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 6 7

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

There’s a difference between the dilemma of whether or not to refuse communion to sinners and officially sanctioning sinful behavior. The Church’s stance on life is not ambiguous in any way.

I don’t buy that they will anytime ordain, freely or forcibly, practicing gay priests any more than they ordain practicing straight priests.

The Count on December 30, 2011 at 9:21 AM

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

And, there are no litigious Christian fundamentalists? Frankly, I think the Catholic Church’s position on gay issues is wrong. I believe that their position opposing abortion I think is correct. But, then, I am not a Catholic Christian. I am one of those gay-accepting Episcopalians.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 9:22 AM

KickandSwimMom on December 30, 2011 at 9:19 AM

Sure, Rome has done a lot of things wrong over the centuries. But in the matter at hand, they’re obviously the goodguys.

itsnotaboutme on December 30, 2011 at 9:23 AM

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

I think there is a lot of information, a lot of statistics and so forth also being suppressed about the homosexual population.

You have a new victim class. You have a liberal media that wants to promote that victim class. You have a political party that wants the votes of that victim class and sees a means of using that victim class to help destroy the base of the opposing party. Whenever you have this kind of collaboration truth and facts are going out the window. It doesn’t matter whether it’s global warming, the homosexual agenda or anything else.

About 25 years ago I remember, way back working at a summer camp, I was sitting in my bunk listening to a late night talk radio show. It was just some talk show and they were discussing crime. It was not a religious or conservative talk show. Nobody I knew because I wasn’t even into talk radio back then. Anyway, they had this federal prosecutor on as a guest, and they were just discussing some crime case and crime in America in general. Then out of the blue, this prosecutor said something that blew me away and also caught the radio host off guard…. he suddenly changed the subject a bit, and said that nobody would believe the number of murders and sexual assaults and kidnappings that are directly related to homosexuals but it is being suppressed in the media and within our government. He went on to say they are seeing an increase in homosexual related crimes while at the same time it is being suppressed for what he said were nothing more than political reasons. … the host never responded to what he said and the conversation just continued like he never said what he just said.

It was the weirdest thing. I have always remembered that.

Yeah.. if the statistics can help to damage or destroy a conservative or religious institution like the Catholic church, a Republican Senator or something else.. we will all know about it. If it hurts Planned Parenthood or the Democrat agenda or the homosexual agenda we will never know.

JellyToast on December 30, 2011 at 9:26 AM

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.

This is fallacy because the state now intrudes in setting the rules for ALL sectors of sociey. What we can eat, the specifics of our toilets and now forcing us to buy products from private companies. The state obligations to Christians are spelled out by the free exercise clause and that trumps these manufactured “obligations” you speak of. The rights of Christans don’t vanish just because the state has decided to intrude on more and more private areas of the community. I have the same right to free exercise in EVERY sector of society.

tommyboy on December 30, 2011 at 9:27 AM

Catholic Charities does not have a constitutional right to become an accredit agency of the state.

The only reason they are not accredited, according to the state, is because they violate the “rights” of gays who live together. I would think that the state would be more concerned about the child than the gay couple.

Vince on December 30, 2011 at 9:27 AM

Kelli_D on December 30, 2011 at 8:14 AM

I believe the law is about getting contracts, but getting the contracts is how CC gets access to funding, so if they can’t get the contracts, they can’t get access to the funding either.

GeorgiaBuckeye on December 30, 2011 at 9:28 AM

BTW, why can’t the gay couple adopt a child from a non-Catholic Charities agency?

Vince on December 30, 2011 at 9:29 AM

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

How do you know your employees are devout? Is there some kind of test? Have you developed new technologies that enable you to measure love of God? How does that work, exactly? Devout compared to whom? You? Seems to me Christ reserved some of His greatest contempt for hypocrites, particularly those Pharisees who put on big public shows of holiness and devotion. You might want to read that part again.

Don’t know about anyone else, but whenever someone makes a big show about being a devout Christian in a business setting, I put my hand on my wallet.

troyriser_gopftw on December 30, 2011 at 9:29 AM

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

Not according to Illinois.

Washington Nearsider on December 30, 2011 at 9:30 AM

Since when has the Catholic church had issues with homosexuals? Do they have problem because the adoptive parents are both over 18? Is it the position of the Catholic church that all homosexual relationships should be man-boy?

LevStrauss on December 30, 2011 at 9:30 AM

“And, there are no litigious Christian fundamentalists?”

Only in defending from state intrusion. In 90% of this litigation you speak of the Christian’s name is always right above the word “defendant” in the caption. By the way what is a Christian “fundamentalist”? I hear the word tossed around as a pejorative epitath but with no consistency as to its meaning. Are you saying that you sin loving Episcopalians don’t subscribe to the “fundamentals” of Christianity?

tommyboy on December 30, 2011 at 9:32 AM

Then out of the blue, this prosecutor said something that blew me away and also caught the radio host off guard…. he suddenly changed the subject a bit, and said that nobody would believe the number of murders and sexual assaults and kidnappings that are directly related to homosexuals but it is being suppressed in the media and within our government. He went on to say they are seeing an increase in homosexual related crimes while at the same time it is being suppressed for what he said were nothing more than political reasons. … the host never responded to what he said and the conversation just continued like he never said what he just said. – JellyToast on December 30, 2011 at 9:26 AM

Good Lord, you believe everything some nutcase says on talk radio? Frankly, I am tired about hearing about white folks killing their children or having mysteriously missing children flashed all over TV time and time again.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 9:35 AM

troyriser_gopftw on December 30, 2011 at 9:29 AM

Possibly only hires from his local church? It is still a common practice in small English villages.

