They believe they are doing what’s best for the kids. They believe that it’s better for kids to remain in a foster care system than be adopted by same-sex couples.
I have no idea what might happen if some of those special-needs kids turn out to be gay – most likely, the same sorts of reactions that might ensure from any devout Catholic family if a child turns out to be gay: more negative than positive, probably, although the range of options will vary among the many familes involved.
That’s true.
And yet when you look at the actual numbers relating to placement of special-needs children, for some odd reason the Catholics are doing better than other sources.
First of all, that’s not what you were talking about. You were talking about “devout Catholics” which were “a good target group to adopt special needs children” but whom presumably would in a fit of pique refuse to adopt any of these children unless Catholic agencies were allowed to be part of the process.
Second of all, they ARE, from their perspective, punishing those kids who would otherwise be going to non-gay homes to avoid having even a few kids go to gay couples.
Yes, but you were just defending the bigotry of those families as a mixed virtue. I was pointing out that it was also potentially a mixed vice for a different reason.
I would have been surprised at any other result.
It’s akin to the church’s vile behavior in Africa.
The kindest thing I can say is they’re making the perfect the enemy of the good. And they’re doing it in a horrible, bigoted way that leads to even more suffering.
I think “in a fit of pique” mischaracterizes the process by which adoption decisions are made in that environment. Catholic adoption agencies have an inside track on certain families that would be predisposed to offer to adopt a special-needs child. Absent their involvement, the families are simply not cultivated to become adoptive families. It isn’t that they are poised to adopt children and then back out upon learning that a Catholic agency won’t be involved; they are simply not part of the process from the beginning.
And I absolutely agree with you. I’m not saying that waiving the law’s application here is a no-brainer, or even that, on balance, it’s a good idea. I am simply saying that there is an argument to be considered.
In other circumstances, it was said: “Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!” And when schools were racially integrated by force of law, some counties shut down their public schools completely rather than integrate. We might draw from those lessons the very valid idea that we are willing to accept the hit we take in order for foster a better, less discriminatory society.
But it would be foolish to not acknowledge that there is a hit taken.
I know of some people who have made seriously good money out of a pet crematorium. Dead pets are easier to look after than live ones.
I’m still amazed about £20,000 a pop.
You don’t have to be anti gay to want a straight family for your child, or anti-black to want a white one. Of course, a child shouldn’t be forced to wait years for a family, but the preferences of a biological parent should be taken into account.
That could make it much harder to find a suitable family though. An agency has more access to potential approved adopters, than someone searching on their own. I just don’t see how it’s bigoted for an agency to help someone find a family they’d be comfortable with. I will admit to being biased though because my sister was placed with a Catholic agency*, and her bio parents did list their preferences for a family that were based on race, marital status etc.
*Who then drew from a pool of people who’d signed up with different agencies, including Social Services to find a family.
According to Scotland on Sunday (Rightist Serious Paper), the Cathlic Church may just defy the ban and await prosecution, claiming a right to exercise their religion under the ECHR. Of course, this will fail.
More likely is that a challenge will be made to their registration as a charity and adoption agency (which must be as part of their management, keep to the law of the land.)
The situation is complicated in that verbal assurances were given to the Catholic Church in Scotland that the recent introduction of the right of gay couples to adopt in Scotland (within the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament) would not mean that they would be forced to comply. Now the anti-discrimination act (a matter for the British Parliament has overtrumped that and the Church in Scotland feels doubly aggrieved.
According to the Sunday news on TV the argument is now between those willing to give 6 months leeway to the Church (many Labour MPs and Cabinet ministers, and those wanting to give them three years and kick the argument into the next parliament (Tony Blair and Ruth Kelly.) We shall see next week who wins.
It won’t? These Catholic families are still going to be living in England. They’re still going to have the same fundamentally decent impulse to help disadvantaged children, aren’t they? It’s not like they’re only adopting because they’re being strong-armed by their church into taking the kids. Why is it necessary for these adoption agencies to be administered by the Church to function?
Channel 4 news says that there will be a 20 month period fot the Cathloic Church to compromise. A suggestion is that they may be allowed to form a consortium with other agencies, with a common refrral service that would refer Gay couples to one part of the organization and straight couples to both parts of the organization. I suspect that gay Rights Activisists will want to test in law and in reality if this consortium approach is legal and meaningful. We shall see. Still smacks too much of ‘Separate but Equal’ to me.