Requirement to consider gay couples for adoption forces Illinois Catholic Charities affiliates to close

posted at 9:27 pm on December 29, 2011 by Tina Korbe

After the Illinois state legislature passed a requirement that says adoption and foster-care agencies — to be eligible for state money — must consider same-sex couples as potential foster-care or adoptive parents, the Roman Catholic bishops in Illinois decided to shut down most of the Catholic Charities affiliates in the state. This isn’t the first time something like this has happened: Massachusetts and Washington D.C. both passed similar requirements — and many Catholic Charities affiliates closed down in those states, as well. The New York Times reports:

For the nation’s Catholic bishops, the Illinois requirement is a prime example of what they see as an escalating campaign by the government to trample on their religious freedom while expanding the rights of gay people. The idea that religious Americans are the victims of government-backed persecution is now a frequent theme not just for Catholic bishops, but also for Republican presidential candidates and conservative evangelicals.

“In the name of tolerance, we’re not being tolerated,” said Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield, Ill., a civil and canon lawyer who helped drive the church’s losing battle to retain its state contracts for foster care and adoption services. …

Critics of the church argue that no group has a constitutional right to a government contract, especially if it refuses to provide required services.

But Anthony R. Picarello Jr., general counsel and associate general secretary of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, disagreed. “It’s true that the church doesn’t have a First Amendment right to have a government contract,” he said, “but it does have a First Amendment right not to be excluded from a contract based on its religious beliefs.

This is tough stuff. My instinct is to think that the Illinois requirement does constitute a violation of religious liberty — but I’m not sure. The free exercise of religion clause protects religiously motivated conduct as well as belief (e.g. proselytization, refusing work on one’s sabbath, even sacrificing animals at a worship service), so Catholic Charities is well within its rights to refuse to place children with gay couples and still operate. Because Catholic Charities can’t operate foster care services without a contract with the state, the denial of the contract on the basis of CC’s fidelity to the teaching of the Catholic Church seems like a clear violation of religious freedom. But the mere denial of funding — no matter how heavily dependent CC is on it for its operations — is surely not. Freedom and funding, after all, are not the same.

Either way, though, let’s not forget the broader picture: The decision of the Illinois legislature to initiate the requirement in the first place — knowing it would hamstring Catholic Charities, which provides essential services — demonstrates an appalling willingness to allow an adult agenda — the mainstream acceptance of gay behavior — to supersede children’s interests. The spokesman for the state’s child welfare agency has said he thinks the child welfare system Catholic Charities helped to build is strong enough to withstand CC’s departure. But it’s hard to believe the shuttering of so many CC affiliates won’t make the burden of finding a home for children in need even greater.

Then, too, research suggests the healthiest and most stable environment for a child is to live with a married couple. Of those born to cohabiting parents, the majority see their parents split up before they hit age 16 — and children living with a mother and her unmarried partner are more likely to have behavioral problems and lower academic performance. That Catholic Charities wanted to work to place children in that optimal living environment but now can’t is heartbreaking no matter what the reasoning for the new requirement.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 7

And, I do believe that the actual statistics show that the overwhelming majority of sexual predators of young men and teenage boys in the Catholic clergy scandals were homosexuals.

Horace on December 30, 2011 at 12:11 AM

Overwhelming majority? I do believe that the actual statistics show that 100% of the sexual predators in the Catholic clergy scandals were… wait for it…Catholic clergymen.

What’s that other organization that has a problem with atheists and gays? Oh yes, the Boy Scouts. You say they have had their share of sexual predation scandals as well?

So from this we can see those who condemn gays the loudest are likely to be sexual predators.

That probably wasn’t your intended point, but its certainly where basic logic skills leads us: Virulent anti-homosexual organizations also tend to have high rates of sexually assaulting children.

Daikokuco on December 30, 2011 at 12:25 AM

So they are operating on government money. A goverment-backed charity. Where are the “Christian conservatives” to tell me that Christianity and socialism are totally not interconnected? They have NO problem with the government pouring money on welfare, as long as some of it can be funnelled to their churchs first. Shutting down these parasites is no different than shutting down acorn. Do your “worthy cause” WITHOUT taxpayer money!

Daikokuco on December 29, 2011 at 10:23 PM

The abject ignorance on this thread is astounding. This is a prime example.

Adoption and foster care are RUN BY THE STATE. They require licensure to the facilities and the individual foster and adoptive parents. The children in the foster care system, awaiting adoption, ARE UNDER THE CARE OF THE STATE.

The Catholic Charities are not allowed to operate independently, without the state. It’s comparable to doctors who are forced to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients. The revenues they receive from the state are NOT PROFITS.

Get a freaking clue, people!

This is nothing more than forcing the Gay Agenda™ down our throats and it is the gays activists who are forcing the Catholic Charities out of business, for no good reason. Why should they Catholic Charities cave in to this shakedown? Why should they suspend their beliefs and be forced to allow “Loving Gay Couples—SPIT!” to adopt children, when there are other services they can go to? We know the answer. It is THEY who don’t give a damn about these children, not the Catholic Charities. The Catholic Charities care about these children enough to not want to go into homes where the parents have a “lifestyle” that is against biblical principles.

JannyMae on December 30, 2011 at 12:25 AM

Someone, please, tell us how Atheist Charities are responding to this exigency.

Akzed on December 30, 2011 at 12:26 AM

Man, can I call ‘em or what?

theoddmanout

Almost like people know about deviancy from personal experiences/struggles/being victimized/being on the earth for the last twenty years.

Yes. Homosexuality is a behavioral deviancy, and not the basis for a right to adopt children or prevent someone else from providing adoption services regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof.

DevilsPrinciple

We could even agree to call it behavior.

Because it is.

Behavior is not decided by genes. Free will controls behavior. Anyone who argues otherwise for the sake of feeling diversity-superior is creating a new type of law.

StubbleSpark on December 30, 2011 at 12:27 AM

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 12:25 AM

Adoption is against Shariah.

Akzed on December 30, 2011 at 12:28 AM

I would rather see an orphan be adopted by a gay loving couple than stay an orphan in his/her life.
txbelle on December 29, 2011 at 11:55 PM

However when a parent chooses a Catholic agency to handle the adoption, they are choosing not to put their child in the hands of “gays”, by very definition. That’s the parent’s right and choice to make.

whatcat on December 30, 2011 at 12:29 AM

theoddmanout on December 30, 2011 at 12:25 AM

All it takes is a few well placed advocates in committees associated with the classification of disorders. Last I saw, the definition was not put to a general vote. If you have information to the contrary, let’s see it.

