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 4 5 6 7

So was it that they were Darwin free that made the sacrifice captives or not?

Akzed on December 30, 2011 at 2:50 PM

No. It’s that they believed in a supernatural sky daddy and they were trying to win favor. They were free of any pesky science stepping on their religious practices. The epitome of a society run by religion. The Dark Ages Aztec style.

Dan_Yul on December 30, 2011 at 2:57 PM

You’re doing well against the secularist trolls here. Bravo. spiritof61 on December 30, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Aw shucks. But it’s as easy as shooting dopes in a barrel.

Akzed on December 30, 2011 at 2:58 PM

People like to assume that because they call themselves christians that all other christians agree with their choices as to whom is moral and who is not. But that can’t be the case because there are 16000 denominations in the US alone. Should everyone of them get to place restrictions on how public funds are spent and on whom?

Zekecorlain on December 30, 2011 at 2:58 PM

Since there is no logical argument that leads to the conclusion that homosexuality is immoral, bigotry against gays is objectively morally wrong.

thuja on December 30, 2011 at 2:56 PM

AIDS.

Crystal meth.

Gay priests.

Gay scoutmasters.

Sandusky.

Foley.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_4_41/ai_n9488757/

Despite a proliferation of research on the impact of child sexual abuse (CSA), minimal effort has been directed toward understanding gay men’s experiences of CSA. According to the best available prevalence estimates, 27% of women and 14% of men in both college and community samples have experienced CSA (Rind, Tromovitch, & Bauserman, 1998). Initial investigations indicate that CSA rates in gay and bisexual men may be at least as high as prevalence rates found among women. For example, Doll et al. (1992) found that 31% of gay and bisexual men attending sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics reported sexual encounters before age 16 with an older or more powerful partner. Similarly, Lenderking et al. (1997) found that 36% of the gay and bisexual men participating in a health clinic study reported a childhood sexual encounter before age 16 with an older person.

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 3:00 PM

I doubt he was tempted. Temptation was offered, but there was no likelyhood that Jesus would have accepted. After all, he owned the property being offered. unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 2:56 PM

I could tempt you to buy the Brooklyn Bridge, even if there’s no chance of you accepting my offer.

What Jesus was being offered was a bypass of the cross. “You can have the throne without the passion.”

If it wasn’t a temptation, what was it? After He resisted what no mortal could have, the devils recognized who He was.

Akzed on December 30, 2011 at 3:02 PM

Well, moron, since I was making the point about how much I value freedom of association, it should have obvious to even you that I make no demands on who a church does religious activities with. And isn’t fair to call you a moron since you call gay “perverts”? And isn’t name calling so cool?

thuja on December 30, 2011 at 2:48 PM

Heh. If you did value freedom of association, you’d be fully on the side of Catholic Charities. But you aren’t, which gives the lie to your assertion.

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 3:03 PM

Since there is no logical argument that leads to the conclusion that homosexuality is immoral, bigotry against gays is objectively morally wrong.

thuja on December 30, 2011 at 2:56 PM

There are so many things wrong with this argument that I seriously question your sanity. We’ll start with this: Is bigotry ever justified? Do you even know the meaning of the word?

spiritof61 on December 30, 2011 at 3:05 PM

No. It’s that they believed in a supernatural sky daddy and they were trying to win favor. They were free of any pesky science stepping on their religious practices. The epitome of a society run by religion. The Dark Ages Aztec style. Dan_Yul on December 30, 2011 at 2:57 PM

They were pretty scientific if you ask me. They were great astronomers, engineers, and builders for instance. Their problem lay in serving a non-existent god or demon, as opposed to the true and living God.

If you ever have the chance to study anything but your own wonderfulness, you might want to give history a look. If you ever do, please consider where Christianity has had the most influence, then contemplate that the greatest advances in science and industry known to man were coincidental to that influence.

Akzed on December 30, 2011 at 3:06 PM

Since there is no logical argument that leads to the conclusion that homosexuality is immoral, bigotry against gays is objectively morally wrong

No it is not anymore than “bigotry” against “unmarried couples” or “single parents.” Children need a man and woman pairing. That is natural and preferable. I don’t care about biased pyschological studies. I have a male and a female child. They need both influences for various reasons.

Children who are being adopted and foster children are already starting life with one strike against them. Why shouldn’t they be given the best possible start? It is the height of immorality to “experiment” on our children in hopes that some psychological paper says that male/male and female/female couples are just as acceptable. A female cannot teach a man to be a proper man. A man cannot teach a female to be a proper woman.

melle1228 on December 30, 2011 at 3:12 PM

“In the name of tolerance, we’re not being tolerated,” said Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield, Ill.

THAT, my friends, is the money quote on every struggle fought in the ever-rising tide of political correctness. I ought to have it embossed on a card and hand it out every time the subject comes up.

Captain Scarlet on December 30, 2011 at 3:13 PM

Since there is no logical argument that leads to the conclusion that homosexuality anything is immoral, bigotry against gays anything is objectively morally wrong.

thuja on December 30, 2011 at 2:56 PM

Here. Since you don’t want to play anymore, I just changed a couple of words of your recent statement. Still a valid, rational argument?

spiritof61 on December 30, 2011 at 3:18 PM

Gay priests.

Gay scoutmasters.

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 3:00 PM

The RCC scandal involved allegedly celibate men who raped children. Gay-married men don’t appear to pose a threat on a comparable scale. Perhaps it is safer to have childcare-givers who have adult sexual relations and know how to keep it away from kids.

OptionsTrader on December 30, 2011 at 3:21 PM

Mark Ybel on December 30, 2011 at 12:59 PM

Oh, I think in a few hundred years or so (if the world lasts that long) history will reveal that it was not the Church that was on the wrong side of history, but the pro-homosexualist agenda and those (the USA et al) who consented to it that was on the wrong side of God. Romans 1 We are living it out. Who having known the justice of God did not understand that they who do such things are worthy of death. And not only they that do such things, but they also who consent to them that do them.

It boggles my mind that non believers could look at that alone and not wonder at how Truth reveals itself. Everything in that one letter is happening to the T right here, right now.

BTW, did anyone see where they think they have unearthed Sodom? And it appears that the city was wiped out in a ‘heat event’?

We have been warned…and it will be ignored, of course. See Romans 1

spiritof61 on December 30, 2011 at 1:48 PM

And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me; That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

I was driving down a street a few weeks ago and was struck at the number of churches one after another. There must have been 5 or 6 different denominations. So clearly not what Christ had in mind. Is it any wonder fewer and fewer believe?

If the worse we American Christians can expect in the foreseeable future is the occasional atheist in our face or a hostile state bureaucracy, then we should count our blessings.
troyriser_gopftw on December 30, 2011 at 2:02 PM

I fear that you are being naïve if that is all you see in the foreseeable future, though a ‘hostile state bureaucracy’ seems a little worrisome to me. Look at what is already going on in Canada with the Human Rights Commission dragging in writers for espousing Christian teaching, etc… That’s in Canada. Ten years ago this attack on the Church and her charities would have been unbelievable in the US, but it has happened. I am amazed that intelligent people think what is happening all around the world can’t happen here in the blink of an eye, or flick of a ballot switch. Do you not read the homosexuals constant harping on how “anyone under 40” is on ‘their side’. They are exaggerating, but not that much. Hollywood/entertainment industry, and the liberal public education system are indoctrinating our young at an alarming rate. Of course they have to get them young for it to work.

