Once Again, Ken Cuccinelli Is Wrong

There are no words to describe how awful this is. 

Apparently Ken Cuccinelli would rather score political points with social conservatives than help foster kids find a loving home.

I'd call this a new low for Cooch, but I think he'd just take that as a challenge to go even lower.

Comments

[DanielK]

Of course, who else is going to help him push his social anti-gay, extreme right-wing agenda? It's not gonna be the foster kids who are deprived of good homes but the Bob Marshall's of Virginia who are inspired by this. Considering that children who come from a good home with good, loving family turn out significantly better than those who lack it it's pretty clear where our Attorney General's priorities are.

[Not Ben]

Two anti-faith posts from Ben in the same week. Is that a record?

If you are elected to the Va State Senate, you'll apparently work to repeal Mr. Jefferson's Statute for Religious Freedom. After all, it's only right for the government to tell people of faith WHAT they must believe and how they must act on it.

[GOP=Homophobes]

In the conservative mindset, "faith" is equivalent to "anti-gay bigotry." It just shows how deeply disturbed conservatives are.

[blank]

Well sure if you ignore the fact what he is looking to stop is the gov't instructing private organizations how to operate. If it were flipped and gov't was instructing private organizations they cannot allow gay couples to adopt libs would be all up in arms about gov't pushing religious views. Well instructing them to allow it is nothing more than gov't forcing a gov't form of "faith" on private organizations.

The proposed rules will allow organizations to set their own rules.

[Paba]

Some people (a lot of people, sadly) still think that gay couples are this weird "other" that probably only lives in San Francisco and New York. The surest way to change someone's opinion on an issue is to make it hit home for them, and as long as our culture keeps people in the closet, this cycle will continue. And why come out when you risk getting socially ostracized by people like Cooch? It's a terrible, terrible cycle.

[Dan]

"The proposed rules will allow organizations to set their own rules."

Great! They get to set their own rules. Including discriminating against people they don't like (at the expense of children who could be placed in good and loving homes) based on their belief in who they think God wants them to hate.

This is America. These folks are entitled to believe any damned fool thing they want in America. And I think that's great. Something I really love about America is that people are free to believe all sorts of crazy things and even to think that God told them to believe them and that He (conveniently) hates all the same people they hate. No problem.

One question though. Do these groups receive our tax dollars? Yes, they do.

If a "faith based" group believed that God told them that it would be immoral to let Republicans adopt would that be okay too? Would it be okay to give them tax dollars to support their important and godly work of keeping innocent little children from being adopted by degenerate Republicans?

I don't mean to insult homosexuals by comparing them to Republicans. Just trying to make the comparison using an equivalently ludicrous basis for discrimination in adoption.

I certainly don't want the government to tell anyone they must modify their religious beliefs. But when they think their religious belief compels them to discriminate against my fellow citizens then they can damned well do it without my tax dollars.

As they say, freedom isn't free.

[strongerthandirt]

A new low for Cooch, agreed. But he'll outdo himself. And "faith" does not mean one can be bigoted against a group one does not like. Anyone who has read the parable of the Good Samaritan knows that.

BTW, Radtke is in against Allen. http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/virginias_constitutional_conse.html

[Mr. Jefferson]

"I certainly don't want the government to tell anyone they must modify their religious beliefs."

Hahahahahaha.

[Not Ben]

Jesus definitely taught that we should be compassionate towards all people, regardless whether they are just like us. The story of the Good Samaritan is a great example of that.

He did NOT, however, teach that every person's worldview and personal lifestyle has to be accepted and embraced. To the contrary -- Jesus taught that God created one man and one woman, and that's how it should be. Period.

[GretchenLaskas]

Jesus has remarkably little (ie nothing) to say about homosexuality in general, let alone gay couples adoption children.

[Not Ben]

That's true, Gretchen. Jesus never said anything specifically about homosexuality. But he did say something about heterosexuality. He told the Pharisees that God "made them male and female, for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife."

That's pretty straightforward.

[Dan]

Not Ben, having no desire to live in theocracy, I don't think that any particular interpretation of anyone's scripture should be the basis for formulating public policy. But if we were to take your citation of Jesus' words to the Pharisees as the basis for adoption policy it would seem that only married couples would be allowed to adopt.

