Several new pieces are now posted, covering important global
themes, the ongoing polygamy debate, and Dale Carpenter's look at
why Catholic charities should be allowed to discriminate.
Carpenter remarks, provocatively (but insightfully):
While gay advocates may strongly disagree with church doctrine, there's no basis for saying that the Catholic Church's objections to gay adoptions have "nothing whatsoever to do with faith." Exempting Catholic Charities would serve the higher purpose: of respecting the deep religious convictions of a major faith tradition, without hurting children or appreciably affecting the adoption prospects of gay parents.
But hey, there's no fundraising fire in that accommodation.
By the way, our new site redesign is now in the final stages of
being tweaked (with a good deal of volunteer labor). We hope to
launch in just another month or so. Thanks again to all those who
are, through their generous support, helping us to bring this
about.
9 Comments for “Update on Our Updates.”
posted by Bobby on
As long as Catholic Charities don’t get my tax dollars, they can do whatever they want. Free speech allows not only free enterprise of religion but freedom of association. If I had a gay group, I would only want certain people to be members. So if I can discriminate and be discriminate against, so can they.
posted by CPT_Doom on
Sorry, as long as the Catholic Church is willing to accept 90% of anti-discrimination laws, including those that require them to allow heretics, adulterers and fornicators to adopt (which includes just about all non-Catholics, as well as all divorced&remarried Catholics), they do not have a leg to stand on in refusing gay and lesbian couples. They want the public money, they have to treat all members of the public with the same level of respect.
posted by John on
think Dale Carpenter’s point towards the end of his piece is the key. He writes:
**** If respect for liberal principle is not enough, there is also political self-interest in magnanimity. Some opponents of gay marriage have been using this episode to claim, “Aha! This proves that gay marriage will erode religious freedom. Massachusetts has had gay marriage just two years and already Catholics are being forced out of adoptions.” ****
He’s right. It’s part of a larger point that other dissident gay voices have made (e.g. Camille Paglia). The gay rights movement has a real PR problem. We are perceived as being people out to actively attack religious sensibilities and rob such folk of their own rights. And there is, unfortunately, some truth in it — for example, when ACT UP in the 80s and 90s invaded Catholic masses and threw condoms at the celebrant and hurled the Host to the floor (a mark of blasphemous disrespect in RC eyes), that established us in many centrist eyes as having an explicit agenda against traditional religion.
Carpenter’s point is that centrists are much more likely to vote for antigay amendments and so on when they perceive gay people as actively hostile to their faith, when they think we want to use state apparatus to reach into their organizations and tell them what to do. Conversely, they are more likely to adopt a “live and let live” policy when they experience the same magnaminity from us. It’s true that far-right fanatics won’t have their minds changed by this kind of generosity, but they won’t be able to frighten and galvanize the center, something they have to do if they are going to get their extremist un-American measures passed.
So again, I think it’s worth listening carefully to Carpenter (and others) here. He basically is saying that this magnaminity would cost us nothing, but gain us a lot in terms of PR capital. He’s right.
posted by raj on
Regarding Richard Rosendall’s new article, I read it when it was published in BayWindows. Good article.
FWIW, the last issue of BayWindows had a letter to the editor responding to the article.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Yes, Jack Fertig had previously posted that letter on a discussion group called “Queerjihad.” He resurrects the old smears against Bruce Bawer, painting a caricature utterly incompatible with Bruce’s book “Stealing Jesus” on American fundamentalism. By hurling insults at Bruce and cavalierly dismissing his new book (“While Europe Slept”), Fertig is discouraging people from looking at the considerable evidence for themselves.
Fertig objects to my statement that so-called honor killings are routine, but he himself says they are a tribal custom. Hmm, routine or custom — I wonder if the victims would appreciate the distinction.
posted by Randy Reade on
I think Dale Carpenter has soom good points in his essay about leaving the Catholic Church alone.
However, I am troubled by anyone who says that we should aquiese in the Church’s stance. They say that placing children in gay homes would do ‘violence’ towards them. Somehow, we must counter that message. To merely step aside means that we tacitly agree with their assessment that gay homes are worse than other homes.
Yes, of course, the Catholic Church can do what it wants to do, and we can’t force them to accept gay parents. But that doesn’t mean we have to take it. Recall that in both Boston and San Fransisco, the lay boards voted unanimously to support gay adoptions. The problem came from the Vatican.
So , we could take a page from the Karl Rove handbook and exploit these divisions. It’s a painful decision for the church, not an easy one (at least at the local level), and that means that there is hope for them to come around.
But just to stand back and give up on the church means that we have no problem with certain forms of discrimination, or when certain parties do it. Imagine if the church said that blacks or muslims are not fit parents! No, we must continue to isolate the bigotry and the bigots, but not those who are reasonable.
That’s a fine line, I admit, and difficult to dance around. But we can’t just be silent.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Carpenter’s point is that centrists are much more likely to vote for antigay amendments and so on when they perceive gay people as actively hostile to their faith, when they think we want to use state apparatus to reach into their organizations and tell them what to do.”
Excuse me, but that dog just isn’t gonna hunt. I am a lesbian of Christian faith, and I know literally hundreds of other gay and lesbian people who are Christians — many of them Catholics. We have the same right to freedom of religion as does any Catholic.
The non-establishment clause of the 1st Amendment prohibits the State from playing favorites — from choosing whose religious beliefs are valid and whose are not. Our politicians are whoring after the votes of conservative Catholics simply because they, and their church, have so much money.
Get the Catholic Church off of the sugar-titty of the State and THEN talk to me about “live and let live.” I resent having my pocket picked to help support bigotry that offends and violates my own convictions about religious faith, as well as that of many other good people.
When are the religio-fascists ever going to learn that if they destroy freedom of religious expression for those they dislike, they will also have destroyed it for themselves?
I would think any reasonable centrist could be brought around to recognizing the simple truth of this, if we made an honest effort to present it.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
In general, advocates of gay equality need to do a much better job of seizing the rhetorical high ground on faith, flag, and family from the radical right, which does damage to all of those values. But when a similar theme was run up the flagpole by HRC and UFMCC in the early days of organizing the Millennium March, gay leftists went berzerk and launched a campaign of vituperation against the organizers of the MM, continuing their protests after the organizers caved in to them and turned the event into another panderfest. I remember watching on the Mall that day as the leader of LLEGO used his time at the mike to emphasize how invisible and disempowered he was. Girlfriend, Please!
posted by Bobby on
This is going to end up like the Boy Scout issue. A no win situation. Anyone who wants to adopt is better adopting from another agency. I don’t need any catholic favors.