In Illinois, a state legislator introduced an amendment to the Illinois Civil Unions act that would clarify that religious adoption agencies should not be punished or excluded from helping find good homes for abused and neglected children because they do not personally perform gay adoptions.
"Catholic Charities is responsible for a majority of adoptions and placements of foster kids in southern Illinois, and they do it for a fraction of the cost, and they do it with an extreme amount of compassion," Rep. Kyle McCarter said. "Not allowing (Catholic Charities) to refer these small number of cases to DCFS, we’re really missing out on the great service they provide."
(An evangelical religious adoption agency has also been affected).
It sounds like a no-brainer right?
No gay person and no child will be better off if the government excludes competent religious foster care agencies who are likely to be the most effective at recruiting foster parents from religious communities.
And yet, here is the reaction of the gay rights community to this narrow bill that would deny no gay person a single right, except the right to stigmatize religious people and exclude our institutions:
Anthony Martinez, executive director of The Civil Rights Agenda, an Illinois LGBT advocacy group, called the bill an "affront" to LGBT "civil rights." Apparently he sees the exclusion of religious adoption agencies as a core civil right! "We had hoped to kill this bill quietly as has been done in the past. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/13/antigay-adoption-bill-sho_n_848685.html , http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/23/antigay-adoption-bill-str_n_839462.html ) Unfortunately, that strategy is no longer an option and our opposition has now been galvanized. We will ensure that our followers and the community are informed as to the appropriate action once the General Assembly reconvenes."
Meanwhile Bernard Cherkasov, chief executive officer of Equality Illinois, called McCarter's bill, "unacceptable. When it comes to child welfare, there can be no double standards."
Child welfare? What child will be better off if there are fewer competent agencies recruiting loving homes for children?
This is meanness, pure and simple, animated by an irrational hatred towards our great religious faith traditions.
It is the result of the core ideas now driving the movement to redefine marriage: gay is like black, which makes our great traditional faith communities the moral--and legal-equivalent of racists.
Surely America can do better than that.
Religious liberty is not an affront to anyone's civil rights, it is one of our Constitution's core guarantees and our community's deeply shared values.
Maggie Gallagher is President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and a co-author of The Case for Marriage
In Illinois, a state legislator introduced an amendment to the Illinois Civil Unions act that would clarify that religious adoption agencies should not be punished or excluded from helping find good homes for abused and neglected children because they do not personally perform gay adoptions.
"Catholic Charities is responsible for a majority of adoptions and placements of foster kids in southern Illinois, and they do it for a fraction of the cost, and they do it with an extreme amount of compassion," Rep. Kyle McCarter said. "Not allowing (Catholic Charities) to refer these small number of cases to DCFS, we’re really missing out on the great service they provide."
(An evangelical religious adoption agency has also been affected).
It sounds like a no-brainer right?
No gay person and no child will be better off if the government excludes competent religious foster care agencies who are likely to be the most effective at recruiting foster parents from religious communities.
And yet, here is the reaction of the gay rights community to this narrow bill that would deny no gay person a single right, except the right to stigmatize religious people and exclude our institutions:
Anthony Martinez, executive director of The Civil Rights Agenda, an Illinois LGBT advocacy group, called the bill an "affront" to LGBT "civil rights." Apparently he sees the exclusion of religious adoption agencies as a core civil right! "We had hoped to kill this bill quietly as has been done in the past. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/13/antigay-adoption-bill-sho_n_848685.html , http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/23/antigay-adoption-bill-str_n_839462.html ) Unfortunately, that strategy is no longer an option and our opposition has now been galvanized. We will ensure that our followers and the community are informed as to the appropriate action once the General Assembly reconvenes."
Meanwhile Bernard Cherkasov, chief executive officer of Equality Illinois, called McCarter's bill, "unacceptable. When it comes to child welfare, there can be no double standards."
Child welfare? What child will be better off if there are fewer competent agencies recruiting loving homes for children?
This is meanness, pure and simple, animated by an irrational hatred towards our great religious faith traditions.
It is the result of the core ideas now driving the movement to redefine marriage: gay is like black, which makes our great traditional faith communities the moral--and legal-equivalent of racists.
Surely America can do better than that.
Religious liberty is not an affront to anyone's civil rights, it is one of our Constitution's core guarantees and our community's deeply shared values.
Maggie Gallagher is President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and a co-author of The Case for Marriage
In
Illinois, a state legislator introduced an amendment to the Illinois
Civil Unions act that would clarify that religious adoption agencies
should not be punished or excluded from helping find good homes for
abused and neglected children because they do not personally perform
gay adoptions.
"Catholic
Charities is responsible for a majority of adoptions and placements
of foster kids in southern Illinois, and they do it for a fraction of
the cost, and they do it with an extreme amount of compassion,"
Rep. Kyle McCarter said. "Not allowing (Catholic Charities) to
refer these small number of cases to DCFS, we’re really missing out
on the great service they provide."
(An
evangelical religious adoption agency has also been affected).
It
sounds like a no-brainer right?
No
gay person and no child will be better off if the government excludes
competent religious foster care agencies who are likely to be the
most effective at recruiting foster parents from religious
communities.
And
yet, here is the reaction of the gay rights community to this narrow
bill that would deny no gay person a single right, except the right
to stigmatize religious people and exclude our institutions:
Anthony
Martinez, executive director of The Civil Rights Agenda, an Illinois
LGBT advocacy group, called the bill an "affront" to LGBT
"civil rights." Apparently he sees the exclusion of
religious adoption agencies as a core civil right! "We had hoped
to kill this bill quietly as has
been done in
the past. Unfortunately, that strategy is no longer an option and
our opposition has now been galvanized. We will ensure that our
followers and the community are informed as to the appropriate action
once the General Assembly reconvenes."
Meanwhile
Bernard Cherkasov, chief executive officer of Equality Illinois,
called McCarter's bill, "unacceptable. When it comes to child
welfare, there can be no double standards."
Child
welfare? What child will be better off if there are fewer competent
agencies recruiting loving homes for children?
This
is meanness, pure and simple, animated by an irrational hatred
towards our great religious faith traditions.
It
is the result of the core ideas now driving the movement to redefine
marriage: gay is like black, which makes our great traditional faith
communities the moral--and legal-equivalent of racists.
Surely
America can do better than that.
Religious
liberty is not an affront to anyone's civil rights, it is one of our
Constitution's core guarantees and our community's deeply shared
values.
By Maggie Gallagher
Guest Blogger for the Manhattan Declaration, as well as the President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, and a co-author of The Case for Marriage.