Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI-1) seems to flip on same-sex couple adoption

I suspect that the liberal cafeteria catholics out there who yammered against Congressman Ryan for his budget proposals will now be as silent as little butterflies about this new development.

From the site of the Journal Sentinel of Milwaukee:

Paul Ryan Regrets Voting Against Same-Sex Adoption

WISCONSIN — Former GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan told a Wisconsin town hall audience on Monday that he now supports the right of same-sex couples to adopt children, even though he still opposes marriage equality.
Confronted by an audience member about his anti-LGBT voting record — Ryan earned a “zero percent” score on gay rights from the Human Rights Campaign — the House Budget Committee chairman admitted that gays and lesbians could provide a loving home to “orphans.” In 1999, Ryan voted against adoption for same-sex couples in the District of Columbia, but said he would vote differently today:

RYAN: Adoption, I’d vote differently these days. That was I think a vote I took in my first term, 1999 or 2000. 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. I would vote that way. I do believe marriage is between a man and a woman, we just respectfully disagree on that issue.

No same-sex marriage, but a shift on adoption.

I want to see how Ryan’s office clarifies this.  I am inclined to disapprove.  Is he making a “Hey! That would be better than nothing!” argument?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6OSyUK92cws

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI-1) seems to flip on same-sex couple adoption
0 votes, 0.00 avg. rating (0% score)
FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Dogs and Fleas, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI-1) seems to flip on same-sex couple adoption

  1. JPManning says:

    The experience in the UK has been that allowing homosexual couples to adopt has seriously damaged the whole system. The Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close for discriminating against homosexual couples. The right of Catholic children to be raised by Catholic adoptive parents has been completely destroyed. Foster parents who regard homosexual sex acts as sinful have been banned from fostering.

  2. Lucas says:

    Anything to be President….

  3. charismatictrad says:

    This seems like a lack of understanding on why the Church teaches that same-sex “marriage” is impossible: IT’S BECAUSE OF CHILDREN! I mean, other than the fact that nature prohibits it, the point is that a same-sex couple cannot procreate, and reason can tell us that if they can’t make babies together then they probably shouldn’t raise them, either. Sad. Another “c”atholic.

  4. ThomasL says:

    Adoption is more out of the question than civil marriage. Really strange.

  5. LarryW2LJ says:

    Severely disappointed.

  6. StJude says:

    Disappointed.

  7. JohnE says:

    So he seems to be saying that the fight is really over the name “marriage” and not about children. Sounds like he strained the gnat and swallowed the camel. He also seems to be saying that it would be better for a gay couple to adopt a child than for that child to remain in an orphanage — presumably that no married couple would ever adopt the child and that it would be better than remaining in an orphanage or foster home.

  8. jasoncpetty says:

    Would that our little political Atlas had shrugged instead. Who’s next?

  9. Clinton R. says:

    Sadly some people will do anything to gain votes. Ryan sees the zeitgeist of this nation and knows if he wants votes in the future, he has to curry favor with the homosexuals. Regrettably,we are going to see more and more of this from Republicans in the future, the capitulation of beliefs to gain approval of the world. We are living in dark days indeed.

    For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?
    Mark 8:36

  10. Lavrans says:

    Never trust a politician. Any politician. We have come to the point where we have no friends among politicians anymore, not that they were very good friends to begin with.

    My advice? Reproduce and raise/educate your large families. Create a voting block they cannot ignore. Ryan loses my vote.

  11. mamajen says:

    Heterosexual couples should not have to compete with singles or same sex couples to adopt babies and young children.

    As for your last point about “better than nothing”…it has me thinking. Some kids (especially older ones) get stuck in the system and really do have nothing. I’m not certain that being raised by a same sex couple would be worse than what they might otherwise experience. That said, allowing same sex couples to adopt enables and empowers them. Even if it doesn’t hurt the kids, even if it’s an improved situation for the kids, there are harmful effects. For every kid “saved” from the system by a homosexual couple, we endanger two souls who now have even more reason to maintain their sinful lifestyle. I don’t think the ends justify the means.

    Sorry, Paul Ryan, you don’t get a pass from me no matter how you arrived at your conclusion.

