Connect with us

Exposed: The Catholic Church’s Anti-Gay “Marriage Guy” Daniel Avila



No one should be surprised that Daniel Avila invoked the devil to describe homosexuality. If anything, we should be surprised it took him so long to do it.

Who is Daniel Avila, the Catholic Church’s self-professed “bishops’ marriage guy,” who has been making headlines the past week for his outrageous comments that the devil creates homosexuals in pregnant mothers’ wombs?

One of Avila’s seemingly-many hats was the Associate Director for Policy & Research of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, before becoming the Policy Advisor for Marriage and Family for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

Before we take a look, first, a reminder of what Avila said, before he and The Boston Pilot – America’s oldest Catholic newspaper which serves as the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of Boston — issued retractions and apologies. Avila claimed that God does not cause homosexuality, rather, there is “a credible basis for a spiritual explanation that indicts the devil.”

No one should be surprised that Avila invoked the devil to describe homosexuality. Of same-sex marriage, Avila is quoted as saying, “It’s like a nuclear bomb exploding in every home, and that explosion will reshape society itself. I don’t think we can even describe the frontiers of change that confront us.”

Let there be no mistake: Avila sees his crusade against same-sex marriage equality as a religious holy war.

Avila last year wrote he had an “idyllic feeling” during his visit to a NOM, the National Organization For Marriage event in Rhode Island, where, “[o]ver two hundred people gathered under the trees of the Capitol’s south lawn to hear speeches, get their marriage tour t-shirts, and prepare for an upcoming legislative battle in that state over the definition of marriage.” he also called the pro-same-sex marriage supporters “insurgents.”

In August of 2010, Avila penned, “Marriage and Civil Rights: The Anatomy of a Social Institution from a Constitutional Perspective,” in which he writes, “given the institutional nature of civil rights, an individual rights claim should not gain civil rights status without democratic approval.” In other words, Avila advocates for a plebiscite, a referendum, on same-sex marriage, along with, assumedly, all civil rights, in direct conflict with the Founding Fathers’ wishes.

Avila also claims, “there is no abstractly conceived civil right of equal protection that guarantees marital status for all comers,” in direct contradiction of the 10th and 14th Amendments, and “concludes that the United States Supreme Court should reject a same-sex marriage constitutional claim.”

Many of Avila’s arguments you’re probably familiar with. He, in legalese, essentially rails against activist judges, pulls a Newt Gingrich about how undemocratic it is for a Supreme Court judge to be the final say in issues like marriage equality — which he likens to “extraordinary judicial protection for gays and lesbians” — writing of “the supposed power of just one individual, acting in concert with the judiciary, to redefine what is right and just and thereby change longstanding social institutions.”

Avila falsely claims “in a democracy the people play an essential role when it comes to creating and shaping civil rights.” Again, the Founding Fathers knew, and created the Bill of Rights for the very reason of protecting the rights of there minority from the will of the majority.

Avila also, foolishly, in my opinion, attacks the Supreme Court, claiming, “the judiciary is ill-equipped to change the social institution of marriage,” and adds, ” the courts lack the institutional capacity and necessary democratic warrant to declare same-sex marriage to be a civil right.”

Really? Why?

Perhaps most offensively, Avila claims “all couples consisting of both a man and a woman offer, through the reality of sexual difference, a fundamental and unique social diversity that society and the law should celebrate.” In other words, diversity is good only when it suits his (religious) purposes.

Unsurprisingly, the “it’s always been that way” is one of Avila’s arguments, as he states, “the federal courts should presume that limits grounded in tradition and democracy are rational because of their popular support…” The logical questions would be, “Just like it was before slavery was ended?”

Short-sightedlty, Avila writes that,

Reshaping rights without democratic warrant will expose citizens to unfair threat of punishment and other disadvantages. For this reason, the people should be allowed to vote on whether to recognize personal claims as civil rights and, in particular, whether to redefine the civil right of marriage.

The day will come, most likely, soon, when the majority — which poll after poll after poll already shows us — will vote for marriage equality. What will Avila fall on then to support his feeling that homosexuality, as he has suggested elsewhere, is a “natural disaster”?

Sadly, Avila has not seen, evidently, any of the polls. He writes, falsely there is “..widespread democratic support for traditional marriage policy…” In reality, we know that there are more than a half-dozen nationwide polls over the past 15 months that all show a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage equality.

Bottom line, Avila is the embodiment of the Catholic Church’s unrepentant and unyielding fight against same-sex marriage equality. The Church is pouring time and money and support into doing everything it can to stop the march of progress. And when you’re doing “God’s work,” apparently, any and all tactics are justified.

