Worcester County Freedom Trail

This has been my concern all along…what will a same sex marriage ruling mean to religious institutions? When our forefathers created the country, they worried about religion infringing on the state. Today, the worry is exactly the opposite.

The following is good news for religions in Vermont, Connecticut, Maine, and New Hampshire. Unfortunately, these provisions are not in the Mass court order, as far as I know.

Thanks to Mark for pointing this out, from National Review’s The Corner blog:

Each of the four bills (in Vermont, Connecticut, Maine, and New Hampshire) enacted this year to redefine marriage include some kind of “religious exemption.” This is significant because it represents a grudging admission that redefining marriage creates conflicts between the new marriage policy and the ability of religious groups and individuals to act on their conviction that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. How much protection do these bills provide?

All specify that clergy will not have to solemnize same-sex marriages. Vermont, Connecticut, and New Hampshire exempt fraternal benefit societies from having to provide insurance based on a same-sex marriage. The bills in these three states also contain language that prevents religious organizations and associated nonprofits from being, in the language of the Vermont bill, “required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges to an individual if the request for such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges is related to the solemnization of a marriage or celebration of a marriage” (New Hampshire’s bill adds “or the promotion of marriage through religious counseling, programs, courses, retreats, or housing designated for married individuals, and such solemnization, celebration, or promotion of marriage is in violation of his or her religious beliefs and faith”). The bills in Maine and New Hampshire specify that the government may not, in the language of the Maine bill, “compel, prevent or interfere in any way with any religious institution’s religious doctrine, policy, teaching or solemnization of marriage.” The Connecticut bills says the marriage law cannot be “deemed or construed to affect the manner in which a religious organization may provide adoption, foster care or social services if such religious organization does not receive state or federal funds for that specific program or purpose.”

Unless these provisions are interpreted very expansively, they seem to be very thin gruel indeed. It is certainly arguable that state and federal constitutional provisions would already have kept clergy from being forced to solemnize same-sex marriages and would prevent government from dictating doctrines, policies, and practices of churches.

What is not protected? Among other things, (1) anything after the marriage is solemnized and celebrated, (2) the rights of individuals acting on their religious beliefs unless the individual is clergy or a church employee, (3) nondenominational religious schools or organizations, and (4) parents’ ability to exempt their children from public-school curriculum promoting same-sex marriage.

Ramesh Ponnuru succinctly states why the Iowa Supreme Court is wrong on overturning the constitutional amendment against “gay marriage.”

Iowa’s supreme court has ruled that its constitutional guarantee of “equal protection” for all people requires the state to recognize same-sex marriage. The court overturned a law passed in 1998.

In a democratic system such as ours, it can be perfectly appropriate for courts to set aside laws. Constitutions reflect the permanent will of the people, which trumps the temporary will of the people as expressed in ordinary statutes (if a court is forced to choose between these sources of law to decide a case).

But nobody can plausibly claim that Iowans meant to ratify same-sex marriage when they approved a constitution including equal-protection language. Nor can anyone plausibly claim that Iowans meant to authorize judges to decide such matters as marriage policy when they approved that language.

The court’s ruling thus has no democratic or constitutional legitimacy. Whether or not same-sex marriage is a good idea, the decision by Iowa’s court to impose it on the state is an outrage.

I don’t understand. There are dozens or more dating service web sites that cater to the GBLT community. How is it that the government can force eHarmony to change it’s core business because a gay person wants eHarmony rather than Match.com? What’s next? A gay person will want to buy a Toyota Corolla from General Motors, so the government will step in and force General Motors to change it’s business and start producing Corolla’s? Or my business will have to discontinue it’s focus on the tech community and start to work with retailers if a gay person objects to our business model?

This from Fox News:

Online dating service eHarmony has agreed to create a new Web site — “Compatible Partners” — for gay and lesbian users, the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General announced.

Created as part of a settlement with Eric McKinley, a gay man from New Jersey, the Web site will provide services for users seeking same-sex partners by March 31, New Jersey Division on Civil Rights Director J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo said.

eHarmony, which was founded by Dr. Neil Clark Warren in 2000, said the settlement was triggered by a Law Against Discrimination complaint filed by McKinley against the online service on March 14, 2005. As part of the agreement, eHarmony will pay McKinley $5,000 and will provide him a one-year complimentary membership.

eHarmony — which was not found in violation of the law — also agreed to ensure that same-sex users will be matched using the same or equivalent technology used for its heterosexual clients. It will also post photographs of same-sex couples in its “Diversity” section of its Web site and in advertising materials.

