“The Catholic Church opposes laws that bar discrimination against gay people.”

But what constitutes discrimination? When is an act discriminatory? Whatever answer you give, in this case it seems clear that the state (actually two states, Massachusetts and Illinois) defines discrimination in an inconsistent and arbitrary way. The state is merely selecting some forms of “discrimination” as politically incorrect, and ignoring other forms of discrimination. That is the point of my hypo about the polyamorous couple. The hypo is meant to show that there cannot be different standards of morality about what constitutes discrimination. Whenever there is serious doubt, or substantial disagreement, about whether a religious group is discriminating, the First Amendment surely gives the benefit of the doubt to the religious group. But that is just the beginning of the problem I have with what the state did with Catholic Charities.

My hypo did not quite indicate the sheer arbitrariness of the state’s action. It mainly showed the state’s inconsistency (inconsistency may or may not involve arbitrariness, and arbitrariness is worse than inconsistency). The hypo only shows the inconsistency of allowing Catholic Charities to discriminate against polyamorous couples (as I assume it is allowed to do) but not against homosexual couples. But there is arbitrariness in the state’s decision as well. For the Church regards homosexuality and not polyamory as “intrinsically disordered,” and so if Catholic Charities can discriminate against polyamorous couples, then *a fortiori* it can discriminate (“discriminate”) against gay couples. To not allow Catholic Charities to do so is pure arbitrariness (a.k.a. tyranny). The state, in effect, is saying that discrimination is not okay only if it is politically incorrect. Discrimination that is politically correct is okay. Discrimination is what “we good liberals don’t like.”

Belong to the Happy Polyamory Society if you like (liberals are saying), but you can’t adopt children if Catholic Charities doesn’t want you to; but if you are a gay couple that wants to adopt, we will be sure to tell Catholic Charities that they must give you the child or be forced to go out of business.

The state is perhaps entitled to privilege homosexual couples over polyamorous couples–we can at least argue about that. But it is not entitled to say that Catholic Charities, in its adoption policies, can discriminate against polyamorous couples but not against homosexual couples. Why not? The reason is pretty obvious. Such inconsistent and arbitrary behavior by the government is the hallmark of tyranny. The Constitution forbids such behavior by the government–that is the whole point of the Constitution. The state would have to show that there is a difference between homosexual couples and polyamorous couples that Catholic Charities must acknowledge or else be guilty of irrationality and anti-republicanism. But the government is not able to do that because there is no morally relevant difference between discrimination, for purposes of adoption, with respect to homosexual couples and with respect to polyamorous couples.

Actually, as mentioned above, there is a difference: Homosexuality but not polyamory is regarded by the Church as intrinsically disordered. This difference works against the state, however. It makes the state unable to say, “Look, you regard polyamory as morally worse than homosexuality, in a sense, and so even by your lights our policy is justified and is not inconsistent and arbitrary. We are not singling you out. We are not a self-dealing liberal government–we are a *principled* liberal government.” The state (of Massachusetts or Illinois) can’t say this for the simple reason that the Church in fact regards homosexuality as morally worse in the sense of being intrinsically disordered. And yet the state allows Catholic Charities to discriminate (“discriminate”) against polyamorous couples who want to adopt, but not against homosexual couples who also want to adopt.

Pardon me for saying this makes no sense whatsoever and is the harbinger of tyranny. The solution is not to forbid discrimination against polyamorous couples. The solution is to give sufficiently ample leeway, in deciding what constitutes discrimination, to religious conscience and religious reasons. The states of Massachusetts and Illinois–like most liberals today–are disastrously clueless about the importance of that.

Although you yourself did the very same thing just a few posts back – declared yourself on one side of an argument over psychological definitions; dissented from the current definition of a term and advocated for a different view:

“I believe there is a controversy over GID for DSM-V, but I am not up on it. I believe people who feel they are physically one sex but mentally another do not like being classified as having a psychiatric disorder, and that may have something to do with it.”

And a little further back, when I mentioned some points which are unequivocally part of the body of psychological knowledge: “Men tend to bond and pass on knowledge through common activity, while women tend to bond and pass on knowledge through discussion. Men tend to compartmentalize decisions, while women tend to make decisions more holistically.”

