so. the religious right wants to ban gay adoptions, do they?

[ulysses]

Welcome to The Great Distraction Issue, Version 2006. I'm sure you're shocked that it's about the gay folks again.

Here's the deal, though - the mindset that says "pay them no mind - it only gives them undeserved attention" is wrong. The GOP likes to use social issues like this to both pander to their base and keep our minds occupied while they loot the nation, but we *have* to answer them back, in force. We have to because it is a real issue, with real lives at stake, and their base isn't playing.

Listen. Before we went to the DU gathering last night (heathen that we are), we went to a birthday party for a little boy who was turning one. There were seven adopted children at this party, including Christopher (Baby Uly). Those seven children represented five adoptive couples. We were the only heterosexual couple there.

The religious right wants to ban gay adoptions? Fuck them.

I'm sorry, this is a personal issue for me. These are my friends. These are the people with whom we went through the hell of the adoption process, the people who called us or came over after every broken birthmother match to make sure we were ok, the people who now pass down to us the clothes their sons have outgrown. These are the people who are outstanding parents.

The religious right wants to ban gay adoptions? Fuck them.

Oh, the kids? Spectacular. Maria (not her real name), the most beautiful one-year-old I've ever seen and the daughter of two women, took a great interest in Chris last night, kept patting him on the head and gazing at him with her deep brown eyes. I roughhoused at happy length with Jason (nhrn), the birthday boy and the son of an interracial lesbian couple. Cheryl cuddled and cooed with Natalie (nhrn), who is four months old, the only child present younger than Chris, and the daughter of two gay men.

These children, every single one of them, is happy and healthy. They have great moms and dads. If you're not sure that we have the poster children for happy gay adoption, I know those kids.

The religious right wants to ban gay adoptions? Fuck them.

We have to speak out on this, as a party. We've seen the results of not having a message on gay marriage during an election year, and they're underwhelming. We've taken the tack that says "Don't take Rove's bait on the hotbutton issue" and we've lost electorally anyway, AND the GLBT community took the hit. We need to unite, as a party and in strength, against this push against gay adoption, smash it into the ground, and THEN move on to other issues.

The religious right wants to ban gay adoptions? Fuck them.

[Pushed To The Left]

1. These types of social issues are what drove me

to get more politically involved and to become a Democrat! Anything we can do to hurt the religious right's political movement needs to be done.

[marmar]

2. I have a feeling this one is going to blow up in their faces...

I think they've overplayed their hand with this one.

[ulysses]

4. and we've heard that

with every stupid piece of shit they've pulled, and it hasn't happened yet because we keep sitting back and waiting for Godot while they wiggle out of it. We need to learn from that.

[efhmc]

51. Sorry to have to agree with you but the repukes have scared

the average person in the US soooo much that they make little or no decision based on common sense and compassion any more.

[jpgray]

3. I agree with you--but it's a win-win situation for the Republicans

Because the issue is tailor-made to work in their favor, and to our detriment. That's why they're bringing it up. "Ban gay adoption!" will turn out many more GOP troglodytes than "Stop bigotry that likely won't affect you!" will for our side. That's the sad truth of it. Is it right to vocally oppose this nonsense? Yep. Is it effective for the GOP no matter what we do about it? Yep. Taking this head on is the right thing to do, but there's no reason that doing so will make any significant electoral impact.

We need to unite, as a party and in strength, against this push against gay adoption, smash it into the ground, and THEN move on to other issues.

That would be great, but it wouldn't happen. There's no way to "smash it into the ground"--debate will continue until these individual measures pass or fail, but the intent is to turn out voters, and that will be accomplished more on their side than on ours when it comes to this issue. How you solve that I don't know.

[ulysses]

5. then why are we even here?

Will you call our friends and explain to them how it doesn't matter?

[jpgray]

10. I'm just telling you fighting it won't make a big impact electorally

That's why these issues are brought up, not to win a debate on the issue but to turn out voters. As evidenced by their proclivities towards same-sex escorts and other like hypocrisies, these issues don't matter in actual fact to the Republicans. They don't really care about abortion or same-sex activities--but it gets votes, and this allows them to enact unpopular right-wing economic policies. The best part of this strategy is that it doesn't matter who wins the debate--all they need to do is bloviate in any way they like so that the 15% of the country that is obsessed about this turns out to vote. They pick issues that will turn out more for them than for us, and there's no way to lose with that strategy. And I just told you we should fight it, but I also told you fighting it probably won't make much difference.

