey... where a unified panel of seven judges agreed that illegitimate sexual unions should be made equitable under law to that of monogamous married persons. Without the consent of the governed these tyrants in black robes sat in judgment of healthy families across the universe and demanded that New Jersey residents accept immoral construction of sexual unions as the equal basis for families and family life in their recreated sexual, liberal, utopia. With utter contempt for God, and for the voters of their state the New Jersey seven unanimously said that all who live in the confines of its borders must fundamentally agree to the moral premise, that what the Bible terms perversion, the voters should call healthy. But why? What's the real goal of the activists, the judges, and the radicals who seek to subvert a moral world view? The answer is simple, no longer satisfied with practicing the unspeakable perverse sexual pleasures that their hearts seek in private bedrooms, they wish to be able to do so in public. They are also suffering from such immense guilt over the actions of their sexual behaviors because they know inherently that the actions they perform are in fact unhealthy - that they will go to any means necessary to try and shut down the voices in their heads that tell them it is wrong….
|
Eight states are voting on amendments to their Constitutions. All of them seek to protect marriage essentially the same way as Arizona's amendment describes it below
All of the eight states define the amendment (change/addition to the state's Constitution) essentially the same way.
All states handle this by having the voters vote on once, except for COLORADO that requires voting on twice: one amendment and one Referendum.
Now look at this ***FANTASTIC WEBSITE *** published by the AFA (American Family Association) IT HAS EVERYTHING...
-- Public Announcement from EP -- :)
* WISCONSIN Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for WISCONSIN at the bottom)
* TENNESSEE Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for TENNESSEE at the bottom)
* ARIZONA Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for ARIZONA at the bottom)
* SOUTH DAKOTA Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for SOUTH DAKOTA at the bottom)
* SOUTH CAROLINA Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for SOUTH CAROLINA at the bottom)
* IOWA *** APOLOGIES TO IOWA *** (Duh!). It is IDAHO voting for the "marriage amendment!!!.. shame on me!"
The only state I could not find the information.. what a mess.. even the Servers were so slow. Drove me crazy!... Found the documents but seems like they did not include the amendment….speaks poorly of that state to me)
* IDAHO Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for IDAHO at the bottom)
* COLORADO (Colorado is more complicated. It has 2 items: Adding Amendment 43 (Vote "YES) and approving Referenum I (Vote NO or Do NOT approve). See COLORADO at bottom for details)
****** On Amendment 43 (Marriage)> Vote "YES" (to add amendment)
****** On Referendum I: Vote "Do not approve" or "NO" (To reject it, depending on how the question is phrased. Don't trust homosexual groups - they lie and use disinformation to confuse voters - this should be looked more carefully since it can be approved later anyway.
Virginia State Board of Elections
Virginia: The amendment - Ballot question # 1 (page 3)
1 FINAL COPY Proposed Constitutional Amendment To Be Voted on at the November 7, 2006, Election PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT Article I. Bill of Rights. Section 15-A. Marriage. BALLOT QUESTION NUMBER 1
Excerpt -------------------------
EXPLANATION Present Law The Constitution does not define marriage. Under current statutory law in Virginia, persons who marry must have a license and be married by a licensed minister, judge, or other person authorized by law to perform marriages. Present law prohibits marriages between certain individuals. For example, the law prohibits a marriage between a brother and sister, between a couple where one of the parties is married to someone else, and between couples of the same sex. In 1975, the General Assembly enacted a statute (present Code of Virginia § 20- 45.2) that states "A marriage between persons of the same sex is prohibited." In 1997, the General Assembly added a sentence to § 20-45.2 that states that: 2 Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created by such marriage shall be void and unenforceable. In 2004, the General Assembly passed a law to prohibit certain civil unions or other arrangements between persons of the same sex. That law (Code of Virginia § 20- 45.3) states that: A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.
Thus, civil unions or other arrangements which purport ?to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage? are prohibited by statute.
Proposed Amendment If approved by the voters, this proposed amendment will become part of the Constitution of Virginia. The proposed amendment adds a definition of marriage as the ?union between one man and one woman? to the Constitution's Bill of Rights and prohibits Virginia and its counties, cities, and towns from creating or recognizing any legal status by any name which is comparable to marriage. Marriage in the Commonwealth creates specific legal rights, benefits, and obligations for a man and a woman. There are other legal rights, benefits, and obligations which will continue to be available to unmarried persons, including the naming of an agent to make end-of-life decisions by an Advance Medical Directive (Code of Virginia § 54.1-2981), protections afforded under Domestic Violence laws (Code of Virginia § 18.2- 57.2), ownership of real property as joint tenants with or without a right of survivorship (Code of Virginia § 55-20.1), or disposition of property by will (Code of Virginia § 64.1- 46).
