Religious Civil Rights Group Criticizes Lawlor, Gomes
April 2nd, 2007 by Peter
March 30, 2007
Dear Connecticut Legislator:
I have no doubt that all of you share my contempt for state officials who ask patently illegitimate questions of expert witnesses who testify before them. Unfortunately, two members of the state legislature, Representative Michael Lawlor and Senator Edwin Gomes, did just that on March 26.
To be specific, both men asked a series of questions of Brian Brown, executive director of the Connecticut Family Institute, that probed his religious convictions as they pertained to same-sex marriage. If you think I’m exaggerating, listen to the audio at http://ctnv1.ctn.state.ct.us/J/jud_3-26-07.wmv. or read our transcription of the relevant portions of the discussion by visiting http://catholicleague.org/3-26-07_transcript.htm.
It is entirely legitimate to ask witnesses about the source of their convictions, religious or otherwise. But when the questions become personal, intrusive and persistent, a line is crossed. Mr. Brown was not called to testify about his personal religious beliefs, but to explain why he takes the side he does on a public policy matter. Separation of church and state, it needs to be stressed, cuts both ways: Just as it would be illegitimate of me to ask Rep. Lawlor and Sen. Gomes to go on record explaining their personal convictions about the wisdom of Catholic teachings, it is equally illegitimate of them to pepper expert witnesses about their private beliefs.
Senator Joseph Lieberman is an Orthodox Jew who cares deeply about Israel. As well he should. It would be obvious—even to Lawlor and Gomes—that a line would be crossed if Senator Lieberman were subjected the kind of probing questions regarding his religious convictions that Mr. Brown was.
I hope this is the last time I have to address this issue. Rep. Lawlor and Sen. Gomes should rest assured that if this continues, my response next time will not be in the form of a letter.
Sincerely,
William A. Donohue, Ph.D.
President
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
The letter has caused a stir in the liberal blogosphere. You can read the CT Local Politics thread about the Catholic League’s defense of Brian here.
This is the same Bill Donahue that referred to the “gay death style,” remarked, “God forbid we’d run out of little gay kids,” claimed that Senator John Kerry “never found an abortion he couldn’t justify,” and claimed that “Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular … Hollywood likes anal sex.”
Yeah, I thought so.
Lawlor and Gomes were indeed quite disrespectful in their line of questioning during Brian’s testimony on behalf of FIC. Moreover, by focusing upon Brian’s own personal religious beliefs, they deliberately diverted attention from the breadth and diversity of support for the FIC as a non partisan and non-denominational public policy organization. Yes, it is true Brian is personally a member of the Roman Catholic faith, but in his capacity as the Executive Director of FIC he was offering testimony on behalf of the organization – which encompasses tens of thousands of people from various religious and political backgrounds. The common purposes that unite us are support for the traditional family model, for fatherhood and motherhood, and for the welfare of children. These values are held in common by FIC supporters – whether they are Republican or Democrat; whether they are Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish; or whether they are religious at all.
FIC is not an exclusively Catholic organization. To keep harping on the phrase “intrinsically evil and objectively disordered”, as Lawlor and Gomes did, was meant to inflame passions and to serve as a distraction from well-reasoned opposition on the grounds of social policy interests.
Lawlor and Gomes seem to be intelligent people. If they really wanted to better understand the position of the Catholic Church on homosexuality, they could have easily read it from the Vatican documents. The phrases they cited have been published as part of their doctrine for decades. Potentially this line of questioning would have been valid for one of the members of the clergy who testified during the hearing. But to keep poking at Brian again and again on this point was tantamount to badgering a witness. I’m sure this nonsense plays well to the SSM advocates, filling their hearts with glee and delight, but to the average citizen it makes Lawlor and Gomes look foolish and spiteful.
