A very sensible editorial – a nice balance to the witch-hunt of the Chicago Tribune. I should add, in self-flagellatory mode, that my quick post yesterday implying some kind of link between the Trib’s actions and the fact that a relative of a Tribune board member lost in the primary was, in retrospect, stupid. There’s no reason to believe the Trib was influenced in that way – they endorsed another candidate. If I criticize Michael Moore for innuendo, I should make sure I don’t stray into the same thing myself.
DERBYSHIRE AWARD NOMINEE: “Sen. Murphy seems totally oblivious to the implications. “Will you deny them their rights?” she asks. With some 3 percent of the population, gay couples already seem to enjoy a marked advantage over straight ones in the allocation of supposedly superfluous children.
But whose rights are being denied depends on how deeply we probe and what questions we ask. Granting gay couples the “right” to have children by definition means giving them the right to have someone else’s children, and the question arises whether the original parent or parents ever agreed to part with them.
Not necessarily. Governments that kind-heartedly bestow other people’s children on homosexual couples also have both the power and the motivation to confiscate those children from their original parents, even when the parents have done nothing to warrant losing them.” – Stephen Baskerville, in an article entitled, “Could your kids be given to ‘gay’ parents?” It would be hard to come up with a more inflammatory title or a more despicable attempt to conflate gay marriage rights with the abuse of children.
The Dish 