Doesn't it seem like the next step in this conflict is for other cities to cut funds to Catholic Charities?

Is Catholic Church trying to provoke a response so it can claim it is the victim of some gay urban vendetta against religion?

More evidence that leaving the Catholic Church for the Episcopal Church was the right decision for me.

if you read the history of christendom, you'll see that there is always a tandem gospel of hate tagging along with the gospel of love, and in many epochs, the gospel of hate dominates.

it certainly is in transcendence these days...

The services provided with public funds ARE secular! No payment for prayer, delivery of church teachings, or performing church sacraments.

"The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."

Jesus is saying that in order to be Christians, you need to do these things. For Catholics, that's a problem.

When a couple of low-level Acorn employees did a financial wrong action, Congress was quick to cut off funding to the whole organization. But when a church has many priests who have sexually abused children, and that church has protected those abusive priests, there is no talk of cutting off funds. Interesting.

Is Catholic Charities functioning in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont? Or is D.C. a better object lesson because it's the nation's capital?

Yeah funny that CATHOLICS would be protesting this after harboring child molesters for years on end.

I'd sooner give money to the 1st church of Satan that any catholic organization, and I'm catholic.

Catholic Charities receives quite a bit of taxpayer money to do social service work

Um, it ain't "charity" if you're paid to do it.

Just sayin'.

Must be about time for some 3 dollar bills in the collection plate.

I think we should be more offended & appalled that any church, Catholic or otherwise would willingly cause more harm to those people in-need simply to make a statement. How dismal. Shame, shame on you Catholic Charities! The threat alone is discussing.

Well, the Catholic Church and the insurance companies have this in common: "we'd prefer to pre-screen those we do business with in order to maximize our holiness/profit."

So, if people are sinning, then they can't be helped? Now that's a religion for the 21st century.....

Yanno, it's not exactly required for you guys to ignore the possiblity that, just maybe, the DC law requires the Catholic Church to do something which it cannot do: the Church DOES discriminate against gay people, for example by plainly teaching that gay sex is immoral.

And just how useful would that requirement be, compared to losing Catholic Charities?

IF -- and I'm not saying it's true, but I'm not saying it's nuts, either -- IF the DC law would bar that kind of teaching for any recipient of funds, then Catholic Charities has to refuse the money. They can no longer accept it.

It's similar to a related issue that pops up from time to time, whether to enact laws requiring that all clinics and hospitals must provide contraceptives and/or abortions, which is also something that no Catholic institution can accept.

So it just MIGHT not be a totally irresponsible thing to consider if this is worth it: Catholic Charities does a TON of good work (not least being the single largest refugee resettlement agency in the world).

If you guys see organizations that are ready to replace 'em, you might just try naming these organizations, before you let your reflexive anti-Catholicism run away with you.

"If you allow gays to marry, we'll take it out on the homeless." Nauseating.

theAmericanist: I usually agree with you, but on this I have a suggestion: ACORN!

"If you guys see organizations that are ready to replace 'em, you might just try naming these organizations, before you let your reflexive anti-Catholicism run away with you."

Reflexive? That's a good one.

Will someone please tell me why churches are tax exempt in America?

Catholic Charities has stopped providing services in some places (some services, anyway). It stopped providing adoption services in Massachusetts once the hierarchy figured out that it had been abiding by Massachusetts' nondiscrimination laws.

Also, it's not really fair to blame CC -- CC tries to keep its head down, but it doesn't control its own destiny, the archbishop does.

The church fought and lost disputes in California over mandated coverage of contraception in insurance policies, because Catholic Charities didn't fit within the state's definition of a "church organization," which was relatively narrow. The problem for CC is that it doesn't discriminate against other protected classes in providing core social services, so it will be hard to argue that it will have to discriminate against gays or lose its religious mission. That's why the church is making this overt threat, because it probably realizes based on the most recent cases that there is a good chance once the law goes into effect, it will not be able to persuade courts that CC has to be exempt on constitutional grounds.

I guess blackmail isn't a sin in their church.

"Blessed are the extortionists, for they will inherit a bunch of empty churches."

I don't think the appropriate response for disagreeing with public policy is a reason to threaten withholding delivery of essential services to a different group of people. The church fails to make the case that D.C.'s civil rights stance will somehow make them compromise their position on delivering services for adoption, homelessness and healthcare. The church is just resorting to the same tactics a mob boss would use.

To me, this is exactly why all this "faith-based" funding crap should never exist in the first place. The churches should pay no taxes to the government and should receive no government money, period.

The churches should pay no taxes to the government

To hell with that. They should pay just like any other political action committee.

At least Barbara understands the issue -- which is precisely why the rest of your anti-Catholicism is, indeed, "reflexive".

I'm not sure how the law applies to the specifics (I doubt anybody is sure, yet), but this is potentially a HUGE state intervention in a religion.

And to the extent it's blackmail, it works the other way: I'd like to see somebody make a reasonable (that is, not a reflexively anti-Catholic) argument that this is NOT the DC government telling the Catholic Church that the only way it can continue to do charitable work in the District is if it abandons what the Pope has stated to be a fundamental moral position.

Which is where I'm wondering, as a factual matter -- is this worth it? Put another way -- is this particular right NECESSARY?

Something else folks ought to consider, is that the Church isn't bluffing. (For one thing, it is a different kind of institution than others involved in this sort of policy dispute: it's a RELIGION, with a strict authoritarian heirarchy.) There are things a religion won't do -- if a government contract required people of faith to renounce God, they wouldn't do it, and you guys (I hope, anyway) would recognize that as an unconscionable attempt to inject government into religion.

Why isn't this precisely the same thing? As I read it, this isn't about same sex marriage, but about broader language that -- as the Catholic Church is reading it -- would require them to do what their religion forbids them to do.

If there is another, REAL interpretation of the proposed law, somebody should, ya know, quote it?

Cuz I'd rather see somebody figure out how to avoid what looks like a remarkably unnecessary 'my way or the highway' choice: the extremely slim chance of getting the Vatican to bend on the morality homosexuality doesn't seem much worth a confrontation that could cost one of the largest, most effective and efficient charitable caregiver organizations.

OUCH -- man, that was a bad typo: "is this right necessary?" was supposed to be "is this FIGHT necessary".

Mea maxima culpa.

This is a great day for Catholics in the news. Seems that US Rep. Patrick Kennedy (Teddy's son) has gotten into trouble with the bishop of Providence for his support of abortion rights.

"Thomas Tobin, the Roman Catholic bishop of Providence, has made a career out of putting politicians in his crosshairs, but his latest battle over abortion threatens to spiritually exile Rep. Patrick Kennedy, a son of the nation's most famous Roman Catholic family.

Their feud over a proposal expanding the nation's health insurance system has escalated to the point where Tobin has publicly questioned Kennedy's faith and membership in the church and said he should not receive communion, the central sacrament in Catholic worship.

...Kennedy stumbled into the conflict last month when in an interview with CNSNews.com he publicly criticized the nation's Catholic bishops for threatening to oppose a reform of the health care system -- a goal the church supports -- unless it included tighter restrictions on publicly financed abortion.

...An angry Tobin fired back, calling Kennedy ignorant of church policy. He asked for an apology and a meeting.

In a letter, Kennedy agreed to a sitdown and said his Catholic faith is founded on the principles of feeding the hungry, clothing the poor and caring for the less fortunate. Kennedy voted against an amendment tightening abortion restrictions in a Democratic health care plan, but he voted in favor of the overall proposal that included those restrictions.

''While I greatly respect the Catholic Church and its leaders, like many Rhode Islanders, the fact that I disagree with the hierarchy of the church on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic,'' Kennedy wrote in a letter to Tobin, agreeing to a meeting Thursday. ''I embrace my faith which acknowledges the existence of an imperfect humanity.''

Their planned meeting fell apart Monday. The bishop called it a mutual decision, but Kennedy accused Tobin of reneging on an agreement to stop discussing his faith publicly. Tobin responded to Kennedy's letter with a scathing criticism.

''Sorry, you can't chalk it up to an 'imperfect humanity.' Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church,'' Tobin said....

I guess the papists think they can dictate what American laws should be.

Fuck off theAmericanist. I'd take 8 some million dollars to provide social services for the city of Washington and I wouldn't discriminate against my workers or my clients, either. Why is this "my way or the highway" choice seen in your comment as something the gayz are forcing on the church. It is the church who wants to accept public monies without any responsibility to serve the entire public. If they took the same monies and only used them for catholics you'd see the problem instantly.

Meanwhile, of course, this has happened before. In Boston where Catholic Charities had happilly been placing children up for adoption with gay parents the church hierarchy--against the wishes of the CC board--decided that they would try to take public money, and public citizens, and restrict adoptions to straight couples only. The state said "no way" and the board mostly resigned in protest. As far as I know CC is out of the adoption business now. But that hasn't prevented children from being placed with parents. Its just meant that the catholic church couldn't promote its special brand of bigotry on my dime.

aimai

Which is where I'm wondering, as a factual matter -- is this worth it? Put another way -- is this particular right NECESSARY?

Of course not. Gay people are second class citizens and should remain that way.

theAmericanist wrote: "I'd like to see somebody make a reasonable (that is, not a reflexively anti-Catholic) argument that this is NOT the DC government telling the Catholic Church that the only way it can continue to do charitable work in the District is if it abandons what the Pope has stated to be a fundamental moral position."

Let me give it a try. The DC government, I'm fairly sure, has no objection whatsoever to the Catholic Church doing charitable work in the District. They certainly don't object to Food and Friends, or Parks and People, doing such work (I pick those two groups because I worked with them on a 2008 mission trip with my church youth group - this was through the YouthWorks program, which is another group that does charitable work in the District, as well as in other communities.) Any of these organizations are free to minister to those in need.

