So, the Catholic Church is prepared to disadvantage its employees to stop one or two gays (and looking at the numbers it would be) from reaping a benefit? Heaven help us!
Peter from Australia

I find it exceedingly funny that the Catholic Church should choose to limit these persons' livelihood, health, and life for sake of a law like this. When weighing priorities, the religious provisions for neighborly assistance, protection of life and health are apparently outweighed by obscure mentions of sexual practices transformed into insane and far overblown religious considerations. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the house of those who run Catholicism.

Finally the Church is a little more consistent

If they have any desire to be internally consistent then they should withdraw benefits from those who have been divorced and remarried, those who masturbate, and those who practice contraception. Each of these is considered sexual sin by the church. Sadly, this is just political posturing at the cost of their loyal employees.

Consider this caveat from Truth and Tolerance written by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger before his promotion to Pope:

"Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic."

Although this observation is not original to me, others have made the point that this decision will at least allow straight couples to better appreciate what their Gay colleagues have always had to deal with: the inability to provide protection to the ones closest to them.

Well, if the archbishop doesn't get to claim a spouse, why should anyone else?

I'm glad the Catholic church is drawing their line in the sand. That way as they continue to fall into irrelevancy to modern society they will have no one to blame but themselves. (Though of course they will place all the blame elsewhere anyway.)

Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington transitioned its foster care and public adoption program in the District of Columbia to the National Center for Children and Families (NCCF) on February 1, 2010. Catholic Charities remains committed to continuing to serve the vulnerable of the District of Columbia through the 82 programs the agency operates in the region.

Although Catholic Charities has an 80-year legacy of high quality service to the vulnerable in our nation’s capital, the D.C. Government informed Catholic Charities that the agency would be ineligible to serve as a foster care provider due to the impending D.C. same sex marriage law.

This is the only program Catholic Charities anticipates will be impacted by the law.

With a priority on ensuring continuity of care for the foster families and children, Catholic Charities worked closely with D.C.’s Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA) to seamlessly transition the program to the NCCF. This transition includes seven staff, 43 children and their biological families, as well as 35 foster families. The transition was scheduled to coincide with the expiration of the current contract between Catholic Charities and CFSA.

“Foster care has been an important ministry for us for many decades. We worked very hard to be able to continue to provide these services in the District. We regret that our efforts to avoid this outcome were not successful. I am grateful to our dedicated staff and foster families who have been a part of our family. The difference each staff member and foster care parent makes for a child in need of a loving home is immeasurable. I am confident that NCCF will serve the children and families well,” said Ed Orzechowski, president and CEO of Catholic Charities.

Why must the Catholic Church punish those who are already employed by them? Gays would certainly not work for the church's establishments where they would be discriminated against, condemned, and crucified, so why worry about the law. Perhaps it is just a guise for not having to pay benefits to those you employ, to save money. It must surely cost a lot to run the beautiful Vatican city. Perhaps rather than push people (Gays, family and friends of Gays) away from Christ, they should be working on bringing them closer. I was born Gay, went to Catholic school, and hated myself most of my life for being so different. My life was miserable, trying to be something "others" wanted me to be. In 1988, I accepted myself as the Gay man God created me to be, and my life completely changed. I am now blessed with constant miracles, have a wonderful relationship with an exceptional man, and have Christ in my soul! It hurts me when people say such hurtful mean things about Gays...about me...and they have never met me. I put it into God's hands. What one sows, so shall they reap! I pray deeply, that those who discriminate and judge will see clearly, why they are reaping what they presently are. Steve Leong

So what Catholic Charities is essentially saying to America's needy is: "We would be glad to help you....as long as you believe everything we believe. If not, you're out of luck." Very nice.

gay marriage or not...

this is yet another example of the problems with employment based benefits.

The church has every right to do what it is doing. If God says homosexuality is wrong, they dont have to support it. If someone is divorced or sinful in some other way, they may be remorseful and trying to change. How much is someone trying to change if they marry someone of the same sex? You want married benefits? Marry someone of the opposite sex. It is a shame for those already married this way but I support the decision. The church doesnt have to do it, and neither do they have to buy booze for alcoholics.

Rom. 1:22–28 "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;"

Sorry Steven Leong if you have someone in your soul it is not Christ. That is reaffirmed by your failure to heed Christ words about removing the log from your own eye and your willingness to say mean hurtful things about the Church despite complaining about when it done to gays and yourself.

For those who stand by anti-gay laws based on your Bible beliefs, do you equally follow these:

Lev 19:19 "Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."
Lev 19:27 "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard."
Lev 19:28 "Do not put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD."
Lev 20:9 "If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death."
Lev 20:27 "A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads."

I think when people are anti-gay they just use the Bible as their excuse so they don't have to actually take responsibility for their feelings. Why else would they so sternly cling to the Bible (for instance, using Lev. 18 against gays) while all the while ignoring so much lese there such as these lines also from Leviticus?

Janice Hill - The problem with that homosexuality is condemed in the New Testament as well while those others don't receieve mention. Using Leviticus is an old trick used by people trying to rationalize why something sinful should now be considered ok.

