Good news from the Virginia Family Foundation:
In a monumental victory for religious liberty the state Senate [last] Thursday passed SB 349, a bill that protects private child placement agencies in Virginia from being forced to violate their faith principles when placing children. The Senate passed the legislation 22-18. The House passed an identical bill last week.
Patroned by Senator Jeff McWaters (R-8, Virginia Beach), the bill protects the organizations and agencies that facilitate the majority of child placements in Virginia, helping hundreds of children and families every year. The bill was necessitated after an effort by homosexual rights groups and former Governor Tim Kaine to coerce faith-based agencies into adopting children to homosexual individuals regardless of those agencies faith principles.
27 Comments
I just read that New Mexico is considering a Marriage amendment...does anyone know of its status?
And children suffer for it.
I know its old news but I've been a little slow...I'm curious.
@Yoshi
Virginia doesn't recognize any union other than that of a man and woman according to their constitution.
So this bill really does nothing except reinforce existing laws.
Hey Zack, I heard that they shelved that bill in New Mexico, sadly - although it's not surprising considering the Dems control both chambers of the state legislature.
That said, I'm thrilled to hear that the VA Senate did this!
@SC Guy
I see. Well....another time perhaps.
This is why a vote is now needed in New Mexico. Have the good people of NM vote before any politicians get bribed off.
Can't wait for the day when this whole "religious liberty" crap is gone. I'm getting sick of you guys forcing your religion down my throat.
@Sean
No one is forcing anything. There is not one show on TV that promotes religion. Not one reality show that promotes family values. There is even an entire network dedicated to the homosexual lifestyle and they perpetuate every single negative stereotype you can think of. If a show or movie talks about or includes Southern Culture and religion, it is only to berate it, make the people who practice it look dumb or make them the antagonists.
So don't sit there and act like a victim.
@Sean
No one is forcing anything. There is not one show on TV that promotes religion. Not one reality show that promotes family values.
Continued: There is even an entire network dedicated to the homosexual lifestyle and they perpetuate every single negative stereotype you can think of.
continued again: If a show or movie talks about or includes Southern Culture and religion, it is only to berate it, make the people who practice it look dumb or make them the antagonists.
So don't sit there and act like a victim.
NOTE: darn it...can never post my long comments.
Sean wrote:
"Can't wait for the day when this whole "religious liberty" crap is gone."
Once Sean enters high school he might learn about the Bill of Rights.
This is great news for the children of VA!
If a show or movie talks about or includes Southern Culture and religion, it is only to berate it, make the people who practice it look dumb or make them the antagonists.
So don't sit there and act like a victim.
Barb,
Yes, what Sean calls crap, we call the First Amendment. His comment drips with animus not just towards people of faith, but to the Bill of Rights.
I used to favor compromises, but it is clear that the Left has its own fundamentalists for whom compromise, including civil unions, is not a viable option, except as a very temporary tactic.
@Publius, civil unions do not grant the same amount of rights that marriage does.
@Barb, I respect the Bill of Rights, and yes I'll admit I phrased my words wrong. I think being able to practice your own religion is your right, so I will apologize for my harsh words. However, using religion as a means to prevent other people from their own rights is not "religious liberty" it's more what I like to call "religious-based bigotry". I'm sorry but preventing someone from their rights is bigotry. And I do realize based on that what I had said earlier was bigotry, and it was wrong. But I just wish you would stop trying to prevent these rights, it's not right or fair and it destroys the basis of equality.
@Sean, placing children in gender-integrated homes is inclusive. It supports gender-diversity. It gives children both a mother and a father. How is tolerance for gender "bigotry"?
How sad that adults put their religious liberty above the best interests of children. Children will now miss out being placed in a good home.
No real religion would permit this.
Now that would depend on what your definition of a "good home" is Carlos. The faithful do not believe a hosehold headed by two adults that are obviously confused about the intent of their own biology as a "good home."
There is a stat from 2006 that said there were about 520,000 children in foster care of which 120,000 were available for adoption, but only 50,000 find permanent homes each year. I suspect that percentage hasn't drastically changed.
Gays and lesbians often adopt the hard-to-place kids. Until all those available for adoption are adopted, then any applicant should be given consideration.
Sean, respectfully,what does homosexuality have to do with the right to get married? Those who have a same-sex attraction, or who choose to engage in homosexual intimacy (the two are not always synonymous) already have the right to get married.
Not all same-sex relationships are homosexual in nature; in some, the individuals are already related through blood (such as siblings, or a parent & child). SSM continues to exclude them from its boundaries. But in SSM, the only requirements are age and consent. Do you suggest that we allow these relationships to become marriages (especially for those raising children), or is your intent only to favor homosexual relationships? If so, isn't that discriminatory? I mean no disrespect, but in my humble opinion, "gay rights" and marriage rights are two separate debates.
"Gays and lesbians often adopt the hard-to-place kids"
Respectfully, I would love to see some stats on that. I've often wondered what the percentages were.
One of the categories against which Virginia adoption agencies may now discriminate is religion. I'm doubtful that those who are the target of this kind of discrimination would say their religious liberty is broadened.
This is unlkely to stand up to judicial scrutiny, if these organizations receive any public financing. Religious organizations who do not receive public financing have always been able to do what they want.
"Religious organizations who do not receive public financing have always been able to do what they want."
A state university is a place that receives public financing.
An organization that contracts with the government to do a job is getting paid to do that job.
Getting paid to do a job is not the same as "receiving public financing"
Good point, AM.
The reason that a law protecting the adoption agencies right to choose who they give their children to is because the states where same-sex- marriage is passed turn around and criminalize the actions of agencies that won't adopt to same-sex-marriage couples. There are plenty of agencies who will, but it is held against them if any agency won't.
I was adopted back in the 60's and back then my birth-mother was told that if she searched for me and found me, it would ruin my life.
I searched for her and found her in the 80's and she was at and in my wedding.
I have since found out that my uncle and his wife were not allowed to adopt any kids because he was a diabetic and they thought that he would die before any children had grown up. This was in the 50's. He lived to be 97.
Rules change all of the time.
Same-sex-marriage issues should be on the ballot for all of the voters in a state to decide, not left in the hands of activist polititions and judges.
Loving parents are loving parents. Agencies have to choose carefully because they are trusting people with children's lives. They should not be criminalized because they hold the belief of 1 man + 1 woman = marriage. They should be allowed to decide if a single man or woman have the financial ability to take care of one or more children. They should have the right to know how much help anyone asking to adopt a child will have from extended family members. That would include parents, siblings, same-sex partners. Then they find the family with the best fit.
Female same-sex partners have an advantage over males, because they can go to a sperm bank and give birth themselves. Males would have to find surraget mothers to have their own. Though both situations would be tricky. Maybe these two types of couples could swap favors.
I am starting to ramble, so I will post this before I get too far off track.