Gay Press Admits: Illinois Civil Unions Bill May Drive Christian Charities From Foster Care


Kendall Marlowe, spokesman for the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) admitted to the Windy City Times (Chicago's oldest gay newspaper) that, just as Cardinal George predicted, the new Illinois civil unions bill will probably help drive Christian adoption agencies out of the foster care business:

Marlowe [said] the passage of the state's civil-unions legislation—which officially becomes law on June 1—has further contributed to an already "very complex set of interrelated legal issues" concerning the faith-based agencies' denial of foster care licenses to same-sex couples. Private foster care agencies—many of whom are faith-based, the majority of whom do not bar same-sex couples—oversee some 80 percent of the state's foster children.

... The possible result of these conversations will likely come down to a choice for the agencies involved: Change their policy and allow for openly gay and lesbian people to be licensed as foster parents or lose state funding.


  1. Scott
    Posted March 12, 2011 at 10:36 am | Permalink

    The last two words pretty much say it all. STATE FUNDING.

    If you want to discriminate against gay couples, stop taking public money. Same as in MA, same with the pavillion in NJ.

    All of them took STATE FUNDING and must cater to the general public. If you want to be exclusionary, you're not going to do it on my dime.

  2. Don
    Posted March 12, 2011 at 12:59 pm | Permalink


    Homosexual advocates like you ALWAYS begin their arguments by assuming as fact that which they wish were true!

    You talk about discrimination against gay couples as if it were a given fact when it is merely your subjective opinion.

    As for your dime, feel free to take it back. We don't need it.

  3. catholicdad
    Posted March 12, 2011 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    Scott, you are hilarious. You insist that you do it on *our dime*, and are apparently so hysterically convinced of the moral rectitude of your Stalinist worldview that you don't even notice the irony.

    That's OK, we'll just roll it back everywhere, now that we have turned the tide in Cali, Mine, NY, NJ, Maryland.....

  4. Whodathunkit
    Posted March 12, 2011 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

    If you sell an interest in your enterprise, don't get all whiny when the attached strings start getting tugged; no matter who is on the other end of those strings. Nothing's for free, don't take money if you won't honor your side of the bargain.

  5. Don
    Posted March 12, 2011 at 7:27 pm | Permalink

    Thank you, catholicdad, for having the insight to see this as Stalinism and the courage to call it what it is!

    The communists wear many disguises to keep their presence hidden as Americans would summarily reject their agenda if they knew who was behind it! Comrade C. J. Atkins of the Communist Party USA put it this way:

    "The communist ‘brand’ is undeniably sullied beyond reprieve for the vast majority of Americans."

  6. Chairm
    Posted March 13, 2011 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

    Funding is a secondary issue, really, while having the license to provide fostercare and adoption services is the primary issue.

    These faith-based organizations do not use lower standards but high standards. And the greater part of their funding is largely from the donations of people who share their faith; Government funding is significant but it ought not be denied based on pro-gay bigotry.

    That the gay advocates would have Government teach religious organizations how best to act on their faith, is a testament to the arrogancy and unlimited hypocrisy of those who advocate for civil union/SSM and assert the supremacy of gay identity politics over needy children, religious tolerance, and freedom of conscience. Indeed, they go too far, rather rapidly, because their argumentation dictates endgaming rather than reasonable policymaking.

  7. Yvonne Coverdale
    Posted March 14, 2011 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    I still believe that if same sex unions were normal then it wouldn't take one of each sexual denomination (1 male & 1 female) to reproduce and therefore if a same sex couple decides to be a couple they have no business raising children. Fact two females can not reproduce and fact two males can not reproduce. Fact only a union between a male and a female can reproduce.

  8. Anna
    Posted March 14, 2011 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

    Great point.
    The endgame is there for all to see and people are waking up.

  9. Combatvet
    Posted March 15, 2011 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

    Charim- define bigotry... You are using the word incorrectly.
    You can act on anything you like. You can go picket a soldiers funeral if you wish. You can't take tax money and then hold it hostage because of your faith. I'd you wish no governmen intervention don't accept the funds.
    Yvonne not everyone believes marriage is just about procreation. The civil view anyway.

  10. Don
    Posted March 15, 2011 at 10:43 pm | Permalink


    What is this obsession you have with bigotry? Bigotry is not what is going to decide the future of marriage. If you want to make an argument for your position then you need to come up with something more cogent to talk about.