Sadly this isn’t an April Fool’s joke.
Last week President of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and professional outraged media pundit, William Donohue sent an email out to every legislator in the CT General Assembly. Donohue, who does not live in Connecticut, took issue with the questioning of the FIC’s Brian Brown by Sen. Gomes and Rep. Lawlor. He claimed that their questions about Brown’s personal religious beliefs crossed a line.
A few things about this letter.
- Notice that William Donohue ends his letter with a veiled threat to take this to the media. And he is due for a new cause. His outrage over chocloate Jesus has nearly run it’s course. Connecticut’s gay marriage debate is as good of a way as any to get himself some TV time next week.
- I read their rough transcript while following along with CT Blogger’s video of the testimony to which Donahue is referring to. Gomes and Lawlor don’t attack Brown’s religious beliefs, nor do they ask any questions that are out of line. Donohue is making a huge stink out of nothing.
- The letter contains mistakes. Rep. Lawlor’s first name is actually Mike, not William. Also Brown is the Executive Director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, not the Connecticut Family Institute. Apparently Donohue didn’t bother to do his homework before sending out the email.
Below is the letter in full. Emphasis mine:
Dear Connecticut Legislator:
I have no doubt that all of you share my contempt for state officials who ask patently illegitimate questions of expert witnesses who testify before them. Unfortunately, two members of the state legislature, Representative William Lawlor and Senator Edwin Gomes, did just that on March 26.
To be specific, both men asked a series of questions of Brian Brown, executive director of the Connecticut Family Institute, that probed his religious convictions as they pertained to same-sex marriage. If you think I m exaggerating, listen to the audio at http://ctnv1.ctn.state.ct.us/J/jud_3-26-07.wmv. or read our transcription< of the relevant portions of the discussion by visiting http://catholicleague.org/3-26-07_transcript.htm.
It is entirely legitimate to ask witnesses about the source of their convictions, religious or otherwise. But when the questions become personal, intrusive and persistent, a line is crossed. Mr. Brown was not called to testify about his personal religious beliefs, but to explain why he takes the side he does on a public policy matter. Separation of church and state, it needs to be stressed, cuts both ways: Just as it would be illegitimate of me to ask Rep. Lawlor and Sen. Gomes to go on record explaining their personal convictions about the wisdom of Catholic teachings, it is equally illegitimate of them to pepper expert witnesses about their private beliefs.
Senator Joseph Lieberman is an Orthodox Jew who cares deeply about Israel. As well he should. It would be obviouseven to Lawlor and Gomesthat a line would be crossed if Senator Lieberman were subjected the kind of probing questions regarding his religious convictions that Mr. Brown was.
I hope this is the last time I have to address this issue. Rep. Lawlor and Sen. Gomes should rest assured that if this continues, my response next time will not be in the form of a letter.
Sincerely,
William A. Donohue, Ph.D.
President
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
450 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10123
catalyst@catholicleague.org
212-371-3191
212-371-3394 (fax)
They pissed off The President of The Catholic league. This is the same guy that rode WNEW’s ass in New York city and threatened to go to The FCC if they didnt fire Opie and Anthony for the stunt they pulled at St Patricks Cathedral a few years back.
This guy means Business so Lawlor and Gomes need to watch their backs.
Personally Rep Lawlor needs to be voted out of office anyway he is just another flaming liberal who is pro gay who needs to go away back into private citizenship.
I agree that he does mean business. He needs a new cause to get himself on TV. Looks like CT’s gay marriage debate may be it.
Sgt Schultz, you are truly as ignorant as your TV namesake.
This issue isn’t worth posting about (I’m embarassed to say as I post a reply). William Donohune is a certified nut. End of story.
Wow. Pretty gutsy for a public anti-Semite to make a comparison to anti-Semitism, given his previous comments:
In any case, Lawlor asked people about their views on homosexuality and whether they thought it was evil and disordered. He concludes, reasonably and accurately, that people who oppose marriage equality tend to think homosexuality is immoral. Is this a revelation to anyone? Is that even controversial?
GCC–
You do no service to yourself with this post. I don’t mean bringing Donahue’s letter public — who cares. But your commentary….
1. Well, excuse me. Some of us do find that objectionable. Art is in the eye of the beholder… but I happen to think that a public showing of a ‘chocolate, anatomically correct Jesus’ — especially during Holy Week is offensive.
2. Lawlor at times during the hearing was acting as a prosecutor instead of a committee chairman. And the tone of Gomes, at times (not heard when reading a transcript) was antagonistic. Understandably, this is an emotional issue.
3. Yeah, he got some minor things wrong — we all know what he was talking about…. Your posts constantly have errors in them too.
Do Lawlor and McDonald have a conflict of interest?
Hi CT Dude,
1. My point is that Donohue always needs a way to keep himself on TV. If it wasn’t Chocolate Jesus it would be something else. He is a professional outraged pundit.
2. We’ll have to disagree about Lawlor and Gomes’ questions. I thought they were perfectly reasonable.
3. My handle is actually CGG not GCC. But you’re right. I do make errors in blog posts, and I do correct them. Gary marriage is probably my favorite error.
Why should we listen to a Catholic priest about marriage of any sort? The Catholic Church forbids its priests to marry, so priests know almost nothing about marriage.
Also, to be married in the eyes of the Catholic Church, you must:
* Be a Catholic
* Intend to have children
* Intend to raise your children as Catholics
So marriages of non-Catholics and couples who don’t intend to have children are NOT really marriages according to the Catholic Church. You can add gay marriages to the list of marriages that the Church doesn’t recognize. Non-Catholics, and former Catholics like myself, have gotten along just fine without Catholic priests.
