State putting Church out of adoption business
By John Garvey | March 14, 2006
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/03/14/state_putting_church_out_of_adoption_business/
TITLE VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act forbids employment
discrimination on the basis of gender. It doesn't make an exception
for churches. However, courts have interpreted Title VII to exempt
churches. This is not surprising. Catholics, Mormons, and certain
Orthodox Christians do not ordain women as priests. Orthodox Jews do
not ordain women as rabbis. Traditional schools of Islam do not allow
women to act as imams. The Constitution would not permit the
government to change these church rules even if it wanted to.
Title VII has allowed women to pursue career ambitions and support
their families, just as men do. Many Catholics, Jews, and Muslims
think that this equal opportunity should extend to ministry. But
society is also committed to religious freedom, and that means that
sometimes the government has to respect limits even on worthwhile
programs.
There is a lesson here that has been ignored in the recent contretemps
over gay adoptions by Catholic Charities. Catholic Charities managed
41 cases last year, and more than 700 since 1987. Most involved
children with special needs.
Charities that provide adoption services are governed by two state
agencies. All of them need a license from the Department of Early
Education and Care. The Department's regulations forbid licensees to
discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Charities that handle
adoptions of older and special needs children also contract with the
Department of Social Services (they receive money for providing this
service). DSS regulations forbid contractors to refuse service on the
basis of sexual orientation. These two regulations caused a problem
for Catholic Charities, because the Church believes that homosexual
relationships are sinful and that it is wrong to place a child in such
a family. The agencies refused to grant an exemption. The governor,
though sympathetic to Catholic Charities' plight, said the problem
should be corrected through legislation. Leaders in the Legislature
said they were unwilling to pass such a law. Faced with a legal
requirement that it serve gay and straight families alike, Catholic
Charities reluctantly decided to stop doing adoptions.
It seems surprising that the state would want to put the Catholic
Church out of the adoption business. Corporal works of mercy are no
less important to the life of the Church than its sacramental
ministry. Forbidding the Church to perform them is a serious blow to
its religious liberty. Why would the government do that?
One reason is that the Church refused to go along with the effort,
enshrined in these regulations and blessed in Goodridge v. Department
of Public Health, to give gay families the same legal rights as
straight families.
But Catholic Charities did not obstruct that effort; it only declined
to assist it. Is our commitment to equality so strong that we are
willing to put Catholic Charities out of business because it won't
promote an agenda that it views as morally wrong?
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.
A second reason might be that Catholic Charities received money from
DSS (about $1 million out of a budget of $38 million) when it provided
special-needs adoptions. But even if Catholic Charities gave up the
money it got from DSS, it still wouldn't be able to provide adoption
services because it also needed a license from the Department of Early
Education and Care. Second, it is likely that the real reason Catholic
Charities contracted with DSS was not to get an additional 3 percent
in its budget, but so that it could help with the special-needs
adoptions that comprised 80 percent of its caseload. It was not about
the money; it was about the Gospel.
Respect for religious liberty is a good thing. We should not lose
sight of it in an effort to achieve other social goals. To paraphrase
Barry Goldwater, extremism in the defense of equality can be a vice.
John Garvey is dean of Boston College Law School.
© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.
--
"The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing
their memory, or their backbone, but we're not going to sit by and
let them rewrite history." -- ***** Cheney 11/16/2005
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce
"America is a vast conspiracy to make you happy." -- John Updike
"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
