"A child in need of love, safety and stability does not first consider the sexual orientation of his parent. The exclusion causes some children to be deprived of a permanent placement with a family that is best suited to their need."
Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman struck down the Florida law that excludes gay persons from adopting children, in a case involving 2 men who have been foster parents for 2 young brothers since 2004. Lederman wrote that once the state allows gay persons to be foster parents, there is no rational basis to discriminate when it comes to adoption.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
112 comments:
Does anyone know if there are still rules in force that prohibit white parents from adopting black children?
Several months ago, Barack Obama delivered a powerful speech, praising the role of a father in black families. He said a mother, a woman, offers one thing, but a man, a father, offers something entirely different and therefore essential to the healthy development of children.
I was wondering whether he was prepared to say the same thing to same-sex pairs ...
Just the kind of stupid law that needed to be struck down.
Actually, it's so dumb that the idiot legislator that authored and shepherded it through the process ought not to have wasted his time. At a minimum, he should be ridiculed for wasting taxpayer and legislative resources on that narrowly agendized and anti-child a strain of legislation in the first place.
Let us applaud the reining in of idiots, and hope for more of the same.
Well, the ruling makes sense. How can you allow the foster parenting and not adoption?? That seems ridiculous.
How the hell does the judge know?
Even supporters of gay marriage and gay adoption would have to admit that we have zero long term evidence of the benefits or detriments to children raised by same sex couples.
And this exposes one of the lies of the gay marriage movement. They claim to be the rational ones, and the religious the irrational, yet they are operating one giant experiment on the most foundational aspect of society, and they claim to already know what the results will be.
Nothing personal to anyone here, but show me the evidence that kids will be OK with same sex couples raising them. Show the evidence, not the speculation and supposition.
The argument people sometimes make, that a child needs "both a father and a mother, blah blah blah..." to thrive, etc., is useless in defense of this idiotic strain of legislation.
Otherwise, should we put into foster care children whose parents are widowed because they no longer have the presence of a father and mother in their lives?
I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the arguments against gay mariachi, although I disagree with them (remember that old song, "the gay caballero", for instance?); I think there should be some articulation of what rights are lacking in the civil union model in, say California, that are present to married couples. I don't think there are any -- and note, we're talking state, not federal here. And I think if the word has a meaning in religious terms, then 8 years of a socially conservative Republican president are no reason to throw overboard a couple hundred years of tradition in calling marriage a union of "one man and one woman", although it's got different meanings around the world even as we speak, so who's to say? (4 wives, anyone?)
On the other hand, this anti-adoption business is the worst example of "for the children" do-gooderism gone awry. These are the legislators that in a truly "individualistic"/"don't tread on me" America would be strung up from lampposts. Instead, they're awarded honoraria at rubber chicken dinners attended by fat, sweaty men with combs-over and their henpecking wives.
Trulio disgracias.
personally, I dont want gays around children whether it be teachers or adoption.
They are sure to moleste them.
I have noticed that people who eat a lot of pork begin to take on a porcine appearance in their facial features.
Just thought I'd add that to the image of the type of fat, sweaty man I was thinking of earlier.
"It is clear that..."
"Clearly" is kind of an infamous word among scientists. It's often used in places where presenting proof would be difficult, distracting, or overly time consuming. In many cases, you can replace "clearly" with "not clearly" with no loss in accuracy.
I'm sympathetic to the argument being presented, but I see a little of that usage here. Is this really so very clear that a rational person couldn't possibly reach the other conclusion? As I understand it, the level of scrutiny applied in this case was rational basis scrutiny, not preponderance of the evidence.
Would someone with more sociological expertise care to comment? Is this a proposition which is clearly true or arguably true?
(Disclaimer: this is only a question about the level of legal scrutiny used and the state of the current research in the field. It's not an argument for or against the policy itself.)
How many people have been raised by a single parent or sole-custodian parent in the case of divorce, death or other permanent separation?
Notwithstanding the strain on the parent (not having any relief from the "bench", namely their partner) and the manner in which that might affect the child (fear, anxiety, cause to grow up faster, etc.), I'm not buying that a same-sex couple couldn't do as good a job; plus, they've got that "bench" thing covered.
I've seen it in West Hollywood where I live, and the love -- both from parents to child and back again -- is real and obvious. What's the harm in that?
We are, after all, talking about children who are otherwise unwanted, wards of the state. Until the carpers line up at the adoption bureaus and take a few home with them, I'll gleefully call bullshit on their argument.
I wish the gay would go back in the closet and I say this has someone who hates the sin but loves the sinner.
After that last comment, it occurred to me that perhaps the "clearly" refers to there being no difference between acting as a foster parent and actual adoption. I could agree with the usage in that case, since the foster parent is already performing the essential duties of parenthood.
The only thing "clear" is the quality of the sweat beading on the fat men's brows, at that rubber chicken dinner in the sky.
On the other hand, the yellowish residue it leaves on their collars and hankies indicates that one could as easily say it is "not clear" without any loss in accuracy.
Of course, one might think to ask, "If they're at a heavenly-hosted rubber chicken dinner, wouldn't there be exemplary climate control at the venue, thus making any brow-sweat purely imaginary?"
