Reader comments
D.C. says no to church exemption from law
53 comments | Read story
Good | 1:55 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
I applaud the Catholic Church. I stand behind them.
lost in DC | 1:56 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
the city says they don't want the Catholic Church writing their ordinances
- fair enough, but without the exemptions, it will be the city dictating canon
to the church
So much is left out... | 2:04 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
Catholic Charities in Boston adopted children to same-sex couples even before
same-sex marriage until someone wrote an article exposing the practice.
Additionally, they still do adoptions - just not for the state and they call it
"pregnancy planning." They were also at risk of having one of their
donors review how much money they were donating if Catholic Charities engaged in
discrimination.
This is why government and religion should not be entangled.
This is why government and religion should not be entangled.
Comments continue below
religious liberty threatened | 2:11 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
This is a great example of how changing the definition of marriage threatens
religious liberty. If Catholics believe traditional marriage is ordained of
God, government should not require them to do something they believe is
offensive to God. Those who say same-sex marriage will not be imposed on
churches need to think again.
this will happen all over | 2:20 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
the nation. Churches will have to choose whether to continue charitable work
and be forced to follow the government's political agenda or give up their
doctrine.
Sadly, it is the churches who are genuinely doing a great deal of helping those in serious need who will be faced with the choice.
It will happen here.
Sadly, it is the churches who are genuinely doing a great deal of helping those in serious need who will be faced with the choice.
It will happen here.
Pagan | 2:23 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
'Catholic Charities has city contracts to provide services to about 68,000
people.'
So, Catholic charities would deny humanitarian service to over 68,000 in an effort to stop gay marriage? Even after it is law?
This is very sad.
Begs the question what else one would do to deny marriage to others.
So, Catholic charities would deny humanitarian service to over 68,000 in an effort to stop gay marriage? Even after it is law?
This is very sad.
Begs the question what else one would do to deny marriage to others.
This is Bad | 2:35 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
I applaud the DC Lawmakers. I will vote for them.
Pagan | 2:36 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
Charity blackmail. Plain and simple.
If the Catholic church had valid points to make, this would not be needed.
If the Catholic church had valid points to make, this would not be needed.
D.C. doctrine will be Catholic | 2:58 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
RE:Pagan
"So, Catholic charities would deny humanitarian service to over 68,000 in an effort to stop gay marriage? Even after it is law?"
The Catholic Church isn't going to stop providing humanitarian services to people instead it's going to stop working with those who oppose their values, beliefs and who want to force them to change their religious and moral beliefs.
It won't be denying the 68,000 people assistance because they will still be able to receive those services but the Catholic Church won't work with Washington, D.C to provide those services.
Let' see the city use its own money to provide these services to people instead of D.C. taking advantage of the the Catholic Church and then telling them "if you want to work with us help people in need you will change your religious doctrine to the official religious doctrine of the city."
"Begs the question what else one would do to deny marriage to others."
It begs the question of what else you will require churches to believe to be able to partner with the government. What other doctrines will you impose as the state religion.
"So, Catholic charities would deny humanitarian service to over 68,000 in an effort to stop gay marriage? Even after it is law?"
The Catholic Church isn't going to stop providing humanitarian services to people instead it's going to stop working with those who oppose their values, beliefs and who want to force them to change their religious and moral beliefs.
It won't be denying the 68,000 people assistance because they will still be able to receive those services but the Catholic Church won't work with Washington, D.C to provide those services.
Let' see the city use its own money to provide these services to people instead of D.C. taking advantage of the the Catholic Church and then telling them "if you want to work with us help people in need you will change your religious doctrine to the official religious doctrine of the city."
"Begs the question what else one would do to deny marriage to others."
It begs the question of what else you will require churches to believe to be able to partner with the government. What other doctrines will you impose as the state religion.
RE:this will happen all over | 3:03 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
"Churches will have to choose whether to continue charitable work and be
forced to follow the government's political agenda or give up their
doctrine."
That is the real agenda of those who support same sex marriage. Force churches and individuals who don't share their religious and moral beliefs to adopt those beliefs or not be able to partner with the government or enter into heterosexual marriages without recognizing that it is not a sin to get your marriage solemnized by those who promote homosexual relationships.
"Sadly, it is the churches who are genuinely doing a great deal of helping those in serious need who will be faced with the choice."
It is a choice that gays want them to make. Either agree with the new state religious doctrine that it is not sinful to marry a person of the opposite sex under the hands or approval of priests or government officials who solemnize homosexual relationships or choose not to partner with the government to help people and choose not to get married to a person of the opposite sex.
In other words. Accept the state religion or don't get married or partner to help people.
That is the real agenda of those who support same sex marriage. Force churches and individuals who don't share their religious and moral beliefs to adopt those beliefs or not be able to partner with the government or enter into heterosexual marriages without recognizing that it is not a sin to get your marriage solemnized by those who promote homosexual relationships.
