Well, as I said earlier, if a birth mother feels the need to choose a specific race, sexual orientation, size, or whatever for her child, I think she should be on her own. I see a difference between personal bigotry and institutionalized bigotry. Neither is cool, but you can’t control a person’s individual feelings, no matter how fucked up they are.
We have, for centuries now, taken steps to ensure equal opportunity for all our citizens. The opportunity to be part of a loving family regardless of race or sexual orientation is more and more accepted as The Right Thing To Do. Sometimes those who are resistant to change need a firm shove into the 21st century. That’s why we have EOE. That’s why women and blacks are allowed to vote. The whole world doesn’t have to like it; they just have to abide by the rules. I can’t force someone to marry a black person, but the law does force a JOP to marry an interracial couple. If the church only arranged adoptions between its own members, I suppose I would have to go along with it, albeit begrudgingly. Kind of a club perk, if you will. They’d be “protected” from the law of the land much the same way as the Boy Scouts, wouldn’t they?
Incidently, wasn’t that the way it was back in the day? No one chose who adopted their child.
Well, you are definitely right about that last part!
Yes, I think they would. Comparing the agency to the JOP is interesting, but I’m not sure analagous. The state may be able to make the JOP marry interracial couples, but they can’t make an individual church do so, as they are a private organization. And they have no say over who may choose to use that church to get married in…that is, whether the people married there are members of the church or not. Again, it gets into the issue of whether or not the agency is acting as a representative of the state.
The problem with the issue is that, while most of us think the “loving family” is the most important thing, you can’t deny the fact that many people are most comfortable placing their child with people who are the most like them. It may not make logical sense, but this is adoption, and is fraught with emotional baggage. To me, the most important thing is that kids get placed, and whatever the birth parent is the most comfortable with is fine with me, as long as that child gets parents who will love them.
I’m not sure how it worked in the past. I think there have always been private adoptions. I have a good friend the same age as I am who was adopted through the tried & true “friend of a friend” system (heard throught the grapevine there was an out-of-wedlock baby about to be born, put the word out they were looking to adopt, etc. etc.) When working through an agency, I suppose the birth parents did not get to choose…the babies probably went into a pool, so to speak, and were placed on a “first-come, first-serve” basis…not to make it sound like we came from a deli, of course!!!
I imagine there were not situations like the agencies set up today, where the birth parents get to look through dossiers of potential adoptive parents, get to interview the ones they think look good, etc.
This may very well be why Catholic Charities became such a mover and shaker in the adoption game…because if you couldn’t choose the specific parents, at least you would know what the selection criteria were, and that the values would be similar to your own. I am sure there is a lot of concern among Catholic birth parents that their babies are raised Catholic (even more so 40 years ago when I went through Catholic Charities myself), and so it makes sense that they would want to go through a Catholic agency. I think that as private organizations, the agency has a right to cater to whatever it’s “customer” base is. If someone wanted to start an agency that ONLY placed with gay couples, or black couples, or whatever kind of couple there is, and they could stay afloat doing it, then I don’t see how, constitutionally speaking, it would be valid to stop them.
Sorry, I was unclear. I intended this to mean that, if the churchs want to stay in this business they will have to change. if not they will just have to comply with the law by ceasing trading. I suspect that they will in fact close down.
Understandably, many of the US posters here are basing their view of this situation on US models.
UK models of child welfare and adoption are more child centered than in the US. Any action MUST be in the interests of the child. Although parental wishes must be ascertained, they need not necessarily be acted upon. British Law heavily controls ‘informal’ adoption. Such children put up for adoption not by a local social services or an acredited adoption agency are called ‘Protected Children’ and such adoptions are sverely investigated by spocial workers and family law courts.
Most children available for adoption in the UK have either been removed from parental control by the courts or parental rights are voluntarily given up to local social services or to adoption agencies.
Hope this puts some of the above comments in a more realistic (British) environment.
Say that Catholic Charities started allowing gay couples to enter the pool of prospective adoptive parents, but also allowed biological parents to specify whether they wanted their child given to a straight couple only, or had no preference. Assuming gay couples really were given equal consideration in no-preference cases, would this policy be in violation of the law?