Let us retire now to ponder this question.
Too bad we can't ask the Judge upon what facts she based her assertion. Again, the judiciary decides public policy as it sees fit. Resulting in another politically correct social experiment. What if we find in ten years that it is a predictor? Why bother to have a representative body if the judiciary unilaterally decides social policies.
Otherwise, should we put into foster care children whose parents are widowed because they no longer have the presence of a father and mother in their lives?
This is a classic flaw in logic - a fallacy of necessity.
Just because society places the most value on the right of a child to be raised by a male and a female, it does not logically necessitate placing zero value on children being raised by their natural single parent.
We're talking about what is best for children, and there is no evidence on which to forcefully advocate that children are NOT left emotionally deficient by not having a mom and a dad.
The evidence is clear that they are.
I wouldn't hate the sin so much if the gays just weren't so gay.
I just don't want to see them, hear from them or know they exist.
They are so proud and have parades and like floats and ferns and fixing up bad neighborhoods-all of that is just too gay.
Closets aren't just for Prada shoes and Gucci handbags.
I would rather see a kid in an orphanage for the rest of their live rather than with the gay.
In the age of Obama shouldn't the term "sexual orientation" evolve?
I mean it always sounds to me like something from a college elective to an innovative sentence.
"It is clear that sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person's ability to parent."
It's been my observation that this is certainly true of most heterosexually oriented people. You think, "Oh he'll make a good dad - he's straight" - only to find out he's totally inept at parenting. Same goes for straight women.
Veni vidi vici said: "I think there should be some articulation of what rights are lacking in the civil union model in, say California, that are present to married couples. I don't think there are any -- and note, we're talking state, not federal here"
Exactamundo. There is absolutely no difference in rights in civil unions in California from marriages in California on the State level. The Federal level is something else again, and I have state so many times over on this blog.
That being said, I see no reason that a "QUALIFIED" gay couple of any gender who are in a long term committed relationship such as a civil union, should not be able to adopt. Same goes for a hetero couple. They also must be a relationship that is lasting. Not just ships bumping uglies in the night. It is the stability of the parental units (I sound like one of the Coneheads here) that matters.
I also agree with Quayle that the influence of the feminine and the masculine is needed in a young child's development. This can be arranged by bringing in other people, aunts, uncles, grandparents.
Darcy said: How can you allow the foster parenting and not adoption?? That seems ridiculous.
One situation is temporary, the other is permanent. If you still have trouble seeing the difference, think pets.
I'd go even further to say that having the ability to produce a viable gamete does not in any way predict ability to parent well.
Why not say male straight - male gay and so forth.
The exclusivity of a useless descriptor "orientation" is nothing but an invitation for discrimination.
Synova, I know of no rules that prevent white couples from adopting black children, but there is pressure from a segment of the black population to firmly discourage it.
Meade, excellent observation! I would add that if straight people were inherently such good parents there would be very few children in foster care. Most of them are not orphans.
There is a difference between civil unions in California and marriage. They are separate, parallel institutions, and therefore inherently unequal, even if efforts are made to provide the same legal rights. It's not a matter of what rights are afforded by the institutions, but the very fact of their separation, which is problematic.
I didn't bring up the "white parents adopting black children" thing as a totally random point.
The thing is... having parents is better than not having parents.
It's not necessary to argue that two parents, male and female, (and who may share an ethnic heritage) give a child valuable role models and that this is *better*.
Because in the end it's better to have a parent or parents who are not ideal, than to not have them.
There is absolutely no difference in rights in civil unions in California from marriages in California on the State level.
First, they're called Domestic Partnerships in CA, not civil unions. Second, as you said, they're not recognized at the federal level, so I'd call that a pretty big difference right there. Third, if marriage and civil unions are exactly the same, then let's abolish marriage and have everone get Civil Unions...problem solved.
Until everyone is allowed to legally call their union the same thing, there is no true equality.
Hey, they should put a constitutional amendment banning gay adoption on the ballot here in California! If the majority approves it (which they probably would!) then it's fair.
"Lederman wrote that once the state allows gay persons to be foster parents, there is no rational basis to discriminate when it comes to adoption."
Remind me to cite this post the next time someone whines that slippery slope arguments are always a fallacy. The problem with that damn slippery slope is it's so slippy.
Lederman wrote that once the state allows gay persons to be foster parents, there is no rational basis to discriminate when it comes to adoption.
''
Quayle above does talk rationally on this issue, as opposed to the personal opinion now made law by a judge.
Single parent homes are not as desirable for society as a home with a mother and a father. That doesn't mean that society should therefore ban single parents, or even single parent adoptions. They are still - no matter how emotionally we may not want to offend - making the best of a less than ideal situation. But society at large has a right to - and the state an interest to - define the best case scenario and legally enforce it.
This decision, as sweet as it is meant to be, is plainly on its face an emotional catharsis made for the sake of not offending a minority group, and not on what society has since the existence of civilization shown and known - the ODDS are always going to be stacked in the favor of a child raised by a father and mother.
chicken little, I have known people who foster children. Children can be placed with these foster parents for years. Through very formative years.
