Catholic Charities made a personal lifestyle choice. That's not our problem!
This from NOM's latest e-blast:
Maggie Gallagher was at the Cato Institute this week debating Andrew Sullivan, who said the city council is right. He said taxpayer funds shouldn't be used to "discriminate" against gay couples. But who is it that is getting hurt here? Who is being helped by driving one of the best charities for deprived children out of the public square? Will one gay couple really be better off because no Catholic adoption and foster care service exists?
And yet the politician in the D.C. city council ruled that to let a Catholic institution be Catholic, and still help in the public square, would be "aiding discrimination."
Hmm hmm, right. Because it's not about using public funds to discriminate against gay couples, is it? It's about "one gay couple" standing against the entire Catholic adoption system. We think their names are Lynn and Sue. [::eye roll::]
Though perhaps the truly interesting thing about the Maggie/Andrew discussion on this is that Maggie couldn't even articulate what the D.C. matter entailed (jump to 61:25):
She should at least respect Lynn and Sue enough to know why, exactly, she's telling the world that they are anti-Catholic.
Sayeth ye old forefathers on the issue:
"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." Thomas Jefferson
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." James Madison
Sigh! So much Kafka, so little time.
Posted by: Marcus | Feb 19, 2010 12:11:40 PM
Indeed Mr. Brown, "who is harmed here?"
Certainly the children in question aren't being harmed because their cases were handed off to another adoption agency. Was his intent to slight the National Center for Children and Families? I admit I know next-to-nothing about adoption agencies, but a quick google search makes them seem reputable.
The one thing I'll give Brian Brown some credit for in this e-mail blast: it contained only an *indirect* solicitation for donations. I was waiting for the "won't you please spare $5, $10, $100?" line.
Posted by: DN | Feb 19, 2010 12:45:55 PM
Same old tired argument.
Guess what Brian and Mags, it's not working.
Posted by: Bob Barnes | Feb 19, 2010 2:28:09 PM
Bigots asking bigots for money? No shame in that except it will be going to Brian's salary, not to help anyone else.
Posted by: Mykelb | Feb 19, 2010 2:33:06 PM
An organization is not a charity if it receives a contract to do government work, which is called outsourcing welfare. It may be a non-profit, but it is not a charity.
Posted by: Arthur | Feb 19, 2010 3:22:33 PM
Has anyone spotted Carrie Prejean in this gathering of contradictions? They were probably unwilling to pay Ms. FingerLickin' for an appearance, so she probably is sitting at home sexting with her new "fiancée"? Or maybe with someone else??
Posted by: Dick Mills | Feb 19, 2010 3:34:41 PM
"The reverse side of Christian compassion for the suffering of one's neighbor is a profound suspicion of all the joy of one's neighbor, of his joy in all that he wants to do and can." Friedrich Neitzsche
Posted by: marsmannetje | Feb 19, 2010 6:35:30 PMcomments powered by Disqus