Rep. Paul Ryan Endorses LGBT Adoption, While Newt Gingrich Digs In Against Equality

Paul Ryan

As marriage equality becomes law in state after state, related legal matters like adoption rights for LGBT individuals and same-gender couples are gaining public attention. Catholic public figures are reviewing long-standing positions by the hierarchy anew, with Republican Congressman Paul Ryan  endorsing equal adoption rights and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich speaking strongly against what he perceives as anti-Christian laws.

Rep. Ryan, a Catholic, spoke at a town hall in Wisconsin last week where an attendee questioned him about a poor rating with the Human Rights Campaign, specifically a 1999 vote against allowing same-gender couples in the District of Columbia to adopt. David Gibson reports on the comments at Religion News Service, quoting Rep. Ryan as saying:

“Adoption, I’d vote differently these days. That was I think a vote I took in my first term, 1999 or 2000. I do believe that if there are children who are orphans who do not have a loving person or couple, I think if a person wants to love and raise a child they ought to be able to do that. Period.”

The Wisconsin congressman’s record on LGBT rights is abysmal otherwise, having voted against the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and the Matthew Shephard Hate Crimes Protection Act and vocally opposing marriage equality. Gibson points out that in another shift, Rep. Ryan also claimed:

“…he has “always supported” civil unions. Though there is no evidence to support that, it’s a clear sign that the politics of the issue have changed and that even the most conservative Republicans need to appear more hospitable to gays and lesbians in order to expand their voting bloc.”

You can view the town hall remarks in the YouTube video below:

Last weekend, on the television program Meet the Press, Newt Gingrich, a Catholic, reinforced his opposition to LGBT rights, including adoption by same-gender couples. Gingrich expressed an increasingly common talking point by anti-gay groups who claim that LGBT rights lead to the persecution of Christianity. The Huffington Post quotes the failed presidential hopeful:

Newt Gingrich

“‘But what I’m struck with is the one-sidedness of the desire for rights…There are no rights for Catholics to have adoption services in Massachusetts; they’re outlawed. There are no rights in D.C. for Catholics to have adoption services; they’re outlawed.

“‘Does [supporting LGBT rights] mean that you actually have to affirmatively eliminate any institution which does not automatically accept [homosexuality]?’”

However, another panelist on Meet the Press challenged Gingrich’s claims about Catholic Charities in Massachusetts and D.C. being forced to end their adoption services. The Huffington Post reports:

“Panelist Joy Reid, managing editor for The Grio, countered Gingrich’s argument, saying that Catholic Charities decided on its own to discontinue adoption services, rather than comply with the state’s nondiscrimination laws and provide adoptions for both heterosexual and same-sex couples.”

Pew Forum polling last year showed 55% of Catholics supported LGBT adoption rights, and it is increasingly clear to politicians this number is climbing. Recent controversies with Catholic Charities and relations to government in Palo Alto, California and Denver reiterate that the legal struggles will continue for the foreseeable future. As for the implications on Church politics, David Gibson writes:

“…Ryan, who has touted his Catholic faith as evidence of his social as well as economic conservatism…[has a] significant break with the Catholic hierarchy, which has even shut down adoption services rather than placing children with same-sex couples.

“This could spell more trouble for the Catholic bishops in their battle on gay rights; they have already been losing their own faithful, and losing political allies like Ryan is tough.

“Then again, many would say Ryan’s economic policies were hardly in line with the bishops and Catholic teaching, so there.”

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry

CAMPUS CHRONICLES: George Washington University Students Challenge Catholic Chaplain for Anti-Gay Comments

Blake Bergen

Students at The George Washington University (GWU), in Washington, DC began a campaign last week to institute changes in how the University administers its spiritual care programs, after some complained about anti-LGBT comments from Fr. Greg Shaffer, the Catholic chaplain who administers the University’s Newman Center.

Blake Bergen and Damian Legacy were once active members of the Newman Center at GWU who say they left due to Fr. Shaffer’s anti-gay stance that they say many others considered abrasive and polarizing as well.

In an essay in The Huffington Post, Bergen and Legacy further explain their reasoning in asking for an overhaul of GWU chaplaincy policies. Aware of the tension inherent to respecting religious freedom and free speech at a secular college where diversity abounds, they nonetheless oppose the Newman Center’ messaging:

“[Fr. Shaffer] has a long history of inflammatory comments towards LGBT people in his homilies and fostering a homophobic atmosphere amongst Catholics, and continued his persecution of the LGBT Community last week. While normally a sense of professional respect is observed – as neither of us are Roman Catholic priests- the idea that the Newman Center is entitled to do and believe as it pleases was violated when comments were published on his personal blog and in the student newspaper saying:

“‘Every single rational person knows that sexual relationships between persons of the same sex are unnatural and immoral. They know it in their hearts,’ Shaffer wrote. ‘And, yet, they go against what their hearts tell them when they try to argue for same-sex relationships and ‘gay marriage.’

