« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


Just kidding: ADF sticks to ridiculous 'child protection' script

by Jeremy Hooper
  • Kids are not a marital requirement.
  • Gay couples raise children, even without marriage rights.
  • Same-sex couples do not deprive kids of a parent -- they simply change the two-parent structure.
  • Legal same-sex marriage does not stop anyone from setting up their own mom-dad parental situation, if that's the arrangement that fits their life.
  • Did we mention that kids are not a marital requirement?

Okay, now that you've considered those points, read the following. This is how the A Lie In Defiance Of Fun 's Alliance Defense Fund's Austin Nimocks justifies his push for marital bias:

Politicians should never impose a system that knowingly deprives a child of a mom and a dad,” ... “All non-partisan research and plain common sense tells us that children need a mom and dad, so the issue is bigger than a ‘personal relationship.’ In the end, the question is this: Which parent doesn’t matter: a mom or a dad?
ADF: Vt. governor on firm ground to veto same-sex ‘marriage’ bill [ADF]

Which parent doesn't matter? Well, that would be the shitty parent who abandons their child. Or the abusive parent who uses their child as a punching bag. Or the pedophilic parent who molests. Or any sort of parent who makes a choice to harm, jettison, or forgo responsibility towards the being that has been entrusted in his or her parental care. And that parent can be male/female, gay/straight, breast feeder/bottle feeder, Christian/atheist, Democrat/Republican, Adam Lambert fan/Danny Gokey acolyte, etc/etc.

But which parental conversation doesn't matter when talking about civil marriage rights? ANY AND ALL OF THEM! Because until our states make conception/adoption a requirement for obtaining a marriage license, then children (like religion) are an ancillary topic. A topic that deserves much conversation, to be sure. But it's a conversation that (a) is legally and logically separate from the right of people to marry, and (b) one that already includes LGBT people (both in kid and parent form)!

It's certainly convenient for the far-right to continually put gay people in the anti-kid boat, right alongside Miss Hannigan, vodka, and the witch who tried to bake Hansel and Gretel. But there is a frequent difference between "pro-family" opportunism and intellectually sound rationalization. And it's their constant reliance on obtuse bullcrappy that we find truly threatening to the next generation of human beings!

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

Yes, the ADF people are the REAL April Fools.... as well as the other 365 days a year. How sad.....


Posted by: David Twombley | Apr 1, 2009 11:10:35 AM


The whole ADF write up is bullshit.

"MONTPELIER, Vt. —Vt. Gov. Jim Douglas is on firm ground to veto a same-sex “marriage” bill if it passes the state legislature, according to attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund. Vermont currently allows “civil unions” between members of the same sex, but not marriage.

“Politicians should never impose a system that knowingly deprives a child of a mom and a dad,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks. “All non-partisan research and plain common sense tells us that children need a mom and dad, so the issue is bigger than a ‘personal relationship.’ In the end, the question is this: Which parent doesn’t matter: a mom or a dad?”

"According to U.S. Census Bureau statistics, same-sex couples represent only 0.6 percent of the total population of Vermont. Nonetheless, the Vermont Senate passed the same-sex “marriage” measure as a replacement for the state’s first-in-the-nation “civil unions” law. The House is currently considering similar legislation, but Douglas stated Wednesday that he would veto the bill if it reached his desk." excerpt from ADF accessed through the website at the end of your post.

First - Gov. Douglas is not on firm ground - some of his own party is desserting him because he's interferring with their responsibilities as legislators. There are also robo-calls circulating asking for voters to call and register the fact that they agree with Gov. Douglas decision to VETO - that means a concern to his party. Also I notice the only folks who have told me they received these calls are registered Republicans.

As to which parent doesn't matter - what's next - if a mom or dad dies or are killed in an accident - or, God forbid, divorce, is the ADF going to confiscate the children and place them in a MOM and DAD home; what about children born with no visible Dad - out-of-wedlock babies are still being born - I don't think you have to worry about ADF helping out here - look how many are in institutions and paid foster care, just waiting for someone to take them - were it not for us, can you imagine how many more there would be.

Finally as to the census - if I'm not mistaken the census does not want nor will they accept any changes in the census form for us to indicate who we are and that we are united. We cannot identify ourselves and our opponents say they "want to vote" on our rights.

Posted by: tom | Apr 1, 2009 11:42:26 AM

Jeremy - my first post was huge and if it's too much that is fine - maybe you could kindly edit it for me - or just let it past - I get pretty verbose at times. Tom

Posted by: tom | Apr 1, 2009 11:43:29 AM

Exactly! If that's going to be their argument for denying us our rights, then they need to completely outlaw ANY and ALL single-parent households altogether. Otherwise, there's still LOTS of kids running around without one parent or the other, and it should be just as damaging to them to be without one of the oh-so-necessary two-gender influences as they would be in a same-sex household. Right?

Fair is fair. If that's going to be their argument, then they need to take it all the way, or else they're being COMPLETE HYPOCRITES and need to be called-out as such at every opportunity. (Of course, we all know that they ARE complete hypocrites, but a lot of the rest of the country apparently doesn't know it.)

Posted by: JWSwift | Apr 1, 2009 1:30:49 PM

"Gay couples raise children, even without marriage rights."

And gay people will continue to form couples, even without marriage rights.

Denying fellow human beings full equality will not make them disappear, no matter how much you wish they would just slip quietly back into that closet of shame and self-loathing.

It's simply inhumane, cruel, and unjust.

But _we_ already know that.

Sorry, feeling a little self-absorbed at the moment.

Posted by: tjc | Apr 1, 2009 4:07:41 PM

That's why this news is so welcome: "Utah Mandates All Children to Be Raised by LGBT People"

Posted by: Dana | Apr 1, 2009 7:27:17 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails