« Those wiley Jews! | Main | United 93 - forget the popcorn »
May 07, 2006
The clash between sexual liberty and religious liberty
A well-written and important article, Banned in Boston, tackles the thorny issue of just how far the government can and will go in punishing religious institutions who resist change according to "public policy." It starts with the disturbing development of the Catholic Charities of Boston, one of the nation's oldest adoption agencies, being forced to quit.
To operate in Massachusetts, an adoption agency must be licensed by the state. And to get a license, an agency must pledge to obey state laws barring discrimination--including the decade-old ban on orientation discrimination. With the legalization of gay marriage in the state, discrimination against same-sex couples would be outlawed, too.Of course, the C.C.B. case is a bit complicated. They had placed some children (they specialized in adoptions of hard-to-place children) with same-sex couples which put them at odds with the Vatican and they had to assure the Vatican they would abide by its edicts. But the bigger issue is with Massachusetts and that it doesn't even hinge upon CCB receiving government money or subsidy at all but is only about the state license to operate (as all adoption agencies in MA had to have). And a request for a narrow religious exemption appeared dead on arrival. It appears that no matter how much good CCB has done in the past, or how many children will be hurt by the absense of their services, MA has declared CCB persona non grata.
This March, then, unexpectedly, a mere two years after the introduction of gay marriage in America, a number of latent concerns about the impact of this innovation on religious freedom ceased to be theoretical. How could Adam and Steve's marriage possibly hurt anyone else? When religious-right leaders prophesy negative consequences from gay marriage, they are often seen as overwrought. The First Amendment, we are told, will protect religious groups from persecution for their views about marriage.So who is right? Is the fate of Catholic Charities of Boston an aberration or a sign of things to come?
"The impact will be severe and pervasive," Picarello [Anthony Picarello, president and general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty] says flatly. "This is going to affect every aspect of church-state relations." Recent years, he predicts, will be looked back on as a time of relative peace between church and state, one where people had the luxury of litigating cases about things like the Ten Commandments in courthouses. In times of relative peace, says Picarello, people don't even notice that "the church is surrounded on all sides by the state; that church and state butt up against each other. The boundaries are usually peaceful, so it's easy sometimes to forget they are there. But because marriage affects just about every area of the law, gay marriage is going to create a point of conflict at every point around the perimeter."I no longer am a member of any church and I support the concept that eventually the institution of state-sanctioned marriage be extended to gays (it is NOT a right, and by insisting it is a right gets us into these kinds of situations), but Picarello's dire predictions worry me no end. We've already seen that the concept of a "living" Constitution can make actual Constitutional amendments (2nd) fall out of favor and become almost irrelevant while other amendments can become the favorite talisman of judges who project their own meaning irrespective of the original intent of the amendment's authors.
Will speech against gay marriage be allowed to continue unfettered? "Under the American regime of freedom of speech, the answer ought to be easy," according to Stern. But it is not entirely certain, he writes, "because sexual-harassment-in-the-workplace principles will likely migrate to suppress any expression of anti-same-sex-marriage views." Stern suggests how that might work.We witness already that the rights of the easily offended take precedence; from the imminent dismantling of the Mt. Soledad cross to the Bowdlerization of the county and city seals of any historical Christian reference such as the cases of Los Angeles and Redlands, California.In the corporate world, the expression of opposition to gay marriage will be suppressed not by gay ideologues but by corporate lawyers, who will draw the lines least likely to entangle the company in litigation. Stern likens this to "a paroxysm of prophylaxis--banning 'Jesus saves' because someone might take offense."
Fundamentally, Stern sees this as a "religious war" between people for whom an egalitarian secular ethic is the only rational option and people who can make room for an ethic based on faith in a God who commands. There are very few signs of a willingness to compromise on either side, he notes.Is speech really safe in the US? Certainly political speech has been stomped on by the McCain-Feingold abomination (was ANYONE surprised when McCain said he didn't think the concept of 'free speech' all that big a deal?). What makes people believe religious speech, even from the pulpit or in print any more safe under these circumstances?"You look around the world and even the right to preach is in doubt," he tells me. "In the United States we are not foreseeably in that position. Fundamentally speech is still safe in the United States. Beyond speech, nothing is safe."
Robin Wilson is an expert in both family law and health care law. So when Anthony Picarello approached her about thinking through the impact gay marriage may have on religious institutions, she had a ready model at hand: the struggles over conscience exemptions in the health care field after Roe v. Wade elevated abortion to a constitutional right.I'm always amazed when I get into discussions with people about the right of a doctor or nurse to opt out of participating in abortions. Some people are adament that such doctors or nurses are denying the person who seeks an abortion their right to an abortion. There is no right TO an abortion. Only a right not to have undue government interference under certain circumstances. A basic American value is the voluntary relationships between citizens. No one has a "right" to a thing or service that will legally compel someone else to provide it. Such a concept smacks of involuntary servitude.Wilson predicts "a concerted effort to take same-sex marriage from a negative right to be free of state interference to a positive entitlement to assistance by others. Although Roe and Griswold established only the right to noninterference by the state in a woman's abortion and contraceptive decisions, family planning advocates have worked strenuously to force individual institutions to provide controversial services, and to force individual health care providers to participate in them."
Jonathan Turley, the George Washington professor who is a First Amendment specialist, also sees a serious risk ahead. Turley has no problem with gay marriage. But the gay marriage debate, he notes, exposes "long ignored weaknesses in doctrines relating to free speech, free exercise, and the right to association."Why indeed? The idea of a tax exemption as subsidy is the same thing as McCain-Feingold's idea of political speech as "in kind" monetary contributions.Before 1970 the law was "viewpoint neutral" with regard to the tax exempt status of all charitable, religious, and public interest organizations under section 501(c)(3), he says. The tax exemption was viewed not as a public subsidy, but as a means of encouraging private donations and charitable conduct in general. In 1971, the IRS issued a decision redefining the tax exemption as a public endorsement or subsidy. This meant that the IRS would strip an organization of its exempt status if its purposes, although legal, were "contrary to public policy." The goal at the time was to use legal pressure to end private racial discrimination. But why stop there?
