As I understand it, other states that allow all couples to adopt allow religious adoption groups to decide their own conscience/discriminate. It's similar to the states that have been struggling with pharmacists refusing to do their jobs and distribute prescribed medication to women.
--- In [email protected], "Ellen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Does that mean the rest of the states were OK with Catholic Charities > not allowing gays to adopt? That is the piece of info I was > missing. I assume it doesn't mean that the Vatican only had a > problem with it in MA. So MA is the only state that prohibits gay > adoption discrimination? I had no idea. I guess it is related to > the gay marriage thing. I wasn't sure if MA had always required gays > to be allowed to adopt or it just happened as a result of gay > marriage. > > --- In [email protected], "josephfinnsondheim" > <josephfinn@> wrote: > > > > That's MA only at this point; the local bishops were apparently AOK > > with not discriminating against adopters, but the Vatican came down > > hard on them. It's really too bad - CC is a wonderful organization > > that has brought joy to thousands of families, and the Vatican's > > two-bit provincialism had to bring that to a stop in MA. > > > > --- In [email protected], "Ellen" <ellengoodman6@> > > wrote: > > > > > > I can't remember if it was just MA or the entire US, but Catholic > > > Charities stopped doing adoptions here recently because the law > > > required them to allow gay parents to adopt, which they refused > to > > > do. Adoptions was their original purpose if I'm not mistaken--to > > > compensate for the ban on abortion. Thinking probably was, well > if we > > > are going to force people to have unwanted children the least we > can > > > do is take care of them for the unprepared parents. But because > they > > > don't support gay couples, they don't support them having > children. > > > It was very controversial as you can well imagine--The government > > > thought about having an exception for religious organizations, > then > > > thought the better of it. > > > > > > How did you discover Gene and the chat? Are you a DC transplant, > or > > > is the column syndicated there? (I realize those aren't the only > > > options.) > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Gina Ellis" > > > <gina_ellis@> wrote: > > > > > > > > States-righters might shudder, but here in Canada (so, no, I > won't > > > be at > > > > your bowling event) the parliament has just declined to reopen > the > > > gay > > > > marriage thing - so it's definitively settled now:- Provinces > have > > > some > > > > regulations about marriage (who can be an officiant, etc.), but > the > > > > definition of marriage is federal, and now it's any two > people. > > > (Of course > > > > the more-than-two-people crowed, ranging from Mormon > > > fundamentalists to > > > > up-to-date polyamorists are gearing up to lobby for broadening > the > > > > definition of marriage even more... I say forget marriage. > Any > > > number of > > > > people of whatever genders should just go to a lawyer's office > and > > > draw up a > > > > contract that suits them.) > > > > > > > > I'm not surprised that Canada has accepted gay marriage, but > the > > > land of the > > > > free (that's you guys) are lagging behind Spain (hey, it's so > > > progressive > > > > these days that the Catholic church there supported gay > marriage > > > until the > > > > pope slapped them down) and South Africa. > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > Off to school, going on a trip, or moving? Windows Live (MSN) > > > Messenger lets > > > > you stay in touch with friends and family wherever you go. > Click > > > here to > > > > find out how to sign up! http://www.telusmobility.com/msnxbox/ > > > > > > > > > >
