Missouri teacher planning same-sex wedding is fired.

[proud2BlibKansan]

NORMANDY, Mo. | An openly gay music teacher at a Catholic school in suburban St. Louis has been fired after church officials learned he was planning to marry his partner of 20 years.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that Al Fischer's Feb. 17 firing from St. Ann Catholic School follows a Jan. 11 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that religious employees of a church cannot sue for employment discrimination.

Fisher, who had worked at the north St. Louis County school for four years, declined to discuss the firing other than to confirm it. He referred to a letter emailed to parents in which he encouraged parents to talk to their children "about whether or not justice was served."

The letter continued: "I do not want the lesson from this for the kids to be, 'Keep your mouth shut, hide who you are or what you think if it will get you in trouble.'"

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/02/29/3459837/missouri-teacher-planning-same.html#storylink=cpy

[sinkingfeeling]

1. What a shame. I'm so ashamed of the behavior of my fellow citizens.

[Brickbat]

2. What a brave letter. I wish him well with his marriage and hope he can find a district that

appreciates his work as a music teacher and doesn't give a shit about what he does at home (disclaimers blah blah consenting safe blah legal blah).

[Angry Dragon]

3. Their god must be so proud of them

[Odin2005]

4. My God, my ***rural*** MN school district is far more liberal than that place.

We have an openly lesbian math teacher and nobody gives a fuck. This is in a RURAL, fairly conservative area.


Rural Minnesotans are more tolerant than suburban Missourians. JEBUS!!!

[xmas74]

6. I live in a rural district in Missouri

and I know of a couple of openly lesbian teachers in my child's district.

It's the suburbs. Rural areas are just happy to have accredited teachers at this stage of the game. They don't really care what's going on at home.

[ButterflyBlood]

21. because it's a public school district

obviously this could never happen in one.

[pstokely]

26. It's a tax exempt catholic school

I think it's mostly Dem area

[rurallib]

5. in the catholic schools of my youth we were taught tolerance

I think mainly because anti-catholic feelings were high back then (50s).
Another thing the catholic church no longer believes in.

[roguevalley]

7. my teaching partner's best friend teaches in Hannibal, Missouri and was told

not to schedule conferences on Wednesdays because they clash with Klan meetings.

[Plantaganet]

8. It's horrible what they've done to this man.

But, on the other hand, I think anything that brings the Catholic church's appalling treatment of gay people to light is a good thing.

Catholic institutions just aren't safe places for gay folks. They really, really aren't.

[Hayabusa]

9. ***holes keep making my home state look bad...

[Sherman A1]

10. Sad

and so unnecessary, but why should anyone be surprised at the UnChristianity of the Catholic Church.

On another note, when I was growing up St. Ann's was the next parish to mine. I can remember going there for Mass once in awhile as a kid. It had a real modern looking (for the 1960's) looking church building.

[AtomicKitten]

11. I don't think the firing was legal. I hope he sues.

[yardwork]

22. It is legal. The Supreme Court said so.

Jan. 11 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that religious employees of a church cannot sue for employment discrimination.

[AtomicKitten]

30. Another outrageous ruling from this rightwing USSC.

I wonder how they'd feel about Muslim employers imposing sharia law on their employees.

[Gore1FL]

12. Wow. I drive by there every day on my way home. n/t

[happyslug]

13. He worked for FOUR years in a CATHOLIC School as a OPENLY GAY person, and Catholics are IN-TOLERATE?

Maybe its me, he was fired for getting married OUT OF STATE (He is living in Missouri and plans to marry in New York) in a CIVIL Service. This violates TWO Catholic doctrines, the first is all marriages MUST occur within the Church (yes, the Catholic Church does NOT permit homosexual marriages within the Church, but it is also a Doctrine that all Marriages incur within the Church) AND the Catholic Church maintains that SEX is an important part of any marriage (i.e. if one can NOT have sex for any reason, one can NOT marry within the Catholic Church).

Notice, both of those doctrine, while affected by the additional ban on Homosexual Conduct by the Catholic Church, are independent of them.

