Butterfly Cauldron

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Colbert Coalition's Anti-Gay Marriage Ad
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Gay Marriage Commercial

Also? I love this video.

Labels: bisexuality, homosexuality, marriage, stupid people

Well, no. Not really. It just seemed an appropriate title for Turkey Day. It was a very quiet day on my end. Drove home to see the folks, had dinner, did some laundry. (I have yet to acquire a washer and dryer for my new place.) Felt like I was in college again.

Just me, mom, dad and one grandmother. I have so many leftovers in my fridge...yum! Turkey and pork sandwiches for days!

So, it was a nice calm day and all. My mother mentioned something my brother had told her about my cousin, A. Now, A is gay. And by gay I mean, if the boy flamed any brighter they'd see him from space. It has always been apparent that he was gay, even when he was very young. So, when he decided to come out to a few relatives a few years ago, no one was very surprised. Upset, but not surprised.

So, my mom told me that A has a myspace page and some pictures up that are 'disgusting'. Apparently he's a 'full-blown' homosexual. (Do you have ANY idea how hard it was not to laugh when she said that? Full blown? ARG!) So, anyway, I did not know he had this page. My brother didn't give my mom any details about the pix, but said they were just wretched and awful and it was horrible he was SO gay.....because apparently, if he was gay but like a hermit that would be okay or something. Anyway, I went in search of that page, dammit. I wanted to see! Alas, I could not find it. I have only that he's going by the name Star and no more. I am saddened. I have a feeling my cousin has some lovely drag pix of himself up and dammit, I wanna see them!

I think he'd be lovely in drag. He's got a very femme face, even though he's about seven foot tall. Terribly skinny, with lots of piercings and tats. You know, the kinda boy I'd find attractive if he wasn't my cousin and well, gayer than the Castro at Pride Week, ya know? Anyway, I just really wanna know what's on the damned page! I'm so insanely curious.

It's funny, ya know. A never bothered to come out to me, he just kinda didn't worry much about how I would react. (I have no idea why he'd think that I'd be cool with it. Nope. None. At all. Just like I have no idea why he knew I'd be cool with his pagan ways. None at all. It's a mystery to me. I must have one of those trustworthy faces or something.)

So, here's my thing -- my parents were all, not exactly okay with him before, but they weren't making a big deal about him being gay. Now my mom's like so disappointed, like she thinks it's this horrible thing. I think she blames his mother, totally. Of course, this is probably because my Aunt P divorced Uncle G this year, after they were together for almost 30 years. Shocked everyone, 'cept me really. I mean, I wasn't waiting on it to happen, but anyone with eyes could see that marriage was not so great. My uncle spent most of his time home out in the woods hunting, never seemed to want to be around his family too much. He was stunned when she left but they seem to have come to some reasonable understanding. She's living down south with A -- so she's clearly come to terms with his gayness. I mean, they fucking live together and all.

Anyway, I can't help but think my mom is upset that Aunt P isn't more upset. Like maybe if she'd been a better wife or mother or whatever, this wouldn't have happened. Which makes me wanna look at her and go -- well, you know, YOU raised a bisexual daughter. You think you did a bad job as a mother?

But, I won't because I don't need that kinda drama at this point in my life. Also -- I'm thinking I'm doomed to be single and sexless forever. Dear gods! Seriously, this year? Send me someone. I so very much need to get laid it's not funny. And someone to hang out with would be good too :)

So, anyway that was T-Day at my place. I've got leftovers to sandwich together and then I'm going to watch Grey's Anatomy. OOOH! And the DirectTV guy will be here Saturday! I'll get my cable back! Yes! I'm considering starting a second blog where I can write about music and television and that alone. Hrm.....

Labels: family, homosexuality

Some people just don't get it, really. Gay marriage is not a threat to..well, anything..but certainly not to religious freedom. No one is asking any church to recognize gay marriages. No one is legislating that. And hey, you know what? No one is saying that religious nuts can't say all the nasty things they want about gay people -- even if it makes my skin crawl.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Religious conservative leaders, sensing declining alarm over same-sex marriage, are warning that the debate over homosexuality has prompted attacks on religious freedom.
By expanding the discussion from marriage to religious expression, social conservatives say they will reconnect with religious voters and religious leaders who don’t necessarily view same-sex unions as a threat.