A "yes" vote on the proposed amendment will result in the addition of the proposed Section 15-A to Article I, the Bill of Rights. A "no" vote will mean that there will be no change made in Article I, the Bill of Rights."
Winsconsin State Elections Board website
Winsconsin:November 2006 Referenda Questions
Winsconsin:See the actual document (the amendment)
Colorado Secretary of State – Elections Center
Colorado:Amendments and Referendums
[1] Colorado: Amendment 43 (Marriage)
[2] Referendum I: Referendum I Referendum I Colorado Legislative Council Staff FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT Date: August 31, 2006 Fiscal Analyst: Janis Baron — 303-866-3523 BALLOT TITLE: SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES TO AUTHORIZE DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS, and, in connection therewith, enacting the "colorado domestic partnership benefits and responsibilities act" to extend to same-sex couples in a domestic partnership the benefits, protections, and responsibilities that are granted by colorado law to spouses.....
Summary of Legislation
Upon voter approval, Referendum I establishes legal domestic partnerships in the state of Colorado. Additionally, it specifies eligibility requirements, definitions, procedures, rights, responsibilities, and means for terminating domestic partnerships. The fiscal note cannot accurately project the number of domestic partnerships that would be entered into in Colorado should Referendum I be adopted. For purposes of this analysis, the fiscal note assumes 3,500 annually.
Tennessee Division of Elections
Tennessee Constitutional Amendment # 1 (Marriage - Page 3)
Constitutional Amendment #1 (Page 3)
Shall Article XI of the Constitution of the State of Tennessee be amended by adding the following language as a new, appropriately designated section: SECTION___. The historical institution and legal contract solemnizing the relationship of one man and one woman shall be the only legally recognized marital contract in this state. Any policy or law or judicial interpretation, purporting to define marriage as anything other than the historical institution and legal contract between one man and one woman, is contrary to the public policy of this state and shall be void and unenforceable in Tennessee. If another state or foreign jurisdiction issues a license for persons to marry and if such marriage is prohibited in this state by the provisions of this section, then the marriage shall be void and unenforceable in this state.
Arizona Secretary of State - 2006 Ballot Propositions and Judicial...
OFFICIAL TITLE AN INITIATIVE MEASURE
proposing an amendment to the constitution of arizona; amending the constitution of arizona; by adding article xxx; relating to the protection of marriage
~[snip]~
The Protect Marriage Arizona amendment will preserve the definition of marriage as “a union between one man and one woman” and prohibit the creation of any other legal status similar to that of marriage. It will assure that marriage is defined by the voice of the people and not by a few activist judges.
A “yes” vote will protect Arizona from having marriage radically changed to a union of any two people regardless of gender. It will affirm that both mothers and fathers play significant roles in the raising of children and that the legal union between a man and a woman deserves special status in producing the next generation of responsible citizens.
A “yes” vote will not prohibit same-sex couples or anyone else from forming relationships. It will, however, keep schools, media, organizations, religious denominations, and other societal institutions from being forced to validate, and promote same-sex “marriage”.
A “yes” vote will not invalidate anyone’s civil rights. Marriage is about bringing men and women together, not about civil rights.
A “yes” vote will not restrict private companies from voluntarily granting benefits to domestic partners, nor will it prevent domestic relationships from taking advantage of existing laws that enable these individuals to share health insurance or death benefits, designate hospital visitation rights, or grant medical durable power of attorney to anyone.
A “yes” vote will affirm that marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of a strong family and that strong families are the foundation of great nations.
~[snip]~
ARGUMENTS “FOR” PROPOSITION 107 Protect Marriage Arizona’s Statement Protect Marriage Arizona has been formed as a grassroots response to attacks on marriage in state after state. We say, “Let the people decide.” We believe Arizona citizens should be given the opportunity to vote on our state’s marriage policy, and we are confident that Arizona will join 20 other states that have voted to reaffirm the reality that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. A state constitutional amendment provides the strongest possible legal protection for marriage against redefinition by activist state court judges. We also hope to show our national leaders that states want the opportunity to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution protecting marriage. Marriage between a man and woman is the basic building block of society. As the Supreme Court put it, in a case upholding laws that prevented marriage from being redefined to include polygamy, “marriage is the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization.” Arizona promotes and benefits marriage because marriage between a man and a woman benefits Arizona. Children do best when they have the security of living with a married mother and father. With all the challenges to marriage in society today, the last thing Arizona needs is to redefine marriage in a way that guarantees some children will never have either a mom or a dad. Unfortunately, today’s courts seem bent on destroying that foundation. It’s time for the people to respond by voting ‘yes’ on the Protect Marriage Amendment. The Protect Marriage Arizona amendment does exactly what it is entitled to do, that is, protect the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. NAME, the National Association of Marriage Enhancement, encourages Arizonans to vote “Yes” on this amendment to protect, for future generations, the long-standing definition of marriage as one man and one woman. The traditional definition of marriage must be protected. Some would say marriage is a right; it is not -- it is a privilege that carries responsibilities. Society confers legal benefits to marriage, because marriage benefits society. Historically, healthy marriages have been foundational building blocks to any successful society -- Arizona included. This amendment to Arizona's constitution will affirm marriage’s traditional definition, ensuring it for future generations by prohibiting its redefinition by activist judges and others. Research indicates many benefits for children who are raised by a mother and father, including: they are more likely to succeed academically, are physically healthier, emotionally healthier, demonstrate less
South Dakota: Constitutional Amendment C would amend the State Constitution to allow and recognize marriage only between a man and a woman. 2006 Ballot Question Pamphlet Compiled by the Office of Secretary of State Chris Nelson Constitutional Amendment C Title: An Amendment to Article XXI of the South Dakota Constitution, relating to marriage. Attorney General Explanation South Dakota statutes currently limit marriage to unions between a man and a woman. However, the State Constitution does not address marriage. Amendment C would amend the State Constitution to allow and recognize marriage only between a man and a woman. It would also prohibit the Legislature from allowing or recognizing civil unions, domestic partnerships or other quasi-marital relationships between two or more persons regardless of sex.