From the same Wikipedia article:

There is also a high risk for anti-gay bias in psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients.

A few words, and a world of meaning.

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 12:30 AM

But the mere denial of funding — no matter how heavily dependent CC is on it for its operations — is surely not. Freedom and funding, after all, are not the same.

Interesting. So it’s perfectly acceptable for the government to give a competitive advantage to one group over another based on religious practices. Somehow, I don’t see how that jibes with the First Amendment.

JSchuler on December 30, 2011 at 12:31 AM

Behavior is not decided by genes. Free will controls behavior. Anyone who argues otherwise for the sake of feeling diversity-superior is creating a new type of law.
StubbleSpark on December 30, 2011 at 12:27 AM

True. Those who have a shoe-fetish, have an “orientation” for sex with children or who choose to engage in same-sex sodomy were not “born that way”.

whatcat on December 30, 2011 at 12:32 AM

Almost like people know about deviancy from personal experiences/struggles/being victimized/being on the earth for the last twenty years.

Nah-I’ve just been around enough ignorant people/bigots in my life to know the type of things that they say and the type of arguments that they use. Once you’ve heard the arguments from one anti-gay bigot, you’ve pretty much heard them all. It’s not that difficult to predict that when someone uses the word “sodomite” then they probably also believe that gay people are diseased/genetically deformed pedophiles who are trying to brainwash children into becoming homosexual through anti-gay bullying programs that are set up by the gay lobby/media/mafia.

theoddmanout on December 30, 2011 at 12:36 AM

We can also point out this example.

And guess what? According to the gay “parents” involved, if you object to dressing toddlers as sexual slaves and taking them to a sex fair to “show off” in front of naked and masturbating adults, you are a homophobe.

Also entertaining: said gay “parent”, John Kruse, is a psychologist and honored member of the APA.

Can you imagine what would happen to a heterosexual psychologist who advised parents to sexualize their children like this? But let a gay one do it, and the so-called “professional” organizations fully support and endorse it.

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 12:38 AM

Akzed on December 30, 2011 at 12:28 AM

Notice that the rules only pertain to the positioning of an adopted son as one of the adoptive father’s own sons.

In fact, the act of adoption appears to be a given fact in both citations of the Koran given in the article.

Indeed, the author of the article makes this exact point:

Without adoption, there cannot be any adopted son either. Therefore, the explicitly stated reason for the revelation of this verse does not exist. Muhammad himself dissolved the original adoption of Zaid when the above revelation came.

The character of Mohammad is certainly called into question in this article, when we find that the reason Muhammad dissolved the adoption of Zaid was so that the Prophet could marry Zaid’s wife Zainab.

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 12:40 AM

Once you’ve heard the arguments from one anti-gay bigot, you’ve pretty much heard them all. It’s not that difficult to predict that when someone uses the word “sodomite” then they probably also believe that gay people are diseased/genetically deformed pedophiles who are trying to brainwash children into becoming homosexual through anti-gay bullying programs that are set up by the gay lobby/media/mafia.

theoddmanout on December 30, 2011 at 12:36 AM

By the way, we’re also familiar with how the gay and lesbian lobby screams “homophobe” if anyone dares enforce the law or investigate childrens’ welfare.

And like I just quoted above, gays and lesbians shriek that anyone objecting to their dressing children as sexual slaves and taking them to a sex fair to “show off” is an anti-gay bigot.

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 12:40 AM

Nah-I’ve just been around enough ignorant people/bigots in my life…
theoddmanout on December 30, 2011 at 12:36 AM

You’ve been “around” one your entire life.

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 12:42 AM

All it takes is a few well placed advocates in committees associated with the classification of disorders. Last I saw, the definition was not put to a general vote. If you have information to the contrary, let’s see it.
unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 12:30 AM

You are mostly correct:
“In the early 1970s, activists campaigned against the DSM classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, protesting at APA offices and at annual meetings from 1970 to 1973. In 1973 the Board of Trustees voted to remove homosexuality as a disorder category from the DSM, a decision ratified by a majority (58%) of the general APA membership the following year.”
Wikipedia – APA – History

whatcat on December 30, 2011 at 12:44 AM

then they probably also believe that gay people are diseased/genetically deformed pedophiles who are trying to brainwash children into becoming homosexual through anti-gay bullying programs that are set up by the gay lobby/media/mafia.

theoddmanout on December 30, 2011 at 12:36 AM

Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a landmark bill adding lessons about gay history to social studies classes in California’s public schools.

There you have it. Government mandated brainwashing of school children.

hoofhearted on December 30, 2011 at 12:50 AM

Conservatives who claim to favor smaller government and profitable businesses should rejoice that the hand of the Catholic Church has been removed from the public purse. The Catholic Church had no business getting money from the government for running adoption or foster care services because one of the purposes of these services is to evangelize for the Catholic Church. Blaming policies that establish gay equality is a misdirect from the real issue: government should not be funding religion, which includes the social services that religions use as both hostages, to extract endless streams of public money, and as human shields when their scams are exposed and their gravy train is being brought to a halt. The Catholic Church should not be involved in providing foster care services at all. And adoption is a profitable business which does not need government support.

The real scandal is being completely ignored: why is the government giving the Catholic Church money for any purpose whatsoever?

Cynthia Yockey -- A Conservative Lesbian on December 30, 2011 at 12:50 AM

I don’t know about that, because I am a person, and what you said doesn’t apply to me.

Awesome islolate and dehumanize. Not at all like a bigot.

And actually I doubt it even applies to you. I’m pretty sure that at age 13, you knew you liked girls and eventually wanted to get with women.

As a former gay rights activist, I was always struck by the assumptions of homosexuals who presume everyone has the same degree of onset for precocious sexual activity. No, at 13 I was not in the mind to “get it on” with anyone. Because I was still a child.

If you were like most straight 13 year olds, that would be as soon as possible. If not, then you may be a severely closeted gay.

This accusation does not bother me in the least as I believe all people are born with the potential to go anywhere depending on factors such as distant/absent same sex parent, abusive opposite sex parent, or molestation. Incidentally, gays themselves do not believe in the gene lie. In their own circles, they talk constantly about trying to “turn” men.

