To use the poor as pawns in this game is shameful. Is a cardinal's hat worth it? What would it gain a man...

I continue to be amazed that anyone should care what any given religious entity thinks about a matter of civil law. What about the religious bodies (growing in number) that do affirm or allow for same-sex marriage? Why should the RC view get any preference?

And how about some consistency: RC teaching doesn't, for example, consider a divorced RC couple each of whom remarries to be married, either. Yet there is no hew and cry in the civil realm, or a massive effort to get the law changed combined with a suggestion of withdrawing from contracts with the city if divorced and remarried people receive benefits as employees.

So why should this be "the issue" -- I think I can guess.

Well-said, Peter.

consider domestic partnership policies used in San Francisco ... such a compromise wouldn't work for the church, as the measure would still view two people of the same gender as 'married,' a violation of traditional church teachings."

Well, for six months (in 2008) same-sex couples were marrying in San Francisco. If the SF Archdiocese didn't go nuts about it then, why should the DC Archdiocese go nuts (and "nuts" is a polite term for how they're threatening the poor! >:-( ) about it now?

JC Fisher

As a matter of record, the policy for Catholic Charities of San Francisco was approved in 1997 by then-Archbishop William Levada. He is now Archbishop Emeritus upon becoming Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican -- succeeding Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, better known as Pope Benedict XVI.

I do not believe the policy changed when California recognized marriage equality.

Perhaps Washington's Archbishop Wuerl needs to have a chat with Cardinal Levada.

Christopher Hayes

RC teaching doesn't, for example, consider a divorced RC couple each of whom remarries to be married, either. Yet there is no hue and cry in the civil realm, or a massive effort to get the law changed combined with a suggestion of withdrawing from contracts with the city if divorced and remarried people receive benefits as employees. – Tobias Haller

So what?

What about the religious bodies (growing in number) that do affirm or allow for same-sex marriage? Why should the RC view get any preference? – Tobias Haller

What makes you think the RCC has gotten any preference, at least up to this point? But if you need a reason, it’s because the RCC are the ones with their boots on the ground. Why would LDS want to ask for a preference? Or the UUC? Why does the ACLU think the RCC should get a preference?

Well, for six months (in 2008) same-sex couples were marrying in San Francisco. If the SF Archdiocese didn't go nuts about it then, why should the DC Archdiocese go nuts (and "nuts" is a polite term for how they're threatening the poor! >:-( ) about it now? - JC Fisher

Why shouldn’t they go nuts? It’s a different Archdiocese, a different time, and the SF gay marriages were illegal. And San Francisco is a rich town. Maybe they can afford to pay double insurance for all their staff, gay and straight. And if everyone thinks the RCC is so lowlife, why are you trying to force it on the poor, anyway? You think it’s good enough for the poor? And if everyone cares so much about the poor, trust me, the poor are not going to be worse off if the RCC pulls out of the DC civil service. The poor are going to be better off.

PS: I actually think the Archdiocese is going to cave.

Anthony,

I am not familiar with the social situation in Washington, but I can tell you that your views about San Francisco are not correct.

SF indeed has its share of wealthy people -- and more than its share of the poor and homeless, as one should expect in a city with the second-highest cost of living in the country.

Although Episcopalians in San Francisco are outnumbered 10 to 1 by Roman Catholics, and people of all religious persuasions are outnumbered at least 2 to 1 by the unchurched, the single biggest provider by far of shelter and services to the homeless in San Francisco is and always has been Episcopal Community Services.

(It started in the early 1980s, when then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein called then-Bishop Bill Swing and asked if the church could help with the "temporary" problem of people living on the streets. ECS has grown from a few cots in the crypt of Grace Cathedral to multiple locations around the city, providing shelter, social services, and job training, in partnership with the City.)

And to be fair, Catholic Charities of San Francisco also does good work here. And despite their gnashing of teeth about San Francisco's equal benefits requirement for all city contractors *before* it became law, the tune changed *after* it became law. Archbishop Levada trumpeted the arrangement here -- allowing their employees to designate *any* adult in their household for health insurance -- as part of the Catholic social commitment to universal health care. And the large number of openly gay employees of Catholic Charities of SF benefited while the local hierarchy pretends not to notice.

As for cost: By California law, it costs no more to insure a same-sex spouse or partner than an opposite-sex spouse. Employers can cover the cost or pass it on to the employee as long as they do so equally for same-sex and different sex couples. In many cases -- such as when the employee already has children covered by the plan -- the cost of adding a same-sex spouse or partner is $0.

I find it striking that no one ever complains about the cost to employers of providing insurance for opposite-sex spouses of employees, who far outnumber same-sex spouses.

Christopher Hayes

So what?

My point is that as far as the "moral" issue goes (which supposedly is the RCC's concern) adultery is as much an evil as same-sex marriage; perhaps more so. If the argument (as I take it) is that providing benefits to a couple who aren't really married is encouraging (or even tacitly consenting to) evil behavior, then there should be just as much objection to having to pay benefits to adulterous couples as to same-sex couples.

What makes you think the RCC has gotten any preference, at least up to this point?

