W shows true abortion colors

[ThePenguin]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Not to mention babies with terminal illnesses like AIDS. Did you see that sepcial awhile back about those gay couples who adopted something like four or more children living with AIDS and are providing them with healthy and happy (according to all sources including the state ones) homes. I mean that must just he a HUGE burden to carry. Yet and sadly, the state says not both parents (I defy anyone with a heart to say that label does not fit) cannot be on the adoption papers and that gay people should not be allowed to adopt. JERKS!!!!

Yes I remember that. These poor guys are good enough to take in four kids that no one else wants and give them loving homes, but not good enough to be given the legal title of parents. truly sickening. Wasn't that in Florida?

-Lis

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by dissention

Have you read the transcript? I especially found funny the part where Novak says "We DON'T censor our guests on Crossfire."

Novak was probably drunk. I'd like to see his bank accounts after the last four years.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

One of the things that interested us was that this abortion took place before Roe Vs. Wade in 1970, which made it a crime at the time.

Larry's a little off on his dates there a Roe was passed in '73.

ON EDIT: Oops, nevermind. On rereading that, he's saying the abortion took place in '70, right?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ThePenguin

Yes I remember that. These poor guys are good enough to take in four kids that no one else wants and give them loving homes, but not good enough to be given the legal title of parents. truly sickening. Wasn't that in Florida?

-Lis

I believe it was. When I saw that and the truly INSPIRATIONAL effort and kindness of those two guys I started crying. Then, when I found out how maliciously the State of Florida treated them, allegedly in the name of God, I threw up. Here is a synopsis of what happened:

Florida's puzzling case against gay adoptions
The choice for many adoptable children in Florida is between being adopted by homosexuals or not being adopted at all

Published January 16, 2005


The state of Florida is not ridiculously selective when it comes to letting people adopt children--and with some 4,200 kids in need of adoption, it can't afford to be.

It allows single adults to adopt. It accepts people with serious illnesses and disabilities. It leaves the door open to drug addicts. It is even willing to consider people who are known to have neglected, abandoned or abused children.

It doesn't accept homosexuals.

That's the law in Florida, the only state that singles out gays and lesbians in this way. And apparently it's going to remain the law. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a constitutional challenge to the ban on gay adoptions, which has the effect of upholding the policy. This decision also prevents a 13-year-old boy from securing a permanent home with the two men who have been his foster parents since he was an infant.

At birth, the boy had cocaine and marijuana in his system and tested positive for HIV (though he no longer does). He was taken in by Steven Lofton, a registered pediatric nurse whose two other foster children have AIDS, and his partner, Roger Croteau. Lofton has taken care of the kids full-time for the past decade, efforts that earned him an Outstanding Foster Parenting award from the Children's Home Society. He also has been a foster parent to five other kids with HIV or AIDS.

But his exceptional devotion doesn't impress the state of Florida. When Lofton applied to adopt the boy 10 years ago, the Department of Children and Families, which had previously said he was perfectly suitable to serve as a foster parent, was not allowed to consider him as an adoptive parent.

Normally, the state assesses applicants individually, on the crazy assumption that it should focus on what's best for the child. But when the prospective parent is gay, the interests of the child go out the window. Despite everything Lofton has done for the boy, the state is trying to place him in another home.

This approach is not the preference of the people charged with looking after the needs of kids. When the state's chief adoption official was asked under oath if there is any "child-welfare reason at all for excluding gay people from adopting children," she answered: "No."

The original impulse, it turns out, was not to protect children but to penalize gays. The measure, passed in 1977, was an offshoot of singer Anita Bryant's successful campaign to repeal a Dade County ordinance banning discrimination against homosexuals. The bill's chief sponsor explained it as a valiant effort to open lines of communication with gays: "We're trying to send them a message, telling them: `We're really tired of you. We wish you'd go back into the closet.' "

The state now insists it has perfectly pure motives for the ban. It claims that a child is best served in a stable home that includes a married mother and father. This kind of family, it argues, gives a child good gender role models and spares her from "social stigmatization" about her parents.

If the state really wanted to avoid such stigmatization, it might stop treating such parents as if they are a menace and a disgrace. Expressing moral disapproval of homosexuality, after all, is one of the reasons Florida gives for the ban.

As for gender role models, it's not clear how important they are in a child's development. Almost all gays grow up with heterosexual parents and nonetheless adopt a different "gender role." Sexual orientation aside, Steven Lofton looks like a pretty decent role model. If Florida thinks gender role modeling is so critical, why does it let children spend years living with gay foster parents like him?

The state's supposed preference for married couples is not exactly fanatical. The law specifically allows unmarried adults to adopt, and some 25 percent of state-approved adoptions are by singles.

At any rate, the choice for many adoptable children in Florida is not between a homosexual couple and the ideal heterosexual household, but between being adopted by homosexuals and not being adopted at all. This policy is one reason so many Florida youngsters are growing up without a permanent home.

