SkinInsite Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 RICHMOND — Virginia will likely become the second state in the nation — after North Dakota — to allow private adoption agencies to turn away parents based on sexual orientation or religious and moral beliefs.The General Assembly is considering a measure that would add a “conscience clause’’ to Virginia law that would allow state-funded, faith-based agencies to choose which parents are suitable for adoption based on the agencies’ beliefs. Daniel Gri and James Abbott, who adopted two sons in California, say that through the proposed guidelines their adopted home of Virginia is further hampering gay people from adopting. “It makes it seem like it’s not about sexual orientation,” said Gri, who lives in Oakton. “That’s a technique anti-gay organizations use.’’ But supporters of the legislation say it would protect religious freedom by *allowing birth parents to choose an agency — and as a result, adoptive parents — who adhere to their religious beliefs. “This measure will chisel into law the principle that people of faith can adhere to their convictions without fear of reprisal from those who would discriminate against their religious beliefs regarding how we should raise our children,” said House Deputy Majority Leader C. Todd Gilbert(R-Shenandoah). The legislation’s fate became clear after Republicans took control of the state Senate and gained an even heftier majority in the House. The House voted overwhelmingly to pass the measure last week, largely along party lines, while the Senate is expected to vote this week. Gov. Robert F. McDonnell ® is expected to sign the legislation. He has repeatedly said that faith-based organizations should be able to make their own policies. Virginia has 77 private agencies, 16 of them faith-based. They placed 557 of the state’s 2,503 adoptions last year, according to state figures. In total, the agencies and 120 local social services departments received $144 million in state and federal funds for child placement last year. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/virginia-adding-conscience-clause-to-adoption-laws/2012/02/03/gIQAUJ6gxQ_story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Religious beliefs? Yep. I can see that in some circumstances. I wouldn't let one of those loons that won't take a child to the doctor because "God will fix it" adopt a baby. But I could also see that being abused. We can't let those evil Muslims have our kids. Sexual orientation is ridiculous. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Sexual orientation is ridiculous. Period. Welcome to Bob McDonnell and Ken Cucinelli's Virginia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 This topic aside, I like McDonnell. Cucinelli's insane. And I say that as a pretty staunch conservative myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Upon further review, I want to opine on this part too. :dunce: Religious beliefs? Yep. I can see that in some circumstances. I wouldn't let one of those loons that won't take a child to the doctor because "God will fix it" adopt a baby. But I could also see that being abused. We can't let those evil Muslims have our kids. You can pretty easily draft the law to speak to general unfitness to be a parent if someone doesnt believe in doctors, you don't need to single out religious beliefs. And I say this as someone with no religious beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Kudos to the forward-thinking of people like those in the great state of VA who are willing to impede this process of ruining perfectly good heterosexual Christian babies by allowing them to be taken by non-Christian homosexuals. This is exactly what the Founding Fathers wrote into our original Bill of Constitutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 This topic aside, I like McDonnell. Cucinelli's insane. And I say that as a pretty staunch conservative myself. I dont dislike McDonnell generally. He seems to do stuff like this just to make a point about being a conservative sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I dont dislike McDonnell generally. He seems to do stuff like this just to make a point about being a conservative sometimes. Agreed. And some of those things are going to come back and bite him hard in '16. I expect him to be effective in the "Clinton shift" he's going to have to make though. I agree too that it would make more sense to define "unfitness" as thoroughly as possible, instead of going after the religious aspect. But that **** would actually take effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 As tax payers we are funding organizations that are allowed to discriminate? How about we just fund those organizations that agree to act in the best interest of the kids, and within the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 As tax payers we are funding organizations that are allowed to discriminate? How about we just fund those organizations that agree to act in the best interest of the kids, and within the law. No, no. That would discriminate against bigots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 No, no. That would discriminate against bigots. Thanks for the new angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 As tax payers we are funding organizations that are allowed to discriminate? How about we just fund those organizations that agree to act in the best interest of the kids, and within the law. Homosexuals are not a protected class when it comes to discrimination protection. ---------- Post added February-8th-2012 at 03:10 PM ---------- As tax payers we are funding organizations that are allowed to discriminate? How about we just fund those organizations that agree to act in the best interest of the kids, and within the law. No, no. That would discriminate against bigots. And orphans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Homosexuals are not a protected class when it comes to discrimination protection.---------- Post added February-8th-2012 at 03:10 PM ---------- And orphans. So long as no kid is placed in a home where the parents believe NASCAR is a sport, I'm OK with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 And orphans. :rotflmao: So long as no kid is placed in a home where the parents believe NASCAR is a sport, I'm OK with it. Or a place where they call "soccer" "football." :finger: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Another step backwards. How many studies need to be done and for how long until it is shown that these kids who have been adopted by same sex parents grow up normally and typically are well adjusted to society? I wonder, do the kids who have been in foster care for 7 or 8 years thank these closeminded politicians for preventing them from going to a loving home? ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RVAbrendan Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 This is extremely sad. My neighbors are a loving and providing gay couple who adopted a little boy about 2 years ago. To think that this child could otherwise still be in an orphanage simply due to their sexual orientation is beyond belief. It's 2012, right?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Admiring the notion that claims that a couple who are saying "I don't want this kid any more. Somebody else take it", and the brokers who don't like gays, claim to have a conscience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Religion and sexual orientation shouldn't have to be a part of the decision as to whether or not someone is a good person and would be a good parent. Atheists, muslims, christians, etc. are all capable of being good people, same with hetero- and homosexuals. The potential for legalized discrimination here is alarming, but since it is for private agencies then it's up to the couple giving the child up for adoption to choose an agency that fits what they want for the child. It's just too bad, IMO, that some care more about religious affiliation or sexual orientation and assume that only people of their particular flock would be fit for parenthood, and that such a provision would reinforce that close-mindedness. If they really care about what religion the child is raised under, if they are really that devout, then why not raise the child themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Apart from anything, this country is just overrun by laws. This will be big news and affects how many adoptions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Agreed. And some of those things are going to come back and bite him hard in '16. I expect him to be effective in the "Clinton shift" he's going to have to make though. Is he running for president in '16? Are conservatives talking about him like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Is he running for president in '16? Are conservatives talking about him like that? Woops. (You saw nothing.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Another good reason why NOVA should secede from the rest of Virginia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RVAbrendan Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Another good reason why NOVA should secede from the rest of Virginia. Care to elaborate? Ya know, not all of us are racists, bigots, or moonshine bootleggers :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 A few years ago, the VA legislature passed a law that prohibits homosexuals to execute wills and other legal documents that benefit their partners. It's one of the reasons I'll not have a relationship until I move from VA. VA is the poster child for repressive laws for homosexuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted February 8, 2012 Author Share Posted February 8, 2012 Care to elaborate? Ya know, not all of us are racists, bigots, or moonshine bootleggers :-) No moonshine??? That's it we out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.