Registration on the “Compatible Partners” site will be free to the first 10,000 users. The site and eHarmony will maintain individual matching pools and registration information. As a result, users of the “Compatible Partners” site and eHarmony.com cannot be paired together, the company announced.

“With the launch of the Compatible Partners site, our policy is to welcome all single individuals who are genuinely seeking long-term relationships,” eHarmony Vice President of Legal Affairs Antone Johnson said in a statement.

I haven’t seen the ads, but I agree with the Bishops…seriously horrific judgment on the part of the ad agency. I’m appalled to see that “adulterous adults” is considered a good demographic.

The following statement was released today by the Roman Catholic Bishops in Massachusetts:
 
We, the Roman Catholic Bishops in Massachusetts, as pastors and teachers, are compelled to speak in support of marriage in light of a recent advertising campaign promoting adultery in the Commonwealth. 
                  
The ads encourage the use of an online dating service for married persons contemplating adulterous relationships.  This wrongful enterprise threatens not only the oldest and most foundational of human institutions but also the common good of all.
           
Marriage requires honesty, loyalty, trust, self-sacrifice, personal responsibility, respect, and commitment.  Marriage is a vocation that benefits all of society by building and strengthening human relationships within the family home and beyond with relatives, neighbors and one’s community.  Marriage is the basis for the family, the fundamental human society.  A healthy committed marriage helps to insure the well-being of children, create social stability and improve the quality of life for all citizens.
 
The activity promoted by this advertising effort will not benefit families and the ads send the wrong message to our young.  The ad campaign will further erode the unique and important role that marriage has in contributing to the common good.  Where marriage is weakened the social cost is enormous.  We commend those media outlets that have refused this advertising and ask that other media outlets do the same.
 
We honor and support those couples who have committed themselves to each other in the vocation of marriage and offer prayers that they remain strong in the face of increasing social pressures to abandon their promise of fidelity.

Cardinal Seán P. O’Malley
Archdiocese of Boston

Most Rev. George W. Coleman
Diocese of Fall River

Most Rev. Timothy A. McDonnell
Diocese of Springfield

Most Rev. Robert J. McManus
Diocese of Worcester

More from the Boston Herald.

And, no, I won’t help the dating service out by posting their link here.

Wow, I didn’t think Proposition 8 would pass in California. Surprise, surprise! From Townhall.com:

The Republican presidential candidate may not have won on Election Day, but a slew of state-level pro-marriage initiatives did.

Among them was California’s hotly contested Proposition 8, a measure to ban gay marriage by constitutional amendment in a state where homosexuals had been permitted to marry through May 2008 decision by the state’s Supreme Court.

A new passage will now be added to California’s constitution that states “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” This is a crippling movement for the gay rights movement, which had argued California would lead the nation’s acceptance for gay marriage.

Similar measures passed in Arizona and Florida. Both states successfully added amendments to their state constitutions to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Voters in Arkansas passed a measure, “The Arkansas Adoption and Foster Care Act” to prohibit unmarried couples from adopting. This would effectively bar gay couples from adopting a child since Arkansas does not permit gays to marry.

From Catholic Citizenship:

With the escalating attention on the upcoming Gloucester School Committee public hearing to gather information and parent perspectives on the “pregnancy pact,” a new web site offers contact information on school committee members and talking points to emphasize abstinence education.  The web site — www.parentsforteenhealth.com — was forwarded to us by one of our Catholic Citizens and is an excellent example of the laity taking it upon themselves to foster grassroots activism and promote Catholic Christian values in the public square.  Though the site appears to be non-denominational, the message is one echoed by Pope Benedict XVI, that parents have the right to educate their children in accordance with Catholic values.  Promoting a culture of life to our children is critical if we hope to empower and educate future generations against the indoctrination by the radical sex lobby.

The Gloucester School Committee meeting will begin at 6:00 PM on Oct. 1, 2008, and could go as late as 10:30 PM or continue the following day.  The hearing will be held at Gloucester City Hall.

Catholic activist and organizer Larry Cirignano is back to help in the push for this last month of signature-gathering for the Referendum Petition, to force the “1913 Law” to a vote of the people.

Also this week, paperwork to create the official Ballot Committee for the effort, named “Citizens for Fair Marriage Laws” was filed. That committee will directly raise money and pay for expenses relating to the ballot question.

Larry was Executive Director of Catholic Citizenship of Massachusetts during the Marriage Amendment petition drive. He was the main liaison and organizer with the Catholic churches and the Archdiocese in that successful drive that eventually totaled 170,000 signatures. We need to turn in approximately 45,000-50,000 signatures by Oct. 15. Needless to say, it’s great having Larry aboard!

