Home > adoption, Gay and Lesbian > Virginia Governor to Block Mandate Requiring Agencies to do Gay Adoptions

Virginia Governor to Block Mandate Requiring Agencies to do Gay Adoptions

April 8th, 2011

from NOM’s newsletter:

The Democratic administration of Tim Kaine left a little time bomb in the making for incoming Gov. Bob McDonnell, in the form of new regulations which would require all adoption and foster care agencies to do gay adoptions. The gay blogs flipped when we dubbed this the “mandatory gay adoption” regs, but that is just what they are. Sometimes the truth hurts!

The new regs were proposed in the final weeks of the Kaine administration, hurriedly approved without publicity by the outgoing attorney general. Ostensibly designed to prevent “discrimination” against gay people in adoption, these mean-spirited regs would have actually driven religious adoption agencies out of business, by withholding licenses to agencies which refuse to do same-sex couple adoptions. (In a companion absurdity, it would also ban any kind of preference for married couples by banning “discrimination” based on “family status.”)

We sent out two action alerts—with just hours to go, hundreds of you responded to our call to oppose the regulations on the public comment page. With just three or four hours to respond, before comments closed, the number of public comments opposing the regs jumped from less than 100 to close to a thousand. Way to go, and thank you!

A second action alert called on Gov. Bob McDonnell to block these regulations.

And this morning we heard from the Washington Times that McDonnell”s office has confirmed that he will block the regulations.

  1. Amy
    April 8th, 2011 at 14:09 | #1

    It’s good to know that those leveraging sexual identity politics won’t be able to use children as human shields, by preventing getting these kids placed with married couples ready, able, and willing to take them in, regardless of the Constitutionally protected religious beliefs of these foster/adoptive parents.

  2. Sean
    April 9th, 2011 at 04:44 | #2

    It’s great that states are protecting gay and lesbian right to equal treatment in adoption.

  3. Bob Barnes
    April 9th, 2011 at 09:07 | #3

    Amy :
    It’s good to know that those leveraging sexual identity politics won’t be able to use children as human shields, by preventing getting these kids placed with married couples ready, able, and willing to take them in, regardless of the Constitutionally protected religious beliefs of these foster/adoptive parents.

    Fear not, Amy. The days of religious-based biased politics are numbered. What McDonnell does today will be corrected later. And as I’ve pointed out before, there are 143,000,00 orphans in the world. Please enlighten us with the plan to give every one of them a mom and dad.

  4. April 9th, 2011 at 15:49 | #4

    @Sean There is no “equal treatment” for adoption for unqualified parents. Same-sex couples are no qualified to be proper parents; they force a child to be without a mother or father, and raise them in a destructive lifestyle.

  5. Sean
    April 10th, 2011 at 04:33 | #5

    Glenn, your personal opinion on this simply lacks any basis in reality. Same-sex couples make fine parents, and many same-sex couples ARE parenting. Children don’t need a mother and a father, they need loving, competent parents. That’s why all states let same-sex couples raise children, and all states but Utah permit same-sex couples to adopt.

    If same-sex couples weren’t good parents, do you think all states would let them raise children? Of course not. I think I read somewhere that two women (lesbian or straight) create the best outcomes for children.

    Don’t confuse the need for male and female genetic material to create a child, with good parenting skills to raise that child. To say a certain group of people are bad parents is quite ignorant.

  6. April 11th, 2011 at 06:27 | #6

    @Sean It is not my personal opinion – it is based on an objective standard of morality. Every study of the subject has demonstrated that children do indeed need both a mother and a father for normal development. The so-called study that was done about lesbians raising the best outcome children has been assaulted from real researchers as being severely flawed with obvious bias. Common sense would even say otherwise.

    Just because the legal system allows a practice, that doesn’t mean that practice is right and good. Slavery was also legal, so I guess the fact that states saw nothing wrong with slaver, and even that it was great, means therefore that slavery should have been expanded.

  7. Sean
    April 11th, 2011 at 15:35 | #7

    “It is not my personal opinion – it is based on an objective standard of morality”

    There is no such thing as an objective standard of morality.

    “Every study of the subject has demonstrated that children do indeed need both a mother and a father for normal development.”

