Redstate

Exactly.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

and you as well, Dan.

Every family statute I have ever read (and that is a LOT for a non-lawyer) insists the premise of family law be founded on what is inherently in "the best interests of the child."

Justice has NOT been served in this case...

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

Surely there are other options besides foster homes. The problem is not just with Emma Rose. It is not necessarily a gay issue. There are lots of children like Emma stuck in the foster system while there are lots of hetero couples who would gladly adopt such kids. In recent years, there have been about 7,000 adoptions a year of Chinese children by American couples. A fair number are of special needs children, older ones with physical deformities.

doing that. In fact, China has been extremely scrupulous about the qualifications of prospective parents, including deviation in either family structure or sexual orientation. I'm afraid this may have changed recently--I don't recall--but for the longest time CCAA required parents to be either a hetero pair or a single with a good reason for being so and a strong hetero backup community. Would that we were so considerate of childrens' real needs. The right potential parents are out there.

soli Deo gloria

_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!

that I have been perplexed about ever since the 2004 election and one on which I would appreciate clarification. Why is it assumed that a mother and a father are the best caregivers for a child? Who's to say that a child's upbringing is inherently inferior with two parents of the same sex? Is there any scientific evidence to support this? If not, is it just the stigma of homosexuality that fuels this point?

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." -Mark Twain

Homosexuality is deviant and unnatural, arguing that it isn't is silly. (I know these words have loaded meaning- but put that emotion aside for a moment and consider that homosexuality is a deviation from the norm, and is not the natural state of relations between men and women).

This does not justify persecution, oppression, or prejudice against homosexuals, but there are a few certain instances where a normal sex life is important.

One of those is the raising of children. Children need proper role models demonstrating the correct behavior between a man and a woman. It has been well demonstrated that boys tend to grow up to be like their fathers, and marry women like their mothers- particularly they tend to treat their wives the way their fathers treated their mothers. Similarly for girls, they tend to grow up like their mothers, marry men like their fathers, and expect the treatment that they saw their fathers give to their mother.

Homosexuals can not provide that.

Does that mean that the government should take children away from gay parents? Absolutely not! (And I see this specific case as a gross violation of parental rights).

The rights of a parent are not abrogated just because they do somethings that are not the best. We don't take children from parents who smoke- despite the tons of evidence that smokers children grow up to smoke- which causes all sorts of health problems.

There are plenty of other issues that can make a hetrosexual couple much worse parents than a gay couple. Spousal abuse for an obvious example.

However, if all other things are equal, a male and female couple are better able to provide for the emotional and modeling needs of a child than a homosexual couple.

This is just the way things are- and I am tired of people trying to pretend that they aren't and then screaming bigotry when the rest of us refuse to play along.

Cicero

Why you're busy saving me from the hordes of Gays, lets consider the facts of this case as stated above.

Fact: The birth mother gave the child to another woman, because she was unable to care for the child.

Fact: The child's development was stunted by the birth mother and that damage repared by the foster mother.

Fact: The birth mother was a terrible mother, in poor living circumstances and I did not read where that had changed.

Fact: The birth mother was not objecting to the adoption, she still did not want the child back.

Fact: There were two choices on the table; Send the child back to the birth mother or allow the child to be adopted by a woman who appears to love and care for the child.

Fact: There was no loving heterosexual couple in the wings waiting to adopt the child.

Try not too loose sight of the facts, and the most important fact at the heart of this whole matter; there is a child right now who from all reports is not better off than she was before the judge acted and that sucks.

_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!

As I stated here and downthread I view the judges actions as a gross violation of parental rights. Are you blind? Do you not comprehend English?

Or did you just see the words "Homosexuality is deviat" and then go insane because of my insensitivity in using such words?

You seem to stress that having a role model on which to base future behavior is the most important part of a child's development. More importantly, the idea that both a male and female presence are essential to providing this foundation. In a perfect world, I would agree with you, and ideally every child would be raised in a loving family with good role models. But I believe you put too much stock in the gender of the parent and disregard the character of the person.