OldEnglish on December 30, 2011 at 9:36 AM

How do you know your employees are devout? Is there some kind of test? Have you developed new technologies that enable you to measure love of God? How does that work, exactly? Devout compared to whom? You? Seems to me Christ reserved some of His greatest contempt for hypocrites, particularly those Pharisees who put on big public shows of holiness and devotion. You might want to read that part again.

Duuh. When I need to add or replace an employee I do so our of my church from people I know are devout Christians. If nobody in my Church needs a job I just start calling the Pastors from local conservative bible based Baptist churches and ask if they have any unemployed good Christians who need a job. It’s worked perfectly so far. And since the NT calls on Christians to take care of their own I am doing exactly what Christ wanted. I don’t see a shred of hypocrisy there at all.

tommyboy on December 30, 2011 at 9:38 AM

I am one of those gay-accepting Episcopalians.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 9:22 AM

The Catholic Church accepts gays and people with other unusual sexual tendencies – we just reject certain sexual arrangements and actions.

As humans, we can’t control what our sexual urges are, but we can control our behavior. Are you really gay if you have urges to but ultimately don’t have sex with people of the same gender? Are you really a rapist if all you’ve ever done is have thoughts of rape? Are you a pedophile if you never succumb to any urges to have sex with children? Are you a cheating wife/husband if you’ve only thought about cheating on your spouse?

The Count on December 30, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Only in defending from state intrusion. In 90% of this litigation you speak of the Christian’s name is always right above the word “defendant” in the caption. By the way what is a Christian “fundamentalist”? I hear the word tossed around as a pejorative epitath but with no consistency as to its meaning. Are you saying that you sin loving Episcopalians don’t subscribe to the “fundamentals” of Christianity? – tommyboy on December 30, 2011 at 9:32 AM

What fundamentals of Christianity dictate that gays be on a do not hire list? A gay individual does not choose his or her sexuality. Adultery and abortion are something that someone chooses to do.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 9:42 AM

I would think that the state would be more concerned about the child than the gay couple.

Vince on December 30, 2011 at 9:27 AM

Considering that every study done on the subject says that kids raised in same-sex households do as well or better than those raised in heterosexual households how is this rule putting the interests of children second? Tina’s links refer to single hetersexual mothers or cohabitating heterosexuals. But stable, same-sex households perform just as well as heterosexual ones.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-01-21-parentgender21_ST_N.htm

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/sandbox/2004/03/the_gay_science.html

But here’s the other really important issue. Is Catholic Charities doing a sin test? Do they know the parents they give children to are sin-free? Why is the sin of homosexuality worse in their minds when, according to the data, that sin doesn’t lead to worse parenting?

libfreeordie on December 30, 2011 at 9:44 AM

What fundamentals of Christianity dictate that gays be on a do not hire list? A gay individual does not choose his or her sexuality. Adultery and abortion are something that someone chooses to do.
SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 9:42 AM

The Christian fundamental that Christians take care of their own and not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. And voluntary homosexual behavior is ALWAYS a choice. Just like adultery and abortion.

tommyboy on December 30, 2011 at 9:46 AM

Let’s also not forget that one of the last people to get up in a court of law and claim that same-sex parenting was bad for children was none other than George lift-my-luggage Rekers.

libfreeordie on December 30, 2011 at 9:47 AM

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 9:42 AM

Romans 1:27.

OldEnglish on December 30, 2011 at 9:48 AM

tommyboy on December 30, 2011 at 9:46 AM

So then you believe that God punished homosexuals with same-sex desires, but then says “sorry, you’re doomed to a life of constant sexual frustration and horninesss while those who were given heterosexual desire are free to boink all day.” No wonder the queers aren’t convinced to sign up with y’all.

libfreeordie on December 30, 2011 at 9:49 AM

libfreeordie on December 30, 2011 at 9:49 AM

Prime directive: procreation.

OldEnglish on December 30, 2011 at 9:52 AM

All the people who say I’m crazy for thinking that legalized gay marriage would inevitably lead to a lawsuit by someone whose church “reserved the right to refuse” should take a good long look at this article. Once the state licensing issue comes into play, the state is going to get to impose its will on participating organizations.

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.

Daikokuco on December 30, 2011 at 12:25 AM

No, this is a correlation that you fallaciously translate into causation. In fact, people who actively prey on young people will seek out positions like this as part of their predation process. In essence, the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

A few years back, there was an interview in SI with a man who had been jailed for sexually assaulting minors. He talked about how he had moved into a neighborhood and secured a role as a coach in a local soccer league. In doing so, he gained respect within the community and was placed in a position where he was around children and entrusted with their care by the parents.

Now, I’m not sure the time and effort would make it worth becoming a priest just to go after altar boys, but a Boy Scout leader seems much like this soccer coach example in terms of putting oneself in a position of access.

The Schaef on December 30, 2011 at 9:53 AM

So then you believe that God punished homosexuals with same-sex desires, but then says “sorry, you’re doomed to a life of constant sexual frustration and horninesss while those who were given heterosexual desire are free to boink all day.” No wonder the queers aren’t convinced to sign up with y’all.
libfreeordie on December 30, 2011 at 9:49 AM

NO I believe that man punished himself in the fall and as a consequence all men are born with a sin nature. It’s the biblical doctrine of original sin. Different people are born partial to different sins. Just because some people’s pet sin is homosexuality doesn’t make it any less a sin because they don’t what to restrain it. Everybody is “born that way” in some respect or another with regard to sin but that doesn’t give them a pass.

tommyboy on December 30, 2011 at 9:54 AM

Catholic church should not be getting state monies for adoption purposes or ANY purpose.

If state is not giving money to the church the state should not be able to dictate how the church runs it’s program.

Gays should be able to open their own adoption facility.

The only reason the state should be involved in adoption is in the event of criminal behavior ie selling children, sex trade, molestation etc.

