Gay Adoption | News | Virginia

BigGayDeal.com

Virginia House to Vote to Allow Faith-Based Discrimination Against Gays Wanting to Adopt

A bill that would allow private, faith-based adoption agencies to turn away gays is on the voting schedule today in the Virginia House, the AP reports:

GilbertRepublican Del. Todd Gilbert of Woodstock says his bill protects religious freedom. Opponents argue that the government, which contracts with dozens of private, state-licensed child placement agencies, should not sanction discrimination.

The Virginia Board of Social Services in December adopted regulations that allow discrimination by private agencies based on personal factors, including gender, age, religion, disability, sexual orientation and family status. Gilbert’s bill would convert those regulations into state law.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Can you say long drawn out court battle? This bill has many forms of discrimination rolled up all in one. The ACLU and many other civil rights group will pounce on this one.

    Posted by: Dale | Feb 3, 2012 8:20:55 AM


  2. 1. Elections matter. People need to not be apathetic.

    2. All of the anti-gay legislation is ALWAYS sponsored by Republicans.

    Posted by: Jeff | Feb 3, 2012 8:30:40 AM


  3. This amounts to "it's okay because this old book says so." i wonder if we could start a religion based solely on arbitrary discrimination

    Posted by: Chris | Feb 3, 2012 8:36:28 AM


  4. They CAN'T have it both ways. If this goes through they need to give up their tax-exempt status!

    Posted by: Matt | Feb 3, 2012 9:53:22 AM


  5. So is the state planning to fund only agencies that favor the religious and discriminatory proclivities of certain legislators? Or could a group get government funding for adoption agencies that denies adoptions to Southern Baptists, for example?
    Could those who are against the stealth intent of this bill establish agencies with that same government funding which deny services to opposite-sex couples to counterbalance the discrimination that is the obvious real intent here?
    I know that the bill pretends not to be biased against a particular group, but if the state is funding mostly groups that will refuse service to gay people, or liberals, or members of gay-friendly churches and synagogues, etc. etc., then it is de facto state sponsorship of particular religious biases and is not constitutional. And we all know they have no intention of applying these pretend rules evenly.

    Posted by: GregV | Feb 3, 2012 3:02:23 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Adam Lambert's 'Better Than I Know Myself' Music Video: WATCH« «