Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Proposed bill could allow adoption agencies to discriminate against gays while taking taxpayer money

Bill could harm gay couples seeking to adopt.

This newest tripe, I mean action alert by the Family Research Council has gotten me a bit angry. The organization is pushing a bill which could allow adoption agencies and foster care providers to engage in anti-gay discrimination under the guise of religious freedom (see the bill here):

In California, Massachusetts, Illinois, and D.C. religious adoption and foster care providers have had their government funding pulled and have been forced to end services, simply because they continue to believe in the importance of a child having a mom and a dad. It's a sad sign of the times that some states have preferred to sever longstanding partnerships with faith-based providers rather than allow them to continue caring for and placing children informed by traditional moral beliefs about the family. This important legislation sponsored by Congressman Mike Kelly in the House and Senator Mike Enzi in the Senate will ensure that the interests of children are placed ahead of political correctness.
Specifically, this bill will prohibit discrimination against faith-based child welfare service providers by the federal government and by states receiving federal funds for adoption and foster care services. The Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act will prohibit such discrimination against faith-based child welfare service providers and will threaten states continuing such discrimination with a loss of federal funding. This important legislation will ensure that the maximum number of child welfare service providers can continue to advocate for children and will ensure that many adoptive families can continue to work with a provider which shares their core beliefs.

For the record, adoption agencies, religious based or otherwise, are allowed to place children in homes with mothers and fathers. What this proposed monstrosity could do is to allow religious based adoption agencies and foster care providers to discriminate against gay  households while using our tax dollars.

No doubt, FRC and other supporters of this bill will attempt to paint the lgbt community as selfish if we raise any objections about this bill. It's definitely by intention that the organization uses vague code words and phrases about "core beliefs," children doing better with a mother and a father,"  "traditional moral beliefs" and all of the other board room talking points which are usually voiced by those seeking to deny the existence of same-sex households with children.

I don't think it's wrong or selfish for the lgbt community to assert our rights and dignity as taxpaying American citizens here. And I definitely refuse to believe that in doing so, we are hurting children.

It's been proven in study after study (the most recent being earlier this month)  that we can raise children just as well as two-parent heterosexual households. This view has also been validated numerous times by the courts, including the Supreme Court when it overturned DOMA last year. . Therefore, in the case of adoption agencies and foster care providers who want to discriminate against gay couples, we are talking about organizations who want to assert their personal religious preference instead of what's best for the child.

If religious-based adoption agencies  and foster care providers don't think that gay  households are suitable enough to raise children then they shouldn't be so eager to have their hands out in order to receive gay tax dollars.

It's bad enough when it is asserted that we are not good enough to raise and nurture children. Having to pay for that non-privilege  further reduces the gay community to the level of slaves in a masochistic relationship with our government . . . and all under the guise of "religious freedom."

Photo courtesy of HRC

Bryan Fischer can't decide who/what will 'destroy America'

Bryan Fischer
Today, Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association said that if President Obama isn't impeached, it means the end of America:

America has a political problem. But it also has a political solution: impeachment. In fact, it’s impeachment or nothing. In the end, Republicans will have absolutely no other alternative if they wish to keep this president from transforming this once great nation into a banana republic. Lawsuits won’t work, because the president has already shown a cavalier disregard for the rule of law. Defunding won’t work, because the president has already shown a cavalier disregard for budgetary restraints of any kind. In the end, it will be impeachment or the ruin of America.

But Mr. Fischer, won't Islam destroy America? That's what you said in 2011:

Let us be clear: the goal of Islam is to destroy America. We don’t have to infer it; they are declaring it in no uncertain terms.

Come to think of it, in that same year, you said marriage equality will destroy America

Transcript: Our survival as a civilization, as a culture, depends on protecting the institution of marriage, everything is at risk here: our economic prosperity, our survival, our national security, all of it hinges on our willingness as a culture to protect monogamy and to protect the institution of marriage. You know, George Washington says 'In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who would labor to subvert these two great pillars,' you push these pillars over, you undermine the foundation of these pillars, you cause them to weaken, you cause them to crumble, you are not a patriot. So George Washington would have no hesitation of looking at groups like Americans United for Separation of Church and State, ACLU, Freedom From Religion Foundation, all of these gay rights groups, George Washington would have absolutely no hesitation saying these groups are unpatriotic, they are un-American, in fact they are anti-American because they are laboring to subvert the pillars which this civilization rests.
Such is the problem with the overuse of hyperbole. Sooner or later, people will realize that you are full of shit.

'Anti-gay personality Todd Starnes creating victims of anti-Christian persecution' & other Thursday midday news briefs

The Right-Wing Agenda Propelling False Claims of Christian Persecution - As much as I hate to be one of those queens who like to say "I told you so" (yeah, right), I predicted a while back how Fox News personality Todd Starnes would emerge as one of the head figures in the "anti-Christian persecution" meme spreading. Apparently his Bible says "thus I say unto you, if there are no victims of anti-Christian persecution, create some."

Trans in America - I love this photographic portrait!

Head of Virginia's anti-equality org: 'open season to discriminate against anyone who believes that children deserve a mom and a dad'- One of our biggest strengths is the opposition's love of hyperbole to make their points. I mean nobody likes a consistent and eternal drama queen.

Michael Sam Focuses On Making the Rams, Not History - And THAT, my friends, is the right frame of mind to have. Good luck, Mr. Sam.  

Rick Santorum Angry That Marriage Equality Supporters 'Devalued' Marriage - Let's make him angrier just to see what happens.

Anti-gay right are picking on the judiciary again

Sorry for featuring such hyperbolic tripe so early in the morning but we can't afford to be blase about this sort of thing. This "documentary" reminds me of the propaganda films the Nazis used to show about Jewish people.

I mean really. Blaming the judiciary for the progression of marriage equality and claiming that they are "imposing their will" (of course without giving specific details as to which judges are doing so or any proof at all of these charges) is simply vile.

And it serves to cover up a simple fact about why judges are ruling for marriage equality. If - and I hope that if becomes a reality soon - marriage equality becomes legal across America, history will tell us that the folly of those against marriage equality played a huge part.

In 2004 and after, they voted to pass all of those anti-marriage equality laws with such abandonment that they seemed to have forgotten that the laws would be challenged in court.  The tactics they used to get these laws on the books were useless in the courts.

After all, you know what courts are, don't you? That's the place where ridiculous arguments such as  "marriage 'unites the two halves of humanity" and "marriage socializes men" don't fly. That's the place where anecdotes and horror stories about lgbts and children are like bullets to Superman's chest. That's the place where you can't sit in the studio of a fake newsroom and repeat your talking points without challenge. You will be challenged frequently and thoroughly.

It all comes down to a simple principle - don't pass laws you can't defend in court. 

Hat tip to Right Wing Watch.