I have my own issues but I do not demand the world accept them and close down orphanages across for not validating my lifestyle choices. Instead, I strive for sanctity and heroic virtue. Now you are going to continue assuming this is a cryptic reference to a personal struggle with homosexuality and try to use this to bully me into silence.

But here we are arguing about “the gay” when an actual tragedy causes nary a gay tear to be shed. As you can see, homosexuals make such loving and considerate parents. So caring about the needs of the children and so brave to put the children’s needs above their own!

In the meantime, we seem to have drawn a blank when it comes to creating a law which protects a class of people who choose to engage in a behavior which you say is born of genetics.

I see that same selflessness comes in handy when the fate of the free people of America is at stake.

StubbleSpark on December 30, 2011 at 12:51 AM

The real scandal is being completely ignored: why is the government giving the Catholic Church money for any purpose whatsoever?

Cynthia Yockey — A Conservative Lesbian on December 30, 2011 at 12:50 AM

That’s a fair question as far as it goes. But if you’re worried about Catholic charities receiving government money, how about the other protestant Christian churches that also receive money? How about Catholic hospitals (like the Avera Health Network founded in my homestate of South Dakota, among many many others) that receive federal funds from Medicare? You seem rather selective in your outrage.

gryphon202 on December 30, 2011 at 12:53 AM

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 12:40 AM

Of course. Aisha was clued into how Allah always favored Mohammed;s desires.

Akzed on December 30, 2011 at 12:54 AM

And of course, there’s this:

The Senate’s legal affairs committee is studying a Harper government bill that would raise the age of consent from 14 to 16. It will almost certainly pass — no political party has opposed it — but queer and youth-led groups came out Feb 22 to insist on their sexual freedom.

The proposed changes will have a disproportionate impact on gays, said Richard Hudler of the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario.

“My first lover was 17 years older than me. And this is common [among gay people],” he said.

Notice that you have leaders of the gay and lesbian community protesting raising the age of consent to 16, claiming that this disproportionately affects gay people, and that it is “common” for gay and lesbian people to have sex with teenagers seventeen years younger than they are.

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 12:54 AM

They are placing their own religious dogma about gay people above the well-being of the children that would love to be in a caring home-even if that home had a same-sex couple living in it.

Then again, that’s what happens when you base your belief system around the idea that all gay people, regardless of their personality, character, and virtues, are all dirty, nasty sinners and sodomites and are not good in the slightest.

Catholic Charities didn’t offer adoption services to ANY unmarried couples; hetero or homo. Gay marriage is still illegal in Illinois as only civil unions are acceptable. The church would not see this “partnership” as a marriage anymore then they would see unmarried heterosexuals as married. Illinois was completely okay with CC discriminating against unmarried heterosexuals; it was only when a few select homosexuals who cried victim-that this became an issue.

The two that made this an issue claim to be Catholic. They had to know their own religions position on unmarried couplings as well as homosexual couples and yet they made a huge issue of it. There were other avenues available for adoption. Me thinks that the two wanted victim status and not a child.

And that folks is the tragedy. Illinois DCFS is horrible. CC was atleast competent, but for a few vocal “victims” who didn’t fit CC religious criteria anymore than any other unmarried “couple”-Illinois lost a great caregiver in children. Are they entitled to state money..Nope, but you are not entitled to an adoptive child either, and can be turned away for any reasons.

This is why I have become anti-gay marriage. It is the constant victimhood. It is the inability to admit that a natural man/woman pairing is better for a child. It is the blocking out of any argument no matter how based in reality it is, because some homosexual somewhere might feel bad. Btw, I am under 40.

melle1228 on December 30, 2011 at 12:58 AM

You’ve been “around” one your entire life.

unclesmrgol

zing.

StubbleSpark on December 30, 2011 at 12:59 AM

NAMBLA.

‘Nuff said.

Akzed on December 30, 2011 at 12:59 AM

The real scandal is being completely ignored: why is the government giving the Catholic Church money for any purpose whatsoever?

Cynthia Yockey — A Conservative Lesbian on December 30, 2011 at 12:50 AM

And I repeat:

Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a landmark bill adding lessons about gay history to social studies classes in California’s public schools.

Do you see this as a proper use of government money?

hoofhearted on December 30, 2011 at 12:59 AM

The real scandal is being completely ignored: why is the government giving the Catholic Church money for any purpose whatsoever?

Cynthia Yockey — A Conservative Lesbian on December 30, 2011 at 12:50 AM

Because, Cynthia, the Catholic Church was doing what the gay and lesbian community has utterly failed to do.

Furthermore, since gay and lesbian “community centers” regularly spout antireligious and intolerant bigotry against Christians and endorse and support anti-Christian speech and actions, why should the government not strip them of funding?

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 1:00 AM

Do you see this as a proper use of government money?

hoofhearted on December 30, 2011 at 12:59 AM

Let me clue my fellow “conservatives” in on something that I think gets overlooked all too often: If it’s not listed as a duty of the federal government in the constitution, it’s not a proper use of government money. PERIOD.

gryphon202 on December 30, 2011 at 1:02 AM

In fact, I would challenge Cynthia Yockey to make that public statement: ANY gay and lesbian organization, community center, or anything of the sort that in any way facilitates any type of action directed against a religious organization or group should be stripped of public funding — INCLUDING any tax exemption.

And then we can start a list. And as far as I’m concerned, that can be given to the IRS for immediate action once the corrupt liar Obama is out of office.

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 1:03 AM

Cynthia Yockey — A Conservative Lesbian on December 30, 2011 at 12:50 AM

Joseph Stalin, A Conservative Seminarian on December 30, 1937.

Akzed on December 30, 2011 at 1:04 AM

The Catholic Church had no business getting money from the government for running adoption or foster care services because one of the purposes of these services is to evangelize for the Catholic Church.
Cynthia Yockey — A Conservative Lesbian on December 30, 2011 at 12:50 AM

If you could muster up even just a perfunctory denouncement of the government money going to advance homosexuality folks might take your complaints a bit more seriously.

whatcat on December 30, 2011 at 1:05 AM

So medicare shouldn’t pay a Catholic hospital for performing services?

blink on December 30, 2011 at 1:06 AM

A better question would be, why does Medicare exist at all in the first place to take my money and give it to someone else?

gryphon202 on December 30, 2011 at 1:06 AM

I think most children would rather not be adopted at all than to be forced to live with homosexuals.