As part of his employment Contract he promised NOT to do anything against Catholic Doctrine. Any Homosexual conduct is against Catholic Doctrine and thus grounds for termination. Given that the Catholic Church also says SEX is part of any marriage, the Catholic Church can NO longer say he is celibate when it comes to the person he is living with (One of the problems of the Catholic Church is it does have its own legal system that requires anyone accused of anything that is against Catholic Doctrine being PROVED to have not only occurred but is also a violation of Catholic Doctrine).

Till the marriage, there was NO evidence that this openly gay person who lived with someone of the same sex had sex. He can NOT be compelled to testified if he had or not had sex under Canon law (Through Canon Law follows Roman Civil Law in that the refusal to testify can be used by the Trier of Facts in the Case as evidence that the person would have said YES, Under English Common Law, any such Trier of Fact MUST assume the person refusing to testify would say what would be in his best interest, i.e. deny the charge). Basically untl the marriage, under Catholic Canon Law, there is NO evidence of any violation of any Catholic Doctrine.

Thus the Church he worked for kept him on despite that fact he was a Homosexual for under Canon Law, there was NO evidence of any violation of Catholic Doctrine (no evidence of any homosexual acts) UNTIL his announcement of his marriage. Under the above Catholic Doctrine, being married is evidence of having sex for sex is an important part of marriage under Catholic Doctrine. Thus the issue of his having sex with the person he lives with could NOW be shown to have an sexual dimension, and with that new dimension, it was clear he was violating Catholic Doctrine and had to be terminated.

Please note, as long as there was NO evidence that he was violating Catholic Doctrine, there was NO problem. The rule he is violating is NOT some hidden clause he did NOT know of, he knew of it and when it was brought to his attention that his act was a violation of HIS EMPLOYER'S Contract with him, he refused to change.

Now, the above shows a good bit of TOLERATION by the Catholic Church when it came to this person. Yes, Catholic Doctrine FORBIDS Homosexual acts, but the Catholic Church has refused to discriminate against Homosexuals for being Homosexuals. Many people may NOT view what the Catholic Church has done in this case as toleration, but the Church Hired this person, and kept him on the payroll for FOUR YEARS, until it was clear he was GOING to violate Church Doctrine. All indication is the Church would have kept him on, except for his decision to go for a formal CIVIL Marriage. A decision that violated the rule against such CIVIL MARRIAGES for Catholics.

[Sherman A1]

15. one point in your arguement

as I understand the Catholic Church does not recognize same sex marriage. Hence I believe the argument you present for Canon Law would be moot. As there exists no recognized marriage, there would be no reason to discipline this person based upon your premise.

I may be wrong, but if they accept the existence of Civil Marriage for Catholics (enough to discipline the man), then they have in a by default accepted same sex marriage under Canon Law.

[happyslug]

18. The real key was SEX, which is a REQUIREMENT of a VALID CATHOLIC MARRIAGE

Thus there can NOT be a valid Catholic Marriage without sex (and no sex is grounds for a Divorce under Canon law, please note I mean no sex EVER during the marriage, not that one party refuses or can no longer perform).

While the Church wants all Catholics to marry within the Church, it accepts the fact many do not (and in some jurisdiction, a couple must go through two marriages, one Civil and one Catholic to have a Valid Catholic Marriage). Thus a marriage, even outside the Catholic Church is still a marriage as far as the Catholic Church is concerned (Please note the requirement that Catholics marry in a Catholic Religious ceremony is only from the Council of Trent, about 1550s, prior to that date it was valid in most of Europe for a couple just to announce to their Community, generally on the Town's Church Steps, that they were man and wife, then the couple would enter the Church and the Parish Priest would bless the marriage, there are even blessing of Homosexual "marriages" in the 1300s).

One of the issue the Church insisted on in any marriage was that sex occur. Abortion was a sin, but a venial sin (like telling a lie to your friends) abortion did NOT become a "Severe Sin" till 1869 (Except for two years in the 1500s, when a Pope ruled Abortion a "Severe Sin" then died and his successor ruled the previous Pope's ruling had no basis in theology and resorted to the Traditional pre-1869 Catholic) rule). A "Severe Sin" is a violation of one of the Ten Commandments, in 1869 Pope Pius IX, ruled that abortion was murder and thus a violation of the Ten Commandments (the Catholic traditional rule was that abortion was NOT murder, for the Fetus was NOT a person till the fetus "Quicken" for only then could in theory the Fetus survive outside the womb). The traditional Catholic Rule had been adopted by the English Common Law Courts, which lead to the rule being adopted in the US under Roe vs Wade as a right that had been protected when the Bill of Rights was Adopted in 1792.