"Sadly, it is the churches who are genuinely doing a great deal of helping those in serious need who will be faced with the choice."
It is a choice that gays want them to make. Either agree with the new state religious doctrine that it is not sinful to marry a person of the opposite sex under the hands or approval of priests or government officials who solemnize homosexual relationships or choose not to partner with the government to help people and choose not to get married to a person of the opposite sex.
In other words. Accept the state religion or don't get married or partner to help people.
Mendelson is decider of doctrine | 3:15 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
Pagan | 2:36 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
"Charity blackmail. Plain and simple."
Refusing to partner with someone who wants to force you to change your doctrine to the official doctrine of the city is not blackmail but it is blackmail to force a church to change its doctrine before it can partner with the city to provide charitable services to D.C. residents.
"If the Catholic church had valid points to make, this would not be needed."
If the city had valid points than the Church would not need to refuse to allow them to force the church to change its doctrine.
Phil Mendalson said "Allowing individual exemptions opens the door for anyone to discriminate based on assertions of religious principle," and "Let's not forget that during the civil rights era, many claimed separation of the races was ordained by God."
And forcing a church to change its belief to conform to the state religion is a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and this is about freedom and about the rights of the Catholic Church being violated because they can't participate in the same things others can without doctrinal change.
"Charity blackmail. Plain and simple."
Refusing to partner with someone who wants to force you to change your doctrine to the official doctrine of the city is not blackmail but it is blackmail to force a church to change its doctrine before it can partner with the city to provide charitable services to D.C. residents.
"If the Catholic church had valid points to make, this would not be needed."
If the city had valid points than the Church would not need to refuse to allow them to force the church to change its doctrine.
Phil Mendalson said "Allowing individual exemptions opens the door for anyone to discriminate based on assertions of religious principle," and "Let's not forget that during the civil rights era, many claimed separation of the races was ordained by God."
And forcing a church to change its belief to conform to the state religion is a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and this is about freedom and about the rights of the Catholic Church being violated because they can't participate in the same things others can without doctrinal change.
Curious | 3:16 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
Interesting that there are a handful of posts, whereas when the LDS church does
something similar, you'd think the world was coming to an end based upon
the hundreds of comments made bashing the Mormons.
lost in DC | 3:20 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
Pagan, sometimes ideology causes people to ignore valid points, from both sides.
On the other side, we could say if the gays had valid points, the efforts to recognize their unions would not be needed. I'm not trying to debate gay marriage, but just illustrating that more is needed than having a valid point to have your agenda fulfilled.
Negotiation and strategy are needed even with valid points.
On the other side, we could say if the gays had valid points, the efforts to recognize their unions would not be needed. I'm not trying to debate gay marriage, but just illustrating that more is needed than having a valid point to have your agenda fulfilled.
Negotiation and strategy are needed even with valid points.
D.C. is now a religious org. | 3:20 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
This is Bad | 2:35 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
"I applaud the DC Lawmakers. I will vote for them."
You applaud D.C. lawmakers violating the rights of a church and its members to have their own doctrines and not be forced to accept the official doctrine of the city? That shows what kind of person you are and what kind of person you vote for and it is no wonder that these D.C. lawmakers are in government. There are morons like you voting for them because you don't care about the rights of anyone who doesn't agree with you.
This will force every church to accept the religious doctrine of the Church of the District of Columbia to be able to partner with the city while those churches and organizations that adhere to the official city religion will still be able to but those who refuse to change their doctrines will be told "either change your doctrine to the religion of this city or you will be treated differently than organizations who adhere to the religion of the priestesses and priests of the Holy Council of the Church of the District of Columbia."
"I applaud the DC Lawmakers. I will vote for them."
You applaud D.C. lawmakers violating the rights of a church and its members to have their own doctrines and not be forced to accept the official doctrine of the city? That shows what kind of person you are and what kind of person you vote for and it is no wonder that these D.C. lawmakers are in government. There are morons like you voting for them because you don't care about the rights of anyone who doesn't agree with you.
This will force every church to accept the religious doctrine of the Church of the District of Columbia to be able to partner with the city while those churches and organizations that adhere to the official city religion will still be able to but those who refuse to change their doctrines will be told "either change your doctrine to the religion of this city or you will be treated differently than organizations who adhere to the religion of the priestesses and priests of the Holy Council of the Church of the District of Columbia."
Cosmo | 3:27 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
Never, ever take government money for anything,or they control you! The church
should pull completely out of D.C, and let the pigs rot.
Choices | 3:32 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
No one is threatening the religious liberty of the Catholic Church or any other
religion.
Catholic Charities voluntarily decided to get involved in state activities. Believe it or not, it is possible to do charitable work without the government giving you money to do it.
Catholic Charities can say no to the government money and still continue to do charity work.