Children need proper role models demonstrating the correct behavior between a man and a woman.

Children need role models to demonstrate correct behavior between him/her and society.

To say homosexuals are unfit for parenthood based on your prerequisite is to say that all those who don't act "correctly" are unfit for parenthood. That is, all people who don't act as a proper role model for behavior between a man and a woman should not be allowed parental rights. Now, you (and I) may personally agree with this, but to single out one small minority of those who don't exhibit proper conduct between a man and a woman only because they (homosexuals) inherently can't is discrimination at its purest. As you said, there are plenty of parents who don't live up to this ideal, and we as a society accept their right to bear children.

Do we discriminate against homosexuals because they can't physically adhere to an ideal that we can't follow ourselves? We need to step away from the social stigmas of homosexuality and realize that many a child would be better off in a household of two women or men than a large number of "natural" households. To deny a child or parents this opportunity because they are the same sex is selfish.

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." -Mark Twain

Where did I say that homosexuals are "unfit" parents?

I implied quite the opposite- in fact I made the very same point you just made, that there are worse things to be worried about than a parent's sexual orientation.

That does not change the fact that all other things being equal, a male-female couple can provide better for the needs of a child than a homosexual couple.

Your emotional retreat into the irrational attacks on a position I do not hold is the very thing that exasperates me about the gay rights movement.

I used to think gay rights was about making sure gays were not mistreated. Instead it has become a way of forcing everybody to pretend that gays and straights are the same. They are not the same and all the pretending in the world won't change it.

All things are not equal. What happens to your viewpoint when the inevitable grey areas of real world implementation (like the case in question) are bound to pop up?

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." -Mark Twain

I don't know how I can make it more clear. You asked a general question about the justification for prefering hetrosexual to homosexual parents in adoption cases, I responded to that.

My position on this specific case was clearly stated. I oppose the judge's decision. I don't understand how you can keep ignoring that.

I mean on a broader, national scale. I accept your position on this case, but how would you react if homosexuals were forbidden from adoption (as I believe they are in many states), based solely on their sexuality?

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." -Mark Twain

Cicero - As a gay man, I disagree with what you write here. But I did read everything that you wrote, and I thank you for presenting your views in an intelligent, reasonable, non-combative, and non-bigoted manner. It's good to know that people can disagree even over such contentious issues as these without bearing malice toward each other. Since becoming a conservative just a few months ago, it's been eye-opening for me to see how compassionate many conservatives really are, despite their disagreements about issues relating to homosexuality. The liberal assertion that conservatives are mean-spirited and homophobic bigots is for the most part a lie. I haven't encountered that at all so far.

Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me

I have found your blogs well written and very informative and I am glad to have you in our community. For the most part those who would not welcome you are mobys. For someone who just "became" conservative a few moths ago your thoughts seem well developed. Are you sure you weren't a closet conservative for a long time ;)

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

I think I may have been a closet case. I've always been fiscally conservative, and part of the reason that I - cringe - voted for the Democrats in November was because they were promising fiscal responsibility after the irresponsibility of the Fighting 109th. Of course, they were lying, but I didn't realize that then. I've also leaned socially to the right with the exception of my views on gay-related issues. I'm very opposed to abortion, ESCR, euthanasia/assisted suicide, and human cloning, and I think educational choice for parents is a must. I mostly needed persuaded on defense issues; I bought into the whole pacifist thing for quite a while before slowly realizing that pacifism and appeasement are a good prescription for the death of our civilization.

Anyway, didn't mean to hijack the comments. Please continue.

Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me

I'm afriad I sometimes have a chip on my shoulder. Particularly on gay rights issues because of my strong support of the Boy Scouts.

While I disagree with gay men on several issues, I have found that we usually get along. It's just that I feel like some people who want power have taken the resonable desire of gays for equal protection and respect to the level of attacking any institution that doesn't accept their viewpoint. (It really got my gullet when Clinton overruled the longstanding arrangment with the Forest Service of entry discounts for Boy Scout troops).

