Civil Disobedience, Religious Right-Style

gysgt, They are not imposing on you, they are talking to their own members, who may impose their beliefs on you just as your are imposing your beliefs on them.

One might make the case for the notion that when government crowds out charitable giving with high taxes & social welfare programs, it is imposing its secular restrictions on all charitable efforts. Perhaps these Catholic institutions wouldn't need government funding if taxes weren't so high.

A. Taxes aren't that high. B. Higher taxes, arguably, are an incentive to give more, since they're tax deductable.

^ 1. True 2. Not true. Look at the effect that the tax cuts had during the 80s.

" .. .. Perhaps these Catholic institutions wouldn't need government funding if taxes weren't so high. ..'

To get a warm meal at some of those government-funded soup kitchens, one has to sing for it - and we don't mean a rhythmic Snoop Dogg ditty.

Have those Catholic Churches thought of doing without the funds and constraints of a government contaminated with satans, pagans, hypocrites, adulterers and other evil creeps? [After all, God will provide for the good works, right?]

The church's religious practices may come in conflict with its employment practices. If employers are required to provide insurance, and insurance is also required to provide abortion, this may be unacceptable to Catholic churches.

I consider myself left of center, support civil unions, and am a member of the ACLU.
.
I also (deep breath) agree with just about everything in your post. Williams/Jefferson's Wall of Separation was meant to protect religion from government, not the other way around. The Establishment Clause has been completely misused and misinterpreted in Supreme Court cases since the mid-1800s. And while I think most of your posts are fueled in part by paranoia, I think it may actually be justified in this instance.

The initial founding of this great country was for protection of religious practices against persecution. That is a fact

My goodness you are a buffoon. The first European settlers crossed the ocean for financial profit, not religious persecution. It wasn't until the Massachusetts Bay Colony was chartered (some 115 years after Ponce De Leon landed in Florida) that waves of Puritan migrants started coming to New England. Furthermore, the American colonies revolted against King George primarily because they lacked representation on financial and trade issues. I really shouldn't have to explain this to you. Your ignorance of reality knows no bounds. That is a fact.

"Furthermore, the American colonies revolted against King George primarily because they lacked representation on financial and trade issues."
.
Um, religion played a major role in the American Revolution. Here read this from the Library of Congress. http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html

Religion was not the primary impetus for the American colonies revolt. Your link reinforces this. Religion was often used as a means to promote the cause de jour, the revolution in this case, as the work of god. Clearly, not a whole lot has changed in that regard.

Sigh. I don't have the time to debate here all day. If you really want to explore religion's role in the revolution with exhaustive references and footnotes, I highly recommend Columbia Law Professor Philp Hamburger's book Separation of Church and State - http://www.amazon.com/Separation-Church-State-Philip-Hamburger/dp/0674013743/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258734792&sr=8-2

"But, Religious Leaders do have the Constitutional right to forbid Government involvement in their religious practices, period. "

Right on, rusty. That explains why neither states nor the federal government can interfere with the Mormon practice of polygamy. Period.

In real life, the issue of what is a religious practice can be very difficult to resolve. If I organize a religion that requires the annual sacrifice of a virgin to propitiate the gods, is that sacrifice a religious practice? Does that depend on other trappings of my "religion"? How would YOU decide that question?

In real life, the issue of whether something that qualifies as a religious practice can be banned is also very difficult to resolve. Even if you assume that the annual sacrifice of a virgin is a religious practice, that doesn't necessarily mean that the government cannot forbid it. Again, consider Mormon polygamy.

It may comfort you to live in a world of absolutes, rusty, but I think most people prefer reality.

@alaskanturkey

I understand that religion played a part in the American revolution. I was merely refuting rusty's assertion that American revolution was born solely of religious matters. Clearly that is not the case.

To what extent separation of church and state is explicit or implied is largely unimportant, I think. The precedent has been set. We have a secular government. Perhaps some would prefer a theocracy of some sort, but that is strictly forbidden.

The truth of the matter is that religious groups in this country have the right to sanction whatever unions they want. That is a good thing.

