News Re: Notes From The Prayer Warrior
posted by on October 30 at 16:23 PM
Holy shit—I agree with Ken Hutcherson about something!
When a couple seeking to adopt a white baby is charged $35,000 and a couple seeking a black baby is charged $4,000, the image that comes to the Rev. Ken Hutcherson’s mind is of a practice that was outlawed in America nearly 150 years ago—the buying and selling of human beings.The practice, which is widespread among private adoption facilitators, of charging prospective parents different fees depending on the race or ethnicity of the child they adopt is one that Hutcherson is fighting to change from his Redmond, Wash., church.
Couldn’t agree more—this practice is despicable. The article doesn’t go on to mention the even more distressing fact that mixed-race children are the hardest of all to place, since most white couples, black couples, Asian couples, Indian couples, etc., seeking to adopt won’t consider adopting a mixed-race child.
But while I support the Rev. in this, I fear his proposed solution:
The campaign to change the law is directed at Washington state legislators, but Hutcherson said he would prefer to see the federal government step in and create one set of regulations governing adoption, rather than leaving the issue to the states to decide.
Hmm… how much do you want to bet that Ken’s preferred single set of federal adoption regulations would include a ban on adoptions by gay and lesbian singles and couples as well as a ban on race-based/racist adoption fee structures? Adoption laws across the United States are a complicated patchwork—in some ways they’re a mess. In some states same-sex couples can adopt, in some we can’t. In some states we can adopt as single parents, then do an expensive, redundant second-parent adoption. In some states we can’t adopt at all—as singles or as couples. But the mess currently benefits gays and lesbians and children.
If the feds stepped in to impose uniform national adoption laws it’s a safe bet that they would ban all adoptions by gays and lesbians—which would please Ken about as much as banning those racist fees.
But make no mistake: The real victims of a gay adoption ban are not adult gays and lesbians who want to be parents. Ban adoptions by same-sex couples or gay singles and a lot more gay men and lesbians will be visiting fertility clinics and hiring surrogates—hell, you’ll even see more gay and lesbian co-parenting, with two same sex couples pooling, as it were, their sperm and eggs to start shared families.
Nope, the victims of a gay adoption ban will be kids. There are more kids out there that need to be adopted than there are parents willing and able to adopt them. Banning gay adoptions will not stop gays that want to have families from starting families. It will just mean that more kids—infants and in the system—will never find loving homes. More will spend a lifetime in foster care.
And guess what, Ken? A ban on gay parents will disproportionately harm African-American kids. They are among the hardest children to place for adoption—that’s why adoption agencies “offer” African American kids at low, low prices. Lots of these hard-to-place African American kids—older kids, HIV-infected kids, drug-exposed kids—are adopted by gay and lesbian parents. It seems that many gay couples, feeling a bit like outcasts themselves, feel a special responsibility to take in kids that no one else seems to want.
Like these guys did…
Steve Lofton, a stay-at-home father, and Roger Croteau are raising five children: Frank, 14, Tracy, 14, Bert, 10, Wayne, 8, and Ernie, 5. Frank, Tracy and Bert have been with Lofton and Croteau since they were infants, making this the only family that they’ve ever known. But because of Florida’s ban, this may not be their permanent family. In fact, the state has been actively searching for a home for Bert, who was born HIV-positive, because he no longer tests positive and is now considered “adoptable.”
Of course Lofton and Croteau haven’t been allowed to adopt their kids—fuck Florida—which serves no one’s interests. Not the state’s, not this couple’s, not their kids’. Hopefully Ken can see that.
I don't know... i have an adopted African-American niece and an adoped Russian neice. If my family members paid high or low adoption fees, I don't give a goddamn. I love them both and my family is very happy. Regulating kids finding homes and families finding love is horseshit.
Well, we've known since 2000 Florida sucks..
This is one of those issues that reminds me of what assholes people like this are. There's no room for "oh, we can all have differences of opinion on politics, ect." This is what reminds me that we have to keep fighting.
A few years ago, other activists tried to change the disparity in adoption prices between different races of children. The adoption agencies went insane because basically, it meant that white babies would get adopted at the usual breakneck pace, and black babies would languish even longer. It's shitty, no doubt about that, that adoptive parents are so racist that white babies are valued so much more highly, but I'd rather have more kids adopted than have the system be fair.
I can tell you, though, this will bring about the second time I'll have benefited financially from the ridiculous racism in this city. I bought my house in the Central District for about $70k less than it was worth because of my many black neighbors, and when I adopt in a couple years, it'll mean a hefty discount, since I'm way more concerned with the cost of adoption than the race of the kids I adopt. I'm already having fantasies of sending them off to yeshiva with cute afro puffs.
Ahem.
It's not just that white couples are racist, although some no doubt are. It's that people want to adopt babies that "look like them." Which is why mixed-race babies are so hard to place. White couples, as I said, don't want them—nor do black couples, Asian couples, Hispanic couples, Native American couples and on and on.
