Drives to ban gay adoption heat up in 16 states

[suzubeane]

Gay adoption the next wedge issue? (http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060221-060714-8666r)
WASHINGTON,
Feb. 21 (UPI) -- Social conservatives in at least 16 states are pushing for state laws or constitutional amendments banning homosexuals from adopting.

Political analysts told USA Today some Republicans hope that gay adoption will do for this year's congressional races what gay marriage did for the Bush campaign in 2004, mobilizing religious conservatives in contested states. The issue could also distract from the administration's troubles in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Backers of bans on adoption by homosexuals say they are simply concerned about children's welfare. "Now that we've defined what marriage is, we need to take that further and say children deserve to be in that relationship," said Greg Quinlan of the Pro-Family Network in Ohio, one of the states on the list.

More at link.
Also:
USA Today Story (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-20-gay-adoption_x.htm)
Related USA Today Story (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-20-gay-adoption-foster_x.htm)

~~~~~~~~~~~~

I remember this effort in Massachusetts 20 years ago; it just makes my blood boil.

[Asha]

arrghh - this is just what i was talking about in the other thread!!! so what do they propose doing with all those babies that come from unwanted pregnancies? - they don't want to adopt the babies themselves and they want to propose limitations on parents who would lovingly take care of those children!!!

[dionysia]

*sees red*

Di

[321Jump]

This sickens me. For example, Florida, a state that has LOST children in protective care, would not let Rosie O'Donnell adopt her foster daugher.

[JamBray]

This is just disgusting! :mad:

[Sarah]

So ridiculous. I can't imagine how someone, even someone who is against gay marriage or homoosexuality in general could do this. How is it better for children to languish in foster care or worse than be adopted by loving people?

[kris97]

More than anti-abortion laws, more than anti-gay marriage laws, this just makes me vomit. You show me one child who is better off in foster care than in the loving care of his or her gay parents.

[msnicolea]

I am beyond disgusted.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

I saw a couple of letters to the editor about this in the Columbus paper earlier this week. I was happy to see they were both against the push.

I really think these people suck. I'm sure they think they're doing it for good reason, but ugh!

[SwiftyOWB]

What this comes down to is not putting laws on homosexual couples it is putting limitations on same sex male couples. Lesbian couples could be inseminated and bring children into their lives. Who will stand up and explain to the world that gay people will not hurt children!! There are many straight adults who should not have children as opposed to gay adults. What will it take to make the US understand?

[Rosebud]

This makes me absolutely sick. :mad: That these people would put their own moral agenda ahead of the welfare of so many children is disgusting. They ought to be ashamed of themselves! It baffles me that people who are filled with so much hatred and bigotry could actually think they were doing God's work.

[PrincessTommi]

So so sad. Gay couples that adopt are not taking children out of stable homes with married parents. They provide loving stable homes to children who wouldn't otherwise have them.

What's next? Ban single parenting? Because that it's part of that "marriage relationship".

:mad: :(

[kris97]

What this comes down to is not putting laws on homosexual couples it is putting limitations on same sex male couples. Lesbian couples could be inseminated and bring children into their lives. Who will stand up and explain to the world that gay people will not hurt children!! There are many straight adults who should not have children as opposed to gay adults. What will it take to make the US understand?

well, actually, it would also prevent a lesbian from adopting the child her partner bears, which has a huge impact on the rights of that person to the child. but i totally agree with everything else you said.

[maxandmolly]

So ridiculous. I can't imagine how someone, even someone who is against gay marriage or homoosexuality in general could do this. How is it better for children to languish in foster care or worse than be adopted by loving people?
Ok, I realize you were trying to be supportive of our liberal outrage, but this struck me wrong. I am not trying to pick on you-BUT:
What you have basically said is, well, these kids in foster care, nobody wants them, but hey, those those guys will take them, so let's let the gay couples have 'em. I have a serious problem with that statement. If two loving, committed parents are entitled to the joys and heartbreaks of parenthood the same as any other couple regardless of their gender, then they are entitled to the joys and heartbreaks of parenthood the same as any other couple regardless of their gender. Why should they *only* get those poor foster care kids that nobody else wants?
