The Coming Conflict Between Same-Sex Marriage And Religious Liberty
Sound of Trumpet
Banned in Boston
The coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty.
by Maggie Gallagher
05/15/2006, Volume 011, Issue 33
CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF BOSTON made the announcement on March 10: It was
getting out of the adoption business. "We have encountered a dilemma we
cannot resolve. . . . The issue is adoption to same-sex couples."
It was shocking news. Catholic Charities of Boston, one of the nation's
oldest adoption agencies, had long specialized in finding good homes
for hard to place kids. "Catholic Charities was always at the top of
the list," Paula Wisnewski, director of adoption for the Home for
Little Wanderers, told the Boston Globe. "It's a shame because it is
certainly going to mean that fewer children from foster care are going
to find permanent homes." Marylou Sudders, president of the
Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, said
simply, "This is a tragedy for kids."
How did this tragedy happen?
It's a complicated story. Massachusetts law prohibited "orientation
discrimination" over a decade ago. Then in November 2003, the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered gay marriage. The majority
ruled that only animus against gay people could explain why anyone
would want to treat opposite-sex and same-sex couples differently. That
same year, partly in response to growing pressure for gay marriage and
adoption both here and in Europe, a Vatican statement made clear that
placing children with same-sex couples violates Catholic teaching.
Then in October 2005, the Boston Globe broke the news: Boston Catholic
Charities had placed a small number of children with same-sex couples.
Sean Cardinal O'Malley, who has authority over Catholic Charities of
Boston, responded by stating that the agency would no longer do so.
Seven members of the Boston Catholic Charities board (about one-sixth
of the membership) resigned in protest. Joe Solmonese, president of the
Human Rights Campaign, which lobbies for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender equal rights, issued a thundering denunciation of the
Catholic hierarchy: "These bishops are putting an ugly political agenda
before the needs of very vulnerable children. Every one of the nation's
leading children's welfare groups agrees that a parent's sexual
orientation is irrelevant to his or her ability to raise a child. What
these bishops are doing is shameful, wrong, and has nothing to do
whatsoever with faith."
But getting square with the church didn't end Catholic Charities' woes.
To operate in Massachusetts, an adoption agency must be licensed by the
state. And to get a license, an agency must pledge to obey state laws
barring discrimination--including the decade-old ban on orientation
discrimination. With the legalization of gay marriage in the state,
discrimination against same-sex couples would be outlawed, too.
Cardinal O'Malley asked Governor Mitt Romney for a religious exemption
from the ban on orientation discrimination. Governor Romney reluctantly
responded that he lacked legal authority to grant one unilaterally, by
executive order. So the governor and archbishop turned to the state
legislature, requesting a conscience exemption that would allow
Catholic Charities to continue to help kids in a manner consistent with
Catholic teaching.
To date, not a single other Massachusetts political leader appears
willing to consider even the narrowest religious exemption. Lieutenant
Governor Kerry Healey, the Republican candidate for governor in this
fall's election, refused to budge: "I believe that any institution that
wants to provide services that are regulated by the state has to abide
by the laws of the state," Healey told the Boston Globe on March 2,
"and our antidiscrimination laws are some of our most important."
>From there, it was only a short step to the headline "State Putting
Church Out of Adoption Business," which ran over an opinion piece in
the Boston Globe by John Garvey, dean of Boston College Law School.
It's worth underscoring that Catholic Charities' problem with the state
didn't hinge on its receipt of public money. Ron Madnick, president of
the Massachusetts chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church
and State, agreed with Garvey's assessment: "Even if Catholic Charities
ceased receiving tax support and gave up its role as a state
contractor, it still could not refuse to place children with same-sex
couples."
This March, then, unexpectedly, a mere two years after the introduction
of gay marriage in America, a number of latent concerns about the
impact of this innovation on religious freedom ceased to be
theoretical. How could Adam and Steve's marriage possibly hurt anyone
else? When religious-right leaders prophesy negative consequences from
gay marriage, they are often seen as overwrought. The First Amendment,
we are told, will protect religious groups from persecution for their
views about marriage.
So who is right? Is the fate of Catholic Charities of Boston an
aberration or a sign of things to come?
I PUT THE QUESTION to Anthony Picarello, president and general counsel
of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The Becket Fund is widely
recognized as one of the best religious liberty law firms and the only
one that defends the religious liberty of all faith groups, "from
Anglicans to Zoroastrians," as its founder Kevin J. Hasson likes to say
(referring to actual clients the Becket Fund has defended).
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."
For scholars, these will be interesting times: Want to know exactly
where the borders of church and state are located? "Wait a few years,"
Picarello laughs. The flood of litigation surrounding each point of
contact will map out the territory. For religious liberty lawyers,
there are boom times ahead. As one Becket Fund donor told Picarello
ruefully, "At least you know you're not in the buggy whip business."
Picarello is a Harvard-trained litigator experienced in religious
liberty issues. But predicting the legal consequences of as big a
change as gay marriage is a job for more than one mind. So last
December, the Becket Fund brought together ten religious liberty
scholars of right and left to look at the question of the impact of gay
marriage on the freedom of religion. Picarello summarizes: "All the
scholars we got together see a problem; they all see a conflict coming.
They differ on how it should be resolved and who should win, but they
all see a conflict coming."
These are not necessarily scholars who oppose gay marriage. Chai
Feldblum, for example, is a Georgetown law professor who refers to
herself as "part of an inner group of public-intellectual movement
leaders committed to advancing LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transsexual] equality in this country." Marc Stern is the general
counsel for the center-left American Jewish Congress. Robin Wilson of
the University of Maryland law school is undecided on gay marriage.
Jonathan Turley of George Washington law school has supported
legalizing not only gay marriage but also polygamy.
