« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


They want public monies, the word 'marriage,' and right to exclude -- yet WE'RE the bullies?!?!?

by Jeremy Hooper

Try not to throw things at the screen as you read this:

One of the largest area provider of relief services, the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, took a stand yesterday, just as their counterparts in Massachusetts's had done in that state, and refused to back down to the D.C. Council's bullying tactics. The Catholic Church provides a wide range of direct services for those in need in our nation's capitol, including physical and mental health care, legal care, immigration, employment services, counseling, shelter, education, adoption, foster care and services for the developmentally disabled. During the committee proceedings many of the council members were openly mocking religious concerns and one councilman, David Catania, told those gathered that if people of faith refuse to comply with his demands, the city will find someone else to take over everything they do. That will be very difficult for the city to do for they will quickly find, without faith there is little good works. It is very telling of the priorities of these politicians who would put the desires of the homosexual community over the needs of the poor.
D.C. Tells Catholic Church: Comply or Bye Bye [FRC]

Okay, first off: The idea that the council was mindlessly "mocking" the Catholics is offensive to the members, offensive to the process, and simply untrue. We don't have video of the most recent hearing yet. But just listen to how Councilman Catania spoke about the situation on 10/26. Be sure to note (@5:36 mark) how Catholic Charities flat-out admits that Catania, someone who has lobbied for fund for the organization, is a "good advocate and a good friend":

Catholic Charities faces David Catania, at DC gay marriage hearing [Metro Weekly via YT]

So for for FRC to paint Catania as an anti-Catholic militant would be laughable, if it weren't so outright outrageous!

The obvious truth: The Catholic Archdiocese and its affiliates are the ones who are bullying, demanding that their personal faith views should trump civil law in this church/state-separated nation. Likely working under FRC's unbelievably self-centered (and wrong) principle that "without faith there is little good works," these folks are seriously telling the city that their right to discriminate is more important than the city's right to accommodate. And by making such an unfortunate choice, it is they who are putting the desires of a certain community over the needs of the poor, not us! If they are bold enough to seek such an unprincipled goal, then they need to have the fortitude to own up to their exclusionary desires!

**MORE: WaPo's Petula Dvorak weighs in: Catholic officials shouldn't forsake D.C.'s poor in gay marriage fight [WaPo]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

I would like to encourage everyone to send some words of support to Mr. Catania (http://www.davidcatania.com/component/option,com_contact/task,view/contact_id,1/Itemid,47/)

He practically bent over backwards to be civil, and he used facts, not opinions, to back up his claims. This is one of the best bits of politics I've seen.

Posted by: DN | Nov 13, 2009 10:30:16 AM

Wanna really tick off the religious reich and their Catholic buddies in bigotry? Give ACORN those Catholic Charities social services contracts. Tony Perkins would be shakin' in his sheets -- not that I'm implying anything with that metaphor.

Posted by: Mike Tidmus | Nov 13, 2009 11:07:33 AM

I hope the Roman Catholic Church does pull out from public services in DC, especially those involving children. It will keep a lot of DC children from being raped by priests.

Posted by: libhomo | Nov 13, 2009 6:53:48 PM

Someone should ask if Catholic Charities also refuses to provide medical and other benefits to any employees that are in their second marriage. Not to mention the potential scenario of a same-sex homeless couple in need of shelter. Will they be forced to go somewhere else? Will they be housed separately? Will they be prohibited from kissing innocently (as a het couple would probably not be prohibited)?

Posted by: Olterigo | Nov 14, 2009 10:05:28 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails