An adoption bill currently being considered by the General Assembly, SB 68, prohibits foster and adoptive children from being placed in homes where there is a live-in unmarried sexual partner. To most of us, this requirement can be placed under the "Duh" category. Unfortunately, however, there are people so fixated on their own political agendas that, when it comes to the placement of children, safety takes a back seat.
In fact, not only do children take a back seat, they are run over altogether.
The "Fairness" Alliance is a case in point. Chris Hartman, the group's executive director, calls the bill "an anti-gay political attack." Why? Because it's all about them.
It's always all about them.
But back in the world the rest of us live in--where the safety of children is the primary concern--the bill makes perfect sense: you place children in healthy environments and to avoid placing them in potentially unhealthy environments.
Check out their quote in today's Louisville Courier-Journal. They are complaining that, when a child is removed from a home for abuse and neglect, they cannot be placed in the home of a relative who is living with an unmarried partner. In other words, they are complaining that a child cannot be taken from an abusive home and be placed in another home with a high potential for abuse.
And the problem is...?
Kentucky's family courts are snarled with case after case of domestic and child abuse coming from just these kinds of homes, but the Fairness Alliance doesn't care. They've got their narrow political agenda to think about.
If you want an example of the sheer disingenuousness of their case, consider another argument being proffered by opponents of the bill: that it could reduce the pool of available foster care and adoptive parents. Really?
So where was the outcry when the Patton administration threatened to stop sending children to the Baptist Children's Homes, the largest single placement agency in the state, because they wouldn't hire gays? How many children would that have affected? Where was the Fairness Alliance then?
Let's see, let me check my records here ... Oh, well look at this: they were on the side that would have prevented children from being placed in safe homes!
And where are these people whenever another Catholic adoption agency has to close its doors because it won't kowtow to the selfish agenda of groups like the Fairness Alliance?
Take a guess.
There are a lot of things that can be done to contribute to the safety of children, but throwing them under the bus isn't one of them.
1 comment:
"They are complaining that, when a child is removed from a home for abuse and neglect, they cannot be placed in the home of a relative who is living with an unmarried partner.. In other words, they are complaining that a child cannot be taken from an abusive home and be placed in another home with a high potential for abuse."
LOL. Let's ignore Martin's unsupported assertion (conservatives have always had problems with facts, and they are almost proud of their proclivity to pull them from out of thin air) and start painting with his broad brush.
Who is more likely to be abused by pedophile priests - a child in a Catholic home or one raised by atheists? OK, so Martin is actually OK with banning the placement of children in Catholic households.
Who is more likely to be abused by parents in the name of Jesus (and the instances are rampant in our society) - a child placed in a religious household or one in an atheist household? Obviously, religious parents have no business raising children - they're far too likely to use their religion to harm their kids.
Etc., etc. What's a social worker to do? There are not atheist households around to handle the caseload.
Post a Comment