Jump to content
Accelerated Evolution

Boston Catholic Charities Stop Adoptions Because of Gay Parent Law


Recommended Posts

Boston Catholic Charities Stop Adoptions Because of Gay Parent Law

Friday, March 10, 2006

BOSTON — The Boston Archdiocese's Catholic Charities said Friday it would stop providing adoption services because of a state law allowing gays and lesbians to adopt children.

The social services arm of the Roman Catholic archdiocese, which has provided adoption services for the state for about two decades, said the law runs counter to church teachings on homosexuality.

"The world was very different when Charities began this ministry at the threshold of the twentieth-century," the Rev. J. Bryan Hehir, president of Catholic Charities, said in a joint statement with trustees chairman Jeffrey Kaneb. "The world changed often and we adapted the ministry to meet changing times and needs. At all times we sought to place the welfare of children at the heart of our work.

"But now, we have encountered a dilemma we cannot resolve," they said.

Gov. Mitt Romney said he planned to file a bill that would allow religious organizations to seek an exemption from the state's anti-discrimination laws to provide adoption services.

"This is a sad day for neglected and abandoned children," Romney said in a statement. "It's a mistake for our laws to put the rights of adults over the needs of children.

The state's four Catholic bishops said earlier this month that the law threatens the church's religious freedom by forcing it to do something it considers immoral.

Eight members of Catholic Charities board later stepped down in protest of the bishops' stance. The 42-member board had voted unanimously in December to continue considering gay households for adoptions.

Catholic Charities has been involved in adoptions for about a century, but has had a contract with the state for the past two decades. Its contract with the state expires June 30.

In that time, Catholic Charities has placed 720 children in adoptive homes, including 13 who were placed with same-sex couples, Catholic Charities said.

In a 2003 document, the Vatican said gay adoption was "gravely immoral," and that children placed in such homes "would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood."

Some 682 foster children are waiting for adoption in Massachusetts, according to the state Department of Social Services. The bulk of adoptive children are placed by DSS, rather than outside agencies such as Catholic Charities, the agency said.

Remember! It's more important to hate homosexuals than to provide children with parents.

Link to comment

I would be perfectly fine with this if they extended this kind of rule to all people who engage in non-Christian activities/beliefs. For instance, if the parents have recreational sex, use the Lord's name in vain, eat meat on Fridays in Lent, etc. People seem to forget about all of the Church's other laws when homosexuality is brought up.

Link to comment

I would be perfectly fine with this if they extended this kind of rule to all people who engage in non-Christian activities/beliefs. For instance, if the parents have recreational sex, use the Lord's name in vain, eat meat on Fridays in Lent, etc. People seem to forget about all of the Church's other laws when homosexuality is brought up.

You forgot Sabbath breaking, coveting either material goods or women, eating shellfish, breaking the other cleanliness laws and about 150 other laws.

Link to comment

Religious Conservatives Using Gay Adoption as New Wedge Issue

By Matthew Dailey

Religious conservative groups are advocating a ban on gay adoptions, in light of their success in implementing bans on same-sex marriages. USA Today reports that religious conservative groups plan to introduce bills or initiatives that will prohibit gay adoption as many as 16 states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and West Virginia.

In Ohio, state legislators have introduced a bill which, if passed, would make it illegal for "homosexual, bisexual or transgender" residents to adopt children or serve as foster parents.

Many critics are accusing religious conservative groups, working in concert with Republicans, of using gay adoption as the new social wedge issue to boost social conservative voter turnout in the mid-term elections in November. This is a tactic Republicans used with considerable success during the 2004 elections with gay marriage.

Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political scientist at the University of Southern California, stated Republicans could use gay adoption as way to deflect attention away from the Iraq war and the Jack Abramoff scandal to attract conservatives in close Senate and gubernatorial races in such states as Missouri and Ohio.

Some observers think gay adoption will not have the same drawing power as gay marriage did in 2004. Republican pollster Whit Ayres states that gay adoption "doesn't have the emotional power of the gay marriage issue because there is no such thing as the phrase 'the sanctity of adoption.'"

Poll numbers do not favor a ban on gay adoptions. The Human Rights Campaign conducted a poll in states that have taken up the controversial issue. The poll found in Georgia, Ohio, and Missouri, 62 percent of respondents said they would allow gays and lesbians to adopt in some circumstances, while 33 percent said they would never allow it.

http://www.lp.org/article_300.shtml

Link to comment

This is where it needs to stop. I'm against a ban on gay marriages, but I was never too angry about it. Yes, it's an outrage, but in the end there's nothing stopping two men from living together, calling each other husband, and trading legal rights, so that they're married in every sense but legaly. This, however, would be like the government saying "You two are gay, so you're not allowed to live together or see each other." To deny good people the right to adopt is sickening.

