<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Strange and New Idea</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/01/31/53399/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/01/31/53399</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 18:09:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben In Oakland</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/01/31/53399/comment-page-1#comment-244566</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben In Oakland</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:03:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=53399#comment-244566</guid>
		<description>You&#039;re welcome, rob. Thanks for all you do.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re welcome, rob. Thanks for all you do.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Priya Lynn</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/01/31/53399/comment-page-1#comment-244544</link>
		<dc:creator>Priya Lynn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:20:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=53399#comment-244544</guid>
		<description>I sent an email to the LDS adoption agency but I suspect based on the response you got I won&#039;t get any clarification from them either.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I sent an email to the LDS adoption agency but I suspect based on the response you got I won&#8217;t get any clarification from them either.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob Tisinai</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/01/31/53399/comment-page-1#comment-244535</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob Tisinai</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:09:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=53399#comment-244535</guid>
		<description>Meanwhile, of course, please don&#039;t take this research request as a sign not to comment on other aspects of the post.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Meanwhile, of course, please don&#8217;t take this research request as a sign not to comment on other aspects of the post.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob Tisinai</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/01/31/53399/comment-page-1#comment-244534</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob Tisinai</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:08:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=53399#comment-244534</guid>
		<description>Hey Pryia and Ben. In 2010 (after the date in the link provided), I spent hours on the phone with officials in Massachussets and was told LDS had been forced to suspend operations there pending an investigation into violations of anti-discrimination law.

Based on you comments, I called the LDS adoption agency and Nashua and they told me that they do in fact offer adoption services in the state. I asked, &quot;And you don&#039;t place kids with same-sex couples.&quot; She cryptically answered, &quot;That depends.&quot;

This is an important question and I&#039;d like to crowd-source (whoo hoo! first time I&#039;ve ever used that term). Here&#039;s a mess of questions I won&#039;t have time to get to this week (or next) but maybe the BoxTurtle community can split them up and report back.

1. Does LDS currently offer adoption services in Massachusetts (I&#039;ve garnered the answer to that one: yes, based on their Nashua office response)
2. Does LDS currently place children with non-LDS couples in MA?
3. Does LDS currently place children with same-sex married couples in MA?
4. Do official LDS adoption agencies currently receive any state or federal funds, or have a contract with the state of MA?
5. What does current MA discrimination law say about religious adoption agencies?

If anyone has this info, please let us know and specify your source.

Thanks to Pryia and Ben for bringing this up.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Pryia and Ben. In 2010 (after the date in the link provided), I spent hours on the phone with officials in Massachussets and was told LDS had been forced to suspend operations there pending an investigation into violations of anti-discrimination law.</p>
<p>Based on you comments, I called the LDS adoption agency and Nashua and they told me that they do in fact offer adoption services in the state. I asked, &#8220;And you don&#8217;t place kids with same-sex couples.&#8221; She cryptically answered, &#8220;That depends.&#8221;</p>
<p>This is an important question and I&#8217;d like to crowd-source (whoo hoo! first time I&#8217;ve ever used that term). Here&#8217;s a mess of questions I won&#8217;t have time to get to this week (or next) but maybe the BoxTurtle community can split them up and report back.</p>
<p>1. Does LDS currently offer adoption services in Massachusetts (I&#8217;ve garnered the answer to that one: yes, based on their Nashua office response)<br />
2. Does LDS currently place children with non-LDS couples in MA?<br />
3. Does LDS currently place children with same-sex married couples in MA?<br />
4. Do official LDS adoption agencies currently receive any state or federal funds, or have a contract with the state of MA?<br />
5. What does current MA discrimination law say about religious adoption agencies?</p>
<p>If anyone has this info, please let us know and specify your source.</p>
<p>Thanks to Pryia and Ben for bringing this up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben in Oakland</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/01/31/53399/comment-page-1#comment-244503</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben in Oakland</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:14:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=53399#comment-244503</guid>
		<description>Thanks for providing the substance, priya. I suspect you are far better organized than I am.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for providing the substance, priya. I suspect you are far better organized than I am.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben in Oakland</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/01/31/53399/comment-page-1#comment-244500</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben in Oakland</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:13:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=53399#comment-244500</guid>
		<description>Rob, I&#039;m not 100% certain about this, but I am pretty sure.

