HRC Condemns Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant’s Statement of Support for LGBT Adoption Ban

[koshergrl]

“The jury is still out,” said Loren Marks, an associate professor at the School of Human Ecology at Louisiana State University. “The lack of high-quality data leaves the most significant questions [about gay parenting] unaddressed and unanswered.”
"Problems with the APA-cited studies were their small size; dependence on wealthy, white, well-educated lesbian mothers; and failure to examine common outcomes for children, such as their education, employment and risks for poverty, criminality, early childbearing, substance abuse and suicide. Instead, the APA studies often looked at children’s gender-role behaviors, emotional functioning and sexual identities."

Study suggests risks from same-sex parenting - Washington Times

To paraphrase, your studies meant to move kids into the hands of homos are highly, highly suspect.

Is there no end to the bogus crap that you come up with??? I already trashed Regnerus. Now you invoke him again and add another fraud!


Authors of Disreputable Anti-Gay Studies Triggered Growing Numbers of Critics, Rapidly Widening Scandal

Mark Regnerus, a professor at University of Texas, Austin and Loren Marks, a professor at Louisiana State University, authors of disreputable studies about gays have attracted growing numbers of critics in an apparent growing scandal

Reports on twinned studies now being used as anti-gay-rights weapons in the 2012 elections have to date focused mainly on 1) suspect work funded through NOM's Robert George and 2) carried out by University of Texas, Austin's Mark Regnerus. Regnerus purported to compare young adult children of heterosexual parents with gay parents, yet for his study, did not even attempt to locate actual persons substantially raised by gay parents. Previously, studies on children of gay parents showed good child outcomes. The Regnerus and Marks papers appear to have been contrived as a one-two election year punch to demonize same-sex-headed families with children.

Regnerus claims the following in his study; previous conclusions that homosexual parents were not more dangerous -- to children -- than heterosexual parents -- "must go" as a result of his study. The aim and contorted conclusion of Loren Mark's companion anti-gay-rights political propaganda, meanwhile -- titled "Same-sex parenting and children's outcomes" -- is the discrediting of a 2005 American Psychological Association brief on gay parenting. One tell-tale sign that the two papers were coordinated for use as anti-gay-rights political propaganda is that although they were published simultaneously in "Social Science Research" -- whose editor James Wright has written demeaningly of gay people and their relationships -- the Marks paper cites the Regnerus paper. That is to say, before either of these two papers were published, Marks had information about the Regnerus study and used it as a reference work for his own anti-gay-rights paper. The appearance is strong that Regnerus and Marks were working in cahoots towards the simultaneous publication of their two articles, with an anti-gay-rights political aim in an election year. In this context, it is of great note that Loren Marks, a Louisiana State University Associate Professor, earlier was disallowed from giving expert testimony in a Proposition 8-related case when, under questioning, he admitted he had cherry-picked information from studies he had not read, and that he knew nothing about same-sex couples. Undeterred by that episode in which his scholarly fraudulence was exposed in a court of law, Marks made his current anti-gay-rights propaganda-research available to John Boehner-House Republicans' DOMA-defending attorney Paul Clement, for use in a court brief filed on June 4, 2012 in the Karen Golinski case. Marks's paper was cited in the court document before the paper was published. Marks's study is used in that court brief to argue that previous decisions in the Golinski case relied on insufficient research about gay parenting. Never mind that Golinski is not about gay parenting; it is about equal rights to federal benefits for same-sex spouses. Golinski and her wife do not have children, but the Boehner-Clement axis believes that demonizing gay parents in a case not involving gay parents should determine the outcome of the case. One of the most galling aspects of that brief, is that it argues against courts deciding DOMA cases, because, so Clement alleges, gay rights should be decided by voters, not by questions of constitutionality. Meanwhile, though, NOM's Robert George, who arranged for the funding of the Regnerus hit job, is an author of the anti-gay NOM pledge, signed by Romney, which calls for a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage throughout the country. That is to say, Boehner is using LGBT-tax payers' money to argue in court that gay Americans' rights should not be decided on any constitutional basis, until the Constitution says that same-sex marriage is forbidden throughout the country. Meanwhile, known Robert George political allies are using both the Marks and Regnerus studies to poison voters' minds against gay people. The Witherspoon Institute, through which George arranged much of Regnerus's funding, has published, among other anti-gay-attack articles The Kids Aren't Alright and Supreme Court Take Notice; Two Sociologists Shift the Ground of the Gay Marriage Debate. That latter article by Matthew J. Frank was cross-referenced by Frank in another post he made about the studies on The National Review site, Sociology, Same-Sex Marriage, and the Courts. The National Review is a long-time home to NOM's lying anti-gay bigot Maggie Gallagher, who has been touting the studies with evident anti-gay-rights political aims in varied publications including TNR's site. Here, Gallagher made a post, reporting on a panel of "sociologists" voicing support for the Regnerus study. What Gallagher the anti-gay propagandist did not make explicit in her post is that those supportive of Regnerus's anti-gay aims are all affiliated with the Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion, and that Regnerus himself is affiliated with Baylor. Robert George's and Maggie Gallagher's long-time anti-gay-rights collaborator Ed Whelan published on TNR's website a three-part installment of posts trumpeting the corrupt Regnerus and Marks studies and bashing same-sex-headed households. This reporter's request from Loren Marks's Louisiana State University for information regarding the funding of Marks's study has yet to receive a definitive response. New York City-based novelist and freelance writer Scott Rose’s LGBT-interest by-line has appeared on Advocate.com, PoliticusUSA.com, The New York Blade, Queerty.com, Girlfriends and in numerous additional venues. Among his other interests are the arts, boating and yachting, wine and food, travel, poker and dogs. His “Mr. David Cooper’s Happy Suicide” is about a New York City advertising executive assigned to a condom account. Loren Marks at The New Civil Rights Movement

You sound positively hysterical.

And hopefully one of your online *professors* will teach you about paragraphs. I don't have time.

I'm hysterical??!! Just presenting the facts. As far as paragraphs go-that how it was written. Nice way of evading the fact that this, like everything that you post is bovine excrement

No, you're hysterical.

You mean as in funny??

No, that would require more wit than you have.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Update!!

Mississippi Is Actually Defending Its Comically Unconstitutional Gay Adoption Ban Mississippi Is Actually Defending Its Comically Unconstitutional Gay Adoption Ban


When I last wrote about Mississippi’s gay adoption ban, I naively speculated that the state might decline to defend its own law in court. After all, Mississippi is the only state in the country that still bars same-sex couples from fostering or adopting children—and, more important, the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decisionclearly outlawed such discriminatory legislation. On Friday, however, I was proved a fool: Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant and Attorney General Jim Hood have elected to defend their ban against marriage equality mastermind Roberta Kaplan’s lawsuit.


Two years before that case, the court declared in United States v. Windsor that the federal gay marriage ban “humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples.” Such a law, the court wrote, also “makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family.” And it “brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples” by denying them access to vital benefits. The court has long held that a law that punishes children in order to express moral disapproval of their parents violates the Equal Protection Clause. In Windsor, the court built upon that logic, holding that the marriage ban’s humiliation of children was one significant reason why it violated “basic due process and equal protection principles.”

Mississippi’s gay adoption ban is even more humiliating and harmful toward children than the federal gay marriage ban was. Children who might otherwise be placed with a loving, same-sex couple are forced to remain orphaned because the state dislikes homosexuality

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Mississippi Couples Seek to Knock Down 'Roadblocks' to Adoption
By Trudy Ring Mississippi Couples Seek to Knock Down 'Roadblocks' to Adoption | Advocate.com
October 14 2015 5:00 AM EDT

The plaintiffs — four same-sex couples and two organizations, the Campaign for Southern Equality and the Family Equality Council — have asked a federal court to issue a preliminary injunction, preventing the state from enforcing the ban, which was enacted in 2002. The defendants, that is, Mississippi state officials, want the court to dismiss the case. Judge Daniel Porter Jordan III is scheduled to hear arguments from both sides November 6 in U.S. District Court in Mississippi.

The plaintiffs, who filed their suit in August, Tuesday filed documents, provided to The Advocate, countering the state’s argument that they lack standing to challenge the ban and are unlikely to succeed in their case, while also tearing apart a much-criticized study that has been used against gay parents.

The state also asserts that the court would be overextending this year’s Supreme Court marriage equality decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, to find that it also rendered adoption bans unconstitutional. This is a “wholly meritless position,” according to Kaplan and her team, who argue that equal treatment of same-sex couples extends to parenting rights. This position, the plaintiffs’ attorneys say, reads this decision as well as Windsor “as if gay couples were entitled to equal protection of the laws only up to the point of getting married, but not with respect to having children or anything else.”

 

[Conservative65]

Mississippi Couples Seek to Knock Down 'Roadblocks' to Adoption
By Trudy Ring Mississippi Couples Seek to Knock Down 'Roadblocks' to Adoption | Advocate.com
October 14 2015 5:00 AM EDT

The plaintiffs — four same-sex couples and two organizations, the Campaign for Southern Equality and the Family Equality Council — have asked a federal court to issue a preliminary injunction, preventing the state from enforcing the ban, which was enacted in 2002. The defendants, that is, Mississippi state officials, want the court to dismiss the case. Judge Daniel Porter Jordan III is scheduled to hear arguments from both sides November 6 in U.S. District Court in Mississippi.

The plaintiffs, who filed their suit in August, Tuesday filed documents, provided to The Advocate, countering the state’s argument that they lack standing to challenge the ban and are unlikely to succeed in their case, while also tearing apart a much-criticized study that has been used against gay parents.

The state also asserts that the court would be overextending this year’s Supreme Court marriage equality decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, to find that it also rendered adoption bans unconstitutional. This is a “wholly meritless position,” according to Kaplan and her team, who argue that equal treatment of same-sex couples extends to parenting rights. This position, the plaintiffs’ attorneys say, reads this decision as well as Windsor “as if gay couples were entitled to equal protection of the laws only up to the point of getting married, but not with respect to having children or anything else.”

When are you idiots on the left going to allow the States to deal with issues where the authority doesn't rest with the federal government as stated in the 10th Amendment?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Mississippi Couples Seek to Knock Down 'Roadblocks' to Adoption
By Trudy Ring Mississippi Couples Seek to Knock Down 'Roadblocks' to Adoption | Advocate.com
October 14 2015 5:00 AM EDT

The plaintiffs — four same-sex couples and two organizations, the Campaign for Southern Equality and the Family Equality Council — have asked a federal court to issue a preliminary injunction, preventing the state from enforcing the ban, which was enacted in 2002. The defendants, that is, Mississippi state officials, want the court to dismiss the case. Judge Daniel Porter Jordan III is scheduled to hear arguments from both sides November 6 in U.S. District Court in Mississippi.

The plaintiffs, who filed their suit in August, Tuesday filed documents, provided to The Advocate, countering the state’s argument that they lack standing to challenge the ban and are unlikely to succeed in their case, while also tearing apart a much-criticized study that has been used against gay parents.

The state also asserts that the court would be overextending this year’s Supreme Court marriage equality decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, to find that it also rendered adoption bans unconstitutional. This is a “wholly meritless position,” according to Kaplan and her team, who argue that equal treatment of same-sex couples extends to parenting rights. This position, the plaintiffs’ attorneys say, reads this decision as well as Windsor “as if gay couples were entitled to equal protection of the laws only up to the point of getting married, but not with respect to having children or anything else.”

When are you idiots on the left going to allow the States to deal with issues where the authority doesn't rest with the federal government as stated in the 10th Amendment?

When are you idiots on the right go to understand that 10th Amendment does not take precedence over the 14 Amendment and that when ate violates the right to equal protection under the law the federal courts must act?

 

[Conservative65]

Mississippi Couples Seek to Knock Down 'Roadblocks' to Adoption
By Trudy Ring Mississippi Couples Seek to Knock Down 'Roadblocks' to Adoption | Advocate.com
October 14 2015 5:00 AM EDT

The plaintiffs — four same-sex couples and two organizations, the Campaign for Southern Equality and the Family Equality Council — have asked a federal court to issue a preliminary injunction, preventing the state from enforcing the ban, which was enacted in 2002. The defendants, that is, Mississippi state officials, want the court to dismiss the case. Judge Daniel Porter Jordan III is scheduled to hear arguments from both sides November 6 in U.S. District Court in Mississippi.

The plaintiffs, who filed their suit in August, Tuesday filed documents, provided to The Advocate, countering the state’s argument that they lack standing to challenge the ban and are unlikely to succeed in their case, while also tearing apart a much-criticized study that has been used against gay parents.

The state also asserts that the court would be overextending this year’s Supreme Court marriage equality decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, to find that it also rendered adoption bans unconstitutional. This is a “wholly meritless position,” according to Kaplan and her team, who argue that equal treatment of same-sex couples extends to parenting rights. This position, the plaintiffs’ attorneys say, reads this decision as well as Windsor “as if gay couples were entitled to equal protection of the laws only up to the point of getting married, but not with respect to having children or anything else.”