Ah, I see. Because they won't respond to your carrot anymore, it's time to...lie? Hear that sound? That Baby Jesus crying.

Perkins and others are building a case file of anecdotes where they say religious people have spoken out against gay marriage only to be punished. Perkins specifically cited the decision by Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich in June to fire his appointee to the Washington area transit board after the board member referred to homosexuals as “persons of sexual deviancy.”
The board member, Robert J. Smith, said he was expressing his personal beliefs as a Roman Catholic.
The subject of religious expression will be the main theme of an Oct. 15 gathering in Boston of conservative religious and political leaders that will be broadcast to churches nationally.

Let's see...was the man speaking as a private citizen? Or was he speaking in his capacity as a representative of the state? Because those are two very different things. If he was just hanging out with friends, having a few drinks or whatever and makes his comment (stupid as it is) well...whatever. But something in me doubts that's what happened. If it was, there wouldn't be a reporter around to hear it. And so, I have a feeling, he made this comment in some public forum where he was clearly identifiable as a state rep. Which means, yeah, that's not acceptable speech. Because you're functioning as a representative of the government, not as a private individual. These people would like to argue there's no distinction, but come on. If I'm writing a story for the newspaper about pro-lifers and I call them "forced breeders" because that's my personal belief, are they gonna let that go? No, they're not. And they shouldn't, because it is my obligation as a journalist not to let my personal beliefs color my reporting. Now, if I say on this blog, as a private individual, that pro-lifers are all moronic, egomanical, force-childbirth idiots -- well, sorry. That's me speaking as a private individual, not as a professional. There are lines to these things and anyone involved in any kind of public life better know that and respect it or get the fuck outta public life.

So, basically, Perkins (who is from Louisiana, of course. The man ran for governor and my parents voted for him. But they're not fundamentalists!!) is finding he can't get any more mileage out of the anti-gay marriage hubub and is looking for ways to lie and spin to scare people into voting against their best interests this November. Blah.

Labels: fundies, homosexuality, marriage, religion

I wonder if they'll be coming to my Little Town to attempt to enlist. I wish they would. There's a story I'd volunteer to go out and cover :)

SHREVEPORT, La. (AP) — Police took three people into custody after refusing to leave a U.S. Marine Corps recruiting office Tuesday during a protest of the military’s ban on openly gay recruits.

The Virginia-based gay rights organization Soulforce said it was staging such protests in 30 cities around the nation in the coming weeks and months.

Organizers have dubbed the campaign Right to Serve.

The three taken into custody were among nine who tried to enlisted at the Marine recruiting station on Mansfield Road.
It is a protest against the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that dates back to the early days of the Clinton administration.

While running for the White House, Clinton vowed to overturn the military’s long-standing ban on gays.

But, amid pressure from religious groups and concern from military leaders, he endorsed don’t ask, don’t tell. As passed by Congress and signed by Clinton, the policy requires gay service members to keep their homosexuality hidden and refrain from same-sex sexual conduct.

The military is prohibited from asking recruits about their sexual orientation, and commanders are limited in their ability to investigate rumors or allegations of homosexuality in the ranks.

Soulforce condemns the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy as blatantly discriminatory and says it hurts recruiting at a time when recruits are needed.

Charles Moskos, a military sociologist at Northwestern University who helped craft the policy, defended it in a recent interview with The Associated Press.

Moskos said allowing openly gay service members would hurt the morale of the military rank-and-file and make many recruits uncomfortable. ‘The gay advocates say it will cause enlistment to go up, but I think you’d find it dropping rather than rising,” Moskos argued.

Stupid thing to do, refusing to allow out gays/lesbians in the armed forces. Not like we're low on recruits or anything. Oh wait. Yeah.

