>In Great Britain, Christians are now effectively second-class citizens, 
>judged 'unfit' to care for foster children. If they are unfit to foster 
>children, logically they are also unfit to adopt, and possibly as one 
>British lawyer suggested to the press, unfit to parent their own children, 
>too. Could it >happen over here? Yes. We see the first steps of the 
>muscular liberalism process at work already in the state of Illinois, in 
>its probe of evangelical, Lutheran and Catholic foster-care agencies for 
>discrimination against gay couples in foster care.

>"For the ACLU and the gay rights community, suddenly the right to live as 
>we choose isn't good enough. Any foster-care agency that does not place 
>children with gay couples now must be discriminated against by the 
>government in the name of anti-discrimination. The ACLU claims that 
> >legally requiring foster-care agencies to be inclusive would expand 
>resources to help 16,000 kids currently in the Illinois foster-care system. 
>This is just Orwellian doubletalk. The new 'inclusive' policy would exclude 
>three religious foster-care agencies from recruiting parents. This cannot 
> >possibly expand resources available to needy kids." - NOM
founder Maggie 
>Gallagher, writing for Yahoo! News.


Personally a child should be compatible with his or her family. A LGBT teen 
should not be placed in a family who might verbally abuse him or her, a 
Christian child would most not likely be placed in a Muslim household. 
Government adoption agencies, and adoption agencies funded with any taxpayer 
money should not discriminate in general.
If religious adoption agencies want to arrange between its members then that 
should be their purview, but when you serve the general public then you 
should abide by anti-discrimination policies.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32