Tweet
The Washington State Catholic Conference (WSCC), which “represents the Catholic Bishops of the State of Washington on issues of public policy”, has posted a link to this notice on the main page of their website (hyperlinks are mine).
Repealing Domestic Partner BenefitsPassed by the 2009 Legislature, SSB 5688 granted all of the rights of marriage to same-sex couples in Washington State. Referendum 71 seeks to overturn SSB 5688, known as the “all but marriage” law…
WSCC opposed SSB 5688 because proponents publically (sic) stated that this legislation was intended to extend existing marriage rights to same-sex couples as a precursor to legalizing gay marriage in Washington State. While opposing all unjust discrimination against any individual, WSCC upholds marriage as a union between a man and a woman, which is the foundation of our civil society.
Opposing “unjust discrimination” implies that some discrimination is justified, that it can be just to discriminate. According to the bishops of Washington, it is just to destabilize and undermine LGBT families. The bishops believe it just to disadvantage children by preventing their LGBT parents from protecting them to the fullest extent of the law via domestic partnerships or marriage.
How do these people have the nerve to show their faces in public after spouting such anti-family nastiness?Unlike the WSCC’s 2006 statement for justified discrimination, the current statement is unsigned. This indicates two things. First, that while the bishops advocate for discrimination against LGBT families they, like most of their anti-equality colleagues, see this particular referendum as a non-starter and are thus giving it lip service but no solid backing. Indeed, Chief of Staff Siler of the Yakima Diocese recently stated that “our resources are limited, and we think the more important issue will be the question of gay marriage”. (Curious statement, given that his bosses at WSCC talk as if the current battle over domestic partnership law is about marriage.) The second thing indicated by the lack of the bishops’ signatures on the 2009 statement is that the entire WSCC faculty approves the message. The faculty are:
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Alexander J. Brunett, Archbishop of Seattle & Chair of the WSCC Board of Directors | Carlos A. Sevilla, Bishop of Yakima | William S. Skylstad, Bishop of Spokane | Eusebio Elizondo, Auxiliary Bishop of Seattle | Joseph J. Tyson, Auxiliary Bishop of Seattle |
Peter Gillette is the first Roman Catholic cleric in Washington reported to circulate the instrument of justified discrimination in his church. If you hear of others, drop a note in the comments.
By the way, is Joseph Backholm of the local Focus on the Family affiliate a crypto-Catholic? He riffed on the “justified discrimination” theme numerous times during legislative hearings on the domestic partnership expansion bill, as well as included it in his “citizens guide” to Referendum 71.
Q: Isn’t it bad to discriminate?
A: No. Discrimination is not only appropriate, it is necessary for survival. In fact, the inability to rationally discriminate (or exercise discretion) is one of the ways psychologists diagnose mental illness.
Translation: if you don’t discriminate, you’re mentally ill.
Join Washington Families Standing Together in their fight to defeat Referendum 71 by clicking on the graphics below.
Cross-posted at Washblog.
45 Comments
Your subject line is a tad misleadingI read it as saying that efforts to repeal domestic partnership benefits are motivated by discrimination, ie that “just” in this case meant “only.” The linked article makes it clear that they not only support discrimination, they are (illegally?) trying to get parishoners to sign Referendum 71.
There’s a very simple way to bring the Catholic church on baord for marriage equalityAll we have to do is start advocating marriage between priests and altar boys.
Perhapsthe term “Justified Discrimination” would make the headline a little clearer. I was confused as well.
thanks,i made a few changes that hopefully make it clearer.
Appropriate ActionIf Catholic Priests and Bishops are advocating a political position, they have entered the secular / political world, which makes their churches, offices, and homes appropriate places to protest.
My suggestion is that a large number of equal rights supporters go to the main Sunday service at Peter Gillette’s church. Sit as close to the front as possible. Whenever he opens his mouth, stand and turn your back to him.
No noise, no arguments. No conversation. Simply stand in your pew and turn your back on him.
Make it clear afterwards that you intend to continue this protest and that it will spread to any church which enters the secular and political realm by using its power to influence legislation and public policy.
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s!
Also, make it clear that you support their right to worship and believe what they want — as long as they don’t attempt to impose those beliefs on other citizens.
A more stealth way to go about it would be to attend services, mingle as visitors, and record / photograph surreptitiously any illegal attempts to influence votes. Then report them to the IRS, etc.
