Posted on 01/09/2010 4:57:15 AM PST by Zakeet
... The drive for gay marriage is ... forcing unwanted change within the Catholic Church.
Last month, Washington D.C.'s City Council passed legislation legalizing gay marriage. Mayor Adrian Fenty, a Democrat, quickly signed the bill. To become law—which could happen as early as March—the legislation must undergo a congressional review period.
By passing gay marriage, the City Council has put the Catholic Church, or more accurately, the Archdiocese of Washington, in an awkward position. Either the church will have to recognize gay marriage or it will be forced to abandon a large portion of its charitable programs.
That's because the District outsources many of its social services to Catholic Charities, which runs the charitable services of the archdiocese. These charities provide a variety of services—including shelters for the homeless and food for the hungry—to about 124,000 needy residents in the region (which also includes a portion of Maryland). The archdiocese also oversees St. Ann's Infant and Maternity Home, a care center for foster children, and it administers adoptions for the District. For this work, Catholic Charities receives approximately $20 million in contracts, grants and licenses from the city. It bolsters these funds with $10 million of its own money and a network of 3,000 volunteers.
If same-sex marriages are legalized, which seems inevitable, Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington points out that the church will find itself in violation of the new law if it continues its city-sponsored social services programs. Why? Because city contractors are required to abide by all of the District's laws and there are provisions in the bill requiring the church to acknowledge gay marriage by offering employment benefits to same-sex couples and by placing children with gay adoptive couples.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
The Catholic Church in D.C. must either grant us spousal benefits and allow us to adopt children it places for adoption, or shut down its charitable services.
This comes with complete silence (i.e. tacit approval) from so-called Catholic congress critters such as Nasty Pelosi, Hairplugs Biden and Lurch Kerry.
Abandon.
Becoming an arm of the government was a mistake for the Catholic Church and other religious groups with charities. The sooner they admit it, the better, both for the churches and for the poor.
The Church must then stop all of it’s charitable works and cut all ties with the govt.
Let good Catholics step up and provide private donations to run programs or let Rome make the decision.
If these people want to do their thing in private, that is up to them. But bringing marriage into it, is just wrong and makes a mockery out of true marriage.
My favorite is the last one--now we're forced by law to respect something which has never existed in all of human history, but whose proponents call a "civil right"?
This planet is going nuts. Pardon the pun.
To me there is no "either or" because the church cannot recognize mock marriages.
The evil ones want the church to abandon its work so the government can take over the programs, and enforce its religion instead, the culture of death. The church stands in the way of the communists anyway.
Why the church ever accepted government funds I do not know, expect perhaps for power, blind power because it was clear to some from the start what such compromises would lead to.
Note the ultimate motivation of these homosexual freaks on the last line of their placard:
“With marriage rights comes EQUAL: respect for our relationships!”
NEVER.
NEVER.
NEVER.
NEVER.
NEVER.
NEVER.
NEVER.
NEVER.
NEVER.
NEVER.
NEVER.
This is a fallacious argument. The First Amendment trumps. Suit should be filed on 1-A grounds the moment D.C. makes a move to enforce its new rule on a Church organization. If D.C. does this, saying, "You have to pay off these (unblushing) brides for this reason," the Church's should sue, saying it can no more be required to change its doctrine—which the District knew all about when it started doing business with Church organizations—than it can be required to stop breathing. In America, both breathing and religious expression are fundamental.
It would be just as good in a certain sense if the Church replied, "Okay, no deal." D.C. would be screwed and helpless, and utter chaos would ensue, and D.C. knows it. But filing suit doesn't require as much fortitude, and the issue would be worth fighting in any case.
The Church-state "wall" is nowhere in the Constitution. One of the consequences of this fact is that Congress violates the Constitution every time it attempts to use money to induce changes in private parties' religious practices. Just as fundamentally, of course, Congress, through D.C., has no right to be spending our money to provide charity to third parties. The Church has that right, and D.C. doesn't.
I'm no lawyer, but it seems to be this situation is a forest filled with excellent cases to be fought again and again. More of them could be fought in this situation if this particular client (the Archdiocese of Washington) had a more recognizable spine, but there's still much opportunity.
It is simple OBEY GOD or Obey man.
Looks like neither one of those women bought their dress at Kleinfelds.
This was a long time coming but very foreseeable. The Church in DC especially under McCarrick rolled further and further to the left. Now 124,000 people will suffer because the Church WILL opt out. But if not the Diocese of Washington will suffer as never before.
The Church has been in the business of Charity for 2000 years. This will not stop it. They can continue to provide services without government contracts.
As far as the hospital and orphange goes, they should sue if DC tries to either enforce their stupid law or take this function away. Let it go to the SCOTUS. Let them say whether the Church cannot provide a great benefit because of the homos. At least that will clear it up for the rest of us, and put the issue before the voters clearly.
The gay marriage issue has NEVER won when presented to the voters of the various states in this Union. Let the democrats fall on that sword.
The simple answer to this whole Gay Marriage thing is to recognize the rights of the “single” person to choose a “significant other” for all the legal and financial benefits that only “married” people get.
A single person could designate who would be the “significant other” who would get insurance benefits, social security/ pension benefits and the right to visit in hospitals,etc. As it stands now, single people get screwed on passing on soc security benefits, tax benefits, etc.
Thus, the argument re “marriage” would definitely be muted and would go back to the “religious” arena.
Sodom and Gomorrah burning. Won't we ever learn?
Echoes of the Reformation — take the church’s money, dump the poor people (that the church ministers to), provide a government-run crummy copy — but at least the CHURCH won’t be in charge of anything. God forbid. And YOU can be in control.
All you mention could be designated with powers of attorney, trusts and wills. Obviousl the gay motivation is not solely being able to legally ‘order’ their relationship.
I agree. Then, when people come looking for the charitable services, the church could hand out sheets of paper with the names and addresses of all the new "married couples", as well as the officials who passed the legislation, and tell them, "Here you go. You'll have to get your assistance from these people".
Mayor Adrian Fenty, a Democrat, quickly signed the bill. To become law -- which could happen as early as March -- the legislation must undergo a congressional review period. By passing gay marriage, the City Council has put the Catholic Church, or more accurately, the Archdiocese of Washington, in an awkward position. Either the church will have to recognize gay marriage or it will be forced to abandon a large portion of its charitable programs.Thanks Zakeet.
Well the good citizens of DC can have their beloved O Bama take care of them then.
Well the good citizens of DC can have their beloved O Bama take care of them then.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.