In Great Britain, thanks to a new ruling, the principle of nondiscrimination now trumps religious liberty and common sense. Catholic adoption agencies will be closed unless they agree to place children with gay couples on an "equal" basis. No preferences for the natural family are permissible any longer, even if it means fewer orphaned children find good homes. The sky is not falling, because the sky never does fall, but there is a large crack opening up in our civilization's foundations. Read story.
40 Comments
That's really sad.
It's not sad, it's a simple measure that became necessary to insure that gay couples who want to adopt were not being discrimated against.
If these Catholic agencies really cared about children, they wouldn't mind if the family was gay or straight, as long as it could provide a stable environment for the child. Which gay families are able to provide just as much as straight ones.
Telling a helpless infant that they could have had a mom AND a dad, but instead they were forced to be put with people who couldn't stand one sex or the other, simply because of their own bias, that's not right. It's wrong for the kids, and it's wrong for the government to be forcing inequal situations into the same shape. Gay couples are great, they are unique, but unless they can give a child a mom and a dad, they're not fit to be called parents.
Does the government also force adoption agencies to give children to single mothers?
State sanctioned recruiting into the homosexual lifestyle, INCREDIBLE!! How could any rational person deny a child a mom and a dad? This is a coming to America wait and see, unless we change this countries direction in November.. Yes it can happen here!!!
What next, churches forced to embrace and marry homosexuals? SF Mayor Newsome said "Its gonna happen, like it or not!"
Are you people for real?
Adoption agencies aren't about forcing the values of your own beliefs onto adoptive children. It's about finding the best family for children possible, and your moral disapproval of same-sex parents plays no role in determining the love that a couple can provide a child. This mention of "homosexual lifestyle" and other rubbish is just so backwards and outdated, and has been disproved by reliable scienitific studies.
I say this as a somebody training to become a social worker to work in the adoption field. The only evidence you to back up your points is outdated and narrow-minded beliefs.
Shameful.
The best family possible is a family with a mom AND a dad.
I support marriage equality whole heartedly. However, I share an equal respect for religious freedom. As such, I think this is scary.
Yes, I think any reasonable adoption agency would, maybe even should place children with same sex couples as with opposite sex couples, but to say they are REQUIRED to is a scary thought.
I think this is the saddest and scariest example of the repercussions of the battle lines over marriage equality. Republicans oppose the idea (nearly) unanimously, largely because of religious-based ideals. This, of course, has no place in politics and should be discounted.
However, I think what is happening here is that liberals, so used to the (unfortunately necessary) task of ensuring gays and lesbians are granted the constitutional freedom FROM religion (1st Amendment), that when the debate crosses over and does become an issue of religious rights- as it has in this case- it becomes easy to paint it with the same colors, and throw freedom OF religion (1st amendment) to the wayside.
I can't wait for the day that conservatives get behind marriage equality (the arguments for it are surprisingly rooted in conservative ideals- hands off government and the like), and debates over the effects of such equality can be carried out without simply conforming to party stereotypes, making it easy to actually step on church rights in the name of progressivism (the idea that marriage equality alone infringes on said rights is absurd. It is the implementation of such that needs to be discussed, as that's where this line is actually crossed in a very real, very frightening way).
You people get on your soapbox and you preach family values, and yet when two men or two women want to start a loving family together you deny them that right because it doesn't conform to your preconceived notions of what a family is. I think you, NOM, are the real danger here.
Adoption is to provide children with the parents they need. Not adults with the children they want.
That said, I believe whether or not children should be adopted by same sex couples (or single folks for that matter) should be left up to each adoption agency without an intrusive or coercive government telling them how to run things.
The legalization of SSM is, by its very nature, the government sponsorship of a set of moral standards on behalf of a special intrest group, namely homosexuals. When the government does that, they get into the business of telling people what to think and how to feel.
The government pressuring religious organizations to compromise and/or renounce their religious convictions is only one example.