I hope that I don't come off as too offensive or short-tempered because of it. Thankyou for reading my postion and recognizing that there is no desire to harm gay people behind it- it's just the way I view things on the needs of children.

take my viewpoints as an attack on you or any other. I would hardly call my self part of the "gay movement" and I would hope that we could both recognize the need for a dialog and exchange of ideas. I apologize if I came across as endorsing the fringe's questionable motives regarding this issue.

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." -Mark Twain

You're right about others hijacking gay-related issues: it was the feminists. No longer able to convince anyone that women are an oppressed minority, they need another oppressed minority to advance their cause, which is the destruction of any gender differences whatsoever. They decided that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and people with Gender Identity Disorder would be the oppressed minorities to carry their banner. We need to take our own cause back and examine where we're authentically working for equal opportunity versus where feminists have inserted their agenda into our search for equality.

Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me

(And I see this specific case as a gross violation of parental rights).

I agree with all your sentiments except the part quoted above. I do not see how the intended adopter had any parental rights to infringe on. The only one with “parental rights” willingly gave them up. Unless you want to make the claim that a parent giving up their child has the “right” to choose who takes care of it regardless of relation. I don’t see parental rights being part of the issue.

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

That is exactly my point. As long as it doesn't endanger the child, the parent has the right to make whatever arrangment she believes is best for the child.

That is a natural god-given right of parents that we excerise everytime we pick a babysitter, send our kid to visit relatives, or use a will to identify who gets custody in case of our death.

Now granted there are competing rights, such as the non-custodial parent, and grandparents- however, in this case there appear to be no such claiments, and in general parental rights should be held to have a limited supremacy.

that I am wrong in this case. Your right that the parent does seem to have this right so I will have to agree with you that in this case the child should go to the intended adopter.

Just as if she were an aunt or grandparent. Which I also believe would trump the question of sexual orientation.

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

Wow, some of that is so farfetched, in my opinion. So, according to what is stated above, I should be expected to look for an alcoholic husband who will repeatedly batter me since that's what my mother had??? And just which one of Elizabeth's parents "taught" her to be gay...was it her heterosexual dad or her heterosexual mom??? I do give you points for agreeing that this is a gross miscarriage of justice (okay, so I embellished your words a little)...that we can agree on. Here's the thing that people don't understand, though...Elizabeth is not fighting for the rights of gay people, she is fighting for the rights of children who need a loving and caring family to care for them. Some of you may find that hard to believe, but it is true. Elizabeth has NEVER been one to scream "bigotry"...this I can promise you. But if it was YOU and your child was taken away from you I gaurantee you would scream and yell all that you had to in order to get your child returned to you.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

As Erick made this a two-fold post about the intersection of values and their effect on this isolated instance, I was dealing with Point A, not Point B. Perhaps there was comment bleed?

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

The difference is not moral relativism but competing moral principles. Is it moral to allow a child to be adopted into a homosexual family? In my opinion no. Is it moral to take a child, who has been through tragic circumstances, and uproot them from a stable and encouraging environment? It is these questions that are hard.

It is hard to make a decision when two moral principles are in conflict. In this case I’m torn as well. In my humble opinion though I think the child would be better off in the long run raised by a traditional family. The child has already been given up/torn from biological parents and the only thing that lends itself to the intended adopter is that the mother, who consistently made poor choices, choose her.

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

the only thing that lends itself to the intended adopter is that the mother, who consistently made poor choices, chose her

Well, that along with (from the posting):

1. [intended adopter] taught Emma to read so well that Emma was able to bypass kindergarten and go right into first grade with children her own age.

2. [intended adopter] spent all of the summer of 2006 tutoring Emma to ensure that she acquired all of the skills necessary to enter the First Grade with her peer group. [intended adopter] succeeded in her efforts, and Emma was primarily an A-/B+ student this past fall, despite not having been to K-4 or kindergarten.

