• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Another Christian Adoption Agency Burdened by State-Sponsored Intolerance

    The list of cases illustrating conflicts between homosexual rights and religious freedom continues to grow.

    According to a story published earlier this month, a Catholic adoption agency in the United Kingdom has been told that if it wishes to provide adoption services, it must be willing to facilitate adoptions involving homosexual couples, even though doing so would violate Catholic teachings.

    The burden on the charity’s religious freedom reportedly stems from laws that confer protected status on sexual orientation. As a result of these laws, of 12 Catholic adoption agencies in the U.K., six have reportedly “secularized themselves” by cutting ties with the Church and changing their standards. Five other agencies, “unwilling to change their faith-based standards,” have reportedly stopped providing adoption services altogether.

    Now, Catholic Care—reportedly the last of the agencies still fighting the issue—has suggested that it too might be forced to close if not permitted to operate in a way that honors its religious principles. As the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance explains in commenting on this case, it is “[d]ifficult to see in that a great victory for tolerance, children, families, [or] gay persons.”

    Unfortunately, cases like these are not unique to the United Kingdom. In the United States, Catholic Charities in both Boston and the District of Columbia have been forced to stop providing adoption services when public officials refused to ensure they could do so in ways that honored their religious commitments. A similar conflict has emerged in Illinois, where state officials are “investigating whether religious agencies that receive public funds to license foster care parents are breaking anti-discrimination laws if they turn away openly gay parents.”

    Some people might argue that people and groups should be free to honor religious beliefs and practices as long as they do so privately. The tribunal in the Catholic Care case, for example, in discussing certain sources of law, cites “the essential distinction between private acts of worship such as blessings and the provision of a public service such as an adoption agency.”

    But the “public-private” argument overlooks the fact that it is precisely religious beliefs and motives that lead many people and groups to offer charitable services to the public in the first place. As President Obama said when campaigning in 2006, “secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square….[T]he majority of great reformers in American history…were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their ‘personal morality’ into public policy debates is a practical absurdity.”

    Further, the “public-private” argument suffers from a certain double standard when deployed in these contexts. Laws protecting sexual orientation do not limit those protections to expressions of sexual orientation made only in private—indeed, such laws are very much oriented to “public” expressions of sexual orientation.

    Therefore, the policy issue presented in these kinds of cases cannot be decided based on misguided distinctions between public and private conduct. Rather, the fundamental question is how to balance freedom from government-imposed burdens on religious and moral conscience with demands by homosexual-rights activists for state coercion of other private citizens.

    If the issue was whether homosexual couples have the legal right to adopt children or access to adoption services in general, then maybe one could understand the zero-sum approach some proponents of homosexual rights take in these cases. But when there is no question that homosexual couples have the legal right to adopt children and access to a variety of adoption services, these cases should be understood as attempts to use the law to propagate and enforce the belief that traditional understandings of marriage, family, and sexuality are a form of irrational prejudice and bigotry that should not be tolerated.

    This position harms people and institutions that support traditional understandings such as marriage as one man and one woman, and it threatens to raise the stakes of certain public policy debates by turning them from “culture wars” into “conscience wars.”

    Crucially, “[m]oral deliberation cannot—and should not—be avoided, even in law and policy.” As this Heritage Backgrounder explains,

    In a society that aims to judge people by “the content of their character,” as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., put it, moral deliberation is a constant responsibility for individuals. Further, as President Barack Obama said when campaigning in 2006, “Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo–Christian tradition.” On some issues, such as how to define marriage or whether taxpayer money should be used to pay for abortions, the government cannot avoid taking a position on the moral questions presented.

    In many cases, however, “government overreach raises the stakes of moral discourse and encourages intolerance on the part of private citizens.”

    When civil liability or equal access to government benefits depends on private citizens adopting the “official” state position on controversial moral issues, the potential for infringement of religious liberty and rights of conscience is clear. As the diversity of moral viewpoints in society increases, the number of social conflicts will only rise.

    One way to reduce the conflict in seemingly intractable cultural debates is to respect religious freedom and right of conscience. Indeed, “In pluralistic societies where consensus is elusive, protecting religious liberty and rights of conscience is one of the most effective and principled ways to promote social peace and civic fraternity.”

