Anti-Gay “Expert” Would Consider Banning Adoptions By Native Americans

[JackBeck]

Jim Burroway
November 23rd, 2008

Two anti-gay activists closely associated with Paul Cameron have inserted themselves into the center of Florida’s gay adoption controversy.

Florida is the only state in the nation which explicitly bans adoption by gay parents. That law is now being challenged. The Miami Herald has obtained http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-dade/v-fullstory/story/774739.html?pageNum=3&&mi_pluck_action=page_nav#Comments_Container">a transcript from an adoption trial which was closed the public. The trial ran on Oct. 1-6, and centered on a gay foster father’s petition to adopt the two small boys he has been raising since 2004. The trial featured testimony from a half-dozen expert witnesses in psychology, epidemiology, sociology and family studies.

The state of Florida, which is supporting the ban, relied on two so-called “expert witnesses” who are http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,021.htm">closely associated with discredited “researcher” Paul Cameron. George A. Rekers, is a retired professor from the University of South Carolina, who taught neuropsychiatry and behavioral science. Walter R. Schumm, is an assistant professor of family studies at Kansas State University.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-dade/v-fullstory/story/774739.html?pageNum=3&&mi_pluck_action=page_nav#Comments_Container">According to the Miami Herald:

The lives of gay people can also be stressful to children, Rekers testified. The children may experience teasing and bullying from other children who don’t approve of their parents’ orientation. And children with gay parents are likely to suffer from repeated separations because gay people are more likely to have multiple failed relationships.

Rekers said he would, in fact, favor banning anyone from adopting who had more than 18 “sex partners” during a lifetime. “I think that would be a very good social policy,” he said in a deposition.

He said he would also consider banning Native Americans from adopting because research shows that they are also at much higher risk of mental illness and substance abuse. “They would tend to hang around each other,” Rekers testified. “So the children would be around a lot of other Native Americans who are … doing the same sorts of things.”

More at: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/11/23/6861

And so it begins. Until the proposition in Arkansas passed this year, Florida had some of the most restrictive laws surrounding LGBT adoption. Since those laws are now set in stone, coupled with the gay marriage ban in Florida that also passed, marginalizing the gay community is so yesterday. Looks like the Wingers are ready to move on to taking rights away from Native Americans. That's some scary stuff. I wonder how long before they try and stop people from divorcing in Florida, since "studies prove" having a household that includes "one man, one woman" is what's best for the child.

But that could never happen....

[sandnsea]

1. Some people advocate licenses for parenting

and this is exactly why they shouldn't.

[old mark]

8. I advocate licenses for politicians- a simple psycohlogical/intelligence test.

And I would make results public knowledge.

mark

[RC]

19. Re-administered every 4 years.

[JackBeck]

12. Seriously?

I'll admit I've never heard that one before. Where was this proposed and what were the parameters to get approved?

[sandnsea]

13. You've never heard that?

Just about every time there is a "bad parent" thread on DU - somebody pipes up that there should be licenses for parents.

[JackBeck]

15. No, I haven't.

And I don't see how advocating for that would lead to better parenting.

[gollygee]

2. Can I be hopeful that this will wake people up?

I suppose it won't. Hate breeds hate. People will start looking for more people to take rights away from, because that's how it seems to generally happen.

[BlooInBloo]

3. Actually, the opposite is what fixes that sort of thing over time: people dying.

[JerseygirlCT]

4. Don't you love the catch here?

They can't be good parents, because society is so awful to them it would be tough on their kids. So let's continue to be awful to them, shall we?

[JackBeck]

17. All the while denying tens of thousands of children the opportunity to have a home.

Like we say around here, if they don't want us raising the children, why aren't they adopting these children?

They love the fetus, and hate the child.

[provis99]

since Christian fundamentalists are more likely to be abusive parents

more likely to get divorced, and more likely to be into drugs or alcohol than non-fundamentalists, can we ban Christian fundamentalists from adopting kids, too?

Gee the blatant racism and illogic of these assclowns never ceases to amaze me.

[classof56]

5. Oh, god...some of the stories I could tell you about "one man one woman" households...

and what happens to children trapped in those households...I am sickened each time I hear these accounts of horrifying abuse. I'm wondering if, once the "one man, one woman" mode is firmly entrenched, will there be any oversight as to what is happening in those "approved households" and will there be any safety net for the kids who are being abused, neglected, forever emotionally damaged and all too often ultimately killed? I doubt the Wingers give a rip about those children as they attempt to foist their "version of morality" on the rest of us. All I can say is, shame, shame and more shame upon them!

Sick and Tired Old Cynic

[bluedawg12]

22. I guess this would be an example of good parenting in one man one woman" households

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4521360

[classof56]

25. What an absolutely horrific story!

Sadly, it pales in comparison to some I've heard. The thing is, what if there were no system in place to protect and rescue such children, based on the "traditional" family scenario, wherein parents who are not gay or Native American or non-Christian or whatever criteria is in place legally to "validate" the family structure can not be called into account? That sentence was too long, but I hope you know what I'm saying. It used to be, children were owned by their parents, who could do whatever the hell they wanted to and with them. And wives were owned by their husbands, with the same set of rules in place. My apologies--this is a very sore subject with me. I often think of that song, "Bless the beasts and the children for they have no choice, they have no voice." Those who mistreat and abuse them, as far as I'm concerned, have no right to walk the face of the earth.

Thank you for the link, and thank you for caring.

[xchrom]

6. recommend

[trashcanistanista]

7. "And so it begins" is right.