This whole discussion is engendered by the move on the part of the RCC to bring pressure against the allowance of same-sex marriage. That we are having the discussion at all is an indication of preferential attention being paid. Yes, you may be right that they will cave, or be ignored; but they are getting plenty of press. (Which may, in the long run, not redound to their advantage...)

As to the ACLU, I've not seen what they've actually said on this matter, only the passing reference in the Archdiocese's own account.

Christopher Hayes - I appreciate your update on the social services for homeless in SF. I was there for part of that, when I was on the fringes of the homeless shelter in the basement of Trinity Church. Not that I had any big part in it. But I have been away for a long time.

Additional thanks for providing detail on the costs of health benefits in this case. My hypothetical was based on the premise that the more people covered the higher the cost of benefits will be. If the Archdiocese of San Francisco has been able to cover more people without significantly increasing their costs, more power to them. Archbishop Levada did what he thought was right, or at least what he thought was expedient, as Archbishop Wuerl will no doubt do in the end.

I need to learn more about the so-called San Francisco Model. As I read it in the press, if you work for the Archdiocese, you get health insurance, and you get to designate one other person related or unrelated to also get health insurance. I understood that the designee did not have to be a spouse or domestic partner, or any relation atl, it was just a simple two for one deal. Is that right or wrong. It seems extravagant, but that's how I found it presented. Also, is this a requirement for all employers in SF, or just for the RC Archdiocese? Or is it not a requirement, but just a voluntary CYA on the part of the Archdiocese to get around the brass in Rome?

I do find it incredible that the Archdiocese of San Francisco, comprised of San Francisco, San Mateo, and Marin counties, three of the very richest counties in the USA, is not financially better off than the Archdiocese of DC. But as the man said, OCICBW. I was, BTW, not complaining about the cost of insurance for same-sex partners. I wasn't complaining about costs at all. I was surprised that an organization would incur the cost of insuring all and sundry, as the press would have it. But you explain that Archbishop Levada was committed to providing universal health care.

I do not accept the premise of some (not you) that San Francisco's solution constitutes a binding precedent for Washington DC.

Fr. Haller - Thank you for responding. I shouldn't have been so snarky with my "so what?" You have presented the case that the DC Archdiocese's intentions are an inconsistent application of moral principles. One caveat - the Archdiocese may have an explanation for this that would convince at least themselves. But on the face of it, you are right. They may be at fault before the face of God for failing to apply the same principle to divorced and remarried straight employees as they do to married gays. This does not provide justification for failing to apply the moral principle in other cases. If I sin in one thing I am not required to sin in all others. I am talking about morals in general. I do not imply that insuring gay partners is a sin. I also do not think this frequently seen inconsistency argument would hold up in contract law.

It may be that the cause of the attention paid to the RCC is a desire on the part of elected officials to give reverence and preference to the the church’s views on gays. I think it more likely that the cause is that the RCC is the actual contractor in this case and is the church the public officials mostly have to deal with, though the law extends to all churches that have employees. It may be that the RCC got the contract because of special preference. I have not seen this alleged. It is probable that they got the contract because they were the low bidder. The cause of the press coverage is that the Archbishop publicly let loose with a dramatic and stupid threat as a negotiating ploy. As well as the fact that the RCC (and TEC, BTW), for a number of non-sinister reasons, always gets more coverage than, say, The Greater New Jerusalem Church of God in Christ, which I would bet feels equally strongly on the moral issue. As to your observation that the press coverage “may in the long run not redound to their advantage,” so much the better, IMO. It has already in the short run redounded to their disadvantage. The RCC may yet get unjustifiable preference from the council, but so far, no (unless things changed this morning, I haven’t checked.)

This is the best account I can find, prompted by your footnote, for the ACLU’s testimony. It is milder than I represented it.

“Patrick J. Deneen: The ACLU testified at the testimony that the proposed legislation represented a narrowing of religious liberty. They proposed a broader religious exemption than the originally proposed bill. The original bill proposed no religious exemptions for any religious organizations that serves the general public(whether they use public funding or not). The ACLU argued for broader exemptions than are in the current legislation - for instance, the ACLU argued for the protection of private individuals who would refuse - on the basis of faith commitments - to provide goods or services for the solemnization of marriage. The current proposed legislation does not provide for any such exemption of private individuals. Here the argument was made not (only) by religious institutions, but the ACLU. “ - from The Washington Post. Dr. Deneen is Associate professor of government, at Georgetown University.

Anthony,

Thanks for your clarifications. Your description of the policy of the Archdiocese of SF is correct, as far as I know. But the demographic reality is that virtually all of those designated under its policy are same-sex spouses.

The legal impetus is San Francisco's pioneering Equal Benefits Ordinance, which requires all holders of city contracts to provide benefits to their employees' same-sex spouses/partners that are equal to any they provide to their employees' different-sex spouses. (So in theory, a contractor could comply with the law by providing no benefits to any spouses, straight or gay. In practice, it wouldn't be competitive for an employer to do that.)

And here's how three major church-related contractors reacted: Episcopal Charities readily complied. Catholic Charities raised a huge ruckus but found a face-saving way to comply. And the Salvation Army flatly refused to comply, and lost its city contracts as a result.

By the way, I'm glad to hear about your experence here.

Thank you, Mr. Willard.