Posted on 03/26/2006 8:03:14 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
The controversy over gay adoptions in Massachusetts is an issue that can be framed two ways. In the conventional liberal narrative, this is a simple issue of bias: The Catholic Church must not be allowed to deny gay couples the right to adopt children. The other frame, generally absent from discussions so far, raises this question: Under what conditions can the state force churches and religious agencies to violate their own principles?
This question has come up again and again, as pressure on churches to accept dominant, secular norms has increased. This pressure includes laws requiring Catholic institutions to provide contraceptive services and "morning after" pills to female employees, attempts to force religious hospitals to do abortions and provide abortion training, and the use of anti-racketeering laws to punish right-to-life demonstrators.
Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Boston, after 103 years of working for adoptions, will retire from those services this June rather than accept the state's mandate. Gov. Mitt Romney, a Mormon, has proposed a religious exemption for the church, pointing out that many other agencies approve adoptions by gay couples. The Boston Globe, as ardently anti-Catholic as ever, sternly reminded him that he is a "governor, not a bishop," which he probably already knew. The state legislature, believed to be three-quarters Catholic, has refused to grant an exemption, in large part out of fury over the church's nonchalant handling of the clerical sex scandals.
The Catholic Church is not of one mind on this issue. The Vatican and the state's four Catholic bishops are strongly opposed to Catholic approval of adoptions by gay couples. Many who work at Boston's Catholic Charities have been much more willing to grant them. Of the 42 members of the board, eight quit over the policy of opposing adoptions by gay couples.
Maybe the Catholic Church's position on adoptions will change. Maybe it won't. But why not consider a conscience exemption? No one is required to use a Catholic agency. Gay couples are not being denied a chance to adopt, merely a chance to adopt through a particular church.
Much of the reporting on the issue has featured stories of children who might be denied a home if gay applicants are rejected. But that is focusing on a pebble and not noticing the boulder nearby. Boston's Catholic Charities accounts for 31 percent of the state's special-needs adoptions, those children abused, neglected, disturbed or handicapped. A conscience clause would allow the church to keep shouldering that burden, all but 3 percent of the cost at its own expense.
More important, the state is in effect using its licensing power to bring the church to heel -- no gay adoption, no license to conduct adoptions in Massachusetts. Acting on traditional Catholic social principles -- that one father and one mother are best for children -- is defined as bias.
John Garvey, dean of the Boston College Law School, argues that the issue isn't whether the church or the state has the better of the debate over gay families; the issue is religious freedom. "When freedom is at stake, the issue is never whether the claimant is right," he writes, any more than freedom of the press requires publishers to guarantee that everything they print is true. "Freedom of religion is above all else a protection for ways of life the society views with skepticism or distaste," he writes.
Anti-discrimination laws and regulations are used more and more to restrict religious freedom. On some campuses, evangelical groups have been de-recognized or otherwise punished for refusing to allow sexually active gays into leadership positions. A Swedish pastor was put on trial for a sermon criticizing homosexuality. And British author Lynette Burrows was contacted by police about a possible "homophobic incident" -- she had said in a radio interview that she didn't think homosexuals should be allowed to adopt.
Some fear more drastic attempts to curb the churches. These might one day include Title VII provisions against gender bias to force the ordination of women priests and imams, or even moving to deny tax exemptions for churches that reject favored secular norms. Certain law professors want more regulation of sectarian groups, all for the common good, of course. It's best for the churches to be on guard.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
They have killed and imprisoned Christians whenever they had the power to do so.
Hi there GG!
I don't know if you get email updates from article8, but this looks to be very interesting.
The "Forum on Marriage Equality" was organized by the Quincy Human Rights Commission / No Place for Hate and jointly co-sponsored by Article 8 / MassResistance and South Shore Civil Marriage for All, an affiliate of MassEquality. The event was publicized local papers and the homosexual press, and attracted about 100 people, nearly filling the room.
The video is forth coming, they are going to post it at massresistence.