Finally here’s Avila delivering a speech at the SPLC-certified hate group Family Research Council’s Values Voters Summit a few weeks ago, at a symposium titled, “Straight Talk on Gay Marriage.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.


Trump An ‘Enemy of the Constitution’ Declares Nicolle Wallace, Blasting Call to ‘Terminate’ Nation’s Founding Document



MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace slammed Donald Trump as an “enemy of the Constitution” on Monday after the ex-president, over the weekend, called for the U.S. Constitution to be terminated.

Trump demanded “the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” in light of his most recent – and false – claim the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

That was Saturday, on his Truth Social account.

On Monday, Trump denied having ever said it, despite the post still being up.

Wallace characterized Trump’s call to terminate the Constitution “an extraordinary statement even by the standards of a failed wannabe autocrat who plotted a coup against his own government and recently dined with white supremacists.”

READ MORE: ‘Venom’: Experts Shocked as Gorsuch Angrily Accuses Colorado of Forcing Anti-LGBTQ Baker Into ‘Re-Education Program’

“The disgraced ex-president made his contempt for our democracy as clear as ever, when he called for the United States Constitution to be ‘terminated.'”

Quoting The Washington Post, Wallace said: “Trump’s message on his Truth Social platform reiterated the baseless claims he has made since 2020, that the election was stolen, but he went further by suggesting that the country abandon one of its founding documents.”

She also played a clip of Republican Congressman Dave Joyce of Ohio from Sunday’s ABC News.

Rep. Joyce in the clip twists and turns but ultimately admits that if Trump is the GOP nominee for president in 2024 he will vote for him.

READ MORE: Anti-LGBTQ Slurs on Twitter Up Over 800% as Musk Allows Thousands of Previously Banned Users Back: Reports

“Well, again, it’s early I think there’s gonna be a lot of people in the primary I think at the end of the day, you will have — wherever the Republicans tend to pick up I will fall in behind because that’s –”

ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos interjected, asking,”Even if it’s Donald Trump, as he’s called for suspending the Constitution?”

“Again, I think it’s gonna be a big field. I don’t think Donald Trump’s gonna clear out the field like he did in 2016.”

“I will support whoever the Republican nominee is,” Joyce added.

“And I don’t don’t think that at this point he will be able to get there because I think there’s a lot of other good quality candidates out there.”

“He says a lot of things,” Joyce continued, refusing to denounce Trump.

“Let’s not speed past that moment,” Wallace urged. “This is exactly how Trump happened. All the Republicans in Washington and around the country said, [Trump] ‘says all sorts of stupid you know what. Dorsn’t mean he’s going to do it.'”

“He did all of it, all of it. And then some,” she chastised.

Watch below or at this link.

Continue Reading


‘Venom’: Experts Shocked as Gorsuch Angrily Accuses Colorado of Forcing Anti-LGBTQ Baker Into ‘Re-Education Program’



U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared angry and even hostile at several points throughout Monday’s oral arguments in a case brought by a Colorado right-wing evangelical Christian website designer who is suing the state because she wants to be able to discriminate against same-sex couples who are getting married.

The case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, promises to be one of the most important of the term, and arguments extended more than two hours.

During one of the more heated moments, conservative Justice Gorsuch attacked Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson, claiming the state forced an infamous anti-LGBTQ baker who also went before the Supreme Court, winning his 2018 case in a very narrow ruling, into a “re-education program.”

RELATED: ‘What the Hell, Sam’: Justice Alito Slammed for Making ‘Joke’ About Black Children in KKK Costumes

Jack Phillips, a business owner who refused to bake cakes for same-sex weddings, citing his religious beliefs, was required to attend a class so he could become familiar with Colorado anti-discrimination law.

The Supreme Court’s ruling at the time called it, “additional remedial measures, including ‘comprehensive staff training on the Public Accommodations section'” of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law.

Justice Gorsuch instead called it a “re-education program,” and slammed the state’s Solicitor General, Eric Olson, with it on Monday.

“Mr. Phillips did go through a re-education training program, pursuant to Colorado law, did he not, Mr. Olson?” Gorsuch asked the solicitor general.

“He went through a process that ensured he was familiar –” Olson responded, before Gorsuch cut him off.

“It was a re-education program, right?” the justice blared.

“It was not a ‘re-education program,'” Olson replied, holding his ground.

“What do you call it?” Gorsuch, dissatisfied, pressed.

“It was a process to make sure he was familiar with Colorado law,” Olson explained.

“Some might be excused for calling that a ‘re-education program,’” Gorsuch snapped.

“I strongly disagree, Justice Gorsuch,” Olson said, defending the law.

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who provided the clip above, warns: “It does not bode well for the future of civil rights law that Gorsuch believes a state imposes ‘reeducation training’ on employers when it reminds them how to comply with nondiscrimination rules.”

