The Catholic Church is complaining again about how unfairly government treats them when all they want to do is discriminate against homosexuals, like their Lord Jesus Christ orders them to. The fight comes up in Illinois, where Catholic Charities, which has a government contract to provide adoption services wants free rein to deny same-sex couples the ability to adopt.
Frankly, I don’t mind that much if the church openly discriminates. I left them long ago, over issues just like this, and I can see an upside to the church continuing to drive decent people from its ranks. And from the purely legal perspective, it’s true that while no one has a constitutional right to obtain government contracts, religions do have a constitutional right not to be disadvantaged when they exercise their religion.
It’s a harder question than the bishops claim whether providing adoption services under a government contract is “the exercise of religion” as envisioned in the first amendment; but the law is fairly clear that government should make reasonable accommodations to religions if at all possible. And I think it’s possible here to accommodate a religion that is so firmly staking out discrimination against homosexuals as a core tenet of its belief system.
But I think it’s also fair to point out that maybe there’s a little the church could give on, too. The law in Illinois that is the thorn in the bishops’ side does not legalize same-sex marriage. It provides for a lesser, but equal-ish civil union for same-sex couples.
I don’t believe I’ve seen the bishops, or the Vatican, take the firm position that in order to “protect” heterosexual marriage, government cannot tolerate any formal recognition of same-sex couples, and that any law providing that recognition is the same as legalizing marriage. The church’s position in Illinois, though, requires something very close to that — a firm theological belief that all same-sex couples should be disabled from adopting children because they cannot possibly provide children an acceptable family structure. The issue is not marriage, it is same-sex couples adopting, specifically, but being acknowledge by the government in general.
From what I’ve seen of the current Catholic church, I think this is pretty much what they do want to say, but until they are courageous enough to admit it, I think they’re being a little disingenuous in treating a law that is distinctly not a same-sex marriage law as if it is identical for God’s purposes.
Even the most adamant Catholics I know don’t think it’s a big deal to accept same-sex couples under some rubric or other, even if they’re not yet ready to accept full marriage equality. They are willing to give a little bit. In this, they differ from their leaders quite dramatically
The church always demands that government make accommodations to its beliefs, but is there nothing here the church can give on as well? Is the church’s notion of fairness only a one-way street?
26 Comments for “Give a little bit. . .”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The government contracts out for adoption and foster home placement as well as other social services, just as the military contracts out many support services. The contracts require compliance with the law, in the relevant case compliance with non-discrimination laws.
Catholic Charities can chose to contract or not. It is a free agent just like any other organization, religious or otherwise. It is not under any coercion. The government is not impinging on religious freedom in this instance. The issue is bogus.
The real problem is that Catholic Charities, like many other religious organizations providing government-funded services, has developed a dependency on government funding. This and similar instances around the country demonstrate, if nothing else, the danger of religious entanglement with government.
posted by JohnInCA on
Two thoughts.
First, to answer your final question: for the most part, yes.
Second, while a government shouldn’t try to disadvantage a religion in receiving a contract, they shouldn’t give them a leg-up on everyone else either by lowering the bar for qualifying.
posted by Jorge on
I don’t believe I’ve seen the bishops, or the Vatican, take the firm position that in order to “protect” heterosexual marriage, government cannot tolerate any formal recognition of same-sex couples, and that any law providing that recognition is the same as legalizing marriage.
The Church’s “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons”, written in 2003 by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger aka Pope Benedict, no less, takes this position directly:
“Faced with the fact of homosexual unions, civil authorities adopt different positions. At times they simply tolerate the phenomenon; at other times they advocate legal recognition of such unions, under the pretext of avoiding, with regard to certain rights, discrimination against persons who live with someone of the same sex. In other cases, they favour giving homosexual unions legal equivalence to marriage properly so-called, along with the legal possibility of adopting children.”
…
“In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.”
Hmm. I haven’t quite nailed the “protect marriage” bit yet:
“Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.”
It’s not quite the more US mainstream “marriage will fall apart” argument that you seem to be implying. I’ve seen the Church walk some fine lines but this is the finest line I’ve seen yet! That’s the only concession that’s worth making.