    Therefore, “[w]here governments choose to act, whether through regulation or through condition-based funding, they should promote respect for religious and moral conscience, not discourage it. Where a government itself imposes a burden on religious and moral conscience, the case for protecting conscience is even more compelling.”

    The Christian adoption agency cases provide a prime example of government itself imposing a burden on religious and moral conscience. Therefore, the case for protecting the freedom of religious charities to serve society without violating commitments to faith and morality is compelling. The failure of public officials in certain jurisdictions to provide these protections is both regrettable and blameworthy.

    Posted in Culture [slideshow_deploy]

    40 Responses to Another Christian Adoption Agency Burdened by State-Sponsored Intolerance

    1. Joseph R Yungk says:

      I'm relieved to see that loving couples can adopt a child who needs a family. Having grown up homosexual in a family who would never outwardly accept such a large part of my life, particularly when I most needed it, puberty, it's good to know a child's life will be loved and appreciated for all that it is.

      Finally the right to actually start a family when one's own cannot to be a part of it.

    2. Linguist says:

      With respect, you seem to be saying that intolerance of religious groups is, well, intolerable.

      Is intolerance of the gay people also intolerable?

      Can you please state a few cases where you have spoken up in support of the rights of gay people when others showed intolerance of them? One example? Any example?


    3. John Westra, Michiga says:

      When Government forces people to tolerate things that are morally intolerable to them, on the basis of their faith, does it amount to state-sponsored torture or simply religious persecution?

    4. A Responsible Americ says:

      The key point here is that there are numerous resources available to those who wish to adopt,. Therefore, to impose a single standard upon all of them is inherently prejudicial.

      Those who wish to be treated equally would do well to treat others with the same consideration.

    5. MrShorty, Cave Creek says:

      Perhaps the GLBT community should link up with Planned Parenthood. As thousands of women seek to maintain a certain life-style by aborting their babies, it an easy adoption process could be implemented so that these fetus could be brought to full term and then adopted by caring parents in the gay community. It seems to solve two problems at once.

    6. Mike, Wichita Falls says:

      In a free country, any group should be allowed to be as inclusive or exclusive as it wants without fear of state intervention. In fact, it was state intervention, not religion, that prolonged racial segregation. Religious groups, and for that matter all groups, should not tolerate laws forcing them to condone certain groups, lifestyles, actions, etc. against their conscience. The first amendment, in addition to religious freedom, guarantees the right of peaceful assembly…to all people, black or white, gay or straight, Jew or Muslim, etc. I don't think any religious group would be intolerant of an adoption agency that caters to gays only.

    7. GhengisMan says:

      With disrespect.

      We now have 'special people' with special rights or at least more rights than others under color of law which are only applied by govt. at certain times. Think GM Govt. Motors that shook business law to its core. Special rights for unions and NO rights to its financers.

      Now under color of law gay rights can shove their belief system down every Americans’ throat which WILL now rule the land. What happened to equal protection under the law?

      When any belief system can superimpose/force their believe system upon the entire country because of politics and government this is not freedom.

      The exact reason America was created was to CREATE freedom from forced anything.

    8. Tim Az says:

      The key here is tolerance on both sides. There will always be gay people who will be intolerant of Christians. Just as there will always be Christians who will be intolerant of gay people. It is intellectually lazy for one to assume that both sides have no individuals within their group's that are capable of acceptance of each other. I believe that the intolerant people on both sides are a minority of our population. There have always been people who seek to separate society by placing them in groups to create division for political gain. Smart people do not allow themselves to be used as pawns in this way. The Idea that Govt. should ever be able to control the conscience of any individual is very dangerous to a free society that allows the individual to live their conscience as a homosexual, as Christian, as neither, or as both. It is possible to be amicable with each other regardless of our differences. It usually comes with maturity and the refusal to be co-opted for an others political gain.

    9. DHarper, Lubbock, Tx says:

      It was pointed out that homosexual couples have the legal right to adopt children and that there are plenty of adoption agencies willing to serve their needs. To force religious agencies to abandon their moral principles in an attempt to force this alternate lifestye into the mainstream of our society is petty and selfish. And for any on the left who care, it is also morally wrong to deprive people of conscience the opportunity to serve their communities. All of this is the predictable result of the "freedom from religion" mentality pushed by the Left.

