Michigan Senate republicans

[Sbee]

pass a bill that allows faith based groups to discriminate against gay couples adopting children

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...oups-rejecting-gay-adoptive-couples/71013004/

again, the right generally cares about the fetus more than the child. shame on them for preventing children from finding a loving home.

 

[Monster]

This is one of the things I hate about Michigan. I come from a very conservative part of the state, so this news is probably music to their ears. I miss my home state and even my home town (village) but I'm not sure I'd want to raise my family there.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I don't know anything about how adoption works. I guess I would have thought it was all run by the government.

 

[Michchamp]

better if the Duggar's adopted those kids...

 

[grandy]

I don't know anything about how adoption works. I guess I would have thought it was all run by the government.

Idk why but this seemed fitting

 

[zyxt9]

I don't know anything about how adoption works. I guess I would have thought it was all run by the government.

Religious adoption agencies were established so that children of a specific religion are adopted by couples within that same religion. They still have to file all of the appropriate state paperwork. Think about a rabbi doing a Jewish wedding. They do the religious ceremony, including following Jewish law with the signing of the ketubah which makes it valid in accordance with the Jewish tradition/law/etc; however, the couple still has to file the state approved paperwork that acknowledges the marriage.

Similarly, religious adoption agencies are there to make sure the child and adopting couple are a proper religious match. They still have to file the proper state paperwork, but their purpose is to make connections within the religion.

Now, as I'm understanding it, SOME of the religious agencies are receiving state money to help them run. That is where the questions arise as to whether they should have the right to restrict the connection process. On this, I am of the opinion that if they want to maintain their religious specific connections, they should not be provided money from the state. However, if the agency is solely financed by the religious groups members, then the state should have no right to forbid the religion from making matches in accordance with their beliefs; provided they do not behave in a discriminatory manner and simply say that in accordance with their religion, they will not be able to assist but there are numerous state agencies who can and will assist, and then provide them with the list of agencies. That should not be even remotely considered a violation of either the religious groups rights nor the rights of the couple who are being redirected.

Anyone disagree? If so, please elaborate.

 

[Sbee]

Religious adoption agencies were established so that children of a specific religion are adopted by couples within that same religion. They still have to file all of the appropriate state paperwork. Think about a rabbi doing a Jewish wedding. They do the religious ceremony, including following Jewish law with the signing of the ketubah which makes it valid in accordance with the Jewish tradition/law/etc; however, the couple still has to file the state approved paperwork that acknowledges the marriage.

Similarly, religious adoption agencies are there to make sure the child and adopting couple are a proper religious match. They still have to file the proper state paperwork, but their purpose is to make connections within the religion.

Now, as I'm understanding it, SOME of the religious agencies are receiving state money to help them run. That is where the questions arise as to whether they should have the right to restrict the connection process. On this, I am of the opinion that if they want to maintain their religious specific connections, they should not be provided money from the state. However, if the agency is solely financed by the religious groups members, then the state should have no right to forbid the religion from making matches in accordance with their beliefs; provided they do not behave in a discriminatory manner and simply say that in accordance with their religion, they will not be able to assist but there are numerous state agencies who can and will assist, and then provide them with the list of agencies. That should not be even remotely considered a violation of either the religious groups rights nor the rights of the couple who are being redirected.

Anyone disagree? If so, please elaborate.

I disagree, it's inherently discriminatory to deny a gay couple a child based on sexuality. You open this can of worms when you grant religious rights to anything other than an individual, it opens the door for discrimination because they can cite a 1800 year old passage as justification.

 

[Sbee]

better if the Duggar's adopted those kids...

funny how the right spent the last week defending the duggars and lining up against Caitly Jenner. We'll back you if you molest kids but heaven forbid that you want to live as a woman.

 

[zyxt9]

I disagree, it's inherently discriminatory to deny a gay couple a child based on sexuality. You open this can of worms when you grant religious rights to anything other than an individual, it opens the door for discrimination because they can cite a 1800 year old passage as justification.