Which is not to discount the loving, wonderful homes many gay couples have made for many, many foster children across the country. I just think there's a certain condescension in the idea that they should only be allowed to care for the children no one else wants.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

If two loving, committed parents are entitled to the joys and heartbreaks of parenthood the same as any other couple regardless of their gender, then they are entitled to the joys and heartbreaks of parenthood the same as any other couple regardless of their gender. Why should they *only* get those poor foster care kids that nobody else wants?
I'm pretty sure Sarah wasn't saying gay couples should only be allowed to adopt "poor foster care kids." The thing is, it stands to reason that the group hardest hit by this will be those children who are already less likely to be adopted, simply by the fact that the pool of adopting parents will be smaller.

[allyray231]

I am telling you -do the conservatives have nothing better to do these days!!!

[maxandmolly]

I'm pretty sure Sarah wasn't saying gay couples should only be allowed to adopt "poor foster care kids." The thing is, it stands to reason that the group hardest hit by this will be those children who are already less likely to be adopted, simply by the fact that the pool of adopting parents will be smaller.
That may be. But something about the way it was written in her post hit me wrong. And I realize she wasn't purposely trying to be negative, so I tried to tone down the snark. Possibly I failed, but I did try!

[dionysia]

I don't think Sarah meant how you read it either, Max&Molly.

I will share a story now.

On a Thursday in November 2005, one of our newer employees was not at work. Along with his husband, the employee was in court for an adoption hearing. He said that the proceedings were very positive and emotional.

The judge came down from her bench and talked to the kids directly. "Who do you want to be your daddies forever and ever?" "Him! and him!" said the kids, pointing to J & D. *sniff*

The caseworkers were there, the lawyers, and even members of the kids' bio family. All gave their blessing for the adoptions.

My coworker is now the proud dad of 3 children: a set of multi-racial siblings, aged 2, 3, and 8. From what I understand, it is very rare for a) sibling sets to be adopted together, b) older minority children to be adopted.

J showed me a picture that was taken after the hearing. The pic is a great one. J, D, J's parents, the kids, people who I assume are either lawyers or social workers, and in the back, is the judge with her hands waving in the air. Everyone has a huge grin on their face. Some even have teddy bears in their hands. ;)

All I have to say is, thank you, State of MA, for allowing this loving couple to adopt these children.

I want to point and jump up and down and say to naysayers: "Look! Loving, committed, GAY parents!!!"

Di

[curlyjr]

What a great story Di, I really don't understand how anyone could read that and think it is wrong.

[allyray231]

Di-that is an amazing story

[kris97]

i just want to cry when i read that, di. in a good way, of course. :)

[maxandmolly]

My coworker is now the proud dad of 3 children: a set of multi-racial siblings, aged 2, 3, and 8. From what I understand, it is very rare for a) sibling sets to be adopted together, b) older minority children to be adopted.
Yes & yes.
And very, very cool story. What a very lucky, special family.
The local judge here who used to finalize all the DCF adoptions gave teddy bears to every child who attended their adoption finalization hearing.

[321Jump]

That may be. But something about the way it was written in her post hit me wrong. And I realize she wasn't purposely trying to be negative, so I tried to tone down the snark. Possibly I failed, but I did try!

I *think* she may have been responding to my post which specifically referenced foster children. I guess you never know, though :)

[SwiftyOWB]

It did not think of the non-childbearing partner not being able to have custody of the children. Anyway you look at this it is wrong!! I am a moderate who leans to the right when it comes to states rights, taxes, and military. Beyond that I think the government has no place in our homes, churches and communities.

[maxandmolly]

*attempt to get things back on track and not about me*
Anybody ever see that episode of Family Guy where they go into the Witness Protection program and up in some ultra-sterotypical southern town? Brian, to get everyone's attention off Peter (I think) suddenly shouts out to the crowd:
Look! Over there! It's a newly married interracial gay couple adopting a baby!

I thought that was funny as hell. Because sadly, the way all the people in the cartoon acted, is about how people really do act about it. As though providing a child with a loving home is a bad thing!

[321Jump]

It did not think of the non-childbearing partner not being able to have custody of the children. Anyway you look at this it is wrong!! I am a moderate who leans to the right when it comes to states rights, taxes, and military. Beyond that I think the government has no place in our homes, churches and communities.

