Two Daddies?
Is the fight to preserve the traditional American family one to, as its proponents maintain, protect children, or is it means by which to silence the “radical gay agenda” in the United States through institutionalized shame? Cindy Lederman, a Miami-Dade circuit judge, is convinced it’s the latter.
Lederman’s landmark ruling, a move likely to elicit Proposition 8-like responses, noted the inherent hypocrisy in Florida state law allowing gay men and women to be foster parents, but not legally adopt, further rejecting the notion that there is “a supposed dark cloud hovering over homes of homosexuals and their children:”
It is clear that sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person’s ability to parent. A child in need of love, safety and stability does not first consider the sexual orientation of his parent. The exclusion causes some children to be deprived of a permanent placement with a family that is best suited to their needs.
The case in question centers around Frank Martin Gill, 47, who requested and was subsequently denied the opportunity to adopt his two foster children, 4 and 8, of the last four years. Prior to living with Gill, the two young boys were taken by the Department of Children and Family Services from their “crack-smoking, abusive birth parents.” But in the state of Florida, Gill and these “crack-smoking, abusive birth parents” are both equally unqualified to rear children; the former for inherent, genetic markers beyond one’s control and the latter for substance abuse.
Florida’s indefensible ban dates back thirty one years to Anita Bryant’s “Save our Children” crusade. On the day of its passage, freshman state Sen. Don Chamberlin of Clearwater asked of his colleagues: “Will we sleep better knowing we have institutionalized shame for those who have already felt shame? Is there sufficient justification to deny one child — one parent — the joy of being a family?” In the eyes of his colleagues, however, there was sufficient justification to pass the reprehensible ban. Chamberlin’s heartfelt and courageous plea was met with support of only four senators: Betty Castor, Jack Gordon, Kenneth Myers and Lori Wilson.
Joining Florida’s dubious, discriminatory ranks are Utah—a state settled largely for the Mormon Church’s non-conventional marriage practices, discontinued in 1890—who bans both unmarried straight and gay couples from adopting or fostering children, and Mississippi—a state with a less than sterling record in upholding the rights of minorities—who has legislation to ban gay couples, but not single gays, from adopting. What is it about gay couples like Frank Gill and his partner that are so threatening, so toxic to children? Florida’s current listing of “adoptable” children includes 453 Boys, 274 Girls and 39 Sibling Groups – none of whom may be adopted by gay men and women. Only in the orbit of the late Reverend Jerry Falwell is it preferential to have the State raise the next generation of Americans.
My support for gay adoption will surely be met with hostility and, no doubt, charges of party defection by many of my colleagues, but the Republican Party is at a defining crossroads. Now is not the time for an echo chamber. And homosexual demagoguery is not the answer to the Party’s woes, particularly when gay men and women represent the only demographic in which John McCain bested President Bush (27% to 19% based on exit polling). As Daniel Blatt notes, gay-hostile rhetoric no longer resonates in suburban areas with soccer moms, many of whom have gay friends or family members, and plays even worse with young voters, 61% of whom voted against stripping gay couples of the right to marry.
To my dissenters, let me be clear: I am not advocating a liberal brand of judicial activism. I maintain that judicial resolution to these matters, adoption and marriage in particularly, typically leads to protracted and bitter legal battles, but, what is perhaps equally as distressing is our collective failure as a Party and movement to hold a candid discussion on the emerging role of gays in society at large – not as outcastes, but as equals.
UPDATE: Welcome, The Moderate Voice readers!
UPDATE II: Hot Air’s pragmatic and always-sensible Ed Morrissey offers his thoughts on my support for gay adoption:
I’d prefer, though, that any changes to public policy come from the legislature or referendum. The judge was right to note the hypocrisy, but judges should limit themselves to constitutional challenges when it comes to changing law. Our system does not set judges as an unelected star chamber to decide on public policy. The people of Florida may have a rational reason to have two sets of qualifications for foster homes and adoption, even if the judge doesn’t agree with it. If it doesn’t violate the state constitution, then the judge’s role is to enforce the law, not change it.
