Marriage

Do Catholics Have a First Amendment Right to Ban Gay Marriage?

|

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is recasting its political agenda as a campaign for "religious liberty," which makes sense for some of its issues but not for others. In the first category: The bishops complain that New York's law recognizing gay marriages does not include a strong enough exemption for religious groups. While the government should treat heterosexual and homosexual couples equally, it has no business imposing that requirement on private individuals and groups, whether their objections to gay marriage are religious or secular. Likewise, the bishops are right when they object to ObamaCare's requirement that insurers cover contraception, which means that Catholic organizations have to provide such coverage to their employees. But the bishops cannot reasonably claim that respect for religious liberty requires legal restrictions on abortion or upholding the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of gay marriage. Religious liberty does not entail a right to have your religious beliefs enshrined in law.

Other issues raised by the bishops are a little more complicated. The Department of Health and Human Services, for example, recently decided not to renew a contract with the bishops' refugee services office, apparently in response to complaints that it was imposing "religiously based restrictions on reproductive health services" for victims of human trafficking. And A.P. reports that Catholic Charities will "no longer provide state-funded services" in connection with Illinois adoptions because of a requirement that agencies receiving taxpayer money recognize gay civil unions. The bishops understandably do not like conditions attached to government funding for social services that conflict with their religious mission. But the criteria for funding in these cases are religiously neutral (in the sense that they do not discriminate against Catholics per se), and Catholic groups can avoid the restrictions by forgoing taxpayer money. In these circumstances, I don't see how declining to give them money violates their religious liberty. The situation would be different if the government decreed that all adoption agencies, whether or not they receive state funding, must accept gay couples, or that all charities assisting refugees, whether or not they have federal contracts, have to help women get abortions.

NEXT: [UPDATED] Obama Administration Allegedly Helped Coordinate Occupy Crackdowns

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It starts off with seemingly benign things like not granting funding, but we already do things like say that Catholic groups have to provide contraception in insurance plans, which really is an example of the government restricting religion.

    1. The vast majority of Catholic women use birth control anyway, that teaching is dead as a doornail. Nobody pays attention to it.

      Thank God I got out of the Catholic Cult a long time ago.

      1. True enough. But, why does that necessarily matter?

      2. Did you fill out the “defection
        Papers, if not the church is still
        counting you as one of its members.

        1. As soon as you can do this online we can prove that Catholicism has finally gotten out of the dark ages.

  2. “the bishops are right when they object to ObamaCare’s requirement that insurers cover contraception”

    They are right that the thing should be objected to, but their reasoning is wrong.

    1. “which means that Catholic organizations have to provide such coverage to their employees”

      Well, this reasoning is right as a first amendment issue.

    2. we don’t need religious exemptions; we need to stop passing laws that require such exemptions in the first place

      1. Fair enough, but the impact on freedom of religion is a good argument against the mandate itself.

        And while waiting for these (unconstitutional) mandates to be repealed altogether, why not cheer as many people and institutions are able to get out from under it?

        Private employers should be able to invoke the 10th Amendment against this mandate – but the 10th Amendment is widely ignored.

        The First Amendment is still standing, so those who can invoke it should invoke it.

        Unless churches should give up perfectly valid arguments for the higher cause of preserving bad laws.

    3. Right. They are probably all for the requirements that insurers cover childbirth or mental health services. This is no principled opposition to interference with private insurance.

      1. They’re not libertarian activists. Few people are.

  3. …and Catholic groups can avoid the restrictions by forgoing taxpayer money.

    Crazy talk.

    1. Keep your dirty money, we just want your wee ones…

  4. The Catholic Church is a corrupt, power mad, cynical organization run by old virgins and pedophiles. Who gives a shit what they think, they’re dying and on the way out.

    1. The Federal Government is a corrupt, power mad, cynical organization run by old bureaucrats and assassins. Who gives a shit what they think, they’re dying and on the way out.

    2. There are a few hundred million people in Africa who would disagree with you about the Catholic Church dying out. It will never die no matter how hard the people running it try to kill it.

      1. As soon as modern education spreads to Africa, religion will die there too.

        1. So Africans are uneducated and ignorant? Racist much?

          1. It’s a fact that sub-saharan African countries are some of the most backward and corrupt places on the planet, and the most unpleasant countries to live in. This has to do with the legacy of colonialism and racism, not because Africans are some how less intelligent as you imply.

