Michigan Allows Adoption Agents to Opt-Out of Adoption to Gay "Couples"

[Montrovant]

You're right. The study never mentions gays at all. It only concludes that a boy missing a father or a girl missing a mother in their daily life = social maladjustment and suicidal tendencies, joblessness and drug addiction in a startling large majority of these children.

That's not what it says. It says that the lack of a same sex role model can produce bad outcomes.

But the study never says that a same sex role model must be a parent. Or that parents are always good same sex role models. You made that up.

Back in reality, an uncle or aunt could be a good same sex role model. A grand parent could, as could a cousin. So could a couch, a family friend, a pastor, a teacher, or a litany of other sources.

Yet you ignore it all, insist it can ONLY be a parent, and then make sweeping condemnations of two parent same sex households......none of which the Prince Trust study even mentions.

Worse, there are studies galore that directly address the health of children of same sex parents. And they overwhelmingly find that the kids are fine. Yet these studies contradict you. So being the Avatar of Confirmation Bias that you are, you ignore them. So you make up findings for a study that doesn't say anything you do.....and you ignore studies that explicity contradict you. This Confirmation Bias fallacy and straight up hallucinations are the basis of your beliefs.

Um.....why should we give a shit what you believe?

You are wrong about this, Skylar. A couch could not make a good same sex role model.

 

[Silhouette]

OK, then we'll pretend edgetho's comments were never made and get back to the topic. Looks like over 60% of voters on the poll agree a child should have both a father and a mother. Just like those Italian gay designers did and who believe children should be raised with a mother and father. Were you raised in contact with both your mother and father mdk?

 

[mdk]

OK, then we'll pretend edgetho's comments were never made and get back to the topic. Looks like over 60% of voters on the poll agree a child should have both a father and a mother. Just like those Italian gay designers did and who believe children should be raised with a mother and father. Were you raised in contact with both your mother and father mdk?

Bid deal? A whopping 14 people voted in the poll. And I was one of them. Private adoption agencies; for the most part, can place children with any couple or person they see fit. If you accept money from the tax payers then you have to abide the rules that come with money. If they can't deal with that then perhaps they shouldn't accept public funds.

 

[Skylar]

drop the strawman mdk...we're moving on..

Laughing.....you get caught red handing making shit up. And now you're trying to back pedal away? Um, no.

Show us anyone who has said that homosexuals being thrown off of buildings in the ME means that they get to adopt children in the US automatically.

Anyone. Either show us the quote, or admit your strawman.

 

[mdk]

drop the strawman mdk...we're moving on..

It's your straw man that you assigned to me. Of course you want to move on, you made an ass out yourself. Show me where I ever said that we should base of laws of the laws from Muslims countries. You can't b/c like most things you've made it up entirely.

 

[Skylar]

OK, then we'll pretend edgetho's comments were never made and get back to the topic. Looks like over 60% of voters on the poll agree a child should have both a father and a mother. Just like those Italian gay designers did and who believe children should be raised with a mother and father. Were you raised in contact with both your mother and father mdk?

Bid deal? A whopping 14 people voted in the poll. And I was one of them. Private adoption agencies; for the most part, can place children with any couple or person they see fit. If you accept money from the tax payers then you have to abide the rules that come with money. If they can't deal with that then perhaps they shouldn't accept public funds.

At first, I didn't understand how Sil could denounce a study with 300 participants for having a polling sample that was 'too small' and then cite a random strawpoll on an obscure message board with only 14 votes as defining actual sentiment on the matter.

But after his Oprah Winfrey conspiracy, his Gallup polling conspiracy, his 'Infiltration by homosexuals' conspiracy, his 'the SCOTUS is being blackmailed' conspiracy, the 'paid gay posters on the board' conspiracy, and his dismissal of the Duggar molestation as mere 'sexual experiments' ......I realized that this guy was just batshit crazy.

Then it made much more sense.

 

[mdk]

OK, then we'll pretend edgetho's comments were never made and get back to the topic. Looks like over 60% of voters on the poll agree a child should have both a father and a mother. Just like those Italian gay designers did and who believe children should be raised with a mother and father. Were you raised in contact with both your mother and father mdk?