Also, James is a nice guy — we’ve met a couple of times — but he takes the wrong tone in this challenge. Public adoption is a difficult responsibility, and the opponents of gay adoption are concerned about the welfare of children placed in homes. For some reason, James seems unwilling to credit them with any good motives at all. If he doesn’t want hostility as a response, he might be advised not to offer it as an argument in the first place.
A few points I’ll add here: I recognize the Republican Party is the “pro-family” party, and as such supports traditional policies, but are these traditional policies benefiting us moving forward with non-traditional demographics? As this Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research poll reveals, young evangelicals display generational differences on key social issues, namely gay marriage — 66% supported such measures. Those are evangelicals, my friends, not libertarians.
Perhaps the tone I adopted towards the opposition was too harsh, though I don’t dispute that proponents of traditional adoption have some good motives – the best interest of children – but, sadly, America doesn’t have a surfeit of willing families to adopt children. Scratch that, willing heterosexual couples willing to adopt children.
Times are changing, and if the GOP isn’t willing to change with them, they can at least have a discussion on the matter. Silence is not golden.
UPDATE III: Welcome, PoliGazette readers!
UPDATE IV: Andrew Sullivan nominates me for the “Yglesias Award”, reserved for “writers, politicians, columnists or pundits who actually criticize their own side, make enemies among political allies, and generally risk something for the sake of saying what they believe.”
UPDATE V: It seems I’ve ruffled some feathers. Take a look at Queerty’s take on it all. As a side note, I was characterized by their readers as both “cute” and “dorky.” Take it or leave it.
Bans on gay privileges, adoption, and marriage aren’t “Conservative” like some leaders in the movement would have us believe.
I hope we venture to a more rational approach as a Party. We should be careful and tolerant.
Oh, I can think of some of my Republican friends who are going to blow a gasket over this.
Raising the children of others is not a “right” and the sole consideration is the best interests of the child. Thousands of years of civilized living provide some wisdom on the issue: the best interest of the child is to be raised in a stable home led by an adult male and adult female who are dedicated in marriage to each other. If experience dictated that children do best when raised by wolves in the wild, then that structure would be favored in setting adoption law.
This controversy is much like the “right” to abort unborn children. The needs of children are snuffed out to serve the agenda of activists.
Mark, I don’t argue first that the Republican party is the “family party,” nor do I argue that tradition holds that children be raised in a one-male-one-female household. But, like I said, there are 453 Boys, 274 Girls and 39 Sibling Groups currently up for adoption in the state of Florida alone.
Are you making the argument that these children stand to grow physically, emotionally, and mentally more in the care of the State than two loving individuals of any sex?
[...] Richardson tosses out the gauntlet at his new blog, The Skepticians, in discussing a recent ruling in Florida that overturned a ban on gay couples adopting children. [...]
James:
This is my first visit – via HotAir – and I could not more wholeheartedly agree. I am a gay conservative and there are plenty of us – a silent minority. There’s no good reason to oppose adoption by fit parents; ‘fitness’ is the key. Further, this should not be a Republicans versus Democrats issue and we shouldn’t analyze it in the context of building party ID. That is somewhat shameful – party ID has nothing to do with the welfare of children.
Before you decide you want to allow gay people to adopt children you might want to look at the pictures from Zombietime’s photo essay taken in San Francisco at a gay festival.
the link is here:
http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/
[...] party because they’re social conservatives. There are plenty of examples of young Republicans pushing socially liberal agendas, but for each one of these Republicans, I can point you to a dozen young evangelicals who are [...]
Paul, so you propose to judge an entire population based on the fringes of a sub-culture? I don’t associate you with Cindy Sheehan, so why yoke the average gay with these?
The eccentricity of a few do not warrant the excoriation of many.
You’re reaching, my friend.
Mark,
I admire your willingness to write this post and I echo your sentiments. It is absolutely preposterous to suggest that children in the foster care system in Florida (for cryin’ out loud!) are better off than being placed in loving homes, regardless of the sexual preference of the adoptive parent(s). This is an archaic position to hold and and it is an untenable one for our party. As one of your commenters has already said, anti-homosexual rights is not a conservative platform. I hope it will cease being a Republican one. We can certainly be a party that respects all people without selling out our principles. But we can’t argue that we are not beholden to the Religious Right when we stake our claim on their land. Resistance to recognizing the presence of homosexuals in our society, whether on the issue of adoption or marriage, will hang around our necks until we finally choke on it.