I'm simply saying that I see the point that if you don't believe gay couples are suited to raising children, then you shouldn't qualify them for fostering children.
The sad irony of prop 8, is that it denied the adoptive children of gay parents the safety and security of a married household.
"but what about the children," they say...
Synova said...
"Does anyone know if there are still rules in force that prohibit white parents from adopting black children?"
Being black dictates no lifestyle choices. One does not have to buy into the cultural traits for which, it seems to me, race is invariably being used as a cipher when it is invoked. By contrast, assuming arguendo that homosexuality is genetic rather than a lifestyle choice (don't start, Zach: I don't care which it is), being gay does necessarily dictate lifestyle choices (at minimum, having partners of the same sex). That's certainly a difference, although I don't purport to imply what consequences, if any, should follow from it. (Not that that will stop DTL from imputing his own wildly skewed meaning into my comment, but he'll do what he likes; it won't change what I said.)
By contrast, assuming arguendo that homosexuality is genetic rather than a lifestyle choice (don't start, Zach: I don't care which it is)
don't worry, I don't know what "arguendo" means. just speak in legal terminology forever and i will never throw a "hissy fit" because i won't understand what you're saying.
Zachary Paul Sire babbled:
First, they're called Domestic Partnerships in CA, not civil unions. Second, as you said, they're not recognized at the federal level, so I'd call that a pretty big difference right there.
Thank you for demonstrating so very clearly that you have no clue what you're talking about. The Federal DoMA blocks same sex unions, no matter what they're called from receiving the Federal Benefits of Marriage. be it a Civil Union, a Domestic Partnership, or a "marriage", if it's between two members of the same sex it will not receive the Federal Benefits of Marriage.
Until everyone is allowed to legally call their union the same thing, there is no true equality.
They're not the same thing. Therefore the demand to call them the same thing is nothing other than idiocy.
the ODDS are always going to be stacked in the favor of a child raised by a father and mother.
For all the talk of what is best, the reality is some 34 children were abandoned under a "safe haven" law in Nebraska just recently.
"Hey, they should put a constitutional amendment banning gay adoption on the ballot here in California! If the majority approves it (which they probably would!) then it's fair."
To a pure democrat, yes, that would be fair.
I think "arguendo" means for the sake of argument.
For all the talk of what is best, the reality is some 34 children were abandoned under a "safe haven" law in Nebraska just recently.
And 12 members of the United States military committed atrocities at Abu Ghraib.
So, by your implied logic, the US military should cease to exist effective tomorrow at 10 am.
The Federal DoMA blocks same sex unions, no matter what they're called from receiving the Federal Benefits of Marriage.
Yes, we already knew that. And DoMa needs to be repealed too.
They're not the same thing. Therefore the demand to call them the same thing is nothing other than idiocy.
Blah blah blah...more homophobic hate speech on Althouse. Been there, done that.
Zachary Paul Sire said...
"I don't know what 'arguendo' means. just speak in legal terminology forever and i will never throw a 'hissy fit' because i won't understand what you're saying."
I'll have to get back to you when I'm done laughing hysterically at the concept of a soi-disant writer who celebrates having a niggardly vocabulary and no inclination to improve it.
And 12 members of the United States military committed atrocities at Abu Ghraib.
No. its not the same thing. one involves involuntary actors (children) and the other very voluntary (enemy combatants).
If you can show me a study that says gay parenting is irrepably harmful, I may reconsider.
DBQ,
I also agree with Quayle that the influence of the feminine and the masculine is needed in a young child's development. This can be arranged by bringing in other people, aunts, uncles, grandparents.
It seems to me that you are saying that families can be just as good as the father & mother and kids model by role model input being supplied by extended family, etc.
I'm curious - and not for the sake of argument. I know my reputation and I'll let you have your say without any gotcha.
Do you believe in home schooling? Without any government interference, other than, say testing for grade level acuity every 2 or 3 years?
It was fascinating to me in a conversation recently with the lesbian couple whose home is in our cul de sac to find out that while they supported gay marriage and were anti-prop 8, that they also opposed home schooling. The 2 reasons they gave me: parent inadequacy and socialization.
When I said that our children had each been home schooled through 8th grade, and had performed in the top 5 percentile on the California Standardized grade level tests, they said they were certain that we were the exception. WAnd when I said that our children were socialized through community sports, dance and music lessons, church activities and extended family, they politely answered that that was all good, but it kept my children from being exposed to opposing lifestyles of many different people. When I said that they were saying then that the government in their opinion has a right to control certain aspects of social relationships they laughed, because it was obvious where I was going. They are both great neighbors, by the way.
So, may I ask, what is your opinion on the questions above?
If you can show me a study that says gay parenting is irrepably harmful, I may reconsider.
Since you represent the experiment, can you show me any study showing long-term the equal results of gay -couple parenting to mother/father parenting?
You are recommending that the force of government tell all of society to accept the experiment. The onus is therefore on you.
I'll have to get back to you when I'm done laughing hysterically at the concept of a soi-disant writer who celebrates having a niggardly vocabulary and no inclination to improve it.
