International Attack On Religious Adoption Agencies: "Gay Marriage" Shuts Down Adoption In Maryland, Washington DC, Illinois, and the UK

[Julia_Mae]

What would they do if a Catholic homosexual couple asked for a child to adopt?

Well, I doubt this would come up very often, but they wouldn’t have to give them the child because they are not a public service and so, not required to conform to civil law.

 

[Alex111]

…in the case of the adoption controversy in Illinois and other states of the US, Catholic Charities wished to be a government contractor providing services on behalf of the state. As such, they needed to conform to state guidelines. When those guidelines changed so that homosexual couples could not be discriminated against by its contractors, Catholic Charities have chosen to opt out.

If Catholic Charities wants to run a private adoption agency, they are free to do so. However, they will not receive government funding. Because of that, Catholic Charities have decided that they don’t have the financial means to operate. The closure of Catholic Charities adoption services really is about funding, and the lack of donations from Catholics to keep the programs in operation.

That’s a good point. It would be a good thing if Catholic adoption agencies could avoid taking government money, and be private institutions. The ACLU etc. would probably still try to find a way to attack them, but maybe it’d be more difficult.

I also think so-called sexual orientation non-discrimination laws should include opt-out provisions for religious agencies-- especially in cases involving adoption, since the people who are REALLY being discriminated against are the kids.

 

[mlund]

Its not a “liberal doctirine.” In the US, it is the law of the land, at least according to 200 years of judicial precedent. Of course, this does not apply to other countries.

Only for a slide-scale definition of what “separation,” “church,” and “state” all are, though. The fact that you can look back at history and see a long march of personalities at the bench redefining this jurisprudence over and over again, further and further away from the original meaning of the Establishment Clause without any Constitutional Amendments, indicates that the delta that’s brought us to the current status quo is little more than political perversion.

If the folks who wrote the amendment had some use of religion in public and 200 years later a judge bans that same action under the same laws then the law has is not changed, but rather fidelity to the law has been breached.

But I concur on the subsequent observation. It is best to simply removed the government from the equation, as it is an agency wholly unqualified in practical or moral competence to look after most of the affairs it interjects itself into. The practice of substituting State for Charity has grave consequences.

• Marty Lund

 

[Rence]

What happened to the liberal doctrine of “separation of Church and State”? Doesn’t that mean that the state can’t meddle in matters of the church, as well, or is it just a doctrine made as an excuse to weaken the proper role of religion in society?

Separation of Church and State is a two-way street.

Well, adoption is a legal function of the State. Adoption agencies don’t actually do adoptions. Rather they act as brokers and match parents to children, and children to parents. Then someone at the agency is licensed to complete the paperwork for the State. The State basically accepts bids for contracts with adoption agencies. The agencies make their bid, and the State decides which contracts to accept. This is exactly an example of separation of Church and State. There is no ‘religious’ adoption. There is only one kind: the legal civil kind. And all adoption agencies have to follow the laws dictated by the State, as adoption is a legal arrangment.

Religious adoption agencies can still negotiate private adoptions in which a lawyer completes the State required paperwork. They just can’t operate as legal adoption agencies unless they adhere to the State’s laws and rules.

 

[Rence]

What would they do if a Catholic homosexual couple asked for a child to adopt?

The thing is, Catholics are required, not suggested, but required to raise their kids Catholics. A couple that is co-habitating, whether gay or straight, does not meet the criteria of the Catholic Church because they are not living according to the teachings of the Church. One cannot teach their children Catholic teachings, while living contrary to it. Therefore, gay or straight, the Church does not condone co-habitating couples adopting children. Only married couples, and single people, living within the confines of the Church’s teachings, have the blessings of the Church to adopt.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I agree with what you said. Specially if a government is anti Catholic. The Church is here to lead governments. where did that go?

“Lead governments” in what way??

The better term is “to advise and inspire governments.”

That’s the correct term.

 

[manualman]

I wonder if Catholic Charities could restructure slightly in such a way that they would only handle cases where the orphans (and/or other children without competent parents) who are already baptized catholics could receive the state assistance in family placement (i.e. funding) according to the moral norms of their own faith.

This cannot be called a violation of “separation” since it is merely a matter of state respecting the belief system held by the child’s religious tradition. Instead of potentially handing off that child to be cared for in an environment hostile to his/her belief system, the state would merely be avoiding the imposition of incompatible religious beliefs on the child by the adoptive parents.

Such an approach would HAVE to place the child’s religious tradition over and above the state’s regulations.

 

[Nec5]

Its not a “liberal doctirine.” In the US, it is the law of the land, at least according to 200 years of judicial precedent. Of course, this does not apply to other countries.

Hardly. More like 70 years. That language was only cemented in that Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptist church and used as a progressive twisting in the early 20th century by our overstepping Supreme Court… Where was this supposed wall when Congress ordered and distributed bibles? Where was it when public school routinely used the bible as a text and tested students on its doctrines? Or how about the first Supreme Court Chief Justice advocating the spread of Christianity by the government? Nowhere. And what of prayer in public houses or biblical displays of the ten commandments inside the Supreme Court? These are not signs of a theocracy nor were they ever considered to be an establishment of a religion by the government.

No, the current interpretation of separation is a gross distortion that would not have been acceptable by the Founders who viewed Christian virtue as absolutely vital and irreplaceable in the success of the United States. But they were against making laws/codifying these things because that inevitably leads to a corrupting of religious virtue.