Romney Seeks Narrow Gay-Adoption Exemption

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by leekohler, Mar 14, 2006.

  1. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #1
    I don't know what to think anymore. Seems to me Romney just wants to use kids as pawns for his re-election. Wake-up guys. We have been made into the new great Satan. The new "Threat to America". How much do you wanna bet we'll see this bandied about for elections 2006?

    BOSTON - Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has asked his staff to draft a "very narrow" bill that would let Catholic Charities provide adoption services without serving gay couples.


    The governor acknowledged that same-sex couples have a legitimate interest in adopting children, but he said the services Catholic Charities provides are more important than maintaining a faith-blind law.


    "They have within their religion the belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that children should not be sent into homes without a mother and a father," Romney said Monday. "We'd like them to be able to be true to their religion."


    Boston Archbishop Sean O'Malley sought the exemption, and Catholic Charities said last week it would stop providing adoption services once its current state contract ends because it must allow gays and lesbians to adopt children under state law.


    U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who is openly gay, was critical of Romney's plan for resolving the issue, saying it was driven by his presidential aspirations. The governor has acknowledged he is considering a White House bid in 2008 and has sought to highlight his connections to social conservatives.


    "This is not a competition where the question is, 'Okay, we have this child to be adopted, should we auction the child off to Boy George or does he go to live with the Cleavers and Wally and the Beaver?'" Frank said. "The fact is, the question is whether the child will be adopted at all."


    Romney argued that exempting Catholic Charities from nondiscrimination rules would not inhibit gay couples from adopting because "there are many, many other agencies that can meet the needs of those gay couples."


    Most adoptive children in Massachusetts are placed by the Department of Social Services. Catholic Charities has placed 720 children in adoptive homes, including 13 with same-sex couples, in the past two decades.


    Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, a fellow Republican hoping to succeed Romney as governor, recently said she disagreed with the governor's position.


    "I believe that any institution that wants to provide services that are regulated by the state has to abide by the laws of this state, and our anti-discrimination laws are some of the most important," Healey said.

    http://my.earthlink.net/article/pol?guid=20060314/44164dd0_3ca6_1552620060314-1389657690
     
  2. scem0 macrumors 604

    scem0

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    back in NYC!
    #2
    If this is true, then I don't mind. Catholic Charities can do whatever they want for all I care.

    But at the same time, I think it's stupid for Catholic Charities to be doing the state's work. All adoptions should go through the Department of Social Services.

    e
     
  3. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #3
    Read the rest of the article. The Church does this through the State. I DO care what they do.
     
  4. XNine macrumors 68040

    XNine

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
    #4
    Yeah, because we all know how well catholics raise their children. ;) My father and his brothers and sisters had an alcoholic, abusive, but very CATHOLIC father. As did my mother, as do most Catholics I know.

    Let's not forget that, stereotypically speaking, gays are about love and respect, tolerence of all. I have never met one gay person, male or female that judged me (maybe my shoes, but I like Doc Martins.) I have met plenty of religious-folk who have.

    I think you're right Lee. You're now worse than Arabs, The Chinese, and Elvis Presley.

    Where do we go from here?
     
  5. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #5
    I'm sure kids would much rather be raised by good Christian Moms and Dads who ignore or abuse them than a nice gay couple who love them (in the good way). I'm assuming single parents and divorcees are also not allowed to adopt. And I'm sure the kids would much rather remain orphans unless they get the right Mommy AND Daddy.
     
  6. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #6
    Well of course! Orphanages are nice I hear. :rolleyes:
     
  7. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #7
    Orphanages are actually pretty rare nowadays. They just stick kids in foster care. Sometimes that's a good thing. Sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it really isn't. I'd rather they had a nice home with a loving parent or 2, but that's just me. I care more about the kids' welfare (no pun intended) than religious dogma.

    I'm still wondering about single parents and divorcees.
     
  8. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #8
    Oh- I'm sure they're fine as long as they aren't gay. :rolleyes:
     
  9. eva01 macrumors 601

    eva01

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Location:
    Gah! Plymouth
    #9
    well the church has said that it will not renew with the state if this exemption is put into place.

    because they will not let children go into a same sex couple

    i think romney in this case may be a bit stuck between a rock and a hard place.
     
  10. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #10
    The church shouldn't be involved with the state in the first place, IMO. So let them not renew.
     
  11. XNine macrumors 68040

    XNine

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
    #11
    Agreed. The state can't make money off those *******s anyway, let their renewal go out the window. However, the state CAN make money off of adoption fees from gays and anyone else who wishes to adopt. If anything, the State LOSES TONS OF MONEY because they can't even tax the church.

    Screw churches! Give people their civil rights!
     
  12. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #12
    Yep.
     

Share This Page