  12. SKAY says:

    ” I think if a person wants to love and raise a child they ought to be able to do that.”
    Probably without knowing it, Cong. Ryan said exactly what this it is about.

    Obviously this is NOT about what is best for the adoptive child and it never has been.

  13. eulogos says:

    I think that sometimes it is better than nothing. Nothing is worse for human beings than to have no human connections.
    As for competing…. how about this one. My lesbian sister in law and her “partner” are raising a child from Ethiopia who has cerebral palsy. The heterosexual couple who had originally adopted him from an Ethiopian orphanage had returned him to the agency when they discovered his deficits. When my SIL and her ‘partner’ applied, they were asked right away if they would take this child, as otherwise he would have to be shipped back to Ethiopia. They said yes.
    Is this ideal? No, of course not. But I can’t help thinking that they have done a good thing and that this little boy is better off for their part in his life.
    I realize all the garbage which can possibly happen, and has happened, once we go down that road. But I just wanted to have all aspects of the truth of these human situations as a part of this discussion.

    And I don’t know if having the child further endangers my SIL and her significant other. Anything which requires sacrifice for another’s welfare is of benefit to the soul, and to the character.

    For me the downside is all in the sense that being “allowed” to adopt a child quickly becomes having the “right” to do so, even if it means taking away the children of heterosexual couples of lower social status (you can always find some kind of ‘neglect’ by upper middle class standards) to supply the demand. The downside is the manufacture of children, and children as an accessory.
    The downside is the destruction of normal ( “heteronormative” they like to call it!) social expectations in the mind of the general public.

    I don’t quite understand Catholic agencies not being allowed to restrict who they give children to, as I know there are Evangelical agencies which make the parents sign a ‘through faith alone by grace alone” faith statement before they will give them a child. Those agencies aren’t taking Federal funds, though, so I suppose that is the issue.

    I expect we will all get to see how this plays out. Some of you who are younger than I will see more of it. Interesting times…

    Susan Peterson

  14. Jim R says:

    I’ve thought all along he was a little too unctious and smarmy.

    Why is anyone surprised after the backflip he did on abortion during the election?

  15. Mightnotbeachristiantou says:

    I think that the whole point is mute.

    “In 1999, Ryan voted against adoption for same-sex couples in the District of Columbia, but said he would vote differently today:”

    Why should a Congressman from Wisconsin be voting on adoption rules for the District of Columbia?

  16. AnnAsher says:

    Well I am not a liberal and yet I too yammered in my own vein against Ryan for 1. Affiliating himself with Romney, for his position allowing abortion for the “life of the mother” and his desire to further nationalize education. Are we really surprised he’s as prohomo as mitt ?

  17. Matt R says:

    Mightnotbeachristiantou Congress oversees the passage of laws for the District. It is after all the federal city, and so this was put in the Constitution.

  18. rcg says:

    Ryan was complemented by Clinton during the last election. Bubba said Ryan had a lot of potential. I expect Clinton saw a chance to influence Ryan. One of the weaknesses high profile Catholics have is the desire to be considered sophisticated. Ryan is as vulnerable to that vanity as anyone.

    Ryan has been enamoured with politics his entire life. He worked as a volunteer for local politicians while in college. I am suspicious of anyone whose entire industry has been politics with no real leadership or working skills. He just wants to remain relevant anyway he can.

  19. Darren says:

    Big disappointment. Another traitor.

  20. Nancy D. says:

    Men and women have been designed by God, as confirmed by The Science of Biology, in such a way that one cannot engage in same-sex sexual acts without demeaning the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the Human Person. We are living in the Time of great deception, when there are multitudes who deny that a son or daughter of a Human Person is a Human Person, and yet personhood has been assigned to sexual orientation or preference so that it may appear as if those of us who refuse to condone same-sex sexual acts are discriminating against a person, when in fact, we are discriminating against demeaning sexual acts that do not respect the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the Human Person and thus can never be acts of Love. May God Have Mercy on us!

  21. Johnno says:

    Catholics need to form their own third party. Yeah you’ll never likely win anything anytime soon, but you’ll have less of a headache come election time. Don’t bother with these scoundrels and fools anymore. Voting the lesser of evils will never ever ever ever work out for you in the long run. No more compromises. You are either for God and His law or you’re against Him.