A clarificationAny church is allowed to campaign for a ballot issue, no matter how discriminatory they are.
What a church can’t do is promote or endorse a particular party or candidate.
But with the above, I’d love to see the TLBG community repeatedly remind the Catholic Church of examples when they were the ones being discriminated in the past.
The TLBG community also needs to start petitions to begin removing religion as a protected stats.
Excellent!Great ideas, Oldbrit!
Repealing tax exempt status for PACs is also justified discrimination, is it not?
“make it clear that you support their right to worship”if someone did the type of protest you suggest, “interfering with their right to worship” would be the charge, and the court of public opinion would probably agree. i think the only way this sort of protest can be successful is if the protesters already are members of that congregation. but if that were the case, it would likely be even more advantageous for them to just talk to their fellow parishoners and circulate their own decline to sign petition. it is likely that every such church contains many allies who don’t know there are also other allies sitting right next to them. i think it’s better to reach out to such people than to scare them away with an in-church protest. standing up and turning your back might feel good and cathartic, but at a time like this when people will sign a petition out of unthinking anger, i think it unwise to unnecessarily anger people when we can simply talk to them. remember, we don’t need to convince people to be with us 100% all we have to do is raise enough doubt in their minds about the fairness of the referendum that they decline to sign it today.
That would have to go through CongressReligion has some protections through the civil rights act of 1964, though I am unsure of the specific titles that religion falls under.
I used to agree with you, Lurleen!It all depends on how many are willing to put themselves on the line in this silent protest.
These people are ignoring separation of church and state, so they have invited protesters into their churches by crossing that line.
I’d bet my last nickel that the parishioners would press their priest to stop politicking so that their services are not protested. The parishioners won’t like it, but if the only way to stop the disruption is to tell their priest to shut up and do his job, the parishioners will make him stop.
Since the folks listed are primarily bishops, the protests could be done whenever the bishop visits a church in his diocese. That way, the bishop would get the message and the parishes would only experience the disruption when the bishop visits their parish — which would be a powerful reason for the parishes to ask the bishop to not visit their church.
You are likely there would be a backlash, but so what?
Ultimately, gays will have to take their rights by making it impossible for heterosexuals to live their lives in peace as long as we do not have equal rights for all people. Until the lives of heterosexuals are directly and adversely affected, most will be disinterested, apathetic, and unwilling to take any action to support equal rights for all.
When the only way that heterosexuals can enjoy their rights is by making sure everyone has equal rights, they will do it. Until then, it’s not going to happen.
I used to agree with you, Lurleen!It all depends on how many are willing to put themselves on the line in this silent protest.
These people are ignoring separation of church and state, so they have invited protesters into their churches by crossing that line.
I’d bet my last nickel that the parishioners would press their priest to stop politicking so that their services are not protested. The parishioners won’t like it, but if the only way to stop the disruption is to tell their priest to shut up and do his job, the parishioners will make him stop.
Since the folks listed are primarily bishops, the protests could be done whenever the bishop visits a church in his diocese. That way, the bishop would get the message and the parishes would only experience the disruption when the bishop visits their parish — which would be a powerful reason for the parishes to ask the bishop to not visit their church.
You are likely correct there would be a backlash, but so what?
Ultimately, gays will have to take their rights by making it impossible for heterosexuals to live their lives in peace as long as we do not have equal rights for all people. Until the lives of heterosexuals are directly and adversely affected, most will be disinterested, apathetic, and unwilling to take any action to support equal rights for all.
When the only way that heterosexuals can enjoy their rights is by making sure everyone has equal rights, they will do it. Until then, it’s not going to happen.
“likely there would be a backlash, but so what? “this is the problem of outsiders making strategic suggestions for others. i presume that you don’t live in camas, washington. it’s fine for you or anyone to make suggestions (i do so all the time too), but it isn’t fine in my opinion to ever say “so what” to the repercussions that you wouldn’t have to live with if others prosecute your plan. the fact is that we’re winning here in washington state. there is absolutely no need for such enemy-making stunts as you suggest. absolutely no need.
let us know how your turn-the-back protest goes in your local cathedral. or better yet, let us know what small town in your state is entertaining thoughts of bigotry, and we’ll send in a brigade of obnoxious outsiders to whip up the locals really good. you may feel the backlash, but so what.