Dollayo on December 30, 2011 at 1:09 AM

Furthermore, since gay and lesbian “community centers” regularly spout antireligious and intolerant bigotry against Christians and endorse and support anti-Christian speech and actions, why should the government not strip them of funding?

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 1:00 AM

Most of the LGBT Community Centers that I know of serve as a save haven for LGBT teens who get kicked out of their home by their family for being gay, bisexual, transsexual, etc. It is a place that they can go to where they feel safe and accepted, and be around others that they can confide in. Last time I checked, most of these centers, at the least the ones in my area, are not anti-religous focused at all.

theoddmanout on December 30, 2011 at 1:09 AM

If it’s not listed as a duty of the federal government in the constitution, it’s not a proper use of government money. PERIOD.

gryphon202 on December 30, 2011 at 1:02 AM

I agree completely. I nail people with this point regularly in my workplace when they start blathering on about spending more on education. I was just curious to see what our Conservative Lesbian thought about it.

hoofhearted on December 30, 2011 at 1:11 AM

I agree completely. I nail people with this point regularly in my workplace when they start blathering on about spending more on education. I was just curious to see what our Conservative Lesbian thought about it.

hoofhearted on December 30, 2011 at 1:11 AM

Our conservative Lesbian seems to make the same mistake than many of my straight brothers- and sisters-in-arms do. They all start with the premise that there is a proper role for government in the distributing of wealth in the name of charity, a premise which I wholly denounce and reject out-of-hand.

gryphon202 on December 30, 2011 at 1:14 AM

Most of the LGBT Community Centers that I know of serve as a save haven for LGBT teens who get kicked out of their home by their family for being gay, bisexual, transsexual, etc. It is a place that they can go to where they feel safe and accepted, and be around others that they can confide in. Last time I checked, most of these centers, at the least the ones in my area, are not anti-religous focused at all.

theoddmanout on December 30, 2011 at 1:09 AM

That’s not the point.

The point is that if these centers facilitate any type of criticism of or behavior that is in any way offensive to people of religious beliefs, or if they in any way do not offer identical services, including the right to come in and preach in the same fashion that they allow anti-religious gays and lesbians, they are discriminating and should be stripped of public funding – regardless of the value of any other function they perform.

These are the rules you used against the Catholic Church. Now you can have them turned against you.

And that’s why you’re spinning. You don’t want to follow the rules you lay down; you just wanted to punish the Catholic Church. You are a hypocrite.

Also, I provided you three examples above of gay and lesbian leaders sexualizing children, stating that adult gay and lesbian people seducing and having sex with teenagers was “common” in the gay and lesbian community, adamantly arguing against any restrictions on adults having sex with teenagers, and insisting that if you object to sexualization of toddlers or investigation of complaints against gay “parents”, you are a homophobe.

Now, I understand the problem; you have been conditioned that any criticism of gay and lesbian peoples’ behavior equals “homophobia” and makes you a “bigot”, as you spouted earlier. So I intend to fully humiliate you into either homophobia and bigotry, or endorsing child sexualization.

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 1:16 AM

I was just curious to see what our tall short fat skinny pretty ugly smart stupid gal Conservative Lesbian thought about it. hoofhearted on December 30, 2011 at 1:11 AM

Akzed on December 30, 2011 at 1:16 AM

Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a landmark bill adding lessons about gay history to social studies classes in California’s public schools.

Do you see this as a proper use of government money?
hoofhearted on December 30, 2011 at 12:59 AM

You won’t get an answer since anyone trying to promote homosexuality is all for spending your tax dollars to advance his/her chosen sexual proclivity. They just don’t want to admit they are mooching off taxpayer money as badly, if not worse, than anyone else. It’s as they say about oxes being gored.

whatcat on December 30, 2011 at 1:16 AM

If I were a child and an orphan I would much rather be raised by a state institution than by two homosexuals. Doh. How did we get to the point where the well being of the child became subservient to somebody’s social experiment.

It’s bad enough that Catholic Charities and those they serve are punished. But what about the helpless & defenceless children too young to fight back who are forced to live like trophys with homosexual “parents”. Who will stand up for their rights in this travesty? CC has lawyers. The kid has nobody but some psych professor pushing his agenda of homosexuality.

Imagine if you were the child in this scenario. Who do you turn to to defend your rights?

DaMav on December 30, 2011 at 1:19 AM

They all start with the premise that there is a proper role for government in the distributing of wealth in the name of charity, a premise which I wholly denounce and reject out-of-hand.

gryphon202 on December 30, 2011 at 1:14 AM

Yes. It has worked out well, hasn’t it. It will soon result in permanent Democrat majorities which will surely lead to tyranny. The tipping point of a dependent class of over 50% is near.

hoofhearted on December 30, 2011 at 1:19 AM

Imagine if you were the child in this scenario. Who do you turn to to defend your rights?

DaMav on December 30, 2011 at 1:19 AM

Normally that duty falls to a minor child’s parents. With absent parents, the answer to that question becomes a whole lot more complex and uncomfortable.

gryphon202 on December 30, 2011 at 1:20 AM

Most of the LGBT Community Centers that I know of serve as a save haven for LGBT teens who get kicked out of their home by their family for being gay, bisexual, transsexual, etc. It is a place that they can go to where they feel safe and accepted, and be around others that they can confide in.
theoddmanout on December 30, 2011 at 1:09 AM

I’m trying to imagine how a “community center” set up by some middle-aged guys to talk sex with teenage girls would fly.

whatcat on December 30, 2011 at 1:20 AM

I’m trying to imagine how a “community center” set up by some middle-aged guys to talk sex with teenage girls would fly.

Wow…are you serious? You’re accusing people who run centers designed to take in and shelter LGBT teens who have been kicked out of their homes for being gay/bisexual/transsexual of being pedophiles?

I mean, I realize I shouldn’t expect a whole lot of sense coming from people like yourself, but, damn, I wasn’t expecting ignorance on a scale as grand as this.

theoddmanout on December 30, 2011 at 1:27 AM

I’m trying to imagine how a “community center” set up by some middle-aged guys to talk sex with teenage girls would fly.

Wow…are you serious?
theoddmanout on December 30, 2011 at 1:27 AM

Yes. What would be your argument against it?

whatcat on December 30, 2011 at 1:30 AM

@whatcat
Good point

Imagine a state funded center for girls who had been kicked out of their home for being sexually active. Here at the state center they could hang out with older guys who they could confide in and feel accepted.