Well, that was my attempt and being friendly with you (anyone with an average intelligence can infer what arguendo means). I guess instead of feigning ignorance, and laziness, I should've yelled that BEING GAY IS DEFINITELY GENETIC YOU JERK SIMON!
Although the 8 year old accused of patricide is pushing everyones definition of children.
I should also point out that this ruling yet further underlines that Scalia's dissent in Lawrence was absolutely right. Those who decried it at the time (and since) as alarmism were wrong. We are rapidly skidding down a slippery slope and it is not clear at which point, as Scalia put it in County of Umbehr, we can hope to dig in a cleat.
Zachary Paul Sire said...
"Well, that was my attempt and being friendly with you"
Apologies. It didn't come across that way.
"I should've yelled that BEING GAY IS DEFINITELY GENETIC YOU JERK SIMON!"
If you say so. As I said above, I don't care.
The onus is therefore on you.
I thought we were interested in doing the best for the children.
Why fear the data?
ZPS said: BEING GAY IS DEFINITELY GENETIC YOU JERK SIMON!
As long as we're on gender roles here, I've always wondered whether the top/bottom preference is genetic too. Any thoughts Zach?
The onus is therefore on you.
I thought we were interested in doing the best for the children.
Why fear the data?
I could be incredibly daft (take your pot shots), but, okay, I'll bite.
What "data"?
As long as we're on gender roles here, I've always wondered whether the top/bottom preference is genetic too.
I don't know. It's based on personality (which I suppose has some genetic influences), ego, tolerance for pain, body type, etc. Guys that claim they are "only' tops or "only" bottoms are ridiculous. Sex is sex and if you're with the right person, either way feels good.
You should all try gay sex sometime, it might change any negative views you have about gay marriage and gay adoption.
I think we should just give gays and the gay enablers their own state.
I pick Massachusetts.
It is creative, urban, educated, excellent schools, gays can marry and it doesn't seem to be a big deal anymore. They have fabulous beaches, beautiful islands, big city life in Boston, great lezzie cities like Cambridge, Somerville and Jamaica Plain. And there is no christian evangelicals, just catholics, who have now left in droves because of Bernard Law. Lot of jews, but mostly liberal jews to like the gay.
The gays could go to Provincetown and Martha's Vinyard and Nantucket and Wellesley and Smith and Northampton and the Berkshires and all kinds of artistic and sports events.
They could work in the booming health care, academic, biotech, pharma, high tech, public relations industries that attracts the "creative class" and for which Massachusetts is famous. Heck, even the black governor, who I would do, has a gay daughter. Hello, gays you have found your home.
So how about it?
What data
the one you purport to imply by saying mother and father are best.
where is the data saying gay parenting is harmfull?
I would agree that it may not be preferable. but harmfull?
Nice try, Lem. Not taking the bait.
The onus is on you.
Where is the evidence that gay parenting is the equal of father/mother parenting?.
As a plus for gay men the gays in Massachusetts are hot.
Imagine the Italian/Irish combo with big arms, tough, hot, with a Boston accent-either North Shore or South Shore-either will do.
He has dark hair, brooding eyes, a hot bod, is butch, and knows how to do it. He is a native. Not some transplant. He is a wiseass, sarcastic, confident and overwhelmingly sexy.
You can find him biking around shirtless with a backpack on accentuating defined shoulders and sculpted bis and tris. Because he is part Italian he will have a nice line of hair in the lining of his crack.
During the weekdays we would like to see him in a suit perhaps heading to work in Downtown Crossing as a hot commodity trader for Fidelity. He has a large italian family who makes amazing meals for the holidays which start with Artichokes with stuffing and Tortellini Soup. His brothers and nephews all are doable. But he doesn't have the Irish curse as a result he has attained a nice large italian hog from his Italian genes.
Lem,
BTW "purport to imply" is redundant.
BTW "purport to imply" is redundant.
Thanks, i was trying to sound like Simon ;)
also, he can beat the shit out of any gay basher which is really hot.
I guess what i'm looking for is a parting of the baby.
why can we reach some compromise on this?
is it really that difficult?
alas, i dont have children - so :(
Where is the evidence that gay parenting is the equal of father/mother parenting?
Faith?
I dont know.
His hog is almost always cut, nice mushroom head, sometimes too big to put in your mouth but you will give it a try. You owe it to him. He deserves only the best because he is the best.
The nuts are low hanging, left lower than right. Freshly shaved sack is natch.
All indications would alert you that he is a top but when you get right down to business you realize he is a bottom. A bossy bottom yes, a voracious bottom definitely.
Zachary Paul Sire said...
I should've yelled that BEING GAY IS DEFINITELY GENETIC YOU JERK SIMON
Ah well. At least now you would be able to admit that you are entitled to your own facts. Even when they aren't rooted in reality.
And he has an uncle, cousin, nephew and maybe even dad that are gay.
I pick Massachusetts.
It's hard enouf to follow the Red Sox all the way from here w/o having to get a visa to go to Fenway Park - no thanks Titus.
And he went to some blue collar college around Boston and majored in Accounting of Business Admin.