    10. Leon Lundquist, Dura says:

      That's just the tip of the Obama Iceberg. This guy jabbers on all sides of every question. It reminds me of the Black Operations Field Manual, if you are in deep cover. This guy ain't President, he stole office by Black Ops, Disinformation, and he performs Mis-Representation! Leading from behind? I'd like to kick his behind! What Obama said has nothing whatsoever to do with what Obama is Doing! It is with the utmost deception, world class deception that Obama got elected!

      These Liberal Progressives hate the fact God is Legally Recognized in American Law! But that's where we get our Citizen Sovereignty! "Cut off your arm to spite the landlord!" That's crazy! To say America is not a Christian Nation is to say the Founding never happened! But it was written in the Declaration of Independence! There is a promise to God that is made in America's Founding. We owe God for Uniting the States! It could not have been done without Sovereign Citizens who get their powers from God. (And NO one else!) The Government Owes God for its very existence! That's the legal truth! (Kagan 'won't use' the Declaration in her rulings. What?)

      So what is in the Contract? What does the Government Owe God? Liberty and self governance. You have promised God "This is the Land of the Free!" That is what is in the Founding Documents. The new Totalitarian Government usurps God! The 'good' of the Catholic Charities is self evident, and Government usurping Religion? Unthinkable under the Constitution! This is but one skirmish, we in America have our own Holy War! The Government is making war on our Religions. Ok. Cold War. But Obama brazenly has stolen Faith (with his collective salvation), Hope (with all the false hope of Socialism) and Charity (by enforcing the redistribution of wealth!) Faith, Hope and Charity are the pillors of Religion! Not Government!

      Government has absolutely no business telling Catholic Charities or British Charities how to place their Children! I am a blue blooded American. I have the standing to call it Treason. We have passed down what the Constitution actually meant. It is not Over Regulation! Not Over Taxation! Not Over Criminalization! Not Over Kill! It is a High Crime to seek Totalitarian Powers in America. Impeach 'Precedent' Obama before he false impeaches you. It is that bad. This over reach is dispicable! It breaks a Covenant with God for the Catholics, Gays can go somewhere else.

    11. larry welch, idaho says:

      Adoption agencies of any kind have a moral obligation to the child to place that child in a family that provides the family influences that have historically, traditionally, and culturally proven to be best for normal, healthy growth and development. Without any serious doubt, that family consists of a mother and a father.

      The mountains of professional literature based on studies of single parent families, demonstrates this fact. There is no reliable data to demonstrate that a home with two moms or two dads is a substitute for the normal family, and in particular, married biological parents. To be sure, there are published papers stating marvelous results from mono-sexual "parents". Need it be added that any result can be reported when a study is designed, conducted, and analyzed in a swamp of political correctness.

      Simple respect for the life of a child must be maintained in the arena of government action that would use them as political pawns. Some people have no shame. Children deserve the truth.

    12. Pingback: Tuesday Morning Linkslide | Shut Up, He Explained

    13. Joseph R Yungk says:

      I've been told since I was a little boy that gays were deranged evil people who should not have anything to do with children and should be feared, loathed and that openly slurring or even beating them is acceptable. Now I'm hearing that although my birth family cannot fully respect me, I should have no right to start my own family. This is my actual experience.

      These events were all supported by and inspired by the idea that I was inferior and immoral just for existing.

      That kind of treatment to me is intolerable, morally, ethically and legally.

      Since there is no evidence at all that gays actually negatively affect others not involved with them, nor is there any evidence that this would be a bad home situation for children, I find treating gays equally has the upper hand in the morality department.

      I'd also say that when religion tells everyone including government that gays are inferior in various ways to be intolerable.

      The most glaring example if intolerance to gays is the kind of bullying on the playground. Children are taught at a very early age to fear gays and to immediately pass a lot of judgement on them. The slurs and beatings are an inevitability of this teaching. We then see it in adulthood. I later saw medical professionals openly slur gays and taunt them on exam.

      Making children fear going to a bus stop or even living, making someone fear seeking medical care or any other professional service is morally intolerable.

      Is this tolerable to you? Heterosexuals do not experience this.

      Above I read that "to impose a single standard upon all of them is inherently prejudicial" but that is exactly what often happens to homosexuals whenever they try to make a family and sometimes try to find a job or other services. When groups with no gays lobby to limit rights of homosexuals they are doing exactly what was just stated, "imposing a single standard upon them"

      It may be difficult to turn the table of logic for you but gays have gotten a really bad deal based on not much more than irrational fear based on a few statements millenia ago based on practices at the time.