Did you read what that actress, Megan Fox said about if she could talk to the alien invader Megatron that she would negotiate with him? “Instead of the entire planet, I’d say to him, ‘Can you just take out all of the white trash, hillbilly, anti-gay, super bible-beating people in Middle America?” How many comments were to the tune of ‘she has a point’? Many… It’s coming…

pannw on December 30, 2011 at 3:21 PM

They were pretty scientific if you ask me. They were great astronomers, engineers, and builders for instance. Their problem lay in serving a non-existent god or demon, as opposed to the true and living God.

I didn’t say they didn’t have science. I said they didn’t have science interfering with their religious practices.

The ones who served the “true and living God” (barf) showed up and exterminated them. Their problem wasn’t their lack of Christianity, it was the presence of Christianity.

If you ever have the chance to study anything but your own wonderfulness, you might want to give history a look. If you ever do, please consider where Christianity has had the most influence, then contemplate that the greatest advances in science and industry known to man were coincidental to that influence.

Akzed on December 30, 2011 at 3:06 PM

I think you need to at history again. It wasn’t until the enlightenment, when the oppression of Christianity was thrown off, that science took off. You might want to look into a fellow named Galileo Galilei to see how Christianity influences science.

And your point about the Aztecs and science shows that Christianity does not play a role in the development of science.

Dan_Yul on December 30, 2011 at 3:23 PM

And your point about the Aztecs and science shows that Christianity does not play a role in the development of science.

Neither does political agendas and idelogy, but that doesn’t stop science. It used to be that scientist tried to prove their own theories wrong then the science became “settled.” Modern science is as situational based and human based(flawed) as you say Christianity is.

melle1228 on December 30, 2011 at 3:29 PM

I could tempt you to buy the Brooklyn Bridge, even if there’s no chance of you accepting my offer.

What Jesus was being offered was a bypass of the cross. “You can have the throne without the passion.”

If it wasn’t a temptation, what was it? After He resisted what no mortal could have, the devils recognized who He was.

Akzed on December 30, 2011 at 3:02 PM

Temptation in this case means testing or trying, not successfully inducing the emotion of temptation — the desire for something.

He knew about the Cross. He didn’t want it, but he knew, and accepted. As for what Satan knew — I think he knew exactly what Jesus was. Remember, Satan’s crime was to consider himself the better of God. Here he is yet again believing that, and jockying for position.

As for Jesus, he knew:

‘Abba, Father, everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will”

‘My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken away from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.’

‘My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done’

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 3:31 PM

OptionsTrader on December 30, 2011 at 3:21 PM

Ever heard of the “Lavender Mafia”? The scandal wasn’t in the abuse of minors by bad priests decades prior–that sort of thing happens all the time in public schools, and with higher frequency. The scandal was two-fold: first, the cover-up by the bishops, and second, the fact that the abuse was overwhelmingly homosexual.

spiritof61 on December 30, 2011 at 3:32 PM

Dan_Yul on December 30, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Copernicus was a cleric. Galileo attended Mass every day. Pascal was devout. Newton wrote theology. And so on.

Science didn’t begin with Carl Sagan, believe it or not.

spiritof61 on December 30, 2011 at 3:35 PM

and second, the fact that the abuse was overwhelmingly homosexual.

Shh! That is one of the logical things you can’t see. But But But those priest couldn’t be homosexual. Just because they preyed on the same sex child doesn’t mean they were homosexuals. La la la can’t hear you./

And that is the reason I who was an agnostic before Massachusett homosexual marriage and rights are completely against it now. They can’t be logical. They can’t accept that their may be cracks in their continual “victim” group.

melle1228 on December 30, 2011 at 3:37 PM

I am with the great majority of you all. Gays are sex perverts and should be rounded up, tied to a poll and burnt to a crisp. They are all consumed by their sexual desires and nothing more. They are truly worthless souls who only wish to spread their deceitful gospel to young people that they are “normal” in order to recruit youngsters, hopefully future sexual partners. Over the course of a gay person’s lifetime they have over 1500 sexual partners …………… wait, wait, that’s Hugh Hefner, isn’t it?

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 3:41 PM

It wasn’t until the enlightenment, when the oppression of Christianity was thrown off, that science took off. You might want to look into a fellow named Galileo Galilei to see how Christianity influences science.

What? Christianity made enlightment science possible. All the earliest universities were Christian seminaries. The greatest enlightenment scientists were all Christians including Galileo who was a devout Christian until the day he died and defended his and Coppernicus’ works with scripture as well as empirical observation. Newton, was the same and wrote extensively on what he considered the scriptural foundation for his Principia Mathematica. The Christian dogma held that God had made nature to be dominated by man and that nature was a logical, rational construct made by a logical and rational God. Thus man could investigate nature and rely on logical and consistent natural results. Francis Bacon was much more the progenitor of enlightenment science than Rousseau.

tommyboy on December 30, 2011 at 3:41 PM

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 3:41 PM

Thank you so much for validating my point..

melle1228 on December 30, 2011 at 3:43 PM

I think you need to at history again. It wasn’t until the enlightenment, when the oppression of Christianity was thrown off, that science took off. You might want to look into a fellow named Galileo Galilei to see how Christianity influences science.

Dan_Yul on December 30, 2011 at 3:23 PM

At this time, Galileo also engaged in a dispute over the reasons that objects float or sink in water, siding with Archimedes against Aristotle. The debate was unfriendly, and Galileo’s blunt and sometimes sarcastic style, though not extraordinary in academic debates of the time, made him enemies. During this controversy one of Galileo’s friends, the painter, Lodovico Cardi da Cigoli, informed him that a group of malicious opponents, which Cigoli subsequently referred to derisively as “the Pigeon league,” was plotting to cause him trouble over the motion of the earth, or anything else that would serve the purpose. According to Cigoli, one of the plotters had asked a priest to denounce Galileo’s views from the pulpit, but the latter had refused. Nevertheless, three years later another priest, Tommaso Caccini, did in fact do precisely that, as described below.

Wheels within wheels.

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 3:43 PM

Ever heard of the “Lavender Mafia”? The scandal wasn’t in the abuse of minors by bad priests decades prior–that sort of thing happens all the time in public schools, and with higher frequency. The scandal was two-fold: first, the cover-up by the bishops, and second, the fact that the abuse was overwhelmingly homosexual.

spiritof61 on December 30, 2011 at 3:32 PM

The cover-up by non-molesters who had been given positions of responsibility is very discouraging. Perhaps 15% of the victims (if you look at the John Jay numbers) were girls. Sure that makes a majority of the victims boys but then if one were to weigh the numbers based on the greater male-to-male opportunity priests had it appears to be more about taking advantage of whoever was available and vulnerable.