            Regardless, its a fact, the more education and economic wealth a place has, the less religious it is. It’s why religion is dead in Europe, and dying in America.

            1. Africa is backward and corrupt as opposed to enlightened places like Newark. It is not as simple as the fairy tale you paint. Some places in Africa along the West African coast are doing quite well. And even if the your government is corrupt, doesn’t mean the people are corrupt and stupid. I would say Manhattan is filled with some of the dumbest and most superstious people on earth. I am thinking the average villager in Mali has more understanding of life and how the world actually works than your typical upper West side liberal.

          2. About one in three adults in sub-Saharan Africa are illiterate. It has nothing to do with race (since there are huge differences between countries) and more to do with the quality of their education, nutrition, infrastructure, etc.

      2. Does it disturb you(I assume you’re an xian) that the more backward and impoverished a country is, the more likely it is to embrace religion? Religion is all but dead in Europe, and America is only about 20-30 years behind. It only grows in the most ass-backward parts of the world where ignorance and poverty reign.

        1. It doesn’t disturb me at all. I am fully aware of how decadent and and dying Europe is. It makes me sad Europe has come to that. But such is life. And religion is not dying in America except among a certain breed of upper class white people people, who are having very few children and are dying out anyway.

          Regardless of your opinion of this or that religion or religion in general, if you actually think religion is going to die out among human beings, you are an ignoramous of the highest order. Five thousand years of history and behavior didn’t just die out in the last fifty years.

          1. Religion is dying in America, John. The portion of people who have “no faith” is growing. Church attendance is cratering especially among young people. In 30 years it will be like Europe where the Churches are full of old people and essentially museums.

            1. Where do you live? Go to the South and the midwest and the country is full of religious people, young and old. They don’t build those giant churches in the suburbs for old people. And as I said above, religious people of all kinds have kids, atheists generally don’t.

              1. I’m speaking of statistics. Young people, even with religious parents, are abandoning religion. They’re becoming atheists/agnostics or mushy “spiritual, but not religious” types. Look here http://abcnews.go.com/Politics…..343&page=1

                And here http://www.alternet.org/belief….._religion/

                1. Read your own article. The poll says that those young people with no religion is at 30 to 40%. That means 60 to 70% have a religion. That is hardly “dying out”. It is only dying out if you assume that the trend will continue forever, which is highly unlikely since those who were likely to give up religion already have done so. As the percentage gets smaller, the intensity of belief among those left gets higher since the outliers have already left. In the end you are left with the faith based assertion that the trend will continue forever. I guess everyone has to believe in something. I am betting on the entirety of human history. There has never been a civilization without religion. Even totalitarian communist countries that killed millions in the name of scientific materialism didn’t end religion.

            2. Old American churches make good reuse as club halls for drinking and poker.

              1. As opposed to wine and bingo?

        2. Yeah, and Europe’s just doing AMAZINGLY well, aren’t they?

          1. Which has what to do with religion?

            Religion is doing great in Africa and lots of other places that are doing much worse than Europe. I don’t think you will find much correlation between religiosity and economic success.

            1. It does seem that some religions seem to breed better societies. Horrors, not all cultures are created equal.

    3. First, you are retarded if you think religion is going to die out anytime soon in America. And all of those Muslim immigrants in Europe would likely disagree with you about it dying out there too.

      Second, while I am no bible thumper, it is an interesting correlation (not necessarily causation) that as Christianity declined in Europe, Socialism rose, thus giving us the awesomeness that is going on there now.

      If people believing in and worshiping some flying spaghetti monster is what keeps us from devolving into a cesspool of filth like Europe than I’m going to start the First Church of Awesome.

      1. While I think that there may be some relationship between the rise of semi-socialism in Europe and the decline of religion, I don’t think that there is much of a parallel in the US. In Europe, socialism basically rose out of the aftermath of the war, not out of a strong tradition of liberty and self-reliance. And except for American conservative protestants, I don’t really see religion opposing socialism in the world. In fact it is quite the opposite in many cases.

        As a libertarian atheist, I really don’t understand the correlation a lot of people seem to see between the decline of religion and the rise of socialism. It seems to me that religion can just as well be used to promote authoritarian or socialist policies. And historically, religion has been used far more as a force to control people and increase the power of governments and rulers than it has to increase freedom and independence.

        1. I don’t necessarily believe there is causation there, but people (atheists not withstanding) want to believe in something and belong (libertarians not withstanding) to a larger group. So it would make sense, at least in my mind, that if people “turn” away from religion, they are going to cling to the next big thing they find, which is usually government.

