Religious Freedom (2): The mendacity of Cardinal Dolan

USA today

People who tell  lies get away with it because those who know better do not challenge them.  We need to call them out wherever possible.

This lie come to us from  Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York,  an avuncular engaging and highly intelligent man who will soon be elevated to Cardinal.

He is a passionate opponent of rights for gay people.    Speaking about the recent passage of equality in New York, Abp Dolan tells lies:

But "no sooner was the ink dry,"[Dolan] said, than priests throughout the state started coming to him with stories of couples threatening to sue if they didn't agree to rent out their parishes for same-sex weddings.

This is prima facie a lie.  It's not possible.  Why?  Because the NY equality law explicitly states:

…[A] religious entity  … shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.  Any such refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action or result in any state or local government action to penalize, withhold benefits or discriminate against any such religious corporation, benevolent order or not-for-profit corporation.

Abp Dolan knows perfectly well that he has full freedom to refuse to marry anyone for any reason.  After all, his church considers civil marriages between divorced people to be invalid and refuses to perform them.  Yet you don't seem him advocating to prevent such civil marriages, or claiming that the divorced are suing to get into his churches.

While the US Conference of Catholic Bishops attempts to enforce Roman Catholic dogma on civil law, it's important to pushback against their efforts to claim victimhood.  Religious liberty is not being infringed.  Indeed, it's being protected.  What's being curtailed is his  privilege of claiming that the Roman Catholics speak for all.

They do not.   Many many faithful Christians disagree with Abp Dolan, including a majority of his own laity who support marriage equality!


Archbishop (soon Cardinal) Dolan has used offensive comparisons to describe gay people, and written threatening letters to President Obama demanding that gay people should not have the civil right to marry.  But the only religious freedom being crushed is the the religious freedom of LGBT people who worship in supportive religious denominations that support marriage equality.

Abp Dolan is free to oppose marriage equality.  But if he uses lies and degrading language, we need to keep calling him out on it.  Politely, but firmly.

Update:  he's none too nice to child abuse victims either.  Read the shocked comments to this post on Abp Dolan's blog.

Gov Andrew Cuomo calls for equality nationwide

From the NYTimes:

Shifting his sights beyond New York in a way he has not done before, Mr. Cuomo demanded that the federal Defense of Marriage Act be repealed. His voice rising in intensity as he spoke, he also called for federal legislation that would bar discrimination against gay men and lesbians in housing and employment.

And in his most forceful terms to date, Mr. Cuomo called for his counterparts across the country to embrace what he framed as an issue of equal rights and to push for the legalization of same-sex marriage in their own statehouses.

“We need marriage equality in every state in this nation,” Mr. Cuomo said. “Otherwise, no state really has marriage equality, and we will not rest until it is a reality.”

Suit in New York to nullify marriages

Driven to desperation by the pictures of joyful couples, those opposed to equality seek any opportunity to hurt their fellow human beings. The NYTimes:

The group, New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, alleges that the Senate violated the state’s open meetings law in the run-up to the vote on the marriage bill and acted improperly in closing the Senate lobby to members of the public.....

The complaint (see also below), which is to be filed in State Supreme Court in Livingston County, where Mr. McGuire lives, states: “The plaintiffs in this case seek to preserve not only marriage as the union of one woman to one man, but also our constitutional liberties by acting as a check on an out-of-control political process that was willing to pass a bill regardless of how many laws and rules it violated.”

A spokesman for Mr. Cuomo, Josh Vlasto, said the lawsuit had no merit.

NOM will protest NY marriages

When NY gay couples start to tie the knot, our friends at NOM will be there protesting. Always a class act, NOM. Right out of the the Phelps family guidebook.

From The Advocate:

When gay couples in New York start legally getting hitched July 24, the National Organization for Marriage plans to crash their weddings with a series of protests.

The group, which lobbied against passage of the marriage equality bill signed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, announced the rallies Friday on its website. Protests are so far being planned in Albany, Rochester, Buffalo and New York City.

They are also going to try a Prop8 run at amending the NY state constitution to overturn equality.

Equality update/FAQ

In the wake of New York's landmark decision, and based on conversations around the blogs, I thought I would give you an update on marriage equality battles.

Will married gay couples from NY be recognized elsewhere?

• No state will be required to recognize marriages performed in New York. Like my marriage in CA, or same sex marriages from MA, the marriages in NY will be legally invisible in over 30 states. This is thanks to section 2 of DOMA (the defense of marriage act) which states explicitly that no state has to recognize a gay couple.