OptionsTrader on December 30, 2011 at 3:44 PM

I didn’t say they didn’t have science. I said they didn’t have science interfering with their religious practices.

Their science was in service to their vile superstitious practices.

Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton, Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Gregor Mendel, Galileo Galilei, Michael Faraday, and many more great scientists were all believers, in fact they were what you would call creationists. Living and working within a Christian culture. The Age of Reason and The Enlightenment did not occur in a vacuum, or in a Muslim or atheistic milieu.

And your point about the Aztecs and science shows that Christianity does not play a role in the development of science. Dan_Yul on December 30, 2011 at 3:23 PM

I didn’t say science only happens in Christian cultures, I said the best science has. Nice try though.

Akzed on December 30, 2011 at 3:44 PM

Over the course of a gay person’s lifetime they have over 1500 sexual partners …………… wait, wait, that’s Hugh Hefner, isn’t it?

It is hilarious that you think that pointing out one heterosexual who is an immoral horndog somehow hurts heterosexuals. That is the group think. That is the perpetual victim mentality that says that if someone points out a particular individual/individuals or ideology within a movement they are painting all individual/individuals with the same brush. Exactly why some of us won’t jump on the “rights” bandwagon.

melle1228 on December 30, 2011 at 3:51 PM

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 3:41 PM

Thank you so much for validating my point..

melle1228 on December 30, 2011 at 3:43 PM

And, what did I validate? Gays represent a small fraction of our society. Our society since the beginning of time has heaped upon them mountains of guilt. Hung them. sentenced them to jail. Declared them mentally ill. Nah, they haven’t been victims at all, only Christians.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 4:01 PM

And, what did I validate? Gays represent a small fraction of our society. Our society since the beginning of time has heaped upon them mountains of guilt. Hung them. sentenced them to jail. Declared them mentally ill

You validated my point that if you say anything against the “gay agenda” you must be a hateful bigot/
You validated my point that there can be no reasonable disagreement politically on this point.

You validate my point that you can’t call out an individual policy or person within the gay agenda without you thinking that ALL OF US are out to get ALL of you.

BTW, I am a woman and a mother… You want to talk about mountains of guilt; mothers get blamed for everything!

melle1228 on December 30, 2011 at 4:06 PM

Gays Pedophiles represent a small fraction of our society. Our society since the beginning of time has heaped upon them mountains of guilt. Hung them. sentenced them to jail. Declared them mentally ill. Nah, they haven’t been victims at all, only Christians.

Updated for use by “activists” 15-20 years from now.

spiritof61 on December 30, 2011 at 4:16 PM

mtucker5695 on December 30, 2011 at 12:37 PM

Thanks for the information and links. The Netherlands study appears to have some issues as to how it was conducted it so I’m not sure how dispositive it is. I do find it interesting that since gay marriage was legalized there the number of marriages has dropped off significantly. That does point to the possibility that it isn’t about marriage/commitment for gays but rather more about an agenda to fulfill.

KickandSwimMom on December 30, 2011 at 4:17 PM

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 4:01 PM

BTW, I just wanted to ask you: Are you a pervert? A pedophile? Mentally ill?

If you are not which I suspect you aren’t, then why do you care what other people pigeonhole you as?

I know you are older than me, but I am going to give you advice that I give my gawky 12 year old son who gets bullied unmercilessly. A bully can only make you feel like a POS if you let them. Put your big boy panties on, because not everyone is going to like how you are; some of them are quite merciless about it.

They don’t have the power to declare you mentally ill anymore or have you jailed, but no matter how many laws you pass not everyone is going to be okay with homosexuality.

melle1228 on December 30, 2011 at 4:19 PM

BTW, I am a woman and a mother… You want to talk about mountains of guilt; mothers get blamed for everything!

melle1228 on December 30, 2011 at 4:06 PM

Lol! You got that right sister!!

KickandSwimMom on December 30, 2011 at 4:28 PM

guess one man’s snaky torpedo is another mans obnoxious smugness. Still workin on that plank I see.

tommyboy on December 30, 2011 at 2:54 PM

‘Snarky torpedo’, as in snark, sarcasm, facetiousness. And again with the ‘plank’ business. Oh, and I finally got the ‘plank’ reference, except I recall it as ‘beam in your eye’: mote and beam. Took me a minute. You were paraphrasing NIV. I’m a King James guy, myself.

Anyway, we’ll have to agree to disagree, I guess. I didn’t want to get embroiled in argument about my faith with someone who putatively shares my faith. Acrimony serves no good purpose here, and I feel a lot of acrimony coming on.

troyriser_gopftw on December 30, 2011 at 4:35 PM

They don’t have the power to declare you mentally ill anymore or have you jailed, but no matter how many laws you pass not everyone is going to be okay with homosexuality. – melle1228 on December 30, 2011 at 4:19 PM

Very true, being gay isn’t something for the weak. You are really bullied all your life. As this thread makes very clear.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 4:52 PM

Very true, being gay isn’t something for the weak. You are really bullied all your life. As this thread makes very clear.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 4:52 PM

Even as they spit in your face and on your faith, they claim the mantle of victimhood.

spiritof61 on December 30, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Nope. Go back and check the OT law. The people who brought the woman caught in adultery were incorrectly following the Law. Not only the woman, but ALSO THE MAN were to be brought… before a court, not for public vigilantism!

By mis-applying the law, they were in fact SINNING. Funny how Jesus tells them that “He without sin should cast the first stone!”

dominigan on December 30, 2011 at 2:03 PM

False.

John 8:3-4

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

The scribes and the Pharisees WERE the court.

Furthermore, please cite the EXACT Scriptural reference that talks about bringing them “before a court” in the first place.

Spinning and flip-flopping and lying about what is in the Bible do not earn you points.

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 5:26 PM

I am with the great majority of you all. Gays are sex perverts and should be rounded up, tied to a poll and burnt to a crisp. They are all consumed by their sexual desires and nothing more. They are truly worthless souls who only wish to spread their deceitful gospel to young people that they are “normal” in order to recruit youngsters, hopefully future sexual partners. Over the course of a gay person’s lifetime they have over 1500 sexual partners …………… wait, wait, that’s Hugh Hefner, isn’t it?

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 3:41 PM

Yes, Charlie, just like you and your fellow gay-sex liberal friends shriek that people are homophobes if they investigate charges of child abuse against gays.

Or that, unless you endorse and support dressing children as sexual slaves and taking them to a sex fair, you are a bigot and a homophobe.

Or unless you let gay and lesbian employees sexually harass their coworkers, you are a homophobe and a bigot.

Your using “homophobe” and “bigot” is just like Al Sharpton screaming “racist”. Pure projection, and meant to scare and intimidate people into giving you what you want.

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 5:35 PM

Very true, being gay isn’t something for the weak. You are really bullied all your life. As this thread makes very clear.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 4:52 PM

Wrong, Charlie.

I have made it clear on Hot Air since I first started commenting here that I am gay.

I have never once been what I would call bullied by any of the social conservatives here. Only by the liberal trolls and by people like yourself and zekecorlain who hilariously have tried to paint me as a homophobic bigot because I don’t buy the crap that the leftist gays and the Obama Party push.

