D.C. Stands Up For Chuck and Larry Over Little Johnny

The Los Angeles Times editorial board correctly notes, looking at the situation in Washington, D.C., that neutering marriage law does have impacts beyond simply allowing Chuck and Larry to get a marriage license without a bride. The Catholic Archdiocese says it will not be able to continue providing social services on behalf of the local government if marriage neutering happens as planned.

The church hopes to change wording in the marriage legislation that could require its charitable arm, Catholic Charities, to facilitate adoptions to gay and lesbian couples and extend employee benefits to spouses in same-sex marriages. That, the church says, would require it to go against its religious teachings on homosexuality.

In addition, placing a child with a same-sex couple should only happen if there are no bride+groom couples qualified and willing, because doing so would deprive the child of either a mother or a father. Adoption is about the needs of a child, not the feelings of adults.

There are times when the aims of government and religious organizations are in sync: bringing food to the hungry, beds to the homeless and medical care to the sick.

Actually, limited government, a principle to which I subscribe, contends that the government shouldn't be involved in those things in general. It should house prisoners, and it should provide medical care to military personnel and veterans, but no, the government should let the private sector handle the rest.

[Much more after the jump.]

At other times, their aims veer apart. That's fine, but at such times, government must not be diverted from its own course.

So.. appeasing homosexuality advocates is more important than having the most aid possible for children?

The District of Columbia Council is expected to approve same-sex marriage next month. If it does, those marriages must receive the same recognition as all other marriages, at least in matters under the city's jurisdiction.

This is true. This is exactly one of the biggest problems with neutered marriage laws, and why it is laughable when education officials and marriage neutering advocates try to get voters to believe that a state with neutered marriage licensing won't teach that neutered concept of marriage in state schools.

The council cannot dictate how a religious organization spends its private money, but it has an obligation to set rules for the use of public funds.

I agree. Public funds should be put to limited use. However, note that public funds are coming from taxpayers, including members of the Roman Catholic Church.

The editorial board goes on to explain the situation in Massachusetts with Catholic Charities.

But Catholic Charities could have continued doing private adoptions with church money, as the Mormon Church does.

True again - but what about the employment issue?

No one was telling the nonprofit how to practice religion -- just how it could and could not use state funds.

And we, the voters, vote on marriage licensing, as licenses are issued on our behalf. See how this works?

In contrast [to President Obama’s current position], D.C. Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray said the city would find another contractor if the Catholic Church severed its ties. That was the right response, and we hope it rang loud enough for Obama to hear.

Nothing is wrong with paying a religious organization the same way you'd pay another organization for the same work – as long the government is going to use taxpayer money that way. But yes, government-spread wealth comes with strings attached. The Roman Catholic Church should not go against what it believes to be the will of God, and as such, will not be used by the government for this task. Children may suffer as a result. So should the church's position change? Of course I say no – I say the council should not neuter marriage. But if they do, then they should not expect the rest of us to abandon our principles, and not pretend they care about children as much as they care about the agenda of marriage neutering advocates.

The editorial board is essentially noting in this commentary that common government should not be held hostage to the feelings or convictions of a minority segment of the represented. It is too bad that they can't recognize this principle when it comes to the demands of marriage neutering advocates.

To me, this dispute clearly goes into the larger issues of what the government's role in our lives should be in addition to marriage licensing. It goes into charity, social care, and employer-employee relationships. The move involved in our lives the government becomes, the more we have an interest in laws and court decisions that don't appear to have a direct connection to us.