Rather than being forced to accept something antithetical to its teaching, the Church should instead withdraw from charitable works in DC and let the denizens thereof live with those consequences. Again, the misapprehension on this thread is that the CHURCH is somehow BENEFITING from this. The Ceasers gold you reference does NOT benefit the church, but rather the objects of Charity in DC.
The question should have been worded "Should DC have the power to pass a law mandating that the Church accept homosexuality". Because of the poor wording of the question, it could apply to almost anything controversial and mean something totally different. Like Marisa Tomei said in My Cousin Vinny, "it's a BS question."
I think that is where some on this thread are coming from: Churches shouldn't be able to just decide which laws they consider moral and which ones they don't.