I bring up abortion for it shows how the Catholic Church views sex as a part of Marriage, independent of even having children (Thus the Church's approval of the rhythm method of birth control, women can have sex for fun, sex is NOT just to reproduce, yes I know how ineffective the rhythm is, I only mention it to show even the Catholic Church accepts sex for more then reproduction). This is an old tradition, going back to Roman times. Failure to have sex was grounds for an annulment (During the Middle Ages, one of the Joke of the time period was to say some King wanted an annulment so he could marry someone else for political reasons, the King would claim the marriage was never consummated, i.e. no sex, even if all of his children were the splinting image of the King).

Thus to this day, Marriage, even a Marriage outside the Catholic Church, is evidence that sex will occur as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. Thus till the actual marriage they is NO evidence that is able to be admitted into a Catholic Tribunal that shows this "openly gay" person is having sex. on the other hand, being married, even outside the Catholic Church is evidence that can be used in a Catholic Tribunal to show SEX is occurring. Since the only sex that could be occurring is Homosexual Sex, he is violating Catholic Doctrine.


Side note on the history of Marriage: The marriage situation in Western Europe in the "High Middle Ages" (Roughly 1000-1400) was and is confusing. Some parts of Europe still retain some aspects of Roman Law, other had readopted Roman Law, some were using some sort of traditional German law, while others had done nothing except what had become the local tradition over the previous 500 or so years. This was complicated by the fact that the primary push for use of Roman Law was Commerce NOT family law. While most of Europe had long stopped using Roman or even German family law, Europe had retained the Roman Law rule as to only legitimate children could inherit from their parents and this had spread throughout Western Europe, even into Germany and Scandinavia.

This confusion is the result first of the Fall of the MILITARY wing of the Western Roman Empire in the 400s (and its replacement with German Military power AND that power being tied in with land ownership), but the preservation of the CIVIL Roman Empire in all aspects except Land ownership and military duty in the form of the Catholic Church during the "Dark Ages (Also Called the "Low Middle Ages" roughly 450-1000 AD). Do to all of this, Roman tradition of Marriage was lost, but NOT replaced by German traditions except among the ruling elite and even among the elite the hold of German Tradition was at best weak (Charlemagne seems to have been only married under traditional Frankish law, but with increase contact with the Eastern Roman Empire in Constantinople after his rule, Roman law started a slow long growth in Western Europe, first in marriages between the Western and Eastern Emperor's families, then later by the need to follow Roman Law when it came to Commerce, Roman law was still in widespread use in Constantinople and the rest of the Eastern Empire during the Dark Ages).

On the other hand, most people, i.e the 97% of the population who were peasants, had tended to stay Roman from 450 AD to about 1000 AD (Thus Charlemagne called his Empire the reformation of the Western Roman Empire NOT a Frankish Empire). This is complicated by the fact that till the 1700s, almost all Western Europeans would identify themselves as "Christian" before their occupation, nationality or citizenship. The term "Christian" had less to do with religion then that the term "Christian" had come to mean someone who considered himself subject to Roman law as opposed to whatever was the law of whatever Germanic Tribe controlled the land he or she was on and this had already come into widespread use by the start of the Dark Ages among peasants (i.e. they were "Christian" NOT "Frankish" even if they lived under a Frankish King in what we call "France" today).

Thus most people in the Middle ages considered themselves Romans Citizens and showed that calling themselves "Christian". At the same time most such "Christians" did NOT have access to any surviving Roman Civil Institutions independent of the Catholic Church (Which is another reason for the Change from "Roman" to "Christian" during the Dark Ages). Since under Roman Law, Marriage had been a CIVIL INSTITUTION, how to enter into a valid marriage by such "Christians" was all but forgotten during the Dark Ages (Records were kept and procedure followed when a marriage ceremony was needed, but only among the ruling elite, such marriages ceremonies do NOT seem to have survived among the 97% of the population who were peasants, but only among the Western Elite and then mostly with those elites with contacts to the Eastern Empire).