When are you idiots on the left going to allow the States to deal with issues where the authority doesn't rest with the federal government as stated in the 10th Amendment?

When are you idiots on the right go to understand that 10th Amendment does not take precedence over the 14 Amendment and that when ate violates the right to equal protection under the law the federal courts must act?

No one has a right to adopt. You idiots think anything you want to do you should be allowed to do without any restrictions. Since adoption isn't a right, your claim about the 14th is dismissed.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Mississippi Couples Seek to Knock Down 'Roadblocks' to Adoption
By Trudy Ring Mississippi Couples Seek to Knock Down 'Roadblocks' to Adoption | Advocate.com
October 14 2015 5:00 AM EDT

The plaintiffs — four same-sex couples and two organizations, the Campaign for Southern Equality and the Family Equality Council — have asked a federal court to issue a preliminary injunction, preventing the state from enforcing the ban, which was enacted in 2002. The defendants, that is, Mississippi state officials, want the court to dismiss the case. Judge Daniel Porter Jordan III is scheduled to hear arguments from both sides November 6 in U.S. District Court in Mississippi.

The plaintiffs, who filed their suit in August, Tuesday filed documents, provided to The Advocate, countering the state’s argument that they lack standing to challenge the ban and are unlikely to succeed in their case, while also tearing apart a much-criticized study that has been used against gay parents.

The state also asserts that the court would be overextending this year’s Supreme Court marriage equality decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, to find that it also rendered adoption bans unconstitutional. This is a “wholly meritless position,” according to Kaplan and her team, who argue that equal treatment of same-sex couples extends to parenting rights. This position, the plaintiffs’ attorneys say, reads this decision as well as Windsor “as if gay couples were entitled to equal protection of the laws only up to the point of getting married, but not with respect to having children or anything else.”

When are you idiots on the left going to allow the States to deal with issues where the authority doesn't rest with the federal government as stated in the 10th Amendment?

When are you idiots on the right go to understand that 10th Amendment does not take precedence over the 14 Amendment and that when ate violates the right to equal protection under the law the federal courts must act?

No one has a right to adopt. You idiots think anything you want to do you should be allowed to do without any restrictions. Since adoption isn't a right, your claim about the 14th is dismissed.

Brilliant!! Very astute indeed. Adoption is not a right. I knew that. HOWEVER ...Due process IS A RIGHT and you can't summarily dismiss an application for adoption based on sexual orientation any more than you can dismiss an application for a drivers license because someone is left handed.

And children have rights too. They have a right to have two legal parents when possible. And, please save the debunked horseshit about how they need a mother and a father.

 

[Conservative65]

Mississippi Couples Seek to Knock Down 'Roadblocks' to Adoption
By Trudy Ring Mississippi Couples Seek to Knock Down 'Roadblocks' to Adoption | Advocate.com
October 14 2015 5:00 AM EDT

The plaintiffs — four same-sex couples and two organizations, the Campaign for Southern Equality and the Family Equality Council — have asked a federal court to issue a preliminary injunction, preventing the state from enforcing the ban, which was enacted in 2002. The defendants, that is, Mississippi state officials, want the court to dismiss the case. Judge Daniel Porter Jordan III is scheduled to hear arguments from both sides November 6 in U.S. District Court in Mississippi.

The plaintiffs, who filed their suit in August, Tuesday filed documents, provided to The Advocate, countering the state’s argument that they lack standing to challenge the ban and are unlikely to succeed in their case, while also tearing apart a much-criticized study that has been used against gay parents.

The state also asserts that the court would be overextending this year’s Supreme Court marriage equality decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, to find that it also rendered adoption bans unconstitutional. This is a “wholly meritless position,” according to Kaplan and her team, who argue that equal treatment of same-sex couples extends to parenting rights. This position, the plaintiffs’ attorneys say, reads this decision as well as Windsor “as if gay couples were entitled to equal protection of the laws only up to the point of getting married, but not with respect to having children or anything else.”

When are you idiots on the left going to allow the States to deal with issues where the authority doesn't rest with the federal government as stated in the 10th Amendment?

When are you idiots on the right go to understand that 10th Amendment does not take precedence over the 14 Amendment and that when ate violates the right to equal protection under the law the federal courts must act?

No one has a right to adopt. You idiots think anything you want to do you should be allowed to do without any restrictions. Since adoption isn't a right, your claim about the 14th is dismissed.

Brilliant!! Very astute indeed. Adoption is not a right. I knew that. HOWEVER ...Due process IS A RIGHT and you can't summarily dismiss an application for adoption based on sexual orientation any more than you can dismiss an application for a drivers license because someone is left handed.

And children have rights too. They have a right to have two legal parents when possible. And, please save the debunked horseshit about how they need a mother and a father.

You're not dismissing due process if the rules limit something.

I'm glad you mentioned driver's licenses. Is a 10 year old going to be given due process if they go for a driver's license? No, they're going to be told the law says you have to be a certain age. If the law says LGBT couples can't adopt, they aren't being denied due process if they're told no for that reason when they apply same as a 10 year old isn't if told no because they're 10.

Your issue doesn't revolve around due process. You simply don't like the law.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Mississippi Couples Seek to Knock Down 'Roadblocks' to Adoption
By Trudy Ring Mississippi Couples Seek to Knock Down 'Roadblocks' to Adoption | Advocate.com
October 14 2015 5:00 AM EDT

The plaintiffs — four same-sex couples and two organizations, the Campaign for Southern Equality and the Family Equality Council — have asked a federal court to issue a preliminary injunction, preventing the state from enforcing the ban, which was enacted in 2002. The defendants, that is, Mississippi state officials, want the court to dismiss the case. Judge Daniel Porter Jordan III is scheduled to hear arguments from both sides November 6 in U.S. District Court in Mississippi.

The plaintiffs, who filed their suit in August, Tuesday filed documents, provided to The Advocate, countering the state’s argument that they lack standing to challenge the ban and are unlikely to succeed in their case, while also tearing apart a much-criticized study that has been used against gay parents.

The state also asserts that the court would be overextending this year’s Supreme Court marriage equality decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, to find that it also rendered adoption bans unconstitutional. This is a “wholly meritless position,” according to Kaplan and her team, who argue that equal treatment of same-sex couples extends to parenting rights. This position, the plaintiffs’ attorneys say, reads this decision as well as Windsor “as if gay couples were entitled to equal protection of the laws only up to the point of getting married, but not with respect to having children or anything else.”

When are you idiots on the left going to allow the States to deal with issues where the authority doesn't rest with the federal government as stated in the 10th Amendment?

When are you idiots on the right go to understand that 10th Amendment does not take precedence over the 14 Amendment and that when ate violates the right to equal protection under the law the federal courts must act?

