My Take: On adoption, Christians should put up or shut up
June 16th, 2011
03:11 PM ET

My Take: On adoption, Christians should put up or shut up

Editor's Note: Jason Locy is co-author of Veneer: Living Deeply in a Surface Society. He and his wife are adoptive parents and participants in Safe Families for Children, a voluntary alternative to foster care.

By Jason Locy, Special to CNN

When the Arkansas Supreme court struck down a voter-approved initiative that banned cohabitating straight and gay couples from adopting orphaned children, the Christian community predictably erupted.

Byron Babione of the Alliance Defense Fund, a coalition of Christian lawyers, attributed the April ruling to a “political movement afoot to undermine and destroy marriage.” Baptist Press, the publications arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, ran an article that quoted Babione as saying the ruling reflected “a campaign to place adult wants and desires over the best interests of children."

On one hand, these comments aren’t surprising. Conservative evangelicals have decried “the anti-family gay agenda” for decades. On the other, they underscore the way many Christians denounce a social problem that they have no plan for solving.

And the problem here is not ultimately gays adopting — the prevention of which, I believe, was the impetus behind the Arkansas initiative and behind adoption restrictions in various other states. The problem is a global orphan crisis involving tens of millions of children.

In the United States, there are approximately 116,000 foster children waiting to be adopted. That means a judge has either severed the rights of the original parents or the parents have voluntarily signed their children over to the government.

To put this into perspective, we might compare the number of American orphans to the purported 16 million Southern Baptists who attend more than 42,000 churches nationwide. Quick math reveals that there are roughly 138 Southern Baptists for every child in the American foster care system waiting to be adopted. To say it another way, this single denomination has an enormous opportunity to eradicate the orphan crisis in America.

If you’ve spent any time in church, you’ve probably heard a sermon on Noah or Moses or David. But how many sermons have you heard on the biblical mandate to care for orphans?

When was the last time you heard your pastor declare, “if you choose to adopt a child we will stand with you. We will provide respite care, financial help and do everything possible to meet the needs of that child?”

Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Catholics — the Christian Church — can provide safe, loving, permanent homes for these kids. Our faith dictates that we fight for a better way in both words and deeds.

When Jesus asked Peter if he loved him, and Peter responded yes, Jesus didn’t tell him to picket the wolves. He told Peter to feed and tend his sheep.

Some churches and Christian groups are stepping up. Focus on the Family launched a Wait No More initiative in Colorado in 2008, forming partnerships between local churches, adoption agencies and the government in order to encourage families to adopt through the foster care system. As a result, the number of Colorado orphans waiting for a family has been cut in half.

Christianity Today ran a 2010 report headlined “Adoption is Everywhere,” illustrating the trend among churches and Christians who are giving “attention to orphans, adoption, the fatherless, and so on.”

Despite such efforts, the American orphan crisis remains. Too many churches still find it easier to stand behind a megaphone decrying the morality of laws than to stand beside a child in need.

Thousands of orphaned children in America need grandmas and grandpas, embarrassing uncles and crazy aunts. They need someone to teach them to fly a kite and throw a ball and read a book and tie their shoes. They need someone to call mom and dad.

In fairness, adopting a child is not easy and many of these children face difficult adjustments once they’re adopted. They have experienced pain, loss, hurt, confusion and misplaced trust. They have endured physical, emotional and sexual abuse — things most of us don’t even want to imagine.

In 2008, when my wife and I adopted through Bethany Christian Services, the organization educated us on the possible challenges of adopting a child. They informed us that even though our daughter was a baby when we brought her home, she would eventually ask tough questions, as would our friends and family.

But my wife and I know our faith demands action and that sometimes action takes us out of our comfort zone.

As a father of three — two biological children and an adopted child — and a host to a number of children that have needed a temporary home I can tell you these kids need less arguing over who should and should not be allowed to adopt and more families stepping up and saying, “we will adopt.”

It is time Christians decide to either step up or shut up. If a Christian group wants to wade into the discussion over who should adopt, it needs to put its money and manpower where its mouth is.

That means not only challenging families and churches to adopt from foster care (which costs virtually nothing financially) but also to adopt children resulting from unplanned pregnancies, children with special needs and children of mixed race or minority ethnicity.

If Christians’ only desire is to fight the culture wars and score political points, then they should continue to lean on empty rhetoric. But if they truly care about the family and the Bible, they’ll begin caring for children who desperately need a home.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jason Locy.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Christianity • Opinion • Politics

soundoff (708 Responses)
  1. Heather

    Christians complain "boo hoooo a $30K adoption is too expensive!" Yet they would prevent a woman from ending her pregnancy, the result of which (raising the child) would cost $210K. Are the Southern Baptists and Catholics ready to pony up the cash for raising the millions of unwanted children? Oh, no, they have a Lexus to buy. Hold on, I take that back. I'm sure the priests will gleefully accept the unwanted boy children.

