Leave a Comment Johan
Virginia legislature advances anti-gay adoption bill
February 3, 2012
By Jacob Combs
First we had New Hampshire’s ‘license to discriminate’ bill. Today, a similar measure made significant strides in both houses of the Virginia legislature. The AP reports:
Virginia legislators have passed a bill allowing private adoption agencies to deny placements that conflict with their religious or moral beliefs, including opposition to homosexuality.
The state House voted 71-28 to pass the legislation Friday. Earlier in the day, a Senate committee endorsed its version of the Republican-backed measure on an 8-7 party-line vote. Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell is expected to sign the bill.
In truth, as I’ve written before, the interplay of non-discrimination and personal religious beliefs is a complex one. The real question, however, is at what point we as a society recognize that it is inexcusable to discriminate against a particular population, even if one disagrees personally with that population’s existence. Bills like this show that it is still “OK” in the eyes of some to treat LGBTs differently from their straight counterparts.
Perhaps what is most frustrating about efforts like these is that, ultimately, the ones who are truly most negatively affected are the children. Because of bills that allow for discrimination in adoption, children who could be living in a supportive, stable home headed by a gay couple may never have that chance.
Filed under: Community/Meta
Having technical problems? E-mail prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
29 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Ann S. | February 3, 2012 at 5:10 pm
Ugh. More children stuck in foster care and group homes, just to advance a political anti-gay agenda.
2.
Derek Williams | February 3, 2012 at 5:32 pm
Maybe we should just buy our own country and be done with it. Hell, at 350 million (5% of 7 billion) there's surely enough of us to form our own superpower.
3.
truthspew | February 3, 2012 at 6:59 pm
Such a shame. I was in Virginia Beach recently. I actually like it there.
4.
Sheryl Carver | February 3, 2012 at 11:18 pm
If I had lots of money, I’d form my own religion & adoption agency & make public my religion’s disapproval of, oh, some or maybe all couples who are non-LGBT. Especially the ignorant types who so publicly proclaim their Christianity but so obviously behave very un-Christ-like. And then wait for them to cry “foul!”
Since this is merely a fantasy, my “religious beliefs” will never unnecessarily keep a child in foster care. Unlike what will happen if this hateful legislation is enacted.
5.
Reformed | February 4, 2012 at 12:34 am
Should adoption applicatons be approved when the applicant's religious affiliation indicates a strong likelyhood that the child will be taken home and told that he is totally depraved and deserves to burn in hell for all of eternity (unless, of course, he kowtows to the demands of the invisable being that dreamed up the whole scheme in order to satisfy his need to be worshiped)?
I am not sure. Seems like that kind of thing could harm a child.
6.
Bob Barnes | February 4, 2012 at 5:41 am
This law allows not only discrimination towards gays and lesbians, but also to those who are disable, the elderly, marital status and religion. This is a civil right disaster in the making for Virginia and the ACLU and other groups will soon pounce on this. Virginia needs to be smacked down from the Federal level, it sends out a big message to the citizens about their choice at the ballot.
7.
Chrys | February 4, 2012 at 11:52 am
Let's think of the children. Seriously – think of the children and not hatred and bigotry.
This bill is a disgrace.
8.
NancyH | February 4, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Why are private adoption agencies even allowed to exist in the first place?
9.
Rich | February 4, 2012 at 3:08 pm
New in Maine, this week. Our very dear Catholic Bishop, Richard Malone, announced the opening of a new chapter of "Courage", a support group for gays who may want to renounce their sexual identity in favor of celibacy. It's modeled on the 12 step program for alcoholics anonymous and the program considers gays as addicted to an unhealthy lifestyle.
If you'd like to let the good Bishop know how you feel about all this, please contact the gentleman at:
courage@portlanddiocese.com
Also google the announcement from Maine under "Courage Ministries" and check out the "spiritual counselor", assigned to the task, a priest with absolutely no credentials other than his collar.
