Requiring Catholic social service programs to extend benefits to same-sex spouses has become the key rallying point against a same-sex marriage bill being debated by the Washington, D.C., city council. Some jurisdictions that have passed marriage-equality legislation, such as the state of New Hampshire, broadly exempt programs affiliated with religious organizations from recognizing same-sex spouses; the D.C. proposal would not.
The council also rejected an amendment that would have allowed individuals, based on their religious beliefs, to decline to provide services for same-sex weddings.
Much discussion takes the form of denouncing the Neanderthal right for its hidebound bigotry standing in the way of true progress and all things good. That may or may not be accurate, but it's certainly not good politics. Forcing religious affiliates to violate their dogmatic principles gives social conservatives a huge rallying cry, and to many independent non-bigots it appears to be using the state to force behavior that violates personal conscience, and a step too far.
A broad religious exemption might be an affront to "equality" (and there are counter-arguments of a libertarian nature that could be made here), but at the very least it would allow us to advance without courting such intense reaction. Take note that New Hampshire, with its broad religious exemption, is one of the very few jurisdictions in which marriage equality looks like it may have some staying power.
More. The efforts of gay marriage supporters in D.C. are directed at having the council pass the measure and then fighting attempts by opponents to hold a referendum. Right now, should marriage equality come before the voters, it would be expected to lose, as it has lost in every jurisdiction where voters have had their say. Time to re-evaluate the strategy, one might think.
Note: Due to a server issue over Thanksgiving weekend, some posted comments were inadvertently lost. Sorry about that.
41 Comments for “Religious Conscience vs. ‘Equality’”
posted by sandushinka on
In this case, though, Catholic Charities is a contractor for the district. The bill does not require them to follow the law if they don’t take the money. If you’re a government contractor, you abide by the rules or don’t take the contract. I object to creating special rights for religious contractors.
posted by Scott on
“Forcing religious affiliates to violate their dogmatic principles”
They are free not to take government money; they can (and maybe should!) choose to hold fast to their dogmatic principles. The word “forcing” is inflammatory and inaccurate.
posted by esurience on
“Forcing religious affiliates to violate their dogmatic principles gives social conservatives a huge rallying cry”
I don’t deny that this issue gives conservatives a huge rallying cry, and it is probably politically expedient to avoid such a thing in the short-run.
However, I disagree with your characterization that religious affiliates are being forced to do any such thing. Religious marriage and civil marriage are two different institutions. Even without same-sex marriage, they’re still different. (With regard to religious views about divorce vs our civil laws, and also with regard to the role of women in society and within marriage, vs our civil laws which see women as being equal, among other things).
These groups are not being forced to change how they view religious marriage. They are just being required to treat the institution of civil marriage (a different institution) in a way that they’ve always been required to treat it. They are not being required to change their personal convictions that same-sex marriages are not “real” marriages. They’re being required to treat a certain legal status — which just happens to use the same word as a certain religious status — the same.
posted by BobN on
Catholic Charities ALREADY violates Catholic belief about marriage. They ALREADY provide spousal insurance and other privileges to employees who are in “sinful” marriages. There is no exemption for covering divorced and remarried employees.
I wish someone, somewhere, with some clout, would address the real issues. The Church is seeking to carve out a very special, highly specific “right” with one and only one goal: to discriminate against same-sex couples.
The reason the Church is SO concerned about this isn’t a matter of theology. It’s a practical matter. Have you ever worked with Catholic Charities or any of the other non-profits associated with the Church? They are chock full of gay people.
posted by Jerry on
The problem I see with a broad exemption for a religious organization that has access to public funding is that it is open ended.
Suppose I start an organization to supply services to the public as the Roman Catholic diocese of Washington has been doing for feeding and shelter programs, and I declare it a religious organization, but just being a Roman Catholic or a Jew or whatever group I might hate, I can use the taxes of the group I hate to discriminate against them.
I think the litigation would be huge.
posted by Mark on
I have to agree that there should not be a religious exemption for organizations getting government funds. Actually, churches (and everyone else) should get off the government teet anyway.
posted by Jorge on
I’m against anything that would prevent a religious charity from doing its job. Like it or not, a huge portion of social services in all areas ranging from child abuse prevention to services for the homeless and convicts is done by religious institutions, and they do their job very well.