Reading through these and the other scholars' papers, I noticed an odd
feature. Generally speaking the scholars most opposed to gay marriage
were somewhat less likely than others to foresee large conflicts
ahead--perhaps because they tended to find it "inconceivable," as Doug
Kmiec of Pepperdine law school put it, that "a successful analogy will
be drawn in the public mind between irrational, and morally repugnant,
racial discrimination and the rational, and at least morally debatable,
differentiation of traditional and same-sex marriage." That's a key
consideration. For if orientation is like race, then people who oppose
gay marriage will be treated under law like bigots who opposed
interracial marriage. Sure, we don't arrest people for being racists,
but the law does intervene in powerful ways to punish and discourage
racial discrimination, not only by government but also by private
entities. Doug Laycock, a religious liberty expert at the University of
Texas law school, similarly told me we are a "long way" from equating
orientation with race in the law.
By contrast, the scholars who favor gay marriage found it relatively
easy to foresee looming legal pressures on faith-based organizations
opposed to gay marriage, perhaps because many of these scholars live in
social and intellectual circles where the shift Kmiec regards as
inconceivable has already happened. They have less trouble imagining
that people and groups who oppose gay marriage will soon be treated by
society and the law the way we treat racists because that's pretty
close to the world in which they live now.
The (Gay) Public Intellectual
Of all the scholars who attended, perhaps the most surprising is Chai
Feldblum. She is a Georgetown law professor who is highly sought after
on civil rights issues, especially gay civil rights. She has drafted
many federal bills to prohibit orientation discrimination and
innumerable amicus briefs in constitutional cases seeking equality for
gay people. I ask her why she decided to make time for a conference on
the impact of same-sex marriage on religious liberty.
"Not because I was caught up in the panic," she laughs. She'd been
thinking through the moral implications of nondiscrimination rules in
the law, a lonely undertaking for a gay rights advocate. "Gay rights
supporters often try to present these laws as purely neutral and having
no moral implications. But not all discrimination is bad," Feldblum
points out. In employment law, for instance, "we allow discrimination
against people who sexually abuse children, and we don't say 'the only
question is can they type' even if they can type really quickly."
To get to the point where the law prohibits discrimination, Feldblum
says, "there have to be two things: one, a majority of the society
believing the characteristic on which the person is being discriminated
against is not morally problematic, and, two, enough of a sense of
outrage to push past the normal American contract-based approach, where
the government doesn't tell you what you can do. There has to be enough
outrage to bypass that basic default mode in America. Unlike some of my
compatriots in the gay rights movement, I think we advance the cause of
gay equality if we make clear there are moral assessments that underlie
antidiscrimination laws."
But there was a second reason Feldblum made time for this particular
conference. She was raised an Orthodox Jew. She wanted to demonstrate
respect for religious people and their concerns, to show that the gay
community is not monolithic in this regard.
"It seemed to me the height of disingenuousness, absurdity, and indeed
disrespect to tell someone it is okay to 'be' gay, but not necessarily
okay to engage in gay sex. What do they think being gay means?" she
writes in her Becket paper. "I have the same reaction to courts and
legislatures that blithely assume a religious person can easily
disengage her religious belief and self-identity from her religious
practice and religious behavior. What do they think being religious
means?"
To Feldblum the emerging conflicts between free exercise of religion
and sexual liberty are real: "When we pass a law that says you may not
discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, we are burdening those
who have an alternative moral assessment of gay men and lesbians." Most
of the time, the need to protect the dignity of gay people will justify
burdening religious belief, she argues. But that does not make it right
to pretend these burdens do not exist in the first place, or that the
religious people the law is burdening don't matter.
"You have to stop, think, and justify the burden each time," says
Feldblum. She pauses. "Respect doesn't mean that the religious person
should prevail in the right to discriminate--it just means
demonstrating a respectful awareness of the religious position."
Feldblum believes this sincerely and with passion, and clearly (as she
reminds me) against the vast majority of opinion of her own community.
And yet when push comes to shove, when religious liberty and sexual
liberty conflict, she admits, "I'm having a hard time coming up with
any case in which religious liberty should win."
She pauses over cases like the one at Tufts University, one of many
current legal battles in which a Christian group is fighting for the
right to limit its leaders to people who subscribe to its particular
vision of Christianity. She's uncertain about Catholic Charities of
Boston, too: "I do not know the details of that case," she told me. "I
do believe a state should be permitted to withhold tax exempt status,
as in the Bob Jones case, from a group that is clearly contrary to the
state's policy. But to go further and say to a group that it is not
permitted to engage in a particular type of work, such as adoptions,
unless it also does adoptions for gay couples, that's a heavier hand
from the state. And I would hope we could have a dialogue about this
and not just accusations of bad faith from either side."
But the bottom line for Feldblum is: "Sexual liberty should win in most
cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual
liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because
that's the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in
any realistic manner."
The Litigator
Marc Stern has known Chai Feldblum since she was eight years old.
"Vivacious, really extraordinary," he says as he smiles, shaking his
head at the memories of the little girl whose father he knew well.
"Chai is among the most reasonable [gay rights advocates]," he says.
"If she's having trouble coming up with cases in which religious
liberty should win, we're in trouble."
As general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, Marc Stern knows
religious liberty law from the inside out. Like Anthony Picarello, he
sees the coming conflicts as pervasive. The problem is not that clergy
will be forced to perform gay marriages or prevented from preaching
their beliefs. Look past those big red herrings: "No one seriously
believes that clergy will be forced, or even asked, to perform
marriages that are anathema to them. Same-sex marriage would, however,
work a sea change in American law. That change will reverberate across
the legal and religious landscape in some ways that are today
unpredictable," he writes in his Becket Fund paper.
