The selfish agenda of gay rights groups in adoption

I'm thinking that one day Jake at Page One Kentucky will surprise me and actually think before he blurts out something on his blog, but I'm not terribly hopeful about it.

Today's evidence of the lack of quality control is Jake's comment that I was somehow referring to homosexual pedophilia when I remarked in a comment run by the Lexington Herald-Leader that gays were putting their political agenda before the safety children. Of course, I was doing no such thing. I was talking about the fact that having an unmarried sexual partner in the home is not a promising environment for the raising of a child--and the obsession people like Jake have for gay rights, an obsession which takes precedence over everything else.

I've gotten into the argument about gay pedophilia before, but what you get a is a ludicrous response that such male on male sexual abuse doesn't count as homosexual abuse.

Finally, you just realize that reason and fact just don't matter to the gay rights crowd, and that all that matters is political ideology. Evidence has absolutely no role in their thinking about such things.

And, yes, there are some of us who are uncomfortable with putting children in the types of homes that have a demonstrably a high incidence of domestic abuse. If Jake disputes that this assertion also applies to gays, then his argument is not with me but with gay organizations that say it themselves.

To say that as a matter of state policy, we're going to place children, many of whom have already been abused, in situations that lend themselves to abuse just so we can kowtow to gay rights groups is utterly and shamefully selfish.

But what else is new?

Heather has two mommies. Nevermind, make that one.

Today comes the Louisville Courier-Journal's unenthusiastic endorsement for yesterday's appeals court ruling that, 1) yes, we do have laws, and 2) yes, we should follow them.

The case involved a lesbian couple, one of whom conceived a child by artificial insemination, gave birth, and then split up. A family court judge, then proceeded to let the non-biological parent adopt the child, which, in Kentucky can only be done in a case where there was a marriage. The appeals court slapped them down and told them that they don't make laws (or change them), they apply them, which was apparently news to the family court judges.

These judges either didn't know what the laws were, or didn't care. Neither possibility is particularly comforting. But the Courier-Journal is less concerned about the corruption of our justice system and more concerned with ensuring that couples with two fathers or two mothers can enjoy the same rights to adoption that married couples have.

Oh brother.