Ridiculous but A-OK for state subsidized homosexuality. What’s really disgusting is how our own tax dollars are used to sell homosexuality to troubled children and we are attacked for pointing it out.

The backlash cannot come too soon.

DaMav on December 30, 2011 at 1:31 AM

Wow…are you serious? You’re accusing people who run centers designed to take in and shelter LGBT teens who have been kicked out of their homes for being gay/bisexual/transsexual of being pedophiles?

I mean, I realize I shouldn’t expect a whole lot of sense coming from people like yourself, but, damn, I wasn’t expecting ignorance on a scale as grand as this.

theoddmanout on December 30, 2011 at 1:27 AM

Perhaps the two examples need to be repeated.

The Senate’s legal affairs committee is studying a Harper government bill that would raise the age of consent from 14 to 16. It will almost certainly pass — no political party has opposed it — but queer and youth-led groups came out Feb 22 to insist on their sexual freedom.

The proposed changes will have a disproportionate impact on gays, said Richard Hudler of the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario.

“My first lover was 17 years older than me. And this is common [among gay people],” he said.

And:

A homosexual foster couple were left free to sexually abuse vulnerable boys in their care because social workers feared being accused of discrimination if they investigated complaints, an inquiry concluded yesterday…..

With no previous convictions, they came across as respectable men who simply wanted to help boys with a variety of problems.

In reality, they were paedophiles, who repeatedly abused the children in their care.

Even when the mother of two of the children reported her suspicions to the council, officials accepted the men’s explanations and did nothing.

Instead of banning children from staying with Faunch and Wathey, they sent youngsters with more serious problems to them. Between them, the couple abused four boys aged between eight and 14.

So yes, we’re very well familiar with gays and lesbians screaming “bigot” and “ignorant” and “homophobe” to make sure that people shut up and let them do whatever they want with teenagers.

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 1:35 AM

@theoddmanout

Yeah imagine pedophiles being attracted to places where the state concentrates sexually active young people and offers you access to them to talk about their sex feelings so you can validate their urges and preferences.

(insert eye roll here)

DaMav on December 30, 2011 at 1:37 AM

@whatcat
Good point

Imagine a state funded center for girls who had been kicked out of their home for being sexually active. Here at the state center they could hang out with older guys who they could confide in and feel accepted.

DaMav on December 30, 2011 at 1:31 AM

Yup, it’s a good for the goose, good for the gander point. I mean, who could argue against the wisdom of letting runaway teen girls getting together with older men who can counsel and mentor them (as a friendly father-figure, of course) to help them accept the sexuality of which their family/friends/society have discouraged them?

whatcat on December 30, 2011 at 1:39 AM

And don’t forget the all-time winner: according to APA-endorsed psychologists, if you object in any way to dressing toddlers as sex slaves and taking them to a sex fair, you are an ignorant bigoted homophobe.

Think about that, theoddmanout. And also realize that I know damn well that these push you into a mental corner; you either have to be what you would consider homophobic and bigoted, or you have to endorse sexualizing children.

This is what you and your gay-sex liberal friends endorse. And it’s going to be shoved into your face and used to humiliate you.

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 1:43 AM

Think about that, theoddmanout. And also realize that I know damn well that these push you into a mental corner
northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 1:43 AM

Which touches on the point I’ve brought up. His so-far failure to address it speaks either to being “cornered” intellectually or a hyphenated-phobe of some stripe or another.

whatcat on December 30, 2011 at 2:04 AM

As long as its applied to CAIR and the other religions as well then I don’t have a problem.

athenadelphi on December 30, 2011 at 2:13 AM

Wow.

That’s what happens when you shift care of the poor and homeless to the state… when voters wash their hands of caring for widows and orphans, it is the widows and orphans who get burned by the state lowering its standards or locking out competitors.

We wouldn’t be having this problem in the first place if we didn’t have a taxpayer subsidized government monopoly on welfare and adoption.

Nephew Sam on December 30, 2011 at 2:14 AM

Someone, please, tell us how Atheist Charities are responding to this exigency.

Akzed on December 30, 2011 at 12:26 AM

Ha ha ha. I see what you did there.

TigerPaw on December 30, 2011 at 2:22 AM

A better question would be, why does Medicare exist at all in the first place to take my money and give it to someone else?

gryphon202 on December 30, 2011 at 1:06 AM

A very good question. But it does exist, and it does give your money to someone else, and at least the rules for providing said money should pay service to the First Amendment.

Which, of course, means that a Catholic hospital should be able to be part of the medicare system and be paid for the services it provides at a rate neither greater nor lesser than non-Catholic hospitals.

I, like you, would prefer that the Government not meddle in the marketplace — but if it is to meddle, then let’s get something positive out of it.

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 2:30 AM

The real scandal is being completely ignored: why is the government giving the Catholic Church money for any purpose whatsoever?

Cynthia Yockey — A Conservative Lesbian on December 30, 2011 at 12:50 AM

A few right off the bat:
a) The government doesn’t have the resources it needs to perform the tasks it offloads to Catholic adoption agencies and Catholic hospitals.
b) There is a dearth of Conservative Lesbian Adoption Agencies and Conservative Lesbian hospitals.

You can easily fix (b) — so why don’t you?

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 2:33 AM

andy85719 on December 29, 2011 at 9:46 PM

I’m 41 and I agree with CC. I also don’t approve of single-parent adoptions…despite having a sister-in-law who is an unmarried adoptive parent. 20 years ago-I felt the same way.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 30, 2011 at 2:44 AM

You can easily fix (b) — so why don’t you?
unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 2:33 AM

Since you’re addressing a mono-topical-obsessed hit and run commenter I wouldn’t hold my breath for a response if I were you.

whatcat on December 30, 2011 at 3:01 AM

My father was adopted by a single woman in NYC in late 1910s. She had emigrated from Denmark and was the daughter of a Lutheran minister. She did a wonderful job raising him. The government has NO business interfering with any church-run charity. If the adoption agency cannot violate its religious beliefs, end of argument. The State cannot dictate religious belief! The government is becoming “über alles”

wsr4law on December 30, 2011 at 3:09 AM

They are placing their own religious dogma about gay people above the well-being of the children that would love to be in a caring home-even if that home had a same-sex couple living in it.