No one has a right to adopt. You idiots think anything you want to do you should be allowed to do without any restrictions. Since adoption isn't a right, your claim about the 14th is dismissed.

Brilliant!! Very astute indeed. Adoption is not a right. I knew that. HOWEVER ...Due process IS A RIGHT and you can't summarily dismiss an application for adoption based on sexual orientation any more than you can dismiss an application for a drivers license because someone is left handed.

And children have rights too. They have a right to have two legal parents when possible. And, please save the debunked horseshit about how they need a mother and a father.

You're not dismissing due process if the rules limit something.

I'm glad you mentioned driver's licenses. Is a 10 year old going to be given due process if they go for a driver's license? No, they're going to be told the law says you have to be a certain age. If the law says LGBT couples can't adopt, they aren't being denied due process if they're told no for that reason when they apply same as a 10 year old isn't if told no because they're 10.

Your issue doesn't revolve around due process. You simply don't like the law.

Oh please give me a break! It most certainly is a violation of due process. The application for adoption is not even being considered , and for arbitrary and capricious reasons. And before you try to tell me that there are reasons why LGBT people should not adopt, I suggest that you go back and read through my earlier posts in this thread. As with same sex marriage, every reason ever invented for denying adoption has been destroyed. In fact, denying gay couples adoption is demonstrably harmful to children.

As for your ten year old driver, there are obvious reasons why he should not be driving. It's common fucking sense that someone who is ten does not have adequate judgment and motor skills to drive. That is just a logical fallacy in the form of a false equivalency. Two situations that are irrelevant to each other.

Give it up already. You really don't know what your talking about. Oh and BTW, I worked in an adoption and child welfare agency in New Jersey where we have been placing children for adoption with same sex couples since 1997. There are no problems and it was never really a big issue.

 

[Conservative65]

When are you idiots on the left going to allow the States to deal with issues where the authority doesn't rest with the federal government as stated in the 10th Amendment?

When are you idiots on the right go to understand that 10th Amendment does not take precedence over the 14 Amendment and that when ate violates the right to equal protection under the law the federal courts must act?

No one has a right to adopt. You idiots think anything you want to do you should be allowed to do without any restrictions. Since adoption isn't a right, your claim about the 14th is dismissed.

Brilliant!! Very astute indeed. Adoption is not a right. I knew that. HOWEVER ...Due process IS A RIGHT and you can't summarily dismiss an application for adoption based on sexual orientation any more than you can dismiss an application for a drivers license because someone is left handed.

And children have rights too. They have a right to have two legal parents when possible. And, please save the debunked horseshit about how they need a mother and a father.

You're not dismissing due process if the rules limit something.

I'm glad you mentioned driver's licenses. Is a 10 year old going to be given due process if they go for a driver's license? No, they're going to be told the law says you have to be a certain age. If the law says LGBT couples can't adopt, they aren't being denied due process if they're told no for that reason when they apply same as a 10 year old isn't if told no because they're 10.

Your issue doesn't revolve around due process. You simply don't like the law.

Oh please give me a break! It most certainly is a violation of due process. The application for adoption is not even being considered , and for arbitrary and capricious reasons. And before you try to tell me that there are reasons why LGBT people should not adopt, I suggest that you go back and read through my earlier posts in this thread. As with same sex marriage, every reason ever invented for denying adoption has been destroyed. In fact, denying gay couples adoption is demonstrably harmful to children.

As for your ten year old driver, there are obvious reasons why he should not be driving. It's common fucking sense that someone who is ten does not have adequate judgment and motor skills to drive. That is just a logical fallacy in the form of a false equivalency. Two situations that are irrelevant to each other.

Give it up already. You really don't know what your talking about. Oh and BTW, I worked in an adoption and child welfare agency in New Jersey where we have been placing children for adoption with same sex couples since 1997. There are no problems and it was never really a big issue.

So what it amounts to is you think your reasons why something should be denied are valid but reasons someone has that disagrees with you about adoption are automatically invalid because you disagree.

Typical mindset of your kind. It's that attitude of if I want it, you have to agree and if I don't, you also have to agree.

You can call it arbitrary and capricious reasons if you want. What it is amounts to the law you don't like. Last time I looked, you don't get what you want because you want it. That type of mentality is killing this country. I'll tell you like my dad told me growing up when I said I wanted something. Want in one hand, shit in the other, and see which one fills up quicker.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

When are you idiots on the right go to understand that 10th Amendment does not take precedence over the 14 Amendment and that when ate violates the right to equal protection under the law the federal courts must act?

No one has a right to adopt. You idiots think anything you want to do you should be allowed to do without any restrictions. Since adoption isn't a right, your claim about the 14th is dismissed.

Brilliant!! Very astute indeed. Adoption is not a right. I knew that. HOWEVER ...Due process IS A RIGHT and you can't summarily dismiss an application for adoption based on sexual orientation any more than you can dismiss an application for a drivers license because someone is left handed.

And children have rights too. They have a right to have two legal parents when possible. And, please save the debunked horseshit about how they need a mother and a father.

You're not dismissing due process if the rules limit something.

I'm glad you mentioned driver's licenses. Is a 10 year old going to be given due process if they go for a driver's license? No, they're going to be told the law says you have to be a certain age. If the law says LGBT couples can't adopt, they aren't being denied due process if they're told no for that reason when they apply same as a 10 year old isn't if told no because they're 10.

Your issue doesn't revolve around due process. You simply don't like the law.

Oh please give me a break! It most certainly is a violation of due process. The application for adoption is not even being considered , and for arbitrary and capricious reasons. And before you try to tell me that there are reasons why LGBT people should not adopt, I suggest that you go back and read through my earlier posts in this thread. As with same sex marriage, every reason ever invented for denying adoption has been destroyed. In fact, denying gay couples adoption is demonstrably harmful to children.

As for your ten year old driver, there are obvious reasons why he should not be driving. It's common fucking sense that someone who is ten does not have adequate judgment and motor skills to drive. That is just a logical fallacy in the form of a false equivalency. Two situations that are irrelevant to each other.

Give it up already. You really don't know what your talking about. Oh and BTW, I worked in an adoption and child welfare agency in New Jersey where we have been placing children for adoption with same sex couples since 1997. There are no problems and it was never really a big issue.

So what it amounts to is you think your reasons why something should be denied are valid but reasons someone has that disagrees with you about adoption are automatically invalid because you disagree.

Typical mindset of your kind. It's that attitude of if I want it, you have to agree and if I don't, you also have to agree.