3. [intended adopter] had made tremendous progress with Emma, who could now read, had developed writing skills, was more social, etc.

Although I don't see any evidence, one might not be far off to imagine the [intended adopter] provided the child with one or more of love, encouragement, discipline, nutrition, etc. At least enough to have her adoption approved by everyone else but the judge.

So - "the only thing"?

I was dishonest in my characterization and did not express what I really wanted to. I'm sure the intended adopter has a lot of wonderful characteristics. What has me perplexed and what prompted my ill expressed idea is where is the family for this child? I assume the father has disqualified himself in some manner but what about grandparents, aunts and uncles? It seems kind of willy nilly to give not only guardianship but legal parenthood to someone who essentially was just some acquaintance of a truck driver.

As far as teaching her to write and read ect. that was a wonderful act of charity but I find it hard to believe that the child is unlearning to read. Her main problem is probably instability and an uncertain future. Would it be wrong to leave the child with the intended adopter to provide badly needed stability? Perhaps not. It is another instance of conflicting moral principles. This is a difficult case that should be decided not be Monday morning bloggers like me but by someone in full possession of the facts. Perhaps the intended adopter lost some credibility for trying to hide her relationship from the judge which should be consider in any adoption proceeding. What if for example I normally live with a drug dealer (not equating the two) and hid the fact till it came time to report the money I make.

Thank you for calling me out on that one. You were absolutely correct to do so.

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

That is the real tragedy. There are no grandparents. There is no father. There is no mother. And there is no system of support for Emma, except from Ms. Hadaway. And now the judge has denied that option.

As someone that IS in full possession of the facts I would choose to send Emma back to Elizabeth. Even if I didn't know Elizabeth personally I would NEVER want to see a child ripped away from a mother they love just b/c of who she chooses to go to bed with at night.

As for Emma "unlearning" that is not at all what is going on. What has happened is that Emma is SO distraught over being placed in Foster care and removed from Elizabeth's care that she is refusing to do any schoolwork and is acting out. She has regressed to the point that she is wetting the bed every night and suffers from terrible nightmares. Anybody that has been around Emma and Elizabeth knows that this is definitely NOT normal for Emma. She is a very smart little girl...I would even tease her at times saying "you ain't got no hugs for me!?" and she would respond "don't have ANY." ; )

Also, the relationship w/ her ex-partner was not "hidden" during the adoption. I don't know how to approach that particular part of this w/o giving out too much personal information about Elizabeth, so I'm just going to leave it at that.

Emma needs to come home to her mother...and THAT is Elizabeth. Ask Emma...she'll tell you!!!

Because of your obvious sensitivity to the subject. Please know that I hold no ill feelings toward you or Elizabeth and that as I respond to you I do so with sympathy and no malice. I’m sure I can speak for most of us here by saying that it is sad that situations like this with Emma would happen in the first place and it is heart breaking.

As you may have read further up I agreed with Cicero in his assertion that the mother’s (biological) choice in this matter should trump the other issues. I still agree with him especially in light that her mother (biological) was homosexual anyway.

Also, the relationship w/ her ex-partner was not "hidden" during the adoption. I don't know how to approach that particular part of this w/o giving out too much personal information about Elizabeth, so I'm just going to leave it at that.

There is no need for this really to be discussed in particular terms here in the wide open world of blogs. Just as I and most others here can really have no bearing on the case. I personally would have preferred that Erick didn’t use names at all but I understand that it is more effective to do so.

I am tempted to respond and talk about general policy in these cases but since you don’t seem to be here for that I will refrain. I applaud you for your loyalty and courage to defend your friend.

"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance"-Socrates(the real one ;)

Is you can read more into something than was meant to be.

In this case, there is no disputing that the judge was in favor of granting the adoption until he found out the adopting mother was a lesbian.

There is no disputing that the child has regressed dramatically since she's been in foster care.

There is no disputing that in Georgia the judge must determine "what is in the best interests of the child."

It was the judge who made the emotional decision and ignored the facts.

