dotCommonweal

A blog by the magazine's editors and contributors

.

Paul Ryan is cool with gay adoption

The Wisconsin congressman with national ambitions has apparently evolved, and I don't think that bodes well for the hierarchy's efforts on these issues. From Roll Call:

In a town hall meeting with constituents in Wisconsin on Monday, the House Budget Committee chairman said he has changed his mind on the adoption issue, even though his opinions on other aspects of gay rights have remained unchanged......Adoption, Id vote differently these days. That was I think a vote I took in my first term, 1999 or 2000. I do believe that if there are children who are orphans who do not have a loving person or couple, I think if a person wants to love and raise a child they ought to be able to do that. Period, Ryan said in a video posted by the liberal website Think Progress. I would vote that way. I do believe marriage is between a man and a woman, we just respectfully disagree on that issue....In the past, Ryan has opposed almost every equality measure, getting a 0 on the Human Rights Campaigns most recent Congressional scorecard. He opposed the repeal of dont ask, dont tell, supported the Defense of Marriage Act and voted against the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Protection Act, which expanded federal hate crime laws to protect the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.In his remarks Monday, Ryan said he has always supported civil unions. Though there is no evidence to support that, its a clear sign that the politics of the issue have changed and that even the most conservative Republicans need to appear more hospitable to gays and lesbians in order to expand their voting bloc.

So if you lose Paul Ryan, who's next? Then again, a lot of Catholics said he'd lost them with his Randian version of subsidiarity.

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

Somehow "evolved" doesn't seem like exactly the right word for this survival-of-the-fittest scenario http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/08/george-harasz-douglas-wirth-gay...

Kathy, long time no hear! Just sorry you return with such a reprehensible comment. So gay couples are going to abuse their kids, huh? You want to generalize about priests? Or perhaps Christian homeschoolers like these wonderful people?http://gothamist.com/2013/05/01/nj_army_major_wife_accused_of_unima.phpNo, I don't think you do. And you won't.

Hey, HuffPo ran with the story, so it must be true.If you want to talk about generalizations, what about people who assume that the bishops have a Republican agenda, despite their outspoken alliance with dems on immigration reform?

Republicans are against immigration reform?

Paul Ryan is evolving with the rest of the country. His revised thinking on this is a good thing and I think it will give many other Republican leaders the support they need to come out in favor of equality.

Mr Gibson, once more time I would humbly invite to exercise some critical thinking. Let's look as Rep. Ryan's statement:" I do believe that if there are children who are orphans who do not have a loving person or couple, I think if a person wants to love and raise a child they ought to be able to do that"Where are gay couples as COUPLES mentioned? Are you Mr. Gibson against individuals adopting and raising children? I am not. Does that make me a supportyer of gay marriage? No. I just happen to think that the ideal arrangement that should be supported by law is when a child has a father and a mother. All other arrangements are acceptable, but I don't see any particualr advantage in having two men adopt a children together as opposed, say, to two men and a woman adopting a child together. In fact, from the standpoint of Catholic moral theology (since you brought up the bishops), an individual woman or man adopting a child by herself/himself may be better that two people of the same sex if the latter live a lifestyle that the Church regards as immoral...

Carlo, nice try. Ryan says he changed his mind on the gay adoption votes he took earlier.

Irene:"equality" is in the marriage debate what "choice" is in the abortion debate. A carefully chosen sound bite meant to obfuscate the real issue, namely the welfare of real, needy people (in both cases, children at different stages of their development).

David:And so what!?! The substance of my point stands. Are you in favor of restricting adoption to couples, barring individuals? Is Ryan? Why? If not, what does adoption law have to do with marriage? Are you in favor of giving precedence in adoption to situations where a child can have a mother and a father? If not, why not? These are serious questions that people like you are carefully tryingt to avoid out of sheer ideological prejudice ("equality").

Carlo: or "equality" is, in fact, about equality.

Irene:you will not convince me that "apples are the same as oranges" by earnestly repeating again and again that "apples are like oranges."

Carlo, not sure what all your questions are about. The reality is that the GOP, and even the bishops' erstwhile allies in the party, are "evolving" on gay rights in response to changes in the views of the electorate. That bodes ill for their efforts, seems to me.

Carlo: I think you might be the one doing the earnest asserting, no? Asserting that none of us mean "equality" when we say it, but that we all really mean something else? But whatever word you personally are using for it- the train has pretty much left the station if Paul Ryan supports same-sex adoption.

David:if you narrow the issue down to "who is winning the propaganda war" you may well be right. My questions were an attempt to think critically about the issues under discussion, but apparently that kind of effort is not on anybody's agenda, is it?

