So the Catholic League is upset at something controversial, though not surprising. John Leftwards has hired two women who express strong anti-catholic sentiments on their blogs. One claims she is not an anti-catholic bigot, saying she has a degree from a Catholic University, and voted for a Catholic in the last election. I hate to tell her that if his political standings are any indication, the candidate she voted for is Catholic in name only. Besides, isn't that what everyone says when trying to prove they aren't prejudiced? "Oh I have friends who are___________" (Fill in the blank with just about anything)
The trouble is, these women accuse Catholic teaching, especially on matters of homosexuality and contraception of being homophobic and misogynistic, on top of being antiquated and ignorant. Ladies, nobody appreciates being called ignorant and bigoted. You wouldn't take that lying down if we said it about you. (And we could, considering you obviously don't have a clue about where church teachings come from, despite your Loyola Degree). Don't expect us to either. The first amendment allows you to say whatever you want on your blog, in whatever manner. It also allows the Catholic League to voice its opinions to John Edwards. What he does with that is up to him, depending on how he wishes to present himself. That's his constitutional right to freedom of association, among other things.
These ladies and their supporters in the blogosphere are now accusing the "Catholic Right" of trying to suppress their speech. They can say whatever they want. But, if you hold an unpopular opinion, which you voice unashamedly in public, you can't expect a political candidate who seriously wants to get elected to keep you on his staff. When you work for a candidate, you represent him, you come under the same level of public scrutiny he does, and he wants us to think he will represent us, if elected.
Though, personally, I never expected him to do so in the first place.