# 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:** 4
### Author:  [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)
#### Post date: [December 18, 2009, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/61 "2009-12-18T00:39:58Z")
> [@whorfin](#):
>
> Exactly. This would be a very different debate if the Catholic Church was saying “we will only give benefits to those who are in sacramentally valid marriages.”
Not to those of us who think the debate is, “While the church is acting as a governement agency, it must adhere to the rules the government is adhering itself and its agancies to.”
---
### Author:  [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)
#### Post date: [December 18, 2009, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/62 "2009-12-18T00:44:50Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#):
>
> Because the policy of Catholic Charities was, even before this law passed, that they’d give benefits to those in legally valid opposite-sex marriages. It’s not like Catholic Charities used to think that discriminating against gay couples in terms of benefits was wrong and then changed their mind. They supported discriminating against gay couples in terms of benefits before the law was passed…it just wasn’t an issue that came up very often.
But this is, to me, the big issue in this debate. Catholic Charities claims it doesn’t ‘just’ want to discriminate against gay couples–that what it’s really doing is protecting Catholic doctrine.
This is because it’s easy to support protecting religious doctrine, or religious freedom, but much harder to support a policy of ‘discriminating against gay couples’ in employment relationships.
We’ve seen that in this thread–most people supporting CC are making arguments about religious freedom, or the importance of Catholic doctrine–because there isn’t really that good of an argument in favor of permitting discrimination against gay couples in employment relationships–especially when those couples are simply demanding the rights an employer gives to those who are legally married, and when the state recognizes the right of a same-sex couple to marry.
This is also why I think it’s important to point out the hypocritical nature of its position–it makes it harder to justify CC’s claim that it is acting to protect religious doctrine. if CC was really opposed to giving benefits to spouses because their marriages conflicted with doctrine, it would bar a lot more people from getting benefits.
---
### Author:  [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)
#### Post date: [December 18, 2009, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/63 "2009-12-18T00:48:22Z")
> [@whorfin](#):
>
> But this is, to me, the big issue in this debate. Catholic Charities claims it doesn’t ‘just’ want to discriminate against gay couples–that what it’s really doing is protecting Catholic doctrine.
Yes, but discriminating against gay people IS Catholic doctrine. So they are protecting Catholic doctrine too.
---
### Author:  [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)
#### Post date: [December 18, 2009, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/64 "2009-12-18T00:50:30Z")
> [@begbert2](#):
>
> Not to those of us who think the debate is, “While the church is acting as a governement agency, it must adhere to the rules the government is adhering itself and its agancies to.”
I didn’t say it would be a different result. Just quite a different debate–one in which it really would be religious freedom versus public rights. I’m not going to wade into that debate–because, as I point out, I think the big issue in this debate is framing–whether CC’s policy is religious freedom or discrimination.
---
### Author:  [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)
#### Post date: [December 18, 2009, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/65 "2009-12-18T00:53:24Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#):
>
> Yes, but discriminating against gay people IS Catholic doctrine. So they are protecting Catholic doctrine too.
But so is discriminating against divorcees when determining who can validly marry–or discriminating against those who cheat on their wives, and so on and so forth.
Nobody is disputing that Catholic doctrine does not allow same-sex marriage, and views homosexuality as a sin. What the real issue is is why this one sin, this one impediment to a sacramentally valid marriage appears to be the only one Catholic Charities seems interested in pushing for the right to pursue.
---
### Author:  [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)
#### Post date: [December 18, 2009, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/66 "2009-12-18T00:58:41Z")
> [@whorfin](#):
>
> But so is discriminating against divorcees when determining who can validly marry–or discriminating against those who cheat on their wives, and so on and so forth.
>
> Nobody is disputing that Catholic doctrine does not allow same-sex marriage, and views homosexuality as a sin. What the real issue is is why this one sin, this one impediment to a sacramentally valid marriage appears to be the only one Catholic Charities seems interested in pushing for the right to pursue.
I think he’s trying to say that homophobic bigotry is enshrined in a special and elevated way in the policy of the Catholic church (if not its explicit doctrine or dogma). If that’s true, then it’s not hypocricy, it’s institutionalized bigotry. And I think you _can_ defend institutionalized bigotry from a religious standpoint, if you’re going to have already allowed their doctorinal policy superceding government policy to get a foot in the door.
---
### Author:  [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)
#### Post date: [December 18, 2009, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/67 "2009-12-18T01:16:08Z")
> [@Cliffy](#):
>
> **Mr. Moto** might you spell out your objection a little more? I understand it’s been raised, but I don’t see the objection. (Except the same bigotry that opposes SSM everywhere.)
>
> –Cliffy
While I don’t know **Mr Moto** ’s motives, I don’t read that as bigotry – on anyone’s part, He’s raising the objection that same-sex couples and their families may be discriminated against in receiving social services, since they are (according to **Mr M** ) often provided by religion-based groups.