Why? Because I agree with these people. You should be able to hire who you like. You should be able to practice the beliefs of your religion without being penalized by the government. If the government is going to support ANYTHING, it should support kids with no parents being adopted by male-female couples, since that is going to be how about 98% of the kids out there are going to grow up. Male-female marriages DO hold the highest social value and should be recognized and treated accordingly. Gays and lesbians are free to do as they will, but need no special or preferential treatment.

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 5:40 PM

how is it that there is extreme prejudice against those who attack social security like the 90s Gingrich issue in which it was said that social security would necessarily whither on the vine. Yet the gay rights lobby, logically does not promote the ponzi scheme by having their own children. So they have to go through a heterosexual couple in order to promote the so called cool lifestyle.
Support the Social security ponzi scheme by the Genesis model of going forth and multiplying? The Gay lifestyle promotes less economic growth in the future, or did I miss something and they came up with a gay idea for repopulating the earth for future generations?

mdetlh on December 30, 2011 at 6:00 PM

So you mean the children of gay couples are fake children? Do these fake children have rights?

thuja on December 30, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Real in the sense they are not ” procreated” naturally between them. Nice try though. Do you have a point?

Egfrow on December 30, 2011 at 6:08 PM

Even as they spit in your face and on your faith, they claim the mantle of victimhood. – spiritof61 on December 30, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Should I send you a crying towel? Christians have been claiming victimhood since the inception of the religion. If you want to really be victimized try being a Christian in a Muslim country. There are Christian Churches on every corner of every town in this country. Try to put yourself in the mind of a gay teenager ….. or for that matter of a gay adult. As I have said, this thread surely indicates that there a lot of intolerance toward gays.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Try to put yourself in the mind of a gay teenager ….. or for that matter of a gay adult. As I have said, this thread surely indicates that there a lot of intolerance toward gays.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Did you miss a gay adult actually speaking, Charlie?

Oh, that’s right. You don’t give a damn about what I have to say unless it reinforces your vendetta against Catholics, Christians, and everyone else.

You’re pinkwashing the fact that you’re an anti-religious bigot. You are attempting to use the “suffering” of gays like myself to push your own agendas.

You’re a freaking plantation owning wanna-be.

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 6:38 PM

Should I send you a crying towel? Christians have been claiming victimhood since the inception of the religion. If you want to really be victimized try being a Christian in a Muslim country.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Or a Christian in the old Soviet Union. I’ve talked to people who lived under Communist rule, and their hardships make ours look like a cheap soap opera in comparison.

MelonCollie on December 30, 2011 at 6:45 PM

There are Christian Churches on every corner of every town in this country. Try to put yourself in the mind of a gay teenager

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 6:33 PM

There are TVs in every gay teenager’s home, and teachers in his school, and cinemas, and chapters of the Democratic Party in his town, and a president in the White House all happily celebrating and endorsing homosexuality. It’s just those neanderthal Christians who keep saying that it’s morally wrong and pray for him to stop sinning. Damned homophobes.

I feel your pain.

spiritof61 on December 30, 2011 at 6:52 PM

Oh, that’s right. You don’t give a damn about what I have to say unless it reinforces your vendetta against Catholics, Christians, and everyone else. – northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 6:38 PM

I have no vendetta against Catholics, Christians or anyone else……. but you have crusade against any acceptance of gays in these United States. I just want to tell the TRUTH and nothing but the truth. Does that truth hurt you? I find the persecution of Christians and Jews in the Muslim countries horrible. I think Muslim beliefs to be anchored in the 14th century.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 7:09 PM

There are TVs in every gay teenager’s home, and teachers in his school, and cinemas, and chapters of the Democratic Party in his town, and a president in the White House all happily celebrating and endorsing homosexuality. It’s just those neanderthal Christians who keep saying that it’s morally wrong and pray for him to stop sinning. Damned homophobes.

I feel your pain. – spiritof61 on December 30, 2011 at 6:52 PM

And, in every town there is a church on every corner. The uniqueness of being gay is that I can’t change my sexuality any more than I can change my eye color. And, some of those Christian churches think that being gay and in a gay relationship is “the sin of sins”. As for it just being Democrats accepting gays, there are many Republicans …..i.e. Barry Goldwater and Dick Cheney just for two.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 7:23 PM

I have no vendetta against Catholics, Christians or anyone else……. but you have crusade against any acceptance of gays in these United States. I just want to tell the TRUTH and nothing but the truth. Does that truth hurt you?

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 7:09 PM

Here’s the truth, Charlie.

You sit here and blabber about how awful gays have it and how intolerant everyone is.

I am a gay man, and I am saying quite the opposite.

And of course, you insist that I must be anti-gay because my experiences as an actual gay person don’t match what you think a gay person’s experience should be.

Not only are you an antireligious bigot, you’re an anti-gay bigot.

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 7:26 PM

And, some of those Christian churches think that being gay and in a gay relationship is “the sin of sins”.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 7:23 PM

Which you want banned and removed from society.

And which you also want the government to punish and discriminate against.

You are such a hilarious and hypocritical bigot, SC Charlie. You scream and bleat and cry about how intolerant Christians are, and then demand that the government punish and suppress them for their beliefs.

This is why Gingrich said you should vote Obama. Clearly you don’t care about any issue other than having your sexual orientation pandered to, and you see government as your swift sword to force other people to think as you order them to think.

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 7:32 PM

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states,

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

That is, Gays must be treated with compassion, notwithstanding their disordered state. This is what Gays have decided to treat as Bigotry.

By the way, this is only one (1) of over three THOUSAND paragraphs dealing with the Church’s teaching. How strange (and spiteful) that it should be the one that determines them all!

Herald of Woe on December 30, 2011 at 7:36 PM

Here’s the truth, Charlie.

You sit here and blabber about how awful gays have it and how intolerant everyone is.

I am a gay man, and I am saying quite the opposite.

And of course, you insist that I must be anti-gay because my experiences as an actual gay person don’t match what you think a gay person’s experience should be.

Not only are you an antireligious bigot, you’re an anti-gay bigot.

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 7:26 PM

Sure. I am anti-religious and anti-gay bigot. Yet, I am a Christian (Episcopalian) and a gay male. Now that is surely contradictory.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 7:39 PM

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.

No one is mandating “acceptance” of homosexuality — just non-discrimination. If the Catholic church can’t maintain non-discrimination in its State contracts, they should lose them. The Catholic church would rather have children in foster care than be placed in a loving and committed family with two same-sex parents.

Then, too, research suggests the healthiest and most stable environment for a child is to live with a married couple.

Yes. That study concluded that a married couple — whether hetero- or homosexual — provided the best environment. Yet another argument in favor of ending marriage discrimination.