You gave your opinion, and started by way of disputing the terms: “This, it seems to me, is not true complementarity. Complementarity isn’t about tendencies.” Dismissed, as far as you were concerned.

As you know, this whole blog is about (hopefully) intelligent and serious persons, commenting and giving their opinions based on various issues – some within their field of expertise and some not – using nothing more than the three pounds of grey matter between our ears. I’ve built up my positions. Feel free to engage the arguments on their merits.

Catholic Charities was not “working” for the state of Illinois. It was working for the state of Illinois. It was operating with a state contract, doing work the state was paying it to do. If the state makes a contract with a construction company to build roads, the construction company doesn’t get to say, “We’ll build the roads the way we want. Don’t try to tell us how to build roads!”

When you draw a sharp distinction between the state and civil society (here, Catholic Charities), you are suggesting that the two have different standards of morality.

Very often they do, and that is why we have the First Amendment. So that people with different values from those of the state can live with reasonable freedom in the state. Illinois has laws that bar discrimination against gay people. The Catholic Church opposes laws that bar discrimination against gay people. That creates a problem. And the solution in this case (under Illinois law, as I understand it) is that Catholic Charities, when it is using its own money, can discriminate against same sex couples. But when Catholic Charities is using the state’s money, it can’t. No religious group is entitled to state contracts. That was the finding of the courts.

My point was that Catholic Charities, whether or not it is “working” for the State, is entitled on grounds of conscience to ban *all* polyamorous couples from adoption–and this includes people who, because of their formal affiliations, are only presumed to be polyamorous. And therefore that Catholic Charities is also entitled to ban all homosexual couples from adoption.
When the government disallows that for any reason, it is saying that something is wrong with those religious beliefs–and the State is not ever supposed to say that.

When you draw a sharp distinction between the state and civil society (here, Catholic Charities), you are suggesting that the two have different standards of morality. But that is impossible. Even if you are a value-pluralist, it makes no sense to apply one standard of morality, and hence of what constitutes discrimination, to the state and a different standard of morality to civil society.

I don’t see any point in discussing your theories of gender and sexuality any further, since they seem to me very much based on your own opinions rather than psychological or psychiatric evidence.

I think you’re making the case that a State can and even should decide certain categories of relationships can be ineligible for adopting children. The Church agrees. The Church wants the freedom to do this. Your disagreement is with the categories, not the practice itself.

Yes, this is exactly correct. There is no quarrel over the state or the Church deciding that some situations make for unsuitable situations in which to raise a child. No one is requiring Catholic Charities or anyone else in the adoption field to choose adoptive parents at random.

And, as I have said a number of times, it appears clear to me under Illinois law that a privately financed religious adoption agency is free to discriminate against same-sex couples. The question in Illinois was whether Catholic Charities could be denied state contracts. The courts decided they could. If Catholic Charities had been using their own money rather than the state’s money, they would not have found it necessary to go out of business. I will try to find the quote somewhere (I don’t have time now), but a spokesperson from the Thomas More Society, the group that provided legal representation for Catholic Charities in Illinois, urged other religiously run adoption services not to go out of business the way Catholic Charities did, because he believed religiously run adoption services were not obligated to place children with same-sex couples.

David, for pete’s sake, I have access to the same internet that you do! I’m aware of the definitions and the distinctions, and I’m not saying that GID only exists because the gay community ‘invented’ it, (though I can see where you would get that from my previous post.) What I’m saying is what I believe it actually is – namely a subset, an expected derivative, of the notion championed by the gay community that sexual orientation has no norm in human nature. And further that it is subset kept – along with others – somewhat at arm’s length by the ‘mainline’ gay community, so as not to cloud the message or the movement. You hint at this yourself when you say:

“Those with GID don’t form a subset of the gay community. They would no doubt be welcome in the LGBT community as transgendered…”

Would they be welcomed if, while not denying their own experience, they refused to condone it? Because it’s one thing to say, “I feel trapped in the wrong body.” It’s quite another to say, “My path is clear – surgery will make everything right.” It’s an heroic act to instead conclude, “I clearly and objectively see who I am on the outside, I see what gender I actually am and I can verify it scientifically; something is going on with my persona, something has happened to cause this, and I must find out what it is.”