We've left the whole concept of "live and let live" behind. We live in such a rarified state of selective sensitivity that a speaker or author's intent is irrelevant to what the listener or reader perceives... thus a person can be fired over the use of the word "niggardly" or schools can ban patriotic bracelets or t-shirts because they might "offend" others. Words are malleable, indistinct and can mean anything anyone wants them to mean.
Such is the state of "rights" in the US today.
If one can find a judge to declare religion a cat, then the government can force someone to neuter it.
Technorati: Same-sex Marriage, Religious Freedom
Posted by Darleen at May 7, 2006 07:31 AM
Comments
Your comments about perception lead me to conclude our society suffers from Borderline Personality Disorder. Maybe we could call it Borderline Society Disorder. But then folks would think it had something to do with illegal immigration, rather than dysfunctional inferences based on distorted views of old traumas...
Posted by: epador at May 7, 2006 12:43 PM
If one can find a judge to declare religion a cat, then the government can force someone to neuter it.
The argument is the same one that the country went through when if force Utah to outlaw polygamy as a condition of Statehood.
Somehow "religion" managed to struggle on and survive, even prosper. I think it will survive this as well.
I have a difficult time thinking of Christians as "victims", when they control both Houses of Congress, the Presidency and the Supreme Court.
These issues get framed as "secularism vs religion", yet when you go around and ask all the participants of the fracas, 99% of them identify as religious, if not Christian themselves. The number of actual "atheists" in the US is a tiny, tiny, minority.
This is not a war between the State and Religion, its a war between different groups of believers and their particular views about religion and its role in public life.
But that doesn't make much of a sound-bite for Fox News so it tends to get lost in all the screaming going on.
Posted by: Patrick (Gryph) at May 7, 2006 01:49 PM
. . .I support the concept that eventually the institution of state-sanctioned marriage be extended to gays (it is NOT a right, and by insisting it is a right gets us into these kinds of situations). . .
That civil marriage is a fundamental right has been established by US courts in cases going back at least 60 years. This is in agreement with the UN and EU. I have no idea how one proposes to argue otherwise. But it is a fact those who assert that civil marriage is not a right are almost invariably those who are not denied the right to marry.
Obviously no sort of current "situation" is a result of the establishment of civil marriage as a fundamental right.
Posted by: Jerzy at May 7, 2006 03:01 PM
This whole article starts with a lie. It was the RCC that told CCB to stop placing children with gay parents. Up until then, they were abiding by the laws of Mass. Since the RCC made the decision the fault lies with them, and it is not just about the licensing, it is also about the funding that was received for each placement done by any outside licensed adoption agency. The state did nothing differently than they do with any agency before or after the RCC made their own decision. Since this decision was made by the RCC for it's own charity branch, it is an internal matter for them to come to terms with. Nobody other than the RCC and the CCB made any changes to how things work, and so it was their choice and they must live with it instead of forcing the rest of the state to deal with their lifestyle choice. Simple as that. The RCC and CCB need to stop blaming anyone for their own decisions.
Posted by: Tim at May 7, 2006 03:56 PM
Tim
Ya know, since you come here to MY BLOG you might actually want to read what I write before accusing me of LYING.
You know...like that Vatican = RCC.
Posted by: Darleen at May 7, 2006 04:06 PM
Jerzy
How can civil marriage be a "fundamental right" rather than a PUBLIC sanctioned institution with membership criteria (akin to say, joining the US military).
Certainly, if it was a "fundamental right" then there should be no restrictions on how many adults could enter into marriage...or why there are familial restrictions (why can't adult siblings marry?)
Having a PUBLIC institution that with a restrictive membership is not interfering with anyone's PRIVATE choices to relationships. No one stops any couple or group from living together or setting up private contracts dealing with medical/inheritance issues.
The current default argument for same-sex marriage works on the "I have a right to marry whomever I love, regardless of gender" while ignoring that exact same argument is used by polygamists.
It is the wrong argument.
Posted by: Darleen at May 7, 2006 04:14 PM
Throughout this entire diatribe about the supposed rights of Catholic Charities facilitate adoptions with discrimination toward same-sex couples, we have lost sight of the best interests of the children waiting to be adopted. Basically, CC has stated that they will never place a child with a same-sex couple, no matter how compelling the case that such adoption is in the child's best interest. Of course the state has an interest in licensing only practitioners who focus on the best interest of the children for whom they take responsibility.
Posted by: Jeff Jones at May 7, 2006 04:19 PM
Darleen,
I recommend reading the US supreme court case Loving v. Virginia. This is a case where Virginia's law regarding the requirement for which races could marry each other was overturned. Marriage as a fundamental human right was brought up in this case. It is also relevant in that the argument in favor of the law was that it didn't discriminate because any black person could still marry as long as it was another black person.
First cousins can marry in three US states provided they prove they are unable to have children.
No legal means exists to bind two people in the same way marriage does. No amount of money, lawyers and paper can aproximate marriage. Powers of attorney and wills only go so far and can be broken by blood relatives as the court sees them as legally "closer" to the individual.
There is no legal way to approximate the ability for a multinational couple to bring their spouse into the US. No legal document can keep a domestic partner from testifying against their partner in court where a marriage can. The list go es on and on.
Religious organizations should have the right to practice their beliefs as they see fit. However, if they choose to discriminate and run afowl of state laws, they forfeit state monies.
And yes, the Vatican is the Roman Catholic Church. If you have any doubt of this, there are two excommunicated bishops in China that can explain it to you. The Pope (ruler of Vatican City) is to the Roman Catholic Church as the President is to the US Military. It is a hierarchical organization and he's not only its leader but as a matter of religious doctrine he's infallable. (And while Bush isn't infallable, there seem to be quite a few people that are unware of it.) I understand that many christian churches are more democratic in organization, but as a life-long catholic I can assure you the RCC is not one of them.
