Are there any Democrats on this forum that oppose gay marriage?

[Brittain33]

BTW, Catholic Charities had placed 13 children with same-sex couples in Massachusetts in the past... These were hard to place children who needed homes. When the children had no other option, we "gravely disordered" citizens were good enough.

The local chapter had voted unanimously to continue placing children in qualified homes. However, they were overruled by the church leadership in 2006 which forces them to drop their state-funded contract to provide adoption services for children in need. You are depicting this as a theological issue, but this was a time when conservative Catholic leadership was aggressively pushing back on state efforts for equality.

What do you think about the fact that the local chapter of Catholic Charities supported placing children with gay parents and wanted to continue to do so?

[DC Al Fine]

BTW, Catholic Charities had placed 13 children with same-sex couples in Massachusetts in the past... These were hard to place children who needed homes. When the children had no other option, we "gravely disordered" citizens were good enough.

The local chapter had voted unanimously to continue placing children in qualified homes. However, they were overruled by the church leadership in 2006 which forces them to drop their state-funded contract to provide adoption services for children in need. You are depicting this as a theological issue, but this was a time when conservative Catholic leadership was aggressively pushing back on state efforts for equality.

What do you think about the fact that the local chapter of Catholic Charities supported placing children with gay parents and wanted to continue to do so?

What was the degree of church participation in the local chapter? I know in some cases like many Catholic hospitals, the charity is essentially a secular institution with the church restricted to some nominal role. The degree of church participation (both clergy and lay) plays a big part in one's reaction to the local chapter's decision.

[Brittain33]

Isn't that the issue, though? These groups generally don't involve their religion except for sponsorship and a mission to care, but then the church leadership decides every now and then to use them in political fights that the chapter would rather not pick sides on.

[afleitch]

For the record the Catholic Church does not recognise a civil wedding where one or both of the participants are Catholic.

[DC Al Fine]

Isn't that the issue, though? These groups generally don't involve their religion except for sponsorship and a mission to care, but then the church leadership decides every now and then to use them in political fights that the chapter would rather not pick sides on.

If the chapter is secular people, then their unanimity says nothing about the church. It becomes a case of non-church people wanting to use church funds to promote something the church views as deeply immoral. I really don't see an issue with the church shutting down the agency.

Also I dispute your characterization of these issues as "picking political fights". The church's position on homosexuality was formed centuries before any could have imagined it being used for partisan purposes. This is the problem with the attitude towards the church held by many on the left.

I've seen this pattern over and over again.  The left launches an attack on some sector of traditional society.  (They are the progressives; they are aggressors by definition.)  The attacked parties complain, which shouldn't surprise anyone.  The Left, however, is outraged by their victims’ behavior.  (They don’t feign outrage; I’m convinced they really feel it.) What’s more, they don’t even give their opponents the courtesy of assuming that they are sincere in their beliefs.  They immediately accuse them of manufacturing a publicity stunt so that, out of pure malice, they can derail benevolent leftist initiatives to which no one could genuinely object.

[Brittain33]

Hey DC, just so you know, my partner's Catholic and comes from a conservative Catholic family, who we get along well with and who have complicated views on issues that we accept. I'm not "the left," I'm a person like you are who happens to have seen the politics play out.

Make no mistake, churches can be plenty political when they want to be and pick what issues they care about.

You're talking about Catholic Charities in Mass. as a fluke, as if it's an exception to the rule. In fact, you just noted above how common it is for these church-affiliated organizations to behave as non-religious social welfare organizations. Painting them as some kind of rogue secular group is ridiculous.

No one cared about this until, suddenly, some bishops cared. Think about the controversy in 2004 when bishops started proclaiming that elected officials who supported abortion rights would be denied communion... and that people who voted for them should be denied that, too. But when the Pope spoke out about war, they didn't say they should deny communion to people who voted for war in Iraq. There was a time in the mid-2000s when both the Catholic Church and LDS Church saw value in allying with the conservative political movement using selected social issues as common cause. The LDS Church seriously regrets this move now and the Catholic Church has largely backed down and refocused on contraception.

Catholic Charities has the option to provide adoption services two ways:
1. To place needy children in Catholic homes where they will be raised according to Catholic doctrine, using independent funds.
2. To place needy children in responsible homes with responsible parents, in partnership with the government and with government money.

