Virginia takes a step backward

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/dec/15/tdmain01-va-oks-same-sex-adoption-hurdle-ar-1544943/

Virginia's Board of Social Services on Wednesday approved final regulations on adoption that, starting in the spring, will effectively allow state-licensed private agencies to deny the adoption of a child by same-sex couples.

The regulations also will allow the adoption agencies to deny services to prospective parents on the basis of age, gender, disability, religion, political belief and family status.

The regulations, however, will prohibit discrimination based on race, color or national origin.

The board voted 5-1 to approve the regulations, with Social Services Board Chairwoman Bela Sood casting the lone "no" vote.

"The science really doesn't substantiate the notion," she said, referring to the traditional family structure of a married man and woman, "that that is the only way children should be raised."

The regulations are set to take effect May 1. They will govern the 81 private adoption agencies licensed in the state, roughly half of which are affiliated with religious organizations such as the Catholic Church.

Under Virginia law, single people — heterosexual or homosexual — and married couples may adopt, but unmarried couples may not.

In April, board members struck language from the proposed rules that would have barred discrimination against prospective parents based on gender, age, religion, political beliefs, disability, family status and sexual orientation.

The change followed an earlier public comment period and a review of the proposed regulations by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who sent a memo to the board that said the broader protections of the original regulations were not covered by "applicable state law and public policy."

Cuccinelli advised that the state Board of Social Services did not have the authority to adopt them.

At the time, Gov. Bob McDonnell said he supported allowing single gay people to adopt, but that he was opposed to expanding the adoptive-parent pool to unmarried couples.

Anger over the language change in the adoption regulations led the board in August to provide for an additional 30-day public comment period.

During that time, the Board of Social Services said it received 1,611 comments in support of the expanded list of discrimination protections and 1,154 in favor of the truncated list that excludes sexual-orientation discrimination

Wednesday's vote at the Department of Social Services regional office in Henrico County was preceded by an hourlong public comment period that saw both sides of the issue aired by more than a dozen advocacy groups and individuals with personal stories of their family life.

Proponents for the revised regulations said the broader anti-discrimination language infringed on religious liberty.

"We have a right under federal and state law to make decisions consistent with our religious beliefs," said Krystal Thompson, CEO of Commonwealth Catholic Charities, which placed 375 children in foster homes and handled 85 adoptions last year.

"Virginians should not have to ask permission to perform faith-based acts of charity," said Austin Nimocks, a lawyer with the national Alliance Defense Fund.

An equal number of opponents who spoke against the regulations said the law does not allow for state-licensed private adoption organizations to discriminate. The revised regulations, they argued, were not only wrong and potentially a violation of law but also create a further impediment to placing more children with families.

"You're getting political advice about whether gay people should be covered or treated equally under the law," said Claire Guthrie Gastanaga, representing the gay rights group Equality Virginia. "Nothing has changed about the needs of children for loving and permanent homes.

"Fundamentally, what they argued for is the right to discriminate," she said after the vote.

Earlier, Richmonder Lori Plumley said there was no proof that gay parents could not successfully raise or nurture children. As the mother of a lesbian daughter, she said, her "eyes have been opened to the fact that God created each of us in a unique way in order that we might learn from, and learn to, love one another."

Going forward, Roland Winston of the group Mothers and Others said the new rules will not help to reduce the number of children who "age out" of the state's foster-care system without ever being adopted.

According to the Department of Social Services, there are 1,200 children awaiting adoption and 6,000 children in Virginia's foster-care program. "To deny six categories of people" an equal opportunity to adopt a child, Winston told the board, "is ridiculous."

Why is it okay for the state to discriminate on the basis of some characteristics but not others? If it's okay to not allow an adoption on the basis of someone's political beliefs, why not race or national origin?
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
"Under Virginia law, single people — heterosexual or homosexual — and married couples may adopt, but unmarried couples may not"

What's the problem with this?
 

AyashiKaibutsu

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2004
9,306
4
81

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
"Under Virginia law, single people — heterosexual or homosexual — and married couples may adopt, but unmarried couples may not"

What's the problem with this?