I should point out that I am not a homosexual rights apologist. I am a conservative Republican and a regularly practicing evangelical Christian in the Reformed tradition. I don’t think this is liberal-speak. This, to me, is just common sense and common decency.
Great blog. Stop by mine when you have a chance!
Jane
[...] Double Standard: What Say the GOP? Jump to Comments From James Richardson’s new blog, the Skepticians (via [...]
[...] Richardson, the Republican National Committee Online Communication Manager for the 2008 election, discusses a recent Florida ruling in which the judge ruled against a ban on gay adoption, noting that it was hypocritical to ban [...]
BTW, I must have been half asleep when I wrote that comment. It was supposed to be to JAMES, not MARK. Again, duh.
We would not have to give consideration to gays adopting if the non gay people would adopt children. With the adoption rate one in 200 families we need to be careful who we exclude, because the only option for many children is a lifetime of being in children services. I am the father of 3 children through adoption and a Reagan Republican.
[...] Should the GOP oppose gay adoption? By: Pam On: Dec/2/08 – Two Daddies? [...]
[...] mention the last one because Richardson's been using his digital hitching post to say some crazy, unorthodox things about gay adoption. The case of Frank Martin Gill, a gay Florida man raising two adopted children gave Richardson [...]
As a Transgender Woman, and a Lesbian I want to applaud you on thinking this thru rationally. I have been following the threads of comments in trackbacks and have seen some of the things said, It still amazes me that people think they can tell me if I am happy or normal because something squicks them out.
The problem with the Conservative Right is that it has forgotten that religion is not supposed to effect the law. The reality is that there are gay people, the reality is that a specific translation of the Book says being gay is bad. The reality is that some people find the idea of people being gay icky.
That is what it comes down to and that is fine. If a person wants to despise me because I am different than them I fully support that. I would fight to support the right of people to hate me for whatever reason.
But that is where it should end. You should never try to legislate that kind of stuff, inst that antithetical to the whole Conservative doctrine of less interference? All I am looking for is less interference from people who choose to believe in a Judeo-Christian religious model.
I think you make a really good point in this post. I think the Republican Party is more split right now than most people are willing to admit. The two major portions of the party, the social conservatives and the economic conservatives are getting really tired of each other, and in some ways are actually working against the interests of the other.
The simple fact of the matter is that the overall opinion in the country is shifting, and while it may not have shifted enough yet to start defeating ballot initiatives, California’s Proposition 8 passed with a significantly smaller margin than Prop 22 passed with less than a decade ago. Furthermore, as you note, the youth of America (even evangelical youth) are significantly more likely to believe in gay rights. Furthermore, religion itself is on the decline in the United States, and the most fervant opponents of gay rights tend to be religious.
For the next 5 to 10 years, opposing gay rights will probably be an effective political tool for Republicans, but it also carries with it the very real potential to stigmate the party in the eyes of emerging voters who in large part are for progressive social issues, and let’s be honest, a party’s reputation and history are just as important to voters as anything else. If Republicans don’t start shifting away from social conservatism, they could be risking an entire future generation of voters.
James, it is completely consistent with Republican ideals and conservative philosophy to support the adoption of children by same-sex parents. It doesn’t make you a RINO.
Any way we can encourage the placement of children into loving, stable homes helps to boost the culture of life in our country. Extending the opportunity to adopt to gay couples ensures there are plenty of homes available if a woman chooses adoption over abortion. Gay parents, straight parents, single parents – all should be eligible to adopt as long as they demonstrate financial and emotional stability.
James,
I applaud you for making this very well thought out post, especially considering your position professionally.
I’m a gay man who officially registered libertarian after seeing the Obama descension from the clouds in Denver, and then a week later gave money to McCain for picking Palin. Let me make a couple of points for you to consider.