“While this is simply a taste of the language and sentiments that permeate the Newman Catholic Student Center, the atmosphere spreads to affect those who do not even identify with the center, faith, or seek Father Greg for spiritual advice in the wider University community.”

Damian Legacy

GWU’s student newspaper, The Hatchet, reports on this growing campaign and Fr. Shaffer’s record:

“The former Newman Center members are creating a video with testimony from 10 other Catholic students, who cite Shaffer as the reason they left the chapel…Legacy and Bergen also plan to file a formal complaint with the University and hold prayer vigils outside the Newman Center until Shaffer is removed.

“The students lambasted Shaffer’s counseling sessions, in which he said he advises students who are attracted to members of the same sex to remain celibate for the rest of their lives. They also criticized the priest for a fiery blog post he wrote last May, calling gay relationships ‘unnatural and immoral’ after President Barack Obama came out in support of same-sex marriage…

“Aside from the appeal to GW, Legacy and Bergen will also send letters to D.C.’s Roman Catholic archdiocese, who heads the Church for the entire District and is responsible for choosing priests’ assignments. Legacy will also ask the Student Association to defund the Newman Center as part of the SA’s annual allocations process to organizations April 15. This year, the Newman Center received $10,000 from the SA, which divvies up funds from a budget accumulated through student fees.”

GWU administrators are reviewing complaints filed by Legacy in the Office for Diversity and Inclusion.  They are also reviewing it in the Multicultural Student Services Center, comparing GWU’s policies with other comparable institutions on how chaplaincies are admitted, administered, and overseen to remain in line with the University’s mission. No comments on potential changes or a request for Fr. Shaffer’s removal from the University have been released.

Fr. Greg Shaffer

As a reaction to the campaign led by Bergen and Legacy, conservative students and other supporters of the Newman Center have labeled this a matter of ‘persecution’ of Fr. Shaffer for his views.

In response to these charges, Bergen and Legacy are open about their true intentions and goals:

“Let us be clear, we are not attacking the Roman Catholic Church. We are by no means asking the Church to change its views on same-sex marriage, nor are we seeking validation or celebration of our sexuality by the Church, or anyone for that matter.

“What we ask is to be treated with dignity and respect at our university. We ask that the Chaplain of the George Washington University Newman Catholic Student Center, a man charged with the pastoral care of students by a non-university entity, treat each of us with equal love and value. We ask that our university provide a safe and welcoming environment for every student.

“Can we not agree that our students should be safe in schools and that all bullying should be stopped? Furthermore, as an institution dedicated to acceptance and inclusion should GW not be called to take steps to stop homophobic bullying along with all other forms of bullying? We might not all agree about full celebration and inclusion of LGBT civil rights, but we can all agree that bullying should be considered unacceptable, especially from our spiritual leaders.

“We have been criticized for waging an intolerant attack on civil liberties by speaking out against a religious leader for espousing discrimination and anti-LGBT rhetoric. Hate in God’s name is hate, not religion.”

As the campaign continues at GWU, Bondings 2.0 will update our readers on any developments.

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry

New Report Reveals Conservatives’ Misuse of Religious Liberty Claims

Dr. Jay Michaelson

A new report on religious liberty details the impact conservative Christians, especially Catholics, have had in opposing LGBT rights. A project of the Political Research Associates, the report , entitled Redefining Religious Liberty: The Covert Campaign Against Civil Rights, was authored by Dr. Jay Michaelson,who identifies Catholic far right organizations and the US bishops as primary players in suppressing LGBT equality.

Writing on The Daily Beast, Dr. Michaelson undercuts claims that expanding civil rights is a curtailment of religious liberty by exposing the true purpose of this conservative campaign:

“Today a far-right coalition of conservative Catholics and evangelicals perceive that they have lost the moral battle against LGBT equality, particularly same-sex marriage. And so…they are waging a multi-pronged battle against LGBT rights, not on substantive moral grounds but on the premise that equality for gays restricts the religious liberty of Christians to discriminate against them…

“And today religious-liberty activists claim that bullies are the real victims because they cannot ‘express their views about homosexuality.’ They claim that businesses who say ‘No Gays Allowed’ are being oppressed because they are forced to ‘facilitate’ gay marriages. And they claim that the real targets of discrimination are not gay people, who in 24 states can be fired from their jobs simply for being gay, but employers who can’t fire them…

“Religious liberty is being used to mask a conservative Christian agenda—the same agenda that’s been pushed for half a century now. Some on the far right may sincerely believe their liberties are being threatened, but they believed that about desegregation too. A belief does not make something so.”