  22. Nancy D. says:

    Paul Ryan, is making the same argument Pope Francis made in regards to civil unions. These arguments dismiss the fact that same -sex sexual acts can never be condoned because it is impossible for same-sex sexual acts to serve the Good of those persons engaging in them. One cannot be Catholic and deny The Truth of Love. (Catholic Canon 750)All that is Good is ordered to Love. God protect our Holy Father, Benedict!

  23. Dennis Martin says:

    Mark 8:36

    But for the Beltway, Paul, for the Beltway??

  24. wmeyer says:

    Johnno, the one thing that a third party can assure, if it gets any significant percentage of the votes, is that the Democrats will remain in power. Of course, if your purpose is to hasten the collapse, that should do it.

  25. acardnal says:

    Is Cong. Ryan no longer living in accordance with Catholic teaching and instead being politically expedient to garner votes? Hmmmm. . . .

    As I recall some diocesan Catholic Charities organizations who refused to adopt children out to same-sex couples as required by law are no longer in the adoption “business” . They refused to co-opt Catholic morality to the secular ethos.

  26. Giuseppe says:

    Is there hope for a nationally successful orthodox Roman Catholic national officeholder in the US now? In some Congressional districts and states, yes. However, on a national level, I cannot envision an orthodox Roman Catholic garnering a majority (or possibly a plurality) of US votes.

  27. muckemdanno says:

    It makes me laugh that people here are so shocked and/or angry over this. Paul Ryan has not changed.

    What’s going on here is that those of you who think that any establishment politician actually has any principles are fools. If Ryan had any principles, he would not have been allowed to be the VP nominee.

    If you find the candidate that the other politicians and media commentators all ridicule, then you have found the man who has principles…can you think of who that was in the last election?

  28. Athelstan says:

    I’ve long been a fan of Paul Ryan.

    But this latest shift is deeply disappointing.

  29. tcreek says:

    One more voice accepting creeping decay. Moral death by a thousand cuts.

  30. frjim4321 says:

    Mistake!

    Like the mistake the Boy Scout are thinking of making: too little, too late … just figuring out that he painted himself into a corner.

    I think the Rev. and Dear Blogmaster and I agree this time, but for way different reasons!

  31. Johnno says:

    wmeyer-

    Or if you get started forming a third party sooner rather than later. Or witholding your vote from the lesser evil party until they represent you sooner… then you might actually have a chance of turning things around. Brick by brick etc.

    Or you can continue as usual, which is how we incrementally got to where we are…

  32. sciencemom says:

    Also very disappointed. I thought Ryan was for real … although I also thought after this last election that we are past the point of political solutions anyway.

    @frjim4321 –
    Would you please just say whatever it is that you are trying to say? Your ambiguous, cryptic comment leaves me wondering what you mean.

  33. JKnott says:

    Very sad.
    Would Paul Ryan approve of his own children being brought up by homosexuals or lesbians? If not, why not?
    Maybe Bishop Morlino will have a talk with him.

  34. David Collins says:

    What do you expect? He’s a republican. Of course, he would endorse the latest civil rights revolution after a short delay.

    Don’t vote. It only encourages them, and will do nothing to stop the rot.

  35. mamajen says:

    @eulogos

    There’s no doubt in my mind that for some kids (the ones who nobody else wants, especially), adoption by a same sex couple would not be any worse than what they might otherwise experience in the foster system or in state care. It might even be vastly better. But, as you seem to recognize, there is really no way to allow it even in some cases without also helping to forward the homosexual agenda. We may help the kids, but is the collateral damage (encouraging same sex “families”, even if unintentionally) worth it? I don’t think it is.

    As an aside…Catholics are always saying that Catholic couples should have large families. Well, if you have the means, adopt! If you have a situation that would allow you to adopt an older kid or one with special needs, even better! I knew a family from church that had 8 children (last time I checked), and half of them were adopted. They are the best altar boys, I might add. If I had the resources I would love to adopt.

  36. Juergensen says:

    Another Republican “grows” into a RINO.

  37. veritasmeister says:

    With all due respect, instead of using this to point out the hypocrisy of liberal Catholics, should we not use it to take a look at ourselves?

