Thanks for this nice piece. As a kid who attended catholic schools during the same era in the Chicago 'burbs (Benedictines, not Jesuits), I didn't have quite the same exposure to liberation theology and theological liberalism (our high school principal, a monk who took an ostensible vow of poverty, drove an Excalibur).

Nevertheless. Loyola ranked high on the typical Chicago-area catholic high school kid's list, second only to Notre Dame in attracting my classmates.

As for me (like Dan, I think), I hightailed it to that large downstate public university to get far, far away from the catholic milieu and strictures.

Given your family connections, I can see how you would feel betrayed by this latest swipe against treating our brothers and sisters with humanity and humility...as for me? Nope. It's all of a piece with my past and current experience with that most peculiar institution.

I respect your personal connection to this building, but I don't think we should take it too hard if a religious institution with an obvious position on marriage equality chooses not to open its doors.

The world for gay-marryin' folks is so much better today than even yesterday. Let's not complain that the boulangerie doesn't have any gluten free bread.

I'm actually on-board with churches themselves opting to allow/not allow same-sex (or other) marriages; at least then the battle is being fought on it's natural battleground, rather than within US law. Whatever "sanctity" marriage has is bestowed by a house or worship rather than the IRS; so it could be correctly said among christian conservatives that it's the churches themselves destroying the sanctity of marriage, rather than "activist judges" or whatever other excuse.

Ultimately, we can all vote with our feet, and there are is no handwringing about "rights".

Have to agree with @2, sadly

"My Lady of the Street"?

That sounds like a prostitute.

This is an actual religious liberty situation (unlike selling cakes). There is no reason to get married in a church other than for religious reasons. And if the religion doesn't support that (or remarriages, or cross-religion marriage, or whatever), then just let them be. One of the famous bullshit cries made by the bigots in the past years was that gays were going to force the churches to marry them. This is not a battle that needs to be fought. No civil rights are at stake here. So let's move on and pick smarter battles. Worry about gay teachers getting fired by the Catholic Church, not that some gays want to get married in a Catholic chapel.

Oh, why would anybody want to be married in a room decorated with pictures of torture and death?

At least this place doesn't seem to have severed heads or plucked eyeballs on a plate.

Also with #2. I think it's wrong that the Catholic Church anathemizes Gay folks, but it's somewhat unfair to Loyola to spend a thousand words and a half-dozen photos rhapsodizing about this Catholic chapel that denies equality to Gays, as if this were some spiteful and unexpected act by Loyola - it's merely a reflection of Catholic doctrine! Terrible, awful Catholic doctrine, that should be changed, by a reform movement within the Church! But: the people you're implicitly criticizing aren't the ones in charge, and you risk people conflating your criticism of this religious institution with the recent criticism of and movement against discrimination by secular businesses.

That catherdral looks like the rebel's power generator on Hoth.

I really think religious people who do not like their church's politics or treatment of gays/women/minorities/etc should always preface these complaining essays with "This is why I am no longer a member of this church". I mean, can you really contribute that much money (especially tuition-levels of cash) to a known homophobic organization and yet claim outrage?

Got to agree with all those posts above--this is not a battle we need to be fighting. I believe that the right to religious liberty is for real, even if I think most religions aren't. Same-gender couples have the right to civil marriage, and all the benefits and responsibilities that come with it. It's a wonderful thing that so many faiths and churches have welcomed lgbt couples and celebrated their marriages. But if a church decides not to--even if it's the beloved church of your youth, even if it's a glorious historic and architectural gem and one of the city's treasures...they have the right. They have to be able to decline to bless anybody's union, and to refuse to let them celebrate it on church property. That's as much guaranteed in the constitution as is our right to marry the consenting adult of our choosing.

I know too many religious idiots who might actually be able to let same-sex civil marriages slide--you know, let those sinners have their way and leave them to their sins--but all their pastors and televangelists and talk radio hysterics have convinced them that if they do, "those people" will soon be holding all-nude wedding/orgies in their churches, and their ministers will be forced by law to preside. Nothing I've been able to say has convinced them otherwise. They don't need any help from supporters of marriage equality who actually want churches forced to let everybody in.

@9: Funny you should reference Hoth in describing part of Chicago at this time...

http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20…

I don't see it.

Yeah, I liked this post (and that church does not look that attractive on the exterior), but I agree with the others. A church is not a bakery. We wouldn't expect a mosque to perform a Jewish ceremony, and if the religion of the church is opposed to gay marriage on principle, we have to follow their rules. If they lose (or gain) parishoners, then so be it.

And why would a gay or lesbian couple want to host their wedding in a place that rejects them?

While you wouldn't want to force a religious organization per se to perform a ceremony that went against their values, it might be fun to figure out if the RCC had relinquished legal control of the building through some complicated leaseback scheme designed to put assets beyond the reach of sex-abuse lawsuits...

...The lessee generally controls the property for the duration of the lease, but it would be a snarky opportunity to point out just how far the Catholic Church has gone in legal maneuvers to avoid full culpability.