Oh poor little hotbbq and bobell. I didn't claim that the ONLY thing this country was founded upon was religion, but it was a major factor for the immigration of MOST ALL immigrants to this country in the early years. They sought out religious freedom above all else. There are countless stories that will substantiate my assertion.
.
This is why debates with left leaning liberals for the most part are futile; they are always striving to change history in order to justify their own claims. If they cannot use history as a reason, then they will simply pass legislation so that their justification for their lifestyles and beliefs are in their own minds, justified.
.
But, thankfully they are not on this earth for eternity, just for the moment in time overall. The same that their new laws can and will be changed by future generations when they realize how miserably wrong they were to be passed to begin with.
.
My main argument is Amy's assertion that the fears from those who have concerns about further erosion of their religious beliefs are simply "scare tactics" by their religious leaders.
.
As I pointed out, mark it in your book, soon in those States which have passed gay marriage, there will be lawsuits against those Churches and Snyagogs which will not participate in marriage ceremonies for a couple that is gay.

Rusty, please. You said right in your post that religion was the reason for the revolution. Where are your sources? Are you always complaining about lack of references? Most all immigrants? Did you pull that out of the Bible?

"It is just a matter of time before you see the first court case that will end up in the Supreme Court that will attempt to demand that Churches or Synagogs perform a marriage ceremony for gays and lesbians"

Slippery sloep and impugning bad faith to your political opponents. Nicely done.

In real life, gay people are more interested in living their lives than suing churches who have yet to enter the 21st century. And even if gay couple X does sue church Y for access, the ACLU is going to be on the side of free-practice. Gay couples have a right to get married, but they certainly don't have any more of a right to use the First Baptist Church of God than the Jewish couple across the street.

Hey, rusty. Your "reply" to me (posting 3.8) responds to something I never said and fails even to allude to what I actually did say. (Read it again, paying attention this time, and see if that's not the case.) Perhaps you failed to contradict me because you couldn't. Perhaps you'll infer that I am now trying to bait you into responding to what I did say, as opposed to what I didn't, but that's not what I'm up to. Actually, all I'm trying to do is point out that you literally don't know what you're talking about -- or what I'm talking about, for that matter.
.
Feel free to use this brief comment as provocation for another lengthy rant unanchored in any sort of reality. (It's not as if I can stop you.) I, in turn, will try to limit my future responses to pointing out your obvious errors, like the one that led me to reply to you in the first place.

And what's with describing Chuck Colson, a Watergate conspirator, Nixon crony and author of Nixon's enemies list as just another evangelical thinker? The dude's a criminal.

Well, Colson did his time, which is more than you can say for the criminals in the Bush administration. And I have to say that his work in prison reform has had good elements to it that cut against the conservative mainstream, like being against mandatory sentencing and the warehousing of non-violent criminals that often results. There was a time when he was actually even considered a conciliatory voice within the evangelical community, but he has become more and more strident over the years and this is just the latest evidence of that. Whatever he repented for when he was born again, it wasn't neo-con B.S.

Your comment about a "deeply religious commitment to the free market" made me recall that Jesus publicly whipped the free market when they set up shop in the temple.

Ha! Although one could argue that Jesus was actually breaking up an illegal monopoly designed to gouge people coming to fulfill their religious obligations! Oddly, illegal monopolies seem to be fine with those who invoke the "Free Market" as the solution to every problem. but I digress…

"But if they take federal funds and operate in the public sphere, then yes they have to comply with the laws."
____________________
We might not be able to insist on that requirement when it comes to abortion services. President Obama has pledged to sign a Freedom of Choice Act that would require all U.S. hospitals to provide abortion on demand. This would likely infuriate the Catholic charities that run about one-third of all U.S. hospitals. If they closed up shop, the American health care system would be devastated.

That very last bit is clearly not part of the GOP ideology, either. Note that Sessions has blocked a recent court nomination because that individual ascribes to empathy in law.
.
According to Sessions, if a law is passed that has the consequences of killing millions, then, well, as Rhenquist (blast his soul!) once said:
.
From memory (exact wording is obviously questionable):
.
"If I'm directed to send this country to hell, I will."

"It is too bad that we have a certain group -- the Pary of No and Fear -- who are Advocates of No, Fear, Distortion, hatred and divisiveness."
_______________
Hard to say which party that is. The party of No who refused to send troops to Iraq to fight Al Qaida? The presidential candidate who in 2008 spoke of rising unemployment and rising health care costs as he urged people to vote for him for hope and change? Maybe you mean that divisive party that today controls the Senate and contemplates using the reconciliation process to sidestep debate altogether on the impending health care bill?

The party of No who refused to send troops to Iraq to fight Al Qaida
.
Apparently it's Dirty F--king Liar Friday on Swampland.

