Catholic Adoption Agencies Whine Because Illinois Isn’t Giving Them Tax Money to Discriminate

When it comes to church/state separation, the #1 rule is (usually) pretty simple: If you’re getting taxpayer money, you can’t discriminate against a group for their race/gender/orientation/etc. for any reason. If you’re paying for everything on your own, go do what you want. That’s overly simplified, I know, but it’s the gist of the law.

In Illinois, Catholic adoption agencies used to be given taxpayer money to run their businesses. In the process, they wouldn’t allow gay couples to adopt because it went against their faith. But now that civil unions are legal in the state, they’re no longer allowed to discriminate like that.

'Catholic Charities turned away Rick Wade, left, and Tim Kee of Marion, Ill., when the couple tried to adopt a child three years ago.' - Dan Gill, NYT

Instead of welcoming the new influx of prospective parents as any rational, loving person would’ve done, most of the Catholic Charities have closed shop. Apparently, they feel it’s better to let the kids remain without parents than to send them home with a loving gay couple.

And the Catholic groups are still complaining about it, as if they’re the victims:

“In the name of tolerance, we’re not being tolerated,” said Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield, Ill., a civil and canon lawyer who helped drive the church’s losing battle to retain its state contracts for foster care and adoption services.

But Anthony R. Picarello Jr., general counsel and associate general secretary of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, disagreed. “It’s true that the church doesn’t have a First Amendment right to have a government contract,” he said, “but it does have a First Amendment right not to be excluded from a contract based on its religious beliefs.”

Yeah! How dare we not tolerate bigotry!?

I don’t feel bad for any of them and neither should you. Let them whine all they want. No one’s asking them to do anything crazy. The state is simply telling them to treat gay couples like they treat straight ones. If they can’t handle that, the problem is entirely in their own minds and their faith itself.

As for the comment about being excluded because of their religious beliefs, it’s just not true. The state isn’t saying, “We’re not giving you these contracts because you’re Catholics.” They’re saying that no group can discriminate for any reason while getting funding to support their bigotry. The Catholics brought this problem onto themselves.

In Illinois, Catholic Charities in five of the six state dioceses had grown dependent on foster care contracts, receiving 60 percent to 92 percent of their revenues from the state, according to affidavits by the charities’ directors…

When the contracts came up for renewal in June, the state attorney general, along with the legal staff in the governor’s office and the Department of Children and Family Services, decided that the religious providers on state contracts would no longer be able to reject same-sex couples, said Kendall Marlowe, a spokesman for the department.

We’re all better off now that they’re leaving the adoption business in the state. In fact, you can help hasten the process by making sure other groups have the resources they need to take in the children abandoned by Catholic Charities. Let the discriminatory practices die away quickly.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • http://www.facebook.com/d3st88 Morva Ádám

    If you are catholic and gay you should have your head examined (even more so than the average theist).

    • Sware

      A former co-worker of mine is just that…Catholic, gay and I’ll add, republican.  He lives in Illinois to boot.  He posted such a ridiculous bizarre rant on Facebook about all of this when the law changed and they first began announcing they were shutting down that I’ve had a really hard time talking to him ever since.  I still can’t understand how all of these traits exist together within one person.  The phrase, “I’m my own worst enemy” never suited anyone better.

      • Anonymous

        //http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/wildcard_8/foxchicagosunday/fox-chicago-sunday-cardinal-francis-george-abortion-gay-pride-parade-christmas-message-memories-20111222//

        Your co-worker’s name wouldn’t happen to be Rod, would it?
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_%28Avenue_Q%29

  • Anonymous

    “but it does have a First Amendment right not to be excluded from a contract based on its religious beliefs.”

    I’m totally sure he’d feel the same way about a fundamentalist Muslim group getting a government contract and refusing as adoptive parents any non-fundamentalist Muslim, and of course refusing any infidel Catholics.

    Oh wait, I totally forgot. It’s only wrong to disallow their arbitrary dogmatic discriminatory rule. Government should certainly not subsidize the discrimination of others, particularly if the discrimination is directed at them.