But I thought that DOMA was overturned by the Department of Justice

• No. The DoJ is not defending DOMA in court, but it remains the law of the land and is still enforced. There are at least 6 DOMA cases pending in different circuits of the federal courts. These have all challenged section 3, which forbids the federal government from recognizing legally married gay couples, like me. DOMA was already found unconstitutional in the 1st circuit, but that's being appealed. Unless and until it gets to the Supreme Court (SCOTUS), however, individual decisions will only affect the states within that federal court circuit. 

• There is a bill that would repeal DOMA being put forward in Congress ("Respect for Marriage Act"), which led to a moving hearing on July 20. Despite that, it is unlikely to go very far because of Republican opposition.

How does this relate to the Prop8 case?

• The Prop8 case addresses the right to marry, NOT whether it will be recognized (as in the DOMA cases). Briefly: In California in 2008, the State Supreme Court found for marriage equality (and overturned Prop22, which had made a law forbidding it). However, 8 months later, Prop8 was approved by the voters, this time amending the state Constitution to forbid equal marriage. The State Court agreed that the voters had that right under the state Constitution, but determined that aside from the name "marriage," gay couples should have all the rights of marriage. It also determined that the 18,000 couples married in the "summer of love" were still legally married.

• A case was then brought in federal court arguing that Prop8 violated the US Constitution. Judge Vaughn Walker agreed. That case was appealed to the 9th circuit, where there are two issues to determine. The first issue is whether or not the appellants (the supporters of Prop8) have standing to appeal. Confusingly, this turns on an issue of state law regarding propositions, so the 9th circuit has asked the State Supreme Court to advise them. (The state court will hear the argument in the fall). The second issue, assuming they have standing, is whether the decision was sound. Ultimately, either or both of these issues will be appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS).

• Meanwhile, in a side-show typical of the whole case, the Prop8 supporters filed a different argument against Republican-appointed Judge Vaughn Walker, who in a delicious bit of irony, is gay. Their claim that this rendered him unable to judge impartially was dismissed by the court. Naturally, they are going to  appeal.

Is New York the first legislature to support marriage equality?

• No. New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Maine, and California legislatures all passed equality. In Maine, it was overturned by voter referendum, and in California, then-Gov Schwarzeneggar declined to sign it.

What about the voters?

• If you had asked the electorate in Alabama in 1960 whether they supported civil rights, probably the schools would have remained segregated. Sadly, in no case where equality has been left to the voters, have they passed it. Upcoming  elections in 2012 will include Minnesota and North Carolina, and possibly Maine where they will try to repeal the referendum that overturned equality. Right now it looks unlikely that we will go to the ballot in CA next year.

A classic image of liberty and justice

This image comes from the Village Voice in 2004, by the artist Mirko Ilic. Seems appropriate to replay it here.

Equality in NY!!!!

from the Prop8trialtracker:

Just now, the New York State Senate voted to legalize same-sex marriage! The vote was 33-29. Since the Assembly passed the bill, it will go to Gov. Cuomo’s desk, where he will enthusiastically sign it (and kudos for his hard work on this). The measure cannot be repealed at the ballot.

And the EMpire State Building shows its colors....

At the wire in New York. Whose religious liberty?

The marriage equality bill in New York right now is stuck in GOP conference while they debate bringing it to the floor. The GOP is the majority party. The bill needs 32 votes, and some of them will have to come from the Republicans.

NOM, the Catholic Church and other opponents of equality are trying to prevent the bill from even being voted on. The Republican caucus is in a bad place, though, because polls show New Yorkers favor equality, and the equality advocates have made it clear that the Republicans will pay electorally if they refuse the vote.

As Paul Schindler writes

,I have to reflect on an emotion I’ve experienced separate from anxiety and anticipation. Namely, irritation….the larger measure of my frustration comes from the unpalatable experience of sitting and waiting day in and day out while a nearly opaque political dance unfolds that is, in fact, a referendum on my dignity as a citizen. The fact that my equality –– which according to core American values is God-given or, in more secular terms, mine by right of birth, should be in the hands of elected officials who show such cavalier disregard for basic notions of fair play and equal treatment is a truth I will never be able to accommodate myself to.

The big fear that the opponents play on is "religious liberty". They want the right to use YOUR dollars to discriminate against YOU. The idea that a pair of flouncing gay men in feather boas will waltz into a Catholic church and demand to be married! Oh, the horror! But the whole concept is ludicrous, a red herring.

The FACT is that clergy of whatever denomination have total discretion in who they marry. It's why Roman Catholics who are divorced cannot sue Monsignor for a church wedding. It's why the orthodox Rabbi can decline to marry a mixed faith couple. It's why the Imam can refuse marriage to a couple not of his congregation.

