Our Frikin Governor

[brynndragon]

Romney on abortion and adoption

I swear to $deity, if Mitt Romney becomes president I'm leaving the country.

Comments

[tpau]

i wonder, is it considred imfringing on thier religious freedom to force the Catholic churches to approve gay adoptions? i mean i think it is stupid to not let gay parents adopt, but if the catholics truly believe it is wrong, canthe government dictate that htey must go against thier beliefs? i'd imagine the governmetn can withhold funds etc, but it shouldn't be able to tell them what to do ibn this case, shoudl it?

[greyhame.livejournal.com]

The really infuriating thing is that Catholic Charities, the actual organization handling adoptions, doesn't want to be exempt from the law against discriminating against gay couples in adoption. The church leadership is pushing for this over CC's objections, so that they can then order CC not to allow gay couples to adopt -- at least, that's how I'm hearing it.

(And anyway, on my view, if a group that handles adoptions really wants to be exempt from anti-discrimination laws on the grounds that their religion considers homosexuality to be wrong, the government can tell them, "you can either hold your noses and allow gay couples to adopt, because that's the law, and be as upset about it as you like privately, or you can get out of the adoption business." Adoption is a public service, properly regulated by the state, and the state has a compelling interest in preventing groundless discrimination against its citizens. It's just like a pharmacist who tries to claim the right to refuse to dispense birth control on religious grounds. A pharmacy is a private business, but one that serves a necessary public function, so it's open to regulation; quitting your job as a pharmacist, or getting out of the adoption business, is a personal choice based on personal religious beliefs, but to remain in the position but refuse to serve some people because your religion says they're sinful is to impose your personal beliefs on others.)

[tpau]

hmm, good point

[dragonvpm.livejournal.com]

Good points, and while I personally don't think adoption agencies/groups should discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, I disagree with the idea that they can do it and suck it up or get out adoption business.

To address the prescription analogy, drugs don't care if they are or are not bought. A drug is just as happy sitting in a warehouse as it is sitting in your medicine cabinet. Children are not so lucky and adopting a kid out to a family is probably better than leaving them in an orphanage or foster care. The adoption process isn't a commercial transaction, we expect all agencies that handle adoptions to discriminate against people who are not fit to be parents. Given the current political climate, I don't think most people are comfortable enough with homosexuality to really support it's inclusion in an anti-discimination law, yet.

I don't know when or even if we'll ever get far enough away from our puritanical roots to change that, but kids can't really wait around for years and years until our society gets it's collective head out of it's ass.

[benndragon.livejournal.com]

I have to say, that sounds like a much stronger arguement against allowing discrimination based on anything other than determination of goodness as parents than an arguement for giving the church the requested exemption. Until someone can show scientific evidence that someone is a worse parent by virtue of their sexuality (it's not like people haven't tried either), cutting otherwise acceptable gay couples off from adopting children punishes not only those couples, but the children they would otherwise adopt. 7 members of the CC agree with me strongly enough to resign from the organization due to the Archbishop's actions. You'd think he had better things to worry about, like reparations for and prevention of priests molesting children.

[greyhame.livejournal.com]

Right, that's another aspect: the Catholic Church in MA looks awfully hypocritical for being all "we have to protect the children from the gays!" on this issue.

And it's not like potential adoptive parents don't already go through pretty rigorous screenings. Gay or straight, that's supposed to show whether or not they'd be suitable parents.

[dragonvpm.livejournal.com]

I don't know, "determination of goodness as parents" doesn't sound like it has anything at all to do with science. Does that mean that only parents who are willing/able to spend at least 3.4 hours per day with their adopted kids will be considered? Will only parents who earn at least 23.75% over the median be judged capable of providing an acceptable home for kids?

What exactly constitutes "scientific evidence" that someone is a good or bad parent? Given all the variables involved I seriously doubt you could really, scientifically show this for anything. Even worse, since not many gay couples have been allowed to adopt kids so far, most gay parents are likely to be people who actually produced kids with a partner of the opposite sex and I suspect there's a good chance that statistics might show some trends about gay parents that could be seen as unfavorable from a "family" perspective (e.g. perhaps a higher rate of divorce).