    I would go on about how someone needs to remind these people that the 1st ammendment was also meant to protect the religious from discrimination from other religious people, but nah. I’ll bet the Catholic Church lawyers know that. they he actually want is the 1st ammendment to be strong and untouchable except when it’s inconvenient for the Catholic Church and their coffers.

  • Sue D. Nymme

    “In the name of tolerance, we’re not being tolerated,” said Bishop Poppycock

    I hate this condescending use of the word “tolerance”, as though a) tolerance is bad, and b) tolerance has anything to do with the restriction they’re facing.  A more accurate whine would be “In the name of the law, we’re not being allowed to break the law.”

  • Natasha Gow

    Too bad the Pope wont sell off a couple of artworks or books from the Vatican to help fund these poor Catholic people.

    As always, its the kids and the vulnerable that suffer. Hopefully other avenues open up soon to cope with the lack of Catholic services that did the job previously.

    • Anonymous

      The Catholic Church didn’t have a monopoly there. And the children were never under the legal authority of them anyways. They were always wards of the state. The state government merely outsourced the services. But there are other organizations to take over those cases. It’s not like the children will be kicked out onto the street

  • BertramCabot

    Catholics pay taxes.  Taxes that go to support abortions and wars they don’t believe in.

    Ergo, they have a right to their share of government money.

    • Anonymous

      Uhh sorry what? KKK members also pay taxes, should they then be given “their share” of government money while discriminating against African Americans and Jews? Your statement, if actually applied, basically invalidates the notion of nondiscrimination altogether, making the only standard for being allowed to discriminate using government funds that of paying taxes.

      Speaking of paying taxes, Catholic Charities doesn’t. Individual Catholics do, but they are not the story here. The story is about a certain organization, a non-profit, not being given government funds for refusing to follow laws concerning such affairs. As a non-profit, it doesn’t pay taxes, so even if your bizarre standard for getting a “share” of government money were real, they would still not be entitled to it.

    • Parse

      I pay taxes.  Taxes that go to support religious charities and abstinence education I don’t believe in.

      Ergo, I have a right to my share of government money.  

      Did I use your logic correctly?

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AAVCIEYO6BHRLVRUFTOHXHASFU Sean

      I’m an atheist, so my taxes shouldn’t go to support your weird religious beliefs.  Slippery slope, isn’t it?

    • Alt+3

      Abortions aren’t illegal. Discriminating against gays is.

    • http://twitter.com/Buffy2q Buffy2q

      Catholics already get their share of government money in that the church is tax-exempt. 

      • Nordog

        For the record, when a private citizen gives his or her privately owned money to a private organization, no government money is involved.  Leave it to a leftist to view all money as being government money.

    • Kaydenpat

      Everyone pays taxes and many probably disagree with how the government spends their money.  That doesn’t excuse the Catholic church taking tax money to discriminate against gays or any other group.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1615185942 Ray Whiting

    And, really, any agency that derives more than half of its income from taxpayer funds via state contracts is hard to call a “charity”.   It is a business operation, providing social services not religious services, and has to follow all the same non-discrimination rules that apply to every other agency contracting with the state.  

    • Anonymous

      Amen. I don’t see why the Catholic Church has any business running adoption agencies in the first place. They should stick to running churches. That goes for any other religion too

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=638289862 Kevin Jackson

    As an adoptee, I’d like to see the whole practice ended until the adoptee is not totally without rights. Open Adoption Records or end it and since most would rather not lose their options, it would be reformed and not ended.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1662432506 Jonas Green

      Access to original Birth Certificates is on a state by state basis. In Mass. an adoptee does have the right to his/her original birth certificate.

    • Donalbain

      And then what happens to the kids? Kept in short term foster families, moved from place to place every few months? Kept in an institution?

  • Charles Black

    As far as I’m concerned if you can’t keep stupid religious beliefs from doing your job good riddance. The less bigots there are the better off we are.

  • Anonymous

    They are welcomed to set up a private adoption agency that helps Catholic families find children using any weird rules they want.  To somehow think that they then deserve taxpayer funds to support their discriminatory efforts is the huge problem.  You go Illinois.  We need to stop bending rules for groups that discriminate in the name of religion.