    June 16, 2011 at 5:06 pm |
    • Artist

      "I take that back. I'm sure the priests will gleefully accept the unwanted boy children."
      There is truth in that statement. Sadly

      June 16, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
    • KS

      I was raised as a Southern Baptist and I wholeheartedly thank them for curing me of religion.

      June 16, 2011 at 6:17 pm |
    • Marissa C

      In 2006 (I'd have to look up the report for more recent years) Catholic Charities spent 3.5 BILLION dollars on services to people of all religions, including facilitating adoptions. Catholic Charities is entirely funded by the Catholic Church–meaning it's parishioners. Turns out they are willing to pony up the millions...or billions 🙂

      June 16, 2011 at 11:21 pm |
    • Chad Roberts

      So you're saying it's ok to kill a child because it'll cost more than adoption? You fail at life.

      June 17, 2011 at 5:55 pm |
    • jjay

      You obviously know not of what you speak. Thousands of Christ-believers have taken care of / raised 'unwanted' and orphan children (& their mothers) for centuries, as The Gospel directs. Know history, rather than hot temper of mis-informed (note, I didn't say 'ignorant').

      June 18, 2011 at 4:04 pm |
  2. fred

    Seems most of the comments on this site are twisted. Those who hate Christians sound off the loudest. Check the facts. The vast majority of Foster placement and Foster Home adoption is by Christians. Normal husband wife family structure that believe in Jesus. If you need to sound off first credit that majority of Christians that has stepped up to the plate then rant all you want regarding your hate. Read the article the author himself went through a Christian support group to help with his adoption. It takes 9 months on average to jump through the hoops the adopt a child from our bureaucratic bloated agencies. Many of these kids are in a holding pattern with a loving family waiting.

    The gay thing has been thrown into this article because CNN promotes the controversy. It is that gay theme the media has been drumming on for the past 8 years. If you want your article posted it must comply with their agenda.

    June 16, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
    • 4815162342


      June 16, 2011 at 4:58 pm |
    • Normon

      I think you missed the point of the article. The author, by the sound of it, is practicing what he preaches. Kudos to him. I think he is doing a good thing. However, the gay ban on adoptions seems to me to be very important to his point. If Christians are going to prevent a child from going to a good home, then they should at least provide another home for that child. i.e. adopt a child. Or do you think he just made up the gay ban just to "comply with their agenda?"

      June 16, 2011 at 5:16 pm |
    • Normon

      In other words, why would any "christian" prevent any orphaned child from going into a decent home?
      Seems like they are punishing a child for no reason.

      June 16, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
    • fred

      Norman, Christians as a whole do not block needy children from good loving homes. That is a fact period. Perhaps someone behaving in a non Christian manner may attempt to do so. As to resolving the issue of placing a young innocent child into a gay home or traditional home that would depend on many things. Let us say all things are equal between the parties. Apply the fact that a child is impacted for his or her lifetime by what is learned in the home. Our country continues its steep slide because yesterdays children are today’s leaders. It is time we faced the facts and dealt with important issues using what we know, what has worked and what has not.

      CNN accepted the post because it met their agenda. I would not know if the Author hit on that by accident or was aware of their selection criteria.

      June 16, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
    • bam

      best way to spread the christian taliban virus is to adopt and inject it into sponge minds.
      Send the kids off to christian taliban madrasas to become firebrand priests.

      June 16, 2011 at 11:07 pm |
    • Normon

      "Christians as a whole do not block needy children from good loving homes. That is a fact period. Perhaps someone behaving in a non Christian manner may attempt to do so."

      Sounds like splitting hairs to me. One could say that 'Christians as a whole' don't do anything, because they never act 'as a whole'. One could also claim that Gay households are not 'good loving homes,' but I would debate that aggresively as an overgeneralization, and since *all* adoptions are done on a case by case basis, I would expect solid evidence that there are, in fact, *no* Gay households that are 'good loving homes' in existence. So if you want to clarify what you are saying, that would be helpful.

      To clarify my own statement, it seems to me that by passing a ban on Gay adoption there are, *in fact*, some Christians who are blocking some needy children from good loving homes provided by Gay couples.

      June 17, 2011 at 11:15 am |
  3. Randall Hurd

    Try to say that Christians are the reason some many children aren't adopted? It sounds reasonable considering the source.

    June 16, 2011 at 4:36 pm |
  4. Faythe

    To the people who are decrying the cost of adoption: read the article. He specifically addresses that adopting from foster costs virtually nothing financially.

    June 16, 2011 at 4:16 pm |
    • Fostering Resentment

      Being a FOSTER parent . . .and being an ADOPTIVE parent are two VERY different things with two VERY different legal definitions. They ARE NOT the same.

      June 16, 2011 at 4:19 pm |
    • 4815162342

      I adopted my children from foster care. They are ADOPTED and are MINE. They are no longer in the foster care system. It cost me NOTHING to adopt them. In fact, while they lived with us before the adoption was final, we received a stipend from the state to help care for them.