These groups can also apply their own standards to choose who shall be served. For example, Food and Friends provides meals to people, but does require that they have cancer, AIDS, or similar diseases - healthy people need not apply for their charity. YouthWorks itself is kind of firm about providing their programs to Christian youth groups, and not just any organization that wants to visit DC and do some charitable work.

The only glitch in the present case seems to be where the organization wants the District to pay for the charitable work - in which case I might question just where the charity comes in, since it looks a bit more like subcontracted government work - but doesn't want to do the work in the manner the District requires. As several other posters have said, if that's such a problem, Catholic Charities should give up the administration of these programs to an organization that is willing to follow the rules set by the funding organization. They can then use their own funds to provide charity in whatever way they find morally acceptable.

"I'd take 8 some million dollars to provide social services for the city of Washington and I wouldn't discriminate against my workers or my clients, either."

And when you run an organization as large and efficient as Catholic Charities, Aimai, perhaps someone will give a rat's ass about your bragging.

Sort of inadvertently, you stated the case that this IS blackmail by the DC government against the Catholic Church, yanno: one interpretation of the proposed law is that the partner of a gay employee of a contractor (like Catholic Charities) would be entitled to spousal benefits.

To be clear: I'm not saying that it is wrong for the DC government to DO this. Hell, if I was voting on it, I'd probably vote for it.

But I AM saying that this isn't such an obvious, well of course all right thinking people agree, issue, precisely because it IS a major imposition of the majority (at least in DC)'s values on a minority religion.

What I've always said about same sex marriages, unions, etc., is that it isn't like there is so much love in the world that it makes much sense to outlaw whole categories.

But methinks the same principle applies: I haven't noticed there are so many efficient, effective charitable organizations delivering care that it makes a lot of sense to force out one of the biggest and most efficient.

Now -- you guys are basically saying: well, fuck 'em -- they're CATHOLIC.

You sure that's where you want to be on this one?

theAmericanist--you are the one missing the big picture here. The Catholic Church's social services organization, Catholic Charities, contracts with the government to perform services. They are saying that they won't want to do that if they have to abide by the law DC is passing regarding gay rights. That's their privilege; they can stop contracting. It's not up to DC to base its laws on the Church's demands.

I'm sure Lutheran Social Services would be happy to step in.

OUCH -- man, that was a bad typo: "is this right necessary?" was supposed to be "is this FIGHT necessary".

This word "typo" -- I do not think it means what you think it means.

LOL -- on the contrary, that's PRECISELY where I start, that "it's not up to DC to base its laws...." on the requirements of any particular religion.

And wouldn't you also agree that it would be unwise for DC, or any other political entity, to lightly impose unacceptable restrictions on any particular religion?

Cuz THAT's the big picture, Sag. The District can (and generally does) do every damn fool thing imaginable with its elected officials and use of tax dollars. That is the sovereign right of the good people of the District of Columbia, where I lived for many years, so I have some knowledge of the weirditude of its political history.

This is a pretty simple thing, and you guys want to make it about damned near anything else: UNLESS there is some other interpretation of the DC law (which I ain't heard), without quite admitting it, even as you try to brag about it, the District is telling Catholic Charities that they have to defy the Pope, in order to continue to do their good works as a recipient of taxpayer money or user of public facilities in the District.

The Church is responding -- um, fellas, we can't do that.

So I dunno as it is exactly accurate to report this as something that the Church is doing to the District.

Put it this way -- wouldn't it bother you at least a little bit, if the DC government had instituted a religious test, hell, an outright ban: NO Catholic organization can get a DC contract?

Cuz that's the effect here -- isn't it?

Now, if this is what the DC government (and voters, let's not forget them) intended, to bar Catholic Charities from working in the District ON PURPOSE, that's a perfectly legit goal -- even understandable, in a sense, if the idea is that the Catholic position that homosexual conduct is immoral is completely incompatible with DC's sovereign choices -- so begone, and don't let the door hit ya on the way out.

But I don't see that here. What I see looks like an unnecessary dispute, which is rapidly escalating into the wrong fight over the wrong principle on the wrong grounds: note that, so far as I can tell, NOBODY is accusing the Catholic Church of disriminating against gay people in their hiring practices. (Cue the jokes.)

Nor is anybody saying that Catholic Charities discriminates against gay people in their work.

So this isn't that Catholic Charities is somehow being rendered illegitimate to DO the good work it has contracted to do, and for which it has various lease arrangements with public spaces.

But, after reading the proposed law, the Church pointed out that a NEW law would require them to do things (e.g., pay same sex spousal benefits) which the Pope has flat-out forbidden Catholic organizations to do.

So it's not a matter of the Church telling the District -- you have to change your laws, or we will stop doing our charitable work.

It's the District telling the Church -- YOU HAVE TO DEFY THE POPE, or get him to change a fundamental piece of Church doctrine, if you want to continue to work in DC.

I dunno as the next set of Iraqi refugees are gonna be looking to Aimai to help 'em through the DC bureaucracy, which is why I am asking: is this worth it?

A serious question -- I could argue it either way, but (unlike everybody in this thread, except Barbara and possibly Sagacity) sorta recognize that this is a really serious step, both as a practical matter (tell us, Aimai, can you explain how the State Department handoff to HHS is funded, and whether DC follows the Kentucky or the Minnesota model for refugee health care reimbursement?), and as a matter of principle: religious tests for government contracts are grim business.

If an organization takes public money, it has to follow the laws.
If the church doesn't want to provide services because of those laws, then the contracts can go elsewhere.
Non profits can hire people and provide the services that Catholic Charities has been providing.
This is not a Theocracy.

So it's not a matter of the Church telling the District -- you have to change your laws, or we will stop doing our charitable work.

It's the District telling the Church -- YOU HAVE TO DEFY THE POPE, or get him to change a fundamental piece of Church doctrine, if you want to continue to work in DC.

Nope. Your teenage girl melodramatics notwithstanding, it is, quite simply, the district telling one of its contractors, as it tells all of its contractors, "You must obey city laws if you wish to continue receiving city contracts."

The religious dilemma certainly exists, but it belongs solely to the contractor. You evidently think a special case should be made for CC because it's so large and has so many programs (although it's not the dominant service provider in DC). Other organizations with their own sets of principles who may want exemptions of their own would likely disagree. Do you really want to start going down that road -- just because you think your case is extra speshul?

Catholic Charities, as I understand it, is an entity that was specially formed so it can take Federal money to do stuff that the government would normally do itself. It must abide by secular restrictions on the use of that money. If the RCC wants to do charitable work without Federal restrictions, it doesn't need Catholic Charities- it just needs to use its own money. In the end, Catholic Charities isn't doing truly charitable work as the word charity is usually understood- CC is using Federal money to do the job, while reaping public relations benefits for the RCC in the process. CC is doing no one but themselves a favor by taking that money, and if they don't want to anymore, that's no great loss for anyone but the RCC.

"Catholic Charities does a TON of good work"

And they will be able to continue to do all that good work - but they won't be able to use public funds for that good work unless they abide by public laws. There are already lots of restrictions on public funds and legalizing gay marriage will create a couple more.

You can't legalize gay marriage but then say "you can continue to discriminate against gays and gay spouses." So objecting to these new strings can only be done on the basis of objecting to legalized gay marriage.

That's why it wasn't really a "typo" when you used "right" instead of "fight" - it does all revolve around the right to marry. Is it worth losing CC as a government subcontractor in exchange for gays being treated as equal citizens? Absolutely, no contest. Equal justice under the law is more important than using some particular religious group to administer a public service.

But if you think that taxes should continue to go to a group that is somehow allowed to discriminate against gays and gay spouses, but no other spouses, or that gay marriage should continue being banned simply to ensure that CC can continue administering a public program, then please do make your case. Pretend that you're talking to a gay resident of D.C. - someone who is definitely paying those taxes and who might have to experience that discrimination.

Americanist, as I said above, the problem for the church in this dispute is that they are selectively applying religious precepts. Do their employees cohabit or use contraception? Does CC refuse to provide insurance coverage to the second spouses of individuals who have not sought an annulment?

CC almost certainly doesn't have a morals test for hiring or providing benefits, except where gays are involved. They can certainly choose to stand their ground on this issue, but I doubt if there is any constitutional infirmity in the District requiring contractors to adhere to non-discriminatory employment practices. The District is not legislating the Church's activities, it is legislating the secular activities carried out on its behalf by a Church affiliated organization.

Seems that US Rep. Patrick Kennedy (Teddy's son) has gotten into trouble with the bishop of Providence for his support of abortion rights.

Goodness, the bishop doesn't his history. Famously:

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured--perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again--not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me--but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.--John F. Kennedy, during the 1960 campaign

But how do they justify, in Christ’s name, punishing the people who need the service when it is the city it has a problem with?

This is a huge supper wealthy organization that is accepting tax money from gays, to do the kind of service that it should, as a super wealthy Christlike organization, do for free, and then withholding that service from not just gays but from non gays a well.

Do the words rich, bratty, and nasty possibly fit?

"there are other charities in D.C. that contract with the city on social services"

Right, and they'll be glad to have the money and hire the *caring* people who currently work for Catholic Charities.

None: you don't understand my point -- but I do understand yours.

Observe the difference between Barbara's response, and yours: she notes that Catholic Charities (presumably) provides spousal benefits to second marriages - so, she implies, what's the difference?