I am thinking of a Bentley, Suffolk, Northeastern, or even Salem State. UMass would be fine too.
Definitely no Harvard, MIT, Emerson, Babson, Brandeis, Wheaton, BC, BU, Holyoke, Holy Cross, Amhearst.
You should all try gay sex sometime, it might change any negative views you have about gay marriage and gay adoption.
You're kidding, right?
If I have concerns about gay adoption it's the "lifestyle" issue which includes the idea that people ought to go have gay sex for the sake of trying it.
For marriage *or* adoption, isn't the idea the desire for a stable and permanent family?
Where in that is there room for an experimental and/or promiscuous "gay" life-style?
Again, a court is circumventing the democratic process, separation of powers, the legislature and the executive branches of state government in order to inflict their own version of morality on the rest of the people.
The people of Florida have spoken, they have decided that protecting an innocent child from being exposed to such an environment is in the public interest. These bozos in robes, probably still the same ones that screwed up the presidential election 8 years ago in such an outrageous manner that they got a brutal slap down from the US Supreme Court, think they know better.
Unbelievable.
Until everyone is allowed to legally call their union the same thing, there is no true equality
You can call your union anything you like. If you don't like the laws put a referendum on the ballot. Oh....wait...nevermind.
Host with the MostDo you believe in home schooling? Without any government interference, other than, say testing for grade level acuity every 2 or 3 years?
Yes, I do. But I think the testing should be every year to make sure that the basic curriculum is being taught. (Math, science, history, English, geometry, chemistry etc.) That being said..the basic education that students get in public school is atrocious and I believe that 'most' parents are quite capable of providing excellent educations to their children.
And when I said that our children were socialized through community sports, dance and music lessons, church activities and extended family, they politely answered that that was all good, but it kept my children from being exposed to opposing lifestyles of many different people.
Socialization can easily be accomplished by participating in sports, music programs, just as you say. It should be up to YOU, as the parent, to determine just what opposing lifestyles you want your children to be exposed to. You can teach your children about the dangers of drugs or boiling liquids without giving them drugs or dousing them with hot oil.
Multi culturalism and 'exposure' to other 'lifestyles' is greatly overrated, especially for young children who are still forming their values and their methods of reasoning. It is up to the parents to decide.
Are all parents equally responsible, capable and dedicated. No of course not. Just as all hetero couples are not necessarily good parents. The children should be receiving a balanced education in the basics and allowed to progress at their own level, instead of being taught to the lowest common denominator. The education shouldn't be on the religious extreme negleting the fundamentals of secular education and science. I have a problem with that
When my daughter was in 5th grade, we got permission to take her out of school for a year to travel through Europe and South America with her grandparents (my mother and father) who were updating several travel books they had published. It was too good of an opportunity to pass up. I was jealous.....I wanted to go too. lol
The school gave her study materials, books and an extra assignment to keep a journal of her travels.(Which was very funny and insightful) She mailed in her assignments monthly. Later, she graduated Phi Beta Kappa from a prestigious private college, so I don't think her lack of public school did her any harm. In fact, just the opposite.
I think it's fair to say that almost everything going in Western society today is wildly experimental. From the excess of comforts to visual overload, nothing children experience in Western culture has precedent. In the land of the long adolescence, the idea of normative parenting is a fiction.
Oddly enough, we're a few generations into this experiment, and the kids seem to be okay. Maybe they're resilient.
If you haven't noticed I am going up to Mass for Thanksgiving to be with my italian friend and his family. They live in a triple decker. Mom and Dad on first floor, sister and husband and 30 year old kid on second floor, my friend and his portugese lover on third floor and his bi brother with his two kids across the street.
I love them and their food.
And I generally want to do half the men at the table.
titus,
what is the menu going to be?
Food, I mean.
The sad irony of prop 8, is that it denied the adoptive children of gay parents the safety and security of a married household.
"but what about the children," they say...
What about 8 changes any of the actual environment for two gay people or their children?
I'm still trying to figure it out.
"there is no evidence on which to forcefully advocate that children are NOT left emotionally deficient by not having a mom and a dad.
The evidence is clear that they are."
This is the classic fallacy of fellatio. It is assumed in the argument against gay adoptions that the choice is between a same sex couple and the child's parent or parents or even other relatives (grandparents, for instance). In fact, the kids in the scene are orphans. Some feel differently, but to me, I'd take two guys or gals that *want* the child as their own over that warm, frigid bosom of state care any day, and I think most children would probably agree.
If you think they'll be less screwed up spending their childhood in orphanages and/or foster care's revolving door, you're entitled to dance for St. Vitus. dance on!
"There is a difference between civil unions in California and marriage. They are separate, parallel institutions, and therefore inherently unequal, even if efforts are made to provide the same legal rights. It's not a matter of what rights are afforded by the institutions, but the very fact of their separation, which is problematic."
this is rather tautological, no? the invocation of black civil rights images with "separate but equal" is gratuitous, given we're talking about civil union and marriage, not riding buses, getting served at restaurants, and generally making a go of day-to-day living.
your failure to actually articulate a difference apart from the semantic use of "marriage" versus "union" tends to weigh against the point you're trying to score.
i'd like someone to fucking score it, though. personally, i'd rather see the state reconfigure its nomenclature to call everyone's unions "civil unions" and leave it to their houses of worship to "marry" them.
but since everyone's jockeys are in a bunch over the word-choice, please provide evidence that this legal change that is being sought is to remedy a harm greater than mere nomenclature.
in the words of vanity, "give me something i can croon to."