Countering this religious liberty argument has been a challenge for progressives.  Francis DeBernardo, Executive Director of New Ways Ministry, examines this challenge in the foreword he wrote for Michaelson’s report.  DeBernardo also published an op-ed about the report on Alternet  which how progressives, especially Catholics, might respond to religious liberty arguments:

Francis DeBernardo

“The power of this [religious liberty] message comes not from the truth or validity of their [conservatives'] claim, of which there is very little to be found, but from the fact that this puts progressives into a quandary. Yet when leaders on the right make that claim, progressives often tread too delicately, for fear that they will be forced to choose between falsely competing values of liberty and equality…

“As a Catholic who works for LGBT equality, my own loyalties to faith and justice sometimes pull me in opposite directions when an argument for religious liberty is raised. As a practicing Catholic, I want to be sure that the government is not going to interfere with my church’s ability to govern itself. As an advocate for LGBT issues, I want to make sure that equality is served…

“One of the most important recommendations in this report is that a strong faith-based response to the religious liberty argument is needed. And long overdue…A faith-based response to religious liberty would help to unearth the hidden gems within faith traditions, which value conscience, equality, and justice.”

Moving forward politically, LGBT advocates can expect this religious liberty argument to remain active given previous successes nationwide. This report, which you can read here, provides one tool that progressive people of faith can employ in reorienting a distorted narrative.

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry

Will Catholic Agencies in Maryland Avoid the New Marriage Equality Law?

A week after Maryland became one of the first states to enact marriage equality through a ballot initiative, some Catholic leaders in the state are starting to consider how the new law will affect the church’s social service agencies, such as adoption programs, which accept state funding.

An article in the Archdiocese of Baltimore’s Catholic Review newspaper examines how several other states which have legalized marriage equality witnessed the withdrawal of Catholic involvement with state contracts, particularly in the area of adoption, rather than agree to live by the new law:

“Catholic Charities in Washington, D.C.; Boston; and San Francisco dropped adoption and foster care services after same-sex marriage’s legalization would have required them to place children with same-sex couples in order to continue government contracts for those services. In Washington, Catholic Charities also discontinued benefits for employee’s spouses.

“Catholic Charities in Illinois dioceses also stopped providing adoption and foster care services after the state began recognizing same-sex civil unions in 2011. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Peoria, Ill., withdrew from state-funded social services contracts altogether.”

The Maryland Catholic Conference (MCC) is expressing concern that Catholic institutions in the state will be faced with a choice about whether or not to accept state funds:

“ ‘According to the actual legislation, religious organizations that accept any sort of state or federal funds are excluded from religious liberty protections,’ the MCC said. ‘They are not exempt, and there are no protections for individuals. Marylanders should not be fooled into thinking we can redefine marriage and still protect religious liberty.’ ”

Surely, Catholic leaders do not have to withdraw ALL support for children in adoption and foster programs as a way of avoiding the new marriage equality law.  It is ironic that church leaders who so forcefully argue against marriage equality as a way of protecting children are now willing to put children at terrible risk because these same leaders refuse to find some creative way to find a workable solution.  The “all or nothing” approach damages not only children, but also Catholic leaders’ credibility who should be people in dialogue with the world around them, not avoiding it.  It would be a true scandal if children become the victims of this struggle.

The Catholic Review story included a quote from your humble blogger , calling for the bishops to make a humanitarian choice in this matter:

“Francis DeBernardo, a coordinator for same-sex marriage advocates Catholics for Marriage Equality for Maryland [and executive director of New Ways Ministry], said it would be ‘a shame’ if any Catholic services in Maryland such as adoption were withdrawn due to the law.

“ ‘I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt. I think it’s a question of equality and fairness,’ he said. ‘The hierarchy of Maryland is going to have to decide what is more important – the protection of children, or the defense of their definition of “civil marriage,” which the voters of Maryland have decided has a new definition, and whether or not they would like to continue to take (state) government funds, or fund their programs on their own. ‘ ”

If Catholic leaders are unwilling to work within the law of the land, they should not sacrifice the welfare of children to do so.  If they feel they cannot work within the law, they should find a way to fund their programs so as not to let the most vulnerable among us be harmed.