I'm not sure there is one, not in the marriage part -- when same sex couples are legally married, they are entitled to all the benefits, etc., of any other marriage. But the issue there isn't "marriage", the sacrament, it's the contract. (I've written a bunch of times about how Apple singlehandedly turned Texas around on this point, when they told the state legislature that if Texas banned civil unions, Apple would take its Texas jobs elsewhere: they backed down.)

But -- the Catholic Church is not a private company. It's NOT like Apple -- and not simply because in that case, it was Apple pressuring Texas, where in this case it is DC pressuring Catholic Charities.

It is certainly true that, as a government contractor, it has to obey the rules. So (as I've said each time), it's perfectly legit for DC to decide that THIS is the time and place and manner to fight this one.

But I dunno as that necessarily makes it a good idea.

See, Barbara is simply wrong in one particular: the Catholic Church (including Catholic Charities) DOES apply standards to its employees. There was a case not long ago where a woman sued to keep her job, teaching in a Catholic school, when she became pregnant. The Diocese fired her, because she wasn't married -- and she tried to argue that the state's non-discrimination laws applied to her, as they would have with pretty much any other employer. But the court held for the Church, because it found that the PURPOSE of the Catholic Church (including activities such as education -- and charity) is religious in character.

LOL -- and actually, I talk to lots of gay DC folks, e.g., my son's religious mentor. There is a real argument here, which you guys aren't actually making, cuz you assume that you're right, rather than thinking about what the issue in the case IS.

I'm not a big fan of exaggerated arguments, but now and then, it's worth greasing the Slippery Slope: if a government has the power to say that no Catholic organization can use public facilities because of Catholic doctrine, then why can't the government tell the Catholic church who it can and cannot fire, when they violate that doctrine?

You guys seem to know a lot more about adoption and homeless shelters and refugee resettlement than I do, cuz you have a lot more confidence in other organizations leaping up to provide these services as efficiently and effectively as Catholic Charities. But, hey, the DC government is famous for running like a Swiss watch, right?

So I'm just raising the question that nobody is much interested in engaging, except as a pure anti-Catholic diatribe: is THIS the smart place to make this fight?

Maybe it is -- as None sez: "Is it worth losing CC as a government subcontractor in exchange for gays being treated as equal citizens? Absolutely, no contest. Equal justice under the law is more important than using some particular religious group to administer a public service."

Except we're not talking about "equal justice under the law", are we?

As I noted, nobody is accusing Catholic Charities of discriminating in their hiring practices. (Well?) Nobody is accusing 'em of discriminating in providing care. Nobody is complaining that they aren't damned good at the work which they do -- quite the contrary.

What I'm asking is this -- see, when a divorced guy remarries, and goes to work for Catholic Charities and his wife gets whatever benefits CC provides, that doesn't violate Catholic doctrine. They don't sanction the marriage, cuz the guy wasn't married the second time in the Church (or the first one would have had to be annulled). They are simply acting as an employer.

So I don't quite see why it is so frigging essential to the Catholic Charities role as a government contractor that DC require that Catholic Charities accept that the partner of a gay person who works for them is MARRIED. It seems extraneous to me -- as if there might easily be a way for the partner to get whatever benefits are involved without forcing a showdown with the Pope.

And failing to FIND it strikes me as the kind of thing that folks will have forgotten all about, four or five years from now, when we read about how bad the homeless shelters in DC have become, or how there are refugees who can't get health care cuz nobody can navigate the bureaucracy.

Americanist, I think you're wrong.

I scope the jobs with my church regularly, and there's a Chinese wall between social services and jobs specific to the church.

If you want to hire a music director, you're free to say, "Baptists need not apply," but you don't do that with the other para-church organizations.

The Archdiocese knows this. The church spun off Catholic Charities decades ago so they could accept government funding without violating church-state separation (as did other churches).

This kind of sophistry is incredibly disappointing coming from a church that has given our country some of its finest educational institutions.

Like Bob said, Lutheran Social Services has its home office right up the road in Bawlmer, and I'm sure they'll be happy to step into the void.

Catholic Charities adoption services in Boston had a history of placing older, dark-skinned, and special-needs children - IOW, the children no one else wanted - with gay couples who were ready and willing to open their hearts and homes to any child who needed them. Because Catholic Charities didn't discriminate, they were able to receive Massachusetts taxpayer money as subsidies for the adoption program, and also qualified for philanthropic org money such as United Way. The key here is that by to receive those monies, Catholic Charities had to abide by non-discrimination policies set by both the state and charities forking over the funds. Remember, they did this LONG before marriage was even a glint in anyone's eye.

Fast forward to 2004, when marriage equality in Massachusetts became reality, and bishops hoped to divert attention away from the child rapists and enablers in their ranks onto gays by telling Catholic Charities they could no longer place children with gay couples. Catholic Charities had to abide by the Diocese ruling, and began discriminating. In doing so, Catholic Charities was no loner eligible for grants from charitable orgs, or subsidies from the state, which mandated a non-discrimination policy. Catholic Charities couldn't afford to maintain the adoption program on the church pittance alone, so they shut down. (The Church was spending too much money on paying off child rape victims and terrorizing gays at the ballot box to worry about little things like needy children without homes or families.)

The takeaway from all this is that marriage equality or lack thereof never stopped Catholic Charities from placing children with gay couples in Boston. The Archbishop's tantrum did. Marriage equality in D.C. won't stop Catholic Charities from providing any services to people in need. As usual, the Catholic Church is prioritizing dehumanizing, terrorizing, and threatening law-abiding gay people over serving those in desperate need.

If the Catholic Church wants taxpayer money, they get to play by taxpayer rules. And if they don't, well, I'm sure once they finish paying off the victims of decades of officially-condoned child rape, they'll still have more than enough money to help out the people who lick their boots in the right way.

Does it not say somewhere that Jesus said "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."
When are these organized religions going to wake up?

But -- the Catholic Church is not a private company. It's NOT like Apple

That's its lookout. From the perspective of the district, it's a contractor. Period.

except as a pure anti-Catholic diatribe:

Can that noise. There's some anti-Catholic sentiment in this thread, for sure, but you ain't getting away with pretending that everyone asking a contractor to abide by the fucking laws is a closet freemason. This shit is why you have no credibility around here.

As I noted, nobody is accusing Catholic Charities of discriminating in their hiring practices ... So I don't quite see why it is so frigging essential to the Catholic Charities role as a government contractor that DC require that Catholic Charities accept that the partner of a gay person who works for them is MARRIED

Because if it doesn't observe the law, it DOES begin discriminating in its EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS PRACTICES. Fucking DUH. And you lamely offer, as a substitute (because the RCC is so very speshul that we've just got to find it an exemption to following the law because it does a ton of good), that there might "easily be a way" for the partners to get benefits without offending the would-be lawbreakers. Yeah!!! How about a bake sale over at St. John's?!

Christ, once again you've gotten yourself into an untenable position because of your personal interests and are fundamentally unable to back away from it.

I'm not a big fan of exaggerated arguments

We fall down laughing.

Arguing against prejudice is a fool's game, but what the hell....

Don't you guys even notice when you contradict yourselves?

Keori writes: "Because Catholic Charities didn't discriminate, they were able to receive Massachusetts taxpayer money as subsidies for the adoption program, and also qualified for philanthropic org money such as United Way. The key here is that by to receive those monies, Catholic Charities had to abide by non-discrimination policies set by both the state and charities forking over the funds. Remember, they did this LONG before marriage was even a glint in anyone's eye."

And then goes on to explain what changed: "when marriage equality in Massachusetts became reality...Catholic Charities couldn't afford to maintain the adoption program on the church pittance alone, so they shut down. " LOL -- Keori recognizes and REPEATS that Catholic Charities wasn't discriminating against gay couples -- even using their own money.

I am genuinely impressed that you guys are in such obvious denial about what is clearly anti-Catholic bigotry, e.g., the "Archbishop's tantrum..."

I keep pointing out to you that the Catholic Church is an AUTHORITARIAN institution. It isn't the Cardinal in Boston who sets this policy. It's the Pope. They were okay with placing kids for adoption with gay couples.

Just not with the essentially sacramental act of recognizing the couples as 'married'. You guys REALLY don't understand this whole separation of church and state thing, do you?

And when you admit -- hell, when you brag -- that requiring them to recognize same sex couples as married forced Catholic Charities to change a policy of placing kids nobody wanted with gay couples, you're basically stating a religious test for government contracting -- a test which a Catholic organization, as a Catholic organization, must fail.

Why do you keep denying that? Hell, why do you keep insisting on the obvious like it's an insight, that this is about government contracting rules? Honest, not everybody who reads these threads has the wide blind spots that you guys exhibit.

The really impressive part of your bigoted denial that you're prejudiced, though, is this: "that there might "easily be a way" for the partners to get benefits without offending the would-be lawbreakers..." is ooooh, so lame.

Like I've said, what, six times now? it is perfectly legit for DC to decide that they will impose a religious test on its contractors that is unacceptable to the largest single denomination in the country. But folks really should defend that AS a religious test, perhaps by stating (as Pius IX did in 1854) that it is simply not possible for a practicing Catholic to be a good American.

Me, I'm not sold on the idea that those kids who stopped getting adopted in Boston were well-served when the government decided to force Catholic Charities to acknowledge that same sex couples (who would have been excellent parents) are married. Somebody is gonna have to show me that the practical effect of this matter of high principle -- the fucking WORD "marriage"???? -- was worth it.

It's not like anybody was gonna stop referring to "civil unions" as "marriage" if somebody had found a form of language that didn't try to force Catholic Charities to do what it cannot do.

LOL -- and I'd remind you guys that same sex "marriage" lost in Maine, over the word. This is demonstrably something less than the smartest political approach.