Thus throughout Western Europe, people still wanted to get married, but no way to do so as marriage had been done in Roman Times. A side complication was Justinian's change in Roman Marriage laws, that a couple could substitute love for dowry (This is recorded as being at the insistence of Theodora, Justinian's wife). Thus the tradition of the Wife bringing into the marriage a dowry died early in the Dark Ages. Thus one of the impediments to marriages in late Roman days was abolished.

The problem was how do you determine if a Marriage was Valid? Under Roman law that had been done by a Notary recording the marriage. No record, No Valid marriage. But what do you do when there is no way to record marriages? This was complicated by the fact, that while the method of recording marriages had disappeared, the laws as to inheritance still said only legitimate children could inherit, and the only way for a child to be legitimate was if born to a married couple. The solution to this problem adopted though most of Western Europe, was to find that a couple were married by GOD and that a couple could show this by exchanging vows to each other. Such an exchange was all that was needed. This avoided the issue of having a Roman Notary around to record the marriage as a Civil Marriage (most areas did NOT have such Notaries until the Renaissance, through increase use of Notaries as more and more of Europe came in contact with Constantinople after the time of Charlemagne). Thus was born the "Tradition" of what we today in America call "Common Law Marriage". As time went on, the need to have some record of such exchange in vows occurred, thus the tradition that a couple would go to the Village Church, announced to all that were present that they were man and wife, then enter the church where the Village Priest blessed the Marriage.

The above tradition survived in Europe even as Roman Law became more and more widespread throughout most of Europe stating with the Crusades (c 1100) until the Council of Trent lead to it being made illegal in Catholic Countries. Protestant countries took about another 100 years to adopt similar laws, England was one of the last abolishing "Common Law" Marriages around 1753, except overseas (i.e North America where Common Law Marriages survive in several states AND on English Merchantmen and the English Army at least till at least WWII). All of these changes reflected that more and more people had money and thus an interest in a proper inheritance.

The above rule worked well for peasants, for what they had was not that much and it was hard to get other peasants to say a couple had NEVER exchanged vows. On the other hand, with the rise of the Middle Class (what we would call the Upper Middle Class today), these people moved around more then the 90% of the people who remained peasants, and it was NOT uncommon for a woman to say she had exchanged vows with a man BEFORE he exchanged vows with another woman. If true that made the Second marriage invalid (Common Law Marriages had to be dissolved via a divorce or annulment like any other type of Marriage). This could lead to all types of confusion as to inheritance.

The classic case of inheritance being affected by a Common Law Marriage is how Richard III became King of England. Richard's brother had been king before him and left two sons when he died. Richard III was to be regent till the boys were of age, but at that point a woman appeared and said she had exchanged vows with Richard's brother before he married the mother of his sons. If true that made the second Marriage invalid, you can NOT be married to two people at the same time. This would also make both sons illegitimate and the rightful heir being Richard III as a legitimate brother. Thus Richard III had himself declared King not just Regent.

I bring up Richard III to show how a Common Law Marriage could screw up inheritances and it is for this reason the push was made to make Common Law Marriages illegal after 1500 as the raising Middle Class gained in power.

Please note, Richard III's brother was known to sleep around, in fact he announced to his cabinet (which included Richard III) that he had married when the cabinet opened up the subject of him getting married to strengthen his control of the throne. How did he marry his wife? He exchanged vows with her before she would agree to sleep with him, just like the woman who said he had done the same with her (The difference seems to be, in the eyes of Richard III's brother was he had promise to marry teh first woman in the future, and then had sex with her, as to the mother of his children, he had exchanged vows of marriage and then had sex. The former is called "de futuro" Common law Marriage, the later "in presenti" common law marriage. In most states that recognize Common Law Marriage, only the later tends to be recognized, but BOTH were recognized till 1753 in England and was the grounds for Richard III to rule his two nephews illegitimate.