I can't even agree with that. Other employers who pay taxes have to conform to non-discrimination laws. Paying taxes doesn't get you out of it. If the law says that employers have to treat same sex couples the same as heterosexual couples then that's the law. It shouldn't matter that you have a religious objection. And why should a religious objection get any more consideration than any philosophical objection? The law is the law.

@destor23 -- Much as I sympathize with your views on this topic, religion has a special status in the American polity by virtue of the First Amendment, which forbids not only the establishment of religion but interference with the free exercise thereof. An entire semester-long law-school class could be built around just that one constitutional provision. The point is that drawing lines and setting boundaries for religion differs from doing the same on grounds of philosophy -- or just about anything else.
.
My view is that when a religious organization engages in commercial activities, it gets no exemption for laws controlling those commercial activities. But I know that this is an oversimplification and that the hard questions involve mixtures of commercial and religious activity. I'd allow a Catholic hospital to refuse to perform abortions, but I'd require it to allow one gay person to serve as next of kin for his/her partner in medical matters. I'd also have a hard time explaining just why that's my position.
.
Reality is complex. Ask rustyreturns.

@bobell:Can't say I like it but thanks for pointing out, quite correctly, the complexities at work. Maybe I should start demanding that the government treat secular humanism as a religion. We have non-profits too!

@destor23: That already exists, doesn't it? It's called Unitarian Universalism.

Where are the "Christian leaders" on militarism?

Try to google the churches position of justifiable war, you will be surprised that the Iraq war didn't meet the cut. I believe that the church said as much.

You grossly misrepresent reality. First, the allegations made against clergy stem from incidents spanning nearly 50 years, from the '50s through circa 2000. There have been approximately 5,000 members of the clergy accused during this time-frame, out of a worldwide clergy of several million. That in itself is enough to discredit any allegations of systematic abuse or institutional complicity in the actions of individuals. Furthermore, to suggest that the Church rejected the law is absurd. During the main years of abuse allegations - '50s through '80s - pedophilia was considered a mental disorder, and treatable. Individual Dioceses within the Church decided to relocate accused clergy to undertake therapy. This was implemented outside the oversight of the Vatican, which did not play a role in these relocation, and was not official Church policy. The US public school system, an institution of the United States government, had this very same response to allegations made against teachers, and it was formal policy. Would you say that the US government also rejected law? Or is this simply a bigoted application with regard to the Church?

Exiled, you gotta' be kidding me:
.
"During the main years of abuse allegations - '50s through '80s - pedophilia was considered a mental disorder, and treatable. Individual Dioceses within the Church decided to relocate accused clergy to undertake therapy."
.
What planet do you live on?
.
1. Are you telling me child molestation and sexual abuse of a minor were not crimes from the `50s through the '80s? Are you suggesting that people weren't prosecuted for those crimes during that period? Seriously?
.
2. The "Church decided to relocate accused clergy to undertake therapy?" You mean relocate them from parish to parish within the diocese so the priest could start anew in a different parish? Because that's what the Church did. They knew these priests were abusing children, but when caught in one parish, they would simply move the priest to another parish. So what are you talking about?
.
Teachers in public schools who pulled such stunts weren't shuttled around from school to school. They were arrested and prosecuted.
.
You're living in some fictional world where the Catholic Church can do no wrong.

1. No, I am saying that pedophilia was viewed as a mental illness as well as a crime. While of course one could be arrested and charged, as often was the case, insane asylums or therapy were often the sentences doled out by the courts.
~~
2. While I am not of the opinion that the Church can do no wrong, you are clearly of the opinion that the Church does all wrong. I stated that priests accused of abuse were relocated (yes to new parishes) while they underwent therapy. You are falsely claiming that the Church was moving alleged offenders around so as to intentionally allow subsequent abuse. Are you insane? You really believe that the Church (what does that mean anyway? Rome had no part in these moves) was engaging in some diabolical plot to set pedophiles upon the unsuspecting masses? It must be you living in a fantasy world.

