The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Archdiocese opposes legal gay marriage in DC
Oct. 29, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionWASHINGTON -- The Washington Archdiocese said in written testimony Oct. 26 that it opposes legislation to allow same-sex marriages to be performed in the District of Columbia and is concerned the bill "would restrict the free exercise of religious beliefs if it is passed as drafted."
The archdiocese said it "opposes this legislation and any effort to redefine marriage as other than that between a man and a woman."
"Besides overturning the definition of marriage," it said, the bill has no exemptions for churches and faith-based organizations that oppose gay marriage for religious reasons but provide services to the general public or rent space to individuals or groups outside their faith.
Citing the Knights of Columbus and religiously-owned nonprofits such as Catholic Charities as examples, it said that under the measure they would be forced to offer their facilities and services to same-sex couples or face a lawsuit.
The archdiocese's testimony was presented during a hearing of the district's Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary.
Hundreds of district residents spoke out on both sides of the issue.
A coalition of groups has filed a request with the district's Board of Elections and Ethics that there be an initiative on the ballot next year to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Last spring, the City Council passed a bill requiring the district to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. Despite opposition from city residents and many clergy, the council passed the measure without input from residents.
The council is expected to vote by the end of the year on whether to allow gay marriages to be performed in the district. The measure also would have to be approved by Congress, which has 30 days to review City Council legislation before it becomes law.
If gay marriage becomes legal in the district without "expanded protection for religious conscience," the Washington Archdiocese said in its testimony that organizations which oppose same-sex unions for religious reasons but serve the community could be denied access to government contracts and access to government facilities.
In addition, it said, doctors, social workers and child-care workers opposed to gay marriage could have their licenses revoked, employers could be sued for not providing same-sex benefits to employees, and religious colleges could have their accreditation revoked.
Ed Orzechowski, president and CEO of Catholic Charities of the Washington Archdiocese, said in a statement that if the bill becomes law the work of his agency will be in jeopardy.
"Every year, Catholic Charities provides shelter, food, counseling, medical and legal assistance, and more to 68,000 people in the District of Columbia regardless of their faith," he said.
"If the council passes this bill as written," he said, "these programs are at risk along with nearly 100 different parish social ministry programs, all of the other ministries operated by the Catholic Church, and even meeting space for groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous, Scouts and neighborhood organizations who partner with churches."
Good for the bishops.
Good for the bishops. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, in any case. Simple biology and anatomy are all you need to know in order to understand that same-sex couplings, incapable of reproduction or authentic bodily union, are likewise and for that reason incapable of marriage.
gay....straight.... whatever.
gay....straight.... whatever. Marriage is a lot less about sex than most bishops would realize. Come to think of it - there's a lot about marriage that bishops don't understand.
Sure. Why not legalize sex
Sure. Why not legalize sex between grown men and 12 year olds? It is a denial of a pedophile's civil rights not to marry who he wants. Why can't a woman marry her son?
Good post, you might add that
Good post, you might add that same sex coupling will noit have need for abortion either.
Read carefully--- For the
Read carefully---
For the Religious Right (which in this case includes the Catholic Bishops' Boyz Club) will reach for any argument, valid or specious, which serves their purpose of preserving discriminatory and homophobic marriage laws.
In this case, there is the dual red herring of being forced, where they get into the business of providing public accomodations, to accomodate people regardless of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. Those laws say the black folks and white folks, Christians and Jews, straight people and gay people and all have their wedding reception at the local restaurant without being turned away.
If a church wants to compete with said local restaurant in the community at large, then it should, indeed, play by the secular rules and not permit itself to pass judgement on its customers based on the above factors. Otherwise, it is well within its rights to declare the facility to be a "Catholic" or "Jewish" or "Muslim" facility, restricted for use to the members of said communities.
It is questionable in any case whether a tax-exempt organization should be competing against tax-paying businesses in providing such services as a money-making venture.
Indeed, there was one oft-cited case where a religious organization provided a wedding pavilion to the general public, and then lost a suit for discriminating against a gay couple. But again, they were making it available to the general public, not members of their congregation or their sect.
So there is a clear option--- don't provide that public accomodation.
The same is true with providing health-and-welfare services using taxpayer money. Don't take money from gay people's taxes if you're not going to provide them with the same services as straight. If you employ people, obey the same laws as other employers regarding the health benefits to your employes and those closest to them if that is what the law requires.
But the argument is a red herring in any case. The true motivation is transparent:
The archdiocese said it "opposes this legislation and any effort to redefine marriage as other than that between a man and a woman."
A coalition of groups has filed a request with the district's Board of Elections and Ethics that there be an initiative on the ballot next year to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
This isn't about preserving religious rights.
It's about reserving religious rights to "us" while denying rights to "them."
Hot Item: Catholic Church
Hot Item:
Catholic Church opposed to active Homosexuality
In other news:
Water wet.
Even if personal conscience
Even if personal conscience provisions are added to the proposed by-law the RC Church would still vigerously fight it. There is no pleasing them on this issue so just ignore them. Dump them, the K of C and all the rest of that ilk in the trash bin of ancient history where they belong.
Post new comment