Bid deal? A whopping 14 people voted in the poll. And I was one of them. Private adoption agencies; for the most part, can place children with any couple or person they see fit. If you accept money from the tax payers then you have to abide the rules that come with money. If they can't deal with that then perhaps they shouldn't accept public funds.

At first, I didn't understand how Sil could denounce a study with 300 participants for having a polling sample that was 'too small' and then cite a random strawpoll on an obscure message board with only 14 votes as defining actual sentiment on the matter.

But after his Oprah Winfrey conspiracy, his Gallup polling conspiracy, his 'Infiltration by homosexuals' conspiracy, his dismissal of the Duggar molestation as mere 'sexual experiments' ......I realized that this guy was just batshit crazy.

Then it made much more sense.

Sil is a loon of the highest order and nothing more then a mere peddler of conspiracies. I actually voted yes in the poll. My reasoning was that a private agency (for the most part) can place children with couples or a person as they see fit.

 

[Political Junky]

Bearing in mind that most LGBT members had regular access to both a father and mother as they were growing up...

In what seems like bracing to allow the conversation to continue in any eventuality of a Decision by SCOTUS, Michigan recognizing LGBT legally as behaviors and not a static class, allows adoption agents to essentially screen prospective couples for the presence of both a mother and a father before adopting children to them.

The logic is sound. The majority of people and many LGBTs themselves believe that children have an intrinsic and inaliable right to both a mother and a father in marriage. And in fact, states only get involved in marriage to incentivize both a mother and a father in marriage for the best benefit of kids.

Reuters) - Michigan's governor signed legislation on Thursday allowing private adoption agencies to refuse to place children with same-sex couples on religious grounds, one of a series of Republican-backed measures at the state level targeting gay couples....The action comes as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to issue a ruling by the end of this month on whether same-sex marriage will be legalized nationwide....It came on the same day that Republican lawmakers in North Carolina pushed through legislation permitting government officials to refuse to perform same-sex marriages by citing religious objections, overriding the governor's veto....The Michigan bills that were signed into law let faith-based agencies that contract with Michigan refuse adoption services to couples on religious grounds. Michigan governor signs bills allowing gay-couple adoption refusal - News - WIBQ - 1230 AM Terre Haute IN - 1440 AM Paris IL

Will gays sue about this? Yes, of course. But they have the 1st Amendment as a hurdle. And this: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Edit: I have to include this response below from an LGBT lobbyist-blogger and the legal stance LGBTs are advertising (read the part in the article quote in bold Disir. Michigan is funding them and allowing them to insist on a mother and father when couples apply. If your goons cut off federal funding to orphanges in blackmail to force them to surrender their orphans to gays, this issue is going to go before the US Supreme Court)

As long as those agencies don't receive any federal funding.

So you're willing to use money as a club to force adoption agencies to disgorge their vulnerable orphans to a cult whose messiah is a guy who sodomized vulnerable orphans boys?
Are you listening SCOTUS?

You realize such blackmail will only hurt children. Our country will not be forced to surrender children to your cult members....under the threat of hurting children if we don't...

As you pointed out, most gays were raised by a heterosexual couple. They turned out gay ... go figure.

 

[bripat9643]

Sounds like we're equating people not giving kids over to gays to "throwing gays off of buildings". I submit that "edgetho" is a welcome alarmist. He sure helps drum up the sympathy-machine.

But he has a point. Why doesn't the LGBT lobby take on the atrocities done to homosexuals in the ME?

I can express disgust over ISIS's vile acts and still be concerned about the injustices I see here in the U.S. Multitasking isn't all that hard to do. That being said, what does ISIS have to do with Michigan's adoption law? Oh wait...nothing.

Well it's the "injustices" the LGBTs are perceiving will have to be weighed against the injustice of making a legally-binding institution out of depriving children of either a mother or a father in "gay marriage". The little urchins always seem to get a pass from you. Yet I'll bet you knew both your mom and your dad growing up...

Stopping gays from getting married doesn't suddenly make their children have two opposite sex parents. All it does it prohibit their parents from being married. Besides, gays have been able to adopt long before they could married.

Only one of them is their parent. The other has no biological relationship.

I marvel at the way queers ignore the facts of reality.

 

[mdk]

Sounds like we're equating people not giving kids over to gays to "throwing gays off of buildings". I submit that "edgetho" is a welcome alarmist. He sure helps drum up the sympathy-machine.

