Search This Blog

Saturday, November 28, 2009

Shortsighted Governors; Prudent Archdiocese

...RICHMOND | The governors of Virginia and Maryland, both Catholics, said Tuesday that it would be wrong for the church to suspend or reduce social services in the nation's capital if the District approves gay marriage.

Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine and Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley criticized the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington's response to the District's gay marriage proposal during a joint appearance on Washington radio station WTOP...

So reports the Washington Times.

Evidently, the governors of Virginia and Maryland think that the Roman Catholic Archdiocese is violating the principles of Christian charity by refusing to provide social services (such as adoption) should the District of Columbia approve homosexual marriage. Yet it is probably the case the the governors are being shortsighted while the Archdiocese is being prudent, especially in light of Roman Catholic scandals involving pedophilia.

Given the current political and legal climate of the United States in which homosexual advocacy is well-funded, aggressive, and enjoying the sympathy of major media, homosexual marriage is almost certain to pass, and with it homosexual couples gaianing the right to adopt children. During the first few years following the legalization of homosexual marriage, the mainstream media will almost certainly celebrate Heather and her two mommies or Harry and his two daddies. Sober, sane, authoritative mental health professionals will assure us that children raised by homosexual couples will be happy, well-adjusted, and...

Scroll down eighteen years later. The instability of homosexual marriage adds to the number of children who have grown up in broken homes, contributing to spreading social pathology. Among them there will be many a Tom, Dick, or Harry who had two "daddies" coming out of the woodwork with woeful tales of growing up sexually abused.

While homosexual marriage will be problematic for a generation of children adopted and raised by homosexual ccouples, it augurs well for future lawyers suing the institutions that make such a state of affairs possible. Perhaps even states which legalize homosexual marriage and adoption will find themselves sued; while judges, politicians, and other facilitators of the process may find themselves and their estates named as accessories.

The Roman Catholic Church is only now beginning to recover from a horrific, nation-wide scandal involving priests sexually abusing teenaged boys. Even now, tales from Ireland reveal a dark world of Roman Catholic charitable institutions in which the abuse of defenseless orphans was widespread. In a world in which its adoption agencies will be forced by law to place children with homosexual couples, it is almost impossible to see how the Roman Church--or any church with extensive charitable institutions--could escape further litigation over the same issue. Hence, the Washington Archdiocese's decision to back away from providing social services should homosexual marriage be legalized is neither bigotry nor political blackmail, but simple prudence coupled with a sense of responsibility. The Archdiocese is taking the long view and considering potentially unpleasant futures--something it must do to ensure that it is there for a future generation.

The politicians, however, are doing only what seems likely to generate positive publicity. In doing so, they show a singular lack of concern for the future--the very thing that children represent. While not a Roman Catholic but a Calvinist, I'm with the Roman Catholic Archdiocese on this one. Someone needs to tell the American political class that it is playing with social fire.


  1. My wife and I are references for two married* men in our condominium who are seeking to adopt a child. We are friends with a half dozen gay couples and their wonderful, well-adjusted children.

    I believe that some homosexuals shouldn't be adopting, and neither should some straight people. That's why all prospective adoptive parents go through screening.

    Why do you think homosexuals inherently make bad parents?

    *In their former Jewish congregation, though not in the eyes of the law.

  2. John, I agree that many adoptive parents shouldn't be allowed to adopt, and many children of heterosexual unions are better off with another set of parents. However, I didn't spend two years in Bangkok for nothing. Perhaps everything I mistrusted about the sexual revolution--hetero or homo--got confirmation from what I saw there.

    Perhaps the bottom line (pun intended) comes to three things:

    (1) Being raised with "two daddies" gives a pretty skewed and confused picture of how families are formed.

    (2) Anyone who enjoys giving or getting the moral equivalent of a rectal inspection simply cannot be healthy.

    (3) Data from Scandinavia show that homosexual "marriages" are few and unstable. This is scarcely surprising since much of the homosexual lifestyle is predicated on not being tied down, "exploring" one's sexual expression (which seems to be a euphemism for bouncing around), and, indeed, as a protest against traditional marriage. We don't have data on twenty-sommethings raised by homosexuals yet, but we do know that other "non-traditional families" (i.e., ones headed by single mothers) are great sources of social pathology. Why add one more?

    How old are the "well-adjusted" children of your gay friends? Any of them over thirteen?

    But, double check, and you will notice that my main point was that the Roman Catholic diocese is probably very, very wary of anything that might set them up for a big lawsuit at this point.

    I guess you can see that I am a dyed-inn-the-wool reactionary.