Heather Has Two Mommies . . . And No School: Catholic School Bars Entry to Girl Because Her Parents Are Lesbians

Liberal Catholics are condemning the decision of a Catholic school to bar a girl from enrollment because her parents are lesbians. The eight-year-old was originally admitted but her acceptance was rescinded by the St. Paul Elementary School in Hingham, Massachusetts.

Two months ago, a Catholic school in Denver barred two students on the basis of their parents being gay.

The controversy is likely to repeat itself as our non-discrimination laws come into increasing conflict with free exercise and free associational rights. For a prior article, click here. While I was raised Catholic and support gay rights, the Church does not. It is an article of faith to the Church. After all, this is a religious school that is supported directly by the Church. As distasteful as I find the policy, I believe that religious institutions have a right to set such rules and enforce them. Activists are trying to get the Archdiocese in Boston to intervene but the Archdiocese in the Denver case supported the school.

For the full story, click here.

40 thoughts on “Heather Has Two Mommies . . . And No School: Catholic School Bars Entry to Girl Because Her Parents Are Lesbians

  1. Religious institutions have a right to set such rules and enforce them without public school buses.

  2. Having spent eight years in a parochial school, one wonders why the parents would want to subject a child to that. On the other hand, one has to assume the parents are Catholic and therefore should have expected the church’s stance. I agree with the good prfessor, as disgusting as it is, the oxymoron of “religious intolerance” is completely legal.

    My memory may be faulty on this, but as I recall, the Catholic Church’s non-acceptance of homosexuality comes under the same catagory as its opposition to birth control, masterbation and unmarried sexual relations. They all stem from opposition to sexual activity that isn’t intended to produce children. I don’t remember if such a belief ties back to any of the Ten Commandments in somewhat the same way as a SCOTUS decision, in theory at least, relates back to the Constitution. Is it a sin of lying? A sin of not honoring one’s parents? Murder? Or is it just a man-made, extra-canonical layer of institutionalized bigotry?

  3. This child was saved from a decade of indoctrination.

    I hope that one day the children of divorced parents enjoy similar freedom.

  4. It’s not the schools fault either, it’s simply their God that is discriminatory towards gays.

    Their God is the Almighty Homophobe.

  5. Why in the world would you want to send your child to an institution that actively denounces the legitimacy of your family unit?

  6. Similar situation occurred in Vancouver regarding a teacher in a Catholic school who was fired due to her orientation.

  7. I’m not the one saying excluding children from school because of their parent’s sexual orientation is “wonderful”, Tootikins.

    So you can try to project your hatred on to me if you like, but what you do is highlight what I actually despise: bigots. You know. Like yourself.

  8. Come on. Let’s hear some more of your “White Power Defense” of your bigoted political culture of choice, Herr Tootie. It’s funny and educational all at the same time. Not purposefully on your part, of course, but I’ll turn your hatred into an object lesson every time you spew it. The ignorance behind statements such as “This is wonderful” in the context of this thread is intrinsically funny. But I’ll continue to turn your hatred back on you, the emitter. Just like I turn lies against liars.

    Because I can.

  9. Buddha: It is not hatred to keep those students out.

    You seem to be the only one being hateful, everyone else is being level headed and mature.

    There are plenty of options for those children and their parents knew this. The children will not suffer.

    I realize that you are being intolerant of people who disapprove of homosexuality and that you want to force your ideas down their throats. Leftists are always intolerant when push comes to shove.

    Your intolerance of the church school and the hateful comments your make regarding their religious choices is something people who hate liberty often exhibit.

    The reason I said it was “wonderful” is because the Constitutional freedom of religion in this case was left whole in the finest tradition of our principles and values. You read some diabolical wickedness into it. Apparently you are projecting again.

    I don’t apologize for subscribing to a belief in the freedom of religion.

    Maybe someday, you can learn to do that too.

  10. Swarthmore Mom,

    I think you’ve got that wrong. The term “universal” or “catholic” in the Church doesn’t refer to secular things like education– math and science. It refers to religious things like faith and Christ.

    The Church Universal.

    Not the school room universal. Etc.

  11. Being intolerant of the willfully ignorant and bigoted isn’t a vice, Tootles.

    It’s a virtue.

    As to my supposed hatred? It’s called “projection” in your case. You cannot accept that you are a hateful person so you try to attribute your failings as a human being to others.

    You’re a walking poster child for the mental defects that pass for conservatism these days. People wonder why an idiot like Palin gets attention? It’s because your lot are easily distracted by tits as long as they are white. Bad people promoting bad exclusionary ideas.

