Illinois Won’t Renew Adoption Contract with Discriminatory Catholic Charities

Now that civil unions are legal in Illinois, groups that receive public money cannot discriminate against gay couples. So when a few Catholic adoptions agencies were faced with the prospect of giving children to gay parents, they decided to shut down instead. In their view, only straight couples and single-people-who-are-not-cohabitating are worthy of being adoptive parents.

In these Catholics’ eyes, having no parents is better for the children than having gay ones…

(Thankfully, the secular, non-discriminatory Youth Service Bureau of Illinois Valley took in the kids that the defunct Catholic agencies had to give up.)

Now, the state of Illinois has taken this kerfuffle one step further. They’re not even waiting for the other Catholic charities to shut themselves down; they’re planning to speed up that process:

The state has declined to renew its foster care and adoption contracts with Catholic Charities across Illinois

Though four Catholic Charities agencies had already stopped licensing new foster parents, three of them will seek an injunction from a Sangamon County judge on Tuesday to continue serving families and abiding by Catholic principles that prohibit placing children with unmarried cohabiting couples.

At an unrelated news conference Monday, [Governor Pat] Quinn, a practicing Catholic, reiterated his support of the civil union law and the state’s decision to sever ties with Catholic Charities.

“We’re not going back,” he said. “They made a choice. Any organization that decides that because of the civil unions law that they won’t participate voluntarily in a program, that’s their choice.”

That means the Catholic groups will no longer be receiving over $30,000,000 in funding.

Bravo to the governor for taking a strong stance against bigotry and discrimination against LGBT people. It ought to be a simple thing to do, but most politicians don’t have that sort of courage.

The Quinn administration’s decision drew praise from the civil unions law’s chief House sponsor, state Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago).

“They’re totally within their rights to determine who can or cannot be married under their church law or who can be married by a priest or rabbi or in their facilities, but this is different,” Harris said of the religious groups. “But here, they’re coming to the state to get contracts to provide government services on behalf of the state. They can’t pick and choose which Illinoisans they think are worthy of those services.”

The Catholic Charities in Joliet, Peoria and Springfield have already sued the state because they want to continue discriminating against loving gay couples, and they were in court yesterday to seek an injunction. A judge ruled in their favor, meaning they can continue providing services… for now. But I hope that’s just temporary. No group should be able to receive taxpayer money and use it to deny equal rights to people.

(Thanks to CarrieBeth for the link!)

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the chair of Foundation Beyond Belief and a high school math teacher in the suburbs of Chicago. He began writing the Friendly Atheist blog in 2006. His latest book is called The Young Atheist's Survival Guide.

  • Anonymous

    Note that their lawyer is arguing strict scrutiny!

    That’s patently absurd since providing adoption services is not a fundamental right. Let alone discriminating in the process.

  • Anonymous

    Note that their lawyer is arguing strict scrutiny!

    That’s patently absurd since providing adoption services is not a fundamental right. Let alone discriminating in the process.

    • http://www.eurovisionamerica.com/ Michael Gordon

      They’re probably arguing that the State’s law and policies are restricting their ability to freely practice their religion. That’s also a probably loser argument because this is a neutral law of general applicability, in the spirit of Employment Division v. Smith (I think that’s the right case name). I’d be interested to see the filings and TRO if someone could get a hold of them. Not that I should be reading them; I really should be studying for the bar exam in less than two weeks…

    • http://www.eurovisionamerica.com/ Michael Gordon

      They’re probably arguing that the State’s law and policies are restricting their ability to freely practice their religion. That’s also a probably loser argument because this is a neutral law of general applicability, in the spirit of Employment Division v. Smith (I think that’s the right case name). I’d be interested to see the filings and TRO if someone could get a hold of them. Not that I should be reading them; I really should be studying for the bar exam in less than two weeks…

    • http://www.eurovisionamerica.com/ Michael Gordon

      They’re probably arguing that the State’s law and policies are restricting their ability to freely practice their religion. That’s also a probably loser argument because this is a neutral law of general applicability, in the spirit of Employment Division v. Smith (I think that’s the right case name). I’d be interested to see the filings and TRO if someone could get a hold of them. Not that I should be reading them; I really should be studying for the bar exam in less than two weeks…

    • http://www.eurovisionamerica.com/ Michael Gordon

      They’re probably arguing that the State’s law and policies are restricting their ability to freely practice their religion. That’s also a probably loser argument because this is a neutral law of general applicability, in the spirit of Employment Division v. Smith (I think that’s the right case name). I’d be interested to see the filings and TRO if someone could get a hold of them. Not that I should be reading them; I really should be studying for the bar exam in less than two weeks…

      • Anonymous

        Also, providing secular services – especially ones outsourced by the government – is not “practicing religion”. Freedom of religion applies to beliefs and worship. Not businesses and public services

      • Anonymous

        Also, providing secular services – especially ones outsourced by the government – is not “practicing religion”. Freedom of religion applies to beliefs and worship. Not businesses and public services

      • Anonymous

        Also, providing secular services – especially ones outsourced by the government – is not “practicing religion”. Freedom of religion applies to beliefs and worship. Not businesses and public services

      • Anonymous

        Also, providing secular services – especially ones outsourced by the government – is not “practicing religion”. Freedom of religion applies to beliefs and worship. Not businesses and public services

      • Anonymous

        It’s not a huge surprise that they won the injunction. Unless the judge is willing to dismiss their case in a summary way (and given that they’ve raised a religious discrimination question, that’s highly unlikey), they’ll argue that there should be minimum disruption for the kids involved – which is perfectly fair.

        As a Canadian, I’ll defer to others on the details of US/Illinois law – but it seems to me that the State has the better case here. If the State were trying to terminate the contract, it might be a different story, but challenging the decision not to renew a contract once it has expired on the basis of dicrimination seems like a pretty steep hill to climb.

        Good luck on your exams. Stressful time.

      • Anonymous

        It’s not a huge surprise that they won the injunction. Unless the judge is willing to dismiss their case in a summary way (and given that they’ve raised a religious discrimination question, that’s highly unlikey), they’ll argue that there should be minimum disruption for the kids involved – which is perfectly fair.

        As a Canadian, I’ll defer to others on the details of US/Illinois law – but it seems to me that the State has the better case here. If the State were trying to terminate the contract, it might be a different story, but challenging the decision not to renew a contract once it has expired on the basis of dicrimination seems like a pretty steep hill to climb.

        Good luck on your exams. Stressful time.

    • http://www.eurovisionamerica.com/ Michael Gordon

      They’re probably arguing that the State’s law and policies are restricting their ability to freely practice their religion. That’s also a probably loser argument because this is a neutral law of general applicability, in the spirit of Employment Division v. Smith (I think that’s the right case name). I’d be interested to see the filings and TRO if someone could get a hold of them. Not that I should be reading them; I really should be studying for the bar exam in less than two weeks…

  • Anonymous

    Note that their lawyer is arguing strict scrutiny!

    That’s patently absurd since providing adoption services is not a fundamental right. Let alone discriminating in the process.

  • Anonymous

    This is why anti-discrimination laws are so important. When you make the state discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation illegal, you ensure that groups wanting tax-payer money don’t get to practice their bigotry with everyone’s cash. Since religion is totally arbitrary, you could end up with one that officially sanctions racism, and yet no one would blink at the idea of not giving them a dime in taxpayer funds. The same rule should apply here. If religious groups were picking up the garbage, the state wouldn’t contract with those who skipped homes with rainbow flags.

    I commend the governer for ensuring that the money of GLBT Illinoisans, and their equality loving straight allies, does not lead to discriminatory publis services.

  • Anonymous

    This is why anti-discrimination laws are so important. When you make the state discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation illegal, you ensure that groups wanting tax-payer money don’t get to practice their bigotry with everyone’s cash. Since religion is totally arbitrary, you could end up with one that officially sanctions racism, and yet no one would blink at the idea of not giving them a dime in taxpayer funds. The same rule should apply here. If religious groups were picking up the garbage, the state wouldn’t contract with those who skipped homes with rainbow flags.

    I commend the governer for ensuring that the money of GLBT Illinoisans, and their equality loving straight allies, does not lead to discriminatory publis services.