Socmodfiscon on December 30, 2011 at 9:59 AM

So then you believe that God punished homosexuals with same-sex desires, but then says “sorry, you’re doomed to a life of constant sexual frustration and horninesss while those who were given heterosexual desire are free to boink all day.” No wonder the queers aren’t convinced to sign up with y’all.

libfreeordie on December 30, 2011 at 9:49 AM

Apparently you are aware neither of the numerous heterosexual practices discouraged in Scripture, nor of the oft-repeated fact that the agencies in question do not match children with unmarried couples of any sort. In other words, plenty of people “who were given heterosexual desire” are not given a free pass either by God or by the agencies.

The Schaef on December 30, 2011 at 9:59 AM

As humans, we can’t control what our sexual urges are, but we can control our behavior. Are you really gay if you have urges to but ultimately don’t have sex with people of the same gender? Are you really a rapist if all you’ve ever done is have thoughts of rape? Are you a pedophile if you never succumb to any urges to have sex with children? Are you a cheating wife/husband if you’ve only thought about cheating on your spouse? – The Count on December 30, 2011 at 9:41 AM

To put homosexual orientation into the same category of the a rapist pedophile, one who has an abortion is over the top, in my humble opinion. Can you tell me what is wrong with a homosexual who is in a stable life partnership with someone of the same sex?

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 10:00 AM

“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.”

You could argue that Catholic Charities is doing the same. They have two choices:
(1) – both gay and straight adoptions (funding)
(2) – no adoptions at all (no funding)
They chose (2).

ggoofer on December 30, 2011 at 10:01 AM

I live in Los Angeles and for the longest time “lived and let live” even though I have always known that the acts homosexuals engage in are not natural and prohibited by God…but you’ve gone too far now and I will no longer accept things which are prohibited when homosexuals and their cheerleaders are shoving their behavior in my face, trying to pervert my kids at school and trying to make my faith illegal… No, now you’re going to get a fight… I’m ashamed I was a coward and passive and accepted so much of this garbage.

CCRWM on December 29, 2011 at 10:46 PM

Couldn’t have said it better myself. I stood in defense of traditional marriage recently in my hometown at city hall where gay “marriage” was being hailed. I stood peacefully, along with those who stood with me that had similar beliefs. We had things thrown at us, we were spit on and laughed at. Gay “couples” got right up in our faces daring us to say or do something in anger. The people doing these things were breaking the law with their actions, but no one stopped them. On the flip side, if I was to overstep a line or become vocal, I likely would have been fined or arrested. The inequality in the justice “served” is overwhelming.

redlucy on December 30, 2011 at 10:01 AM

There is, however, significant precedent which demands that public entities not engage in discrimination that violates the Equal Protection Clause.
libfreeordie

You’re exactly right.

Unfortunately for you, the Catholic Church is not a public entity. Private organizations have the right to deny services to anyone. I’m sure you’ve seen signs in grocery stores, liquor stores, laundromats et al. “Management reserves the right to deny service/access…”

Washington Nearsider on December 30, 2011 at 10:03 AM

Apparently you are aware neither of the numerous heterosexual practices discouraged in Scripture, nor of the oft-repeated fact that the agencies in question do not match children with unmarried couples of any sort. In other words, plenty of people “who were given heterosexual desire” are not given a free pass either by God or by the agencies. – The Schaef on December 30, 2011 at 9:59 AM

Let me know when the last time a priest refused to marry a couple who had been “bonking” one another. Getting married seems to fix the previous sins of fornication.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 10:05 AM

Let me know when the last time a priest refused to marry a couple who had been “bonking” one another. Getting married seems to fix the previous sins of fornication.
SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 10:05 AM

Only if repentence is expressed. All sinners, including gays, are promised forgiveness if they ask for it and repent.

tommyboy on December 30, 2011 at 10:08 AM

Catholic Charities does not have a constitutional right to become an accredit agency of the state.

“A constitutional right to become and accredited agency of the state.”
Wow.
Now, if only the “accredited agency of the sate” could acquire supreme power of all our lives….. a “constitutional right” would be only what the “accredited agency of the state” would allow.

See.. freedom is slavery, slavery is freedom and God given rights are what ever the dictatorial government allows. If the dictatorial government doesn’t allow it, it’s can’t possibly be a God given constitutional right. It’s all so simple now.

JellyToast on December 30, 2011 at 10:10 AM

Let me know when the last time a priest refused to marry a couple who had been “bonking” one another. Getting married seems to fix the previous sins of fornication.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 10:05 AM

It happens frequently enough in the RCC, though for obvious reasons you’re not very likely to hear about it. The particular requirements vary from diocease to diocease, but no Catholic priest will marry a couple without at least a few months worth of premarital counseling, after which they can and sometimes do recommend against going through with marriage.

gryphon202 on December 30, 2011 at 10:10 AM

Only if repentence is expressed. All sinners, including gays, are promised forgiveness if they ask for it and repent. – tommyboy on December 30, 2011 at 10:08 AM

Why should someone repent because they have a homosexual orientation and only have sex with another consenting adult and hopefully in a stable life partnership? Should I ask for forgiveness because I am left-handed?

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 10:14 AM

Apparently you are aware neither of the numerous heterosexual practices discouraged in Scripture, nor of the oft-repeated fact that the agencies in question do not match children with unmarried couples of any sort. In other words, plenty of people “who were given heterosexual desire” are not given a free pass either by God or by the agencies.

The Schaef on December 30, 2011 at 9:59 AM

Straights are able to channel their sexual desires into church marriage. Most religions require gays to repress their sexuality completely. A few can, others can’t. The point is the burden on gays is greater not only in degree but in kind. If gays don’t like it they can quit. The church isn’t accountable to them. Churches get to make their own rules for worship, though not when operating a state-funded adoption agency.

