Minnesota

I'm watching closely the story out of Minnesota, where the Archbishop there has put the church's tax-exempt status at risk by ordering all of the local dioceses to organize committees to act as political advocates against a constitutional amendment to legalize gay marriage on the state ballot. It's a sad state of affairs when an issue that is not endorsed by lay Catholics (only 35% support a ban according to a recent poll) is deemed the number one issue that must dominate all resources. I seriously would like to know how they can continue to claim to operate as a church with tax-exempt status, while simultaneously operating a grassroots political campaign. Constitution anyone?

We are more, sister

"We are MORE, Sister." That's what her email said to me a few weeks ago, refusing to bow at the altar of Obama because he does not fully embrace gay rights. I posted a bitchy blog in response to her "rant," but after watching the VP debate last night, I have to admit that I was angry and disappointed at the candidates. I didn't want to admit the truth — that on the issue of gay marriage, there is no difference between the candidates — they are all emphatically against it.
Instead, from the "progressive" Obama/Biden ticket, we get platitudes about protecting the rights of partners to visit each other in the hospital. Are they serious? We are so past that.
Now, I can respect (and even agree with) the notion that "marriage" is and should be primarily a religious matter and left to the faiths — but Joe Biden left it at that. Instead, he should have pointed out that all couples deserve the same protections under the law, and therefore, anyone (gay or straight) taking part in a civil "marriage" should be required to have a "civil union." Leave "marriage" to the churches. But he didn't say that, and instead pointed out that everyone running is in total agreement about this issue. I wonder how this will play out, as Biden is scheduled to make the featured remarks at the annual HRC dinner tomorrow night.