And it is inherently discriminatory to force a religious group to violate their religious beliefs.

Both actions are violations, you are only wanting to see it from one side.

As long as the religious agency is not interfering with the couple's ability to go to another agency that will support their right to adopt, that agency is not violating their right to adopt. They are merely saying they have the right, based on religious grounds, to not process the adoption request themselves. The separation of church and state protects their right to act in that way and it is how each side is able to retain their constitutional rights. The couple cannot use state law to force the agency to violate their religious law (again, provided that agency is solely sponsored and supported by the religion and get nothing from the state financially).

Similarly, a state cannot force a religious leader to perform a wedding that goes against the laws of that religion. That doesn't mean the religious leader is violating the couple's state's rights by refusing to be the officiant for the wedding, for as long as the state approves a wedding performed by another state-approved official, then the couple is considered married by the state.

As long as an equitably viable option exists, there is no violation of the couple's rights.

 

[zyxt9]

funny how the right spent the last week defending the duggars and lining up against Caitly Jenner. We'll back you if you molest kids but heaven forbid that you want to live as a woman.

you are blurring the lines. not everyone on the right is doing that, just the extremely orthodox religious, and you'd be surprised how many of them are on the Left. I've been in synagogues where they would be against Jenner but vote solid D on their ballots. I'm pretty sure many mosques have similar representation. minority religious groups tend to vote D due to their belief the Left provides a better chance at equality, but still hold tight to their religious views of right/wrong and the more orthodox they are, the less support they have for Jenner...while demanding equality for themselves. pretty twisted, granted...but one's degree of religious fervor does not automatically equate to their political voting preferences.

 

[Michchamp]

And it is inherently discriminatory to force a religious group to violate their religious beliefs.

Both actions are violations, you are only wanting to see it from one side.

As long as the religious agency is not interfering with the couple's ability to go to another agency that will support their right to adopt, that agency is not violating their right to adopt. They are merely saying they have the right, based on religious grounds, to not process the adoption request themselves. The separation of church and state protects their right to act in that way and it is how each side is able to retain their constitutional rights. The couple cannot use state law to force the agency to violate their religious law (again, provided that agency is solely sponsored and supported by the religion and get nothing from the state financially).

Similarly, a state cannot force a religious leader to perform a wedding that goes against the laws of that religion. That doesn't mean the religious leader is violating the couple's state's rights by refusing to be the officiant for the wedding, for as long as the state approves a wedding performed by another state-approved official, then the couple is considered married by the state.

As long as an equitably viable option exists, there is no violation of the couple's rights.

what the hell is this crap? how is letting a gay couple adopt violating anyone's religious rights?

you can really be gay sometimes.

 

[zyxt9]

what the hell is this crap? how is letting a gay couple adopt violating anyone's religious rights?

you can really be gay sometimes.

if a religion has a specific law against homosexuality, then they have the right to not have a child be adopted by homosexuals the same way that, say, a Jewish agency has the right to deny a Jewish child from being adopted by Muslims.

you do not have the right to force a state's issue onto a religious group.

I get that you are anti-religion, but the lawyer in you should comprehend that a state cannot impose a law that forces a religion to go against their belief.

what is the big fucking deal anyway? the couple can go to any number of agencies that will approve their adoption request, right? any STATE agency can approve their adoption request...so what is the problem? oh, right...you hate religion and do not believe religion has the right to exist in the first place.

so pathetic how you guys are trying to force them to violate their religious laws, yet call out any person within a religion who acts in a manner that violates those laws. haters gonna hate.

 

[zyxt9]

Option A: try to adopt a child from a religious agency that will turn down my request for adoption based on religious grounds
Option B: try to adopt a child from a different agency that will approve my request.

Gee, I'm going to go with Option A, and when they turn me down I'm going to sue them for discrimination because my real goal is to have my 15 minutes of fame and fight them in court and demand that they violate their religious beliefs because....well, because I hate religion and how dare they use such a lame thing to keep me from adopting, despite the only thing really keeping me from adopting is that I'm refusing to go to another agency.

talk about creating your own problem...damn.