OptionsTrader on December 30, 2011 at 10:14 AM

And since the NT calls on Christians to take care of their own I am doing exactly what Christ wanted. I don’t see a shred of hypocrisy there at all.

tommyboy on December 30, 2011 at 9:38 AM

No, you wouldn’t, would you? I guess I’ll find out in (hopefully) two or maybe even three more decades whether the God you worship is the same God I worship. Fingers crossed He isn’t.

troyriser_gopftw on December 30, 2011 at 10:15 AM

Churches get to make their own rules for worship, though not when operating a state-funded adoption agency.

OptionsTrader on December 30, 2011 at 10:14 AM

Then we get back to the question that’s been nagging me this entire thread: Why should the state/federales fund adoption centers at all? Why do the taxpayers have to be on the hook for funding of anything not expressly authorized by the federal or respective state constitutions? To make this about the practices of one church completely misses the point, IMAO.

gryphon202 on December 30, 2011 at 10:17 AM

Why should someone repent because they have a homosexual orientation and only have sex with another consenting adult and hopefully in a stable life partnership? Should I ask for forgiveness because I am left-handed?
SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 10:14 AM

Becasue God makes the rules for his Church and he requires repentence from sin for salvation. Everyone has a sin orientation and that doesn’t give them a pass. God never called being left handed a sin so that is a pretty meaningless analogy.

tommyboy on December 30, 2011 at 10:18 AM

So is Obama going to get the Catholic vote again in 2012? Because someone in Illinois – Obama’s home state is reminding voters that democrats are the party of religious intolerance well the party of Christian intolerance anyway. No wonder I see so many Illinois license plates down here, they are abandoning that wreck of a state government in record number.

Dr Evil on December 30, 2011 at 10:18 AM

No, you wouldn’t, would you?
troyriser_gopftw on December 30, 2011 at 10:15 AM

No I wouldn’t – because there is none there. Do you even know what the word means?

tommyboy on December 30, 2011 at 10:20 AM

Becasue God makes the rules for his Church and he requires repentence from sin for salvation. Everyone has a sin orientation and that doesn’t give them a pass. God never called being left handed a sin so that is a pretty meaningless analogy. – tommyboy on December 30, 2011 at 10:18 AM

OK, let’s follow all the laws of Leviticus. Not just the ones that you choose and pick. And, can you give me any direct quote that Jesus said on the subject of homosexuality?

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 10:23 AM

No agency dealing with children should be giving children the impression that there is anything wrong with being gay. It is child abuse against the gay children.

thuja on December 30, 2011 at 10:24 AM

So then you believe that God punished homosexuals with same-sex desires, but then says “sorry, you’re doomed to a life of constant sexual frustration and horninesss while those who were given heterosexual desire are free to boink all day.” No wonder the queers aren’t convinced to sign up with y’all.

libfreeordie on December 30, 2011 at 9:49 AM

Christian theology teaches that we were all born with sinful desires. You can call that punishment if you like, but you’d be wrong to say gays were singled out in this.

Esthier on December 30, 2011 at 10:24 AM

I, too, heavily support traditional marriage. What I find amazing is that heterosexuals seem not to support it as much as myself. I think that you should be married before you have children. And, I am tired of heterosexuals getting messy divorces and ending up in family courts.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 10:26 AM

Since when has the Catholic church had issues with homosexuals? Do they have problem because the adoptive parents are both over 18? Is it the position of the Catholic church that all homosexual relationships should be man-boy?

LevStrauss on December 30, 2011 at 9:30 AM

I get where you’re going with this, and as a non Catholic I’m not even offended, but this doesn’t actually make any sense. So, what, if the parents were under 18, they’d support the adoption cause they’d be in contact with underage boys or something? Wouldn’t they be supporting “man-boy” relationships by encouraging adults to adopt?

Esthier on December 30, 2011 at 10:28 AM

OK, let’s follow all the laws of Leviticus. Not just the ones that you choose and pick. And, can you give me any direct quote that Jesus said on the subject of homosexuality?
SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 10:23 AM

We don’t live in the old covenant jewish theocracy so I am not bound by Levitical law which was fullfilled by Christ – Christ specifically stated this. And yes, Christ condemned gay sex. He condemned “pornea” (greek) which included all forms of sinful sex including homosexuality, beastiality and sex out of marriage. He condemns it in both the books of Matthew and Mark.

tommyboy on December 30, 2011 at 10:28 AM

Esthier on December 30, 2011 at 10:28 AM

As a Catholic, I wasn’t going to take the bait of LevStrauss’s gratuitous slam against the Catholic church. I wonder if he would have the courage to actually say that to a Catholic’s face?

KickandSwimMom on December 30, 2011 at 10:34 AM

Why should someone repent because they have a homosexual orientation and only have sex with another consenting adult and hopefully in a stable life partnership? Should I ask for forgiveness because I am left-handed?

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 10:14 AM

If you continue to treat basic concepts of right and wrong as being entirely arbitrary, and/or linked to genetic traits, you might as well apologize for being left-handed, for all the increased understanding it will bring to the table.

Straights are able to channel their sexual desires into church marriage.

OptionsTrader on December 30, 2011 at 10:14 AM

The only desire that can be channeled into church marriage is the basic man-woman consummation. It forces the couple into permanent monogamy and imposes a number of other responsibilities inherent in forming a new family. You see, the entire point here is that marriage is NOT relegated to just handing out a license to screw.

Churches get to make their own rules for worship, though not when operating a state-funded adoption agency.

Even if they were 100% self-funded, they still would not be able to operate this agency. That, again, is the point.