    So you disapprove of homosexuality? Then don’t be one. But it was hate that kept this girl from going to school. There is no mistaking that just like there is no mistaking your true nature.

    You just can’t wait to fire up the ovens so you can get rid of all the non-white, non-hetero people so this will be a White Christian Nation, can you? Clothed in your self-defined false superiority you, like the genocidal zealots before you, persecute and discriminate and eventually use your rationale to kill. Be careful! That word is “rationale” not “rational” or “reasoned”. But hate you personally? No. I hate your hateful ideas and your fake compassion you so casually toss out in defense of your demonstrated homophobia and bigotry. You I don’t care about other than making sure your kind of nonsense remains in the margins of political life in this country and not center stage. But hate you personally?

    Get over yourself.

    You’re neither that important nor effective. At best, you are fodder for object lessons for others. At worst, you’re a Neocon troll. So I’ll keep using your bigotry and hatred against you to help teach others that’s not what this country is supposed to be about nor was it the intention of the Framers to create this imaginary White Christian Nation you seem to think exists or should exist. Just like I’ll keep using it against those whom you serve (consciously or subconsciously).

    Why?

    Because I can.

  12. And like rc said on another thread, there is nothing to learn from your form of conservatism other than hatred, bigotry and intolerance.

    Some day maybe you’ll learn the difference between actually teaching and attempted indoctrination, Mein Tootles.

    I kinda doubt it though.

  13. Buddha: You are the one who started the hate speech around here.

    You can stop it at any time.

    I made a simple rational sensible statement and you went nuts.

    Perhaps you need counseling to help you with your uncontrollable hostility against those who disagree with you.

    I am convinced that democrats have murdered 48 million unborn humans. But I don’t treat them the way you treat me.

    This is because I’m a good person.

  14. Awwww.

    No.

    You’re the one who said, and I quote, “This is wonderful.” Which in context makes you a hateful homophobic bigot.

    But please keep trying.

    And I’m not hostile because you disagree with me. I really don’t care if you do or not. My responses to you are generally not meant for your benefit as you are a demonstrated lost and hopeless cause in re education.

    I’m hostile to you because you pimp the bad ideas of the enemies of liberty within. In the name of your “God”, who just happens to be white. And American. And your his favorite. According to you.

    So you keep running your crap up the flag pole and I’ll just keep knocking it down.

    But I’m glad you think you’re a “good” person. Most rational people would have picked a different adjective based on your posts. Like “homophobic”. Which again shows both how wrong and irrational you actually are since you equate discrimination and bigotry with goodness.

    Just to be clear.

    Say . . . do you work for the RCC? That sure sounds a lot like their definition of “good” too. As in “child molestation is good if done by a priest”.

  15. Buddha:

    “This is wonderful” translates in to homophobic hatred?

    (psst, rational people will not necessarily agree with you).

    Let me see. You oppose freedom of religion. You oppose freedom of association. Both ideas were ratified, confirmed, and approved by people who were mostly heterosexual god fearing Christians like me who most likely share my opinion about the issue in question, and I’m the bad guy here?

    Do you post at this website because you OPPOSE the Constitution? Or? What?

    I was under the impression that a legal blog would be one of the best places to come and join in with people upholding the Constitution. Of course, it’s not like there shouldn’t be those who loathe it.

    I’m just curious.

  16. Yeah.

    You are the bad guy here, Toot.

    Sorry!

    No.

    Actually not sorry.

    You did it to yourself, homophobe.

    As to the Constitution, I’m not the one who thinks this is and should be a Christian nation despite the fact the Constitution particularly prohibits state endorsement of religion. Even yours. It also prohibit discrimination based on race. But it’s okay to discriminate based on your religiously based intolerance of homosexuals. Despite the fact that that sexual orientation, like race, is genetic. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa). Yeah, right. It also says everyone it entitled to equal protection under the law (no matter if they be they straight, gay, or an immigrant).

    You’re free to believe any ridiculous crap you choose – something you prove here with nearly every post. You are not free, however, to be a discriminatory bigot based on those religious beliefs and to force your beliefs upon others via the law.

    See, unlike you, I’ve not only read the Constitution, I understand the words.

    All of them.

  17. I’d still like to know what makes you think discriminating against a child for the actions of the parent is acceptable or in accordance with the law.

    If the child’s parents were Satanists who wanted to send their child to a Catholic school, would you think that’s wonderful too?

    If the child’s parents were atheists who wanted to send their child to a Catholic school, would you think that’s wonderful too?