You think of yourselves as arguing a matter of high principle, and I honestly don't think you'd recognize one if it bit you in the butt.

As Barbara pointed out over re-married spouses, Catholic Charities acts like an employer for spousal benefits -- because in THOSE cases, unlike this one, they aren't being forced to recognize the re-marriage as a sacrament.

That seems like a wide-open door to work this one out -- but you guys don't want to work it out: if the Catholic Church doesn't stop being so damned Catholic, as FS explains, they're simply "lawbreakers", and any attempt to work it out is just "lame".

You couldn't be more anti-Catholic if you were honest about it.

Americanist: you accuse me of missing your point, yet you don't specify what important point of yours I am missing.

You make a big deal about CC being an efficient, good manager of public services so I assumed then and continue to assume that this is an important point for you. However, at no point do you explain why that would justify sacrificing equal justice and equality under the law for gays. Yes, that is what we are talking about: all of the problems that are supposed to be created for CC would be created simply on account of gay marriage existing and being equivalent to other marriages. Unless you'd like to point to problems arising for some other reason?

You don't see why CC would have to accept the spouse of a gay employee as a real spouse? It's for the same reason that they would have to accept every other spouse as a reason spouse: that's the definition of equality under the law. I made a challenge to you and you studiously avoided it, so I'll repeat it: "if you think that taxes should continue to go to a group that is somehow allowed to discriminate against gays and gay spouses, but no other spouses...then please do make your case."

If you can't justify why gay spouses and gay spouses alone can legally and morally be singled out for discrimination by CC, then you just don't have an argument here.

And remember, CC exists specifically for the purpose of having a Catholic organization receive public funding without violating church/state separation. They are only "Catholic" up to that point. So if you believe they are so "Catholic" that treating gay spouses equally would be a horrible thing to demand, how are they not so "Catholic" that funding them is unconstitutional? Churches are generally exempt from these laws, after all. Chruches don't even have to hire or treat minorities as equals if they claim that it's against their religion.

You whine incessantly about placing burdens on "the Catholic Church," but CC isn't "the Catholic Church." Catholic churches aren't impacted by this and "the Catholic Church" as an institution isn't affected by it.

Legalizing gay marriage, and thereby expecting gay spouses to be treated as real spouses, is no more a "religious test" than legalizing interracial marriage and expecting interracial spouses to be treated as real spouses. Objecting to this as a "religious test" means arguing that any time a person has a religious objection to any government standard or requirement, they should be allowed to ignore it — or the standard must be dropped — because that's what's we need to avoid an inappropriate religious test. Poppycock. Having a religious objection to something isn't some sort of "get out of jail free" card that lets you ignore the laws and standards everyone else is expected to abide by.

if the Catholic Church doesn't stop being so damned Catholic, as FS explains, they're simply "lawbreakers"

Aw, did that word hurt your widdle feelings? If the RCC refuses to follow district law, that is, quite simply, what they are.

We have two competing principles here. Your weak argument doesn't get any stronger by pretending that the very existence of Catholicity negates the civil laws. The RCC can be as Catholic as it wants. It cannot do so here and observe the law at the same time. Really, this isn't hard.

and any attempt to work it out is just "lame".

What attempt? You've proposed nothing other than screeching with remarkable lameness that the government needs to stop "asking CC to defy the Pope" -- solely because it's in your interest to try to keep this conversation on anti-Catholic bigotry rather than on the fucking laws.

What exactly do you see as a legal solution to this that doesn't take us down the road of handing out exemptions to the law every time someone raises a religious objection to it? Is your laughable idea of an objective standard the size of the organization, or is it the Ton of Good (TM) factor?

LOL -- oh, you guys are so cute when you try to make bigotry seem reasonable. Embarrassed yet?

None comes closest to the truth:this is about forcing a religious denomination to renounce a religious principle, in order to get a secular deal. Probably the best historical American example (to take the issue out of the current context, so as to make it plain) is the Mormon renunciation of polygamy, which was a condition of Utah becoming a state.

The Congress was very clear -- Utah would not become a state so long as the Mormons allowed polygamy. The Mormons sort of finessed this, with a divine revelation that, no sir, was wholly unconnected with an Act of Congress, but it was a pretty clear quid for the pro quo.

You guys would rationalize this, insisting that the Mormons (like Catholic Charities) could go right on being polygamists, they just couldn't get Utah into the Union -- and no, that wasn't a religious test for statehood, not at all.

I'm calling bullshit: of COURSE it was a religious test. So is this. In both cases, the government wants to force a change in church doctrine in order for it to get a secular deal.

FS is evidently too stooooopid to realize that he's arguing stuff that I have conceded in every post, so he can avoid The Point.

Jim Graham, the DC councilman who drafted the proposed law, originally offered to work this out with the Church. Then the Church said publicly -- look, we simply cannot recognize that gay couples are married: it's quite literally an article of faith with us. So the negotiations have become a food fight.

One of the smartest things I ever read, was a quote from the principal of the Jena 6 high school: remember, where there was suddenly a huge flap over nooses tied to a tree? After everybody in the world got on CNN to make this out like it was the second coming of the Klan, it turns out that the half-dozen teenaged knuckleheads involved had no clue (now, there's a surprise), and it all blew over, thank God.

And the principal explained, wearily: "One thing that I've learned from running a high school for 20 years: always lower the stakes."

If this was such a matter of principle -- why would Graham have initially offered to work it out with Catholic Charities?

What I keep pointing out to you guys -- and you keep denying right before you prove it -- is that you want to force the Catholic Church to do something that, as a matter of faith and doctrine, it simply cannot do. You want the Church to back down so they can keep doing good works in public space, the way the Mormons did to get Utah into the Union. Be proud of that, if you want; but fercryinoutloud, recognize that the reason you keep contradicting yourselves (all they have to do is acknowledge gay couples are married, but that's not anti-Catholic???) and then denying it, is because you're not being quite honest about it.

And that stinks to high heaven. Folks can smell self-righteous self-delusion, which all by itself suggests this isn't the smartest fight to have.

Me, I'm raising a practical point: I think Graham was right in the first place -- this is the kind of thing that can be finessed, the way the Church (as several posters have noted) was happily placing adopted kids with same sex couples, etc., without recognizing them as 'married' .

And unlike you guys, I'm actually looking at the broader political context, and (again, one of your blind spots), I'm actually thinking about the significant gap in social services that Catholic Charities would leave.

It CAN be a smart political tactic to polarize a situation and force a vote: which side are you on? Me, I'm for same sex marriage, which gains ground every time folks leave room for religions to accept civil unions.

Re-read that again, since you're too damn prejudiced to be practical.

I haven't noticed that polarizing this one has led to a series of political victories for same sex marriage, so I'm calling bullshit on your high principles, too: I prefer real achievements than noble defeats.

And it CAN be a smart move to decide -- gee, you guys are otherwise okay, but this one is a dealbreaker: I don't have any problem with the Congress making the end of polygamy a condition of Utah statehood.

But I'm questioning (and you're avoiding) the PRINCIPLED common sense of it, to say -- hey, we can make the Pope give in on this one cuz the Spanish-language health center in Southeast is soooo important!

So important -- that you're gonna force the Church to close it down? So important -- to whom? Cuz you're sure as hell not thinking about all the people who depend on Catholic Charities for help.

I don't think the Pope is bluffing. (I also think that DC is weaker than Connecticut or Massachusetts.)

You guys seem awfully sure that when Catholic Charities is forced out, there are going to be lots of other organizations to fill the gap -- I doubt it.

I also think that there are ways to finesse this one -- but you guys want a fight.

And I think that will have a lot more losers than winners.

Well?

As Barbara pointed out over re-married spouses, Catholic Charities acts like an employer for spousal benefits -- because in THOSE cases, unlike this one, they aren't being forced to recognize the re-marriage as a sacrament.

WTF are you talking about with the "unlike this one"? In giving benefits to remarried spouses, the church is recognizing those marriages under civil law, which is exactly what they'd be doing with same-sex marriages.

Are you seriously trying to make a case that the church is being asked to view all first marriages (and who said all same-sex marriages would be first marriages anyway?) as sacramental? Nonsense. There is no reason whatsoever that they can't treat same-sex marriages the same way they treat second hetero marriages: as existing in civil law but outside the church.

You're flailing.

I also think that there are ways to finesse this one -- but you guys want a fight.

Yes, yes, you keep saying this, but -- and this is the third time I've asked -- what specifically are they? Let's take the requisite 1,000 words of attempted redirection to our terrible bigotry as a given to save time, and get down to it. What specific solution do you see that will hold up in a court of law and that doesn't set us up for having to present exemptions for every religious objection?

There's a reason why you're bobbing and weaving. And it ain't because you're quick on your feet.

What I keep pointing out to you guys -- and you keep denying right before you prove it -- is that you want to force the Catholic Church to do something that, as a matter of faith and doctrine, it simply cannot do.

You've yet to show that it simply cannot do this, since it's already doing it with spouses of remarried heteros.

But if it really can't, there's another way to look at it than government "forcing" the church to obey the laws in order to get taxpayer money. It's this: the church chose its anti-gay stance over the well being of 68,000 needy District residents. Gosh, it's so easy to demagogue this, isn't it?

If the Catholic Church does not want to partake of meat that it deems to have been offered to idols, then it is free to leave the marketplace.

To say that it cannot at the same time deny that gay couples are married while treating them like they are for the sake of this exercise is a foolish argument for a church that has just spent the last century pretending that pedophile priests weren't abusers and criminals who were threats to children and who were living in a state of persistent sin, and employed them over and over and over after their crimes.