But he has a point. Why doesn't the LGBT lobby take on the atrocities done to homosexuals in the ME?

I can express disgust over ISIS's vile acts and still be concerned about the injustices I see here in the U.S. Multitasking isn't all that hard to do. That being said, what does ISIS have to do with Michigan's adoption law? Oh wait...nothing.

Well it's the "injustices" the LGBTs are perceiving will have to be weighed against the injustice of making a legally-binding institution out of depriving children of either a mother or a father in "gay marriage". The little urchins always seem to get a pass from you. Yet I'll bet you knew both your mom and your dad growing up...

Stopping gays from getting married doesn't suddenly make their children have two opposite sex parents. All it does it prohibit their parents from being married. Besides, gays have been able to adopt long before they could married.

Only one of them is their parent. The other has no biological relationship.

I marvel at the way queers ignore the facts of reality.

When you adopt a child you become their parent whether their is any biological relationship or not. Stopping gays from getting married doesn't stop them from raising children or adopting.

Gays are still getting married and they are still raising/adopting children and their is not a damn thing you can do about it. Save whining on the Internet.

 

[bripat9643]

Sounds like we're equating people not giving kids over to gays to "throwing gays off of buildings". I submit that "edgetho" is a welcome alarmist. He sure helps drum up the sympathy-machine.

But he has a point. Why doesn't the LGBT lobby take on the atrocities done to homosexuals in the ME?

I can express disgust over ISIS's vile acts and still be concerned about the injustices I see here in the U.S. Multitasking isn't all that hard to do. That being said, what does ISIS have to do with Michigan's adoption law? Oh wait...nothing.

Well it's the "injustices" the LGBTs are perceiving will have to be weighed against the injustice of making a legally-binding institution out of depriving children of either a mother or a father in "gay marriage". The little urchins always seem to get a pass from you. Yet I'll bet you knew both your mom and your dad growing up...

Stopping gays from getting married doesn't suddenly make their children have two opposite sex parents. All it does it prohibit their parents from being married. Besides, gays have been able to adopt long before they could married.

Only one of them is their parent. The other has no biological relationship.

I marvel at the way queers ignore the facts of reality.

When you adopt a child you become their parent whether their is any biological relationship or not. Stopping gays from getting married doesn't stop them from raising children or adopting.

Yet, all the queers claimed that a man could dissolve the adoption of his "son" so they could get married. The queer apologists always talk out of both sides of their mouths.

Gays are still getting married and they are still raising/adopting children and their is not a damn thing you can do about it. Save whining on the Internet.

The truth you want to ignore is the fact that two queers can't both be the parents of a child except as a legal fiction.

There is something we can do about queers adopting children. We can outlaw it.

 

[mdk]

I can express disgust over ISIS's vile acts and still be concerned about the injustices I see here in the U.S. Multitasking isn't all that hard to do. That being said, what does ISIS have to do with Michigan's adoption law? Oh wait...nothing.

Well it's the "injustices" the LGBTs are perceiving will have to be weighed against the injustice of making a legally-binding institution out of depriving children of either a mother or a father in "gay marriage". The little urchins always seem to get a pass from you. Yet I'll bet you knew both your mom and your dad growing up...

Stopping gays from getting married doesn't suddenly make their children have two opposite sex parents. All it does it prohibit their parents from being married. Besides, gays have been able to adopt long before they could married.

Only one of them is their parent. The other has no biological relationship.

I marvel at the way queers ignore the facts of reality.

When you adopt a child you become their parent whether their is any biological relationship or not. Stopping gays from getting married doesn't stop them from raising children or adopting.

Yet, all the queers claimed that a man could dissolve the adoption of his "son" so they could get married. The queer apologists always talk out of both sides of their mouths.

Gays are still getting married and they are still raising/adopting children and their is not a damn thing you can do about it. Save whining on the Internet.

The truth you want to ignore is the fact that two queers can't both be the parents of a child except as a legal fiction.

There is something we can do about queers adopting children. We can outlaw it.

No, two gay people can parent children just fine. Good luck in your crusade to outlaw gays from adopting, you'll certainly need it. You're addiction to failure on these issues is at least comical to behold.