Exiled at home: "You are falsely claiming that the Church was moving alleged offenders around so as to intentionally allow subsequent abuse. Are you insane? You really believe that the Church (what does that mean anyway? Rome had no part in these moves) was engaging in some diabolical plot to set pedophiles upon the unsuspecting masses? It must be you living in a fantasy world."
.
Questions: If I discover a fox in my henhouse, remove it uninjured, and put it in your henhouse, exactly what have I accomplished? What do you think I was trying to accomplish? What is my responsibility to your hens? Does it matter whether someone else is telling me what to do?
.
And that's just hens, not children.
.
As for Rome, even if it "had no part in these moves," it's still guilty, at a minimum, of losing control of its clergy. (Nor do I think Rome's insistence on celibate clergy -- some former priests of other religions aside -- is a total red herring, but that's for another day.)

Exiled, you are making things up:
..
"You are falsely claiming that the Church was moving alleged offenders around so as to intentionally allow subsequent abuse. Are you insane? You really believe that the Church (what does that mean anyway? Rome had no part in these moves) was engaging in some diabolical plot to set pedophiles upon the unsuspecting masses?"
.
Only someone looking to be offended would assume that's what I was suggesting. The truth is, the Church knew well that these priests would abuse again and they did nothing to protect children in subsequent parishes. Many of these predators were moved five and six times, always with the same results. The net effect of the actions of the Church was to move predators to places where they had new "opportunities" to abuse children and the Church knew this was going to happen.
.
As for Rome's role in all of this, the problem of predator priests has been a worldwide issue. It is not confined to the U.S. In Ireland, the Church did the same things they did in the U.S. -- protected the priests and moved them around when things got too "hot."
.
The concern for children was far down their list of priorities. Protecting the Church and the priests was #1. And, yes, that is policy from Rome. Still is to this day, which is why Cardinal Law, the prelate who oversaw some of the worst sexual violence perpetrated by priests, was rewarded with a position in Rome.

Why does exiled always try and cover up for pedophiles? Is there some deeper personal involvement on his part?

Grollican~
I've never given any cover for pedophiles. I am defending the Church, as an institution and a faith, from incessant attempts to foment prejudices against the shepherd of 1.2 billion souls worldwide for the alleged actions of 5,000.

You should link to a source for your bold claim.

Best I recall, I heard those comments on a NPR story around the time the California Supreme Court legalized gay marriage last year. I also found a similar lawsuit has already been filed in New Jersey.

So that would be no links and no evidence then?

Absurd! Marriage is first and foremost a religious ceremony adopted by the State..

Wonder why there is a right wing? Because there is a left wing. As much as I argue against the far right, they throw this kind of statement right back at me. I can not defend it.

I take it that many posters here do not like religion. Tough, there are many more voters that do.

@allthingsinana

Bullocks. Marriage is a contractual agreement between two people. If it was a sanctioned religious ceremony my wife and I wouldn't have been able to get married as we are both Atheists.

I take it that many posters here do not like religion. Tough, there are many more voters that do.

Not for long. This is what keeps me hopeful.

I take it that many posters here do not like religion. Tough, there are many more voters that do.

Not for long. This is what keeps me hopeful.
>

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. Politically you are on the loosing end of this argument. Your are right there with TEAbaggers giving them political fodder.

I'm not sure if you realized there was a link in there or not, but those of us who don't claim a religion are growing very quickly. I'm not sure if we will ever be a majority, but hopefully reach some sort of critical mass. I don't mind if people wish to indulge in religion. I do mind people not being treated as equals. I'm not sure how being Atheist in anyway relates to TEAbaggers, so I will decline to comment further.

allthings, I you have perhaps a typical American insular view of things. For one thing, we have checks and balances in our government to prevent a majority mob mentality from victimizing the minority. The religious zealots don't like it and the religious statement and banter here is what that is all about. I'm afraid you can't dismiss the issue with the majority will prevail claim. I also think that you exaggerate the size of the religious extremist population.

As for the insular view, I would suggest you check out the standing of religion in Europe, where it matters not in the least, despite a very long history of religious domination. People still embrace religion icons and ceremony, but only in a cultural sense, not as a theological devotion. Those more enlightened people look in aghast horror at the primitive religion of the zealots in the US. That stance will eventually, sooner or later, come even to your neighborhood.

"Not being allowed to marry someone of the same sex as yourself is not discrimination, as it applies to everyone"

Even granting this idiotic semantic argument: Jane can marry John, but Joe can't. This creates two seperate rights: the right to marry a man, and the right to marry a woman, and denies half of the population one, and the other half the other.

"By only sanctioning traditional marriages is the Church intending to ostracize homosexuals? No, it is merely administering a religious ceremony in the capacity that it interprets the celebration to apply solely to a man and a women."