Once sexuality is decoupled from the actual genetic truth, it’s unclear exactly why there is cause to disaprove of *any* form of sexual expression or activity whatsoever – as has been expanded upon on these boards in the past. And that is not a position that the gay community would like to have to defend all at once in the public sphere. The letters GBLTI (where did Q go?) are somewhat of an enigma to me. I’ve watched the number of consonants increase, it seems about one per every two or three years over the past decade.

Once all of these letters are accepted as mainline, it’s difficult to see how any of them would be eventually denied adoption rights. How are you with that?

[David Nickol] “Gender identity isn’t a matter of whom you are sexually attracted to. It is a matter of whether you believe yourself to be a male or a female. A four-year-old boy (or girl) who is convince he (she) is a girl (boy) is not homosexual, gay, or lesbian.”

There is a clear connection between someone who concludes, “I am attracted to boys, even though I am myself a boy,” and that person then beginning to conclude, “perhaps I am not a boy.”

[David Nickol] “So the question about a GID couple makes very little sense. But if someone truly is diagnosable with GID, that means the person has a psychiatric diagnosis and is in conflict. I wouldn’t consider people in conflict ideal adoptive parents, and I also wouldn’t consider someone contemplating sex-reassignment surgery as an ideal adoptive parent. It’s one thing having two mothers or two fathers. I don’t see a problem with that. But for a small child to cope with his mother becoming his father of vice versa is a bit more than a child should have to deal with. It is not even easy for adult children of transexuals to deal with. For children growing up, stability is needed.”

I think you’re making the case that a State can and even should decide certain categories of relationships can be ineligible for adopting children. The Church agrees. The Church wants the freedom to do this. Your disagreement is with the categories, not the practice itself.

Ken Z.,

What I disagree with is the stance of Catholic Charities that they will not even consider a same-sex couple (in a civil union) as potential adoptive parents. Every single individual and couple seeking to adopt should be considered on their merits. You did not say whether your polyamorous couple actually practiced polyamory. If they do, if those who evaluate them believe their relationship is not stable enough to provide a good environment in which to raise a child, then it is not discrimination to rule them out as adoptive parents.

Also, remember that the dispute between Illinois and Catholic Charities was not about whether a religious adoption agency could refuse to place children with same-sex couples. It seems that under Illinois law it can. It was about whether the Illinois could refuse state contracts to fund Catholic Charities because of their stated position. Catholic Charities was working for the state, with the state’s money.

“I believe that the fact that children raised by gays are described as “more mature” or “better adjusted” (another way of saying more mature)” is a sign of parentification – a short term advantage (preternatural maturity) but one that comes at a later (heavy) cost”

This argument is elegant in the heads-I-win , tails-you-lose way. If the kids are unhealthy, then gay parents are at fault, and if the kids are healthy, then gay parents are at fault for making them too healthy.

To revert to an earlier topic in this thread, suppose an opposite-sex couple wants to adopt a child from Catholic Charities, and the couple is turned down just because they belong to the Happy Polyamory Society. Would that be discrimination–and if not, why not? How is that case different from the case of a homosexual couple that is turned down?

What you *cannot* say is that it is “simple common sense” to turn down the polyamorous couple. And you cannot say that the polyamorous couple *is* being discriminated against by Catholic Charities unless you want to raise the specter of unintended consequences in a particularly acute way.

I think it’s a real dilemma for the supporters of SSM, because it shows how SSM, if legalized, will tend to make Leviathan rear its head. All kinds of unexpected things will follow the legalization of SSM, and the government will have to enter the fray heavily-handedly, the more so if its decisions are arbitrary. The government will end up EVERYWHERE.

But the real point is the polyamorous couple. What about them?

I know writing these comments often takes considerable time and I just wanted to say how much I appreciate your taking that time. Your thoughts are always helpful and their reach certainly doesn’t stop on the FT comment page. Please keep up the good work.

And while I disagree with our detractors, I have to admit the comments I most admire would not have been written without them. So to folks on the other side, I hope you keep up the good work as well.