Then again, that’s what happens when you base your belief system around the idea that all gay people, regardless of their personality, character, and virtues, are all dirty, nasty sinners and sodomites and are not good in the slightest.

theoddmanout on December 29, 2011 at 9:57 PM

Christianity is based around a belief in God, and in the redemption of Jesus Christ. It is not based around any idea about gay people. However, it unquestionably teaches that homosexuality is a sin. It also teaches that all are sinners. It also teaches the need for repentance.

It’s that last part that causes conflicts with homosexuals.

If the church considers homosexuality to be a sin — and it does — then it can hardly be for the children’s wellbeing to put them in such a home.

You don’t have to like it. But you are required to respect their Constitutional rights.

And so is the Illinois state government, by the way. The Constitution specifically promises not to restrict the free exercise of religion. It says nothing about not restricting the free exercise of homosexuality.

There Goes The Neighborhood on December 30, 2011 at 3:12 AM

Daikokuco on December 29, 2011 at 10:23 PM

The abject ignorance on this thread is astounding. This is a prime example.

JannyMae on December 30, 2011 at 12:25 AM

JannyMae when you read Daikokuco’s posts just remember that he lives in a cloud of hate. Just read his posts on a regular bases.

CW on December 30, 2011 at 7:23 AM

OMO is obviously arguing something with ZERO knowledge or even remotely referencing anything but what he “feels ” are “rights.” Nowhere does he address The Establishment clause nor Free Exercise clause. NOTE: Free Exercise OMO aka FREE WILL.

Under the USSC Establishment Clause precedent, the link between government funds and religious training is broken by the independent and private choice of recipients. See Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, 652 (2002); Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School Dist., 509 U.S. 1, 13—14 (1993); Witters v. Washington Dept. of Servs. for Blind, 474 U.S. 481, 487 (1986); Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388, 399—400 (1983). As such, there is no doubt that the State could, consistent with the Federal Constitution, permit Promise Scholars to pursue a degree in devotional theology, see Witters, supra, at 489, and the State does not contend otherwise.

Annotated from USSC :No. 02—1315

GARY LOCKE, GOVERNOR OF WASHINGTON, et al.,
PETITIONERS v. JOSHUA DAVEY

School’s out OMO.

DevilsPrinciple on December 30, 2011 at 7:27 AM

theoddmanout on December 29, 2011 at 9:57 PM

The RCC doesn’t sanction sex outside of marriage. In that Gays are equal to straights that co-habit outside of marriage.

Aint’ no amount of whining is gonna change that…

workingclass artist on December 30, 2011 at 7:38 AM

The real scandal is being completely ignored: why is the government giving the Catholic Church money for any purpose whatsoever?
Cynthia Yockey — A Conservative Lesbian on December 30, 2011 at 12:50 AM

Wait, that’s not “government” money – it’s our money taken by the government. The REAL scandal is that the government takes our money and then returns some of it back to us with all sorts of strings attached but can refuse to return money to some based purely on their religious beliefs.

tommyboy on December 30, 2011 at 7:38 AM

Mrs. Crazy Legs and I are deep into the adoption process ourselves, so stories like this hit pretty close to home.

What pisses me off (and maybe someone already posted this – I haven’t read the whole comment thread yet) is that the states don’t need CC to accept referrals to gays. There are literally thousands of private adoption agencies and attorneys nation wide that do refer gay couples, and if Illinois doesn’t have any of those agencies licensed in their state, then they need to take a good, hard look at themselves instead of making CC the scapegoat.

Obviously the kids are terciary to the Il state legislature. Primary is the gay agenda, secondary is undermining the Catholic Church. Their attitude seems to be “who cares about the kids languishing in foster care or with birth mothers who’ve already chosen not to abort, so long as we can promote gays and undermine the athority of the Catholic Church.”

The paranoid side of me wonders if another agenda is to make placing a kid into adoption so difficult that birth mothers who wouldn’t otherwise abort (which, as we know, is a High Crime and Misdemeanor for Libs) have then no choice (ironic) but to either abort, or keep the child and start becoming dependent on the state. Or if that’s just an “added bonus” for the Illinois legislature?

crazy_legs on December 30, 2011 at 7:42 AM

Who says the Catholic church is asking for state money? I believe the article stated that in order to be “accredited” by the state to offer adoption services you had to be willing to place children in gay households.

This.

It has nothing to do with receiving state money and everything to do with accreditation and licensing and being able to operate in the state of Illinois. CC can get all of its operating costs from charaties and zero from the state. It still has to abide by Illinois accreditation requirements, and if one of those requirements is to accept referrals to gays and they disagree, they’re SOL.

crazy_legs on December 30, 2011 at 8:05 AM

Too bad the “religion of peace” does not have an adoption service. They are to busy grooming them for blowing up infidels and matyrdom.

However, if they did they’d have to behead anyone that was gay so it would not be a problem.

acyl72 on December 30, 2011 at 8:07 AM

Who says the Catholic church is asking for state money? I believe the article stated that in order to be “accredited” by the state to offer adoption services you had to be willing to place children in gay households.

Would you be supportive if the state had laws that said in order to be accredited an adoption service had to allow interracial couples to adopt? The state has an obligation to ensure that any state backed agency not engage in what the state defines as discrimination. At the heart of the issue is social cons unwillingness to confront their negative ideas around same-sex parenting. Even though not a single shred of evidence exists that children from same-sex households do worse than those from heterosexual households.

libfreeordie on December 30, 2011 at 8:10 AM

I, like you, would prefer that the Government not meddle in the marketplace — but if it is to meddle, then let’s get something positive out of it.

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 2:30 AM

But my beef has nothing to do with my preferences. It has everything to do with my desire that our elected officials follow the constituion as-written. Period.

gryphon202 on December 30, 2011 at 8:12 AM

If the church considers homosexuality to be a sin — and it does — then it can hardly be for the children’s wellbeing to put them in such a home.

You don’t have to like it. But you are required to respect their Constitutional rights.

And so is the Illinois state government, by the way. The Constitution specifically promises not to restrict the free exercise of religion. It says nothing about not restricting the free exercise of homosexuality.