Simple. Because all the quotes you use Janice are from the old testament. Christ with the new testament allows forgiveness. Should homosexuals be forgiven? Of course. But how much is someone making an effort to change when they are marrying someone of the same sex? Not much. Christ doesnt want sin rubbed in His face. It actually should be declared unconstitutional to pass such a law in D.C. because how can the govenrment not be interfering with this church's practice of religion when their bible says that homosexuality is clearly wrong? Someone should take a case such as this to the Supreme Court. That way when a law is passed saying that a pastor can be arrested for preaching against homosexuality it can be declared unconstitutional. Thanks.

The church goes on about the harm to society and families caused by homosexuality. Ironically, it is the church itself doing harm to families by denying to heterosexually married employees of Catholic Charities access to much needed health care, all to prove a needless point. And does this church also verify that all of its married Catholic employees were indeed sacramentally married before a priest? If not, those employees are living in an objective state of sin no less than any homosexually married couples. Yet that has never prompted the church heretofore to take comparable steps. That to me underscores that the motive here is not pastoral care or doctrinal fidelity but invidious hostility to gays.

Clay, then you have to get your stories straight. First, you can't very well claim 'the old testament doesn't count' while continuing to use old testament lines against gays. Which is it? Makes you seem like just another cafeteria Christian picking and choosing what they wield from the Bible. Second, it sounds from your post that what you have a problem with is gay sex. So why aren't you campaigning to make gay sex illegal? If a gay couple shares a life of love and nurture and support, but doesn't have sex, it sounds like you are ok with that? I also don't see you campaigning to take away the marriage licenses of straight couples who commit other things you call sins such as infidelity. Very inconsistent. So once again it seems you just want to pick on gays and use the Bible as your excuse.

Clay, you also seem to be confusing civil marriage with holy matrimony in YOUR church. They're not the same you know. No gay marriage law forces ANY church to change its doctrine. Gay marriage laws apply to civil marriage ONLY. When you imply otherwise you LIE. For your information, my church does not discriminate against gay couples. While your church has the right to do so, the government does not because it is not illegal to be gay.

Standard insurance policies wouldn't allow for the exclusions you are crying about Rick neither would the secular law. The probelm isn't the church it's the government trying to force recognizing homosexuality down the church's throat. That is the motive if you examine all the facts.

Some facinating links:

http://www.narth.com/docs/APA2009SymposiumReport.pdf

http://www.narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf

If married Catholic employees were not sacramentally married then they can retake vows or whatever. As a Protestant I believe that what is important is being saved, even of neither partner attended church when married. How can two same sex married partners come to church and act as though they should be treated as everyone else? It is like bringing a joint with you to light up every service or bringing a bottle of rum with you to drink. You cant deny being sinful while you are there, nor can you say you are making an attempt to change. If that was the case then leave your same sex partner. It is different than other situations, and the church shouldnt be forced to recognize it.

"The problem with that homosexuality is condemed in the New Testament as well while those others don't receieve mention. "

Actually, it isn't. There's only one place where you will actually find the word "homosexual" in some translations and it doesn't even make all translations, because there's such disagreement on the intent (that would be the reference in Timothy). In the letter to the Corinthians, Paul talks about *heterosexual men* having sex with other men in the context of idol worship - not homosexuals in committed relationships. In fact, almost every case of the bible talking about sex between men or women, it is talking about *heterosexuals* having sex with the same sex, which again was popular as part of idol worship ceremonies of pagan religions back in that era of human history. Homosexuals are only about 4% of the population... in a time where there were a scant few million people on earth, where homosexuals were dispersed widely across the globe with no internet or even phones to connect them, it would have been a miracle if any mention of us would have ever appeared in the Bible to begin with. The fact is, we weren't mentioned. At all. But the Catholic church and others ignore these basic facts (and I mean seriously, read what the verses actually say - "men also abandoned natural relations with women" (as if gay men had any natural relations with women) or "thou shalt not lie with a man *as with a woman*" - it's all there in black and white. But these cafeteria christians just pick the verses that suit their ideology and ignore all the other good stuff about loving their neighbors and letting God do the judging.

"Anonymous," that simply is not true. No church is required to recognize gay anything. But if said church wishes to function in some areas as a non-religious entity (such as an employer) they must abide by secular law to do it. A good example was the Ocean Grove NJ case that had so many people up in arms. The religious organization in question took advantage of a NJ program allowing tax breaks for groups who open their private facilities to the public. So far so good. Then they refused the request of the gay couple to hold their ceremony at the group's pavillion. NJ law forbids those who "offer goods, services, and facilities to the general public" from "directly or indirectly denying or withholding any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual" on the basis of sexual orientation.

They can't have it both ways. They can either keep their facilities private, and thus retain the freedom to set their own policy, or they can make the facilities public in which case they are subject to public laws like everybody else.

Lol at that poster that linked NARTH links. NARTH is a well known anti-gay organization that distorts scientific research and blatantly lies. No valid credible scientific organization, psychological organization, or medical community supports them. They are considered a joke site by most.

NARTH official blasted for misquotes and distorting research
http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/narth-official-blasted-misquotes
http://current.com/11mk64c
http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/homosexuality/

An anti-gay political group distorts psychology research
http://restructure.wordpress.com/2008/11/17/an-anti-gay-political-group-distorts-psychology-research/

more antics from narth
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/NARTH+%27study%27+a+new+low+in+junk+science-a0208143364

No Steve. The bible doesnt look the other way with homosexuals in committed relationships in any chapter. Look at Sodom and Gomorrah. Do you think Christ would approve of something His Father destroyed? Johnny Weir was being interviewed on tv and he said, "I think Christ was a woman" and laughed. People can make up anything they want to justify their behavior but that doesnt mean that it is approved by God.

