GAY TRUTH

A Catholic member of Australia 's Parliament won`t be giving the keynote address to Catholic social workers as scheduled because of her public support of same-sex “marriage.” MP Cathy McGowan was going to speak to Catholic Social Services workers from all over Australia at a conference later this month until Melbourne Archbishop Denis Hart asked that she be disinvited because of her open backing of same-sex “marriage” legislation opposed by the Church. The conference organizers complied. Archbishop Hart’s spokesman Shane Healy told reporters, “There was no malice,” on Hart’s part, nor did he want to “in any way embarrass Cathy, but he would see with a conference such as this that the keynote speaker should be in line with Catholic teaching on that very important topic.” Catholic Social Services Victoria executive director Denis Fitzgerald admitted that his group should have “factored in all relevant issues before we invited Cathy.” Fitzgerald speculated that t

"Dear Pablo, we cannot do this job, to print this invitation goes against our values, take care and best regards." This was the answer Pablo Zapata received when he and his partner requested a quote for the printing of invitations to the ceremony to legalize his homosexual relationship under Chile's new Civil Union Law (AUC in Spanish). Zapata is a volunteer at   Iguales , an NGO whose mission statement is "Work … to ensure the full inclusion of sexual diversity in Chilean society," while the printer , Publicamos, is openly Christian and family-operated. Pablo and his partner   felt hurt   and arbitrarily discriminated against by the answer. They said they did not consider themselves going against anybody's values. They filed a complaint before Chile's National Consumer Service (SERNAC), stating that their rights were being violated and that to deny a service for biased reasons is illegal. On Publicamos's behalf, César Mosquera stated

A Tasmanian woman (transgender - Green Candidate for Federal Parliament)  is taking the Catholic Archbishop of Hobart to the Anti-Discrimination Commission over the contents of a booklet sent to Catholics around Australia earlier this year about same-sex marriage. Here, Associate Professor of Law, Neil Foster examines the basis of the claim. There are press reports (see also here ) that the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Hobart is being sued under s 17 of Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 for causing “offence” or “humiliation”. This was alleged to have been done by the Archbishop causing to be sent to Roman Catholic schools in his diocese, a booklet outlining the church views on marriage, and in particular expressing the well-known opposition of the church to the introduction of same sex marriage. A copy of the booklet, “Don’t Mess with Marriage”, can be downloaded here . It seems clear but also very respectful, and keen to condemn any ill-treatment of those with a same

A news story in The Australian this morning indicates that the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commission has found a preliminary “case to answer” in relation to a claim of sexual orientation discrimination against not only the Archbishop of Hobart , Julian Porteous, but also “all Australia ’s Catholic bishops.” We have known for some time that Greens political candidate Martine ­Delaney had made a complaint against Archbishop Porteous, but the additional feature of the decision of the Anti-Discrimination Commission is the inclusion of other Catholic Bishops from all around Australia. The booklet distributed to parents of students at Roman Catholic schools by Archbishop Porteous is entitled, “Don’t Mess with Marriage,” and was produced by the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference . The booklet eschews all forms of “unjust discrimination,” and goes on to say, “some suggest that it is unjustly discriminatory not to allow people with same-sex attraction to marry someone of the sam

Freedom of choice. It’s a universally accepted, fundamental rule of civilised society. But which freedom has command over another in the hierarchy of rights? Does freedom of speech outrank freedom of opinion, and are they both junior to freedom of information anyway? And what of religious freedom, the right of individuals and organisations to follow the dictates and teachings of their faith without unfair and unjustified interference? Where does that fall in the freedom pecking order? I ask this in response to another anti-choice offensive from the Greens , this time in Tasmania, questioning the Catholic Church’s ability to reinforce its religious beliefs to families that have made a deliberate choice to educate their children in a Catholic school . The Greens’ anti-discrimination complaint centres on a pastoral letter the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference that I chair asked schools to distribute to parents detailing the church’s position on same-sex marriage. I must note t

President Obama says he backs "The Equality Act ," which would add gender identity and sexual orientation to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. "Upon that review it is now clear that the administration strongly supports the Equality Act,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest announced on Tuesday. “That bill is historic legislation that would advance the cause of equality for millions of Americans. “We look forward to working with Congress to ensure that the legislative process produces a result that balances both the bedrock principles of civil rights...with the religious liberty that we hold dear in this country,” said Earnest. The bill was introduced in July in the Senate by Democratic Senators Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, and Cory Booker of New Jersey, and in the House by Rep. David Cicilline of Rhode Island. LGBT advocates are praising the bill, which is considered to be a long-shot with GOP control of Congress. The Human Rights Campaign

If passed, the Equality Act would empower the government to discriminate against those who do not accept a sexually permissive understanding of human nature that denies sexual complementarity. Building on the momentum from the Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling that redefined marriage throughout America , LGBT activists working with Democratic lawmakers have unveiled a new bill titled “ The Equality Act .” The brevity of the bill’s title matches neither its scope nor its impact on federal law and fundamental liberties found in the Constitution. If enacted into law, the Equality Act would further erode religious liberty , transform public opinion on sexuality, and harm the public perception of those who believe in traditional or biblical sexual morality. The bill would create federal anti-discrimination protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in public accommodations, education, employment, and housing. To do so, it would amend the 1964 Civil Rights A

The White House endorsed legislation Tuesday that would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the Obama administration had been reviewing the bill “for several weeks.” “Upon that review it is now clear that the administration strongly supports the Equality Act ,” he said. “That bill is historic legislation that would advance the cause of equality for millions of Americans. “We look forward to working with Congress to ensure that the legislative process produces a result that balances both the bedrock principles of civil rights . . . with the religious liberty that we hold dear in this country,” Earnest added. Although there is little chance that this Congress will approve the legislation — which was introduced in July by Democratic Sens. Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Tammy Baldwin (Wis.) and Cory Booker (N.J.), and Rep. David N. Cicilline (D-R.I.) — President Obama’s sup