Huh. So, where does the part where the government is forced to favor their interpretation over that of the Unitarian Universalists come in?

"I also think that you exaggerate the size of the religious extremist population. "
>

"Those more enlightened people look in aghast horror at the primitive religion of the zealots in the US. That stance will eventually, sooner or later, come even to your neighborhood."

Hmmmm.... while I admit there are extremes views of the religious right there are also extreme views on the non religious left.

It is views like yours however that leave many, many people uncomfortable with the Democratic Party. It seems that you do don't want or need those who have religious orientation.
.
You also assume that anyone with a view different from yours must be an extremist. This should tell you something, that perhaps you are the one who is extreme.
.
I have said it before and I'll say it again. The Democratic Party would do better to moderate it's policies. To move to the middle and leave the rest of you left and right fight amongst yourself, as it seems to me that you wish to fight everyone.

Who is this "you" to which you refer? Certainly not the Catholic Church, which has opposed every US military operation since WWII.

You've never heard of the Catholic Church threatening to pull their services out of states that have the death penalty, nor did they threaten to withhold charity in the U.S. during any of our wars of convenience, yet at the very first inkling that gays would not be discriminated against in D.C. they make the threat to cut and run.

Threatening? This is simply a declaration that the Church will continue in its doctrine and tradition and will not implement in its practices any legal directive in contradiction to Church policy. It's not a threat to 'cut and run.' If anything, it's a bold 'stand and fight' proclamation. What this has to do with the Church's activities in US states amidst capital punishment and/or war is beyond me, pafro. Your point alludes me at the moment.
~~
And, for the record, the Church's position is not to discriminate against gays. The Church has tolerance and compassion for homosexuals, but rightfully refuses to condone or approve of homosexuality. Not being allowed to marry someone of the same sex as yourself is not discrimination, as it applies to everyone. The Church will accept anyone's marriage if it is between a male and a female, and will refuse everyone's marriage if it is a same sex union. Perfectly even-handed application of doctrine.

Exiled, had to laugh at this:
.
"And, for the record, the Church's position is not to discriminate against gays. The Church has tolerance and compassion for homosexuals, but rightfully refuses to condone or approve of homosexuality."
.
A good friend of mine is a priest and for many years, he was the "disciplinarian" at a large seminary. Much of his job consisted of making sure the gay priests kept their sexcapades to themselves. Even my friend has to laugh at the outright hypocrisy of the Church's continuing battle against homosexuality in light of the vast amount of homosexuality among its priests.

We are so grateful to have here with us today two experts on Catholicism: Pafro, with his "Catholic" grandmother, and Palininatowel, who has a Catholic priest friend. Combined they present an unprecedented insight into the Catholic Church, her doctrine, traditions, and theology. It is quite evident, given their extensive exposure to Catholic people, that their theological/doctrinal expertise is unrivaled. Some may even suggest they are more versed in the tenets of Catholicism than Catholics themselves; quite impressive indeed. Gentlemen, we stand in awe...You now have the floor.

Neo, do you read Commonweal?
.

Gee, Exile, a might defensive, aren't you? I simply related what I had heard from a priest.
.
By the way, what is your expertise on the Catholic Church?

Of course some Church doctrine and tradition are less convenient than others.
.
"A leaked draft of the pastoral letter, “Marriage: Love and Life in the Divine Plan,” has already been criticized for its didactic, abstract, and unimaginative reiteration of church teaching regarding the “intrinsic evils” of contraception and cohabitation, the supposedly dire threat posed by same-sex marriage, and the immorality of technological remedies for infertility such as in vitro fertilization. Characterizing the sexual lives of Catholics who remain unconvinced by the church's teaching on contraception as “dehumanized” and “degraded” is unlikely to gain for the bishops the ear of the laity."
.
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=2703