A legal paper on Common Law Marriage from 1956:
http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2762&context=ilj

One aspect of the above paper from 1956, that marriages were suppose to be "Permanent" and that the ease one can enter into a Common Law Marriage undermined that aspect of marriage sounds almost funny today, given the move to no fault divorce since the 1960s. How can the concept of the ease of entering into a Common Law Marriage cause greater harm to the aspect of the permanence of marriage more then the concept of No Fault Divorce? While I make that comment, it does go through the history of Common Law marriages in the State in Indiana as of 1956.

Just a background on marriage over the last 1000 or so years. Marriage has NOT been stagnate over the last 1000 years, but marriage tends to support the idea of where in society are the two people who are married and their offspring AND in peasant society, before the invention of the modern Welfare state, who did you have to support i.e. you had an obligation to support any legitimate potential heir AND you could expect support from any such legitimate potential heir. To peasants and other low income earners who they had to support and who they could call on for support was more important then anything else, thus the support of Common Law Marriages among the lower classes, but opposition among the Middle and Upper classes in the years before the creation of the Modern Welfare State after WWII.

[tkmorris]

25. So, to sum up, you're cool with them firing the guy

Gotcha.

[Plantaganet]

27. n/t

[happyslug]

31. No, but LEGALLY under both CIVIL and Canon Law what they did was Legal

That was the point I was making, we can complain about that derision all we want, but the termination of employment meets all the requirements of US Civil Rights law at the present time when it comes to termination of employment.

[piratefish08]

29. wow - quite a case you've assembled. the vatican would be proud.

[happyslug]

32. Any LAWYER will look at both sides of ANY case.

And that is what I was doing, the problem in this case the law is on the side of the employer.

As to looking at both sides of every case, I remember reading various Newspaper articles in October 2000, saying that Gore should refuse the Presidency, if Gore would win the most Electoral Collage votes, but lose the Majority of actual votes. This indicated to me that the GOP polling was showing Bush getting more votes then Gore, but Gore winning the 270 Electoral Collage votes to win the Presidency. When the OPPOSITE happened, the Bush legal team, which appeared to be ready, willing and able to attack such an Gore election, quickly switch gears and made arguments that the Electoral Collage vote was all that really matter. This was the result of LOOKING at All sides of a problem when preparing for that problem.

In the case of Bush v Gore, looking not only at the argument you would make (i.e. Bush should be President for he had the most votes cast) but also what the other side would argue (Gore received the most Electoral Collage vote). As i said the OPPOSITE happened, but because they had prepared for the most effective Gore defense, it could be made into the most effective Bush defense. To do that you can NOT wish what the law is, but what the law IS and that is why I am making my comment, the termination of this teacher is within the Civil Rights Law so the US, the State of Missouri and whatever local Civil Laws that exists (probably none in that area of Missouri).

I am NOT saying the termination was Right, all I am saying is it was and is LEGAL.

[MattBaggins]

17. Still a shitty thing to do

F the RCC.

They should not get one penny of public money if they want this level of exemption from employment laws.

[Gore1FL]

19. It's discrimination in the name of God.

No employer has the right to determine who you are, and what you should be.

The intolerance of Catholics and other Christian denominations isn't up for debate. It is demonstrable. I am not saying it applies to every individual involved in the belief. The system itself is a social dinosaur.

[ButterflyBlood]

23. Would a teacher be fired for having a heterosexual wedding in a non-Catholic church?

Of course not. Plenty of non-Catholics work at Catholic schools too, there's even a woman who sometimes preaches at my Protestant (evangelical in fact) church who's also a part time professor who sometimes teaches at a Catholic university. The reasoning is ridiculous.

[edhopper]

14. If he had just

molested his students, he would have been given a promotion.
But to love another man, away with him!

[asfghjtyk]

16. Spam deleted by uppityperson (MIR Team)

[blackspade]

20. Despicable

This is why I dispise religious institutions.
Their tax exempt status should be revoked.

[SunSeeker]

24. Why are we being forced to support these churches?

End their tax exempt status already! Society should not be encouraging this sort of behavior.

[socialindependocrat]

28. When the general public is more charitable than the church.

Some churches have always been more judgemental in the past.

It's a shame that some churches have so many rukes to follow in order to be a member.