Consider education. Same-sex marriage will affect religious educational
institutions, he argues, in at least four ways: admissions, employment,
housing, and regulation of clubs. One of Stern's big worries right now
is a case in California where a private Christian high school expelled
two girls who (the school says) announced they were in a lesbian
relationship. Stern is not optimistic. And if the high school loses, he
tells me, "then religious schools are out of business." Or at least the
government will force religious schools to tolerate both conduct and
proclamations by students they believe to be sinful.
Stern agrees with Feldblum that public accommodation laws can and
should force truly commercial enterprises to serve all comers. But, he
asks, what of other places, such as religious camps, retreats, and
homeless shelters? Will they be considered by courts to be places of
public accommodation, too? Could a religious summer camp operated in
strict conformity with religious principles refuse to accept children
coming from same-sex marriages? What of a church-affiliated community
center, with a gym and a Little League, that offers family programs?
Must a religious-affiliated family services provider offer marriage
counseling to same-sex couples designed to facilitate or preserve their
relationships?
"Future conflict with the law in regard to licensing is certain with
regard to psychological clinics, social workers, marital counselors,
and the like," Stern wrote last December--well before the Boston
Catholic Charities story broke.
Think about that for a moment. Of all the experts gathered to forecast
the impact of gay marriage on religious organizations, no one, not even
Stern, brought up adoption licenses. "Government is so pervasive, it's
hard to know where the next battle will be," he tells me. "I thought I
had a comprehensive catalog, but the adoption license issue didn't
occur to me."
Will speech against gay marriage be allowed to continue unfettered?
"Under the American regime of freedom of speech, the answer ought to be
easy," according to Stern. But it is not entirely certain, he writes,
"because sexual-harassment-in-the-workplace principles will likely
migrate to suppress any expression of anti-same-sex-marriage views."
Stern suggests how that might work.
In the corporate world, the expression of opposition to gay marriage
will be suppressed not by gay ideologues but by corporate lawyers, who
will draw the lines least likely to entangle the company in litigation.
Stern likens this to "a paroxysm of prophylaxis--banning 'Jesus saves'
because someone might take offense."
Or consider a recent case at William Paterson University, a state
school in New Jersey. A senior faculty member sent out a mass email
inviting people to attend movies with a gay theme. A student employee,
a 63-year-old Muslim named Jihad Daniel, replied to the professor in a
private email asking not to receive messages "about 'Connie and Sally'
and 'Adam and Steve.'" He went on, "These are perversions. The absence
of God in higher education brings on confusion. That is why in these
classes the Creator of the heavens and the earth is never mentioned."
The result: Daniel received a letter of reprimand for using the
"derogatory and demeaning" word "perversions" in violation of state
discrimination and harassment regulations.
Interestingly, Stern points out, a single "derogatory or demeaning"
remark not seeking sexual gratification or threatening a person's job
security does not constitute harassment under ordinary federal and
state sexual harassment law originally intended to protect women in the
workplace. Moreover, Stern says, "our entire free speech regime depends
on the principle that no adult has a right to expect the law will
protect him from being exposed to disagreeable speech."
Except, apparently in New Jersey, where a state attorney general's
opinion concluded, "[C]learly speech which violates a nondiscrimination
policy is not protected." "This was so 'clear' to the writer," notes
Stern, "that she cited not a single case or law review article in
support." Ultimately, the school withdrew its reprimand from Daniel's
employment file after receiving negative publicity and the threat of a
lawsuit from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).
Sexual harassment law as an instrument for suppressing religious
speech? A few days after I interviewed Stern, an Alliance Defense Fund
press release dropped into my mail box: "OSU Librarian Slapped with
'Sexual Harassment' Charge for Recommending Conservative Books for
Freshmen." One of the books the Ohio State librarian (a pacifist Quaker
who drives a horse and buggy to work) recommended was It Takes a Family
by Senator Rick Santorum. Three professors alleged that the mere
appearance of such a book on a freshman reading list made them feel
"unsafe." The faculty voted to pursue the sexual harassment allegation,
and the process quickly resulted in the charge being dropped.
In the end the investigation of the librarian was more of a
nuisance--you might call it harassment--than anything else. But the
imbalance in terms of free speech remains clear: People who favor gay
rights face no penalty for speaking their views, but can inflict a risk
of litigation, investigation, and formal and informal career penalties
on others whose views they dislike. Meanwhile, people who think gay
marriage is wrong cannot know for sure where the line is now or where
it will be redrawn in the near future. "Soft" coercion produces no
martyrs to disturb anyone's conscience, yet it is highly effective in
chilling the speech of ordinary people.
Finally, I ask Stern the big question on everyone's mind. Religious
groups that take government funding will almost certainly be required
to play by the nondiscrimination rules, but what about groups that,
while receiving no government grants, are tax-exempt? Can a group--a
church or religious charity, say--that opposes gay marriage keep its
tax exemption if gay marriage becomes the law? "That," says Stern, "is
the 18 trillion dollar question."
Twenty years ago it would have been inconceivable that a Christian or
Jewish organization that opposed gay marriage might be treated as
racist in the public square. Today? It's just not clear.
"In Massachusetts I'd be very worried," Stern says finally. The
churches themselves might have a First Amendment defense if a state
government or state courts tried to withdraw their exemption, he says,
but "the parachurch institutions are very much at risk and may be put
out of business because of the licensing issues, or for these other
reasons--it's very unclear. None of us nonprofits can function without
[state] tax exemption. As a practical matter, any large charity needs
that real estate tax exemption."
He blames religious conservatives for adopting the wrong political
strategy on gay issues. "Live and let live," he tells me, is the only
thing around the world that works. But I ask him point blank what he
would say to people who dismiss the threat to free exercise of religion
as evangelical hysteria. "It's not hysteria, this is very real," he
tells me, "Boston Catholic Charities shows that."
