Catholics Backing Away From Politically Fighting Gay Marriage.

[california boy]

If you don't believe the LGBT community will not go after businesses that do not conform, you've got your head under a rock IMHO.

Maybe you misunderstood me. I certainly agree with you. I think that gays will demand equal treatment in every business sector and they won't wait until gay marriage is legal.

I am not sure what you think I misrepresented about Catholic Charities. It is my understanding that the federal government threatened to withdraw federal funding from them if they did not provide for gay adoption. Catholic Charities wanted to discriminage against gays and decided it was against their teachings to offer gay adoption and rather than yield to the government demands, they closed their adoption program. Here are links to some of the Federal grants Catholic Charities receives.

http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/page.aspx?pid=2315

http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=1740

http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/page.aspx?pid=337

Quoting from their documentation.

<strong style="color: rgb(0, 128, 128); "><em>Child Welfare Services:</em></strong> Provide sufficient funding to implement the significant improvements made to the child welfare system under the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoption Act of 2008, P.L. 110-351. These changes provide critical services to children and families involved with the child welfare system, and will improve opportunities for a child to have a permanent, caring family. Catholic Charities USA strongly supports investments to prevent child abuse and neglect, and to increase workforce capacity and training within the child welfare system.

http://www.adl.org/charitable_choice/charitable_choice_faq.asp

While it is true that religiously-affiliated<i> </i>organizations (such as Catholic Charities) have traditionally received government funds to deliver social services, government regulation—<b>safeguards—have always ensured that such organizations do not integrate religious activities into their delivery of government-funded social services</b> or discriminate in hiring staff to provide such services.

Which is exactly what Catholic Charaties tried to do.

[jwhitlock]

I don't think gay couples are waiting for marriage equality to press cases where they are discriminated just because they are gay. If this is the big issue for you, perhaps you should be fighting discrimination laws. Good luck with that one.

Yes, gays are using discrimination laws now to punish their opponents. And they will use discrimination laws to punish those who won't recognize or perform their same sex marriages once it becomes law.

You're sidestepping around the fact that this isn't real discrimination. As Pahoran has pointed out, gays have the same rights and can do anything anyone else can do. You now want the rest of us to conform to your definition of how things should be, and when we don't, for religious or moral reasons, gays cry "discrimination!" and sue us to force us to do so. Your response to blueadept is demonstrative about this; you use an overly broad definition of discrimination to justify the choice Catholic Charities had to make.

All of the situations and cases presented have been about gays forcing other people through a compliant legal system to do and think how they want them to. And in a nifty piece of disingenuous thinking, and in order to shift the blame, you claim that Mormons are forcing their doctrine on others. No wonder that your only real response can be to try to ridicule and otherwise dismiss the clear evidence of what is going to happen.

[blueadept]

Maybe you misunderstood me. I certainly agree with you. I think that gays will demand equal treatment in every business sector and they won't wait until gay marriage is legal.

I am not sure what you think I misrepresented about Catholic Charities. It is my understanding that the federal government threatened to withdraw federal funding from them if they did not provide for gay adoption. Catholic Charities wanted to discriminage against gays and decided it was against their teachings to offer gay adoption and rather than yield to the government demands, they closed their adoption program. Here are links to some of the Federal grants Catholic Charities receives.

http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/page.aspx?pid=2315

http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=1740

http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/page.aspx?pid=337

Quoting from their documentation.

http://www.adl.org/charitable_choice/charitable_choice_faq.asp

Which is exactly what Catholic Charaties tried to do.

Due to the faith-based initiatives, of course Catholic charities cannot discriminate in how they provide their services which includes more than just placement of children (adoption/foster care) in SSM homes. You're inferring that Catholic Charities would be able to discriminate in placement of children in SSM households. I'm ensuring that the Catholic bishops would step in long before that could happen which is what has happened. The RCC and bishops have no problems in regards to this that Catholic charities need to follow the rules. Here's the part I would have bolded out in your link.

because many "charitable choice" plans have been put forth without adequate safeguards to ensure that religious activity, including proselytizing, is not a part of that service delivery.

