Month: August 2005

Mark writes…

But I don’t think the quote you cited shows a particular animus to gay adoption. I’ve done volunteer work for many years with foster kids, a number of whom have been placed for adoption. You’re absolutely right, of course, that there aren’t enough homes out there for all the available kids. But all else being equal–which it rarely is–I agree that “preference” should be given to married-mom-and-dad if that option is available. I’m divorced and have thought about adoption myself–my own kids are almost grown–but a single person like myself should an alternate choice for a kid, only if a married-mom-and-dad is unavailable. The THIRD choice actually–I think two parents are always better than one so committed gay couples should be considered well before single parents, in my opinion.

The other critical part of the NCfA statement is “consistent with the child’s best interests.” That’s what I’m supposed to do as a volunteer Court Appointed Special Advocate–look out for the child’s best interest. To me and I think, most people involved in foster care and adoption, that would mean that if a child had (say) a gay uncle he’s always known, and the uncle and his partner wanted to adopt, they would get preference over married-mom-and-dad strangers….

I very much disagreed with that Florida decision, and maybe the NCfA IS against gay adoption. I just don’t see it in that quote.

Sorry, Mark, but the context of NCFA’s statement reveals the group’s animus to gay adoption. (“Gay adoption” is such an awkward term! My boyfriend and I didn’t do a “gay adoption,” we adopted, just like any straight couple might, and we didn’t adopt a “gay.” Our son is seven and we’re pretty sure he’s going to be straight when he grows up.) Go here to read NCFA’s statement about Florida’s ban on gays and lesbians adopting children. The NCFA statement clearly supports the ban. Florida doesn’t give “preference” to heterosexual couples and place kids with gay couples only if no straight parents can be found. Florida refuses to allow gay couples to adopt-period.

Amazingly enough, however, Florida does allow gay couples to serve as foster parents. This has put the state of Florida in the position of refusing to allow gay couples to adopt children they have fostered parented for years, some since infancy. To read about one case, and for lots of good background on gay parents, go here.

By no conceivable measure is this in the “child’s best interests.”

Shame on the NCFA.

-posted by Dan

First, I’m hoping-“hope” is what we atheists do, since we can’t pray-that the pawns NASA sent up on the Space Shuttle get safely back to Earth. Second, I can’t be the only one out there who was shocked to learn that the Space Shuttle depends on ceramic pot holders and steel wool tea towels to protect it from burning up on re-entry.

-posted by Dan

Tim Robbins, Justin Timberlake, Kate Hudson, Simon Le Bon, Mel Gibson, Catherine Zeta Jones-Page Six in the New York Post? Nope: Today’s posts on National Review’s group blog, “The Corner.”

-posted by Dan

Patrick at the Universität Bielefeld has the drop on the NCfA: “The NCfA seems to be against adoption by homosexuals,” he writes, “considering its statement on the Surreme Court Ruling on the ban in Florida and its Adoption First Principles, stating that ‘Consistent with the child’s best interests, preference in adoption placements should be given to families that offer married mother-and-father parenting.'”
The NCfA has its no doubt well-intentioned head up its well-intentioned ass. That’s too bad. If that is their position, then NCfA is actively promoting one the Big Lies tossed around by opponents of same-sex couples adopting children-namely, that for every child waiting to be adopted there’s a straight couple out there who wants to adopt. That simply isn’t the case. There are more children waiting to be adopted than there are couples-straight and gay-willing to adopt. Even if someone believes, against all evidence, that gay or lesbian parents are less desirable than straight parents, surely everyone agrees it is better for a child to have parents than not have parents. Only people who hate kids-people like, say, the fine folks in Florida-would choose foster care, the system, and parentless kids over placing kids in qualified, loving homes headed by same-sex couples.

-posted by Dan

First, I’d like to thank Andrew for letting me take his blog out for a spin while he knocks back beers on the beach. “Savage Love” readers have been asking me to start a blog of my own for, oh, six or seven years now and I’ve resisted. I’m a Luddite, I confess, one of the ways in which my deeply conservative soul expresses itself. It was only a few years ago that I started accepting email at “Savage Love,” to give you on example of my fear of new technology, and much to my boyfriend’s dismay I’ve insisted on keeping a broken toaster for years (you have to hold that little-black-thing-you-push-down-to-start-the-toasting-process-is there a name for that thing?-which I’m happy to do while I read the paper As far as I’m concerned, better the impaired toaster you know, you know?)
Performance anxiety? I’ve got a touch. Maybe that’s why I’m rambling on about toasters, not a usual topic.
I usually work in a Q&A format-hell, after almost 15 years of writing an advice column I dream in a Q&A format. So if you’ve got a question for me, feel free to send it in via Andrew’s site, and, if I’m so moved, I’ll answer it. But it’ll have to be clean; I promised Andrew no smut, no lower-case santorum, no discussions of the latest sex toys or scandals. I reserve the right, however, to renege on that agreement if a sex scandal as irresistible as the case of the man who-how to put this delicately?-went home to Jesus after being the passive partner in a romantic interlude with a horse should break.
Since horse lovers are right out, as the Brits say, what should you expect from me this week? Well, a few more pop culture references than Andrew might make, a smattering of double- and single- entendres, a little more sneering contempt for politicians and little less devastating political analysis. If you hate Wonkette-and I don’t understand how could anyone hate Wonkette-you’ll probably hate me too.
Okay! On to matters with deadly serious political ramifications!

