Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, October 20, 2009
Politics / Homo / News Every Child Deserves a Family
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:53 AM
The religious right seeks to frame debate over same-sex couples adopting as a choice between gay and straight parents. But the actual choice is often between parents and no parents. U.S. Rep. Peter Stark (D-CA) gets it. Which is why he's introduced a bill—"The Every Child Deserves a Family Act"—that would deny federal child welfare funds to any state that discriminates in foster care or adoption on the basis of marital status, sexual orientation or gender identity. The Washington Blade:
Stark said in an interview that he introduced the legislation, H.R. 3827, in part because thousands of children each year "age out" of the child welfare system without finding homes. "We got 25,000 kids a year maturing out of the welfare system without permanent foster care or adoptive care, and the prospects of those children having a successful adult life are diminished greatly," he said. "These are kids who end up in the criminal justice system, or end up homeless."States with explicit restrictions on adoption that the pending legislation would affect are Utah, Florida, Arkansas, Nebraska and Mississippi. Florida, for example, has a statute specifically prohibiting gays from adopting, and in Arkansas, voters last year approved Act 1, which prevents unmarried co-habitating couples, including same-sex partners, from adopting children....
The bill is modeled after the Multi-Ethnic Placement Act, a law Stark helped shepherd through Congress in 1994 that prohibits racial discrimination in foster care and adoption placements. Stark said discrimination is "bad in any situation," but is particularly heinous in adoption because it's actually "discriminating against kids who need the support."
It's a great idea, the kind of law any fierce advocate of gay rights or child welfare would get behind. At this time, however, the bill has no co-sponsors.
2
Let's hope Congress doesn't even entertain this idea. It would constitute a total infringement upon state rights and the President has been very clear that the federal government should leave these matters up to the states to decide upon.
3
"Motormouth Maybelle: So this is love? Well, love is a gift and a lot of people forget that. So you two better brace yourselves for a whole lot of ugly coming your way on a never ending train of stupid.
Penny: So you met [Loveschild]?"
Penny: So you met [Loveschild]?"
4
Think I should ask Joe Wilson to co-sponsor? I'm willing to bet that SC is one of those states who does discriminate against gay adoption. So I might be asking him to, like Robert E. Lee, go against his beloved home for the sake of the nation.
5
Loveschild - it's not an infringement on states rights. The federal government isn't saying to the states that they must let gays adopt. States will still be free to discriminate. It's just that, if they do, they won't get as much money from the federal government.
6
Loveschild. ARe you are so prejudiced against the LGBT community that you think it is better for children to have NO HOME AT ALL than to be adopted by gay parents that really want children? There are no peer reviewed studies that affirm your bias against gay parenting, you know....
7
I hope you realize that the odds of any Republican voting for this are zero. Because they only "care about the babies" before they're born. After that, they can go fuck themselves.
8
Finally we see more active response to the discrimination against the LGBT community, however wasnt that the type of change that Obama was supposed to bring?
9
5 So they are just going to be punished. That doesn't make it better or any different from what it is, an encroachment into state rights.
10
9, Getting government money isn't "states rights". To get federal highway funds, states must comply with federal regulations. Honestly, Loveschild you make it so easy. Do you ever think anything through before you post it?
11
Is it punishment when same-sex couples are denied federal benefits to their spouses and/or children?
or does Loveschilds illogic only apply to the bigots when they want to wear the supremacist hat?
or does Loveschilds illogic only apply to the bigots when they want to wear the supremacist hat?
12
6 This is not about "peer reviewed studies" Theo, though there are many who say quite the opposite from what you favor. This is not Canada nor the Uk, here we give recognition to the states in these private matters as guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights (Look it up).
13
12, Loveschild again you show your lack of education. You really shouldn't try to pass yourself off as a constitutional scholar...although it is fun watching you flounder in topics that are over your head.
14
So what's your opinion on this, Loveschild? Is it a violation of state's rights or okay because you share Bush's worldview?
For those of you who are too lazy to click through to the article, it's about birth control/abortion "conscience laws."
A proposed Bush administration regulation ... would define abortion as including certain methods of contraception and would prohibit states and other recipients of federal funds from penalizing health care workers who refused to provide those services because of religious or moral beliefs. Violators would forfeit federal health care funds, which in California amount to as much as $37 billion a year.
For those of you who are too lazy to click through to the article, it's about birth control/abortion "conscience laws."