Catholic Charities everywhere has transitioned to the second model because of the assimilation of the Catholic community and because they judged it as a way to better fulfill their mission of care and compassion. You can't do #2 in a state with non-discrimination laws and then say "but wait, not for gays." They could have tried #1, I guess. But since the point was to wage a political battle on same-sex marriage in general and to create martyrs, the bishops shut it down altogether. Unfortunately, it gave some people fodder for their arguments, but they're losing the war anyway, and Catholic Charities has not been able to care for needy children. It's a tragedy and a completely avoidable one.  

[Brittain33]

By the way, the only reason the legislature in Mass. defeated our DOMA amendment by 75% or more, keeping it from going to a vote, was because the Catholic Church had lost all credibility in this state on "the best interests of the children." To have Cardinal Law argue that Catholic Charities should deny placement of children to responsible same-sex couples after everything that was revealed in the early 2000s...

[TJ in Oregon]

What usually happens in situations like this involving Catholic social agencies is you have an agency run by laity with essentially no religious oversight that more or less makes its own decisions. At times such agencies make decisions that are against the teachings of the Catholic church, normally not as an intended act of rebellion but as a collection of individuals who honestly believe they are doing right. Most Catholics on the boards of service organizations aren't the types who are spending their free time reading Vatican social directives.

In comes a legal battle and all of a sudden the workings of organizations like this come to light in the media and to the bishops. The bishops then suddenly try to take control of the situation at the same time the political sphere is trying to outlaw the practice that would have the agency following the Church's teachings. We then end up with a situation like this one.

If the matter were simply contingent on receiving public funding, I would be much more understanding of the other side's position; however, the requirement that a Catholic organization cannot make its own moral decisions if it serves non-Catholics as well (or cannot regardless) is not acceptable. If people want to disassociate themselves from organizations that follow Catholic teachings, that is their prerogative. I've had a homeless guy refuse food from me before because I was giving it out as part of a Catholic organization and he had some beef with the Church. But the issue here is that folks cannot simultaneously argue that government recognition of gay marriage doesn't require religious institutions to consent, and then require religious institutions to consent.

[Brittain33]

TJ, they were using government funds and working with a government organization. So the case is still that.

[TJ in Oregon]

TJ, they were using government funds and working with a government organization. So the case is still that.

I'm not denying that, but simply stopping using government funds was not an option given to them. It was to either comply with the anti-discrimination law or exit the service.

[afleitch]

If believing people of same-sex inclinations are sinning by acting upon them makes me a bigot, them I'm a bigot. I guess I may as well finally embrace that term and get it over with.

Thank you.

For the record, not acting upon them would be for me spiritually destructive. Living a sexless, single existence until death would be torturous, certainly in comparison to the bond I have with my husband.

[Brittain33]

TJ, they were using government funds and working with a government organization. So the case is still that.

I'm not denying that, but simply stopping using government funds was not an option given to them. It was to either comply with the anti-discrimination law or exit the service.

How was becoming independent of the state not an option? Are private adoption agencies illegal in Massachusetts? It wouldn't have been an automatic switch, but unless private adoption is actually illegal, nothing would have stopped them from changing their model - and it would have been politically difficult to stop them from doing that if they tried.

If this was being done for the good of the children and not to make a political point, they would have tried.

[TJ in Oregon]

TJ, they were using government funds and working with a government organization. So the case is still that.

I'm not denying that, but simply stopping using government funds was not an option given to them. It was to either comply with the anti-discrimination law or exit the service.

How was becoming independent of the state not an option? Are private adoption agencies illegal in Massachusetts? It wouldn't have been an automatic switch, but unless private adoption is actually illegal, nothing would have stopped them from changing their model - and it would have been politically difficult to stop them from doing that if they tried.

If this was being done for the good of the children and not to make a political point, they would have tried.

Adoption agencies from what I understand act as agents of the state and are required to be licensed by the state government, even if they are private organizations. It by requirement must deal with the government to function. The nondiscrimination law is not contingent upon receiving funds but upon licensing as an adoption agency.

[Brittain33]

So I'm doing research, and it appears that it was the Church that severed the relationship with the state in 2006, not that the state denied them a license. Was the non-discrimination law introduced then? Did Catholic Charities make a stated change in its policies toward gay parents at the time?

I think that if you want to make the case that marriage equality is going to lead to a crackdown on independent religious groups, you have to look at agency and what has actually happened. It certainly seems as if there was a DADT policy toward Catholic groups, who were politically untouchable until about 2000 and after that, difficult to target for non-discrimination suits, and the bishops opted to blow everything up to call attention to their cause. The state never denied them a license and it certainly seemed that there was no change that precipitated their decision to break with the state.