Fundamentally, Stern sees this as a "religious war" between people for
whom an egalitarian secular ethic is the only rational option and
people who can make room for an ethic based on faith in a God who
commands. There are very few signs of a willingness to compromise on
either side, he notes.
"You look around the world and even the right to preach is in doubt,"
he tells me. "In the United States we are not foreseeably in that
position. Fundamentally speech is still safe in the United States.
Beyond speech, nothing is safe."
The Health Care Law Expert
Robin Wilson is an expert in both family law and health care law. So
when Anthony Picarello approached her about thinking through the impact
gay marriage may have on religious institutions, she had a ready model
at hand: the struggles over conscience exemptions in the health care
field after Roe v. Wade elevated abortion to a constitutional right.
Wilson predicts "a concerted effort to take same-sex marriage from a
negative right to be free of state interference to a positive
entitlement to assistance by others. Although Roe and Griswold
established only the right to noninterference by the state in a woman's
abortion and contraceptive decisions, family planning advocates have
worked strenuously to force individual institutions to provide
controversial services, and to force individual health care providers
to participate in them."
"This litigation after Roe," she says, "provides a convincing
prediction about the trajectory that litigation after Goodridge will
take" (Goodridge being the Massachusetts supreme court decision that
legalized gay marriage). The post-Roe litigation also provides fair
warning about the limits of First Amendment protection. The lever used
to force hospitals and doctors to perform abortions and sterilizations
was the receipt of any public money. "Given the status of most churches
as state nonprofits and federally tax-exempt organizations, it is
likely that public support arguments will be advanced to compel
churches to participate in same-sex marriage. Thus, churches in
Massachusetts (and perhaps soon other states) may have much to worry
about," Wilson writes. "Churches that oppose same-sex marriage today
may perceive a credible, palpable threat to their tax-exempt status,
the benefits of which are substantial."
This threat is credible, she explains, because to be recognized as
tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an
organization must have purposes and activities that do not violate
fundamental "public policy," a concept that neither the Supreme Court
nor the IRS has fully defined.
The case that worries Wilson in this regard is one that Chai Feldblum
mentioned: Bob Jones University v. United States, in which the IRS
revoked the federal tax exemption of Bob Jones University because the
school prohibited interracial marriage and dating among its students.
The Court easily dismissed Bob Jones's claim that its prohibition on
interracial dating was religiously grounded and therefore protected by
the First Amendment. The denial of tax benefits, the Court asserted,
would not prevent the school "from observing their religious tenets."
Equally, the First Amendment did not prevent religious hospitals from
being punished for refusing to perform abortions, once abortion became
a constitutional right. It was Congress and state legislatures that
stepped in to provide generous statutory religious exemptions. Once gay
marriage is legal, it too will probably become fundamental public
policy. To protect the tax-exempt status of religious groups that
oppose gay marriage will thus likely require legislative intervention
to create religious exemptions at either the state or federal level or
both, says Wilson. She means the same kind of religious exemption that,
to date, no politician in Massachusetts besides the outgoing governor
is willing to support.
The Legal Eagle
Jonathan Turley, the George Washington professor who is a First
Amendment specialist, also sees a serious risk ahead. Turley has no
problem with gay marriage. But the gay marriage debate, he notes,
exposes "long ignored weaknesses in doctrines relating to free speech,
free exercise, and the right to association."
Before 1970 the law was "viewpoint neutral" with regard to the tax
exempt status of all charitable, religious, and public interest
organizations under section 501(c)(3), he says. The tax exemption was
viewed not as a public subsidy, but as a means of encouraging private
donations and charitable conduct in general. In 1971, the IRS issued a
decision redefining the tax exemption as a public endorsement or
subsidy. This meant that the IRS would strip an organization of its
exempt status if its purposes, although legal, were "contrary to public
policy." The goal at the time was to use legal pressure to end private
racial discrimination. But why stop there?
Right now, Turley notes, there is no clear federal public policy
against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But such a
policy is imminent, he believes, most likely within the decade. Once
that occurs, he agrees with Robin Wilson: "Any organization that
engaged in such discrimination as a matter of faith would be in a
position similar to Bob Jones University."
It's not that hard to imagine: Pass an antidiscrimination law at the
federal level, which polls suggest the majority of Americans already
support; look for a 5-or 10-point swing in public opinion on gay
marriage; then add a new IRS commissioner (not directly accountable to
the voters) who wants to make his or her progressive mark, and
religious groups would wake up to find themselves playing in a whole
new ballgame.
Religious bodies may be as simple as the small, independent
congregations that exist all over America, but often they are large and
complex institutions with extensive property and multiple missions,
notably saving souls. Even a slight risk of anything so damaging as the
loss of tax-exempt status will persuade many such groups to at least
mute their marriage theology in the interest of preserving the rest of
their activities. Such a self-imposed muting on the part of faith
communities would change our culture of marriage, and our understanding
of the free exercise of religion, without necessarily creating visible
martyrs.
The Consensus Broker
Charles Haynes, a senior scholar at the Freedom Forum's influential
First Amendment Center, specializes in helping groups in conflict find
common ground on First Amendment issues. For example, he recently got
the Christian Educators Association International and the Gay, Lesbian
and Straight Education Networks (GLSEN) to agree to what he calls
"consensus guidelines" for public schools dealing with orientation
issues. I went to him for an outside opinion from a First Amendment
expert who had not attended the Becket Fund conference. Like every
other expert I interviewed, Haynes told me he wasn't concerned that
clergy will be forced to marry same sex couples. What about the other
potential conflicts? Are they real? "There are already tensions," he
tells me. "I think there is a kind of collision course here that is
inevitable."