The Schaef on December 30, 2011 at 10:34 AM

No I wouldn’t – because there is none there. Do you even know what the word means?

tommyboy on December 30, 2011 at 10:20 AM

Yes, thanks. I know what hypocrisy means. And no, it wouldn’t be right to call another out on what I perceive to be exceedingly limited, narrow conceptions of Christian love and devotion. No one died and made me new Chief Arbiter Of All Things Christian. You either, for that matter.

troyriser_gopftw on December 30, 2011 at 10:34 AM

We don’t live in the old covenant jewish theocracy so I am not bound by Levitical law which was fullfilled by Christ – Christ specifically stated this. And yes, Christ condemned gay sex. He condemned “pornea” (greek) which included all forms of sinful sex including homosexuality, beastiality and sex out of marriage. He condemns it in both the books of Matthew and Mark. – tommyboy on December 30, 2011 at 10:28 AM

So I guess that Episcopalians, Lutherans and other Christian denominations who have now accepted gay relationships are in conflict with “your” translation of the Bible? Why is the Jewish state of Israel so liberal on the issue of homosexuality when they are bound by the book of Leviticus?

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 10:37 AM

So now we’re arguing about whether we’re bound by Levitical jewish laws and customs? Does anybody here give a stinky brown greasy SHIT about the actual friggin CONSTITUTION? Or am I being unfair here?

gryphon202 on December 30, 2011 at 10:38 AM

OK, let’s follow all the laws of Leviticus. Not just the ones that you choose and pick. And, can you give me any direct quote that Jesus said on the subject of homosexuality?

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 10:23 AM

When the Pharisees questioned Him about divorce, notice what Matthew 19:4-6 says, “4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause (that they are male and female) shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together (a man and a wife), let not man put asunder.”

Keep in mind the God of the old Testament is still the God of the New. And Jesus is God in the flesh. Your question assumes that Jesus is seperate from God. They are both of the Trinity.

None-the-less, here we have Jesus affirming marriage as between a man and a woman and that for the cause of marriage, he made them male and female. His natural make, is that we be drawn to the opposit sex. A natural conclusion of this statement is that homosexuality is a choice against God.

You don’t have to agree with this. You have a right to deny following any part of the bible. God gives you that right and you can choose sin. Our country gives you that right and you can choose any path you see fit in life. This is where the Church and homosexuality divide. Keep in mind, it is the Church that allows you choice, it is homosexuality that is working to eliminate the choice the Church has when it comes time to follow it’s own edicts. That is why the Catholic Church has to drop Illinois from it’s adoptive service.

mtucker5695 on December 30, 2011 at 10:38 AM

And, can you give me any direct quote that Jesus said on the subject of homosexuality?

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 10:23 AM

You know that’s not possible, though some Christians do consider Paul’s words to be the same, as Paul called himself one of the Apostles. I don’t know why people keep quoting Leviticus. The whole point of the New Testament is that we’re free from the law.

That doesn’t mean homosexuality is amoral (as opposed to immoral), but I do believe that it means Christians know the truth on this issue without reading the Bible.

Esthier on December 30, 2011 at 10:40 AM

Even if they were 100% self-funded, they still would not be able to operate this agency. That, again, is the point.- The Schaef on December 30, 2011 at 10:34 AM

The state also certifies teachers, doctors, lawyers, certified public accountants, drivers, hair-dressers, and on and on………….

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 10:41 AM

I work with a Christian foster care and adoption agency, and this issue comes up pretty regularly. Our agency’s goal is to license Christian families, because we believe that Christians are best equipped to care for and heal the brokenness in these children. Only God can heal. We are not shy about this. The way we filter for non-Christians is by talking about Jesus, a-lot. People that don’t love him tend to get uncomfortable and leave on their own.

samuelrylander on December 30, 2011 at 10:41 AM

The state of Illinois has made their choice and the Catholic church has made theirs. Now the state will have to make other arangements to handle the adoption effort previously done by CC organizations.

Handling adoptions was probably not a profit generating activity for the Church – more likely one they partially funded as part of their mission. Why should Catholics be required to support things in violation of basic beliefs?

katiejane on December 30, 2011 at 10:41 AM

The state also certifies teachers, doctors, lawyers, certified public accountants, drivers, hair-dressers, and on and on………….

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 10:41 AM

But Doctors, lawyers, CPA’s, drivers, and hair dressers don’t have their salaries paid out of state funds. That is wholly separate from the question of whether those entities should be licensed by the state, but I digress.

gryphon202 on December 30, 2011 at 10:43 AM

Even if they were 100% self-funded, they still would not be able to operate this agency. That, again, is the point.

The Schaef on December 30, 2011 at 10:34 AM

Is your point then that adoption agencies should be unregulated altogether? Or is it that religious agencies should be able to ignore the parts of the regulation that don’t comply with their doctrine?

OptionsTrader on December 30, 2011 at 10:43 AM

So I guess that Episcopalians, Lutherans and other Christian denominations who have now accepted gay relationships are in conflict with “your” translation of the Bible? Why is the Jewish state of Israel so liberal on the issue of homosexuality when they are bound by the book of Leviticus?
SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 10:37 AM

First off I was not relying on a “translation” of the bible I was referring to the original Greek. Second, that the denominations have completely rejected God’s word is not surprising in that Christ and Paul both told us this would happen. There is the wheat and there are the tares. The bible condemns homosexual behavior in the clearest, most explict terms in both testaments. Even uber-liberal Episcopalian bishop Shelby Spong admitted this. The modern state of Israel doesn’t even pretend to follow the book of Leviticus in that the vast majority of the imperatives found there, ceremonial or otherwise, are ignored.

tommyboy on December 30, 2011 at 10:43 AM

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.

Oh come off it.

Replace the word “gay” with “black”, and everyone would be up in arms at an organization persecuting an entire class of people.

The state has an interest in promoting equal rights. If a private, religious organization then turns around and decides to cease organization because of that, so be it. That’s not the state’s fault, that’s the organization’s choice. Stop trying to demonize Illinois for instituting an equitable human rights policy re: adoption and foster care.

