I was just reading the notes that were taken during the discussion on the Senate Judiciary Committee for the same-sex marriage bill in New Jersey. These notes can be found on the terrific blog, Box Turtle Bulletin. Timothy Kincaid took detailed notes and commentary all evening. Some of what he heard are the same old notions of male/female marriage being the "gold standard" to which all should strive to achieve. One senator pointed out that homosexual activity in prison was evidence that being gay was a choice. And as Kincaid notes, anti-equality folks are incapable of saying the word
gay. It's always homo
sexual, just to remind you again that gay relationships are all about sex.
Part way through the hearing Kincaid writes that someone has stated that
Catholic Charities in Massachusetts lost its license to provide adoption after same-ex marriage was deemed constitutional. Then he writes in parenthesis,
completely untrue.
And it most certainly is. This is an important point, because religious exemptions have been proposed to many of the marriage bills, including this one in New Jersey. They have been seen as
friendly amendments, not proposed changes to water down the law or lessen chances of its passage. I haven't spoken to any same-sex marriage supporter who believes that churches should be
required to marry same-sex couples. Separation of Church and State means just that. But this is the fear that is being fostered. And as long as a falsehood like
Catholic Charities in Massachusetts lost its license to provide adoption is allowed to go unquestioned, these falsehoods will continue perpetuating that fear.
The story with Catholic Charities in Massachusetts is quite simple. For 103 years, the organization placed children in foster homes, including some foster homes with same-sex couples. This was what the organization did. After same-sex marriage became an option in Massachusetts, the Catholic Church, having spent over a million dollars trying to defeat it, lost the battle. It then decided that it change its policy and not place foster children with same-sex couples as it had done for years. Cardinal Sean O'Malley (right) even used the term "do violence to them," to describe what happened to children in these situations.
Catholic Charities worked
through the Department of Social Services in Massachusetts. The state of Massachusetts cannot legally discriminate, so Catholic Charities was not allowed to change its stance on same-sex foster parents that it had embraced for many years. As a result, many members of the Board of Catholic Charities resigned,
not in protest over same-sex marriage but over the church's decision to change its adoption policy. These board members are lay leaders in the Roman Catholic Church in Boston, including the Chair of the Committee, Peter Meade (left), who wrote an op-ed in a Boston newspaper explaining his decision as well as his support for same-sex marriage.
So Catholic Charities did not
lose its license to place children in foster homes any more than it will
lose permission to feed the poor in Washington if it follows though on its threat to withdraw its social service support in DC if the city allows same-sex marriage.
In the midst of heated debate, sometimes people misspeak without knowing it. Other times, however, the "inaccuracy" is not a slip of the tongue at all. Statements are calculated to instill fear, in this case fear that religious institutions will be required to marry gay people or lose their tax exempt status. This is simply false.
Thanks, of course, to Timothy Kincaid at Turtle Box Bulletin, for his report on the hearings.
So I've thought a great deal about his post. Full disclosure: Scott Brown (left), who won the Mass Republican primary for the senate seat vacated by Ted Kennedy, is not someone of whom I am particularly fond. He was a vehement opponent of same-sex marriage and, to a degree, civil unions. But it is not in this context that I write about his posing as a nude centerfold for Cosmo in his twenties. I actually don't think this should disqualify anyone, but it is staggering to think what the career of Democratic nominee Martha Coakley's (right) would be if she had done the same thing. Reverse the photos. Can you ever imagine Atty General Coakley elected for anything in Mr. Brown's position? And for the record, Scott Brown is now a state senator in Massachusetts. He was the only viable candidate who ran for the Republican nomination for senator.