      June 16, 2011 at 4:59 pm |
  5. WWRRD

    I applaud the author for doing a very Christian thing. I think many people look at and question the actions of the people the give birth to all of these unfortunate children. The megaphone actions are decrying a lack of morality in society that creates this problem. The Christian imperative is that the Christian love these children and acccpet them into their home. However, this is very , very hard.

    Should people have all of these unwanted kids. No Is it morally reprehensible Yes.

    Should we create awareness and get angry that people act so horribly that they create this mass of unloved children Yes.

    That's where most stop. The next step is to forgive the adult's hoprrible behavior and love these innocent kids. That is what is so hard. Especially when you have a family where you only had the children you wanted and were prepared to love and care for. Bringing these often problematic kids into your home is especially difficult if your children are liveing there. I would never forgive myself is my children were harmed in any way by bringing a child I knew was a problem into my home.

    No excuses, but there is more to this than just hypocrtical christians not walking the walk. No all have the authors strength.

    June 16, 2011 at 4:13 pm |
  6. Barney

    The problem is the incredibly high cost of adoption, period. My wife and I wanted to adopt, but the prospect of adding $20k to $30k in debt wasn't going to happen. Adoption agencies need to be regulated because they are ripping everyone off. Also, it is beyond ridiculous how long I've heard it takes to adopt an American baby in America. But that's beside the point: It really is a matter of money. And, it's a real shame.

    June 16, 2011 at 4:04 pm |
    • Lycidas

      Should the govt subsidize the cost of adoptions? Would that be a potential solution?

      June 16, 2011 at 4:08 pm |
    • And the Winner Is!


      It's an increadibly sad fact. So. . I wonder if all of the prosperous bashers here would be willing to front the money. . .that is IF their intentions are . . . oh so humanitarian enough to REALLY be concerned about the children. If someone would sponser me and my wife $$$ wise, we'd do it in a heartbeat.

      Excellent point Barney!

      June 16, 2011 at 4:09 pm |
    • Faythe

      From the article, he specifically states that adopting from foster care costs virtually nothing financially. Try again.

      June 16, 2011 at 4:14 pm |
    • Fostering Approval

      Being a FOSTER parent is NOT the same as adopting . . .by ANY stretch of the imagination. They are two VERY different things.

      June 16, 2011 at 4:17 pm |
    • Yo

      Why don't you ask your churches for the money.

      June 16, 2011 at 4:20 pm |
    • yoYOyoyo

      Actually, why shouldn't we require the person who placed the child for adoption to be responsible for the costs??

      We go after 'deadbeat dads' with enough fury don't we? Isn't it just about the same thing? In the interest of the child?

      June 16, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
    • Normon

      I think one of the reasons people give up kids for adoption is that they can't afford to raise them properly.

      June 16, 2011 at 4:35 pm |
    • GayAllTheWay

      "Actually, why shouldn't we require the person who placed the child for adoption to be responsible for the costs??"

      Many of the older children are coming from terrible homes that have abuse (both physical & se-xual), drugs, alcohol problems. The best thing for the child is to keep them away from those parents. If a person knows they have to pay especially with babies they could kill them instead of giving them up, that is not something as a society we should risk.

      June 16, 2011 at 4:40 pm |
    • yoYOyoyo

      I'm quite sure there are many cases in which you are correct.

      I'm quite sure there are many cases in which we don't have a 'deadbeat' dad. . .rather a 'beatdead' dad that can't afford it either.

      What then should we do with him?? Put him in jail for failure to pay??. . .Oh wait, yeah. . .we do that already.

      I hate to be a bakasana. . . .but if you can't afford to raise a child, the buy a freakin' one dollar condom, or just swallow.

      June 16, 2011 at 4:41 pm |
    • Ok


      Are you one of those dads?

      June 16, 2011 at 4:43 pm |
    • Normon

      "but if you can't afford to raise a child, the buy a freakin' one dollar condom..."
      I couldn't agree more!
      However, for those who don't, we can't punish the child for the parents' lack of responsibility.

      June 16, 2011 at 4:47 pm |
    • AllTheWayUpToWhere

      I'm sure you had to understand that I was being rhetorical. And I do agree and substantiat you on the fact that the older ones are coming from VERY broken homes and VERY bad situations. I'm not here for one instance to stand out against whether or not a gay or lesbian. . .singly or with a partner, should or shouldn't be able to adopt a child. I am Christian. . .and the FIRST thing Christ taught me was to love . . UNILATERALLY. . .all people. . .my neighbor, my child, myself and even those I consider to be my enemy. Love isn't binding or restrictive, it's liberating and give freedom. I've a gay friend that I'd place my child with long before I'd place him with others who would CALL themselves a Christian.

      Hope I'm a bit more transparent now.

      June 16, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
    • 4815162342

      Adopted from Foster Care. Cost me nothing.In fact, until the adoption was final, we were paid a stipend from the state. Cost should not be an excuse.

      June 16, 2011 at 4:55 pm |
    • yoYOyoyo


      No. . .I'm one of those dads who PAID 25% of his gross. . . that's BEFORE taxes. . .to the tune of $2k every month to a deadbeat mom who would spend a few hundred of it on my child, buy drugs and alcohol with the rest, and then proceed to have MORE children by other men that had no other child to support so she could get 25% of HIS gross income too.

