Romney seeks narrow gay-adoption exemption

It would seem to me that the state mandating what a religious organization must or must not do is in violation of seperation of church and state.

While I realize that "seperation of church and state" is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, so many that would dictate that there can be no religion in government must also accept the concept that there can be no government in religion either.

Let the religious organizations pursue their agendas.. if they can place children in traditional homes as opposed to gay couples then by all means, let them do so.

Simply because there is a very vocal minority that 'demands' that gays/lesibian relationships be recognized as "natural" does not make them so, religious objections aside. The simple fact of biological procreation should make it obvious to even the most disinterested party that the gay/lesbian lifestyle is not at all natural. If it were, the specie would self terminate in very short order.

To view the subject from a different perspective, consider this.... all previous civilazations that have accepted deviant and perverse behaviour as 'normal' have ceased to exist. If, as so many insist, history repeats itself, will our society be the next one to fade into oblivion because we accepted the perverse as the norm?

What's natural for one person is not natural for another...besides, what's the point here?... it's to give children loving homes...almost all of these children needing homes are from heterosexuals who 'couldn't' act as a 'natural parent who would know how to raise and nurture a child'... Maybe parenting is a natural instinct for some and not for others, regardless of their sexual preferences!!!!!!!!!!

Another commonality of failing civilizations is RELIGION!!!!! GEE, what seems to be the problem in IRAQ??? RELIGION!!!! Hello!?!?!?

This is a very hard issue from my standpoint as I truely believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt, but I (probably for the first time) agree with John on this one, at least partially. I do not believe the Catholic Church should be forced to go against their own teachings by the government. I repeadedly ask for the seperation of church and state when I talk about same-sex marriage, and therefor I must also side on the same arguement when I talk about this issue. The church was offerning a very valuable service to our country. But the service was still faith based and for that reason, the government has no right to get involved.

John is so right. The government does it all the time with everybody else they finance. States, Universities, Charities, etc. Keep the government out of religion and the religion out of government. They just don't mix.

Todd wrote:

This is a very hard issue from my standpoint as I truely believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt, but I (probably for the first time) agree with John on this one, at least partially. I do not believe the Catholic Church should be forced to go against their own teachings by the government. I repeadedly ask for the seperation of church and state when I talk about same-sex marriage, and therefor I must also side on the same arguement when I talk about this issue. The church was offerning a very valuable service to our country. But the service was still faith based and for that reason, the government has no right to get involved.

A very civil and well thought out response, your stock just went way up!

Okay, This just seems so simple, change the topic from gays adopting to Blacks. I grew up Mormon and we're taught that any person with any degree of dark coloring was cursed by God and therefore not elligible for full rights or priveleges within the church. Now let's say that the Mormon church was providing a service like Catholic Charities that over time became vital to the population in which it served. Public or private, should any group be able to so openly discriminate?

Should they have special protections for that discrimination? There should be a seperation of church and state, but there are some basic laws that regardless of their "beliefs" all groups within our "Free" country must and should follow. You can't kill people even though your bible says stoning is fine, you can't deny blacks membership to your organizations just because your god tells you they're cursed, there are so many things that we all must adhere to in order to function as a country. It is a slippery slope when we start carving out permanent exemptions to shield hate, ignorance, and discrimination. No matter how badly you may want to hate gays, blacks, immigrants, women's rights
, or anybody who holds a different notion, our United States cannot function if we enshrine these views. I'm not saying you hatemongers don't have the rights to hate, but if our government did a better job of promoting tolerance, cohesion and peace, you would always be considered strange, fringe or fanatical by the general public, and dismissed from meaningful public debate; debates by the way which need to be focused on real issues of consequense like hunger, poverty, education, international diplomacy, and the general improvement of individual rights and freedoms.

Something to consider: No one "owns" children. Not the church or the state.

The church certainly has no inherent "right" to do this or that with children -- who are their own beings, not negotiating pawns in some property dispote over who gets to control what.

As such (this will be a big surprise to many) I do think the church, or anyone else working to find homes for kids, should abide by generally accepted civil standards (including not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation).