The policy handed down by policymakers in Florida has two components, which can be summarized as follows: Kids are better off with no parents than with gay parents, and if there is evidence to suggest otherwise, we don't want to hear it.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...4222939.column

here are some other sites:

http://www.theweekmagazine.com/briefing.asp?a_id=461
http://www.adoptionflorida.org/

AND here are Christ's words:

"Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?" He will reply, "I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me." Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. Matthew 25:44,45; see also http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_savj1.htm

These religious fanatics are just sick

[strandinthewind]

AND - mind you, these guys are taking care of these kids knowing full well that the state wants to take them away from them as soon as possible solely because they are gay. How heart wrenching is that. I honestly know of very very few who would so selflessly give of themselves and put the interest of children not legally their own in the face of such clear discrimmination. Yet, these guys do. It just makes me concerrently angry and want to cry at this expression of faith.

[amber]

I really don't understand how Bush has the colossal f***wad nerve to talk about the "culture of life" considering the war he is waging. I really can't. And the frickin democrats better not allow a religious right wing fu**tard on the Supreme Court when that comes up.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by amber

I really don't understand how Bush has the colossal f***wad nerve to talk about the "culture of life" considering the war he is waging. I really can't. And the frickin democrats better not allow a religious right wing fu**tard on the Supreme Court when that comes up.

Republicans? Democrats? I didn't know there was a difference.

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

Republicans? Democrats? I didn't know there was a difference.

You know, I was gonna say that, but...
I read an interesting article in our paper today about the different styles of Feinstein v. Boxer. Basically, as if i didn't already, it made me really hate Feinstein... she worked with Bush for his "safe logging" bill or whatever, that allowes massive logging under the guise of "fire control". She helped get it passed.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by amber

You know, I was gonna say that, but...
I read an interesting article in our paper today about the different styles of Feinstein v. Boxer. Basically, as if i didn't already, it made me really hate Feinstein... she worked with Bush for his "safe logging" bill or whatever, that allowes massive logging under the guise of "fire control". She helped get it passed.

The Sierra Club sent me a huge book about it. It makes me ill. People like Feinstein are the reason I not only don't support the Democrats anymore, but I'm not a registered Democrat anymore. When the whole party gets some balls like the pair Barbara Boxer has, I'll consider supporting them at some point.

And I still find it rather shocking that Feinstein can be such a Republican in Democrat clothing, especially after the Milk/Moscone tragedy.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

The Sierra Club sent me a huge book about it. It makes me ill. People like Feinstein are the reason I not only don't support the Democrats anymore, but I'm not a registered Democrat anymore. When the whole party gets some balls like the pair Barbara Boxer has, I'll consider supporting them at some point.

And I still find it rather shocking that Feinstein can be such a Republican in Democrat clothing, especially after the Milk/Moscone tragedy.

Diane F. a Republican I would LOVE to hear your tell Fox News that one

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Diane F. a Republican I would LOVE to hear your tell Fox News that one

You can bet your ass. Right alongside every Republican posing as a Democrat these days. She was a moderate to begin with, but she's gotten very conservative over the years. Might as well just cross party lines and annoint herself Olympia Snowe #2.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

You can bet your ass. Right alongside every Republican posing as a Democrat these days. She was a moderate to begin with, but she's gotten very conservative over the years. Might as well just cross party lines and annoint herself Olympia Snowe #2.

She may not be the screaming communist you would like for her to be, but a Republican she most definintely is not Of course seeing as how you like O. Snowe - would that be such a bad thing

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

The Sierra Club sent me a huge book about it. It makes me ill. People like Feinstein are the reason I not only don't support the Democrats anymore, but I'm not a registered Democrat anymore. When the whole party gets some balls like the pair Barbara Boxer has, I'll consider supporting them at some point.

And I still find it rather shocking that Feinstein can be such a Republican in Democrat clothing, especially after the Milk/Moscone tragedy.

what'd she do, there?
She's been skilled at being sneaky and slithery for years. Got her contractor husband a bunch of building jobs around SF, I think, can't remember if it was when she was mayor of SF or what. She's just one of those people *cancers * Who is a very, very, skilled politician and speaker. In the bad way. I imagine she does things to make all the right people happy while placating others and just never making anyone mad, those kind of people are very dangerous. She makes me sick, really. I'm suprised she has seemingly been able to fool people for so long. Or maybe she hasn't. But i think she has.

[amber]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

She may not be the screaming communist you would like for her to be, but a Republican she most definintely is not Of course seeing as how you like O. Snowe - would that be such a bad thing

She's a Republocrat if ever there was one. If you look that up in the dictionary, I think there's a picture of her next to it.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by amber

She's a Republocrat if ever there was one. If you look that up in the dictionary, I think there's a picture of her next to it.

well, her position supporting the assault weapons ban would be enough to keep her out of the R Club