"You people get on your soapbox and you preach family values, and yet when two men or two women want to start a loving family together you deny them that right because it doesn't conform to your preconceived notions of what a family is."
You need a man and a woman to start a family. There's no getting around biology.
The thing I see happening is not just about two guys or two girls, how often do people think about the ramifications here? Friends of ours had their family turned down when they wished to adopt a sibling group of three kids because the social worker had a pro-gay bias and told them so. Those kids now have no chance for a mom because one social worker decided two guys could do the job better.
If two families want to adopt a child, which is actually better? A family with a mom and a dad, there is no question, yet this scenario is playing itself out more and more often.
It's not just about inclusion, it's about replacement, as if men and women weren't different and gender didn't matter. Ask a kid who was forced to grow up without a mom or dad whether or not he thinks that's equal.
@ConservativeNY:
So what about a man who is sterile or a woman who is infertile? Should they not be allowed to adopt, since, biologically speaking, they can't have kids?
Two men can't provide motherhood.
Two women can't provide fatherhood.
When a mother dies or a father leaves the family or such cases, there is a hole in that childs heart forever.
Why would anyone place a child in a home without a father or without a mother on purpose?
If I was on the fence before about adult rights, it's becoming clearer that kids' rights are not considered. I cannot support SSM because I cannot support redefining the nuclear family.
This ties into what judge Walker said about parents' genders being immaterial. Average people can draw the line at this idea, that who they are as a mother or a father or their unique relationship with their mother or their father as a man or woman is 'immaterial' and doesn't matter.
That is truly offensive, and doesn't play out in be real world.
And even our gov't sees roles of father and mother as important. Or are they going to get rid of Fatherhood programs now because dads are suddenly considered 'immaterial'?
SSM is all about access to financial gain for parents, what is best for children is secondary.
Kieran, Even a man who is sterile and a mom who is infertile can provide children with a mom and a dad.
Common sense aside, study after study after study shows that kids do best when raised by a mom and a Dad. Exposing children to homosexuality is simply wrong and unhealthy.
"So what about a man who is sterile or a woman who is infertile? Should they not be allowed to adopt, since, biologically speaking, they can't have kids?"
They are the exception, not the rule. An opposite sex couple is the only type of couple that can produce kids.
What is best for the child might just end up being a gay, loving, and stable family. Kids that evolve in gay families have been wanted, desired, usually their parents have thought about the decision many times over and when they finally greet the child, they are ready, emotionally, intellectually, and economically. To say that children in gay families turn out badly is not only ignoring the many studies that show otherwise (I know at least one that shows that children in lesbian couples do better than those in straight couples) but ignoring the many evidences that I see on a day to day basis with my encounter with gay families. That is common sense.
And no, SSM is not about financial gains for the parents. Look around! Talk to your gay friends who may have children. Inform yourself! You will see that gay families are just as able to love, sustain, and provide a warm, stable environment for the child.
What other reason than personal financial gain could a homosexual judge decide to create a new SSM constitutional right? A very serious conflict of interest some say.
Jakes, you would really have to explain to me what financial gains gays and lesbian can possibly hope to attain by demanding the right to marry.
It's an equal justice issue. Not about money.
In California, Domestic Partnerships have every right that married couples have. SSM opposition to Proposition 8 is all about the word, the stamp of societal approval and the federal tax breaks.... money.
You people have no proof that every gay couple would be unsuitable parents. Your moralistic views therefore hinder a child from receiving loving parents if even one gay couple proved to be suitable parents to raise a child.
TC Matthews, learn this: Brown v. Board of Education ruled that separate but equal is not equal. Calling one partnership marriage and another civil unions while providing the same benefits is not equal. Learn your history.
Kieran, every ss couple omits by definition either a mom or a dad. Children do best when raised by a mom AND a dad.