Soulforce is a very cool organization. They've got lots of nifty info on their homepage, including a breakdown of what the Bible does and does not say about homosexuality. If you've got the time, surf on over and check them out.

Labels: homosexuality, politics, protest

Naturally, the homo-bigots can't leave anyone alone. Not even a gathering of medical professionals. Because, you see, being gay is a disease. Not a natural orientation. No, no. It's an illness and dammit, it needs to be classified as one again. Fuckers.

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — About two dozen protesters marched for an hour outside the American Psychological Association convention on Friday to protest the organization’s stand on homosexuality.

The group, which was sponsored by the conservative ministry Focus on the Family, was protesting what it sees as the APA’s views on the immutability of homosexuality.

“We disagree with the APA’s stand that people can’t change if they want to,” said Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, a Los Angeles psychologist and president of the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. “If someone wants to change, they say, ‘No, this is you, you must learn to accept it.’ We say people have self determination, they can make a choice.”

In 1974, the APA ceased listing homosexuality as a mental disorder. The protesters demanded that the APA change its current position.

Dr. Clinton Anderson, director of the lesbian, gay and bisexual office of the APA, said the group’s position is that homosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure. The association is not opposed to people who decide to try to change their sexual orientation if it’s an autonomous decision, but would question the motives for such a desire, he said.

“If someone wants to change their sexual orientation, we feel that may be because of an atmosphere that is prejudice against homosexuality,” Anderson said. “We are concerned it is a coercive choice that has to do with pressure from their family, their community, or their church.”

Marchers, who stayed outside the convention for an hour carrying signs reading “Don’t tell me I can’t change,” and “Diversity includes me,” among others, were people who had changed from homosexuality, Nicolosi said.

Nicolosi, who works with people wanting to change their sexuality, said that he has found about a third of his patients experience no change, a third have what he called “significant improvement.” and a third adopt a heterosexual life style.
“They marry and are cured,” Nicolosi said. “They may have an occasional attraction, but not a major or constant one.”

The protesters also had a petition for the APA from a group of psychologists to accept both “gay affirming therapists and reorientation therapists.”

The APA does not believe the claim by Nicolosi and others that there is scientific evidence that people can change their sexuality, Anderson said.

“There has never been a well designed study to show that people can change,” Anderson said. “Our concern about the so-called conversation therapy is that it isn’t supported by science. There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.”

You know, I was going to say something reasonable and rational about this. How people can choose behaviour, but that doesn't change orientation and blahblahblah. But you know what? Fuck that. My sexuality is not an abhoration. Nor it is deviant. It's a blessing and I'm sick of fucknuts like this telling me otherwise.

I love men. I love women. And what does that say about me, other than I can love either gender? Nothing. Period. Well, it could tell you I'm less bound to rigid social roles. Or that I'm more willing to look at people for who they are instead of what they are. But you know...

So, fuck off, okay? All you people out there who think there's something wrong with me because I can love a person with a penis or with a vagina, can just Shut.The.Hell.Up. A mental illness? Please. I've been mentally ill. Being bisexual doesn't even come close. Being bisexual is a blessing, not a deviation. Sexuality is a blessing, period. It's not dirty, it's not shameful, it's not something to deny. It can be comforting or intoxicating or bonding or just plain fun. So why don't you go try it and leave the rest of us alone already?

Labels: fundies, homosexuality, Katrina, New Orleans, religion

Even in my pseudo-Fundamentalist days, I never bought the claim that anyone chooses to be gay. It just doesn't make any sense, not in our society. Sure, that's slowly changing, but no rational person is going to decide to be gay in a society that treats homosexuals as second-class citizens or worse. I also never bought the idea that, well gay people can just choose to be celebate. Really? Is that fair? Some people find celibacy easy, others find it difficult or impossible. Why should they be denied the pleasure of sex? Why should someone have to lose their career because of who they love? Even when I was surrounded by Fundies, I always rebelled against the idea that God, who is supposed to be Love Itself, would treat his kids that way. And so, what do you if you're a preacher who happens to be gay? Who falls in love and wants to make a lifetime committment to your partner? Something like this:

ATLANTA (AP) — Keep quiet about his gay relationship or keep his promise to the church leadership.
That’s the choice the Rev. Bradley Schmeling faced after his relationship with his boyfriend grew into a lifelong commitment. And his decision could leave him defrocked and ousted from his Atlanta church or transform him into the latest poster pastor for gay rights.