Most recently, Larry attended both the Democratic and Republican national conventions, as well as the Values Voter summit in Washington, DC last week. “There’s a lot of interest and excitement around the country in this petition drive,” he said. “People are angry about the Massachusetts Legislature’s arrogance, they’re really afraid of what could happen, and they’re praying for the referendum’s success.”

From the Boston Herald:

The gay marriage fight in Massachusetts may not be over after all.

Opponents of same-sex marriages have filed paperwork for a ballot question that would repeal a new law that nullified a 1913 statute that prevented gay and lesbian couples from getting married here if their union wouldn’t be legal in their home state.

Brian Camenker of the group Mass Resistance says lawmakers and Gov. Deval Patrick bowed to the will of the “gay lobby” by approving the repeal of the 1913 law last month.

Gay Massachusetts residents have been allowed to legally marry since 2004. Opponents such as former Gov. Mitt Romney said the 1913 law prevented Massachusetts from becoming the “Las Vegas of same-sex marriage.”

Mass Resistance filed paperwork with the secretary of state’s office on Wednesday. It is unlikely any question would go on the ballot before 2010.

This from the Mass Catholic Conference this morning:

The Massachusetts legislature is considering Senate 800, An Act Concerning Marriage.  This bill would expand access to marriage licenses in the Commonwealth to same-sex couples living in other states that do not recognize same-sex marriage.

We, the Roman Catholic Bishops in Massachusetts, throughout the public debate on the definition of marriage in the Commonwealth, have repeatedly spoken in support of the traditional institution of marriage.  Today, we reiterate our belief that marriage is a faithful, exclusive, lifelong union of a man and a woman joined in an intimate community of love and life.  Across times, cultures and many different religious beliefs, marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of the family and society.  Marriage is a personal relationship with public significance.

The Supreme Judicial Court has redefined marriage in Massachusetts by allowing marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples.  However, under a law enacted in 1913 and upheld recently as valid by the Supreme Judicial Court, same-sex couples from other states must prove that their home state also recognizes same-sex marriage before they can obtain a marriage license in Massachusetts.

Senate 800 would remove this requirement, and thus extend the threat of redefining marriage beyond our borders.  If Senate 800 is enacted, residents from states that recognize only the union of a man and a woman as marriage could obtain a license in the Commonwealth, marry in Massachusetts, return home, and then file court challenges against the laws of their own states.

We, the Roman Catholic Bishops in Massachusetts, oppose Senate 800.  Our legislature is attempting to impose the Supreme Judicial Court’s definition of marriage upon other states.  Such action endangers the principle of state sovereignty that gives each state the right to govern itself and enact its own laws.  Massachusetts enjoys this same protection and rightly would not tolerate its violation by another state.  Thus, we urge the legislature to respect the laws of other states by voting no on Senate 800.

Cardinal Seán P. O’Malley, OFM Cap., Archdiocese of Boston
Most Reverend George W. Coleman, Diocese of Fall River
Most Reverend Timothy A. McDonnell, Diocese of Springfield
Most Reverend Robert J. McManus, Diocese of Worcester

Humankind has always had a problem following the letter of the law — whether it’s civil law or religious law. Catholics seem particularly divided on a number of key issues that have been coming up in recent election cycles, most notably abortion and gay marriage. So where does Obama stand with respect to Catholic doctrine? This from Inside Catholic:

There’s no way to nuance this: Barack Obama’s record puts him on the extreme wing of the abortion movement, and has already been labeled by one critic as the “infanticide candidate.” Despite this, polls show Obama gaining traction with Catholic voters, and Catholics in general are trending toward the Democratic Party.

Barack Obama’s stances on life and marriage issues are simply antithetical to Catholic social teaching. From the beginning of his candidacy, this has been Obama’s greatest vulnerability in attracting Catholic voters (“Why Barack Obama Will Not Win the Catholic Vote,” 1/7/08). In the primary fight against Hillary Clinton, for example, Catholic resistance to Obama’s candidacy was obvious from the election numbers (“Obama’s Catholic Problem,” 2/27/08).

Only with the departure of Senator Clinton from the campaign has Obama picked up steam with Catholic voters. Clinton will surely use her clout with Catholics to help the Democratic nominee, which will help break down the resistance of blue-collar white Catholics to an Obama candidacy.

Obama’s breakthrough moment with Catholics came with the surprising endorsement of Prof. Doug Kmiec, a well-known pro-life Catholic jurist who served under Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush (“Preacher Man: Barack Obama and the Gospel of Liberalism,” 2/17/08). Kmiec’s reasons for supporting him echo those of Obama Catholics in general — the positions of the GOP on the war in Iraq, poverty, health care, and immigration are so objectionable that they feel justified in supporting Obama (“Doug Kmiec and the Lure of Obama,” 2/20/08).