[ulysses]

15. I'll just say that *not* fighting it will make a big electoral impact

in ways we don't like.

And I just told you we should fight it, but I also told you fighting it probably won't make much difference.

So why should we fight it?

[jpgray]

16. Because it's the right thing to do

We'd have to see an election cycle where we balls-to-the-wall fight one of these wedge issues before judgment could be passed, but it's hard anyway to pin down something like the result of an election on one thing. Witness the "Nader's fault for 2000!" nonsense. Guy hurt us indirectly, but being the whole cause of our loss is too big a pair of shoes for Ralph to fill.

[leesa]

11. Calling them bigots day in and out might help. No mincing of words.

No adding of phrases like "...likely won't affect you" ALL bigotry affects us.

[jpgray]

13. I'm just telling it like a lot of middle America sees it

The repubs get by with this because only the people who care intensely pay enough attention to it--it gets out their base more than ours and doesn't piss off everybody else to the point of making a difference. That's why it is win-win for them. I'm not sure what kind of strategy would work, but as ulysses said, there's no evidence that the leadership of this party has picked the correct strategy.

[Pacifist Patriot]

43. Don't drink the koolaid folks! The majority of people

really don't care about gay adoption. And even a lot of people who are told they are supposed to see something wrong with it really don't.

There were an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 gay and lesbian biological parents in 1976. In 1990, an estimated 6 to 14 million children have a gay or lesbian parent. Between 8 and 10 million children are being raised in a gay and lesbian household. There are an awful lot of people out there who know someone in this situation.

It's a trap to get US tackling the question when what we should be doing is saying, "Oh please. The majority of Americans do not oppose gay adoption so don't even try to tell me they do. Don't bother me with this silly topic that doesn't affect either you or me, tell me what you're going to do about making our kids secure in this country."

--But kids are being raised by homosexuals!

So what? How's the government doing educating our kids?

--Did you hear me? Gays and lesbians want to adopt children!

Thank God, there are tons of kids out there who need loving parents. How's the government protecting the environment so future generations can enjoy the planet we call home?

--It's unnatural!

So is your blonde hair but I'm not going to make you shave it off. How's the government helping families provide for affordable health care for our children?

Don't ignore the topic, but for heaven's sake let people know that the outrage and concern over it is being manufactured and doesn't really exist.

[zulchzulu]

6. Yep, it must be in the Bible somewhere...oh...here...it is...

"Ye shall hate those that you think threaten you and your abyssmal life. Oh ye of self-hating loathing, cast ye stones on those that have nothing to do with your pathetic lives. Grab ye money from the fear you create from your gatherings from those unwittingly fooled by your dance of evil. Blame them if they dare come upon you and ask you why ye hate so much."

Book of Repugs 1:666

[ulysses]

8. heh - it's actually fun to play Bible quotes

with the fundies on gay rights, especially once they focus on Paul's blatherings in Romans. :D

[zulchzulu]

14. Yep..we need to pass the Leviticus 20:10 law pronto

"And the man that committeth adultery with man's wife, that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."

And since getting divorced and remarried is considered adultery, that sure puts Newt and Rush in a a heapin' extra-crispy lot o' trouble.

[leesa]

7. Shame on these NASTY people. Denying children loving homes because

of their narrow-minded bigotry.

[xmas74]

9. I've worked w/ gay couples who have adopted at prior jobs.

I've noticed that many gays and lesbians are more than willing to adopt those that are considered "less than desirable"-older children, the mentally and physically challenged, interracial children, children w/ severe health problems(anything from HIV to drug withdrawl to cystic fibrosis). They just want to be parents and will overlook what some straight couples would consider to be "nonadoptable".

I'm all for adoption and to me it doesn't matter who the parents are-different race, single parents, gay and lesbian parents, older parents, etc. All I care about is if they will be good parents and provide a loving home for the child.

Maybe we should start pointing out the financial aspect of the adoptions. If these children were not adopted by them, what would happen to the children? Chances are they would become wards of the state. To staff a group home or put them in foster care you need quite a bit of money. To provide food, clothing, shelter and medical you need money. The more children in care puts a strain on the system. Simply put-the more children adopted to people who want them puts less strain on the system and lowers their taxes for that segment of funding.

