Catholic Church Threatens the City of Washington D.C. over Gay Rights Bill
493 replies, posted
[quote=The Washington Post]Catholic Church gives D.C. ultimatum
Same-sex marriage bill, as written, called a threat to social service contracts
By Tim Craig and Michelle Boorstein
Thursday, November 12, 2009
[B]The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.[/B]
[B]Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.[/B]
[B]
Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.
[/B]
"If the city requires this, we can't do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."
Several D.C. Council members said the Catholic Church is trying to erode the city's long-standing laws protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination.
The clash escalates the dispute over the same-sex marriage proposal between the council and the archdiocese, which has generally stayed out of city politics.
Catholic Charities, the church's social services arm, is one of dozens of nonprofit organizations that partner with the District. [B]It serves 68,000 people in the city, including the one-third of Washington's homeless people who go to city-owned shelters managed by the church. City leaders said the church is not the dominant provider of any particular social service, but the church pointed out that it supplements funding for city programs with $10 million from its own coffers.[/B]
"All of those services will be adversely impacted if the exemption language remains so narrow," Jane G. Belford, chancellor of the Washington Archdiocese, wrote to the council this week.
The church's influence seems limited. In separate interviews Wednesday, council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) referred to the church as "[I]somewhat childish.[/I]" Another council member, David A. Catania (I-At Large), said he would rather end the city's relationship with the church than give in to its demands.
"They don't represent, in my mind, an indispensable component of our social services infrastructure," said Catania, the sponsor of the same-sex marriage bill and the chairman of the Health Committee.
The standoff appears to be among the harshest between a government and a faith-based group over the rights of same-sex couples. Advocates for same-sex couples said they could not immediately think of other places where a same-sex marriage law had set off a break with a major faith-based provider of social services.
The council is expected to pass the same-sex marriage bill next month, but the measure continues to face strong opposition from a number of groups that are pushing for a referendum on the issue.
[B]The archdiocese's statement follows a vote Tuesday by the council's Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary to reject an amendment that would have allowed individuals, based on their religious beliefs, to decline to provide services for same-sex weddings.[/B]
"Lets say an individual caterer is a staunch Christian and someone wants him to do a cake with two grooms on top," said council member Yvette M. Alexander (D-Ward 6), the sponsor of the amendment. "Why can't they say, based on their religious beliefs, 'I can't do something like that'?"
After the vote, the archdiocese sent out a statement accusing the council of ignoring the right of religious freedom. Gibbs said Wednesday that without Alexander's amendment and other proposed changes, the measure has too narrow an exemption. She said religious groups that receive city funds would be required to give same-sex couples medical benefits, open adoptions to same-sex couples and rent a church hall to a support group for lesbian couples.
[B]Peter Rosenstein of the Campaign for All D.C. Families accused the church of trying to "blackmail the city."
"The issue here is they are using public funds, and to allow people to discriminate with public money is unacceptable," Rosenstein said.[/B]
Rosenstein and other gay rights activists have strong support on the council. Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), chairman of the judiciary committee, said the council "will not legislate based on threats."
"The problem with the individual exemption is anybody could discriminate based on their assertion of religious principle," Mendelson said. "There were many people back in the 1950s and '60s, during the civil rights era, that said separation of the races was ordained by God."
Catania, who said he has been the biggest supporter of Catholic Charities on the council, said he is baffled by the church's stance.[B] From 2006 through 2008, Catania said, Catholic Charities received about $8.2 million in city contracts[/B], as well as several hundred thousand dollars' worth this year through his committee.
"If they find living under our laws so oppressive that they can no longer take city resources, the city will have to find an alternative partner to step in to fill the shoes," Catania said. He also said Catholic Charities was involved in only six of the 102 city-sponsored adoptions last year.
Terry Lynch, head of the Downtown Cluster of Congregations, said he did not know of any other group in the city that was making such a threat.
"I've not seen any spillover into programming. That doesn't mean it couldn't happen if [the bill] passes," he said.
Cheh said she hopes the Catholic Church will reconsider its stance.