"Second, as you said, they're not recognized at the federal level, so I'd call that a pretty big difference right there."
And changing California's definition of marriage is going to change the federal recognition how?
I'm with you on changing all to civil union/domestic partnership/whateverthefuckyouwannacallitbutdon'tcallitmarriageorriskpissingoffthesilentmajority. that would solve the problem without the hard feelings. after all, all the "true Americans" favor separation of church and state, no?
What about 8 changes any of the actual environment for two gay people or their children?
I'm still trying to figure it out.
Well, if 8 remains law, the kids in a family headed by two same-sex parents can't say their parents are married, even if the parents want to be married.
That's not nothing.
Host with the Most said...
titus,
what is the menu going to be?
Food, I mean.
Tossed salad with just a hint of creamy vinaigrette dressing.
I wish laws were struck down for being irrational more often. We've got a LOT of irrational laws.
Well, if 8 remains law, the kids in a family headed by two same-sex parents can't say their parents are married, even if the parents want to be married.
That's not nothing.
What do you mean they can't? Of course they can. They can even be married.
I'm not seeing the playground banter here.
"Your parents aren't married!"
"My parents are SO married."
"Their civil union isn't legally recognized, so nyeah!!"
Obviously the sensible thing is to discard it completely but the histrionics are unwarranted.
So how many people in this thread actually know gays raising kids? I know three couples, and near as I can tell, their kids are as happy and well adjusted (which, because they are all now teens, means not at all :) ) as any. So that colors my view of this topic.
I think the judge makes sense, and just to modify Zach's note on It is clear, I'll say that in my experience, those three words are added as meaningless fluff. Take them out and the sentence says the same thing.
MadisonMan said...
"So how many people in this thread actually know gays raising kids? I know three couples, and near as I can tell, their kids are as happy and well adjusted"
Those kids will assume that same-sex relationships are entirely normal, right? Well, advocatus diaboli, lurking behind some - not all, maybe not even most, but undoubtedly some - of the critics' concerns is the view that such assumptions are maladjustive.
Like someone said, this is just a huge social experiment.
People who support gay foster care are people who are knowingly offending Christians and others who do not want their kids raised in that lifestyle. Soon, under hate speech laws yet to be defined, liberals will be able to take peoples kids away from them because the parents told them that being gay is wrong. Then those kids could end up in a gay home? How about the children of polygamists, taken from their parents because of a faked phone call from an Obama delegate (FLDS), they then can be placed with people that thier parents completely object to? The people deciding this way are people choosing to use the force of Government arms to force their lifestyle and beliefs on others.
That is just grounds for armed resistance.
Liberals try to block whites from adopting black kids because they say it denys the black kids their "culture". But these same people would hand over Christian children to "Up your Alley" homosexuals?
This is why we have the right to keep and bear arms, and this is why liberals want to take that from us, because what some liberals want to force on us with state power are things that many of us would fight to stop.
No Veni, True Americans value the Declaration of Indepencence and the Constitution.
It's all you liberals determined to insert the Communist Manifesto into our lives that are the problem.
I think there are too many Atheist and Jewish and Muslim bigots out there masquarading their anti-Christian bigotry as a desire to "separate church and state".
I think they'll decide that such partnerships are a working possibility. Is that the same thing as normal? It's not like they don't see heteronormative (I love that word almost as much as peserverating) relationships all around either.
One of the things that took me a long time to learn: Relationships that are different from what I am used to nevertheless can be functioning relationships. I'd guess that children of same-sex partners are farther along in that understanding than I was at their age.
People who support gay foster care are people who are knowingly offending Christians and others who do not want their kids raised in that lifestyle.
What a silly statement. If Christians don't want their kids raised by Gay foster parents, then those Christians should raise their own kids.
And what is that lifestyle? The gay couple on my street with a kid has a lifestyle very similar to my own (and I daresay to yours as well): They look out for their kid's best interests, attend school meetings, shop for groceries, shovel snow, work in their garden, do little jobs around the house when it's nice out, decorate the house at Christmas, chat with their neighbors, walk the dog (and pick up the poo in a plastic bag, inverting the bag after pick-up), bike occasionally, eat out at fine Madison restaurants, subscribe to the local paper, pay their bills on time (I'm guessing on that one), drive a car with valid registration, park on the correct side of the street in winter, complain about the High School students who wander around the neighborhood, but clothes in Madison and on-line, pay taxes, occasionally act as looky-loos at neighborhood Open Houses, rake leaves and put the pile not in the street but on the terrace, bitch about winter in February, marvel at the pair of nesting owls in the neighborhood, walk to the little park, occasionally get custard at Michael's, walk over to Trader Joe's to shop (or to Joe's on Regent), put up with road construction-induced street parking that blocks the curb in front of the house, and so on.