My best friend teaches at a "ranch"-a home that children can be sent to when they have been abused and neglected by their natural family. She says that the one thing that would better these kids lives is to be adopted by anyone who is willing to show that they care. If the RR wants to make a stand against gay and lesbian adoptions then they need to start adopting all of the children in foster care and youth ranches TODAY. (Of course, we both know they'll never do it).

[FreedomAngel82]

36. How sad

Don't forget there are kids who also run away from their state home's. :( So I'd rather have them with a loving home instead of being out on the street's where they can get onto drugs and get involved with gangs etc. :(

[xmas74]

53. Exactly.

But how do you convey this message to those who do not think the same way?

So will not listen for any reason. I've tried.

[ruggerson]

12. Thank you for this

and we had better get serious about this, because you're right - this is Rove's 2008 wedge issue.

Gay leadership groups unfortunately are utterly useless.

But someone has to fund and produce a national commercial that hits home.

One suggeston: a beautiful, innocent, wide eyed ten year old girl looking directly in the camera. She is a little frightened, and her words shock you:

"There are mean people out there who are trying to do bad things to my family. They don't like my family and they are trying to hurt us. Please help me. Don't let them hurt my family."

Fade to black. Then the words on the black screen. "When you try to stop some people from adopting, you end up hurting families and children."

We need to do something simple and powerful. These fuckers have to be stopped and the issue has to be addressed directly.

[ulysses]

18. exactly so

But someone has to fund and produce a national commercial that hits home.

I think this can address what jpgray is talking about above, as well.

[FreedomAngel82]

37. I think so too

Enough of being nice. It's time to fight fire with fire. If they can compare war hero Max Cleland to Usama BinLadin than we can do their shit too! We have to start fighting even if it's only independent people making ads.

[marmar]

17. I saw this documentary, "Daddy and Papa"

... and it was about gay men raising children. And in one of the cases, a gay white male nurse in Florida became "papa" to a young African American boy who was born in the hospital where he worked after the boy's dad, who had drug problems and other issues, asked him to.
The two had become very attached - very much a father and a son, but because of Florida's Byzantine laws against gay adoptions, he couldn't adopt him. It was very sad, and showed how such a law only serves to destroy children's lives and wreck potential families.
And all of this from the "Family Values" crowd. These Reich wing assholes pollute our country, like nuclear waste.

[ulysses]

19. I still don't understand why we can't see our way

to smacking them upside the head with their own "family values" rhetoric. Please - it's like shooting the broad side of a barn.

[jpgray]

20. Maybe pull our own tricks with minimum wage, health care, bankruptcy

But my chief concern is that the party just isn't ready. You look at a guy like Joe Biden (D, MBNA) and you just know our party would all be yelling at each other while the party that is wholly and unreservedly big business owned would squash our feeble debate in the confusion. Cable news would be a sea of belligerent Republican spokespeople and a hodegepodge of "well, I disagree with my party on some of this" Democrats. I have no idea how to fix that, except getting the public motivated enough to push out the people who are robbing them blind. And ideas on how to do that are even harder to find.

[ulysses]

21. "the party just isn't ready"

True enough, perhaps, but for what IS it ready?

[jpgray]

22. Change, I think

There's nothing a politician chases after more than historical success--it's why so many Democrats do a bad JFK impression when speaking in public. Politicians are hardcore -lousy- at analyzing their own failures, however. It's my estimation that the leadership, when Democrats lose using a platform too similar to the Republicans, see the winning Republican and think "that's what this country wants!" So if a few solid lefties gain traction in '06 and in '08, we may be on the road to recovery.

[ulysses]

23. they don't even know what the fuck that means, though

(as I understand the rest of your point to agree).

[FreedomAngel82]

38. And some are hypocrites

There's a long list of republican people who go out advocating for "family values" but in reality are the opposite from molestation to affairs and getting divorced and never seeing their kids. :(

[CAG]

24. Yep, thats 06 diversion strategy, & next few election issues are also

decided by the GOP:
04: Stop gays from marriage!!!
08: Stop gays from adopting!!!
10: Stop gays from carpooling!!!
12: Stop gays in coffeeshops!!!
14: Stop gays from wearing pastels!!!
16: Stop gays from delivering pizzas!!!