    • Anonymous

      Actually I kind of disagree with this–for any other charitable work, I’d be fine with “okay, you run your privately-funded charity however you want,” but by definition adoption means making life-changing decisions for minors who do not have the mental, legal, or financial capacity to represent their own interests, so allowing even a small number of kids to get incorporated into a system where their placement and welfare is determined by anything other than the most rigorous, evidence-based, non-discriminatory standards is unethical, even if it’s not getting any government funds.  It’s not like those kids have a real choice about which adoption agency they can get involved with!

      • Anonymous

        I would think in the case of catholic charities, a parent or parents can give up their child through the catholic adoption agency. I would think foster children would still be in the custody of the state, which has rigorous, evidence-based, and non-discriminatory standards.

        • Anonymous

          Right–and the CHILD, whose life will be altered by this, has no say in what adoption agency they go to.  Often they are too young to possibly understand what’s going on.  Just because the parent or community wants them to be adopted in a certain way DOES NOT mean it’s in the child’s best interest.  What if the parent wants them to be adopted only to their particular religion?  What if the religion doesn’t have any objections to domestic violence?  What if there’s an extreme emphasis on corporal punishment in the community?  What if the households into which this charity places children refuse to allow certain educational opportunities to the children?  What if the child would simply have a better chance of happiness and future educational, social, and financial fulfillment if they had the chance to have their adoption managed by knowledgeable people who considered the full range of qualified potential loving parents?

      • Anonymous

        I absolutely agree that adoption agencies need to be held to a higher standard than other charities, but it’s my understanding that they are, at least in theory.

        You can’t just open up an office and declare yourself an adoption agency. Children who are up for fostering or adoption do not belong to agencies, they are wards of the state. Adoption agencies must be certified by the state before being allowed to handle adoption cases. I assume their are some basic standards attached to being certified that must include ensuring the environment of the child will not be abusive.

        Of course, private agencies can discriminate, which is awful. However it’s my understanding, from some limited reading on the subject, that these agencies are not simply given children with the option of letting them grow up without parents if “suitable” (according to the agency) parents are not found. A private agency can refuse to work with certain couples or individuals, but the potential adoptee is not limited to a single agency.

        Of course, in practice I’m sure results can vary quite a bit. There have been some pretty horrific stories about abuse in fundamentalist families who adopted using Christian agencies and then severely abused (and in one case killed) children. Even if theoretical standards are high, if there isn’t sufficient oversight there’s the risk that religious agencies will not do due diligence in studying potential adopters out of religious loyalty.

  • Anonymous

    WHO WAS THAT LOOKING IN THROUGH THE PANE AT THE TOP OF THE DOOR???????? :/  (I’ve apparently been hanging around /x/ too long…)

    • Sami Hawkins

      “What the hell is that guy talking about?”
      *goes to look at picture again and sees creepy face staring through the window at the top of their door*
      “RUN! RUN YOU FOOLS! RUN BEFORE THAT SERIAL KILLER GETS  YOU!”

    • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

      It is peculiar, but I don’t think it’s a face. You know how humans see faces in nearly everything. The door is ajar, so it’s probably not the exterior door.  The sign over the door says “Mickey Mouse,” and the door seems to be painted with an image of Nemo the clown fish and bubbles. That makes me think it might be the door to a child’s room.  If it is an interior door, it’s a little odd but not unheard of for it to have a window panel, but that is assuming the darker area is indeed a window. If it is a window, I think what appears to be a spooky face is a reflection of the white door that is in front of it.

      I’m more intrigued by the cross on the wall.

      • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

        The cross on the wall shouldn’t be surprising. The article says that both men are Catholic. There are plenty of gay and lesbian Catholics who are involved in their local parishes; many even send their children to parochial schools. Despite the fact that the Vatican will never budge, they remain committed to the church. It’s not so different from all the other liberal, pro-choice, pro-gay rights Catholics out there.

    • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

      It is peculiar, but I don’t think it’s a face. You know how humans see faces in nearly everything. The door is ajar, so it’s probably not the exterior door.  The sign over the door says “Mickey Mouse,” and the door seems to be painted with an image of Nemo the clown fish and bubbles. That makes me think it might be the door to a child’s room.  If it is an interior door, it’s a little odd but not unheard of for it to have a window panel, but that is assuming the darker area is indeed a window. If it is a window, I think what appears to be a spooky face is a reflection of the white door that is in front of it.

