[This is in reaction to Florida overturning it's ban on gay couples adopting children.]
John Stemberger, chairman of a successful drive earlier this month to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Florida, called the ruling "classic judicial activism" and predicted it would be reversed on appeal.
"Everywhere in the law where children are affected, the standard must always be what is in the best interest of the child," said Stemberger, an attorney in Orlando. "What is stunning to me is that when it comes to dealing with gays, that standard goes out the window. Children do better with a mother and a father."
41 comments
"What is stunning to me is that when it comes to dealing with gays, that standard goes out the window"
No, people just protest you creating BS new standards and only applying them to a group you hate. We let any idiot who doesnt beat or starve them raise children now.
"[...] and predicted it would be reversed on appeal."
And I predict the sun will rise tomorrow. Looks like we're both prophets.
""Everywhere in the law where children are affected, the standard must always be what is in the best interest of the child," said Stemberger, an attorney in Orlando."
Went to law school to learn that, did ya?
"What is stunning to me is that when it comes to dealing with gays, that standard goes out the window. Children do better with a mother and a father."
That's not what the statistics say, nor every valid study ever done on the subject.
"classic judicial activism"
Only when you don't agree with it. Any other time, you point to such rulings as absolute proof of the tenability of your position.
"Children do better with a mother and a father"
'So, if they don't get both, leave them with none! And to all you single parents out there...you better look out!"
""Everywhere in the law where children are affected, the standard must always be what is in the best interest of the child," said Stemberger, an attorney in Orlando. "What is stunning to me is that when it comes to dealing with gays, that standard goes out the window. Children do better with a mother and a father.""
You better check the Hawaii case before you take that into court.
They're not taking children from homes where they have two parents and forcing the kid to live with a homosexual couple. They are allowing people to adopt a child that has no home. According to you idiots, leaving a child in a system where they live in group housing or go from foster home to foster home, is better than giving them a loving home with a gay couple.
You people are the sick ones.
"Children do better with a mother and a father."
Where the fuck do you live? Under a rock? In a cave? In a never-ending version of Leave It To Beaver? That is not always the case, Einstein.
Yes, of course two mothers or two fathers is much worse than an orphanage.
Also, it's obvious that gay couples will be bad parents. I mean, adopting a child is hard; there is tons of paperwork, you have to meet specific demands and really work hard to get a child to adoption.
Heterosexual couples on the other hand can get a child on a whim or completely on accident, which happens very often. Stupidity about birth control produces new, unwanted children every day.
So it's very obvious that when it comes to heterosexual couples we can be pretty sure that they really want to be parents and have the means to raise a child, while with homosexual couples we have no such guarantee.
No, wait, that's the other way around.
Oh, a little addendum: Of course I'm not implying that heterosexual couples are often worse parents than homosexual couples. I just mean that they have the ability to be parents without wanting to. Homosexual couples must really, really want to before they get through all the trouble it means to get a child.
So on average I would think that homosexual parents are better than heterosexual for that reason alone, even though that of course not says anything about specific couples. Some people are bad parents, some are good, regardless of sexuality.
Children do better with a stable, loving, supportive home environment, which you are *far* more likely to find in a "queer" household, due to the fact that the children are *wanted*, *loved*, *cherished*, and will have an extended family of their parents friends and loved ones to help look after them.
How many BREEDER homes can say that?
So if overruling a ban on gay adoption is "judicial activism", what do you call fighting to ban gay marriage or adoption in the first place? What do you call judges committed to approving new legislation that discriminates against gays and lesbians? Or women? Or non-Christians?
What would these people rather have judges do if not actively interpret law?
I hope that the decision is not overturned. The case in question regards the gay foster parents being unable to adopt the children they had already taken care of for over four years. In this case, the ban is so obviously not in the best interest of the children, that (to me) to uphold it would be utterly repulsive.
"Children do better with a mother and a father."
Um, not if the mother is a drug addict and the father is an abusive alcoholic.
Sure, it might be better for a troubled child to be put into a standard, "normal" home (i.e., one parent of each sex) but if the choice was either dysfunctional, "normal" home or functional home run by two gay people, there's no way it's better for the child to be in an abusive and dysfuntional home.
And, "judicial activism"? Isn't that what judges are supposed to do, make rulings based on laws? If there's nothing in the local, state or federal Constitution banning gay people from taking care of children, then it's not "activism," it's "doing the job they were hired to do."
Zabimaru : I understood what you meant. : ) I have great parents who are both straight, and I know people who have/had horrible parents who are/were straight. It depends upon the people raising the child, not their sexuality.
Actually true, as much as I hate to admit it.
Kids fare better with a parent of each sex, not because people like me are inherently bad parents, but due to societal expectations. Only by having a parent of each sex is a child raised with an understanding of gender roles appropriate to each sex.
I hate to admit it (it makes the bible-thumpers look good), but it's true.
Yeah, children do much better with a neglectful, abusive set of heterosexual parents... and I should know, mine were exactly that. Let the gays adopt; they can't do worse than we've already done.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
