Texas governor signs controversial adoption bill into law

"Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed an adoption bill into law on Thursday that allows adoption agencies receiving public funding to refuse to place children in adoptive families or foster homes that conflict with the agencies' religious beliefs." Jurist

679 reads

There are 6 Comments

Bert Perry's picture

It seems to me that in today's post-Obergefeld judiciary, this won't last long, right or wrong in God's eyes.  It also strikes me that if Christians were motivated to adopt, it would be rare for a child to be put in a home to which the agencies would object.

Joeb's picture

This adoption occurred about 12 years ago or so.   A homosexual couple took in a white crack aides baby boy   They nursed the child back to health through very difficult circumstances and at 2 years old the child was doing really well. As it turned out the child did not have aides  and was now thriving. 

Now the Gay couple decided to adopt the child and when this happened the Fundy/Evangelical community came out the woodwork and demonized the State of NJ and the gay couple.  

My only problem with the situation WHERE WAS THE FUNDY/EVANGELICAL community when the child was all messed up and was misdiagnosed with aids.  Why were they there only when the child was healthy.

To me I don't support Gay couples adopting children, but in this situation I actually supported it, because it was an indictment of the Fundy/Evangelical community for turning their backs on these babies ie they only wanted them if they were healthy   If the Fundy/Evangelical Community was not there adopting all these sick children then I say their actions were sinful and extremely hypocritical. Par for the course for some Christians. 

Larry's picture

My only problem with the situation WHERE WAS THE FUNDY/EVANGELICAL community when the child was all messed up and was misdiagnosed with aids. 

Why is that a problem? Perhaps they didn't know about this child. Or didn't have the opportunity to help. There appears to be no reason to think that the "fundy/evangelical community" (whatever that is) was hardhearted toward this child or any other. That is the kind of judgment that should not be made.

Joeb's picture

Larry in NJ at that time it was well publicized that Crack/Aides babies needed homes.  In fact it was in the Newark NJ area. The babies were staying in the hospitals and the hospitals were desperate because they were not set up to take care of the children long term.  

The reason the hospitals publicized the situation was because they had no takers or a very small amount. 

So yes Larrry where was the Fundy/Evangelical Community.  So yes Larry the judgement should be made.  That was brought up in the courts when the Fundy/Evangelicals (Christian Right) tried to unsuccessfully take the child away from the gay couple.  To late and very foolish of the Christian community. It was more like the anti gay issue was the issue tather than  what was best for the child.  

The appearance was that now that child was white and had no aides there were plenty of takers lining up.  

Bert Perry's picture

One note here is that if--as I believe we should--we desire to restrict the right to adopt, we've got to have not just a hypothesis ("those who have sex with other men are likely to attempt the same with male children"), but rather a theory--a hypothesis backed by some data.  At this point, we don't have that.  What we have at this point is about a number of studies that do not show clear statistical differences in any category examined.  Now there is some difficulty in that many of them seem to compare with a control of single parents, or do not have a control sample at all

That noted, we can infer that if we come out (no pun intended) against homosexuals adopting, we simultaneously need to come out against single people adopting.  At this point, it's a fight we just can't win, except....by encouraging churches and couples to adopt and come together for difficult adoption cases.