gay people are having sex with other gay people and thus can’t procreate and yet, this intellectual heavyweight wants to neuter is, presumably, so we can’t procreate. Seems a little… misplaced? Am I missing something?

(apologies for feeding the troll, but wow, not even a good troll…)

To avoid traps, I would encourage those who might engage to read the amicus brief filed by George and Gergis for the Prop8 appeal.

It is possible that part of the reason for writing this piece now is that they are anxious to lower the burden on the defense (or making it possible for judges to do so)…

Politically the argument has some efficacy because many undistinguished people wish or imagine teleology- Divine Purpose- to apply to their procreative activities. Usually it takes mentally ill, failing, or heretical children and grandchildren to fully disabuse them of this vanity. That may need to be pointed out.

There is positive opportunity in arguing against this proposal, too. I think arriving at a clarified and superior positive definition of marriage which the likes of George can’t really overcome would be a wonderful conclusion. I see a lot of good attempts and pieces of a such a definition listed here. The hard part is figuring out how many and precisely what elements that definition would have to contain to be useful and defensible. (My guess is a description of the form, a description of the operational essence, and a principle linking the two would be the minimal parts.)

From the Los Angelos Times:

“Take the story of Catholic Charities. The service arm of the Roman Catholic Church closed its adoption program in Massachusetts not because of the state’s gay marriage law but because of a gay anti-discrimination law passed many years earlier. In fact, the charity had voluntarily placed older foster children in gay and lesbian households — among those most willing to take hard-to-place children — until the church hierarchy was alerted and demanded that adoptions conform to the church’s religious teaching, which was in conflict with state law. The Proposition 8 campaign, funded in large part by Mormons who were urged to do so by their church, does not mention that the Mormon church’s adoption arm in Massachusetts is still operating, even though it does not place children in gay and lesbian households.

How can this be? It’s a matter of public accountability, not infringement on religion. Catholic Charities acted as a state contractor, receiving state and federal money to find homes for special-needs children who were wards of the state, and it faced the loss of public funding if it did not comply with the anti-discrimination law. In contrast, LDS (for Latter-day Saints) Family Services runs a private adoption service without public funding. Its work, and its ability to follow its religious teachings, have not been altered.”

http://www.stopthemormons.com/2008/11/21/la-times-debunking-the-myths-used-by-prop-8/

From a Mormon legal organization:

“Catholic Charities voluntarily ceased providing adoption service in Massachusetts. According to the Boston Globe, Catholic Charities elected to close its doors in protest over the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts and because it was reluctant to undertake a lawsuit that might be lost.

LDS Family Services still operates in Massachusetts, as it does in California. There are several differences between LDSFS and Catholic Charities. LDSFS does not take federal or state funds; Catholic Charities does. LDSFS facilitates only voluntary adoptions and permits the birth mother to approve the adoptive parents. Catholic Charities handled non-voluntary adoptions (where the state seizes the children) and normally did not accommodate birth mother approval. Catholic Charities had contracts with the state and was, in effect, acting as an agent of the state. LDSFS does not. To date, LDS Family Services has never been forced to place any children with a gay couple, and has never been sued for not doing so.”

http://www.mormonlawyers.com/2008/10/reply-to-morris-thurston.html