NCReg: Paul Ryan offers clarification on gay adoption
On another issue, Ryan, who is against homosexual “marriage,” recently raised eyebrows with remarks on adoption by same-sex couples.
In reply to a question at an April 29 town-hall meeting in Wisconsin, Ryan acknowledged that he, in 1999, voted in favor of a ban on federal funding of same-sex adoptions in the District of Columbia. But Ryan said that he would not vote for such a ban today.
“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. “I would vote that way.”
After the remarks, Ryan’s office issued a statement that read:
“Gay adoption is an issue best handled by the states, and this is primarily an issue of federalism. Years ago, because of Congress’ unique jurisdiction over Washington, D.C., I faced a vote on an amendment that would have prohibited the D.C. government from using federal funds in assisting with the adoption of children by same sex couples. I voted in favor of this amendment, which never became law. Gay adoption has been legal in Washington, D.C. for several years now. As stated last week, I would not vote for such a ban today.
“I support the First Amendment rights of religiously affiliated adoption agencies to set their own terms and conditions for adoption according to their conscience. I support federal provisions to guarantee those basic rights to adoption agencies in D.C. and across the nation. And, finally, I believe that our focus should always be on the well-being of the child.”
Ryan told the Register that homosexual adoption in the District is legal and that such a ban, if proposed again, would not pass. Ryan said he saw no “utility” in revisiting the D.C. ban issue.
“I don’t want to re-litigate this issue,” Ryan said reticently. “The Church teaching is very clear that the ideal home is with a mom and a dad.”
Ryan said that he didn’t regret the D.C. vote, but that he regards homosexual adoption as a state issue and “up to states.”
3 comments:
Wow. So he's basically confirming what caused the controversy in the first place? It sounds to me like he's saying the same thing as the CINOs say: "abortion is up to the states", or any other grave, immoral, or irresponsible act. What happened to his Catholicism?
It's double-talk. He's doing the Presidential (wannabee) Pander.
At the same time, I won't argue with the principle of subsidiarity that he expressed.
Yep.
Post a Comment