    We don’t know enough about the children raised by same-sex couples because their families have not been normalized yet. Once same-sex marriage is universally available, and same-sex relationships have equal status with different-sex relationships, we can then study outcomes. But not before.

    “Just because the legal system allows a practice, that doesn’t mean that practice is right and good.”

    But whether you personally approve or not, other people get to live their lives as they see fit, so long as no one is being hurt. Your feelings about straight supremacy get challenged, but that doesn’t rise to the level of actionable hurt or harm.

    “Slavery was also legal, so I guess the fact that states saw nothing wrong with slaver, and even that it was great, means therefore that slavery should have been expanded.”

    Slavery was supported by religious doctrine, and lived a longer life than it should have. Slavery harmed someone, mainly, someone who was a slave. Homosexuality and same-sex marriage harm no one, and in fact same-sex marriage helps gay couples and their children lead healthier, more secure lives.

  8. April 11th, 2011 at 19:00 | #8

    @Sean So if there is no such thing as an objective standard of morality, then by what right do you say any of us are wrong in saying homosexuality is wrong? how can you say incest is wrong? How can you say murder is wrong? With no objective standard of morality it becomes just everyone’s opinion.

    We DO know enough about children who have been deprived of one parent or the other due to divorce, death, etc to know that children need mother and father. We don’t need to study scenarios that are worse!

    Slavery was NOT supported by religious doctrine except by few. Slaver existed long before Christianity and it was Christianity that ended it. I was using your logic that if something was legal it had to be therefore okay – yet by your logic slavery would have had to be okay because it was legal.

    If there is no objective morality, how can you say slavery harmed someone? By whose opinion was harm done?

    A homophile couple cannot live a healthy life no matter how many children’s lives they ruin by forcing them to live with them. Homosexuality as a lifestyle is dangerous and has been proven to cause reduced lifespan.

  9. Bob Barnes
    April 12th, 2011 at 02:34 | #9

    Glenn E. Chatfield :
    @Sean It is not my personal opinion – it is based on an objective standard of morality. Every study of the subject has demonstrated that children do indeed need both a mother and a father for normal development. The so-called study that was done about lesbians raising the best outcome children has been assaulted from real researchers as being severely flawed with obvious bias. Common sense would even say otherwise.

    Glen There are no such studies to support your claims. The NIS-4 study that Ms. Gallagher uses to make the claim “every child does best with a mother and father DOES NOT include any same-sex parents in the study. You can’t rate a certain model if you don’t include it.

    Sean was correct, it is nothing but opinion.

  10. April 12th, 2011 at 09:41 | #10

    Glenn, you write, “We DO know enough about children who have been deprived of one parent or the other due to divorce, death, etc to know that children need mother and father. We don’t need to study scenarios that are worse!”

    So are you really saying that a child raised by parents is worse off than a child whose parents divorce or die?? I don’t think you’ll find too many people who agree with you on that one.

  11. April 12th, 2011 at 09:41 | #11

    That should have read “same-sex parents”

  12. April 12th, 2011 at 09:49 | #12

    Glenn, you also wrote, “A homophile couple cannot live a healthy life no matter how many children’s lives they ruin by forcing them to live with them.”

    Do you remember that wonderfully eloquent young man who spoke to a room full of Iowan politicians describing his family and how proud and grateful he was to the Iowa Supreme Court for fully recognizing his family as such? He was a handsome, smart, compassionate, well-spoken, and loving son — a son anyone would be proud to have — and you think he was ruined by his mothers? And that his sister, so proud of her big brother, so clearly loving and loved by her mothers, also was ruined?

    That just seems pretty preposterous.

  13. Ruth
    April 12th, 2011 at 13:29 | #13

    @Emma
    I believe that eloquent young man was in no way harmed by the ladies who raised him not being called “married”.

  14. April 12th, 2011 at 14:55 | #14

    Bob Barnes :

    Glenn E. Chatfield :
    @Sean It is not my personal opinion – it is based on an objective standard of morality. Every study of the subject has demonstrated that children do indeed need both a mother and a father for normal development. The so-called study that was done about lesbians raising the best outcome children has been assaulted from real researchers as being severely flawed with obvious bias. Common sense would even say otherwise.

