Another casualty of the gay agenda --- Catholic Charities of Boston

[Nuc]

Listen......listen.......

Do you hear it?

Shhh.....listen.

That's the sound of the ACLU knocking on the door offering to represent them.

And where the ACLU treads, NAMBLA is never far behind! Hey, NAMBLA....now we know what this brouhaha is all about. NAMBLA wants to adopt Catholic children and turn them into sex slaves. And the ACLU is going to help them do it!

 

[MissileMan]

And where the ACLU treads, NAMBLA is never far behind! Hey, NAMBLA....now we know what this brouhaha is all about. NAMBLA wants to adopt Catholic children and turn them into sex slaves. And the ACLU is going to help them do it!

A top ten post! Congratulations!

 

[KarlMarx]

That's what I read also, but there seems to be a few here that think the church should be exempt from the law.

MM.... read my cyber lips..... the Massachussets law VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT!!!!!

And the Diocese of Boston isn't breaking the law. It asked for an exemption based on moral grounds.... like a conscientious objecter does during war time. When it didn't get the exemption, it obeyed the law both of the State of Massachussetts and of the Catholic Church.

Of course, the Catholic Church should sue the State of Massachussets for violating its First Amendment rights.

If Massachusssets passed a law that barred women from voting or reinsituted slavery, should everyone follow it? By your line of thinking the answer is "yes.. and gladly!!!!"

 

[KarlMarx]

If it's part of your religion to house the orphan, an adoption agency isn't the sole way of doing that. Besides, if "religion" is going to be a legally binding excuse to do whatever you want in opposition to the law, then you're going to be opening all kinds of flood gates.

Look, I don't really care if the Catholic Church wants to discriminate against whoever they want with their adoption agencies. But give me a break, no one's religious rights are being infringed upon. It's stupid the state (or whoever it is) is making a stink about it, but let's not be rediculous in response.

Just like no one's rights were being infringed upon when the diocese of Boston barred gay couples from adopting through them. The gay couples could have gone to another agency....

If some lawyer for NARAL gets a idea they can use this as a precedent to for Catholic Hospitals to perform abortions (after all, it's a "right")... then the Church will be forced to close its hospitals...

Nice going!!!!!

 

[Mr. P]

In the two decades since it's been a licensed state adoption agency, Catholic Charities of Boston has placed a tiny number of children with gay parents: 13 of 720 adoptions.

I don’t blame the State or the Church; I blame the extreme Right wing anti gay bible thumpers for this one. You know the ones that want you to live as “they” say you should live. They care so much ya know. IMO That's who you need to thank, Karl.

 

[MissileMan]

MM.... read my cyber lips..... the Massachussets law VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT!!!!!

And the Diocese of Boston isn't breaking the law. It asked for an exemption based on moral grounds.... like a conscientious objecter does during war time. When it didn't get the exemption, it obeyed the law both of the State of Massachussetts and of the Catholic Church.

Of course, the Catholic Church should sue the State of Massachussets for violating its First Amendment rights.

If Massachusssets passed a law that barred women from voting or reinsituted slavery, should everyone follow it? By your line of thinking the answer is "yes.. and gladly!!!!"

The Catholic Church is neither guaranteed the right to run an orphanage nor the right to violate state laws it doesn't agree with by the 1st Amendment.

 

[Annie]

The Catholic Church is neither gauranteed the right to run an orphanage nor the right to violate state laws it doesn't agree with by the 1st Amendment.

I agree with Karl, this leads to forcing abortions, so the Catholic Church should preempt and close all their hospitals.

 

[GotZoom]

It's very obvious that Massachusetts is more concerned about gay couples than they are orphaned children.

 

[Abbey Normal]

It's very obvious that Massachusetts is more concerned about gay couples than they are orphaned children.

Not really surprising, is it.

 

[KarlMarx]

I don’t blame the State or the Church; I blame the extreme Right wing anti gay bible thumpers for this one. You know the ones that want you to live as “they” say you should live. They care so much ya know. IMO That's who you need to thank, Karl.

How about blaming an extremely vocal, politically aggressive minority whose leadership doesn't care a whit about advancing human dignity but its own power? That's not the extreme right wing. Most people in this country think homosexuality is wrong. They think that gay marriage is wrong. Many think gay adoption is wrong. Those beliefs aren't extreme, those beliefs are main stream.

No one is saying gays shouldn't sleep with gays here. It's the State of Massachussets saying "you can't exercise your conscience, you aren't entitled to the protections that the First Amendment guarantees"

This is the same state whose judiciary ORDERED its legislature to legalize gay marriage!!!!! If that wasn't an unconstitutional power grab, what is?

The government of a state is now deciding on its own that parts of the US Constitution are valid.

Remember what happened two years ago in New Paltz, New York and in San Francisco? The officials of those places took the law into their own hands and started marrying gays... in violation of their respective states' laws. And to make matters worse, the voters of the State of California decided to ban gay marriage in a state referendum some years before!!!!

So what kind of society are we supposed to become to accomodate gays? One where the judiciary oversteps its Constitutionally mandated powers, one where States decide which part of the Constitution they will decide to uphold and one where the executive branch of any jurisdiction breaks the law whenever it wants to? That's not the kind of world I want to live in. And if we keep going down that path just to correct some perceived injustice, eventually we'll all find ourselves living in a police state or in total anarchy.