When Schmeling became pastor of St. John’s Lutheran Church six years ago, his homosexuality was no secret to the hierarchy of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. He was also single then, so it didn’t pose as great a problem.

He promised Bishop Ronald Warren that, if his situation changed, he’d come forward. That promise came back to haunt him in March when Schmeling decided his relationship with his boyfriend had become a lifelong partnership.

At the church’s regional office in downtown Atlanta, Schmeling walked Warren through the history of his two-year relationship with his boyfriend.

“It was an issue of conscience and integrity,” Schmeling said. “I was fulfilling my promise to him, knowing full well the consequences.”

After he was finished, the bishop promptly asked Schmeling to resign. And Schmeling promptly refused.

This week, Warren responded by calling for a committee to review evidence, listen to witness testimony and ultimately decide whether to discipline the 43-year-old pastor.

As mainline Protestant denominations struggle over how to include gays and lesbians in their church services and on their pulpits, a more personal battle is being waged in local communities.

Lutherans Concerned, a gay rights group, estimates there are hundreds of Lutheran pastors reluctant to come out of the closet for fear of losing their jobs.

For those who choose to come out, the reaction varies by region. When a handful of pastors on the West Coast came forward, they faced no discipline. Schmeling’s case, however, is the first in the more conservative Southern region, and a test case for the entire denomination’s tolerance, said Emily Eastwood, executive director of Lutherans Concerned.

“It would be a travesty for the church to say he can’t be a pastor because he found a life partner,” she said.

Other mainline Protestant denominations are facing tough, divisive decisions of their own.

In June, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) refused to change a church law that required clergy and lay officers to limit sex to heterosexual couples. But it also granted new leeway for local congregations to sidestep the rule and install gay ministers.
Tension over gay rights has threatened to split the Episcopal Church, following the 2003 consecration of the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.

And at national Protestant assemblies throughout the summer, the traditional Christian prohibition on gay sex has frequently dominated discussion.

As the debate trickles down, local leaders face some of the toughest decisions.

Schmeling said he and the bishop enjoyed a warm, collegial relationship.

“It was not an easy decision for him,” Schmeling said. And although Warren wouldn’t comment on the case, he wrote in an open letter that he made the decision after a “lengthy process of prayerful discernment.”

The charges begin a formal process which could take months.

To Schmeling, who plans to remain as pastor of the 345-member church until a decision is made, it also offers a chance to tell the story of his church and defend its motto: To love gracefully and welcome unconditionally.

“Our church is determined to welcome everybody and not let the issue of homosexuality divide us,” he said. “There’s far too many people who are trying to draw lines, build walls between communities. We want to be a church that breaks down those walls.”

I, of course, side with the pastor. He's absolutely right when he said that the church, in it's best form, is here to build bridges and draw people together, not tear them apart. Love gracefully. Welcome unconditionally. Sorta like that Jesus guy did?

Anyway, I hope Schmeling is able to keep his post. I also wish he'd be able to marry his partner! Really, SS marriage would be the answer to the "objection" many "Christians" have to gays. They claim they can't committ and they're promiscious. But, they won't let them get married. I've heard the objection "It's not the orientation, its that sex outside of marriage is wrong." But we can't do anything to fix that, can we? Noooo...I could rant on this forever, and I may more later. But right now, I'm wondering just how happy it makes God when his children discriminate against themselves?

Labels: fundies, homosexuality, religion

Another ray of sanity, this time out of Indiana.

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Indiana’s Supreme Court let stand a ruling that allows unmarried couples, including those of the same sex, to adopt children through a joint petition that gives both partners equal custody.

