The Inevitable Consequences

Some in the Christian community have claimed that legalization of gay marriage will lead to certain repercussions against churches and faith-based organizations that operate according to their beliefs.

That prediction was validated recently by the case of Catholic Charities in the state of Massachusetts.  The state, of course, had legalized gay marriage a couple of years ago.  Catholic Charities had previously been a very significant adoption agency-- among other functions. 

It was felt, however, that the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts would compel Catholic Charities to place adoptions with gay couples.  This became a de jure requirement because state licensure for adoption agencies in that state is contingent upon non-discrimination.   Maggie Gallagher, a national expert on marriage policy and culture, provides the details here.

The potential legal spillover from gay marriage is consequential.  Said Anthony Picarello, a legal expert: "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."  The potential loss of tax exemptions is being discussed for churches and many different types of faith-based organizations that do not comply.  Marc Stern of the American Jewish Congress indicates the opposing parties in the gay marriage debate are poised for legal battle on the many details soon to arise, and "it's going to be a train wreck."

The Archdiocese of Boston, faced with a terrible dilemma, elected to get out of the adoption business instead of being forced to place adoptions with gay couples.  It felt compelled to abandon a charitable pursuit because of the manner in which the legal and political environment had turned.

What the Catholic Church faced in Massachusetts was tyranny and coercion.  It was, by force of law, prevented from operating according to its beliefs.  This is plainly not right. 

When the left expresses denial regarding the obvious implications of legalizing gay marriage, think Catholic Charities.

Comments

[PotatoStew]

"It felt compelled to abandon a charitable pursuit because of the manner in which the legal and political environment had turned."

No, it felt compelled to abandon a charitable pursuit because it found itself unable to turn away from its prejudices.

"What the Catholic Church faced in Massachusetts was tyranny and coercion. It was, by force of law, prevented from operating according to its beliefs. This is plainly not right."

That's like saying a landlord is a victim of tyranny and coersion because he chooses to get out of the rental business because fair housing laws require him to rent to blacks and he'd rather not. You're pointing your finger at the wrong party here.

Ed Brayton of Dispatches From the Culture Wars has two great posts about this situation:

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/03/catholic_church_refuses_gay_ad.php

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/03/compromise_on_catholic_chariti.php

Catholic Charities has every right to get out of the adoption business if they don't believe in the requirements, but according to Brayton, they had another option. When refused a religious exemption they could have taken the matter to the state courts and sought a review of the policy and a possible compromise through that route. Since there are other agencies who do still place children in gay homes, that requirement can be fulfilled elsewhere and it's possible that Catholic Charities could have won an exemption. Instead they just closed up shop.

As Brayton says, "It's the anti-gay agenda that leaves children all around the country in foster homes rather than placing them with caring, decent people solely because of religious objections to homosexuality." They have every right to refuse to facilitate adoptions of course, but that doesn't make it any less their own choice.

[Lex]

Joe, I see this case as similar to the issue of voluntary individual prayer in school: The free-exercise clause of the First Amendment would have controlled. Catholic Charities could, and should, have litigated the issue. The overwhelming likelihood is that the courts would have granted CC a religious exemption -- if not at trial, then certainly on appeal.

That said, I think the state needs to treat straight and gay couples equally or else get out of the marriage business. Churches can then marry, or refuse to marry, whomever they wish.

[Joe Guarino]

Thanks for the comments, Anthony and Lex. I agree that it is possible that Catholic Charities might have obtained relief in the courts, but that is far from being certain. The confluence of two legal circumstances-- legal gay marriage and anti-discrimination statutes based on sexual preference-- made likely the interpretation that its position was indefensible.

Had the organization decided to go to court, it would have had to expend significant resources with questionable prospects for success. And they might have faced some determined opposition as Gallagher suggested in her article. Under those circumstances, I could see why it would shrink from the fight.

And Anthony, I think there are difficulties with placing the population of foster children in permanent homes that extend well beyond the ability of gay adoptive parents to remedy the situation. And I think many African Americans would take issue with suggesting an equivalency between anti-discrimination statutues based on race, and those based on sexual preference.

