D.C. church's choice: Help the needy or stand firm against gays and lesbians?
The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington is, in a sense, having a similar argument thrown in its face, as reported in the Washington Post:
Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.
Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.
"If the city requires this, we can't do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."
Several D.C. Council members said the Catholic Church is trying to erode the city's long-standing laws protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination.
Read the whole Post article here.
So there you have it: Charities associated with the Catholic Church in Washington do indeed have the same rights as every other group -- to contract with the city to provide services without discriminating against gay men and women. Of course, there's a far more pressing issue facing the archdiocese, as articulated by D.C. Council member Mary M. Cheh: "'Are they really going to harm people because they have a philosophical disagreement with us on one issue? I hope, in the silver light of day, when this passes, because it will pass, they will not really act on this threat."
The Times briefly addressed the conflict between religious charities and legalizing same-sex marriage in its editorial against Proposition 8.
-- Paul Thornton
"Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians."
... Typical liberal double talk, simultaneously saying that churches will not be required to perform gay ceremonies, but if they don't they will be charged with discrimination and fined accordingly. There is not one word in the Constitution about homosexuality, but there EXPLICIT religious protections boldly stated in the Constitution. When the Government begins taking away EXPLICIT Constitutional rights in favor of IMAGINARY Constitutional rights, then it's time for civil disobedience.
Posted by: Mary Waterton | November 28, 2009 at 07:21 AM
We do have a mess on our hands.
The main thing our country needs to do is remove itself from the Bible standard. Our official motto is “In God We Trust.” If the bible is fraudulent our laws should not be based on it. My reference: Joseph Campbell’s DVD series called “Mythos” which is available at Netflix, Amazon.com, and Barnes & Noble. This religious scholar will tell you that the stories that latter became the Old Testament was written by one man. This man’s purpose in writing the fictional stories was to enlighten and raise the moral of the Jewish people who had bitter enemies. That was it.
Posted by: Mason Paul | November 23, 2009 at 07:25 PM
Linda, you seemed to suggest that ALL Christians hate and fear gay and lesbian Americans as Catholics and Mormons do. Not so.
The Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, the Metropolitan Community Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Unitarian Universalist Church, among others, wants to marry same gender couples right now. But their freedom of religion is being denied.
Why should Catholics and Mormons have yet another "special right," this time to determine who's a Christian and who gets to have freedom of religion?
Examine the polls that show many Catholic and Mormon lay persons reject their leaders' hatred. Mormons, in particular, are enraged at their leadership's violation of California campaign financing laws.
Posted by: Carrot Cake Man | November 17, 2009 at 08:18 PM
This sounds like a repeat of adoption in Massachusetts -- Catholic Charities was perfectly happy to just continue doing their job and serving the public, but the bishops decided it was more important to push heterosexual-supremacy than to actually help kids. The appearance of doctrinal purity (or the PR gained by throwing a public hissy fit) was deemed a higher priority goal for the church than actually helping people. Now that they've wormed their way into the public social-services system in DC, they're holding homeless people hostage and demanding that DC put the Catholic church over the needs of the public. Now *that's* ethical public activity, there...
Posted by: M Groesbeck | November 15, 2009 at 11:33 PM
Oh my God, there is still an institution in this country that will actually turn down public money for something as irrelevant as principles.
The Catholic Church is just unamerican. Why don't they act like everybody else and just sue. Heck when the NEA talked about putting strings on their grants it was portrayed as censorship, why is this different? My take is principles.
I expect the church to still spend it's own money doing the best it can.
Posted by: jsa26 | November 14, 2009 at 05:30 PM
See if I understand this correctly: The Catholic church says that paying spousal benefits to gay couples goes against their beliefs because they believe their unions are invalid. Well, there are other marital unions that church doesn't recognize: if I remember rightly, pretty much any they don't perform themselves, and certainly any where there was a previous divorce. If they pay them benefits, they have no grounds for complaint here. If they've found a way *not* to pay them benefits, they can use the same method to deny them to gays.
Either way, threatening to stop aid to the homeless over something that's an extension of the way things already are is reprehensible.
Posted by: hyhybt | November 14, 2009 at 08:29 AM
Linda,
I guess I should thank you for considering me, someone you do not know, in the same category as a pediophile or a polygamist. And for going out of your way to ensure me that all religions have a zero tolerance for the LGBT community.
Judging anyone is a high order. How nice that you've found it in yourself to judge people you don't even know.
How Christian of you.
