Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  POLITICAL PARTNERS

MN Catholics Are Basically An Arm Of The Anti-Gay Republican Party Now

Fruity dresser and Minnesota Archbishop John Nienstedt sent a letter to every Catholic church in the state asking priests organize an “ad hoc committee” headed by a “church captain” so they can whip up votes to ban marriage equality in 2012. Why should we be worried? Because a similar plan helped pass Proposition 8.

During the battle over Prop 8, conservative California churches:

“built a campaign volunteer structure around both time-honored campaign grassroots tactics of organizing in churches, with a ground-up structure of church captains, precinct captains, zip code supervisors and area directors; and the latest Internet and web-based grassroots tools.”

According to Nienstedt’s plan:

“the church captains will be organized by the Minnesota Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of the Catholic church, which will in turn report to the Minnesota for Marriage coalition for statewide efforts. Minnesota for Marriage is made up of the Minnesota Family Council, MCC and the National Organization for Marriage.

Keep in mind that the Catholic Church has basically teamed up with the Minnesota Family Council, a group that calls homosexuals a bunch of poo-eating, animal-fucking, child-raping queers and the National Organization for Marriage, a group that supports children rotting in orphanages on the taxpayer dime and champions ex-gay therapy even though it has been deemed as mentally harmful by pretty much every professional psychological association in America.

Seeing as only one Republican Senator in Minnesota voted against putting marriage equality on the 2012 ballot, we can safely say that the Catholic Church is simply doing the state GOP’s bidding.

And how is it that the Catholic church has managed to keep its tax-exemption status exactly? Is it us, or does the IRS really not care about that part of the tax code?

By:           Daniel Villarreal
On:           Oct 20, 2011
Tagged: , , , , ,

  • 22 Comments
    • Kurt
      Kurt

      On the tax exemption, we have through this before. The law considers ballot questions the same as lobbying on a bill before a legislature rather than an election for public office. Therefore non-profits are allowed to participate, as will many LGBT groups despite their non-profit status.

      Midwestern Catholics tend to be moderate to moderate-liberal in their politics. I can see an agressive, in-your-face campaign to the people in the pews backfiring.

      Oct 20, 2011 at 9:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      Actually no, they are not supposed to donate funds or resources. In fact several small black churches were threatened with losing their tax exempt status because of preaching politics from the pulpit.

      The difference is, this guy is preaching what the right wing wants to hear.

      Well done on pointing out this article Queerty. Thank you for putting something up here that is not attacking gays or gay rights.

      Oct 20, 2011 at 10:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      The Conference of Bishops has stated that their highest allegiance is owed to the church, and they are only answerable to the pope.

      Given that the Vatican is indeed a foreign government (borders, passports, diplomats &c.), then ipso facto Catholic bishops are agents of a foreign government. Federal law (26 USC §611) requires they be identified to the American public as individuals under the control of a foreign power.

      As unregistered agents of a foreign government, the Catholic Bishop’s political lobbying is an ongoing criminal conspiracy.

      President Kennedy ordered the American Zionist Council to register as foreign agents for their work on behalf of Israel, so this is not unprecedented.

      Oct 20, 2011 at 10:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dancobbb
      dancobbb

      Wow… that cardinal or jay, or whatever he is, sure looks fruity!

      Oct 20, 2011 at 10:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joetx
      Joetx

      @ Kurt – We thought Maine Catholics wouldn’t respond to their antigay bishops either, but look how that turned out.

      Oct 20, 2011 at 11:26 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pete n SFO
      Pete n SFO

      Gay people really need to organize & stand w/ placards after every Sunday Mass. My parents, aunts, etc were all raised Katholic & won’t attend khurch any longer because of the misguided vitriol & bigotry that has become the defining element of Khurch leadership.

      Make them look like the fools they are & the flock will fly.

      The legal stuff is a boondoggle… Have you ever heard the expression, “kill them with billable hours”? It means, it doesn’t matter where a case goes, just spend all their money making them fight you. The Katholics are hugely funded & politicians/judges live in the communities. No one is going to touch a lawsuit against the Khurch.