A proposed Bush administration regulation ... would define abortion as including certain methods of contraception and would prohibit states and other recipients of federal funds from penalizing health care workers who refused to provide those services because of religious or moral beliefs. Violators would forfeit federal health care funds, which in California amount to as much as $37 billion a year.
15
well, apparently i can't post links in an anonymous form... i know it truncates the text versions of links from previous experience, so if you want to read the article:
scrippsnews (dot) com/node/35587
scrippsnews (dot) com/node/35587
17
Federal money for states is a privilege, not a right. There are literally thousands of examples of instances where the federal government uses money as a way to incent certain behaviors from states (see Rob's example of federal highway funds, almost anything that the federal govt. does with education, etc.). The federal govt. is not telling the states what to do, or prohibiting them from doing certain things, they are saying you're not going to get these funds if you do this thing.
What is it with people not being able to understand the word "right"? Carrie Prejean had the "right" to be able to say whatever she wanted about gay marriage. Business owners have the "right" to be able to donate money to anti-gay initiatives. The government (the law) isn't going to infringe on their rights to be able to do so (just as this bill is not going to infringe on a state's right to discriminate against gays in adoption). But, that doesn't mean that there aren't consequences for those actions -- e.g., a boycott of a business that supported Prop 8.
What is it with people not being able to understand the word "right"? Carrie Prejean had the "right" to be able to say whatever she wanted about gay marriage. Business owners have the "right" to be able to donate money to anti-gay initiatives. The government (the law) isn't going to infringe on their rights to be able to do so (just as this bill is not going to infringe on a state's right to discriminate against gays in adoption). But, that doesn't mean that there aren't consequences for those actions -- e.g., a boycott of a business that supported Prop 8.
21
I love reading a states-rights defense from LC. If you really believe in states' rights, I'm sure you'll soon be pressing your representative and senator to repeal the Voting Rights Act, the 1964 Civil Rights bill, and a repeal of the 13th Amendment...
22
@9 Right now, any state in the country could lower their minimum drinking age if they wanted to. But they don't. Know why? Doing so would result in the loss of a lot of federal transportation funds. So they're left with a choice: Let 18 year olds get trashed or have a functioning system of roads and transportation. This bill would put a similar choice to each state: Let gays adopt or lose welfare funding. Each state is within their rights to make the choice as they see fit.
But you'd rather leave kids in a failed foster care system than give them a loving home and family. You clearly don't give a shit about children, so anything you have to say on this matter (and most matters, really) is moot.
But you'd rather leave kids in a failed foster care system than give them a loving home and family. You clearly don't give a shit about children, so anything you have to say on this matter (and most matters, really) is moot.
23
Instead of arguing with Lostcausechild, click this link https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welc… and send an email to YOUR representative to ask them to cosponsor HR 3827.
To be more informed about what you're supporting (or raving ignorantly against) go to http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c1… to read the text of the bill.
To be more informed about what you're supporting (or raving ignorantly against) go to http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c1… to read the text of the bill.
24
This is the purpose gay people can serve in society - adopting children that would otherwise go unparented. No one can argue against this.
25
Some states will refuse federal money rather than let gays adopt. Their hatred of gays FAR outweighs their compassion for children.
26
just so i'm clear on this (and i'm 100% behind gay adoption)
the result of stubborn holdout states would be that the children in these states are denied funds that would otherwise contribute to their welfare?
the result of stubborn holdout states would be that the children in these states are denied funds that would otherwise contribute to their welfare?
28
This is why Dan Savage is one of my heros. I've done extensive volunteer work in orphanages, and I cried when I heard that Act 1 went through. Thank god someone is finally standing up for the orphans in America. At least a few of us are on their side.
So much for adoption being the alternative to abortion. Kind of sucks that if you don't want to keep your baby you have to choose between aborting the pregnancy or putting your kid through the American adoption system.
And THANK GOD I'm Canadian and don't have to worry about ignorant people deciding whether or not I can adopt.
So much for adoption being the alternative to abortion. Kind of sucks that if you don't want to keep your baby you have to choose between aborting the pregnancy or putting your kid through the American adoption system.
And THANK GOD I'm Canadian and don't have to worry about ignorant people deciding whether or not I can adopt.
29
I'm all for this, but it worries me. I'm sure that some state will stubbornly refuse, and their children will suffer. That is the absolute last thing that I want to have happen.