Posted by: Shawn Hicks at May 7, 2006 07:34 PM
First off almost all employment is "at will" of the employers. So there is not a right to refuse treatment to patients or people seeking perscriptions, if you don't serve the customer you should be fired. The reason "Jesus Saves" is banned from work places is because it is inapropriate in a place of business. There are two things you shouldn't discuss to keep the peace, politics and religion. There is no "right" to disturbing your workplace with such talk.
The Vatican is a soveriegn nation with it's own national gaurd. To allow another nation to have an effect on our law is to give up sovereignty of the United States to another nation. Catholic Charities if they want to do business in the United States, should follow the laws of the United States, not the laws of the Vatican.
Posted by: Larry at May 7, 2006 10:15 PM
Shawn
I am well familiar with Loving. I would point out, though, that race is a biological myth.
Sex and gender are not. So denying a man and woman to marry each other due mythical reasons is not the same as saying two people of the same sex cannot marry.
This may sound strange, but no family law demands one state their sexual orientation before marriage. As long as the couple is mixed-sex, the state doesn't care.
The history of marriage is that for almost ALL history marriage was a private affair and the state was by and large, neutral about, unless called into as arbitrator of things like inheritance (then it was about legitimate/illegitimate offspring).
If you read the article in the link, the case of CCB was beyond government $$$. Indeed, the whole point of having several scholars on the subject at hand was to look at the impact on religions in the US of judicial mandated "new right" of same sex marriage. Would it mean that all religions would have to change their belief systems or be punished by the state? We've seen in Canada, for instance, that merely stating that the Bible has passages against homosexual behavior can have legal consequences.
I have no problem, per se, with same-sex marriage. I have real problems with polygamy. To demand marriage as a "right" is to have to grant the same right to polygamists as to same-sex and also rid of any law against family-relation marriages as long as the people are adults. There is no logical argument against such as long as you demand that the PUBLIC institution of marriage is a "right".
The US Constitution is an instrument that restricts government. It is not an instrument that allows the government to restrict the rights of individuals. Freedom from interference does not translate into a positive entitlement.
Your right to disagree with me does not translate into the government forcing me to shut up.
This is not Sharia.
Not yet.
Posted by: Darleen at May 7, 2006 10:24 PM
Larry
Can you discuss things without boilerplate?
Posted by: Darleen at May 7, 2006 10:26 PM
Darleen:
The right to marry that US courts have long established and that the UN and EU recognize is the right to marry the consensual and eligible person of one’s choosing. No US court has established the right for someone to marry a plurality of other people.
States do enact eligibility requirements concerning age and consanguinity (and marital status), which the courts have not struck down and which affect all people. It becomes clearly discriminatory when two people who are eligible to marry are denied access.
Having a PUBLIC institution that with a restrictive membership is not interfering with anyone's PRIVATE choices to relationships.
I suppose with this reasoning it would be acceptable to restrict who can hold office in congress to only whites or only men. That wouldn’t “interfere” with your private choices, would it?
No one stops any couple or group from living together or setting up private contracts dealing with medical/inheritance issues.
Are you aware of the fact the two people cannot privately contract to obtain the 1500+/- state and federal rights and benefits that come with civil marriage? Again, by your reasoning you seem to suggest that it would be perfectly fair to limit the civil institution of marriage to whites only, and it wouldn’t adversely affect people of other races whatsoever; it would just be an innocuous "membership restriction."
What reason would you have for wanting to restrict access to a civil institution to only a privileged segment of the tax-paying population?
The current default argument for same-sex marriage works on the "I have a right to marry whomever I love, regardless of gender" while ignoring that exact same argument is used by polygamists.
If a polygamy argument is reason to deny same-sex couples the right to marry, it is an even better reason to deny different-sex couples the right to marry.
I would point out, though, that race is a biological myth.
Sex and gender are not.
Oh? What sex or gender is a person with XXY chromosomes?
Posted by: Jerzy at May 7, 2006 11:47 PM
Concerning the topic of the post: Why shouldn’t a state-licensed agency have to abide by the state’s anti-discrimination laws? The state did not force the Catholic Charities to cease operating; the Charities (by requirement of the Bishops/Vatican/RCC) chose to stop operating instead of obey the state’s anti-discrimination laws.
The state enacted the anti-discrimination laws for a purpose: so that its licensed agencies, universities, etc., would not engage in blatant, socially harmful and repugnant discriminatory practices--so as not to create privileged classes. If the agencies did not need to abide by the anti-discrimination laws, there would have been no need to enact the laws in the first place.
And, BTW, just to note the Church’s duplicity in this: According to Catholic doctrine, there is no reason to consider gay and lesbian couples as any more sinful than Jewish, Hindu, atheist or any other non-Catholic couple. Yet the Church has never objected to having to abide by non-discriminatory laws with the latter. It is only gay and lesbian couples who are subjected the Church’s blatant and immoral discrimination, despite the fact that the Catechism specifically forbids discrimination against gay people.
No doubt it is a good thing that the state does not license agencies that are under the dictates of such a duplicitous organization.