That would eliminate many fine single parents. And leave many children without permanent loving homes.

Perhaps we can agree that using religious doctrine to make law is a terrible idea.

[warren]

I really don't see what the problem is. If you don't like the position of Catholic Charities, do not go there to adopt a child, and do not put your child up for adoption with them.

It is a terribly difficult decision to make -- to give up one's child for adoption. Then you tell the parents that their boy may be adopted by a couple of NAMBLA members....

[Spock]

Tax the churches!

[Not Ben]

Dan, Jesus was simply reminding people about God's plan at Creation: One man, one woman -- i.e., heterosexuals. Pretty simple. Carrying that to exclude single heterosexuals is a stretch. However, I would argue that a married couple should always get preference in adoptions.

No one is talking about setting public policy along scriptural lines. Only that private organizations are constitutionally guaranteed the right to have their own beliefs, and not have them set by the state.

Telling churches who they must and must not accept is exactly the same thing as telling them what they must and must not believe.

If someone wants to pass a law that forbids religious organizations from being involved in adoptions, then go right ahead. Good luck with that. They spend a ton of their own money on such services, and do it all for free... just like all the rest of the social programs they run for the benefit of society in general.

[Dan]

I certainly don't want the government to tell anyone they must modify their religious beliefs."

Hahahahahaha.

Posted by: Mr. Jefferson | April 14, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Mr. Jefferson, enjoy your laugh and your seeming perception that you have the ability to read the minds of others, but I absolutely believe that the freedom to believe according to one's conscience is one of the most outstanding and wonderful aspects of America.

Our Founding Fathers were keenly aware that the Old World had a long and bloody history of butchering people for their religious beliefs and wanted to avoid that in the New World. For instance, the good Christians of Europe offered Jews the choice of forcible conversion or expulsion or death. Of course they also spent a lot of time murdering each other over the different flavors of Christianity too. The Founders tried to avoid such things here.

If you assume I want government interference in religious you couldn't be more wrong. Make no mistake. I think many of the religious beliefs some of my fellow citizens hold are positively crackers. But I am very pleased they have the ability in this country to hold them free of molestation by the government or by others.

It is only when they insist on trying to inflict their nutty religious ideas on the rest of us that I must object. Particularly when they insist that it is somehow proper that tax dollars should be expended in their efforts.

[warren]

Fill me in, Dan, how much money is Catholic Charities getting from the government for adoptions?

[Noticed]

Jesus did not have to tell anyone about homosexuality. He could refer to Leviticus 18 (with which Jesus apparently did not express disagreement).

So Ben, since you are a potential candidate, can you clarify something for the voters? Do you believe that the State has the right to tell faith based institutions (e.g., Catholic Charities) that they must serve ALL couples who would like to adopt, even if that conflicts with the religious values of the organization? Please state your answer clearly.

[Not Larry Sabato]

The state absolutely has the right to protect the health and well being of these kids. They are not the property of Catholic Charities and they should be placed in the best possible home for them regardless of race, gender, age, sexual orientation, etc.

[warren]

The parents put their children into the care of Catholic Charities, not the State Government.

Now, what State concern would override the wishes of the parents?

[GOP=Homophobes]

Not Ben: If God is all knowing and all powerful, then didn't He know what He was doing when he created homosexuals? Didn't he know that there would be people engaging in sodomy? Or was that the day He rested?

[GretchenLaskas]

(eye roll) And given that in Leviticus 19 we're told not to trim our beards, get tattoos or cut up our dead, I'm sure that Cuccinelli will be going after barber shops,tattoo parlors and the funeral industry next.

(Gasp! Where is Cooch's beard????)

[warren]

God created Man and Woman. The rest is corruption.

Yes, He did know we would sin when He gave us free will. You may notice that the Bible does not say that BEING homosexual is a sin, but it does say that homosexual acts are sins. Homosexuals may not choose their orientation, but they do choose their actions.