[TJ in Oregon]

Yeah, you're right the law was in place before the controversy but was simply overlooked by everyone involved. It was also the Church who decided Catholic Charities would cease to provide adoption services rather than comply, so they were never actually rejected from licensing by the state; they simply recognized they would denied one and decided to fold rather than be rejected, so I suppose one could call that voluntary in a you-can't-fire-me-I-quit sort of way. The diocese also sought an exemption from the law with the support of then Gov. Romney but was not supported by the legislature. They determined their time and money could be better spent in other ways rather than suing and dropped it there.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Are adoption agencies not aloud to consider the presence of both a mom and a dad as opposed to a gay couple as a factor, or is only a flat prohibition of gay adoptions outlawed?   If we're really at the point that thinking kids do best with both a mom and a dad counts as unacceptable bigotry now, it means the prioritizing of identity politics over a real grappling with children's well being.

[President Tyrion]

Are adoption agencies not aloud to consider the presence of both a mom and a dad as opposed to a gay couple as a factor, or is only a flat prohibition of gay adoptions outlawed?   If we're really at the point that thinking kids do best with both a mom and a dad counts as unacceptable bigotry now, it means the prioritizing of identity politics over a real grappling with children's well being.

If you can prove that a child needs a strictly male father and a strictly female father to be optimally successful, then it would be a legitimate claim. The burden is on you to prove the illegitimacy of gay couples. Gay couples do not need to be subject to additional burdens of proof unless you can prove it's necessary.

[Brittain33]

So far, the research has shown that children do best with two caring parents of any combination of genders. So, yes, disregarding the research in favor of folk wisdom that discriminates is the definition of prejudice.

Are adoption agencies not aloud to consider the presence of both a mom and a dad as opposed to a gay couple as a factor, or is only a flat prohibition of gay adoptions outlawed?   If we're really at the point that thinking kids do best with both a mom and a dad counts as unacceptable bigotry now, it means the prioritizing of identity politics over a real grappling with children's well being.

If you can prove that a child needs a strictly male father and a strictly female father to be optimally successful, then it would be a legitimate claim. The burden is on you to prove the illegitimacy of gay couples. Gay couples do not need to be subject to additional burdens of proof unless you can prove it's necessary.

[Keystone Phil]

If someone opposes SSM for religious reasons (Phil and TJ come to mind), I respect that, and I think it wrong to harass a poster in any way if that is the case. What I get impatient with is non-religious ersatz, make weight, non-empiracally based arguments against SSM. Then I get out the hammer and bang away. That's life in the public square, and there is nothing wrong with that.

...well, yes, I oppose it from a religious standpoint but also from a public policy standpoint. Those that are opposed to gay marriage obviously believe in a traditional definition thanks, in large part, to religious beliefs. I understand that this bothers a lot of people. I understand that people will say, "Religious tradition shouldn't be used to justify bad and hateful practices" or that religion shouldn't be influencing this (or any) policy. I respectfully disagree with the thought that opposing gay marriage is based on hate and respectfully disagree that certain religious traditions shouldn't be used as a model in the public square.

I don't believe that recognizing marriage as one type of union while granting the same legal and financial rights through civil unions to others is hateful. Many here disagree and often times, they don't do it respectfully. They might even personally dislike me because of my position. That truly is a shame but I don't think there is much changing either party in that disagreement so I'm left shrugging. I've told people that I respect that I oppose gay marriage because I don't believe in redefining marriage and because we all support some type of limitation on who can get married. However, I have strongly supported civil unions that would  recognize legal and financial rights of couples. That has been called "worse than homophobia." I think that's just a bit harsh but whatever. I just think we'd all be a lot better off if we weren't convinced that one side hates the other on these issues. That goes beyond the marriage debate, by the way.

This is different from my position on, say, abortion where my religion obviously has a strong stance but defining life is based on something other than "tradition." I am against abortion because I'm human, not just because my religion doesn't like it.

I really didn't want to jump into what already looks like a flame war but I feel like my position and general thoughts on this debate should be voiced as I was specifically mentioned by name.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Are adoption agencies not aloud to consider the presence of both a mom and a dad as opposed to a gay couple as a factor, or is only a flat prohibition of gay adoptions outlawed?   If we're really at the point that thinking kids do best with both a mom and a dad counts as unacceptable bigotry now, it means the prioritizing of identity politics over a real grappling with children's well being.

If you can prove that a child needs a strictly male father and a strictly female father to be optimally successful, then it would be a legitimate claim. The burden is on you to prove the illegitimacy of gay couples. Gay couples do not need to be subject to additional burdens of proof unless you can prove it's necessary.