These organizations have been bending over backwards to be fair to clients of all faiths for decades and to me this by far outweighs the ways they are restrictive toward their employees. No one is forcing any one person to take a job with these organizations. The right’s contribution to social services and social justice is indispensible.
posted by Lymis on
This whole “being forced to violate religious principles” thing just torques me off no end.
It’s obviously getting critical that we have a serious national discussion and consensus of what our actual religious rights are. We need to draw better lines.
It is one thing to be asked or forced to actively do something against one’s religious beliefs, and another to be asked to stand back and allow others to do something that violates your own beliefs.
It is one thing to keep kosher, it is another to force others to.
There has to be a line, and I admit that I am not quite clear exactly where it goes, but it sure doesn’t go where the Catholic Church is putting it.
One of the common complaints is, for example, that public clerks should not have to issue marriage licenses if their religion doesn’t approve of gay marriage. But issuing a license involves typing things into computers, verifying ID, filing paperwork, and such. There is nothing sacramental about it. The clerk is not being asked to have sex with the applicants, nor to officiate at a religious ceremony. They aren’t even being asked to approve.
This all seems to hinge on the objection to granting spousal benefits to gay employees. The church isn’t being required to marry the people, or even to allow their property to be used for weddings unless it is open to the general public in the first place.
Is the Church honestly saying that they don’t provide spousal benefits to their remarried employees? To their atheist employees?
posted by Jimmy on
Religious charities can be as exclusionary as they wish to be up until the moment they accept one dime of public funding. That’s a game changer.
posted by Debrah on
“That’s a game changer.”
**************************
Oh, Jimmy.
I just love it when you talk dirty.
posted by esurience on
Some relevant news on the matter, from: http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1821792
“The governors of Virginia and Maryland blasted the Catholic Church over its threat to stop providing social service programs in the District, if the city’s proposed same-sex marriage law isn’t changed.”
(Both are Catholic)
posted by esurience on
The anti-gay marriage folks already have the “look what a religious charity was forced to do!” arrow in their quiver. I’m not sure that giving them another arrow of the same exact type is all that harmful to our cause (I realize that breaks my analogy, but oh well…)
It is, however, very bad PR for the Catholic church (partly evidenced by the news article I posted above). And I think that does have the effect, at least in the medium and long-run, of helping us.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Is the Church honestly saying that they don’t provide spousal benefits to their remarried employees? To their atheist employees?”
I think the problem is that few people, besides us, are even asking that question. It is a good question, and it deserves an answer. Antipathy toward homosexuality should no longer be treated as if it is (A) a necessary component of any religious faith (it is being challenged, with much success, in many of them) or (B) so peculiarly sacrosanct that it eclipses everything else in these traditions.
When treated this way, it is an enshrinement of bigotry. For the media to let religious leaders get away with this is lazy and irresponsible.
Questions like these, by all means, should be asked.
posted by Bobby on
Should a gay organization be forced to hire a homophobic secretary? No, right? Then why should a catholic charity be forced to pay for domestic partners? This isn’t europe where sometimes state churches are subsidized by the state, this is supposed to be a free country and that includes FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
[There was an error when I tried posting a short while ago, so I’m trying again.]
Steve, if you wanted to know what was going on with the D.C. marriage bill, you could have contacted me, an IGF contributor who has been deeply involved. Your characterization of what our side has been saying is not accurate. We have had extensive discussions on the extent and details of the religious exemption, not whether or not there would be one.
A group of about 200 gay-affirming clergy, DC Clergy United for Marriage Equality, has worked closely with us. Our coalition took great care to counter the usual right-wing framing where it’s righteous folks versus anti-religious gays. Most of the criticism of the Archdiocese has come from other clergy, including the Episcopal bishop of Washington.
I and others have pointed out that Catholic Charities in San Francisco a decade ago agreed to a solution on the benefits issue in which they change their benefits policy to allow each employee to designate a single beneficiary without reference to marital status or sexual orientation. If the S.F. Catholic Charities was okay with this, why not their D.C. counterpart? In fact, the Archdiocese is being hypocritical. They have no problem providing benefits to divorced and remarried employees, despite divorce and remarriage also being against their religious teachings. They are using the gay issue as an excuse to bully the city.
But what’s newsworthy in this case is the major push-back they have gotten from other clergy. The two days of hearings on the marriage equality bill featured a virtual parade of clergy testifying IN FAVOR. That was not by accident. Another key aspect of our effort is the racial diversity of our coalition, which counters attempts by our opponents to portray the pro-equality side (no scare quotes needed, BTW) as rich white gay men.