      Why is it that gays are the ones who have to tolerate being slurred and treated immorally based on someone else's morality?

      If you would like to know more stories of morally intolerable behavior against gays you do not have to look very far at all.

      Here's an interesting example: "Those who wish to be treated equally would do well to treat others with the same consideration."

      Gays for the most part have not been treated equally in our society thus far. They never got the "same consideration" in the first place. I certainly never did.

      I think someone can hold whatever moral beliefs they have and discuss it in their church and homes using some guidance in their lives. But when it causes pain such as being slurred or a child to go without a family, keep it out of public policy. For state approved judgments that require others to be treated as if inferior is a moral line that government should not be crossing considering the foundation that is outlined in the constitution.

    14. EmelieA Woonsocket, says:

      What is being imposed as a "single standard" is that one, or any adoption agency would only require certain limited types of couples.

      finally, more loving couples who can provide a loving home can adopt children in need of just that.

    15. Linguist says:

      "Those who wish to be treated equally would do well to treat others with the same consideration."

      Agreed. That, after all, is the goal. The problem, however, is that there are numerous groups out to prevent gay people from living their lives with the full set of rights which they themselves demand. Setting up roadblocks before them isn't fair. But that, really, is what some people of faith seem determined to do.

      I am a person of faith. What I will not do if try to prevent those whose faith is different from mine from marrying or adopting. Fair's fair.

    16. Emanuel Samuel says:

      A solid response by "A responsible American". I find it extremely frustrating that organizations that have been doing great work and have been established for quite sometime have to close their doors due to a very gray area technicality. The question I have is, might sound ignorant but why can't homosexual couples simply adopt through agencies that do not have religious guidelines, therefore allowing those who have beliefs to practice their beliefs while making a difference? What is intolerable is that children will suffer to score political points in the latest human rights debate.

    17. Ron Hartford says:

      "What is intolerable is that children will suffer to score political points in the latest human rights debate."

      but that's what has been going on for decades and exactly what the adoption agencies being discussed are trying to impose.

    18. Ron Hartford says:

      "We now have ‘special people’ with special rights or at least more rights than others under color of law which are only applied by govt. at certain times."

      Gays have no more rights and no "special" rights just because they are gay. If that is true, please state what they are. If people are actually saying that gays should not adopt, that says right there they don't have the same rights.

      "Now under color of law gay rights can shove their belief system down every Americans’ throat which WILL now rule the land."

      That's exactly what has been happening to gays for centuries.

      What happened to equal protection under the law?

      Yes, why is it that gays have had to fight for equal protection? As above, they've had to fight just to be able to adopt, and in some places they are subject to much more discrimination.

      "When any belief system can superimpose/force their believe system upon the entire country because of politics and government this is not freedom"

      Various forms of Judeo-Christian dogma has been forced on gays calling them immoral sinners leading to any sort of distortion of "rights".

      "The exact reason America was created was to CREATE freedom from forced anything."

      Like gays being forced to follow a part of the old testament that most Christians actually ignore.

      You can't have "rights" and freedoms without honoring all people those rights in the first place.

    19. Mike vermont says:

      How fair does one need to be allowed to be? That one is expected to water down their character, values, morality, becoming less of a person to give to another the tools to further degrade another persons morality, values and character which has been handed down through thoughtfull careing and sound preporation from one person, community, government, constitution to another to have these values debased A moral based character has proven through centerys of successful generations a moral society. Today as society clearly exhibits " this social experment has failed". Where the exception becomes the norm selfishness me,me,me,

      We troop up to establish road blocks to good moral character other peoples beliefs, the other guys values. We continue the deminishing what has made the world a caring place through the diminishing of the very foundations family, society, government, country,life it self was understood to stand for. All because of me, me, me, forget the atherosclerosis guy it's the other guy who wants less character, less values, less morality and less God so Someone else can fit into the world he wants. Never mind that this world has demonstrated clearly evil selfish me, me is on the up swing precicly because of someone else's intolerance for good moral values sound character. MORALITY MATTERS and CHARCTOR COUNTS .Shame on somone else especially our elected officials for the instinct of self presorvatiom and the me,me's. For the you you's if you elect ME ME ME. God Bless America for all it's faults the Eagle will fly again.