10.
rich | February 4, 2012 at 5:33 pm
I had a good run on the NOM site but now I'm shut out. Too much reasoned argument and they get overwhelmed. I think they are under siege from all fronts with no more money to fight back.
11.
DaveP | February 4, 2012 at 6:19 pm
Sheeesh why don't these guys just practice alchemy or something equally sensible. Not only is this concept based on a harmful lie and a lot of nonsensical magical thinking that this will somehow make you straight, it's also a vulgar perversion of the principles of 12 step recovery. Very disturbing.
12.
chris from CO | February 5, 2012 at 12:34 am
I will never understand lawmakers. One would think they are sent to protect families and keep our society the best in the world. Yet they approve discrimination laws.
13.
Steve | February 5, 2012 at 4:06 am
They do practice alchemy. They call it transsubstantiation
14.
grod | February 5, 2012 at 6:17 am
Hi, to succeed in obtaining/maintaining ‘broad’ public support, advocates of marriage equality and family related issues must keep their focus on the civil sphere –civil right of all citizens. However, the endorsement of an increasing number of religious faiths is much appreciated. A useful distinction between state and church on that matter is making reference to civil marriage and to holy matrimony… In the matter of adoption agencies, can you clarify whether state money is [in part] supporting these private agencies? If funded Ann, you frustration is justified; if not, in my view, it is not our issue. Closure of state partially-funded Catholic social agencies in the face of a choice: abide by secular, legislative requirements or loose funding, is their issue. They can own their choice. If we accuse others [including politicians]of ignoring the distinction between state and church in the civil marriage equality debate; then the LGBT community ought to hold itself to the same standard. In my view, the same discipline applies here – insensitive and frustrating, as that might be perceived: "Ugh. Children stuck in foster care and group homes."
15.
rich | February 5, 2012 at 6:35 am
Update: the correct site address to reach Bishop Richard Malone of Maine is:
courage@portlanddiocese.org
16.
Ann S. | February 5, 2012 at 10:24 am
Grod, I believe many if not most adoption agencies are at least partly state-funded, but I could be wrong. I can't really devote the time to find the answer to that right now.
If a religious institution providing adoption services does NOT receive government funding and chooses not to adopt to LGBT parents, well, there is probably not much to be done about it, but the end result is still more children remaining in foster care and group homes than if they would broaden their criteria.
17.
_BK_ | February 5, 2012 at 11:35 am
Recently they've been completely inundated with pro-equality posters. It's rather fun to watch the NOMbies being overwhelmed…
18.
_BK_ | February 5, 2012 at 11:36 am
Now that would be one FABULOUS country!
19.
Bob | February 5, 2012 at 11:42 am
How does a child become the property of a private adoption agency???????? sounds too much like human trafficking to me!!!! really if a biological parent relinguishes their rights, do they have the option of giving their child to A) the church B) a private adoption agency C)or gov't care that leaves no room for protection of childs human rights,,,,,, this is one area the gov't must maintain full authority over and protect the basic human rights of children,,,,,
I know the gov't has failed miserably in many cases and children in their care often wind up on the streets,,, often Churches , private agencies, have been helpful,,, but all require a standard of care to be met in the best interests of the child,,, this is one area the gov't would love to squirm it's way out of , considering it's checkered past,,,, almost anything seems better than to become a ward of the state…. that needs to change,,,,, but not by allowing children to be traded off to other facilities with diferent intersts,,,,,,
20.
Lymis | February 5, 2012 at 11:47 am
It's my understanding that most of that sort of privately funded private adoption organizations are usually actually working with the child's parent(s) – as in, placing the children of unwed mothers in homes with adoptive parents.
The child is never the "property" of the agency – the agency acts as an agent between the current legal guardians and the adoptive parents. Such children don't spend time as wards of the state.
21.
Bob | February 5, 2012 at 11:54 am
I say let the good Bishop have at er!!!! it's not denying sexual identity,,, but admitting it, and attempting celibacy,,,, it is an option,,,, don't know how many would choose it,,, any why??,,, and of course the big question,,, for how long,,, celibacy is easier for some than for others,,,, of course the problem is the underlying reason for the celibacy, and reiligious undertones and quilt which would accompany it,,,, that is what I find disagreeable…..