Officially, I think for Republicans to come out in favor of civil unions, but against religion would do a lot for the party. Most opposition seems to be religiously based, but if you ask people whether or not gay people should have the same “rights” as others, without mentioned the “M” word, most are in favor. You are correct in your assessment of more gay people being open and in social circles. Very few can now judge their family, friends, workplace, television viewing, movies, books, etc and never come across a gay person. As church attendance declines, divorce rates remain high, and many conservatives feel the pain how painfully bad Bush has done, the lack of open discussion or evolution on the subject is not helping the party.
Second, whether fundamentalists like the one baiting you with pride photos above like to acknowledge it or not, their complacency helps to enable a lot of the behavior they like to abhor. When you spend your life telling a group of people they are sinners, going to hell, their relationships are not legitimate, they should feel shame, etc., are you surprised they have higher rates of self destructive behavior? Currently gay men, especially gay black men, have the highest rates of HIV rates in the nation, yet our president can’t even say the word “gay” in public. Alcoholism, promiscuity, drug use, mental health problems, high suicide rates. All of these could be lowered if monogamous relationships were more encouraged. Yet, instead Republicans seek to delegitimize and impede paths to recognition and encouragement of monogamous relationships, writing discrimination and denial of human rights into more and more constitutions.
You would think a demographic that, on average, has higher salaries, is more educated, has more disposable income, and actively is seeking out children to give good homes to would be a good fit for the Republican party. To continue to appease the fundamentalists instead of finding some sort of compromise on the issue would really be a missed opportunity by Republicans in this “rebuilding” period.
Thanks again.
Officially, I think for Republicans to come out in favor of civil unions, but against religion would do a lot for the party.
I meant to say against gay marriage, not religion…
[...] As for other matters, there is the Republican National Committee’s Online Communication Manager for the 2008 Presidential cycle, James Richardson: [...]
Lederman’s landmark ruling…
It is clear that sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person’s ability to parent. A child in need of love, safety and stability does not first consider the sexual orientation of his parent.
—
Lederman is an idiot. When the majority of ‘gays’ approve of gay nude parades and up_your_alley, they aren’t fit.
Her second sentence is asinine.
—
James Richardson Says:
Paul, so you propose to judge an entire population based on the fringes of a sub-culture? I don’t associate you with Cindy Sheehan, so why yoke the average gay with these?
The eccentricity of a few do not warrant the excoriation of many. You’re reaching, my friend.
—
James, those attending “up_your_alley” are not the fringe; they ARE the average gay. They are not a “population” they are an aberration of a population.
Folsom Street Fair Not For Children
http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/news/004352.
html
…
Some fairgoers said that it was inappropriate to have children at the event.
Why do (these people) bring kids here? This is a leather fair for god?s sake,? said Bahran Aliassa, who was masturbating in public. He has been doing it annually for the past six years.
The point to remember, is that male/female is the normal, anything else is abnormal.
Look up the following terms in gay culture: bareback, bug chaser, gift giver.
One bill submitted in California defined
tolerance’ for gays as “ACTIVE PROMOTION”.
Thanks, James. You’ve obviously given this a lot of thought and this was well-written.
Oh and judging from the photo, I’d say “cute”. Only those who know you can say about “dorky” or not. ;-)
Republicans will be marginalized in the future if they cannot appeal to other ethnic groups and people with different sexual orientations. As a gay father of two grown children, I have seen first-hand that same sex couples can and are capable of providing the love, nurturing and security that children require.
There are too many unwanted children in this world, fated to live a miserable life with abusive or incompetent parents or–more than likely–one parent. If a qualified gay couple (and all adoptive parents should be thoroughly vetted) wants to provide a loving and healthy home for those children, why on earth should the state try to prevent this?
On this and many issues, the Republican party needs to tune out the firebrands of the far religious right and pay more attention to the more tolerant and inclusive views of mainstream America.
So do Paul A’Barge and more_info think that all heterosexuals should be judged by what happens at Madri Gras?
No?
Nothing like having a double standard.
But please keep it up so that the GOP becomes nothing but a regional party basedin the south.
[...] the GOP oppose gay adoption? James Richardson tosses out the gauntlet at his new blog, The Skepticians, in discussing a recent ruling in Florida that overturned a ban on gay couples adopting children. [...]