[PotatoStew]

"The confluence of two legal circumstances-- legal gay marriage and anti-discrimination statutes based on sexual preference-- made likely the interpretation that its position was indefensible."

Churches are not required to perform gay marriages, though they are legal. There's a good possibility that a similar compromise would have been crafted for this since it deals with the same issues.

As for expending resources taking the issue to trial, that's true. Again, it was their decision that this wasn't something worth fighting for, whether due to legal costs or other reasons.

"there are difficulties with placing the population of foster children in permanent homes that extend well beyond the ability of gay adoptive parents to remedy the situation."

Remedy, yes. Mitigate, no.

"I think many African Americans would take issue with suggesting an equivalency between anti-discrimination statutues based on race, and those based on sexual preference."

They might, but the fact that someone takes issue with something doesn't automatically mean that the principle is incorrect. Change my example from "blacks" to "women" or to "Catholics" if you would like. Imagine a Protestant landlord who believes that Catholics are sinful and aren't true Christians and doesn't want to let them rent his properties. Is the landlord a victim of tyranny and coersion because fair housing laws prohibit this sort of discrimination?

[Joe Guarino]

There is a principle upon which we will fundamentally disagree-- that sexual preference is a characteristic that can be somehow equated with the other attributes you mention. But your point is somewhat self-contradictory. Why should society make exceptions and exemptions available to religious institutions if they are engaged in what is regarded as egregious discrimination?

[Cara Michele]

Let me tell you what disturbs ME about this whole thing. People just freak out when they think that anything about Christians or Christianity is being used to set policy or make law or have anything to do with how this country is ruled or governed. Everybody starts screaming "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!" But when it goes the OTHER way, and government policy and rules and laws start infringing on the Christian Church's ability to operate according to its own rules, laws, and mandates, then the screaming separation crowd is like, "Whatever. YOUR problem." That's ridiculous. And hypocritical. What happened to separation? And I'm talking way beyond sexuality issues here. I mean in general. If people want to separate Church and state, fine. Then the government needs to stay out of the Church. Period. This rant is not directed at any one issue or any particular person. I'm just beyond tired of the double standard. And the reality is that a Christian's FIRST allegiance is to God and His Word, rather than the government and its laws. And if the latter contradicts the former, His Word is clear, "We must obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29)

Whew!! Done. Love & peace, CM

[PotatoStew]

You're right of course - we're just going to disagree on that principle at this point.

As for the seemingly contradictory nature of it: My comparisons were to argue against the direction in which you're placing the blame, as well as your description of "tyranny and coersion". Fair housing laws are generally not described that way, and I think a similar principle is at work here.

However, I do think there are differences between adoption and housing that would allow a legitimate exemption to be made that would allow Catholic Charities to still participate while holding to their beliefs, without limiting the interest the state has in allowing children to be placed with gay parents. There are issues with the concrete physical nature of housing and its availability that don't come into play with adoptions.

[Joe Guarino]

Michele and Anthony, Gallagher's article had some fairly alarming statements about the degree to which the most extreme gay rights -- advocates will attempt to push the legal system with this nexus of legal gay marriage and non-discrimination based on sexual preference. One statement was that the ballgame for religious institutions was basically over if these advocates' interpretation prevails.

An example was given of an openly gay pair of students at a religious school being used to advocate against restrictive policies for students. The potential attack on tax exemptions was mentioned. But also, the entire range of religious-affiliated institutions are potentially affected-- schools and universities, social service organizations, churches, etc. In essence, any endeavor in which a service or product is provided to the public by religious-affiliated institutions is at risk of being attacked, and these organizations' perceived reason for existence undermined.

These are not pipe dreams. Twenty years ago, few of us were talking about gay marriage.

[chip atkinson]

I think CM hit on a point. I'd like to ask Anthony or Lex why is it wrong for politicians to introduce legislation that is either influenced by or motivated by their religious belief? Secondly, why is the term anti-gay used?

[Bubba]

"But when it goes the OTHER way, and government policy and rules and laws start infringing on the Christian Church's ability to operate according to its own rules, laws, and mandates, then the screaming separation crowd is like, 'Whatever. YOUR problem.' That's ridiculous. And hypocritical."

