...The debate prompted (click title to entry - thank you) by the childern minister's views on white adopters and black children is misleading and unhelpful (Inter-racial adoption should be promoted – minister, G2, , 3 November). European and UK legislation requires adoption agencies to take into account a child's ethnicity, culture, religion and language. Adoption agencies have long recognised the importance of promoting and supporting a child's identity in all its aspects when a child is placed for adoption. For most children from minority ethnic backgrounds, successful placements have been made with families which have reflected the child's background – and that achievement should be celebrated. But the profiles of children have changed over the past 10 years, as has the demography of certain ethnic groups in the population, affecting the chances of them being successfully placed for adoption....
He speaks too quickly and in bias to his own point of view. The article above is from the Guardian, a British paper.
I didn't know Catholic Charities didn't offer adoptions in Massachusetts because they will not adopt into same sex relationships. Quite surprised, actually.
See, the State of Massachusetts legislated very simple language about adoption that did not discriminate. The law has definitions as all good laws do. The definitions below in very simple terms defines the parents of adopted children.
Adoptive Parent. (click here) An individual who has been approved by the licensee to adopt a child.
Adoptive Parent Applicant. An individual who has applied to be an adoptive parent
No forced Catholic Charities to close its doors. That was not the goal of any law, but, due to the religious affiliation of the organization it 'self-determined' to stop those services to perspective parents. So. let's get that much straight.
This is a country where all people are considered to be equal. I think that is a Constitutional provision.
With that comes the question as to where do religious organizations fall when laws are clear and decisive and what legitimate problems will they cause if they are noted to be exempt from the state laws.
If Catholics are allowed special provisions to allow discrimination based in 'faith' then will other agencies be allowed special provisions based in race? When exemptions are provided to religious organization to conduct a PUBLIC SERVICE, should there not be a clear understanding that THE PUBLIC applies to all the people and not just the religious people.
Then there is the idea that the church conducts legislation without being elected. If there are exceptions to the rule for religious organization, what other organizations get exceptions and how can a state legislature make exceptions if they were elected to office to treat all people equally.
If same sex couples cannot adopt, then why would a SINGLE PARENT of a single gender be allowed to adopt? What if the adoptive parents complete there adoption and either the husband or wife dies for some reason, does that mean that is no longer a family and they have to give the child back?
The questions that arise for exceptions to any law can become bizarre and burdensome. I am quite surprised that Governor Romney could not discern the problem with exclusive language in a State law, one especially sensitive law concerning children.
I think Gingrick brought up this fact, but, Romney expanded the discussion. Gingrick blamed the media for bias and religious bigotry. He might think that through once more actually. The decision of Catholic Charities did receive newsprint. It was no secret.
Is the Catholic Church a private club? Can it conduct business in a closed manner that would allow it to only service Catholics? If it were a private club whereby they only had contact and services for Catholics I could envision Catholics giving children to adoption for other Catholics to adopt. But, the religion is not a private club. They minister to the pubic and IN THE USA that means all the people.
This is the same problem the Catholic Church runs into in criticizing their flock that serve in office for allowing abortion. The Catholic Church DOES NOT 'GET IT.' They have congregations in a free country, where every person has equal rights under the law. The Catholic Church never 'got it.' They never 'got it' because Freedom of Speech allows them to say anything they want to without retribution, so they over step their authority and try to impose religious doctrine into the public rhelm.
The Catholic Church owns this problem, not the people of the USA. Their very competent services to adoptive parents are dearly missed, but, if they insist on carrying out their religious doctrine to over ride state law, they are not seeking a democracy to live in, they are seeking a theocracy. That is not allowed in the USA. Someone needs to clue them in and maybe, just maybe, they will finally 'get it.'
Not all children are born to Catholics. Not all adoptive parents are Catholic. Not all adoptive parents want white children and if I understand children for adoption the ONLY quality they are seeking is LOVE.
He speaks too quickly and in bias to his own point of view. The article above is from the Guardian, a British paper.
I didn't know Catholic Charities didn't offer adoptions in Massachusetts because they will not adopt into same sex relationships. Quite surprised, actually.
See, the State of Massachusetts legislated very simple language about adoption that did not discriminate. The law has definitions as all good laws do. The definitions below in very simple terms defines the parents of adopted children.
Adoptive Parent Applicant. An individual who has applied to be an adoptive parent
No forced Catholic Charities to close its doors. That was not the goal of any law, but, due to the religious affiliation of the organization it 'self-determined' to stop those services to perspective parents. So. let's get that much straight.
This is a country where all people are considered to be equal. I think that is a Constitutional provision.
With that comes the question as to where do religious organizations fall when laws are clear and decisive and what legitimate problems will they cause if they are noted to be exempt from the state laws.
If Catholics are allowed special provisions to allow discrimination based in 'faith' then will other agencies be allowed special provisions based in race? When exemptions are provided to religious organization to conduct a PUBLIC SERVICE, should there not be a clear understanding that THE PUBLIC applies to all the people and not just the religious people.
Then there is the idea that the church conducts legislation without being elected. If there are exceptions to the rule for religious organization, what other organizations get exceptions and how can a state legislature make exceptions if they were elected to office to treat all people equally.
If same sex couples cannot adopt, then why would a SINGLE PARENT of a single gender be allowed to adopt? What if the adoptive parents complete there adoption and either the husband or wife dies for some reason, does that mean that is no longer a family and they have to give the child back?
The questions that arise for exceptions to any law can become bizarre and burdensome. I am quite surprised that Governor Romney could not discern the problem with exclusive language in a State law, one especially sensitive law concerning children.
I think Gingrick brought up this fact, but, Romney expanded the discussion. Gingrick blamed the media for bias and religious bigotry. He might think that through once more actually. The decision of Catholic Charities did receive newsprint. It was no secret.
Is the Catholic Church a private club? Can it conduct business in a closed manner that would allow it to only service Catholics? If it were a private club whereby they only had contact and services for Catholics I could envision Catholics giving children to adoption for other Catholics to adopt. But, the religion is not a private club. They minister to the pubic and IN THE USA that means all the people.
This is the same problem the Catholic Church runs into in criticizing their flock that serve in office for allowing abortion. The Catholic Church DOES NOT 'GET IT.' They have congregations in a free country, where every person has equal rights under the law. The Catholic Church never 'got it.' They never 'got it' because Freedom of Speech allows them to say anything they want to without retribution, so they over step their authority and try to impose religious doctrine into the public rhelm.
The Catholic Church owns this problem, not the people of the USA. Their very competent services to adoptive parents are dearly missed, but, if they insist on carrying out their religious doctrine to over ride state law, they are not seeking a democracy to live in, they are seeking a theocracy. That is not allowed in the USA. Someone needs to clue them in and maybe, just maybe, they will finally 'get it.'
Not all children are born to Catholics. Not all adoptive parents are Catholic. Not all adoptive parents want white children and if I understand children for adoption the ONLY quality they are seeking is LOVE.