There Goes The Neighborhood on December 30, 2011 at 3:12 AM

Catholic Charities does not have a constitutional right to become an accredit agency of the state. The state gets to decide the standards for accreditation. No doubt you wouldn’t be upset if one of the standards for accreditation was that adoption agencies were prohibited from placing families with same-sex couples. Indeed, is this not the case in places like Arkansas and Florida were adoption bans were passed on ballot measure or in the legislature?

libfreeordie on December 30, 2011 at 8:14 AM

Even though not a single shred of evidence exists that children from same-sex households do worse than those from heterosexual households.

libfreeordie on December 30, 2011 at 8:10 AM

You mean in the same way that no single, scientific or medical study has conclusively proven that homosexuality is a genetic trait and not a sexual preference, such that it is unchallengeable in a court of law?

TugboatPhil on December 30, 2011 at 8:14 AM

Maybe I missed it, but was the law about being eligible for contracts or receiving state funding? If it’s about funding, then I can’t really argue with that. I’m a Christian, and I would rather support a Christian adoption agency than a secular one, but state funding shouldn’t be necessary.

But if they can’t even receive contracts, making it impossible for them to operate at all no matter where their funding comes from, then that’s an entirely different issue.

Kelli_D on December 30, 2011 at 8:14 AM

“The state has an obligation to ensure that any state backed agency not engage in what the state defines as discrimination”

Unless it discriminates against Christians and denies them their constitutional right of free exercise of their religion. The state seems to believe that it has an obligation to INSURE this discrimination continues and increases.

tommyboy on December 30, 2011 at 8:14 AM

It is amazing to me that states controlled by liberal Democrats continue to promote an agenda which is antithetical to the family, especially in situations where the affects of those actions are harmful to the recipients of the services in question.

In their quest to create a special class of citizens, these states continue to trample on the basic rights of all citizens. That is, to promote an agenda nestled in so-called gay-rights” they diminish the true intentions of our Constitution. To wit, this is what the Constitution says in the First Amendment;

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So what Illinois has tried to not-so-cleverly do is deny government contracts to someone based on their well established religious beliefs (ex post facto) as a means of denying those contracts. To the detriment of those, such contracts are meant to serve, by the way. They have established policy which purposely subjugates the true Constitutional meaning via legislative antics.

Congratulations Illinois.

As the entire system falls into disrepair and the quality of care lowers, I hope they realize what a grotesque, irresponsible contravention of the law they have birthed.

Marcus Traianus on December 30, 2011 at 8:18 AM

Unless it discriminates against Christians and denies them their constitutional right of free exercise of their religion. The state seems to believe that it has an obligation to INSURE this discrimination continues and increases.

tommyboy on December 30, 2011 at 8:14 AM

Again, where has the Supreme Court ever found a constitutional right to be an accredited state adoption agency, or an accredited state agency of any kind? There is, however, significant precedent which demands that public entities not engage in discrimination that violates the Equal Protection Clause. The First Amendment limits the authority of government to create religious tests when crafting laws, it doesn’t guarantee that religious organizations can do whatever they want when they are linked to the state.

libfreeordie on December 30, 2011 at 8:30 AM

It is a profound pity that this disease is not genetic. If it were, it could be isolated and eliminated from the human genome. Problem solved.

OldEnglish on December 30, 2011 at 8:33 AM

You mean in the same way that no single, scientific or medical study has conclusively proven that homosexuality is a genetic trait and not a sexual preference, such that it is unchallengeable in a court of law?

TugboatPhil on December 30, 2011 at 8:14 AM

Significantly more scientific evidence exists which argues that homosexuality may have a biological/genetic/inalienable component than does studies which indicate same-sex parenting is bad for children.

libfreeordie on December 30, 2011 at 8:36 AM

It is a profound pity that this disease is not genetic. If it were, it could be isolated and eliminated from the human genome. Problem solved.

OldEnglish on December 30, 2011 at 8:33 AM

Oh, so what you’re suggesting is a genocide against a significant portion of the world’s population via eugenics. Awesome. And creepy.

libfreeordie on December 30, 2011 at 8:37 AM

There is, however, significant precedent which demands that public entities not engage in discrimination that violates the Equal Protection Clause. The First Amendment limits the authority of government to create religious tests when crafting laws, it doesn’t guarantee that religious organizations can do whatever they want when they are linked to the state.
libfreeordie on December 30, 2011 at 8:30 AM

Unfortunately “discrimination” as used today merely means any behavior which some self proclaimed victim class says they don’t like. And there is no limitiation on the free exercise cluase like the one you made up in your post. Bottom line: the constitution says nothing about an obligation to accomodate people’s voluntary sexual desires but guarantees the right to free exercise of religion. The only reason any religious entity is “linked to the state” is the state forces it on them. The state forces adaption service to be licensed by the state and then says since the since the state is involved Christians can’t participate, free exercise be damned. It is the rankest form of discrimination.

tommyboy on December 30, 2011 at 8:39 AM

I can only wonder what the state of Illinois ruling would be to a “Muslim Adoption Charity”. Are there any of those?

Well that’s even better. Adoption is prohibited according to Sharia law, IIRC. I wonder what would happen if a Muslim charity receiving government money was suddenly forced to provide adoption services…

crazy_legs on December 30, 2011 at 8:41 AM

libfreeordie on December 30, 2011 at 8:37 AM

What a stupid statement! Genocide can only be applied against the living!

OldEnglish on December 30, 2011 at 8:42 AM

Tommyboy, then you believe adoption agencies should be able to operate without oversight from the state? Anyone can just set up an adoption agency? That seems *extremely* dangerous and could lead to all sorts of horrible abuses of children.

libfreeordie on December 30, 2011 at 8:51 AM

I thought the Catholic Church had more money than God… what do they need State money for???

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 30, 2011 at 8:52 AM

Anyone who cannot see the agenda here to marginalize the Catholic Church worldwide, is a fool. Of course these people in Illinois knew that Catholic Charities would withdraw from the program. So now they can paint all Catholics as intolerant bigots, further driving young people away from the Church and making non-Catholics suspicious of the Church instead of welcoming to its life-affirming doctrines.

Gays have already ruined the Episcopal Church in America and the Church of England. But they will not be satisfied as long as the Catholic Church exists, as a beacon shining the light on their sinful lifestyles.

They are going to lose, because a Church that has existed for 2000 years is not going away, and it is not going to change what the Bible says is an abomination.

rockmom on December 30, 2011 at 8:53 AM

All the political correctness in the world coupled with government use of force CANNOT make gay=normal.