It's difficult to give any credence to their argument when they're picking and choosing which among their list of sins they want to overlook.

Americanist: the Mormon analogy isn't a valid analogy because the Mormons were forced to abandon polygamy entirely; the Catholic Church as a religious institution isn't being asked, much less forced, to abandon anything entirely. Instead, a organization that identifies itself as Catholic may be expected to follow civil laws which it disagrees with. No changes need to be made in the doctrines of any churches, any more than any churches were asked to change their views on interracial marriage when that was made legal. Big difference, so no analogy.

Legalizing interracial marriage and expecting people to refrain from discriminating against interracial couples, regardless of personal or religious beliefs about race, is a much closer analogy. Why don't you construct an argument around that?

If CC doesn't want to recognize gay spouses as real spouses, even when civil law says they are spouses, they don't have to. Why, though, should they continue to receive public funds which are for every other organization tied to following anti-discrimination laws? You have yet to answer this simple question.

I notice that you also don't explain why CC is so "Catholic" that it would entail a "renunciation" of religious dogma to treat gay spouses as real spouses, but not so "Catholic" that they can constitutionally receive any government funds.

I notice that you keep framing this as a conflict between civil law and "the Catholic Church" even though this is a conflict between civil law and Catholic Charities. CC is not identical with "the Catholic Church" as has been pointed out to you. I think you are obligated to justify why you keep treating them as identical. Yes, CC feels required to adhere to Catholic dogma in this case, but that's not a justification for what you're doing.

Any private organization can say "we feel obligated to follow Catholic dogma with respect to issue X," but that wouldn't mean that a conflict between them and the government is also, therefore, a conflict between "the Catholic Church" and government standards.

You claim that there are ways to "finesse" this, but are oddly reticent about saying what they are. Since you're so much smarter than everyone else here and so much more aware of the "real" issues, why don't you educate us. How would you ensure that equality under the law and equal justice are upheld?

You might want to keep in mind that no person or organization has a "right" to administer a public program with public funds. Anyone who offers to do so - and get paid to do so with those public funds - has to abide by the government's rules about how such programs are run. It's imperative to keep in mind that no private organization can do with public funds something that the government is forbidden from doing.

This means that if the government is forbidden from discriminating against blacks, Baptists, atheists, or gays, then it can't give the funds to a private organization and let them do exactly that. If the government is forbidden from discriminating against spouses in second marriages, interfaith marriages, open marriages, interracial marriages, or gay marriages, then it can't give the funds to a private organization and let them do exactly that. So it can only be legal for CC to administer a public program with public funds and discriminate against gay spouses if it's also legal for the government to do that directly.

LOL -- you guys can't get through two paragraphs without contradicting yourselves.

Bruce points the way: there's " no reason whatsoever that they can't treat same-sex marriages the same way they treat second hetero marriages: as existing in civil law but outside the church."

Which is why Jim Graham initially offered to change the wording of the draft statute. Psst... FS, this is your answer -- and has been, since I first pointed it out as erasing the objection. Strive to keep up.

But then Bruce gives his bias away: "the church chose its anti-gay stance over the well being of 68,000 needy District residents..."

Um, no. That WOULD be accurate, if Graham hadn't offered to re-word the draft to make it possible for Catholic Charities to follow the Pope's requirements and continue to provide services.

But he did. So this isn't the Church "choosing" to remain Catholic rather than obey the law. It's a proposal to change the law so that the largest religious denomination in the country can no longer do work that it is pretty good at -- helping those 68,000 needy folks in DC alone.

As Graham himself demonstrated, there are other ways to write the law that wouldn't do that.

So eh chimes in to prove how this is rapidly becoming a platform for an anti-Catholic agenda: "To say that it cannot at the same time deny that gay couples are married while treating them like they are for the sake of this exercise is a foolish argument for a church that has just spent the last century pretending that pedophile priests weren't abusers and criminals...."

Just to get this out of the way: what the Church did regarding sexual predators among the clergy boils down to protecting its own, an ancient (and evil) version of the separation of Church and State. What prosecutors have quite properly done (and they ought to do more of it) is treat the Church's coverup for what it was, a criminal conspiracy.

But that's very different from the government telling Mormons to give up polygamy, or telling Catholic Charities that they have to recognize that gay couples are married. They're not "picking and choosing which among their list of sins to overlook" -- they're saying that the statute AS DRAFTED forces them to acknowledge that gay people are married.

As Bruce (and for awhile there, Jim Graham, the statute's author) happily acknowledged, that was not a dealbreaker -- at first.

Unless you guys want it to be -- which, evidently, you do.

Put it this way: is there ANY explanation for why it has to be a dealbreaker that isn't anti-religious?

Bear in mind, you can NOT honestly claim that this is not what the statute as drafted would do, without explaining why the statute cannot be re-written so it won't do it. (This is the transparent dodge that it's the Church telling the DC council what to do: gimme a break.)

And you can NOT honestly claim that this is a matter of such important principle that the statute cannot and must not be re-drafted -- because its author already offered to do just that.

What's caused this whole thing to blow up into a megilla, is that the Church made a public statement that, as a matter of faith and doctrine, it cannot acknowledge that gay couples are married.

So you can't honestly keep claiming that this isn't a problem, all you want is for the Church to treat 'em AS IF THEY WERE -- because if that was so, you'd be calling on Jim Graham to go back to his original offer to re-draft the language to finesse the point.

LOL -- 'course, there is a much simpler and more honest explanation: you imagine yourselves as cheerleaders for the DC Council as Congress, forcing the Mormons to give up polygamy then and now, forcing the Pope to accept gay couples as married.

But let's face it: you're not honest about it, or you'd be looking for a way to finesse this that doesn't require the Church to do something that you first insist isn't a dealbreaker, and yet which you make the ONLY thing they have to do.

Lower the stakes.

But then Bruce gives his bias away: "the church chose its anti-gay stance over the well being of 68,000 needy District residents..."

I'm pretty sure every person here got that I was illustrating the bias and extremism of your "forcing the church" dramatization by providing that counterpoint. Everyone but you, that is. The phrase "Gosh, this is so easy to demagogue" should have provided a clue to even the densest observer...unless he missed it, or purposely ignored it, because he was too busy rushing to demagogue my post.

You aren't approaching this conversation with honesty or in good faith, I'm afraid. It's too bad, because it could have been a stimulating one.

"the Church made a public statement that, as a matter of faith and doctrine, it cannot acknowledge that gay couples are married."

No one has asked "the Church" to recognize anyone as married. Instead, an organization that self-identifies as Catholic may have to treat gay spouses as real spouses in order to receive public funds for administering a public program, just as every other organization receiving public funds for administering public programs must do.

LOL -- oh, I got that. But since you provided a pitch-perfect example of how folks ARE trying to play this, that it's the Church turning its back on all those needy folks -- like, um, in Steve's post that launched the thread -- I paid you the compliment of ignoring how you said it, and then pretended you were just illustrating how demagoguery is done.

Put it this way -- if that's NOT a valid attack to make on Catholic Charities, kindly explain why it isn't. Do tell us why you're not on MY side of this discussion -- since you think it is demagoguery to attack Catholic Charities for stiffing 68,000 needy people in DC cuz they can't knuckle under to the DC council.

Cuz I haven't noticed a lot of folks demonstrating "honesty and good faith" stepping up to take my side of this one, even as every single post arguing against me contradicts itself.... including yours.

"No one has asked "the Church" to recognize anyone as married."

Sez you. The Church says different.

If the Church is wrong, why did Graham offer to re-write it?

If you're right, then why can't the statute be re-written?

theAmericanist: I would like to see you finally address none's point about the difference between Catholic Charities and the Catholic Church and your conflation of the two.

"The Church says different."

Well, then, go ahead and explain why they are right. Explain how it is that if CC treats gay spouses as if they were real spouses, "the Church" is "recognizing gay marriages as valid marriages." You've been challenged already to explain why you are treating CC and "the Catholic Church" as identical, but have yet to respond. Now maybe you will - and if you finally do, please also be sure to explain how they remain distinct enough to get by possible church/state violations.

Merely saying "sez you" instead of providing a substantive demonstration of how "the Church" has been asked anything doesn't inspire much confidence in either you ability or willingness, I'm sorry to say.

"If the Church is wrong, why did Graham offer to re-write it? If you're right, then why can't the statute be re-written?"

I have yet to see what possible re-write was even offered, much less one that would definitely conform to existing law. Curious that you would keep citing an offered re-write as support for your position without being able or willing to quote it and/or explain how it actually serves your purpose.

For all I know, the re-write had to be dropped for very good legal reasons. Merely because someone offers to try to "work it out" doesn't mean that it's legally possible to "work it out" - i.e., that it's possible to meet the other side's expectations while still adhering to the law.

The fact that an offer to make changes isn't sufficient here. All an offer demonstrates is some good will, not that an entirely different situation is realistically possible.

I have seen, however, that you have refused to respond to multiple requests for details about how you would "finesse" the issue so that the law is followed and CC can continue using public funds to administer a public program. Maybe now you will? If you can suggest a wording that would conform to existing law, preserve equal justice, and make CC happy, then please do so.

The Daily Dish had the right headline for this story: "No Gay Marriage or the Homeless Get It!"

If the Church is wrong, why did Graham offer to re-write it?

It's hard to say without seeing the specific language and the details of that offer. Could you provide a cite, please?

Of interest...Graham yesterday, from the Post:

Jim Graham (D-Ward 1), one of two openly gay members of the council, said Thursday morning that he hoped to reach a compromise with the Church. He noted that it is a major provider of services for immigrants in his ward.

