The defence of marriage issue: my take

Post Reply New Topic

You're the one who is "quite frankly naive."

What Pandabear said.
Now, Please, Please get back to gay marriage!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

It is not naive. It is supported by a basic knowledge of history and the law of this country. Even in New York today, you can agitate against interracial marriage, or you can be a church that refuses to marry black-white couples, without running afoul of any law. The legal right to be a hateful bigot is well-established and is not going anywhere anytime soon. Additionally, virtually no one is seeking to change that fact. When I was younger, a neo-Nazi white supremacist group in my area wanted to hold a rally in a predominantly black neighborhood. Liberals, including Jews, wrote in to the newspapers vigorously defending their right to spout their hateful garbage in a public forum. If I recall correctly, they eventually cancelled the rally when the police didn't agree to come with them as bodyguards- apparently they were too cowardly to stand on their own.

Actually there is an example already in another state that contradicts your statements.

ROCKFORD, Illinois, May 30, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Catholic Diocese of Rockford, IL announced the closing of their adoption agencies last week, forced out of service due to new legislation that would oblige them to service homosexual couples.



Catholic Charities of Illinois has been in business for more than 100 years, providing adoption and foster-care homes to hundreds of children. Currently, the Diocese handles approximately 350 foster family and adoption cases in 11 counties in northern Illinois with a state budget of $7.5 million and 58 workers who will now no longer have jobs.



The Diocese announced that the agency is being forced to opt out of contracting with the State of Illinois for these services because of the Illinois legislature’s failure to enact an explicit amendment to the new Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act. The amendment failed despite the efforts of Catholic Charities directors and the lobbying efforts of the Catholic Conference of Illinois.



The amendment would have allowed Catholic Charities to refer unmarried, cohabitating couples, whether same-sex or opposite sex, to other agencies so as to not violate the teachings of the Catholic faith when the Civil Unions law goes into effect on June 1.



“Catholic Charities and other religious agencies implored the State of Illinois to allow their agencies to refer such couples to other adoption and foster care agencies so as to not violate the moral teachings of their faith,” said Penny Wiegert, diocesan director of communication. “Tragically, that did not happen.”



“Because of this failure and the anticipated legal challenges it will present to our free exercise of religion, the Diocese of Rockford is forced to discontinue all state-funded adoption and foster care operations,” Wiegert said.



Catholic adoptions in Illinois may take a different form in the future and the Diocese will report as the process evolves.



“Legally, albeit emotionally painful, we determined this was the right decision to make for the moral and financial future of the Diocese of Rockford,” said Ellen B. Lynch, general counsel for the Rockford Diocese.



“The law of our land has always guaranteed its people freedom of religion. Denying this exemption to faith-based agencies leads one to believe that our lawmakers prefer laws that guarantee freedom from religion,” Wiegert said. “We simply can not compromise the spirit that motivates us to deliver quality, professional services to families by letting our state define our religious teachings.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2727763/posts

So to all of you who claim there won't be religious discrimination, if you make this claim again, you will quite frankly be lieing, because it is already happening in Illinois.

You specifically claimed that there would be persecution of churches that refused to perform marriages for gays. Adoption is a separate issue. This is a red herring.

As to the Catholic adoption service, that was taxpayer-funded according to your own source. Already that's stretching allowable boundaries quite a bit- religious groups should not be receiving state funds at all. Any group that does receive state funds has to agree to play by the government's rules, and that puts religious groups in conflict sometimes, hence why religious organizations should keep as far away from government money as possible. This case seems to be simply an example in favor of separation of church and state. If they accepted no taxpayer funds, I suspect they would still be permitted to discriminate against gay foster/adoptive parents.

Typical of your intellectual dishonesty, Inuyasha.

The church does not have the authority to create parent-child relationships through adoption. The power to do so rests solely and entirely with the courts of the relevant jurisdiction. Catholic charities act to support a civil procedure.

This is wholly different from vesting the church with the power to create a legal, spousal relationship.

I'm not the one being dishonest and here is why, these Catholic groups were perfectly willing to direct these "same sex" couples to other groups that would be perfectly willing to help them through the adoption process, however under their Catholic beliefs they could not in good conscious help them personally.

Or how about a situation where the orphan is from a Catholic family, should we say that a catholic group can't see to it that the child ends up in a Catholic home, simply because of their religious beliefs concerning homosexuality?

The 1st Amendment includes freedom of religion and freedom of speech, it does not mean freedom from religion and supression of speech.

"Freedom from religion" is a part of "freedom of religion." The right to choose your religion includes the right to choose none at all. No one was suppressing the Catholic group's speech.

The Catholic group was taking taxpayer funds. That means they have to play ball if they want to keep receiving that money. They should never have gotten themselves into that situation in the first place.

So you're saying that people shouldn't have the same rights as other people simply because they are Catholic? Cause quite frankly, you are saying that they either have to give up their religious beliefs or they can't participate in helping kids. Thank you for showing why I consider many liberals to be bigots.

I think you really know Orwell isn't saying that.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

No, he is not saying that , at all.

It seems that lately you are not even bothering to even read what other people post before reacting to them.

No. Where the hell have I ever said that? I said that religious groups should not accept taxpayer money, as doing so is just going to lead to trouble and blur the separation of church and state. This adoption service was taking government funds; that means they have to follow secular rules regardless of their religion says.

Let's say I belonged to the FLDS church and wanted to start an adoption service funded by taxpayer money. Would you be okay with me placing children in polygamous households and refusing to consider black foster parents, all while using taxpayer money to pay for it?

Is Marriage under attack, that it needs to be defended?

As far as I know people can get married if they want to. There is no law against it.

ruveyn

[img][800:1542]http://www.arionshome.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/gaymarriagechart-large.png[/img]
http://www.arionshome.com/wp-content/up ... -large.png

Shoddy, shoddy work, relying on, "separate but equal," again.

When you deliver a public service on behalf of government you check your conscience at the door. The agency that receives public money provides service to all citizens who may legally seek it. Period. The church is free to apply its conscience to its services when it is is delivering a religious service to those who seek it.

Who can attend mass? The church's decision. Who can be baptised, confirmed, married, ordained or absolved? Again, the church's decision.

But adoption services are not religious services, and so they are fundamentally different from marriage.



Actually, I think you will find that most adoption law favours placing adoptive children in homes that are culturally consistent with the child's birth parents. But that is a decision of civil law.



Actually, I think you will find that "freedom from religion" is as neat a summary of the non-establishment clause as you might want. When a person of any religious faith delivers a publicly funded service, there can be no religious test for access to that service.

As for suppression of speech, where has that occurred? When has any Church held its tongue when it perceives its rights and privilege to be threatened?

When Bush put church based charities on the government dole through his faith based initiatives (handing out billions of tax dollars) those orgs agreed to certain rules. At the time some christian leaders and charities argued against accepting the government money because it would curtail their freedom to preach their views through these charities.

So the bill came due. Life is funny like that.