/hijack

I didn't know any of you still existed! And I mean this in all seriousness. It's refreshing to see someone who's truly a republican, in the more historic definition of the party.

/end hijack

[dionysia]

321Jump: check out ysolde's posts. She's another 'Paleo-Con.'

Di

[EJH]

Sigh. I think my darling DD has a pretty nice life with her two mommies. It would rip my heart out if we didn't live in a state where I could adopt her and have every legal tie to this child. Even in MA, where I am on her birth certificate because we are married, I will still adopt Arden because we need to make sure no one ever challenges my position as parent.

I wish these people would find something else to do with their time. I have no understand of why the GLBT community is the constant focus of things that need to be changed, eradicated, you name it.

Di, thanks for sharing that story. :)

Erin

[MaineBelle]

This infuriates me. I just don't understand why people (politicians and groups like the "Pro-Family" network) feel they can decide who should be able to be parents. What does sexual orientation have anything to do with be a loving parent?

They should make laws to keep people like Michael Jackson from having kids. Or Tom Cruise - he thinks aliens rule the world - why is he allowed to adopt children?

[Emilie]

Couple #1: 23 year old wife who is addicted to meth. Her 26 year old husband is in jail AGAIN for dealing.

Couple #2: 30-something loving couple who have steady jobs, a long term relationship, supportive families, and a loving home. But they happen to be 2 women or 2 men.

Which one would be a better home? Some people actually think they are about equal...so %#&%ing stupid.

[jp'swife]

I hope the proposed ban does not go through.

[flygirl]

If the GOP really thinks this will be a galvanizing issue, I think they're heading in the wrong direction. The gay marriage issue appealed even to people who don't have a problem with gays in general; banning gay adoption is going too far for the masses.

[SingleWhiteFemale]

Hey, we all know that if 2 gay parents raise a child, the kid is bound to be gay, and of course we don't want that! :rolleyes: Because only straight parents produce straight kids :rolleyes: [/sarcasm] Why do these people not have the common sense that God gave a peanut?

[ADSigMel]

I fully understand that I will likely be attacked as a bigot and probably a moron, but I would like to chime in with my two cents:

1. As a Republican, I think that, while the federal government should not pass any laws at all with regard to this subject (which it has not tried to do, as far as I know), states do have the right to regulate issues like this. If enough of their citizens feel strongly enough about it to vote to put a ban like this in their state constitutions, they should be able to do it.

2. I don't know how I personally would vote on this ban.

My personal belief is that homosexuality is a sin and not a good example to set for children. I'm honestly not trying to offend anyone with that statement (I know it comes across that way, though, despite how I try to explain it - for what it's worth, I think that fornication is a sin, too, but I still lived with my husband for almost four years before we got married). I don't think that homosexuals are bad people, and I won't judge them in any way, because God knows I've committed my fair share of sins, too. It's not my job to tell other people what to do within their own relationships or who they are and are not allowed to love. But I do think that it is better for children to grow up in a home with one mother and one father...basically, in this respect, my aversion to gay adoption is exactly the same as my aversion to single-parent adoption.

My other reason for disapproving of gay marriage is just that it will make life hard on the children. No matter how open-minded we all are (or at least want to think we are), society in general is hard on gay couples, and will be equally hard on their children. Children of gay parents will be picked on, and, I would think (just my instinct because I seriously don't know with any certainty), confused about why their family is not "traditional." This is, of course, not as bad as being shuffled from foster home to foster home and constantly made to feel that no "traditional" family wants you...but it's still bad.

On the other hand, I think that two great gay parents are a billion times better for a child than two terrible straight parents. If I had a choice between giving up a child of mine to a male/female pair of crack dealers who like to beat each other up for fun vs. a pair of compassionate, intelligent, men who are deeply in love with each other, I'll choose the men every time.

I guess my personal preference would be a system that takes both arguments into account. Maybe a system that, all other things being equal, prefers a straight couple for adoption of a particular child over a similarly situated gay couple. I know that's probably not equally pleasing to both sides, but in a less that perfect world, I think it might be the best available option.


Okay, feel free to berate me for my opinions now.

[pocket]

If the GOP really thinks this will be a galvanizing issue, I think they're heading in the wrong direction. The gay marriage issue appealed even to people who don't have a problem with gays in general; banning gay adoption is going too far for the masses.