A vote “Yes” will change the Constitution.
A vote “No” will leave the Constitution as it is.
South Carolina State Elections Commission - Ballot Measures 2006
South Carolina: Constitutional Amendment 1 - Marriage
SUMMARY
This amendment provides that the institution of marriage in South Carolina consists only of the union between one man and one woman. No other domestic union is valid and legal. The State and its political subdivisions are prohibited from creating or recognizing any right or claim respecting any other domestic union, whatever it may be called, or from giving effect to any such right or benefit recognized in any other state or jurisdiction.
However, this amendment also makes clear it does not impair rights or benefits extended by this State, or its political subdivisions not arising from other domestic unions, nor does the amendment prohibit private parties from entering into contracts or other legal instruments. View Complete Text Information Provided by: South Carolina State Elections Commission
Idaho 2006 GENERAL ELECTION PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
2006 GENERAL ELECTION PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS H.J.R. 2 Legislative Council's Statements FOR the proposed amendment Same gender marriages are not currently allowed under Idaho statutes, and this amendment provides for the same prohibition at the state constitutional level to ensure that Idaho state courts do not allow or require the recognition of same gender marriages. This amendment would prevent Idaho state courts from recognizing same gender marriages that are legally allowed in other states or other countries. Because marriage is a public institution with special importance to society, the state of Idaho has a legitimate interest in establishing the marriage policy for its citizens. This amendment does not prevent private industry from extending certain benefits to its employees nor does it limit a person's right to name medical and financial agents or to enter into contractual agreements. This amendment does not deny any existing rights under Idaho law, but Idaho's current marriage laws could be weakened in the future without this amendment. Statements AGAINST the proposed amendment
This amendment is not needed since Idaho Code already limits the right to marry to one man and one woman and does not recognize out-of-state marriages that are in conflict with Idaho public policy. This amendment uses the term "domestic legal union," which is not defined and will likely result in costly and lengthy litigation. Because this amendment is broadly drafted, it could be construed to prohibit domestic partners of private-sector employees who receive health and other benefits from access to Idaho courts to enforce such benefits.
This amendment could in the future deny same gender couples in committed relationships the protections and benefits available to married couples, such as access to spousal Social Security benefits upon a partner's death, automatic "next of kin" emergency medical decisions and "family member" hospital visitation rights.
Just as the United States Constitution's Equal Protection Clause guarantees equal treatment under the law for all persons, Idaho's Constitution is designed to protect liberties and should not be amended to exclude certain people from legal protections.
When you have the truth on your side, it's not a tough thing to do - especially someone in his position.
This must've been a gold mine to his political foes - but no matter what - who could tempt a man to have a homosexual relationship unless he wanted to.
Another woman would've been something more understandable - especially to his followers.
I feel sorry for his family and his followers. He should be ashamed
funny!!!
A Colorado Springs-based giant of the conservative Christian movement, with direct access to President Bush, stepped down Thursday....etc.
Don't you just love how the reporter was able to weave President Bush into the story?
NO!
He does NOT hate Fags, but he hates their sin!!
He also invites them into his church for forgiveness and receive salvation and eternal life. One time the whole gay community were picketing on the street outside his church by the hundreds. Suddenly from nowhere a "battalion" of Harley Davidson bikers showed up driving up and down by the sidewalks where the gays were chanting. They were totally drowned out and then quit. It was just hilarious to watch!!!
Sometimes God has a special way of humor!??!
You wanna wait to see if this is legitimate before shooting this guy in the head?
Would you apologise if it turns out to be a bogus hit piece?
You are referring to Fred Phelps?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.