Where's that evidence about the end-run around the prohibition on gay marriage?

I've been before that judge. The idea that he just went off willy nilly is not, from what I've seen of the orders, supported by the record, the facts, or what I know of that man -- or indeed, what pretty well anyone who's been before him would know of him. I say this as someone who lost a slam-dunk summary judgment argument before him, where the opposition was presented by a fellow who'd just as soon have been waving a rainbow flag the whole way into the courtroom.

No dice.

Without once getting into the judgment of a superior court judge about the best interests of the child -- where I think a credible claim can be made that the judge made a reasonable call -- I'll also note that the throwaway about the importance of the traditional family as being a "superficial value" is beneath the character of this site.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

It is a superficial statement of values to say that it is in the best interests of the child to never be raised by a single person who is a lesbian when the alternative is to place her in a family with 11 other kids, not provide her the support she clearly needs, and see her regress to bed wetting.

Traditional family values are not superficial. The judge hiding behind those values instead of doing what he should have done is superficial.

That DFACS is as clever and resourceful as ever does not go to the core of the question here.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Leon - The problem with your argument - that this judge is a strict constructionist who is only objectively applying the law - is not a good one precisely because in this area there is no law. There is no ban on gay adoption in Georgia. By ruling in this way, the judge has imposed his own values on the law; he has become a judicial activist. Only a judicial activist could look at the law, which says that he must decide what's in the best interests of the child, and decide that this parent who has cared for the child unlike anyone else is an unfit parent because she and her partner have the wrong genitalia.

Strict constructionist doesn't mean any judge who does whatever Person X, Person Y, or Person Z would like. Strict constructionist means any judge who objectively interprets the law. To argue that this judge is objectively interpreting the law is ludicrous. He clearly wouldn't know objectivity in this case if it bit him in the legal briefs.

Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me

For Ms. Hadaway until a loving married couple was available to adopt her. That doesn't seem to be in the cards though.

What would be the role of the woman who taught her to read and helped her not wet the bed once "a loving married couple" is found? Just thanks and have a nice life? I don't understand why Ms. Hadaway would be good enough to be a parent until people with the correct genitalia can be found.

Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me

I think, as I said, that is the ideal situation, but it does not seem to be in the cards. I think a two parent household is the best household in which a child can be raised. Since that does not appear to be an option, Ms. Hadaway is the next best choice.

I too disagree with gay adoption. However, the facts in this case strongly indicate that the child would be better off with Ms. Hadaway than in the present situation.

There's a saying that "hard facts make bad law." This case seems to exemplify that saying. Do we really want to go on record as supporting gay adoptions? That's not the conservative position I believe in.

and the eyes of Lady Justice are two separate things. As for your ridiculous "our country was founded on Christian values" claim, I would give you this quote from the Treaty of Tripoli, drafted in 1796 under George Washington and signed by John Adams in 1797:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Musselman; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The United States is a secular institution for a reason. You have the freedom of religion, but also the freedom of no religion. Demonizing homosexuality because of what the Bible says about it is not a valid argument.

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." -Mark Twain

Your statement is partly accurate, partly no.

True, America was not founded on any principles expressly derived from Christian revelation.

BUT, that does not mean that America was founded on secular or areligious principles.

I give you the Declaration of Independence, which Jefferson (that famous right-wing religious nutjob) called an "expression of the American mind," and represenative of the "harmonising sentiments of the day."

It holds:

(1) God is lawgiver (first paragraph)

(2) Under that law, God authors rights which are endowments--not granted in fee simple, but endowments held in trust, and the people are under an obligation--a duty--to ensure that governments protect these endowments (second paragraph)

(3)God is the "Supreme Judge of the World (last paragraph)

(4)God governs the world though His Providence, on which one can "firmly rel[y]" (last paragraph).

These principles, the Declaration indicates, can be known through reason unassisted by revelation--those of the second paragraph at least, for they are "self-evident."

I ALSO give you, among MANY other sources, the Northwest Ordinace, unanimously reaffirmed by the first Congress--which said that religion and morality were "necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind."