For a man in the conciliation business, Haynes doesn't sound
optimistic. "I think it's a serious question that will grow more
difficult. I think we will have more and more tension between efforts
by the state to protect gay rights and the need to protect religious
freedom. This will have an impact on religious individuals as well as
perhaps religious organizations in areas such as housing, the
workplace, hiring."
I ask him whether his concerns are shared by the wide spectrum of
religious and civil rights groups he deals with. "Everyone's talking
about it, thinking about it," Haynes tells me. "There are a lot of
different ideas about where we are going to end up, but everyone thinks
it is the battle of our times."
The Marriage Line
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. And when we get gay marriage
because courts have declared it a constitutional right, the signal is
stronger still.
The method and the mechanism for achieving protected status may be
different for orientation and for race. Even the Massachusetts supreme
court, for example, declined to rule explicitly that orientation is a
protected class, subject to strict scrutiny. But in Massachusetts, the
end result may be similar. If state courts declare gay marriage a
constitutional right, they are likely to see support for gay marriage
as state public policy.
On the cultural level, the declaration by a court that only animus
explains why anyone would treat two men differently from a husband and
wife represents an unfolding civil rights logic that has real
consequences. As Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman put it, "But if
you give one church permission to discriminate against gays, what's
next? Permission to discriminate against blacks or Jews who want to
adopt?"
End Game
On April 15, the Boston Globe ran a story about three other Catholic
adoption agencies, in Worcester, Fall River, and Springfield, that do
not do gay adoptions. The story noted that, for now, these agencies
will not be punished for their refusal. Constantia Papanikolaou,
general counsel for the state Department of Early Education and Care,
said her agency is holding off taking any action because the governor
has proposed legislation that would provide a religious exemption for
adoption agencies. "We're going to wait and see how the legislation
plays out," Papanikolaou said.
The reprieve is likely to be short-lived. Observers universally say the
religious exemption has no chance of passage, and in a few months, Mitt
Romney will no longer be governor. What then? The Boston Globe story
provides a clue: "Gary Buseck, legal director of the Gay & Lesbian
Advocates & Defenders in Boston, said his group realizes that
Massachusetts will have a new governor next year, and it expects that
he or she will aggressively enforce the state's antidiscrimination
laws."
Marc Stern is looking more and more like a reluctant prophet: "It's
going to be a train wreck," he told me in the offices of the American
Jewish Congress high above Manhattan. "A very dangerous train wreck. I
don't see anyone trying to stem the train wreck, or slow down the
trains. Both sides are really looking for Armageddon, and they frankly
both want to win. I prefer to avoid Armageddon, if possible."
Maggie Gallagher is president of the Institute for Marriage and Public
Policy (marriagedebate.com) and coauthor of The Case for Marriage.
raven1
<soundof...@hoshmail.com> wrote:
>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp
>
>
>Banned in Boston
>
>The coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty.
>by Maggie Gallagher
>
>
>05/15/2006, Volume 011, Issue 33
>
>
>
>CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF BOSTON made the announcement on March 10: It was
>getting out of the adoption business. "We have encountered a dilemma we
>cannot resolve. . . . The issue is adoption to same-sex couples."
>
>It was shocking news. Catholic Charities of Boston, one of the nation's
>oldest adoption agencies, had long specialized in finding good homes
>for hard to place kids. "Catholic Charities was always at the top of
>the list," Paula Wisnewski, director of adoption for the Home for
>Little Wanderers, told the Boston Globe. "It's a shame because it is
>certainly going to mean that fewer children from foster care are going
>to find permanent homes." Marylou Sudders, president of the
>Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, said
>simply, "This is a tragedy for kids."
>
>How did this tragedy happen?
One word: bigotry. Catholic Charities should hang their heads in
shame.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
No One
> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp
> Banned in Boston
>
> The coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty.
> by Maggie Gallagher
>
> 05/15/2006, Volume 011, Issue 33
>
> CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF BOSTON made the announcement on March 10: It was
> getting out of the adoption business. "We have encountered a dilemma we
> cannot resolve. . . . The issue is adoption to same-sex couples."
>
> How did this tragedy happen?
>
Simple. Some brain-dead prelates decided in spite of the evidence
to the contrary that it was better for kids to stay in impersonal
institutions than to be adopted by gay couples who would make
excellent parents.
> It's a complicated story. <snip
>
> Then in October 2005, the Boston Globe broke the news: Boston Catholic
> Charities had placed a small number of children with same-sex couples.
> Sean Cardinal O'Malley, who has authority over Catholic Charities of
> Boston, responded by stating that the agency would no longer do so.
>
> Seven members of the Boston Catholic Charities board (about one-sixth
> of the membership) resigned in protest.
So, the prelates went against the opinion of their own experts!
> Cardinal O'Malley asked Governor Mitt Romney for a religious exemption
> from the ban on orientation discrimination. Governor Romney reluctantly
> responded that he lacked legal authority to grant one unilaterally, by
> executive order. So the governor and archbishop turned to the state
> legislature, requesting a conscience exemption that would allow
> Catholic Charities to continue to help kids in a manner consistent with
> Catholic teaching.
>
> To date, not a single other Massachusetts political leader appears
> willing to consider even the narrowest religious exemption.
I.e., the overwhelming consensus is that the Catholic Church is
wrong on this issue.
> Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, the Republican candidate for
> governor in this fall's election, refused to budge: "I believe that
> any institution that wants to provide services that are regulated by
> the state has to abide by the laws of the state," Healey told the
> Boston Globe on March 2, "and our antidiscrimination laws are some
> of our most important."
Even the Republicans think the Catholic Church is out to lunch on
this issue!
> So who is right? Is the fate of Catholic Charities of Boston an
> aberration or a sign of things to come?
