So there has been pretty substantial talk about Romney’s push to allow a loophole in his adoption plan, in order to permit Catholic charities to discriminate against homosexual couples adopting children. I’m a little confused as to what kind of political tactic this is, on the part of Mitt. It seems like he’s trying to play both sides here. Conservatives would prefer a blanket statute that prohibits homosexual couples from adopting children, while people like us cringe at the idea of discriminating against good, stable parents regardless of sexual orientation.
It’s important to note that a federal appellate court said in 2004 that a Florida law that prohibits homosexual adoption is constitutional as long as the statute has a legitimate governmental interest (and it’s still good law today). I guess, then, we should be happy Mitt’s only making this minor provision instead of a sweeping discriminatory statute.
But where do we draw the line? If we make concessions in a state statute for a specific church, when does it end? After all, doesn’t the charity have other instruments to preserve its doctrinal beliefs?
In fact, the Globe noted that some organizations have skirted around the statute, simply referring gay couples to other organizations that might be more able to deal with their situation. Seems reasonable to me.
But, overall…it does look like Mitt is taking a very politically safe road here. What’s even funnier is that more and more we see Kerry Healey breaking ranks with him…obviously in order to appeal to the moderate nature of Republicans in this state.
Personally, I want more debate on this subject. As an overall issue, sexual preference has no impact on the stability of a household. Give children to people who will care and love for them, regardless of their sexual orientation.
