The Church isnâ??t arguing that gay parents shouldnâ??t be allowed to adopt, or even that the state shouldnâ??t place children with gay couples. As Notre Dame law professor Richard Garnett points out, the Church is merely asking for an exemptionâ??an exemption allowing it the freedom to continue to place children; an exemption that wouldnâ??t force it into the dilemma of either violating its own conscience or having to close its adoption programs.
In this case, the religious believers are clearly on the side of conscience and freedom, while secular liberals are promoting a state-imposed moralism that coerces everyone, at least everyone who desires to cooperate with the state for the common good. Thus, the Anglican archbishops of Canterbury and York, in solidarity with their Catholic brethren, wrote to Blair: â??The rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well meaning.â??…
From the Churchâ??s perspective, it would not be unjust for the state to prohibit the adoption of children by gay parentsâ??a child has a natural right to a mom and a dad. Itâ??s simply that in this case the governmentâ??s view is on the other side of the issue. And so the best the Church can hope for is a compromise of live and let live.
But this compromise will not be madeâ??for those on the side of gay rights, convinced of the truth of their argument, will not settle for it. Nor should they. The law doesnâ??t really imagine that Catholic adoption agencies are somehow preventing gay and lesbian couples from adopting elsewhere. The proposed law is, instead, a device to rebuke the Church, to tell the Church that its teachings about homosexuality and marriage are false, a way for gay-rights activists to attack Christianity under the mantel of nondiscrimination…
The stance that the government takes toward same-sex marriage will have implications not only for state marriage law but much elseâ??including religious liberty. Legal moralists on the left wonâ??t have it any other way.
Ryan T. Anderson Moralism and the UK Adoption Laws
And then read Maggie Gallagher on the coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty
Just how serious are the coming conflicts over religious liberty stemming from gay marriage?
“The impact will be severe and pervasive,” Picarello says flatly. “This is going to affect every aspect of church-state relations.” Recent years, he predicts, will be looked back on as a time of relative peace between church and state, one where people had the luxury of litigating cases about things like the Ten Commandments in courthouses. In times of relative peace, says Picarello, people don’t even notice that “the church is surrounded on all sides by the state; that church and state butt up against each other. The boundaries are usually peaceful, so it’s easy sometimes to forget they are there. But because marriage affects just about every area of the law, gay marriage is going to create a point of conflict at every point around the perimeter.
How much of the coming threat to religious liberty actually stems from same-sex marriage? These experts’ comments make clear that it is not only gay marriage, but also the set of ideas that leads to gay marriage–the insistence on one specific vision of gay rights–that has placed church and state on a collision course. Once sexual orientation is conceptualized as a protected status on a par with race, traditional religions that condemn homosexual conduct will face increasing legal pressures regardless of what courts and Congress do about marriage itself.
Nevertheless, marriage is a particularly potent legal “bright line.” Support for marriage is firmly established in our legal tradition and in our public policy. After it became apparent that no religious exemption would be available for Catholic Charities in Massachusetts, the church looked hard for legal avenues to continue helping kids without violating Catholic principles. If the stumbling block had been Catholic Charities’ unwillingness to place children with single people–or with gay singles–marriage might have provided a legal “safe harbor”: Catholic Charities might have been able to specialize in placing children with married couples and thus avoid collision with state laws banning orientation discrimination. After Goodridge, however, “marriage” includes gay marriage, so no such haven would have been available in Massachusetts.
Precisely because support for marriage is public policy, once marriage includes gay couples, groups who oppose gay marriage are likely to be judged in violation of public policy, triggering a host of negative consequences, including the loss of tax-exempt status. Because marriage is not a private act, but a protected public status, the legalization of gay marriage sends a strong signal that orientation is now on a par with race in the nondiscrimination game.
Maggie Gallagher Banned in Boston: The coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty and see Marriage Debate for Marriage and the Law: A Statement of Principles
What if marriage really is an essential core institution of American society, a close kin in importance to private property, free speech and free enterprise, public education, equal protection of the law, and a democratic form of government? How then should law and society treat marriage?