Posted by: Jerzy at May 8, 2006 12:30 AM
We all know that our country and constitution are based and created with the fundamental right to exercise religious freedom. One of those faith groups is the Roman Catholic Church. To understand the essences of the obligation of Catholic Charities, you must attempt to understand the following:
Indeed the Roman Catholic Church is a hierarchy, with Christ as our Head and the Pope his Vicar. .The Roman Catholic Church is rooted from Jesus, the Christ, passing his divine grace to. Peter to be the leader of his Church. "Feed my sheep." Jesus said to Peter, three times and “You will be the rock from which my Church will be built upon” and the keys of heaven, as Jesus termed it, to Peter has been handed down through the centuries to the holder who is now our present Pope. “What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven. What you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Thus the Bull, or divine, infallible, authority for the Pope in Church and moral matters, and sacramental administration which is filtered throughout the Church to the Pope’s fellow Bishops (whose origins are rooted from the original apostles) and subsequently transferred through ordination to the priests and then on down through to the laity. . It is an invisible bond that keeps us cohesive and in unity through the gift of Jesus in the guise of bread and wine- truly present given up in daily Mass, through out the world. So if the Catholic Charities is a member of the body of the Roman Catholic Church, it will naturally embrace the same moral principals and teachings. If they cannot embrace it, then truly, they are not a part of the Roman (Peter-Christ’s appointed one, was crucified there) Catholic (Universal) Church.
By the way, No government body can appoint bishops randomly without Church approval. If government officials in China appointed two Bishops without the proper Church approval those Bishops would not be recognized by the Roman Catholic Church.. That would be akin to President Bush appointing the next Dali Llama.- on whose authority?!
If we, as Roman Catholics, believe through Holy Scripture- the Bible, that it is not within the natural order of God's creation to engage in sexual activity with the same gender, then as a Roman Catholic Charity, we should be able to exercise our faith in finding the best homes for these children in heterosexual households. If gay couples choose to adopt, they will have to go to a non-Catholic adoption agency.
Our Church law does not allow us to condemn homosexuals as they are creations of God himself. We are ordered to love our neighbor as ourselves and as Jesus has loved us. As with all of God’s children, Jesus himself knows the burdens and crosses that each gay person was born into and carries within him/or her self. Each one of us has a life long burden or battle to overcome or endure in Holy resignation. Ultimately, the Roman Catholic Church adheres to the Bible which states that in engaging in same sex, sex is wrong, just as adultery is wrong for heterosexuals.
In conclusion, Catholic Charities must work within the teachings of the Catholic Church if they are truly of the same faith. In order to adhere to the principals of the US constitution, the state of Massachusetts should separate itself from interference in Church Charities. My recommendation as to a solution to this problem would be in the same direction as in the situation concerning taxes: religious organizations should be exempt from any state or federal law that would compel them to compromise their spiritual integrity. (The same concept would apply to Catholic Hospitals morally abstain
ing from performing abortions.) The state of Massachusetts should exempt the Catholic orphanage from the state law and allow the orphanage to continue their work of charity
Posted by: Joan at May 8, 2006 04:40 AM
Larry said:
"First off almost all employment is 'at will' of the employers. So there is not a right to refuse treatment to patients or people seeking perscriptions, if you don't serve the customer you should be fired."
That argument only applies if you consider all US employees to be employees of the government. You work at the will of your employer, not the US government (unless, of course, you work for the government....)
Jerzy said:
"Concerning the topic of the post: Why shouldn’t a state-licensed agency have to abide by the state’s anti-discrimination laws? The state did not force the Catholic Charities to cease operating"
Yes, they did. The government gave them a choice between ceasing operation or abandoning their deeply held religious beliefs. To the deeply faithful that is no choice.
Admittedly an extreme example, but the Nazis were known to do this kind of thing in the concentration camps -- for example allowing a prisoner the "opportunity" to prove he wasn't gay by having sex with a young girl... or a dead woman. Ostensibly a choice, but not really.
To a person (or organization) with a strong conviction that active homosexuality is a greivous sin, it is a further sin to give a child over to their keeping. The choice between "make this sin standard procedure or close your doors" is no choice at all.
I would point out, though, that race is a biological myth.Sex and gender are not.
Oh? What sex or gender is a person with XXY chromosomes?
As any geneticist (or common sense) will tell you, having XXY chromosomes is a biological abberation in human beings.
just to note the Church’s duplicity in this: According to Catholic doctrine, there is no reason to consider gay and lesbian couples as any more sinful than Jewish, Hindu, atheist or any other non-Catholic couple. Yet the Church has never objected to having to abide by non-discriminatory laws with the latter.
The Catholic church is not forced to perform Jewish, Hindu, or atheist marriage ceremonies. If they were, I'm quite sure they would object.
On a related note, the Salvation Army (a Christian charity) recently took a lot of flak for only helping Christians. The difference there was that it was the public who got after them, not government mandate. In the end (IIRC) they continued just as they had before, and took a hit to donations.
Strider
(one of those "tiny percentage" of atheists)
Posted by: Strider at May 8, 2006 08:26 AM
According to Catholic doctrine, there is no reason to consider gay and lesbian couples as any more sinful than Jewish, Hindu, atheist or any other non-Catholic couple.
Okay, I admittedly misread this statement. Are you saying that Catholic church doctrine says that simply being Jewish is actively a sin? The CC has pretty steady views on marriage, part of which is that the purpose of marriage is to procreate -- to "be fruitful and multiply". Thus using contraceptives is a sin. A large part of the church's problem with homosexuality is that it is seen to subvert "the natural order of things"/"God's will" in a way that two Jews marrying simply does not.
Posted by: Strider at May 8, 2006 08:35 AM
Give thanks for the Reformation.
Where would we be if the RCs still ran everything?
Posted by: Carl W. Goss at May 8, 2006 09:22 AM
Jerzy
Nice duck about polygamy. Give me a logical argument, based on YOUR reason that state-sanctioned civil marriage is a RIGHT applies to same-sex but not polygamists.
Do you have a RIGHT to join the military or is the military a PUBLIC institution with certain criteria AND benefits for those that meet that criteria? Is it discrimination when you cannot receive veteran benefits?
Advocates for same-sex marriage need to abandon this faux-marriage-RIGHTs argument and need to concentrate on convincing their fellow citizens of the social benefits by including same-sex couples in marriage.
BTW... I think committed same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt, but on the heirachy of who is priortized, they are second to straight married couples, and ahead of singles of whatever orientation. Children are entitled to first crack at a mother and father. THAT is in the best interests of the CHILD.