Can I be an “expert witness”,as Donahue identified Wackjob Brian Brown as.
I prayed to the Tooth Fairy last night and she appeared to me and said Marriage between any two consenting adults is fine and Jesus,whom she just happened to have had dinner with the night before,agreed.
Last time I checked it was a free country and it was okay to write letters to public officials even if they serve in another state. It is also okay to tell public officials that you will use the media or rally your base to combat something you do not believe in. You may be against his beliefs but what was wrong with what he did?
As expected CTKeith brings the whole discourse down more than a few notches with his vulger comments.
Joey,
I’m Crushed!
What’s vulgar is your anti-toothFairy bigoted Remarks.We toothfairyists are tired of being disrespected by all you Christians,Jews,Muslims,Hindus,Wiccans,Pagans and the rest of you followers of False Prophets.
OUR GOD IS GOD!!
Can I get on HardBall and Scarborough Country Now?
How do groups who are committed to discrimination against and denigration of a minority group try to gain the upper rhetorical hand? By portraying themselves as victims of discrimination.
The Family Institute and Donohue are merely adopting the tactics of the David Duke school of respectable white supremacy – don’t talk about discrimination against racial minorities, talk about white rights. Don’t talk about pushing gay human rights back a few decades. Talk about how extending human rights to gays and lesbians is really an attack on religious liberties. Cynical and silly, but it’s all they’ve got left.
CTD, of course Lawlor and McDonald do not have a conflict of interest. They never do. They are exempt from ever having a conflict of interest.
What I find the most ironic is that the very day after Brian Brown and his gang testified about how they weren’t bigots, they sent out an e-mail to their members and called the pro-equality legislators bigots against Catholics.
Talk about hypocrisy.
Does Lawlor have a “conflict of interest”? Do you mean, is he debating a law that might have measurable and direct impact upon him for the rest of his life? Why, yes, yes he is. Goodness knows I would hate for legislators to be involved with issues about which that they’d had any direct personal experience. That would be terrible! Let’s try to keep them in an ivory tower somewhere as far away from leading real human lives as possible.
But in all seriousness, if you believe there is a “conflict of interest” doesn’t that mean that Lawlor somehow stands to gain from the passage of this law? And if he doesn’t stand to gain financially since the civil union laws afford all the financial benefits of marriage that the state is able to provide, them doesn’t that prove that there is some larger intangible benefit to marriage? And wouldn’t that mean that there is an inherent and unjust inequality in the system?
Furthermore, Donahue claims that Brown was “called to testify.” I belive this misrepresents the situation. The hearing was open to the public and any individual or organization was free to sing up to speak for three minutes and answer questions from the committee. Brown chose to be there. He was not called upon for any special expertise that the committee believed he had.
Donohue is, as MikeCT points out, rather unapologetic about his bigotry. Considering his email’s thinly veiled reference to Senator Lieberman, it will be very interesting to see if any members of the General Assembly are foolish enough as to associate themselves with him and his organization.
RCK,
You didn’t really expect our little knuckle draggers here to understand the concept of a conflict of interest, did you?
According to them Moses,Jesus,abolitionists,Susan B Anthony, Martin Luther King,Nelson Mandella and anyone else who is on the side of expansion of basic human rights to all had a Conflict of interest and deserved exactly the treatment they got up to and including crucifiction.
I think if you look at the posts above, you will see the politics as usual that I have come to abhor. In politics, the tone has become louder and louder- more and more partisan.
This is the loss of civility in politics that I lament. You may disagree with Brian Brown, but he is a citizen with the same rights that you have, not a “wackjob”.
Those who participate in the political process have a right to be treated with dignity and respect, no matter how wrong we think they may be, because they are our fellow human beings and entitled to the respect through our shared humanity.
Everyone, from the village idiot to the village sage has the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. The Catholic Church as a citizen has the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. You may think they are off their rocker, but they still have that right.
As to the statements made by the Catholic Church, you are committing a logical fallacy. Any statement that is made has a truth value that is independent of whoever is saying it. Either the statement is true, or it is not- or to express it in binary language- has a value of 1 or 0.
If you study logic, you see that the argument from authority is the weakest argument to make toward the truth value of a statement. Similarly, the argument against authority is the weakest argument to make to negate the truth value of a statement.
Or to put it another way, if the village idiot makes a statement, you cannot judge its truth value by who is saying it, but by what is being said. Now if what is being said is not true, it certainly is just to try to contest its truth value. To attack the person making a statement does nothing to establish its truth value and is nothing more than an ad hominem attack.
Now, I must be frank that I am squeamish about the gay marriage issue. I am not a homophobe by any means. I have friends who are gay. That said, the setup we have now reminds me of the idea that some animals are more equal than others.
I am a supporter of gay rights: freedom from employment discrimination, the right to privately conduct one’s affairs as he or she sees fits. And indeed, that privacy argument used to advance gay rights during the ’80s and ’90s sits well with my belief in the importance of civil liberties.
That’s said, what we have now, and what is being requested are very different from what was sought in the past.
If the campaign for gay marriage is part of a larger campaign for rights- insurance, inheritance, automatic survivorship. I can state for sure that I am not opposed to gays being able to get these rights. That said, I am not sure that the institution of marriage is the proper avenue for gaining and distributing these rights. There are some larger issues here. Traditionally, the struggle for gay rights focused on the ideal of tolerance- you may disapprove of how we respond to a homosexual orientation- but we are still both people and citizens and as such has rights. The reality is however, that not anyone can get married issues such as consanguinity or competence can be a bar to marriage.