Mark Jaquith on December 30, 2011 at 7:41 PM

It seems to me that a state legislature has the right to insist that same-sex couples have a right to adopt; but I don’t see how they have the right to insist that all adoption agencies provide this service. Free-market competition would take care of it. Just typical over-reaching high-horse government intrusion being counter-productive.

servative on December 30, 2011 at 7:41 PM

And, from our friends (and moral betters) at the Southern Poverty Law Center, this take:

The religious right in America has employed a variety of strategies in its efforts to beat back the increasingly confident gay rights movement. One of those has been defamation. Many of its leaders have engaged in the crudest type of name-calling, describing LGBT people as “perverts” with “filthy habits” who seek to snatch the children of straight parents and “convert” them to gay sex. They have disseminated disparaging “facts” about gays that are simply untrue — assertions that are remarkably reminiscent of the way white intellectuals and scientists once wrote about the “bestial” black man and his supposedly threatening sexuality.

Herald of Woe on December 30, 2011 at 7:45 PM

Sure. I am anti-religious and anti-gay bigot. Yet, I am a Christian (Episcopalian) and a gay male. Now that is surely contradictory.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 7:39 PM

Yes, you are.

You are an anti-gay bigot because you buy into the lies of the Obama Party that owns you about how gays should think and feel and act.

And you are an antireligious bigot because you are sitting here freaking out about how awful it is that those mean and horrible Christians believe something other than what you do and demanding that the government suppress them.

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 7:45 PM

This is why Gingrich said you should vote Obama. Clearly you don’t care about any issue other than having your sexual orientation pandered to, and you see government as your swift sword to force other people to think as you order them to think. – northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 7:32 PM

Do you continue to claim that you are gay? That is not what Gringrich said in his exchange with the gay veteran. Look at the darn video between Gringrich and the gay veteran. I think that Gringrich’s exchange with the veteran was thoughtful and made since. Gringrich said that if the man’s vote was determined by the gay marriage issue he ought to vote for Obama…………… even though Obama is against gay marriage. However, my vote is not determined by the gay marriage issue. I think that there are other overwhelming issues that determine my one lone vote.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 7:49 PM

If the Catholic church can’t maintain non-discrimination in its State contracts, they should lose them. The Catholic church would rather have children in foster care than be placed in a loving and committed family with two same-sex parents.

Mark Jaquith on December 30, 2011 at 7:41 PM

Yup. Probably because they know full well that gay-sex liberal parents dress children as sexual slaves and take them to sex fairs to “show off”.

And they also know that gay-sex liberal parents scream that, if you disagree with that, you are a homophobe.

Let’s see if you can actually man up and speak out against that, Mark Jaquith, or if you’re just another typical brainwashed liberal who is incapable of criticizing the behavior of a gay and lesbian person and thus will endorse child sexual exploitation.

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 7:50 PM

Do you continue to claim that you are gay?

Yes, I do. I understand that a bigot like yourself can’t understand how a gay or lesbian person could possibly disagree with what your Obama massas have told you what to think, though.

That is not what Gringrich said in his exchange with the gay veteran. Look at the darn video between Gringrich and the gay veteran. I think that Gringrich’s exchange with the veteran was thoughtful and made since. Gringrich said that if the man’s vote was determined by the gay marriage issue he ought to vote for Obama…………… even though Obama is against gay marriage. However, my vote is not determined by the gay marriage issue. I think that there are other overwhelming issues that determine my one lone vote.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 7:49 PM

Sure, like the need to attack and punish Christians for daring to think differently than you.

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 7:52 PM

The Catholic church would rather have children in foster care

The Church has done more for foster care than you will ever know. As they are now disqualified from State contracts, those contracts will be won by private companies, which have no compunction against placing children with whoever the State orders. Unfortunately, many States, like Illinois, are on the brink of bankruptcy, and so they cannot afford those private companies for long. Soon, they will wish they had low-cost providers back, providers like CC (which earned that contract at low cost by the contributions of thousands of faithful parishioners). By then, however, CC will have pulled up its stakes, and will no longer be found in the fair State of Illinois.

And then the compassionate Gays, who seek nothing more than the welfare of bastard children, will cry, “Where is the Church?!” Thank God, at that point, the State will be your only available Defendant.

Herald of Woe on December 30, 2011 at 7:55 PM

And you are an antireligious bigot because you are sitting here freaking out about how awful it is that those mean and horrible Christians believe something other than what you do and demanding that the government suppress them. – northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 7:45 PM

Freaking out. My one lone voice has no force against the Catholic Church. Suppress them? I have already said that I think that Catholic Charities should still be allowed to do as they please in the adoption business. But, of course, you missed that post. I am gay and would have loved to have had children. My nine nieces and nephews are what makes my life worth living. Personally, I would not adopt a child. Where I live I know what that child would have to go through.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 7:58 PM

Herald of Woe on December 30, 2011 at 7:45 PM

Indeed. Homosexual behavior is a sin and never to be condoned (like other sins), but we are commanded and admonished to love the sinner while hating the sin. We are sinners too, after all.

Of course, for the SPLC, the Obama Administration, and SC Charlie, the Vatican is part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy of Bigotry and Homophobia. Pathetic.

Good night. Some fine comments on this thread amid the troll drivel.

spiritof61 on December 30, 2011 at 7:59 PM

Both? Certainly, Catholic Charities is receiving public dollars — the same types of public dollars which might be spent on non-religious organizations performing identical work.

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 2:46 PM

Then if Catholic Charities is unable to comply with existing state law I have no sympathy for them. If this were about the state denying them a license to operate that would be one thing, but from what you are telling me it’s not. This is a religious group that demands special exemption from the state’s anti-discrimination law in order to continue receiving public funding.

Now, the matter of unreasonable restriction is more complex. Should the State have the right to require an adoption agency to allow placement with all comers, or should the agency be allowed a freedom of conscience exemption to not place children with people they believe would not provide a good family environment?

If the agency is private religious one, not receiving public funds or contract with the state to perform such adoptions on it behalf, than absolutely not. That’s where freedom of religion as well as freedom of association (a la the Boy Scouts) comes in. It doesn’t matter whether you or I agree with or like this group, it’s their right. I strongly support the right, to take from this case, the Catholic Church to worship as it pleases, deny gays/non-Catholics/divorced persons marriage ceremonies in their churches, hire or fire folks as its religious doctirne dictates, etc. The problem only comes in as I see it in this case when tax dollars are at stake or there is an issue of public accomodation.

This battle for freedom of conscience is being fought on many fronts.

Exercising one’s freedom of conscience does not include a right to public funding for one’s livelihood or endeavors. Take Caesar’s gold and be ready to render unto him what he asks or don’t take it in the first place.

JohnAGJ on December 30, 2011 at 8:02 PM

Sure, like the need to attack and punish Christians for daring to think differently than you. – northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 7:52 PM

How am I punishing Christians? I stand with Catholic Charities on this issue of adoptions. I certainly disagree with the Catholic Church on whether being a gay male in a relationship is a sin. And, about 90% of Catholics also practice birth control, which contrary to Catholic teaching. I guess that they are anti-Christian?

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 8:03 PM

Personally, I would not adopt a child. Where I live I know what that child would have to go through.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 7:58 PM

What a surprise. Someone who is obsessed with the thought that everyone is a bigot and hates them sees bigots everywhere they turn.

I’d feel sorry for you, trapped in a prison of fear; however, as I learned a long time ago, invariably you were the one who dug the foundation, mixed the mortar, and laid the bricks of it.