I believe that we have run one of the smartest legislative efforts for marriage equality so far. It has been years in the making. Who knows, Steve–if you studied what we’ve done, you might even be moved to offer praise.
posted by esurience on
Bobby wrote, “Should a gay organization be forced to hire a homophobic secretary? No, right? Then why should a catholic charity be forced to pay for domestic partners?”
Err, what? Did you just try to make a moral equivalence between being gay (and having a partner), and being homophobic?
You’re going to have to justify that equivalence…but don’t bother, because you can’t.
As for “freedom of association”, we simply don’t practice that with regard to employment. We have anti-discrimination laws already, and have had them for a long time. This is nothing new.
posted by David on
DC already has a substantial DP law. Why has that not caused any dispute with Catholic Charities? Also, as a commenter noted above, Catholic charities is prohibited from discriminating against divorced and remarried people, even though that goes against Catholic doctrine.
More to the point, if you accept government funding, you give up unfettered discretion to discriminate. It would not be acceptable for Catholic Charities to deny insurance to interfaith marriages, and no one would be arguing their “right of conscience” to do so.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Clarification: I did not say that “Catholic charities is prohibited from discriminating against divorced and remarried people, even though that goes against Catholic doctrine.” I said, “They have no problem providing benefits to divorced and remarried employees, despite divorce and remarriage also being against their religious teachings.” Whether their employees come under the protections of the D.C. Human Rights Act is interesting, but that is not the point I was making. I was simply pointing out that they have not objected to providing benefits to divorced and remarried employees (aside from whether they legally have to or not). They are being curiously selective about which of their forbidden marriages to demand to be able to discriminate against.
posted by Neil D on
I strongly recommend this analyis of our zero for 31 record of getting marriage rights.
http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2009/11/zero_for_thirtyone_lessons_fro.php
From a conversation with a Maine voter:
âI support civil unions completely, but I just canât get behind calling it marriage. Thatâs the issue for me. A marriage is between a man and a woman.â
âWhy do you believe that?â
âMy church. Iâve been a Catholic for sixty-three years. Itâs not going to change in an election season.â
The swing voters are stuck on religion and we need to figure out a way around their hesitation.
My own view is that we should abandon the word “marriage” for now and focus on civil unions.
posted by Fitz on
“Clarification: I did not say that “Catholic charities is prohibited from discriminating against divorced and remarried people, even though that goes against Catholic doctrine.” I said, “They have no problem providing benefits to divorced and remarried employees, despite divorce and remarriage also being against their religious teachings.” Whether their employees come under the protections of the D.C. Human Rights Act is interesting, but that is not the point I was making. I was simply pointing out that they have not objected to providing benefits to divorced and remarried employees (aside from whether they legally have to or not). They are being curiously selective about which of their forbidden marriages to demand to be able to discriminate against”
Not at all. While divorce is certainly a tragedy and way to common, a divorced and remarried couple do not in themselves represent a diminishment of marriage.
Marriage is still considered to be for life.. even if a particular couple did not live up to that standard, marriage itself still reflects that standard.
Same-sex “marriage” on the otherhand, in & of itself redifines marriage. The proper corollary would be if marriage were renewable every 10 years or so.
That redefintion would make the instiution itself a non-permanent bond at law by its very nature.
posted by Jorge on
I and others have pointed out that Catholic Charities in San Francisco a decade ago agreed to a solution on the benefits issue in which they change their benefits policy to allow each employee to designate a single beneficiary without reference to marital status or sexual orientation. If the S.F. Catholic Charities was okay with this, why not their D.C. counterpart? In fact, the Archdiocese is being hypocritical. They have no problem providing benefits to divorced and remarried employees, despite divorce and remarriage also being against their religious teachings. They are using the gay issue as an excuse to bully the city.
This is a very convincing analysis.
Bishops on up are independent from each other, and the Catholic Church is under new management besides, so that doesn’t wash. Any idiot can tell that such an agreement as in San Francisco is essentially looking the other way. It’s a compromise, much like Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was a compromise. Now the armistice is off.
As for Catholic Charities using the gay excuse to bully the city, this is a two way street. Witness how half the country turned against the Boy Scouts after the Supreme Court affirmed its right to discriminate.