 

[bripat9643]

Well it's the "injustices" the LGBTs are perceiving will have to be weighed against the injustice of making a legally-binding institution out of depriving children of either a mother or a father in "gay marriage". The little urchins always seem to get a pass from you. Yet I'll bet you knew both your mom and your dad growing up...

Stopping gays from getting married doesn't suddenly make their children have two opposite sex parents. All it does it prohibit their parents from being married. Besides, gays have been able to adopt long before they could married.

Only one of them is their parent. The other has no biological relationship.

I marvel at the way queers ignore the facts of reality.

When you adopt a child you become their parent whether their is any biological relationship or not. Stopping gays from getting married doesn't stop them from raising children or adopting.

Yet, all the queers claimed that a man could dissolve the adoption of his "son" so they could get married. The queer apologists always talk out of both sides of their mouths.

Gays are still getting married and they are still raising/adopting children and their is not a damn thing you can do about it. Save whining on the Internet.

The truth you want to ignore is the fact that two queers can't both be the parents of a child except as a legal fiction.

There is something we can do about queers adopting children. We can outlaw it.

No, two gay people can parent children just fine. Good luck in your crusade to outlaw gays from adopting, you'll certainly need it. You're addiction to failure on these issues is at least comical to behold.

Sorry, but queers do not make good role models for kids. As the poll at the beginning of this thread shows, there are plenty of people who oppose allowing gays to adopt.

 

[Edgetho]

Learn how to fly, queers......

City in Michigan First to Fully Implement Sharia Law National Report

snopes.com Islamic Tribunal Confirmed in Texas

Florida Democrats Just Voted To Impose Sharia Law On Women

Imam on CNN Sharia Will Come to America and There s no Moderate Form of Islam CNS News

Sharia Law In The USA 101 A Guide To What It Is And Why States Want To Ban It

Hundreds of more articles just like this.

And you know what's great about all this? The very people you dick-lickers and bean-flickers vote for are the ones that are going to enable you learning how to fly -- Without wings or a parachute. Just flying, then a sudden stop....... IOW, SPLAT!!

And you'll want the people you've shit on a spit on and called names and provoked to come to your aid? Not a chance in hell, butt rangers. Not this time.

What you people are too stupid to understand is that nobody is against you forming partnerships. You can't form a partnership with the opposite sex -- For whatever reason?

I'm okay with you forming a homosexual partnership. I really am. It's better than living and dying alone.

But here's where you piss people off -- Because you're part of the scum of the earth dimocrap party.

When this whole thing started just a few years ago, Gays were asking for "Tolerance".

Most of us said, "Sure. We should be tolerant of other people that are not like us. It's the American thing to do. Just don't flame out in front of my kids."

Shortly afterward, Gays were demanding acceptance. And we're like, "Okay, acceptance is quite a leap from tolerance but we'll do it because it's the American thing to do."

And we did.

Then Gays asked for equal rights. Nope. Not gonna happen. We have another offer -- Gay Unions are NOT Heterosexual Unions but we will tolerate them as long as you don't shove them in our faces.

It was explained to us that Gays were often mistreated in Hospitals, by Employers, etc because they had no legal status as survivors, etc. So we thought 'Unions' with every right associated with being married would be okay.

Let's develop a Civil Union that gives Gays ALL the rights of a Marriage but without it being called a Marriage.

Still..... Not good enough for you fucks.

Now, you not only want equal rights, you want SPECIAL RIGHTS.

Rights that, in all of recorded history, have never existed. You want us to redefine what a Marriage is.

And when the Black Hooded Men come to teach you how to fly, you want us to defend you?



They're coming butt-boys. They're coming for you and -- I'm going to feel badly, but not a whole lot.

You asked for it.

Fly, bitches!!

 

[Misty]

Bearing in mind that most LGBT members had regular access to both a father and mother as they were growing up...

In what seems like bracing to allow the conversation to continue in any eventuality of a Decision by SCOTUS, Michigan recognizing LGBT legally as behaviors and not a static class, allows adoption agents to essentially screen prospective couples for the presence of both a mother and a father before adopting children to them.

The logic is sound. The majority of people and many LGBTs themselves believe that children have an intrinsic and inaliable right to both a mother and a father in marriage. And in fact, states only get involved in marriage to incentivize both a mother and a father in marriage for the best benefit of kids.