-posted by Dan

Rosie O’Donnell is joining the cast of the Broadway production of “Fiddler on the Roof.” She’ll be playing Golde, the love interest of Harvey Fierstein’s Tevye. This is not, as some would have it, “stunt casting.” Still, wonders the NYT this morning, it’s remarkable that “two openly gay and outspoken actors will play husband and wife in a musical all about the breaking of traditions.” Yeah, yeah-gay audiences have endured the casting of straight actors in gay roles for, like, ever. From Tom Hanks and Antonio Banderas in “Philadelphia” to the entirely unbelievable Eric McCormack in the entirely unbearable “Will and Grace” to Charlton Heston in “Ben-Hur” (AKA “Get Her”), we’ve always been willing to suspend our disbelief and buy off on straight actors playing gay. Indeed, playing gay, like playing the endearingly retarded, has always been a way for a straight actor to demonstrate his or her chops. Why not the reverse for Rosie?
And, hey, Rosie once made the whole country believe she was in love with Tom Cruise. Surely she can convince Broadway audiences that she’s in love with Harvey.

-posted by Dan

Matt Drudge is still hyping the “NYT probes Judge Robert’s Adoptions” story. Apparently-and I’ve only seen this on Drudge, so it could be entirely bogus-a reporter for the NYT asked if Roberts’ adoption records would be made available to the press for inspection. I’m glad the right wing thinks that politicizing legal adoptions is outside the pale. Drudge quotes from a statement released by the National Council for Adoption that slams the NYT for questioning “the very private circumstances, motivations, and processes by which” people adopt children. I couldn’t agree more-no one should question the private circumstances, motivations, and processes by which qualified, screened parent-wannabes become parents through adoption. As an adoptive parent myself, I look forward to the right adopting this sensible position and ceasing to harass gay and lesbian adoptive parents.

-posted by Dan

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION:
I’m not sure what this group’s position is on gay adoptions. I’ve been digging around on their website and haven’t found anything-which seems odd, since gay adoption is such a hot topic. If anyone can dig up the NCfA’s take on gay and lesbian parents, I’d like to see it. If they group is committed to “serving the interests of children through adoption,” they ought to be pro-gay adoptions.

-posted by Dan

Oh, another note about my stint on AndrewSullivan.com: I live in Seattle, Washington, which means my life runs on West Coast time. Ahem.

-posted by Dan

From Saturday’s NYT: “Mr. Blair’s announcement [of plans to toss foreign-born Muslim radicals out of Britain] was immediately condemned by Muslim groups here, who warned that the moves would be seen as discriminatory, driving Muslim radicals underground…”
Excuse me? Were the four Muslim radicals who bombed the Tube and a bus in London on July 7, and the four who attempted to pull a repeat on July 21, operating “above ground”? Did they hang a shingle in front of a storefront that said “Ye Olde Muslim Radical Shoppe”? Were they selling nail bombs from lemonade stands on street corners?
Why do mainstream Muslim groups insist on making themselves ridiculous? The kind of “radicals” (too nice a word-I prefer “murderers”) who blow up buses and trains and discos in places like London, Madrid, and Bali are already operating “underground.” They don’t carry business cards or maintain office hours, for Christ’s sake. The further “underground” they’re driven the better-the deeper underground you go, the harder it is to plan and stage terror attacks. If I was a sensible British Muslim, or non-Muslim for that matter, I would be furious with Muslim “leaders” who suggested that Blair’s move to “close down mosques and bar or deport clerics deemed to be fostering hatred and violence” was an attack on their civil liberties. As on 9/11, Muslims died on 7/7. Blair’s move will protect everyone in Britain-Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

-posted by Dan

The Catholic Diocese of Oakland is paying out $56.3 million dollars to settle 56 cases of sexual abuse of children. The long, sordid tale of Catholic kids abused by Catholic priests has been picked over here and elsewhere, and I don’t want to dwell on it. (Like Andrew, I was raised Catholic. Unlike Andrew, I’m not practicing-and, no, I wasn’t molested when I was an altar boy. The priests I encountered as a child were, so far as I know, all good guys. Or maybe the fact that my dad was a cop and carried a gun acted as a deterrent?) Like other Catholic dioceses (dioci?), the Catholic Diocese in Oakland plans to sell church-owned land to cover the debt. Settlements in the Church sex-abuse scandal are going to reach into the hundreds of millions, if not the billions, of dollars. Like most adults my age, I’m obsessed with real estate. So with shitloads of real estate being sold off by the Church I can’t help but wonder what kind of an impact all of this property returning to private, secular ownership is going to have on property tax receipts in places like, say, Boston and Oakland and Chicago…

-posted by Dan