Gay couples represent a small portion of adoptive parents. As long as the State
government has appointed an adoption agency who will provide services to these
couples that assures their rights. That allows religious adoptive agencys to
serve the larger group of adoptive or foster parents. Lets get his
settled by the Supreme Court soon so that these children can be served and so
personal businesses can practice their religion even in the marketplace.
@RiDal"The Left is perpetrating a myth and misunderstanding
about "rights".The Constitution clearly delineates a right to free
expression of religion."Individual rights for individuals; not
for businesses or government agencies. If faith based agencies want to
discriminate in the conduct of their business they are free to do so. Once,
however, they choose to accept tax-payer dollars to administer and deliver
services on behalf of the state, "faith-based" discrimination is no
longer allowed. The choice to accept or decline Caesar's nickle is theirs.
Simple stuff really.
There needs to be a supreme court ruling on this matter. It is
amazing how many national issues are being held hostage by the government trying
to force religious organizations to support or participate in activities that
are against their religious beliefs. A religious exemption from the national
discrimination laws allows all groups to enjoy their constitutional rights and
will settle this issue once and for all.American Citizens are
entitled to federal tax support for all services that the Federal or State
government provide. The Supreme Court should rule that those citizens can use
those funds with any certified business that they want including qualifying
religious organizations. That is what freedom is all about.In
truth, this should include schools and universitys or even healthcare.
@ RiDalKaren R. here."And the Constitution prevents
establishment of a State religion. But that does *not* mean that the
government can never support people and actions of people who are
religious."But it does mean that government can't favor one
religion or religious belief over others because that would amount to an
establishment of religion. That's what these carve-out laws do. They make
beliefs about SSM more sacrosanct than the beliefs about mixed-race marriage or
mixed-faith marriage, when all are seen as equal in the eyes of the law.
I've yet to hear a justification for that position.
The Left is perpetrating a myth and misunderstanding about "rights". The Constitution clearly delineates a right to free expression of religion.
And the Constitution prevents establishment of a State religion. But
that does *not* mean that the government can never support people and actions of
people who are religious. In fact, since all people are free to exercise
religion, it is inevitable and unavoidable that the government will be
influenced by and take actions that will support religious people. There
simply is no "right to never be influenced by religious people" and no
prevention of the government supporting religious people when they are doing
things that are not directly propagating religion. In this case, they are
promoting adoption, and they have a right to promote they type of adoption they
deem beneficial. If someone else wants to use a different adoption agency, they
also have that right.
@ New to UtahWould you be supportive of this carve-out if St.
Vincent's was using it to deny mixed-race couples? What about non-Catholic
couples, including atheist ones? Because it gives them this right. It
doesn't say, "Applicable only to same-sex couples." It's
applicable to any of us. And only faith-based agencies are given this right.
It doesn't apply to secular agencies. Their beliefs apparently aren't
equally sacrosanct before the law.So these laws that were crafted to
protect this one particular belief held only by some actually upend the entire
1st Amendment. They give government the power to play favorites.Do
you really want to set this precedent? Aren't you counting on government
always being run by religion-favoring folk? What happens if/when it
isn't?* Still want government to have this power?* See
"‘Nones’ now as big as evangelicals, Catholics in the US,"
Religious News Service, April 16, 2019
Michigan’s attorney general is clearly discriminating against faith based
adoption agencies and the laws of the state she is supposed to represent. Her
desire to punish St Vincent’s and side with ACLU is denying foster
children an opportunity to be placed in homes. Posters are missing the point
that same sex couples can adopt and receive state money. There are plenty of
adoption agencies and plenty of foster kids to adopt. It is certainly possible
to let both groups help kids.
The irony with the recently decided Michigan case, St. Vincent’s (I think
that was the agency being sued) was willing to place foster kids and kids being
adopted by same sex couples, they just had another organization do the home
study, etc., and they would place the child based on the recommendations. They
felt that because of their religious beliefs they weren’t sure they could
be as unbiased as they should be. So they didn’t refuse placement at all.
The lawsuit never should have proceeded.