The christian right will deliver the GOP votes each time with these issues.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

25. We Need To "Frame" The Issue In How This Might Affect Foster Children

This issue COULD possibly backfire because banning adoption by gays and lesbians will almost certainly impair the child welfare system and make it harder for children, particularly those with special needs(whom gays and lesbians overwhelmingly adopt), to be adopted into a safe and loving home. I work in the child welfare system here in Indiana and we need ALL of the qualified foster/adoptive homes that we can get and despite the fact that we don't currently have any laws/policies banning gay and lesbian adoption (although the issue has been brought up before and likely will be brought up again:eyes:), we STILL have severe problems with recruiting new foster/adoptive parents. I think that we should be asking all of the people pushing these laws why they are trying to punish children needing a safe and stable home by actively trying to deny them one simply because a prospective adoptive parent may be gay/lesbian? Years from now, would all those children who DIDN'T get adopted because of these laws really be glad that they weren't adopted because they might have been adopted by a gay/lesbian person? I think NOT! Aren't these laws ACTUALLY "anti-child" and "anti-family?" I think that we NEED to start standing up and asking these kind of questions of people pushing these laws and exposing them as the hypocrites they are!

[xmas74]

26. My best friend is a teacher at a youth ranch.

She has stated, on many occasions, the exact same thing.

[MountainLaurel]

58. You assume they care about foster children

And I think a history of neglect of and apathy toward social services agencies (e.g., the privatization nightmare in Florida) disproves that concept.

[OneBlueSky]

27. the truth about gay adoptions is . . .

that gays often adopt children that all these good solid Christians want no part of -- AIDS babies, HIV-positive kids, children with other serious diseases or handicaps, neglected and/or disruptive kids, delinquent teens, etc. . .

same thing applies to gay foster care . . . I know, because I was a gay foster parent to troubled teens for almost five years . . . teens that no good Christian family (or anyone else) would take in . . .

without gay adoption and gay foster care, these kids will remain wards of the state and be shuttled from foster home to group home to god knows where until they're 18 . . . at which time they'll be dumped onto the street with little or no help, support, or guidance . . .

"Christians" who rant against gay adoption are rank hypocrites unless they themselves take in one or more of God's children that society has abandoned . . . children who might very well be taken in by a gay couple (or single) -- if it weren't illegal . . .

[Pacifist Patriot]

47. Until not a single child is left in an institution....

the radical right can shut the hell up about gay adoptions. Actually, they can keep their mouths shut even after that. ;)

I agree with you.

[dsc]

28. I admit to being scared out of my mind

as I know I am next on the list. Gay teachers will be the very next thing they go after if they succeed here. We need to fight this and with utter demogogury if need be. BTW congrats on the new kid I had no idea you were adopting.

[MuseRider]

33. Right you are.

That was spoken about here. I think it was next after adoption but I am never certain where the "Straight Agenda" is headed.

So far we have managed to keep the adoption issue in committee, hopefully it will stay there but there could be a last minute addition of it to anything as the session closes out. Keep your fingers crossed. We are making slow progress here, if we can do it so can the rest of the country.

[xchrom]

29. for all that paul hackett causes a lot of hystrionics here -- he gave

the left a terrific war cry -- or rather two of them.

the first is that he cliamed{no, it isn't his alone, but he put it in very public space} that the republican party is full of ''religous fanatics''.

the phrase needs to be filled and described -- but it is a great hammer.

the second was in referrence to gay marriage but it works here as well -- if you are against gay marriage -- you are unamerican.


those arguments and attacks that go after a group of law abiding, perfectly reasonable, healthy{i'm not talking about physical health}, rational citizens are in fact radical, extreme, bizarre, lunatic arguments.

leave no wiggle room.

hammer them with the insanity that they are proposing that we MUST ALL live with if they get their inasane way.

p.s. -- i'm adopted by a lovely straight couple -- they are my parents, no one else -- and from my point of view -- adoptive parents gay or straight are real heros.

[Pacifist Patriot]

46. He makes a very good point in a compelling way.

These are NOT majority opinions. It is a view from a lunatic fringe and should be addressed as such.

[xchrom]

54. and that is the point.

the thing is often what gets american voters to vote for the loons is a kind of authenticity .

i don't buy the stronger on defense argument -- i do buy the argument that the repuke sound authentic, muscular and passioned.

they very aggressively defend their stands -- and once they win they are unapologetic about going after their agenda.

i merely suggest through the example of hackett that the same be accomplished on our side.