The line of questioning was also meant to belittle the political input of citizens who adhere to any religious faith. The implication was clear – if the basis for your opposition to SSM is linked with any religious beliefs, your testimony is not really worthy of consideration by the legislature. This is carrying the concept of “separation of church and state” to an illogical extreme. To suggest that people of faith are in some way less deserving of having their voice heard on important matters of government is an insult. The fact that a person is a member of a particular church or synagogue does not mean that person is incapable of having a well-reasoned basis for opposition to SSM, including aspects of opposition that are based on secular arguments as well as religious belief.
I’m Catholic, Brian, and I don’t understand what was wrong with Lawlor and Gomes’s questions.
You’d only think their questions were out of line if you were ashamed of your religion.
I’ve never been offended of my religion. Why are you? Or is this just something you are using to attack the two of them?
I don’t see at all how their line of questioning is out of line, especially when Brian mentioned religion in the first place.
Anyone can ask me any questions at all about my religious beliefs; I’m not ashamed.
Asking about the ideas which motivate a witness’ position on a bill they testify on is no different than asking a witness if a bill would effect them personally.
I could put up audio of Adinolfi going after a graduate student in social work on the subject of religious persecution (when she didn’t testify regarding religion at all), but I doubt you would see his line of questioning as out of bounds. Frankly, even though I thought it was a tasteless move on his part, no one dragged him over the coals for it, threatening legislators and the like.
You guys need to toughen up a little. A half-dozen mean questions? Eek!
Has anyone ever asked the two co-chairmen of the Judiciary Committee, MacDonald and Lawlor, about their alleged gay lifestyle? That would be a legitimate question, too.
Furthermore, has anyone ever asked why two gays, as opposesd to one gay and one heterosexual don’t co-chair that committee? What about “diversity” and “tolerance”?
And what about bias, something that has existed for quite some time on that committee, but now, from what I have seen of the tactics of these two co-chairmen, bias seems to be out of the closet, too.
Doug: short answer, yes.
Long answer…
Lawler is intelligent enough to know that the Catholic Church does not teach that any group of persons are intrinsically evil or fundamentally disordered. Brian stated the matter clearly, and was not afraid to answer questions. Chris, I think you better watch Brian’s testimony again. Lawler was trying to demonize him.
Everyone knows that the Church has always taught that sodomy is a sin. However, the message of the gospel which the Church espouses is one of forgiveness. It is also a call to repentance. Christ did not demonize anyone, but neither did he walk lightly when it came to sin. The Catholic Church takes the gospel seriously.
Lawler just proved Brian and Maggie right. This is all about classifying as discrimination the defense of marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Taken to its logical conclusion, the gospel will be considered hate speech.
Welcome to the dictatorship of relativism. Every behavior must be encouraged and sanctioned by law, except that which draws a line between what is right and wrong.
All that being said, the arguments of Brian are not religious in nature. Its not only a lack of faith, but also of reason that is blind to the fundamental difference between heterosexual marriage and same-sex unions. That someone believes that a family with a mom and a dad is the ideal to be encouraged and protected is not religious zealotry.
This bill is not about marriage, its about demonizing and punishing anyone who disagrees with the homosexual lobby. Telling is the fact that none of the advocates for the bill were willing to admit the facts relative to the religious liberty issues that are at stake.
Matt,
It stands to reason that groups from both sides of this debate will financially support canddiates and elected offiicials who agree with their viewpoint, like in any other debate.
The purpose of any PAC is to present the argument and ideally win the hearts and minds of voters and to then acquire their votes.
There is a higher bar, however, for a an elected official conducting a supposedly impartial hearing, be it at the Capitol or in a courtroom.
There is a difference between what you say and how you say it. Lawlor and MacDonald were adversarial in their line of questioning to their opponents (and in their capacity as co-chairmen, they should have not had any opponents) and they also cut many of these people off, while engaging in conspicously cozy, friendly conversations with their pals (and they shouldn’t have had any of those in their capacity, either) and let them talk on. Had that hearing been held with genuine fairness, and it was not, and if Lawlor and MacDonald were not both gay and if they hadn’t made the previous public remarks they made, I don’t think the matter of their line of questioning to Brian would have been as much a hot issue as it now is.
