Adoption Agencies Closing on Account of Civil Unions

Catholic Charities of Rockford are ending adoption & foster care because they supposedly feel/fear that they'll have to go against their principles and beliefs.  They aren't avoiding a potential problem, they're creating one in a self-fulfilling doom prophesy.  It's just a way of emotionally extorting allies against the gays.  Of course, I'll prove it...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/religion/ct-met-rockford-catholic-charities-st20110526,0,6858349.story

I was told that other adoption agencies were also looking to close, claiming that they will be forced to facilitate children being raised in homosexual households.  However, I gave up looking through the hate-speech and malignant misinformation that goes along with the subject to find which.  It's not worth losing more hope for humanity just to list them...

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1826&GAID=9&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=30661&SessionID=51
From the Illinois Religious Protection and Civil Union Act:
"Section 15. Religious freedom. Nothing in this Act shall interfere with or regulate the religious practice of any religious body. Any religious body, Indian Nation or Tribe or Native Group is free to choose whether or not to solemnize or officiate a civil union."

In case that's not clear enough, religious groups don't even have to treat a Civil Union with dignity or respect ("solemnize"), they're free to ostracize and condemn homosexuals, committed or not, the same as always... Their religiously rationalized prejudice is protected, despite increasing evidence that sexuality is not a matter of choice.

The Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act does not specifically say that religious organizations will have to grant adoptions to couples in Civil Unions. The way the law works, that alone means they will not.

The law is very explicit and in legalese for a reason.  Supposed notes, memos, et cetera (especially that they can/do not provide) are not applicable, particularly in a court of law.  If they got sued, the plaintiff can be counter-sued for legal fees.  Facing that, with no law to stand behind, who's going to try?

Being married does NOT guarantee eligibility to adopt, so, the standards have not changed.



It is almost unbelievable that anyone can allow their religion to be the reason bigotry is allowed to so adversely affect so many people.  Do they actually care about the kids or are they just bargaining chips and|or crossfire casualties?

Whose morals are more offensive, the so-called sinners or those who are willing to use innocents as pawns to keep them from officially committing to their relationships?

If the Bible said a specific race was "wrong," would Christians act this way toward that race?  Or, would they choose to believe that's one of the things like 1 Timothy 2 (women must be obedient, fully submissive, even, quiet, and never in charge of men or adorned in any way, including hairdos) that shouldn't be followed?

If the religious "superiors" can choose like that, why pick prejudice?

I've also provided proof that homosexuality is not a choice, in the next post (http://billfleege.blogspot.com/2011/06/scientific-proof-that-homosexuality-is.html).





In researching, I also found that while only 5 allow same-sex marriage, only 25 States strictly prohibit first cousin marriage. Here in Illinois, it's allowed if one or both are sterile... Naturally, I couldn't find anything regarding eligibility of such kissin' cousins to adopt children.

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4266  


Then again, the Bible has nothing against incest, nor slavery, for that matter...