Print Blog
Email a FriendI read about this the other day in the WashPost and was mad…and sad. The rhetoric employed by the City Council is an attempt at sidestepping (or sweeping under the rug) the real constitutional issues you mention. And you KNOW when the Church and the ACLU are arguing some of the same points that something strange is going on. (Should I be checking for signs of the apocalypse?:)) It’s also a repeat of the same constitutional issues that we saw played out here in Canada after they passed their same-sex marriage laws. And these issues are still not resolved! There are still significant efforts underway to restrict right of religious organizations to refuse to support/serve same-sex marriages. If this measure passes in DC, it will be hard going there for those who refuse to go along.
"Just" Your Conscience
Posted by Rebecca Teti in News on Monday, November 16, 2009 2:00 PM
My hometown’s City Council is poised to shut down many Catholic charities within the District of Columbia’s borders.
It’s doing so through a measure with the Orwellian title the “Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009.”
The proposed law does preserve the right of religious groups not to provide goods, services or facilities in violation of their religious beliefs.
Unless they provide those goods to the general public.
The instant any charity accepting government grants opens its doors to an unbeliever, in other words, it loses its right to act in accord with its beliefs.
The Archdiocese of Washington has forthrightly explained that it won’t be able to operate the numerous hospitals, homeless shelters, adoption services and other charities it partners with the city to run under those conditions.
Passage will mean that where city contracts for social services are concerned, people of faith need not apply.
The Church has petitioned for an exemption which the City Council appears disinclined to grant.
The Washington Post is reporting this as a threat—as if the Church were attacking the city and not vice versa.
The paper is also running a non-scientific poll on the question. The anti-Church side was winning (73%) last time I checked.
(I think you’ll find the comments at the poll both sad and enlightening.)
Meanwhile, this is a clear-cut illustration of the truth of Hadley Arkes’ premise highlighted last week.
If same-sex marriage is a “right,” it becomes “wrong”—and illegal—to oppose it.
This is why perhaps a majority of members of the DC City Council, having once embraced same-sex marriage, does not notice or does not care that in so doing it will abrogate the First Amendment rights to religious liberty, freedom of assembly and free speech of not only the Catholic church but numerous historically black churches operating charities within the city’s limits.
Championing same-sex marriage takes precedence in the Council’s mind over all those things—and over the health care and nutrition of the numerous sick, poor and addicted DC residents the Church—and churches—care for.
Lest I be accused of being hysterical, I should point out that the ACLU testified in hearings on the subject on behalf of the Church, arguing that the proposed law represents a narrowing of religious liberty.
There’s an excellent “chat” on the subject, with good Q & A by government professor Patrick Deneen here.
For simply pointing out the conflict and asking that its rights be respected, one council-member referred to the Church as “childish.”
Are they really going to harm people because they have a philosophical disagreement with us on one issue?
“Just” a philosophical disagreement? That one question gives us a window into the council-woman’s view of conscience, doesn’t it?
Comments
Page 1 of 1 pages
When battling for “Yes on 8”, here in California, a website we referred others to often was http://marriagematterstokids.org/ It has Bishops Cordelione, Niederauer,and Vigneron defending the truth of marriage and families. It’s a great personal resource. And no, you aren’t over reacting.
I think you’re misstating the City Council’s opinion. They’re not saying the Church is “wrong” for opposing same sex marriage. They’re saying that if an organization wants the City Council’s money, it cannot discriminate against gays and lesbians. If the organization wants to discriminate against gays and lesbians, it certainly can, but it won’t be eligible for city contracts. There’s no value judgment there—it’s just like any other government program that comes with strings attached. I don’t see why Catholic Charities would want to be in contract with the city anyway if it opposes the city’s stance here.
Your objection makes my point.
The City Council’s move is not a non-discrimination law (a move to ensure that all individuals are subject to the same rules in the workplace). It’s a you-must-accept-same-sex-marriage as a good law. Since the city has contracted with the Church for various services for many years, this is a clear case of bullying.
There is certainly a prudential argument to be made that charities themselves would be wiser operating solely from private donations on the ground that “who takes the king’s coin becomes the king’s man.”
When the government offers contracts to bidders, however, and then makes the condition such that Christians—and probably the majority of the city’s population—need not apply, that’s an injustice.
Would you be as sanguine if the City Council passed a law saying that in order to bid on a city contract, a group had to recognize and advance polygamy?
Jay, I have to respectfully disagree. DC’s city council is saying that to disagree with them about same-sex so-called marriage is to be wrong. I don’t know if you’ve read what the Washington Post has published, but the council is very clearly stating an aggressive view that makes the Catholic view sound completely wrong.
The truism, “The more things stay the same, the more they change” applies here, for sure. The Church’s views aren’t those that are changing. I’m so sad that our culture keeps moving further away from the center…and then bullying those who are just continuing the values that so many generations before us have held.
I found this comment in the article particularly laughable: “Advocates for same-sex couples said they could not immediately think of other places where a same-sex marriage law had set off a break with a major faith-based provider of social services.” I can name three off the top of my head: Canada, Boston, San Francisco. The willful ignorance on display here is astonishing. Very scary.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Faith And Family Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
