Rumored queen David Edmunds, who has been making the rounds in Frankfort the past two weeks promoting us and giving us publicity, has penned another editorial for the Courier-Journal about he… err, the gays shouldn’t be allowed to be parents because it’s dangerous and scary. Something about how the gays are more likely to break up and abuse children.
The Child Welfare Adoption Act says that children in the state system of foster and adoptive care will be placed in homes where there is no live-in sexual partner — either homosexual or heterosexual. This has always been standard practice, until recent years.
Not true – the proposed legislation says:
[P]rohibit the approval of foster care, relative caregiver services, or adoption of a child by an applicant who is cohabiting with a sexual partner outside of a marriage that is legally valid in Kentucky…
Outside a marriage that is legally valid in Kentucky. Meaning the only people who are truly affected or non-heterosexual couples – those who cannot legally get married in Kentucky. Heterosexual foster couples could marry to avoid this ridiculous hate legislation.
Edmunds goes on to talk about how wonderful it would be to remove the 422 children currently in Kentucky’s foster care system awaiting adoption from the queers:
This bill would only affect future foster and adoptive care. According to the cabinet, there are 422 children awaiting adoption and there are no “throw-away” kids. We owe it to the “least of these” to find the best home with the greatest statistical chance for success.
The Family Association is going hog wild to talk about how scary the gays are these days. While at the same time saying it’s not about the gays– that it’s about all unmarried couples. The only arguments they present are against gays and then they get upset when confronted about their homophobia, saying it has nothing to do with the gays.
Is your head spinning? In about ten seconds Martin Cothran will publish some drivel about how we’re gay pedophiles who want to lure your innocent children into some dark lair. So get ready.
Also: Serious case of gay face, anyone?
2 responses so far ↓
1 anon // Mar 2, 2009 at 6:50 pm
If they are so worried about child welfare, and so certain that the scary gays will molest/corrupt/otherwise harm children, then why AREN’T they including removal of those already placed with gay families? Are those children considered too corrupted already?
2 Davi // Mar 3, 2009 at 9:10 am
Why is government fixated upon sex–both the verb and the noun–as applied to humans? Are those big, WASP macho men afraid of SEX?
Why can’t a “family” be anyone who decides to live with another, or several people, and care for the family as a group?
It seems futile to split hairs about what someone may or may not do in bed or elsewhere with their bodies, when married men and women also vary so much in that regard as well, if truth be told.
Somehow, it seems prehistoric to try to legislate who is a “family”, when if the definition were broader, our country would be better off for it, our children safer, there’d be more stability and some of those “broken homes” would be allowed to heal in some fashion, if those involved weren’t locked into legal descriptions of family written long ago, when women had no rights.
Leave a Comment