This is to be expected. Many right wing religious fundies including Mormons, view those with darker skin as inferior and less human, to this day due to whatever their bible/preacher tells them. This is why, in California, Prop 8 needs to go down and go down permanently and these assholes need to be stopped in their tracks. Every democrat should be working diligently to overturn these blatant racist and bigoted laws throughout the United States. K&R.

[Chulanowa]

9. Usually we get picked first!

I'm jealous of gay people. They get the shaft first this time around and Natives are put on the bench. What the hell? -We- should be the ones the state is arsing over first! It's like heritage, man!

[EFerrari]

10. This is exactly why we have to find a way to stick together.

These white supremacist, anti-gay nut cases are a menace to us all. They all come from the same cesspool and they're all devoted to driving others there.

Don't ever let them divide us. Stay together.

[readmoreoften]

27. Exactly.

[uppityperson]

11. Oh bullshit. k&r

I started to write more, deleted it because "oh bullshit" seems to cover it.

Changed my mind.

NA's shouldn't adopt kids since those kids would be better off in white households. Got it. White households where of course there is no substance abuse, etc.

Gay people are more likely to have multiple failed relationships? Huh, I must be gay. Or else just one of those abnormal heteros who went through several relationships before I figured out how to stand up for myself and get in a decent one (note to self, you don't need to "rescue" anyone again).

Back to NA adoption issues. Bullshit.

[comrade snarky]

14. Wow... just wow

On the other hand I guess it's good when a bigot is too stupid to see the difference between his socially acceptable bigotry and the stuff that would make an undecided person go "Wholly crap, what is wrong with this jackass? I don't want to be associated with this idiot".

Please, please continue to speak about your feelings. On national TV. In prime time. It will really help the fight for gay equality.

[Sebastian Doyle]

16. Unity of Oppression

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-B9Z3b3zxg

[sarcasmo]

18. Thanks for making this Cherokee angry.

[mrbarber]

20. I'm originally from Florida

And outside of South Florida, nobody would blink an eye over this comment.

Florida is one of the most racist/homophobic states in this Country, hands down.

[bluedawg12]

21. One can hire any number of "expert witnesses" to say anything

Here's one:
https://www.ksu.edu/humec/fshs/faculty/flec/schumm.htm

[Orsino]

23. Yawn. Scratch one hate, and you find another underneath. n/t

[JackBeck]

28. That's rather myopic.

Not only is that an acceptance of legislated anti-gay bigotry, you're being short-sighted in thinking that this Floridian Winger mentality can't be imposed on any other minority.

Why such a dismissive response?

[bluedawg12]

32. You mean, find homophobic bigot and you will also find other bigotries beneath?

That does seem to be true, why stop with gays, and why stop with NA's?

[Orsino]

36. Yes. He's a hater.

Let the haters win one victory, and they're immediately off to find someone else to oppress.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. Banning NAs from adopting would not be in children's interests, but if it were, I'd support it.

Adoption should be managed *purely* for the benefit of the adoptee, not the adopter, so the question of the adopter's rights doesn't enter into it. I'd be quite happy to discriminate on any grounds whatsoever if it could be shown that doing so was in the interests of children being considered for adoption.

However, in practice, a) there aren't strong correlations between race and suitability for adoption that don't get absorbed into other measurable things (I don't have a clue whether Native Americans are more likely to be substance abusers, but since we already discriminate against substance abusers in adoption, there's no need for further discrimination against Native Americans), and b) it is almost always better for a child to be adopted by anyone, of any ethnic group, gay or straight, and quite possibly even "substance abuser or not" (although that might well be going too far) than to be left in care.

The most compelling argument for allowing gay couples to adopt is *not* that not doing so is unfair to gays; it's that not doing so is bad for children who would otherwise go to loving homes.

[readmoreoften]

26. "If the white supremacists were right" is always a flawed premise. Regardless.

You could say "the rights of the adoptee trumps the rights of the adopter." Of course. This is why crackhead child murderers aren't allowed to adopt. But you don't need to lend credence to a faulty, racist premise to say this.

Unless you want fatherhood banned. You know, because if the child's rights comes before the rights of the parents, a similar bastardized predicate argument could be: men have higher incarceration rates for violence then women, ergo men should not be permitted to parent children in an enlightened society because many will be violent towards their children.

Instead of using group assessments, its more reasonable to say "those individuals who fit the category of having committed violence against children shall not adopt children regardless of race, color, creed, or sexual orientation."

[JackBeck]

29. As a boy that was adopted, you waste a lot of words trying to say absolutely nothing.

[Shanti Mama]

33. As a single mom of two adopted children

I say Bravo!

It should ALWAYS be about what's best for the child. I do believe my kids would be better off, have a fuller sense of completeness, in a 'perfectly normal, perfectly functioning' family. However, there is no such thing. There are great families out there and I wish all of them would adopt the kids who need them most. I am a great parent (most of the time) and, though my kids wish they had a dad, they are doing well in life. They see divorced families (not many in our expat community) and we talk about the difference between not having a dad at all and having one who is absent a lot... how that must feel.

There are SO MANY kids out there who need homes and will never get them. Is anyone else stepping forward to adopt the kids now with the gay man in FL? I bet not.

[bluedawg12]

34. The compelling interest of the State is what's best for the child - who decides

what's best for the child is at issue here.

[SeattleGirl]

30. Could I advocate for these two idiots being shipped off to a

deserted island somewhere?

[JackBeck]

31. If only we were so lucky.

I hold steadfast in the belief that these fuckwads will quickly go away in the next 4 years.

Let's hear what they have to say, but continue to laugh at them until they crawl back into to sewers from where they once came.

:hi: :pals:

[BrklynLiberal]

35. An equal-opportunity bigot. Wow...