As noted above, parent’s wishes must be ascertained, but they do not over-ride the interests of the child. An agency would be required to apply case law and the statute law to the interests of the child. If they did not do so, then they would lose their licence.
In English Law as it now stands, whether they receive money or not is immaterial. Providing an adoption agency is a service and services cannot discriminate on the grounds of the sexual orientation of the adoptive parents.
To me this is the issue. Not taking a stand against bigotry, not giving yourself a childish self-satisfied smirk as you close down and watching as people realize that you had brought more good than harm in this area.
Really, since they are changing the law, it is incumbent upon the Politicians who passed the Equality Act to make sure that Children are not negatively impacted. If that means some combo of suspending implementation until the Private/Public Sector can pick up the slack or throwing money at other agencies to help them ramp up or waiving the Catholic Church through for a bit - that seems to be far more sensible, if less emotionally satisfying, than taking some moral stand – on either side - that hurts at risk kids.
[Mrs LoveJoy Voice] “Won’t someone please think of the Children?"[/Mrs.Lovejoy Voice]
So, the Catholic Church is more interested in hating on gay people than it is in helping kids. That’s rather telling, isn’t it? I suppose the best thing to do is to give them an extension while the government gathers the funds to buy out their infrastructre. Probably cost a pretty penny, though. Where’s Henry VIII when you need him? If there were ever a situation that called for the unilateral siezure of Church properties, this is it.
I would contend it’s not the “infrastructure” that allows these results, but the same foolish, stupid superstitions that give rise to the belief that same-sex couples are not a good parenting option. In other words, devout Catholics are a good target group to adopt special needs children because of their idiotic religious beliefs. Seizing the files and desks of thr adoption agency does not help you with that group.
There is minimal ‘infrasructure’ involved. All of the cost of the service is met by the state. The organization employs social workers and administrators to do the work; they may or may not be against adoption by same sex couples. Replacing the service would take little time at all. At worst, the children on the church waiting list would go to other agencies or to the local social service departments. A couple of months administrative work, that’s all.
According to the latest news reports, it looks like there will be minimal alteration to the planned introduction of this law.
Of course, we still have this row to happen in Scotland, where the Catholic Church is much more important than in England:
No - this is giving into blackmail. Let them close - good riddance. Then invest money in replacing that service with an unbigoted one. It’s worth £20k a pop to someone.
Either they care about the children and will do what’s best for them or not. If they instead choose to ignore those children because their bigotry is too important to them, I’m not sure whether that really makes them a great target group at all, as your backhanded lauding of them purports. And what happens when some of those special needs kids turn out to be gay themselves?
About 20 years ago a cow-orker decided to adopt (in London), he said that he had real problems with the social workers - they were worried about whether he and his wife were Irish enough.
As it happens his surname was sort of Irish, but he sure was not.
More recently, I’ve heard that white couples have problems getting a non-white kid.
@Tagos, if you ever decide to set up your meat pie adoption agency, I’m keen to get in the business - at £20,000 a pop it is a real money spinner.
I would just cut off the supply of loot - then let them do what the heck they want.
Incidentally, with our new immigration laws I can see a neat angle. Carefully selected male volunteers pay for an impregnation trip to Ruritania, the female is shipped to the UK about a month before dropping, and you’ve got a nice little supply of £20,000 adoptees.
While you’re right that Pjen didn’t sum up the situation properly in the 2 simplistic scenarios, you’re also wrong in your summation of the moral quandary in 2 simplistic scenarios. If the church cared so much about the children and its mandate from god, why would they shutter their doors in the face of such a seemingly minor triviality? Their motives need to be explored here a bit more thoroughly when they’re willing to, as you say, extort the whole of society to maintain a trivial discriminatory practice.
Yet at the same time, it doesn’t require idiotic religious beliefs to want to help special needs children. So they (and their audience/customer base) are not unique to helping children. Again, another factor in the whole moral quandary argument.