As to your broader question of can’t the Church give a little, we already know that the answer is no, so seriously, give it up. The more important question is, given how self-important the Church’s belief system is, does it hurt to refuse to accomodate it? There are two competing civil rights questions here, so it could go either way. In my opinion, if you’re gonna go the theocratic route, you have to be prepared to lose to Caesar, to accept the finality that sometimes governments will act contrary to one’s values. However you never, ever sell out your principles. Rethinking them is fine. This the Church has done, and it has come to its current conclusion.
posted by Houndentenor on
Most funding comes with strings attached. If you don’t like the strings, you don’t take the funds. This is simple. The RCC wants to feed at the government trough while playing the victim.
I always thought it was a bad idea for religious groups to become financially dependent on the government. This is a good example of why that is a bad idea.
posted by Houndentenor on
Religions are free to discriminate. State agencies are not.
This was always going to be a problem for religious organizations taking money from the government. The solution is easy. They should raise the money privately and operate as they see fit. Currently Catholic Charities in Illinois receive 62% of their funding from the government. They want to take state money and then discriminate against the taxpayers who paid for their funding. It should come as no surprise that many of those taxpayers have a problem with that.
posted by irksome1 on
In a perfect world, perhaps the Church could operate an adoption agency independent of the state. What I wonder is whether this is even possible. I mean, it doesn’t seem like it would be just about the money. The children themselves, wards of the state, would be provided to the adoption agency by the state. The adoption agency would need to comply with state regulations for the purposes of a license to operate even in the absence of government subsidy. It’s not even clear to me that individual families could legally sign away custody of their own children in private to any agency that was not authorized to accept such custody by the state.
Perhaps this area is over-regulated, though I tend to doubt it. It seems to me that the state has a palpable interest in the welfare of children who cannot be raised by their parents. Presumably, the state sees its own custody of the children as inevitable, either through some sort of social services bureaucracy or the juvenile justice system. It follows, then, that the state has an interest in ensuring the child’s welfare not only out of benevolence (dubious, I’ll grant), but because it’s cheaper to keep them out from behind bars.
Since the nature of an adoption agency seems to necessitate some degree of entanglement with the state, I fail to see how the social mores of the Catholic Church could, in fact, be reconciled with the legal status that the state has constructed for same-sex couples. Either the Church must bend to accommodate the law and, in so doing, compromise her moral integrity or the law must bend to accommodate the Church, in which case the Rule of Law is compromised.
posted by Lymis on
Digging only slightly more deeply into your own premises:
The children, who are wards of the state, may very well not be Catholic, especially if they are infants, and regardless of whether they are or are not, may have no issues with gay people – well over half of Catholics support gay rights, even as adults.
The potential parents, gay or straight, may very well not be Catholic, and, even if they are, may have no issue with gay people.
So, the claim of religious sensibilities is even more questionable in this situation – what right do they have to insert their religious doctrine in between parents and a child who may not share them? Would they refuse to place a Jewish child with Jewish parents because none of them accept Jesus?
I could see an objection to placing an older child who was raised Catholic and strongly held Catholic beliefs with a family who held different beliefs, but that would be a case basis attempt to place a child in the most suitable home, not a sweeping rejection of all gay people as potential parents.
Essentially, you’re saying that the Church has the right to impose Catholicism on non-Catholics using taxpayer money. Wrong.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The church’s position in Illinois, though, requires something very close to that — a firm theological belief that all same-sex couples should be disabled from adopting children because they cannot possibly provide children an acceptable family structure.
The Church universal opposes adoption by same-sex couples:
“Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.” – “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions of Homosexual Persons“, Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, 2003
As Pope Benedict, Cardinal Ratzinger has reaffirmed this teaching on many occasions.
The Catholic Church has no obligation to change its teachings regarding gays and lesbians. It does have a duty, though, it seems to me, to comply with the law when performing contracts for the government. If it cannot, in good conscience, perform the services required in compliance with the law, then it should not contract to perform services for the government.
Catholic Charities’ position in Illinois, as it was in Massachusetts, is that Catholic Charities should be permitted to take government money to perform a service, refuse to perform the service, and be paid for it. That is utter nonsense.
That’s all the controversy is about, and all it has ever been about. All the blow about “religious freedom” is a raw-boned attempt to use the government to subsidize Catholic Charities.
I am not opposed to Catholic Charities. It does good work with a very low overhead, unlike many charitable organizations, often doing work that no one else is doing. But the government has an obligation to conform to the law when contracting for services, and should not contract with organizations that refuse, for whatever reason, to comply with the law.
posted by Jorge on
Eh.