CCB was not going to be given a narrow religious exemption by MA, indeed there seems to have been some salivating from certain quarters at the prospect of a big public fight where the anti-Catholics in MA could beat up on CCB as they aggressively enforced "anti-discrimination" statutes.
CCB made it moot by withdrawing.
More's the pity for the children.
Posted by: Darleen at May 8, 2006 10:06 AM
Strider:
Jerzy said:
"Concerning the topic of the post: Why shouldn’t a state-licensed agency have to abide by the state’s anti-discrimination laws? The state did not force the Catholic Charities to cease operating"
Yes, they did. The government gave them a choice. . .
Hello? I really see no reason to get paradoxical about this. As I said, the state did give them a choice: to abide by the state’s anti-discrimination or not. To given someone a choice is not to force them to choose any of the options offered. And to abide by non-discriminatory practices concerning gay people is indeed, at least nominally, part of Catholic doctrine.
Thus I don’t see how one can claim that the choice given forces the Catholic Charities to abandon any “deeply held belief.” After all, the Catechism itself specifies that gay people shouldn’t be subjected to unfair discrimination. Shouldn’t the precept or the reason behind the Catechism’s non-discrimination admonition be a deeply held belief?
To a person (or organization) with a strong conviction that active homosexuality is a greivous sin, it is a further sin to give a child over to their keeping.
Of course, neither the Charities nor the Church made any determination that any potential adoptive gay couple had ever committed any “grievous sin.” Right? More technically, the Charities/Church never made any determination than any gay couple ever allowed their winkies or hoohoos to touch. The Church objected to the anti-discrimination laws merely on the grounds that a gay couple is gay. Yet, according to Catholic doctrine, a gay person can indeed be a good and proper Catholic.
In contrast, a Jewish, Muslim, atheist or any other non-Catholic couple cannot, by definition, be good and proper Catholics.
The real irony here is that a gay couple, even one that erroneously believes that they are good and proper Catholics, could in fact instill Catholic doctrine in the children they adopt and eventually lead them to eat the cookie. A Hindu, Protestant or Buddhist couple is highly unlikely to raise a child who grows up to become a good and proper Catholic.
Are you saying that Catholic church doctrine says that simply being Jewish is actively a sin?
To be Jewish, Muslim, atheist or even Protestant is to actively reject Catholic doctrine, Catholic dogma, and all that that entails (that any and every pope is capable of making infallible utterances, etc., etc.) If the Church does not consider active rejection of Catholic doctrine in general by Hindus, Muslims, atheists, etc., to be sinful, then the Church cannot rationally claim that active rejection of a single Catholic doctrine by gay people is sinful (that is, if the potentially adoptive gay couple in this case rejects the single doctrine that it is somehow immoral for two people of the same sex to let their winkies or hoohoos touch).
In any case, according to Catholic doctrine, to be gay, and even to be a married gay couple, does not in itself entail active rejection of any Catholic doctrine.
Perhaps restating my sentence (“According to Catholic doctrine, there is no reason to consider gay and lesbian couples as any more sinful than Jewish, Hindu, atheist or any other non-Catholic couple.”) would make my point clearer. Change it to: There is no doctrinal reason for the Church to consider gay parents any less worthy parents than it would Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, atheist or any other non-Catholic parent.
As any geneticist (or common sense) will tell you, having XXY chromosomes is a biological abberation in human beings.
“Aberration” or not, the existence of persons with XXY chromosomes can only mean that our (binary) concepts of sex and gender are “biological myths” in the same way that race is. This is obvious from the fact that you did not answer my question as to what sex or gender is a person with XXY chromosomes. And the question can’t be answered (except in the case of gender, which is a matter of identity, not biology, anyway).
Posted by: Jerzy at May 8, 2006 10:43 AM
Darleen:
Nice duck about polygamy. Give me a logical argument, based on YOUR reason that state-sanctioned civil marriage is a RIGHT applies to same-sex but not polygamists.
Well, MY reason is just what I said (to quote myself):
“The right to marry that US courts have long established and that the UN and EU recognize is the right to marry the consensual and eligible person of one’s choosing. No US court has established the right for someone to marry a plurality of other people.”
And:
“If a polygamy argument is reason to deny same-sex couples the right to marry, it is an even better reason to deny different-sex couples the right to marry.”
If you can articulate any reason as to why a same-sex couple getting married is any more likely to entail polygamy than a different-sex couple getting married does, please do. You have not so far. Obviously polygamy was on the scene long before there was any thought of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. Indeed, polygamous marriage was a predominant marital institution long before the concept of civil marriage of any sort.
I will point out that the likelihood of any US court finding that civil marriage between more than two partners is constitutional is extremely small, simply because of the logistics: It’s virtually impossible (except by pre-nuptial agreement) to “divide” children and property equally (or fairly) between three partners in the case of one of the partners wishing to divorce the other two. In a polygamous marriage there is no way for a court to pre-judicially decide which of the living partners gets to pull the plug on a vegetative partner.
Advocates for same-sex marriage need to abandon this faux-marriage-RIGHTs argument and need to concentrate on convincing their fellow citizens of the social benefits by including same-sex couples in marriage.
Again, I have no idea how one would propose to argue that the courts have not established the right of civil marriage. That would merely entail contradicting the courts own statements that civil marriage is a fundamental right.
In any case, supporters of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples do in fact spell out the benefits to society for equal marriage rights for same-sex couples--in addition to the fact that equal protection is a social ideal and a constitutional guarantee itself.
In the Goodridge decision, Justice Marshall elucidated so very eloquently the advantages to society as a whole for not denying a segment of the population equal access to the state and federal rights and benefits of civil marriage. No one could do any better in an argument than to repeat those. The decision is online. If there is any area in which you believe she did not elucidate these adequately, let me know, and I will try to expound.
BTW... I think committed same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt, but on the heirachy of who is priortized, they are second to straight married couples . . .