You Need to Know What the Church Teaches

You sometimes hear: "The Church accepts homosexuality as natural and normal," or "The Church condemns homosexuals." To clear up that confusion, this article will quote and comment on eleven statements from a 1986 CDF letter entitled, "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual People."

1. Loving and Life-Giving Union

"The Church... celebrates the divine plan of the loving and life-giving union of men and women in the sacrament of marriage." CDF Letter, no.7

God created sex for two combined purposes: the happiness of a man and woman uniting in married love, and the happiness of new life being born from that union. Take away either one -- for instance with adultery, prostitution, masturbation, premarital sex, or homogenital activity -- and sexual activity turns negative and limiting, because those two purposes are built into us. We are made physically for loving and for generating new life. Sexual acts which are anything less than that will separate us from part of our selves and from what God wants for us; they leave out and suppress part of what sex is and part of who we are.

2. A Complementary Sexual Design

"To choose someone of the same sex for one's sexual activity is to annul [erase] the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator's sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union able to transmit life..." CDF Letter, no.7

God's plan for us is to engage the mystery of male and female, travel the distance between the sexes, and unite. Homosexuality uses sex for something other than what the Creator intended. The nature of our bodies requires no elaborate scientific data to prove the obvious fact that our bodies are not made for same-sex union. The Church is saying our hearts aren't either, and so it's not good for us or for our long term happiness and growth. God created us physically and emotionally for "complementary union" and procreation.

3. The Homosexual Inclination is Objectively Disordered

'Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder." CDF Letter, no.3

Homosexual erotic attractions may arise for a number of reasons which can be understood, both psychologically and emotionally. Sometimes they're temporary -- especially for adolescents -- but for some people, homosexual feelings are deep rooted and difficult to overcome. The Church says it's not a sin to have such attractions (especially if the erotic element is not willfully cultivated), but it is an objective disorder, a problem.

It can be difficult to understand what an "objective disorder" is. It means that the very inclination toward a same sex act indicates that the desire itself is moving in the wrong direction; ordinarily the vast majority of men and women have a natural God given attraction toward physical union with a person of the opposite sex. This is natural and good because it leads the majority of people into marriage whereas same sex attractions while not sinful, end up in a disordered act if one gives into them.

It may be objected that a man lusting for a woman is a disordered act, but the inclination to such an act is considered natural but misdirected under ordinary circumstances. Under the circumstance of marriage however this inclination is good because it leads to a strengthening of the union between a man and woman and the procreation of a child.

Same-sex erotic attractions do not lead to a strengthening of the union between a man and woman nor to the procreation of a child; therefore they are considered objectively disordered but not sinful in and of themselves.

4. Not Morally Acceptable

"Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is noL . . It is only in the tnarital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good." CDF Letter, no.3 & 7

The only reason the Church goes to the trouble of calling certain activities morally wrong is that those activities cause real harm. To act on homosexual feelings is to increase their strength. Many who were formerly active in the homosexual life-style report that the temporary sexual pleasure -- and this is true of every form of unhealthy sex-- left them profoundly empty. On the other hand, when they abstained from illicit sexual activity, even if abstaining was a struggle, they found they experienced greater peace and confidence.

5. The Church Calls No One "A Homosexual"

"Today, the Church... refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual "or a "homosexual," and insists that every person has a fundamental identity: the creature of God, and by grace, His child and heir to eternal life." CDF, no.16

The Church won't put a label on anyone. To say someone is "gay" or "lesbian" or a "homosexual" is to define a whole person by just one aspect. It can lock up a person's identity and block further emotional growth. That's just the sort of labeling which gives rise to prejudice and discrimination. The Church stands against any behavior it calls immoral, but always teaches support and respect for the person. Labeling limits and disrespects people.

6. The Church Condemns Violent Malice

"It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs." CDF Letter, no.10

Some people despise those who struggle with homosexual attractions. The Church condemns any expressions of that attitude, for insfance: anti-gay or anti-lesbian jokes, verbal and physical attack, social exclusion, rejection of friends or family members, avoidance of the topic of homosexuality, and so on. That behavior is all very wrong. It's what the Church calls "a sin against charity." People with homosexual struggles face many challenges. They need love and encouragement, not mistreatment.

7. Respect Each Person

"The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action, and in law." CDF Letter, no.10

When you hear insulting remarks about people who struggle with homosexuality, the Church is saying: Don't stand for it. Speak up. And when a friend or family member confides in you about experiencing homosexual attractions, that's the moment your friendship and Christian response really count. Good friends also challenge one another, so you can and should say what you believe. You can continue to show both Christian love and faithfulness to the Truth, no matter what decision they make.

8. Pressure on the Church

"...increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity." CDF, no.8

One of the Church's toughest duties is to speak the truth with love and confront the self-destructive ideas and behavior of any society, and often those societies resist. Our Christian "tough love" insists that God intends more for us than homosexual activity can ever offer. Our long standing Judeo-Christian tradition is coming under strong attack especially in America. Every young Catholic can expect to feel this pressure -- some of it even from dissenters within the Church, some of it from otherwise respected teachers or counselors. If you openly affirm the Church's teaching and ask your friend to question the "gay-positive" path, you will very likely get labeled "homophobic." It takes courage to speak an unpopular truth, but it's an act of real love. Reaffirm your love to your friend and hold your ground.

