I would guess that most gay couples that adopt children are above average in terms of social standing and probably pretty loving parents. I think that what studies have been made indicate that the outcome on the children depends more on how stable the parental relationship is rather than the sexual orientation.

I have known several cases of a homosexual entering into a heterosexual marriage, and the result was an absolute disaster for both the parents and the children.

digby,

I am willing to bet that, too. But those concerned that the children raised by same-sex couples might turn out to be gay presuppose that there is something wrong with being gay. It is a presupposition that gay people or those sympathetic to them should not be making. If the children raised by same-sex couples turn out to be gay with the same frequency that children raised by opposite-sex couples turn out to be straight, then so what?

I’m willing to bet that the kids that get adopted by “gay” couples are the ones the heterosexual couples would reject for adoption and I’m also willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of those kids turn out to be happy heterosexuals.

The children whose “rights” are being violated by this form of clerical “discrimination” which “ctd” is defending above are, I would venture to say, the ones who are most at risk of being left homeless in the adoption mill.

Employee health insurance is governed by ERISA and other federal laws that have a state pre-emption. Therefore so long as their is not federal same sex marriage, they are under no obligation to change their policies.

As for same sex adoption, it has now come out that the Archdiocese already has a policy of non-discrimination.

One could argue that the government has a right to set the requirements for receiving government money. However, if the government has decided to contract out for services, shouldn’t do so in a manner that least infringes upon the religious liberties of the contractee? Otherwise, it should assume the administration the program entirely.

But there is more than just government money involved in this question. In some states, adoptions cannot be performed unless the agency is licensed by the state, even if no money flows from the government to the entity. If the state insists on non-discrimination as to who can adopt, you eliminate most, if not all, religious providers of adoption services since all religions, by definition, employ some form of discrimination.

Let us take the example of the LDS church. As part of their religious identity, the church takes care of Morman girls who face a crisis pregnancy. It helps the girls and arranges the adoption. Thus, it needs – in order to fulfill its mission – an adoption license. However, also according to their religious beliefs, the child will only be placed with a couple with a “temple recommend.” Therefore, again, in order to fulfill what the church believes to be its religious duty, it will discriminate as to who it will allow to adopt the child.

Insisting on non-discrimination in adoption services beyond what is clearly against public policy – such as race discrimination – infringes not only upon the rights of adoption agencies, but also upon churches that believe that performing adoptions is part of their ministry.

In addition, as noted above, the entire notion of nondiscrimination as to who can adopt turns the notion of adoption on its head. It is the child, not the adopting parents that have the legal right that justifies state interest.

I personally fully welcome adoption by gay couples – for me it is a step in the right direction – just like with us heterosexuals first we should focus on developing a strong committed relationship to our beloved partners – marry – than a healthy percentage among the heterosexuals and homosexuals would love to welcome children into the new family – this is what we humans have done from the beginning of times.

Gay adoption is here to stay – that Genie is out of the bottle – and our church with disproportionate percentages of (closeted) gay priests will not get it bottled up anyway -whom are they kidding.

I think the point about adoptions is that DC need not be so worried about losing the adoption services of the Archdiocese of Washington that they should feel compelled to compromise on a piece of civil-rights legislation. Other services the Archdiocese provides might be missed, but not six adoptions a year.

In fairness….of course they won’t. These congregations didn’t release a confusing announcement that appeared to say “I’m going home”.

Honestly though, it sounds like the ones who stand to lose the most is Catholic Charities. Their budget is funded to the tune of 75% by tax dollars.

“Last week, the Salt Lake City Council, with the blessing of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, passed a law extending protection against discrimination in housing and employment to gay and transgender people. ”

A gay Catholic organist who’s “found out” gets to play at the Episcopalian church…

And, how come the NYC service only places 6 a year ?