    If the child’s parents were red heads who wanted to send their child to a Catholic school, would you think that’s wonderful too?

    Those are rhetorical as we all know you’d think it’s just peachy to deny a child an education at their school of choice because of something the parents are or do.

    You can posture about the Constitution all you like, poser. The fact is the totality of your posts show you don’t give a damn about anyone who isn’t a straight, white Christian.

  18. rcampbell is correct in his description of traditional Catholic teaching on sexual relations. I was taught the same thing. The doctrine is that since the fundamental purpose of sexual intercourse is procreation, anything which interferes with that process is sinful. That would include masturbation (you all remember “onanism”), same-sex sex, the use of condoms and other forms of birth control and even early withdrawal (of course even banks charge a penalty for that). I believe this teaching will change, particularly once science finally convinces the science-resistant among us that human sexuality is a function of biology, with gradations ranging from heterosexuality to homosexuality and including all sorts of permutations in between. At some point we will all realize that sexual morality is not related to sexual identity, but to principles of ethical conduct which also govern the non-sexual aspects of our lives. But none of this will happen in my lifetime. In the meantime, Catholics will have to continue their battles with the hierarchy until the a new generation of bishops reaches maturity.

    I also agree with Prof. Turley that freedom of religion protects these decisions. But that is also why I strongly oppose the “faith-based initiatives” programs. My tax dollars should not be used to promote religious doctrines with which I disagree. Period.

  19. “I am convinced that democrats have murdered 48 million unborn humans. But I don’t treat them the way you treat me.

    This is because I’m a good person.”

    *******************

    Primitive religions engage in primitive customs and practice primitive rituals and have primitive followers who answer complex moral questions with primitive answers and who ultimately argue with Buddha. They also excuse themselves from any criticism of their primitive thoughts.

  20. mespo:

    Your primitive superstition that you have an adequate ability to decide on your own what is right and wrong goes back in history as far as the eye can see or the mind remember. As far back as cannibals who deciding for themselves that it was down right logical to hunt and eat humans. Or as recent far back as the godless Chinese communist atheists who have drowned millions and millions of little girls in the rice paddies and rivers.

    What ever absurd idea your superstitious forebears came up with at that time, they were sure it was right, and good, and obvious to all. In reality it was loathsome, sickening, and barbaric.

    If Buddha was even able to speak about complex moral questions without hysterical frothing outbursts and ranting venomous insults, I might better believe that heathens, pagans, and the godless believers in primitive superstitions had something intelligent worth saying or admiring.

  21. Mike: I agree with you on the federal level. No tax dollars. But the states, the colonies, when the national constitution was enacted, had state churches funded by tax dollars. (Three states of the original 13).

    My point is that these same states who had state run churches NEVER would have voted to ratify the Constitution if they thought the federal government had the power to interfere with their state churches.

    That said, I agree with you that no tax dollars should go to church based charities.

    Only to protect the churches from abuse by the state.

  22. Buddha:

    You are not making sense. There are other options for these children, the public schools for example. Homeschooling. Other private schools.

    No one in their right mind believes that these children are being deprived of a good education because they cannot get into a private school. Millions of children are denied access to private schools for any number of reasons. You are just making stuff up to amuse yourself.

    No one has a right to go to which ever school they want in America. There isn’t a word about it in the Constitution. They only have a legal obligation to be in school and generally, if I recall correctly, it is an obligation of the states.

    I’m not sure why you are hysterical about this, since left wingers control the public schools and you should be pleased that the children would go to them instead of having to be contaminated by all those awful children and adults who teach that homosexuality is a sin.

    You and the parents of these children don’t make a lick of sense.

  23. “If Buddha was even able to speak about complex moral questions without hysterical frothing outbursts and ranting venomous insults, I might better believe that heathens, pagans, and the godless believers in primitive superstitions had something intelligent worth saying or admiring.”

    Oh, but I am. And have. Many times. That again is the projection of your own inadequacies, Tootles.

    But let’s be clear.

    Morals? Stuff your morals. “Morals” are the spooky language of the shaman class. Ethics on the other hand are rooted in logic. So to be clear, I’ll discuss ethics, but morals are the language of children and the weak of mind. Relying on “Big Sky Daddy” to come to your defense and justify whatever you think needs justification at the moment – which in the instant is homophobia. And your homophobia and bigotry are most certainly not ethical, let alone moral. That’s the lie you tell yourself. It’s not fooling anyone else.