    Glen There are no such studies to support your claims. The NIS-4 study that Ms. Gallagher uses to make the claim “every child does best with a mother and father DOES NOT include any same-sex parents in the study. You can’t rate a certain model if you don’t include it.
    Sean was correct, it is nothing but opinion.

    Actually those studies do support those claims.

    We learn that family environments that are pieced together after divorce, or abandonment, or otherwise lose out on being raised by their father or mother in a low-conflict home, have some hurdle to overcome.

    I realize you are saying that there wasn’t a direct comparison made in that study. But even then, if you are suggesting that same-sex couples have just as good an outcomes as the in-tact family, then what do you propose is the reason that such events prove to injure all those cases *except* when the child is subsequently raised by a same-sex couple?

    I can go on with the mechanisms that help a man-woman relationship raise children, and they all boil down to the diversity of the perspectives given from the male and female identities. But before I do, I want to hear your proposal why gay couples are exempt from the harms done by having children after divorce, abandonment, or death of a parent while we see that harm done everywhere else.

  15. Sean
    April 12th, 2011 at 16:50 | #15

    “We learn that family environments that are pieced together after divorce, or abandonment, or otherwise lose out on being raised by their father or mother in a low-conflict home, have some hurdle to overcome.”

    Well, yeah, families “pieced” together after trauma have a tough row to hoe. Sounds like a good case for outlawing divorce!

    “I can go on with the mechanisms that help a man-woman relationship raise children, and they all boil down to the diversity of the perspectives given from the male and female identities.”

    Sounds like a good case for mixed race marriage! And outlawing single parenting! The truth is, children don’t suffer gender identity problems by not having a mother or a father, any more than only children have social problems for lack of siblings. And oh yeah, outlawing same-sex marriage does nothing to give children opposite-sex parents!

    “But before I do, I want to hear your proposal why gay couples are exempt from the harms done by having children after divorce, abandonment, or death of a parent while we see that harm done everywhere else.”

    The simple and obvious answer is, having same-sex parents isn’t trauma.

  16. April 13th, 2011 at 06:07 | #16

    Sean :
    Well, yeah, families “pieced” together after trauma have a tough row to hoe. Sounds like a good case for outlawing divorce![…] And outlawing single parenting!

    Is this from the same Sean who said that a polygamous relationship where two of the three marriages were not officially recognized (in fact were divorces) is perfectly legal?

    Sounds like you don’t know the difference between what is legal and what isn’t legal.

    But if it helps, I wouldn’t call a divorce a marriage, nor would I call a single parent a marriage either.

    But I will remember you wanted to outlaw divorce and single parenting.

  17. Heidi
    April 13th, 2011 at 06:43 | #17

    My young daughter (biological niece) is being raised by myself and my female partner. She is thriving! She talks about her two mamas and how much she loves her family.

  18. April 13th, 2011 at 10:43 | #18

    Ruth :
    @Emma
    I believe that eloquent young man was in no way harmed by the ladies who raised him not being called “married”.

    By “ladies who raised him,” I assume you mean his parents, yes?

    But convoluted terminology aside, I was responding specifically to Glenn’s assertion that gay couples ruin the lives of their children. This is patently false.

  19. Sean
    April 13th, 2011 at 14:47 | #19

    “Is this from the same Sean who said that a polygamous relationship where two of the three marriages were not officially recognized (in fact were divorces) is perfectly legal?”

    Yes, it is the same Sean. The situation I described previously, where a man is alternately married to one of three women, in serial fashion, is perfectly legal.

    “But I will remember you wanted to outlaw divorce and single parenting.”

    You seem to catalog my comments, flattering, to be sure. I don’t want to outlaw divorce or single parenting, but I do want the “optimal parenting” crowd to acknowledge that if legal same-sex marriage somehow creates sub-optimal parenting (where, evidently, the same gay couple are acceptable parents when same-sex marriage is illegal), then single parenting and divorce also create sub-optimal parenting, and must be addressed, to avoid hypocrisy.

  20. April 13th, 2011 at 15:29 | #20

    @Emma Two members of the same sex in a union are not “parents” That is another liberal construct to include anyone. Yes, a child with one parent is better off than one with a same-sex couple acting as parents.

