Posted on 05/16/2006 4:33:52 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback
A few months ago, I told you about the agonizing choice facing Catholic Charities of Boston: Either serve the needy or remain faithful to Catholic teaching. Specifically, the only way it could continue to handle adoptions according to Massachusetts law was to include same-sex couples among its clientele.
While the Massachusetts law is not new, a new interpretation of the legal protection afforded sexual orientation threatens to undermine religious liberty not just in Massachusetts but also across the nation. It’s important to understand the background.
In March, Catholic Charities, citing a “dilemma we cannot resolve,” announced that it would no longer facilitate adoptions in Massachusetts. That “dilemma,” as writer Maggie Gallagher recently wrote in the Weekly Standard, grew out of the Massachusetts case legalizing same-sex “marriage”: that is, the Goodridge decision.
According to Gallagher, central to the Goodridge decision was the finding that “only animus against gay people could explain” different treatment for opposite-sex and same-sex couples.
Thus, after Goodridge, discrimination against same-sex couples in matters of adoption also became illegal. As a state-licensed agency, Catholic Charities was now obliged to serve same-sex couples in a way that it was not before Goodridge.
What’s more, it did not matter if Catholic Charities “ceased receiving tax support and gave up its role as a state contractor.” After Goodridge, it still could not refuse to place children with same-sex couples.
So, millennia-old religious beliefs gave way to months-old, newly found “rights.” Massachusetts refused to consider even the “narrowest religious exemption.” One of the oldest adoption agencies was, therefore, forced to stop helping the people it had pledged to serve.
But that raises this question: Are the events in Boston “an aberration or a sign of things to come?” Anthony Picarello of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty believes the latter. He told Gallagher that the effects of decisions like Goodridge on religious liberty will be “severe and pervasive.”
Picarello believes that these cases will “affect every aspect of church-state relations”—so much so that recent years will be looked back on as a time of relative peace between church and state.
Instead of litigating over posting the Ten Commandments in public spaces, churches in the future will be trying to keep the state from encroaching on matters of faith and morals.
This will certainly become the case if sexual orientation comes to be seen as analogous to race, which is already the view among many elites, including some in the judiciary. If that happens, as looks likely, then all the force of law unleashed by racism charges will be brought to bear against the Church.
Schools, health-care providers—even Christian camps and, yes, maybe pastors in the pulpit—will be uncertain if they can do their jobs in a way that is both legal and consistent with their beliefs.
The best way to keep the Massachusetts dilemma from spreading is to keep the logic behind the Goodridge decision from spreading. The Marriage Protection Amendment, now pending before Congress, would not only protect traditional marriage, it would also protect the beliefs that underlie traditional marriage—beliefs that, as Gallagher has shown, may soon be treated as the equivalent of Jim Crowe.
Good News: God is not mocked.
There are links to further information at the source document.
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
The liberal Democratic California legislature passed a gay marriage bill last year, which was vetoed by Governor Arnold S. They thought they could pass the bill in violation of Proposition 22 on the subject. Anyway, that bill explicitly said that no religious group would be required to perform same-sex marriage or change their religious definition of marriage. Which was put into the bill to address some of these concerns.
As we see, homosexual marriage will impact society in ways that these guys just aren't thinking about. I'm amazed sometimes by the lack of ability on the left to think things through.
BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
If you're a leftist, and you know that all of the most conservative modern countries are countries that have high church attendance and high church influence on worldviews, what would you choose as your line of attack?
Trust me, enough of these people know exactly what the implications of this are.
Thanks for posting this. People need to understand that changing something as basic as the definition of marriage will have far flung repercussions.
List?
gee....at least it will cut down on the population. Unless they go the syringe route..../sarc
You are absolutely correct, the far reaching implications of the marriages have far reaching negative effects on society.....
Oh, that's so cool, it's not just me! I REFUSE to call them "liberals" anymore. "Liberal" means "generous gift giver," and that's NOT the first thing that comes to mind when I think of those on the left.
They are what they are. "Liberal" isn't it.
:-)
The best way to keep the Massachusetts dilemma from spreading is to keep the logic behind the Goodridge decision from spreading. The Marriage Protection Amendment, now pending before Congress, would not only protect traditional marriage, it would also protect the beliefs that underlie traditional marriage—beliefs that, as Gallagher has shown, may soon be treated as the equivalent of Jim Crowe.
It would be nice to change the title of the The Marriage Protection Amendment to something else e.g. The Protect Reality from Delusional Leftist Propaganda Amendment
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.