Those who are opposed to same-sex marriage are so fond of quoting scripture, well here are two for you:
Matthew 6:21 "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."
Matthew 6:24 "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."
Because Catholic Charities put themselves in this position by entangling themselves with the government, they are now trying to blackmail the government into following their standards.
Government and religion should be separate precisely so that government can do its job of protecting all citizens and religion can do its job of following its beliefs.
Catholic Charities voluntarily decided to get involved in state activities. Believe it or not, it is possible to do charitable work without the government giving you money to do it.
Catholic Charities can say no to the government money and still continue to do charity work.
Those who are opposed to same-sex marriage are so fond of quoting scripture, well here are two for you:
Matthew 6:21 "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."
Matthew 6:24 "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."
Because Catholic Charities put themselves in this position by entangling themselves with the government, they are now trying to blackmail the government into following their standards.
Government and religion should be separate precisely so that government can do its job of protecting all citizens and religion can do its job of following its beliefs.
Business is business | 3:39 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
Catholic Charities received $8.2 MILLION over 3 years. DC is not taking
advantage of Catholic Charities. Catholic Charities and DC are engaged in a
business deal.
Now, imagine if you went to the grocery store and the check out clerk told you that they weren't going to let you shop there any more if you went to a different store to buy a product they don't sell.
This is what Catholic Charities is doing to DC. And DC has every right to pass the legislation they want to pass and take their business elsewhere.
Now, imagine if you went to the grocery store and the check out clerk told you that they weren't going to let you shop there any more if you went to a different store to buy a product they don't sell.
This is what Catholic Charities is doing to DC. And DC has every right to pass the legislation they want to pass and take their business elsewhere.
Anonymous | 3:40 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
Separation of church and state would have prevented this from ever becoming an
issue.
Slippery slope | 3:43 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
So, Catholic Charities wants exemptions from obeying this law. What other laws
are they going to request exemptions for because they violate religious
principle?
@ D.C. is now a religious org. | 3:47 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
How do you feel this makes DC a religious organization? If anything,
constructing their laws to reflect the teachings of the Catholic Church will
make them religious - Catholic to be exact.
"This will force every church to accept the religious doctrine of the Church of the District of Columbia to be able to partner with the city..."
You know, I have a really hard time getting all worked up over the fact that religious organizations have to follow the law in order to get city contracts.
"This will force every church to accept the religious doctrine of the Church of the District of Columbia to be able to partner with the city..."
You know, I have a really hard time getting all worked up over the fact that religious organizations have to follow the law in order to get city contracts.
First Amendment | 3:53 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
Although charity work is an important part of Catholicism, they do not need to receive government money to do that charitable work. In fact, it can be argued that if they are paid to do the work it is business, not charity.
Allowing same-sex marriage in DC in no way prohibits the Catholic Church from believing it is wrong. It merely makes them choose between money and belief.
However -
Passing a law that says that everyone has to follow this law except this religion, is making a law that respects that particular religion. This is a violation of the First Amendment - especially after the Catholic Church has issued this type of an ultimatum to the city.
The Catholic Church has put the city over a barrel - they now have no choice but to pass the law without the exception.
Although charity work is an important part of Catholicism, they do not need to receive government money to do that charitable work. In fact, it can be argued that if they are paid to do the work it is business, not charity.
Allowing same-sex marriage in DC in no way prohibits the Catholic Church from believing it is wrong. It merely makes them choose between money and belief.
However -
Passing a law that says that everyone has to follow this law except this religion, is making a law that respects that particular religion. This is a violation of the First Amendment - especially after the Catholic Church has issued this type of an ultimatum to the city.
The Catholic Church has put the city over a barrel - they now have no choice but to pass the law without the exception.
Give my family liberty or death | 4:10 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
First Amendment
"Although charity work is an important part of Catholicism, they do not need to receive government money to do that charitable work."
You are right but neither does other organizations or churches including those who adhere to the same religious doctrines as the city or are willing to change their doctrines to conform to that doctrine. When other organizations or churches are forced to change their doctrines to be able to participate in the same activity as everyone else than a religious test is being imposed which everyone must meet to be able to take part in the exact same government activity.
"It merely makes them choose between money and belief."
So any church which won't change its beliefs can't partner with the city but those who adhere to the religious doctrine of the city can. THAT IS AN ACT OF DISCRIMINATION and imposes a religious test on their participation in government programs which any other organization can benefit from.
"Passing a law that says that everyone has to follow this law except this religion, is making a law that respects that particular religion."
The opposite is true so give it a rest tyrant.
"Although charity work is an important part of Catholicism, they do not need to receive government money to do that charitable work."
You are right but neither does other organizations or churches including those who adhere to the same religious doctrines as the city or are willing to change their doctrines to conform to that doctrine. When other organizations or churches are forced to change their doctrines to be able to participate in the same activity as everyone else than a religious test is being imposed which everyone must meet to be able to take part in the exact same government activity.
