Hey man........No need for us to have any particular philosophical tussle over the rights of gay Americans to adopt. That's legal nationwide. And if either a single gay American or a married gay couple finds the adoption regulations too inhibiting within their current state, they can relocate to a different state and legally adopt there.
Well what's better having a loving gay family or being in the custody of a foster home/government where children are routinely raped and drugged to death in the hands of those monsters?
Anyway, I don't see why this is still an issue. The people of California have spoken! Enough already.
Reading that rap from Fitzgibbons above brings a smile to my face as I'm reminded of the Hearst-driven 'education' spewed in the 1930s.
------
As the most conspicuous users of marihuana, Mexicans were oftentimes accused of being incited to violence by the drug. A letter written in 1911 by the American consul at Nogales, Mexico, stated that marihuana "causes the smoker to become exceedingly pugnacious and to run amuck without discrimination." [7] A Texas police captain claimed that under marihuana's baneful influence, Mexicans became "very violent, especially when they become angry and will attack an officer even if a gun is drawn on him. They seem to have no fear, I have also noted that when under the influence of this weed they have enormous strength and that it will take several men to handle one man while under ordinary circumstances one man could handle him with ease." [8]
Prison officials throughout the southwest had no doubt about marihuana's capacity to provoke violence. In the words of the warden of the state prison in Yuma, Arizona: "Under its baseful influence reckless men become bloodthirsty, terribly daring, and dangerous to an uncontrollable degree." [9]
------
As the most conspicuous users of marihuana, Mexicans were oftentimes accused of being incited to violence by the drug. A letter written in 1911 by the American consul at Nogales, Mexico, stated that marihuana "causes the smoker to become exceedingly pugnacious and to run amuck without discrimination." [7] A Texas police captain claimed that under marihuana's baneful influence, Mexicans became "very violent, especially when they become angry and will attack an officer even if a gun is drawn on him. They seem to have no fear, I have also noted that when under the influence of this weed they have enormous strength and that it will take several men to handle one man while under ordinary circumstances one man could handle him with ease." [8]
Prison officials throughout the southwest had no doubt about marihuana's capacity to provoke violence. In the words of the warden of the state prison in Yuma, Arizona: "Under its baseful influence reckless men become bloodthirsty, terribly daring, and dangerous to an uncontrollable degree." [9]
No. They were merely bold faced lying about the effects of marijuana in order to outlaw it. It illustrates how criminal and rogue our government is. They outlaw certain drugs because of their certain agendas, rather than upholding their job title and doing what's right for the public.
Drugs are declared legal or illegal based primarily on who benefits from their manufacture, distribution and sale.
While I agree its better for a kid who is in foster care to go to a home with a mother and a father, I would also put forward its better for a foster kid to go to any home than be in foster care. Obviously it would be tougher for a kid to be adopted by two guys in South GA compared to San Fran. It still doesn't affect me at all, nor my marriage.
Homosexual Parenting and the American College of Pediatricians
In 2004, the American College of Pediatricians stated the following regarding homosexuality and parenting:
<table style="border-style: none; border-collapse: collapse; background-color: transparent;" class="cquote"><tbody><tr><td style="padding: 10px; color: rgb(178, 183, 242); font-size: 35px; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-weight: bold; text-align: left;" valign="top" width="20"> “ </td><td style="padding: 4px 10px;" valign="top"> Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation. Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts... The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited. The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.<sup id="cite_ref-231" class="reference">[232]</sup>
</td></tr></tbody></table>
In 2004, the American College of Pediatricians stated the following regarding homosexuality and parenting:
<table style="border-style: none; border-collapse: collapse; background-color: transparent;" class="cquote"><tbody><tr><td style="padding: 10px; color: rgb(178, 183, 242); font-size: 35px; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-weight: bold; text-align: left;" valign="top" width="20"> “ </td><td style="padding: 4px 10px;" valign="top"> Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation. Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts... The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited. The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.<sup id="cite_ref-231" class="reference">[232]</sup>
</td></tr></tbody></table>
Bush v. Gore lawyers take on gay marriage ban
<abbr title="2009-05-27T12:12:44-0700" class="recenttimedate">1 hr 13 mins ago</abbr>
<!-- end .byline --> LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Two lawyers who squared off in the legal case that determined the 2000 U.S. presidential election joined forces on Wednesday to ask a federal court to halt California's same-sex marriage ban, despite warnings from gay rights advocates not to mount a federal challenge.
