Moreover, the issue of Church and State in this article is really a smoke screen. The problem arises when any Christan organization, especially the Catholic Church when it allows even a perceived notion that the Church in some shape or form supports “same sex marriage”, or any law that redefines a very long standing and primary Church teaching.

While no government entity “MIGHT” not force a Church to preform a same sex marriage, it would not prevent third parties from a civil law suit and/or a discrimination suit and it will hold all Church based NGO’s and/or Church related social service organizations to the letter of the law.

Hence Catholic Charities, the largest social services organization in DC and also one of the largest in the US is to restrict its charity programs in DC, if not shut down, which remains to be seen.

All the council had to do was exempt the Catholic Church as well as other Church’s from this law. But hey lets cut off our noses to spite our faces….

But then again maybe the DC Council will attempt to make up the loss of Catholic Charities by hiring ACORN….

http://www.adw.org/news/News.asp?ID=714&Year=2009

Well, you know, in this homophobic country, it IS something to celebrate when a lesbian gets voted in as a mayor of a fairly large city. Were that it not that way, but it most certainly is.

Secondly, “And while I am at it, D.C. Council Votes to Allow Same-Sex Marriage, Mayor Fenty to Sign, Congressional Hurdles Remain for D.C. Gay Marriage After City Council’s Approval. How about that? Another piece of good news, at least for the time being:”

As a practicing Catholic this does not sit well with me. Civil Unions that’s fine we me if that is the law. Marriage? No way and I support the USCCB and the Archdiocese of Washington DC on this one. I expect Catholic Charities as well as any other Catholic or Christian social services organization to pull their services from DC. No legislative body can mandate that and religious organizations accept there demands and mandates of what they consider and wish to enforce as marriage.

And yes, being elected in spite of, actually being chosen for one’s abilities/experience, is what we want, right? That was why Hillary SHOULD have been the nominee – yes, she was the first woman, and that IS significant, but she was also the most QUALIFIED. One doesn’t have to shut out the other, one can be BOTH.

Anyway, good comments (I may not have had enough cappuccinos yet – just saying! ).

No argument here.

“She NEVER even mentioned anything about being gay until she won.”

But her opponents did, and it didn’t work–in TEXAS! I just love it. Red State Pride Agenda!

No, white conservatives in Houston are not now officially ‘pro-gay.’ They didn’t get ‘fired up’ over a gay mayor either. That is major.

It’s like Palin in the VP debate. If I can paraphrase, “Look, I’m not ‘pro-gay.’ But nobody in a McCain-Palin administration is going on the warpath against gay people.” That is a big step over that Bush-Rove-Santorum crap.

You know, one of these days in Utah they’ll say “Gay marriage is on the ballot? I’m not missing ‘Dancing With The Stars’ for that.” And the few frothing-at-the-mouth homophobes left will feel very disappointed, abandoned and alone.

I could go on but…. Think of the outcry.

Just saying.

And you are quite right – she is gay, but that isn’t in her job description! (Oh, my – now I am going to be thinking of jobs for which that WOULD be one’s job description…)

ROTFLMAOPIMP! Jeebus, if you only knew how laughable you sound. I’m almost crying here, you sound so ridiculous.

Gay is what she is, not her job description. I seriously doubt you need to fear her running around “being gay” any more than you need fear her running around “having blue eyes”.

Really, sweetie, it’s okay. Chill. Judge her in the job she does – that’s all she asked for anyway. It’s not so hard.