In a 4-1 decision posted Friday, the high court refused to hear arguments in the case. That left in tact the April ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals, which had overturned a lower court’s ruling that state law limits adoption to married couples and individuals.

“The court acknowledged that two people can create a caring, stable, loving home for children without being married,” said Patricia Logue, senior counsel for Lambda Legal’s Midwest office in Chicago. “Not only is this a decision that will keep our clients’ family intact, but this is a victory for the thousands of children in Indiana desperately in need of a caring home.”
Logue represented a lesbian couple from Morgan County whose 2004 attempt to adopt a baby girl was approved by a judge in one county but denied by a judge in another.

Attorney General Steve Carter had hoped the state’s highest court would overturn the 2-1 appeals ruling.
Carter’s aides did not return messages left Friday by The Associated Press

I'm not sure how friendly Indiana is to GLBT people, but this is hopeful. Children need love, stability, discipline -- those things can come from either sex. So long as both halves of a couple is capable of caring for a child, what they do in their bedroom shouldn't be relevant. Adoption can make wonderful families and children deserve that. (As the aunt of an adopted child, I speak with a little experience. It always amazes me how quickly we forgot she was adopted. She's just ours. She always has been, always will be. I think of all the other children that are in need of homes and think, please gods, let them find them. Let them find what Kady has. Gay, straight, bi, whatever, let those children find families that love and want them as much as we want her.)

Labels: adoption, court rulings, homosexuality

If not this particular case, then one similar. That's the problem with having different marriage/civil union laws across the country. Those states that have outlawed them are going to say they don't have to recognize another state's union/marriage. Which is bullshit, because any straight couple married pretty much anywhere else, not just in another state, is recognized in this country -- provided they've got documentation. I mean, we don't go around telling Canadians they're not married when they come for a visit. Or the Brits. Or Africans. Or...well, anyone. So long as they're straight. Bastards. Although -- this current ruling is a hopeful sign. Until the appeal is filed anyway.

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — The state Supreme Court ruled Friday that Vermont courts, and not those in Virginia, have exclusive jurisdiction over a case involving two women battling for custody of a child they had while they were in a lesbian relationship.

The unanimous ruling conflicts with a series of decisions in Virginia, where courts ruled the state’s anti-gay marriage laws controlled the case.

Justice John Dooley wrote that Vermont civil union laws govern the women’s 2003 separation and subsequent child custody disagreement because they were legally joined in a civil union there in 2000.

“This is a straightforward interstate jurisdictional dispute over custody, and the governing law fully supports the Vermont court’s decision to exercise jurisdiction and refuse to follow the conflicting Virginia visitation order,” Dooley wrote.

The bullshit Virginia is trying to pull gives lie to the "think about the children" line these guys always use. Yes, let's think about the children. How about this little girl who has known both her mommies all her life. How much good is it going to do her to cut one of them out of her life? For no reason? There's nothing here to indicate that the woman is abusive or neglectful or in any way not a fit mother. The problem is she's a mommy and oops, baby's already got one of those. Sorry. Thanks for playing.

“It’s a classic conflict between two states over same-sex unions,” said Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, which is representing Lisa Miller-Jenkins, one of the women in the dispute. “The real question there is whether or not a state can have its own policy that does not accept same-sex unions or whether they have to accept the union of another state.”

And that's why it's going to end up before the Supremes. Because yeah, I think you do have to recognize other state's unions. It's legal in this state to get married at 16. So, if a 16 year old gets married here and then moves to somewhere where you've got to be 18 to be married, are they automatically single again? No. Because states recognize each other's straight unions. This has caused problems in the past, as in cases where 14 year olds ran off to Georgia to get married, against their parents wishes. It was a big deal in the news not that long ago and ended up with Georgia changing it's laws? Why? Because, historically, states recognize each other's marriages.

How hard is that, really? Of course, that doesn't mean the zealots are going to rule that way. Who cares that there are decades, maybe centuries, of precidents. Toss those out when they aren't convienent and say you're following the rule of law. Bah.

