The Imperfect Community

[Jessica]

Apparently Catholic Charities have decided to end their adoption services because they cannot fundamentally abide by a new anti-discrimination law in Mass. that requires them to adopt out children to gay couples. The Catholic Church and the Govenor are seeking exemptions for the church, as it goes against their religious tenets to support the adopting of children by same sex couples.

So, the big question, is....is the gov't now violating the church in demanding they act against the tenets of their faith. Is this not a separation of church and state in reverse? Or should the Catholic Church have to abide by anti-discrimination laws like everybody else?

If the Catholic Church does drop their adoption program, will children suffer as a result?

You decide.

Here's the story

[Petulant Pixie]

Page not found.

But....see this was the thing with the Boy Scouts wanting to discriminate against gay people--they aren't totally a private organization. They receive federal funding. The Boy Scouts have won all of their law suits about this, but *I* think it's unfair that they still receive federal funding but don't have to abide by federal law.

I'm guessing (but I could be wrong!) that the same is happening with Catholic Charities' adoption thing. I'd bet they are receiving some federal (or state) money which is why Mass has decided they need to follow the law in this case, and instead of giving up the $$$ (which may fund more than just adoptions, Catholic Charities is a big organization), they are just dropping the adoptions. Which is a shame. But, if you take the money, you've got to abide by the laws. JMO.

[Jessica]

Oops.

Well, here's a different article. Hope this one works.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/01/romney_shifts_on_adoption_by_gays/

[Petulant Pixie]

OK, Catholic Charities does receive federal funding:

http://charityreports.give.org/Public/Report.aspx?CharityID=1049

I'm really curious about why a priest is getting $182K+ in "compensation" for his services as president. Vow of poverty anyone???

So, the state may have that leg to stand on--receiving federal grants. Furthermore, though, I don't know if a state could allow exemptions for a religious-based charity that blocked adoptions to Jews, or black people, for no other reason than their being jewish or black, even if they had relgious reasons for not wanting to. So I don't see why Catholic Charities should be given an exemption. It is MA adoption law not to discriminate for this reason, and ALL agencies should abide by it.

As far as children suffering? I doubt it. There are other agencies who would pick up the slack, I am sure. I just think it's shitty of Catholic Charities to do this. I guess they figure keeping the 13 gay people in the past two decades from adopting the otherwise "unadoptable" kids (according to the article you linked to) is better for the whole than placing the other 720 they've placed in non-gay homes. Whatever.

[Jessica]

I can definitely see both sides. On one hand, I think we should put the rights and interests of the children before 13 gay couples feelings, and the argument about not being able to discriminate against blacks or Jews doesn't wash with me because being black or Jewish isn't a moral issue. I don't even agree with abiding by the law tin order to rec'v federal dollars. In my mind, this a state issue - what should federal dollars have to do with a state's discrimination agaisnt the Catholic Church, I ask.

OTOH, it is the law in Mass. now and there is definitely an argument to be made that everyone needs to abide by the law.

I think the Libertarian policy would support my desire for a very narrow exemption because just as they suppport abortion, they do not support using federal funds to have an abortion.

But...states should decide their laws and rules and who should abide by them, so in that regard, the Catholic Church should move their adoption missions elsewhere and if the children of Mass. suffer as a result or if the state agencies wind up being over-burdened or under-resourced (which wouldn't suprise me), then that's the state and the people of that state's fault and they have to live with it.

[Scout]

I think it is about the rights and interests of children, though. Gay couples often adopt hard-to-place children who would otherwise go unloved and either sit in a home or get passed around foster care for their whole lives. There is a little boy in my kids' preschool who was adopted by a gay male couple. When they got him at 4 months, he had a broken clavicle and bruises all over his body from abuse. They are very dedicated parents. One of them volunteers at the school so much, people think he works there.

But of course, it is also an issue of funding. I think if you want to get federal funding, you have to play by federal rules. That may not be a worry for them much longer, though, since there is a huge push against gay families right now. I just can't understand how people can have such tunnel vision and be so mean spirited and hateful. How can anyone look at that family in Florida where the gay couple has raised all those kids with HIV and think they don't deserve to be parents? I can show them some people who don't deserve to be parents!

[Jessica]

[Scout]

Acceptance in Hollywood does not equal real-life rights.