Well said. And rarely brought up in discussion.

There has GOT to be a way to reach middle ground on issues like this. Political correctness and dogmatic rhetoric will not work.

[greendog]

"When the left expresses denial regarding the obvious implications of legalizing gay marriage, think Catholic Charities."

Joe, who is "the left"?

[greendog]

Cara, give us one example of "government policy and rules and laws... infringing on the Christian Church's ability to operate according to its own rules, laws, and mandates."

Has the government told the Church how to practice religion or govern itself? Has the government ever told Christians that they must believe x, y, or z? Has the government reached into the church and tried to control what preachers can and cannot preach from their pulpits?

You say "the government needs to stay out of the church." What branches of government have reached into the church, and what have they tried to do? Have they tried to interfere with the conduct of worship services, for instance, or the giving of tithes? Can you name specifically the laws that have been passed or actions taken by government agencies that have infringed on Christians' freedom to worship as they choose?

In Joe's example, he says "The Archdiocese of Boston, faced with a terrible dilemma, elected to get out of the adoption business instead of being forced to place adoptions with gay couples."

Again: ELECTED TO GET OUT OF THE ADOPTION BUSINESS.

Free will. Free to choose. Beliefs safe and intact. Practice of faith not endangered. Nothing imposed or outlawed. Free to say yes; free to say no. Free to believe, and free to espouse those beliefs in a free country.

No government control.

These two things are not equivalent, the notion of Christians telling Americans what should be law, and the idea of the government telling Christians how to practice their faith. The first one happens every day; the second one never does.

Only one is a threat to our democracy.

[Cara Michele]

Yes, it IS a beautiful day today, greendog. ;)

Peace, CM

[greendog]

I accept the concession.

[Cara Michele]

LOL. And well played, I might add. Here's a virtual hug for you: ((((greendog))))

[PotatoStew]

Chip,

There's no problem at all with politicians proposing legislation influenced or motivated by their religious beliefs, as long as there is a legitimate, supportable secular purpose behind them as well. For instance, a politician may propose anti-gambling legislation because he believes that gambling is sinful. If this was the only reasoning behind the law, it would surely be unconstitutional. But if there are legitimate state interests in prohibiting gambling, then that moves the law onto more solid ground.

Look at the other side of it: Imagine Jehovah's Witnesses got a majority in the legislature (I don't think they ever actually run for political office, but let's pretend for a moment) and decided to ban all blood transfusions because those are against their religion. Or if Christian Scientists came to power and outlawed all medical treatment of any sort. What would you think about religiously motivated laws in those instances?

Bubba: I think the middle ground is for the state to give Catholic Charities an exemption, just as the Catholic church would be exempt from being required to perform gay marriages - as long as there are sufficient agencies that are totally equivalent to their service who *will* facilitate adoptions by gay parents.

I read an article yesterday (I can’t for the life of me remember where, sorry; try yahoo News) that reported on research where brain waves were compared. Homosexuals brain waves were more like heterosexual women. Whereas lesbian’s brain waves more closely match those of heterosexual men, but not as closely as the first grouping. We spoke several weeks ago about research in genetics and how research is indicating that homosexuality is based on a combination of genetics and hormones. Now to make my point: less than a hundred years ago the majority of people, here in the South at least, believed firmly that Blacks were subhuman. That to mix Black and White blood would taint the White person. That even a Black ancestor eight generations back still made the individual Black. And people, MANY churches preached this and found passages in the Bible to justify it! Remember that? Now I predict that very soon, surely within the next twenty five years with the research that is being done, it will be firmly proven that sexual orientation is indeed a natural physical characteristic just as is hair and eyes. Then all this nonsense and discrimination against people who simply want the rights by law to be left alone to live as they choose, with whomever they choose and just to BE who they are will be a thing of the past. It can not come too soon. But, being the human animals we are we will find some other group or condition to denigrate I am sure.

Greendog: Amen Brother! I second that opinion!

[Brenda Bowers]

That rant above is mine people. I forgot to sign in. Peace. Brenda Bowers

[Joe Guarino]

Have been away from the PC for several hours. Thanks everyone for the discussion.

