BRITAIN: Catholic Adoption Agency Must Serve Gay Couples

BRITAIN: Catholic Adoption Agency Must Serve Gay Couples

Britain's charity regulatory commission has ruled that the Catholic Care adoption agency must serve gay couples. The agency had demanded that it be exempt from the nation's anti-discrimination laws.

Catholic Care, a charity in Leeds, northern England, had argued that as a religious group it should be allowed to offer adoption-support services only to heterosexuals. It said its funding from the Roman Catholic church was dependent on its policy of helping only married heterosexual couples to adopt. In March, it won a High Court appeal of the original decision in the case, but in a final ruling Britain's Charity Commission said the group's policy was discriminatory and breached European human rights laws. The commission ordered the group to either cease its work to place children with adoptive parents or to abide by equality laws — meaning it would need to consider gay couples as prospective parents. "The charity is very disappointed with the outcome, Catholic Care will now consider whether there is any other way in which the charity can continue to support families seeking to adopt children in need," the group said in a statement.

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/08/britain-catholic-adoption-agency-must.html

Stephanie Miller was crying that after the MA state decision to allow gays to marry the Catholic adoption agency had to go out of business. Why? The Catholic adoption agency refused to adopt to gay couples.

Let's see what happens in Britain.

The more the Catholic Church takes a 'refuse to do business here' approach to places that legalize gay marriage, the more they hurt their own influence, and long term health.

They're going to have to give in eventually when they realize it's a lost cause, just like they did in their fight against divorce centuries ago.

that the bottom line is the loss of $$$$ it is after all a business for them.

He's also a longtime professional Anti-Gay (but you could guess that). I watched the "debate," and while I can't fault Kamala Harris (or Stephanie Miller, who, while I like her, was entirely ineffectual that night) for not jumping on Prager's blatant falsehood, I wish one of them had.

My purpose isn't to hijack or self-plug, but I take every opportunity to get the truth out about this Catholic Charities nonsense, because the professional Anti-Gays still repeat it constantly, and their dutiful, mindless minions (read any "Mormon Mommy Blog" that has ever touched on SSM) continue to "catapult the propaganda" all over the Web.

From my own oft-cited "Six Big Lies the Freedom-Haters Are Spreading About Proposition 8," August 30, 2008, which ticks off the "consequences" of failing to pass Prop H8, as regurgitated by the anti-gays:

3. Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston has already closed its doors because of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

This is a multiple-pronged lie. Starting with the second sentence first:

Catholic Charities of Boston did not “close its doors” at all; it is still very much in existence. ... Its Web site boasts:

As one of the largest providers of social services in Massachusetts, Catholic Charities responds to the needs of the poor and working poor, provides supportive services to children and families, and assists refugees and immigrants as they become active participants in their communities. We offer approximately 140 programs and services in 40 locations across Eastern Massachusetts, which allows us to help nearly 200,000 people each year.

Catholic Charities of Boston chose to end its adoption work (and only its adoption work) in 2006 — and not “because of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts,” but because it refused to “comply with state law requiring that gays be allowed to adopt children.”

That law — passed by the the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in 1993 — had nothing to do with the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. (Nor did the ruling in Adoption of Tammy, in which the court ruled that a lesbian couple could adopt a child, based on the fact that “(n)othing in the provisions of the adoption statute, G. L. c. 210, precludes the joint adoption of a child by two unmarried individuals.” Not “two gay individuals,” but “two unmarried individuals.”)

Gay couples didn’t “win” the right to adopt via marriage in 2004; they were recognized as equal to all other unmarried adoptive parents, in 1993 — a decade before same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts.

What’s more: In reality, it was not pressure from the state but from the Vatican that triggered Catholic Charities’ decision to end its adoption work:

The controversy began in October when the (Boston) Globe reported that Catholic Charities had been quietly processing a small number of gay adoptions, despite Vatican statements condemning the practice. Over the last decades, the Globe reported, approximately 13 children had been placed by Catholic Charities in gay households, a fraction of the 720 children placed by the agency during that period.

Agency officials said they had been permitting gay adoptions to comply with the state’s antidiscrimination laws. But after the story was published, the state’s four bishops announced they would appoint a panel to examine whether the practice should continue. In December, the Catholic Charities board, which is dominated by lay people, voted unanimously to continue gay adoptions.

But, on Feb. 28, the four bishops announced a plan to seek an exemption from the antidiscrimination laws. Eight of the 42 board members quit in protest, saying the agency should welcome gays as adoptive parents.

That day, (Rev. J. Bryan Hehir, president of Catholic Charities of Boston] and in his State House office to make their case for an exemption, but Romney said he lacked the authority to do so. Hehir and O’Malley left the State House feeling that nothing could be done soon for their cause. The bishops had considered launching a court challenge, but Hehir said he and O’Malley realized it would cost “too much time and energy” — without any certainty of victory.

“It became clear our options were narrow,” Hehir said.

Dale Carpenter puts the entire matter into perspective:

The most egregious abuse of (examples of the ‘collision’ of … ‘equal treatment for same-sex couples’ and ‘the freedom to exercise religious beliefs’) to undermine gay marriage is the Catholic Charities case, which involved the application of a 1989 antidiscrimination law. That dispute arose because the Catholic Church objected to complying with the law for the first time only after gay marriage was permitted in the state. It was a fortuitously timed conflict for gay-marriage opponents given that the state legislature was at that very moment considering a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

As for California, all unmarried prospective parents are subject to the Uniform Parentage Act...

<snip>

More at the link, including sources.

Beyond that, we've heard this non-argument before: "Look what gay marriage has led to in (the U.K. / Canada / wherever)! Don't let freedom of religion be destroyed here! Stop gay marriage!!!11!1111!1" The Prop H8ers most often used Massachusetts as an example of how "gay marriage leads to teaching schoolchildren about gay sex" (or at least teaching them that "gay marriage is OK"; see Big Lie #1), even though 1) it didn't, and 2) even if it had, Mass. law has no bearing on Calif. law. And they love to point to various U.K. laws and Canadian laws re "religious freedom" (or, in their minds, lack of), even though no law in any other country has any bearing on U.S. law.

Speech finished. Thanks to those who read this far for listening. It's important counter-ammunition to just one of their big, big lies.

And I hope that someday somebody has the opportunity to enlighten Dennis Prager with it.

interesting