      I’m more intrigued by the cross on the wall.

    • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

      It is peculiar, but I don’t think it’s a face. You know how humans see faces in nearly everything. The door is ajar, so it’s probably not the exterior door.  The sign over the door says “Mickey Mouse,” and the door seems to be painted with an image of Nemo the clown fish and bubbles. That makes me think it might be the door to a child’s room.  If it is an interior door, it’s a little odd but not unheard of for it to have a window panel, but that is assuming the darker area is indeed a window. If it is a window, I think what appears to be a spooky face is a reflection of the white door that is in front of it.

      I’m more intrigued by the cross on the wall.

    • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

      It is peculiar, but I don’t think it’s a face. You know how humans see faces in nearly everything. The door is ajar, so it’s probably not the exterior door.  The sign over the door says “Mickey Mouse,” and the door seems to be painted with an image of Nemo the clown fish and bubbles. That makes me think it might be the door to a child’s room.  If it is an interior door, it’s a little odd but not unheard of for it to have a window panel, but that is assuming the darker area is indeed a window. If it is a window, I think what appears to be a spooky face is a reflection of the white door that is in front of it.

      I’m more intrigued by the cross on the wall.

  • EJC

    Without trying to boil everything down to a soundbite or bumper sticker…

    Tolerance of Intolerance ISN’T

    (and sorry, off topic, but I am a Syracuse University graduate and I am laughing at a bumper sticker I saw when visiting friends here this week it said “My Assistant Coach Just Molested Your Honors Student”

    Thought that was funny as hell!

    • Anonymous

      (Off-topic: Hahahano. A bumper sticker making fun of child molestation isn’t funny. It’s gross and weird.)

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ Anonymous
      • EJC

        Go pour a nice tall Gin and Tonic and lighten the fuck up.

        It is an ironic humor because it shows the horrid absurdity about how the small town hicks of Syracuse idolize the sport coaches, to the detriment of the victims. If anything, this bumper sticker uses a great humor to show the inverted logic of protecting these predators.

        And yes, I have every right to say this as I was a victim of sexual assault as a middle school kid, and frankly, if I don’t laugh it off, it festers. That is not healthy. 

  • http://twitter.com/postshaggy Life Post-Shaggy

    The more I think about it, the more I think the definition of “religious beliefs” that include “we don’t want to deal with THOSE types of people” is far too broad to be acceptable or protected.

    • Anonymous

      That’s what most major religions boil down to however

    • Anonymous

      Exactly–we don’t have to tolerate religious beliefs that do demonstrable harm to others, just as we shouldn’t tolerate ANY policies that do harm to others.

      Another obvious test as to why this isn’t “religious discrimination”–EVERYONE who refuses to offer these services would have their funding cut, whether or not they were perpetrating their unfair charity practices in the name of religion or not.

  • http://wordsideasandthings.blogspot.com/ Garren

    I want to know whether Catholic adoption agencies can still operate — without state funding — as a private legal service.

    • Anonymous

      In theory yes, but most religious “charities” couldn’t function without state funding. They are completely dependent on the government outsourcing services to them.

      • http://wordsideasandthings.blogspot.com/ Garren

        Thanks!

    • Nude0007

      yes they can, the catholic church has more money than they know what to do with. It could probably single handedly pay off the entire world’s deficits, but they’d rather use the government’s money and hoard their own.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1662432506 Jonas Green

    Catholic Charities pulled it’s operations out of Mass for the same reason, some time back. Mass of course, being the first to have same-sex marriage legalized.

    As to the couple in profiled in the story, I don’t recall Catholic Charities ever discriminating against non-Catholics so the fact that they are both Catholic is irrelevant. Though personally I don’t understand their reasoning. Why would you want to be a member of a faith that makes you feel unwelcome?
     

  • Dustin Hume

    Wow, my state is doing something right? Wow.

  • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ Anonymous

    I’m an adoptee. Honestly, all I want is for the kids to find a forever home.

  • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ Anonymous

    I’m an adoptee. Honestly, all I want is for the kids to find a forever home.