RELATED: 5 Things You Need to Know About the Supreme Court Ruling in the Gay Wedding Cake Case

“Astounding that Gorsuch, A Supreme Court Justice,” tweeted Adam Cohen of Attorneys for Good Government, “Refers to Colorado giving courses on following civil rights law, As ‘reeducation training.'”

“Like being taught not to discriminate against LGBTQ is the same as being sent to a gulag for protesting communism in the Soviet Union,” he added.

Professor Elizabeth Sepper of the University of Texas at Austin School of Law says, “Justice Gorsuch describes education about antidiscrimination law and compliance as a REEDUCATION PROGRAM. This is beyond offensive. It was a central and SOFT tool of many civil rights movements and was essential to targeting market discrimination.”

Columbia Law School’s Elizabeth Reiner Platt, the Director of The Law, Rights, and Religion Project responded, “OMG Gorsuch repeatedly insists that a training on civil rights law is a ‘reeducation program.’ Good grief.”

Attorney Andrew L. Seidel, Vice President of Strategic Communications for Americans United for Separation of Church and State tweeted, “WHOA. Gorsuch asks a very hostile question about sending the bakery to ‘a re-education program.’ He spits the phrase with venom and repeats it several times. He’s regurgitating right wing talking points.”

Continue Reading


‘What the Hell, Sam’: Justice Alito Slammed for Making ‘Joke’ About Black Children in KKK Costumes



The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in one of the most important cases of the term, a case that will determine if the nation’s highest court will or will not allow a person citing their personal religious beliefs to openly discriminate in the marketplace against same-sex couples.

In likely the most salient and important hypothetical example, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson described in great detail a photographer wanting to re-create scenes from 1940’s Christmases with Santa Clauses and children, in sepia tones, and making them historically accurate.

She asked the attorney representing the right-wing Christian website designer who does not want to have to provide her product to same-sex couples, if under her legal theory the hypothetical photographer would have to create photos of a white Santa with Black children.

Kristen Waggoner, the Alliance Defending Freedom‘s attorney arguing in favor of anti-LGBTQ discrimination, was forced to admit that the photographer would be able to say they would not take photos of Black children with a white Santa.

RELATED: Listen Live: SCOTUS Hears Christian Right Religion vs. LGBTQ Civil Rights Challenge

Later, Justice Samuel Alito, one of the Court’s most far-right jurists, decided to use Justice Jackson’s hypothetical analogy to make a point, and he did so by mockingly joking about Black children wearing KKK costumes.

“Justice Jackson’s example of that, the Santa in the mall who doesn’t want his picture taken with Black children,” Justice Alito began, getting the basics of the analogy incorrect.

“So if there’s a Black Santa at the other end of the mall, and he doesn’t want to have his picture taken with a child who is dressed up in a Ku Klux Klan outfit, now does that Black Santa have to do that?”

Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson replied, “No, because Klu Klux Klan outfits are not protected characteristics under public accommodation laws.”

READ MORE: ‘Anathema to the Soul of Our Nation’: Trump Pilloried for Demanding ‘Termination’ of the US Constitution

“And presumably,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor interjected, “that would be the same Ku Klux Klan outfit regardless whether if the child was Black or white or any other characteristic.”

That’s when Alito decided to make a “joke,” while thousands of Americans were listening to the Court’s live proceedings.

“You do see a lot of Black children in Ku Klux Klan outfits all the time,” he said, presumably sarcastically.

He then laughed, and some viewers in the gallery joined with him.

Many on social media were outraged and offended.

“He is so inappropriate today. And offensive,” said Sherrilyn Ifill, the former President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF). “The Black kids in KuKluxKlan outfits? Not funny. Is this the highest Court of the most powerful country in the world? Good grief.”

Minutes later, NYU School of Law Professor of Law Melissa Murray weighed in, saying, “I’m going to need Justice Alito to stop joking about seeing ‘Black children in Ku Klux Klan costumes.'”

“Seriously, what am I listening to?” she asked, to which Ifill replied, “Just awful.”

“The joke about Black kids in KuKluxKlan outfits?” Ifill also lamented. “No Justice Alito, these ‘jokes’ are so inappropriate, no matter how many in the courtroom chuckle mindlessly.”

Columbia University Professor of Law Katherine Franke tweeted, “Justice Alito is resorting to KKK jokes. Ha ha ha. As if what’s at stake here is funny, and isn’t taking place in a context in which LGBTQ people feel like we have a target on our backs. And, ahem – Klan jokes aren’t funny under any context.”

The Rewire News Group tweeted, in all caps, “I knew Alito wouldn’t be able to resist bringing up the Ku Klux Klan,” and then: “What the hell, Sam.”

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.