America was founded on religious principles, but not principles exclusive to Christianity, nor principles that could only be accessed by faith in Christian Revelation.

BUT, that being said, it is also true in some sense that these values are Christian, in the sense that Christianity emphasized them more than other religions.

This emphasis is particularly noticeable in considering what the Founders said about religious freedom. They preferred to speak of freedom of "conscience,"--invoking a term derived from the Latin translation of Paul's "synderisis." And it was the Pauline letters that provided much of the emphasis on religious freedom in seventeenth and eighteenth century America. More on this topic, if I haven't bored you all already.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

but you will notice I used the word "institution", meaning the government of the United States does not subscribe to a specific religious doctrine. A minor point, but an important one. Excellent post, by the way.

I would make the distinction that the Declaration of Independence was hardly reflective of Jefferson's personal views. He was writing for the colonies, not for himself, and you hinted at that: "harmonising sentiments of the day." But to give people a glimpse into Jefferson's mind, a quote from a letter to his nephew in 1787:

"To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings. I cannot reason otherwise...I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence... If [your inquiry into the belief of God] ends in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in this exercise..."

But back on topic. This is the most important line in your post, I believe:

"America was founded on religious principles, but not principles exclusive to Christianity, nor principles that could only be accessed by faith in Christian Revelation."

Something we forget all too often. Many people (the majority Christian) believe that this is a Christian nation, and try to shape our national priorities to fit that ideology. This is very dangerous territory. We need to be able, as a country, to recognize that the principles this country was founded on are not unique to Christianity, but "self-evident", regardless of creed.

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." -Mark Twain

Cheatah

So let's ignore the here and now, the reality of the situation, lets sacramental this child on your altar of stopping the "Gay menace", is that your arguement?

There were two and only two options on the table, not other options that you might wish for, the choice was 1) Send her back the biological mother who is a looser, or 2) Let the child live with someone else who actually cared for the child.

The child is nothing, only your crusade matters ?

Knew I was a Libertarian Republican for a reason.

_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!

Hello,

I was surprised to see several replies to my comment, I honestly thought my comment would be ignored, because of its emphasis on homosexuality as one of wicked lifestyles. After reading through all replies, your reply was most thoughtful-provoking, and I think it demands my reply as well.

No, I don't want to sacrifice that child for the sake of religious purity. Even so, I can't help but think what God would want us to do in that position. That is why I feel homosexuality is one of the most destructive forces on the earth, for none other reason than it appears to be harmless and possibly innocent on its surface. Why else would God destroy two cities, Sodom and Gommerah, not all of people there were molestors, but nevertheless they were destroyed, because homosexuality was pervalent in those cities. But beneath its surface, there is nothing innocent or harmless about it, and seeks to destroy what God views as precious and wonderful creation of the basic unit, which is family, of course. Moreover, it seeks to place us in difficult positions, like what we are facing right now with Emma Schultz and her brother.

I believe homosexuality to be the work of Devil and our sinful nature. It compromises the very purpose of God's creation of man and woman in the first place. What I am afraid the most is that while you're correct that Ms. Hardaway will be a far better parent in raising Emma, but in long term, Emma will be exposed to wrong values, and thus leading her away from the path of salvation, that is in Christ. By placing Emma in a household with wrong values, we are in effect telling her that it's okay to be homosexual and there is nothing wrong about it. How can I as a born-again Christian condone this very act in the name of deciding what's the best in that child's interest? How can I do that? It gives place to the Devil.

It breaks my heart to acknowledge that perhaps Ms. Hardaway may be the best option we have, but how can I in my heart accept the best option? The question here is, do we want the best option or right option? Those are two radically different options, we should carefully consider each option and whatever we decide it will forever affect Emma and others like her.