The heart of the issue that you've side-stepped is placement of children in SSM households which is not addressed in your links and only inferred by you. Catholic Charities did not shutdown these adoption services due to being threatened by the loss of federal funding, the Catholic bishop (long before being threatened of having federal funding being pulled) closed the adoption services. Of course Catholic Charities would not be able to discriminate in placement of children once SSMs are legal. This is the reason the archbishop stepped-in in Massachusetts and state that he was closing all adoption/foster care services in his jurisdiction so that Catholic Charities would not be placed in a position that would go against Catholic teachings. Other bishops have made similar actions in areas such as New York (?), Illinois, San Francisco and Los Angeles as well as other areas (states) that recognize SSM. I'm honestly surprised that the US bishops haven't simply shutdown all of its adoption/foster care services since it's inevitable anyways.

This is the time I'm jealous of LDS Family Services since they do not receive federal funding and will not need to shutdown their adoption services.

It's just sad that we need to shutdown these important services in order to protect our religious conscience. I predict that Catholic hospitals will eventually run into this same religious conscience issue due to being forced in doing abortions and not just in case of emergencies. It's just sad.

[LeSellers]

This is the time I'm jealous of LDS Family Services since they do not receive federal funding and will not need to shutdown their adoption services.

It's just sad that we need to shutdown these important services in order to protect our religious conscience. I predict that Catholic hospitals will eventually run into this same religious conscience issue due to being forced in doing abortions and not just in case of emergencies. It's just sad.

The answer is clear: Stop taking "government" money!

One of the issues about so-called government money is that it is taken by force from everyone (or at least from 53% of people-those who pay taxes, in USmerica), but in the power of a very few whose primary goal is to control other people's lives. When the left has control of the levers of government, the right whines. When the right operates the government machinery, the left whimpers.

It is precisely because The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not accept stolen money to run its operations that we have the freedom to operate as we wish (although the O'bama regime has demonstrated its willingness to step all over religious freedom). Accepting government money, whether to run a hospital or a school, an adoption agency or an employment center, makes you an agent of the government, and subject to the whims and caprice of those who have convinced the most recent majority that it will plunder others to pay for their "entitlements".

If you want freedom, refuse the chains of state money. There is no other plan.

Lehi

[blueadept]

If you wnat freedom, refuse the chains of state money. There is no other plan.

You make it sound like the RCC has money coming out of its ears and is simply mismanaging the money. The money is in each particular diocese and we have our better off diocese versus our poorer diocese. I'm in California and living in the poorest diocese in the state comparably speaking which is next to one of the better off diocese of Los Angeles. I'm sure we will eventually cut off state money. I'm sure each diocese is not in a hurry to do so since that will cause us to shutdown a lot of these facilities which will make it more difficult in taking care of the needy and poor which is the mission of the church.

[california boy]

Yes, gays are using discrimination laws now to punish their opponents. And they will use discrimination laws to punish those who won't recognize or perform their same sex marriages once it becomes law.

You're sidestepping around the fact that this isn't real discrimination. As Pahoran has pointed out, gays have the same rights and can do anything anyone else can do. You now want the rest of us to conform to your definition of how things should be, and when we don't, for religious or moral reasons, gays cry "discrimination!" and sue us to force us to do so. Your response to blueadept is demonstrative about this; you use an overly broad definition of discrimination to justify the choice Catholic Charities had to make.

All of the situations and cases presented have been about gays forcing other people through a compliant legal system to do and think how they want them to. And in a nifty piece of disingenuous thinking, and in order to shift the blame, you claim that Mormons are forcing their doctrine on others. No wonder that your only real response can be to try to ridicule and otherwise dismiss the clear evidence of what is going to happen.

Yeah I get that is your view on the subject. But the majority of Americans feel differently. Virtually every national poll taken on this subject during the past year show the majority of Americans support equality for gay couples. And you are fully aware of the difference between a religious institution practicing its religion and a religious institution running a business open to the public so why bother to reason with you. You evidently want to believe what you want to believe no matter what the facts are. In the end it really doesn't matter what fantasy you wish to believe, the courts will issue a ruling on this issue and gays will eventually be treated equally in this country.

[LeSellers]

You make it sound like the RCC has money coming out of its ears and is simply mismanaging the money.