Marriage is open to every human being on the planet. No one is excluded because of race, orientation or any other qualification. In addition, if you choose not to enter into marriage, you may also enter into a domestic partnership. It has nothing to do with separate but not equal, since everyone seeking a domestic partnership also has equal access to marriage. Domestic Partnerships are a courtesy, an extra option uniquely designed because the gay community asked for them. No one seeks to exclude anyone from marriage. It is open to all, equally.
TC: you yourself omit why a child must ABSOLUTELY have a mom AND a dad.
And no, marriage is not open to everybody on the planet. Gays and lesbians are excluded. It's not a favor we're asking. It's a right to be treated equally.
Homosexual couples have no more a right to be called married couples any more than black people have a right to be called white people or women have the right to be called men.
This is about defining terms, not racial segregation.
Andrew, marriage is open to you, no one is stopping you from meeting the requirements for responsible procreation. But if two brothers, want to marry or 5 sisters want to marry each other, the answer is no. Why It would change the definition of marriage which is mostly about families. Sorry, that you want special tax breaks, or to mooch of another's insurance policy, that answer is NO.
Instead of weakening and cheapening marriage, lets focus on the encouragement of responsible procreation and do everything we can to make sure a child has a mom and a dad.
When it comes to Mothers and Fathers -- to husbands and wives -- apparently separate IS equal after all!
Gender bias trumps everything.
2 recent studies reported Same Sex Married Couples are MUCH more likely to "cheat" on their spouse and have open marriages than Hetero Married Couples. This is not a stable environment in which to throw kids.
The Studies that purport no difference between kids raised in Gay Homes vs Hetero homes are flawed, and are not controlled for income, education etc. It will take many years to collect the data.
It's not like two men or two women can't love kids.
But two men can't sub for providing a mom, and two women can't sub for providing a dad. This is basic.
Why would you deny a mom or a dad to a kid? It's not fair.
Fortunately, we have progressive states like Florida and Utah who ban gay and lesbian adoption. Studies show this is one way children are recruited into the homosexual lifestyle. More states will follow especially when we get Republicans elected to office in November. A constitutional amendment is a must to end this silly SSM nonsense.
This is wonderful. If you say the best parents are a mom and a dad well you are greatly mistaken. I was abused by my father and I would have much rather of had 2 moms then to have been abused every day. If being gay is not for you than fine, but don't ruin it for everyone else. Gay parents are just as good of parents if not better than straight parents. Again, if every man is created equally than I am equal to everyone else on this forum so I should be able to marry my boy freind. And yes you do need a man and a women to start a family but you don't to raise one. Marriage is defined as a man and a women in the Bible (vaguely). I am Jewish. If I can't marry because of your holy book than you shouldn/t be allowed to eat meat because of my holy book.
Nobody is denying a MOM and Dad to a Kid, Mary Ann. We are asking for the opportunity to have our relationships and families protected under the law. Just because you disagree is not good enough to take away rights!
If nobody is denying a mom and a dad to kids, then we don't have a problem. Anyone, regardless of orientation can enter into natural marriage and provide kids with a mom and a dad. If you don't want to provide that, no one is forcing you. Kids have rights too.
TC, you argue that same sex couples should be happy to settle for domestic partnerships/civil unions, a "courtesy" granted by heterosexuals to gays. It follows then that you support domestic partnerships for same sex couples but not marriage. At the same time you argue that SSMs by definition exclude either a mom or dad and that children do better when raised by both a mom and a dad.
If you are so adamant about the above, how can you possibly support domestic partnerships/civil unions for same sex couples? After all there are same sex domestic partnerships/civil in which the partners are raising children together. In these cases, just as in cases involving same sex marriage unions, children are being raised without either a mom or dad. So if children being raised without either a mom or dad is really the issue, then why is it ok for this to happen in a domestic partnership/civil union but not in a marriage?
With such a contradiction, one can conclude that you support full rights and benefits of marriage to children of opposite sex couples but not for the children of same sex couples. So not only do you
support discrimination against same sex couples, you also support discrimination against children. How about showing some courtesy to all children by not attempting to keep some children from having the benefits of married parents.