Well, as you may know, very few adoption agencies inquire into the sexual orientation of potential parents. A different-sex married couple could just as easily be both gay as a same-sex married couple be both straight. It’s common for a person’s beliefs about his/her own sexual orientation to change. Thus to try to prioritize on the basis of sexual orientation would be a futile effort.
Children are entitled to first crack at a mother and father. THAT is in the best interests of the CHILD.
How can you claim this when the empirical evidence shows the contrary? That is, the research has shown no significant difference in the psychological/social development of a child raised by a same-sex couple compared to a different-sex couple. It is the quality of the relationship that determines how the child fairs, as almost all major social service and child advocacy organizations have concluded.
I think most people would agree, for quite obvious reasons, that a child with two parents is likely to have more advantages than a child with only one parent (greater income; with two parents, one can "be there" when the other cannot). But single parents have successfully raised children throughout history. A single parent can raise a child as successfully as two parents ceteris paribus.
In any case, by denying same-sex couples the right to marry, the state does create many single-parent families where there would be a married couple in which both have a legal relationship and responsibility to the child.
. . . indeed there seems to have been some salivating from certain quarters at the prospect of a big public fight where the anti-Catholics in MA could beat up on CCB as they aggressively enforced "anti-discrimination" statutes.
I know of no evidence that that MA enforced the anti-discrimination laws any more “aggressively” in the case of the Catholic Charities than it does in any other matter, do you?
Posted by: Jerzy at May 8, 2006 11:42 AM
BTW, Darleen, I do appreciate that you have no problem "per se" with equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. I hope that means you would not vote against equal marriage rights “per se.”
Posted by: Jerzy at May 8, 2006 12:01 PM
Jerzy
There is no conclusive study of same-sex parenting...any claim to the contrary is wishful thinking based on flawed, politically driven "studies".
To claim that each gender does not bring a unique perspective to his/her relationship to a child is to claim there ARE NO unique differences between the sexes. Indeed, if the genders are so indistinguishable then any claim to being a "transgender" person... or any identification with either gender ... is evidence of deep psychological problems. No difference = none of us should have any problem with being 'the other'... maybe on alternating weeks?
Again, you seem to be confusing a public sanctioned institution with a right. I am NOT saying that committed relationships do not have value on both the micro and macro scale. What I'm saying is that the state CAN and DOES define which institutions it will encourage and support as PUBLIC policy, even as it takes a neutral, non-interference stance with those that cannot or willnot participate in the PUBLIC institution.
Hence my analogy to the military.
Polygamy, infact, DOES have a longer historical record than monogamy. It still exists today. However, it is rarely a relationship that is non-exploitive of women. A great leap in the rights of women was monogamous marriage. The state will not interfere if you want to set up housekeeping with any number of people. It is just not an institution that the state finds worthy of sanctioning in the public interest.
The UN tomorrow could say hot fudge sundaes are a "right", it doesn't make it so. So an attempt to argue by appeal to authority in this instance doesn't impress me. Listing for me all the people who SAY it is a "right" doesn't demonstrate the reasoning WHY one think same-sex marriage can be a "right" but not polygamy. Or sibling marriage.
The state can set limiting criteria on any PUBLIC institution - by age, or sex, or ability -- it cannot do so with RIGHTS.
Same-sex marriage as a civil institution has no historical record. It represents a radical redefinition OF marriage.
I would rather the state abolish the concept of civil marriage -- protect your kids and property? better get a contract -- then continue down a feel-good-but-poorly-thought current pathway towards same-sex marriage as "right" that cannot exclude polygamists.
Posted by: Darleen at May 8, 2006 12:47 PM
Jerzy
At this point, I support civil unions. If same-sex advocates insist their relationship is indistinguishable from different-sex relationships in regards to the adoption of children, then I will not support same-sex unions under marriage statutes.
Civil unions that will give all the rights and obligations of marriage, but without that tiny, but significant point.
Posted by: Darleen at May 8, 2006 12:51 PM
Darleen:
Most of your above post is mere obfuscation. For instance:
There is no conclusive study of same-sex parenting . . .
So what do you want so as to constitute a “conclusive study of same-sex parenting”? Is there any study that is a “conclusive study of different-sex parenting”? If so, what did it say?
The studies properly conducted so far on same-sex vs. different-sex parenting have been as thoroughly “conclusive” as they can be concerning what they concluded. And almost invariably, they concluded that there is no difference to the child’s psychological/social development--and, indeed, some studies have even shown better social psychological outcomes in certain areas for children of gay or lesbian parents (e.g., in empathy and tolerance of differences, and in greater adult community involvement). And again, the majority of experts in the field who’ve expressed an opinion, having evaluated these studies and their conclusions, have agreed, and their professional associations have made unambiguous public endorsements. What else do you want?
Certainly you shouldn’t expect a homophobe to change their views based on mere science.
To claim that each gender does not bring a unique perspective to his/her relationship to a child . . .
One does not have to claim this in order to assert, on the basis of the evidence, that the psychological/social development of a child suffers nothing with a same-sex parent. Do you understand that?
The UN tomorrow could say hot fudge sundaes are a "right", it doesn't make it so.
So, what, you just didn’t want to address any of my points?
Why don’t you just tell us what in your mind establishes a civil right? In my mind, for all practical purposes, the judiciary’s interpretations of the constitution establish civil rights. If you have any reason to deny this, spill it.
If you’re just going to say or imply something like “the Constitution is lying about the rights contained in the 14th Amendment,” it is not worthy of a response. If you’re just going to say something like, “the courts said civil marriage is a right, but it’s not,” it isn’t worthy of a response. And so far, that’s basically all you’ve suggested.
Same-sex marriage as a civil institution has no historical record.
