The Coalition of the Swilling

Yeah, my mileage varies a little. I'm all in favor of prefering heterosexual couples for adoption but adoption by gay couples is preferable to no adoption at all, and it's preferable to adoption by single people (self-centered celebrities included).

And I still say that courts doing stuff like this is the best way to set back the cause of gay marriage.

Damn. I'm with Bingley (on gay marriage ~ great quote I heard "No reason they shouldn't be allowed to be as miserable as the rest of us.") and Mr. Summers (on adoption ~ a stable HOME is the most important thing).

DAMN.

"I never knew true happiness until I married, and then it was too late."

But you didn't hear me say that.

I know what you're saying, Ken (I feel your pain), but when it comes to laws I just think it's better to have "Yes" or "No" instead of "Maybe;" that's untenable and invariably becomes "Yes", it seems to me.

No "maybe". I only mean that if two couples, one gay, one not, are trying to adopt the same child, preference should go to the straight couple. But in a choice between a gay couple and foster home or orphanage? The couple, absolutely.

The longer the opinion, generally the worse it is because the judge has to strain so much harder to make his nonsense make sense.

At least that's what I'm learning in law school.

But in reality that's always a "yes", isn't it, Ken? There are far more kids up for adoption than there are adopters.

That's fine with me, B. I want to see all the kids adopted by committed couples, straight or not.

So, lemme in here. I think that's true regardless of situation Ken ~ if a single person and a couple are vying for the same young 'un, they always weight it in favor of the couple. So I believe that would hold true regardless of single, gay, orange, presbyterian ~ a heterosexual couple will ALWAYS be the preference.

What I WOULD say ABSOLUTELY needs to happen is that ALL 50 states CONCUR/recognise gay adoption rights before ONE state does and implements it. And that's in the interest of the children. There's an ancient L&O where one member of gay couple adopts an infant, the little girl's raised as 'their' child, the couple breaks up and WOOF! The legal guardian heads out to Florida where there IS no legal standing for the erstwhile 'mother' (gays are prohibitted from adopting here, while they CAN be foster parents. Some lovely expediency/moral equivalance on the part of the state). And the former partner legally refuses to allow 'the mother' access to 'their' child. If NJSue got smart and lit out with Bunny Bear, Bingley the Avenger would have legal standing to challenge her in any state court. Even a biological father can hunt down and challenge where ever. But a partner in a gay relationship has none in a place maybe as close as the next state line.

And that's a mess for the children involved.

Agreed, Sis.

Part of the problem in this is a tendency for supporters to argue a little bit dishonestly. For example, they will always say, "Those lesbians have been together for 15 years in perfect bliss; they can't get married but Liz Taylor can, nine times?" One never hears the reverse argument - say, the Ladybug's parents (39+ years) or grandparents (62 years) vs. Joe Rest Stop. That would be "stereotyping gays" and thus "homophobic."

I've always said that, if one is really that interested in separating church and state, that it cuts both ways - the state ought not to try to define a sacrament, or its accessibility; one may as well issue court orders to force my parish priest to give communion to John Kerry. It may be time for the state to get out of the marriage business entirely, and simply call a civil ceremony a civil ceremony, with full rights and privileges - so everyone knows which is which.

Liz Taylor's a lesbian?

simply call a civil ceremony a civil ceremony, with full rights and privileges

I don't believe anyone is trying to shove it down the throat of any CHURCH, Diptera. 'Married' to me is the generic term. major dad and I availed ourselves (a quarter century ago) of the services of the lovely Mrs. Roberta Peters, "husband and wife" pronouncer extraordinaire at the Santa Ana Courthouse. No priests or robed figures involved but "married" as legally as someone who choses a sacrament to go with it. It matters not one whit to the IRS if you had a priest or Clerk of the Court Peters to make you legal ~ only that you are legal.

Ladybug's family longevity not withstanding (and I sweep to the floor with a bow in their honor), there are as many Tammy the Truck Stop Tramps as there are Joe Rest Stops. The difference is, if one of those truckers wanted to make an honest woman out of her (or TRY), they COULD. Poor Joe's outta luck if he meets the right guy.

Joe shoulda been a cowboy, not a trucker, evidently.

Well, together the cowboys couldn't start a home on the range either.

I don't believe anyone is trying to shove it down the throat of any CHURCH

Just give them time. People are already trying to force churches and religious schools to hire gays against church teachings, trying to shut down the boy scouts because they don't allow gay scoutmasters, and more. Just watch, it will happen.

Liz Taylor used to be about three lesbians but I think she's since dropped some poundage.

People are already trying to force churches and religious schools to hire gays

Yeah, those types are a pain in the ass, but as far as I know, not one of those complaints has ever stood up to a court challenge. Just like when a Catholic school lets an unmarried teacher who becomes pregnant go ~ dems da rules she was hired under. It's private money. Like the Boy Scouts, God love 'em. You can't take public money if you don't like what the public does. But they can do any old thing they want with their own.

not one of those complaints has ever stood up to a court challenge

So far. But the reasoning in this NJ case does not give me good feelings about that. By Volokh's analysis, the reasoning is basically "You gave them some rights, so you can't justify not giving them the rest".

That's why this case, in particular, bothers me. It may not only set back the cause of gay marriage, it may well cause other places to refrain from even allowing other forms of civil unions.