James,
I hope that more people like you stay active in the party and start to bring it back to something resembling Lincoln’s party. Although I don’t know if I would join, at least it would be a party I could respect again and be an honorable opposition party that is so needed in this country.
The republican party is falling apart and trying out the democratic party’s use of circular firing squads. If they don’t stop using religious dogma as a battering ram to power, they will become irrelevant. Using wedge issues to rally your base just doesn’t work anymore. I think even the base realizes these issues are only important during election season to anyone who gets the power to make a difference.
Nice blog…keep up the good work.
[...] adds a nice commentary at the end of his latest post, detailing James Richardson’s call for the GOP to get real and stop pandering to ignorance and bigotry: The country has changed [...]
[...] Two Daddies? [...]
I thought Republicans and Conservatives believed in small government that does not intrude into people’s private lives.
Yet the positions of the social conservatives on gay rights contradict that core value.
Pictures sometimes speak louder then words. I will let the gay community give the best argument against allowing them to adopt.
Warning not safe for work (NSFW)
From Zombie out in CA http://www.zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/index.php
Cute? Couldn’t say. Dorky? Definitely. Maybe the GOP -should- take a closer look at some of these issues…and I’m not just talking about gay rights.
[...] at his Skepticians.com, Richardson comes out in favor of adoption rights by gay parents. Queerty.com jumps in on the fray with some solid criticism, [...]
[...] is a Republican I can love. http://skepticians.com/?p=381 and http://www.interstateq.com/archives/3009/ in reply to JamesRichardson [...]
save to my Bookmarks ;)
[...] as he dubbed his site, drew instant attention from the political blogosphere after Richardson posted a call for the GOP to drop its long-standing opposition to gay adoption, saying, "What is perhaps equally as distressing is our collective failure as a party to hold [...]
I’ve a couple of comments with regard to Mr. Morrissey’s statements.
Our nation is suited for judges establishing public policy. Judges are ONE part of the legislative process — when a ruling is made, it becomes the law — that law is the effected in all similar situations in similar locations. There are several functions of this: first, the law must be adaptable… legislators are slow and fear a loss of votes — judges are swift and deliberate; secondly, our nation is highly diverse, the laws ruling the people must be specific to them, having judges making rulings (and subsequently laws) allows for that.
Your party opposes judicial advocacy, so I’ll end with this note….
Judicial advocacy, sir, is better than no advocacy at all. As kinky as it may be for us to be bound and gagged, when we’re being conservatives’ pleasure-toys as they abscond from their homogeneous hetero-lives… it’s no fun in the political realm. If the legislators won’t advocate for us, and the executives won’t advocate for us… I’m going to support the judges doing it.
I, sir, will not be gagged for your pleasure.
Brian,
Judges are no part of the legislative process. They possess judicial, not legislative authority.
The kind of law judges make is case law; case law is a statement of how a piece of legislation is properly applied to certain circumstances. That isn’t part of the legislative process.
Your statement that the law must be adaptable is true; it is a proper admonition for the legislature. It isn’t the judiciary’s job to make the law adaptable where the legislature didn’t.
As for your “Judicial advocacy, sir, is better than no advocacy at all,” well, be careful just who the judicial advocates are advocating for.
In Dred Scott they advocated for slave owners. During the 1920’s they advocated for the robber-baron class. Right now they advocate for the academic/intellectual class, but who knows what the future will bring.
And James isn’t trying to gag you! (Please!) You have the right and the ability to advocate for yourself and to vote for legislators who will do so also.
Just a Grunt,
Oh, cute. Really cute.
It isn’t some mythic “gay community” that Florida bans from adopting. It is real gay individuals. And the Folsom Street Fair isn’t a representation of what most, let alone all, gay people are.
If Zombie had photographed such behavior at a straight fetish fair, would you have offered her photos as evidence against heterosexual adoption? (Yes, that’s a rhetorical question.)
I’m surprised James lets your bigoted nonsense remain here.
Paul A’Barge,
My comments to “Just a Grunt” apply to you as well.
more_info,
You are also a stupid bigot.
If this were my site, I’d ban you for posting such nonsense.
Add my Bookmark