[Vinca]

30. If anything is banned it should be adoptions by fundies. nt

[Neil Lisst]

31. Gays are the rightwing's whipping boy now

Every election cycle will have one theme regarding gays, whether marriage or health benefits or adoption.

Bigotry is a cornerstone of the Reichwing party.

[Nomen Tuum]

32. This is what the Jesusbots REALLY want to do to gays and lesbians...

Grandma saw Hitler coming. She saw his final solution and begged her family to leave Germany. Only her father listened and he fled to Casablanca. The rest of the family didn't listen to Grandma, they lived in a dream world. Then, Hitler and his boys came for them. The rest of the family was wiped out.

Grandma lived to be 107. She died in 2000 scared to death of Bush because she saw the hate again. She knew the enemy, she read up on sick wackos like Francis Schaffer. She believed that Schaeffer's Jesusbots would round up her fellow Jews and this time, we'd just be shipped off to Israel because the book of fairy tales said all Jews have to return for Israel to get killed in a nuclear attack, an attack that only leaves 144,000 virgin males alive who then swear allegiance to Jesus.

But then there was that hate that Schaeffer, Rushdooney and their ilk were encouraging. Where was it going to go this time? Grandma sadly reasoned that it wouldn't be going to us. No, a new target had to be acquired by the sick freaks who run Christianity. Sadly, she remembered that evil witch Anita Bryant and what she did to gays and lesbians. She saw how Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell encouraged hatred of gays and lesbians. She sadly concluded that this time, the Christians would seize the government and then proceed to treat gays and lesbians like Hitler did the Jews. Make no mistake about it, the Christians are building the concentration camps and they WILL apply a FINAL SOLUTION to every gay and lesbian in Jesusland.

[gordianot]

39. Grandma sounded like a wise woman who could recognize "nuts".

Only problem is today there are fewer places to hide and the nuts play for keeps.

[ninkasi]

34. I agree...we have to take a stand

One of my family's closest friends is a gay man, I've known him since he was 14. He and his partner recently adopted a little boy, and their son still thinks he's living in Heaven. The three of them are so incredibly happy, and a little boy who was leading an unhappy life is now safe, loved, and happy.It's families like these who would be hurt by the religious right's narrow minded bigotry.

I am troubled by the fact that gays and lesbians have to fight for rights that the rest of us are given, simply because of their sexual orientation. Watch the news, and you'll see countless stories of child abuse, but none are committed by gay couples. It's almost always the woman's husband or boyfriend who is guilty. It's just astounding to me that in America today, a whole segment of the population is treated as second class citizens, having to fight for things that should be theirs by virtue of being human.

We are either for equal rights for all, or not. If we are for equal rights, then we should be speaking up loud and clear, The religious right aren't going to vote for Democrats, regardless of what issues we stand up for. By not taking a strong stand for complete equal rights for all, we are silently supporting the conservative position.

Speaking for myself, I don't feel entitled to tell other people to wait for full equality. There is no reason that they should have to struggle for things the straight community take for granted, and it's absolutely immoral to write legislation to take human rights away from people.

[MadMaddie]

42. I agree with you...

But the only way that we can ensure equal rights for all Americans, is for once and for all get religion out of politics. Return to separation of Church and State.

The religious wacko's will scream that they are being discriminated...and in return our answer will be, "You are allowed to worship to whatever god you choose and where you choose". No one is stopping you.

They have been saying we gays have been pushing our lifestyles on America. We want the chance to achieve the American dream withought being harassed, fired or excluded because of their religious bias.

We need to say that they are "shoving their religion down America's throats" and it's going to be stopped. We have to stop wearing the kid gloves and start fighting them on their own turf...

Honestly, I am leaning toward the country peacefully breaking into two countries...they can have their red, uneducated masses, and their pravda media, and their lying, thieving dictatorship.

We will have states that still live by the Constitution, provide health care for it's citizens, helping businesses become successful and employing American citizens. Ensuring the law of the land applies to all citizens of the country.

"America before Party"!! Should be our rallying cry...

[FreedomAngel82]

35. I agree

There are so many kids out there who want a good and loving home. Someone to love them, chersih and just take care of them as only having a parent can. Why deny those kids a good and loving home? :cry:

[abbiehoff]

40. Editorial from Cincinnati, Ohio (of all places)

This is apparently not a serious bill to be introduced by state senator Bob Hagan (Dem of course), but the Cincinnati Enquirer's reaction to it is somewhat surprising. Cincinnati is the center of homophobia as far as I know, regularly passing legislation to make it legal to discriminate against gays.