  • Anonymous

    This is why anti-discrimination laws are so important. When you make the state discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation illegal, you ensure that groups wanting tax-payer money don’t get to practice their bigotry with everyone’s cash. Since religion is totally arbitrary, you could end up with one that officially sanctions racism, and yet no one would blink at the idea of not giving them a dime in taxpayer funds. The same rule should apply here. If religious groups were picking up the garbage, the state wouldn’t contract with those who skipped homes with rainbow flags.

    I commend the governer for ensuring that the money of GLBT Illinoisans, and their equality loving straight allies, does not lead to discriminatory publis services.

  • Anonymous

    This is why anti-discrimination laws are so important. When you make the state discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation illegal, you ensure that groups wanting tax-payer money don’t get to practice their bigotry with everyone’s cash. Since religion is totally arbitrary, you could end up with one that officially sanctions racism, and yet no one would blink at the idea of not giving them a dime in taxpayer funds. The same rule should apply here. If religious groups were picking up the garbage, the state wouldn’t contract with those who skipped homes with rainbow flags.

    I commend the governer for ensuring that the money of GLBT Illinoisans, and their equality loving straight allies, does not lead to discriminatory publis services.

  • Anonymous

    This is why anti-discrimination laws are so important. When you make the state discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation illegal, you ensure that groups wanting tax-payer money don’t get to practice their bigotry with everyone’s cash. Since religion is totally arbitrary, you could end up with one that officially sanctions racism, and yet no one would blink at the idea of not giving them a dime in taxpayer funds. The same rule should apply here. If religious groups were picking up the garbage, the state wouldn’t contract with those who skipped homes with rainbow flags.

    I commend the governer for ensuring that the money of GLBT Illinoisans, and their equality loving straight allies, does not lead to discriminatory publis services.

  • Anonymous

    Is it just me, or is Governor Quinn finally starting to “get it?” I disliked him from the get-go for many many reasons, but lately, his judgement seems to be spot on for most of his legal decisions. Kudos to making steps forwards, Governor Quinn!

    • Anonymous

      Quinn seems to get it when it comes to constitutional law and social justice issues.  His big problem is that he’s backpedaled so hard on terms of governmental accountability (which is, admittedly, an uphill fight against bipartisan, entrenched interests in Springfield).  He’s also tended to be on the right side of a lot of economic debate, but then folds quickly when pressured, making him an unreliable ally.

    • Anonymous

      Quinn seems to get it when it comes to constitutional law and social justice issues.  His big problem is that he’s backpedaled so hard on terms of governmental accountability (which is, admittedly, an uphill fight against bipartisan, entrenched interests in Springfield).  He’s also tended to be on the right side of a lot of economic debate, but then folds quickly when pressured, making him an unreliable ally.

  • Anonymous

    Is it just me, or is Governor Quinn finally starting to “get it?” I disliked him from the get-go for many many reasons, but lately, his judgement seems to be spot on for most of his legal decisions. Kudos to making steps forwards, Governor Quinn!

  • Anonymous

    Is it just me, or is Governor Quinn finally starting to “get it?” I disliked him from the get-go for many many reasons, but lately, his judgement seems to be spot on for most of his legal decisions. Kudos to making steps forwards, Governor Quinn!

  • Anonymous

    Is it just me, or is Governor Quinn finally starting to “get it?” I disliked him from the get-go for many many reasons, but lately, his judgement seems to be spot on for most of his legal decisions. Kudos to making steps forwards, Governor Quinn!

  • Anonymous

    Is it just me, or is Governor Quinn finally starting to “get it?” I disliked him from the get-go for many many reasons, but lately, his judgement seems to be spot on for most of his legal decisions. Kudos to making steps forwards, Governor Quinn!

  • Achess

    Sorry Hemant, I won’t be twitting anymore the articles if I’m required to install an app to do so.

  • Achess

    Sorry Hemant, I won’t be twitting anymore the articles if I’m required to install an app to do so.

  • Achess

    Sorry Hemant, I won’t be twitting anymore the articles if I’m required to install an app to do so.

  • Achess

    Sorry Hemant, I won’t be twitting anymore the articles if I’m required to install an app to do so.

  • Achess

    Sorry Hemant, I won’t be twitting anymore the articles if I’m required to install an app to do so.

  • Achess

    Sorry Hemant, I won’t be twitting anymore the articles if I’m required to install an app to do so.

  • http://www.facebook.com/AnonymousBoy Larry Meredith

    hate to be that “glass half empty” kind of guy but having civil unions instead of gay marriage is still discrimination.

    • Anonymous

      I think the best solution would be to take all current legal marriages and re-define them as civil unions as well. Let religions keep their monopoly on marriage and define it however they like. As long as everyone gets completely equal rights in the eyes of the government, it shouldn’t matter what the name we give it is. I sure as hell wouldn’t want a “marriage” in the future anyways, as it implies that I am the husband and therefore leader of the family, with my submissive wife, when “civil union” really seems to make sense, since we would both be equals.

      /long answer on unasked question. Sorry.

      EDIT: I understand that currently legal marriage has more benefits than civil unions, but what I meant was that civil unions be the new term for what is currently called a legal marriage. All the rights, and less complaining from the religious right.

      As for religion not having a monopoly on marriage, why should we care if they use that particular word? People coupling together for life will go on no matter what it is called. I know the history, and I just think this is an easy way to end a stupid battle that they will obviously not give up on. It honestly isn’t worth our time.

    • Anonymous

      I think the best solution would be to take all current legal marriages and re-define them as civil unions as well. Let religions keep their monopoly on marriage and define it however they like. As long as everyone gets completely equal rights in the eyes of the government, it shouldn’t matter what the name we give it is. I sure as hell wouldn’t want a “marriage” in the future anyways, as it implies that I am the husband and therefore leader of the family, with my submissive wife, when “civil union” really seems to make sense, since we would both be equals.

      /long answer on unasked question. Sorry.

      EDIT: I understand that currently legal marriage has more benefits than civil unions, but what I meant was that civil unions be the new term for what is currently called a legal marriage. All the rights, and less complaining from the religious right.

      As for religion not having a monopoly on marriage, why should we care if they use that particular word? People coupling together for life will go on no matter what it is called. I know the history, and I just think this is an easy way to end a stupid battle that they will obviously not give up on. It honestly isn’t worth our time.

    • Anonymous

      I think the best solution would be to take all current legal marriages and re-define them as civil unions as well. Let religions keep their monopoly on marriage and define it however they like. As long as everyone gets completely equal rights in the eyes of the government, it shouldn’t matter what the name we give it is. I sure as hell wouldn’t want a “marriage” in the future anyways, as it implies that I am the husband and therefore leader of the family, with my submissive wife, when “civil union” really seems to make sense, since we would both be equals.

      /long answer on unasked question. Sorry.

      EDIT: I understand that currently legal marriage has more benefits than civil unions, but what I meant was that civil unions be the new term for what is currently called a legal marriage. All the rights, and less complaining from the religious right.

      As for religion not having a monopoly on marriage, why should we care if they use that particular word? People coupling together for life will go on no matter what it is called. I know the history, and I just think this is an easy way to end a stupid battle that they will obviously not give up on. It honestly isn’t worth our time.

    • Anonymous

      I think the best solution would be to take all current legal marriages and re-define them as civil unions as well. Let religions keep their monopoly on marriage and define it however they like. As long as everyone gets completely equal rights in the eyes of the government, it shouldn’t matter what the name we give it is. I sure as hell wouldn’t want a “marriage” in the future anyways, as it implies that I am the husband and therefore leader of the family, with my submissive wife, when “civil union” really seems to make sense, since we would both be equals.

      /long answer on unasked question. Sorry.

      EDIT: I understand that currently legal marriage has more benefits than civil unions, but what I meant was that civil unions be the new term for what is currently called a legal marriage. All the rights, and less complaining from the religious right.

      As for religion not having a monopoly on marriage, why should we care if they use that particular word? People coupling together for life will go on no matter what it is called. I know the history, and I just think this is an easy way to end a stupid battle that they will obviously not give up on. It honestly isn’t worth our time.

    • Anonymous

      I think the best solution would be to take all current legal marriages and re-define them as civil unions as well. Let religions keep their monopoly on marriage and define it however they like. As long as everyone gets completely equal rights in the eyes of the government, it shouldn’t matter what the name we give it is. I sure as hell wouldn’t want a “marriage” in the future anyways, as it implies that I am the husband and therefore leader of the family, with my submissive wife, when “civil union” really seems to make sense, since we would both be equals.

      /long answer on unasked question. Sorry.