"It merely makes them choose between money and belief."
So any church which won't change its beliefs can't partner with the city but those who adhere to the religious doctrine of the city can. THAT IS AN ACT OF DISCRIMINATION and imposes a religious test on their participation in government programs which any other organization can benefit from.
"Passing a law that says that everyone has to follow this law except this religion, is making a law that respects that particular religion."
The opposite is true so give it a rest tyrant.
City Doctrine required for deals | 4:16 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
Business is business | 3:39 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
"Catholic Charities received $8.2 MILLION over 3 years. DC is not taking advantage of Catholic Charities. Catholic Charities and DC are engaged in a business deal."
So any organization that wants to have a business deal with our government must adhere to a certain belief and those who don't change their belief to the religious doctrine of the city can get out of the way and accept that if they ever want to do any business with the government than they will accept the official state religion but other organizations don't have that problem.
"This is what Catholic Charities is doing to DC."
What a stupid example of a stupid person who thinks he has the right to violate other people's rights. This is a religious test!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It would be no different than saying that you can't be a member of Congress unless you agree with this position and that there are no exemptions for members of Congress who disagree.
"And DC has every right to pass the legislation they want to pass and take their business elsewhere."
To those who adhere to their doctrine
"Catholic Charities received $8.2 MILLION over 3 years. DC is not taking advantage of Catholic Charities. Catholic Charities and DC are engaged in a business deal."
So any organization that wants to have a business deal with our government must adhere to a certain belief and those who don't change their belief to the religious doctrine of the city can get out of the way and accept that if they ever want to do any business with the government than they will accept the official state religion but other organizations don't have that problem.
"This is what Catholic Charities is doing to DC."
What a stupid example of a stupid person who thinks he has the right to violate other people's rights. This is a religious test!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It would be no different than saying that you can't be a member of Congress unless you agree with this position and that there are no exemptions for members of Congress who disagree.
"And DC has every right to pass the legislation they want to pass and take their business elsewhere."
To those who adhere to their doctrine
Its the other way around | 4:22 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
RE:Choices
"Catholic Charities can say no to the government money and still continue to do charity work."
While other charitable organizations who accept the city's religious doctrine can accept the governments money but those who don't can choose not to accept that money or change their belief. If you don't see that this is imposing a religious test on receiving government money than you are twisted. As it is now both religious organizations of any belief and non-religious organizations can receive government money regardless of their doctrines but this change would impose a religious test.
"Because Catholic Charities put themselves in this position by entangling themselves with the government, they are now trying to blackmail the government into following their standards."
It's the other way around. The Catholic Church is simply asking for an exemption so they don't have to change their doctrines but aren't asking that the city imposes their religious beliefs on every group or organization that wants to receive government money for charitable purposes. The City on the other hand is trying to force the Catholic Church to change its doctrines to receive that money. That's blackmail.
"Catholic Charities can say no to the government money and still continue to do charity work."
While other charitable organizations who accept the city's religious doctrine can accept the governments money but those who don't can choose not to accept that money or change their belief. If you don't see that this is imposing a religious test on receiving government money than you are twisted. As it is now both religious organizations of any belief and non-religious organizations can receive government money regardless of their doctrines but this change would impose a religious test.
"Because Catholic Charities put themselves in this position by entangling themselves with the government, they are now trying to blackmail the government into following their standards."
It's the other way around. The Catholic Church is simply asking for an exemption so they don't have to change their doctrines but aren't asking that the city imposes their religious beliefs on every group or organization that wants to receive government money for charitable purposes. The City on the other hand is trying to force the Catholic Church to change its doctrines to receive that money. That's blackmail.
Pagan | 4:22 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
'The Catholic Church isn't going to stop providing humanitarian
services to people instead it's going to stop working with those who oppose
their values...'
In my words: who give humanitarian services!
You can't have it both ways.
I'm sure at some point this catholic service helped house gay people. Despite popular belief, being gay does not guarentee you housing.
That was ok then.
But now that gay marriage will be legal, oh no! We can't do this OTHER charity! That would be working with the enemy?
The catholic church's doctorine will not change at all to help the homeless. I doubt many would dispute that.
If they are opposed to gay-marriage, that is all well and good.
Don't get one.
But to try and take that disagreement out on other charities? One's that are not tied with the issue at hand?
Shameful.
In my words: who give humanitarian services!
You can't have it both ways.
I'm sure at some point this catholic service helped house gay people. Despite popular belief, being gay does not guarentee you housing.
That was ok then.
But now that gay marriage will be legal, oh no! We can't do this OTHER charity! That would be working with the enemy?
The catholic church's doctorine will not change at all to help the homeless. I doubt many would dispute that.
If they are opposed to gay-marriage, that is all well and good.