The issue for catholic adoption services in MA was not that the services HAD to let same sex couples adopt-- which, as you note, they had allowed before marriage equality, and over the stopping of  which several  of their board members resigned-- but because they wanted state money to do it.

I believe there is Mormon agency in Boston which does not accept state money, and which is free to discriminate as they wish.

Also important to note, Cathloic Social services is not the church, just asthe ocean grove pavilion in New Jersey was not the Methodist church, just as Elaine photography is not a church. And this is why anti discrimination laws come into effect.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rob, I&#8217;m not 100% certain about this, but I am pretty sure.</p>
<p>The issue for catholic adoption services in MA was not that the services HAD to let same sex couples adopt&#8211; which, as you note, they had allowed before marriage equality, and over the stopping of  which several  of their board members resigned&#8211; but because they wanted state money to do it.</p>
<p>I believe there is Mormon agency in Boston which does not accept state money, and which is free to discriminate as they wish.</p>
<p>Also important to note, Cathloic Social services is not the church, just asthe ocean grove pavilion in New Jersey was not the Methodist church, just as Elaine photography is not a church. And this is why anti discrimination laws come into effect.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Priya Lynn</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/01/31/53399/comment-page-1#comment-244497</link>
		<dc:creator>Priya Lynn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:11:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=53399#comment-244497</guid>
		<description>&quot;* Some folks on our side say Catholic Charities of Boston could have continued its discriminatory policies if it had stopped taking government funds. This is incorrect. These discriminatory policies violate Massachusetts law regardless of whether the organization is taking taxpayer money.&quot;.

You&#039;re the one that has it wrong.  The mormons operate an adoption agency in Massachusetts and refuse to adopt to same sex couples.  They are allowed to do so because they don&#039;t take state funding.  Here it is from the Mormons themselves:

http://www.mormonlawyers.com/2008/10/reply-to-morris-thurston.html

“LDS Family Services still operates in Massachusetts, as it does in California. There are several differences between LDSFS and Catholic Charities. LDSFS does not take federal or state funds; Catholic Charities does. LDSFS facilitates only voluntary adoptions and permits the birth mother to approve the adoptive parents. Catholic Charities handled non-voluntary adoptions (where the state seizes the children) and normally did not accommodate birth mother approval. Catholic Charities had contracts with the state and was, in effect, acting as an agent of the state. LDSFS does not. To date, LDS Family Services has never been forced to place any children with a gay couple, and has never been sued for not doing so.”</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;* Some folks on our side say Catholic Charities of Boston could have continued its discriminatory policies if it had stopped taking government funds. This is incorrect. These discriminatory policies violate Massachusetts law regardless of whether the organization is taking taxpayer money.&#8221;.</p>
<p>You&#8217;re the one that has it wrong.  The mormons operate an adoption agency in Massachusetts and refuse to adopt to same sex couples.  They are allowed to do so because they don&#8217;t take state funding.  Here it is from the Mormons themselves:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.mormonlawyers.com/2008/10/reply-to-morris-thurston.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.mormonlawyers.com/2008/10/reply-to-morris-thurston.html</a></p>
<p>“LDS Family Services still operates in Massachusetts, as it does in California. There are several differences between LDSFS and Catholic Charities. LDSFS does not take federal or state funds; Catholic Charities does. LDSFS facilitates only voluntary adoptions and permits the birth mother to approve the adoptive parents. Catholic Charities handled non-voluntary adoptions (where the state seizes the children) and normally did not accommodate birth mother approval. Catholic Charities had contracts with the state and was, in effect, acting as an agent of the state. LDSFS does not. To date, LDS Family Services has never been forced to place any children with a gay couple, and has never been sued for not doing so.”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