          I think this works in the other direction as well. One could argue that the Roman Catholic Church was able to grow and expand it’s power because it filled the vacuum left by the death of Rome.

      2. The far Left and libertarians are both more likely than average to be atheists, even though their economic and governmental views are diametrically opposed. The meme that the decline of religion/increase in education causes the increase of government in Europe is flawed. However, one can logically connect the decline of religion with reducing Europe’s imperialism and militarism, which fits with both libertarian and socialist viewpoints.

  5. “Religious liberty does not entail a right to have your religious beliefs enshrined in law.”

    Catholics can’t understand the concept of negative rights.

  6. “agencies receiving taxpayer money”

    I found the problem right here.

  7. That’s what happens when you suck off the government teet. If you want you’re Constitutionally dubious “Faith Based Initiative” dollars, than you damn well better be willing to bend over and take it without whining. It’s especially odious when the church has the gall to call for the total enforcement of the also Constitutionally dubious Defense of Marriage Act while simultaneously crying about having to provide services to those they condemn. Tough crap…what comes around goes around. The government doesn’t owe you money any more than you should be forced to hug a gay person, but if you take from the public coffers you lose your right to be whiny bigots.

    1. Does this mean that you support drug-testing welfare recipients? All the same logic applies.

      1. I don’t approve of long term welfare nor the current drug prohibition so I guess my answer would be…no.

        1. The government doesn’t owe welfare recipients money, and can therefore put whatever requirements to get that privilege it so desires.

          Does that not square with your original statement?

  8. “But the criteria for funding in these cases are religiously neutral (in the sense that they do not discriminate against Catholics per se)”

    That is a flat out lie. The funding criteria directly contradicts the values espoused by Catholicism.

    Granted, the government shouldn’t be handing out money anyway, but try to be a little objective in your blog posts. The funding criteria are written by and for people with a particular ideology, an ideology the values of which contradict traditional values. Since some religions espouse non-traditional values, the funding criteria do discriminate on the basis of religion.

    As always, the problem is solved by ending the handouts.

    1. They don’t have to take the money is the thing. The law is clear, the state says the charity must place kids in homes, and the state recognizes gay marriages. It is not an issue of religion. It is a government matter, not a religious one. In the eyes of the state, two dudes are legally married and if the church has a problem with it, it is their problem. They don’t have to accept the money, they know it has strings attatched.

  9. A school is not a church.
    A hospital is not a church.
    An adoption agency is not a church.

    There is NO First Amendment issue here. None. Zero.

    1. Are you saying that issues can never overlap?

      You’re a dumbass.

      1. Or that someone only has the right to espouse their religious views actually inside a Church? I think that is what he is saying. And yes he is a dumb ass.

        1. We hope to enhance religious freedom by coming up with a better idea of what an approved religion is!

      2. You miss the point. The government is not barring catholics, its rules are simple, you receive state funds, you must abide by secular state rules. The adoption agency must place kids in all viable homes, be it jewish, interracial, mixed religion or gay.

        1. So when the states took highway money, it was “OK” to force them to change their BAC levels?

          When welfare-recipients take food stamps, we can drug test them?

          A vacuous explanation of the rules does not tell us anything about the wisdom of a rule.

    2. Hear, Hear

  10. “The bishops complain that New York’s law recognizing gay marriages does not include a strong enough exemption for religious groups. While the government should treat heterosexual and homosexual couples equally, it has no business imposing that requirement on private individuals and groups, whether their objections to gay marriage are religious or secular.”

    But in an earlier article, another Reason staffer not only praised “New York’s law recognizing gay marriages” but spun it as a libertarian triumph:

    https://reason.com/blog/2011/06…..hed-gay-ma

  11. Mr. Esquire, I suppose you support the creation of the Religion Approval Board. We’ll be the ones deciding what is and is not a religion. We consider Islam to be a death cult, so no religious freedom issues if we decide to outlaw mosque building. Thanks for the idea!

    1. I also like the media approval board. They can decide who is and is not qualified to be called a journalist. We can have boards for all kinds of shit.

  12. If the Catholic church were not the biggest advocates for socialism on the planet, I might have some sympathy for them. As it is, fuck them. If they had any integrity they would be operating outside of government. A lot of individual churches and priests are great and do a lot of great work. But the hiarchy is worthless and corrupt. A little hardship will do them good.