---
### Author:  [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)
#### Post date: [December 18, 2009, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/68 "2009-12-18T02:37:39Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#):
>
> Of course they can, as there is a specific employment exemption in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that permits this
Inapposite. That section says that a church can refuse to hire a Jew to be pastor, or an atheist to be imam, or a mormon to be cantor. It’s legitimate for the church to take religion into consideration when making hiring decisions in a way that is not allowed for Wal-Mart.
There’s nothing in that section that says, if a church hires someone, they can discriminate in payment of benefits to that person’s legal spouse for any reason.
> [@Polycarp](#):
>
> He’s raising the objection that same-sex couples and their families may be discriminated against in receiving social services…
I think it’s clear that’s not **Moto** ’s objection. He rather thinks there is insufficient protection for church bigotry – but I don’t think he’s a bigot. I agree that the First Amendment unquestionably protects the rights of churches to be bigots, but not in this instance for the reasons I’ve set forth above. (Again, there’s nothing in the bill requiring the church to pay spousal benefits.)
–Cliffy
---
### Author:  [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)
#### Post date: [December 18, 2009, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/69 "2009-12-18T13:30:39Z")
I’m going to go down the slippery slope here. What is to prevent the state from classifying ANY type of religious belief/practice as “bigotry” and therefore make the freedom of religion completely worthless?
I mean, Catholics believe that all non-Catholics are going to hell for an eternity in fire and torture, and it is okay to believe and preach that. It’s okay to tell your gay employees that if they ask:
Gay Employee: If I continue my lifestyle and don’t become a Catholic, what will happen to me in the afterlife?
Church: You will be placed in a pit of eternal darkness where demons will skewer you with pitchforks while unquenchable fire sears at your skin, and it will never, ever, ever, ever end!
GE: Wow. That’s harsh. Can I get health insurance?
C: No.
GE: How dare you say that to me! You are creating a hostile work environment. I’m calling the City Council!
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [December 18, 2009, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/70 "2009-12-18T13:59:11Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#):
>
> Yes, just like the think divorce is a sin. That was precisely the point being raised.
_sigh_
The Church doesn’t think divorce is a sin.
---
### Author:  [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)
#### Post date: [December 18, 2009, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/71 "2009-12-18T14:13:01Z")
> [@jtgain](#):
>
> I’m going to go down the slippery slope here. What is to prevent the state from classifying ANY type of religious belief/practice as “bigotry” and therefore make the freedom of religion completely worthless?
That’s not what’s happening here. What’s happening here is that the DC City Council is deciding what _its contractors’ duties to their employees under DC non-discrimination measures are_. Also, what agencies contracted to the DC city government may or may not do to discriminate against those agencies’ clients.
It all comes back to the fact that IF discriminating against homosexuals is more important for the Church than ministering to the poor and helping orphans or adoptees to find good homes, then the Church is welcome to step off. They have a choice…no one is forcing them to do anything.
The fact that doing what they actually WANT to do makes them look like rigid, uncaring assholes isn’t the DC City Council’s fault.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [December 18, 2009, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/72 "2009-12-18T14:19:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> _sigh_
>
> The Church doesn’t think divorce is a sin.
What about a divorced person who re-marries and, presumably, consummates said marriage.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [December 18, 2009, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/73 "2009-12-18T14:21:52Z")
> [@whorfin](#):
>
> Now, I have to break it to you, but people can get legally married without thinking about it too carefully. Vegas. People can get legally married even if gay. See the former governor of New Jersey. They can do so such that there is no doubt about those problems. Those marriages are still perfectly legal under state law.
>
> So your argument just doesn’t hold water: there are still plenty of civil marriages that Catholic doctrine doesn’t consider a marriage at all, but there is still no evidence that Catholic Charities, for example, opposes giving spousal benefits to those “legal civil marriages that are non-marriages according to Catholic doctrine”
Yes, all true.
But your reading of canon law didn’t go quite far enough. Can. 1061 ß3 provides that a non-valid marriage is considered “putative” if it’s done in good faith. This principle extends to generalized recognition of marriage – if there is no obvious reason to challenge a presented marriage, the law requires that the marriage be considered valid.
So the laws of the Church are quite clear. It’s true that, if investigated, a Vegas quickie wedding may reveal itself to have been lacking some essential element, such as consent. But no one may undertake to challenge the vlaidity of the marriage except the spouses themselves, or, as Can. 1674 provides, competent authority _when the nullity of the marriage has already been made public, and the marriage cannot be validated._
So here’s where you miss the Catholic boat: all those other marriages could be valid; the Church doesn’t know and doesn’t inquire, except if the question is raised. A same-sex marriage by its nature is invalid, its lack of validity is public, and that is the distinction.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [December 18, 2009, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/74 "2009-12-18T14:25:22Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> What about a divorced person who re-marries and, presumably, consummates said marriage.
Yes, that is invalid.
But the distinction between that and a same-sex marriage is that the Church doesn’t inquire about that, unless there is some reason to inquire. Can. 1674 provides that the parties to a marriage may challenge its validity, or the diocesan promoter of justice or competent authority, “…when the nullity of the marriage has already been made public, and the marriage cannot be validated or it is not expedient to do so.” Can 1674, 2ƒ.