Unmarried couples are not allowed to.
At present Gay/Lesbians are not able to be married under Virginia law :(
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,081
136
I know you guys are gonna hate me for saying this, but I believe its the truth so I have to.

We've been overrun by illegal aliens and most of them are Catholic. They are starting to have a larger and larger influence in how the state is run, if only indirectly. Expect to see a slow move towards conservative Christian ideas as time goes on.

Unless we do like Alabama and Arizona, and kick them out. That wont happen cuz too many politicians reside in Virginia and they love their indentured servants, especially cuz they can afford to not actually live anywhere near them.

I love the government. Go to DC all day and fuck up America, then come home and night and fuck up Virginia.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
I realize sitting in foster homes is not good, however...

...why would the state put a kid into a situation where the two adults legally bound to be guardians of said kid have a higher chance of breaking up because they're not married?

If they adopt out to a single person, that single person isn't breaking up with themself. An average married couple, even with elevated divorce rates now a days, still is going to be more stable environment than an average unmarried couple.

To be clear: When gays can get garried, I'm all OK with letting them adopt same as hetro married couples.

I still don't see the huge issue here...
 

Gunslinger08

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
13,234
2
81
I do have a problem with this:

The regulations also will allow the adoption agencies to deny services to prospective parents on the basis of age, gender, disability, religion, political belief and family status.

How could any of those be accepted as legal biases by any rational person, outside of extremes (ex. 90 year olds, quadriplegics, death cult members, etc.)? Hopefully these "regulations" have provisions that limit them to just that.

I don't see the issue with not allowing unmarried couples to adopt. I think it's the right thing to do, for the kids. Generally, a married couple has a higher percentage chance of sticking together than an unmarried couple.

If homosexual couples want the right to adopt, they need to fight for the right to marriage in VA.
 

crashtestdummy

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2010
2,893
0
0
I realize sitting in foster homes is not good, however...

...why would the state put a kid into a situation where the two adults legally bound to be guardians of said kid have a higher chance of breaking up because they're not married?

If they adopt out to a single person, that single person isn't breaking up with themself. An average married couple, even with elevated divorce rates now a days, still is going to be more stable environment than an average unmarried couple.

To be clear: When gays can get garried, I'm all OK with letting them adopt same as hetro married couples.

I still don't see the huge issue here...

That would be a completely acceptable line of thinking, if those gay parents were allowed to marry. Since they are not, it doesn't matter if they are as committed as any married couple would be, they still can't adopt as one.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
If you don't like it then vote new people in or vote with your feet.
Problem solved.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
That would be a completely acceptable line of thinking, if those gay parents were allowed to marry. Since they are not, it doesn't matter if they are as committed as any married couple would be, they still can't adopt as one.

But that's not the Board's problem, that's gay couples problem. Gay's need to get their civil union issue solved, then they should have no issue getting in line for a money pit...oops, I mean kid...

Chuck
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
"Under Virginia law, single people — heterosexual or homosexual — and married couples may adopt, but unmarried couples may not"

What's the problem with this?
It's stupid. Even an unmarried couple adopting is better than a single person adopting because that gives the child two people on which to depend; i.e. the child is almost twice as likely to NOT be left once again without parents. As far as gay couples, I think the ideal situation is for a child to have a mother and a father, but a blanket statement (let alone a law) that EVERY gay couple is inferior to EVERY straight couple is not supportable. Similarly, a stable (preferably married) gay couple would be preferable to any single parent. Even Sandra Bullock, much as I love her, is susceptible to getting hit by a bus. A much better situation would be to allow gay marriage and evaluate each adoption on the basis on the home environment offered by the prospective adoptive parents. Two parents (of any sexual persuasion) almost certainly beat one, freaks and saints aside. Two parents (of any sexual persuasion) with one at-home parent almost certainly beats two working parents (of any sexual persuasion) with children not yet in school, and arguably for older children as well. Only when you have multiple stable, well-qualified couples able to provide reasonable well for the child and its welfare do you have the luxury of deciding whether these two dads or these two moms are necessarily inferior to this mom and a dad, and that's not usually the case in adoption. Anything else is not in the child's interests, and I suspect Virginia will leave many children in foster care and adopt more to single parents (a heartbeat away from being re-orphaned) rather than adopt out to stable gay couples who want to be parents. What's even worse, I suspect that many of the politicians pushing this are doing so for political reasons rather than for their own convictions.