Also:
Brian Camenker speaks at Brandeis University. Attempt by dozens of college "queer activists" to show up and disrupt speech falls flat! ===
As reported last time, we got a call that morning (Wednesday), informing us that local homosexual activists had summoned the president of the Brandeis Republicans and told him that if he insisted on allowing this speech to take place, they would attempt to shut it down through pickets, demonstrations, etc. For a while, the Republicans wondered if they should just avoid all the hassle, but in the end they decided that free speech in America was worth the trouble. The topic was Universities and American Jews: Destructive Ideas and Poisonous Alliances. I suppose the campus homosexuals thought I was referring to them, although I actually had larger issues in mind.
When we got there, several dozen students with those silly gay "equal" stickers and a few with hand-made signs were standing outside the door of the room, waiting for it to open up. I was told that they planned to go in, take seats, and then all walk out as soon as I was introduced. I chatted with a few of them, and mentioned that this particular stunt isn't too original, and is used so much these days that it's getting old and stale. Maybe at least they could wait ten or fifteen minutes into the talk, and leave then, for some variety. But the kids were much too serious about this to banter with me about it.
It turns out they were part of (or were "allies" of) a wacky campus homo group called "Triskelion". Their website is a mixture of assorted club notes, perversions, how to find gay bars, serious discussions by guys who think they're lesbians, etc., info on various lubricants and devices, and a handbook on trans-genderism. In other words, a bunch of really confused college kids whose parents are probably wondering what that $30,000+ per year is going for.
Well, when the meeting started, the guy who introduced me made such a big deal about the childishness of their planned walkout, that most of them ended up staying, and actually asked polite questions afterwards! I'm sure most of them didn't like what they heard, but there were also quite a few people there who came to hear the talk, and actually liked hearing a viewpoint different from the party line they hear every day.
Click here for pictures from the Brandeis demonstration/speech:
http://www.massresistance.com/docs/events06/Brandeis_Speech/main.html
I've come to the conclusion that a lot of college students are willing to think about new ideas, if only they could get exposed to a few of them. The radical left's monopoly on campus is only maintained by force and intimidation. Vive the Resistance movement!!
How exactly does that work? If they're attracted to girls, doesn't that just mean they're heterosexuals?
Lesbian couple found guilty of boy's murder (refused to call mom's dyke friend "daddy"!)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1603097/posts
Actually with small exception ALL human beings are heterosexual (a scientific term describing those sexually procreative by means of two sexes e.g. male & female versus asexual which is self procreative).
The whole 'homosexual' (non-scientific term) innate identity thing is leftist propaganda. 'Homosexuals' are simply disordered heterosexuals -heterosexuals that feel predisposed to or actually choose to engage in homosexual activities. In the case referenced -the disordered heterosexuals (homosexuals) took their disorder one step further than most and actually physically mutilated themselves so they would appear to be the opposite sex...
Take note that 'sex' as it applies to the heterosexual term is scientifically premised in procreation while 'gender' as it applies to the disordered heterosexual (homosexual) term is leftist derived propaganda premised in selfish pursuit of recreational sex that by default can not procreate...
Frankly, the above discussion is too mind boggling for me to follow too clearly. The question that has come to my mind, though, whether it be religious, pro homos, support homos, or whatever, is this: a question I have never heard discussed, and which to me seems at least as important as other issues that have been discussed, such as; is the sperm donor financially responsible for the care of the child?, and other responsibility issues. The one question I have not heard put forth is, does the sperm donor care, or have any rights, regarding the raising of the output of the sperm? In other words, does he care or not care that this child will often be raised in very bazaar surroundings? Has he thought of, or even care about the living conditions of this offspring? Does he consider that the child may be raised among lesbians, homosexuals, or people of other diverse political, religious, and sexual beliefs? It seems that most men have certain qualifications for who they choose to be their wives and mothers of their children. It also seems it is something close to child abuse, to possibly condemn a child to unnatural conditions of life, and that that child may, at the same time, have very little contact with people of ordinary sexual, political or religious ideologies. It does make one wonder how people who approve of this type of social deviation for children who have no say in the matter, would respond to other types of non-permissive conditions, such as, a child being forced to become a priest, or being forced to become a democrat or republican or communist or any other station in life that that child may not really want to adopt.
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.