Philadelphia Catholic Church Cannot Use Religion in Adoption
The Third District U.S. Court in Philadelphia has ruled a Catholic adoption agency cannot reject adoptive parents just because they are gay. This is merely an extension of U.S. values and law since way back in our history.
That Catholic officials have fought this pulls the veil away from the church's motive. It is not interested in children, it is interested promoting its religious beliefs.
The Catholic agency refused to allow gay couples to adopt its children. The children were placed in the agency's care and adoption manage by government and paid by government to do so. Taxpayers who do not approve of discrimination against minorities took the Catholics to court and won.
Gay couples have won these cases against Catholic adoption agencies before. In some cases Catholics have closed the agencies rather than conform to what is required of them be state law. That they close allows us to see the real motives behind why Catholics run these adoption businesses. They are not interested in the welfare of children or happiness of parents. They want only to promote their religious agency and swell their numbers.
It was President George W. Bush who expanded the amount of profits church organizations could make by taking over services previously provided by government. He had done this as a governor in Texas. He like especially evangelical groups taking over some services from governments in prisons. For churches it was a win win. They could convert prisoners and rake in money while doing it.
Courts have sent governments a warning they cannot mix in evangelical preaching while being paid to provide public service. We may well see more cases like this in front of our courts.
let me start by saying this post is little more than a nasty slur. more to the point it is a good example of an atheist's version of totalitarianism lite (or arguably totalitarianism heavy). private/religious organizations (in your view at least) have no right to conduct their business free of state interference. back to your Bolshevik mentality. as to your assertion that the church was more interested in its doctrine than in the welfare of children. let's look at it this way: maybe they didn't think that placing kids in a same sex household was not in the children's best interests. (a view which I find to be quite defensible). finally, why would the LGBT+++++ community find it necessary to go after a Catholic agency. I am sure that in Philly they could find quite a number of agencies that would do their bidding. agents provocateur perhaps?
ReplyDelete"free of state interference" As I explained in the blog, the Catholic agency was paid by the state government of handle these adoptions. It has to conform to rules taxpayers require or the state government will get another firm that meets the terms required. This is simply a business deal. Is it in the child's best interest? Anti gay groups, like the Catholic church, has been searching for some evidence children are worse off with gay parents than they are with straight parents. There is no such evidence. I debated a Catholic mouth piece about this in Fargo several years ago. He was a quite dishonest debater--twisted social science data to make his case when no case could be made. "Bolshevik mentality"? Good government and honest social science information is what I wrote about.
ReplyDeleteanother of your ideological assertions: there is "no evidence" that children are worse off with same sex parents, etc. and that your debating opponent "twisted social science data...…" Typical Jon. So, a question: do you have any specific reason(s) for making such a claim? Why, specifically, was your opponents' data/reasoning flawed to the point of being invalid. What specific studies can you cite that unequivocally support your claims. These I think are fair and timely questions, so let's have a response.
ReplyDelete"What was the flaw in you opponents case..What specific studies can you cite..." I blogged about the specific studies and what the debate was about some years back. The other guy was, if I recall specifically, Ryan Carlson who works for a right wing organization. He was in Farge as a banquet speaker. He and some other Catholic authors had written a book which used a study they determined found children with gay parents did more poorly than those with straight parents. The study was in a social science journal. I had a copy of the article for a while--had to pay the journal to get it. The study compared school attendance, grades, police records and such. The children with straight parents totaled out slightly better than those from gay parents. There was a follow up article later in the same journal by the same social science guy where he admitted his findings should not be used to declare children were better off with straight parents. He had been rightly taken to task by other social sciences because he compared children with straight parents who had been married a long time with children from gay parents where home life was less stable. He knew there were children with gay parents who had long term relationships but he did not want to take the time to find them. It was faster to find gay parents at gay bars, etc. Again, this Carlson guy did not publish what the author admitted in the follow up article. As far as I know, this is the only published material on this topic.
DeleteThe guy's name is Ryan T. Anderson, not Carlson. His bogus conclusions came in the book "What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense." The erroneous conclusions he came to were from an article in the journal, "Social Science Research" and was entitled, "How Different are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships?". As I wrote, the journal author wrote a follow up to assure he did not claim his findings should conclude children from gay parents do more poorly than those from straight parent homes. There are lots of other articles about children of same sex relationships but most are antidotal. (It's good to have long time reader back on the discussion page, even if undercover.)
DeleteI'm not undercover. I have no real choice in the matter. I am forced to use a company server which on this site identifies my post in unknown. don't as me why. suppose if I made an issue of it, I could get it rectified. But why bother?
ReplyDelete