Fifty years ago, John F. Kennedy ran for President under a cloud of Protestant suspicion that he would be taking orders directly from the Pope.Flush with success in Maine and in getting the Stupak-Pitts Amendment into the House version of the healthcare reform bill, the Catholic Church has decided that it is time to threaten the Washington, DC City Council over extending marriage rights to gays and lesbians.
Fifty years ago, Kennedy was lucky to have a Pope who did not seek to interfere in national or even local politics. Unfortunately, Pope Benedict has been far less than willing to withhold his political instructions and has been actively supporting people who hae pushed a socially conservative agenda.
Those he supports have even gone into active lobbying, as per the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. Regarding the amendment, Catholic Bishops actually went to the Capital and lobbied to make it all but impossible for a woman to get an insurance plan that could help her pay for an abortion.
This time, the tactic appears to have backfired. The Catholic Church’s DC Archdiocese is threatening to stop all social services within the city should the marriage law go through without an exemption written into it that would give the Church the right to discriminate against gays and lesbians.
The bill, as it stands, would exempt churches from performing marriage ceremonies and renting out space to gays and lesbians should it conflict with their religious beliefs; however, it would still require all institutions to abide by laws regarding benefits.
The Catholic Church made this announcement following the vote regarding a provision which would have exempted individuals from providing marriage related services to gays and lesbians based upon religious belief. The amendment was sponsored by Ward-6 Councilor Yvette M. Alexander.
She told the Washington Post “Lets say an individual caterer is a staunch Christian and someone wants him to do a cake with two grooms on top. Why can’t they say, based on their religious beliefs, ‘I can’t do something like that’?”
It was pointed out that such an exemption could be subject to abuse. “The problem with the individual exemption is anybody could discriminate based on their assertion of religious principle. 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,” said Councilor Phil Mendelson, head of the Council’s judiciary committee.
Some have stated that they believe that the exemption could pass with some changes. With regards to those institutions which currently receive city funds to operate, they would still be required to give medical benefits, allow for adoptions to be granted through their services, and to rent halls to gays and lesbians for reasons other than marriage.
According to David Catania, an Independent City Councilor, the Catholic Church’s charities received some $8.2 million dollars from 2006 through 2008. Catania, a large supporter of the Catholic Charities, stated “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.” Indications are that the DC City Council has already begun searching for a new contractor to fill the Catholic Church’s role should they pull out.
Campaign for All D.C.’s Pete Rosenstein called what the Roman Catholic Church was doing “blackmail.” “The issue here is they are using public funds, and to allow people to discriminate with public money is unacceptable,” he stated. LGBT groups have strong support on the DC Council.
Mary M. Cheh, Democrat of Ward 3, stated “Are they really going to harm people because they have a philosophical disagreement with us on one issue? I hope, in the silver light of day, when this passes, because it will pass, they will not really act on this threat.”
Currently, Representative Lynn Woolsey is calling for an IRS investigation into the activities of the Roman Catholic Church regarding the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.
The question will arise regarding whether or not other instances of direct interference in government should be investigated as well.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to us or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that we agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
SIC: TWP