It isn’t normal and never WILL be normal.

wildcat72 on December 30, 2011 at 8:53 AM

Tommyboy, then you believe adoption agencies should be able to operate without oversight from the state? Anyone can just set up an adoption agency? That seems *extremely* dangerous and could lead to all sorts of horrible abuses of children.
libfreeordie on December 30, 2011 at 8:51 AM

Nice strawman. I’m saying that state regulation can never be a basis for Christians being denied access purely on the basis of their exercise of religious beliefs. There is no obligation on the part of Christians to have to accomodate someone’s purely voluntary sexual behavior.

tommyboy on December 30, 2011 at 8:54 AM

I thought the Catholic Church had more money than God… what do they need State money for???
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 30, 2011 at 8:52 AM

They don’t. It’s the state that wants federal money which would be withheld if the Catholics participate as Catholics.

tommyboy on December 30, 2011 at 8:56 AM

mtucker5695 on December 29, 2011 at 11:41 PM

You are right. The Catholic church will not yield on the gay or abortion issue. It is a central tenet of the faith.

KickandSwimMom on December 30, 2011 at 8:58 AM

So from this we can see those who condemn gays the loudest are likely to be sexual predators.

That probably wasn’t your intended point, but its certainly where basic logic skills leads us: Virulent anti-homosexual organizations also tend to have high rates of sexually assaulting children.

Daikokuco on December 30, 2011 at 12:25 AM

You’re arguing a fallacy so ‘basic logic’ isn’t what is taking us to your conclusion. Are high school teachers and coaches members of a virulent anti-homosexual organization? Another thing, too: There is nothing ‘virulent’ about the stance of either the Catholic Church or Boy Scouts of America. Gay people are not somehow persecuted by either. Both, as I understand it, are associations made by choice–one chooses to become a Catholic or a Boy Scout. Pedophiles are predators. Predators gravitate to prey. Predators of children choose jobs and join clubs and frequent areas where children are.

But here’s a question for you: was John Wayne Gacy gay? He sexually assaulted and murdered over 30 young men and boys. How about Jeffery Dahmer, another serial killer who identified as gay and whose victims were exclusively young men and boys? How about Ottis Toole, the notorious child killer who murderered Adam Walsh, the child of America’s Most Wanted host, John Walsh. One could draw certain general conclusions about homosexual men based on these few cases. Would it be right to do so?

So stop acting as if homosexuals of either gender are some kind of persecuted minority on par with former African slaves and their descendents who struggled for over a hundred years to achieve an equal place in society. The comparison doesn’t hold up. Further, over-zealous gay rights activists seem intent on impinging on the rights of others to say what they think and believe what they like. The truth is the vast majority of us simply don’t care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes or within their milieu, but care very much if a vociferous minority is intent upon using the state as a coercive instrument to force social acceptance of same-sex gender preference, and believe such coercion is counter to the concept of a free society.

troyriser_gopftw on December 30, 2011 at 9:04 AM

You are right. The Catholic church will not yield on the gay or abortion issue. It is a central tenet of the faith.

KickandSwimMom on December 30, 2011 at 8:58 AM

In many ways it already has. Why do blatantly anti-life so-called “catholics” like Pelosi and the Kennedys still get to take Communion, which is supposed to be DENIED to people who have stepped out of the Church?

And just you wait, the Church will be FORCED to ordain openly PRACTICING gay priests very soon. The gay activists are already trying to force Christians to have to HIRE gays.

wildcat72 on December 30, 2011 at 9:09 AM

Perverts can vote, & children can’t.

Therefore, liberal politicians do what perverts want, rather than what’s good for kids.

itsnotaboutme on December 30, 2011 at 9:12 AM

“The gay activists are already trying to force Christians to have to HIRE gays.”

Trying? They have already implemented sexual orientation (whatever that means) non-discrimination statutes all around the country. Luckily, it’s easy for a small business to get around this which is why I only hire devout Christians. Office morale is high and I don’t have to worry about litigious gays and liberals.

tommyboy on December 30, 2011 at 9:14 AM

Very proud of the Catholic Church for not allowing themselves to be bullied by militant gay activists. If you don’t stand for something, you stand for nothing.

The Count on December 30, 2011 at 9:17 AM

Perverts can vote, & children can’t.

Therefore, liberal politicians do what perverts want, rather than what’s good for kids.

itsnotaboutme on December 30, 2011 at 9:12 AM

That pretty much says it all.

IWantToBeAClone on December 30, 2011 at 9:19 AM

This is so spiteful its hard to believe.

The Church should go where its wanted/needed, like Africa, and leave this Godforsaken country. Put it under Interdict.

Herald of Woe on December 30, 2011 at 9:19 AM

wildcat72 on December 30, 2011 at 9:09 AM

You are right in your assertion that the Catholic church has failed to crack down on people receiving communion who clearly advocate against the teachings of the church (i.e., Pelosi). However, receiving communion is a matter of conscience. If Pelosi has grievous sins on her soul then she is not in communion with the Lord and should know that she should not receive communion.

What bothers me more is when people in positions of power like Ted Kennedy have a marriage for 20 years or more, with children, divorces and then is allowed to remarry by receiving an annullment from the Catholic church. How the h*ll did that happen??? Geez, Kennedy gets an annullment but even King Henry VIII was denied one?

KickandSwimMom on December 30, 2011 at 9:19 AM

There is no obligation on the part of Christians to have to accomodate someone’s purely voluntary sexual behavior.

I feel we are going in circles so let me try and lay out these issues. No one, anywhere, is arguing that Christians are obligated to do *anything* regarding their doctrine on homosexuality. Indeed, from what I can tell the debate about how Christians respond to homosexuality seems to be occuring *within* the faith community, not from people outside of it. However, when Christians seek to enter areas of American society where the government sets the rules (and we can agree that adoption should be one of those areas) than Christians have to deal with the state’s obligations to the citizenry. A citizenry that includes gay and lesbian people. The Church is not obligated to have adoption agencies, they don’t have a right to operate state backed adoption agencies, they can choose to follow the rules of the state or they can choose not to.

I understand this creates hurt feelings amongst people, Catholics in particular, who believe their faith should have special privileges. I’m not going to speculate as to why Christians feel they should be able to seek out state accreditation while not following the rules laid out by the state for accreditation. I’m not a mind reader. No doubt this is also the same group of people who feel their marriages are threatened if two men get married or who are still waiting for the armed services to fall apart in a big homosexual orgy.

libfreeordie on December 30, 2011 at 9:21 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 7