The Gay Thread

[innerSpaceman]

I'm absolutely in favor of the "pause." I'd actively participate ... if only I'd ever given a dime to the Democratic party.


And with "friends" like them, who needs enemies?

[Gemini Cricket]

Hey, my desktop wallpaper pic is on this Advocate.com story!

A Nevada judge ruled on Tuesday that a high school theater class should not be blocked from performing The Laramie Project and the musical Rent.
A group known as Concerned Parents of Green Valley High in Henderson, Nev., filed a lawsuit in October to halt the productions. The parents objected to students playing characters dealing with gay issues and drug use.

[Gemini Cricket]

And now, in our "Play By My Rules or I Will Leave and Take My Toys With Me" portion of the news:

In a stunning turn of events, Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley and leaders of Catholic Charities of Boston announced yesterday that the agency will end its adoption work, deciding to abandon its founding mission, rather than comply with state law requiring that gays be allowed to adopt children.
The Rev. J. Bryan Hehir, president of Catholic Charities of Boston, and Jeffrey Kaneb, chairman of the board, said that after much reflection and analysis, they could not reconcile church teaching that placement of children in gay homes is ''immoral" with Massachusetts law prohibiting discrimination against gays.

Source

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.

Source

Jeepers H. Crackers!

[JWBear]

So, for the Catholic church, hatred of gays is more inportant than doing good works. How Christian.

[Alex]

I don't really see a problem with their position.

Yes, I disagree with them on whether putting children in the care of gays is a sin but accepting that they do consider it to be so, then if the state says that they must if they want to facilitate any adoptions then the logical decision is to stop doing them at all. That really is the proper decision in almost any situation where you're told "you can only do the right thing if you'll do the wrong thing too."

I'm not sure how I feel about them being held to the rule, though. I guess it would depend on to what degree they are acting as an agent of the state. But it doesn't seem that far away from saying "if you want to perform state recognized weddings then you can't discriminate against performing gay weddings" which recent campaigns have stressed would not be the end result of gay marriage.

[Ghoulish Delight]

If they're receiving funds from the state to operate their adoption services, as opposed to simply filing paperwork with the state to report their adoption activities, then I think they should be required to play by state non-discrimination rules.

And yes, under those circumstance, what they've chosen is the "logical" decision based on their faulty suppositions. But it's still worth highlighting since it starkly points out the underlying flaw in said suppositions, creating a handy edge case shining a spotlight on how their dogmatic thinking can (and often does) result in detriment to community when they claim to stand for community benefit.

[JWBear]

I remember reading a comment somewhere that it's strange to see so much homophobia coming from an orginization full of men in dresses.

[innerSpaceman]

So why doesn't "D.C. Clergy United for Marriage Equality" announce they will gladly take up the charitable shoe dropped by the Catholic Church, and advise them not to let the door hit them on the way out?

[Cadaverous Pallor]

The answer for the religious organizations that wish to do charitable works for married couples but don't want to offer these same benefits to gay married couples is simple:

Stop taking gov't money.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Prince Harry, cool guy