Sins of the fathers....

or in this case, the mothers? From Colorado:

A preschool student at a Catholic school in Boulder will not be allowed to return next school year because of what is going on at home....

The student's parents are two women and the Denver Archdiocese says their homosexual relationship violates the school's beliefs and policy....."No person shall be admitted as a student in any Catholic school unless that person and his/her parent(s) subscribe to the school's philosophy and agree to abide by the educational policies and regulations of the school and Archdiocese," the statement said.....

School staff members, who asked to remain anonymous, say they are disgusted by the Archdiocese's decision.

One employee said she could not believe a student will have to suffer because of his or her parents' sexual orientation.

Over on AmericaBlog, a reader comments,

"No word yet on whether they're rounding up the kids of divorced parents who haven't sought a church annulment, or worse, weren't married in the Catholic church to begin with."

I think that's a legitimate question, don't you?

UK to allow Civil Partnerships in Church.

The United Kingdom provides "civil partnerships" to same sex couples that provide most of the rights of marriage, save the name. And one other thing: they are not allowed to be held in churches.

In part, this reflects the fact that the Church of England (CoE, cousin of our Episcopal Church) is an established church: that is, a state religion. And the CofE hasn't really grappled with the gay issue, preferring to keep its numerous homos deep in the closet. (The problem with the Americans isn't that they ordained a gay bishop. It's that they ordained an HONEST gay bishop. But I digress....)

Because it is Established, the CofE has voting rights in the House of Lords, where the Bishops have been vigorously voting against bills that block anti-gay discriminatory hiring. And it is thanks to those bishops that Civil Partnerships cannot by law be conducted in a church.

The latest is a spirited argument (conducted as so many good British arguments are, in the letters to the Times) pointing out that several faith groups have no problem with effectively marrying gay people, and the current prohibition inhibits THEIR religious freedom.This was signed by members of many different faiths, including a number of CoE bishops.

And Writing in the Guardian, the retired Bp of Oxford says,

Some Church of England bishops, who were hardly enthusiastic about civil partnerships in the first place, fear that if this is allowed it would blur the distinction them and marriage. But this is a fundamental issue of religious freedom. On what grounds can any body claim religious freedom for itself but deny it to others? The bishops may or may not approve of what Quakers, Liberal Jews and Unitarians want, but that is beside the point. What these bodies want would harm no one, and it accords with their deepest religious convictions. Religious freedom is indivisible.

Would that the CofE, the Roman Catholics, or the Mormons understand this: their freedom does not, and cannot, depend on denying freedom to someone else.

And the wide provision of legal protections is having an effect in the UK:

Fewer than a third of the population believe homosexuality is wrong, compared with two thirds in 1980s, according to the latest survey of British Social Attitudes.....

Almost two thirds (61 per cent) want gay couples to be able to marry, just like the rest of the population, not just have civil partnerships, while 68 per cent of the public back “full equal rights” for gay men and lesbians, suggesting that the Church, which opposes the ordination of gay priests, is out of touch with public opinion.

Now, the House of Lords has passed the bill allowing civil partnerships to be held in churches. Reported in the London Times:

The move will result in an amendment to the Equalities Bill which would allow, though not compel, religious organisations to host civil partnerships. Religious language would also be permitted within the ceremonies.

So, rather than the government explicitly excluding religion from gay couples, they will be allowed, if their church agrees, to invite God to the wedding.

Not so charitable Catholic Charities bans spousal benefits in DC

As they threatened previously, Catholic Charities is now closing down its foster care and adoption business in Washington, DC, lest they be forced to put children in same sex households (marriage equality becomes the law in the district starting tomorrow). Apparently, however, this is the only activity they will close-- although previously they had threatened to cut off the whole operation.

However, today it was revealed that they will cut benefits for staff

Catholic Charities will continue to honor the health plan coverage that current employees have as of March 1, 2010. As of March 2, a new plan will be in effect that will cover new employees and requests for benefit changes by current employees. The new plan will provide the same level of coverage for employees and their dependents that you now have, with one exception: spouses not in the plan as of March 1 will not be eligible for coverage in the future.....

We sincerely regret that we have to make this change, but it is necessary to allow Catholic Charities to continue to provide essential services to the clients we serve in partnership with the District of Columbia while remaining consistent with the tenets of our religious faith.

Are you clear about this? They will continue to cover anyone who currently has spousal benefits. Including people who are divorced and remarried. But No Fags.

Which is ironic, because apparently they have a lot of gay employees.

Orzechowski said many of the people who work for Catholic Charities and receive its services are from the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community, but giving same-sex spousal benefits to staff members or placing adoptive children with gay couples would violate Church tenets.

I wonder how those employees feel now.

Was this the only option? No.

The church faced two options with the approval of the new law, said Robert Tuttle, a George Washington University professor who studies the relationship between church and state. One choice was to expand the definition of domestic partner, as the Archdiocese in San Francisco did years ago, to include a parent, sibling or someone else in the household.

The second choice was to do what the Washington Archdiocese has done: eliminate benefits for all spouses.

Because this is much more dramatic, and pisses off the straights against those Selfish Gays. There is a a certain whiff of --shall we say, inconsistency? --- in the sorrowful crocodile tears of the poor, oppressed Roman Catholic institution, forced to harm the children because of those Selfish Homos. The Lead frames it more considerately than I would:

Another question perhaps worth raising: when is a "religious objection" not really a religious objection, but a political one? Catholic teaching does not recognize re-marriage after divorce without an annulment. Like same-sex couples, the heterosexual couples involved in such relationships are engaging in sex outside of what the church recognizes marriage. Yet the church willingly provides services and benefits to those couples. Why? There is no hierarchy of sinfulness in Catholic theology regarding sex outside of marriage. So why treat gay and lesbian couples differently that twice or thrice married heterosexual couples?

The church is entitled to object to same-sex marriage on whatever grounds it chooses. The rest of us are entitled to point out that the double standard it has constructed on this issue has no basis in its own theology.

More at Gay Married Californian and even more at Streetprophets.