9. Generous and Giving People

"Homosexual activity... thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are no. often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self indulgent." CDF, no.7

What if your actively homosexual friends are otherwise good people? Their sexual activity still works against that goodness, and for friendship's sake and honesty's sake you need to say clearly, at least once, what you believe and why. Apart from that, you can still affirm other good things you see in your friend, as the Church does. And you can still be there for your friend no matter what, and say so. Such loyalty has at times been the life-line for people who deep down didn't want the homosexual identity and life but had been convinced they had no choice in the matter -- because they'd never heard anyone say anything different.

10. Always and Totally Compulsive?

"What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behavior of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and there' fore inculpable." CDF Letter, no.11

"I can't stop" is the cry of the addict and it means a person feels that his/her freedom has been taken over by something else. But not all homosexuality is compulsive, especially at first. Some people experiment with homosexual sex just to see if they like it. Sex just for pleasure, however, often leads to sexual addiction -- whether it's heterosexual or homosexual. Catholic teaching reminds us that our free will is God's gift, and anything that controls us is against God's purposes. Some people who were once actively homosexual testify that it didn't take long to become deeply addicted to gay or lesbian sex. Overcoming the addiction was a very difficult, but not impossible, struggle.

11. Abandoning Homosexuality

'Abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God's liberating grace. CDF Letter, no.11

Many people experience difficulty in trying to leave the terribly risky homosexual life. Four factors are necessary for success: deep conviction that only chaste living is good, sturdy support from others, total personal effort, and reliance on God. Many people do successfully establish a life of sexual self-control. But are they happy? Popular opinion says, "No!" imagining a never-ending torment of suppressed desire. Not so, say these over-comers. They report instead great happiness and much gratitude to God for being set free at last from the demeaning power of their lust. The result is increased self-confidence and inner peace.

Cutting off all spouses in order to get the gays, sounds like an old tried and true tactic used in the past, when the Papal army was poised out side the French city of Beziers in preparation for marching in and putting down the Protestants. When the General asked the Cardinal in charge how he was to tell the blasphemers from the loyal Catholics in the town, the Cardinal replied, "Kill them all, God will sort it out later.".

Anonymous' post of 1750 words is not a "comment." The bulk of it is plagiarized from the anti-gay "courage" website. Should I suppose that plagiarism, too, is a "Christian value" Mr. Anonymous?

My words are my own and I sign my name. Try honesty some time.

Steve - It is also mentioned in Romans 24-28

"[24] Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
[25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
[26] For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
[27] And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
[28] And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;"

You are correct God will do the judging so you might want to pray and make sure you are doing his will and not your own.

Helen K - First we are talking about a cahrity not a business here. Next by forcing the them to provided insurance for gay marriage it forces them to acknolwledge it. What will be next. A gay couple suing to get a church to perform a wedding? Look at what just happened in the Netherlands. The govenrnemnt left the church two choices close down or restrict benefits they chose the latter. It would have been no big deal to grant an exemption.

I would like to add my own response to 'Anonymous' that while on the one hand you've noted the anti-gay opinions of a single anti-gay organization (driven by an anti-gay agenda no less), on the other hand objective institutions that support my assertion that there is nothing wrong or bad about being gay include the: American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, World Health Organization, American Academy of Pediatrics, Child Welfare League of America, National Association of Social Workers, North American Council on Adoptable Children, American Psychoanalytic Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, Council on Child and Adolescent Health, American Association of Pastoral Counselors, American Law Institute, American Civil Liberties Union, Anti-Defamation League, American Bar Association, American Counseling Association, California Teachers' Association, Religious Society of Friends, California Council of Churches, Faith in America, Human Rights Watch, Working Families Win, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, Association of Certified Family Law Specialists, League of Women Voters, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, National Education Association, Freedom In Christ Church, Episcopal Church, Disciples of Christ, United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church, Dignity Catholic Church, Universal Life Church, United Church of Christ, not to mention countless universities, local governments, and virtually every human rights organization that exists.

Clay, read Ezekiel 16:48-50, which lists the reasons Sodom was destroyed. Notably, homosexual behavior is missing from the list.

The same people who rail at gay people are explicitly defying the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah, who wrote that the sins of Sodom were greed, arrogance, and refusing to help sick and poor people. Now some today find a way pin that on gay people, who are not hurting anyone. What's going on?

Again, nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality given as a reason for the destruction of Sodom. Just a myth that goes on and on with a life of its own.

Besides, if God was condemning homosexuality in Genesis 19, why is it that in the same chapter, Lot's daughters get their father drunk, have sex with him and have sons as a result. Do we interpret that as God's condoning incest? People just use the Bible as a justification so they don't have to take responsibility for their own oogly feelings about homosexuality.

Hi Mr Bergamot. One source that you left out that overrides everything else is God's word in the bible. Thanks.

Anonymous,

As has already been noted here, no same-sex-marriage legislation or ruling has inlcuded anything that would require any church to sanctify a marriage against its will.