    I insult you simply because your theocratic (and now demonstrably homophobic and bigoted) nonsense deserves nothing but ridicule. I haven’t let bdaman off for being a bigot and he only acted that way once. What makes you think you get a pass, eh? Because you’ve “got Jesus on your side”? ROFLOL Well, when you see Jesus next? Seek help or lay off the hallucinogens. And tell him he still owes me twenty bucks because I was right about Judas. Besides, it’s both fun and funny too. Humor is a great way to teach (others – not you as you are purposefully ignorant and proud of it).

    I like making sure the ridiculous remains ridiculed.

    It’s my nature.

    Just like it’s in yours to support the ridiculous with assertions of belief over evidence and logic. Morals over ethics. The unprovable over the knowable. The deliberate misuse of religiosity to justify your petty fears and hatreds. These acts are the intellectual equivalent of saying, “Because I said so.” That was never a good enough answer for me as a child and that’s simply not good enough now either. Bring the proof or walk the plank. You old plank walker you.

    So you keep being ridiculous and I’ll keep ridiculing you.

    I have no problem with that.

    You apparently do though.

  24. “Your primitive superstition that you have an adequate ability to decide on your own what is right and wrong goes back in history as far as the eye can see or the mind remember.”

    ***********************

    I certainly can decide what is right and wrong and we doctrinally unencumbered rational beings have been doing it for centuries in direct contravention of your magic book that seems to make any human pleasure immoral. You should give it a try — it’s liberating against the tyranny of the clergy, or those others who presume to interpret some first century allegories to their own advantage or for their control over others.

    My judgment is this: any religion who punishes a child for the perceived sins of his/her parents divests itself of any legitimacy to render moral judgments on the actions of others. It’s just that simple.

    While we’re at it, Buddha’s judgment that you are sophomoric, homophobic, and racist mirrors my own opinion. I added “sophomoric” since the latter two always imply the former. Likewise, I see no defamation of your character here. Defamation is defined by the falsity of the assertions made. Here, they seem spot on.

  25. Tootie

    “I was under the impression that a legal blog would be one of the best places to come and join in with people upholding the Constitution.”

    =================================================================

    My dear … a legal blog is peopled by many talented lawyers. They are prepared to carry forth the adversarial system which, at times, involves acrimonious name-calling in an attempt to discredit another’s position. Sometimes a prosecutorial tone is applied; sometimes a conciliatory approach is used.

    It is rather naive to think that “upholding the constitution” is a goal to be discussed … interpretation is the name of the game. The complexities are immense and many of your arguments are far too simplistic and poorly framed to inspire any real discussion.

    Such statements as: “I am convinced that democrats have murdered 48 million unborn humans.” invites ridicule. You have just charged 72 million (2006 figures) of your fellow citizens with the crime of murder. Not all democrats support abortion and not all republicans oppose it. A first year law student would dismantle that statement in 2 minutes and then move on to expose your state of “being convinced” in a manner that would not be at all flattering to your intellectual abilities. Your credibility would be in tatters.

    If you want to sing to this ensemble, you need to improve your pitch and your delivery. Better material would also help.

  26. Blouise:

    I haven’t complained about name calling. And no one would claim I’m innocent of such conduct, especially me. But I know viciousness and contempt when I see it and I’m going to point it out if I wish.

    It is not unnatural or naive to expect that lawyers, American lawyers, would be interested in upholding the Constitution, except, I guess, if one is an America lawyer. When I signed my voter registration form, I had to swear an oath to defend and protect the federal and state Constitutions. I take that oath seriously and that is what I do here.

    Talented lawyers?

    Really? I hadn’t guessed. Seriously. Not one person at this website could put their finger to chapter and verse in the Constitution as to where the federal legislature has the authority to conduct the health care heist called Obamacare.

    I begged for an answer. No substantial proof came my way. None. I could only gather that this is because these allegedly talented lawyers do not know what the hell the Constitution says or means. And so, naturally, I believed this was just a group of amateurs and not professionals. Educated, yes. But professional lawyers?

    LOL

    I realize that law students do not “study” the Constitution so my viewpoints probably do appear naive and simplistic to those who seem to be completely ignorant about the “permanent framework” from which our laws emanate. Those are Milton Friedman’s words about the meaning of Rule of Law. I’m a fully aware of the difference between Rule of Law and statutes.

    I’m also certain that the founding fathers meant for us (commoners) to understand the Constitution, possess a healthy jealously of its rights, and fight to protect it especially from those in power who injure it. That is what I do. And I guess one has to be corrupted by being a professional lawyer anymore to arrive at the place where such a defense is considered simplistic or “poorly framed” if not done just right.