"And I will say again why can't we all just to to those who will accept
and leave the ones who won't alone."This will happen on its
own once those in the latter group take their hands out of the public till. Or
do you think it's fair for someone to take money that all are required to
contribute to, but tell some of those contributors, "We won't serve
That's right, Bob P., Put us gays "in our place"! We just
don't deserve to be treated like everyone else, we NEED to be told "go
somewhere else"! Yes, that's obvious, I guess.@Neece;Open an agency and run it on your own funds and then discriminate to
your hearts content. Just don't expect me to subsidize you when
you're telling me to "go somewhere else".@Ms.W;Sorry, when you claim that your superstitions allow you to discriminate
against me, you've lost any entitlement to respect. Discrimination and
"discernment" are entirely different things. One is harmful, the other
means "seeing clearly". Homosexuality is not "harmful conduct"
- but discrimination is.
I want to make sure I understand the consensus here...It does not
impinge one *my* rights if I cannot go to St. Vincent Catholic Charities.But it does impinge on *your* rights if you cannot go to St. Vincent Catholic
Charities.Is that about right?In case that's too
subtle... y'all kept saying, over and over again, that there are plenty of
alternatives to St. Vincent Catholic Charities, and that it doesn't harm
anyone if they St. Vincent Catholic Charities wont' work with them.But now y'all are cheering on a lawsuit in which you're
claiming harm because St. Vincent Catholic Charities won't work with
them.So which is it? Does having to got a non-St. Vincent Catholic
Charities adoption agency cause harm, or is having to go to a non-St. Vincent
Catholic Charities adoption agency benign and neutral?Note: you
don't get to give an separate answer for gays and Christians. It's
either harmful or benign for all of us. No special rights.@GrainOfSalt"No one said lesbians or gays can't adopt."Actually, the state of Utah (along with many others) does. It lost the legal
fight there and was overruled by the courts, but don't expect us to forget
@neece"Why can't I have a religious based Adoption agency?
"Nobody's stopping you. These decisions aren't ones
that ban the adoption agency if they don't adopt to same-sex couples, it
just removes access to gov't funding.
@dmcvey Yes you are! Why can't I have a religious based
Adoption agency? If I don't believe in "gay" marriages Why
can't I say no? All of our religious based opinions and beliefs are being
destroyed all because a 'community" of people are "MAKING" us
come around to their beliefs. it goes back to the Baker who didn't want to
make a cake for a gay couple. Instead of bashing over and over what we believe
why can't they go to another baker or adoption agency? And I will say again
why can't we all just to to those who will accept and leave the ones who
won't alone. NO MATTER what someone will and is being discriminated
@dmcvey " if you're an adoption agency you have to treat all clients
with respect and not discriminate."Sorry, but when clients
pursue lawsuits over adoption agencies they've lost their privilege of any
respect.Discrimination used to be synonymous with discernment. But the
"gay" movement has exploited this association and redefined it to be
synonymous with "racial prejudice". Although there is no
rational basis for discrimination on criteria such as race, skin color and
ethnicity, discrimination against harmful conduct is entirely rational. @Laura BilingtonYes, there is obvious confusion and turmoil
amongst children in all of those dysfunctional circumstances you've
mentioned. How could there not be?Children will often look outside
of their surroundings for some semblance of normalcy, and want help. But those who don't often fall into addictions, suicide, and other
unhealthy behaviors because they're not raised in a functional environment
to begin with.
Let's recap where our left-leaning friends are:Billion dollar
companies like Facebook and Twiter refusing to host content they deem to be
racist or "hateful": Good.Billion dollar international drug
company Pfizer that makes a fortune selling drugs to medicare/medicaid patients
refusing to sell drugs to assure lawful executions are painfree because its
operaters believe executions are immoral: Good.Businesses of all
sizes posting "No Guns Allowed" signs and thus forcing law abiding gun
owners to either live in the closet or forego service: Good.Businesses foregoing some profit in order to operate in the most
environmentally friendly manner possible based on the morals of the operators:
Good.A business founder using his money to support traditional
marriage: Very bad. Boycott the business.A small business owner
declining to attend an event she finds morally offensive: Must be illegal.