Late Thursday, however, Graham said he had changed his mind after reviewing same-sex marriage laws in New Hampshire, Connecticut and Vermont. He asked why the Church has not abandoned services in those states.

"If the Catholic Church has been able to adjust in Connecticut, I think they can certainly adjust here," Graham said.

LOL -- None, do TRY to know what you're talking about. A quick half dozen points:

1) If the problem that Catholic Charities has was with CURRENT law, there wouldn't be a problem. As I've noted (and it;s been echoed for four or five folks on your side of this one), Catholic Charities is not being accused of discriminating under current law.

2) Jim Graham is proposing to CHANGE the law. The idea that changing the law in a particular way would pose "a legal problem" is pretty much a contradiction in terms. (See point 1.)

3) I keep suggesting that you guys should be PROUD of what you want to do -- namely, to force Catholic Charities to stop being Catholic in order to keep helping people in a public/private way. At this point, I don't understand why you're resisting an honest statement of what you're doing. Explain?

4) When you demand that I provide "details about how you would "finesse" the issue so that the law is followed and CC can continue using public funds to administer a public program...", your beef is with Jim Graham, the statute's author, and not me. That's cuz he offered to change the language. Strive to use facts in your arguments, it's healthier.

5) Did you even notice that you didn't address my questions? I suppose you could be hallucinating that Graham didn't offer to rewrite it: as noted, you really should try to refer to facts when you make arguments.

Here is how an honest person would answer the questions: Q) "If the Church is wrong, then why did Graham offer to re-write it?"

A) We don't think the Church is required to recognize same sex coupled as married in the eyes of the Church in order to obey the statute as drafted, but we realize that this is more up to the Church, as a religious issue, than it is up to us, as the government. That is, whether the contractor rules would require something unacceptable to the Church is more up to the Church than a strictly legal matter would be. But we would urge the Church to work with us to find a way to resolve this, which is why I (Jim Graham) am offering to work out language to resolve this.

Q) "If you're right, then why can't the statute be re-written?"

Of course it can.

Lower the stakes.

4) When you demand that I provide "details about how you would "finesse" the issue so that the law is followed and CC can continue using public funds to administer a public program...", your beef is with Jim Graham, the statute's author, and not me. That's cuz he offered to change the language. Strive to use facts in your arguments, it's healthier.

Sounds like a plan. Where's the cite on this?

Same article you quoted -- what Graham is doing is raising the stakes: if the Church can live with similar language in Connecticut, etc., what's up with going to the mattresses with DC over this?

There's a simple answer: DC is weaker.

1. I didn't make any claims about CC violating current law.

2. It's true that Graham offered to make changes to a proposed law, but the question is whether he could make sufficient changes that would satisfy CC without also violating current laws. For example, the change "but CC can discriminate all they want for any reason they want" would violate current law. On the other extreme would be changes that would surely adhere to current laws, but might not satisfy CC. Your task, if you think you can do it, is explain what sorts of changes would both satisfy CC and still adhere to current law - a middle between those two extremes.

Does such a middle exist? I don't know, but you seem convinced there is and if you want to be regarded as having a credible, reasonable position then you should provide the details. So far the entire substantive of your positions seems to be "you all are just bigots cuz there's a rational compromise that would satisfy all concerned - just trust me on this, though, cuz I'm not actually going to tell you what that compromise is." Sorry, but I'm not going to trust you on that. If you can't explain what compromise would achieve the necessary goals here, I'm not just going to assume that it exists.

3. Since CC isn't "Catholic" enough for church/state separation to be violated when they are given public funds, you have yet to explain how expecting them to treat gay spouses like real spouses would cause them to cease to be "Catholic" altogether. Or even just "less Catholic."

4. You made a very specific claim: "I also think that there are ways to finesse this one." Challenging you to provide details on how, exactly, you think this can be achieved is only to be expected. You couldn't possibly say that you think this could be finessed without having some ideas in mind for how that would be done, right? So, what were your ideas on that? Even allowing that you only got the idea of "finessability" from Graham, you have asserted it as true which means that you take responsibility for it and must be able to defend it. If you can't defend it and don't want to take responsibility for it, the most you can reasonably assert is something like "finesssablity may be possible, but I'd have to see more details to be sure."

5. The question you asked can only be answered - at least in a reasonable, substantive, honest manner - if one first knows what sorts of changes Graham offered to make. Without those details, it's impossible to say what is preventing the statute from being rewritten in a way that would satisfy the CC. One possibility, as already noted above, is that the CC can't be satisfied without changes that would conflict with current law and constitutional restrictions. I don't offer that as a definitive reason, however, because I strive to use facts in my arguments. Unlike some people, I don't just make things up to respond to and I don't offer arguments in the absence of facts that are clearly necessary to make those arguments credible.

I find it ironic that you complain I didn't answer a question which can't be reasonably answered without more information, yet you have avoided answering numerous questions that have been asked multiple times by more than one person. This doesn't speak well for how much honesty and sincerity you bring to the topic.

Hmmm. The apparent parody of theAmericanist at 10:11 demonstrates a tone and quality of argument remarkably similar to the original.

If it were a firm doctrinal position of the church that all Catholics it deemed apostate or heretical be put to death -- and let's not forget that it used to be -- then we wouldn't be having this discussion about trying conciliate the church by letting them either hire only orthodox Catholics or conversely agreeing to execute apostates in return for their generous charity work.

When the government works with Muslims it doesn't accomodate Sharia or let it trump civil law, it doesn't adjust to strict Talmudic observances over civil liberties, and it doesn't strive to accomodate the demands of Voudoun priestesses who may demand animal sacrifice in the workplace to appease their gods as an article of faith.

"There's a simple answer: DC is weaker."

So, it sounds like the answer to why CC is making a fuss is the belief that they have a stronger position vis-a-vis the DC government. That suggests the issue isn't really dogma or religious beliefs, but power - specifically, asserting power.

(shaking head) Well, it says something about y'all that an imposter would post that with my monicker, Lucy finds it fair and the moderator leaves it up.

Here's the politics, described generically so it's not too emotionally entangled in the particulars of this issue: a new issue arises, with old roots but a new form, more or less out nowhere in the sense that it appears in several different places at the same time without a real clear plan. The first couple times it comes up, nobody is real clear how it will play out. But eventually one of the bigger players decides that it wants to make a stand on it.

So it picks a place where the issue is framed plainly the way it wants, with a weak adversary.

The weak adversary has a choice: work it out (which essentially means to pass the buck), or decide -- the hell with it, somebody has to make a stand. Why not us, here and now?

It's smart to ask in any particular circumstance if that's wise. Sometimes it is -- although I note that there were a couple prior incidents where somebody got arrested for refusing to move to the back of a Montgomery bus, before Rosa Parks. Picking your fights is a good idea. Patience is generally a virtue.

I see three basic problems with the DC venue for this one: first, it's DC. Nuff said. There is a REASON why the Church didn't want to have this particular fight in Connecticut or Massachusetts, when they could have chosen to do so. I don't see any particular reason to accommodate 'em in that strategy.

Second, I'm not as sure as some of you seem to be that the DC statute is NOT forcing Catholic Charities to stop being Catholic. It radically weakens that argument to concede, as several folks have, that Catholic Charities doesn't discriminate... until this statute becomes law. I still dunno why it isn't obvious to you that this eliminates your argument that the statute wouldn't do precisely what the Church claims it does.

Third, the good guys are winning this fight, so long as they don't force the issue. I dunno why you aren't seeing THIS, as well -- civil unions, etc., were all but invisible 10 years ago, and are now damned near inevitable in much of the country, e.g., the Apple in Texas story.

And yet -- when the issue IS forced (as in the Maine referendum), the good guys lose. That's why it seems an intelligent question to ask whether THIS fight is necessary -- since, as of a few days ago, even the statute's author didn't think it was.

LOL -- and as for the reflexive anti-Catholic bigotry, you're not even bothering to defend yourselves: you're just mocking me for pointing it out, e.g., the references to the criminal conspiracy to cover up predators, bullshit about the Church choosing which sins it goes after, etc., "the Archbishop's tantrum", and so on.

None: you really are thick. The Church's interpretation of the proposed statute is that it would force Catholic Charities to recognize same sex couples as married. It would be a legitimate counter to say, "does not!", but that response is essentially revealed as a bluff when Graham says, in effect: Well, I WAS going to re-draft it, but now I don't think I have to, because the Church didn't pick this fight with Connecticut or Massachusetts: why me?

That he was willing to propose new language says that this isn't a matter of principle. That he is no longer willing to propose new language to accommodate the Church's objection says that the language they object to is not negotiable. There ain't a third choice.

None, you're creating an essentially theoretical problem out of a practical situation: you want me to define a "solution" (like I'm on the DC council?) which you can examine to see if it violates current law.

But you've already recognized that Catholic Charities doesn't violate current law. Wtf?

So I'm back where I started: you guys want a Congress tells the Mormons to give up polygamy situation.

I'm suggesting you be careful what you wish for.

Graham says, in effect: Well, I WAS going to re-draft it, but now I don't think I have to, because the Church didn't pick this fight with Connecticut or Massachusetts: why me?

That he was willing to propose new language says that this isn't a matter of principle.

What was the new language that he was considering or perhaps actually drafted? Provide a cite that's more than your purposely ultra-vague phrasing throughout this thread. (Why do you think your parody doesn't seem like such a stretch to anybody else, possibly including the mod?)

Will it survive a court challenge?

Would it satisfy both parties?

Since you can't answer these questions, which people have asked you multiple times now, you really don't have a point of argument with the Graham redrafting thing. Trying to change the subject to Graham's supposed lack of principle isn't going to work. Do you really not see how badly you're coming off here? Remember the Black Knight in Python?

