[BariGrootrego]

I'm fine with the Archbishop declining to take public money. The council was forewarned.

If there are others who can provide the services just as well for the money, then more power to them.

[Bobobsdo]

But before we celebrate, I need your help. You may have heard that in a blatantly political move to prevent this vote the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington last month threatened to cut their social service programs if the bill passed. As well they should. Actions have consequences.

I love it how people are willing to take Christian charity and piss on Christian principles.

[avaicavum]

How is that any different than killing their charity work? Brilliant solution.

provide equal benefits for employees in same-sex marriages. Why should the Church have to do anything which violates her principles? There should be a conscience exemption.

Mr Fun, can you explain why there is no conscience exemption in the bill?

[sFs4aOok]

True - start taxing them like any other company.

Amen brother.

[LarpBulaBus]

What's the difference between this and requiring Catholic hospitals to preform elective abortions?

Well, off hand I would say that employment discrimination and medical procedures are entirely different matters. Also, it's not requiring Catholic charities to perform same-sex marriages, just to not discriminate when it comes to benefits for married couples.

At any rate, I don't mind that the Archbishop is taking this stance at all. It's terrible PR for the Church.

[KevinDonae]

Well, off hand I would say that employment discrimination and medical procedures are entirely different matters. Also, it's not requiring Catholic charities to perform same-sex marriages, just to not discriminate when it comes to benefits for married couples. That amounts to the same. Why should the Catholic church hire people who are opposed to their mission? This is no different than forcing synagogues to hire Muslims.

At any rate, I don't mind that the Archbishop is taking this stance at all. It's terrible PR for the Church. It's a show of integrity. The PR is all on Washington. Why is there no conscience clause?

[Cofeeman]

At any rate, I don't mind that the Archbishop is taking this stance at all. It's terrible PR for the Church.

While the 'true faithful" will cheer on the Archbishop, many more christians will be disgusted.... the number of people leaving the church will continue to increase... with eventually, only the real hardcore nut jobs left. Good job you morons. No wonder that the church is becoming less and less relevent in moe people's lives.

[MgpojuWy]

They'd cut homeless shelters, food programs for needy families, and health services rather than provide equal benefits for employees in same-sex marriages. unfunded mandate, of course it'll be the city's fault if the Church has to cut back on services. But how many married gays work for the Church?

[VipInoLo]

Ben is doing fantastic work in this thread demonstrating many things very succinctly. Namely:
1) He fails at reading comprehension
2) He fails at fundamental analysis
3) He dramatically overstates his case to absurd degrees (forcing synagogues to hire muslims)
4) He, just like the Church brass, is so completely out of touch with reality that he doesn't understand how just how tremendously damaging this story is to the Church's cultural cachet and relevance
5) He pointedly chooses to ignore fundamental Christian tenets because of his irrational hatred and disrespect for homosexuals

The Catholic church has a jetpack strapped to its back and it's fast on its way to having the same cultural respect and relevancy of the KKK. When they're not molesting children, they're turning the other cheek on the sick and needy.

[Siffidiolla]

I suggest you look at recent election results.

A black man with limited experience defeats the religious right? Yes, very relevant.

[gactanync]

While I've never been a landlord, I don't think it'd be too hard to ignore fundamental Christian tenants. In all likelihood very few of them drink or make much noise partying, they don't wreck the place, and they're rarely if ever late with the rent.

Fixed, you incomprehensibly smug jackass.

Yes, because the local bishop's been scheming for years to screw the homeless. You're right, it's an absurd assumption. Clearly he's been busy scheming for years on how to best molest the nation's children and avoid detection.

[seodiary]

Fixed, you incomprehensibly smug jackass.

Hey, whatever it takes to irritate you

You're right, it's an absurd assumption. Clearly he's been busy scheming for years on how to best molest the nation's children and avoid detection. ...and the molested children grow up to be mentally imbalanced, drug-using homeless people, who in turn are taken care of by the church. See, he was cleaning up his own mess just fine until you queers forced his hand.

[cafeviahe]

So it seems as if the City is the one banning the Church from providing social services.

[FEti0TUI]

How can the district retroactively change the terms of the contract by adding a clause? Is that what happened? If so, somebody cite it.

If the district just passed a law requiring something else independent of the contract, that's not the same thing. And in this case the church would be in breach of the contract.

[juyrett]

This is starting to seem like a misleading thread title. The information I'm seeing is that the Church will continue to provide social and charitable services); it is only in cases where there is a contracted or licensed service that the District would adjudge the Church to be ineligible to provide those services on a contractual basis. If DC does not grant the exemptions that would be in keeping with the Catholic's tenets, the assumption is that the Church would no longer be eligible to be licensed or contracted to provide those services.

Yea, the spin on this issue by the atheists and anti-Catholics is ridiculous. The Church never "threatened to stop helping the poor if the city allows gay marriage" which is how this has been characterized.

DD has a good summary of what is actually going on. Of course it is much easier for the dull-witted reactionaries to twist and smear the Church on this.

I support gay marriage. I also support allowing religions to practice the tenets of their faith (whether I agree with them or not) freely. I believe every state that has passed gay marriage has granted appropriate exceptions to not punish religious institutions. Earlier I saw that Catania had discussed introducing just such an exception, I don't know what happened with that.

[amotoustict]

unfunded mandate, of course it'll be the city's fault if the Church has to cut back on services. But how many married gays work for the Church?

No, it would not be the city's fault - the city is not forcing the Church to decrease its services for the needy. The archbishop in Washington DC is making a choice of his own to do so.

[assohillA]

From the article in OP:

The Archbishop issued a very public threat last month designed to scare city officials into backing off their commitment to marriage equality. I can try and find out exactly what the archbishop said. But what else could the guy have threatened to do, besides renege on services for the needy?

[Frogzlovzy]

Are there any real news sources on this?

I'm tired of seeing ridiculously biased sources from either side. Grow up, people.

[JanetMorris]

Also,

Are there any real news sources on this?

I'm tired of seeing ridiculously biased sources from either side. Grow up, people.

you accepted Mr. Fun's biased source at face value earlier in the thread and berated Ben for disagreeing or disputing it.

In this case (not to speak to any other thread or subject) Ben's understanding of the issue seems closer to reality (and to the Washington Post's account) than yours or the more hot-headed statements from others.

[dalnecymync]

Okay, so I get to eat my words now.

Thanks.

BTW, to DC for legalizing gay marriage.