I know you guys are gonna hate me for saying this, but I believe its the truth so I have to.

We've been overrun by illegal aliens and most of them are Catholic. They are starting to have a larger and larger influence in how the state is run, if only indirectly. Expect to see a slow move towards conservative Christian ideas as time goes on.

Unless we do like Alabama and Arizona, and kick them out. That wont happen cuz too many politicians reside in Virginia and they love their indentured servants, especially cuz they can afford to not actually live anywhere near them.

I love the government. Go to DC all day and fuck up America, then come home and night and fuck up Virginia.
LOL So true.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
I realize sitting in foster homes is not good, however...

...why would the state put a kid into a situation where the two adults legally bound to be guardians of said kid have a higher chance of breaking up because they're not married?

If they adopt out to a single person, that single person isn't breaking up with themself. An average married couple, even with elevated divorce rates now a days, still is going to be more stable environment than an average unmarried couple.

To be clear: When gays can get garried, I'm all OK with letting them adopt same as hetro married couples.

I still don't see the huge issue here...

None of which excuses them for including other things in the list of disqualifying factors: political and religious beliefs, for example.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
I appreciate everyone's attention to the "gay" aspect of this situation, but don't forget... the much bigger problem is the inclusion of political and religious belief into the list of things that can disqualify a married couple from being able to adopt.

"You two are Democrats?" or "You two are Republicans?" should not be a question the answer to which would be a qualifier or disqualifier.

Neither should "Are you [insert religion here]?"
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
I appreciate everyone's attention to the "gay" aspect of this situation, but don't forget... the much bigger problem is the inclusion of political and religious belief into the list of things that can disqualify a married couple from being able to adopt.

"You two are Democrats?" or "You two are Republicans?" should not be a question the answer to which would be a qualifier or disqualifier.

Neither should "Are you [insert religion here]?"

I understand your point, but these are private organizations, often based on religious charity. Why should they be forced to go against their religious beliefs and place a child in an environment they feel (for whatever reason) is not suitable? Why should the state interfere with a private group's determination of what it considers a suitable environment?

I think these regs seem reasonable. It's not like the organizations will now be forced to discriminate. The regs just allow them to discriminate based on certain criteria if they choose. Seems right to me.
 

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
11,347
2,710
136
I don't think this will pass constitutional muster on account oF this:

In April, board members struck language from the proposed rules that would have barred discrimination against prospective parents based on gender, age, religion, political beliefs, disability, family status and sexual orientation.

as far as I know, you can not discriminate based on age, religion and some other things no matter what they want.

also, what would stop someone from temporarily splitting, adopting and then getting back together to get around the ban on unmarried couples.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
I don't think this will pass constitutional muster on account oF this:



as far as I know, you can not discriminate based on age, religion and some other things no matter what they want.

Yes, you can, depending on the situation. For example, you are free to discriminate and say "I don't want Christians in my house". Nothing illegal about that. If you try to do the same thing with a store, you'd be breaking the law.

In this case, these organizations are not selling a service, most are charitable organizations.

also, what would stop someone from temporarily splitting, adopting and then getting back together to get around the ban on unmarried couples.

That could be a loophole.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
I understand your point, but these are private organizations, often based on religious charity. Why should they be forced to go against their religious beliefs and place a child in an environment they feel (for whatever reason) is not suitable? Why should the state interfere with a private group's determination of what it considers a suitable environment?

I think these regs seem reasonable. It's not like the organizations will now be forced to discriminate. The regs just allow them to discriminate based on certain criteria if they choose. Seems right to me.

If that's what this is about they should also be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, color, and national origin... but that's not allowed, while discriminating on the other items is allowed. That is, in effect, the state codifying the specific things with which churches do and do not want to discriminate, and that's not the role government.. even state government.. is constitutionally permitted to play.
 
Last edited:

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
It is easy to get around this. Instead of the unmarried couple adopting, just have one of the two adopt as a single person.

/issue