A Stitch in Haste

Professional bigot Maggie Gallagher joins the chorus of the pre-FMA-vote mobsters by repeating -- one must presume knowingly -- a rather vicious lie about the Massachusetts "Catholic adoption" fiasco:

In 2003 the Catholic Church clarified its principles on adoption: Catholic agencies may not place children with same-sex couples. This spring a Boston Globe story revealed that Catholic Charities in Boston had in the past placed a small number of children in foster care with gay couples. The Archbishop (now Cardinal) Sean O’Malley made it clear: This would not happen in the future.
...
The Catholic Church asked both the governor and the legislature for a religious exemption, so it could carry on its work of helping children find homes. Governor Mitt Romney regretfully told Catholic leaders that he had no authority to issue an exemption. Leaders of the state legislature flatly refused to countenance what they called “discrimination.”

The net result is ... “State Puts Church out of the Adoption Biz.”

This is, of course, utter nonsense.

This is very simple: Massachusetts did not shut down Catholic Charities' adoption program. The people who run Catholic Charities did not shut down their adoption program. It was exclusively and entirely Massachusetts' four bigot-bishops (now three bishops and a cardinal) who, exercising dictatorial control over the agency, summarily ordered the adoption program terminated.

But perhaps the four bigot-bishops were merely expressing the collective will of their parishioners and of the dedicated experts who run Catholic Charities and its adoption program. How did lay Catholics and the professionals who actually work to place children with adoptive families feel about the bigot-bishops' decision?

In December, the Catholic Charities board, which is dominated by lay people, voted unanimously to continue gay adoptions. But, on Feb. 28, the four bishops announced a plan to seek an exemption from the antidiscrimination laws. Eight of the 42 board members quit in protest, saying the agency should welcome gays as adoptive parents.

Where is Gallagher's "will of the majority" god now? Unelected activist judges are bad, but unelected activist bishops are perfectly okay?

Pathetic.

As for the freedom of religion gobbledygook, remember that Catholic Charities, unlike a Roman Catholic Diocese, is itself not a "church" and therefore simply has no First Amendment protection from anti-discrimination laws. (Oh, sorry, I forgot, Gallagher insists on putting "discrimination" in scare quotes, just like she does with same-sex "marriage." How Washington Times of her.) When the Vatican is forced by law to ordain married lesbians as Roman Catholic priests, then Gallagher and her ilk will have a valid First Amendment case to make, but not before. (Incidentally, has she penned a single column about China's policies toward Catholicism? No? Go figure.)

---

Meanwhile, Gallagher recently participated in a debate on marriage policy with Yale law professor William N. Eskridge Jr., sponsored by the CATO Institute. The debate coincided with the release of a major CATO policy paper opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment; see also here.

My previous Gallagher posts here.