You can call it arbitrary and capricious reasons if you want. What it is amounts to the law you don't like. Last time I looked, you don't get what you want because you want it. That type of mentality is killing this country. I'll tell you like my dad told me growing up when I said I wanted something. Want in one hand, shit in the other, and see which one fills up quicker.

OK well, if you insist. It's apparent that you have such a poor understanding of how the law works, and that you are so invested in your desire to allow discrimination, that nothing I say is going to help.

Tell you what, meet me back here after the Nov. 6th court date and we'll take it from there. Care to wager a bet as to how that will go?

 

[Conservative65]

No one has a right to adopt. You idiots think anything you want to do you should be allowed to do without any restrictions. Since adoption isn't a right, your claim about the 14th is dismissed.

Brilliant!! Very astute indeed. Adoption is not a right. I knew that. HOWEVER ...Due process IS A RIGHT and you can't summarily dismiss an application for adoption based on sexual orientation any more than you can dismiss an application for a drivers license because someone is left handed.

And children have rights too. They have a right to have two legal parents when possible. And, please save the debunked horseshit about how they need a mother and a father.

You're not dismissing due process if the rules limit something.

I'm glad you mentioned driver's licenses. Is a 10 year old going to be given due process if they go for a driver's license? No, they're going to be told the law says you have to be a certain age. If the law says LGBT couples can't adopt, they aren't being denied due process if they're told no for that reason when they apply same as a 10 year old isn't if told no because they're 10.

Your issue doesn't revolve around due process. You simply don't like the law.

Oh please give me a break! It most certainly is a violation of due process. The application for adoption is not even being considered , and for arbitrary and capricious reasons. And before you try to tell me that there are reasons why LGBT people should not adopt, I suggest that you go back and read through my earlier posts in this thread. As with same sex marriage, every reason ever invented for denying adoption has been destroyed. In fact, denying gay couples adoption is demonstrably harmful to children.

As for your ten year old driver, there are obvious reasons why he should not be driving. It's common fucking sense that someone who is ten does not have adequate judgment and motor skills to drive. That is just a logical fallacy in the form of a false equivalency. Two situations that are irrelevant to each other.

Give it up already. You really don't know what your talking about. Oh and BTW, I worked in an adoption and child welfare agency in New Jersey where we have been placing children for adoption with same sex couples since 1997. There are no problems and it was never really a big issue.

So what it amounts to is you think your reasons why something should be denied are valid but reasons someone has that disagrees with you about adoption are automatically invalid because you disagree.

Typical mindset of your kind. It's that attitude of if I want it, you have to agree and if I don't, you also have to agree.

You can call it arbitrary and capricious reasons if you want. What it is amounts to the law you don't like. Last time I looked, you don't get what you want because you want it. That type of mentality is killing this country. I'll tell you like my dad told me growing up when I said I wanted something. Want in one hand, shit in the other, and see which one fills up quicker.

OK well, if you insist. It's apparent that you have such a poor understanding of how the law works, and that you are so invested in your desire to allow discrimination, that nothing I say is going to help.

Tell you what, meet me back here after the Nov. 6th court date and we'll take it from there. Care to wager a bet as to how that will go?

What I understand is you claim one situation where you set the parameters is OK and one situation where someone else sets the parameters is wrong because you don't like the parameters.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Brilliant!! Very astute indeed. Adoption is not a right. I knew that. HOWEVER ...Due process IS A RIGHT and you can't summarily dismiss an application for adoption based on sexual orientation any more than you can dismiss an application for a drivers license because someone is left handed.

And children have rights too. They have a right to have two legal parents when possible. And, please save the debunked horseshit about how they need a mother and a father.

You're not dismissing due process if the rules limit something.

I'm glad you mentioned driver's licenses. Is a 10 year old going to be given due process if they go for a driver's license? No, they're going to be told the law says you have to be a certain age. If the law says LGBT couples can't adopt, they aren't being denied due process if they're told no for that reason when they apply same as a 10 year old isn't if told no because they're 10.

Your issue doesn't revolve around due process. You simply don't like the law.

Oh please give me a break! It most certainly is a violation of due process. The application for adoption is not even being considered , and for arbitrary and capricious reasons. And before you try to tell me that there are reasons why LGBT people should not adopt, I suggest that you go back and read through my earlier posts in this thread. As with same sex marriage, every reason ever invented for denying adoption has been destroyed. In fact, denying gay couples adoption is demonstrably harmful to children.

As for your ten year old driver, there are obvious reasons why he should not be driving. It's common fucking sense that someone who is ten does not have adequate judgment and motor skills to drive. That is just a logical fallacy in the form of a false equivalency. Two situations that are irrelevant to each other.

Give it up already. You really don't know what your talking about. Oh and BTW, I worked in an adoption and child welfare agency in New Jersey where we have been placing children for adoption with same sex couples since 1997. There are no problems and it was never really a big issue.

So what it amounts to is you think your reasons why something should be denied are valid but reasons someone has that disagrees with you about adoption are automatically invalid because you disagree.

Typical mindset of your kind. It's that attitude of if I want it, you have to agree and if I don't, you also have to agree.

You can call it arbitrary and capricious reasons if you want. What it is amounts to the law you don't like. Last time I looked, you don't get what you want because you want it. That type of mentality is killing this country. I'll tell you like my dad told me growing up when I said I wanted something. Want in one hand, shit in the other, and see which one fills up quicker.

OK well, if you insist. It's apparent that you have such a poor understanding of how the law works, and that you are so invested in your desire to allow discrimination, that nothing I say is going to help.

Tell you what, meet me back here after the Nov. 6th court date and we'll take it from there. Care to wager a bet as to how that will go?

What I understand is you claim one situation where you set the parameters is OK and one situation where someone else sets the parameters is wrong because you don't like the parameters.

Common! Are you really that obtuse or are you just playing? It's not about what I like or do not like. It's not about what anyone likes or doesn't like. It is about whether of not a law passes constitutional muster.

When a law is challenged on constitutional grounds, the state must defend it by articulating, at minimum, a rational basis for having it. If a higher level of scrutiny is afforded the issue, the state may have to explain what the compelling government interest in maintaining the law is.

With me so far? I hope so.

Now, with this adoption thing, same sex couples are being treated differently from heterosexual couples. That is discrimination. The state of Mississippi is going to be hard pressed to explain why since there is no credible evidence that children are harmed by having gay parents. I have posted extensively on that subject. You might want to inform yourself better about it.

Still with me?

In addition, in many cases we are talking about children who are already in the care of a gay person, and who can benefit by a second parent adoption or step parent adoption by the partner of that gay person who is often the biological parent.

