# The District of Columbia and Gay Marriage.
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [December 16, 2009, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512 "2009-12-16T19:32:09Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2009, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/21 "2009-12-17T17:42:41Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#):
>
> I could have been clearer. _Under our constitutional principles_, we do not put rights up for vote.
Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by “put rights up for vote”. We allow the legislatures to vote on rights per the amendment process. That’s not a direct vote by the people, but it is a voting process. Although I think it’s unlikely to happen at this point, I could easily have seen a Constitutional amendment banning SSM a few years ago if the SCOTUS had ruled it constitutional.
> [@](#):
>
> The latter, which is what will happen.
I’m wondering if some Congresscritter can put forth a bill which would force an affirmative vote. That is, put forth a bill which would nullify the legislation in question.ds
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2009, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/22 "2009-12-17T17:48:37Z")
> [@jayjay](#):
>
> Yep. If the supposedly Christian Catholic Charities decides that hating homosexuals is more important than helping the poor and orphaned, so be it. After all, they abandoned the orphans of Massachusetts for the same reasons five years ago. Some Christians, huh?
It’s not, in my mind, an ideal answer to the problem.
It’s not completely unjustified, mind you – the city is forcing the church to choose between observing its principles with respect to sinful behavior and helping those most in need. In a sense, it’s a cynical ploy on the part of the city, and a cynical response on the part of the church.
The difference is, in my mind, that the city is entitled to be cynical. They are not claiming (or should not be claiming) any reasons to do otherwise. The church, ont he other hand, has plenty of guidance on NOT being cynical, on not answering a blow to the cheek with a return blow. And they have chosen to disregard that.
It’s not for me to say what the hierarchy should do, of course, but if the Pope were to appoint me Archbishop of Washington, it’s safe to imagine that this response would be drastically altered.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2009, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/23 "2009-12-17T17:50:47Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by “put rights up for vote”. We allow the legislatures to vote on rights per the amendment process. That’s not a direct vote by the people, but it is a voting process. Although I think it’s unlikely to happen at this point, I could easily have seen a Constitutional amendment banning SSM a few years ago if the SCOTUS had ruled it constitutional.
And plenty of states permit constitutional amendment by direct vote.
ALL rights, every piece of law we have, derives its enforcement power from the government, which in turn derives its “just power from the consent of the governed.”
As it should be.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2009, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/24 "2009-12-17T17:56:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> And plenty of states permit constitutional amendment by direct vote.
Yeah, I was going to note that, but I think it’s pretty clear we were talking about the Federal Constitution.
> [@](#):
>
> ALL rights, every piece of law we have, derives its enforcement power from the government, which in turn derives its “just power from the consent of the governed.”
>
> As it should be.
It’s astonishing how often we need to remind people of that. The constitution wasn’t written on tablets handed from Mt Sinai. It was voted on by Congress and the legislatures of the several states.
---
### Author:  [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2009, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/25 "2009-12-17T17:59:31Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by “put rights up for vote”. We allow the legislatures to vote on rights per the amendment process.
But on an all-or-none basis, not a selective one, as in “Marriage laws apply only to same-race couples”. That’s the point, that we can’t override equal protection, or anything else in the Constitution, on the basis of a vote of popularity only. That’s why it’s there. The Constitution exists largely to protect ourselves _from_ ourselves, to guarantee our better nature against our worse nature. But there are certainly those, such as our learned friend **Bricker** , who are willing to dismiss or rationalize around such niceties, such as by claiming that “consent of the governed” is all that matters.
Yes, it can be amended, but only with serious thought and determination, something that our worse nature cannot usually achieve against our better nature. And meanwhile, defending the rights it guarantees is indeed the courts’ province.
---
### Author:  [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2009, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/26 "2009-12-17T18:05:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> It’s not completely unjustified, mind you – the city is forcing the church to choose between observing its principles with respect to sinful behavior and helping those most in need. In a sense, it’s a cynical ploy on the part of the city, and a cynical response on the part of the church.
