Catholic position on Question 2 may send conflicting message

Stacy J. Willis

Saturday, Oct. 28, 2000 | 3:55 a.m.

Catholic Bishop Phillip Straling is describing a tradition he holds dear:

"When a person goes into that booth, and pulls that curtain, what happens is between him and God," says Straling, Bishop of the Diocese of Reno.

Straling isn't talking about a confessional, nor about recollecting sins.

He's talking about the voting booth -- about making public policy.

The Nevada Catholic Church's stance on Question 2, a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, has been something of a mystery in recent months. While amendment proponent Richard Ziser claims the Catholic Church endorses the measure, gay rights advocates nationwide are thanking the Nevada church for its "refusal to support" it.

Last week, another statement from the church came out that may have raised more questions than it answered.

In that statement, Straling and Las Vegas Diocese Administrator Monsignor Patrick Leary clearly said marriage should not be open to homosexuals, and that the church will recognize only heterosexual marriages. But rather than urging voters to support the proposition, Nevada's Catholic leaders told the church's nearly 400,000 members to "decide for themselves what is the best course of action" at the polls.

And Straling declined to divulge how he personally plans to vote on the measure -- saying, "I reserve the right to make that vote in private, behind the curtain."

One thing is certain -- the Nevada Catholic Church's position is markedly different than dioceses in other states where similar propositions have arisen. For example, the California Catholic Conference actively endorsed and contributed more than $300,000 to a heterosexuals-only marriage measure in that state last year.

Question of necessity

The question for Nevada's Roman Catholics, Straling said, is not whether marriage should be exclusively heterosexual territory, but whether the proposed measure is necessary or constitutes discrimination against homosexuals.

Nevada law already prohibits gay marriage, as did California law before the passage of Proposition 22 -- which, like Question 2, was aimed at knocking down attempts to force the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

"There are two issues," Straling said. "One is the preservation of marriage, and the other is care and concern for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

"There are issues such as (spousal health insurance) benefits and hospital (visitation) rights for gays and lesbians that need to be addressed, but addressed outside of the context of marriage," Straling said. "I don't know how this might affect legislation like that in the future."

The language of the proposed amendment, "Only marriage between a male and female person shall be recognized and given effect in this state," might be construed to preclude legislation that would give same-sex couples the "effects" -- or benefits -- of marriage, such as health insurance benefits.

UNLV Boyd Law School Professor Mary LaFrance said the amendment language is "extremely vague."

The problem, LaFrance said, is that the proposition refers to "marriage" but Nevada statute does not clearly define marriage. "If we say that marriage seems like a bundle of rights that a state recognizes on behalf of married persons, is this saying that those rights can't be given to same-gendered couples?

"It isn't clear. But somewhere down the line it will have to be interpreted, and having it in the constitution might make legislators reluctant to consider addressing those benefits," LaFrance said.

"My suspicion is that this is about building a political powerbase for future efforts -- it's a push to shift the political climate in this state toward intolerance. I think it was responsible of the Catholic Church not to fully endorse it," LaFrance said.

Ziser, who lobbied against a 1999 bill that prohibited workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation in the state, said the proposition is exclusively about protecting the sanctity of marriage from potential challenges in court.

Straling said he didn't know whether he would support future same-sex benefits legislation "until I see how it would be drafted."

George Wesolek, director of public policy for the Archdiocese of San Francisco -- which also oversees the two Nevada dioceses -- said the church in California took an entirely different approach.

"I spoke many times about the proposition here. I said yes, it is discriminatory and the church endorses it because it's OK that it's discriminatory because there are reasons for that discrimination: to protect children and families," Wesolek said.

Vatican letter

The Vatican issued a letter in 1992 to American bishops asking them to oppose gay rights legislation, but reminding them to treat homosexuals decently.

"Generally, all of the dioceses' (positions on political issues) are going to be the same, fashioned and molded by Catholic teaching ... but there are different interpretations of that teaching," Wesolek said.

The executive director of Dignity USA, a 75-chapter national organization of gay Catholics, called the Nevada church's statement "a new step" for the Catholic Church in the United States.

"I found it to be quite encouraging and respectful of Nevada voters," Marianne Dubbings, Dignity USA executive director, said from her office in Washington, D.C. "In terms of marriage, it was a new step."

"The church is in an incredible struggle right now. They are really trying to balance the pastoral impulse with official church teachings that say being gay means you fall short of the ideal," Dubbings said. But, she said, she counts the Nevada bishops' statement among "advances" in the church's treatment of gays -- along with the late Cardinal John O'Connor's support of a New York hate crimes bill that included sexual orientation.

Although the Catholic Church has long been considered the bastion of moral conservatism, the church is different from some evangelical Christian churches in that it recognizes homosexuality as biological rather than a chosen lifestyle, according to a publication of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. As far back as 1975, the Catholic Conference recognized homosexuality as "innate" rather than chosen.

"We have always said that homosexual activity is morally wrong. But over time, the insights of modern psychology and medicine about homosexuality have made the church more understanding. I don't think it's changed our position, but perhaps made us more sensitive in dealing with the issue," said Bill Ryan, spokesman for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in Washington, D.C.

In 1991 the National Conference issued a statement: "We call on all Christians and citizens of good will to confront their own fears about homosexuality and to curb the humor and discrimination that offend homosexual persons. We understand that having a homosexual orientation brings with it enough anxiety, pain and issues related to self-acceptance without society bringing additional prejudicial treatment."

And again in 1996, a brochure aimed at counseling Catholics whose children are homosexuals, says, "Nothing in the Bible or in Catholic teaching can be used to justify prejudicial or discriminatory attitudes and behaviors" toward homosexuals.

Former Las Vegas Bishop Daniel Walsh issued a statement in May that discouraged priests from circulating the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage's petitions.

"(Walsh) urged Catholics to support the family and protect marriage, but he was concerned that this particular measure would be used to foster ill will against homosexuals, and we support the dignity of all humans," Diocese Chancellor Bob Stoeckig said in May.

Discouraging priests

Stoeckig said Walsh discouraged priests from distributing the coalition's petitions.

In ensuing weeks, Ziser says he called the diocese to "tell them that their stand was being misrepresented by Equal Rights Nevada (which opposes the proposed amendment)," he said.

"The Catholic Church is against gay marriage. Absolutely," Ziser, a nondenominational Christian, said.

Subsequently, the two Nevada dioceses made public the joint statement last week about the church's position against gay marriage.

"If gay marriage ever became legal in this state it still wouldn't be condoned by the church," Leary said.

"But gay marriage is not legal in this state. And I don't know if this measure encourages anti-gay sentiments. But in no way would we support that, either."