      EDIT: I understand that currently legal marriage has more benefits than civil unions, but what I meant was that civil unions be the new term for what is currently called a legal marriage. All the rights, and less complaining from the religious right.

      As for religion not having a monopoly on marriage, why should we care if they use that particular word? People coupling together for life will go on no matter what it is called. I know the history, and I just think this is an easy way to end a stupid battle that they will obviously not give up on. It honestly isn’t worth our time.

    • Anonymous

      I think the best solution would be to take all current legal marriages and re-define them as civil unions as well. Let religions keep their monopoly on marriage and define it however they like. As long as everyone gets completely equal rights in the eyes of the government, it shouldn’t matter what the name we give it is. I sure as hell wouldn’t want a “marriage” in the future anyways, as it implies that I am the husband and therefore leader of the family, with my submissive wife, when “civil union” really seems to make sense, since we would both be equals.

      /long answer on unasked question. Sorry.

      EDIT: I understand that currently legal marriage has more benefits than civil unions, but what I meant was that civil unions be the new term for what is currently called a legal marriage. All the rights, and less complaining from the religious right.

      As for religion not having a monopoly on marriage, why should we care if they use that particular word? People coupling together for life will go on no matter what it is called. I know the history, and I just think this is an easy way to end a stupid battle that they will obviously not give up on. It honestly isn’t worth our time.

    • Anonymous

      I think the best solution would be to take all current legal marriages and re-define them as civil unions as well. Let religions keep their monopoly on marriage and define it however they like. As long as everyone gets completely equal rights in the eyes of the government, it shouldn’t matter what the name we give it is. I sure as hell wouldn’t want a “marriage” in the future anyways, as it implies that I am the husband and therefore leader of the family, with my submissive wife, when “civil union” really seems to make sense, since we would both be equals.

      /long answer on unasked question. Sorry.

      EDIT: I understand that currently legal marriage has more benefits than civil unions, but what I meant was that civil unions be the new term for what is currently called a legal marriage. All the rights, and less complaining from the religious right.

      As for religion not having a monopoly on marriage, why should we care if they use that particular word? People coupling together for life will go on no matter what it is called. I know the history, and I just think this is an easy way to end a stupid battle that they will obviously not give up on. It honestly isn’t worth our time.

    • Anonymous

      I think the best solution would be to take all current legal marriages and re-define them as civil unions as well. Let religions keep their monopoly on marriage and define it however they like. As long as everyone gets completely equal rights in the eyes of the government, it shouldn’t matter what the name we give it is. I sure as hell wouldn’t want a “marriage” in the future anyways, as it implies that I am the husband and therefore leader of the family, with my submissive wife, when “civil union” really seems to make sense, since we would both be equals.

      /long answer on unasked question. Sorry.

      EDIT: I understand that currently legal marriage has more benefits than civil unions, but what I meant was that civil unions be the new term for what is currently called a legal marriage. All the rights, and less complaining from the religious right.

      As for religion not having a monopoly on marriage, why should we care if they use that particular word? People coupling together for life will go on no matter what it is called. I know the history, and I just think this is an easy way to end a stupid battle that they will obviously not give up on. It honestly isn’t worth our time.

    • Anonymous

      I think the best solution would be to take all current legal marriages and re-define them as civil unions as well. Let religions keep their monopoly on marriage and define it however they like. As long as everyone gets completely equal rights in the eyes of the government, it shouldn’t matter what the name we give it is. I sure as hell wouldn’t want a “marriage” in the future anyways, as it implies that I am the husband and therefore leader of the family, with my submissive wife, when “civil union” really seems to make sense, since we would both be equals.

      /long answer on unasked question. Sorry.

      EDIT: I understand that currently legal marriage has more benefits than civil unions, but what I meant was that civil unions be the new term for what is currently called a legal marriage. All the rights, and less complaining from the religious right.

      As for religion not having a monopoly on marriage, why should we care if they use that particular word? People coupling together for life will go on no matter what it is called. I know the history, and I just think this is an easy way to end a stupid battle that they will obviously not give up on. It honestly isn’t worth our time.

      • Anonymous

        Religion never had a monopoly on marriage. The Romans already had common law marriage as well as a marriage as a completely secular legal contract. The early Christian church kept that tradition. It didn’t get involved in the business until the middle ages. It was France that forcefully secularized marriage after the French Revolution and spread that model over continental Europe with the Napoleonic Code.

        Martin Luther saw marriage as a worldly affair and the Puritans of people brought that idea to America.

      • Anonymous

        Religion never had a monopoly on marriage. The Romans already had common law marriage as well as a marriage as a completely secular legal contract. The early Christian church kept that tradition. It didn’t get involved in the business until the middle ages. It was France that forcefully secularized marriage after the French Revolution and spread that model over continental Europe with the Napoleonic Code.

        Martin Luther saw marriage as a worldly affair and the Puritans of people brought that idea to America.

        • Anonymous

          Stev84 wrote: “religion never had a monopoly on marriage”.  Exactly. By ‘letting them have’ it would be giving them something they don’t ‘own’.

          Here in Canada, we just have _marriage_.  Whether it’s between a heterosexual couple or same sex couple……just ‘marriage’.

          And *gasp* life just went on……

        • Anonymous

          Stev84 wrote: “religion never had a monopoly on marriage”.  Exactly. By ‘letting them have’ it would be giving them something they don’t ‘own’.

          Here in Canada, we just have _marriage_.  Whether it’s between a heterosexual couple or same sex couple……just ‘marriage’.

          And *gasp* life just went on……

        • Anonymous

          Stev84 wrote: “religion never had a monopoly on marriage”.  Exactly. By ‘letting them have’ it would be giving them something they don’t ‘own’.

          Here in Canada, we just have _marriage_.  Whether it’s between a heterosexual couple or same sex couple……just ‘marriage’.

          And *gasp* life just went on……

      • Anonymous

        Religion never had a monopoly on marriage. The Romans already had common law marriage as well as a marriage as a completely secular legal contract. The early Christian church kept that tradition. It didn’t get involved in the business until the middle ages. It was France that forcefully secularized marriage after the French Revolution and spread that model over continental Europe with the Napoleonic Code.

        Martin Luther saw marriage as a worldly affair and the Puritans of people brought that idea to America.

      • Anonymous

        Religion never had a monopoly on marriage. The Romans already had common law marriage as well as a marriage as a completely secular legal contract. The early Christian church kept that tradition. It didn’t get involved in the business until the middle ages. It was France that forcefully secularized marriage after the French Revolution and spread that model over continental Europe with the Napoleonic Code.

        Martin Luther saw marriage as a worldly affair and the Puritans of people brought that idea to America.

      • Anonymous

        Handing them a victory certainly isn’t the right thing to do. They don’t own the word. They never did and they don’t deserve it.

        It’s a fight that can be won. History is on our side and public opinion is changing relatively quickly in fact. They are losing and they know it. It’s why they are becoming more crazy with every statement.

        There are already civil unions for everyone. It’s called civil marriage. If you want to make that clear, introduce the European model where  a civil marriage ceremony at city hall is REQUIRED. Don’t have priests act as agents of the state when signing licenses. That’s the real problem and the reason why they think they own the word in the first place.

      • Anonymous

        Handing them a victory certainly isn’t the right thing to do. They don’t own the word. They never did and they don’t deserve it.

        It’s a fight that can be won. History is on our side and public opinion is changing relatively quickly in fact. They are losing and they know it. It’s why they are becoming more crazy with every statement.

        There are already civil unions for everyone. It’s called civil marriage. If you want to make that clear, introduce the European model where  a civil marriage ceremony at city hall is REQUIRED. Don’t have priests act as agents of the state when signing licenses. That’s the real problem and the reason why they think they own the word in the first place.

      • OverlappingMagisteria

        Sounds too much like trying to legislate the dictionary. If you are going to create civil unions for all and have them equal to marriage in every way but their name, what’s the point? The word “marriage” is already established in our language. “My wife and I have been unioned for 5 years now!” If it looks like a duck, call it a duck.

    • Anonymous

      I think the best solution would be to take all current legal marriages and re-define them as civil unions as well. Let religions keep their monopoly on marriage and define it however they like. As long as everyone gets completely equal rights in the eyes of the government, it shouldn’t matter what the name we give it is. I sure as hell wouldn’t want a “marriage” in the future anyways, as it implies that I am the husband and therefore leader of the family, with my submissive wife, when “civil union” really seems to make sense, since we would both be equals.