Thank you giving me a tough time in mediating upon this situation, and probably cause me a sleepless night. But I hate to say it, I think it's best if Emma is placed in foster homes, instead of with Ms. Hardaway. Although, let me be perfectly honest, I'm no lawyer nor do I want to make such decisions in that kind of case. But if we do the right thing, I strongly believe that God will make it work as long we have faith in Him and His capacity to do good despite all wickedness that is truly abounding in this present evil world.

That is all I can say as a sincere born-again Christian.

------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.

No harm at all in your believing those things. But perhaps one possible take-away is that you need to choose your battles. Hardaway has a fair bit of life left to hear your message and she may well turn your way with persuasion. Emma has an even longer life.

In this case it seems reasonable to weigh the considerable immediate and certain benefit/harm (to mental health, to socialization, to education, perhaps to physical health as well) of the child against what you must admit is speculation - speculation that Emma will be a de facto "lost soul". Remember, there's no guarentee some other foster family will install a certain set of values - it's entirely possible she would be placed in a different family which still accepts homosexuality and doesn't agree that it is immoral or un-natural, too. And there's really no guarentee that Hardaway wouldn't install a very good set of values excepting the one you're focused on now, re: orientation.

Who in your opinion is more likely to convert to your beliefs as an adult? An outgoing, healthy person who did well in school, developed a good work ethic, and was well adapted to socializing and talking with others? Or an introverted person with poor self esteem (embarrased, no doubt, by frequent bed wetting and peer/foster sibling ridicule), lack of confidence, and a withdrawn, "loner" mentality?

Those may be somewhat extreme characterizations but my guess is you'd assert that the former is more likely to listen, right? So, maybe you should look at situations like this one as prepping the clay, so to speak, so it will actually carry the water you want to give to it. Make sense?

Why else would God destroy two cities, Sodom and Gommerah, not all of people there were molestors, but nevertheless they were destroyed, because homosexuality was pervalent in those cities.

Can you point me to the chapter and verse in the Bible in which it is revealed that Sodom and Gomorrah (that is, by the way, the correct spelling) had a single homosexual in it? If you actually read the Bible instead of taking your talking points from Fred Phelps, you'll see that God decided to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because of its general sinfulness. He had already decided to destroy the city when he sent his angels to Lot to tell him to leave the city before it was destroyed. This is where homosexuality is usually implied, because the men of the city come to rape the angels, who are also male. But one has to bear in mind that God had already decided to destroy the two cities before this incident and had sent his angels to warn Lot to get out.

Now, there are several reasons why this is not homosexuality. First of all, the men who want to rape the angels are at best bisexual. Why? Because Lot offers them his daughters instead. Lot's presumption is that they will accept his daughters in place of the male angels, which means he probably knew that they also had sexual relations with women. I think the point here is to illustrate the intense sexual perversity and violence, not to single out homosexuality. It's also to illustrate the sin against hospitality, a grave sin in Judaism and later in Christianity. When Jesus himself spoke of Sodom and Gomorrah, he spoke of it in the context of inhospitality. He said that those who were inhospitable to his apostles would suffer a worse fate than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. If Sodom and Gomorrah were primarily about homosexuality, why would Jesus have mentioned it in the context of inhospitality? The Jewish people have always believed that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was about inhospitality, Jesus spoke of it in reference to inhospitality, Christian theologians have spoken of it in reference to inhospitality, and yet you speak of it in the context of homosexuality. Please explain to us why.

This is the primary reason that I'm Catholic. The private interpretation of scripture leads to all kinds of novel ideas. In denial of thousands of years of biblical interpretation, you say that the moral of the Sodom and Gomorrah story was homosexuality - nevermind that most Jewish and Christian theologians and historians throughout the ages have said that the moral of the story was inhospitality. What you say here and now, more than two thousand years since Jesus and even more thousands of years since the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was written down, is what matters.

Personally, I don't think people should privately interpret scripture. It's a good thing that I'm not in the position to legislate my values, and it's a good thing that you're not either.

Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me

" I feel homosexuality is one of the most destructive forces on the earth, for none other reason than it appears to be harmless and possibly innocent on its surface. "

As for destructive forces which superficially seem innocent, I have more problems with Girl Scout Cookies.
But it seems that you've found a fear that appeals to you.