This single event is a part of a movement and a history that reflects on all of those invested in this cultural conflict.
posted by Jorge on
Oh, before I forget.
Isn’t it a lot more important to worry about how these charities are going to be helping gay youths in crisis who have few places to turn to? How is allowing religious charities to receive government funding going to affect their gay clients? How is cutting off funding going to affect their gay clients? Do gay youth and their uptight conservative families have other places they’ll probably go to? Are gay youth being treated with dignity and respect by Catholic Charities?
Since you say you are involved in this bill, Richard Rosenthal, do you think you can give me an answer to this?
posted by dalea on
What Steven leaves out of his account is that the charities in question are funded by the taxpayers. Which changes the situation totally. The issue is why should lesbian and gay taxpayers be forced to fund organizations that will not treat them as equals under the civil law. Leaving out the public funding issue is simply not OK.
posted by Lori Heine on
The tax-supported part of it does change the situation. When most of us “associate freely,” we do not expect other people to pay for it.
posted by Bobby on
“Err, what? Did you just try to make a moral equivalence between being gay (and having a partner), and being homophobic?
You’re going to have to justify that equivalence…but don’t bother, because you can’t.”
—Yes I can, just like people have the right to be gay they also have the right to be fat, ugly, Christian, muslim, wiccan, etc. I like being gay but I don’t consider myself superior to the Christians in this country. I want equality, not special rights. Just because you have a partner doesn’t mean the world should bend over for you.
“As for “freedom of association”, we simply don’t practice that with regard to employment. We have anti-discrimination laws already, and have had them for a long time. This is nothing new.”
—We do when it comes to religious institutions and colleges who don’t accept public funding. Besides, anti-discrimination laws are a joke, if you’re latina and I don’t wnat to hire you, how will you prove I didn’t hire you for being latina? And if I fire you, how will you prove it was for your gender or whatever? Unless the discrimination is blatant then it’s very hard to prove. The writer of Freakonomics draw parallels between your name and your chances of getting a job interview, thus if your name is Stacy people are more likely to call you than if it’s Lakeesha, Lexus or Tanyqua.
We protect non-profit charities because what they do is a CHOICE.
Frankly, I don’t see that many liberal charities that help the poor, feed the hungry, provide centers for pregnant girls, help the homeless, and do all that stuff. Liberals care more about the environment, saving the redwoods, removing “junk food” from schools, and stuff like that. When was the last time you saw a starving children in Africa commercial by a secular/progressive charity?
Let these people do what they want, if you’re gay you shouldn’t even work there. Seriously, why would you want to work with a bunch of evangelicals?
posted by BobN on
Let these people do what they want, if you’re gay you shouldn’t even work there. Seriously, why would you want to work with a bunch of evangelicals?
You continue to ignore reality. Anti-discrimination in employment laws ALREADY apply to religious organizations, except for positions considered part of the group’s religious mission. Personally, I might agree to expanding the exemption to ALL positions, but NOT if the only group covered by the exception is gay people. If Catholic Charities wants to implement a policy allowing them to fire anyone who enters into a non-Catholic-recognized marriage, let them convince the heteros that that’s fine. THEN, they can include us.
As to your second point, CC has a lot of gay employees. Just walk into their offices. It’ll set off your gaydar.
posted by Jorge on
If there were such a thing as gaydar I wouldn’t still be single.
posted by esurience on
“The efforts of gay marriage supporters in D.C. are directed at having the council pass the measure and then fighting attempts by opponents to hold a referendum. Right now, should marriage equality come before the voters, it would be expected to lose, as it has lost in every jurisdiction where voters have had their say. Time to re-evaluate the strategy, one might think.”
You can’t be serious. This strategy has gotten us marriage in 7 states, we’ve lost it in 2, for a net gain of 5 states that have marriage equality.
This is not a failing strategy by any means. It’s actually the only strategy that has won us any victories at all.
Yes, we need to continue to persuade every day people (voters) that it is a moral injustice to deny gays and lesbians the ability to marry. Unfortunately, this is going to be a slow change, achieved not primarily by political means, but by cultural means. It requires more visibility, and more face-to-face conversations.
And that’s all happening — but in the meantime, there’s no reason for us to be waiting until we can claim 50% + 1 of the popular vote in a certain jurisdiction — if we can get marriage equality without doing that. It’s a moral cause whether or not we’ve got a majority on our side.