      An opinion from another Me, Me Place

      Mike from Vermont

    20. Jimmy S LA says:

      "Adoption agencies of any kind have a moral obligation to the child to place that child in a family that provides the family influences that have historically, traditionally, and culturally proven to be best for normal, healthy growth and development"

      But there is plenty of proof that children of gays grow up to be just as normal as anyone else.

      If nobody will let gays adopt then gays are the ones discriminated against.

    21. Jimmy S LA says:

      "The tribunal in the Catholic Care case, for example, in discussing certain sources of law, cites “the essential distinction between private acts of worship such as blessings and the provision of a public service such as an adoption agency.”

      But that's exactly why there are policies there to protect everyone, not just the religious institutions who do not want to allow equal rights to others like gays who have yet to be afforded the opportunity to have the basic societal building block that is the family. .

    22. Crickety Jay says:

      it's so selfish of people to think that their way is the only way or the only religion and actually prevent others from the basics in American values like being able to have a family.

    23. Crickety Jay says:

      "Without any serious doubt, that family consists of a mother and a father.

      The mountains of professional literature based on studies of single parent families, demonstrates this fact. "

      Please cite your sources.

      Every study I've ever read or heard of says gays raise children just fine.

    24. Sunny PA says:

      "To force religious agencies to abandon their moral principles in an attempt to force this alternate lifestye into the mainstream of our society is petty and selfish."

      What about having a marriage and child is "alternative"? Why is it that gays have to be forced out of society?

      Isn't demanding to live in a homogeneous society selfish?

    25. gerehard says:

      why does an agency providing a public service expect to be able to treat others as if they are either inferior or do not have "character"?

      is treating gays as if they have little moral character just because of who they're attracted to really "just discrimination"? Is their character and morality flawed just because they are attracted to the same sex? Should they not be allowed to love?

      How do you legislate that?

    26. simpson d says:

      "How fair does one need to be allowed to be?"

      Fair is fair, for everyone, not just Christian or heterosexual.

    27. dentata says:

      hasn't there been both state and church sponsored intolerance toward gays all along?

      How is the church tolerant of gays? They sound intolerant according to this article.

    28. C. Vegas says:

      Joseph R Yungk,

      If Religious adoption agencies are forced to give children to gay couples, this is the equivalent of forcing YOUR family to accept you. Maybe your parents should be forced to invite you and your lover(s) to dinner, Thanksgiving, Christmas, etc., so your feelings won't be hurt.

      The truth is, you are an adult, and have the freedom of any other single adult. Your parents have the right to not associate with you. Religious people should also be free to follow their beliefs. Our forefathers came here to escape religious persecution in Europe.

      Should black people be forced to adopt white children, or be limited to black children? Are white people racists if they only want to adopt white children who will resemble them? Of course not. In the same way, religious adoption agencies and biological parents should be able to limit adoptions to married, opposite sex couples. The LDS church restricts it's adoptions to LDS couples only.

      In the same way, a Muslim adoption agency should be able to limit adoptions to Muslims, and Jewish adoption agencies should be able to limit adoptions to Jews.

      That is freedom.

    29. C. Vegas says:

      Freedom of choice and freedom of association and freedom of religion all intersect and should be honored. If Louis Farrakhan wants to set up a Nation of Islam, black married couples only adoption agency, his organization should be free to do that, and biological parents should be free to give children to that agency to be adopted out according to their personal beliefs. Others can be free to criticize it and set up their own competing organizations.

      Doctors should be free to refuse to perform abortions, or in vitro fertilization, or artificial insemination according to their beliefs.

      Denying same sex couples the ability to marry or adopt, is not forcing anything on to them. It is simply saying, you do not meet the criteria or legal definition for marriage, or adoption. You are free to wear rings, perform a ceremony, and call yourself whatever you want, and live how ever you want. You have the same benefits and rights of any other individual who chooses not to get married. You do not have the right to force me to perform the ceremony, give you a child, or extend special recognition or tax benefits to you.

    30. Friday's Girl says:

      It's a shame that gays are considered immoral for wanting a family and not putting up with church imposed celibacy. I don't know any straight people who would put up with it and they can adopt.

    31. Linguist says:

      "Where the exception becomes the norm selfishness me,me,me,"

      With respect, there are few things as selfless as adopting a child into one's life.

      Or as moral.