 

[Michchamp]

if a religion has a specific law against homosexuality, then they have the right to not have a child be adopted by homosexuals the same way that, say, a Jewish agency has the right to deny a Jewish child from being adopted by Muslims.

you do not have the right to force a state's issue onto a religious group.

I get that you are anti-religion, but the lawyer in you should comprehend that a state cannot impose a law that forces a religion to go against their belief.

what is the big fucking deal anyway? the couple can go to any number of agencies that will approve their adoption request, right? any STATE agency can approve their adoption request...so what is the problem? oh, right...you hate religion and do not believe religion has the right to exist in the first place.

so pathetic how you guys are trying to force them to violate their religious laws, yet call out any person within a religion who acts in a manner that violates those laws. haters gonna hate.

i read a little bit more about the law and the controversy; i have changed my position slightly... I can admit when I am wrong and I admit that I did not know enough about the issue when commenting.

let these people discriminate if they want, but force the agencies to then pay back the millions in state aid theyve received. deal? they can be ignorant bigots if they want - no question - but the state can't support that.

 

[Michchamp]

according to the Freep religious based adoption agencies raked in $10MM of the $19MM in state aid for adoption agencies.

take that money and give it to the agencies run by decent human beings, not religious zealots and bigots like zyxt.

 

[zyxt9]

i read a little bit more about the law and the controversy; i have changed my position slightly... I can admit when I am wrong and I admit that I did not know enough about the issue when commenting.

let these people discriminate if they want, but force the agencies to then pay back the millions in state aid theyve received. deal? they can be ignorant bigots if they want - no question - but the state can't support that.

sure. I agree they are ignorant bigots. i also agree they should not receive a penny from any government entity (nor should they ever have received a penny).

 

[Sbee]

you are blurring the lines. not everyone on the right is doing that, just the extremely orthodox religious, and you'd be surprised how many of them are on the Left. I've been in synagogues where they would be against Jenner but vote solid D on their ballots. I'm pretty sure many mosques have similar representation. minority religious groups tend to vote D due to their belief the Left provides a better chance at equality, but still hold tight to their religious views of right/wrong and the more orthodox they are, the less support they have for Jenner...while demanding equality for themselves. pretty twisted, granted...but one's degree of religious fervor does not automatically equate to their political voting preferences.

70% of democrats identify as christian, i get that. my point is that the right wing news outlets were defending the duggars last week, sounds a little strange, doesn't it?

 

[zyxt9]

according to the Freep religious based adoption agencies raked in $10MM of the $19MM in state aid for adoption agencies.

take that money and give it to the agencies run by decent human beings, not religious zealots and bigots like zyxt.

not sure why you are grouping me in with them. I'm all for homosexual couples adopting and have several homosexual friends who have adopted. I'm not being a bigot, i just don't believe the state should force a religious group to violate their religious laws.

the fact these groups have received state funding is completely unacceptable. if they want to use the religious right defense for their bigotry, then they cannot be receiving state funds. THAT i have extreme issue with.

 

[zyxt9]

70% of democrats identify as christian, i get that. my point is that the right wing news outlets were defending the duggars last week, sounds a little strange, doesn't it?

not really. those outlets are strange and nonsensical to begin with, so this type of behavior i find to be more along the lines of their normal behavior. if they didn't behave that way, I'd be concerned. lol

 

[Michchamp]

as far as homosexuality being "against" Christianity in general (given the circumstances, I assume it's Christian adoption agencies who sought the religious exemption), I saw this documentary that calls into question the Biblical basis for considering homosexuality to be a sin.

it more or less hinges on a handful of passages much translated and interpreted to mean different things over the years, and debatable whether homosexuality was truly to be considered sinful, or just something the Judeo-Christian god would rather you didn't do, like eat shellfish or bacon.

while it's stupid to base current law on an archaic book of mythology, thousands of years old, it's; even more stupid when you consider how subjective the interpretation of this book of mythology is.

and that's just common sense.