What strategy would you suggest, Mr. Miller? Not bothering to lobby legislators or file lawsuits, until we have solid majority support of the voting public in that jurisdiction? Do you realize that with that strategy, we’d have marriage equality NO WHERE?
You can’t be serious.
posted by Bobby on
“You continue to ignore reality. Anti-discrimination in employment laws ALREADY apply to religious organizations, except for positions considered part of the group’s religious mission.”
—Are you saying I could work for the American Family Association and not get fired once they find out I’m gay? Are you saying that if John Hagee has a secretary that comes out as a lesbian he can’t fired her?
“As to your second point, CC has a lot of gay employees. Just walk into their offices. It’ll set off your gaydar.”
—First of all, I don’t have a gaydar. Secondly, just because some effeminate men work for religious organization doesn’t necesarily mean they’re gay. Thirdly, I don’t believe non-profits should be forced to have the same standards of for-profits. I don’t know about the law but I don’t think anybody’s gonna force the Christian Identity (christian white supremacists) movement to hire black or gay secretaries.
The problem with progressives is that they’re like party crashers, they have no problem being where they are not wanted. Of course, if Rush Limbaugh wants to buy a baseball team, that’s a whole other ballgame. Then suddenly it’s “oh my God, we can’t let him buy a team because he’s politically incorrect.”
Freedom of association used to mean something in this country. Furthermore, I’m sick of all this talk about being inclusive. Are companies inclusive with old people, fat people, smokers, ugly people, people with funny names? No, so why should they be inclusive with gays, blacks, hispanics, and other popular minorities? It’s ridiculous, it’s like living in the United States of Nazi Germany. Maybe progressives should start a new version of the Klan and burn crosses in front of people who drive SUV’s or something like that.
posted by Lymis on
“—Are you saying I could work for the American Family Association and not get fired once they find out I’m gay? Are you saying that if John Hagee has a secretary that comes out as a lesbian he can’t fired her?”
Depending on what state you live in, yes, that is absolutely correct. Those protections aren’t in place nationwide, but several states and many cities, DC among them, do have exactly that kind of protection.
Of course, that doesn’t prevent them from trumping up some other reason why your performance wasn’t acceptable. They clearly don’t have a problem misrepresenting things on a regular basis. But the official reason would not be and could not be simply because you are gay. In some states. In others, out the door you go.
posted by Jorge on
Lots of these organizations can and will fire you for adultery or having premarital sex, for not upholding a certain moral code. That’s been upheld by the courts.
I’m sure if a religious organization’s ability to fire you for being gay had ever been seriously challenged, we’d know it already.
posted by BobN on
—Are you saying I could work for the American Family Association and not get fired once they find out I’m gay? Are you saying that if John Hagee has a secretary that comes out as a lesbian he can’t fired her?
No, I’m saying that if you work for Catholic Charities in a non-pastoral position, say gardener, and decide to divorce your spouse from a Catholic, religious marriage and remarry an atheist in a Satanic ceremony, CC will both recognize your divorce and honor the legal obligations of your unholy second union, whether it approves of them or not.
—First of all, I don’t have a gaydar. Secondly, just because some effeminate men work for religious organization doesn’t necesarily mean they’re gay.
Shorter version: ‘no, I don’t know any of the folks who work for CC’
Thirdly, I don’t believe non-profits should be forced to have the same standards of for-profits. I don’t know about the law but I don’t think anybody’s gonna force the Christian Identity (christian white supremacists) movement to hire black or gay secretaries.
You got one bit right, you do not know the law.
P.S. Seems kinda mean to equate CC with Christian Identity. They’re not that bad.
posted by BobN on
Lots of these organizations can and will fire you for adultery or having premarital sex, for not upholding a certain moral code. That’s been upheld by the courts.
If the position involved has something to do with conveying the religion’s beliefs, say pastor or teacher, yes, the organization can fire an individual who breaks the rules. Also, if an employee has signed a contract giving up some non-discrimination protections, he or she can be fired. (Some states to not recognize the validity of that kind of contract, some do.)
I’m sure if a religious organization’s ability to fire you for being gay had ever been seriously challenged, we’d know it already.
This isn’t about firing people for being gay, it’s about an organization’s ability to ignore a legally valid marriage/DP contract.
posted by esurience on
“This isn’t about firing people for being gay, it’s about an organization’s ability to ignore a legally valid marriage/DP contract.”