And I suppose this is why I oppose the drive for gay marriage- unlike previous efforts which were founded on the ideals of equality and toleration- the push for gay marriage asks for public approbation of a particular response to a homosexual orientation. Men of goodwill may disagree about homosexuality in a pluralistic society. There is an element of coercion in asking the state to approve of homosexual unions on behalf of members of society who do not approve of them, themselves.
And so then, let us be clear on the issues. If the push for gay marriage really is a push to be able to obtain and transfer the rights derived from marriage, let those rights be separated from institutions, such as civil unions or gay marriage. And so this is the challenge that I lay down. If this is truly about rights, let the state make it possible to obtain and transfer these rights through a contract. One of the things that characterizes contract law is that it is *private* law. Have the state create a form contract that establishes and transfers the rights of marriage to any party and has a choice of law clause favoring the use of Connecticut laws. Moreover, if this is about rights, make it possible for any lawfully domiciled individual to receive the benefits of these rights under contract, not just gay partners. Indeed, this is one of my chief complaints about the civil union system is that it contains the same restrictions as marriage- such that family member- such as siblings or cousins who share a household- but not a sexual relationship- cannot benefit from these rights.
I think this is a fair compromise.
It all lays bare what this is really about. That despite the rhetoric about rights, for a radical few, this is not about legal rights. It is about institutions, approbation, and ceremonies: using institutions to radically change the fabric of society. It is to this perfidious cause, that I am opposed, not rights. Historically, cultures across the world, in societies without a Christian heritage, in Africa, Asia, Australia, the US, the USSR, and the Ancient Greeks have recognized marriage as between a man and a woman. Some of these cultures, such as the Greeks, were very tolerant of homosexuality. They did not see the definition of marriage as a social and cultural institution ordered toward the procreation of children and the furtherance of society as conflicting with that tolerance. I would agree with such an assertion. The gay marriage issue is not the Loving v. West Virginia. It is something very different.
I think that men and women of good will, who have a spirit of mutual respect and toleration, can co-exist in a pluralistic society. That said, mutual respect and toleration are a two way street. How can you ever expect respect for yourself if you are not willing to treat those who oppose you with the respect and toleration that you seek for yourself?
Bailey get off your high horse and try stepping down to the soap box. Nobody is trying to pass a gay marriage law, they are trying to pass a same sex civil marriage law. This isn’t about what happens in private – or it shouldn’t be anyway.
Toucan, just out of curiosity, what’s the difference between a “gay marriage law” and a “same sex civil marriage law”?
Gays are trying to legislate social acceptance.
I maintain that, had they not pushed this concept on America the last few years, they would have gotten that social acceptance eventually. I understand that some may not want to wait, but they have generated a pushback from society that may have damaged their cause over the long term.
You cannot legislate social acceptance.
Agreed, Union Thug. Unfortunately, the debate and even the referenced hearing turned into acceptance as an issue from both sides. The town clerk shouldn’t be asking the applicants about their sexual preferences.
I don’t think town clerks are asking about the sexual preference of applicants. Just their gender.
….and therefor it’s about same sex marriage and not gay marriage. Hope Stark’s comment clarified it for you, LenS.
I don’t think town clerks are asking about the sexual preference of applicants. Just their gender.
And I believe that in the US we cannot discriminate based on gender.
I made this point over at MLN, but I think it’s worth repeating:
The reality of same sex relationships today is:
- Legally, a gay couple may live live together.
- Legally, a gay woman may bear a child, and a gay man may father a child.
- Legally, a gay couple may raise a child.
If a child has a gay parent, or parents, wouldn’t it be better for the child if the child’s parents were married, comitted to each other and to the child, and with all the economic and societal benefits of marriage?
If you really love children, you would say YES, and stop trying to stigmatize gay relationships. Otherwise, you’re letting your own bigotry stand in the way of the health and welfare of a child.
This reminds me of how middle class homeowners in the 1960s howled when minority families moved into their neighborhoods, claiming that these minorities would drive down property values. The minorities didn’t drive down property values, bigotry did. Bigots villified and stigmatized the minority families who were moving into their neighborhoods, and in doing so, drove down their own propety values. Kind of stupid, no?
Likewise, stigmatizing gay couples only hurts the children you claim to care so much about.
The right of a gay couple to be married, and the right of the children to be raised by a married couple, are both being violated. This is not a majority vote issue, but a civil rights issue.
“Gays are trying to legislate social acceptance.
I maintain that, had they not pushed this concept on America the last few years, they would have gotten that social acceptance eventually. I understand that some may not want to wait, but they have generated a pushback from society that may have damaged their cause over the long term”.
Your right Union. They should have just sat back and waited just like the blacks, jews, irish etc…
Who would think that here in America somebody would want to stand up for something, especially personal freedom.
Thank God that there is someone like William Donohue who can protect my rights as a devout Catholic. Far too many in the secular world would like to devout Catholics and Evangelicals pushed into the nether regions. I don’t see what the big deal is about, William Donohue is only doing what women’s groups do all the time-protecting the inherent rights that Brian as a citizen of the US deserves.
Opal
Get over it Opal. You have rights. Why are you trying to stop somebody else from having rights too.
theeble – How on Earth does asking sonmeone’s gender implicate the constitution?
Does anybody still think that if the ss marriage bill gets a floor vote and it passes that Rell will veto it as promised?
Iron Mike – How on Earth is “personal freedom” implicated in this debate? No one is curtailing anyone’s “freedom” by limiting the definition of civil marriage. If someone believes that marriage is between two members of the same sex, what is stopping them from calling themselves “married”? This debate isn’t about making people more “free.”