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 8:06 PM

” 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.”

Why is the denial of funding not a violation of religious freedom. Please Explain this. Do Catholics have to pay the taxes that will fund the adoption and foster care services in the state of Illinois. So what you are telling me is this. The government has the right to put a gun to my head and take my tax money. Money I could easily have donated to the Castholic Church to fund foster care and adoption services.

Having taken that money and denied me the right to fund the care I wished they then refuse to allow my Church to operate unless they alter their religious beliefs. Excuse me but where the F@#$#@ H@#$ do you get protecting my religious freedom from this.

The answer is that if this problem violates free speach on either side then the government cannot be involved in Foster Care and Adoption services. Lord knows the Catholoic Charities do a better job than any state level aparatchik flunky.

Individualist on December 30, 2011 at 8:11 PM

Just to follow up on my earlier comment, there are approximately half a million bastards in the State of Maryland. And by calling them bastards, I mean no disrespect. From personal experience, I don’t think the name really matters. What matters, for most of them, is that they wish their father was dead.

And so, I, for one, am glad that the Gay community is ready to shoulder their share of this burden. I hope they are ready, but honestly I doubt it. Many have been shouldering and lifting for decades, so…welcome to the Work!

But, if this is nothing more than an effort to pressure some craven cowardly Legislators to recognize You, at the expense of Them (the bastards), then I believe you have earned (along with the Legislators) an extended period of time in an infernally Hot Place.

Herald of Woe on December 30, 2011 at 8:17 PM

What a surprise. Someone who is obsessed with the thought that everyone is a bigot and hates them sees bigots everywhere they turn.

I’d feel sorry for you, trapped in a prison of fear; however, as I learned a long time ago, invariably you were the one who dug the foundation, mixed the mortar, and laid the bricks of it. – northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 8:06 PM

No, I live in the real world. What world do you live in? Now tell us all how great it is to be gay in a straight world. You lie about your sexuality. You are a very poor liar. I thought true Christians were supposed to tell the truth.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 8:23 PM

Gay people have it easy compared to children who were literally and physically abandoned by their parents.

Herald of Woe on December 30, 2011 at 8:27 PM

No, I live in the real world. What world do you live in? Now tell us all how great it is to be gay in a straight world. You lie about your sexuality. You are a very poor liar. I thought true Christians were supposed to tell the truth.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 8:23 PM

You think I lie?

Click away on my bloglink.

But that’s typical. Poor, desperate gays like yourself, so wanting to blame everyone else for their problems, so wanting to whine and cry and be victims and have big momma government take care of them because they’re so helpless. When a gay person comes along and refuses to play victim, they have to shut that person up and shut them up quick, before it derails the gravy train.

Not surprising. The first response of those who stay on the plantation to those who walk off is to deny that they belong. Conservative black people get called Uncle Toms and race traitors; for gays and lesbians, there are always people like you there to insist that they’re lying about their sexual orientation and that they’re not really gay.

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 8:30 PM

Dear Individualist,

While I (a non-Catholic Christian) sympathize with your position, let’s try a little thought experiment along the lines of *reductio ad absurdum*. (While not a valid debate strategy, it’s often a useful device for getting to the kernel of the nut of an issue.)

Suppose an organization we’ll hypothetically call Islam Shariat had set up shop in Chicago a decade or two back. They provide adoption services, but they only place children with couples who have pleged to follow the strictest interpretations of Sharia, including female circumcision and turning a blind eye to “honor killings” of teenage girls who hold hands with their boyfriends. (Yes, I’m sure CC is willing to place children with Protestant couples.)

Would you be comfortable with your tax dollars going to fund them?

I’m not sure I would.

skydaddy on December 30, 2011 at 8:31 PM

Gay people have it easy compared to children who were literally and physically abandoned by their parents. – Herald of Woe on December 30, 2011 at 8:27 PM

True, but there is a subset to your “children who are literally and physically abandoned by their parents.” There are children, mostly teenagers, who are kicked-out of their home because they are found to be gay by their parents.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 8:35 PM

True, but there is a subset to your “children who are literally and physically abandoned by their parents.” There are children, mostly teenagers, who are kicked-out of their home because they are found to be gay by their parents.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 8:35 PM

I’d venture that that is VERY small subset. Tragic, certainly. But certainly far fewer than the number of children placed into loving two-parent heterosexual homes by CC over the years.

skydaddy on December 30, 2011 at 8:42 PM

I am with the church on this. The state is forceing them to deny who they are and what they stand for. Better to shut down then become something you are not or are against.

mechkiller_k on December 29, 2011 at 9:39 PM

I know I’m a bit late on this one, but… The irony! It burns!

powerfactor on December 30, 2011 at 8:42 PM

Dear Skydaddy

Your thought expiremnt has a flaw in it. Islamic militiants can no more engage in Honor killing than can Satanists engage in human sacrifice. There are clear lines drawn in that regard that have been tested in the courts prior to this so how can this have any bearing on this.

As to the issue of female circumcism I don’t have enough knowledge. Now if your point is that an Islamic woman should be allowed to give their child to a charity run by a Mosque so that the child can be raised in a family of like minded Muslims. So be it. It is not my prerogitive to stop them whether they are using tax money or not.

But you seem to miss the whole point of my post. That is the fact that “The State Has No Business Being Involved in Foster Care or Adoption Services To Begin With”. The courts have a place in family law when legal disputes arise but the government involving itself in controlling this and executing it is Wrong and Unnecessary.

P.S. >I used fist letter capitalization to add emphasis without appearing to be yelling

Individualist on December 30, 2011 at 8:45 PM

The following is from North Dallas Thirty’s blog on HotAir. Why are you so bitter towards gays North Dallas?

Blogger Emma said…

I always wonder at folks who write entire blogs just to stick it to the gays, or folks who write entire blogs just to stick it to any particular group of people, I suppose. Seems a little… obsessive… or something. But I guess you haven’t been keeping it up much lately so maybe you’ve since moved on to other occupations.

4:39 PM
Blogger North Dallas Thirty said…

That’s odd, Emma; I don’t wonder at all at the behavior of backstabbing cowards like yourself who promote and push irresponsible behavior and promiscuity simply to pander. – North Dallas Thirty blog

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 8:51 PM

Would you be comfortable with your tax dollars going to fund them?

I’m not sure I would.

skydaddy on December 30, 2011 at 8:31 PM

I definitely would not and this is one reason why I have a problem with such entanglements between religious groups and the State. It’s not just public dollars going to groups I may find objectionable but also government control over religious groups which I also dislike.

JohnAGJ on December 30, 2011 at 8:56 PM

Not surprising. The first response of those who stay on the plantation to those who walk off is to deny that they belong EXIST.
northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 8:30 PM

Hey ndt, this is NOT a correction or FIFY.
This is a slight alteration by me, of your 8:30 PM post, and now presented for your (and everyone else’s) critique.

listens2glenn on December 30, 2011 at 9:05 PM

The following is from North Dallas Thirty’s blog on HotAir. Why are you so bitter towards gays North Dallas?