      /long answer on unasked question. Sorry.

      EDIT: I understand that currently legal marriage has more benefits than civil unions, but what I meant was that civil unions be the new term for what is currently called a legal marriage. All the rights, and less complaining from the religious right.

      As for religion not having a monopoly on marriage, why should we care if they use that particular word? People coupling together for life will go on no matter what it is called. I know the history, and I just think this is an easy way to end a stupid battle that they will obviously not give up on. It honestly isn’t worth our time.

    • Anonymous

      I think the best solution would be to take all current legal marriages and re-define them as civil unions as well. Let religions keep their monopoly on marriage and define it however they like. As long as everyone gets completely equal rights in the eyes of the government, it shouldn’t matter what the name we give it is. I sure as hell wouldn’t want a “marriage” in the future anyways, as it implies that I am the husband and therefore leader of the family, with my submissive wife, when “civil union” really seems to make sense, since we would both be equals.

      /long answer on unasked question. Sorry.

      EDIT: I understand that currently legal marriage has more benefits than civil unions, but what I meant was that civil unions be the new term for what is currently called a legal marriage. All the rights, and less complaining from the religious right.

      As for religion not having a monopoly on marriage, why should we care if they use that particular word? People coupling together for life will go on no matter what it is called. I know the history, and I just think this is an easy way to end a stupid battle that they will obviously not give up on. It honestly isn’t worth our time.

    • Anonymous

      I think the best solution would be to take all current legal marriages and re-define them as civil unions as well. Let religions keep their monopoly on marriage and define it however they like. As long as everyone gets completely equal rights in the eyes of the government, it shouldn’t matter what the name we give it is. I sure as hell wouldn’t want a “marriage” in the future anyways, as it implies that I am the husband and therefore leader of the family, with my submissive wife, when “civil union” really seems to make sense, since we would both be equals.

      /long answer on unasked question. Sorry.

      EDIT: I understand that currently legal marriage has more benefits than civil unions, but what I meant was that civil unions be the new term for what is currently called a legal marriage. All the rights, and less complaining from the religious right.

      As for religion not having a monopoly on marriage, why should we care if they use that particular word? People coupling together for life will go on no matter what it is called. I know the history, and I just think this is an easy way to end a stupid battle that they will obviously not give up on. It honestly isn’t worth our time.

    • Anonymous

      I think the best solution would be to take all current legal marriages and re-define them as civil unions as well. Let religions keep their monopoly on marriage and define it however they like. As long as everyone gets completely equal rights in the eyes of the government, it shouldn’t matter what the name we give it is. I sure as hell wouldn’t want a “marriage” in the future anyways, as it implies that I am the husband and therefore leader of the family, with my submissive wife, when “civil union” really seems to make sense, since we would both be equals.

      /long answer on unasked question. Sorry.

      EDIT: I understand that currently legal marriage has more benefits than civil unions, but what I meant was that civil unions be the new term for what is currently called a legal marriage. All the rights, and less complaining from the religious right.

      As for religion not having a monopoly on marriage, why should we care if they use that particular word? People coupling together for life will go on no matter what it is called. I know the history, and I just think this is an easy way to end a stupid battle that they will obviously not give up on. It honestly isn’t worth our time.

    • Anonymous

      Yes, it is, but it’s a step in the right direction. I used to believe that civil unions were unacceptable, since they create a “separate but equal” (which never is) institution. I still think it’s inferior because of this. However it does serve two purposes:
      1. It allows the granting of many practical, needed rights to gay and lesbian couples. Civil unions have a higher approval rating than same sex marriages, since the word “marriage” is a religious trigger for some people who may not inherently wish harm to GLBT folks but who still haven’t yet fully gotten past religious bigotry.

      2. It allows people with residual fears about same-sex marriage to see that the sky does not fall when gays and lesbians are granted civil rights. By allowing for people to live lives as couples and families that are officially recognized, it legitimizes them in society. This can shift attitudes away from homophobia and thereby make easier the march of public opinion in favor of full equality.

      • Anonymous

        And in states that don’t have a chance to pass marriage equality, CUs are still better than nothing. They don’t really work in the US in practice, but at least it offers some legal protections that wouldn’t be there otherwise. Then a few years later, they can usually be upgraded to marriage.

        It’s more infuriating in cases like Rhode Island which would have the votes if it weren’t for the meddling of the Catholic Church. So it was a compromise that really pleased no one there.

      • Anonymous

        And in states that don’t have a chance to pass marriage equality, CUs are still better than nothing. They don’t really work in the US in practice, but at least it offers some legal protections that wouldn’t be there otherwise. Then a few years later, they can usually be upgraded to marriage.

        It’s more infuriating in cases like Rhode Island which would have the votes if it weren’t for the meddling of the Catholic Church. So it was a compromise that really pleased no one there.

      • Anonymous

        And in states that don’t have a chance to pass marriage equality, CUs are still better than nothing. They don’t really work in the US in practice, but at least it offers some legal protections that wouldn’t be there otherwise. Then a few years later, they can usually be upgraded to marriage.

        It’s more infuriating in cases like Rhode Island which would have the votes if it weren’t for the meddling of the Catholic Church. So it was a compromise that really pleased no one there.

    • Anonymous

      Yes, it is, but it’s a step in the right direction. I used to believe that civil unions were unacceptable, since they create a “separate but equal” (which never is) institution. I still think it’s inferior because of this. However it does serve two purposes:
      1. It allows the granting of many practical, needed rights to gay and lesbian couples. Civil unions have a higher approval rating than same sex marriages, since the word “marriage” is a religious trigger for some people who may not inherently wish harm to GLBT folks but who still haven’t yet fully gotten past religious bigotry.

      2. It allows people with residual fears about same-sex marriage to see that the sky does not fall when gays and lesbians are granted civil rights. By allowing for people to live lives as couples and families that are officially recognized, it legitimizes them in society. This can shift attitudes away from homophobia and thereby make easier the march of public opinion in favor of full equality.

    • Anonymous

      Yes, it is, but it’s a step in the right direction. I used to believe that civil unions were unacceptable, since they create a “separate but equal” (which never is) institution. I still think it’s inferior because of this. However it does serve two purposes:
      1. It allows the granting of many practical, needed rights to gay and lesbian couples. Civil unions have a higher approval rating than same sex marriages, since the word “marriage” is a religious trigger for some people who may not inherently wish harm to GLBT folks but who still haven’t yet fully gotten past religious bigotry.

      2. It allows people with residual fears about same-sex marriage to see that the sky does not fall when gays and lesbians are granted civil rights. By allowing for people to live lives as couples and families that are officially recognized, it legitimizes them in society. This can shift attitudes away from homophobia and thereby make easier the march of public opinion in favor of full equality.

  • http://www.facebook.com/AnonymousBoy Larry Meredith

    hate to be that “glass half empty” kind of guy but having civil unions instead of gay marriage is still discrimination.

  • http://www.facebook.com/AnonymousBoy Larry Meredith

    hate to be that “glass half empty” kind of guy but having civil unions instead of gay marriage is still discrimination.

  • http://www.facebook.com/AnonymousBoy Larry Meredith

    hate to be that “glass half empty” kind of guy but having civil unions instead of gay marriage is still discrimination.

  • http://www.facebook.com/AnonymousBoy Larry Meredith

    hate to be that “glass half empty” kind of guy but having civil unions instead of gay marriage is still discrimination.

  • bigjohn756

    $30,000,000! Gosh, the Pope might have to sell one of his fancy hats to cover that.

  • bigjohn756

    $30,000,000! Gosh, the Pope might have to sell one of his fancy hats to cover that.

  • bigjohn756

    $30,000,000! Gosh, the Pope might have to sell one of his fancy hats to cover that.

  • bigjohn756

    $30,000,000! Gosh, the Pope might have to sell one of his fancy hats to cover that.

  • bigjohn756

    $30,000,000! Gosh, the Pope might have to sell one of his fancy hats to cover that.

  • Anonymous

    This is encouraging :)  and starkly illuminating of the priorities of these particular Christian groups.

  • Anonymous

    This is encouraging :)  and starkly illuminating of the priorities of these particular Christian groups.

  • Anonymous

    This is encouraging :)  and starkly illuminating of the priorities of these particular Christian groups.

  • Anonymous

    This is encouraging :)  and starkly illuminating of the priorities of these particular Christian groups.