      Now. . technically. . .according to the state. . .I had to pay $2000 a month for the care and upkeep of my child that I could only see once every two months. How much did the state tell you that YOU had to spend on your child every month when the broke YOUR doors down in a court order.

      And further. . tell me. . .isn't it outright discrimination to tell one class of citizen what THEY are expected to spend on their children every month. . without invading the sanctaty on intact homes and doing the same there?

      Squeeky wheel. . .how does it feel to be lubed up?

      June 16, 2011 at 4:56 pm |
    • Normon

      Not sure whether to say, "Glad to hear you're a stand up dad. Wish there were more like you."
      Or, "What's your problem? Can't stand the situation you willingly walked... no ran into?"
      So I'll just post both.

      June 16, 2011 at 5:07 pm |
    • yoYOyoyo

      Thanks for commending me. . .more oft than not I'm treated with the latter. From one intelligent human to another, I think you know as well as I do the costs of raising a child. . .and it's not $2k/month. I've raised five kids (married into four). I know better than most the costs associated with raising a child.

      So . . .in response to your last statement there. I do kind of take offense. When a . . .I'll say 'custodial' parent chooses to put a child up for adoption. . .there's no one telling them that. And again, where are the money police in relation to intact homes? Or even in relation to the custodial parent? I as a non-custodial parent was TOLD how much. . and court INSURED that I paid that amount. . . I needed to spend on my child. Now. . .why didn't they ENFORCE my childs 'custodial' parent in the same manner?

      Oh. . I paid what the state said. . .if not for the love of my child then more out of the duress of prison . . .DEBTORS prison. But it doesn't mean I didn't file something every other month simply to cost the state almost the same in their own legal fees for sheer passive agressive reasons either. 🙂

      June 16, 2011 at 5:33 pm |
    • Roger

      I adopted a child and it cost about the same as the costs of going through a pregnancy. And it took about 9 months to complete the adoption process. So, those complaining about cost or time don't know what they're talking about.

      June 16, 2011 at 11:59 pm |
  7. Elizabeth

    These so-called Christian groups sure judge a lot. Isn't that strictly prohibited by the Bible. And of course they never adopt children who would have otherwise been aborted. They don't really think abortion is cruel Rather they see it as a way to control the womenfolk to have child after child and not get in the way of their being the big man of the house or the deceived wife of the big man of the house. Kill prisoners – sure. Why should they have to pay to support them or, heaven forbid, get them the psychological help they need.

    What truly puzzles me is how the so-called Christian groups take up the Republican right-wing agenda with such zeal. They won't be the ones profiting from keeping taxes low (unless they're very rich) or getting people off welfare.

    June 16, 2011 at 4:03 pm |
    • Actually

      It's said. . "Judge not lest ye be judged"

      So. . don't you think it's came around full circle now. Just look at how people like to lump what they feel their definition of 'Christians' are into one basket. . . and then judge them.

      June 16, 2011 at 4:06 pm |
    • Barney

      I'm a Christian, and I agree, there are Christian "groups" as you say that are a bit messed up. But please don't put your faith in man, put it in God and Jesus Christ. Man is imperfect and you will always be disappointed. That said, I would gladly adopt if I didn't have to take out another mortgage to do so. The real problem are the adoption agencies. I'm also a Christian that believes you are free to make your own choice about abortion. If you are a woman, that baby is a part of your body and you have the choice to do what you will. That said, you also have to live with the consequences because you will be held to account. God is compassionate and graceful, but I'm just saying, in most cases I imagine He wouldn't be too happy. That said, if I knew of a girl who was thinking about adoption I would see if I could adopt it. It's the only possible way to afford it. And it's still expensive that way. You can't win.

      June 16, 2011 at 4:08 pm |
    • Normon

      :But please don't put your faith in man, put it in God and Jesus Christ."
      Except in the case of orphans, because apparently God and Jesus can't be bothered with them. So go ahead, put your faith in yourself and adopt now.

      June 16, 2011 at 4:27 pm |
    • Actually


      Actually, you're not even hitting the broad side of the barn there Norm. Christ said "Suffer the little children to come unto me"

      Now. . .what do YOU think he ment?

      June 16, 2011 at 4:36 pm |
    • Normon

      You tell me, as you seem to think you know.
      However, apparently He(?) didn't mean that He would take care of them or we wouldn't be having this discussion would we?

      June 16, 2011 at 4:44 pm |
    • Capercorn

      Stories about Christians protesting against Capital Punishment, or churches helping to place adopted children tend to not make the news. Only the loud ones who make everyone angry do.

      June 16, 2011 at 4:46 pm |
    • Actually


      He also says he know each sparrow that falls from the sky. . .does it mean he's going to pull a "Lazarus" on all of them too?