Sounds like these churches are trying to use their religion to influence laws.I guess that many people of faith would like the laws of their nation to reflect their faith. As a pagan, I would like the laws of the United States to reflect equality for women, as I believe that the creator deity is neither man nor woman. My spiritual path also tells me that gay people like myself are God’s creation and deserving of equal rights.
Other religions would like to see the laws reflect their own interpretations of religious texts. If we all started fighting to have our own personal spiritual beliefs reflected, we’d have a lot of civil wars. That’s why the U.S. Constitution states that the U.S. government won’t have a state-sponsored religion.
Sorry, Catholic Church. You’re out of luck. You don’t get to determine the laws based on your interpretation of your religious texts anymore than I do.
by the way,we’re talking about a catholic church here. the catholic church is well know for being authoritarian in structure and never caring what the rabble in the pews thinks. priests DO NOT change their plans simply because the laity doesn’t approve. authoritarians don’t operate that way.
“Started Fighting?”
Excuse me, but religion is the cause of most wars throughout history and the cause of church, synagogue, and gay bar bombings, to say nothing of the bashing and murdering of blacks, gays, and medical professionals — to name a few.
Pretty easy comeback to these people“Your cult has admitted to providing aid and comfort to pedophiles, and it is headed by a former Nazi. You claim moral authority over my family how, exactly?”
Actually, we’ve been doing protestsAt some of the Baptist churches here in Dallas.
We’d love to have you join us. Please send your brigades. Just note that we are peaceful and have not been arrested and hope that you would also be respectful.
You are missing a fundamental point: By using their churches as political tools, they have made their churches into political battlegrounds.
Catholics can fight to change Catholic theology to support equal rights. As a non-Catholic, Catholic theology is none of my business.
But, it is the business of every American when churches violate separation of church and state. When churches inject themselves into public policy, we have a MORAL OBLIGATION to stand up to them.
Protesting in their churches if totally appropriate when churches ignore separation of church and state. We aren’t violating that boundary when churches erase it.
There’s a differencebetween a registered political action commitee (PAC) and a tax exempt religion.
When a church steps into the political arena they should loose tax exempt & disclosure status. . .but we all know how they work the system by carefully parsing phrasing. . .
” . . .but but . .we’re not telling you to do anyting. We’re just making sure you have their address, phone number, email address/website . .just in case you’d like to make a donation or help them get some petitions signed. . .If you’d LIKE to . .there are people out in front of the church collecting signatures. . .they have information about how you can get involved to save the world from those creepies. . .but we’re not telling YOU what to do, that would be politics”.
However, Catholics do vote with their feetCatholics will vote with their feet by attending church in a different parish or staying home.
When the money stops coming in because of the priest’s activities, changes do get made.
That’s why a good tactic is toAttend the church, fit in and do nothing to call attention to yourself, record any comments from the pulpit or the priest in casual conversation which cross the line, etc.
Then, turn your documentation into the IRS and file a complaint.
If they’ve got people out from pushing one side, get people to stand outside the church and lobby for the other side. They can’t stop you without stopping both sides.
BY THE WAY, LURLEENI object to your snotty, and attacking tone.
Who appointed you the OFFICIAL ARBITER OF APPROPRIATE AND ALLOWED TACTICS?
I suggested a tactic for those in your area to use if they chose to do so.
You respond with threats that you will
I want to be completely clear that I understand your position.
You claim that I can’t make tactical suggestions to you, but you can retaliate by sending your goon squad to sabotage our efforts.
Do I understand your position correctly?
no, you don’t understand my positionif you think i’m posturing as some arbiter of whatever. please reread my comments and note the qualifiers implanted therein.
do you honestly think i’m out to sabotage your equality efforts? really?
it would be greatif you could write up a diary talking about what you all are doing in dallas with your church protests, how it came to be organized, the outcome(s) both short and long-term, or whatever you think is important to tell about those experiences. we’ve all engaged in lots of theoretical debate over the years as to whether this sort of protest is desirable and productive, and there have been a few sensationalized news stories here and there, but i’ve never heard any first-hand accounts. it would be great if you could give us some first-hand insight into your efforts.
Some *priests* do……or at least they try. The hierarchy tends to show their disapproval by assigning them to “parishes” in the middle of the Sahara, or occasionally removing them from the priesthood entirely.
true.i remember one or two in massachusetts who refused a direct order by the archdiocese to circulate an anti-equality petition. they were fired i think. so you’re right that occasionally a priest pushes back. however, this has no lasting effect on the church’s stance or how the local parish is run. they just replace him with someone more pliable. true also that some parishoners may become disgusted and walk, but if people haven’t left the church in meaningful numbers since the whole priest-pedophile complex has been revealed, it’s hard to believe that many will walk due to the appearance of referendum 71 petitions one sunday.