This canard is getting stale.

To repeat ... we are talking CIVIL marriage here ... absolutely nothing to do with:

-any church
-any sacrament
-any religious dogma

In that light, any scriptural reference is entirely irrelvant, except in so far as those verses might well preclude a particular church from performing a sacramental blessing of a marriage (but the license for that marriage will come from the Court). Churches will (correctly) retain the right to refuse anyone access to their sacraments.

Dack Bergamot - Your saying that because lots of other organizations say it's ok then the bible and the Church are wrong. Your Ad Populum reasoning aside none of those associations can prove that. It's their opinion altered by years of militant campaigning by gay rights groups.

If Dirk won't say it, I will.

The bible (as you interpret it)and the church (as you define it) are wrong.

And irrelevant to the question at hand.

Clay, while that may be what they teach at your church, at my church they teach that all mankind including LGBT people are welcome, equal, loved, and children of God.

Government can not ever force you to change what your church teaches, but civil law must allow both you and me to practice it our way. I will not allow some Taliban-style extremist to force me to practice religion their way. You of all people should understand that.

Mr. Anonymous, no that is not what I'm saying. Read more carefully, Hon.

What I'm saying is that Biblical interpretations which lead otherwise reasonable people to become anti-gay zealots not only fail to represent all of Christianity they also fail to represent the best and brightest of mankind in science, law, and medicine.

I point it out in hopes that such anti-gay zealots will realize their days of bullying gay people are over.

Case in point: this comes directly from the American Psychological Association's website regarding the issue of gay marriage:

A first concern is that the relationships of gay men and lesbians are dysfunctional and unhappy. To the contrary, studies that have compared partners from same-sex couples to partners from heterosexual couples on standardized measures of relationship quality (such as satisfaction and commitment) have found partners from same-sex and heterosexual couples to be equivalent to each other (see reviews by Peplau & Beals, 2004; Peplau & Spalding, 2000).

A second concern is that the relationships of gay men and lesbians are unstable. However, research indicates that, despite the somewhat hostile social climate within which same-sex relationships develop, many lesbians and gay men have formed durable relationships. For example, survey data indicate that between 18% and 28% of gay couples and between 8% and 21% of lesbian couples have lived together 10 or more years (e.g., Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Bryant & Demian, 1994; Falkner & Garber, 2002; Kurdek, 2003). Researchers (e.g., Kurdek, 2004) have also speculated that the stability of same-sex couples would be enhanced if partners from same-sex couples enjoyed the same levels of social support and public recognition of their relationships as partners from heterosexual couples do.

A third concern is that the processes that affect the well-being and permanence of the relationships of lesbian and gay persons are different from those that affect the relationships of heterosexual persons. In fact, research has found that the factors that predict relationship satisfaction, relationship commitment, and relationship stability are remarkably similar for both same-sex cohabiting couples and heterosexual married couples (Kurdek, 2001, 2004).

http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/marriage.aspx

BankStreet - Why becuase you don't agree with what it says? Sorry friend you don't want to follow it that's your right. It is relevant since the government is trying to force your view on the church.

Dack Bergamot - The problem is you define anyone who doesn't support homosexuality as anti-gay zealots. What you want is to force all Christians to accept the idea of gay marriage as ok. Quoting a study from American Psychological Association's website does nothing to validate the morality. Studies can and have been manipulated both for and against gay marriage. I'm not opposed to homosexual's being allowed to marry. I am opposed to having the idea forced down my throat as morally acceptable or forced on the church to accept it.

Anonymous,

I can safely say that any book that tells me that my innate sexuality is somehow "sinful" is (at best) mistaken and (at worst) absurd.

And .. not relevant, because once again.... what is being pursued is civil marriage ... absolutely nothing to do with

-any church
-any sacrament
-any dogma

Just as divorce is a civil matter, handled by the courts, civil marriage (as opposed to the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, which is a sacrament) is a CIVIL matter, handled by the courts.All biblical/scriptual references are therefore IRRELEVANT.

I think I have a headache....

Anonymous, you wrote, "What you want is to force all Christians to accept the idea of gay marriage as ok."

That simply is not true.

How many times must you be told: this has nothing to do with your beliefs. You can believe anything you want. The only thing you will be "forced" to do is allow a different belief alongside yours. The constitution dictates that, so calm down and stop making gay people out to be the bad guys simply for expecting to be treated as the constitution promises: EQUALLY.

Dack - If that were true you wouldn't cast the church as full of anti-gay zealots. How long before we see a repeat of what happened in the Dutch Church here?

Anonymous,

You, Dack (sorry for screwing up your name early, Dack), and I all know that "the church" is not a monolith. In fact, Dack's earlier posting listed about a dozen religious communities / denominations that are supportive of equal access to civil marriage. Many brave denominations are already performing same-sex marriages, in defiance of the civil rules in place. Only some churches are"full of anti-gay zealots."

As to what happened in the Dutch church -- I'm not sure I approve of their tactics (although the level of community support was impressive). but don't you think it healthful for complacency to be shaken up from time to time? Seemed to work for Martin Luther.

Anonymous, what are you talking about?? I do not cast any church as anti-gay zealots. I only cast anti-gay zealots as anti-gay zealots.