I didn't say anything about illegitimacy, so there's no need for a "burden of proof" as though such a thing is possible.  The research is not univocal, as shouldn't be surprising in social science. Given that it's only been studied for a few years it's a bit much to say it's a settled issue so much that we can just ignore the until recently non-controversial idea that parental gender plays a role in child development.

[Torie]

If someone opposes SSM for religious reasons (Phil and TJ come to mind), I respect that, and I think it wrong to harass a poster in any way if that is the case. What I get impatient with is non-religious ersatz, make weight, non-empiracally based arguments against SSM. Then I get out the hammer and bang away. That's life in the public square, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Hopefully, most share my point of view on that. It's just wrong (and hurtful and cruel) to demean someone's religious beliefs (unless, way, way out there, like believing that by force of law, baby girls should have their clitoris excised or something, or believe in slavery or whatever - SSM is just not in that category).  

I get so tired of people who hide behind their Bible because they have no better excuse for being a bigot.

It's not like they haven't just swept half of the rest of the Bible under the rug for convenience purposes.

I used to buy into the "respect them cuz it's their belief" BS as well.  Not anymore.

Do you question the motives of those who oppose SSM for religious reasons who adduce no non-religious reasons for opposing gay marriage?  Anyway, as to someone who is in that position, I suppose you could call them a bigot, but it won't change their mind, and beyond whether it is fair or decent to treat folks that way,  it might not be a good tactic, because it might turn off folks who are more open to the idea. It certainly is a good way to poison the public square. JMO.

Honestly, I don't respect that position. I'm sure you're a great guy, but I cannot stand by what you're saying. If you hold a religious position, and you want people to back off the criticism just for the sole reason that it is a religious position, that doesn't withstand the test of logic. Religion isn't a reason, or rather, it shouldn't be. Religion is not evidence, and religion is not proof. Religion is a conclusion. You cannot base another conclusion or belief upon an existing conclusion without expecting the base conclusion to be questioned. It's an utter logical fallacy to state "I believe something; therefore, it is justifiable that I believe something else without recourse." No, no, no my dear sir. I cannot let that stand. Judge each situation on its merits, or don't judge at all.

I hope ^that paragraph was worthy of a public discussion. I have a fierce disagreement with you, sir, and I'm trying to find a civil way to say it.

Religious beliefs are leaps of faith, and not based on "rationality," nor are they empirically based, so the normal back and forth discussion about public policy in the public square just does not work very well. But yes, your opinion is common, and folks do traduce other's leaps of faith.  So you do have safety in numbers if nothing else. But as I stated, I think it is counterproductive, and a good way to turn folks off, and tune you out.

[Torie]

TJ, could you flesh out more what you mean by "proxy issues" and give some examples, so that I can better understand your point of view on this?  Thanks.

Here are a few examples:
- The City of Chicago preventing a business (Chick-fil-a) from expanded there based on the anti-gay marriage views and donations of its owner.
- Catholic adoption agencies in Massachusetts (and IIRC a couple other states) being forced to close due to the state requiring all adoption agencies to execute adoptions to gay couples.
- A number of cities barring the boy scouts from using public parks due to anti-discrimination rules, as well as the bazillion lawsuits the boy scouts have had to endure under their policy of not permitting openly gay scouts (formerly) and leaders.
- The use of fair housing ordinances to require women renting out a room to live with a lesbian, right here in Madison, Wisconsin.
- The New Mexico wedding photographer who was forced to shoot a gay wedding against her wishes or incur a lawsuit. There are dozens upon dozens of cases like this one, some of them a bit absurd to object to but they happen and will continue to.

In general I am concerned about religious organizations being forced to condone homosexuality in some way, either by the threat of revoking tax exemptions, redefining religious institution as only pertaining to worship, or by reinterpreting the First Amendment and classifying religious teachings against homosexuality as hate speech. Of course none of this could happen today with this current SCOTUS, but I am a rather young man still. The Millenials and subsequent generations have not really ascended to power yet. Go ahead and call me chicken little, but a man should consider the long term ramifications of changes in public opinion of social policy.

OK, thanks for the examples. The photographer and license denial "proxies" as you described them are unfortunately violative of the 1st Amendment, and the ACLU should take both cases to SCOTUS. That kind of lashing out I strongly disapprove of, and the perps should have their socks sued off as it were.

As others have noted, the balance involve using state funds, or public resources, and there religious "law" must give way to secular law.  I assume TJ that you don't think religious organizations should be exempt from secular law do you, that binds all of us equally?