Yep.
it’s a better tacticto point out the fact that the official stand against condoms or any form of birth control has nothing to do with anything other than the “creation” of new tithers, and the gay just doesn’t apply. . .they refuse to acknowlege that there are Gay families . . .many who are adopting the children that they are responsible for.
LOL ..go closet stealth. . .sorry, my answer to that tactic would be NO.
I think I am with you Marlene… and I am a Catholic.I like oldbrit's idea. The church I used to attend is affiliated with a K=8 school, and we have a Newman center, as we are a college town too. All our priests have been pretty open about 'worldly' affairs. Ture I haven't been in a few years, but I do not remember them saying anything about gays before that.May just attend and listen, and I think that is a wonderful way to protest whatever you want to in a church service, with emphasis, but minimal disruption.
Yep, too snotty here Lurleen.You are NOT the arbiter of how anyone in Washington does or does not want to protest anything.
What they’re saying and what they’re doing are inconsistent with each other
There already exists a way for the Catholic Church to oppose unjust discrimination while honoring their religious dogma:
Support marriage equality laws in the state of Washington [to oppose unjust discrimination]
Refuse to perform the religious sacrament of marriage and/or acknowledge valid civil marriages between SS couples in the Catholic church [to uphold their view that only a marriage between a man and a woman is acceptable to their faith]
It’s really very simple.
very well statedthank you for summing it up so neatly!
Yes, that’s exactly what I think – because it is what you said.You told me I had no right to make suggestions to people in Washington and threatened to send “obnoxious outsiders” to sabotage what we are doing if I dared to make suggestions of which you didn’t approve in the future.
You didn’t read what I saidI said that, if the priest pushes the bigot agenda and that causes protests during services, that the parishioners will want the protests to stop, and if the protests continue, they will eventually leave and go to another church or push the priest to shut up about politics and do his job.
It has nothing to do with catholic theology and I have no right to criticize their theology since I am not catholic.
But, I do have a right to protest catholic political positions and when a priest pushes laws that enact bigotry, I have the right, and a moral obligation, to protest his behavior in exactly the same way I would protest a CEO who opposes environmental regulations so he can pollute the environment. Protests of this nature are generally done at the workplace of the person pushing the political agenda. That would be the offices of a business, their stores, shareholder meetings, etc. In the case of a catholic priest, it would be at his church.
Well, ggw59That’s exactly what the right-wingers do to liberal churches.
Please note that the point of being stealth about it is so that they won’t pull punches because you are there. Do you really think they’d push their political agenda if a visitor in the congregation wore his IRS employee’s badge on his lapel?
Maybe so, but imagine how much more violence there would be if more religions joined the battle.Pagans haven’t started any wars lately. Nor have Buddhists or Sikhs or Bahai. Imagine if we all started acting like some other folks…
someoneneeds to lay off the sauce. I’ve been sober since Billy Joel liked me just the way I was, so I’m pretty sure it’s not me.
That wouldn’t workI think the “pedophile priest” line doesn’t work, no matter who is using it.
The Catholic church for many years ignored the problem. Up to the mid-1980′s, the American hierarchy believed that repentance, a period of time on retreat for quiet reflection, and the pedophile priest would be rehabilitated and able to resume pastoral duties. The US Catholic Conference became aware by the mid-80′s that this simpistic spiritually-based wishful thinking did not work. They continued doing it anyway until the scandal broke.
The Church hierarchy had and still has a “sweep things under the rug” philosophy that they think avoids “creating a scandal in the Church.” That is why they threatened the families of pedophile priest victims in order to keep them silent, and transferred priests to unsuspecting new pariahes. (That is also why they threw a gay couple out of a Bronx parish choir after they got married in Canada, and why they threw me out when I started transition,)
The Church blames its pedophile priest problem on homosexuality, and started a witch humt against gay priests. That is and was a bad idea – many priestly vocations have historically come from gay Catholic mn who saw the priestly celibacy requirement as an aid to their attempts to sublimate their natural carnal desires (the Church still teaches that gays are called to be celibate, to “take up the cross and suffer like Jesus”).
Gays permeate the priesthood and the hierarchy – and many of them suffer from the sort of homophobia one might associate with J. Edgar Hoover – keeping their own selves severely closeted.