      Pick another route/tactic.

      Oct 20, 2011 at 11:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dave
      Dave

      Never thought I’d have a reason to quote Fred Fucking Durst, but “three dollar bill y’all”.

      Oct 20, 2011 at 11:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      They dress like they are competing with John Galliano. Anything these dysfunctional virgins have to say is completely out of touch with this century.

      Oct 20, 2011 at 12:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dave
      Dave

      @ewe: Dysfunctional, yes. Virgins, no–not for the most part. Most of the Roman Catholic hierarchy are as dishonest about their vows as they are about the Vatican’s real aims and goals. As a former seminarian, my ex-boyfriend really opened my eyes to this reality: A walk through Provincetown on a typical summer day would have been like a class reunion for him, had any of his fellow seminarians been willing to acknowledge their identities. And that’s just the gay priest contingent; anonymous surveys and years of undercover reporting have made it fairly clear that a great man straight priests disregard their vows of chastity from nearly the moment they’re made. All of which is to say that the Roman Catholic hierarchy isn’t so much ignorant as it is evil and cynical.

      Oct 20, 2011 at 12:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @Dave: i know. you are right about that. I just say it because they want to say they are celibate. I, too, know a few priests and was surprised that before they were ordained they were screwin with everything and everyone. I asked one guy about it and he very soberly said “oh i don’t have to practice celibacy until i am ordained.” I don’t even think i laughed because i found it to be so silly. I think i smiled and said “oh.” Whateva!!! Thankfully there are gay priests in the church who do not agree with these evangelicals.

      Oct 20, 2011 at 1:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kurt
      Kurt

      @Cam: Cam, you are confusing donating to a candidate and donating to a ballot issue or legislative campaign. Non-profits can get involved in ballot questions (both religious and LGBT). I’m not saying this a good law or a bad law, but it is the current status of the law.

      As for Maine, tell me more. Did Maine Catholics voted disproportantly against gays? In national polling, Catholics lean our way.

      Oct 20, 2011 at 1:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      @Dave: “the Roman Catholic hierarchy isn’t so much ignorant as it is evil and cynical.”

      QFT

      Oct 20, 2011 at 2:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Churches, 501(c)(3)s & 501(c)(4)s
      Churches, 501(c)(3)s & 501(c)(4)s

      @Kurt: 501(c)(4)s can engage in ballot electioneering, in fact, that is part of their purpose as social welfare organizations. They can also lobby and back candidates to an extent. What 501(c)(4)s give up is that donations made to them are not tax deductible though the organizations are tax exempt. The National Organization for Marriage, for example, is a 501(c)(4) though I believe it has a 501(c)(3) arm.

      501(c)(3)s can do very limited lobbying and electioneering and I believe that their work in elections cannot be partisan. A donation to a 501(c)(3) is tax deductible and the organizations are tax exempt.

      Churches are neither 501(c)(3)s or (c)(4)s. They are religious organizations and they are exempted from all sorts of stuff, including filing Forms 990 with the IRS. Ostensibly, churches are not supposed to engage in politics and I think they generally do not, many of them for reasons that have nothing to do with their legal status. It doesn’t look to me like the RC Church in Minnesota has done anything wrong, but I’m relying on queerty here.

      Oct 20, 2011 at 4:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Churches, 501(c)(3)s & 501(c)(4)s
      Churches, 501(c)(3)s & 501(c)(4)s

      @Churches, 501(c)(3)s & 501(c)(4)s: I should have said that churches are not supposed to engage in partisan political activity.

      Oct 20, 2011 at 4:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Skeloric
      Skeloric

      If a Liberal aspected church did anything remotely similar in practice to pushing a tolerant (Christian) agenda as much as the conservative churches do to push their intolerant (anti-Christian) agenda, the IRS would be on them like rabid wolves and they’d lose their status in seconds.
      The IRS is very very conservative leaning — if only out of fear that the conservatives go after them for the “crime” of actually doing their jobs.