      If you get into a tragic accident. . .are you also going to blame him for not protecting you past your own seatbelt? Should we blame him for what happened to the children in Auschwitz now too? What about my ingrown toenail. . .Can I now put the blam on Him and sue? Perhaps you think he rejoices at the suffering of children? No. . .maybe we should all start wearing armbands that say WWND. . . .well??. .. what ARE you doing?

      June 16, 2011 at 5:03 pm |
    • Normon


      First, if you believe that God/Jesus is the Creator, Sustainer, and Executioner, then yes he ultimately is responssible for what he built and maintains, which includes Auschwitz and hangnails.

      Second, you are making my case for me. If he's not going to "pull a 'Lazarus'" then we must depend on ourselves, or... dare I say it... have faith in man, if we want something done.

      Third, what am I doing? A sh!t-load more than Jesus, I can tell you that.(excuse the language) And I have the reciepts and time logs to prove it. Have Jesus show you his someday.

      June 16, 2011 at 5:41 pm |
    • Actually

      So. . .do you believe in quantum physics?? You know, quarks, string theory, etc. etc. etc.

      So. . if you believe in a creator, God, then you have to believe that he's the encompassment of all that too right. . .the ultimate designer of the very building blocks of life (and that ain't already complex atomic structure as many abiogenesis people would WANT us to believe). . .

      So then. . .in his own designs. . his own creations of this wonderful thing we call matter, isn't he bound by his own laws then? (BTW. . care to explain m+e/c^2)

      Take satan for example. . . is he a creator??. . Of course not, if he were to create anything, it would be a truth, right? He can only pervert what has already been created.

      Why don't we lay the blame where it belongs then? . . . Is it with God. . .or Christ. . .or is it within our own hearts that we've allowed to become perverted when it comes to our sense of taking care of one another?

      June 16, 2011 at 6:05 pm |
    • Normon

      Where's the connection between quantum physics and belief in a creator God?
      Why exactly would He be bound by the laws of nature if He is supposedly beyond nature?
      Who's Satan again... oh yeah, one of God's angels. Why can't he create anything?
      Oh, I don't blame God at all, although I can't understand why you don't.
      I'm just saying that if we want orphans to have homes we can't depend on God/Jesus, because as usual, He won't do diddly, so we need to do it ourselves.

      June 16, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
    • Actually

      Sorry. . . M = e/c^2

      so. . .if that is all that matter really is (on the surface, we know there's more to it than that, and we're working on it every day). . .Then what are we really. . . just a figment of the imagination of pure energy itself?

      No, you can't blame a diety for the sinful nature of man.

      Do you understand the principle behind being given free will?

      June 16, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
    • Actually

      Oh. . . but He does do diddly. . His works are all around us, every day, in the very air you breath, the in the very atoms that make up your flesh . Do you really think that it's sovereign within yourself to have your heartstings pulled to donate to 'The Human Fund" ???

      Perhaps you need to think beyond the surface. . .beyond just what you THINK you see.

      June 16, 2011 at 6:28 pm |
    • Actually

      ANYway. . .this has all gotten WAY too deep for you right now. I'll stick with one of the latest comments. . . I believe that if you were to break down the statistics here, you'd find that a higher percentage of adoptions and foster care intakes are performed by those that profess to be not just Christian. . .but religeous, faith based people.

      Just like charitable work by musicians. . . Now, personally I can go with anything from Pink Floyd, old Count Basie. . .on to Motorhead. . . but most of your charitable work performed by musicians is done by those involved in country music. I tip my hat to them!

      June 16, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
    • Normon

      "ANYway. . .this has all gotten WAY too deep for you right now."
      Thank you for your concern, it is unfounded and unnecessary.

      "M = e/c^2" "Then what are we really?"
      Other than biochemical engines? Not much, if anything. Although, I willingly admit that we don't know everything.
      I'm not a mathematician or a physicist, but I have some idea of what Einstien's equations mean. The way you have arranged it, seems to highlight the variability of mass as it relates energy, often expressed as velocity, which BTW, is not quantum physics. So what is your point? That we are essentially energy? Although, I don't think, E=MC^2 actually says that, I wouldn't disagree. Again, what's your point?

      "Do you understand the principle behind being given free will?"
      Not entirely, no. I'm not steeped in the religious mindset and don't really understand how we can be given something that is either part of our very nature or unattainable, depending on one's viewpoint.

      "...His works are all around us, every day, in the very air you breath,..."
      So you say, but you saying it doesn't really count for much, does it?

      "Do you really think that it's sovereign within yourself to have your heartstings pulled to donate to 'The Human Fund' ???"
      Again, I'm not steeped in the religious mindset, so 'sovereign' may mean something else to you, but yes, I have supreme authority over my mind and thoughts. Not that the environment doesn't affect me, but no one or no thing has authority over my thoughts but me.

      "Perhaps you need to think beyond the surface..."
      Perhaps I do, I won't deny that, but you haven't given me any reason to think that is the case here.