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 8:51 PM

Call me crazy, but I have no interest in supporting a community whose leadership rants about people causing suicides, then calls for the death of all Republicans on national TV.

Your social cluelessness is beautifully demonstrated by your shrieking about how mean Catholics, Christians, and conservatives are even as you wish for them to die.

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 9:08 PM

Don’t forget, this is the same gay leadership that rants and screams about respect, then deliberately tries to sicken and harm Republicans, conservatives, and Christians.

And for any Catholics who think pandering to gays is going to solve the problem, you’re in for a rude surprise.

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 9:16 PM

Call me crazy, but I have no interest in supporting a community whose leadership rants about people causing suicides, then calls for the death of all Republicans on national TV.

Your social cluelessness is beautifully demonstrated by your shrieking about how mean Catholics, Christians, and conservatives are even as you wish for them to die. – northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 9:08 PM

I will let Emma speak for me. She nailed you perfectly, Blogger Emama: “I always wonder at folks who write entire blogs just to stick it to the gays, or folks who write entire blogs just to stick it to any particular group of people, I suppose. Seems a little… obsessive… or something. But I guess you haven’t been keeping it up much lately so maybe you’ve since moved on to other occupations.”

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 9:17 PM

Hey ndt, this is NOT a correction or FIFY.

This is a slight alteration by me, of your 8:30 PM post, and now presented for your (and everyone else’s) critique.

listens2glenn on December 30, 2011 at 9:05 PM

I think that’s a better word.

Ironically, both the extreme antigay bigots and the gay and lesbian community want to deny that gays who don’t feel like victims exist.

My type threaten both sides’s gravy trains.

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 9:17 PM

I will let Emma speak for me. She nailed you perfectly, Blogger Emama: “I always wonder at folks who write entire blogs just to stick it to the gays, or folks who write entire blogs just to stick it to any particular group of people, I suppose.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 9:17 PM

Actually, she didn’t — as anyone who has actually read my blog in any detail would know.

But she didn’t read it, and neither did you, so now you both look like desperate fools trying to attack someone who ruins your poor-widdle-me stories.

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 9:20 PM

John and Individualist, thanks for reasoned responses.

Regarding “The State Has No Business Being Involved in Foster Care or Adoption Services To Begin With,” I disagree.

The State (aka society sans anarchy) has a strong interest in strong families, because strong families serve the interests of society. Absent a State interest (i.e. control) of foster care and adoption, what would stop the selling of children into slavery?

While there is certainly strong evidence that adoptive children in two-parent, heterosexual, married homes do best, I’m not aware of evidence that children raised by stable homosexual couples suffer significantly. (Disclaimer – I have a grand-niece with “two mommies”.)

Therefore, CC’s objection to placing children in gay homes has no basis in sociological data, but only in their religious convictions (to which they are entitled.)

For that reason, I think that this court decision is misguided.

I further think that is CC had a spine they would continue to operate without state funding *for the sake of the children*.

skydaddy on December 30, 2011 at 9:23 PM

My type threaten both sides’s gravy trains.
northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 9:17 PM

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh
(my type as well, but let’s just keep that to ourselves because I don’t want to be persecuted)

listens2glenn on December 30, 2011 at 9:28 PM

I further think that is CC had a spine they would continue to operate without state funding *for the sake of the children*.

skydaddy on December 30, 2011 at 9:23 PM

Well I know that the LCMS Lutherans, who agree completely with the Catholic Church about gay couples adopting children, did arrange things to comply with the law and continue operations through Lutheran Child and Family Services of Illinois. I don’t really have a problem with that because regardless of the religious affliation of the group they are complying with the state law to receive public dollars.

From the LCFS website:

LCFS works with members of any religious group. LCFS’ eligibility guidelines follow those of Illinois Department of Children and Family Services. There are no requirements regarding marriage, divorce, religion, upper age of parents or number of children. We do not require documentation of infertility. Single people may adopt.

JohnAGJ on December 30, 2011 at 9:42 PM

The State (aka society sans anarchy) has a strong interest in strong families, because strong families serve the interests of society. Absent a State interest (i.e. control) of foster care and adoption, what would stop the selling of children into slavery?
skydaddy on December 30, 2011 at 9:23 PM

I certainly agree with your point about strong families serving the best interests of a ‘society sans anarchy’, but I don’t concede that govt oversite is needed to prevent abuse of adopted children.
Nobody has to agree with me on this, but I believe NGOs
(non-government organizations) ALWAYS do a superior job of providing social services, of all types and kinds.

BTW, thanks for using the word ‘anarchy‘. It has practically been stripped from the American vocabulary.
Our dominant “Journalist Culture” has replaced it with the word ‘violence’ in all instances where ‘anarchy’ should be used.

listens2glenn on December 30, 2011 at 9:50 PM

Skydaddy

First off let’s assume this fact as placed in the article is accurate

“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.”

CC can’t operate because the government wpon’t let them. As to the hyperbolie that without the state children would be sold into slavery let’s be clear. I am stating that the government should not be in the business of foster care or adoption. That should be provided by private charities. Now I would not be adverse to some funding of private charities by a local government but I don’t believe it is beneficial for the government to be involved.

This is because the government’s are dictatorial in nature. I have a friend who is a right wing christian who works for me. Some people did not like his politics so they made a complaint to the DCF in Florida. He was investigated for three months and the agent talked to people he worked with in the office and at the church where he was a youth councelor. It was nuts!

But that is beyond the point. Whether we accept that being gay is normal or not we should accept that a woman who placed her child up for adoption should have the right to place it with an agency that will find a family that agrees with her moral perspective. A Muslim could go to an Islamic charity, a Chrtistian to a Christian and a Progressive to a Secular one as they see fit. These charities being varied would offer many differences in how they place children on a whole range of issues and not just who is Gay.

This is fair and best because it is a free market. So long as the state funded every charity equally then tax monies applied would be fair as well although I for one don’t want an y government involvement.

What Illinois is doing is saying “we have decided that onlyh people who agree with our ideology should be allowed to have an adoption service and we will effectively ban other that do not pass out political litmus test.” This has been done before, by Leninists, Stalnists, Nazi’s and Italian Black Shirts. It is the hallmark of Fascism. IT is supported by Utopians that follow Plato’s Republic and think everything should be ruled by elite guardians that are “bettter suited to rule”.

Beyond that consider this. A charity has an issue with a pedofile. If it is a private charity then the government will be first to investigate as they are independent of the private agency. IF the same pedofile is a government employee then now there is a political reason to sweep the issue under the rug. Government cannot do its job as police and courts if it is involved.

Just my thoughts.

Individualist on December 30, 2011 at 9:54 PM

Actually, she didn’t — as anyone who has actually read my blog in any detail would know.

But she didn’t read it, and neither did you, so now you both look like desperate fools trying to attack someone who ruins your poor-widdle-me stories. – northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 9:20 PM

Good Lord, do you read your own blog?