Should everyone have this ability? Seems like a clever trick to get out of legal obligations that require giving health benefits and such to spouses and dependents.
Should a company be able to claim that they are morally opposed to marriage, and morally opposed to their employees having children, and therefore evade laws that require, say, sick leave in order to care for a family members, or health benefits for a spouse or child? Or maternity leave?
posted by Bobby on
“No, I’m saying that if you work for Catholic Charities in a non-pastoral position, say gardener, and decide to divorce your spouse from a Catholic, religious marriage and remarry an atheist in a Satanic ceremony, CC will both recognize your divorce and honor the legal obligations of your unholy second union, whether it approves of them or not.”
—That is really shocking. Look at our own military, if you commit adultery or act in a porn movie you can get discharged for dishonorable conduct. It’s shocking that a catholic organization that is supported by catholic contributers should be force to abide by secular law.
Tell me, what do you think of Chick-Fill-A? They close on Sundays, what if a muslim employee says that Saturday is his holy day and he can’t work then. Should Chick-Fill-A pay him for 6 days of work when he’s only working 5?
“Shorter version: ‘no, I don’t know any of the folks who work for CC'”
—I’m not saying there aren’t any gays, I’m saying those gays know they’re working in a homophobic environment, at least principle wise. Many years ago I worked in a company that have many born-again Christians, they were all nice with me and all of them knew I was gay. HOWEVER, my company was an ad agency, secular, which means they couldn’t force their bible-standards on me. But if the company had been a Christian church and I refuse to accept Jesus and go straight, my ass is grass.
“Seems kinda mean to equate CC with Christian Identity. They’re not that bad.”
—I was using an extreme example to point out how ridiculous that law is.
I just don’t understand why are some gays so illogical. I started my life as a religious studies major, when I realized that most religions hate gays and most religious teaching professions would force me to say that homosexuality is a sin, I gave that up and went into another field.
So when I hear that gays want to work for Catholic Charities, I’m thinking “why the hell would you want to do that?” It’s like becoming a boxer and not wanting to get hit in the face. Mainstream religions have rejected us, we’re better off rejecting them and finding gay-friendly congregations.
Imagine how wonderful it would if all homophobic churches found themselves without their choir members, organists, secretaries, priests, etc. That would make a lot more noise than anything we can say. If they don’t want us, why not do us a favor and leave?
posted by esurience on
Bobby wrote, “Look at our own military, if you commit adultery or act in a porn movie you can get discharged for dishonorable conduct.”
Sorry for the off-topic inquiry: but are you aware of any cases in which a male military person has been discharged for doing heterosexual pornography? I’m only aware of cases pertaining to homosexual pornography.
posted by esurience on
“So when I hear that gays want to work for Catholic Charities, I’m thinking “why the hell would you want to do that?” It’s like becoming a boxer and not wanting to get hit in the face.”
Now wait a second. These organizations are getting public money to do their works. Are you saying that when they give a homeless person a bowl of soup, they also tell them that “homosexuality is a sin” ?
If that’s true, these organizations need to have their public monies cut off immediately.
If it’s not true, then what would be the problem with a gay person working for a Catholic organization that fed the homeless?
posted by BobN on
—That is really shocking.
Freedom of religion can be pretty shocking sometimes.
I’m saying those gays know they’re working in a homophobic environment,
Bobby, no offense, but I find it hard to believe you could have been a student of religion and not recognize the sea change that has taken place in Catholicism over the last few decades. The Church has become more “conservative” — “reactionary” would be a better word — and a lot of the rank and file do not agree with Rome. Catholic Charities of Boston, for example, fought the anti-gay-adoption ban with a UNANIMOUS vote of its board of directors. They lost that fight. Several members resigned.
The Vatican has drawn the line in the sand regarding same-sex marriage, not the parishes, not the organizations, not the people.
posted by BobN on
It’s shocking that a catholic organization that is supported by catholic contributers should be force to abide by secular law.
I don’t see what’s so shocking about it. Religious leaders — including Catholic ones — fought for religious freedom, for the right of an individual to practice his or her religion and be free of discrimination in the workplace, housing, etc. The only compromise they wanted or needed to protect the rights of their organizations was to exempt pastoral employment from anti-discrimination law.