We live in a time when the government has its hands in almost everything, anyway. And it’s not very good at a lot of it. So that’s why it contracts out its services to private agencies. That’s a big part of what the faith-based initiatives during the Bush adminsitration was about, building partnerships with communities of faith to accomplish the goals of good government. I think what we have here is alien to that mindset, and I’m not too keen on it.
Catholic Charities’ position in Illinois, as it was in Massachusetts, is that Catholic Charities should be permitted to take government money to perform a service, refuse to perform the service, and be paid for it. That is utter nonsense.
I do not think such an unequivocal judgment is warrented. Just because the government is obligated to provide adoptions to gay couples does not restrict how it does so. To me it would make slightly more sense if the government were to guarantee that every gay couple who wanted to adopt would be able to do so, however it happens. There is no need for every single organization to be a cookie cutter duplicate of the state and its guarantees. It would open the door to having organizations that cater exclusively to gay couples. Nothing wrong with that, right? There are some benefits to contracting out to organizations in such a way that it reflects the diversity of each community.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
There is no need for every single organization to be a cookie cutter duplicate of the state and its guarantees. It would open the door to having organizations that cater exclusively to gay couples. Nothing wrong with that, right? There are some benefits to contracting out to organizations in such a way that it reflects the diversity of each community.
Boutique adoptions covered by private adoption agencies. I know private agencies in Chicago that place children born to Jewish parents exclusively in Jewish homes, private agencies that specialize exclusively in arranging adoptions for gay and lesbian couples, and private agencies that filter in other ways. I even know of a private agency that formed to place the orphan Jewish children rescued from Ethiopia in Jewish homes in the United States, an agency that operated very effectively for a few years while the need existed.
Reflecting the diversity of the community is a good thing, I suppose, but that is different than funding discrimination. The state should respect its own laws.
Would you be as sanguine about this if the agency in question accepted public funds and refused to place children in Hispanic homes? Or refused to place children in Evangelical Christian homes?
posted by Jorge on
Reflecting the diversity of the community is a good thing, I suppose, but that is different than funding discrimination. The state should respect its own laws.
You had me until you said that.
I think you are painting yourself into using a blind law-and-order approach that is not willing to stand by the intrinsic worth of the laws in question. Frankly this is not an issue where that kind of stance is helpful politically.
Would you be as sanguine about this if the agency in question accepted public funds and refused to place children in Hispanic homes? Or refused to place children in Evangelical Christian homes?
A predictable red herring. The answer is yes (duh!), and I’m gonna tell you why that might be a good idea. Because when each and every single agency has to reflect the diversity of the community, that leaves the danger that each and every single agency will also reflect the racism and homophobia of the community. That each and every single agency in its advertizing and approach, will somehow alienate prospective minority parents. It would be beneficial to have an organization or two devoted to working with black families, with Muslim families, with Jewish families, with Irish, Catholic, or what have you, so that each and every single person feels welcome. (Newt Gingrich would turn in his political grave if this ever happened.)
So I say, but my own city has done a specific advertizing campaign recently for the adoption of GLBT youth. However, that carries some inefficiencies, too. It is cumbersome to employ diversity experts who specialize in every single minority population. A city agency can do that–it’s still cumbersome and expensive, mind you. A contracted agency cannot.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tom: Reflecting the diversity of the community is a good thing, I suppose, but that is different than funding discrimination. The state should respect its own laws.
Jorge: You had me until you said that. I think you are painting yourself into using a blind law-and-order approach that is not willing to stand by the intrinsic worth of the laws in question. Frankly this is not an issue where that kind of stance is helpful politically.
Well, maybe so, in terms of politics, but the state contracts with private organizations to perform adoption services in accordance with the laws of the state, not otherwise, and that’s the rub. We limit and restrict the power of the government to act according to its own whims for a reason.
It would be beneficial to have an organization or two devoted to working with black families, with Muslim families, with Jewish families, with Irish, Catholic, or what have you, so that each and every single person feels welcome.
Again, boutique adoption services are readily available through private organizations for those seeking boutique services, as we both have pointed out. The state does not need to mime the private sector in all things.
posted by Jorge on
We limit and restrict the power of the government to act according to its own whims for a reason.
Uhhhh, no we don’t.
We’ve got a nice back and forth between the Obama administration and the government of Arizona on illegal immigration that’s a lot more about politics than it is about federalism.