Better still would be if they could open their hearts and minds to the reality that lesbian and gay couples can parent as well as heterosexual couples.  All research points to this truth.  Instead of looking at this matter as an ideological struggle, Catholic leaders should view it, instead, as a learning opportunity to educate themselves better about the reality of lesbian and gay lives.

–Francis DeBernardo, New Ways Ministry

 

How Threatened Is Religious Liberty?

LGBT issues are central to the campaign that the U.S. bishops have been mounting to “protect” and “defend” religious liberty.  One example is their argument that laws requiring legal recognition of lesbian and gay couples impinge upon the religious liberty of our church.  One important effect of this religious freedom argument has been that some bishops have closed down adoption services because they claim their faith does not allow them to place children with families headed by a lesbian or gay couple.   Clearly, a scorched earth policy.

Catholics concerned about LGBT equality will be interested to learn that yesterday the U.S. bishops stepped up their campaign about religious liberty, as reported in a New York Times article:

‘The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops issued a proclamation on Thursday calling for every priest, parish and layperson to participate in ‘great national campaign’ to defend religious liberty, which they said is ‘under attack, both at home and abroad.’

“In particular they urged every diocese to hold a ‘Fortnight for Freedom’ during the two weeks leading up to the Fourth of July, for parishioners to study, pray and take public action to fight what they see as the government’s attempts to curtail religious freedom.’

“ ‘To be Catholic and American should mean not having to choose one over the other,’ said the statement, issued by the bishops ad hoc committee on religious freedom. “

The bishops fail to recognize, however, that many, many Catholics have no problem with integrating their faith and national identities, and that they disagree strongly with the bishops’ positions on the so-called “religious liberty” issues such as LGBT equality and access to birth control.

You can read the entire text of the bishops’ statement, entitled “Our First, Most Cherished Liberty” by clicking on the title.

What I found most troublesome was the bishops’ attempt to identify themselves with Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s civil disobedience movement:

“In his famous ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail’ in 1963, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. boldly said, ‘The goal of America is freedom.’ As a Christian pastor, he argued that to call America to the full measure of that freedom was the specific contribution Christians are obliged to make. He rooted his legal and constitutional arguments about justice in the long Christian tradition:

I would agree with Saint Augustine that “An unjust law is no law at all.” Now what is the difference between the two? How does one determine when a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of Saint Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.

“It is a sobering thing to contemplate our government enacting an unjust law. An unjust law cannot be obeyed. In the face of an unjust law, an accommodation is not to be sought, especially by resorting to equivocal words and deceptive practices. If we face today the prospect of unjust laws, then Catholics in America, in solidarity with our fellow citizens, must have the courage not to obey them. No American desires this. No Catholic welcomes it. But if it should fall upon us, we must discharge it as a duty of citizenship and an obligation of faith.”

What is troublesome about this passage is that the bishops themselves have often not allowed any discussion of unjust laws the church maintains.  Their comparison to Dr. King rings hollow and degrades his memory.

An interesting analysis of the bishops’ statement comes from an editorial published by Commonweal magazine within hours of the statement’s release.  What makes this editorial so interesting is that the editors agree that the bishops should be concerned about religious liberty, however, they view their tactics as alarmist, misguided, and potentially perceived as partisan:

“The bishops are right to call for vigilance on behalf of religious liberty. There are influential currents of opinion today that advocate restricting the presence of religion in public life and would reduce religious liberty to the freedom of individuals or congregations to worship as they please. That is not the American way. There should be considerable room for government to cooperate with religious groups as with other non-governmental bodies in serving the common good. Unfortunately, the argument made by the bishops as well as their proposed tactics for public action undermine their case. Worse, the tenor of the bishops’ statement runs the risk of making this into a partisan issue during a presidential election in which the leaders of one party have made outlandish claims about a ‘war on religion’ or a ‘war against the Catholic Church.’

“The USCCB’s statement vastly exaggerates the extent to which American freedoms of all sorts and of religious freedom in particular are threatened. Church-state relations are complicated, requiring the careful weighing of competing moral claims. The USCCB’s statement fails to acknowledge that fact. Worse, strangely absent from the list of examples provided by the bishops is the best-documented case of growing hostility to religious presence in the United States: hostility to Islam. Unless the bishops correct that oversight, their statement will only feed the impression that this ‘campaign’ for religious freedom has been politically tailored. This silence is especially striking in view of the parallels between anti-Muslim sentiment today and the prejudice encountered by Catholic immigrants in the nineteenth century. If religious freedom becomes a partisan issue, its future is sure to grow dimmer, not brighter.  Religious liberty, absolutely. Partisan politics, no.”

