77°
forecast

Bills would enshrine adoption 'conscience clause'

Posted to: News Politics State Government Virginia

RICHMOND

A skirmish over the ability of gays to adopt or provide foster care to children looms in the General Assembly this winter.

On one side are faith-based child placement agencies seeking legal protection for a policy that effectively permits them to use their beliefs in prospective parent evaluations, meaning a candidate could be disqualified because of sexual orientation, among other factors.

On the other side are gay-rights activists, who say the state shouldn’t sanction discrimination by private agencies that act on the state’s behalf when placing children.

The battle is a continuation of last year’s row over licensing standards for private placement agencies, when an expanded list of discrimination protections was removed from state regulations approved in December.

It has inspired several proposals pending in the legislature.

Two bills up for consideration in the coming days would enshrine in law a “conscience clause” for faith-based agencies, freeing them to deny a child placement if it conflicts with their religious tenets.

The measures have the backing of the Family Foundation and the Virginia Catholic Conference, whose director, Jeff Caruso, says “faith-based agencies should have the right to practice what they profess.”

A separate measure, favored by the gay-rights group Equality Virginia, would bar the state from contracting with private agencies if they use certain factors to discriminate against would-be parents.

That legislation comes from Sen. Adam Ebbin, an Alexandria Democrat who wants to restrict public funds from going to private agencies that discriminate in the placement process.

Ebbin argues that, since adoptions facilitated by private agencies are court-certified, they are a public function, so “the state should not be providing a license to discriminate.”

A Quinnipiac University poll last June found a majority of Virginians support allowing same-sex couples to adopt by a 51-43 percent margin. Only married couples and individuals, regardless of their sexuality, are eligible to adopt under current state law.

By a 59-35 percent margin, respondents also said state-run agencies shouldn’t ban prospective parents based on sexual orientation but felt church agencies should be able to by a 48-45 percent margin.

A fresh snapshot of public views on the topic are found in new Mason-Dixon poll numbers the Family Foundation is expected to release today.

In Hampton Roads, the poll found 56 percent of respondents oppose forcing faith-based agencies to place children with gay parents if it’s at odds with their doctrine, according to an excerpt provided by a foundation official.

One of the bills that would let faith-based agencies operate according to their beliefs has been filed by Virginia Beach Republican Sen. Jeff McWaters, who views the debate as a matter of religious freedom rather than discrimination.

Representatives of some private placement agencies have argued that adding new protected categories would not only force them to slight their beliefs, but could also result in some ending their programs.

“These religious organizations have been in business for a long time … and we want them to stay in business,” said McWaters, noting that hopeful parents can also attempt to adopt through public agencies.

The state Board of Social Services last year struck language from adoption licensing regulations that would have prohibited discrimination due to sexual orientation, religion, age, gender, disability, political beliefs or family status.

Discrimination based on race or national origin is already banned, a standard that state officials say is consistent with federal law. The updated regulations take effect May 1.

Putting conscience protections into law also safeguards those standards from future revisions unwelcome by faith groups, added Del. Todd Gilbert, a Shenandoah County Republican who has filed a bill backed by faith-based groups in the House.

In addition, the bills would protect agencies from losing their licenses for rejecting a would-be parent on religious grounds, and shield them from potential civil liability.

About 1,300 Virginia children are awaiting adoption, according to the state Department of Social Services.

COMMENTS ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here; comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its websites. Users must follow agreed-upon rules: Be civil, be clean, be on topic; don't attack private individuals, other users or classes of people. Read the full rules here.
- Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the report violation link below it.

More regulations!

There goes those dang liberals with more government regulations and interference. Wait a minute, when it is goverment regulation in our personal lives it come from the conservatives. As a staunch Independent let me get this straight, when the government tells us how to think and live its conservative, when it tells us how to spend our money its liberal. I got it now.

How about a government that lets us make decisions for ourselves.

A bad law based on bigotry

Denying a child a loving home because of the bigotry and superstitions of the bureaucrat processing the paperwork is monstrous.

I wish I could adopt them all!

After reading all of your posts, who will suffer the most?

The homosexual couple who tried to adopt a child through a faith-based agency? A Democrat or Republican? Maybe it will be a Conservative or a Liberal.

Nope. I can tell you this – it'll be the child mixed up in this mess.

While many of the posts below are based upon religion or political leanings...dang it! Realize there are living, breathing, needing children that are going to experience and live through 100% of the decision from Richmond.

Are we just arguing amongst ourselves for the sake of arguing? Maybe trying to score political points?

Yeah-I wish I could adopt all of them. Just to meet/exceed their needs and shield them from the selfishness posted below.

If these organizations

If these organizations receive government assistance, they should not discriminate against anyone based on gender or religion.

If they are completely private, it seems they have the right.

Ah, the goodness of relgion

This is an old, old story. God-fearing Christians have killed and maimed people in the name of God since the 4th century. Christians suppressed scientific discoveries when they didn't comport with church doctrine. The church entered into an agreement with Hitler that it would stay out of his treatment of the Jews if he didn't persecute their convertees from Judaism. Christians have burned people at the stake, and southern Christians (correctly) cited the Bible in defense of slavery before the Civil War.

Christians have a long, long history of violence and oppression and subjugation of others, so just imagine what they can do when they infuse the state with their religion. But this is what their God tells them to do, so respect it.

Just Christians?

That's a faily myopic stance.

Read through the Old Testament. The nation of Israel (Jews) did the same thing. Plenty of examples in the name of Yahweh or Elohim in he Old Testament.

Hmmm...lemme me think...what about the Muslims? Yep! Convert or die. All in the name of Allah.

Hmmm.

Seems like you're only focused on the evil that ONE religion perpetrated. Got an axe to grind?

Probably because its the ONE

Probably because its the ONE religion thats seeking to impose its set or morals on the U.S. via government.

And people say its Muslims who want to take over the government, HA!! The real threat is here, at home, and Christian.

Ax to grind?

Just pointing out the long, indisputable trajectory of "Christian" history and how its true spirit imbues the bill that this article is about. Hey, I grew up in the southern Christian church, so know it from the inside.

Genital mutilation comment

CommonwealthvNesbit identified actions which if perpetrated in the name of relgion then the govt has legitmate reason to intrude:human sacrifice,polygamy,bigamy,concubinage,incest,INJURY TO CHILDREN,advocation and promotion of immorality.In ORTHODOX religious practices ie public prayer,the use of the scriptures etc, the govt was NOT to interfere.

There is your answer A. Markowitz.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Please note: Threaded comments work best if you view the oldest comments first.

More articles from: News rss feed    Politics rss feed    State Government rss feed   


Toolbox


Partners