30
:/ People talk like there's just oodles of parents possible for every kid. Gay parents, straight parents, it's all good, honestly, beats the hell out of nothing. I'd honestly prefer every kid have two parents, but, realistically, it's bullshit to even have the requirement of marriage/some other committed relationship between two people in order to adopt, as a single parent, whether a mom or a dad, also beats the hell out of no parents, even putting aside the gay/straight discrimination thing.
33
Loveschild @wherever, states rights became a low priority when we felt they were superceded by human rights issues, namely abolition. We're no longer a confederacy, but a republic now.
And you, for one, should be thankful of that.
I've long since gotten that you don't believe issues other than the color of your skin and religion should be protected qualities from legal discrimination, but that's not the way things go. Before we establish a quality is somehow not immune to discrimination, we need to have a fair understanding as to why.
As has been recently asked, where's the harm in shacking up kids with gay parents, when their alternative is no parents?
We might as well be asking, what's the harm in letting gays in the military, when the alternative is a weaker smaller military. (This is based on the fact that with the exception of the Marine Corps, none of the branches have been making anywhere near their recruiting quotas since 2003.)
Frankly, Loveschild, I'm not sure why you hate / fear gays so much, but considering the degree to which you are willing to bend reason, history and consistency to maintain in your own mind that they are scheming and conniving to take over and corrupt the world is beyond mere instinct-, induction- or nurture-driven bigotry, but deep into the realm of delusional disorder, and the sooner you look into that, the happier you'll be.
In short, I think some queer raped your teddy bear when you were three, (or something), and you resent the rest of us for it, but we didn't do that to you, and great majority of us are actually quite benign.
And you, for one, should be thankful of that.
I've long since gotten that you don't believe issues other than the color of your skin and religion should be protected qualities from legal discrimination, but that's not the way things go. Before we establish a quality is somehow not immune to discrimination, we need to have a fair understanding as to why.
As has been recently asked, where's the harm in shacking up kids with gay parents, when their alternative is no parents?
We might as well be asking, what's the harm in letting gays in the military, when the alternative is a weaker smaller military. (This is based on the fact that with the exception of the Marine Corps, none of the branches have been making anywhere near their recruiting quotas since 2003.)
Frankly, Loveschild, I'm not sure why you hate / fear gays so much, but considering the degree to which you are willing to bend reason, history and consistency to maintain in your own mind that they are scheming and conniving to take over and corrupt the world is beyond mere instinct-, induction- or nurture-driven bigotry, but deep into the realm of delusional disorder, and the sooner you look into that, the happier you'll be.
In short, I think some queer raped your teddy bear when you were three, (or something), and you resent the rest of us for it, but we didn't do that to you, and great majority of us are actually quite benign.
34
I wrote my rep, Jared Polis, and I think he is likely to support this. I understand the worry from some that this could punish children in the most backward states, but I think this is unlikely. Republicans never like to turn down money. They will just run ads about how the evil Obama administration forced them to hand poor children over to teh gays.
35
This bill is amazing. It is ANTI-FAMILY to not support this bill. Crime rates? Homelessness? Giving these kids a chance at post-secondary education and a loving family support system? Who wouldn't support this?
Oh, that's right. The repukelicans only care about people until they draw their first breath (or wish to choose when to draw their last). Save for that, they don't care about anyone but themselves.
Oh, that's right. The repukelicans only care about people until they draw their first breath (or wish to choose when to draw their last). Save for that, they don't care about anyone but themselves.
38
33 - I love your response to the troll. Reasoned, sound, and (fairly) logical (aside from the teddy bear thing :) ).
39
I think the Leffew family is a perfect example of why gays should be allowed to adopt. Which they explain very well in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59n7KINHx…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59n7KINHx…
40
I work with foster children every day and so many of them are still waiting for permanent homes. The ones I know who have been placed in or adopted by gay families are very happy and support this bill. The bill does not require agencies that do not receive federal funds to change anything. It is ridiculous that places like Florida are allowed to tell happy foster families that the kids cannot be adopted because of archaic and discriminatory values. It is even worse when kids stay in group care or overworked receiving homes because there aren't enough foster homes available. Many people still believe interracial couples are immoral. Do you think states should have the right to prevent all interracial couples from adopting? This is the exact same thing.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (40) RSS