As this post demonstrates, Rick and I simply disagree over good state policy. He would allow Catholic Charities to exclude. I would not, which practically excludes Catholic Charities from the program. Both both of us are being inclusive and exclusive, so discussion of tolerance in the abstract does no work. The crucial issue here is not tolerance, but who ought to be allowed to exclude.
MAG >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/13/2006 11:09:59 AM >>> Mark: I think Rust controls here, and, thus, the state has the power to define the rules any way it wishes to govern its own program. So CC had to walk if it wished to obey God. But the rule, although probably within the power of the state to enact, has the effect of excluding--as "immoral"--CC because of CC's religious convictions about the nature of marriage and family. Thus, *your* temple *could* be an adoption grantee under the Massachusetts program, but the other temples you mentioned--those with a different understanding of "the basic precepts of Judaism"--would be(along with CC)excluded from the program. If your ultimate concern affirms homosexuality, you end up being intolerant toward the "other" temples and institutions like CC. Your tolerance toward homosexual families looks like religious intolerance from the perspective of the "other" temples and CC. I suppose if Massachusetts wanted to be tolerant to everyone, it would have many grantees (e.g. both your temple and the other temples)and allow each grantee to find good homes for children based upon its reasonable (but different) understanding of marriage and family. Your temple would include homosexual couples in its search for parents and the other temple would not. That is a way of ensuring inclusion of homosexual couples without forcing CC (and the other temples) out of the program. Cheers, Rick --- Mark Graber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I guess I get more confused by this debate as it > goes on. > > 1. Part of my confusion is on the debate over the > status of gay > abortions in the Catholic Church. I'm not sure why > we are debating the > issue. Presumably if the Catholic Bishops of Boston > claim to have > religious reasons for not engaging in that practice, > that ought to be > good enough for the rest of us. Maybe a debate on > that ought to go on > within the Catholic Church, but most of us have no > say in that debate. > > 2. I'm also confused why it is anti-religious to > insist that all > institutions that arrange for adoptions not > discriminate against gay and > lesbian couples. It may be wrong as a matter of > public policy, but it > is not anti-religious per se. Some religions > believe that homosexuality > is immoral (or something to that effect). My temple > takes the position > that discrimination against homosexuals is immoral > and inconsistent with > basic precepts of Judaism (other tempes disagree). > We might imagine > that the state might require particular parenting > standards that differ > from those imposed by some religions. Again, > whether those parenting > standards are desirable is independent of whether > they are consistent > with any religion. > > 3. In short, Massachusetts seems to believe that > discrimination > against same sex couples in the adoption process is > (almost) as > inconsistent with state values as discrimination > against different race > couples. I think that is correct. Rick Duncan > thinks that is wrong. > But our fight is on the merits of that proposition, > because if I am > right on the moral proposition, the religious > argument seems to fall. > > Mark A. Graber > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get > password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list > cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe > to the list and read messages that are posted; > people can read the Web archives; and list members > can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to > others. > Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 "When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
