Singapore/KL Bangkok Stuttgart Washington DC Toronto Colorado Springs San Francisco

Kids take back seat to gay agenda
By Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe Columnist | March 15, 2006

In psychology, ''projection" occurs when someone attributes to others his own unpleasant beliefs or motivations. It is projection, for instance, when a liar assumes that everyone he deals with is dishonest, or when a man tempted by adultery accuses his spouse of planning to deceive him. Projection occurs in the public arena as well, as when supporters of racial preferences label ''racist" those who believe the law should be strictly colorblind.

A fresh example of projection arrived the other day by way of a news release from the Human Rights Campaign, one of the nation's largest gay and lesbian political organizations.

On March 10, Catholic Charities of Boston had announced that it was being forced to shut down its highly regarded adoption services, since it could not in good conscience comply with the government's demand that it place children for adoption with homosexual couples. Caught between the rock of Catholic teaching, which regards such adoptions as ''gravely immoral," and Massachusetts regulations, which bar adoption agencies from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, the Boston Archdiocese had hoped to obtain a waiver on religious-freedom grounds. But when legislative leaders refused to consider the request, the archdiocese was left with no option but to end a ministry it had been performing for a century.

Whereupon the Human Rights Campaign issued its news release. It was headlined ''Boston Catholic Charities Puts Ugly Political Agenda Before Child Welfare," and a more perfect illustration of psychological projection would be hard to imagine.

For the political agenda driving this affair is the one favored by the Human Rights Campaign and its many allies in the media and state government: the normalization of homosexual adoption. So important is that agenda to its supporters that they will allow nothing to stand in its way -- not even the well-being of children in dire need of safe and loving families. Catholic Charities excels at arranging adoptions for children in foster care, particularly those who are older or handicapped, or who bear the scars of abuse or addiction. Yet the Human Rights Campaign and its friends would rather see this invaluable work come to an end than allow Catholic Charities to decline gay adoptions.

Note well: Catholic Charities made no effort to block same-sex couples from adopting. It asked no one to endorse its belief that homosexual adoption is wrong. It wanted only to go on finding loving parents for troubled children, without having to place any of those children in homes it deemed unsuitable. Gay or lesbian couples seeking to adopt would have remained free to do so through any other agency. In at least one Massachusetts diocese, in fact, the standing Catholic Charities policy had been to refer same-sex couples to other adoption agencies.

The church's request for a conscience clause should have been unobjectionable, at least to anyone whose priority is rescuing kids from foster care. Those who spurned that request out of hand must believe that adoption is designed primarily for the benefit of adults, not children. The end of Catholic Charities' involvement in adoption may suit the Human Rights Campaign. But it can only hurt the interests of the damaged and vulnerable children for whom Catholic Charities has long been a source of hope.

Is this a sign of things to come? In the name of nondiscrimination, will more states force religious organizations to swallow their principles or go out of business? Same-sex adoption is becoming increasingly common, but it is still highly controversial. Millions of Americans would readily agree that gay and lesbian couples can make loving parents, yet insist nevertheless that kids are better off with loving parents of both sexes. That is neither a radical view nor an intolerant one, but if the kneecapping of Catholic Charities is any indication, it may soon be forbidden.

''As much as one may wish to live and let live," Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon wrote in 2004, during the same-sex marriage debate in Massachusetts, ''the experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance, and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination . . . Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against. The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don't go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles."

The ax fell on Catholic Charities just two years after those words were written. Where will it have fallen two years hence?

It occurs to me your column could just as easily have been titled "Kids Take Backseat to Catholic Agenda."

The line that made me chuckle was this one: "... the archdiocese was left with no option but to end a ministry it had been performing for a century." Nonsense. The diocese had two options: they could comply with the state's regulations, or they could shut down. That's TWO options, not just one. They chose what they considered the lesser of two evils -- they chose to shut down one avenue for kids' adoptions rather than accept that they can't discriminate.

Taking a group that is overtly discriminated against in so many ways and casting them as the heavy demonstrates some fanciful writing skills on your part. Tell me, do you also blame rape victims for sending a rapist to prison? I wonder what kinds of columns you would have written in the 60s, perhaps something about "all those damned darkies getting my favorite lunch counter shut down."

Perhaps I'm a bit jaded about organized religion, seeing as we have it shoved down our throats where I work, but I've never understood why discrimination and bigotry are okay when cloaked in religious garb. Can I discriminate against blacks if my religion says that's important? For that matter, can I discriminate against heathen Catholics (a bizarre lifestyle choice if there ever was one) when hiring? After all, I'm not trying to stop them from having jobs, they're more than welcome to go somewhere else and get one. Churches get to exercise power over their own flock, but at least people are pushing back against their ability to exercise power over the rest of society. Perhaps the pendulum is finally swinging away from the top of its arc.

I always find Glendon to be a good read, but she spends too much time spinning "what ifs" and "maybes" as if they're facts. Her "intolerance of intolerance is a bad thing" spiel makes me wonder what would happen to an employer who refused to hire Mary Ann because she's a woman. Somehow I think she'd swing an ax or two herself.

The ax didn't fall on Catholic Charities simply because they disagreed, as you imply in your final paragraph. No one said they had to change their opinions. The ax fell because of their actions against others. You can hold whatever opinion you want, but when you act against others, they're likely to act in response.

# posted by Will @ 10:54 PM