The Liberty Counsel's ridiculous defense of Florida's gay adoption ban

Well that didn't take long.

I was waiting for a religious right group to answer back to yesterday's ruling in Miami,FL that the state prohibition on gay adoption was unconstitutional.

And leave it to the Liberty Counsel to push the talking points that will most likely been seen on The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes as well as World Net Daily, One News Now and everywhere else that the conservative/religious right echo chamber resonate. I am going to point out the parts I found "interesting":

Miami, FL – Today, an activist Miami State Court Judge ruled that a 1977 Florida law that bans homosexual adoption is unconstitutional. (First thing's first. Smear the judge for not ruling the way Liberty Counsel felt she should. According to the Liberty Counsel, she didn't rule objectively. Somebody put roots on her.)

Earlier this month voters in Arkansas passed a law which bans unmarried heterosexuals and homosexuals from adopting children. (Notice that turn of phrase. In legitimate articles, I have read this phrase to say "voters in Arkansas passed a law which bans unmarried couples, whether they be heterosexual or gay, from adopting children." The way the Liberty Counsel claims, it looks like the Arkansas law bans gays from adopting outright.)

In September, the Kentucky Court of Appeals strongly rebuked an activist lower family court for permitting a lesbian woman to illegally “adopt” her female companion’s child, in clear violation of both Kentucky law and the Kentucky Constitution. The higher court reaffirmed that in Kentucky, stepparent adoptions are only legal when the stepparent is married to a biological parent and that same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. (This is true. The Kentucky Court of Appeals did say that stepparent adoptions are allowed only when the stepmother or father is married to the biological parent. But that has nothing to do with the Florida case. The Florida case deals with Frank Gill, a man who wanted to adopt two foster childen he had been raising for four years.)

Most states ban homosexual adoption through legislation, regulation, or court precedent. These states ban adoption by homosexuals because the best interest of children is served by placing them in homes with a mom and a dad or where there is a likelihood of a mom and a dad. A homosexual home automatically excludes one gender, either the mom or the dad. Only a handful of states actually permit homosexual adoption. (The big lie!!! In most states, the orientation of the potential adoptive parent is not an issue i.e. the state does not ask about orientation. Florida was the only state that outright banned gay adoption. However some states may be moving the way of Arkansas and making it difficult for lgbt couples to adopt children. One guess which organization will be helping to nudge them along.)

There is a vague mention of "studies" that show that the best place for a child is in a home with a mother and father.

This talking point is faulty for two reasons - 1. How many of these "studies" measured heterosexual households to same-sex households? From what I understand, none did.

2. Also, the talking point does not address the fact that across the nation, there is a waiting list filled with children waiting to be adopted. The notion that "children do best in a home with a mother and a father" is an empty talking point because it does not address the fact that these "homes" are not present to adopt these children.

Also - I noticed how the Liberty Counsel omitted the George A. Rekers testimony, probably because it was embarrassing to their side. Rekers testified for the ban and said that he would look into banning adoption for Native Americans.

Expect the religious right to try and not mention Rekers's testimony. Don't let them get away with it.

Now everyone can get on with their holiday travels and the like. Have a happy Thanksgiving!