The DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) removed the ability to construe the phrase “all rightful subjects of legislation” in the DC Home Rule Act to mean the DC Home Rule Act delegated legislative power to pass an ordinance on a subject of legislation that defines “marriage” to mean anything other than a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

The DOMA specifically states: “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, . . . the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” It is noted that DOMA does not say “In determining the meaning of the word marriage as used in any Act of Congress”. Rather, the scope of DOMA is plenary and extends to every provision of any Act of Congress.

So, let’s turn to an Act of Congress called the DC Home Rule Act the enactment of which preceded DOMA. Section 302 of DC Home Rule Act specifically states: “Except as provided in sections 601, 602, and 603, the legislative power of the District shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation.” Hence, no meaning may be given to such phrase that construes it to extend legislative power to the District to pass an ordinance on a legislative subject that provides “marriage” means anything other than a legal union between one man and one woman as husband.

While the DC Home Rule Act’s use of the phrase “all rightful subjects of legislation” could perhaps have been construed, when originally enacted, to encompass same sex marriages inasmuch as sections 601, 602, and 603 did not then exclude legislation on that subject; the DOMA, upon passage, reached back into time and repealed by implication any part of the DC Home Rule Act that conceivably may have held any meaning inconsistent with the meaning subsequently decreed by DOMA that any Act of Congress may mean. This includes any provision of the DC Home Rule Act, to include Section 302 granting DC legislative powers, which section cannot, by reason of DOMA, be construed to mean legislative power is granted to the District to pass an ordinance permitting same sex marriages.

Furthermore, SEC. 602 (3) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act provides that the District of Columbia has no authority to “enact any act, or enact any act to amend or repeal any Act of Congress, which concerns the functions or property of the United States or which is not restricted in its application exclusively in or to the District.” It is obvious that the application of DOMA is not restricted exclusively in or to the District. Therefore DC has no authority to amend or repeal the DOMA and, in turn, Congress has no authority under DC Home Rule Act to amend or repeal DOMA by approving (by inaction) DC’s unauthorized ordinance.

The new District of Columbia SAME-SEX “Marriage” Law is Invalid and Meaningless

My understanding is that they were eligible for other positions at CC so therefore that seems not to be the case.

Seven Catholic Charities social workers work directly with these children, their biological families as well as current and prospective foster parents. All seven agreed to work for the new agency. Not one raised an objection of conscience to living their vocation under the new sponsor.

You can look at this in that Catholic Charities never hired people with a Catholic understanding of this issue or you can look at it in that those whose life work is in this vocation do not support the stance taken by CC.

But either way, it suggests to me that CC should not have been doing this work they way they were doing this work. Does the rest of CC operate this way?

He never said a lot of things about things that did not, do not, and cannot logically exist.

But He did have a lot to say about things that do, including truth, and including the truth of marriage.

And the Church has no problem with fair labor practices. It is unfair labor practices that the Church has a problem with.

Second, and with regard to being forced by the city to adopt fair labor practices for gay employees…presumably there has been a mechanism in place to somehow filter out and prevent the hiring of gays in the first place. So why the worries about compliance?