Let’s pray that the bishops soon recognize that this type of campaign, in which they portray themselves as victims, is not only unpersuasive, but it further erodes their moral authority and the credibility of all Catholics.

–Francis DeBernardo, New Ways Ministry

Catholics Out in Full Force to Support Maryland’s Marriage Equality Bill

The House of Delegates joint-committee hearings for Maryland’s marriage equality bill went on until 11:40 p.m. yesterday, February 10, 2012. Catholics were prominent in the discussion, including New Ways Ministry’s Sister Jeannine Gramick, Co-Founder, Francis DeBernardo, Executive Director, and Dignity/Washington’s Allen Rose, President.  The transcripts of their testimony appear below.

Martin O'Malley

The first speaker in defense of the bill was Governor Martin O’Malley, a Catholic.  A good summary of his comments can be found in the Washington Blade’s report of the proceedings.  O’Malley’s comments stressed the religious exemptions and religious liberty protections that the bill contains.  (A report on O’Malley’s earlier testimony to the Senate committee hearings can be found by clicking here.)

Heather Mizeur

Maryland Delegate Heather Mizeur, along with her wife, Deborah Mizeur,  also gave testimony, and each touched on how their faith lives of Catholics were intimately connected to their lesbian identities.  The Washington Post‘s account of the hearings cites Heather Mizeur as a nationally recognized leader on the question of marriage equality. The Baltimore Sun’s report of the proceedings leads with a note about Delegate Mizeur’s emotional testimony. (You can watch video of Heather’s debate on marriage equality with another Catholic delegate by clicking here.)

A separate Baltimore Sun preview report of the hearings which appeared on February 9, notes that the fate of the bill rests in a handful of undecided delegates.  This report quotes Catholic Delegate Pam Beidle, who describes that she is torn between the testimony she hears from parents of lesbian and gay people in support of the bill and messages she receives from Archbishop Edwin O’Brien of Baltimore to oppose the bill:

“Beidle finds that her meetings with the parents of same-sex couples are persuasive. ‘If I had a child who was gay, who had a lifelong partner, I’d want them to be happy,’ she said. ‘It is not my job to judge someone else’s moral decision.’

“At the same time, Beidle, a practicing Roman Catholic, says she hears from Cardinal-elect Edwin F. O’Brien, who opposes the bill. He stresses to Beidle the significance of marriage to their shared religious community and the extent to which he believes O’Malley’s bill would undermine that institution.

” ‘This is a difficult issue,’ Beidle said. ‘It is truly fifty-fifty.’ “

Also testifying in favor of the bill were Fr. Joseph Palacios, an adjunct professor of sociology at Georgetown University, and Phil Attey, Executive Director of Catholics for Equality.  Speaking against the bill was Mary Ellen Russell, Executive Director of the Maryland Catholic Conference.

What follows are the transcripts of the testimony of three Catholic leaders who spoke in favor of the bill:  New Ways Ministry’s Sister Jeannine Gramick, Co-Founder, Francis DeBernardo, Executive Director, and Dignity/Washington’s Allen Rose, President.  (Both New Ways Ministry and Dignity are members of the Equally Blessed coalition.)

SISTER JEANNINE GRAMICK, Co-Founder, New Ways Ministry

Sister Jeannine Gramick

 In 1971, while I was doing graduate studies at the University of Pennsylvania in preparation to teach at the College of Notre Dame of Maryland, I met many gay people at the University. I particularly recall one lesbian couple, who were raising two children from one of the couple’s previous heterosexual marriage. I remember the love and concern they had for those children, how their schedules and decisions revolved around what would be best for their son and daughter. I thought that their affection and devotion for these children was surely as strong as the care received by children in heterosexual households.

 This experience made me think. It made me question. It made me change my view of lesbian and gay people. It made me recognize that I could enlarge my understanding of what was “normal.” I began to expand my insights about what really constituted a family. I began to see that it was love, care, and concern that mattered, not gender.

  I speak here today on behalf of the National Coalition of American Nuns and the majority of U.S. Catholics who favor legal marriage for same-sex couples.*   We have changed our views about lesbian and gay people and about marriage. We have expanded our positions to include Marriage Equality, which encourages and supports committed relationships and families. Marriage equality fundamentally strengthens our Catholic values by supporting all our families. Our values are based on Catholic social justice teaching which directs us to work for laws and policies that support human dignity and that nurture the capacity of individuals and families to grow in community. 