The simple fact remains that a lot of people think that homosexuality is a "perversion of nature" because it requires action and until this country moves away from our abdsurd puritanical fear of sex and sexuality, I really don't see most people being ok with forcing charitable groups to adopt kids to gay couples. You know that's the way it's going to be pitched to the masses, given the slew of anti-gay-marriage ammendments, what makes you think our fellow citizens would be any more open-minded about adoption?

[benndragon.livejournal.com]

There is a specific process to determine goodness of parentage that is regulated by the state. I don't know what it is, other than the fact that gayness is not addressed by it (that is covered under anti-discrimination laws, just like allowing black parents to adopt white babies and white parents to adopt asian babies). Up to now, neither the Church nor the CC had any complaints about it. Actually, they *still* don't have any complaints - they just want to be able to add "no gays!" to their own requirements.

A scientific study would be pretty damn difficult, because of the coonfounding measures you mentioned. Which is frankly why it seems strange that none have been pulled out for this case. Either they don't actually exist, or the Church doesn't care about whether or not sexaulity is linked with parental abilities. In either case, they have no grounds for exemption as far as I'm concerned.

No one is requiring that the CC (the organization that runs the adoption center in question) do something they don't want to do, other than the Church. They've been happily allowing gay couples to adopt for years. The Church is trying to get around the CC and go to the government to get the legal ability to bully the CC into doing something they don't want to do. That said, I'm not sure how your final paragraph differs from "Let the south have their 'seperate yet equal' thing, it makes them happy." One of the purposes of the government in this country is to protect the minority from the majority, not the other way around.

[dirkcjelli.livejournal.com]

The CC/ RCC (Roman Catholic Church) conflict is a big deal... American Catholics don't understand that being Catholic means blind obedience to the Pope in spiritual matters regardless of their own opinions. That is what "being Catholic" means.

[dragonvpm.livejournal.com]

Having thought about it for a while, I think the main problem I see is the "freedom of religion" angle. I was arguing that it's going to be hard to include sexual orientation into a law that bans dscrimination because a) it's based on actions, b) the arguement is now and has been for a very long time based on religious beliefs.

You're right, if the CC is forced to get that exemption then discriminating against people for race, gender, shoe size, etc... could pottentially be done by anyone who invokes the all powerful "God told me to" defense. I seem to recall that's actually the angle several white supremacy groups have taken, except that until now it's been acknowledged that they're using religion as a smoke screen.

Unfortunately I think the current Supreme Court is very likely to go in the direction of allowing more groups to circumvent laws based on religion. Case in point: Supreme Court says church can use drugs during ritual

That decision seems to go against our long standing "War on Drugs". If this court is willing to give religious protection to drugs involved in a "sincere religious practice" then I wonder how long before they're allowing groups to side-step other laws using the same arguement. The obvious solution would be to do something about not allowing discrimination as part of a religous practice, but attacking the Freedom of Religion is dangerous because if we can change that, then it's possible for someone else to come along and restrict Free Speech or anything else in the constitution.

All things considered this case brings up some messy possibilities and the Catholic church has pockets deep enough to pursue the issue as long as it wants. Going back to the original point, I think that discriminating based on sexual orientation is stupid, but I don't know that enough people really feel that way and that's pretty sad.

[dirkcjelli.livejournal.com]

While showing homosexuals are fit parents is indeed a tall charge, showing that a homosexual couple is no more likely to abuse or neglect a child in their care is a reasonable, testable claim.

While few homosexuals have adopted children, there are a fair number who've become the custodian of a child under various circumstances.

One lifestyle which is demonstrably bad for child-rearing is, ironically enough, that which Catholic Priests profess...

[dragonvpm.livejournal.com]

One lifestyle which is demonstrably bad for child-rearing is, ironically enough, that which Catholic Priests profess...

