Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Using Children to Advance the Progressive Agenda
One of the latest attacks on religious freedom comes from a demand of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services, that all adoption agencies must approve adoptions to gay and lesbian parents.
New Hope Family Services is the adoption agency that has filed a lawsuit against the state, protesting that this requirement is inconsistent with their faith. This is the background of the lawsuit:
New Hope Family Services is a religious adoptive provider and pregnancy center that has served Syracuse women, children, and families since 1965. Founded by a group of local Christian ministers, the organization has found over 1,000 forever homes for children since opening its doors. In 1986, New Hope added a pregnancy center to provide pregnancy tests, medical referrals, and counseling to anyone in need, in addition to its comprehensive adoption services. Because of New Hope’s belief in marriage as the union of one man and one woman, New Hope places children only in homes with a married mother and father, while referring unmarried couples, same-sex couples, and others to nearby adoption providers.
New Hope clearly articulates its beliefs to clients and has faced no formal complaints from prospective clients due to its policy. Yet, the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) sent New Hope a letter in October 2018 describing its policy as “discriminatory and impermissible.” OCFS gave New Hope an ultimatum that it either revise its policy or it would be required to submit a close-out plan for its adoption program.
Clearly these legal requirements being forced on New Hope have nothing to do with the welfare of the children. The government agency points to the research that same-sex couples can be just as effective as heterosexual couples at raising children. The OCFS explained their 2013 policy in this way:
The amendments also promote fairness and equality in the child welfare adoption program by eliminating archaic regulatory language that implies the sexual orientation of gay, lesbian, and bisexual prospective adoptive parents — but not of heterosexual prospective adoptive parents — is relevant to evaluating their appropriateness as adoptive parents.
Moreover, OCFS is charged with the welfare of children, and protecting the children of same-sex couples accomplishes that [my italics].
Again, the religious and moral issue is completely ignored in this policy; the fact that children being adopted by gay couples is outside the norm of religious doctrine and relationships is irrelevant. I wonder ( in the sentence italicized just above) what the OCFS is promising to protect the children from?
Catholic Charities, an organization also highly respected for their adoption services, is considering the shutting down of their adoptive services rather than serve same-sex couples. Catholic Charities of Buffalo suspended its adoption work this past August.
The tide is rising against those organizations that choose to serve children within a Christian framework. Congress, however, is considering protection for child welfare agencies following nine states that passed legislation in 2017 and 2018: Alabama, Texas, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, North Dakota, and South Carolina; to shield organizations from requirements that conflict with their religious beliefs. By the way, New Hope receives no government funds for its operations. And it only places approximately ten children per year.
I’m encouraged that legislation is being considered by Congress to take steps against government intrusion and anti-religion actions. Still, there is the question of whether this kind of issue should be resolved at the state level. Clearly, the actions against adoption agencies are being taken to further the gay rights agenda.
It has nothing to do with the children.
Published in Culture
You’re saying an entire adoption agency should be shut down, just because it won’t consider some applicants the state thinks are OK? Do you really think that’s in the best interests of the children at the “offending agency”? Does it not seem a bit extreme to you? A bit intrusive? A bit heavy-handed?
My understanding is that plenty of gays pair off masculine/feminine, but some don’t. (I can’t imagine how one would measure such a thing, really. Bread-winner/cook? Housework/yardwork? Spider-killer/non-spider-killer?)
And also that any possible suggestion that one of gay pair(ee) is ‘the man’ is now to be met with mockery as though it isn’t a thing.
It’s a thing, it has long been a thing, but it isn’t a thing in every case.
Reason I’m on about this is that heteros tend to use the sex division for making ‘teams’. Boys against girls for playing cards and such. Or for banter. Or for going in the kitchen vs smoking cigars.
So it has a utility, but more than that, it is an attempt to get to know a couple better, to understand, to relate.
My point is that gays who crap on people who ask ‘which one is the man’ are awful people. The good news is that their mockery of a neutral- to well-intentioned question does allow you to know them just enough better that you can reasonably write them off as the kind of people who would rather score points than friends.
I think anything we can do to understand each other better, beyond the truly intimate, is a blessing!