Sometimes you read news and it tickles a portion of your brain that screams out, “If X is equal to Y; can’t Y be substituted in every equation for X?” How was that for vague?
Where I’m going is that if your mission in life is to provide a safe environment for children to grow up so that they can become healthy, productive members of society, does the sexual orientation of the parent determine the ability of the parent?
Recently the Supreme Court dispelled the notion that if X (a good parent) is equal to Y (another good parent) that Y could not be substituted for X. The Supreme Court delivered a unanimous defeat to LGBT couples in a high-profile case over whether Philadelphia could refuse to contract with a Roman Catholic adoption agency that says its religious beliefs prevent it from working with same-sex foster parents.
In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that Philadelphia had an interest in “the equal treatment of prospective foster parents and foster children.” but went on to further expound that “this interest cannot justify denying CSS (Catholic Social Services) an exception for it religious exercise.”
At issue here is that the city of Philadelphia has refused to send prospective children for adoption to an agency that says, “We will not allow gay parents to apply.” I would like to make a point that there are seven Catholic justices deciding whether to side with their church, but unfortunately this was a unanimous decision. Maybe the age of the decider had more to do with the decision that their religious orientation. This could be another case where society has moved quicker than the Supreme Court in accepting minorities/realities into the mainstream.
It would seem that those paragons of legalese who have spent their lives studying the Constitution would be able to render fair and impartial justice to one and all and would not have tripped up on this fourteenth amendment issue. Being denied even the opportunity to be considered to adopt a child based off of sexual orientation is clearly a violation of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment:
“No State shallmake or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.“
It’s pretty clear that the denial of opportunity to adopt falls into the samecategory as thewedding cake controversy. One’s sexual orientation should not excludewilling participants from putting in an application and being evaluated for parenthood based off their qualifications, same as applying for a job. Admittedly parenting is the toughest job there is, but does what the parent does, or doesn’t do behind closed doors compromise their ability to raise a happy, healthy, productive member of society? I think not.
What’s going on here is the Catholic church saying, “You want kids, you’ve got to do it our way.” It doesn’t matter how many thousands of lives that could be fulfilled by placing children with qualified parents. To the Catholic church the right parents can only be heterosexual, and the Supreme Court has upheld their mistaken opinion.
I wonder if an orphan was asked, “You can have two daddys or no daddys?” what the child’s answer would be?