Labels: children, court rulings, homosexuality, marriage

Maybe that's unfair? Anyway, Wash. decided to uphold it's ban on same-sex marriage today. Not the most surprising thing, but I was hopeful it might have been struck down. At least from where I'm sitting in the Louisiana suburb of Jesusland, Wash. seems very progressive and with-it. Then again, if California won't legalize same-sex marriage, I don't know who'll be next.

Three of the justices in the majority, however, invited the state Legislature to take another look at the gay marriage ban’s effect on same-sex couples.

“Given the clear hardship faced by same-sex couples evidenced in this lawsuit, the Legislature may want to re-examine the impact of the marriage laws on all citizens of this state,” wrote Justice Barbara Madsen, with Justice Charles Johnson and Chief Justice Gerry Alexander concurring.

The two other justices in the majority, James Johnson and Richard Sanders, agreed with the outcome but more actively opposed gay marriage.

Johnson wrote that the Legislature had “a compelling governmental interest in preserving the institution of marriage, as well as the healthy families and children it promotes. This conclusion may not be changed by mere passage of time or currents of public favor and surely not changed by courts.”

So, would now be the time for same-sex allies in Washington to be petitioning for a change of laws? And what's this bit about promoting marriage for the children? Gay people don't have children? Really? That'll be news to the lesbian/gay families I know!

The sad part is the article mentions that there are 45 states that have gay-marriage bans on the books. Most of those statues have never been challenged. So, really, this is even sadder. So far, Mass. is the only sane state in the nation, but it's kind expensive to live there.

I know some people make the arguement that pushing for gay marriage is too polarizing going into an election, particularly one we really need to win to have any chance of stopping this free fall President Frat Boy has put us in. There's some merit to that line of thought, but. . .it's like suffrage, really. If we wait until the "right time" to push for it, we'll be waiting forever. Although, at the moment, I don't think there are any more court challenges going on, so having this happen now, instead of on the eve of the November elections, is probably a good thing. I'd hate to give the neo-cons any more reason to get their people to the polls.

As I've said before, I'm not really a marrying sort of girl myself. At least, I don't think I am. Who knows, that could change later. But denying someone the right to marry because they want to marry someone of their own gender? That's clear discrimination and shows an utter lack of knowledge of the actually history of marriage.

Labels: court rulings, homosexuality, marriage

Arkansas high court says state cannot ban gays from becoming foster parents
By ANDREW DEMILLO
Associated Press Writer

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) -- Arkansas cannot ban homosexuals from becoming foster parents because there is no link between their sexual orientation and a child?s well-being, the state's high court ruled Thursday.

The court agreed with a lower court judge that the state's child welfare board had improperly tried to regulate public morality. The ban also violated the separation of powers doctrine, the justices said.

The board instituted the ban in 1999, saying children should be in traditional two-parent homes because they would be more likely to thrive.

Four residents sued, claiming discrimination and privacy violations against homosexuals who otherwise qualified as foster parents.

The justices agreed Thursday, saying the ban was "an attempt to legislate for the General Assembly with respect to public morality."

"There is no correlation between the health, welfare and safety of foster children and the blanket exclusion of any individual who is a homosexual or who resides in a household with a homosexual," Associate Justice Donald Corbin wrote in the opinion.

In addition, the court said, the testimony of a Child Welfare Agency Review Board member demonstrated that "the driving force between adoption of the regulations was not to promote the health, safety and welfare of foster children but rather based upon the board's views of morality and its bias against homosexuals."

The court also said that being raised by homosexuals doesn't cause academic problems or gender identity problems, as the state had argued.

The ban had not been used since the lower court ruling in 2004, state Health and Human Services spokeswoman Julie Munsell said. She said the plaintiffs have not sought foster-parent status since then.

The department didn't know if any homosexuals have applied, she said.

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union represented the plaintiffs in the case. Rita Sklar, executive director of the ACLU in Arkansas, said she was pleased by Thursday's decision.
-----------------

Finally, some signs of sanity. Of course, this has nothing to do with Louisiana, where you still cannot adopt/foster if you're gay. But if this ruling is upheld, it should be possible to change that here. Whoohoo.