"that response is essentially revealed as a bluff when Graham says, in effect: Well, I WAS going to re-draft it"

This depends entirely on the nature of the changes that would be made. Unless and until we have those changes, they can't be used as the basis of your argument.

"you want me to define a "solution" (like I'm on the DC council?) which you can examine to see if it violates current law. But you've already recognized that Catholic Charities doesn't violate current law. Wtf?"

And you call me "thick..."

New laws can't violate current laws, particularly those which enforce constitutional restrictions on government action. For example, the government is legally forbidden from giving funds to a private organization which discriminates in a manner which the government itself is forbidden from doing directly. If the government is not allowed to treat gay spouses as different from all other spouses, then it can't give public funds to a private organization for administering a public program where that same discrimination occurs.

So, yes, I'm asking you to support your clear, unambiguous assertion ("there are ways to finesse this one") in a manner which meet two basic requirements: that CC be satisfied and that already-existing law - i.e., already-existing restrictions on what the government can do - not be violated. If you cannot provide any sort of explanation of how the situation can be "finessed," then your claim that it can be is false. If the only compromises you can offer would fail to satisfy the CC or would be contrary to current law, then your claim is still false.

And if it's false that there is some "finesse" compromise that would satisfy those two minimum requirements, then there are only two options: continue with the ban on gay marriages or force CC to choose between treating gay spouses like all other spouses and continue using public funds to administer a public program.

Since I can't think of any finesse compromise, I'm going with the second option. You assert that a finesse compromise exists, but won't say what it is and you object to the second option; I must therefore conclude you prefer the first option.

"So I'm back where I started: you guys want a Congress tells the Mormons to give up polygamy situation."

And I'm back to my response, which you have avoided addressing: "the Mormon analogy isn't a valid analogy because the Mormons were forced to abandon polygamy entirely; the Catholic Church as a religious institution isn't being asked, much less forced, to abandon anything entirely. Instead, a organization that identifies itself as Catholic may be expected to follow civil laws which it disagrees with. No changes need to be made in the doctrines of any churches, any more than any churches were asked to change their views on interracial marriage when that was made legal."

The position of the church is that they were well within their rights to engage in a massive criminal conspiracy to cover up their crimes - crimes that also went against their articles of faith. We know this from reams of internal communications going all the way up to directives from the Curia prescribing excommunication for any priest who revealed the crime or by extension the coverup.

So it's not bullshit at all to being up the fact that the church's ability to pick and choose doctrine and discipline. It's relevant as it shows the elasticity of its positions when it deems it necessary: to wit, the church could choose to overlook the issue of gay civil unions, just as it has also overlooked the celibacy requirement when bringing married Anglican priests into the fold without hesitation.

If the church as an institution is able to make self-serving exceptions to it's doctrine such as this, it can certainly make exceptions in cases that do not involve it's own criminal coverups.

Also, interesting that hiding and continually reassigning recidivous sexual predators is considered "protecting one's own." Were not the innocent children who were the victims of the priests "their own"? Exactly what kind of institution are we funneling our tax dollars to?

Oy... arguing with the prejudiced.

It is sorta revealing that you think of Graham's offer to work it out as a "lack of principle".

LOL -- and it is even more revealing that you write as if I'd said that.

One issue is whether the DC statute would in effect upgrade civil unions (domestic partnerships, etc.) to marriage. The language in the proposal applies only to the couples themselves (who can choose), not to the employers of one of the partners -- and since it provides for FUTURE marriages, it is not at all clear what will it obliges an employer to do when somebody who would have been covered under the existing domestic partnership law shows up as married, instead.

One unusual characteristic of current DC law -- you know, the one that Catholic Charities complies with -- is that domestic partnerships are NOT marriages, but a different category of relationship altogether. You can have a domestic partnership with your sister, for example, and thus enable her to get the benefits of health care, etc. that in other jurisdictions are conferred on a spouse.

So -- not being a lawyer, but actually trying to understand the issue that you guys have all so thoroughly researched (which, is after all, the only reason you're dissing me) -- it seems pretty murky to me how much leeway a Catholic Charities would have under the new statute, as a contractor, when they CAN provide benefits to a "domestic partnership" but NOT to a "marriage".

As I understand the Graham proposal, it lets the couples involved decide if they want to upgrade from a currently existing domestic partnership to a marriage.

I'm not Jim Graham, but it seems reasonable to guess that what he was open to discussing with the Church is providing a similar opportunity for an employer to thread the needle.

For example, if somebody working for Catholic Charities had a domestic partnership with his sister (so she got on his health care, f'r instance), I don't think the Church would have any problem continuing to provide her with health insurance. (Assuming they do -- you guys kept insisting I emulate you, and talk about stuff I dunno, so you bought the ticket: take the ride).

But I can see where, when the status of ALL such relationships FOR THE EMPLOYER becames the same as marriage (because a reasonable interpretation of the language is that it pre-empts future domestic partnerships for same sex couples, at least as far as the employer is concerned, when the couple considers themselves to be married rather than partners), the Church might have a legitimate objection that you can't marry your sister anymore than the Church can accept same sex marriages.

So working out language so that the new statute endorses EITHER an employer continuing to treat domestic partnerships as not marriages, OR as marriages (cuz that's what the DC statute is intended to authorize, the perfomance of legal, same sex marriages in the District), doesn't seem like it ought to be a deal breaker.

And such language couldn't violate current law, cuz that's what current law allows: domestic partnerships.

Evidently Graham thought so too, until he decided he wanted the fight. I dunno as I blame him, either -- I'm just questioning whether this is the right fight to have.

The Vatican is playing on a bigger stage that the First Ward.

And such language couldn't violate current law, cuz that's what current law allows: domestic partnerships.

The proposed law appears to allow for the creation of new same-sex marriages. So, what language would ensure that people who actually go through a marriage ceremony and are married get treated as a married couple, but would still satisfy CC? In cases where two people of the same sex are legally married, what language would ensure that the spouse is treated like every other spouse without causing the CC to feel that they have to stop using public funds to administer public programs?

Given how hard it's been for you to even recognize that adhering to current law is important, I feel the need to be even more explicit: the law is passed on Monday, is in effect on Tuesday, and two men get married on Wednesday. It's a civil marriage, treated under the law as equivalent to every other civil marriage. It might have even been performed in a church that accepts same-sex marriages, and thus recognized as a religious marriage by some religious group. Is there language that would ensure that this couple is treated as equals alongside every other couple without upsetting the CC?

I haven't noticed a lot of folks...stepping up to take my side of this one

Perhaps because you're so obviously wrong.

Come back! I'll bite you to death! It's only a flesh wound!

It is sorta revealing that you think of Graham's offer to work it out as a "lack of principle".

I don't, of course -- I wasn't referring to the "offer to work it out," as the context (ever heard of context?) makes clear.

Oops! You left out the word "supposed" before "lack." I don't suppose that was an accident, was it? No, I thought not.

LOL -- and it is even more revealing that you write as if I'd said that.

I didn't, of course -- the reference was quite obviously to your claiming that Graham's decision to stand with the City Council was principle-free.

Are you a compulsive liar, or just a chronic one? Either way, the contents of this thread reveal that there is something really, really wrong with you, madam.

Jesus fucking christ ... has "reflexive anti-catholic bigotry" become the new "anti-semitism"?

... and if this fucking high school cheerleader writes "LOL" one more time while trying to validate his defense of institutionalized homophobia, I may just puke.

None, are you really this obtuse?

The proposed law doesn't 'appear to allow' same sex marriages. It AUTHORIZES them. That's its PURPOSE.

(shaking head)

No wonder you're confused about the significance of current law: in DC these days, domestic partnerships are NOT marriages. It is a different category of relationship. To explain the significance of that, I pointed out that in DC, you can have a domestic partnership with your sister, but you cannot get married to your sister (or brother), even if they are the other gender.

In complying with current law (presumably, this is a question of fact rather than the law as such: but since everybody has stipulated that CC is obeying the law...), Catholic Charities can employ somebody in a domestic partnership and provide health care benefits (for example) to their partner, without recognizing the relationship as a marriage. That's why I -- again! -- cited the sister as an example. She gets health care benefits as a domestic partner, and nobody insists that the relationship has to be a marriage.

So the answer to your question IS CURRENT LAW. (Read that again, cuz you missed it the first six times.)

If there is an employee of Catholic Charities who is in a domestic partnership -- let's say, NOT with his sister, but with his lover -- it threads the needle for CC, as a government contractor, to provide health care benefits to the partner AS A PARTNER, but not as a spouse, in exactly the same way as AUTHORIZED BY CURRENT LAW, they would provide health care benefits to a sister who was also a domestic partner.

Going too fast for you?

The proposed statute would do two things, as I understand it: first, it creates legal force for same sex marriages in DC. (I participated in a group wedding of a couple dozen same sex couples in a church not long ago, but those had no legal force.)

Second, it allows domestic partners (who qualify, that is, NOT siblings) to choose to upgrade their partnerships to marriage if they want.

Here is what it does NOT do -- it does not allow employers to continue to treat FUTURE same sex marriages as if they were old-fashioned domestic partnerships.

That (as I understand it) is the core of Catholic Charities' objection: they are being forced to choose between ceasing to be Catholic (by recognizing same sex 'marriages' rather than domestic partnerships), or ceasing to be a public/private partnership in DC.

Again, the sibling example illustrates the problem, and illuminates what (I am guessing) Graham had been willing to explore as a solution: a CC employee has a domestic partnership with his sister, so she gets his health insurance. The Church is not required to recognize the partnership as a marriage, cuz it ain't -- and they are happy to provide the health insurance benefits to the partner.