      "a higher percentage of adoptions and foster care intakes are performed by those that profess to be not just Christian. . .but religeous"
      Even if this is the case, what does that have to do with whether Jesus is helping? Again, you are making my case for me, in that these are people doing something. They aren't waiting for Jesus to do something, they are taking action.

      You appear to be trying to show that God/Jesus exists and that people of faith are more helpful than people not of faith. Neither of which, even if they were true, shows in any way that God/Jesus is actually doing anything for orphans.
      All I'm saying is that, as I intially tried to say to @Barney, faith in God won't get children into decent homes, that takes people, i.e. "man", which he said, "please don't put your faith in...".

      June 17, 2011 at 10:50 am |
  8. JohnQuest

    Valerie, it is never that simple. If you have never had to make the choice then you are fortunate.

    June 16, 2011 at 4:00 pm |
  9. urinidiot

    THE DUDE – Exactly, they have the right to decide how to live "their" lives. Arkansas residents are more concerned apparently with getting to decide how others get to live their lives.

    I agree with this post entirely. Since Christians seem fixated on banning abortion and how cruel it is to have a child live with gay parents, then do something about it. Take in those unwanted kids... oh thats right, most kids are minorities and well, you probably have irrational issues with that too.

    June 16, 2011 at 3:59 pm |
    • 4815162342

      I'm a born-again Christian and a Baptist and I live in AR. I adopted two children from foster care, so I don't have to "shut up." I agree that more people - Christian or not - should consider adopting from foster care and abroad, but I don't think any unmarried couple - gay or straight - should adopt, because marriage provides more stability. If gays could marry, I'd be all for them adopting, too. Christ demonstrated his love for us in that while we were still sinners, he died for us. We are ALL SINNERS, people. No sin is greater than any other sin. Remember that!

      June 16, 2011 at 4:15 pm |
    • Laughing


      With such a great name I was hoping you would have a great post, sadly that wasn't the case. Womp womp

      June 16, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
  10. Doc Vestibule

    I once had a sargeant with 6 kids – 4 biological and two adopted.
    When he retired from the service, he was in the process of adopting a child of chernobyl that he had been taking in during the summer for several years. He was a fine example of what Christian charity should be. I still wonder how he managed such a brood on a soldier's salary!

    Those that are vehemently anti-abortion ought to be just a passionately pro-adoption.
    Kids from foster homes and orphanages are statistically far more likely to wind up homeless, imprisoned, on drugs, suffer mental illness etc.
    If you're willing to legistlate away your fellow citizens capacity to terminate pregnancy, you must be prepared to deal with all of the unwanted children.
    So far as I'm concerned, the only viable way to that is to lead by example and raise those crot.ch critters yourself.

    June 16, 2011 at 3:58 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      "If you're willing to legistlate away your fellow citizens capacity to terminate pregnancy.."

      Of course though, the women in question legislated the capacity of the unborn of having their own life. Sadly, the govt has gotten involved in this and the adoption question should also be answered by the govt. Force those capable to adopt to adopt. Responsibility of the citizen and all that.

      June 16, 2011 at 4:01 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      No, sir – the government should not force such an onus onto the citizenry.
      As a rule, humans under the impression of being in a free society do not tolerate such impositions – hence the United States no longer conscripts troops.
      I agree that a civil society provides for it's unfortunates – through welfare programs, socialized health care and the like... and state run orphanages are an attempt at just that. However, everyone realizes the practical limitations of insti.tutionalized parenting. People doing their jobs are not going to be as nurturing as loving parents – and given the sheer number of children, simply cannot be!
      Drafting children into unwilling families would be just as, if not more, harmful. If adoptive parenthood is seen as something equivalent to an 18 year long jury duty summons, we would eventually have a caste with canalized misanthropy as their primary characteristic.

      However – if we suppose a country in which the government dictates a pregnant woman's rights to chose and have thus conceded it's authority to say "This you cannot do!", then have we not simultaneously given that body permission to say "This you must do!"
      If a society cannot care for itself through the good graces of its populace, there is something wrong with the society.
      If the United States were truly a Christian country as some claim, then there would be no need for orphanages.

      June 16, 2011 at 8:31 pm |
  11. Uncouth Swain

    One needs to keep in mind, whether Christian or not, there are some that just cannot adopt children due to other complications.

    June 16, 2011 at 3:44 pm |
    • Angry Hillbilly

      Yeah, other complications like being greedy Christians who impose values they themselves don't live up to.

      June 16, 2011 at 3:47 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      Thank you for your va*gue acc*usations....quite odd.

      June 16, 2011 at 3:49 pm |
    • CalgarySandy

      Thank you so much for the unnecessary and obvious comment. We are all just too stupid to realize that some people cannot adopt. We all thought the old, poor, and sick should belly up to the bar. You have let us know that is just not possible.

      June 16, 2011 at 3:49 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      @CalgarySandy- You would be surprised at how many anti-christian ppl out there don't realize that. Or they simply do not care as long as they have a point to make.

      June 16, 2011 at 3:51 pm |
    • Luke

      Uncouth Swain

      Congrats on the meaningless comment of the day award.