Vyce on December 30, 2011 at 10:44 AM

Handling adoptions was probably not a profit generating activity for the Church – more likely one they partially funded as part of their mission. Why should Catholics be required to support things in violation of basic beliefs?

katiejane on December 30, 2011 at 10:41 AM

For that matter, why should anyone be required to support things in violation of basic beliefs? The framers of our constitution believed in a right-of-conscience. I am aware that throughout America’s history we have not always been perfect in recognizing that right, but they believed it nonetheless. Get the state out of the adoption business altogether (save for the family courts) and you could easily avoid messes like this.

gryphon202 on December 30, 2011 at 10:45 AM

Simple solution: quit sucking the state money teat.

Dante on December 30, 2011 at 10:45 AM

I, too, heavily support traditional marriage. What I find amazing is that heterosexuals seem not to support it as much as myself. I think that you should be married before you have children. And, I am tired of heterosexuals getting messy divorces and ending up in family courts.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 10:26 AM

Agreed. I wish the support for traditional marriage included making it harder to get married and harder to divorce.

Esthier on December 30, 2011 at 10:46 AM

The state has an interest in promoting equal rights.

Vyce on December 30, 2011 at 10:44 AM

Funny. I don’t find anything about “equal rights” anywhere in the constitution or the bill of rights. It’s all a bunch of blather about what government MAY NOT DO.

gryphon202 on December 30, 2011 at 10:46 AM

Simple solution: quit sucking the state money teat.

Dante on December 30, 2011 at 10:45 AM

Isn’t that what I’ve been saying all along here? Thank you!

gryphon202 on December 30, 2011 at 10:47 AM

That is why the Catholic Church has to drop Illinois from it’s adoptive service.

mtucker5695 on December 30, 2011 at 10:38 AM

And meanwhile, all of the children that need loving homes will sit in emergency shelters.

Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: that you visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and keep oneself un-spotted from the world.

Who is helping more children? The Catholic Charity taking it’s righteous stand (that I do agree with morally), or the organization doing whatever it takes to not disrupt the children in placement?

I am very much a pragmatist on this issue. Homosexuality is a sin, however if a religiously based agency were to refuse to license all sinners, well, you can see where that goes.

samuelrylander on December 30, 2011 at 10:49 AM

Oh come off it.

Replace the word “gay” with “black”, and everyone would be up in arms at an organization persecuting an entire class of people.

Vyce on December 30, 2011 at 10:44 AM

So the state has an interest in making sure homosexuals aren’t denied positions in churches (even those in authority) and in making sure Christians refrain from teaching that homosexuality is a sin?

Esthier on December 30, 2011 at 10:51 AM

Simple solution: quit sucking the state money teat.

Dante on December 30, 2011 at 10:45 AM

Isn’t that what I’ve been saying all along here? Thank you!

gryphon202 on December 30, 2011 at 10:47 AM

You two simpletons are missing the point – that this is NOT the solution, because the people with anti-Christian agendas won’t stop here.

MelonCollie on December 30, 2011 at 10:51 AM

First off I was not relying on a “translation” of the bible I was referring to the original Greek. Second, that the denominations have completely rejected God’s word is not surprising in that Christ and Paul both told us this would happen. There is the wheat and there are the tares. The bible condemns homosexual behavior in the clearest, most explict terms in both testaments. Even uber-liberal Episcopalian bishop Shelby Spong admitted this. The modern state of Israel doesn’t even pretend to follow the book of Leviticus in that the vast majority of the imperatives found there, ceremonial or otherwise, are ignored. – tommyboy on December 30, 2011 at 10:43 AM

So the Bible got everything just right and it alone should be the law of the land ……………….. and we should be living by strict “Christian Law” or should that be “Shiria Law”?

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 10:51 AM

As powerful as Boys Town (Chicago’s fast-growing gay stronghold) had become, the Irish/Polish/Latino/Black/Italian Catholics still seemed to dominate almost every political corner of the state. Truthfully, I am of two minds on this development, but one thing for sure: My former neighbor adopted a beautiful daughter from CC. I hope their good works continue.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 30, 2011 at 10:53 AM

So I guess that Episcopalians, Lutherans and other Christian denominations who have now accepted gay relationships are in conflict with “your” translation of the Bible? Why is the Jewish state of Israel so liberal on the issue of homosexuality when they are bound by the book of Leviticus?

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 10:37 AM

They are bound by the law on judgement day. Until then, they may do as they please at their own peril. For those that are not familiar with the Lutheran Church. The ELCA denomination is not recognized by other Lutheran denominations because of it’s stance on gays, marriage, and ministry.

Holding up denominations that are break-aways from traditional church doctorine is not a standard-barer that replaces the teaching of Jesus or the bible.

mtucker5695 on December 30, 2011 at 10:55 AM

So the Bible got everything just right and it alone should be the law of the land ……………….. and we should be living by strict “Christian Law” or should that be “Shiria Law”?

SC.Charlie

Thank you for your concern for the orphans. We know this weighs heavily on your heart because everything liberals do is for the children.

StubbleSpark on December 30, 2011 at 10:55 AM

Why should someone repent because they have a homosexual orientation and only have sex with another consenting adult and hopefully in a stable life partnership? Should I ask for forgiveness because I am left-handed?

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 10:14 AM

This is a common argument. “I was born that way… so it’s got to be natural, right?”

Well, the answer is, we can be born again.

The bottom line is, God sets the rules. We all make our decision.
That doesn’t mean we don’t break them from time to time. The bible says a righteous man will fall 7 times a day, but he gets back up again. That is the key.. getting back up again. Now some people will look at God’s mercy and think to themselves ” I can get around that.. I can abuse that.” You won’t fool God. Nobody who has heard the Gospel message one time deserves to hear it a second. Americans are saturated with the Gospel while some in other nations hear it once, receive it and believe it!