>
> To Feldblum the emerging conflicts between free exercise of religion
> and sexual liberty are real: "When we pass a law that says you may not
> discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, we are burdening those
> who have an alternative moral assessment of gay men and lesbians." Most
> of the time, the need to protect the dignity of gay people will justify
> burdening religious belief, she argues. But that does not make it right
> to pretend these burdens do not exist in the first place, or that the
> religious people the law is burdening don't matter.
This is a specious argument. Nobody is forcing anyone who objects to
homosexuality to try it. Nobody is forcing or encouraging any gay
church members to have sex when they are trying to stay celebate to
satisfy their religion's practices. And gay couples who adopt
straight children will not try to make the kids gay.
What these religious folks are doing is really evil. They are using
their religion as an excuse to practice bigotry and to get around laws
designed to protect minorities from descrimination. One might also
point out that the bigots are really trying to damage the U.S. - on
crass economic grounds, we can't affort to marginalize several percent
of the population, when that includes highly talented individuals, if
we are to stand a chance of competing against China (which is rapidly
developing economically). You simply can't get the most out of people
when descrimation makes it hard for them to find work and hard for
them to find housing. Allowing the bigots to get away with it will
simply be one more nail in this country's coffin, as we sink into
irrelevance by refusing to let talented people do what they are good
at.
Bitchin' Bonney
wrote:
>"Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@hoshmail.com> writes:
>
>> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp
>> Banned in Boston
>>
>> The coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty.
>> by Maggie Gallagher
>>
>> 05/15/2006, Volume 011, Issue 33
>>
>> CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF BOSTON made the announcement on March 10: It was
>> getting out of the adoption business. "We have encountered a dilemma we
>> cannot resolve. . . . The issue is adoption to same-sex couples."
>>
>> How did this tragedy happen?
>>
>
>Simple. Some brain-dead prelates decided in spite of the evidence
>to the contrary that it was better for kids to stay in impersonal
>institutions than to be adopted by gay couples who would make
>excellent parents.
The State of Florida recently banned homosexual adoption. That
decision being made by the representatives of the people...a very
diverse group it appears. Further more, That homosexuals "would make
excellent parents" is speculative. Children need a mother AND father.
Children should not be speculated with. Of course, homosexuals don't
care about that. If they did they wouldn't even attempt to adopt.
No One
The only thing most of us care about the State of Florida is whether
or not that state refrains from rigging presidential elections.
As to whether homosexuals make excellent parents, see
<http://mentalhealth.about.com/od/gaylesbian/a/samesex1104.htm>,
<http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/sci_update.cfm?DocID=245>, and
<http://www.aap.org/advocacy/archives/febsamesex.htm>.
Mark K. Bilbo
<1147741874.2...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>...
<SNIP>
You know, before you get up on your moral high horse, maybe you shouldn't
break federal copyright law and hide behind proxies (many of which may
have been created illegally by crackers).
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
Bitchin' Bonney
wrote:
>Bitchin' Bonney <bibon@rālant.org> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 16 May 2006 02:25:12 GMT, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> The State of Florida recently banned homosexual adoption. That
>> decision being made by the representatives of the people...a very
>> diverse group it appears. Further more, That homosexuals "would make
>> excellent parents" is speculative. Children need a mother AND father.
>> Children should not be speculated with. Of course, homosexuals don't
>> care about that. If they did they wouldn't even attempt to adopt.
>
>The only thing most of us care about the State of Florida is whether
>or not that state refrains from rigging presidential elections.
Dodge ball!
>As to whether homosexuals make excellent parents, see
><http://mentalhealth.about.com/od/gaylesbian/a/samesex1104.htm>,
><http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/sci_update.cfm?DocID=245>, and
><http://www.aap.org/advocacy/archives/febsamesex.htm>.
all opinions and irrelevant.
No One
> On Tue, 16 May 2006 04:37:10 GMT, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Bitchin' Bonney <bibon@râlant.org> writes:
> >
> >> On Tue, 16 May 2006 02:25:12 GMT, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> The State of Florida recently banned homosexual adoption. That
> >> decision being made by the representatives of the people...a very
> >> diverse group it appears. Further more, That homosexuals "would make
> >> excellent parents" is speculative. Children need a mother AND father.
> >> Children should not be speculated with. Of course, homosexuals don't
> >> care about that. If they did they wouldn't even attempt to adopt.
> >
> >The only thing most of us care about the State of Florida is whether
> >or not that state refrains from rigging presidential elections.
>
> Dodge ball!
No, fact.
> >As to whether homosexuals make excellent parents, see
> ><http://mentalhealth.about.com/od/gaylesbian/a/samesex1104.htm>,
> ><http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/sci_update.cfm?DocID=245>, and
> ><http://www.aap.org/advocacy/archives/febsamesex.htm>.
>
> all opinions and irrelevant.
The aap.org site belongs to the American Academy of Pediatrics,
and the other links describe legitimate research. These URLs
are both factual and relevant, whether you like it or not.
Of course, you are incapable of an honest post, being yet another
alias of a well known homophobic nut case.
Nosterill
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp
<>
> Cardinal O'Malley asked Governor Mitt Romney for a religious exemption
> from the ban on orientation discrimination. Governor Romney reluctantly
> responded that he lacked legal authority to grant one unilaterally, by
> executive order. So the governor and archbishop turned to the state
> legislature, requesting a conscience exemption that would allow
> Catholic Charities to continue to help kids in a manner consistent with
> Catholic teaching.
<>
Why is the State Legislature expected to bow down before O'Malley? This
seems to be a case of the tail trying to wag the dog, and the children
paying the price for his arrogance.
Colin Day
> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp
>
>
> Banned in Boston
>
> The coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty.
> by Maggie Gallagher
>
>
And how would Catholics react if a gay adoption agency refused to deal with
Catholics?
Colin Day aa #1500
panam...@hotmail.com
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
snip
"Religous liberty" is an oxymoron.