The same thing that motivates many white couples to seek out white babies—looks like us—motivates couples of color who are adopting. It sucks all around.
Irony: My boyfriend and I, when we adopted, indicated that we were open to pretty much anything. Mixed race—fine by us. We weren't going to be attempting to pass this kid off as our biological child, even casually. And we got... a healthy white infant.
Dan, I've always wondered how you two ended up with a healthy white baby... is it because you went with open adoption and a certain demographic of birth mothers tend to choose open adoption? Do you think, if you had chosen (closed? traditional?) adoption, that you would have ended up with a very different 'type' of baby?
My husband and I have talked about what we'd do if we needed to adopt... We'd almost definitely go with an international adoption of an Asian baby, *primarily* because an Asian baby would look more like *ours* than a blond haired, blue eyed baby. Strangers are rude... now having a mixed-race baby on the way, I'm already dreading strangers asking me outright if the baby was adopted because its coloring is not going to be anything like mine.
Anyway, regarding the actual topic at hand... I'm constantly disgusted at what people believe about consenting adults' sexuality and any kind of relevance that has to how those adults treat children. The abusers are (thank god!) in the extreme minority, and while children certainly need to be protected, they also need access to all the legitimately loving and caring adults available.
[In fact, the state has been actively searching for a home for Bert, who was born HIV-positive, because he no longer tests positive and is now considered “adoptable.”]
How did this happen?
I completely agree with you, Dan. This is the first time Hutcherson has been right about anything - but only in ID'ing the problem, not the solution.
Because of our openness to any race child, my wife did not have to wait long at all to adopt our first child, and then a second two years later. They're both African-American and we're white. I can't understand why people go to so much trouble and spend so much money to adopt children from China when there are so many children looking for homes in this country.
Although we were going through the standard open adoption process, we ended up being connected to our childrens' birth mother directly through lesbian friends who had adopted our childrens' older brother. Through them, we've met several gay/lesbian couples with adopted black children. Anybody who would cut off a significant part of the population of good, willing adoptive parents from the children who need them are selfish and just plain evil.
Bill, do adoptable children in China not deserve loving parents as much as adoptable children in the US?
No, I absolutely think they do. I have nothing against parents who adopt children in China. Again, I'm just surprised at the amount of trouble and expense they go through to do a foreign adoption when there are so many adoptable children close by. Domestic adoptions are usually cheaper and the process goes much more quickly. And, I realize that many adoptive parents want to avoid this, but I think it's also nice that open adoptions are an option domestically.
The reason a lot of parents go to China to adopt is the guarantee that they'll get the kid. There are many, many adoptions in the US that go south even at the moment they're supposed to be complete. In some cases, the mother has named the wrong father and he won't give up his parental rights. In many cases, the mother just changes her mind. If you go to China and adopt, that's iron clad. No worries about a peasant who lives on three dollars a day hiring a lawyer and dragging you through months or years of court battles.
The reason a lot of parents go to China to adopt is the guarantee that they'll get the kid. There are many, many adoptions in the US that go south even at the moment they're supposed to be complete. In some cases, the mother has named the wrong father and he won't give up his parental rights. In many cases, the mother just changes her mind. If you go to China and adopt, that's iron clad. No worries about a peasant who lives on three dollars a day hiring a lawyer and dragging you through months or years of court battles.
"Hopefully Ken can see that."
HA! I know you are being optimistic about human nature, Dan, but deep down you know the first thing Ken & anyone else on that side would do after nationalizing Adoption laws is to ban the gays from participating. That is what is so troublingabou that side. They really and truely believe that a kid would be better off rotting in an orphanage that having a couple of faggots as parents.
I wish the people that freak out about the idea of children being reared by gay/lesbian couples would actually TALK to those of us who grew up with two mommies, or two daddies. There are a lot of us out there - we have a mailing list, websites, everything. People have NO IDEA how many of us there are - because when my mother and her girlfriend were rearing me, they had to pretend to be "roommates," not partners. It wasn't LEGAL for them to be who they were. They could have lost their jobs, their house, custody of me. They could have been put in prison.
But dammit, we're out there - adults, functioning taxpaying citizens who were reared by gay, lesbian, and transgender people. And we're not sitting on water towers with Uzis. We're your neighbors. We're your coworkers. We are on the PTA with you.
But do the bigots ever try to talk to US, to find out how people reared by gay and lesbian folks actually turn out as adults? No, they don't. Because their minds are closed and they do not want to hear the answer.
Open invitation to Hutch or the other antigay bigots who think kids should never be reared by GLBT folks - try talking to some of us who were. Me, for example. Maybe your eyes could be opened to the fact that sometimes, that is exactly what is best for the child. I doubt it, but God works in mysterious ways, or so I hear.