Don't get one.
But to try and take that disagreement out on other charities? One's that are not tied with the issue at hand?
Shameful.
A real liberal defends freedom | 4:35 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
Anonymous
"Separation of church and state would have prevented this from ever becoming an issue."
How do you propose that we do that? It seems to me that what you mean is that churches must be subject to the laws of this country but have no part in the making of those laws which affect them and their members or are you proposing that a church does not have to obey any of our laws?
If thats the case we would have separation of church and state but as long as churches must obey our laws they must have the same right to get involved in the making of those laws as any other individual or organization.
The words separation of church and state aren't in the Constitution because they don't mean anything. They are merely a figure of speech to describe a concept that government can't make laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or impose a religious test.
It does not prevent a Church from exercising its freedom of speech, religion and right to petition the government for a redress of their grievances.
"Separation of church and state would have prevented this from ever becoming an issue."
How do you propose that we do that? It seems to me that what you mean is that churches must be subject to the laws of this country but have no part in the making of those laws which affect them and their members or are you proposing that a church does not have to obey any of our laws?
If thats the case we would have separation of church and state but as long as churches must obey our laws they must have the same right to get involved in the making of those laws as any other individual or organization.
The words separation of church and state aren't in the Constitution because they don't mean anything. They are merely a figure of speech to describe a concept that government can't make laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or impose a religious test.
It does not prevent a Church from exercising its freedom of speech, religion and right to petition the government for a redress of their grievances.
Phil | 4:40 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
So now we result to bribery? Why cannot family values stand? Why is it the
Minor majority gets what they are seeking. The reason being is that those who
are a part of the Moral and Major Majority don't have the guts to stand up
for what they believe and continue to be buffaled by Gays and their rights.
Just the same a Prayer in School ect.
Anonymous | 4:40 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
"THAT IS AN ACT OF DISCRIMINATION..."
I thought discrimination was okay? Isn't that why people are opposed to the ordinance SLC just passed?
So the choice here is that the government either allows those who do business with it to discriminate based on their religious beliefs or the government is discriminating against the discriminators?
So it is okay to discriminate against those who you don't like but not okay to discriminate against those who don't want to follow the law? Gotcha!
I thought discrimination was okay? Isn't that why people are opposed to the ordinance SLC just passed?
So the choice here is that the government either allows those who do business with it to discriminate based on their religious beliefs or the government is discriminating against the discriminators?
So it is okay to discriminate against those who you don't like but not okay to discriminate against those who don't want to follow the law? Gotcha!
Anonymous | 4:42 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
The catholic church has to remember that it is not in Rome. Follow the laws
that have been made by representatives of the US people. You don't get
special dispensations.
The city shouldn't be giving ANY religion money to do anything.
The city shouldn't be giving ANY religion money to do anything.
Shocked other liberals are stupi | 4:43 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
RE:Pagan
"In my words: who give humanitarian services!
You can't have it both ways."
You are arrogant. How many times must you be told that the Catholic Church doesn't need to partner with the city to provide humanitarian services so refusing to work with the city if it requires them to change their doctrines doesn't mean that they are denying humanitarian service.
"I'm sure at some point this catholic service helped house gay people. Despite popular belief, being gay does not guarentee you housing."
Someone's sexual orientation has nothing to do with rather they receive housing and shouldn't. Have you ever considered that the doctrines of the Catholic Church REQUIRES that someone's sexual orientation isn't considered when providing charity but that it does not permit them to provide employee benefits to homosexual couples or provide adoption services to homosexuals? It seems to me that you are imposing your beliefs yet again.
"But now that gay marriage will be legal, oh no! We can't do this OTHER charity! That would be working with the enemy?"
That isn't what they said and you know it so stop lying.
"In my words: who give humanitarian services!
You can't have it both ways."
You are arrogant. How many times must you be told that the Catholic Church doesn't need to partner with the city to provide humanitarian services so refusing to work with the city if it requires them to change their doctrines doesn't mean that they are denying humanitarian service.
"I'm sure at some point this catholic service helped house gay people. Despite popular belief, being gay does not guarentee you housing."
Someone's sexual orientation has nothing to do with rather they receive housing and shouldn't. Have you ever considered that the doctrines of the Catholic Church REQUIRES that someone's sexual orientation isn't considered when providing charity but that it does not permit them to provide employee benefits to homosexual couples or provide adoption services to homosexuals? It seems to me that you are imposing your beliefs yet again.
"But now that gay marriage will be legal, oh no! We can't do this OTHER charity! That would be working with the enemy?"
That isn't what they said and you know it so stop lying.
Shame on you. Horrible person | 4:48 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
RE:Pagan
"The catholic church's doctorine will not change at all to help the homeless. I doubt many would dispute that."