How is the city being cynical? Would you call it “cynical” if it was interracial marriage that was the issue? As for the Church; “cynical” is too kind a word.
As for me; this is a demonstration as to why religious organizations should never be used for charity work. The city should cut them off and give its money to a more civilized, secular organization. A charity organization that is actually motivated by charity instead of the desire to push their faith regardless of the harm they cause.
---
### Author:  [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2009, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/27 "2009-12-17T18:12:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> It’s not completely unjustified, mind you – the city is forcing the church to choose between observing its principles with respect to sinful behavior and helping those most in need. In a sense, it’s a cynical ploy on the part of the city, and a cynical response on the part of the church.
How is the city being cynical? It seems like the cynical thing for the city to do would be to say, “Even though we have this law, we’re not going to enforce it in cases like Catholic Charities, when enforcing it would negatively affect us.”
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2009, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/28 "2009-12-17T18:16:35Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#):
>
> How is the city being cynical? It seems like the cynical thing for the city to do would be to say, “Even though we have this law, we’re not going to enforce it in cases like Catholic Charities, when enforcing it would negatively affect us.”
The city’s cynicism comes in not enacting exemptions for religious organizations, effectively forcing them into this corner.
---
### Author:  [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2009, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/29 "2009-12-17T18:18:46Z")
Equal treatment is “cynical”?
---
### Author:  [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2009, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/30 "2009-12-17T18:26:16Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#):
>
> An obvious example would be Catholic Charities. The bill makes no First Amendment provisions for hiring for faith-based groups, which means that Catholic Charities would have to provide spousal benefits to same-sex couples in their employ. To my mind, this is a pretty clear First Amendment violation, and this needs to be worked out.
Is Catholic Charities OK with providing spousal benefits to other couples whose marriages aren’t recognized by the Church? If they don’t have a problem with providing twice-divorced Bob’s wife Linda, who got married by a guy dressed as Elvis in a quickie Vegas ceremony, with spousal benefits, why must they deny Gary’s husband Steve?
> [@](#):
>
> Also at issue is the fact that Catholic Charities handles a large portion of the District’s adoption cases, and will simply abandon this work rather than be forced to recognize unions it does not consider marriages by any definition.
The Catholic Church can take its ball and go home. I’m pretty sure that letting them dictate policy by threatening to withhold charity is a bigger violation of the principle of separation of church and state.
---
### Author:  [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2009, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/31 "2009-12-17T18:28:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> The city’s cynicism comes in not enacting exemptions for religious organizations, effectively forcing them into this corner.
As I understand the case in Massachusetts, Catholic Charities didn’t object to the policy until the Archbishop ordered them to. I’ll see if I can dig up some links.
---
### Author:  [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2009, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/32 "2009-12-17T18:36:26Z")
> [@waterj2](#):
>
> Is Catholic Charities OK with providing spousal benefits to other couples whose marriages aren’t recognized by the Church? If they don’t have a problem with providing twice-divorced Bob’s wife Linda, who got married by a guy dressed as Elvis in a quickie Vegas ceremony, with spousal benefits, why must they deny Gary’s husband Steve?
Do you really not get that the church thinks homosexuality is a sin? If you do, then surely you can understand how they’d not want to condone it—directly or indirectly. Agree with them or not, they see the genders of the two people as vitally important. The church’s stance on this really isn’t that difficult.
**Bricker,** you say the Church is being cynical. Couldn’t you just as easily claim they’re taking a longer view and what will benefit society?
---
### Author:  [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2009, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/33 "2009-12-17T18:36:37Z")
> [@waterj2](#):
>
> As I understand the case in Massachusetts, Catholic Charities didn’t object to the policy until the Archbishop ordered them to. I’ll see if I can dig up some links.
