As more and more states pass gay marriage/civil union laws, Church organizations are coming under fire.
The group that stands to lose the most in this case, are orphans and the Catholic Adoption agencies that try to find them homes.
In Illinois, where a civil union law passed, there is a good example.
These Catholic adoption services existed on their own for a while, and then eventually, like many other religious-based charities, starting getting government funds to some degree. The reason for this is because the agencies provided a service and the state liked the cost/situation so they gave them contracts.
But with the new law passed and the Church groups saying they will not place children with civil unioned or other non-married couples, the state is not going to renew it's contract.
And here's the thing. The state is 100 percent in the right to non-renew. They cannot in good conscience make a contract with a group that has stated it will not obey the law. Sending taxpayer money to a group like that would be wrong because the tax payers representatives passed this law.
But here's the downside. Some 2,000 children will be affected. Sure other agencies will be able to pick up some of the caseload but it will still be a problem.
And what it comes down to is these organizations should never have accepted government money in the first place. Now, without it, many won't be able to exist.
But then there is another legal problem. Some of these agencies elsewhere either don't take government money or will be able to continue without it. Their faith teaches them not to support gay marriage and that it is not an ideal environment for raising children. They don't get taxpayer money but they will still be forced, if legally challenged, to place children in those homes.
This is wrong, I think. While we don't know how each child will grow up to feel about such things, these agencies aren't out to screw with people. They exist to get kids homes. But mark my words they will shut down rather than put kids in what they deem unsuitable homes. That's a debate for another time, but it's still a shame.
New York seemed to do a decent job of protecting it's religious groups from being forced to go against their consciences when they passed a gay marriage bill, Illinois and other states that pass these bills are right to without government money, but they should do the same as New York to ensure the freedom of conscience for their Christian constituents.
Sigh.
ReplyDeleteI really wish that you would take a dose of your own medicine and "balls up" by simply writing a blog called "Against Gay Marriage". It's hard to read this and not see it as a cowardly attempt to call "gay rights" into question by obliquely moving to defend a practice which is hostile to it. It's a rather slimy means of attacking while appearing to casual observers to be the victim. Balls up, and embrace the perception of being a bigot.
When states pass gay marriage laws, they are explicitly granting legitimacy to those unions. It means that in the eyes of the law their status is legally endorsed and implies no criminality. Privately funded or not, it's still a discriminatory practice.
If I wanted to open a diner that serves everyone but blacks, I would be justifiably challenged by the law. If I wanted to open an adoption charity that only places children into households of the same race, and does not serve mixed race couples at all, I would be open to being sued. And rightly so.
Any individual or association of individuals is free to hold any opinion they want on any subject. The church does not have to approve of homosexuality. However, their actions are accountable to civil authorities. If catholic charities cannot abide by that, they probably shouldn't be in that business in the first place.
You're right in saying the states are justified in withholding funding. Frankly, even if it is for a good cause, funding these religious charities is probably unconstitutional. So, in a way, the states that passed gay marriage and cut off funding managed to uphold the US constitution doubly. There's just something amusing about this situation.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it seems rather strange of you to take a "think of the children" stance, so I'm inclined to agree with Dungy that this is just some sort of passive aggressive means of you trying to get your point across.
Look, this is nothing more than a pathetic argument. First of all, there's about a 95% chance that homosexuals are having their constitutional rights infringed upon by these bans on gay marriage. We cannot deny these people their rights just because some religious organizations refuse to overcome their bigotry. In this case it is the religious organization causing the problem, not the homosexuals, so why should the latter group be the one to be penalized?
Second of all, the assumption gay households are detrimental to children is not supported by the data. You will NOT find a reputable health or psychological organization that agrees with this stance. In fact, there research supports the opposite. A child is more well adjusted economically and psychologically with two parents, regardless if the parents are heterosexual or homosexual. The only thing which would be detrimental to a child, and this is just my educated guess, is being teased and bullied by his peers for having gay parents. Once again, this is not the fault of homosexuals.
Thirdly, these religious sponsored orphanages do not own the children under their care. If a responsable family comes along, then it is their obligation to place a child with that family.
One final note. I fail to see any difference between adopting to a homosexual family and adopting to a Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc family.
Did it need to be clarified that I am generally against the idea of gay marriage? I thought being a Catholic conservative that my two main readers have known for years meant that was just a given.
ReplyDeleteBut yes, I do oppose it. I don't know for sure that it should be legally forbidden but it is wrong.
Our society is trying to pretend that this gay rights issue is old as time and that gay rights are on the same level as say blacks rights to vote, but that's a lie.
Gays can do anything anyone can do and have all the same rights. They cannot get married because until recently in our culture no one considered a male-male or female-female union as marriage. You could not open a restaurant that serves everyone but gays.
I'll get back to this comment later.
"Did it need to be clarified that I am generally against the idea of gay marriage?"
ReplyDeleteEvidently, because I wasn't sure what your position was. As I've said many times before, you try to present both an image of uncompromising traditionalism, and openminded ecumenicism. Sometimes at the same time. It's sometimes difficult to know what you really think.
"Our society is trying to pretend that this gay rights issue is old as time"
Not relevant. How old the issue is, is completely irrelevant to the question of protection under the law.
Also, a gay couple's right to get married in a state that supports it, is indeed on the same level as a black person's right to vote. Rights aren't tiered, John. A right is a right.
"Gays can do anything anyone can do and have all the same rights."
Uh, depends on the state.
That image I attempt to present is an attempt to present things as I believe. I am a traditionalist with an openminded view of ecumenicism with limits. That's what I try to be.
ReplyDeleteI didn't mean to imply rights are tiered. Legally, they are not. Morally though, I think they are. I think that certain rights are more important than others.
Free speech for example is more important than the right to a speedy trial, and as a society we seem to agree since court proceedings take years.
So in a state that's legalized it, it has become a right.
What I am saying is that the issue of gay right to marry is not on the level of say the civil rights movement. Blacks were rightly campaigning to be allowed to attend the same schools, end segregation, and back in the 1870s they were after the right to vote. Basic human rights.
Yes they also worked to end anti-miscegenation laws to be allowed to marry whoever they wanted of any race.
But the thing with this issue is this. Everyone is narrowing it down to tiny bits to make it seem ok...you know what. I'm going to just blog on this. See next blog.
"Free speech for example is more important than the right to a speedy trial"
ReplyDeleteWhat?
"Blacks were rightly campaigning to be allowed to attend the same schools, end segregation, and back in the 1870s they were after the right to vote. Basic human rights."
You're not arguing the distinction between the two, you're just restating it over and over. "It's different, see? It's different, see?". Explain to me why one group's right to marry each other is a struggle that's on a higher level than another group's right to marry one another.
"See next blog. "
OK.
Because until 1993 no one ever seemed to think of the conceivable idea that gay marriage was a possibly real thing. Until then, in this nation, marriage meant the union of a man and a woman.
ReplyDeleteThere are men and women in every race on earth, therefore there is no reason marriage couldn't occur between any man and any woman.
Then we got all wonky as a society and redefined it. Which legally, we may have every right to do.... Sorry.
I'll shutup and let you read the other blog.
Why 1993?
ReplyDelete1993'was the first time gay marriage was really brought up by a legislature. Hawaii I think. I was remembering that from college debate research.
ReplyDelete