In other areas, I do tend to agree with John and Todd about separation of church and state and whatnot. But these are kids (who likely have not yet formed their own ideas about religion) that need homes and are now being denied this.

If the church "owned" these children then that would be a different story. But they don't.

Lots of good comments here... particularly the 2Daddies amd Jen...

Jen wrote:

Something to consider: No one "owns" children. Not the church or the state.

The church certainly has no inherent "right" to do this or that with children -- who are their own beings, not negotiating pawns in some property dispote over who gets to control what.

As such (this will be a big surprise to many) I do think the church, or anyone else working to find homes for kids, should abide by generally accepted civil standards (including not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation).

In other areas, I do tend to agree with John and Todd about separation of church and state and whatnot. But these are kids (who likely have not yet formed their own ideas about religion) that need homes and are now being denied this.

If the church "owned" these children then that would be a different story. But they don't.

I think most people believe that "the church" has a moral obligation to protect children. No doubt they are, mostly, of good will and intention in that regard, but it is sadly impossible for them to imagine that 2 gay people could make great parents, provide love, shelter, and moral/ethical guidance for adopted children. They are afraid the gay parents will somehow corrupt or abuse the children. It's terribly sad that they cannot use the same criteria for any/all potential adoptors, regardlss of sexual orientaton: that only responsible, financially able people of good character are eligible to adopt children....

i've been thinking about this. Maybe the Catholic church will prevail and children cannot be adopted via Catholic Charities. They win!
Gays can still adopt in MA. but via Catholic Charities.
They win!
Most importantly-kids win!

insert after but the word not
sorry

Just like same sex marriage, people will look back at this in the future and wonder what the hell was wrong with those bigotted idiots who would deny their fellow citizens equal rights...slavery was outlawed, women can now vote, racial inter-marriage is no longer illegal...humanity progresses, but at a slow pace.

I look forward to the day that the Catholic church fizzles away into obsolesence. They should have been shut down for the pedophile scandal alone. The church should definitely be barred from having anything to do with children until they prove they can tell the truth.

Signed,

A former altar boy and recovering Catholic.

...and Mutt Romney should go back to the land of the bigomists... he has no business using Massachusetts for a stepping stone to the White House.

The scandal was caused by the Church not acting appropriately ... as in Bishpops just transfering the pedophiles to another location and hiding it... you are not going to make a connection between PEDOPHILIA and homosexuality here, and show your ignorance are you?

The scandal not only involved males... female children as well...

Talk about ignorance! You can't even spell PEDOPHILIA correctly!(I'll bet you are a Republican who talks about NUCULAR threats!)

Intolerant meet John NY. Ignorance in abundance. Take a look at some of his work in the lengthy...so lengthy section below:

http://www.topix.net/forum/news/gay/T61IV2N6P...

He comes in at page 2 and repeats himself ad nauseam.

John NY wrote:

<quoted text>

hmm.. they should be shut down for the pediophile scandal which was OVERWHELMINGLY caused by homosexual pediophiles, but you are adovating on the side of homosexuality? Yeah... that makes sense!

John, the jig is up. You are now simply trading on your ignorance with every post. Why don't you just say it real loudly "I HATE HOMOSEXUALS", then stop with all the rest of your nonsense.

Go do some church work...

Did I miss something. This is all about money. Catholic Charities was getting money from the state for each child placed, and under that states laws, it is not allowed to discriminate if it wants the money. So they decided to stop all adoptions. It is very childish, imho. If they were a true charity, they would be doing the adoptions for the children, and be fully funded by their church. The state in no way is regulating religion. If Mr. Romney gets his way though, his state will be promoting one religion by giving them special privilages that they do not give to any other religion, and that is specifically addressed in the Constitution as illegal.

Ohhhhhhhh! Now it all makes sense...kind of like the schools/colleges who accept federal funding must also accept ROTC recruiting...thanx for the clarification 'Tim'... From the way it was reported in the article, it was not obvious at all. And I agree, if they were a 'charity' they would do it without the state kickbacks, but of course... I wonder how many kids could have been placed in homes using the money that was spent paying the pedophile settlements...perhaps thousands...how does Cardinal Law sleep at night?!?!?