  • Anonymous

    This is encouraging :)  and starkly illuminating of the priorities of these particular Christian groups.

  • http://twitter.com/unwyn Alexander Cherry

    “had to give up”? You’re too kind.

  • http://twitter.com/unwyn Alexander Cherry

    “had to give up”? You’re too kind.

  • http://twitter.com/unwyn Alexander Cherry

    “had to give up”? You’re too kind.

  • http://twitter.com/unwyn Alexander Cherry

    “had to give up”? You’re too kind.

  • http://twitter.com/unwyn Alexander Cherry

    “had to give up”? You’re too kind.

  • http://twitter.com/unwyn Alexander Cherry

    “had to give up”? You’re too kind.

  • Anonymous

    Do I get the feeling that, while America is ridding itself of religious fundamentalism, the UK is providing a safe haven for cranks! This story is quite the opposite of what is happening over in the UK (I’m Blitish, but I’m in Africa at the moment.), recently Chatholic charities have been awarded government contracts to run adoption agencies, we now have a creationist museum (That made me cry.) in Portsmouth, and we have religious groups claiming exemption under the ‘Equalities Act’ and at the same time claiming religious persecution.

    We used to laugh at the religious lunacy in America, but it looks like the last laugh is anywhere but in blighty (Google it.).

    Happy Lasagne day everyone, and may the blessings of his noodleyness be upon you.

    • Anonymous

      This has been a baffling trend to me lately. The religious quackery in the US has generally been social. Religious conservatives always try to find ways to skirt our establishment clause, of course (Faith Based Initiatives, for example), but the craziest things going on this country due to superstition tend to be outside the sphere government.

      But in the UK, which has a much higher proportion of admitted atheists, you still have a state church, you have religious courts for some communities, and you’ve got those damned state-sponsored schools. Christians and Muslims who want to teach their kids the world is 6,000 yrs old in the US have to pay out of their own pocket or teach them at home. Movements to get around this by providing parents vouchers for the cost to the state and district of a public education so that they can apply it to a private school (they are clever) have generally failed. 

      I guess you have things to angry about and things to be grateful for in most free societies.

    • Anonymous

      This has been a baffling trend to me lately. The religious quackery in the US has generally been social. Religious conservatives always try to find ways to skirt our establishment clause, of course (Faith Based Initiatives, for example), but the craziest things going on this country due to superstition tend to be outside the sphere government.

      But in the UK, which has a much higher proportion of admitted atheists, you still have a state church, you have religious courts for some communities, and you’ve got those damned state-sponsored schools. Christians and Muslims who want to teach their kids the world is 6,000 yrs old in the US have to pay out of their own pocket or teach them at home. Movements to get around this by providing parents vouchers for the cost to the state and district of a public education so that they can apply it to a private school (they are clever) have generally failed. 

      I guess you have things to angry about and things to be grateful for in most free societies.

    • Anonymous

      This has been a baffling trend to me lately. The religious quackery in the US has generally been social. Religious conservatives always try to find ways to skirt our establishment clause, of course (Faith Based Initiatives, for example), but the craziest things going on this country due to superstition tend to be outside the sphere government.

      But in the UK, which has a much higher proportion of admitted atheists, you still have a state church, you have religious courts for some communities, and you’ve got those damned state-sponsored schools. Christians and Muslims who want to teach their kids the world is 6,000 yrs old in the US have to pay out of their own pocket or teach them at home. Movements to get around this by providing parents vouchers for the cost to the state and district of a public education so that they can apply it to a private school (they are clever) have generally failed. 

      I guess you have things to angry about and things to be grateful for in most free societies.

    • Anonymous

      This has been a baffling trend to me lately. The religious quackery in the US has generally been social. Religious conservatives always try to find ways to skirt our establishment clause, of course (Faith Based Initiatives, for example), but the craziest things going on this country due to superstition tend to be outside the sphere government.

      But in the UK, which has a much higher proportion of admitted atheists, you still have a state church, you have religious courts for some communities, and you’ve got those damned state-sponsored schools. Christians and Muslims who want to teach their kids the world is 6,000 yrs old in the US have to pay out of their own pocket or teach them at home. Movements to get around this by providing parents vouchers for the cost to the state and district of a public education so that they can apply it to a private school (they are clever) have generally failed. 

      I guess you have things to angry about and things to be grateful for in most free societies.

    • Anonymous

      I live not far from Portsmouth and the creationist museum is currently closed while they build an extension.  I’ve been in it and the place is tiny.

      You’re right though.  We don’t have anything to stop this kind of crap.  We have no protected separation of church and state and a gutless bunch in Parliament (so no change there) who won’t risk upsetting anyone for fear of losing votes.

      On a positive note we do have the Equalities Act.  It does protect those delicate little Christians from persecution just as it protects gay people and all kinds of other minority groups.  Shame about the exemptions though.

    • Anonymous

      I live not far from Portsmouth and the creationist museum is currently closed while they build an extension.  I’ve been in it and the place is tiny.

      You’re right though.  We don’t have anything to stop this kind of crap.  We have no protected separation of church and state and a gutless bunch in Parliament (so no change there) who won’t risk upsetting anyone for fear of losing votes.

      On a positive note we do have the Equalities Act.  It does protect those delicate little Christians from persecution just as it protects gay people and all kinds of other minority groups.  Shame about the exemptions though.

    • Anonymous

      I live not far from Portsmouth and the creationist museum is currently closed while they build an extension.  I’ve been in it and the place is tiny.

      You’re right though.  We don’t have anything to stop this kind of crap.  We have no protected separation of church and state and a gutless bunch in Parliament (so no change there) who won’t risk upsetting anyone for fear of losing votes.

      On a positive note we do have the Equalities Act.  It does protect those delicate little Christians from persecution just as it protects gay people and all kinds of other minority groups.  Shame about the exemptions though.

    • Anonymous

      I live not far from Portsmouth and the creationist museum is currently closed while they build an extension.  I’ve been in it and the place is tiny.

      You’re right though.  We don’t have anything to stop this kind of crap.  We have no protected separation of church and state and a gutless bunch in Parliament (so no change there) who won’t risk upsetting anyone for fear of losing votes.

      On a positive note we do have the Equalities Act.  It does protect those delicate little Christians from persecution just as it protects gay people and all kinds of other minority groups.  Shame about the exemptions though.

  • Anonymous

    Do I get the feeling that, while America is ridding itself of religious fundamentalism, the UK is providing a safe haven for cranks! This story is quite the opposite of what is happening over in the UK (I’m Blitish, but I’m in Africa at the moment.), recently Chatholic charities have been awarded government contracts to run adoption agencies, we now have a creationist museum (That made me cry.) in Portsmouth, and we have religious groups claiming exemption under the ‘Equalities Act’ and at the same time claiming religious persecution.

    We used to laugh at the religious lunacy in America, but it looks like the last laugh is anywhere but in blighty (Google it.).

    Happy Lasagne day everyone, and may the blessings of his noodleyness be upon you.

  • Anonymous

    Do I get the feeling that, while America is ridding itself of religious fundamentalism, the UK is providing a safe haven for cranks! This story is quite the opposite of what is happening over in the UK (I’m Blitish, but I’m in Africa at the moment.), recently Chatholic charities have been awarded government contracts to run adoption agencies, we now have a creationist museum (That made me cry.) in Portsmouth, and we have religious groups claiming exemption under the ‘Equalities Act’ and at the same time claiming religious persecution.

    We used to laugh at the religious lunacy in America, but it looks like the last laugh is anywhere but in blighty (Google it.).

    Happy Lasagne day everyone, and may the blessings of his noodleyness be upon you.

  • Anonymous

    Do I get the feeling that, while America is ridding itself of religious fundamentalism, the UK is providing a safe haven for cranks! This story is quite the opposite of what is happening over in the UK (I’m Blitish, but I’m in Africa at the moment.), recently Chatholic charities have been awarded government contracts to run adoption agencies, we now have a creationist museum (That made me cry.) in Portsmouth, and we have religious groups claiming exemption under the ‘Equalities Act’ and at the same time claiming religious persecution.

    We used to laugh at the religious lunacy in America, but it looks like the last laugh is anywhere but in blighty (Google it.).

    Happy Lasagne day everyone, and may the blessings of his noodleyness be upon you.