I feel sad that some Church leaders, including my own, claim that marriage must be only between one man and one woman, even though many people of faith and a majority of lay Catholics feel differently. Some churches have opened their doors to include lesbian and gay couples in the sacred rite of marriage. Some have not. We are not here to ask churches to change their theology of marriage. No religious leader will ever be forced to choose who can and who cannot be married.  Such interference in religious matters is beyond the reach of the law. 

We are here today to ask the state of Maryland to expand civil marriage for all our families, so that many of the lesbian and gay people I serve, often very religious people, have the opportunity to commit their love to each other and are able to fully support and care for their families. 

I am here today as a Catholic nun, as a person of deep faith, to proudly say that I support HB 438, the Civil Marriage Protection Act and oppose any effort that would alter the Maryland constitution to deny marriage equality.   Thank you.

*Public Religion Research Institute . http://www.publicreligion.org

(You can also watch video of Sister Jeannine’s remarks at a marriage equality prayer breakfast press conference by clicking here.

FRANCIS DeBERNARDO, Executive Director, New Ways Ministry

Francis DeBernardo

A while ago, I worked with a Catholic parish here in Maryland that wanted to welcome lesbian and gay people. They began with a short program of reading and discussion.  One gentleman in the group was not as convinced as the others about this outreach.  After several months of deep conversation where he learned about gay and lesbian families, he had a change of heart.  He learned how gay and lesbian  lives had been affected by unjust laws, oppressive stereotypes, and harmful cultural practices. And he saw how he himself had often been the perpetrator of those offenses, sometimes knowingly and sometimes unknowingly.  He said to me, “You know, when we started this lesbian and gay welcome project, I thought we were doing this for other people, but now I realize that we HAD to do it for ourselves, so that we can be free of prejudices and biases that we don’t even realize we have.” He said that in doing this project, “We’re not just helping others, we’re helping ourselves.”

In this same vein, I encourage you to enact this law, not just for gay and lesbian couples, but for yourselves and for the wellbeing of all in our state.  Passing this law will help us to become a more just community and will create a more stable society where ALL families are protected.  

Marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples is, in the end, about honoring the love and commitment shared between two people and supporting their families.  That is why the majority of Catholics support marriage equality laws.  Even though the Catholic hierarchy, who we respect,  may not support marriage equality, we know our faith teaches that where there is love, there is God. And where there is love, there is the basis for a more healthy and more just society.

Thank you.

ALLEN ROSE, President, Dignity/Washington

Allen Rose

My name is Allen Rose.  I am the president of Dignity/Washington.  25% of our members live in Maryland.  We are a community of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Catholics, our families and friends.  Dignity/Washington serves the spiritual and religious needs of LGBT Catholics in a manner that affirms God’s love for LGBT people, by providing a variety of activities, including a Gay-affirming Catholic Mass every Sunday.  

  I am here today to testify on behalf of the 45 Dignity/Washington members who are citizens of Maryland who are currently unable to marry the person they love.  Some of our members have been in committed relationships for 15 or 20 years, and see in this legislation the opportunity to receive the same rights, benefits and recognition of their relationship that their parents, married siblings and married friends in opposite-sex relationships were easily granted when they decided to marry.   I look forward to the day when any of these 45 citizens who so choose, will be able to marry the person of their choice just like any other loving couple.  Our members in Maryland live in Takoma Park, Baltimore, the Eastern Shore and many other places around the state.

Since I am here representing a community of LGBT Catholics, I want to speak in support of civil marriage equality from a Catholic Perspective.   We are disappointed that the Catholic bishops of Maryland are opposed to this legislation, We know they do not speak for all of the Roman Catholics in Maryland.  As a matter of fact, on this issue, they do not even speak for most of the Catholics in Maryland.  More Catholics support marriage equality than oppose it. 

For an ordained Catholics to speak in favor of this legislation carries professional risks.  Therefore, it is generally up to those of us who have no ordained standing within the Church, but who claim our Catholicism by virtue of our baptism, and who draw strength and support from Catholic traditions and practices, to do our best to attempt to represent those many Catholics who support marriage equality.  A large majority of American and Maryland Catholics now see marriage equality as an issue of social justice.

Since I have been speaking as a Catholic in support of civil marriage equality, I have been talking freely about religion and religious belief. This bill, however, is about civil marriage, not religious marriage.  This bill has strong provisions that protect religions, so that clergy are not required to marry same gender couples.  We at Dignity/Washington agree with, and strongly support this provision of the bill.  This provision further protects private church ceremonies and practices.

Part of our mission at Dignity/Washington is to speak truth to power by giving prophetic witness to the truth that we are all born in the image and likeness of a loving God, and that Gay men and Lesbians are a natural part of God’s plan for humanity.  We preach this message to our own church’s leaders and to society at large.