BTW

This is what kind of gets me in all of this. A lot of people seem to see a social policy that should be implemented, enforced, or debated. I see a child needing a mom.

Cheetah - As unpopular as this seems to be in some circles, I think I need to remind you that this country is not a theocracy. We are not the Christian Republic of America, and whatever your religion thinks of homosexuality isn't necessarily applicable, anymore than what Muslims think of women's right to leave their homes without being accompanied by a male family member is applicable.

As for the abomination, the real abomination is letting a child like this one suffer for the sake of your religious crusade. St. James said to take care of the orphan; he didn't say anything about homosexuality. Maybe you should read your Bible and get your priorities straight, if your priorities are really God's priorities.

Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me

You tell Cheetah to read his Bible. Yet you said earlier that its better if you let someone (i.e. the church) interpret scripture for you. Being inconsistent?

So how did homosexuality come to be called sodomy if the story of sodom was one of inhospitality? I think you need to do some more research before you go attacking people for some alleged "religious crusade".

Son, its called morality.

...but assuming that you know all you need to know about it just by reading it is bad. There are thousands of years of scriptural interpretation out there, including interpretation by those - i.e., the Church Fathers - who lived not long after Christ died and rose again, some of whom were even disciples of Christ's own apostles. It's arrogance to believe that our interpretation two thousand years later and in a different language is better than or even equal to theirs. My suggestion would be to read the Bible and then to study past interpretations of it as well as interpretations by today's traditional biblical scholars before assuming that you know what it's saying.

As for "sodomy," it was first used to describe explicitly homosexual practices in the Middle Ages. In German, Norwegian, and Polish, the corresponding word for "sodomy" refers to bestiality and not homosexuality. There is absolutely no biblical precedent for assuming that the sin of Sodom was exclusively homosexuality, nor is there any evidence from the early Church Fathers. The Jews of Christ's time and prior to that certainly didn't believe the sin of Sodom was homosexuality; they believed it was inhospitality, as the Prophet Ezekiel made clear (cf. Ezekiek 16:49-50). Is that enough research for you?

Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me

Nathan, how do you interpret Romans 1? Paul is pretty clear about what he's condemning in verses 23-27 -- homosexuality as a step on the slope to a more depraved society.

Understand, I disagree with both "sides" on the issue of gay marriage, since I favor privatization. But that doesn't mean I don't oppose homosexuality -- I just favor cultural action over legal action.

Having said this, I respect and value your contributions to Redstate as an editor, Nathan.

-
NARF

While I value the guidance of St. Paul, I think he knew little if anything about homosexuality as we talk about it today. St. Paul assumed that homosexuality was a choice that one could either make or not make, whereas we know now that it's more complex than that. Whether you believe that homosexuality is genetic and/or hormonal ("nature") or simply brought on by deficiencies in the home environment ("nurture"), the fact is that very few people, if anyone, choose to be homosexual. I certainly didn't choose it, and in my opinion no one in their right mind would because of all the problems being a homosexual in our society or any society entails.

Had St. Paul known what we know now about homosexuality, I have to believe that he would have taken a different view of it. So while I value his guidance and while I believe as a Catholic that scripture and tradition must be the supreme authority for Catholics, my conscience which has been formed by my lived experience as a homosexual doesn't permit me to believe that it's wrong for gays and lesbians to form loving, monogamous relationships. This is perhaps the only issue over which I disagree with my Church, so I think I'm doing okay.

With that said, I think I've helped move these comments quite a bit away from Erick's original point, and for that I apologize.

Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me

I have no problem believing that homosexuals are "born into" homosexuality, and I would guess Paul wouldn't either. As Paul states later in Romans (7):

14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin. (NIV)

-
NARF

There is no shortage of hetero couples willing to adopt. The problem is not with gay adoption per say, it is with the American system of foster care and adoption. There are just as many horror stories about foster children where none of the people are gay.