-Panama Floyd, Atl.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
EAC Martian Commander
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Martin McPhillips
news:2bOag.2583$JW5....@southeast.rr.com...
They'd be more than satisfied.
Dionisio
>The State of Florida recently banned homosexual adoption. That
>decision being made by the representatives of the people...a very
>diverse group it appears.
>
Ahem. "Diversity is bad."
>Further more, That homosexuals "would make excellent parents" is speculative.
>
Yeah, there have only been a few hundred studies that show the opposite.
>Children need a mother AND father.
>
>
Not according to Children's Services and numerous -- almost uncountable
-- court rulings.
>Children should not be speculated with. Of course, homosexuals don't
>care about that. If they did they wouldn't even attempt to adopt.
>
>
Wow. Speculation that children are worthy of being raised in something
other than state institutions. Why that's just radical... So much so
that the average Fundamentalist wouldn't be caught dead supporting it.
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
newsguy
Funny that a black would be harping on children need a mother
AND a father when:
"In 1965, 24 percent of black infants and 3.1 percent of white infants
were born to single mothers. By 1990 the rates had risen to 64
percent for black infants, 18 percent for whites."
More than half of all black children are born out of wedlock to
a single mother. Now you were saying something about Children
need a mother AND a father?
Bitchin' Bonney
>
>Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>
>snip
>
>"Religous liberty" is an oxymoron.
Survey: U.S. trust lowest for atheists
March, 2006
By Jeannine Aquino
theists are America’s least trusted group, according to a national
survey conducted by University sociology researchers.
Based on a telephone survey of more than 2,000 households and in-depth
interviews with more than 140 people, researchers found that Americans
rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, homosexuals and other
groups as “sharing their vision of American society.” Americans are
also least willing to let their children marry atheists.
“It tells us about how Americans view religion,” said Penny Edgell, an
associate sociology professor and the study’s lead researcher. “Many
Americans seem to believe some kind of religious faith is central to
being a good American and a good person.”
The study will appear in the April issue of the “American Sociological
Review.” Professor Joseph Gerteis and associate professor Douglas
Hartmann are study co-authors. It is the first in a series of national
studies conducted by the American Mosaic Project, a three-year project
that looks at race, religion and cultural diversity in the United
States.
Edgell said Americans traditionally have been a religious people and
associate faith with being a good citizen. The survey results indicate
that this belief hasn’t changed, Edgell said.
Those surveyed tended to view people who don’t believe in a god as the
“ultimate self-interested actor who doesn’t care about anyone but
themselves,” Edgell said.
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/03/24/67686
Bitchin' Bonney
<moc-rr-t...@5ellimd.com> wrote:
>Bitchin' Bonney wrote:
>
>>The State of Florida recently banned homosexual adoption. That
>>decision being made by the representatives of the people...a very
>>diverse group it appears.
>>
>
>Ahem. "Diversity is bad."
>
>>Further more, That homosexuals "would make excellent parents" is speculative.
>>
>
>Yeah, there have only been a few hundred studies that show the opposite.
A majority by liberal homophiles in academia.
>
>>Children need a mother AND father.
>>
>>
>
>Not according to Children's Services and numerous -- almost uncountable
>-- court rulings.
Activist judges not unlike the homophile of academia
>
>>Children should not be speculated with. Of course, homosexuals don't
>>care about that. If they did they wouldn't even attempt to adopt.
>
>Wow. Speculation that children are worthy of being raised in something
>other than state institutions. Why that's just radical... So much so
>that the average Fundamentalist wouldn't be caught dead supporting it.
There are more than enough heterosexual couples wanting to adopt.
There is no need to speculate with homosexuals who are less than
monogamous in their relationship and are a high risk group for
HIV/AIDS and drug abuse:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/msm.htm
HIV/AIDS among Men Who Have Sex with Men
In the United States, HIV and AIDS have had a tremendous effect on men
who have sex with men (MSM). MSM accounted for approximately two
thirds of all HIV infections among men in 2003, even though only about
5% to 7% of men in the United States identify themselves as MSM [1,
2]. The number of HIV diagnoses for MSM decreased during the 1980s and
1990s, but recent surveillance data show an increase in HIV diagnoses
for this group [3]. Given the high prevalence of HIV infection in
young MSM of minority races and ethnicities, there is a continued need
for culturally diverse prevention and education services.
STATISTICS
Cumulative Effect of HIV Infection and AIDS (through 2003)
An estimated 503,305 MSM (440,887 MSM and 62,418 MSM who inject drugs)
had received a diagnosis of AIDS, accounting for 67% of all men and
54% of all people who received a diagnosis of AIDS [1]
An estimated 295,981 MSM (257,898 MSM and 38,083 MSM who inject drugs)
with AIDS had died, accounting for 68% of all men and 56% of all
people with AIDS who died [1].
At the end of 2003, an estimated 207,323 MSM (182,989 MSM and 24,334
MSM who inject drugs) were living with AIDS, representing 66% of all
men and 51% of all people living with AIDS [1].
REFERENCES
1. CDC. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 2003. Vol. 15. Atlanta: US
Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2004:1–46. Also
available at http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/2003surveillancereport.pdf.
Accessed March 2, 2005.
Andrealphus
bibon@rālant.org, typed this:
> On 17 May 2006 16:36:31 -0700, panam...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>> "Religous liberty" is an oxymoron.
>
>
> Survey: U.S. trust lowest for atheists
> March, 2006
> By Jeannine Aquino
>
I wonder how many Athiests were included in the survey. LOL! Another
self-serving, self selecting bit of hogwash. Here, let's survey all
Baptists and wow! Catholics come out as the religion with the least trust,
or let's survey all Catholics, and wow! All Baptists come out as the
religion with the least trust. This crap means nothing at all.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
Dionisio
>Dionisio <moc-rr-t...@5ellimd.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Yeah, there have only been a few hundred studies that show the opposite.
