House fails to override Governor’s Veto of DiSanto permitless concealed carry bill.

11 thoughts on “House fails to override Governor’s Veto of DiSanto permitless concealed carry bill.”

1. Sanity Prevails and I greatly appreciate the Governor’s Veto but it is unfortunate South Dakota is getting boycotted on that bill he signed into law. We need to fix that.

   1. There’s nothing wrong with that (adoption service) bill. Liberal idiots will be liberal idiots. Conservative organizations shouldn’t be forced to give children to people they don’t believe will be good parents. Just like liberal idiots shouldn’t be forced to join a certain church or certain political party that they don’t agree with. As for the fail to override, that’s too bad. Thanks to Rep. Disanto and others for the good principled fight !

      1. Chief aka Stace but those Conservative adoption agencies are getting taxpayer funded support right? That is the big stinker for those calling the boycott evidently. How damaging this boycott will be on South Dakota I don’t know.

         1. No, they are NOT getting taxpayer-funded support. That was the legal argument for their bill: Since they are not tax-funded, why should they have to abide by some politically correct anti-discrimination governmental regulation ? The queers can stay in SanFran, why would we want them here anyway and why would they want to come ?

2. We should boycott the boycotters. Frankly, I appreciate it when people do not come here. Let the San Fransicans stay away, I say. More South Dakota for South Dakotans.

   1. Here, here!!

      1. Maybe others will come to our state now that they know South Dakotans stand up for their beliefs. Anyway, how many business people did we even have from San Francisco???

3. Another glorious year of fundraising and then postcards by the thousands if repeated in 18, from the good ole’ Lautenslauger’s!
   #sdgomoneypit

4. Religious-affiliated adoption agencies get no taxpayer funds. Why do liberals like to perpetrate that lie, even when presented the facts?

   1. I have to admit that this issue is a difficult one for me. I believe in maximum religious liberty but I also have to wonder how these agencies can think that you will necessarily be a better parent than me. Just because I am gay? 100% of the time? You are more qualified than me?

      I have no doubt that you are a great dad. I’m not so sure that I would be. But they don’t know that. And its not because I’m gay.

5. Jimmy,

   Good and fair question.

   This is my personal perspective on this:

   1) There are literally 100’s of prospective adoptive families for every available child. By almost any objective measure, every available child will be placed in a good home after the required evaluations and home visits are completed.

   2) These children are not social experiments nor a tool to satisfy the desires of one or two adults. They are minors in need of being placed in an environment where they have the best chance to have a full and abundant life.

   Statistically, all other things being equal (see #1 above), a child raised in a home with a mother and father is most likely to to succeed socially, mentally, etc. Further, active, practicing, Catholic couples who pray together are among the least likely demographics to divorce, etc.

   3) Adoption is expensive and religious-affiliated adoption agencies raise money to reduce the cost of adoption so not only wealthier couples are able to adopt. If non-religious affiliated groups want to form an adoption agency to underwrite the cost of adoption, I encourage them to do so. But, for them to “free-load” and demand religious entities violate deeply held religious principles is absurd.

   4) Religious affiliated adoption agencies consider this one of their ministries to spread the Gospel and fulfill the Great Commission (end of Mathew 28) to make disciples of Christ. Thus, for a religious affiliated adoption agency not to consider the spiritual well-being of the child CONCURRENT (see #1) with the temporal well-being would be a abdication of its Commission from Christ which would be grave matter (mortal sin).

   There is a principle in Catholicism of pursuing the “both/and” vs. seeing matters as “either/or.” For instance, Catholic Social Teaching holds both the principles of Subsidiarity and Solidarity in equal stead where both (both/and) can be achieved and one doesn’t have to sacrifice one for the other (either/or).

   A Catholic affiliated adoption agency is called to find the best home for the child and by definition the best home would meet the child’s temporal AND spiritual needs (one can’t trump the other but both must be met) which they believe is praying, practicing Catholic married couple. Thus, a Catholic affiliated adoption agency wouldn’t find a single woman, a single man, a cohabitating male/female household, a cohabitating same sex household etc. as most likely meeting both the temporal and spiritual needs of the child.

   Is there people who would do a good job raising the child (according to societal standards without regard to the spiritual needs of the child) who wouldn’t be eligible to adopt from a Catholic agency? I’m sure there are and I encourage non-Catholics to form an agency to find such people.

   All this bill did was to affirm our right to our religious freedom to form ministries according to our understanding of the Gospel so long as we follow the secular standards of adoption agencies with regard to evaluations of the prospective adopting parents.

Comments are closed.