Reply With Quote
Yeah, let's make it harder to adopt. No child left behind.
Drives to ban gay adoption heat up in 16 states
By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY
USA TodayEfforts to ban gays and lesbians from adopting children are emerging across the USA as a second front in the culture wars that began during the 2004 elections over same-sex marriage.
Steps to pass laws or secure November ballot initiatives are underway in at least 16 states, adoption, gay rights and conservative groups say. Some — such as Ohio, Georgia and Kentucky — approved cons utional amendments in 2004 banning gay marriage. (Related story: Both sides cite concern for children)
"Now that we've defined what marriage is, we need to take that further and say children deserve to be in that relationship," says Greg Quinlan of Ohio's Pro-Family Network, a conservative Christian group.
Florida has banned all gays and lesbians from adopting since 1977, although they can be foster parents. State court challenges and a campaign by entertainer Rosie O'Donnell to overturn the law have failed. A pending bill would allow judges to grant exceptions.
Mississippi bans adoption by gay couples, but gay singles can adopt. Utah prohibits all unmarried couples from adoption.
Kent Markus of the National Center for Adoption Law & Policy in Ohio says he hasn't seen this much activity in 15 years as a researcher.
Richard Carlson, a professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston, says adoption laws based on judgments of morality offer "a weak argument" and will face legal challenges. He cites U.S. Supreme Court rulings striking down bans on interracial marriage and sodomy, which reflected prevailing views when enacted. The high court has not taken up a state ban on gay adoption. (Vote: What do you think about gay adoption?)
Religious groups and state courts are grappling with the issue. Roman Catholic bishops in Massachusetts are seeking an exemption from state anti-bias laws to allow the church to bar gays from adopting through its social service agencies. Meanwhile, a judge in Missouri ruled last week that the state could not deny a foster care license to a lesbian.
Fueling the political activity:
• Ballot victories. Social conservatives view family makeup as the next battleground after passing marriage amendments in 11 states in 2004. They welcomed a bill introduced this month in Ohio that would ban gays and lesbians from adopting or raising foster children. They vow to put it on the ballot if the bill fails.
Patrick Guerriero of Log Cabin Republicans, a gay political group opposed to marriage and adoption limits, calls the strategy the next step by conservatives.
• Election-year politics. Republicans battered by questions over ethics and Iraq "might well" use the adoption issue to deflect attention and draw out conservatives in close Senate and governor races in states such as Missouri and Ohio, says Sherry Be Jeffe, University of Southern California political scientist.
The aim is to replicate 2004, says Julie Brueggemann of the gay rights group PROMO: Personal Rights of Missourians. She says marriage initiatives mobilized conservative voters in 2004 and helped President Bush win in closely contested states such as Ohio. Republicans "see this as a get-out-the-vote tactic."
Republican pollster Whit Ayres is skeptical. Adoption, he says, "doesn't have the emotional power of the gay marriage issue because there is no such thing as the phrase 'the sanc y of adoption.' "
Yeah, let's make it harder to adopt. No child left behind.
There is something inconsistent about compelling the birth of children from any pregnancy, but then limiting the opportunities for those children to be adopted by wholly prohibiting certain people from adopting.
Is the thought that if life is made tough on sexuals, they'll just stop being sexual?
Best to do it now, while the Repubs control everything.
stupid es.
Not neccessarily they could lie to future husbands/wives, get knocked up. Wait for the child to reach the age of reason then come out of the closet having beenraised in a gay friendly environment. After all it worked for Sheryll Swoops.
What a dumba-- thread. Let them have their own if they want
children
you're such a biggot
Yeah, aren't I wonderful. Don't bother to thank me. Just keep posting.
Some people would rather adopt. Those people should be commendedWhat a dumba-- thread. Let them have their own if they want
children
BY CARL CHANCELLOR
Knight Ridder Newspapers
Arizona CentralAKRON, Ohio - If an Ohio lawmaker's proposal becomes state law, Republicans would be barred from being adoptive parents.
