Will Same-Sex Marriage Put An End To Adoptions Through LDS Family Services?

The new laws currently in place in Massachusets have put Catholic Charities of Boston out of the adoption business as reported in Meridian Magazine and The Weekly Standard.  If the saints, working in concert with Catholics and other good Christians, fail in our war against same-sex marriage, will LDS Family Services be put out of the adoption business too, just as the Church was forced to discontinue the Indian Placement Program?  It seems to me that it would be a crying shame for this to happen.  Like Catholic Charities and the Boy Scouts of America, LDS Family Services has done a lot for the welfare of children who otherwise would have suffered from neglect if not outright abuse.  When our nation’s laws are twisted to impede the ability of our churches to do good works, our laws are twisted indeed.

What do you think?

Technorati Tags: , ,


7 Responses to Will Same-Sex Marriage Put An End To Adoptions Through LDS Family Services?

  1. beetlebabee says:


    I agree. It’s about more than just letting them have their way, they already have all the legal rights in California, they already have the state’s blessing. All they don’t have is the word “marriage” and the religious moral endorsement that it implies.

    What they really don’t like is the idea that some people have deeply held personal beliefs that same sex marriage is wrong.

    What has happened SINCE it passed is just unconscionable…some people just don’t like being told no. There is a big idea out there that gays are entitled to what they want, whether we like it or not, whether we vote on it or not, whether we live in a democracy or not.


  2. Yes, and I agree with all Supreme Court decisions affirming the constitutionality of laws against beating them up or killing them. I’m also supposed to avoid beating up and killing heterosexuals. But to suppose that homosexuals have rights to marry or adopt children is to suppose something that is simply not true. They have not such rights. And they have never had such rights. Heterosexuals don’t even have rights to adopt children unless they can provide a good home for them. And that is something that a homosexual couple can never do.

  3. Steven B. says:

    Call it Activist or Liberal, but one role of the Judiciary is to protect minorities from the oppression of the masses, including all those “faithful and devoted religious people.”

  4. Jim Cobabe says:

    The scriptural aphorism about straining at a gnat, but swallowing a camel is perfectly apt here.

    Homosexual rights as an issue certainly deserves a place in the general priority of things, but sits so far down on the list that in this perspective it would rightfully be invisible, in a just and righteous world. This fractious and vanishingly small minority interest is being served all out out of proportion to its merit, by a liberal judiciary that is seemingly poisoned with enmity against all things that are good. Faithful and devoted religious people are the fount of all that prospers us in this land. To pass judgements that rule against such groups is an undisguised expression of contempt for everything that serves the general welfare of the people.

    I believe a political solution is the only way to correct this pervasive evil. Those with such perverted social values cannot be permitted to continue to represent our interests in the courts or in the legislatures. We need judges who will interpret and apply the rule of law to establish moral righteousness, first and last. If we cannot find such men to serve, nothing will save this country from collapse and destruction. Concerns about adoption will be the least of the problems.

  5. Jonah the giant whale has it right. Until it can be scientifically demonstrated that rearing a child in the home of a gay or lesbian couple is not harmful to the child, anyone who loves children is obligated by moral considerations to insist that children be placed in normal, heterosexual families. In the complete absence of scientific data to the contrary, common sense would indicate that a gay or lesbian couple would be completely unable to provide the kind of role models that a child would need to properly relate the opposite sex when he is grown. Unless you can be sure that the child will grow up into a homosexual adult himself, he is going to have to know how to properly relate to a member of the opposite sex. Just where do you think a child is going to learn that in a gay or lesbian “family?” Even in a bad heterosexual marriage, a child at least grows up with a bad example that he can learn from. In a gay or lesbian “family,” he doesn’t even have that.

    If our laws have been so perverted by the current drive for so-called “gay rights” that a private charitable organization cannot place children for adoption in homes that they think best, then our laws are corrupt and need to be repealed. Then new laws need to be passed that are just and protect not only the rights of gays and lesbians, but also the rights of heterosexuals and innocent children. Sacrificing our children to the gay and lesbian lobby is not acceptable. We need to love and care for our children, not use them as guinea pigs while we perform social experiments in political correctness. The rights of the child are more important than so-called gay and lesbian “rights.” Nobody, gay or otherwise, has a right to put our children at risk with social experiments.

    I know for a fact that growing up in a lesbian home can really damage a child emotionally, socially and spiritually. I have witnessed it first hand.

  6. Jonah the giant whale says:

    The nondiscrimination law is the same issue. They don’t want to discriminate, tehy want to place children in healthy homes. If they are forced to place children in un-healthy (re: gay) homes then they have to quit. Same issue.

  7. Steven B. says:

    Maggie Gallagher is attempting to use the Catholic Charities of Boston cessation of adoptions as an example of the Slippery Slope. She, almost disingenuously, makes it appear that the Catholic Charities issue is the direct result of gay marriage legal recognition in Massachusetts. The truth is, Catholic Charities of Boston pulled out of the adoption business because 4 Bishops demanded that the agency discriminate against gay people, which violates nondiscrimination legislation in effect since 1989. It was not the result of Gay Marriage. Period. Here is Gallagher building her case:

    To operate in Massachusetts, an adoption agency must be licensed by the state. And to get a license, an agency must pledge to obey state laws barring discrimination — including the decade-old ban on orientation discrimination. With the legalization of gay marriage in the state, discrimination against same-sex couples would be outlawed, too. (emphasis mine)

    No Maggie, discrimination against gay couples was outlawed the same time as it was for gay individuals, in 1989.

    She then goes on, at length, to site the Catholic Charities of Boston episode as a precedence for the loss of religious liberty, all because of same-sex marriage. Meridian magazine then reprints Gallagher’s essay under the title “Same-Sex Marriage: A New Threat to Religious Liberty.”

    Only it relies on the little straw man that Gallagher has built. Read the article. Maggie’s parade of experts primarily discuss the conflict between religion and nondiscrimination laws, which is what the Catholic Charities issue is really all about, not SSM.

    But, setting Gallagher aside, as we should, this is still a very good topic to discuss. I was going to post about it myself.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s