DC 'Hood vs. St Andrew's, next Friday, Nov 20, 7 pm @ E Brooke Lee middle school (11800 Monticello Ave, Silver Spring, MD 20902). DC 'Hood (short for priesthood) is a basketball team of Washington priests and seminarians which plays parish teams from around the Archdiocese. I was stationed at St Andrew's for 3 years, so this is a big game!! I would like to take a group of students to the game; please let me know if you're interested. Go 'Hood!!
-------------------------
The following is from the website of the Archdiocese of Washington with the latest about the bill that would legalize marriage between same-sex couples in DC. The main point is that the DC City Council is taking steps in the bill to limit the religious freedom of organizations like the Catholic Church which do not support same-sex "marriages".
The DC City Council’s Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary today (Nov. 10, 2009) narrowed the exemption for religious freedom in a bill that would legalize marriage between same-sex couples. The bill is headed to the full council.
The committee’s narrowing of the exemption leaves religious organizations and individuals at risk for adhering to the teachings of their faith, and could prevent social service providers such as Catholic Charities from continuing their long-term partnerships with the District government to provide critical social services for thousands of the city’s most vulnerable residents.
The bill provides no exemption for individuals with sincerely-held religious beliefs, as required under federal law. In fact, one council member opposed an amendment that would have respected an individual’s federally-protected, deeply-held religious beliefs by saying that would encourage a “discriminatory impulse.”
The committee rejected concerns raised in testimony by the ACLU, the Archdiocese of Washington, the InterFaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington and a group of nationally-recognized legal scholars, including Robin Fretwell Wilson, professor at Washington & Lee University Law School. In calling for broader religious liberty protections in the bill, the experts cited well established United States Supreme Court case law under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a federal law that applies to the District of Columbia.
Under the bill, religious organizations do not have to participate in the “solemnization or celebration” of a same-sex marriage ceremony. An earlier version of the bill also exempted them from “the promotion of marriage that is in violation of the entity’s religious beliefs.” The revised language significantly narrows that exemption to the “promotion of marriage through religious programs, counseling, courses, or retreats.”
As a result, religious organizations and individuals are at risk of legal action for refusing to promote and support same-sex marriages in a host of settings where it would compromise their religious beliefs. This includes employee benefits, adoption services and even the use of a church hall for non-wedding events for same-sex married couples. Religious organizations such as Catholic Charities could be denied licenses or certification by the government, denied the right to offer adoption and foster care services, or no longer be able to partner with the city to provide social services for the needy.
“It is our concern that the committee’s narrowing of the religious exemption language will cause the government to discontinue our long partnership with them and open up the agency to litigation and the use of resources to defend our religious beliefs rather than serve the poor,” said Edward Orzechowski, president/CEO of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington. Catholic Charities serves 68,000 people in the city each year. The city’s 40 Catholic parishes operate another 93 social service programs to provide crucial services.
The teachings of the Catholic Church, including those of the Archdiocese of Washington, hold that all individuals have equal dignity and deserve equal respect. However, marriage by its very nature must be between a man and a woman. One essential purpose of marriage is an openness to creating and nurturing the next generation, which is the reason that governments and cultures throughout all time have given these relationships special recognition and support. See www.MarriageMattersDC.org for more information on marriage.
1 comment:
The argument could be made that the state (meaning government) is violating the constitution by encroching on religion.
The basis for my argument is thus: The idea of marriage back through anchient times is a religious concept, one that the state (ie government) has recognized as a legal contract and eventually formalized with a seperate leagal form the licence/certificate issued by the governmental entity.
In past eras there was no "civil marriage" this is a relitivly new idea, it once was that the religious authority/group was "in charge" of weddings. Increasingly in the past several hundred years there has been an increase in secularization and thus the state got into the "marrige" business. But in reality these state "marriages" aren't truly marriages they are contractual legal unions that have co-opted the name marriage. If the DC government would call it what it is, civil unions, would there be such an issue? I don't know, I don't think so. The problem has always been people wanting to normilize the abnormal by co-opting language and thus justifying the sinful actions they are taking. Much like the women who attempt ordination, they can go through the motions but the indellable mark on the soul can not take place.
(Father; Can you tell I am in paper mode?)
Post a Comment