Posted by: Tom Harris | November 14, 2009 at 06:50 AM
Oh, and, Linda, what are you doing personally to further bans on divorce, adultery, and out-of-wedlock childbirth?
And assuming you're married, did you as a bride vow to "serve and obey" your husband? That's traditional marriage, you know.
Posted by: Ironman CarmichaelI | November 13, 2009 at 04:48 PM
Nothing more spiritually inspirational and uplifting as a religious institution threatening to withhold its good works if it doesn't get its way.
The federal government should retaliate for this blackmail by threatening to rescind the Archdiocese's tax-exempt status.
Posted by: Ironman CarmichaelI | November 13, 2009 at 04:46 PM
Linda,
I'll be happy to answer your question. I believe that polygamy, pedeophiles, beastiality and the rest are considered by the masses and many state and federal laws as illegal. Homosexuality is not. And why do you feel the need to include homosexuals in company with those people? We generally don't do those things, any more than straight people do. Plus you interact with us on a daily basis just by running errands or going to work. Based on that alone you can tell we're really nice people. :-)
You're saying that marriage is something that is created by God and delivered to mankind through the bible. It's surely mentioned in there but it's not, by default claimed property of any church. After all one doesn't need a priest to be married because they can be married by a justice of the peace or a ships captain. So my question to you is why do churches feel they can control the institution of marriage?
But lets argue your point a bit further. If what you say is true then marriage is a religious institution. It is therefore unconstitutional for the government to endorse it by bestowing 1137 laws upon married couples. Check your constitution and when you do remember that separation of church and state does not mean the state will allow a church to instill whatever morality it chooses into the law of the land (and forgive it income tax in the process) it means that the state simply will not formally endorse a religion.
The ball is now in your court.
Posted by: Tom Harris | November 13, 2009 at 03:38 PM
Linda asked: "Why do homosexuals think they have any more rights to marriage than do polygamists, incestualists, pedeophiles, beastialists (sic) & non-consentualists."
Well, one reason is that homosexuality is hard-wired in the brain, but bestality is not.
But this will have little effect on the real world. The money the church is spending is public money, and if they choose not to apply for the contract to spend it, somebody else will.
Posted by: Child Development Realist | November 13, 2009 at 01:58 PM
The catholic church wants to redefine charity for the rest of us. What a laughably out of touch institution to think it can hide ingrained bigotry behind the veil of "faith." Maybe they should insist that DC outlaw divorce too-- or else!
Posted by: Chal Pivik | November 13, 2009 at 11:23 AM
The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington stated they will discontinue social service programs for tens of thousands of needy people if the government passes rights to same sex couples. Now that the Catholic Church has publicly demonstrated that their love for the needy is conditional and that politics are now blatantly being preached from their pulpit, they must be denied their tax-exempt status and pay their fair share of taxes just like any other business. From now on, all religious organizations who participate in politics, start paying taxes. Mormons who give millions to stop same-sex rights, Catholics who choose to hold hostage the very people their organizations are supposed to serve isn’t Christ-like. It is bigotry. It is as clear (queer) as it can be.
Posted by: BurbankGuy | November 13, 2009 at 11:17 AM
There's a term for whT the Catholic Church is doing. It's called "religious terrorism". Discrimination based on religious beliefs is still discrimination and has no place outside the doors of the church.
Posted by: John | November 13, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Why are all of you picking on the Catholic Church, only one of many Christian churches? That about Baptists & Methodists? There's not a single major religion in the world today that condones homosexuality whether the teachings are in the Bible, the Koran, the Torah or the Book of Mormon. Gays have made this a political debate. They are demanding that people of faith change their faith. The only reason that I can see that gays won't accept civil unions & are demanding marriage is to try to legitimize their immoral behavior. Gays are being discriminatory to polygamists, incestualists, beastialists, pedophiles & forcers. What rights do gays have than others?
Posted by: Linda | November 13, 2009 at 09:38 AM
Christopher @ 6:32, You said you think everything that's happened was meant to happen. Everything is not predestined. That's why God gave us brains & the ability to make our own choices. If you are run over by a drunk driver, it's the drunk driver who kills you, not God's plan for you.
God is the One who discriminates & judges homosexuals.
Posted by: Linda | November 13, 2009 at 09:26 AM
Operating as a political entity the Catholic Church should be treated as such -- and taxed!
I say this as a (very) lapsed Catholic who escaped its clutches after Confirmation -- and my discovery that it is nothing more and nothing less than the world's largest, richest and most thoroughly lawyered pedophile cult.
