Banned in Boston {Showdown between same-sex marriage and religious liberty)

The Weekly Standard ^ | 5/15/06 | Maggie Gallagher

[Mrs. Don-o]

CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF BOSTON made the announcement on March 10: It was getting out of the adoption business. "We have encountered a dilemma we cannot resolve. . . . The issue is adoption to same-sex couples."

Catholic Charities' problem with the state didn't hinge on its receipt of public money. Ron Madnick, president of the Massachusetts chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, agreed: "Even if Catholic Charities ceased receiving tax support and gave up its role as a state contractor, it still could not refuse to place children with same-sex couples."

[snip]

To date, not a single Massachusetts political leader appears willing to consider even the narrowest religious exemption. ...From there, it was only a short step to the headline "State Putting Church Out of Adoption Business."

How did this tragedy happen?

Is the fate of Catholic Charities of Boston an aberration or a sign of things to come?... Just how serious are the coming conflicts over religious liberty stemming from gay marriage?

"The impact will be severe and pervasive," Picarello says flatly. "This is going to affect every aspect of church-state relations."

Consider education. Same-sex marriage will affect religious educational institutions, he argues, in at least four ways: admissions, employment, housing, and regulation of clubs. One of Stern's big worries right now is a case in California where a private Christian high school expelled two girls who (the school says) announced they were in a lesbian relationship. Stern is not optimistic. And if the high school loses, he tells me, "then religious schools are out of business." Or at least the government will force religious schools to tolerate both conduct and proclamations by students they believe to be sinful.

"It's going to be a train wreck," [Marc Stern] told me ... "A very dangerous train wreck."

[Mrs. Don-o]

Every church, and every church-related institution, school, or social service which refuses to positively accommodate the homosexual agenda, could be put out of business in America.

[Mrs. Don-o]

What's the best way to stop this?

[FormerLib]

As always, it's about sexual deviants gaining access to other people's children.

[Disturbin]

"Every church, and every church-related institution, school, or social service which refuses to positively accommodate the homosexual agenda, could be put out of business in America."

Next on the agenda for the pink mafia and the "separation of ..." crowd is trying to remove tax-exempt status from churches and other organizations.

[Frank Sheed]

The ONLY way to stop this is to stop accepting any and all State and Federal monies for Catholic Education or Catholic Health Care and to lose the exemption for Catholic Churches and institutions.

In the interim, Catholic High Schools should close for a week and send all their students to register at the local public school. Catholic parochial schools could do the same.

The politicians would then see the extent of the ultimate "hit" to them and how much Catholic parents subsidize the system by "double payment" of tuition (for their school of choice) and through taxes (to the local public school).

Remember, we make up 23% of the population of the US. If Catholics ever marched in lockstep, it would reverberate through legislatures everywhere.

F

[Democrap]

We allowed gays to use Political Correctness to get their nose under the tent. And they are not the only group that has figured out this magic formula.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You wrote: "The ONLY way to stop this is to stop accepting any and all State and Federal monies for Catholic Education or Catholic Health Care and to lose the exemption for Catholic Churches and institutions."

I don't know whether even this would be enough. The article states that in the Boston Catholic Charities adoption case, the conflict would have sunk CC even if there were NO public monies and NO contracting with the state. It was a question of licensing: you cannot arrange adoptions unless you have a license, and you cannot have a license if you "discriminate."

To the best of my knowledge you cannot operate a school unless you have a license. So closing down the schools is just a matter of time.

[Republic If You Can Keep It]

What's the best way to stop this?

Catholics should stop voting Democratic.

[PaxMacian]

"Every church...could be put out of business in America."

The church is not a business nor is it the business of the US Gov't.

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Marriage is a holy sacrament and as such is exempt from having
any US law written respecting this establishment of religion.
I am sick and tired as a single person having to tow a greater
percentage of the tax burden left to us, than those who have
participated in this religious right of passage. It is religious
discrimination and has significant financial repurcussions.
I even believe there should be reparations made for all those
single people unjustly burdened.

[mmercier]

CC has already turned over all its cases to private organizations that have no problem with the queer agenda.

This is Massachusetts, CC will not be missed. Next up here to be legislated out of existence will indeed be the private schools.

The Catholic Church here has pretty much been dealt with here; hundreds of churches closed, only those who bring in enough revenue to maintain payment levels to the trial lawyers and the victims of clergy abuse remain.