Gay people have plenty of rights, the same ones that you and I have. Marriage is not a right and it was not guarenteed in the Bill of Rights but freedom from the government involving itself in my religion is. Unfortunately, the government does involve itself in my religion all the time-it comes in intrusively into the Catholic school system, the courts have told Catholics in the schools and places of private employment that they may not bring their religion in-ie. Children are not allowed to make the sign of the cross over their lunches and employees can be fired for religious statements made on the internet, etc,etc. The government for all intents and purposes tells our priests what they may preach by threatenting taxation codes over them. Children have been expelled from school for wearing crucifixes, medals and scapulars. Now my church is fighting to continue to run it’s charitable organizations-hospitals and adoption agencies- because the government has decided it’s rules are more important. For how long should I allow this discrimination to continue without fighting back? How about I keep my mouth shut for awhile longer and then Al Gore and his hypocrisy can come along and say only 2 kids per family and anyone who has more goes to jail or is forced to have an abortion-is that finally legitimate religious discrimination? This country has discriminated against Catholics from it’s inception, it is just that the focus has changed from Fundamentalist Southerners to Aethist Seculars.
Opal
I think she will veto – she has to after this budget debacle unless she wants her party to completely abandon her.
Yeah, that rationale makes sense, Stark. Rell has no principles or ethics upon which she makes decisions, just politics of the moment.
I actually disagree – if she had politics in mind she never would have proposed that neo-Stalinist budget. I think she just has some bad advice and now she’ll stick to her principles on gay marriage because of the backlash from other issues.
Tony,
Then let them get married, whats the big deal.
Who says I disagree with you? I just don’t think it implicates “personal freedom” as anyone can get married to anyone they want, just like me. The question is whether or not we want the state to issue a license to these folks that says they are married.
Now, I do think it is a big deal. A huge deal, actually. We are proposing to change the way the state defines our most basic social institution, and has defined that institution, for, literally, ever. Obviously it won’t change the way a lot of people define marriage as it will mean different things to different people (i.e. the Roman Church doesn’t recognize the marriage of anyone not married by a priest – even if they are a boy and a girl). Now, what we really want is to make a semantic change – to change the name “civil union” to “marriage”. That’s the only change folks are asking for.
Bottom line, this is a big enough deal that at that very least it should NOT be decided by a court. The people, through their representatives, should decide.
Prtediction: the bill is voted down or doesn’t even make it to the floor.
Wasn’t there a time when a white man couldn’t marry a black woman? Because that wasn’t the current definition.
Why does the state require a license anyway?
The state doesn’t “require” a license for anything as far as I can tell. It pretty much proves that you are engaged in a social contract that gives rights to your spouse to be involved in certain aspects of your life. This can be proved, however, by contracting in a more traditional sense.
I actually think marriage, from the state’s perspective, is a loaded word. Give everyone a civil union, get the state out of the marriage business and let people do what they want re: church’s, etc.
To your black/white question. It wasn’t a definitional problem, it was an exclusuionary problem. In other words, marriage has always been between a man and a woman – it is just that black people and white people were prohibited from engaging in that contract.
I love Stark’s position there. Take the state completely out of the marriage business. If you want to be married by the church or any other institution as a seperate ceremony/sacriment/whatever so be it. Otherwise two people can get a state license recognizing certain privileges of a civil union. It makes a lot of sense.
I agree. It makes no sense for the state to determine this.
Opal–
It is amazing to me that you feel you are being discriminated against.
Really, the whole country stands for your freedom of religion. You are absolutely free to practice your religion however you see fit. We all know this.
I guess what I’m saying is that your persecution complex is false and unbecoming. There is no “war on Christmas”, nor is there a rise in anti-Semitism, nor an attack on the Catholic Church.
Instead, there are obvious ruses being put forward by those who would abuse religion by using it for latent political agendas.
Let us keep in mind a few facts while debating this issue:
1) The government can only make, implement and enforce civil law.
2) There are many diverse religions in America.
3) The government cannot tell any religion who they can or cannot marry. Never have been able to and never will.
4) Some religions have been marrying gay couples for years and accept gay couples and singles into their flock with open arms.
I have stated this here before, but I’ll do so again…I believe civil marriage (read: anything the state has jurisdiction over) should be called just that or called a civil union.
And Opal, you feel discriminated against? I find that a bit hard to believe. Government reaches its hand into religion only when religion invites it in. Religious hospitals have to play by the taxpayers’ rules if they want tax dollars.
Your statement about schools is bizarre – in religious schools of course you can pray, make the sign of the cross or do whatever you want. If you want to be accredited by the state (most schools do), then there are some required teachings, but again, accreditation is a choice, not mandated. I went to a private catholic school for high school and we prayed every morning, had religion class, went to service once a week and our teams were all blessed and prayed before a game or match.
Sounds to me like you have been praying to play the victim.
I’d have no problem calling state-sanctioned marriage “civil marriage.” Let the churches do what they want.
“If a child has a gay parent, or parents, wouldn’t it be better for the child if the child’s parents were married, comitted to each other and to the child, and with all the economic and societal benefits of marriage?
If you really love children, you would say YES, and stop trying to stigmatize gay relationships. Otherwise, you’re letting your own bigotry stand in the way of the health and welfare of a child.”
Nothing is stopping the parents of the child from making that commitment. Nothing is stopping them from raising the child in the context of a gay relationship.
Nothing is stopping them from benefitting from the rights and economics benefits of marriage, given that we have civil unions.