Woody,
I do not support domestic partnerships personally. From the states point of view, there are many kinds of supportive relationships that ought to have recognition, whether there is sexual contact or not. I support loving relationships of all kinds without hesitation, as long as they do not undermine marriage.
See this from http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/2009/01/21/salt-lake-city-solution/ :
I’ve written on this blog about the Salt Lake City plan, which I think is the quickest way to help same-sex and other couples in our country gain hospital visitation, inheritance, and other rights. I have not gone into much detail, though. I wrote a piece about the plan, including an interview with Democratic SLC Mayor Ralph Becker, last summer but it didn’t find a home. Instead, I’m publishing it below, slightly updated.
While the nation has been debating same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and California, we’ve paid far less attention to the constitutional amendments in 18 states including Texas, Utah, and Ohio that bar any special status whatsoever for same-sex couples. Except the most unlikely of communities - Salt Lake City - has found a creative way to constitutionally provide rights and protections to non-married couples. The Salt Lake City plan is called “mutual commitments,” and it’s a terrific model for the rest of the country.
The marriage amendments mean that same-sex couples in places like Milwaukee, New Orleans, Kalamazoo, and Louisville have pretty much zero hope for any rights for the foreseeable future. No legislative solution in Utah or Georgia specifically aimed at the distress of same-sex couples in areas like hospital visitation and inheritance could be constitutional. I remember the obstacles I faced in college when I was in a relationship with a man (before becoming religious), so I understand the problem’s dimensions.
But the leadership of Salt Lake City, led by Democratic Mayor Ralph Becker (who calls himself the “guide” of the mutual commitments program), actually avoided specifically helping same-sex couples. Instead they created a mutual commitments registry for all adult couples ineligible to marry - including roommates, parents with adult dependents, and best friends. That helps same-sex couples without violating the constitution, and helps other worthy relationships as well.
In an interview, Mayor Becker told me: “What I was looking for were ways to be able to treat people equally and give people the same basic ability to live well, together, and to acknowledge those intimate relationships. To me what became the mutual commitment registry was a core way to be able to allow two adults who are mutually dependent on each other to be able to support one another.”
Most importantly, the Salt Lake City plan can appeal to traditionalists, as it already has to the conservative Utah state legislature. Mayor Becker’s chief of staff told me their plan passed with broad consensus among Democrats and Republicans, “without anybody feeling like they got burned.”
If implemented nationally, mutual commitments could mean:
1) Relief for same-sex and other couples ineligible to marry in places like Waco and Omaha who aren’t guaranteed the right, say, to visit each other in the hospital or gain custody of children they raised together.
2) The government would continue to give no privileges or special recognition based on a couple’s having gay sex together - or any sex at all. In Salt Lake City, mutual commitment status is handed out to roommates, best friends, lesbian lovers, and others. Each time, the city doesn’t know which - and shouldn’t.
3) Opponents of same-sex marriage needn’t worry that endorsing the Salt Lake City plan could become a back door or slippery slope to same-sex marriage, since nobody has ever seriously advocated marriage rights for roommates and best friends.
Ironically, the biggest obstacle to implementing statewide mutual commitment laws - and maybe a federal one - is the screwed-up priorities of the gay community’s leadership. Right now, gays and lesbians are spending millions of dollars on a purely semantic and symbolic fight in the gay-friendly state of California over whether the exact same rights are called a “marriage” or a “domestic partnership.” I have repeatedly proposed that as little as 10 percent of that money go to securing mutual commitments in places like Virginia and the Dakotas, and gays and lesbians have rejected my idea, complaining I was insulting them by comparing a same-sex couple to two roommates or best friends. Well, I’m sorry, but in my eyes, and those of my religious tradition (Orthodox Judaism), that’s preciesely what they are, and they deserve the same recognition, which is not nothing, but not that of marriage either.