[sgtbono2002]

Placing children to Homosexual adoptive couples is Child Abuse.

[kjo]

Most church-going Catholics HAVE stopped voting Dem. Bush took Kerry 55%-45% in '04.

[Frank Sheed]

The State could operate through the licensing loophole. However, this sets up a Constitutional crisis in terms of religion. What's more, I find it amazing that Kmiec has weighed in on this as he is the one who has pointed out that the Legislative Branch has the power to decide which cases the Supreme Court may hear. This would curtail much of the judicial activism we have seen.

In any case, as a Catholic, I am called to obey God's Law and render to Caesar what is Caesar's (meaning taxes). If the State elevates itself to the status of a secular "religious State" (which is ongoing and is really evident now in Europe), then who can say what will happen?

[Antoninus]

As such laws which force Catholics and other Christians to accept people who practice behaviors they find abhorrent, they are obviously unjust and need not be obeyed. It's long past time for our bishops to stand up and simply say--"As these laws are an unjust attack on our Catholic beliefs, we will not follow them. Arrest us if you must."

Any Catholic who offers a pinch of incense on the altar of the butt-sex god should be publicly excommunicated.

[Blakeroo]

stgbono2002 wrote "Placing children to Homosexual adoptive couples is Child Abuse."

I would like to reply. I am a homosexual man. Seven years ago my partner and I took in a 14-year old foster son. I would like to relate some of his story.

He was born to a heterosexual couple. His heterosexual father stayed around long enough to physically abuse him, then left. His heterosexual mother tried to care for him, but her mental illness made that impossible. He was taken from her on his first birthday. From there until he was five years old he was placed in about 20 heterosexual foster homes. In many of them he was physically and/or sexually abused.

Then he was "temporally" placed in a group home where he was cared for by heterosexual staffers who emotionally abused him. After five years of this temporary placement his heterosexual grandparents took him in. After eighteen months they sent him back to a group home. None of his other heterosexual relatives lifted a finger to help him.

After staying in the second group home a little over a year he was placed in another heterosexual foster family. That family failed him and he was moved after two months to another heterosexual foster family. That heterosexual family failed him and he was moved again after two months to yet another heterosexual foster family and yet again that heterosexual family failed him.

Then he came to us. Our homosexual family was the only one able to provide him a safe home. In our homesexual family he was able to thrive where all heterosexual families failed and abused him.

I think that a respect for truth would cause people to stop this automatic connection between gay families and child abuse.

[Disturbin]

The main irony as far I see is that the anti-Catholic folks dislike the Church because they are jealous of what it accomplishes. Last time I checked, the Catholic Church is the number one world-wide provider of health and human services. And this happens through VOLUNTARY donations by us churchgoers. We give money in addition to the huge tax burden which is INVOLUNTARY. Basically, the libs are generous to layabouts with our money, and the government does an awful job at it, while the Catholic Church and other private Churches and organizations do much better on their own with private donations. Someone correct me if I am completely off base here ...

[SweetCaroline]

GOOD!....any TRUE CATHOLIC should get the HE!! out of the cesspool of a state!

[hdstmf]

After all the other bad things that happened to this boy, he became a sex toy for a couple of queers.

[Blakeroo]

My post was just in reply to the person claiming that placing children in gay homes was child abuse.

I'm not an anti-Catholic folk so I can't really speak to their likes/dislikes or motivations.

I do find irony when someone who supports the admirable Catholic practice of providing health and human services complains when others try to do the same things with public funds. Unless, perhaps, the various Catholic charities are better and screening out "layabouts".

I am by no means a church historian, but my guess is that the Catholic church has been learning how to best provide health and human services for well over a thousand years. The U.S. government has not had quite a long to learn the ropes.

I can see that one may argue on the grounds of political philosophy that the government should not be in the business of caring for the needs of its citizens and all that should be left to the privet/religious sector. I don't happen to agree with that, but I acknowledge it as a viable position.

Your posting makes clear that the voluntary/involuntary financing of health and human services is important to you, but I was not sure of the point you were driving at.

[Blakeroo]

If this is the kind of thinking that comes from conservatives then maybe it is best that their instutions close down after all. It would be a shame, though, as most conservatives I know have good hearts and do good work.