Here we go:
> [@](#):
>
> Agency officials said they had been permitting gay adoptions to comply with the state’s antidiscrimination laws. But after the story was published, the state’s four bishops announced they would appoint a panel to examine whether the practice should continue. In December, the Catholic Charities board, which is dominated by lay people, voted unanimously to continue gay adoptions.
>
> But, on Feb. 28, the four bishops announced a plan to seek an exemption from the antidiscrimination laws. Eight of the 42 board members quit in protest, saying the agency should welcome gays as adoptive parents.
From: [http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic\_charities\_stuns\_state\_ends\_adoptions/](http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/)
---
### Author:  [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2009, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/34 "2009-12-17T18:40:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> The city’s cynicism comes in not enacting exemptions for religious organizations, effectively forcing them into this corner.
That’s not cynicism, though. If anything, it’s a failure of idealism. I’m sorry, I really don’t understand your position here.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2009, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/35 "2009-12-17T18:44:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> The city’s cynicism comes in not enacting exemptions for religious organizations, effectively forcing them into this corner.
Yeah, I’m not getting the cynicism angle.
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2009, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/36 "2009-12-17T18:44:05Z")
> [@waterj2](#):
>
> Is Catholic Charities OK with providing spousal benefits to other couples whose marriages aren’t recognized by the Church? If they don’t have a problem with providing twice-divorced Bob’s wife Linda, who got married by a guy dressed as Elvis in a quickie Vegas ceremony, with spousal benefits, why must they deny Gary’s husband Steve?
> [@](#):
>
> Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.
>
> Toward Christians who live in this situation, and who often keep the faith and desire to bring up their children in a Christian manner, priests and the whole community must manifest an attentive solicitude, so that they do not consider themselves separated from the Church, in whose life they can and must participate as baptized persons:
>
> ```
> They should be encouraged to listen to the Word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts for justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God's grace.
>
> ```
[Catechism 1650-1651](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm)
---
### Author:  [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2009, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/37 "2009-12-17T18:51:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> The city’s cynicism comes in not enacting exemptions for religious organizations, effectively forcing them into this corner.
So - is it possible to take an action that will influence another person or group’s decisions that is _not_ cynical?
---
### Author:  [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2009, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/38 "2009-12-17T19:02:05Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#):
>
> An obvious example would be Catholic Charities. The bill makes no First Amendment provisions for hiring for faith-based groups, which means that Catholic Charities would have to provide spousal benefits to same-sex couples in their employ. To my mind, this is a pretty clear First Amendment violation, and this needs to be worked out.
Under what precedent is requiring spousal benefits for same-sex couples a violation of the First Amendment? Hell, I’d argue that granting a religious exemption is in and of itself a flagrant violation of the First Amendment, but I’ll at least admit the Court, in its eternal wisdom, has failed to accept my memoranda on the same as controlling.
---
### Author:  [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2009, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/39 "2009-12-17T19:09:52Z")
Too late to add via edit…
And to be clear, as far as I can see, the law does not require the Catholic Church to grant same sex partners spousal benefits. It requires them to treat same sex partners equally as opposite sex partners. The Church has an option of not paying such benefits, if it does not pay these benefits to heterosexual couples.
On what other basis should they be allowed to refuse spousal benefits to legal spouses? If they are like Glen Hoddle, for example, and believe that disabilities are punishments from God for prior sins, should they be allowed to refuse you the right to insure your wife if she is in a wheelchair? If they think God frowns on miscegination, should they be allowed to refuse to let you insure your wife if she is of a different race to you? Or is it just hating homos that is protected if you claim it has a religious basis?
---
### Author:  [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2009, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/40 "2009-12-17T19:12:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> It’s not completely unjustified, mind you – the city is forcing the church to choose between observing its principles with respect to sinful behavior and helping those most in need. In a sense, it’s a cynical ploy on the part of the city, and a cynical response on the part of the church.
As I read the law, this is incorrect. Is there anything in the law preventing the Church from refusing to give _ **any** _ married couples spousal benefits?
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512.md?page=3)