It really doesn't matter how much money you have; the question is, how much are you spending in relationship to that income?

We'd like to do a lot more than we are, but have the wisdom to do what we can, and stretch as far as possible with it. But we don't get in bed with people who fundamentally do not like what we do nor how we do it.

Stop taking government money.

And see that all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength. And again, it is expedient that he should be diligent, that thereby he might win the prize; therefore, all things must be done in order.

Lehi

[california boy]

The Catholic church pulls funding from a homeless shelter simply because the director supports gay marriage. This is in California where gay marriage is not even legal and the homeless shelter has nothing to do with gay marriage. Their mission is simply to feed the poor. I see no reason why the Catholic church would have a problem with the Federal government pulling funding from the ACTIONS not just the beliefs of the Catholic church. A bit hypercritical of them to complain don't you think?

Here is the link to the article.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/08/v-print/4320550/sacramento-catholic-diocese-drops.html

Sacramento Catholic Diocese drops funds over nonprofit director's views

chubert@sacbee.com

PUBLISHED THURSDAY, MAR. 08, 2012

The Catholic Diocese of Sacramento no longer will fund programs at Francis House, a nonprofit agency that serves homeless people, because of its new director's views supporting abortion rights and gay marriage.

In an interview Wednesday, she (Whitmore, a United Methodist minister) called the diocese's decision to discontinue its support "surprising and disappointing."

"I have never represented any of those positions on behalf of Francis House," said Whitmore, formerly the senior pastor at St. Mark's United Methodist Church. "I was speaking as an individual. So for me, this came out of the blue.'

I obviously don't have a problem with the Catholic church pulling their funding. They can spend their money any way they want, but I think they have little to complain about when the government pulls its funding from their projects when the church decides it is ok to discriminate.

[blueadept]

The Catholic church pulls funding from a homeless shelter simply because the director supports gay marriage. This is in California where gay marriage is not even legal and the homeless shelter has nothing to do with gay marriage. Their mission is simply to feed the poor. I see no reason why the Catholic church would have a problem with the Federal government pulling funding from the ACTIONS not just the beliefs of the Catholic church. A bit hypercritical of them to complain don't you think?

Here is the link to the article.

http://www.sacbee.co...cese-drops.html

I obviously don't have a problem with the Catholic church pulling their funding. They can spend their money any way they want, but I think they have little to complain about when the government pulls its funding from their projects when the church decides it is ok to discriminate.

This is obviously not a Catholic run organization and you're right that the diocese can pick and choose what they wish to support. Questions always gets asked if Catholics should even go to a SSM ceremony. The correct answer is that we shouldn't show support in any particular way since that would be acknowledging their choice. Even saying to the couple, 'best wishes but we won't be able to attend' is affirmatively acknowledging their choice. So I have no issue with the bishop of Sacramento pulling the funding from a homeless shelter simply because the director supports gay marriage.

For at least two decades, Francis House has received annual donations from the diocese ranging from $7,500 to $10,000, said Michael Miiller, a member of the agency's corporate advisory board.

...

In its letter to Whitmore, the Sacramento Diocese said it respects the work Francis House does and cannot expect every organization it supports financially to "actively promote Catholic teaching."

"We can expect, however, that they or their leaders not publicly oppose Catholic teaching and that, unfortunately, is the situation in which we find ourselves," the letter reads.

Finding other alternatives to donate to is its perogative.

I see no reason why the Catholic church would have a problem with the Federal government pulling funding from the ACTIONS not just the beliefs of the Catholic church. A bit hypercritical of them to complain don't you think?

They wouldn't have a problem. The only people that would suffer would be the poor.

The Catholic Church would prefer working with governments in taking care of the poor. In today's day and age and the strong desire for the separation of church and state in our country, this is becoming a pipe dream in the US.

We were talking about the shutting down of our adoption and foster care facilities that are church runned. The federal government can do what it wants. The church will protect its religious conscience and shutdown it's facilities prior to being made to do what it finds as immoral.

Adoption and foster care facilities today and our Catholic hospitals WILL be next. Good stuff...

