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.”


  1. 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?

  2. 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.


Please contact if you have issues commenting.