The state of Massachusetts, the people, have a non-discrimination law.
The state of Massachusetts, like all other states, regulates and oversees adoptions (for good reason).
The state of Massachusetts sometimes contracts out to private agencies to help oversee the process.
On of those was Catholic Charities, they contracted with the state to oversee adoptions of special needs children.
And though they had placed 13 children into same-sex families in the past (out of 700), the Vatican says no, sense they consider my family morally depraved and disgusting... but anyway.. Catholic Charities can no longer abide by the contract and provide services without discrimination, so they have bowed out
Of course the Republican Mitt Romney wants to give religious organizations an exemption so they can discriminate.
I understand taking a moral stand (though in this, I think their 'moral' stand is in fact immoral... but anyway) and support them that they can take any stand they want.
Interestingly, there is an immigration bill in congress (titled: The Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act (HR 4437), that I utterly oppose, and so does the Catholic church. In fact, the bishop in LA threatens that they will not abide by the law if it becomes law and will give aid to anyone, including illegal immigrants. Their rationale is the same as mine, when someone comes to you in need, you help them. period.. As Christians, Mormons and many other faith traditions, the command is give selflessly and unconditionally. This legislations would forbid anyone to give any aid to any illegal alien. The Catholic bishop is right to call it immoral and refuse to abide by it. I would (and will if it ever comes up in my life).
And yet, part of doing standing up to your convictions of faith and ethics is doing so in spite of the consequences. Otherwise, they aren't really convictions as much as they are nice easy guidelines you set for yourself.. but don't believe in enough to face the consequences.
So, if the legislation becomes law (god forbid), they have every right to disobey it in an act of civil disobedience and faith. They also will know they will face the consequences, as would I. What they should not do is ask for a religious exemption, for them alone. No, they should either, as they are doing, try to change or halt the law... or disobey it and face the consequences.
Romney wants to make their 'convictions' easy. The law of the land says no discrimination. They feel that discriminating against gay families is the moral thing to do. Well, the choice should be either drop the conviction and obey the law, or face the consequences (in this case, they did, they pulled out of the contract). They should _not_ get an exemption. It only shows the weakness of their conviction (not willing to live the consequences of it) and puts us on the slope towards allowing churches to dictate which laws they follow and which they don't. They have the right to speak out, to campaign to influence. That is all our rights. They have the right to civil disobedience. That is all our rights. But, as every other organiztion and individual, they also must live their convictions with the consequences.
Unfortunately, in this case, some children will not have the benefit of their work. Lets hope the state can find somone to provide the services without insisting on discriminating.
oh.. read a bit on the bill above and then go over to the National American Opportunity Campaign and find out how to call your senator and give him/her you views... kill this legislation.
Comments (6)
What I love about this blog is that it makes me think. I like this take on religious exemptions. I am ashamed my country would put forth such a bill. Though, sadly, that is not a new feeling.
I would be interested in your thoughts on this Washington Post article. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/10/AR2006031001420.html (I hope I did that right-- I am not much of a geek.)
Comment #1796 on March 11, 2006 8:03 AM |
Romney wants to make Christian convictions easy because his are easy. As far as he is concerned, you only have to behave as a Christian toward someone if they meet his narrow view of how people should be.
I didn't know about this. Thanks for posting about it.
Comment #1797 on March 11, 2006 8:33 AM |
Well, to close the loop on the Catholic Church's logic, they should be breaking one law (their own, discriminating against homosexuals) for the greater good of a disempowered population (the children in need of adoption). Think that'll occur to anyone?
Comment #1798 on March 11, 2006 6:25 PM |
Bowing out of providing adoption services because "*shudder* gay people may adopt a child!" is so freaking hypocritical of the bastards. Adoption is an alternative to abortion. Fewer adoptions theoretically equals more abortions (or at least more unhappy children without homes).
So having to not discriminate against qualified homosexual couples.. vs. say abortion or or loveless life for a child. Naturally the church picks the most repulsive option.
Comment #1799 on March 11, 2006 8:06 PM |
This reminds me of all the adoption agencies I've looked at that will only adopt to approved Christian homes. It has always bothered me that they find it more acceptable for children to stay in the orphanages than to place them in homes of other faiths.
Comment #1800 on March 12, 2006 8:26 AM |
It would seem to me that them bowing out of doing adoptions is the best thing they can do. They cannot discriminate (per the law) so bowing out allows them to not violate the Pope's orders while not messing up the lives of hundreds of children.
I think civil disobedience is important and has it's place - but doing so at the expense of children who have been through more than many adults is just cruel. Kudos to them for following their believes without imposing them on a secular state!
--------
Comment #1801 on March 15, 2006 7:15 AM |