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.

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.

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.

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.

Yet the positions of the social conservatives on gay rights contradict that core value.

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.

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.

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.

Oh and judging from the photo, I’d say “cute”. Only those who know you can say about “dorky” or not. ;-)

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”.

I meant to say against gay marriage, not religion…

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.

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.

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.

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 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

The eccentricity of a few do not warrant the excoriation of many.

You’re reaching, my friend.

the link is here:
http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/

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.

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?

This controversy is much like the “right” to abort unborn children. The needs of children are snuffed out to serve the agenda of activists.

I hope we venture to a more rational approach as a Party. We should be careful and tolerant.