The question of gay adoption has been a back-burner for the Christian Right. Until now, of course. Brody has Family Research Council president Tony Perkins pillorying McCain for his campaign's recent dialing back of his opposition to gay adoption, which he expressed in a New York Times interview last weekend.
Because it's a tier-two issue for religious conservatives, God-o-Meter got to wunderin': what's W's position? It found the answer in an AP story from March 23, 1999 about then-Gov/presidential aspirant George W. Bush.
Bush said he opposes allowing gay couples to adopt. "I believe children ought to be adopted in families with a woman and a man who are married," he said Monday.The governor also declined to take a position on whether children already adopted by gays or lesbians should be removed from those homes. "I have no idea whether the children ought to be removed or not removed," he said. "The question is whether I'm for gay adoption. And the answer is, I'm not."
GOM checked in with the Human Rights Campaign to see if Bush had since moderated his postion, and the group said he hadn't (though it relied only on the Times interview with McCain, in which the gay adoption question was put thusly: President Bush believes that gay couples should not be permitted to adopt children. Do you agree with that?
What is striking to GOM in juxtaposing the response from McCain with that from Bush is that Bush comes across as super decisive--"The question is whether I'm for gay adoption. And the answer is, I'm not"--while McCain comes across as wishy-washy, saying "I don't believe in gay adoption" but having his campaign issue a statement softening that stance soon afterward.
A good example of why the Christian Right had such faith in Bush. And so little in McCain.
2
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
"A good example of why the Christian Right had such faith in Bush."
Can the Christian Right really discern a person's character or are they a bunch of push-overs for bad leadership?
I am much more concerned about WHAT people believe in than their
God-o-meter foot print.
When there are no children that have been deserted, abused, abandoned, neglected or unwanted, only then should this debate take place. Focus on the needs of a lonely child, not what you perceive to happen in their adoptive parent's bedroom.
Bonnie,
"When those kids try to have an intimate relationship as an adult, they may very well be missing something. A girl reaching adulthood with 2 moms will be 18 years behind in her knowledge and experience of living with a man. A boy with 2 dads, lacking experience living with a woman. This stuff matters. Going through the teen years without an adult in the house who really KNOWS (a boy and 2 moms, or a girl and 2 dads) would be lonely and challenging. Like living with an opposite sex single parent, all of this is doable, but kids fare better when life is simple."
There's a huge assumption in your post, Bonnie, and it's that "those kids" being raised are automaticaly going to be heterosexual. I am a gay man, and I was raised in a 1 father/1 mother household. It seems you believe that gay people don't even know any heterosexual people, don't have heterosexual people in their lives. I know plenty of same-sex couples raising children and all of them have lots of friends of the opposite sex who are excellent role models for their children.
Also, your post, like Mr. Bush, doesn't even address single parent households where there is likewise no one of the opposite sex living with the parent. It seems you simply don't want gay people rasing kids, period. Too bad. We already do, and do a pretty decent job of it, too.
P.S. Life isn't "simple".
Dan,
What the heck relevance is Bush's stand on the matter? He isn't running for president is he?
If you think he's relevant, maybe you could posit some questions as to what Bush thought about his Vice-President's lesbian daughter who just also happens to be a mother - a single mother, due to her father's and Mr. Bush's policies.
As if Bush matters.
The argument that children are better off in a household with a married different sex couple is sort of a moot point. Simply put, children up for adoption are without any parents, or any home whatsoever, and live in group homes or foster homes.
A child placed in a home full of love and commitment towards the child is really all that matters.
To the poster who said something about children being raised by opposite sex parents are missing out on learning about the opposite sex is horribly misinformed. She then also admits that there are single parent homes where the child and parent are of the opposite sex, but then goes on to say, its better when its simpler. Yes, things are better when they are simpler, but unfortunately, the situation is not simple.
I was raised by a single mother, and somehow managed to learn what it is to be a man. On the other side of things, I can tell you from first hand experience of working in the foster care system, these kids are better off in any sort of stable home. Foster care and group home kids bounce around constantly, with no sense of stability, and they have a high rate of dropping out of school, and of winding up in jail. As a society, we should want to home these children first and foremost, and secondly, to do everythign we can to turn out a productive member of society.
Gay adoption may not be some peoples idea of a good home, but let me tell you, it beats foster care and group homes, and the child is undoubtedly better off.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.