It's really a pretty good editorial:

"Hagan proposed a state law to forbid registered Republicans from adopting children or being foster parents."

-snip-

"Hagan cited what he called 'credible research' that children in GOP households are 'more at risk for developing emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, an alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities.'"

link: http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060227/EDIT01/602270339/1090/EDIT

[smoogatz]

41. What's the supposed rationale for banning gay adoption?

Other than the right's shameless pandering to the bigotry of their foaming-fundie base, I mean? Seems like that's where we have to start in formulating a response. Unless we just want to go with "fuck you," of course, which does have a nice ring to it.

[Pacifist Patriot]

45. The existence of the issue is simply as a distraction. The rationale..

typically used is "for the good of the children." They trot out all sorts of bogus-psychological reports claiming children need a mother and a father. There is something to that but not remotely like what they put forward as "evidence." And of course it blithely ignores all the children who are raised by single-parents. As long as the parent is a heterosexual than children can live in widowed or broken homes just dandy. There is as much data showing children raised in homosexual households are perfectly happy and healthy. So it's another right-wing lie by way of pseudo-science.

[AtomicKitten]

44. anti-abortion, anti-gay adoption = ANTI-CHILDREN

nice platform.

[grace0418]

48. Let me get this straight...

They want to ban sex education, they want to ban contraception, they want to ban abortion and they want to ban adoption unless it conforms to their strict rules. Not to mention they vote for a government that doesn't give a shit about education in general, health care, job creation, and civil rights.

Yeah, that'll have EXCELLENT results.

[AndyA]

49. The Republicans need to be taken to task on their agenda

They want to protect the sanctity of marriage, so they ban gay marriage.

Now they want to prevent gays from adopting, so they are going to ban that too.

OK, great. Let's take them to task on their platform. They profess to be conservative Christians. Well, they haven't done anything conservative since being in office. They preach hatred and bigotry, which The Bible states is wrong. We need to hit them where it hurts, and point out to all the God-fearing and God-loving Christians that THESE PEOPLE DON'T DO WHAT THE BIBLE TELLS THEM TO DO, and to not follow their path.

- Do unto others
- Let he who is without sin cast the first stone
- Turn the other cheek

They do NONE of these things. A sin is a sin in the eyes of the Lord. We need to warn Christians to not follow these false prophets.

BEWARE A WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING

They are preaching hatred, which goes against everything The Bible stands for. So, we should not let them use this as a platform. We need to point out that what they are doing is wrong, and fight fire with fire. Throw it back in their face! I know more than a few Christians who are very disturbed by all of this, we need to get them on our side, regardless of their party affiliation.

LOVE - ACCEPTANCE - SUPPORT = AMERICA

[efhmc]

50. I am curious about two things. How do these proposed laws of

discrimination and hatred of children work if the adoption has already taken place and if one of the parents is actually a biological progenitor?

[JudyM]

52. Just a thought: consider contacting HRC with your story. They're

good at framing the issues by putting real people out there -- and it sounds like you're a treasure trove of reality. Connecting real faces to the issue goes a long way toward calming the public.

Thanks for the great post!

:pals:

[betterdeadthanred]

55. I suppose this little boy

was better off with a *mother* and a *father* rather than a couple of gays who most likely would have given him a hellofa lot better life than the short shitty one he got. I saw the clip on the gay issue on Olbermann right after reading this story in my local paper and was so mad I could barely see straight.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/3687608.html

[LiberalFighter]

56. If they want to ban gay adoptions I will support them BUT...

it should only apply to their church members.

Legislating laws to conform to their beliefs belongs in the church not the government.

[LWolf]

57. RW and children:

They have 2 areas of focus:

1. Make sure every conception is carried to term.
2. Make sure every child is indoctrinated in the home politifaith.

Caring about whether kids who are born thrive in healthy, loving, families is just not one of them.

You and I know that way too many kids don't thrive in healthy, loving families, and that every single family who wants to open their homes and hearts to kids should be welcomed and celebrated, not attacked.

One more avenue to total social control; you are right that this needs some strong opposition. I'll lay odds it's right there on the priority list with public ed; at the bottom, underneath all those that make flashier soundbites.