The point is not to stigmatize gay relationships. If gays think that there is a stigma to having a child in a gay relationship, that is because of some internal inferiority complex or victim complex, not because the law stigmatizes them. If a gay couple wants to call themselves married, they can call themselves marriage. I thought it was “love” that made a family- not a piece of paper from the state.
As to Donahue, think of him what you will. I am glad that there is an organization that will look out for the civil rights of Catholics like me. If you don’t think that anti-Catholicism is still pervasive, you need look no farther than the comments of bloggers and representatives within the past year in conjunction with the civil-union bill.
What about calling state-sanctioned unions “civil-unions” and let “marriages” be doled out by the private sector? It seems to me that this whole debate is about the definition of a “marriage” not “union” so people/groups/organizations can define marriage however they want, as they already do, the state stays out of it. Not advocating, just curious what you think about that?
I don’t know–I think it’s because the word “marriage” has meaning to me, too. I don’t want to lose that (I was married by a JP–not a religious ceremony). My wife feels a little differently, but I like being married. It has a permanence to it. That’s why I understand the reasons why gay couples want that word, too. It’s powerful.
I think that’s right, but just because the state defines your union one way doesn’t me you can’t define it another. But I see where you’re coming from.
J. Bailey–
If I think Bill Donohue is a bigoted wind-bag, does that make me anti-Catholic? Am I persecuting you if I call Mr. Donohue a prick?
Frankly, if I were Catholic, I’d be exceedingly embarassed to have someone like Donahue pretend to speak for me!
My wife and I got our marriage license from the state and that had absolutely nothing to do with any religion whatsoever.
We then took the sacrament of marriage in a RC Church and the priest, acting as a justice of the peace, validated our marriage license with the state.
The way the RC Church, the state and I see it, we were “married” by two completely seperate entities. Thus, I can get my marriage unnulled in the Church and it will have no legal affect whatsoever according to the state unless I get a civil divorce. Same goes for the other way around – If I get a divorce, my wife and I will still be married in the Church unless or until we get an annullment.
That being said, I like being married. I am proud to say it and I know it means that I am in a legally committed relationship, and that it carries with it certain rights, privileges and obligations both civilly and within the church. I think that gay couples should have those same civil rights.
When you say “civil rights” you mean the rights that go along with the license you obtained from the state, right? It doesn’t matter what it’s called, union, marriage, partnership, it’s the same set of rights that you enjoy. I think what I’m saying is you can call whatever the state sanctions a marriage if you personally define it that way and can even memorialize it in a ceremony, religious or not, of some sort. The rights granted by the state have nothing to do with the semantics involved.
LenS -I agree.
But I think we differ in that I would defer to calling everything the state sanctions a union and you sound like you’d call everything a marriage.
It’s my understanding that folks who have civil-unionized in CT have no standing to challenge the federal DOMA but if “married” by the state they would have standing and would probably challenge it too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
No, I would love to get marriage out of statutes.
I’m a Catholic, and William Donohue certainly does NOT speak for me.
The last thing we need here in Connecticut is for Donohue to butt his nose in here and start peddling his manufactured victimhood here as well.
While I found some of the questioning during the marriage equality hearing regarding Catholic or Christian doctrine to be irrelevant (such as Rev. Morris asking witnesses to explain how the relationship between Jesus and the Church is akin to marriage), I certainly didn’t think anyone’s questioning was inappropriate.
For a commenter here to suggest that Mr. Brown’s “rights” were violated was absurd. Mr. Brown was able to give his testimony and was given ample time to expand upon his positions during questioning. The committee chairs were quite generous in allowing him time to explain himself in detail. No one’s rights were violated and no one suggested that he didn’t have a right to his personal beliefs.
For the record, I think it’s pathetic that Donohue claimed that the “chocolate Jesus” was one of the “worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever”. It’s sad that he gets the vapors over something so silly. Donohue doesn’t see homelessness, poverty, hunger, injustice, or loneliness as greater assaults on Christian sensibilities than a statue of Jesus made out of chocolate. I pity him.
Not to mention the dung on the picture of Mary at the Brooklyn Art Museum
Wouldn’t the sex scandals of Catholic priests be a worse assault on Christian sensibilities than a chocolate Jesus?
Wouldn’t a bigoted, anti-Semitic, venom-spewing, gay-bashing priest be a worse assault on Christian sensibilities than a chocolate Jesus?
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two Commandments.”
- Matthew 22: 36-40
I’d love to see Opal post links substantiating these statements:
“the government … comes in intrusively into the Catholic school system … the courts have told Catholics in the schools … that they may not bring their religion in”
“Children are not allowed to make the sign of the cross over their lunches”
“The government for all intents and purposes tells our priests what they may preach”
“Children have been expelled from school for wearing crucifixes, medals and scapulars.”
“Al Gore and his hypocrisy can come along and say only 2 kids per family and anyone who has more goes to jail or is forced to have an abortion”
Are Catholics discriminated on a regular basis-No, of course not. But does it happen, yes. And yes, if you actually learned any American history at all you will know that AntiCatholicism has been around from the beginning and was very strong. Ever hear of the No Nothing Party. Actually, the entire basis for the “separation of church and state” ruling came out of an antiCatholicism case. Some Evangelicals wanted to close down the Catholic school system in the 1940′s or 1950′s. Little did those Evangelicals realize that would bite them in the rear a few short years later when prayer in school was outlawed. William Donohue serves a necessary function in this society. Sometimes, he is rather crued but so are a lot of you, so I wouldn’t cast the first stones if I were you.