If gays want to adopt, fine, let the voters decide. But not at the expense of First Amendment rights.

If there is a bible thumping bunch of right wing extremists that want to overthrow the government, they're doing a pretty lousy job letting gays just get away with all that crap! The fact is that there isn't a well organized right wing bible thumping cabal wielding great power as you seem to think, otherwise, there would be forced prayer in school, abortion would be illegal, gays would not be allowed to parade themselves in their pink tutus down Main Street USA...

 

[KarlMarx]

The Catholic Church is neither guaranteed the right to run an orphanage nor the right to violate state laws it doesn't agree with by the 1st Amendment.

So if Massachussets decides to outlaw Jews... or that they aren't entitled to practice their religion, or vote, or own property... that's OK too... after all it's the law....

What if the Church were ordered by the state to violate the privacy of the confessional? What then? Should they comply?

BTW... the Church broke the law during World War II by helping Jews escape persecution... did they do wrong?

 

[MissileMan]

So if Massachussets decides to outlaw Jews... or that they aren't entitled to practice their religion, or vote, or own property... that's OK too... after all it's the law....

What if the Church were ordered by the state to violate the privacy of the confessional? What then? Should they comply?

BTW... the Church broke the law during World War II by helping Jews escape persecution... did they do wrong?

How about sticking to examples that are reasonable? Massachusets did not outlaw Catholicism. They didn't make a law that says Catholics have to let gays adopt. They passed a law that says adoption agencies can't discriminate based on sexual orientation. If the Catholic churxh wants to operate an adoption agency they have to follow the same rules as any other agency.

 

[deaddude]

It's very obvious that Massachusetts is more concerned about gay couples than they are orphaned children.

One could make the claim that those states who seek to ban gay couples from adopting are guilty of the same crime.

 

[manu1959]

One could make the claim that those states who seek to ban gay couples from adopting are guilty of the same crime.

if the queen had balls she would be king

 

[deaddude]

if the queen had balls she would be king

I do not understand your response. What I meant was that states banning gay couples from adopting are obviously more concerned that gays do not get a child, then they are that a child gets a home.

 

[manu1959]

I do not understand your response. What I meant was that states banning gay couples from adopting are obviously more concerned that gays do not get a child, then they are that a child gets a home.

then we are even......it does not mean that........it means they do not belive that a gay home is appropriate for adoption.....

 

[deaddude]

...and that if a gay couple were the only people available to adopt a child, then that child is denied a potential home.

 

[KarlMarx]

How about sticking to examples that are reasonable? Massachusets did not outlaw Catholicism. They didn't make a law that says Catholics have to let gays adopt. They passed a law that says adoption agencies can't discriminate based on sexual orientation. If the Catholic churxh wants to operate an adoption agency they have to follow the same rules as any other agency.

I use hyperbole to illustrate where your logic leads. The Catholic Church is uniquely obligated to observe both civil and ecclesiastical law.

Massachusetts forces the Church to choose between observing the law or their faith. Since the law prohibits the Church from freely exercising their faith, it violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

If the law instead required all hospitals to perform abortions, a similar situation again would arise for the Church. The Church would be forced to close its hospitals and deny care to those who need it.

In both examples, i.e. the real case involving orphanages, and the imaginary one involving hospitals, no good is accomplished.

Both cases underscore a serious flaw in the Left’s world view. The Left does not accommodate any compromise. In the case involving adoption agencies, the Left believed that not even one adoption agency can turn away gays. So, to achieve this, they passed a law that forces the closure of multiple adoption agencies.

 

[MissileMan]

I use hyperbole to illustrate where your logic leads. The Catholic Church is uniquely obligated to observe both civil and ecclesiastical law.

Massachusetts forces the Church to choose between observing the law or their faith. Since the law prohibits the Church from freely exercising their faith, it violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

You keep saying this but it's BS. There is no guarantee to run an orphanage or to violate state law in the first amendment. Under your argument, we should allow muslims to operate terrorist cells and commit murder...they're just following their religious edicts.

If the law instead required all hospitals to perform abortions, a similar situation again would arise for the Church. The Church would be forced to close its hospitals and deny care to those who need it.

In both examples, i.e. the real case involving orphanages, and the imaginary one involving hospitals, no good is accomplished.

Both cases underscore a serious flaw in the Left’s world view. The Left does not accommodate any compromise. In the case involving adoption agencies, the Left believed that not even one adoption agency can turn away gays. So, to achieve this, they passed a law that forces the closure of multiple adoption agencies.

If we let a Catholic Church-run adoption agency discriminate against gays today, then do we let a white supremacist owner of Wal-Mart have a waiver to discriminate against blacks next year?

 

[KarlMarx]

You keep saying this but it's BS. There is no guarantee to run an orphanage or to violate state law in the first amendment. Under your argument, we should allow muslims to operate terrorist cells and commit murder...they're just following their religious edicts.

Right, let's force all religions to accept gays whether they want to or not. As far as I know, killing people is against Islam. Where is the separation of church and state here?

If we let a Catholic Church-run adoption agency discriminate against gays today, then do we let a white supremacist owner of Wal-Mart have a waiver to discriminate against blacks next year?

White supremacism isn't a religion. It seems to me that you equate the Catholic Church to White Supremacy.