nope - wrong. this is what won them the election in 2004. the rest of us are split 50-50. what this issue does is gets more bigots to the polls to tip the conservatives over the edge. this is part of the strategy to keep control of congress in november. they need to get out the bigot vote.

ETA - I did not write this in response to the above post. I was already posting when it was added.

[bookworm]

My other reason for disapproving of gay marriage is just that it will make life hard on the children. No matter how open-minded we all are (or at least want to think we are), society in general is hard on gay couples, and will be equally hard on their children. Children of gay parents will be picked on, and, I would think (just my instinct because I seriously don't know with any certainty), confused about why their family is not "traditional." This is, of course, not as bad as being shuffled from foster home to foster home and constantly made to feel that no "traditional" family wants you...but it's still bad.


I don't want to berate your opinion, and please know that I'm not saying this with hostility.

Society in general can be hard on a lot of types of people, but that doesn't mean it can't be overcome. I'm actually not sure "traditional" (assuming that means one mom, one dad, married to each other with bio-kids?) families are the norm anymore. And as different types of families become more common, the teasing lets up. When I was growing up, one of my friends had divorced parents. How many elementary school kids have them now? You probably could say the same about inter-racial families (I didn't know any growing up) and now several of my good friends are raising inter-racial kids. These are just a couple of examples--I suspect you could say the same about kids a few decades ago being teased about moms who worked outside the home.


On another note (because I've seen it a couple of times), the barometer isn't really crack whore/pimp straight parents v. loving gay parents. It's equally loving, equally flawed people who want to raise children.

[ADSigMel]

I don't want to berate your opinion, and please know that I'm not saying this with hostility.

Society in general can be hard on a lot of types of people, but that doesn't mean it can't be overcome. I'm actually not sure "traditional" (assuming that means one mom, one dad, married to each other with bio-kids?) families are the norm anymore. And as different types of families become more common, the teasing lets up. When I was growing up, one of my friends had divorced parents. How many elementary school kids have them now? You probably could say the same about inter-racial families (I didn't know any growing up) and now several of my good friends are raising inter-racial kids. These are just a couple of examples--I suspect you could say the same about kids a few decades ago being teased about moms who worked outside the home.


On another note (because I've seen it a couple of times), the barometer isn't really crack whore/pimp straight parents v. loving gay parents. It's equally loving, equally flawed people who want to raise children.

I agree with you entirely. If more gay parents were raising children already, it would definitely not be as much of an issue. I was just saying that I think it's probably socially harder right now to be a kid with two daddies than a kid with one mommy and zero daddies. And, especially for children that are already coming from a rough background, it just seems sort of mean to put them in a situation where they'll be subject to even more cruelty from their peers.

Oh, and I know that it's not usually bad straight parents wanting to adopt versus good gay parents wanting to adopt...thank goodness. With as many children as there are waiting for homes, unfortunately if there were horrible parents wanting to adopt, they would probably be allowed to do it, just to take some of the weight off. :(

[Emilie]

On another note (because I've seen it a couple of times), the barometer isn't really crack whore/pimp straight parents v. loving gay parents. It's equally loving, equally flawed people who want to raise children.

I was the most recent poster to talk about the above example and I totally agree with you that my example is not the norm - I was sadly using an example from my life. My niece is the wife from couple number one and has a daughter. I have several friends who are interested in adopting who happen to be gay. If I had my druthers I would take the baby away from my niece in a NY minute for any of the gay couples in my life who want to be parents. Just using an example from my own life.

[pocket]

I agree with you entirely. If more gay parents were raising children already, it would definitely not be as much of an issue. I was just saying that I think it's probably socially harder right now to be a kid with two daddies than a kid with one mommy and zero daddies. And, especially for children that are already coming from a rough background, it just seems sort of mean to put them in a situation where they'll be subject to even more cruelty from their peers.

i definitely think that has to do with exposure. where i live it is completely common for kids to have two mommies or two daddies. very few children will be the only ones in their classrooms to have gay parents.

[Smilin13]

I'm not normally one to pipe in on politically heated debates, but I felt the desire to share my opinion and experience here.

I used to work in adoption.....I was a caseworker for the state and worked to get older children in foster placement adopted.