I don't care if your reason is your religion, or your fear of gay people, or your Martian friend who told you gays are bad. The *reason* does not matter. If you expect gays to be treated in a lesser way by U.S. law I'm gonna call you an anti-gay zealot.

Some churches support gay equality, some don't. That is fine. Neither kind is relevant to civil law. Civil law answers only to the Constitution.

In an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

Whats getting tiresome is all the "anti-gay" accusations being thrown around. Why is it that difficult to for once empathize with the reasoning of the "other guys"? "Courage" sounds like it is out to offer people assistance in dealing with issues pertaining to having same-sex attractions. What is so wrong about that? What is to be affraid of?

What any church says is irrelevant. What matters is the word of God. If the bible says that men from Sodom wanted to go into Lot's tent to "know" the men he had inside, who were angels, and that the angels then destroyed the city because of the wickedness, we need to listen. We cant leave out part of the story. People who are homosexual who may feel somewhat guilty because they were brought up in a church or whatever shouldnt add to or leave out anything from the word of God. And neither should anyone else. When we know God, we have to make an effort to live a Christian lifestyle. We may slip up on occasion but we cant continue to be drunk or continually committing adultery or whatever. We have to show God that we mean it when we want a relationship with Him. Thanks.

pattycakers,

What is "wrong" is the notion that one "deals with" same-sex attraction by denying it, suppressing it, and pretending it isn't there. Homosexuality is a reality within the spectrum of normal human sexuality, yet another opportunity for human connection and love. It should be acknowledged and celebrated, not "dealt with," like it was a disease.

Just because you don't share those feelings doesn't make them "unnatural," any more than being left-handed in a right-handed world makes southpaws into freaks who must change to accommodate the majority.

Why are you so uneasy with being called "anti-gay"? You sure haven't demonstrated anything to the contrary. Of course, then again, being "anti-gay" is analogous to being "anti-weather" or "anti-sky." Your discomfort isn't going to make us go away any time soon!

What's getting tiresome is all the anti-gays.

I know I'm tired of 'em, Laura.

From the simplistic ones like Clay, to the insidious "love the sinner...but make him into something different" ones like pattycakers....

Not BEING Gay seems to grant them permission to claim some moral high ground, but their consistent sanctimony and duplicity erodes that high perch pretty convincingly.

An interesting perspective:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/04/AR2010030403277.html?hpid=newswell

Insidious? Common BankStreet, I'm pretty much an open book man! I don't believe you actually think I'm a"closet homophobic", rather, you are more so -- more than Rfan Anon or Laura Lee -- open to my reasoning and the "unapparent" consideration which the Church offers same-sex attracted people and it scares you; you have a curiosity that what I say could be of value in the lives of many people tormented by what they feel.

p.s. "gays" are more than what society labels them as. Who they choose to be attracted to does not define them as people.

I LOVE GAYS!!! Why are there so many homophobes on this blog?? You are giving forward thinking, progressive straight people a bad name.

As a Catholic myself, i think the church should rally to get gay marriage in the catholic church so catholic same-sex couples can be married by their priests in their church.

Cutting these benefits makes no sense, and will result in the RCC alienating even more people.

pattycakers!

My officemates must've wondered what made me laugh out loud!

Your homophobia is insidious because you call it "love" and "concern," and "help."

I have NO curiosity about what the church (by that, I mean any religious organization whose impulse is to "rescue" gay folk from homosexuality) offers. None. As to such "help" having any value? I've already pointed out that it is poison. Hardly help.

And that does scare me.

BankStreet - Let me repeat this just because you don't agree with the Bble does not make it wrong. Calling all who think homosexual acts are immoral homophobes makes you no better than those really are homophobes. What is irrelevant is your opinion on the Catholic Church.

BankStreet,

I'm glad I have been a source of joy in your day! "LOL". I do not wish to "start building the fence higher" between your views and my own. Sorry BankStreet, you are too much of a kind lad with wit and a strong heart plus a great sense of humor; this is critical to opening up good dialogue and you are but the last one remaining on these blogs as far as I have seen. Maybe it is best to leave this as we left the other page... (before Rfan Anon suckered me back! sigh!)

To switch gears though, what would you tell Catholics to do in order to understand your point of view a little better? Do you think I have been naive towards your arguments? I want to move forward here, not stay stuck on "he said,she said".

any thoughts?

“…connections and alliances so unnatural, that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law…” Sound familiar? It’s the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878.

We are back to square one. People talk of the majority. Let's do a history review on the "majority", "morality", and "will of the people" of the past. At one time, the majority supported slavery, and it was a moral normal thing. At one time, the majority was against interracial marriages, with 15+ states banning it. People and even the courts said that "it was not God's intent for a black man to be with a white woman" and it was "unnatural." Traditional marriage was a white man with a white woman, black man with a black woman, etc. Sound familiar? At one time, California voters passed proposition 14 in the 1960's with a 65% majority, a constitutional amendment, keeping racial segregation intact in neighborhoods, and allowing them to refuse to sell property to blacks in order to keep blacks out of white neighborhoods. Sound familiar? At one time, the majority were against women voting. Sound familiar?

In 2009, we haven't advanced as far as we think. And yes, sexual orientation is the same thing as race and gender, as you can't change your sexual attraction just like you can't change the color of your skin. If you are straight and really think you can "choose" to be attracted to the same sex, you might want to re-evaluate your previous assessment of your sexual orientation.