  • northierthanthou.com

    Someone should tell Anthony R. Picarello Jr. that no-one is being discriminate against for their beliefs. They are being prevented from the actual PRACTICE of discrimination. He and his fellow bigots are free to espouse all the pseudo-religious bunk they want to.

  • northierthanthou.com

    Someone should tell Anthony R. Picarello Jr. that no-one is being discriminate against for their beliefs. They are being prevented from the actual PRACTICE of discrimination. He and his fellow bigots are free to espouse all the pseudo-religious bunk they want to.

  • northierthanthou.com

    Someone should tell Anthony R. Picarello Jr. that no-one is being discriminate against for their beliefs. They are being prevented from the actual PRACTICE of discrimination. He and his fellow bigots are free to espouse all the pseudo-religious bunk they want to.

  • northierthanthou.com

    Someone should tell Anthony R. Picarello Jr. that no-one is being discriminate against for their beliefs. They are being prevented from the actual PRACTICE of discrimination. He and his fellow bigots are free to espouse all the pseudo-religious bunk they want to.

  • northierthanthou.com

    Someone should tell Anthony R. Picarello Jr. that no-one is being discriminate against for their beliefs. They are being prevented from the actual PRACTICE of discrimination. He and his fellow bigots are free to espouse all the pseudo-religious bunk they want to.

  • northierthanthou.com

    Someone should tell Anthony R. Picarello Jr. that no-one is being discriminate against for their beliefs. They are being prevented from the actual PRACTICE of discrimination. He and his fellow bigots are free to espouse all the pseudo-religious bunk they want to.

  • http://thepoliticali.blogspot.com/ Deborah

    It’s unbelievable that the Catholic Church thinks they can make a case for taxpayer funding for their religious biases.  They always have the choice to pay for their own agencies and offer any services they want, but that would require spending their OWN money.  The Tulsa diocese has always refused government funding and has retained their autonomy.  Duh!  Check out my argument in, “The Catholic Church Grasps the Gold”, http://thepoliticali.blogspot.com/2011/12/catholic-church-grasps-gold.html 

  • http://thepoliticali.blogspot.com/ Deborah

    It’s unbelievable that the Catholic Church thinks they can make a case for taxpayer funding for their religious biases.  They always have the choice to pay for their own agencies and offer any services they want, but that would require spending their OWN money.  The Tulsa diocese has always refused government funding and has retained their autonomy.  Duh!  Check out my argument in, “The Catholic Church Grasps the Gold”, http://thepoliticali.blogspot.com/2011/12/catholic-church-grasps-gold.html 

    • http://thepoliticali.blogspot.com/ Deborah

      …or click on my name to go to the blog.

    • http://thepoliticali.blogspot.com/ Deborah

      …or click on my name to go to the blog.

    • http://thepoliticali.blogspot.com/ Deborah

      …or click on my name to go to the blog.

    • http://thepoliticali.blogspot.com/ Deborah

      …or click on my name to go to the blog.

    • http://thepoliticali.blogspot.com/ Deborah

      …or click on my name to go to the blog.

    • http://thepoliticali.blogspot.com/ Deborah

      …or click on my name to go to the blog.

  • http://thepoliticali.blogspot.com/ Deborah

    It’s unbelievable that the Catholic Church thinks they can make a case for taxpayer funding for their religious biases.  They always have the choice to pay for their own agencies and offer any services they want, but that would require spending their OWN money.  The Tulsa diocese has always refused government funding and has retained their autonomy.  Duh!  Check out my argument in, “The Catholic Church Grasps the Gold”, http://thepoliticali.blogspot.com/2011/12/catholic-church-grasps-gold.html 

  • http://thepoliticali.blogspot.com/ Deborah

    It’s unbelievable that the Catholic Church thinks they can make a case for taxpayer funding for their religious biases.  They always have the choice to pay for their own agencies and offer any services they want, but that would require spending their OWN money.  The Tulsa diocese has always refused government funding and has retained their autonomy.  Duh!  Check out my argument in, “The Catholic Church Grasps the Gold”, http://thepoliticali.blogspot.com/2011/12/catholic-church-grasps-gold.html 

