More Delicious Irony

Church: Florists Should Be Allowed To Say No To Gay Weddings
By DANIELA ALTIMARI The Hartford Courant March 7, 2009

Concerned that the state's new same-sex marriage law would infringe on religious liberties, the Connecticut Catholic Conference today proposed some broad exemptions which it believes are necessary to protect those rights.

The law does not require Catholic priests -- or any other clergy member -- to preside over same-sex weddings.

However, the church is seeking additional exemptions. For instance, it wants to ensure that a florist opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds not be forced to sell flowers to a same-sex couple.

"Same-sex couples have their liberties protected fully. Religious people are wondering 'how is this going to effect me?"' David Reynolds, lobbyist for the Catholic Church, told members of the legislature's judiciary committee.

"A situation has been created....where state policy seriously conflicts with the religious beliefs of a large number of the citizens of the state," Reynolds said. He cited examples in other states where businesspeople opposed to gay marriage have faced legal action because they declined to provide goods or services to gay couples.

In October, the state Supreme Court ruled that gay and lesbian couples had the right to marry and a month later, Connecticut became the second state to legally recognize same-sex marriage.

The legislature is now codifying the court's decision, adjusting existing statutes to make sure they comport with the court's ruling.

Anne Stanback, executive director of Love Makes a Family, said the bill before the committee simply makes sure the state's laws are in line with the court ruling. "Marriage equally is the law in Connecticut and this will not make it any more legal,' she said. The bill before the judiciary committee also strikes language on the state's books that gay activists consider offensive.

**************************************************************

Oh to be a fly on the wall at the Connecticut legislature. This isn't the only bill which the Catholic Church is weighing in on. The other bill is SB 1098. The stated purpose of this bill is to:

"To revise the corporate governance provisions applicable to the Roman Catholic Church and provide for the investigation of the misappropriation of funds by religious corporations."

According to Senator Michael Lawlor who introduced the bill, he introduced it because parishioners asked him to:

"... the current state statutes governing Roman Catholic corporations ... were enacted in 1955. SB 1098 is a proposal to make changes in that law, which was suggested by parishioners who were the victims of theft of their funds in several parishes, and these parishioners feel that the state's existing Roman Catholic Corporate laws prevented them from dealing with the misuse and theft of funds.

I agree with you that the whole notion of having a statute governing the church seems like an intrusion on the separation of church and state, but the current law does that already. Perhaps we should repeal the whole thing, but if we are going to have a corporate law of this type, it probably should make sure there cannot be deception of parishioners."

I strongly suspect the anti gay florist thing is another smokescreen to deflect attention away from SB 1098 which will really hit home to bishops. More on the florist thing later, right now I want to deal with some thoughts about this bill.

One of the points Senator Lawlor makes is that it's hard to see this as separation of Church and State issue because existing law is on the books which regulate certain business aspects of Catholic dioceses and parishes. The principle of the state legislating in this area is already established. The bill itself makes certain the preclusion of state interference in the religious affairs of bishops and priests:

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit, restrict or derogate from any power, right, authority, duty or responsibility of the bishop or pastor in matters pertaining exclusively to religious tenets and practices."

There are dioceses with in the United States which are organized almost exactly along the lines this bill describes. Of course, in most cases the reorganization came about to protect diocesan and parish assets from being co opted in civil sexual abuse suits, not out of any sense of accountability and financial transparency. None the less, what SB1098 advocates is certainly not novel in today's Catholicism. Additionally, the bill would at least give some say in the issue of parish closures and consolidations, and input as to what should be done with the assets. SB 1098 is a major threat to business as usual in Connecticut dioceses and they are ramping up their request for the faithful to fight this bill.

As to the other matter, Bill Lyndsey on Bilgrimage has numerous posts which address the issue of gay marriage being used to take away the rights of gays in any other context in which it can be accomplished. Apparently it now extends to the rights of florists to discriminate against gay couples, and any other business who so desires. What's next bus drivers sending gay couples to the back of the bus on religious grounds?

Fine, my question is will the Bishops of Connecticut also include divorced and remarried Catholics who have not sought annulments, couples living together with out marriage, couples who use birth control, or any other sexually active person who just wants to celebrate an important evening. I doubt it. Most florists couldn't stay in business enforcing Catholic moral doctrine by this kind of blanket refusal.

So it's really all about those gays and how ontologically sinful they are in relationship to any other sexual sinner. Exactly like the ontologically different and special innocence of the unborn. Apparently even though we are all created equal from the moment of conception, there are some conspicuous exceptions. The seamless garment of life does indeed have rips.

Here's the delicious irony. Connecticut Senator Michael Lawlor is gay and an outspoken proponent of gay marriage. Certainly no flowers for him.