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)
#### Post date: [December 18, 2009, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/75 "2009-12-18T14:29:18Z")
> [@jayjay](#):
>
> That’s not what’s happening here. What’s happening here is that the DC City Council is deciding what _its contractors’ duties to their employees under DC non-discrimination measures are_. Also, what agencies contracted to the DC city government may or may not do to discriminate against those agencies’ clients.
I think we all agree on that. But as I said before, there is a general recognition that nondiscrimination measures may come into conflict with First Amendment guarantees of freedom of religion and freedom of association. This is the basis of the section of Title VII that I quoted, and the basis of the exemption that religious leaders were seeking.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [December 18, 2009, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/76 "2009-12-18T14:29:54Z")
> [@whorfin](#):
>
> But so is discriminating against divorcees when determining who can validly marry–or discriminating against those who cheat on their wives, and so on and so forth.
>
> Nobody is disputing that Catholic doctrine does not allow same-sex marriage, and views homosexuality as a sin. What the real issue is is why this one sin, this one impediment to a sacramentally valid marriage appears to be the only one Catholic Charities seems interested in pushing for the right to pursue.
Because the Code of Canon law recognizes a bunch of diffferent states of marriage: sacramentally valid marriages, putative marriages, ratified marriages… and same-sex civil marriages are relationships which can never possibly be marriages within the Catholic understanding of the term. All the other relationships discussed have either some validity under canon law, even if they are not sacramental, or canon law forbids the inquiry into their validity absent some specific reason.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [December 18, 2009, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/77 "2009-12-18T14:34:59Z")
> [@jayjay](#):
>
> That’s not what’s happening here. What’s happening here is that the DC City Council is deciding what _its contractors’ duties to their employees under DC non-discrimination measures are_. Also, what agencies contracted to the DC city government may or may not do to discriminate against those agencies’ clients.
Correct.
> [@](#):
>
> It all comes back to the fact that IF discriminating against homosexuals is more important for the Church than ministering to the poor and helping orphans or adoptees to find good homes, then the Church is welcome to step off. They have a choice…no one is forcing them to do anything.
>
> The fact that doing what they actually WANT to do makes them look like rigid, uncaring assholes isn’t the DC City Council’s fault.
Also true, although I don’t know that I’d phrase it quite so harshly. But I understand why you do.
What I’d say is that there’s a valid purpose, from the Church’s point of view, of holding the line here and refusing to recognize same-sex marriages in any way, even to the nominal extent of covering insurance for same-sex spouses. But that’s a pretty attentuated, secondary sort of “recognition.” Balanced against that, we have very real, immediate, first-order support of the needy and the helpless. I don’t deny there are valid concerns on each side; I just feel that one side pretty drastically outweighs the other.
---
### Author:  [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)
#### Post date: [December 18, 2009, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/78 "2009-12-18T14:36:53Z")
**Mr. Moto** , no one is disputing that an anti discrimination measure **can** include a religious exemption. Personally I think such exemptions violate the First Amendment, but I accept the Court feels differently to me, and, hard though it is for me to believe, their opinion carries more weight than mine on this matter.
What is clear, however, is that an anti-discrimination measure does not **have** to include such an exemption. The fact that some legislation includes exemptions can cut both ways - its inclusion can be seen as a sign that the drafters realized there was not a constitutional requirement for such an exclusion, and so decided to include one legislatively.
Moreover, as people have repeatedly said, there is nothing in the DC anti-discrimination legislation that will compel the Catholic Church to do anything. They won’t have to insure gay spouses if they don’t want to.
Are you willing to presume such an exemption exists in the ADA and ADEA as well? Can you also tell me why such an exemption should exist for religious-based discrimination and not political-based discrimination?
---
### Author:  [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)
#### Post date: [December 18, 2009, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/79 "2009-12-18T14:59:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Also true, although I don’t know that I’d phrase it quite so harshly. But I understand why you do.
And we understand why you don’t.
> [@](#):
>
> What I’d say is that there’s a valid purpose, from the Church’s point of view, of holding the line here and refusing to recognize same-sex marriages in any way, even to the nominal extent of covering insurance for same-sex spouses. But that’s a pretty attentuated, secondary sort of “recognition.” Balanced against that, we have very real, immediate, first-order support of the needy and the helpless. I don’t deny there are valid concerns on each side; I just feel that one side pretty drastically outweighs the other.
As if there were just no other way for the government to do that without involving that sect, or any other for that matter. You know better.
And “THE” Church indeed.
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)
#### Post date: [December 18, 2009, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512/80 "2009-12-18T15:15:05Z")
> [@villa](#):
>
> Are you willing to presume such an exemption exists in the ADA and ADEA as well?
There are some exemptions present in the ADA - the cite is obviously the law in question. The ADEA does not seem to have similar provisions - I would assume that this is not much of an issue, but if it ever came up the religious organization would have a First Amendment claim.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512.md?page=3)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-district-of-columbia-and-gay-marriage/521512.md?page=5)