On gay marriage, mayors Michael Bloomberg and Gavin Newsom of New York and San Fransicsco and President Obama all took drastically different actions in response in response to lawsuits and sometimes lower court decisions to affirm gay marriage, even though it’s likely all three of them personally supported the lawsuits.
This is a law that was passed, what, within the past year? It seems to me that the more reasonable thing to do is figure out a way to mitigate, rather than embrace, the unintended consequences, whether executively or legislatively. A decision was made, and that decision was political.
I think the fact that the state would have left itself open to a lawsuit if it did not try to “enforce the law” does not mean that lawsuit would have been an automatic defeat. Within that time the law could have been rewritten, or another good settlement could have come about.
Again, boutique adoption services are readily available through private organizations for those seeking boutique services, as we both have pointed out. The state does not need to mime the private sector in all things.
That is irrelevant, and you’re changing the subject yet again. Permit me to do the same. Hundreds of years from now, slavery and Jim Crow will be a distant memory, and there will be no justification for basing restrictive constitutional interpretations treating people differently on account of race/ethnicity on an “invidious history of discrimination” that would have no connection to the present. (I assume that history is the reason why laws on race, but not gender and sexual orientation, are examined more skeptically and harshly by the Supreme Court.) There will only be concrete results to consider.
You asked me “would I be so sanguine” about an agency receiving government funding and excluding adoptions based on race/ethinicity and religion. If there are private agencies that serve specific communities with good results, then it is worth considering having the government sponser the same as an exercise in good government. I’d be perfectly fine with it.
posted by Houndentenor on
Heading off topic but 100 years from now I suspect the idea that we could segregate based on race will be perplexing as almost all Americans will have very mixed ancestry. I also suspect that everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about gay people being treated just like everyone else.
Sorry to interrupt but I couldn’t help myself. Back to the church/state debate.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tom: We limit and restrict the power of the government to act according to its own whims for a reason.
Jorge: Uhhhh, no we don’t.
Yes, we do, Jorge. We require the government, at both state and federal levels, to apply the laws of the government to all citizens on an equal basis unless the government has (at minimum) a rational basis reasonably related to the government purpose for applying the laws unequally.
Now, in the instant case, Catholic Charities proposes to act on behalf of the state government with respect to adoption, and apply the laws of the state unequally for a purpose (religious doctrine) that is extraneous to the government purpose (placing children for adoption in homes meeting the requirements of the state).
That is exactly why Illinois cannot contract with Catholic Charities in this instance, or, for that matter, any other organization that discriminates in placing children for adoption in a manner that violates the laws of the state. You have to keep in mind that the state is contracting with Catholic Charities to act in the place of the state, and, in a real sense, as the state, since the state does not provide the service except through the organizations with which it contracts.
You suggest that it would be a good thing for the state to contract with the organizations to break state law by discriminating in various ways that are forbidden by law, depending on the private convictions of the organization, using various rationales to get to that conclusion.
Nonetheless, the state cannot so act unless it has a rational basis for doing so that is reasonably related to the government purpose, no matter how benign the reasons it may have for doing so. And that is the beginning and end of the matter.
At one point in the discussion, you suggested that my question about race/ethnicity and religion (“Would you be as sanguine about this if the agency in question accepted public funds and refused to place children in Hispanic homes? Or refused to place children in Evangelical Christian homes?”) was “a predictable red herring”.
It is not. A significant number of people sincerely believe that cross-racial and cross-cultural adoptions harm the children involved, as sincerely as the Catholic Church believes that “Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development.“. Others sincerely believe that our country should not place children in homes in which English is not the primary language or in which cultures other than “standard homogenized American” play a role. Still others sincerely believe that children born of Christian mothers must be raised Christian, or even, for that matter, within a specific Christian denomination. I can go on and on.
The State of Illinois, like most states, provides a vehicle for adoptions in those instances — private adoptions. You suggest that my observation that the state provides private adoption as a vehicle for boutique adoption is “irrelevant” and “changes the subject yet again”. I would suggest otherwise. Private adoption is part of the statutory scheme for adoption in Illinois, intended precisely to handle such situations.
The State of Illinois is not prohibiting Catholic Charities from operating privately. It is merely refusing to contract with Catholic Charities to provide state-sponsored and state-funded adoption services, refusing to let Catholic Charities act in the place of the state unless Catholic Charities can do so in conformance with the laws of the state.
posted by Jorge on
Now, in the instant case, Catholic Charities proposes to act on behalf of the state government with respect to adoption, and apply the laws of the state unequally for a purpose (religious doctrine) that is extraneous to the government purpose (placing children for adoption in homes meeting the requirements of the state).
