US Bishops Oppose Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity as Protected Categories

I'm not making this one up or stretching the truth at all here; this post's title is from an article on Catholic Online.

WASHINGTON, DC (Catholic Online) - The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued the following Press Release on March 25, 2011:

"The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has urged the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) not to adopt a proposed regulation that would add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected categories for which discrimination in HUD programs is prohibited.

"In comments filed on March 25, 2011 with HUD, Anthony Picarello, USCCB general counsel, and Michael Moses, USCCB associate general counsel, noted that, when it comes to orientation and gender identity, "a protected classification for purposes of federal housing programs has no support in any Act of Congress and appears at odds with at least one other, namely, the Defense of Marriage Act."

"They added that "the regulations may force faith-based and other organizations, as a condition of participating in HUD programs and in contravention of their religious beliefs, to facilitate shared housing arrangements between persons who are not joined in the legal union of one man and one woman."

"By this, we do not mean that any person should be denied housing. Making decisions about shared housing, however, is another matter," wrote Picarello and Moses. "Particularly here, faith-based and other organizations should retain the freedom they have always had to make housing placements in a manner consistent with their religious beliefs, including when it concerns a cohabiting couple, be it an unmarried heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple.

"Given the very large role that faith-based organizations play in HUD programs, the regulation, by infringing upon that freedom, may have the ultimate effect of driving away organizations with a long and successful track record in meeting housing needs, leaving beneficiaries without the housing that they sought or that the government intended them to receive."

Do I need any more evidence to demonstrate that the Catholic Church is not a friend of homosexuals and is the biggest threat to the normalization of homosexuality?

I've discussed an issue like this regarding Catholic charities who closed their doors because they were forced to provide services for gays and children who were to be adopted by gays. Some charities would (and did) close their doors just because they don't want gays adopting their foster children. Charities are willing to virtually blackmail people to uphold their discriminatory beliefs.

The arguments from the bishops are terrible. If an organization receives government funding, they must play by the rules and not discriminate. HUD is not a Catholic organization by any means, so their arguments are even more ridiculous.

If people want to provide housing for others and don't want to deal with homosexuals, they should "do their own thing" and discriminate all they want, but this isn't what HUD does because equal opportunity should be available to all.

A commenter on the article's comment board "gets it."

This is a diverse country. Many people in our country do not adhere to our Roman Catholic beliefs. We expect tolerance from anyone who disagrees with our beliefs as we extend tolerance to those same folks. I could never understand why we Roman Catholics participate in government programs where we take monies from a government entitiy then complain about the "attached strings" ( read regulations) coming with the money. Oh, I know we Roman Catholics do great good with government money. It subsidizes hospitals, schools and yes HUD sponsored retirement homes. HUD sponsored meaning low cost mortgage loans for construction and a permanent mortage loan, usually at an "under market" interest rate. I suggest to our esteemed leaders in the USCCB to stop whining about the "strings" attached to government subsidies and do what can be done with OUR money. Respectfully yours, Jerry Reidy