All Jews believe the Bible is a real estate document that deeds Jew babies farms in Israel. All Christians are idiots who believe teen agers shouldn't get sex education, and priests should be child molestors.
All religion is for idiots. Only atheists know the truth.
Marriage, a sacred institution
The concept of gay marriage has been back in the news understandably because of the recent political campaigns that we have as citizens been barraged with. Fortunately the elections are over but the issue about gay marriage is not going to gay away because it is our right as American citizens. The republicans seem to use it as a divisive tool to undermine any impression of democrats having a sense of a moral compass. We are all once again hearing the term used about marriage as being a sacred or religious institution and therefore gay unions are not worthy of being legally sanctioned by any institutions, whether it is in a church chapel or otherwise. If marriage were indeed a sacred or religious institution, which seems to be the major argument presented by the religious right against the legalization of gay marriages, why then can atheist be married legally? One therefore does not have to be religious. Heterosexuals are also allowed to be married by the justice of the peace, at a drive up window in Las Vegas or by a cruise ship captain to receive Gods blessing on their “holy” union of matrimony. Do they want to further blur the lines between separation of church and state by making an amendment against these forms of “non traditional” styles of union since they don’t necessarily have any religious affiliation. Since such unions can be performed by anyone that wants to attain that piece of paper that allows for one to marry heterosexual couples under nearly any circumstance imaginable. Heterosexuals can be married while sky-diving, scuba diving or on a mountaintop. The circumstances or styles one chooses to become legally married are endless. Many of the unions may have no religious overtones whatsoever yet still be considered legal. Since these unions are inarguably legal it would then seem me to blow a big whole in that same tired argument that the religious right continues to endlessly purport that marriage is a “holy” union whether one is a “believer” or not. Another one of their overused arguments is that allowing gay marriages would also help destroy the heterosexual marriages by making a mockery of it. I don’t think heterosexuals need our help in destroying “holy” matrimony. According to all statistics on the success of “traditional” heterosexual marriages, they seem to be doing a fine job of that on their own. I would truly like to hear a rational discussion on this issue and some rational reasons that would suggest that their fears are well founded. Thank you, Aaron Jason Silver. www.aaronjasonsilver.com asilver@wmis.net
Marriage, a sacred institution
The concept of gay marriage has been back in the news understandably because of the recent political campaigns that we have as citizens been barraged with. Fortunately the elections are over but the issue about gay marriage is not going to gay away because it is our right as American citizens. The republicans seem to use it as a divisive tool to undermine any impression of democrats having a sense of a moral compass. We are all once again hearing the term used about marriage as being a sacred or religious institution and therefore gay unions are not worthy of being legally sanctioned by any institutions, whether it is in a church chapel or otherwise. If marriage were indeed a sacred or religious institution, which seems to be the major argument presented by the religious right against the legalization of gay marriages, why then can atheist be married legally? One therefore does not have to be religious. Heterosexuals are also allowed to be married by the justice of the peace, at a drive up window in Las Vegas or by a cruise ship captain to receive Gods blessing on their “holy” union of matrimony. Do they want to further blur the lines between separation of church and state by making an amendment against these forms of “non traditional” styles of union since they don’t necessarily have any religious affiliation. Since such unions can be performed by anyone that wants to attain that piece of paper that allows for one to marry heterosexual couples under nearly any circumstance imaginable. Heterosexuals can be married while sky-diving, scuba diving or on a mountaintop. The circumstances or styles one chooses to become legally married are endless. Many of the unions may have no religious overtones whatsoever yet still be considered legal. Since these unions are inarguably legal it would then seem me to blow a big whole in that same tired argument that the religious right continues to endlessly purport that marriage is a “holy” union whether one is a “believer” or not. Another one of their overused arguments is that allowing gay marriages would also help destroy the heterosexual marriages by making a mockery of it. I don’t think heterosexuals need our help in destroying “holy” matrimony. According to all statistics on the success of “traditional” heterosexual marriages, they seem to be doing a fine job of that on their own. I would truly like to hear a rational discussion on this issue and some rational reasons that would suggest that their fears are well founded. Thank you, Aaron Jason Silver. www.aaronjasonsilver.com asilver@wmis.net
Doctor Who takes three prizes at the National Television Awards in a repeat of its success last year...
Doctor Who takes three prizes at the National Television Awards in a repeat of its success last year...
The judge who put coded messages in his Da Vinci Code plagiarism trial ruling has written another...
Pioneering screenwriter Nigel Kneale, best known for the Quatermass TV serials and films, dies aged 84...
Pioneering screenwriter Nigel Kneale, best known for the Quatermass TV serials and films, dies aged 84...
Pioneering screenwriter Nigel Kneale, best known for the Quatermass TV serials and films, dies aged 84...
Pioneering screenwriter Nigel Kneale, best known for the Quatermass TV serials and films, dies aged 84...
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).