No penalty for Catholic adoption agencies refusing gay applicants

[kweerwolf]

Catholic adoption agencies in Worcester, Fall River and Springfield won't be penalized by the state for refusing to consider gays as adoptive parents, though their policies violate state anti-discrimination laws.

The general counsel for the state Department of Early Education, which regulates adoption agencies, said the agency isn't taking action because Romney has proposed legislation that could allow the agencies to refrain from considering gays on religious grounds.

"We're going to wait and see how the legislation plays out," attorney Constantia Papanikolaou told The Boston Globe.

Gov. Mitt Romney proposed the bill after Catholic Charities of Boston announced last month it was ending its adoption services because it couldn't reconcile state law with church teachings, which consider gay adoption "gravely immoral."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/04/15/no_penalty_for_catholic_adoption_agencies_refusing_gay_applicants/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Massachusetts+news

[jaxx]

1. Gravely immoral is letting kids go homeless when there are good

people who would love to adopt them and make a family. Hypocrites get on my last nerve, and this love thy neighbor....all but those....is so blatant it stinks.

[napi21]

2. I don't really see a problem with them chosing not to consider

gay couples to adopt. I'm sure lots of you disagree with me, but it's part of the Catholic religious beliefs that the gay lifestyle is a sin. We want the Catholics to stay out of politics, and I think we should keep politics out of their religion too.

[kweerwolf]

3. Gee, I thought it was us gays who wanted "special rights"

Guess it's the Catholic Church wanting the special right to impose it's twisted bigotry in the secular world.

How very "christian" of them! :sarcasm:

[W_HAMILTON]

4. Not quite...

I'm not all that experienced in adoption, but why is a church doing it?

If it's a private thing (such as how many gay couples can adopt through private means), fine, let them do what they want.

But if it's public in any way (ie if they get government funding, or if they are a branch of a governmental adoption agency), then sorry, they need to abide by the rules.

[Maat]

5. The key is their receipt of public money.

I believe they get assistance from Social Services.

If they receive ANY public money, then the payments should be stopped immediately.

Fair-minded New Hamphire-ites do not want to pay for, or encourage, this kind of discrimination.

[napi21]

6. Oh I agree with you on getting public money, but I don't think they do.

I can't really argue the point because I'm not positive. I can tell you they didn't bout 25 years ago, and they didn't want any BECAUSE they didn't want to be Federally regulated.

I guess that's all I was saying. If it's a private church thing, then why should the Gov't interfere?

[Maat]

7. If it was strictly a church thing, the government couldn't interfere ..

due to the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause (most probably).

When I was a social worker (retired for five years), Catholic Charities, for example, got a significant amount of government money, as did the Catholic adoption services agency. That's why I'm pretty sure they are getting some $. If they are, the adoptions/social-services/mental-health portions are supposed to hire fairly and abide by anti-discrimination law, or they forfeit their funds. That is what the governor is probably trying to get around now. It is not going to work, however. The government MAY attach conditions to receipt of its funds.