Kmiec’s position has been picked up by various Obama-friendly organizations devoted to influencing Catholic voters (“Catholics Organize to Elect Barack Obama,” 4/2/08). Their strategy is obvious: Obama’s Catholics will do everything they can to avoid the infanticide question — along with all that it symbolizes — and will try to foster a moral equivalence between their positions on prudential matters and the non-negotiable life issues (“How Obama’s Catholics Will Dodge the Infanticide Problem,” 5/12/08).

The debate among Catholics, then, is whether this list of prudential policy issues trumps the obligation taught by the Church toward protecting unborn life and families based upon the marriage of a man and a woman.

In the past two national elections, there has been a 15% increase in the number of Catholics who voted for the GOP. Exit polling suggested life and family issues made the biggest difference. But in 2008, the Iraq War has destabilized the dynamics of the Catholic vote — the steady migration of Catholics out of the Democratic Party to the GOP has stopped (“Can Obama Use Iraq to Win the Catholic Vote?,” 4/8/08). Many Catholic voters are just too angry at Bush and the GOP over Iraq.

Oddly, when Obama’s list of high-profile Catholic supporters was announced, Kmiec’s name was not on it. That may have been due to the fact that nearly all of the 25 governors, senators, and congressmen on the list had a 100 percent pro-abortion voting record from NARAL (“Who Are Obama’s Catholic Supporters?,” 4/15/08). It’s very likely Kmiec was asked to serve on the advisory council, but may have demurred when he saw the list of solidly pro-abortion Catholics. Former White House speechwriter Bill McGurn called them “NARAL Catholics” in a recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece.

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, made national news when he called for the disbanding of Obama’s Catholic committee because its membership was so overwhelmingly pro-abortion. One of its members, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS), had just been warned by her bishop, Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann, to refrain from taking communion.

Interestingly enough, not long after Donohue’s appeal, all references to Obama’s National Catholic Advisory Council disappeared from the campaign’s web site. Perhaps the campaign realized that branding Obama’s Catholic outreach with a Who’s Who of pro-abortion Catholics was not a good idea, especially after the warning shot fired by the bishop of Kansas City. The last thing the Obama campaign wants is a replay of 2004, when John Kerry was dogged by story after story of bishops who said they would deny communion to politicians who obstinately support abortion rights.

Several bishops have already shown their willingness to address this issue publicly in 2008. In addition to the statement of Archbishop Naumann, Boston archbishop Sean O’Malley said in an interview last November that Catholic support for Democrat pro-abortion candidates “borders on scandal as far I am concerned.”

Various pro-Obama Catholic organizations are working effectively to draw attention away from their candidate’s weaknesses on fundamental issues. They are well-funded and led by people with extensive experience in the Democratic Party and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. They are not shy about selling their candidate through official channels. For example, pro-Obama e-mails are now regularly sent to the executive directors of state Catholic conferences (several have been forwarded to me).

Probably the most sustained drumbeat of Obama’s Catholic circle will be their support for building a “Culture of Life” in spite of their candidate’s position on abortion and infanticide. They will argue that reducing poverty and improving health care, among other things, will bring down the number of abortions more effectively than passing laws outlawing the procedure.

In response to this, Catholic voters should be reminded of what Archbishop Chaput said to Obama’s Catholics. On May 19 he rebuked a group called Roman Catholics for Obama who quoted him out of context to justify voting for the pro-abortion nominee. The group had seized upon the following quote: “Catholics can vote for pro-choice candidates if they vote for them despite — not because of — their pro-choice views.”

Roman Catholics for Obama deliberately left out the paragraph following where Chaput added that he could think of no “proportionate reason” to support abortion. “It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life — which we most certainly will.”

Archbishop Chaput also pointed out that the emperor had no clothes when it came to Obama’s candidacy benefitting a culture of life. He himself was a politically active Democrat as a young man at the time when Catholic politicians began invoking the “personally opposed to abortion” mantra. Chaput writes:

“For most, their personal opposition was little more than pious hand wringing and a convenient excuse — exactly as it is today. In fact, I can’t name any ‘pro-choice’ Catholic politician who has been active, in a sustained public way, in trying to discourage abortion and to protect unborn human life — not one.”

Likewise, if Obama is elected, he has pledged to sign the Freedom of Choice Act during his first week in office, making it difficult for Catholic supporters of Obama to keep a straight face when talking about a culture of life.