I managed to get a set of teenage brothers adopted, by a single male. He was/is an amazing dad. And to the best of my knowledge not gay, but there were definitely questions.

I think the biggest fear that most people had was, "why does this guy want to adopt a kid?" Implying that there is an alternative motive......and in the state social worker system, the first thought is that he is a child molester looking for easy prey. I had to defend him numerous times to my supervisor and other people in our office.

I think that part of the reason people get so freaked out about gay adoption is ignorance and fear. Everyone is always talking about "the best interest of a child" and there are so many factors that need to be consider. The folks making the decisions are usually playing a God like guessing game on how things will turn out. The last thing they want is for things to come back that they made a poor decision and something bad happened.

It's a tough position for anyone to be in, deciding who will make the best parents of a child.

I just hope that people don't forget that no matter what happens, it really is all the children that suffer the most. No child should have to languish in foster care because a loving capable family was denied.

:)

[Delta]

I just hope that people don't forget that no matter what happens, it really is all the children that suffer the most. No child should have to languish in foster care because a loving capable family was denied.I agree.

[lawyerlee]

This kind of movement to discriminate makes me so sad. :(

[suzubeane]

i definitely think that has to do with exposure. where i live it is completely common for kids to have two mommies or two daddies. very few children will be the only ones in their classrooms to have gay parents.Agreed. In my city, I wouldn't say it's common, but it's certainly not remarkable. But in my kids' schools, it's not uncommon to find children being raised in lots of different non-traditional families: Parents *and* grandparents, grandparents *instead of* parents, cousins, aunts and uncles either living with a child's immediate family, or perhaps doing the primary parenting.

In some areas, it's just not remarkable when kids don't live in what's thought of as a nuclear family.

[lawyerlee]

In some areas, it's just not remarkable when kids don't live in what's thought of as a nuclear family.
Most definitely. That's one of the things I really love about the town where we live.. :)

[mamahammer]

Like pocket was saying in another thread, *this* is one of the reasons the (conservative Christian) religious right is seen as hypocritical in affairs involving children. Fight for more children to have the opportunity at life, but restrict the families who can lovingly raise them? What?

As for the "norm" and what is socially acceptable, I'll say that in Texas, it is very rare for a father to obtain custody when a marriage is dissolved. And yet, my dad was granted full custody of all 4 of us. There were a lot of questions. A lot of "Why"s - but the common theme is that he was best suited. And he *wanted* us. There were a lot of raised eyebrows because he was a divorced minister with 4 children. But those raised eyebrows didn't make home any less of a fabulous place to be. Add onto that that my (step)Mom is only 11 years older than me and my youngest sister is 7 yrs old - well, our family isn't typical. Being atypical doesn't make your family "wrong." Or even less-desirable.

[Asha]

Add onto that that my (step)Mom is only 11 years older than me and my youngest sister is 7 yrs old - well, our family isn't typical. Being atypical doesn't make your family "wrong." Or even less-desirable.

my step dad is only 10 years older than me so i can relate to you.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

If the concern is that children will be picked on, teased more, have a more difficult time at school, whatever... Then couples who don't have enough money to buy their children designer clothing should be given less preference when adopting. Couples who will raise their children in a restrictive religion should be given less preference. Couples that include at least one morbidly obese person should be given less preference. Couples where one parent will be working at the child's school should be given less preference.

There are a bazillion things that can make things difficult for a child. But I don't think any of those concerns that are along the lines of "the kid might be teased or picked on," come even close to trumping the difficulty of not having a loving family of his or her own.

[Jessica]

Did anyone see MTV's True Life: I have gay parents? It was interesting to see how people reacted to these families in different areas--one from NYC, one from Richmond, and one was from California but going to school in the midwest (I think).

My uncle and his partner have an adopted daughter who is now a high school senior. She is a cheerleader and jumps track, and was voted Homecoming Queen last fall. So I don't think she's ostracized at all, like people here are worried would happen. Yes, they live in New York City where people are more liberal than most of the country. But after she graduates, they're moving to Florida so we'll see how it goes.

[SwiftyOWB]

As everyone else said there are many reasons why children are teased. If a bully wants to make you cry they will find something.

[chrisinluv]

All kids get picked on at some point or another.