THERE IS NO WAY a gay couple could FORCE a church to marry them. What this is, is simply a fear tactic, crude but surprisingly effective, to scare little old blue hairs into thinking that Teh Gayz are going to march into their church and have orgies in the aisle.

IT'S A LIE.

BUT if churches and religions are given such wide latitude to define Who's in and Who's Out, shouldn't they be happy to keep that wall of separation?

You see, the issue isn't being forced to marry the homos. The issue is trying to keep their hands in the cookie jar of Federal largesse while actively discriminating against fellow citizens. You don't get it both ways. (More details on this from jarred's blog here.)

And it's very lucrative for religious groups to receive money to do things like adoption, etc. But it insupportable that they should be given the RIGHT to discriminate in the civil sphere. Discriminate all you like within the walls of your church/temple/synagogue. But in the public square, all citizens are equal.

Susan Brooks Thistlewaite writes:

The 'pre-emptive' discrimination against gay families on the part of Catholic Charities shows why a "wall of separation" (Jefferson) between church and state was, and remains, such a good idea. Indeed, it would be a big mistake to "exempt" religious organizations that receive government funding and allow them to discriminate against some Americans because of their religious beliefs. Just stop giving taxpayer dollars to religious organizations for them to distribute. That will solve the problem. If we keep church and state separate, these issues do not arise….

Jesus said basically the same thing when he advised, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's..." It's good advice. Caesar's money, Caesar's rules.

So let's be clear. The only religious freedom being impinged in New York or anywhere, is the freedom of supportive congregations to legally marry gay members.

(Cross posted at Friends of Jake)

Down to the wire for marriage in NY

The New York State Assembly has passed marriage equality. Now, it's up to the Republican-controlled Senate, which hasn't even decided whether to bring the issue to the floor (which must be done by Friday). We need 32 votes. We have 31. One more GOP-er must vote in favor. If it passes the Senate, the Governor has sworn to sign it.

Roman Catholic Archbishop Timothy Dolan has written what some call a diatribe claiming that HIS view of religion supersede all others (see my Daily Kos diary for my comparison of Abp Dolan's drama, with the sensible words of pro-marriage equality Episcopal Bishop of Long Island.)

The fig-leaf is "religious freedom" but the question is whose? As pointed out in this NY Times Op/Ed,

Several senators also have religious concerns, intensified by powerful opposition to same-sex marriage from Roman Catholic Church leaders and some rigorously Orthodox rabbis. The proposed legislation provides for what are called “carve-outs”: Members of the clergy who object to such marriages would not be obligated to perform them or to allow their houses of worship to be used for them.

Why such language is deemed necessary is somewhat perplexing. Where is it now written that priests, ministers, rabbis or imams must preside over ceremonies that violate their consciences? Plenty of them won’t have anything to do with interfaith marriages; nobody seems to consider their refusal a human rights violation.

A different Times article points out that the Republicans are between a classic rock-and-a-hard-place.

If the measure does not pass now, Republicans could face political challenges on two fronts: an array of angry and well-financed gay-rights groups seeking to unseat Republican incumbents in the elections next year, and potential attacks or primary challenges against Mr. Alesi and Mr. McDonald from the right.

If you are in New York, please contact your Senator-- it is urgent that you do so (if you aren't in New York, please don't call. They don't care what people out-of-state think, they care what their constituents think.) These are the most likely swing votes:
Sen. Greg Ball (Putnam County) (518) 455-3111
Sen. Joe Griffo (Utica) (518) 455-3334
Sen. Mark Grisanti (Buffalo, Grand Island, Niagara Falls) (518) 455-3240
Sen. Andrew Lanza (Staten Island) (518) 455-3215
Sen. Jack Martins (Nassau County/Garden City) 518-455-3265

Bloomberg on Marriage

Mayor Bloomberg in New York has stepped it up.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, declaring that “near-equality is no equality” for gay couples, delivered an uncharacteristically forceful and sweeping speech on Thursday in which he called on New York to “lead the American journey forward” by legalizing same-sex marriage this year.

Directly addressing an issue that is roiling the State Legislature in the final weeks of its annual session, Mr. Bloomberg said that the state’s inaction on same-sex marriage was incompatible with its long history of promoting freedom and tolerance. He invoked the riot at the Stonewall Inn in the West Village almost 42 years ago, widely viewed as the birthplace of the modern gay rights movement, as an example of the role that New Yorkers can play in shaping history.

“We are the freest city in the freest country in the world — but freedom is not frozen in time,” he told a crowd of about 200 at the Cooper Union in downtown Manhattan.