    1. Curious, John, what’s your denomination?

      1. I am an old time Protestant, which means I don’t have a demoniation. I refuse to join the Catholic church because of the Pope and the awful hiarchy. But I refuse to join the mainline Protestant religions because they have sold out to the secular left. Since I am not a holy roller and find evangelicals to be well meaning but wrong about a lot of things, I can’t be one of those either. Basically I was born about 200 years too late. Maybe I should be an Eastern Orthadox. But that is kind of hard to do if you were not born into it.

        1. You sound closest to a Missouri Synod Lutheran.

          1. My father is one of those and even they annoy me. They are sort of the opposite of the Catholics. The top guys say the right things. But at the bottom it is the same old same old. I suppose I am a bad Christian for not joining a church. But I have yet to find one I like. So instead, I just go to mass with my very Catholic wife and don’t take communion. I will give the Catholics one thing, they know how to run a proper religious service.

            1. I always thought those crackers taste pretty good.

            2. Become an Episcopalian – they’re essentially Catholics without the Pope.

              1. That is what they say. But oh my God are they liberal. I need to just start my own church, except that I would probably be killed for it.

                1. John, come join the Anglican Church in North America. We are new but essentially we are what the Episcopal Church was around 1950.

                  1. Meaning racially segregated?

            3. I was raised Catholic but don’t really attend any kind of church anymore. Organized Religion does all kinds of crap that annoys the ever living fuck out of me. But you are totally right about them running a proper religious service.

            4. I grew up in a mostly Mexican neighborhood in Chicago, so it was Catholics all the way down. I went to Mass a few times with various friends. It was pretty creepy, and the parish priest scouring the neighborhood for pliant young boys didn’t do much to make it less creepy either.

              Having said all that, I have no problems with Catholicism. You sin, you confess, you are purified… repeat as the urge possesses you. What’s not to like?

        2. And I’m guessing “sold out to the secular left” means that you have issues with women, especially women’s ordination. Very typical.

          1. You are assuming wrong. Sold out to the secular left means preaching “social justice” in the form of socialism in the name of religion and doing things like making the National Council of Churches an arm of the Democratic party.

            Women not being priests is one of the reasons I am not a Catholic. You just assume I don’t believe in equal rights for women because you are an atheist and have no clue about what actual religious people believe and always assume your stereotypes. Very typical.

          2. John’s problem with the “secular left” has more to do with viewing gays as actual human beings and not child-raping monsters (unlike, say, Catholic priests). He may not be down with whole of Catholicism but he does love to hate on the gays.

        3. You should find one of those giant warehouse looking churches that let you be whatever you want.

          1. Aren’t those all evangelical holy rollers?

            1. I don’t know. They seem to love video screens, tacky looking indoor plants, and asking for money.

        4. John,

          Did you read Boccaccio’s story about the guy who joined the Catholic Church because only the True Church could withstand this much corruption?

          Also, how does the corruption in the Church compare to the corruption of the U.S., state and local governments. That doesn’t automatically refute patriotism, does it?

          1. Good point about Patriotism. And honestly I could stand the corruption. I just don’t believe in the infalibility of the Pope or the idea that Mary was born and died without sin and remained a virgin her entire life. Mary is a great and all. But the Catholics take things a little too far.

            My favorite Catholic story Eduard along the lines of Bocaccaccio is about Napoleon telling a Cardinal that he was going to destroy the church. In response the Cardinal said,

            “What makes you think you can destroy the Church when we Catholics have been trying for 1800 years and still haven’t succeeded?”

            I love that.

            1. Excellent anecdote – Napoleon got pwned!

              Re the Pope-he only used his Infallibility superpower about twice in the last two centuries – each time he was ratifying preexisting Marian devotion, not making up stuff on his own.

              Re Marian devotion – where else but in the Catholic, Orthodox, or Coptic churches do you see big strong men giving such veneration to a woman? I think it makes these churches more female-friendly than certain other religions which could be mentioned.

              1. Here’s something I heard from a theology professor who is Episcopelian but a Catholic sympathizer: Protestants ask “how much of this *%($ do I have to believe?” While Catholics say, “wow, look at all this great stuff I get to believe!”