Reuters) - Michigan's governor signed legislation on Thursday allowing private adoption agencies to refuse to place children with same-sex couples on religious grounds, one of a series of Republican-backed measures at the state level targeting gay couples....The action comes as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to issue a ruling by the end of this month on whether same-sex marriage will be legalized nationwide....It came on the same day that Republican lawmakers in North Carolina pushed through legislation permitting government officials to refuse to perform same-sex marriages by citing religious objections, overriding the governor's veto....The Michigan bills that were signed into law let faith-based agencies that contract with Michigan refuse adoption services to couples on religious grounds. Michigan governor signs bills allowing gay-couple adoption refusal - News - WIBQ - 1230 AM Terre Haute IN - 1440 AM Paris IL

Will gays sue about this? Yes, of course. But they have the 1st Amendment as a hurdle. And this: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Edit: I have to include this response below from an LGBT lobbyist-blogger and the legal stance LGBTs are advertising (read the part in the article quote in bold Disir. Michigan is funding them and allowing them to insist on a mother and father when couples apply. If your goons cut off federal funding to orphanges in blackmail to force them to surrender their orphans to gays, this issue is going to go before the US Supreme Court)

As long as those agencies don't receive any federal funding.

So you're willing to use money as a club to force adoption agencies to disgorge their vulnerable orphans to a cult whose messiah is a guy who sodomized vulnerable orphans boys?
Are you listening SCOTUS?

You realize such blackmail will only hurt children. Our country will not be forced to surrender children to your cult members....under the threat of hurting children if we don't...

Ask Germaine Greer.

"Germaine Greer slams Elton John because his husband David Furnish is named as 'mother' on birth certificates of their two sons"
Germaine Greer slams Elton John over David Furnish on birth certificates Daily Mail Online

 

[saveliberty]

My boss co sponsored that bill in the Michigan House. I think most of you are missing the intent of the bill. It was to PRESERVE churches as adoption agencies. Many kids are placed through church agencies and the law was making it tough for them to promote traditional families. The point is to place as many in good homes as possible.

 

[Disir]

Bearing in mind that most LGBT members had regular access to both a father and mother as they were growing up...

In what seems like bracing to allow the conversation to continue in any eventuality of a Decision by SCOTUS, Michigan recognizing LGBT legally as behaviors and not a static class, allows adoption agents to essentially screen prospective couples for the presence of both a mother and a father before adopting children to them.

The logic is sound. The majority of people and many LGBTs themselves believe that children have an intrinsic and inaliable right to both a mother and a father in marriage. And in fact, states only get involved in marriage to incentivize both a mother and a father in marriage for the best benefit of kids.

Reuters) - Michigan's governor signed legislation on Thursday allowing private adoption agencies to refuse to place children with same-sex couples on religious grounds, one of a series of Republican-backed measures at the state level targeting gay couples....The action comes as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to issue a ruling by the end of this month on whether same-sex marriage will be legalized nationwide....It came on the same day that Republican lawmakers in North Carolina pushed through legislation permitting government officials to refuse to perform same-sex marriages by citing religious objections, overriding the governor's veto....The Michigan bills that were signed into law let faith-based agencies that contract with Michigan refuse adoption services to couples on religious grounds. Michigan governor signs bills allowing gay-couple adoption refusal - News - WIBQ - 1230 AM Terre Haute IN - 1440 AM Paris IL

Will gays sue about this? Yes, of course. But they have the 1st Amendment as a hurdle. And this: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Edit: I have to include this response below from an LGBT lobbyist-blogger and the legal stance LGBTs are advertising (read the part in the article quote in bold Disir. Michigan is funding them and allowing them to insist on a mother and father when couples apply. If your goons cut off federal funding to orphanges in blackmail to force them to surrender their orphans to gays, this issue is going to go before the US Supreme Court)

As long as those agencies don't receive any federal funding.

So you're willing to use money as a club to force adoption agencies to disgorge their vulnerable orphans to a cult whose messiah is a guy who sodomized vulnerable orphans boys?
Are you listening SCOTUS?

You realize such blackmail will only hurt children. Our country will not be forced to surrender children to your cult members....under the threat of hurting children if we don't...

Ask Germaine Greer.