[GOP=Homophobes]

A few more from Leviticus for Not Ben and his fellow theocrats to follow:

Anyone who touches or eats the carcass of an unclean animal becomes ritually unclean. (Leviticus 11)

Anyone who touches or eats the carcass of a clean animal that dies of itself, or is torn by wild animals, becomes ritually unclean. Leviticus 11:29-31)

Any article that has come in contact with a ritually unclean object becomes ritually unclean. (Leviticus 11:31-38)

Menstruous women are ritually unclean. (Leviticus 15:19-24)

Women after childbirth are ritually unclean.(Leviticus 12:2)

Anyone with a spreading skin disease is ritually unclean. (Leviticus 13:2-46)

A man having an abnormal discharge (zab) is ritually unclean. (Leviticus 15:2-15)

Anyone or anything coming into contact with semen becomes ritually unclean. (Leviticus 15:16-18)

A human corpse and anyone who comes near it is ritually unclean. (Numbers 19:11-16)

Those unclean of a spreading skin disease must shave off all their hair. (Leviticus 14:9)

Do not eat any unclean animal. (Deuteronomy 14:7-8)

Do not eat any unclean fish or seafood. (Leviticus 11:10-12)

Do not eat any unclean fowl. (Leviticus 11:13)

Do not eat any unclean flying insect. (Leviticus 11:20-23)

Do not eat any insects that creep on the ground. (Leviticus 11:41)

Do not eat any reptiles. (Leviticus 11:44)

Do not eat worms found in fruit or produce. (Leviticus 11 :42)

Do not eat any swarming insects. (Leviticus 11:43; Deuteronomy 14:19)

Do not eat any animal found already dead. (Deuteronomy 14:21)

Do not eat a torn or mauled animal. (Exodus 22:31)

Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it; neither eat any meat not fully cooked. Only when meat is cooked until it is white inside with no tinge of red or pink whatsoever insures that all blood had been removed. (Deuteronomy 12:23)

Do not touch the carcass of an unclean animal. (Leviticus 11:8)

Do not eat blood. (Leviticus 7:26-27)

Do not eat the fruit of young fruit trees for the first three years of growth. (Leviticus 19:23)

Do not eat the produce from the planting of mixed seed. (Deuteronomy 22:9)

Do not partake of drink offerings to the gods (false gods). (Deuteronomy 32:38)

Drunkenness of any sort is prohibited. (Deuteronomy 21:20)

[Mr. Jefferson]

You know who else quoted scripture?

Hmmm... let's see... could it be...

SATAN!

/churchlady

[change]

Interesting to see the atheists and agnostics preaching God’s will to believers…

For the record, God could have taken away all ability to make decisions of right/wrong, good/evil etc... when creating man. But then, we would have been as the “beasts of the fields”.
Instead, being created in “his image”, he gave us the gift of discernment; because some use that gift to go against his will does not make the choice correct.
And
For those who don’t believe in God; logic alone dictates that those who choose to “mate” with the same sex have made a choice not to procreate. But hey, in this world of “gimmie” should it surprise anyone that we have another instance of people wanting to get something they do not merit?

I am more interested in the unanswered question above regarding how much the church gets paid by the government to provide this service. Also, is it more than planned parenthood receives to help with abortions.

gop=,
I would suggest you turn some pages to the new testiment of the Bible for more understanding (you still have time)

[warren]

All of which is beside the point. Parents give their children up for adoption. Some choose Catholic Charities, knowing their requirements for adoptive parents.

Where is the State's overriding interest in countering the wishes of the children's parents? Homosexual couples wishing to adopt should go somewhere else.

[GOP=Homophobes]

Right, Change, so God gave us the gift of discerning who we care to love, have sexual relations with, etc. And given His omniscience, He knew exactly where that would lead. Anyway, continue to enjoy talking out your butthole, which God also made for us in His infinite wisdom and compassion.

[warren]

Yes, He knew where that would lead. That's why He sent His only-begotten Son.

[Gretchen Laskas]

Change- I'm as Christian as they come. At least in the eyes of God, which are the only ones that count!

[Rtwng Extrmst]

So if the state has the right to tell Churches they can't follow their faith's teachings in providing a service to the public, then how far a reach is it to say the stats can then require Churches to marry homosexuals?

[Not Ben]

Not Ben: If God is all knowing and all powerful, then didn't He know what He was doing when he created homosexuals?