Children are harmed when they cannot be adopted. There are many other children who are in the foster care system who are in need of a home and it's cruel to deny them every opportunity to have two legal parents. Not only is there no rationality to it, it is just plain stupid.

The state od Miss. is going down on this one. If not at the District Court level, it will loose on appeal. As I said, it is not about what I like or dislike, but it seems to be about what you don't like while you ignore the legal reality that Miss. is engaging in an act of discrimination.

Please give us some sign that you can understand this. Are you really so blinded by your prejudice that you are willing to ignore the reality of what is in the best interest of the children? Are you so intent of sticking it to gay people that you will offer the children up as collateral damage?

 

[Conservative65]

You're not dismissing due process if the rules limit something.

I'm glad you mentioned driver's licenses. Is a 10 year old going to be given due process if they go for a driver's license? No, they're going to be told the law says you have to be a certain age. If the law says LGBT couples can't adopt, they aren't being denied due process if they're told no for that reason when they apply same as a 10 year old isn't if told no because they're 10.

Your issue doesn't revolve around due process. You simply don't like the law.

Oh please give me a break! It most certainly is a violation of due process. The application for adoption is not even being considered , and for arbitrary and capricious reasons. And before you try to tell me that there are reasons why LGBT people should not adopt, I suggest that you go back and read through my earlier posts in this thread. As with same sex marriage, every reason ever invented for denying adoption has been destroyed. In fact, denying gay couples adoption is demonstrably harmful to children.

As for your ten year old driver, there are obvious reasons why he should not be driving. It's common fucking sense that someone who is ten does not have adequate judgment and motor skills to drive. That is just a logical fallacy in the form of a false equivalency. Two situations that are irrelevant to each other.

Give it up already. You really don't know what your talking about. Oh and BTW, I worked in an adoption and child welfare agency in New Jersey where we have been placing children for adoption with same sex couples since 1997. There are no problems and it was never really a big issue.

So what it amounts to is you think your reasons why something should be denied are valid but reasons someone has that disagrees with you about adoption are automatically invalid because you disagree.

Typical mindset of your kind. It's that attitude of if I want it, you have to agree and if I don't, you also have to agree.

You can call it arbitrary and capricious reasons if you want. What it is amounts to the law you don't like. Last time I looked, you don't get what you want because you want it. That type of mentality is killing this country. I'll tell you like my dad told me growing up when I said I wanted something. Want in one hand, shit in the other, and see which one fills up quicker.

OK well, if you insist. It's apparent that you have such a poor understanding of how the law works, and that you are so invested in your desire to allow discrimination, that nothing I say is going to help.

Tell you what, meet me back here after the Nov. 6th court date and we'll take it from there. Care to wager a bet as to how that will go?

What I understand is you claim one situation where you set the parameters is OK and one situation where someone else sets the parameters is wrong because you don't like the parameters.

Common! Are you really that obtuse or are you just playing? It's not about what I like or do not like. It's not about what anyone likes or doesn't like. It is about whether of not a law passes constitutional muster.

When a law is challenged on constitutional grounds, the state must defend it by articulating, at minimum, a rational basis for having it. If a higher level of scrutiny is afforded the issue, the state may have to explain what the compelling government interest in maintaining the law is.

With me so far? I hope so.

Now, with this adoption thing, same sex couples are being treated differently from heterosexual couples. That is discrimination. The state of Mississippi is going to be hard pressed to explain why since there is no credible evidence that children are harmed by having gay parents. I have posted extensively on that subject. You might want to inform yourself better about it.

Still with me?

In addition, in many cases we are talking about children who are already in the care of a gay person, and who can benefit by a second parent adoption or step parent adoption by the partner of that gay person who is often the biological parent.

Children are harmed when they cannot be adopted. There are many other children who are in the foster care system who are in need of a home and it's cruel to deny them every opportunity to have two legal parents. Not only is there no rationality to it, it is just plain stupid.

The state od Miss. is going down on this one. If not at the District Court level, it will loose on appeal. As I said, it is not about what I like or dislike, but it seems to be about what you don't like while you ignore the legal reality that Miss. is engaging in an act of discrimination.

Please give us some sign that you can understand this. Are you really so blinded by your prejudice that you are willing to ignore the reality of what is in the best interest of the children? Are you so intent of sticking it to gay people that you will offer the children up as collateral damage?

Putting children with freaks of nature and abnormal faggots is not in their best interest.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Oh please give me a break! It most certainly is a violation of due process. The application for adoption is not even being considered , and for arbitrary and capricious reasons. And before you try to tell me that there are reasons why LGBT people should not adopt, I suggest that you go back and read through my earlier posts in this thread. As with same sex marriage, every reason ever invented for denying adoption has been destroyed. In fact, denying gay couples adoption is demonstrably harmful to children.

As for your ten year old driver, there are obvious reasons why he should not be driving. It's common fucking sense that someone who is ten does not have adequate judgment and motor skills to drive. That is just a logical fallacy in the form of a false equivalency. Two situations that are irrelevant to each other.

Give it up already. You really don't know what your talking about. Oh and BTW, I worked in an adoption and child welfare agency in New Jersey where we have been placing children for adoption with same sex couples since 1997. There are no problems and it was never really a big issue.

So what it amounts to is you think your reasons why something should be denied are valid but reasons someone has that disagrees with you about adoption are automatically invalid because you disagree.

Typical mindset of your kind. It's that attitude of if I want it, you have to agree and if I don't, you also have to agree.

You can call it arbitrary and capricious reasons if you want. What it is amounts to the law you don't like. Last time I looked, you don't get what you want because you want it. That type of mentality is killing this country. I'll tell you like my dad told me growing up when I said I wanted something. Want in one hand, shit in the other, and see which one fills up quicker.

OK well, if you insist. It's apparent that you have such a poor understanding of how the law works, and that you are so invested in your desire to allow discrimination, that nothing I say is going to help.

Tell you what, meet me back here after the Nov. 6th court date and we'll take it from there. Care to wager a bet as to how that will go?

What I understand is you claim one situation where you set the parameters is OK and one situation where someone else sets the parameters is wrong because you don't like the parameters.

Common! Are you really that obtuse or are you just playing? It's not about what I like or do not like. It's not about what anyone likes or doesn't like. It is about whether of not a law passes constitutional muster.

When a law is challenged on constitutional grounds, the state must defend it by articulating, at minimum, a rational basis for having it. If a higher level of scrutiny is afforded the issue, the state may have to explain what the compelling government interest in maintaining the law is.

With me so far? I hope so.

Now, with this adoption thing, same sex couples are being treated differently from heterosexual couples. That is discrimination. The state of Mississippi is going to be hard pressed to explain why since there is no credible evidence that children are harmed by having gay parents. I have posted extensively on that subject. You might want to inform yourself better about it.