So what is the reasoning behind this ban? Are they coming right out and saying some shit like gay parents are xx% more likely to rape the child? Or are they trying to act more reasonable?

Link to comment

uhh, how is anyone except the church being close minded?

Are you really so fucking ideologically dense as to not see the lack of compromise on both sides?!

Church stopping all the work that they do, despite all the good that they’ve accomplished, over one issue that they can’t agree with. = Close-minded!

Government/homosexual political influence and activists refusal to except any compromise, in forcing non-governmental organizations religious or otherwise, to stop providing much needed and valued child related services. Or violate their deepest beliefs. Virtually ending with their own hands, a free serves responsible for doing so much good and helping out so many children. All over some political/ideological agenda, which’s only representative interests, lie with homosexual adults. = Close-minded!

Link to comment

Are you really so fucking ideologically dense as to not see the lack of compromise on both sides?!

Church stopping all the work that they do, despite all the good that they’ve accomplished, over one issue that they can’t agree with. = Close-minded!

Government/homosexual political influence and activists refusal to except any compromise, in forcing non-governmental organizations religious or otherwise, to stop providing much needed and valued child related services. Or violate their deepest beliefs. Virtually ending with their own hands, a free serves responsible for doing so much good and helping out so many children. All over some political/ideological agenda, which’s only representative interests, lie with homosexual adults. = Close-minded!

By this argument I'm close-minded if I hate fascism.

After all, I'm stopping the fascists from practicing what they believe.

Link to comment

I'm all in favor for open-mindedness and accepting other's beliefs and whatnot as long as those beliefs do not go against people's human rights. The beliefs of the Catholic Curch do indeed go against some people's human rights, in this case gay people by saying that they can't adopt children for whatever reason it is that they have. So, in this case, openmindedness and acceptance does not apply, in the same way that one couldn't be expected to be accepting of an evil facist dictatorship.

Link to comment

I'm all in favor for open-mindedness and accepting other's beliefs and whatnot as long as those beliefs do not go against people's human rights. The beliefs of the Catholic Curch do indeed go against some people's human rights, in this case gay people by saying that they can't adopt children for whatever reason it is that they have. So, in this case, openmindedness and acceptance does not apply, in the same way that one couldn't be expected to be accepting of an evil facist dictatorship.

1. They are an NGO! Do you know what that means?

2. What "human right" are you talking about?

3. How are they going against it?

4. So what if they don't agree with you because we have a little something called free thought. (I know most young people now wouldn't really know what that is was)

Link to comment

1. They are an NGO! Do you know what that means?

No, enlighten me.

2. What "human right" are you talking about?

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not to mention several other things like not being discriminated against because of something that really doesn't matter (who you have sex with? Come on James, you've said it yourself -- sex is not that big of a deal), and little things like not having people blow up your house because you were born in the wrong part of the world.

I'll admit that my esteemed colleague did not define what human rights he was talking about, but I think it's fairly obvious.

3. How are they going against it?

I'm going to start a foundation that says people named James_Xeno can't adopt children. What would you think if I did that?

4. So what if they don't agree with you because we have a little something called free thought. (I know most young people now wouldn't really know what that is was)

I don't even know how to respond to that one. But let me tell you a story.

One time, there was this guy named Mr. Fascist. He thought he was right. He believed wholeheartedly that he was doing the right thing and strengthening his country and his people. Mr. Fascist tried to take over the world and started one of the biggest wars in history, killing millions of people and committing human rights violations. But it's okay because he has something called Free Thought, and we should respect and accept his ideas.

Link to comment

1. No.

2. Basically the right to do what I just said: Believe and do whatever you want as long as it does not conflict with basic human rights. Obviously there is no cliff face on which nature wrote any list of basic human rights, it's simply what I and many others believe, so don't rag on me about that.

3. By denying these people the ability to do what they want (adopt a baby) based on what they believe (they are gay) despite the fact that their belief does not conflict with number 2.

4. Free thought is great. Think all you want about how much you hate people because of who they are sexually attracted to and who they love. All power to you. However, there's a big difference between free thought and free action. They are denying these people children. That has nothing to do with free thought.

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...