But what I find ridiculous is that the people who are using "the kids getting picked on" as an excuse to support banning gay adoption, are usually the same people who teach their own kids hatred towards gays. How about we all teach our kids not to run around being little jerks to kids whose parents aren't exactly like us? That would probably do more to decrease the amount of "picking on" in schools.

[lawyerlee]

Did anyone see MTV's True Life: I have gay parents? It was interesting to see how people reacted to these families in different areas
Yeah, I saw that, too. It was a really great show. I thought they did an awesome job of capturing the wide range of issues families can face.

Like pocket was saying in another thread, *this* is one of the reasons the (conservative Christian) religious right is seen as hypocritical in affairs involving children. Fight for more children to have the opportunity at life, but restrict the families who can lovingly raise them? What?
Totally. It makes absolutely no sense. :(

[kedzieb]

Kids get picked on for lots of reasons. I doubt gay parent is in the top 100. Plus, by keeping it legal to adopt, gay parents will become more common. Already around me it's no big deal. People used the same argument against inter-racial marriage. WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!?!?! :rolleyes:

you know what - the kids are alright. it's some of the grown-ups I'm worried about.

[chrisinluv]

I have not seen this article posted yet in this thread, so I apologize if I have missed it.

Lawmaker's proposal: Bar Republicans from adopting (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0223gop-adoption23-ON.html)

Carl Chancellor
Knight Ridder Newspapers
Feb. 23, 2006 05:50 PM

AKRON, Ohio - If an Ohio lawmaker's proposal becomes state law, Republicans would be barred from being adoptive parents.

State Sen. Robert Hagan sent out e-mails to fellow lawmakers late Wednesday night, stating that he intends to "introduce legislation in the near future that would ban households with one or more Republican voters from adopting children or acting as foster parents." The e-mail ended with a request for co-sponsorship.

On Thursday, the Youngstown Democrat said he had not yet found a co-sponsor.
advertisement


Hagan said his "tongue was planted firmly in cheek" when he drafted the proposed legislation. However, Hagan said that the point he is trying to make is nonetheless very serious.

Hagan said his legislation was written in response to a bill introduced in the Ohio House this month by state Rep. Ron Hood, R-Ashville, that is aimed at prohibiting gay adoption.

"We need to see what we are doing," said Hagan, who called Hood's proposed bill blatantly discriminatory and extremely divisive. Hagan called Hood and the eight other conservative House Republicans who backed the anti-gay adoption bill "homophobic."

Hood's bill, which does not have support of House leadership, seeks to ban children from being placed for adoption or foster care in homes where the prospective parent or a roommate is homosexual, bisexual or transgender.

To further lampoon Hood's bill, Hagan wrote in his mock proposal that "credible research" shows that adopted children raised in Republican households are more at risk for developing "emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, and alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities."

However, Hagan admitted that he has no scientific evidence to support the above claims.

Just as "Hood had no scientific evidence" to back his assertion that having gay parents was detrimental to children, Hagan said.

"It flies in the face of reason when we need to reform our education system, address health care and environmental issues that we put energy and wasted time (into) legislation (Hood's) like this," continued Hagan, who has been in the Ohio Senate nine years. Before the Senate, he served 19 years in the Ohio House.

[LyLMyssChaos]

That's real mature! :rolleyes: And people wonder why this country is so split down partisan lines.

[flygirl]

Considering how grave this issue is, I think the retort is hillarious!

[LyLMyssChaos]

Considering how grave this issue is, I think the retort is hillarious!

But does it do anything to help the issue at hand? No, it doesn't. It's not going to make those who are in support of such measures say "oh they're right, this is silly, let's forget about it." If anything all it does is add to the political flame wars.

[chrisinluv]

I think he's just trying to illuminate how ridiculous Hood's bill is.

[msnicolea]

Hagan's email is no more ridiculous than Hood's Bill.

[dionysia]

Hood's bill, which does not have support of House leadership, seeks to ban children from being placed for adoption or foster care in homes where the prospective parent or a roommate is homosexual, bisexual or transgender.
Well, that would leave DH and me out.

Di

[allyray231]

Di I knew you were really a guy ;)

[Emilie]

Hagan's email is no more ridiculous than Hood's Bill.