And Greendog, in view of your perception that Catholic Charities was not subject to any governmental control in this matter, I suppose it would be acceptable to get rid of the governmental requirements to which it perceived itself to be subject.

[Jim Caserta]

This is interesting. Check out this link:http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/10/22/archdiocesan_agency_aids_in_adoptions_by_gays/
Title:Archdiocesan agency aids in adoptions by gays, date:10/22/2005.

As for the Archidiocese of Boston's penchant for litigation, remember that they spent MILLIONS of dollars defending KNOWN pedophile priests, and that cover-up caused them to have to sell church property to pay settlements. Maybe they're out of money for lawyers.

"The controversy began in October when the Globe reported that Catholic Charities had been quietly processing a small number of gay adoptions, despite Vatican statements condemning the practice. Over the last decades, the Globe reported, approximately 13 children had been placed by Catholic Charities in gay households, a fraction of the 720 children placed by the agency during that"

So if they could place the children underneath the radar, they would, they just didn't want any publicity.

Also, Catholic Charities is not the same entity as the Catholic Church - they are related but different.

"No person is beneath their help, no task is too small or too large." There are three other CC offices across MA, I wonder what they will do. Check out their annual report, they get about 1Mln/yr in federal grants - they are not completely independent of the government.

Plus, I would think Catholic Charities would be the last place that a gay couple would go if they wanted to adopt. Would (or should they have to) CC place a child in an unmarried household? The guilt a priest would place on a cohabitating unmarried couple would pale in comparison to what he would place on a gay couple. I'd think that there are more cohabitating unmarried heterosexual couples in Boston than gay married couples - how does CC deal with the first group?

[greendog]

"in view of your perception that Catholic Charities was not subject to any governmental control in this matter, I suppose it would be acceptable to get rid of the governmental requirements to which it perceived itself to be subject."

I'm not sure I follow.

If an entity isn't subject to a law but "perceives" itself to be, we should abolish that law so that they can put their delusions to rest? That's hardly the criteria I'd use for evaluating legislation.

I'd use something more like this: is it a law in keeping with the law of the land, the Constitution?

The Catholic church is free to practice the Catholic faith. They are not free to discriminate in certain activities that fall under governmental jurisdiction (for very good reasons), like adoption. If they want to get involved with such activities, I suppose that good Catholics would first have to ensure that those activities do not conflict with their faith.

If there's a conflict, they're free not to participate, and their religion is unscathed. There's no government mandate or shackles here. They can walk away.

Do or do not. You're in a free country.

[JQPublic]

I can't believe that there are still some very naive people that think that there is no such thing as a gay agenda. All you have to do is look in the paper pretty much everyday and you can see where gay groups are holding protests in front of churches that refuse to marry gays.

There is one incident in California where a lesbian couple lied to get their adopted child admitted to a private Christian school. When the girl started promoting the joys of the homosexual lifestyle at the school, the school expelled her. Her "parents" have taken the school to court. Go figure.

The you have the Fred Phelps crowd. This guy is actually a minister at a Primitive Baptist church in Kansas. The makeup of his congregation is pretty much his entire family - six of seven of them who are lawyers, which really comes in handy for their protests. These are the "God Hates Fags" people.

www.godhatesfags.com/

Fred has a nice little deal set up for himself. He loves the publicity. Thats why he goes to the funerals of soldiers sent back from Iraq and protests that that soldier was gay and didn't deserve to where a uniform.

If people or groups at the funeral try to stop them, then he sics his lawyer kids on them. Thats how he makes his money.

Now, one would think that a baptist preacher that has his congregation carry around signs saying God hates Fags, would be the prototype image of the so-called right-wing Chritofacist. Not so. Fred's oldest son was invited and went to Clinton's inauguration. They have given plenty of money to the campagins of Al Gore and John Kerry.

The homosexual agenda has deep roots in the democratic party.

[PotatoStew]

JQPublic:

"All you have to do is look in the paper pretty much everyday and you can see where gay groups are holding protests in front of churches that refuse to marry gays."