      June 16, 2011 at 3:52 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      @Luke- Thank you, your comment meant so much to us all.

      June 16, 2011 at 3:53 pm |
    • Peace2All

      @Uncouth Swain

      Hey there -Uncouth...

      You Said: "One needs to keep in mind, whether Christian or not, there are some that just cannot adopt children due to other complications."

      You think that somehow that point is being missed by people, ... really...?

      You then Said to @CalgarySandy..." You would be surprised at how many (anti-christian ppl out there don't realize that). Or they simply do not care as long as they have a point to make."

      "Anti-christian's" don't realize this point...?

      Please help me out here, -Uncouth... where are you coming from on this...?


      June 16, 2011 at 4:22 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      @Peace2All- Hey Peace....my comments come partly from an abortion topic from a few days ago. Adoption was mentioned and basically there were those that didn't care if a Christian could adopt...they should or not be allowed to comment on the topic. So, yes...there are those that would behave in this manner. I have faith that most ppl wouldn't be this way..but there are some that just want to bash on the Christians.

      You have to admit that coomon sense isn't always that common.

      June 16, 2011 at 4:44 pm |
  12. the_dude

    What is wrong with people in an area deciding how they want to lead their own lives? If you don't like it move to frisco by the bay and start going to the gay pride parades.

    June 16, 2011 at 3:41 pm |
    • Normon

      Sounds to me like they're deciding how "they want [others] to lead their ...lives"

      June 16, 2011 at 3:46 pm |
    • CalgarySandy

      It is Christian values and rhetoric that they do not follow themselves that is being discussed. Clearly, if you do not wish to live as a Christian and follow the calls for compassion from Jesus then this article is not for you. It is not about forcing anyone to adopt a child but to ask you stop shooting your mouth of if you are not part of the solution. If you are a Christian and there is a HeII then you have just paid for your one way ticket with your selfishness. I would personally send you there for your inability to understand the article.

      June 16, 2011 at 3:52 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      "I would personally send you there for your inability to understand the article."

      Wow...thank goodness your love and co*mpassion is so focused in your life.

      June 16, 2011 at 3:55 pm |
    • Peace2All


      Spot on.


      June 16, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
  13. Peace2All

    From the Article:

    "When the Arkansas Supreme court struck down a voter-approved initiative that banned cohabitating straight and gay couples from adopting orphaned children, the Christian community predictably erupted."

    To the people who supported and/or agree with this 'initiative' above... W T F are you possibly thinking on this...?

    Please... I am sincerely in need of some kind of rational and reasonable argument that justifies making an initiative such as this into a 'law'.

    Thank you 'Arkansas Supreme Court' for having the intelligence to strike down this initiative, and not be swayed by blind religious dogma.

    Wow !!!


    June 16, 2011 at 3:36 pm |
  14. Normon

    The author missed one advantage to this. If conservatives don't want gays to adopt, then don't let any children wait to be adopted. If every orphan gets adopted, then no more gays will be able to adopt.

    June 16, 2011 at 3:35 pm |
    • Yo

      Wow your ignorance is showing. Studies comparing groups of children raised by ho-mos-exual and by heteros-exual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent's s-exual orientation does not indicate their children's.

      There is nothing wrong with gays raising children moron.

      June 16, 2011 at 3:50 pm |
    • Normon

      Sorry, guess I wasn't clear.
      If gays want to adopt, that is wonderful. One less child that has no family.
      My attempt at satire not withstanding, it is also a pragmatic solution to all concerned that if there were no orphans, then there would be no need to ban gays from adopting. One way conservatives can accomplish such a two-birds-with-one-stone goal is to *adopt all the orphans*, i.e. give ever orphan a good, loving home and the problem disappears. What are they waiting for, the solution is so easy?

      June 16, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
  15. Peeing

    Where's that tall pale maid when you need her?

    June 16, 2011 at 3:31 pm |
  16. Rolling Eyes


    You're quick to slam and lump 'Christians' into on basket. What is a Christian?

    June 16, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
    • Joe from CT, not Lieberman

      If you ask most members of Evangelical Christian groups, they will claim they are the only Christians, while the rest of us are apostates or heretics.
      If you ask "Mainstream" Protestant groups, they will say anyone who admits Jesus Christ as their personal savior is Christian.

      Remember – Catholics do not recognize the validity of any Schism. Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the spiritual head of the Church, and Baptists do not recognize each other in the Liquor Store.

      June 16, 2011 at 3:49 pm |
    • Read the article much?

      "Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Catholics — the Christian Church — "

      June 16, 2011 at 3:50 pm |
    • Last Time I Checked

      Last time I checked there weren't any Southern Baptists, Methodist, Catholics, etc. etc. etc .etc. when the Christian faith began.

      Perhaps you should read a different article??

      June 16, 2011 at 3:54 pm |
    • Peace2All

      @Joe from CT, not Lieberman

      You Said: "Remember – Catholics do not recognize the validity of any Schism. Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the spiritual head of the Church, and (Baptists do not recognize each other in the Liquor Store)."