The following is a rather quick and dirty sampling of articles. At one point in time I had saved all of these references from the original but I can’t find them anymore.
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32211
School bans wearing crucifix: More discrimination against Christians January 14, 2007
A school provoked fury last night by ordering a devout Catholic schoolgirl to remove her cross necklace because it posed a health and safety risk.Teachers demanded Samantha Devine remove her chain and tiny crucifix despite allowing Muslim and Sikh pupils to wear symbols of their religion.
Her family have vowed to fight the decision “all the way” claiming it discriminates against Christians
http://lw.bna.com/lw/19970923/971763.htm
This is what I found in 30 seconds of searching on the net. One teacher suspended for wearing a necklace….students for crucifix and rosaries.
As for the state regulated Catholic schools. Well, I went to Catholic school in the first few grades we went to Mass everyday but then the state said “No, No.” You may not go to Mass everyday, so we were only allowed but the State of Ohio to attend Mass once a week but we could not have catechism class on that day. The state then decided to waste Ohioans taxpayers money by instituting the lovely job -of checking up on all Catholic schools. So some state education employee would go from Catholic school to Catholic school-checking their education status or cleaniliness-NOT-making sure that we didn’t throw religion papers in the state funded garbage can or verifying that all religious movies were not viewed on a projector and screen paid for by the state of OH….yes, the bookshelfs could not hold Bibles or the lockers, desks,etc, unless they were not funded by the state. Glad to know that the state of Ohio was so afraid of Catholicism that they would waste so much money checking up on those nitty gritty details.
praying over lunch-
http://www.gopunditgo.com/?cat=16
The inequities cited are bad enough, but what is worse is the flagrant bigotry that Catholic students endure in some public schools. For example, in April, 1997, the art department at La Guardia High School in Manhattan authorized the distribution of fliers that depicted an image of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in a sexually explicit way. There was another artistic contribution that showed a sketch of a man with “HEBRO” written across his head and “EVIL JEW” scripted above the figure. An arrow was pointed at him by a man holding a large penis. The man comments “Jesus I gots a present fo’ yo’ preachy ass!!” There were several other works of art that depicted Catholic schoolgirls in a vile way.
In 1997, Catholic students in Danville, California had to sit through the anti-Catholic movie, The Last Temptation of Christ; it was shown during Holy Week and when students complained about the explicit violence, sex scenes and bigotry, they were mocked by their teacher. The Catholic League has also encountered teachers and students in Middletown Township, New Jersey, who have had to endure anti-Catholic commentary in the school district’s newsletter.
This spring, in Santa Fe, New Mexico, Catholic students were prohibited from wearing T-shirts with an image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on them. In a well-reported case, students in a Houston suburb were denied the right to wear rosaries to school. And who can fail to recall the abuse and heckling that Christian students endured at the hands of antireligious extremists in Kentucky, a situation that culminated in the deaths of three students at Heath High School in West Paducah?
In 1995, President Clinton released a memo on religious expression in the public schools that is commendable in its clarity. The problem is that his directive, like those of the courts, have been ignored with impunity.
Not until religious expression in the public schools is given the same respect and latitude that is accorded secular speech, will we resolve this problem. In the meantime, we need to end the discriminatory practice of barring the use of public monies to promote religion while allowing public monies to be spent bashing religion. Schools that are sued for allowing “Jesus Christ Superstar” but are told to back off when objections are raised to putting on “Oh! Calcutta!” need relief, and no one needs it more than the Catholic schoolchildren who suffer through these injustices.
LOUISIANA JUDGE DICTATES TO CATHOLIC SCHOOL
The scenario is almost surreal, but it did happen. Two football players from Archbishop Shaw High School in Marrero, Louisiana get arrested and are charged with one count of attempted simple rape of a 15-year-old girl. The two students, Doug King and Jared King, are immediately suspended by Shaw principal Father Richard Rosin. But the suspension gets overturned just as quickly by Judge Robert A. Pitre, Jr. of the 24th Judicial District Court Division G of Jefferson Parish.
Judge Pitre compounds the problem by issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the Archdiocese of New Orleans, Archbishop Shaw High School and Father Rosin. The order, which was filed by an attorney for the players (they are cousins), restrained the New Orleans suburban school not only from suspending the students, but from barring them from playing football.
When this bizarre case unfolded in November, the Catholic League opined that “If separation of church and state means anything, it means that the government has no business dictating the internal procedures of religious institutions. This is not a difficult issue, and indeed the case law provides no constitutional basis for issuing a TRO against a parochial school for implementing its disciplinary policies.”
We concluded our statement by saying, “The Catholic League advises the attorneys for Archbishop Shaw to brook no compromise: we will offer our resources, if it is necessary.” As it turned out, the two boys transferred to another school, leaving the case moot. We regret that a more senior judge didn’t get the chance to review Judge Pitre’s decision; it would have been an instructive exercise for all the parties involved.
——————————————————————————–
Kindergarten students at Catherine McNamara Elementary School in
Baldwinsville, New York were instructed to create posters showing what they learned about the environment in class.
Their teacher sent detailed instructions home informing parents that the content of the posters should reflect what the students had learned about the environment in class.
Each student was to be given the opportunity to present his or her poster to the class, and the posters were to be displayed in the school’s cafeteria during a school-wide environmental assembly.
Antonio Peck’s poster depicted a robed figure that appeared to be Jesus along with several religious phrases.
His teacher took his poster to the school principal, who told her to instruct Antonio to create another poster.
The teacher notified Antonio’s mother that the poster could not be displayed and Antonio would have to create a second one, bercause the poster contained religious content and did not reflect what Antonio had learned in class on the environment.