Here's my thing -- I have a niece that I love. I mean, deep, viceral, no-holds-barred love. From the moment I saw her, the first moment I held her, something in me (that I was pretty sure didn't even exist) woke up. She's my child, even though technically she's my niece. She's also adopted. If I had wanted to adopt her, instead of my brother and his wife, I wouldn't have been allowed to. Because I'm bisexual, which in Louisiana is the same thing as gay. (And please, gods, don't get me started on how they're NOT the same thing. . .) Regardless of the fact that I'm educated, employed, healthy, white, middle-class with good values and the capacity to care for a child, I'd have been denied that chance. Because of the fact that, sometimes, I like to sleep with women. Do people realize how incredible unimportant who shares a bed is to raising a child? Isn't it more important to be loving, devoted, nurturing and accepting? Isn't it more important to impart good morals and values and train children to be decent, hard-working citizens who care about themselves and others?

My niece is a very lucky little girl. She's got two parents who love her, grandparents that completely adore her and an aunt that would literally change the world for her, if she needed it. And she'd have had the same thing if I'd been the one to adopt her. (Well, two parents eventually. One at the moment.) How different are the situations of most gay adoptive/foster parents? When a child joins a family, they're not just getting parents. They're getting grandparents and aunts and uncles and siblings and cousins....how can you look at a couple, decide their sex life isn't up to par, and ignore the rest of what they have to offer?

Labels: children, court rulings, foster care, homosexuality

Arkansas tells state high court that ban on gay foster parents protects children
By JILL ZEMAN
Associated Press Writer

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) -- Lawyers for gay couples told the Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday that a policy banning homosexuals from becoming foster parents is unconstitutional, but the state argued that it protects children's moral and spiritual welfare.
Because the state has banned gay marriage, and its Child Welfare Agency Review Board bars unmarried couples who live together from becoming foster parents, gay couples cannot have foster children, said Kathy L. Hall, attorney for the Department of Health and Human Services.
The state is appealing a 2004 lower court decision that found the welfare board's 1999 ban to be unconstitutional.
The state's utmost concern is the health, safety and welfare of foster children, and that can't happen in a home where unmarried sex occurs, Hall said.
Justice Annabelle Clinton Imber pointed out that the state allows single heterosexual individuals to be foster parents, but not single homosexuals. Hall said that unlike homosexuals, a single heterosexual parent "has the potential" to find a spouse.
"So you're saying ... the agency is also going to be asking a heterosexual how they behave in the bedroom," Imber said.
Leslie Cooper, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that the state's policy is discriminatory and "couldn't possibly do anything to protect the interest of children."
The ban hurts children, she said, by reducing the number of eligible foster parents.
Four Arkansans sued over the policy, saying homosexuals who otherwise qualified as foster parents had been discriminated against. They contend the ban violates their right to privacy and equal protection under the state and U.S. constitutions.

----

Not being a lawyer, I admit to only a certain understanding of the law. But I have, shockingly enough, read our Constitution. And this law would create a specific class of people legally discriminated against. Call me crazy, but that does seem to violate our Constitution.

And, of course, no one is going to be asking single heterosexual foster parents what they're doing in their bedroom. Because, well, straight sex isn't icky! The only reason homosexuals in Arkansas don't have "the potential to find a spouse" is because the state has outlawed gay marriage. Here's a crazy idea: make it legal. Seriously, if the state's objection is that there's no potential for a two-parent household, make that a legal possiblity. But of course, they won't. And it's not because they care about children. A child is better off with one parent, regardless of orientation, who loves and cares for them. Anyone can see that, anyone who thinks it through can figure it out. This is about being afraid of anyone and anything that's different. About being afraid of children being "infected" with Teh Gay! (Because, clearly, that's the worst possible thing for anyone to be. Forget about teaching a child to be kind, thoughtful, compassionate, involved and engaged with the world. No. No. None of that counts if they're gay.)

Labels: adoption, children, homosexuality