Bankrupt her. Ditto if she declines to use artistic talent to promote that
event.A church run, non-profit placing children only with
heterosexual couples: Terrible. Shut them down. No govt money. And even if they
don't take govt money, still terrible; shut them down.Consistency? No
@Ranch: ".. "private businesses" *are* subsidized by taxpayers,
right?"Ah, the old "You didn't build that,"
canard.But you're fine if Facebook refuses to post content that
it deems immoral / racist. You're happy if Pfizer refuses to sell drugs for
legal executions it consideres immoral. You're thrilled if gun owners are
denied services.Simply put, you are happy to discriminate in ways
you like and have simply found a rationalization for it.I'd
support full anti-discrimination protections for sexual minorities today if we
could agree that nobody should be required to support any message that offends
him. Nobody has to provide goods or services to an NRA fundraiser, a church
wedding, nor a homosexual wedding. And, nobody would be allowed to discriminate
against gun owners, religious persons, nor homosexual individuals or couples
when it comes to off the shelf items.I don't want to see any
individual discriminated against. Neither do I want to see anyone forced to
promote any message nor event he finds offensive.Forcing
photographers to choose between bankruptcy and attending/supporting events that
offend them (whether KKK rallies or homosexual marriages), is immoral.
TheRealDJT Can we please also acknowledge that Dr Fitzgibbons is not
exactly unbiased? He is part and parcel of a practice that seeks to maintain
Catholic dogma as it relates to marriage and family. He is not an unbiased
source, nor is his work universally accepted by mental health professionals.RiDalIt is long established law that religious practice may
not violate legislative acts or Constitutional principle. An extreme example
might be human or animal sacrifice. Couch it however you may, but law that asks
a religiously affiliated institution (not a Church) to follow established law
when receiving public money is most definitely not restricting religious
practice. Unless that practice is prejudice and bigotry.LaterDaySaintForeverYour religious belief defines family. Good
for you. Why do you insist on making that my definition? Is your religion
better than mine? Are we not a secular nation, not a theocracy?
The claim that the goal is not to shuttered faith based organizations is leftist
rhetoric. Central religious goals can not be compromised and daith based
institutions will never place children in homes that violate their values.This Michigan attempt to win by the government abandoning defense of the
law is another in a long lune of times when the liberal elite has tried to
destroy legislative power by back handed moves.
The Catholic adoption agency is being accused of "religious bias"; but
it also just happens to be in accordance with scientific studies on the welfare
of children. From the US National Library of Medicine; National Institutes
of Health"Growing up with gay parents: What is the big deal?"Richard P. Fitzgibbons"A very large body of social science
research going back decades has documented the vital and unique role of mothers
and of fathers in childhood development. These studies have also demonstrated
the negative psychological, educational, and social effects on children who have
been deprived of growing up in a home with both biological parents who are
married to each other."In the paper, Fitzgibbons also debunks the two
recent studies that have been heavily promoted on social media about there being
no negative effects to children raised by gay couples. Those studies were
uncontrolled, biased pseudoscience. The truth just happens to be what everyone
with common sense would think is obvious: mothers and fathers are different and
play different unique roles in childhood development. To deprive a child of one
of those produces measurable, long-lasting negative effects.
@ neeceWhat are your thoughts on these agencies using public money,
but refusing to serve part of the public? This wouldn't be an issue but
for this part of the story. Were these agencies totally self-funded, they would
have every right to reject anyone they chose.@ Tekakaromatagi The Regnerus study is what the State of Utah backed away from in its
fight to keep Utah's SSM ban. That's right - the party AGAINST
same-sex marriage, that based part of its argument on Regnerus' study,
acknowledged in a letter to the court that the results couldn't be relied
Many people don't want 'their' tax dollars going to any
organization that supports abortion. Personally, I don't want
'my' tax dollars going to any organization that discriminates against
the LGBTQ community.
@NoNames;You do realize, I hope, that "private businesses"
*are* subsidized by taxpayers, right?We subsidize their SBA loans.
