The Boston Phoenix indulges its infantile anti-Catholicism, at the expense of political literacy:
Should the Roman Catholic Church, and the various subsidiary groups and organizations that exist under its umbrella and operate at its direction, be entitled to state- and federal-tax exemptions?
Foaming at the mouth over the demise-by-referendum of Maine’s gay marriage rights, the paper goes over the edge:
There is no doubt that the Catholic Church crossed the line that separates constitutionally protected religious instruction from prohibited political advocacy in its Maine fight.
Hipster bohemians that they are, the Phoenix then gets trendy:
A large and growing Facebook community in that state has now dedicated itself to nullifying the Church’s tax-exempt status.
How the Phoenix is able to geographically locate all Facebook members specific to one State is not explained. We then get to the meat of the screed:
It would be fitting indeed if the patriarchal and authoritarian Church fathers were called to atone by those more traditionally minded Mainers who believe in the separation of church and state mandated by the Constitution. It is also welcoming to see that at least some in Congress are recoiling from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) pernicious intervention in the national health-care-reform debate.
A recent statement by Democratic congresswoman Lynn Woolsey of California states the case clearly:
The role the bishops played in pushing the Stupak amendment, which unfairly restricts access for low-income women to insurance coverage for abortions, was more than mere advocacy.
They seemed to dictate the finer points of the amendment, and managed to bully members of Congress to vote for added restrictions on a perfectly legal surgical procedure.
And this effort was subsidized by taxpayers, since the Council enjoys tax-exempt status.
Though a strong argument can be made that the USCCB should have its tax-exempt status revoked, that is unlikely to happen. Like the defense industry and Wall Street, the Catholic Church flexes formidable political muscle. To paraphrase the late Lenny Bruce, who was by equal measures appalled and impressed by the reach of the Vatican: they don’t call it the Church for nothing.
The most effective way to negate the militantly conservative influence of the institutional Catholic Church and its newfound conservative evangelical allies is to target the laws regulating lobbying.
Constitutional illiteracy aside, this is hypocritical coming from a paper known for its First Amendment absolutism in matters of secular free speech.
I’ve covered the political dynamics behind the Stupak amendment in other posts; suffice it to say that, in an increasingly pro-life political environment, it didn’t take much arm-twisting to include an anti-abortion rider to the health care bill
Furthermore, the Phoenix begs a number of questions involving the competence and effectiveness of the pro-marriage forces in the referendum; questions that those involved are addressing, much to their credit. From what I’ve been able to ascertain, the pro-marriage forces made a strategic blunder and concentrated primarily in the cities, ceding rural areas and small towns to their opponents. In addition the pro-marriage forces were lulled into complacency by inaccurate polling (which with the exception of automated IVR surveys) overestimated support for gay marriage.
It was not the efforts of organized Catholicism per se that defeated gay marriage in Maine; it was organized social conservatives, including, but not limited to Catholics, operating in a political vacuum that passed Question 1.
The pro-marriage forces had a limited ground game in the cities and a nonexistent one elsewhere. This led to false premises about the meaning of a high turnout:
The expectation in and outside the campaign was that the higher turnout was, the more likely we were to win. Turnout was at 58.5 percent—beating a state record for an odd-year election by seven points—and we still lost by six. While we met or exceeded our overall vote goals in many places, there were simply more voters on their side.
This analysis, unlike the nihilistic babbling in the Phoenix demonstrates the moral courage it takes to achieve reform, and I take my hat off to those who fought gallantly, if unsuccessfully, for marriage rights.
The Phoenix, on the other hand, can kiss my ass.
Notes from the Field Dog 