No. I believe that they should have the right to act in accordance with their own morality and not be coerced into acceptance of a state-endorsed morality .. the fact that I may find that morality reprehensible does not matter. And I would still believe that the state should not be legislating morality.
Besides, it would be nothing new for Catholics in this country.
The state legislates morality in many ways. Drug laws and prostitution laws are prime examples of legislating morality. Beyond that, even laws against rape and murder are based the moral standards that rape and murder are wrong. Non-discrimination laws may legislate morality, but in the same sense so does every other law.
There's a difference between morality and justice. All unjust things are immoral, but not all immoral things are unjust. Laws against murder and rape safeguard a just society. They are an example of one of the primary roles of the state, to protect citizens from the aggression of other citizens.
Non-discrimination laws are about justice as well. As with laws against such things as murder, theft, fraud, and trespassing; anti-discrimination laws protect citizens the from the aggressive mistreatment of other citizens.
I believe that they are. However, I think that there is more at stake here than just discrimination. The state is deciding suitability criteria based on moral agenda and politics rather than an investigation into what is really best for children.
The state is not dictating suitability criteria. The state is simply requiring state-contracted adoption services not to base suitability criteria on moral agendas and politics.
It is dictating. It's making a legislative decision that being raised by homosexual parents has no developmental impact on children when the research directed toward the question has yet to come to a conclusive conclusion. Since its not being driven by research, suitability is being determined by politics.
Exactly what then has Catholic Charities based it's policy to deny adoption services to lesbian and gay parents? As there is no evidence to show that having lesbian and gay parents would harm a child, the denial of state-contracted adoption services to lesbian and gay prospective parents is based solely on the moral agenda and politics of the Catholic Church.
Catholic Charities isn't the state. Theological and moral reasons are sufficient for its decisions about what it will and won't do, even simple private opinion is. The same cannot be said for the state.
You seem to be neglecting the fact that while Catholic Charities is a private organization, the adoption services it offered were contracted by the state. The state has a duty to ensure that services it contracts out are offered in an non-discriminatory manner.
And thus CC did the ideologically honest thing and withdrew.
Which is a seperate issue from whether or not the state is right in its stance. Suitibility criteria are, in a way, fundamentally discriminatory. They exclude all kinds of people. However, the state has revised its criteria of suitable households not one dependable scientific studies or empirical data, but on political non-discriminatory principles.
Many things that are within our rights would make our households unsuitable for the raising of children. Anti-discrimination laws only go as far as the discrimination is not based on ability. (For example, anti-discrimination laws would not prevent a transit authority from refusing to hire a blind man as a bus driver.) Homosexual parents may or may not qualify, but the state has decided one way in the absence of scientific evidence.
It is not hard to find direct evidence that a blind man cannot safely and effectively operate a bus. However, neither you nor the Catholic Church can offer any evidence that having gay and lesbian parents is detrimental to having children. All that is offered is assumptions, and exclusionary policies based on unfair assumptions and stereotypes are exactly what anti-discrimination laws were designed to guard against.
My point is that the proof that placing children with homosexual parents is not detrimental that the state has used to justify its decision has been shown to be flawed. The state felt that their decision needed to be justified with research, and thus made its decision contingent on research supporting its course of action. If the research isn't as solid as it was purported to be, and the state has already operated on the presumption that solid research justified the decision, then the decision needs to be revisted.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
Date: 2006-03-12 12:31 am (UTC)Besides, it would be nothing new for Catholics in this country.
Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
Date: 2006-03-12 01:07 am (UTC)Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
Date: 2006-03-12 01:19 am (UTC)Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
Date: 2006-03-12 01:29 am (UTC)Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
Date: 2006-03-12 01:53 am (UTC)Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
Date: 2006-03-12 04:54 am (UTC)Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
Date: 2006-03-12 05:49 am (UTC)Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
Date: 2006-03-12 06:05 am (UTC)Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
Date: 2006-03-12 08:29 pm (UTC)Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
Date: 2006-03-12 09:04 pm (UTC)Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
Date: 2006-03-12 09:23 pm (UTC)Which is a seperate issue from whether or not the state is right in its stance. Suitibility criteria are, in a way, fundamentally discriminatory. They exclude all kinds of people. However, the state has revised its criteria of suitable households not one dependable scientific studies or empirical data, but on political non-discriminatory principles.
Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
Date: 2006-03-12 09:27 pm (UTC)Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
Date: 2006-03-12 09:48 pm (UTC)Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
Date: 2006-03-12 10:34 pm (UTC)Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
Date: 2006-03-13 12:23 am (UTC)