  21. April 13th, 2011 at 15:32 | #21

    @Sean Having same-sex “parents” is extreme trauma because it ruins their view of life and family and human sexuality.
    http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_sad_side_of_gay_parenting/

  22. April 13th, 2011 at 15:33 | #22

    @Heidi But what is her understanding of human sexuality? What can she learn about men from two women so as to be prepared for a normal relationship with men?

  23. Sean
    April 13th, 2011 at 17:18 | #23

    “Yes, a child with one parent is better off than one with a same-sex couple acting as parents.”

    That’s a personal opinion, like my belief that loving same-sex parents are better than unloving different-sex parents. Mine is more logical though!

    Gender roles from parents aren’t necessary. The world is filled with males and females to learn whatever gender roles remain. The lesbian couple, for example, can easily bring a favorite male friend into the family as an influence for a son. If they have daughters, no problem: two female gender roles!

  24. Sean
    April 13th, 2011 at 17:19 | #24

    “Having same-sex “parents” is extreme trauma because it ruins their view of life and family and human sexuality.”

    That’s like saying having Christian parents “ruins” your view of reality. No one’s parents have that much control or influence! Gay families ARE families and are a normal part of life and represent a normal part of human sexuality.

    Do you ever worry about the trauma a gay child has, when he has two straight parents?

  25. April 13th, 2011 at 17:35 | #25

    Sean :
    The situation I described previously, where a man is alternately married to one of three women, in serial fashion, is perfectly legal.
    […] single parenting and divorce also create sub-optimal parenting, and must be addressed, to avoid hypocrisy.

    So at any given time, only one of the three “marriages” is recognized. But all three are “legal” even when two are not recognized. But you think consistency demands they are made illegal?

    Yes, I agree about avoiding hypocrisy. I think you should take that advise to heart.

    As for me, I see all three of them without hypocrisy, divorce and single-parenting is not marriage.

  26. Betsy
    April 13th, 2011 at 21:17 | #26

    Daughters need fathers for a male gender role as well.

  27. Chairm
    April 13th, 2011 at 23:41 | #27

    On Lawn made good queries in his earlier comment.

    For instance:

    “I want to hear your proposal why gay couples are exempt from the harms done by having children after divorce, abandonment, or death of a parent while we see that harm done everywhere else.”

    What, if anything, would make the “gay couple” different from other one-sexed scenarios such that this difference, if it exists, would raise outcomes for children above other scenarios that are not intact marital homes of mom-dads raising their offsring in low conflict marriages?

    Is it the gay identity? The same-sex sexual behavior? What is the mechanism and where is the evidence of it working its magic?

  28. April 14th, 2011 at 08:42 | #28

    Sean :
    Gender roles from parents aren’t necessary. The world is filled with males and females to learn whatever gender roles remain. The lesbian couple, for example, can easily bring a favorite male friend into the family as an influence for a son. If they have daughters, no problem: two female gender roles!

    Note that to Sean, gender is about roles and not about identity. Yet sexual orientation is about identity and not roles.

    More of Sean’s promotion of homosexuality at the expense of everyone else.

  29. April 14th, 2011 at 10:43 | #29

    @Sean You say my claim that a child w/one parent is better off than with same-sex couple is just my opinion, and that your belief is more logical.

    Since you deny absolute morality and then make morality based only on opinion, then you really cannot say your opinion is better than mine. But, yours certainly isn’t more logical, because logic dictates that same-sex relations are biologically unsound, and that a child should have a normal parent even if it is only one, because his environment will be more normal. You can’t say I’m wrong because you have no standard on which to base your claim.

    Gender roles certainly are necessary, but I see On Lawn and Betsy responded to you, so I won’t bother with that subject.

    There is no such thing as a “gay child.” A child has to be taught homosexuality. And comparing sexual orientation/behavior with a religious/philosophical belief system is another example of your poor logic skills.

  30. Bob Barnes
    April 14th, 2011 at 14:21 | #30

    On Lawn :

    Actually those studies do support those claims.
    We learn that family environments that are pieced together after divorce, or abandonment, or otherwise lose out on being raised by their father or mother in a low-conflict home, have some hurdle to overcome.
    I realize you are saying that there wasn’t a direct comparison made in that study. But even then, if you are suggesting that same-sex couples have just as good an outcomes as the in-tact family, then what do you propose is the reason that such events prove to injure all those cases *except* when the child is subsequently raised by a same-sex couple?
    I can go on with the mechanisms that help a man-woman relationship raise children, and they all boil down to the diversity of the perspectives given from the male and female identities. But before I do, I want to hear your proposal why gay couples are exempt from the harms done by having children after divorce, abandonment, or death of a parent while we see that harm done everywhere else.

