In Massachusetts, all adoptions must be made through state-licensed agencies, and now the state says to Christian adoption agencies: Either place children in the homes of same-sex couples, or surrender your license. Thus, Maggie Gallagher explains:
The question in Boston is not whether gays are going to be allowed legally to adopt. It is whether religious people who morally object to gay adoption will be allowed to help children find homes. This is not about gay adoption—it is about our fundamental commitment to religious liberty in this country.You can go to NovaTownHall to get the rest, with Joe's comments.
To me, this seems Orwellian. It's like a dystopian science fiction scenario -- the mirror-reverse of a Margaret Atwood novel.
I would bet dollars to donuts that the fertility rate in Massachusetts -- already one of the lowest in the nation -- will now decline still further, and that henceforth all population growth in the state will come from immigration, or births to immigrant women.
If the Supreme Judicial Court had wished to drive Christian young people out of Massachusetts, and to destroy the Democratic Party as a meaningful force in national politics, it could have done no better than its February 2004 decision. I suspect within a few years liberals who originally hailed the Massachusetts decision will look back and recognize it as a strategic blunder of monumental proportions. The unintended consequences already helped Bush win re-election in 2004, and who knows what the future may hold?
When will people learn? You cannot govern a democratic polity by fiat. Ultimately, the people will have their say.