The point they made is that if they continue to provide services to the needy without receiving exemptions while receiving city money than they could be forced to provide employee benefits and adoption services to homosexuals which is against their doctrine. This does not mean that they won't continue to provide those services without being a partner of the city but it does mean that the city is discriminating against them by forcing them to choose between their religious doctrine and being a partner of the city.
"If they are opposed to gay-marriage, that is all well and good.
Don't get one."
That isn't the issue here and you know it so stop playing games. I'm sick of liberals behaving like you because it makes us look like fascists when in reality they aren't real liberals.
"But to try and take that disagreement out on other charities? One's that are not tied with the issue at hand?
Shameful."
They aren't closing down all of their charities. Get it?
"The catholic church's doctorine will not change at all to help the homeless. I doubt many would dispute that."
The point they made is that if they continue to provide services to the needy without receiving exemptions while receiving city money than they could be forced to provide employee benefits and adoption services to homosexuals which is against their doctrine. This does not mean that they won't continue to provide those services without being a partner of the city but it does mean that the city is discriminating against them by forcing them to choose between their religious doctrine and being a partner of the city.
"If they are opposed to gay-marriage, that is all well and good.
Don't get one."
That isn't the issue here and you know it so stop playing games. I'm sick of liberals behaving like you because it makes us look like fascists when in reality they aren't real liberals.
"But to try and take that disagreement out on other charities? One's that are not tied with the issue at hand?
Shameful."
They aren't closing down all of their charities. Get it?
Christy | 5:28 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
"If Catholics believe traditional marriage is ordained of God, government
should not require them to do something they believe is offensive to God. Those
who say same-sex marriage will not be imposed on churches need to think
again."
WHAT is the government requiring the Catholic Church to DO?
WHAT is the government requiring the Catholic Church to DO?
@ D.C. Doctrine | 5:41 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
"The Catholic Church isn't going to stop providing humanitarian
services to people instead it's going to stop working with those who oppose
their values, beliefs and who want to force them to change their religious and
moral beliefs."
WHO is forcing the Church to change its religious and moral beliefs? Gay marriage has NOTHING to do with the Church. And vice versa.
WHO is forcing the Church to change its religious and moral beliefs? Gay marriage has NOTHING to do with the Church. And vice versa.
1ofCA18000 | 6:02 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
No one is forcing the church to continue to provide these services. If the
church doesn't want to abide by the law it can leave. I think the real
issue with the church isn't providing services but the loss of millions of
dollars. The gentleman who runs the Catholic Charities in DC makes approx.
$280,000.00.
Christy | 6:45 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
"That is the real agenda of those who support same sex marriage. Force
churches and individuals who don't share their religious and moral beliefs
to adopt those beliefs or not be able to partner with the government or enter
into heterosexual marriages without recognizing that it is not a sin to get your
marriage solemnized by those who promote homosexual relationships."
What?? Speak English please. No comprende. I have no agenda other than to see gay couples who want to get married, be able to do so. Period. That's it. I have no axe to grind with any religion. And religion just needs to leave the gays A-lone.
What?? Speak English please. No comprende. I have no agenda other than to see gay couples who want to get married, be able to do so. Period. That's it. I have no axe to grind with any religion. And religion just needs to leave the gays A-lone.
Ummm | 6:45 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
Someone is not "horrible" because they believe differently than you.
Calm down.
Stenar | 6:56 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
PLEASE! The city is PAYING THEM to provide those services. If they no longer
want to receive those contracts, some other business or church will gladly take
the city money to offer those services.
To : Phil | 7:12 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
"Why cannot family values stand?"
What are your family values Phil? Our family values are: Do good, be honest, be kind, love, share. If a gay couple in your city were allowed to marry, how would it affect your family's values? HOW WOULD IT DIRECTLY AFFECT YOUR FAMILY?
"[The moral majority doesn't] have the guts to stand up for what they believe and continue to be buffaled by Gays and their rights. Just the same a Prayer in School ect."
Phil, when I was in school, back in the 70's, in Utah County, every kid was a white Mormon. Every single one. We all walked across the street to the stake center and sang Christmas songs at Christmas time, during school hours. And it was no big deal because we were all the exact same.
Now, in my classroom (outside of Utah) we have Muslims, and various Christians, and I don't know what else. So, how should we pray every morning Phil? Maybe people should pray at home with their families before they go to work or school? Would that be a terrible thing?
What are your family values Phil? Our family values are: Do good, be honest, be kind, love, share. If a gay couple in your city were allowed to marry, how would it affect your family's values? HOW WOULD IT DIRECTLY AFFECT YOUR FAMILY?
"[The moral majority doesn't] have the guts to stand up for what they believe and continue to be buffaled by Gays and their rights. Just the same a Prayer in School ect."
Phil, when I was in school, back in the 70's, in Utah County, every kid was a white Mormon. Every single one. We all walked across the street to the stake center and sang Christmas songs at Christmas time, during school hours. And it was no big deal because we were all the exact same.