Posted by: GOP=Homophobes | April 14, 2011 at 04:16 PM

God didn't create homosexuality any more than he created lust, avarice, jealousy, greed, or hate. Homosexuality is a result of the Fall, just like every other sin.

Saying that someone is "born gay" is just like saying that I'm born with a tendency to covet (which I am), or that Ben was born with a tendency to lie (which he apparently was). They're all part of our sinful nature. We're supposed to *try* to turn away from those things, not embrace them.

Gretchen -- Did the Apostle Paul refer to those ceremonial laws from Leviticus and confirm them as a part of the moral code? No... I didn't think so. But, both he and Jesus confirmed God's plan of one man + one woman = one flesh.

Gretchen, go to church more than you do, and we won't have to have these sorts of lessons out in public. ;-)

[warren]

Actually, polygamy was accepted by God and Jesus. Those ten virgins Jesus spoke of were not going to the wedding as guests. The Law even REQUIRES polygamy -- it requires a man to marry his dead brother's wife, if that dead brother had no children, and to raise their children in his brother's name.

[Not Ben]

They were bridesmaids, you clown.

[warren]

Sure, NB.

[warren]

The Greek says only παρθένοις, which means "virgins."

[Not Ben]

Text without context is a pretext.

Learn it, live it.

[warren]

Whatever, NB. Even so, polygamy is not against anything in the Bible.

[Not Ben]

Keep up the amateur theology, warren. It makes you look really, really smart.

[Gretchen Laskas]

Not Ben- so I need to attend a church like yours which will tell me how to vote? That's going against several hundred years of my Protestant heritage! But yes, people like me have always been rather "embarrassing" to those who insist they are of the one true faith (no matter what that faith is calling itself these days!). :)

[warren]

OK, NB, show me ANYWHERE the Bible condemns polygamy. I can show you where monogamy is RECOMMENDED for those who would be leaders in the church, but that in itself implies that polygamy is not a sin. Furthermore, as I said, the Law required polygamy in the case of one's brother's dying without children.

Finally, "amateur" means one who does a thing for the love of it. I do love God and the Bible, so I study (theo+logy = study of God) them as much as I can.

[Let's Be Free]

When churches place children in homes they are doing it for love and respect for life, when the state does it the process is dominated by bureaucrats doing it for money. I'll take a church over the state most any day to do what is best for a child.

Geez people, if you don't like what the Catholic Church (or any other religious group) is doing, create your own counter group -- call it gays and trannies pining for adoption or some such thing, and affiliate with the UU.

Also, I am seriously skeptical about folks who pontificate and posture themselves as saviors of children who don't raise or haven't raised any kids themselves -- Cuccinelli and his wife have essentially all of us beat on that score, taking responsibility for the education of his children as well as nurturing roles.

[A Voter]

I'm wondering why Liberals aways believe that their belief structure and faith is superior to that of others.

Why is it that only the conservatives out there are tolerant of others?

[change]

Gretch,
You should know that my comments were not intended toward you.

[change]

Warren, A voter,
It is obvious that some of these folks have no clue what is really in the Bible, they take snippets in a vain attempt to make some specious argument and when that fails they turn to personal attacks.

Always the same M.O. just different subjects.
I see the ranting about “taxpayers” paying these Churches to provide these services seems to have disappeared. So much for facts…

[55]

A short history lesson will tell us that separation of Church and state was the main reason for the migration to America. Although many people misconstrue this statement to push for an idea that religious conviction should not inform the worldviews of lawmakers, it was actually said because England was making laws about how the church was allowed to function. Let us hold to the original definition of "separation of church and state" which so many people of the left leaning persuasion have called for over the years.

[55]

One more thing, to say that God made someone homosexual so people of faith should be ok homosexuality is a bit of a stretch philosophically, logically and theologically.

[A Voter]

Well said Change & 55.

[truthteller]

We saw how wrong Cooch was on disability rights when Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia wrote out a decision striking down Cooch's attempts to assert state sovereign immunity against an independent state agency charged with investigating abuse and wrongful deaths of institutionalized people with disabilities in VOPA vs Stewart. When Justice Scalia says you are too extreme on federalism and civil rights, YOU KNOW you are too extreme