Their police and fire protection services. The roads upon which their raw
materials arrive and their finished products are delivered. We EDUCATE their
employees. Among other things. If "religious" people want
to discriminate against others, then they should give up their own CRA
non-discrimination protections.Am I "willing to grant anyone the
right to discriminate"? No. Public businesses should NOT be allowed to
discriminate against any customers.@windsor;Can you
atheist spouse also "clearly see the confusion" engendered from having a
parent living a superstitious lifestyle?@1hemlock;Can
you prove that an SS couple isn't equally capable as an OS couple? If not,
your question is moot. Simple "believe" that something is so
doesn't make it so. Studies have shown that SS & OS families are
equal.For those of you in favor of this discrimination, remember
this agency also refused to adopt to an OS Jewish couple (they were involved in
the lawsuit). Are you okay with that too? After all, "religious
The world is getting so crazy. There is far to much selfishness and who suffers
the most because of it - the Children. "The Family is ordained of God.
Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are
entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father
and a mother.."To many have gone away from God and have lost sight of
this. Yes SSM is now a law of the land but this is only temporary. When Jesus
Christ comes again Gods laws will reign over all the earth. I prefer Gods laws
over mans. We need to learn to be able to put are differences aside and do what
is best for the children not are agendas.
@neece"People just don't get it... by the lgbtq community
'MAKING' me change my "faith Based" Ideals you are now turning
it around and discriminating against me."No one is making you do
anything. You do not have to change your ideals. But, if you are an adoption
agency you have to treat all clients with respect and not discriminate--this
does not affect your personal or religious freedoms in any way.
We don't have a shortage of adoption agencies in this country we have a
shortage of parents willing to adopt. When you turn away a qualified
family willing to adopt, you only hurt children in desperate need of a home.
@windsor wrote,"My spouse is an Atheist--yet without any
religious 'superstitions' can clearly see the obvious confusion and
turmoil for children in having a same-sex couple for parents."Is
there "obvious confusion and turmoil" for a child with parents of mixed
race? Or for a child of immigrant parents? Or for a
child with a widowed parent?Or for a child raised by a couple who
were both past 50 when they were born?Or for a child who has a
parent in the military? Or who works on the graveyard shift? Or whose mother
is a rabbi? The "confusion and turmoil" comes from outside
adults who have a problem accepting that some people are different from other
people--and then try their darndest to pass their prejudices on to their
children. Frequently it doesn't work. The kid matter-of-factly explains
to the other kids that their father isn't around much because he's a
research scientist in Antarctica. Or that their mom needs leg braces to walk
because she had polio. Or that he's adopted because his birth parents had
drug issues. Or that her dads are gay and that gay people marry people of the
This requirement by the attorney general could create a big legal mess in 30
years time. The available evidence on children raised by parents of the same
gender is that they experience a statistically higher rate of negative outcomes
than children raised by male/female parents (the Regnerus study), anecdotal
stories from people raised by same gender parents say that they missed out from
being exposed to the male/female balance. Various cultures recognize how a
mothers and fathers teach children in different by complementary ways.History will remember these adoption agencies as being ethical, they knew the
dangers and the risks and they did not give in.It is not a
progressive when we make this huge social science experiment on children solely
to validate the feelings of adults. It reminds me of the Moche civilization in
Peru who would sacrifice children to stop the rain during El Nino events.
People just don't get it... by the lgbtq community 'MAKING' me
change my "faith Based" Ideals you are now turning it around and
discriminating against me. No matter what someone is going to be discriminated
against. I am not forcing you to go to my faith based adoption agency, why are
you again MAKING me conform to your views? See? no matter what. Oh and those who
are "bashing" faith based" religion, adoption agencies, my faith is
NOT superstitious, discriminatory, etc. You want to be Gay go for it. but then
don't knock my religion because you don't like it either.