Still with me?

In addition, in many cases we are talking about children who are already in the care of a gay person, and who can benefit by a second parent adoption or step parent adoption by the partner of that gay person who is often the biological parent.

Children are harmed when they cannot be adopted. There are many other children who are in the foster care system who are in need of a home and it's cruel to deny them every opportunity to have two legal parents. Not only is there no rationality to it, it is just plain stupid.

The state od Miss. is going down on this one. If not at the District Court level, it will loose on appeal. As I said, it is not about what I like or dislike, but it seems to be about what you don't like while you ignore the legal reality that Miss. is engaging in an act of discrimination.

Please give us some sign that you can understand this. Are you really so blinded by your prejudice that you are willing to ignore the reality of what is in the best interest of the children? Are you so intent of sticking it to gay people that you will offer the children up as collateral damage?

Putting children with freaks of nature and abnormal faggots is not in their best interest.

At least now you're admitting that you are a low information bigot instead of moronically pretending that not allowing gays to adopt is the same as not allowing a ten year old to drive.

It matters little. You and your ilk are done for. I almost feel sorry for you dinosaurs.

 

[bodecea]

Oh please give me a break! It most certainly is a violation of due process. The application for adoption is not even being considered , and for arbitrary and capricious reasons. And before you try to tell me that there are reasons why LGBT people should not adopt, I suggest that you go back and read through my earlier posts in this thread. As with same sex marriage, every reason ever invented for denying adoption has been destroyed. In fact, denying gay couples adoption is demonstrably harmful to children.

As for your ten year old driver, there are obvious reasons why he should not be driving. It's common fucking sense that someone who is ten does not have adequate judgment and motor skills to drive. That is just a logical fallacy in the form of a false equivalency. Two situations that are irrelevant to each other.

Give it up already. You really don't know what your talking about. Oh and BTW, I worked in an adoption and child welfare agency in New Jersey where we have been placing children for adoption with same sex couples since 1997. There are no problems and it was never really a big issue.

So what it amounts to is you think your reasons why something should be denied are valid but reasons someone has that disagrees with you about adoption are automatically invalid because you disagree.

Typical mindset of your kind. It's that attitude of if I want it, you have to agree and if I don't, you also have to agree.

You can call it arbitrary and capricious reasons if you want. What it is amounts to the law you don't like. Last time I looked, you don't get what you want because you want it. That type of mentality is killing this country. I'll tell you like my dad told me growing up when I said I wanted something. Want in one hand, shit in the other, and see which one fills up quicker.

OK well, if you insist. It's apparent that you have such a poor understanding of how the law works, and that you are so invested in your desire to allow discrimination, that nothing I say is going to help.

Tell you what, meet me back here after the Nov. 6th court date and we'll take it from there. Care to wager a bet as to how that will go?

What I understand is you claim one situation where you set the parameters is OK and one situation where someone else sets the parameters is wrong because you don't like the parameters.

Common! Are you really that obtuse or are you just playing? It's not about what I like or do not like. It's not about what anyone likes or doesn't like. It is about whether of not a law passes constitutional muster.

When a law is challenged on constitutional grounds, the state must defend it by articulating, at minimum, a rational basis for having it. If a higher level of scrutiny is afforded the issue, the state may have to explain what the compelling government interest in maintaining the law is.

With me so far? I hope so.

Now, with this adoption thing, same sex couples are being treated differently from heterosexual couples. That is discrimination. The state of Mississippi is going to be hard pressed to explain why since there is no credible evidence that children are harmed by having gay parents. I have posted extensively on that subject. You might want to inform yourself better about it.

Still with me?

In addition, in many cases we are talking about children who are already in the care of a gay person, and who can benefit by a second parent adoption or step parent adoption by the partner of that gay person who is often the biological parent.

Children are harmed when they cannot be adopted. There are many other children who are in the foster care system who are in need of a home and it's cruel to deny them every opportunity to have two legal parents. Not only is there no rationality to it, it is just plain stupid.

The state od Miss. is going down on this one. If not at the District Court level, it will loose on appeal. As I said, it is not about what I like or dislike, but it seems to be about what you don't like while you ignore the legal reality that Miss. is engaging in an act of discrimination.

Please give us some sign that you can understand this. Are you really so blinded by your prejudice that you are willing to ignore the reality of what is in the best interest of the children? Are you so intent of sticking it to gay people that you will offer the children up as collateral damage?

Putting children with freaks of nature and abnormal faggots is not in their best interest.

Thus the vetting process to make sure they are not put with racist bigots and homophobes.

 

[Conservative65]

So what it amounts to is you think your reasons why something should be denied are valid but reasons someone has that disagrees with you about adoption are automatically invalid because you disagree.

Typical mindset of your kind. It's that attitude of if I want it, you have to agree and if I don't, you also have to agree.

You can call it arbitrary and capricious reasons if you want. What it is amounts to the law you don't like. Last time I looked, you don't get what you want because you want it. That type of mentality is killing this country. I'll tell you like my dad told me growing up when I said I wanted something. Want in one hand, shit in the other, and see which one fills up quicker.

OK well, if you insist. It's apparent that you have such a poor understanding of how the law works, and that you are so invested in your desire to allow discrimination, that nothing I say is going to help.

Tell you what, meet me back here after the Nov. 6th court date and we'll take it from there. Care to wager a bet as to how that will go?

What I understand is you claim one situation where you set the parameters is OK and one situation where someone else sets the parameters is wrong because you don't like the parameters.

Common! Are you really that obtuse or are you just playing? It's not about what I like or do not like. It's not about what anyone likes or doesn't like. It is about whether of not a law passes constitutional muster.

When a law is challenged on constitutional grounds, the state must defend it by articulating, at minimum, a rational basis for having it. If a higher level of scrutiny is afforded the issue, the state may have to explain what the compelling government interest in maintaining the law is.

With me so far? I hope so.

Now, with this adoption thing, same sex couples are being treated differently from heterosexual couples. That is discrimination. The state of Mississippi is going to be hard pressed to explain why since there is no credible evidence that children are harmed by having gay parents. I have posted extensively on that subject. You might want to inform yourself better about it.

Still with me?

In addition, in many cases we are talking about children who are already in the care of a gay person, and who can benefit by a second parent adoption or step parent adoption by the partner of that gay person who is often the biological parent.

Children are harmed when they cannot be adopted. There are many other children who are in the foster care system who are in need of a home and it's cruel to deny them every opportunity to have two legal parents. Not only is there no rationality to it, it is just plain stupid.