ITA. I heart Hagan.

[Txfish]

Actually, I think it really COULD serve as wake-up call to some people as to how ridiculous the original bill is. It's a classic case of change the circumstances, and see how well the idea holds up -- in this case, it doesn't.

Political flamewar? Hardly, if you're willing to look at it from a different point of view. It IS just as ridiculous to prohibit homosexuals from adopting as it is to prohibit Repubs. I assume you'd also think it was crazy to say that Democrats or minorities can't adopt -- so why can't you see that it shouldn't be applied to *any* group, racial, religious, or otherwise? This is another situation that I see people willing to vote for because they personally agree with the sentiment, yet not understanding that the end result is that they are legislating to take away someone else's rights. (And LMC, you yourself said that it never occurred to you, when voting for the gay marriage ban, and would have to give that some thought.)

I think Hagan's bill ROCKS. This message brought to you by someone raised in a Republican household, although luckily without an "alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves". (That part was hilarious!)

(Also -- thanks to whoever attributed the title to Swifty -- I now know that I'm a Paleo-Con! It's so nice to be included Heehee)

[LyLMyssChaos]

Oh I agree that saying a particular group of people can't adopt is not right. There are far more important issues when determining if someone is fit to parent a child such as physical ability, desire, fiscal ability, emotional ability, devotion of time, whether the child and the existing family are a good match, etc. But we have all heard of cases where adoption was denied because of a difference of religion or race, so there are some regulations in place. I just don't think that sexuality needs to be one of them. Lifestyle most definitely can/should come into play, especially when dealing with older children, but I think that falls under the heading of "whether the child and family are a good match."
I just don't think making a joking retort was a responsible way to handle things in this situation. It is a very heated debate, and I doubt that it will have the effect that some of you are hoping it will.

[321Jump]

I wouldn't go so far as to call it "joking." I think it's deadly serious. Sometimes, satire can be a very strong tool.

[Asha]

There are far more important issues when determining if someone is fit to parent a child such as physical ability, desire, fiscal ability, emotional ability, devotion of time, whether the child and the existing family are a good match, etc.

very true!

especially when dealing with older children, but I think that falls under the heading of "whether the child and family are a good match."

i think this is a good point. older children may have been raised with prejudiced biological parents, so they might feel very uncomfortable being raised by a gay couple.

[pocket]

LMC, I would think that as a Mormon you would be more sensitive to the idea of the government telling peoplewho they can and can't get married to. The history of persecution of Mormons was all about marriage laws. I am sure you know this already, but they were actually driven out of community after community on the trumped up charges that their religion was immoral because it allowed polygamy.

After all, would YOU want the government telling YOU who you can and can't marry? I wouldn't.

[LyLMyssChaos]

LMC, I would think that as a Mormon you would be more sensitive to the idea of the government telling peoplewho they can and can't get married to. The history of persecution of Mormons was all about marriage laws. I am sure you know this already, but they were actually driven out of community after community on the trumped up charges that their religion was immoral because it allowed polygamy.

After all, would YOU want the government telling YOU who you can and can't marry? I wouldn't.


This thread is so not about my views on same sex unions. I have discussed my views on that topic ad nauseum and it always turns into personal attacks, so I'd rather not ruin this so far productive thread by having my issues on that topic brought into it.

[pocket]

This thread is so not about my views on same sex unions. I have discussed my views on that topic ad nauseum and it always turns into personal attacks, so I'd rather not ruin this so far productive thread by having my issues on that topic brought into it.

oookayyy sorry. you know my entire family is mormon, right?

[LyLMyssChaos]

oookayyy sorry. you know my entire family is mormon, right?

No I didn't, and that is a rather interesting piece of your history. Please don't take offense in asking that we don't talk about the issue of same sex unions. Although I think that you and I could be capable of a discussion on the topic that you mentioned, I am painfully aware that not all posters in the community are capable of keeping the discussion on a purely discussion basis. Particularly when the issue is as charged as same-sex unions. I don't want to derail this thread and have it go down in flames. I am however more than happy to discuss the issue in another thread if you'd like to start one.

[msnicolea]

LMC--are you saying that you support a homosexual single/couple's right to adopt children?

[Asha]

LMC--are you saying that you support a homosexual single/couple's right to adopt children?