    Umm, no they don’t. You have given ups an example of classic “rationalization.” You can’t rate something if you don’t measure it. The NIS-4 study does not have data on same-sex parents, so there’s no way to say if they are better or worse.

  31. April 14th, 2011 at 20:35 | #31

    @Bob Barnes

    Oh I expected more from you. I have plenty of data from studies of same-sex parents that they do as well as single-parents, divorced parents, and such. But none that compare them directly to the in-tact family.

    Can you tell me why that is? Why do these studies that want to compare apples to apples, compare same-sex couples to co-habiting couples, single parents, divorced parents remarried, etc…?

  32. Sean
    April 15th, 2011 at 04:20 | #32

    What difference does it make if same-sex couples do better or worse that different-sex couples in parenting? Same-sex parenting is legal in all 50 states. That’s not going to change. So if we know that same-sex couples are going to raise children, shouldn’t we want those those children raised in the best possible circumstances?

    I bet rich parents get better parenting outcomes than poor parents. I bet educated parents’ kids do better than uneducated parents’ kids. But straight or gay, all humans have the right to have and raise children.

  33. Bob Barnes
    April 15th, 2011 at 05:23 | #33

    On Lawn :
    @Bob Barnes
    Oh I expected more from you. I have plenty of data from studies of same-sex parents that they do as well as single-parents, divorced parents, and such. But none that compare them directly to the in-tact family.
    Can you tell me why that is? Why do these studies that want to compare apples to apples, compare same-sex couples to co-habiting couples, single parents, divorced parents remarried, etc…?

    Sociologists Stacey and Timothy Biblarz of the University of Southern California finished a five-year study where they compared all models of parents including “intact” families and sam-esex parents. And as they reported to the Journal of Marriage and Family, “No research supports the widely held conviction that the gender of parents matters for child well-being”

    So, look that up and add that to your data collection.

  34. April 15th, 2011 at 11:00 | #34

    Bob Barnes :

    On Lawn :
    @Bob Barnes
    Oh I expected more from you. I have plenty of data from studies of same-sex parents that they do as well as single-parents, divorced parents, and such. But none that compare them directly to the in-tact family.
    Can you tell me why that is? Why do these studies that want to compare apples to apples, compare same-sex couples to co-habiting couples, single parents, divorced parents remarried, etc…?

    […] they compared all models of parents including “intact” families and sam-esex parents. And as they reported to the Journal of Marriage and Family, “No research supports the widely held conviction that the gender of parents matters for child well-being”
    So, look that up and add that to your data collection.

    Funny enough Bob, you walked directly into the study (among others) I was referring to.

    Even better, you admit the study does not compare directly with in-tact families, but only includes intact families, as well as some some divorced, some co-habiting, etc… which I already commented on above.

    And they didn’t find that in-tact and non-intact have similar outcomes, did they. It would be wrong to suggest that non-intact have similar outcomes in a reasonable diverse study, only if the non-intact are headed by same-sex couples.

    While I have issues with their methods and their conclusions, I think it is even more evident what they don’t conclude, or even try to determine.

  35. April 15th, 2011 at 11:02 | #35

    @Bob Barnes The only problem with these studies, as usual, is that they defy common sense.

  36. April 15th, 2011 at 11:08 | #36

    On Lawn :

    Sean :
    Gender roles from parents aren’t necessary. The world is filled with males and females to learn whatever gender roles remain. The lesbian couple, for example, can easily bring a favorite male friend into the family as an influence for a son. If they have daughters, no problem: two female gender roles!

    Note that to Sean, gender is about roles and not about identity. Yet sexual orientation is about identity and not roles.
    More of Sean’s promotion of homosexuality at the expense of everyone else.

    And as if more evidence of that wasn’t needed, we read his indifference to whether or not there is harm done by neutering marriage…

    Sean :
    What difference does it make if same-sex couples do better or worse that different-sex couples in parenting? […]

  37. Sean
    April 15th, 2011 at 15:31 | #37

    OnLawn, what makes you think that marriage was harmed when it was neutered in the last century?

