Catholic Charities Issue

Newsom Michael mnewsom at law.howard.edu
Mon Mar 20 10:15:39 PST 2006


Actually Glendon's point is debatable.  In the United States, the
predominant pattern of violence is of violence visited by
traditionalists on progressives, not the other way around.

 

  _____  

From: Rick Duncan [mailto:nebraskalawprof at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 12:16 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities Issue

 

Jeff Jacoby has an excellent column in today's Boston Globe here
<http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/0
3/15/kids_take_back_seat_to_gay_agenda/> . And here is a money quote:

 

 

Note well: Catholic Charities made no effort to block same-sex couples
from adopting. It asked no one to endorse its belief that homosexual
adoption is wrong. It wanted only to go on finding loving parents for
troubled children, without having to place any of those children in
homes it deemed unsuitable. Gay or lesbian couples seeking to adopt
would have remained free to do so through any other agency. In at least
one Massachusetts diocese, in fact, the standing Catholic Charities
policy had been to refer same-sex couples to other adoption agencies.

 

The church's request for a conscience clause should have been
unobjectionable, at least to anyone whose pri! ority is rescuing kids
from foster care. Those who spurned that request out of hand must
believe that adoption is designed primarily for the benefit of adults,
not children. The end of Catholic Charities' involvement in adoption may
suit the Human Rights Campaign. But it can only hurt the interests of
the damaged and vulnerable children for whom Catholic Charities has long
been a source of hope.

Is this a sign of things to come? In the name of nondiscrimination, will
more states force religious organizations to swallow their principles or
go out of business? Same-sex adoption is becoming increasingly common,
but it is still highly controversial. Millions of Americans would
readily agree that gay and lesbian couples can make loving parents, yet
insist nevertheless that kids are better off with loving parents of both
sexes. That is neither a radical view nor an intolerant one, but if the
kneecapping of Catholic Charities is any indication, it may soon be
forbidden.

 

''As much as one may wish to live and let live," Harvard Law professor
Mary Ann Glendon wrote in 2004, during the same-sex marriage debate in
Massachusetts, ''the experience in other countries reveals that once
these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy
for those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of
openness, tolerance, and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their
success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination . .
. Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as
bigoted and openly discriminated against. The ax will fall most heavily
on religious persons and groups that don't go along. Religious
institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise
their principles."

 

The ax fell on Catholic Charities just two years after those words were
written. Where will it! have fallen two years hence?

 

 

Mary Ann's point is well-taken. If A, then B.

 

I wish I had thought of that!



 

 

Rick Duncan 
Welpton Professor of Law 
University of Nebraska College of Law 
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902

 


"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or
Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle

"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
numbered." --The Prisoner

  _____  

Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail
<http://pa.yahoo.com/*http:/us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=39174/*http:/photomail.m
ail.yahoo.com> makes sharing a breeze. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20060320/5a22e01e/attachment.htm


More information about the Religionlaw mailing list