Updated Forecast: In Excess of 8" of Snow, Plus Wind
And Now, 10-20 Inches
Federal Govt. Closed Tuesday
Snowmaggedon 1.0 in Time Lapse
With a D.C. Council vote on same-sex marriage just over a week away, a compromise proposed to assuage concerns expressed by the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington remains uncertain.
Last week, D.C. Council members David Catania (I-At Large) and Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) sent a letter to Washington Archbishop Donald Wuerl proposing that the church follow the lead of Georgetown University in offering benefits to spouses or "legally domiciled adults." The proposal responded to concerns expressed by Wuerl that the legislation would force the church to violate its beliefs by offering benefits to same-sex couples it employs, notably through Catholic Charities, a social service provider serving 68,000 needy District residents. (The letter is available here in PDF format.)
But sources within the council say that the Archdiocese has yet to respond to the letter and has not proposed language of its own that could help resolve the stand-off. "The ball's in their court and they will have to decide what to do," said one staffer with knowledge of the issue. "We've asked them to put on paper what they want."
The question still remains if the Archdiocese has even left room for compromise. As we noted over the weekend, in a Post op-ed published online last week and printed in the paper on Sunday, Wuerl seemed to say so. "We are asking that new language be developed that more fairly balances different interests — those of the city to redefine marriage and those of faith groups so that they can continue to provide services without compromising their deeply held religious teachings and beliefs." But only a day later, he appeared at a press conference announcing the Manhattan Declaration, an ecumenical statement outlining Christian opposition to same-sex marriage and threatening civil disobedience to any laws legalizing it. "[Nor] will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family," stated the declaration.
We put in a call to the Archdiocese, and the best we could get on whether they have responded to Catania and Mendelson was, "Not yet." Regardless of what the Archdiocese decides to do, council staffers confirmed that the legislation will still go to the full council for a vote on December 1.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
from the post:
"If the city requires this, we can't do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."
... excuse me, but aren't you taking secular, public money?
Actually Charities is bringing in a lot of private money. And, the bill doesn't exempt services that are privately funded, unlike what I hear they have in other states. Have you ever READ the bill???
Really? Can you cite that part of the legislative language?
Eileen, your response is nothing more than an obfuscation. nowisthetime didn't say--nor imply--that Catholic Charities doesn't take private donations. He/she asked "aren't you taking secular, public money?"
The answer is: yes, they are. In considerable amounts. Before you accuse others of not doing their homework, perhaps it would behoove you to perform a bit of research yourself.
Archbishop Wuerl won't compromise one bit in this fight. He is in line to become a Cardinal and he doesn't want to ruin his chances with the current homophobic/racist Pope.
True, he won't compromise, but it won't be because of lust for a red hat. The RCC doesn't appoint a cardinal if the previous holder of the position (in this case, cardinal and archbishop of Washington) is still alive.
"Lust for a Red Hat?" Wasn't that the Catholic-friendly sequel to "Fear of a Black Hat?"
Most people on DCist seem to be on the same side on this issue. How about mixing it up with a few gays & guns posts.
Gays, God, Guns and voting rights would make for the BEST post ever.
And double-parking church goers from PG county.
and cyclists vs. motorists thrown in for good measure.
"Gay, gun-toting cyclists demand voting rights while fighting PG County double-parkers for Molly."
My head just exploded thinking about the commenting potential.
And rock throwing at cyclists, motorists, and double parkers from PG county!
and the gang-related, Jumbo Slice subway suicides in Colombia Heights!
That is so retarded
You just made my day!
I finally figured out how you turn the light off after sex.
You close the car door.
har-de-har.
i was serious, though. say that in front of my friend's sister. 'tis a slur.
Hey - I know where you're coming from, Goph. There's a lot of shitty crap going on in this world but I find if I pick my battles, I don't overload and become a miserable person. Sorry about your friend's sister.
Don't forget Molly ®.
Molly® obviously needs to be standing on her hind legs making coffee in the nude.
It's times like these when I really wish people would consider using the Second Amendment to solve those nagging First Amendment problems. Biggest mistake ever was getting rid of the Bladensburg Duelling Grounds. How are gentlement supposed to solve their disagreements in an honorable fashion? Challenging eachother to a race around the globe where they meet in Leicester Square and the queen herself will drop the checkered flag? Pishposh! Flimshaw!
I can't imagine that either side of this issue is going to be satisfied with a compromise.
And regardless of the issue at hand, the City Council is supposed to be above undue influence from any one party. They are supposed to be objective. They should not be swayed by the Catholic Church or anything other than Justice.
You hit it on the head, charliegal: the needs of one organization shouldn't sway the vote, and there shouldn't be any compromise. As Chairman Gray said when ths Archdiocese first lobbed a threat at the District over this legislation, there are plenty of other organizations who would love to be able to take over the services (and the underlying funding) that have been the domain of Catholic Charities. There are plenty of deserving charities that would happily pick up the load.