    What you fancy-pants don’t get is that your well-framed arguments happen to be the problem. The ship of state is being steered into a ship-sinking iceberg by the well-framed arguments of our alleged best and brightest. If you people knew what the hell you were doing we working class schmucks wouldn’t have to embarrass ourselves in public like this and expose our poor educations and flaws to the mockery of snobs. I knowingly submit myself to this humiliation because it has become abundantly clear that the nation needs to be rescued from stinking mess “professionals” have made of things before the whole thing blows up in all our faces.

    I’ll agree my viewpoints are simple, but I reject the charge that they are simplistic.

    If lawyers can resort to name-calling, snarky, impudent, and spiteful rantings and ravings for the sake of argument they can sure as heck spend a more little time explaining their viewpoints in the light of the Constitution at a legal blog! I don’t expect a full dissertation about all the intricacies and cases, but referring BACK to the Constitution isn’t too much to ask.

    Regarding abortion. You bet I charge them with murder. Belonging to the Democratic Party is a voluntary association. No one twists their arms and forces them to be a democrat. The party platform clearly states the pro-abortion position. If you don’t think that makes them guilty, then you don’t know what guilt it. Hitler was called a murderer even though it was impossible that he personally slaughtered all those people.

    Truthfully, many are just guilty of killing, but I like to provoke as much as you do. In my mind politicians, and certainly lawyers and judges are guilty of murder. They know, or ought to know better. They have joined with a voluntary organization and signed on the dotted line.

    What am I going to do? Round you all up and put you in jail? LOL. Please, don’t be silly. NO pro-lifer has any intention whatsoever to round up the murderers or killers of the innocent unborn. All we want is for the law to stop condoning it. Most pro-lifers would gladly agree to aborting the fetus of rape and incest victims. We’d agree to just about anything if libs would just stop the mass slaughter.

    If I’m off base here, then I presume you would not feel bad if I said I wish you had been aborted?

    Maybe this thought will grip your cold cold heart:

    Blacks abort at a rate about three times more than whites. Don’t you think KKK members thank the democrats for that?

  27. “Your primitive superstition that you have an adequate ability to decide on your own what is right and wrong goes back in history as far as the eye can see or the mind remember. As far back as cannibals who deciding for themselves that it was down right logical to hunt and eat humans.”

    It’s called “evolution.”

    “Blacks abort at a rate about three times more than whites.”

    While this may be true, there are factors as to why, Toots. It’s not as simple as you seem to believe it is.

    http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/03/01/abortion-women-color-bigger-picture

    “Don’t you think KKK members thank the democrats for that?”

    It appears you speak from experience.

  28. “If you people knew what the hell you were doing we working class schmucks wouldn’t have to embarrass ourselves in public like this and expose our poor educations and flaws to the mockery of snobs. I knowingly submit myself to this humiliation because it has become abundantly clear that the nation needs to be rescued from stinking mess “professionals” have made of things before the whole thing blows up in all our faces.”

    ****************

    God forbid, the most qualified to lead should lead, and those most qualified to follow should follow. You sound positively Marxian there Tootie with your working class revolt.

    Let’s just concede that those the technical know-how should cede their fates to those like you, with the least understanding, experience, and acumen. It’s rather like allowing your children to manage your finances because they are firmly convinced they could do a better job.

    And spare us the false modesty and intellectual dishonesty about your “flawed” education. Your inane, racist, haughty argument proves that you have absolutely no doubt that your are the intellectual superior of everyone here, because, of course, you and you alone “know” the intent of the founders; are one with the Creator of the universe by virtrue of your religion;, and, most importantly, your “simple” understanding of complex matters renders you uniquely situated to save the Republic from itself. I’ll pass on that offer, thank you.

    Bottom line, Buddha had and has you pegged.

    Power to the idiots!

  29. Tootie

    What am I going to do? Round you all up and put you in jail? LOL. Please, don’t be silly. NO pro-lifer has any intention whatsoever to round up the murderers or killers of the innocent unborn.

    =================================================================

    You just asked your own question … “What am I going to do? Round you all up and put you in jail?”

    Then provided texture … “LOL”

    And finally answered yourself … “Please, don’t be silly.”

    Finally ending your conversation with yourself by failing to take into account the actions of Scott Roeder, which negates your declaration … “NO pro-lifer has any intention whatsoever to round up the murderers or killers of the innocent unborn.”

    That’s what I’m trying to tell you … your pitch is off and your material needs tweaking.

  30. mespo,

    “Power to the idiots!”

    I didn’t realize you were also a media consultant for Rand Paul. You’re a busy guy.

Comments are closed.