Comments

  1. 11 says

    If they’re not getting public money, i don’t see why religious adoption agencies can’t set their own standards. But if they are that’s a different story.

  2. alguien says

    she really handed it back to him-good for ms. kahn!

    the anchor woman was surprisingly supportive of ms. kahn’s POV as well which i found pretty refreshing.

  3. Billy says

    Alguien – That’s the DC FOX affiliate, and DC itself is a pretty liberal city. The vast majority of our newscasters are at the very least fair-minded, and a couple of the networks (FOX included) have gay reporters on staff.

  4. BobN says

    Hinduism is a violation of that same moral code. So is Buddhism. So are Judaism and Christianity, depending on which phase of that moral code you want to focus on.

    So can religious adoption agencies discriminate on the basis of religion? No, they can’t. Singling out just us and no one else for discrimination is bigotry.

  5. Paul R says

    If I were still able to abide living in VA—which I did for longer than I care to admit—and I really wanted a child, I’d just say I were straight. Even if they came to check out out my house, I don’t think anything would scream gay. Hell, if I wanted a child that badly, I wouldn’t want to raise it in VA. But if I did, I could even create a fake history of hetero romances and screw them over at their insane game.

    Would they try to take the kid away a few years down the road were I to “come clean”? Were it not for the fact that a child could suffer awful consequences, it’s an interesting legal question. Or what if I said I was straight when I adopted but then realized my true nature a few weeks, months, or years later? Unless it were an open adoption (with the birth mother or parents still involved), I doubt there’s endless follow-up. They lack the resources; they’re only rich in hate.

    The bigger point is, Screw Virginia and 95% of its dinosaur politicians (dinosaur not necessarily because of age, but because of viewpoints). I’d be willing to be that he said “6,000 years” because he believes that’s when the Earth was formed, like so many anti-knowledge wingnuts.

  6. pat says

    As Newt Gingrich once postulated, I think it’s long due that the Catholic Church return to running orphanages. Imagine the “Godly” work those Catholic clergy could accomplish.

  7. Brad says

    Just the facts ma’am:

    1. Just by mentioning a “6,000 year old moral code” says he’s a Fundamentalist. Fundies are NOT Roman Catholic; they treat Catholicism like they treat homosexuality.

    2. The vast majority of Roman Catholics, both of the cloth and laymen, think of this pope like the last one (he’s nuts). Remember, this is the same guy that is against the pill (how many Catholic women have never used the pill?). And every gay religious retreat I’ve ever been on has been hosted by Roman Catholic clergy (and no, they don’t try to change us. In fact they preach that we’re just fine the way we are.).

  8. Rin says

    Okay I live in VA and I’m not sure exactly what’s going on with this whole thing. Currently, gays can adopt in Virginia at all state funded adoption agencies, or agencies that receive any Federal grants. My friends just adopted a little girl last year.

    What this bill is speaking to are those agencies that are privately funded and religious agencies that don’t receive federal or state monies.

    To force them to do this would violate the “free exercise” clause of the First Admendment. Unlike hospitals that must receive funding from outside agencies to stay afloat (like Bon Secour), these are privately funded and therefore the invisible hand of the marketplace can sort this out rather than mess with Constitutional rights (something I don’t like).

    Don’t support those adoption agencies (and its not just Catholic agencies, its Jewish agencies in this state, and others as well) and support those private agencies that do by giving them your money.

  9. Andrew says

    How is it decided if a child will go to a religious adoption agency or become a ward of the state? In essence the parent is giving up their right to a child when they place their kid up for adoption. Why would the state allow, regardless of funding or not funding, an agency to dictate who that kid can be adopted by based on a moral belief? The state has ultimate authority over any and all children up for adoption because they children are still US Citizens and therefore the Constitution is law of the land not 6000 year old garbage.

  10. Rin says

    Andrew,

    usually the agencies either work as a pass through or the mother giving the child up makes that decision (state versus private).

    Anyone can adopt a child by putting an ad and speaking to an individual who is pregnant.

    It is the biological parent, not the state who makes that decision–including whether they release the child to an agency, private agency, or go between two party.

    They also have (I think) 72 hours to reverse the situation.

    If they child is given as a ward of the state (less common because the mother receives no monies for the hospitalization) then the state decides upon suitable parents who have been through their programs.

  11. Danny says

    I don’t understand that clown’s saying that morality doesn’t change. What rock has he been living under?

    I’m so damn sick of illiterate conservatives.

  12. Danny says

    and how is it that gay couples are less desirable parents than single gay persons? I’m really scratching my head on this one. This same restriction went by the wayside in Florida last year I think.

Leave A Reply