And let's face it: Catholic Charities is treading a fine line with this ultimatum. They provide charitable services in Connecticut and Massachusetts, even though said states have SSM laws that are similar to the DC proposal. Georgetown University, while representative of a more liberal wing of the Catholic Church (the Jesuits), extends quite a few benefits to same-sex domestic partners (including health benefits). But the Archdiocese remains petulant with the folks of DC.
If that's their tack, fine. Let them cry all the way home, if they so desire. DC doesn't need any more legalized discrimination, especially when it comes to serving those in need.
I agree entirely, but it sounds more like this "compromise" is the church being called out to change their own policies on how they provide benefits to their employees. I haven't seen any talk of changing the language of the bill. Old political move - act like the reasonable party while giving the other side the finger. It makes the Archdiocese look all the more childish and petulant (which they are).
The bill has plenty of compromise as it is. It's letting religious organizations around recognizing (what will be) PERFECTLY legal marriages. I'm sorry. How is that not a compromise on the District's part? Further, the District has pointed out several ways that the Archdiocese could make this work like other Catholic entities have. I see a lot of reaching out on the part of the District, but not so much coming back in return.
The bottom line is this: If Catholic Charities wants to take PUBLIC money, then they have to follow the District's nondiscrimination laws. If they don't, then they are not obligated to take the funding. It's the same issue that every NGO faces when taking public funding, so it's not unique to DC or Catholic Charities. If you want to play in the secular arena, play by the rules.
If I'm following the news correctly,the archdiocese DID propose an alternative - back in October. It's the council that hasn't responded and that rejected every option proposed by every group. And, according to a Post article, even the ACLU said last week that the way the bill is written, it could open up groups to litigation, etc. It just seems yet one more time that the dc council is refusing to work with anyone.
Nice try, but once again, Catholic Charities has a choice- if they want to accept public funds, they abide by non-discrimination laws. If those laws are so noxious to their so-called religious beliefs, then they can chose to not take public funds.
Fairly simple. I for one, would be happy for another non-profit to come in and take the contracts over from Catholic Charities. Knowing how many non-profits are hurting, I imagine they would have hundreds apply for funding.
The Catholic Church once again shows its true colors. Fuck the poor. If gay people can get married, well then we won't help you. I think I remember Jesus stating that in Mark 5:12.
Yep. It's right after Jesus' very harsh instructions against marriage.
Which the Catholic Church is in violation of, as far as their benefits go. They allow married couples that were previously divorced to get healthcare benefits.
And Jesus was quite clear on how divorce was a sin.
So once the Church is willing to change that policy at least we can talk about 'religious doctrine', as then they'd at least be following it.
What I don't see, though, is how allowing health care benefits to anyone could possibly be against Jesus' teachings. Jesus healed a crapton of people in His day, and I don't recall Him ever asking if they were gay, if they were sinners, etc., before healing them. And, like it or not, access to health care is the healing of our time.
It's very simple. The Church could simply say 'we really don't like you homos, we think butt sex outside of the confines of the priest / altar boy relationship is wrong, and we get the ickies thinking about you, but we still must follow the law'.
There. Problem solved.
Clearly, you need to read your Bible more closely. It's all there in black and white in the Book of Maccabee: "Yea, as the flea is like unto an oxen, so is the privet hedge liken unto a botanist, black in thy sight, O Lord!" Yea, as Raymond Chandler said, "It was one of those days when Los Angeles felt like a rock-hard fig."
Why should the DC Council cave to an organization that wants to discriminate? Is it simply because they profess to base their objection on some interpretation of religious scripture?
Here's a compromise for the Catholic Church: you follow the laws of the jurisdictions inw hich you operate, and we'll let you keep your tax-exempt status and continue to rain millions of dollars in federal funds upon you. It seems to me like the Church is making out like a bandit on that deal--I'd take the money if I was them.
I bet they'd turn in their Savior for thirty pieces of silver. In fact, I'm so certain, wager 15 quatloos that the Catholic Church is untrainable, 20 quatloos that all three are untrainable, and 5000 quatloos that the newcomers will have to be destroyed.
Eileen,
The legislation very clearly says that religious organizations cannot be sued for refusing to solemnize a gay marriage or offering their space for it or a related celebration. This language was tightened up at the request of the church.
The D.C. Council has made as much of a compromise as it can in this situation. It can't simply allow organizations and employers to ignore city laws because their religion says they can.
Catania and Mendelson's proposal is a perfect compromise in this situation. That Wuerl seems to be sitting on it shows that he's not interested in a middle ground -- he just wants to get his way.
Hey, here's an idea for a compromise: We legalize gay marriage, and none of the city's numerous homophobes have to get one. Sound fair to everyone?
I'd say that the Catholic church is the new Molly or the new cycling thread, but we just can't seem to get past fifty posts. Sigh.