"Are they really going to harm people because they have a philosophical disagreement with us on one issue?" Cheh asked. "I hope, in the silver light of day, when this passes, because it will pass, they will not really act on this threat."[/quote]
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111116943_2.html?sid=ST2009042801406]Source[/url]
All I can say is this makes me laugh. These are grown adults acting like children, punishing the home-less because they don't like a bill. I thought their big thing was abortion, not gay rights. Oh well, just goes to show that politics and religion really should stay separated.
Hey, Catholic Church, you can start whining when you start paying taxes.
It's really hard for me to stop being so condescending of religious groups when they act like whiney bitches. These aren't the 1600's, times have changed and either catch up or shut the hell up.
They're basically saying they'll stop helping poor, helpless people if same-sex marriage is allowed.
Fucking blackmail, that's what it is :colbert:
[QUOTE=:smug:;18357942]They're basically saying they'll stop helping poor, helpless people if same-sex marriage is allowed.
Fucking blackmail, that's what it is :colbert:[/QUOTE]
Hang the lot of them and be done with it.
So they're punishing poor people because of DC's decision to help gay people
Very compassionate, CC
What the fuck? I know Catholics can be bitchy (lolcatholicschool) but this is crossing the line. And besides, aren't they supposed to be like "thou shall not sin"
.... What great Catholics, wasn't there an entire thing about giving money to the poor in the bible
When will the Church realize we don't need them anymore?
That's crap. They're going to punish everyone because they aren't getting their way. Way to prove you're good and righteous.
I still don't see how this affects people against it.
Two guys are allowed to kiss now so let's punish the children that's what Jesus would do.
[QUOTE=smurfy;18358157]Two guys are allowed to kiss now so let's punish the children that's what Jesus would do.[/QUOTE]
I hope I'm not the only one who tried to picture this in my head.
Guy's it's ok the US wasn't founded on religion so they can't do shit.
People who are against homosexuals need to grow up.
A fine example of why I will always despise any form of organized religion with a passion.
Goddamn...
That's real fucking low. Fucking pricks
[QUOTE=:smug:;18357942]They're basically saying they'll stop helping poor, helpless people if same-sex marriage is allowed.
Fucking blackmail, that's what it is :colbert:[/QUOTE]
I'd come buckets if Obama slapped them with an extortion suit.
They're probably bluffing, but even if they actually do it, they should go and pass it anyway.
Edit:
Oh lord, the banner adds.
The catholic church doesn't pay taxes, they have no say in these matters... :eng101:
Why are there these "All gay exotic carribean cruise" banner adds here?
That's really, really petty. They're willing to deny help to tens of thousands of people to blackmail the government into denying rights to gay people. How in the hell can the Catholic church possibly claim to be a benevolent organization when they do shit like this?
Well I think that if the government was more like the church this wouldn't be an issue.
burn the gays
[QUOTE=SpiritOfTheRedman;18359469]Well I think that if the government was more like the church this wouldn't be an issue.[/QUOTE]
Wait, so you mean the government should threaten to make them taxable and use other underhanded moves too?
[QUOTE=DoctorSalt;18359589]Wait, so you mean the government should threaten to make them taxable and use other underhanded moves too?[/QUOTE]
No, I'm saying that the government should stop being controlled by the liberal agenda and implement common sense laws against abortion and homosexuality.
It occurs to me that people may look back at this time in history, 50 or so years from now, and ask, why was gay rights even an issue? Much the same way we look back and ask the same question about civil rights. There is no issue here, they're still human beings, and deserve the same rights as everybody else.
[QUOTE=SpiritOfTheRedman;18359619]No, I'm saying that the government should stop being controlled by the liberal agenda and implement common sense laws against abortion and homosexuality.[/QUOTE]
Common sense laws... against homosexuality?
What.
[QUOTE=Billiam;18359689]Common sense laws... against homosexuality?
Wat.[/QUOTE]
The common sense law of banning it of course.
[QUOTE=SpiritOfTheRedman;18359696]The common sense law of banning it of course.[/QUOTE]
What? What is bad about homosexuality?
[QUOTE=SpiritOfTheRedman;18359619]No, I'm saying that the government should stop being controlled by the liberal agenda and implement [b]common sense laws against abortion and homosexuality.[/b][/QUOTE]
You mixed up the words "for" and "against". Don't worry, happens to the best of us.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.