22.
Bob | February 5, 2012 at 11:59 am
I should clarify,, my comments,,, as a person who attended a twelve step program to deal with sexual addiction,,,, but most LGBT organizations would have infor about such programs,,,, without the religious agenda
23.
Ann S. | February 5, 2012 at 4:08 pm
Catholic Charities in Illinois was providing foster care services (and perhaps they still are, but they lost their contract with the State of Illinois to do so with state funds). Whether the agency was working with the parents of those foster care children, as Lymis says, I don't know.
I still think that if an agency is looking at a smaller pool of prospective adoptive parents, it will end up meaning children spend more time in foster care than otherwise. But I admit I don't know all the ins and outs of the process, so I could be wrong.
24.
Paul in Minneapolis | February 5, 2012 at 5:40 pm
My best friend from college is Jewish. She and her sister were both adopted. My friend's birth mother wanted to make sure that her daughter was adopted by a Jewish couple and raised in a Jewish home, so she worked with an agency, most likely a private one, that was able to accommodate that request. My friend tells me that that is how she knows she really was born to a Jewish woman (and is therefore herself Jewish by birth) — because the adoption agency worked only with Jewish children and placed them only with Jewish couples.
Of course an agency accepting public funds should have to follow public rules, including nondiscrimination laws. But I have a difficult time finding fault with this proposed Virginia law (much as I would like to). It targets private, not public, adoption agencies.
25.
Paul in Minneapolis | February 5, 2012 at 5:41 pm
I am as strong an advocate for freedom of conscience as I am for equality under law. I see a place in our society for agencies such as the one that placed my friend and her sister. I believe my friend's birth mother had a right to say, "I'll give up my baby for adoption on the condition that she be placed with a Jewish couple." I believe the agency that worked with her had the right to discriminate against all non-Jewish couples when placing the child. I see the proposed Virginia law protecting this right for agencies not accepting public funds.
This blog post is entitled "Virginia legislature advances anti-gay adoption bill." Is it really anti-gay? Was the organization that placed my friend with her adoptive family anti-Christian, or anti-anything? Or did it exist simply to place Jewish kids with Jewish families?
26.
Paul in Minneapolis | February 5, 2012 at 5:41 pm
While I may not like the decisions some people (or private organizations) make, I support their right to make those decisions, much as I expect them to support my right to make decisions for myself (the obvious example being my choice of a spouse). If we demand people to respect our right to make decisions even when they disagree with us, what does it say about us when we refuse to honor that right for them?
27.
Bryce | February 5, 2012 at 11:16 pm
Courage? Now that is what I call irony!
28.
grod | February 6, 2012 at 9:49 am
Paul asks whether "Legislature advances anti-gay adoption bill" accurately reflects the bill's intent. Does the following help? In December, Virginia's Board of Social Services adopted regulations allowing private agencies to take into account gender, age, religion disability, sexual orientation and family status. Regulations are now being converted into law. Its sponsor Delegate T. Gilbert, says the bill protects religious freedom. Opponents including Delegate D. Englinsay say that the government, which contracts with dozens of private, state-licensed child placement agencies, should not sanction discrimination. “It has one purpose, which is to protect the ability of religious groups receiving millions of dollars of taxpayer money to deny adoption and foster care placements involving gay and lesbian parents… This isn’t a ‘conscience clause’ — it’s a ‘state-sponsored discrimination clause.” Englinsay said. Equality Virginia's J. Parrish said there's nothing protecting LGBT children in the system from being placed in unfriendly homes,"
29.
Paul in Minneapolis | February 6, 2012 at 1:49 pm
Thank you for the clarification. It was not clear that the government was contracting with these private agencies. I am opposed to this legislation if it would allow agencies to discriminate while receiving public funds.
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.