Only addressing adoptions under a year old:In the case of open
adoption, birth parents want a voice in picking parents. Will this ruling
prevent birth parents having choices? Isn’t there an added risk of a
birth parent opting not to adopt to avoid limiting their choices? In
the case of early adoptions, there is a waiting list of adoptive parents. So how
does this new law improve a baby’s chance for a loving home? It seems like there could be limitations to protect children from delays or
birth parents from being ignored. Give an agency a limited period in which to
make a suitable match or the child is automatically placed through a different
agency. Give birth parents an option to choose which race, religion, gender,
marital status, etc they want for their child. Fostering children is
a much more complex situation. Kids are often older or less
“adoptable” or not expected to ever be adopted. They need every
chance for a good match. So the fostering system needs separate policies.
"Faith-based agencies like St. Vincent consistently do the best work because
of their faith..."If placing belief over evidence is the best
they can do - belief that is not only unsupported but CONTRARY to the evidence -
then maybe it is time for the St. Vincent's of the world to step aside and
let others fill the vacuum. Religion has been proven wrong too many times in
the past to rush to its defense on the backs of children needing stable, loving
homes. Let's be faithful to the evidence, not age-old and baseless
prejudices (definition: a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or
@rlynn, ranch-hereSo you have an institution that provides adoptions for
hundreds of children a year (it’s all about the children isn’t it?)
that believes the best place to raise children is in a home with a mother and
father. That will now have to shut down (less adoptions more kids in foster
care) because few people care more about themselves. There may be more children
adopted by LGBTQ+ folks, but they will be in the 10’s and the children
will not be in the best place for children.100’s a year in a family
with a mother and a father vs a few in another arrangement.What’s
best for the children?
The flip side here is what position religious organizations will take if/when
another religion espouses another kind of discrimination, in the name of
religion?There was another type of marriage in our nation which was
long outlawed, and when the Supreme Court declared bans against it legal in
1967, one university barred students in that type of marriage all the way up to
the year 2000. Will religions, seeking to defend themselves from a
nation which is changing, defend other religious groups who want to take us back
to 1967? (Won't they want to be consistent? Or just pick and choose?)This is the kind of acrimonious behavior by churches that turns people
away from religion... but they'll never see it that way, and will be
surprised and saddened as the church pews get emptier.
When an "InDepth" piece starts with "limiting the rights of
faith-based adoption and foster care agencies", then you know you read an
opinion and not an indepth study. But to the meat of it...The
faith-based adoption and foster care agencies agreed in Michigan (which has
added the LGBT community to its non-discrimination law) to cease discriminating
against gay and lesbian couples who sought to adopt. At this point the case
should be closed.However, a politically motivated third party, the
Becket Fund, seeks to inject itself into the matter. What the Becket Fund
really wants is to allow anyone with Fundamentalist/Evangelical notions to be
able to discriminate across the board, and do so with the force of law.
Furthermore, it wants taxpayers to fund such discriminatory activities.The United States is not that kind of country, and most of us know this. We
do not believe in discrimination. Period. What has the country
come to when the right to discriminate against any of our citizens becomes
clothed in religion, and is supported by the Press? Not the country I grew up
in nor care to see become.
LGBT Americans are taxpayers, too. I won't tolerate my tax dollars
subsidizing agencies that discriminate against me. Would you want your tax
dollars going to organizations that turn away Christians?Catholic
Charities of Boston went through this situation years ago. They USED to have no
problem providing adoption services to Gay couples, but then they suddenly
decided to stop, about the same time that marriage equality for Gay couples
became a reality in Massachusetts. Problem was, Catholic Charities of Boston was
getting about $1 million annually from the state, and they were given a choice:
Either stop discriminating against adoptive Gay couples, or give up that
funding. They chose the latter. Fine with me. You want to feed at the public
trough, you'd better be prepared to play by the rules.
I lose more respect for "faith- based" agencies every time they try to
use religion as a weapon against their fellow citizens. How sad.
Ranch--"just because of their superstitions"My spouse is an
Atheist--yet without any religious 'superstitions' can clearly see
the obvious confusion and turmoil for children in having a same-sex couple for
parents.Reality trumps any accusations of bigotry, discrimination or
superstition in this.