[california boy]

This is obviously not a Catholic run organization and you're right that the diocese can pick and choose what they wish to support. Questions always gets asked if Catholics should even go to a SSM ceremony. The correct answer is that we shouldn't show support in any particular way since that would be acknowledging their choice. Even saying to the couple, 'best wishes but we won't be able to attend' is affirmatively acknowledging their choice. So I have no issue with the bishop of Sacramento pulling the funding from a homeless shelter simply because the director supports gay marriage.

Finding other alternatives to donate to is its perogative.

They wouldn't have a problem. The only people that would suffer would be the poor.

The Catholic Church would prefer working with governments in taking care of the poor. In today's day and age and the strong desire for the separation of church and state in our country, this is becoming a pipe dream in the US.

We were talking about the shutting down of our adoption and foster care facilities that are church runned. The federal government can do what it wants. The church will protect its religious conscience and shutdown it's facilities prior to being made to do what it finds as immoral.

Adoption and foster care facilities today and our Catholic hospitals WILL be next. Good stuff...

I certainly understand the Catholic Churches position and I am fine with that as well. I think any religion has a right to worship in the way their conscience dictates. At one time there was no subsities of church welfare programs in this country. One of the main reasons why churches are tax exempt is because of the social and welfare services that they traditionally have done. I think I am more in agreement with Lehi here. Churches should probably stay out of taking government funds so they can practice their services in a way they see fit.

[blueadept]

Churches should probably stay out of taking government funds so they can practice their services in a way they see fit.

This will eventually happen once all the hospitals and caregiving facilities are shutdown...a good goal for sure.

[jwhitlock]

Yeah I get that is your view on the subject. But the majority of Americans feel differently. Virtually every national poll taken on this subject during the past year show the majority of Americans support equality for gay couples. And you are fully aware of the difference between a religious institution practicing its religion and a religious institution running a business open to the public so why bother to reason with you. You evidently want to believe what you want to believe no matter what the facts are. In the end it really doesn't matter what fantasy you wish to believe, the courts will issue a ruling on this issue and gays will eventually be treated equally in this country.

You continue to ignore the point that gays already have full equality. I really don't get any cogent arguments from SSM supporters on the points I bring up; they never are addressed directly. Instead, they are rephrased in terms of "equality", which is a moot point. I'm aware that the courts will eventually grant gays the privilege they seek so they can punish religious freedom; there's no fantasy involved in that, just a cold, hard evaluation of what's already happening.

[jwhitlock]

This will eventually happen once all the hospitals and caregiving facilities are shutdown...a good goal for sure.

SSM advocates only want you to work with governments in providing services if its done on their terms. Otherwise, it's going to be discrimination and they'll have you shut down. The needs of the poor and others are subordinated to the agenda of gay groups.

[blueadept]

SSM advocates only want you to work with governments in providing services if its done on their terms. Otherwise, it's going to be discrimination and they'll have you shut down. The needs of the poor and others are subordinated to the agenda of gay groups.

Cardinal Francis George wrote an interesting article recently for "If Contraception Mandate Stands, All Catholic Hospitals Will Close ‘Two Lents From Now’". Here's the article http://www.theblaze....lents-from-now/

I see the choices essentially the same as where our country is going due to the SSM issue http://www.catholicn...6/cardinal.aspx

What will happen if the HHS regulations are not rescinded? A Catholic institution, so far as I can see right now, will have one of four choices: 1) secularize itself, breaking its connection to the church, her moral and social teachings and the oversight of its ministry by the local bishop. This is a form of theft. It means the church will not be permitted to have an institutional voice in public life. 2) Pay exorbitant annual fines to avoid paying for insurance policies that cover abortifacient drugs, artificial contraception and sterilization. This is not economically sustainable. 3) Sell the institution to a non-Catholic group or to a local government. 4) Close down.

IMHO, simply cutting off federal funding is equivalent to #4 and the reason it's not even listed as an option......but I could be wrong.

It's a brave new world.

[california boy]

SSM advocates only want you to work with governments in providing services if its done on their terms. Otherwise, it's going to be discrimination and they'll have you shut down. The needs of the poor and others are subordinated to the agenda of gay groups.

You act as if the discrimination laws were set up only for gay couples. You do know that these laws protect everyone, even Mormons from being discriminated against. Such pesky laws. Maybe we should go back to the days when blacks were not allowed to eat in restaurants and had to sit at the back of the bus. Discrimination can be such a wonderful thing don't you think?? Sheeze.