I have no problem with a fair debate. I would agree to one gay and one straight co-chairman, but two gay co-chairmen is ethically wrong. If two straights ran that committee, many on the gay side would be screaming bloody murder and calling for “diversity,” and “tolerance.”
Lawlor should have been recused from chairing that committee when he called FIC “out of town extremists” when he complained about their billboard two yuears ago. MacDonald also made some questionable remarks during or after the debate two years ago.
Lawlor and MacDonald are as entitled to their opinions as anyone else, agree or disagree. But ideally, their opinions, whatever they are should not influence how they conduct a committee hearing. I’m not referring to their opinions. I’m referring to their credibility, and they have none based on their actions and statements, and worse yet, they obviously don’t care. Even if I agreed with their opinions, I would feel the same way.
That unethical behavior should not be tolerated. For those who agree with Lawlor and MacDonald on this issue, that may be good for them, but what happens next time if Lawlor and MacDonald continue in their antics and disagree with those who agree with them now?
I’m not talking about the debate. I’m talking about the system. It’s tainted. And sooner or later, that tainted system has the potential to impact everybody.
You guys are doing more to harm Catholicism than anything I’ve ever seen. It’s a shame, and I wonder when the Church is going to wake up to your cynical political game.
How long did the canon lawyer speak?
“Lawler is intelligent enough to know that the Catholic Church does not teach that any group of persons are intrinsically evil or fundamentally disordered. ”
To be fair, the Pope did say that homosexuality is intrinically evil and objectively disordered.
I think Lawlor was trying to ask Brian whether he agreed with that and if that’s his view as well. What’s wrong with that question?
As Brian tried to explain (and I think explaining once ought to have been enough for Lawlor and Gomes, rather than having the same question asked again and again) there is a difference between viewing behavior as “intrinsically evil” and “objectively disordered” and viewing the actual person as such. The distinction is aptly summed up in the phrase “love the sinner but hate the sin”.
You just need to keep reading past the phrase “objectively disordered” to see the rest of what is written in the teachings about homosexuals:
And the church also teaches:
Moreover, the labeling of certain behaviors as “evil” or “disordered” as a matter of church teachings is something that the catechism applies equally to many different acts contrary to the purpose of sexual union as preordained by God. Consider the following list of actions that are also labeled by Catholic teachings as “intrinsically evil” or “disordered”:
– Lust
– Masturbation
– Divorce
– Contraception
– Rape
So is would be misleading to characterize this phrase as being somehow uniquely applied to castigate homosexuals. As Paul states in Romans 3:23, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”.
As I said before, if Lawlor and Gomes want to explore the catechism further to understand Catholic theology, they can easily read the source material directly:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
They don’t need Brian’s explication on this subject. The true purpose in their harping on the phrases “intrinsically evil” and “objectively disordered” was to distract from Brian’s secular argument against SSM. Simply because one adheres to a particular religion ought not to disqualify one from participation in a debate of public policy. Nor does it necessarily imply that one is incapable of holding a well-reasoned position based on the issue, based on secular arguments that are nevertheless consistent with one’s religious beliefs.
Even the Vatican recognizes the need for this issue to be argued on the merits of reason as well as faith. An excellent source to review is the document entitled “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), which cites multiple bases for opposition to SSM, not only “from scripture”, but also:
– From the order of right reason
– From the biological and anthropological order
– From the social order
– From the legal order
Gomes in particular would do well to read this one, because it emphasizes the obligation of Catholic politicians to oppose SSM legislation.
Yet another excellent summary of church teachings on this subject can be found in Father David Burrell’s article at the University of Notre Dame, entitled “Catholic Teaching on Homosexuality”. Before judging the Catholic faith as bigoted based on a five-word sound bite, you should give some thought to this exposition.