Some people also think they will burn their lives out for sin, then with their last breath ask for repentance, giving God back absolutely nothing. Handing Him over a life that is purposely worthless and spent. God is not a fool. Charles Finney, a great Evangelist at the turn of the century was with more than one person, at the end of their lives, who desperately sought salvation with their last breathes while purposefully rejecting God’s mercy their whole lives. He was convinced they did not receive their salvation because they died in pure torment, never receiving a bit of peace at the end.

Yes, I know how shocking that sounds to people who have been saturated with the American Gospel message of prosperity and “personal little savior” trinket. Pull him out when you need him, Ignore him when you don’t.

It doesn’t matter what the issue or object is.. homosexuality, a bad temper, a lying heart, drunkenness or just a stubborn spirit. If you knew God said no to that thing or yes to another.. would you obey? If your answer is “I will not obey. I will do my own thing and go my own way because I am master of my own soul and my own life” than, you have made your decision. It will carry you and define you until the end. And in judgement you will have your reward.. as we all will.

JellyToast on December 30, 2011 at 10:56 AM

So the Bible got everything just right and it alone should be the law of the land

Certainly it should be the law of my (and any other true Christian’s) life and I should be able to live according to its dictates in all aspects of my life. And if that means refusing to accomdate gay adoptions then so be it.

tommyboy on December 30, 2011 at 10:56 AM

We know this weighs heavily on your heart because everything liberals do is for the children.

StubbleSpark on December 30, 2011 at 10:55 AM

Do you actually know him or are you new? He’s not a liberal, and I really hate it when that’s thrown out so flippantly as an insult.

Esthier on December 30, 2011 at 10:57 AM

gryphon, you keep mentioning the constitution and folks will think you’re a paultard.. lol

burnitup on December 30, 2011 at 10:58 AM

It’s always for the children…

To make the largest provider of children’s adoption services disappear in the name of government-forced “inclusion”.

Freelancer on December 30, 2011 at 11:03 AM

So the Bible got everything just right and it alone should be the law of the land ……………….. and we should be living by strict “Christian Law” or should that be “Shiria Law”?

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 10:51 AM

In this page alone, you’ve shifted your illogical arguments from moving the goalposts to straw men. At least you’re consistent.

fossten on December 30, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Certainly it should be the law of my (and any other true Christian’s) life and I should be able to live according to its dictates in all aspects of my life. And if that means refusing to accomdate gay adoptions then so be it. – tommyboy on December 30, 2011 at 10:56 AM

The Bible is filled with contradictions and different churches pick and choose what they wish to emphasize and preach. Catholics don’t believe that clergy should marry, protestant churches do. Catholics don’t believe that women should be priests. Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans and others believe otherwise.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Fathers and mothers are different from each other, and each teaches the child certain things. Generally speaking, if a kid gets skinned knee, Mom will offer a hug and wipe away the tears, while Dad shows him that it’s not so bad and that the kid can get back in the game.

Men can be many things, but they can’t be mothers.

Women can be many things, but they can’t be fathers.

I’ll never forget the airline flight on which I sat near two men who were traveling with a girl about five years old.

She called each of them “Mommy.”

KyMouse on December 30, 2011 at 11:07 AM

So the Bible got everything just right and it alone should be the law of the land

The Bible has been the foundation for all of western society. Take a look at those countries where it has not been the foundation. Why aren’t you moving to one?

Yeah, keep ripping the foundation. Something weird happens when people start breaking foundations up. Yep, “wow, why is our house falling down around us? Do you think it has anything do do with us breaking up this foundation? Gosh, could it be?”

JellyToast on December 30, 2011 at 11:07 AM

So the state has an interest in making sure homosexuals aren’t denied positions in churches (even those in authority) and in making sure Christians refrain from teaching that homosexuality is a sin?

Esthier on December 30, 2011 at 10:51 AM

Strawman argument.

1) Are the churches receiving STATE money to fund their services?

2) Are the Christians receiving STATE money to teach their doctrine?

Yes? No?

If it’s the former, then yes, the state has a say in what the religious organization RECEIVING ITS MONEY does.

Catholic organizations are free to stop assisting with adoption or foster care services because of this law. But the State gets to dictate the law, and any religious organization with their hand in the till has to abide by that law if they want to keep getting that money. That’s the rules. That’s the way the Supreme Court has broken it down – you have religious freedom in this country, but if you’re receiving government money, there’s entanglement involved, and you have to abide by the government’s policies on certain things.

That’s the way things work. My objection is to Tina trying to frame this as another example of some sort of vast left-wing conspiracy to cram those icky homosexuals down Christians’ throats.

Vyce on December 30, 2011 at 11:08 AM

I’m curious. Does religious conviction trump basic civil liberties in a constitutional, secular, democracy? If a member of a black supremacist sect wanted to not hire white people because they were inferior (melanin deprived) would that be legal?

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 11:09 AM

You two simpletons are missing the point – that this is NOT the solution, because the people with anti-Christian agendas won’t stop here.

MelonCollie

Win. We got here trusting the very thin “not necessarily” argument when we pointed out all along the way that government sanction for this behavior (all of which arise out of choice from an act of the will) would not lead to state intervention in religions.

But they are and in ways that are so unnecessarily destructive that only hatred can account for this prejudice. There is absolutely no reason why a disappointed gay couple could not go elsewhere instead of engaging in a scorched-earth policy of destroying all people who disagree with you.

If the Church behaved this way, we would not hear the end of it.

I wonder what the moral cowards Ann Coulter and GOProud have to say to this fiasco.