PNNTO~
No, not really. I find Commonweal to exhort a deluded, feel good, secularists/protestant distortion of Catholicism. It's generally well off the mark.
~~~~
Palininatowel~
I'm not defensive, I am amused. It's always entertaining to hear malignant propaganda levied against the Church and then qualified with the "oh, but I know some Catholics too" statement.
.
And, while I do not, nor did I, contend to be any sort of expert on any subject, I am clearly more understanding of the nuances and intricacies of the Church's positions than you. It's all about making money and protecting authority according to your slant. When in fact, it's about espousing the teachings of Christ, assisting the disenfranchised, countering moral relativism, and building communities. I've never encountered a more well-intentioned entity than the Catholic Church.

"I find Commonweal to exhort a deluded, feel good, secularists/protestant distortion of Catholicism. It's generally well off the mark."
.
Too perfect. Thank you.

Oh and if we have to establish our bona fides I was raised by a mother who IS a theologian and who goes to Mass 6 days a week. Except during Lent when it is Saturdays too.
.
Trust me (or don't) Neo, your understanding of the Church is no where near what you believe it to be.

"It's all about making money and protecting authority according to your slant."
.
Exile, that is not what I wrote nor is it what I think. In the case of the Church's stance on homosexuality, in particular, which is a primary subject of this blog post, I believe the Church is hypocritical. For the Church to claim some kind of moral high ground on resisting laws on gay marriage(as if they'd ever be forced to perform gay marriages which is another specious claim) is hollow given the Church's history and given the number of gay priests.
.
That said, in the case of the pedophile priests, the Church certainly was all about 1) protecting their assets, and 2) covering for the priests. It wasn't until the Church faced financially devastating lawsuits, criminal charges against priests and worldwide negative publicity that the Church even began to do the right -- and moral -- thing.

Not being allowed to marry someone of the same sex as yourself is not discrimination, as it applies to everyone
-
Let me put this bluntly, Neo. You're full of crap on this issue. Just because it applies to everyone doesn't mean it's not clearly intended to be discriminatory. Grandfather closets applied to everyone too, and we all know the intent behind those. Secondly, the policy is clearly aimed at one group of people-homosexuals
-
See dictionary.com on the definition of discrimination. "Distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit"
And that is exactly what refusing to marry homosexuals is discrimination. It is distinction against a class of people based on their orientation. Whether the church has a right to be discriminatory is another issue. Whether this is discrimination is crystal clear: Absolutely.

PNNTO-
As was I, as was I. The difference: I followed suit. You rebelled. And thank you for yet another example of qualifying your bigotry by adding that you were raised by a Catholic, only slightly less irritating than Pafro and Palininatowel's claims to have associated with Catholic thus rendering their anti-Catholic positions infallible.

Palininatowel~
Ok, fair enough. My apologies, I confused you for several others who have repeatedly slandered the Church as a money-making scheme.
~~
As for moral high ground, there is ample evidence that the so-called "scandal" was merely a push-back against a bandwagon movement of accusing priests. I mean seriously, many allegations are decades old, they cannot be proven or disproved either way. Ever wonder how many individuals made allegations to serve their agenda? Make money? Certainly many claims are legitimate and founded. But the extent to which this became a media frenzy and a progressive talking-point is indicative of the politicization of the situation. If this issue wasn't manipulated to further anti-Catholic bigotry in this country on massive grassroots levels, I wouldn't be so vehement in my scorn for those who continue to opine against the Church rather than the offenders.

Ohiolib~
I respectfully disagree. There has to be some intent for discrimination to occur. By only sanctioning traditional marriages is the Church intending to ostracize homosexuals? No, it is merely administering a religious ceremony in the capacity that it interprets the celebration to apply solely to a man and a women. It is rejecting as valid anything outside of that union. Just because some, if they choose to continue a certain behavior, are left out of this fold does not imply discrimination. If, for example, a business bans smoking, is this discrimination against smokers? No, everyone is still welcome so long as their conduct adheres to the business' norms. Smokers are affected by this policy, non-smokers are not. But smokers are not discriminated against. Homosexuals are affected by the Church's policy, heterosexuals are not, but homosexuals are not discriminated against.

Neo-
First, I apologize for calling you full of crap earlier. However, you are following some of the worst logic I've seen outside of freeper and rusty. That said, please look up the definition of "discrimination" This fits it to a T. The smoker analogy is flawed for two reasons1. Smokers have a choice as to whether they can smoke. There is little evidence that people have a choice over their sexuality. 2, a smoker can stop smoking when they go into the shop. A person cannot change their sexual orientation.
-
There has to be some intent for discrimination to occur
And you think there's not here?!?! Tell me: If a church refuses to marry people of the same skin color, is that discrimination? I see very little difference between the two issues.