If you listen to the gay complaints about man-woman marriage, they fall into two categories: first, look at all the benefits and protections we don’t get; and second, it makes us feel bad that we can’t get married. I have sympathy for the first complaint, which can mostly be addressed with the Salt Lake City plan. The second set of concerns (”treat us equally” and “we feel like second-class citizens”) is not compelling given that same-sex marriage causes very real harms - to religious freedom, the welfare of children, and the monogamy ideal, for example. If gays and lesbians feel their self-esteem is harmed by not being allowed to marry, I’d be all for support groups and classes on gay history and culture - but I’m not about to change my policy positions.
At the very least, it’s time we spread the Salt Lake City plan to the 18 states covering one-third of the population where more traditional recognition of same-sex couples is banned by the constitution. Even if the gay community refuses to cooperate while we help them, fair-minded members of both political parties can work together to implement mutual commitments wherever we can.
Also this post of his reflects my same views on child rearing:
Time for some gay humility to go along with gay pride
My column on the 40th anniversary of Stonewall is appearing in Friday’s Houston Chronicle and Monday’s Philadelphia Daily News:
At the end of this month, the gay community will celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots, which began the gay liberation movement. This season, known in gay circles simply as “Pride,” will be particularly emotional because of the gay marriage avalanche. While gays and lesbians have much to be proud of (such as early health organizing around the devastating AIDS epidemic), gay history since Stonewall is unfortunately stained with selfishness and arrogance, traits that ironically were once themselves called pride — back when that wasn’t a compliment.
Having experienced the closet and coming out as a gay man in my late teens, I understand the common gay experience of overcoming shame and the constant need for self-esteem reassurance. But I have also come to realize that sometimes gay esteem has innocent victims, and I believe it’s time to balance out gay pride with some gay humility.
To examine the gay community’s self-absorption, look no further than the event celebrated this month that has been commemorated with parades for four decades: the “Stonewall Rebellion.” Why is it that in all that time no gay leader has acknowledged that there were non-gay victims at that event, which we should regret, if not apologize for? Stonewall was sparked by a legitimate bar raid on an unlicensed, Mafia-run drinking establishment. The gay “heroes” threw glass bottles and bricks at police and at one point tried to light the building on fire while people were still inside. Even if one celebrates Stonewall’s repercussions for sparking feelings of gay pride and leading to nationwide community organizing, shouldn’t we acknowledge that our self-esteem doesn’t have to come at the expense of other people’s safety?
Another example: During the late 1980s and early 1990s, gay activists insisted that a wave of “heterosexual AIDS” was just around the corner in the United States, even though no data existed proving that was going to happen, and even though HIV spread through heterosexual sex has always been and continues to be a small percentage of the American transmissions of the virus. Out of fear that Americans would not devote energy to treating and curing a disease spread mostly through gay sex and drug use, AIDS activists consciously lied about the size of the minuscule threat to Americans who did not use drugs or have gay sex. As a result, huge sums of money were spent to educate about and prevent a “coming health epidemic” that would never materialize. People made major lifestyle changes to protect themselves from what was essentially a phantom menace.
The gay parenting movement is still more evidence of the fundamental selfishness of post-Stonewall gay America. Whereas many gay couples can and do bring parentless children into their homes in an act of loving and giving, thousands of other gay couples who could have adopted use various technologies and arrangements to make babies that from the start have no mother or have no father. This cruel act — to one’s own child — is almost never criticized in the gay community, which is so focused on everyone’s freedom and self-esteem, it doesn’t seem to want to bother to notice that children are being hurt by being denied up front the right to have both a mother and a father.
The gay and lesbian community today is infected with what I like to call Equality Mania. That’s the belief that there is literally nothing more important than total equality between gays and straights, no matter what the costs. They are willing to sacrifice other good, important values in the name of gay equality — such as the religious freedom of same-sex marriage opponents, the welfare of children and (in the case of gays in the military) even national security.
Forty years into this particular social movement, it’s not too late to re-evaluate priorities and find more selfless ways to help gays and lesbians.