OK, you raise a good point: A Catholic adoption agency allegedly closed due to laws which removed any ban on homosexuals adopting. But, the question in my mind is this: Did they close because they had to or merely because they wanted to? To answer this, we must ask: Did they refuse to place children in single-family homes? If the answer is yes, then, at least they weren't hypocrites (indeed: both singles and gays are less fit parents), but still: refusing to place kids in a single-parent home is questionable, and outright bad if that's the only home available: they would be inconsistent with known science and experience: Single-parents sometimes are qualified to adopt!

 

If, on the other hand, the adoption agency placed children with singles, but not with gays, then this is showing favortism and bias: a clear violation of James chapter 2 of the Holy Bible -- as well as the legal counterpart: An Equal Protection violation. Since both singles and gays are less fit to adopt, but still sometimes the most qualified home (if, for example, the only married couples available are bad for unrelated reasons: alcoholism, child abuse, adultery, etc.), then an adoption agency which refused to place children in homes with gay parents would be wrong for this reason: they would be double-standard hypocrites and inconsistent with themselves.

 

Either way, they would be wrong - inconsistent with with themselves or with known truth.

 

PS: I do, however, support the 'conscience clause' that might give adoption agencies some leeway to adopt -- however, if it gives as much power as would be needed for, say, a University to kick out students for Interracial Dating (like Bob Jones University tried doing recently), then this would violate civil rights; On the other hand, if it was like a conscience clause that allowed places to not be forced to do abortions, I would be OK with it. For adoptions, how would this work? Well, "singles" might be given "less" preference than married couples (hey, they already are! And it's not discrimination, but merely "state's interests"), so, if singles can be given "less" preference, then so can "Same Sex" couples -- but to outright ban gays would be like outright banning singles from adopting -- either extreme is bad. So, private agencies might be given a "little" more leeway, but, in the end, the law is the law.

 

BUT: on to the main subject! ** You all know, by now, that I am a big supporter of almost all y'all do -- be it defending the unborn life (PRO-LIFE - like me!), or opposing Same Sex 'Marriage' (and I put that in quotes, as it's not REALLY marriage) -- moreover, Same Sex couples are even worse parents than singles -- as Dr. Marks' research shows (see link below).

 

See -also - for example, the “DECLARATION OF LOREN MARKS, PH.D.,” page 20, in Searcy, et al. v. Strange, No. 11:14-cv-208-CGM (S.D.,Ala. 2015), where a small, but statistically significant, group of children were compared, and all things being equal, married couples had the best development from objective teacher reports (and not biased parental reporting), and next, singles, and lastly, homosexual rearing. In other words, “on average” gays did worse even than singles or marrieds, but, in some cases, they were the 'best' option for a child that would otherwise wind up in foster care, a ward of the state, or – worse yet – live on the streets.

 

However, I respectfully dissent on the fullness of your message here -- as I even told Governor Rick Scott recently: http://gordonwatts.com/email-to-the-governor-about-adoption-bill.html

 

http://gordonWAYNEwatts.com/email-to-the-governor-about-adoption-bill.html

 

This is a bitter pill for you to swallow, but you all are mature enough to accept respectful dissent, and for that, I commend the Florida Family Action and the Florida Family Policy Council.

 

For my part, I aspire to be diplomatic and respectful to all of you -- fellow-Conservatives and fellow-Christians.// :) <3

 

PS - ADDENDUM: Oh one more thing: The 'adoption' issue is NOT the most important thing (as you claim in your opening statement) -- the definition of marriage (the core and fundamental issue), related to BUT DISTINCT FROM the adoption issue - is, in fact, the most important issue on this type (or of almost any type).  

 

Gordon Wayne Watts