[BigV]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

There is an easy common sense fix for this kind of thing. The church, based on it's religious beliefs does not support same sex marriage. So what? They still should be able to carry on their work in areas that they always have. There are many other agencies who will work with same sex marriages for foster and adoptive issues. When we make this an all or nothing event we hurt more then just the church.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

The issue is that the Roman Catholic Church should not discriminate against homosexuals if they want to receive taxpayer money. I agree that churches should be able to preach whatever they want, marry whoever they please, and allow whoever to adopt from their charities, assuming their funding is completely independent from the state. Although, once churches start getting taxpayer money, they should abide by different rules.

Dear .joe

I agree with pierce here. I don't object to the church doing the church's thing, but when they're acting as an agent of the state by taking money from the state in exchange for services rendered, it is incumbent upon them to abide by the state's rules. A starker (perhaps so stark it seems absurd) example is: What if the Catholic Church decided not to consider Protestant or Jewish or Muslim couples as candidates as adoptive parents *because of a religious objection*? That is plain to imagine. I mean, come on, the Catholic Church must certainly disagree with the religious conclusions followers of those other faiths have come to, and yet, there's no mention that differences such as these are obstacles for the Catholic Church.

And this argument:

But Anthony R. Picarello Jr., general counsel and associate general secretary
of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, disagreed.
“It’s true that the church doesn’t have a First Amendment right
to have a government contract,” he said, “but it does have a First Amendment right
not to be excluded from a contract based on its religious beliefs.”

is also bogus. You're a soldier. What if I joined your outfit but refused some of your orders claiming a religious exemption? "I'll do all that other stuff, but I won't kill anyone." How is that acceptable? I'm guessing here, but I imagine the answer is "Then the Army has no further need of your services." And the Army and I would part company. I'd get to keep my non-killer status and the Army would get to keep its money.

I want to add that you are completely correct when you say that there is considerable collateral damage when this becomes an all or nothing conflict. We don't agree on where that hurt occurs or the extent of the damage. "Hurt the church"? How? Economically? Who's "hurting" the church? I think you're implying that the children who would not be served by the now-closed Church adoption office would be hurt, and that's so, but they're likely to be served by some other office that abides by the state's rules. For that matter, let the Church keep their office open, but refuse the state contract along with refusing the state rules. Now, that's fair, is it not?