    I guess my point escaped you. Let me try again. Suppose gay couples really were inferior parents. So what? Marriage discrimination doesn’t stop them from being parents, but it does stop them from having more secure relationships, which benefits them AND THEIR CHILDREN.

    Is your fear that same-sex couples and their families will have more successful outcomes if we let same-sex couples get married? Why? Isn’t giving kids the best family situation possible under the circumstances a good thing?

    What are we teaching our children by telling them that some kinds of parents are good and some are bad? What does this say to the children being raised by same-sex parents? What does it say about Christianity that so many Christians WANT to see some children raised outside of wedlock???

  38. Bob Barnes
    April 15th, 2011 at 17:00 | #38

    On Lawn :

    Bob Barnes :

    On Lawn :
    @Bob Barnes
    Oh I expected more from you. I have plenty of data from studies of same-sex parents that they do as well as single-parents, divorced parents, and such. But none that compare them directly to the in-tact family.
    Can you tell me why that is? Why do these studies that want to compare apples to apples, compare same-sex couples to co-habiting couples, single parents, divorced parents remarried, etc…?

    […] they compared all models of parents including “intact” families and sam-esex parents. And as they reported to the Journal of Marriage and Family, “No research supports the widely held conviction that the gender of parents matters for child well-being”
    So, look that up and add that to your data collection.

    Funny enough Bob, you walked directly into the study (among others) I was referring to.
    Even better, you admit the study does not compare directly with in-tact families, but only includes intact families, as well as some some divorced, some co-habiting, etc… which I already commented on above.
    And they didn’t find that in-tact and non-intact have similar outcomes, did they. It would be wrong to suggest that non-intact have similar outcomes in a reasonable diverse study, only if the non-intact are headed by same-sex couples.
    While I have issues with their methods and their conclusions, I think it is even more evident what they don’t conclude, or even try to determine.

    Or dear blogger of OPINE, the study does in fact compare intact families. Please refrain from the “eye’s closed position” you hold. Again, I’m very familiar with children’s’ studies, and what you really want to exist in the world of research, doesn’t exist.

  39. April 16th, 2011 at 09:17 | #39

    Bob Barnes :

    On Lawn :

    Bob Barnes :

    On Lawn :
    @Bob Barnes
    Oh I expected more from you. I have plenty of data from studies of same-sex parents that they do as well as single-parents, divorced parents, and such. But none that compare them directly to the in-tact family.
    Can you tell me why that is? Why do these studies that want to compare apples to apples, compare same-sex couples to co-habiting couples, single parents, divorced parents remarried, etc…?

    […] they compared all models of parents including “intact” families and sam-esex parents. And as they reported to the Journal of Marriage and Family, “No research supports the widely held conviction that the gender of parents matters for child well-being”
    So, look that up and add that to your data collection.

    Funny enough Bob, you walked directly into the study (among others) I was referring to.
    Even better, you admit the study does not compare directly with in-tact families, but only includes intact families, as well as some some divorced, some co-habiting, etc… which I already commented on above.
    And they didn’t find that in-tact and non-intact have similar outcomes, did they. It would be wrong to suggest that non-intact have similar outcomes in a reasonable diverse study, only if the non-intact are headed by same-sex couples.
    While I have issues with their methods and their conclusions, I think it is even more evident what they don’t conclude, or even try to determine.

    Or dear blogger of OPINE, the study does in fact compare intact families. Please refrain from the “eye’s closed position” you hold. Again, I’m very familiar with children’s’ studies, and what you really want to exist in the world of research, doesn’t exist.

    Funny, you say it does exist in that the study does compare intact families (which it doesn’t, it compares a group including intact families with a group which cannot include intact families) and then say it can’t.

    Your self-contradictions are commonly consistent with Sean.

  40. Sean
    April 17th, 2011 at 07:24 | #40

    Sean doesn’t engage in self-contradictions LOL.

  41. April 18th, 2011 at 08:46 | #41

    Sean :
    Sean doesn’t engage in self-contradictions LOL.

    I’ll tell you what is hilarious about that statement…

    Given his flagrant use of contradictions, that statement is another self-contradiction 😀

Comments are closed.