  • Anonymous

    Do I get the feeling that, while America is ridding itself of religious fundamentalism, the UK is providing a safe haven for cranks! This story is quite the opposite of what is happening over in the UK (I’m Blitish, but I’m in Africa at the moment.), recently Chatholic charities have been awarded government contracts to run adoption agencies, we now have a creationist museum (That made me cry.) in Portsmouth, and we have religious groups claiming exemption under the ‘Equalities Act’ and at the same time claiming religious persecution.

    We used to laugh at the religious lunacy in America, but it looks like the last laugh is anywhere but in blighty (Google it.).

    Happy Lasagne day everyone, and may the blessings of his noodleyness be upon you.

  • Anonymous

    Do I get the feeling that, while America is ridding itself of religious fundamentalism, the UK is providing a safe haven for cranks! This story is quite the opposite of what is happening over in the UK (I’m Blitish, but I’m in Africa at the moment.), recently Chatholic charities have been awarded government contracts to run adoption agencies, we now have a creationist museum (That made me cry.) in Portsmouth, and we have religious groups claiming exemption under the ‘Equalities Act’ and at the same time claiming religious persecution.

    We used to laugh at the religious lunacy in America, but it looks like the last laugh is anywhere but in blighty (Google it.).

    Happy Lasagne day everyone, and may the blessings of his noodleyness be upon you.

  • Anonymous

    Do I get the feeling that, while America is ridding itself of religious fundamentalism, the UK is providing a safe haven for cranks! This story is quite the opposite of what is happening over in the UK (I’m Blitish, but I’m in Africa at the moment.), recently Chatholic charities have been awarded government contracts to run adoption agencies, we now have a creationist museum (That made me cry.) in Portsmouth, and we have religious groups claiming exemption under the ‘Equalities Act’ and at the same time claiming religious persecution.

    We used to laugh at the religious lunacy in America, but it looks like the last laugh is anywhere but in blighty (Google it.).

    Happy Lasagne day everyone, and may the blessings of his noodleyness be upon you.

  • Allison

    I’m really glad to see Governor Quinn standing up for the rights of people in his state. Bravo! I also don’t see what the problem would be if the state simply refused to renew their contracts with the Catholic Charities in question. It’s a contract, it comes to an end, the state is not required to renew it.

  • Allison

    I’m really glad to see Governor Quinn standing up for the rights of people in his state. Bravo! I also don’t see what the problem would be if the state simply refused to renew their contracts with the Catholic Charities in question. It’s a contract, it comes to an end, the state is not required to renew it.

  • Allison

    I’m really glad to see Governor Quinn standing up for the rights of people in his state. Bravo! I also don’t see what the problem would be if the state simply refused to renew their contracts with the Catholic Charities in question. It’s a contract, it comes to an end, the state is not required to renew it.

  • Allison

    I’m really glad to see Governor Quinn standing up for the rights of people in his state. Bravo! I also don’t see what the problem would be if the state simply refused to renew their contracts with the Catholic Charities in question. It’s a contract, it comes to an end, the state is not required to renew it.

  • Allison

    I’m really glad to see Governor Quinn standing up for the rights of people in his state. Bravo! I also don’t see what the problem would be if the state simply refused to renew their contracts with the Catholic Charities in question. It’s a contract, it comes to an end, the state is not required to renew it.

  • Allison

    I’m really glad to see Governor Quinn standing up for the rights of people in his state. Bravo! I also don’t see what the problem would be if the state simply refused to renew their contracts with the Catholic Charities in question. It’s a contract, it comes to an end, the state is not required to renew it.

  • Allison

    I’m really glad to see Governor Quinn standing up for the rights of people in his state. Bravo! I also don’t see what the problem would be if the state simply refused to renew their contracts with the Catholic Charities in question. It’s a contract, it comes to an end, the state is not required to renew it.

  • Allison

    I’m really glad to see Governor Quinn standing up for the rights of people in his state. Bravo! I also don’t see what the problem would be if the state simply refused to renew their contracts with the Catholic Charities in question. It’s a contract, it comes to an end, the state is not required to renew it.

  • Allison

    I’m really glad to see Governor Quinn standing up for the rights of people in his state. Bravo! I also don’t see what the problem would be if the state simply refused to renew their contracts with the Catholic Charities in question. It’s a contract, it comes to an end, the state is not required to renew it.

  • Allison

    I’m really glad to see Governor Quinn standing up for the rights of people in his state. Bravo! I also don’t see what the problem would be if the state simply refused to renew their contracts with the Catholic Charities in question. It’s a contract, it comes to an end, the state is not required to renew it.

  • Allison

    I’m really glad to see Governor Quinn standing up for the rights of people in his state. Bravo! I also don’t see what the problem would be if the state simply refused to renew their contracts with the Catholic Charities in question. It’s a contract, it comes to an end, the state is not required to renew it.

  • Allison

    I’m really glad to see Governor Quinn standing up for the rights of people in his state. Bravo! I also don’t see what the problem would be if the state simply refused to renew their contracts with the Catholic Charities in question. It’s a contract, it comes to an end, the state is not required to renew it.

  • Allison

    I’m really glad to see Governor Quinn standing up for the rights of people in his state. Bravo! I also don’t see what the problem would be if the state simply refused to renew their contracts with the Catholic Charities in question. It’s a contract, it comes to an end, the state is not required to renew it.

  • Allison

    I’m really glad to see Governor Quinn standing up for the rights of people in his state. Bravo! I also don’t see what the problem would be if the state simply refused to renew their contracts with the Catholic Charities in question. It’s a contract, it comes to an end, the state is not required to renew it.

  • Allison

    I’m really glad to see Governor Quinn standing up for the rights of people in his state. Bravo! I also don’t see what the problem would be if the state simply refused to renew their contracts with the Catholic Charities in question. It’s a contract, it comes to an end, the state is not required to renew it.

  • Allison

    I’m really glad to see Governor Quinn standing up for the rights of people in his state. Bravo! I also don’t see what the problem would be if the state simply refused to renew their contracts with the Catholic Charities in question. It’s a contract, it comes to an end, the state is not required to renew it.

  • downtown dave

    It’s good to know that the rights of these poor children are not in the forefront here.  They’ll probably be relocated right?  They may be in group homes a while longer right?  But that’s not what’s important, is it?  You can really feel the love.  http://atheistlegitimacy.blogspot.com/

  • downtown dave

    It’s good to know that the rights of these poor children are not in the forefront here.  They’ll probably be relocated right?  They may be in group homes a while longer right?  But that’s not what’s important, is it?  You can really feel the love.  http://atheistlegitimacy.blogspot.com/

    • Anonymous

      It was the Catholic organizations that decided that because they wanted to discriminate, that they were the ones choosing, in effect, to shut down. You’re right. Where is the love?

    • ACN

      Aww dave the blogwhore is back!

    • Anonymous

      “(Thankfully, the secular, non-discriminatory Youth Service Bureau of Illinois Valley took in the kids that the defunct Catholic agencies had to give up.)”
      I know it’s easier to make assumptions, but then you have to deal with people like me.

    • Anonymous

      The contract with the state is for the delivery of services – presumably the state will contract with new providers who are willing to provide those services in compliance with the law.

      Hemant notes  that  the Youth Services Bureau of Illinois valley has stepped in to take over the provision of services where the Catholic diocese have left of their own accord. I think we can safely assume that this group or a similar group will pick up these contracts as well and the children will be well served, as will prospective parents – regardless of their orientation.

    • http://anthrosarah.blogspot.com Sarah T.

      By refusing to consider adopting or fostering kids with
      non-”traditional” families, the children are guaranteed to be in group
      homes for longer than if Illinois decides to give the contract to a
      provider who is non-discriminatory in its adoption practices.

      Common sense, simple common sense.

    • http://anthrosarah.blogspot.com Sarah T.

      By refusing to consider adopting or fostering kids with
      non-”traditional” families, the children are guaranteed to be in group
      homes for longer than if Illinois decides to give the contract to a
      provider who is non-discriminatory in its adoption practices.

      Common sense, simple common sense.

    • TiltedHorizon

      If you cared about the children you would demand the Catholic adoptions agents do their jobs. Instead you are here peddling links to your worthless blog.

    • TiltedHorizon

      If you cared about the children you would demand the Catholic adoptions agents do their jobs. Instead you are here peddling links to your worthless blog.

    • TiltedHorizon

      If you cared about the children you would demand the Catholic adoptions agents do their jobs. Instead you are here peddling links to your worthless blog.