Just so with same sex domestic partners under current law -- again, as I understand it: a guy works for CC, has a domestic partner under DC law, the partner gets health benefits -- because CC doesn't have to recognize it as a marriage.

The statute as drafted passes -- and next year, a new guy gets hired, who has a domestic partnership with his sister. CC has no problem, same as before.

And then a same sex couple gets MARRIED, under the new DC law. They're not "domestic partners", under the old law, cuz that no longer applies. So the statute as drafted does not ALLOW for CC to treat them as domestic partners where the partner gets health benefits.

You guys keep insisting that the Vatican doesn't have to accept that a same sex couple is married, in order to comply with the law. That's not how I read the language -- and what's more, that's not how the Church reads it, either.

In fact, authorizing same sex marriage is PRECISELY what the new statute is supposed to do.

And since you asked a bunch of times when it ought to have been gobsmacking obvious, that's where an obvious solution presents itself: what is the objection to allowing Catholic Charities to treat same sex marriages AS domestic partnerships?

Cuz that's what this statute, as drafted, precludes.

You can't have it both ways -- you can't pretend you're not forcing the Catholic Church to accept same sex marriage (by preventing them from recognizing them only as domestic partnerships), and then insist that the draft statute can't be changed.

Americanist, if Catholic Charities want to continue doing service work in D.C., no one is stopping them. They just can't discriminate AND receive government funds. This would be the case whether we were talking about marriage or anything else, as you noted in my cite about the Boston adoption issue. Catholic Charities refused to discriminate against gay couples long before marriage was a reality in that state. It didn't become an issue until the Diocese needed someone to scapegoat to divert attention away from the fact that Bernard Law was desperately trying to avoid having to pay a settlement to the victims of church-sanctioned child rape.

Just stop your flailing and be honest - the D.C. bishops are looking to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to keep government money and keep terrorizing gay people with impunity. Sorry, the law doesn't work that way. And as we've seen with the extradition and indictment of Paul Shanley for committing child rape, not even your precious hate cult is above the law.

Just want to say thanks to the Americanist for forcing this discussion into a sort of debate on the actual issue at hand and revealing the dishonesty of the simplistic Catholic-bashing headlines that are all over the place. And while repeated use of "LOL" is VERY annoying, the phrase "Jesus f***ing Christ" is downright offensive, though perhaps to be expected of a poster with the sniggering adolescent name of "Gonads."

You think that's offensive, try whitewashing Catholic homophobia.

LOL -- "your precious hate cult". And ya wonder why folks recognize y'all for anti-religious bigots?

I'm just calling you out for dishonesty, is all.

Here is a not entirely hypothetical example: a former nun who came out a few years back, pursuing her life's work of refugee resettlement and general social work, particularly with Central Americans, including indigenous peoples. She's got, let's say, a small operation in DC, which gets most of its money from Catholic Charities, a little from a couple other groups, and the principal benefit it gets from the District is office space.

Right now, she couldn't care less about this flap between the Pope and Jim Graham. She's trying to make sure that abuelita doesn't get evicted. And she knows that if Catholic Charities vanishes, there isn't anybody to take up the slack.

But a year from now, let's say she decides to marry her partner. She has long since resolved her former nun-itude, and what the Pope thinks of her relationship doesn't matter to either of 'em. But she DOES want to continue doing her life's work, which is why she works for Catholic Charities, and she DOES want her partner to have health benefits -- which isn't why they get married, but it is what she wants out of Catholic Charities when they've tied the knot.

What you guys are insisting -- contrary to all evidence, and I do mean ALL of it -- is that the ONLY way for DC to provide her with her civil rights, including marriage, is to force Catholic Charities to recognize the former nun and her partner as a married couple.

But that simply ain't so. She wasn't gonna invite the Pope to the wedding, much less ask him to preside.

Under current law, the couple could form a domestic partnership. Catholic Charities would give the partner health benefits. What's wrong with that?

Well?

See, that's what the proposed statute would change -- as written, it would PRECLUDE Catholic Charities from recognizing the marriage as a domestic partnership. They could NOT provide her partner with health insurance next year as a domestic partner, because under DC's new law, the partner could ONLY be a spouse, if that's how they formed their union.

Now, if you were honest -- as Keori couldn't help being with "your precious hate cult" -- you'd proudly say, as I keep urging you to do, that what you really want is to force the Vatican to acknowledge that gays can and should be married.

Why not be honest? Cuz if this was about an employer's obligation toward domestic partnerships, that's current law. Catholic Charities obeys current law.

See, this isn't the same as secular or even non-Catholic marriages for the Church, and it's part of your anti-Catholic bigotry that you refuse the right of Catholics -- or any other faith -- to make such moral distinctions except the way YOU want 'em to be made.

No, it's not like interracial marriages (which the Catholic church was performing all the centuries it was illegal in the US). No, it's like divorce and second marriages.

The Vatican recognizes those AS marriages -- they just won't perform 'em for Catholics. Likewise, when a married Episcopalian priest converts to Catholicism, it is precisely because the Vatican recognizes the validity of BOTH sacraments -- ordination as well as the marriage -- that the guy stays married.

What the Vatican refuses to accept, as a matter of faith and doctrine, is that a same sex couple can be married, in precisely the same way that they refuse to accept that siblings can be married. And that's your objection -- which is precisely why this is about your bigotry against the Church, rather than a relatively minor contracting problem to be resolved.

Like I keep pointing out, it's perfectly legit for the DC government to decide that it wants to impose a religious test for government contracting that the Catholic Church cannot accept -- but, puh-leeze, stop being such obvious hypocrites pretending that your motivation is to get health benefits for that former nun's partner.

You want to force the Catholic Church to accept something which its faith cannot do -- and since they can't, you want to bar Catholic Charities from public/private work in DC.

Why not brag some more about what you're doing to that "precious hate cult"? Call abuelita, and see how she feels about it, while she's trying to fend off eviction.

Me, I'd suggest lowering the stakes.

what's up with going to the mattresses with DC over this?

There's a simple answer: DC is weaker.

The Vatican is playing on a bigger stage that the First Ward.

uh huh. but are you sure that reminding people that the church has a habit of preying on the weakest is your best argument here?

LOL -- golly, but you guys are an endless source of amusement.

(patiently) When a big player is deciding when and where to pick a fight, they generally choose the place where they can WIN.

And when you're winning a long, slow campaign, rushing to polarize things and force things too early is often the way to LOSE.

I'm just pointing out that a pretty reasonable question, when the DC city council examined the laws in Connecticut and Massachusetts and found that they are similar to the one proposed for DC, would have been: gee, why do they want to pick a fight with us, and not with these other guys?

I note that nobody has bothered to make the tactical case that this particular fight is worth having, in this particular way.

Likewise, I've pointed out a couple times that when the issue does get polarized, it hasn't worked out particularly well for the good guys, here, e.g., Maine. Seems like that might be a genuine insight in this matter -- especially when (as a reasonable person might), you consider the practical consequences of forcing this one.

I dunno why folks are so sure that patience is a bad idea here. I was asked a bunch of times exactly how the statute could be re-written so it didn't force the issue -- and now that I've provided an answer (viz., to allow employers to treat same sex marriages as domestic partnerships), what's left in reply are the likes of "your precious hate cult", and "hundreds of thousands of raped children".

And you WONDER why folks conclude there's a lot more reflexive anti-Catholic bigotry than genuine support for civil rights in your reaction?

well, no one concludes it except you. and possibly the guy who faints when someone drops an eff bomb next to his lord's name.

not a very impressive showing.

you're all alone here, pal. and everywhere else, I suspect.

65 million American Catholics is not a constituency to challenge lightly -- and definitely not on grounds chosen by the other side.

Do the math, willya?

LOL -- and if you don't think damned near EVERYBODY recognizes talk like "your precious hate cult" as a candid expression of anti-Catholic bigotry, you need to get out more.

ah, how convenient it is to convince yourself that the phrase you can't stop repeating came from more than one person. the problem is always convincing others of your opinion, isn't it?

you do realize that a whole lot of us making the other criticisms are catholic, don't you? nope? well, you haven't impressed us as at all bright in this thread, but you do seem highly given to self delusion, so that explains it.

enjoy your lonely, lonely rant. there was nothing else on the schedule for today or tonight or tomorrow ,,, right?

Project much?

LOL -- and if you don't think damned near EVERYBODY recognizes talk like "your precious hate cult" as a candid expression of anti-Catholic bigotry

Let me get this straight. Objecting to further accommodating a church that has spent two thousand years practicing extreme bigotry in the form of oppression, imprisonment, enslavement, and even death towards:

Women
Jews
Protestants
Indigenous peoples
and countless other orientations and sects

in its discrimination against homosexuals is somehow itself "anti-Catholic bigotry?"

It is only the contact and competition with the forces of the Reformation and the Enlightenment that ever brought the Catholic church out of the Dark Ages. Had those two events never happened we wouldn't even be having this discussion, as the church would still be forbidding most people to get an education. Women would still be second-class creations with no rights and indigenous people might still be used as service animals in mining operations because they "have no souls."

Perhaps this is yet another opportunity for society to teach the church a much-needed lesson in compassion and humanism.

Good evening. Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up. Help me! Can not find sites on the: Ashley furniture coquitlam. I found only this - ashley bedroom furniture millennium. It offers divorce and process for them to try misaligned action of logo, ashley. You may hold that you have a berry of researchers and data which person of your guests or park desires have, ashley. Thanks :o. Freeman from Ireland.