    2. I agree with you, and I am saying this as a Catholic. There are some great Catholic charities and individuals out there. But the higher-ups keep pushing “social justice”, which basically translates to “support Team Blue” here in the US. What they fail to realize is that if you entangle yourself with the government, sooner or later the team in charge will charge. For example, they were great with Federal involvement in abortion policy under Bush, but now that Obama is in charge, he uses that power in the opposite way and they are pissed.

      1. LOL wut? The only thing the RCC cares about is abortion. They fully support Republicans, the hierarchy is full of right wing zealots who want to turn women into breeding machines and get them back in the kitchen, while stuffing LGBT poeople back in the closet.

        1. LOL. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church full of right wing zealots? Jesus what planet do you live on? On planet earth there is more to life than abortion. And outside of abortion and sex, there is nothing rightwing about the American RCC.

          1. Exactly – the Democrats have been the Catholic party about as long as there have been enough Catholic voters in the US to influence elections. While the Democrats themselves have damaged the relationship with many Catholics since the 1970s, it’s remarkable how many Catholics (including bishops) retain their traditional allegiances.

        2. And he dissolves into a big, mushy pile of self-parody.

        3. Wow, sterotype much? You might try pulling your head out of your ass and actually talking with some Catholics and some of the people in the hierarchy before making those kinds of base assumptions.

        4. I can only assume that Librarian has absolutely no knowledge of Catholic hierarchy whatsoever.

          Have you ever bothered to read any papal encyclicals? Check out “Caritas in Veritate” by the supposed-conservative Benedict, written in 2009.

        5. It’s not for nothing that the Democratic party was characterized until 30 years ago as the party of Rum, Rebellion and Romanism.

          You know, Librarian, perhaps you might wnat to curl up with a history book or two or change your handle because your making your profession look bad.

          There’s this guy named sugarfree who is also a librarian, and he doesn’t suffer fools lightly…

          1. Yet somehow he can suffer himself.

            1. That just goes to show how open-minded and fair SF is.

  13. This has to be the stupidest argument against gay marriage (and there are a lot of stupid arguments against gay marriage).

    1. There are also a lot of stupid arguments for gay marriage, or anything, for that matter.

      1. Sure. But in the case of gay marriage, it is hard to find a non-stupid argument against it. The only one I have encountered is a principled argument against all state involvement in marriage.

  14. It’s simple, the church can’t have it both ways, either you take the grant money and follow the rules, or you don’t take the cash and do your own thing. They don’t want to let gay couples adopt, fine, but they can’t expect the government to subsidize them .

    1. It’s not a funding issue. You can’t run an adoption agency without permission of govt, and you can’t get permission without adopting to same-sex couples now.

      1. Even if it was a funding issue, that still does not solve the problem. Can the Government tell any agency to abrogate its beliefs because that agency receives Government Dollars? If so, is one dollar enough, or is the threshold something higher?

      2. Sure, but that has nothing to do with gay marriage.

        And I think in the case of adoption one must consider the child’s wellbeing over the stupid (or not) beliefs of whoever runs the adoption agency. Limiting the pool of potential adoptive parents is not in a orphan’s best interest. I’d say you are doing actual harm to a child if you refuse to let him be adopted by a couple just because your religion disapproves of their sexual practices.
        I don’t know much about how adoption works, so I am not sure what the best way to deal with it is. Does anyone else know whether adoption agencies have exclusive control over the adoption of their charges, or can they be adopted through other adoption agencies as well?

        1. That is what you think. The Catholic church disagrees. And indeed, since gay marriage is so new, time will tell who is right. The point is that they should be able to run an agency by whatever rules they want within reason.

          You don’t think not adopting to gays is in the best interest of the child. A lot of people think adopting to Muslims is not in the best interest of the child. Should they be able to get the state to stop accrediting Muslim adoption agencies if there is such a thing? If you can stop the church from doing so because they only adopt to striaght couples, I dont’ see why someone else couldn’t stop a Muslim agency from adopting childen because they only give kids to Muslims. Both results are stupid.

          Freedom means letting people set up their own organizations by their own rules. If you want your kid to be adopted by a gay couple, don’t take it to the Catholics. If you want your kid to only be adopted by a straight couple, you should be able to go to Catholics and do that too.

          It is amazing how authoritarian Libertairians will get when the subject of religion and gays comes up. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean the state should stop it.

          1. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean the state should stop it.

            Like your views on gay marriage?

  15. The bishops complain that New York’s law recognizing gay marriages does not include a strong enough exemption for religious groups.

