The big news this week was the decision by Catholic Charities of Boston to shut down its adoption services instead of adhering to state laws requiring them to consider same-sex couples as prospective parents. The Massachusetts Department of Social Services gave Catholic Charities approximately $1 million in reimbursements for its adoption-related work in fiscal year 2005.
Governor Romney realized, correctly, that this would prevent many children from finding permanent homes. (According to the Catholic Charities Web site, they have placed 720 children in permanent homes over the past 20 years. Of those 720, 13 were placed with same-sex families.) The governor therefore filed a “Protecting Religious Freedom” bill to exempt religious groups from laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. Interestingly, though, the bill would still make it illegal for religious institutions to discriminate “on the basis of race, creed, national origin, gender, [or] handicap.”
Hmm. If Romney is so concerned “that government not dictate to religious institutions the moral principles by which they are to carry out their charitable and divine mission,” shouldn’t he waive all anti-discrimination laws for them? If a Catholic organization wanted, say, not to place children in Jewish homes (or vice versa), or if a congregation hailing mostly from one ethnic group wanted to avoid placing children with families of a different group, shouldn’t this be allowed, by Romney’s logic? Maybe he’s trying to placate ethnic groups who may be upset by his invokation of a 1913 law barring Massachusetts from permitting the marriage of an out-of-state couple if the marriage would be void in their home state, a law originally intended to prohibit interracial marriages.
And from the “Stay Tuned” department:
The New York State Court of Appeal, the state’s highest, announced this week that on May 31 it will hear arguments on the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage. Similar arguments have already been made in New Jersey and Washington state, and decisions could come at any time. [Insert "waiting" music from Jeopardy here.]
In Connecticut, on March 21, a GLAD lawyer will argue in front of the New Haven Superior Court on behalf of eight same-sex couples who wish to marry. This is only the first step in a case that will likely go all the way to the state’s Supreme Court.
[...] San Francisco Catholic Charities (SFCC) has followed an earlier move by Boston Catholic Charities and shut down their adoption services, so they don’t have to place children with lesbian and gay couples. Unlike their East Coast counterparts, however, they will partner with another agency, California Kids Connection, to which they will refer prospective adoptive parents, including same-sex ones. Three Catholic Charities’ staff members will work with California Kids Connection and “help all prospective parents, including gays and lesbians.” According to the Boston Globe, the Archbishop of San Francisco “thought it was a form of potential ‘remote’ cooperation that does not conflict with Catholic moral teaching.” While this seems a flimsy distinction at best, I studied medieval theology long enough to know that more has been made of less. If it helps more children get placed in good homes, it’s a better solution that the Boston Archdiocese has found. [...]
[...] In the U. K., the Prime Minister has said he will decide next week whether Roman Catholic adoption agencies will be allowed to defy the Equality Act and refuse gay or lesbian couples as potential parents. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, leaders of the Anglican Church, and the Muslim Council of Great Britain have announced their support for the Catholics. Last year in the U. S., both Boston Catholic Charities and San Francisco Catholic Charities shut down their adoption services so they didn’t have to place children with lesbian and gay couples. [...]