State Sen. Robert Hagan sent out e-mails to fellow lawmakers late Wednesday night, stating that he intends to "introduce legislation in the near future that would ban households with one or more Republican voters from adopting children or acting as foster parents." The e-mail ended with a request for co-sponsorship.
On Thursday, the Youngstown Democrat said he had not yet found a co-sponsor.
Hagan said his "tongue was planted firmly in cheek" when he drafted the proposed legislation. However, Hagan said that the point he is trying to make is nonetheless very serious.
Hagan said his legislation was written in response to a bill introduced in the Ohio House this month by state Rep. Ron Hood, R-Ashville, that is aimed at prohibiting gay adoption.
This is seriously scary...
I mean, I can sort of understand the objection to gay mariage (although I still disagree), if mariage is defined to be between a man and a woman then I can see you would be redefining it to allow for gay mariages. But this... C'mon, now you're going out of your way to basically say that gays are worse than straight people. Is there really support for this kind of stupidity?!
I suppose that is what the Fundies want to find out. In 04 they succeeded to get out the intolerance-vote using gay marriage as their wedge issue, but so far they have been less successful in mobilizing either the right-to-lifers (the Terri Schaivo crowd) or the abortion issue (the anti-choice crowd).
I actually see it the other way around, I can't understand any objection to gay marriage, it's between two people that aren't me and frankly it's none of my concern.
On the other hand with adoption you are involving another person, a child in this situation. I'm not saying I'm against gay adoption, but I certainly feel stronger about gay marriage...
For those of us who believe sexuality is a choice reinforced by environment and influence, it is disconcerting to have innocent children placed in that environment.
God intended for a marriage to be one man and one woman (for life) and for that union to produce children. Any deviation from that causes heartache and problems for all parties involved.
I think God would rather see children in loving and caring homes
oh really, and what if someone doesn't believe in god, and they are gay? I guess the only god is your god, and what he says is rule
I still can't believe there are morons out there actually supporting this anti-gay marriage and ADOPTION. At this point, I no longer feel they are ignorant, but rather disgusting bigots!
EDIT:I made a mistake, I did not mean ABORTION, I meant ADOPTION! hehe my bad
Last edited by MaNuMaNiA; 02-24-2006 at 03:59 PM.
You're right. Those couples that can't or won't bear children are some of society's greatest ills.
Also, I am glad that because some of you choose to believe in a supernatural being, it necessarily means we must all adhere to this supernatural being's supposed intentions.
Only Christians have to right to speculate and act on what they believe God is thinking.
I am a Christian, arse.
Obviously, you are British, as well.
Sorry, that's not good enough. You can believe whatever you want to believe, but you can't hold other people to YOUR beliefs. Until someone shows some actual EVIDENCE that being raised by two people of the same gender is harmful to the child then there's absolutely no reason to stop it.
This was inevitable.
This, in my opinion, is the central reason so many wanted to "protect the definition of Marriage"... It's not because they really cared whether or not two gay men lived together and called each other their spouse, it was simply a necessary step towards keeping them from somehow spreading their Gay Disease to impressionable children who might choose a sexual or liberal lifestyle.
Believing in God is not the issue. The question is how healthy is it for a child to be raised in a household comprised of a sexual couple.
I know many atheists who don’t believe gays should be able to adopt.
Unfortunately, that’s how Christianity works. Truth cannot be A and B if A contradicts B. In those cases, truth is either A or B.I guess the only god is your god, and what he says is rule
Not sure why you always have to pull the insult card. My feelings on gay marriage are mixed but I am certainly against abortion and I don’t think I’m a moron. And I’m certainly not a bigot.
However, I stand by my assertion that if you believe gays should be banned from marriage and adoption then yes, you are a disgusting bigot simple as that. I see no other reason for that way of thinking.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
