From the United Kingdom comes a situation regarding gay adoption which I am sure the religious right in this country will try to exploit for its own purposes:
Dr Sheila Matthews, who has been a medical adviser to the Council’s adoption panel for five years, said she believed it would be “inappropriate” to place children in a household with same sex parents.
“Using my professional judgement and having done a lot of reading around the subject, I am satisfied that there are research findings which support my position that a same sex partnership is not the best family setting to bring up children,” she said. . . . "This conflicts with my professional, religious and personal integrity.”
Dr Matthews was told in April by the Council’s Head of Services for Children, Young People and Families, Martin Pratt, that she could no longer be on the panel and that another medical adviser would be found to replace her.
She has sought advice from the Christian Legal Centre. Its director Andrea Minichiello Williams said her case was another example of “how a well respected professional who holds conscientious views on sexual practice, informed by Christian faith, is being asked to choose between her faith and her job."
. . . “And devout Christians are suffering the consequences,” she said. “This is not the mark of a free and civilised society where freedom of speech and religion is carefully guarded.”
This isn't anything new. In 2006, Catholic Charities of Boston in Massachusetts announced that the agency would end its adoption work rather than comply with state law requiring that gays be allowed to adopt children.
So this case may give the religious right more proof that the "gay agenda forces people to choose between their jobs and beliefs."
Therefore, if the lgbt community takes on the religious right in this situation without flipping the script a bit, we are walking into their trap.
You see, adoption is not about the lgbt community nor about the beliefs of those who would place these children. Ultimately, adoption is about giving children good homes.
Now I don't know what Dr. Matthews has been reading (I think I have a good idea, unfortunately), but the vast amount of research out there says no child suffers adverse affects from being placed in a same-sex household.
Regardless of how she spins it, Dr. Matthews is placing her personal beliefs above the needs of the child.
If someone on any adoption board does this, then he or she needs to be removed, point blank.
Also, how far does this "my personal beliefs won't allow it," nonsense go? Will the "personal beliefs" card be allowed when it comes placing children in households of different ethnic origins.
You see how complicated this thing gets when people on these boards start deviating from their actual mission - that mission being to find a child a good home.
Removing Dr. Matthews was the right thing to do. In the cases of adoptions, the needs of the children should always come first. Everything else, especially the personal religious beliefs (however deeply held) of those choosing the homes, is incidental.