Irene:I am not asserting anything. I am still waiting for all the people like you who speak of "equality" to show some interest in questioning their philosophical assumptions, which you obviously do not. What is equal? People? Or relationships? And in both cases, why?In other words, you can make a case for whatever you want, but you have to make a case. Just telling me that it is because of "equality" is really offensive to my intelligence.

"I'm" "going" "to" "make" "my" "point" "by" "putting" "quotation" "marks" "around" "everything."

Carlo: If we're questioning philosophical assumptions, wouldn't the burden be on you to make a compelling case for discrimination, rather than put it on others to justify equal treatment? Here is NYS, our legislature, representing the will of the people, passed the "Marriage Equality Act" Our state also permits single and joint gay adoption.

Irenenot really. Most people recognize the positive value for a child in having a father and a mother. If you believe that there is no such special value, and that all family arrangements are equal (if that's what you mean by equality, which you still stubbornly refuse to explain), then you should make the case. You should also explain what is so special about having two parents, once you assert (so far, without proof) that gender differentiation is irrelevant.

Just a perhaps cynical thought on the republican-ish bishops and immigration .... would they be so for immigration if the majority of immigrants were not Catholic and replacing, more or less, the droves of Catholics leaving the church?

Carlo: tic, toc. tic, toc.http://publicreligion.org/research/2013/03/doma-gay-marriage-march-2013/You are cordially invited to keep religious biases within the confines of religious organizations and leave secular benefits, rights, responsibilities alone.Very few, if any, adovcates of marriage equality are arguing that religious organizations will be required to (1) officiate at, or (2) recognize same-sex marriages. These countries have discovered that they can live with marriage equality and, surprise, surprise, the walls have not come tumbling down, the sky has not falled, and God has not stricken these countries with pestilence, fires, earthquakes or heterosexual people converting en masse to homosexuality:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriageAs some of my younger gay friends say: get over yourself.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ri-10th-state-allowing-gay-marriage-1... majority of the population of Rhode Island is Catholic, reflecting heavy immigration from Italy, Ireland, Portugal, and French Canada. In 2000, there were 542,244 Roman Catholics, accounting for 51.7% of the total state population.Sunnuvagun!

As for Ryan I cannot think of a single reason anyone would take that fellow seriously other than he holds a particularly powerful position in this remarkable nation. Ms Rand was, in many respects, a gifted novelist. The kindest thing to be said of her philosopy is that it was bleak. Don't believe it's possible to create a useful notion of faith on such a dark view of one's fellow travelers.As for marriage it is indeed often between a man and a woman. For a grown man to suggest that fact is the primary aspect one needs to identify and understand, much less find joy and usefulness in a thing so utterly challenging as marriage indicates that fellow ain't got too many married friends who are being honest with him. Or he is a darn poor listener.The only thing a parent, biological or not, is absolutely required to give a child is an unassailable conviction they are loved. And as soon as I figure out what love is I'll ramble a bit more on that thought. At the moment, either it or I are evolving.

This from the Pew Forum ..."Catholicism has experienced the greatest net losses as a result of affiliation changes. While nearly one-in-three Americans (31%) were raised in the Catholic faith, today fewer than one-in-four (24%) describe themselves as Catholic. These losses would have been even more pronounced were it not for the offsetting impact of immigration. The Landscape Survey finds that among the foreign-born adult population, Catholics outnumber Protestants by nearly a two-to-one margin (46% Catholic vs. 24% Protestant); among native-born Americans, on the other hand, the statistics show that Protestants outnumber Catholics by an even larger margin (55% Protestant vs. 21% Catholic). " - http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

Crystal: I would prefer to give credit where credit is due. It is just wonderful that our bishops' are taking a strong stand pro-immigrant, it is the right thing for us Catholics to do. I think to encourage and reinforce this good work, I would rather applaud their efforts rather than undermine them by questioning their motives.

And the Nuns on the Bus are on the road again in support of immigration reform. Hopefully, this is something the sisters, bishops, clergy and laity who support reform can all stand together on. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/nuns-on-the-bus-will-hit...

@Carlo Lancellotti (5/2, 11:30 am) Irene can speak for herself. My own view is that when it come to laws like the one signed into law in Rhode Island yesterday, "marriage equality" refers, in large part, to the rights and responsibilities a couple has under civil law, and to the extension of those rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples.

See, and here's another example of pandering to the far right: http://archbalt.org/news-events/press-releases/basilica-lighting-repeal.cfm

Kathy: at least you are admitting that Lori et al are right wing shills.

No, Jim, I'm demonstrating the exact opposite. The bishops stand for Catholic social teaching--all of it. Would that the Catholic press did the same.

Share

About the Author

David Gibson is a national reporter for Religion News Service and author of The Coming Catholic Church (HarperOne) and The Rule of Benedict (HarperOne). He blogs at dotCommonweal.