-
Just because some, if they choose to continue a certain behavior, are left out of this fold does not imply discrimination.

Finally, there is your belief that homosexuality is a choice.. I dare you to find a single credible scientific article stating as much. In the mean time, here are a few articles that back the assertion that people have little, if any, control over orientation.
-
I realize the writing is small, but here's from the APA itself.
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatcauses
-
An article about the influences that hormones appear to have on sexual orientation
http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/1253390
-
More evidence that pre-natal factors influence sexual orientation
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071130165501.htm

Ohiolib-
No worries on your harsh wording, given our past discussions I took no offense. However, as per your last post, I must say, and I do not intend to offend anyone, but I really have little interest in the psyche behind homosexuality. We could debate the choice factor involved in homosexual acts, as there is evidence pointing towards both. Either way it is irrelevant to the larger question of permissibility. There are those who contend that alcoholism is a 'disease' thereby removing the notion of personal weakness. However, there still remains the undeniable detrimental impact of alcoholism, both on self and on family, friends, etc. Addiction is a weakness, brought on through personal choice. Yet, society proclaims it to be a disease. I have little use for social proclamations on such. I follow my instincts, they've proven to be more than adequate thus far. As for discrimination aspect, call it what you will. I guess it could be argued as discriminatory, and further, that the Church is within its rights to do so. The assertions that the Church is imposing its views on legislation is absurd, though. It's merely taking an internal stance on what its response will be were it to be legally required to administer same-sex unions. Again, we could argue on the likelihood of such occurring, but that is besides the point, that being whether or not the Church has a right to deny same-sex unions. I think all reasonable people would conclude that it does. Let's just leave it at that. Neither of us are likely to change our views on the rest.

"thank you for yet another example of qualifying your bigotry"
.
Um, what? Please show my bigotry.
.
That is a pretty serious charge.
.
Not that you take religion or bigotry seriously but on the off chance that you do.
.
"I followed suit. You rebelled."
.
From what? As you understand your faith and as you suppose to understand others?
.
Keep in mind that "Cafeteria Catholic" is a two bladed knife.

PNNTO~
I happen to take bigotry very seriously, hence my recognition that it is ubiquitous in the United States. Anti-Catholicism is pervasive in the US, and regrettably, continues to be wholly acceptable. It is the last acceptable prejudice. Perhaps you are not one of those who condones it, but your past statements and your silence amid blatant bigotry by your fellow ideologues certainly hints to the contrary. To be fair, I'll let you explain your views of Catholicism and the Church.
~
As for "Cafeteria Catholicism," I'm rather confused. You can't be accusing me of such, can you? The worst you can levy at me is that I blindly support the Church's positions without equivocation. Generally, that is a considered a negative. However, with regard to the Church, it is the only path to take. If one is to submit that his/her individual interpretations should supplant 2000 years of theological continuity, than that person has no business proclaiming themselves as Catholic. "Cafeteria Catholics" are those who are selective in their support of Catholic doctrine. I won't succumb to social pressures and water-down my views to conform with 21st century secularism. That's a betrayal of truth and integrity. I endorse Church teaching at all levels. This is not to say that I my actions always align with Church doctrine. No one is perfect. The Church recognizes that individuals with succumb to earthly temptations, we will be less than compassionate at time towards our neighbors, we will be promiscuous, we will be selfish, we will turn to depravity, we will succumb to human weakness, PNNTO. So, in this regard I am not perfect. But, in terms of conviction I stand aside the Church's positions and recognize that through her I may overcome most of human nature's pitfalls. It is in stark contrast to cafeteria Catholicism that I take the position of stalwart ally of the Church.

Indeed, I am for our government cutting off any overt or covert links, monetary or otherwise, to religious organizations and their activities - other than ensuring that laws and regulations (such as, eh, refraining from drinking Kool-Aid) are observed.
After all we are, or claim to be, a secular republic - unlike Saudi Arabia, Iran and some European countries (like UK !).

Disbursing tax-revenues to churches, then pretending that the money doesn't have an impact on the attractiveness, success or vibrancy of churches' religious activities is to be either naive or wilfully misleading - either of which are uncoscionable, eh, sins.

Our communities are choke-full of good-hearted, capable Americans willing to put in the time on social causes, if the government can chip in ...

[Come to think of it, what is the history and level of our government's support for Wiccan groups or Muslim mosques? How does it compare to our support for the activities of the Christian, Jewish religious organizations in USA? It may be noted that the latter groups have contributed more that their fair share of gratuitous blood-letting and loss of life in USA and the world.]