You’re so very wrong here. Try a little history and anthropology. This is one of the most common myths of the uneducated. Almost all known ancient and indigenous cultures included social institutions of social and intimate bonding between males (if not between women also) that was considered as important, if not more important, than the institutions of different-sex bonding. In ancient Sparta, e.g., males of a certain age were required by law to have a same-sex lover/mate. In other cultures the social pressure made similar same-relationships all but a legal requirement. In southern China, even until the 16th century, the institution of same-sex unions went by the same name as different-sex marriage. Ancient Greece revered and celebrated same-sex unions to a greater degree than different-sex unions. In the mythologies of most cultures the incidence to special and long-term intimate same-sex unions is at least that of different-sex unions.
Homophobia and heterosexism is strictly a product of medieval and modern era western religious traditions.
I would rather the state abolish the concept of civil marriage -- protect your kids and property? better get a contract -- then continue down a feel-good-but-poorly-thought current pathway towards same-sex marriage as "right" that cannot exclude polygamists.
It’s very unlikely that the state will abolish civil marriage in this country, and the reasons for this are legion. And, again, you haven’t given any reason whatsoever as to why you think polygamy is more logically related to same-sex marriage than to different-sex marriage. I reiterate: If an anti-polygamy argument is reason to deny same-sex marriage rights, it is an even better reason to deny different-sex marriage rights.
If same-sex advocates insist their relationship is indistinguishable from different-sex relationships in regards to the adoption of children, then I will not support same-sex unions under marriage statutes.
Yeah, vengeance politics is real mature.
Posted by: Jerzy at May 8, 2006 03:12 PM
Jerzy
I didn't say there were no historical examples of SOCIAL same-sex relationships... I said CIVIL marriage...IE a set of default family law statutes that define the rights and obligations of marriage AND set up the criteria of joining it.
to assert, on the basis of the evidence, that the psychological/social development of a child suffers nothing with a same-sex parent.
Did I say a child would SUFFER? If I believed that, I would ban all adoption by anyone OTHER than straight, married couples. I said it was in the best interest of the CHILD to be offered the OPTIMAL relationship FIRST. If the optimal is not currently available, then start working down the list.
If one is truly concerned with the interests of the CHILD first and foremost, then why pretent that optimal situations do not exist?
I hold this, too, for women who succumb to a bio-clock and deliberately seek to have children without a partner. They do the child a disservice even if they would be the most loving single parent around. They are still only a single parent.
Homophobia and heterosexism is strictly a product of medieval and modern era western religious traditions.
That's plain silly. If you were plopped back into Roman times and said things like "homosexual" or "heterosexual" they'd never know what you were talking about. Sure, they had homosexual behavior, but it didn't make all of that behavior equal or wonderful. Sex was an expression of social status and based on if one was either penetrated or penetrator. The "receiver" as it were of same-sex relationship was way down in social status. So while the term "homophobia" may be "western" it certainly wasn't unknown in many other non-judeo-christian cultures.
BTW...is Islam a "western" religion?
Geez, "science" never gets any thing wrong, does it? I dunno... what is this week's conclusion on whether global warming is happening and whether or not it is caused by human activity rather than normal climatic changes?
Aw heck...why accept that the "science" on same-sex parenting is questioned even by researchers who ARE advocates of 'alternative' families
But Stacey's boldest move is to challenge not just the methodology but the fundamental assumption that has informed the bulk of gay parenting studies: the idea that it would be damning to discover that kids of gay parents deviated in any way from kids growing up with moms and dads. As other critics have pointed out, the defensive goal of proving sameness is almost a guarantee of weak science. (The hypothesis that both groups of kids are alike is hard to rule out, but that doesn't mean you've established that there are no differences.) That "heterosexist" bias, Stacey argues, has also encouraged researchers to fudge results, anxiously claiming homogeneity where there's actually some variety. Why, she asks, buy into the view that "differences indicate deficits"?when it is so much more fun to call someone who questions the "studies" as a "homophobe" and thereby get the bonus "see how superior I AM to YOU" points?
I believe that American society is big enough to allow same-sex couples to form families if they wish, and religious people to ignore them if they wish. Each of you, act civilly when you meet the other in the public square and feel free not have 'em over for cocktails.
I draw the line at dragging kids in as lab rats to score political points.
Funny how the goalpost of "homophobia" now includes ANY questioning of a POLITICAL position that asserts there is no "optimal" family configuration.
Posted by: Darleen at May 8, 2006 04:09 PM
BTW Jerzy
Another clarification, because I'm still inclined to give you the benefit of a doubt you misunderstood me rather than misquoting me.
I support, right now, tomorrow CIVIL UNIONS. IE additional legal statutes that define rights/obligations for same-sex couples. ADDITIONAL to marriage statutes, NOT replacing them.
Posted by: Darleen at May 8, 2006 04:15 PM
Darleen:
I didn't say there were no historical examples of SOCIAL same-sex relationships... I said CIVIL marriage...IE a set of default family law statutes that define the rights and obligations of marriage AND set up the criteria of joining it.
In that case, different-sex civil marriage has very little history. But that would nevertheless include the radical “redefinition” when marriage no longer consisted of one partner being the property of the other. What’s your point?
Also, I was not noting mere historical examples of same-sex relationships: I was noting the fact that the history of institutional same-sex unions goes back as far, and in many ancient and indigenous cultures the unions were considered as or more than important, as the institutions of different-sex unions.
to assert, on the basis of the evidence, that the psychological/social development of a child suffers nothing with a same-sex parent.
Did I say a child would SUFFER?
I meant that the psychological/social development suffers nothing. In any case, if the child suffers nothing from having same-sex parents, then why would anyone object? Certainly one can’t determine which set of parents will be “optimal” for any child based on the parents’ genitals. Right?
If you were plopped back into Roman times and said things like "homosexual" or "heterosexual" they'd never know what you were talking about.
For the most part, agreed. And as far as I can tell, that only supports my point. However, I am not entirely a social constructionist: There is a good deal of evidence from Greco-Roman literature (see Martial) that people were able to and often did distinguish those who had an enduring sexual preference for one sex or the other. The ancients simply didn’t, as a rule, essentialize people’s natures according to the sexual orientation categories we use today.