      LOL ! 😀


      June 16, 2011 at 3:58 pm |
    • Read much?

      @Last time you checked,
      hmm... one assumes the comment posted on an article is asked of the article or the author, not of the ultimate meaning of "Christian".
      Oh, and since your brought it up, the subject not the bile in my mouth, there weren't any *Christians* when the Christian faith began.

      June 16, 2011 at 4:02 pm |
    • Oh Ye of Little Faith

      When I first started drinking Scotch. . .it was terrible. . .nasty. . .but I finally because accustom to it.

      So, how is that bile?

      June 16, 2011 at 4:14 pm |
    • Read much?

      @Oh Ye of Little
      Was that directed at me or are you just confessing to the Belief Blog that you buy cheap Scotch?

      June 16, 2011 at 4:20 pm |
    • Oh Ye of Impetuous Assumptions

      Bowmore, Highland Park, Glenfarclas. . .. I just buy cheap women. . .keep your daughters locked up. 🙂

      June 16, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
    • Read much?

      @Oh Ye Impetuous Ass,
      "I just buy cheap women."
      Also, " terrible. . .nasty. . .but I finally because accustom to it," I assume. 😉

      June 16, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
    • Fidei Coticula Crux


      When I say… “I am a Christian”
      I am not shouting “I am saved,”
      I am whispering “I am lost.”
      That is why I choose this way.

      When I say… “I am a Christian”
      I do not speak of this with pride,
      I am confessing that I stumble
      and need someone to be my guide.

      When I say… “I am a Christian”
      I am not trying to be strong.
      I am professing that I am weak
      and pray for strength to carry on.

      When I say… “I am a Christian”
      I am not bragging of success.
      I am admitting I have failed
      and cannot ever pay the debt.

      When I say… “I am a Christian”
      I am not claiming to be perfect.
      My flaws are too visible,
      but God believes I am worth it.

      When I say… “I am a Christian”
      I still feel the sting of pain.
      I have my share of heartaches,
      which is why I seek His name.

      When I say… “I am a Christian”
      I do not wish to judge.
      I have no authority.
      I only know I am loved.

      (unknown author)

      June 16, 2011 at 4:42 pm |
    • Oh Ye of too few College Exploits

      Terribly nasty. . .dirty even. Things you're daughters would NEVER tell you about. ROFLMMFFAO!!!

      Tell me. . .do YOU have a girl that would give you a hummer as your humming down the highway in a Hummer? No??. . that's right, your still trying to read into the article and these blogs surrounding it.

      Too bad . . . too, too bad 🙂

      June 16, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
    • Read much?

      Well, I would drink a dram of Highland Park to that. 🙂

      June 16, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
    • Oh Ye of Good Humor

      :). . . so. . . you HAVE to know by now that I'm just stirring the pot of thought. . . playing the devils advocate. Right?

      So. . .no offense intended. . .

      but. . . I wasn't kidding about the interstate indescretion 😉 Thank god for antilock brakes!

      June 16, 2011 at 5:55 pm |
  17. shootmyownfood

    I have shown up at anti-abortion rallies, and specifically asked picketers "how may unwanted children have you adopted"? Surprisingly, I have never received an affirmative response, and it appears that none of those who value life soooo much are willing to contribute to any of the lives they profess to value.

    June 16, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
    • Joe from CT, not Lieberman

      And those same people probably rally at the State Capitol to protest whenever the discussion comes up to abolish the Death Penalty, too. Interesting dichotomy – they are opposed to abortion, but in favor of State Sanctioned Murder!

      June 16, 2011 at 3:46 pm |
    • Valerie

      Can we vacuum your limbs off, one by one, when you become an inconvienience? Just wondering.

      June 16, 2011 at 3:54 pm |
    • Normon

      If I was living in your womb, perhaps.

      June 16, 2011 at 3:56 pm |
    • skinnedmyownbuck

      How many have you?

      June 16, 2011 at 4:03 pm |
    • Hillary

      Do you think the question should be directed toward the tennents of pro-abortion: How many unwanted children have you murdered?

      June 17, 2011 at 12:18 am |
  18. Sneezing

    Hey, where are the other dwarfs?

    June 16, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      @Angry Hillbilly- We don't want or need your kind here.

      June 16, 2011 at 3:45 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      @Angry Hillbilly- Haha....look who got their message banned. Take the hint.

      June 16, 2011 at 3:50 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      Angry Hillbilly- HAHA, keep going clownboy. We all need a good laugh. I think you are more a Perturbed Hilljack than an angry hillbilly.

      June 16, 2011 at 3:56 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      @Angry Hillbilly- Nope...just poking a stick at a hornet's nest to get it riled up. And it's working 🙂 Though the sting is more that of a mud mason.

      June 16, 2011 at 4:03 pm |
  19. Chuckling


    June 16, 2011 at 3:19 pm |
    • Laughing

      well played

      June 16, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
  20. Laughing


    June 16, 2011 at 3:16 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.