It has no place for the openly gay (like myself) with age-appropriate lovers. That it would threaten to cut off services to the poor unless the government comes to homophobic heel shows the depth of the church's sincerity towards helping the needy.
Birdbaths are deeper.
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | November 13, 2009 at 07:00 AM
The Catholic church's approach to homosexuality is simply to wave it off and it goes away. Such beliefs put this massive organization into the same position as many other churches. They are fully entitled to their opinions and all that goes with them. If the DC city council whose job it is to serve everyone, not just the straight christians does its job and ignores the church's ultimatum perhaps they will be able to find an organization that actually understands humanity and its challenges to replace Catholic Charities. Could be a good thing all around. I don't have the time to address the obvious illustrations of the problems with faith based charities doing public projects.
Posted by: Tom Harris | November 13, 2009 at 04:40 AM
The use of "gay rights" legislation to harass and discriminate against Christian churches is pretty much one of the main objectives of this legislation, isn't it?
So it's not really "gay rights" as much as it's "anti-Christian".
Posted by: Mary | November 13, 2009 at 01:46 AM
Everyone should be treated equal no matter their nationalities, sex orientations and view of life in general, it's unbelievable how we tend to forget these and we still call our country the greatest country on earth
Posted by: Ryan S. | November 12, 2009 at 07:35 PM
Hello,
My name is J.C. but people call me Christopher and I was born in Los Angeles. I love surfing but I like to call it 'walking on water.'
I think all people are beautiful and everything that has happened was meant to happen because it was the design of God. Homosexuality, heterosexuality, toe may toe, toe ma toe. It's all good.
For anyone to discriminate or judge someone based on their sexuality is an insult to God and the Universe. To say that someone is wrong is saying that God is wrong.
I am back. In the year 2009, I have come back and I come to tell you that we need to erase and undo the harm that we have done to people. Yesterday, I visited a monument in West Hollywood honoring our fallen veterans. I cried becase I wept for those who died for our country. I wept for the gay men and women who died for our country but had to keep who they were a secret. I cried because they were never really able to express their true beauty.
Let us stop this. If you are homosexual, heterosexual, bi-sexual, or any sexual, hang your head up high and rejoice because you were made perfectly exactly as you are.
If the church is going to abandon those contracts, shame on Rome for insulting the beauty and perfection of the Universe's design.
I am Jewish by blood but was raised by priests in the Roman Catholic and Jesuit tradition. I am going to preach to be proud of who you are because God made you that way. We can have world peace if we look in and stop looking out.
Respectfully,
Christopher
Posted by: Christopher | November 12, 2009 at 06:32 PM
No homosexual will answer this question, but I'll ask it anyway. Why do homosexuals think they have any more rights to marriage than do polygamists, incestualists, pedeophiles, beastialists & non-consentualists. Where do we draw the line on marriage?
Why do homosexuals want to degrade the institution of marriage conceived & ordained by God in Genesis other than to legitimize behavior condemned by God & every major religion in the world?
Posted by: Linda | November 12, 2009 at 04:49 PM
The fact is that Religious Non-Profit organizations do a better job then Government agencies of delivery services to those in need. It cost less and is received better by those who need it because the people giving it are mostly volunteers not paid employees. Political correctness will hurt those who need it most. D.C. Government needs the Church a lot more then the Church needs the Government
Posted by: Ed Dart | November 12, 2009 at 04:18 PM
"Are they really going to harm people..." The D.C. Council member seems to be a bit confused here. What 'harm' is she speaking of? Does the Archdiocese have some sort of moral obligation to make contracts with the District to provide social services such that if they cancel those contracts they are doing harm to people? Clearly not. The moral and legal obligation falls on the District to provide the social services mandated by laws there and if it chooses to do so by contracting them out then it is their responsibility to find a contractor willing to do it (obviously). The Archdiocese will continue to run whatever social programs they fund with their own money, doing it according to their beliefs, and the ones they funded with District money will be taken up by someone else unless the District fails in its duty to do what it takes to provide those services. If the District chooses to pass laws that they know contradict religious beliefs then they need to own their responsibility for that and for dealing with the consequences of those choices as to how religious organizations partner with them. Blaming someone else for the consequences of their own actions is immature.
Posted by: CT | November 12, 2009 at 02:30 PM
"Are they really going to harm people because they have a philosophical disagreement with us on one issue?"
Mary M. Cheh, what an assinine thing to say. Just because you might try to marginalize their position by refering to it as a "philosophical disagreemment" does not mean that everyone has to accept the validity of meaningless, relativistic value systems.
Posted by: Mac | November 12, 2009 at 02:12 PM