Now they want to change the rules.
posted by Bobby on
“Sorry for the off-topic inquiry: but are you aware of any cases in which a male military person has been discharged for doing heterosexual pornography? I’m only aware of cases pertaining to homosexual pornography.”
—Good question, I was looking into it and coudln’t find a case. That doesn’t mean there are no cases since the military takes their morals really seriously, ask anyone that has been discharged for adultery.
“Now wait a second. These organizations are getting public money to do their works.”
—I thought the debate here was that even if they don’t get public money they should not be allowed to discriminate. If they do get public money then it’s a different standard. However, if a center admits female victims of domestic violence should they admit male victims of the same problem? See, sometimes discriminating works.
“Are you saying that when they give a homeless person a bowl of soup, they also tell them that “homosexuality is a sin” ?”
—Sure, or they tell them to accept Jesus. Mother Theresa of Calcutta was often criticized by Hindus because she would feed the hungry, teach them about Jesus and the win converts.
“If that’s true, these organizations need to have their public monies cut off immediately.”
—Yet even Obama supports faith-based charities because they know the work they do is very good. Tell me, do you want the secular government to do everything? They can’t, a charity is a lot more efficient than any government.
“If it’s not true, then what would be the problem with a gay person working for a Catholic organization that fed the homeless?”
—Everyone has standards, a gay bar is never gonna hire me as a dancer because they need young people with abs, I can never do porn because my you know what isn’t big enough. Catholic organizations don’t like out out of the closet gays for the same reason they don’t like out of the closet adulterers.
“Bobby, no offense, but I find it hard to believe you could have been a student of religion and not recognize the sea change that has taken place in Catholicism over the last few decades.”
—I was a student of religion for 2 years, then I changed majors. I do recognize cafeteria Catholics and Priests who are gay friendly as well as the “hate the sin, love the sinner types.” But I also see it like I see the military, maybe your CO is gay friendly, maybe some people in your troop know you’re gay and don’t care, but if the wrong person finds out, you will be discharged.
“Religious leaders — including Catholic ones — fought for religious freedom, for the right of an individual to practice his or her religion and be free of discrimination in the workplace, housing, etc.”
—I’ve read Catholic newspapers, they’re often against gays being teachers and rarely if ever support anti-discrimination laws for gays. In fact, what the Christians fear the most is the “normalization” of homosexuality. They fear that by giving us rights they make us “normal.”
Look at what happened to Ted Haggard, even though he has “recovered,” he will never be invited to be President of the Evangelicals as he was before. Can you imagine? Haggard was a brilliant speaker, extremely talented in his field, yet because he has failed to live a perfect life, his community has turned their backs on him. So if they can betray Haggard, a gay or bi who tries to go straight, imagine what they can do to us.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Fitz wrote, “That redefintion would make the instiution itself a non-permanent bond at law by its very nature.”
I don’t follow your logic. Allow gay couples to marry does not affect the permanence or non-permanence of the marriage bond. You just drop that in from outer space. Also, for the umpteenth time, we are talking about civil marriage, NOT religious marriage.
Jorge asked me some questions about Catholic Charities and gay youth. (And pardon my tardy response, but I hadn’t checked IGF for several days.) I don’t know what they are doing, but to the extent that they are providing public services/accommodations (as distinct from their core religious function), they would be violating the D.C. Human Rights Act if they discriminated against any client based on sexual orientation. If they have been discriminating, the big push by the Archdiocese against the marriage-equality bill would indicate they expect to get away with it, since it only draws attention to them. Troubled gay youth in D.C. can contact the Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League, Transgender Health Empowerment, PFLAG-DC, and Latin American Youth Center, among other organizations. Some links are available at http://www.glaa.org/resources/links.shtml#service.
BTW, the D.C. marriage equality bill passed its first reading in the D.C. Council by a vote of 11 to 2. The second reading is expected on Dec. 15, after which it will go to Mayor Fenty for his signature and then to Capitol Hill for the standard congressional review period that all D.C. legislation must undergo. It should become law around the middle of March.
Steve Miller’s notion that my colleagues and I should re-evaluate our strategy seems to come out of right field. We are winning. We have the law and the facts and justice on our side, and there is no right for people to vote on other people’s rights. In fact, however, polls I have seen do NOT suggest that we would lose a ballot initiative, though the projected numbers look better for us with each successive election cycle, because time and demographics are on our side. But we have a campaign organization in place, and are ready to battle in whatever venue we must.