it appears as if she did as long as it was a good match for the child.

[pocket]

I am however more than happy to discuss the issue in another thread if you'd like to start one.

LOL - i'm sure it will come up if we are all very patient!

[LyLMyssChaos]

LMC--are you saying that you support a homosexual single/couple's right to adopt children?

Yes, as long as they are qualified/fit to take on the responsibility to raise/care for a child. There is a lot that goes into the decision to be a parent, and even more that goes into the decision that allows someone to adopt a child. If they can pass all the "screening" criteria(physical ability, desire, fiscal ability, emotional ability, devotion of time, whether the child and the existing family are a good match, etc.,) then I see no reason why they can't. Their sexuality really shouldn't come into play. Now if it is an older child and the child feels uncomfortable in the situation because of previous life experiences, then perhaps it would come into play, only because I don't think a child should be forced to live in a situation that they feel uncomfortable in, no matter how great the potential parents may be.

[msnicolea]

Well, I am certainly pleased and surprised to learn of your position re: this issue.

[LyLMyssChaos]

LOL - i'm sure it will come up if we are all very patient!

Yeah, we are due for our weekly dose of controversy due to sexual preference topics! ;)

[allyray231]

Well, I am certainly pleased and surprised to learn of your position re: this issue.


Wow --see I thought I was seeing thing LMC-but all I have to say is --:)

[pocket]

see - most of us are sensible about this issue. But it doesn't matter. this is nto about us. this is about gettin something on the ballot that would get out the religious right to the polls no matter what. they only need a small percentage to win.

[ellybelle]

see - most of us are sensible about this issue. But it doesn't matter. this is nto about us. this is about gettin something on the ballot that would get out the religious right to the polls no matter what. they only need a small percentage to win

See, I don't agree. I think it's something that can be quickly quashed if the left decided to fight it, and is a battle that could be more easily won. As we can see from the voices on the right here, it doesn't carry the same emotional charge as gay marriage does, especially among women.

[mamahammer]

See, I don't agree. I think it's something that can be quickly quashed if the left decided to fight it, and is a battle that could be more easily won. As we can see from the voices on the right here, it doesn't carry the same emotional charge as gay marriage does, especially among women.
ITA. I do think that the majority of Americans don't see this in the same way they see gay marriage (which I also don't have issue with, btw). I even think that the majority of us (evil :p) pro-lifers would be against such a ban. If your major concern is the welfare and life of all children, then this is certainly not a way to help. And I do think that the majority are sensible enough - reasonable enough - to see that.

[ysolde]

My DH and I are far from the norm. I have a disability and use a wheelchair. While DH and I look alike (both white and blond), the fact is that he is German and I am Hispanic. Yes, our children, whether we have them or adopt them, will likely face some obstacles. But I don't think we should be legally barred from the choice just because we are not a traditional couple.

[lawyerlee]

Well, that would leave DH and me out.

Di
Well thank god, cause I know you are really dangerous people. :mad: :rolleyes: :mad: :(

[Sarah]

Ok, I realize you were trying to be supportive of our liberal outrage, but this struck me wrong. I am not trying to pick on you-BUT:
What you have basically said is, well, these kids in foster care, nobody wants them, but hey, those those guys will take them, so let's let the gay couples have 'em. I have a serious problem with that statement. If two loving, committed parents are entitled to the joys and heartbreaks of parenthood the same as any other couple regardless of their gender, then they are entitled to the joys and heartbreaks of parenthood the same as any other couple regardless of their gender. Why should they *only* get those poor foster care kids that nobody else wants?
Which is not to discount the loving, wonderful homes many gay couples have made for many, many foster children across the country. I just think there's a certain condescension in the idea that they should only be allowed to care for the children no one else wants.

First of all, why do you assume I am not a liberal? I am about as liberal as they come on all issues except abortion.
Second of all, you are readin way too much into what I said. I certainly don't think anyone is "entitled" to childbearing or childrearing, but I think that people, regardless of race, religion, or sexual preference should be allowed to adopt. I just was thinking of foster kids because I know a lot of people who have adopted from the foster system, and it sprang to mind. I don't think gay couples should just get foster kids- they should get whatever kids they want, if the other factors are a fit. You didn't have to make such assumptions.