StubbleSpark on December 30, 2011 at 11:09 AM

The Bible is filled with contradictions

No it’s not. You keeps getting things wrong because you insist on puting forth a book you have never read. Just becasue the wheat refused to compromise the bible to accomodate the tares does not equat a contradiction.

tommyboy on December 30, 2011 at 11:10 AM

I will end on the statement that I think that the Catholic Charities should be allowed to continue to follow their own conscience on the subject of adoption. The state should not get involved. But I think the Catholic Charities is WRONG. Perhaps they will someday reverse their doctrine.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 11:12 AM

Certainly it should be the law of my (and any other true Christian’s) life and I should be able to live according to its dictates in all aspects of my life. And if that means refusing to accomdate gay adoptions then so be it.

tommyboy on December 30, 2011 at 10:56 AM

So you’re a literalist? The kind of guy who doesn’t understand allegory? The kind of guy who thinks Creationism–oh, sorry, excuse me, ‘Intelligent Design’ should be taught in public schools, that kind of guy?

If memory serves, one of the Biblical dictates to which you refer is that bit about executing witches. ‘Thou shall not suffer a witch to live,’ I believe.

So get right on that, won’t you? I’ll bring the marshmellows.

troyriser_gopftw on December 30, 2011 at 11:12 AM

If a member of a black supremacist sect wanted to not hire white people because they were inferior (melanin deprived) would that be legal?

urban elitist

Quibbling equivalency strikes again!

Unfortunately, your comparison begs the issue. We are talking about behavior (all of arise from a free choice of the will) and not skin color or gender.

StubbleSpark on December 30, 2011 at 11:13 AM

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

Once the rogue liberal government completely removes charitable organizations with religious values and morals from the scene…who will take up the slack?

It will just be a matter of time before it is evident that no one will take up the slack. The morals of the nation will erode further and further.

In time, this government will do what all leftist godless governments do. In the end, for citizens deemed unwanted, not useful, and non-productive it will be government approved extermination.

Can “soylent green” on your grocer’s shelves be far behind??

BigSven on December 30, 2011 at 11:13 AM

The liberal Utopia.

On a related note… why is it that the closer we get to the statist Nirvana, the more closely our world comes to resemble hell…

Rhetorical question.

SilverDeth on December 30, 2011 at 11:15 AM

If a member of a black supremacist sect wanted to not hire white p

eople because they were inferior (melanin deprived) would that be legal?

urban elitist

Quibbling equivalency strikes again!

Unfortunately, your comparison begs the issue. We are talking about behavior (all of arise from a free choice of the will) and not skin color or gender.

StubbleSpark on December 30, 2011 at 11:13 AM

So a celibate gay could adopt?

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 11:15 AM

troyriser_gopftw on December 30, 2011 at 11:12 AM

How about you put down your tear-soaked hankey long enough to figure out what Secular dictates demand orphans turned out into the streets because they believe a behavior (which arises from an act of the will) is unnatural and both physically and psychologically self-destructive.

StubbleSpark on December 30, 2011 at 11:16 AM

I work with a Christian foster care and adoption agency, and this issue comes up pretty regularly. Our agency’s goal is to license Christian families, because we believe that Christians are best equipped to care for and heal the brokenness in these children. Only God can heal. We are not shy about this. The way we filter for non-Christians is by talking about Jesus, a-lot. People that don’t love him tend to get uncomfortable and leave on their own.

samuelrylander on December 30, 2011 at 10:41 AM

Jesus as a stink bomb. How very clever.

Dan_Yul on December 30, 2011 at 11:19 AM

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.

This is the part I do not understand: is Catholic Charities required by Illinois law to have a state contract in order to operate, kind of like a state license, or is it that their operations wouldn’t be feasible without such a contract? If it’s the former than yes, this would appear to be a violation of religious liberty but is not the case if the latter. I absolutely agree that religious groups, or any group for that matter, have no right whatsoever to public funding especially if they are not willing to abide by all the requirements that come with the obtaining of such funds. In this particular case, CC should be allowed to operate a private adoption agency without receiving public dollars.

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.

Oh please. By the same token you could also say that the decision of the Catholic Church to refuse to comply with state law in the first place — knowing it would hamstring Catholic Charities, which provides essential services — demonstrates an appalling willingness to allow an adult agenda — resisting the mainstream acceptance of gay behavior — to supersede children’s interests.

What matters more to me here is whether CC is receiving public dollars or if the state is imposing an unreasonable restriction.

JohnAGJ on December 30, 2011 at 11:19 AM

Is your point then that adoption agencies should be unregulated altogether? Or is it that religious agencies should be able to ignore the parts of the regulation that don’t comply with their doctrine?

OptionsTrader on December 30, 2011 at 10:43 AM

Well, I would assume a reasonable person could look at my post and determine if I said those things. As such, I won’t waste my time going down your pointless rabbit holes and wait for someone interested in a real discussion.

Replace the word “gay” with “black”, and everyone would be up in arms at an organization persecuting an entire class of people.

Vyce on December 30, 2011 at 10:44 AM

That’s because “black” is a genetically influenced pigmentation level of the skin, and “gay” is who you prefer to boink in the bedroom. I imagine a lot of blacks would be offended at your attempt to equate the two.

The Bible is filled with contradictions and different churches pick and choose what they wish to emphasize and preach.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 11:05 AM

I disagree with the notion that the Bible is “filled with contradictions” – this is a convenient scapegoat for people who prefer not to actually think hard about stuff, or in this case, for people who see disagreements between portions of the church body and try to de-legitimize the source on that basis. Dismissing the Bible as hopelessly contradictory with portions cherry-picked by the churches, is like saying Republicans and Democrats cherry-pick an agenda from a common set of facts, thus demonstrating that the real problem is that our Constitution is hopelessly contradictory and mankind will only truly be free when it is reduced elevated to a state of anarchy.

The Schaef on December 30, 2011 at 11:19 AM

The Bible is filled with contradictions

No, liberals are full of contradictions.

JellyToast on December 30, 2011 at 11:20 AM

Once again government the absolute moral authority. Get the foot baths off governemt property.

Wade on December 30, 2011 at 11:20 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7