State lawmakers in both Kansas and Oklahoma have approved legislation to grant legal protections to faith-based adoption agencies that cite their “religious beliefs” for not placing children in gay and lesbian homes.
The Kansas Senate approved a bill early Friday morning, 24-15, that would prevent faith-based agencies from being barred from providing foster care or adoption services for the state if they refuse to place children in homes violating their “sincerely held” religious beliefs. The House had approved it late Thursday, 63-58.
“There is no homosexual agenda — I was told that, when people were saying that there was one, and now we find out, there is an agenda,” said Kansas state Sen. Steve Fitzgerald, a conservative Leavenworth Republican.
Kansas Republican Gov. Jeff Colyer supported his state’s legislation, with his administration arguing with the “spin” that it would encourage faith-based groups to place more abused and neglected children in state custody.
The Oklahoma bill cleared the GOP-controlled Legislature over the boisterous objections of Democrats. At one point, the chamber’s presiding officer threatened to have a member forcibly removed and was sent to the desk of Gov. Mary Fallin, who has not said whether she would sign it.
TechNet, representing some of the biggest names in tech, including Apple and Google, sent a letter to lawmakers in both states opposing their measures. Critics in Kansas worried that it would make the state look backward and even suggested it could hurt the economy.
Texas, Alabama, South Dakota, Virginia and Michigan already have such laws in place. Michigan’s ACLU chapter took the state to court last year over its adoption law, and the case is still ongoing..
Gov. Kay Ivey has signed into law Alabama’s patently anti-LGBT bill H.B. 24.
The bill, deceptively titled the “Child Placing Agency Inclusion Act,” enshrines discrimination into Alabama law by allowing some state-licensed adoption and foster care agencies to reject qualified prospective LGBTQ adoptive or foster parents based on the agency’s religious beliefs. An amendment was added in the Senate and agreed to by the House that limits that discriminatory exemption to agencies that do not receive state or federal funding.
the state from discriminating against child placing agencies on the basis that the provider declines to provide a child placement that conflicts with the religious beliefs of the provider.
The bill would prohibit the state from refusing to license or otherwise discriminate or take an adverse action against any child placing agency that is licensed by or required to be licensed by the state for child placing services on the basis that the child placing agency declines to make, provide, facilitate, or refer for a placement in a manner that conflicts with, or under circumstances that conflict with, the sincerely held religious beliefs of the child placing agency.
The bill describes “adverse action” as any of the following:
Taking an enforcement action against the entity;
Refusing to issue a license;
Refusing to renew a license;
Revoking a license; or
Suspending a license.
The bill’s exceptions for religiously motivated prejudice are baseless, discriminatory, and dangerous.
Approximately 30 percent of child placement agencies in Alabama are faith-based organizations, and HB 24 would prohibit the state from withholding funding or licenses if those organizations discriminate.
Tens of thousands of gay rights supporters and LGBT families rallied in Rome to protest against the watering down of Italy’s civil unions bill, which no longer allows adoption rights for gay and lesbian couples.
“Today in Italy, in 2016, we still have to beg for charity, for crumbs, in terms of rights. We want equal weddings, adoptions and full rights. Full rights,” said Alessia Avellino, a 21-year old sociology student.
The bill, which had to be cut back to the bare bones to pass in the senate and is now being examined in the lower house, is only a small step towards securing rights for homosexual families, and are especially angry over the scrapping of a clause which would have allowed gay people to adopt their partners’ biological children a proposal the prime minister, Matteo Renzi, was forced to dump under pressure from the Catholic church.
Supporters of the of gay rights hope to force a change to the draft law before it is ratified – or at least open a debate on rights that could eventually lead to an adoption bill.
“The law is unsatisfactory. It’s a first step, [but] it doesn’t give us those rights that are fundamentally ours,” law student Edoardo Messineo said.
The other day we posted about two Detroit-area lesbian nurses April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse who are raising special needs children together and how they bravely filed a lawsuit to try to overturn restrictions on adoption by same-sex partners. But at the judge’s invitation, the case took an extraordinary turn when the judge invited them to also test the legality of the 2004 constitutional amendment that stipulates Michigan only recognizes marriages between a man and a woman.
Judge Bernard Friedman was all set to hear arguments in the case but fearing the possibility of a loss, any loss the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, and National Center for Lesbian Rights sent amicus briefs to the judge asking that before resolving the Michigan couple’s case, “this Court may determine that it is prudent to await decision” in the California Proposition 8 case at the Supreme Court.
So now April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse who have waged this battle on their own and who also have been flatly denied help in any way by some of the organizations in questionsit in limbo and wait denied their time in court by our own organizations because of of baseless fears, lack of backbone, and perhaps wanting to be the stars when the Prop 8 case wins. A case which THEY ALLwere originally against.
Two Detroit-area nurses filed a lawsuit to try to overturn restrictions on adoption by same-sex partners. But at the judge’s invitation, the case took an extraordinary turn and now will test the legality of a 2004 constitutional amendment that stipulates Michigan only recognizes marriages between a man and a woman. U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman will hear arguments in the case Thursday at a Detroit law school. If he concludes the amendment violates the U.S. Constitution, gay-marriage supporters say same-sex couples would immediately be allowed to wed and adopt children. State officials, of course are predicting “potential legal chaos” if the judge throws out the gay marriage ban.