>>
>>
>A majority by liberal homophiles in academia.
>
>
Translation: "It's all a vast Left-wing conspiracy!"
>>Not according to Children's Services and numerous -- almost uncountable
>>-- court rulings.
>>
>>
>Activist judges not unlike the homophile of academia
>
>
Translation: "It's all a vast Left-wing conspiracy!"
>>Wow. Speculation that children are worthy of being raised in something
>>other than state institutions. Why that's just radical... So much so
>>that the average Fundamentalist wouldn't be caught dead supporting it.
>>
>>
>
>There are more than enough heterosexual couples wanting to adopt.
>
>
Which explains all those tens of thousands of kiddos whom haven't been
adopted...
curtsybear
On 2006-05-18, Bitchin' Bonney <bibon@râlant.org> wrote:
> Survey: U.S. trust lowest for atheists
> March, 2006
> By Jeannine Aquino
But, interestingly, US trust seems to be the very highest for the
village idiot who claims to have "bullet-proof" evidence for WMDs
and claims invasions whose "real" reason for invasion changes the
more we understand just how little there is worthy of trust in him.
Oh, that's right! He hates atheists too! Therefore, we can trust
him, and we'd better trust him, since he knows when you are sleeping
and he knows when you're awake and he knows when you're dialing up
those naughty phone services, so you'd better pretend that the
diebold machine didn't reallocate your vote, for goodness sakes.
You know, all in all, a survey which says that mental ward inhabitants
trust their tinfoil hats more than any doctor wouldn't be surprising
either. And not much different.
--
A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority.
--Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)
curtsybear
On 2006-05-18, Bitchin' Bonney <bibon@râlant.org> wrote:
> There is no need to speculate with homosexuals who are less than
> monogamous in their relationship and are a high risk group for
> HIV/AIDS and drug abuse:
Since the only stats you got to support removing rights were the
CDC AIDS stats, let's see what else we can use those for, okay?
<http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/resources/factsheets/aa.htm>
According to the 2000 census, African Americans make up 12.3% of
the US population. However, African Americans accounted for 19,206
(50%) of the estimated 38,730 new HIV/AIDS diagnoses in the United
States in the 35 areas with long-term, confidential name-based
HIV reporting
Man, next thing we're going to demand that them 'darkies' can't be
allowed to adopt!
And I guess it'd be hypocritical to allow them to breed either,
given that 70% of HIV+ are accounted for in that population:
Of the estimated 145 infants perinatally infected with HIV, 105
(73%) were African American (CDC, HIV/AIDS Reporting System,
unpublished data, June 2005).
And our children! You know, the ones we ain't allowing them to
adopt or to have, the ones still in our homes -- those poor kids
are out there being corrupted by a section of society which represents
the very worst statistics possible among the young crowd! Think
of the children! We must do something about the possibility that
even one child could be exposed to this group!
Of the estimated 18,849 people under the age of 25 whose diagnosis
of HIV/AIDS was made during 2001-2004 in the 33 states with HIV
reporting, 11,554 (61%) were African American
Yep. All we need to determine your ability to have rights are them
CDC AIDS stats. If you're in a group which has bad stats, you
should just go ahead and shoot yourself and save us the trouble of
having our favorite fundamentalists take you to court to remove
all your rights.
--
"A lowering demoniacs into snake pits is a good way to drive out
legions of demons at once. It works wonders on rebellious children
too." -- Lurlean Tucker bemoans the loss of the church's daycare
license.
Alberich
What would make the adoption agency "gay?"
Alberich
No One
Have the adoption agency owned and run by two gay guys? Have an agency
that specializes in placing gay teenagers who have lost their parents?
Have an adoption agency run by Catholic priests (quite a few of whom
are supposedly gay and who closeted themselves in the cloister :-))?
tulle
I am wondering....what is your definition of "recently"? Florida's ban
goes back to the Anita Bryant days... that was about 30 years ago.
tulle
Bitchin' Bonney
You're wrong, boy.
>tulle
Bong7Boy
conservation at recess between a kid with two
"Daddy's" and a normal kid named Billy
Hey Billy my Mommy and Daddy both have a thing
and stick it in each others butts. What does
your Mommy and Daddy do Billy?
Homosexuality is a SIN
Bretts
Bong7Boy wrote:
> Homosexuality is a SIN
yes homosexalty is sin & if ne hear r homosexal then u ned 2 repent but
if ur a lesban qt then 1st sned me ur neaked pix of u & ur gf tnx
Bretts (chrsitain minister & scients teacher in a chrsitain school)
Bernard Hubbard
wrote:
Good God man if you teaching is as good as your English expression
it's a wonder that you have not been given the boot.
--
"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus
handicapped."~Elbert Hubbard to quote a relative of mine.
Bernard Hubbard
Boy Toy
<berna...@west.net.au> wrote in message
<aara72da8n44vk8o1...@4ax.com>
>On 24 May 2006 19:09:48 -0700, "Bretts" <brett...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Bong7Boy wrote:
>>
>>> Homosexuality is a SIN
>>
>>yes homosexalty is sin & if ne hear r homosexal then u ned 2 repent but
>>if ur a lesban qt then 1st sned me ur neaked pix of u & ur gf tnx
>>
>>Bretts (chrsitain minister & scients teacher in a chrsitain school)
>
>Good God man if you teaching is as good as your English expression
>it's a wonder that you have not been given the boot.
A "science" teacher in a christian school? In other words, the
janitor. It does, however, explain the mentality and logical skills
of bible school "educated" fundies.
Dionisio
> Hey Billy my Mommy and Daddy both have a thing
> and stick it in each others butts. What does
> your Mommy and Daddy do Billy?
Apparently, they let Billy watch.