[blueadept]

As I listed on post #62, it will be discrimination laws vs an individual's religious conscience.

In all cases listed, religious conscience loses.

A good day for Christian business owners...

[california boy]

You continue to ignore the point that gays already have full equality. I really don't get any cogent arguments from SSM supporters on the points I bring up; they never are addressed directly. Instead, they are rephrased in terms of "equality", which is a moot point. I'm aware that the courts will eventually grant gays the privilege they seek so they can punish religious freedom; there's no fantasy involved in that, just a cold, hard evaluation of what's already happening.

Seriously? You think you have some kind of valid point??? Why not go back to inter racial couples not being allowed to marry who they want. After all, a black person were permitted to marry, they just couldn't marry the person they loved because they were the wrong skin color. It was a tradition of how marriage in this country was since the State of Virginia was founded going back literally hundreds of years. So the activists Supreme Court carved out "special rights" to allow blacks and whites to marry who they wanted.

Do you really think this is some kinda gotcha statement that would hold up in court? Do you really think you have any possible legal grounds to make such an absurd statement? Gay men can marry anyone they want as long as they are not attracted to or love the person they want to marry.

Would you be happy if the federal government passed a law forcing everyone to marry someone of the same sex. It would be a law that would apply to everyone equally. No special rights for straight couples. They still have the right to marry right? It is irrelevant whether they love each other or are compatible as long as they still have the right to marry someone. Now go out and find a man you could fall in love with and spend the rest of your life with. If you didn't like this law, then why not just shack up with someone. Nothing wrong with that option is there? It seems to be the only option you are willing to give to gay couples.

And that is your clever twist of facts to justify your absurd position?

There is that enough of a response for you? Sometimes I wonder why I bother to respond to some of these absurd postings.

[Daniel2]

Sometimes I wonder why I bother to respond to some of these absurd postings.

Most-times, you shouldn't.

Daniel2

[Jeff K.]

You act as if the discrimination laws were set up only for gay couples. You do know that these laws protect everyone, even Mormons from being discriminated against. Such pesky laws. Maybe we should go back to the days when blacks were not allowed to eat in restaurants and had to sit at the back of the bus. Discrimination can be such a wonderful thing don't you think?? Sheeze.

It is this type of nonsensical response that reflects the utter contempt these people have. If you show how the rights are already guarranteed, you are still a racist or bigot. People like this want to take it to the extreme. For example, in CA they now mandate teaching gay history. And it can't be negative. One can for instance teach about the injustice of the Jackson administration on the Native Americans, it is negative. But if Jackson were gay? No you are not allowed to be discriminatory in that way. If something negative comes out, well, the school district can be challenged. Just as children may not be allowed to skip gay orientation classes because they aren't deemed "sex ed" just sex orientation.

Those anti Mormons will always embrace laws that undermine morality, and while doing it call you a racist.

[jwhitlock]

Seriously? You think you have some kind of valid point??? Why not go back to inter racial couples not being allowed to marry who they want. After all, a black person were permitted to marry, they just couldn't marry the person they loved because they were the wrong skin color. It was a tradition of how marriage in this country was since the State of Virginia was founded going back literally hundreds of years. So the activists Supreme Court carved out "special rights" to allow blacks and whites to marry who they wanted.

Do you really think this is some kinda gotcha statement that would hold up in court? Do you really think you have any possible legal grounds to make such an absurd statement? Gay men can marry anyone they want as long as they are not attracted to or love the person they want to marry.

Would you be happy if the federal government passed a law forcing everyone to marry someone of the same sex. It would be a law that would apply to everyone equally. No special rights for straight couples. They still have the right to marry right? It is irrelevant whether they love each other or are compatible as long as they still have the right to marry someone. Now go out and find a man you could fall in love with and spend the rest of your life with. If you didn't like this law, then why not just shack up with someone. Nothing wrong with that option is there? It seems to be the only option you are willing to give to gay couples.

And that is your clever twist of facts to justify your absurd position?

There is that enough of a response for you? Sometimes I wonder why I bother to respond to some of these absurd postings.