    32. Bobbie says:

      Oh my goodness, people. Nobody is stopping gay people from adopting! Catholic churches don't appease those that live against God's will. What's wrong with that? They are a private institution and as a previous commenter wrote there are other adoption agencies so gays should be respectful to tolerate the Catholic church and catholic beliefs and not go out of their way to expect those that follow God's will by example, accommodate the livelihoods of those that deny it. The government continues to mock and take advantage of faith based Christian organizations.

    33. Joseph R Yungk says:

      So if I understand this correctly, it's acceptable for a family to not accept the largest part of their adult child's life and such adult child does not "qualify" to have a family of his own?

      And you call that "Christian"?

    34. Jack M says:

      As I understand it, there are states where gays cannot adopt and most states they can't marry.

      The Catholic Church has been lobbying fervently to prevent either of these policies.

      So from what I get looking at the net responses, Mr. Yungk's right to have a family is either illegal or actively prevented by not only the acceptance from his family but the legal efforts of the Catholic Church to prevent him from having any alternative.

    35. IACC says:

      So as I understand it, the catholic church should be able to use public money to exclude people who they don't think deserve a family?

    36. Steven C says:

      "Nobody is stopping gay people from adopting!"

      But they've been lobbying against both gay marriage and gay adoption.

      They also accept public funding to do so. I want my tax dollars to help everyone, not just the ones a particular church allows.

    37. Pete NC says:

      "You do not have the right to force me to perform the ceremony, give you a child, or extend special recognition or tax benefits to you."

      Perhaps heterosexuals should not have their tax breaks seeing how gays to not get any kind of "special" tax breaks. Yet, heterosexuals get a special tax break when the marry.

      Why is it that whenever a gay person wants to have the same thing others have, it's "special"?

    38. Pete NC says:

      In the very same speech, prefaced in the same paragraph, Obama also said:

      "Because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality. I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics and who is also secular, affirm their morality and their ethics and their values without pretending that they are something they're not."

      So, if I'm not forced to follow Leviticus, am I actually without moral or ethics? None of those laws which are not in keeping with established laws today, is upheld anywhere other than Orthodox Jews, accept homosexuality. According to the same quote out of context, no, in context, absolutely.

      Why do heterosexuals get a free ride on these things but not gays?

    39. Norma Clark Columbia says:

      The gay community needs to remember that as strongly as they believe that being homosexual is a natural thing, Christians believe the opposite. Homosexuals believe they have the right to any sexual activity they desire. It is what they "feel" is good for them. Christians however do not go on what they "feel". They go on what is written in the scriptures no matter how they "feel". They believe that the book (Holy Bible) which was inspired by the Holy Spirit is a higher standard than their "feelings". A person's character is not shaped by "feeling" but by long approved principles that have been accepted by a society of people and in the United States the founding fathers placed thier own and the nations foundation on Judeo-Christian principles. Homosexuals willl have to make their own decisions about their own lives. God is the only Judge. Gay community, you have a fight on your hands as the Christian community will not stand by and see you destroy the family unit and I believe that is your purpose. I don't really care what statistics are presented in favor of children raised by non-gays or gays. All can be distored. Children should be raised as the scripture states with Christian principles applied. I don't know how a gay couple can abide by these rules when the (Holy Bible) specifically teaches that this type of behavior is sin and follows with iniquity. However, laws have been passed that give you the right to openly express yourself and even adopt children. That does not mean that every adoption agency has to support what they believe is sinful behavior. Your say you want tolerance, but what you really want is a society that will submit to you own belief system and leaves no room for the beliefs of others.

    40. Bobbie says:

      Sorry to totally not understand what you're saying, Pete. Wait, I think I got it! Because the Christian agency provides a service that anyone can use, the Christian agency should provide it to all? That's not fair to impose acts on a people that directly contradict their religious beliefs now is it, Pete? When it's within their ability without taking your (tax payer) money, they're free to set their own rules. And why not, Pete? That's the difference between government and the free. The government is open to all while the free sets their own rules until people draw attention to ignorance of freedom. What free ride do heterosexuals get? Because people respect their upbringing and respect to follow the rules that may be applied according to their faith, they're getting a "free ride?" And you call them "heterosexuals?" Why?

      What kind of people use their energy to go out of their way to cause unnecessary trouble just because they beg to make their personal lives noticed and accepted, complete with recognized rights that need only self governing?

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.