      Oct 20, 2011 at 5:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kenster999
      Kenster999

      Nienstedt is being disingenuous and misleading. His letter says,

      “It is a firmly-held teaching of our Church that a marriage is a union of a husband and a wife, and that they together are the ones suited to be father and mother. To define it otherwise is a detriment to the common good of society.”

      But in fact, the church only views a marriage as valid if the man and wife are single, and haven’t been previously married. Divorce and remarriage are not allowed. (An annulment is a legal loophole that lets them say there was never a valid marriage in the first place.)

      And while the church may not like divorce, they recognize that it exists in secular society, and they seem to get along just fine. In other words, the church is screaming that society will fall apart if the church’s definition of marriage is not upheld, but there is ALREADY a different definition of (civil) marriage than (religious) marriage! Why can’t they allow civil marriage to gay people, while still retaining the right not to think of it as a valid religious marriage? They can already cope with civilly-married-but-really-divorced-sinners straight (second-, third-) marriages. Why allow straight people to violate church teaching and get divorced, but prevent gay people from getting married?

      Why force church theology on civil society? (And inconsistently, at that?)

      Oct 20, 2011 at 7:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dave
      Dave

      @Kenster999: “Why force church theology on civil society? (And inconsistently, at that?)”

      Your question was likely rhetorical, but just in case: Because it’s not about theology or faith or morals or families or the sanctity of marriage or God’s word or any of the other garbage excuses they give. It’s about being disgusted by, hating, and wanting to destroy LGBT folks.

      Oct 20, 2011 at 8:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kurt
      Kurt

      @Churches, 501(c)(3)s & 501(c)(4)s: Yes, what you say is correct. And while religious organizations are a third section of the tax code, they have the same rules as 501(c)3 organizations. They can engage in limited lobbying and ballot questions are considered lobbying, not partisan electioneering.

      I’m not making a statement on the wisdom of the law, just the current status of the law.

      Oct 20, 2011 at 9:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Patsy Stoned
      Patsy Stoned

      These greedy bastards will do anything to keep the NOM ca$h flowing in. They can do what they wish in their church but why do they have a need to keep gays and lesbians from CIVIL marriage? Disgusting bunch of kiddie fuckers.

      Oh, and to Mr (Ms?) Archbishop above: Gurl, fuschia and neon green are SO 1984!

      Oct 20, 2011 at 10:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ChiGuy76
      ChiGuy76

      Look guys. The real reason Archbishop Nienstedt is so militant about this issue is because he wants a promotion from his boss in Rome. The Pope is the one who is making same sex marriage such an issue. This is the easiest way for the good Archbishop to get his voting place in the College of Cardinals. If he tried to fight for workers rights, immigrants’ rights, or the poor (you know, stuff Jesus actually preached about), it would go unnoticed. He is a conniving, self-centered, and self-righteous pig. I have a feeling that a plurality, if not a majority, of Minnesota Catholics will not support the Archbishop. As for Maine Catholics, pleases remember that fundraising among parishes for their anti-gay marriage campaign (it roughly came to about 60 cents per Catholic) that the Maine diocese had to get money from other parts of the country. We will have to wait and see what happens with Minnesota Catholics.

      Oct 20, 2011 at 11:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tim
      Tim

      I grew up in Minnesota. Gays don’t have a big presence, but I never experienced any vitriol against gays, and it never came up in my years in Church there. Grant it, that was Lutheran. The more moderate Christians (Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian) have much greater influence in the land of Scandinavians and Germans. I don’t think Minnesotans are that stupid and bigoted to pass this.

      Oct 21, 2011 at 10:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe
      Joe

      Just as Mike Rogers used to out several anti-gay politicans online, surely somewhere there is someone with the dirt on these nancy clerics???

      Oct 22, 2011 at 12:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Queerty now requires you to log in to comment

    Please log in to add your comment.

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.