A bit more careful editing, please.
I have to admit that I didn’t get grammar until I began taking Latin in high school. Then when I studied German in high school and college, I really began to understand it. So when I read a sentence like this:
Boston Catholic Charities Halts Adoptions–rather than fighting an unjust and immoral law which demands placing of children with homosexual couples, Catholic Charities of Boston says it just won’t do any more adoptions.
You and I both know what Bill Cork is getting at. But there’s a better way to say it.
The problem with this issue is that passions have risen to flood water levels, and clear thinking has evacuated to another state. There is no law that demands children be placed with SSA couples. A more accurate statement of the legality is that a person should not lose consideration solely because of his or her sexual orientation. With the image of the homosexual majority riding over the hills to elbow aside smiling suburban moms and pops, who could possibly be against heterosexual- and couple-only adoption?
In fact, until very recently, and only in some few locales, I’m not sure two unrelated persons could “co-adopt” a child. If my legal staff would like to clarify the point, it wouldn’t be surprising to learn that one of the novel benefits accorded to same-sex unions/marriages was the privilege of adopting children together.
Drumbeat: the issue is far more complex than you realize. Even the CDF is swimming in unknown waters.