"This means that adoptive parents will have fewer choices and foster
children will face longer waits to find permanent homes."How
ironic that this is the argument that Catholic Charities is choosing to make if
their government funding dries up. Their policies are counterproductive to
their stated goal. Their policies actually cause children to face longer waits
to find permanent homes and actually give adoptive parents fewer options. "Over 12,000 children are currently in Michigan’s foster care
system, and the need for new foster parents far outstrips the number of
families seeking to care for these children." And yet this
organization chooses to deny legally qualified married couples the opportunity
to help more of these children. "Because there are not enough
families, more than 600 of these children “age out” of foster care
every year. They exit the foster system at age 18 without any permanent
family, and many lack the resources and skills to successfully transition
into adulthood."It's safe to say that same sex couples
didn't create this problem, but how can we not see that they can be a part
of the solution.
A reminder why Mr. Trump won in Michigan and in so many other states, from tip
of Florida to tip of Idaho, a nation of red.
Looking forward to hear Joseph Biden and John Kerry speak on this, they being
Catholic, because children more important than the climate change. And climate
change, like all other subjects, more important than law suit angry nation.
St. Vincents is not being honest about their policy. They claim that their
religious beliefs keep them from placing children in homes where the couple is
gay. But their religion is equally condemning of couples where one or both of
the parties have been previously divorced, where one or both are "fallen
away" Catholics, or where one or both were baptized Catholic but married in
a civil ceremony. But they will gladly work with couples who fit in these
categories if they are otherwise qualified.
@Thomas ThompsonNo one said lesbians or gays can't adopt. There are
other adoption agencies gays and lesbians can use specifically in this case, so
it isn't about not being able to adopt. As in almost all these situations
it's about shutting down anyone who disagrees with the LGBTQ worldview. And
to assume that just because the money comes from the government the recipients
somehow loses their right to religious freedom is fallacious.
@Ranch: "They wouldn't be "forced to close down" if they were
willing to STOP discriminating against good families just because of their
superstitions."And yet you'll force completely private
business owners to attend and support weddings they don't want to attend
even though they don't accept any government money. So your objections
based on accepting government money seem a bit inaccurate.Are you
willing to grant anyone, anywhere, the right to exist, to operate a business
according to their conscience, and not support, affirm, or celebrate same sex
unions and intimacies?If there are adoption agencies that will
provide the same level of service at the same low cost as do these
religious-based non-profits, they should get the contract simply to avoid any
questions about discrimination. But if not, then we ought to make best use of
limited tax dollars by allowing the lowest cost, highest service provider to
provide services to the 99% of prospective couples they will work with and then
provide service to the 1% they can't, via other means.We do not
need to waste money on "message laws" that express outrage over
religious beliefs you find offensive. We need to help kids.
The birth parent or parents should have the right as to who adopts their child.
If they want them in a traditional family, they should have the ability to do
so. If they want it the other way, they should also be able to choose.
And here we come to a significantly more vital issue than whether a baker may
refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple; it was easy to come down on the side of
the baker when, as a practical matter, wedding cakes are a relatively trivial
issue. Whether a gay couple can adopt a child is an issue that raises the
stakes to a much higher level. The issue is not going to be an easy one to
decide, but it seems to me that if a gay couple is lawfully married in the
jurisdiction where they live, then they ought to have exactly the same right to
adopt as every other couple seeking a child. Having children is a vital part of
what many couples consider fundamental to their married relationship. If an
adoption agency can refuse to allow an adoption to go forward even when the
couple opting to adopt is in full compliance with the laws of the land, then it
seems to me we're going to have to reject the whole concept of the
"equal protection of the laws" enshrined in our Constitution. Is that
really what we want?
Still the same. You receive my Gay dollars, which I pay to the Government, you
can't discriminate against me or my LGBTQ family. What about my Freedom
of Religion? A non profit is not a Church, no so called Religion Freedom
They wouldn't be "forced to close down" if they were willing to
STOP discriminating against good families just because of their
superstitions.If you want to accept Public Monies, you MUST serve
ALL the public. It really is that simple. "Religious freedom" does not
mean 'freedom to discriminate in the public square, with public