"Germaine Greer slams Elton John because his husband David Furnish is named as 'mother' on birth certificates of their two sons"
Germaine Greer slams Elton John over David Furnish on birth certificates Daily Mail Online

You want to ask Germaine Greer about why the Faith based organizations should get federal funding? That's different.

 

[mdk]

Stopping gays from getting married doesn't suddenly make their children have two opposite sex parents. All it does it prohibit their parents from being married. Besides, gays have been able to adopt long before they could married.

Only one of them is their parent. The other has no biological relationship.

I marvel at the way queers ignore the facts of reality.

When you adopt a child you become their parent whether their is any biological relationship or not. Stopping gays from getting married doesn't stop them from raising children or adopting.

Yet, all the queers claimed that a man could dissolve the adoption of his "son" so they could get married. The queer apologists always talk out of both sides of their mouths.

Gays are still getting married and they are still raising/adopting children and their is not a damn thing you can do about it. Save whining on the Internet.

The truth you want to ignore is the fact that two queers can't both be the parents of a child except as a legal fiction.

There is something we can do about queers adopting children. We can outlaw it.

No, two gay people can parent children just fine. Good luck in your crusade to outlaw gays from adopting, you'll certainly need it. You're addiction to failure on these issues is at least comical to behold.

Sorry, but queers do not make good role models for kids. As the poll at the beginning of this thread shows, there are plenty of people who oppose allowing gays to adopt.

Say you, citing only your opinion. The fact you hang your hat on a poll with a whopping 15 votes only demonstrates your desperation. Your foot stomping hissy fits doesn't change a damn thing.

 

[Disir]

My boss co sponsored that bill in the Michigan House. I think most of you are missing the intent of the bill. It was to PRESERVE churches as adoption agencies. Many kids are placed through church agencies and the law was making it tough for them to promote traditional families. The point is to place as many in good homes as possible.

They just couldn't get their hands in the kitty. There is nothing stopping them from promoting traditional families.

 

[mdk]

Bearing in mind that most LGBT members had regular access to both a father and mother as they were growing up...

In what seems like bracing to allow the conversation to continue in any eventuality of a Decision by SCOTUS, Michigan recognizing LGBT legally as behaviors and not a static class, allows adoption agents to essentially screen prospective couples for the presence of both a mother and a father before adopting children to them.

The logic is sound. The majority of people and many LGBTs themselves believe that children have an intrinsic and inaliable right to both a mother and a father in marriage. And in fact, states only get involved in marriage to incentivize both a mother and a father in marriage for the best benefit of kids.

Reuters) - Michigan's governor signed legislation on Thursday allowing private adoption agencies to refuse to place children with same-sex couples on religious grounds, one of a series of Republican-backed measures at the state level targeting gay couples....The action comes as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to issue a ruling by the end of this month on whether same-sex marriage will be legalized nationwide....It came on the same day that Republican lawmakers in North Carolina pushed through legislation permitting government officials to refuse to perform same-sex marriages by citing religious objections, overriding the governor's veto....The Michigan bills that were signed into law let faith-based agencies that contract with Michigan refuse adoption services to couples on religious grounds. Michigan governor signs bills allowing gay-couple adoption refusal - News - WIBQ - 1230 AM Terre Haute IN - 1440 AM Paris IL

Will gays sue about this? Yes, of course. But they have the 1st Amendment as a hurdle. And this: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Edit: I have to include this response below from an LGBT lobbyist-blogger and the legal stance LGBTs are advertising (read the part in the article quote in bold Disir. Michigan is funding them and allowing them to insist on a mother and father when couples apply. If your goons cut off federal funding to orphanges in blackmail to force them to surrender their orphans to gays, this issue is going to go before the US Supreme Court)

As long as those agencies don't receive any federal funding.

So you're willing to use money as a club to force adoption agencies to disgorge their vulnerable orphans to a cult whose messiah is a guy who sodomized vulnerable orphans boys?
Are you listening SCOTUS?

You realize such blackmail will only hurt children. Our country will not be forced to surrender children to your cult members....under the threat of hurting children if we don't...

Ask Germaine Greer.

"Germaine Greer slams Elton John because his husband David Furnish is named as 'mother' on birth certificates of their two sons"
Germaine Greer slams Elton John over David Furnish on birth certificates Daily Mail Online

Gosh, I hope Elton John can withstand her whiny chiding. Looks like he's still standing.