I cannot agree with that. You are trying to suggest that the state came first and that Catholic Charities came after, when, in both the case of civil unions and in the adoption system overall, it is the reverse. The article Stephen Miller linked to says that Catholic Charities built up that state’s adoption system. This is more a case of the state agreeing to fund a pre-existing charitable operation than it is a case of the agency agreeing to administer the law. Again, I strongly believe that so long as the state ensures that there is equal opportunity across the entire system for anyone who wishes to adopt, there is no reason to require the same in every single agency. What’s the need of it if gay couples can still adopt? I think the state of Illinois should look for a way to do this.
You suggest that it would be a good thing for the state to contract with the organizations to break state law
No, I suggest the state law should not be interpreted to forbid it, and if it does, there is some justification for repealing them. Your hypothetical question on race and religion cut far deeper than Illinois state law, and you well know it.
Nonetheless, the state cannot so act unless it has a rational basis for doing so that is reasonably related to the government purpose, no matter how benign the reasons it may have for doing so. And that is the beginning and end of the matter.
And I gave one, so I guess you’re quite done. I’m not sure where you get off saying there’s a difference between “a rational basis… that is reasonably related to the government purpose” and a “benign reason” for passing a law. Benign reason that’s not rationally related to a government objective is something like arbitrarily classifying whether or not criminal illegal aliens should be deported based on financial or efficiency concerns (to cite a recent Supreme Court decision). Adoption agency policies designed to better serve communities and children in the adoption system are rationally related to a legitimate government objective, so they’d pass under that standard.
What you should be saying is that the state would need a reason that passes strict scrutiny. That’s what my last post was about–questioning whether the need for strict scrutiny when interpreting laws permitting differential treatment based on race and religion should be permanant. Since laws differentiating based on sexual orientation do not fall under strict scrutiny federally (I don’t know about in Illinois), this is almost relevant.
…I can go on and on.
Well? Are they right or are they wrong?
It seems to me that the most logical thing to do, if we want what’s right to prevail, is to repeal the civil union law and overturn all laws banning discrimination.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It seems to me that the most logical thing to do, if we want what’s right to prevail, is to repeal the civil union law and overturn all laws banning discrimination.
It seems to me that the most logical thing to do, if we want what’s right to prevail, is to amend the marriage laws of the state to grant marriage equality and enforce the laws of the state on an equal basis for all citizens of the state.
The government has no business discriminating in the application of law without a rational basis reasonably related to the government purpose at hand, and it makes no difference in that regard whether it discriminates directly or through state-sponsored, state-funded programs administered by third-party organizations.
posted by Jorge on
The government has no business discriminating in the application of law without a rational basis reasonably related to the government purpose at hand, and it makes no difference in that regard whether it discriminates directly or through state-sponsored, state-funded programs administered by third-party organizations.
I agree with you.
But if the discrimination is in fact rational, that’s completely irrelevant.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
But if the discrimination is in fact rational, that’s completely irrelevant.
In general (excepting special circumstances where strict or heightened scrutiny standards apply) the government is allowed to discriminate if the government has a rational basis reasonably related to the government purpose for applying the laws unequally.
I don’t believe that this is the case with respect to Catholic Charities.
Catholic Charities’ purpose in refusing to place children with gay and lesbian couples (“Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development.“) is not reasonably related to the government purpose (placing children for adoption in homes meeting the requirements of the state), because Catholic Charities’ assertion is unfounded and unsupported by the evidence at hand. In fact, Catholic Charities’ assertion is contradicted by the evidence at hand. The evidence is that children placed with gay and lesbian couples fare as well as children placed with straight couples.
Leaving aside the constitutional questions for a minute, let me ask a more basic question before we both move on to other threads: The State of Illinois has licensed a large number of organizations — somewhere in the range of 75-80, by my rough count — to handle adoptions for the state. All but Catholic Charities, as far as I know, are ready, willing and able to handle adoptions in compliance with Illinois law. Catholic Charities is not willing to do so. Given that the state can contract with a large number of organizations that will comply with the law, what rational basis (reasonably related to the state’s purpose of placing children for adoption in homes meeting the requirements of the state) would the state have to contract with Catholic Charities, which will not? More to the point, why would the state do so when it has no reason or need to do so?