It will only be a matter of time. Gay marriage will become the norm and homophobia will start disappearing just as racism and slavery has.

Pattycakers, I've heard your arguments before. The reason they are so insidious is while certain branches of certain churches wholeheartedly believe these bad things about gay people, for 30+ years now the very best and brightest in science, medicine, and law all agree there is nothing wrong or bad or harmful about being gay.

Simply put, science shows such thinking to be unsupported by scientific inquiry or objective, disciplined research. Objective top authorities in psychology and law agree.

So while you can believe anything you want, you shouldn't be surprised if you get some razzing about how absurd it is from the objective outside world. (outside of your church, that is)

Anonymous,

Seems to me that works both ways:

Just because you agree with the Bible doesn't make it true.

And..although my opinion of the Catholic Church and its teaching may be "irrelevant," those teachings become VERY relevant to me when the Bishops lobby my Legislature to deny my right to equal access to CIVIL marriage, which is of no legitimate interest of the Church. Therefore, although I am not a believer, I am wary of the power of the Church to do great mischief, well beyond the walls of the physical church.

pattycakers,

I just noted that your postscript, included an oblique reference to homosexuality being a "choice." I think we've had this discussion before. My sexuality is no more a choice than is yours. As soon as you can tell me exactly when you *chose* to be heterosexual (that is, made an active election between two equally viable options), please share that information with the rest of us. When you inserted this tired absurdity into what might have otherwise been a positive closing note (to which I could otherwise enthusiastically agree, by the way), you provided a text book definition of "insidious."

pattycakers,

If you are sincere in wishing to engage in an honest dialogue with Gay Roman Catholics, I would recommend you check out Dignity.

http://www.dignityusa.org/

But, you will have to entirely put aside many of your preconceived notions, including that Gay folk "choose" to be Gay and that we are, by definition, unhappy with our sexuality. It is presumptuous in the extreme for you to think otherwise. Listen, and be open to learning, my friend.

From Dignity's mission statement. Discuss among yourselves.

"We believe that God created us, Christ died for us, and the Holy Spirit sanctified us in Baptism. As GLBT Catholics, it is our right, our privilege, and our duty to live the sacramental life of the Church. We believe that we can express our sexuality in a loving, life-affirming manner that is in keeping with Christ's teaching."

Hippocrits. This is NOT what Jesus Christ taught.

Jesus taught a lot of things, Ms Brown, including love, forbearance, mercy, and compassion. You might consider applying some of those teachings toward people whose sexuality, just like yours, was not chosen, but is an innate part of their being. People who, every day, struggle to retain their Christian identity in the face of blind and deaf hatred.

Or is hypocrisy only something of which you accuse others? What do you think your Jesus would have to say about that?

Oh...and pattycakers..I'd strongly recommend you not refer to the men you encounter at Dignity as "lads." Just a thought.

and, Ms Brown ...

I challenge you to cite any words of Jesus that explicitly condemned same-sex love. On the other hand, the teachings I allude to are clear and abundant. Maybe you should start with those, before you spend too much of your valuable time teasing out a rationale by which you exclude people from your own love.

Howdy BankStreet,

I will look into the linked site you provided shortly, and thanks again for that. Before I get back to you once I check it out, just some things (among others) I will be noting:

- Is this group recognized by the RC Church.

- Is this group claiming to be affiliated with the RC Church

- What is the mission of this group

- Is the mission in unison with, and reflective of objective Catholic doctrine

- Does it receive any funding and from what source(s)

- Who are it's leaders and professional constituents

Etc, etc...

p.s. Thanks for the heads up on the "lads"

Not being Roman Catholic, I am hesitant to provide you authoritative word on the Church's relationship with Dignity, but I think I can assure you it is not looked upon with favor by the Church. The excerpt I already provided from Dignity's Mission Statement clearly says that its members are not about denying or suppressing their sexuality, which they regard as God-given. I suggest, though that you peruse the website with an open mind. I don't think (and here, I am on shaky ground) that Dignity would describe itself as "anti-Church" rather, they are knocking at the door, seeking full admission, their sexuality intact and acknowledged.

pattycakers,

Some more reading for you (linked from the Dignity home page):

http://www.religiousconsultation.org/Catholic_defense_of_same_sex_marriage.htm

BankStreet,

Thank you again for your references. I browsed through both sites critically but with an open mind and noted some interesting points and themes which I will briefly sum up:
-  These sites are in no way tied to Catholic doctrine concerning homosexuality -- your observations here were correct.
-  The nature of these sites -- due to operating under the guise of being "Catholic" --  are thus deliberately misleading and confusing church teaching with subjective interpretations for the purpose of activism. This is -- put quite simply -- wrong. Consequently, all the accusations by the perpetrators of these sites of "hypocritical practices" and teachings by the Catholic Church -- any credibility or righteousness which was intended by the observations, teachings or education on these sites -- can indeed be termed "hypocritical" and even "dangerous" by their (DignityUSA, religiousconsultation.org) very own logic. If you profess yourself to be Catholic, you follow and practice the teachings of the Church which is the "Body of Christ" on earth. 
- I noticed DignityUSA in particular, deals with a Fr. John J. McNeill, who famously leads the renegade charge against Catholic Church doctrine concerning sexuality and homosexuality more specifically. He is largely involved in the "sexual reform" movement and gay activism. He says:

