Lots of liberals endured the indignity of voting for a bill containing a provision they consider deeply odious, because passing health care reform meant so much to them. It just annoys me to see liberals in general get criticized as if they’d done the wrong thing, when they actually came through and did the right one.

I see that now that a fraction of them are playing ultimatum games. (Which doesn’t bother me much, as centrists in the House and Senate have been playing these games to great effect for months now, and there’s little to be said for unilateral ultimatum disarmament.) But really, give them credit for what they did, because when the major decision point came, they did the right thing, and it was what you wanted.

Mr. Kain your entire premise is tenditious, cynically conflating the obligation of a representative government to provide common services with religious organizations’ desire to separate “us” from “them”.

Private worship is separate from subsidized public services. Rome is entitled to be as doctrinally pure as it wants to be… on its own tithe.

You don’t link to anybody here, because this is a big straw man. The 39 Democratic No votes are mostly conservative Democrats. There are a couple liberals, like Kucinich and Baird, who voted no, but liberals overwhelmingly supported the legislation. So nothing about this “smacks of double standards.”

I agree with their position and E.D.’s the lesson here isn’t I have to suck it up, so should they. It’s hmmm…I better persuade some people.

If an individual feels that their rights were violated under the Human Rights Act, they can bring a suit before the Human Rights Commission. Upon a finding of discrimination, the Commission may issue injunctive relief and award damages including front and back pay, compensatory damages, civil penalties, and attorney’s fees.

That gives the Chruch a few options. They can continue to abide by the Human Rights Act, and not risk any suit, as they have been doing up to this point. They could violate the law, which would open them up to the possibility of a lawsuit. Or they can stop providing services in the district altogether.

It seems they have premtively decided to stop providing services rather than risking a lawsuit. No where does it say that the government must cancel all contracts. Any legal damage done to Catholic Charities would be entirely the result of an individual citizen filing a non-discrimination claim.

Ultimately, this whole scuffle revolves not around the pending marriage bill, but the Church’s new-found refusal to obey the District’s longstanding non-discrimination law. That’s their perogative. But it’s hard to see this as anything but the Church trying to gain leverage to undermine the upcoming marriage law.