When the Citizens for a Responsive Local Government were considering Karen's candidacy (by the way, she did eventually receive the CRLG's endorsement), we were aware of Karen's religious affiliation, and speculated about whether it would impact policy decisions at the city. So I called her up and asked her about it. She told me that it wouldn't be an issue, that she had no objection to same sex partner benefits. She and I had quite an interesting discussion about faith, and tolerance. Karen strikes me as an honest and genuine person. I trust her. I'm surprised that this is even an issue. Are we afraid that every Catholic politician is going to do his or her best to ban birth control? Are we afraid that Jewish politicians will insist that everyone have a bris? I just don't see any red flags here.
Janet (?) does a much better job explaining than Karen did, but her explanation does open up more questions for me about CRLG's endorsement process. Since it was so early in the season, it would have been great for them to provide the metadata surrounding their suggestions, including this story. They considered a lot of factors, and since their for responsive (and I assume open) city government, more details about what information they gathered would have been great.
Also, just a note to show that even us Catholics have crappy representation in our church hierarchy, just like Karen's church:
The Washington State Catholic Conference (WSCC), which "represents the Catholic Bishops of the State of Washington on issues of public policy", has posted a link to this notice on the main page of their website (hyperlinks are mine).
Opposing "unjust discrimination" implies that some discrimination is justified, that it can be just to discriminate. According to the bishops of Washington, it is just to destabilize and undermine LGBT families. The bishops believe it just to disadvantage children by preventing their LGBT parents from protecting them to the fullest extent of the law via domestic partnerships or marriage.