    • TiltedHorizon

      If you cared about the children you would demand the Catholic adoptions agents do their jobs. Instead you are here peddling links to your worthless blog.

    • TiltedHorizon

      If you cared about the children you would demand the Catholic adoptions agents do their jobs. Instead you are here peddling links to your worthless blog.

    • TiltedHorizon

      If you cared about the children you would demand the Catholic adoptions agents do their jobs. Instead you are here peddling links to your worthless blog.

    • Kamaka

      It’s good to know that the rights of these poor children are not in the forefront here.

      Yah, right, blogwhore. The RCC is so concerned about the children in it’s care.

      Go to Newegg and buy yourself an irony meter.

      You could use one, Mr. “Missionary to the Atheists”.

    • Kamaka

      It’s good to know that the rights of these poor children are not in the forefront here.

      Yah, right, blogwhore. The RCC is so concerned about the children in it’s care.

      Go to Newegg and buy yourself an irony meter.

      You could use one, Mr. “Missionary to the Atheists”.

    • Kamaka

      It’s good to know that the rights of these poor children are not in the forefront here.

      Yah, right, blogwhore. The RCC is so concerned about the children in it’s care.

      Go to Newegg and buy yourself an irony meter.

      You could use one, Mr. “Missionary to the Atheists”.

    • Kamaka

      It’s good to know that the rights of these poor children are not in the forefront here.

      Yah, right, blogwhore. The RCC is so concerned about the children in it’s care.

      Go to Newegg and buy yourself an irony meter.

      You could use one, Mr. “Missionary to the Atheists”.

    • Kamaka

      It’s good to know that the rights of these poor children are not in the forefront here.

      Yah, right, blogwhore. The RCC is so concerned about the children in it’s care.

      Go to Newegg and buy yourself an irony meter.

      You could use one, Mr. “Missionary to the Atheists”.

    • Kamaka

      It’s good to know that the rights of these poor children are not in the forefront here.

      Yah, right, blogwhore. The RCC is so concerned about the children in it’s care.

      Go to Newegg and buy yourself an irony meter.

      You could use one, Mr. “Missionary to the Atheists”.

    • Kamaka

      It’s good to know that the rights of these poor children are not in the forefront here.

      Yah, right, blogwhore. The RCC is so concerned about the children in it’s care.

      Go to Newegg and buy yourself an irony meter.

      You could use one, Mr. “Missionary to the Atheists”.

    • Kamaka

      It’s good to know that the rights of these poor children are not in the forefront here.

      Yah, right, blogwhore. The RCC is so concerned about the children in it’s care.

      Go to Newegg and buy yourself an irony meter.

      You could use one, Mr. “Missionary to the Atheists”.

    • Kamaka

      It’s good to know that the rights of these poor children are not in the forefront here.

      Yah, right, blogwhore. The RCC is so concerned about the children in it’s care.

      Go to Newegg and buy yourself an irony meter.

      You could use one, Mr. “Missionary to the Atheists”.

  • downtown dave

    It’s good to know that the rights of these poor children are not in the forefront here.  They’ll probably be relocated right?  They may be in group homes a while longer right?  But that’s not what’s important, is it?  You can really feel the love.  http://atheistlegitimacy.blogspot.com/

  • downtown dave

    It’s good to know that the rights of these poor children are not in the forefront here.  They’ll probably be relocated right?  They may be in group homes a while longer right?  But that’s not what’s important, is it?  You can really feel the love.  http://atheistlegitimacy.blogspot.com/

  • downtown dave

    It’s good to know that the rights of these poor children are not in the forefront here.  They’ll probably be relocated right?  They may be in group homes a while longer right?  But that’s not what’s important, is it?  You can really feel the love.  http://atheistlegitimacy.blogspot.com/

  • downtown dave

    It’s good to know that the rights of these poor children are not in the forefront here.  They’ll probably be relocated right?  They may be in group homes a while longer right?  But that’s not what’s important, is it?  You can really feel the love.  http://atheistlegitimacy.blogspot.com/

  • downtown dave

    It’s good to know that the rights of these poor children are not in the forefront here.  They’ll probably be relocated right?  They may be in group homes a while longer right?  But that’s not what’s important, is it?  You can really feel the love.  http://atheistlegitimacy.blogspot.com/

  • downtown dave

    It’s good to know that the rights of these poor children are not in the forefront here.  They’ll probably be relocated right?  They may be in group homes a while longer right?  But that’s not what’s important, is it?  You can really feel the love.  http://atheistlegitimacy.blogspot.com/

  • downtown dave

    It’s good to know that the rights of these poor children are not in the forefront here.  They’ll probably be relocated right?  They may be in group homes a while longer right?  But that’s not what’s important, is it?  You can really feel the love.  http://atheistlegitimacy.blogspot.com/

  • downtown dave

    It’s good to know that the rights of these poor children are not in the forefront here.  They’ll probably be relocated right?  They may be in group homes a while longer right?  But that’s not what’s important, is it?  You can really feel the love.  http://atheistlegitimacy.blogspot.com/

  • downtown dave

    It’s good to know that the rights of these poor children are not in the forefront here.  They’ll probably be relocated right?  They may be in group homes a while longer right?  But that’s not what’s important, is it?  You can really feel the love.  http://atheistlegitimacy.blogspot.com/

  • Greg

    Hemant, I don’t know if I’m the only one, but I can’t see the .gif file in the post – indeed, if I click on it, I get a ‘forbidden’ response from the server. I’m guessing it might be one of those settling in things as you move to the new site. ;)

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Hemant Mehta

      Hmm… it works for me.  Anyone else having trouble seeing it?

      • Greg

        I use Google Chrome if that helps. And I’m in the UK, if for some reason it is something to do with regions of the world.

        • http://www.facebook.com/ric.e.larsson Richard Larsson

          I’m using Chrome and I can see the picture. I live in Northern Sweden.

        • http://www.facebook.com/ric.e.larsson Richard Larsson

          I’m using Chrome and I can see the picture. I live in Northern Sweden.

        • http://www.facebook.com/ric.e.larsson Richard Larsson

          I’m using Chrome and I can see the picture. I live in Northern Sweden.

      • Anonymous

        Works for me, Firefox in Spain.

      • Anonymous

        Works for me, Firefox in Spain.

      • Anonymous

        Works for me, Firefox in Spain.

      • Becky

        I can’t see it either – using Chrome in the UK

      • Becky

        I can’t see it either – using Chrome in the UK

      • Becky

        I can’t see it either – using Chrome in the UK

      • Becky

        I can’t see it either – using Chrome in the UK

      • http://www.facebook.com/ric.e.larsson Richard Larsson

        On another note,
        I was going to check if someone had figured out was the problem was (I know, I am geeky). So I entered the Illinois Won’t Renew (…)-thread. 

        But it’s really wrong now. I must scroll below the newer “NBC (…)” blog entry before I actually get to the commenting.

        This means I’m not sure what post I’m actually commenting on right now?

      • http://www.facebook.com/ric.e.larsson Richard Larsson

        On another note,
        I was going to check if someone had figured out was the problem was (I know, I am geeky). So I entered the Illinois Won’t Renew (…)-thread. 

        But it’s really wrong now. I must scroll below the newer “NBC (…)” blog entry before I actually get to the commenting.

        This means I’m not sure what post I’m actually commenting on right now?

      • http://www.facebook.com/ric.e.larsson Richard Larsson

        On another note,
        I was going to check if someone had figured out was the problem was (I know, I am geeky). So I entered the Illinois Won’t Renew (…)-thread. 

        But it’s really wrong now. I must scroll below the newer “NBC (…)” blog entry before I actually get to the commenting.

        This means I’m not sure what post I’m actually commenting on right now?

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Hemant Mehta

      Hmm… it works for me.  Anyone else having trouble seeing it?

    • OverlappingMagisteria

      Are you reading this site from work, school, or another location that may have an internet filter of some kind? The image is hosted on blogs.trb.com, not patheos, which might be blocked by your employer/school for one reason or another. I had a similar problem at the old site; it seems that the commenting service was being blocked by my employer. I could read Hemant’s site, but my comments would disappear.

    • OverlappingMagisteria

      Are you reading this site from work, school, or another location that may have an internet filter of some kind? The image is hosted on blogs.trb.com, not patheos, which might be blocked by your employer/school for one reason or another. I had a similar problem at the old site; it seems that the commenting service was being blocked by my employer. I could read Hemant’s site, but my comments would disappear.