The "receiver" as it were of same-sex relationship was way down in social status.
This was highly contextual and not universal. Certainly one could claim that the eromenos in Hellenist Greece was of a permanently lower social status than, say, women were, for most males were eromenoi during the course of their lives. The same is true of Sparta and Thebes. Hadrian’s Antonious was worshipped as a God, obviously his “social status” having suffered nothing for being an eromenos. Aristogeiton and Harmodius were lionized equally by Athenian democrats, regardless of the current ideas of their assummed sexual roles.
So while the term "homophobia" may be "western" it certainly wasn't unknown in many other non-judeo-christian cultures.
The fact is that the social institutions of male (at least) sexual unions found independently in almost all ancient and indigenous cultures did not arise in atmospheres where the majority of people considered exclusive heterosexuality innate or superior to inherent bisexuality (or “pan-sexuality”).
BTW...is Islam a "western" religion?
My bad. Replace “western” with Abrahamic.
. . .when it is so much more fun to call someone who questions the "studies" as a "homophobe". . .
I didn’t in fact call anyone a homophobe, and you didn’t in fact exactly “question” any study.
Are you sure you know what your quote about Professor Stacey is saying?
From “A Conversation with Professor Judith Stacey” at Let Him Stay:
“Judith Stacey is a senior scholar with the Council on Contemporary Families, Professor of Sociology, and the Streisand Professor of Contemporary Gender Studies at the University of Southern California. In 2001, she and Timothy J. Biblarz published a review of the social science research on lesbian and gay parenting called, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" in the American Sociological Review.
“Florida and conservative activists everywhere argue that heterosexuals make better parents than gay men or lesbians. Is there anything in the body of social science research that supports this claim?
“No, nothing at all. Significant, reliable social scientific evidence indicates that lesbian and gay parents are as fit, effective and successful as heterosexual parents. The research also shows that children of same-sex couples are as emotionally healthy and socially adjusted and at least as educationally and socially successful as children raised by heterosexual parents. No credible social science evidence supports Florida's claim.
“Florida and other states have used so-called experts in social science who try to discredit the studies you cite (and the ones we summarize in this book). They claim that these studies used flawed research methods and resulted in flawed findings. What is your response?
”The studies that have been conducted are certainly not perfect—virtually no study is. It's almost never possible to transform complex social relationships, such as parent-child relationships, into adequate, quantifiable measures, and because many lesbians and gay men remain in the closet, we cannot know if the participants in the studies are representative of all gay people. However, the studies we reviewed are just as reliable and respected as studies in other areas of child development and psychology. So, most of those so-called experts are really leveling attacks on well-accepted social science methods. Yet they do not raise objections to studies that are even less rigorous or generalizable on such issues as the impact of divorce on children. It seems evident that the critics employ a double-standard. They attack these particular studies not because the research methods differ from or are inferior to most studies of family relationships but because these critics politically oppose equal family rights for lesbians and gay men.”
The respected professional organizations that have issued statements of support for legal recognition of gay and lesbian parents, in recognition that children thrive in households of gay and lesbian parents, include: The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the Child Welfare League of America, the National Association of Social Workers, and the American Psychological Association.
With such support for the conclusions of the studies, and with no similar professional organization claiming to the contrary, it is certainly an act of desperation to merely claim a political conspiracy on the behalf of gay and lesbian parents.
So are you just giving up your claim that civil marriage is not a civil right?
Posted by: Jerzy at May 8, 2006 06:24 PM
Errata: Paragraph #10: Certainly one could NOT claim that the eromenos in Hellenist Greece was of a permanently lower social status than, say, women were, for most males were eromenoi during the course of their lives.
Posted by: Jerzy at May 8, 2006 06:29 PM
If the state recognises the marriage of a Muslim women and a non-Muslim man, would this infringe the freedom of Muslims, as this is contrary to their religious beliefs?
Posted by: DantheMan at May 11, 2006 02:33 AM
Interesting discussion, Darleen. I comented on this same article on my blog, the Daily Duck.
If we, as Roman Catholics, believe through Holy Scripture- the Bible, that it is not within the natural order of God's creation to engage in sexual activity with the same gender, then as a Roman Catholic Charity, we should be able to exercise our faith in finding the best homes for these children in heterosexual households. If gay couples choose to adopt, they will have to go to a non-Catholic adoption agency.
Religious freedom can't be used to excuse discrimination on the basis of race, so how can you say that it applies here. Individuals are guaranteed the right to practice their religion, but that does not trump the state's right to enact laws that are deemed necessary for the public interest. Massachusetts has deemed it necessary to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the licensing of adoption agencies. While there is no right to adopt, to my knowledge, neither is there some guaranteed right to run an adoption agency according to to your own religious preferences. We don't give religious exceptions for the followers of Sharia law, neither do we carve out exemptions for Canon law.
Posted by: Duck at May 14, 2006 11:33 AM
Duck is right, this is an interesting discussion.
I think it is worth noting whether the CCB/RCC's position passes a moral sniff test: what is the alternative?
If these children are in fact hard to place, the alternative to same-sex couple adoption is not heterosexual couple adoption, but rather no adoption at all.
So the real question at hand is whether there is a reason to conclude that a childhood spent in transient foster care is more in the interests of the child than is adoption by a same-sex couple.
What the Bible has to say about homosexuality isn't relevant here, only the material consequences of the choices on offer are.
Until the CCB/RCC can demonstrate the consequences of same-sex couple adoption are worse than the only alternative, then their position is morally vacuous. To the extent that children do better with same-sex parents than foster care (I have no idea if this is the case), their position is morally reprehensible.
NB: Establishing an adoption pecking order that puts heterosexual couples at the top of the list makes emminent sense.
But failing to take into account the alternative facing "hard to place" children does not.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at May 15, 2006 04:56 AM