So I'm curious: what does that lifestyle mean when you use the phrase?
Is it just the same sex thing?
If you are in a heterosexual relationship, are there any sexual activities that might disqualify you from being a foster parent? Is strictly missionary the okay way to go? What about up the butt? Okay or not okay for foster parents? Sadism? Masochism? What if the husband likes a good ol' pegging from his wife? Or if he likes watching his wife do other guys? Does that disqualify the husband/wife as a foster parent? How about threesomes or orgies with other consenting adults? Good or not good for a heterosexual, married couple as a foster parent? What it the married couple doesn't even copulate? Can they still qualify for being foster parents even if they are celibate? What if the husband has ED and allows the wife to seek sex on the side? Foster parent material? What if the wife is addicted to internet porn, and her husband gets off on that, and it all happens in the privacy of their bedroom? Can that couple foster? How about married exhibitionists who like doing it in conference rooms at the Engineering School here on Campus? Foster material?
"What a silly statement. If Christians don't want their kids raised by Gay foster parents, then those Christians should raise their own kids."
What if some social worker takes the kids for some BS reason, and the state has the kids for a few months while the wheels of justice slowly grind? What if the parents are in a coma and the state cannot find next of kin?
You knowingly used a false argument here, and then you go on and on ignoring the point while quibbling on the details. Typical liberal argumentation technique when you know that you cannot argue in good faith.
So what is a gay lifestyle?
You don't want people who follow a gay lifestyle to foster. That's your right, but I'm curious what a gay lifestyle means to you.
Of course homosexuality is an inhibitor to parenting. If it weren't, homosexual couples (and triplets, quadruplets, etc--there's no intrinsic duality in homosexuality, after all) would be able to be parents without any state involvement at all.
Men and women, however, have shown them quite capable of becoming mothers and fathers without any state involvement whatsoever. In fact, they sometimes manage to become parents in places without any government at all.
And, might I add, why restrict adoption only to people in a sexual relationship? Why not allow groups of three or more people to adopt? Why not allow siblings to adopt? For example, I lived next door to a pair of sisters that never married. They were very nice women, and I'm sure they could have given a child a nice home. Could they adopt?
There's a single woman on my street who has adopted.
How is her fitness as an adoptive parent going to change based on a relationship she might now enter? If she finds a man, she's a good parent. If she finds a woman, she's not.
I'm sure the two sisters could adopt -- well, one would adopt, the other would just be an Aunt. (No offense to all Aunts out there).
MadMan,
The thing being sought--and the thing being challenged--is complete parity in all forms between traditional heterosexual marriage and [other].
You can see that with the comparisons to race.
But this is more like gender parity, i.e., it flies in the face of the observable truth.
Some people I know who voted for 8 did so on the basis that, given two couples, one hetero and one homosexual, they think the the hetero couple should have an edge.
I'd probably agree with that theory but for practical purposes I think said theory has more likely been used in harmful ways.
Their other fear is that this would be used to file discrimination lawsuits. That one I'm quite sure is true.
For information on the gay lifestyle, check out zombietime's "up your alley" photo expose.
People like that are not fit to parent, teach or have anything to do with providing guidance to children.
Now some of you liberals will decry using the antics of San Francisco freaks as being indicitive of the average homosexual, few of you will actually condemn that behavior. Nor will you acknowledge how being a gay man takes about 30 years off of your life expectancy.
You are just in a mad rush to impose Marx's will, to erode the ties that bind us together, family and religion.
And the gay among you will do ANYTHING to force us straights to accept you on your terms. Immature little wanna-be, lisping tyrants that you are.
Oh well.
Now it's off to the Florida State Constitutional Amendment highway.
Clearly, the gay people I know have not received a memo.
Your argument is not compelling. The behavior of a few should not condemn the vast ethical middle. One could easily find twisted behavior among small groups of Christians -- should all Christians then be banned from fostering or adopting?
Here's an idea: base the decisions on whether or not someone -- or a couple -- can foster or adopt on that one person's -- or couple's -- behavior. Blanket bans exist so bureaucrats don't have to think and so idiot representatives can tell their consituents they've done something about a perceived problem.
An idea right back at you. Instead of trying to find some imaginary fine line, tell us that the fine folks at "Up your Alley" would, in your opinion, be clearly unqualified to be adoptive or foster parents.
Otherwise, you are trying to win an argument by focusing on nits when there is an elephant in the room kicking your a$$.
Well, I haven't looked at upyouralley -- I am at work -- but I'm guessing none of them are. How is that related to the general fitness of all gays for fostering or adopting?
By the way, which of the people in those images are gay, and which aren't? And how do you know?
To be clear: none of them are qualified. Or they are all unqualified.
The homosexual lobby has a few tools that they repeatedly like to use. One tool is to label anyone that disagrees with them as being homophobic as though one can't disagree without being secretly afraid. Afraid of what? The implication is that they are secretly afraid that they are subconsciously homosexual themselves. Seems ironic to me.
Another tool is being brandished here, to challenge those that disagree with defining what a homosexual lifestyle is. The obvious and simple answer is that homosexuality is the lifestyle that is objected to. But the intended effect of the question is to get the debator bogged down into a distracting discussion of homosexual acts and attempts to compare them to heterosexual acts, as though they are of equal moral standing.