[…] On March 26, Brian Brown, Executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, testified before the judiciary committee of the state legislature in regard to raised House Bill 7395: An Act Concerning Marriage Equality. He was grilled on the question of commitment to civil rights and his religious convictions. Brian defended both traditional marriage and religious liberty in an eloquent and courageous way. He continues to be attacked on the FIC blog. […]
Dave-
I don’t think what they were trying to get at was Brian’s views of gay people, I think they were trying to understand his views of homosexuality in general.
They were trying to make a correlation that people who believe homosexuality is wrong are not for same-sex marriage.
I love the qualifiers in there, but you guys do seem to have learned from the statement — avoiding signs of discrimination whilst believing that the discrimination you practice is in itself just.
Tell me, what’s the difference between just discrimination and unjust discrimination?
Most Catholics are great. Shining daylight on the bigotry espoused by some of the more obnoxious believers is just meant to reveal you Pharisees for what you are.
Matt,
You raise an interesting point about justifiable discrimination, which is in fact a well-known legal principle. Consider the following excerpt by Connie Rosati from her course description for Philosphy 213 at the Univeristy of Arizona:
For example, to illustrate by way of an example which is not likely to be so controversial – prohibiting a blind person from working as a bus driver would be discrimination, but quite justifiable in light of the public interest to ensure safety.
The principles of justice and fairness do not always require equality.
Chris, watch, the video linked to above. Brian did answer the question.
“They don’t need Brian’s explication on this subject. ”
Well yes, we do. Brian has made himself the public face of opposition to same sex marriage. As such, he does need to address exactly why he works so tirelessly to oppose it.
“The true purpose in their harping on the phrases “intrinsically evil” and “objectively disordered” was to distract from Brian’s secular argument against SSM.”
And Brian’s attempted “secular arguments” may all be designed to hide his true religion-based reasons for opposing same sex marriage.
“Simply because one adheres to a particular religion ought not to disqualify one from participation in a debate of public policy”
And no one has suggested it should. Brian was given huge amounts of time and ample opportunity to participate, as were the Canon Lawyer (who obviously adheres to a particular religion), the out-of-towners, out-of-staters, and the participant from outside the United States.
“Nor does it necessarily imply that one is incapable of holding a well-reasoned position based on the issue, based on secular arguments that are nevertheless consistent with one’s religious beliefs.”
The question is, if those “secular arguments” are crafted BECAUSE of one’s religious beliefs, are they not at heart religious arguments?
Chele,
The question is, if those “secular arguments” are crafted BECAUSE of one’s religious beliefs, are they not at heart religious arguments?
The traditional principles of civil justice are upheld both by reason and religion. Aristotelian logic and the Roman legal tradition have been adopted historically in the West in both secular and religious thought. The common understanding of marriage, which is our historical patrimony, has been universally understood in the context of reason and law universally up until recently.
The notion of human dignity along with the rights that accompany it, and the notion of the common good are both part of a shared understanding universal to all men of good will, but also mandated by Christian revelation. That reason and faith should converge is no argument that conclusions shared by both must somehow be prejudiced by religious motives.
The elephant in the room here, is that the unique place of marriage, traditionally defined, and existing in this form throughout history and in all cultures, is not an arbitrary and bigoted construction, or a religious construction, but has arisen spontaneously as the fundamental structure of society: Mom, Dad and Baby.
The government has a unique interest in encouraging and protecting this fundamental institution. This is the only rational reason why government has historically taken a unique interest in marriage. It is not the government’s responsibility to use marriage to engage in social engineering or deal with social disagreements by codifying this institution as a form of bigotry.
Chele wrote:
“The question is, if those “secular arguments” are crafted BECAUSE of one’s religious beliefs, are they not at heart religious arguments?”
No.
The first principle in any debate is to appeal to axioms that are shared. Otherwise the two sides are just talking past each other.
“Chris, watch, the video linked to above. Brian did answer the question. ”
Yes, F.A. Malkin, that’s my point. They asked a question, and Brian answered it. What’s the big deal? How is that an attack?
Lots of spin going on here.