I think that it is important to remember the history of this controversy. Illinois passed a civil unions act granting marriage-equivalency to gay and lesbian couples. The act contained a “religious accommodation” clause that exempted religious organizations from having to recognize civil unions. The “religious accommodation” clause did not extend to organizations providing state-sponsored and state-funded services on behalf of the state, including adoption services. Catholic Charities declined to renew a contract with the state for adoption services because Catholic Charities would have to serve same-sex couples in civil unions on the same basis as married couples. The DCFS contracted for future adoption services formerly provided by Catholic Charities with other licensed agencies, that is, shifted funding to agencies that would comply with state law. Catholic Charities then sued Illinois, contending that the DCFS, in refusing to grant Catholic Charities an exemption from state law, violated constitutional guarantees of religious freedom. A couple of weeks ago, elected to drop the lawsuit and no longer seek state funding for the adoption services provided by Catholic Charities, and exited the stage with a public relations flourish.
This is a simple case. It need not be over-complicated.
posted by BobN on
I don’t believe I’ve seen the bishops, or the Vatican, take the firm position that in order to “protect” heterosexual marriage, government cannot tolerate any formal recognition of same-sex couples…
With all due respect, you haven’t seen it because you haven’t been watching. There have been repeated statements from the Vatican, the bishops, the Pope himself on exactly this point. Worse, they often view any gay-rights issue as leading to the same ultimate conclusion (and they may be right about that), so they often oppose simple things like workplace discrimination.
posted by Jorge on
Worse, they often view any gay-rights issue as leading to the same ultimate conclusion (and they may be right about that), so they often oppose simple things like workplace discrimination.
The place where I break from the Church, the Vatican in particular, is that it does not provide any guidance or leadership on what it considers “unjust discrimination” against gays to be. It is silent in the face of human rights abuses both in this country and abroad.
A variety of Republican presidential candidates, their followers, and their rivals have filled in this leadership role among the political right in the United States for the past decade or so (I know you have disagreements with me on this BobN), but that excludes a lot of people who vote Democratic but would take the religious conservative line. Far less beneign interests have filled the vaccum in other countries.
posted by BobN on
it does not provide any guidance or leadership on what it considers “unjust discrimination” against gays to be. It is silent in the face of human rights abuses both in this country and abroad.
But, Jorge, it is providing guidance. Put two and two together and you get it. That they are no longer explicit about it — compared to a few decades ago — is not indicative of a change on their part* but proof that we have accomplished enough that they* can no longer hate us openly.
* The Church of a few decades back was a much more liberal place than it is today. A concerted effort has been made to cleanse the Church of those who would open the Church to us, so I now say “they” to mean the vast majority of the hierarchy.
posted by Jorge on
But, Jorge, it is providing guidance. Put two and two together and you get it.
Oh, no, I’m not falling for that little hint-hint game. Give me something concrete that proves you actually know what you’re talking about. If you stare at something long enough, you begin to see hidden patterns to it, but the rest of us have to have some confidence you’re not just making it up. And those of us who have been staring at the Church for quite some time need more confidence than most.
posted by BobN on
It’s nothing more complicated than 1) accept that they mean it when they say they oppose “unjust” discrimination and then 2) look at the discrimination they advocate or tolerate.
There’s no trick to it, well, except for their little word game with the word “unjust”.
posted by Seth on
As a former foster care social worker, one of the most important thing is matching children with appropriate families, especially children with difficulties. The problem is the Catholic Church is playing politics with the welfare of the children instead of acting in the child’s best interest. When it comes to best practices in social work, leeway should not be made for politics. It only means the child is not getting the services (or in this case, the family) they deserve.
posted by tomjeffersonIII on
In Minnesota, back in 1993, when we (they, because it was before my time) added sexual orientation to the anti-discrimination rules, they specifically made exemptions for voluntary youth/civic groups, small businesses and faith-based groups. It would be nice if people saw that you can have sexual orientation added to the civil rights code and still protect religious freedom.
Likewise, with same-sex marriage. If people were really upset about losing religious freedom, why not simply push for a law or amendment that protected that and did not ban same-sex marriage.
I am not a lawyer, but how hard would it be to write up something like “no religious or sectarian institution shall be required to participate, rent out space to or recognize a marriage that goes against its values.”