Dignity/Washington urges the members of these committees, and all of your colleagues in the House of Delegates, to support The Civil Marriage Protection Act of  2012.  It is right and just.

–Francis DeBernardo, New Ways Ministry

Catholics Speak Out for Marriage Equality in Maryland

Photo of Sister Jeannine Gramick by Michael Key, The Washington Blade

Spirits were high and the Spirit was moving at January 31st’s Prayer Breakfast and Lobby Day in Annapolis, Maryland, sponsored by Marylanders for Marriage Equality.  Dozens of religious leaders from across the state and across faiths gathered to show their support for the state’s marriage equality bill.

New Ways Ministry Co-Founder Sister Jeannine Gramick spoke at the event’s press conference, explaining why she supports marriage equality from a Catholic perspective:

“This conviction flows from our Church’s social justice teaching. I feel sad that some Church leaders, including my own, claim that marriage must be between one man and one woman, that the definition of marriage has always been the same, and that it cannot change. This is simply not so. . . .

“Some churches have changed their definition of marriage to include lesbian and gay couples. Some have not. We are not here today to ask churches to change their definition of marriage. We are here today to ask the state to change its definition of marriage to reflect the growing social consciousness that marriage is about people who love each other, not about gender or sex. We are here today to ask the state to change its definition of marriage to protect the rights of those churches that recognize same-gender marriage; their heterosexual members can claim the benefits of civil marriage, but their same-gender couples cannot.

” The political definition of marriage needs to be free from discrimination. If heterosexual marriages are recognized by the state, then not recognizing same-gender marriages is discriminatory. Such unfairness is politically and morally wrong. Marriage equality is politically and morally right.”

The Washington Blade report on the press conference following the prayer breakfast event highlights quotes extensively from the racially, ethnically, and religiously diverse group of church and congregation leaders who supported the state’s marriage equality bill, some noting the explicit religious protections that are included in the proposed law.

The Washington Post’s Maryland politics blog focused on the remarks of House Speaker Michael Busch, who was raised Catholic and who taught and coached at his high school alma mater, St. Mary’s in Annapolis.  While upbeat, positive, and enthusiastic through most of his talk, Busch also noted political reality, saying the he expects the vote in the House of Delegates to be “very, very close.”

Photo of Governor Martin O'Malley by Michael Key, The Washington Blade

A highlight of the prayer breakfast, not mentioned in either report, was a surprise appearance by Governor Martin O’Malley, a Catholic, who strongly supports the marriage equality bill.  O’Malley later testified at the state’s Senate’s Judicial Proceedings Committee hearings on the bill.   The Washington Blade’s  report on the hearings quoted the part of O’Malley’s testimony concerned with religious liberty:

” ‘This bill balances an individual’s civil marriage rights with the important protections of religious freedoms for all,’ O’Malley continued. ‘And because it protects both of these inalienable rights, it is supported by a broad coalition of Marylanders, which includes clergy, community leaders, faith-based organizations, civil rights groups and those who hold the most important title of all in our democracy, and that title is citizen.’ “

The Washington Post carried an Associated Press story on the Senate hearings.

New Ways Ministry was well represented in Annapolis yesterday.  In addition to Sister Jeannine Gramick.  Executive Director Francis DeBernardo, Associate Director Dwayne Fernandes, Board Chair Matthew Myers, and Board Member Ryan Sattler all were there.

–Francis DeBernardo, New Ways Ministry.

 

NEWS NOTES: January 31, 2012

Here are some links to items you might find of interest:

1) The controversy surrounding the naming of anti-homophobia student groups in Ontario’s Catholic schools has added a new wrinkle with a Toronto Star report that the Province’s Education “College [is] asked to investigate principal who banned gay-straight alliance.”   Bondings 2.0′s  latest posting on this controversy can be accessed here.

2) The Washington Blade reports that “religious institutions receiving federal funds for housing programs will have to abide by a new HUD (Housing & Urban Development) rule prohibiting discrimination against LGBT people.”  Details can be found in the article “HUD: Religious groups must abide by LGBT non-bias rule.”
In a letter to President Obama, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had opposed the non-discrimination rule. Equally Blessed, a Catholic coalition of LGBT justice and equality, also sent a letter to Obama in support of the rule.

3) The Buffalo News‘ Donn Esmonde writes how a “Priest’s legacy of tolerance is all-embracing.”  It’s an inspiring memoir about the late Msgr. William Schwinger of whom he writes:  “Back when society treated gays as incomplete people, long before anyone envisioned the state sanctioning gay marriage, this priest— despite the Catholic Church’s institutional condemnation of homosexuality— welcomed them into the fold.”

