For proof that at least some Republicans get it on gay issues, check out Steve Chapman's article on the case of two Florida brothers, formerly neglected, who came to be:
"in excellent health, well-behaved, performing well in school and bonded to" their foster family. They have a dog, a cat and a rabbit. They attend a church.
Yet the state is looking to remove them from the home simply because their foster parents are gay, and the law does not allow gay people to adopt. Chapman exposes the flawed reasoning behind such laws:
"And for what? Solely to shield them from the supposed perils of gay parents. Gays are treated as more dangerous than felons, drug offenders and known child abusers -- none of whom is categorically barred from adopting.
As it happens, those dangers are mostly imaginary. According to evidence cited by the judge, gays are slightly more likely than heterosexuals to suffer psychiatric problems, engage in substance abuse and smoke, but so are lots of other groups that are allowed to adopt. The American Psychological Association says it finds no difference between the parenting of homosexuals and heterosexuals.
Would orphaned and abandoned children be better off if every one of them could be raised by stable, loving, heterosexual couples? Possibly. But that's not an option. For many children, the alternative to having gay adoptive parents is having no parents at all."
This is where ideology meets reality, and it is encouraging that at least some in the GOP are willing to truly put the interests of the children first. Chapman's close is refreshingly blunt:
"The Florida ban is simple and stark. It says, in effect, that a child may not be adopted by gays even when the adoption is in the best interest of the child. That's the main reason the court overturned it: It violates the rights of children and 'causes harm to the children it is meant to protect.'
Those who want to keep gays from adopting think that's a small price to pay for blocking the 'homosexual agenda.' But then, they're not the ones who will be paying it."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The link is bad. This one works:
http://townhall.com/columnists/SteveChapman/2008/11/30/gay_adoption_the_real_agenda
"Gays are treated as more dangerous than felons, drug offenders and known child abusers -- none of whom is categorically barred from adopting. "
Felons, drug offenders and known child abusers are not barred from adopting? How can that be?
"Would orphaned and abandoned children be better off if every one of them could be raised by stable, loving, heterosexual couples? Possibly. But that's not an option. For many children, the alternative to having gay adoptive parents is having no parents at all."
Is there a source that shows that some children have no option of finding heterosexual parents to adopt them, and are indeed "stuck," so to speak, with homosexual parents or none at all? Given what I know about supply and demand in the "industry," I'm not sure how this can be.
Post a Comment