Both the Republicans in the Virginia Legislature and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) are pressing hard to get rules prohibiting discrimination in adoption thrown out. Same-sex couples and unmarried couples would be affected by this action.
NOM has gone as far as saying they would push for the end of adoption by religious entities in Virginia if the proposed rules are put into effect. (The Catholic Church has done this very thing.)
The drafting of the rules started under then-Governor Tim Kaine over two years ago but have never been adopted. They have been approved for advancement by the McDonnell administration. Spokesperson for NOM Maggie Gallagher wrote the following on the blog of that organization:
Rep. Anthony Weiner may have joked about “mandatory gay marriage,” at the WH Correspondents dinner, but amazingly, Virginia’s Dept. of Social Services is proposing new regulations that would require all adoption and foster-care agencies to do gay adoptions. (bold in original)
Delegate Kathy Byron also spoke out yesterday, sending a letter to the Governor, signed by 57 conservative members of the House of Delegates, asking him “to do everything in his authority” to block regulations that would prevent the agencies from refusing to “place children for adoption with unmarried or same-sex couples.” Byron called the rules an “assault on religious liberty” and claims that the Commonwealth should continue to place children based on what she calls the best interest of the child.
For their part, Senate candidate and former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine and Senator Don McEachin both made statements in favor of the new rules.
Maggie Gallagher also wrote about this subject in the National Review, where most comments responding to the article were predictably crass and stereotypical. NOM is claiming that these policies would drive agencies out of business.
If the best interest of the child is the real goal here, and not some uber-conservative agenda to prohibit same-sex couples and even unmarried heterosexual couples from adopting, why isn’t a loving home with two parents not good enough for them? There are millions of children in this country waiting for an adoptive family. Why live in the dark ages in Virginia?
In this instance, like so many others, conservatives would like you to believe they care about this issue in some altruistic fashion. Instead, it appears that the famous “culture of life” ends at birth, and hating people not like themselves is the driving force. Making a statement about what’s really important to them, the Republicans and conservatives appear petty and foolhardy.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Do you really think the people working at religious adoption agencies do not have the children’s best interests in mind?
Are there no non-religious agencies that same-sex couples can go to?
They have the interest of the children in mind according to the doctrine of their church, something that civil adoptions should not be required to abide by.
This is similar to the marriage issue in that someone, usually religious, wants the rest of us to abide by their beliefs and views.
In my opinion, this is unconstitutional.
When the state makes civil laws about adoption, it is a civil matter, not a religious test for someone wanting to adopt.
Should the Catholic Church in Massachusetts also be forced to perform same-sex marriages? If the Church will not perform them, should the State deny marriage certificates to all couples who intend to be married in the Catholic Church?
A couple doesn’t need the Catholic Church to get married. If they choose not to get married if they can’t be married as Catholics, that’s their decision, but the Catholic Church can’t veto their marriage.
Adoption is very different. Without the rule, an agency can prevent the adoption of a child by compatible parents just to serve its own institutional interests, which have nothing to do with the welfare of the interested parties (parents and child). That is just wrong.
A couple does not need Catholic Charities to adopt a child, either. Go to another agency.
And it has everything to do with the welfare of the child.
This isn’t for the benefit of the couple, but the child.
Exactly, MB. Thank you.
One of the many days it’s hard to be a Catholic.
Seriously, if they are “pro-life” and “encourage” adoption- then help place the child in a loving home, period.
This is downright sad…not surprising but sad.
I agree, it is very sad. Can’t they just stay out of people’s lives?
Yes, they do so much harm to people by running an adoption agency. They should just stay out of children’s lives.
Although I know you are being facetious, until you understand that people do not want religion jammed down their throats, you will never understand this issue.
We are talking about same-sex couples and unmarried couples. If I liked indoctrination, I would never have gotten out of the Navy.
To talk only about the couples and their social status, such as being gay or unmarried, does a huge disservice to the children. It is, after all, about the children.
If you don’t want religion jammed down your throat, don’t go to a CATHOLIC adoption agency. A CATHOLIC adoption agency would also not place a child in a swinger household, for the same reason.
By the way, I forgot to tell you how disingenuous your comment is. Remember that when others read it, they will think of you, not this issue.
Try being intellectually honest for a change.
Be intellectually honest and not expect a CATHOLIC adoption agency into a household that embraces sinful behavior and calls it right and normal.
No Warren, “they” should perhaps re-read the Beatitudes and stop DiLorenzo’s obsession with all things remotely GLBT.
Since he’s been Bishop, it’s either abortion or “pro-*family*” shoved down our throats. Perhaps some of us Catholics actually care about ALL people being treated equally AND respect.
Which part of the Beatitudes would apply here?
There is, of course, Mark 9:42 : “And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.”
Sorry Warren, don’t really have time to school you on Luke and Matthew on one blog.
Let’s just say that the saying “Hate is not a family value” is valid and I see no sin in having ALL God’s children having the SAME rights. Matthew 25 is a good place to start.
Hating sin IS a family value.
Unless you are not religious, or someone who does not practice hate.
Once again, you would like to tell us there is only one way; the religious way.
Sorry, that’s what we fought the Revolution for, to get away from religious persecution.
The IS only one way for a RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION — the RELIGIOUS way. If you don’t like it, don’t go to them for adoption services.
So, swingers and sinful behavior?
How does this equate to same sex and unmarried couples? I mean without religious interference.
Are all same sex and unmarried couples sinners then? Or “swingers”? By whose rules? Religion?
Sorry, they don’t run the civil adoptions in this state or country. If they want to deprive a child or children of being placed because of their dogma, that is wrong.
Adoptions are a civil procedure, handled in court.
> So, swingers and sinful behavior? How
> does this equate to same sex and
> unmarried couples? I mean without
> religious interference.
We are talking about a CATHOLIC adoption agency, remember?
> Are all same sex and unmarried couples
> sinners then? Or “swingers”? By whose
> rules? Religion?
By the precepts of the CATHOLIC religion, yes. And they will not place a child for adoption into the home of an unmarried heterosexual couple, either.
> Sorry, they don’t run the civil
> adoptions in this state or country. If
> they want to deprive a child or
> children of being placed because of
> their dogma, that is wrong.
The do not kvetch when they decide to get out of the business because of civil rules that conflict with their religious beliefs.
Adoptions are a civil procedure, handled in court.