That statement is stupid enough that I almost didn't want to respond to it, there is no genuine statistical evidence to show that being a Catholic priest is more dangerous for kids than living in Mass is (for example). However, you do open the door to an interesting counterpoint. Is the profession the problem or is it their sexual orientation? You ignored the obvious pedophilia issue so if we discount that, the stereotype is Catholic priests (all male) and Altar BOYS and that sounds an awful lot like a homosexual encounter. Gosh, maybe it's a sign of just how perverse homosexuals are that they infiltrate the priesthood and go about corrupting innocent young boys.

Now in case it's not obvious I'm just saying that to illustrate what the "other side" could easily say when faced with that sort of remark. I would have hoped you would have understood this from my earlier comments, but given your post, I think you might have missed it. I think disciminating on the basis of sexual orientation is STUPID, but I also think that in the US, it's going to be hard to really enforce an anti-discimination law that ultimatley conflicts with the religious beliefs or a lot of people. The Supreme Court just sided with a Native American tribe that uses a hallucinogen in their religious ceremonies based on the idea that the government couldn't enforce a zero tolerance drug policy that conflicted with those people's honest sincere beliefs.

That being said, until it's settled I think it's more important to let the largest number of organizations work to get kids adopted than to kick some out for discriminating on that specific issue (which believe it or not a lot of people really do sincerely believe is wrong). That's the main iss that I first commented on and that's ultimatey my point. As much as possible, kids should have parents and punishing an organization like the CC (even if they're being forced into this position by the church) is only going to hurt kids and parents who will have one less group working to get adoptions done.

If anything this issue has left me with some grave misgivings about the whole "freedom of religin" concept as it's currently being interpreted by the Supreme Court. When I first heard about the ruling on the tribe's use of the drug in it's cermonies I was somewhat cheered up by the possibility that maybe we were moving away from our ill advised and idiotic "War on Drugs" but now I'm wondering if the new SC isn't going to make it easier for people to do what they want if they can convincingly claim that it's their "religious belief".

[benndragon.livejournal.com]

Actually, the least damaging way for the government to deal with this from the kids' perspective is "Chruch, I'm sorry, but y'all have to obey the law just like everyone else. CC, keep up the good work." In other words, just keep things as they are. The CC (well, what's left of it) can say they have to do it that way because of state regs, the Church chomps at the bit but ultimately the CC gets enough donations from people other than the Church that they can keep going if necessary (and after the hullabaloo, chances are they wouldn't have a problem making up the difference if necessary - I know I'd donate if that happened).

What really annoys me is the fact that the Church thinks it can possibly get such an exemption in the first place, while any other organization that ran an adoption service wouldn't even ponder the possibility. Being a religious organization doesn't make you exempt from the law of the land you're in, anymore than being a Mason does (RAW aside).

[dirkcjelli.livejournal.com]

What does adoption have to do with religion?

If I sell cookies in a church basement, how is that transaction tax exempt, or somehow granted a special privilege?

If my profession is ministry, and I am paid for that service, why shouldn't I be taxed on that income?

Religious freedom ought not to be interpreted this liberally... it is/was intended to prevent the establishment of a state religion and, perhaps, to prevent the government from requiring religious pacifists from serving in the military. If a member of a pacifistic religion signs up for the military, it does not mean he doesn't have to shoot people (unless that is a special arrangement agreed to by both parties, perhaps). It is -not- supposed to make the religious some kind of special class who are above the law of the land in all matters, but rather only those matters -directly- impacting what may be required of an individual.

[tpau]

my question was this though. if i strongly believe that i cna shoot men but not women (for example) and i am in the military, cna the military tell me to shoot everyone? having thought about it for a bit, i thin kif i joined voluntarily, then the answer is yes, but if i was drafted then no. withthe draft themilitary would be forcing me to go against my belief.

since acting as an adoption agency is voluntary forhtechurch, th eargument is moot.