Ted Olson and David Boies, who opposed each other in the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court case, said that gays and lesbians were made into second-class citizens by California's voter-approved ban, known as Proposition 8.
They sued on behalf of two same-sex couples who want to marry but cannot because of the Prop 8's passage.
California's supreme court on Tuesday upheld the initiative, approved by voters in November. The decision said California's state constitution allows voters to make such changes despite broad protection for same-sex couples.
Prop 8 ended a brief period of legal same-sex marriage in California, begun when the same court opened the door to gay nuptials early in 2008.
Gay rights advocates, fearing a loss in the socially conservative top U.S. court, have avoided going to federal court after other state ballot box losses.
"A federal lawsuit at this time is terribly risky," said Jenny Pizer, one of the lawyers for Lambda Legal who argued against Prop 8 before the California court.
Her organization, the American Civil Liberties Union and others said in a statement, "without more groundwork, the U.S. Supreme Court likely is not yet ready to rule that same-sex couples cannot be barred from marriage."
Olson, who represented then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush, and Boies, who represented then-Vice President Al Gore in 2000, jointly filed the lawsuit on Friday, before the California court acted.
On Wednesday they asked for an injunction on Prop 8. In the lawsuit they argue that Proposition 8 violates the U.S. constitutional amendment guaranteeing equal rights and due process.
"This unequal treatment of gays and lesbians denies them the basic liberties and equal protection under the law that are guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution," the lawsuit reads.
(Reporting by Steve Gorman, writing by Peter Henderson, Editing by Sandra Maler)
--------------------------
Ted Olson is a hardcore Republican.
<abbr title="2009-05-27T12:12:44-0700" class="recenttimedate">1 hr 13 mins ago</abbr>
<!-- end .byline --> LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Two lawyers who squared off in the legal case that determined the 2000 U.S. presidential election joined forces on Wednesday to ask a federal court to halt California's same-sex marriage ban, despite warnings from gay rights advocates not to mount a federal challenge.
Ted Olson and David Boies, who opposed each other in the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court case, said that gays and lesbians were made into second-class citizens by California's voter-approved ban, known as Proposition 8.
They sued on behalf of two same-sex couples who want to marry but cannot because of the Prop 8's passage.
California's supreme court on Tuesday upheld the initiative, approved by voters in November. The decision said California's state constitution allows voters to make such changes despite broad protection for same-sex couples.
Prop 8 ended a brief period of legal same-sex marriage in California, begun when the same court opened the door to gay nuptials early in 2008.
Gay rights advocates, fearing a loss in the socially conservative top U.S. court, have avoided going to federal court after other state ballot box losses.
"A federal lawsuit at this time is terribly risky," said Jenny Pizer, one of the lawyers for Lambda Legal who argued against Prop 8 before the California court.
Her organization, the American Civil Liberties Union and others said in a statement, "without more groundwork, the U.S. Supreme Court likely is not yet ready to rule that same-sex couples cannot be barred from marriage."
Olson, who represented then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush, and Boies, who represented then-Vice President Al Gore in 2000, jointly filed the lawsuit on Friday, before the California court acted.
On Wednesday they asked for an injunction on Prop 8. In the lawsuit they argue that Proposition 8 violates the U.S. constitutional amendment guaranteeing equal rights and due process.
"This unequal treatment of gays and lesbians denies them the basic liberties and equal protection under the law that are guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution," the lawsuit reads.
(Reporting by Steve Gorman, writing by Peter Henderson, Editing by Sandra Maler)
--------------------------
Ted Olson is a hardcore Republican.
hno:
Hey, you left CT off your list. We're allowing gay marriage, but our politics are dominated by the great urban areas like Hartford, New Haven & Bridgeport and people up here think Lieberman is a conservative.
NO, I think he meant that he will take the conclusions offered by the agenda-driven right wing religious group and compare them to the conclusions on same topic offered by the American Psychiatric Association.
Then he'll know whether he should exert much effort into attempts to outlaw the adoption of children by gay Americans.
And let's face it. Not very many people are too amped up to get involved with that fruitless campaign.
Then he'll know whether he should exert much effort into attempts to outlaw the adoption of children by gay Americans.
And let's face it. Not very many people are too amped up to get involved with that fruitless campaign.