–Francis DeBernardo, New Ways Ministry

Catholic vs. Catholic on Marriage Equality in Maryland

MarylandReporter.com has a unique video clip on their website today:  two Maryland Catholic legislators, one Democrat and one Republican, debate the upcoming marriage equality bill, moderated by the Reporter’s Len Lazarick.

Delegate Heather Mizeur and Delegate Cathy Vitale have a very civil disagreement in which many issues are explained, not least of which are issues concerning their common Catholic faith. Watch the video for yourself, and then you can read our comments below, and add your own in the “Comments” section for this post.

I think it will be no surprise to Bondings 2.0 readers to hear that we think Delegate Mizeur won the debate. She won it not only because she had the better legal and political arguments, but because of the personal and genuine way she spoke so eloquently about her faith.

A Catholic lesbian woman, Mizeur tells of her adolescent struggles with sexuality and religion, and with coming to the realization that she, like everyone else, is “a child of God” and is equally loved by God.  She praises the church’s social justice teachings, which she states are the “core mission of the church,” and she praises the church’s teaching on the primacy of conscience.

In the area of law and politics, Mizeur acknowledges that any concerns about religious exemptions that the Maryland Catholic Conference may have are open to discussion and debate so that religious organizations can feel comfortable with the new law.  She rightly points out that it is “disingenuous” of the Catholic conference to be so concerned about legal problems with same-sex marriage while it turns a blind eye to heterosexual marriages that do not meet the hierarchy’s ideals, and to a myriad of problems that the institution of heterosexual marriage has.

Thank you, Delegate Heather Mizeur, for speaking so forthrightly about marriage equality from a Catholic perspective.

–Francis DeBernardo, New Ways Ministry

It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over

A New Ways Ministry friend from Ontario wrote  to say that our post yesterday about what to name GSAs in Canada’s Catholic state-funded schools may have left the impression that the controversy was over.

It’s not.

While the Ontario Catholic School Trustees’ Association’s (OCSTA) debate about what to name the groups has ended, their decision still has to be reviewed by the Ontario’s Education Minister, Laurel Broten.   Broten’s initial response to OCSTA’s announcement was printed in an article on Xtra.ca:

“”We have set our expectations out clearly in the Accepting Schools Act. We have said that if requested by a student, every school and school board must support the establishment of a single-issue club to support students with a range of issues, including groups like a gay-straight alliance. This bill is still before the House and I hope that every member of the legislature will support the work we’re doing to make Ontario’s schools safe for every student.

“I understand the Catholic trustees have released a paper. And I’ll take a look at that paper. We are creating a law – an accepting school law – that will lay out expectations for every school in Ontario and their obligations around supporting all students.

“My expectation is that every board in this province will abide by our policies – policies that very clearly state that schools need to support student-led initiatives such a gay straight alliance.

“Boards may choose different approaches to meet that expectation, but all must work to the same goal: ensuring every student feels welcome, safe and supported in an environment free from discrimination and harassment.

“If requested by a student, the board must find a way to support the student. For example, the Ottawa Carleton DSB has a Rainbow coalition. This is not about the name but about what support is provided to students.”

So before the naming decision is finalized, it still has to be reviewed, a legislative battle looms, and, most likely court challenges will follow.

Meanwhile, the naming controversy has raised the issue of whether Catholic schools should be receiving government funding. Grant LaFleche in St. Catherines’ Standard opined:

“If anything, this entire ordeal shows that maybe it’s finally time to revisit the complicated political question of public funding for Catholic schools. The provincial government has guaranteed gay students in taxpayer funded schools they can have peer support groups (although they are allowing schools the right to name those groups). The association is trying to marry incompatible ideas — the rights of those students and the church’s view on homosexuality. Were these schools privately funded, it would not be an issue. But they are publicly funded. Which means tax dollars are going to be a measure of discrimination, even if that discrimination isn’t obvious at first glance.”

Chris Selley, in Canada’s National Post was a bit stronger.

“I didn’t think Queen’s Park [site of Ontario's government buildings] had the stomach for a fight with the Church on this matter, or most any other matter, beforehand. . . . I’ll leave it to gay students in the Catholic system to decide if clubs conducted under the OCSTA’s new policy would constitute an improvement. But politically, this smells to me like yet another attempt to be seen addressing a problem without angering a powerful stakeholder. And it illustrates yet again that when push comes to shove, publicly funded Catholic education, in Ontario, in 2012, makes very little sense at all.

Stay tuned.

–Francis DeBernardo, New Ways Ministry