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 9:59 PM

I further think that is CC had a spine they would continue to operate without state funding *for the sake of the children*.

skydaddy on December 30, 2011 at 9:23 PM

Agreed. By closing-up-shop, they’re either making themselves look weak (unable to function without govt support), or making themselves appear to be ‘like a little kid throwing a temper tantrum.’
My wife, children, and myself have been the beneficiaries of Catholic Charities in the past. But we don’t belong to the Catholic Church.
They’re a good organization, so I don’t understand why they don’t continue ‘sans government support.’

listens2glenn on December 30, 2011 at 10:01 PM

Good Lord, do you read your own blog?

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 9:59 PM

Yes. Far more than you have, clearly.

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 10:02 PM

Beyond that consider this. A charity has an issue with a pedofile. If it is a private charity then the government will be first to investigate as they are independent of the private agency. IF the same pedofile is a government employee then now there is a political reason to sweep the issue under the rug. Government cannot do its job as police and courts if it is involved.
Just my thoughts.
Individualist on December 30, 2011 at 9:54 PM

WOW.
I’ve already presented my belief that NGOs (private charities)
always do a better job of providing social services, but THAT is a ‘legal-angle’ I never thought of before.
Kudos, man (or girl). : )

listens2glenn on December 30, 2011 at 10:08 PM

Yes. Far more than you have, clearly. – northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 10:02 PM

As Colonel Potter on MASH would say, Horse-hockey.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 10:13 PM

The RCC scandal involved allegedly celibate men who raped children. Gay-married men don’t appear to pose a threat on a comparable scale. Perhaps it is safer to have childcare-givers who have adult sexual relations and know how to keep it away from kids.

OptionsTrader on December 30, 2011 at 3:21 PM

The fact remains: they were gay. And the scale of threat is far greater with a gay couple than with a heterosexual.

Similarly, Lenderking et al. (1997) found that 36% of the gay and bisexual men participating in a health clinic study reported a childhood sexual encounter before age 16 with an older person.

[insert here picture of male toddler dressed in domination gear at a gay pride parade]

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 10:15 PM

[insert here picture of male toddler dressed in domination gear at a gay pride parade]

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 10:15 PM

And don’t forget what I posted last night.

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.

I mean, seriously. This is a leader of the gay and lesbian community openly stating before a governmental body that it is not only normal, but common in the gay and lesbian community to go after children seventeen years your junior. And not a soul is contradicting him.

Am I the only one who sees the problem here?

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 10:22 PM

As Colonel Potter on MASH would say, Horse-hockey.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 10:13 PM

Colonel Potter was a heck of a lot smarter and more prepared than you are.

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 10:24 PM

Exercising one’s freedom of conscience does not include a right to public funding for one’s livelihood or endeavors. Take Caesar’s gold and be ready to render unto him what he asks or don’t take it in the first place.

JohnAGJ on December 30, 2011 at 8:02 PM

Not true. In the United States, a medical practitioner may exercise a freedom of conscience exemption from participating in, or performing, abortions. That doesn’t stop various organizations, including governments, from demanding that said practitioners participate in abortions at the risk of their jobs. That’s one good reason for a court system — I think the win rate so far is 100%.

And, on the other side, we have that abortions do include a right to public funding, according to many states — and Obama would dearly love to have that be a federal mandate as well. So, we do have that conscience issues (including rights) may be funded out of the public till. I’m still waiting for a response from my letter to the Government requesting an 11 color process press and a very large radio station so that I may adequately exercise my Freedoms of the Press and Speech…

Now, with respect to rendering unto Caesar what he asks, we live in a democracy, and, thankfully, a democracy which allows us freedom of conscience. Which is why Catholic Charities is closing all but a few of their adoption agencies in Illinois — for Illinois, no matter what the loss to the State, cannot force them to stay open. Now, nothing stops them from running agencies across the various state borders, and nothing stops them from advocating that parents who need to give their children up for adoption take them across state lines to places more tolerant of Catholicism.

As for Illinois, good luck with the Boy Toy Adoption Agency. You’ll need it.

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 10:32 PM

I mean, seriously. This is a leader of the gay and lesbian community openly stating before a governmental body that it is not only normal, but common in the gay and lesbian community to go after children seventeen years your junior. And not a soul is contradicting him.

Am I the only one who sees the problem here?

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 10:22 PM

Apparently, in Canada, there is such an anti-gay bias that the only way a minor child can be introduced to gay sex is by means of an adult.

The statements this man is making are identical to the ones called out in the psychology abstract.

It says to me that places where young boys gather or can be dealt with privately are happy hunting grounds for the adult gay male.

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 10:36 PM

JohnAGJ on December 30, 2011 at 9:42 PM

Kind of sad, actually. I wonder what Lutherans think of their adoption agency acting as a procurement authority for gays.

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 10:38 PM

JohnAGJ on December 30, 2011 at 9:42 PM

Kind of sad, actually. I wonder what Lutherans think of their adoption agency acting as a procurement authority for gays.

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 10:38 PM

When Jerry Sandusky finally goes to trial, I’m suspecting there will be info divulged, linking Extra Mile with some adoption agencies.
Let me EMPHASIZE, there hasn’t been any such stories YET that I’m aware of.
Just a hunch, on my part.

listens2glenn on December 30, 2011 at 10:58 PM

Not true. In the United States, a medical practitioner may exercise a freedom of conscience exemption from participating in, or performing, abortions. That doesn’t stop various organizations, including governments, from demanding that said practitioners participate in abortions at the risk of their jobs. That’s one good reason for a court system — I think the win rate so far is 100%.

An exemption I have no problems supporting because it does involve freedom of conscience and said medical practitioners are not receiving public dollars to perform abortions, then selectively or altogether refusing to perform them. That’s not the same as with CC contracting with the state and collecting taxdollars to perform adoptions, but only as it chooses to.

And, on the other side, we have that abortions do include a right to public funding, according to many states — and Obama would dearly love to have that be a federal mandate as well.

Probably. I disagree strongly with such views, as I do with the whole entitlement mentality. No program/group has a right to public dollars. None. Any program/group that does receive such dollars do so because elected officials and their backers support giving such money to them, and these programs/groups agree to comply with all applicable laws. On a related note, if I had my way there would be zero public dollars going to pay for abortions.

Now, with respect to rendering unto Caesar what he asks, we live in a democracy, and, thankfully, a democracy which allows us freedom of conscience.

Indeed we do. This includes all those who do not agree with you or I as well as those you and I would ourselves would disagree with. Yet with freedom comes responsibility, which in this particular case means complying with state law in order to receive public dollars. No one is forcing CC to draw on taxdollars. They are free to turn away whomever they please but not while being paid by the public for their services.

As for Illinois, good luck with the Boy Toy Adoption Agency. You’ll need it.

Well this explains much. However, I’m not from Illinois.

JohnAGJ on December 30, 2011 at 11:55 PM

Kind of sad, actually. I wonder what Lutherans think of their adoption agency acting as a procurement authority for gays.

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 10:38 PM

I have no doubt that some LCMS Lutherans would agree 100% with your sentiments here, while others of them along with most ELCA Lutherans would not. Feel free to commiserate with whichever group you wish. Both will have cookies and coffee in the narthex.

JohnAGJ on December 30, 2011 at 11:58 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7