  • http://thepoliticali.blogspot.com/ Deborah

    It’s unbelievable that the Catholic Church thinks they can make a case for taxpayer funding for their religious biases.  They always have the choice to pay for their own agencies and offer any services they want, but that would require spending their OWN money.  The Tulsa diocese has always refused government funding and has retained their autonomy.  Duh!  Check out my argument in, “The Catholic Church Grasps the Gold”, http://thepoliticali.blogspot.com/2011/12/catholic-church-grasps-gold.html 

  • http://thepoliticali.blogspot.com/ Deborah

    It’s unbelievable that the Catholic Church thinks they can make a case for taxpayer funding for their religious biases.  They always have the choice to pay for their own agencies and offer any services they want, but that would require spending their OWN money.  The Tulsa diocese has always refused government funding and has retained their autonomy.  Duh!  Check out my argument in, “The Catholic Church Grasps the Gold”, http://thepoliticali.blogspot.com/2011/12/catholic-church-grasps-gold.html 

  • http://www.facebook.com/don.gwinn Don Gwinn

    I live near Springfield in a small town that’s part of the Springfield Diocese. Bishop Paprocki will apparently say just about anything to protect what he sees as the interests of the church. He famously said that the lawsuits brought against Catholic bishops were motivated principally by “the Devil.” When people called him on it, he said that he’d been misunderstood; he’d only meant that the lawsuits unfairly financially burdened the dioceses and the charitable works they do.
    I guess the idea was that the Catholic church might run out of money?

    Bishop Paprocki gets a lot of admiring press coverage around her because he’s young, he plays hockey, he’s kind of hip for a Bishop, you know? To be fair, he also gets high marks for his charity work . . . . but I’m tired of him.

    http://www.sj-r.com/news/x43862637/New-Springfield-bishop-called-extremist-on-abuse

  • http://fred5.myopenid.com/ fred5

    This is off-topic but I couldn’t help think that the picture of Mr. Paprocki located in the article here bears  strong resemblance to some  famous religious iconography.

    For example, this picture.

    Of course, it could be just coincidence.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ Anonymous

      I wonder if that was intentional?

  • Kaydenpat

    The Catholic church is very rich.  Let them discriminate on their own dime.

  • Emilia

    I believe the state of Illinois did the right thing. If the Catholic Church wants to run an adoption agency based on their own philosophy, they can do so, but on their own dime. Which is essentially what many private Christian fundamentalist adoption agencies do. I may not like the fact that these agencies don’t allow openly same-sex couples to adopt (though many will let single women do so, which means that theoretically, lesbians could adopt through these agencies by ‘passing’ as straight), but if they’re using their own and not the taxpayers’ money, there’s nothing I can really say about that.

    However, some secular government agencies aren’t immune to letting their particular philosophies influence their adoption practices. For example, some are reluctant to entrust Black or other non-White children to White adoptive parents on the grounds that the children will be psychologically damaged by living in a family of a different race. It’s a ground that has no basis in fact – in fact, a few studies have shown that interracial adoptions are MORE successful than same-race ones – but some agencies still cling to it.

    So I’m wondering: why should I as a taxpayer and as a potential (White) adoptive parent be forced to fund a philosophy that has no more basis in fact than the view that gay and lesbian couples can’t raise psychologically healthy children? I’d love to hear the site owner’s and others’ view on this!

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

      I would oppose the government saying “Catholics can’t run adoption agencies.”  But they’re not doing that.  They’re saying adoption agencies must treat gay couples in civil unions as they do straight couples.  The state’s not discriminating; they’re making adoption more inclusive.  Catholic Charities is doing something that is now illegal so they’re not getting state money.  They are welcome to deny kids to gay couples on their own dime.  

      Also, there’s no evidence that gay parents are worse than straight parents.  Hell, we see countless examples every day of straight couples doing horrible things to their children.  I’d rather see kids in the home of a loving couple, regardless of their sexual orientation.  I don’t know why anyone would oppose that.

      If there was any evidence of a secular group denying parents an adoption because of their skin color, that would also be illegal and I would oppose that as well.  Feel free to send that information to me.  I don’t know of anyone doing that.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X