"The rise of the feminist liberation movement in recent years gives gay people a reason to hope that GLBT people will be fully accepted in the future human community... It is clear that feminine and gay liberation are so intimately linked that gays should give full support to women’s liberation and vice versa."
- Fr. John J. McNeill

There is so much ideologically, philosophically and fundamentally wrong with his comments here that it does not serve that we go into any further detail concerning this. Essentially, he is encouraging greater gender division and inequality via the exact thought and rationale which he inadvertently uses to promote the greater good on this issue. FEMINISM and GAY LIBERATION is language which should never be used in modern, objective, progress-oriented dialogue as far as I am concerned. Let's get over the "oppressive" undertone already. Change starts from within and the bulk of these issues are being fueled by the resurfacing of these divisive notions.  
Having noted all of that, unfortunately, the well-intended information on these two sites respectfully, does not coincide with objective church teaching on homosexualities, compassion, and the true meaning of ones sexuality. As it appears that the RC church's message of hope and compassion for homosexually inclined individuals is being lost to emotionally fueled renouncement because of 1)not knowing what the church teaches 2)not understanding why 3)not understanding or caring about how these teachings tie into the larger faith picture, and finally by not having the "faith based in reason" to follow. I am not condemning anyone here -- only making observations using objective church teaching.
I believe your previous comment sums up our dialogue perfectly:

"I have NO curiosity about what the church (by that, I mean any religious organization whose impulse is to "rescue" gay folk from homosexuality) offers. None. As to such "help" having any value? I've already pointed out that it is poison. Hardly help..."

This speaks volumes about where you place your opinion on what is best for the homosexual community; it (your opinion) is above reproach. If I may reference the process of scientific inquiry for a moment:
1.Define the question
2.Gather information and resources (observe)
3.Form hypothesis
4.Perform experiment and collect data
5.Analyze data
6.Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7.Publish results
8.Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
It would do us well to consider all angles of various possible solutions to questions on sexuality. As this method pertains to the Catholic Church's teachings on the subject, I realize that faith is the most important element in confirming the truth of church teachings -- it is quite paradoxical -- however, before one can arrive at the faith, they must understand the teachings. One could absolutely do their part to understand. You my friend, are not even interested in the teachings of faith and are therefore left with a considerable unknown when testing your worldviews/beliefs against those of your Catholic "opponents".
I do not wish us to be opponents BankStreet, rather mere colleagues in the search for goodness for all -- men, woman, and everyone in between. What I propose is for you to realize that humans are capable of finding truth in sexual responsibility, abstinence, suppression of desires and choosing to acknowledge the complementarity of the genders regardless of inclinations or how one feels. This is by no means a walk in the park. But it is a walk that many homosexual persons have and will continue to take with the help of God -- yes BankStreet, as you acknowledge the people who have chosen to embrace their same-gender attraction, there are indeed those who do not -- and they deserve all the same support and admiration we give to the persons who have chosen your path.

I leave you with some starting points:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/prologue.htm#III
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c1a1.htm#2094
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p6.htm#364
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2357
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p4s2a3.htm#2843
http://couragerc.net/TheFiveGoals.html

pattycakers,

I have the time and patience only to speak to a few of your points.

First and foremost, how can you say you investigated the Dignity link I sent you " with an open mind"? You knew going in that they were a renegade group; an open mind would have sought to understand their perspective, rather than dismiss them, a priori. The men (and women) of Dignity are no more "hypocrites" than were the countless others who have questioned the teachings of the Church over the centuries (and seen their protests eventually heard and accomodated, as reason slowly broke down dogma). Gallileo comes to mind, as does Martin Luther (although Luther ended up outside the Church, I was amused to learn that "A Mighty Fortress is My God" is now included in some RC hymnals....). I am also thinking of the unnamed souls who stood up to the Church's support of slavery, anti-semitism, and other human abuses over the years. All "hypocrites," because they questioned the Vatican while retaining their Catholic identities?

Dignity comprises sincere folk, convinced (through their own prayerful search, I am sure) that their rightful place is with a Catholic Church that (as their mission statement clearly says) acknowledges their god-given sexuality. Your hubris with regard to their longstanding petition is unbecoming.

As to my "getting over" the notion that Gay folk are "oppressed": I will be over that as soon as I no longer hear stories of my brothers losing their families, their children, their livelihoods (Yes, Virginia state employees, you are oppressed), their church homes, their homes, and their lives because of who they love. Again, the arrogance with which you speak from the comfort of your majority status is appalling.

Next, I do not need to apply the scientific method to know that my sexuality is innate and no more subject to change than is yours (sound familiiar?) -- just as I know I have ten fingers and ten toes. And while I certainly know that my experience is not universally applicable, I daresay I know a few more Gay folk than you have ever encountered ... and I can assure you, I have NEVER encountered any Gay man who was so uncomfortable with his homosexuality that he would submit to any sort of effort to change it, probably most specifically through a "faith-based" effort. At best, we just want y'all to leave us alone.

Finally, I am afraid you and I will remain "opponents." We are equally obdurate, equally impervious to the other's arguments. Lord knows, I've made the same points to you over and over.....

You are not my "enemy," though. I don't know that I have any enemies, except in the abstract.