Antonio’s second poster depicted the Jesus figure as well as people picking up trash and recycling next to a church.
Antonio was allowed to present the entire poster to his class, but he principal instructed the teacher to fold under the portion depicting the Jesus figure when hanging it for the assembly.
School officials contended that Antonio’s poster violated “church and state” and would give the impression that the school was teaching religion, even though the poster was clearly a kindergartner’s artwork, unless folded.
Folding the poster made it look odd. Antonio’s name at the bottom was cut in half and when Antonio saw his poster folded and school officials told him and his parents why it was folded, he allegedly felt ashamed in front of his classmates and his parents and assumed he did something wrong and was being punished.
School officials refused to remedy the matter, apologize or adopt a policy to prevent future censorship, so, with the assistance of Liberty Counsel, Antonio’s parents filed suit in the local federal district court, claiming that the school officials’ censorship of Antonio’s poster violated both Antonio’s free speech rights and the Establishment Clause.
The district court granted the motion of the Baldwinsville Central School District (BCSD) motion for summary judgment on both claims.
The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s ruling on the free speech claim and remained that claim to the district court for further proceedings and affirmed the district court’s ruling on the Establishment Clause claim.
The Second Circuit rejected Antonio’s parents’ argument that the poster constituted personal speech that should be regulated pursuant to Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), which allows regulation of speech only if it materially and substantially interferes with school operations or infringes on the rights of others.
But, the Second Circuit found that the poster, having been made in response to a class assignment, constituted school-sponsored speech that can be restricted under the principle enunciated in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988), that allows restrictions that are “reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.”
The Second Circuit agreed with BCSD that there was sufficient evidence to support censoring the poster based on its “legitimate pedagogical concerns” that the portion of the poster depicting the robed figure was not responsive to the assignment and that the Jesus figure was the work of Antonio’s mother, not Antonio.
Notwithstanding that, the Second Circuit determined that Antonio’s parents’ had raised a factual issue regarding whether officials had engaged in viewpoint discrimination based on the poster’s religious content, finding that some of the evidence construed in a light most favorable to the parents suggested that officials censored Antonio’s poster solely because it offered a religious perspective on the topic of how to save the environment and concluding that if the factual dispute was resolved in favor of Antonio’s parents, a jury could find that BCSD officials had engaged in impermissible viewpoint discrimination based on religion in violation of Antonio’s free speech rights.
The Second Circuit rejected BCSD’s contention that Hazelwood permits school officials to engage in viewpoint discrimination when such discrimination is reasonably related to “legitimate pedagogical concerns.” It noted that Hazelwood neither addressed nor “even mentioned, explicitly, the question of viewpoint neutrality” and, in the absence of clear United States Supreme Court direction, declined to depart from well established law that a manifestly viewpoint discriminatory restriction on school-sponsored speech is, prima facie, unconstitutional, even if reasonably related to “legitimate pedagogical interests.”
With respect to the Establishment Clause claim, the Second Circuit applied the test established in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). It determined that BCSD’s actions did not violate the Establishment Clause, because the school officials had acted with a secular purpose (concern that Antonio’s poster was not responsive to the assignment); the partial censorship of the poster that allowed the church to be viewed while only covering the Jesus figure demonstrated that there was no intent to inhibit religion; and whatever entanglement with religion that occurred as a result of the alleged viewpoint discrimination was de minimis.
Mathew D. Staver, President and General Counsel for Liberty Counsel, rightfully declared victory for religious speech in general and Antonio in particular: “We are pleased the Supreme Court allowed this decision to stand. The school district sent a terrible message to Antonio that his faith is not welcome, when officials persisted in censoring his artwork. At the pinnacle of the Bill of Rights is the First Amendment, which enshrines our first liberty. It’s about time that school officials learn a simple lesson — private religious speech when expressed on public property is constitutionally protected. Antonio, who began this case while in kindergarten, is an example of the maxim that one person, no matter the age, can accomplish great things when they stand for a principled cause.”
I can’t find the California kid who was suspended for making the sign of the cross at lunch but I don’t really feel it necessary to make my point.
Oh yes, I am tired and don’t feel like looking but there is a case out there against one of the big insurance companies who fired several employees for making religious statements of faith on the internet.
Opal
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32211
School bans wearing crucifix: More discrimination against Christians January 14, 2007
A school provoked fury last night by ordering a devout Catholic schoolgirl to remove her cross necklace because it posed a health and safety risk.Teachers demanded Samantha Devine remove her chain and tiny crucifix despite allowing Muslim to wear symbols of their religion.
Her family have vowed to fight the decision “all the way” claiming it discriminates against Christians
http://lw.bna.com/lw/19970923/971763.htm
This discussion of “civil” vs. “religious” marriage is bunk! Marriage is marriage is marriage: the union of a man and a woman, whether it is performed by a priest, a rabbi, a JP, etc. The ceremony may be different, but the basic nature of the institution is the same, no matter where the marriage ceremony is performed.
And “famill..,” unless I’m mistaken—you were not “married by the state,” although the state issued a license. IOW, the state recognized and registered your marriage, which was performed by a priest. If you and your wife had taken out a license, but not had someone (legally authorized) perform a marriage ceremony, then you would NOT have been viewed as legally married by the State.
Nimrod,
How can you say that there is no difference between civil and religious marriage? If you get a marriage license and a JP marries you, then the RC Church does not recognize you as married. You must take the sacrament of marriage. So the RC Church disagrees with you on that one.