Now, in my classroom (outside of Utah) we have Muslims, and various Christians, and I don't know what else. So, how should we pray every morning Phil? Maybe people should pray at home with their families before they go to work or school? Would that be a terrible thing?
BTW Phil | 7:23 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
I'm a hetero wife and mom. :)
Chris | 8:43 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
The writing is on the wall. Remember Elder Oaks talk?
HAHA | 9:25 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
ohhh my gosh its not just the lds! I applaud the catholics for standing behind
what they belive
What if? | 12:49 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009
"Marriage" could be the term reserved for the union between a man and
a woman solemnized by a religious authority. This is the traditional usage of
the word.
"Union" could be the term used for any other non-religious legal contract between two people who do not want a religious authority to preside over their joining together: hetero- or homosexual.
If the parties to marriages and unions were treated equally before the law, religions could retain the concept of "marriage" for their exclusive use. Religious people would no longer have to worry about the traditional concept of marriage being hijacked or corrupted.
Homosexuals would have equal protections and rights before the law, but it would not infringe on the beliefs of churches opposing gay marriage.
A lot of this debate is over syntax and perhaps settling it this way would overcome much of the rancor and animosity.
In my opinion, as long as they try to call it "gay marriage" the religions of the world will fight to the last breath to avoid having their doctrinal beliefs overturned.
Do gays just want the rights, or do they want to force religions to accept homosexuality?
"Union" could be the term used for any other non-religious legal contract between two people who do not want a religious authority to preside over their joining together: hetero- or homosexual.
If the parties to marriages and unions were treated equally before the law, religions could retain the concept of "marriage" for their exclusive use. Religious people would no longer have to worry about the traditional concept of marriage being hijacked or corrupted.
Homosexuals would have equal protections and rights before the law, but it would not infringe on the beliefs of churches opposing gay marriage.
A lot of this debate is over syntax and perhaps settling it this way would overcome much of the rancor and animosity.
In my opinion, as long as they try to call it "gay marriage" the religions of the world will fight to the last breath to avoid having their doctrinal beliefs overturned.
Do gays just want the rights, or do they want to force religions to accept homosexuality?
What if? continued | 1:01 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009
If the gay community's goal is to force religions to accept and embrace
homosexuality, then this fight will rage on for years and possibly even
decades.
If it is really just about the rights before the law, then perhaps the gay community needs to concede on this point and allow the religions of the world to believe their doctrines as they have been taught through history.
Give up on forcing the concept of marriage to change. Give up your hatred for the religious community, stop making threats, cease the violence, and eliminate the retaliation against those who dare to disagree with your agenda. Allow the religious community the same tolerance you have been demanding from us, and allow us to believe as we believe: agree to disagree.
It all comes down to stating clearly what your agenda is:
- achieving equality before the law with spouses in traditional marriages
-- or --
- forcing religious, political and cultural acceptance of homosexuality.
I don't speak for all, but religions don't hate gays or condone discrimination against them. We will continue to believe that homosexuality is not ordained of God and we cannot accept condoning gay marriage as such.
If it is really just about the rights before the law, then perhaps the gay community needs to concede on this point and allow the religions of the world to believe their doctrines as they have been taught through history.
Give up on forcing the concept of marriage to change. Give up your hatred for the religious community, stop making threats, cease the violence, and eliminate the retaliation against those who dare to disagree with your agenda. Allow the religious community the same tolerance you have been demanding from us, and allow us to believe as we believe: agree to disagree.
It all comes down to stating clearly what your agenda is:
- achieving equality before the law with spouses in traditional marriages
-- or --
- forcing religious, political and cultural acceptance of homosexuality.
I don't speak for all, but religions don't hate gays or condone discrimination against them. We will continue to believe that homosexuality is not ordained of God and we cannot accept condoning gay marriage as such.
What if? continued | 1:09 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009
If you can accept the syntax change of unions vs. marriage and use the political
system (not the courts) to create equal protections before the law, leaving
alone the religious concept of marriage between man and woman, then we can begin
to make some progress in this debate instead of each side generating angrier
feelings on this issue.
It is the gays' attack on religion's core belief in a God that spoke anciently and created marriage between man and woman and has not changed His stance on this issue that is creating all the problem.
We know many of the gay community feel that religion's beliefs are either complete fantasy or very outdated, but regardless, the majority of Americans do believe in God and associate themselves with some kind of religion. You are going to have to accept this fact and work with it, not insult believers and threaten us with retaliation unless we stay out of the political process or vote with you to appease you.
Meet us halfway and let's have a dialogue, not a bitter fight and waste billions of dollars on an issue that is tearing us apart.
It is the gays' attack on religion's core belief in a God that spoke anciently and created marriage between man and woman and has not changed His stance on this issue that is creating all the problem.