Friedman will hear arguments on the state’s request to dismiss the lawsuit. In a court filing, the Michigan attorney general’s office said there’s no “fundamental right to same-sex marriage.”
“Michigan’s marriage amendment bears a reasonable relation to legitimate state interests,” the state said. “Michigan supports natural procreation and recognizes that children benefit from being raised by parents of each sex who can then serve as role models of the sexes both individually and together in matrimony. Plaintiffs fail to allege facts showing there is no rational basis for these legitimate state interests.”
Why would a state care if people procreate? Couples don’t procreate to benefit the state. Even if the state cared about married couples with children, that isn’t an argument against marriage equality. How are the private decisions of the public any of the state’s business? Procreation is also not a requirement to getting married. So any theories about parenting and role models are irrelevant. Not to mention denying unwanted children loving homes.
“To every heterosexual, mentally abusive, closet racist, fast-food-feeding, let-your-kid-run-around-the-mall-like-a-psycho parent: why do you have, like, nine fucking kids, yet you say gay folks can’t adopt because it might screw the kid up. And I know that America thinks everytime a gay couple adopts a child it forces otherwise straight and homophobic pastor Ted Haggart to hire a gay male prostitute and engage in a week long meth-induced fuck spree. I know. He didn’t want to do it, you guys, but then a gay couple adopted and forced him to take an injection of another male prostitute cock. I know, I get it. But I say just because your man-bits fit into some girl-bits doesn’t mean you should have kids. Do you know how many straight people shouldn’t have kids? Go to a movie theater or a IHOP on a Sunday. And don’t tell us two men or two women in the bedroom may cause a child to question his sexuality. Any kid basing his sex life on the sounds coming from his parents bedroom is already fucked beyond repair. If God designed marriage for a man and women, then God is failing. That is below failing, just look at straight and homophobic pastor Ted Haggart, who’s married with children but hired a gay male prostitute to shame-fist him into a meth coma. But you say being gay is being immoral? Really? More immoral than shame-fisting? Because I’d rather have my kids raised by the flaming queer couple down the street than have them spend another night at the church with Father Diddlyhands. Is that why you want adoption restricted, Church? You keeping all the young ones for yourself? If you really think that a child should only be raised by a married couple then I have an idea, let the gays marry assholes! These are people will raise a child for a better reason than the condom broke. You give me one valid argument beside “But God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” Really? Because by the looks of it Adam and Eve fucked up big time and maybe Adam should have explored better options. So stop fucking telling us that the Bible says that being gay is unnatural, because I’ve read the Bible and there is a lot of unnatural shit that happens in that book. I would say that a dude dying and rising from the dead in a zombiesque fashion is far less natural than me sucking a cock. Because at least, cocksucking you can prove.” – Jamie Kilstein, of Citizen Radioon “The Green Room with Paul Provenza”. @jamiekilstein on Twitter
” Adam and Eve fucked up big time and maybe Adam should have explored better options”
In Colorado, where civil unions may soon be a reality the leading Catholic adoption agency Catholic Charities is objecting to having to serve gay couples, saying its is not safe (“Our desire is to provide them with a safe and stable environment.”) and also that they will close in that state if they are “forced” to as they already have in Massachusetts.
67% of Catholic Charities funding comes from government sources.
During a recent webisode of Huffpostlive, an Alabama citizen, Cari Searcy, discussed how she was unable to adopt her partner’s son due to the lack of adequate laws that include lgbt couples:
“Either a single person or a married couple can adopt a child in the state of Alabama. Since we weren’t legally married, that didn’t give me any option.”
“It is kind of frustrating to get that question. Kim and I both were raised in the south. We’re originally from Texas, small towns in Texas. And we moved here to Mobile about eleven years ago. Other than the legal ramifications, we have a wonderful life. We’ve got a great house. We both have great careers and family and friends around us. This is our home. We shouldn’t have to move because people don’t understand our family.”
By adopting Searcy would be able to give directions to school administration and hospital personnel if her partner was unable to be there as well as give her custody rights in the event of her partner’s death or their legal separation. Hopefully the case will be heard in a higher court of law that will have the decision overturned. For more discussion into the story, watch it here.
Yesterday The Virginia Board of Social Services in a 5-1 vote cleared the way for state-licensed adoption agencies to discriminate not only against gat and lesbian couples but also against couples whose , political beliefs, age, disability, gender, and family status are not to the adoption agency’s personal liking.
The Catholic church urged the Social Services board to keep out protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation saying that it framed matter of religious freedom and no one has a “right” to adopt a child.
After Wednesday’s decision, Virginia Catholic Conference executive director Jeff Caruso said that the board “affirmed the work of faith-based agencies and the important right of religious freedom in the state of Virginia.
Catholics, conservatives, and the state of Virginia care more about their bigotry than they do about the well-being of children without homes.