A Matter of Conviction: Moral Clashes Over Same-Sex Marriage
Robin Fretwell Wilson, 22 BYU J. Pub. L. 475 (2008)
(An excerpt is below. To view the full text, please use Westlaw, Lexis, a law library or alternative source.)
This essay seeks to mine the healthcare experience after Roe v. Wade for the lessons it can offer in finding a live-and-let-live solution to moral clashes over same-sex adoption. It seeks to acknowledge the dilemmas facing both organizations and individuals who, as a matter of conviction, feel that they can neither support nor participate in same-sex adoptions. It argues that conscience clauses offer one way to navigate the recurrent but predictable collisions over same-sex adoption. This essay, however, is not about who should be permitted to adopt–nowhere does it address the merits of including lesbians and gays among potential adopters since this topic is amply explored elsewhere. Instead, this essay asks whether adoption agencies and other professionals should be able to decide whom they will serve.
Section II describes recent moral clashes dealing with same-sex adoption and shows that clashes occur not only between couples and recalcitrant providers but between providers and the State, as well as between providers and recalcitrant employees. Section III then charts the myriad ways in which states, after Roe v. Wade, have accommodated healthcare providers who are morally opposed to performing abortions and other procedures. Finally, Section IV distills from this rich experience with divisive healthcare procedures a number of guideposts for navigating moral clashes over same-sex adoption.
