Catholic Charities closes adoption agency due to same-sex marriage law
[ Great news for you liberals. Better to have kids cared for by government bureaucrats than Christians. Ah who cares about kids anyway. Whats important is how gay people FEEL. ]
Story from Fox News. (H/T Pursuing Holiness via ECM)
Excerpt:
The Archdiocese of Washington has scrapped its 80-year-old foster care program, claiming it’s no longer eligible to serve as an adoption provider due to the District of Columbia’s pending same-sex marriage law.
Under the legislation, which legalizes same-sex marriage in the nation’s capital and which goes into effect March 2, all outside contractors must recognize gay couples in the District.
In a press release posted on its Web site Tuesday, the archdiocese, which opposes gay marriage, said it had no choice but to transfer its foster care program to the National Center for Children and Families, or NCCF.
Same-sex marriage is incompatible with religious liberty. It’s a zero-sum game.
winteryknight.wordpress.com
How would the legalization of same-sex marriage affect your liberty?
Let me just quickly review how traditional marriage supporters are being treated in the prop 8 trial by Judge Walker. ECM sent me this article from National Review.
Excerpt:
Take, for example, Walker’s resort to procedural shenanigans and outright illegality in support of his fervent desire to broadcast the trial, in utter disregard of (if not affirmatively welcoming) the harassment and abuse that pro-Prop 8 witnesses would reasonably anticipate.
[...]Take the incredibly intrusive discovery, grossly underprotective of First Amendment associational rights, that Walker authorized into the internal communications of the Prop 8 sponsors…
[...]Take Walker’s insane and unworkable inquiry into the subjective motivations of the more than seven million Californians who voted in support of Prop 8.
But the thing I want to focus on is the way that same-sex marriage would reduce the liberties of people who believe in traditional marriage, because this is something that is never discussed.
Consider this article from Jewish scholar Dennis Prager about the effects on your liberties that would occur if same-sex marriage became the law of the land.
Excerpt:
Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying their prince charming — to do so would be declared “heterosexist,” morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. Little girls will be asked by other girls and by teachers if they want one day to marry a man or a woman.
The sexual confusion that same-sex marriage will create among young people is not fully measurable. Suffice it to say that, contrary to the sexual know-nothings who believe that sexual orientation is fixed from birth and permanent, the fact is that sexual orientation is more of a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. Much of humanity — especially females — can enjoy homosexual sex. It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction — until now, accomplished through marriage. But that of course is “heterosexism,” a bigoted preference for man-woman erotic love, and therefore to be extirpated from society.
Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.
[ Why, you've made the "hate" claim yourself. ]
Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man’s finger — if they show only women fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.
Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become.
Traditional Jews and Christians — i.e. those who believe in a divine scripture — will be marginalized. Already Catholic groups in Massachusetts have abandoned adoption work since they will only allow a child to be adopted by a married couple as the Bible defines it — a man and a woman.
Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and a woman will be morally regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate crime.
You can already see it happening in many places. Just this week Dr. J blogged about how Princeton University promotes or sponsors LGBT speakers who advocate for open marriage, but they won”t promote or support a student group that favors abstinence.
Comments will be strictly moderated in keeping with Obama’s hate crimes law.
Related posts
* New study shows that same-sex unions are less monogamous than heterosexual unions
* Why do people favor traditional marriage over same-sex marriage
* Christian man fired after gay rights group contacts his employer to complain
* Catholic church will stop all charity work if same-sex marriage passes in DC
* Which family configuration is best for raising children?
* New Mexico Human Rights Commissions fines couple $6000 for being Christians
Canadian persecution of Christians
* The persecution of a Catholic Bishop (at Blazing Cat Fur)
* The persecution of Rev. Stephen Boissoin (at Ezra Levant)
* The persecution of Catholic Insight magazine (at Ezra Levant)
* The persecution of Christian businessman Scott Brockie (at The Interim)
Filed under: Commentary , Abstinence, Anscombe Society, Censorship, Christian, Christianity, Diversity, Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Religious Expression, GLBT, Intolerance, LGBT, Liberty, Moral relativism, Political Correctness, Princeton University, Prop 8, Proposition 8, Religious Freedom, Religious Liberty, Same-Sex Marriage, Traditional Marriage
.....
Mathew says:
02/08/2010 at 6:30 AM
… and we’re still yet to hear of one positive benefit that same-sex marriage will bring to society.
......
LoneWolfArcher says:
02/08/2010 at 12:13 PM
What about religious small business owners? This is a subject that never gets spoken about. But if I own a business, and I extend health care coverage to employee’s spouses and families, same-sex marriage would force me into one of two options:
a) Dropping coverage for employees (either all together or only giving it to employees).
b) Funding health care for same sex married couples as well as traditional married couples(I couldn’t legally do the latter without the former if same sex marriage were legalized).
So I would either have to limit my ability to compete for job prospects, or endorse something I find immoral and reprehensible.
....
Wintery Knight says:
02/08/2010 at 1:18 PM
Great comment. This exactly what I want people to understand about SSM. It forces other people to make adjustments, and that’s what’s really at stake.
......
Marshall Art says:
02/09/2010 at 2:13 AM
The way I put it is that the more legal recognition the gay activists aquire, the more conflict will result.There is no way their invented rights will not clash with already established and Constitutionally protected rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion (as well as the freedom to express one’s religion in one’s everyday life), the right of free association (to choose with whom one wishes to associate) as well as the right of one to run one’s business as one sees fit.
......
LoneWolfArcher says:
02/09/2010 at 11:21 AM
Very good points. Especially the last. My wife is a wedding photographer. As a Christian she would turn down any and all same-sex marriage ceremonies. That has proven to be a sue-able offense in other states.
winteryknight.wordpress.com |