      • Greg

        Nope – reading it from home, no filters on. Looks like it might be something to do with the UK judging by Becky’s comment below.

      • Greg

        Nope – reading it from home, no filters on. Looks like it might be something to do with the UK judging by Becky’s comment below.

      • Greg

        Nope – reading it from home, no filters on. Looks like it might be something to do with the UK judging by Becky’s comment below.

      • Greg

        Nope – reading it from home, no filters on. Looks like it might be something to do with the UK judging by Becky’s comment below.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=750428174 Paddy Reddin

      Using Chrome in the US and displaying fine.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=750428174 Paddy Reddin

      Using Chrome in the US and displaying fine.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=750428174 Paddy Reddin

      Using Chrome in the US and displaying fine.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=750428174 Paddy Reddin

      Using Chrome in the US and displaying fine.

    • Jake

      Android browser, U.S. Works fine.

    • Zack

      firefox US working fine

    • Trace

      Safari in Spain, no problem

    • Trace

      Safari in Spain, no problem

      • Anonymous

        Otra en España? Que guay! :-)

      • Anonymous

        Otra en España? Que guay! :-)

        • Trace

          De vacaciones. Vivo en un pueblo de Nueva York y cuando puedo me escapo unas semanitas.

        • Trace

          De vacaciones. Vivo en un pueblo de Nueva York y cuando puedo me escapo unas semanitas.

        • Trace

          De vacaciones. Vivo en un pueblo de Nueva York y cuando puedo me escapo unas semanitas.

        • Trace

          De vacaciones. Vivo en un pueblo de Nueva York y cuando puedo me escapo unas semanitas.

        • Trace

          De vacaciones. Vivo en un pueblo de Nueva York y cuando puedo me escapo unas semanitas.

        • Trace

          De vacaciones. Vivo en un pueblo de Nueva York y cuando puedo me escapo unas semanitas.

        • Trace

          De vacaciones. Vivo en un pueblo de Nueva York y cuando puedo me escapo unas semanitas.

        • Trace

          De vacaciones. Vivo en un pueblo de Nueva York y cuando puedo me escapo unas semanitas.

        • Trace

          De vacaciones. Vivo en un pueblo de Nueva York y cuando puedo me escapo unas semanitas.

        • Trace

          De vacaciones. Vivo en un pueblo de Nueva York y cuando puedo me escapo unas semanitas.

        • Trace

          De vacaciones. Vivo en un pueblo de Nueva York y cuando puedo me escapo unas semanitas.

    • Trace

      Safari in Spain, no problem

    • Shoebutton

      Firefox in Canada Everything is fine

    • Shoebutton

      Firefox in Canada Everything is fine

    • Shoebutton

      Firefox in Canada Everything is fine

    • Shoebutton

      Firefox in Canada Everything is fine

  • Anonymous

    I went to (Catholic) high school with Gov. Quinn’s son.  I’m glad to see that despite his personal religious beliefs, he’s able to come out against discrimination when it happens, even if it’s his fellow Catholics at fault.  Good for him.

  • Anonymous

    I went to (Catholic) high school with Gov. Quinn’s son.  I’m glad to see that despite his personal religious beliefs, he’s able to come out against discrimination when it happens, even if it’s his fellow Catholics at fault.  Good for him.

  • http://disienai.tumblr.com/ Semipermeable

    I am glad to see this, it is a nice reminder that some people really do ‘get it’.

  • http://disienai.tumblr.com/ Semipermeable

    I am glad to see this, it is a nice reminder that some people really do ‘get it’.

  • http://disienai.tumblr.com/ Semipermeable

    I am glad to see this, it is a nice reminder that some people really do ‘get it’.

  • http://disienai.tumblr.com/ Semipermeable

    I am glad to see this, it is a nice reminder that some people really do ‘get it’.

  • Lurker111

    Glad there’s at least one state in the union with the stones to separate religion from government.  I’ll also say that the political cartoon with Frankenstein’s monster has a secondary meaning:  in the original story, the monster accidentally drowns a child.

  • Lurker111

    Glad there’s at least one state in the union with the stones to separate religion from government.  I’ll also say that the political cartoon with Frankenstein’s monster has a secondary meaning:  in the original story, the monster accidentally drowns a child.

  • Lurker111

    Glad there’s at least one state in the union with the stones to separate religion from government.  I’ll also say that the political cartoon with Frankenstein’s monster has a secondary meaning:  in the original story, the monster accidentally drowns a child.

  • Trace

    $30.000.000?

    Umh…well, when God closes one door…oh wait.

    • http://aboutkitty.blogspot.com/ Cat’s Staff

      That’s what I was thinking too…if that’s for all 7 of the organizations, that’s about $12,000 a day for each of them.

    • http://aboutkitty.blogspot.com/ Cat’s Staff

      That’s what I was thinking too…if that’s for all 7 of the organizations, that’s about $12,000 a day for each of them.

    • http://aboutkitty.blogspot.com/ Cat’s Staff

      That’s what I was thinking too…if that’s for all 7 of the organizations, that’s about $12,000 a day for each of them.

    • http://aboutkitty.blogspot.com/ Cat’s Staff

      That’s what I was thinking too…if that’s for all 7 of the organizations, that’s about $12,000 a day for each of them.

    • http://aboutkitty.blogspot.com/ Cat’s Staff

      That’s what I was thinking too…if that’s for all 7 of the organizations, that’s about $12,000 a day for each of them.

    • http://aboutkitty.blogspot.com/ Cat’s Staff

      That’s what I was thinking too…if that’s for all 7 of the organizations, that’s about $12,000 a day for each of them.

  • Trace

    $30.000.000?

    Umh…well, when God closes one door…oh wait.

  • Trace

    $30.000.000?

    Umh…well, when God closes one door…oh wait.

  • Trace

    $30.000.000?

    Umh…well, when God closes one door…oh wait.

  • http://fred5.myopenid.com/ fred5

    I can’t help but wonder when the catholic church will start moaning and complaining about how “persecuted” they are because the state has decided to cut them out of the lucrative adoptions business because they were unwilling to treat everyone equally. Just wait it’ll happen. Catholics just love to play the victim card when it suits them to try and drum up the support.

  • http://fred5.myopenid.com/ fred5

    I can’t help but wonder when the catholic church will start moaning and complaining about how “persecuted” they are because the state has decided to cut them out of the lucrative adoptions business because they were unwilling to treat everyone equally. Just wait it’ll happen. Catholics just love to play the victim card when it suits them to try and drum up the support.

  • http://fred5.myopenid.com/ fred5

    I can’t help but wonder when the catholic church will start moaning and complaining about how “persecuted” they are because the state has decided to cut them out of the lucrative adoptions business because they were unwilling to treat everyone equally. Just wait it’ll happen. Catholics just love to play the victim card when it suits them to try and drum up the support.

  • The Pint

    It’s so refreshing to be from Illinois and be able to say the words, “I’m proud of my state’s governor.” Please take the time to email Gov. Quinn’s office to express support for his decision. He’s probably getting drowned in irate emails from people upset that he won’t allow state money to be used to buoy religious bigotry.

  • The Pint

    It’s so refreshing to be from Illinois and be able to say the words, “I’m proud of my state’s governor.” Please take the time to email Gov. Quinn’s office to express support for his decision. He’s probably getting drowned in irate emails from people upset that he won’t allow state money to be used to buoy religious bigotry.

  • The Pint

    It’s so refreshing to be from Illinois and be able to say the words, “I’m proud of my state’s governor.” Please take the time to email Gov. Quinn’s office to express support for his decision. He’s probably getting drowned in irate emails from people upset that he won’t allow state money to be used to buoy religious bigotry.

  • The Pint

    It’s so refreshing to be from Illinois and be able to say the words, “I’m proud of my state’s governor.” Please take the time to email Gov. Quinn’s office to express support for his decision. He’s probably getting drowned in irate emails from people upset that he won’t allow state money to be used to buoy religious bigotry.

  • The Pint

    It’s so refreshing to be from Illinois and be able to say the words, “I’m proud of my state’s governor.” Please take the time to email Gov. Quinn’s office to express support for his decision. He’s probably getting drowned in irate emails from people upset that he won’t allow state money to be used to buoy religious bigotry.

  • Charles Black

    Good riddance is all I can say.
    The sooner the Catholic Church falls into obscurity, the better off humanity will be.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X