Chris, re your: “They were trying to make a correlation that people who believe homosexuality is wrong are not for same-sex marriage.” Well, DUH!! But they are not the only ones who are “not for same-sex marriage.”
Did you know that even many gay people do not support the notion of same-sex ‘marriage’? Also, *prominent* gay marriage advocate Jonathon Rausch, whom Maggie Gallagher has debated (and mentioned in her testimony), supports the notion that children need both a mother and a father.
Point is, Brian spends the majority of his time spouting Catholic dogma, Catholic position, Catholic history and all things Catholic. Most of FIC’s support comes from Catholic organizations — and witness mad dog Donahue and the Catholic League cavalry riding to Brian’s rescue.
Brian can’t decide, at times of his choosing, that his Catholicism is not a matter for discussion. Who is he trying to kid?
chele, you are so wrong, both about how “Brian spends the majority of his time,” AND in your assertion that “Most of FIC’s support comes from Catholic organizations.”
My husband and I are members of a different church, and would not be donating regularly to the FIC if the Institute were focusing on “all things Catholic.” Unless you have seen a contributors’ list, with religious affiliation also listed for all the donors, then I suggest you ‘put up or shut up’ with the idiotic blanket assertions.
I see the FIC as a group that seeks to exploit the moderate image of the Catholic church to advance a marginal right-wing social agenda.
Whether non-Catholics give to them or not is irrelevant, because the FIC’s purpose is to make Catholics appear to be monolithic supporters of their reactionary policy preferences at the expense of the religion’s historical reputation as shepherds to a thoughtful, truth-seeking movement towards social justice.
Tricia, if you aren’t a Catholic yourself, cannibalizing that religion to further your personal agenda is probably not of great concern to you. But a great many of those who reject the FIC’s agenda most energetically do so because of the damage they do to Catholicism.
Religious liberty requires that I not be forced to abide by any religious doctrine that I choose to ignore. If I belong to a church that allows same-sex marriages, then the state telling me that I am not allowed to participate in such is a violation of *my* religious liberty. If the state passes laws that expressly allow for same-sex marriage, but do not force you to participate, then there is no violation of *your* religious liberty.
big·ot –noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
How is this not an accurate description of those who would impose their own religious beliefs on everyone else, regardless of their own faith/creed/belief/opinion?
Stephen – If you belong to a Church that recognizes same-sex marriage, why should the state recognize it? If your church allows polygamy, or anything else for that matter, should the state recognize those too?
The state has a compelling interest to recognize traditional marriage, in that marriage between a man and a woman is the basic unit of society. It has been demonstrated time and time again that children do best when raised in a stable family environment with a life-long mother and father.
How will same-sex marriage affect us? It will affect everyone. This law’s underlying meaning is that traditional marriage is discriminatory; that Christian & religious teachings about marriage are bigoted, and those that believe that marriage can only be between a man and a woman are bigots. Since gay marriage has been framed by the left as a civil rights issue, gay marriage will be given protected status by law, and every single organization that is in some way regulated by the state (501c3’s, non-profits, charities, etc.) will be forced by law to recognize gay marriages as equal to marriage between a man and a woman. This law will run head-on into religious liberties as it already has in Massachusetts, forcing catholic adoption agencies to close; it will be taught in public schools as in MA where parents are not allowed to opt their children out of classes that promote the homosexual agenda, etc. This law will profoundly affect society and religious liberties of all.
Matt,
I’m a little confused by your post…
Exactly which doctrines of Catholicism is FIC violating? How are they damaging Catholicism?
Tricia,
Since it’s the Easter season, I’ll overlook your viciousness and simply point you to the archives of this blog and Brian’s own statements. How you interpret them for assimilation into your own religious life is your own affair, but suffice to say Brian draws attention to his Catholicism and to Catholic dogma as the basis for his political beliefs at all times.
Now, whether Brian is actually using Catholicism to further a political agenda, or using politics to further Catholicism is an interesting question. But because he has chosen to entwine the two, it is certainly fair and necessary — not to mention unavoidable — to question him on both.