And there is a clear difference even among the “religious” marriages as well. The ceremony, the commitment, the preparation, the purpose, and yes, between same sexes, differ from religion to religion. The state has no business getting involved in any of those religions.
Nimrod – Are you saying that marriage means the ame thing to every religious sect, government and person? That’s simply not true. Just look at Massachusetts – they say that marriage is a union between any two consenting adults. Connecticut says it is the union between any consenting adult man and any conenting adult woman. The Cathlolic Church says it is a union between a man and a woman who are married by a priest or at the least agree to have children and raise them Catholic. Three different definitions.
I have not been following any of the debates regarding ss marriage bill. So, can someone briefly explain to me what benefits gay couples would receive by the inclusion of this bill? Thank you.
None. They currently possess the same rights as married couples in Connecticut under the civil union law. It is merely a semantic change.
The bill would ultimatley give same sex married couples the standing to cahllenge DOMA and a few other things.
Yeah, but DOMA is pretty sound Constitutionally and the legislature shouldn’t be passing bills just for that reason.
I answered the question at #67, Stark, and certainly your side thinks DOMA will pass constitutional muster but not everybody is of that opinion.
Thank you for responding, Mr. Stark and Toucan. Please, bear with me as I attempt to understand the logic of the passing of this amendment. Since I do not have any friends who are gay, I am trying to understand why there is a need to use the term “marriage” if gays already have laws that protect their rights of a civil union.
Regarding the “Chocolate Jesus,” yes, I am offended by the display. I am offended by the lack of sensitivity of the artist to Christian modesty. Jesus did not choose to be stripped of his garments, it was an act of humiliation by the Romans. I suppose this is one reason Bill Donohue said that the display was “one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever.”
toucan – It is pretty clear that Congress has the authority to regulate whether or not marriages from one state must be recognized by another.
Art. IV Sec. 1 states that:
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
That is what DOMA says – Congress passed and the (Democrat – so none of this ‘your side’ stuff) President signed a law that no state shall be forced to recognize the same sex marriage of another state.
How do you challenge that law? You challenge it by stating that the right to marry someone of the same gender is protected by the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution (which it isn’t) and thus state laws to the contrary are unconstitutional. In other words, the only way to challenge that law is to challenge it by means other than Art. IV. Regardless, you don’t need Conn. to allow gay marriage to make such a challenge – in fact, allowing gay marriage would kill their standing because they would have no injury.
Here’s a link for thier argument: http://www.lmfct.org/splashpage.html
Stark, I’ll let all of this play out in the legislature and the courts. As far as I am concerned this should be brought to a rapid vote – and if I were to vote I would vote in favor of same sex marriage. And by “your side” I was talking about all of you – including Bill Clinton – who think marriage is between a man and a woman.
Momto13–The need for marriage is two-fold. First, there’s the idea that civil unions are basically marriage called by another name. That’s a “separate but equal” categorization, which history tells us doesn’t work. If a committed same-sex relationship is worthy of all of the benefits and protection of marriage in our state, why should it be called something different? Second, there is no way for a same-sex couple who has a civil union to challenge the fact that the federal government won’t bestow the same tax benefits, etc on them as it does on a couple who is married, because they would not have standing to challenge such policies, since the federal government doesn’t recognize civil unions. It does, however, recognize marriages, which means that a same-sex couple who is married in our state but is not given the benefits of marriage by the federal government does, in fact, have an injury that would give them legal standing to file suit. Tony is wrong about the standing issue.
I think the legal merits of the separate but equal argument in favor of allowing same sex marriages is not particularly persuasive. For as often as people like to make the comparison to the civil rights movement and racial segregation, legislation based on sexual orientation is just simply not offered the same level of judicial scrutiny that race or gender based legislation is. Another reason: separate but equal was shot down largely because the supreme court found that in an educational context, separate could never be equal for a variety of factors that would not be analogous to a civil union v. civil marriage argument. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen, but it’s not as cut and dry as saying “separate but equal” is illegal…ergo…
toucan – looking through the website of that lobbying group that you sent me and I can’t find the DOMA stuff. Where is it?
Thank you, Gems, on the standing issue. After that it remains to be seen how this plays out and I expect it will take years. And Stark, the link wasn’t for you – Carly Simon sung abpout your type as I recall – you’re so vain…..
Gems – That doesn’t make any sense. Whether the State of Connecticut recognizes a same sex couple as married, “civilly unionized” or nothing at all they are still NOT receiving any benefits of marriage from the federal government. They have an injury in fact regardless of what we do here in Conn., thus they have standing.
toucan – I thought you sent that in response to my question re: standing. Sorry. Still couldn’t find anythign about standing though. Where was it?
In other words, all a same-sex couple has to do, right now, is go to town hall, apply for a marriage license and get denied in order to have standing to sue.
They currently would have standing to sue the STATE in they go to the town hall to apply for a marriage license and get denied, Tony. Which has already happened and will be heard by our state supreme court in one of the next few terms. You said once gay marriage is permitted here, a smae-sex couple who got married under our state law would have no standing to sue because they would have no injury. They would at that point not have any standing to sue the state, but they would have standing to sue the federal government.
Which is the point being made when the issue of standing to challenge DOMA is being raised. (And sorry for the typos above).
Don’t they have standing to sue the federal government independent of the right to marry in Connecticut? Don’t they just have to show up at city hall, apply for a wedding license, get denied and then sue the federal government based on the fact that Connecticut is violating their 14th amendment right?
That’s right – they sue get denied the license and sue claiming that the state improperly denied their 14th Amendment right to marry whomever they want. This won’t get equal protection, gotta be liberty.