I remember people being all pissed off that Mitt Romney told clerks to not issue licenses to non-residents because of that 1913 Massachusetts law saying we wouldn’t marry you if your marriage wasn’t valid in the place you legally reside. I fail to see any real problem with such a law. I mean, same-sex couples can get civil unions lots of places and i would bet that every state has at least some religious authorities who will preside over a commitment ceremony. Why do you want to come to Massachusetts and get a piece of paper that has no legal power whatsoever?
What exactly is the problem with the Catholic Church denying the Eucharist to pro-choice people?
Anna Quindlen in her column in the May 31 Newsweek points out the slippery slope of denying it to all sinners. But isn’t there a difference between repentant sinners and people who oppose the very doctrine of the church? I don’t know the exact rules for receiving Communion at a Roman Catholic church, but i think there are a lot of people who aren’t allowed to take it, because they’re not Catholic.
Okay, there’s the problem of changing the church from the inside, that the Church is never going to change or evolve if anyone who disagrees gets kicked out.
She also points out that it’s only about abortion, that no one is being denied the sacrament due to their support for the death penalty. And that it’s only Democrats who are being targeted, not pro-choice Republicans. Fair points.
And of course she questions how the Church is in a position to judge thanks to abusive clergy for example, asks just how pro-life are many of its policies, etc. Valid criticisms, as well, and it’s not like i don’t argue that people/institutions shouldn’t be consistent. But i still think the Church has every right to say “You oppose something basic in our doctrine, like the Divinity of Christ, or the sanctity of life. Therefore you are not allowed to participate in this sacrament.”
E-mail from my father:
I like making fun of politicians as much as the next person, maybe more. But you should wait till they deserve it, not try to force it. The online magazine slate has been running a "Bushism of the Day" for some time now. Recently they began a "Kerryism" feature, too. Eugene Volokh occasionally criticizes their choice of a "Bushism" and greeted the new "Kerryism" feature by saying they were wrong with their first two. Here he goes after a particularly egregious example of deliberately missing the point.
My father also points out this story and says:
One: I hope women's organizations are raising hell about this.
Two: Sudan is a member of the UN Human Rights Commission, which has not seen fit to criticize the Sudanese government. Funny how I don't have warm fuzzies about the UN.