We know many of the gay community feel that religion's beliefs are either complete fantasy or very outdated, but regardless, the majority of Americans do believe in God and associate themselves with some kind of religion. You are going to have to accept this fact and work with it, not insult believers and threaten us with retaliation unless we stay out of the political process or vote with you to appease you.
Meet us halfway and let's have a dialogue, not a bitter fight and waste billions of dollars on an issue that is tearing us apart.
Tyson B | 1:32 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009
It seems like such a simple solution. Gay marriages and heteroSexual marriages
should by law be allowed, and performed at a courthouse. However, no church
should EVER be forced to perform a marriage they do not believe in, and if they
do, then go on ahead. Gays should have the ability to get the legal benefits of
heterosexuals, but no church should be Legally liable in any way if they chose
not to allow a gay couple to marry in their church or ceremonies on it's
properties. This is coming from a very secular/agnostic in the Seattle suburbs.
Seriously, let's meet half way.
Unbelieveable | 7:26 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009
The Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves. Whatever happened in this
country to the principle of letting churches believe and teach what doctrines
they believe to be right? Are City Councils now, with all of their political
correctness, going to start dictating which doctrines are "city
approved" and which are not? Or bring punitive measures, fines, or
outright hostility and legal actions against churches based on their
long-standing doctrines that they don't like? Its coming down to people of
faith versus "the world" of athiests, agnostics, and secular
progressives. The District of Columbia is a basket case. It's
embarrassing that its our nation's capitol. Never enough money to keep it
afloat, the roads are terrible, and scandal after scandal. They're hardly
the penultimate example or paragon of moral virtue.
Anonymous | 7:59 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009
I work closely with the DC Council, and one thing is clear. The nuances of this
debate are lost of you folks. I am ambivalent on the matter, but what is clear
is that the Catholic Church is playing a game of chicken, distorting the impact
of the legislation on their religious functions and rites, and making threats
that I doubt they even intend to keep. This is a lobbying tactic. And it is
amazing how Utahns are obsessed with this issue, whether in Utah or elsewhere.
EM | 9:35 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009
Let's be honest: The "freedom of religion" many of you fear
losing is really just the freedom to discriminate.
The Catholic church has a choice here - to continue to discriminate against gays or not. I applaud the city of D.C. for standing up against discrimination. I'm sure the Catholic church will be welcome to continue partnering with city if it's willing to do the same.
The Catholic church has a choice here - to continue to discriminate against gays or not. I applaud the city of D.C. for standing up against discrimination. I'm sure the Catholic church will be welcome to continue partnering with city if it's willing to do the same.
Anonymous | 9:36 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009
Charity shouldn't be a political bargaining chip.
Anonymous | 5:25 p.m. Nov. 14, 2009
The Catholic charities are paid millions each year by the DC government. They
are not as altruistic as they want you to think.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- 4A: Timpview wins 4th in 4 years 12:42 a.m.
- 3A: From happy to heartbroken 12:24 a.m.
- Utes wary of SUU 12:22 a.m.
- This weekend on TV 12:21 a.m.
- Unranked Orange move to 4-0 12:20 a.m.
- Editorial: RSL silences critics 12:15 a.m.
- Editorial: Obama in China 12:15 a.m.
- The winners and the losers 12:15 a.m.
- Siler survives tough 5-round bout 12:15 a.m.
- Find common ground for solutions 12:15 a.m.
- Mailman's nomination delivered
- Jazz finally win in San Antonio
- U. professor dies after fall from bus
- 'New Moon' rising: Vamps vs. 'wolves
- Archuleta still calls Utah home
- Horrifying scenario described
- 4A: Timpview wins 4th in 4 years
- Officer cleared in Cardall Taser case
- Unga's status 'a game-time decision'
- Utah jobless rate at 6.5%
- Buttars wants to limit gay rights laws
182 - Palin plans tour stop in Utah167
- BYU, Utah struck gold in coaches123
- Lies shatter Utah family122
- Palin's book shows she's unqualified105
- Officer cleared in Cardall Taser case96
- Jazz finally win in San Antonio95
- BYU cuts Women's Research Inst.94
- Utes knock off rival Aggies92
- Huntsman pleased with Obama84
I don't pretend to be an expert on global warming. I've met with...
Latest comments
Ask just women of childbearing age do they want to decide their reproductive...
On behalf of the millions of people worldwide who worship the devine and...
That happened approximately 9 years ago.
For being a terrible program, Bronco still has one more win than Kyle...go...
wow, that was a game. #56 for Hurricane seemed to be in on almost every...
That was the most amazing drive and play I have ever seen in high school...
for stepping up and doing the right thing in challenging portions of the...
A majority of us are apposed to abortion, but we are in even greater...
"Speed kills. Speed beats size everytime. " haha, everytime eh? If that...
Air Force 35 BYU 21
Advertisements