    Well, your Hatness, you might have a point if marriage weren’t, you know, a state institution as opposed to a purely religious one. Last I checked you needed the state’s permission to be legally “married” and not merely cohabitating.

    The Department of Health and Human Services, for example, recently decided not to renew a contract with the bishops’ refugee services office, apparently in response to complaints that it was imposing “religiously based restrictions on reproductive health services” for victims of human trafficking.

    Easy solution, stop taking the Feds’ money, you can worry about fewer of their rules.

    1. Except as an employer, the church now is required to provide spousal benefits to homosexual couples.

      1. I didn’t know the Catholic Church employed gay people (the ones in the robes notwithstanding but they aren’t allowed to take spouses anyway).

  16. “While the government should treat heterosexual and homosexual couples equally, it has no business imposing that requirement on private individuals and groups, whether their objections to gay marriage are religious or secular.”

    “Groups” like the Catholic Church are effectively created by government incorporation laws that give such groups rights that individuals do not have. Churchs don’t pay taxes that individuals and for-profits pay. If I give you a million dollars, I have to pay gift tax on it. If I give the Church a million, I get to deduct it from my income. Churches could never survive if they were forced to function as partnerships, which, in the absence of non-profit incorporation laws, is what they would be. The government, since it creates these organizations, can define and limit their powers as it pleases. New York State has the right, though I doubt if it has the nerve, to force the Catholic Church to provide spousal benefits to gay married employees that match those given to straights.

    1. The Catholic Church wasn’t created by govt, you insufferable dolt. They’re a preexisting organization taking advantage of an exception in tax laws that were passed after they already existed.

      And of course, even if the church disavowed its non-profit status, the law would still force it to provide such benefits. So your argument fails on multiple fronts.

      1. That post was even stupid by Venneman’s low standards.

  17. You have a right to own a gun that does not mean Walmart must sell you one.

    I support gay marraiges. I also support the Catholics not doing them if they choose not to. You can go somewhere else.

  18. Two facts:
    1)The time of religion commanding a
    priviledged and determinitive status
    in U.S.law and social policy is coming to end.
    2) Until then the Roman Catholic
    hieracy will continue to portray
    itself as the victim. Preposterous.

    1. Are you posting from a TI-89 or are you trying to haiku?

    2. One fine day religious freedom will end in America.

      1. Though not, unfortunately, ignorance and bigotry.

  19. This is a bullshit argument. Non-catholics can’t get married in a Catholic church without having gone through the catechism and confirmation. There’s no reason to think that a gay couple qualify for marriage under the church’s laws, either.

  20. This isn’t really about marriage, of course, but the Roman church’s constant, incessant, and totally mindless determination to control everything. If (when) it’s not marriage, it’s some other thing. Of course, Roman Catholics are free to do as they like, but that is not enough: the law must force their doctrines on everyone. And, of course, the church and its businesses should not be hampered by the law when it comes to discrminiation in employment, housing, and services. All human and civil rights law allows all religious organizations to discrminate in all of these areas if it is part of their religious function. That, too, does not satisfy their enormous vanity, malice, and wilful ignorance; they must be allowed to fire, evict, and refuse service everywhere and always in anything and everything they are associated with, even if it is paid for by the taxpayer. Better than the old days, though; modern secular governments do not permit their traditional response to difference: torture and mass murder.

    1. More than control though, it’s about extortion. The church wants you in your place: in the pews, on your knees, wallet outstretched. And what better way to accomplish this but by literally putting the fear of God in you and threatening eternal damnation for non-compliance?

      Which brings up the question of why they feel they need to have the power of the state behind them when they already have the power of God?

      Or do they?

  21. If the catholic church needs a “stronger exemption,” against marriage or married couples, I don’t see the government in any position to help them out in anyway.

    If they do not want to hire someone because of the person’s marriage, then have them place placards all over their institutions telling the world who they do not want to serve, or hire, or help, or “save.”

    And cut off ALL government support. They have to BE a private organization to do their private business their way and they have to let ALL of the public know who they will and will not serve, hire, help, “save”…

  22. “But the criteria for funding in these cases are religiously neutral (in the sense that they do not discriminate against Catholics per se)”

    discrimination against religions in general is NOT religion neutral; its anti-religious.

    Can you imagine if this same logic was applied to homosexuals: “it’s not that we’re just against homosexuality; we’re against all sexual deviancy.” That would never fly in liberal America. And yet sexual deviancy is NOT protected by the Constitution; religion supposedly is.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.