Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Efforts 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 constitutional 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 Bebitch 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 sanctity of adoption.' "
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
I wonder when these people will realize that they are being used? That gay marriage amendment that was so urgent right before the last election lost a little steam after the election, didn't it?
I am not in favor of banning adoptions to gays outright.
They ought to be investigated just like any other couple seeking adoption. In the case of both hetro and homo couples/individuals it should be determined if the home environment is conducive to raising a healthy (physically and mentally) child.
However in the circumstance of private adoption agencies (such as Catholic Social Services) they ought to be allowed to conduct adoptions that follow the tenents of their faith.
They are not preventing anyone from adopting, they are preventing persons from adopting through their organizations.
__________________
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
-Samuel Langhorne Clemens
insane, isn't it. I guess the theory is that if someone is single, how do you know they are gay or straight.....
Actually it's an ingenious plan! After my kid was born going out every weekend was out of the question. Also your so tired sex is out, you don't have time for freinds etc.
So really by giving all single gays a child to raise you effectively remove them from society! The gay bars close cause they're all at home with the kids, they no longer have time to demonstrate or be seen in large groups protesting anything.
Im tellin' ya Jon, Letting the single gays adopt is a way more sinister law than banning adoption all together. Evil people in Mississippi, Evil people.
insane, isn't it. I guess the theory is that if someone is single, how do you know they are gay or straight.....
Yes, that was going to be my reply to that as well.
So, let me get this straight. Gay couples are good enough to provide temporary foster homes, but not permanent ones?
This whole issue really kinda ticks me off. Gays can't adopt children who need a home. But, I know a woman who has two kids from two different guys (both in jail) and milks the welfare system for everything she can. I understand we can't keep people from reproducing and that this is a whole nother issue, but it seems odd that people can get state assistance for this kind of issue, but gays can be banned from adopting. It's like we're rewarding people for doing something "bad" but punishing others who just want to do something good.
I dunno if this makes sense or not. It just seems wrong is all.
__________________
Paul Calvisi: How about you, Gerald Hayes. If you had to call a travel agent and go to one place in the world, where would it be?
I am not in favor of banning adoptions to gays outright.
They ought to be investigated just like any other couple seeking adoption. In the case of both hetro and homo couples/individuals it should be determined if the home environment is conducive to raising a healthy (physically and mentally) child.
However in the circumstance of private adoption agencies (such as Catholic Social Services) they ought to be allowed to conduct adoptions that follow the tenents of their faith.
They are not preventing anyone from adopting, they are preventing persons from adopting through their organizations.
You know, I was going to come out (pun intended) with my typical opposition to gay adoption, but this post really opened my eyes a bit more. As long as a full investigation could be done to ensure that the child would be raised in a simple, loving relationship, WITHOUT judgement being bred into the child, then I'd be all for it. Also agree about allowing private adoption agencies follow their own tenets.
__________________
Veni, vidi, vici--this goes out to all our NFC West chums
Thank you for breaking the circle of suck, Bidwill--Stout, December 7 2008.
Actually it's an ingenious plan! After my kid was born going out every weekend was out of the question. Also your so tired sex is out, you don't have time for freinds etc.
So really by giving all single gays a child to raise you effectively remove them from society! The gay bars close cause they're all at home with the kids, they no longer have time to demonstrate or be seen in large groups protesting anything.
Im tellin' ya Jon, Letting the single gays adopt is a way more sinister law than banning adoption all together. Evil people in Mississippi, Evil people.
Linear Mode