There is no need to answer such questions. The American people continue to object to government blessing of homosexuality, granting homosexuals benefits denied to others ("marrying" others of the same sex) and forcing us through government coercion to accept their behavior.
There's a big difference between not persecuting people and endorsing them.
Another commenter tried to correlate atheism with homosexuality. Be assured that there is no united organization of atheists, and plenty of us atheists sensibly object to the homosexual agenda.
You miss the point. Can a homosexual be a good parent? If they can be, they should be able to foster and adopt. Evidence that there do exist very capable parents who are gay -- what does that mean to you?
One practicing the homosexual lifestyle -- as defined by Mr. Smarterthanyou -- is probably not a good foster/adoption candidate, as they are following a completely hedonistic lifestyle. Hedonists are too selfish to parent well, but there are plenty of heterosexuals who are hedonists, and they also are bad candidates to foster. Sexuality is not the problem.
There's a big difference between not persecuting people and endorsing them.
Why equate tolerance with endorsing?
I hope you all have a happy Thanksgiving. I have much to be thankful for, but I'm not thankful for these short days that mean darkness by 4:30. I dislike biking home in the dark.
"You miss the point. Can a homosexual be a good parent"
That's as irrelevent as it is contrary to the definition of being a good parent.
"Why equate tolerance with endorsing?"
We're not being asked to tolerate. We're being told to endorse homosexual unions and adoptions through the coercion of the government -- or I should say the coercion of judges.
I tolerate homosexuals. Like everyone else, I know homosexuals who are otherwise very nice people. The issue is not whether we should tolerate people the freedom of people to do as they wish to do so long as they don't hurt others. The issue is whether being homosexual is injurious to innocent children and whether society has a public interest in protecting these children from this environment. Society has spoken. Legislatures have spoken. The people have made it very clear how this is to be decided. Yet some guys in robes seem to forget that issues such as this are not to be decided by fiat.
The issue is who decides the public interest? A handful of elite judges, or the people of the State of Florida? These judges have removed their authority from the Constitution to their personal opinions of morality. They have exceeded their authority.
"It's all you liberals determined to insert the Communist Manifesto into our lives that are the problem."
So sayeth "Smarterthanmirror" to me! Doosh, I mean "dood", if I'm a posterboy Liberal, you're smoking something much better than I've had access to. Seriously, are you new here?
Seriously also, don't bogart that joint, Eugene!
Back on subject, I'm with MadisonMan: those of us who know teh gheyz with foster or adopted children tend to have a mellowed point of view of these matters.
I would add that, in my observation as a longtime heart-of-WeHo-resident, the extremist types like the subjects of the zombietime photoblog are generally not in the subset that seeks to foster/adopt/raise children. Then again, that is or should be obvious to almost anyone but the most heavily agendized axe-grinders.
"The issue is whether being homosexual is injurious to innocent children..."
That's easy: being homosexual is often injurious to innocent children, since they often spend their grammar and high-school years being cruelly taunted or even getting the stuffing beaten out of them solely on account of their "difference".
The rest of the post from which the quote is drawn reads interestingly when "black" is substituted for "homosexual" and we pretend it's the 1950's or 60's.
"The rest of the post from which the quote is drawn reads interestingly when "black" is substituted for "homosexual" and we pretend it's the 1950's or 60's."
Oh, I missed listing that tool in the toolbox, comparing the plight of homosexuals with that of people who were actually struggling for civil rights, rather than special rights.
Even the 14th Amendment doesn't protect sex to the same degree of scrutiny that it protects racial discrimination, as interpreted by those elitists in robes, so that argument doesn't wash at all.
Homosexuals have all the rights that heterosexuals have. They can marry someone of the opposite sex just as freely as anyone else. What homosexuals want is to have more entitlements so that we all are forced to endorse their behavior.
The behavior of a few should not condemn the vast ethical middle.
Which sort of begs the question of why the vast majority of non-homosexuals should be required to define marriage to accommodate the few, doesn't it?
By the way, which of the people in those images are gay, and which aren't? And how do you know?
Obviously you haven't seen the pictures. Heh. I'll give you a hint: The ****s are the ones with the ****s in their ****s.
"What homosexuals want is to have more entitlements so that we all are forced to endorse their behavior."
Well, whether or not that's true (and hell, at least I'm openminded), we've arrived here by dint of spinelessness since somewhere in the 60's or 70's, isn't that so? Unringing the bells, etc. Perhaps if there was a way to unmake the systemic structure that creates such a rich vein of booty in grievance litigation, we could all agree that hey, let everyone have their rights/entitlements/whatever, so long as no one goes being a grievance-milling lawsuit machine about it. Instead, we deny people with legitimate interests from having their natural if minority form of committed relationship validated because we are frightened of the crazies at the fringes.
Me, I prefer the way of the old-school definition of small government, namely, the kind that leaves people the fuck alone and keeps a narrow portfolio of business. It sure beats reaping the whirlwind of big government intrusiveness.
Post a Comment