Really? I've read about a few instances about people protesting against gay marriage at churches that perform same-sex marriages, but in front of churches that refuse to marry gays? Every day? Could you maybe provide links to a few stories that tell about some of these recent protests?

Also, I'm not sure I follow the second half of your post - how do links between Phelps and the Democratic Party demonstrate that the homosexual agenda has "deep roots" in the democratic party? You're not saying that Phelps is part of the homosexual agenda, are you?

[Brenda Bowers]

Joe, This is the site for the brain study I referred to above: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LESBIAN_BRAINS?SITE=NCGRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-05-09-18-44-24

The Associated Press at the N&R site.

[Joe]

Thanks for the comments, folks. Sorry about the delay in responding.

Jim, you raise the point about Catholic Charities having facilitated a number of gay adoptions. I infer from the link you provided that a certain priest who helped direct the organization was responsible for this, and apparently ran into some internal opposition. Apparently this matter is now clarified. And yes, Catholic Charities is not the same thing as the Catholic Church, but the Church would presumably have any organization operating under its auspices to represent Catholic principles. I am an ex-Catholic, and remember in Catholic school being asked to give nickels and dimes to Catholic Charities for various causes.

When an organization such as Catholic Charities accepts federal grants, it risks diluting its mission-- precisely because some parties will attempt to use it as a club to force them to abandon its principles. But in this case, we are dealing only with state law, not federal.

And I do not think Catholic Charities should have been placing children with cohabiting adoptive parents-- nor should any agency.

Greendog, I think you are presenting Catholic Charities with a Sophie's Choice: either place these children with gays, or get out of the business. But your statement that there is no government mandate is breathtaking, because you simultaneously indicate that the organization is "not free to discriminate." Just a few years ago, this matter would not have even been categorized as discrimination. But I appreciate your providing me with evidence that there are parties that would like to place organizations like Catholic Charities in this kind of bind.

[Jim Caserta]

Joe, I guess I wasn't clear about what I thought happened. I think people (Meade, the ex-chair) in the organization were open to placing children with gays. There was probably some power struggle and the non-gay-adoption group won out. This is probably a statement that things are changing at CC-Boston.

It seems there is a large back story to this:
http://www.christifideles.net/hehir.php

However, Hehir's view is not shared by everyone at Catholic Charities in Boston. Peter Meade, who is chairman of the board, said he believes that the agency should welcome same-sex couples to adopt, and not just because of a contractual requirement with DSS. [from article I linked]

One board member, who asked to remain nameless, said the bishops' plans has angered many on the board. The board member said some on the panel may consider resigning if the bishops persist with the plan.
[from here:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/02/17/bishops_dealt_setback_in_pursuit_of_gay_adoption_exemption/
]

In my opinion, CC should only adopt kids to families they see fit, and they should be able to use whatever criteria they want. I wonder if the issue is that you have to work through child protective services to perform adoptions. I mean, Churches can refuse to perform gay marriages - a right I feel Churches deserve. I wonder if CC can do adoptions on its own by helping connect kids in need of families with families in need of kids.

Regardless of what CC ends up doing, I would rather a child live in a stable same-sex household than an unstable foster, single parent, or abusive "normal" heterosexual household. There is far too much abuse out there to say that there aren't tons of kids in need. Also, what if the option is between a woman having an abortion or adopting the child to a gay couple? Maybe that's taking the argument too far, but often you have to choose between the less "bad" choice.

[Joe Guarino]

Jim, my understanding of Gallagher's article is that Catholic Charities has to be licensed by the state of Massachusetts to handle adoptions. If it willfully operates in violation of the state statute that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual preference, and someone makes an issue of it, then it would forfeit its licensure. If gay marriage were not legal, it would not be an issue. I think the issue is that Catholic Charities cannot do them on its own in that state. (I am not sure how other states handle this.)

I am not sure if churches or clergy need state licenses to marry people. Does anyone know?

[JQPublic]

The overall goal for the leading homosexuals is to show that not accepting them publically is against the law. Would you agree or disagree with that Stewie?

[JQPUblic]

The overall goal for the leading homosexuals is to show that not accepting them publically is against the law. Would you agree or disagree with that Stewie?