The real problem is mandatory celibacy for priests. There is an adage, the gist of which is that the parish priest either fools around with girls (or with the housekeeper or widows and divorceees that are “counseling”) or fools around with boys (or with other priests, or live a “secret gay life”), or “sublimates” the libido by drinking way too much. That’s more true than the hierarchy will admit.
The Church is adamant about retaining priestly celibacy, despite the salutary effect allowing married priests would bring – the percentage of pedophile priests would drop significantly, even if the numbers wouldn’t reduce that much. The Church would also be able to remove pedophile priests from parish settings. Blaming gay priests for the pedophile problem is a mistake – only a small percentage of gay priests are pedophiles, about the same percentage of straight priests are also pedophiles.
Having been in a Catholic seminary for three years, I know that some seminarians in my seminary in the 1960′s-1970′s were asked to leave because psychological profiles indicated they might have gay tendencies. Years later, I learned that one of the priests at the seminary was a pedophile (it was covered in the New York Times) – he decided to deal with his pedophilia by seeking out young-looking men who could prove they were over the age of consent, but still got into trouble in New Orleans. I know priests who have left to get married to women, and another couple of gay priests who left their order together and moved to Nyack. (Everyone in the parish knew that one of our priests was involved with a priest from a nearby parish, but they were both good priests!) I know one priest who had a longstanding affair with a nun (also a friend), and then who left the priesthood to marry another woman.
I am sure your suggestion was not serious – the Church doesn’t want priests marrying anyone at all, and certainly not their pedophile priests. Despite their years of sweeping this sort of thing under the rug, the Catholic Church hierarchy really does not approve of the pedophiles in their ranks. They may have the wrong idea about how to eradicate the problem, and I still suspect they have the “avoid a scandal in the Church” mentality that only leads to the scandals being much larger when they do break.
Pedophiles are attracted to professions that involve contact with children – like priests, counselors, coaches, teachers, scoutmasters, etc. It is no surprise that there are Catholic priests who are pedophiles. The Church’s historical response has been very poor and is still badly managing the issue.
Expect the possibility of arrests for trespassing and disrupting the serviceThis has been done before, at places like St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City. Let’s see, charges can include trespass and disorderly conduct. Only those willing to “pay the price” for civil disobedience should engage in such activity. If it is planned in advance, expect the particular church to be prepared and police to be on hand. Depending on the locale, do not expect “white glove” treatment from the police (unless the whole thing is orchestrated in advance with the police, which in some jurisdictions can be arranged!).
The church grounds are private property – freedom of expression has limits, and owners of places like churches, shopping malls and other private property can limit freedom of expression on their property.
An unplanned protest by a couple of people might work, but it might not (police could be waiting outside at the end of the service).
I am not suggesting that people don’t engage in this form of protest – just expect that an arrest and some jail time will ensue.
I think I agree with LurleenLook – it isn’t about not doing this form of protest, it is about being prepared for the consequences. Civil disobedience is a legitimate form of protest, but it does mean dealing with the possibility of arrests, conviction, and jail time. Only thiose who are prepared for the possibility should engage in this.
In the US, “freedom of speech and expression” can be limited on private property.
The Catholic catechism is schizophrenic . . .On the one hand, no unjust discrimination. On the other hand, the Church cannot appear to condone homosexual behavior.
The sad thing is that the Church’s official policy is to interfere with the American political process.
The Vatican is a secular power with which the United States maintains diplomatic relations. Every Catholic bishop and priest should be required to register as the agent of a hostile foreign power.
JOANNI object to putting a tactic out there and then being eviscerated, attacked, and threatened by THE ARBITER OF ALL OPINION IN THE UNIVERSE, HER HIGHNESS LURLEEN.
Your point is well taken. suffering the consequences of civil disobedience willingly and with dignity is a well understood.
If no one protested for fear of the consequences, there would be no protests.
I’ve been escorted off property, arrested, tear-gassed, and suffered other indignities while protesting. If we aren’t willing to endure those consequences, none of us deserve liberty or rights.
What’s your problem?Apparently, you are a member of Lurleen’s Proper and Allowed Opinions Patrol.
How dare you accuse me of being drunk for disagreeing with you!
Pull your head out of your colon and grow up.
Hey!
What’s going on?Lurleen and ggw59 have been attacking me for making comments with which they disagree.
Liz