    How many who railed against President Obama speaking at Notre Dame U. will now contact Benedictine College in Kansas to demand that Ryan be dis-invited from his upcoming commencement address there? And if condoning adoption by same sex couples isn’t enough, how about denial of the classical Social Kingship of Christ, insufficient regard for government’s legitimate role in providing for the common good, and intellectual dalliances with twisted atheists like Ayn Rand?

  38. Eraser says:

    Shocker… just like all those supposedly pro-life Deomcrats who promised us that they would fight the admimistration on healthcare. Politicians will do anything for a vote.

  39. frjim4321 says:

    “Would you please just say whatever it is that you are trying to say? Your ambiguous, cryptic comment leaves me wondering what you mean.” – Science Mom

    He and they were taking hard-line stances to cater to a particular constituency. Now these constituencies are changing because of demographics. So all of a sudden the hard lines aren’t quite so hard. The hypocrisy is so entirely blatant that the parties (Ryan, BSA) end up in a worse position with everyone than they were in the first place!

  40. Cathy says:

    I don’t think there is any such thing as a RINO. We need principled leaders, not demagogues pushing the bar of moral decency lower by expressing their “regret” for having such a bar in the first place.

  41. PA mom says:

    I think that he is stuck being ” compassionate”, because again, more than half of the Catholic voting public is siding with the progressives instead of Church teaching.
    Shouldn’t we ask why that is?

  42. Frank_Bearer says:

    Paul Ryan was the “lesser of two weasels” candidate from the beginning. Of course he is going to make a “lesser of two evils”, straddle-fenced, limp-wristed statement like this.

    And the sheep will still vote for him because he’s “against” gay marriage and some flavor of kinda-sorta pro-life as we slouch towards Gomorrah.

    And somebody will shout: “He’s still better than Obama!”, as we continue to accept the false dichotomy of the Hegelian Dialectic.

  43. Cosmos says:

    veritasmeister,

    While it always useful to be self-critical, we should also avoid equivocating. I am not so sure, though I could be convinced, that:

    – Inviting the most powerful, popular, and influential men in the free world
    – who also happens to be one of the few politicians in the country that openly defended infanticide to protect abortion rights
    – to speak AND receive an honorary law degree
    – from the flagship Catholic university in the United States
    – in an extremely publicized event

    Deserves the same amount of attention as:

    – an unsuccessful vice-preidential canidate/influential congressman
    – who is anti-abortion and gay marriage but supports homosexual adoption and
    – was invited to speak at a very minor catholic college

    It doesn’t seem like the same thing to me. We can’t protest everything. We all have day jobs!

  44. frjim4321 says:

    “I don’t think there is any such thing as a RINO.”

    Cathy, thanks for that! Reminds me of dinner with friends a few years back and we were talking politics … I mentioned George Voinovich, and I said “if more Republicans had the strength of character and integrity of George Voinovich, I might consider voting for one or two … I thought they would be pleased but they were incensed, and said “George is a RINO.” The really don’t care about character and integrity, just about voting for puppets to do with the RNC wants them to do … they only want to vote for obstructionists who don’t care about doing anything positive for the country, but just doing everything they can to defeat the President so they can be back in power.

    At the rate they are going, I think 2020 will be the first year they will have even the slightest chance, probably not even 2024 when Hilary’s done.

  45. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Is it worthwhile to attempt a ‘thought experiment’ comparing the ferocity of expression of Mikey “Weinstein [,…] head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, [who] says Christians – including chaplains [!!] – sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ in the military are guilty of ‘treason,’ and of committing an act of ‘spiritual rape’ as serious a crime as ‘sexual assault’ ” (from the post following this) with what I suspect the majority on those objecting to the propriety of ‘same-sex couples’ being enabled to teach adopted children by word or example, would be likely to say?

  46. HolyPhoenix says:

    So Paul Ryan gave into the whole, we can do something evil if a greater good comes from it idea?
    That’s not good.

    @Cosmos:
    I am pretty sure that Notre Dame is not really Catholic.

    Also, after going to that very minor Catholic college, I would say that Benedictine College is not quite as minor a Catholic college as one might think by looking at it’s size. It’s probably the only real Catholic college that you can go to to get a decent degree while still meeting good Catholic people.

  47. Pingback: Fri. Update on Marriage & Same-Sex Attraction | Big Pulpit