The state od Miss. is going down on this one. If not at the District Court level, it will loose on appeal. As I said, it is not about what I like or dislike, but it seems to be about what you don't like while you ignore the legal reality that Miss. is engaging in an act of discrimination.

Please give us some sign that you can understand this. Are you really so blinded by your prejudice that you are willing to ignore the reality of what is in the best interest of the children? Are you so intent of sticking it to gay people that you will offer the children up as collateral damage?

Putting children with freaks of nature and abnormal faggots is not in their best interest.

Thus the vetting process to make sure they are not put with racist bigots and homophobes.

Does that include keeping people out that are bigoted against religion?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

OK well, if you insist. It's apparent that you have such a poor understanding of how the law works, and that you are so invested in your desire to allow discrimination, that nothing I say is going to help.

Tell you what, meet me back here after the Nov. 6th court date and we'll take it from there. Care to wager a bet as to how that will go?

What I understand is you claim one situation where you set the parameters is OK and one situation where someone else sets the parameters is wrong because you don't like the parameters.

Common! Are you really that obtuse or are you just playing? It's not about what I like or do not like. It's not about what anyone likes or doesn't like. It is about whether of not a law passes constitutional muster.

When a law is challenged on constitutional grounds, the state must defend it by articulating, at minimum, a rational basis for having it. If a higher level of scrutiny is afforded the issue, the state may have to explain what the compelling government interest in maintaining the law is.

With me so far? I hope so.

Now, with this adoption thing, same sex couples are being treated differently from heterosexual couples. That is discrimination. The state of Mississippi is going to be hard pressed to explain why since there is no credible evidence that children are harmed by having gay parents. I have posted extensively on that subject. You might want to inform yourself better about it.

Still with me?

In addition, in many cases we are talking about children who are already in the care of a gay person, and who can benefit by a second parent adoption or step parent adoption by the partner of that gay person who is often the biological parent.

Children are harmed when they cannot be adopted. There are many other children who are in the foster care system who are in need of a home and it's cruel to deny them every opportunity to have two legal parents. Not only is there no rationality to it, it is just plain stupid.

The state od Miss. is going down on this one. If not at the District Court level, it will loose on appeal. As I said, it is not about what I like or dislike, but it seems to be about what you don't like while you ignore the legal reality that Miss. is engaging in an act of discrimination.

Please give us some sign that you can understand this. Are you really so blinded by your prejudice that you are willing to ignore the reality of what is in the best interest of the children? Are you so intent of sticking it to gay people that you will offer the children up as collateral damage?

Putting children with freaks of nature and abnormal faggots is not in their best interest.

Thus the vetting process to make sure they are not put with racist bigots and homophobes.

Does that include keeping people out that are bigoted against religion?

I would place a child for adoption with Atheists long before I would do so with someone who is consumed by hate and willfully ignorant -and who apparently wants to stay that way.

 

[Conservative65]

What I understand is you claim one situation where you set the parameters is OK and one situation where someone else sets the parameters is wrong because you don't like the parameters.

Common! Are you really that obtuse or are you just playing? It's not about what I like or do not like. It's not about what anyone likes or doesn't like. It is about whether of not a law passes constitutional muster.

When a law is challenged on constitutional grounds, the state must defend it by articulating, at minimum, a rational basis for having it. If a higher level of scrutiny is afforded the issue, the state may have to explain what the compelling government interest in maintaining the law is.

With me so far? I hope so.

Now, with this adoption thing, same sex couples are being treated differently from heterosexual couples. That is discrimination. The state of Mississippi is going to be hard pressed to explain why since there is no credible evidence that children are harmed by having gay parents. I have posted extensively on that subject. You might want to inform yourself better about it.

Still with me?

In addition, in many cases we are talking about children who are already in the care of a gay person, and who can benefit by a second parent adoption or step parent adoption by the partner of that gay person who is often the biological parent.

Children are harmed when they cannot be adopted. There are many other children who are in the foster care system who are in need of a home and it's cruel to deny them every opportunity to have two legal parents. Not only is there no rationality to it, it is just plain stupid.

The state od Miss. is going down on this one. If not at the District Court level, it will loose on appeal. As I said, it is not about what I like or dislike, but it seems to be about what you don't like while you ignore the legal reality that Miss. is engaging in an act of discrimination.

Please give us some sign that you can understand this. Are you really so blinded by your prejudice that you are willing to ignore the reality of what is in the best interest of the children? Are you so intent of sticking it to gay people that you will offer the children up as collateral damage?

Putting children with freaks of nature and abnormal faggots is not in their best interest.

Thus the vetting process to make sure they are not put with racist bigots and homophobes.

Does that include keeping people out that are bigoted against religion?

I would place a child for adoption with Atheists long before I would do so with someone who is consumed by hate and willfully ignorant -and who apparently wants to stay that way.

That's because you're a bigot toward anything else.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Common! Are you really that obtuse or are you just playing? It's not about what I like or do not like. It's not about what anyone likes or doesn't like. It is about whether of not a law passes constitutional muster.

When a law is challenged on constitutional grounds, the state must defend it by articulating, at minimum, a rational basis for having it. If a higher level of scrutiny is afforded the issue, the state may have to explain what the compelling government interest in maintaining the law is.

With me so far? I hope so.

Now, with this adoption thing, same sex couples are being treated differently from heterosexual couples. That is discrimination. The state of Mississippi is going to be hard pressed to explain why since there is no credible evidence that children are harmed by having gay parents. I have posted extensively on that subject. You might want to inform yourself better about it.

Still with me?

In addition, in many cases we are talking about children who are already in the care of a gay person, and who can benefit by a second parent adoption or step parent adoption by the partner of that gay person who is often the biological parent.

Children are harmed when they cannot be adopted. There are many other children who are in the foster care system who are in need of a home and it's cruel to deny them every opportunity to have two legal parents. Not only is there no rationality to it, it is just plain stupid.

The state od Miss. is going down on this one. If not at the District Court level, it will loose on appeal. As I said, it is not about what I like or dislike, but it seems to be about what you don't like while you ignore the legal reality that Miss. is engaging in an act of discrimination.

Please give us some sign that you can understand this. Are you really so blinded by your prejudice that you are willing to ignore the reality of what is in the best interest of the children? Are you so intent of sticking it to gay people that you will offer the children up as collateral damage?

Putting children with freaks of nature and abnormal faggots is not in their best interest.

Thus the vetting process to make sure they are not put with racist bigots and homophobes.

Does that include keeping people out that are bigoted against religion?

I would place a child for adoption with Atheists long before I would do so with someone who is consumed by hate and willfully ignorant -and who apparently wants to stay that way.

That's because you're a bigot toward anything else.