The article goes on to point out that Bloomberg is a major campaign donor to the Republicans in the state house in Albany.

Civil Union Bait and Switch: it's not the same

In Rhode Island, they don't have the votes for marriage, but might have the votes for civil unions, even though both sides dislike them. In New York, CUs are also being offered by some as "compromise" as the battle heats up for equality. Ted Olson and Eric Schneiderman write in the NY Daily News:

Unlike the universally accepted concept of marriage, employers, businesses and individuals simply do not know how to treat civil unions. Several states have experimented with these so-called compromise solutions and have already reached the conclusion that they just don't work....

A civil union is not a marriage, nor is it an adequate substitute for one. To suggest otherwise is a cruel fiction. Even if all of the inherent confusion and complexities could be resolved and civil unions could somehow provide couples with the same rights and responsibilities of a true marriage, the separation of the two institutions creates a badge of inferiority that forever stigmatizes the relationships of committed same-sex couples as different, separate, unequal and less worthy.

Time and time again, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that marriage is one of the most fundamental rights that we enjoy as Americans under the Constitution. It's a right older than the Bill of Rights and older than our political parties. It is the foundation of society. The time to grant the right of marriage to all New Yorkers is now.

Great article, which includes some examples of how unions are treated as sub-marriage. Go read it! But don't read the online comments, they are disgusting.

Wealthy NY Republicans support equality

Will this make a difference?

From the NY Times:

As gay rights advocates intensify their campaign to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, the bulk of their money is coming from an unexpected source: a group of conservative financiers and wealthy donors to the Republican Party, most of whom are known for bankrolling right-leaning candidates and causes.

Their behind-the-scenes financial support — about $1 million in donations, delivered in recent weeks to a new coalition of gay rights organizations — could alter the political calculus of Albany lawmakers, especially the Republican state senators in whose hands the fate of gay marriage rests.

Becoming a gay marriage supporter in NY

From the NY Times, NY politician Tom Suozzi speaks out:

I have listened to many well-reasoned and well-intentioned arguments both for and against same-sex marriage. And as I talked to gays and lesbians and heard their stories of pain, discrimination and love, my platitudes about civil unions began to ring hollow. I have struggled to find the solution that best serves the common good.

I now support same-sex marriage. ....

Under current New York State law, same-sex couples are deprived of access to the employment benefits, life and health insurance and inheritance laws that heterosexual couples have. If the state were to institute civil unions for same-sex couples, that discrimination would end, but we’d still be creating a separate and unequal system..... We must see that civil marriage, which has always been separate from religious marriage, will remain so.

But most important, gays and lesbians have suffered too long from legal discrimination, social marginalization and even violence. They are entitled to clear recognition of their equal status as citizens of a country that is founded on the principle that we are all inherently worthy. By delivering a clear message that same-sex couples can no longer be treated as separate and unequal in New York, we will also reduce discrimination in everyday life. We will all be better for that.

Equal civil marriage should, and likely will, pass because of the public’s growing unwillingness to sustain inequality. Society will also be strengthened as more people take responsibility for one another in marriage. I now encourage others who oppose gay marriage to re-examine the reasons they do so, and to consider changing their minds too.

Marriage Equality a Theological Necessity

From the HuffPo

As Christians, we believe it is crucial for us to support the freedom to marry for loving and committed gay couples. In fact, we believe it is a theological necessity, and we call on our state legislators to take action to end inequality now.

Our support for marriage equality is motivated by our religious commitments, not in spite of them. .... As religious communities continue to wrestle with interpretation of sacred texts about the meaning and ordinance of marriage, our gay brothers and sisters deserve the same dignity, respect, and protections under the law as different sex couples receive in our state and our country.

Marriage equality and religious freedom are not in conflict. When states grant the civil rights of marriage to gay couples, religious communities still maintain their right to recognize whichever relationships they see fit as a religious community. ....

In a land of true equality, civil marriage contracts must be open to all loving couples who seek to undertake the promises and responsibilities of life-long partnership.

....We've also learned from nearly five years of marriage equality in Massachusetts that religious freedoms are not endangered because civil equality has been upheld. In Massachusetts the institution of marriage is being strengthened by loving and committed gay couples receiving marriage licenses from the state. ....

Attacks will come, cloaked in the language of religion, from those who oppose equality. But speaking as committed Christian leaders in New York, we support the promise of civil freedom and equality. We cannot abandon civil rights protected by the state without endangering the very ground for religious freedom. .....As people of faith we call for full marriage equality and give thanks to God for the civil government that will allow it.