Odd that you would even try to make this faulty kind of comparison. I'll spell it out for you:

Equal rights under the law means that marriage is defined equally for everyone. Under current law that means that anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex, if both agree.

Blacks were constrained in that right; they could not marry anyone of the opposite sex in some states. Whites had greater freedom and greater rights.

Currently everyone has the exact same right of marriage; there are no limitations for anyone. Straight people don't have any more rights than gays under the current law. Everyone has total equal rights. You need to understand that point because it's why your race analogy falls apart.

Now, we have gays claiming they are "denied" rights of marrying someone of the same sex. The fact is, that right doesn't exist for anyone in most states. Period. What gays are seeking is an exception and a special privilege based on their preferences. Pay attention, because this is important: it's not an equal rights issue. It has nothing to do with equal rights.

It's a demand for new rights, rights that of no interest to the general population. As has been amply demonstrated, providing preferential treatment for gays in the form of new rights that only they want will enable them to abuse discrimination laws to punish those who don't agree with their agendas. That is one of the main dangers with this new right; those who want the right have demonstrated that they are not benign in how they will treat the rest of society once they have obtained that right via Federal law.

Race does not equate to sexual preference. Neither you nor any other SSM advocates that I have every discussed (and I use the term loosely given the responses I've received on this thread) the subject with have not made any credible effort to demonstrate that they will not use the full force of law to punish those who do not support SSM. You offer nothing except demeaning comments about those who clearly see the dangers in your agenda.

As long as you put the blinders on and misrepresent this as an issue of "equal rights" - which it isn't - then there can be no real discussion. You will demonize your opponents as wanting to deny you rights, when that is not the case at all.

Far from being absurd, my position on this is far more tenable and realistic than yours.

[california boy]

Whatever. It is you that is going to have to rely on this kind of logic to convince the supreme court not to give gay marriage to gay couples. The prop 8 defendents didn't even bother to bring this kind of nonsense up in their trial to defend prop 8. So good luck with that.

Seriously, you should read the transcripts to the prop 8 trial to see what actually are legal arguments for and against gay marriage.

Blacks were constrained in that right; they could not marry anyone of the opposite sex in some states. Whites had greater freedom and greater rights.

And you are wrong about this important flawed statement. Everyone was treated equally. It was just as illegal for a white person to marry a black person as it was for a black person to marry a white person. Duh! Whites had no greater freedom and greater rights than blacks. Everything was equal for everyone.

[jwhitlock]

And you are wrong about this important flawed statement. Everyone was treated equally. It was just as illegal for a white person to marry a black person as it was for a black person to marry a white person. Duh! Whites had no greater freedom and greater rights than blacks. Everything was equal for everyone.

The main points made in my argument still stand. It is not an issue of equality of rights; it is a new privilege that will be damaging to society in general, and will restrict religious and personal freedom of those who do not toe the line on the gay agenda. The comparison of racial rights to gay privilege is invalid, no matter how you try to spin it.

[Daniel2]

You continue to ignore the point that gays already have full equality. I really don't get any cogent arguments from SSM supporters on the points I bring up; they never are addressed directly. Instead, they are rephrased in terms of "equality", which is a moot point. I'm aware that the courts will eventually grant gays the privilege they seek so they can punish religious freedom; there's no fantasy involved in that, just a cold, hard evaluation of what's already happening.

The main points made in my argument still stand. It is not an issue of equality of rights; it is a new privilege that will be damaging to society in general, and will restrict religious and personal freedom of those who do not toe the line on the gay agenda.

A picture is worth a thousand words...

removed

[Jeff K.]

Gay fantasy is that they are victims. They aren't. They tend to be perpetrators.

And the person being crucified in the cartoon is a Mormon with the gay community asking the crucified individual why "he" is persecuting them.

[blueadept]

I'll have to keep a copy of this one.

Once SSMs are recognized as the law of the land, let's wait 3 years and see if it would be appropriate to put a Catholic priest to be on the cross after they've closed all the Catholic hospitals, adoption centers, etc and put on his shirt "Religious Freedom" and have a picture of the LGBT community in the crowd asking to 'Quit Squirming! You're oppressing our GLBT civil rights!"