The dean of Boston College Law School argued in yesterday’s Boston Globe that the state put Catholic Charities out of the adoption business, a position I have also argued. All the media handwringing puts the blame on the Church, when it was the state’s ridiculous law and failure to respect religious freedom that resulted in this.
In essence he argues that the religious liberty of the Catholic Church was curtailed by this law, and he says it is irrelevant whether the liberal establishment believes the Church is right to refuse to allow gays to adopt.
The issue is not whether the Church or the state has the better of the debate over gay families. When freedom is at stake, the issue is never whether the claimant is right. Freedom of the press protects publication of pornography, blasphemy, and personal attacks. Freedom of religion is above all else a protection for ways of life that society views with skepticism or distaste.
I don’t think he goes far enough. He says the Church should have received an exemption. I think the law itself should be challenged in court as unconstitutional.
Technorati Tags: adoption, Boston, Catholic, Massachusetts, religious-freedom
Things are so bad that if you read the business section of today’s Boston Globe there is a lead story on how Harvard Law School Gay Actvists were able to cow the Ropes and Gray Boston law firm into dropping the Archdiocese of Boston as a client in defense of the First Amendment. That story combined with all the other things going on in this morally decrepit state is how Mass. is earning the title the “Lavender Dictatorship” in many quarters. The biggest tragedy is that the promoters of this situation are-in many cases- Catholics who at other times brag about being Catholic or use being nominally Catholic to gain political advantage.
I also was struck by that article about the Harvard gay activists’ intimidation of Ropes and Gray to cease its legal representation of Catholic Charities. Funny, when I went to law school, it was stressed that everyone is entitled to legal representation, even if unpopular.
One thing I strongly object to as a retired history and government teacher is secular society telling a religion what its purposes and “core” mission is (as the Boston Globe pontificated.) Within rational parameters (by that I mean from the record of history) a religion should be allowed to state what is part of its core. For example, it can be proven from history that taking care of orphans and widows has been at the heart and core of Christianity for 2000 years. And it certainly is not in the spirit or common sense interpretation of the First Amendment for courts to tell a religion that only “smells and bells” are at the heart of Christianity.
The U.S. Supreme Court seems to be more protective of the First Amendment than either Cal. or Mass. because they recently exempted an Indian (or some similar) religion from drug laws because they could prove using that drug as part of their ceremony had been at the core of their religious practice for centuries.
If this religion could be exempt from drug laws based on their history then Catholics should be exempt from laws that interfere with the moral core and practice of Catholicism.
Eric, did Catholic Charities of Sacramento (CA) decide to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, or did they cave after the state court ruled against them?