Well, the Bishop of Idaho finally said something about the ICA initiative. I would rate his statement as mediocre. His statement keeps the ICA out of Catholic parishes, but it keeps us from having speakers, presenting information, leaving brochures in parishes too. He has taken a conservative approach, which I exspected,since he seems to be the kind of bishop who doesn't want to step on the Vatican's toes. Here it is, copied without permission from the Idaho Resister. BISHOP ASKS PARISHES NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN INITIATIVE SIGNING By Colette Cowman Idaho Register Editor Idaho Register March 12, 1993 page 1 Because of the controversial nature of the Idaho Citizens Alliance (ICA) homosexual civil rights initiative, Bishop Tod Brown has asked Idaho Catholic parishes not to participate in the signature gathering effort if ICA decides to try to put the initiative on the ballot. "No parish should be used to further this cause either way." Father Den nis Falk, vicar general, said in a March 11 memo to parishes written at the bishop's request. "parish facilities are not to be used for any political purposes, i.e., presentation, signing of petitions, and so forth." ICA filed the initiative March 4. The attorney general's office had 10 working days after that to review and recommend changes. The alliance than has 15 working days to decide whether to go ahead with the initiative. The ICA must collect signatures from 32,061 registered voters by July of next year to place the initiative on the November 1994 ballot. Bishop Brown said the text of the proposed initiative is under study by diocesan officials. "If he initiative qualifies for the general election in 1994, I will mak e an appropriate statement regarding our church's position on this initiative at that time," said Bishop Brown. Similar initiatives aimed at prohibiting government from extending civil rights protection specifically to gays were presented to the people of Oregon and Colorado last year. Oregon voters defeated Measure 9 by a 56-44 vote. The wording of each initiative was different. The bishops of the Oregon Catholic Conference took a stand against the initiative. Archbishop William J. Levada, Archdiocese of Portland, and Bishop Thomas J. Connolly, Bishop of Baker, Ore., said the terms used in the initiative's language were "overbroad, ambiguous and potentially harmful and discriminatory to homosexual citizens." In a September 1992 statement, the Oregon bishops stated: "While the mor al teaching of the Church considers homosexual activity, as distinguished from homosexual orientation, morally wrong, the 1976 statement of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. . .stated: 'Homosexuals, like everyone else, should not suffer from prejudice against their basic human rights. They have a right to respect, friendship and justice'." The Colorado Catholic Conference Board of Governors chose to remain neut ral on their state's Amendment 2. In a June 1992 Statement, Archbishop Francis Stafford, Archdiocese of De nver, Bishop Arthur Tafoya, Diocese of Pueblo, and Bishop Hanifin, Diocese of Colorado Springs, Colo., said: "The ambiguous language of the proposed amendment confuses the crucial distinction between homosexual 'orientation' and homosexual 'conduct' or 'relationships.' In the Catholic tradition, recognition of this distinction is absolutely essential to preserve respect for the dignity of persons. Therefore the Colorado Catholic Conference declines to take a position on the "No Protected Status' proposed initiative." Idaho Citizens Alliance chairman Kelly Walton was accompanied by U.S. Ci tizens Alliance chief Lon Mabon at the press conference at which he announced ICA was filling the Idaho initiative. Mabon was the Oregon Citizen Alliance founder. The nationwide alliance he now heads has announced plans to present similar initiatives in several other states this year. The alliance is also now working in Oregon and Washington counties and c ities to try to get laws passed that would prohibit extending civil rights protection specifically to homosexuals.